Science, Not Politics: Why Males Cannot Compete in Women’s Sports
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday on whether laws prohibiting transgender females (biological males) from competing on girls’ and women’s school sports teams violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Observers generally agree the court will permit states to ban males from participating in female athletics. Yet to fully resolve this issue, we must reframe it. Instead of asking if states may legally bar males from female sports, the question should be: can states even allow males to compete in women’s athletic programs?
Given the physical differences between sexes—size, strength, lung capacity, and other biological factors—the answer, purely on scientific grounds, is an emphatic “no.” Yet even some so-called scientists avoid addressing this reality. Dr. Nisha Verma, an OB/GYN specialist who testified at a Senate hearing on abortion pill safety, claimed “science and evidence should control, not politics.” When Sen. Josh Hawley asked, “Can men get pregnant?” she did not provide a direct answer. She later stated: “I take care of people with many identities… I’m also someone here to represent the complex experiences of my patients. I don’t think polarized language or questions serve that goal.”
Hawley responded: “It is not polarizing to say there is a scientific difference between men and women… It is not polarizing to say women are a biological reality and should be treated and protected as such.” He repeated his question 12 times during the five-minute exchange, while Verma shifted but never addressed it directly.
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson could not define “woman” at her confirmation hearing, stating she was not a scientist. Similarly, some left-leaning scientists appear unable to clarify basic biological truths. Susan B. Anthony would have been ashamed of this outcome.
Title IX of the Civil Rights Act also supports that males should not participate in women’s sports. Enacted in 1972, this federal law bans sex-based discrimination in education programs receiving federal funds, stating: “No person in the United States shall be excluded from participation… or subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.” Title IX protects against discrimination in academics, athletics, and housing but refers exclusively to biological sex at birth—never gender identity.
The Biden administration finalized new Title IX regulations on June 5, 2024, expanding protections to include sexual orientation and gender identity. However, before August 1, 2024, 22 states filed lawsuits challenging the changes. On January 9, 2025, a federal district court vacated the rule nationwide. The lawsuit included Tennessee, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Virginia, West Virginia; the Christian Educators Association International; and A.C., a 15-year-old female athlete. Judge Danny C. Reeves ruled the Department of Education “exceeded its statutory authority” by altering Title IX’s scope and found the rule violated constitutional protections for free speech related to gender identity and preferred pronouns.
The Supreme Court appears poised to rule states may ban males from women’s sports. Yet it must also rule no state may permit males in female athletic programs—a decision rooted in science, women’s protection, and ethical responsibility. This outcome would finally give Dr. Nisha Verma the clarity to admit: “No, men cannot get pregnant.”
