Post-SCOTUS Ruling – Time for a M2F ‘Transgender’ Athletes League of Their Own?

Post-SCOTUS Ruling – Time for a M2F ‘Transgender’ Athletes League of Their Own?

We covered the Supreme Court’s rulings in two cases as to state laws prohibiting boys from participating in girls’ sports based on biological sex rather than gender identity. In both cases, the Equal Protection Project filed Amicus Briefs in support of the girls.

I’m on the newsletter email list for George Washington Law School Prof. John Banzhaf (follow him on X), and he frequently has insightful posts on many topics. We ran his analysis in our coverage of the Daniel Penny case, Daniel Penny Trial Starting – Defense Analysis.

So I was pleased to see this analysis of the “transgender” cases. He has given us permission to run the analysis in full, below, denominated as a:

Q&A re: Supreme Court’s Transgender Ruling – Expert Answers Questions Posed By the Media

WASHINGTON, D.C. (July 6, 2026) – Public interest law professor John Banzhaf wrote extensively about the issues raised when girls and women are forced to compete against M2F transgender athletes. He provided:

■ the most complete reporting on the serious injuries to females which have occurred in both contact and non-contact sports;

■ a detailed analysis of how the sex-related physical and bodily differences between males and females are so large and important in most sports;

■ several legal and other reasons – including comparisons with other factually incorrect beliefs regarding human bodies – for not permitting it;

■ and why it’s not unfair, and is legal, for states to pass laws prohibiting the practice.

Following the Supreme Court decision holding 9-0 that such laws do not violate Title IX, and 6-3 that such laws do not violate the Constitution, the law professor has been asked many questions by the media, legal colleagues, and others.

Because his answers may be of some value to others in the media, as well as to members of the public, he has provided the following summary.

WHAT IS YOUR POSITION ON GIRLS AND WOMEN BEING FORCED TO COMPETE AGAINST M2F TRANSGENDER ATHLETES?

Girls and women should not be forced to compete in athletic events against M2F transgender athletes for at least four major reasons:

ONE – To force them to do so is as unfair as requiring a lightweight boxer or wrestler to compete against a heavyweight athlete even if the latter claims to be – or even to feel – much lighter, or forcing older athletes in senior citizen sporting events to compete against people in their 20s just because the latter identify as old.

The result is that too often girls and women are being deprived of the opportunities they deserve as females to win valuable prizes, as well as admission, scholarships, and other benefits at colleges and universities.

They are also being discouraged from training and competing in sports because they know that they might unfairly lose to a stronger, more powerful, and larger male opponent if they become become very successful.

Thus, many of the great benefits to girls and women Title IX was supposed to provide in sports – and has generally provided in sports- is being seriously undercut.

TWO – Forcing girls and women to engage in such unbalanced competitions creates a well documented risk of serious and even disabling physical injuries even in non-contact sports such as volleyball and softball, but also in hockey, boxing, soccer, mixed martial arts, rugby, field hockey (to name only in sports Banzhaf has been able to document), etc.

To protect both male and female athletes from the unnecessary dangers which would naturally occur if they were forced to face a bigger and stronger opponent, sports competitions always prevent lighter competitors from having to compete against much heavier ones in sports such as MMA, boxing, wrestling, judo, and karate by establishing separate weight classes such as lightweights and heavyweights, and the same reasoning and rationale should apply to female athletes forced to face competitors who are male.

In Masters athletic events and similar competitions for older athletes, women who are old enough to meet the strict age requirements are not required to defend themselves against younger females in boxing, wrestling, judo, and karate because the latter tend to be stronger, more powerful, etc. Similarly, and for exactly the same reason, females should never be required to compete against males of any age.

THREE – If males are placed on teams with girls and women, the females will too often be exposed in showers, locker/changing rooms, etc. to male genitalia. Also, and perhaps even more serious, the girls and women will themselves have their naked or partially unclothed bodies exposed to fellow teammates who are males, regardless of how the latter claim to identify. Indeed, there have been reported instances where males pretended to be trans in order to be voyeurs in female locker rooms and showers.

Despite the increase in acceptance of unisex restrooms (where this problem of sexual/bodily privacy invasions largely does not occur because of stalls around toilets), many females have strong mental and emotional concerns about and against exposing their own bodies to strange males AND to having to view the genitals of strange males – a mental and emotional concern which is as strong as that allegedly felt by M2F transgender athletes; so that the latter should not outweigh the former.

These feelings are even more intense among females where such exposures violate deeply held religious beliefs or strongly conservative upbringings, and among virtually all younger girls during puberty.

Therefore, by law, as well as by long-established custom, females should be protected from both forms of involuntary sexual/bodily exposure.

FOUR – Girls and women who are forced to expose their naked or partially unclothed bodies to males on their own team – or to be exposed to naked males on their own team – and who complained were often severely disciplined by their schools.

Things were even worse and more serious where girls and women were forced to share hotel rooms with male teammates when they traveled to other venues – or worse when forced to share dormitory rooms with males as roommates.

This invasion of sexual/bodily privacy is especially of concern in cases where they were not told that the fellow member of the girls’ or women’s team was male and not another female.

In many such situations in which they complained, the girls and women were often punished simply for complaining, and sometimes not given any choice but to reluctantly comply.

The full and most serious impact of THREE and FOUR above occur with regard to young girls who are just beginning and going through the many major and sometimes embarrassing bodily changes caused by puberty. It is well established that young girls are more sensitive, much more easily embarrassed, and especially vulnerable at these young ages than much older and more worldly/sophisticated females of college age.

Therefore the problems and harms of forcing them to expose themselves to – and be exposed to – male teammates in stages of undress must be viewed in this context.

WHY IS PROFESSOR BANZHAF SO INTERESTED AND ACTIVE REGARDING THIS ISSUE?

Much of his professional life has been spent studying and taking legal action regarding various issues and aspects of equality, equal protection, and discrimination; e.g. what is “equal” with regard to male and female restroom facilities, should there be different or the same physical fitness standards for males and females in the military, ROTC and military schools, for police officers and firefighters, etc?

Professor Banzhaf has won over 100 cases of illegal sex discrimination against women; forced dry cleaners to stop charging women far more than men to launder shirts; forced previously all-male military academies to admit their first female cadet, required the Cosmos Club to admit female members after more than 100 years of sex discrimination, been called “The Father of Potty Parity,” etc.

He also successfully fought against illegal discrimination against Blacks, Jews, foreigners, deaf people, and even against men; testified in favor of prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or identity, and both developed and successful tested a plan to satisfy the interests of transgender students in using restrooms in schools without infringing on the interests of girls or women.

However, he says he would have the same opinion regardless of those aspects of his life; since surveys show that a strong and growing majority of ordinary Americans oppose forcing girls or women to compete against males, even if the latter identify as female.

DOES HE AGREE, AND WHY, WITH THE MAJORITY?

Yes he certainly agrees with the results, but wishes the justices had paid more attention to points THREE and FOUR above.

He also regrets that the justices fell into and provided support for – in effect validated – various subtle linguistic traps which tend to, at least subconsciously, color and distort thinking and rational analysis.

For example, using phrases such as “biological men” is like saying “round circle” – clearly redundant. All men are biologically male, regardless of what is going on its their minds, or what feelings they may have about their sexuality.

Skeletons, including those hundreds or even thousands of years old with no remaining flesh or organs, are routinely identified by experts as male or female, without regard to their thoughts, perceptions, ideas, or “identities.” This is true even of the skeletons of children too young to have experienced the bodily changes brought on by puberty.

Similarly, using phrases such as “sex assigned at birth” is dangerously misleading because it implies that the sex reported and accepted at birth is somewhat arbitrary, and possibly changeable later in life since it is only “assigned.”

For example, no one would ever ask a new mother what weight or eye color was “assigned” to her baby at birth.

The word “assigned” clearly implies and suggests the application of discretion and judgment. Dictionary definitions use words such as “allocate,” “designate,” “attribute,” etc.

Birth certificates typically authoritatively and for legal purposes note a baby’s date of birth, sex, weight, eye color, etc. when born – not because these values are allocated or assigned (and therefore a matter of judgment), but rather as facts which can and are objectively observed at birth.

Aside from a very tiny percentage of all births – e.g., babies born with both male and female genitals, improperly formed or ambiguous genitals, X and Y chromosomal aneuploidies, etc. – human babies are either male or female, and not simply because someone made an arbitrary assignment of one or the other sex. Differences between the two exist even before changes brought on by puberty, and remain even in skeletal remains.

It is also unfortunate that the majority did not stress that the facts of the case before them were not at all typical of the great majority of situations in which a male, having gone through all or at least some of the major increases in strength, power, size, etc. which occur during puberty, now seek to be designated as female and to be able to complete against women. The situation of transgender swimmer Lea Thomas is much more common.

It is interesting to note that in many if not most cases, males are permitted to enjoy the many advantage of competing against females based solely upon their untested and unverified claim to feel female (even though in one case the male claiming to identify as “female” had a full beard).

This is in stark contrast to the elaborate testing and other requirements students must satisfy in college to obtain advantages of extra time on exams, a private room with no roommate, etc. from claiming to be learning disabled.

In other words, simply claiming to believe that one is learning disabled, or identifying as a learning disabled person, does not automatically open the door to major advantages in school; as it does in many cases by males claiming to believe or identify as female in sports.

WHY DO YOU DISAGREE AND CRITICIZE THE DISSENT?

The dissenters tried to make the argument that, in the very rare and far from typical situation where a male allegedly did not go through some or all of the changes caused by puberty, he should be allowed to compete against females at least in some sports and in some situations; all of which would be somehow individually evaluated.

But these dissenting justices seriously underestimate the problems of making – and avoiding arbitrariness and/or bias in making – such decisions which depend in complicated ways upon the specific sport in question, the age of the competitors, how much and how often the males were given various different drugs (including hormones), the male’s individual reactions to the drugs, etc.

After all, even under the intermediate scrutiny standard or test for “Equal Protection” (which may or may not even apply to transgender individuals), there need not be a perfect 100% fit with no under inclusion and/or over inclusion.

Especially where there is no unanimity of opinion and generally accepted agreement with regard to scientific or medical issues and tests for being transgender, legislatures much be given considerable leeway in fashioning rules and remedies. That’s what occurred in this case.

These dissenting justices also emphasize the need for “fairness” to this very rare type of transgender plaintiff. But virtually all legal cases involve deciding fairness between two different sides – so the outcome is likely to be seen as unfair to at least one side.

There also must be a balance. For every M2F skilled high school volleyball player who cannot continue to play volleyball at the NCAA level at most universities simply because (as some argue) they have a penis, there are dozens if not hundreds of equally dedicated male volleyball players who are not trans and who likewise can’t play NCAA volleyball simply because they have a penis; e.g. where the college has a women’s NCAA volleyball team but no corresponding NCAA volleyball team for men.

If the latter is accepted without serious complaint as fair for the very large number of males who are not trans, why is it then not just as fair for the tiny minority of M2F transgender athletes who likewise can’t play volleyball at college because they also have a penis.

WHAT IS IMPORTANT FOR THE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THE CASE?

In many states it is clearly illegal [9-0] under Title IX for both public and private schools, colleges, and universities to force girls and women to compete against males, regardless of what the latter may call themselves or identify as.

More generally, it may not always be necessary, or even possible, to yield to all the mental and emotional desires of a tiny minority, especially if it means trampling on the rights (and even physical safety) of the majority.

HOW WILL THE RULING IMPACT HIGHER EDUCATION, SPECIFICALLY COLLEGE SPORTS?

Especially since lawsuits for damages can now be brought against colleges and universities

NOW THEY CAN SUE FOR DAMAGES – Female athletes who say they lost equal opportunities, privacy, safety or fair competition under policies that allowed transgender-identifying male athletes to compete in women’s sports

I hope and believe that we will return to what has been universally accepted and practiced for more than 100 years; in the words of TV’s “All in the Family” theme song, “when girls were girls and men were men” in virtually all sports.

WILL SOME WOMEN’S COLLEGES STOP ADMITTING M2F TRANSGENDER STUDENTS?

Since the Department of Education has also decided and publicly announced, even before this Supreme Court ruling, that admitting M2F students to all-women’s colleges violated Title IX and can cause s loss of federal funding; at least one women’s college is already under investigation and formal complaints have been filed against several more; and those in violation of Title IX risk losing federal funding and damage claims in lawsuits – YES!

HOW IF AT ALL CAN M2F TRANSGENDER ATHLETES PARTICIPATE IN COLLEGE SPORTS?

If warranted, it can be done in the same way that athletes with various disabilities compete only against each other, and older people compete in separate categories in some events such as running marathons.

Indeed, it has even been done for short players who, in basketball, experience some of the problems women may experience in competing against taller men in volleyball or basketball. See:

Short students can now play in a league of their own

HOW WILL THE RULING AFFECT TRANSGENDER STUDENTS IN COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES?

Unfortunately, students who are homosexual, foreign born, first generation, speak with an accent, have disabilities, are deeply religious and/or very conservative, males of short stature or very tall females, and students with what many might regard as physical and/or appearance “defects,” will often have some problems in higher education and in life generally. While society may try to minimize these problems, they will probably continue to exist to some extent.

The same will probably also continue to be true to some extent for transgender students. But the problems can be limited if, like most students who are homosexual, the transgender students do not seek special privileges or to infringe upon the rights of others (e.g. to be addressed only in certain ways, to use restrooms not consistent with their sex, to enjoy advantages in sports, etc.).

SINCE LEGAL ANALYSIS OFTEN PROCEEDS FROM ANALOGIES, ARE THERE ANY ANALOGIES WHICH MIGHT BE USEFUL FOR COMPARISON?

There are many other situations in which a person’s mental image and perception regarding their own body are at odds with that of an independent observer.

This includes situations in which a person who is thin nevertheless perceives themselves as being very fat, well-muscled people who have a mental image of themselves as having little muscular development, people who perceive that one of their limbs is not part of their body, etc.

In some but not all such situations, the difference between objective reality, and the mental image or perception of self, can be serious enough to cause distress, and in others it may be less severe.

Yet in none of these somewhat analogous situations does society generally provide support for – or otherwise validate – the belief.

It certainly does not require others to accept the belief nor to verbally support it; e.g. by referring to a person as obese or scrawny.

Yet many argue that society should accept and validate the mental image and perception of M2F transgender athletes, and permit them to overpower and endanger girls and women in sports competition to validate this perception.

But we don’t accept and validate the belief of very thin people that they are obese by trying to get them to eat less, or the belief by muscular men that they are scrawny by helping them get even more exercise.

Also, we certainly do not have surgeons cut off the limb of a person simply because the patient believes – however strongly – that the limb is somehow foreign and not a part of the person’s body.

Similarly, we do not punish other students for failing to call people who falsely perceive themselves as obese “fatty,” or those falsely identifying themselves as lacking muscles “scrawny.”

Yet in many situations, people who fail to refer to transgender students by the sex they believe themselves to be are disciplined for alleged harassment – often termed “misgendering.”

This happens even when this punishment may violate the speaker’s own right protected by the First Amendment (in public schools and state colleges) not to speak; e.g. not to be required to espouse something they do not agree with and/or believe is incorrect.

For more background information, including many specific examples and more detailed analysis, also see:

• Professor: Trans Athletes Causing Life-Altering Injuries
• A Major New THIRD Argument Against ‘Female’ Trans Athletes; Serious Injuries Joins Unfair Competition and Sexual/Bodily Privacy
• Professor: Trans Boxers Will Cause Even More Injuries to Females
• High school basketball game is abandoned after trans player ‘injures three female opponents’ with shocking video showing the biological male hurling an athlete to the floor
• COMPREHENSIVE – Trans Athletes Causing Life-Altering Injuries * * * Girls and Women Are Being Seriously Hurt by Bigger Stronger Males
• How Can Anyone Defend Transgender Sports After This?!
• Women’s Game of Volleyball With 5 Penises Endangers Females *** One Girl Became Disabled; Why Lower Net Height is so Dangerous

JOHN F. BANZHAF III, B.S.E.E., J.D., Sc.D.

Professor of Public Interest Law Emeritus
George Washington University Law School

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.