24 professors call for Supreme Court to protect female sports in amicus brief

In a recently filed amicus brief for two U.S. Supreme Court cases, 24 philosophers argued that it is both philosophically and practically justified to organize sports based on biological sex. 

One of the philosophy professors told The College Fix she joined the brief because it represents “philosophy at its finest.”

The brief supports the petitioners in West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Bradley Little v. Lindsay Hecox, defending Idaho and West Virginia laws that restrict participation in women’s sports solely to biological females.

The two states want the high court to reverse rulings that prohibit them from enforcing their laws. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the cases in July, but it has not yet scheduled a hearing.

The philosophers include professors at the University of Oxford, the University of Virginia, the University of Florida, the University of Notre Dame, and the University of Melbourne, among several others, according to the brief. 

Their central argument is that sex is a “natural category,” defined as a grouping that is “relatively homogeneous within and dissimilar from its complement.” According to the brief, natural categories like weight and age help ensure fairness in sports competitions.

They argued that biological sex is “the most natural line in the vicinity” and that legislators are justified in protecting female athletes by excluding male athletes from certain teams, leagues, and competitions.

The brief further states that Idaho and West Virginia’s laws aim not to discriminate but to preserve female-only sports. Alternative eligibility standards, such as gender identity, are “gerrymandered,” the authors wrote, because they introduce exceptions that undermine the clarity and purpose of competitive categories.

Moreover, “a category like female or person who identifies as female does not stand up well to the general tests, sketched above, for a category’s relative naturalness.” The philosophers concluded that sex-based categories are deeply embedded in the logic of sports organization.

University of Melbourne Professor Holly Lawford-Smith told The Fix via email the brief offers “exceptionally clear reasoning directed at an important real-world issue.”

One motivation for signing it, she said, was to counterbalance “the Yale philosophers and their supremely silly one.”

Last year, a group of Yale philosophy professors filed a Supreme Court brief in United States v. Skrmetti, arguing that Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming treatments for minors is unconstitutional because it discriminates based on sex.

“Here was an opportunity to redeem the discipline of philosophy in the eyes of that part of the public who don’t choose kind lies (and the logical contortions necessary to prop them up),” Lawford-Smith stated.

The Fix also asked the professor about the role of philosophy in informing legal debates about sex and fairness in sports, as well as why philosophy is important in understanding this debate about transgender athletes. 

Lawford-Smith said that “philosophy is helpful wherever there is messy and imprecise use of language, wherever there is unclarity about the reasons for or against a particular position, and wherever there are values lurking in the background not yet named or fully interrogated.”

She said debates about transgender athletes are marked by confusion over what “sex” and “female” mean, unclear reasons for including men in women’s sports, and little honest discussion about how to balance fairness and inclusion.

Therefore, philosophy can and has significantly helped in these debates, she said, citing the work of Jon Pike and Miroslav Imbrišević of the University of London. Both philosophy professors argue that sex-based categories in sports preserve fairness.

When asked if she had experienced any backlash or criticism as a result of publicly taking her position, Lawford-Smith said she thinks she is “long past the backlash stage.”

She said backlash seems to be most intense when someone is first “joining a side” and the other side still thinks it might be able to claim the person back.

“I’ve long since planted my flag. Also because most Australians probably don’t know about the legal case in America that the amicus brief relates to,” she said.

To provide a broader perspective, The Fix reached out to several professors known for supporting transgender athletes, including Michelle Forcier at Brown University, Douglas Oberlin at Lehman College, and Katrina Karkazis at Amherst College.

The professors were asked about their assessment of the arguments presented by the philosophy professors who signed the brief, as well as what they believe to be the most important ethical considerations when discussing transgender athletes’ inclusion in competitive sports. The Fix did not receive any responses after two weeks.

MORE: Faculty work to block Trump administration probe of antisemitism on Calif. campuses