Russ Fulcher

The debate over whether biological men should participate in women’s sports is one that not long ago would have been a laughable, preposterous idea.

But no one is laughing today. It is no longer preposterous. It is happening.

Biological men across the country have been and are competing, and winning, in women’s sports. If that doesn’t sound like an even playing field, that’s because it’s not. Many don’t believe it should be allowed.

Count Idaho’s elected leaders among them.

U.S. Sens. Jim Risch and Mike Crapo and Reps. Mike Simpson and Russ Fulcher, all Republicans, recently filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in the cases Little v. Hecox and State of West Virginia v. B.P.J.

The brief supports the states of Idaho and West Virginia in defending their laws preserving Title IX protections and prohibiting biological men from participating in women’s sports.

That is logical and reasonable.

Here is what Risch said on the matter: “Life isn’t fair, but sports should be. Idaho passed a strong law to uphold Title IX’s intended purpose and prevent biological men from competing in women’s sports. This amicus brief demonstrates that any attempt by the courts to rewrite Title IX protections throws away decades of progress made by women and jeopardizes their right to fair, equal athletics.”

Crapo echoed that comment:

“Congress established Title IX to protect women in all levels of education against discrimination on the basis of sex. That protection applies to school sports, where female athletes who have invested significant time and effort to excel should not be made to face unfair competition from biological males in women’s categories.”

And Simpson put it well:

"Female athletes should not have to worry about losing scholarships or Olympic medals by having to compete against men. Now more than ever, we need to stand united against this insanity and uphold our promise for the next generation of young girls.”

What might have seemed "insanity" a decade ago is now considered the norm by some. Not Idaho. It was the first state to ban biological males who identify as female from competing against women and girls in sports. We agree with that perspective and believe it represents the majority of Idahoans.

The amicus brief states three clear points:

Neither Title IX nor subsequent legislation mention the concept of “gender identity."

Title IX was enacted under the Spending Clause, which requires clear and unambiguous provisions, none of which say anything about gender identity; and

"Any attempts to expand upon Title IX protections must come from Congress, not the courts."

Again, these points are fair and sound. We believe the court should side with Idaho and West Virginia on this matter.