Brown v. Washington Interscholastic Activities Assoc., et al.

On September 9 and 29, 2026, and October 9, 2026, Do No Harm filed multiple amicus briefs in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court, supporting appeals by a female high-school wrestler who alleges she was forced to compete against — and sexually assaulted by — a transgender-identifying male wrestler during a girls’ sports tournament. That case, Brown v. Washington Interscholastic Activities Association, asks whether federal-funding recipients may separate school sports by sex but then carve out exceptions based on athletes’ self-described “gender identity.”

In our briefs, we explain that science does not support, and Title IX bars, identity-based exceptions to sex-separated athletic teams.

First, we explain that sex is rooted in science — a reality inextricably tied to safety and fairness in sports — while “identity” is a psychological concept or feeling. When it comes to competitive sports, feelings do not matter more than the immutable forces of biology and cannot override concerns related to male participation in sporting events designed for young girls.

Next, we explain that Title IX prohibits Washington state officials from making “gender identity” exceptions to sex-segregated sports teams. Recipients of federal funding may create either co-ed teams or sex-based teams; however, the choice is mutually exclusive, and, whichever arrangement is chosen, an “equal athletic opportunity” must be afforded to members of both sexes.

In West Virginia v. B.P.J. (2026), the Supreme Court made clear that, under Title IX, biology provides the safety and fairness justifications for dividing school sports teams by biological sex. Therefore, when federal funding recipients choose to separate teams by sex but then allow biological males to play on the women’s and girls’ teams, their separation of the sexes is not sanctioned by Title IX’s exclusive safety and fairness rationales for separation.

Moreover, as B.P.J. confirms, the ongoing debate of medical evidence does not support the claim that subjecting a male athlete to sex-rejecting interventions removes the advantage he has over female athletes.

Our briefs also point out that Washington state officials err not only by denying female athletes an “equal athletic opportunity” but also by tacitly encouraging a regime of risky and unproven pediatric sex-rejecting interventions.

As we explain, gender-dysphoric male athletes subjected to dangerous, unproven medical interventions are themselves a second class of victims. These so-called treatments lack evidentiary support for treating pediatric gender dysphoria; may worsen psychiatric symptoms; and can lead to a range of long-term health consequences, including adverse effects on bone health, cardiovascular and metabolic function, fertility, and much more.