Biological Reality and the Supreme Court
In an age where complexity is often mistaken for sophistication, it is easy to forget a principle that has guided human understanding for thousands of years: truth is usually simple. Thomas Sowell captured this perfectly when he observed that people who pride themselves on complexity often overlook the fact that reality itself is not complicated -- what becomes complicated is the debate about reality. Nowhere is this more evident than in the current national conversation surrounding biological sex, gender identity, and the question before the Supreme Court this week regarding transgender participation in women’s sports.
Advertisement
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments on whether states may restrict biological males who identify as female from competing in women’s sports, the issue has been wrapped in layers of ideology, emotion, and political rhetoric. But when we strip away the noise and return to first principles -- biology, history, law, and common sense -- the truth becomes remarkably clear.
I. Biological Reality Is Not a Social Construct
Advertisement
For all of human history, across every civilization, culture, and philosophical tradition, the distinction between male and female has been understood as a matter of physical reality, not psychological identity. Biological sex is rooted in chromosomes, reproductive anatomy, hormone profiles, skeletal structure, muscle mass, lung capacity, and countless other traits shaped by millions of years of evolution.
Men and women are equal in dignity, but they are not identical in design. Evolutionary pressures shaped men for hunting, protection, and physical labor, while shaping women for gestation, nurturing, and social cohesion. These differences are not stereotypes -- they are measurable, repeatable, and universal across populations.
Advertisement
This is why, in every sport, we create categories based on physical traits. We separate athletes by age, weight, skill level, and sex. A 13‑year‑old does not compete against a nine‑year‑old. A 200‑pound wrestler does not compete against a 120‑pound wrestler. These boundaries are not moral judgments; they are functional protections that preserve fairness and safety.
Sex categories follow the same logic. Women’s sports exist not to exclude men, but to include women -- to give them a protected space where they can compete without being overwhelmed by male‑typical physical advantages. Without sex‑based boundaries, women’s sports would collapse, because the physical differences between men and women are undeniable.
Advertisement
This is why the traffic in sports goes only one direction. We never see women identifying into men’s sports to break records or dominate competition. We never see lawsuits demanding access to men’s divisions. The asymmetry itself reveals the truth: male bodies carry advantages that female bodies do not. Identity does not erase those advantages.
II. Gender Identity Is Psychological, Not Biological
Advertisement
None of this denies that gender identity is a deeply felt psychological experience for many people. But psychological experience does not rewrite biological reality. A biological male who identifies as female remains biologically male. Identity can shape how a person lives, dresses, or expresses themselves, but it cannot alter chromosomes, bone density, muscle fiber type, or lung capacity.
This distinction between physical reality and psychological experience is not new. It echoes ancient philosophical categories:
Advertisement
In every case, the principle is the same: how something is experienced does not change what something is.
III. The Biblical and Natural Law Perspective
From a biblical standpoint, the distinction between male and female is not merely biological -- it is theological. Scripture presents sex as intentional, purposeful, and part of God’s design. “Male and female He created them” is not a cultural artifact; it is a foundational truth about human nature.
If God does not make mistakes, then the body is not a mistake. To claim that one’s body is wrong and one’s identity is right is to elevate the self above the Creator. It shifts authority from God to the individual, replacing divine design with self‑constructed identity. This is not a small philosophical shift -- it is a redefinition of what it means to be human.
IV. The 14th Amendment: Equal Protection Within Reality
The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law. But equal protection does not mean erasing biological distinctions. The framers of the Amendment understood men and women as equal in dignity but different in physical design. The Amendment was never intended to treat identity as interchangeable with biology.
The Supreme Court has long recognized that sex‑based distinctions are permissible when they serve an important purpose and reflect real biological differences. Separate bathrooms, separate prisons, pregnancy protections, and sex‑segregated sports all rest on this principle.
Equal protection applies to men and women as biological categories, not as self‑declared identities. The Constitution protects reality, not ideology.
V. Title IX: A Law Written to Protect Women From Male Advantage
Title IX was enacted in 1972 to ensure that women had equal opportunities in education and athletics. Its purpose was clear: to protect women from being overshadowed, displaced, or disadvantaged by male physical dominance.
The entire structure of Title IX assumes that sex is biological. If sex becomes psychological, Title IX loses its meaning. A law designed to protect women from male advantage cannot function if male bodies are permitted into women’s categories based on identity alone.
This is not discrimination. It is the recognition that fairness requires boundaries, and boundaries require criteria rooted in physical reality.
VI. The Supreme Court’s Duty: Law and Fact, Not Ideology
The Supreme Court’s responsibility is not to validate feelings, affirm identities, or follow cultural trends. Its duty is to interpret the law and apply it to the facts. And the facts are simple:
Biological men are male.
Biological women are female.
Identity does not change physical reality.
Women’s sports exist to protect women from male advantage.
Title IX was written with this purpose in mind.
The Court is not being asked to judge anyone’s worth or dignity. It is being asked whether a category built on physical traits should be redefined based on psychological identity. That is a legal question, not an emotional one.
VII. The Simplicity of Truth
In the end, Sowell’s insight rings true: the truth is not complicated. What becomes complicated is the attempt to debate, obscure, or redefine the truth.
Biological men are men.
Biological women are women.
Feelings are not facts.
Identity does not override physical reality.
And the law must be grounded in reality, not ideology.
The Supreme Court’s task is not to reshape human nature, but to uphold the law as written and protect the structures -- like Title IX -- that were created to ensure fairness, safety, and equal opportunity.
When the Court rules based on fact rather than emotion, clarity rather than ideology, and reality rather than redefinition, it honors both the Constitution and the simple truth that has guided humanity for millennia.
Image: AT via Magic Studio