The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday on the issue of whether laws that prohibit transgender females (biological males) from competing on girls' and women's school sports teams violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Observers generally agree that the court will permit states to ban males from participating in female athletics.

But in order to completely resolve the issue we should restate it and turn it on its head.

Instead of asking whether states may legally ban males from female sports, the issue should be reframed to ask if states may even permit males to participate in female athletics.

Given the physical differences between the sexes — size, strength, lung capacity, etc. — the answer, purely on scientific grounds, should be an emphatic "No!"

Yet even some of today's so-called scientists dance around the issue.

Dr. Nisha Verma, a physician with an OB/GYN specialty, testified as an expert witness Wednesday at a Senate hearing on an unrelated issue — the safety of abortion pills. Early on she remarked that "science and evidence should control, not politics."

Yet she appeared stumped by Sen. Josh Hawley's simple 4-word question. The Missouri Republican asked, "Can men get pregnant?"

Verna never answered. At one point she said, "I take care of people with many identities . . . I'm also someone here to represent the complex experiences of my patients. I don't think polarized language or questions serve that goal . . . "

Hawley responded, "It is not polarizing to say that there is a scientific difference between men and women . . . It is not polarizing to say that women are a biological reality and should be treated and protected as such."

Throughout the five-minute exchange, Hawley asked the same question 12 times. Verma bobbed, weaved, and danced, but she never directly answered.

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson couldn't define the word "woman” at her confirmation hearing, stating that she wasn’t a scientist.

Apparently leftist scientists can't either.

Susan B. Anthony, the late 19th to early 20th century women's suffrage movement leader, would have been ashamed.

Title IX of the Civil Rights Act also supports the proposition that males have no place in female sports.

It's a 1972 federal law banning discrimination on the basis of sex in any education program that receives federal funds.

Title IX provides that "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance."

It protects against discrimination in academics, athletics, and housing, and requires schools to provide equitable opportunities and address misconduct.

Title IX says nothing about "trans individuals" or people who "identify" as something they’re not. Nor is the word "gender" mentioned. It only discusses "sex," which would mean a person's sex at birth.

The Biden administration finalized new Title IX regulations on June 5, 2024, by expanding the law's definitions and protections.

The Department of Education announced that they "defined the scope of sex discrimination under Title IX to include sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination," adding that "the regulations go into effect August 1, 2024."

But before that date, at least 22 states filed lawsuits challenging the changes, and on Jan. 9, 2025, the changes were vacated by a federal district court, and blocked the rule change for all schools nationwide that accept federal funding.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit included the states of Tennessee, Ohio, Indiana, and West Virginia, the commonwealths of Kentucky and Virginia, Christian Educators Association International, and A.C., a 15-year-old female student athlete.

Judge Danny C. Reeves, chief judge of the District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, ruled that the Department of Education "exceeded its statutory authority," because "when Title IX is viewed in its entirety, it is abundantly clear that discrimination on the basis of sex means discrimination on the basis of being a male or female."

He also found that the "Rule violates the Constitution," by infringing upon First Amendment freedom of speech related to gender identity and "preferred pronouns."

Reeves finally found that the new rule "is arbitrary and capricious" by creating “glaring inconsistencies" within Title IX.

It's encouraging that the Supreme Court appears poised to rule that states may pass legislation banning males from female sports.

However, we should take the next step and rule that no state may permit males to compete in female sports.

It would follow science, protect women, and be the right thing to do.

And it would finally give Dr. Nisha Verma permission to admit that "no, men can't get pregnant."

Michael Dorstewitz is a retired lawyer and is a frequent contributor to Newsmax. He's also a former U.S. Merchant Marine officer and a Second Amendment supporter. Read Michael Dorstewitz's Reports — More Here.