Following oral arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday on whether males should participate in female sports, a medical group is “optimistic” that biological sex will be affirmed by the court in upcoming days.
Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, chairman of Do No Harm, told The Center Square that Tuesday’s “oral arguments were about protecting girls’ safety in women’s sports and confronting the biological truth: sex is binary.”
Do No Harm is a group of “physicians, nurses, medical students, patients, and policymakers focused on keeping identity politics out of medical education, research, and clinical practice,” as stated on its website.
Goldfarb told The Center Square that “hundreds of activists, students, doctors, and athletes showed up in droves to the Supreme Court [Tuesday] to support the common sense protections put in place by Idaho and West Virginia.”
The Supreme Court will rule on challenges to Idaho’s and West Virginia’s bans on biological males playing in girls’ and women’s sports.
“We are optimistic that the Court will affirm the reality of sex differences, reject the myths of the gender cult, and ensure athletics and locker rooms remain safe for girls,” Goldfarb said.
“Scientific evidence proves that, even before puberty, boys have a physical advantage in strength and speed over girls of the same age,” he said. “No amount of medical interventions or cultural pressure can change that fact.
“The ACLU’s claim that puberty blockers eliminate a prepubescent boy’s competitive advantage has been repeatedly disproven,” Goldfarb said. “In fact, when asked by Justice [Samuel] Alito, the ACLU couldn’t even define the difference between a man and woman.”
“Continuing to push the lie that cross-sex hormones mitigate the physical advantages boys have over girls is to ignore the truth of biology,” Goldfarb said.
Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen likewise told The Center Square he is “optimistic” that “we’re going to win this thing.”
As The Center Square previously reported, the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday heard arguments from two cases – Little v. Hecox and B.P.J. v. West Virginia –t hat concerned “whether biological males can participate in women’s and girls’ sports.”
“The justices weighed whether the sports bans violate the Constitution or Title IX, a federal law that prohibits sex discrimination,” The Center Square reported.
Kathleen Hartnett, a lawyer representing a transgender athlete in Idaho’s case, said there is not a competitive advantage between cisgender and transgender people in sports when hormones are controlled.
“The testosterone is the advantage on this record,” Hartnett said. “This person had mitigated testosterone.”
Do No Harm has an extensive history working to protect children from transgenderism, especially by disproving various beliefs associated with the ideology.
For instance, in June 2025 Do No Harm released a report debunking the idea that gender-affirming care for minors improves quality of life and mental health or that it decreases suicides, as The Center Square reported.
The HHS released a review in May 2025 with similar findings, namely that “the science and evidence do not support [the use of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries], and the risks cannot be ignored.”
