The Washington Post editorial board broke with much of the legacy media’s recent framing on male participation in women’s sports, arguing in a Jan. 11 opinion piece that states should be allowed to exclude “trans-identifying” males to protect girls’ athletics.

The editorial came days before the Supreme Court heard oral arguments Jan. 13 in two closely watched cases challenging laws enacted in West Virginia and Idaho. As CatholicVote has previously reported, the cases ask whether excluding males who identify as “transgender” females from girls’ and women’s sports violates the Fourteenth Amendment. 

“Neither science, nor the American public, is on their side,” the Post wrote of “transgender” athletes challenging the state laws.

>> What to know about the two SCOTUS cases shaping the future of women’s sports <<

The Post argued that the answer to whether the laws are unconstitutional “is obviously no,” and that the “very existence of these cases represents a failure of policy and politics.”

“The Supreme Court has the chance this week to save women’s sports, allowing states to restore a level playing field for girls by excluding biological men and thereby correcting one of the worst excesses of America’s cultural revolution,” the board wrote.

The editorial prompted reactions from conservative advocates who said the Post’s stance marks a notable shift in media coverage of the issue. CatholicVote Vice President Joshua Mercer said the position would have been politically untenable for the Post just a year ago.

“I am glad that the Washington Post editorial board came out against boys playing in girls’ sports, but I'm still in shock that they arrived at such a commonsense position!” Mercer said. “Holding that position even a year ago could have gotten you ostracized and blacklisted.”

Mercer credited President Donald Trump’s reelection with shifting the national climate around “transgender” policy debates. 

“President Trump's election in 2024 secured two major victories for the American people. The first is that the southern border is finally safe and secure. The second victory is less noticed, but very consequential for American families,” he said. “Trump's victory has broken the fever of the ‘trans’ movement, which sold children a lie that has caused great harm to their bodies and their souls.”

In its piece, the board argued that “activist-driven” sports policies have moved far beyond public consensus. They cited polling that shows roughly seven in 10 U.S. adults believe athletic participation should be based on sex rather than “gender identity.”

“It’s a political failure because those groups never really tried to make a compelling case for their agenda,” the piece argued. “Instead, they attacked those who disagreed as transphobic and sought to shut down debate.”

The Post also emphasized biological differences between males and females, pointing to scientific evidence that males, on average, retain significant athletic advantages even after testosterone suppression. It cited research published in the Journal of Applied Physiology that found hormone treatment may modestly reduce performance but does not erase the male-female performance gap.

The board also highlighted high-profile examples, including former University of Pennsylvania swimmer William (Lia) Thomas, to illustrate how biological differences can affect competition. As CatholicVote has reported, Thomas, a “trans-identifying” male, won an NCAA women’s national title in 2022. The case drew national scrutiny, and the U.S. Department of Education in April 2025 concluded that the university’s decision to allow Thomas to compete violated federal protections for female athletes.

Separate women’s sports categories exist, the Post argued, precisely to account for those biological realities and protect competitive fairness.

“[T]hose are the facts, for anyone tempted to disbelieve their lying eyes,” the Post’s editorial board wrote. “Separate sports divisions exist to mitigate those biological gaps. It’s impossible to construct a coherent case for unfettered trans inclusion that fits those facts, without ultimately arguing for abolishing women’s athletics entirely.”

In its conclusion, the board framed the issue as one of preserving hard-won opportunities for women and girls, arguing that unrestricted inclusion of males would reverse decades of progress in female athletics.

“The growth of such [women’s sports] programs was among the greatest triumphs of the feminist movement,” they wrote, “but biological boys roll back that progress when they take away roster spots, trophies and scholarships from biological girls who would otherwise earn them.”

On that basis, the board rejected the claim that the state laws constitute unlawful discrimination.

“Rather than unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex, the laws being challenged are reasonable concessions to immutable reality.”