The creation of a separate league for transgender athletes is fair and necessary to address equity in sports…
My opinion on the arguments presented before the U.S. Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”) regarding the Idaho law prohibiting transgender girls from participating in women’s sports and the similar West Virginia law, testing whether such bans violate Title IX or the Equal Protection Clause, is as follows.
I am a law graduate with an LLM degree that includes coursework in Problem Solving and Formal Reasoning with Reverse Logic.
This legal theory is known as backward reasoning or backward chaining. This involves starting with a desired conclusion or outcome and working backward through the premises to find the necessary evidence to support it.
I first used this theory, pro se, in year 2001 in an amicus curiae brief that I submitted to the Florida Supreme Court in a case where the Florida Bar’s Unauthorized Practice of Law Department in Miami was attempting to begin enforcing a new rule no later than September 1, 2002.
Before explaining how my application of reverse logic was successfully applied in this 2001 Florida case, and how it can now be applied to resolve the case currently before SCOTUS concerning sports cases related to Title IX, biological sex, and gender identity, it is necessary to provide this brief overview of the current controversy.
During the January 2025 hearings, the SCOTUS justices, and particularly Justice Samuel Alito, insisted on a clear definition of “sex” in Title IX sports cases, questioning the distinction between biological sex and gender identity, while Justice Brett Kavanaugh highlighted the potential harm to cisgender girls, and Justice Neil Gorsuch focused on Congress’s intent with the Javits Amendment. The court appeared inclined to uphold the state bans, suggesting that “sex” in Title IX might not broadly encompass transgender status in sports, despite the Bostock precedent.
Now my application of reverse logic was successfully applied in this Florida case in 2001:
In this case, I presented my argument based on an UNCONSTITUTIONAL COMPARISON precedent, the Jackie Robinson and the Old Negro Baseball League case: As part of my arguments, I presented a comparison of equivalence to the old Negro Baseball League, and I quote:
The average skill level in the Negro League was superior to that of the White League, et al.
The required average performance rate, meaning: the average player performed at approximately 70%. That is, my argument was that the grading of the alleged Florida Bar Association licensing exam for paralegals compared to National Standards, [all or none].
Uneven playing field (Disadvantage), meaning: the old Negro League had poor conditions, substandard equipment, poor playing fields and lighting, et al.
The equivalent of the old “whites-only” league. The average skill level in the “whites-only” league did not exceed the average skill level of the Negro League. We, the unregulated petitioners, had no minimum standards regarding education and experience due to the lack of regulation… The required average performance rate, meaning: The average player performed at approximately 55% (That is: The National Standards “should be”).
Uneven playing field (Advantage), meaning: The “whites-only” league had better conditions, better equipment, better playing fields and lighting…
Equivalent to the old Baseball Commissioner and the Commissioner’s Office… They created limitations that prevented Black players from performing within “Equal National Standards.” They created limitations that forced Black players to perform under poor playing conditions when the performance rating to pass was high, meaning: Failing and contrary to “National Standards.”
The Baseball Commissioner was ordered to grant Black players the same rights to perform under “Equal National Standards.” That is, to comply with “National Standards,” a mandatory regulation.
The Commissioner was ordered to equalize the playing fields and conditions for all players, both Black and white; therefore, Jackie Robinson, in my argument, was compared to the idea that unless the entire formal education system for us at that time was a sham, the public must be protected from petitioners providing legal services without regulation, through testing and regulations with “Equal National Standards.”
Black players were entitled to perform according to the White League’s National Standards when they achieved a performance level of 55% or higher. The performance of Black players improved with better playing conditions and equitable playing fields, which elevated baseball to its current high level of performance…
Now, how does this “Jackie Robinson” case and the reverse logic fit into the current case before the Supreme Court concerning Title IX, biological sex, and gender identity in sports?
“Reverse logic” is a multifaceted term that varies depending on the field but generally refers to processes that begin with a goal or final outcome and work backward to determine the causes or inputs.
We start with a desired conclusion or outcome and work backward through the premises to find the necessary evidence to support it. It is used in law to build cases that lead to a specific verdict and in computer science for complex deductions, just as it is used in mathematics for proofs.
Therefore, in my reverse logic, contrary to the case of Jackie Robinson and the Negro Baseball League, the solution here is to create a separate sports league for transgender athletes.
We cannot use the comparison of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in educational programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. The key word is “financial assistance,” which is not applicable to transgender athletes, just as it was not applicable to White people versus Black people in the sport and baseball.
Therefore, the creation of a separate league for transgender athletes is fair and necessary to address concerns about equity in sports competitions and to give a fair and necessary athletic identity to those who identify as transgender people, of course, YES. So the categories will be men, women, and transgender.
The logic that cisgender men and transgender men should compete in the men’s category, and cisgender women and transgender women should compete in the women’s category would create endless controversy, giving rise to the parties and the International Olympic Committee and most sports governing bodies defining a new precedent-setting controversy, requiring men to prove they are men and women to prove they are women. To avoid all this, the best solution is the creation of a separate league for transgender athletes.
Otherwise, not even the Supreme Court of the United States would reach a fair decision for the entire nation and for all genders simply based on the comments and positions of the key judges currently:
Justice Samuel Alito attempted to simplify the matter by asking the lawyers to define “boy,” “girl,” “man,” and “woman,” and questioned whether excluding transgender athletes made cisgender athletes feel “cheated or prejudiced,” insisting on the need for clarity on how sex is defined in federal law.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressed concern about the “harm” suffered by cisgender female athletes due to policies that allow transgender participation and also questioned whether the Court should “constitutionalize a rule for the entire country,” suggesting that different states might define sex differently. Justice Neil Gorsuch pointed to the Javits Amendment (1974) and early regulations as establishing a different standard for sports, suggesting that the application of Title IX in the sports context might differ from its application in other areas, such as employment (as in the Bostock case).
Chief Justice John Roberts expressed skepticism about extending the Bostock precedent (which protected gay and transgender individuals from employment discrimination) to sports, suggesting that the issue of “sex” in sports might be different. The liberal wing (Kagan, Sotomayor, Jackson) questioned the states’ arguments, asking how the bans created classifications based on sex rather than gender identity and how they ensured equal opportunities.
Opponents argued that these laws discriminate based on gender identity, not sex, and that biological differences do not always translate into unfair advantages, especially with hormone therapy.
Proponents argued that sex in sports is biological, creating inherent advantages, and that sex-separated sports are essential for equal athletic opportunities for women, referencing the historical reasons for the existence of separate teams. Overall perspective:
Most of the justices appeared inclined to uphold the state bans, indicating that they may not interpret the term “sex” under Title IX as broadly encompassing gender identity in the sports context, differentiating it from employment cases like Bostock.
Written and submitted by: DR. HUMPHREY HUMBERTO PACHECKER. JD. LLM.
