Female Wrestler’s Case Challenges State Policy That Redefines Sex in Sports
A major constitutional challenge is underway after a high school wrestler was required to compete against a male athlete in the girls’ division. The case, Brown v. Washington, raises fundamental questions about fairness, safety, and bodily privacy — and whether states can redefine “female” while still claiming to protect girls’ sports.
This is a significant development.
WoLF filed an amicus brief supporting the female athlete, arguing that the State’s policy undermines the purpose of sex‑separated sports and imposes unequal physical and privacy burdens on girls.
What the Case Is About
The core issue is simple: female sports exist because biological sex matters in athletics. Courts, Congress, and Title IX regulations have long recognized that sex‑linked physical differences affect competitive opportunity, injury risk, and bodily privacy — especially in contact sports like wrestling.
But the policy at issue allows males who identify as female to compete in the girls’ wrestling division. This means:
Girls in the female division must accept opposite‑sex competition
Boys in the male division do not face the same requirement
The State has effectively changed the conditions of female participation without changing the name of the category
WoLF’s brief explains that this isn’t about any individual’s identity, it is a sex‑specific burden placed only on female athletes and it’s about the State’s duty to maintain sex‑based safeguards that prevent unequal risk and exposure.
What Changed — and What Didn’t
The State argues that its policy promotes inclusion. But inclusion for one group cannot erase constitutional protections for another.
Under the policy:
Girls must compete against males in the female division
Boys do not compete against females in the male division
Girls who object are told they can forfeit or quit the sport
WoLF’s brief explains that telling girls to withdraw is not equality — it is the destruction of the very opportunity Title IX was designed to protect.
The State created the female category to ensure girls would not have to abandon meaningful competition because of sex‑linked physical differences. It cannot now tell girls to leave the sport if they object to opposite‑sex contact.
The Bodily Integrity Issue
This case is not just about fairness. It is about bodily integrity — a constitutional interest recognized for over a century.
A female wrestler consents to the physical contact inherent in female wrestling. She does not consent to materially altered sex‑based conditions imposed without notice or any meaningful way to decline.
The brief explains that:
Wrestling is an unusually intimate, forceful sport
The State schedules, supervises, and enforces the conditions of each match
Girls must have a way to protect their bodies from unexpected opposite‑sex contact
A New Constitutional Question: The Right to Defend Oneself
This case also raises a distinct constitutional question. According to the complaint, the female athlete was not informed that she would be competing against a male wrestler. During the match, she alleges that she was sexually assaulted, including through digital penetration.
WoLF's brief argues that constitutional rights to bodily integrity and self-protection are meaningless if the State withholds material information necessary to exercise them. A person cannot make informed decisions, assess risks, or take steps to protect herself when the government conceals facts that fundamentally alter the nature of a physical encounter.
The brief therefore asks whether the State may place a male athlete in the girls' division without disclosure while simultaneously depriving female athletes of any meaningful opportunity to protect themselves. This represents an important new constitutional argument in the case, extending beyond fairness and privacy to the practical ability to exercise rights of self-defense, bodily autonomy, and informed consent.
Why This Matters
A protected female division cannot function if “female” no longer means female. When the State replaces sex with identity as the eligibility criterion, it changes the category — and girls bear the consequences.
Girls should not have to accept opposite‑sex intimate contact to participate in their own sport. They should not be told to quit if they object. And they should not be forced into physical encounters that violate the sex‑based protections Title IX was built to secure.
WoLF’s Position
WoLF’s stance is secular and evidence‑based: female athletes deserve sex‑based categories that protect their safety and dignity.
Girls should not be forced into opposite‑sex contact or told to quit if they object. Truth — not ideology — must guide athletic policy.
Support WoLF’s Legal Fight
For over a decade, WoLF has defended women’s sex‑based rights in courts and legislatures nationwide.
We rely on the generosity of our supporters to continue this critical legal work.
Please consider donating today to support our fight in the courts.