Called a ‘dictator’ for his position
Philosophy, not “empirical studies,” can prove why men should not be allowed to compete in women’s sports, according to a New York University scholar.
Professor Daniel Kodsi laid out his case in a new paper in the Journal of Controversial Ideas and expanded on his arguments in comments to The College Fix. The paper and comments came prior to the Supreme Court’s recent ruling affirming that states can prohibit gender-confused men from competing in women’s sports.
Kodsi and his co-author, John Maier, wrote this paper based on a version of an amicus brief they helped write in the Supreme Court case.
The paper argues “that it is justified to exclude male people, and only male people, from certain spaces—sports teams, leagues, events and competitions—set aside for female athletes.”
“More generally, it argues that it is justified to organize sports around the biological distinction between male people and female people,” they wrote.
Kodsi told The Fix via email that his paper’s argument was not based on scientific studies, but solely on philosophical reasoning.
“A key point we attempt to drive home is that no ‘empirical studies’ are needed to establish that men who identify as women may justifiably be excluded from women’s sports, just as no empirical studies are needed to establish that adult athletes from Switzerland may justifiably be excluded from junior sports,” he said.
His argument is focused on promoting women’s rights within their sports, not motivated by unjust discrimination against men.
Hellbound and Down 