Keep Men Out of Women’s Sports—And Women Out of Men’s

Nebraska’s Stand With Women Act protects female sports but fails to recognize the need for male-only categories.

Jul 28, 2025

In my most recent essay at Reality's Last Stand, I critique Nebraska's Stand With Women Act, and I argue that the male category of sport should be protected just as the female category of sport should be protected. -

James L. Nuzzo

Reality’s Last Stand is a reader-supported publication. Please consider becoming a paying subscriber or making a one-time or recurring donation to show your support.

About the Author

James L. Nuzzo, PhD, is an exercise scientist and men’s health researcher. Dr. Nuzzo has published over 80 research articles in peer-reviewed journals. He writes regularly about exercise, men’s health, and academia at The Nuzzo Letter on Substack. Dr. Nuzzo is also active on X @JamesLNuzzo.

Before puberty, and especially after it, males have, on average, significant physical performance advantages over females. This makes the inclusion of men in women’s competitive sports inherently unfair to women and, depending on the sport, may also increase the risk of injury for female athletes.

For this reason, like many others, I support sex segregation in competitive sports: one category for individuals born male and another for individuals born female. These two sex-based categories have long served the integrity and safety of athletic competition. There is no compelling reason to change this. Trans-identified individuals can still participate in sports—in the category corresponding to their sex or, potentially, in a separate third category.¹

Despite its name, Nebraska’s Stand With Women Act, signed into law on June 4, 2025, does not actually establish sex-based categories for sports. While the Act bans males from participating in women’s school and university athletics, it does not prohibit female students from joining male teams.

For an interscholastic athletic team or sport sponsored by a public school, a private school whose students or teams compete against a public school in an interscholastic sport, or a private school that is a member of an athletic association…a team or sport designated for females, women, or girls shall not be open to a male student…a team or sport designated for males, men, or boys shall not be open to a female student unless there is no female team offered or available for such sport for such female student. [italics added]

My aim here is to highlight the problems with the asymmetrical structure of Nebraska’s Stand With Women Act.

Inconsistent Philosophy on Injury Risk

A commonly cited justification for excluding men from women’s sports is the increased risk of injury to female athletes. However, Nebraska’s Stand With Women Act permits girls and women to participate in boys’ and men’s sports. This creates a logical inconsistency. If the presence of a male athlete in a women’s event raises safety concerns, why wouldn’t a female athlete competing against a full team of male athletes pose an even greater risk to herself? All else equal, a woman is more likely to be injured competing against a team of males than against a team of females that includes just one male participant.

Female Performance Advantage

The most frequently cited rationale for excluding males from women’s sports is the male natural performance advantage rooted in biological sex differences in physical stature and performance. This argument is grounded in science and has been broadly accepted in sports policy. But if policymakers are going to use biological sex as the foundation for regulating eligibility, they should apply this logic consistently. That means also considering whether females might possess anatomical or physiological traits that give them advantages in certain athletic events.

One such trait is joint range of motion, or flexibility. From as early as age four, girls exhibit greater hamstring and lower back extensibility than boys, as measured by the sit-and-reach test. Girls and women also show greater range of motion in the wrist, forearm, elbow, hip, and ankle. Thus, in events that rely primarily on flexibility and contorting one’s body for aesthetic or physical performance purposes, girls and women will have natural advantages over boys and men.

Women also tend to be shorter, lighter, and have a lower center of mass compared to men. Girls’ and women’s relatively lower center of masses, for example, then probably helps to explain how females slightly outperform males in steady-state balance tests. If we then consider that males carry a greater proportion of their mass in their arms and shoulders, we can then predict that if a balance event requires positioning the arms overhead, this will exacerbate the sex difference in balance performance, because this maneuver will further increase the sex difference in the relative position of the center of mass, making balancing relatively more difficult for males than females.

To be clear, examples of female performance advantages in current mainstream sports are rare, and some exercise scientists and commentators make a bigger stink out of these differences than is probably warranted. Nonetheless, policymakers should consider if physical attributes of the average female body might give women performance advantages over men in certain events. In making these considerations, policymakers should remember that sport is not static. New sports emerge, rules evolve, and technology continually reshapes the way sports are played. Within the niche academic field of sports philosophy, even the definition of “sport” is contested.² As global efforts to increase female participation continue, we may see the development of sports that cater to female strengths. Therefore, although female performance advantages in sports are uncommon today, sex-based policies in athletics should account for potential female advantages in the future.

Male Spaces

Even if girls and women have no natural performance advantages over boys and men, that would still not justify allowing females to compete in the male category of sport. Boys and men ought to be entitled to male-only spaces for the same ethical and social reasons that girls and women ought to be entitled to female-only spaces.

Yet the Stand With Women Act is oddly inconsistent on this point. On the one hand, it asserts a principle of sex-based exclusivity: “a team or sport designated for males, men, or boys shall not be open to a female student.” This language implies that there was some absolute ethical principle guiding the decision to preserve male-only categories. But the Act immediately undermines this principle by including a carveout: a female student may join a boys’ or men’s team if no equivalent female team is available. In other words, the right of males to their own spaces is conditional, while the right of females to theirs is absolute.

Consider a hypothetical: a high school offers only two fall sports—boys’ football and girls’ volleyball. Under the Act, a girl who prefers football may join the boys’ team because no girls’ football team exists. However, a boy who prefers volleyball would not be allowed to join the girls’ team, even if no boys’ volleyball team is offered. His exclusion is justified on the basis of presumed physical advantage—fair enough. But if equal treatment under the law is the goal, then the girl should likewise be excluded from the boys’ team, even if no equivalent girls’ team exists. Anything less constitutes a double standard.

Beyond questions of performance or fairness, the mere presence of a woman in a male-only space creates issues for men that otherwise would not exist. Before a woman enters such a space, each man’s risk of being falsely accused of sexual harassment is zero. However, once she enters, that risk becomes greater than zero for every man present.

Her presence also changes male behavior. Some men may avoid speaking freely or refrain from certain kinds of jokes or banter—forms of communication and expression that often serve as important outlets for male bonding and mental well-being. Other men may feel less inclined to share certain feelings, opinions, or stories in mixed company. These subtle shifts erode the informal norms and camaraderie that make male-only spaces valuable in the first place.

If society recognizes the importance of preserving female-only spaces, it should afford the same respect and protections to male-only spaces. Doing otherwise not only reflects an ideological inconsistency, but also reinforces the false assumption that men do not need or benefit from boundaries of their own.

It is unfortunate—but not surprising—that Nebraska lawmakers appear not to understand that male-only spaces are just as important and worthy of protection as female-only spaces. The erosion of male spaces has been underway for decades. In 2019, girls were formally admitted into the Boy Scouts, prompting the organization to change its name to “Scouting America.” Meanwhile, the Girl Scouts—reflecting the same double standard enshrined in Nebraska’s Stand With Women Act—has never changed its name or adopted a policy allowing boys to join.

As the organization puts it:

Girl Scouts provides space just for girls, in which they are free to explore their interests and take the lead without the distractions or pressures that can be found in a coed environment.

This unequal treatment is not limited to youth organizations. More recently, women have begun lobbying for access to Men’s Sheds—community workshops designed for men to work on projects together. These spaces serve not only as outlets for hands-on creativity but also as informal support networks where men can talk openly to one another about life. Yet in countries like Australia and the United Kingdom, the value of this to men’s wellbeing is increasingly seen as subordinate to women’s interests.

In her essay “Single-Sex Spaces for Me, But Not for Thee,” Janice Fiamengo highlights the double standard at play. While women now fight to preserve female-only sports and bathrooms, they spent the last half-century demanding entry into male-only domains:

…well before women had their single-sex spaces threatened, something similar had already happened to men. Beginning in the 1970s, men’s spaces were usurped, their maleness was denigrated, and policies and laws forced changes in male behavior that turned many workplaces into feminized fiefdoms…

Fiamengo notes that the emotional and social costs borne by men in response to these changes were largely ignored. If men felt uncomfortable undressing or showering in the presence of women—such as in locker rooms or changing areas—their concerns were dismissed. Policymakers and courts gave little consideration to the possibility that male-only spaces might be, in Fiamengo’s words, “just as necessary for boys or even more necessary in a feminized culture.”

This historical context is especially relevant to Nebraska’s Stand With Women Act, as early legislative discussions reportedly included provisions to ban boys and men from entering girls’ and women’s bathrooms and locker rooms. Those clauses were ultimately removed from the final bill. However, legislators have indicated they plan to revisit those issues in the next legislative session.

Thus, Fiamengo’s essay, which traces the legal and cultural shifts that allowed female journalists into men’s locker rooms in the 1970s, should serve as an important reference point. Nebraska legislators must now decide whether to draft new legislation that replicates the same asymmetry embedded in the Stand With Women Act, or to create a law that upholds genuine equality—one that protects sex-based spaces for both women and men.

Preferential Treatment and Its Consequences

Another important concern with allowing girls and women to participate in boys’ and men’s sports is the issue of differential treatment—particularly the burden it places on male athletes to alter their playing behaviors to accommodate female athletes. This is not just a matter of etiquette; it introduces ethical, psychological, and practical conflicts on and off the field.

In a recent conversation I had with Dan Romand from Men Need to Be Heard, he shared a story from his high school football days that illustrates the problem well (story begins at 27:25). Dan’s team included a girl on the roster. Dan played offensive lineman and the girl played linebacker. Dan recalled a play in practice where he was the lead blocker for the running back. His assigned blocking target was the linebacker (i.e., the girl). Dan knew that he would have “erased her” if he hit her with his full capacity. So instead, he held back to avoid injuring her.

Why should Dan—or any other male athlete—be put in that position? Why should a male athlete be forced to choose between his natural instincts—to protect, respect, and compete for women—versus hitting and competing against women?

Policymakers, including those in Nebraska’s legislature, put players like Dan in no-win situations when they allow such scenarios to exist. If Dan goes easy on the girl, he compromises his integrity as a player. He’s practicing in a way that contradicts both his instincts and the way he’s been trained to play.

But if he hits her at full capacity, he risks seriously injuring her—and would likely feel awful about it. Even if he shoves her with only 50 percent of his maximal capacity and merely knocks her to the ground without causing injury, he is likely to still face ridicule from his teammates. The next day in school, he might hear taunts like: “There’s Mr. Tough Guy! Hey Dan, beat up any girls today?”

This dynamic fosters confusion, guilt, and mockery—and it stems not from malice, but from a policy framework that ignores the psychological and physical realities of sex differences. When lawmakers introduce asymmetrical standards into inherently physical competitions, the burden often falls hardest on the boys who are asked to either betray their training or betray their conscience. Neither is fair.

Beyond physical gameplay, a host of more subtle dynamics emerge when girls and women are allowed to participate in boys’ and men’s sports—dynamics that often reflect differential treatment based on sex.

Consider a scenario in which a female player takes a cheap shot at a male teammate during practice—perhaps punching him in the ribs or tripping him when his back is turned. Would anyone reasonably expect Dan, or any male player, to retaliate in the same way he would if the aggressor were another male? I doubt it. In fact, one could argue that the female player might feel emboldened to take the cheap shot precisely because she knows the likelihood of retaliation is low. She can reasonably assume that cultural norms against men hitting women, along with widespread media messaging about violence against women, will deter a response.

Differential treatment may even extend beyond the players to the coaching staff. A girl’s presence on an otherwise all-male team may lead to preferential treatment, even if unintended. Coaches might be more lenient with her when it comes to enforcing discipline for poor play. They might feel pressure—whether internal or external—to praise her more frequently or give her more playing time simply because she stands out as the lone girl on the team.

Or, take an opposing situation in which a coach does not provide preferential treatment to the female athlete and cuts her from the squad during team tryouts or chooses not to play her because her skills are not at a level that justifies playing time. Surely, some people will unfairly accuse the coach of sexism for the merit-based decision. In fact, avoidance of such accusations might be what causes the aforementioned preferential treatment to begin with.

Whether these scenarios are common or rare is beside the point. The fact that they can arise at all—and that they place added burdens on both male players and coaching staff—should give policymakers pause. These complications are entirely avoidable.

Lawmakers could eliminate these double standards by affirming a simple, consistent principle: both male and female spaces serve distinct and important roles, and both sexes deserve the right to compete in their own dedicated sports categories. Acknowledging this doesn’t diminish anyone’s value—it simply respects biological realities and promotes fairness for all.

Conclusion

Nebraska’s Stand With Women Act protects women’s sports, but it falls short of establishing fully sex-segregated spots categories. It recognizes a protected female category, but it does not recognize a protected male category. In doing so, the Act creates multiple internal inconsistencies and extends privileges to girls and women that it denies to boys and men. This amounts to sex-based discrimination against males.

The legislature’s failure to see this imbalance likely stems from a social [MOU1] phenomenon known as gynocentrism, which is “the cultural tendency to prioritize women’s needs, feelings, and safety—often at the expense of men.” A closely related concept is gamma bias, a cognitive distortion in which events or behaviors are magnified or minimized depending on the sex of the person involved. Gamma bias can be understood as the individual-level psychological mechanism that drives broader gynocentric patterns.

These biases not only help explain the asymmetrical structure of the Stand With Women Act, but also shed light on a deeper societal reluctance to confront the root issue at the heart of the transgender sports debate: the mental health of boys and men. Until the fundamental problem of male identity issues is addressed, legislation will continue to serve as the immediate solution to protect women’s sports.

But if legislation in other states follows the precedent set by Nebraska—enshrining protections for girls and women while disregarding the rights and needs of boys and men—then all the problems outlined above will be amplified. This is neither necessary nor inevitable.

The solution is simple and fair: recognize the equal importance of male and female spaces in sport and establish clear, sex-based boundaries.

Keep men out of women’s sports, and keep women out of men’s sports.

Thank you for supporting Reality’s Last Stand! If you enjoyed this article and know someone else you think might enjoy it, please consider gifting a paid subscription below.

Give a gift subscription