Jennifer Braceras and Anita Milanovich of the Independent Women's Forum oppose Aimee Stephens' right to keep her job as a funeral home director—one she did well for six years before coming out as a transgender women.  In their recent NLJ op-ed and their amicus brief in R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC. They claim workplace fairness for transgender people will end girls' and women's sports programs. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case in October. In their brief, the also duo argues that protecting her job will cause legal conflicts for schools and sports clubs. Their leaps of logic are long indeed, but they won't win any medals. They mistake the facts, the law and who is at risk.

Everyone Deserves the Chance to Compete

First, the concept of transgender people competing in sports isn't new. Many schools and the National Collegiate Athletic Association for years have allowed transgender athletes to compete according to their gender identity. They have rules to ensure fairness among athletes and for staff. There has been no discernible lessening of opportunities for anyone. This should be no surprise—transgender people comprise only 0.6% of the population, and many care little for competitive sports.

But for lots of young people, regardless of gender and gender identity, participating in sports is a big part of a happy life. Many learn cooperation, goal-setting and perseverance through sports. Many thrive in being part of a team and others from personal achievement. For everyone who enjoys it, athletics can build confidence and healthy habits for a lifetime.

Sports can also be lifesaving for transgender youth, many of whom are marginalized and made to feel desperately out of place.

Let's be clear—what's notable about youth athletic programs is the extraordinary diversity of sizes, shapes and talent among the human family, to say nothing of the diversity of team spirit, discipline, drive and ability to improve. That's why educators developed sensible rules so all youth—including trans youth—can participate.

This Isn't the End of Gender Recognition

Recognizing gender accurately does not mean an end to recognizing different genders. It simply means allowing the tiny fraction of the population who are transgender to be themselves. For Aimee Stephens, it meant following her employers' dress code for women, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held, not requiring unisex dress, as the district court mistakenly said.

The same is true for sports. This is why separate teams continue for women and men in the programs governed by the NCAA rules and at schools with similar policies nationwide.

The IWF also misses the mark in their sex discrimination analysis. They say discrimination based on gender identity cannot be sex discrimination covered by our federal statutes because, when Congress used the term "sex" in Title VII and Title IX, it only meant equal treatment compared to "individuals of the opposite biological sex." In their amicus brief, IWF claims further that these laws embrace a "binary" view of sex.

IWF ignores that the Supreme Court rejected such cramped thinking back in 1989 in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. In Price Waterhouse, the high court recognized that it is discrimination "because of sex" when a person is treated badly because of others' sex-stereotyped views of how people should look and act. Since then, dozens of courts sensibly have held that this means discrimination against transgender people for being the "wrong" kind of woman or man is sex discrimination.

IWF also ignores the Supreme Court's 1998 holding in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, that same-sex sexual harassment is sex discrimination. As Justice Antonin Scalia said for the Oncale court, Title VII is not to be narrowed artificially. So IWF is off-track in suggesting that these statutes have limiting definitions of "sex." Certainly, the word "biological" defines it nowhere in Title VII or Title IX.

It's All About Biology

IWF goes further astray when implying that our brains are not part of our "biology." In fact, they are, but this argument is not really about biology. It's about the small number of people for whom brain sex and other body parts are not aligned in the typical way, or for whom brain sex is neither clearly female nor clearly male, but both. It's all "biological," and it's all within the meaning of the word "sex."

Because we all are made up of our "biological" parts—brain, body and hormones—IWF's distinction between women and girls who are "biological" and those who are transgender is contrived. But in drawing this line, and asserting that "sex" is a "binary" term, they imply, for example, that girls who are trans aren't really girls. That's mistaken, and a set-up for stigma.

Not Without Costs

False claims that protecting transgender people from mistreatment at work, in school and elsewhere will end sports opportunities for non-transgender girls and women come at a time of persistent attacks on transgender people. Laws like North Carolina's notorious HB2 aim to exclude trans folks from gender-appropriate public facilities and programs. These policies facilitate discrimination against transgender people, with no basis in fact. And who can participate in civic life if denied access to restrooms, housing, jobs and safety?

That's why our laws must be applied fairly to the real problems harming real people, not artificially restricted to avoid nonexistent threats. Nearly 1.4 million transgender Americans have skills, hard work, integrity and love to contribute when free to live openly and safely—and by doing so, to thrive.

Nondiscrimination laws make a difference. They deter discrimination, provide remedies and turn civil wrongs into civil rights. They help us continue to become a national family—a more perfect union. That's the game to win!

Jennifer Pizer is law and policy director for Lambda Legal, the oldest and largest national legal organization committed to achieving full recognition of the civil rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, and people living with HIV.