Scott Brown on Ruthless: Sophie Cunningham has the guts to challenge men competing in women’s sports
Former US senator and New Hampshire Senate candidate Scott Brown praised Indiana Fever player Sophie Cunningham on the Ruthless Podcast for opposing the inclusion of transgender women in women’s sport. The interview links a cultural issue to Brown’s Senate campaign, as he argued that sports bodies such as the WNBA risk losing support over their transgender-athlete policies.
Brown cited his daughter Ayla’s basketball experience, including male practice players, to argue that physical differences matter in elite women’s competition. He is seeking the Republican nomination to replace retiring senator Jeanne Shaheen, facing former senator John Sununu in the 8 September primary; Democrat Chris Pappas is among candidates on the other side ahead of the 3 November general election.
- Brown praised Cunningham’s stance on transgender participation in women’s sport.
- He criticised the WNBA’s policies during a campaign interview.
- Brown faces John Sununu in New Hampshire’s Republican Senate primary.
New here? Start with this
Scott Brown is a former US senator running for the Republican nomination for a New Hampshire seat in the US Senate. He is competing against former senator John Sununu in a primary, or party selection contest; the seat is open because senator Jeanne Shaheen is retiring.
Sophie Cunningham plays for the Indiana Fever in the Women’s National Basketball Association (WNBA), the top women’s professional basketball league in the US. The debate Brown raised concerns whether transgender women should compete in women’s sport, and how sports bodies set rules for eligibility.
Brown referred to his daughter’s basketball experience, including practice with male players, in arguing that physical differences matter in elite competition. The issue has become part of his campaign debate, alongside wider questions about how sports organisations’ policies may affect public support; Democrat Chris Pappas is among those running in the general election.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of excluding transgender women from women’s elite sport argue that male puberty can confer lasting physical advantages relevant to performance, so sex-based categories may be needed to preserve fair competition and meaningful opportunities for female athletes. They may also see clear eligibility rules as important to public confidence in women’s sport.
The case against
Those opposing blanket exclusions argue that transgender women should be able to participate in sport in ways that recognise their gender, and that policies should be based on evidence and tailored to the sport and level of competition. They may also stress that broad restrictions can exclude people without adequately accounting for individual differences or the effects of transition.
Basketball Business Celebrity Entertainment Government Markets Politics Sport World