Sherman R. Frederick
Marinscope Community Newspapers
Most SCOTUS watchers predict, based on oral arguments on Tuesday, that the high court will uphold the traditional understanding of Title IX, which is: The law protects biological women, not sexual identities.
In other words, biological males who identify as females may not participate in women’s sports.
Of course, we’ll have to await the decision. But, it’s clear the court is about to deliver a fatal blow to one of the weirder arguments embraced by progressives in the 21st century.
Here’s the definitive Q&A that put a hole in the silly trans argument:
Justice Sam Alito v ACLU attorney:
ALITO: Let’s say a school has a boy and girl track team. A male student with no puberty blockers or female hormones, or surgeries, says, ‘I AM A WOMAN. That’s who I am.’ Can the school say, ‘No, you can’t participate?’
ATTORNEY: Yes…
ALITO: Is that person not a WOMAN in your understanding?! They SAY they’re a woman. Are they not a woman, then?
ATTORNEY: Well, I’d respect their pronouns…
ALITO: You seem to be saying the school can discriminate on the basis of transgender status! If this person is a “transgender woman” and is barred from the girls’ team, that person is being subjected to differential treatment based on transgender status, right?
If that exchange wasn’t dumb enough for the “identity” case, here’s a dumber exchange.
ALITO: What does it mean to be a man or woman?
ACLU: We do not have a definition for the Court.
ALITO: How can a court determine whether there’s discrimination on the basis of sex, without KNOWING what sex means?!
This case is going down hard. Not sure it will be a 9-0 decision because there’s always autopen nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson in the mix. But, it might be 8-1 or 7-2. Certainly 6-3.
You can read more from Sherman Frederick at shermanfrederick.substack.com.
One More Thing
Leave a Reply