Title IX - Supreme Court Hearings

Other news in, Florida has joined Texas in filing a suit against Masters Swimming.

https://x.com/AGJamesUthmeier/status/2011168867494547858?s=20

"Today, as the U.S. Supreme Court hears challenges to common-sense laws preventing men from competing in women’s sports, I filed a lawsuit against U.S. Masters Swimming. We gave them a chance and plenty of time to remove men from women’s swimming competitions, but time’s up."

That interviewer just can't help herself.
It's not the female athlete's job to make the male athlete feel included.
It's not her worry to cosset him.
It's only her concern to compete in an event specific to her needs and category.
We don't ask male athletes to go the extra mile to make a trans athlete feel they should be fine in the male category.
Ironic isn't it, if we really were going to oblige athletes to bend over backwards to be welcoming and inclusive, we should get male athletes to do the legwork to convince trans athletes that men welcome them in the male category, and insist it's the only equitable outcome.
But we don't. Male athletes are left undisturbed by such fripperies, it's the giris and women who are expected to maxx out their empathy, stand aside, learn to lose.
Nothing inclusive and kind in that.

Fucking brilliant

https://x.com/KristenWaggoner/status/2011468583138689315?s=20

These two women being interviewed kept the discussion on the female athletes. Every time.

And very clearly flipped the discussion from 'but what about those male athletes who just want to be included' to pointing out that the athlete at the heart of the case being heard has directly displaced 400+ girls and stating clearly that why aren't people asking why those 400 + girls are being considered how they feel.

What has also been clear from the coverage that I have been seeing is that the US media, including CNN and Washington Post, have acknowledged that the US public are most definitely not supportive of allowing any male athlete to compete in female single sex sports? And I have seen them keep mentioning that it is because of the male advantage.

So, this has to be recognised as a significant shift. They cannot avoid mentioning the issues now.

Justice Elena Kagan was quite explicit in asking lawyers how the court could craft a ruling that respects both the laws that ban trans athletes and those that insist trans athletes have access to opportunities aligned with their gender identity.

And that is the nub of the difficulties around this case. I can see that SCOTUS may kick the can down the road by holding with the rights of states to determine their own approach, as they did with Skrmetti, but I can't see how they can square that particular circle if they want to make a ruling that would apply to all states. States rights is a very hot potato issue here, as the events of 1860-65 might remind us.

I'm finding it quite difficult to get a handle on the differences between US and UK law differers re: sex and gender identity.

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/13/five-takeaways-from-the-supreme-courts-showdown-over-transgender-athletes-00726646

Justice Elena Kagan was quite explicit in asking lawyers how the court could craft a ruling that respects both the laws that ban trans athletes and those that insist trans athletes have access to opportunities aligned with their gender identity.

Is there a US law that people should have sports opportunities aligned with their gender identity? Does this apply just to men, or do women have the right to sports opportunities aligned with their gender identity? How does the ACLU envisage that this might be accomplished?

Block said the court could avoid that problem by not offering a conclusive definition of “sex” in Title IX and not deciding the current cases “by assuming that Title IX provides a right to single-sex teams.”

Presumably Title IX provides a right to single-sex teams to the extent that not doing so denies opportunities to women that are available to men. Are trans identifying men prevented from competing on men's teams? We already know that trans identifying women have had to make the choice to compete on women's teams to participate in competition, so how do single sex teams discriminate against trans people?

No, the SCOTUS did not find those things. The Court only found what was in CJ Robert's opinion. That is the opinion of the Court. The concurring opinions mean no more than the dissenting opinions. If that were in the dissenting opinions, would you say that is what the Court found?

If you believe that the finding that trans-ness lacked "obvious, immutable or distinguishing characteristics" was not part of SCOTUS' reasoning or that it won't be used to decide future trans cases that's a truly novel reading of the case.

It's not a novel reading. You relying on what is in concurring opinions as if it were the opinion of the SCOTUS is novel and wrong. Only what is in CJ Robert's opinion is the SCOTUS's opinion. That's something you learn the first week of legal education. You can keep insisting otherwise but that doesn;t change that Skirmetti was very narrowly decided and, as Justice Barrett said

Because the Court concludes that Tennessee’s Senate Bill 1 does not classify on the basis of transgender status, it does not resolve whether transgender status constitutes a suspect class. Ante, at 16–18; see Geduldig v. Aiello, 417 U. S. 484, 496 (1974). I write separately to explain why, in my view, it does not address these questions

end quote

Because the case did not address whether gender identity is a suspect class, it does not address :

• trans-ness is not immutable
• Trans-ness has no external distinguishing characteristics
• Because of the above, trans people do not form a discrete group. (Discussed at at length and from several perspectives.)

The opinion of the Court was crafted to avoid addressing those questions. Generally, that happens in order to get enough votes for a majority. (Different justices draft their own and try to get at least four others to join theirs. Those who do not succeed and feel strongly about their opinion write separate concurring or dissenting opinions but those are in no way the opinion of the Court.)

It's even more strange as "limp wristed" isn't really a feminine stereotype- it's always been a homophobic slur against gay men.

As the ACLU have conceded male advantage in sport, are they taking the 'not gone through male puberty' line? How would sport organisations ascertain this? I thought you had the right to private medical history in the states. Are transgender individuals supposed to waive this right? Or are the organisations supposed to take an individual's word? Or does that right not exist?

Both Gorsuch and Barrett, I think.

Though with Barrett it might be that Southern states thing where elaborate politeness is really not an indicator that someone is on your side.

That’s what I meant when I said our SC had been there.

Also noted that it's only taken root because it's controlled the language

It was frustrating that some of the justices used wrong sex pronouns.

So weird to hear an American in 2026 hark back 50+ years to Dick Emery and Danny La Rue, lol.

All Western law is derived from legal definitions.

It's not really surprising that it's impossible for the law to protect homosexuals, women and transgender people in the absence of reference to sex.

It's got fuck all to do with culture. It has everything to do with functioning democracy and fairness.

The men and women aboard the international space station can see the homophobia of 'limp wristed' when they look out the window.

One reason I find this fascinating is that even though there are considerable cultural and legal differences between the UK and the US, once you're at the highest levels of the legal systems in both countries, and they're scrutinising the principles involved, and that for the principles to be meaningful then coherent and logical definitions have to exist, then the arguments in both systems end up converging. They also converge towards where the gender critical arguments arrived a number of years ago.

It's heartening to see.

"Limp wristed" as a characteristic defining gender. I mean, that alongside Ross Greer of Scottish Greens talking about genders stretching from male/female to TW/TM to...RAPIST, is so far beyond jump the shark that the shark has not only been fully cleared, but the jumper has gone into orbit around Planet Lost Their Fucking Minds!

This case looks like it is going to be the source of many quotable quotes!

“That the ideology is empty, based on double negatives, an ideology that cannot be made to work because it's inherently based on logical fallacies.”

“Yet if allowed full rein, would crush women's and kid's rights for some sort of post modern view on reordering reality.”

And once you see this, you cannot unsee it. It becomes very clear time and time again.

“Also noted that it's only taken root because it's controlled the language, hijacked the definitions, set the rules on what can and cannot be said and agreed.”

Hence why it is collectively harmful to use female language for any individual male person.

Here is a very clear and straightforward quote from Alan Hurst, the Idaho solicitor general :

Transgender individuals, he continued, did not face the kind of denial of civil rights that black Americans and women faced, for which the legal and constitutional protections in question were intended.
"If we look at that history, and we compare it to the history of African-Americans and women who were not able to vote, who were not able to own property, who had express classifications based on their status written into the law for most of this country's history, these things don't compare," he said.
US Supreme Court appears likely to uphold restrictions on trans athletes

That's what a lot of us have been saying - trans people already have the same rights as other subjects/citizens, so what they are asking for are not 'trans rights' but 'trans privileges'.

Someone a while ago said that only when the rubber of trans ideology hit the tarmac of the law at the highest level, where legal definitions are everything, would the insanity genuinely fall apart under the merest of questions, where definitiveness is everything.
And so here we find this is true, the finest brains (lol) of pro trans ACLU attorneys literally come unstuck when asked for the most basic of definitions.
There is no defining male and female, yet there is male advantage in sport.
There is no defining male and female, yet we'll ascribe based on stereotypes like "limp wristedness"
The law at the highest level in the US is shining unrelenting sunlight on the people chosen to best defend the ideology, and there's nothing there, it's not even Emperor's New Clothes.
What's being revealed is what we've all suspected, tbh always known, but were never sure would be laid out forensically for all to see.
That the ideology is empty, based on double negatives, an ideology that cannot be made to work because it's inherently based on logical fallacies.
Yet if allowed full rein, would crush women's and kid's rights for some sort of post modern view on reordering reality.
Also noted that it's only taken root because it's controlled the language, hijacked the definitions, set the rules on what can and cannot be said and agreed.
SCOTUS judges are torching these semantics, word plays, linguistic mind games.
Once rigor is reintroduced to the discussion, trans ideology vaporises like steam from a kettle.

ACLU: Yes. Has sex-based biological advantage.

So is the ACLU arguing that males must meet a specific standard to compete in female sport? Have they explained what this is?

Will the court consider whether that bar actually does mitigate sex-based biological advantage?

In the US, do under 18s routinely have the kind of treatment that would enable them to meet the standard suggested by the ACLU?

I appreciate your knowledgeable interactions, CuiBon0 and GallantKumquat,
I don't think you are arguing as much as debating, and it's informative and interesting and please continue!

Best of luck to all those fighting for women’s and girls’ rights to single-sex sports. Shame on ACLU. But unions over here are just as bad.

To be honest I'm not 100% what we're supposed to be arguing about. The whole point of the Skrmetti ruling is that SCOTUS upheld the Sixth Circuit ruling and framing, almost in its entirety. Are you denying that? With respect to that ruling:

The court next declined to recognize transgender individuals as a suspect class, finding that transgender individuals are neither politically powerless nor a discrete group defined by obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics.

This is the crux of the whole case. The Supreme court concurred:

• Trans-ness is not immutable
• Trans-ness has no external distinguishing characteristics
• Because of the above, trans people do not form a discrete group. (Discussed at at length and from several perspectives.)
• Trans people are not politically powerless, because they can't be defined as a coherent group. Even if they could be defined as a coherent group they would likely still not be politically powerless.
• Therefore, because of all the above, transpeople are not a suspect class.
• Therefore SB1 is not subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause.
• Therefore SB1 does not classify on any bases that warrant heightened review.

From SCOTUS' ruling:
We are asked to decide whether SB1 is subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. We hold it is not. SB1 does not classify on any bases that warrant heightened review.

You seem to believe that SCOTUS concurred with the Sixth Circuit ruling, but for different reasons, going so far as to reject the basic framing of the case. Perhaps I should have asked you to elaborate on that, as I'm not understanding your point if that's the case.

You're free to interpret the ruling anyway you like, of course. If you believe that the finding that trans-ness lacked "obvious, immutable or distinguishing characteristics" was not part of SCOTUS' reasoning or that it won't be used to decide future trans cases that's a truly novel reading of the case.

Transcript of oral arguments in the US Supreme Court today on Title IX and whether boys who claim a female identity should be allowed to compete with girls

https://supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-38_n75p.pdf

Summary of arguments/takeaways:;

Alito on fire short summary of what he said this stuff is so stupid:

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?!

Alito: Do you agree that school may have separate teams for boys and girls? ACLU: Yes.
Alito: So we need to have definition of boys and girls
. ACLU: We don't have a definition.
Alito: Say physically normal guy wants to take part on girls' track team, says he's female. Can school bar him?
ACLU: Yes. Has sex-based biological advantage.

Details and listen:;
Alito presses trans female athlete's lawyer on definition of woman during SCOTUS hearing
https://www.foxnews.com/sports/alito-presses-trans-female-athletes-lawyer-definition-woman-during-scotus-hearing

This was followed by questions outside

Jackson Thompson
The attorney representing a trans athlete in West Virginia argued to the Supreme Court that the definition of 'sex' should not be used when ruling on how to enforce Title IX during oral arguments today. I asked the ACLU's Joshua Block what his definition of 'sex' is after the hearing, and he did not provide his definition, and insisted it's not what's at issue in the case. He then dodged any further questions.

What is going on... part of a TA strategy.

Benjamin Ryan

The ACLU evidently does not want sex to be defined in the sports ban cases before SCOTUS.

If the court were to define sex and to state explicitly that it does not include gender identity, this likely could provide devastating for the trans movement, legal experts have told me. It could be used as a precedent off of which to segregate single-sex spaces based on biological sex, including bathrooms and locker rooms, prisons, and domestic violence and homeless shelters.
Quote
https://x.com/benryanwriter/status/2011212090963279929

Summary of day
Supreme Court appears likely to uphold existence of women's sports

https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/01/supreme-court-appears-likely-to-uphold-transgender-athlete-bans/

Meanwhile outside:

Protesters Duel Outside Supreme Court As Clash Over Trans Athletes, Women’s Sports Reaches D.C.
As the Court heard two cases, activists on both sides sparred over fairness, inclusion, and who should compete in girls’ and women’s sports.
https://www.outkick.com/sports/supreme-court-protests-transgender-athletes-womens-sports

After some kind of scuffle a trans male was arrested, he was then released an male gender crit doctor was arrested, then released. Normal Guy stuff.
https://x.com/JamieWhistle/status/2011161383480803524

Jeremy Christiansen

Riddle me this. Four major Big Law firms are counted on the side that thinks men have a legal right to play in women's sports.

There are zero major firms on the other side. Some good boutiques, no doubt, but oddly these small firms are even representing multiple amici in the case filing separate briefs (a weird thing before SCOTUS). Not a single Big Law firm to be found to represent these amici seeking to weigh in on an issue that is 80/20 in the normal world.

Think about that.