US Supreme Court to rule on boys in girls' sports

[SionnachRuadh]

The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear cases from West Virginia and Idaho on whether states can ban biological boys from competing in girls' sports. The NBC story lays out the main facts if you can get past the obfuscating TRA jargon.

This obviously follows on from the Skrmetti ruling a couple of weeks ago on whether states could ban the prescription of blockers and cross-sex hormones to under 18s. The justices were divided on that, but there was a clear 6-3 majority for the proposition that states could impose bans if they wanted to.

Incredibly (or not) the ACLU is heavily involved in a case that seems to be even more hopeless, but then maybe losing in court isn't a problem if it allows you to raise more money. (See also: Fox Botherer) I'll be interested to see if they manage to keep Chase Strangio away from this one, but I doubt it.

Some interesting arguments ahead!

Supreme Court to rule on state bans on transgender students' participation in girls' and women's sports

"Categorically excluding kids from school sports just because they are transgender will only make our schools less safe and more hurtful places for all youth," said Joshua Block, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, who is part of the legal team representing both students."

The usual flat out lie, they're not excluding kids, the kids can participate in the category of their sex, if they chose not to that's up to them but their nobody's excluding them.

Some of the arguments the TRA side are progressing would seem to mean an end to male and female categories in sport entirely:
Both cases concern whether such laws violate the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which requires that the law apply equally to everyone. Pepper-Jackson’s case also raises a claim under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits sex discrimination in education.

I don’t see how the reading of single sex sport breaching the 14th amendment or Title IX can be applied without, effectively, leaving the field wide open to any man.

That's the logic of their position.

I don't know if they'll put Strangio up to argue before the court - she did pretty poorly last time, but I don't see how they can exclude their famous trans lawyer - but I hope they do, because Strangio can't help saying the quiet bit out loud.

As I understand it, Chase Strangio is the American equivalent of Jolyon Maughan.

This popped up via another reference

https://www.city-journal.org/article/aclu-attorney-confesses-transgender-suicide-claim-is-a-myth

As I understand it, Chase Strangio is the American equivalent of Jolyon Maughan.

I don't think she is, she's the top lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) which, in the past, has done good work in standing up for people/groups who have been discriminated in the USA. She uses her position to promote her own agenda, and the ACLU are the ones who are now actively discriminating against certain people/group, ie anyone who doesn't follow the 'trans' narrative.

I mean this is pretty clear cut, womens sport is for biological females only. All the emotive nonsense about "excluding" trans athletes is irrelevant. Its like if people brought a case to allow perfectly able bodied athletes to identify into the paralympics or similar. How someone feels shouldn't take precedent over actual biological reality.

As others have said, I don't see how they can rule otherwise without opening up the female category to all men.

US supreme court is politically selected. There's currently a conservative majority.

It is going to rule in favour of sex.

The US Supreme Court is being active in this area. Apart from the "transgender athletes" case, https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/little-v-hecox/, which will be heard in January, there have been other significant cases:
https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/mahmoud-v-taylor/ decided that there can be a parental opt-out from previously mandatory “LGBTQ+-inclusive” instruction.
https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/chiles-v-salazar/ is to decide on whether a law that bans non-affirming conversations between counselors and their clients violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment.
https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/trump-v-orr/ granted an application to stay a district court ruling that would require the State Department to provide transgender and nonbinary people with passports reflecting the sex designation of their choosing.