Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Title IX - Supreme Court Hearings

117 replies

PersonIrresponsible · 05/01/2026 23:32

On January 13th, there will be two cases heard in the US Supreme Court to determine whether those with XY chromosomes, or to be exact: male, can compete in Women's Sport.

The American Civil Liberties Union are suing to ensure that Trans People (men) can participate in Women's Sport.

Next stop: Weeping Olympics: The place where feelings are competed for.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
12
fromorbit · 13/01/2026 06:06

WomenAreReal

by cristina_izagui

Next week, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in two landmark cases: Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. The plaintiffs are challenging state laws that protect women's and girls' sports by barring biological males from competing on female teams. The challengers, both transgender women, are backed by a powerhouse coalition with near-unlimited resources, led by the ACLU and private law firms, and supported by amicus briefs from the National Women’s Law Center, Lambda Legal, and others in a massive, coordinated campaign. This effort is fueled by organizations boasting nearly one billion dollars in combined annual revenues and endowments. The American Civil Liberties Union Foundation alone reports $220 million in revenue (excluding state chapters and ACLU Inc.), while the National Women’s Law Center has $41.4 million. Lambda Legal wields a $285 million "Unstoppable Future" war chest, with annual revenue of $58.5 million, enabling endless litigation to push transwomen inclusion at the expense of female athletes' fairness and safety. Per their website, Lambda Legal is litigating on behalf of K-12 transgender athletes in West Virginia and Tennessee, and authored an amicus brief on behalf of the Women’s Sports Foundation, and Athlete Ally in other challenges to transgender athlete bans. Democracy Forward, essentially a Democratic Party extension with $17.7 million in revenue, joined via an amicus for the National Women's Law Center, highlighting deep ties between Democrats and these nonprofits. Former White House chief of staff Ron Klain, who served under President Biden was a board member, and the organization spent $300,000 on NEWCO Strategies, a firm with LGBTQ+ leadership linked to Kamala Harris's campaigns and other Democratic efforts. Other key players include the Trevor Project ($71.2 million), Transgender Law Center ($15.6 million), and Human Rights Campaign ($45.9 million). Executive compensation at these organizations underscores their financial might. At the ACLU, Executive Director Anthony D. Romero earns over $1.3 million annually. Lambda Legal's CEO Kevin Jennings receives over $730,000, Chief Legal Officer Jennifer Carol Pizer $413,522, and CDO Joshua Pushkin $386,760. The Trevor Project's former CEO Amit Paley was compensated $719,423 before departing in 2022; current CEO Jaymes Black's salary is not yet publicly reported in 2024 filings. These executives and managers rake in hundreds of thousands of dollars, sustaining a machine that stokes crises, like alleged discrimination against trans women, then leverages philanthropy (and often taxpayer dollars such as Trevor Project) to defend policies undermining protections for women and girls in sports. Fueling this machine are billions from mega-donors like MacKenzie Scott (former wife of Jeff Bezos), who has poured over $200 million into LGBTQ+ causes since 2019, including $16 million to Lambda Legal, at least $10 million to the ACLU across chapters, over $2 million to the Transgender Law Center, $3 million to the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), and contributions to the Trevor Project and Human Rights Campaign as part of broader LGBTQ+ funding rounds. These unrestricted funds have supercharged their budgets, enabling relentless legal assaults on sex-based protections. These organizations have shaped the legal interpretation of “gender identity” in schools, sports, healthcare, prisons, and employment. After receiving Scott’s gifts, they dramatically expanded their litigation portfolios; they hired more attorneys, filed more lawsuits, more amicus briefs, more coordinated challenges, and ultimately generated more influence over how federal and state agencies interpret existing law such as Title IX.

These issues are not decided in the open but in secretive grantmaking meetings, donor strategy convenings, and legal offices bankrolled by obscure philanthropic capital that most Americans have never heard of. These well-funded groups consistently outspend and outmaneuver their opponents defending women's rights, including Attorneys General from states like West Virginia and Idaho, who are battling in court to uphold Title IX as a safeguard for female athletes based on biological sex, ensuring fairness and safety in women's sports. In recent years, the rapid rise of gender identity theory and the push toward transitioning youth have been rightly attributed to medical associations, academic endorsements, the role of media, and complicit policies within school districts and government authorities like Healths and Human Services and the Department of Education under Joe Biden. Yet there's another crucial pillar that often goes underappreciated: the role of nonprofit advocacy and philanthropic funding. Together, these interconnected institutions form a powerful ecosystem that has embedded these theories deeply into societal norms and institutions. Nonprofit organizations, supported by major philanthropic donors, have played a pivotal role in advancing these ideas. Groups like the ACLU and the Human Rights Campaign push for policy changes and help create a self-reinforcing cycle of influence. They advocate, litigate, and shape legal frameworks that normalize concepts such as “gender identity” and “gender-affirming care,” which in turn attracts more funding and broader institutional buy-in. Academia provides the intellectual backing, the media brings cultural acceptance, medical associations offer the supposed science, while nonprofit advocacy and philanthropy fuel the social, governmental, and legal implementation. These institutions create a robust engine that drives cultural and policy changes, and understanding this ecosystem is key to seeing the full scope of their influence. Most people in the United States probably believe that nonprofits usually pursue worthy causes such as helping people living in poverty or supporting the most vulnerable. However, the reality is more complex. Millionaires and billionaires are often complicit in promoting harmful ideas in the name of equity and social justice. While organizations like the Open Society Foundations (aka the Soros Foundation) receive significant attention from the media and many conservatives, they represent only a fraction of the story. There is a vast network of institutions with 501(c)(3) status receiving billions of dollars from our nation's wealthiest individuals and corporate foundations who have led and shaped debates in our country about many social topics. One of those issues is the idea that children can change their gender with harmful medical interventions and biological men should compete against females and share changing rooms, even when men are intact (which is the majority of transwomen, who decide to keep their penises even if they call themselves girls or women). These wealthy people have the power to eliminate these harmful practices or at least stop igniting the fire that enables armies of lawyers to draft and defend legislation in the courts. It is, of course, their right to donate their money wherever they choose. However, billionaires must start asking themselves if the money they are investing in these foundations and nonprofits is causing more harm than good.

In the end, Scott, other billionaires, and corporate donors are fueling and funding the systematic erosion and outright abolition of sex-based distinctions, to the profound detriment of girls and women everywhere. By bankrolling this agenda, they are dismantling hard-won protections for female rights in sports, locker rooms, and beyond, prioritizing radical ideology over biological reality, safety, and fairness. It's time to hold these elite funders accountable for the real-world harm their dollars inflict on women and girls.

WomenAreReal (@WomenAreReals) on X

Do not obey in advance. Believe in truth. Be as courageous as you can.

https://x.com/WomenAreReals

nicepotoftea · 13/01/2026 12:41

lcakethereforeIam · 12/01/2026 15:39

The New York Times

https://archive.ph/RsXHC

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/12/us/politics/supreme-court-transgender-sports.html

But Becky has worked so hard 😭 Although the article is fairly partisan, it does let reality intrude a little and even alludes to the sexual harassment allegations, just barely.

https://x.com/JenniferSey/status/2010846195875226038

On the other hand, in the Washington Post:

"On Tuesday, the justices will hear oral arguments in challenges to laws enacted by West Virginia and Idaho. The court is weighing whether blocking biological males who identify as women from participating in female sports violates their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The answer is obviously no, and the very existence of these cases represents a failure of policy and politics".

Jennifer Sey (@JenniferSey) on X

Today’s @washingtonpost… A year ago this would get you cancelled. Today it is the official POV of The Washington Post. “Neither science, nor the American public, is on their [boys who claim to be girls] side.”

https://x.com/JenniferSey/status/2010846195875226038

lcakethereforeIam · 13/01/2026 12:59

And the NY Times cosying up to the genderists seems to be buttering precisely zero parsnips

https://archive.ph/KFPYp

https://unherd.com/newsroom/the-new-york-times-is-defending-itself-against-the-wrong-gender-attacks/

See also the Guardian. I think the problem is a large section of the transgender community are so determined to be victims that acknowledging they have powerful allies (newspapers, billionaires, presidents, etc.) is impossible for them. It's not just their sex they're delusional about.

The New York Times is defending itself against the wrong gender attacks

The New York Times would like you to know that its coverage of transgender issues is “fair-minded, fact-based reporting”. Also, the paper would like you to know that it has “deeply and accurately covered the lives of trans people and the bigotry they f...

https://unherd.com/newsroom/the-new-york-times-is-defending-itself-against-the-wrong-gender-attacks/

Britinme · 13/01/2026 13:41

The majority of the comments on today’s WaPo article are pro-sex-realism.

nicepotoftea · 13/01/2026 13:45

lcakethereforeIam · 13/01/2026 12:59

And the NY Times cosying up to the genderists seems to be buttering precisely zero parsnips

https://archive.ph/KFPYp

https://unherd.com/newsroom/the-new-york-times-is-defending-itself-against-the-wrong-gender-attacks/

See also the Guardian. I think the problem is a large section of the transgender community are so determined to be victims that acknowledging they have powerful allies (newspapers, billionaires, presidents, etc.) is impossible for them. It's not just their sex they're delusional about.

See also the Guardian

The irony is that Sean Ingle is possibly the best journalists covering this topic.

SingleSexSpacesInSchools · 13/01/2026 13:59

There is literally zero chance of the US Supreme Court coming out in favour of men in women's sports. zero. Even if trump dropped dead tomorrow, zero chance. Even if half the justices died, zero chance. Don;t give it another moments thought.

1984Now · 13/01/2026 14:24

SingleSexSpacesInSchools · 13/01/2026 13:59

There is literally zero chance of the US Supreme Court coming out in favour of men in women's sports. zero. Even if trump dropped dead tomorrow, zero chance. Even if half the justices died, zero chance. Don;t give it another moments thought.

And you know it wouldn't take 12 months plus to start implementing the law to keep men out of women's sport as Phillipson is taking in the equivalent scenario here in the UK.

ItsCoolForCats · 13/01/2026 16:20

Can someone who is better informed on what is happening with this case answer a couple of questions. Will they be looking at the science? The actual science on biology not musings on human rights from social scientists?

And when is the verdict likely to be?

ItsCoolForCats · 13/01/2026 16:26

SingleSexSpacesInSchools · 13/01/2026 13:59

There is literally zero chance of the US Supreme Court coming out in favour of men in women's sports. zero. Even if trump dropped dead tomorrow, zero chance. Even if half the justices died, zero chance. Don;t give it another moments thought.

It is ridiculous but keeping men in women's sport is a hill that many people are prepared to die on.

If the outcome of the IOC's review/task and finish group comes down on the side of common sense, as the IOC is seen as authoritative, hopefully sporting bodies who are holding out will follow their lead. And this issue will be put to bed once and for all and those fighting to keep men in women's sports will be shouting from the sidelines. They are not going to give up easily though because if you admit that transwomen are men for the purposes of sport, then you are admitting that they are men full stop.

JamieCannister · 13/01/2026 16:28

Did the lady just speaking say "transgender people are the people we used to call transvestites"?

SingleSexSpacesInSchools · 13/01/2026 16:41

ItsCoolForCats · 13/01/2026 16:20

Can someone who is better informed on what is happening with this case answer a couple of questions. Will they be looking at the science? The actual science on biology not musings on human rights from social scientists?

And when is the verdict likely to be?

Summer, and maybe they are, maybe they aren't. They will 100% vote on the ideological split so either 5:4 or maybe 6:3.

Imnobody4 · 13/01/2026 21:11

Oh ACLU what have you become.

This is the lawyer for the 100 old American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) actually arguing in the US Supreme Court to end sex discrimination & ask Title IX include vague ‘sex characteristics’ like ‘having limp wrists’

x.com/i/status/2011168536098680989

1984Now · 13/01/2026 21:17

ItsCoolForCats · 13/01/2026 16:26

It is ridiculous but keeping men in women's sport is a hill that many people are prepared to die on.

If the outcome of the IOC's review/task and finish group comes down on the side of common sense, as the IOC is seen as authoritative, hopefully sporting bodies who are holding out will follow their lead. And this issue will be put to bed once and for all and those fighting to keep men in women's sports will be shouting from the sidelines. They are not going to give up easily though because if you admit that transwomen are men for the purposes of sport, then you are admitting that they are men full stop.

The IOC?
You mean the same IOC that fought tooth and nail to keep Imane Khelif in the women's boxing event despite the IBF categorically stating he was a, um, he?
That IOC?

RedToothBrush · 13/01/2026 21:34

I don't think for a nano second that the ruling will go against the public and the current administration. There's just so little substance to the argument for it.

It will be interesting to see how it pans out though and what the inevitable wailing backlash will look like.

1984Now · 13/01/2026 21:49

RedToothBrush · 13/01/2026 21:34

I don't think for a nano second that the ruling will go against the public and the current administration. There's just so little substance to the argument for it.

It will be interesting to see how it pans out though and what the inevitable wailing backlash will look like.

The attorney for the trans side sounds totally vacuous.
"Limp wristed" ffs.
If there's anything limp here, it's his vacuous and underpowered "arguments".
You can also hear in his voice, he knows he sounds totally unconvincing, and this is with literally years to nail down their side of the argument.
Emperor's New Clothes, indeed.

Deafnotdumb · 13/01/2026 21:53

Woman = limp wrists?!!
Really?
Could they get more insulting?

ACLU are doing a great job of shedding sunlight on a bunch of mysiogynist, sexist claptrao. A pity they left their brains behind with their balls when they went to court.

HelenaWaiting · 13/01/2026 21:57

fromorbit · 07/01/2026 01:53

Sunlight!

Trans athlete at center of Supreme Court case accused of sexual harassment, intimidation tactics against girls
https://www.foxnews.com/sports/trans-athlete-center-supreme-court-case-accused-sexual-harassment-intimidation-tactics-against-girls

FFS, do the Democrats never learn?

1984Now · 13/01/2026 22:05

Deafnotdumb · 13/01/2026 21:53

Woman = limp wrists?!!
Really?
Could they get more insulting?

ACLU are doing a great job of shedding sunlight on a bunch of mysiogynist, sexist claptrao. A pity they left their brains behind with their balls when they went to court.

Well, these idiots don't so much have shit for brains as dicks for brains, so maybe it's appropriate as you say they left their brains with their balls.

ItsCoolForCats · 13/01/2026 22:13

1984Now · 13/01/2026 21:17

The IOC?
You mean the same IOC that fought tooth and nail to keep Imane Khelif in the women's boxing event despite the IBF categorically stating he was a, um, he?
That IOC?

Yes, that IOC. We just have to hope that things will move in a different direction under Kirsty Coventry. There should be an update soon.

Sean Ingle, who has been one of the few sports journalists who has been good on this issue, is cautiously optimistic. We'll have to see.

www.theguardian.com/sport/2025/nov/10/ioc-edges-closer-to-ban-on-transgender-women-in-female-olympic-events

CuiBon0 · 13/01/2026 22:18

Deafnotdumb · 13/01/2026 21:53

Woman = limp wrists?!!
Really?
Could they get more insulting?

ACLU are doing a great job of shedding sunlight on a bunch of mysiogynist, sexist claptrao. A pity they left their brains behind with their balls when they went to court.

I only heard the snippet from X but it seems to me that the attorney is arguing that, under Title IX, if you discriminate against feminine behavior that would be discrimination on the basis of sex, whether that behavior is displayed by a boy or a girl. It's very similar to the argument that if, e.g., an employer fires someone bc they think the person is Jewish, that would be discrimination against Jews even if the person who was fired was Christian

FWIW, I agree with Alioto here that "sex" must have a definition under the statute. It's a law that prohibits sex discrimination and I don't see how you can prohibit something that isn't defined. I also don't think it would be constitutional (under the US Constitution) to do so. Seems like an ex post facto law to me. (Just my off the cuff opinion without having really considered it.)

nicepotoftea · 13/01/2026 22:25

CuiBon0 · 13/01/2026 22:18

I only heard the snippet from X but it seems to me that the attorney is arguing that, under Title IX, if you discriminate against feminine behavior that would be discrimination on the basis of sex, whether that behavior is displayed by a boy or a girl. It's very similar to the argument that if, e.g., an employer fires someone bc they think the person is Jewish, that would be discrimination against Jews even if the person who was fired was Christian

FWIW, I agree with Alioto here that "sex" must have a definition under the statute. It's a law that prohibits sex discrimination and I don't see how you can prohibit something that isn't defined. I also don't think it would be constitutional (under the US Constitution) to do so. Seems like an ex post facto law to me. (Just my off the cuff opinion without having really considered it.)

It's very similar to the argument that if, e.g., an employer fires someone bc they think the person is Jewish, that would be discrimination against Jews even if the person who was fired was Christian

Discrimination by perception still requires a clear definition of the protected characteristic. He is arguing that there should be no objective definition.

If he made a similar argument about religion it would be that we don't need to define anti-semitism, but it might have something to do with eating bagels.

1984Now · 13/01/2026 22:35

nicepotoftea · 13/01/2026 22:25

It's very similar to the argument that if, e.g., an employer fires someone bc they think the person is Jewish, that would be discrimination against Jews even if the person who was fired was Christian

Discrimination by perception still requires a clear definition of the protected characteristic. He is arguing that there should be no objective definition.

If he made a similar argument about religion it would be that we don't need to define anti-semitism, but it might have something to do with eating bagels.

Edited

So he doesn't want, or think there needs to be, a definition of sex, yet when push comes to shove, we can all rely on a few hoary old stereotypes that were popular in the 70s eg Dick Emery and Danny La Rue?

Swipe left for the next trending thread