Title IX - Supreme Court Hearings

[PersonIrresponsible]

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.

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

"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!

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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

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.)

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?

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.

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.

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.

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."

Listening to the recording of KJB’s appeal on behalf of men/boys who say they are not like all the other men/boys. In that she says they aren’t as good as the others of their sex, and sure they may as well get play against women/girls as a compensation for that. They aren’t a different class of male, even. Seems to try to pretend they are a class of woman/girl. The male class of woman/girl, no less. (Very strange angle from someone, a woman even, who said she didn’t even know what a woman was because she was not a biologist). And, implied is ‘screw the women/girls right for female hard work and excellence to shine’. It is kind of like females should know they are just support humans for all the humans of the male sex who wish to piss all over their rights. Paraphrased.

Doesn’t that exact same thing apply to very many ‘classes’ of men. In fact any man who claims not to have the same advantage as the athletes of their own sex. They are all ‘classes’ of men other than the good male athletes. Or ordinary male athletes. They are all men, though.

Why are these flat earthers p&ssing down everyone’s back and trying to claim it is raining? They pretend to not understand the most basic reality, yet they make the most bizarre and ludicrous statements and claims.

Maybe women can make exceptions for the Incel class as well?
I mean, they don't fit in either.

The difficulty remains for Block that for a court to accept that one is perceived as [x], there must be an agreed definition of [x] & that definition can neither be circular nor, "vibes man, vibes". Block seems to have scuppered himself here in much the same way that lawyers for the Gender Identitarian side in Skrmetti scuppered the possibility of trans being a Suspect Class.

Think it's a version of "properly feminine women can't open pickle jars".
Odd to see Matt Walsh & the ACLU converge like this.

One thing that is really evident is how anxious Block is. Initially I thought that might be because he's giving evidence in front of the biggest court in the land. But, he's a senior attorney, that can't be it.
No, it's because whether he knows it implicitly or it's indirectly inconsistent at the back of his mind, he's giving answers and making arguments that are pure unreality, as far from definitive, proveable facts, and common sense suppositions, as you can get.
That would make anyone sound unsure, uncertain, unsteady, even an attorney with years of experience making clear, sober statements in court.
No surprise, the illusion dissolves on first contact with the cold air of the real world.

A lot of the crazier clips from the hearing is going viral. Not looking good for the TAs.

Meanwhile Trump administration has timed this point to go after a bunch of schools on a massive scale. Obviously they are hoping to use this stuff in the mid terms.

Affected states: NYC, NYS, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Vermont, Mass, Penn and Washington state

Trump administration opens 18 new probes over trans athletes
New York City’s school system and 14 other districts face investigations for allowing transgender athletes to compete in girls’ and women’s sports. Three colleges also face probes.
https://archive.is/n7uNi

I think I see what the objection is now. With appreciation to @MarieDeGournay, rather than re-argue the specific points , some of which were badly stated and others which were in error, let me restate my position:

Skrmetti might have been narrow in some sense, but it's effects are broad and seismic. This can be seen in practice as it allow the court to cleanly grant the stay requested in Orr v. Trump (the passport case).

In Orr, SCOTUS sided with the Trump administration and accepted the requested stay on the State Department rule stipulating that biological sex be used for the US passport sex marker. SCOTUS did not mention Skrmetti directly in granting the stay, but Jackson’s dissent criticises the majority’s reasoning in ways that track the framework established in that case. In addition the government’s lawyers rely heavily on the ruling, explicitly treating United States v. Skrmetti as the controlling precedent. This includes relying on the ruling for

• the definition of sex,
• the level of scrutiny
• the irrelevance of medical consensus,
• the rational-basis standard, and the
• invalid-ness of transgender identity as a category, i.e. not a quasi-suspect class and not an immutable characteristic, even though this was in the concurring opinion.

With respect to the last, the following passage appears in the administration’s stay application, where the government quotes and relies on concurrence language from Skrmetti to support its immutability argument.

“In any event, trans-identifying people do not satisfy respondents’ preferred test. First, trans-identifying people are not marked by the “obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics” of a “discrete group.” Skrmetti, 145 S. Ct. at 1851 (Barrett, J., concurring) (citations omitted); see id. at 1866 (Alito, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment). “

So, it’s clear Skrmetti is an extremely important case with broad implications in transgender law. It’s also reasonable to point out that it’s full relevance (including in Orr) remains to be determined as the case law is worked out.

With respect to what Skrmetti actually held, you are correct that the Supreme Court did not adopt the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning, so that reasoning is not part of the national precedent. The Sixth Circuit’s analysis remains persuasive within that circuit, but it does not bind other courts. The fact that the Sixth Circuit’s judgement was upheld, combined with the concurring opinions’ articulation of immutability, explains why government attorneys felt justified citing the case when making the immutability argument. And while concurring opinions do not carry the force of law, they often have more interpretive weight than dissents.

I’m more than happy to admit that the full implications of the Skrmetti haven’t been worked out in law, but I stand by my assertion that it’s already clear that it's broadly important. In addition, I think there’s good evidence that the court desires to set down precedent that insists that transgender identity and biological sex are separate in federal law and that Skrmetti was the first step in establishing that doctrine.

Nothing important to add except 'Hecox'!? Bit of a self misgendering. I'm surprised he's not changed his name to something more gender confirming like 'Shefanni'.