Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Boys in Girls Sports

SO CLOSE TO PRIDE MONTH?!!? SO CLOSE TO PRIDE MONTH?!!!

The holding is 6-3, but the three liberals joined with parts of it so parts of it are actually unanimous.

Coney-Barrett and Roberts joined the conservatives in this one because this case is about protecting Muh Feminism.

Remember, even super-feminist JK Rowling is on the right side of this issue.

Note the decision is about state bans on men in girls' sports. It's not about Trump's executive order to deny funds to states that allow men to beat up girls in sports.

And it doesn't ban men from girls' sports, just upholds states' rights to ban men from girls' sports.

Fox News @FoxNews

BREAKING: The Supreme Court just handed states a major victory in one of the country's most closely watched culture battles: protecting girls' and women's sports.

In a 6-3 ruling along ideological lines, the court upheld laws in Idaho and West Virginia banning transgender students from competing in women's and girls' school sports.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh writing in his opinion, "The term 'sex' in Title IX... cannot plausibly be interpreted to refer to anything other than biological sex... The Court concludes that separate sports teams for biological males and biological females are reasonable given the inherent physical differences between the sexes."

The Supreme Court upheld state-level bans on transgender competitors playing girls' sports in Idaho and West Virginia in a landmark decision with major implications for more than half the country where similar policies are in place.

In a 6-3 opinion, in which the liberal justices concurred and dissented in part, the high court determined that neither state had violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by enacting the bans.

But the majority opinion also underscored the importance of treating transgender athletes with respect.

"Most of the biological female and transgender student-athletes who are involved in transgender sports disputes around the country are teenagers or in their early twenties," Republican appointed Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the majority opinion.

"Those student athletes want to play sports. Their desire to compete warrants respect. No student-athlete on either side of the issue, whether a biological female or transgender, deserves to be ostracized or vilified."

What does this virtue signaling have to do with the actual issue here? Their words -- dicta, it's called, judicial ramblings with no actual precedential power -- will be used by liberal courts to justify the overturning of restrictions on transgenders in bathrooms and the like, claiming that this decision stands for the proposition that transgenders must not be "ostracized or vilified."

Two transgender athletes waged similar challenges against the bans, arguing that they flouted equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment and statutory law prohibiting discrimination.

...

The decision in the cases, Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B. P. J., marks the first time the Supreme Court has dealt with the fraught culture war issue of transgender competition in girls' sports.

Via Ed Morrissey: the key part of the decision.

In assessing the reasonableness of the regulations, we also must recognize the distinctiveness of competitive sports--and the safety and competitive fairness issues that can arise when females are forced to compete against males.

With respect to safety, allowing biological males to play on women's and girls' sports teams can put women and girls at significant risk of injuries. The safety risks are particularly severe in contact sports.

And as to competitive fairness, allowing biological males to play on women's and girls' sports teams can put female athletes at a serious disadvantage. That is because sports are generally zero sum. Allowing a biological male athlete to compete on a girls' team necessarily displaces or disadvantages a female athlete--replacing her on the roster, knocking her out of the starting lineup, reducing her playing time, depriving her of a medal, and the like. That hard reality of sports cannot be ignored or swept under the rug. On the contrary, that reality must and does inform interpretation of the term "reasonable" in the Javits Amendment.

Whether biological males may participate on women's and girls' sports teams may be a debated policy question. But the legal question for Title IX purposes is whether West Virginia may limit women's and girls' sports teams to biological females. As a matter of text and history, West Virginia may do so.

Apparently the three liberals (excluding Coney-Barrett and Roberts) agreed that Title IX plainly speaks of "sex" and not "gender expression" so Title IX cannot be claimed to grant rights to men to beat up girls in sports.

But they did find that the Equal Protection Clause just might!

Gina Milan @ginamilan_

Ketanji Brown Jackson: "A transgender woman penalized for being perceived as aggressive has experienced discrimination "on the basis of sex" just as much as a cisgender woman has, no matter that the transgender woman's behavior matches expectations of her sex assigned at birth."

She's actually INSANE.

NBC "News" warns viewers that they're about to read the words from a Supreme Court opinion, and those words will include the "triggering" and hateful phrase "biological males."

The blonde "woman" here is a man who is a doctor who performs transgender procedures on children.

posted by Disinformation Expert Ace at 02:15 PM

| Access Comments