Fraction of a Fraction: The SCOTUS Transgender Athlete Case

[Luis Gonzalez]

Fraction of a Fraction: The SCOTUS Transgender Athlete Case
When courts rewrite biology to accommodate a tiny minority, the consequences extend far beyond the playing field.

The Last Wire

The U.S. Supreme Court’s consideration of Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. represents one of the most consequential civil rights questions of the early 21st century: whether federal civil rights law grounded in biological sex can be redefined to accommodate claims based on gender identity. At stake is not merely the participation of a tiny number of transgender athletes in girls’ sports, but the integrity of Title IX itself, the meaning of constitutional protections against sex discrimination, and the future of sex-segregated programs that have been foundational to women’s opportunities in education and athletics for more than half a century.

I. Title IX: Historical Purpose and Legal Structure

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. § 1681) was enacted to prohibit discrimination “on the basis of sex” in education programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. It provides that “no person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” (ed.gov)

The plain text of Title IX does not mention gender identity or sexual orientation. It is framed around a biological understanding of sex, as it existed in 1972 when the law passed both houses of Congress with broad bipartisan support. The statute was instrumental in expanding girls’ and women’s access to athletic opportunities that had long been denied. Its goal was to ensure that students of both sexes could participate in education and athletics free from discrimination. (ed.gov)

Continue reading at The Last Wire

[Cyber Liberty]

We already know how the Justice who cannot define "woman" is going to decide, but the other eight can, and will find your arguments compelling.  Probably 8-1 or 7-2 in favor of the states.  I think your argument that Congress specified athletics should be segregated was the best. 

It's useful to note the Soviets were playing the gender bending games at the Olympics, so the hazards of sex integration in athletics was very clear to members of Congress at the time Title IX was passed!

[Wingnut]

We already know how the Justice who cannot define "woman" is going to decide, but the other eight can, and will find your arguments compelling.  Probably 8-1 or 7-2 in favor of the states.  I think your argument that Congress specified athletics should be segregated was the best. 

It's useful to note the Soviets were playing the gender bending games at the Olympics, so the hazards of sex integration in athletics was very clear to members of Congress at the time Title IX was passed!

Should be 9-0 but we have two stupid women who will refuse to protect women.

Also, Don't forget the 1976 East German womens Swim Team.  What those Mengele type doctors did to them was criminal.