Transgender issues and discussions

[dabrockster]

I am trying to understand how this is sex discrimination. I think that was the point Alito was also generally making. What is a man, and what is a woman. Those are definitions and acceptable genders. Anything else is not.

we move past the biological definitions, then next thing we know we are including furries or whatever else a person wants to be identified by.

[Moliere]

This is incredible.

Embedded Tweet

That’s pretty good, and kind of funny that the lawyer seemed to not have a response…almost like she was blinded by her bias that kept her from adequately preparing for even reasonable questions.

[All-American]

I am trying to understand how this is sex discrimination. I think that was the point Alito was also generally making. What is a man, and what is a woman. Those are definitions and acceptable genders. Anything else is not.

we move past the biological definitions, then next thing we know we are including furries or whatever else a person wants to be identified by.

I listened to the oral argument and I’ve read over the transcript a time or two to try to understand the argument. As I understand it, the point is that Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause generally prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, or withholding a benefit on the basis of sex. We acknowledge that there can be reasonable exceptions, such as when you have men’s sports and women’s sports. And it can be reasonable to say that a cis-gender male should be excluded from women’s teams. But it is not reasonable, they say, to automatically presume that ALL trans-gender girls (i.e., biological males that transitioned to female), without exception, can be excluded, and that this would never raise a problem under either Title IX or the Equal Protection Clause.

This case makes a nice test case for the transgender athlete side, given the facts. The athlete in question took puberty blockers and so does not have the physiological benefits of male puberty— and also took female puberty hormones so as to undergo the physiological effects of female puberty. Consequently, the argument goes, if the intent behind excluding someone from participating on a team is the physiological benefits enjoyed by biological males, that wouldn’t justify applying the exclusion to THIS athlete, who doesn’t have those benefits. (To be clear— this is not a Lia Thompson situation, where a biological male is just crushing the female competition. This athlete is apparently middle of the pack at best.) Also, the sport in question is cross-country running, and there are no cuts. So, this athlete is not taking another person’s spot. The proponents did a nice job of hand-picking and advancing a case that was as favorable to their side as could be and gave the least possible grounds for objection. They are making the narrowest possible case: THIS person is being excluded from a benefit solely because of birth status as a biological male, with (they argue) no other reason or justification for exclusion. The Equal Protection Clause requires a compelling justification for sex-based distinctions, and, they argue, as to this single individual (not trans athletes categorically), the compelling justification doesn’t exist.

While I respect the skill in framing the case as advantageously as possible, I think the case still loses. I don’t think the Court will go so far as to say that no state can permit trans athletes from competing on women’s teams— that case can be decided another day— it is a broad leap to suggest that the broad sex-based distinctions between men’s sports and women’s sports— a distinction that has existed, unchallenged, for decades— has been unconstitutional all along. I don’t think the Court will want to open the door to case-by-case litigation to see if there is just enough estrogen here, or if puberty blockers were taken early enough there, to slip the exclusion from the realm of reasonable to unreasonable. Neither Title IX nor the Equal Protection Clause prohibit single-sex sports (and they may actually require it). So, you need to decide what “sex” is for these purposes, and it will be found reasonable to decide that it means biological sex.

[BigPiney]

I listened to the oral argument and I’ve read over the transcript a time or two to try to understand the argument. As I understand it, the point is that Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause generally prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, or withholding a benefit on the basis of sex. We acknowledge that there can be reasonable exceptions, such as when you have men’s sports and women’s sports. And it can be reasonable to say that a cis-gender male should be excluded from women’s teams. But it is not reasonable, they say, to automatically presume that ALL trans-gender girls (i.e., biological males that transitioned to female), without exception, can be excluded, and that this would never raise a problem under either Title IX or the Equal Protection Clause.

This case makes a nice test case for the transgender athlete side, given the facts. The athlete in question took puberty blockers and so does not have the physiological benefits of male puberty— and also took female puberty hormones so as to undergo the physiological effects of female puberty. Consequently, the argument goes, if the intent behind excluding someone from participating on a team is the physiological benefits enjoyed by biological males, that wouldn’t justify applying the exclusion to THIS athlete, who doesn’t have those benefits. (To be clear— this is not a Lia Thompson situation, where a biological male is just crushing the female competition. This athlete is apparently middle of the pack at best.) Also, the sport in question is cross-country running, and there are no cuts. So, this athlete is not taking another person’s spot. The proponents did a nice job of hand-picking and advancing a case that was as favorable to their side as could be and gave the least possible grounds for objection. They are making the narrowest possible case: THIS person is being excluded from a benefit solely because of birth status as a biological male, with (they argue) no other reason or justification for exclusion. The Equal Protection Clause requires a compelling justification for sex-based distinctions, and, they argue, as to this single individual (not trans athletes categorically), the compelling justification doesn’t exist.

While I respect the skill in framing the case as advantageously as possible, I think the case still loses. I don’t think the Court will go so far as to say that no state can permit trans athletes from competing on women’s teams— that case can be decided another day— it is a broad leap to suggest that the broad sex-based distinctions between men’s sports and women’s sports— a distinction that has existed, unchallenged, for decades— has been unconstitutional all along. I don’t think the Court will want to open the door to case-by-case litigation to see if there is just enough estrogen here, or if puberty blockers were taken early enough there, to slip the exclusion from the realm of reasonable to unreasonable. Neither Title IX nor the Equal Protection Clause prohibit single-sex sports (and they may actually require it). So, you need to decide what “sex” is for these purposes, and it will be found reasonable to decide that it means biological sex.

Thank you for that summary. Very helpful.

[Jeff Lebowski]

This makes some sense:

Embedded Tweet

[All-American]

This is incredible.

Embedded Tweet

I don’t think this is a fair characterization of the argument.


https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_ar...24-38_n75p.pdf

The question and answer is on page 98. I see the attorney accepting the definition as presented in the statute.

[dabrockster]

Thanks AA for the detailed explanation.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I listened to the oral argument and I’ve read over the transcript a time or two to try to understand the argument. As I understand it, the point is that Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause generally prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, or withholding a benefit on the basis of sex. We acknowledge that there can be reasonable exceptions, such as when you have men’s sports and women’s sports. And it can be reasonable to say that a cis-gender male should be excluded from women’s teams. But it is not reasonable, they say, to automatically presume that ALL trans-gender girls (i.e., biological males that transitioned to female), without exception, can be excluded, and that this would never raise a problem under either Title IX or the Equal Protection Clause.

This case makes a nice test case for the transgender athlete side, given the facts. The athlete in question took puberty blockers and so does not have the physiological benefits of male puberty— and also took female puberty hormones so as to undergo the physiological effects of female puberty. Consequently, the argument goes, if the intent behind excluding someone from participating on a team is the physiological benefits enjoyed by biological males, that wouldn’t justify applying the exclusion to THIS athlete, who doesn’t have those benefits. (To be clear— this is not a Lia Thompson situation, where a biological male is just crushing the female competition. This athlete is apparently middle of the pack at best.) Also, the sport in question is cross-country running, and there are no cuts. So, this athlete is not taking another person’s spot. The proponents did a nice job of hand-picking and advancing a case that was as favorable to their side as could be and gave the least possible grounds for objection. They are making the narrowest possible case: THIS person is being excluded from a benefit solely because of birth status as a biological male, with (they argue) no other reason or justification for exclusion. The Equal Protection Clause requires a compelling justification for sex-based distinctions, and, they argue, as to this single individual (not trans athletes categorically), the compelling justification doesn’t exist.

While I respect the skill in framing the case as advantageously as possible, I think the case still loses. I don’t think the Court will go so far as to say that no state can permit trans athletes from competing on women’s teams— that case can be decided another day— it is a broad leap to suggest that the broad sex-based distinctions between men’s sports and women’s sports— a distinction that has existed, unchallenged, for decades— has been unconstitutional all along. I don’t think the Court will want to open the door to case-by-case litigation to see if there is just enough estrogen here, or if puberty blockers were taken early enough there, to slip the exclusion from the realm of reasonable to unreasonable. Neither Title IX nor the Equal Protection Clause prohibit single-sex sports (and they may actually require it). So, you need to decide what “sex” is for these purposes, and it will be found reasonable to decide that it means biological sex.

In regard to framing the argument around a carefully selected case where the trans girl does not appear to have a significant advantage to hormones and puberty blockers, I have several problems with this. First, if the court were to rule that trans girls can participate in girls sports if their bodies have been altered sufficiently, we are creating a perverse incentive for parents to kids to administer hormones and puberty blockers that will potentially have permanent physiological consequences, including sterilization, in order for their child to be able to compete in youth sports. That would be horrific. Second, it is disturbing to me that we could decide a case based on such an extreme outlier. The vast majority of trans girls have significant biological advantages. I believe this is the point made in the latter part of this clip:

Embedded Tweet

Furthermore, I agree with this point made by Thomas:

Embedded Tweet

Once you allow biological males into female spaces, female spaces no longer exist. This is exactly the point that JK Rowling has been making for years.

Finally, I can't stand Mike Lee, but he has a valid point here. It is astounding to see a supreme court justice use such gobbledygook language.

Embedded Tweet

[All-American]

In regard to framing the argument around a carefully selected case where the trans girl does not appear to have a significant advantage to hormones and puberty blockers, I have several problems with this. First, if the court were to rule that trans girls can participate in girls sports if their bodies have been altered sufficiently, we are creating a perverse incentive for parents to kids to administer hormones and puberty blockers that will potentially have permanent physiological consequences, including sterilization, in order for their child to be able to compete in youth sports. That would be horrific. Second, it is disturbing to me that we could decide a case based on such an extreme outlier. The vast majority of trans girls have significant biological advantages. I believe this is the point made in the latter part of this clip:

Embedded Tweet

Furthermore, I agree with this point made by Thomas:

Embedded Tweet

Once you allow biological males into female spaces, female spaces no longer exist. This is exactly the point that JK Rowling has been making for years.

Finally, I can't stand Mike Lee, but he has a valid point here. It is astounding to see a supreme court justice use such gobbledygook language.

Embedded Tweet

I think that is exactly why the Court won’t bite, even when the case is presented in what is arguably its most compelling form.

Classifications like these are subject to varying levels of scrutiny. Some are subject to what is called “rational basis” review, where the government merely needs to show some rational basis for the distinction. For example: the government can withhold a driver’s license from someone who is 15, and give it to someone who is 16, because older people tend to be more responsible than younger people. No one says there is an equal protection case to be made when a really mature fifteen-year-old doesn’t get a driver’s license. Race-based distinctions are subject to “strict scrutiny,” where the government needs to show the distinction is narrowly tailored to a compelling governmental interest (which means, in practice, almost every race-based discrimination fails). Gender-based discrimination is subject to an intermediate form of scrutiny, which recognizes that in some instances distinctions are acceptable but the justification has to be exceedingly persuasive.

It’s not clear what level of scrutiny this law should receive. Some argue that it is just subject to rational basis review, because the court has never suggested discrimination on the basis of transgender status deserves a higher level of scrutiny. Most argue it is subject to intermediate scrutiny, because it is essentially a form of gender discrimination. But if it is subject to intermediate scrutiny, the government doesn’t need to show that the classification is a perfect fit, with a justification that applies to each and every person excluded. And here, the steps you’d have to force the state to take in order to make exceptions specifically carved out to accommodate these special cases is likely to be seen as asking too much.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Sorry. I fixed my broken X link on that Mike Lee post.

[dabrockster]

Josh Hawley goes after Dr. on basic questions of pregnancy..

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8fkvkp3/

[Moliere]

Josh Hawley goes after Dr. on basic questions of pregnancy..

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8fkvkp3/

She would make a really good president of Columbia University.

[Jeff Lebowski]

She would make a really good president of Columbia University.

I have seen a lot of democrats on social media commenting on that exchange and begging fellow democrats to stop giving BS nonsensical answers like that. "This is how we lose moderates and lose elections."

[beefytee]

Josh Hawley goes after Dr. on basic questions of pregnancy..

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8fkvkp3/

Could not finish watching that video. They both drive me crazy. Dumb question and even dumber answer.

Why do people fall for these dumb setups?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Could not finish watching that video. They both drive me crazy. Dumb question and even dumber answer.

Why do people fall for these dumb setups?

All she would have had to say was "biological males cannot get pregnant".