The Losing Side Argued BPJ a Special Boy/Girl Because He Says So and He Should Participate In Girls' Sports Because He Wants To. They Didn't Defend Hecox At All
None of this requires the wisdom of Solomon to adjudicate , and it should be embarrassing that this even needed to be heard by the Supreme Court or any court for that matter. This takes on Swiftian Big-Endians , Little-Endians status.
,That a Supreme Court Justice even used the term "cis-female" is an indication of how deep this capture has gone , and how difficult it will be to root out.
It astounds me that it took a decision from SCOTUS to determine that governing should be based in material reality. These are not "rights"- at best a trans identity is an opinion or an ideology, it is not a fact. A citizen may believe whatever they choose, but we don't put the force of law behind opinions or ideologies. I long for the days when Iiberals proclaimed themselves "proud members of the reality-based community." Have you noticed they don't do that anymore? By the way, I'm a Gender Critical Democrat begging my party to wake up and prioritize Women's Rights again.
What aggravates me about the whole situation is that they refuse to discuss it. The evidence is there, but it goes to the point of indoctrination with a lot of people on the Left. I've particularly noticed it among white male "talking heads" to whom I can't listen anymore. I've given up on MSNBC (or whatever) and half of the podcasts I used to follow. They think they're being Progressive, but the idea of men in women-only facilities and sports is Male Privilege writ large. Nobody is listening to women.
Yep. I read all the briefs in Skrmetti and came to a similar conclusion. The overwhelming weight of the evidence, the most compelling arguments, are all on the gender critical side. Sotomayor in particular debased and embarrassed herself in both cases.
Sarah, Thank you for another great column. I must admit that it was excruciatingly painful to read the ridiculous statements from the dissenting justices. And KJB trying to say that sex is Title IX is really gender was way over the top. BUT this is the reality of our fight to restore sex-based rights for women. This is my SINGLE issue when I vote: who will support sex-based rights for women. I do not consider anything else of greater importance for my daughters (and my son).
In the before times, I voted Democratic (for the most part) based on abortion rights. So I was a single issue voter. I became non affiliated and could not vote for either Republican or Democrat in the 2016 and 2020 elections. In the 2024 election I had to overcome my nausea and voted for Trump because of this single issue. It’s women’s rights once again. Good grief, when will society advance and acknowledge women want “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” just as much as men.
The notion that transqueer cultists put any weight at all on the methods of science is, I believe, false. And therefore dangerous.
The transqueer cultists' belief that "trans women ARE women" is the same as a Catholic's belief that "consecrated communion wafers ARE the body of Christ". It is a religious belief that is not subject to refutation by any sort of scientific evaluation. IIRC, the biologist PZ Myers once did a chemical analysis of a consecrated communion wafer, and (of course) found that it was indistinguishable from an unconsecrated communion wafer. All he got for his trouble was a bunch of pissed-off Catholics yelling at him. None of them changed their religious beliefs.
Conclusion: science and logic and reason are rarely effective against religious beliefs.
The only thing that works is keeping political power out of the hands of religious cultists. We saw that clearly in the SCOTUS decision, where Justices appointed by Presidents from the Sex Realist Party voted unanimously in favor of women's rights, while Justices appointed by Presidents from the Tranqueer Cult Party voted unanimously in favor of men's privileges (never "rights", never ever "rights"!).
I think the lesson for women's rights activists is very clear, though it seems that few of us are willing to face up to it and start taking the necessary actions.
(Action number one would be to work to keep Susan Collins in office in Maine, rather than allow her to replaced by a male transqueer cultist with a Nazi tattoo. Somehow a lot of TERFs seem neutral on this, which boggles my mind.)
While this SC decision does not force the 23 states that organize sports around gender identity to stop dping that, this decision made it apparent that doing so is a conscious choice to violate girls' Title IX rights.
No, we can't do any better. That's the point. Those are the two major-party nominees. One of them WILL be the next Senator from Maine. It will either be Sex Realist Susan Collins or Transqueer Cultist Graham Platner.
And if the Transqueer Cult Party gets a majority in the Senate, they will block all of Trump's Sex Realist nominees for federal judges.
This is the realpolitik that we have to deal with.
You can either close your eyes to it, let others decide your future for you, or you can help make one or the other of these two futures, Sex Realist or Transqueer Cultist, come into being.
More than a few of the Terven who have previously voted Democratic have recently voted Republican instead because they are single-issue voters or because this issue is so important.
Fun fact: I tried to forward my email version of this but the “Outlook postmaster” kicked it back saying it was undeliverable because it was identified as spam. I got around that by forwarding it to another email on a different platform that let me forward it on to my family and friends.
To the transzie troll out there who attempted to prevent me from giving this a bit more exposure… a big fck u.
Sarah, I couldn't wait to read your response to the court's decision and you have surpassed my expectations! The mainstream networks and even MSNow hardly addressed the decision and glossed over its importance to half the population - women - because they have been put to shame in their one-sided coverage. The New York Times has yet to publish any comprehensive review of the actual science that underpins the recognition of the reality of sex and sex differences. Your pointing out how in too many cases the only information decision-makers had was from radical transgender activists and those whose pseudo science supported their lack of actual scientific fact was an important observation. And finally, your evisceration of Sotomayor and her mumbo jumbo nonsense, which I forced myself to read, was right on and an embarrassment to the Supreme Court itself as was Justice Jackson's refusal to define what a woman is in her confirmation hearing and her own lame arguments in this case. Although Kavanaugh has made some awful decisions with no eloquent or even justifiable legal grounding as in his execrable racial profiling decision his arguments in this case were stellar. So thanks, Sarah, for your continuing excellent coverage of this issue!
I'm casting around thinking, has anyone actually read this thing -- the decision, I mean? Jackson could not say what a woman is, but is somehow not ashamed to write in a SC opinion that a boy is a girl?!!
Agree. Since Jackson isn't a biologist (her own admission) she should damn well listen to biologists on (1) the definition of sex, and (2) the evidence for male advantage before puberty.
Yes, I couldn't believe that in her confirmation hearings it was probably a republican senator who asked her if she could define what a woman is and she refused to say as I remember, just dissembled the way she and Sotomayor did in their ridiculous dissents for this decision.
And to think that Sotomayor had the audacity to call herself a “wise Latina”. Her arguments and associated lack of evidence to back up her ridiculous arguments at the level of SCOTUS is frankly embarrassing.
The 'right' male trans people demand is the right to decide when women and girls matter. Which is: only of it doesn't bother them or goes against a man's wishes.
Brilliant, Sarah. I’m glad you took the time to read those opinions (so we don’t have to) as you’ve now put an eloquently informed nail on the coffin that contains all the other analyses I’ve read. They were satisfying but yours is more so.
Thanks! I know--I too kind of lose my will to live when faced with a 40-page legal decision or academic paper or like every single tab on a website, but every time, every fucking time, I am rewarded with the most outrageous, stupid stuff. I mean, A Supreme Court justice writing, like she's making a killer point, that if BPJ had been "observed" female at birth, he would have been able to compete in girls' sports. Yeeeeees, and?
A small side not, since you mentioned Nikki Hiltz: according to an article in the Athletic published yesterday, Nikki identifies as they/them and as non-binary. Of course, the article was absurdly written in order to obscure all basic facts in support of gender ideology. BUT, Nikki did specifically say "not trans" and "non-binary."
Nikki is a super talented super confused gal. She first came out as nonbinary, then trans nonbinary (whatever that is). The contradictions are so thick--for a nonbinary person her actions are about as binary as you can get. She vehemently rejects the reality of her female sex, has had what little breasts she had chopped off, and has spoken publicly about how she can't wait til her competitive career is over so she can take testosterone and grow a beard. Yet she is keenly aware she would have no career were it not for a protected female category
Yeah, it did seem odd to me that she says she disagrees with the SCOTUS ruling, and yet we all know why she's never tried to compete in the men's category.
Yes, that article was infuriating. The basic premise was that because Hiltz is trans and is allowed to compete in women’s events, all “trans athletes” should be allowed to compete, as if there’s no difference between Hiltz and Lia Thomas.
I should be clearer. I don't see where they disagree with your statements about sex based differences in physical ability. But they have bought into the (in my opinion, loony) argument that gender-identity trumps sex in determining who is a man or woman. With all that entails.
Embarrassing that the cases had to go all the way up to the Supreme Court for a reality-based verdict. But very glad they did agree to hear the cases.
None of this requires the wisdom of Solomon to adjudicate , and it should be embarrassing that this even needed to be heard by the Supreme Court or any court for that matter. This takes on Swiftian Big-Endians , Little-Endians status.
,That a Supreme Court Justice even used the term "cis-female" is an indication of how deep this capture has gone , and how difficult it will be to root out.
Exactly
It astounds me that it took a decision from SCOTUS to determine that governing should be based in material reality. These are not "rights"- at best a trans identity is an opinion or an ideology, it is not a fact. A citizen may believe whatever they choose, but we don't put the force of law behind opinions or ideologies. I long for the days when Iiberals proclaimed themselves "proud members of the reality-based community." Have you noticed they don't do that anymore? By the way, I'm a Gender Critical Democrat begging my party to wake up and prioritize Women's Rights again.
It’s truly unfortunate that the corruption of the Robert court will be used as reason to discount Skrmetti & others as bigotry.
It’s not, this time, but GI supporters are not going to give up that bias claim. Until & unless they actually read the evidence & the decision.
What aggravates me about the whole situation is that they refuse to discuss it. The evidence is there, but it goes to the point of indoctrination with a lot of people on the Left. I've particularly noticed it among white male "talking heads" to whom I can't listen anymore. I've given up on MSNBC (or whatever) and half of the podcasts I used to follow. They think they're being Progressive, but the idea of men in women-only facilities and sports is Male Privilege writ large. Nobody is listening to women.
Yep. I read all the briefs in Skrmetti and came to a similar conclusion. The overwhelming weight of the evidence, the most compelling arguments, are all on the gender critical side. Sotomayor in particular debased and embarrassed herself in both cases.
Sarah, Thank you for another great column. I must admit that it was excruciatingly painful to read the ridiculous statements from the dissenting justices. And KJB trying to say that sex is Title IX is really gender was way over the top. BUT this is the reality of our fight to restore sex-based rights for women. This is my SINGLE issue when I vote: who will support sex-based rights for women. I do not consider anything else of greater importance for my daughters (and my son).
In the before times, I voted Democratic (for the most part) based on abortion rights. So I was a single issue voter. I became non affiliated and could not vote for either Republican or Democrat in the 2016 and 2020 elections. In the 2024 election I had to overcome my nausea and voted for Trump because of this single issue. It’s women’s rights once again. Good grief, when will society advance and acknowledge women want “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” just as much as men.
I too am a SINGLE issue voter on this subject. I was a Democrat for forever. I left the Dems over this very issue.
This. And there are very very many. And Dems say it isn’t so. They say we have to concentrate on the “really important” issues.
I get it. Trump is nuts. Self aggrandising. Narcissistic. Dumb as a rock. Misogynistic. Etc.
But you better wake up to the fact that this trumps Trump.
This trumps Trump.
Get that. It won’t go way.
It won’t wither and die under your savvy street smart wisecracks.
Political refugee is one of very very many.
Wake the fuck up.
Thank you Political Refugee!
The notion that transqueer cultists put any weight at all on the methods of science is, I believe, false. And therefore dangerous.
The transqueer cultists' belief that "trans women ARE women" is the same as a Catholic's belief that "consecrated communion wafers ARE the body of Christ". It is a religious belief that is not subject to refutation by any sort of scientific evaluation. IIRC, the biologist PZ Myers once did a chemical analysis of a consecrated communion wafer, and (of course) found that it was indistinguishable from an unconsecrated communion wafer. All he got for his trouble was a bunch of pissed-off Catholics yelling at him. None of them changed their religious beliefs.
Conclusion: science and logic and reason are rarely effective against religious beliefs.
The only thing that works is keeping political power out of the hands of religious cultists. We saw that clearly in the SCOTUS decision, where Justices appointed by Presidents from the Sex Realist Party voted unanimously in favor of women's rights, while Justices appointed by Presidents from the Tranqueer Cult Party voted unanimously in favor of men's privileges (never "rights", never ever "rights"!).
I think the lesson for women's rights activists is very clear, though it seems that few of us are willing to face up to it and start taking the necessary actions.
(Action number one would be to work to keep Susan Collins in office in Maine, rather than allow her to replaced by a male transqueer cultist with a Nazi tattoo. Somehow a lot of TERFs seem neutral on this, which boggles my mind.)
While this SC decision does not force the 23 states that organize sports around gender identity to stop dping that, this decision made it apparent that doing so is a conscious choice to violate girls' Title IX rights.
And then developmental biologist PZ Myers drank the trans KoolAid.
What a colossal bell end.
Ouch, I'd forgotten about that! Sad.
Susan Collins or a trans Nazi? Those are some slim pickin's up there. Surely we can do better than this lot we have now!?
No, we can't do any better. That's the point. Those are the two major-party nominees. One of them WILL be the next Senator from Maine. It will either be Sex Realist Susan Collins or Transqueer Cultist Graham Platner.
And if the Transqueer Cult Party gets a majority in the Senate, they will block all of Trump's Sex Realist nominees for federal judges.
This is the realpolitik that we have to deal with.
You can either close your eyes to it, let others decide your future for you, or you can help make one or the other of these two futures, Sex Realist or Transqueer Cultist, come into being.
"....a male transqueer cultist with a Nazi tattoo. Somehow a lot of TERFs seem neutral on this, which boggles my mind.)"
I haven't read anything from any Terven that they favor a Nazi-tattooed male sexual assaulter. Susan Collins is fairly innocuous for a Republican.
Find me a TERF who explicitly endores Collins. AFAIK, no such person exists. And if you're not endorsing, then you are neutral by definition.
Being against Collins is hardly being neutral.
More than a few of the Terven who have previously voted Democratic have recently voted Republican instead because they are single-issue voters or because this issue is so important.
Great! We need more the Terven to do that.
Someone has to turn Sotomayor’s comments into a stage show. Absolutely hilarious: “BPJ would have been eligible had he been identified female”.
Comedic gold!
The jokes really do write themselves.
Amazing article. Thank you🙏🏼❤️
Fun fact: I tried to forward my email version of this but the “Outlook postmaster” kicked it back saying it was undeliverable because it was identified as spam. I got around that by forwarding it to another email on a different platform that let me forward it on to my family and friends.
To the transzie troll out there who attempted to prevent me from giving this a bit more exposure… a big fck u.
Foiled again. 🤣😂
Sarah, I couldn't wait to read your response to the court's decision and you have surpassed my expectations! The mainstream networks and even MSNow hardly addressed the decision and glossed over its importance to half the population - women - because they have been put to shame in their one-sided coverage. The New York Times has yet to publish any comprehensive review of the actual science that underpins the recognition of the reality of sex and sex differences. Your pointing out how in too many cases the only information decision-makers had was from radical transgender activists and those whose pseudo science supported their lack of actual scientific fact was an important observation. And finally, your evisceration of Sotomayor and her mumbo jumbo nonsense, which I forced myself to read, was right on and an embarrassment to the Supreme Court itself as was Justice Jackson's refusal to define what a woman is in her confirmation hearing and her own lame arguments in this case. Although Kavanaugh has made some awful decisions with no eloquent or even justifiable legal grounding as in his execrable racial profiling decision his arguments in this case were stellar. So thanks, Sarah, for your continuing excellent coverage of this issue!
I'm casting around thinking, has anyone actually read this thing -- the decision, I mean? Jackson could not say what a woman is, but is somehow not ashamed to write in a SC opinion that a boy is a girl?!!
Agree. Since Jackson isn't a biologist (her own admission) she should damn well listen to biologists on (1) the definition of sex, and (2) the evidence for male advantage before puberty.
(eyeroll)
Yes, I couldn't believe that in her confirmation hearings it was probably a republican senator who asked her if she could define what a woman is and she refused to say as I remember, just dissembled the way she and Sotomayor did in their ridiculous dissents for this decision.
Wow. Yes. All of it.
And to think that Sotomayor had the audacity to call herself a “wise Latina”. Her arguments and associated lack of evidence to back up her ridiculous arguments at the level of SCOTUS is frankly embarrassing.
The 'right' male trans people demand is the right to decide when women and girls matter. Which is: only of it doesn't bother them or goes against a man's wishes.
Bingo in 2 sentences!
Brilliant, Sarah. I’m glad you took the time to read those opinions (so we don’t have to) as you’ve now put an eloquently informed nail on the coffin that contains all the other analyses I’ve read. They were satisfying but yours is more so.
Thanks! I know--I too kind of lose my will to live when faced with a 40-page legal decision or academic paper or like every single tab on a website, but every time, every fucking time, I am rewarded with the most outrageous, stupid stuff. I mean, A Supreme Court justice writing, like she's making a killer point, that if BPJ had been "observed" female at birth, he would have been able to compete in girls' sports. Yeeeeees, and?
Thank you for your coverage of this!
A small side not, since you mentioned Nikki Hiltz: according to an article in the Athletic published yesterday, Nikki identifies as they/them and as non-binary. Of course, the article was absurdly written in order to obscure all basic facts in support of gender ideology. BUT, Nikki did specifically say "not trans" and "non-binary."
Nikki is a super talented super confused gal. She first came out as nonbinary, then trans nonbinary (whatever that is). The contradictions are so thick--for a nonbinary person her actions are about as binary as you can get. She vehemently rejects the reality of her female sex, has had what little breasts she had chopped off, and has spoken publicly about how she can't wait til her competitive career is over so she can take testosterone and grow a beard. Yet she is keenly aware she would have no career were it not for a protected female category
Yeah, it did seem odd to me that she says she disagrees with the SCOTUS ruling, and yet we all know why she's never tried to compete in the men's category.
Yes, that article was infuriating. The basic premise was that because Hiltz is trans and is allowed to compete in women’s events, all “trans athletes” should be allowed to compete, as if there’s no difference between Hiltz and Lia Thomas.
Sarah, I personally 100% agree with your arguments.
But we should be clearly aware of who doesn't.
To see who doesn't, Google
do medical associations consider "transgender women" to be women.
Therein lies the problem.
I should be clearer. I don't see where they disagree with your statements about sex based differences in physical ability. But they have bought into the (in my opinion, loony) argument that gender-identity trumps sex in determining who is a man or woman. With all that entails.
"East Buttwhistle Elementary. . burps up"
🤣🤣