During oral argument at the Supreme Court this week, in a case where the >Court will decide the fate of state laws barring males from competing in >women's sports, Justice Alito asked a perfectly reasonable and logical >question of the attorney representing the transformers:
ALITO: For purposes of Equal Protection, for the 14th Amendment analysis, >what does it mean to be a boy or a girl?"
After a lot of stammering and hedging, the attorney replied, "We do not
have a definition for the Court."
So basically, Alito asked "What is a woman?" and (much like Ketanji Jackson in >her confirmation hearing) a Harvard Law School-educated attorney standing >before the Supreme Court of the United States simply can't tell you what a >woman is. The official position of the transformer community apparently is, >"No one really knows what a woman is. It's a mystery for the ages."
Thankfully, it seems the Supreme Court is preparing to end this nonsense and >uphold the state laws trying to eradicate this lunacy.
Thankfully, it seems the Supreme Court is preparing to end this nonsense and uphold the state laws trying to eradicate this lunacy.
Yeah, ok, that's the wrong question. This is the case about whether the
Idaho state law complies with Title IX, right? For the purpose of Title IX, if we rule that the law protects men competing with women, how have women
not been discriminated against and denied the equal protection of the law?
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.
"on the basis of sex" may not protect a dude who claims to be a woman.
did ahk@chinet.com deliver unto us this message:
Yeah, ok, that's the wrong question. This is the case about whether the >>Idaho state law complies with Title IX, right?
For the purpose of Title IX, if we rule that the law protects men
competing with women, how have women not been discriminated against
and denied the equal protection of the law?
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.
"on the basis of sex" may not protect a dude who claims to be a woman.
Obama sent around an order that "sex," in Title IX, should be
interpreted to mean gender identity. Since he was the Chief Executive,
he got to do that. Many pointed out that XX persons no longer had any >protection, but few cared.
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
During oral argument at the Supreme Court this week, in a case where the
Court will decide the fate of state laws barring males from competing in
women's sports, Justice Alito asked a perfectly reasonable and logical
question of the attorney representing the transformers:
ALITO: For purposes of Equal Protection, for the 14th Amendment analysis,
what does it mean to be a boy or a girl?"
Yeah, ok, that's the wrong question. This is the case about whether the
Idaho state law complies with Title IX, right?
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
did ahk@chinet.com deliver unto us this message:
Yeah, ok, that's the wrong question. This is the case about whether the
Idaho state law complies with Title IX, right?
I looked it up. It's the Idaho case and the West Virginia case. Also, the Idaho case is the equal protection case with regard to gender identity and Title IX with regard to invasive sex verification procedures to implement
the law that apply to female but not male teams. The West Virginia case
is the Title IX case discriminating against the trans female athlete on
the basis of sex.
Little v. Hecox (Transgender Athletes), West Virginia v. B.P.J.
(Transgender Athletes)
From Amy Howe's description in SCOTUSblog,
Supreme Court appears likely to uphold transgender athlete bans
By Amy Howe
SCOTUSblog
on Jan 13, 2026
https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/01/supreme-court-appears-likely-to-uphold-transgender-athlete-bans/
Idaho adopted its law in 2020; West Virginia followed one year
later. Lindsay Hecox, now 24 years old, went to federal court in
Idaho to challenge that states law. Hecox is a transgender woman
who wanted to be able to try out for the womens track and
cross-country teams at Boise State University; she did not make
those teams but later played club sports.
The West Virginia case was filed by Heather Jackson, the mother
of B.P.J., a now-15-year-old transgender high school student who
has publicly identified as a girl since the third grade. B.P.J.
has taken puberty blockers to prevent the onset of male puberty,
as well as hormone therapy with estrogen.
On Jan 15, 2026 at 5:18:21 AM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
did ahk@chinet.com deliver unto us this message:
Yeah, ok, that's the wrong question. This is the case about whether the >>>> Idaho state law complies with Title IX, right?
I looked it up. It's the Idaho case and the West Virginia case. Also, the
Idaho case is the equal protection case with regard to gender identity and >> Title IX with regard to invasive sex verification procedures to implement
the law that apply to female but not male teams. The West Virginia case
is the Title IX case discriminating against the trans female athlete on
the basis of sex.
Little v. Hecox (Transgender Athletes), West Virginia v. B.P.J.
(Transgender Athletes)
From Amy Howe's description in SCOTUSblog,
Supreme Court appears likely to uphold transgender athlete bans
By Amy Howe
SCOTUSblog
on Jan 13, 2026
https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/01/supreme-court-appears-likely-to-uphold-transgender-athlete-bans/
Idaho adopted its law in 2020; West Virginia followed one year
later. Lindsay Hecox, now 24 years old, went to federal court in
Idaho to challenge that states law. Hecox is a transgender woman
who wanted to be able to try out for the womens track and
cross-country teams at Boise State University; she did not make
those teams but later played club sports.
The West Virginia case was filed by Heather Jackson, the mother
of B.P.J., a now-15-year-old transgender high school student who
has publicly identified as a girl since the third grade. B.P.J.
has taken puberty blockers to prevent the onset of male puberty,
as well as hormone therapy with estrogen.
And interestingly, his attorney argued that since he has basically mutilated >himself to such an extent that he's now no stronger than the average girl, he >should be given dispensation to compete as one.
They're basically arguing that "female" is just a diminished and weaker >version of "male".
During oral argument at the Supreme Court this week, in a case where the Court
will decide the fate of state laws barring males from competing in women's sports, Justice Alito asked a perfectly reasonable and logical question of the
attorney representing the transformers:
ALITO: For purposes of Equal Protection, for the 14th Amendment analysis, what
does it mean to be a boy or a girl?"
After a lot of stammering and hedging, the attorney replied, "We do not have a
definition for the Court."
So basically, Alito asked "What is a woman?" and (much like Ketanji Jackson in
her confirmation hearing) a Harvard Law School-educated attorney standing before the Supreme Court of the United States simply can't tell you what a woman is. The official position of the transformer community apparently is, "No one really knows what a woman is. It's a mystery for the ages."
Thankfully, it seems the Supreme Court is preparing to end this nonsense and uphold the state laws trying to eradicate this lunacy.
On 1/14/2026 10:46 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
During oral argument at the Supreme Court this week, in a case where the
Court
will decide the fate of state laws barring males from competing in women's >> sports, Justice Alito asked a perfectly reasonable and logical question of >> the
attorney representing the transformers:
ALITO: For purposes of Equal Protection, for the 14th Amendment analysis, >> what
does it mean to be a boy or a girl?"
After a lot of stammering and hedging, the attorney replied, "We do not
have a
definition for the Court."
So basically, Alito asked "What is a woman?" and (much like Ketanji Jackson >> in
her confirmation hearing) a Harvard Law School-educated attorney standing >> before the Supreme Court of the United States simply can't tell you what a >> woman is. The official position of the transformer community apparently is, >> "No one really knows what a woman is. It's a mystery for the ages."
Thankfully, it seems the Supreme Court is preparing to end this nonsense and
uphold the state laws trying to eradicate this lunacy.
That community is right: no one knows what a woman "is".
On Jan 15, 2026 at 2:06:48 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/14/2026 10:46 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
During oral argument at the Supreme Court this week, in a case where the >>> Court
will decide the fate of state laws barring males from competing in women's
sports, Justice Alito asked a perfectly reasonable and logical question of
the
attorney representing the transformers:
ALITO: For purposes of Equal Protection, for the 14th Amendment analysis, >>> what
does it mean to be a boy or a girl?"
After a lot of stammering and hedging, the attorney replied, "We do not >>> have a
definition for the Court."
So basically, Alito asked "What is a woman?" and (much like Ketanji Jackson
in
her confirmation hearing) a Harvard Law School-educated attorney standing >>> before the Supreme Court of the United States simply can't tell you what a
woman is. The official position of the transformer community apparently is,
"No one really knows what a woman is. It's a mystery for the ages."
Thankfully, it seems the Supreme Court is preparing to end this nonsense and
uphold the state laws trying to eradicate this lunacy.
That community is right: no one knows what a woman "is".
Yes, we do. We've known since mankind pulled himself upright and started walking on two legs. Hell, it was known even before that. No other species in the entire biosphere seems to suffer such confusion. All other sexually dimorphic creatures on earth can tell which among them are male and which are female. Only Homo sapiens seem confused and only then just in the last decade or so.
On 1/15/2026 6:22 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jan 15, 2026 at 2:06:48 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>
On 1/14/2026 10:46 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
During oral argument at the Supreme Court this week, in a case where the
Court
will decide the fate of state laws barring males from competing in women's
sports, Justice Alito asked a perfectly reasonable and logical question of
the
attorney representing the transformers:
ALITO: For purposes of Equal Protection, for the 14th Amendment analysis,
what
does it mean to be a boy or a girl?"
After a lot of stammering and hedging, the attorney replied, "We do not >>>> have a
definition for the Court."
So basically, Alito asked "What is a woman?" and (much like Ketanji >>>> Jackson
in
her confirmation hearing) a Harvard Law School-educated attorney standing
before the Supreme Court of the United States simply can't tell you what a
woman is. The official position of the transformer community apparently >>>> is,
"No one really knows what a woman is. It's a mystery for the ages." >>>>
Thankfully, it seems the Supreme Court is preparing to end this
nonsense and
uphold the state laws trying to eradicate this lunacy.
That community is right: no one knows what a woman "is".
Yes, we do. We've known since mankind pulled himself upright and started
walking on two legs. Hell, it was known even before that. No other species >> in
the entire biosphere seems to suffer such confusion. All other sexually
dimorphic creatures on earth can tell which among them are male and which >> are
female. Only Homo sapiens seem confused and only then just in the last
decade
or so.
So you can say what a woman is? Please do.
On Jan 15, 2026 at 3:33:58 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/15/2026 6:22 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jan 15, 2026 at 2:06:48 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>
On 1/14/2026 10:46 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
During oral argument at the Supreme Court this week, in a case where the
Court
will decide the fate of state laws barring males from competing in women's
sports, Justice Alito asked a perfectly reasonable and logical question of
the
attorney representing the transformers:
ALITO: For purposes of Equal Protection, for the 14th Amendment analysis,
what
does it mean to be a boy or a girl?"
After a lot of stammering and hedging, the attorney replied, "We do not
have a
definition for the Court."
So basically, Alito asked "What is a woman?" and (much like Ketanji >>>>> Jackson
in
her confirmation hearing) a Harvard Law School-educated attorney standing
before the Supreme Court of the United States simply can't tell you what a
woman is. The official position of the transformer community apparently
is,
"No one really knows what a woman is. It's a mystery for the ages." >>>>>
Thankfully, it seems the Supreme Court is preparing to end this
nonsense and
uphold the state laws trying to eradicate this lunacy.
That community is right: no one knows what a woman "is".
Yes, we do. We've known since mankind pulled himself upright and started >>> walking on two legs. Hell, it was known even before that. No other species
in
the entire biosphere seems to suffer such confusion. All other sexually >>> dimorphic creatures on earth can tell which among them are male and which >>> are
female. Only Homo sapiens seem confused and only then just in the last >>> decade
or so.
So you can say what a woman is? Please do.
An adult female member of the species Homo sapiens sapiens, characterized by double X chromosomes and a physiology purposed toward bearing young.
On 1/15/2026 10:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jan 15, 2026 at 3:33:58 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>
On 1/15/2026 6:22 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jan 15, 2026 at 2:06:48 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/14/2026 10:46 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
During oral argument at the Supreme Court this week, in a case where the
Court
will decide the fate of state laws barring males from competing in >>>>>> women's
sports, Justice Alito asked a perfectly reasonable and logical >>>>>> question of
the
attorney representing the transformers:
ALITO: For purposes of Equal Protection, for the 14th Amendment >>>>>> analysis,
what
does it mean to be a boy or a girl?"
After a lot of stammering and hedging, the attorney replied, "We do not
have a
definition for the Court."
So basically, Alito asked "What is a woman?" and (much like Ketanji >>>>>> Jackson
in
her confirmation hearing) a Harvard Law School-educated attorney >>>>>> standing
before the Supreme Court of the United States simply can't tell you >>>>>> what a
woman is. The official position of the transformer community apparently
is,
"No one really knows what a woman is. It's a mystery for the ages." >>>>>>
Thankfully, it seems the Supreme Court is preparing to end this >>>>>> nonsense and
uphold the state laws trying to eradicate this lunacy.
That community is right: no one knows what a woman "is".
Yes, we do. We've known since mankind pulled himself upright and started
walking on two legs. Hell, it was known even before that. No other species
in
the entire biosphere seems to suffer such confusion. All other sexually >>>> dimorphic creatures on earth can tell which among them are male and which
are
female. Only Homo sapiens seem confused and only then just in the last >>>> decade
or so.
So you can say what a woman is? Please do.
An adult female member of the species Homo sapiens sapiens, characterized by
double X chromosomes and a physiology purposed toward bearing young.
Well, your reference to 'female' already begs the question. So does "purposed". with its presumption of (divine?) authority.
Basically, you're appealing to common sense ...
which is fine until
you're confronted by monetarily motivated borderline instances.
During oral argument at the Supreme Court this week, in a case where the >Court will decide the fate of state laws barring males from competing in >women's sports, Justice Alito asked a perfectly reasonable and logical >question of the attorney representing the transformers:
ALITO: For purposes of Equal Protection, for the 14th Amendment analysis, >what does it mean to be a boy or a girl?"
After a lot of stammering and hedging, the attorney replied, "We do not have >a definition for the Court."
So basically, Alito asked "What is a woman?" and (much like Ketanji Jackson >in her confirmation hearing) a Harvard Law School-educated attorney standing >before the Supreme Court of the United States simply can't tell you what a >woman is. The official position of the transformer community apparently is, >"No one really knows what a woman is. It's a mystery for the ages."
On 1/14/2026 10:46 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
During oral argument at the Supreme Court this week, in a case where the Court
will decide the fate of state laws barring males from competing in women's >> sports, Justice Alito asked a perfectly reasonable and logical question of the
attorney representing the transformers:
ALITO: For purposes of Equal Protection, for the 14th Amendment analysis, what
does it mean to be a boy or a girl?"
After a lot of stammering and hedging, the attorney replied, "We do not have a
definition for the Court."
So basically, Alito asked "What is a woman?" and (much like Ketanji Jackson in
her confirmation hearing) a Harvard Law School-educated attorney standing
before the Supreme Court of the United States simply can't tell you what a >> woman is. The official position of the transformer community apparently is, >> "No one really knows what a woman is. It's a mystery for the ages."
Thankfully, it seems the Supreme Court is preparing to end this nonsense and >> uphold the state laws trying to eradicate this lunacy.
That community is right: no one knows what a woman "is".
On Jan 15, 2026 at 2:06:48 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
That community is right: no one knows what a woman "is".
Yes, we do. We've known since mankind pulled himself upright and started >walking on two legs. Hell, it was known even before that. No other species in >the entire biosphere seems to suffer such confusion. All other sexually >dimorphic creatures on earth can tell which among them are male and which are >female. Only Homo sapiens seem confused and only then just in the last decade >or so.
An adult female member of the species Homo sapiens sapiens, characterized by
double X chromosomes and a physiology purposed toward bearing young.
Well, your reference to 'female' already begs the question.
Jan 15, 2026 at 3:33:58 PM PST, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
. . .
So you can say what a woman is? Please do.
An adult female member of the species Homo sapiens sapiens, characterized by >double X chromosomes and a physiology purposed toward bearing young.
On Jan 15, 2026 at 8:27:42 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/15/2026 10:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jan 15, 2026 at 3:33:58 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>
On 1/15/2026 6:22 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jan 15, 2026 at 2:06:48 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 1/14/2026 10:46 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
During oral argument at the Supreme Court this week, in a case where the
Court
will decide the fate of state laws barring males from competing in
women's
sports, Justice Alito asked a perfectly reasonable and logical >>>>>>> question of
the
attorney representing the transformers:
ALITO: For purposes of Equal Protection, for the 14th Amendment >>>>>>> analysis,
what
does it mean to be a boy or a girl?"
After a lot of stammering and hedging, the attorney replied, "We do not
have a
definition for the Court."
So basically, Alito asked "What is a woman?" and (much like Ketanji
Jackson
in
her confirmation hearing) a Harvard Law School-educated attorney >>>>>>> standing
before the Supreme Court of the United States simply can't tell you
what a
woman is. The official position of the transformer community apparently
is,
"No one really knows what a woman is. It's a mystery for the ages."
Thankfully, it seems the Supreme Court is preparing to end this >>>>>>> nonsense and
uphold the state laws trying to eradicate this lunacy.
That community is right: no one knows what a woman "is".
Yes, we do. We've known since mankind pulled himself upright and started
walking on two legs. Hell, it was known even before that. No other species
in
the entire biosphere seems to suffer such confusion. All other sexually
dimorphic creatures on earth can tell which among them are male and which
are
female. Only Homo sapiens seem confused and only then just in the last
decade
or so.
So you can say what a woman is? Please do.
An adult female member of the species Homo sapiens sapiens, characterized by
double X chromosomes and a physiology purposed toward bearing young.
Well, your reference to 'female' already begs the question. So does
"purposed". with its presumption of (divine?) authority.
Things can be naturally purposed in the sense of evolutionary function. No appeal to an invisible sky tyrant required.
Basically, you're appealing to common sense ...
And that's surely the last thing we want to be doing, amirite?
which is fine until
you're confronted by monetarily motivated borderline instances.
Verily, in article <10kcenu$1b8jc$2@dont-email.me>, did
nobody@nowhere.com deliver unto us this message:
An adult female member of the species Homo sapiens sapiens, characterized by
double X chromosomes and a physiology purposed toward bearing young.
Well, your reference to 'female' already begs the question.
He already embedded a definition of "female": "characterized by
double X chromosomes and a physiology purposed toward bearing young."
You're assuming that evolution has a purpose, whereas a dyed-in-the-wool atheist would allege that it simply happens, like gravity.
On 1/16/2026 6:30 AM, The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <10kcenu$1b8jc$2@dont-email.me>, did
nobody@nowhere.com deliver unto us this message:
An adult female member of the species Homo sapiens sapiens, characterized by
double X chromosomes and a physiology purposed toward bearing young.
Well, your reference to 'female' already begs the question.
He already embedded a definition of "female": "characterized by
double X chromosomes and a physiology purposed toward bearing young."
I took those to be litmus tests at best, not a definition. E.g., is the double-X chromosome threshold airtight?
Verily, in article <10kdtcq$1s955$2@dont-email.me>, did
nobody@nowhere.com deliver unto us this message:
You're assuming that evolution has a purpose, whereas a dyed-in-the-wool
atheist would allege that it simply happens, like gravity.
"Purpose" doesn't imply design. For instance, the purpose of eyelids is
to sweep debris from our eyes and distribute moisture. That doesn't mean someone built them with deliberate intention. It also doesn't mean it
just happened at random.
Verily, in article <10kdtm2$1s955$3@dont-email.me>, did
nobody@nowhere.com deliver unto us this message:
On 1/16/2026 6:30 AM, The True Melissa wrote:
Verily, in article <10kcenu$1b8jc$2@dont-email.me>, did
nobody@nowhere.com deliver unto us this message:
An adult female member of the species Homo sapiens sapiens, characterized by
double X chromosomes and a physiology purposed toward bearing young.
Well, your reference to 'female' already begs the question.
He already embedded a definition of "female": "characterized by
double X chromosomes and a physiology purposed toward bearing young."
I took those to be litmus tests at best, not a definition. E.g., is the
double-X chromosome threshold airtight?
The traditional definition is by reproductive role, not by chromosomes.
We were able to distinguish male and female long before anyone knew chromosomes existed.
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 15 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 174:52:53 |
| Calls: | 188 |
| Files: | 21,502 |
| Messages: | 80,045 |