- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Opinions on the direction SCOTUS is leaning on boys play women's sports
Posted on 1/14/26 at 12:56 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 1/14/26 at 12:56 am to SlowFlowPro
SFP is hoping beyond hope that he will get to continue to beat up on girls.
1
Posted on 1/14/26 at 1:12 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision,
This is so retarded , just another example of the court lighting its credibility on fire.
The fact someone could be so stupid as to write that , read it, and not recognize the complete intellectual failure questions that persons qualification to deliver mail for the government much less preside over legal cases of national consequence.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 2:03 am to bigjoe1
quote:Please! Roberts know trans wackos will come out of the woodwork, filled with rage, and shoot up some kids. He'll give in to them, just like he did re: election standing in 2020, and just like he did with ObamaCare.
observers that think Roberts and the majority will ban tranny males from women's sports.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 5:59 am to Jjdoc
The only question is how far they will rule.
They could if some chicken out leave it up to states.
If they go bold then everything women only actually means women only.
They could if some chicken out leave it up to states.
If they go bold then everything women only actually means women only.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 6:15 am to CAD703X
quote:
No way the sane members of the court are going to let boys continue to beat up on girls.
We need to know what a girl is first
Posted on 1/14/26 at 7:37 am to John somers
quote:
SFP is hoping beyond hope that he will get to continue to beat up on girls.
Quite retarded. I'm 100% opposed to trans athletes competing and have been an unequivocal and unflinching proponent of going back to the division between sex an gender, which leftists combined some time ago and got us to this silliness.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 7:39 am to JimEverett
quote:
There is a chance that you get enough justices to determine that the laws in question discriminate on the basis of sex because only females will have their biological status checked. But that seems to me unlikely.
The Equal Protection claim is the big one - and given the recent gender affirming treatment for kids case, I don't see this Court making trans a protected status.
My main point is that Gorsuch and Roberts already ignored the plain text meaning of "sex" with that prior case, to do the stupid combining of sex and gender, which is how that terrible ruling came about. The same "logic" could be applied in this case, as Gorsuch already admitted in the prior case.
Basically all of this gets fixed, at least on the federal level, if the court goes back to the pre-Leftist merge and separates "sex" (a biological trait) and "gender" (a sociological trait). The laws say sex, so they should rely on the biological meaning of "sex".
This post was edited on 1/14/26 at 7:41 am
Posted on 1/14/26 at 7:42 am to goatmilker
quote:
Eminent Domain and criminalized emotions anything is possible.
Citizens United as well
Posted on 1/14/26 at 7:45 am to boogiewoogie1978
quote:
Citizens United as well
What a leftist take
Posted on 1/14/26 at 7:50 am to LSUbest
It should be the easiest 9-0 vote ever….but it won’t :(
Posted on 1/14/26 at 7:57 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
"They say sex-segregated bathrooms, locker rooms, and dress codes will prove unsustainable after our decision today but none of these other laws are before us; we have not had the benefit of adversarial testing about the meaning of their terms, and we do not prejudge any such question today."
JFC - well he certainly foreshadowed the eminent abomination that is before them now because they refuse to do the correct thing at the appropriate time
I do not see a way around this without either ruining women's sports or rewriting the law admitting to their mistake which do you think will take place
ETA: the very simple response would be a determination between sex of which there are two and gender and that the laws only apply to sex and not gender
This post was edited on 1/14/26 at 8:00 am
Posted on 1/14/26 at 7:58 am to Jjdoc
I've long been concerned about the direction our judicial system is taking. There comes a point where dliberations are based on bad law. Allowing transgender athletes to participate in women's sports is absurd. This shouldn't even be up for consideration in SCOTUS.
Transgenderism is wrong, it's disordered, and pure evil.
Transgenderism is wrong, it's disordered, and pure evil.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 7:58 am to bigjoe1
quote:
observers that think Roberts and the majority will ban tranny males from women's sports.
They certainly will not. But they probably will uphold state laws that do so.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 8:19 am to GeorgePaton
quote:
I've long been concerned about the direction our judicial system is taking. T
There is a very long history of our court doing really stupid things including Dred Scott, Korematsu, Roe and then having to correct their stupidity
Posted on 1/14/26 at 8:27 am to dafif
Mark Levin did a great expose' of Judicial absurdity in his book "Men in Black". Really sickening stuff.
Morally bankrupt democrat judges deliberating on bad law always results in disaster.
Thus we see the rise of Lawfare.
Morally bankrupt democrat judges deliberating on bad law always results in disaster.
Thus we see the rise of Lawfare.
This post was edited on 1/14/26 at 8:37 am
Posted on 1/14/26 at 8:31 am to dafif
quote:
ETA: the very simple response would be a determination between sex of which there are two and gender and that the laws only apply to sex and not gender
To be more precise, federal laws that say "sex" only mean "sex". I don't think there are any federal laws with the statutory language using "gender"
States can do what they want
And yes, the solution is to separate the concepts. The left merging the concepts is what led to this insanity and separating them solves the issues. It's literally that simple. The gender people can have infinite genders that mean nothing in normal society, and all the laws written using "sex" to mean biological sex, can work as they were intended.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 9:16 am to MMauler
quote:
Shouldn't Justice Affirmative Action Jackson be REQUIRED to recuse herself from considering this lawsuit? She’s already admitted that she cannot tell the difference between a man and a woman. She cannot even define what a woman is. Therefore, how in the f*ck can she possibly render a non-biased and logical decision in this case?
I listened to the argument. The argument for the trans side was that the word "sex" in Title IX doesn't have a meaning, doesn't need to have a meaning, and doesn't mean biological sex. So, the statute says you can't discriminate based on sex but we don't know and don't need to know what sex means.
I'm not kidding or exaggerating.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 9:23 am to SlowFlowPro
Gender has no basis of biological science and thus has no finite determination. Biological sex is finite, race is finite, heritage is finite, etc. I do not see how SCOTUS does not end the use of gender as a legal class in their opinion. It is way to subjective, solely based on emotions and feeling that can change over time to be used in a legal precedent for any purpose.
This post was edited on 1/14/26 at 9:33 am
Posted on 1/14/26 at 9:34 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
And yes, the solution is to separate the concepts. The left merging the concepts is what led to this insanity and separating them solves the issues. It's literally that simple. The gender people can have infinite genders that mean nothing in normal society, and all the laws written using "sex" to mean biological sex, can work as they were intended.
All I can think of is the judge in My Cousin Vinny : "That was a lucid , intelligent well thought out answer - Denied!
Posted on 1/14/26 at 9:56 am to SloaneRanger
quote:
Will they ban it? Or will they say it is ok for states to ban it? Big difference. I honestly haven’t been paying attention.
They will say it is okay for states to ban it.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News