re: Opinions on the direction SCOTUS is leaning on boys play women's sports

quote:

---

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.

---

You pointed out that Gorsuch and Roberts did not differentiate for the purposes of a Title VII discrimination claim. The issue with Title VII is that you cannot discriminate on the basis of sex in employment. Taking sex as meaning "biological sex" that means there can be no consideration of biological sex in taking an adverse action against someone in an employment setting.
Not that I necessarily agree or disagree with it - but the argument here is that discrimination against a person for being gay or trans relies, in part, on biological sex. It is not merging concepts; it is taking the Title VII legislation on its face as prohibiting any use whatsoever of biological sex in making an adverse employment decision.

That causation standard does not really follow in Equal Protection cases nor does it seem relevant in the Title IX claims in this trans case.

It is potentially even more simple than that

I would've asked a question why can't a boy play in a girls sport

To not allow a boy to play in a girl sport is pure sex discrimination is it not

And that is the end of title nine