From Newsgroup: alt.bible.prophecy

https://ethicsalarms.com/2026/07/01/scotus-reaches-the-only-fair-factual-logical-ethical-and-legal-decision-regarding-biological-males-in-womens-sports/


SCOTUS Reaches The Only Fair, Factual, Logical, Ethical, and Legal
Decision Regarding Biological Males in WomenrCOs Sports
July 1, 2026 / Jack Marshall

Late yesterday, while everyone was concentrating on the Supreme CourtrCOs rejection of the PresidentrCOs Executive Order on birthright citizenship,
the Court upheld two state laws barring the participation of biological
males rCLidentifyingrCY as female (a.k.a. rCLtransgender femalesrCY) in girlsrCO
and womenrCOs sports teams. Although the 6-to-3 ruling involved upholding
laws in West Virginia and Idaho, 25 states also restrict biological
males from cheating in womenrCOs sports, and the decision represents a decisive splash of ice water in the faces of those who support one of
the silliest and most unpopular of the Woke LeftrCOs delusions.

Of course it is unfair, dangerous and absurd to allow individuals who
have gone through puberty as males to compete with girls and women in
sports involving strength and speed, and where size and weight are an advantage. That the radical Left insists otherwise (because life ought
to be different than it really is, a prime driver of so much progressive
cant) should be one of the most damning tells on the whole ideology as
well as strong evidence that the Democratic Party has jumped FonzirCOs metaphorical shark. The Democrat-stuffed U.S. Courts of Appeals for the
9th and 4th Circuits struck down sensible rCLno biological males in female sportsrCY laws, but it was inconceivable that their biased and partisan reasoning would prevail at the U.S. Supreme Court. Sure enough, it didnrCOt.

West Virginia v. B.P.J. should have been a unanimous, 9-0 decision, but
the LeftrCOs fealty to the LGBTQLMNOP++ wing of the Democratic party is so strong that the three knee-jerk progressives on the Court just couldnrCOt manage it. Before noting Justice KavanaughrCOs majority opinion which
didnrCOt need a judge, a legal scholar or a lawyer to write, just, you
know, someone reasonablyintelligent with functioning eyes and brain
cells, I have to begin with the Authentic Frontier Gibberish of Justice Jackson. Again. She wrote a remarkable dissent which, perhaps in a
SCOTUS first, makes a persuasive argument for the opinion sherCOs railing against in its incoherence and rCLDonrCOt confuse me with facts my mindrCOs made up!rCY obtuseness. Seriously: what the hell is she babbling about?

rCLBut there is reason to doubt the soundness of the concession that Title IXrCOs reference to rCLsexrCY means only sex assigned at birthrCa.A transgender
woman penalized for being perceived as aggressive has experienced discrimination rCyon the basis of sexrCO just as much as a cis-gender woman has, no matter that the transgender womanrCOs behavior matches
expectations of her sex assigned at birth. Either way, the institution
has imposed its gender-based expectations upon her. And either way, the institution may have violated Title IX. In short, the majority is wrong
to suggest that the term rCysexrCO in Title IX rCy cannot plausibly be interpreted to refer to anything other than biological sex.rCO Title IX
makes room for individuals to live in the gender they choose; it cares
not just about sex assigned at birth but also about individualsrCO ability
to match (or not) their gender presentation to their gender identityrCarCY

No wonder Jackson infamously said in her confirmation hearing that she
could not define what a woman is. After reading that mess, neither can
I. IrCOm not sure I can understand English any more, either.

Shame on Justice Kagan, the one smart and competent member of the LeftrCOs three woman bloc on the Court, for concurring with this drivel. She let
the two dummies, Sotomayor (rCLrCa.the majority, however, inflicts a
hardship on those it disfavors without giving them the fair and full opportunity the Constitution requires to litigate their contentionsrCarCY)
and Jackson carry the water for the indefensible position that a
mediocre male athlete has a right to make himself a star by deciding he
is a she as Kagan quietly rCLconcurs.rCY But Kagan was appointed as the CourtrCOs official lesbian, so she had promises to keep, I suppose.

Now back to the Planet Earth. From SCOTUSblogrCa.

rCLWriting for the court, Kavanaugh made several overarching points.
First, he emphasized, men and women have rCLinherent physical differencesrCY that are rCLrelevant to athletic performancerCY rCo for example, rCLheight, weight, strength, speed, endurance, and jumping ability.rCY As a result of these differences, rCLforcing female athletes to compete against males can create significant safety risksrCY in contact sports. Moreover, he added, rCLin virtually all competitive sports, forcing female athletes to compete against males can undermine competitive fairness.rCY As a result, he said, rCLschools therefore typically maintain separate womenrCOs and menrCOs sports teams.rCY

rCLThese points provided the underpinning for KavanaughrCOs conclusion that the Idaho and West Virginia laws do not violate Title IX or the
Constitution. First, he explained, Title IX bars rCLdiscrimination on the basis of sex,rCY and the regulations that implement the law rCLexpressly permit schools to maintain separate teams for rCymembers of each sex.rCOrCY When both the law and the regulations refer to rCLsex,rCY he wrote, they
mean rCLbiological sex,rCY because that was the rCLordinary meaningrCY of the word when they were enacted in the 1970s. Indeed, he continued, rCLthe
Title IX regulations allowed separate sports teams precisely because of
the biological differences between the sexes.rCY

rCLKavanaugh pushed back against Pepper-JacksonrCOs suggestion that interpreting the regulations to bar transgender women and girls from
womenrCOs and girlsrCO sports teams would not be rCLreasonablerCY and would therefore violate such a requirement imposed by a 1974 amendment to
Title IX. rCLSeparate sports teams for biological males and biological
females are reasonablerCY in light of the differences between men and
women and the effects of those differences, Kavanaugh wrote. And as
evidence of that reasonableness, he noted that rCL27 States, the NCAA,
therCY U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee, and the International
Olympic Committee rCLhave all drawn the same line.rCY

rCLWhether biological males may participate on womenrCOs and girlsrCO sports teams may be a debated policy question. But the legal question for Title
IX purposes is whether West Virginia may limit womenrCOs and girlsrCO sports teams to biological females. As a matter of text and history, West
Virginia may do so,rCY Kavanaugh concluded.

rCLKavanaugh relied on many of the same points in determining that the
Idaho and West Virginia laws do not violate the ConstitutionrCOs guarantee
of equal treatment. Because rCLthe laws limit womenrCOs and girlsrCO sports teams to biological females,rCY Kavanaugh explained, they are subject to a constitutional test known as rCLintermediate scrutiny,rCY which requires the states to show that a classification based on sex rCLis rCysubstantially relatedrCO to achieving an rCyimportantrCO government objective.rCY

rCLBoth statesrCO laws do this, Kavanaugh wrote: the states have rCLinterests in safety and competitive fairness,rCY which they promote by rCLlimiting womenrCOs and girlsrCO sports to biological females.rCY

To which I can only add, rCLDuh!rCY

Addendum: Here is how honest the biased left-leaning media isrCoVoxrCOs commentary on the decision is to maintain that conservatives on the
Supreme Court wonrCOt ever judge progressive litigants fairly. rCLIf yourCOre a liberal, and yourCOre thinking of bringing a case to the Supreme Court, donrCOt,rCY Ezra KleinrCOs Frankenstein Monster says. Again, donrCOt confuse Vox
with facts, its mind is made up. A New York Times/Ipsos poll conducted
last year found that nearly 80% of Americans, including two-thirds of Democrats, opposed allowing transgender women to compete in womenrCOs sportsrCa.because nearly 80% of Americans are not insane.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2