- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
Opinions on the direction SCOTUS is leaning on boys play women's sports
Posted on 1/13/26 at 3:12 pm
Posted on 1/13/26 at 3:12 pm
If you listened? What gives you hope they will reign this in?
12
Posted on 1/13/26 at 3:13 pm to Jjdoc
If they buy this garbage, Title 9 becomes meaningless.
They will protect Title 9.
They will protect Title 9.
Posted on 1/13/26 at 3:17 pm to Jjdoc
After the SCOTUS empowered
Eminent Domain and criminalized emotions anything is possible.
Eminent Domain and criminalized emotions anything is possible.
Posted on 1/13/26 at 3:19 pm to Jjdoc
Didn't listen but have seen a few articles from observers that think Roberts and the majority will ban tranny males from women's sports.
Posted on 1/13/26 at 3:20 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
Opinions on the direction SCOTUS is leaning on boys play women's sports
They will side with the states, the tranny bans remain in place.
Posted on 1/13/26 at 3:21 pm to Jjdoc
No way the sane members of the court are going to let boys continue to beat up on girls.
Posted on 1/13/26 at 3:22 pm to Jjdoc
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?
Posted on 1/13/26 at 3:24 pm to Jjdoc
Very hopeful they rule that males with mental illness can't play in women's sports.
Posted on 1/13/26 at 3:25 pm 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
Ironically, when she said that she accidentally agreed with Conservatives when she said "I'm not a biologist" indicating that biology is in fact the determining factor.
Posted on 1/13/26 at 3:29 pm to moneyg
Alito says, "how can you allege discrimination based on sex if you cannot even define what sex is?" 
Posted on 1/13/26 at 3:31 pm to Jjdoc
They protect Title 9. Affirmative Action Jackson will be the lone vote against it.
Posted on 1/13/26 at 3:34 pm to Jjdoc
Oral arguments were interesting and unbelievable at times. The fact this case is even at the United States Supreme Court is preposterous.
My prediction is 6-3 ban, maybe 5-4, depending on how compromised Roberts is.
My prediction is 6-3 ban, maybe 5-4, depending on how compromised Roberts is.
Posted on 1/13/26 at 3:36 pm to Deplorableinohio
I believe that more often than not, its going to be 5-4 simply based on common sense. ACB is now the wildcard and seems to swing things.
Posted on 1/13/26 at 4:07 pm to bigjoe1
quote:
Didn't listen but have seen a few articles from observers that think Roberts and the majority will ban tranny males from women's sports.
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.
Posted on 1/13/26 at 4:12 pm to CAD703X
quote:
No way the sane members of the court are going to let boys continue to beat up on girls.
Bostock v. Clayton County says not so fast my friend:
quote:
Justice Neil Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court in this case on June 15, 2020.[31] In a 6–3 decision, the Court held that Title VII protections pursuant to § 2000e-2(a)(1) did extend to cover sexual orientation and gender identity. The decision then involved the statutory interpretation of Title VII (specifically the original meaning of "sex"),[32] not constitutional law as in other recent landmark cases involving the rights of LGBTQ individuals such as Obergefell v. Hodges.[33][34] The Court further held that Title VII protections against sex discrimination in the employment context apply to discrimination against particular individuals on the basis of sex, as opposed to discrimination against groups.[35] Thus, Title VII provides a remedy to individuals who experience discrimination on the basis of sex even if an employer's policy on the whole does not involve discrimination. Gorsuch wrote:
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, exactly what Title VII forbids. Those who adopted the Civil Rights Act might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result. But the limits of the drafters' imagination supply no reason to ignore the law's demands. Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit
In his opinion, Gorsuch wrote, "it is irrelevant what an employer might call its discriminatory practice, how others might label it, or what else might motivate it."[32] He referenced Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp., in which a company refused to hire women with young children; and City of L.A. Dep't of Water & Power v. Manhart, in which an employer required women to make larger pension fund contributions than did men, on the premise that women on average live longer than men do. Both cases violated Title VII, and Gorsuch wrote, "just as labels and additional intentions or motivations didn't make a difference in Manhart or Phillips, they cannot make a difference here."[32]
Gorsuch's decision also alluded to concerns that the judgment may set a sweeping precedent that would force gender equality on traditional practices. "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."
They already had a bite at this apple and ignored the clear statutory meaning of "sex".
This post was edited on 1/13/26 at 4:13 pm
Posted on 1/13/26 at 4:46 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
They already had a bite at this apple and ignored the clear statutory meaning of "sex".
Well then these cases give the court the perfect opportunity to fix this shite.
Posted on 1/13/26 at 5:40 pm to SlowFlowPro
Title VII is not Title IX.
Posted on 1/13/26 at 5:54 pm to SlowFlowPro
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.
The Title IX claims might allow an opening for trans-rights position - where you can have an individualized assessment of whether a trans woman who wants to compete actually has the physical advantages that the laws purport to ban. If not, then it can compete.
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.
The Title IX claims might allow an opening for trans-rights position - where you can have an individualized assessment of whether a trans woman who wants to compete actually has the physical advantages that the laws purport to ban. If not, then it can compete.
Posted on 1/13/26 at 6:23 pm to JimEverett
And again, that opens it up to a local person making decisions.
What science will back the people making the determination? The one that backs what they are promoting.
Studies show that it is not just test that makes a male different. Bone, muscle fibers...etc
What science will back the people making the determination? The one that backs what they are promoting.
Studies show that it is not just test that makes a male different. Bone, muscle fibers...etc
Posted on 1/14/26 at 12:54 am to LSUbest
quote:
They will side with the states, the tranny bans remain in place.
Yep.
Page 1 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News