Seriously just wish some men's basketball team at a university just up and decides to all claim to be women and just go play ball and end this thing. However many years that takes.

I thought sex was born with but gender was a construct?

Not what I was expecting, but the number of people at the Supreme Court here to save women’s sports far outnumbers the trans — though the trans side is definitely louder.

Massive showing. pic.twitter.com/BcsN5LabvJ

— Brent Scher (@BrentScher) January 13, 2026

"Democrats for Title 9" on that sign.... you wanna tell them?

Completely agree on the level of ridiculousness of it. I can't believe our country and our world has gone so far off the deep end we are debating men who *checks notes* "identify as women", not biologically, not on a chromosome level, but based on what they feel/think they are…in their own mind so that they can participate in women's sports. It's pure insanity. These people have lost their minds. I tried to listen as well this morning and it seemed just like you said, they're going off on all these side tangents, in the weeds and they are missing the forest for the trees. I had to stop listening to some of these justices. Thanks Mrs Hawg for your input!

Alito asked great questions.

➡️Alito is predictably fiery in a colloquy with ACLU Harnett.

Alito: Can a state ban a boy who simply identifies as a girl, but doesn't take puberty blockers or hormones?
Harnett: Yes.
Alito: So the school CAN discriminate based on transgender status?
Harnett: That student might…

— Sarah Parshall Perry (@SarahPPerry) January 13, 2026

Quote:

---

Alito: Can a state ban a boy who simply identifies as a girl, but doesn't take puberty blockers or hormones?
Harnett: Yes.
Alito: So the school CAN discriminate based on transgender status?
Harnett: That student might get heightened scrutiny, and that scrutiny might be satisfied.

Clearly, Harnett is trying to avoid the scenario that self-proclamation is sufficient for incursion into girls' sports, but in doing so, she wants to court to recognize a separate sub-class of boys who take hormones, ostensibly to eliminate athletic advantages.

I don't think the Court buys this argument.

---

That's assuming facts not in evidence. Hormones always "eliminate" athletic advantages? By the same token they always enhance them too?

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Alito: Can a state ban a boy who simply identifies as a girl, but doesn't take puberty blockers or hormones?
Harnett: Yes.
Alito: So the school CAN discriminate based on transgender status?
Harnett: That student might get heightened scrutiny, and that scrutiny might be satisfied.

Clearly, Harnett is trying to avoid the scenario that self-proclamation is sufficient for incursion into girls' sports, but in doing so, she wants to court to recognize a separate sub-class of boys who take hormones, ostensibly to eliminate athletic advantages.

I don't think the Court buys this argument.

---

That's assuming facts not in evidence. Hormones always "eliminate" athletic advantages? By the same token they always enhance them too?

---

It certainly does not elimanate the advantages. It might reduce them, but you can't remove the advantage (in most major sports) of height, muscle mass, larger cardiovascular capacity, etc.

Quote:

---

It certainly does not elimanate the advantages. It might reduce them, but you can't remove the advantage (in most major sports) of height, muscle mass, larger cardiovascular capacity, etc.

---

So "follow the science"?

Man, if this term ends with a ban on ******s in women's sports AND the further torching of the VRA....libs are going to lose their minds.

🚨 HOLY SMOKES. SCOTUS Justice Sam Alito asks ACLU lawyer "what is a man and a woman?" and they DON'T HAVE A DEFINITION.

Alito's response is perfect.

ALITO: What does it mean to be a man or woman?

ACLU: We do not have a definition for the Court.

ALITO: How can a court… pic.twitter.com/E5C9zX35NN

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) January 13, 2026

How anyone can vote for a Democrat who supports this (99% of them?), completely boggles the mind.

Why do they hate girls so much?

The Supreme Court's conservatives signal they are prepared to side with states that ban transgender athletes from playing on girls' sports teams. Follow live updates: https://t.co/mcIMZBDbBo pic.twitter.com/QiwlCAuBfc

— CNN (@CNN) January 13, 2026

I can't lie to myself and the world anymore:



I'm Cisginger.

will25u said:

---

The Supreme Court's conservatives signal they are prepared to side with states that ban transgender athletes from playing on girls' sports teams. Follow live updates: https://t.co/mcIMZBDbBo pic.twitter.com/QiwlCAuBfc

— CNN (@CNN) January 13, 2026

---

Hopefully it happens, but I still don't trust Gorsuch or Roberts since they already went squishy once on a similar case.

That said, if they're going to be consistent, this issue should fall to the states just like abortion.

Does this mean you are attracted to everything but red heads?

The Banned said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Alito: Can a state ban a boy who simply identifies as a girl, but doesn't take puberty blockers or hormones?
Harnett: Yes.
Alito: So the school CAN discriminate based on transgender status?
Harnett: That student might get heightened scrutiny, and that scrutiny might be satisfied.

Clearly, Harnett is trying to avoid the scenario that self-proclamation is sufficient for incursion into girls' sports, but in doing so, she wants to court to recognize a separate sub-class of boys who take hormones, ostensibly to eliminate athletic advantages.

I don't think the Court buys this argument.

---

That's assuming facts not in evidence. Hormones always "eliminate" athletic advantages? By the same token they always enhance them too?

---

It certainly does not elimanate the advantages. It might reduce them, but you can't remove the advantage (in most major sports) of height, muscle mass, larger cardiovascular capacity, etc.

---

There was research done before some of this started (2017 or so) and, as mentioned above, there are advantages far beyond hormone manipulation. Many of the differences stem from hip width, which heavily influences grip strength due to a wider hand hold in a "carrying" position. Think narrower shoulders/wider hips.

Did the new moron in black robes KBJ really try to argue that constitutionality is based on one's feelings?

Ciboag96 said:

---

Did the new moron in black robes KBJ really try to argue that constitutionality is based on one's feelings?

---

TBH, IDK what the hell she was trying to say most of the time. She might as well be talking like Latka and Simka from the old show, Taxi.

Morbo the Annihilator said:

---

I can't lie to myself and the world anymore:



I'm Cisginger.

---

How would you know if we don't have a definition?

will25u said:

---

🚨 HOLY SMOKES. SCOTUS Justice Sam Alito asks ACLU lawyer "what is a man and a woman?" and they DON'T HAVE A DEFINITION.

Alito's response is perfect.

ALITO: What does it mean to be a man or woman?

ACLU: We do not have a definition for the Court.

ALITO: How can a court… pic.twitter.com/E5C9zX35NN

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) January 13, 2026

---

Alito bringing a mix of common sense, an understanding of basic genetic science and Constitutional law to bear upon the dullard bringing this stupidity before the SCOTUS.

Should come as no surprise the American left, the Democrat Party and their bottom feeding voters cannot understand it.

Half this country is stuck on stupid, led by people who believe the rest of us should be just as ignorant.

Cru said:

---

Seriously just wish some men's basketball team at a university just up and decides to all claim to be women and just go play ball and end this thing. However many years that takes.

---

This is the way. All male BB, VB, Softball, etc in female leagues. Not out to hurt anyone, but to prove a point.

Or like some home schoolers let the trans have their own league amongst their kind and pull from a larger geographical area.

Best yet, get the parents and their children the mental health care they need.

Justice Thomas is the master of the long game. On the last trans case he asked a banger of a question (below), and in today's case, he launched another:

"Let's take for example an individual male who is not a good athlete, say a lousy tennis player, and does not make the [men's]… https://t.co/tG2Psb51Wz

— Roger Severino (@RogerSeverino_) January 14, 2026

Quote:

---

"Let's take for example an individual male who is not a good athlete, say a lousy tennis player, and does not make the [men's] and wants to try out for the women's tennis team, and he said there is no way I'm better than the women's tennis players."

The point is that a male tennis player on puberty blockers is similarly situated to a lousy male tennis player, so why should the first have any legal right to play against girls but not the second if both are "fair"?

---

As I said yesterday, the level of discourse on this subject is so stupid as to be cringeworthy. Feelz and facts don't mix well in this context.

Need to go with a one-man Supreme Court on this issue, and I am that only justice. It would only take a few seconds. My opinion would fit on a postcard, front only, double-spaced, with huge margins. I would say there is no such thing as transgender, so get the **** outta my court. Case dismissed!

From what I heard yesterday, the ACLU lawyer seemed to be trying to make sure the ruling only applied to this specific boy, since he has supposedly been on puberty blockers since age 8 or something like that. She even tried to make the argument that boys on puberty blockers would be even more disadvantaged than the girls because they would potentially have the bigger bone structure but less muscle mass to control the bones because of the puberty blockers. She kept coming back to the "circulating testosterone" measurement.

I'm assuming that is because she's afraid of this case basically shutting the door on all this ****** nonsense by making a full ruling that boys can't play girls sports? Isn't that the reason that they tried to withdraw the case previously as well, and SCOTUS wouldn't let them?

will25u said:

---

🚨 HOLY SMOKES. SCOTUS Justice Sam Alito asks ACLU lawyer "what is a man and a woman?" and they DON'T HAVE A DEFINITION.

Alito's response is perfect.

ALITO: What does it mean to be a man or woman?

ACLU: We do not have a definition for the Court.

ALITO: How can a court… pic.twitter.com/E5C9zX35NN

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) January 13, 2026

---

"How do you want us to determine that discrimination is taking place when you can't even define what is being discriminated?"

Valid question

YellAg2004 said:

---

From what I heard yesterday, the ACLU lawyer seemed to be trying to make sure the ruling only applied to this specific boy, since he has supposedly been on puberty blockers since age 8 or something like that. She even tried to make the argument that boys on puberty blockers would be even more disadvantaged than the girls because they would potentially have the bigger bone structure but less muscle mass to control the bones because of the puberty blockers. She kept coming back to the "circulating testosterone" measurement.

I'm assuming that is because she's afraid of this case basically shutting the door on all this ****** nonsense by making a full ruling that boys can't play girls sports? Isn't that the reason that they tried to withdraw the case previously as well, and SCOTUS wouldn't let them?

---

The mother should rot in prison for child abuse.

Sick SOBs. That poor child will never have a chance in his ONE and only precious life.

YellAg2004 said:

---

From what I heard yesterday, the ACLU lawyer seemed to be trying to make sure the ruling only applied to this specific boy, since he has supposedly been on puberty blockers since age 8 or something like that. She even tried to make the argument that boys on puberty blockers would be even more disadvantaged than the girls because they would potentially have the bigger bone structure but less muscle mass to control the bones because of the puberty blockers. She kept coming back to the "circulating testosterone" measurement.

I'm assuming that is because she's afraid of this case basically shutting the door on all this ****** nonsense by making a full ruling that boys can't play girls sports? Isn't that the reason that they tried to withdraw the case previously as well, and SCOTUS wouldn't let them?

---

Hecox was the one that wanted to withdraw the case and didn't transition until college, B.P.J. is the one that is being abused by his mother with hormones at 8.

1. I'm more open minded that some individuals have brains that are wired to the opposite gender, and that they truly, sincerely, and most importantly actually think / feel like the opposite gender on neurological level.
2. The number of people that fit that profile is an incredibly small percentage of the population, and the explosion of trans ideology and trans identity today is social contagion.
3. Regardless of how sympathetic I am to people who fit the profile of #1, that sympathy ends at fair competition, and on a cellular and muscular level, biological men can't compete as biological women.
4. Regardless of how sympathetic I am to people who fit the profile of #1, absolutely no action should be taken until a brain is full matured at age 25. A kid might be a legal adult at 18, but a thoughtful society would put bigger guardrails, or outright ban body mutilation.

Fair post, well thought out.

However true this

Quote:

---

1. I'm more open minded that some individuals have brains that are wired to the opposite gender, and that they truly, sincerely, and most importantly actually think / feel like the opposite gender on neurological level.

---

is. There are also 15 year old 92lb girls who truly, sincerely, and most importantly actually think/feel that they are fat. Society does not attempt to accommodate that delusion, rather seeks to heal the mental illness that causes it. The same applies to any number of other people who truly, sincerely, and most importantly actually thing/fell something that they are not.