From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   BTR1701  wrote:   
      
   >During oral argument at the Supreme Court this week, in a case where the   
   >Court will decide the fate of state laws barring males from competing in   
   >women's sports, Justice Alito asked a perfectly reasonable and logical   
   >question of the attorney representing the transformers:   
      
   >ALITO: For purposes of Equal Protection, for the 14th Amendment analysis,   
   >what does it mean to be a boy or a girl?"   
      
   Yeah, ok, that's the wrong question. This is the case about whether the   
   Idaho state law complies with Title IX, right? For the purpose of Title IX,   
   if we rule that the law protects men competing with women, how have women   
   not been discriminated against and denied the equal protection of the law?   
      
   	No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be   
   	excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be   
   	subjected to discrimination under any education program or   
   	activity receiving Federal financial assistance.   
      
   "on the basis of sex" may not protect a dude who claims to be a woman.   
      
   >After a lot of stammering and hedging, the attorney replied, "We do not   
   >have a definition for the Court."   
      
   >So basically, Alito asked "What is a woman?" and (much like Ketanji Jackson in   
   >her confirmation hearing) a Harvard Law School-educated attorney standing   
   >before the Supreme Court of the United States simply can't tell you what a   
   >woman is. The official position of the transformer community apparently is,   
   >"No one really knows what a woman is. It's a mystery for the ages."   
      
   And yet, he/she/they/it could have given a straightforward answer prior   
   to receiving a law school education.   
      
   >Thankfully, it seems the Supreme Court is preparing to end this nonsense and   
   >uphold the state laws trying to eradicate this lunacy.   
      
   Interestingly, it's going to have a different majority than Bostock   
   v. Clayton County (2019), a Title VII case.   
      
   	42 U.S. Code Sec 2000e - Definitions   
      
   	(k) The terms "because of sex" or "on the basis of sex" include,   
   	but are not limited to, because of or on the basis of pregnancy,   
   	childbirth, or related medical conditions; and women affected   
   	by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be   
   	treated the same for all employment-related purposes, including   
   	receipt of benefits under fringe benefit programs, as other   
   	persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability   
   	to work, and nothing in section 2000e-2(h) of this title shall   
   	be interpreted to permit otherwise.   
      
   	42 U.S. Code Sec 2000e-2 - Unlawful employment practices   
      
   	(a) Employer practices   
      
   	It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer--   
      
   	(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or   
   	otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to   
   	his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of   
   	employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion,   
   	sex, or national origin; or   
      
   	(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants   
   	for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive   
   	any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise   
   	adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such   
   	individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.   
      
   Title VII doesn't include a dude who claims to be a woman   
   whether or not he insists he's pregnant.   
      
   How exactly will Gorsuch and Roberts use different reasoning in this   
   case?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)