"It must mean something"
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg became famous for her work on the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project. Her work was memorialized in ‘On Account of Sex’ which was also made into a documentary during the heyday of ‘RBG’ fever.
Now the ACLU is vocally denying the existence of women.
Some years back the ACLU filed a motion “to deny the allegation that ‘human beings’ are ‘sexually dimorphic, divided into males and females each with reproductive systems, hormones, and chromosomes that result in significant differences between men[] and women[.]’”
Now in court over a transgender case in which a sympathetic male defendant wants to play against girls, justices asked the ACLU lawyer how he defines men, women, boys, girls and sex differences. And his response was to argue that he has no definition and that no definition exists.
Chief Justice John Roberts grilled Block for making the suggestion.
“Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, it’s a statutory term, it must mean something,” Roberts said. “You’re arguing here there is discrimination on the basis of sex, and how can we decide that question without knowing what sex means in Title IX?” Roberts asked.
“I don’t think the purpose of Title IX is to have an accurate definition of sex. I think the purpose is to make sure that sex isn’t being used to discriminate by denying opportunities… I wouldn’t look to whether or not to classify B.P.J. as male or female, I think the question is, ‘is she being denied an opportunity because of that classification?'”
If there’s no definition of sex, then what does protection on account of sex even mean? It’s like refusing to define elections and then insisting on a legal intervention based on the right to vote. --->READ MORE HERE
'I don't think the purpose of Title IX is to have an accurate definition of sex,' said ACLU's Joshua Block
During Supreme Court oral arguments for the West Virginia v B.P.J. case on trans athletes in women's sports, American Civil Liberties Attorney Joshua Block suggested that "sex" should not be defined legally. Block then fled questioning when asked to elaborate why after the hearing.
Block represents West Virginia trans teen Becky Pepper-Jackson, who in 2021 sued the state to block its law that prohibits biological males from competing in girls' sports. Pepper-Jackson and her mother were in the courtroom on Tuesday to watch the attorney argue the definition of sex should not be used in the court's ruling.
Block's statement came while arguing why West Virginia's law that prohibits biological males from competing in girls' sports violates Title IX, and then claimed the purpose of Title X is not to have an accurate definition of sex.
"However the court resolves this case, I really urge the court not to do it on the definition of sex argument," Block said, later adding. "I don't think the purpose of Title IX is to have an accurate definition of sex. I think the purpose is to make sure that sex isn't being used to discriminate by denying opportunities… I wouldn't look to whether or not to classify B.P.J. as male or female, I think the question is, ‘is she being denied an opportunity because of that classification?'"
Block later told Justice Elena Kagan "don’t give definition of sex" when asked, "if we didn't want to prevent a different state from making a different choice from West Virginia, what should we not say or what should we say to prevent that from happening?'"
Block answered, "I wrote ‘don’t give definition of sex,' and I also said ‘I wouldn’t decide this by assuming that Title IX provides a right to single-sex teams in the regulations. Single-sex teams are optional, they're not mandatory. "
Block added that he worried that the court's potential ruling in the case would claim Title IX means something that it doesn't.
Chief Justice John Roberts grilled Block for making the suggestion.
"Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, it's a statutory term, it must mean something," Roberts said. "You're arguing here there is discrimination on the basis of sex, and how can we decide that question without knowing what sex means in Title IX?" Roberts asked. --->READ MORE HEREFollow link below to a relevant Story/Video:
++++Supreme Court Justice destroys trans athlete's lawyer for failing to define what a woman is++++++
If you like what you see, please "Like" and/or Follow us on FACEBOOK here, GETTR here, and TWITTER here.
No comments:
Post a Comment