Originally published at: Right-Wing Justices Warm to Idea that Trans Minority Too Small to Challenge Sports Bans - TPM – Talking Points Memo
On the heels of its landmark 2025 decision allowing red states to deny trans youth medical care, the Supreme Court on Tuesday heard arguments on another right-wing fixation: state laws that block trans girls and women from playing on women’s sports teams. The Court heard two similar cases, Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v.…
Cack-handed, shitweaselly bollock-knobs.
10 Likes
So discrimination if perfectly legal if you only discriminate against a small number of people?
Bullshit.
Unless you want to hear “Mr. Justice Thomas, you are under arrest, your marriage is against the law.”
Hmmmmmm………………..
7 Likes
You forgot shit eating.
1 Like
Trans women have no business in the vast majority of women’s sports. That ought to be obvious to anyone who understands why separate women’s sports exist. Open categories are a fairer alternative, to allow participation. However, decisions about participation, sport by sport, should be in the hands of federations, not right wing state politicians, Congress or the courts (except in very exceptional circumstances).
1 Like
SCOTUS: Along with our no-shirt-no-shoes policy we reserve the right to decide which rights apply to anyone whenever we see fit at any time.
3 Likes
Yes, because everybody knows that if a minority is small, they shouldn’t be allowed to challenge their oppression by the majority. It’s really just too much of a bother for the majority.
4 Likes
So, how large does a minority have to be to enjoy the equal protection of the law that’s guaranteed by the constitution?
2 Likes
Which was why the International athletic organizations and the NCAA came up with rules/restrictions to prevent any unfair advantage. That should be obvious to anyone who understands. Understanding is the key.
The case that everyone brings out and waves about is poor Riley Gaines! Beaten out by a trans swimmer!! And had to settle for a tie for fifth place. And if Lia Thomas had not been competing as a woman, Riley Gaines would have finished in…checks notes…fifth place. Because that’s where Lia Thomas also finished.
This will be my only comment on this. It has been covered extensively here with many comments from people who ignore the hormone testing and other physical - and measurable - standards.
And this vitriol spills over to female athletes who are branded as “trans” who aren’t. Look at the last Olympics. TFG and others still bring Algerian boxer Imane Khelif up, vilifying her, saying she’s trans. The cyberbullying continues.
7 Likes
If a group is large enough to write a law that concerns that small group, then they’re large enough to have standing. That was easy. Since the constitution bars bills of attainder, I’d think this is a slam dunk.
The laws against desecrating corpses only applies to a few people, too…
3 Likes
Some observations:
- Sports parents are crazy. Their child always deserves to be on the varsity team, always deserves to win.
- Men as a general rule are obsessed by sex, particularly if it isn’t their own. They take a proprietary interest in everyone else’s genitalia and how they’re being used (or not).
- When everybody’s screaming at everybody else and 99% of the arguments are ad hominem, good decisions will probably not get made.
- One is a fool to expect anything smart or just from this “Supreme” Court.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
(signed) An obvious bigot.
2 Likes
Thank you.
2 Likes
Great. Now the government will have the right to discriminate against - deny equal protection under the law to (14th amendment) - select minorities in any way they want.
Who’s to say how small a minority must be to be considered a small group? So, where does that stop? All trans people? (1% of the population). Mulsims? (1.3% of the population) Jews? (2.4% of the population) Gay and lesbian people? (6+% of the population). Black people? (12.4% of the population) Hispanics? (19.5% of the population)
5 Likes
So the trans community is too small to be protected, but important enough that 80% of a GOP presidential campaign can be run on ads demanding that we eradicating them from the public sphere? Do I have that right?
8 Likes
Or Quadriplegics? Approximately .00040816326% of the USA population.
Can we skip all those ramps and bathrooms for such a tiny fraction of the population?
/s (i hope this is obvious.)
(If you know me you know why.)
4 Likes
Hey, a lot of people who are NOT quads use wheelchairs. Or walkers. Or one or more canes. Your analogy is flawed.
That said, the concept of equal rights and access remains. Accommodations to facilitate equal participation in society, to the extent possible. The pitch should be for equality in a broad sense. I’d like to see Dems argue on that basis, instead of immediately rushing to the most granular case in the absence of the general rule.
But I’m a bigot, so who cares what I think.
Those other folks can sue on their own!
/s
1 Like
So “one is too many” when it comes to taking away your rights, but “one is too few” when fighting or them? Got it.
4 Likes
Well, the school only allowed harassment and discrimination against a few students, this term. A few female. A few Black. A few… Out of thousands. So…
3 Likes
“They already get all the GOOD parking spaces!” – Sam Alito, probably.
3 Likes