Liberal Forum

asks courts to read sex separation in sport as a core mechanism of equality for women, such that policies permitting transgender women in women’s events can violate Title IX by diluting competitive opportunity and undermining privacy in sex-segregated facilities. On the other side, civil-rights groups intervening in defense of transgender athletes argue that Title IX’s sex discrimination bar, as informed by modern Supreme Court doctrine, protects gender identity, and that categorical exclusions burden a tiny population without concrete competitive justification. These are not rhetorical flourishes; they are doctrinal bets about how far anti-discrimination law incorporates identity beyond biological classification.

Given the Supreme Court’s apparent openness to upholding at least some state eligibility bans, institutions should prepare for a period in which categorical rules stand in certain jurisdictions while sport governing bodies craft narrower exceptions in others, particularly for non-contact, skill-dominant sports or for athletes who began transition before puberty. The result is likely to be fragmented, iterative, and highly dependent on record-building in each sport.

women describe losing roster spots, podiums, or scholarships, and navigating discomfort in locker rooms—claims that, when credited, go to the heart of the category’s purpose. Transgender athletes and their advocates counter that participation itself is a crucible of social belonging and mental health, that numbers are small, and that inclusive school policies have not depressed girls’ overall participation rates in measurable ways. Both claims can be simultaneously sincere; neither, by itself, resolves policy across all sports.

https://usnewsmag.com/female-athletes-s ... dium=email

Isn’t one, albeit “tiny”, “measurable”?

WTF? why does everything need to be so complicated when it’s you’re either an XX or XY, right @Johnny You  ???           
 
 

ROG62 » 26 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

26 minutes ago

asks courts to read sex separation in sport as a core mechanism of equality for women, such that policies permitting transgender women in women’s events can violate Title IX by diluting competitive opportunity and undermining privacy in sex-segregated facilities. On the other side, civil-rights groups intervening in defense of transgender athletes argue that Title IX’s sex discrimination bar, as informed by modern Supreme Court doctrine, protects gender identity, and that categorical exclusions burden a tiny population without concrete competitive justification. These are not rhetorical flourishes; they are doctrinal bets about how far anti-discrimination law incorporates identity beyond biological classification.

Given the Supreme Court’s apparent openness to upholding at least some state eligibility bans, institutions should prepare for a period in which categorical rules stand in certain jurisdictions while sport governing bodies craft narrower exceptions in others, particularly for non-contact, skill-dominant sports or for athletes who began transition before puberty. The result is likely to be fragmented, iterative, and highly dependent on record-building in each sport.

women describe losing roster spots, podiums, or scholarships, and navigating discomfort in locker rooms—claims that, when credited, go to the heart of the category’s purpose. Transgender athletes and their advocates counter that participation itself is a crucible of social belonging and mental health, that numbers are small, and that inclusive school policies have not depressed girls’ overall participation rates in measurable ways. Both claims can be simultaneously sincere; neither, by itself, resolves policy across all sports.

https://usnewsmag.com/female-athletes-s ... dium=email

Isn’t one, albeit “tiny”, “measurable”?

WTF? why does everything need to be so complicated when it’s you’re either an XX or XY, right @Johnny You  ???         

It would be so much easier to just shame the trans back into the closet

then get the Left to stop sexualizing little kids in the first place

Hey BV, Johnny.... explain to the board what the hell is so controversial about keeping trannies away from kids and women's sports....

Are you clowns understanding yet why you have been stamped as child groomers and sexual predators?

ROG62 » Today, 11:37 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 11:37 am

asks courts to read sex separation in sport as a core mechanism of equality for women, such that policies permitting transgender women in women’s events can violate Title IX by diluting competitive opportunity and undermining privacy in sex-segregated facilities. On the other side, civil-rights groups intervening in defense of transgender athletes argue that Title IX’s sex discrimination bar, as informed by modern Supreme Court doctrine, protects gender identity, and that categorical exclusions burden a tiny population without concrete competitive justification. These are not rhetorical flourishes; they are doctrinal bets about how far anti-discrimination law incorporates identity beyond biological classification.

Given the Supreme Court’s apparent openness to upholding at least some state eligibility bans, institutions should prepare for a period in which categorical rules stand in certain jurisdictions while sport governing bodies craft narrower exceptions in others, particularly for non-contact, skill-dominant sports or for athletes who began transition before puberty. The result is likely to be fragmented, iterative, and highly dependent on record-building in each sport.

women describe losing roster spots, podiums, or scholarships, and navigating discomfort in locker rooms—claims that, when credited, go to the heart of the category’s purpose. Transgender athletes and their advocates counter that participation itself is a crucible of social belonging and mental health, that numbers are small, and that inclusive school policies have not depressed girls’ overall participation rates in measurable ways. Both claims can be simultaneously sincere; neither, by itself, resolves policy across all sports.

https://usnewsmag.com/female-athletes-s ... dium=email

Isn’t one, albeit “tiny”, “measurable”?

WTF? why does everything need to be so complicated when it’s you’re either an XX or XY, right @Johnny You  ???         

I'm not clear what side you are putting riley gains on, here. 
 

Cannonpointer » 33 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

33 minutes ago

I'm not clear what side you are putting riley gains on, here.

Riley started and has become the face of the WOMEN ONLY in women’s sports movement…


https://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/n ... with-ncaa/


 

ROG62 » 4 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

4 minutes ago

Riley started and has become the face of the WOMEN ONLY in women’s sports movement…

https://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/n ... with-ncaa/

Sweet Jeebus. So that pot head monster actually IS a woman? OMG. And she's on MY side - only more credible, powerful, and visible?

Oh my God. I have a feeling I'm gonna be an even bigger asshole than usual for the next few days.

Mother **** mother ****... MOTHER ****!!!!  

Hey, johhny, you little cock sucker. Where are you, ya little bitch - I need to throw hands. Lemme grab my wife beater.

Cannonpointer » 10 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

10 minutes ago

Sweet Jeebus. So that pot head monster actually IS a woman? OMG. And she's on MY side - only more credible, powerful, and visible?

Oh my God. I have a feeling I'm gonna be an even bigger asshole than usual for the next few days.

Mother **** mother ****... MOTHER ****!!!!  

Hey, johhny, you little cock sucker. Where are you, ya little bitch - I need to throw hands. Lemme grab my wife beater.

Edit - I was thinking of that britney griner dude.              

Relax, johnny. I'm not gonna brutalize ya today.

Whew - that **** was brain-**** me!

If my memory serves me, Riley and a couple of others filed the initial complaint about being given no warning of Lia joining the team, being subjected to his presence in the women’s locker room for changing / showering and being forced to room with him when traveling to compete at other schools…they were told to basically **** and comply…
 
 

Cannonpointer » 15 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

15 minutes ago

Sweet Jeebus. So that pot head monster actually IS a woman? OMG. And she's on MY side - only more credible, powerful, and visible?

Oh my God. I have a feeling I'm gonna be an even bigger asshole than usual for the next few days.

Mother **** mother ****... MOTHER ****!!!!  

Hey, johhny, you little cock sucker. Where are you, ya little bitch - I need to throw hands. Lemme grab my wife beater.

Edit - I was thinking of that britney griner dude.              

Relax, johnny. I'm not gonna brutalize ya today.

Whew - that **** was brain-**** me!

damn, sounds like pot and alcohol need to have an intervention…  
 

ROG62 » 4 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

4 minutes ago

damn, sounds like pot and alcohol need to have an intervention…

Thank you, bro for going to weed and gin instead of dementia. 

I owe you an indulgence.   
 

Here we go again..

Number one cookie for MAGA.

Trannys in sports..

No more short shorts for me for several months.... It's getting cooler..

Can we agree it does not matter what gender wing suit jumpers are? A splat is a splat...

https://youtu.be/6_GvnqQ2jQw?is=jOLKnmqEvkmh102i

ROG62 » Yesterday, 11:37 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 11:37 am

asks courts to read sex separation in sport as a core mechanism of equality for women, such that policies permitting transgender women in women’s events can violate Title IX by diluting competitive opportunity and undermining privacy in sex-segregated facilities. On the other side, civil-rights groups intervening in defense of transgender athletes argue that Title IX’s sex discrimination bar, as informed by modern Supreme Court doctrine, protects gender identity, and that categorical exclusions burden a tiny population without concrete competitive justification. These are not rhetorical flourishes; they are doctrinal bets about how far anti-discrimination law incorporates identity beyond biological classification.

Given the Supreme Court’s apparent openness to upholding at least some state eligibility bans, institutions should prepare for a period in which categorical rules stand in certain jurisdictions while sport governing bodies craft narrower exceptions in others, particularly for non-contact, skill-dominant sports or for athletes who began transition before puberty. The result is likely to be fragmented, iterative, and highly dependent on record-building in each sport.

women describe losing roster spots, podiums, or scholarships, and navigating discomfort in locker rooms—claims that, when credited, go to the heart of the category’s purpose. Transgender athletes and their advocates counter that participation itself is a crucible of social belonging and mental health, that numbers are small, and that inclusive school policies have not depressed girls’ overall participation rates in measurable ways. Both claims can be simultaneously sincere; neither, by itself, resolves policy across all sports.

https://usnewsmag.com/female-athletes-s ... dium=email

Isn’t one, albeit “tiny”, “measurable”?

WTF? why does everything need to be so complicated when it’s you’re either an XX or XY, right @Johnny You  ???         

What "courts" need to do is focus on why a mentally **** up person is seeking a surgical solution to their issues.

If they truly MUST be plastic surgeried and forever chemically induced into the comfortable fog of pretend womanhood, isn't that enough? Why must ALL OF SOCIETY acquiesce to their newly found fantasy?

DeezerShoove » 24 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

24 minutes ago

What "courts" need to do is focus on why a mentally **** up person is seeking a surgical solution to their issues.


 

Sounds like we need more brain surgeon's and less plastic surgeon's. 

RebelGator » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

7 minutes ago

Sounds like we need more brain surgeon's and less plastic surgeon's.

Apostrophes were unnecessary.  

DeezerShoove » 4 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

4 minutes ago

Apostrophes were unnecessary.

Wanted more people to take possession?

Crazy text editor?

Guilty as charged?

RebelGator » 41 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

41 minutes ago

Wanted more people to take possession?

Crazy text editor?

Guilty as charged?

I'm trying to be as smart as all the other experts here in NHB.
It's a tough field of competition. Having so little to work with, I have to find tiny, meaningless flaws.