The upcoming Supreme Court case on transgenderism

The docket for the B.P.J. case is here

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-43.html

These cases are discussed here:

Supreme Court will hear cases in January on transgender athletes, gun rights, and Trump’s firing of Fed governor - SCOTUSblog https://share.google/letw0rFT8Z7DP3ayR , 

Tuesday, January 13, in this particular case.

We almost surely know how the three left-leaning female justices (Kagan (Jewish), Sotomayor (Hispanic), and Jackson (Black)) will rule - all in for transgenderism, however they justify it.

Likewise the four right-leaning justices (Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh).

The question is: 

how will the two centrist justices, Roberts and Barrett, rule?

-----

There are two questions which may have greater significance for women than for men:

A) Whether biological men should be allowed to compete with biological women, in sports leagues that were intended specifically and explicitly to be limited to women.

B) Similarly, whether biological men should be allowed into spaces such as locker rooms and dressing rooms that have been traditionally reserved for real women.

(A personal opinion: I don't think women, of any age, should be forced into nude situations with people of the opposite sex. Likewise for men.)

There are four women on the Supreme Court.

It will be interesting to see how they divide on these issues.

It seems probable that the generally conservative woman, Amy Barrett, will take the generally conservative position on this issue.

Will the three women appointed by Democratic presidents block vote on the left side?

How will they justify their position, if they take that side?

-------------

2026-01-06

Here's a look ahead at the January 13 SCOTUS hearing:

Next Week's SCOTUS Hearings Could Redefine Women's Sports — What You Need To Know | OutKick https://share.google/WbOe4DbzJabJCMhVQ

"The justices will hear arguments in Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., 

both of which put state laws protecting female-only sports teams directly on trial. 

At the heart of both cases is a simple but hugely consequential question: 

Can states protect women's sports or not?"

...

West Virginia [is] asking the Supreme Court to answer two critical questions: 

Does Title IX require schools to allow transgender-identifying males to compete in girls' sports?

Does the Constitution prevent states from defining girls' teams based on biological sex?"

-------------------

A detailed legal look at the relations between transgender status, suspect class, and heightened scrutiny 

is given by Alabama's Attorney General Steve Marshall here (paywall)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/01/12/transgender-sports-case-supreme-court/

and here (no paywall)

https://dnyuz.com/2026/01/12/the-supreme-courts-chance-to-stop-punting-on-transgender-status/

Marshall writes:

"When lower courts deem transgender status to be a suspect classification, 

the challenged law must survive “heightened scrutiny.” 

This is a legal standard that requires the government to show that 

the law serves an important public interest and is substantially related to serving that interest."

My comment:

The fact a law must be passed by both levels of a state's legislature and signed by the state's governor would seem to indicate that it 

"serves an important public interest."

-------

More looks ahead:

"What the Supreme Court Is About to Decide for Our Daughters"

https://open.substack.com/pub/peachyradfem/p/what-the-supreme-court-is-about-to

"17 Simple Things You Need to Know About the Two Women's Sports Cases Coming Up at the Supreme Court"

https://open.substack.com/pub/strongerwomen/p/17-simple-things-you-need-to-know

========================================

The hearing now having concluded, 

the nine justices are left with some difficult decisions.

Difficult for several reasons.

#1. These cases thrust into the judicial arena a number of issues that should have been resolved by other parts of society.

Most glaringly: Who is a woman?

It should not be up to judges to determine or decide that.

That should not be a legal issue.

That is a matter for science (biology), supported by a broad social agreement.

(There are some intersex people, people whose biology is either mixed or abnormal, but they are a tiny minority. 

And their situation is different from the issue of gender.)

I totally blame the transgender movement for causing the disagreement and confusion over this issue.

Sex is not gender, sex is a matter of biology, 

while gender indeed is a social construct.

So much confusion has been caused by confusing the two.

#2. Actually, this one should not be at all a difficult issue to resolve:

What does the evidence show on differences between men and women relative to athletic ability?

We have enormous evidence on that.

Just check who holds the world records in various athletic fields.

The difference between men and women is stark and undeniable.

Can giving hormones to people affect their athletic potential?

Who knows?

There is no conclusive evidence on that.

Until there is, it is premature to assume anything in that regard.

(And an issue that is not before the Supreme Court, but I think is significant to the larger society:

Who should pay for those hormone treatments?

I don't think the burden should be on society, whether via insurance or government programs.

I know "major medical associations" say such treatments are "medically necessary," but that assessment has been challenged, even by some doctors.)

#3. How broadly or narrowly should the decision be tailored?

I have nothing useful to say on that, other than to observe that is an issue.

----------------------

A reasonable response to what was said at the hearing is 

https://open.substack.com/pub/womenssportspolicy/p/response-to-supreme-court-proceedings

"It is unfortunate that 

deliberations focusing intensely upon the desires and claims of boys-with-special-identity 

render invisible the plight of thousands of girls in sports.

An absence of concern for the girls was apparent throughout the SCOTUS discourse. 

Data collection undertaken by sites like shewon.org and hecheated.org demonstrate repeatedly that 

every boy who self-identifies into the female sports category 

causes a negative ripple effect that impacts hundreds of girls. 

Ultimately, this debate is not about equal treatment of one or two special boys. 

It is about the entire cohort of female athletes and their right to participate in safe and fair sports in the same manner as enjoyed by boys and men."

The incredible intelligence of one year olds

Something that actually happened to me:

I was sitting in my chair in the living room of my house, reading something, when I felt something tugging on my pants leg.

I looked down and saw that my one year old daughter had crawled across the floor and was tugging on my pants leg.

I guessed what she was trying to tell me, and carried her up to our bathroom and put her on the toilet, where she did her business.

What really impressed me:

At an age when she was still crawling along the floor, 

she was able to identify what was happening to her, 

identify what she needed, 
and identify how to achieve that, by tugging on my pants leg.

The intelligence of one year olds!

She didn't need any "toilet training".

She just, I infer, observed what her parents did and and felt the need to emulate that.

This was just something she, not yet able to walk or talk, did on her own.

I was so impressed.

Kudos to her!

Difficult choices women face

Let me be clear:

I am a man, but I am aware of the various forces impinging on women, since at least the 1950s.

There are various forces trying to influence them, 

from those of traditional values 

to the more radical or "progressive" ones.

As I said, I am not a woman, but I can appreciate the difficult choices women have to make.

The worship of health care

There are two aspects of healthcare:

the individual and the collective.

At the individual level, it means living a healthy lifestyle, eating healthy foods and getting the exercise that promotes health.

I am all in favor of that.

But then there is the collective level.

Let me offer a hypothetical example.

Suppose someone is 89, and requires an expensive medical procedure to extend his or her life.

Should the broader society be required to pay for that procedure?

I say no.

What we are seeing in the 2020s, 

without the slightest regard for how much it costs or how much harm 

paying the bills for all this healthcare causes to others, 

especially to the younger generation, 

who are saddled with enormous debt caused in considerable part by today's grossly excessive spending on healthcare, 

is a grossly excessive amount of spending on healthcare.

We must be aware of the harm caused by unlimited, unbounded spending on healthcare.

-----

As to how the media has been part of the instigation of this problem, consider the Washington Post.

It alternates between promoting support for 

healthcare, 

transgenderism, 

and its true love, Ukraine.

The shooter walking around campus

Yes, that sounds melodramatic, but that really happened.

What is remarkable about this occurrence is that there seems to be, to date, no campus video recording of the perpetrator's presence on the Brown campus.

Why not?

Can just anyone who might be, and indeed was, a person out to harm students, enter the campus and leave no identifiable trace?

(Yes, that seems to be exactly what happened.)

Why was the Brown security system so inadequate?

 (BTW, 2025-26 tuition at Brown is $71.7K.

https://admission.brown.edu/tuition-aid/tuition-fees

One would think that would pay for pretty damn good security.)

The following post suggests an all too plausible explanation for Brown's security failure:

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2025/12/17/brown-university-received-a-letter-from-34-human-rights-groups-in-august-requesting-they-disable-their-cctv-system/

--------

2025-12-18

Something that surprises me about this situation:

There is so little information coming out about what actually happened in the Brown University lecture hall, 186-seat Room 166.

Some reasonable questions:

1. How many students were in the lecture hall at the time of the shooting?

2. What did they see?

Surely at the time of the shooting, when they heard shots being fired, they would turn and look at where the shots were coming from.

What did they see?

The Brown student newspaper is covering this story here:

https://www.browndailyherald.com/article/2025/12/live-updates-active-shooter-at-brown-university ,

more generally its website is

https://www.browndailyherald.com/ .

I have not seen any answers to those questions there, to date, 

not in the general MSM.

Strange.

Generally the media rushes to give firsthand, eyewitness information on these things.

------

Within Brown, there is dissent:

Second Brown police union issues vote of no confidence in police chief, deputy chief - The Brown Daily Herald https://share.google/ZZr2JAsqyj3OxgX2F

2025-12-18

For a thoughtful report on both sides of the issue of security cameras on campus, see

https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/18/us/brown-university-surveillance-cameras-shooting-suspect

“We want to create dialogue, we want free and fair conversations, and you don’t want to feel like you’re under the eye of ‘Big Brother’ the whole time"