you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Q-Continuum-kin 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The big problem is that Title 9 keeps getting messed with. No one has changed the law but Obama, Trump, and Biden have kept putting out policies which say they will "interpret" Title 9 differently so schools freak out that they could be in violation of Title 9. The craziest part is that each interpretation is POLAR OPPOSITE of the other. The law was literally written to give protection based on "sex" and it says so in the law very clearly. No one ever had any confusion on what the law said until Obama came along and said they were going to interpret the law to mean the exact opposite of what it says. At this point we really need the supreme court to come in and say "you can't interpret the law to mean the exact opposite of what it says."

[–]Jiminy 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Based on the wording of the law men should be outlawed from joining women's sports. Of course we have to get supreme court to agree with that

[–]Q-Continuum-kin 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yes but Title 9 explicitly frames it as male and female sex categories so even if you go with postmodern nonsense meanings for man and woman then SCOTUS should in theory uphold the protections.

[–]Jiminy 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah they probably anticipated this nonsense when they made the law so they defined the terms they were using