The SCOTUS ruling yesterday essentially gutted Title IX protections for women's sports.
Death of womens sports
- Thread starter DarnSteph
- Start date
I read the ruling and that wasn't my take away. Can you elaborate?
How do work-place protections "gut" Title IX?
My guess? Hes talking about the idea that you cant discriminate based on orientation or identified gender could mean free for all with men crossing over to compete in womens sports.
They redefined sex to include sexual orientation and transgender. The last part is what will eviscerate women's sports.
There's a lot being written out there about this. I'm just the messenger.
There's a lot being written out there about this. I'm just the messenger.
It's nothing short of remarkable that the women's rights movement has ceded, largely to men, the right to define what actually is a woman.
This ruling is stunning largely b/c Gorsuch argued that "sex" as written into the law AT THE TIME IT WAS WRITTEN included transgender identities. That's preposterous on the face of it b/c transgender issues were on nobody's radar at that time.
But the extension of this ruling will be something to see. By putting transgenderism into the mix, it's essentially saying you cannot legally distinguish between men and women. This has all kinds of ramifications, from locker rooms to sports to dress codes and on and on.
This ruling is stunning largely b/c Gorsuch argued that "sex" as written into the law AT THE TIME IT WAS WRITTEN included transgender identities. That's preposterous on the face of it b/c transgender issues were on nobody's radar at that time.
But the extension of this ruling will be something to see. By putting transgenderism into the mix, it's essentially saying you cannot legally distinguish between men and women. This has all kinds of ramifications, from locker rooms to sports to dress codes and on and on.
I know if women's sports did go away, i'd have a hard time sleeping at night.
GandBinNC
GarnetTrust.com Member/Supporter
I'm not sure of the exact percentage of the population the transgender community encompasses, but I'd venture a guess that its infinitesimal. I doubt Coach Staley and Coach Smith & their peers are losing any sleep over this.
I dont think the OP was debating the very small percentage of trans people, but how it won't take more than one or two to make Staley notice when she has to coach against a team with one or two "ladies" on the other side who pee standing up.
So a ruling that says you can't harass or fire people at work for being different from you is a bad thing now? Who knew?
If you meant this for me, that's not what I'm saying at all. And I dont think that's what the OP was saying either. (I could be wrong)
A ruling that says you can't fire people for being different can now be abused and the unintended consequences can be a mess.
Did the ruling require using a subjective standard for gender? I’m wondering if schools could still apply some sort of objective standard to determine whether someone plays with the males or females, ie, do you have testosterone producing testicles or not? This wouldn’t be preventing anyone from playing sports, just categorizing who plays in which category, which seems to be a fundamental aspect of Title IX to begin with.
The end game is to weaponize this ruling against churches. Women’s sports are collateral damage.
No. The court was specific that it should only apply to employment settings. Obviously any ruling by the court can be used in other settings (with the courts in those cases deciding if it should apply). So the thought is that it could be brought up in the Title IX setting, but it would seem hard to apply the standard and reasoning that Gorsuch used.
Someone will definitely try, but it's a ways off from anything coming of this affecting women's sports.
It also occurred to me that if any male athletes decided to identify as women, that the school could eliminate not just one, but two female athletic scholarships per such identification.
Example, 80 football scholarships (if all men) requires 80 women’s athletic scholarships. However, if 40 of your football players decide to identify as women, you can eliminate 80 women’s athletic scholarships because your football team is in balance.
So if you are a 2 star male athlete hoping to get a full ride, it might not hurt to update your resume, so to speak.
Example, 80 football scholarships (if all men) requires 80 women’s athletic scholarships. However, if 40 of your football players decide to identify as women, you can eliminate 80 women’s athletic scholarships because your football team is in balance.
So if you are a 2 star male athlete hoping to get a full ride, it might not hurt to update your resume, so to speak.
That is how I think it will be used in the near future. And yes, I thinks theres going to be a lot of collateral damage.
Good. So we can have as many baseball players on full scholarship as Vandy now??
If it is no longer legal to distinguish between men and women for the purposes of sports participation and competing for scholarships and we are going to allow people born as men to play women’s sports... Why HAVE women’s athletics? If there is no difference, and it all matters the same, and we cannot legally distinguish between the sexes or treat them differently... Basically they just made the idea of even having separate men’s and women's teams illegal. Right? Let the women who want to play sports and get athletic scholarships compete on an even field with men for those spots then. If there is no difference... Segregation of RACE Has been outlawed for decades.... Because “we are all the same”... Except now like 70% or more of football players are African American. So if that is the case ARE we the same? Why are more African Americans recruited to play football? Or Basketball? Is it fair for white kids to compete against African Americans for the same scholarships given that clearly people find that African Americans are athletically superior? If that is fair and if we are all equals then women should not be put on different teams from men. Going forward all teams should be integrated. If that is proposed and anyone currently arguing for the inclusion of transgender “females” into women’s athletics can explain how one makes sense and one does not, well I suspect theIr entire argument would fall apart pretty quick.
How would you see it being "weaponized" against churches?
Totally agree about churches.No longer could churches base employment on values or beliefs.
As Alito pointed out in his dissent, this is going to lead to a glut of court cases. Conservative churches across America have church constitutions that address sexuality. To be a member of the church, one cannot be a homosexual, lesbian, transgender, etc. Those church constitutions are going to be challenged left and right.
Just as with people walking into bakery and trying to get them to make a cake for a gay wedding, knowing full well that it violates the owner's beliefs, you'll have people trying to join churches and when denied, they'll sue.
And that would seem to be a good thing. Employees cannot terminate employment for someone solely based on them being gay. Seems reasonable. I guess also sad that a religous organization would take issue with that.
Not sure it's reasonable for the state to force churches to hire people who are at odds with church teachings.
Obviously, no one is perfect, so churches hire sinners. But churches should be allowed to deny unrepentant people who go against church teachings. At least IMO.
What do you know? All you want to do is follow that pesky 1st Amendment. Don't you know the 1st Amendment is systemic racism, sexism, classism, and every other ism out there, even if it hasn't been invented yet?
The ruling doesnt say they have to hire them. It says they cant fire them because of it.
But realistically, you and I both know this ruling based on firing can be used for hiring practices too. I mean, politics aside, supreme court rulings are rarely narrowly interpreted.
Also, I dont really think the state should tell a church they can't fire someone for unrepentantly go against church teachings either.
In the long run no one knows how Supreme Court rulings will be interpreted. The justices job is to decide the case on the legality and merits of the case. Which they did.
I think a better question for the church goer is to ask why would their church fire someone for being who they are. Certiainly sounds very un-Christ-like at a minimum.
I dont see that at all, which is why I clarified with unrepentant.
A church might hire a recovering alcoholic, but not a man who flaunts his addiction with no plans of stopping.
In reality, churches hire on moral grounds all the time, based on who people are. I can see where regular businesses cant make moral choices like that, but I think a church should be able to.
A serial killer is “who they are”. Christ gave His life to save people from their ?
Churches will be sued for firing a homosexual or transgender person. They will deliberately get hired then come out of the closet to be fired then sue the church in Federal Court. It's gonna happen before the end of the year guaranteed!
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
It sickens me when I realize Muschamp ran our program so far into the ground it's going to take- Latest: Southern Fried Chicken
-
-
