XX vs XY...with a very low percentage exceptions.Okay so then define it.
I don’t think the SC should ever be involved in that question. The NCAA and the IOC and conferences and whatever other controlling bodies are quite capable of determining who can participate in what sports/events. Sure they seem to be struggling to get it right but that doesn’t raise it to a SC issue. I don’t think their job is to straighten out society.You don’t think the Supreme Court might eventually be involved in deciding if men can continue to compete against women in athletic competition?
Maybe they should, maybe they shouldn’t. I just think they will.I don’t think the SC should ever be involved in that question. The NCAA and the IOC and conferences and whatever other controlling bodies are quite capable of determining who can participate in what sports/events. Sure they seem to be struggling to get it right but that doesn’t raise it to a SC issue. I don’t think their job is to straighten out society.
You’re probably right. As effed up as everything is it would be par for the course. I just don’t see how that issue gets raised to a day in the SC. They would be seriously overstepping their purview imo.Maybe they should, maybe they shouldn’t. I just think they will.
Is there more to it? Or was that it?Might as well stick a fork in the American Experiment and figure out how life will be in an authoritarian theocracy. But hey let's rage farm about what defines a woman instead.
Where is Clarence btw?
This experiment has had more forks stuck in it recently than a Saturday night at the Melting Pot.Might as well stick a fork in the American Experiment and figure out how life will be in an authoritarian theocracy.
Yeah the wife of a supreme court justice is texting the Chief of Staff of the POTUS supporting the overthrow of our form of government but "pffffft what's the big deal?"Is there more to it? Or was that it?