Yesterday, the Supreme Court affirmed birthright citizenship. Good. Let’s celebrate. Except, this was a decision that should have been a no-brainer — it’s explicitly written in the Constitution, and there’s no ambiguity at all — and the Court had a 5-4 split, with Clarence Thomas writing a 90 page dissent. This was a case that barely broke through to a just decision.
On the same day, the Court unanimously ruled against transgender rights. You can pretty much be certain that it will rule against principles of democracy and inclusion whenever it gets the opportunity.
The only optimistic news I’ve seen is that Mitch McConnell, one of the architects of the conservative dominance of the Supreme Court, may be dying.
Several reputable news media outlets reported that the 84-year-old — who is among the oldest sitting senators in government, as of this writing — was admitted to a hospital on June 14. At the time of publication, his condition was unknown, leading to rumors about whether or not he was alive.
People online claimed the senator was either dead or close to death and that his staff were hiding it from the public. One post stated: “Is there a law that requires the Senate to disclose the death of a Senator within a certain number of days? #WhereIsMitch”
So maybe a slow, miserable death…but not too painful, since his mind is probably mostly gone. We’ve got time to get some champagne and caviar before his demise! The most generous thing I can say is that I wish he’d retired to the happy bosom of his family and a life of relaxation a decade or two ago. As it is, he overstayed his tenure, and to what end? The poisoning of his beloved Republican party.
I’m not in the least surprised by Thomas. After all, he is only 60% of a person, and 0% of a human. He will go down in history as one of the worst justices of SCOTUS. He was led by the nose his almost his entire term, first by Rehnquist, then Scalia. Now it may be Alito or his wife. Makes no difference, he’s so far gone down the fascist rabbit hole he couldn’t find his way out with as seeing eye dog.
As for Moscow Mitch, I want him self aware, unable to speak, and in agony for a long time. He deserves every microsecond of it for what he did to the country.
Can the Supreme Court determine that the Constitution is unconstitutional? Asking for a very sick country.
Despite the court being stacked with good ol’ boys and Uncle Tom, they did make one other good decision yesterday.
They declined to hear the appeal of the E. Jean Carroll SA case, so that conviction stands and she will get her 5 million. The defamation case is still winding its way through the appeals process, but I predict that 85 million award will also stand since SCOTUS declined to hear the appeal of the original crime.
I imagine Mitch is apoplectic over the sheer incompetence of the Iran treaty negotiations, as are multiple R senators. I hope his final days are filled with invasive medical treatments and terrible hospital food.
So, one of the evil poisoners of america is dying. I only hope it is true so he cannot do any more damage!
And, PZ, I’m upset, your image of him as a turtle defames the excellent character of turtles!
Also, I’m disgusted by the gross stupidity and tiny, closed minds of the ‘binary’ magat xtian terrorist aholes. Almost 2% of the population is not ‘binary’. As PZ and all of us know, We live in a world of endless diversity, LGBTQ is just one manifestation of it.
While I support transpeople, it does seem unfair to include trans women athletes in female sports, because they so often have physical advantages over cis gender females. While that may be unfair to the trans females it would far nor often be unfair to the cis gender females. Seems common sense to me. I hope that those who disagree with this can avoid the too often vicious attacks seen on this blog.
That is the opposite of support.
Also, there is no such thing as ‘female sports’. Just sports.
There are sports. There are females. But no female sports.
I have read a few articles that mention that the medical process of gender change from male to female requires treatment that reduces muscle mass and would seem to possibly level the ability gap. I haven’t found any definitive info on that.
On a lighter note, I read a comment elsewhere that stated, ‘Michelle Obama is definitely not a man. And, the same could be said of trump.’
Re 6 morales. “ Also, there is no such thing as ‘female sports’. Just sports.
There are sports. There are females. But no female sports.”
Well, yes, but in many sports men have an overwhelming physical advantage , making it unfair for men to compete against women. The best example I know of this is in tennis: when Chris Everet was the no 1 rated female tennis player in the world, her husband was rated about 115th among men players and he was able to beat her easily! In tennis ,with this kind of extraordinary advantage , would it not seem unfair for trans women to compete against non trans women? Really. How would you feel if you were a cis gender female competing an against a trans woman who had gone through puberty and had fully developed male hormones and could beat you easily if you were rated no. 1 in the world? Is that fair? A half dozen trainwomen could perhap easily be rated as the top 6 tennis players in the world. How would the cis gender female tennis players feel about this? Too bad there aren’t enough trans women to compete against each other.so while there may be no “female sports” it seems clear there are sports when those with men’s bodies should not compete with those with female bodies. How about wrestling? Men are so much bigger and strong then women on average I imagine they would be even more predominant over women than in tennis. Anyone have any arguments against this? Morales didn’t give any.
From A.I.:
AI Overview Feminizing hormone treatment does reduce muscle mass and strength. However, research shows this reduction only partially closes the athletic performance gap between transgender and cisgender women. The effects of male puberty create structural advantages that hormone therapy does not fully erase.Here is how the body changes during a gender transition from male to female:1. Testosterone SuppressionThe Goal: Hormone therapy lowers testosterone, the male hormone that builds muscle.The Timeline: Blood oxygen levels (O₂) and endurance typically drop to match cisgender women within 4 months.2. Muscle and Strength LossMuscle Size: Transgender women lose a significant amount of lean muscle mass and muscle area.The Gap: Despite this, studies show the remaining strength and muscle volume after one to three years of therapy still tend to stay higher than average cisgender female levels.Bone Structure: Bone size, joint width, and lung capacity developed during male puberty generally do not change, retaining certain biomechanical advantages.3. Sports RulesThe Challenge: Sports organizations must balance fairness for biological females with inclusion for transgender women.Current Policies: Many elite groups (like the IOC) or local leagues look at the specific sport. They use varying rules for how long an athlete must suppress testosterone before competing.To explore this further, sports organizations rely on specific studies to guide their rules. You can review the Transgender Women in the Female Category of Sport study on PubMed to learn more about the scientific data.
This is not the place to do the usual to and fro, but i I note in boxing (for example) many men have an overwhelming physical advantage, thus weight classes.
Women, too. Children, too.
And, of course, it’s always transwomen. Transmen are just dandy, right?
@6
it might be getting to a time that we might reevaluate how sports are organized top to bottom. Questions about professional and amateur, team ownership. weight and size classification and all the medical issues including drug use and how sexual characteristics play a part.
I wont be holding my breath waiting for any great enlightened changes however.
In the news: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/transgender-people-finding-it-hard-win-us-supreme-court-2026-07-01/
↓
Legal experts said the ruling, issued on the final day of the court’s nine-month term, represented another setback for transgender people fighting a growing array of state and federal restrictions targeting them — and for gay rights more generally.
“The court has clearly shifted directions on LGBTQ rights,” Rutgers Law School professor Katie Eyer said.
“In numerous rulings over the course of the last several terms, they have made clear that they sympathize far more with those who wish to discriminate against LGBTQ people, than they do with LGBTQ people themselves,” said Eyer, an expert in anti-discrimination law.
Advocates for transgender rights sought to emphasize the positive on Tuesday, noting that the ruling was narrowly focused on the sports context and that its reasoning did not foreclose successful challenges to other restrictions on transgender people.
“Other discriminatory laws or government actions will have to be scrutinized to determine whether they can be justified,” said Karen Loewy, a lawyer with the LGBT rights group Lambda Legal.
The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, decided 9-0 that the state laws did not violate Title IX. It decided 6-3, along ideological lines, that the laws also did not violate the 14th Amendment. The three liberal justices said a factual dispute in the West Virginia case should have precluded resolving that issue.
in his dissenting opinion in Trump V. Barbara, kavanaugh writes:
“First, significant illegal immigration into the United States is a new circumstance that was largely unknown as of 1868 and that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment could not have fully anticipated.”
Now, imagine if he applied that same logic to 2nd amendment cases…
@ ^ phillipbrown : “First, significant illegal immigration into the United States is a new circumstance that was largely unknown as of 1868 and that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment could not have fully anticipated.”
Hah! Justask the Native Americans about that and the illegal immigrants thata arrived from 1620 – and even before* – landing on the lands of the Wampanoag peoples then spreading out to take over the rest of Turtle island to use the Lenape cosmogony.
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtle_Island )
.* Notably from 1519 onwards. See :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hern%C3%A1n_Cort%C3%A9s#Conquest_of_Aztec_Empire_(1519%E2%80%931521)
Plus : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_da_Verrazzano (Seems Amerigo Vespucci technically only landed in South and Central America as well as the West Indies islands not the mainland of the northern landmass – if his voyages actually even occurred.)
Morales-why is this not the place to do the usual to and fro?
Comment about trans mane are just dandy,right? I don’t understand. Trans men would not generally present the threat to men that trans women do to women.
Here is an interesting quote from a New Yorker article:
“Behind the Supreme Court’s Ruling on Transgender Athletes | The New Yorker
a particular transgender girl actually poses a risk to safety and competitive fairness, as a “judicial quagmire.” “Individuals come in all shapes and sizes, with different height, weight, muscle mass, heart capacity, lung capacity, strength, speed, endurance, jumping ability, and so on,” he wrote. Kavanaugh balked at the prospect of courts “determining the effects of the puberty blockers and hormones taken by transgender athletes—and then comparing each of those transgender athletes’ abilities to those of other individual biological males and individual biological females in the relevant sport.” He said it would be “almost impossible” for a judge to do it equitably. It is, however, the kind of complicated factual inquiry that trial courts are routinely asked to undertake.”
https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-lede/behind-the-supreme-courts-ruling-on-transgender-athletes
Because, chesapeake, the topic is this:
“Yesterday, the Supreme Court affirmed birthright citizenship. Good. Let’s celebrate. Except, this was a decision that should have been a no-brainer — it’s explicitly written in the Constitution, and there’s no ambiguity at all — and the Court had a 5-4 split, with Clarence Thomas writing a 90 page dissent. This was a case that barely broke through to a just decision.
On the same day, the Court unanimously ruled against transgender rights. You can pretty much be certain that it will rule against principles of democracy and inclusion whenever it gets the opportunity.”
It is not about whether women and men competing is somehow problematic.
You are trying to derail the topic onto a PRATT.
Also, sport is not supposedly about winning, it’s supposedly about competing.
Right?
Here, for you: https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/sport/overview/introduction.shtml
↓
It’s not the winning
[Children running at a sports day image]
Why do we say “it’s not the winning but the taking part that counts”?
It’s a phrase echoed by the founder of the Olympics, Baron Pierre de Coubertin, who said “The most important thing in the Olympic Games is not winning but taking part; the essential thing in life is not conquering but fighting well.”
Most people seem to agree that trying and failing is more admirable than not trying at all.
In practice, though, most people seem only to be interested in the medallists.
In young children’s sporting events, last place is often rewarded with a ‘wooden spoon’ or booby prize. Grown-up athletes don’t even have this to look forward to. Perhaps ‘taking part’ is just a myth designed to cheer up the slowest children: to take the edge off failure.
Many people would say otherwise. They say that effort, determination and striving to reach a goal are commendable in themselves.
—
(See how that vitiates your very point about winning?)
@5. chesapeake :
Do you though?
Maybe you should just stop there and lose the “while” then?
Its comparable to the familiar trope of racists saying “I’m not racist but ..” then continuing to say a lot of racist stuff.
False.
Source : https://www.livescience.com/health/theres-no-reason-to-ban-us-from-playing-analysis-debunks-notion-that-transgender-women-have-inherent-physical-advantages-in-sports
(Emphasis added.)
Plus see :
Source : https://www.them.us/story/new-study-trans-women-no-physical-advantage-over-cis-athletes
(Emphasis added.)
As well as :
Source : https://edition.cnn.com/2025/05/29/health/transgender-athletes-advantage-science-explainer
So, no. the scientific consensus whilst complex and somewhat varied based on specific criteria, studies and populations is that transwomen do NOT have any significant sporting advantage over ciswomen which is borne out by Olympic and other sporting records where trans athletes do NOT just always or even often automatically win over cis women or have any real physical advantage.
You realise you are effectively asking to be treated with metaphorical kid gloves and extra gentleness and compassion as you repeat toxic falsehoods that have done and continue to cause real pain and harm to trans people? As well as others – like notably intersex individuals and even cis women deemed insufficiently feminine eg Imane Khelif.
IOW you are saying : “Be extra nice to me whilst I say things that are false and harmful and lead to unjust discrimination to others. “
Does that really sound like a fair and reasonable thing to do and ask for to you?
Chesapeake
The ruling applies to high school students, not professional athletes. The situation you have described is not applicable.
Many transgender teens are given meds to suppress puberty, so there is no need to invent a hypothetical scenario that ignores the medical reality of a tiny subset of the population.
I am a petite cis gender woman, and was a gymnast for 6 years. I have wrestled two different men who were twice my size, made them both beg for mercy by just locking my legs around them and squeezing. I’m tiny, but size isn’t a good indicator of strength.
What threat? Trans women aren’t any threat to their teammates. I would choose the trans woman over the Bear for my own safety, and the Bear vs a cis man.
Repeating the talking points of terfs is not a compelling reason to discriminate against transgender teens who like sports.
@16. John Morales : You (chesapeake -ed) are trying to derail the topic onto a PRATT.
It is indeed a PRATT and I was going to note it as derailment but then but in fairness the OP did raise the issue of trans rights so its part of the topic and legit to discuss it here, I think.
(See chesapeake I’m being nice and fair to you despite your PRATTing falsehoods here.)
@15. chesapeake : ” Trans men would not generally present the threat to men that trans women do to women.”
That is a second toxic falsehood you have now repeated and believe here. It is wrong and transphobic. You claim to support trans people yet you keep lying about them repeating bigoted rubbish that has been repeatedly debunked.
Source : https://goodlawproject.org/rejecting-the-false-narrative-that-frames-trans-people-as-a-threat-to-women/
Plus see :
Source : https://benjykusi.substack.com/p/why-positioning-trans-women-as-an
In addition to :
Source : https://www.thepinknews.com/2026/01/28/trans-women-are-no-threat-to-cis-women-so-why-is-the-public-ready-to-believe-they-are/
That took like a second or three to search for and find online. A few minutes to copy paste and type. I’m being so nice I’m doing for you, chesapeake, the research that you should’ve done before posting your transphobic comments here. Do you think that niceness on my part towards you is really merited? What are you going to do in return? Read and reconsider your transphobic views here please.
BTW calling things transphobic that are indeed transphobic is an observation not an insult.
WNBA? Women’s soccer? Women’s rugby? Woman’s boxing?
Okay, you can argue they/re just female divisions in those sports and not female-only events but isn’t that just semantics? Either way we don’t match athletes against those whose physique gives them an unfair advantage.
Clearly a falsehood.
The only way that can analytically be true is if only athletes that are of identical physique compete.
Basically, a counter-factual claim.
The only difference is the discriminatory criteria.
(This is what I refer to as the Harrison Bergeron gambit)
[sorry, PZ. I really really tried]
That is not an argument, it is part of the taxonomy!
Look at a schoolyard playground.
(I went out of my way to note the image in my #16, to show how it should be)
—
Here we go again.
Now, I am cishetvanilla whatnot, but fuck!
Why does every mention of transness devolve upon transwomen in sports?
(Next, bathroom issues?)
Severesky
No, we group them with other athletes in the same sport by weight class or skill divisions. Varsity, jr varsity, etc.
There are many Olympic athletes whose physique gives them an inherent advantage over others. Simon Biles is one example. Her very short stature means she can complete more rotations in a given distance than taller gymnasts, and she has the gold medals to prove it.
There is a male swimmer (can’t think of his name at the moment) who has collected many gold medals because his physique is uniquely well suited to swimming fast.
Ah, but you see, Tethys, it’s just an advantage. Not an unfair advantage. /s
@SteroR, 19:
Sorry to nitpick but that seems to be referring to people who are not professional athletes. I am very skeptical when it comes to professional athletes, especially because I suspect most of them are on drugs anyways.