This was the most interesting conversation I have had in a long time. Brilliant @azizaahmed.bsky.social talked to me about her new book & how feminists transformed the science of AIDS.
lpeproject.org/blog/how-fem...
So it seems ok to use vast overgeneralizations to keep trans kids out of sports, but strikes most people as problematic to give boys harder math problems at school. Historical discrimination was very very often justified in these terms. And rejected on those terms. Not anymore?
In this back-and-forth, the government refused to take its argument to its logical conclusion: that legal distinctions justified by "real" biological differences - with the studies purporting to prove it - are often a smoke screen for blatant sex discrimination.
As the press makes sense of the arguments in the transgender athlete cases today, you're likely to see one exchange between Justice Gorsuch and Deputy SG Mooppan (like this one from NPR) www.npr.org/2026/01/13/n.... Why?
Also stereotype theory would make it obvious that this isnt bootstrapping strict scrutiny
Notice that the US govt as amicus is now arguing that transgender people can't complain about being treated unequally as a despised politically powerless minority via a sex-based classification because they're too small a minority. That's . . . uhm . . . interesting?
I could really go for less of this Michael M hypothetical from Mooppan
third, the legal stakes of these cases are broader than the harms to transgender people. If these laws are allowed to stand, the Court invites legislatures to pass discriminatory laws and justify them as rooted in biological rather than stereotypes about the inferiority of women and trans people
second, the belief underlying the anti-trans athlete legislation is that girls are terrible at sports, period. The idea is that ANY person assigned male at birth will ALWAYS defeat ANY person assigned female. Obviously untrue and deeply sexist! Talk about overinclusive...
first, these athletes do not want to prevent sports leagues from engaging in any regulation whatsoever, they simply think that a categorical ban on all trans girls and women participating in women's sports is radically overinclusive. No one is challenging sex-segregated sports.
As arguments begin in the transgender athletes cases, a few things to keep in mind:
I'll be live-skeeting the oral argument in the transgender athletes cases at the top of the next hour. (A "skeet" is the BlueSky equivalent of a tweet.) Expect snark and rage--unless I'm very pleasantly surprised. Meanwhile, here's the brief I signed as a lawyer and as an amicus.
Plus ca change . . .
kind of darkly funny that "gender studies" is the stereotypical "useless degree" because gender studies will help you understand a large and important chunk of the current psychosis in american life
“Critics have likened Mr. Trump’s approach to extortion, while others agree it’s extortion but aren’t critics.”
sometimes a beautiful book arrives at just the right time. cannot recommend @riislover667.bsky.social’s This Watery Place highly enough!
My moderating skills were a little rusty, but this event still turned out SO GREAT thanks to @sandynurse.bsky.social & @ngusdorf.bsky.social!!
If you want to learn about how NYC government works (we get deep into the city budget) you absolutely can't miss this event!!
youtu.be/kTZb8XlVJs0
Thank you Bench!!
In Skrmetti, the Supreme Court put hundreds of thousands of kids in harm's way while inflicting damage on the larger project of sex equality for all. My latest in Harvard Law Review:
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
In the Harvard Law Review, @kredburn.bsky.social has a new piece explaining what happened in Skrmetti, and what it means for trans rights and sex equality more broadly.
Out today in HLR, my piece Skrmetti Beyond Scrutiny. What happened, what it means for trans rights and sex equality more broadly: harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-13...
Thanks Rick!
Thanks Paisley!
Out today in HLR, my piece Skrmetti Beyond Scrutiny. What happened, what it means for trans rights and sex equality more broadly: harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-13...
to be clear: the government's claim - validated by the Court - is that it would *irreparably harm* the president to not misgender trans people
Worth reading the dissent in this horrible order - Justice Jackson points to the pattern of emergency docket abuse and the absurdity of the government's claims.
Throw in a three bedroom or two while you’re at it
You African Studies majors out there: you too can become mayor of New York City!!!
