Barks&Purrs wrote:
gofigure wrote:
ike wrote:
As one might expect, the two judges in the majority are D appointees, and the dissenting judge is an R appointee. The decision:
https://wp.api.aclu.org/...2024/04/Document.pdf
1. Is there anyone or group that did not weigh in ?
2. Can we expect that some of the legal representation was provided pro bono.
3. Am I the only one who finds the D and R schism in the law on matters of this culture war disturbing.
I don’t think the schism is as bad as you might think.
I know of exactly ZERO liberals who think there should be no legal protection for cis girls and women in sports. I’m a very liberal liberal and I wholeheartedly and unreservedly agree that some protection of girls and women is required by our laws as well as general notions of fairness and good sportsmanship.
It seems obviously to many people that trans athletes should be afforded some legal protections as well. Who/ what/ when/ where/ how are all questions that determine the balance of rights.
I woke up feeling optimistic today. I think most people recognize the value of community and the need to balance rights so that everyone can enjoy and participate in community. We’ll get there.
There are many people who think trans women should never be allowed to compete against cis women, except maybe with the consent of the cis women. Whatever the merits of that position, there is no compromise in it. If someone thinks the plaintiff in this case should lose, then they’re basically taking the absolute position. You can’t get a much better plaintiff than this one. There certainly are serious arguments for the absolute position, but let’s not characterize it as a “balance.” It’s not. It’s saying that the rights of cis women always outweigh those of trans women in the sports context.
I, too, think we will make progress on this issue. We have made progress on so many other civil rights issues, so why not this one?