Here we go again...
Little vs. Hecox oral arguments were heard yesterday by SCOTUS.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito grilled an attorney representing a biological male athlete in the case of Little v. Hecox on Tuesday about the definitions of a woman and girl.
Alito asked Kathleen R. Hartnett, who is arguing on behalf of the Idaho student in the Supreme Court case, what it meant to be a “boy or a girl or a man or a woman” when it came to equal protection purposes. Hartnett agreed that a school may have separate teams for students “classified as boys and a category of students classified as girls.” Hartnett also agreed there needed to be “an understanding of what it means to be a boy or a girl and a man or a woman.”
Full article, HERE from Fox News.
Soooo, once again there is a refusal to actually ‘state’ what the definition of a male or female is...
Sigh... Apparently these lawyers (and at least one member of SCOTUS) cannot or will not state what is and has been known for over a hundred years (Nettie Stevens’ work in 1905 discovering X and Y chromosomes), men are XY, while women are XX. Therefore there is a BIOLOGIC definition of males and females.
This isn’t and hasn’t been rocket surgery for a long time. But now, with Title IX, apparently nobody knowns nuffin’...
Gah...
The "Crocodile Dundee" method is socially frowned upon, and since surgery has become so commonplace, not really effective. Let's go with chromosomes instead.
For the record; the BA hanging on my wall, issued by SUNY Buffalo (State University of New York, Buffalo - the premier STEM institution in the State), conferred to me in 1985 in Biology, would never have happened under the following 2 conditions:
1) if I informed my professors there were more than 2 genders in the higher orders of class Mamilia
2) if I could not identify the difference between male and female (and properly name gentilia) in those animals; at all levels, molecular biology and physical attributes