Please analyze the following reasoning offered as part of SCOTUS Trans case ... Can you spot the problems?

#1

The following is from American Civil Liberties Attorney Joshua Block

“However the court resolves this case , I really urge the court not to do it on the definition of sex argument,” Block said, later adding. “I don’t think the purpose of Title IX is to have an accurate definition of sex. I think the purpose is to make sure that sex isn’t being used to discriminate by denying opportunities… I wouldn’t look to whether or not to classify B.P.J. as male or female, I think the question is, ‘is she being denied an opportunity because of that classification?’”

#2

If the reasoning for the civil rights case, Brown vs Board of Education that determined segregated schools based on race (pigmentation) were inherently unequal and thus unconstitutional, requiring the blending of all students regardless of race as the solution to equal opportunities, is applied to the Title IX civil rights upgrade, all activities should be open to all students regardless of sex.
If discrimination was based on being a female or male, removing that criteria in deciding if discrimination occurred would remove the whole idea of discrimination. It didn’t happen or doesn’t exist…

#3

… Look closely at the argument he is making in that paragraph. He is both claiming and denying two specific presuppositions. Look closely at two words “sex” and “classification”.

#4

Found this article with more details on the case.
Seems his strategy is to eliminate any and all conditions to have a zero-sum result.

#5

It’s simple; in the case of humans.
Your sex is either male or female[at birth].

However; if your in a TECHNOCRACY, of social engineering “science”
The Robot, has no sex.
Human = Robot.
Case CLOSED!

*[Albeit, the human is in transition; being engineered to be more robotic.]

#6

… yes, but what two specific presuppositions is the attorney both claiming and denying in the quote?

#7

The plaintiff shouldn’t be classified as a male or female, yet they are one or the other.

#8

… now we’re cookin’.

1 Like
#9

Yeah, there’s a reason law school didn’t seem a fit for me. :sweat_smile: