Recent content by bamawriter

I've never made the argument that it's about "safety." There are several sports (swimming, track and field, gymnastics, etc) that wouldn't produce physical interaction by rule but are still divided by sex. So, safety cannot possibly be the only consideration. "Loopholes" is an interesting...

Doesn't seem like an answer to my question.

Assuming that the medical treatment has completely "prevented her from developing male attributes," does that make this individual a member of a suspect class?

It would be more extreme. But not taking the most extreme position does not make her position correct.

How is "keeping the dudes out" not protecting the integrity of competition?

You're not agreeing with me. I have said no such thing.

Not an "assumption." A necessity. At least according to the appellee.

So counsel's argument is that if a biological male wants to play women's sports, he had better make that call before starting puberty and subject himself to chemical castration so that he doesn't develop a physical advantage over biological females.

This was always the inevitable end point when it comes to the refusal to define words like "Man" or "Woman." Sex has to mean something if one is going to argue that one has been discriminated against on the basis of sex. It was humorous to hear then-SCOTUS nominee Jackson say that she can't...

Fair enough.

Okay. I'll put legalities aside: I haven't questioned her intent. I have no reason to believe that she even knew he was there, let alone that she tried to hit him. What then? If she had run him over completely by accident, would her lack of intent prevent his bones from breaking?

Her intent is not relevant. Telepathy isn't real. Like I said earlier, I'm not sure she ever saw the guy in front of her car. Her focus may well have been on the two agents trying to drag her out. The issue is his response to events happening within just a few seconds. Trying to make this...

Good grief... this is not directed exclusively at you, but you just provided a great example of a major problem. Why does everything have to be argued as if every circumstance is black-or-white? It's not enough to say "He wasn't struck with significant that hard." It has to be "He was not...

It also doesn't mean that you have nothing to worry about.

It's a federal investigation and outside of the State's jurisdiction. You could acknowledge the reality of how this kind of thing works, or you could view it as a huge conspiracy.