Seattle Mayor Katie Wilson announced that she and the city would back the Seattle School Board’s unanimous vote to begin legal action to block enforcement of Initiative 638, which requires separating boys and girls in K-12 sports in Washington state. Voters overwhelmingly approved the initiative in 36 of the state’s 39 counties. Critics have charged that Wilson and other Seattle Democrats are seeking to negate the popular vote after campaigning on “saving democracy.” The greater challenge, however, is the legal basis for such an action in light of recent Supreme Court rulings.
Wilson issued a statement that she would back the School Board in refusing to accept the result of the election in order to maintain “a Seattle where every person is welcomed, supported, and valued, and where all young people can thrive as their authentic selves.”
The question is the grounds for such an action and whether the Board will burn millions on a quixotic challenge that could establish even more negative precedent for blue states on the issue.
The Court recently handed down decisions in West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox, ruling in favor of such state limits. The Court specifically ruled that states can exclude transgender athletes from women’s and girls’ sports teams. Indeed, the justices ruled unanimously that laws enacted by Idaho and West Virginia rejected federal civil rights challenges.
The Kavanaugh decision states that “[c]onsistent with Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause, we hold that the States may maintain women’s and girls’ sports for biological females. They may determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports based on biological sex. The Constitution and Title IX do not require an overhaul of women’s and girls’ sports throughout America.”
That decision followed a 6-3 decision in United States v. Skrmetti, where the Court upheld a Tennessee law banning the use of puberty blockers and hormone therapy by transgender teenagers.
In the Kavanaugh opinion, the Court accepted that men and women have “inherent physical differences” that are “relevant to athletic performance.” It accepted the view of these states that “forcing female athletes to compete against males can create significant safety risks” in contact sports. It also found that “in virtually all competitive sports, forcing female athletes to compete against males can undermine competitive fairness.”
Thus, neither the Constitution nor Title IX are viable bases for an attack on the Washington initiative. In light of those decisions, the question is how the Board and the City will fashion its challenge to the election results on Initiative 638.
Jonathan Turley is the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.” He teaches a course on the Constitution and the Supreme Court.
Blocking the popular vote sounds like something a King would do, wouldn’t you say?
But Trump is a fascist….
Here we have yet another Leftist con via manipulating the meaning of words.
Medical certification is required for playing in girls’ sports. To raise a bogus discrimination claim, the Left manipulates that requirement to mean: Only girls are required to get a medical certification. That manipulation is obviously false. The medical requirement applies to any student who wants to play in girls’ sports. Don’t get the certification, problem solved.
Then Leftists accuse JT of being “disingenuous,” while trying to rescue Seattle, by whimsically changing Seattle’s motivation for objecting to the Initiative, to: The Initiative contradicts the Washington Constitution.
The mayor and school board gave their actual motivation. Believe them.
What business is it of yours what Seattle does in its schools?
The people have spoken: “Voters overwhelmingly approved the initiative in 36 of the state’s 39 counties.”
Then the “No Kings” movement wielded its scepter: “Wilson issued a statement that she would back the School Board in refusing to accept the result of the election . . .”
IRAN
“The Khorramshahr series—and potentially extended-range variants of the Qadr—can reach Europe”
I voted for this initiative. No biological males in females’ sports.
David B. Benson
“[A] Seattle where every person is welcomed, supported, and valued, and where all young people can thrive as their authentic selves” unless of course they’re female! At what point do the People become so thoroughly disgusted with the left’s constant political doublespeak that they resolve to shut these people down? And stand upon their own strength as responsible, caring, pragmatic beings? The history of America is not one of insanity or insane social response.
betuadollar,
What do you think about “welcoming, supporting, and valuing” male rapists and male child abusers who want to be incarcerated in prisons for women because they want to “thrive as their authentic selves”?
What is a “male rapist”? What is a “male child abuser”? Get you terms straight and learn to punctuate. and don’t ask stupid hypothetical questions? Above all, USE FACTS.
For the assist for Stephen B. Benisch, California transgender convict pulled from female prison for alleged rape
https://www.thecentersquare.com/california/article_c7c9de20-22ac-11ef-9aaf-4f40566e4565.html
To be open and honest, I am a very large, muscular, former 2 time all-state football player, recruited widely by many of the best schools/coaches in the nation. (Got injured and never played again after H.S.)
I have decided to go trans, part way, and play enforcer in the WNBA for millions. Upon retirement I’ll trans back to the bull I am now.
I will happily sign an enormous contract guaranteeing my teammates’ safety or the contract is void.
I admit, I am a bit of a genius.
Homo or sim? Is the latter politically congruent (“=”), too? The effort to socially distance through labels, judgment, and banners would indicate it is not.
All’s fair in lust and abortion at the twilight fringe. Throw another baby on the barbie, it’s over.
time to ARREST these INSANE people!
Harming kids is a CRIME! This is 100% A CRIME
How is a child harmed when a transsexual plays on the same sports team that makes it a crime?
In your MAGA zeal to “own the libs”, you people have completely lost sight of what is going on here. If this initiative becomes law it will require ALL girls in Washington schools who wish to play sports to submit to lab testing or inspection of their genitalia to prove they are biological females. Not just some girls, not just individuals suspected of being transgender – every single girl in the state.
The state is basically saying that we don’t believe you are a biological female until you submit lab testing or let us peek at what’s between your legs. And all this is being done in the name of “protecting” girls. It is gross and disgusting.
It reminds me of the episode in the Vietnam War when the town of Bến Tre, occupied by the Viet Cong, was destroyed. When interviewed by journalist Peter Arnett, the commanding major said, “It became necessary to destroy the town to save it”.
This alleged “protection” of girls is a despicable intrusion into the rights of all girls. Far from “protecting” girls, it insults and demeans them. It forces them to submit to the will of the state in the most abhorrent and intrusive and humiliating way.
And all this is being done for no other reason than to “own the libs” and make a political point.
BS. They will have to do nothing more than submit a certificate from their Doctor (health care provider in the statute) confirming they were born a biological girl and never undergo any exams than they have to do to play their sport. A valid birth certificate probably be all that is needed.
And all this is being done for no other reason than to “own the libs” and make a political point.
You’re delusional, really. Keeping MEN OUT of women’s sports to allow WOMEN an equal playing field is not a “conservative” position to make a “political point”. Numerous high profile/level Democrats make the exact same argument.
All they need is a letter from their own personal doctor attesting to the presence or absence of a penis between their legs. What kind of pediatrician has been treating a child’s illnesses and giving regular well-child checkups, and has never seen the patient’s genitals? That would be an incompetent pediatrician who is not delivering the standard of care.
Even if it had required a separate visual inspection explicitly for this purpose, so what? How is that intrusive? Anyone to whom this requirement will apply already showers with her team, so they all already know what she is or isn’t packing. The problem until now has been that boys have been displaying their penises in the girls’ showers and there was nothing the girls could do about it. Now they can report it and get the boy removed.
Is there a school in the country that does not require a phycial periodically regardless of whether you are in sports ?
A hernia check is alot more invasive that anything this law could possibly require.
Nor do I see where the law requires ANY testing. It does require a healthcare professionals signature and lying likely has consequences.
The left seems to think people saying they are a citizen is sufficient to vote.
I am perfectly OK with the PARENTS of any student signing that their child is a biological female – so long as there are legal consequences for false statements.
Is there a school in the country that does not require a phycial periodically regardless of whether you are in sports ?
I’ve never heard of one that isn’t related to sports. And supposedly the school-required annual physical for sports can be quite perfunctory, and might well not involve removing ones clothes. And girls don’t need a hernia check; so a boy claiming to be a girl wouldn’t get one.
But the child’s own physician should surely have seen her genitals at some point, and that is enough of an examination to satisfy this law. The idea that merely having a doctor glance at someone’s uncovered groin is intrusive or invasive is just disingenuous.
Millhouse,
The text of Initiative 638 imposes a strict, mandatory legal test exclusively on students competing in girls’ sports:
This requirement is more intrusive because it bars the use of general school or medical records, targets exclusively female-designated athletes, and can necessitate specialized physical or lab evaluations not found in standard checkups.
Washington’s Initiative 638 mandates verification for female athletes based strictly on specific biological criteria which can compel targeted examinations or testing not part of routine care. Males don’t have to submit to this ‘extra’ step. That’s the issue and it conflicts with the state’s constitution ERA’s
Got your little private butt whipped last night by Lin and about four others, didn’t you?
Now we know what your butt looks like, so no worries for you.
LOL!!! Nope. It was Lin who ended up with egg on her face. You only showed us you don’t know how to read and you’re weird.
sure, georgie, whatever you say.
“LOL!”
Glad you thought it was funny. We did too. Your a$$ was pretty funny looking, the fake King without his fake persona clothes.
“This requirement is more intrusive because it bars the use of general school or medical records,”
Are you that stupid, GSX? When the child comes out of the womb, do you think it is wearing pants? At that time, the birth certificate is produced, almost always, designating the child as a boy or girl. When certain genetic problems become visible, that child is again examined, naked. Your responses prove you are a witless fool.
Did you even read what you cut and pasted? Girls need a “statement signed by the student’s personal health care provider verifying the student’s biological sex, relying only on the student’s reproductive anatomy”. That is all. There is nothing intrusive about a girl’s personal physician looking at her groin and noting the absence of a penis. Her doctor has definitely already done this multiple times, and can therefore make the statement without any further examination. But if by some chance she hasn’t, there’s nothing intrusive or humiliating about her making the examination now.
And yes, the requirement is only of girls, because they are the only ones seeking the special accommodation of access to the teams set up just for them, because they’re not good enough to play on the boys’ teams. There are no girls trying to get on to boys’ teams, because they can’t compete there.
John Say,
“Nor do I see where the law requires ANY testing.”
So you didn’t read the law in question. I’m not surprised. Here’s the pertinent section that’s causing all this trouble,
“Students participating in athletic activities designated for female students must submit a health examination and consent form or other statement signed by the student’s personal health care provider verifying the student’s biological sex, relying only on the student’s reproductive anatomy, genetic makeup, or normal endogenously produced testosterone levels.”
This applies only to females. Males are not required to submit to these verifications, genetic testing, or testosterone level checks.
The State’s constitution anti-discrimination clauses conflict with this. The school board is challenging the referendum’s constitutionality due to the uneven treatment between genders for school sports.
The law doesn’t require ANY testing, unless the doctor making the statement is new, and has never seen her patient naked. And even in that case, the testing it requires is not in any way intrusive or humiliating; it consists entirely of looking for one second at the patient’s groinal area, to see what she is or isn’t packing. That’s all. Someone who is trying to get on a team where she will have to shower with all the other girls is not going to have a problem with such a test.
You don’t care at all a fair playing field for biologically female athletes. You don’t get athletic competition, and you don’t value athletic competition. If you did, you would care about fairness. Maybe you were picked last in gym.
That’s absolutely not true. In all of my life, which is some many decades, I have never met a transgender that was not immediately recognizable to virtually all as a transgender. The chance of one spoofing or sneaking by us is nil, but even if we were to agree that it is in fact possible, there is also the little matter of birth certificates. Forget all that, all of this “reaching into their pants” nonsense – do you really believe given the current state of affairs that such a requirement, for say, a cfDNA test, is an actual intrusion of rights? I would suggest that it is not, and in fact, appears as very reasonable solution.
Huh?
MAGA Zeal ? This is a purportedly Blue state – there are no Republicans in statewide offices,
The house and senate are blue and Voters voted for this 56 44. Only 3 counties voted against this in All WA.
The mjority of Democrats voted for this.
This is not called MAGA – it is called Democracy. It is also called Sanity.
Democrats just won a blue wave – And yet measure like this passed in Blue and Red states.
No one but far left wing nuts wants men in Womens sorts.
No the law does not require students to submit to invasive examinations.
It merely requires your healthcare provider – not even a doctor to sign a document confirming you are female.
Most people have medical records going back to birth today.
If the doctor knows you and knows you have not “transitioned” – they can just sign.
Presumably your family doctor already knows. If they do not or you do not have a family doctor
The doctor can determine sex in whatever way you and they agree to.
An original unaltered birth certificate.
Checking those records is sufficient
A cheap DNA test.
Checking a few cells in your saliva with a powerful enough microscope would work.
I am sure that some testing company can produce a trivial test like the Covid test that can be read in a few minutes.
There are myriads of ways to establish sex.
Nor is the law demanding some perfectly accurate way to to it.
Nothing invasive is required – just a signature.
But lying comes with consequences.
That said – Is there a public school in the country that will allow you to go to school at all – much less participate in Sports without a physical ?
While going through public school I was required to have a physical every 4 years – if I did not – a doctor would come to the school and give a physical to every student that did not have a physical done by their family doctor.
I do not know what a physical for girls is like – but Males at Every age are checked for Hernias.
There is absolutely nothing this law could require that is more invasive than that.
Everyone should read your post – just to see how much those of you are the far left are willing to lie.
You are Making up this invasive test nonsense and it is likely some voters bought it – because this in not a 56/44 issue even in WA – it is a 70/30 or 80/20 issue.
But you have to lie.
You have to engage in fear mongering.
No 56% of deep blue WA voters did not do this to “own libs”
They did it because they do not want their children F#$Ked with.
They want them safe.
Abset parents drugging their children practically as infants – nearly all biological males will become significantly stronger than Biological women.
A Team of 15year old Boys beat the Crap out of the Women’s professional soccer team.
In 1973 55 year old Bobby Riga pro in the 40’s who had retired 20 years earlier Beat Margret Court in 3 sets. He was later basted by Billy Jean King – the top womens tennis player in the world who was just over half Riggs age. Later Jimmy conners Beat Martina Navrotolova in a match with Rules rigged to favor women.
The physical advantage starts early and accelerates.
By the teens not 1 in 100 women are going to be able to beat any healthy male their age, and almost any sport.
The difference is so pronounced that in many sports – biological men can easily accidentally kill or injure seriously biological women.
Voters chose not to subject female athletes to substantial additiona risk of injury – concussions, broken bones – carreer ending an possibly life threatening injuries.
I though left wing nuts claimed they beleived in Science – of course that statement alone reveals your stupidity.
If you have to beleive in it – it is religion not science. Regardless the Science is that biological men are not women and even ordinary biological men are phycially superior and physically dangerous to biological women.
I love action films and over the past couple of decades more than half of all action films have female leads.
I am 100% ok with that – movies are fantasy – even male lead action films are really movie magic – there is no Real Rambo or Real person capable of what Rambo does – but it is a fun fantasy. I can enjoy watching Angelina Jolie beat the crap out of bad guys who in real life would break here like a twigg.
But those movies are Fantasy – not real life, not science.
Lets stop trying to pretend that movie magic works in school sports.
This is about keeping women safe.
Biology IS science – something you should have learned in school.
John, almost every claim you just made is flatly contradicted by the law itself and basic biology:
1. Birth certificates are explicitly disallowed: You claim a doctor can just check an “original unaltered birth certificate” or sign based on whatever you agree to. Wrong. Section 3(2) of I-638 strictly forbids that—it mandates that a provider verify biological sex “relying only on one or more of the following: The student’s reproductive anatomy, genetic makeup, or normal endogenously produced testosterone levels”. Because Washington allows birth certificates to be amended, the authors deliberately excluded birth certificates from that list.
2. Your “saliva microscope” and “COVID-style DNA test” are pure science BS: For someone lecturing others about science, you might want to learn how chromosomes work. You cannot see X and Y chromosomes in a few cheek cells under a microscope, and there is no 15-minute “COVID-style” strip test for genetic sex. Karyotyping or DNA testing requires a specialized lab, takes days, costs hundreds of dollars, and isn’t covered by insurance for middle school sports.
3. Washington public schools do NOT require physicals to attend school: Public schools in Washington require immunization records and proof of age to enroll—not routine physical exams. Furthermore, standard sports physicals for girls check heart rate, lungs, vision, and joints—not their genitals.
4. Only girls are subjected to this: You bring up hernia checks for boys, completely ignoring that I-638 imposes zero verification requirements on boys. Over 140 Washington doctors and nurses publicly warned against I-638 for this exact reason: if a girl doesn’t have an established pediatrician who has recently examined her, the law forces a provider to either perform an unnecessary genital exam or order expensive hormone/genetic lab work just to let her play soccer.
Nobody is asking for “movie magic,” John. People are pointing out that forcing every minor girl in Washington—and only girls—to submit anatomical, genetic, or hormonal proof to play school sports is an invasive, badly written mandate.
X, George, Anonymous:
Please stop spreading mis/disinformation with such flare. Chromosomal analysis for determination of biological sex has been around for years, including via buccal (cheek) swab (one example is chromatin test) and good hair follicle samples.
At-home DNA tests, including sex determination can be administered at school or home, and generally run below $100 consumer $50 in mass quantities. In the future, this test may be covered by funding related to Title IX.
https://ufhealth.org/conditions-and-treatments/buccal-smear
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/375745835_Sex_and_blood_group_determination_from_hair_using_ATR-FTIR_spectroscopy_and_chemometrics
I truly doubt that girls/females would consider this an insurmountable burden, particularly if in the future their schools pay for it. But you must remember it would not have been needed at all if it were not for biological males attempting to compete in girls’ sports. Thanks anyway
Lin, it is telling that you had to quietly downgrade your made-up “Title IX funds” to “in the future, this test may be covered by funding related to Title IX”—an admission that no such funding exists today, and certainly won’t exist before Washington’s law hits students on December 3.
More importantly, you still haven’t proven a single thing I said is wrong. I provided direct quotes from the law and facts about school sports physicals and what they do NOT do.
Blaming transgender athletes doesn’t erase the plain text of Washington’s Constitution, and moving the goalposts every comment still hasn’t refuted a single fact I’ve posted.
How is this…disinformation? You should know when your a$$ has been handed to you. It’s better to just let it go carry on with your day.
“you had to quietly downgrade your made-up “Title IX funds”
What a clown you are X. You’ve really stretched to the bottom of the barrel to justify yourself now, didn’cha boy? Too bad, counting the score of all those who replied to your dimwitted defense, score is US (Lin, et al) to X (half wit) @7 to one.
Go lie down on your psychiatrist’s couch and tell him about your failure to admit you are wrong. Oh, and don’t forget your thesaurus!
p.s. ^^^from Georgie’s Nemesis
At least I have a defense. You just have insults. That’s pretty sad.
lin
Your comment is a quintessential example of someone with limited knowledge being led astray by AI.
The chromatin test using a buccal smear for gender determination has long been abandoned in testing the gender of athletes. It has a high error rate, and has been proven to be unreliable. It was a simple test that simply examined cheek cells with a microscope after staining with Giemsa stain. It has been replaced by testing for the SRY gene, which can be done with a buccal smear sample, but it requires much more complex PCR testing of the sample. PCR testing is not available in most clinical labs. It is classified by CLIA as a high-complexity test, requiring special licensing and certification. Only about 10% of clinical labs are certified for PCR.
The other test you refer to using hair follicles, ATR-FTIR spectroscopy, is not a routine diagnostic test that can be ordered by a physician, and no clinical labs are capable of performing this test. It is a research tool used in an academic setting. There are only a few hundred research labs in the entire world that are capable of performing this test.
You may consider asking AI the appropriate questions, such as “has the chromatin test been abandoned in testing athlete gender”, and “is ATR-FTIR spectroscopy a routine diagnostic test”.
AI is only useful if you ask the right questions
That would be destroying Democracy. Ignoring the vote and the will of the people. We are a representative democracy. Democrats no longer want to represent the people but to impose their will on the people. That is not democracy, but dictatorship.
It seems that based on the reaction by the left to results of voter initiatives is that their version of “democracy” is actually minority rules which is contrary to majority rule.
But I thought that MAGA dogma holds that we are not a democracy, and that democracy is in fact the “tyranny of the majority”, which obviously implies minority rule is the desirable state of affairs. You should be delighted about this example of minority rule.
You are wrong. We are a representative republic with a democratic form of picking our representatives. That democracy we have also is a limited democracy. We have checks and balances like the electoral college and Bill of Rights. Which is why the Democrats want to get rid of them. That means mob rule and eventually a dictatorship, because mob rule never works.
Excellent.
Yeah, what about two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner?
When the rights of the sheep are violated the power of government – whether republic or Democracy ends.
Silly you, we are constitutional republic, and as such, dependent on democratic elections. And have been since our very first plantings in the early 1600s.
We are not a democracy – we are a constitutional republic. Even the government has to meet a high burden to infringes on peoples rights.
There is no right to be a man or a women – Nature dictates which you are. You can argue that you are free to live differently than nature made you – and to the extent that you can manage that without imposing a burden on others – such as requiring government to pay for drugs or transition you – I am OK with that. But your wish to live as a different sex than you were born is not a right and may not infringe on the Natural right of others to live as the sex they were born and to enjoy the distinctions of that sex without having to compete with people who are not that sex.
Let’s all pause for a minute to contemplate where X/George would be today, especially in his criticisms of the good professor, if he had not learned the word “disingenuous” here.
Lin, what….? The ‘good professor’ clearly made a misleading claim about the Washington school board. It’s fair to point it out when a little research into the issue brings up a totally different thing.
The board or the mayor are not out to defy the voters as Turley is clearly implying. This is a case of a school board challenging the I-638 referendum’s mandate because it conflicts with their state constitution. They want the state Supreme Court to clear up the conflicting laws. Schools can be sued for violating the state constitution if they follow the requirements of the I-638 referendum.
This is not about defying voters or undermining democracy.
It only took a cursory search into this to find out Turley is indeed being disingenuous, a word I didn’t have to learn on this blog. It’s a basic English word you learn in school. Right? You knew what it meant when you were in high school, right?
X. For your homework tonight, please write 100 times on unlined paper:
GEORGE/X is disingenuous
GEORGE/X is disingenuous
GEORGE/X is disingenuous
GEORGE/X is disingenuous
LOL! Sure, if you say so. 🙄
Your explanation is truly laughable.
Is it? You have a better one based on facts?
says X, “…disingenuous, a word I didn’t have to learn on this blog [but I did].”
This is a case of a school board challenging the I-638 referendum’s mandate because it conflicts with their state constitution.
Huh???
Explain how it conflicts? It doesn’t conflict at all. Stop spinning.
If Washington Initiative 638 violates the state constitution then very obviously the state constitution is flawed.
The WA constitution is not flawed, The WA supreme court refuses to follow the clear intent of those who draftied and ratified the Sexual equality amendment to the WA constitution in 1972.
Washington state has a 1972 Equal rights amendment which prohibits discrimination based on SEX.
The Washington Supreme court has idiotically translated that into special Gender protections
Which is precisely why Laws and constitutions MUST be read in light of the intent of those who wrote and ratified them.
No one in drafting or ratifying the 1972 amendment thought it created special rights for Trans.
Regardless you challenge a law in court – you obey the law until you persuade a court to declare the law unconstitutional or injunct its enforcement temporarily.
5 seats on the WA supreme court were up in this election – results in a few remain undecided.
Regardless 5 Candidates were on the same ballot as this initiative None of them got 55% of the vote. I am not sure that any got more than 35% of the vote. WA Supreme court judges serve 6 year terms and have manditory retirement at 75.
Se shall see whether the new court is as far left as the old one.
Or there could be a ballot initiative next year to replace them all.
John Say,
The Washington Supreme Court isn’t ignoring the intent of the 1972 Equal Rights Amendment—it has enforced its exact literal text for over 50 years.
When Washington voters ratified Article XXXI in 1972, they put unambiguous language into the state constitution: “Equality of rights and responsibility under the law shall not be denied or abridged on account of sex.” As the Washington Supreme Court explained in Darrin v. Gould just three years later in 1975—a landmark school sports case decided by the very justices who witnessed the 1972 ratification—voters adopted that absolute language specifically to stop lawmakers from inventing exceptions that treat males and females unequally under the law.
Even using your own biological-sex definition, Initiative 638 violates the literal 1972 text. It forces every biological girl in Washington to undergo medical verification of her reproductive anatomy, chromosomes, or testosterone levels just to play school sports, while imposing zero verification requirements on biological boys. That’s the problem and it’s why the school board is challenging the referendum.
Applying a 1972 constitutional amendment that bans unequal legal burdens based on sex to strike down a law that burdens only girls isn’t judicial activism—it is literally following the text the voters ratified.
Upi challenge a law in court – not by chosing to disobey it.
They ARE challenging it in court. They are seeking an injunction to hold the enactment of the referendum until the WA Supreme Court can clear up the conflict of the referendum’s mandate with the state constitution.
That’s not disobeying the voters.
Given that X/George is likely transgender male-to-female, here is a friendly reminder that he should have a prostate exam once he hits the age of 50 regardless if he identifies as she/her/ho. If however his father has a history of prostate cancer, he should start having prostate exams by age 45. As to testicular cancer, men should become familiar with their testicles by their teenage years and be aware of any unusal changes. This assumes he has not been afflicted with undescended testicles otherwise known in Latin as testiculi non descensi or in Spanish sin cojones
You’re welcome X. This one is on the house!
Thank you. I’ll tell him
So glad you’re going to tell him, Svelaz. I was going to tell him but he’s pissed at me because I starting dating girls.
Given that X/George is likely transgender male-to-female, here is a friendly reminder that he should have a prostate exam once he hits the age of 50 regardless if he identifies as she/her/ho.
LOL ⬆️…. TY 👍….You left out nothing 😹😹😹
Lin – when I skip the trolls, I almost never see that word. Hence, I almost never see it anymore.
Yours,
Uncle Henry
So much for “democracy”. The Democrats and Left don’t care a wit about democracy. It is only an argument to get their way, but when a referendum of the people disagrees with them, they cannot tolerate it.
Other evidence they are anti-democracy: the ballot cleansing efforts in 2024 in Colorado and Maine, and the corruption of the 2026 ballot in Alaska. It started with Gore in 2020 demanding recount after recount after recount until he got his way. Finally Scotus correctly put an end to it.
Wait, wait, wait.
We are not a democracy, we are a constitutional republic. Isn’t that MAGA doctrine??
Democracy is nothing more than an evil “tyranny”of the majority”. Isn’t that MAGA doctrine ??
All of a sudden you are concerned about the left subverting democracy. Isn’t that what MAGA wants… the subversion of that evil system of democracy??
So true. America is a democracy just like the original Greek democracy, with severe vote restrictions, which allow only capable, ambitious, and successful people that privilege, for obvious good reasons. Is there a prosperous organization anywhere that is run by its employees, its proletariat, or its hired help?
“We are not a democracy, we are a constitutional republic. Isn’t that MAGA doctrine??”
No. It’s America’s doctrine, misunderstood by ignorant anonymous people.
We are a constitutional republic that operates as a representative democracy.
Are you sure about that?
We could be a democracy operating as a constitutional representative republic
Maybe we are a representative constitutional republic operating as a democracy.
We could also be a constitutional democracy operating as representative republic.
Perhaps we are representative republic operating as a constitutional democracy.
Perhaps we are a republic operating as a constitutional representative democracy.
Have you considered the possibility that we are an “informal approximation” of a constitutional republic operating as a representative democracy.
It is so much fun when words have no fixed meaning, isn’t it.
You can make up whatever ridiculous definition you want to satisfy your insane ideas.
Public school for you? Just curious…..
No it is the text of the constitution.
I note that Anonymous becomes mute as soon as his ignorance is exposed.
The left has never cared about democracy. Only about power. The left always wants a dictatorship. A leftist dictatorship. It has never changed since the founding of the Democratic party.
Delete Title IX. Pro sports can fund colleges as their training arena. Privatize it. Where in the Constitution does it even hint at taxpayer funded sports. Absurd waste of money. Pay back medicare and social security with that money waste. Disgusting…
Carpe Diem: I want to compliment you for your astute reference to Title IX, which I do not see in any other comments, – good for you!
Irrespective of Washington laws or constitutional provisions relating to equal protection and discrimination, to my knowledge, (and anyone please correct me if I am wrong), Seattle as well as Washington State public schools accept Title IX funds for their athletics.
As you know, the good professor made note of recent specific SCOTUS cases (in particular, Little v. Hecox) which expressly held that neither Title X nor the 14th Amdt prevents states from limiting girls’ and women’s sports to biological females. Moreover, the Court held that consideration of safety and competitive fairness were legitimate government interests. Whether under a strict scrutiny or an intermediate threshold, I believe the government has articulated compelling interests as well as articulable and reasonable measures to insure compliance.
Moreover, I thought that boys already undergo physical examination for VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION in competitive sports games? And as far as “sex discrimination” claims/arguments that boys don’t have to meet ANY of the three or more options for participation in male sports that females have to meet, -that is a simple remedy: just articulate the same qualifying options.
Seattle and Washington can do whatever they want, but if they are playing under Title IX athletic programs and competitions, as well as wanting to keep those Title IX funds coming, they’re gonna have to meet funding provisions. Turley is right: I am curious as to how they can overcome that barrier/ and or fashion a new challenge.
So, bottom line for me, if I got too verbose, is that sure, Seattle and Washington can keep their trans participants in athletic programs, but if they want Title X finding -or if they want to avoid mass female exodus or non-participation in sports and emigration to safer and more fair alternative options, they need to think this out…
funding not finding. oops.
Lin, are you SURE you’re a lawyer? Really sure?
Because you commend Carpe Diem for proposing a pretty stupid point. I mean, wow.
First, there’s no such thing as Title IX funds. It doesn’t exist. Period. It’s not a thing.
Title IX is a federal civil rights statute passed in 1972—not a budget line item or a sports subsidy. Its full text states that no person shall be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination under any education program receiving federal financial assistance on the basis of sex. Deleting Title IX would not save a single dollar of federal tax money.
It doesn’t allocate a single dime of taxpayer money to fund sports; it simply says that if a school chooses to accept federal education funds, it cannot discriminate based on sex.
“Seattle and Washington can do whatever they want, but if they are playing under Title IX athletic programs and competitions, as well as wanting to keep those Title IX funds coming, they’re gonna have to meet funding provisions. Turley is right: I am curious as to how they can overcome that barrier/ and or fashion a new challenge.”
They can easily overcome that barrier, especially when it doesn’t exist. Title IX funds. ROFL!!!!
Dear X: Thank you for jumping on my comment. Here is some information for you.
“Title IX regulations require schools to provide equal opportunity, regardless of sex. This requirement applies to schools’ athletic programs, including club, intramural, interscholastic, and intercollegiate teams. Learn more about Title IX and athletics.” https://govfacts.org/education-family-social-services/higher-education/sexual-assault-title-ix/your-school-gets-federal-funds-heres-what-title-ix-requires/
Ask your beloved AI “can a school forfeit Title IX funds for noncompliant athletic programs, but still receive funds for other enducational programs?” and this is what it will tell you:
“Yes, a school can lose its federal funding for noncompliance with Title IX in its athletic programs, but it may still receive funds for other educational programs.”
There are multiple resources for your edification and education. THanks anyway.
Lin, nice try with the sleight of hand, but you completely skipped the actual point—and your own sources just proved me right.
Notice how in your prompt you typed “Title IX funds,” yet the answer you pasted quietly corrected you and replaced it with “federal funding.” Even the headline of the article you linked says: “Your School Gets Federal Funds. Here’s What Title IX Requires.” It explicitly defines Title IX as a civil rights law prohibiting sex discrimination—not a funding program.
There is no such thing as “Title IX funds.” Schools receive general federal education money (like Pell Grants and student aid), and Title IX is simply the anti-discrimination rule attached to that money. Pivoting to a tangent about how the Department of Education withholds general funds during a violation doesn’t magically invent a “Title IX” budget line item. Thanks for linking an article that confirms my exact point!
Come on Lin. That was just embarrassing.
you clown. everyone knows what Lin means.
“Title IX funding refers to federal financial assistance provided to educational institutions that comply with Title IX regulations, which prohibit sex-based discrimination in education programs and activities. This funding is crucial for ensuring equal opportunities for all students, regardless of gender, in various educational settings.”
“Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 is a federal law that prohibits sex discrimination on the basis of sex in federally funded education programs and activities, including but not limited to athletic programs that receive federal funding
https://www.cuchicago.edu/general-information/public-safety/title-ix/
“How is Title 9 funded?
“Title IX applies to all educational institutions, both public and private, that receive federal funds. Almost all private colleges and universities must abide by Title IX regulations because they receive federal funding through federal financial aid programs used by their students.”
you see, this is how X creates his own arguments, then tries to discredit them.
he says, “Title IX as a civil rights law prohibiting sex discrimination—not a funding program.” NO ONE SAID IT WAS A FUNDING PROGRAM, NOT EVEN LIN.
Oh, bless your heart—did you seriously jump into the middle of a thread without bothering to read the very first comment at the top of the page?
Let’s walk through this slowly since reading comprehension seems to be a struggle for you. The entire thread started with a comment literally demanding: “Delete Title IX… Where in the Constitution does it even hint at taxpayer funded sports. Absurd waste of money. Pay back medicare and social security with that money waste.”
When I pointed out that Title IX doesn’t spend a single dime of taxpayer money, Lin tried to rescue that bogus claim by literally asking if a school can “forfeit Title IX funds.”
Calling something a “taxpayer-funded waste of money” that should “pay back Medicare and Social Security”—and then claiming schools receive “Title IX funds”—is the literal definition of treating a civil rights law like a government funding program. Maybe try reading the thread from the beginning before embarrassing yourself by yelling in all caps so you don’t look like a complete idiot next time. Thanks.
“Nice try [but no cigar] is another ploy learned and copycatted by georgie, likely from Lin.
X as always you are arguing meaningless sematics.
Absent a change of administrations – States will not receive any federal funds for eduction without complying with Title IX SCOTUS has let state this administrations Title IX rule making that dictates that Sex under Title IX means biological sex.
This administration can legitimately deny any state federal funding if it allows biological men in Womnes sports.
With Difficulty a subsequent administration can change the rule,
With less difficulty they can ignore it.
Regardless, I am perfectly happy to see Democrats pi$$ on the majority of voters.
That is an excellent way to turn a blue wave in 2026 into a red tsunami in 2028.
You go for it Girl !
Oh, John—it is always entertaining watching you rush in with a cape to rescue commenters who can’t even keep their own story straight, only to accidentally prove them wrong yourself.
Calling this “meaningless semantics” is adorable, so let’s break down basic federal budgeting for you like a fifth-grade civics class. The entire argument started because your side demanded to “Delete Title IX” to “pay back Medicare and Social Security with that money waste,” and Lin doubled down by claiming schools get “Title IX funds.”
A civil rights law with a $0 budget is not a funding program. If you repeal Title IX tomorrow, exactly $0.00 goes back to Medicare or Social Security, because Title IX doesn’t spend a single penny. Even you had to admit it in your own comment when you wrote that states risk losing “federal funds for education”—notice how even you couldn’t bring yourself to call them “Title IX funds” because you know that term is made-up nonsense.
And just to add to your string of errors: under 20 U.S.C. § 1682, the federal government cannot simply yank “any state’s federal funding” overnight—fund termination is strictly limited to the specific noncompliant program after formal administrative hearings and congressional notice.
Nice try moving the goalposts to 2028 election fantasies to cover up the fact that your side doesn’t know the difference between a civil rights statute and a line item in the federal budget. You go for it, Champ!
X, did you read the TITLE of the above link: “Your school gets Federal funds; here’s what Title IX requires.”
the more you twist your little pretzel, the more we will devour it.
Hey Clown X the KNow-it-all fake,
“There are three parts to Title IX as it applies to athletics programs: (1) effective accommodation of student interests and abilities (participation), (2) athletic financial assistance (scholarships), and (3) other program components (the “laundry list” of benefits to and treatment of athletes). The “laundry list” includes equipment and supplies, scheduling of games and practice times, travel and daily per diem allowances, access to tutoring, coaching, locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities, medical and training facilities and services, publicity, recruitment of student athletes and support services.” https://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/advocacy/what-is-title-ix/
Calling someone a “clown” while pasting a link that completely disproves your own point is pretty embarrassing.
Nothing in the paragraph you just pasted mentions “Title IX funds” because they do not exist. You just quoted a list of equal-opportunity compliance rules governing how a school manages its own teams, facilities, and internal athletic scholarship pool.
If you had bothered to read two paragraphs higher on your own link, you would have seen this exact sentence: “Title IX gives women athletes the right to equal opportunity in sports in educational institutions that receive federal funds… The penalty for non-compliance with Title IX is withdrawal of federal funds.”
Schools receive general federal education money, and Title IX is simply the anti-discrimination rule they must follow to keep it. Thank you for linking a source that confirms my exact point! LOL!! What an idiot.
“Title IX funding refers to federal financial assistance provided to educational institutions that comply with Title IX regulations, which prohibit sex-based discrimination in education programs and activities. This funding is crucial for ensuring equal opportunities for all students, regardless of gender, in various educational settings.”
Thanks for making ALL OF OUR POINTs,X
LOL!!!! Wow, you’re stupid. Really stupid. You really don’t know how to use AI.
Posting an unattributed, AI-generated blurb with no link or source isn’t the slam dunk you think it is—especially when the words you just pasted still prove your side completely wrong.
First, notice there is no link attached to your quote because no actual federal statute or Department of Education rule defines “Title IX funding.” When you type a leading prompt like “What is Title IX funding?” into a search engine, basic AI summaries simply echo your made-up phrase back to you.
Second, read your own quote carefully: “federal financial assistance provided to educational institutions that comply with Title IX regulations.” That is literally just describing general federal education grants (like Pell Grants and Title I money) given to schools that follow the law—not a Title IX spending program.
You poor illiterate dope. LOL!
Here’s more for you, Clown X.
“Federal financial assistance” under Title IX can be direct or indirect, and it does not refer only to monetary funds. For example, colleges indirectly receive federal financial assistance by accepting students who pay using federal financial aid that was directly received by the students. Federal financial assistance can also be in the form of a land grant or use of a federal property for the recipient as reduced or no cost. Since the recipient is paying a discounted amount or nothing for the use of property, the federal government is financially assisting the recipient. Generally, a successor or transferee of the property is bound by Title IX if the same or a similar objective is pursued.” https://www.justia.com/education/discrimination-in-education/title-ix/
All of us LAWYERS knew what was meant, but non-lawyer fake X creates his own understanding, definition, and arguments.
Claiming to be a “lawyer” while demonstrating zero reading comprehension of your own quote is a special kind of stupid even for as an anonymous commenter.
Read the actual words you just pasted. The quote defines “federal financial assistance”—not “Title IX funds”—and explicitly lists examples like students paying tuition with their own federal financial aid and colleges using federal land grants.
In legal English, “under Title IX” means for the purpose of determining whether Title IX rules apply. It does not mean Title IX is a budget line item. Remember the very first comment in this thread that you are trying to defend? It demanded to “Delete Title IX”to “pay back Medicare and Social Security with that money waste.”
Even a first-year law student knows that deleting a civil rights statute does not cancel Pell Grants, claw back student loans, or turn 19th-century land grants into cash for Social Security. Thank you for pasting a third consecutive source that proves my exact point!
Not gonna let you pretend you won the argument, Clown X.
Here’s more for you
“…would impact any institution that receives funding under Title IX, such as schools, colleges, universities, 4-H programs, non-governmental organization programs, sports programs and other education-related awards to detention facilities.
https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/2026/01/13/illinois-joins-suit-after-feds-threaten-billions-in-funding-over-trump-order-targeting-trans-people-again
AI: “Key Aspects of Title IX Funding
“Federal Financial Assistance: Title IX funding is provided to schools that comply with its regulations. This includes funding for various educational programs and activities.”
Poor georgie is now fighting his own AI sources!!!!
LOL!!!🤣. Wow you’re really doubling down on stupid.
It is hilarious how you manage to paste a brand-new link every time that still proves you wrong, while bragging about your reading comprehension. I don’t think you realize you don’t have any.
Let’s look at the Chicago Sun-Times article you just linked—which you clearly didn’t read past one sloppy sentence. Two paragraphs higher, your own article explicitly states that the money at stake is “billions of dollars of federal funding”—specifically “funds that have already been signed off on by Congress” for things like 4-H programs(USDA grants) and detention facilities. A journalist using casual shorthand (“funding under Title IX”) to describe USDA 4-H grants subject to civil rights rules does not magically turn Title IX into a funding program. [1]
And pasting an AI summary generated by typing your own loaded phrase (“Title IX funding”) into a search bar just proves you don’t understand how search engines work. Notice that even your AI snippet immediately had to translate your made-up phrase into the real legal term: “Federal Financial Assistance.”
Again arguing stupid sematics.
Is there ANY valid interpretation with the Rules currently in place that are blessed by the Supreme court that precludes terminating Federal Education funding to WA if it allows bio men in womens sports ?
The No men in Womens sports is now a Rule under Title IX – failure to comply with Titile IX results can result in loss of federal education funding.
That is true regardless of your semantic games.
John, changing the subject because your side lost the original argument isn’t “winning”—it’s moving the goalposts.
First, calling this “semantics” doesn’t magically make basic math disappear. Your side started this entire thread by demanding to “Delete Title IX” to “pay back Medicare and Social Security with that money waste,” and then spent a dozen comments trying to prove “Title IX funds” exist. A civil rights rule has a $0 budget. If you delete Title IX tomorrow, exactly $0.00 goes back to Medicare or Social Security—all those federal education grants keep getting spent, just without anti-discrimination rules attached. That isn’t “semantics”; it’s basic civics.
Second, since you asked whether anything precludes terminating “Federal Education funding to WA”—yes, federal statutory law and the Supreme Court’s own rulings do:
You can keep yelling “semantics” all you want, John, but your side was wrong about Title IX being a funding program, and you’re wrong about how Title IX enforcement works.
X,
Federal Funding at Risk: What Schools Could Lose Over Title IX Violations
https://govfacts.org/rights-freedoms/education-rights/title-ix-equal-access/federal-funding-at-risk-what-schools-could-lose-over-title-ix-violations/
https://www.ecfr.gov/on/2023-08-01/title-34/section-106.41
Male-to-female transsexuals are eunuchs, and even ancient people knew that eunuchs were the best baby sitters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunuch
-and the best incognito customers in the women’s clothes section at Goodwill, St. Vincent de Paul stores
If we were talking about eunuchs there would be little problem. The problem is that most “trans-women”, and especially the ones that are a problem in women’s sports, are not eunuchs, they are fully functional and anatomically correct men. “Lia Thomas”, for instance, is a man who declared himself to be a woman, and on that basis was forced on the Penn women’s swim team, who were forced to allow him to flaunt his dick at them in the showers and were punished if they complained. And of course he won most of his competitions, because he is a man of average ability, so all but the very best of women are barely competition for him.
All this law requires is that someone wishing to compete as a girl have her doctor attest that she has no penis. That is all.
Why is the political left in America so anti-woman? In Washington State, a female wrestler was groped and digitally penetrated by a male wrestler whom she thought was female. She understandably is afraid to get back into the ring against male opponents. The state electorate’s vote sought to protect her from that fear, but now the Left is saying f— you to her, you have to live in fear. Why?
They have their (quite arbitrary and protean) status strata. Ordinary women are lower status than sexual deviants.
But I mean the Left used to be the place for feminism. Any real feminist would be against biological males competing against women and using their safe spaces like locker rooms and showers. The Left is for it.
Similar to immigration. Mass immigration drives down wages for low-income workers, and benefits corporate America. Now the Left is for it. A complete flip of their position.
Similar to anti-war. The Left was traditionally the home of the anti-war movement. Then with Russia-Ukraine, it became pro-war and anti-negotiated settlement. Another complete flip.
You’re assuming soi-disant ‘feminists’ had principles. ‘Feminism’ is like ‘Murphy’s Law’ or ‘the Peter Principle’. There’s a short-form and a long-form definition. The short form is, “the habit of looking at human relations with the assumption that women have options, and men have obligations”.
I recently saw a video where a male wrestler used another male wrestler in the manner of stuffing a turkey. At least 3 fingers were pushed knuckle-deep.
It’s unsportsmanlike conduct no matter who does it.
Now explain how that famous college fraternity managed to rape a woman without a single transsexual in sight.
Putting aside the state of evidence (or lack thereof) and the media hype in the case you refer to, your reasoning (if it can be called reasoning) seems to be: if non-transsexual male rape of a woman is bad, then nobody should complain when a confused male who is a mediocre athlete when competing against other males pretends to be female so he can harm real women in countless ways, such as by entering women’s competitive sports and depriving actual women of scholarship opportunities and awards for which they have trained their whole lives, bashing their heads with a volleyball spike that a female wouldn’t be able to deliver, or groping a female wrestler.
And furthermore, the existence of rape by a male means nobody should criticize a legal effort to overturn the will of the voters who voted against all of the above harms.
Is that really the best you anonymous liberal trolls can come up with?
The transgendered are pursuing happiness in accordance to the Declaration of Independence.
Visualize a tiny baby sitting in his diapers throwing toys all around the room.
Same argument as the islamist raping gangs
See the work of Paul McHugh, once chief of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins. One of the features of the mix of medical and surgical quackery visited upon these people is that they emerge the other end with the same set of dissatisfactions they had to begin with.
Same argument as someone who likes to shoot people because it makes him happy.
That’s not a good argument. A transgendered person hurts no one else by being transgendered. What about “to each their own”, “live and let live”, and all that stuff?
It depends on if you’re talking about biological males in women’s competitive sports, locker rooms, and showers. That most definitely does hurt the biological women.
That, anon, came in under ——> wait for it—–> Obama. A friendly letter saying trans can use women’s bathrooms and gyms, locker rooms. Biden expanded it. DJT rolled it back pre-hoax.
What people need to understand is women’s sports is lgbt and has always been. Straight women are routinely six packed in volleyball and can sustain incredible injuries in gymnastics for failure to properly spot.
merely an fyi
The case cited in the article is a sure loser. The congress intends to change law. Sports be hanged! Title IX came in in 1972. We’ll all survive with a bare bone, learn the rules of volleyball education. Privatize sports and the incredible money in sports and Sweeney predictions can pay for it. What are the odds on the Nobel prize in physics 2027? I’m betting …
homosexual nation until Islam takes over. It should be fun to see the Moslems in congress vote on this.
As I’ve said many times, Ima Toster.
Biological men taking places on the podium, or even in ranking, takes a spot and hurts real woman. Biological men taking records, status, scholarships from and hurts real women. Real women being forced to share their safe spaces with biological men harms them mentally.
Not to mention real women suffering when male competitors grope them (as in wrestling – happened in Washington State) or physically injure them with (as in volleyball with a hard spike – happened in California).
But if you call them by the most obvious pronoun, there will be hell toupee. And they invented the crime of “misgendering.”
And they are free to do so so long as they do not infringe on the rights of others.
There is no right for Bio man to compete in womens sports.
There is not even a right for Bio Man to identify as women – but so long as it does not harm others, and makes no demands of others I am fine with it.
The thing that bothers me the most about commenters such a X and the coward posting as “anonymous” is that none of them are willing to discuss the real issue here, mental illness. There is no such thing as transgender or being “born in the wrong body”. These youngsters are encouraged to continue in their illness by mentally ill adults eager to destroy reality. It’s sad and disgusting to witness this. Question for you all . Have any of you ever researched any of the victims of the insanity who are “de-transitioning”?
ESTOVIR, you haven’t used Crognale in awhile. Is he making a comeback?
Crognale, what are you talking about? I’ve been discussing the issue in depth.
I’ve pointed out how the professor is being disingenuous about the issue.
This is a legal issue brought up by the school board over a conflict between the mandate of the referendum and the state’s constitution.
Clearly you’re the one who is not paying attention to the issue being discussed by the professor.
Thanks for the fantasy.
Yellow X, Estovir is Crognale and he’s also Purple X. In fact, Estovir became Purple X just to diss you.
I’ve seen this rhetorical game on several blogs. Must be in the Media Matters kit.
You have never discussed ANY issue in depth. I do not recall you ever getting past first order thinking on ANYTHING.
You should just tattoo “the professor is being disingenuous” on your forward.
I doubt you read the article before posting that every time.
Just because you do not like what he says does not mean he is being disingenuous.
Just because you wish he would have written differently does not mean he is disingenuous.
The issue hear is clear – the People of Washington have spoken – by more than a 10% marging they do not want bio men in Womens sports.
Now we are finding out how the elected officials in Washington respond to the clear will of the people.
Checking Ballotopedia Prop 638 requires the legislature to act for this to become law – an dit is not mandatory that the legislature act.
Various Washington elected people can ignore the will of the people – and we can then see how mad they are about that in the next election.
More interesting to me is that Voters seem to have taken democrats at their word that they would not govern as crazy left wing loons.
Democrats seem to be doing their best to prove to voters that Trust was misplaced and they made a huge mistake a few days ago.
We will have to see whether they remain angry about that deceit in 2028.
Please keep up the good work ensuring a huge backlash in 2028.
John Say.
“You have never discussed ANY issue in depth. I do not recall you ever getting past first order thinking on ANYTHING.”
Wow, that’s some serious willful denial you got there.
John, accusing others of failing to read while completely botching how Washington’s initiative process works is peak irony.
You got the timeline completely backward. That seems to be a theme wiry you, getting things backward all the time.
Initiative 638 was an Initiative to the Legislature in 2025—meaning it went to the Legislature before the election. Because the Legislature didn’t pass it earlier this year, it automatically went to the November 3 ballot. Now that voters approved it, the Legislature does NOT have to act for it to become law. Under the Washington Constitution, it automatically takes effect 30 days after the election—on December 3, 2026—and lawmakers can’t even touch it for two years without a two-thirds supermajority.
Nobody in the Legislature is “ignoring the will of the people” by refusing to pass it—it is already becoming state law. What is actually happening is that school districts and parents are asking the state courts to review whether forcing every minor girl in Washington—and only girls—to submit anatomical, genetic, or hormonal proof violates Washington’s Equal Rights Amendment and constitutional privacy protections. In America, voter-approved laws still have to obey the state constitution.
And since you brought up “second-order thinking” and 2028 predictions: you conveniently left out that on that exact same November 3 ballot, Washington voters rejected the conservative initiatives to repeal the high-earner tax and pass I-001, and Democrats gained seats in state government. Voters are smart enough to separate fair sports rules from badly written, invasive mandates—maybe you should try doing the same. Thanks.
Conservatives are all about adversity building character.
Ordinary life from which the ministration of mad scientists in the medical profession is not a species of adversity.
From which the ministrations of mad scientists in the medical profession have been excluded.
Adversity is one thing, injustice and a violation of a person’s rights is another.
The rate of problems for “detransitioning” is lower than the rates of problems for people getting significant cosmetic surgery. People change and with that change they find that what they once wanted is not what they now want. It happens.
The same arguments were put forward about left-handed people with students writing with their left hand severely punished, including being beaten. The arguments were the same about women wearing pants and about gay people. That something was fundamentally wrong with them and that they should be forced to change.
Tens of millions of Americans suffer from depression – why not go fix them first instead of focusing on the thousands of transsexuals?
Pete Davidson has recently come out about having hundreds of tattoos lasered off of himself. I’m sure he isn’t happy about how much that hurts, but I don’t expect the answer is banning tattoos too avoid having Pete getting zapped.
Until mankind gets to a point where brains can be directly re-programmed (and what a dystopian future that would produce) humans are stuck dealing with when perception of self doesn’t match themselves. Which is why people dye their hair, shave their legs, get a Rolex on their wrist, have caps and veneers on their teeth, get a lifted bro-truck.
It’s your perception of what you would feel like if you were transsexual that you think is what it really is like for those who are. That’s a problem in your head and you are welcome to fix it.
Thanks for the ass-pull.
Most times it’s just a phase they’re going through. A much smaller percentage of ppl twice eheir age think they are trans.