During U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) oral argumentsover state laws banning transgender in women's sportsin the case of Little v. Hecox, Justice Samuel Alito got to the heart of a controversy that has raged across the nation since the Barack Obama presidency.
He askedKathleen R. Hartnett, who is arguing on behalf of an Idaho student in the Supreme Court case challenging a state law banning biological males from playing in women's sports, and vice versa,what it meant to be a "boy or a girl or a man or a woman" when it came to equal protection purposes.
Her answer highlights the idiocy of the entire argument in support of letting biological males or females pretend to be the opposite sex for the purposes of sports, or using facilities intended for those of the opposite sex, and the entire mentally questionable claim of being "transgender."
SUPREME COURT ASSOCIATE JUSTICE SAMUEL ALITO: Well, to pick up on the issue of discrimination on the basis of transgender status, let me just go back to-let me go to some basics. Do you agree that a school may have separate teams for a category of students classified as boys and a category of students classified as girls?
KATHLEEN HARTNETT, ATTORNEY FOR TRANSGENDER WOMAN LINDSAY HECOX: Yes, Your Honor.
ALITO: If it does that, then is it not necessary for there to be, for equal protection purposes, if that is challenged under the Equal Protection Clause, an understanding of what it means to be a boy or a girl or a man or a woman?
HARTNETT: Yes, Your Honor.
ALITO: And what is that definition? For equal protection purposes, what does it mean to be a boy or a girl or a man or a woman?
HARTNETT: Sorry, I misunderstood your question. I think that the underlying enactment, whatever it was, the policy, the law, the-we'd have to have an understanding of how the state or the government was understanding that term to figure out whether or not someone was excluded. We do not have a definition for the Court.
And we don't take issue with the-we're not disputing the definition here. What we're saying is that the way it applies in practice is to exclude birth sex males categorically from women's teams and that there's a subset of those birth sex males where it doesn't make sense to do so according to the state's own interest.
ALITO: Well, how can you-how can a court determine whether there's discrimination on the basis of sex without knowing what sex means for equal protection purposes?
HARTNETT: I think here we just know-we basically know that the-that they've identified pursuant to their own statute, Lindsay qualifies as a birth sex male, and she's being excluded categorically from the women's teams as the statute. So we're taking the statute's definitions as we find them and we don't dispute them. We're just trying to figure out do they create an equal protection problem.
As an aside, it seems noteworthy to offer a reminder, that during her confirmation hearing, SC JusticeKetanji Brown Jackson, a Biden nominee who was later confirmed, said she could not define what a "woman" is because she isn't a "biologist."
Flashback:
While I would like to go on a rant about how uniquely unqualified Justice Brown was to be confirmed to the Supreme Court simply based on that one exchange, she was confirmed and no amount of complaining about it will change the fact that this "woman" is a sitting Supreme Court Justice.
In the link above under "Related" I note a specific description of the second of the cases related to so-called transgenders in sports cases before SCOTUS, and it gets t the heart of the "grooming" children issue.
The West Virginia case was filed by Heather Jackson, the mother of B.P.J., a now-15-year-old transgender high school student who has publicly identified as a girl since the third grade. B.P.J. has taken puberty blockers to prevent the onset of male puberty, as well as hormone therapy with estrogen. B.P.J. has competed on the track and cross-country teams at school.
Emphasis mine.
Third grade. That means, if the child progressed through grades at a normal rate, the male child was 8 or 9 years old when it was decided the child would "identify" as a female, despite being born as a male.
That is on the parents or guardians, not the child himself, since an 8 or 9 year old doesn't not have the mental maturity to understand the nature of being given life altering drugs that in many cases ends up sterilizing them.
Some leftist parents are also "groomers" for the LGBT agenda.
To be fair, it is worth mentioning that even parts of the LGBT community are vehemently opposed to children being groomed into their lifestyle, including surgically mutilating children, such as "Gays Against Groomers."
In my mind that is child abuse, pure and simple.
PARENTAL WARNING: NETFLIX GROOMING OF CHILDREN.....
This brings up something that parents need to be aware of, at least the parents that do not wish for their children to be exposed to sexuality, or the LGBT agenda.
Via Breitbart from early January 2026 we see a headline that should serve as a warning for parents.
For instance, 41 percent of shows that are supposed to be G-rated for kids on Netflix still has blatant gay content, including transgenderism, according to a year-end report by the activist group Concerned Women for America (CWA).
The group also found that 21 percent of shows in the TV-Y category, which is meant to cover kids up to seven years, also has LGBTQ+ content. And the numbers only get worse for older kids. In the TV-Y7, covering ages seven and above, the content soars to 41 percent. Over all, across all the child-rated categories (TV-G, TV-Y, TV-Y7), 33 percent contain such content.
The group also rated how extreme the content is, as well, rating it from meta, to implied, to queer-coded, to explicit, and found that 24 percent of TVY7-rated programs had explicit gay sexual content, which included outright declarations of homosexuality and transgenderism and sexual behavior.
It is no longer safe for parents to see that something is labeled a "kids" channel and just assume that the content will be acceptable to the parent as something they want their child exposed to.
Recommendation: If you are a parent, or a grandparent or other family member to young children, the best bet would be to buy DVD movies that you have vetted, or know from childhood, guaranteeing that the child in question is only being exposed to things their parents find acceptable.
ANP is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program.
ANP Fundraiser: Dangerous, Derogatory, Harmful, Unreliable!Those are some of the exact words used by Googles censors, aka 'Orwelliancontent police,' in describing many of our controversial stories.Stories later proven to be truthful and light years ahead of the mainstream media. But because we reported those 'inconvenient truths' they're trying to bankrupt ANP.
Checks or money orders made payable to Susan Duclos can be sent to:
10510 South Ave
Poland, OH. 44514
Anything at all at Amazon purchased after clickingthis ANP link will allow ANP to make a bit of revenue, all of which will be used to keep ANP online and to keep a roof over our heads.
