Justice Samuel Alito asks obvious question: 'What does it mean to be a boy or a girl, or a man or a woman?' Leftist lawyer has telling answer * WorldNetDaily * by Bob Unruh
Children recite the Pledge of Allegiance at the Republican National Convention on Thursday, Aug. 27, 2020
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday heard arguments in a pair of cases challenging state laws that provide for boys to be in boys sports, and girls to be in girls.
The fight is over claims by transgender community advocates that males who pretend to be female must be allowed in girls’ sports.
That ideology in recent years has put adolescent boys in the shower rooms with adolescent girls, adult males in community center showers with young girls, and much worse.
Alito pinpointed the failing of the entirety of the agenda by asking a lawyer advocate for the deviant lifestyle choices how are boys and girls, men and woman, defined.
The lawyer was unable to answer.
But she did obfuscate with comments about not being a biologist, not having a definition for that and more.
An analyst for lawyers representing the plaintiffs pointed out the ACLU lawyer would not offer an answer.
Most people, he confirmed, would assign “no credibility” to someone who cannot answer that question.
In fact, transgender promoters insist that it’s all changeable, and a 5-year-old can be a boy, but that boy can be a girl at 10 years old, and vice versa.
Justice Alito asks “What is a woman”.@ACLU has no answer.
Dave Cortman is not impressed. pic.twitter.com/LBgvGDnklU
— Alliance Defending Freedom (@ADFLegal) January 13, 2026
Attorney General Pam Bondi said the government, in the cases, is arguing for common sense that has prevailed for millennia: That sports for women and girls must be protected from the overwhelming physical advantage of men.
“We are fighting to protect girls and women in the locker room…” she said.
Today, my attorneys are arguing a crucial Supreme Court case pushing back against the trans agenda. Our position: states have the authority to ban men from participating in women’s sports.
This is common sense. We are fighting to protect girls and women in the locker room and… pic.twitter.com/xJEpPEZC9P
— Attorney General Pamela Bondi (@AGPamBondi) January 13, 2026
Actor James Woods was unable to withhold sarcasm over the entire argument:
Listening now to the Supreme Court arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Oh wait, they’re arguing about whether a 240 lb. guy can knock out a 90 lb. high school girl on the soccer field and then shower with her later.
We’ve advanced since Medieval times. pic.twitter.com/QyPM3p8voR
— James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) January 13, 2026
“Listening now to the Supreme Court arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Oh wait, they’re arguing about whether a 240 lb. guy can knock out a 90 lb. high school girl on the soccer field and then shower with her later.”
The two cases heard are Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. involving an Idaho student who insisted that, as a male, he had the right to participate on college teams for females, and a similar fight brought by a West Virginia student, a male.
Lower courts struck state laws that barred boys and men from teams for girls and women.
Leftist justice Elena Kagan complained during the arguments that most chess grandmasters are male, and West Virginia Solicitor General Michael Williams pointed out there’s a lack of any evidence of a physiological difference that would come to light in a chess match.
According to a report at Fox, ACLU lawyer Josh Block insisted that the Supreme Court should recognized only the studies that support his organization’s pro-transgender claims.
He said, “I don’t think the best way to get it right is to rely on cherry-picked studies or assertions in amicus briefs. I think the way to get it right is to let all the facts they’re trying to put in the record actually be put in the record, and then we’ll have the facts in front of us, and maybe they’ll make the issue go away. But I think that’s unnecessary to intervene at this instance with a sweeping legal conclusion to something that might actually be a narrow factual dispute.”
Justice Neil Gorsuch raised the issue of discrimination based on academic performance and how that should be handled.
“The statute says no discrimination on the basis of sex. And you’re saying, ‘Yeah, it’s okay when they’re not similarly situated.’ And you’re worried about locker rooms. Great. I appreciate that, but I’m worried about that math remedial class or the chess club or whatever.”
Alito’s concerns were addressed to Kathleen Hartnett, arguing for the pro-transgender policies mostly adopted under the administration of activist Joe Biden.
“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,” Hartnett claimed.
Alito cited the obvious: “How can a court determine whether there’s discrimination on the basis of sex without knowing what sex means for equal protection purposes?”
Idaho Governor Brad Little posted a statement to X, explaining his state always has “led with common sense.”
“It’s why we were the first state in the nation to ban men from competing in women’s sports,” Little posted to X. “I’m confident that same common sense will prevail as the Supreme Court reviews our law that set the precedent in defending girls and women.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor claimed there are “nearly 3 million trans-identifying” people in the U.S., and that’s “an awfully big figure.”
Justice Ketanji Jackson complained Idaho’s law discriminates on the basis of sex.
The ACLU, in a statement promoting its arguments to the court, insisted that the focal point was that discrimination is “harmful to a student’s self-esteem.”
The organization insisted that participation in “team sports” is good for students, and that denying a boy the right to be on a girls’ team is just wrong.
The organization referenced Becky, the boy it is representing.
“As the lower court recognized, forcing Becky to either give up sports or play on the boys’ team–in contradiction of who she is at school, at home, and across her life–is really no choice at all.”
The student, Becky Pepper-Jackson, complained in the statement that he was banned from “playing as who I really am. This is unfair to me….”
Bob Unruh