As noted in a footnote on page 8. These two cases are only about one aspect of the issues. It is also the subject of several ballot questions across the country. See Maine, Arizona, etc. I am aware it is a slight distiction, but unless congress were to unversially banned boys/men from particpating in female sports and likewise ban girls/woman from particpating in male sports, these cases will move through the process as separate issues.
In the instance of Maine, the ballot question equally prohibits participation and access to each other locker rooms and bathroom facilities.
Title IX (was probably wrongly) focused on protecting only girls.
1 As the plaintiffs, the States, and the United States as amicus curiae all agree, these cases do not present the distinct question of whether, under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause, schools may allow biological males who identify as female to participate on girls’ and women’s sports teams. That question is currently the subject of litigation in some lower courts. Nothing in this opinion is intended to decide that question. In addition, nothing in this opinion should be interpreted toaddress or limit participation by biological females on male or co-ed sports teams.
“Title IX (was probably wrongly) focused on protecting only girls.”
At the expense of boys. With Ollier v. Sweetwater (2014), the Supreme Court made it clear the way we’ve cut boys’ sport in colleges will be coming to high schools.
Once you eliminate boys’ opportunities for anything because of Ollier’s Title IX rules, boys will claim to be girls just to play because the government has destroyed boys’ opportunities, just as planned.
They won’t admit it, but Ollier will cut football, band, and everything else to push girls sport and dance teams replacing marching bands, and schools with have 300 activities for girls and 0 for boys. And when boys are forced to play as girls once Democrats pass laws, boys will be asking what has happened to their rights.