Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg became famous for her work on the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project. Her work was memorialized in ‘On Account of Sex’ which was also made into a documentary during the heyday of ‘RBG’ fever.
Now the ACLU is vocally denying the existence of women.
Some years back the ACLU filed a motion “to deny the allegation that ‘human beings’ are ‘sexually dimorphic, divided into males and females each with reproductive systems, hormones, and chromosomes that result in significant differences between men[] and women[.]’”
Now in court over a transgender case in which a sympathetic male defendant wants to play against girls, justices asked the ACLU lawyer how he defines men, women, boys, girls and sex differences. And his response was to argue that he has no definition and that no definition exists.
Chief Justice John Roberts grilled Block for making the suggestion.
“Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, it’s a statutory term, it must mean something,” Roberts said. “You’re arguing here there is discrimination on the basis of sex, and how can we decide that question without knowing what sex means in Title IX?” Roberts asked.
“I don’t think the purpose of Title IX is to have an accurate definition of sex. I think the purpose is to make sure that sex isn’t being used to discriminate by denying opportunities… I wouldn’t look to whether or not to classify B.P.J. as male or female, I think the question is, ‘is she being denied an opportunity because of that classification?’”
If there’s no definition of sex, then what does protection on account of sex even mean? It’s like refusing to define elections and then insisting on a legal intervention based on the right to vote.
It’s pure gibberish.
The woke sexual identity politics creed at once seeks to demolish any coherent definition of sex while at the same time using laws created to protect women to do so leading to a refusal to define sex and a demand that men pretending to be women be protected on account of sex.
