WOKE Supreme Court Justice HUMILIATES HERSELF AGAIN As CNN Gets Reality Check On Trans Athletes!

During a Supreme Court hearing, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson struggled to provide a definition for 'woman' or 'sex' when questioned about its necessity for equal protection purposes in sports. The host interprets this as a significant ideological failing, suggesting it demonstrates a reluctance to acknowledge biological reality.

Justice Jackson states, 'Can I provide a definition? No. I can't. Not in this context. I'm not a biologist.' She later asks how a court can determine discrimination based on sex without knowing what sex means.

The host argues that a clear, biological definition of 'sex' is absolutely essential for the existence and integrity of women's sports, particularly under Title IX. Without it, the category of 'women's sports' becomes meaningless, jeopardizing the equal opportunities Title IX was designed to protect for biological females.

The host states, 'The whole point of Title IX is to give women equal rights... when you cannot define sex, then it is basically impossible to have women's sports. Women's sports would not exist as it does today without defining sex.'

Former Idaho state cross-country runner Madison Kenyon shared her personal experience of repeatedly losing to a male athlete in women's division races, along with hundreds of other women. She described teammates being pushed off podiums and roster spots going to male athletes, emphasizing the unfairness and destruction of competitive integrity.

Madison Kenyon states, 'I went to Idaho State University on a track and cross-country scholarship where I raced a male athlete in the women's division many times and I lost every time along with hundreds of other women. I saw a teammate pushed off a podium and I know that that roster spot didn't go to a woman.'

In a hypothetical scenario presented by a justice, counsel confirmed that a school *could* bar a 'birth-sex male' who identifies as a woman from a women's team if that individual possesses a 'sex-based biological advantage' that would make competition unfair. This suggests that biological factors can be a legitimate basis for exclusion, even if an individual identifies as a different gender.

When asked if a school can bar a 'birth-sex male who has all the advantages of birth-sex male hormones' from a women's team, counsel responds, 'Yes, they can.' Counsel further explains, 'I think the question is does that person have a sex-based biological advantage that's going to make it unfair for that person to be part of the women's team? And that's the rationale for the regulation.'