Supreme Court finally hearing two cases on whether "Trans women ARE women"

As you may have heard, the Supreme Court is finally hearing two lawsuits seeking to overturn laws passed by two states saying only girls can compete in girls' sports.

For years a leftist named Amy Howe has had a blog about the Supreme Court, and she's extensively written about these cases.  If you're totally bored, here's a good way to see how the Left views the issue.

And to the Left/Dems the issue is: "If a male declares he is a female, he's a female."  The Left shortens that to "Trans women ARE women," because that makes the obvious logical lie less obvious.  What a surprise.

Amy devotes a thousand words to the arguments by both sides.  But the issue--which is almost never addressed directly--always comes down to the assertion above:  Shall U.S. law agree with the Democrats that a male who claims to be female shall by law be DECREED to be female? 

Seriously, that's the exact issue, and watching these attorneys and SC "justices" dance around it to avoid addressing this fundamental question is a hoot.  

"Can lead become gold if a really good attorney can make a persuasive enough case?"  That's the level of logic at play here.

In hindsight (always 20/20, eh?) the Dems would have had a better case if they had NOT claimed "trans women ARE women," but rather that if a person has less than some percentage of muscle mass, and is less than the height and weight of the tallest, heaviest real female, they had no advantage over real girls in sports.  But they didn't go that route...because by all indications the Democrats believed they'd win with their claim.  They believed they'd prepared American opinion--the battle-space--so perfectly that Americans (normal as well as justices) would accept their claim that males could become real women simply by declaring it to be so. 

Now, most court observers believe the SC will support the laws banning males from competing in girls' sports, by a 6-3 vote.  The betting is that the three liberal females will vote to overturn the state bans--thus in favor of allowing males to compete against girls, and implicitly supporting the tranny claim.

And note that if one supports the lunatic notion that males can be "real girls," the unavoidable corollary is that schools MUST allow such "real girl" males to use female locker rooms and showers too.  "Dat is NOT a problem, deplorables!  Girls need to get with the program!" 

You might have thought female justices would support the rights of girls not to have to compete against males in sports, eh?  But the three are liberal Democrats, and to Democrats the most important thing is to support The Agenda, not the rights of girls, eh?

Can't wait to see how they vote.

Source: "scotusblog" by Amy Howe  

https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/01/supreme-court-appears-likely-to-uphold-transgender-athlete-bans/