Justice Jackson Outdoes Herself With Complete Nonsense Of An Opinion
Leave it to the woman who doesn’t know what a woman is to decide whether men have a place in women’s sports.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson stumbled during his oral argument Tuesday in the case of West Virginia v. BPJ The case concerns “[w]there Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prevents a State from systematically fielding separate girls’ and boys’ sports teams on the basis of biological sex determined at birth”, and “whether the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment prevents a State from fielding separate boys’ and girls’ sports teams on the basis of biological sex determined at birth”, according to SCOTUS Blog.
Biological sex is in fact “determined”, that is to say “observed”, and not “attributed”.
Jackson describe his understanding of the issue at hand to West Virginia Solicitor General Michael Williams.
🚨 Ketanji ‘I’m Not a Biologist’ Jackson: “For cisGINGER girls, they can perform based on their gender identity. For transgender girls, they can’t.” pic.twitter.com/uCqSHR6nM2
– Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) January 13, 2026
“You have the overall classification, you know, everyone has to be, uh, uh, playing on a team that is the same sex at birth, um, but then you have a definition of gender identity that operates within that, which is a distinction, which means that, uh, for cisgender girls, they can play based on their gender identity, for transgender girls, they can’t,” Jackson said.
Jackson distinguishes between “sex” and “gender identity” as if the latter were a category deserving equal consideration. “Gender identity” only means “a particular feeling I have about myself.” If this feeling leads us to make unreasonable demands, it is perfectly reasonable to throw those demands in the trash. (RELATED: Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Makes Insane Comparison in Court and Demeans His People in One Swoop)
Williams responded to Jackson, saying, “I think, if anything, it’s useful evidence of the absence of transgender-based discrimination, because if the legislature was simply disturbed by the notion of transgender athletes, I think the response would have been to ban them from…”
Jackson interrupted, “No, I appreciate that, I appreciate that, I guess I was getting to, uh, what I understood the chief justice was trying to resurrect, which was this notion that this is really just the definition of, uh, we accept that you can separate boys and girls, and we’re now looking at the definition of a girl, and we’re saying that only people who were, uh, assigned girl at birth are eligible.”
Again, no one is “assigned” a gender at birth. The doctor doesn’t spin a wheel and reach for “girl” or “boy” or “none of the above” and proceed accordingly.
Jackson infamously refused to define the word “woman” during his confirmation hearing, at the request of Tennessee Republican Senator Marsha Blackburn.
“I’m not a biologist,” Jackson protested.
In another case brought before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, Jackson said: “To the extent that you have an individual who says, ‘What’s happening in this law is it treats someone who is transgender, but who hasn’t, because of the medical interventions and the things that have been done, who doesn’t have, uh, the same, uh, threat to physical competition and safety and all the reasons that the state has put forward, that’s actually a different class,'” this individual said. So you don’t treat the class the same way… How do you react to that?
🚨 BREAKING: DEI Judge Ketanji Jackson DEFENDS Men in Women’s Sports With Supreme Court Word Salad
“Calling someone transgender, but not having it, because of medical interventions and things that have been done, who doesn’t have, uh, the… pic.twitter.com/QTkpru6EqO
– Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) January 13, 2026
Joshua Block, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) attorney representing the transgender-identified athlete, propose a similar hypothesis in West Virginia v. BPJ (RELATED: Lawyer Explains Free Speech to Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson)
“If the evidence shows that there are no relevant physiological differences between BPJ and other girls, then there is no basis to exclude [him].”
“Unlike the exclusion of a cisgender boy, the exclusion of BPJ does not further any interests in terms of overall fairness and safety. And unlike the case of a cisgender boy, the exclusion of BPJ from the girls’ teams excludes [him] of any sporting opportunity while stigmatizing and separating [him] Since [his] peers.”
But that’s the problem. There will be always There are relevant physiological differences between a boy and a girl, even if that boy becomes disfigured with the help of so-called “puberty blockers.” Sure, this boy may be weaker and smaller and have deformed genitals (all very real consequences of stopping testosterone production), but he is, fundamentally, a boy. Sexual differentiation begins in the uterus. Infants, during their first months of life, undergo “mini-puberty,” a period marked by an increase in the secretion of sex steroids.
That’s all to say: there are boys and there are girls. Any argument to the contrary is just wishful thinking from people with deranged wishes.
Regardless, Jackson probably should have recused himself from this one. She is not a biologist. What does she know?
Follow Natalie Sandoval on X: @NatSandovalDC
