Will the Supreme Court Stand Up for Reality?
opinion/65986?mailing_id=4577& utm_medium=email&utm_source= pp.email.4577&utm_campaign= snapshot&utm_content=body
Excerpt: That’s why bans on sex discrimination didn’t abolish sex-specific private facilities (like bathrooms), sex-specific fitness standards (for police and firefighters) or sex-specific athletic competitions (like the NBA and WNBA). After all, sex-specific bathrooms, fitness standards and sports leagues don’t disfavor men or women. On the contrary, they prevent disadvantageous treatment. Forcing women to undress in locker rooms with men or to compete athletically against competitors with male muscle mass and stamina wouldn’t respect equality but undermine it. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg took this point for granted when she wrote the high court’s majority opinion instructing the all-male Virginia Military Institute to become co-ed. She noted that going co-ed “would undoubtedly require alterations necessary to afford members of each sex privacy from the other sex in living arrangements.” Excluding women from VMI, Ginsburg argued, discriminated on the basis of sex. Keeping men out of women’s private facilities, however, didn’t. This shouldn’t be controversial. (...) Biology isn’t bigotry.