Fourth Circuit Asked To Reinstate West Virginia “Save Women’s Sports Act” After Evidence Biological Boy “displaced over 100 different girls in competitive rankings”
Motion for Court to suspend the injunction it issued: “By the State’s count, B.P.J. [male identifying as a girl] displaced over 100 different girls in competitive rankings this spring track-and-field season. Worse, B.P.J. denied two girls the chance to compete in conference championships. The displaced girls will never be able to recover those opportunities.”
In early April 2023, wrote about efforts in West Virginia to keep high school boys who self-identified as girls out of female sports, A District Court Judge had denied an injunction against the law in a suit brought by “B.J.P.” (a male athlete who wanted to complete in girls’ sports), but the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals without explanation issued an injunction halting the law.
The U.S. Supreme Court Declined Emergency Request To Reinstate West Virginia “Save Women’s Sports Act”.
Five SCOTUS votes would be needed to vacate the injunction. We don’t know how many votes West Virginia got, but we know it didn’t get five because the Supreme Court denied the request, for reasons not explained. So neither the 4th Circuit nor SCOTUS explained why the reasoning of the District Court was wrong, or why preserving the age-old practice of separating girls and boys for sports was not a legitimate legislative action.
Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, issued a dissenting opinion which sheds some light on why the request was denied – West Virginia waited too long (emphasis added):
West Virginia has asked this Court to stay or vacate that order, but this Court now denies that request. And like the Fourth Circuit, this Court has not explained its reasons for that decision. I would grant the State’s application. Among other things, enforcement of the law at issue should not be forbidden by the federal courts without any explanation. It is true that West Virginia allowed the District Court’s injunction to go unchallenged for nearly 18 months before seeking emergency relief from a second, identical injunction. And it is a wise rule in general that a litigant whose claim of urgency is belied by its own conduct should not expect discretionary emergency relief from a court. But in the circumstances present here—where a divided panel of a lower court has enjoined a duly enacted state law on an important subject without a word of explanation, notwithstanding that the District Court granted summary judgment to the State based on a fact-intensive record—the State is entitled to relief. If we put aside the issue of the State’s delay in seeking emergency relief and if the District Court’s analysis of the merits of this case is correct, the generally applicable stay factors plainly justify granting West Virginia’s application.
For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.
There has been a new development. A female athlete, Lainey Armistead (represented by Alliance Defending Freedom), joined by the Attorney General of West Virginia, has filed an emergency Motion to Suspend The Injunction Pending Appeal, asserting there is new evidence of the harm the injunction is causing (emphasis added):
Recognizing the biological differences between male and female athletes, the West Virginia Legislature passed H.B. 3293 to preserve fairness and competitiveness in certain school sports. Like many laws, the Act made some trade-offs—but it ultimately represented, in the Legislature’s careful judgment, the best outcome for all young competitors in the State. After extensive discovery and extended analysis, a once-reluctant district court concluded, too, that the law appropriately and constitutionally advanced meaningful state objectives. A few months ago, this Court thought differently and enjoined the State from enforcing the Act against the plaintiff here. Although the Court did not explain its reasoning at the time, it evidently agreed with B.P.J.’s argument that an injunction pending appeal would not hurt anyone. Time has now shown otherwise.
Over the past spring track season, B.P.J. has pushed more and more biologically female athletes aside. B.P.J.’s athletic skills have markedly improved. By the State’s count, B.P.J. displaced over 100 different girls in competitive rankings this spring track-and-field season. Worse, B.P.J. denied two girls the chance to compete in conference championships. The displaced girls will never be able to recover those opportunities. This broad displacement contradicts what B.P.J. told the Court a few months ago—that not one “single person” would be harmed by enjoining this validly enacted State law, ECF 49, at 1. We now know that dozens of young student-athletes have already been harmed.
The only way to look past the harm that this Court’s injunction has caused is to dismiss the displaced athletes’ interest in competing on a sports team in a fair competition. But that interest, of course, is the very same sort of interest that B.P.J. said justified the injunction pending appeal in the first place. So no matter how one approaches this issue, the outcome is plain: The present injunction should not stand. The Court should instead vacate the injunction pending appeal to avoid harming more girls in the upcoming crosscountry season.
The papers details the statistics showing B.J.P.’s participation is pushing girls aside and depriving them of one-in-a-lifetime opportunities, and the the balancing of the equities (required for an injunction) has changed since B.J.P. first argued to the court that no females would be harmed:
… B.P.J. has incorrectly insisted that not one single person has been impacted by B.P.J.’s involvement. See ECF 49, at 1. But without belaboring the point, that’s no longer true. B.P.J. has displaced over 100 different girls over 280 times and deprived a girl of a top-10 finish in most of the events in which B.P.J. has competed since the injunction. And B.P.J. is now denying female athletes competition opportunities by pushing them out of two events at both the conference championships and the statewide, seasonending meet. When males displace females “even to the extent of one player … the goal of equal participation by females in interscholastic athletics is set back, not advanced.” Clark ex rel. Clark v. Ariz. Interscholastic Ass’n, 886 USCA4 Appeal: 23-1078 Doc: 142-1 Filed: 07/11/2023 Pg: 23 of 29Total Pages:(23 of 72)18 F.2d 1191, 1193 (9th Cir. 1989). Female competitors will forever lose the chance to compete and win in these middle-school years while this injunction remains in place.
Accorging to the PACER court docket, the court has given B.J.P. until July 19 to respond to the motion.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Hmm, the Court seems not to see the larger picture
This is new ground, A lot of judges are terrified to put their toes in the water==hence the lack of explanation. They were waiting to see what happened.
Sadly for these young female athletes, what happened were that they’re chances were destroyed by someone who didn’t belong in women’s sports. One doesn’t have to decide whether transgenders are “women” to see the irreparable harm that has been done.
But someone who has already decided “trans-women are women” will simply refuse to see or acknowledge the irreparable harm done to biological females.
sorry, but it’s the women’s own fault for not having had the intelligence & courage to have withdrawn en masse from all athletics on the first day of this nonsense.
Enough of this sick poison and the poison people pushing it.
Here is the future:
Tucker Carlson interview of Andrew Tate:
https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1678873144201818115
interesting interview. I watched all 2+ hours of it. Tate comes across as a reasonable man. And his complaints about the “matrix” and the PTB trying to take him down sound plausible. But what little I have seen of his other videos, he is NOT a reasonable man, but a sick man. But he is right in a lot of things he says. So – what do I do with this information? I dunno.
I do know, from person experience, that “taqiyya” is a real thing. How much of Tate’s verbiage is a form of taqiyya?
From your description it sounds as if you don’t like the ‘tone’ he uses v actual disagreement with his message. Maybe you could share what specifically in other videos makes him appear sick while simultaneously saying things you find to be true.
Didn’t he make his money as a virtual pimp via webcam service? Isn’t his main source of income giving bad advice to fatherless young men when it comes to relationships?
I think his criticisms of a lot of our culture are spot on. Sadly, I don’t think he lives in a world where “good” women even exist and so he is profoundly unaware of them.
Maybe I am wrong. I haven’t listened to a lot of his stuff, only what a couple of my students have sent me links to. The guy seems very damaged and unlikely to find any real contentment in life without some pretty big changes.
Equating pimp and prostitution to offering for sale the video images of scantily clad or semi nude/nude women would put many mainstream Hollywood film studios into the same category.
What are some examples of the bad advice you believe he offers he offers up to young men about relationships within the context of social and cultural decay you acknowledge and agree with?
Commo,
It ain’t just pictures. While I also condemn much of modern Hollywood, there is a stark difference between them and actual pornography. Actual pornography is what those camgirls offer.
The bad advice is basically participating in the moral decay. Becoming rotten because our culture has decayed is not a recipe for happiness.
Than again, maybe I misunderstand what he advocates. Or, maybe I am just a big ole prude.
What positive contribution do you think this guy makes, other than pointing out the absurdity of our culture?
In the little I have seen Tate seems to offer the following advice to men and young men in particular:
1. Get into decent physical condition
2. Put down the game controller
3. Build your career/hustle
4. Realize that only personal effort will lift you out of your current circumstances
5. Stop being a whiny little turd
6. Stop blaming everyone else or society for your circumstances
In essence, go to the gym, focus on advancing your career/financial standing and once you attain a level of success, don’t back slide. Be a grown up man and stop being a perpetual adolescent. He seems to offer this as the basic self help RX to a generation of young men beaten down by social pressures and nagging which convinced them that masculine virtues were automatically misogynist or worse no longer needed by society.
IMO, that’s not the worst message to tell you men. As for mainstream films there are all sorts of examples borderline/actual porn depictions; 50 Shades as one prominent example. Plus, like it or not porn is legal.
Does he frame his message in edgy phrasing to garner attention? Yep. He’s playing to impulse of folks to ‘see what the fuss is about’ and working from the principal that there’s no such thing as bad publicity.
I ain’t trying to defend everything this guy is up to/has ever done but his core message to young men, stripped of edgy phrasing and raw emotional delivery, seems OK to me.
That stuff I have no problems with.
Commo – that is the part that I liked from him. He is not wrong about our culture in regards to men.
there are other videos of him, though, where he talks as if he OWNS women – and not just women, their s** organs. It is all about the objectification of females. We are nothing but tops and bottoms, and those parts HAVE to be owned by a man for his (financial) gratification.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs5b04hnfMQ&t=3s for example.
Morning Sunshine,
In fairness how he structures his personal relationship with the women who voluntarily enter into and remain in that relationship is their choice. Different strokes.
As an example someone may say that ‘partner/girlfriend/wife can’t have an online presence’; no Instagram or whatever. That isn’t an issue of control b/c if the woman decides that is unacceptable she can hit the bricks or choose to stay under those conditions. She retains her agency to make a decision but isn’t immune from the consequences of that decision. It’s a rare guy who has the ‘swag’ as the kids say, to dictate take it or leave it terms such as this to their girlfriend or wife.
Objectification is a an issue. One I don’t like b/c enduring relationships are built on much less shallow ground. Though in fairness it would be better if many modern women didn’t choose to objectify themselves with excessive make up and cosmetic surgeries in real life or use image filters or Photoshop in their online presence. Heck the online presence itself is self objectification in many cases; bikini clad or less to generate ‘likes’ and attention or interest from men for shallow validation based upon their physical appearance alone. Sometimes for cash via online payment sometimes as a lure to have men fly these women to their location as eye candy or worse.
No, he didn’t make money off cam girls. That said, even if he did does that negate the message he is pushing about society needing strong, masculine men?
Well, having now looked it up rather than just trying to remember, Andrew Tate claims to have made $600,000 a month from “pimping” (his word) his cam girls. This is a man that made his money from the adolescent sexual fantasies of immature men. He continues to make money from immature men offering them advice on how to “be masculine” and not be immature. He does this by appealing to some frustrations of sexually unsuccessful men and convincing them that their warped and damaged ideas of women are accurate and convincing them to act just as broken and damaged as they think “modern women” are. This guy routinely brags about being promiscuous, driving expensive cars, and being in exotic places. That is the immature guy trifecta. How can anybody look at this man’s life and think he has anything to offer about how to live a happy and fulfilling life? How can anybody take seriously his views on masculinity when he lives a teenager’s version of masculinity?
Yes, our society does need more masculine men and is being deeply harmed by their absence. Good for him for pointing that out. Yes, a lot of young women are psychologically warped and doing crazily damaging things to themselves and the young men they date. Good for him for pointing that out. Pointing out that men and women need to get their act together is great. If people use him as an example, then that act will never get together.
Dathurtz,
Anyone using Tate’s Top G BS act as example of how to behave or live is making an error. It’s a very bad idea so we agree on that. Note that I haven’t expressed any approval of the hedonism he claims about his own lifestyle.
We seem to agree that his message of self improvement directed at a male audience is worthwhile. We also seem to agree that him cautioning young women to maintain a traditional v modern outlook re family, relationships and promiscuity is worthwhile.
We seem to agree about the bulk of his audience for his Top G antics. Though there is a larger audience for whom he has appeal based on his more tame performances; as in the TC interview he can be funny as well as logical and insightful.
Many modern women are broken compared to their more traditional grandmothers. They have been lied to by a consumerist culture which tells them that they can ‘have it all’ without making any trade offs and they will live happily ever after. That’s a blatantly false fantasy which cruelly sets them up for disappointment. Not one is guaranteed happiness and real life is full of trade offs.
Well, there’s the “A man needs a wife and a bunch of hoes” bit. Not exactly a good message for relationships/marriage.
Well let’s apply some context of modern dating, relationships, marriage and divorce and apply that to the advice he provides about relationships with ‘modern women’ v with a.traditional woman.
The average length of modern marriages is 8 years. Women initiate 75-90% of the divorce filings. The four most common reasons offered for the divorce filing are:
1. Falling out of love
2. Communication problems
3. Lack of trust/sympathy/respect
4. Growing apart
As we are aware the family court is still operating under the paradigm of the past in which women didn’t have careers or jobs and are still presumed to require alimony while also retaining the presumption that they are by default the better care giver for the children. In actuality women are usually better for kids under 9 but men seem to have better Parenting outcomes in general for children over 9.
That sets up an issue of misaligned incentives within the marriage. In practice today a woman can file for a no fault divorce and be rewarded with alimony, sole custody and child support from a man who didn’t commit any of the traditional wrongs to justify a divorce; physical abuse, infidelity. She was just ‘unhappy’.
That works to create incentives for modern women to divorce their husband and when we look at the reasons offered it appears to be over emotional issues and/or perception v a universally recognized justification. A short hand, simplistic way to say this is modern women seem to leave b/c they are ‘unhappy’ which as we know is inevitable in life. Add to this that more than 1/4 of marriages are reported to be sexless (not age related either these are folks in their 30s/40s/50s) All things considered and marriage begins to look less appealing to men from a rational basis.
Then add in the observable behavior of modern women in selecting a mate. Dating apps are the top way folks are forming relationships today (crazy). Women only select about 5-10 % of men on the apps as attractive enough to consider a match (on line conversation possibly leading to an in person date). One filter on common dating apps is height and most women use 6’0 minimum as their standard cut off to even consider someone as a.potential partner; only 14% of men are 6’0+ so you can begin to see the unrealistic expectations of many modern women.
Another thing I heard from Tate was his message to modern women. In essence it comes down to being lied to by society that you can ‘have it all’ without any trade offs, have demanding, lucrative career, continue to advance the corporate ladder while also having the ‘ideal’ man show up to marry her, provide the traditional male responsibilities, have bright, healthy children and so on. It’s the Cinderella fantasy that many modern women have fallen for. A PR campaign to keep them in the workplace, creating more available workers which lowers wages and increases consumerism with delayed age of marriage and easy divorce adding to the number of apartments, mortgages, vehicles and so on needed for these ‘extra’ households of single men and single women v past years of far earlier marriage ages into an enduring marriage needing 1/2 the crap. Tate tells these women to date with intention to find a husband, don’t be promiscuous and to reject hookup culture, consumerism and a Cinderella fantasy. Instead he tells them to find a nice guy who will provide a stable, safe lifetime commitment. In other words behave more like their grandparents in how they approach relationships. Pretty tame.
Within this context what Tate is stating makes more sense. Young men should improve themselves physically, financially, emotionally and psychologically to become the sort of men that women are generally attracted to in order to move out of the loser with women category. Keep in mind that 1/3 +of men age 18-35 are either virgins or haven’t had sex in the past year. These guys and others men who’s girlfriends keep leaving are Tate’s audience.
Not every man is capable of being ‘that guy’ who has the ability via his looks, physique, charm, wealth or social status/fame to even have the opportunity to cheat on their wife much less attract and maintain a ‘harem’. It’s a very small number of men who possess the traits to be that attractive. Telling men to aspire towards that level (which most will fail to reach) seems positive overall. They may fall short being a modern Casanova but may very well become attractive to the nice, cute young women in Accounting so they can get a date, build a relationship and a marriage.
If nothing else it gets young men who have given up on finding a girlfriend, much less a wife, off the couch, into the gym, building and realizing their earning potential and back into the real world where a nice traditional woman may now find them attractive enough to date.
None of that makes all of his messaging good or right. There really is no context for that statement that can make it good or valuable – unless it was clipped, and he was actually saying the opposite.
GWB,
Within the context and reality of modern dating, relationships and marriage outcomes his advice re interaction with modern women makes much more sense. The traditional marriage minded woman who seeks a husband as the priority over career is in a different category.
IMO, by choosing to focus on the, admittedly somewhat unappealing even repulsive, aspects of his message v the far larger message you are missing the basic thrust.
He tells young men that there are a small % of men who possess the attributes to attract and maintain a number of women simultaneously. If they want that they gotta get to work on self improvement to put themselves into that sphere. If they fall short, as most will, they have still made themselves a better version of themselves and are NIW more likely to find someone who will date them, maybe even marry them.
IMO, most people don’t want all that super Top G BS, they just want what their grandparents had; an enduring marriage, financial stability, a comfortable lifestyle and the promise of a better life for their kids by passing on to them the fruits of their labor. For those who are not in the current dating market you honestly have no idea how much has changed from even 15 years ago. Dating apps are now how people connect then often hookup sex before a real date. Promiscuity is endemic among those with the ability to attract the opposite gender. That’s about 30% of men and about 70% of women in the modern dating marketplace. Yes there is an imbalance, draw your own conclusions.
Keep in mind the number of folks not dating at all. Large numbers of men have been either overlooked entirely or rejected by many modern women who don’t view the man’s current version of themselves as attractive or b/c of this pattern of rejection (IMO often based on unrealistic expectation of women for the men they are willing to date must be 6’0 + tall, make $100K, be charming, handsome, treat her like a spoiled princess) the men have withdrawn from dating due to repeated rejection or bad experiences. Again not all women but many modern women.
These are the men who can benefit from his core message; self improvement in all aspects in order to increase the level of attractiveness to women. Bottom line is women don’t generally fall into love with or lust over a passive, unmotivated, out of shape guy with a gut who plays video games while living in his Parents basement eating Cheetos.
That individual can get off the couch, go get in shape, improve their performance at work, earn a higher wage, afford their own apartment, begin to dress less sloppy and by doing these sorts of things make themselves more attractive to women. That’s the core message not the puffery of his Top G act.
As for marriage in the modern age….until the divorce process and child custody decisions are updated to reflect modern realities v the paradigm of the past then marriage itself, from a rational, objective basis, seems like less of a good idea for men today than before the 1970s.
I would tell any young man to think long and hard about getting married before doing so. It’s too easy to end up divorced over temporary emotions and puts too much at risk financially and psychologically in comparison to previous generations not to thoroughly investigate the potential downside v a limited upside. Some stats claim 1/4 of marriages end up sexless. Let’s be honest that’s not exactly a great deal for men in comparison to women. I would urge everyone not to agree to lopsided contract and marriage is a form of contract.
Again this is regarding modern dating, relationships, marriage v those of yesteryear. It doesn’t apply to all women or all men. If it was 1953 and not 2023 I would disagree with him. Sadly our culture and society has undermined much of what prior generations took for granted in dating, relationships, marriage and especially their outcomes.
In sum adaptation of behavior to the current environment seems like a logical thing as does self improvement.
I found Tate off too, can’t really pinpoint it
I did find his voice /presentation irritating
I spent a career out of first impressions and being pretty accurate
Just Something off with this guy
And it’s not the lack of socks, both he and Tucker… not a good look
He sounds very slick and culty, but I can’t ding him jut for that.
As for “his videos,” he does discuss how people take his videos and edit them to make him look bad, so you need to make sure you are really watching “his” videos.
I know very little about this fellow other than what I learned in the interview. But I have to agree with him that his current prosecution is outrageous.
I have watched four of five Tate videos out of curiosity, maybe 3 hours of content total apart from the TC interview. IMO, he found a niche market to sell his product of masculine worldview, male oriented self help and relationship advice aimed at men. His central themes seem to be centered on masculine virtues, the importance of family and a desire to return to more traditional cultural values but applying those goals within the reality of the current cultural and societal decline from the sixties onward.
Many people seem to skip over the context needed to dispassionately evaluate his message. This is particularly so for feminist women who often seem to reject his call for accountability and consequences for their (according to Tate):
1.lack of traditional behavior (promiscuous women are for fun not marriage)
2. priorities (often putting career ahead of family or even family formation)
3. choices (spending their twenties bouncing from bed to bed and not dating with the deliberate intention of seeking a husband)
It can absolutely come across as a bit misogynist when one refuses to apply the cultural context. Some of the more edgy stuff, IMO, is just over the top puffery to get attention and sell more product. Most other portions of his message seem ok within the context unless one views life through a feminist lens and are themselves somewhat guilty of misandry.
Bottom line is I think you are correct. He is a salesman hawking a product who uses edgy phrasing to get more attention. It is somewhat reminiscent of a certain Presidential candidate who does similar things to advance his own message. Many people find his tone off putting as well.
I see the feminists have arrived to down vote but as is often the case they seek to avoid any accountability for their actions by doing so anonymously and without seeking to refute the points.
Has he had a pap smear, yet? No precocious youngster, as he, should fail to have his cervix evaluated.
When will you learn to keep your mouth shut and do as you’re told?
There’s the laws of biology. XX .ne. XY
Capisce?
If ultimately this boy is allowed to compete against the girls, I would hope that in West Virginia – arguably the most conservative state in the country – girls would have enough community support to initiate a boycott.
This is total absurdity. When we arrive at the point that costly, intensive legal action is necessary to prove a boy is not a girl, we might as well be asked to prove we are all not living in the Matrix. Something awful must happen to end this madness.
Perhaps it is time for the real boys to step up and protect the girls. If these trannies got the living f*ck beat out of them I bet they’d crawl back under their rocks.
What I don’t understand (given, I’m not a legal professional) is exactly under what basis these lawsuits asking for these injunctions by the court is being brought under.
The underlying question seems to be “Is there harm in being excluded from athletic events?”
The plaintiff seems to argue that there is and the “transgender girl” is being harmed by being excluded. But simultaneously arguing that the biological girls that would be excluded if he is allowed to compete are not being harmed.
Both can’t be true. Either there is no harm in being excluded and the plaintiff has no standing, or there is harm and it is in the purview of the legislature to determine how to protect rights and the plaintiff has no standing.
0 CommoChief in reply to henrybowman. | July 13, 2023 at 8:28 am
He’s a car salesman and his product is masculinity
But I agree, his prosecution, like President Trumps is politically motivated
But he’s nothing like President Trump
Are you saying that Trump doesn’t engage in puffery and self promotion by cleverly maneuvering or manipulating the media into providing him free publicity? IMO there definitely seems to be some similarities on this front which would then make the men more alike than we might think. Come to think on it both also seem to share an appreciation for keeping beautiful women in their lives.
I don’t get the downvotes here. Both of the definitely engage in puffery and publicly enjoy having the company of attractive women. Both of them definitely engage in bombastic language to turn the media eye to the points they want made.
Meh. It’s the internet and haters gonna hate. Usually without the courage of posting a retort which might be responded to and often only on the basis of who made the comment v the substance of the comment.
Frankly I prefer those to the ones which make simplistic ‘you are wrong’ retorts but fail to address the substance of the original comment with any sort of logic or those that seek to dismiss it entirely but likewise without going through the work of refuting the comments.
Modern jurisprudence:
(1) Before you are irrevocably harmed, you have no standing to contest the law.
(2) After you have been so harmed, the issue is moot.
(3) Go away.
BPJ cannot win an event if he’s the only participant. These women need to refuse to participant in these events and laugh at him. Let him make a fool of himself.
In the sports world, the experts setting the rules of competition are the International Olympic Committee, the US Olympic Committee, the international bodies (in this case “World Athletics” — formerly the IAAF) and then the national governing bodies (in this case USA Track and Field). USATF meeting annually and we have discussed it for about a decade, but the discussions are dominated by one vocal non-binary athlete who focuses on pronouns rather than science. High schools are administered by groups that are largely composed of track coaches with inadequate funding for things like drug testing or medical consultants. So, the NCAA and high schools generally follow the USATF.
World Athletics has spoken after dispassionate, reasoned debate: https://www.thecornellreview.org/world-athletics-sets-rules-on-transgender-competition/
I haven’t seen a post by Milhouse in a while. I hope he’s okay
It may not be particularly relevant here, but the 4th Circuit is mostly populated by “enlightened” jurists who believe that producing leftist-favored outcomes is their highest purpose. If George Soros had a Christmas card list, most of the 4th Cir. judges would be on it.