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 if men belong in women’s sports. 

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson stumbled through oral argument Tuesday in the case of West Virginia v. B.P.J. The case concerns “[w]hether Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prevents a state from consistently designating girls’ and boys’ sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth,” and “whether the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment prevents a state from offering separate boys’ and girls’ sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth,” according to SCOTUSblog. 

Biological sex is indeed “determined,” as in, “ascertained,” not “assigned.” 

Jackson described her 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 play consistent with their gender identity. For transgender girls, they can’t.” pic.twitter.com/uCqSHR6nM2

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) January 13, 2026

“You have the overarching classification, you know, everybody has to be, um, uh, play on the team that is the same as their sex at birth, um, but then you have a gender identity definition that is operating within that, meaning, a distinction, meaning that um, for, uh, cisgender girls they can play consistent with their gender identity, for transgender girls, they can’t,” said Jackson. 

Jackson distinguishes between “sex” and “gender identity” as though the latter is a category deserving of equal consideration. “Gender identity” only means “a particular feeling I have about myself.” If that feeling leads one to make unreasonable demands, it is perfectly reasonable to toss those demands in the trash. (RELATED: Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Makes Insane Comparison In Court, Belittles Her People In One Fell Swoop)

Williams countered Jackson, saying, “I think, if anything, that’s useful evidence as to the lack of a transgender-based discrimination, because if the legislature were just sort of unsettled by the notion of transgender athletes, I think the answer would’ve been to then bar them from —”

Jackson interrupted: “No, I appreciate that, I appreciate that, I guess I was getting at, the, um, what I understood the Chief Justice to be trying to resusce, which was, this notion that this is really just about the definition of, um, we accept that you can separate boys and girls, and we are now looking at the definition of a girl, and we’re saying only people who were, um, girl assigned at birth qualify.”

Again, no one is “assigned” a sex at birth. The doctor doesn’t spin a wheel and land on “girl” or “boy” or “none of the above” and proceed accordingly. 

Jackson infamously refused to define the word “woman” in her confirmation hearing, when asked to do so by Republican Tennessee Sen. Marsha Blackburn. 

“I’m not a biologist,” Jackson protested.

“To the extent that you have an individual who says, ‘What is happening in this law is that it is treating someone who is transgender, but who does not have, because of medical interventions and the things that have been done, who does not have, uh, the same, uh, threat to physical competition and safety and all of the reasons that the state puts forward, that’s actually a different class,’ says this individual. So you’re not treating the class the same … How do you respond to that?” Jackson later asked. 

🚨 BREAKING: DEI Justice Ketanji Jackson is DEFENDING men in women’s sports with an utter word salad at the Supreme Court

“Is treating someone transgender, but does not have, because of the medical interventions and the things that have been done, who does not have, uh, the… pic.twitter.com/QTkpru6EqO

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) January 13, 2026

Joshua Block, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) lawyer representing the transgender-identified athlete, proposed a similar hypothetical. (RELATED: Attorney Explains Free Speech To Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson)

“If the evidence shows there are no relevant physiological differences between B.P.J. and other girls, then there’s no basis to exclude [him].”

“Unlike the exclusion of a cisgender boy, excluding B.P.J. doesn’t advance any interest in ensuring overall fairness and safety. And unlike the case of a cisgender boy, excluding B.P.J. from the girls’ teams excludes [him] from all athletic opportunity while stigmatizing and separating [him] from [his] peers.”

But there’s the rub. There will always be relevant physiological differences between a boy and a girl, even if that boy disfigures himself with the aid of so-called “puberty blockers.” Sure, that boy may be weaker and shorter and have deformed genitalia (all very real consequences of halted testosterone production), but he is, to his core, a boy. Sexual differentiation begins in the womb. Infants, in their first months of life, undergo “mini-puberty,” a period marked by an upswing in the secretion of sex steroids. 

That’s all to say: There are boys and there are girls. Any argument to the opposite is wishful thinking by people with deranged wishes.

In any case, Jackson probably should’ve recused herself for this one. She isn’t a biologist. What does she know?

Follow Natalie Sandoval on X: @NatSandovalDC