Politics For Happy People
A podcast about politics for happy people!
Politics For Happy People
Girls' Sports Just Scored a Major Victory
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
The Supreme Court delivered a landmark victory for women and girls by allowing states to keep boys out of girls' sports—but the justices also missed an opportunity to address the growing problems created by birthright citizenship. Joseph and Ashley break down both rulings, explain what they mean for North Carolina, and discuss why objective truth must remain the foundation of good public policy. They also challenge the growing belief that personal desires should determine law, arguing that society ultimately has to choose between reality and feelings.
Welcome to Politics for Happy People where we have fun conversations about serious issues. And today, Ashley, we are going to talk about the Supreme Court and break it all down for everybody. If you don't know, June, the end of June is kind of the end of Supreme Court season. All the decisions get released. We've had a couple of a few big ones and a couple we're going to talk about today. A lot of implications for life in America and in North Carolina. So good to see you. Good to see you too. And you get to begin your Supreme Court analysis career today, right? Because you Today it begins.
SPEAKER_01Well, I always have been a watcher. I'm not sure I've always been a commentator.
SPEAKER_00But now you get to critique the Supreme Court. Here I am. You get to critique the Supreme Court. Before we get there though, Ashley, one of my favorite stories for the week has nothing to do with the Supreme Court. But are you familiar with Gracie, the giraffe, who got lost in Texas? No. What happened? Gracie lived in some kind of nature preserve. She escaped for two weeks. They could not find a giraffe in Texas. In the hill country. And I think it is very likely that Gracie is actually taller than every tree in Texas. Because you lived in Texas. Because there are no big trees in Texas. Giraffes are big. It's obviously a feel-good story because after two weeks, Gracie came home and she just kind of basically was found four miles away. But it is baffling to me how you can lose a giraffe for two weeks in rural Texas.
SPEAKER_01Who found Gracie? I mean, I just hope it was a little kid. I mean, if it was one of my young kids and they found this giraffe, that would make their life. I mean, that would be like the most epic thing ever.
SPEAKER_00It's like playing in the yard and a giraffe wanders into the backyard with you. You you would think that you had died and gone to heaven. Um, well, although giraffes can be very dangerous. Uh, this one apparently was not, is not. Um had escaped around some kind of fence that clearly the enclosure was not working well. Um, but I just I I had been tracking kind of this the saga. There was like this little following, wondering where Gracie was. A $5,000 reward had been put out for Gracie by Gracie's owner. Um, I'm just perplexed how that happens because that seems like to be the easiest thing in the world to find. Because those are not small creatures.
SPEAKER_01Yeah.
SPEAKER_00So, anyway, for those of you who might have been following along, Gracie has been returned safely to her enclosure. I'm sure she's disappointed about that. But um, all is well in giraffe land. That's great news. It is great news, and I'm sure there are there were some happy children who had to have seen uh Gracie wandering around at some point. But to more serious things, let's talk about the Supreme Court.
SPEAKER_01Let's do it. So, so today we're gonna start by talking about two cases: West Virginia versus BPJ and Little versus Heacocks. And both of these cases had to do with boys competing in girls' sports.
SPEAKER_00For the purpose of clarity, those two cases actually became one case. Uh, they did in the system what is referred to as consolidation, because they essentially ask the same legal question. So the court combines them and hears them as one.
SPEAKER_01But yes, and then there's one decision.
SPEAKER_00There's one decision that involves two cases because they are so similar, the court's like, we're gonna handle these at the same time. Because they both involved boys, the question of whether boys can play sports with girls.
SPEAKER_01Right. And they both were challenging state laws in West Virginia and in Idaho that had prevented boys from competing in girls' sports in schools in those states. So the question became can the states do this? Yes. And the Supreme Court has said, yes, they can.
SPEAKER_00Yes, they can. They can. I mean, and and it's, you know, on one level, this is it's like a big national headlines. There's giant celebration, there's, you know, weeping and gnashing of teeth uh for some on the left around this. It's honestly so silly that that serious people are talking about this, that huge amounts of energy and time and money have been um dispensed by a variety of people in a variety of ways trying to figure out whether it's permissible for states to say the boys have to play boys sports and the girls have to play girl sports. But here we are. The outcome is good though.
SPEAKER_01Here we are. It it is it's a it is a great outcome. Um just in reading the opinion and seeing Justice Brett Kavanaugh say the term sex cannot plausibly be understood to mean anything besides biological sex. That statement actually really does need to be made. Um, and it was interesting. I was reading this week that he himself, Justice Kavanaugh, was a coach for his girls' uh basketball. I think that's right.
SPEAKER_00He was a he's a girls' basketball coach.
SPEAKER_01Yeah.
SPEAKER_00I also was once a girls' basketball coach. I was. We actually won the YMCA championship. Oh, congratulations. It was this would have been like 2019. Uh-huh. Yep. 2000, I think 2019, uh Fort Worth YMCA, go team. We did it. Yeah. Yeah. Two of my daughters.
SPEAKER_01So drawing from personal experience. Yes. I I mean that's exactly right.
SPEAKER_00Exactly right.
SPEAKER_01As a coach of women's sports, you can authoritatively say that the boys do not belong in there.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, yes. I mean, it it's so intuitive to most of us, right? It it's so intuitive. And the legal question that was being asked here is is what what the left would like, and what the kind of the transgender movement wants us to do is that they made the argument that it is discriminatory for these states to exclude boys who identify as girls. And one of the things that the the court said, and you just kind of referred to it there with Kavanaugh's definition of sex, is that the law does not classify based on gender identity and transgender status. Those are those are identities and classifications that the left is fixated upon, obsessed with, believes the world should revolve around. Has invented. Also has invented, right? And and that's where Kavanaugh's coming back to is the fact that the law does not even recognize them. Those aren't things, those aren't real things. Those are real things in the minds of many on the left. In the law, they are not real things. There are boys and there are girls. The law allows us to treat them differently. Everybody move on. Yeah. Yeah. And it's a great, yeah. I mean, it it's it's so obvious, but it's also, I, you know, it's it's what needs to be done. But Ashley, one of the things that I, I mean, I I don't I don't know if we're moving through this too quickly here, but one of the things we need to um just be mindful of is the fact that there are three members of our Supreme Court who voted against that position. And and while we can celebrate the victory, it is it is a massive cultural failing in my mind that there are three people made it to the Supreme Court who want to um who are convinced that uh gender identity is a real category that the law should govern us by, and that it should be illegal for a court, for a state to say boys cannot be with girls.
SPEAKER_01So as I understand it, correct me if this is wrong, there were two legal questions. One had to do with the constitution, and that was the 14th amendment, um, the equal protection clause. The second one was uh statutory and it had to do with Title IX and uh federal funding. Correct. And in the three dissenting justices dissent that they wrote, it act they actually didn't disagree with the Title IX arguments.
SPEAKER_00Correct. They disagreed with the equal protection.
SPEAKER_01Right, exactly. So that's kind of interesting, right?
SPEAKER_00Yeah, that means that is interesting. You're right. That that is interesting. You even got the you even got the left-wing judges to say, and and Title IX, what is Title IX? That is the that is the federal law that requires equal opportunity for girls in sports. And that's why there are so many athletic opportunities in your colleges and universities, and that's why there's, you know, the the women's golf team popped up and the women's soccer team and the women's swimming and all of those things. And the the the converse of that, and I think there's been some unfortunate outcomes of Title IX, is that in order to have equality, which is essentially a quota, the a lot of men's wrestling teams have been just disbanded. So in rather than creating more opportunities for the girls, because we can't, we're just gonna eliminate opportunities for the boys so it looks equal. And that's one of the outcomes that has that is reality as states have tried to implement this mandate from Title IX to make sure that boys and girls have the same opportunities in college sports. But that's a different conversation for our purposes today. Um, Title IX, because it requires equal opportunity, really, this question is then well, what's a boy and what's a girl? And this is where the Supreme Court says it has to be biological sex because nothing else makes sense. Because you had a minority in this case. What they wanted to do, they wanted to remand this case and basically require courts to do an evaluation for every single person with an identity crime who identifies as transgender to say, well, have they taken enough hormones that they have eliminated the obvious athletic advantages that males have? And they wanted them to basically be able to appeal every individual. And so the court would be flooded with all of these cases where there are individual athletes saying, Oh, I took enough cross-sex hormones, oh, I had enough surgery, oh, my testosterone levels are low enough that I can prove my athletic you know advantages have been mitigated and therefore I should be able to play, which is I don't know how you could ever isolate that variable.
SPEAKER_01You know, if they're winning, do we know for sure that it's because of their level of hormones or or lack thereof?
SPEAKER_00Well, you couldn't, I mean, yeah, I mean it it the idea that you would buy a case by case say, okay, let's look at their bone density and their muscle mass and their lung capacity and their testosterone levels, you know, and did they transition at eight or at 16? You know, and and what's to require some bureaucracy to go through that evaluation um is would be insanely complicated. Yes. Um, and and obviously we we know as a as a factual matter, there are some women on the U.S. women's you know track team who are faster than almost all men. There are some, but that is a tiny percentage on balance. Men have undeniable biological advantages by virtue of being male. That's the reason the categories exist in the first place of male and female sports. And the Supreme Court just acknowledged it's not illegal to recognize those differences and act accordingly.
SPEAKER_01So this is gonna make a difference in girls' lives across the country. Women have lost spots on teams and podium positions, uh scholarship opportunities, all these things. And even just a couple weeks ago, this headline from May 28th, 2026, it says Bridgeport's Becky Pepper Jackson wins state shot put title comma fueling trans sports debate. This is May 28th, 2026.
SPEAKER_00Oh, so this guy, the subject of this case, just won another shot put championship?
SPEAKER_01Yeah, state. Wins state title just a couple weeks ago. Okay. So this is highly relevant. Um it's it's still happening because the Fourth Circuit blocked West Virginia's law.
SPEAKER_00That's right.
SPEAKER_01And so Becky Pepper Jackson was still competing and won the state title on May 28th.
SPEAKER_00Right. But as a result of this decision, West Virginia's law will go back into effect. And so, Lord willing, that will be the last time a boy wins a state championship in a girls' athletic competition in West Virginia.
SPEAKER_01And in North Carolina, because we have uh it was House Bill 574, the Fairness and Spin Women's Sports Act, was passed in North Carolina in 2023. So this Supreme Court decision means that our law here in North Carolina that protects women and girls sports, fairness and safety in sports is going to be upheld, which is great. And there are 27 other states that have passed such laws. Um, well, 26 in addition to North Carolina, 27 total. And so this is great, but that leaves 23 states where the boys actually can still compete in girl sports.
SPEAKER_00And the, you know, for a while they will. And actually, and and and this brings up a point because in in a in a previous episode, we we uh I misstated this question because there is a may and shall issue being debated in the law right now. Okay. And and and the question of BPJ is whether states may separate sports based on boys and girls athletics, uh, based on biological sex. And this case said that these states may do that. Now, moving through the system right now are different cases that uh argue that Title IX requires states to separate uh sports based on biological sex. So the the outcome of the BBJ case is as you just pointed out, there are 27 states who have said, hey, it's boys and girls, biological sex are the differences. And then there's 23 states that have said, no, we want the boys to play with the girls if they want to, because we have no idea what a boy or a girl is, so they're just gonna tell us, right? And so in coming out of those blue states are cases where athletes have argued by allowing boys into girl sports, you are violating Title IX. So federal law actually requires you to enforce boundaries based on biological sex. That's the next step in this in this legal, you know, kind of debate.
SPEAKER_01Yeah. And what you're saying right now is what um the head of Alliance Defending Freedom, they were uh co-counsel on this case. Um, the head Kristen Wagner, she is saying the same thing. That's the next step is to make sure that no matter what state or zip code you're in in the United States, the girls' fairness and safety is going to be protected. And and it should.
SPEAKER_00That's right. And and and to go back to the point you were just making, this now allows the law passed here in North Carolina in 2023 to keep boys out of girls' sports to go into effect. And and I think there's a big picture here people should not lose. Because in 2023, NC Values, and you and I were not part of NC Values at that point, but NC Values drafted this legislation, took it to the state legislature, lots of work happening. Good legislators, common sense legislators, passed it into law. It went into effect. Then, of course, it got challenged, as good as good policy often does. But then good lawyers did the process of working on that. And then NC Values, of course, filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court. Quick parenthetical about an amicus brief, which is basically lawyers lobbying lawyers. That's what an amicus brief is. Everybody kind of understands what lobbying is. You go to your legislators and you say, hey, we need you to do this for this reason. And when a case is at the Supreme Court, lawyers do the same thing through the form of amicus briefs, where they write all these legal arguments and talk about the implications. And the number of people who file amicus briefs really matters and it gives the courts the ability to um, you know, it's like it's um, you know, they're in in one sense they're political creatures, but it's also just like they're being reminded, and everybody likes support. And if you have, if you have 150 amicus briefs filed in one in favor of one position and two filed in the other position, you're like, well, why is nobody like bothering to care about that issue, right? So that's kind of what an amicus brief is. NC Values have has been part of that process as well at the court. So it's just understanding that this outcome, which we all kind of think is common sense and certainly is good policy, only was achieved because of significant efforts by a lot of people over a long period of time. And it just kind of speaks to our need to engage at the policy level, supporting your local organizations who go do that advocacy, right? Of course, voting for the people who get to be in office and vote for these policies, but then, you know, supporting the lawyers who were going to take it to take it to court as well. And not to be lost in all of that, is the brave young women who were willing to endure the scorn of a lot of people and stand up and say, hey, this is not fair. And they're the ones who were who have been in court in many different ways, also fighting for truth. So, so many different pieces to all of this as we just kind of, you know, applaud a little bit for common sense.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, I was about to bring up that last piece that you just said, the brave young women who have stood up and have had to stand up for themselves and for all women and girls, you know, around the country, one of which in North Carolina was Peyton McNabb. And she was a huge and important part of helping get the Fairness and Sports Act passed in North Carolina in 2023 because she was willing to share her story, which, if you haven't heard it, she was playing uh volleyball uh in on her school team in high school, and a boy who was playing on the opposing team spiked a ball in her face. She has traumatic, uh, she had a traumatic brain injury. She has uh leftover neurological effects from that. And she really became the face and the voice of what can happen when boys are allowed to compete against girls on the safety front. And that when this decision, uh, this BPJ decision came out from the court, they did talk about not only the loss of fairness uh that occurs when boys can compete against girls, but also the loss of safety as it relates to contact sports. But I have to be honest, Joseph, I don't really think of volleyball as a contact sport. Um but I mean I mean, but it certainly in in contact sports it you can see it becoming more of an issue.
SPEAKER_00Basketball, soccer, the the bodies are actually physically colliding. Right, yeah, right. So volleyball is not a contact sport in that sense.
SPEAKER_01But yes, I'm just saying, even in volleyball, even in in other scenarios, you know.
SPEAKER_00Baseball, when balls are being, you know, it those kind of when you know there's velocity and strength and it's it's certainly relevant. And if you have, I mean, high-level volleyball, the ball is coming at you. Yeah. Right. And it it it at very high speeds, and and that's what Peyton experienced. So yes, it's a good outcome. Um, but just understand behind the headlines how much goes into you know, years and years of of of advocacy in various places that leads to these outcomes. And so vigilance is is the is is required to get to these things.
SPEAKER_01So before we pivot from this, Joseph, I want to touch on one piece. Um, if you've been listening along and following us here on Politics for Happy People, or if you are watching our social media at all for NC values, you know that we've been working on preventing males from entering female private spaces in North Carolina, both in bathrooms and in locker rooms. We're talking about in K through 12 public schools, universities, or rape crisis centers, prisons, all of that. Does this ruling have anything to do with that or any implications for that?
SPEAKER_00I think it has massive implications for that. Yeah, it it absolutely does because the here is this the the Supreme Court is clarifying we know the difference between men and women and we're gonna act like it. And um, you know, one of the dissenting justices, Katanji Brown Jackson, and we all may remember in I don't know if you recall this from her confirmation hearing. Oh, I recall, right? She was asked, you know, what is a woman? And her response was, I don't know, I'm not a biologist, right? And so it's clear from her opinion in this case, she still hasn't figured out what a woman is. Um, but the rest of the court, at least the majority of the court, is not confused about that. So while this decision is explicitly a sports context, once you are not confused about the difference of between men and women, the logic easily transfers to the facility conversation. Where do we put fit male prisoners? Where do we where can the boys go in the middle schools and high schools and in in all of those questions that that we continue to have? So is it relevant? I think it's highly relevant. It's not exactly on point. We're gonna see other cases, I think, where the court speaks to that. But this decision um is a really good indicator, I think, of where they're gonna come down in those cases.
SPEAKER_01Yeah. The this case was about sports, but what they said has implications for the private spaces.
SPEAKER_00Totally.
SPEAKER_01Which is great news.
SPEAKER_00Totally. So birthright citizenship? Should we move on? Let's see. Um, Ashley, I don't know how much you thought about this quite. I mean, I don't even know how much you time you've spent reading this decision. Um do you what's your long-term or even have you had a long-term opinion about whether babies born in the United States should always be citizens, even if their parents are here legally? As a policy question.
SPEAKER_01Yeah. As a policy question, I I am more sympathetic to the argument that they should have some kind of a legal and permanent status here if their children uh are going to be counted as U.S. citizens.
SPEAKER_00No, but no, but that's the question. Should the children, we know mom and dad are here illegally. Should should every child be born born in the United States be a citizen? Just as a policy question.
SPEAKER_01The parents are here legally and in some sort of a permanent capacity. Yes, they should.
SPEAKER_00But what if they're not?
SPEAKER_01That and I would say no.
SPEAKER_00Okay, I would say no.
SPEAKER_01That is the But because that opens the door up to taking advantage of the system.
SPEAKER_00Which is undeniably done all the time. Right. And the Supreme Court just said in Trump versus Barbara, which is the birthright citizen case, that the constitution requires that outcome, essentially. And and and that's this debate because when one of the one of Trump's executive orders, when he got into office the second time, was to end birthright citizenship, was to say that just because you're born here does not mean that you are a citizen. Now, the fact is there has been a history of birthright citizenship. Uh and and the the the law of our land, which gives citizenship to anyone who is born in the United States and quote, subject to the jurisdiction thereof, and that was the language that was being debated by the Supreme Court. Um, the question really is, what does it mean to be subject to the jurisdiction thereof? Because physically being born here, like if you are born, if your parents are diplomats from Bangladesh in the United States, you're here, they're citizens of Bangladesh, they're not trying to be citizens, they're in the physically in the in the country, but as representatives of a different country. They're not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, therefore their child is not a citizen under those circumstances. And so the the court is was wrestling with this question uh that does that apply to illegal immigrants as well? Are they subject to the jurisdiction thereof? And is the child therefore subject to the jurisdiction thereof or not? And the the court ultimately said the child is subject to the jurisdiction thereof, therefore a citizen, even if it allows um birth tourism, and there are lots and lots of examples of women who have broken into America specifically for the purpose of having a baby and getting on the welfare system because their baby is a now a citizen. Does that bother you?
SPEAKER_01Birth tourism? Yeah. Yeah, it it absolutely does. On the other hand, I can understand it. America is wonderful. Why wouldn't you want your child to be a citizen?
SPEAKER_00We we cannot understand why someone would want to do it. The question is should we allow it?
SPEAKER_01Yeah, yeah. I don't think so, but isn't that a separate question as to whether what the constitution says about it currently?
SPEAKER_00Oh, of course, yeah, yeah, and and and that's an important point to make is that it is a totally separate is it good policy is different than is it legal? Sure. Those are different questions.
SPEAKER_01So um so one thing, Joseph, that troubles me is especially troubles me, is sort of the um conglomeration of this birth tourism that has been happening for a long time and the IVF industry. And I I don't know if you read that article that um it was a Wall Street Journal article that came out in December. But basically this very, very wealthy Chinese man what is hiring surrogates. Yeah, he well, he's hiring surrogates in the United States to um have these like hundreds of babies via uh IVF, and they are being born in the United States and they are citizens, and um he some of these children, it's like has has he even met all the children? He's not plausibly able to parent these many this many children, and you know, some people, and this isn't, I mean, this isn't a widespread problem, but it's actually it actually is a trend. It's not just him, there are others that are doing this and sort of creating this, you know, like super family of of many like children and descendants, and and they're being born in the United States and they're citizens. So this just seems this seems extremely problematic that you've got someone who's living in another country and having, you know, well, it it brings it brings up the question about the relationship between the Chinese government and the US, right?
SPEAKER_00Because this seems like a major loophole if some Chinese communist agitator can purchase hundreds of US citizen children.
SPEAKER_01Well, it very much highlights the problem with the current system that we have.
SPEAKER_00Well, it it duh. And and let's be mindful of the fact that when our uh um like birthright citizenship laws were first put into place, we lived in a very different world where it was not nearly as easy to come to the city. There were no airplanes, Joseph. Exactly. It was it was not nearly as easy to come and go as it currently is, right? And and a couple thoughts about that is it is not necessarily, it does it does not necessarily mean that. Well, time has changed, technology has changed. We've seen this a lot in the Second Amendment debates, right? Oh, well, the you know, the Second Amendment wasn't meant to protect machine guns and bazookas and tanks. And of course, they did not have those things in their mind because those munitions did not exist, they could not have imagined those things. So, how do we apply an old in time, Second Amendment, to modern realities about what warfare is? That's kind of the same qu thing that we're dealing with now. How do we deal with this old law that gave citizenship to people who were born here to a new world in which you can come across in 12 hours, yeah, you know, if you if you want to from many different countries from many different places rather than the world that they were dealing with when at that point you had to like either be pulled by a horse or walk wherever you were going, or you could get on a boat uh for months and sail across the ocean, right? Those were your options. So birthright tourism wasn't even conceivable at that point because it was hard enough to it was hard to get into the country in the time that you were pregnant, right? I mean, it took that much time. So just because times have changed does not mean that you can the the judges should unilaterally change the law because ultimately that's Congress's job. Right. But you still have this question. And and I think in this case, um for those who want to read about this, because subject to the jurisdiction thereof does kind of seem like anybody born here is a is a citizen. Justice Thomas's descent, which is like 90 plus pages, very long. His descent is longer than the entire combination of all of the other opinions. He does a really good job of explaining how historically, subject to the jurisdiction thereof, really had, I mean, it it referred to in his judgment, and I'm inclined to be persuaded by this, okay, it it referred to the the domicile of mom and dad. Okay, essentially, because at that point, if mom and dad were domiciled in the United States, not necessarily born, but they were living here, the the child born there had no other loyalties other than to the United States because that's where mom and dad were. And therefore the child was subject to the jurisdiction thereof. And again, he's taking 90 pages to explain this. I'm gonna try to do this in a handful of seconds. But he does a really good job of explaining why it's not just like judicial activism when we're not just gonna unilaterally change the law, that the intender, the intention of the original language was to give citizenship to those who had demonstrated we are here for the long term. And that specifically does not apply to the birth tourism that we are experiencing now.
SPEAKER_01Well, and that's what I initially said would be my preferred policy position, right? If they're here legally and permanently, then yes, their children should be citizens. But if they're here illegally or they're here temporarily or exploitatively, then their children should not be considered citizens.
SPEAKER_00And importantly, no other country has this. You can't, you know, if if some American just goes to Spain, you know, for a couple months and happens to have a baby there, the Spanish government is not giving her the citizenship. The Russian government is not giving her citizenship, her child citizenship. Nobody else is doing this. And the fact that nobody else is doing this kind of helps explain why it's insane, because it is such a massive loophole in your immigration system. But we have decided, um, uh because again, America is a nation of immigrants, it was also um one of the ways that we made sure that slaves had rights because they were born here, but they weren't necessarily again it's a 14th Amendment issue. Yes. Correct. So um I think it's it's terrible policy. Um, Justice Kavanaugh in particular, a part of his concurring opinion with the majority, um, really left the door open to Congress acting. But Congress does not do a good job of acting these days, and and and the concern is they are the ones who are supposed to make law, but are they going to do that? I'm pretty skeptical at this point because they tended to mirror uh all tough policy questions and hope the court's gonna take it over. And right now we kind of have this situation where the courts basically saying that uh we can't do that, and the because we're not lawmakers, and then the lawmakers are saying we don't want to do that because there could be a political cost, so nothing happens.
SPEAKER_01But going back to the IVF surrogate situation that I was saying, yeah, where that you've got Chinese billionaires, you know, buying American children that are American citizens that are being birthed and raised by other people, I think that that kind of thing, it's almost it's like it's birth tourism on steroids. And it really does highlight this issue. So if that keeps getting reported on in the news, you know, people, I mean, I would think that the majority of the American public would see that that's a problem.
SPEAKER_00I you know, it many do. Many are outraged by this decision, but there are law, there are a lot of people, I think, who believe all immigration law is racist. And and it I mean, it and there's a you know, to to make make a connection to the BPJ case and this whole trans thing, right? That there is a sentiment that the desire is the justification. Why should a boy be able to play women's sports? Because he wants to and it will make him happy. That's all. Because he wants to and it will make him happy, and I'm a good person, so I want him to be happy. Why should people be able to come to the United States? Because they want to and it will make them happy. If there's no greater good than the thing that makes them happy, then it's that that is itself the justification. And I think that's the that is the um the theme of a lot of things that are happening on the left, and what we need to be aware of is are we governed by our feelings and the things that are going to make us happy, or is there a greater good than the thing that will make us happy in the context of women's sports? Is there a greater good? Yeah, because men and women are different. There are creation order realities we need to acknowledge. Is there a greater good than, hey, everybody wants to be in America? Because obviously, if you live, I mean, and it's true, I I'm not mad about anybody who wants to be here. But is there a greater good than making sure every poor person on the planet is happy because they get to come to America? And the answer should be yes, because you you can't have law and order, you can't have a civilization if there are no rules regulating that. So that's you know, if if there's a theme here, I think we're wrestling with this idea the the reality that there should be a greater good other than this is the thing that will make you happy, so we'll give it to you.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, I think that's right. In closing, I want to read this statement that Melania Trump made.
SPEAKER_00Oh, yes. The great philosopher Melania Trump. Not we I I think we like Melania, but I know where you're going. But yes.
SPEAKER_01I'm gonna read what she said because I actually think it's kind of helpful. Um she said the US Supreme Court has now legally confirmed this opinion. She's referring to her own opinion that we should support the LGBTQ community and also ensure that female athletes are protected and respected. And then she goes on to say, America, we can support the rights of LGBTQ, the LGBTQ community, and also protect opportunities for female athletes, respect everyone, and keep girls' sports fair. Both ideals are essential. No, we can't, Melania. We actually have to choose. We actually do have to choose. We have to choose whether we're going to say a woman is a woman, a girl is a girl, a boy can't say that he's a woman and go and compete with the women. We we we have to choose that, or we have to choose to let them do that and say, you you can't sure, you can just follow your desires and and and you can do this because that is what the other side is demanding, right? Because they say if we don't allow that man to say that he's a woman and affirm every single, you know, part of that, that we are discriminating.
SPEAKER_00Correct. These are mutually exclusive choices, and that's very often the reality. Um, it's true of our immigration policies. You can either have law and order or you can have open borders. Somebody's not gonna like um the, but you have to choose, you know, which one, which is the better path. In women's sports, you can either have boys and girls' sports or you can have girl sports for girls. Those are your options, those those are mutually exclusive choices, and somebody's gonna be upset. And there's and it sounds like Melania in this context is one of those people who is like, I want common sense to reign, but I also want all the LGBT people to think I'm awesome.
SPEAKER_01To be happy with me. Yeah, she doesn't not to offend. Um, but the reality is in this, if this is offensive, in this case, we must. We must we must hold the line here and say, no, this being a female, being a woman, this is a real thing. It's a real category, and this is not the same as that. Woman is not the same as male. Not only that, but you can't cross over, you can't join the other category. And um, and we're so thankful that you know the Supreme Court has done that. And I will just say also, I agree with her sentiment that people who are gender confused or uh claim uh LGBTQ identity of any sort absolutely deserve dignity and respect. But that does not include affirmation of the idea that a man can become a woman.
SPEAKER_00And we cannot let the inmates run the asylum in this case and have all the girls' sports just be taken over by guys who think they are. And and and so, yeah, you do have to choose. Um, but the thing that keeps us happy in all of that, you know, even though the conflict is inevitable, is just it is it is right, it is consistent with creation order reality, and in the long term, uh ordering ourselves according to things that are true are gonna have better results than if we order ourselves according to whatever we're feeling today and whatever the mood of the moment is. That is deeply unstable and doesn't produce good results. So, I mean, I guess we're kind of happy with the Supreme Court and kind of not. Good things happen, good things don't. That's life on Earth.
SPEAKER_01That's right.
SPEAKER_00That's right. Thanks for joining us today on Politics for Happy People. Quick reminder new episodes every Tuesday and Friday, wherever you found us. Please do like and subscribe because that helps us make new friends. Look forward to joining you next time here on Politics for Happy People.