We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

This has to be the strangest news headline and strangest-written news story I’ve seen in many an age, from Inside Higher Education:

Judge Says Reportedly Trans Volleyball Player May Compete

A federal judge has ruled that a San José State University women’s volleyball player, who some of her teammates and competitors have said is transgender, can continue to play on the team, ESPN reported.

Players on other teams in the university’s conference, the Mountain West, along with a handful of individuals associated with the SJSU team, filed a lawsuit earlier this month seeking an emergency injunction to bar the supposedly transgender student from playing on the team. (SJSU has never confirmed that the player is transgender, citing privacy laws, and the player has never publicly spoken about her gender.)

What is a “reportedly” transgender athlete? Isn’t this rather easy to tell in a women’s locker room? Perhaps not if a male has subjected himself to castration (let’s be direct about things here, shouldn’t we?). “Citing privacy laws” is a neat dodge for San Jose State, since sports locker rooms are among the least private personal spaces anywhere.

But the story gets worse:

The plaintiffs alleged that her playing on the team denied cisgender women “equal opportunities.” One of SJSU’s co-captains has repeatedly claimed she fears her teammate could injure her or another player, but she noted in a recent interview with KTVU, San Francisco’s Fox News station, that she has never been injured beyond routine bumps and bruises by the teammate she says is transgender.

But this omits a larger fact of this controversy. The fear from opposing college women’s volleyball teams that have chosen to forfeit their matches with San Jose State (six now in total) is not that San Jose State women players will be injured, but that the SJSU trans-player’s high velocity spikes risk injuring the opposing team.

The judge’s reasoning in the case is equally weird:

U.S. District Judge S. Kato Crews ruled against the plaintiffs on the basis that the situation was not, in fact, an emergency; the conference has had the same policy on transgender athletes since 2022, and Crews wrote in the decision, “There is no evidence to suggest they were precluded from seeking emergency relief earlier.”

In other words, “Hey, you should have sued sooner.” You will not be surprised to learn that Judge Crews is a Biden appointee, joining the bench this year. Wikipedia helpfully reminds us: “During his confirmation hearing, [Crews] was unable to answer a question by Senator John Kennedy, in which the senator asked him to define a Brady motion, which is a tenet of criminal law.”

Chaser, from today’s New York Times:

Facing diminishing public support, some activists say all-or-nothing tactics are not working. . .

To get on the wrong side of transgender activists is often to endure their unsparing criticism.

After a Democratic congressman defended parents who expressed concern about transgender athletes competing against their young daughters, a local party official and ally compared him to a Nazi “cooperator” and a group called “Neighbors Against Hate” organized a protest outside his office.

When the Biden administration convened a call with L.G.B.T.Q. allies last year to discuss new limits on the participation of transgender student athletes, one activist fumed on the call that the administration would be complicit in “genocide” of transgender youth, according to two people with knowledge of the incident.

Ya think maybe they went too far? Even the New York Times gets it. If this keeps up, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson might finally figure out what a woman is, and “birthing person” will disappear from any sentient person’s vocabulary.