https://apple.news/ACP9m90rmRF2sTiG-j8RvtA

Thank God, I mean that, this nonsense is being culled out.

Sexual based stereotypes have no place in being endorsed by the State(receiving state funds makes it a state endorsement).

If you do not like it, go to private, non-state funded school.

If they could wear jumpsuits, those have separate legs.

Not sure I see the argued advantages for pants over the women’s choices.

Don’t see the discrimination that was claimed, either.

If title IX required women’s sports be offered, it seems an admission that there are differences between the sexes… otherwise, have a basketball team and only let the best dozen or so players on.

Now, was the dress code reasonable? Maybe.

Their claimed rationale for it seems a bit sexist, though.

It is not about advantage.

It is the fact forks are made to wear skirts while boys are permitted paints and shorts. The rationale wing the school’s policy is based on gender stereotypes of girl as fragile vessels.

I am sure the Christian-Nationalist and Faction members will continue to support such junk while decrying The David.

There are differences and then there are stereotypes that the 14th Amendment does not allow. Gender discrimination is subjective to Intermediate Scrutiny. This fails.

Not a comment on the OP but I always smile when I remember a friend who was told he could not wear shorts to work and he asked why are the women wearing shorts and the lady boss said “those are Capri Pants” so he bought a bunch of capri pants and wore those.

Did you read your article?

The girls had to wear skirts or pantsuits. Not skirts only.

They claimed that skirts made it not possible to be physically active because their underwear would show and that skirts are colder than pants (all of which is obviated by pantsuits).

The people who brought suit were claiming the disadvantage.

Now they also stated that it was because they wanted the boys to view women as fragile vessels, which pretty much makes a mockery of any logical rationale, but like the SCOTUS ruling on Obamacare, they get to ignore parts of things when they want to- the Obamacare legislation claimed fines, not taxes, but SCOTUS called it a tax in their reasoning… which was not argued.

Now SCOTUS didn’t rule on this, they just elected not to hear the case. While this leaves the lower court ruling in place, it leaves the underlying issue undecided as lower court precedent doesn’t apply to the Supreme Court.

Yes. They cannot wear paints and shorts like the bouts based on a stereotype.

The rejection of gender stereotypes has now been long established in Federal Law.

Read this case if you want to understand the article, and why the S. Ct. did not take the case on.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/su...ecourt/text/429/190I

The above is the case that created tge analytical frame work the courts have to undergo to answer these questions.

The most recent case applying those principles is the trans woman case where the S. Ct. held firing someone for being trans was gender discrimination subject to intermediate scrutiny which was not permitted.