I’m going to say it: I want SCOTUS to rule for WVa in West Virginia v. B. P. J. and to rule based on the Spending Clause. I may be the only person in the world who wants that. But that’s what I want. It looks like Mr. Williams, who represents WVa, would be fine with winning based on the “Spending Clause.” Mr. Moopan, who represents the Feds? Nope. Nope. Nopey, Nope. You can read a bit about Spending Clase the exchanges during oral arguments in Josh Blackman’s post at Volokh.

We can discuss why I want the ruling based on the Spending Clause in comments, but the way I see it: These “transgender” cases are coming hot and heavy now. But cases that could trim executive power in favor of leaving States latitude? Less common.

So what follows is my view on why I’d like to see a ruling based on the Spending Clause.

Title IX is passed under the Spending Clause. If I understand correctly, when a statute is passed under the Spending Clause, federal funding cannot be withheld from a state based on unclear statutory terms; the statute must clearly specify the conduct or condition that could result in funds being withheld. There is an argument that WVa violated Title IX. But, given all the strum and drang over what ‘sex’ means under Title IX and the fact that Congress almost certainly did not mean “gender identity,” one would argue that it is at least possible they did not mean “gender identity.” If they did mean “gender identity”, they could have said so way back when, and they certainly could get together and modify the bill to say so clearly now. So WVa should not be subject to withdrawal of Federal funds for interpreting it to mean “biological sex.” And so their bill does not violate Title IX.

With regard to statutes passed under the Spending Clause, what a ruling on spending would do (among other things) is:

• Preserve state latitude to do things unless Congress writes a bill that clearly withdraws that latitude, preventing funds-withholding coercion based on unclear statutory terms.
• Reduce administrative overreach to interpret statutes as doing more than they clearly say.
• Stop executive flip-flopping that happens when the preferences of the executive branch change — generally due to election of a new President.
• Force Congress to own its decisions, or admit its non-decisions.

That said, if the ruling is purely on the Spending Clause, this does a few things some people might not like:

• Applies to lots of cases outside the “transgender” issue. This could be seismic.
• Allows states like California to pass the law it likes on the transgender issue. After all, if what Title IX says about “sex” is unclear, Cali can’t have its funding yanked either.
• Trims all executives—including the current sitting one—of the power to use an ‘unclear’ statute to carry out their preferred interpretation.
• Makes legislatures have to pass laws about transgender rights instead of trying to twist laws that were not even thinking about the issue when they were passed.
• Leaves the “equal protection” argument alone, for the time being, and leaves defining what “sex” means until later. But while doing so, it forces Congress to be explicit in future laws.

My prediction: If the ruling is based on the Spending Clause, Congress will not modify Title IX to tighten the language. This is because too many Congress critters would be thrown out of office.

For the time being, I am holding my opinion on how they would rule on the “equal protection” argument in Idaho. But I’m pretty sure my feeling is: Equal Protection does not require a carve-out for transgender students in women’s sports. I can discuss that later.

But I like the Spending Clause issue for now. I also don’t think I’ll get exactly what I want. But you can’t have everything.

Note:

• Transcripts to the oral arguments are here: here.
• Google’s summary of “Spending Clause”:
  

  The Spending Clause, found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution, grants Congress the power to levy taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to pay debts, provide for common defense, and promote the general welfare, serving as the foundation for federal taxing and spending authority. This clause allows Congress to attach conditions to federal funds, influencing state policy (e.g., setting drinking ages) as long as conditions are clear, related to the program, and not coercive, as defined by Supreme Court cases like South Dakota v. Dole.

It’s cold out!!!! Open thread.

November 9, 2025 – Government shutdown updates .

So maybe this shut down is ending.

• Senate moves forward: The Senate has voted 60-40 on a key step toward reopening the government.[…]

• What happens next? There is more to come before the government can reopen. Any one senator can delay consideration of the package for several days, plus the House will have to return and adopt the deal struck in the Senate before it gets sent to President Donald Trump’s desk.

There are, of course, important national issues related to this. But I’m making this all about me: I have a reservation at 10:55 am Tuesday. I dance Wednesday– my guess is I’ll start near 9 am. I dance Silver; Bronze usually dances first. Honestly, they should also schedule the men only first (they don’t have elaborate hair/makeup). But they don’t seem to think of that.

No idea when my hair appointment is. 🙂

With luck, money will be flowing out of Federal purses by Monday night.

Open Thread.

We discussed the jeans ad here when it came out. I deferred judgment until we could see the sales data. Turns out sales are mostly neutral—down slightly in Q2, possibly too early to reflect the ad’s impact—but up slightly in Q3/Q4. American Eagle appears pleased; sales had previously been declining.

The controversy continues. One thing is clear: Sydney Sweeney knows how to engage. She’s a master at not falling into leading-question traps.

NEW: Sydney Sweeney refuses to apologize for the American Eagle jeans ad after GQ's Katherine Stoeffel continuously tried to get her to cave.

Stoeffel: I mean, Trump tweeted about the jeans ad … that just seems like a very crazy moment…

Sweeney: It was surreal.

Stoeffel:… pic.twitter.com/F9ihaeMqeq

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) November 6, 2025

When asked about the U.S. President tweeting the ad, Sweeney picks up the interviewer’s cue of a “crazy moment” and replies simply, “It was surreal.”

The interviewer then frames a follow-up as if suggesting Sweeney might feel grateful that powerful people were on her side: “I wondered if you felt that way.” Sweeney pauses, looks thoughtful, and explains that she hadn’t been thinking about it—she was working 16-hour days and had put her phone away. She then discusses her busy schedule. When asked if she worries people might avoid her movies because of perceived political views, her answer is simply: No.

Throughout this exchange, Sweeney conveys the impression of being unrehearsed. Perhaps she truly hasn’t thought much about Trump tweeting her ad—and perhaps she has. Either way, it reads as authentic.

After that, Sweeney delivers a masterclass in handling leading questions. The interviewer tries to get her to discuss the criticism of the ad—the “genetic” controversy. Importantly, the question is framed as giving Sweeney an opportunity to respond rather than putting her on the spot. Sweeney ignores the leading part and engages the opportunity framing, answering:

I think that when I have an issue that I want to speak about, people will hear.

I have to say: Sweeney either has terrific media instincts, very good handlers, or both. Not delivering political analysis or commentary is precisely the correct move. There are plenty of people whose profession is to deconstruct these things. Defending or criticizing the ad herself would serve her no purpose. For now, she leaves the politics to others.

Her consistent refusal to answer also ensures continued interest from interviewers hoping to be “the one” to get her to engage politically. I predict that if she ever does, it will be in an autobiography decades from now—and entirely on her terms.

A long time ago, Jim and I were shopping for trees. We discovered we could order male ash trees — as opposed to female trees. Of course, “male” was what we call the tree’s sex, which is biological. It was not the tree’s gender, which would be role. The tree’s main intended role, by the way, was “shade tree.”

The existence of male, female, and true hermaphrodite trees and plants comes to mind when people are discussing “what is sex?”, “what is gender?”, and “do their meanings differ?”. The correct answer is that they do differ. Sex is biological; gender is a role. Today, I’ll focus on biological sex.

So what is biological sex? Let’s start by asking this question:

When biologists discover a new species that reproduces sexually, how do they decide which of the two sexes is male, which is female, and whether, possibly, individuals are both simultaneously?

The answer is that they examine the gametes an individual produces. In sexually reproducing species, there are two types of gametes. Some species are observed to have one larger, nutrient-rich, usually non-motile gamete (i.e., egg) and one smaller, non-nutritive, mobile gamete (e.g., sperm, pollen). These species, with differently sized gametes, are called “anisogamous.” The individuals whose reproductive organs create the smaller gametes only are called males. The ones that create the larger gametes only are called females. Individuals that create both are biological, or true, hermaphrodites.

It may be worth noting that hermaphrodites may be sequential hermaphrodites, or simultaneous hermaphrodites. When a hermaphrodite is sequential, it is referred to as male during periods when it creates the smaller gametes, and female when it creates the larger, nutritive gametes. The identification of its current state of maleness or femaleness depends on the gametes it is currently producing.

Sex in humans

Humans are an anisogamous, sexually reproducing species. As such, biologically, humans are nearly always either male or female. Most humans are male or female, though disorders of sex development and other conditions do occur. Those whose sexual organs are designed to produce sperm are males; those that produce ova are females.

True hermaphroditism in humans — ovotesticular disorder (DSD) — is extremely rare, occurring in roughly 1 in 80,000–100,000 births. Other disorders exist: Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS), congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), and Klinefelter syndrome (47, XXY). Sometimes, the XYY chromosomal variation occurs.

It is worth noting: even when disorders, conditions, or syndromes occur, the biological sex of the individual is based on the gametes their body produces. Their biological sex does not depend on their phenotype — the appearance of their body or organs. However, since gonads produce gametes, and testes produce sperm while ovaries produce eggs, those with testes are males, and those with ovaries are females.

With respect to disorders: individuals with XXY (Klinefelter syndrome) have testes, which may produce sperm, though function may be impaired. XYY individuals also have testes and, generally, normal sperm production. In all three cases, the bodies are designed to produce sperm, though that production may be impaired. So all of these individuals are biologically male. Individuals with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) have a typical complement of gonads—ovaries in genetic females (XX) and testes in genetic males (XY).

The only disorder in which an individual is not specifically male or female is ovotesticular disorder (DSD); these individuals are true hermaphrodites.

Assignment at birth

Let me now discuss the notion of “assignment” at birth. What is really happening during “assignment”? What is intended?

At birth, doctors, midwives, and perhaps even the cab drivers who deliver the baby—because there was insufficient time to get to the hospital—will often inspect the newborn and, based on that inspection, decree, likely with some joy, “It’s a boy,” or “It’s a girl.” Along with that, they may also decree, “Ten fingers! Ten toes!” Perhaps, occasionally, whoever is in attendance will be stumped. The ensuing, “Yikes. I can’t tell!” is likely less joyful, as would be “Wow! Twelve toes!”

What is going on here? Well, what’s happening is that the attendants are doing a physical inspection of the phenotype—the outer physical appearance—and making a guess at the baby’s biological sex based on that phenotype. If the baby has a penis and external testes, they diagnose the sex as “boy,” that is, “male.” If the baby has a vulva and no penis, they diagnose the sex as female. Those diagnosing the biological sex usually do so in good faith, and usually do so correctly. However, misdiagnosis can occur, particularly in cases of disorders of sex development or other atypical phenotypes.

After the diagnosis, whoever fills out the birth certificate will check the “sex” box according to their diagnosis: male or female. Some states permit “undetermined,” “X,” or similar. So, they fill out the box to reflect their guess or diagnosis of the sex based on the child’s appearance.

Even in rare cases where underlying gamete potential cannot be diagnosed unambiguously based on external genitalia, the baby’s biological sex — defined by the gametes its body is designed to produce — remains a distinct attribute.

I don’t wish to stray into “gender” too far; I’d like to discuss that in a later post. But it is true that the diagnosis of the child’s sex is one of the things that can affect how parents relate to the child, and later what roles or behavioral expectations parents or others have for the child. Biologically, the baby’s sex exists independently of how the box is checked. To the extent that “gender” is assigned, it occurs socially, through the parents’ or other people’s response to the diagnosis of biological sex. But this does not change the baby’s sex. The baby’s sex is a biological attribute and is not “assigned” by doctors, parents, or society.

In summary: sex is a biological attribute that can be determined by the gametes an individual’s reproductive system creates. Some disorders or syndromes can affect how an individual looks, but their sex remains determined by the gametes they produce. An individual’s sex is not “assigned” at birth; it exists prior to birth and remains unchanged by the diagnosis doctors or others make at birth.

I invite you to discuss this. You may discuss gender also, but I intend a later post on what gender is. Briefly, gender is not biological; it is a social role.

We need a new thread. Jim brought this story to my attention.
ICE releases timeline detailing former DMPS Superintendent Ian Roberts’ alleged criminal history .
That’s Des Moines.

Just google Ian Robert’s and read the stuff. The mind boggles!

Apart from all the criminal stuff….don’t k-12 systems write schools for transcripts? When interviewing for school superintendent? You can have schools send them directly; that’s a reasonably good protection against forgery. Maybe he figured out an appropriate fake name? Enquiring minds want to know.

Supposedly, the school district hired a firm to vette him and

In a statement released last week shortly after Roberts’ arrest by ICE, the district said that Roberts was hired following a vetting process conducted by Ray and Associates, Inc., a national educational executive leadership search firm. The district said that they received all required documentation, including an FBI background check, and that no disqualifying issues were found.

Yeah. I know the government shutdown is the story du jour. Carry on. Open thread.

It’s time for a new thread. So I’ll let you all know the deal on my attempts to allow HTML. I think I can probably get it allowed but I want to limit allowing it to certain groups of people. The reason I want to limit is …. ‘bots’ and potentially annoying people. It’s the issue of getting the limits in. So I am trying to allow the html but limit it to

1. Long time regularly visitors. This will be defined as more than 10 approved posts. (I may later do and more than 3 in the past year. It’s limiting at all that is the issue.
2. Me on the “front end”. That’s what you see here.
3. Me on the “back end” where I can respond inside comments in blue. This will allow me to occassionaly make sure an answer is near a question. (Like “how do I do ‘x’?” could have the answer inserted immediately after it, and it could be clear mine was the answer.) Also, I could fix people’s incorrect html!
   It will also allow me to include responses to “you know whose” comments inside his comment when I feel like releasing it which would never be immediately. That way, I don’t need to quote and respond and derail the thread.
   It’s actually really easy for me to get this feature going if I only allow me to do it. But it makes all of you want me to let you add color too. So I want to do that.
4. Greek letters are going to be a problem. Some ways of entering them are easy at the screen– but the database won’t store them. I am not screwing with the database for maintainability reasons. (WordPress updates regularly. Sometimes that involves automatic changes to the database. I would need to detect the problem and then go in and “fix” it when this occurred at whatever random times WP updates.)
   I do have a latex plugin activate– but it requires me to add latex tags to the post. When those are present, we’ll all be able to enter Greek letters in Latex. This post does not have the tags entered. If you know unicode, you might be able to succeed with that, but it’s cumbersome. Finding the letter elsewhere and cutting and pasting will probably not work.

If you try putting in right now it will probably not work for you. I’ll let you know when it might because I’ll want testing. I am watching what “hooks” get activated as people do comment, and in what order. ChatGPT is certainly confused. But I don’t need you to bother trying to put the fonts in for the time being. I’ve just got error logs that show what is “triggering”. Merely commenting normally leaves some breadcrumbs.

Hopefully, I’ll get these powers in. As usual: open thread.

In comments, Joshua described, and so indirectly proposed, a statistical test one might use to determine whether a particular data set for the number of trans mass murders, k, out of a collection of n mass murders could be used to test the hypothesis that trans individuals commit mass murders at the same rate as non-trans individuals. I don’t think his intention in posting this was to propose a test. I think his intention was to tell me how woeful my view that the main problem with running statistical tests on hypotheses about the rate at which trans individuals commit mass murders is that we don’t have reliable data. But, whether or not he intended to do so, he did propose a method which, of course, we could use to test actual samples.
Continue reading Statistical Test Described by Joshua →

I’m going to Orlando. I hope to beat people who are better than me. All events at the US Dance Championships are live streamed, but you have to pay. You would be crazy to live stream the heats I’m in. Only the pro-pro heats are worth it. Heat lists are here. I’m only dancing smooth. I would have danced Rhythm, but things happened. (They involve an air conditioner breaking, a land lord not being willing to fix for the studio owner who had a month to month lease, the studio owner deciding she might as well find a new place… so my Rhythm pro and have a gap in our ability to train. Smooth pro and I train elsewhere. )

The results will be posted– but the link won’t be available for a while.

Tomorrow some people will be dancing, but I’ll be flying down to “the house of the mouse”.

Open Thread.

Heart of America in Kansas City was Jim and my second am-am competition. We dance cha-cha, rhumba, swing. This is our attempt.

You may wonder: were we competing against the other people in this video? Nope. The two other am-am couples who competed in Senior Bronze Am-Am danced C1 so they aren’t in this heat. I see a younger am dancer dancing with her pro and I see a Sr. am gentleman dancing with his pro. You might wonder how I know which leads are ams and which pros? Leads wear the number. If it’s higher than 300 the lead is an am. Otherwise, they are a pro.

The gentleman wearing 367 is the current points leader in the WDSSeries Pro-Am something or other. That’s mostly a participation award. He’s at all the competitions and dances everything.

Lots of things are organized to facilitate “bragging” rights, provided the winners don’t reveal all. There are several “series” you can enter. The “series” that isn’t mostly a participation award is called “Best of the Best” series. You can’t really get those just by entering a lot of competitions. I have never won that. But we did win the am-am championship and I have won other championships. I’ve even won when we were contested. ( You can be placed 2nd out of 1 couple! And the judges will mark you 2 out of 1! It’s not just theoretical. )

Looking at it myself, I need to get “snappier”. I’m not sure how to do that since you aren’t supposed to lift your feet and “jump”! So you can’t get snappier that way. I already knew my styling is deficient. If you watch Mambo, you’ll see we got off time near 5:38. We stopped and restarted in this heat. We danced “on 2” often enough the judges didn’t ding us for that. We danced on time in our other heat.

Open thread.