Georgia Howe

I want to tee up that moment.

It actually is pretty remarkable.

You can feel it in the courtroom, a sense of shock with the follow-ups from the justices.

Related to that, one of the moments that stood out to me was when the ACLU attorney acknowledged that it's not actually bigoted to recognize the differences between men and women.

How do you see that in terms of legal arguments?

Now, there was some concern raised from the right side of this argument, the pro-women's sports side, about the language that the justices used, left-wing gender identity language to be specific.

Here's some of that impact.

What did you see there?

Were they trying to present the arguments in the language of the ACLU to sort of be fair?

Or was this really the court buying into some of this gender identity language?

Like you said in the end, you're seeding the entire argument if you seed the language, though maybe we shouldn't read too much into this.

That said, the questions from the judges were clearly leaning very heavily to the pro-women's sports side.

Were there any other patterns that you witnessed on Tuesday that stood out to you?

What about particularly from the progressive side, the left-wing side of the court?

Were there any questions from that side that you were encouraged by in terms of the pro-women arguments?

Yeah, wouldn't this ultimately require genetic testing and all kinds of rigorous ways of assessing somebody's particular attributes and qualifications at any given moment?

Is that what this would devolve into?

to wrap up here.

You mentioned that the girls that are at the center of these cases were not mentioned on Tuesday.

So let's close out by talking about them.