Can't Figure Out What Is A Girl Or A Woman? Far-Left ACLU "Lawyer" Says There Is No Clear Definition!

 This is precisely what happens when the Left denies the Natural Law, the Ten Commandments, and rejects God outright.

These folks are truly living in a parallel universe!

These modernist monsters would -- are! -- worshiping the "golden calf"!

Make no mistake: these maniacs are true believers!

From thegatewaypundit.com, and written by Patty McMurray Jan. 13, 2026 7:20 pm: YIKES! ACLU Lawyer Can't Answer When Justice Alito Asks Her to "Define man or woman, boy or girl" During Questioning on Transgenders In Sports Case [VIDEO] | The Gateway Pundit | by Patty McMurray

YIKES! ACLU Lawyer Can’t Answer When Justice Alito Asks Her to “Define man or woman, boy or girl” During Questioning on Transgenders In Sports Case [VIDEO]

"Today, the U.S. Supreme Court Justices listened to arguments from attorneys on whether states can ban biological boys who identify as “transgender” from playing on girls’ and women’s sports teams in public schools and colleges.

The two controversial cases the Supreme Court heard were: Little v. Hecox, from Idaho, where a law says sports teams must be based on biological sex at birth. West Virginia v. B.P.J. (or Becky Pepper-Jackson) — from West Virginia, where a similar law (“Save Women’s Sports Act”) bars transgender girls from female teams. The West Virginia case involves a 15-year-old high school student named Becky who has been on hormone therapy and wants to compete in track and field.

The cases were heard by a conservative majority court, with leftist Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and the far-left Biden-appointed Ketanji Jackson (the most low-IQ justice on the court) arguing in favor of stripping young girls and women of the opportunity to privacy in the locker rooms and from being able to achieve the top spots in their sport when competing against biological men.

Conservative lawyers argued that states have every right to BAN biological males from invading girls’ and women’s sports teams, while lawyers representing the Left appeared to be hell-bent on blurring the lines between sexes.

At one point during their pro-trans boys in girls’ locker/bathrooms argument, the ACLU lawyer Kathleen Hartnett was asked by Justice Samuel Alito to define a man, boy, woman, or girl. Hartnett appeared to panic as she realized Alito had brilliantly set a trap for her. Unable to answer the question, Hartnett appears to panic, telling him “they” don’t have a definition.

Here is the transcript from the exchange:

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito: Well, to pick up on the issue of discrimination on the basis of transgender status, let me just go back to—let me go to some basics. Do you agree that a school may have separate teams for a category of students classified as boys and a category of students classified as girls?

 ACLU Lawyer Kathleen Hartnett: Yes, Your Honor.

Justice Alito:  If it does that, then is it not necessary for there to be, for equal protection purposes, if that is challenged under the Equal Protection Clause, an understanding of what it means to be a boy or a girl or a man or a woman?

Hartnett: Yes, Your Honor.

Justice Alito: And what is that definition? For equal protection purposes, what does it mean to be a boy or a girl or a man or a woman?

Hartnett: Sorry, I misunderstood your question. I think that the underlying enactment, whatever it was, the policy, the law, the—we’d have to have an understanding of how the state or the government was understanding that term to figure out whether or not someone was excluded. We do not have a definition for the Court.

And we don’t take issue with the—we’re not disputing the definition here. What we’re saying is that the way it applies in practice is to exclude birth sex males categorically from women’s teams and that there’s a subset of those birth sex males where it doesn’t make sense to do so according to the state’s own interest.

Justice Alito: Well, how can you—how can a court determine whether there’s discrimination on the basis of sex without knowing what sex means for equal protection purposes?

Hartnett: I think here we just know—we basically know that the—that they’ve identified pursuant to their own statute, Lindsay qualifies as a birth sex male, and she’s being excluded categorically from the women’s teams as the statute. So we’re taking the statute’s definitions as we find them and we don’t dispute them. We’re just trying to figure out do they create an equal protection problem.

Watch:

The truth is, Republican-led laws that are already protecting girls in several states across America provide girls and women with the assurances that all of the hard work they’ve dedicated to becoming the best at their sport will not be stolen from them by confused biological boys or men, or worse yet, boys pretending to be women. These “trans” athletes are stealing top spots in sports that they would only be considered “mediocre” at best if they were forced to compete with other males."

End of article...

Pray for strength and honor!

Viva Cristo Rey!  Bl. Fr. Miguel Pro, Fr. Emil Kapaun, and Fr. Vincent Capodanno, pray for us...

St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle...

St. Joseph pray for us!!

Gene DeLalla

Submit additional information.

Patty McMurray

You can email Patty McMurray here, and read more of Patty McMurray's articles here.

What Universe Is This Archbishop Living In????

 To have a meaningful conversation between adults, it is essential to be in the same universe and discuss topics that matter to both parties, without bias or a slanted agenda.

We have become accustomed to having real Church teaching homogenized with secular and political topics, making it difficult to separate one from the other.  This "seamless garment" argument was started by the deviant "cardinal" Bernadin -- the former cardinal archbishop of Chicago.

(And let us remember that the salvation of souls is the primary function and duty of the Church in the first place!)

For instance, the idea that the killing of the pre-born can be placed on the same plane as the illegal alien invasion of our country over the previous years under the apostate Biden is ludicrous.

Yet, since President Trump is attempting to enforce our immigration laws and remove the bad guys, all hell has broken out among those church officials who've made millions in taxpayer dollars from the NGOs, who supposedly support the illegals. Now that the spigot has been shut down!  And the NGOs, such as Catholic Charities, don't like it one bit!

Here is an article from lifesitenews.com, written by Antonino Cambria 

Mon Jan 12, 2026 - 11:27 pm EST: USCCB president meets with Trump, Vance at White House - LifeSite

"WASHINGTON, D.C. (LifeSiteNews) — Archbishop Paul Coakley, the new president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), met privately with President Donald Trump, Vice President J.D. Vance, and other administration officials at the White House on Monday.

While it is unknown what exactly was discussed during Coakley’s White House meeting, which was closed to the press, a USCCB statement emphasized that areas of “mutual concern” were addressed. The meeting comes after the bishops’ conference has clashed with the Trump administration for the past year over its crackdown on illegal immigration and its slashing of the USCCB’s federal funding.

“Archbishop Coakley had the opportunity for introductory meetings with President Trump, Vice President Vance, and other Administration officials, in which they discussed areas of mutual concern, as well as areas for further dialogue,” a statement from the USCCB posted to X read. “Archbishop Coakley is grateful for the engagement and looks forward to ongoing discussions.”

Soon after Trump returned to the White House last January, the administration began cutting funds to both the USCCB as well as Catholic Charities, which have both been sharply criticized, including by Catholics, for their alleged aiding of illegal immigration.

Catholic Charities manages the day-to-day care for many unaccompanied alien children (UACs) and, along with the USCCB, has received $449 million from the U.S. government to shelter and transport unaccompanied immigrant children over the years.

READ: Concerned Catholics request RICO investigation of bishops’ actions in letter to JD Vance

Catholic Charities has also been scrutinized for placing these children with unvetted sponsors, even after reports emerged that some of these children ended up in forced labor, sex trafficking, or other forms of abuse.

The day he began his second term, Trump signed the executive order “Protecting the American People Against Invasion” that stipulated the removal of foreign nationals in violation of immigration laws and the review of funds to NGOs, including Catholic Charities and the USCCB, that support or provide services to illegal aliens.

Shortly after signing that order, the Trump administration issued a major blow to both organizations by placing a 90-day freeze on foreign aid dispersed through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which provides significant funding, along with other NGOs backing abortion and the “LGBTQ” agenda.

The USCCB responded to the freeze by suing the administration over previously committed funds. The State Department, in turn, canceled its multimillion-dollar refugee resettlement contracts with the USCCB, prompting the USCCB to end its migrant resettlement contracts with the government.

The USCCB has also released numerous statements denouncing the administration’s immigration policy, most notably in its “Special Message” approved during the conference’s November Plenary Assembly, during which Coakley was elected as USCCB president.

READ: US bishops denounce Trump’s deportations in first ‘special message’ in over a decade

“Catholic teaching exhorts nations to recognize the fundamental dignity of all persons, including immigrants,” the message read.

“We bishops advocate for a meaningful reform of our nation’s immigration laws and procedures. Human dignity and national security are not in conflict. Both are possible if people of good will work together … We oppose the indiscriminate mass deportation of people.”

During a December interview with CBS’s Face the Nation, Archbishop Coakley slammed the administration’s deportation campaign for purportedly “instilling fear in a rather widespread manner,” adding, “People have a right to live in security and without fear of random deportations.” The USCCB president failed to mention any of the dangers of illegal or mass immigration, such as the displacement of American workers or the heinous crimes committed by MS-13 gang members and others entering the country illegally.

READ: USCCB president criticizes Trump border policies but fails to recognize harms of immigration

Several bishops, such as Bishop Joseph Strickland, have denounced the USCCB for urging the faithful to welcome “migrants” and staunchly opposing the enforcement of immigration law while remaining silent about the hordes of criminals who cross the border illegally.

“You harm the little ones when you promote lawlessness and turn a blind eye to the rapes, the murders and the attacks of nefarious criminals who waltz across open borders,” Strickland said in November.

It’s also worth noting that current deportation numbers under Trump are not as “record-breaking” as they are made out to be by the media and by the bishops. In the first half of 2025, ICE deportations were estimated at around 800 per day – far fewer than under President Barack Obama, who oversaw more than 400,000 removals in fiscal year 2012 alone.

Coakley, who is also known for his support of the Church’s doctrine on abortion, may have also discussed Trump’s recent troubling comments to House Republicans about compromising on their opposition to the Hyde Amendment, which bans the use of federal funds to pay for abortions. The president also asked GOP lawmakers to “own” his administration’s policies, making in vitro fertilization (IVF) easier to obtain, which also contradicts Catholic teaching."

End of very revealing article...

Pray for strength and honor!

Viva Cristo Rey!  Bl. Fr. Miguel Pro, Fr. Emil Kapaun, Fr. Vicent Capodanno, pray for us...

St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle, pray for us...

St. Joseph, pray for us!!

Gene DeLalla

Doing The Work Of Satan! Former Irish President Claims Infant Baptism Violates ‘Children’s Rights’!

 Let me see if I understand this: this lunatic female -- who has no problem with homosexuality and the killing of the pre-born -- is complaining that infant Baptism violates children's rights?

How about you look in the mirror and try to justify the killing of the pre-born -- and your criticism of baptizing infants?

Is this all part of the "seamless garment" argument?

It's about children's rights, just as Biden -- a rabid apostate! -- continued to hammer home during the four years of the false presidency of the debilitated, corrupt, and sexually deviant maniac.

See if you can pick out the pain and anguish of trying to "split hairs" and, at the same time, rejecting all that the real Catholic Church teaches...

From lifesitenews.com and written by Andreas Wailzer, Mon Jan 12, 2026 - 12:18 pm EST: Former Irish president claims infant baptism violates ‘children’s rights’ - LifeSite

"(LifeSiteNews) — The former president of Ireland claimed that infant baptism violates children’s human rights.

The Irish Times published an excerpt from a recent talk by Mary McAleese at University College Cork (UCC), in which the heterodox Catholic made her case against infant baptism.

“Throughout the world, there continues a long-standing, systemic and overlooked severe restriction on children’s rights with regard to religion,” the former president of Ireland wrote.

“It restricts children’s rights as set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948 and United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) in 1989, to which both Ireland and the Holy See – which governs the Catholic Church and is effectively the author of canon law – are State Parties.”

McAleese, who was president of Ireland from 1997 to 2011, argued that children are restricted in their religious freedom by infant baptism, to which they cannot personally consent, and through which they become “a member for life” in the Catholic Church.

“Catholic parents are under a strict Catholic canon law obligation to have their children baptised at the earliest opportunity, hence infant Baptism is normative,” she said.

“I am not challenging the routine practice of infant Baptism itself, insofar as Baptism concerns gratuitous spiritual effects which the Church claims are indelible, like expunging original sin, opening up the possibility of salvation and the flow of God’s grace.”

However, she challenged the “imposed life membership without sentient consent” in the institution of the Catholic Church.

“Nothing else was to shape my life so powerfully or impose such formidable restrictions on my inalienable intellectual human rights as that brief Sunday Baptism ceremony 7½ decades ago,” McAleese said regarding her own baptism. “It does the same to the almost 40,000 children baptised every day across five continents, enrolling them as life members of the Church with a no-exit policy and without their consent.”

The Catholic Church teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation and that denying infants this sacrament endangers their soul and their eternal salvation.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.“

While it is true that baptism confers imprints and an indelible character on the soul that cannot be reversed, McAleese’s claim that infant baptism violates the right to religious freedom is highly dubious. A Catholic who leaves the Church or is excommunicated does, in a sense, remain a member of the body of Christ through the imprint of baptism; however, they are not in full communion anymore and cannot receive the sacraments. In practice, anyone can leave the Church without Catholic authorities imposing any physical restriction on them, as millions have done in recent decades.

While separating oneself from the Church does have severe spiritual consequences, i.e., endangering one’s eternal salvation, there is no physical punishment for it. Even those who apostatize and join another religion are not physically prevented by Church authorities from doing so. Therefore, the “religious freedom” in the modern sense of these individuals is not violated.

In contrast, in the Islamic religion, apostasy is to be punished by death, and converts from Islam to Christianity often live under constant fear for their lives and are frequently threatened, sometimes even by their own family members.

McAleese has claimed before that infant baptism violates a baby’s human rights, as LifeSiteNews reported in 2018. In 2019, she published a study titled Children’s Rights and Obligations in Canon Law, which examines the application of Canon Law to children and its potential violations of so-called “children’s rights.”

The former Irish president is a heretical self-professed Catholic who has been outspoken in her support of homosexuality and “women priests,” and has criticized Catholic teaching on marriage and family as “homophobic” and “completely contradictory to modern understanding.”

In 2018, she referred to the Catholic Church as “one of the last great bastions of misogyny.”

End of article...

This is what happens when a "Catholic" apostatizes from the faith and completely embraces evil!

Pray for strength and honor!

Viva Cristo Rey!  Bl. Fr. Miguel Pro, Fr. Emil Kapaun, and Fr. Vincent Capodanno, pray for us...

St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle...

St. Joseph, pray for us!!

Gene DeLalla