The author of Glengarry Glen Ross, Speed-the-Plow, and American Buffalo, David Mamet must be our greatest living playwright. Indeed, he may be our only great living playwright. His new book is The Disenlightenment: Politics, Horror, and Entertainment (don’t spellcheck me, bro). Andrew Ferguson told the story of Mamet’s turn to conservatism in the 2004 Weekly Standard article “Converting Mamet.” Making the rounds to support his new book, Mamet offered this truth blast last night on Jesse Watters Primetime.
David Mamet has his own RULES for MEN. 💪🏻
“One of the things men are raised to do is protect women. It’s one of the many joys of being a man… instead, the Democrats are saying ‘there’s no such thing as men, go take something that belongs to a woman; take her sports away.’” pic.twitter.com/WZWPM6Yzuf
— Jesse Watters (@JesseBWatters) June 3, 2025
Which reminds me.
On the local front I have sought to draw attention to the case of JayCee Cooper v. USA Powerlifting in several posts accessible here. The case raises the question whether USAPL’s separation of men from women in USAPL’s Minnesota competitions must yield to Cooper’s self-identification as a woman. The case has been pending before the Minnesota Supreme Courts for seven months.
Although a biological male, Cooper seeks to compete with the ladies. He wants to win! Cooper alleges that USAPL’s refusal to yield to his self-identification as a woman violates the Minnesota Human Rights Act and Judge Diamond agreed.
Physical strength lies at the core of weightlifting. Men are stronger than women. Treating men as women destroys the competition. It is absurd.
As we have seen around the country and around the world, the separation of men and women into separate categories is fundamental to fair athletic competition. Reality asserts its claim. In a variation of the famous cartoon, however, Cooper says he’s spinach and he says to hell with it.
Ramsey County District Judge Patrick Diamond agreed with Cooper. Judge Diamond — he is no gem. He held that USA Powerlifting mistreated Cooper under the terms of the Minnesota Human Rights Act. All that remained to be determined were damages. He granted injunctive relief of his own accord.
USA Powerlifting filed an interlocutory appeal of Judge Diamond’s injunction and determination of liability under the MHRA. The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed Judge Diamond, holding that “there are genuine issues of material fact with respect to Cooper’s claims of discrimination based on sexual orientation (which is defined by statute to include transgender status)” and “that there are genuine issues of material fact with respect to USAPL’s statutory legitimate-business-purpose defense to Cooper’s claims of discrimination in business.”
This was a 2-1 decision. Judge Jennifer Frisch concurred in part and dissented in part from the panel decision by Judge Matthew Johnson. Judge Frisch agreed with Cooper on the merits of his claims. The panel opinions are posted here.
The Minnesota Supreme Court exercised its discretion to review the case. Holding oral argument yesterday, the Court exhibited all the symptoms of legal dysphoria. The seven members of the court are appointees of Governors Walz and Dayton. No surgery was required. The political dimension has by itself exacted a dumbing down of the court.
The dumbing down is patent in the oral argument that can be viewed online here at the court’s site. For some reason, the Star Tribune omitted a link to the video in reporter Jeff Day’s excited story.
Ansis Viksnins represents USA Powerlifting. He is an old acquaintance who has patiently answered my questions about this unreal case along the way. This is the heart of the statement he gave me on the Court of Appeals decision. Readers can insert their own [sic] after Ansis’s references to Cooper as “her”:
USA Powerlifting did not exclude JayCee Cooper from the women’s category because of her gender identity. USA Powerlifting excluded her from competing in the women’s division because of her physiology: she was born biologically male and USAPL does not allow athletes who went through male puberty to compete in the women’s division.
Maintaining separate categories based on sex, age, and weight is necessary so that similarly situated athletes are competing in appropriate categories and have fair opportunities of success. Scientific studies show that athletes who have gone through male puberty enjoy a large strength advantage over athletes who go through puberty as a female. The scientific studies also show that suppressing testosterone only reduces the strength advantage by a very minimal amount. Because powerlifting is a strength sport, the strength differences between competitors who were born male and those who were born female are significant.
Ansis swam against the tide in making his argument before the Minnesota Supreme Court. At about 33:00 of the video, Ansis argued that the evidence supports USAPL’s nondiscriminatory motive: “The motive here was to separate biological males into a category where they are competing against other people who were born biologically male…[USAPL] separates competitors three ways: by age, weight, and sex. They do not care about gender identity. They do not care about sexual orientation.”
Justice Sarah Hennesy posed the question that stumped Ketanji Brown Jackson. Like Justice Jackson, Justice Hennesy found it to be a real brain twister: “Counsel, what is male physiology?” Unlike Justice Jackson, Ansis had no difficulty resolving that brain twister.
Justice Paul Thissen is a former legislator. He is not stupid. He may be the best lawyer on the all-Democrat court. With his political background, however, he wanted to explore a compromise. Why not implement “an individualized approach” to the application of sex-based differences? Justice Thissen is apparently dissatisfied with the differentiation among sports and leagues by sex.
Gee, how would that work? Can you flesh that out for us, so to speak? I don’t think so.
Ansis cited a statutory exemption applicable to public accommodations on this point at a critical turn in the argument (at about 45:30). See Goins v. West Group (Minn. 2001).
Chief Justice Natalie Hudson followed up, observing that the space between “transgender man” and “born biologically male” is “very thin” (holding her fingers narrowly apart). The “space” is roughly the space between men and women. It is difficult to believe, but the oral argument descended further.
What the court offered in the oral argument was a variation of what Lincoln called the “specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which a man can prove a horse-chestnut to be a chestnut horse.” We may have to append a footnote to the effect that Lincoln was using the charged term “man” in its universal sense.
As I will continue to observe in commenting on this case, the Star Tribune published Minnesota Lynx president Cheryl Reeve’s op-ed column celebrating Judge Diamond’s ruling even before the Star Tribune got around to reporting it. Reeve omitted any discussion of the possible participation of “trans women” athletes in the WNBA.
It wouldn’t take many JayCee Coopers to render the WNBA a farce. Reeve could have made a contribution if she had taken up that possibility. As it is, she proved that the welcome mat is out in the Star Tribune’s editorial pages to columns lacking in either evidence or argument. The “correct” attitude will suffice. In this case her column served to let us know where Cheryl Reeve and the Lynx stand on the issue. A column contemplating the possibility of “trans women” populating the WNBA might have given the Minnesota Supreme Court reason to pause over its pending decision in this absurd case.
