Supreme Court protects women’s sports — but not before this young girl paid the price ⁠81%

By BlazeTV Staff⁠87%

7/6/2026, 11:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Anecdotal, and Biased Writer Voice, with Unattributed Quote as the most egregious example at 52.9% saturation with 164 hits. Analysis detected 1,440 faulty-reasoning hits from 310 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 72.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠81% (4,128 of 21,198 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 80.50% of the article peer group.

In a massive win for women’s sports, this week the Supreme Court ruled that states have the authority to maintain sports teams based on biological sex — upholding laws in West Virginia and Idaho. 
But the decision comes after young girls have already been traumatized. 
“It was really her eighth-grade season when things started to get worse. 
She was coming home increasingly frustrated, telling us about mean and then sexually inappropriate things that this boy was saying to her,” a mother whose daughter was forced to play alongside a boy recalled in an interview. 
“One day she came home and told me that he was telling her and other girls to ‘Suck my D-word.’ 
This was happening frequently during track practice and in the locker room from a boy who was saying he was a girl,” she continued. 
“So this was really shocking and alarming to us,” she added. 
“What did you do at that point?” 
the interviewer asked. 
“We had a coach reach out to us, actually, that same day to tell us that Adelaia had lost her competition spot to this boy, and she wanted to let us know that she felt it was unfair. 
So we told her about the inappropriate comments and surprisingly, to us, she said that she had also heard him say many inappropriate things,” the mother replied. 
“They know that he’s doing it, and it doesn’t matter, because heaven forbid they say anything about a boy who identifies as a girl,” he adds. 
Want more from Pat Gray? 
To enjoy more of Pat's biting analysis and signature wit as he restores common sense to a senseless world, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 8.7%BlazeTV Staff: 8.1%Blaze Media: 5.6%Confirmation Bias8.7%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.5%Blaze Media: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 23.5%BlazeTV Staff: 5.2%Blaze Media: 3.1%Availability Heuristic23.5%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 1.7%Blaze Media: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 1.7%Blaze Media: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 3.0%Blaze Media: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 28.7%BlazeTV Staff: 10.6%Blaze Media: 9.7%Framing Effect28.7%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.3%Blaze Media: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.4%Blaze Media: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.2%Blaze Media: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 1.1%Blaze Media: 1.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 15.8%BlazeTV Staff: 1.4%Blaze Media: 1.6%Pessimism Bias15.8%This article: 51.3%BlazeTV Staff: 9.3%Blaze Media: 9.5%Negativity Bias51.3%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 1.3%Blaze Media: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 1.1%Blaze Media: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.0%Blaze Media: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 8.4%BlazeTV Staff: 4.8%Blaze Media: 2.8%In-Group Bias8.4%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 2.6%Blaze Media: 1.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 12.9%BlazeTV Staff: 6.8%Blaze Media: 2.6%Halo Effect12.9%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.0%Blaze Media: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.3%Blaze Media: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.5%Blaze Media: 1.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 11.0%BlazeTV Staff: 1.2%Blaze Media: 0.5%Primacy Effect11.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.2%Blaze Media: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 1.5%Blaze Media: 2.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 2.1%Blaze Media: 1.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.0%BlazeTV Staff: 3.7%Blaze Media: 3.7%Appeal to Authority11.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 2.7%Blaze Media: 2.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 1.0%Blaze Media: 1.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.4%Blaze Media: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 16.1%BlazeTV Staff: 13.4%Blaze Media: 9.0%Hasty Generalization16.1%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.7%Blaze Media: 0.8%Red Herring0.0%This article: 12.9%BlazeTV Staff: 1.8%Blaze Media: 0.9%Bandwagon12.9%This article: 39.7%BlazeTV Staff: 12.2%Blaze Media: 8.1%Appeal to Emotion39.7%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 1.8%Blaze Media: 1.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 7.4%BlazeTV Staff: 2.9%Blaze Media: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.4%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.1%Blaze Media: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 12.3%BlazeTV Staff: 1.3%Blaze Media: 1.0%Burden of Proof12.3%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 1.1%Blaze Media: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.5%Blaze Media: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 51.0%BlazeTV Staff: 7.4%Blaze Media: 2.6%Anecdotal51.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.5%Blaze Media: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.4%BlazeTV Staff: 2.0%Blaze Media: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.4%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.0%Blaze Media: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.1%Blaze Media: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.7%Blaze Media: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.2%Blaze Media: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.8%Blaze Media: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 52.9%BlazeTV Staff: 2.9%Blaze Media: 2.7%Unattributed Quote52.9%This article: 10.0%BlazeTV Staff: 2.8%Blaze Media: 2.2%Quote-first Misdirection10.0%This article: 42.3%BlazeTV Staff: 11.4%Blaze Media: 10.5%Biased Writer Voice42.3%This article: 12.9%BlazeTV Staff: 7.4%Blaze Media: 4.6%Indoctrination12.9%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.2%Blaze Media: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 12.9%BlazeTV Staff: 9.2%Blaze Media: 7.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias12.9%This article: 14.5%BlazeTV Staff: 6.6%Blaze Media: 2.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…14.5%

310 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.