Originally Posted by englade321
Must be a lot of fun to interpret laws written in words that mean one thing when written yet quite another years later especially when the current definition is based on some sort of vague, socially agreed upon, mode of usage . Kinda like what's been going here
True. If I recall correctly, Scalia was more being pedantic about the Court's semantics (perhaps out of concern about how the language might later be cited) than arguing that the distinction should be determinative of the case at hand.
Here's a quote from what may be the case I'm recalling (I have not gone back and re-read the case).
The terms sex and gender have not always been differentiated in the English language, and it was not until the 1950s that they formally began to be distinguished. In an effort to clarify usage of the terms sex and gender, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in a 1994 briefing, "The word gender has acquired the new and useful connotation of cultural or attitudinal characteristics (as opposed to physical characteristics) distinctive to the sexes. That is to say, gender is to sex as feminine is to female and masculine is to male" (J.E.B. v. Alabama, 144 S. Ct. 1436 )
Source: Boundless. “Defining Sex, Gender, and Sexuality.” Boundless Psychology. Boundless, 10 Jun. 2015. Retrieved 16 Jun. 2015 from https://www.boundless.com/psychology/textbooks/boundless-psychology-textbook/gender-and-sexuality-15/introduction-to-gender-and-sexuality-75/defining-sex-gender-and-sexuality-294-12829/