In 2015, the Supreme Court overlooked its prior decision and by a 5-4 vote declared the 14th Amendment requires every state to grant same-sex marriages identical recognition to those of opposite sex couples. At the time I asked if the court believed two people of the same sex could marry each other, would the same amendment allow for any or all other relationships according to how people viewed themselves? Are there no limits and if there are, according to what standard?

A relationship that has existed since biblical times (“A man shall leave his mother and father and hold fast to his wife — Genesis 2:24 and quoted in Ephesians 5:31) was challenged last Tuesday before the Supreme Court in the matter of biological men in biological women’s sports, the court considered whether states can ban transgender athletes from taking part in girls’ and women’s school and college sports.

This is such a violation of history, theology — God made us male and female — and common sense that the fact the argument has made it to the highest court is more proof that either standards no longer exist, or they are shifting like a weathervane in high winds.

Should the Court allow biological men in women’s sports, biological men will be able to shower with biological women (assuming the women will take showers under such circumstances), use women’s restrooms and violate other spaces meant to protect women and girls.

One justice who should have recused herself is Ketanji Brown Jackson. During her confirmation hearing Jackson refused to define “woman.”

If the law allows people to be whatever they want to be and claim discrimination when a sport or anything else restricts their ability to participate based on classical gender differences, then anything goes.

I used to play high school and college basketball. That I wasn’t good enough to play professionally was not a case of discrimination. And what about males who aren’t good enough to make an all-male team, but might be good enough to compete and in fact win for an all-female team?

As mentioned by former college swimmer Riley Gaines and other activist women, girls and women have a right to protect themselves not only from competition by biologically stronger men, but their privacy concerns should also be protected when it comes to locker rooms and restrooms. One of the tiniest percentages of people — transgender — are asking the Supreme Court to overturn the rights of more than 99 percent of others.

Then there’s the issue of de-transitioning. While the percentage of those who regret their attempts to change their biological sex characteristics is small, that some have regretted their decision and changed back indicates it is possible to do so through counseling, medications and a religious conversion.

Listening to the arguments before the court I was again reminded of how language matters. Changing words to make behavior and identity seem more acceptable, can change some minds. But it doesn’t change reality. Men do not belong in women’s sports. The court should make that case.