The recent “transgender” Supreme Court Case, United States v. Skrmetti, exposed again, not just the lunacy of “trans”-cultists and their collaborators, but also their dishonesty and self-serving cruelty.
Tennessee lawmakers passed a commonsense law that prohibits medical quacks who identify as physicians from prescribing puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to minors and from performing surgeries to remove minors’ sex organs “or otherwise change a minor’s physical appearance … when these medical procedures are performed for the purpose of enabling a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex or treating purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity.”
“Trans”-cultists, incensed that profiteers will no longer be permitted to experiment on children, went to war against the law, which ultimately landed at the Supreme Court. In a 6-3 decision, the Court upheld the Tennessee law, with the usual trio of constitutional battle-axes doing their best to harm children. (Ketanji Brown Jackson should have recused herself from a case involving biological sex in light of her admission that she doesn’t know what a woman is.)
Much virtual ink has been spilled and continues to be spilled about the implications of this case from men and women far smarter than me, so I’ll share just a few thoughts.
One of the attorneys arguing against the Tennessee law and in favor of the deliberate disruption of the natural, healthy biological processes of minors, was “Chase” Strangio, the diminutive cross-dressing middle-aged, bearded lesbian who spends her personal and professional time trying to normalize her disordered psychology and deviant “health” practices.
Just six months ago, Strangio, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, penned an op-ed in the New York Times about the then-upcoming Tennessee case in which she admitted she didn’t “transition” until she was in her early twenties. And yet she believes pre-pubertal minor children should be able to access risky, untested treatments that will irrevocably change their lives. Strangio wrote,
This case has implications far beyond the courtroom. Will our sex assigned at birth dictate how we can live and identify? Must biology be destiny?
Strangio herein fibs. No one’s sex is assigned at birth. One’s sex is identified at birth, and except in the rare cases of disorders of sexual development, those identifications are correct.
Moreover, one’s sex cannot change. It is both objective and immutable.
One’s sex, like one’s age, does not dictate absolutely how we can live, but ones’ sex, like one’s age, does inform, shape, and set parameters for the things we may do in some circumstances, particularly when circumstances involve the rights of others.
Strangio may and can “identify” as a man—that is, pretend to be a man—but her choice to masquerade as a man does not entitle her to violate the privacy rights of actual men. Her freedom to masquerade as a man is not an absolute, boundary-free right.
During questioning, Strangio was compelled to speak an inconvenient truth, thereby tacitly admitting the cruel lie “trans”-cultists have been using for years to terrorize parents into submitting their children to ghoulish anatomical experiments. Strangio was asked by Associate Justice Samuel Alito whether “the procedures and medications in question reduce the risk of suicide.” The petite Strangio pranced evasively around his direct question, saying,
I do, Justice Alito, maintain that the medications in question reduce the risk of depression, anxiety, and suicidality, which are all indicators of potential suicide.
She must have thought Alito just fell off the proverbial turnip truck—but he didn’t. Alito knows the difference between “suicidality,” “potential suicide,” and “suicide.” And so, he pressed the tiny taradiddler:
[O]n page 195 of the Cass report, it says: There is no evidence that gender-affirmative treatments reduce suicide.
The Cass report was a review of available research on “gender-affirmative” treatments for minors ordered by the UK’s National Health Service and conducted by Dr. Hilary Cass, former president of England’s Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, which resulted in the UK banning the use of hormone blockers for the treatment of gender dysphoria in minors.
In response to Alito, Strangio admitted what “trans”-cultists seek to conceal:
What I think that is referring to is there is no evidence in some—in the studies that this treatment reduces completed suicide.
Ouch. That admission must have hurt.
Now think about the pain of the thousands of parents who have spent sleepless nights and conceded to barbaric treatments for their minor children because “trans”-activists and profiteers told them they had to choose between a “transed” child and a dead child. Just two weeks ago, I wrote about deceitful Illinois State Rep. lesbian Kelly Cassidy using the bogus suicide tactic against Republican lawmakers who oppose boys in girls sports. In one of her unhinged floor rants, Cassidy shrieked,
Since January, the organization Trans Up Front that serves families of trans children reported has had reports of 21 suicides and attempted suicides by trans youth. … You have blood on your hands. The blood of these children is on your hands. You are driving children to suicide.
I suggested that Republican lawmakers demand that Cassidy “provide the source for the unreliable ‘trans’ advocacy group Trans Up Front’s claims about ‘21 suicides and attempted suicides by trans youth.’”
- How many of the 21 were suicides? How many were attempted suicides?
- From where did Trans Up Front get these reports?
- Did they verify the accuracy of these reports?
This SCOTUS decision will reverberate around the country, affecting policies and laws, including, it is hoped, Illinois’ disastrous Human Rights Act that was amended nineteen years ago to pave the way for “trans”-cultism.
In its effort to normalize all things disordered and fetishistic, the pro-deviancy lobby engages in Orwellian manipulation of language. Two leftist terms that have wormed their way into public and legal discourse are “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” Leftists remain adamant that these two terms and the conditions they denote are distinct.
Sexual orientation denotes “a person’s enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to others.” It refers to the biological sex of the person or persons to whom one is romantically and erotically attracted.
In contrast, “gender identity,” is one’s internal, subjective feelings about one’s maleness, femaleness, both, or neither.
And yet, in 2006, Illinois Democrats deviously amended the Illinois Human Rights Act to “include ‘gender-related identity’ within the definition of “sexual orientation,” thereby making it illegal to “discriminate” based on subjective internal feelings about one’s sex. This change has been used to eradicate sex-based protections, paving the way for men in women’s prisons, locker rooms, and sports.
But thanks to this Tennessee decision, that will likely change. As attorney Jeff Childers writes,
It was a historic, blockbuster ruling. Yesterday, the top court held (6-3) that transgender identity is not, in fact, a suspect class under 14th Amendment Equal Protection. In other words, transgenderism is not like race, sex, or religious belief.
The implications of that decision ripple far beyond mere medical regulations.
The shift is legally tectonic.
…
[Y]esterday’s decision means rational basis review applies to laws relating to trans issues, rather than heightened scrutiny. That distinction is a green light for states to regulate —or even outright ban— so-called “gender-affirming care” for minors, with far less constitutional risk.
It was as big as the Dobbs decision, but for pediatric gender medicine.
This new decision’s effects, though nominally just about pediatric care, sent shock waves through the entire trans debate. It potentially affects all laws related to trans persons, including bathrooms, sports teams, prison segregation, and even school dress codes.
…
“Rational basis review” is the lowest hurdle for laws to pass constitutional muster. If a state can articulate any legitimate government interest (such as privacy, safety, fairness), that law is probably constitutional. And yesterday’s decision marked a full-scale retreat from the earlier phase of gender-identity jurisprudence, where identity trumped biology rather than the other way around.
…
[I]f SCOTUS eventually declares that “sex” in Title IX means biological sex (rather than gender identity), the entire activist architecture will collapse like the house of cards it always was.
While the rational and compassionate among us in Illinois are rejoicing, nefarious leftists are digging in. The Chicago Tribune reports,
The state has shield laws for patients seeking gender affirming care and doctors who provide it. Illinois’ Human Rights Act also prohibits discrimination based on gender identity, said Michelle García, ACLU Illinois deputy legal director. “Come to Illinois,” García said. “We will protect you.”
To leftists like Garcia, “protection” looks a lot like mutilation.