In a moment of glaring irony, ACLU transgender lawyer Chase Strangio, who urged the Supreme Court to redefine “sex” to include gender identity, struggled to define transgender status during oral arguments in United States v. Skrmetti. This case contests Tennessee’s ban on experimental gender treatments for minors, like puberty blockers. Strangio, the first openly transgender attorney at the high court, claimed the law discriminates by sex under the 14th Amendment, citing the 2020 Bostock ruling.
But when Justice Alito pressed on whether transgender identity is immutable for heightened protection, Strangio vaguely cited a “strong biological basis,” revealing the flimsy logic of gender ideology.The grilling exposed the nonsense of warping biology to suit agendas. Alito challenged the immutability needed for suspect-class status, and Strangio’s evasive answers showed transgender activism’s reliance on subjective fluff.
Tennessee’s law equally protects boys and girls from unproven, harmful interventions. This prioritizes child safety over radical demands, not discrimination. Strangio’s faltering performance confirms this, as activists evade definitions to push judicial overreach, sidestepping democracy. This fiasco bolsters the conservative view: biology is binary and immutable. Tennessee’s ban defends truth and minors from a movement too vague to define itself. A wise Supreme Court ruling would reject constitutionalizing experiments, upholding states’ rights to protect children—proving ideology over biology harms society.
Discussion about this post