LDS Church Files Brief In Trans Supreme Court Case

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, JVW said:

If there was an "immutable" characteristic that didn't change regardless of how someone dressed, what pronouns they used, what drugs they were taking, and what surgeries they had then I think there could be a case made for some kind of protected status. (I say this because trans can be any pronoun, no hormones, no diagnosis, no cross-dressing, and no surgeries or any combination of them. Trans advocates highlight the "fluidity" of the trans/queer experience.)

Note this protection is primarily about striking down laws that place an undue burden on transgender people in the aggregate. It is not giving individual transgender people anything. It is just that laws have to avoid specifically targeting them unless certain other standards are met.

2 hours ago, JVW said:

But on that note I think that the gays would get protected status first because at least they can define themselves by who they sleep with and have a long history of showing consistency and lack of malleability in sexual preferences.

Eh, sort of. Lots of gay and lesbian people experimented when they were young or got married for various reasons in a heterosexual union. It is also becoming moderately more acceptable to be some flavor of bi/pan and I see some gay guys in particular being open to sex with women. Not many. But some. Sometimes it is curiosity. Sometimes it is just sexual fluidity shifting a bit over time. Sometimes they were always somewhat bisexual and just identified as gay since most of their attraction was to men. I am not connected to lesbian and sapphic groups but there is some of that going on there too. Less so though because identifying as a bisexual woman comes with some serious and potentially dangerous drawbacks.

To be clear I am not saying bisexual people are accepted everywhere. They are not. My attempts to date women in the church since accepting my sexuality have shown that it is a poison pill in most relationships in this demographic so I stopped trying.

[JVW]

On 12/12/2025 at 6:56 PM, The Nehor said:

The place they were born can often be verified but how do you verify race. If both parents are white then you are white? But how do you know both parents are white? What determines this? You can often get away with broad generalizations but race is a human construct. There isn’t some level of scrutiny that determines it. Many segregationist groups tried long and hard to find a way to quantify ‘blackness’ so they could maintain segregation. It didn’t work. There was no test that worked. If two black parents have a child that can ‘pass’ as white what does that mean? How do you test that? Mixed race children fit where?

I would be laughed at if I tried to claim I was Asian or Hispanic but if your division can’t handle edge cases then there is no level of scrutiny that can make a positive determination. Racists desperately want there to be one but they can’t find it or demonstrate it. There are still eugenicist organizations (some going back to the Nazis) out there using pseudoscience to try to cook up some standards.

You mentioned Native Americans and tribal politics are often downright brutal over who they exclude and include (especially when money is involved). Some try to have standards. Some determinations are much more arbitrary.

I'd like to please summon @smac97 again here because I don't know legal history, maybe he could provide some legal explanation about this? And by the way Smac, I hate AI and I will never use it so you're time and energy to explain the law really means a lot to me and I appreciate it so much.

The way you, Nehor, are describing race makes me wonder why it is a protected class in America. Something that is so difficult to prove and ripe for speculation should not get that kind of iron-clad protection. I wonder if the courts agree with your assessment regarding the difficulty of ascertaining and proving race.

On 12/12/2025 at 6:56 PM, The Nehor said:

That just means you can cheat the system. You can do that with stuff that could be empirically falsified if you know the right people.

Word.

On 12/12/2025 at 6:56 PM, The Nehor said:

What if they appear female but they don’t have the equipment to make a baby or it doesn’t function. What if they are intersex with ambiguous genitalia? You have edge cases.

I stand by what I said. If someone is born with a uterus and ovaries, regardless of whether it works or not, then they are the female sex. It's not complicated.

Intersex people aren't chiming in on the public square so idk why they keep getting brought up, they don't seem to have any issues with anything. *queue someone finding an article with a niche intersex advocacy group made up of intersex people suing people because they got discriminated against*

On 12/12/2025 at 6:56 PM, The Nehor said:

You are comparing it to religion which you state is about their beliefs without demonstrable proof. Yet religion IS an even more protected class. If these are all potentially delusions why do religious delusions get even more protection?

Yeah, I think religion has crazy protections because the country was founded by people who fled England on threat of extermination because of their religion. It just is what it is. If the country was founded by trans people our constitution would be very different and it's possible that religions would be the minority going to court for protections and making weak cases about "immutable" characteristics and stuff. I agree with you here. It's a very strange and interesting comparison.

To be fair, if freedom of religion was not enshrined in the U.S. Constitution then trans wouldn't be a thing. A State religion or a Godless State would not tolerate any deviance in belief from whatever the State said and anyone trying to diversify public beliefs would be either: killed, imprisoned, hide their belief and conform, or flee/sneak out of the State to a place where they could practice their beliefs.

So in a somewhat ironic twist, it is the nonsensical freedom of religion that even allows our comparisons between trans and religious protections to exist right now! (Unless my logic bird just flew out the window and I'm talking crazy talk, then feel free to point out where I've gone crazy.)

On 12/12/2025 at 6:56 PM, The Nehor said:

Nope, didn’t read you that way. You’re good.

Cool. I like chatting with you.

[Calm]

10 hours ago, JVW said:

Something that is so difficult to prove and ripe for speculation should not get that kind of iron-clad protection. I wonder if the courts agree with your assessment regarding the difficulty of ascertaining and proving race.

Even if there is difficulty in proving race, it doesn’t mean that it isn’t a very solid construct with very real detrimental effects on certain individuals and communities over time.  The courts do not define race biologically, but by social perception.  They don’t define religion scientifically either, yet it is also a protected class.  Plus it’s perception that matters as discrimination can occur in a legal sense even if the offender is wrong about their target’s race (or religion I believe).

There was speculation that was very widespread imo that once the DNA puzzle was solved that there would be obvious markers that would determine race.

But this wasn’t accurate.  Instead they found there was significantly more variation within a population than there was between them; there aren’t clear boundaries in genetic variation (variety of skin tones, even sex lacks clear boundaries as seen in intersex individuals); there are no genes that belong to only one race; genes affecting appearance are small in number, yet have a large impact so that individuals who look similar may be very different genetically while those who are genetically similar may have a couple different appearance genes and end up looking very different (for example the twins I posted an image of above, their DNA would be likely quite close).

Race is primarily based on appearance and therefore has a limited correlation to overall biology, but because humans tend to rate appearance as very important and make assumptions about people based on appearance, race was seen as a provable biological fact.

Think of race as similar to judging two books as the same category based solely on their cover and yet the content may be very different.

Race was also originally seen as scientifically established because of the way biology was originally categorized (primarily by appearance, also geography), helped along by the need to justify seeing certain populations as inferior to justify slavery, etc.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/race-human/Building-the-myth-of-Black-inferiority

Edited December 16, 2025 by Calm

[JVW]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

There was speculation that was very widespread imo that once the DNA puzzle was solved that there would be obvious markers that would determine race.

But this wasn’t accurate.  Instead they found there was significantly more variation within a population than there was between them; there aren’t clear boundaries in genetic variation (variety of skin tones, even sex lacks clear boundaries as seen in intersex individuals); there are no genes that belong to only one race; genes affecting appearance are small in number, yet have a large impact so that individuals who look similar may be very different genetically while those who are genetically similar may have a couple different appearance genes and end up looking very different (for example the twins I posted an image of above, their DNA would be likely quite close).

Race is primarily based on appearance and therefore has a limited correlation to overall biology, but because humans tend to rate appearance as very important and make assumptions about people based on appearance, race was seen as a provable biological fact.

Think of race as similar to judging two books as the same category based solely on their cover and yet the content may be very different.

Race was also originally seen as scientifically established because of the way biology was originally categorized (primarily by appearance, also geography), helped along by the need to justify seeing certain populations as inferior to justify slavery, etc.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/race-human/Building-the-myth-of-Black-inferiority

So are you suggesting that race being a protected class is based on outdated information and it may be worth reconsidering that protection since race isn't provable beyond using appearance and assumptions?

[Calm]

7 hours ago, JVW said:

So are you suggesting that race being a protected class is based on outdated information and it may be worth reconsidering that protection since race isn't provable beyond using appearance and assumptions?

No, because it’s more about perception, so appearance and assumptions are enough.  You don’t actually have to demonstrate, if I understand correctly, that a person belongs to a particular race or religion and likely nationality for them to receive legal protection.  You just need to reasonably demonstrate the person discriminating against them is motivated to act because that person believes they are a certain group that has been legally defined to be consistently mistreated because of race/religion/nationality.  A lawyer can correct me if I am wrong here, I have never gone deep into the legal aspects of race.  Very superficial knowledge. (I added a paragraph at the top of the previous post mentioning this after I quickly double-checked it, but I still could be wrong).

And let me just say every time I dip into the law, I am grateful I have never been required to immerse more than a toe.  Not a profession I would choose even if I love nitpicking details.

Edited December 16, 2025 by Calm

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, JVW said:

I'd like to please summon @smac97 again here because I don't know legal history, maybe he could provide some legal explanation about this? And by the way Smac, I hate AI and I will never use it so you're time and energy to explain the law really means a lot to me and I appreciate it so much.

The way you, Nehor, are describing race makes me wonder why it is a protected class in America. Something that is so difficult to prove and ripe for speculation should not get that kind of iron-clad protection. I wonder if the courts agree with your assessment regarding the difficulty of ascertaining and proving race.

I think you overestimate it when you call it “iron-clad protection”. It is generally protection from discriminatory behavior and there is a pretty high bar to prove it was discrimination. In the “scrutiny” area about laws being discriminatory it is about protecting a group of people so whether a specific individual fits isn’t important.

As one federal judge said: “one group [African Americans] is defined by race, another [Hispanics] by culture, another [Asians] by country of origin and another [Native Americans] by blood.” It is not simple at all.

5 hours ago, JVW said:

I stand by what I said. If someone is born with a uterus and ovaries, regardless of whether it works or not, then they are the female sex. It's not complicated.

It is very much more complicated than that. What if they (as sometimes happens) have ovaries and male genitalia? 

5 hours ago, JVW said:

Intersex people aren't chiming in on the public square so idk why they keep getting brought up, they don't seem to have any issues with anything. *queue someone finding an article with a niche intersex advocacy group made up of intersex people suing people because they got discriminated against*

Many intersex people are speaking up but they are mostly ignored by the news. The main debate is whether they should get treatments to “normalize” them to one gender presentation. Sometimes the parents have to choose which gender to normalize them to. Some intersex people believe there should not be any such treatment until the person is old enough to make a decision. There is also the problem that “no gender affirming care for minors” legislation meant to target transgender children will hurt intersex children.

You don’t hear a lot from intersex people because other than having their rights protected they want to be left alone. Just like transgender people. Transgender people have had the misfortune of being picked as a target in the current very stupid culture war. Those targeting transgender people probably aren’t going after intersex people because targeting people who “were born that way” is a bad look and might muddy the narrative of evil transgender people targeting children and yada yada yada.

Cishet men are still the biggest sex abusers of children and purveyors of violence in both the absolute and per capita sense but can’t target the powerful. Gotta punch down. One key element of a moral panic is you have to have a target with little means to defend themselves. So you pick on gay people, Jews, racial minorities, and now transgender people. It is the circle of lifehate.

5 hours ago, JVW said:

Yeah, I think religion has crazy protections because the country was founded by people who fled England on threat of extermination because of their religion. It just is what it is. If the country was founded by trans people our constitution would be very different and it's possible that religions would be the minority going to court for protections and making weak cases about "immutable" characteristics and stuff. I agree with you here. It's a very strange and interesting comparison.

The Puritans were persecuted but they didn’t flee to find religious freedom. They set up theocratic colonies where they could be the oppressors. While the Puritans had some great progressive ideas in regards to being opposed to monarchies and a kind of self-determination with individual liberties that did not extend to religious freedom. It was only once the Puritan experiment died out  that their ideals could be repurposed and had religious liberty added in to avoid the religious wars of Europe and foster a pluralism the Puritans would have loathed.

Also the Puritans and other religious refugees were not the only ones who came to the United States and set up colonies so their descendants were at best among those who founded the nation. Trying to establish a “Christian Nation” is just going back to the failed Puritan experiment.

5 hours ago, JVW said:

To be fair, if freedom of religion was not enshrined in the U.S. Constitution then trans wouldn't be a thing. A State religion or a Godless State would not tolerate any deviance in belief from whatever the State said and anyone trying to diversify public beliefs would be either: killed, imprisoned, hide their belief and conform, or flee/sneak out of the State to a place where they could practice their beliefs.

That does not follow. It would depend on what the state religious was and a “Godless state” means what exactly? A secular state? Or is this a state-mandated atheism situation? I do not accept that religious freedom protects transgender people. Being transgender is not a religion.

5 hours ago, JVW said:

So in a somewhat ironic twist, it is the nonsensical freedom of religion that even allows our comparisons between trans and religious protections to exist right now! (Unless my logic bird just flew out the window and I'm talking crazy talk, then feel free to point out where I've gone crazy.)

I think the bird flew out the window.

[JVW]

30 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I think you overestimate it when you call it “iron-clad protection”. It is generally protection from discriminatory behavior and there is a pretty high bar to prove it was discrimination. In the “scrutiny” area about laws being discriminatory it is about protecting a group of people so whether a specific individual fits isn’t important.

As one federal judge said: “one group [African Americans] is defined by race, another [Hispanics] by culture, another [Asians] by country of origin and another [Native Americans] by blood.” It is not simple at all.

I like that quote. Thanks for sharing it.

30 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It is very much more complicated than that. What if they (as sometimes happens) have ovaries and male genitalia? 

We can discuss intersex more if you want, but intersex and transgenderism are not remotely equivalent. Having both parts is not the same as having one part but hating yourself because of it.

30 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You don’t hear a lot from intersex people because other than having their rights protected they want to be left alone. Just like transgender people.

I don't believe you but I accept your sentiment. I wouldn't be seeing pronouns on LinkedIn profiles if trans just wanted to be left alone. I think there has been a large, visceral shift in public culture and discourse in America because of the trans movement, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is a thing.

30 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Transgender people have had the misfortune of being picked as a target in the current very stupid culture war. Those targeting transgender people probably aren’t going after intersex people because targeting people who “were born that way” is a bad look and might muddy the narrative of evil transgender people targeting children and yada yada yada.

Cishet men are still the biggest sex abusers of children and purveyors of violence in both the absolute and per capita sense but can’t target the powerful. Gotta punch down. One key element of a moral panic is you have to have a target with little means to defend themselves. So you pick on gay people, Jews, racial minorities, and now transgender people. It is the circle of lifehate.

IDK what cishet means, I'm assuming you just mean men?

There are very real concerns about potential dangers from the trans community. I don't think making a blanket statement discarding everything your opposition believes as wrong is correct or the right way to go in a debate about trans. For someone so insistent on nuance regarding sex you are certainly throwing nuance out the window when regarding the arguments of those opposed to your views.

There are bad guys everywhere, trans aren't innocent.

It also doesn't help that every trans-woman at one point was a cishet so how do you determine if a trans woman is truly a woman or a cishet pretender? Here's a few quotes from trans authors and activists (i.e. leaders of the trans movement). Are they cishet in sheep's clothing, or real women?

Quote

"The a**hole is a universal vagina through which femaleness can always be accessed." & "Getting f**ked makes you female because f**ked is what a female is." - Andrea Long Chu 

"There are no princesses. Little girls are also kinky. Your kids aren't as straight and narrow as you think." Alok Vaid-Menon

In the gay marriage movement there were many gays who hated the activists and just wanted to live a quiet peaceful life. I believe this to be the case in the trans movement too, that there are trans who hate the activists and just want to quietly live their lives.

30 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The Puritans were persecuted but they didn’t flee to find religious freedom. They set up theocratic colonies where they could be the oppressors. While the Puritans had some great progressive ideas in regards to being opposed to monarchies and a kind of self-determination with individual liberties that did not extend to religious freedom. It was only once the Puritan experiment died out  that their ideals could be repurposed and had religious liberty added in to avoid the religious wars of Europe and foster a pluralism the Puritans would have loathed.

Also the Puritans and other religious refugees were not the only ones who came to the United States and set up colonies so their descendants were at best among those who founded the nation. Trying to establish a “Christian Nation” is just going back to the failed Puritan experiment.

I thought that after King Henry established the Church of England the church wanted to eradicate Protestantism from England and so those people left? Not only the Puritans, but other protestant groups as well who founded other American colonies?

30 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

That does not follow. It would depend on what the state religious was and a “Godless state” means what exactly? A secular state? Or is this a state-mandated atheism situation? I do not accept that religious freedom protects transgender people. Being transgender is not a religion.

If the State religion was, say, Islam like in Saudi Arabia or something we wouldn't be seeing any trans lawsuits of any kind. Heck, if the State religion was Christianity we probably wouldn't be seeing trans lawsuits, and there probably wouldn't be major sect splits either. The State has the power to enforce its will, and if it wants everyone to believe the same way that it does then it will. I don't know if Naziism was motivated by religion or not, but the State belief was enforced and the ones who failed to comply were decimated. Same with the Bolshevik revolution, or even the system that's set up by the CCP in China using Social Credit scores and/or the genocide of the Uyghurs. We also see this happening in Israel. It happens everywhere. Whatever the State believes, and the culture and society it wants to enforce, it does what it wills. So the fact that, in America, trans can rise up as a group and do lawsuits and things says something about the State here that implies a certain level of tolerance.

30 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I think the bird flew out the window.

Yeah, buddy! Hopefully it comes back some day but my brain has been leaking for years now.

[Calm]

10 hours ago, JVW said:

Intersex people aren't chiming in on the public square so idk why they keep getting brought up, they don't seem to have any issues with anything. *queue someone finding an article with a niche intersex advocacy group made up of intersex people suing people because they got discriminated against*

There has been a big problem in professional sports for decades iirc for women who have biological variations such as higher testosterone.  At least one lost a title iirc.  Others have been barred from participating.  Some were pressured to take drugs to become more ‘feminine’.

Edited December 16, 2025 by Calm

[webbles]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

There has been a big problem in professional sports for decades iirc for women who have biological variations such as higher testosterone.  At least one lost a title iirc.  Others have been barred from participating.  Some were pressured to take drugs to become more ‘feminine’.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caster_Semenya is an example.  She has "5α-Reductase 2 deficiency" and so has XY chromosome but has always been a girl.  Her testosterone is closer to a male average.

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, JVW said:

We can discuss intersex more if you want, but intersex and transgenderism are not remotely equivalent. Having both parts is not the same as having one part but hating yourself because of it.

I brought intersex people up because they disproved what you were saying. I did not imply or outright state that intersex people and transgender people are exactly the same. Not sure why you think I did.

8 hours ago, JVW said:

I don't believe you but I accept your sentiment. I wouldn't be seeing pronouns on LinkedIn profiles if trans just wanted to be left alone. I think there has been a large, visceral shift in public culture and discourse in America because of the trans movement, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is a thing.

Transgender people are not the only people who request the use of pronouns that don’t match their biological sex. They may not even be the majority of them.

8 hours ago, JVW said:

IDK what cishet means, I'm assuming you just mean men?

Non-transgender heterosexual men.

8 hours ago, JVW said:

There are very real concerns about potential dangers from the trans community. I don't think making a blanket statement discarding everything your opposition believes as wrong is correct or the right way to go in a debate about trans. For someone so insistent on nuance regarding sex you are certainly throwing nuance out the window when regarding the arguments of those opposed to your views.

I haven’t heard any credible concerns. It is always vague but scary sounding worrymongering about children being corrupted by transgender people somehow and yelling about women’s sports and bathrooms. Somehow this is an existential threat.

8 hours ago, JVW said:

There are bad guys everywhere, trans aren't innocent.

A mindless comment. No one is innocent.  Of course transgender people aren’t all reincarnations of Fred Rogers. They are not, as a group, a greater threat than other demographics.

The “he was no angel” argument is often used to deny the rights of individuals and groups. It is a repulsive rhetorical tactic suggesting some people don’t deserve rights. Unfortunately it has caught on in a big way at the moment.

8 hours ago, JVW said:

It also doesn't help that every trans-woman at one point was a cishet so how do you determine if a trans woman is truly a woman or a cishet pretender? Here's a few quotes from trans authors and activists (i.e. leaders of the trans movement). Are they cishet in sheep's clothing, or real women?

Am I supposed to clutch my pearls over how unladylike they supposedly are or what is the point you are trying to make here? Also Alok denied writing the bit you quoted saying it was written by their partner in the Dark Matter group on their shared account.

And no, everyone was not at some point “a cishet”.

One of the two people you named is a woman. The other appears to identify as non-binary/gender nonconforming.

8 hours ago, JVW said:

In the gay marriage movement there were many gays who hated the activists and just wanted to live a quiet peaceful life. I believe this to be the case in the trans movement too, that there are trans who hate the activists and just want to quietly live their lives.

This is not what I was saying at all. I was not saying that trans activists are causing the current culture war. I am saying they have been chosen as an easy target and would prefer to be left out of that.

I get what you are doing though. The good gays and the good trans people were okay with not having equal rights and just living their marginalized lives until the big mean scary activists came along and ruined everything. It is a dumb narrative. It is like Southern Whites in the Jim Crow era arguing that the good black people were content until the scary MLK and Malcolm X came along and stirred everything up.

You are assuming the narratives of the oppressor are somehow accurate.

8 hours ago, JVW said:

I thought that after King Henry established the Church of England the church wanted to eradicate Protestantism from England and so those people left? Not only the Puritans, but other protestant groups as well who founded other American colonies?

The Church of England (which is Protestant) wanted to eradicate Protestantism from England?

What? No. Just no.

8 hours ago, JVW said:

If the State religion was, say, Islam like in Saudi Arabia or something we wouldn't be seeing any trans lawsuits of any kind. Heck, if the State religion was Christianity we probably wouldn't be seeing trans lawsuits, and there probably wouldn't be major sect splits either. The State has the power to enforce its will, and if it wants everyone to believe the same way that it does then it will. I don't know if Naziism was motivated by religion or not, but the State belief was enforced and the ones who failed to comply were decimated. Same with the Bolshevik revolution, or even the system that's set up by the CCP in China using Social Credit scores and/or the genocide of the Uyghurs. We also see this happening in Israel. It happens everywhere. Whatever the State believes, and the culture and society it wants to enforce, it does what it wills. So the fact that, in America, trans can rise up as a group and do lawsuits and things says something about the State here that implies a certain level of tolerance.

So you are saying that liberal democracies tends to allow marginalized people to fight for their rights in a way they cannot in an authoritarian state? If so, I agree in general though I would probably argue against a lot of the examples you are using.

[smac97]

On 12/15/2025 at 9:30 AM, JVW said:

Quote

The place they were born can often be verified but how do you verify race. If both parents are white then you are white? But how do you know both parents are white? What determines this? You can often get away with broad generalizations but race is a human construct. There isn’t some level of scrutiny that determines it. Many segregationist groups tried long and hard to find a way to quantify ‘blackness’ so they could maintain segregation. It didn’t work. There was no test that worked. If two black parents have a child that can ‘pass’ as white what does that mean? How do you test that? Mixed race children fit where?

I would be laughed at if I tried to claim I was Asian or Hispanic but if your division can’t handle edge cases then there is no level of scrutiny that can make a positive determination. Racists desperately want there to be one but they can’t find it or demonstrate it. There are still eugenicist organizations (some going back to the Nazis) out there using pseudoscience to try to cook up some standards.

You mentioned Native Americans and tribal politics are often downright brutal over who they exclude and include (especially when money is involved). Some try to have standards. Some determinations are much more arbitrary.

I'd like to please summon @smac97 again here because I don't know legal history, maybe he could provide some legal explanation about this? And by the way Smac, I hate AI and I will never use it so you're time and energy to explain the law really means a lot to me and I appreciate it so much.

The way you, Nehor, are describing race makes me wonder why it is a protected class in America. Something that is so difficult to prove and ripe for speculation should not get that kind of iron-clad protection. I wonder if the courts agree with your assessment regarding the difficulty of ascertaining and proving race.

Race-based classifications have a long and momentous record of de jure (legal) subjugation—slavery (enshrined until 1865), Jim Crow segregation (Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), overruled by Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)), redlining, and disenfranchisement.

In contrast, "gender identity" is very recent, originating in the 1950s-1960s with John Money and evolving and morphing ever since.  The notion that biological males who subjectively "identify" as women are, or should be, a constitutionally-protected class is about five minutes old.

As for de jure discrimination, that becomes a tough sell.  Is excluding biological males from women's sports, bathrooms, etc. "invidious discrimination"?  While transgender individuals face de facto bias (e.g., violence, employment barriers), this does not seem comparable to race's de jure legacy (slavery, segregation). Discrimination is more recent/de facto; no systemic legal exclusion like coverture for women or internment for Japanese Americans.

Race is an inherent, unchangeable trait from birth—individuals can't "migrate out" to escape bias, making the group "discrete and insular."  This is not so with trans folks, who pretty much always "migrate" into the class, and do so in endless ways and degrees.  Some dress in ways typically seen as women's clothing, some don't.  Some publicly "identify" as trans, some don't.  Some receive hormone treatments, some don't.  Some cut off some body parts, some don't.  And on and on and on.  The group is not "discrete and insular."

Racial minorities like African Americans were systematically disenfranchised (e.g., poll taxes, literacy tests until Voting Rights Act of 1965), unable to self-protect via democracy.  In contrast, trans folks are, and always have been, fully "franchised."  Indeed, "trans" advocates have achieved real gains gains (e.g., Bostock Title VII protections; state laws in 25+ jurisdictions), which demonstrates that this "class" has access to legal remedies, unlike disenfranchised racial minorities historically.

Society ties function (sports, bathrooms, prisons, etc.) to biology, not to subjective, impossible-to-quantify, no-limiting-principles, endlessly-malleable "gender identity" concepts. 

IIRC, SCOTUS has not added a suspect class since 1973 (Frontiero v. Richardson) or a quasi-suspect since 1983 (Cleburne). Skrmetti signals a strong tendency toward restraint, rejecting expansion amid "scientific uncertainty" on gender identity.  And the likelihood of SCOTUS creating such a designation is, I think, diminishing because the ideology pushing it is on a downhill slope, both in terms of sociological popularity and scientific inquiry/evidence.  See. e.g., Emerging and accumulating safety signals for the use of estrogen among transgender women (Schwartz, L., Lal, M., Cohn, J. et al., Discov Ment Health 5, 88 (2025)). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44192-025-00216-3.  From the abstract:

Quote

Efforts to alleviate the psychological distress of gender dysphoria have included the use of exogenous estrogen (often with anti-androgens) to alter secondary sex characteristics of natal males.

"Natal males" = "biological males" = (for most people) "males/men."

Quote

In response to the rapid increase in presenting cases among young people, extensive scrutiny has now been brought to bear on these medical interventions for minors, with ESCAP reporting “an urgent need for safeguarding clinical, scientific, and ethical standards.”

ESCAP = "European Society for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry"

"[U]rgent need for safeguarding clinical, scientific, and ethical standards."  Yep.  Tavistock Clinic.  Cass Report.  Substantial concerns about compromised ethics at WPATH.  All sorts of reasons for this.

Quote

However, due to the lack of systematic outcome data, the associated risk–benefit profile is unknown.

I have previously commented on this "lack of systematic outcome data" a lot.  A lot.  See, e.g., here.

Quote

Several recent systematic reviews have found the evidence of benefit to be of low or very low certainty, while some risks, such as infertility, have been long recognized.

Again, for emphasis: "Several recent systematic reviews have found the evidence of benefit [from the use of exogenous estrogen (often with anti-androgens) to alter secondary sex characteristics of natal males] to be of low or very low certainty, while some risks, such as infertility, have been long recognized."

I've talked about the "risks" quite a bit too:

Quote

There are all sorts of data missing.  I will acknowledge that.  Indeed, the lack of longitudinal data is one of my biggest concerns:

• Comorbidities. 
• Lack of informed consent. 
• Compromised assessments of the best interests of the child. 
• Irreversibility. 
• Sterilization. 
• Electively removing healthy body parts of minors. 
• Longitudinal studies essentially absent. 
• Lifelong medical regimens. 
• Ideological/sociopolitical influences/pressures on medical care. 
• Social contagion risks. 
• Risk of financial devastation for the individual (and burden on society).

Back to the abstract:

Quote

This paper compiles several emerging and accumulating safety signals in the medical literature. These range from increased rates of previously associated adverse outcomes with long-term estrogen use (e.g., acute cardiovascular events) to associations of estrogen use with newly identified adverse outcomes.

"{I}ncreased rates of previously associated adverse outcomes" and "newly identified adverse outcomes."

We need to be paying attention to this stuff.

Quote

Estrogen also induces changes in the brain, raising concerns for negative impacts on mood (e.g., depression) and cognition. These safety signals indicate the need for further investigation and a thorough systematic search for others, which may now be more evident due to the increased number of young people receiving these treatments. There is an urgent need for the evidence base to be improved with more studies, especially those with systematic long-term follow-up and those that can disentangle possible confounders, as well as systematic reviews to help interpret their reliability.

Good input.

On 12/15/2025 at 9:30 AM, JVW said:

I stand by what I said. If someone is born with a uterus and ovaries, regardless of whether it works or not, then they are the female sex. It's not complicated.

Indeed.  The supposed complexities have been fabricated for ideological purposes.

On 12/15/2025 at 9:30 AM, JVW said:

Intersex people aren't chiming in on the public square so idk why they keep getting brought up, they don't seem to have any issues with anything. 

Two big reasons for why people with DSDs "keep getting brought up" IMO: 

First, people point to DSDs to justify the notion that "sex is a spectrum."

Second, DSDs can, in some exceedingly few circumstances, make an individual's sex epistemically uncertain.  Trans ideologues want to be able to say that this biology-based epistemic uncertainty justifies claims by unequivocally male persons having a "gender" incongruent with their sex.

In my view, "gender" is either (A) a co-extensive synonym to "biological sex," or else it is (B) a undefinable and infinitely malleable pastiche of subjective generalizations and stereotypes about biological sex.  We as a society have some few, but very important, compartmentalizations based on biological sex, such as women's medicine, women's sports, women's spaces (bathrooms, changing rooms, prisons, etc.).  We legally segregate based on these.  Conversely, we pretty much do not care much about regulating generalizations and stereotypes.

Moreover, when we say that we are "talking about people who struggle with their gender," we are talking about people with erroneous, incongruent-with-reality, borne-of-mental-illness-and-confusion perceptions of their "identity" as a male or female.  

Moreover, we are also "talking about people who struggle with" other erroneous, incongruent-with-reality, borne-of-mental-illness-and-confusion perceptions of their "identity," such as a teenage male homo sapiens who "identifies" as a dog, Eva Tiamat Medusa, a biological male who "identifies" as a female and a dragon/reptile, and Stefonknee Wolscht, an adult biological male who "identifies" as a perennially-six-year-old girl.

These three are examples of people who also "struggle," but we as a society seem to treat them differently.  That is, while we , can and should treat them with kindness, decency, and respect, we do not actually go along with their empirically-disprovable "identities."  This is how we, as a society, "reach out to them with love and compassion, wanting to ease their burdens."  But we take a very different approach to people who "identify" as trans.  I am curious as to why, and whether we should, do this.

On 12/15/2025 at 9:30 AM, JVW said:

Yeah, I think religion has crazy protections because the country was founded by people who fled England on threat of extermination because of their religion. It just is what it is.

These "protections" are in the text of the Constitution, and case law interpreting that text.  There is no corollary text regarding constitutional rights/protections for "trans" folks.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 17, 2025 by smac97

[smac97]

16 hours ago, JVW said:

IDK what cishet means, I'm assuming you just mean men?

"Cishet men" = "cisgender heterosexual men."

"Cis" (short for "cisgender") is a term coined in the mid-1990s by biologist Dana Leland Defosse (and not in widespread use until the 2010s) to describe individuals whose "gender identity" aligns with their biological sex.

Put another way, "cis" is a neologism intended to either subordinate biological sex or elevate "gender identity" as a co-equal definition of "men."  It seeks to designate biological males/men as a subset of a larger category of "men." Like this:

I see "cis" as an attempt to re-define "men" and "women" to sever their fundamental definitions from their biological basis, aiding arguments for trans inclusion (e.g., in sports, prisons, or bathrooms).  The reasoning, then, is that "female" prisons can and should house both "cis" women (biologically females) and "trans" women (biological males who subjectively "identify" as women).

"Cis" does not seem to be catching on, as only ideologues and their allies/sympathizers use it. 

16 hours ago, JVW said:

In the gay marriage movement there were many gays who hated the activists and just wanted to live a quiet peaceful life. I believe this to be the case in the trans movement too, that there are trans who hate the activists and just want to quietly live their lives.

I just saw this YouTube video and found it to be a fair summary of what has been happening with the (apparent) downfall of the trans movement:

What killed the transgender movement?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 16, 2025 by smac97

[JVW]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I brought intersex people up because they disproved what you were saying. I did not imply or outright state that intersex people and transgender people are exactly the same. Not sure why you think I did.

Transgender people are not the only people who request the use of pronouns that don’t match their biological sex. They may not even be the majority of them.

Non-transgender heterosexual men.

I haven’t heard any credible concerns. It is always vague but scary sounding worrymongering about children being corrupted by transgender people somehow and yelling about women’s sports and bathrooms. Somehow this is an existential threat.

A mindless comment. No one is innocent.  Of course transgender people aren’t all reincarnations of Fred Rogers. They are not, as a group, a greater threat than other demographics.

The “he was no angel” argument is often used to deny the rights of individuals and groups. It is a repulsive rhetorical tactic suggesting some people don’t deserve rights. Unfortunately it has caught on in a big way at the moment.

Am I supposed to clutch my pearls over how unladylike they supposedly are or what is the point you are trying to make here? Also Alok denied writing the bit you quoted saying it was written by their partner in the Dark Matter group on their shared account.

And no, everyone was not at some point “a cishet”.

One of the two people you named is a woman. The other appears to identify as non-binary/gender nonconforming.

This is not what I was saying at all. I was not saying that trans activists are causing the current culture war. I am saying they have been chosen as an easy target and would prefer to be left out of that.

I get what you are doing though. The good gays and the good trans people were okay with not having equal rights and just living their marginalized lives until the big mean scary activists came along and ruined everything. It is a dumb narrative. It is like Southern Whites in the Jim Crow era arguing that the good black people were content until the scary MLK and Malcolm X came along and stirred everything up.

You are assuming the narratives of the oppressor are somehow accurate.

The Church of England (which is Protestant) wanted to eradicate Protestantism from England?

What? No. Just no.

So you are saying that liberal democracies tends to allow marginalized people to fight for their rights in a way they cannot in an authoritarian state? If so, I agree in general though I would probably argue against a lot of the examples you are using.

You made a lot of good points for me to consider in this conversation. Thanks for taking time to have this dialogue with me. 

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Cis" does not seem to be catching on, as only ideologues and their allies/sympathizers use it. 

It is not something that is used in casual conversation much by anyone. Even transgender people and their allies.

Technical literature also tends to use amab (assigned male at birth) or afab (assigned female at birth) but these are clunky terms. Note it does not mean anyone is actually assigning gender at birth. It is just a term used until someone comes up with something better.

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

I just saw this YouTube video and found it to be a fair summary of what has been happening with the (apparent) downfall of the trans movement:

What killed the transgender movement?

Lmao

No, just no.

My friend (he is transmasc) just got a job at a clinic that specializes in gender-affirming care. They are very busy and I hear similar things elsewhere.

I see this more as a declaration of victory because of a few legislative and judicial wins as the victors feel the walls closing in on them and know their time is short. Time to memoryhole the whole thing and move on so no one is paying attention if they start losing again. Also there are more important thing to focus on like making people think pedophilia isn’t actually that bad which kind of clashes with the whole transgender = grooming kids myth that has been peddled.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

"Cis" does not seem to be catching on, as only ideologues and their allies/sympathizers use it. 

It is not something that is used in casual conversation much by anyone. Even transgender people and their allies.

As I said, it is not catching on.  The underlying attempt to re-define "biological male" as a subset of "male" (rather than as a presumptive synonym) is not working.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Technical literature also tends to use amab (assigned male at birth) or afab (assigned female at birth) but these are clunky terms.

I question that.  AMAB and AFAB are ideological, not clinical, acronyms/concepts.  See, e.g., these 2023 comments:

Quote

Last year I came across an interesting article published in the British Medical Journal (one of the most influential medical periodicals in the world): Rethinking sex-assigned-at-birth questions.  In this article the authors were critical of people in medical fields making inquiries about a person's biological sex (“What sex were you assigned at birth, on your original birth certificate?”) and differentiating that from their "gender identity" (“What is your gender identity?”).  The authors seemed to hint that these questions were transphobic:

These questions have the potential to harm patients when they are used as a proxy for the more specific questions about anatomy and hormonal levels required to determine someone’s health needs. Furthermore, they do not inform clinicians about patients’ identities, names, or pronouns, all of which are important for truly inclusive clinical encounters. Instead, they may worsen rapport since sex assigned at birth is a construct that often clashes with the identity of transgender, intersex, and other people.
...
In both clinical and research settings, questions that allow patients to self-identify as transgender are critically important to identify and quantify health disparities and to develop effective interventions to reduce them. Questions about transgender identity should be developed by transgender people and vary according to setting, such as research, clinical practice, and census records. Questions regarding gender, transgender, and other relevant identities should be asked in research settings; in clinical settings, questions about pronouns and anatomy may be more relevant. These questions should be rigorously evaluated in the setting for which they were developed.

Recognising and respecting the gender of another person provides an opportunity to connect in a non-hierarchical manner. More broadly, recognising gender without reference to flawed constructs around sex assigned at birth allows us all greater personal autonomy and is key to eliminating transphobia in medicine and beyond.

The "Letter to the Editor" responses to the above article mostly from medical professionals were . . . pretty frank.  Here's an example (emphases added):

Dear editor,

 

We are writing on behalf of the Gender Dysphoria Alliance leadership board and membership. We are an education and advocacy organization for those with gender dysphoria – those who have medically transitioned and those who haven’t.

 

We acknowledge that there is disagreement among transpeople about political and clinical matters. We disagree with the erasure of accurate biological language and realities, for several reasons.

...

We believe it’s highly important for people with GD such as ourselves, whether we medicalize or not, to retain awareness of our biological sex. Because it’s not truly possible to change sex, accepting our full reality as trans people is important for both our psychological and physical well-being.

...

There are healthcare implications and safety concerns if our biological sex isn’t clearly recorded on our medical records to orient care providers to our medical needs.

 

Finally, we believe that the alteration of language and the falsified understanding of biological sex, applied to all people, is the result of extreme activism which is increasing societal hostility towards trans people. We do not wish to participate in that, and we don’t think it’s necessary in order for us to have rights and be integrated into society.

Another (emphasis added):

Dear Editor

 

Alpert and colleagues report in a BMJ Editorial 5th June 2021 that characteristics of external genitalia at birth are 98% accurate in defining sex at birth. They go on to say that these are ‘flawed constructs’ around sex assigned at birth. Never before have I heard of a test with 98% sensitivity being regarded as a ‘fl[aw]ed construct’. Would the authors please explain the reasoning which lead them to this conclusion.

 

Dr Peter Phillips FRCP

Consultant Geriatrician

East Suffolk and North Essex Foundation Trust

Another (emphases added):

Dear Editor

 

Sex assigned at birth: the difference between the biological fact and its social interpretation

 

It is good news to find articles like the one by Alpert et al.1 in which, from a multidisciplinary perspective, he studies scientific aspects with a humanistic approach. Thus, the aforementioned work shows great sensitivity to issues, beyond scientific ones, that affect a particularly vulnerable sector of the population.

 

However, there is one aspect of the article that I would like to draw attention to, and on which I would like to contribute another view. I am referring to the risk of confusing biological or physiological data with its meaning or social interpretation. Specifically, I find it worrying that, from a scientific point of view, the fact of sex assigned to a human being at birth is relativized, considering it an irrelevant fact and without any consequence.

 

It is true that different authors, mainly related to the ideology of gender postfeminism and from philosophical dialectics, have been affirming for years that biological sex is an artificial construction that must be discarded. Nonetheless, it is a serious danger that, on a clinical and healthcare level, a piece of data that is biological is relativized. This means being left at the expense of the meaning attributed to sex based on certain interests or feelings.

 

It is false that the sex assigned to a human being at birth is an invention or social construction, devoid of reality. On the contrary, we are facing a verifiable fact, not only by the physiognomy of some genitalia, but also by genetic evidence provided by analytics, etc.

 

This same type of verification is the one carried out with the rest of the animals and is the one that, for example, allows detecting a sex-linked hereditary disease, or indicating to a mother in the delivery room if she has had a son or a daughter. Are we really in reality when we think that a mother can be told that the sex of her newborn is not known and that we will have to wait for the newborn to state it?

 

The sex assigned at birth (derived from the consideration of the genitalia, the proportion of circulating hormones, etc.) is a fact that may have different meanings for different people or for different currents of thought. And that is where, in my opinion, the research and debate on the interpretation of what sex and gender means in society should be based.

 

The work referred to, by Alpert et al., ends up stating that “recognizing gender without reference to flawed constructs around sex assigned at birth allows us all greater personal autonomy and key to eliminating transphobia in medicine and beyond”. I believe that the previous statement, in accordance with what is indicated in the previous paragraphs, can be disputed, since, among other things, it can have effects contrary to those that the author seeks. Precisely, considering the sex assigned at birth as a social construction contradicts the autonomy of the person (based on complete and real information), and also the normalization of trans people. In reality, denying that transgender people have a biological sex at birth is stripping their own requests for gender reassignment of foundations.

 

José López-Guzmán

Professor of Pharmaceutical Humanities

Pharmacy Faculty, University of Navarra

Research Building. University of Navarra. 31000 Pamplona (Spain)

Another (emphases added):

Dear Editor,

 

Like some of your other correspondents, I am baffled by the idea of referring to "sex assigned at birth". Sex is an inbuilt biological characteristic, like eye colour, blood group or the number of fingers one has - it is discovered at birth (or, in some cases, prenatally), not "assigned". Its foundation is the individual's chromosome content which, in the overwhelming majority of cases, leads to predictable processes of development in the genitalia and in other bodily areas. The authors seem to be arguing that because biological sex does not tell a doctor everything about a person's health or disease risk, it is of no value - an obvious non sequitur.

 

To take the example given by the authors in reply to an earlier rapid response: the possibility of pregnancy exists for most biological females (including some of those who have transitioned to a male gender role) but is impossible for all biological males, whatever gender role they adopt. Other respondents have already commented on the need to be aware of disease risk relating to cervical or prostate screening and one must also include cardiovascular risk which, though complicated, shows certain clear differences between men and women.

 

Transgender people, like everyone else, deserve to be treated with dignity and respect but this in no way means that downgrading or ignoring sex as a cardinal feature of someone's biology makes any sense.

 

Roger Fisken

Retired consultant physician and endocrinologist

Another:

Dear Editor

 

I am truly baffled that such an esteemed medical journal could publish an article about sex being assigned at birth. Since forever sex has been observed at birth if not already known. The only time it may be considered to be assigned is in the very small percentage of cases of those with a DSD where there is ambiguity.

 

The notion of someone being assigned a sex implies that it may not be correct, but we know no one changes sex, that there are only 2 sexes. Why are you peddling this nonsense? It is making a mockery of the medical profession.

 

Helen Bailey

Client services coordinator

Hampshire

Another:

Dear Editor

 

There is no such thing as "sex-assigned-at-birth". Sex is not assigned at birth. Publishing this nonsense diminishes the reputation of your journal.

 

Prof David Curtis MD PhD FRCPsych

Honorary Professor

UCL Genetics Institute

Another (emphases added):

Dear Editor

 

This editorial appears to argue against the use of clear language to describe biological sex in medicine. The authors seem to take a rather myopic view of this issue, framing it as one rooted in transgender rights and who holds power in “assigning sex,” instead of basic principles.

 

Human beings, of course, reproduced sexually long before modern medicine, birth certificates, or the word “transgender” first came to be. The truth of the sex binary is anchored in the mechanism that brings every human into existence.[1] Humans have two different types of gametes, two types of reproductive systems, two discrete reproductive roles: two sexes. As a result, we have given these two sexes different names: female and male. These will exist whether or not the clinician writes them down, or asks a transgender patient “what is your sex?” The fact that 0.02% of babies[2] have differences in sex development that cause the usually easy identification of sex to become a more complex affair, does not invalidate sex as one of the most clinically useful categorisations in medicine. To suggest that it does, and therefore sex should not be recorded, is absurd. If the accuracy of observable sex is claimed not to be good enough for doctors to record or rely on in medical practice, this would logically put doctors in a position where any data they have would need to reach an accuracy threshold far exceeding most tests. Even by the authors’ own statistic of 98%, it sets an impossibly high bar.

 

...

 

No rational argument appears to be made as to why doctors should avoid admitting that the patients who had hysterectomies are biologically female, and those who had orchiectomies male. Surgery on reproductive organs does not render sex obsolete. A lobectomy does not make the respiratory system redundant. While the authors dismiss information gained from knowledge of biological sex as “shorthand,” knowledge of the two types of reproductive systems, and being able to name them, is important. This holds true for gender clinicians, too. The patient referral form for the Gender Identity Clinic in London asks for “sex assigned at birth.”[8] It seems strange to suggest medicine should have no names for the distinctions between the people at risk of testicular torsion versus cervical cancer. Communication skills usually advise against reducing people to their organs, to avoid saying “the pancreas in room 7,” but even if some form of organ-inventory system were proposed, it seems likely the basic template would come in two distinct types.

 

Gender identity information can be valuable to help guide the clinical encounter, respect the transgender patient’s sense of self and gain a fuller picture as to healthcare needs. But gender identity should be recorded in addition to, not act as a replacement for, biological sex. If an unknown patient comes in to A&E, unaccompanied and unconscious, their gender identity would not be ascertainable. However, their sex would remain observable, and would make a difference to that patient’s care.

 

Healthcare cannot collectively discard words for the two biological sexes. Awareness of the importance of clinical research into sex differences in medicine, especially for the female sex[9], has just been highlighted by the pandemic. How would such work be done if the sexes cannot be named?

 

Clear language on sex is vital in medicine, science, and public health education.

 

It is surprising these words should need to be typed in a Rapid Response to the BMJ.

 

Sara Dahlen

MSc Student, Bioethics and Society

King's College London

London

 

• "It is false that the sex assigned to a human being at birth is an invention or social construction, devoid of reality."
• "{C}onsidering the sex assigned at birth as a social construction contradicts the autonomy of the person."
• "I am baffled by the idea of referring to 'sex assigned at birth'. Sex is an inbuilt biological characteristic, like eye colour, blood group or the number of fingers one has - it is discovered at birth (or, in some cases, prenatally), not 'assigned'."
• "I am truly baffled that such an esteemed medical journal could publish an article about sex being assigned at birth."
• "There is no such thing as 'sex-assigned-at-birth'. Sex is not assigned at birth. Publishing this nonsense diminishes the reputation of your journal."

I think AMAB/AFAB has made some inroads into clinical literature (and perhaps even some legal writings), but not much.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Note it does not mean anyone is actually assigning gender at birth.

Seems like it is.  See, e.g., here: "AMAB stands for 'Assigned Male at Birth,' it describe individuals who were designated as male when they were born. ... When a baby is born, medical professionals assign a sex. ... This assignment becomes part of the child’s legal identity. ... Understanding AMAB helps highlight the difference between: Biological sex assignment: The designation made at birth. ... For AMAB individuals whose gender identity differs from their birth assignment, gender-affirming care can play a vital role in supporting health and wellbeing."

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

It is just a term used until someone comes up with something better.

So "assigned male at birth" does not mean "assigning gender at birth"?  

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

My friend (he is transmasc) just got a job at a clinic that specializes in gender-affirming care.  They are very busy and I hear similar things elsewhere.

Yes, the sociological trend amongst adults may well be proceeding.  Such medical procedures on children have been drastically reduced/eliminated.

That said, on a legal front, I think trans ideology has lost a lot of ground. 

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I see this more as a declaration of victory because of a few legislative and judicial wins as the victors feel the walls closing in on them and know their time is short. Time to memoryhole the whole thing and move on so no one is paying attention if they start losing again.

Skrmetti was a pretty substantial loss, and I think the upcoming decisions described in the OP will be more of the same.  It seems to me that the legal winds are blowing very heavily against some of the fundamental tenets of trans ideology.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 17, 2025 by smac97

[Calm]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

Race is an inherent, unchangeable trait from birth—individuals can't "migrate out" to escape bias, making the group "discrete and insular."

Some aspects can be altered, hair can be colored and straightened or curled, skin can be lightened, patterns of speech can be altered, contacts can be worn, cosmetic surgery can change eye shape, etc.

Passing as white has been possible for many.

And since race is more social perception than biological fact, attitudes changing can change race as well.  The Irish didn’t used to be thought of as white, they were basically black savages at heart.

https://medium.com/@fazer4541/the-irish-had-to-ask-to-be-white-602c78696545

https://history.howstuffworks.com/historical-events/when-irish-immigrants-werent-considered-white.htm

https://sites.pitt.edu/~hirtle/uujec/white.html

Edited December 17, 2025 by Calm

[The Nehor]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

As I said, it is not catching on.  The underlying attempt to re-define "biological male" as a subset of "male" (rather than as a presumptive synonym) is not working.

Those who care use them, everyone else does not. Calling the Church by its full name has not caught on outside of members and a few people eager to get it right. Does that mean President Nelson failed?

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

I question that.  AMAB and AFAB are ideological, not clinical, acronyms/concepts.  See, e.g., these 2023 comments:

• "It is false that the sex assigned to a human being at birth is an invention or social construction, devoid of reality."
• "{C}onsidering the sex assigned at birth as a social construction contradicts the autonomy of the person."
• "I am baffled by the idea of referring to 'sex assigned at birth'. Sex is an inbuilt biological characteristic, like eye colour, blood group or the number of fingers one has - it is discovered at birth (or, in some cases, prenatally), not 'assigned'."
• "I am truly baffled that such an esteemed medical journal could publish an article about sex being assigned at birth."
• "There is no such thing as 'sex-assigned-at-birth'. Sex is not assigned at birth. Publishing this nonsense diminishes the reputation of your journal."

That is an editorial.

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think AMAB/AFAB has made some inroads into clinical literature (and perhaps even some legal writings), but not much.

Seems like it is.  See, e.g., here: "AMAB stands for 'Assigned Male at Birth,' it describe individuals who were designated as male when they were born. ... When a baby is born, medical professionals assign a sex. ... This assignment becomes part of the child’s legal identity. ... Understanding AMAB helps highlight the difference between: Biological sex assignment: The designation made at birth. ... For AMAB individuals whose gender identity differs from their birth assignment, gender-affirming care can play a vital role in supporting health and wellbeing."

If you ignore the separation of sex and gender this makes more sense and doesn’t contradict what I said. You know, the bulk of the literature and studies on transgender people.

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

So "assigned male at birth" does not mean "assigning gender at birth"?

No. It is saying they are biologically male or (rarely) were thought to be biologically male in some edge cases.

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

 Yes, the sociological trend amongst adults may well be proceeding.  Such medical procedures on children have been drastically reduced/eliminated.

Gender affirming surgeries on minors were always rare and are still rare. Only people who ignored the data and believed the propagandists were convinced there was an epidemic of gender-affirming surgeries being performed on minors. They are rare and almost all are performed on 15 to 17 year olds. Most of them are chest procedures. The most common type is breast reduction done on cisgender males. So hopefully all this legislation is keeping those boys from getting rid of their enlarged breasts.

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

That said, on a legal front, I think trans ideology has lost a lot of ground.

We are happy you believe that if it makes you declare victory and go back to ignoring transgender people and find another moral panic to fight against. How about that Tide Pod thing again? Can we bring that myth back?

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

Skrmetti was a pretty substantial loss, and I think the upcoming decisions described in the OP will be more of the same.  It seems to me that the legal winds are blowing very heavily against some of the fundamental tenets of trans ideology.

The fundamental tenets? The courts don’t decide those at all. The psychologists and medical professionals do and the overwhelming majority of them continue to insist the data shows what the best course of action to help transgender people are. Politicians and reactionaries may rail against it just like they have any minority group wanting rights but they are losing the public relations war and the experts never sided with them.

Plus with precedent becoming increasingly worthless and the Supreme Court being seen as contemptible by more and more people I am not that worried about this being enshrined in perpetuity. The Faustian Bargain some have made to force things through has made the standing of everything they forced through ever more tenuous. 

[smac97]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Those who care use them, everyone else does not.

"Those who care" = "ideologues and their allies/sympathizers."

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That is an editorial.

Nope.  it is a series of "Letters to the Editor" statements (from practitioners in the medical field) in the British Medical Journal, one of the most influential medical periodicals in the world.

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

I think AMAB/AFAB has made some inroads into clinical literature (and perhaps even some legal writings), but not much.

Seems like it is.  See, e.g., here: "AMAB stands for 'Assigned Male at Birth,' it describe individuals who were designated as male when they were born. ... When a baby is born, medical professionals assign a sex. ... This assignment becomes part of the child’s legal identity. ... Understanding AMAB helps highlight the difference between: Biological sex assignment: The designation made at birth. ... For AMAB individuals whose gender identity differs from their birth assignment, gender-affirming care can play a vital role in supporting health and wellbeing."

If you ignore the separation of sex and gender this makes more sense and doesn’t contradict what I said.

First, "gender" is substantively ambiguous, or has been made so by ideologues so as to facilitate equivocation.  Sometimes it is used to described/define subjective inner-held feelings (i.e. "gender identity") and sometimes it is used as a synonym for biological sex (men in women's bathrooms, sports, etc.).

Second, even if we assume, arguendo, that there is a "separation of sex and gender" (again, equivocation), the notion doesn't hold, even among the ideologues.  Supposedly, "sex" refers to biology and "gender" to "identity."  And yet the equivocation efforts continue with "biological sex is a social construct."

• Biological Sex is a social construct
• Biological Sex as a Social Construct
• In one of my college classes the professor said that biological sex is a social construct.
• About: "biological sex" is socially constructed
• The social construction of biological sex. A debate between Judith Butler and Sally Haslanger
• Biological Sex as a Social Construct
• It’s Time For People to Stop Using the Social Construct of “Biological Sex” to Defend Their Transmisogyny
• Is Biological Sex a Social Construct? It’s Complicated
• Biological Sex is a Social Construct and Biological Sex isn’t Binary ("Transwomen are biological women")

So much for the "separation of sex and gender."  Both are "social constructs."

Apparently the first step was to conflate "sex" with the grammatical term "gender" (John Money got the ball rolling).  The next was to differentiate "sex" and "gender" by acknowledging biological reality ("sex") but separating from it the concept of subjective inner-held feelings creating an "identity" ("gender").  It seems the step after that is to obliterate the sexual binary (the "sex is a spectrum" stuff).

Of course, bathrooms and sports and prisons had never segregated based on subjective inner-held feelings, hence the industrial-scale equivocation/obfuscation.

The above article by Miranda Yardley lays things out fairly well.  A Grok summary:

Quote

Summary of "Biological Sex as a Social Construct" by Miranda Yardley

Miranda Yardley's article (a trans woman and gender-critical feminist) strongly critiques the claim that biological sex is a social construct, viewing it as dishonest propaganda within transgender activism aimed at redefining language to advance political goals, particularly at the expense of women's rights.

Core Arguments

• Distinction Between Words and Reality: Words (e.g., "male"/"female") are social constructs through repeated use, but biological sex itself is a material, tangible reality with real consequences—not arbitrarily invented by society. Gender (social roles/expectations) is constructed; sex is not.
• Misuse of "Social Construct": Extending the term to sex reduces it to changeable identity, rendering words "meaningless" and enabling obfuscation. This supports transgender ideology's push to redefine "woman/female" based on self-identification, ignoring biology.
• Political Weaponization of Language: Draws on Orwell (1984, Politics and the English Language)—controlling language limits thought and enforces orthodoxy. Claims like "sex can be changed" are "dishonest" tools for historical revisionism (e.g., UK's Gender Recognition Act allowing birth certificate alterations).
• Harm to Women: Redefinitions disproportionately affect women (52% of population), allowing those born male to "set boundaries and change them at will" (quoting Glosswitch). This erases women's sexual autonomy, spaces, and rights under the guise of justice.

Conclusion

Yardley affirms trans people's right to live freely without harm but rejects redefinitions that disregard half the population, framing it as a "political war" where language manipulation undermines freedom and fairness. The piece warns against Queer Theory's extremes, prioritizing material sex over identity politics.

I endorse Yardley's perspective.

Societal differentiation (women's bathrooms, sports, prisons, etc.) has always been, and should be, about biological reality, not subjective self-identification.

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

So "assigned male at birth" does not mean "assigning gender at birth"?

No.

It makes the head spin.  

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It is saying they are biologically male or (rarely) were thought to be biologically male in some edge cases.

First, I don't think this is accurate.  AMAB is often deployed to describe all birth situations, not just the tiny number of ambiguous ones (i.e., babies with DSDs).  Thus a person who is unequivocally and undeniably "male" in every sense but an inner-held "identity" could nevertheless still describe himself as having been "assigned male at birth."

Second, AMAB implies doctors arbitrarily assign sex, turning observation into imposition.  See, e.g., these remarks by Dr. Paul McHugh:

Quote

Sex is not and cannot be “assigned at birth,” despite the assertions of the AMA, APA, and Respondents. See Stephen’s Br. at 5 (“[S]ex assigned at birth refers to sex an infant is presumed to be at birth.”). The language of “assigned at birth” is purposefully misleading and would be identical to an assertion that blood type is assigned at birth. Yes, a doctor can check your blood type and list it. But blood type, like sex, is objectively recognizable, not assigned. In fact, the sex of a child can be ascertained well before birth. See Keith L. Moore & T.V.N. Persaud, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology 307 (Saunders 7th ed. 2003) (“[T]he type of sex chromosome complex established at fertilization determines the type of gonad that differentiates from the indifferent gonad. The type of gonads present then determines the type of sexual differentiation that occurs in the genital ducts and external genitalia.”).7  

---

7. Amicus interACT argues that intersex individuals disprove the claim that “a person’s status as male or female” is “objectively determined by anatomical and physiological factors, particularly those involved in reproduction.” interACT Br. at 26. Intersex is not an additional category that erodes our understanding of sex as male or female based on anatomy. Instead, intersex is an anomaly that highlights the norm of male and female anatomy. Science does not look to the anomaly to disprove the norm. By way of example, humans have twentythree pairs of chromosomes. The anomaly faced by persons with Down Syndrome, a third copy of chromosome 21, does not change what is true about human genetics any more than intersex changes what is true about sex.

To "assign" is "to give or allocate; allot."

To "observe" is "to see, watch, perceive, or notice."

Doctors do not "assign" sex, they "observe" it.

There may be a statistically tiny number of instances where a doctor, due to ambiguity in genitalia/chromosomes (e.g., Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia), might err in his observation, which may bring "assign" into play.  But I think this would/should be reserved for instances where doctors have erred in observing biological sex.  I (respectfully) reject the notion that AMAB/AFAB should be used to describe a doctor's observation of sex at birth in the 99%+ cases where biological sex is unambiguous.

The exception (babies with DSDs) should not swallow the rule (99%+ of unambiguously male or female babies).  "Assigned" evokes active choice (e.g., doctor "decides" sex), downplaying that it's usually straightforward recognition of dimorphic traits (genitals correlate >99% with chromosomes/gonads). This reframes objective biology as subjective/social by implying that sex is "wrongly assigned" if an individual's subjective and inner-held "identity" conflict's with biology, thus prioritizing the one (gender identity) over the other (biological sex).  AMAB/AFAB is activist rhetoric intended to de-medicalize/de-biologize sex, making transgender identity primary.  "Assigned" carries substantial ideological baggage, as it implies authority-imposed category open to correction (like reassigning via transition).  It also facilitates treating biological males ("trans women") as "female" for things like women's bathrooms, sports, prisons, etc.

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Gender affirming surgeries on minors were always rare and are still rare.

Sexual abuse by bishops is also quite rare.  But those victims are still victims.

Just because certain types of profoundly harmful acts against children are rare does not mean they should be ignored.  This is all the more so where the harmful acts are by people in positions of trust/authority (bishops who abuse children, doctors who perform medical treatments on children without informed consent.  This is all the more so where the doctors' actions are often irreversible, sterilize the kids, require lifeline medical regimens, and so on.

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Only people who ignored the data and believed the propagandists were convinced there was an epidemic of gender-affirming surgeries being performed on minors.

Many thousands of children received these medical treatments.

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

They are rare and almost all are performed on 15 to 17 year olds. Most of them are chest procedures.

"Chest procedures" = electively cutting off the completely healthy body parts (breasts) of girls.

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

That said, on a legal front, I think trans ideology has lost a lot of ground.

We are happy you believe that if it makes you declare victory

I said "I think trans ideology has lost a lot of ground."

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

and go back to ignoring transgender people and find another moral panic to fight against.

Thousands of children who have undergone irreversible sterilizing medical treatments would probably not concur with your flippant dismissal of their situation as a "moral panic."

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

Skrmetti was a pretty substantial loss, and I think the upcoming decisions described in the OP will be more of the same.  It seems to me that the legal winds are blowing very heavily against some of the fundamental tenets of trans ideology.

The fundamental tenets? The courts don’t decide those at all.

Agreed.  But the courts do have a pretty important role in deciding whether those tenets are to be given the force of law.

For example, is a "woman" an adult biological female and also anyone who "identifies" as a woman?  This is one of those "fundamental tenets."  In April 2025 the UK Supreme Court addressed it in Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers: UK Supreme Court rules legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex

Quote

The Supreme Court has ruled that the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex, in a decision which could have far-reaching implications for who can access single-sex services and spaces.

It came about after the Scottish government included transgender women in quotas to ensure gender balance on public sector boards. Campaign group For Women Scotland argued that sex-based protections should only apply to people born female.

The judges were tasked with deciding on the correct interpretation of “sex” and “woman” in the main piece of legislation setting out sex-based legal protections.

Specifically, they ruled that the definition of sex as used in the Equality Act 2010 is "binary" and decided by biology - a person who was not born as a biological female cannot obtain the legal protections the Act affords to women by changing their gender with a Gender Recognition Certificate.

The ramifications of this decision are substantial.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

This week’s UK Supreme Court ruling represents a significant setback for trans people. The decision defines 'sex' exclusively as the biological sex assigned at birth under the Equality Act 2010, explicitly excluding trans individuals—even those holding a Gender Recognition Certificate—from legal recognition of their gender identity (O'Thomson 2025). This decision not only permits the automatic exclusion of trans people from single-sex spaces such as schools and sports teams, but also severely restricts their ability to pursue equal pay claims. This exclusion disproportionately affects trans women and intensifies existing social and economic inequalities.

Trans ideologues can fabricate whatever re-definitions of "woman" they like in their own private sphere and opinion and thought, but those re-definitions do not have the force of law in the UK.

Then came Skrmetti in June 2025 in the U.S.:

Quote

United States v. Skrmetti, 605 U.S. ____ (2025), is a United States Supreme Court case which held that a Tennessee state law banning puberty blockers and hormone therapy for the treatment of gender dysphoria in minors did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.^[2]

Under Tennessee’s law, a child could receive puberty blockers and hormone therapy if the medications were provided to help them conform to their sex assigned at birth, but not to treat gender dysphoria.^[3] The plaintiffs argued this constituted sex-based discrimination and thus violated the Equal Protection Clause.^[4] Tennessee argued the law did not treat people differently based on their sex, but rather based on their age and medical condition.^[3]

The district court applied heightened scrutiny and blocked the law from taking effect. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit overturned, ruling the ban did not discriminate based on sex and thus only required rational basis review.^[3]

The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court's decision on a 6–3 split, with the six conservative justices agreeing the ban was based on age and medical reason for treatment rather than on sex. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized that the ruling was not based on an ideological opposition to transgender rights; writing for the minority, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized the Court's decision as a failure to uphold the civil rights of transgender youth.^[4][5][6]

Notable also is the concurring opinion in Skrmetti by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, which lays extensive legal groundwork for addressing the pivotal issue of whether "trans" persons qualify as a "quasi-suspect class" for constitutional purposes.  I explained the legal significant of this issue, and Judge Barrett's assessment thereof, here.  Her assessment is that they do not qualify.

Next up are the consolidated cases of Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., summarized here:

Quote

In Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B. P. J., scheduled for oral arguments on Jan. 13, the court will weigh in on challenges to the constitutionality of laws in Idaho and West Virginia that prohibit transgender women and girls from participating on women’s and girls’ sports teams. In a case brought by a transgender athlete who wanted to compete on the women’s track and cross-country teams at Boise State University, the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled that Idaho’s ban violates the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection. In a different case, filed by a transgender student seeking to compete on the girls’ sports teams at her middle school, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit held that West Virginia’s law violates Title IX, a federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in educational programs and activities that receive federal funding, because it discriminates based on sex. 

Lindsay Hecox, the athlete who filed the Idaho case, asked the Supreme Court in September to dismiss the case as moot – that is, no longer a live controversy – after she moved to voluntarily dismiss the case in the lower court. But the justices in October put off deciding that request until oral argument. 

Whether or not "quasi-suspect" classification will be addressed and decided in these cases remains to be seen:

Quote

At the core of Hecox and B.P.J. is whether laws that categorically bar transgender girls from female-designated sports teams based on “biological sex” or “sex assigned at birth” constitute impermissible sex-based classifications under the Equal Protection Clause and, if so, whether they warrant intermediate scrutiny. Although neither appellate court needed to decide whether transgender status or gender identity is itself a quasi-suspect class—relying instead on existing precedent—the Supreme Court could choose to address that broader question, as it has in prior cases where embedded constitutional issues were presented.

This article thinks SCOTUS will address this issue, and also that it will conclude that "trans" persons do not qualify as a quasi-suspect class:

Quote

Following last term’s decision in United States v. Skrmetti, which upheld Tennessee’s restrictions on risky gender-transition procedures for minors, the Court will now tackle the related question of biological males competing in women’s sports. In West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox, the justices will consider whether West Virginia and Idaho laws protecting women’s sports from biological male participation violate the Equal Protection Clause and (in B.P.J.) Title IX. A major question in the cases is whether transgender status constitutes a quasi-suspect class meriting heightened scrutiny. The Fourth and Ninth Circuits held that it does, but that conflicts with the Tenth and Eleventh Circuits.

I suspect the Supreme Court is going to reverse. In Skrmetti, three justices—Barrett, Thomas, and Alito—were on record saying that transgender status is not a quasi-suspect class. If that question is resolved, at least two additional justices are likely to share their reluctance, consistent with both case law and common sense, to create another quasi-suspect class. Title IX would also be a strange basis for striking down the challenged laws since it has from the beginning contemplated the distinction between men’s and women’s teams and sought to protect women’s sports rather than undermine them.

I think the foregoing assessment is correct.

Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers and Skremetti are, in my view, substantial bellwethers for what will happen in West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox.  If I were a betting man, I would put down serious money on the propositions that A) SCOTUS will address the "quasi-suspect class" issue regarding trans persons, and B) that the SCOTUS decision will be that trans persons do not qualify for that classification.

This will have a huge impact throughout the United States as to how trans folks are treated under the law.  I cannot think of a tenet of trans ideology more fundamental that the re-definition of "woman" to include the "gender identity" concept (that is, that biological men who "identify" as women are women).  This is, in my view, the sine qua non underpinning of men in women's sports, bathrooms, prisons, and so on. 

I think SCOTUS rejecting this fundamental tenet is more or less a foregone conclusion.  I asked Grok: "Given recent decisions in western law (Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers and United States v. Skrmetti), what do you think the outcome will be in Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. regarding "trans" persons as a quasi-suspect class?"

The response:

Quote

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Skrmetti (2025) and the UK Supreme Court's ruling in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers (2025) both emphasize biological sex over self-identified gender, signaling a judicial trend that prioritizes objective traits in classifications. In Skrmetti, the Court upheld Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors under rational basis review, rejecting transgender status as a quasi-suspect class due to lack of immutability, historical de jure discrimination, and political powerlessness. Similarly, Women Scotland held that "woman" in the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex, not including trans women with Gender Recognition Certificates—protecting sex-based rights and rejecting self-ID expansions. This precedent bodes poorly for recognizing transgender persons as quasi-suspect.

In Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. (consolidated, oral arguments January 13, 2026), states defend sports bans excluding trans girls from female teams under rational basis, arguing biological advantages (e.g., puberty strength) justify sex-based rules for fairness/safety. Challengers seek intermediate scrutiny, claiming trans status quasi-suspect or sex discrimination per Bostock (2020).

Predicted Outcome: The Court will likely reverse the lower courts (9th/4th Circuits applied heightened scrutiny), upholding the bans under rational basis—rejecting quasi-suspect class (6-3 conservative majority, per Skrmetti). Reasons:

• Skrmetti Alignment: Trans classifications not quasi-suspect; sex-based rules (e.g., tied to biology) get deference amid "scientific uncertainty."
• Women Scotland Influence: Reinforces biological sex primacy; SCOTUS may analogize sports bans to care bans as protecting sex-based equity, not targeting identity.
• Mootness in Hecox: Plaintiff no longer competes, but Court may rule on merits to clarify nationwide (as in Skrmetti).
• Broader Impact: Aligns with post-Dobbs (2022) deference to states on social policy; no Title IX ruling needed if Equal Protection fails.

Dissent (Sotomayor/Kagan/Jackson) likely argues for quasi-suspect or sex discrimination. Decision expected June 2026; 80%+ chance of upholding bans.

We'll see what happens next year.

Going back to your comments about "victory," I'm not sure what to make of those.  I suppose that SCOTUS stating what should have been obvious from the beginning, that "woman" = biological adult female, is a "victory," but for what?  Common sense?  Reality?  Who are the "victors"?  And who or what has been defeated?  A "right" for men to compete in women's sports, which didn't exist until about five minutes ago?

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

Skrmetti was a pretty substantial loss, and I think the upcoming decisions described in the OP will be more of the same.  It seems to me that the legal winds are blowing very heavily against some of the fundamental tenets of trans ideology.

The psychologists and medical professionals do and the overwhelming majority of them continue to insist the data shows what the best course of action to help transgender people are.

Well, no.  The data are not in, and what not-ideologically-captured-and-compromised data do exist indicate little or no improvement and lots and lots of downsides.

Ideologues can continue to whistle past things like the Cass Report and the "Emerging and accumulating safety signals" article (cited above), but that doesn't work in a legal context.  As I have previously noted, I think there is extensive and substantial evidence indicating that professional associations have been deeply compromised by sociopolitical preferences and pressures regarding "trans" issues.  A sampling:

• I Thought I Was Saving Trans Kids. Now I’m Blowing the Whistle
• Tavistock trust whistleblower David Bell: ‘I believed I was doing the right thing’
• The Responsibility to Inform
• The pullback from youth gender transition has begun
• A Slow Trek Back to Truth?
• Puberty Blockers, Cross-Sex Hormones, and Youth Suicide
• DC children's hospital offered 'gender affirming' hysterectomies for kids, audio and deleted webpage reveal
• Putting numbers on the rise in children seeking gender care
• Why disturbing leaks from US gender group WPATH ring alarm bells in the NHS
• Sex Reassignment Doesn’t Work. Here Is the Evidence
• Dr. Paul McHugh's SCOTUS Amicus Brief
• I Wish I Had Been Told About These Risks Before I Had Gender Surgery
• Gender dysphoria and psychiatric comorbidities in childhood: a systematic review
• Most kids grow out of their desire to change their sex
• The Cass Report
• Four-Year Study on Gender Affirming Care in the UK Warns of the Dangers of 'Gender Transition' for Kids
• Opinion: Europe’s example on gender treatment
• Affirming Deception: Dishonesty in Gender-Medicine
• British Medical Journal: Gender Ideology Not Settled Science
• Why Europe and America are going in opposite directions on youth transgender medicine
• Medical Journal’s False Consensus on ‘Gender-Affirming Care’
• Transgender Care Needs Better Science, More Transparency
• Second Thoughts on ‘Gender-Affirming Care’
• Discussing So-Called “Gender-Affirming Care” With Dr. Elliot Kaminetzky
• Money Is Driving Medicine’s Embrace of Child Transgenderism
• Woke doc refused to publish $10 million trans kids study that showed puberty blockers didn’t help mental health
• Gender dysphoria in young people is rising—and so is professional disagreement
• Thousands of Minors Have Received ‘Gender-Affirming Surgeries’

There is plenty of room for reasoned and principled disagreement about trans issues.  There is no settled science.  And the empirical data - as well as legally-pertinent developments (such as those discussed in the above links) are cumulatively weighing very heavily against the tenets of trans ideology.  And because of this substantial scientific uncertainty, "Rational Basis" will be the legal lens through which laws re: trans issues are assessed, and that means they will pretty much always be upheld. 

As noted in the Skrmetti syllabus: " States have 'wide discretion to pass legislation in areas where there is medical and scientific uncertainty.' Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U. S. 124, 163."

See also Justice Thomas's concurrence: "At bottom, '[t]here remains considerable uncertainty regarding the effects of puberty blockers in individuals experiencing' gender dysphoria.  A. Miroshnychenko et al., Puberty Blockers for Gender Dysphoria in Youth: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, Online First, Archives of Disease in Childhood (Jan. 24, 2025) (draft, at 1), https://adc.bmj.com/content/110/6/429." And here: "In politically contentious debates over matters shrouded in scientific uncertainty, courts should not assume that self-described experts are correct."

See also Justice Barrett's concurrence:

Quote

What about surgeries? Expert disagreements highlight the difficulty of such choices. As the Court recounts, England, Finland, Norway, and Sweden have raised concerns about using puberty blockers or hormone treatments on juveniles with gender dysphoria and have limited such treatments, in some cases by allowing them to go forward only in a research setting.  See 1 App. 332–342, 409–411; 2 id., at 726–727; ante, at 3–4. By contrast, the guidelines promulgated by the Endocrine Society, upon which the plaintiffs rely, broadly recommend treatment for adolescents with sustained gender dysphoria and the capacity to give informed consent.  App. to Pet. for Cert. 256a–259a. As we have emphasized before, “state and federal legislatures [have] wide discretion to pass legislation in areas where there is medical and scientific uncertainty.” Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U. S. 124, 163 (2007).  The prospect of courts second-guessing legislative choices in this area should set off alarm bells. Cf. Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45, 72 (1905) (Harlan, J., dissenting) (“What the precise facts are it may be difficult to say. It is enough for . . . this court to know . . . that the question is one about which there is room for debate and for an honest difference of opinion”).

Contrary to your assertion, there is lots of "uncertainty" about trans issues.  When that happens, the courts defer to legislatures.

Equivocation and re-definition of terms are the lynchpin of trans ideology.  These things can be perpetuated in online echo chambers and in academia (and even, to an extent, in the law, see the 9th Circuit decision stating that "trans" are a suspect class, and the CA/NY laws facilitating/mandating men's access to women's spaces), but the long-term prospects for viability under the law are quite dim. 

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Politicians and reactionaries may rail against it just like they have any minority group wanting rights but they are losing the public relations war and the experts never sided with them.

I respectfully reject this characterization.  It is based on emotion, not reasoning or legal analysis.

I also don't think it is factually accurate (see the polling data cited below).  Is is the radical element of the trans movement that is "losing the public relations war."  Support for the stuff for which you advocate has substantially eroded in the last few years.  I think this is attributable to substantial overreach.  Males competing with - and dominating - women in sports has been a huge "Hey, let's pump the brakes here" sort of development.  See also public events involving the sexualization of children and/or exposure of children to highly sexualized materials (kink and overt sexual behavior at Pride parades, drag shows, "Drag Queen Story Hour," etc.).  

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Plus with precedent becoming increasingly worthless and the Supreme Court being seen as contemptible by more and more people I am not that worried about this being enshrined in perpetuity.

"Whistling past the graveyard" means pretending to be brave or cheerful in a frightening or dangerous situation, often by ignoring the real threat or putting on a brave face to hide fear, anxiety, or an unpleasant reality. It's like whistling a happy tune while walking through a cemetery at night to keep your courage up, or an organization downplaying a looming crisis. 

That's what you seem to be doing.

I asked Grok: "Assuming your prediction is accurate, what will the practical ramifications be after SCOTUS makes this decision?"

The response:

Quote

Practical Ramifications of a SCOTUS Decision Upholding Sports Bans and Rejecting Quasi-Suspect Status for Transgender Persons

Assuming the Supreme Court reverses the lower courts in Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. (likely June 2026, 6-3 along ideological lines), upholding the bans under rational basis review and rejecting transgender persons as a quasi-suspect class, the decision would have far-reaching effects. It would affirm states' broad authority to regulate based on biological sex in sensitive areas, while cabining transgender protections. Below are the key practical ramifications:

1. Immediate Enforcement of Existing Bans

• Idaho and West Virginia laws barring trans girls from female sports teams take full effect—no injunctions.
• Trans athletes in those states (and similar ones) excluded from girls'/women's categories; must compete in boys'/men's or open divisions.
• Schools/compliance: Immediate policy shifts; potential lawsuits for enforcement (e.g., verifying birth sex via certificates).

2. Nationwide Green Light for Similar Laws

• ~25 states with bans (e.g., FL, TX, OH) strengthened—challenges dismissed under rational basis (low bar: conceivable legitimate interest like fairness/safety via puberty advantages).
• States without bans (e.g., CA, NY) face pressure but can maintain inclusion; federal uniformity unlikely without legislation.
• Youth sports (K-12/college): Biology-based rules dominate; trans participation in female categories effectively ends in most red/purple states.

3. Broader Legal Precedent Beyond Sports

• No Quasi-Suspect Class: Trans classifications get rational basis in Equal Protection claims—states win most challenges (e.g., bathroom/prison/dressing room bans upheld if "rational" like privacy/safety).
• Title IX Implications: Likely no direct ruling (focus on Equal Protection), but signals deference to sex-based distinctions in education/sports; Biden-era trans-inclusive rules vulnerable to reversal.
• Other Areas: Prisons (trans women in female facilities), military, healthcare—rational basis lowers bar for biology-based policies.
• Bostock Limited: Reaffirms Bostock (2020) to Title VII (employment); doesn't extend to constitutional claims.

4. Political and Social Impacts

• Conservative Wins: Validates GOP state laws; Trump-era legacy (if in office) or red-state governors strengthened.
• Trans Advocacy Setback: Chills litigation; shifts to legislatures (harder in red states) or public opinion (e.g., ballot measures).
• Cultural Divide: Amplifies polarization—celebrated by gender-critical groups/feminists; decried as discrimination by LGBTQ+ advocates. Potential rise in private/open divisions or detransition debates.
• Youth/Healthcare Ripple: Aligns with Skrmetti (2025)—more states restrict youth transitions; sports bans deter social transition.

5. Long-Term/Uncertain Effects

• Precedent Durability: Locks in until Court shift (e.g., liberal majority post-2030s); lower courts bound.
• Workarounds: Some states/schools create "open" categories; private leagues emerge.
• International Echo: Influences global debates (e.g., UK post-Women Scotland); U.S. seen as retreating from trans rights.

Overall: A major victory for biology-based policies, empowering states while limiting federal/court protections for trans youth/adults in sex-segregated contexts. Shifts battleground from judiciary to politics/culture, with uneven impacts (red states restrict; blue states protect). Dissent would highlight vulnerability, fueling future challenges.

The last bit ("Shifts battleground from judiciary to politics/culture") is interesting.  I followed up with Grok:

Quote

"Shifts battleground from judiciary to politics/culture, with uneven impacts." That's an interesting prediction. What do you think will happen in jurisdictions where biological males can, under state law, compete in girl's/women's sports? Even in California, this does not seem to be a viable long term thing. More and more boys/men will participate and utterly dominate against girls/women, which makes the concept socially - and eventually politically - unpopular. I also think that men in women's bathrooms and prisons is not a particularly popular notion, even in liberal states like CA and NY. The U.S. has many interstate sports competitions (like NCAA, high school tournaments), but a complex patchwork of state laws on transgender athlete participation creates conflicts, with some states banning trans youth from sports aligning with their gender identity (e.g., Texas, Idaho) while others allow it (e.g., California), leading to legal battles, varied eligibility rules, and challenges for national consistency, especially as policies depend heavily on state legislation, court rulings, and athletic association discretion. Given these conditions, and assuming that your prediction about how SCOTUS will rule on trans persons as a "quasi-suspect" class, what do you think are the long-term prospects of these issues (biological males in women's bathrooms, sports and prisons) in "liberal" jurisdictions?

The response:

Quote

The long-term prospects for policies allowing biological males (trans women) in women's bathrooms, sports, and prisons in liberal jurisdictions (e.g., CA, NY) are likely to trend toward restriction or rollback, even if slower than in red states. This assumes my prediction holds: SCOTUS rejects quasi-suspect class status, applying rational basis review and empowering states to prioritize biology-based distinctions for safety/fairness. While blue states resist via laws (e.g., CA's SB 132 for prisons; NY's Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act), public opinion shifts, interstate conflicts, and cultural/political pressures will erode support. Below, I break it down by issue, drawing from recent 2025 polls showing growing opposition even among Democrats/Liberals.

1. Sports (Biological Males in Women's/Girls' Categories)

• Current Liberal Landscape: CA/NY allow participation based on gender identity (e.g., CA's AB 1266; NY's athletic associations follow inclusive rules). But interstate events (e.g., NCAA tournaments) create conflicts—e.g., a trans athlete from CA competing in a TX-hosted event could face exclusion.
• Long-Term Prospects: Chilling Effect and Rollback Likely (20–30 Years). Polls show opposition growing: 67–80% of Americans (including 67% of Democrats) oppose trans women in women's sports; CA/NY mirror this (e.g., Jan 2025 NYT/Ipsos: 70%+ oppose). As "domination" incidents rise (e.g., trans athletes winning), backlash intensifies—feminists/parents push for biology-based rules. Interstate pressures (e.g., national leagues adopting bans) force uniformity; liberal states may adopt "open" categories or face boycotts/lawsuits. Cultural shift: Even pro-trans polls (Pew Feb 2025) show 50%+ support restrictions; long-term, inclusion becomes politically unpopular, leading to 40+ states banning by 2040.

2. Bathrooms (Biological Males in Women's Facilities)

• Current Liberal Landscape: CA/NY mandate access based on gender identity (e.g., CA's AB 1266; NY's GENDA)—no biology checks; violations risk fines/discrimination suits.
• Long-Term Prospects: Partial Rollback/Accommodations (10–20 Years). Polls indicate discomfort: Pew Feb 2025 shows 55%+ favor birth-sex bathrooms (up from 2024); NORC 2025 survey notes 57% of LGBTQ+ altered lives due to rights erosion, but overall 60%+ oppose mixed-sex facilities for privacy/safety. Assault fears (real/perceived) chill policies—liberal states face challenges (e.g., post-Women Scotland UK influence). Long-term: Single-stall/family options proliferate; biology-based defaults in public spaces (schools/gyms) via ballot measures; inclusivity shifts to "all-gender" vs. women's-only.

3. Prisons (Biological Males in Women's Facilities)

• Current Liberal Landscape: CA (SB 132) allows self-ID transfers; NY similar via case law/policies—focus on vulnerability, but assaults reported (e.g., CA 2025 incidents).
• Long-Term Prospects: Strong Rollback (5–15 Years). High risks (sexual assault) make this most vulnerable: Trump's 2025 EO bars trans women from women's prisons; polls show 65%+ opposition (Pew: Grown supportive of restrictions). Feminist/prison reform groups push biology-based housing; lawsuits (e.g., safety violations) succeed under rational basis. Long-term: Segregated trans units standard; liberal states adopt (e.g., CA 2030 reforms post-scandals); cultural consensus prioritizes women's safety.

Overall Long-Term Outlook (2030–2050+)

• Patchwork Persists but Tightens: Liberal strongholds resist (e.g., CA/NY laws chill but endure via state constitutions), but interstate commerce (sports/tournaments) and SCOTUS precedent force biology prioritization—e.g., NCAA aligns with bans by 2030.
• Political Shifts: Polls (e.g., Gallup Jun 2025: 2/3 prefer birth sex in IDs/athletics) show even Democrats (50%+) opposing inclusion—backlash from "domination" incidents erodes support; blue states see ballot measures/reversals (e.g., CA Prop-like 2028).
• Cultural Evolution: Feminist/trans tensions grow; media/public opinion (Pew: More restrictions since 2024) normalizes biology-based rules. Tech (e.g., artificial wombs) redefines debates, but safety/fairness prevails.
• Uneven Impacts: Blue cities (e.g., SF/NYC) maintain pockets of inclusion; red states expand bans (e.g., to adults). Overall: 40+ states biology-based by 2040; liberal holdouts face federal pressures (e.g., Title IX funding ties).

This prediction assumes cultural/political trends continue—wealthy blue enclaves resist longest, but public safety/opinion ultimately drives change.

The comment from Grok about "inclusivity shifts to 'all-gender' vs. women's-only" piqued my curiosity.  I followed up:

Quote

"[I]nclusivity shifts to 'all-gender' vs. women's-only." That's an interesting prediction. What do you think will be the long term viability of "all-gender" categories? Women will not want to participate (for the same reason that men should not be competing against women's sports: men have biological advantages). And I think most men will not want to participate in this category either, both because they already have a category, and also because this category will be seen as a sort of "Participation Trophy" arena for boys/men who cannot meaningfully compete against other men (for example, Lia Thomas was ranked in the mid-500s as a male, but dominated when he competed against women). This will leave as potential participants only a small number of non-trans men (who would see it - correctly - as a way to compete better, as Lia Thomas did), and trans persons (who are a statistically small, even tiny, portion of the overall population). So if, for example, the NCAA were to create an "all-gender" category for, say, weightlifting or track events, do you think that category would last long?

The response:

Quote

Long-Term Viability of "All-Gender" Categories in Sports

Your analysis is sharp and aligns with incentives, participation patterns, and real-world precedents—all-gender (or "open/mixed") categories have poor long-term prospects for sustainability and meaningful competition. They sound inclusive on paper but often fail in practice due to the dynamics you describe: biological advantages, stigma, and low uptake. Here's a breakdown of why they're unlikely to thrive, especially post-Supreme Court rulings favoring biology-based distinctions (e.g., assumed Skrmetti-style deference to states).

1. Core Problems with Participation and Incentives

• Women/Girls Opt Out: As you note, biological males (trans women or non-trans men entering) retain advantages (e.g., strength, speed from male puberty). Women avoid categories where fair competition is impossible—mirroring why separate female divisions exist. Data from mixed/open events (e.g., some masters swimming, ultra-running) shows women underrepresented or absent in top finishes when men compete.
• Most Men Avoid It: Cis men have no incentive—men's categories offer prestige/records. All-gender risks being seen as "easier" or "participation trophy" (your Lia Thomas example: #462 male → #1 female nationally). Stigma deters serious male athletes; it's perceived as lesser (e.g., "why not compete with men?").
• Who Participates?: Primarily:
  • Opportunistic non-trans men (gaming for wins/medals).
  • Trans women/men (primary beneficiaries).
  • Tiny non-binary/other groups.
• Result: Male-dominated podiums; low female interest → events feel exclusionary despite "inclusive" label. Trans numbers (~0.5–1% population) can't sustain viable fields alone.

2. Precedents and Evidence of Failure

• Existing Open/Mixed Categories: Often flop or skew male:
  • NCAA "open" events (e.g., some diving/artistic swimming): Low entries; mostly men or trans women.
  • Ultra-running/masters sports: When open, men sweep; women self-select out.
  • High school examples (e.g., CT pre-ban): Trans girls dominated; female participation dropped in affected events.
• Lia Thomas Case: Perfect illustration—mid-tier male swimmer → national champion female. Post-ban states (e.g., FL/NCAA 2022 policy) saw trans athletes shift to open/men's with minimal uptake.
• International Trends: World Aquatics (2022) created "open" division—near-zero entries; effectively dormant. Cycling/athletics open categories similarly underused.

3. Long-Term Trajectory (Assuming SCOTUS Upholds Biology-Based Rules)

• Short-Term (5–10 Years): Liberal jurisdictions/organizations (e.g., NCAA, CA high schools) adopt all-gender/open as compromise—inclusive without "banning" trans athletes. Initial virtue-signaling; some events trialed.
• Medium-Term (10–20 Years): Low viability exposed:
  • Sparse fields (e.g., 5–20 entrants vs. hundreds in sex-based).
  • Male dominance → women boycott; events canceled for lack of competition.
  • Stigma grows ("loser bracket" perception); opportunistic entries spark scandals.
  • Funding dries—sponsors/schools prioritize viable, fair divisions.
• Long-Term (20+ Years): Phased Out or Marginalized:
  • Becomes exhibition/novelty (e.g., like mixed doubles in tennis—fun but secondary).
  • Reverts to biology-based (men's/women's) + rare open for true mixed (e.g., equestrian-style).
  • Cultural shift: Public opinion (e.g., 70%+ oppose trans women in women's sports, per 2025 polls) normalizes sex-segregation as fairness, not discrimination.
  • Interstate/national bodies (NCAA, Olympics) standardize biology-based to avoid chaos—liberal states conform under pressure (e.g., funding, tournaments).

Why It Won't Last (Even in Liberal Areas)

• Fairness/Safety Dominates: Women/parents prioritize equitable play; dominance incidents (e.g., injuries, lost scholarships) fuel backlash.
• Numbers Game: Trans athletes ~0.5% population; non-trans men won't "downgrade"; women flee → unsustainable fields.
• Political Reality: Blue states face internal pushback (e.g., feminists, Title IX advocates); ballot measures/referendums overturn (e.g., hypothetical CA Prop 2030).
• Global Precedent: Post-Women Scotland (UK 2025) and Skrmetti-style rulings reinforce biology; liberal holdouts isolated.

Viability: Low—most all-gender categories fizzle within a decade, becoming symbolic relics or merged back. True inclusion shifts to non-physical sports or adaptive divisions. Your prediction of social/political unpopularity is spot-on—fairness trumps ideology long-term.

Grok also cited this article: Two-Thirds in U.S. Prefer Birth Sex on IDs, in Athletics

It was published on June 10, 2025, so the data are pretty fresh.  Some excerpts;

Quote

Roughly two-thirds of Americans support two separate policies prioritizing the birth sex of transgender people over their current gender identity. Sixty-nine percent of U.S. adults continue to believe that transgender athletes should only be allowed to play on sports teams that match their birth sex, and 66% of Americans say a person’s birth sex rather than gender identity should be listed on government documents such as passports or driver’s licenses.

69% and 66%.  This is are supermajority territory.  How often do Americans agree in such lopsided numbers (particularly about controversial issues)?

Quote

Each of these policies has broad support from about nine in 10 Republicans but only about four in 10 Democrats, while independents’ views are similar to the national averages. A slim majority of Democrats (54%) believe people should be able to list their current gender identity on government documents, but fewer (45%) think transgender people should be able to play on sports teams that match their gender identity. Fourteen percent of Democrats are unsure where they stand on this question about transgender athletes.

These findings are from Gallup’s May 1-18 Values and Beliefs poll, which marks the first time the question about government documents has been asked and the third measurement of the question about transgender athletes’ participation in competitive sports.

When the sports question was first asked in 2021, support for transgender athletes being able to play on teams matching their current gender identity was 10 percentage points higher than it is now, at 34%. By the next reading in 2023, support had fallen by eight points and is now another two points lower.

Support for Trans Athletes in 2021: 44%.

Support for Trans Athletes in 2023: 36%.

Support for Trans Athletes in 2025: 34%.

Do you really see the trans movement as "winning" these days?  You are, of course, free to characterize SCOTUS rulings as "increasingly worthless," but I think that is not pragmatic or reasonable.  Folks with gender dysphoria, and men who "identify" as women, and women who "identify" as men, will still be able to do that, but mostly in private spheres.  

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The Faustian Bargain some have made to force things through has made the standing of everything they forced through ever more tenuous. 

Not sure what you are referencing here.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 17, 2025 by smac97

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Those who care" = "ideologues and their allies/sympathizers."

Nope.  it is a series of "Letters to the Editor" statements (from practitioners in the medical field) in the British Medical Journal, one of the most influential medical periodicals in the world.

First, "gender" is substantively ambiguous, or has been made so by ideologues so as to facilitate equivocation.  Sometimes it is used to described/define subjective inner-held feelings (i.e. "gender identity") and sometimes it is used as a synonym for biological sex (men in women's bathrooms, sports, etc.).

Second, even if we assume, arguendo, that there is a "separation of sex and gender" (again, equivocation), the notion doesn't hold, even among the ideologues.  Supposedly, "sex" refers to biology and "gender" to "identity."  And yet the equivocation efforts continue with "biological sex is a social construct."

• Biological Sex is a social construct
• Biological Sex as a Social Construct
• In one of my college classes the professor said that biological sex is a social construct.
• About: "biological sex" is socially constructed
• The social construction of biological sex. A debate between Judith Butler and Sally Haslanger
• Biological Sex as a Social Construct
• It’s Time For People to Stop Using the Social Construct of “Biological Sex” to Defend Their Transmisogyny
• Is Biological Sex a Social Construct? It’s Complicated
• Biological Sex is a Social Construct and Biological Sex isn’t Binary ("Transwomen are biological women")

So much for the "separation of sex and gender."  Both are "social constructs."

Apparently the first step was to conflate "sex" with the grammatical term "gender" (John Money got the ball rolling).  The next was to differentiate "sex" and "gender" by acknowledging biological reality ("sex") but separating from it the concept of subjective inner-held feelings creating an "identity" ("gender").  It seems the step after that is to obliterate the sexual binary (the "sex is a spectrum" stuff).

Of course, bathrooms and sports and prisons had never segregated based on subjective inner-held feelings, hence the industrial-scale equivocation/obfuscation.

The above article by Miranda Yardley lays things out fairly well.  A Grok summary:

I endorse Yardley's perspective.

Societal differentiation (women's bathrooms, sports, prisons, etc.) has always been, and should be, about biological reality, not subjective self-identification.

It makes the head spin.  

First, I don't think this is accurate.  AMAB is often deployed to describe all birth situations, not just the tiny number of ambiguous ones (i.e., babies with DSDs).  Thus a person who is unequivocally and undeniably "male" in every sense but an inner-held "identity" could nevertheless still describe himself as having been "assigned male at birth."

Second, AMAB implies doctors arbitrarily assign sex, turning observation into imposition.  See, e.g., these remarks by Dr. Paul McHugh:

To "assign" is "to give or allocate; allot."

To "observe" is "to see, watch, perceive, or notice."

Doctors do not "assign" sex, they "observe" it.

There may be a statistically tiny number of instances where a doctor, due to ambiguity in genitalia/chromosomes (e.g., Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia), might err in his observation, which may bring "assign" into play.  But I think this would/should be reserved for instances where doctors have erred in observing biological sex.  I (respectfully) reject the notion that AMAB/AFAB should be used to describe a doctor's observation of sex at birth in the 99%+ cases where biological sex is unambiguous.

The exception (babies with DSDs) should not swallow the rule (99%+ of unambiguously male or female babies).  "Assigned" evokes active choice (e.g., doctor "decides" sex), downplaying that it's usually straightforward recognition of dimorphic traits (genitals correlate >99% with chromosomes/gonads). This reframes objective biology as subjective/social by implying that sex is "wrongly assigned" if an individual's subjective and inner-held "identity" conflict's with biology, thus prioritizing the one (gender identity) over the other (biological sex).  AMAB/AFAB is activist rhetoric intended to de-medicalize/de-biologize sex, making transgender identity primary.  "Assigned" carries substantial ideological baggage, as it implies authority-imposed category open to correction (like reassigning via transition).  It also facilitates treating biological males ("trans women") as "female" for things like women's bathrooms, sports, prisons, etc.

Sexual abuse by bishops is also quite rare.  But those victims are still victims.

Just because certain types of profoundly harmful acts against children are rare does not mean they should be ignored.  This is all the more so where the harmful acts are by people in positions of trust/authority (bishops who abuse children, doctors who perform medical treatments on children without informed consent.  This is all the more so where the doctors' actions are often irreversible, sterilize the kids, require lifeline medical regimens, and so on.

Many thousands of children received these medical treatments.

"Chest procedures" = electively cutting off the completely healthy body parts (breasts) of girls.

I said "I think trans ideology has lost a lot of ground."

Thousands of children who have undergone irreversible sterilizing medical treatments would probably not concur with your flippant dismissal of their situation as a "moral panic."

Agreed.  But the courts do have a pretty important role in deciding whether those tenets are to be given the force of law.

For example, is a "woman" an adult biological female and also anyone who "identifies" as a woman?  This is one of those "fundamental tenets."  In April 2025 the UK Supreme Court addressed it in Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers: UK Supreme Court rules legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex

The ramifications of this decision are substantial.  See, e.g., here:

Trans ideologues can fabricate whatever re-definitions of "woman" they like in their own private sphere and opinion and thought, but those re-definitions do not have the force of law in the UK.

Then came Skrmetti in June 2025 in the U.S.:

Notable also is the concurring opinion in Skrmetti by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, which lays extensive legal groundwork for addressing the pivotal issue of whether "trans" persons qualify as a "quasi-suspect class" for constitutional purposes.  I explained the legal significant of this issue, and Judge Barrett's assessment thereof, here.  Her assessment is that they do not qualify.

Next up are the consolidated cases of Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., summarized here:

Whether or not "quasi-suspect" classification will be addressed and decided in these cases remains to be seen:

This article thinks SCOTUS will address this issue, and also that it will conclude that "trans" persons do not qualify as a quasi-suspect class:

I think the foregoing assessment is correct.

Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers and Skremetti are, in my view, substantial bellwethers for what will happen in West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox.  If I were a betting man, I would put down serious money on the propositions that A) SCOTUS will address the "quasi-suspect class" issue regarding trans persons, and B) that the SCOTUS decision will be that trans persons do not qualify for that classification.

This will have a huge impact throughout the United States as to how trans folks are treated under the law.  I cannot think of a tenet of trans ideology more fundamental that the re-definition of "woman" to include the "gender identity" concept (that is, that biological men who "identify" as women are women).  This is, in my view, the sine qua non underpinning of men in women's sports, bathrooms, prisons, and so on. 

I think SCOTUS rejecting this fundamental tenet is more or less a foregone conclusion.  I asked Grok: "Given recent decisions in western law (Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers and United States v. Skrmetti), what do you think the outcome will be in Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. regarding "trans" persons as a quasi-suspect class?"

The response:

We'll see what happens next year.

Going back to your comments about "victory," I'm not sure what to make of those.  I suppose that SCOTUS stating what should have been obvious from the beginning, that "woman" = biological adult female, is a "victory," but for what?  Common sense?  Reality?  Who are the "victors"?  And who or what has been defeated?  A "right" for men to compete in women's sports, which didn't exist until about five minutes ago?

Well, no.  The data are not in, and what not-ideologically-captured-and-compromised data do exist indicate little or no improvement and lots and lots of downsides.

Ideologues can continue to whistle past things like the Cass Report and the "Emerging and accumulating safety signals" article (cited above), but that doesn't work in a legal context.  As I have previously noted, I think there is extensive and substantial evidence indicating that professional associations have been deeply compromised by sociopolitical preferences and pressures regarding "trans" issues.  A sampling:

• I Thought I Was Saving Trans Kids. Now I’m Blowing the Whistle
• Tavistock trust whistleblower David Bell: ‘I believed I was doing the right thing’
• The Responsibility to Inform
• The pullback from youth gender transition has begun
• A Slow Trek Back to Truth?
• Puberty Blockers, Cross-Sex Hormones, and Youth Suicide
• DC children's hospital offered 'gender affirming' hysterectomies for kids, audio and deleted webpage reveal
• Putting numbers on the rise in children seeking gender care
• Why disturbing leaks from US gender group WPATH ring alarm bells in the NHS
• Sex Reassignment Doesn’t Work. Here Is the Evidence
• Dr. Paul McHugh's SCOTUS Amicus Brief
• I Wish I Had Been Told About These Risks Before I Had Gender Surgery
• Gender dysphoria and psychiatric comorbidities in childhood: a systematic review
• Most kids grow out of their desire to change their sex
• The Cass Report
• Four-Year Study on Gender Affirming Care in the UK Warns of the Dangers of 'Gender Transition' for Kids
• Opinion: Europe’s example on gender treatment
• Affirming Deception: Dishonesty in Gender-Medicine
• British Medical Journal: Gender Ideology Not Settled Science
• Why Europe and America are going in opposite directions on youth transgender medicine
• Medical Journal’s False Consensus on ‘Gender-Affirming Care’
• Transgender Care Needs Better Science, More Transparency
• Second Thoughts on ‘Gender-Affirming Care’
• Discussing So-Called “Gender-Affirming Care” With Dr. Elliot Kaminetzky
• Money Is Driving Medicine’s Embrace of Child Transgenderism
• Woke doc refused to publish $10 million trans kids study that showed puberty blockers didn’t help mental health
• Gender dysphoria in young people is rising—and so is professional disagreement
• Thousands of Minors Have Received ‘Gender-Affirming Surgeries’

There is plenty of room for reasoned and principled disagreement about trans issues.  There is no settled science.  And the empirical data - as well as legally-pertinent developments (such as those discussed in the above links) are cumulatively weighing very heavily against the tenets of trans ideology.  And because of this substantial scientific uncertainty, "Rational Basis" will be the legal lens through which laws re: trans issues are assessed, and that means they will pretty much always be upheld. 

As noted in the Skrmetti syllabus: " States have 'wide discretion to pass legislation in areas where there is medical and scientific uncertainty.' Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U. S. 124, 163."

See also Justice Thomas's concurrence: "At bottom, '[t]here remains considerable uncertainty regarding the effects of puberty blockers in individuals experiencing' gender dysphoria.  A. Miroshnychenko et al., Puberty Blockers for Gender Dysphoria in Youth: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, Online First, Archives of Disease in Childhood (Jan. 24, 2025) (draft, at 1), https://adc.bmj.com/content/110/6/429." And here: "In politically contentious debates over matters shrouded in scientific uncertainty, courts should not assume that self-described experts are correct."

See also Justice Barrett's concurrence:

Contrary to your assertion, there is lots of "uncertainty" about trans issues.  When that happens, the courts defer to legislatures.

Equivocation and re-definition of terms are the lynchpin of trans ideology.  These things can be perpetuated in online echo chambers and in academia (and even, to an extent, in the law, see the 9th Circuit decision stating that "trans" are a suspect class, and the CA/NY laws facilitating/mandating men's access to women's spaces), but the long-term prospects for viability under the law are quite dim. 

I respectfully reject this characterization.  It is based on emotion, not reasoning or legal analysis.

I also don't think it is factually accurate (see the polling data cited below).  Is is the radical element of the trans movement that is "losing the public relations war."  Support for the stuff for which you advocate has substantially eroded in the last few years.  I think this is attributable to substantial overreach.  Males competing with - and dominating - women in sports has been a huge "Hey, let's pump the brakes here" sort of development.  See also public events involving the sexualization of children and/or exposure of children to highly sexualized materials (kink and overt sexual behavior at Pride parades, drag shows, "Drag Queen Story Hour," etc.).  

"Whistling past the graveyard" means pretending to be brave or cheerful in a frightening or dangerous situation, often by ignoring the real threat or putting on a brave face to hide fear, anxiety, or an unpleasant reality. It's like whistling a happy tune while walking through a cemetery at night to keep your courage up, or an organization downplaying a looming crisis. 

That's what you seem to be doing.

I asked Grok: "Assuming your prediction is accurate, what will the practical ramifications be after SCOTUS makes this decision?"

The response:

The last bit ("Shifts battleground from judiciary to politics/culture") is interesting.  I followed up with Grok:

The response:

The comment from Grok about "inclusivity shifts to 'all-gender' vs. women's-only" piqued my curiosity.  I followed up:

The response:

Grok also cited this article: Two-Thirds in U.S. Prefer Birth Sex on IDs, in Athletics

It was published on June 10, 2025, so the data are pretty fresh.  Some excerpts;

69% and 66%.  This is are supermajority territory.  How often do Americans agree in such lopsided numbers (particularly about controversial issues)?

Support for Trans Athletes in 2021: 44%.

Support for Trans Athletes in 2023: 36%.

Support for Trans Athletes in 2025: 34%.

Do you really see the trans movement as "winning" these days?  You are, of course, free to characterize SCOTUS rulings as "increasingly worthless," but I think that is not pragmatic or reasonable.  Folks with gender dysphoria, and men who "identify" as women, and women who "identify" as men, will still be able to do that, but mostly in private spheres.  

Not sure what you are referencing here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

29 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am quite okay with that, for a few reasons.

First, I often write things out for my own sake as much as, if not more so, to explain or persuade others.

Second, I often find it useful to scrutinize and assess dangling threads of inquiry.  Here, the upcoming SCOTUS review of trans folks as a "quasi-suspect" class deserves some in-depth analysis.  That would include, of course, precedent likely to influence the constitutional analysis (such as Skrmetti).

Third, I want to give people who disagree with me an opportunity to evaluate in-depth aspects of controversial topics, both critiquing mine and presenting theirs.

I have pretty much given up on this board as a venue for the foregoing, but this thread was a limited exception.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am quite okay with that, for a few reasons.

First, I often write things out for my own sake as much as, if not more so, to explain or persuade others.

Second, I often find it useful to scrutinize and assess dangling threads of inquiry.  Here, the upcoming SCOTUS review of trans folks as a "quasi-suspect" class deserves some in-depth analysis.  That would include, of course, precedent likely to influence the constitutional analysis (such as Skrmetti).

Third, I want to give people who disagree with me an opportunity to evaluate in-depth aspects of controversial topics, both critiquing mine and presenting theirs.

I have pretty much given up on this board as a venue for the foregoing, but this thread was a limited exception.

Thanks,

-Smac

I was reading it and came to a reference to using AI and I lost interest. If I want to have a discussion with AI I can do it on my own.

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I was reading it and came to a reference to using AI and I lost interest.

Most of the AI stuff was summarizing articles I had linked to.  I figured AI would be more efficient at such summaries than me.

That said, I also included extensive "human" explanation and analysis (mine), and also extensive citation to and commentary about legal authorities.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am quite okay with that, for a few reasons.

First, I often write things out for my own sake as much as, if not more so, to explain or persuade others.

Cool.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Second, I often find it useful to scrutinize and assess dangling threads of inquiry.  Here, the upcoming SCOTUS review of trans folks as a "quasi-suspect" class deserves some in-depth analysis.  That would include, of course, precedent likely to influence the constitutional analysis (such as Skrmetti).

Okay.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Third, I want to give people who disagree with me an opportunity to evaluate in-depth aspects of controversial topics, both critiquing mine and presenting theirs.

Throwing out AI and a bunch of news articles isn’t a presentation or a critique.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I have pretty much given up on this board as a venue for the foregoing, but this thread was a limited exception.

Possibly wise.

[Nofear]

On 12/17/2025 at 5:31 PM, smac97 said:

I have pretty much given up on this board as a venue for the foregoing, but this thread was a limited exception.

And how many decades did it take you to come to this conclusion?
Your valiant efforts to the otherwise were always welcome!

 

On 12/17/2025 at 5:39 PM, The Nehor said:

I was reading it and came to a reference to using AI and I lost interest.

On 12/17/2025 at 6:06 PM, smac97 said:

Most of the AI stuff was summarizing articles I had linked to.  I figured AI would be more efficient at such summaries than me.

I think we need a new term that is the analog of ad hominem. Perhaps ad machina?

[smac97]

On 12/16/2025 at 3:57 PM, The Nehor said:

Quote

I just saw this YouTube video and found it to be a fair summary of what has been happening with the (apparent) downfall of the trans movement:

What killed the transgender movement?

Lmao

No, just no.

Newsweek: Liberals Should Read the HHS Review of Pediatric ‘Gender Affirming’ Care | Opinion

Quote

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently published Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria: Review of Evidence and Best Practices. Given current widespread distrust of HHS, especially regarding vaccines, we knew this review, which we co-authored, would be met with skepticism. So, it is worth noting that we, along with most of the other authors, are liberals.

This aspect of the trans ideological movement (pediatric "gender affirming" care) is, I think, dying.  I think this is a very positive development.

Quote

While everyone should be concerned when vulnerable populations do not receive appropriate medical care, those of us on the left side of the political spectrum need to pay special attention. This is because many of the organizations and individuals we trust have gotten this issue wrong.

"{M}any of the organizations and individuals we trust have gotten this issue wrong."

Quote

Let’s start with a bit of medical history.

 

The approach to pediatric gender distress currently favored in the U.S., which involves the provision of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones sometimes followed by surgery, was rapidly adopted internationally largely on the basis of a Dutch experiment comprised of just 70 adolescents who had been gender nonconforming since early childhood. The vast majority of these patients (62 out of 70) reported being exclusively same-sex attracted (gay).

During the study, a patient died of surgical complications due to having been given puberty blockers years earlier; some developed diabetes and were excluded from final data analysis; others were lost to follow up. The remaining 55 patients underwent surgical transition upon reaching legal adulthood. All were rendered sterile. In short, the medical practice now known euphemistically as pediatric "gender affirming care" is based on methodologically weak research that sterilized a group of gay or bisexual youth and left one of them dead.

"{T}he medical practice now known euphemistically as pediatric 'gender affirming care' is based on methodologically weak research that sterilized a group of gay or bisexual youth and left one of them dead."

Quote

Since then, thousands of well-meaning parents have been led to believe that medicalization is necessary for their children’s well-being. What they may not know is that some leading clinician-researchers have buried unfavorable research and have minimized concerning findings (including completed suicides in minors started on hormones).

In 2021, a prominent clinician told the media and other clinicians that her male patients who were puberty-blocked early never developed the ability to experience sexual pleasure. A year later, her organization, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, released guidelines that recommend early use of puberty blockers (and which removed age limits—even for most surgeries—due to political pressure). The risk of lifelong sexual dysfunction was left unmentioned.

• "{B}uried unfavorable research..."
• "{M}inimized concerning findings (including completed suicides in minors...)"
• "{M}ale patients who were puberty-blocked early never developed the ability to experience sexual pleasure.  A year later, her organization, {WPATH}, released guidelines that recommend early use of puberty blockers. ... The risk of lifelong sexual dysfunction was left unmentioned."

Quote

This should be concerning to anyone who cares about protecting vulnerable populations. As the HHS review observes, “Given the medical profession’s history of pathologizing and medicalizing same-sex attraction, serious justice-related concerns are raised by the overrepresentation of gay, lesbian, and bisexual adolescents among patients receiving unproven interventions that adversely impact fertility and sexual function.”

While it may sound jarring to readers who have, reasonably, deferred to U.S. medical societies and civil rights advocacy groups on this issue, there is no longer any legitimate scientific controversy about the weak evidence underlying the purported benefits of the “gender affirming” model for youth. Readers may also be surprised to learn that the first countries to restrict these practices were politically progressive Finland and Sweden, whose socialized health care systems are widely admired. It was these Scandinavian social democracies—not U.S. red states—that were first to conduct systematic reviews and conclude there is no reliable evidence supporting pediatric medical transition. Finland sharply restricted the practice in 2020, followed by Sweden in 2022. The U.K. was next, and other nations are pulling back, too.

The HHS review’s evidence analysis arrives at the same conclusion regarding the sorry state of the evidence. Weighing the purported benefits against the risks (which include not only infertility and sexual dysfunction but also decreased bone density, delayed cognitive development and inability to breastfeed after mastectomy) the review concludes that the harms of pediatric medical transition far outweigh the unproven mental health benefits.

• "This should be concerning to anyone who cares about protecting vulnerable populations."
• "{T}here is no longer any legitimate scientific controversy about the weak evidence underlying the purported benefits of the 'gender affirming' model for youth."
• "{T}he harms of pediatric medical transition far outweigh the unproven mental health benefits."

Quote

Instead of medicalization, minors with serious gender-related discomfort should get less risky talk therapy and social support, not to force them to be gender-conforming, but to help manage distress. Kids should be supported in their identity exploration and self-expression and supported as they navigate their social lives. For minors convinced they want permanent bodily changes, therapists can be there to help them cope with the frustration of delaying permanent interventions until they are physically and psychologically mature enough to make such decisions as adults. Research suggests that for many minors with gender-related distress, this discomfort will resolve during the course of normal adolescent development.

While recent polling shows that a majority of Democratic voters oppose pediatric medical transition, the issue remains intensely polarized among politicians and policymakers. Conservatives and liberals alike can agree that all people, and especially children, deserve ethical, evidence-based care. We recognize that liberals distrust anything coming from the current administration, but we hope they will take the time to read this review and see that it puts science first.

Moti Gorin, PhD, MBE, is a bioethicist and philosopher at Colorado State University. He was a contributor to HHS’ Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria: Review of Evidence and Best Practices and has published on issues at the intersection of pediatric medical transition and medical ethics.

Kathleen McDeavitt, MD, is a psychiatrist and associate professor at Baylor College of Medicine. She was a contributor to HHS’ Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria: Review of Evidence and Best Practices and has published on topics related to the evidence base and clinical guidelines in pediatric gender medicine.

The views expressed in this article are the writers’ own.

"Research suggests that for many minors with gender-related distress, this discomfort will resolve during the course of normal adolescent development."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 29, 2025 by smac97