Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued its 6-3 ruling upholding a Tennessee ban on transgender medical treatments for adolescents. The ruling has major implications for pending transgender cases, particularly the concurrence of Justice Amy Coney Barrett rejecting the claim that transgender status qualifies as a group entitled to heightened scrutiny under the Constitution. One of those cases just resulted in a major ruling in Boston against the move by the Trump Administration to restore the binary options of “male” and “female” sex designations on U.S. passports.
District Judge Julia Kobick’s ruling extended her earlier decision that the Trump Administration cannot limit Americans to male or female genders on passports. Judge Kobick ruled that the executive order by President Donald Trump reflects irrational animus toward transgender citizens and violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution as well as federal statutory law. In reaching that conclusion, the court adopted a number of positions that go beyond existing precedent of the Supreme Court. Now, with the decision in United States v. Skrmetti, her analysis seems even more uncertain and challengeable.
United States passports historically required a designation of either “M” or “F.” However, in 1992, the government allowed people to submit evidence of surgical reassignment as proof of sex. In 2010, that option was changed to discard the required proof of surgical reassignment and instead allow a physician’s certification of appropriate clinical treatment for gender transition.
Then, in 2022, President Joe Biden changed the passport application forms to include an “X” gender marker option in addition to “M” and “F.” It also added a checkbox to indicate a change in their gender. Id. The resulting changes impacted DS-11 (new passport), DS-82 (passport renewal), and DS-5504 (data correction, name change, and limited validity passport) in allowing an option “X.” However, those forms expired on April 30, 2025.
On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump reversed the Biden policy and issued Executive Order 14,168, declaring that “It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female. These sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality.”
The EO also provides that certain definitions “shall govern all Executive interpretation of and application of Federal law and administration policy.” Id. Those definitions include:
“Sex” shall refer to an individual’s immutable biological classification as either male or female. “Sex” is not a synonym for and does not include the concept of “gender identity.” . . .
(d) “Female” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell.
(e) “Male” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell. . . .
(g) “Gender identity” reflects a fully internal and subjective sense of self, disconnected from biological reality and sex and existing on an infinite continuum, that does not provide a meaningful basis for identification and cannot be recognized as a replacement for sex.
Notably, the EO directed the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to “provide to the U.S. Government, external partners, and the public clear guidance expanding on the sex-based definitions set forth in this order.” Id. at 8,616. HHS did so, Defining Sex, HHS (Defining Sex) (Feb. 19, 2025), https://perma.cc/9DNS-CHSZ, and concluded:
“Sex is a person’s immutable biological classification as either male or female”
“Female is a person of the sex characterized by a reproductive system with the biological function of producing eggs (ova)”; and
“Male is a person of the sex characterized by a reproductive system with the biological function of producing sperm.”
Judge Kobick, however, agreed with the transgender plaintiffs that the return to the prior designation of only male and female options was discriminatory and arbitrary. She rejected the arguments of the Trump Administration that, if this matter is even reviewable, it should be reviewed under a rational basis test – the lowest standard of review in such cases. It noted that gender identity has never been found to be a suspect class by the Supreme Court. However, the court applied the intermediate test, requiring the government to demonstrate that its actions are substantially related to an important governmental interest.” It found that it failed this test despite the government arguing at length that the change is based on a need for uniformity and continuity in federal forms. The court found in her earlier April ruling that:
“Viewed as a whole, the language of the Executive Order is candid in its rejection of the identity of an entire group—transgender Americans—who have always existed and have long been recognized in, among other fields, law and the medical profession.”
In one of the more notable lines, Judge Kobick found that “[e]ven assuming a preliminary injunction inflicts some constitutional harm on the Executive Branch, such harm is the consequence of the State Department’s adoption of a Passport Policy that likely violates the constitutional rights of thousands of Americans.”
The court seemed to treat this as the balancing of interests between two parties. “Constitutional harm on the Executive Branch” sounds like a violation of Article II authority. The court is suggesting that, while this may violate Article II, it has an even greater impact on these individuals. The Administration cited cases like Gore v. Lee, 107 F.4th 548, 561 (6th Cir. 2024) that have recognized that the government has a legitimate interest “in maintaining a consistent, historical, and biologically based definition of sex.” See also Corbitt v. Sec’y of the Ala. Law Enf’t Agency, 115 F.4th 1335, 1348 (11th Cir. 2024) (recognizing a “State’s interest in ensuring consistency with the State’s existing requirements for amending a birth certificate” by “‘objectively defining sex’ for purposes of driver’s license designations”).
The court also brushes aside the prior precedent giving presidents great deference in matters related to foreign relations and entry into the United States.
The Supreme Court left room for possible challenges by transgender litigants. Chief Justice John Roberts does write that “The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements.” However, the Court found that there was no discrimination on the basis of transgender status and noted that “absent a showing that SB1’s prohibitions are pretexts designed to effect invidious discrimination against transgender individuals, the law does not classify on the basis of transgender status.”
Yet, the majority writes that “This Court has not previously held that transgender individuals are a suspect or quasisuspect class. And this case, in any event, does not raise that question because SB1 does not classify on the basis of transgender status.” That is precisely what Judge Kobick did. In her concurrence, Justice Amy Coney Barrett directly rejected the claim in a blow to transgender litigants who might have hoped that she could be a swing vote. Barrett wrote that:
The Sixth Circuit held that transgender individuals do not constitute a suspect class, and it was right to do so.3 To begin, transgender status is not marked by the same sort of “‘obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics’” as race or sex.
…Nor is the transgender population a “discrete group,” as our cases require.
…The boundaries of the group, in other words, are not defined by an easily ascertainable characteristic that is fixed and consistent across the group. Finally, holding that transgender people constitute a suspect class would require courts to oversee all manner of policy choices normally committed to legislative discretion.
…The conclusion that transgender individuals do not share the “obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics” of “a discrete group” is enough to demonstrate that transgender status does not define a suspect class.
…The Equal Protection Clause does not demand heightened judicial scrutiny of laws that classify based on transgender status. Rational-basis review applies, which means that courts must give legislatures flexibility to make policy in this area.
While that was a concurrence with only Justice Thomas, it likely speaks to the view of a three or four other members on the Court. It makes the Boston opinion even more precarious as it goes forward on appeal.
Future generations are not going to understand the craze for children to be allowed to get themselves chemically and surgically sterilized, and receive cross sex hormones, in an attempt to approximate the appearance of the opposite gender. History will be appalled at the diverse cabal of Left wing government officials, the DOE, teachers union, schools across America, and the Democrat Party, who conditioned very young children into believing that gender was a state of mind that relied upon stereotypes, and they could be happier by changing their gender.
While it’s true that the Transgender movement began decades ago, with Dr Money’s infamous experiments a major component, less than a decade ago, people were not announcing pronouns or punishing women for objecting to males in the changing room or on their sports teams.
This was a fad, a craze, a moment of insanity, which is already ebbing.
I predict that in another decade, many people who today despise Riley Gaines for standing up for girls in sports, will claim that they, too, were resistance fighters. After WWII, everyone claimed to be in the resistance.
There has to be some element of why do men have nipples in this mess. Rose Montoya , trans female, displaying her bosom at the WH celebration just screamed men grow breasts. I’m a female except I lacked hormones insecure in their ultimate male-Ness. Sort of an exclamation of ultimate insecurity in a nightmare existence.
It just does. Why do I have nipples? Because I’m a woman with birth defects. We’re all women! There’s horror element in it. My op
Anonymous,
Here’s ChatGPT’s explanation as to why men have nipples. Honestly, I’ve always wondered this myself:
Great question — and it’s a classic example of how embryonic development follows a **shared biological blueprint** early on, regardless of sex.
### Why do males have nipples?
Because **nipples develop before sex differentiation occurs** — before the body “knows” whether the embryo is male or female.
—
### Here’s how it works:
#### ✅ **Weeks 4–6 of gestation:**
* All human embryos develop **nipples** as part of the **default body plan**.
* This happens **before** the **SRY gene** on the Y chromosome is activated in XY embryos.
#### 🧬 **Week 7 and onward:**
* If the embryo is **genetically male (XY)** and has a working **SRY gene**, then:
* Testes form and begin producing testosterone.
* Masculinization of other tissues begins (like genitalia and reproductive structures).
But by then, the **nipples are already formed** — and there’s no compelling reason (evolutionarily or developmentally) to undo them.
—
### Why don’t males just evolve without nipples?
Because **there’s no strong evolutionary pressure to eliminate them**:
* **Nipples don’t harm male survival or reproduction**, so natural selection hasn’t acted against them.
* Developmental biology tends to **re-use the same genetic blueprint** for both sexes, modifying it **only where necessary**. It’s more efficient than building two separate blueprints from scratch.
—
### So in short:
> **Males have nipples because all human embryos start with them before sex is determined.** Once formed, they’re simply retained because there’s no biological reason to remove or suppress them.
Let me know if you’d like to explore other vestigial traits like this — there are some fascinating examples!
The above explanation also makes a good argument, I believe, for intelligent design.
Or there was a time when 99 out of 100 babies born were females. Females produce babies once every 9 months. Males can father an entire planet in 9 months. The ratio speaks of it. Be fruitful and multiply on this vacant piece of real estate.
Most of these cases are simple perversions.
OT, 9th Circuit grants Trump a stay of the San Francisco federal court order preventing him from federalizing the Cali National Guard. It says Trump is very likely to prevail on the merits. Major loss for Newsom, major win for Trump and for America.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca9.4e2731d4-cbd8-4803-a59f-a1d0c6023daf/gov.uscourts.ca9.4e2731d4-cbd8-4803-a59f-a1d0c6023daf.32.0.pdf
Just Newsom virtue signaling wasting the time of courts and legal fees. He’s so ethical.
# Have you read Sotomayor’s dissent, Skrmetti? Any thoughts?
The only question was how far up the appeal chain Trump would have to go.
I forget where but there is an excellent analysis somewhere of the judges and cases against Trump.
There are something like 680 federal judges.
But Trump is only losing in front of something like 20,
Of those something like 5 have 75% of the cases.
Shouldn’t this say a 6-3 ruling?
It does say that. Look at the first sentence.
*. Just reading this now. This treatment is experimental and done via research clinics. It’s specific to hormones and puberty blockers.
What prevents those wanting the experimental treatment from going the mifepristone route? Signing up with a research clinic only prevents later lawsuits protecting the practitioners. Tennessee is simply preventing such clinics within the jurisdiction of Tennessee?
It’s not a blow to trans cases but a blow to new State research clinics? Research clinics are protected by consent of victims or patrons?
Breaks into age and medical use. Age means minors can’t have hormones but adults can. Medical use was grieved by discrimination but the law applies to all minors, no discrimation between sexes.
Haven’t read dissent. Someone explain how Tennessee patrons will simply not go the internet and mail as in mifepristone.
Nothing burger except experimental clinics are still protected?
#. Kagan is last to weigh in succinctly. It was given to them to decide level of scrutiny because rational bases was used. Kagan thinks a heightened scrutiny must be addressed before SCOTUS opinion to “smoke out” prejudices, stereotypes…she said remand it to lower courts for heightened scrutiny and nothing else needs saying.
Personal: I do not understand the 3 levels the 1st being rational base .. then heightened scrutiny? Sigh…
The mifepristone route is online research clinics and mailed hormones and puberty blockers?
FDA has not approved cross use nor mail but if listed as research clinic it’s passed that hurdle?
Don’t have lower courts arguments nor opinion that was upheld. Sotomayors dissent is based on laws shall have no sex content. All drugs are usable by all peopl
Is there anything in this law that can be misconstrued in meaning- birth defects cannot be treated by surgery? Other treatment? Recall physicians us texas would not surgically remove a dead fetus? 😏
Transitioning children is on par with phrenology or a lobotomy in terms of realistic necessity or useful application, but it sure is big business. Anyone associated with it is committing the most heinous of acts, likely knowingly – for money. This is one issue where the willing and culpable in the medical professions have zero excuses, and they will never walk it back, just as the media won’t and can’t walk back their madness.
Thank God
14th “Reconstruction” Amendment, Equal Protection Clause: Confiscate property from Americans and “fundamentally transform” it into the possession of blacks.
Nothing says “Equal Protection” like confiscation of private property, affirmative action, and redistribution of wealth.
WTF, over?
America, long ago, ceased being the America of its Founders and Framers and became the United States of Abraham Lincoln and Karl Marx.
Anonymous is the ANTIFA member of the blog. Don’t pay her no nevermind.
What a difference a US President makes when it comes to selecting men for military leadership. General Michael Kurilla is a testament that the US military still has mighty men. Small wonder Leftists / Dems / MSM would rather have “men” who are women genetically than the likes of General Michael Kurilla who has the ear of President Trump
Everything about Democrats/Leftists is a lie but especially their Transgender “born in the wrong body” lie.
The ‘jacked gorilla’ general pushing Trump to strike Iran
“Shots fired!” shouted Gen Michael Kurilla moments before charging towards the sound of gunfire to save two junior officers. Weaving through the rubble-strewn alleyways of war-torn Mosul, Iraq, the then-lieutenant colonel was pursuing a group of terrorist suspects when three more shots rang out.
Taking bullets to the arm and both legs, one snapping his femur in half, he “performed a judo roll” and carried on firing his rifle, witnesses say. As the gunfire continued, he covered his troops and reeled off orders while bleeding on the concrete floor.
Nearly 20 years later, Gen Kurilla, who was awarded a Bronze Star for valour and now heads the US military Central Command (Centcom), is once again leading the fight in the Middle East – this time against Iran.
Known to be Israel’s favourite general and nicknamed “The Gorilla”, Gen Kurilla is understood to have been given unusual levels of authority by Pete Hegseth, the US defence secretary, to determine the American response to the escalating Israel-Iran conflict.
The 59-year-old has apparently overruled other top Pentagon officials in managing the crisis and has had nearly all his requests approved for more weapons and air defences for the region, multiple sources told Politico and Axios.
More than six feet tall, the “jacked” (muscular) general certainly looks the part and is known for his abrasive approach.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2025/06/19/general-michael-kurilla-trump-hegseth-iran/
I’m with Michael savage, I can’t take it anymore. Pedophilia, Alta calif, mutilation, drugs, lgbt, no borders, and the let’s kill jews is the bottom of the ignorance pit. Let’s kill jews put you on a level of Adolph Hitler .
What a congress, huh? The greatest country in the world rhetoric is dead. Omar put a cap on that. Congratulations minorities, gave you heaven and you made hell.
Bravo, take an historic bow.
When the appeals court reverses Judge Kobik. it should require her, as a condition of remaining on the federal bench, to return to college and take 2 years of biology and biochemistry.
1. It’s a mental illness. Over 80% of those who start GROW OUT OF IT without therapy. Many more are cured, over time, with competent therapy.
2. It’s based on sexism.
That is if a boy likes things that are often considered girly, he becomes convinced by the therapist or social zeitgeist that he ‘born in the wrong body.’ That’s nonsense. Different people like different and when you get to the tail ends of the preference bell curves you will find many men and boys like things such knitting, musicals, playing dress-up, etc. Doesn’t mean they’re girls. My friend David was like that. He was just gay, but in the 1970s nobody was trying to make a girl so he has lived his as a perfectly happy gay man.
The same goes for women. My mother was raised in the country. She hunted, fished and did other ‘manly’ outdoor sports. She also preferred to wear her brother’s hand-me-downs as a child and into puberty before she finally started wearing ‘girl clothes.’ She was quite the Tomboy. Today, some wacko liberal would try to convince her that she was a boy and cut off her boobs while giving male hormones.
3. This didn’t become a real problem until Obama care. Obama made it so insurance companies could not force these mentally ill people into years of therapy before seeking medical transitions. Surgeries TRIPLED in just three years (from 2016 to 2019). The US went from one clinic to scores (65 for minors, another 18 for adults as of 2020).
This is big business pretending to compassion.
Moseszd, you are spot on.
I’m pretty sure it’s aversion therapy.
“Judge Kobick ruled that the executive order by President Donald Trump reflects irrational animus toward transgender citizens and violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution as well as federal statutory law.”
– Professor Turley
_____________________
Judge Kobick is biased and partial, and her ruling against President Donald J. Trump was influenced by deep-seated, incoherent “irrational animus” and communist theory. Human beings are born male or female. All the surgeries and pharmaceutical therapies in the world will never change or modify the fact of that status, no matter how much arbitrary imagination is applied.
Secession was fully constitutional, and Lincoln’s denial of such was unconstitutional. Every subsequent act of Lincoln was similarly unconstitutional, and unconstitutional by extension, including the “Reconstruction Amendments” of his “socialist” successors, with emphasis on the so-called “Equal Protection Clause,” which was previously innate and inherent in its thesis in the Constitution of the United States, 1789.
All men are created equal. After creation, all men must create their own success.
The “Reconstruction Amendments” constitute an impossible non sequitur in that they were conceived for the benefit of people who were precluded by existing immigration law from being “admitted to become a citizen thereof.”
The “Reconstruction Amendments,” from the mind of Lincoln’s fellow traveler, Karl Marx, must no longer be tortured and abused for the benefit of the few but rescinded and abrogated.
The very best part of the Court’s decision was Justice Thomas’ comment on experts and consensus science. Soi disant experts have mislead us many times during Covid and on things like Hunter’s laptop. If they can’t explain and back up their opinions they are useless. Experts are handy for journalists who, by observation, are among the stupidest professionals, and are ready to sell any fashionable crap ideas.
Consensus ‘science’ isn’t science. Knowledge advances against the consensus, for example, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, etc.
“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There’s no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough.” –Michael Crichton
“The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.”
Spot on!
Galileo, Vesalius, Pasteur — just to name three.
The Mayo Clinic has a useful page on genetic dysphoria.
If one can transition and detransition at will, then it’s all bunk. I feel compassion towards people who feel their inner self doesn’t align with their outer self, however, that’s a problem best worked out with one’s therapist. Society’s rules and laws can’t be based on something as capricious as how one feels at any given moment.
The only acceptable designation is XX or XY. You came into the world with that and will leave with that, regardless of any intermediate slic ing & dicing.
To bad the left doesn’t understand that.
Except for those unfortunate individuals with Down’s syndrome, XXY.
And other developmental disorders…
*. Females have zero, Y chromosomes in any cell in their bodies. Males have an X given by the man’s mother. Father assigns sex as he passes either an X or Y at conception.
If all females have only XX in every cell what would an XXY be. Not female. If all males have at least one Y in every cell what would an XXY be?
If the barber of Seville shaves. ..
There are other chromotypes, e.g., XXY, XXXY, XXXXY, XYY. These occur at low frequencies, which is not the same as “they don’t exist”.
The major determinant of sexual choice during early pregnancy is the presence of specific genes found ONLY on the Y chromosome. No Y chromosome, you get a female. That’s the default. That said, genes on the Y can be missing, mutated, or don’t express properly at the right time (epigenetic issues). What happens then is that you can have an intersex baby born with ambiguous genitalia. 1:5000 births (don’t buy the “1:200” cited by pro-trans activists — they are counting minor defects to a male penis (hypospadias) which is easily corrected surgically.
No. This stuff wasn’t taught in your high school biology course in the ’60s. Most of it has been discovered in the past 25 years.
Those who refuse to take on the complexities of reproduction don’t impress me. For example, no passport administrator or M.D. is going to be forced to pretend intersex births don’t happen. Sio, policy that claims to lean on biological reality MUST be informed as to that reality, not some ignorant, tuned out, oversimplified version of biological reality.
We can still have bans like Tennessee passed. And get educated about intersex babies, and rare chromosome combos.
That’s not accurate.
Can’t order DNA unless a crime has been committed. If I’m wrong someone will correct me. A doc can if asked to. Birth certs can have XX OR XY if parents’ request. It’s voluntary for now.
Personally, I can’t. It’s against my religion.
It’s all experimental.
On a very basic level, sexual mental disorders cannot be effectively treated with Frankenstein-like surgery, so why would anyone condone such destructive practices on children?
Research and money?
It started with philosophers like Foucalt. It’s called queer theory, seriously. There are degrees now in queer studies. Not kidding. I hope the children with devastating abnormalities can one day accept themselves as they are and live happy healthy lives as well as possible.
SCOTUS is doing well in giving States their power as the US dissolves.
In other news, it looks like the iron fist of Khomeini is over. Free Iran!
It’s been quite horrible for many.
Justice Alito, in his concurrence, agrees with Justice Barrett although he approaches the conclusion differently. Nevertheless, there is good cause for hope on this matter. Not only is the HHS definition of male and female scientifically unassailable (for mammals including humans there are only two types of gametes and humans only have the machinery and plumbing for one – no ambiguity as transgender advocates like to consider the “intersex”) but the Court nailed it by “finding that transgender individuals are … [not] a discrete group defined by obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics.” This is why the Trump administration is correct in limiting the passport classifications to only male and female and furthermore why sports contestants should be by default segregated by sex unless explicitly inclusive (e.g. mixed tennis doubles). These categorizations (male/female) are testable (per type of gametes) if challenged. Transgenderism is more of a state of mind at a particular time and perhaps augmented by various medications and cosmetic surgery but ultimately there is no altering the individual’s DNA much less fundamental potential (or actual) gametes produced. Our laws should be, to the greatest extent possible, verifiable. Transgenderism is not fundamentally an enduring, verifiable concept.
Despite being “scientifically unassailable” the existence of Down’s syndrome individuals and hermaphrodytes destroys your argument. Unfortunately nature is rather messy.
Sadly David, genetic errors do occur which might explain your microcephaly
Those of us who are up to date in our knowledge of the basic medical sciences know to argue from the mean and not from >2-3 standard deviations therein
Estovir, let us not throw around insults. Afterall, I don’t complain about your basic stupidity and ignorance. Two of my children are practicing M.D.s and had to learn about the 1 in 1000 Down’s syndrome. I suggest you do too.
DBB
Again – You are off on an irrelevant tangent.
If absolutely everything that you claim was perfectly accurate – that would NOT allow those who do NOT have those genetic anomalies to be members of a protected class.
The existence of a tiny number of people with rare genetic anomalies, does not make people with normal sex chromosomes into a protected class.
Regardless, the left has chosen to pretend that sex and gender are distinct.
Sex is immutable, and Gender purportedly is not – according to the left it not only exists on an infinite spectrum but is not immutable.
That is pretty much by definitition NOT something that can make you part of a protected class.
Humans have a wide variety of fetishes and paraphernalia – and so long as those do not involve lack of consent and are practiced in private – they are not the business of government. But they also do NOT make you a member of a protected class.
#. Any thoughts on Sotomayor’s dissent in Skrmetti?
Haven’t read it. Have not read the decision.
There was only one possible alternative to this decision and even that was closed off almost 100 years ago by Buck V Bell.
Buck V. Bell a case possibly as bad as Dred Scott, cited repeatedly in Covid challenges, makes it perfectly clear. Government can FORCE you into the medical treatment it chooses, If it can force you, it can deny you too. That is particularly true of minors and those with diminished competence.
Is that really how it should be – absolutely not.
But That is how it is, and progresssives foist that on us almost 100 years ago.
When you decide it is constitutional to sterilize people with low IQ’s
When you decide it is constitutional to Force children to vaccinate – regardless of the wishes of their parents.
When you decide that you can force masks on people, force vaccines on people, force quarantines on people,
Force the shutdown of schools, of churches, …..
You are going to lose when the state decided you can not surgically or medically mutilate teens.
The only question here is given the LONG history of the court getting peoples rights regarding medical treatment – particularly minors and those with diminished capacity wrong – why wasn’t this a 9-0 decision ?
The correct decision in this case is that minors with the permission of their parents can receive whatever medical treatment they wish.
But that has NEVER been the position of progressives.
There is no rational world in which Government can FORCE you to vaccinate your children, FORCE the sterilization of low IQ adults,
but NOT preclude surgery on a minor that is not required by a life threatening condition.
As in so many other cases recently – the left did this to themselves.
I would love to see a truly libertarian SCOTUS,
But this left wing nonsense that the COURTS can pick and choose which medical interventions are a right and which are not,
it total nonsense.
Either you have the right to make your own medical decisions or you do not.
Neither the decision of the majority nor the dissent is truly prepared to deal with the REAL constitutional issue.
Something is only a right if you are free to do it even if the majority thinks you are stupid.
Even if the majority is RIGHT that you are stupid.
The correct and libertarian view is that your body is YOUR most important property.
You have the right to control over it.
You can not be enslaved.
You can not be denied the any drugs that you wish and can afford,
Minors can make any medical choices they wish with the consent of their parents.
You can not be FORCED into medical treatments that Government wants you to have.
You can not be denied the right to remove a fetus from your body at any time – though government CAN require that you do so in a manner that increases the probability that the feuts survives – there is a right to remove a preganancy from your body even if they results in the death of the fetus- but not a right to kill it.
And on and on.
But that is NOT what the supreme court has said pretty consistently for over 100 years.
Why should they change that NOW ? Just because in this instance a left wing sacred cow is being gored ?
Estovir,
Thank you for pointing out what should be the obvious and common sense but has to be spelled out to David.
Upstate Farmer, I thought the mentioning of microcephaly would have ended the discussion of genetic polymorphisms and their subsequent pathologies. OTOH, Benson might also have mιcrοpεnιs which could explain his Napoleon-like complex
Mιcrοpεnιs is very rare, affecting about 0.6% of people worldwide. In the United States, approximately 1.5 in 10,000 newborns are born with mιcrοpεnιs.
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/
Benson was wrong about the prevalence of Down Syndrome. It is not even close to 1 in 1000. In fact more people suffer from mιcrοpεnιs than Down Syndrome. Maybe Benson can share his experience therein considering he has 2 sons who are physicians
The lifetime prevalence of DS is increasing substantially as the global population grows. For example, in the USA, the population prevalence of DS increased from ~50,000 in 1950 (3.3 per 10,000 individuals) to ~212,000 in 2013 (6.7 per 10,000 individuals; based on unpublished data10), mostly due to improvements in childhood survival of individuals with DS11 (FIG. 2). The life expectancy of individuals with DS in the USA increased from an estimated mean of 26 years and median of 4 years in 1950 to 53 years and 58 years, respectively, in 2010 (REF.11). As of 2015, estimates of DS population prevalence have been reported for Europe (4.9 per 10,000 individuals)12, Europe excluding former Eastern Bloc countries (6.0 per 10,000 individuals), and former Eastern Bloc countries (3.3 per 10,000 individuals)12. However, a precise global estimate cannot be reliably calculated until more birth registries are created within countries and more data are available on historical and current survival of individuals with DS in different parts of the world.
Antonarakis, S.E., Skotko, B.G., Rafii, M.S. et al. Down syndrome. Nat Rev Dis Primers 6, 9 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41572-019-0143-7
Insert Cialis commercial here
Estovir
You continue to sling crude insults at David, after pontificating yesterday that crude insults on this site are the sure sign of trolls with low mental acuity and mental illness
Are you aware of the concept of HYPOCRISY?????
ATS
Estovir and many others here including myself have some difficulty resisting the urge to deliver well deserved insults to the morons on the left AS we dismantle their claims with FACTS, Logic, and Reason.
If Estovir has claimed that the use of ad homimen is a sign of low intellect – then he is wrong.
Most of us can not resist the urge to insult our opponents – event though such argument is ineffective and fallacious.
The presence of ad hominem in an argument does NOT render valid arguments based on facts, logic and reason invalid.
The use of insult as a form of argument does not make you a moron.
The absence of valid arguments is what makes you a moron, the use of ad homimen to mask the absence of a valid argument compounds that.
It is unfortunate that the distribution of IQ’s requires that a portion of people fall one or two std dev below the norms,
Calling those moron’s is an observation of fact
But I don’t have 2 sons who a practicing M.D.s.
You (stupidly) inferred it based on insufficient evidence. Tch, tch.
DBB – why does this matter ?
I know alot of MD’s – some are knowledgeable, others are morons.
That is true in every single profession.
To an increasingly small extent advanced degrees and licenses are evidence of the probability of greater knowledge in a broad field.
But there is not a single narrow subject in existance that a person of reasonable intelligence can not be “expert” in with a little bit of research.
#. Any thoughts on Sotomayor’s dissent (if you can bear it).
Estovir– “Those of us who are up to date in our knowledge of the basic medical sciences know to argue from the mean ”
But it is also the case that part of the business of doctors is to treat actual departures from the mean, such as genetic disorders or lifestyle diseases, or other diseases. You may argue from the mean [whatever that means] but your business is departures from the mean.
You may argue from the mean [whatever that means] but your business is departures from the mean.
Even pathologies follow a well established trajectory. A atheroscerosis, post-myocardial infarction, heart failure, etc all follow similar pathophysiological pathways.
There is a saying in medical education that every medical student has heard: when you hear hoofbeats think horses, not zebras. Many physicians want to think of the extravagant diganosis, thinking themselves to be a clever medical diagnostician. For example, a patient today in clinic from Latin America, under 40 yrs of age, had a very low red blood cell count and low hemoglobin. The medical resident, immediately went to cancer, leukemia, anemia, because the patient was from an exotic place. After listening to the resident’s rationale, I turned to the patient: “tell us about your LMP (last menstrual period)”. Answer: Heavy flow, 6 days in duration, not regular, days months early, other months late, since age 13. I responded that we would Rx Iron supplement first, do blood labs and take next steps as needed. I exited the consultation room with the resident, and asked, “what did you learn?” answer: “horses not zebras”. Bingo
COVID was an unmitigated disaster caused by the public health leadership. Fauci and Collins went for the zebras when it was actually nothing extravagant at all. Viruses rarely cause pathology; Polymorphisms in proteins (variation in DNA sequence) within the immune system are the main reason why people die from viruses. For example
Esposito, S., et al. (2012). Toll-like receptor 3 gene polymorphisms and severity of pandemic A/H1N1/2009 influenza in otherwise healthy children. Virology journal, 9, pp.1-8.
There is a need to have consensus in medicine because otherwise every physician would be doing their own thing. There have to be paradigms or else we would never be able to discuss cases. Imagine if every physician thought their patients had zebras instead of horses as diagnosis. Quite the mess.
I wrote earlier that David Benson had microcephaly. I was joking of course but the point was made, one he as usual missed. Microcephaly has a roughly 2% penetrance in society. These patients can live up to certain ages, much like down syndrome, but that is not to say clothing stores should be making clothing for people with microcephaly. These cases are rare, and should never take the place as normal births. Ditto for the subjective symptoms of “being born in the wrong body” (aka transgenderism)
People like Fauci, Collins and others will always reach for zebras because it makes them look like saviors. They should be ignored. In the end, medicine has as its foundation the basic medical sciences, which our understanding therein changes regularly, but medicine is interpreted as an art.
Other examples of polymorphisms when it comes to pathologies.
Sheikh, I.A., et al. (2016). Spontaneous preterm birth and single nucleotide gene polymorphisms: a recent update. BMC genomics, 17, pp.39-50.
Patin, E., et al. (2018). Natural variation in the parameters of innate immune cells is preferentially driven by genetic factors. Nature immunology, 19(3), pp.302-314.
Lim, Y.W., et al. (2018). Germline genetic polymorphisms influence tumor gene expression and immune cell infiltration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(50), pp.E11701-E11710.
Scepanovic, P., et al. (2018). Human genetic variants and age are the strongest predictors of humoral immune responses to common pathogens and vaccines. Genome medicine, 10, pp.1-13.
Goode, E.L., et al. (2002). Polymorphisms in DNA repair genes and associations with cancer risk. Cancer epidemiology biomarkers & prevention, 11(12), pp.1513-1530.
Estovir– “There is a saying in medical education that every medical student has heard: when you hear hoofbeats think horses, not zebras.”
Yes, everyone has heard that and it is generally the case. The danger on too much faith in a rubric is that it may deafen you when the hoofbeats are truly zebras. Confirmation bias. That is one of the reasons so many study results are not reproducible. There was a time when Copernicus was thought to be hearing zebras. But he was mostly right.
Young, you’re right to both accept and criticize the rubric. Physicians who rely too heavily on it miss the mark for more than one reason. They overlook real diagnoses and lose valuable learning moments.
Every patient encounter should stretch the mind. A good doctor is constantly weighing what’s most likely, what’s least likely, and what might be missed. That habit sharpens clinical thinking skills and prepares him for the full range of cases, not just the routine ones that don’t need a medical degree.
S. Meyer– Thank you. I respect Estovir but also rely on others, often you.
I had in mind an actual case related by a doctor very close to me. She had a patient who insisted on a mamogram even though following a car accident the ER doctors told her that the small lump in her chest was a cyst caused by the bruising from the accident. On examination it did seem like an ordinary cyst but a mammogram was ordered all the same despite the fact that other doctors said it was unnecessary. The mammogram revealed the cancer hiding behind the cyst.
Sometimes it is a zebra and one must remain open to unlikely but possible things without being tempted to embrace them immediately to the exclusion of the usual.
I know of another instance where a doctor wanted an MRI [I believe] on a pregnant lady and the insurer refused saying it wasn’t medically necessary. She died and autopsy disclosed a pheochromocytoma which would have been discovered and her life saved but for… The doctor was named in the malpractice suit but was dropped when the facts emerged. Sometimes zebras.
Thank you, Young and Estovir. That’s an interesting case. Think of how many MRIs are performed to find one suspected tumor, only to reveal an entirely different issue. I don’t believe medicine is solely a science. It’s also an art practiced within a statistical universe that often baffles even the most seasoned physician.
But the question we are dealing with is a LEGAL question.
Using the horses and zebras analogy, The question is whether SOME horses are entitled to special legal protection as a member of the protected class of zebras because they “identify” as zebras .
Excellent post.
Without diminishing the wisdom of your observations, the question we are dealing with is legal not about medical treatment.
It is not about the prevalence of Zebras, but whether horses that think they are zebras are entitled to special protection by the law because they identify as Zebras.
I would also go farther – you note that clothing should not be designed for the few people with some disorder.
It is there that I differ. Not about a specific disease. But about what the FREE MARKET should or should not do.
Hopefully unintentionally you are mirroring the arguments of Sen. Sanders that we would be better off with One form of deoderant and one style of sneaker, that if we mass produced everything to suit 98% of people we would somehow magically save enough to be able to feed all the poor
That is a fallacy.
Psychologist Maslow observed a hierachy of needs, and noted that humans were better able to provide fundimental needs that their focus shifted to higher order needs. That food and water come before love and self actualiztion.
Masolows observation is also an economic principle.
You can measure the standard of living of a community by what is in the breakfast food aisle in the grocery store – or using Sanders claims – what is in the shoe store and deoderant aisle in the pharmacy.
Poverty in the US today is affluence in most of the rest of the world.
The poor in the US are rich relative to the world or most human history specifically because what are unreachable luxuries in most of the world are necescities in the US even for the poor.
Not merely our ability – but the FACT that the US free market DOES provide specialized goods and services for numerous groups of 1%ers is both a natural fundtion of markets and proof of how high up maslows hierarchy americans are
What have been luxuries for most of human history and in most of the world are perceived as necescities in the US today
And that is a good thing.
Even the explosion of genders is actually a sign of out affluence.
People who are starving do not give a schiff about their gender.
I personally care as little about the gender identity of my neighbor as I do whether they engage in consensual BDSM.
The issue here is not whether people can choose their gender. But whether that choices entitles them to the constitutional protection we afford things that are not choices but immutable characteristics.
Free Markets assure that proportionate to a societies ability to afford it, we WILL tailor what we produce to reflect the CHOICES that even small minorities groups make.
But special constitutional protection by the law is only afforded immutable characteristics.
Fee Choices like choices of Gender are afforded the same constitutional protection as other free choices – not the protection we give immutable characteristics.
This is a legal blog, not a medical one.
The issue is not rare genetic anomalies.
It is not medical treatment.
It is not the duties of doctors to their patients.
All of these might be extremely important in a different context.
The question at issue here is whether transgenderism is entitled to 14th amendment equal protection clause protection.
The answer is OBVIOUSLY NO!
The question is NOT does transgenderism exist, but whether it is demonstrably immutable and subject to the special protection afforded immutable characteristics by the 14th amendment.
John: “The question is NOT does transgenderism exist, but whether it is demonstrably immutable….”
Isn’t that kind of a medical question?
I guess that is why we also discuss the medical approach.
I is a question of evidence.
There exists no evidence that any sexual preferences are immutable.
Absent that evidence they can not possibly have 14th amendment protection.
The claimed evidence of the left is the same kind of garbage they used to tell us they could thwart Covid
something that was knowably obviously mathematically iimpossible in Fed. 2020.
Has a genetic anomally been identifed as the cause of transgenderism ?
Has some hormonal abnormality during pregnancy been identified as the cause of transgenerism ?
Absent such evidence – solid not speculative evidence, transgender is entitled to no more (or less) constitutional protection than any other fetish that does not harm anyone but yourself.
DBB is divorced from Logic and Reason.
The existance of rare genetic errors, does not transform people who do NOT have those genetic errors into a protected class.
#. If you’ve read Sotomayor’s dissent in Skrmetti, any thoughts?
Actually no. The HHS definition indeed holds. It depends on ones gametes (potential or actual) which is quite clearly one of two rather than on xx/xy DNA, which can be messy in the rare cases such as you mention.
DBB – no it does not.
The existence of extremely rare genetic anomalies does not make a protected class out of those who do NOT have those anomalies.
There is either some IMMUTABLE characteristic that is present in ALL individuals who are not “gendered” as male or female, or they are not a protected class,
The argument that a tiny number of OTHERS have an immutable characteristic does NOT make those who do NOT have that characteristic part of a protected class.
Professor Turley writes, “However, the Court found that there was no discrimination on the basis of transgender status…”
And there never was discrimination. Transgenderism was never about rights nor protections. It’s ultimately about the power of the Left to overrule parents and science in the lives of nation’s children. If one can force wingnut transgenderism down a child’s throat, what can’t one do to anybody?
First read the oped about transgender in today’s (or yesterday’s) New York Times.
Sometimes the child really, really wants to change.
David,
Sometimes a child really, really wants a tattoo or swig of whiskey.
I don’t doubt there are genuine cases. Everything that can go wrong in development will go wrong sooner or later. Children are born without limbs, without brains, with confused or absent genitalia and with psychological issues. There is no reason why gender identity or sexual preference should be excluded from the long list of things that can go amiss.
However, Sweden has learned that some of the ‘affirming’ interventions done prior to or during puberty are causing a number of other medical problems such as bone fragility. The proposed treatments are still somewhat experimental and dangerous.
Even if treatment is improved there is still the problem of misdiagnosis in our present culture where a transgender child is a fashion statement or a product of social contagion.
Here is a good account of a likely genuine case.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25893681-becoming-nicole
And here is a disaster
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/41379.As_Nature_Made_Him
Tread carefully.
Young, no life-altering surgewry before the age of majority, The child will just have to struggle on, or change their mind, before then.
David,
Apart from surgery Sweden has learned that puberty blockers (chemical interventions) are causing significant medical problems. It was those treatments, I think, that led to bone fragility. There appear to be other developmental problems as well. Brains undergo changes during development and arresting those changes may also lead to unanticipated problems.
Even allowing that gender dysphoria exists but is rare, one is doing the child no favors if the treatments have worse outcomes than the malady. Jazz Jennings, for example, has reportedly had a lot of problems. With puberty blockers Jazz’ penis was too small to form a vagina and their were many complications. Or so I have read.
Personally , unless gene damage is proved it’s just another form of nymphomania and narcissistic behaviors IMO.
Truth to power.
over and out
Not all developmental problems are due to genetics. Consider thalidomide for example, or experimental Covid shots on pregnant women. There are many others.
I am fully prepare to accept EVIDENCE of a biological cause for transgenderism – even one distinct from DNA,
But you had better have something that statistically equates to causation – and no such relationship has been discovered.
And in fact the LGBTQ+ community is strongly opposed to research that might find any biological basis for any LGBTQ+ identity.
They concurrently want these things to be immutable and a choice and to legally be able to pick and choose as suits whether they are immutable or choices.
David, you have to stop reading the NYT. They are liars and idiots. Even the Northern Europeans–as bereft as they are of common sense–have dialed way-back transgender interventions for minors. The long-term suicide rate for those with transgender interventions–both adults and minors–is appalling, and that fact has changed a lot of minds about this in Europe.
Trying to determine which minor is just going through a difficult adjustment and which will actually be saved by such interventions is voodoo science. Nobody knows that, but plenty of quacks will have an opinion. That’s the heart of the problem.
Transgenderism is body dysphoria. It’s a mental illness and is highly correlated with suicide and personality disorders. Mental illnesses are not legitimate political movements. Transgenderism was probably invented by leftwing activists as a fundraising gimmick to replace gay marriage.
When someone reaches majority, they can do whatever, but in the case of minors, that kind of intervention should be rare at most.
Well, when the “child” becomes an adult it can make that decision. When I was eight I thought I was Superman and all I needed was a cap to fly. Got the cap, jumped from a low hanging roof…. straight down onto the ground. There was no flying involved. My liking Superman came to an end with the reality of “my body” hitting the ground. Children are susceptible to influence from all kinds sources. The only influence that is acceptable is their parents, unless the parents are harming the child.
You’re still Superman to your family 🙂
Nice!!!! Well played!!
LOL! Me too. Age of 4, I tied a cape (towel) around my neck and dove through our glass front door and landed on the stairs. Age 5, I also thought I was a circus performer that could tightrope. I tied some twine between my bedroom doorknob and closet doorknob, climbed up onto the glass-covered dresser, stepped and went down like a rock, cutting my hand on the glass requiring stitches. Lessons learned.
After watching Popeye, my brother and I ate some spinach and then tried to lift up our house. That was our safety-first version of the experiment since failure simply meant the house didn’t budge.
So ? Children often want to do things that will harm them or even get them killed.
There are lots of things that children want that we legally preclude them from doing.
This was an interesting and informative post from Professor Turley. For those that want some additional analysis of the Supreme Court decision, I found this linked article interesting as well: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/18/supreme-court-tennessee-transgender-care-ban-00411939
I am curious as to why the Prof thinks that the concurrence reflects the views of Justices that did not sign on to it. If it truly reflected the views of three or four other Justices, signing on to it would make the concurrence the majority opinion. Why would Justices decline to make their opinions known, and to make the concurrence the majority opinion?
That’s a good question. My best guess is that the non-joining Justices, even if they agreed, didn’t think the point being made was necessary to resolve this appeal, and they wanted to wait for a case where it would be outcome-determinative (a little legalese for you there).
Explain por favor OMFK
Garyesq2k2-Silence implies consent or agreement. Silence would be enough.
Judge Kobick: “Minor violations of the Constitution are okay.”
The President who nominated her: “Minor incursions into Ukraine are okay.”
Seems consistent to me.