My Reaction To The Trans Athlete SCOTUS Hearing

If you know anything about cults, then you know that, inevitably, their denial of reality catches up with them in spectacular fashion. Heaven’s Gate started out innocently enough back in the 1970s. The hippies were convinced that they’d eventually ascend on board an alien UFO and transform into immortal beings with godlike powers. Members eagerly signed up because, after all, there wasn’t a whole lot of downside risk involved. In the worst-case scenario, if the “prophecy” was wrong, your life would continue as normal. Maybe you’d have to leave your family for a bit, but otherwise, no big deal. In the best-case scenario, you become omnipotent. Seemed like a win-win.

Fast-forward a few decades, and Heaven’s Gate changed the terms of the bargain a little bit. By the 90s, in order to get the godlike powers, you needed to take your own life. So it was a slight revision in the contractual arrangement. But a lot of Heaven’s Gate members went along with it anyway. They had bought into the nonsense they’d been fed. They were in too deep. They had sunk costs. They weren’t about to turn back at the last minute, as the Hale-Bopp Comet approached. So they took the drugs, died, and that was that. The cult of Heaven’s Gate was no more.

At the risk of sounding a note of optimism, we’re now seeing a very similar trend play out in the Democrat Party. After years of denying reality — as it concerns everything from human biology to DEI to Donald Trump — the seams are starting to come loose for the Left-wing political movement in this country. It’s evident, from one news story to another, that reality is finally hitting these people in the face. And they aren’t taking it well.

Consider, for example, this piece of video footage from the shooting of Renee Good. Most people missed this moment, which isn’t surprising, because there’s so much footage of the shooting online. But Laura Powell noticed a very revealing comment from Good’s lesbian friend, right after the shooting.

Listen:

I missed this clip before.

After Renee Wood’s death, someone—apparently her partner, Becca—screaming: “Why did you have real bullets?”

How could she not know law enforcement uses real bullets??pic.twitter.com/JqiBcP0mDV

— Laura Powell (@LauraPowellEsq) January 13, 2026

Credit: @LauraPowellEsq/X.com

She shouts, “Why did you have real bullets?”

She genuinely cannot understand why federal law enforcement officers would load their weapons with actual ammunition. You will not find a clearer window into the state of mind of these open-borders agitators. They truly believe that they’re playing a game. It’s all role-playing to them — from the “dispatchers” we talked about yesterday in the anti-ICE Signal chats, to the “legal monitors” who are currently running around Minneapolis to “document ICE” and prevent them from “abducting” random brown people. They desperately want to escape their uninteresting and depressing lives and reimagine themselves as French Resistance fighters circa 1942. All of their friends and social networks and schools and employers have indulged this delusion. So they naturally expected that the federal government would do so, as well. They seriously expect that, when they drive their cars directly into law enforcement, officers will simply “take the hit” and get run over, in order to keep the fantasy alive.

If you were a Democrat political strategist — and you weren’t ideological, you simply wanted your party to win — this would be a major, existential concern. We’re not talking about one or two lone wolves or bad actors here. We’re talking about a critical mass of Democrat voters who are deranged. They support attacking federal law enforcement, assassinating a conservative podcaster, taking shots at the president of the United States, mowing down an insurance executive, and gloating over the cancer-stricken body of a cartoonist who dared to say something negative about a demographic that’s sacred to them. These are symptoms of a political movement that has lost touch with reality, and now, like all cults, they’re losing touch with human decency as well. They are nearing their moment of ultimate self-destruction.

That became even clearer yesterday, during oral arguments at the Supreme Court for two cases: Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. BPJ. For background, “Hecox” refers to a man who wanted to join the women’s track and cross-country teams at Boise State University in Idaho. Meanwhile, BPJ is a 15-year-old high school student — also a male — who’s taking cross-sex hormones and other sterilizing medications, who wants to join the girls’ sports teams at school. Both Hecox and BPJ were banned from joining the girls’ teams because of laws passed by their respective states, which prevent males from competing against females.

In a moment, we’ll talk in some detail about the legal issues that are involved here. But really, this was the highlight. More than three years after my film “What is a Woman?,” the lead attorney for one of the trans-identifying athletes was asked a very basic, fundamental question by Justice Alito. He wanted to know what it means to be a man or a woman, a boy or a girl. He wanted the attorney — a very highly educated individual, who went to Harvard several times — to provide some definition of biological sex, so that we can distinguish between men and women.

This is, and always will be, the fatal question for transgender ideology. It’s a question they simply cannot answer. The entire movement hinges on the notion that a man is someone who says he’s a man, and a woman is someone who says she’s a woman. There is no definition they can offer that isn’t circular and therefore meaningless. That’s why the attorney decided to punt on the question.

Listen:

“What is a woman?” comes to the Supreme Court.

ALITO: “What is that definition, for equal protection purposes? What does it mean to be a boy or a girl, or a man or a woman?”

HARNETT: “…We do not have a definition for the court.”pic.twitter.com/QjXg5cQ2Zc

— Colin Wright (@SwipeWright) January 13, 2026

Credit: @SwipeWright/X.com

Here’s the exact transcript, just to be clear about what was said:

Justice Alito asks, “What does it mean to be a boy or a girl, or a man or a woman?”

And then, after some stammering, the response from the Harvard-educated lawyer before the Supreme Court is: “We do not have a definition for the court.”

This is the answer that the Left’s attorney gave, in a case that’s supposedly about how trans-identifying individuals are being discriminated against on the basis of their biological sex. They can’t even define the words they’re supposed to be arguing about.

This is yet another Hindenburg moment for the modern Left. It was just over a year ago that the ACLU admitted, before the Supreme Court, that there’s no evidence that butchering and sterilizing children actually prevents suicides. (In fact, as you’d expect, there’s a lot of evidence to the contrary). And now, when asked point-blank to define the concept of biological sex, the attorney for the trans-identifying plaintiff says simply, “Pass.”

In a casual debate among friends, this would be embarrassing enough. It’s a concession that you’ve lost. But in an oral argument before the Supreme Court, it’s something else entirely. The lawyer is saying that one of the most fundamental concepts in all of human biology — the distinction between sexes — is null and void. The entire concept of “biological sex” has no meaning. And if that’s the case — if we’re really supposed to disregard a category that’s easily definable, and pretend we can’t define it at all — then *nothing* is real anymore. If chromosomes and human biology suddenly mean nothing at all, then who’s to say that ICE isn’t the Gestapo, or that Charlie Kirk wasn’t a Nazi, or that Scott Adams wasn’t a racist who had it coming? As long as we’re making everything up, there are no boundaries. The delusions can run rampant. And that’s exactly what’s happening for Democrats, at a large scale.

Take, for example, this moment that took place outside the Supreme Court yesterday.

The Daily Wire interviewed a Left-wing activist. Here’s how it went:

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on transgender athlete bans. I interviewed trans activists on the steps of the high court.

One rallygoer wasn’t sure “why we split up sports” at all.

“I’m pretty sure a woman could play basketball as well as a man if she practiced.” pic.twitter.com/FowP8MhrBr

— Brecca Stoll (@breccastoll) January 13, 2026

Credit: @breccastoll/X.com

The woman states, “I’m pretty sure a woman could play basketball as well as a man if she practiced.”

This is the mainstream view of the average Leftist in 2026. Yesterday, NPR ran a whole segment about “studies” that supposedly showed that men don’t have a biological advantage over women in sports. You have to wonder why these people aren’t outside the headquarters of the NBA and the NFL right now, demanding that every team sign a female athlete, just like they have female referees now. It’s not like the NBA and the NFL are right-wing institutions. They’ll be receptive to whatever the activists have to say. And it wouldn’t be hard to make the change, either. You can just incorporate the WNBA into the NBA overnight. How many games do you think they’d win? Maybe the better question is: How many fatalities would there be before the police had to shut down the entire league?

In fairness to the Left-wing side of the argument, the ACLU made a slightly different case before the Supreme Court.

This is a section from the ACLU’s brief, which was flagged by Kristen Waggoner, at ADF Legal.

“The medical understanding of biological sex encompasses several biological attributes, including chromosomes, genes, gonads, hormone levels, internal and external genitalia, and other secondary sex characteristics. Transgender women may possess some of these biological attributes typical of women. … The Act’s definition [of biological sex] excludes the key criterion (circulating testosterone levels) that would have allowed certain transgender women to play on women’s teams.”

So the ACLU is taking issue with Idaho’s definition of biological sex, which includes three criteria: “reproductive anatomy, genetic makeup, or normal endogenously produced testosterone levels.” According to the ACLU, anatomy and genetics aren’t the “key criterion.” The really important metric, in their view, is the level of testosterone in your system. This is another way of arguing that “sex” has no real meaning because anyone can change it at any time. All you need to do is take some hormones, and you’ll change sex.

At the moment, it doesn’t look like the Supreme Court is going to side with the ACLU on this. The laws banning men from competing against women — laws that never should have been necessary in the first place, in a sane society — will likely be upheld. That means that, contrary to what the ACLU is arguing, these bans don’t violate the 14th Amendment or Title 9. Alas, there is no constitutional right for men to pummel women in every available sport. Who would’ve thought?

Just to give you an idea of how absurd these arguments have been, at the lower court level, an appeals court in San Francisco ruled that the laws amounted to sex discrimination because, “athletes on girls’ and women’s teams – but not on boys’ and men’s teams – are subject to invasive sex verification procedures to implement the law.”

In other words, the schools were checking to make sure that no males were trying to sneak onto the girls’ team. But they weren’t checking to ensure that females didn’t try to sneak onto the men’s team. And in the eyes of a federal appeals court in San Francisco, that amounted to unconstitutional sex discrimination. But really, it’s common sense. Obviously, you don’t have to check to see if girls are sneaking their way onto the boys’ teams, because the girls would have no reason to do so. They’d get absolutely demolished if they tried, and no team would want to pick them. Even if you pretend that the female athlete could somehow pass as a male — which has never happened in human history — the fact that they’d get completely smoked on the field would be a pretty big clue.

Separately, there is a line of argument from the Left and the ACLU that, if a particular male trans-identifying athlete can demonstrate that he, specifically, has no biological advantage over women, then he should be able to play with women, even though he’s a male. In other words, if a boy has been chemically castrated from a young age and destroyed his muscles and bone growth, to the point that he can prove he’s as weak as the average female athlete, then he should be allowed onto the girls’ team. That’s called an “as-applied” challenge to the Idaho law. This is how far the trans movement has sunk, by the way. They’re trying to argue, in court, that they should be considered females if they do enough irreversible damage to their bodies. According to this argument, a female is nothing but a severely diminished male.

That brings us to this clip of Ketanji Brown Jackson, where she brings up “as-applied” challenges, as only Ketanji Brown Jackson can.

See if you can decipher whatever this is:

???? BREAKING: DEI Justice Ketanji Jackson is DEFENDING men in women’s sports with an utter word salad at the Supreme Court

“Is treating someone transgender, but does not have, because of the medical interventions and the things that have been done, who does not have, uh, the… pic.twitter.com/QTkpru6EqO

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) January 13, 2026

Credit: @EricLDaugh/X.com

“Is treating someone transgender, but does not have, because of the medical interventions and the things that have been done, who does not have, uh, the same, uh, threat to physical competition and safety and all the reasons the state puts forward – that’s actually a different class, says this individual. So you’re not treating the class the same. And how do you respond to that?”

And then the lawyer doesn’t respond to it, because he has no idea what she’s talking about. It’s total gibberish. Ketanji Brown Jackson is the perfect illustration of black woman privilege. There is no group in the country more privileged than black women. The most mediocre among them — black women who can barely read or speak — are elevated to the most prestigious positions purely, solely, because they are black women. Ketanji Brown Jackson is not qualified to be a high school principal, let alone a Supreme Court Justice. And yet here she is.

And for what it’s worth, this wasn’t the only word salad from Jackson during yesterday’s arguments.

Here’s another moment where she stumbled a bit, as she tried to define what a woman is:

Listen to how ridiculous Ketanji Brown Jackson sounds when she tries to discuss what a woman is. She embarrasses herself in every oral argument. pic.twitter.com/2K0jmVHCBl

— Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) January 13, 2026

Credit: @ClayTravis/X.com

Putting aside the nonsense at the beginning of that clip, which no one in the courtroom could comprehend — She’s outraged that we’re limiting our definition of girls to girls who were “assigned” female at birth. First of all, anyone using the phrase “sex assigned at birth” is someone who should never be taken seriously, at all, for any reason. Doctors don’t “assign” your sex, any more than they “assign” your height or your weight. It can’t be overemphasized that, just 15 years ago, no one on the planet would’ve been confused about this. These are all terms that were invented yesterday, for all practical purposes. And now we have Supreme Court justices parroting the lingo, as if it’s all completely logical and well-settled science, even though it makes no logical sense. (Some of the conservative justices did it, too, by the way, including Amy Coney Barrett, the supposedly conservative female justice on the bench. She kept referring to “trans boys” and “trans girls.”)

If you’re not in the throes of the reality-distortion field of the Left, then you immediately notice how these people stammer on, nonsensically, whenever they’re talking about basic concepts. You realize, right away, that they’re full of it. At the same time, they really think they’re onto something. They think they’re winning the argument.

But they’re not winning the argument. And with every high-profile meltdown like this, from Minnesota to Washington, that becomes obvious to more and more people. Yesterday at the Supreme Court, The Daily Wire’s team noticed that the pro-reality side far outnumbered the trans activists — although, true to form, the trans activists were much more obnoxious.

Watch:

Not what I was expecting, but the number of people at the Supreme Court here to save women’s sports far outnumbers the trans — though the trans side is definitely louder.

Massive showing. pic.twitter.com/BcsN5LabvJ

— Brent Scher (@BrentScher) January 13, 2026

Credit: @BrentScher/X.com

You have to keep images like this in mind, especially as we head into a very important election season. Cults do not last forever. Eventually, they burn themselves out. Reality hits hard. And then the cultists — the ones who are still alive and functional, anyway — will resume their normal lives. They’ll forget all about how they pretended they were members of the French Resistance in downtown Minneapolis, and how men can transform instantly to women, and how it’s totally normal to drive your car into a federal law enforcement officer. They’ll become normal, just as quickly as they went insane.

Keep in mind, it was just a decade ago that CNN, of all places, was running puff pieces for ICE. They were bragging about getting “exclusive access” to immigration raids. An account called “Maze” just unearthed a video clip, which may now be restricted by X, but we found the clip:

Credit: CNN via @mazemoore/X.com

The clip is from early 2016, at the end of the Obama administration. The liberals at CNN were showing off the cool hardware that ICE uses on their immigration raids. It’s a perfect illustration of how fake and ephemeral all of this outrage is that we’re seeing right now. Leftists know that ICE isn’t suddenly targeting brown people because of the color of their skin or kidnapping anyone. The narrative is an obvious fabrication. It’s inauthentic. And for that reason, it’s not sustainable.

Nor is it productive. Just last night, ABC News reported that: “For the first time in at least half a century, the U.S. experienced negative net migration in 2025.”

They cite a study from Brookings, which states, “We estimate net flows of negative 295,000 to negative 10,000 for the year. Continued negative net migration for 2026 is also likely.”

So for all the wailing and “ICE Watching” and domestic terrorism these people are engaging in, the Left is failing. Meanwhile, as important leftists scream into the void, millions of people — the majority of Americans — are thrilled by what they’re seeing. And with every viral meltdown from a Leftist agitator, and every word salad from the DEI justices on the Supreme Court, Team Sanity is finally making the comeback we’ve all been waiting for, and which this country has desperately needed for a very long time.

* * *

WATCH Matt Walsh’s groundbreaking documentary “What Is A Woman?” on DailyWire+.