This Could Be The Beginning Of The End For Gender Ideology

The Supreme Court held oral arguments yesterday in one of the most important cases in this country’s history. It’s a case that will decide whether, under the U.S. Constitution states are allowed to outlaw child sterilization and mutilation in the name of gender ideology.

In any other generation, this question would not have made it to the Supreme Court in the first place. The question itself would’ve been bewildering to anyone who heard it, for the simple reason that sterilizing, castrating and mutilating children is one of the greatest evils imaginable. Even some of the most barbaric civilizations throughout history wouldn’t contemplate it. You don’t need a law degree to understand that. You don’t need a convoluted analysis under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. You just need to be a moral person. You need to be sane and have a basic, working understanding of human biology.

One of the main reasons that we’ve come to this point is that trans activists have successfully intimidated everyone else into silence. Trans activists aren’t capable of making coherent or rational arguments in defense of child butchery, because child butchery is indefensible. But they’re very capable of shouting down anyone who opposes their ideology. And predictably, that’s what they tried to do to me, when I spoke yesterday at the rally outside the Supreme Court.

Here’s part of my remarks in front of the Court, to give you an idea of how loud it was:

As you can probably tell, trans activists were shouting into megaphones the entire time I was speaking. It happened to the other speakers, too. The trans activists showed up in large numbers outside the court with the intention of making it difficult for us to speak and be heard. And that’s what I expected would happen. Leftists are very good at mobilizing protesters to show up and be as obnoxious as possible. They’re certainly much better at that than we are.

But they’re still losing this fight. They’re losing in the state legislatures. They’re losing in the culture. And after yesterday’s oral arguments, it’s pretty clear that they’re about to lose in the Supreme Court, as well. Every indication we have at this point is that a majority of the justices will vote to uphold Tennessee’s ban on child mutilation. And if that happens, it won’t just protect millions of children in Tennessee and the many other states that have implemented similar bans. It will also clear the way for a national ban on these grotesque practices, which have ruined the lives of untold numbers of children.

The reason we can be confident in the outcome of this case is that, one by one, each of the arguments from the Biden DOJ and the ACLU collapsed under questioning from the conservative justices in the majority. And when the liberal justices tried their best to defend gender ideology, somehow they only managed to make matters even worse. We predicted that something like this would happen. When they can’t shout you down — when they actually have to construct arguments and respond to objections — trans activists tend to fall apart.

That was the case for the ACLU’s lead attorney in this case, “Chase Strangio,” a female who “identifies” as a man. To give you some idea of the kind of person Chase Strangio is, she’s posted a variety of emotionally charged, unhinged content on social media over the years, including this video in which she declared “f*** the court.” So she’s not exactly out of central casting for the job of arguing in front of the Supreme Court. Watch:

This is the esteemed orator that the ACLU selected to argue in front of the Supreme Court yesterday — someone who says “f*** the court” and then uploads it on social media. In case it’s not obvious, this is yet another DEI selection. Chase Strangio identifies as trans, so they put her up there to get a headline out of it. She’s the “first trans attorney to argue at the Supreme Court,” and so on. That’s the logic.

And it didn’t go very well. Like all DEI hires, Chase Strangio crashed and burned. At one point during oral arguments, for example, Justice Alito pressed Strangio on the question of whether so-called “gender-affirming” treatments actually help prevent suicides in children.

This is a question that goes to the very heart of the trans agenda, as well as the merits of this case. A core argument in the ACLU’s petition that was filed with the Supreme Court is that child sex-changes are necessary because they save lives. It’s also one of the most common refrains we hear from trans activists. They use that line, “Would you rather have a living son or a dead daughter?,” implying that it’s better to castrate a child than lose that child to suicide.

WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show

They don’t use this line because it’s accurate or grounded in reality. They use it because it’s often very effective, if only as a tool of emotional blackmail. And if you don’t challenge the premise of the question — which is false — you might fall for it, and give the trans activists what they want.

But Alito didn’t accept the false premise. And Strangio had no follow-up. Instead, she admitted that there’s no evidence that child “sex changes” actually reduce the number of suicides in children. Watch:

Alito: The Cass Report finds no evidence that gender affirmative treatments reduce suicide.

Strangio: "There is no evidence in those studies that this treatment reduces completed suicide… There are multiple studies that do show there is a reduction in suicidality."

Stunning… pic.twitter.com/N2vHtJye26

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) December 4, 2024

This is what always happens when trans activists have to answer a follow-up question. Every single time, this is what you get. They’ll make some outrageous claim, and then when you ask them for evidence, they don’t have any. They’ll shout you down, if they can. Or in this context — when they can’t shout down a Supreme Court justice — they’re forced to admit that they were lying.

What happened here is that Justice Alito noticed that the ACLU barely mentioned the Cass Report in their brief before the Court. They put the Cass Report in a footnote and didn’t address it in any meaningful way. So Alito picked up on the fact that they wanted to bury evidence they didn’t like. And then when they were called out on it, they had to admit that the Cass Report was devastating to their whole argument. Here we have the ACLU’s lead attorney admitting that, according to the data, so-called “gender affirming care” doesn’t actually reduce the rate of suicides among young people.

So what does this “gender affirming care” accomplish? Chase Strangio goes on to claim that it reduces the number of young people who say they want to kill themselves. But that doesn’t really make sense, either. If you really did have some magical treatment that greatly reduced the number of people who say they want to kill themselves, you’d think that, naturally, the number of suicides would go down, too. But apparently, that’s not happening. It’s enough to make you wonder if anything “Chase Strangio” is saying is remotely true. It also raises questions about how exactly we’re measuring the “suicidality” of young people.

But even if this new argument did somehow make sense, it’s still a massive retreat from the previous position of the Biden DOJ, the ACLU, and trans activists. They claimed for years that child sex-changes were necessary “life-saving care,” and now they’re finally admitting they have no evidence to support that contention. They expected us to believe an absurdity — that disfiguring a child would save his life — on the basis of statistics and “expert opinions” that were completely fabricated.

This was a devastating moment for the ACLU, the DOJ and the trans agenda in general. The reason the ACLU and the Biden DOJ are almost certainly going to lose this case is that the Supreme Court, in its current makeup, is reluctant to override the democratic will of the voters on account of “experts” and “data” that are clearly unreliable. And what Strangio just admitted is that the experts and data are indeed, highly unreliable if not outright lies.

In his questions during oral argument, John Roberts made it clear that this is a big problem for the government’s case. The alleged “consensus” among medical organizations on this issue has collapsed, largely because of countries like Sweden and the UK. And that makes it very hard for the Supreme Court to overturn the democratic will of the people.

Justice Kavanaugh made the same point. Watch:

The other major problem for the DOJ and the ACLU is that, in their understanding, anyone can become “transgender” at any moment. That’s the entire concept underpinning gender ideology: If you want to be a woman, just say you’re a woman, and it’s true. If you change your mind at any point, you can switch back. No problem. Someone can be a man and a woman on the same day, if they want.

This is an attractive proposition for narcissists, but practically in this case, it creates a lot of issues. That’s because a key argument that the ACLU and the Biden administration are making is that Tennessee’s ban violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, on the grounds that it supposedly treats people differently depending on an immutable characteristic — namely their sex.

Here’s the ACLU’s argument. They say that, under this law, if you’re a boy and you need puberty blockers to address a medical issue like precocious puberty, then you can get puberty blockers. But if you’re a girl and you want puberty blockers in order to stall your physical development in order to affirm your sense of “gender identity,” then you can’t get them. Therefore, they say, the law is discriminating on the basis of sex.

There are about four major problems with this. First of all, the purpose of the medical intervention is vastly different in those two cases I just mentioned. The boy in that example wants to get puberty blockers in order to address the condition of an abnormally premature puberty, while the perfectly healthy girl wants puberty blockers to suppress the normal and healthy functions and development of her body.

So the law is treating people differently here — but not based on their sex. It’s treating them differently based on the kind of treatment they want. And it’s normal for a law to distinguish between situations like that, because certain kinds of medical interventions are far more dangerous than others. They’re not the same thing. If a child has cancer, the benefits of giving that child chemotherapy probably outweigh the risks. If a child is healthy with no problems at all, then giving that child chemotherapy is child abuse. It’s the same concept. 

Another problem here is that, in every other Equal Protection case that involves sex discrimination, one gender can clearly say that they’re losing out in some way. There’s usually some obvious injury to a member of one gender, and not another. For example, maybe a man is denied a job, while a woman is hired, solely on the basis of sex. But that’s not the case here either. The Tennessee law applies to both girls and boys equally. It’s not negatively affecting either group. In fact, it’s positively affecting everyone. It’s protecting all kids, regardless of sex. That was an observation Clarence Thomas made at one point during the arguments.

Additionally, Clarence Thomas also pointed out that, if you think about it, what the ACLU is seeking in this case would actually produce its own form of sex discrimination. The ACLU wants the plaintiff in the case (a girl who identifies as a boy) to get drugs that would enable her to undergo a “traditional male puberty.” But if the ACLU won the case, boys wouldn’t get the same result. They wouldn’t be able to get puberty blockers to undergo a “male puberty.” And as Clarence Thomas pointed out — using the ACLU’s own logic — that’s a form of sex discrimination.

The fourth fatal problem with the ACLU’s argument is that, as Justice Alito observed, “trans identity” is not an immutable characteristic. Through the miracle of gender ideology, someone can supposedly become a man in the morning, and then revert back to being a woman in the evening. In other words, so-called “trans status” is not fixed. And only immutable, fixed characteristics — like race — can qualify for protection under our civil rights laws. That’s why this was such a big moment in oral arguments yesterday. Strangio was eventually forced to admit that, indeed, “trans identification” is not an immutable characteristic. Watch:

Once again, it all devolves into word salad. So Chase Strangio’s big day at the Supreme Court didn’t go so well, to put it mildly. No one could have seen that coming, but that’s what happened.

Actually, it’s pretty clear that everyone saw it coming, which is why the Biden administration’s Solicitor General, Elizabeth Prelogar, did most of the arguing yesterday. In her remarks, she conceded that some of this “gender-affirming care” results in the sterilization of children. But she said it was worth it.

Here’s her reasoning:

This is the so-called “forced puberty argument.” She’s saying that Tennessee’s law is what “forces” children to undergo puberty, even though they might not want to do that:

What this law is doing is saying we’re going to make all adolescents in the State develop the physical secondary sex characteristics consistent with their gender or with their sex assigned at birth.

Well, no. The law in Tennessee isn’t making anyone develop secondary sex characteristics. That’s what happens naturally. That’s the normal series of events that occurs as children get older. What the Biden administration wants to do is to interrupt the natural development of children with completely untested chemicals that will sterilize them. They’re trying to reframe our position as the “unnatural one” because they recognize, at some level, that it’s grotesque and extremely dangerous to conduct medical experiments on children. 

In her questioning, Sonia Sotomayor pretended not to realize that. She tried to claim that there’s no difference between castrating a child, and giving a child an Aspirin. Watch:

Rice: "How many minors have to have their bodies irreparably harmed for unproven benefits?"

Sotomayor: "Every medical treatment has risk. Even taking Aspirin." pic.twitter.com/I4k8ujr5Hl

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) December 4, 2024

This is one of those moments where we’re all supposed to pretend that Sonia Sotomayor isn’t an idiot. We’re all supposed to pretend that she’s a “wise Latina” who adds much-needed diversity to the court. It’s all so degrading — and intentionally so. A JV debate team would disband in shame if they ever made this argument. And this is the highest court in the land.

Aspirin is one of the most tested medicines on the planet. We know every side effect. We have all the information there is to have about it. We know what ages can safely take it, and what ages cannot. Aspirin does not pretend to change an immutable characteristic like gender. There is no “Aspirin Report” in the UK that shows there is no benefit to taking aspirin. But to Sonia Sotomayor, taking an aspirin and castrating yourself in order to affirm a subjective “gender identity” are totally the same thing. No differences detected.

But Sotomayor didn’t stop there. As a noted feminist, Sotomayor went on to compare a girl with “unwanted hair” to a girl with “unwanted breasts.” She actually drew that comparison, without missing a beat. And then the lawyer for the state of Tennessee informed her that those are two very different things. Watch:

I am honestly floored by how dumb some of these Supreme Court Justices are.
pic.twitter.com/e6WWxpJf5M

— Champagne Joshi (@JoshWalkos) December 5, 2024

If you understand these oral arguments as a competition among the DEI justices to out-dumb each other, then it starts to make a little more sense. 

That’s especially true after you see what Ketanji Brown Jackson did. She went ahead and compared Tennessee’s law to a ban on interracial marriage. This is the same justice who, lest we forget, couldn’t even define the word “woman” during her confirmation hearing. And now she’s saying that, in effect, there’s no difference between protecting kids from castration, and preventing white people from marrying black people. Watch:

Ketanji Brown Jackson just compared bans on sex changes for kids to bans on interracial marriage. pic.twitter.com/XOOZRLOI2N

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) December 4, 2024

This is what you get when you select justices based on race. They’re only capable of talking about race. They have to shoehorn every single issue into some racial framework, because it’s all they know. It got them to this point in their careers, so what else are they going to do?

In this case, not that it really needs to be said, but there is no comparison between Tennessee’s ban on child castration and Virginia’s long-defunct law banning interracial marriage. For one thing, Virginia’s law prevented adults from marrying based on their immutable characteristics.

Tennessee’s law, as we discussed earlier, does not. It prevents minors from undergoing experimental sex changes — not because of their immutable characteristics, but because these attempts to change their sex are actively harmful to them. They’re also an attempt to do something that’s impossible. They’re an affront to basic biology.

MATT WALSH’S ‘AM I RACIST?’ NOW STREAMING ON DAILYWIRE+

As far as I can tell, based on these oral arguments, this is looking like a 6-3 decision in favor of Tennessee. The best the ACLU can hope for is that the Supreme Court somehow finds that this law does indeed discriminate on the basis of sex. If that happens, the case goes back to the Sixth Circuit for a re-run of their analysis, with a slightly higher standard of review of the law. But even that outcome appears to be very unlikely at this point.

For the most part, the conservative justices asked good questions and demonstrated their skepticism of gender ideology. There were some moments that raised questions — like when John Roberts referred to Chase Strangio as “Mister,” even though she’s a female. There was also the fact that no conservative justice directly refuted the unscientific, made-up terminology that the Biden DOJ used, like “gender assigned at birth” and so on. The justices mostly accepted some of the definitions and framing of the trans activists, which they shouldn’t have done.

But in general, we got exactly what we wanted. The trans activists appear to be losing this fight, and they know it. We are nearing the culmination of the battle that we began when we exposed Vanderbilt and the broader gender industry. All these activists can do now, as they did yesterday, is scream into the abyss. In the meantime, we will continue fighting to ensure that these people won’t be able to ruin the life of another child. If this case goes the way we expect it to, it’s not the end of the fight. It’s the start of an effort to ban this butchery nationwide, and then to defeat gender ideology entirely. We can start by cutting all federal funding to the gender industry. And from there, we go on. We push for a total ban.

This is a victory that seemed extremely far away just a few years ago. But based on what just happened in the Supreme Court, it’s now clear that finally, we’re very close to achieving it.