The Trans Agenda Was Just Dealt A Fatal Blow

There are two accurate ways to look at yesterday’s Supreme Court decision upholding Tennessee’s ban on so-called “gender-affirming procedures” for minors.

The first way is to see the ruling as a historic victory that protects millions of children all over the country. It’s the culmination of several years of effort by lawmakers, conservative legal groups and everyday citizens — including many of you reading this. When I published my investigation into Vanderbilt’s medical center just under three years ago, exposing their depraved practice of mutilating children, we received an enormous amount of backlash from Left-wing activists and many corporate media outlets. They called us bigots because we opposed the sterilization and castration of children. They harassed us and threatened to kill us. But it didn’t work. We urged Tennessee lawmakers to pass a law outlawing this barbarism, and they did. Yesterday that law was upheld. And as a result of this decision, all 27 states that have similar bans will be able to keep those bans in place. We won, and we should celebrate that. That’s the first way to look at this ruling.

The other way of looking at this decision, which is also correct, is to see it as a crushing defeat for trans activists and gender ideology as a whole. It was also an unforced error. The ACLU did not have to support this lawsuit and force it through to the Supreme Court. They didn’t have to put a woman pretending to be a man named “Chase Strangio” in front of the highest court in the land to humiliate herself, and her entire organization, in the name of “diversity” and “trans representation.” They didn’t have to insist on the obvious absurdity that children have a Constitutional right to their own castration. They could have simply allowed states like Tennessee to ban the chemical and physical castration of minors, without insisting on a legal fight. For once in their lives, these activists could’ve adopted a relatively moderate position, by their standards.

But because they chose to go after the Tennessee ban with the same level of derangement that they approach everything else, now everyone can see — as outlined in a lengthy opinion that’s now binding legal precedent in every court in the country — just how intellectually bankrupt and fraudulent their whole movement truly is. The best arguments that the Left-wing justices could muster were clearly nonsense. They were destroyed by the majority opinion, as we’ll discuss in a second. Therefore, by bringing this case, they have opened the door to a much more extensive, nationwide ban on child butchery. And that’s exactly what needs to happen next.

Already, you can tell that the gender cult has lost a lot of the mainstream support that it needs to survive. If you look at some of the coverage of this decision across the corporate press, you won’t find anyone defending the idea that children should be castrated or mutilated. Instead, you’ll find segments like this one.. The best they can do is tell viewers that, if they want to get some “gender-affirming care,” they’ll need to head to the coasts. Watch:

All of the coverage like this — even from Left-wing outlets like MSNBC or CNN — has the same kind of comments below them. In every case, virtually every comment supports a total ban on so-called “gender-affirming care.” And even the news anchors, as you can tell, aren’t really pushing the trans argument anymore. There’s not a lot of energy left in this movement.

To the extent that any Leftists are upset about this ruling, they’re clearly unhinged. They discredit themselves.

Here for example is a post from a man using the name “Alejandra Caraballo.”

So it’s not exactly the most persuasive line of reasoning, especially since the Tennessee law was indeed the result of “democracy.” The voters’ elected representatives decided, after seeing all of the evidence, that child mutilation is not a good thing. And then they banned it. But somehow, in the mind of “Alejandra Caraballo,” that’s a sign that democracy doesn’t exist and that America should be destroyed.

And by the way, for what it’s worth — which admittedly isn’t much these days — “Alejandra Caraballo” teaches at Harvard Law School. According to his LinkedIn, he’s an instructor in the “cyberlaw clinic.” Once again, no matter how much contempt everyone has for institutions like Harvard, they somehow find a way to degrade their reputation even further. The president who plagiarized everything she wrote was actually the best they have to offer, apparently.

There were other demented reactions along these lines. Scroll through “Blue Sky” and you’ll run into a bunch of them. Here’s one example:

There’s a lot of people claiming that the Supreme Court is evil, that “we have to keep fighting,” and so on. And then there’s the guy saying, “About time we assassinate the Tennessee lawmakers.”

So they’re not exactly having the best “pride month,” you might say. They know that their movement has been exposed. They know they have no credibility in the eyes of the public. They know that 90% of the public opposes this insanity. So in response, they’re doing what insane people do: They’re lashing out and embracing domestic terrorism.

Even at the Supreme Court, the Left-wing justices couldn’t articulate a coherent justification for striking down Tennessee’s ban. They really tried their best to contort facts and logic to fit their preferred outcome, as they always do. But in this case, they did an especially poor job of it.

WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show

There were two main arguments that the liberal justices used. First, they claimed that Tennessee’s ban amounted to unconstitutional discrimination on the basis of sex. Here’s the reasoning from Sonia Sotomayor, the wise Latina who openly admits she was a DEI hire:

After puberty begins, doctors may prescribe these same medicines to adolescents whose physical appearance does not align with what one might expect from their sex identified at birth. An adolescent female, for example, might receive testosterone suppressors and hormonal birth control to reduce the growth of unwanted hair on her face or body (sometimes called male-pattern hair growth). … Physicians prescribe these same medications to transgender adolescents. … What does that mean in practice? Simply that sex determines access to the covered medication.

To restate the logic, she’s saying that female children sometimes receive hormones and testosterone suppressors if they’re suffering from a rare condition that causes “male-pattern hair growth.” But under Tennessee’s law, male children can’t receive hormones and testosterone suppressors if they say they’re transgender. Therefore, Sonia Sotomayor concludes, the male child is being discriminated against on the basis of his sex.

It’s hard to even read that without realizing it’s maybe the dumbest thing ever written by a sitting Supreme Court justice in the history of this country. It actually manages to refute itself. No, in that analogy, the male child isn’t being discriminated against because of his sex — he’s being told he can’t have that medication for the purpose of “changing his gender,” because it’s impossible to change his gender. Meanwhile, the girl is allowed to have the medications because she’s trying to treat a completely separate issue, which is male-pattern hair growth. In other words, the law isn’t treating boys and girls differently. It’s stating that, whether you’re a boy or a girl, if you’re under the age of 18, you don’t get to take hormones and puberty blockers for the purpose of affirming your subjective sense of gender ideology. Period. It applies to both sexes equally.

Sotomayor is arguing that if you prescribe medicine for one purpose, you must then prescribe it for any other purpose at all. But of course every medication on the planet is prescribed on for a certain set of very limited circumstances, and not for any other circumstance. So the whole argument is asinine. Along the same lines, Sotomayor tried to compare Tennessee’s ban to Virginia’s old ban on interracial marriage. But again, the comparison doesn’t work. Under Virginia’s law, your race would directly determine who you could marry. If you were black, you couldn’t marry a white person. If you somehow became white, then you could get married. But Tennessee’s law does not work that way. Tennessee’s law doesn’t care if you’re a boy or a girl. Whatever your sex happens to be, under Tennessee law, you are barred from accessing so-called “gender-affirming care” as long as you’re under the age of 18.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

For whatever reason, the combined intellect of the three female liberal judges on the Supreme Court simply could not grasp this concept. They were really, really committed to their analogies, even though all of the analogies had the exact same problem. It’s a good reminder why, in general, your argument should never rely on analogies. It’s easy to draw a comparison to some terrible thing, and then say “this situation is just like that.” But it’s not easy to ensure that the comparison makes sense.

The only reason to become completely dependent on analogies is if you know your underlying argument doesn’t make any sense. And that’s obviously the case here. They desperately don’t want to talk about the reality of “gender-affirming care,” so they resort to these very strained comparisons. At one point, Sotomayor even cited a bunch of “Yale philosophers,” who compared the Tennessee law to an imaginary rule that prohibited minors from attending certain religious services. It was all over the place.

To be as fair as possible, here is the part of Sotomayor’s opinion where she tries to explain the point of these analogies.

Here’s what she writes:

The very ‘medical purpose’ [that the Tennessee law] prohibits is defined by reference to the patient’s sex. Key to whether a minor may receive puberty blockers or hormones is whether the treatment facilitates the ‘medical purpose’ of helping the minor live or appear ‘inconsistent with’ the minor’s sex.

In other words, she’s saying that sex is part of the definition of whether someone is seeking so-called “gender-affirming care.” And that’s true, depending on what definition the Left feels like using on any given day. But it doesn’t mean that the law therefore discriminates on the basis of sex. There are plenty of laws that relate to the idea of sex in some way, which are not discriminatory on the basis of sex. The majority opinion gives the example of a California insurance program that decided not to cover “certain disabilities resulting from pregnancy.” That was a decision that only affected women, because only women can get pregnant. But that doesn’t mean the insurance program was discriminating against women. They had independent reasons to drop the coverage. Therefore, the decision was not discriminatory.

To be clear, I’m only going through all of this, in so much detail, to highlight how utterly terrible the Left’s best arguments are. Even using their own frameworks — where sex-based discrimination is the worst thing imaginable, and it’s terrible to discriminate on the basis of “transgender status” (whatever that is) — their arguments still fall apart, on their own terms.

Once you get past this whole constitutional discussion on whether Tennessee’s law discriminates on the basis of sex, their position gets even worse. That’s because, even if this law discriminates on the basis of sex or “transgender status”, you have to ask: So what? Sometimes you’re allowed to discriminate against certain groups of people, if the point is to protect the basic functioning of society. Why do you think many gay men can’t donate blood? Why do you think children can’t operate heavy machinery? Discrimination based on “sex” doesn’t make a law illegal. It just makes it less likely that courts will defer to the judgement of legislatures.

There were concurring opinions by Alito, Amy Coney Barrett and Clarence Thomas that get at this point. We all understand this concept, intuitively. Sometimes you have to tell a certain group of people that they don’t get to have everything they demand, simply because they claim to belong to a protected class. And that’s especially true for so-called “trans” people who, as Amy Coney Barrett pointed out, are a nonsense category that’s constantly changing. Someone can be “trans” one day, and “not trans” the next. Therefore, Barrett wrote, the whole idea of “transgender status” as a “protected characteristic” is incoherent. The majority didn’t go this far — they didn’t say one way or the other whether “trans status” could be protected — but they should have.

Part of the problem here is that the Supreme Court reached a disastrous decision in the so-called “Bostock” case five years ago, where they held that it’s illegal under Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act to fire someone because of their so-called “gender identity,” which is a meaningless concept. So the court’s so-called conservatives (including Roberts and Gorsuch) have already given up some ground here, and now they’re having to find a way to work around their own prior rulings. And even in this case, they’re still acting like “trans children” is a real category, which it isn’t.

For his part, Clarence Thomas had no problem saying yesterday that the Bostock decision was a disaster, and that “Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act” should never be allowed to overrule the Constitution. And the constitution does not protect invented characteristics like “gender identity.” Thomas’ concurrence is worth reading in its entirety, but here’s probably the most important paragraph. This is the part where he establishes that, whatever “standard of review” you use in court, and whether or not you conclude that “sex discrimination” was involved, the fact remains that mutilating children is wrong and the science behind it is fake. And that’s the most important issue of all.

Setting aside whether sex-transition treatments for children are effective, States may legitimately question whether they are ethical. … Deference to legislatures, not experts, is particularly critical here. Many prominent medical professionals have declared a consensus around the efficacy of treating children’s gender dysphoria with puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgical interventions, despite mounting evidence to the contrary. They have dismissed grave problems undercutting the assumption that young children can consent to irreversible treatments that may deprive them of their ability to eventually produce children of their own. They have built their medical determinations on concededly weak evidence. And, they have surreptitiously compromised their medical recommendations to achieve political ends. … States are never required to substitute expert opinion for their legislative judgment, and, when the experts appear to have compromised their credibility, it makes good sense to chart a different course.

Thomas also devoted large portions of his opinion to exposing the fraudsters at WPATH, whose members have secretly admitted that children can’t give informed consent to life-altering procedures like this. They’ve also changed their alleged “medical guidance” on orders from the Biden administration. This is the organization that virtually all major medical organizations and hospitals cite as the “Gold standard” for transgender “healthcare,” even though they’re essentially cultists.

 From Justice Thomas’ concurrence:

Unsealed documents reveal that a senior official in the Biden administration ‘pressed [WPATH] to remove age limits for adolescent surgeries from guidelines for care of transgender minors’ on the theory that ‘specific listings of ages, under 18, will result in devastating legislation for trans care.’ Despite some internal disagreement, WPATH acceded.

The rest of the majority opinions document how many other countries — from Finland to Sweden and the UK — have determined that castrating children is inappropriate. There’s no scientific consensus, in other words. And that’s a very big deal for two reasons.

First of all, the consensus of the medical community is a key factor in lawsuits for malpractice. If doctors aren’t following the consensus, they become liable for, say, ruining the life of a child by pumping his body full of unnatural hormones. Secondly, insurance providers rely on the “standard of care” in determining what procedures to cover. Now that the highest court in the country has stated, quite definitively, that mutilating children does not reflect any “standard of care,” these insurance companies have good reason to stop funding these procedures.

Matt Walsh/What is a Woman?

At the same time, we shouldn’t have to wait for malpractice lawsuits, or for insurance companies to discover the concept of ethics. There’s a bill right now, introduced by Marjorie Taylor Greene, to ban child castration and mutilation at the national level. Republicans control all three branches of government. There is no reason why this legislation shouldn’t be passed immediately. And if Democrats threaten a filibuster, or to shut the country down, let them do it. Let them go on national television and explain why doctors should be allowed to carve up the bodies of young children. Let them explain why protecting children from castration is the same thing as banning interracial marriage. Have Cory Booker cry and bang his podium and talk about how gay he is, all in service of discredited procedures that the overwhelming majority of Americans find repulsive and immoral.

It would mark the end of the Democrat Party. For that reason alone, now that the gender cult is thoroughly embarrassed and disgraced during a month they used to celebrate, Republicans must pass this legislation immediately. And if it seems like a long shot, consider this: Three years ago, no one thought my Twitter thread would lead to a Supreme Court case that would decimate the child mutilation industry. No one thought we could shut down extremely well-funded gender clinics at Vanderbilt and all over the country. I had my doubts myself, if I’m being honest. But if we could do that, then passing a law while we control both houses of Congress and the White House should be pretty easy by comparison. This is the time for a nationwide ban on the child mutilation industry.

Now that the Supreme Court has dealt these cultists the biggest setback they’ve ever experienced, we have the opportunity to finish them off. All that’s necessary is for elected Republicans to do what we did three years ago, which is to put aside any concerns you might have about what other people might think about you, and how they’re inevitably going to attack and harass you in ways that well-adjusted people would find inconceivable. Do what’s right and necessary after so many years of this unfettered insanity and barbarism, and shut down the gender mutilation industry for good.

* * *

WATCH: Matt Walsh’s groundbreaking documentary “What Is A Woman?”