Category: Gender Ideology

Posted on

When Courts Are Asked to Forget Reality

The Supreme Court: By Jesse Collins – CC 3.0

In a healthy constitutional republic, courts interpret laws; they do not redefine reality. Judges are charged with reading legal texts, not resolving questions of basic human biology that ordinary citizens have understood for centuries. Yet our cultural moment has produced an inversion: courts are increasingly asked to decide whether obvious truths about sex still count as truths at all.

That tension was on full display during yesterday’s Supreme Court arguments challenging state laws in West Virginia and Idaho that reserve girls’ and women’s sports for girls and women. These cases are not really about athletics. They are about whether the law must affirm a fiction—namely, that biological sex is either unknowable or irrelevant.

Why Female Sports Exist at All

Sex-segregated sports exist for a reason. Biological differences between males and females are real, measurable, and consequential—especially in competitive athletics, where strength, speed, and endurance matter not only for fairness but also for safety.

Female sports were created precisely because competing against males would disadvantage women and girls. To claim that excluding males from female sports is discriminatory misses the point entirely. The distinction is not arbitrary; it is grounded in biology.

That is why these cases almost always involve males seeking access to female sports rather than the reverse. Males who identify as female are not barred from sports altogether. They are barred from competing as females.

Sex Discrimination—or Biological Reality?

The challengers argue that laws preserving female-only sports constitute unlawful sex discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX. But this argument collapses on contact with reality.

Sex-based distinctions are not inherently unjust. The law has long recognized that some forms of sex discrimination are legitimate when they reflect real biological differences rather than irrational prejudice. This is why sex-based classifications receive less stringent judicial scrutiny than race-based ones. Biology is not bigotry.

Female-only sports discriminate on the basis of sex by design—and rightly so.

The Question That Ends the Debate

During oral arguments, Justice Alito asked the question that cuts through all the legal gymnastics: What does “sex” mean for purposes of equal protection and federal civil rights law? How can courts determine whether discrimination has occurred if they cannot define the category at issue?

The response was astonishing. The challengers conceded that they had no definition. Sex, we were told, has no fixed legal meaning.

That should have ended the case.

When Congress prohibited discrimination “on the basis of sex,” it used a word with a clear, public meaning—one rooted in biology and universally understood when those laws were enacted. If that definition governs, laws protecting female sports are plainly lawful. If federal law is silent, then states are entitled to define sex reasonably for themselves. Either way, a biological definition cannot violate federal law.

The Absurd Alternative

The only alternative offered is worse: a system in which schools must police hormone levels, medical histories, and bodily alterations to determine who qualifies as female enough to compete. Such a regime would be invasive, unworkable, and deeply unjust—especially to girls.

The truth is neither complicated nor cruel. Boys are not girls. Men are not women. A legal system that cannot say so is not advancing equality; it is abandoning reality.

Companion Post

Reality Restored: A Federal Court Upholds the Truth About Sex and the Human Body

+++

Celebrate God’s Good Creation

Posted on

California Court Affirms Parents, Truth, and the Moral Duty to Protect Children

A federal court in California has issued a decisive ruling that cuts through the fog of ideology and reasserts a truth as old as Scripture itself: parents are not optional in the lives of their children. In striking down “gender secrecy” policies in public schools, Judge Roger Benitez affirmed that neither the state nor school bureaucracies have the moral or constitutional authority to hide a child’s struggles from those entrusted by God with their care.

This case also exposes a troubling political and moral contradiction. Rob Bonta, California’s Attorney General—widely seen as positioning himself for a future gubernatorial run—defended these secrecy policies by arguing that parents must be excluded “for the child’s protection.”

The court rejected this premise outright, noting that it presumes parents are the primary threat to their own children.

From a Christian perspective, this logic is deeply inverted. Scripture consistently affirms parents as the primary moral guardians of children, not the state. A government that trains children to withhold intimate truths from their parents is not practicing compassion; it is undermining trust at the most foundational human level.

The irony here is impossible to miss. Progressives rightly condemned the Catholic Church for decades for fostering cultures of secrecy that isolated children from parental protection and allowed harm to flourish. Yet many of those same voices now defend gender secrecy in public schools—policies that likewise instruct children to conceal sensitive information from their parents. Secrecy was once understood as a danger. Now it is celebrated—so long as it serves an ideological end.

Judge Benitez ordered California to include the following statement in all relevant materials:

Parents and guardians have a federal constitutional right to be informed if their public school student child expresses gender incongruence. Teachers and school staff have a federal constitutional right to accurately inform the parent or guardian of their student when the student expresses gender incongruence. These federal constitutional rights are superior to any state or local laws, state or local regulations, or state or local policies to the contrary.

This ruling restores moral clarity. Care for children and respect for parents rise or fall together. When secrecy ends, truth—and genuine protection—can finally begin.  

Companion Post:

Solution: Make Parents Opt-IN to LGBTQ+ Content at School

+++

Posted on

Why Liberals Should Take the HHS Review Seriously

In a striking and carefully argued Newsweek editorial, bioethicist Moti Gorin and psychiatrist Kathleen McDeavitt urge liberals to reconsider their assumptions about pediatric “gender-affirming” medical care. Their appeal is unusual not because it is partisan, but because it is not: both authors identify as liberals and were contributors to the recent review issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services titled Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria: Review of Evidence and Best Practices.

The authors begin by acknowledging widespread distrust of HHS—especially among progressives after years of controversy surrounding public health institutions. But they argue that skepticism should not excuse disengagement, particularly when the evidence concerns vulnerable children.

Their central claim is straightforward: many organizations and professionals trusted by the political left have embraced a medical model for pediatric gender distress that is not supported by strong scientific evidence.

A Fragile Foundation for a Sweeping Medical Practice

The editorial traces the origins of today’s “gender-affirming” approach to a small and methodologically weak Dutch study involving just 70 adolescents. Most of the participants were same-sex attracted, and all who proceeded to medical transition were rendered sterile. One patient died from surgical complications, others were excluded from analysis due to adverse outcomes, and some were lost to follow-up. Yet despite these limitations, the study became the foundation for a sweeping international medical practice involving puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and sometimes surgery.

Gorin and McDeavitt argue that serious ethical concerns have since been minimized or obscured. They note reports of unfavorable findings being buried, including completed suicides among minors placed on hormones. They also highlight the role of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), which removed age limits for medical interventions under political pressure while failing to warn patients about risks such as permanent sexual dysfunction.

The HHS review, the authors explain, reached conclusions that should alarm anyone committed to justice and evidence-based medicine. The risks documented in the review include infertility, impaired sexual function, decreased bone density, delayed cognitive development, and irreversible surgical consequences.


Progressive Countries Lead the Retreat

Importantly, the authors point out that this reassessment is not driven by conservative politics. Some of the first countries to restrict pediatric medical transition were progressive social democracies, including Finland and Sweden, followed by the United Kingdom. These nations conducted systematic reviews and concluded that the benefits of medical transition for minors were unproven and outweighed by the harms.

The editorial closes by proposing an alternative: non-medical therapeutic support that helps young people manage distress without rushing them into irreversible interventions. Most adolescents, the authors note, will see gender-related discomfort resolve over time. While the issue remains politically polarized, polling shows that a majority of Democratic voters already oppose pediatric medical transition.

Gorin and McDeavitt’s plea is simple but bracing: liberals should read the HHS review for themselves (link above). Doing so, they argue, is not a betrayal of progressive values—but an affirmation of them.

+++