As usual, J.K. Rowling nails it.
+++
Refusing to Bow Down to a Naked Emperor
Sex Rejection News – March 7, 2026
A Supreme Court Case Shows This Debate Isn’t Going Away
This past week a ruling by the Supreme Court in Mirabelli v. Bonta highlights just how deeply gender ideology is embedded in American culture. The case arose after California policies allowed schools to facilitate a student’s gender transition while keeping parents in the dark. Teachers and parents challenged the policy in court, arguing it violated both religious liberty and parental rights.
After years of litigation—moving through federal courts and all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States—the Court ruled 6–3 that such “gender secrecy” policies likely violate the Constitution and restored an injunction blocking them statewide. The Court emphasized that parents, not the state, are the primary guardians responsible for decisions about their children’s upbringing and mental health.
One thing is clear: issues surrounding gender ideology are now deeply woven into schools, law, and public policy. The fact that disputes like this must be settled at the Supreme Court level shows that the debate will not disappear simply because one political party wins an election or two. This cultural conflict is likely to remain with us for years to come.
Courage.
Source: Thomas More Society
Truth Spoken at UN Human Rights Council Meeting
Speaking before the United Nations Human Rights Council this week, Chris Elston (Billboard Chris) argues that so-called gender-affirming care for minors is causing irreversible harm to children. He testifies truthfully that treatments such as puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries interfere with normal development, sterilize young people, and remove healthy body parts.
These practices are driven by ideological activism rather than sound science, and he describes them as an unregulated experiment on vulnerable children—many of whom have autism, mental health issues, or trauma histories. The compassionate approach is to affirm children as they are without medical intervention.
Elston also warns that government authorities are increasingly overriding parental rights in transition-related disputes and calls on United Nations member states to act to protect children’s right to grow up with their bodies intact.
View his speech here.
When Adults Let Children Define Reality
A recent Atlantic essay, “In Defense of Effeminate Boys,” argues that boys who display feminine traits should simply be accepted as a natural variation of the male sex—not pushed into rigid stereotypes or steered toward gender transition.
The author reports sharply divided reactions: harsh criticism from activist circles, but quiet support from many readers—including some inside LGBT organizations who privately share his concerns but feel unable to speak publicly.
At the center of the debate is what the author calls one of the most dangerous and consequential ideas in modern history: the belief that we must “let the kids lead.” In this view, a child’s declared gender identity overrides biological sex, and parents are expected to affirm it—even if it leads to medical interventions.
The deeper problem, he suggests, is that this reverses the role of parents. Instead of helping children understand reality, many adults now feel obligated to let children define it.
What are we doing to our children?
Companion Post
More News on Page 2
When Courts Are Asked to Forget Reality
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
+++
Celebrate God’s Good Creation