Hi everyone!
I've been rather dilatory in my writing duties lately, a fact that weighs on me more than I care to admit. My emerging music career has taken center stage, consuming my energy and focus in ways I hadn’t anticipated. Between composing, rehearsing, and performing, the hours I once dedicated to crafting words on a page have dwindled. It's not that the passion for writing has faded—far from it—but the demands of pursuing music have left me juggling priorities, often at the expense of my literary ambitions. Still, I hope to find a better balance soon, as both creative pursuits hold a deep place in my heart.
But the real reason I am writing is to inform you all (in case you haven’t heard already) that we have a decision to be made by the United States Supreme Court that may, at long last, hand us the victory we’ve been hoping for.
I speak of none other than United States v. Skrmetti.
On December 4, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in U.S. v. Skrmetti, a case challenging Tennessee's prohibition on gender-affirming care for minors. Over the course of nearly two and a half hours of intense discussion, the parties vigorously debated the appropriate legal standard to apply, whether the state had a compelling justification for its efforts to restrict such care, and the fundamental meaning and intent of the Equal Protection Clause under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
If the Court rules in favor of Tennessee, it could pave the way for states to deny gender-affirming care to more than one-third of transgender youth across the U.S. Alternatively, a ruling in favor of the Petitioners could lead to various outcomes, including an outright victory invalidating Tennessee’s law or a remand to the lower court for further review. Regardless of the decision, the ruling will establish a new precedent for how transgender issues are addressed under the Constitution.
Over 20 state attorneys general have launched a fraud investigation into the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) over its contentious claim that puberty blockers are “reversible.” Such assertions were bound to collapse under scrutiny. “If trans activists hadn’t sued red states for enacting protections against gender medicine for minors, it’s unlikely the AGs would be investigating the AAP now,” writes Unyielding Bicyclist on the Bad Facts Substack. “After all, the AAP’s recommendations on puberty blockers would effectively be moot in those states due to the bans.”
Although the case centers on Tennessee’s ban on pediatric transition, “Alabama has uncovered a medical, legal, and political scandal that will be analyzed for decades,” states the brief. Through a series of disclosures obtained during discovery in the 11th Circuit federal court, Alabama has revealed the scientific underpinnings of pediatric ‘gender medicine’ to be a politically motivated facade.
The brief asserts that “the federal government, ‘social justice lawyers’ from prominent activist organizations, and self-proclaimed experts at the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) collaborated to eliminate age restrictions for sterilizing chemical treatments and surgeries. Central to their strategy was the WPATH Standards of Care 8 (SOC-8), a supposedly evidence-based set of guidelines designed to help their lawyers persuade courts to codify what was once considered unthinkable into law.”
In their haste to challenge Alabama's law, several high-profile litigators opposing pediatric transition bans became embroiled in a judge-shopping scandal and now face accusations of attempting to defraud the court. Alabama has also criticized the U.S. Department of Justice for questionable tactics, alleging that it “strategically sought certiorari [Supreme Court review] in a case with only a preliminary record and no discovery” in Tennessee, while simultaneously attempting to block discovery in Alabama by citing the mere filing of a cert petition with the Supreme Court.
Why does this case matter? The Court is likely to address whether the concept of the ‘trans child’ qualifies as a quasi-suspect class—a distinct group warranting heightened protection by federal courts. The outcome of this case is not influenced by the election of Trump, as the Court's schedule of hearing cases and issuing rulings operates independently of political changes. A significant ruling is anticipated in 2025, given the typical timeline for the Court to deliberate and release opinions after hearing arguments.
An adverse ruling is likely to have ripple effects on the broader legal framework surrounding 'gender identity.' Law firms are reluctant to take on losing cases, so if this area of law is seen as a losing battle, there will likely be less interest in pursuing such cases. Future litigation by the gender advocacy movement may become more narrowly focused on issues related to discrimination against ‘transgender’ Americans.
In other words, Skrmetti may decide once and for all that “trans kids” aren’t a thing.
I strongly hope that the Supreme Court affirms and upholds Skrmetti. The decision represents a crucial moment in protecting the rights of minors and safeguarding the integrity of medical practices. By affirming the ruling, the Court would send a clear message that the state has a legitimate interest in regulating the administration of gender-affirming treatments to minors, particularly given the uncertainty and lack of long-term evidence surrounding their effects. Upholding the decision would help ensure that children and families are not subjected to irreversible medical procedures without a thorough consideration of all risks involved. It would also reinforce the need for careful, evidence-based decision-making in matters that have profound and lasting consequences on young people's health and well-being.
This may be it, folks - our long fight over the last decade may finally be seeing the light at the end of the tunnel.
As we close out this year and look ahead to the next, I want to take a moment to wish all of you a Happy New Year. May 2025 bring new opportunities, personal growth, and moments of joy and reflection. Whether you’re facing challenges or celebrating successes, I hope the year ahead offers a fresh start and the chance to pursue your goals with renewed energy and optimism. Here's to embracing the new year with hope, resilience, and a positive outlook. Cheers to a bright and fulfilling year ahead!
Happy new year William and all 🥂
It will be devastating if the Court finds that so-called trans kids are a "quasi-suspect class—a distinct group warranting heightened protection by federal courts." It will turn Skrmetti into the new Roe v Wade, an epochal decision that could take decades to undo.
The problem is that at the moment the centrist sex realist movement is in its infancy. It is still next to impossible for gender critical individuals to fully state their case in the mainstream media. When trans activists captured the institutions by stealth, they also conditioned trans allies to view all critics as hateful transphobes. It has worked exceptionally well. If the evangelical right takes the lead in challenging the case, they will likely alienate almost everyone left of center, including moderate Democrats. Also, if their arguments are rooted in scripture and morality, they'll neglect the subtler reasons why trans kids don't deserve heightened protection. That is because they're an imaginary class that was engendered by trans activism that emerged from pernicious post-War philosophy. It ain't natural.
I hope that Amy Coney Barrett's maternal instincts (her litter puts most mama cats to shame) do not blind her to harm caused by transitioning minors; that the Court's notorious misanthrope Clarence Thomas will remain true to form; that Samuel Alito recognizes gender identity ideology as another product of the secular culture he hates; that Neil Gorsuch heeds the advice that is usually given to those who have fallen into a hole of their own making (i.e. Bostock), to stop digging; and that Brett Kavanaugh and John Roberts don't rule in favor of trans kids in an attempt to stanch the hemorrhaging of the high court's political capital since the Dobbs decision.
It is fortunate that the evangelists of gender ideology are now facing determined opposition from the combined forces of 20 attorneys general. I hope they clean their clock.
The political backlash against Trump's election might present sex realists with new obstacles. Oregon's incoming attorney general, who is yet another member of the progressive machine that has a stranglehold on politics in Salem and Portland, is putting together a panel of experts to help him mount a counter-offensive against MAGA assaults on all the usual victims - undocumented migrants, etc. - including the trans and genderqueer. It would be surprising of this were not occurring in other states controlled by Democrats. It is premature to speculate about the significance of this development until it becomes clear whether and how the Trump administration plans to roll back the many ill-gotten gains of trans activism.