ACLU Attorney Can’t Define “Woman” — STUNNING

Supreme Court’s decisive rejection of transgender lawyer Chase Strangio’s attempts to redefine biological sex exposes the fundamental incoherence at the heart of the radical gender ideology agenda threatening American families.

Story Snapshot

ACLU attorney Chase Strangio struggled to define “sex” and “woman” during Supreme Court oral arguments
Court ultimately upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming treatments for minors in 6-3 decision
Ruling limits expansion of Bostock decision and reinforces states’ authority to regulate medical procedures
Decision protects parental rights and children from experimental treatments lacking long-term safety data

Strangio’s Evasive Performance Exposes Flawed Legal Strategy

During December 2024 oral arguments in United States v. Skrmetti, Chase Strangio—the first openly transgender attorney to argue before the Supreme Court—faced pointed questioning from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson about defining fundamental terms like “sex” and “woman.” Rather than providing clear biological definitions, Strangio deferred to medical and legal standards, highlighting the circular reasoning that undermines attempts to expand sex discrimination protections. This evasion revealed the inherent weakness in arguing that gender identity discrimination equals sex discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause.

Tennessee’s Common-Sense Law Protects Children and Parents

Tennessee’s Senate Bill 1 prohibited puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgery for minors identifying as transgender while allowing the same treatments for other medical conditions like precocious puberty. The law represents rational medical regulation, not discrimination, recognizing that experimental gender treatments for confused children differ fundamentally from proven therapies for legitimate medical conditions. This distinction protects vulnerable minors from irreversible decisions they may later regret while preserving parental authority over their children’s medical care.

Supreme Court Delivers Victory for Constitutional Principles

Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion in the June 2025 decision correctly applied rational basis review, finding that Tennessee’s law classifies by age and medical use rather than sex or transgender status. The Court wisely rejected attempts to extend the Bostock employment decision to healthcare regulations, preventing judicial overreach that would have undermined state sovereignty. This ruling reinforces that medical regulation remains within state authority, not subject to the whims of activist federal judges seeking to impose radical ideology.

The three-justice liberal dissent, led by Justice Sotomayor, would have imposed intermediate scrutiny by characterizing the law as facially sex-based discrimination. Their position demonstrates the dangerous willingness of progressive justices to abandon constitutional principles in service of transgender activism. Fortunately, the conservative majority recognized that allowing treatments aligning with biological sex while prohibiting those contradicting it represents sound medical policy, not unlawful discrimination.

Broader Implications for Conservative Values

The Skrmetti decision validates the wave of protective legislation passed by over 20 states since 2021, confirming that elected representatives—not unelected bureaucrats or activist lawyers—should determine medical standards for children. This victory strengthens parental rights, reinforces biological reality, and protects children from the transgender movement’s dangerous experimentation. The ruling also demonstrates that Trump-appointed justices understand their constitutional role, refusing to legislate from the bench despite intense pressure from LGBTQ advocacy groups.

Trans Lawyer Who Asked SCOTUS To Redefine ‘Sex’ Can’t Produce A Definition When Askedhttps://t.co/k0yag2vCKe

— The Federalist (@FDRLST) December 12, 2025

Moving forward, this precedent empowers states to enact additional protections for children and families against gender ideology’s harmful effects. Conservative lawmakers can confidently pursue legislation safeguarding women’s sports, protecting single-sex spaces, and ensuring medical treatments prioritize children’s long-term wellbeing over political correctness. The Court’s refusal to grant special constitutional protection to gender identity represents a crucial step toward restoring sanity to American law and policy.