In Its Conversion "Therapy" Ruling, the Supreme Court Draws the Wrong Line in the Sand

Conversion "therapy" has long occupied a fraught space in public debate, and rightfully so. Historically, it referred exclusively to therapeutic efforts at changing an individual's sexual orientation. Many critics argued that not only they are ineffective, but they actively harm the patient. More recently, the term conversion "therapy" has expanded to include gender identity. Over the past decade, a growing number of states banned such practices for licensed therapists working with children. 

The Supreme Court threw a wrench in that approach. In a decisive 8-1 ruling, the Court struck down Colorado's conversion "therapy" ban, holding that even controversial or disfavored therapeutic conversations are protected by the First Amendment. In other words, the government does not get the ultimate say on what viewpoints a therapist is allowed to express. 

At first glance, this case seems like a familiar clash between freedom of speech and government regulation. Many are inclined to either view this simply as a free speech victory or a rollback of protections for vulnerable children, pick a side, and go on their merry way. Neither of these gets at the core issue here. The harder truth to accept is that this ruling lumped together two fundamentally different issues. Until those are disentangled, it will be hard to draw the line where it actually belongs. 

Stop Messing With Kids' Sexual Orientation

In 2018, I wrote about how conversion "therapy" was harmful for those trying to change sexual orientation. The research for sexual orientation-specific conversion "therapy" spans decades. Multiple studies, including the 2009 APA Task Force review and various retrospective reviews, show that the practice fails to change sexual orientation and is associated with such harms as depression, low self-esteem, and suicidal ideation. 

For minors, the state has a narrow, legitimate role in preventing harm. Just as we intervene in response to murder, fraud, arson, or assault, protecting children from conversion "therapy" is defensible, even under a libertarian framework. 

I have argued that adults should be allowed to make decisions I might not agree with, such as having children before marriage, entering a polygamous marriage, regularly smoking cigarettes, eating fast food daily, or not exercising. I also believe that as long as they are not harming anyone else, adults should make whatever decision, even if it harms themselves. Conversion "therapy" for an adult is not an exception. As for a minor, that is a whole different matter, as previously discussed.  

Gender Identity: Affirmation Isn't a Prescription

Unlike the decades of research on sexual orientation-specific conversion "therapy", the evidence base on gender identity-specific conversion therapy is much thinner and only goes back to 2018. Plus, many studies lump together sexual orientation and gender identity conversion "therapy," which means that research on gender identity-specific conversion "therapy" is scant. Meanwhile, the practices that so many call "affirming," whether that is social transitioning, puberty blockers, hormones, gender reassignment surgery, are experimental, risky, and often harmful:

• A Finnish study released just this week showed that transgender children have increased psychiatric morbidity as a result of gender reassignment surgery. 
• The Cass Review, which is the most comprehensive review on the subject, concluded that gender affirming medical interventions do not improve long-term outcomes, reduce suicide risk, or reliably address gender distress. 
• A long-term Dutch study found that over 80 percent of adolescents grow out of gender dysphoria by adulthood without intervention, which is to say that most adolescents who experienced gender dysphoria were never truly transgender to begin with. 
• England banned puberty blockers because they are shown to have some nasty side effects, like lower fertility, decreased bone density, deteriorating mental health, and a lower IQ.
• The American Society of Plastic Surgeons refused to endorse gender reassignment surgery because of insufficient evidence for long-term benefit, concerns about irreversible harm, and performing these procedures on developing bodies without clear, robust evidence. 

Here's an unpleasant truth. If gender "affirming" "medicine" is untested and harmful, then pressure to delay or question a minor's self-professed gender identity is not inherently evil. If anything, it is most likely a protective measure. Given that gender identity itself is conceptually incoherent, and medical interventions to affirm it carry real risk, withholding affirmation could plausibly spare children unnecessary harm. 

Protecting Children without the U.S. Becoming a Nanny State

Many of the Justices in this ruling framed this strictly as a First Amendment issue, claiming that the Colorado law was regulating speech based on viewpoint. If it were mere abstraction, I would wholeheartedly agree. Some might see my stance on conversion "therapy" in conflict with me defending abstract speech, such as opinions, insults, or political rhetoric. That apparent paradox dissolves once we recognize a core principle: speech is protected unless it is inseparable from conduct that reliably and objectively causes harm. 

Last year, I presented my case that words are not violence because abstract speech by itself does not cause objective harm. In 2018, I argued for the protection of hate speech because "hate speech" is often a cudgel for "opinion I dislike." I even argued for the First Amendment rights of pro-Palestine protesters protesting peacefully, which is quite the litmus test because I view them as the modern-day equivalent of Nazis. Where I drew the line with the pro-Palestine crowd was when their speech crossed over into the realm of harmful conduct. 

That concept applies here. Conversion "therapy" is not abstract speech or merely expressing an idea. It is a professional intervention in which a therapist uses speech as a tool with the goal of changing a child's sexual orientation. Even if conversion "therapy" has a component of speech, it is an embedded professional practice that has a direct, predictable record of causing harm. 

Conversion "therapy" is not the only scenario in which speech is a component of harmful conduct. With fraud, speech is inseparable from the act of taking someone's money under false pretenses. With direct threats and incitement, the harm is embedded into the speech itself. With perjury on the stand, the false statements can cause harm and legal or financial injury. Doctors or therapists giving advice or treatment that foreseeably harms clients is considered malpractice, and conversion "therapy" for sexual orientation falls under that category of malpractice.  

From a libertarian standpoint, this distinction is ultimately consistent. We protect words when they are abstract, subjective, and speculative in harm (which is the vast majority of words), but we allow narrow state intervention when speech is inseparable from predictable, harmful action. Regulating conversion "therapy" is not an attack on free expression. It is a principled defense of vulnerable children against a practice with a long-documented record of harm. At least for sexual orientation, it would sit comfortably alongside other recognized exceptions to the First Amendment.....if the Supreme Court ruled as such. 

The Wrong Line in the Sand

Instead, the Court chose to frame the case purely as a free speech issue while missing the crucial distinction between abstract expression and professional conduct that causes predictable harm. By choosing to protect conversion "therapy" for both sexual orientation and gender identity, the Court drew the wrong line when they should have drawn the line by protecting the speech for gender identity only.  

This decision has another dimension beyond the harm caused to children. It is a reflection of a broader problem in how LGBT discourse has evolved. By lumping sexual orientation together with gender identity in legal, social, and research contexts, the unique experiences and vulnerabilities of gay people ends up being overshadowed. The result is policies, rulings, and societal practices that leaves gay people more harmed, a concept I discussed in 2024 when arguing for the gay rights movement to divorce from the trans rights movement.

For sexual orientation-specific conversion "therapy," SCOTUS' ruling is a missed opportunity to defend minors while protecting libertarian principles, especially when it comes to the intersection of freedom of speech and the nonaggression axiom. It is a reminder that conflating distinct issues can have real-world implications for those who should, even under a libertarian framework, be protected. 

X Marks the Spot? Why Driver’s Licenses Shouldn’t Be Gender Identity Statements

Last week in Kansas, Senate Bill 244 went into effect. One notable aspect is that this bill mandates that people enter bathrooms in government buildings according to their biological sex. What is interesting is that an individual violating this law can face a civil penalty of $1,000. But that is not the provision I want to cover today. This bill also requires that driver's licenses list biological sex instead of gender identity. 

For transgender individuals, this is not an abstract policy change. It alters a document that they use for multiple activities, which includes driving a vehicle, renting a car, interacting with police, applying for a loan, boarding an airplane, picking up a package, registering at a hospital, checking into a hotel, and signing a lease. Critics of this bill argue that it imposes stigma, creates daily friction, and opens transgender people to harassment and discrimination. 

One criticism of this bill that I will agree with is that there was next to no grace period given for transgender people to acquire a new driver's license. It is true that a retroactive invalidation with no grace period is harmful and an example of poorly drafted legislation. Bureaucracies should do their utmost to not create avoidable chaos, although that might be too big of an ask. 

Yet beneath the procedural misstep is a more fundamental issue, mainly that a driver's license is a form of legal identification, not a canvas for personal self-identification.  As I explained last year, gender identity lacks clear operational boundaries and is not something that the government can consistently or meaningfully verify due to its incoherent and subjective nature. Because gender identity cannot be defined or verified with consistency, it is an unsuitable basis for a legal document and has no practical utility. 

By contrast, biological sex is a stable and verifiable category that reduces ambiguity and keeps administrative processes consistent and secure. While not as crucial as a photo, name, or date of birth, a biological sex indicator on a driver's license still serves functions that gender identity cannot engender (pun intended). 

• Interactions with law enforcement: Driver's licenses are used to confirm identity during traffic stops, match individuals to warrants, and identify suspects from descriptions. Physical descriptions often include biological sex, which correlates with bone structure, facial structure, height and weight distribution patterns, and voice patterns. While an officer may rely most heavily on the photo, name, and date of birth, biological sex remains a verifiable descriptive element that gender identity does not consistently provide. 

• Medical and emergency contexts: Driver's licenses are not designed as medical records, yet biological sex can occasionally aid identification in emergencies and provide context for drug metabolism differences, sex-specific conditions (e.g., ovarian cancer, testicular emergencies), baseline cardiovascular differences, and possible pregnancy. Biological sex has clinical relevance, whereas gender identity does not serve this function.

• Data integrity. Since it acts as an official source for administrative statistics, driver's license data has a downstream effect of feeding into accident statistics, crime reporting, public health research, and transportation safety analysis. Biological sex is empirically measurable and allows accurate sex-based comparisons. Gender identity does not provide such consistency for data analysis.

A driver's license is an administrative document for legal identification. Because the driver's license serves as a foundational identification document in modern civic life, the categories of information it contains should be objective, stable, verifiable, and resistant to self-attestation alone. Since gender identity is a subjective understanding of the self, it has no consistent administrative application. 

In addition to being an objective category, the characteristic should be necessary for identification or administrative purposes. Otherwise, why not add political affiliation, sexual orientation, religion, or Myers-Briggs type on a driver's license? Because legal identification is not meant to capture the fullness of who we are as individuals. 

It serves the narrower purpose of anchoring a person to a stable, administrable record within a broader legal system. The more the state drifts from objective categories toward interior self-conception, the less it identifies and the more it validates someone's self-perception. A driver's license is for identifying people, not a self-affirmation tool. 

When identification becomes affirmation, it stops identifying anything at all. Validating someone's perception of self is not something the government should be in the business of doing because a category that means whatever anyone says it means, especially when it is not grounded in reality, ultimately means nothing. 

Plastic Surgeons Draw a Line in the Sand on Youth Gender Surgery...with a Scalpel

Over the past several years, the growing number of medical interventions aimed at treating pediatric gender dysphoria has made its way towards the center of public policy debates. The theme of children's welfare has come up in debates on banning video games, subsidizing school lunches, universal preschool, same-sex adoption, and Drag Queen Story Hour. This is hardly the first time that "Think of the children" has been used as a rallying cry to advance a cause. The Supreme Court's decision in Skremetti v. United States last year was a reminder that we do not have to take the word of activists at face value. Last week, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) released a statement saying that youth gender surgery is not evidence-based. This statement exposes another crack in the framework that assumes that youth gender surgery is a safe practice and settled science. 

Why This Statement Is Surprising

At face value, you would not think that ASPS would sign such a statement. If anything, you would assume that ASPS would be in favor of more youth gender surgery because they have a financial interest in performing more elective procedures. They would be the last medical association that you would expect to be against it, and here we are. And maybe that is the significance of this statement. 

Plastic surgeons are sensitive to malpractice exposure. About 1,000 of these youth gender procedures are done annually, which is small considering the revenue they make from breast augmentation, face lifts, or liposuction. The procedure revenue from youth gender surgery is dwarfed by the liability risk. Plastic surgery is already in a delicate place with regard to reputation. Plastic surgery is seen as elective, cosmetic, or sometimes exploitative. Performing irreversible procedures on minors that lack an evidence base is a recipe for legal disaster and would only create reputational risk. 

The Evidence and the Risk

This statement brings another concern to light: the plastic surgeons are the ones who are charged to treat patients who might deal with long-term side effects. In its statement, ASPS highlights the irreversible bodily changes, including loss of fertility and altered sexual function, as well as typical surgical risks like infection and the need for revisions. Then there are the mental health and developmental outcomes that are poorly understood. ASPS highlights the Cass Review or systematic reviews from European countries that have been carrying out these procedures for longer than the U.S. In addition, they add a systematic review by the ASPS and the 2025 HHS report to the evidence base. 

When the people doing the surgery say that "the evidence is not there," it is insight that would be gained from lived clinical experience. Plastic surgeons profit from the surgery, tend to have a strong belief in bodily autonomy, and routinely defend elective procedures. If they are recommending that individuals under 19 do not undergo the procedure, perhaps there is a very good reason for that recommendation. 

Adults versus Adolescents

There are a number of things that I think are not good life decisions, whether that is having children before getting married, entering a polygamous marriage, smoking cigarettes, eating fast food every day, or not exercising. I also believe that as long as they are not harming anyone else, adults should be allowed to make whatever decisions about their lives, regardless of what I or anyone else thinks about the decision. This issue is not about adults making a decision to undergo these surgeries with informed consent nor is this about whether transgender individuals should be treated with dignity (for the record, they should, just like everyone else). 

We are talking about adolescents here, and the ASPS statement underscores an obvious point. Adolescents do not have the understanding (mens rea), maturity, or capacity to make such a decision. When a procedure is irreversible, the evidence base is against doing the procedure, and the patient is still in a developmental stage in their lives such as adolescence, this stance is both prudent and necessary. 

The Ideological House of Cards

This ASPS statement is not simply a victory for evidence-based science or maybe a chance that people can trust that the medical field will value evidence and safety over ideology. It is another example of how gender ideology is teetering like a house of cards. The MTF transgender athlete debate exposes contradictions between self-identity and biological reality. Gallup polling shows that more adults are in favor of transgender individuals playing on sports teams that correspond with their biological sex (currently at 69 percent). More adults are uncomfortable with pronoun usage, with discomfort increasing from 48 percent of adults in 2021 to 54 percent of adults in 2025. 

Meanwhile, acceptance of someone undergoing these procedures has declined from 46 percent in 2021 to 40 percent in 2025. Pew Research polling data from 2025 shows that 49 percent of Americans believe transgender individuals should use the bathroom corresponding to their biological sex, as well as 47 percent of adults who believe teachers should not teach students about gender identity. Add the medical risks and irreversible consequences for minors highlighted by ASPS, and it's clear as day that when ideology trumps evidence, this house of cards is not merely wobbly; it is poised to collapse. At the rate that it is going, it is simply a matter of when and how hard of a fall it will be. 

Excluding MTF Transgender Athletes From Women’s Sports Protects Women’s Sports and Freedom of Association

The debate over transgender athletes in women's sports has come to the forefront of the culture wars in the United States, sitting at a peculiar intersection of fairness, biology, identity, and law. Supporters of allowing male-to-female (MTF) transgender athletes to compete in women's sports frame the issue as one of inclusion and fairness to transgender people. For supporters, exclusion is seen as unfair, stigmatizing, and for some, a form of bigotry. Opponents argue that women's sports exist to offset the biological differences between the two sexes, and that inclusion of MTF athletes in women's sports undermines the fairness and purpose of sex-segregated competition. A recent Gallup poll shows that 69 percent of Americans believe that transgender athletes should only play on sports teams that match their biological sex.

The question of which version of fairness should prevail is no longer an abstraction or one confined to an isolated incident here or there. Last week, the Supreme Court heard two cases on the matter: Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. These cases are important because they touch upon how competing priorities are balanced in public institutions. While women's sports began in the late 19th century, they were enshrined in law with Title IX, which is a U.S. law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in any education program or activity receiving federal funding, including athletics. 

Since these cases involve public schools, any eligibility rules are going to be framed in terms of government power, as well as taking a side on a culture war issue. The laws prohibiting MTF transgender athletes from participating in public school athletics are the legal question at hand for the Supreme Court. I want to look at this issue more generally of whether MTF transgender athletes should be allowed to participate in women's sports from a lens of freedom and fairness. 

Why This Is Not a Ban

First, I want to point out that excluding MTF transgender athletes from playing in women's sports is not a ban. From a public policy standpoint, a ban prohibits someone from participating in an activity altogether. An eligibility rule, by contrast, defines who qualifies for a particular category while leaving open other avenues for participation. As we will see later, there is a reason why women's sports impose eligibility criteria. 

MTF transgender athletes are not prohibited from competing or participating in sports altogether. There are alternatives available. They are still free to participate in men's sports, co-ed leagues, or recreational leagues, as well as in private clubs or leagues that allow them access. This policy is context-specific, proportional, and based on relevant characteristics, making it a case of principled exclusion rather than oppression. 

Importantly, this discussion is about structures and rules, not the worth of any individual. Transgender people should be treated with dignity, just like everyone else. At the same time, biological women should also be treated with dignity, which is why they should be allowed to compete on a fair and level playing field, even if that means excluding MTF transgender athletes. 

Freedom of Association, Positive Discrimination, and Why Exclusion Happens Daily without Malice

When we hear words like "discrimination" and "exclusion," they are framed in a negative context and are often seen as something that we should not do. Freedom of association is an individual's right to join or leave groups voluntarily, and also determines who we spend our time with. For freedom of association to work, you need positive discrimination.

The fact of the matter is that we accept positive discrimination as a normal and daily part of life, even without realizing it or viewing it as malicious. We naturally prioritize our loved ones, whether it is family or friends, over strangers when it comes to our time, resources, and attention. We choose whom to befriend, whom to date, whom to hire (if you run a business or are a hiring manager), and whom to help, all at the exclusion of others. Here are a few examples of when that discrimination comes into play in real life: 

• Religious institutions typically define participation or membership based on religious identity. It is not a denial of religious freedom of non-practitioners of a given religion, but protecting the associational and spiritual integrity of the community. 
• Ethnic clubs, heritage societies, and cultural centers often limit membership to members of the in-group. Since the goals of such organizations are cultural preservation, support networks, and shared experience, inclusion of outsiders can undermine the purpose that the group is meant to provide. 
• Professional associations and fraternities/sororities define membership based on criteria, whether it is profession, skill, or gender. The exclusion protects the purpose and experience for intended members.
• With charitable giving, you give to a cause that means something to you. By extension, you choose to not give to other causes, i.e., you exclude other charities from your giving. Being forced to give to all causes equally would violate your freedom to direct your resources as you wish. 
• LGBT centers exist to provide community and safety for a marginalized group. Allowing people outside of that demographic dilutes the space's purpose and its sense of security. 
• Employers select employees based on skills, experience, and cultural fit. An employer is not obligated to hire anyone who submits a job application. 
• In romantic relations, you choose someone you're attracted to and whose values, interests, and/or personality align with yours. You cannot coerce romance without destroying the meaning of romance and what makes it so special. This is why I took such an issue with the argument of "not dating a trans person is transphobic." A similar argument can also be made with friendship and why you cannot be forced to be friends with just anybody. 

Why Women's Sports Exist and Why Biology Isn't Optional

Women's sports are not an exception to this rule when it comes to freedom of association or positive discrimination. They operate on the same principle. I brought this up in my 2019 analysis of MTF transgender athletes in women's sports, but it merits repeating. Women's sports exist because in most sports, biological differences matter. 

It does not matter what type of cosmetic surgery one undergoes, how many hormones are taken, what government paperwork is altered, or how one decides to live their life. Biological reality does not disappear through identification or medical intervention. Gender identity is a societal construct, but biological sex (or simply sex) is not. Male-to-female transgender individuals remain biologically male, even after transition, and no amount of identifying otherwise changes that reality. Another way to frame this is that MTF transgender individuals are a subset of men, in spite of their best efforts. 

This should be an obvious observation of reality because MTF transgender individuals transitioning does not erase the biological advantages they incurred. The physical differences between men and women were apparent in the caveman days, but now we have the ability to measure them more precisely. As I brought up in 2019, men have greater lean body mass, larger hearts, higher cardiac outputs, larger hemoglobin mass, larger VO2 max, greater glycogen utilization, and higher anaerobic capacity. The Journal of Applied Physiology acknowledged biological realities in a study last year (Joyner et al., 2025; see infographic below). Another study, this one from Sports Medicine, shows how testosterone suppression for MTF transgender athletes has minimal effect and how the other advantages are still maintained (Hilton and Lundberg, 2021). 

I am not here to rattle off the entire evidence base on the topic, but I do want to make an observation. If there were no biological difference, there would be a more symmetrical effect observed in men's sports and women's sports. The truth is that an FTM transgender individual, which de facto is a subset of women, entering men's sports is not controversial because odds are that said athlete will not have a distinct biological advantage over men. 

Why Women's Sports Are a Protected Space

Women's sports exist precisely because biological and physiological differences between men and women matter. Without a protected space, women would be crowded out of meaningful sports participation, not by malice, but by reality. Open competition would systematically favor male physiology, leaving women with fewer opportunities to compete, succeed, and develop as athletes.

Women's sports exist to prevent that outcome. Women's sports are not some arbitrary carve-out, but a deliberate response to biological inequality. Excluding MTF transgender athletes is not a moral condemnation of transgender individuals or an act of cruelty for its own sake. It is an acknowledgment that not every space can serve every individual. When women's sports are no longer permitted to draw sex-based boundaries, it ends up undermining and eroding the very purpose that such a space was created for women in the first place. 

When Ideology Collides with Biological Reality

Women's sports is arguably the clearest example of where gender identity theory collides with biological reality. In many policy debates, whether trans women are women or not comes off as abstract. With athletics, it is observable and immediately apparent that they are not truly women. That clarity creates discomfort and cognitive dissonance for those who falsely believe that trans women are women, making it difficult to rationalize it away. For those who treat gender identity as fully substitutable for biological sex, this fight is more than being about athletic competitions or whether transgender people deserve dignity. Conceding limits in athletics and acknowledging biological reality would mean acknowledging the absurdity of the entire gender identity framework, particularly that gender identity overrides biological sex. Rather than lose face, activists and politicians continue to double down, even at the expense of their own credibility since it is the path of least resistance.

The Stakes for Sex-Based Rights

Letting gender ideology win this battle is more than about women's sports. Last August, I brought up how kowtowing to gender identity creates conceptual and legal incoherence. If sex is no longer an objective category, then any institution or rights organized around biological sex becomes indefensible. When sex is treated as a feeling rather than a fact, many aspects of women's rights and gay rights become negotiable, whether that is women's sports or same-sex marriage. Women's sports are a clear casualty of such an approach, as is illustrated by the 2024 United Nations report that estimated that female athletes have lost over 890 medals to transgender athletes. 

The moment that biological sex is replaced by the subjective self-identity that is gender identity is the moment that sex-based protections and spaces collapse. The question before the Supreme Court is not whether transgender people should be treated with dignity (to reiterate, they should), but whether sex-based rights are allowed to remain real. If biological sex is optional, women's sports and any other sex-based space or rights are also optional. As such, I hope that the Supreme Court rules in favor of women's sports over gender ideology.

He, She, They, or Free Speech: Why Compelling "The Right Pronoun" Is Not Kind

Everyday social life is made more civil by small, unremarkable acts of politeness. Saying "please" and "thank you," holding a door open, or waiting in line instead of cutting in line are habits that reduce friction and make shared spaces more bearable. They are not acts on the level of piety of Mother Theresa, but they function as small acts of kindness nevertheless. In recent years, the use of preferred pronouns has been presented in a similar way: as a simple courtesy, a minimal act of respect, something decent people do without complaining. Questioning the practice is often treated as evidence of cruelty or bigotry rather than mere disagreement. 

This framing has always carried an implicit form of pressure. As I brought up in my 2022 criticism of the practice, pronoun usage is not merely suggested. Even if done so subtly, it is morally demanded and with social consequences for noncompliance. What is changing now is not the underlying logic, but the level of enforcement. A group of Long Island school organizations is in the process of suing New York Attorney General Letitia James, alleging that the state is pressuring schools to mandate "the right pronouns," transforming social coercion into government-backed compulsion.   

I will tell you what my qualms and counterarguments are not. This is not a hit piece on transgender people. I have been consistent on this blog for about a decade about the fact that civil rights for all also means for transgender people. I have opposed transgender bathroom bans, transgender military bans, and stripping transgender people of their Second Amendment rights. Those policy positions come from the same place as my opposition to compelling pronoun usage, which is a commitment to individual liberty. 

Freedom of Choice

In a free society, transgender people have the right to live the way they choose, whether that is to medically transition at their own expense (as an adult only), to dress how they want, and to live their life as if they were the opposite biological sex. However, there is an element of "my rights begin where yours end" here. 

Transgender people can do all the things I just mentioned, but freedom for all also means that others are allowed to disagree, to reject another person's identity claims, and to decline such compelled speech as using someone else's preferred pronouns. Liberty does not require agreeing with everyone. Tolerance does not need affirmation to exist. After all, I, as a Jew, do not need to confirm the religious affirmations of a Christian, Muslim, or another religious person in order to treat them with dignity. Moral decency is how we treat people in spite of our disagreements. Being free to claim a certain identity does not mean you get to steamroll another individual's freedom of conscience or freedom of speech in the process.

Kindness Must Be Voluntary

Beyond this political dimension of freedom, framing pronoun usage as kindness obfuscates a certain reality. Kindness, by its very nature, is voluntary and presumes agency: it is not a one-way street. Kindness cannot be defined solely by the desires of the recipient. It requires a choice on the part of the person giving the kindness. If this practice were only about kindness, it would not require shaming, threats, accusations of bigotry, or use of government coercion. That is because much of pronoun usage is not about being kinder, but coercing a worldview. If kindness is coerced, whether by government mandate or social pressure, that is not compassionate or kind. It ceases to be a moral virtue and turns into compliance and ideological enforcement. Coercing pronouns erodes the very kindness that the practice was meant to encourage.  

Compelled Speech and Honesty

Compelled false affirmation compromises honesty because speech is not merely mechanical; it is expressive. Pronouns are not neutral placeholders. They convey claims about sex and gender, as we will see shortly. When someone is forced to use pronouns that affirm a view of sex that they do not believe to be true, they are asked to speak dishonestly, even if no malice is intended. 

Self-Respect and Resentment

This compelled speech also erodes self-respect. Being forced to affirm what one rejects is a form of self-suppression that signals that one's view is not merely wrong, but illegitimate. Over time, that does not breed kindness; it breeds quiet resentment. Psychological reactance theory posits that when people perceive their autonomy threatened by controlling language, they are more likely to resist and form negative attitudes toward the source of the message. This reactance could be contributing to why there is backlash against the trans rights movement, even when there is otherwise an absence of explicit malice. 

Movements that seek broad social acceptance depend on persuasion and goodwill, not compliance. I would argue that this "live and let live" approach was a major component of what made the gay rights movement so successful. When affirmation is extracted instead of earned, you might get the compliance. But it also means withdrawing the sympathy, which undermines the acceptance that such a policy is meant to promote. 

Stable Categories and Legal Clarity

The consequences of this pronoun usage go beyond social resentment and undermining kindness itself. This struggle with pronouns is also about language and reality. This was something I discussed extensively in April when praising the U.K. Supreme Court's decision that only biological women are actually women. Biological sex is not a societal construct nor is it a matter of self-definition. It is a legal category with concrete implications in such areas as sports, medical policy, and sex-segregated spaces. Laws need to be stable and intelligible categories to properly function. This is why I am so critical of gender identity-based legal protections. Creating categories without clear, limiting principles creates confusion about what is being protected and why. Pronoun mandates accelerate this confusion by requiring people to speak in a way that obscures rather than clarifies material distinctions that the law has recognized. When terms rooted in biological sex lose clear meaning, it makes it more difficult to protect gay rights and women's rights.

Truth, Morality, and Language

However, this is not solely about legal concerns. This is about whether people are permitted to speak plainly about biological reality, even when the truth is uncomfortable or inconvenient. Lying or being compelled to express something one knows to be false is neither factually nor morally neutral. Words carry meaning and language is meant to convey ideas in as precise and accurate of a manner as possible. Distorting meanings, especially when to fulfill a political agenda, undermines trust and erodes personal integrity. False statements have real-world consequences, from misapplied laws to confused social expectations. Kindness generally does not go hand in hand with lying or deception. Speaking truthfully, even when difficult, is essential for moral integrity and for preserving a shared understanding of the world. 

Conclusion: Obedience Is Neither Kind Nor Without Cost

Using preferred pronouns may seem effortless or costless. The reality is that this practice comes with the cost of punishing dissent, compromising truth, and violating freedom of conscience and freedom of speech. Saying "it costs nothing" is nothing more than linguistic sleight of hand. Kindness cannot be coerced because morality is only meaningful when freely chosen. Language is a primary tool for navigating reality, forming relationships, and creating laws. When language is distorted, all of these facets of life suffer. Respect must be earned, not enforced. If society values honesty, freedom, well-functioning laws, and genuine goodwill, we need to resist the temptation to equate the obedience behind compelling pronouns with kindness. 

Trump DOJ's Trans Gun Ban Proposal Is a Direct Hit on the Second Amendment

The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed under the Second Amendment and applies to all Americans, regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, or gender. However, the Trump administration might look to change that. Last month, the mass shooting at the Annunciation Catholic Church in Minnesota, which left two children dead and 17 wounded, was allegedly committed by a transgender individual. In response, the Department of Justice (DOJ) was reported to have been "reviewing ways to ensure that mentally ill individuals suffering from gender dysphoria are unable to obtain firearms while they are unstable and unwell." In other words, the DOJ is looking to ban transgender people from owning firearms. While there is no formal rule or a statement from the DOJ, the Right-leaning Daily Wire broke the story last week. 

Let us begin by asking whether the DOJ has a policy basis for such a proposal. The question to answer is whether the DOJ's theory that transgender people are mentally unstable enough to take away their Second Amendment rights is warranted. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) classifies gender dysphoria as a medical condition. It is true that transgender people have high levels of suicidal ideation and mental health diagnoses. However, there are three major counterarguments that refute the DOJ's premise that banning transgender people from owning firearms would help with public safety.

First of all, as I explained in 2017 in response to the Las Vegas mass shooting, mental illness is a poor predictor of violent behavior. The think tank RAND Corporation showed an absence of evidence when it came to the effects of firearm prohibitions related to mental illness on mass shootings. The only outcome with impact was violent crime generally, and even that was with limited evidence. More to the point, RAND pointed out that 2 to 4 percent of all violent behavior may be attributable to mental illness. The American Association of Medical Colleges found that less than 5 percent of mass shooters had a psychiatric diagnosis that resulted in a gun-disqualifying adjudication. 

The second counterargument that I have made before is that in spite of being frequently covered in the media, mass shootings are statistically rare, as research from the Cato Institute details. The Cato Institute defines a mass shooting as "an indiscriminate rampage with a firearm in a public place or place of business that results in at least three victims killed by the attacker." With this definition, there have been 298 shooters responsible for 1,733 murders and 2,459 people injured between 1966 and 2024. In total, the murder victims of mass shooters account for about 0.15 percent of all homicides since 1966. The probability of being murdered in a mass shooting is 1 in 9.1 million per year, whereas being injured in a mass shooting is 1 in 6.4 million. For context, the probability of being struck by lightning is 1 in 1.6 million, which is to say that an American is about six times more likely to be struck by lightning than murdered in a mass shooting.  

Third, if having a mental disorder were the only factor in whether someone commits a mass shooting, we would see that arise in mass shooter demographic data. Transgender people do not pose a special or disproportionate threat, especially since 75 percent of transgender people do not report frequent mental distress. If anything, the data shows the opposite. The Gun Violence Archive data shows that 0.17 percent of mass shooters from 2018 to 2025 were transgender. Considering that 0.8 percent of Americans are transgender, this would mean that transgender people are almost five times less likely to commit a mass murder than the average American.

It was not simply LGBTQ Nation that was angry about this possible ban. That anger does not surprise me because LGBT organizations tend to lean Left and have been anti-Trump. What was surprising is that none of the pro-Second Amendment rights groups were happy, whether it was the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America, or the Firearms Policy Coalition. 

It makes sense why that would be the reaction. Since there is no public health threat, there would be no justification to impose a blanket prohibition on transgender people's Second Amendment rights. The DOJ's line of thinking is even worse considering that a quarter of all Americans will qualify for a psychological diagnosis within a given year. Should we take away their Second Amendment rights, as well? Things generally do not go well for minorities when they are disarmed, whether that is African-Americans, Jews, gay people, or transgender people. 

The Supreme Court and federal courts have made it clear that disarming an entire group violates constitutional protections, particularly the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. If a court does uphold a Second Amendment ban, it is an individual adjudication based on an assessment or a commitment process, not a group-based ban. I hope that this proposal remains a failed idea in the backroom during a brainstorming session and does not become actual law. If this proposal goes forward, it will not solely undermine the rights of transgender Americans. It will establish a dangerous precedent that civil rights can be revoked by bureaucratic fiat. That is a threat to liberty we should all oppose.

Nonbinary and Nonsensical?: Gender Identity Should Not Shape Public Policy or the Law

How people perceive identity has shifted in recent years. Sex, gender, and social roles used to be debated in terms of biology, behavior, or politics. These days, it has become more prevalent to define identity in terms of internal feelings, truths only known to the self, getting to the point where some demand external recognition of that identity. This shift in how identity is perceived is clearest in the concept known as "nonbinary." How I understand the concept of nonbinary is as a gender identity that is characterized by a rejection of, or identification outside of, the binary framework of man and woman, which can encompass diverse gender experiences. Nonbinary resists the classification of man and woman not through visible and external nonconformity, but rather a personal and internal sense of disconnect.

Yesterday, I was reading an article from U.K. media outlet Spiked Online titled The dark truth behind the 'nonbinary' identity. It is criticizing how an individual identifying as nonbinary is trying to get the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) to legally recognize nonbinary as a category, even as the United Kingdom has rejected this individual's claim. It got me thinking about the whole concept of nonbinary.

 

What is logically wrong with nonbinary? I will start off by saying this is not a critique of individuals that identify as nonbinary, nor is it a dismissal of their personal experiences. As we will see later, the critique is how the concept of nonbinary identity, and the concept of gender identity more broadly, is being used to shape legal categories.

For much of history, the debate about identity essentialism was based on biological sex. Now it is based on the subjective experience of something along the lines of "I am nonbinary because I have always felt this way, and that feeling is the truth of who I am." Here is where the idea logically runs into a problem. If someone says they are not a man or a woman, but then does not define those categories or says "I reject all gender roles," what in the world does it mean to be nonbinary?  It is akin to saying something is neither red nor blue without saying what red or blue are. If you cannot describe the thing you are not, how can you meaningfully claim to not be it? 

There is no coherent way to socially define nonbinary identity because it has become more of a catch-all term rather than a clear concept.  How an individual feels discomfort with a certain set of gender stereotypes does not negate their biological sex. Nonbinary only makes sense when adhering to an overly rigid societal and stereotypical definition of what a man or a woman are supposed to be. There are very few, if any, people who perfectly embody these gender stereotypes. In this respect, nonbinary identification is less about embracing a coherent identity and more about avoiding the discomfort that comes from not fitting neatly into traditional gender expectations or roles. But this discomfort does not constitute a new identity, and should not require one. 

I can anticipate someone bringing up other identities, such as sexual orientation or religion, in which self-identification is claimed to be the basis for that identity. But that is not the case. Same-sex attraction is observable in behavior, whether sexual or romantic. While religion has a component of belief, religion can be observed through such behaviors as prayer, attending a house of worship, observing dietary laws, or celebrating holidays. While identity does not necessarily require material observability, having some definable or external features helps give it shape. Without conceptual clarity or internal coherence, an identity cannot meaningfully function as a societally recognizable or analytically useful category. It is on this front that the nonbinary identity conceptually and intellectually falls flat.

What is wrong with the concept of gender identity? This gets into where I take issue with gender identity generally. I will start with what I wrote in June about gender identity with regards to the U.S. Supreme Court case on gender-affirming "care": 

The concept of gender identity is incoherent. It is claimed to be based on objective truth, but it can be changed on one's subjective whim. Gender identity is supposed to be a societal construct, but somehow is simultaneously biological and internal. Gender identity is identified as independent of biological sex but is also identified in reference to biological sex. It is designated based on self-expression but also as a product of socialization.

This incoherence comes from the fact that if something has "X" quality, it cannot simultaneously have "non-X" quality. It is how gender identity proponents define a woman using the circular logic of "A woman is someone who identifies as a woman." Similar to nonbinary, the way it is being defined (or not defined, as the case may be) is intellectually unstable because it relies on internal contradictions, not to mention being unverifiable and unfalsifiable. As I detailed in April after the U.K. Supreme Court ruled that only biological women are actually women, I explained how simply because you feel like something or identify as something does not automatically make you that identity, as is the case with race, age, or species. In spite of how one feels about their biological sex, it ultimately does not change their biological sex or the fact that they cannot change their biological sex. 

How Gender Identity Adversely Affects Society and Erodes Rights. Gender identity relies on an internal experience without external reference. If an identity is purely self-defined with no stable criteria, it becomes incoherent for public understanding or policy. As I brought up in June, "human rights and legal protections cannot be based on something as unintelligible, muddled, and disjointed as gender identity." It is de facto impossible to build social, legal, or medical policy based on such ambiguity, as we will see shortly. 

There are certain instances where gender identity causes harm. Here are some examples, first in a medical policy context. One big one is gender-affirming care, which has been shown to cause patients harm. This is why I am against the practice for minors and only support the practice for adults if there is informed consent, even in spite of known harms. There are more general medical implications, as well. By diagnosing on gender identity instead of biological sex, patients can miss life-saving screenings or being treated with protocols misaligned with their biology. Then there is the undermining of sex-based data collection which can determine sex-based disparities in such areas as crime, health, or education, thereby eroding our ability to identify and address such problems. 

Policies that mandate pronoun usage or compel pronoun usage, a practice that  I criticized in 2022, has a chilling effect on freedom of speech in terms of forcing pronouns, as well as putting stress on parents and teachers in an education setting. It also affects speech in terms of changing such terms as "mother" and "female" to "birthing parent" and "assigned female at birth," which either depersonalize biological realities or erode the cultural and political significance of women. 

Speaking of the significance of women, feminism and women's rights are rooted in material conditions tied to female biology. Women's sex-based rights depend on a stable, material definition of what a woman is. Without that tie, protections for women are undermined, such as is the case with Title IX in the United States. It is how biological men playing in women's sports has become such a contentious topic. Similarly, biological men have been allowed into women-only shelters or prisons based on self-reported identities that cannot be tested or disproved, which can put the lives of women at risk. 

A similar argument could be made for the erosion of gay rights. As I have argued before, when discussing how refusing to date a trans person is not transphobic, "being gay has meant rejecting a strict definition of gender norms while still claiming biological distinction vis-à-vis same-sex attraction." Same-sex attraction depends on the premise that sex is real, binary, and materially grounded. A gay man is attracted to other men. A lesbian is attracted to other women. For gay people, the biological categories of "man" and "woman" are not fluid or interchangeable. They are necessary anchors for same-sex relations to work. Those anchors are based in biological sex, not gender identity. To demand that [gay] people date or have sex with those who are not of the same biological sex (including trans people) undermines the concept of sexual orientation. Since gender identity detaches "man" and "woman" from biological sex, it becomes a form of gay erasure because being gay loses meaning. 

By prioritizing logical consistency and material categories, we can preserve the credibility and coherence of legal rights. As we see, gender identity undermines the very foundations upon which women's rights and gay rights were built. Sexual orientation and sex-specific protections are based on meaningful and stable categories. Disability benefits require medical diagnosis and documentation. Even mental illness requires a DSM-based diagnosis by a professional. In contrast, gender identity is subjective and exempt from scrutiny or verification. If subjective identity is the sole criterion for legal rights or classification, where does that principle end? What about identifying as a different species, race, or age? If it is wholly subjective, then there is no limiting principle in the law. As I brought up in April, we cannot protect human rights if we cannot do so on the basic of reality or what humans are. To quote political commentator Ben Shapiro, "Facts don't care about your feelings."

Postscript. On a personal level, subjective identity is fine. I do not care on a personal level because it does not hurt anyone, which is in line with the libertarian concept of the nonaggression axiom. People should be free to live and express themselves as they choose, regardless of how much it corresponds to reality. After all, people live their lives viewing and conceptualizing things contrary to reality all the time. My concern is not with personal identification per se, but with how these identities are being formalized into legal and institutional frameworks without clear definitions or limiting principles. Legal rights, access to services, and social categories all require shared and observable standards. Other legal categories have objective criteria by which identity can be determined. Gender identity generally, and the nonbinary identity in particular, lacks that verifiable structure that makes it disastrous in philosophical, logical, legal, and practical terms. At a minimum, how are you supposed to create a legal classification for a demographic that refuses to define itself?

When all is said and done, rights that depend on shared reality cannot be sustained by individual perception alone. When legal and social frameworks abandon objectivity in favor of subjective identity, they risk becoming unworkable, incoherent, and ultimately unjust. Critiquing how an identity is defined and used in law is not the same as attacking the dignity of individuals. People deserve respect and dignity, but so do the legal and material foundations on which our rights depend. Upholding clear, observable, and materially grounded standards is not an act of exclusion. It is a foundation for fairness and justice. If we want to protect the rights that so many have worked hard for, then we need to defend those categories to ensure that those rights stay intact, which means not legally recognizing gender identity as a category.  

U.S. v. Skrmetti: SCOTUS Protects Teens & the Law from Gender-Affirming Chaos and Harm

Last week, the justices at the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) made headlines with their most anticipated ruling of their 2024-25 term: United States v. Skrmetti. SCOTUS ruled 6-3 that banning puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapy (HRT) for adolescents dealing with gender dysphoria does not violate the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause. The Tennessee law (SB1) does not classify on sex because it bans the practice regardless of sex. This law was ruled to not have violated the 14th Amendment because it does not discriminate on such clear-cut examples as race, biological sex, religion, or sexual orientation. The only distinctions the Tennessee law makes are based on age and on medical use, neither of which are reviewed under heightened scrutiny. Tennessee is one of twenty-seven states that prevents such medical interventions for minors, which means that the bans are by and large upheld in other states, as well. 

As I brought up a couple of months ago with a UK ruling on biological sex, the concept of gender identity is incoherent. It is claimed to based on objective truth, but it can be changed on one's subjective whim. Gender identity is supposed to be a societal construct, but somehow is simultaneously biological and internal. Gender identity is identified as independent of biological sex but is also identified in reference to biological sex. It is designated based on self-expression but also as a product of socialization. Human rights and legal protections cannot be based on something as unintelligible, muddled, and disjointed as gender identity. It would also undermine protecting same-sex attraction if we cannot define the material reality of biological sex, as it would undermine women's rights. 

Coherence within the legal system is not the only reason I was happy to see the Supreme Court rule in favor of common sense. As a long-term Dutch study pointed out last year (Rawee et al., 2024), 78 percent of those dealing with gender non-contentedness overcame whatever dysphoria they were dealing with by the time they became adults without any interventions. An additional 19 percent had decreased gender non-contentedness. This means that vast majority of adolescents dealing with gender dysphoria do not need to go to the extremes of gender reassignment surgery, puberty blockers, or HRT.  

Then there is the argument of "having a living daughter is better than having a dead son." This argument assumes that without these treatments, children dealing with gender dysphoria will resort to suicide. Forgetting what we covered in the previous paragraph about most adolescents with gender dysphoria overcoming it without intervention, there has only been one main study conducted to directly assess whether sex-change hormones reduce suicide rates among trans individuals (Ruuska et al., 2024). The study concluded that no such association exists, a finding that was also detailed in the Cass Review. The Cass Review, which is the most comprehensive research on the topic to date, also shows the evidence shows that these interventions do not manage gender-related stress long-term.

Arguing that banning these procedures will increase suicide is a tactic to silence dissent and obscure another issue, which is that these treatments cause considerable harm. As I documented last year, gender affirming "care" lacks the evidence base, not to mention that puberty blockers are shown to have multiple side effects, including decreased bone density, deteriorating mental health, and lower IQ. Keep in mind that it was such European nations as the United Kingdom, Sweden, and Finland that were the trailblazers in providing these interventions a decade before it became trendy in the United States. These European countries have conducted systematic reviews and have concluded that the evidence is lacking. It is no coincidence that these nations recommend that these treatments are offered as a last resort and only offered in a clinical setting. 

It is one thing if an adult wants to undergo such a procedure with informed consent, even though the evidence base shows a lack of benefit for the vast majority of patients and shows considerable risk and harm. I personally do not agree with such activities as having children before getting married, using preferred pronouns, taking out student loans for something as useless as a gender studies degree, eating fast food every day, not exercising, smoking cigarettes, or entering in a polygamous marriage. But as long as you are not harming anyone else, you can do whatever stupid, unhealthy, or disagreeable things you want. 

Because children do not have the maturity, understanding (mens rea), or capacity to fully make their own decisions, how society treats children's rights is different. There are a myriad of activities and decisions from which children are legally restricted that adults are not restricted, whether it is voting, owning property, entering into most contracts, purchasing alcohol or tobacco, or working in hazardous occupations. Gender reassignment surgery, hormone replacement therapy, or using puberty blockers should not be an exception, especially given everything I have highlighted above. 

Although the Supreme Court was asking a constitutional question about the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court came with the correct ruling in terms of outcome. Gender-affirming "care" is not an evidence-based practice. There is evidence showing the harm that such practices cause, especially ones that life-altering and essentially irreversible. This lack of evidence base is also augmented by the fact that the vast majority of adolescents overcome their gender dysphoria, thereby making these treatments unnecessary for the vast majority of those dealing with gender dysphoria in the first place. Socially progressive European nations understand this reality. I hope that those in the United States who believe otherwise can actually follow the science instead of adherence to ideological compliance for its own sake. 

UK Supreme Court Acknowledges Biological Reality That Only Biological Females Are Women

Henry Ford once said that "Whether you think you can or think you can't, you're right." The premise behind his quote was that the power of mindset and belief in terms of achieving goals. Cultural relativists have taken that concept to a whole new level with gender identity. While biological sex refers to one's chromosomes, hormones, organs, and anatomy, gender identity proponents argue that gender identity pertains to "one's inner sense of being male or female," i.e., inner self-perception. Under this framework, gender identity aligns with one's biological sex for the vast majority of people. However, there are a small minority of people for whom there is a disconnect between biological sense and gender identity, which is where gender dysphoria comes into play. The diagram below summarizes the differences. 

As this diagram illustrates, the idea of biological sex and gender identity are, at least conceptually, two different things. Even if that were the case, where the left took a turn to Looneyville is by conflating the two and asserting that your gender identity is biological reality to the point where denying someone's gender identity is tantamount to bigotry. Under this schema, you can become a man or woman (or however you choose to identify) simply by identifying as one. It is how those in the trans rights or trans activism world and its allies support biological men playing in women's sports, supporting gender-affirming "care" when the evidence base is anything but affirming, or ironically (or maybe that is unironic) being homophobic enough to insist that gay people should date trans people lest they be branded transphobes. 

This concept of gender identity brings us to current events. Last week, the United Kingdom's Supreme Court ruled unanimously in the case of Women Scotland Ltd. vs The Scottish Ministers that the word "sex" in the Equality Act 2010 refers to male and female, as determined by biology. While those on the Left view it as an indictment of how prevalent anti-trans sentiment has spread, I view it as a win of reality over adhering to ideology. The ruling is a reminder that acknowledging biological reality is not a form of bigotry and that no amount of bureaucracy can transform a man into a woman.  To quote media outlet Spiked Online: 

"Cosmetic surgery and a piece of paper don't make a man a woman any more than a deep desire to be female does. Besides, gender identity has always just been about feeling and pronouncement. It is not a concrete, verifiable, or coherent concept." 

Gender identity is neither concrete nor coherent. 

Those who profess the importance of gender identity treat it as some sort of objective truth, but that it can also be changed at one's subjective whim. And if you do not accept the new gender identity, you will get labeled a bigot like J.K. Rowling did. If gender identity were that concrete, they would have come up with a definition of "what is a woman" that does not rely on the circular logic of "a woman is someone who feels like a woman." Not that I agree with Matt Walsh on everything, but this circular logic was the whole point of his documentary "What Is A Woman?" This adherence to ideology would explain why U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson could not provide a definition of a woman at her confirmation hearing. 

The fact that some on the Left argue that gender is a social construct and others argue that gender identity is internal and biological further illustrates its incoherence. After all, if your genitals do not establish your gender, then why does removing them affirm your gender? Gender cannot be simultaneously a social construct and inherent to the individual. It cannot simultaneously exist as self-chosen and a product of socialization. Nor can gender simultaneously be independent of sex and defined in reference to sex.

This particular incoherence puts the LGBT community in a real bind. If the idea of "man" and "woman" are based on biological sex, then LGB is intelligible and the T makes less sense because then the definitions of "man" and "woman" are based on sexual attraction. If being a "man" or "woman" is not tied in biology or physical form, then sexual attraction/orientation or being LGB is no longer intelligible. This point came up when I wrote a piece last year showing how advocating for the trans community and kowtowing to every demand of trans activists means a path towards gay erasure.

Simply because you feel something or identify as someone does not automatically make it so. 

I have an affinity for the Latino world and my Spanish is good enough where I have passed for Argentinean on multiple occasions. I do not going around claiming that I am Latino, even when there are days that I wish I were Latino. If anything, I correct people when they call me Latino because the truth is that my ancestors are from northern and central Europe. Someone who is 50 or 60 years old who identifies as 16 does not magically become a teenager by simply wishing they were younger or identifying as a teenager. Since those who believe in gender ideology opened the Pandora's box in terms of "your identity is your reality," I can go as far as saying that if a friend of mine were to identify as a cat, I would not congratulate him/her and go out to buy a scratch pole and litter box. I would be legitimately concerned for their mental health. 

Truth and words matter. 

Trans activists argue that trans issues only affect those who identify as "trans men" or "trans women," but this affects everyone because truth and what constitutes as a fact are on the line. What is the harm by linguistically accommodating someone by using their preferred pronouns or chosen name? 

If a consenting adult wants to undergo gender affirming surgery, I do not mind as long as it is done with informed consent. I wish those who are dealing with gender dysphoria the best in overcoming or at least learning to live with the dysphoria. I am against this procedure for children because a) the evidence base does not show significant benefit while there are considerable harms and b) over 80 percent of adolescents that experience gender dysphoria outgrow it by their adulthood without medical or surgical intervention. Both points undermine the need for such procedures as a norm rather than an exigent exception. Part of being libertarian is allowing consenting adults to do what they want with their lives as long as they are not harming others, and that includes transgender individuals, but I am getting off track. I am okay with transgender people serving in the military, I think a transgender bathroom ban is unnecessary, and I believe that transgender individuals should be able to participate in society without having to deal with discrimination, much like with other minorities or disenfranchised individuals. 

What I take issue with is that we are being asked is to accept a lie. As much as gender-reassignment surgery could be helpful for a small minority of those dealing with gender dysphoria, and as much I try to imagine the struggle of those undergoing gender dysphoria, it does not change the reality that surgery does not magically turn a man into a woman, or vice versa. 

How we navigate, describe, and refer to the world matters if we want to observe an objective reality. It is with that discernment that we can best identify problems in public policy and in society, as well as come up with solutions. After all, how can we protect human rights if we are not doing so on the basis of reality or what humanity entails? It does no one any good to perpetuate a lie, especially if your political posturing is that of "follow the science." As Ben Shapiro would say, "Facts don't care about your feelings." 

The fact that we even need to have a Supreme Court ruling to declare a basic biological truth that has been obvious across civilizations and centuries, not to mention in the animal kingdom, shows how much global society has devolved in recent years. Up is down, terrorists are freedom fighters, and men are women. Welcome to 2025! It is good to see people stand up to the relativism. As much gaslighting as there has been with "transmen are men" and "transwomen are women," more people are waking up instead of being woke. 

We should wake up because our freedom of speech and expression are at stake. Self-assured social movements have no need of censorship -- only the morally unsure and intellectually insecure require such brute instruments. It would explain why the trans rights movement leans on censorship and conformity to try to get its way. Contrast that with the civil rights movement, the women's suffrage movement, or the gay rights movement that did not have to resort to such tactics. 

The UK Supreme Court ruling is another data point that shows that the Far Left went too far with gender ideology and to reaffirm that manhood or womanhood are more than a matter than self-identify or what legal paperwork might say. I do not want there to be a backlash that results in violence against trans individuals, but I also want a world where we can speak truth to power and not feel intimidated in speaking out simply because disagreeing with one’s perception of the world or oneself is too much for someone to handle. I hope this Supreme Court ruling is an indication that freedom of expression is heading the right direction in terms of there being less authoritarianism, less ideological overreach, and greater free speech for all. 

Drop the T from LGBT: Why The Gay Rights Movement and the Trans Rights Movement Need a Divorce (Pt. II)

At the end of Pride Month last month, I began presenting my case for why the trans rights movement should be separated from the gay rights movement. I started by questioning the justification for grouping LGB with T in the first place. I then explained how sexual orientation is different from the concept of gender identity. Afterwards, I showed how that the difference between gay people and trans people translates into each group having different needs and concerns. After all, why put everyone in the same category if the aims and goals of each group are different? 

Now I will get into an even more vital reason that the two groups should go their separate ways.  The reason for dropping the T from LGBT is more than a mere misalignment in goals or objectives. There are three ways in which the trans rights movement is actually causing harm to LGB individuals and the gay rights movement.  

1) This mash-up of LGBT is sowing confusion in mainstream culture. The encroachment of "gender ideology" was such a concern that gay conservative writer Andrew Sullivan brought it up as early as January 2018. People are getting annoyed with trans activists to the point having a spillover effect of waning support of gay rights, particularly with marriage equality and parental rights. 

While there is no definitive study showing causation, polling trends suggest a concerning correlation. Last year, a Gallup poll found acceptance of gay couples to fall from 71 percent to 64 percent in a single year. As of late last month, support for same-sex marriage still remains at that 64 percent. Whether two gay individuals should be allowed to enter a marriage contract or the call for gay acceptance are separate from the less popular topics of gender-reassignment surgery for minors (Pew Research) or allowing for MTF transgender individuals to play in women's sports (Gallup). 

As debates over gender identity and trans issues have intensified, support for same-sex marriage and other LGB rights have either plateaued or declined. This pattern suggests a spillover effect, where backlash or discomfort with the more polarizing transgender issues is likely affecting support for LGB rights. The longer the gay rights movement stays with the trans rights movement, the more likely that gay acceptance goes down with a sinking ship. 

2) Trans issues have become such a litmus test for the Far Left that it has resulted in a path towards gay erasure. Here are some examples: 

• Last year, Johns Hopkins University defined lesbian as "non-men attracted to non-men." It was summarily removed because such an inane definition attempts to overlook the fact that being a lesbian means being a biological woman who has a same-sex attraction towards other biological women. Gay men are biological men who are attracted to other men. This was common knowledge until a few years ago. In its misguided path towards inclusion, Johns Hopkins was erasing lesbianism because being gay or lesbian means nothing in a de-gendered world. 
• In the United Kingdom, the LGB Alliance recently had to spend £250,000 in legal fees against the trans-youth charity called Mermaids. LGB Alliance had to defend the notion that lesbianism meant women (a.k.a. biological women) are only attracted to other biological women. 
• As a matter of fact, the trans rights movement suppresses the question of "what is a man" or "what is a woman" because that would have to define the terms without the circular logic of stating that being a woman is a "strong feeling of being a woman." To erroneously define biological sex as a social construct instead of the biological reality that it is ends up being implicitly homophobic because again, homosexuality is about same-sex attraction. 
• Last year, I wrote a blog entry about the increasingly popular argument on the Far Left that not dating trans people is transphobic. I had to remind people that being homosexual means being attracted to the same sex (hence same-sex attraction), not the same gender identity. The Woke World has put trans people on such a pedestal that addressing perceived slights against trans people comes above all else. It is how trans people can perturbingly tell gay people that they must date trans people lest they are a transphobic bigot. 

This strong-arming forgets that the initial purpose of the gay rights movement is that one's sexual attraction and orientation are not beholden to anyone, including trans people. Trans people and gay people should be able to co-exist. The fact that there cannot be co-existence without trying to make gay people feel like bigots for their sexual orientation shows us how exclusionary and zero-sum the trans activists and gender ideology movement really are. 

3) There is more than societal pressure on gay people or attempts to minimize, invalidate, or even erase the gay experience because same-sex attraction does not conform with gender ideology. There are those who are trying to turn homosexuals into something they are not. We do not need to go to the extreme example of Iran forcing gender reassignment surgery onto its gay citizens. 

I have a legitimate concern that the social contagion effect will take LGB adolescents down an inaccurate and irreversible path. This phenomenon is starting to foment with de-transitioners in the United States. However, such European countries as Finland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom have been providing gender-reassignment surgery and puberty blockers before it became increasingly popular in the United States. As a matter of fact, we have already seen this concern unfold on the other side of the pond in the United Kingdom. 

The National Health Service (NHS), which is the United Kingdom's equivalent of the U.S.' HHS, shut down the Tavistock Clinic. The Cass Review scrutinized gender-affirming care in the United Kingdom, including the Tavistock Clinic. Not only did the Cass Review show the harms of gender-affirming care (not to the mention the lack of benefits thereof), but such media outlets as The Times and The Telegraph conducted investigations of Tavistock. 

The investigations found them to be like conversion therapy centers for gay adolescents convincing them that their confusion was over their gender identity instead of their sexuality. As these investigations found, over 80 percent of those admitted to Tavistock were either gay or bisexual. The Cass Review, specifically on pages 118-120, show how a disproportionately large amount of gay and bisexual adolescents are pressured into transitioning. I would argue this has more plausibility given that most adolescents who are diagnosed with gender dysphoria grow out of the dysphoria without any medical or surgical intervention by the time they become adults. 

Postscript

To recap, it does not make sense to group LGB with the T. Sexual orientation is different from gender identity. As such, the needs and concerns of gay people is different from those of trans people. The overlap between what gay people are fighting for and what trans people are fighting for is relatively small. 

On top of that, the trans rights movement is fighting a fight that has a spillover effect of invalidating the cause of gay people in a zero-sum fashion while in some cases causing physical and psychological harm to gay people. How in the world has this reached the point where trans activists and their allies see gay people standing up for their rights and their same-sex attraction as a form of bigotry? The concept of "gender identity" goes on path of trying to erase homosexuality, thereby being homophobic. That is far from being the behavior of an ally. 

Gay people already fought against conversion "therapy" once. It seems inconceivable that this phenomenon is still happening in 2024, even if under a different guise. Yet here we are seeing history rhyme. Chiding gay people for having same-sex attraction and telling them they should be ashamed is what the gay rights movement was fighting all those years ago. 

This time, the anti-gay discrimination is not coming from the Religious Right. It is coming from gender ideology adherents who pretend to be allies of the LGB community. Advising LGB individuals to stick it out with the trans rights movement is like telling a domestic abuse victim that he or she should stay in a dysfunctional marriage and telling said victim to try to work it out. There are so many marriages that last longer than they should. A divorce between the gay rights movement and the trans rights movement is long overdue. I strongly predict that there is an eventual divorce between the gay rights movement and the trans rights movement. When and how that happens remains the mystery.