Thank God for people like Samuel Alito, unafraid to tell the truth at all costs.
Today, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments regarding Tennessee's ban on transgender surgeries for kids, and the ACLU sent Chase Strangio, a woman with a beard, to argue that even two-year-olds should be castrated.
Here's a taste of how that went.
(No word yet on whether Chase Strangio is still breathing after that encounter with logic.)
Civil rights laws and the Constitution prohibit discrimination of people based on immutable, unchangeable characteristics. You can't discriminate against black people because they were born with more melanated skin, for example.
Alito simply points out that trans ideology invents a new category called "gender" that is, by their expressed definition, "fluid." The wokies say it can be changed, sometimes by the minute! It's the exact opposite of immutable.
Here's the audio (nothing will prepare you for the trans lawyer's helium voice).
Alito could have left it there, but he didn't.
He went in for the kill.
Not only is the logic behind transgenderism self-defeating, the proposed "solution" of gender-affirmation isn't even proven to be helpful.
The whole thing is a crock and Alito brought the receipts!
(For more on the studies showing that changing "gender identity" doesn't help kids' mental health, see here and here.)
Meanwhile, Clarence Thomas chipped in just to deliver a few surgically precise kill blows to Chase Strangio.
But it's not all common sense that's ruling the day. Let's not forget the liberal ladies on the Court who are a slim majority away from trying to overturn reality from the bench.
Ketanji Brown Jackson, who famously could not provide a definition for the word "woman" because she is "not a biologist," is suddenly an expert on gender identity now and says banning sex changes for kids is the same thing as ... wait for it —
(No really, you're not gonna believe this is true)
... banning interracial marriage.
They sound in the same kind of arguments that were made back in the day ... with respect to racial classifications and inconsistencies. I'm thinking in particular about [the Supreme Court case] Loving and I'm wondering if you're thinking about the parallels, because I see one, as to how this statute operates and how the anti-miscegenation statutes in Virginia operated.
Yes, KBJ says banning kids from chopping up their bodies is the same as a ban on interracial marriage. This is a real thing she's arguing and that the U.S. Solicitor General seems to agree with.
And, yes, she doubled down on this take.
In Loving those same kinds of scientific arguments were made ...
The kooky "pseudoscientific" theory that men are not women and can not become women. Only fringe conspiracy theorists believe such things!
You'll be happy to know that Tennessee's solicitor general did slap down KBJ's argument, with great aplomb.
(Thank goodness for sanity.)
Next up in embarrassments to the Court, Justice Sotomayor thinks dicing up a child's genitals and breasts involves an equatable amount of medical risk as taking aspirin.
You can't make this up.
Every medical treatment has a risk, even taking aspirin ... so the question in my mind is not 'do policy makers decide whether one person's life is more valuable than the millions of others who get relief from this treatment?' the question is 'can you stop one sex from the other?'.
Sotomayor then compared getting one's breasts removed as a teenager to getting hair removed ...
What a wild day at the Supreme Court.
Poor Clarence Thomas has to sit through this clown show daily.
P.S. Now check out our latest video 👇
