Reposted by Noelle H
Clarence Thomas's concurring opinion in the trans sports ban case in West Virginia contains some of the ugliest transphobic stuff I have ever seen in a legal opinion. Straight-up gleeful. Vile man. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...
![2 WEST VIRGINIA v. B. P. J.
THOMAS, J., concurring
judgment). Because “gender dysphoria” is a mutable men-
tal state that is the object of psychiatric treatment, it does
not resemble the immutable characteristics on the basis of
which our precedents have applied heightened scrutiny—
race, sex, or national origin. Instead, gender dysphoria re-
sembles other characteristics on the basis of which legisla-
tures may classify with a merely rational basis. See, e.g.,
Heller v. Doe, 509 U. S. 312, 321 (1993) (mental illness);
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U. S. 202, 220 (1982) (immigration sta-
tus). Legislatures have many obvious rational bases to
keep men who believe that they are women out of teams
and private spaces reserved for women.
Second, as the Court recognizes, this case concerns “bio-
logical men” and “boys who identify as girls.” Ante, at 10,
27. Men and boys with gender dysphoria are not women or
girls, even if they believe that they are. Sex is an immuta-
ble “biological” characteristic, see ante, at 10; it is binary;
and “man” and “woman,” “boy” and “girl,” are the terms that
correspond to adults and children of each sex. See A. Byrne,
Are Women Adult Human Females? 177 Philosophical
Studies 3783, 3786–3787 (2020). To use language to ob-
scure reality—to show “indifference regarding the truth”—
is to lie to the public and cease to treat our fellow citizens
“as equal[s].” J. Pieper, Abuse of Language—Abuse of
Power 17, 21 (1992).](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:bpna2qi2e44fafbhhtqjak3x/bafkreibwsxtosqddkiskx5oxonnai4ha7ygixfcqmnbsxb27z3q43jh4iu)
