Rebirth of sex

https://www.genderclinicnews.com/p/rebirth-of-sex

QUOTE

In the Tennessee case, Mr Strangio’s pitch to the judges relied on the unambiguous binary of biological sex. Suddenly, sex as a category was no longer nuanced or complicated—it was taken for granted as a bedrock biological reality. Why? Because there is legal precedent for arguing that a law discriminating on the basis of sex demands “heightened scrutiny” by the judges. And heightened scrutiny means it’s more likely that the courts will strike down such a law for infringing the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment. Framing Tennessee’s law as discriminating on the basis of nebulous trans identity did not offer this forensic advantage.

This litigation aside, of course, the mission of modern trans activism is to establish “gender identity” as a protected characteristic while dissolving biological sex with waffle.

Mr Strangio’s social media history includes the following choice declarations—

“There is no single biological trait that equates to one’s biological sex.”

“That there are typical notions of embodied maleness and femaleness does not mean there is a coherent binary thing called biological sex.”

“Girls who are trans are not males, not biological males, do not have male bodies—just stop.”

In court on Wednesday, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a liberal, seemed especially receptive to the idea that Tennessee’s gender medicine ban discriminates by sex. She offered the hypothetical example of someone “biologically male” who can lawfully be given testosterone to deepen his voice, as opposed to a trans-identified girl prevented from using testosterone for the same purpose. On this view, it is the girl’s female sex that triggers Tennessee’s ban.

Throughout the day’s hearing, Justice Jackson made eight references to biological sex, with not a hint of uncertainty about this as a binary concept.