“A second federal judge has barred Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth from enforcing a ban on transgender troops serving in the military.
U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle said the ban, ordered by President Donald Trump, was blatantly discriminatory, relied on a distortion of outdated data and ignored more recent evidence about transgender service members.”
“In an effort to “defend women’s rights” against “efforts to eradicate the biological reality of sex,” the order—titled “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government”—seeks with the force of federal law to establish men and women as distinct and immutable categories.
“It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female,” which “are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality,” the order states. It defines “sex” as “an individual’s immutable biological classification as either male or female” and notes that the term is “not a synonym for and does not include the concept of ‘gender identity,'” which the order says “does not provide a meaningful basis for identification and cannot be recognized as a replacement for sex.”
Perhaps ironically, supporters of transgender equality might agree with parts of this characterization. “Sex is a label—male or female—that you’re assigned by a doctor at birth based on the genitals you’re born with and the chromosomes you have. It goes on your birth certificate,” according to Planned Parenthood. Gender identity, on the other hand, “is how you feel inside and how you express your gender through clothing, behavior, and personal appearance. It’s a feeling that begins very early in life.”
The executive order defines “female” as “a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell” and “male” as the opposite—”a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell.” In other words, anyone with an XX chromosome is a female, and anyone with an XY chromosome is male, with no exceptions. The order tautologically defines “sex” in terms of “male” and “female,” which are then defined in terms of “sex.”
But by ruling so starkly, the order completely writes intersex people out of existence.
“People who are intersex have genitals, chromosomes or reproductive organs that don’t fit into a male/female sex binary,” according to the Cleveland Clinic. “Some people who are intersex consider their gender to be intersex. Others identify as female, male, nonbinary or a different gender.” In this case, a person’s professed gender may change from the one assigned at birth because they literally have biological markers of both. The clinic further notes that one in 100 Americans is estimated to be intersex.
The executive order criticizes “gender ideology,” which it says “replaces the biological category of sex with an ever-shifting concept of self-assessed gender identity” and “diminishes sex as an identifiable or useful category but nevertheless maintains that it is possible for a person to be born in the wrong sexed body.” But intersex people literally are born in the wrong sexed body, at least as defined by the executive order, which says everyone is either all male or all female.”
“Twenty-eight percent of Gen Z adults — which the survey’s researchers specify as those ages 18 to 25 — identify as LGBTQ, according to a report released this week by the Public Religion Research Institute, or PRRI. That compares with 10% of all adults, 16% of millennials, 7% of Generation X, 4% of baby boomers and 4% of the Silent Generation, the institute found.
“With respect to LGBTQ identity, it’s very clear that Gen Z adults look different than older Americans,” said Melissa Deckman, PRRI’s chief executive.
In its LGBTQ identity breakdown, the report found 72% of Gen Z adults identified as straight, 15% as bisexual, 5% as gay or lesbian and 8% as something else.
Researchers also found that Gen Z adults were more ethnically and racially diverse than older generations and less likely to affiliate with established religions. Gen Z adults, along with millennials, were also more likely to identify as LGBTQ than Republican, the survey found.
PRRI’s new survey, which included more than 6,600 participants, was conducted in August and September.
The findings are in line with those of other major surveys, including Gallup’s, that show Gen Z is the queerest adult generation to date. In its most recent poll, released in February of last year, Gallup found 7.2% of adults in the U.S. identify as LGBTQ, including nearly 20% of those in Gen Z, which that survey defined as those ages 19 to 26.”
“The North Carolina legislature has overridden the veto of Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper and passed multiple laws specifically targeting trans youth on issues including gender-affirming care, sports, and education. It’s the latest of several states with GOP-led legislatures to approve such bills, and it highlights how Republicans are continuing to make these policies central to their platform ahead of 2024.”
“Laura Ann Carleton, 66, a California business owner, was shot and killed last weekend after a gunman tore down an LGBTQ Pride flag hanging outside her store and shouted homophobic slurs. Since then, law enforcement has revealed that the gunman — who was killed in an encounter with police — also posted numerous anti-LGBTQ posts on social media accounts they believe are affiliated with him.”
“The government may not compel someone to “create speech she does not believe,” the Supreme Court ruled this morning. In a 6–3 opinion authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Court sided with a graphic designer, Lorie Smith, who wanted to expand into the wedding-website business without being forced by Colorado law to create products celebrating same-sex marriages.
Back in 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit found that the planned websites would each constitute “an original, customized creation,” designed by Smith “using text, graphics, and in some cases videos” with a goal of celebrating the couple’s “unique love story.” As such, it said they “qualify as ‘pure speech’ protected by the First Amendment.” The lower court admitted that Smith was willing to provide her services to anyone, regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation, so long as the substance of the project did not contradict her values. It also recognized that “Colorado’s ‘very purpose’ in seeking to apply its law to Ms. Smith” was to stamp out dissenting ideas about marriage. Despite all of that, incredibly, the 10th Circuit held that the state government was within its authority to compel her to create such websites against her will.”
…
“The ruling in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis is neither as narrow nor as broad as it (theoretically) could have been. The Court didn’t do away with public accommodations, or businesses prohibited from discriminating against customers on the basis of characteristics such as skin color or national origin. It did note that “no public accommodations law is immune from the demands of the Constitution” and that “public accommodations statutes can sweep too broadly when deployed to compel speech.” (The Colorado law was guilty in this instance.)
The high court also didn’t establish a right for any and every business owner to decline to provide services for same-sex weddings—only those whose services involve expressive activity. Whether a particular service (say, cake baking) is expressive will have to be litigated case by case.
But the majority did decide Smith’s case by appealing to free-expression precedents rather than religious-liberty ones. In other words, the justices didn’t say that the faith-based nature of Smith’s beliefs about marriage entitled her to an exemption. Presumably, a secular person with moral or factual objections to expressing a particular message would receive all the same protections as a Christian or Muslim objecting on religious grounds. As it should be.”