When I last mentioned United States v. Skrmetti - the challenge to Tennessee Bill SB1 of 2023 prohibiting gender-affirming care to transgender minors - I predicted the Supreme Court would struggle to rule on whether the law should be struck down.

To strike down the law would grant transgender people equal protection against discrimination on the basis of sex - a result that dismantles many of Trump's campaign promises and Executive Orders. But to uphold the law would attack the very foundation of conservative anti-Queer rhetoric: the assertion gender is identical to sex.

In his opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts failed to answer any question explicitly, instead attempting to weasel out of his responsibility to interpret the law. But Roberts also did not strike down Tennessee Bill SB1.

To be clear, the law is nothing more than pure discrimination against transgender people with no justification. It doesn't even attempt to hide its discrimination behind the cheap and worn veneer of Christian virtue.

As a result, the opinion handed down on its fate marks the beginning of conservative rhetoric's ultimate downfall by attempting to maintain consistency in an inconsistent group of beliefs.

The poison and the antidote

Tennessee Bill SB1 (TN SB1), introduced in 2023, explicitly permits gender-affirming care for minors, including hormonal and surgical interventions, with only one caveat. That is, the minor requesting care must not use it to affirm a gender inconsistent with their assigned sex at birth.

Gender-affirming care as a whole is perfectly appropriate - just not for transgender minors.

TN SB1 is founded directly on the conservative rhetoric leveled at the Queer community since at least the 1960s: that sex is identical to gender and defines sexuality.

In more detailed language, conservative rhetoric defines gender as an effect, the cause of which is sex. A child's assigned sex at birth - even the genotype of the zygote at conception - sets the identity of the child indelibly in place for their entire life.

There is no room for deviation; there is no escape. Thou shalt not step outside the social role determined and assigned by your conservative leaders for their convenience.

But if gender is identical to sex, and United States law - through the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the 14th Amendment to the Constitution - protects all citizens, including minors, from discrimination on the basis of sex, how can TN SB1 possibly sidestep its own demise?

In presenting arguments to the Supreme Court in US v. Skrmetti, solicitor general of the United States Elizabeth Prelogar asked just this question.

The legal shell game

Bizarre as it seemed, Prelogar argued for conservative rhetoric in her arguments. If - as the rhetoric goes - sex and gender are identical, gender, like sex, must be a protected class under existing law.

Equating gender to sex enabled a piece of legislation such as TN SB1, and also explains precisely why the law is unconstitutional. A brilliant argument - using conservative rhetoric against its products.

As I predicted, the Supreme Court faced a tough decision. Does it strike down TN SB1 in order to preserve conservative rhetoric and accept its logical conclusions for the transgender community? Or does it uphold the law, and - in effect - decouple sex from gender, the concept that enabled the law in the first place?

In his opinion, Chief Justice Roberts claimed TN SB1 did not discriminate on the basis of sex, it only specifies gender-affirming care be used "to treat certain conditions but not to treat gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, or gender incongruence."

Transgender minors are refused gender-affirming care their cisgender counterparts may receive "regardless of [the] minor's sex." In almost the same breath, Chief Justice Roberts also claims the law "does not classify on the basis of transgender status."

This is legal chicanery at its most exquisite.

Gender dysphoria is human

If you're transgender, of if you know somebody transgender, or you've consumed one of innumerable articles or podcasts about the transgender experience, you understand very well the experience begins with incongruence. Left untreated, incongruence develops into chronic discomfort in attempting to fulfill social norms - that is, gender dysphoria.

But is gender dysphoria dependent on "transgender status?"

What "certain conditions" do cisgender minors experience that differ from transgender minors? Every hormonal or surgical intervention provided as gender-affirming care to minors - from slowing the onset of puberty to breast reduction to hair removal - begins as incongruence with one's peers and develops into a chronic sense of discomfort in one's presentation in the social environment.

I've long written that gender dysphoria is not a transgender experience, but a common human experience. If a person does not experience comfort in their attempt to fulfill social norms - regardless of their sex or gender - that's gender dysphoria, full stop.

Although Chief Justice Roberts attempts to cauterize the wound in his opinion by characterizing gender dysphoria as a transgender issue, he defeats his own argument by claiming TN SB1 does not discriminate on the basis of "transgender status."

TN SB1 and Chief Justice Roberts assert cisgender people may feel gender dysphoria. Otherwise, there would be no need to specify cisgender minors may receive gender-affirming care at all; instead, all gender-affirming care could be prohibited.

The Fall of the House of MAGA

The inconsistency in TN SB1 - to outlaw only certain minors from receiving gender-affirming care - is the first fraying thread in the angora sweater of conservative rhetoric. By upholding TN SB1 in his opinion, Chief Justice Roberts rejected solicitor general Prelogar's argument that gender is identical to sex, although he does so in legalese so oblique and self-contradictory, it's doubtful even he realizes what he's done.

The result, however, is plain: laws may discriminate based on the source of gender dysphoria, because the source of gender dysphoria is not the same as sex.

But if the source of gender dysphoria is not sex, what is it? Conservative rhetoric cannot simultaneously claim "transgender status" is not related to sex, yet gender is an effect of sex.

Admittedly, conservative anti-Queer rhetoric has never been rooted in science or logic. But the opinion handed down begins its systematic dismantling by upholding the law that exemplifies it perfectly.

And - from my standpoint - watching this spectacle is nothing short of beautiful.

The next legal frontier

Make no mistake, the short-term effect of United States v. Skrmetti will be to empower conservatives to drum up more anti-transgender legislation.

That is…until the next law is challenged.

The process is likely to take years, but when the next case is presented to the Supreme Court, the Justices - specifically Chief Justice Roberts - will be forced into another choice. Either the Court must identify and rectify the inconsistency in the Skrmetti opinion…or acknowledge conservative rhetoric was never consistent.

In this video about Skrmetti, I guessed the next challenge to anti-transgender legislation will be much stronger. If gender and "transgender status" are not related to sex, they must only be personal expression, not the demonstrably false pseudoscience conservative rhetoric presents.

Rather than invoke the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, the next challenge to conservative anti-Queer rhetoric will invoke the First Amendment. And if seeing conservative Supreme Court Justices step all over themselves to deny 14th Amendment protection to transgender people is already beautiful to behold, imagine the machinations necessary to sidestep every conservative's 'Murican wet dream: the right to freedom of expression.

Frankly, I can't wait.