Well the US Supreme Court decided that trans people aren't real today. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-43_2b35.pdf

From Thomas's concurrence (EDIT: previously I said this was the majority opinion, I got that wrong):

> Because “gender dysphoria” is a mutable mental 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.

And even worse:

> Second, as the Court recognizes, this case concerns “biological 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 immutable “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.

I'm sorry, everyone.

@cwebber

JFC both religion and marital status are not immutable and they are recognized discrimination categories in the US

@cwebber FYI, that's from Thomas's concurrence, not from the majority opinion. Still awful and gross, but nobody else signed onto that particular opinion.

@JessTheUnstill Updated. Oops. Well it's good that's not in the majority opinion. Corrected.

I made an error, thanks to @JessTheUnstill for correcting me. The quotes above do NOT come from the majority opinion, they come from Thomas' concurrence.

However, the majority opinion does say "biological males who identify as female" repeatedly, and basically says, being transgender and even taking HRT, having surgery, etc does not change your categorization from your gender assigned at birth per the court's opinion.

@cwebber one more edit: the justice's name is Thomas not Thompson 🙂

@JessTheUnstill god damn oops

@JessTheUnstill I knew that even

@cwebber@social.coop what is the material impact of this?

@cwebber The "immutable" requirement is such a strange US-specific legal artefact. First, religion is considered a suspect class, and thus subject to strict scrutiny. One’s religion isn't immutable though, so that's not actually a requirement!

And second, during the gay-marriage debates of the early 2000s there was a fascinating split in how US and European activists framed being gay. In the US you often heard "I was born this way" and a strong emphasis on gay-ness being innate. Because in the US context – against the historical backdrop of race – that's how you are awarded rights. But in Europe the rhetoric was almost the opposite, emphasising freedom of choice as the basis for rights.

@cwebber I swear I wrote that toot before I saw this ny times op-ed that basically says "don't worry, I'm just gay – the inborn, unchosen, immutable kind – and not a scary queer, who keeps demanding more and more rights and is constantly challenging the status-quo"

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/30/opinion/queer-gay-rights.html

@anemone on the small scale it means institutions are legally allowed to block trans people from participating in (sex/gender-segregated) activities as their chosen gender . on a broader scale it seems to illegitimize trans as a sex/gender class, so we are defined only by our assigned sex at birth . this also effectively erases discrimination against us on the gender level (because gender doesn't legally exist, only sex) . this means that transmisogyny can't exist, because we're just men, you see! which tbh is the status quo anyway . this ruling pretty much affirms the status quo of how trans people are treated by the law so we're still just as fucked as ever, hooray!

@cwebber oh, fuck, i just read this for a second time and realised he was referring to Conversion therapy with the

A mutable mental state that is the object of psychiatric treatment

eww eww eww eww eww eww

@redjives @cwebber

"Mr. Vines is the author of “God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships" queer assimilationism was a mistake, example #4367

@cwebber Is it crazy to think that they are going to forcibly institutionalize trans folks? Reading through the Conservative majority’s opinions gives me that distinct impression. We already know that they are attempting to create a catch-22 apparatus that banishes undesirables into facilities.

@cwebber the brazenness with which the Court of Corruption doesn't only wipe away trans people but also purely biological facts that have nothing to do even with how anybody feels is staggering.

@cwebber It's a travesty that they replaced one of the best justices (Thurgood Marshall) with one of the worst.

@cwebber Thomas could prove his point by transitioning. 😜