You can call it a small slip of the tongue, but it’s a major concession to those who still demand that we deny reality.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case Little v. Hecox, which could set precedent in whether men who identify as women can compete in women’s sports. The case was brought by Lindsay Hecox, a female-identifying male who said that Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act violates his constitutional rights by barring him from competing as a woman.
During oral arguments, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, usually conservative on these matters, decided to play by the left’s language game during oral arguments in the dispute. Barrett was questioning Alan Hurst, the attorney arguing the case for the state of Idaho, about the extent to which sports teams must be separated by gender, even if it’s at an age where “there’s no difference between boys and girls in terms of athletic ability, testosterone levels, etcetera.”
“Could you have sex-separated teams then — or, sorry, sex-separated teams by biological sex and not allow trans girls on them?” she asked.
Hurst went on to point out that this hypothetical didn’t apply because there were no school-sponsored sports at this level.
“Well, I’m just trying to give you a hypothetical,” Barrett said.
“I mean, yours is driven by testosterone levels and differences in athletic capability. So I’m asking you what if you tried to take that out of the equation and you’re just drawing the line based on biological sex and saying that trans girls can’t be on the girls team in an age group that’s prepubescent.”
PATHETIC: “Conservative” Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett refers to men as “trans girls,” completely ignoring biological truth. pic.twitter.com/7Ae1nY1dPV
— RedWave Press (@RedWave_Press) January 13, 2026
While Barrett would later go on and use the terms “biological girls” and “trans boys” somewhat interchangeably, here she buys hook, line, and sinker into the lure of that tautological, and yet somehow incorrect, chant of the left: “Trans women are women!”
They are not, of course. That’s why we’re here. That’s why so many states have passed legislation like Idaho’s. Not because we’re all deep-seated bigots of anyone who isn’t some trad archetype, not because “trans visibility” (or whatever) makes us uncomfortable, not even because Dylan Mulvaney is the worst celebrity singer since Kevin Federline.
It’s because men are men and women are women. It’s because biology confers differences that language cannot change, and those differences are dangerous at worst, and unfair at least, on a sports field.
Barrett may not buy into this mephitic ideology in her decision; indeed, she voted with the court’s decisions to uphold other laws regarding the redefinition of gender during last year’s session, Reuters noted, and indications from oral arguments are that the court will side with Idaho in this case, too.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, for instance, told a lawyer for those challenging the law that sports are “kind of a zero-sum game for a lot of teams,” and that “someone who tries out and makes it, who is a transgender girl, will bump someone from the starting lineup, from playing time, from the team, from the all-league [honors], and those things matter to people, big time.”
And yet, in laying out the basic logic behind this law, Kavanaugh too played the same word game that the left is all too willing to engage in. These are not “transgender girls.” They are boys playing in girls’ sports.
Until we can get sane individuals — particularly the six Republican-appointed justices who sit on the nation’s highest bench — to call reality reality, we will continue to fight the same battle against post-human utopianism, which transgender ideology is arguably the purest form of, in one way or another.
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
