In questions during oral arguments on Wednesday, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson showed how deeply she misunderstood the case at hand by deciding to conflate gender identity with race. The case, US v. Skrmetti, sees the Department of Justice and the ACLU taking the state of Tennessee to court over a law that bans medical sex changes for minors. Jackson argued that child sex changes are akin to interracial marriage in law.
In her attempt to unearth the basis of the case, Jackson brought up the 1967 Loving v. Virginia, in which an interracial couple sued to have their marriage recognized by the state. Jackson said that the case about banning medical sex changes for minors and the case about the legality of interracial marriages were “sort of the same thing” in that both were about innate characteristics.
“So it’s interesting to me that we now have this different argument and I wonder whether Virginia could have gotten away with what they did here by just making a classification argument the way Tennessee is in this case,” Jackson said
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, who has been leaning into the idea that the Tennessee law is discriminatory on the basis of sex, agreed with Jackson’s assessment, saying “Yes, I think that’s exactly right, that there is absolutely a parallel between any law that says you can’t act inconsistent with a protected characteristic.”
Both Prelogar and Jackson have made the leap that to be trans is the same thing as being of a certain race, something immutable and unchangeable, and in the case of trans, a condition that requires a person to undergo medical treatment to enable them to appear as the opposite sex. […]
— Read More: thepostmillennial.com
“Aldo has killed an ape child.”