This Is Bull!

We are not a matter of semantics.

It is a human right!

The Supreme Court settled it once and now the haters are trying to get some wiggle room to discriminate against us.

What the Skrmetti decision means for transgender students and the future of education research

The Brookings Institution

Raquel Muñiz , Andrés Castro Samayoa, and Shane Dunn

December 1, 2025

Courts often issue decisions that, at first glance, might appear disconnected from education. Yet, these rulings frequently ripple through the educational landscape. The Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Skrmetti (2025) is such a case. While the decision addressed Tennessee’s ban on certain medical treatments for transgender minors, its implications have broader reach.

In this piece, we consider what the Skrmetti decision could mean for students in America’s schools and institutions of higher education.

Skrmetti upheld SB1, a Tennessee law prohibiting certain gender-affirming care for transgender minors. The case hinged on whether SB1 prohibited the medical care for minors based on their “sex” or because they were transgender. If the Court found that SB1 prohibited access to care based on sex, then the Court would have applied a higher level of scrutiny and may have struck down the law. If the Court found that SB1 prohibited care based on transgender status, the Court would have to decide whether to apply heightened scrutiny. The Court held that SB1 did not prohibit the medical care based on sex or transgender status. Instead, the Court held that the law prohibited medical care based on “age” and “medical use.” Therefore, it applied the lowest level of scrutiny. This meant that Tennessee only had to show that it acted rationally in adopting SB1, and the Court held this much.

That is total BS... the Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins Supreme Court decision settled that question already!

The decision marks a departure from the Court’s recent trajectory on LGBTQ+ protections. For example, Skrmetti stands in tension with Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), where the Court held that “it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.” To be sure, that ruling was in the context of Title VII employment discrimination. But it remains unclear why the Court is willing to recognize sex-based discrimination protections for transgender individuals under Title VII but unwilling to entertain this logic under the Equal Protection Clause.

They are trying to unlink sex and gender. Back in 1989 the Supreme Court merged sex & gender. What the case was about a woman who didn't wear a skirt or high heels. Her boss at the accounting firm said to her that she would the job if she dressed, you know, a little more feminine, like wear a skirt and heels.

She sued.

The Supreme Court said that sex discrimination also includes stereotyping.

Discrimination against an employee on the basis of sex stereotyping--that is, a person's nonconformity to social or other expectations of that person's gender--constitutes impermissible sex discrimination, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Um... "a person's nonconformity to social or other expectations..." Um.. Us... the trans community!

The Republicans are trying to make us second-class citizens with no rights, to force us back into the closet!

School boards, superintendents, and principals now confront a legal landscape in which supportive practices—such as affirming names and pronouns, providing safe restroom access, and training staff—may be resisted by courts. Teachers, counselors, and social workers who are closest to students and most attuned to their needs face heightened risk for working to affirm transgender youth. Meanwhile, parents who love and affirm their children must now navigate a more hostile and confusing system that restricts their ability to secure care and support through schools.

Trump is using us the way other authoritarian leaders have targeted minority groups: antisemitic scapegoating in Nazi Germany, the targeting of Tutsis in Rwanda, the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, and Yugoslavia’s ethnic cleansing of Bosniaks, Croats, and Kosovar Albanians. He has learned from these examples.

Have we committed any crimes? No. Have we threatened anyone? No. Trump is attacking us over our identity. He is attempting to erase us by legally invalidating gender identity and restricting access to gender-affirming care. That mirrors tactics historically used by despots to marginalize and dehumanize vulnerable groups.

And now the Court may back up his campaign against us.