Stemming the tide of transgender madness

We are living in an age where we do not know what it means to be human.

This is clear when Robert James Bromwich, a sitting judge for the Federal Court of Australia, declares in a legal ruling that a man’s “sex is now that of a woman” because 1) the man said so, 2) he legally changed his birth certificate to denote this wish along with his newly adopted name “Roxanne (Roxy) Tickle” (seriously!), and 3) had sexually mutilating surgery.

In a travesty of a case, Sally (Sall) Grover is being fined over $20,000 because she does not, according to Judge Bromwich, “accept that a person’s sex can be a matter for self-identification.” Roxy Tickle is suing Sall Grover for removing him from her women’s-only social media space, Giggle for Girls, leading to a case name that is as silly as its present conclusions: Tickle vs. Giggle. Who could make this up?

But the judgment in the case is no laughing matter. Grover observed, “There seems to be this organized plan to punish anyone in the country for not adhering to gender ideology.” Yet she explains this battle is “100%” worth fighting because “if we can’t look at a man and say that’s a man, we literally don’t live in a free society.”

Thankfully, our own U.S. Supreme Court appears to be ensuring America will no longer be captive to this crazy train, and this fact offers reasoned hope to the rest of the world.

After a very sloppy 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clay County, the Supreme Court has issued six strong rulings—four in 2025 and two so far in 2026—based on a sound anthropology, brushing back gender ideology in powerful ways. A seventh and eighth reasoned win are expected by late June or early July.

First, let us examine SCOTUS’s troubling Bostock mistake, with Justice Gorsuch authoring the 6-3 majority decision and Justices Alito, Thomas, and Kavanaugh dissenting. The majority creatively inserted “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as federally protected statuses in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, along with its original categories: sex, race, color, religion and national origin.

Of course, the problem here is that sexual orientation and gender identity cannot be authentic protected statuses because they are not real. They are both relatively new subjective ideological claims. There is no agreed upon or coherent definition of what “sexual orientation” is and is not. And “gender identity” has become absurdly expansive, an ever evolving “ill-defined” term, according to Alex Byrne, an MIT linguistic philosopher. For these reasons, Bostock could likely be overturned.

Now, to the U.S. Supreme Court’s four very strong 2025 decisions checking transgender and sexual ideology encroachment.

United States v. Shilling was the first, backing President Trump in overturning President Biden’s executive order allowing open “trans” military participation. This allowed the secretary of war to effect a ban on “individuals with gender dysphoria” from serving in the military.

The second was the landmark United States v. Skrmetti case, a 6-3 vote that guaranteed states can ban gender medicalization of minors. This was even noted by The New York Times Magazine as an embarrassing loss for gender activists and the ACLU.

Following this was Mahmoud v. Taylor, which strongly backed parents objecting to their children being subjected to “LGBTQ+” lessons and reading material. The Court ruled parents have religious liberty rights to opt their children out of such indoctrination.

Fourth was Trump v. Orr, decided on Nov. 6, 2025, which allows the State Department to issue passports listing only a citizen’s biological sex. The Court stated, “Displaying passport holders’ sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth—in both cases, the Government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment.”

In 2026, two more common-sense decisions were handed down by the United States’ highest court.

Mirabelli v. Bonta ruled that school officials cannot secretly transition students behind their parents’ backs. The court relied heavily on its 2025 Mahmoud decision protecting parents’ right to direct their children’s education and development. The suit was brought by two award winning middle school teachers who were deeply troubled that their California school district required them to deceive parents regarding their children’s gender indoctrination.

Most recently, there was the remarkable 8-1 ruling in Chiles v. Salazar, which returned counselors’ free speech rights to assist clients desiring to overcome unwanted sexual desires or gender confusion. The majority explained, “The First Amendment stands as a bulwark against any effort to prescribe an orthodoxy of views, reflecting a belief that each American enjoys an inalienable right to speak his mind and a faith in the free marketplace of ideas as the best means for finding truth.”

This is the very protection Sall Grover is desperately seeking in Australia.

Finally, two cases—Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J.—are expected to be decided this summer. Both address protecting girls and women’s sports from male intrusion at college and high school levels. Josh Blackman of the Manhattan Institute suspects a 7-2 or 8-1 win for female protection in both cases. He believes Skrmetti and Mahmoud paved the way for such an uncontested victory on both.

And all this, because our current president, on his inaugural day in his second term in office, strongly declared and signed an executive order affirming, “It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female.” He added, “These sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality.”

This is the reasonable power of God’s natural law that people in other countries are desperately yearning for. We must expand and defend it with every fiber of our being here, for it is the truth of God’s divine creation, strongly affirmed by Jesus Himself.

Elections and democracy have profound and life-giving consequences.