“Transgender Miners at the Supreme Court . . .”

. . . Is how a headline reads in today’s Wall Street Journal. To which my reaction was, what next?

First, the trannies were in the closet. Then they came out, apparently just to go to the bathroom. The one for girls.

Then they were in the Cabinet of the future former President and current organized crime boss who both commits and pardons family criminal acts. (One stop shopping, is he.)

The next thing we knew, they were competing in athletic contests against real women – or, as much of the media dubs them, “birthing persons” or “menstruating persons” or “persons with a bonus hole” or (my personal favorite) “non-transgender women.”

Now, no less than the Wall Street Journal informs us that we have transgender miners. Yep, they’re in the mines. Those would be the mines on federal land, no doubt.

“Glory Hole” takes on a whole new meaning.

Not only that, but these transgender miners have a case today before the Supreme Court – a Court that is not especially sympathetic to identity politics (though they did rule a few years ago – centuries ago in terms of the cultural climate – that businesses cannot discriminate against tranny employees).

Given the composition of the Supreme Court, one might expect a miner of all people to know that the first thing to do when you’re stuck in a ditch is to stop digging.

What’s that you say? The WSJ headline refers to “minors” and not “miners”? And the Supreme Court case is about transgender children, not transgender miners?

Nehva mind . . .

In that case, let me put on my legal hat.

The claim being heard by the Supreme Court is that state laws prohibiting hormone manipulation and gender mutilation (er, “affirmation”) of children having some growing pains are a violation of the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution.

The gist of the argument is: If a boy who thinks he’s a boy can get certain hormones to affirm his boyhood, then why can’t a boy who thinks he’s a girl get other hormones to affirm his girliness? If the second boy can’t get his hormones, then you’ve discriminated against him on the basis of sex. The boy got the hormones, and the boy who thinks he’s a girl was refused them.

The argument has a circular quality to it. The boy thinks he’s a girl, and so he’s entitled to receive hormones to make him one. To refuse him those hormones is to discriminate against a boy who thinks he is a girl but is not because he hasn’t received the hormones, and so it’s sex discrimination.

If you can follow that, you should be a lawyer.

There’s another, more basic flaw to the argument that boys who think they’re girls have a Constitutional right to receive hormones to make them girls (sorta). Recent studies in Europe have shown that gender “affirmation” treatment generally has a poor outcome. To be sure, a boy who becomes a “girl” has his genitals mutilated. But also – as if the genital mutilation is not a bad enough outcome – gets nowhere in his psychological well-being. He’s just as prone to suicide, for example – an act that is tragically common among trannies.

Moreover, many “transitioned” children later regret their transition, and seek to “de-transition.” If you thought the transition surgery was dicey, imagine the de-transition surgery.

Countries in Europe have now stepped back from gender “affirmation” treatment for children, and several have outlawed it – just as many states here have.

So, the Supreme Court can dodge the Constitutional Equal Protection issue that even lawyers have a hard time articulating, and decide the case in a more basic way that even you and I can understand.

They can say: This treatment is controversial and unproven. The states can, in the exercise of the plenary powers reserved to them, make a reasonable judgment that it should not be performed on children.

This is anything but unprecedented. Note that most states prohibit children from getting tattoos. But now there’s supposed to be a Constitutional right for them to mutilate their genitals in the interest of a faddish identity group that is recruiting them?