Justice Jackson's Gender Therapy Dissent Reveals Inconsistent Constitutional Interpretation
Source: Elle Purnell. "Justice Who Can't Define 'Woman' Says Trust The Gender Science." April 1, 2026. thefederalist.com
The Gist
The author argues that Justice Jackson is being hypocritical and legally inconsistent. She supports banning therapists from talking to kids about accepting their biological sex, but opposes banning actual gender surgeries on children. The author thinks Jackson is using bad legal reasoning to support transgender ideology while claiming to follow 'the science.'
Conclusion
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's dissent supporting Colorado's ban on gender therapy demonstrates flawed constitutional reasoning and inconsistent application of First Amendment principles
Premises
- Jackson claims banning therapists from providing talk therapy for gender dysphoria is 'garden-variety regulation' while opposing bans on gender surgeries for children
- Jackson argues that professional medical speech doesn't involve 'expression of ideas' and thus deserves less First Amendment protection
- Jackson appeals to 'trusting the science' on transgender issues despite previously claiming she couldn't define 'woman' because she's 'not a biologist'
- Jackson's distinction between medical speech and idea expression is arbitrary and would allow judges more freedom to discuss biological sex differences than medical professionals
- Jackson uses fear-mongering tactics similar to COVID-era appeals to authority, claiming catastrophic consequences from allowing alternative therapeutic approaches
Assumptions
- First Amendment protections should apply equally to all forms of professional speech
- Constitutional interpretation should be consistent across similar cases
- Appeals to scientific authority can be used to suppress legitimate therapeutic alternatives
- Jackson's previous statements about biological definitions are relevant to her current position on gender issues