Montana Court Wrongly Conflates Biological Sex with Gender Identity on Official Documents
Source: Breccan F. Thies. "MT Court: It's Unconstitutional For Licenses To Say Men Are Men." April 20, 2026. thefederalist.com
The Gist
The author argues that Montana's highest court made a serious error by saying it's discrimination to require driver's licenses to show someone's actual biological sex instead of their chosen gender identity. He believes this confuses basic scientific facts with personal feelings and will cause problems for sex-separated spaces like bathrooms and sports.
Conclusion
The Montana Supreme Court's ruling that requiring accurate biological sex on official documents constitutes discrimination is legally and factually wrong
Premises
- The court incorrectly conflated the definitions of 'sex' and 'gender,' treating them as identical when they are distinct concepts
- Biological sex is an objective, immutable, scientifically verifiable characteristic, while gender identity is a subjective personal decision
- Requiring accurate documentation of biological facts does not constitute discrimination if words retain their factual meanings
- The ruling undermines legal justifications for sex-based distinctions in sports, restrooms, housing, and other facilities
- Previous jurisprudence has consistently recognized sex as an objective biological characteristic, not a matter of personal identification
Assumptions
- Biological sex is binary, immutable, and scientifically determinable
- Official government documents should reflect objective biological facts rather than subjective identities
- Legal definitions should maintain consistency with scientific and historical understanding of terms
- Courts should not redefine established legal concepts to accommodate political ideologies