Where we are in the movement to protect the sex-based right of women and girls

And to stop the abolition of sex

February 5, 2025

First, a couple of new lawsuits have hit my radar.

Yesterday, the federal District Court for the District of Columbia entered a temporary restraining order in the matter of Doe, et al. v. McHenry, et al., where three male inmates have sued the Acting Attorney General for threatening to transfer them to a men’s prison (where they belong, in my view). While disappointing, this temporary outcome is not entirely surprising, and it mirrors the temporary outcome in Moe v. Trump, where a male inmate sued the administration for essentially the same reason in the District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

At this time, both cases are at the district court level. In both cases, federal district courts have temporarily blocked the January 20 Executive Order on Defender Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government from taking effect as to male inmates who call themselves women, want to be housed in a women’s prison, and demand that the government provide them with estrogen, courtesy of you, the tax payer.

One thing that is a bit interesting about the most recent case (Doe, et al. v. McHenry, et al.) is that the court only granted the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order as to their Eighth Amendment claim that the government is violating their right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. The court did not touch the plaintiffs’ argument that the government is also violating their right to equal protection of the law. I think that’s interesting because whether the phrase “transgender people” (or the phrase “transgender minors” or the phrase “transgender prisoners”) is a coherent category for equal protection purposes is a hotly contested matter that is currently before the Supreme Court. The group Women’s Declaration International USA explained why it is not in a recent amicus brief before the Supreme Court.¹

The other lawsuit on my radar is a case filed by three female athletes yesterday against the Ivy League Conference, Harvard University, and the NCAA. The complaint is 125 pages long and I haven’t had time to digest it. According to the group ICONS:

The Independent Council on Women’s Sports (ICONS) today announced its full support and financial backing for a new lawsuit against the Ivy League Conference, Harvard University, and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). Represented by sports attorney Bill Bock, JD, the lawsuit was filed on behalf of three female Ivy League swimmers. The complaint alleges harassment, abuse, and federal law violations resulting from the NCAA and Ivy League’s decision to allow male swimmer Lia Thomas to compete on the University of Pennsylvania women’s team and access women’s locker rooms during the 2021-2022 season.

In February 2022, WDI USA joined up with Keep Prisons Single Sex USA to send a letter to UPenn (as well as local law enforcement) explaining why allowing Thomas to be in the women’s locker room violated both Penn’s own rules against sexual harassment and state criminal laws against voyeurism and indecent exposure.

I’ll do my best to stay on top of all of this litigation, but man, it’s getting hard to keep up.

However, none of that is what I want to write about today. Instead, I’m interested in exploring where I think we are in the movement to protect the sex-based rights of women and girls and to stop the abolition of sex in February 2025.

Paid-only content follows. If you are not already a paid subscriber and would like access to content that delves deeper into the movement to protect the sex-based rights of women and girls and to stop the abolition of sex, please consider becoming one today.