The Supreme Court has handed down what looks like a short-term victory for those who believe official documents should reflect objective facts. In a temporary order issued Thursday, the justices allowed the State Department to keep listing a traveler’s biological sex on passports while the courts keep fighting over it.

Another victory handed to the Trump administration and reality? For now. I’ll take this small win, it certainly is a step in the right direction, but if anyone is resting easy here, don’t. This is far from over. This, being the trans ideology cult.

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled President Trump’s State Department can prohibit transgender Americans from listing their gender identity on their passports, for now.

It hands another legal victory for Trump in his efforts to eviscerate what his administration calls “gender ideology.” The Justice Department brought the emergency appeal after lower courts blocked the passport policy for being rooted in “irrational prejudice.” – The Hill

The policy brings passports back to reality by listing a traveler’s biological sex, as documented in official records like a birth certificate, not whatever identity box someone feels like checking that day.

Remember, though, one can still change one’s sex on one’s U.S. birth certificate. Each state has its own requirements.

How We Got Here

Passports used to just list male or female, using the information from birth certificates. But in 2010, yes, that long ago, the Obama administration allowed people to choose their gender preference, but they had to at least provide medical documentation.

Then Biden became President and guess what? He opened that door further by allowing people to choose X as their identity on passports which meant if they identified as a ghost, they could select X. This option was for human beings who said they didn’t feel like they identified as male or female. You get the picture. Insanity. Oh, and they no longer needed any sort of medical documentation. Why should they?

When President Trump returned to office, his administration reversed the Biden rule, thank God.  And of course, right on cue, advocacy groups started suing, saying the change violated “equal-protection” and “administrative-law standards.”

Equal protection and administrative-law standards? To be clear, no one is being denied a passport. No one is being barred from travel. But whatever, the Justice Department appealed, and the Supreme Court stepped in, saying the policy could stay in place while the legal fight continues.

And we’d better keep paying attention to this, the fight is not over.

Listing your sex on a legal document is factual, like your place of birth, nationality, and photo. I can’t submit a picture of my cat as my passport photo. I am not allowed to put down my nationality as Ethiopia either.

SCOTUS ruled 6-3 in favor of allowing Trump to restrict passports to reflect a person’s biological sex rather than chosen gender.

In her dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson called the order a “pointless but painful perversion of our equitable discretion.” pic.twitter.com/m947RZE0Ct

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) November 6, 2025

Ah, but the dissenters –

Justice Jackson’s Dissent

Remember, Ketanji Brown Jackson said she could not define what a woman is because she wasn’t a biologist, but she can tell the rest of us how equality works.

In dissent, the court’s liberals called the ruling “pointless but painful perversion.” – The Hill

She argued that refusing to let people use a gender identity on passports undermines equal protection and could subject some travelers to additional scrutiny. Her view stood in sharp contrast to the majority’s focus on documentation standards. The dissenting justices see the passport marker as part of a broader right to self-definition.

So, by her logic, it’s acceptable for someone to enter the country under a false identity as long as it fits their feelings. Are several scenarios playing through your head right now? It should.

Supporters of the rule see it as a return to straightforward record-keeping. Passports are meant to establish identity and citizenship, not to express how someone feels about either. Clear, consistent information helps security and travel systems work.

And then we have the ACLU, in all its glorious wonder.

They claim the policy “endangers” transgender, nonbinary, and intersex travelers because their appearance might not match what is printed on their documents. Well, excuse me, but isn’t that the entire point of identification, to confirm who a person actually is? Not to let them stroll through under false pretenses? If we start normalizing that, we are not being compassionate. We are opening the door to every imaginable security risk.

The Court’s order does not settle the larger question. It simply allows the government to enforce the policy while the case moves forward. Even so, it gives a glimpse of how the justices may view related disputes: that factual record-keeping is within the executive branch’s authority and does not automatically violate equal-protection law.

And About That Language

I feel like I have to continue saying this about the language. Words like “gender” and “sex assigned at birth” are activist creations, not scientific terms. Doctors don’t assign sex. They record it. “Gender” was invented to make biology sound flexible, and now we see how far that word has taken us. The minute we start using their language, we start losing the argument. A passport is supposed to list facts, not feelings, and the facts begin with biological sex. It’s sex, not gender.

The Court pressed pause on the madness for now. How long it lasts depends on whether we keep speaking the truth out loud and refusing to play along with the language games.

Feature Image: Created in Canva Pro