Page locked

This page is currently locked for editing by another user. You have to wait until this user finishes editing or the lock expires.

Currently locked by: fe80:0ad7:136d:6e8f:ed68:ed2b:79ea:b426
Lock expires at: 2026/08/14 05:05 (14 min)

This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-477_2cp3.pdf


> (Pg 3) The Court concluded that, even though only biological women can become pregnant, not every legislative classification concerning pregnancy is a sex-based
classification 

Intersex people exists, and can become pregnant.


> The Court declines to address whether Bostock’s reasoning reaches beyond the Title VII context—unlike the employment discrimination at issue in Bostock, changing a minor’s sex or transgender status does not alter the application of SB1. If a transgender boy seeks testosterone to treat gender dysphoria, SB1 prevents a healthcare provider from administering it to him. If his biological sex were changed from female to male, SB1 would still not permit him the hormones he seeks because he would lack a qualifying diagnosis. The transgender boy could receive testosterone only if he had a permissible diagnosis (like a congenital defect). And, if he had such a diagnosis, he could obtain the testosterone regardless of his sex or transgender status. Under the reasoning of Bostock, neither his sex nor his transgender status is the but-for cause of his inability to obtain testosterone. Pp. 18–21.