Three of the nine justices on the U.S. Supreme Court believe that boys can swap their legal sex to become girls by just saying so.

The endorsement of the revolutionary demands of transgenderism came from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, backed by Justice Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, who wrote:

[Male] Respondent B. P. J. is a transgender girl who wants to live her life consistent with her gender identity.

The three judges’ acceptance of the so-called “transgender” claim is based on the progressives’ political demand that people they favor can and should be liberated from biological, intellectual, and social constraints that they dislike. In contrast, conservatives believe that civic norms and laws should manage the competitive and unchanging nature of human biology, such as biological differences that would disadvantage nearly all women in mixed-sex sports competitions.

The faith in progressive self-liberation is described in the three judges’ dissent against the court’s majority decision that recognized the legal term “sex” has been based on unchangeable biology:

The term “sex” in Title IX, the Javits Amendment, and the Title IX regulations cannot plausibly be interpreted to refer to anything other than biological sex. The ordinary meaning of the term “sex” at the time of enactment in the early 1970s was biological sex and not gender identity, particularly in the sports context

But boys’ constitutional claims to be legally defined as girls, the three judges claim, should be decided by lower-court judges according to the specific details of each case:

When B. P. J. was 11 years old, she sought the opportunity to do what she and so many other children love to do: play sports …. [and now] contends that neither of the State’s asserted justifications apply to transgender girls like her, who have never experienced an endogenous male puberty, who receive gender-affirming treatment, and who, as a result of both, B. P. J. says, lack any athletic advantage that is inherent to their sex identified at birth.

…

the majority holds that transgender girls like B. P. J. who wish to play girls’ sports are not protected by the Constitution … Yet the Equal Protection Clause demands much more when a State deploys a sex classification to achieve legislative aims. Perhaps West Virginia could meet those demands. Perhaps not. In either event, because unresolved factual questions prevent the Court from assessing the merits of B. P. J.’s equal protection claim at this time, the Court should allow the District Court to address those factual questions in the first instance. Yet in an opinion unencumbered by fact or law, the majority today cuts off that process prematurely, deciding instead that B. P. J.’s case must end now.

Their revolutionary demand would entangle sports competitions in many legal arguments, giving judges and political advocates — not referees and sports officials — control over Americans’ sports culture.

The three judges somehow portray their aggressive demand to promote elite-managed “gender” law above citizens’ long-standing management of sexual differences as judicial “restraint”:

This litigation implicates deeply sensitive, contentious, and evolving issues. These circumstances demand exercising judicial restraint, not rushing to answer conclusively difficult questions without sufficient evidentiary development.

The three “restraint” judges’ demand for power is spotlighted by their claims that the six-judge majority unfairly “favors” the vast majority of Americans over the tiny share of people who claim to be “transgender”:

The majority extends great sympathy to those it favors: the young cisgender girls and women who play sports … the majority, however, inflicts a hardship on those it disfavors.

The three “restraint” judges also voted with two GOP-nominated judges to impose a nation-shaping birth citizenship mandate on American citizens. The mandate says that foreign parents must be allowed to transform their children’s legal identity to an American citizen if they illegally cross the United States’ 4,000-mile border before the births.

In contrast to the revolutionary demands for power by the three judges, many polls show that Americans prefer that they and their elected politicians manage the evolution of the two sexes’ competing, cooperative, and complementary priorities.