On August 5, WDI USA filed its sixth amicus brief before the U.S. Supreme Court (and 13th amicus brief overall) in the matter of Gays Against Groomers, et al. v. Garcia, et al. We are asking the Court to grant certiorari (accept the case for review).
This is an important case about the freedom of witnesses to use accurate sex-based language in public testimony. In 2024, two individuals (Christina Goeke and Rich Guggenheim) gave public testimony in opposition to “Tiara’s Law,” which makes it easier for convicted sex offenders to change their names legally, before a committee of the Colorado state legislature. They were ordered in advance not to “misgender” anyone. They both used accurate sex-based pronouns to refer to “Tiara” (a man who claims to be a woman). They were interrupted and silenced and portions of Christina’s testimony were stricken from the public record.
They sued, represented by the Institute for Free Speech, arguing that the committee’s actions violated their rights under the First Amendment. WDI USA agrees, and our brief emphasizes that Article IV of the Declaration on Women’s Sex-Based Rights reaffirms women’s rights to freedom of opinion and expression.
From the brief:
First, there is no such thing as “misgendering.” Amicus is a radical feminist organization. For radical feminists, “gender” refers to sets of restrictive stereotypes that are imposed on people on the basis of sex. Men are expected to be dominating and rational. Boys are expected to play with trucks and like the color blue. Women are expected to be demure and emotional. Girls are expected to play with dolls and like the color pink. Radical feminists seek to abolish these sets of stereotypes.
Amicus maintains that so-called “gender identity” is nothing other than a belief system that is divorced from the material reality of sex. Therefore, amicus and other radical feminists do not accept the concept of “misgendering” and do not refer to people using opposite-sex language. Radical feminists maintain that in order to advance the movement to liberate women, society has to be able to accurately identify who the women are and who the men are.
Second, Americans across the political spectrum know what a woman is and what a man is. As explained in Section II, infra, in polling that amicus commissioned in 2023, four out of five voters agreed that the word “women” means “adult humans who are biologically female.”
It is the contention of amicus that government entities such as the respondents in this matter have to force people to go along with so-called “gender ideology,” even if they do not believe in it, by silencing and/or punishing people who speak out about it, as respondents did here.
Third, everyone, including petitioners in this case, should have the right to describe others on the basis of their sex rather than their “gender identity” in all contexts. Government entities should recognize that attempts by state agencies, public bodies, and private organizations to compel individuals to use terms related to “gender identity” rather than sex are themselves a form of discrimination against women, including against petitioner Christina Goeke.
As an aside, it was Christina’s bravery that inspired WDI USA former president Kara Dansky to launch her series FFS (Female Free Speech) Friday on Substack.
You can read the brief below. Our previous amicus briefs are also available.
Do you know of cases you think we should be aware of? Let us know by emailing info@womensdeclaration-usa.
