SCOTUS' trans ruling: Letters to the Editor — June 23, 2025
On the day of the Supreme Court's decision upholding the Tennessee ban on transitions for minors, the mainstream media (especially PBS) was quick to cry out what a 'setback' this ruling was for 'trans' rights ('Trans sense,' June 19).
The agonies brought on by impulsive decisions made by addled youngsters were not discussed.
Advertisement
This ruling is a victory, not a 'setback,' for biological common sense.
Twenty seven states now have similar bans as Tennessee. One might ask why the remaining 23 states are so far behind the curve toward sanity?
Anthony Parks
Advertisement
Garden City
The only disappointing thing about the SCOTUS gender decision is that it wasn't unanimous. It means that six Justices have common sense, and three don't.
Nevertheless, a generation of young boys and girls have been saved from the 'gender-affirming' cultists.
By the way, when did the far left change its mind on childhood genital mutilation? It seems like only yesterday the left was firmly against the practice for young girls in certain African countries.
Advertisement
Dennis Rhodes
Naples, Fla.
Since minors are considered to be too young to vote or serve in the military, then they are also too young to make these kinds of life-changing decisions.
By the time they become adults, they may have changed their minds about all of these choices.
Advertisement
Ray Starman
Albany
Thanks to the Supreme Court for ruling against this idiotic ideology of 'gender affirmation.'
It reaffirms what scripture tells us: Namely that the creator made two sexes, male and female, and no one should desecrate this.
Frank Brady
Yonkers
The high court ruling to allow banning transgender care for minors is simply common sense.
Sometimes kids go through phases. And life-changing decisions for minors could lead to regret and emotional and psychological struggles in later years.
Advertisement
My only hope is that other states will join the ban. Kids just need to be kids. They should not be allowed to make adult decisions.
The legal age to drink is 21. The age to vote is 18 and to drive is 16. Waiting until the age of 18 for trans treatment is not asking too much. In fact, it's smart.
Joann Lee Frank
Clearwater, Fla.
Advertisement
The Issue: City Hall's plan to spend $929.1 million to house the homeless and migrants in hotels.
Mayor Adams needs to go ('A Fetid $1B Hotel Deal,' Editorial, June 20).
He cannot justify spending nearly $1 billion for this cause. How many of the 86,000 who need housing are actually homeless citizens, the ones he should have been taking care of from Day 1?
That money could have been divided for other vital services that need to be addressed, such as cleaner streets, an overhaul of the Administration for Children's Services, more cops — because we really don't need more commuters to be stabbed during a Grand Central morning rush hour — or a number of other issues needing urgent attention and upgrades.
Advertisement
Susan Cienfuegos
New Rochelle
I really think that New York taxpayers and citizens have had enough of Eric Adams' nonsense. Along with the corruption allegations, he has continued to destroy New Yorkers' quality of life.
Now he's planning to spend nearly $1 billion in taxpayer money on shelters for immigrants and homeless.
Advertisement
When is this gonna stop? Enough already, Adams.
Gene O'Brien
Whitestone
Want to weigh in on today's stories? Send your thoughts (along with your full name and city of residence) to letters@nypost.com. Letters are subject to editing for clarity, length, accuracy, and style.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Says U.S. Has ‘50-50 Chance' of Reaching Trade Deal With EU
President Trump arrived in Scotland to meet the U.K. and the European Union leaders, saying the U.S. has a 'good, 50-50 chance' to strike a trade deal with the EU. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
New York Times
10 minutes ago
- New York Times
What does Trump's college sports executive order mean? Breaking down the impact
'President Donald J. Trump Saves College Sports.' If only it was that simple. The 176th executive order President Trump signed in the past seven months was announced Thursday with an audaciously headlined statement from the White House. We don't know how this will play out long term. But these are the key facts surrounding the executive order and the questions that need to be answered. Advertisement The NCAA has been under attack on numerous legal fronts for more than a decade, particularly when it comes to paying athletes. Its policy for decades was strict amateurism — any compensation athletes received beyond their scholarships would render them ineligible. The model began cracking through a series of antitrust cases brought by former athletes, most notably Alston vs. NCAA in 2021. The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that schools must be allowed to provide additional academic awards. By then, states began passing legislation allowing athletes to earn money from their name, image and likeness — i.e. endorsement deals — in direct opposition to the NCAA's longstanding ban. On July 1, 2021, the NCAA relented and began allowing NIL payments, which touched off another antitrust case, House v. NCAA. A class of former athletes sued for back pay for missing out on NIL opportunities. The defendants agreed to a $2.8 billion settlement, part of which allows schools to pay athletes directly for the first time, up to $20.5 million. A judge approved the settlement on June 6, 2025. But the lack of an organized NIL system has led to chaos, with boosters exploiting the lack of enforcement. And with other legal challenges forcing the NCAA to eliminate its longstanding rules about transfers, athletes now routinely hop from one school to another in search of their next payday. Desperate for regulation, college sports leaders have been lobbying Congress for help in the form of a federal law for years, but not until recently has there been any significant movement on a bill. The order essentially makes recommendations for how college athletic departments should operate and directs several government agencies to weigh in on issues that will shape the future of college sports. It also delivers the NCAA and conferences much of what it has been lobbying for on Capitol Hill. Advertisement However, the order's ability to turn ideas into action is questionable. The order: Considering how much it falls in line with what college sports leaders have been asking for, it would be difficult to call it athlete-friendly. Yes, it tries to protect non-revenue programs and force schools to fund a wide-range of teams for athletes to participate in college sports, but limiting compensation by regulating NIL compensation and banning pay-for-play has been at the root of problems for decades. 'Looks like an NCAA press release,' said Marc Edelman, professor of sports law at Baruch College and antitrust expert who has been a critic of NCAA policies. Several ideas for student-athlete compensation have emerged over the years to help relegate the market, from collective bargaining agreements to defining student-athletes as university employees. Though how much athletes actually want those things is hard to say; with more than 190,000 athletes competing in Division I sports, gauging consensus is tricky. In the short term: no. In the long term: maybe. The biggest possible downside of the executive order is it could create more uncertainty for college sports, creating policies that may or may not hold. 'It very much depends on how this gets enforced moving forward, and whether it gets enforced moving forward,' said Sam Ehrlich, assistant professor at Boise State's college of business and economics. 'Maybe this could just end up being just a statement that goes absolutely nowhere.' It's not so much what an executive order can do as what it can't. It can't make a law, it can't provide an antitrust exemption and it can't override state laws. Congress can do that. And that's what college sports needs. Advertisement Any policies that come from an executive order can either be challenged in court and reversed by the next administration, which means college sports continues to operate under a blanket of uncertainty when it comes to defining the relationship between schools and athletes. That's exactly what college sports leaders are trying to stop. The executive branch does not have the authority to provide straightforward solutions to college sports' problems, most importantly some form of antitrust exemption. That has to come from Congress, and right now will require bipartisan support. The president's involvement could prioritize the issues in a way that motivates lawmakers to build on recent momentum in the Republican-controlled House, where a college sports bill made it out of committee for the first time earlier this week. Or maybe pervasive political divisiveness makes Democrats recoil from the idea of giving the president a symbolic victory. While the complicated problems facing college sports now are not quite a matter of life and death, it remains to be seen if presidential involvement makes finding solutions easier or harder. The SCORE Act is a House bill that would provide the NCAA and conferences some antitrust protection, pre-empt state laws related to NIL compensation and bolster the terms of the House settlement. The SCORE Act made it through two Republican-led House committees on partisan lines earlier this week. No college sports bill has ever gotten so far. When Congress returns for the fall session, the bill could go to the House floor for a vote and it will probably pass. That's meaningful and a positive sign for many in college sports after years of inaction by lawmakers. The bill also has little support from Democrats in the House and stands very little chance of making it through the Senate, where seven Democrats would have to vote with Republicans to get the 60 necessary to pass. Advertisement The debate over college sports legislation on Capitol Hill is akin to a labor dispute. Republicans, who currently control both chambers and the White House, are focused on ways to shield the NCAA and college sports conferences from litigation and state laws that make it impossible for them to effectively govern national competition. Democrats are demanding greater protections for the workers (the athletes) and are hesitant to provide the antitrust protections college sports leaders have been lobbying for. The NCAA and conferences want a law that would prevent college athletes from being deemed employees. Democrats want that option left open, along with athletes' rights to organize and maybe even join unions. The president's EO is the most significant and direct entry by the executive branch into college athletics since Teddy Roosevelt's calls for safety reforms in football led to the creation of the NCAA in 1906. Lyndon Johnson's executive order signed in 1967, led to the passage of the federal Title IX gender discrimination law, which has been credited with paving the way for an explosion of opportunities for women in college sports. The NCAA as a governing body is ceding power to conferences and the newly formed College Sports Commission. However, it played a pivotal role in lobbying for federal legislation and has been much better received by lawmakers since former Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker took over as NCAA president two years ago. The NCAA's future will ultimately be determined by college sports stakeholders, not politicians. The White House's announcement hailed Trump's long-held interest in college athletics, including preserving Olympic and women's sports amid the changing landscape. Until now, Trump's engagement with higher education has been adversarial, threatening federal funding and litigation against schools for Title IX violations or allegations of antisemitism and discrimination through the promotion of diversity at universities. Advertisement Trump came away from a meeting with former Alabama football coach Nick Saban in May motivated to get involved. The formation of a presidential commission led by Saban and billionaire oil businessman Cody Campbell, a former Texas Tech football player and current board chair, was considered then put on hold as lawmakers worked on legislative solutions.
New York Post
11 minutes ago
- New York Post
‘South Park' creators reveal battle with network over wild Trump depiction, joke they're ‘terribly sorry'
'South Park' creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone discussed their controversial season 27 premiere at San Diego Comic-Con on Thursday, revealing a behind-the-scenes battle with network executives over airing a less-than-flattering depiction of President Donald Trump's penis during Wednesday's episode. The duo behind the long-running Comedy Central series spoke alongside a panel of other adult cartoon creators at the event, including 'Beavis and Butt-Head' creator, Mike Judge, and 'Digman!' co-creator, Andy Samberg. When asked if they had been following the reaction to their season 27 premiere by the panel's moderator, Josh Horowitz, Parker jokingly replied, 'We're terribly sorry.' As reported by The Hollywood Reporter, that's about as far as the creators went in responding to the controversy stirred by the episode, although Stone did address Trump more directly later in the discussion when the duo were asked about how they originally met. 'For me and Trey, we met over 'Monty Python,'' he said. 'In this day, when PBS is getting their funding cut, that's how I found 'Monty Python.'' Stone's comments on PBS come on the heels of a congressional vote last week to cut funding for public broadcasting. Trump signed the $9 billion spending cuts package into law on Thursday. 'South Park' creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone revealed they went toe-to-toe with network executives before airing their controversial season 27 premiere at San Diego Comic-Con. Getty Images According to Parker, the show's team finalized the season's premiere episode just shortly before it aired. 'Just three days ago, we were going, 'I don't know if people are going to like this,'' Parker said, adding that the duo were reading news headlines and said to each other, 'Let's put that in there.' Horowitz questioned the 'South Park' creators about whether there were any concerns about the season premiere from higher-ups at Comedy Central, with Parker detailing a discussion with the network about showing Trump's penis on the show. The creators of the long-running Comedy Central series detailed how the executives wanted Trump's penis blurred, as the duo told them, 'No, you're not gonna blur the penis.' REUTERS 'They were like, 'We're gonna blur the penis,' and we're like, 'No, you're not gonna blur the penis,'' Parker responded, adding that the show's team agreed to add eyes to the depiction of the president's penis to make it a character. The White House, however, did not seem thrilled about the season 27 premiere of 'South Park.' White House Assistant Press Secretary Taylor Rogers issued a statement regarding Wednesday's episode to Fox News Digital on Thursday. 'The Left's hypocrisy truly has no end — for years, they have come after South Park for what they labeled as 'offense' [sic] content, but suddenly they are praising the show,' Rogers stated. 'Just like the creators of South Park, the Left has no authentic or original content, which is why their popularity continues to hit record lows. This show hasn't been relevant for over 20 years and is hanging on by a thread with uninspired ideas in a desperate attempt for attention. President Trump has delivered on more promises in just six months than any other president in our country's history — and no fourth-rate show can derail President Trump's hot streak.'
