Ask A Genius 1433: US Gender-Affirming Care Ruling, ‘No Kings’ Protest, and Extremism
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/19
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner discuss the recent (hypothetical) Supreme Court ruling on gender-affirming care, large-scale protests labeled ‘No Kings,’ and acts of political violence. They examine partisan narratives, compare US protests to European strikes, and critique controversial legislation, highlighting tensions between governance, extremism, and public dissent.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: There was that recent Supreme Court decision ruling with a split 6–3: the three liberals argued that gender-affirming care is legitimate medicine, while the six conservatives rejected that.
Rick Rosner: They viewed it — I guess — as something unacceptable or harmful. I only read Justice Sotomayor’s dissent, which circulated on Twitter. She argued that it is a form of sex discrimination to deny people medical care based on their gender identity.
I do not think the word ‘desired’ is right either — it is not about ‘wanting’ a gender; it is about recognizing and treating gender dysphoria, which is an established medical condition. Denying gender-conforming care is sex discrimination, which seems reasonable to me.
People will make mistakes, sure — I have argued with Lance for years about this. Lance is a total zealot on this topic. He insists there are only two genders — even in cases where someone is born with ambiguous genitalia, he does not want to hear it. He claims God made only two sexes, full stop, and anything else is just wrong. However, the reality is more complex. There is biological variation; most people fall into male or female categories, but a significant minority do not. Mistakes happen, or nature is just messy — however, you want to frame it.
Jacobsen: What about the ‘No Kings’ protest? Any thoughts?
Rosner: Yeah — those were big. Reasonable estimates — not inflated nonsense — put the turnout at about five million people. More conservative, thoroughly audited numbers indicate at least 2.6 million, based on verified reports from approximately 40% of the cities where protests took place. They were waiting for final counts for the other 60%, so the actual number is probably somewhere between 2.5 and 5 million.
However, will it accomplish much? Probably not. The US is not structured for mass protests to have an immediate impact. France, the UK, and other EU countries are different — mass strikes there can shut down the government and force political change. In the US, it just does not work that way.
They can have strikes in France a few times a year if they want. I just read that the biggest strike in French history was in 1968 — about ten million people went on strike. Back then, France probably had a population of around forty to forty-five million, so about a quarter of the country was on strike. A third to half of the entire workforce shut down the government.
The US is not built for that. We have never had such a large turnout. So the Republicans and Trump, who do not feel any obligation to listen to the majority opinion anyway, are certainly not going to change their behaviour because of a protest.
They have been lying outrageously about the parade turnout, too. They claimed a quarter million people showed up — when, in reality, they were lucky if there were thirty-five thousand. So the protest turnout was, what, 5 million? They were outnumbered by about 150 to 1. It does not matter — it will not change Trump’s behaviour or the Republicans.
They are still pushing this so-called ‘big beautiful bill’ that only about 23% of Americans support — and that 23% are, frankly, people who will back Trump and MAGA no matter what. The bill is replete with objectionable provisions. It would affect approximately 11 million people, possibly more, who are enrolled in Medicare.
On top of that, they keep adding poison pills: it started with a plan to sell off 120 million acres of public land and national wilderness. Now, they have doubled that to a quarter billion acres they want to hand over to developers. It is a disaster.
It will add approximately three trillion dollars to the deficit over ten years — which is roughly three hundred billion per year — while providing massive tax cuts to the wealthy and corporations. Additionally, it contains numerous hidden sections, as the full text exceeds 1,100 pages, including provisions that further reduce the president’s accountability in court. Nobody has read the whole thing. Lawmakers keep tacking things on, hoping no one notices.
Jacobsen: All right. Two quick things before we wrap up. First, two young Jewish professionals — diplomats — were murdered in D.C. recently. It was politically motivated, apparently from the far-left fringe pretending to be the right wing. Two state legislators in Minnesota were also targeted on June 14 — two killed and two wounded. Authorities think it was motivated by anti-abortion extremism.
Rosner: I did not know that. That is a clear example of stochastic terrorism — with a country of over three hundred million people, even if only one person in a thousand is dangerously unstable, that is still about three hundred thousand people who could be triggered to violence.
If you pump enough hate messaging into that population, some of them are going to act. Moreover, while most of the violent rhetoric comes from right-wing media, the right consistently tries to flip the narrative. They tried to claim this guy was a leftist, but nobody reasonably buys that. He was a registered Republican for thirty years and gave anti-abortion speeches. The fringe will believe anything, though — they hear what they want to hear from the right-wing spin.
Jacobsen: Yep. All right — we are out of time. It was a pretty good session tonight.
Rosner: Tomorrow, same time?
Jacobsen: Same time. Tomorrow will be better.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
In-Sight Publishing 