>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
During the back-and-forth at oral argument, Justice Jackson attempted to articulate a distinction between sex-based classifications and gender identity claims. That’s when the moment that set social media ablaze occurred.
While explaining her view, Jackson appeared to coin an entirely new term for biological girls, referring to them as “cisginger.” The comment immediately drew attention—not for its legal substance, but for its awkward phrasing and apparent confusion.
Here is the exchange exactly as it occurred:
JACKSON: You have the overarching classification…Everybody has to, um, play on the team that is the same as their sex at birth.
Um, but then you have a gender identity definition that is operating within that, meaning a distinction…For cisginger girls they can play consistent with their gender identity.
For transgender girls, they can’t.
The reaction was swift and brutal. Social media platforms lit up with ridicule, memes, and comparisons to pop culture satire. Many users pointed out the uncanny resemblance between Jackson’s slip and a well-known South Park episode in which the character Eric Cartman infamously used the made-up term “transginger.”
To critics, the moment was more than just a verbal mistake. They argued it exposed how convoluted and detached from reality the modern gender debate has become—even at the highest levels of the judiciary. Others questioned how a Supreme Court justice could struggle to clearly define basic biological categories while weighing in on cases that directly affect young female athletes across the country.
Conservatives were quick to note the irony. While advocates of gender ideology often accuse their opponents of being “anti-science,” here was a justice seemingly tangled in terminology while defending policies that reject biological differences altogether. Many saw the exchange as emblematic of an ideology that prioritizes activist language over common sense.
The broader issue before the Court remains deeply consequential. At stake is whether states retain the authority to draw clear, sex-based distinctions in sports—or whether those distinctions must give way to self-declared gender identity, regardless of physical differences. For countless parents, coaches, and female athletes, the outcome could determine whether girls’ sports remain fair and competitive.
Jackson’s “cisginger” moment may ultimately have no bearing on the Court’s final ruling, but it has already left a lasting impression in the court of public opinion. To many Americans watching from the outside, it reinforced the belief that elite institutions are increasingly out of touch with everyday reality.
As one viral post summed it up, the situation felt less like a serious constitutional debate and more like political satire come to life. Or, as critics bluntly put it, “We have a justice who is of a similar intellect to a cartoon character.”
Whether that assessment is fair or not, one thing is clear: the debate over sex, gender, and sports is far from settled—and moments like this ensure it won’t be fading from the spotlight anytime soon.
