Vice President JD Vance told a Texas rally crowd that “there are men and we believe there are women,” reigniting a fight over biology, law, and gender policy just weeks before the midterms.
Quick Take
- Vance restated a simple claim: sex is biological and fixed, not a matter of personal identity.
- Supreme Court briefs cited in the debate argue there are only two biological sexes, based on reproductive roles.
- Medical groups like the American Psychological Association say gender identity can differ from sex assigned at birth.
- A Supreme Court ruling this year upheld state laws restricting transgender policies under the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX.
- Scientists still disagree on how to define biological sex when traits like chromosomes and anatomy don’t match up.
Vance Draws a Clear Biological Line
Speaking at a midterm rally in Tyler, Texas, Vance told supporters he rejects the idea of “six biological sexes” and insisted sex cannot be changed through medical transition. His remarks echo arguments made in Supreme Court filings, which define biological sex by reproductive strategy and gamete type, concluding there are only two sexes and that this classification cannot be altered by surgery or hormones.
That framework treats sex as a scientific fact, not a feeling. One amicus brief filed in a major Supreme Court case draws a hard line between sex, which it calls biological, and gender identity, which it defines as a psychological state. The brief calls these “fundamentally distinct scientific concepts,” directly challenging the idea that gender identity should carry the same legal weight as biological sex.
The Science Fight Over Treating Kids
Vance’s position gets real backing on one key point: the medical evidence for treating gender-confused minors is shaky. Supreme Court filings cite systematic reviews finding insufficient proof that puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones are safe or effective for children. England’s Cass Review, a major study of youth gender care, found a lack of high-quality evidence and warned of serious, unknown risks to kids.
That evidence problem is real, but it’s narrower than Vance’s broader claim. The studies raise red flags about treating minors, not about whether adults can legally or medically identify as a different gender. Critics note the biological argument about reproduction doesn’t automatically settle questions about adult transition, social recognition, or how the law should treat someone’s day-to-day life and identity.
Health Groups Push Back With a Different Definition
Major medical groups don’t see it Vance’s way. The American Psychological Association defines gender identity as a deeply felt internal sense of being male, female, or nonbinary that “may or may not correspond” to a person’s sex at birth or body. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Medical Association use nearly identical language, treating gender identity as separate from biology entirely.
These groups describe transition as a legitimate process that can include hormones, surgery, or simply living as a different gender, and they stress that skipping medical steps doesn’t make someone “less transgender.” That’s a direct clash with the binary, biology-first framework Vance and the cited court briefs favor, and it shows this fight isn’t just political noise — it’s a real scientific and legal disagreement.
Courts and Scholars Still Can’t Agree on a Definition
Even scientists who study sex can’t fully agree on how to define it. A peer-reviewed critique of the Cass Review warns that defining sex purely by chromosomes is an oversimplification, since the scientific literature itself lacks a clean consensus. Legal scholars note lawmakers disagree too, splitting over whether sex should be defined by anatomy, genetics, hormones, or what’s printed on a birth certificate.
That messiness matters because courts are now the final word on the issue. The Supreme Court this year upheld state laws restricting transgender policies, ruling they don’t violate the Equal Protection Clause or Title IX. For conservatives, that ruling is a win for commonsense, biology-based policy. But the underlying scientific debate over how to define sex in edge cases, like intersex conditions, remains unresolved.
Protesters interrupt Vice President JD Vance’s Montana rally and Vance uses the moment to make his case against Democratic candidates.
After laughing at the disruption, Vance challenged Democrats over their positions on gender transition policies for minors and a proposed state… pic.twitter.com/oITT0BakXr
— One America News (@OANN) October 26, 2026
Vance’s blunt rally line is easy to repeat, but it compresses a much bigger fight. The biological case for two sexes is well documented and backed by serious legal filings. Yet major health organizations insist gender identity is a separate, real experience deserving its own recognition. Voters will keep hearing both sides argue past each other heading into the midterms, with the Supreme Court now squarely in the middle of it.
Sources:
supremecourt.gov, rollcall.com
© theredwire.com 2026. All rights reserved.
