{"id":24423,"date":"2026-06-12T11:04:24","date_gmt":"2026-06-12T15:04:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/?page_id=24423"},"modified":"2026-07-02T11:57:17","modified_gmt":"2026-07-02T15:57:17","slug":"sex-changed-by-a-courts-decree-the-history-and-tradition-of-gender-transitions-in-the-united-states","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/in-print\/volume-114\/volume-114-issue-4-april-2026\/sex-changed-by-a-courts-decree-the-history-and-tradition-of-gender-transitions-in-the-united-states\/","title":{"rendered":"&#8220;Sex Changed by a Court&#8217;s Decree&#8221;: The History and Tradition of Gender Transitions in the United States"},"content":{"rendered":"<p class=\"p1\"><i>In June 2025, the Supreme Court held in <\/i>United States v. Skrmetti <i>that <\/i><i>bans on gender-affirming care for minors do not violate the Equal <\/i><i>Protection Clause. The Supreme Court\u2019s decision came after several <\/i><i>years of laws targeting trans people\u2019s rights to transition and participate <\/i><i>in public life. As courts decide the constitutionality of these laws, they <\/i><i>of<\/i><i>ten turn to questions of history and tradition. These appeals to history <\/i><i>have become <\/i><i>even more salient since <\/i>Dobbs v. Jackson Women\u2019s Health Organization, <i>where the Supreme Court argued that fundamental rights <\/i><i>must be <\/i><span class=\"s1\">\u201c<\/span><i>deeply rooted in this nation\u2019s history and tradition<\/i><span class=\"s1\">\u201d <\/span><i>and <\/i><span class=\"s1\">\u201c<\/span><i>implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.<\/i><span class=\"s1\">\u201d <\/span><i>Although anti-trans judges <\/i><i>and litigants have adopted different, and sometimes contradictory, <\/i><i>approaches to history in Equal Protection and Due Process cases, their <\/i><i>arguments share a common theme. They claim that no trans people <\/i><i>existed prior to the late twentieth century. Despite the importance of his<\/i><i>tory to trans rights cases, few scholars have analyzed trans legal history <\/i><i>in the 1800s or early 1900s.<\/i><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><i>In this Article, I critique the uses of history in recent trans rights cases, <\/i><i>and I argue that the right to transition gender is deeply rooted in United <\/i><i>States history and tradition. Drawing upon original archival research, I <\/i><i>demonstrate that trans people before the 1950s transitioned in many of the <\/i><i>same ways that people do today: they changed their legally recognized sexes, <\/i><i>they chose new names, they altered their bodies, they donned new wardrobes, <\/i><i>and they transitioned their social and legal roles. Many trans people sought <\/i><i>both legal and community acknowledgement of their transitions, and they par<\/i><i>ticipated <\/i><i>in <\/i><i>public life and exercised their civil rights. Trans people and even <\/i><i>legal authorities defended these transitions as a right, and they connected the <\/i><i>right to transition to both liberty and gender equality.<\/i><\/p>\n<p class=\"p1\"><i>I argue that critical trans legal history is essential to understanding trans <\/i><i>people\u2019s constitutional rights. I reveal how this history illuminates that <\/i><i>the right to transition is deeply rooted under the Due Process Clause. <\/i><i>The legal history of gender transitions can help reconcile the uses of his<\/i><i>tory in Due Process and Equal Protection jurisprudence. I demonstrate <\/i><i>that <\/i><i>this history also supports trans people\u2019s Equal Protection claims. I <\/i><i>illustrate how trans people relied upon the right to transition gender to <\/i><i>participate in political processes and public life. This history is particu<\/i><i>larly important now as both the Trump Administration and state legisla<\/i><i>tures attack trans people\u2019s right to exist and participate in civic life. <\/i><i>Trans <\/i><i>legal history matters<\/i><span class=\"s1\">\u2014<\/span><i>for constitutional rights arguments, for <\/i><i>arguing against transphobic legislation, and for showing trans people <\/i><i>that we have always been here.<\/i><\/p>\n<p>Continue reading <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/26\/2026\/06\/Felsher_Sex-Changed-by-a-Courts-Decree-The-History-and-Tradition-of-Gender-Transitions-in-the-United-States.pdf\"><strong><em>&#8220;Sex Changed by a Court&#8217;s Decree&#8221;: The History and Tradition of Gender Transitions in the United States<\/em><\/strong><\/a><em>.<\/em><\/p>\n<div class=\"wp-block-pdfemb-pdf-embedder-viewer\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/26\/2026\/06\/Felsher_Sex-Changed-by-a-Courts-Decree-The-History-and-Tradition-of-Gender-Transitions-in-the-United-States.pdf\" class=\"pdfemb-viewer\" style=\"\" data-width=\"max\" data-height=\"max\" data-toolbar=\"bottom\" data-toolbar-fixed=\"off\">Felsher_Sex-Changed-by-a-Courts-Decree-The-History-and-Tradition-of-Gender-Transitions-in-the-United-States<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In June 2025, the Supreme Court held in United States v. Skrmetti that bans on gender-affirming care for minors do not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court\u2019s decision came after several years of laws targeting trans people\u2019s rights to transition and participate in public life. As courts decide the constitutionality of these laws, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":13871,"featured_media":0,"parent":24413,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"abstract.php","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-24423","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/24423","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/13871"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=24423"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/24423\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":24597,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/24423\/revisions\/24597"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/24413"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24423"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}