On Tuesday afternoon's On the Line show, during a discussion of the Supreme Court decision upholding bans on transgender participation in women's sports, MS NOW legal analyst Lisa Rubin claimed that Justice Clarence Thomas's concurring opinion is "not talking about science," and it  "speaks of hate, not of jurisprudence." MS NOW host Alicia Menendez put on the leftist spin by declaring that the decision is a "major blow to transgender rights." She soon went to MS NOW contributor Kimberly Atkins Stohr, who asserted: "There is ample evidence that transgender girls and women playing sports pose not -- neither a competitive nor a physical risk to cisgender athletes, which is basically the basis upon which Justice Brett Kavanaugh based much of his decision." MS NOW Sees 'Hate' in Clarence Thomas Comments on Males in Women's Sports pic.twitter.com/wB5WlYjcIK — Brad Wilmouth (@bradwilmouth) June 30, 2026 She soon complained about "fearmongering" by conservatives: ... trans women who are receiving hormone therapy are either the same or sometimes at a lower level of -- of endurance, ability, strength, jump height, all the measures of sports that they're not putting anyone in danger competitively or physically. Yet these are the talking points that conservatives have been using and have found to be politically useful in fearmongering against trans people. And now the court has sort of embraced that rationale absent evidence. That's the part that is really troubling for me. Toward the end of the segment, Menendez brought up Justice Thomas's words: Lisa, you wanted to talk about Clarence Thomas's concurring opinion. I want to read you just a little bit from it, and then you'll unpack for me why it matters. He argued, quote, "A man does not have to be -- does not have a legal right to compete against women just because he believes that he is a woman," and, quote, "men and boys with gender dysphoria are not women or girls, even if they believe they are." This goes beyond the legal scope of the case. These are like right-wing talking points that are showing up in his concurrence. Rubin soon complained: He's not talking about science. He's citing sort of like philosophical articles for the proposition that sex is immutable, that it's binary that man, woman, boy, and girl are terms that correspond to adults and children of each sex. And here I'm quoting from his concurrence, to use language to obscure reality, to show, quote, "indifference regarding the truth is to lie to the public and cease to treat our fellow citizens as equals." She then argued that the other majority members were trying to distance themselves from Justice Thomas's choice of words, and concluded by claiming that his argument was based on "hate." Here's Rubin: Now, I was wondering earlier today when I read the majority opinion, it goes out of its way to say that people on both sides of this issue are worthy of respect, whether they identify as trans women or as cisgender, biologically born females. "Everybody who wants a space on that playing field is worthy of respect." And that stuck out to me because that's not something we've heard this court say this week about other disfavored litigants. And I wondered: Why did Justice Kavanaugh include that? That's why. Because that statement and Justice Thomas's concurrence is one that even the justices in the majority want nothing to do with because it speaks of hate, not of jurisprudence. Transcript follows: MS NOW's On the Line June 30, 2026 1:38 p.m. Eastern ALICIA MENENDEZ: This morning, the Supreme Court delivered a major blow to transgender rights. In a 6-3 ruling, the court sided with Idaho and West Virginia, upholding their bans on trans athletes and women's and girls sports, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh writing that, quote, "schools may determine eligibility for women's and girls sports based on biological sex." (...) KIMBERLY ATKINS STOHR, MS NOW POLITICAL ANALYST: There is ample evidence that transgender girls and women playing sports pose not -- neither a competitive nor a physical risk to cisgender athletes, which is basically the basis upon which Justice Brett Kavanaugh based much of his decision. In fact, it shows evidence -- the growing amount of evidence, because still there are still studies going on, and we're still figuring this out, as Sotomayor points out. But that points that trans women who are receiving hormone therapy are either the same or sometimes at a lower level of -- of endurance, ability, strength, jump height, all the measures of sports that they're not putting anyone in danger competitively or physically. Yet these are the talking points that conservatives have been using and have found to be politically useful in fearmongering against trans people. And now the court has sort of embraced that rationale absent evidence. That's the part that is really troubling for me. (...) MENENDEZ: Lisa, you wanted to talk about Clarence Thomas's concurring opinion. I want to read you just a little bit from it, and then you'll unpack for me why it matters. He argued, quote, "A man does not have to be -- does not have a legal right to compete against women just because he believes that he is a woman," and, quote, "men and boys with gender dysphoria are not women or girls, even if they believe they are." This goes beyond the legal scope of the case. These are like right-wing talking points that are showing up in his concurrence. RUBIN: And it doesn't even embrace the science. I mean, both sides here had scientific experts -- one for the plaintiffs essentially saying that trans athletes who take puberty blockers are no differently situated than cisgender women. The folks who are defending the statutes that were anti-trans athletes said, "No, actually, there is a biological difference between the two that has nothing to do with circulating testosterone, and it is like an immutable physical difference between the two, regardless of what side you take on that." That's not what Clarence Thomas is citing. He's not talking about science. He's citing sort of like philosophical articles for the proposition that sex is immutable, that it's binary that man, woman, boy, and girl are terms that correspond to adults and children of each sex. And here I'm quoting from his concurrence, to use language to obscure reality, to show, quote, "indifference regarding the truth is to lie to the public and cease to treat our fellow citizens as equals." Now, I was wondering earlier today when I read the majority opinion, it goes out of its way to say that people on both sides of this issue are worthy of respect, whether they identify as trans women or as cisgender, biologically born females. "Everybody who wants a space on that playing field is worthy of respect." And that stuck out to me because that's not something we've heard this court say this week about other disfavored litigants. And I wondered: Why did Justice Kavanaugh include that? That's why. Because that statement and Justice Thomas's concurrence is one that even the justices in the majority want nothing to do with because it speaks of hate, not of jurisprudence.