Gender-confused troops in the U.S. military are a problem, and the Trump administration wisely sought to deal with the problem by holding to biological science and banning from the ranks individuals expressing gender dysphoria.

Upon taking office in his second term, President Donald Trump issued an executive order that stated, in part, that the military’s “high standards for troop readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity and integrity” are inconsistent with the “medical, surgical and mental health constraints on individuals with gender dysphoria.”

Trump had also told House Republicans, “To ensure we have the most lethal fighting force in the world, we will get transgender ideology the hell out of our military. It’s going to be gone.”

Not long after Trump signed his order, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth began directing the Pentagon to enact what effectively amounted to a ban on gender-dysphoric individuals in the military.

It didn’t take long for the policy to be challenged, with U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes ruling last year that the policy was likely to violate the constitutional rights of “transgender” individuals.

The Trump administration appealed the ruling, which went to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. This week, a three-judge panel issued a 2-1 decision upholding Reyes’s ruling on the grounds that the policy was likely motivated by a “bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group.” Judge Robert Wilkins, writing for the majority opinion, further accused the Trump administration of enacting the ban “based upon animus.”

The lone dissenting judge, Justin Walker, observed that the judicial branch was overstepping its role, writing, “Judges are not given the task of running the Army. Only the Executive and Congress are responsible for system-wide military judgments about the composition of the armed forces.” He added, “The Supreme Court has never assumed that role for itself. Neither has the D.C. Circuit. Not until today.”

The ruling is narrow and leaves in place the Trump administration’s ban on new recruits with gender dysphoria.

Hegseth responded to the ruling by posting on social media, “See you at SCOTUS.”

Indeed, that is where this case is likely to go next.

Once again, this demonstrates that there is no middle ground on the transgenderism issue. The reason is that, biologically speaking, there is no such thing as a “transgender.” Humans are, by God’s design, sexually binary creatures. Any apparent physical deviation is due to some developmental mistake.

This issue boils down to feelings versus facts. The Rainbow Mafia wants to force people to adhere to the disastrous notion that feelings determine facts. Reality tells us otherwise.

There are only two genders, as Trump has wisely and strongly declared. And in order for our nation to maintain any semblance of sanity, we need leaders willing to hold firm on this basic and fundamental truth, boldly and uncompromisingly.

Gender-dysphoric individuals need help to address their false feelings and beliefs. The last thing they need is to have those false feelings and beliefs affirmed, as that leads to their own self-destruction — and, more widely, cultural destruction.

Given the current makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court, this will likely be a winning case for the Trump administration.