On Wednesday the Supreme Court put a hold on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling in the case of transgendered student Gavin Grimm’s demand to access the boy’s bathroom because of her male identification rather than based on her biological sex. The lower court had ruled that a judge’s ruling prohibiting Grimm from accessing the boy’s bathroom was in violation of the Title IX prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sex.

SCOTUS’s 5-3 ruling in effect pushed the pause button on the rush to fundamentally change the legal definition of gender and sexuality. The court ruled based on the fact that in this current debate over the issue of transgenderism little legal precedent has yet been established. In fact, if the legal interpretation of male and female were to be recognized not on the basis of biological sex, but upon the basis of individually self-defined identity, then the distinction between the sexes would become ambiguous and essentially arbitrary.

The Supreme Court elected for the time being to “preserve the status quo” until more time can be given to consider the issue. Unfortunately, the Court’s ruling amounts to more of a punt than any kind of decisive statement on the matter. What is at stake for our nation is the very basic fundamental understand of what legally constitutes gender/sexuality. Ironically, if this sexual/gender ambiguity were to become the normal legal definition of gender, then the Title IX prohibitions against gender discrimination would for all practical purposes become irrelevant. For that matter, legally speaking, gender/sexuality itself would become irrelevant. We seem to be moving ever closer to Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World.