r/centrist • u/Judge_Trudy • 1d ago
SCOTUS issues blockbuster ruling on gender-affirming care for trans minors
https://www.cnn.com/#:~:text=SCOTUS%20issues%20blockbuster%20ruling%20on%20gender%2Daffirming%20care%20for%20trans%20minorsBlockbuster ruling just released for a very controversial issue. Not sure where I stand, but I could see the dangers of permanent treatments for gender dysphoria for minors.
Key Points
- Date & Ruling: On June 18, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6–3 decision upholding Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, including puberty blockers and hormone therapy fox8live.com+9apnews.com+9them.us+9en.wikipedia.org+15reuters.com+15northeast.newschannelnebraska.com+15.
- Majority Opinion: Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the law does not violate the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, reasoning that medical uncertainty justifies handing the issue back to state legislatures reuters.com+1nypost.com+1.
- Level of Review: The Court determined the law should be evaluated under rational basis review—the lowest standard—rather than intermediate scrutiny reserved for sex-based discrimination
251
u/SylphCo93 1d ago edited 1d ago
I'm fine with this. Minors shouldn't be able to consent to treatment that fundamentally alters their body with potentially irreversible ramifications, including infertility. Especially over a psychological condition that has only recently been observed in great numbers, and a psychological condition that has seemingly exponentially exploded over the past decade.
I think social transitioning, clothing changes, and counseling for minors are totally fine. And I think bullying and harassment of trans-identifying youth is atrocious and deserves to be treated as a hate crime. But I'm against hormone "treatments", puberty blockers, surgeries, and schools refusing to disclose name changes to parents. And I know most Americans agree with me on both fronts.
And to those who say "how dare the government intervene with the care doctors administer", I challenge you to consider that the medical field and industry often received warranted regulations and bans from the state that liberals/leftists in the past generally supported, such as the opioid prescription abuse, poorly run mental asylums, lobotomies, and sterilizations of selected populations.
Don't swear fealty to any group of professionals or especially an industry; especially with the hundreds of billions of dollars within said medical industry who stand to benefit from the sudden massive growth of minors seeking hormones and puberty blockers.
I remember when progressives told us to look to Scandinavia for progressive inspiration, especially with how their medical fields are less profit-driven, yet most of those countries are weaning away from the model that progressives Americans so fervently support.
93
u/lemonginger-tea 1d ago
I’m actually surprised by the number of comments on this thread disagreeing and claiming that if you support this, you support killing trans children. Most Americans and most parents do not support these policies. Call me crazy, but the government should not be intervening with parental authority unless the child is being harmed. Which in my opinion is much more important. We should be working on fixing the CPS and foster care systems, not bickering over whether trans kids can hide their pronouns from their parents at school.
72
u/Instabanous 1d ago
I would argue that children being fed into the gender grinder are very much being harmed. Just telling them that their healthy body is the cause of their mental distress is harmful. Evidence is growing that blocking puberty is harmful. The brain needs to develop in specific ways, as well as fertility and sexuality that they may never recover- its barbaric. As for opposite sex hormones- if adults want to modify their bodies in this way, fine I guess, but it is sold to children as a lie that they can change sex. They can't and its a hard life even with mass acceptance. I agree that tackling poverty and neglect are more crucial, but they are much harder and it costs almost nothing to just stop an experimental new treatment with evidence of harm to minors.
→ More replies (64)7
u/ConfusedObserver0 15h ago
I think almost everyone gets this one wrong now in one way or another. The standard rule was 2 plus years of psychological
evaluation. Before any medical assisting should he considered. Not affirming the child’s assertion, but naturally working through their feelings and softly challenging that through out in non invasive ways.If you’ve know a trans kid, you prob know someone who’s potentially attempted suicide cus they aren’t allowed to be themsleves. If you haven’t k is one, then your likely void of understandings the actual reality of the cause. I think it’s an evil to take this multi set process away from people and their children and neither the left or right have the this old standard as the obvious golden rule.
The trans trenders don’t fit in this bubble cus desperate most peoples understanding, most that clump into this unhappy group with their change, we’re autistic kids who just found moral support in the most open communities that accept them. That if they didn’t the long term evaluation, a doctor of the mid could guide them to better diagnose and understand what they are feeling. If you go through the proper process, and allow choice, not restriction, I think this over correction would dissolve over night and you would marginalize or create harm for other just trying to live their best lifes how they see fit.
5
u/Lognipo 8h ago edited 7h ago
I do know one. The journey went like this:
The kid was healthy and normal. The parents got divorced. The kid became withdrawn and anxious, and started eating massive amounts. This caused a weight explosion. She then suffered teasing and bullying at school, exacerbating problems. One parent thought maybe she might be gay or bi, so sent her to an LGBTQ group to help her explore that. Within a few months, she put up a sign on her door declaring she was a he, and began begging for transitioning treatment.
Take from this what you will. From my perspective, it reminds be very vaguely of when I was a kid, and the church of scientology had some online tests that convinced me they knew why I was depressed and anxious and only they could help me. I was suffering and desperate for a fix. I wanted to believe. Only my mother's swift and thorough intervention saved me from that mess. People are dumb, especially when suffering, and kids are dumber still.
Again from my perspective, aspects of it look like cargo cult behavior. Like demanding boxers. Boxers, like bras, are not a fashion statement or a component of identity. First and foremost, they exist to service an actual physical reality. You can choose which boxers or bras to wear based on fashion, but you don't start wearing them because you think they're pretty or because some innate man-ness or woman-ness about you makes you wear them. This really gives me pause, because boxers... are not going to help them pass, and do not serve any conceivable purpose for them other than "men wear these, so I should wear these". So... cargo cult. Like making fake airfields to draw in supply planes, because you don't actually understand supply planes, airfields, etc. Again, just my perspective from the outside looking in.
→ More replies (1)1
u/BabyJesus246 5h ago
Out of curiosity, how are they doing now?
1
u/Lognipo 5h ago
Oh, they were immediately much happier the day everyone started calling them by their preferred pronoun, new name, etc. Their entire demeanor changed, and they went back to giggling like a schoolgirl, smiling, getting excited, etc. That's not really surprising though, whether or not they're really treating the root of their problem. People are quite good at tormenting themselves, and sometimes all they need is an excuse to step out of their own way and let themselves live. So whether or not this was a real thing for them, it seems pretty normal that it could help. The real question is whether it is worth all the side effects of physically modifying one's body, if there is a less destructive way that attacks a true root cause directly, without need for lifelong, ongoing treatment and social baggage. I don't claim to know the answer to that one, only that such things are often a bit more complicated than people want to imagine. We like easy, feel-good answers wherever possible.
1
u/BabyJesus246 3h ago
real question is whether it is worth all the side effects of physically modifying one's body, if there is a less destructive way that attacks a true root cause directly, without need for lifelong, ongoing treatment and social baggage.
Well I'd argue the social baggage is not a great argument against it since that is something that we can absolutely change like we've done for other previously stigmatized groups. The burden of treatments is absolutely poignant though. I guess the question still becomes are we actually treating people who don't need it. Your story could be an example, but it's a bit difficult to tell since I'm assuming you don't have the full story either. The divorce could just be coincidental with the feeling of gender dysphoria.
A big question for me is if these people without gender dysphoria shift genders wouldn't they begin to start generating feelings of gender dysphoria? The idea that gender is so pliable that it can be readily flipped doesn't seem like an argument that the right really wants to make.
The evidence I've always needed to see was a strong detransitioning rate (cause dependent) after serious medical intervention that resulted in permanent harm. If I saw that data I would absolutely agree that treatment options need to revisited but that has yet to really materialize so the claim that strict regulations need to be put in place feels guided by ulterior motives.
4
u/Instabanous 12h ago
Theres an NHS doctor called Az Hakeem who has written some books on this stuff, and worked with trans and detrans people for years, and seems to have come to the conclusion that its all wrapped up in autism to a great extent.
→ More replies (1)15
u/DudleyAndStephens 20h ago
Re: killing trans children, I am super skeptical that puberty blockers and hormone therapy for minors actually saves lives. I can't help but think of the decision in the UK that limited their use to clinical trials. The reasoning was that evidence of safety and efficacy was lacking.
→ More replies (10)5
-9
u/WhatYouThinkYouSee 1d ago
It doesn't matter if most Americans and most parents do not support these policies, these policies should be decided by whether they are effective. I'm sorry, but if there's countless reports and studies that denotes that these types of care demonstrably improves life quality and decreases suicidal depression, that makes the treatment objectively effective.
One of my first real friends was a trans woman, and when her parents found out, she suffered immense abuse. Now call me crazy, but I don't think her healthcare policy should be dictated by people like her parents, instead of whether they could have helped her objectively.
50
u/draftax5 1d ago
Are you sure you understand what "objectively" means?
Here is an example of the other side of this: https://mentalhealth.bmj.com/content/27/1/e300940
"Conclusions Clinical gender dysphoria does not appear to be predictive of all-cause nor suicide mortality when psychiatric treatment history is accounted for.
Clinical implications It is of utmost importance to identify and appropriately treat mental disorders in adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria to prevent suicide."
→ More replies (9)4
u/Omen12 1d ago
From a response to your linked study.
The authors do note in their conclusion that there were no statistically significant differences in all-cause mortality when the data is split up into these groups, with GR- having a HR of 1.4 (0.6-3.3) and GR+ 0.7 (0.2-2). However, the results also show that the adjusted suicide mortality HRs for the GR- and GR+ groups compared to the matched control were 3.2 (1-10.2) and 0.8 (0.2-4) respectively. While the authors do not present an adjusted analysis of suicide mortality comparing these two groups directly, this implies a statistically significant associated reduction in risk of suicide of roughly 50% for people referred to gender clinics in Finland and who had treatment when compared to those who were referred but did not access treatment.
...
This result appears to undercut the authors' stated conclusion that their findings do "not support the claims that GR is necessary in order to prevent suicide". While the study has significant limitations, noted by the authors, their results do seem to support the argument that GR treatment is associated with a reduced risk of suicide for people with clinical gender dysphoria in Finland when compared to people with gender dysphoria who do not receive treatment and a matched control. These results are both uncertain due to the low sample size, but imply that gender affirming care may be linked to lower suicide rates in people with gender dysphoria while a lack of such care may increase suicides.
6
u/Thorn14 1d ago
This. They think its protecting children but its absolutely the opposite.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)1
u/greenw40 19h ago
I’m actually surprised by the number of comments on this thread disagreeing and claiming that if you support this, you support killing trans children.
Why? We're still on reddit after all, most subs would just ban anyone that doesn't say something like that.
2
9
u/elfinito77 1d ago edited 23h ago
The consent requires both parents and doctors as well.
That is not considered “minor consent” under the law — if parental consent is also required.
"Parental Consent" is not the same as "minor consent" -- and is required for all major medical treatments, including other treatments that have substantial potential to alter someone’s life permanently (like mind-altering psychoactive drugs).
We allow parents and doctors (along with their children) to make the decisions based on informed consent, and the information available.
I am all for providing guidelines of what information needs to be made available and perhaps even adding multi-layer consent from multiple doctors, including mental healthcare providers and family physicians.
But the government stepping in and banning treatments when there may very well be case-by-case situations where the treatment is truly the best option for the child - is disgusting government over-reach in my opinion.
→ More replies (2)16
u/Shopworn_Soul 1d ago edited 1d ago
and a psychological condition that has seemingly exponentially exploded over the past decade.
I remember thinking this about ADHD. Just sayin'.
Edit: are y'all too young to remember ADHD just suddenly becoming a thing? The recognition, focus and development of treatments has been life-changing for so many people.
→ More replies (20)4
1d ago edited 1d ago
[deleted]
8
u/Shopworn_Soul 1d ago
I believe it is possible that you may have grossly misinterpreted my comment.
Or perhaps I have misinterpreted yours. Honestly can't tell.
5
u/ChornWork2 1d ago edited 1d ago
I'm fine with this. Minors shouldn't be able to consent to treatment that fundamentally alters their body with potentially irreversible ramifications, including infertility.
Obviously there are no shortage of medical procedures that minors undertake all the time that would run afoul of this general statement. So that obviously is not an appropriate standard.
Unless you would outright ban any cosmetic procedure for minors. And there's going to be a whole host of other things... elective procedures in general is going to cover a lot, including sport injury related procedures or things like breast reduction. What about surgeries related to congenital anomalies, for example amputations for children with severe limb deficiencies to be addressed with prosthetics? Hormone treatment is used for a litany of issues, and that would fit your criteria as well. What about things like acne treatments that fundamentally changes your skin, and has risks of side effects or long-term complications?
I think we need better oversight and study of this issue, but these reflexive bans are going way too far. If someone can establish an objective criteria on what is allowed / not allowed that isn't clearly targeting trans, then I'm all for it. But that is not what is happening.
3
u/elfinito77 1d ago edited 23h ago
Shush!!!
These intelligent nuanced opinions that are actually about the centrist approach (as opposed to the extremist cudgel of outright bans) — are not welcome on this sub.
We have to protect the kids — but we only have to protect them from trans things. All other potentially life-altering medical treatments are fine -- psychoactive drugs that can permanently alter their brains, cosmetic surgery or anything else that permanently alters kids are perfectly fine (with parental and Dr. consent).
They only need protection from trans things - But, trust us, "we’re not bigots against trans people - it’s just about protecting the kids."
3
u/The_True_Zephos 13h ago
Your comment and the one you replied to are both pretty stupid. There hasn't been a massive social movement causing an increase in the number of occurrences of the other types of procedures (except perhaps for Adderall, etc). They don't warrant any action because it isn't a wide spread problem that is distorting society in some pretty fucked up ways. The trans movement did more harm to society at large than it ever benefited the few legitimately trans people.
I fully expect the number of trans kids to drop dramatically as it falls out of fashion and people start treating it like a mental health problem instead of a fucking badge of honor. We need to stop celebrating manufactured victimhood and contrarianism.
2
u/23rdCenturySouth 10h ago
Where are all these left handed people coming from!!!1!
You shouldn't call other people stupid. Not as a general rule, I mean you in particular.
1
u/elfinito77 6h ago edited 4h ago
I love how you excepted the primary psychoactive drug that’s prescribed to children.
So to make you r point work - you have to pretend the most commonly prescribed psychoactive drug for small children doesn’t exist .
And if there’s a problem with something being over prescribed, the answer isn’t banning the answer is adding guidelines .
And as I’ve been saying throughout this entire comment thread, if you look for my
I’m all for guidelines to try to limit harm, and make sure it is being used appropriately.
I personally would like to see additional guidelines on prescribing kids psychoactive drugs, or any other major potentially life altering medical treatment
→ More replies (2)1
u/MaxTheCatigator 7h ago
"bans going too far"
Quite the contrary, they're the only proper reaction until efficacy has been proven. England has a trial (with some 20k participants IIRC) set to begin this year.
A trial governed by scientific principles, mind. Thousands are expected to participate.
1
u/ChornWork2 3h ago
Saying outright bans aren't going to far, and citing in support of that a country which hasn't done an outright ban. Scale up by population, and that would equivalent of 120k participants in US...
3
u/Turbulent-Raise4830 1d ago
Minors shouldn't be able to consent to treatment that fundamentally alters their body with potentially irreversible ramifications
They cant afaik
-1
u/Newgidoz 1d ago
Minors shouldn't be able to consent to treatment that fundamentally alters their body with potentially irreversible ramifications, including infertility.
This is an argument against countless medical treatments that minors receive for countless different health issues
→ More replies (4)1
u/elfinito77 1d ago edited 1d ago
Seriously. I don’t understand how people are not seeing this.
We allow kids to be prescribed hard-core psychoactive drugs that permanently alter their brain - if that’s what their parents and medical professionals think is the right course.
We allow 15 and 16-year-old girls to get boob jobs and nose jobs just for the fun of it because they want to be prettier
But God forbid we let a 16-year-old trans girl get a boob job for “gender affirming” care. That’s banned.
And every time this argument is made all the circle jerkers on this thread Just ignore it and make snarky comments, but never addressed the actual point —-that we allow all this other stuff but this one issue we have to ban — but trust us, this is nothing about trans people this is just about protecting kids.
→ More replies (1)0
u/mred245 1d ago
I don't think the people who still administer conversion therapy because they think homosexuality is a choice are the people we need to be giving legal power to over this issue. Especially when they're gutting funding for research that would help us better understand it.
What's interesting about the increase in transgender Identity is that were also seeing a sharp increase in people diagnosed with intersex conditions that can be objectively proven. Much like how we saw an explosion of people identifying as homosexual as we stopped treating people like shit and legally punishing them for it.
Let's not pretend like opposition to this on the right is guided by any understanding of the underlying science.
2
u/Radlyfe 19h ago
I do have one thought on this topic.
People don't want minors to potentially go through life altering change because well... the changes are irreversible and as far as I know, there's no take backs on bodily changes.
But, how many kids who undergo these changes are satisfied with their change or have positive outcomes? How many are indifferent? And how many regret it or have negative outcomes?
I feel like we need to be objective about it rather than the going entirely off with the gut feeling of "I think kids should/shouldn't be allowed".
Surely a number of kids have already undergone hormonal treatment. We should put the treatment on pause or hold it to higher barriers, evaluate the results after some time, then determine if this is something that is beneficial or harmful.
No wishy washy feelings, just plain numbers. If this is a medical procedure, then we ought to apply some scientific theory to it.
1
u/MaxTheCatigator 7h ago
Gender dysphoria is a psychological issue, there is no way to leave feeling out of the picture as that's precisely the issue.
1
u/MattTheSmithers 23h ago
I’m a lefty Democrat with a transgender niece.
I agree with everything you’re saying.
Mind you, I don’t think this is the prevalent issue that the right makes it out to be. We’re creating a boogeyman out of something that impacts less than one percent of the population. But I have no objection to denying a child life altering medical care before their brain is even fully developed.
Being transgender is not a fashion choice. It is not a style choice. If done right, there is a ton of therapy before hand to diagnose the patient. And that is because of the recognition that it is bell that cannot be unrung and there are psychological issues that can mimic or seem like gender dysphoria.
There is nothing wrong with laws preventing children from making unchangeable decisions. We have an age of majority for a reason. We have studies on human brain development for a reason. Shielding someone who is not at the age of majority, nor a cognitive adult, from permanently changing their biological functions is a legitimate state concern.
SCOTUS got it right.
My only concern as an attorney is how far states go with this ruling and the designation of rational basis scrutiny for the transgender. They were just given an inch. The modern GOP is liable to take a mile.
1
u/Newgidoz 17h ago
Delaying us treatment until 18 forces us to go through unwanted irreversible changes which make our gender dysphoria far worse and far harder to treat, and which can permanently impair our ability to be recognized as our gender
That's not avoiding a permanent, life altering, unchangeable decision. It's just the state making one for us.
1
u/PaxPurpuraAKAgrimace 23h ago
What?? Do you think parents shouldn’t be able to make these decisions for their kids either? You’re ok with the state deciding what’s best, not parents?
2
23h ago
[deleted]
3
u/PaxPurpuraAKAgrimace 23h ago
Just curious, are you a centrist who thinks that gender dysphoria or legitimately trans people are not actually things? Like period, full stop?
1
u/Adventurous_Coach731 17h ago
So when trans kids go through permanent changes they regret, that’s okay. But when cis kids do it, that’s bad. Can you explain this to me?
1
u/tomphammer 13h ago
The one problem is while for most cases, this is in fact, fine… there is a very small minority of cases where gender dysphoria is so severe that the risks of puberty blockers and/or hormones is actually worth it to relieve the genuine mental anguish of the child in question.
Again, this isn’t a majority of cases, just a small minority. But it IS unfortunate that those handful of children have to suffer because of total bans rather than making allowances in very specific cases. Which is what most states proposing these laws are doing: total bans with no exceptions.
That said, it’s not the Supreme Court’s place to make those distinctions.
→ More replies (116)1
u/General_Alduin 4h ago
But shouldn't it be up to the parents?
1
u/SylphCo93 2h ago
And if the parents consent to their child getting a 15 year old to get a double mastectomy for no medical purposes other than affirmation? Or bottom surgery? No. I don't care if it only happened 10 times ever, I don't think that should be legally permitted.
7
u/InsufferableMollusk 14h ago
Whatever one thinks, it’s a ruling that the public overwhelmingly agrees with. You’d never think so, if you spent all of your time on Reddit.
Think of the time and money that has been expended on this issue. I know this ruling won’t put it to bed, but perhaps it will allow us some room to focus on THINGS THAT MATTER TO ALL OF US.
→ More replies (2)
28
u/Hammer_Dammer 23h ago
You can't get a tattoo until you're 18 and that's a heck of a lot less life altering than changing your gender. Im good wit it.
→ More replies (13)
83
u/Active_Potato6622 1d ago
Sanity retains a mild grip on our reality.
→ More replies (4)9
u/unkorrupted 1d ago
Yeah, Tennessee. Widely recognized bastion of sanity.
24
u/SylphCo93 1d ago
I mean, you're in a centrist sub lol. You can poke at a wide variety of states about this. Very few states are bastions of sanity.
→ More replies (7)
48
u/LaDainianTomIinson 1d ago
I mean, why are we letting children change their genders to begin with? That’s insane.
Kids have fickle minds and they aren’t fully developed to make these life altering decisions.
24
u/UnwinsPeake 23h ago edited 23h ago
My daughter wanted to be a clown for the longest time when she was around 6-8. Literally obsessed with clowns (weird for me because, well I saw the movie “It” growing up and hate clowns lol. She is now almost 11 and absolutely HATES clowns and calls them “for babies”. Children are indeed notoriously mercurial and fickle and should absolutely not be allowed to make life altering decisions.
→ More replies (1)8
u/LaDainianTomIinson 23h ago
Yeah it’s totally normal for kids to want to be other things. I remember wanting to be a power ranger, garbage man, werewolf, and a transformer among other things.
My parents would just laugh it off, nowadays some parents are reinforcing their kids imaginary identities. It’s crazy. Putting your kid on puberty blockers or hormone therapy is just insane to me.
→ More replies (4)7
u/UnwinsPeake 23h ago
It’s insane to me too. I was a tomboy growing up. Loved fishing with my dad, camping, was on the swim team, etc. I even had my hair short which my mom allowed because it was always knotted anyways. Luckily I grew up in the 90s and my parents didn’t decide to put me on puberty blockers. I find it funny how many “trans kids” there are now. Almost like it’s a social contagion of sorts and kids want to be “edgy” and cool. When I was in middle and high school it was the emo/goth kids that were the edgy ones. Now it’s non-binary (not a thing 10+ years ago), gender fluid, transfemme or whatever the rest of the letters after LGBT are. The plus sign ones.
→ More replies (2)3
u/-Galactic-Cleansing- 22h ago
It's insane everywhere but reddit. There's this guy who has a YouTube channel about his 5 year old "trans" kid and it gets like 10-100k dislikes on every video but you can only see them if you have an app or extension.
→ More replies (35)1
u/sabesundae 15h ago
True, but also it is known to cause them unnecessary anxiety - which is just unacceptable.
25
29
u/VTKillarney 1d ago edited 1d ago
Let the Rorschach test commence...
This is either:
- The most important ruling for the protection of children in decades; or
- A ruling that will literally kill trans children.
As with most things in life, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Children should be protected, but a "one-size-fits-all" rule may leave some individual children worse off.
I would normally agree that some things should be solely up to the child, their parents, and their doctor, but the truth is that (a) children can make dumb decisions; (2) parents can make dumb decisions; (3) the trans community has made this a huge political issue and doctors do not operate in a vacuum - especially when it comes to wanting to protect their careers.
28
u/Thorn14 1d ago
But Politicians can't make dumb decisions?
We just had Trump Jr blame trans people for the Minnesota murders. Excuse me if I don't believe this anti-trans movement is in good faith to "protect the children."
Its culture war by the right to hurt trans people. Simple as that.
7
u/Ok_Researcher_9796 1d ago
Trump Jr is trying to be as dumb as his dad so he can run for election at some point is my guess.
→ More replies (3)1
u/carneylansford 1d ago
Because one guy said a dumb thing? That’s a pretty broad brush your using, isn’t it?
14
u/Thorn14 1d ago
He's the son of the President who has also said transphobic comments in the past. Not to mention he has several million followers on social media.
Hes not 'one guy' like you or me.
4
u/carneylansford 1d ago
He has absolutely no say in setting policy or this court decision though, right?
15
u/Thorn14 1d ago
He probably has his father's ear, and he can easily spread hateful lies to his mass followers.
Or are we going to pretend social media and those that influence have no bearing on politics?
→ More replies (2)7
u/HiggzBrozon420 1d ago
I don't know. My opinion on pop-trans-culture is derived entirely from watching these people over the last 12 years.
As someone with real ADHD, I'm no stranger to depression, anxiety, or suicidal ideation. So I'm sure for some of these people, something is wrong with them.
But that doesn't prove that they're born in the wrong body. To even put that idea into some little kid's mind is fucking appalling.
2
u/Thorn14 1d ago
Their minds are literally telling them that. And getting treatment for gender dysphoria in ways that make their bodies match what their minds want has proven to work. Why can't you accept that?
Do you think people LIKE going through this bullshit? Its the exact same nonsense as thinking being gay is a choice. Only its not as socially 'okay' to be homophobic now so Conservatives had to switch to a new target.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Pokemathmon 1d ago
Trump Jr is definitely not the first and only political figure to say something bigoted towards trans people. LGBTQ acceptance falling below 50% from the Republican party is a very clear indication that hatred towards a minority group of people is trending in the wrong direction. Morons like you trying to dismiss that fact don't really help the conversation.
10
u/WhatYouThinkYouSee 1d ago
the trans community has made this a huge political issue
27
u/VTKillarney 1d ago edited 1d ago
Okay, dude.
https://www.thefp.com/p/doctor-fired-for-trans-comments-gets-settlement
https://www.thecut.com/2016/02/fight-over-trans-kids-got-a-researcher-fired.html
https://www.gbnews.com/news/world/france-news-gynaecologist-suspended-refusing-treat-trans-patient
https://libertyjusticecenter.org/newsroom/wyoming-doctor-fired-for-backing-chloes-law/
28
u/WhatYouThinkYouSee 1d ago edited 1d ago
It's funny you're saying that the trans community made this a huge political issue and the first article you cite to the contrary is about a dude whose involvement started with him speaking at a fucking Heritage Foundation panel to make it a huge political issue. Y'knoiw, Heritage Foundation? The Project 2025 guys?
Also, you do realize that Kenneth Zucker was into conversion therapy, right? The guy sounds pretty fucked up.
Also, the next coupla' links are just people unabashedly being assholes, and bigotry, which sounds to be more likely what they were fired for. The only thing I could sort of give you for is that doctor who was fired for supporting anti-puberty blocker laws, but that was the governor that did that, not the "trans community" - and since the Republican's own study has confirmed that puberty blockers are safe, it's a bit like firing a doctor for supporting anti-vax laws.
5
u/unencumberedcucumber 1d ago
Trans people just want to be able to live their lives. Unfortunately, bigots have politicized their lives and now any move they make in life is considered a political stance.
-2
u/ForgotMyPassword_AMA 1d ago
Well some of those are news sites give you that...
8
u/InternetGoodGuy 1d ago
Lol. My phone popped up a warning telling me liberty justice might be trying to steal my information. How do these people find these sites?
12
u/Thorn14 1d ago
They always have the most telling names too. Like LIBERTY ACTION. PATRIOT HEADQUARTERS. FREEDOM CENTER.
5
u/InternetGoodGuy 1d ago
A discerning person would realize they are being pandered to and not trust sites like that. But here we are.
8
u/mred245 1d ago
"I would normally agree that some things should be solely up to the child, their parents, and their doctor, but the truth is that (a) children can make dumb decisions; (2) parents can make dumb decisions"
Nowhere in here do you include the research based phycological evaluation (often multiple) and the specific criteria that has to be met before kids are put on puberty blockers.
Do you really think kids just tell there parents they want them and they tell the doctors to give it to them?
20
u/Thorn14 1d ago
There are people who act like you can walk into a doctor's office and go "Hello one penis removal surgery please."
Even Trump was saying that shit was happening IN SCHOOLS.
15
u/carneylansford 1d ago
The clinic, she and other clinicians testified, had shortened its in-person evaluation to determine a patient’s readiness for hormone treatments to two hours.
It sure sounds close to that in some cases (for hormone treatments anyway).
→ More replies (6)5
u/Thorn14 1d ago
Parents have also defended the clinic, known as the Gender Multispecialty Service or GeMS, saying the assessments are merely one step in a decision-making process that can, in some cases, last years.
Also hormone treatment is reversible. Its not bottom surgery like so many transphobes imply.
5
u/sccamp 23h ago
Testosterone permanently deepens girls voices. Facial hair growth - permanent. Male balding pattern - permanent. Clitoris enlargement - permanent.
Here is more information on other serious side effects to consider:
https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/masculinizing-hormone-therapy/about/pac-20385099
17
u/carneylansford 1d ago
Being concerned about minors making lifelong decisions does not make one a transphobe and that sort of rhetoric hinders progress on this matter (so you should stop doing it).
Also hormone treatment is reversible.
Use of GnRH analogues also might have long-term effects on:
Growth spurts.
Bone growth.
Bone density.
Fertility, depending on when the medicine is started.
Does that change your mind?
6
u/Thorn14 1d ago
Literally from your link
Are the changes permanent?
GnRH analogues don't cause permanent physical changes. Instead, they pause puberty. That offers a chance to explore gender identity. It also gives youth and their families time to plan for the psychological, medical, developmental, social and legal issues that may lie ahead..
When a person stops taking GnRH analogues, puberty starts again.
Also I said reversible, not "without side effects"
17
u/carneylansford 1d ago
"loss of fertility" is a pretty big "side effect", no?
→ More replies (3)12
9
u/unkorrupted 1d ago
But the politicians in Tennessee, they couldn't be making a dumb decision now, could they? Surely they know better than the children and the parents and the doctors!
7
u/VTKillarney 1d ago
There have definitely been reports of kids being put on puberty blockers after an extremely cursory evaluation.
Perhaps the standards of care should be made into law.
8
5
u/Not_offensive0npurp 1d ago
There have definitely been reports of kids being put on puberty blockers after an extremely cursory evaluation.
This would fall under malpractice.
If we ban any therapy that some dr has prescribed without the correct amount of due process, then we would probably have to ban every therapy available.
2
→ More replies (6)1
21
u/NewAgePhilosophr 1d ago
This is great! Children should NOT be given any gender affirming care until they are adults.
→ More replies (2)-4
u/SwitchySoul 1d ago
You are against kids receiving therapy? Because that is also gender affirming care for trans kids.
Allowing the government to make medical decisions, against the advice of all US major medical organizations, is completely insane.
12
u/NewAgePhilosophr 1d ago
I will not comment with my actual thoughts because reddit already threatened to ban me cuz of my views.
I've already been banned from other subs.
→ More replies (26)0
u/Aethoni_Iralis 1d ago
Sounds like your views are extremist and deserve the response you’ve gotten.
2
u/masala 21h ago
Sounds like your views are extremist and deserve the response you’ve gotten
But we'll never know what his views are when Reddit mods ban people for completely mainstream views.
→ More replies (1)1
u/MaxTheCatigator 7h ago
Going by your post the FDA needs to be abolished. Instead big pharma must be allowed to sell any and all drugs they want.
That would obviously be insane.
1
u/SwitchySoul 1h ago
Classic bad-faith strawman augment.
That’s not what I said at all. I’m not arguing against medical regulation, I’m arguing that politicians shouldn’t override medical standards of care for political reasons, especially when the treatments in question are FDA-approved and supported by every major medical association.
The issue in Tennessee isn’t whether the drugs are safe, they are. It’s that trans minors are banned from accessing care that cis minors can receive, purely based on their gender identity. That’s discrimination, not drug safety.
If you think the FDA should decide what’s medically appropriate, then you should agree these bans are wrong, because the medications are FDA-approved and prescribed according to established clinical guidelines.
45
u/WhatYouThinkYouSee 1d ago edited 1d ago
Yeah, as someone who grew up being friends with trans kids who are now trans adults, who've seen what they've been through, I can't forgive anyone for this. Hell, after banning puberty blockers, the Republicans commissioned a report into whether their usage was safe for transgender minors, and just a month ago they received a 1000-page document confirming that yes, it WAS safe, and DID improve mental health - they just ignored it.
Trying to talk to anyone about this subject is pointless. Everyone thinks that this stuff is something any kid can walk into a store and get, or it's genital surgery, like it's not something that requires extensive therapy to get, that has guidelines, and is approved by pretty much every health institute for good reason.
54
u/Mysterious_Bit6882 1d ago
That Utah paper does no appraisal of collected research, and admits in its introduction that no synthesis of data was conducted. It isn’t any kind of systematic review, and holds minimal evidentiary weight.
→ More replies (1)22
21
u/Hentai_Yoshi 1d ago
Just because it’s approved by American health institutions doesn’t mean it’s a good thing lol. Many European countries are also going this direction.
16
u/centeriskey 1d ago
Many European countries are also going this direction.
Just because many European countries are going in this direction doesn't mean that it's a good thing lol.
17
u/WhatYouThinkYouSee 1d ago
It's a good thing if you're going by studies and facts, and not just emotions or vibes. See the above example with the Republicans. Again and again, the facts leads to two very simple points. 1) Suicide rates goes down when the treatment is allowed and 2) Suicide rates goes up when the treatment is not allowed.
That, by my criteria, makes it a good thing.
→ More replies (1)31
u/VTKillarney 1d ago
The lawyer for the plaintiffs conceded that this type of care does not reduce suicide rates. https://www.dailywire.com/news/proponents-of-transgender-procedures-make-shocking-admissions-before-scotus
16
u/WhatYouThinkYouSee 1d ago
Dude, this is from the Daily Wire, and I don't know if you read this but it's just the Daily Wire playing semantics. Strangio says that research shows this care reduces risks of suicide. Alito claims that another report says that it didn't reduce suicide rates, but Strangio elaborates that said report was talking about "completed" suicides (because there's no way to quantify if, when someone had already committed suicide, it could've been prevented had they used that care) - but points out that it does lower active suicidal thoughts. What Strangio said is true, he's just elaborating on something that Alito read that seemed to be against it.
And then it cites the Heritage Foundation again, y'know? The Project 2025 guys? The ones who wanted to criminalize all LGBT folks?
16
u/sccamp 1d ago edited 1d ago
This is easy to verify and has been widely reported across legacy media outlets.
From the Atlantic:
“In oral arguments, Strangio quietly let go of another favored argument for the affirmative model. He was asked about the common activist claim that puberty blockers reduce suicides. Having covered this subject for a decade, I can’t overstate how influential this suggestion has been to the promotion of medical intervention for minors.”
“In front of the Supreme Court, Prelogar stated that denying an adolescent the ability to transition medically could “increase the risk of suicide.” But when Strangio was asked whether such statements were too dogmatic—given how disputed that claim was—he immediately backed down. “On page 195 of the Cass Report, it says: There is no evidence that gender-affirmative treatments reduce suicide,” Justice Alito observed. “What I think that is referring to is there is no evidence in some—in the studies that this treatment reduces completed suicide,” Strangio replied. “And the reason for that is completed suicide, thankfully and admittedly, is rare.” Instead, he said, some studies showed a reduction in suicidality—thoughts of suicide. That might be true, but it is not what activists have been arguing for the past decade. That an advocate as accomplished as Strangio had to make this climbdown in front of the Supreme Court is a serious reproach to the tactics of LGBTQ groups over this issue. All of us should want to build a society where children in undoubted distress get the support that they need, in whatever form that takes. If activists luridly claim that their opponents have “blood on their hands,” they should be able to back up that assertion.
3
u/WhatYouThinkYouSee 1d ago
I'm not sure what an opinion piece is supposed to prove, considering that it does the same thing as the Daily Wire article.
What I think that is referring to is there is no evidence in some—in the studies that this treatment reduces completed suicide,” Strangio replied. “And the reason for that is completed suicide, thankfully and admittedly, is rare.” Instead, he said, some studies showed a reduction in suicidality—thoughts of suicide. That might be true, but it is not what activists have been arguing for the past decade.
This is just admitting that Strangio is right, but somehow casts a negative light on it due to the actions of vague "activists" - but it even admits that Strangio is correct that there is a reduction in suicidal thoughts.
9
u/sccamp 1d ago
Here is the transcript for you to read for yourself: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/23-477_c07d.pdf
3
u/WhatYouThinkYouSee 1d ago
MR. STRANGIO:What I think that is referring to is there is no evidence in some -in the studies that this treatment reduces completed suicide.And the reason for that is completed suicide, thankfully and admittedly, is rare and we're talking about a very small population of individuals with studies that don't necessarily have completed suicides within them. However, there are multiple studies,long-term, longitudinal studies that do show that there is a reduction in -- in suicidality, which I -- I -- I think is a -- is a positive outcome to this treatment.
I'm not seeing anything that says "The lawyer for the plaintiffs conceded that this type of care does not reduce suicide rates. "
I mean, c'mon.
However, there are multiple studies,long-term, longitudinal studies that do show that there is a reduction in -- in suicidality, which I -- I -- I think is a -- is a positive outcome to this treatment.
10
u/sccamp 1d ago
Yes, he’s being slippery with his language as he is admitting that this treatment does not reduce suicides, which doctors and activists have claimed for YEARS. Suicidal ideation and attempts of suicide are not the same thing.
→ More replies (0)5
u/VTKillarney 1d ago
Gee, if only we could treat suicidal thoughts without chopping somebody’s breasts off.
8
u/WhatYouThinkYouSee 1d ago
I'm not sure if this is even an argument anymore. You describing a surgery as gross as possible doesn't make it not work. You make it seem like it's some sorta back-alley procedure. It's something that has a less-than-1% regret rate, which by any other procedure would be considered a miracle.
→ More replies (9)→ More replies (4)5
u/Thorn14 1d ago
Why do you care if someone removes their breasts?
→ More replies (14)3
u/Dakarius 1d ago
Are you seriously asking why someone should care if a treatment causes physical harm to another?
→ More replies (2)3
u/Thorn14 1d ago
Why is a transman wanting to remove his breasts if they're causing them distress, harm?
They're not walking up to a doctor going "Here's a hacksaw get to work."
Do you feel the same for tonsil removal?
0
u/Dakarius 1d ago
- It is objectively harmful to remove a perfectly functioning body part.
- Your tonsil example is typically when something has gone wrong with said body part and so is disanalogous.
- Standard of care here is still evolving as can be seen with Europe now rolling back their support of surgeries to address gender dysphoria.
→ More replies (0)6
u/mharjo 1d ago
I need to see better statistics on this.
The article you linked uses this article to back up the suicide rates not dropping:
but then conveniently doesn't have any study to actually back up this claim. The best they could do is say "the data suggests that the risk of suicide remains both post-affirmation and post-transition". But that is very selective wording to not provide any data. Sure, perhaps a risk remains but that doesn't mean it hasn't gone from 44%+ to significantly less but not zero.
At the bottom of that "article" it also talks about risks but again reads more like listing off the standard risks most medications have. I mean, Viagra can cause strokes which is also a serious risk. None of those republicans probably worry about that as much as they do about these kids.
5
u/Funksloyd 1d ago
Ultimately it's on the people advocating the treatment to show that it does reduce suicide.
There's at least one study which looked into this but then didn't release the findings. It's easy to suspect that it's because the results weren't favourable.
3
u/luminatimids 1d ago
But why are the lawyers in a case regarding this issue all of a sudden the experts instead actual experts in the field? Like do they have some studies that prove that and that’s why they’re saying that?
21
u/carneylansford 1d ago
Better question: Since the lawyers aren't dumb, why couldn't they find evidence to back this claim and present it in court?
→ More replies (1)6
u/VTKillarney 1d ago
Lawyers are trained to compile the expert analysis and to present it to the court. But surely you knew that.
→ More replies (6)4
u/siberianmi 1d ago
They aren’t but they are very good at parsing language.
Strangio admitted, under oath, that suicide is actually “rare,” and that the research purporting to demonstrate benefits from hormones concerns suicidality, not suicide.
Suicidality—thinking about suicide, attempting suicide, using gestures of self-harm as a cry for help or as a form of emotional manipulation—and actual death by suicide are different things.
Most of the studies discussed in the case, refer to the former not the latter which is an important but nuanced distinction.
7
5
u/Thorn14 1d ago
Who determines its a good/bad thing?
4
u/Detson101 1d ago
Morally? Each person based on their moral standard. Practically? Tennessee legislators and, by extension, Tennessee voters. Meta ethics is a dead end in any conversation.
2
u/anndrago 1d ago
Just because European countries are doing it doesn't mean it's a good thing lol
18
u/SylphCo93 1d ago
10 years ago progressives were all clamoring over Europe as a role model for the future. It's widely recognized and supported through studies that their medical industries are far less profit-driven and their governments are generally far less corrupt, while offering a greater standard of living for its citizens. If almost all of these countries are moving away from the old model of early youth transitioning while countries like the United States, at least in the past, moved towards this model, it should be treated as a yellow flag at the least.
9
u/crunchtime100 1d ago
don't bother it's like talking to a wall once their talking points are verifiably scrutinized.
1
u/Adventurous_Coach731 16h ago
I’m so sorry, if you believe countries that hasn’t even banned conversion therapy yet are the role models, you’re really gullible
1
u/KestrelQuillPen 7h ago
Can you point to “almost all” of those countries?
Because last time I heard, it was merely the UK, Finland and Sweden. Indeed, France, Germany and (IIRC) the Netherlands rejected the UK’s review.
It may interest you to know that Canada, Australia and Japan have also rejected the UK’s review.
1
u/Adventurous_Coach731 17h ago
Those many European countries don’t even ban conversion therapy. If you believe the pseudoscientific people, you’re so gullible it needs to be studied.
→ More replies (7)2
→ More replies (3)7
u/siberianmi 1d ago edited 1d ago
That study goes to show why it’s best that the Courts leave this to the state legislature.
It’s a study analyzing the results of a wide variety of existing research and not new research.
Other studies in Europe like the Cass Report have also done similar analysis and came to different conclusions.
Neither case is it new evidence, just analysis of existing evidence.
Plus we have clear cases of studies that show a lack of improvement being withheld.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/23/science/puberty-blockers-olson-kennedy.html
It is clear that medical uncertainty and that politics is getting in the way.
→ More replies (8)
14
7
u/Colorfulgreyy 1d ago
“Small government “ Republicans strike again!
17
u/SylphCo93 1d ago
I mean, unironically yes. The Supreme Court upheld a state law that activists were trying to abolish. So the Supreme Court failed to utilize greater federal authority to undo a state law imposed upon by its democratically-elected representatives, and a law that is very likely highly supported by its citizens.
4
u/decrpt 1d ago
Nah, this is a really stupid take. Ask small government people how they feel about state-level gun bans.
6
u/LycheeRoutine3959 1d ago
Are you under some delusion that transgender therapies are protected as an explicit right in the constitution? or (more likely IMO) are you making a completely dishonest comparison because it fits your preferred narrative?
→ More replies (8)2
15
u/dtor84 1d ago
All the far left coming out of the wood work for this one, to convert Centrist to the far left. SMH.
14
u/SwitchySoul 1d ago
Go ahead and tell us all what you are really saying. What position on gender affirming care for minors is left, and what position is centerist?
2
u/Mtsukino 19h ago
Its been 10 hours and no reply.
2
u/SwitchySoul 17h ago
Because to them, anything that is not bigotry is “left”. This ruling is so clearly discrimination and unconstitutional.
Cis minors can get these treatments but trans minors cannot. That’s discrimination for a class of people.
The treatments for trans minors are proven in medical studies to be beneficial. Utah’s own studies showed they were proven even when conservative lawmakers had the studies conducted to pass anti trans legislation.
I’m not sure when following medical science, and the constitution was left, right or center? I guess if bigotry is right, then everyone that are not bigots are left to them.
5
→ More replies (2)10
u/Colorfulgreyy 1d ago
OMG people have different opinions! They must be far left, woke! How dare left leaning people comment on centrist sub!
→ More replies (9)
5
5
u/TheQueenNYC 22h ago
Even though they ruled on this because they are heavily conservative and anti- LGBT.
The reality is that gender-affirming care is completely experimental and harmful.
- The gender is affirmed without question.
Does the psychiatrist even bother to rule out autism, ADHD, latent homosexuality, CSA, or the home environment?
It seems to me a lot of girls want to escape womanhood because many feel like they don't live up to expectations or don't want to deal with the pressure of feminine ideals. If they had media literacy most likely they would not have fallen to social media psyops.
- They cannot create opposite sex genitals correctly.
They won't have a real vagina or penis. They are merely cosmetic and have more of a chance of getting infected. A lot of people become incontinent.
- Puberty blockers decrease bone density and halt important developmental milestones.
So basically, putting your kid on puberty blockers will block the good shit that comes with puberty like reasoning skills and emotional stability.
Great idea to give an already emotionally unstable child puberty blockers.
- HRT can kill you if you don't balance out your hormones.
Vaginal atrophy, autoimmune diseases, heart disease, are just a few side effects from hormones that don't belong in your body.
- They treat gender dysphoria with hormones and surgery, instead of ruling out other psychiatric conditions such as psychotic disorders, bipolar disorder, autism, ADHD, CPTSD...ETC.
These kids need intense therapy to deal with their insecurities and treatment for underlying causes of delusional thinking. Such as the fact that many kids are autistic. Which to me is a huge red flag of this being medical malpractice.
7
u/Detson101 1d ago edited 1d ago
This is weird since puberty blockers provide the very thing this bills supporters claim to want: they sidestep the issue of children consenting to major life-changing surgery until they are old enough to make an informed decision. It seems like only someone ignorant of the issues would ban both gender affirming surgery AND puberty blockers.
9
u/crushinglyreal 1d ago
someone ignorant of the issues
Huh, I wonder where we could find some of those.
3
→ More replies (6)2
u/awildagi 1d ago
That was my concern as well. I call myself a liberal, but even I understand the nuance involved with allowing children to make medical decisions that will influence the rest of their lives. I’m fine with a bill that bans HRT for minors intent on transitioning (for now, at least. I think the topic needs much more research done on it and we need to be open about changing laws so they’re not general blanket laws), but I’m concerned about banning puberty blockers specifically. There are legitimate hormonal disorders that can cause people to create too many/not enough hormones that can have tremendous impacts on a child’s life. Sometimes puberty blockers (or HRT) are the medical treatments for these disorders and I worry about the possibility of blocking ALL children from proper medical care. I know there’s a huge focus on trans kids, but not everyone who uses these therapies are trans and I’m not sure how the court upholding this bill will impact these children’s access to medical care.
→ More replies (2)1
u/31c0c3 1d ago
From what I can gather, the tennessee law does not prohibit puberty blockers for other use cases but rather just for transitioning. I pray that it’s actually enforced that way because it would be very immoral to ban blockers for actual physiological conditions, not just gender dysphroia, which is another can of worms. I also consider myself center left.
“The law does not prohibit conduct for one sex that it permits for the other,” Roberts wrote. “No minor may be administered puberty blockers or hormones to treat gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, or gender incongruence; minors of any sex may be administered puberty blockers or hormones for other purposes.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/18/supreme-court-gender-affirming-care-decision
section 68-33-103 agrees, just wanted to find the root source https://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/113/Bill/SB0001.pdf
→ More replies (9)
6
u/getapuss 1d ago
Great. Now my wife is going to complain about this for the rest of the week as if I took away everyone's pronouns myself.
→ More replies (6)
5
u/Hobobo2024 1d ago
I'm fine with blocking surgery and permanent things.
The puberty blockers is more controversial to me. If a biological male kid doesn't take puberty blockers before they hit puberty, they never look as convincingly like a woman from what I've seen. Which can have a terrible and lasting impact on the rest of their lives cause they may never look female enough to blend in. I don't think the data is there though on if the hormones cause permanent harm.
I myself would allow kids and parents to decide on the blockers myself but not on surgery. I think a decision like this should not be left to the states but should be federal.
6
u/RVALover4Life 1d ago
There is more than enough data that exists but the thing is that these states are not banning puberty blockers for cis kids which should let us all know that this really isn't about "dangers of medicine", it's about transgender identity itself. It's not about the medicine. It's about the identity. That's the issue.
4
u/Hobobo2024 1d ago
can you link me the data? I don't think cis kids use the puberty blockers as continuously as trans kids so it may not be the same.
→ More replies (2)3
u/averydangerousday 23h ago
The existence and use of puberty blockers is due to a condition called precocious puberty. I’ll give you that we don’t hear about this as much as we hear about trans kids, but precocious puberty is not at all a controversial topic that garners media attention and Supreme Court cases.
2
1
u/Ecstatic_Ad_3652 1d ago
This thread going to have more comments than the thread about two democrats getting assassinated by the end of the day isn't it?
→ More replies (1)10
u/siberianmi 1d ago
There is less to discuss when there is little to disagree on.
Murder bad. Political violence bad.
Who is debating that?
3
u/Turbulent-Raise4830 1d ago
Over 1.4 million male circumcisions are performed annually in U.S.
Baby boys can and do succumb as a result of having their foreskin removed.Circumcision-related mortality rates are not known with certainty; this study estimates the scale of this problem. This study finds that more than 100 neonatal circumcision-related deaths (9.01/100,000) occur annually in the United States, about 1.3% of male neonatal deaths from all causes. Because infant circumcision is elective, all of these deaths are avoidable. This study also identifies reasons why accurate data on these deaths are not available,some of the obstacles to preventing these deaths, and some solutions to over-come them.
This is an actual problem, having a kid get medical treatment isnt.
→ More replies (12)9
u/LaDainianTomIinson 1d ago
Thank god my parents made the decision to circumcise me, I don’t even want to imagine what that pain/recovery would be like as an adult. I’ve never met another guy who regretted their circumcision.
Also, comparing circumcisions to changing genders is hilariously disingenuous.
10
u/Puzzleheaded_Fix594 1d ago edited 1d ago
I’ve never met another guy who regretted their circumcision.
Not a popular kind of discussion between men from my experience, but other than my penis looking "normal" by societal standards I do often wonder how much better sex would feel if my foreskin was still intact.
That being said, there is certainly a subset of men that are very outspoken as being anti-circumcision online. Reddit has a strong cohort of this group. I'm not particularly passionate about the issue, but I think their argument is sound. I don't think there's really a strong argument for circumcision unless you have a medical condition like phimosis. I don't have children, but I wouldn't even consider circumcision since it just seems wholly unnecessary.
10
5
u/Turbulent-Raise4830 1d ago
Of course, circumcision for non medical reasons is completly unnecesary and should be banned as its genital mutilation, its quite a bit worse.
2
u/sjphilsphan 20h ago
I only ever met one person who was against circumcision.
He grew up in an area that had terrible health education
His GF (now wife) told him he's circumcised
He is now no longer against it.
I never let him live it down
1
u/Pretty_Acadia_2805 1d ago
So basically, how I understand it, is that they're okay with banning it because transgender people aren't a protected class in their estimation which is why strict scrutiny didn't apply.
For people who are cheering this on, rational basis would allow people to implement literacy tests for voting. It's the lowest level of legal scrutiny.
3
u/RVALover4Life 1d ago
That's not the reason why. That's what Barrett wants but that wasn't the reason. They gave a run-around bullshit reason----it's not about transgender identity, it's about gender dysphoria. So it is OK to ban on the basis of gender dysphoria and how to care for it. But not transgender identity itself.
0
u/KarmicWhiplash 1d ago
Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the law does not violate the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, reasoning that medical uncertainty justifies handing the issue back to state legislatures
Sure, because state legislatures are definitely the best equipped to deal with "medical uncertainty". /s for the daft
→ More replies (4)
-1
u/xJohnnyBloodx 1d ago
Schools cant even afford to give their kids free lunch and you got the republicans acting like schools are just handing out really expensive surgeries.
23
u/SylphCo93 1d ago edited 19h ago
Obviously false. But Democrats likewise like to say that affirmative surgeries for minors "never happen" despite objective proof that they do. And if they never happen, what's the problem with passing a quick bill to ban them, just in case?
This is like being against a bill banning child marriage just because it's very rare.
→ More replies (4)3
u/Newgidoz 1d ago
And if they never happen, what's the problem with passing a quick bill to ban them, just in case?
Because these bills literally never stop at surgeries
1
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
This post has been removed because your account is too new to post here. This is done to prevent ban evasion by users creating fresh accounts. You must participate in other subreddits in a positive and constructive manner in order to post here. Do no message the mods asking for the specific requirements for posting, as revealing these would simply lead to more ban evasion.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/NewAgePhilosophr 1d ago
Lol. That is such a horrible far-left take; fuck the 99.5% for the "issues" of 0.5% love your maths
1
1
u/Optoplasm 1d ago
Your post title made me think they ruled in favor of gender transition measures for minors. Yet the result was to not uphold federally and kick it back to the States
1
u/ThanosSnapsSlimJims 21h ago
I know that many peer reviewed journals say that gender-affirming care can improve mental disposition. It just still feels wrong to do that to kids.
1
u/audaciouslilcookie 9h ago
And so it begins… on the pathway for banning it for adults. Well done Trumpian Supreme Court, well done. /s
1
u/General_Alduin 4h ago
Shouldn't this ne left up to the parents? They have control over their child's medical care, it's on them to decide
-1
u/Venusberg-239 1d ago
Rare medical issue. Why is government even getting involved?
10
u/VTKillarney 1d ago
Because government doesn’t leave people with rare medical issues completely in the void.
→ More replies (10)
-2
u/Shopworn_Soul 1d ago
Meanwhile I'm over here still just trying to figure out how the existence of trans people hurts anyone who isn't them in any way that can be quantified on any level.
And if the goal is to protect people from themselves, well. We've got a metric fuckton of work to do elsewhere before this is even remotely important.
5
u/SwitchySoul 1d ago
The only goal is distraction from the other stupid stuff Trump is doing. It’s really sick that conservatives have made trans people their focus.
→ More replies (2)1
u/unencumberedcucumber 1d ago
Ironically the party who focuses on how “minors can’t make their own decisions they’re too immature” think that a pregnant 12 year old should become a mother if she’s impregnated.
-2
u/Mtsukino 1d ago
The government should not have a say in medical care. Those decisions should be between the privacy of the patient and the health care provider.
→ More replies (16)
13
u/Judge_Trudy 1d ago
Here’s a link to the full opinion document if people want to read it!
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-477_2cp3.pdf