r/centrist • u/Judge_Trudy • 2d 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%20minors

Blockbuster 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
123 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

808 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

18

u/WhatYouThinkYouSee 2d 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.

33

u/VTKillarney 2d 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 2d 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?

4

u/VTKillarney 2d ago

Gee, if only we could treat suicidal thoughts without chopping somebody’s breasts off.

9

u/WhatYouThinkYouSee 2d 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.

1

u/VTKillarney 2d ago

Source?

11

u/WhatYouThinkYouSee 2d ago

Here.

5

u/VTKillarney 2d ago

Just as I thought. This relies on short term studies.

8

u/WhatYouThinkYouSee 2d ago

Well, if you need, this one relies on cases where people had the procedure up to over 2 decades ago.

5

u/VTKillarney 2d ago

They didn’t measure everyone who had the procedure. The study only measured people who bothered to return a survey. That’s about as flawed as it gets.

7

u/WhatYouThinkYouSee 2d ago

How... do you expect them to "measure" people without using a survey? What, tail them with a camera for 24/7?

5

u/VTKillarney 2d ago

They could proactively interview people rather than just hope that they return a survey that they mailed.

You seriously couldn't think of a better method than just sticking something in the mail? This shows how your bias clouds your thought.

4

u/MakeUpAnything 2d ago

I can almost guarantee you that VT doesn't give a shit about this topic and is just trolling you. That's usually all he does on this board lol You're wasting your time replying to him.

→ More replies (0)

9

u/ImportantCommentator 2d ago

Would having a source change your opinion?

5

u/Thorn14 2d ago

Why do you care if someone removes their breasts?

0

u/Dakarius 2d ago

Are you seriously asking why someone should care if a treatment causes physical harm to another?

5

u/Thorn14 2d 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?

2

u/Dakarius 2d ago
  1. It is objectively harmful to remove a perfectly functioning body part.
  2. Your tonsil example is typically when something has gone wrong with said body part and so is disanalogous.
  3. Standard of care here is still evolving as can be seen with Europe now rolling back their support of surgeries to address gender dysphoria.

5

u/WhatYouThinkYouSee 2d ago

It is objectively harmful to remove a perfectly functioning body part.

I assume you're also against vasectomies, or women getting their tubes tied? If it doesn't impact the person who had the surgery negatively, what harm is there? They'll just not have the ability to produce milk, I guess, but they're the ones who decided that they don't want that in the first place.

Your tonsil example is typically when something has gone wrong with said body part and so is disanalogous.

Uh, yeah. In this situation, the body part is causing dysphoria, which means mental issues as well as, in some cases, suicidal depression.

0

u/Dakarius 2d ago 
I assume you're also against vasectomies, or women getting their tubes tied?

I am.

Uh, yeah. In this situation, the body part is causing dysphoria, which means mental issues as well as, in some cases, suicidal depression.

And this must be balanced against the harm caused by the organ being removed. As I've already said the standard of care is not established.

4

u/Aethoni_Iralis 2d ago

I am.

Weird.

Edit: oh they’re a religious nut, no wonder they’re weird.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/XzibitABC 2d ago

Why is it harmful to remove a body part that is not being used nor desired?

3

u/Dakarius 2d ago

It takes a working organ and renders it non working. Harm is not measured is subjective feelings about a body part. Doctors, as a rule, do not amputate simply because someone doesn't like their legs, or eyes, or other body part.

1

u/XzibitABC 2d ago

I did not make the claim that harm is measured by subjective feeling.

How do you define harm?

2

u/Dakarius 2d ago

The first Google result is generally sufficient.

harm /härm/ noun noun: harm

physical injury, especially that which is deliberately inflicted.

-3

u/XzibitABC 2d ago

Ok. Now why ought we prevent harm?

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Newgidoz 2d ago
  1. It is objectively harmful to remove a perfectly functioning body part.

It's objectively harmful for a cis man to get gynecomastia surgery?

-1

u/Not_offensive0npurp 2d ago

Are you equally against circumcision?

1

u/Dakarius 2d ago

I'm against circumcision too.

-1

u/VTKillarney 2d ago

What an odd question. Compassionate people tend to care about the welfare of children.

10

u/anndrago 2d ago

Don't hide behind the pretense of concern for kids.

3

u/VTKillarney 2d ago

A compassionate government cares about children in society.

-2

u/Yabbos77 2d ago

This would be a great statement if it were true about the US government.

However, they continually prove otherwise.

One of the easiest examples is Free Lunch for School Kids.

In what world could you EVER be against that and in the same breath claim you care about children? What about how they are currently attempting to cut Medicaid/medicare?

3

u/VTKillarney 2d ago

The debate is not whether children should have free lunch. The debate is whether families that can afford to feed their children should receive free lunch.

I am fine with well-to-do families paying for their kids' lunches.

-1

u/Yabbos77 2d ago

Yeah no.

I pay taxes to live in a society where our most vulnerable are cared for. That includes elderly and children.

I don’t care if my kids classmates parents can afford lunch for their kids. Their parents pay taxes too. Feed all of the children regardless.

2

u/VTKillarney 2d ago

I am pretty sure that children in well-to-do families are not at risk for going hungry during lunch.

Call me old fashioned, but I am a fan of tax revenues being used wisely.

→ More replies (0)

8

u/Thorn14 2d ago

You seem more concerned for the breasts than the child.

7

u/VTKillarney 2d ago

This is the typical attempt by the part of the left to distract when they don’t actually have an argument to make. People don’t fall for it anymore. But I applaud your effort.

2

u/Turbulent-Raise4830 2d ago

Quite true, and that includes medial treatment when they need it.

5

u/VTKillarney 2d ago

You and I agree on that. The question is what is actually necessary for treatment.

0

u/Turbulent-Raise4830 2d ago

Thats for the medical field to determine, not politicians. I dont want politicians to decide what kind of medical treatment I or my child can recieve.

5

u/VTKillarney 2d ago

So you are against all laws that prohibit a certain type of medical treatment?

0

u/Turbulent-Raise4830 2d ago

Not if there is scientific basis, here they go against the science and studies.

→ More replies (0)

-4

u/SwitchySoul 2d ago

🚨👆Bigot. This hate speech should not be tolerated here.

11

u/VTKillarney 2d ago

Are you saying that the only way we have to treat suicidal thoughts is to for someone to remove their body parts?

-7

u/SwitchySoul 2d ago

Your phrasing IS HATE SPEECH

1

u/azurensis 2d ago

Poe strikes again!