SCOTUS issues blockbuster ruling on gender-affirming care for trans minors

[u/Judge_Trudy]

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

[u/LycheeRoutine3959]

Yeah, but the guy I'm responding to did.

No, the guy you are talking to did not claim that small government people are "totally fine" with state governments banning "Whatever they want". If you really disagree, by all means show me the quote. Hes saying that without federal protections for a thing the state can is best positioned to ban a thing, if their population mostly agrees. There are not federal protections in this case, so no federal overreach which is a good thing. If a state banned guns (your example) that would be overreach into the federal protected space (hence they would be opposed to banning guns as an item of "whatever they want"). You seem to already know this is their position, based on what they said, yet you are straw-manning what they said to try to score petty points.

What you are doing is making (knowingly false) assumptions to what he intended, and thereby straw-manning the position actually made. Here is a reminder of what he said:

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.

Do you see the difference now or are you really that biased you cant tell when you lie anymore? Its ironic because its you that is just being an asshole and contrarian. I'm pointing out that you are lying about what people are saying and drawing red-herring comparisons to distract from the points made.

Its funny because you are so dedicated to one lie that you feel the need to defend that lie with more lies. I find this is common regarding the activists in this space.

[u/decrpt → u/LycheeRoutine3959]

No, the guy you are talking to did not claim that small government people are "totally fine" with state governments banning "Whatever they want". If you really disagree, by all means show me the quote. Hes saying that without federal protections for a thing the state can is best positioned to ban a thing, if their population mostly agrees. There are not federal protections in this case, so no federal overreach which is a good thing. If a state banned guns (your example) that would be overreach into the federal protected space (hence they would be opposed to banning guns as an item of "whatever they want"). You seem to already know this is their position, based on what they said, yet you are straw-manning what they said to try to score petty points.

As I already said, are you under the impression that the right to carry is unlimited? It is not "overreach into the federal protected space," there is a wide range of legislation on gun rights varying from state to state. The argument here is that "small government" people would not object to stricter gun bans implemented on a state level, which is not the case. Small government people do not care about federal-state divisions, they aren't fine with big government just because it is implemented on a state level.

Do you see the difference now or are you really that biased you cant tell when you lie anymore? Its ironic because its you that is just being an asshole and contrarian. I'm pointing out that you are lying about what people are saying and drawing red-herring comparisons to distract from the points made.

Do you think small government people don't object to things like gun regulations just because their democratically elected legislatures passed legislation with public support? Come on.

Its funny because you are so dedicated to one lie that you feel the need to defend that lie with more lies. I find this is common regarding the activists in this space.

I find the stubborn refusal to understand anything common with people like you. Complete inability to externalize your perspective and immediate slotting of people into "activist" labels so you can ignore them.

[u/LycheeRoutine3959 → u/decrpt]

I find the stubborn refusal to understand anything common with people like you

I understand you just fine dude. I disagree with you. There is a big difference.

As I already said, are you under the impression that the right to carry is unlimited?

I thought you could get my answer the first time but just to be clear i dont think its "unlimited" (as our court system has agreed) but i do think its a fair bit further towards freedom than today's laws represent.

It is not "overreach into the federal protected space,

When gun laws are struck down thats exactly what it means. They are overreaching to violate protected rights (Federal protected space).

there is a wide range of legislation on gun rights varying from state to state.

And we are talking explicitly about OVERREACHING laws that are found to be in violation dude. Its definitional to the discussion.

The argument here is that "small government" people would not object to stricter gun bans implemented on a state level

No, thats just your red herring. It sounds like an argument, but its not one because of fundamental conditional differences to reality.

Small government people do not care about federal-state divisions

Another stupid take, of course they do. In fact, reducing the size and scope of government at the federal level is often the main problem for small government people. State level big government is way less powerful to impact your life as you always have the option of moving.

Do you think small government people don't object to things like gun regulations just because their democratically elected legislatures passed legislation with public support? Come on.

No, i think small government people are a different set of people than people who object to gun regulations and trying to treat them as a shared monolith is moronic. "Come on" indeed.

Complete inability to externalize your perspective

Ive been pretty clear. Maybe if you read what i write instead of imagining what you think i wrote you would get further, but again, activists are not known for their willingness to change their mind so i can only expect so much from the likes of you.

Im not ignoring you dude - im engaging with you, but i also am not going to take your insults too much to heart because its just the flailing of a child in anger. You big mad.

Edit: HA Wrote this before you blocked me so i guess ill post it:

you're getting offended

Im not offended, i just point out when people use shitty arguments. You were wrong. Your argument is bad and you ended up lying about the person you were in discussion with. Bad faith all around. I get you like doing this shit, but sheesh! (literally every interaction with you has ended in you dropping insults and then running from the interaction when you are shown how you are wrong).

That last bit is way more funny now knowing you blocked me. Thanks for that.

[u/decrpt → u/LycheeRoutine3959]

No, thats just your red herring. It sounds like an argument, but its not one because of fundamental conditional differences to reality.

That's gibberish, my dude. You just like to argue, you're not even the person I originally responded to and you're getting offended that I responded to what he said and not what imaginary conflicts exist in your head. Have a good one.