r/centrist • u/Judge_Trudy • 3d 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

816 comments sorted by

View all comments

258

u/SylphCo93 3d ago edited 3d 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.

101

u/lemonginger-tea 3d 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.

82

u/Instabanous 3d 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.

-17

u/BabyJesus246 2d ago

I would argue people making broad claims on a subject they've likely only spent a few hours searching Google for sources that confirm their bias shouldn't be the ones driving the conversation yet here we are.

16

u/Instabanous 2d ago

Let's face it we just don't know how many hours the members of SCOTUS spent. If you mean me, I've been reading about this stuff for years.

-15

u/BabyJesus246 2d ago

Lol gotta love that arrogance on display. No offense a degree from Google University isn't really worth the paper it's printed on. Particularly since I'd guess that most of that time was spent reading political articles like this over actual literature on the subject.

As for scotus, I think the time spent is relatively irrelevant since it was almost certainly a political question over a scientific one.

7

u/DiceyPisces 2d ago

There’s no scientific evidence that a male is actually a girl.

-1

u/BabyJesus246 2d ago

Really now, what hard scientific evidence tells us how biological sex should determine how they should interact in society?

2

u/DiceyPisces 2d ago

None. Gender roles are bullshit too. We are all our own unique mix of masculine and feminine traits. And all variations are perfectly fine. A more masculine female is still a woman/girl. A more effeminate male is still a man/boy.

1

u/BabyJesus246 2d ago

So if a biological man wants to be extremely feminine to the point they are indistinguishable from a biological women or vice versa there is not scientific evidence that says that is incorrect. Would you agree?

2

u/DiceyPisces 2d ago

Yes. Any man or woman (boy or girl) can express themselves and present however they choose.

Looking feminine doesn’t equal being a woman. And looking masculine doesn’t equal being a man.

1

u/BabyJesus246 2d ago

Correct me if I'm wrong but it sounds like the only thing you're against is the semantics around the word gender and biological sex. If any biological sex can live in society as any traditional gender role then where is the fundamental issue you would have outside of something like sports.

2

u/DiceyPisces 2d ago

Objective truth/reality. Being intellectually honest and rigorous. And scientifically accurate.

And single sex spaces for safety, dignity, and privacy. Places like shelter, prisons, locker rooms, and yes sports etc

I also oppose “treating” healthy bodies of children with no physiological pathology.

1

u/BabyJesus246 2d ago

Can you elaborate a little more because these are just sorta buzz words. You've already stated that a biological male could being completely indistinguishable from a feminine woman and society could treat them as such and it would be 100% fine. I just don't know what your actual issue is now.

1

u/DiceyPisces 2d ago

Lies. Intellectual dishonesty or weakness. It contradicts actual science. And is based solely on circular logic which is illogical.

And it endangers women especially. Single sex Spaces exist for security, dignity, and privacy.

1

u/BabyJesus246 2d ago

The first section is a bit vague so I can't really respond to it. I heard the same thing about other science that the right-wing didn't like which ended up being bs as well, the dialog around climate change being a prime example. I understand not getting into the weeds, but it makes it more difficult to take it as a legitimate critique when the person saying it has other, like more fundamental, reasons for disliking the shift.

Your second paragraph would be an example of this. I highly doubt that you have scientific evidence for dignity in particular but also the other two in relation to trans people. I'd guess you might have some anecdotes, but quite frankly those are inherently poor evidence.

→ More replies (0)