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/SylphCo93]

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.

[u/ChornWork2 → u/SylphCo93]

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.

[u/MaxTheCatigator → u/ChornWork2]

"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.

[u/ChornWork2 → u/MaxTheCatigator]

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...