Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments on Trans 'Treatments' for

We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Wednesday in U.S. v. Skrmetti, a case that centers on Tennessee’s ban on “gender-affirming care” for minors and whether it violates federal law related to discrimination based on sex. The justices took turns asking questions, with the U.S. government being represented by Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar while Solicitor General J. Matthew Rice represented Tennessee.

SEE: Supreme Court to Evaluate Tennessee Ban on Trans Treatments for Minors

It didn’t take long for things to get pretty wild. While it was expected that the left-wing justices would look for any way to bolster the discrimination argument, some of the things they said were patently insane. For example, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, often cited as the dumbest member of the court (which will be challenged momentarily), claimed that “gender-affirming care” was fine for kids because, and I quote, “Every medical treatment has risk. Even taking aspirin.”

That is a jaw-dropping statement. Aspects of “gender-affirming care” range from sterilization through the use of drugs to outright mutilation with surgeries. There is no comparison between the physical and mental risks associated with those things and popping an aspirin. For a justice to make that comparison shows not only their supreme politicization of the issue but a level of disregard for children that strikes me as simply evil.

If you thought that was stupid, though, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson decided to enter the competition.

What in the world? How is banning medical treatments that don’t treat children and instead permanently damage their bodies while setting them up for grave emotional harm short and long-term the same thing as banning interracial marriage? What an insulting and disgusting comparison to make. One thing is simply two people loving each other, the other is potentially chopping body parts off of kids.

Brown wasn’t done, though. In a move that once again reminded us she’s “not a biologist,” the justice had this to say.

This is the caliber of intellect, or better yet, lack thereof present on the left-wing side of the Supreme Court. These people are idiots who have no idea about the issues they are ruling on nor do they care to learn. “A boy who identifies as a boy” would not have their voice lowered by taking puberty blockers. I’d also suggest no doctor would ever prescribe them for that purpose even if they did, making the question ridiculous on multiple levels.

The conservative justices were, as always, more informed. Justice Samuel Alito pinned down an ACLU lawyer on whether any studies showed “gender affirmative treatments” actually lower the rate of suicide, something often claimed by transgender activists. The answer given was astonishing.

For reference, Chase Strangio, who is heard below, is a “trans man.”

So let me get this straight. The U.S. government readily admits that “gender-affirming care” does nothing to reduce suicide rates among “transgender” children, but claims it reduces the rate of “suicidality.” So it supposedly lowers the risk of suicide but doesn’t lower the actual number of suicides? I don’t think I need to explain how little sense that makes.

But that’s par for the course for transgender activism. So much of what is asserted is contradictory or nonsensical. Thankfully, it looks like the conservative wing of the court will do the right thing and let Tennessee’s law stand. Pumping children full of drugs or mutilating them in the name of “transitioning” is not something a proper, moral country does. There’s a reason such “treatments” are largely banned for kids in Europe, and it’s insane that we are even having this argument.