The 'Gender-Affirming Care for Minors' Circus Lands at the Supreme Court

The fact that the US Supreme Court has been dragged into the gender dysphoria nightmare demonstrates just how far we've gone off the rails.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Wednesday on whether states can prohibit minors from accessing puberty blockers and medical surgeries to transition to the opposite sex if they say their gender doesn't align with their biological sex.

Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar began her argument on Wednesday, asserting to the justices that a state cannot prohibit medically approved treatments for gender dysphoria while permitting the same treatments for minors with other conditions, such as early onset puberty or endometriosis.

"It doesn't matter what parents decide is best for their children," Prelogar told the justices, adding that "there is consensus that these treatments can be medically necessary."

Several justices on the high court disagreed. Justice Samuel Alito cited a series of studies—from, Finland, the U.K., Sweden and other countries which highlight the harmful effects of these treatments for minors.

I followed parts of these oral arguments on X and found the whole thing absurd.

Readers of this Substack will of course know my own feelings on this matter: the effort to “transition” children is driven by ideology—not science—and a twisted one. Yet it’s well underway.

We know from insurance claims that no fewer than 14,000 minors in the US have been transed—chemically or surgically—in the last five years. We also know that individuals at World Professional Association for Transgender Health and in the US government knew that there was “little to no evidence about children and adolescents” (the words of Johns Hopkins University researchers) on the use of “gender medicine” on children when the government removed the age limits on these procedures. (See Andrew Sullivan’s magnificent piece October 18 piece, “Rachel Levine Must Resign”)

The fact that the US Supreme Court has now been dragged into this demonstrates just how far off the rails things are.

I was expecting a circus at the high court, and that’s what we got.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who during her confirmation hearing answered "I’m not a biologist” when asked to define what a woman is, compared bans on child sex changes to bans on interracial marriage. Justice Sotomayor one-upped her by comparing genital mutilation of children to taking aspirin.

But the best exchange involved Alito and Chase Strangio, “the first openly transgender lawyer to argue before the Supreme Court.” The exchange was highlighted by Eithan Haim, the 33-year-old general surgeon and whistleblower who revealed the largest children's hospital in the world was lying to the public about the existence of their transgender program.

“Alito asks whether transgender is an immutable characteristic. Strangio argues that there is a "strong biological basis" between sex and gender identity. Therefore, it is immutable.

In the very next question, Alito asks about gender fluidity. Strangio argues that gender identity is informed by an individual's "understanding." Therefore, it is fluid - the very antithesis of immutable.

It should not be lost on us that we live in a time where the US Supreme Court is presented two arguments back-to-back that are completely and undeniably in contradiction with each other while the arguing attorney has the ability to carry on with full confidence, lacking any awareness of these glaring problems.”

In other words, as Haim notes, some of the finest legal minds in the world on Wednesday heard oral arguments from someone who not only failed to recognize her own contradictions but also seems entirely unaware of the concept of "contradiction."

How did we get hear? I don’t know the answer to that question. But I've often asked myself why virtually all schools in the US decades ago stopped teaching logic, which was once a staple of any good education.

Whatever the case, it’s clear that the Supreme Court appears poised to uphold bans “on gender-affirming care for minors.” (Have you ever heard a more Orwellian phrase?)

The court is right to do so not just on moral grounds but on constitutional grounds.