The End of Youth Gender Transition? In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court ruled that states can restrict the ability of minors to get transition treatment. It’s long overdue.
The Supreme Court found that restricting the ability of minors in Tennessee to medically transition “does not violate equal protection guarantees.” (Angela Weiss/AFP via Getty Images; illustration by The Free Press)
In a 6–3 decision handed down today, the Supreme Court of the United States has upheld the ability of the states to ban or restrict so-called “gender-affirming” medical care for minors. This landmark decision will help bring this medical scandal to a deservedly ignominious end. Since the earliest days of The Free Press, we have been documenting this movement that claimed it was providing lifesaving medical treatments to young people suffering from gender dysphoria—that is, distress at their biological sex. In less than two decades, what was once an extremely rare diagnosis became so common that at least 100 clinics in the U.S. opened to provide medical interventions intended to help children pass as members of the opposite sex. This article is featured in Sex and Gender. Sign up here to get an update every time a new piece is published. The number of young people in the West seeking such treatments has exploded. And, in a break with history, in which a small number of boys expressed the desire to change sex, this rise was fueled by adolescent girls, many who had never expressed previous gender distress. In the U.S., between 320,000 and 400,000 minors received a diagnosis of gender dysphoria or related diagnosis between 2017–2023, according to an analysis by the Manhattan Institute. The UK reported a twentyfold increase over a decade. In its decision in United States v. Skrmetti, the Court concluded that restricting the ability of minors in Tennessee to get medical transition treatment “does not violate equal protection guarantees.” “The ruling effectively establishes a path forward for states to restrict practices their legislatures regard as harmful and inadequately regulated,” said Leor Sapir, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute. “A second-order effect, one can hope, is that the ruling will draw more attention to the flimsy evidence base, lack of reasonable clinical rationale, and ethical problems in the provision of these interventions to minors.”...
Become a paid subscriber Get access to our comments section, special columns like TGIF and Things Worth Remembering, tickets in advance to our live events, and more. UPGRADE TODAY |