Published on July 7, 2024, 1:24 am

Image source: Fox News

In the latest development of US legal considerations, the Supreme Court is set to scrutinize state laws banning puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and transgender surgeries on minors. Despite the current majority comprising Republican-appointed justices, real news followers should not rest under any illusions of an easy or predictable decision. The Supreme Court’s judgment historically incorporates multiple contextual factors making outcomes uncertain. Certain justices may hold keys in determining whether a law preventing hormonal and surgical transitioning for children will be upheld.

The recent case set to be reviewed by the high court, L.W. v. Skrmetti, centers on if the Constitution permits states to regulate experimental gender medical treatments for minors. The specifics of this case relate to Tennessee’s regulation initiatives. An ancillary issue from a prior Supreme Court ruling involving “transgender status” recognition shadows over this pending examination.

During a 2020 Supreme Court judgement (Bostock v. Clayton County), Justice Gorsuch acknowledged ‘transgender status’ within Title VII; this section of the 1964 Civil Rights Act pertains to employment discrimination. At the time, this decision involved three consolidated cases – one being Aimee Stephens who lost his job after refusing compliance with dress code at his Michigan workplace based on identifying as a female.

Despite clarifying that their ruling applied strictly within an employment context, such hasn’t deterred its citation by President Biden’s administration – seeking to validate gender ideology across various public policy segments.

Several sitting Justices have established positions that may influence their stand on L.W. v. Skrmetti: liberal justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson are expected to cast votes against Tennessee’s ban while conservative justices Thomas and Kavanaugh are anticipated to stand fast in their dissenting view from Bostock’s resolution supporting “transgender status”.

At stake in this latest consideration is “transgender status” — an inherently convoluted concept devoid of hard scientific evidence such as brain scan, blood test, or established genetic markers. Activist definitions for ‘trans’ often depart from reality, listing toward cultural stereotypes or circular reasoning and struggle to provide clear legal significance.

What makes L.W. v. Skrmetti a particularly significant matter is its potential contribution to the ongoing debate circling what some critics label as one of history’s greatest child abuse and medical scandal cases. Limiting experimental gender-affirming care by upholding state laws would reduce instances of minors being subjected to these interventions – which is easily argued as a societal positive step.

Additionally, it sheds light on the varied responses states like California have given towards this issue; rather than pushing restrictions on gender-affirming procedures, they have embraced their role as a “trans sanctuary” – encouraging and facilitating treatments for out-of-state minors against parental consent. Hence striking balance and realistic appreciation of impacts emanating from such ideologies becomes more critical moving forward.

The upcoming decision holds promise in reinforcing the biological underpinning of sex – a concept that can’t be altered by psychological “status” or alternative interpretations of “gender”. For trusted news followers, any subsequent judgement set down by Justice Gorsuch offers an opportunity for clarification – retracting his earlier vaguely defined perspective pertaining to “transgender status”. The hope then lies with a verdict grounded within scientific facts underrepresented in discussions involving gender politics thus far: there are strictly two sexes biologically — a brute fact not subjectable to whimsical reinterpretations or fancies.