On June 19, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that may be regarded as a pivotal moment in the debate over the type of medical care children receive in the name of “gender affirmation” or so-called “gender-affirming care.”
By a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s SB1—a law banning puberty blockers and hormone therapy for minors who identify as transgender. The ruling does not prohibit these drugs entirely, only their use for gender-related treatments in minors. The Court’s majority, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, explicitly stated that their role was not to referee the scientific debate, but to ensure the law did not violate the Constitution.
Science vs. Ideology
In his majority opinion, Roberts wrote:
“[The dispute] carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field.”
And with those words, Roberts nailed the heart of the matter. This is an evolving field—not a settled one. So why are irreversible decisions being made for emotionally vulnerable youth based on shifting science and politicized narratives?
WPATH and other ideological bodies want to normalize a set of interventions that include puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and even surgeries—under the umbrella of “gender-affirming care.” But when you peel back the rhetoric, you find a system built more on belief than long-term data.
Caution vs. Affirmation: What Does the Science Really Say?
To date, there is no long-term, large-scale study that proves puberty blockers and hormone therapy in gender-questioning minors lead to better mental health outcomes in adulthood. The best we have are short-term follow-ups, biased cohort studies, and ideology-driven consensus documents.
Contrast that with the Cass Review from the UK, which emphasized the lack of solid evidence and called for a total overhaul of the gender services model.
Moreover, side effects of these treatments aren’t theoretical:
- Puberty blockers can affect bone density, brain development, and fertility.
- Cross-sex hormones carry cardiovascular risks, irreversible voice changes, and sterility.
And all of this for teens who often struggle with a variety of other psychological issues, including autism spectrum disorder, trauma, and anxiety—issues that may manifest as gender dysphoria but aren’t resolved with drugs.
Gender Dysphoria Is Psychological First
Gender dysphoria, like anorexia or body dysmorphia, is a felt experience that often doesn’t reflect reality. A teenage girl may believe she’s a boy—just as another might think she’s fat when she is clinically underweight. (Should we surgically lipidly enhance her?) In both cases, altering the body to match the distorted belief does not solve the root issue.
This is where the psychological model should take center stage. Talk therapy, family systems work, and time are the gold standard in treating identity crises—not suppressing puberty or sterilizing young bodies.
Protecting Children vs. Medical Overreach
Let’s stop pretending that banning puberty blockers and hormone therapy is about discrimination. Tennessee’s law allows these treatments when medically appropriate—for example, in cases of precocious puberty or hormone deficiencies. What the law bans is ideological medicine masquerading as health care.
Tennessee’s law, passed in 2023, states that the state has a:
“Legitimate, substantial, and compelling interest in encouraging minors to appreciate their sex, particularly as they undergo puberty.”
That’s not hate. That’s parental protection, state responsibility, and a rebuke to the idea that children know best when it comes to lifelong medical consequences.
The Dangerous Use of Suicide Statistics
Let’s talk about the biggest weapon used by gender ideologues: suicide stats. Parents are told, “Would you rather have a dead daughter or a living son?” It’s emotional blackmail.
The truth is far more complex:
- Yes, transgender-identifying youth report higher rates of suicidality. But, Why?
- However, there is no robust evidence to show that medical transition reduces those risks in the long term.
- In fact, suicidality may stem from comorbid issues, social rejection, or other factors not addressed by gender-affirming treatment.
Weaponizing suicide statistics to push vulnerable parents into saying yes to irreversible treatments is unethical and should be criminal. Period.
The Money Trail Behind the Medicine
Let’s follow the money, shall we?
- Puberty blockers like Lupron are big business, initially used for prostate cancer and precocious puberty*.
- Hormone treatments are lifelong; once you start, you don’t stop.
- Surgeries like double mastectomies and genital reconstruction bring in tens of thousands per patient.
Is it any surprise that major hospitals are opening gender-affirming care clinics and chasing these lucrative procedures? This is not a purely humanitarian movement. It’s also a business model.
The Core Tension: Medical Necessity or Experimental Procedures?
If we strip away the ideology, the real question becomes:
Are these surgeries and drug treatments life-saving medical care? Or are they experimental procedures performed on emotionally vulnerable youth without enough long-term data?
Chief Justice Roberts, by refusing to weigh in on that debate and instead affirming the rights of the people to decide through their legislatures, sent a clear message: Let the democratic process—not activist pressure or pharmaceutical profits—determine policy.
Final Thoughts: A Step Back Toward Sanity
This Supreme Court ruling is not the end of the conversation. But it is a decisive moment that allows states to protect minors from experimental interventions. This, in turn, reaffirms the roles of parents and legislators and sheds light on a field that has long avoided scrutiny.
It is now up to citizens, scientists, and honest clinicians to continue asking the tough questions:
- Why are we sterilizing children to affirm an identity that might change?
- Why are psychological conditions being treated with scalpels and drugs?
- Who is profiting from this?
The Supreme Court didn’t answer these questions. But they cleared the path for us to ask them—loudly, clearly, and without fear.
The time for ideological medicine is over. The time for science, caution, and common sense has just begun.
* Precocious puberty refers to the early onset of puberty, characterized by the development of secondary sexual characteristics (such as breast development in girls and testicular enlargement in boys) before the typical age range.
Definition:
Girls: Onset of puberty before age 8
Boys: Onset of puberty before age 9
Note: This definition may vary slightly depending on the specific population and cultural norms.
You May Also Like:
Transgender Medicine: A Crime Against Humanity
Why Americans Have Lost Faith in Medicine
The Two Books Every Parent Should Read About Vaccines