On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in U.S.v. Skrmetti. The case centers around Tennessee’s ban on “gender-affirming care” for children and whether or not it violates federal laws related to discrimination on the basis of sex. The Justices asked questions in turn, the U.S. Government being represented by Elizabeth Prelogar and Tennessee’s Solicitor-General J. Matthew Rice.
Things quickly got out of hand. It was expected that left-wing justices would look for ways to support the discrimination case, but some of their statements were just plain insane. Justice Sonia Sotomayor (often cited as being the dumbest court member) claimed that “gender-affirming care” is fine for children because, quote: “Every medical treatment comes with risk.” “Even taking aspirin.”
Rice: “How many minors have to have their bodies irreparably harmed for unproven benefits?”
Sotomayor: “Every medical treatment has risk. Even taking Aspirin.” pic.twitter.com/I4k8ujr5Hl
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) December 4, 2024
This is an astonishing statement. The “gender-affirming care” can range from sterilization through drugs to outright mutilation via surgery. The physical and mental risks of those things are not comparable to popping an aspirin. To make such a comparison is not only a sign of their politicization of the issue but also a disregard for children which I find to be evil.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson entered the competition.
Ffs 🤦♂️ pic.twitter.com/lzYcI0PiEQ
— Clown World ™ 🤡 (@ClownWorld_) December 4, 2024
What the hell? What is the difference between banning interracial relationships and banning medical treatments that do not treat children but instead permanently harm their bodies and cause them to suffer grave emotional harm over time? This is an offensive and disgusting comparison. The first thing is two people who love each other. The second is a person who may be slicing off body parts from children.
Brown was not done. The justice’s words reminded us that she is “not a scientist.”
Ketanji Brown Jackson with a hypothetical that supposedly helps SG Prelogar show discrimination: a boy who identifies as a boy but takes puberty blockers because he wants to lower his voice (rather than change gender).
A good reminder that Justice Jackson is “not a biologist.”
— Leor Sapir (@LeorSapir) December 4, 2024
The left-wing Supreme Court is a perfect example of a lack of intelligence. These people are idiots, who don’t know anything about the issues on which they rule or care to find out. The voice of a “boy who identifies himself as a boy”, would not be lowered if he took puberty blocks. I would also suggest that no doctor would prescribe them for this purpose, even if they did. This question is ridiculous on many levels.
As always, the conservative justices are more knowledgeable. Justice Samuel Alito asked an ACLU attorney if any studies had shown that “gender affirmative treatment” did lower suicide rates, as transgender activists often claim. The answer was shocking.
As a point of reference, Chase Strangio is referred to as a “transman” in the audio below.
Alito: The Cass Report finds no evidence that gender affirmative treatments reduce suicide.
Strangio: “There is no evidence in those studies that this treatment reduces completed suicide… There are multiple studies that do show there is a reduction in suicidality.”
Stunning… pic.twitter.com/N2vHtJye26
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) December 4, 2024
Let me clarify. The U.S. Government readily admits that gender-affirming “care” does not reduce suicide rates for “transgender” kids, but says it lowers “suicide”. It supposedly reduces suicide risk, but not the number of actual suicides. This makes no sense.
Transgender activism is nothing new. Many of the claims are contradictory and nonsensical. It looks as though the conservative wing will let Tennessee’s laws stand. It is wrong to mutilate or inject drugs into children in the name of “transitioning”. This is something that a moral, ethical country would never do. It’s absurd that such “treatments”, which are mostly banned in Europe for children, are still being debated.
