It’s a given that those who believe men can become women and vice versa will make brain-dead arguments defending their positions because they do not understand basic biology. But Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor took this to a whole other level when the court heard a challenge to Tennessee’s ban on “gender-affirming care” for minors.
At the heart of the dispute is whether states have the authority to prohibit medical treatments such as puberty blockers, hormone therapy, or “gender-affirming” surgery for children suffering from gender dysphoria.
During the proceedings, Sotomayor seemed to suggest that these treatments are akin to taking aspirin, which might make one wonder what kind of “aspirin” she is smoking taking to make such a ridiculous claim.
Tennessee Solicitor General J. Matthew Rice argued that using these treatments “cannot eliminate the risk of detransitioners. It becomes a pure exercise of weighing benefits versus risk. The question of how many minors have to have their bodies irreparably harmed for unproven benefits is one that is best left to policymakers.”
Related: Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments on Trans 'Treatments' for Kids, and Things Get Absolutely Wild
Sotomayor promptly put down her pipe and countered:
“I’m sorry, counselor. Every medical treatment has a risk, even taking aspirin. There is always going to be a percentage of the population under any medical treatment that’s going to suffer a harm. The question in my mind is not, do policymakers decide whether one person’s life is more valuable than the millions of others who get relief from this treatment? The question is, can you stop one sex from the other?”
Rice: "How many minors have to have their bodies irreparably harmed for unproven benefits?"
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) December 4, 2024
Sotomayor: "Every medical treatment has risk. Even taking Aspirin." pic.twitter.com/I4k8ujr5Hl
Naturally, social media users let her have it, pointing out why her argument was flawed.
She's so dumb. Every medical treatment has inherent risk. The *entire point* of "gender affirming care" is to create irreparable damage. https://t.co/vzPB6xus5J
— David Harsanyi (@davidharsanyi) December 4, 2024
$9M NIH study on gender treatments for minors found that these interventions did not change children's mental health (in many cases it made it worse), but that's CONVENIENTLY unpublished ahead of this SCOTUS rulinghttps://t.co/MBXKXhRklQ https://t.co/Qr3BrknUVp
— Chrissy Clark (@chrissyclark_) December 4, 2024
This comparison to aspirin—a widely used, low-risk medication—was ostensibly made to highlight that no medical intervention is without side effects. However, equating aspirin with medical treatments is about as clever as digging a trench with a plastic spoon.
Sotomayor’s analogy fails for a myriad of reasons. For starters, the potential consequences of using these treatments on minors are light years beyond those associated with everyday medications like aspirin, which is typically not recommended for those under the age of 16.
The state’s concern lies in the possibility that children will suffer long-term damage from “gender-affirming care,” which has not been conclusively proven to have a positive effect on their mental health. This is not merely a hypothetical. There are plenty of documented accounts of detransitioners – individuals who regret going through these treatments and later try to reverse them.
Moreover, the scientific community is far from reaching a consensus on the efficacy of “gender-affirming care,” despite what progressive politicians and media figures tell us. Several studies have emerged over recent years showing that “gender-affirming care” can cause more harm than good in many cases. Indeed, one such study revealed that at least one-third of those who underwent these treatments as minors had their mental health symptoms worsen as they became adults.
Even further, other studies have shown that the vast majority of children who experience gender dysphoria will grow out of it by the time they reach adulthood without medical intervention. This suggests that using these risky treatments is completely unnecessary in most cases. Why risk destroying a child’s body with questionable medical practices when they will likely not need it?
The answer is clear: This is not about saving children. It is about advancing an ideological agenda that involves obscuring the concept of sex and gender. By downplaying the seriousness of the negative effects of “gender-affirming care,” folks like Sotomayor seek to deceive the public into believing that it is perfectly acceptable to affirm the notion that children can change their sex and gender using medication or surgery. It is not only ridiculous but deeply insidious.
Yes, every single medical treatment carries a risk. But when it comes to “gender-affirming care,” this risk is far higher than that of taking an aspirin. What Sotomayor seems to be suggesting is that it is worth the risk of irreversible damage caused by these treatments, even though most children will come to accept their actual gender identities when they get older. Hopefully, the court will make the right ruling.
