[wahern]

Much of the majority and most of the dissenting opinions in the recent SCOTUS case are exactly about that--is it sex discrimination?: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-477_2cp3.pdf All the opinions are worth a read. The best arguments for both sides are there. Though, I thought all the best arguments on both sides kind of sucked; it's just a very difficult issue. Transgender questions lay to waste 100 years of sex and gender discourse on both the right and left.

[titanomachy]

Thanks for sharing. SCOTUS basically said the same thing I was trying to point out in my comment: it’s not discriminating based on sex, but rather on age and “medical purpose”.

I agree with your assessment, and I am suspicious of anyone (on either side) who claims that there is an obvious “correct” answer to this issue.

[KittenInABox]

I think where it's ambiguous, it should be left to the parents to decide. Parents can already decline life-saving treatment on their child in the US due to their moral beliefs. Why not let parents also decide if they want to let a 16 yo have hormone treatments. It surely can't be more serious than declining blood transfusion.

[stickfigure]

This is, of course, the voice of sanity. Unfortunately it's not encoded into our legal system in these terms. On the other hand, if your religion explicitly requires that everyone "art theretofore honest with thy sentiment of masculinity or womanhood" (dress it up in colorful language, ideally quoted from old books with ambiguous authorship) you might have something you can sell to the Supreme Court.