[DoctorOW]

Personally I think it's less accurate to rephrase medical treatment as "a certain treatment". It's also false to say all minors, since cisgender minors are still approved to receive puberty blockers (and are regularly prescribed them for various reasons).

It's the same medicine from the same medical professionals and the only difference is your gender identity.

[titanomachy]

According to the Supreme Court, the difference is the “medical purpose” of the treatments. Presumably trans-identifying individuals can get the treatments if they meet the same criteria as cis-identifying ones (e.g. premature puberty). If they treated the sexes differently (e.g. those born male can get hormones for gender dysphoria, and those born female can’t) then it would be clear-cut discrimination.

[DoctorOW]

First off, I fully understand that discriminating on gender identity isn't the same thing as discrimination based on sex however they are both discrimination.

Even if you were to convince me of this legal fiction that gender identity has nothing to do with idemitiy and is in fact just a medical condition the Supreme Court doesn't care to treat, I still would call it a life threatening attack.

If the Supreme Court denied chemotherapy for cancer patients, it'd be perfectly justified to call it life threatening denial of care. The fact that it's available for cancer patients with other diseases that are treatable via chemotherapy is irrelevant.

[const_cast]

The elephant in the room here is why is the Supreme Court even concerned with how prescription drugs are used? I'm sure are justices are very smart - but they're not doctors. And they're certainly not my doctor or your doctor or every single child's doctor.

It should be up to a doctor to decide if a prescription makes sense for a particular patients symptoms and diagnosis. The Supreme Court should not concern itself otherwise.

At least with Roe v Wade there's an argument to be made about it involving a second hypothetical person. But this? This is strictly between patients, their medical care, and their parents.

[titanomachy]

The Supreme Court is only involved because a state passed a law banning these treatments, and someone brought a case against the state saying the law is unconstitutional. Deciding which laws are unconstitutional is like the main purpose of the Supreme Court.

But I guess what you’re saying is why is the state passing these laws, which is a fair enough question. The Supreme Court says they are allowed to, and they are the authority on which laws are allowed, so I expect the states will keep doing this sort of thing until the voters tell them not to.

Plato did try to warn us that democracy was a terrible idea.

[Manuel_D]

There's a very big difference between giving a child undergoing precocious puberty blockers until they're 11, and giving a child blockers with the goal of preventing them from every undergoing a same-sex puberty. The latter has a whole host of risks, including infertility and inability to orgasm. To say that the only difference is gender identity is not even remotely honest.