This fall, the U.S. Supreme Court is going to hear a case regarding proscriptions on gender transitions (read: gender mutilations) administered to minors. Tennessee put a ban in place to protect youth who have been manipulated into believing they are irreparably gender-confused without “gender-affirming” medical intervention from undergoing any sort of hormonal or surgical treatment. The law even bans the practice with parental permission.

When Tennessee’s law, known as SB1, went into effect, it was immediately challenged by the Department of Justice, the ACLU, and Lambda Legal. Opponents argue that not only does this ban infringe on parental rights, but it also impedes medically necessary care for kids who are in distress or kids with precocious puberty or delayed puberty.

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti is looking forward to a final hearing at SCOTUS. “We fought hard to defend Tennessee’s law protecting kids from irreversible gender treatments and secured a thoughtful and well-reasoned opinion from the Sixth Circuit,” he said. “I look forward to finishing the fight in the United States Supreme Court. This case will bring much-needed clarity to whether the Constitution contains special protections for gender identity.”

If we unpack the arguments from the DOJ, ACLU, and Lambda Legal, we begin to see the chinks in the Left’s flawed logic. Vis-à-vis the “parental rights” argument, what they purposely overlook is that parents don’t have the right to abuse their children. In many of the cases in which children are permitted to undergo transitions, it’s done because the parents are either using their child as a token, a woke virtue signal to the world, or they have been terrified by the emotional blackmail of the activist medical professionals saying that if their child isn’t indulged in their delusion, he or she will commit suicide.

The “medically necessary” argument is just as specious. Medical transitions, whether via puberty blockers, hormones, or gender mutilation surgeries, are never necessary. The main source that transgender activists rely on is the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), whose own doctors admit that they are experimenting on children. Then there are the detransitioners like Chloe Cole — vulnerable teens who were taken advantage of by deranged physicians. Detransitioners are left with a slew of medical problems that would never have occurred if they hadn’t been experimented on.

This leads to the last argument, “equal treatment.” Gender-confused kids’ bodies aren’t in need of medical intervention in the same way a child facing premature or delayed puberty is. Furthermore, doctors treating children with those particular puberty conditions aren’t giving them incorrect hormones for their sex. Treating delayed/early onset puberty is a medical issue; indulging the gender-confusion/manipulated child with harmful medical intervention that leads to higher instances of suicide later in life is a medical malpractice issue.

This SCOTUS case, U.S. v. Skrmetti, will likely affect the other 25 states that are looking to have bans on gender transition for minors put into place.

The U.S. and its prestigious medical institutions, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association, are behind the harmful and experimental “gender-affirming” care model for children. Europe, which is widely known to be about a decade ahead in transgender studies, has clamped down on the practice of “gender affirmation” on children. This is particularly true in the UK, where the recent review by Dr. Hilary Cass determined that the practice on minors was “remarkably weak.” In other words, all the claims that activists make are dubious and not at all backed by science.

SCOTUS’s job will be to rule on whether gender mutilation for minors is a protected right or unconstitutional. Let’s hope and pray the justices protect our children.