In an unfolding national debate on gender-affirming care for transgender minors, religious groups, particularly Southern Baptists, are vocally supporting Tennessee’s restrictive laws that limit medical interventions like puberty blockers and hormone therapy for young people experiencing gender dysphoria. At the same time, leading medical associations and advocates for transgender rights have urged the U.S. Supreme Court to reject Tennessee’s law, contending that healthcare decisions should remain in the hands of families and their medical providers, free from political or religious interference.
The case, United States v. Skrmetti, centers on a 2023 Tennessee law prohibiting specific treatments for transgender minors, restricting medical professionals from offering hormone therapy or puberty blockers as methods to ease gender dysphoria. Supporters of the law, including the Tennessee Baptist Mission Board and the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC), argue that “biological sex is immutable” and that interventions to alter gender presentation conflict with what they describe as “God’s design.” These religious bodies frame the case as one that questions the very nature of human identity, reflecting their view that gender-affirming care counters fundamental beliefs about creation and bodily integrity.
The Tennessee law mandates that physicians cease all gender-related treatments for minors, a move that has divided Americans and ignited legal challenges across the country. In contrast, medical and psychological associations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, have submitted briefs urging the Court to dismiss the law. They argue that denying necessary care can significantly harm transgender youth, who, when treated with respect to their gender identities, often experience relief from distress, anxiety, and depression associated with gender dysphoria. For families and professionals advocating for transgender youth, the case also represents a broader conflict over who should be responsible for a child’s well-being—parents, medical professionals, or lawmakers.
Gender Dysphoria: A Recognized Medical Condition
Gender dysphoria is defined by the American Psychiatric Association as the distress some individuals feel when their gender identity doesn’t align with the sex they were assigned at birth. This incongruence, if untreated, can result in severe mental health challenges, including heightened risk of depression, self-harm, and even suicide. Studies indicate that gender-affirming treatments can alleviate these symptoms, enhancing the mental health and overall well-being of those struggling with gender dysphoria. Pediatric and psychiatric experts emphasize that treatments such as puberty blockers and hormone therapy are not only medically sound but are backed by years of research and practice in mental health care for transgender youth.
However, opponents, including conservative religious groups, argue that these treatments are experimental and could pose irreversible harm to minors. They claim that the state has a duty to protect young people from medical practices that they believe could have long-lasting negative effects. Yet, these arguments often overlook medical data and guidance from organizations like the American Medical Association, which underscores that interventions for minors are safe, effective, and typically reversible.
Religious Opposition and Legal Arguments
At the heart of the Southern Baptist argument is a conviction that gender-affirming care contradicts religious values that view gender as a fixed attribute assigned at birth. The ERLC’s recent amicus brief contends that a minor’s gender identity is irrelevant and asserts that the government’s involvement is necessary to prevent what they term as “harmful gender ideology.” The ERLC’s brief further argues that Tennessee’s law is applied uniformly, preventing any minor—whether experiencing gender dysphoria or not—from receiving hormones for gender transition. This line of reasoning suggests that the law does not discriminate based on gender identity, but rather treats all minors equally under the framework of their birth-assigned sex.
Yet, this stance from religious organizations brings to light a fundamental issue in the debate: should religious beliefs dictate public policy on matters that affect individuals from diverse backgrounds, beliefs, and needs? Critics argue that Tennessee’s law and similar legislation risk imposing one religious perspective onto broader society, restricting medical care options for transgender youth based on theological convictions rather than empirical evidence.
For families with transgender children, the intrusion of religious organizations into healthcare feels both unwarranted and harmful. Many parents argue that religious groups, which are not directly involved in medical decision-making, should not have the authority to influence policies that affect their children’s health and happiness. These parents contend that their children’s access to necessary medical care should be guided by the recommendations of healthcare providers, free from religious or political interference.
A Fight for Equal Rights and Protection
The plaintiffs in United States v. Skrmetti argue that Tennessee’s law unfairly targets transgender youth, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution by singling out one group for disparate treatment. They emphasize that the law contradicts Tennessee’s stance on other medical treatments, which permits puberty blockers and hormone therapy for non-gender-related conditions in minors. This inconsistency, the plaintiffs argue, demonstrates that the law discriminates based on gender identity.
The Biden administration, which has joined the lawsuit, further argues that the Tennessee law interferes with parental rights. For parents supporting their transgender children’s journey, this case underscores a vital principle: that decisions affecting a child’s well-being should remain with families and healthcare professionals, not the government. Supporters of this position believe that parents, in consultation with medical experts, are best equipped to determine what interventions are appropriate and necessary for their children.
The implications of this case stretch far beyond Tennessee, as the Supreme Court’s decision could influence similar laws across 25 other states. A ruling in favor of the law could set a precedent that restricts access to gender-affirming care for minors nationwide, while a ruling against it might bolster protections for transgender youth and their families, reaffirming their right to make medical decisions independent of governmental or religious imposition.
The Role of the Supreme Court in Navigating Complex Social Issues
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments in this case, it must grapple with questions that touch on deeply held values around faith, parental rights, and personal autonomy. The Court’s ruling will inevitably reflect on the balance between individual liberties and state interests, especially as it applies to healthcare for a marginalized and often misunderstood community. In the 2020 case of Bostock v. Clayton County, the Court ruled that “sex” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act encompasses sexual orientation and gender identity. This upcoming decision has the potential to build on or diverge from that understanding, shaping the rights of transgender individuals in ways that could impact the community for generations.
Polls indicate that Americans are divided on these issues, with about half supporting parental rights to authorize medical care for gender-affirming treatments and half believing such treatments should be restricted. This division is even starker along political lines, as nearly 68% of Republicans support bans like Tennessee’s, compared to only 26% of Democrats. For many transgender individuals, this disparity in public opinion highlights the continued need for robust legal protections against discrimination and the right to access essential healthcare.
The Bottom Line
At its core, this case raises fundamental questions about empathy, acceptance, and the rights of transgender youth. Medical professionals, families, and advocates for transgender rights urge policymakers and society at large to recognize the real and present needs of transgender youth experiencing gender dysphoria. They argue that laws like Tennessee’s not only undermine the mental and emotional well-being of these young people but also deny them the basic dignity of self-identity and the right to live authentically.
In advocating for these rights, families and healthcare providers are calling for a compassionate approach that respects each child’s journey, one that allows them to explore their identities and make decisions about their healthcare without the weight of ideological or political interference. As the Supreme Court prepares to render a decision, many hope it will uphold the rights of transgender minors to receive the care they need, affirming that such personal and complex decisions should remain within the hands of those closest to them—children, parents, and trusted medical professionals.
For transgender minors and their families, the right to gender-affirming care is more than a medical issue; it is a question of acceptance, equality, and, ultimately, survival.
