The culture wars were on full display Wednesday when the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to uphold a Tennessee law that banned gender transition treatments for children. While the legal issues were arcane, the ruling is a victory for common sense.

Progressives and many media sympathizers portrayed the decision as an “attack” on trans rights (Vox). But the decision doesn’t prevent adults from choosing to undergo procedures or treatments intended to alter their gender. The ruling applies only to kids in states where such laws have passed.

Three families and a doctor had challenged the Tennessee statute arguing it violated the 14th Amendment equal protection clause and should be subjected to “heightened judicial scrutiny” because it discriminated on the basis of sex and transgender status. The Biden administration joined their cause.

The majority, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, rejected the idea that the law discriminated based on sex and transgender status, holding instead it drew distinctions related to age and the type of treatments.

The law “prohibits health-care providers from administering puberty blockers and hormones to minors for certain medical uses,” Chief Justice Roberts noted (italics his). “When, for example, a transgender boy (whose biological sex is female) takes puberty blockers to treat his gender incongruence, he receives a different medical treatment than a boy whose biological sex is male who takes puberty blockers to treat his precocious puberty.”

The distinction is real and significant. Having concluded that the law doesn’t violate the equal protection clause, he continued, “we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.”

In other words, states and the people are free to come to their own conclusions. What could be more democratic? It’s worth noting that the medical community has reached no consensus on the wisdom of gender transition treatment for minors. The New York Times noted this week, “Systematic reviews commissioned by international health bodies have consistently found that the evidence of the benefits of the treatments is weak.”

The chief justice acknowledged the emotional nature of the debate. “This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field,” he wrote. “The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound.”

Indeed, all Americans deserve to be treated with compassion and respect. But allowing states to determine whether children need to be of age before undergoing radical, life-altering gender treatments that they may later regret is hardly the definition of tyranny nor a constitutional abomination. It’s common sense.

_____

©2025 Las Vegas Review-Journal. Visit reviewjournal.com.. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.