(Supreme Court) Justice And Gender-Affirming Care

As most of my readers know, I often write about what I consider the dangers of progressive thinking. This thinking frequently relies on tactics that appeal to emotions (feelings) and anecdotal lived experiences. Furthermore, any criticism of such tactics is quickly labeled “bullying,” “unempathetic,” or “hateful.” These tactics, I believe, are attempts to shame and silence critical and much-needed voices—especially conservative ones. As any parent trying to reason with a toddler throwing a tantrum knows, when reason confronts emotion, very little progress occurs.

Sadly, these tactics are not confined to internet arguments or blog comment sections. We see them employed at the highest levels of both Church and State. For example, take the recent Supreme Court decision to uphold Tennessee’s ban on so-called “gender-affirming care” (SB1) for minors (United States v. Skrmetti). The Court ruled 6–3 that the law does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. I highly recommend reading the full decision.

For this article, I want to highlight the concurring opinion of Justice Clarence Thomas and the dissenting opinion of Justice Sonia Sotomayor—both of whom identify as Catholics. My goal is to show how the progressive tactic of emotional appeal functions even at the highest level of American government, by contrasting these two opinions.

Justice Sotomayor’s Dissent from the Majority

In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor argues that SB1 violates the Equal Protection Clause in two ways:

1. The law discriminates based on sex.
2. It discriminates against transgender people as a class.

She makes four key assumptions to support her view:
– Transgender status reflects an inherent and legitimate identity, not a choice or developmental phase.
– Laws that discriminate against transgender individuals deserve heightened constitutional scrutiny, similar to laws targeting race, sex, or religion.
– Denying access to “gender-affirming care” causes psychological harm and increases the risk of depression and suicidality.
– “Gender-affirming care” is medically necessary.

In short, she views transgender people as a quasi-suspect class deserving constitutional protection and argues that denying minors access to such care causes harm and increases suicidality. Sound familiar?

Justice Sotomayor’s Emotive Language and Appeals to Lived Experience

Justice Sotomayor’s dissent leans heavily on emotional language and personal testimony. Consider the following excerpts:

…the Court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims. In sadness, I dissent.

Ryan attests that ‘gender-affirming healthcare saved [his] life.’ For Ryan’s parents, it is simply not an option to cut [him] off from this care.’ ‘I worry about his ability to survive,’ Ryan’s mother attests. ‘Losing him would break me.’

If left untreated, gender dysphoria can lead to severe anxiety, depression, eating disorders, substance abuse, self-harm, and suicidality.

It also authorizes, without second thought, untold harm to transgender children and the parents and families who love them.

The emotive language is clear: abandonment, survival, depression, suicidality, and harm. She relies heavily on the lived experience of “Ryan,” a biological female youth, to frame the issue. Noticeably absence is any mention of the physical and permanent damage these treatments may inflict. For that, we must turn to Justice Thomas.

Justice Thomas’s Rational Concurrence with the Majority

In his concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas presents a dispassionate and reasoned critique of gender-affirming care for minors. He identifies five serious concerns:

1. It is experimental and poorly supported by long-term evidence.
2. States are justified in banning such treatments when the “experts” have compromised credibility.
3. Children lack the capacity to grant informed consent.
4. WPATH and other medical bodies are ideologically compromised.
5. Gender-affirming care carries serious and irreversible risks.

Unlike Justice Sotomayor, Justice Thomas provides a sober, evidence-based case. He treats gender-affirming care as a contested, unproven, and ethically problematic practice. He rightly defends the right of states to regulate or prohibit such interventions, especially for children—given the permanent harm and questionable scientific basis.

How Does One Reason with Emotion?

I sometimes wonder what the progressive endgame is. What exactly do they want for the human person? It seems they desire ultimate autonomy—the power to define reality as they see fit, to erase limits, and even to redefine the body. If a male child believes he is a girl, progressives not only affirm that belief but also push for irreversible medical changes to validate it. They will call him “her” and demand that others do the same, threatening dissenters with accusations of harm or hate.

And now, even the Supreme Court of the United States is not immune.

Final Thoughts

By contrasting these two Catholic justices, we see the depth of our cultural crisis. The progressive view, grounded in emotion and ideology, now threatens the well-being of children—and not just metaphorically. Justice Sotomayor offers empathy at the expense of truth. Thankfully, Thomas offers a defense of reason, responsibility, and reality.

This is not merely a political debate. It is a spiritual battle. And while God in His providence has thus far preserved space for truth, that space is shrinking. We must remain vigilant, mindful, and prayerful.

But above all—we must never be silent.