The trans movement before the Supreme Court

 National Review:

In United States v. Skrmetti, which was argued Wednesday, the Supreme Court’s justices are asked to decide whether the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause is violated by a Tennessee law that restricts the use of puberty blockers and hormones by minors.

To begin with the obvious, the 14th Amendment says nothing of the sort. The people who wrote and ratified the amendment at the noontide of the Victorian age would have been baffled by the claim that they were creating a constitutional right for children who are confused about their sex to take drugs that make irreversible changes to their bodies. If the Court takes seriously the original public meaning of the equal protection clause, this case is no contest.

Unlike Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was at issue in Bostock, the equal protection clause says nothing about sex discrimination. It has long been read to bar irrational distinctions on the basis of sex, for reasons similar to why it bars racial classifications. But while legal distinctions on the basis of race are irrational in all but a few very narrowly circumscribed situations, the courts have long recognized the commonsense reality that was obvious in 1868 and remains obvious to most Americans today: Sex differences are real. They have important consequences and never more so than in matters of biology, medicine, and reproduction. Humanity could not exist without those differences.

...

I think the Tennessee law should be upheld.   Minors should not be attempting to change their sex with surgeries.  Fortunately, all of my kids and grandkids seem pretty happy with what they were born with.

See also:

Alito Calls Out Solicitor General for Ignoring Research That Exposed Risks of Trans Procedures for Kids

And:

 Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments on Trans 'Treatments' for Kids, and Things Get Absolutely Wild