The state laws banning gender affirming care for minors are designed to protect children before the age of consent from making irreversible decisions that can lead to permanent sterility, loss of sexual pleasure and other physiological changes that puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones produce. (“Supreme Court upholds Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for trans minors,” June 18).

Since the issue of gender-affirming care for minors involves both male and female children, this is not an issue of sex discrimination; rather, it concerns a life-altering health issue. In spite of statements by leaders of professional societies, the fact is, there is not a medical consensus that the benefits of this therapy outweigh the long-term adverse consequences in children. This is clearly documented in two recent comprehensive, 400+ page reviews of the scientific literature, the United Kingdom’s “Cass Review” and the Department of Health and Human Services’ “Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria.” This is the basis for the court’s majority opinion that “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.”

In the dissenting opinion, it is argued that “the law also limits parents’ decision-making ability for their children’s health care.” But that statement defending parental rights fails to acknowledge that several states have laws that make it legally possible for “mature” minors to access gender affirming care without parental consent (Oregon, California, Washington, Minnesota, New York and Massachusetts). If protecting parental rights is the issue, then why aren’t the rights of parents to refuse gender affirming care for their minor children protected?

— Henry Mosley, Parkville

Add your voice: Respond to this piece or other Sun content by submitting your own letter.