Tennessee wants the Supreme Court to enforce gender conformity
In one exchange, Justice Elena Kagan asked Rice to acknowledge that the Tennessee law was a sex based ban, because it only prohibited trans minors from obtaining certain medical procedures. She told Rice that the whole thing was infused with sex. It’s all about sex. You might have reasons for thinking that it’s an appropriate regulation, and those reasons should be tested and respect given to them, but it’s a dodge to say that this is not based on sex, it’s based on medical purpose, when the medical purpose is utterly and entirely about sex.”
“Justice Kagan … we think that’s a request for a substantive right to engage in non-conforming behavior,” Rice responded.
With that response, Rice admitted to what advocates have been warning about in this case all along: These bans are about empowering the state to enforce traditional, racial, and patriarchal gender norms.
At issue in Skrmetti is whether trans kids, with the help and support of their parents and trusted medical professionals, can access medical treatments like puberty blockers. It is astonishing that the Tennessee Solicitor-General would describe medically appropriate treatment to be a threat against state power. Rice is saying that the care itself is a threat to state power. He is saying that accessing medical care poses a threat to the state’s power. According to Tennessee’s logic that also includes enforcing a ban on “cross-dressing,” or strict enforcement gendered dress code. It could also include endorsing policies that allow businesses to contribute less to a female employee’s retirement and rolling back workplace protections against pregnancy discrimination or being out in the workplace.
What I’m saying is, if the Supreme Court allows Tennessee (and the other states just waiting in the wings) to enforce gender norms in the name of protecting against non-conforming behavior, pretty much every feminist and LGBTQ+ policy gain from the last 50 years will be up for grabs.
