Allies and friends,
This week, we review the nation’s response to a major victory against transgender ideology, as the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in favor of upholding Tennessee’s ban on harmful sex-rejecting mutilations for minors in the case United States v. Skrmetti. ACPeds played a role in providing medical expertise for the case and fully supports the Court’s decision. How are others responding—and how might this ruling shape the future of pediatric care for gender-dysphoric youth?
New York Times investigative reporter Nicholas Confessore’s examination of the transgender movement behind ongoing legal battles, particularly leading up to Skrmetti case, stands out for three key reasons: it highlights the lack of scientific evidence behind pediatric sex-trait mutilations, exposes the underlying motives driving transgender activism, and reveals the left’s strategic use and manipulation of language in shaping the debate.
In response to the Supreme Court’s ruling, the AAP released a statement reaffirming its ongoing support for sex-trait mutilations on minors, claiming the science supports their position. In contrast, the ACPeds points to growing evidence—including the Cass Review and a recent HHS report—indicating that these interventions are ineffective and cause permanent harm to children.
While many important questions have been raised throughout this case, the Court’s decision highlights a divide among the justices over a fundamental issue: What is the purpose of medicine?
Sincerely,
The Biological Integrity Team
The American College of Pediatricians
Behind the Skrmetti Case: Why Transgender Movement Strategy Failed
Nicholas Confessore’s examination of the transgender movement behind ongoing legal battles stands out for three key reasons.
First, it repeatedly highlights the lack of scientific evidence supporting pediatric sex-trait mutilations and details how political activism has driven their widespread adoption.
Second, Confessore makes clear that the left’s focus is not on protecting children’s health, but on advancing a broader ideology of self-identification and bodily autonomy—even for minors. They seek to enshrine in law the idea that self-perception alone defines identity and that individuals, regardless of age and circumstance, should have unrestricted control over their bodies.
Finally, although the author is largely sympathetic to gender ideology and relies heavily on activist voices, the article still reveals the movement’s internal contradictions and its use of strategically deceptive language.
For more information, see Dr. Scott Field’s “Trans-sexual Deception” and “Gender Ideology.”
AAP Still Claims Science Supports Sex-Rejecting Surgeries
In response to the Supreme Court’s recent ruling, the AAP released a statement affirming its continued support for sex-trait mutilations in youth, insisting that “the science still supports gender-affirming care” and that “children will still need it.”
In contrast, ACPeds strongly disagrees, pointing to a growing body of evidence—including the Cass Review, a recent HHS report, and multiple international studies—that indicates such interventions are not only ineffective but also pose lifelong harm to vulnerable children.
What is the Purpose of Medicine?
The Court’s 6–3 ruling in U.S. v. Skrmetti highlights a divide among the Justices over a fundamental question: What is the purpose of medicine?
As Farr Curlin noted in WSJ, “In the traditional view, the purpose of treatment is the patient’s health—the well-working of the body.”
Authentic medicine restores health, wellness, and function; it cures disease when possible, relieves suffering, and always cares. Above all, it follows the principle: first, do no harm.
