In a context of increasing restrictions on the rights of transgender people in numerous countries, the legal battle over medical care for sex reassignment in minors reached the United States Supreme Court, with the state of Tennessee at the forefront of the controversy . The discussion has taken an unexpected turn: defenders of restrictive laws are using changes in the policies of European countries as a reference, marking a break with the traditional conservative rejection of foreign influences in the American legal system.
In recent years, countries such as Sweden, the United Kingdom, Finland and Norway have revised their protocols on treatments related to gender dysphoria, adopting more cautious stances. This fact has been replicated by conservative politicians and lawyers in the United States to justify laws such as the one in Tennessee, which prohibits hormonal or surgical treatments for minors seeking to transition. According to Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, these European policies show that gender-affirming interventions carry significant risks.
Tide change
The reference to Europe as a model is a notable change in the American right’s narrative. For decades, conservatives rejected any foreign, particularly European, influence on domestic legal debates, such as LGBTQ+ rights or the death penalty. Now, however, they are taking advantage of the changing tide and the experience of other European movements to limit certain types of trans health care as an endorsement of their own initiatives, arguing that these restrictions are not only prudent, but also compatible with the United States Constitution. Joined.
This turn has generated criticism among transgender rights advocates. Sasha Buchert, from Lambda Legal, described it as “hypocritical” that those who have historically rejected the European model on issues such as public health now use it as a reference. “It is ironic that they cite European medical policies, when in other contexts they have denigrated socialized medicine,” he said.
The debate over gender-affirming healthcare has also grown in Europe. In the United Kingdom, a report led by Dr. Hilary Cass concluded that research on these treatments is weak and that there was little attention to collateral problems, such as patients’ mental health or cases of “detransition.” As a result, the National Health Service (NHS) stopped prescribing puberty blockers for minors and closed its main clinic for trans young people.
Sweden, Finland and Norway have adopted even more restrictive policies, limiting certain treatments to clinical trials. However, these countries have not implemented full bans like those promoted in Tennessee and 25 other US states. According to Chase Strangio, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), European examples have been distorted in the American public debate: “Europe is taking more targeted approaches to ensure that those who need treatment receive it, which is very different from “What states like Tennessee do, which completely eliminate any access route.”
cultural battle
Despite the references to Europe, several American justices have questioned the relevance of these examples in the American legal context. Federal Judge Eli Richardson, who temporarily blocked the Tennessee law in June, argued that the European adjustments are not comparable to outright bans imposed in some states. “The fact that these countries are reviewing their policies does not equate to a complete ban on hormonal treatments,” he said.
This debate highlights how legal and cultural arguments are intertwined. While in the past conservatives rejected any foreign influence as a threat to American sovereignty, they now cite it when it serves their objectives. This selective use of international standards reflects a broader trend: both the right and the left turn to global examples to justify their positions, depending on their convenience.
The growing turn toward restrictive policies in the United States and Europe underscores a moment of review for transgender rights. Critics point out that outright bans not only ignore the complexities of scientific evidence, but also deny patients the right to decide with their doctors the best path for their well-being.
The legal battle in Tennessee, with echoes of European debates, is not an isolated event. It is part of a global trend in which the advance of conservative political movements erodes and reverses the woke policies of the last decade, marking a worrying setback in the fight for equality and inclusion.l
Image gallery
