Seeking Truth in Today's Troubled World

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s comparison of laws prohibiting child sex changes to historical bans on interracial marriage is both logically and morally flawed. While the intention may have been to highlight perceived discrimination, such an analogy fails to hold up under scrutiny. Approaching the matter with both Biblical wisdom and human compassion, this essay demonstrates that laws banning child sex changes are fundamentally protective, rooted in the safeguarding of minors, while historical bans on interracial marriage were grounded in prejudice and the denial of human dignity. 

The Flawed Logic of the Comparison 

Interracial marriage bans were rooted in the false notion that races must remain separate, perpetuating hate, division and dehumanization. This idea violated the Biblical truth that all humans are created in the image of God: “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27). Such bans sought to deny the equality of all people, something inherently contrary to both Biblical principles and common sense. 

In contrast, laws restricting child sex changes are not based on discrimination but on the understanding that children lack the maturity to make life-altering medical decisions. Scripture emphasizes the importance of guiding and protecting children: “Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it.” (Proverbs 22:6). Far from denying their rights, these laws aim to shield children from potentially permanent harm, acknowledging their vulnerability and the gravity of medical interventions that carry lifelong consequences. 

The Biblical Perspective on Identity and Protection 

The Bible repeatedly affirms the sanctity of the human body and the wisdom of God’s design. In Psalm 139:14, David proclaims, “I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.” To alter the body in ways that deny its God-given purpose is to reject this divine craftsmanship. Justice Jackson’s comparison overlooks this theological foundation, equating the affirmation of God’s design with discriminatory practices—a false equivalence that undermines the sacredness of both creation and human identity. 

Furthermore, Scripture highlights the responsibility of adults to protect children. Jesus Himself said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these” (Matthew 19:14). This call to cherish and safeguard children includes shielding them from harm, particularly when they are too young to fully understand the implications of their decisions. Encouraging children to undergo irreversible medical procedures not only risks their physical and psychological well-being but also fails to honor this divine mandate to protect the vulnerable. 

 Moreover, from a common-sense perspective, laws banning child sex changes reflect a compassionate concern for the well-being of minors. Children and adolescents, while capable of experiencing profound emotions, lack the cognitive maturity to evaluate long-term consequences fully. The prefrontal cortex, the brain region responsible for decision-making and impulse control, continues developing well into a person’s twenties. Asking a child, even encouraging a child, to make an irreversible decision about their body at such a formative stage is neither wise nor compassionate.  It is diabolical.

Medical interventions like puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries carry significant risks, including infertility, loss of sexual function, and long-term health complications. Many individuals who undergo these procedures as minors later experience regret, as evidenced by the growing number of de-transitioners speaking out. Protecting children from such risks is not an act of oppression but an act of love. 

Conversely, banning interracial marriage denied consenting adults their God-given right to love and marry whomever they chose, based solely on superficial differences. Unlike child sex changes, interracial unions honor the natural and Biblical principle that humans are one family under God: “From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth” (Acts 17:26). The foolishness of equating these two issues lies in the failure to recognize that one seeks to preserve life and well-being, while the other sought to divide and diminish it. 

A Compassionate Path Forward 

Justice demands that we care for the most vulnerable among us. Laws against child sex changes align with this principle by prioritizing the protection of minors from irreversible harm. Compassion does not mean acquiescing to every desire or impulse; true compassion often involves guiding others toward what is ultimately best for them. Deuteronomy 6:6-7 reminds us, “These words I am commanding you today are to be upon your hearts. And you shall teach them diligently to your children and speak of them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up..” Parents, lawmakers, and society at large have a responsibility to nurture and protect children, guiding them with love and wisdom. 

By conflating laws protecting children with those rooted in racial prejudice, Justice Jackson’s analogy obscures the vital distinctions between these issues. Common sense demands that we approach each issue on its own terms, recognizing the unique ethical, biological, and theological factors at play. 

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s comparison of child sex change bans to laws against interracial marriage is not only logically inconsistent but also morally flawed. While the latter sought to deny the inherent equality of human beings, the former aims to protect vulnerable children from irreversible harm. Approaching this issue from a Biblical perspective reveals the fallacy of this analogy and underscores the wisdom of protecting children while honoring the God-given sanctity of human identity. 

~JH

Bibliography 

1. Holy Bible, New International Version. 

2. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). 

3. Pearcey, Nancy. Love Thy Body: Answering Hard Questions about Life and Sexuality. Baker Books, 2018. 

4. Kaczor, Christopher. The Ethics of Abortion: Women’s Rights, Human Life, and the Question of Justice. Routledge, 2014. 

5. Schermer, Michael. “Cognitive Development and Decision Making in Adolescence.” Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2019.