Slates legal writer Mark Joseph Stern explained in an article what is at stake in U.S. v. Skrmetti, the challenge to Tennessees gender-affirming care ban that the Supreme Court is hearing today.Stern explains that the legal principles that protect against sexism are being challenged and were overturned by the appeals court in this case. The pro-trans side argued that, for example, banning a trans boy from getting testosterone therapy but allowing a cis boy to get testosterone therapy for the same reason, to help their bodies develop in a way that affirms their gender identities is blatantly sexist since the only difference between the trans and cis boys is their sex assigned at birth. But the appeals court said that thats not sexist because of a new biological difference exception the court created, the idea that biological necessity is a legally acceptable excuse to discriminate based on sex. The appeals court also ruled that the ban on gender-affirming care hurts both trans boys and trans girls equally so therefore its not discrimination on the basis of sex, an argument that sounds similar to what marriage equality opponents used to argue about how both men and women are banned from marrying someone of the same sex so same-sex marriage bans dont discriminate on the basis of sex.From Stern: ButSkrmettiis not just about transgender people. It is also, fundamentally, a case about gender equality, and whether constitutional limitations on sex discrimination can survive the Supreme Courts conservative supermajority. The key legal question in the case is surprisingly easy: Do laws that deny certain medicine to people based exclusivelyon their sex trigger heightened scrutiny by the courts? The answer, according to long-established precedent, is a resounding yes. If the court decides otherwise, it will shred the constitutional presumption against sex discrimination and replace it with a rubber stamp for states that want to impose their own prejudiced conception of gender roles by force of law. Transgender Americans are, of course, most immediately affected bySkrmettibut the case really implicates all of our rights. Everyones freedom to reject gender stereotypes without fear of state oppression is at stake.The full article is worth reading.This is just one update in a bigger story. Dont miss LIVE UPDATES: Supreme Court hears arguments in challenge to gender-affirming care ban on LGBTQ Nation for more context and updates.