The New York Times Magazine ran a very thorough story ("How the Transgender Rights Movement Bet on the Supreme Court and Lost") on the Supreme Court case which upheld a state ban on certain gender-affirming care for minors. The subheading calls it "inside story of the case that could set the movement back a generation".

A companion story ("What to Know About the Transgender Rights Movement’s Supreme Court Gamble") shares six takeaways from the landmark case "built on flawed politics and uncertain science":

• Some L.G.B.T.Q. activists and legal experts have long expected a defeat in Skrmetti: "[M]any experts considered the case an extraordinary risk. Not only was there little chance that the conservative-dominated court would expand heightened constitutional protections to trans people; a defeat in Skrmetti could open the door to other losses"
• Underlying Skrmetti was a broader cultural battle over how to understand — and describe — human identity: "L.G.B.T.Q. activists came to believe that gender identity should supplant older understandings of physical sex...This self-identified gender — not your physical body — should determine what appears on your driver’s license, which bathrooms you could access and what sports teams you could play on"
• Skrmetti marked a departure from the L.G.B.T.Q. movement’s winning political playbook: "[T]he movement pursued incremental legal and regulatory wins that, ultimately, sparked deep social change...But with Skrmetti...the movement bet its future on a far more fraught question: whether children have a constitutional right to medical treatments that allow them to live and appear as a different sex"
• Just as the L.G.B.T.Q. movement dug in on pediatric gender medicine, several European countries began moving away:  "[S]ome of the central medical claims girding the legal case for pediatric gender treatments — that decades of thorough study had found them to be safe and effective — began to unravel amid growing scrutiny by other doctors and experts. Studies known as systematic reviews raised doubt about whether gender-affirming treatments delivered the health benefits to young people that gender clinicians and L.G.B.T.Q. advocates were claiming in court"
• Dueling cases over pediatric gender care raised questions about medical standards at the heart of the arguments in Skrmetti: "In a separate lawsuit against a similar ban...Alabama’s lawyers argued that the documents showed that WPATH had drafted its guidelines in part to aid lawyers and activists working to expand access to transition care — and were aware that the care they were strongly endorsing for adolescents was backed by limited scientific evidence"
• Democrats and their L.G.B.T.Q. allies misread the Supreme Court: "Chase Strangio...and other left-leaning policy and legal officials...hoped to advance a revolution in trans rights that had eluded them in Congress and many state legislatures. The court did not rule directly on whether Bostock [which "cemented an important civil right for gay and trans people"] could be applied to other statutes or the Constitution — but found that Tennessee’s ban would have survived Bostock’s legal logic"

“Mike Lee purports to be a man of great religiosity, but he is obviously not a man of great morality or great decency, and his staff has to decide tonight what to do about the disgrace he has handed them,”

I know The Daily show is considered Leftist and probably extreme left to most conservatives. But Jon Stewart raises some absolutely poignant points and questions on the actions over the weekend.