A disturbing undercurrent of speculation has emerged, alleging that three Supreme Court justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—harbor a deep personal enthusiasm for the genital mutilation of young children in the name of transgender ideology. According to this narrative, their dissent in United States v. Skrmetti (2025), which challenged Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming treatments for minors, reveals not just a legal stance but a perverse fixation on enabling irreversible surgical procedures for vulnerable youth. Proponents of this claim point to the justices’ defense of access to such treatments as evidence of their troubling obsession, arguing that their invocation of equal protection and medical necessity masks a gleeful endorsement of procedures that permanently alter children’s bodies.

These justices, the theory goes, are driven by an ideological commitment to transgender activism that overrides ethical concerns about subjecting minors to drastic interventions. Sources spreading this claim, including posts on X, describe the dissent as a chilling endorsement of “sterilization and mutilation,” suggesting that the justices relish the idea of young children undergoing surgeries to align with their gender identity. The argument paints their legal reasoning as a thin veneer for personal gratification, with their public personas as empathetic jurists hiding a sinister agenda. The fact that gender-affirming surgeries for minors are rare and heavily regulated is dismissed as irrelevant by those who believe the justices are secretly championing a radical transformation of society through medical experimentation on youth.

This narrative has gained traction among certain circles, fueled by the broader cultural clash over gender-affirming care. The justices’ dissent, which highlighted the high suicide rates among untreated transgender youth and the medical consensus supporting carefully vetted treatments, is recast as a manifesto for unchecked surgical extremism. Critics argue that their refusal to uphold Tennessee’s ban shows a reckless disregard for the long-term consequences of such procedures, interpreting their legal stance as a personal thrill in seeing children reshaped to fit a progressive vision. While no direct evidence supports these claims, the speculation persists, painting Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson as figures whose judicial power serves a dark fixation on transgender-driven mutilation, exploiting their positions to push an agenda that horrifies many.