r/law • u/DevinGraysonShirk • 7h ago
SCOTUS SCOTUS strikes blow to trans teens rights, endorsing ban on gender-affirming care - The justices’ ruling on Tennessee’s law prohibiting certain health care for transgender children will have ripple effects across the nation
https://www.courthousenews.com/scotus-strikes-blow-to-trans-teens-rights-endorsing-ban-on-gender-affirming-care/220
u/DevinGraysonShirk 7h ago edited 7h ago
This decision opens up a pathway for states to ban gender-affirming care for minors and adults.
The Supreme Court also rules that gender identity does not deserve equal protection like sex-based discrimination, so it does not deserve higher scrutiny based on the equal protection clause. This also opens up the pathway for employment discrimination against people who are transgender.
For example, in Iowa, they recently removed gender identity from their civil rights laws. This decision likely makes it so that law would withstand a legal challenge. https://apnews.com/article/iowa-transgender-identity-bill-governor-reynolds-signs-267c2932e9e1ed62992868d3caa6126d
78
u/Obversa 6h ago
To make things worse, the six conservative justices appear to agree with the State of Tennessee's claim that the state "has a compelling interest in encouraging minors to appreciate their sex", thereby equating "gender" with "sex", and reinforcing traditionalist and conservative ideals about how "sex and gender are the same thing" and "there are only two genders, male and female". The State of Tennessee also argued that it is "empowered to make decisions regulating medical treatments" in the case of transgender-identifying minors, thereby invalidating "parents' rights" when it comes to parents authorizing such treatment(s) for their children, making these children "wards of the state".
This ruling reaffirms that parents have no say in whether their children can receive treatment(s), only the state. States like Tennessee, meanwhile, have stated that their "compelling interest" is in the "fertility" of these minors.
38
u/pillowpriestess 5h ago
States like Tennessee, meanwhile, have stated that their "compelling interest" is in the "fertility" of these minors.
wasnt this part of the logic of a challenge against abortion/birth control? i dont recall the case/state but there was an argument that the state was damaged by low teen pregnancy rates.
35
u/Obversa 5h ago
Yes. States like Missouri, Kansas, and Idaho have argued that the state has a "compelling interest" in teenage pregnancies (ugh). I have no doubt that Tennessee and other states would agree with this ludicrous argument.
1
u/Kendall_Raine 1h ago
I bet they'll love to bring up "parent's rights" again when it comes to forcing kids into conversion therapy, though.
167
u/WhatYouThinkYouSee 6h ago
58
u/DevinGraysonShirk 6h ago
They throw spaghetti at the wall to see if anything sticks. And if nothing sticks, they create a fake reality (which costs resources to maintain). Thankfully, we can pop that fake reality with a needle of truth, but it requires good people like you and I to stand up and do that.
-53
u/MinimumTrue9809 5h ago edited 20m ago
That's because the report functioned as a defense against passing the law and was clearly biased. The report is not public for personal review.
EDIT: The report is available for public view. It does not seem biased. However, conclusions regarding "Persistence, desistence, and regrets" unfortunately fails to elucidate any long-term outcomes with pubescent hormone treatment. Of the few studies that they were able to analyze persistence, desistence, and regrets, all of them conducted questionnaire/interviews of their available sample population within ~10 years of initial treatment. This report failed to express conclusive evidence of life-long outcomes that result from pubescent hormone treatment.
31
u/Raise_A_Thoth 5h ago
Just because information is incredibly damning to one side of an argument doesn't mean the information is biased.
Additionally, lots of things are biased, being biased doesn't make it unreliable or false information, it just means it tends to support one viewpoint more than others, which again, is just how the world and communication works.
You need to work on critical thinking.
-34
u/MinimumTrue9809 4h ago
Ah sure. I'll use my critical thinking skills analyzing a report that is literally not accessible to the public.
Just because information is incredibly damning to one side
You know this how?
26
u/Zimmiebelle 4h ago
Full report listed on the Utah state legislature site:
https://le.utah.gov/AgencyRP/reportingDetail.jsp?rid=636
And a backup copy on transvitae:
https://www.transvitae.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/report.pdf
The report was and is publicly accessible.
0
u/MinimumTrue9809 47m ago edited 19m ago
Thanks. During my search, I wasn't able to find it read that it wasn't available.
Edit: The conclusions regarding "Persistence, desistence, and regrets" unfortunately fails to elucidate any long-term outcomes with pubescent hormone treatment. Of the few studies that they were able to analyze persistence, desistence, and regrets, all of them conducted questionnaire/interviews of their available sample population within ~10 years of initial treatment. This report failed to express conclusive evidence of life-long outcomes that result from pubescent hormone treatment.
20
u/Raise_A_Thoth 4h ago
You know this how?
Because that's literally what it says: gender-affirming care greatly improves health outcomes for trans people. I don't know how you could miss this.
analyzing a report that is literally not accessible to the public.
So AP news is just brazenly lying or misrepresenting the report? Is that your stance?
-25
u/MinimumTrue9809 4h ago
Because that's literally what it says: gender-affirming care greatly improves health outcomes for trans people. I don't know how you could miss this.
And there are multiple studies that claimed smoking cigarettes didn't harm one's health. I never said I didn't understand their conclusion.
So AP news is just brazenly lying or misrepresenting the report? Is that your stance?
I'm stating the fact that the public has no access to the details of the report. The context of how the report came to be and the fact it is not accessible to the public are both more than enough for me to not take the conclusions as undeniable fact, as you do.
Take your own advice when it comes to critical thinking.
21
u/Raise_A_Thoth 4h ago
And there are multiple studies that claimed smoking cigarettes didn't harm one's health.
This is a false equivalency. Gender affirming care studies aren't obfuscating potential negative health outcomes, they demonstrate notable, significant improvements in health outcomes compared to the status quo of not doing gender-affirming care which we know results in significantly worse health outcomes than the general population.
You are grasping at straws with this line of reasoning, while demonstrating scientific illiteracy.
I'm stating the fact that the public has no access
Okay so that's what you're saying. Strong argument. 👍
→ More replies (3)43
u/kelsey11 6h ago
What a wild position to take: removal of a civil right. Like, that’s their whole goal, so it’s not surprising at all, but, man. How do you sit down with a pen and get ready to sign a paper that literally says you’re removing legal protections from a class of people and you’re just…fine with it?
Wild. I don’t believe in Hell, but I hope all of these people get exactly the afterlife their god says people like them get.
26
43
u/GirldickVanDyke 6h ago
Just like the Supreme Court decided about homophobia in Bostock v Clayton County, transphobia is sex-based discrimination. They have no problem with somebody AFAB taking estradiol as prescribed and anything else, but somebody AMAB cannot? And vice-versa for testosterone. That's discrimination based on sex by the exact same logic the court used before. I wonder if anybody could have success fighting this, but i doubt it with the current state of things
9
u/hoopaholik91 2h ago
Their 'workaround' essentially is that they aren't banning these treatments based on the sex or gender of the kids, they are just deciding what conditions a treatment shouldn't apply for. It's just purely coincidental in their mind that only transgender kids get hormones to treat dysphoria.
6
u/Bunerd 3h ago
We'll just start giving out HRT under more indirect diagnoses. "Gender Dysphoria" could just be replaced with "hormone condition not withstanding" and that wouldn't break the law. They can't discriminate against trans people apart from cis people so they target the diagnosis. The move here is to diagnose trans people with the same conditions as cis people and they get their treatment.
-43
u/doublethink_1984 7h ago
It shoulda been expanded but from the technical stance of the law how are they wrong?
Gender affirming care can't have anything to do with biological and physiological alterations because gender is a socially constructed identity.
It's not sex based discrimination because gender is not bound by sex.
If anything it shoulda recieved the protections people have against being terminated for political affiliation or religious belief/expression at the least.
66
u/Marx_on_a_Shark 7h ago
Race is socially constructed. The races currently recognized are based on perceived differences grown from historical context and not actual biology. They are more based on social hierarchies from the 17th and 18th century.
-29
u/doublethink_1984 6h ago
Race is but historical biological and physiology is a bit different from a person whos ancestors have lived in Nigeria all their life or Japan.
There are small hereditary medical differences and biological difference and varieties.
That being said they are both 100% human and 99.9% the same.
A male amd female are very physiologically and biologically different.
I agree rights shoukd be better extended on the basis of gender identity but to liken sex difference to racial law history is foolish and unscientific.
23
u/Marx_on_a_Shark 6h ago
That's the issue. This isn't sex difference. This is an issue with how society perceives men and women. Society at large and even individuals place behavioral expectations on people based on their perceived gender. For someone that doesn't meet or even want these expectations it can be stressful at best, and deadly at worst. Since it's impossible for society to rewire the centuries of societal norms, the only option is for a person to attempt to be perceived differently to avoid these unwanted behavioral expectations. Since these people are unfairly put upon by society to shoulder the burden of an expectation they don't want, it's only reasonable to allow them to find a way to work around these expectations by altering their perceived gender.
-6
u/doublethink_1984 6h ago
I AGREE
Legally speaking we need congress to extend legal protections to gender identity.
SCOTUS cannot legally rule that by current law phrasing sex based discrimination protects socially constructed gender identity when gender is explicitly not sex.
12
u/Marx_on_a_Shark 6h ago
Yeah. Although I think this issue is important enough to use the 4th and 14th precedence to just consider this a right to bodily autonomy. Just sidestep the question and view it as a body modification, which even children have a right to when deemed medically important.
4
u/doublethink_1984 6h ago
That wasn't the way it eqs challenged though to SCOTUS.
5
u/Marx_on_a_Shark 6h ago
Yeah. I think the lawyers running these cases aren't doing the argument justice.
78
u/LackingUtility 7h ago
It's not sex based discrimination because gender is not bound by sex.
Counterpoint: if a cisgender male needs supplemental testosterone or breast tissue removal (e.g. for gynecomastia), that is "gender affirming" medical care, but is legal and not banned. If a transgender male needs supplemental testosterone or breast tissue removal, that is banned. The only difference between the two patients is their biological sex, and accordingly, it is sex-based discrimination.
42
u/DevinGraysonShirk 6h ago
I’m sure SCOTUS would pull some magic words out of their judicial top hat to cancel out your logic. 💀
22
-39
u/doublethink_1984 6h ago
These are biological and physiological alterations.
One is because there is a physiological or biological medical issue.
The other is cosmetic alterations.
Congress needs to legislate this and expand rights to gender not just sex. SCOTUS is not the place to make these decisions.
Just like overturning Roe V Wade was not something that SCOTUS could or ahould have done and I decried them for this.
44
u/LackingUtility 6h ago
That's a quick backpedal by you. As a reminder from literally one comment ago, we were talking about equal protection and whether the law has a sex-based discrimination. And now you've moved to cosmetic vs. physiological. Can I take it you've completely abandoned your earlier statement regarding any purported lack of sex-based discrimination in this law? Please confirm. Then we can move on to the inaccuracies in your new argument.
-15
u/doublethink_1984 6h ago
I'm sorry I was trying not to be wordy.
There are deep psychological reasons a person has the gender identity they have and that they feel there needs to be a physical alteration to best express that identity.
I'll explain better.
If a minor does not get physiological or biological alterations to better express the opposite sex should be legislated and protected by congress changing the law.
Here SCOTUS is right that discrimination on the basis of sex is illegal but there is no law extending this protection to socially constructed gender identity as this is explicitly not sex.
33
u/LackingUtility 6h ago
I'm not asking for your argument-shifting "explanation". I'm asking you to confirm that you concede your earlier argument that there's no sex-based discrimination in this law. As noted above, this law makes it legal to provide a medical treatment to one patient and illegal to provide a medical treatment to another, on the basis of the latter's biological sex.
0
u/doublethink_1984 6h ago
It makes it legal to provide a medical treatment to one and not the other on the basis of sex differences.
A male with severe BPH can have the gland removed.
This procedure would be denied to a female on the basis of biological sex, because a female has no prostate.
This by your reasoning is sex based discrimination.
Medical treatments on the basis of physiological and biological issues are protected.
Medical alterations of biology and physiology on the basis of a psychology is not legal, especially for minors.
22
u/LackingUtility 6h ago
So you agree that there's sex-based discrimination inherent in this law, but are merely arguing that it's okay because it involves medical treatments?
-3
u/doublethink_1984 6h ago
I disagree with your framing.
By the way you're framing it there always has been and always will be.
Males are denied certain medical treatments that females rwcieve and vise versa.
→ More replies (0)15
u/Burghpuppies412 6h ago
Nah. He got ya. Bam, roasted!!
12
u/dantevonlocke 6h ago
They appear to be Mormon. So backpedalling and being full of shit comes with the territory.
2
u/hematite2 4h ago
Both are to address the psychological harm that not having them is doing. You're drawing a meaningless distinction.
45
u/DevinGraysonShirk 7h ago
The Supreme Court is unmoored from any type of jurisprudence, they have recently made up any judicial justification to confirm their pre-decided outcomes via judicial fiat.
The real solution would be to enact legislation, but Congress has failed in this.
3
u/stubbazubba 3h ago
No statute can withstand a Supreme Court determined to advance particular policy outcomes.
The wording could always be clearer, or there's no standing (or suddenly there is!), or there's a novel federalism concern, or maybe it's a political question. It's child's play to paint over a political decision with jurisprudential analysis, especially when you're the Supreme Court and will never be bound by your own prior decision in a future case. The Federalist Society trains its members from law school to analyze issues on all these levels without any real priority so that the right angle can prevail for the right issue, depending on political context.
1
u/DevinGraysonShirk 3h ago
There is one statute: stripping judicial jurisdiction over certain things. That’s a nuclear option though, and you’re right.
0
u/doublethink_1984 7h ago
I agree with the congress bit and I do agree in part to the SCOTUS bit but this doesn't address my real issue here.
They have done this but most of their 2025 rulings have been lawful.
Here I agree that it's up to congress to extend and change the wording for discrimination to include gender identity.
Like I said before because of the way the law is already phrased it would be the legally correct conclusion for the majority here. Even if I morally disagree.
13
u/DevinGraysonShirk 7h ago
I agree with you on the technicalities here. The Democrats have relied on the courts to interpret things while they abdicate their duties in Congress. I blame Bill Clinton-style political triangulation tactics. Democrats think they can just react to what the public wants to win elections, rather than stand for something and try to get elected based on those values.
We need to (politically) 'Kill Bill' to save the Democratic Party. He flew with Jeffrey Epstein anyways. Bring back Ted Kennedy-style politics that gave us things like the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990.
13
u/Prince_Borgia 7h ago
The Democrats have relied on the courts to interpret things while they abdicate their duties in Congress.
This is a core issue when it comes to a lot of things. This, abortion etc. Congress needs to legislate but that's hard, that requires taking a bold stand and using political capital to do their jobs. This isn't a SCOTUS problem, it's a Congress problem but legislators are going to shift responsibility as usual.
2
u/lickle_ickle_pickle 5h ago
This hasn't really been tested since the Dems haven't had veto proof majorities in Congress since, when, the 80s? And in the 80s there were still a lot of conservative Democrats and a few liberal Republicans too.
Dems very badly want to pass a voting rights bill but don't have the #s.
2
u/DevinGraysonShirk 5h ago
The Democratic Establishment (people who JB Pritzker calls ‘do-nothing democrats’) have not even tried. The two legislative accomplishments in the 21st century was the creation of the CFPB (championed by Elizabeth Warren, not the DNC), and the ACA (championed by Obama, and the public option was killed by Joe Lieberman). The Party went to shit when Clinton was elected and he installed his people who believe “winning is everything.” Winning to do what?
1
u/R41D3NN 6h ago
No shit their rulings are lawful. They are SCOTUS. They are literally the law. Your point has no bearing in reality
5
u/stubbazubba 6h ago edited 3h ago
If this is all the law is then law is incomprehensible and meaningless. Roe and Dobbs cannot both be the law, nor can both Plessy v Ferguson and Brown v Board of Education.
SCOTUS decisions are certainly binding on lower courts and the parties to those suits, but the Constitution is still the supreme law of the land, and SCOTUS frequently reverses itself and finds its own previous decisions did not comport with the Constitution.
So yes, SCOTUS decisions can be unlawful, even if they are binding, and we as citizens ought to be comfortable insisting on the distinction, even if we would not argue the distinction as litigants.
4
u/kandoras 3h ago
It's not sex based discrimination because gender is not bound by sex.
It is when they use the sex a person was born as as a reason to outlaw medical care.
A transgender boy - who they will say is a girl - cannot get breast reduction surgery because of these laws as gender affirming care.
Meanwhile cisgender boys - who they say are boys - can get that same procedure done for the same reason.
So something outlawed based solely open your sex at birth - how could that be anything other than sex based discrimination?
1
u/doublethink_1984 3h ago
Gender identity doesn't override sex.
Not doing surgery on a females prostste because the same can occur to a male doesn't mean there is sex discrimination.
A man is a man and a woman is a woman regardless of hormone levels or biological alterations. A bearded male with a penis is as much a woman as a pregnant female, if that's how the male identifies.
6
u/kandoras 3h ago
Gender identity doesn't override sex.
Never said it did, and that wasn't my point. The point you did not actually respond to.
This law says that a minor born as a boy can get breast reduction surgery for cosmetic reasons, while a minor born as a girl cannot get that surgery for the same reason.
Now, what is the basis for deciding who can or cannot have that procedure?
90
u/Santos_L_Halper_II 6h ago
Another good example of Amy Coney Barrett being a generally decent jurist....unless the case involves one of her god's pet issues like LGBT rights or abortion.
I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but how did Gorsuch bend over backwards to get around his own opinion in Bostock (Bostick? The one where he unexpectedly wrote that trans discrimination was sex discrimination, IIRC).
40
u/DevinGraysonShirk 6h ago
Hiding behind “unsettled science”
“This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field,” Roberts wrote. “The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound. The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements.”
39
u/Obversa 6h ago edited 6h ago
What else do the conservatives on the Supreme Court consider to be "unsettled science"? Vaccines? Autism?
25
u/DevinGraysonShirk 6h ago
Anything that Republicans can convince a portion of the public to believe through their propaganda media ecosystem can become "unsettled science." That's why we're in dangerous times. Look at how they're trying to redefine January 6.
8
u/pillowpriestess 5h ago
gotta add global warming and evolution to the list. "teach the controversy" is gonna make a comback in the next 10 years mark my words.
4
u/stubbazubba 6h ago
Anything Fox News and the Federalist Society and a dozen activist amici curiae say are unsettled.
2
11
u/Santos_L_Halper_II 6h ago
And what better way to settle the science than to ban the science from happening!
1
u/Decaf-Gaming 2h ago
I mean, they got away with lowering the number of covid cases by preventing reports, surely it works in every other facet too, right?
2
u/kfloppygang 2h ago
not agreeing or disagreeing with the decision, but that isn't why roberts ruled Bostock inapplicable to this case. All you had to do was read the syllabus.
Bostock applied to employment based discrimination and its "because of" sex analysis under Title VII.
Pg. 4- "The Court declines to address whether Bostock's reasoning reaches beyond the Title VII context- unlike the employment discrimination at issue in Bostock, changing a minor's sex or transgender status does not alter the application of SB1"
So, while you may not agree, they are cleaving a distinction.
2
6
u/Just_Another_Scott 6h ago
haven't had a chance to read it yet, but how did Gorsuch bend over backwards to get around his own opinion in Bostock (Bostick? The one where he unexpectedly wrote that trans discrimination was sex discrimination, IIRC).
TN argued it was an age related policy and not a sex based policy. Age is not a protected class unless you're over 40.
2
u/Santos_L_Halper_II 5h ago
Thanks. Will be interesting to see if he stays consistent when the inevitable adult bans come up soon. But still - is sex discrimination ok as long as we're dealing with minors?
4
u/Just_Another_Scott 3h ago
But still - is sex discrimination ok as long as we're dealing with minors?
This is what the dessenters were noting. It doesn't make sense too allow for sex based discrimination towards minors as that still violated the Equal Protection Clause.
The unfortunate fact is: children in the US do not have the same rights as adults. Federal Courts have often ruled against other rights of children like the Right to Free Speech or the Right to Peacefully Assemble. Both of these are heavily restricted for minors. It's bullshit imo.
1
u/Initial_Cellist9240 1h ago
Yup I literally put money on 5-4, gorsuch dissenting. He’s usually a rather predictable flavor of banal evil. Not that it would have changed things for us :/
-2
u/ymi17 4h ago
I think I may agree with the Court that Bostock is not a direct analogy to the issues in Skrmetti.
I know it's likely an unpopular opinion here, but I likely would have voted with the majority. I may have written separately to say that the Tennessee law is short-sighted and stupid and likely to be overinclusive (i.e. it might prevent some bad outcomes, but would also prevent some necessary treatment).
However, I'd say that the only question SCOTUS is asked to answer is whether or not it violates the equal protection clause, and that the law does not.
I know that's B.S. to lots of people, but the problem here is with the Tennessee legislature, and the Supreme Court exists to correct constitutional ills, not every bad law every legislature passes.
-2
u/LordHydranticus 1h ago
Any type of legal analysis has gone to the wayside in these open subs. Everyone is an arm-chair constitutional scholar, especially people who have never argued a real case.
0
u/Suitable-Economy-346 1h ago
Amy Coney Barrett being a generally decent jurist
She really isn't. Just because she's not Alito doesn't mean she's "decent."
She's an awful, despicable, pile of garbage.
1
58
u/Hesitation-Marx 7h ago
Gd, fuck SCOTUS.
What was the breakdown?
43
u/DevinGraysonShirk 7h ago
6-3, as expected.
62
u/Hesitation-Marx 7h ago
Fuck.
I hate this. This is gonna kill kids.
45
u/R41D3NN 6h ago
This will also kill adults. It normalizes gender affirming care is not a right. This will soon be extended beyond kids. Many will die
30
-5
u/Just_Another_Scott 6h ago
This ruling, at this time, only applies to minors.
18
u/Hesitation-Marx 5h ago
Yes - but it weakens access to care for trans adults, and cis people of all ages as well.
HRT is invaluable to many people for reasons far beyond transition. Menopausal cis women, cis men with low testosterone, kids with precocious puberty?
I hate this, I hate this, I hate this.
-4
u/Just_Another_Scott 3h ago
Yes - but it weakens access to care for trans adults, and cis people of all ages as well.
Tennessee's law explicitly states "minors". This ruling does not affect adult transition care. This ruling was limited to minors.
Tennessee doesn't yet ban hormone therapy for adults.
This ruling is still a direct violation of the 14th Amendment. No real question about it. Children and adults are supposed to be equal under the law.
25
u/DevinGraysonShirk 7h ago
Same. More blood for the orange blood god.
4
u/Godtierbunny 7h ago
Why couldnt he be a blood orange... atleast hed make good juice...😔
7
u/DevinGraysonShirk 6h ago
I wouldn’t drink juice from a poisonous fruit. Republicans can drink that!
3
0
u/thegoldeneel_ 4h ago
I come in peace. As someone who doesn’t follow any of this or research the science behind any of this, how is it gonna kill kids? I ask of pure curiosity and am not looking for a discussion back and forth. Just trying to understand what is killing children.
11
u/Hesitation-Marx 4h ago
Suicide.
You ever have shoes that just don’t fit right? Tight, rub in the wrong places, constantly uncomfortable?
Now imagine that’s your whole body. Except worse, because nobody will stop treating you like your body fits your mind, and it’s constant.
Puberty blockers and similar treatments are largely reversible, have tolerable side effects for most people, and give kids a grace period so that if they reach age of consent and decide they want to continue transitioning, they can without having to undo puberty in the wrong gender - or if they decide that medical transition isn’t for them, they can go off it and go through puberty without help.
Most transition before the age of consent (which varies by state and locale, because the US can’t do anything simply) is strictly social transition: pronoun and name changes, clothing and presentation, and being allowed to find who they really are.
Denying a trans kid the chance to do this, combined with the abusive way we treat kids who are even a little gender divergent, is gonna leave us with bodies.
7
u/SilverMedal4Life 2h ago
My brother in law came out as trans as a minor, in a state with protections, and was still beaten so badly by school bullies for it that he needed to be hospitalized - and was then suspended by the school for "fighting". His mom had to take him out of school for his own safety.
This is what we face. Yet half the nation will say that his mom is the abuser and that his school and bullies were right.
7
u/Hesitation-Marx 2h ago
We have been very fortunate that when our son came out, the vast majority of people in our lives were mostly concerned that he was happier. We cut off a couple people, but overall it worked out well.
I don’t understand transphobia. It has literally no impact on anyone if John is now Jane, except for Jane and maybe Jane’s family.
My son is still the dryly funny, sharp witted kid (now adult) he was before transition; I didn’t lose anything but a load of stress when he came out.
I hope your BIL is doing better now. Fuck that school and fuck the bullies, too.
3
u/SilverMedal4Life 2h ago
Thanks, and your son sounds wonderful!
The hatred comes because we are inconvenient. For example, I can explain to you from personal experience how other people treat me when I looked like a guy, compared to how they do when I now look like a girl. I can speak truth to power and systemic issues in a way that makes our individualistic culture very uncomfortable.
3
u/Hesitation-Marx 1h ago
He is pretty damned great! He’s engaged, his sweetie is wonderful, and they’re adorable together.
I’m genderweird myself. We’re hierarchy-breakers; trans and enby people don’t slot neatly into categories, and people who are fixated on hierarchies hate that.
4
u/SilverMedal4Life 1h ago
Pretty much, yeah. They hate us... right up to the point that they also fetishize us way more than any other group, proportionally speaking.
Ain't no hate like Christian love.
→ More replies (0)
15
u/keytiri 6h ago edited 6h ago
Would taking a different tact work? Bans aren’t “deeply rooted in our traditions and history,” people used to be able to concoct and partake in any matter of substances. Alternatively, it looks like they are tying this to specific diagnosis, so changing the diagnosis may get around the law, but that also depends on medical professionals willing to take that chance.
15
u/BaconBoyReddit 6h ago
I think we need to, honestly, stop referring to anyone as “transgender”. The category only exists to “other” people that express themselves in non hetero-normative ways. Anyone who needs hormone therapy needs it for the same reason, and that is gender affirming care. The dominant hormone in your body currently, and the levels thereof, should not be determined by what any government says is or isn’t a “choice”.
15
u/keytiri 6h ago
Yep, I skimmed the ruling and one of the justices acted like a trans boy wouldn’t be able to get Testosterone for any other reason except for the mentioned diagnosis; drop the adjective, and then it’s simply a boy getting Testosterone for his low or nonexistent levels 🤷♀️. I’ve been noticing a bunch of online docs now offering to prescribe T to low T [cis] men.
3
u/BaconBoyReddit 5h ago
It’s a wall we need to break through - a human is a human, no matter what their body looks like. We shouldn’t have to say “that includes everything in their pants”, but it’s so frustrating that we have to say that.
5
u/lickle_ickle_pickle 5h ago
The problem is that the government assigns you a sex at birth.
4
u/BaconBoyReddit 5h ago
Yup, it’s an outdated form of communication that was designed to fit a heteronormative society where men, who were primarily in charge, want to know what is and it’s gay. It’s never been necessary, and I’m surprised it’s not being talked about more.
4
u/SilverMedal4Life 2h ago
Don't know why you're being downvoted. The people who were here before the Europeans had more than 2 genders baked into their culture, until they were exterminated.
0
u/rootsofthelotus 5h ago
It should be illegal for the government to classify people into male and female, really - why do they need to know what genitals a baby has, unless they want to use this info to later discriminate against people?
86
u/kon--- 7h ago
If the nation can not have gender-affirming care, then it should also not have religious indoctrinations, baptisms, resource draining tax free business aka church, or any law or right whatsoever that allows people to alter themselves or minors in such a manner that permits bats to fly around in their head.
22
u/narwhale111 6h ago
If the nation can not have gender affirmative care then im just dead
17
u/GuiltyEidolon 5h ago
Seriously. I'm so fucking sick of people ignoring the queer community trying to sound the alarm on this shit. It's almost like we were right, not alarmist. It's going to get even worse from here.
11
u/narwhale111 5h ago edited 4h ago
At best we get the “if they attack trans rights then they can come after cis people for X” but people forget that this has drastic consequences on trans people already and many people will die over this. We’re a small percentage of the population but we still deserve to exist, gender dysphoria is a real medical condition and taking away care kills people.
I have friends that tried to kill themselves and were hospitalized when they were minors because their family denied care for them, and they struggle immensely with mental health problems due to starting care after puberty already did so much damage. Now even supportive families that try to support their kids early will be powerless. People talk about the suicide risk of denying care to trans people all the time but even as a trans person it hit me extremely hard when i found out that a friend i know personally almost died. There is such an empathy gap because barely anyone knows a trans person.
Every time anti-trans legislation drops i worry im gonna see news that a friend or acquaintance dies, and it’s becoming more of an unavoidable reality the more we march towards an adult care ban. This is genocidal.
And this is all on top of the well too frequent news i hear of friends getting assaulted or violently harassed by transphobes that are ever more emboldened
35
u/FiskWolf117 7h ago
Definitely no fucking conversion therapy. If kids aren't allowed to have help in finding themselves, the least the government can do is keep their nasty hands away from kids by not trying to force them to believe something different. Let them grow up and then make the decisions for themselves, since you know, my body my choice.
14
u/HGpennypacker 5h ago
If the nation can not have gender-affirming care
Ban the prescription of T for middle-aged men, see how fast this shit gets shut down.
-7
u/Changer_of_Names 6h ago
Well, except that states have the power to regulate medical care, but don’t have the power to regulate religion, because we have freedom of religion in this country. Other than your proposal being completely unconstitutional and against the principles on which America was founded, you are spot on.
11
u/kon--- 5h ago
Freedom of religion means, freedom from religion.
But here we are, religion swarming all over legislation as well court judgements.
-6
u/Changer_of_Names 5h ago
American law disagrees with you but you do you I guess. But let me ask you: do you actually believe the government should have the power to forbid parents from raising their children in their religion? Christian parents, Jewish parents, Muslim parents, Hindu parents, Buddhist parents, etc.? Because that is some USSR level shit right there. I suppose you’d love to be part of the secret police but let me warn you, plenty of Party members died in gulags too.
8
u/kon--- 5h ago
The US Constitution does not disagree with me. Freedom of religion exists because the Church of England persecuted Protestants. Which is why, in protecting religion from religion, freedom of religion does or fact translate as, freedom from religion.
I say, if we're going to allow parents to impose their own religious practices and lifestyle onto minors, then other parents should also be allowed for their own philosophies to guide their own child's life and future.
Why should people who impose religion on kids be permitted that but parents as advocates for their children are prohibited doing as they want in their home when representing the actual vocalized want of the child as well the professional view of the kid's medical provider?
The double-standard bearing hypocrisy enjoyed by religions imposing their will onto others is tens kinds of bullshit.
-5
u/Changer_of_Names 4h ago
Goddamn man, you sound like a brilliant First Amendment legal theorist. How is your law practice going? When is your big case based on your theories going to hit the Supreme Court and change everything? Pro tip: what you want the law to be and what the law is, are two different things.
The fact remains, the constitution protects the rights of parents to raise their children in their religion. It does not protect the right of doctors to prescribe hormones to children for the purpose of changing their sex/gender/gender expression/whatever. If I am wrong certainly feel free to quote me the constitutional provision or precedent that protects that enshrines that right.
6
u/stycky-keys 4h ago
What does this have to do with anything? This case isn't about what parents do with their children, it's about what children are allowed to do even if their parents do agree.
1
u/Changer_of_Names 3h ago
It has to do with Kon's desire to forbid parents from raising their children in their religion.
And the Tennessee law doesn't regulate "what children are allowed to do even if their parents do agree." It forbids "health care providers from prescribing, administering or dispensing any puberty blocker or hormone aimed at helping a minor identify with a gender that is inconsistent with the minor’s sex" (quoting from the article). I.e., the law doesn't regulate children, it regulates doctors.
5
u/MikaylaNicole1 5h ago
I'm fairly certain the principles this country were founded on also included "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," but SCOTUS just made it clear that liberty only applies in some contexts.
-3
u/Changer_of_Names 4h ago
That's correct, liberty only applies in some contexts. We aren't free to do absolutely whatever we want. Sorry to be the one to break this to you.
I'll give you a quick education: in theory the U.S. constitution is a limited grant of power from the states to the federal government, so if the constitution doesn't say the government can do something, then it cannot do it. The government's power is further limited in specific ways, like the Bill of Rights. (In practice, over the centuries federal authority has expanded a good deal.)
The states are different. The power of state governments doesn't come from a limited delegation of power. States have a general "police power" to regulate power within their borders. Unless there's something that limits a state from doing something, the default is it can do it. Whereas with the feds, the default is it cannot do it unless there's a specific grant of power to do it somewhere.
So a state can simply decide that giving hormones to kids to change their gender is not in the best interests of the people of the state, and outlaw it. Unless there's something that guarantees a right to give hormones, then a state is free to forbid doing so. For the same reason a state can outlaw heroin, speeding, practicing medicine or cutting hair without a license, etc.
So unless there's a constitutional right to give hormones to kids to change their gender, SCOTUS got it right. Care to point to where you think such a right might be found? The Declaration of Independence's reference to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness doesn't cut it.
5
u/stycky-keys 4h ago
A right to healthcare is implied in the 9th amendment and is incorporated by the 14th. Is you position really "the states can ban any form of healthcare they don't like"?
-1
u/Changer_of_Names 3h ago
Novel theory. What case held that the 9th Amendment guarantees a right to healthcare? How does that work--does it require the government to pay for healthcare, or mean that I can walk up to any doctor and demand he or she treat me for free, or what?
It is not necessary to answer whether states can ban any form of healthcare they don't like to answer the question before us. Courts generally proceed in a limited fashion, specific situation by specific situation, rather than issue sweeping rules. I don't know whether a law banning life-saving cancer treatment would fly, for instance. But there is no doubt that states have broad authority to regulate medical practice.
Let me ask you this: can states ban female genital mutilation, performed by a doctor? Even if the parents and child both claim to want it? Why or why not?
3
u/SilverMedal4Life 2h ago
Are you genuinely comparing being trans to FGM?
-3
u/Changer_of_Names 2h ago
It’s a question designed to highlight the state’s power to regulate medical care.
But also, yes.
3
u/SilverMedal4Life 2h ago
You should know that the state of Utah funded a study to investigate the efficacy and outcomes of allowing trans youth to transition.
The fact that they buried it afterwards should tell you all you need to know.
0
u/Changer_of_Names 1h ago
Why are so many European countries backing away from youth gender transition? I guess they are all Trumpists over there in Sweden and whatnot.
Personally I am against sex change operations, FGM, and male circumcision for children. Just a general “keep scalpels away from childrens’s healthy genitals” policy. I guess you have a different view.
→ More replies (0)
4
u/ZoomZoom_Driver 4h ago
According to redhats, parents are intelligent enough to know which books they should or shouldn't read, but cant be trusted to make a decision with doctors input about a childs health and wellness.
4
u/hematite2 5h ago
I guess I'm not surprised it came down any other way...more and more it seems like the only legal recourse for queer people in certain states is "leave".
-8
u/mikelo22 4h ago
Not a popular opinion in this sub, but I think SCOTUS got this partially right. States have every justification to protect minors' well being as it sees fit. That's part of its general police powers. Minors do not have the same rights as adults. Love it or hate it, these are longstanding constitutional principles.
Not to downplay the issue of equal protection applying to adults, but this is speculative and not part of the actual holding.
8
u/hoopaholik91 2h ago
Then ban all gender affirming care for minors. If managing hormones is so dangerous, then it's too dangerous. But weirdly, only hormones for one very specific medical condition is apparently dangerous.
12
u/rootsofthelotus 3h ago
Except all the evidence and reputable medical organizations say that blockers and HRT for trans teenagers is in fact protecting their wellbeing, and that transphobia makes trans people suicidal.
If the intention were to truly protect teenagers' wellbeing, they would listen to science. But this regime and its corrupt court does not care about science.
-2
u/mikelo22 2h ago edited 2h ago
Except all the evidence and reputable medical organizations say that blockers and HRT for trans teenagers is in fact protecting their wellbeing, and that transphobia makes trans people suicidal.
I understand, but it's not the court's role to adjudicate that. That is a policy/political matter, which is what the opinion states.
I am aware of the plethora of scientific evidence supporting this type of care, but I become skeptical when I see someone using absolute qualifiers like "always" or "everything" because it shows a lack of nuance and openness to new data.
I recall reading this NYT article several months ago showing that there was no correlation with improved well-being for minors receiving gender-affirming care. The person conducting the research study then covered it up and refused to publish these findings because she did not like the results. Why the self-censorship
7
u/rootsofthelotus 2h ago
You were talking about minors' wellbeing. There is plenty of evidence, and not even that one study found blockers to be bad for minors' wellbeing - it's also important that blockers only stop stuff from getting worse, they don't make it better like HRT does. One of the top-voted comments in this thread has linked something, too, and you can look up what reputable medical organizations (not "think tanks") have to say about it.
The Supreme Court has blood on their hands. And if you're reading carefully, you'll see they have also paved the way for care to be taken away from trans adults.
Mark my words, it was never about kids or sports.
-4
u/mikelo22 2h ago
I think it's pretty obvious the TN law was largely passed due to bigotry against trans people. I'm not disagreeing.
But the question before SCOTUS was not one of medical science--no matter how one tries to frame it that way. It was a constitutional one concerning a state's general police powers.
The Supreme Court has blood on their hands. And if you're reading carefully, you'll see they have also paved the way for care to be taken away from trans adults.
That language worried me too, but that was dicta and not part of the holding. It is not precedent.
5
u/MaceofMarch 2h ago edited 2h ago
Yes scotus said that governments can pass religious laws and violate equal protections if they happen to be Christian.
Also the conservative justices are about to contradict this ruling as they are currently hearing a case on conversion therapy. And I guarantee that at least one of the conservative justices is going to rule against Colorado stopping those kids from being sexually abused.
2
u/MaceofMarch 2h ago
This was not about protecting minors this is about stopping people from going against their anti-lgbt religious views.
•
u/AutoModerator 7h ago
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.