After losing in courts across the country, DOJ and the FTC have steered litigation over gender-affirming medical care for minors to a single Texas judge.
So, are "alterations" to intersex newborns just going to stop, letting the chips fall where they may for some portion of 1.7% of all births in America?
Will the term "intersex" simply be removed from the medical lexicon? That's sounds like an easy solution...at least for stupid people.
A lot of those innocent children with legitimate gender dysphoria will be in right-wing households. Just sayin'.....
That statistic is wildly misleading; the rate at which babies are born with intersex conditions that make their sex genuinely ambiguous is more like 1 in 2000. 1 in 2000 is enough that we should be (but aren't) regulating unconsented-to cosmetic surgeries on that population, but grossly exaggerating its size isn't doing anyone any favors.
Unfortunately, the Cass Report has little need to import right wing bigotry from America; the UK is more than capable of generating anti-transgender sentiment masquerading as science on its own.
Deeply value the legal insights in this newsletter but could do without the both-sidesing of the clinical issue here. A drive-by mention of the Cass Review as reliable because it wasn't commissioned by "U.S. culture warriors", when it was widely criticized as methodologically flawed and subject to political influence (they have culture warriors in other countries too, as it turns out) seems somewhat careless. The description of WPATH as a "low-quality" guideline elides the fact that for ethical or practical reasons, a great amount of pediatric medicine relies on "low-quality evidence"; for instance, it is both impossible and unethical to perform a double-blind study of puberty blockers or hormone therapy. As you say, the legal issues seem to rather forcefully back WPATH. Making that argument doesn't require steelmanning the government's argument on the science, let alone saying it "militates in the other direction".
I'm sure Professor V. is genuinely aiming for objectivity not performative "bothsidesing" here. He does say he doesn't find Cass especially persuasive further down. Sure the UK has transphobes, and for some reason the courts and the Equality and Human Rights Commissioner have decided the Gender Recognition Act is second class law but it's not transphobic to want to try and get these difficult questions right for everyone. It's pretty safe to say the Trump administration isn't trying, and I can only wish it's members had even a tiny fraction of the humility shown in this piece
O’Connor and Pittman are also responsible for the incredibly long sentences of the Texas 9, ICE protestors whose protest turned violent, most sentenced to 50-70 years in jail.
The great battle is between love and money. Trump is about money and his killer tools are hate, and fear, and anger. Money is a safe harbor from Trump's killers, and it works for pretty much anyone, not just him. But it's a trap. It enslaves its users to the sources of money.
Money is not my god. No kings except love. That's how the universe is designed for all of us. It's a bit of a leap, seems like a comment out of left field, I know, yet money is increasingly ruling civilization, for thousands of years, seeming more and more essential. Replacing community and love.
And today, Trump is aiming his killers at troubled peoples, so all of us who cherish the miracles of love, and our faith in love, are slammed. You might feel like this comment is in the wrong forum. But we need to be reminded in all the places we find truth. Share the dream, and stay safe and well in your love and faith. We can beat this guy. He's just on the wrong side.
"Judge Kearney in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania quashed a demand for children’s medical and psychological records, finding the link between patient identities and any fraud theory “tenuous at best.” Judge Bissoon in the Western District of Pennsylvania granted a motion to quash in the UPMC matter, writing that the government’s demand carried “more than a whiff of ill intent."
This administration has demanded personal information on many of us. It has not, as far as we know, been successful in most cases. Cases. But I'm not exactly sure if we know yet what the extent of of their potential "ill intent" could be.
A lot of Americans may be conflicted about gender affirming care and young people. But they also might want to consider the ramifications of a government that asks for access to data on our most personal decisions. It would be naive to think that the demands end here.
The examples are not perfect analogies, but it strikes me that the kind of judge shopping and role of effectively single judge courts reported in this post are all indications of an alarming trend towards Tyranny not of the Majority or even the Minority, but Tyranny of the Extremists. If one Judge can effectively exercise power nationwide over individuals and institutions, then what is to stop the most extreme views on any issue from prevailing nationwide, whether it affects directly only a few or many of us? The party primary system in elections, which if I am correct is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution, already gives disproportionate political, and hence ultimately legislative influence, to the most extreme, dedicated supporters of a party. Will now the most ideologically or otherwise biased, even bigoted, human beings who become judges exercise a disproportionate influence on the evolution of the law? Open carry machine guns to day care facilities nationwide ? Doctors who lose their licenses by following best medical practices nationwide? Unrestrained freedom for oligarchs with no obligations? Elimination of civil service protections? Wars on again, off again depending on the time of day? The characterization of countries, groups and individuals oscillating between “good” and “scum” in successive posts on social media? Will the Supreme Court eventually have a say on this question, and what would its current Robertian version decide? Maybe the concerns I have are unthinkable, but there are many instances of what was once unthinkable, a few short years ago having now become the new daily norm.
I appreciate the careful legal analysis, but the basic thing that comes through is that the Trump Administration is putting forth a cruel anti-trans policy in a tyrannical way, and even the anti-trans Supreme Court has left open an avenue for the lower courts to deem it so.
"I don’t imagine I’m going to persuade anyone about who’s right on the science, medicine, or policy here. Indeed, I’m not entirely sure myself."
I completely agree but I would be far more comfortable letting the medical community hash this our rather than the politicians (on either side of the aisle).
The seriousness of your essay today, notwithstanding, I am struck today by the continuing frustration of solid logic and moral strength by the sheer ignorance and willful abuse of political power.
Since you brought up Texas, Steve, let me share the following regarding the intellectual and moral integrity of Republican Elected and Appointed Class members there:
Rumor has it that Texas Republicans will act to allow dead Republicans to continue to hold office. They believe that a dead Republican in office is better than the risk of a live Democrat. Further rumors suggest that the Texas Republicans will push the theory further for eventual testing in the U.S. Supreme Court, by appealing to Mitch McConnell family to bury him in Texas so they can run him for elected office. “We should not lose our best to death; especially in Texas (where silent Republican votes are considered assent and consent and are counted)” a spokesman was heard to say. South Carolina spokesperson was said to have been heard muttering “damn good idea.” [Parody is a terrible thing to waste when the world is such a target-rich environment]!
So, are "alterations" to intersex newborns just going to stop, letting the chips fall where they may for some portion of 1.7% of all births in America?
Will the term "intersex" simply be removed from the medical lexicon? That's sounds like an easy solution...at least for stupid people.
A lot of those innocent children with legitimate gender dysphoria will be in right-wing households. Just sayin'.....
That statistic is wildly misleading; the rate at which babies are born with intersex conditions that make their sex genuinely ambiguous is more like 1 in 2000. 1 in 2000 is enough that we should be (but aren't) regulating unconsented-to cosmetic surgeries on that population, but grossly exaggerating its size isn't doing anyone any favors.
Ah, that 20 December executive order makes things so much simpler—those who grab genitalia, and those whose genitalia is grabbed.
Unfortunately, the Cass Report has little need to import right wing bigotry from America; the UK is more than capable of generating anti-transgender sentiment masquerading as science on its own.
Deeply value the legal insights in this newsletter but could do without the both-sidesing of the clinical issue here. A drive-by mention of the Cass Review as reliable because it wasn't commissioned by "U.S. culture warriors", when it was widely criticized as methodologically flawed and subject to political influence (they have culture warriors in other countries too, as it turns out) seems somewhat careless. The description of WPATH as a "low-quality" guideline elides the fact that for ethical or practical reasons, a great amount of pediatric medicine relies on "low-quality evidence"; for instance, it is both impossible and unethical to perform a double-blind study of puberty blockers or hormone therapy. As you say, the legal issues seem to rather forcefully back WPATH. Making that argument doesn't require steelmanning the government's argument on the science, let alone saying it "militates in the other direction".
I'm sure Professor V. is genuinely aiming for objectivity not performative "bothsidesing" here. He does say he doesn't find Cass especially persuasive further down. Sure the UK has transphobes, and for some reason the courts and the Equality and Human Rights Commissioner have decided the Gender Recognition Act is second class law but it's not transphobic to want to try and get these difficult questions right for everyone. It's pretty safe to say the Trump administration isn't trying, and I can only wish it's members had even a tiny fraction of the humility shown in this piece
O’Connor and Pittman are also responsible for the incredibly long sentences of the Texas 9, ICE protestors whose protest turned violent, most sentenced to 50-70 years in jail.
The great battle is between love and money. Trump is about money and his killer tools are hate, and fear, and anger. Money is a safe harbor from Trump's killers, and it works for pretty much anyone, not just him. But it's a trap. It enslaves its users to the sources of money.
Money is not my god. No kings except love. That's how the universe is designed for all of us. It's a bit of a leap, seems like a comment out of left field, I know, yet money is increasingly ruling civilization, for thousands of years, seeming more and more essential. Replacing community and love.
And today, Trump is aiming his killers at troubled peoples, so all of us who cherish the miracles of love, and our faith in love, are slammed. You might feel like this comment is in the wrong forum. But we need to be reminded in all the places we find truth. Share the dream, and stay safe and well in your love and faith. We can beat this guy. He's just on the wrong side.
"Judge Kearney in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania quashed a demand for children’s medical and psychological records, finding the link between patient identities and any fraud theory “tenuous at best.” Judge Bissoon in the Western District of Pennsylvania granted a motion to quash in the UPMC matter, writing that the government’s demand carried “more than a whiff of ill intent."
This administration has demanded personal information on many of us. It has not, as far as we know, been successful in most cases. Cases. But I'm not exactly sure if we know yet what the extent of of their potential "ill intent" could be.
A lot of Americans may be conflicted about gender affirming care and young people. But they also might want to consider the ramifications of a government that asks for access to data on our most personal decisions. It would be naive to think that the demands end here.
The examples are not perfect analogies, but it strikes me that the kind of judge shopping and role of effectively single judge courts reported in this post are all indications of an alarming trend towards Tyranny not of the Majority or even the Minority, but Tyranny of the Extremists. If one Judge can effectively exercise power nationwide over individuals and institutions, then what is to stop the most extreme views on any issue from prevailing nationwide, whether it affects directly only a few or many of us? The party primary system in elections, which if I am correct is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution, already gives disproportionate political, and hence ultimately legislative influence, to the most extreme, dedicated supporters of a party. Will now the most ideologically or otherwise biased, even bigoted, human beings who become judges exercise a disproportionate influence on the evolution of the law? Open carry machine guns to day care facilities nationwide ? Doctors who lose their licenses by following best medical practices nationwide? Unrestrained freedom for oligarchs with no obligations? Elimination of civil service protections? Wars on again, off again depending on the time of day? The characterization of countries, groups and individuals oscillating between “good” and “scum” in successive posts on social media? Will the Supreme Court eventually have a say on this question, and what would its current Robertian version decide? Maybe the concerns I have are unthinkable, but there are many instances of what was once unthinkable, a few short years ago having now become the new daily norm.
I appreciate the careful legal analysis, but the basic thing that comes through is that the Trump Administration is putting forth a cruel anti-trans policy in a tyrannical way, and even the anti-trans Supreme Court has left open an avenue for the lower courts to deem it so.
"I don’t imagine I’m going to persuade anyone about who’s right on the science, medicine, or policy here. Indeed, I’m not entirely sure myself."
I completely agree but I would be far more comfortable letting the medical community hash this our rather than the politicians (on either side of the aisle).
The seriousness of your essay today, notwithstanding, I am struck today by the continuing frustration of solid logic and moral strength by the sheer ignorance and willful abuse of political power.
Since you brought up Texas, Steve, let me share the following regarding the intellectual and moral integrity of Republican Elected and Appointed Class members there:
Rumor has it that Texas Republicans will act to allow dead Republicans to continue to hold office. They believe that a dead Republican in office is better than the risk of a live Democrat. Further rumors suggest that the Texas Republicans will push the theory further for eventual testing in the U.S. Supreme Court, by appealing to Mitch McConnell family to bury him in Texas so they can run him for elected office. “We should not lose our best to death; especially in Texas (where silent Republican votes are considered assent and consent and are counted)” a spokesman was heard to say. South Carolina spokesperson was said to have been heard muttering “damn good idea.” [Parody is a terrible thing to waste when the world is such a target-rich environment]!