The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Court Blocks Florida Law Limiting "Puberty Blockers" and Cross-Sex Hormones for Minors
From Doe v. Ladapo, decided today by Judge Robert Hinkle (N.D. Fla.):
This action presents a constitutional challenge to a Florida statute and rules that (1) prohibit transgender minors from receiving specific kinds of widely accepted medical care and (2) prohibit doctors from providing it. The treatments at issue are GnRH agonists, colloquially known as "puberty blockers," and cross-sex hormones. This order grants a preliminary injunction….
[II.] Gender identity is real
With extraordinarily rare exceptions not at issue here, every person is born with external sex characteristics, male or female, and chromosomes that match. As the person goes through life, the person also has a gender identity—a deeply felt internal sense of being male or female. For more than 99% of people, the external sex characteristics and chromosomes—the determinants of what this order calls the person's natal sex—match the person's gender identity.For less than 1%, the natal sex and gender identity are opposites: a natal male's gender identity is female, or vice versa. This order refers to such a person who identifies as female as a transgender female and to such a person who identifies as male as a transgender male. This order refers to individuals whose gender identity matches their natal sex as cisgender.
The elephant in the room should be noted at the outset. Gender identity is real. The record makes this clear. The medical defendants, speaking through their attorneys, have admitted it. At least one defense expert also has admitted it. That expert is Dr. Stephen B. Levine, the only defense expert who has actually treated a significant number of transgender patients. He addressed the issues conscientiously, on the merits, rather than as a biased advocate.
Despite the defense admissions, there are those who believe that cisgender individuals properly adhere to their natal sex and that transgender individuals have inappropriately chosen a contrary gender identity, male or female, just as one might choose whether to read Shakespeare or Grisham. Many people with this view tend to disapprove all things transgender and so oppose medical care that supports a person's transgender existence. In this litigation, the medical defendants have explicitly acknowledged that this view is wrong and that pushing individuals away from their transgender identity is not a legitimate state interest.
Still, an unspoken suggestion running just below the surface in some of the proceedings that led to adoption of the statute and rules at issue—and just below the surface in the testimony of some of the defense experts—is that transgender identity is not real, that it is made up. And so, for example, one of the defendants' experts, Dr. Paul Hruz, joined an amicus brief in another proceeding asserting transgender individuals have only a "false belief" in their gender identity—that they are maintaining a "charade" or "delusion." Another defense expert, Dr.
Patrick Lappert—a surgeon who has never performed gender-affirming surgery— said in a radio interview that gender-affirming care is a "lie," a "moral violation," a "huge evil," and "diabolical." State employees or consultants suggested treatment of transgender individuals is either a "woke idea" or profiteering by the pharmaceutical industry or doctors.
Any proponent of the challenged statute and rules should put up or shut up: do you acknowledge that there are individuals with actual gender identities opposite their natal sex, or do you not? Dog whistles ought not be tolerated.
[III.] The challenged statute and rules
The challenged parts of the statute and rules apply to patients under age 18. The statute prohibits the use of "puberty blockers" to "stop or delay normal puberty in order to affirm a person's perception of his or her sex if that perception is inconsistent with the person's [natal] sex." And the statute prohibits the use of "hormones or hormone antagonists to affirm a person's perception of his or her sex if that perception is inconsistent with the person's [natal] sex." The statute makes violation of these provisions a crime and grounds for terminating a healthcare practitioner's license.
The statute has exceptions, including, for example, for use of these products during a transition away from them, but the exceptions are not relevant here. And the statute has other provisions, including a prohibition on transgender surgeries, but those provisions, too, are not at issue here.
The challenged rules were adopted by the Florida Board of Medicine and the Florida Board of Osteopathic Medicine. In identical language, the rules prohibit the Boards' licensed practitioners from treating "gender dysphoria in minors" with "[p]uberty blocking, hormone, or hormone antagonist therapies." …
[IV.] The standards of care
Transgender individuals suffer higher rates of anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, and suicide than the population at large. Some suffer gender dysphoria, a mental-health condition recognized in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition ("DSM-5"). The diagnosis applies when specific criteria are met. Among other things, there must be a marked incongruence between one's experienced gender identity and natal sex for at least six months, manifested in specified ways, and clinically significant distress or impairment.
There are well-established standards of care for treatment of gender dysphoria. These are set out in two publications: first, the Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Treatment of Gender Dysphoria; and second, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health ("WPATH") Standards of Care, version 8. I credit the abundant testimony in this record that these standards are widely followed by well-trained clinicians. The standards are used by insurers and have been endorsed by the United States Department of Health and Human Services.
Under the standards, gender-dysphoria treatment begins with a comprehensive biopsychosocial assessment. In addition to any appropriate mental-health therapy, there are three types of possible medical intervention, all available only to adolescents or adults, never younger children.
First, for patients at or near the onset of puberty, medications known as GnRH agonists can delay the onset or continuation of puberty and thus can reduce the development of secondary sex characteristics inconsistent with the patient's gender identity—breasts for transgender males, whiskers for transgender females, changes in body shape, and other physical effects.
Second, cross-sex hormones—testosterone for transgender males, estrogen for transgender females—can promote the development and maintenance of characteristics consistent with the patient's gender identity and can limit the development and maintenance of characteristics consistent with the patient's natal sex. For patients treated with GnRH agonists, use of cross-sex hormones typically begins when use of GnRH agonists ends. Cross-sex hormones also can be used later in life, regardless of whether a patient was treated with GnRH agonists.
Third, for some patients, surgery can align physical characteristics with gender identity, to some extent. The most common example: mastectomy can remove a transgender male's breasts. Perhaps 98% of all such surgeries are performed on adults, not minors.
The motions now before the court deal directly only with GnRH agonists.
The motions deal indirectly with cross-sex hormones, because to achieve their intended result, GnRH agonists are ordinarily followed by cross-sex hormones. The motions do not present any issue related to surgeries.
The court moves on to conclude that the standards of care are supported by "[t]he overwhelming weight of medical authority," and cites the testimony of doctors in the case, concluding:
The clinical evidence would support, though certainly not mandate, a decision by a reasonable patient and parent, in consultation with properly trained practitioners, to use GnRH agonists at or near the onset of puberty and to use cross-sex hormones later, even when fully apprised of the current state of medical knowledge and all attendant risks. There is no rational basis for a state to categorically ban these treatments.
The record includes no evidence that these treatments have caused substantial adverse clinical results in properly screened and treated patients….
I find, based on the record now before the court, that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that they have obtained appropriate medical care for their children to this point, that qualified professionals have properly evaluated the children's medical conditions and needs in accordance with the well-established standards of care, and that the plaintiffs and their children, in consultation with their treating professionals, have determined that the benefits of treatment with GnRH agonists, and eventually with cross-sex hormones, will outweigh the risks. I find that the plaintiffs' ability to evaluate the benefits and risks of treating their individual children this way far exceeds the ability of the State of Florida to do so. I find that the plaintiffs' motivation is love for their children and the desire to achieve the best possible treatment for them. This is not the State's motivation.
The court concludes that "banning treatment with GnRH agonists and cross-sex hormones" likely "violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause" because it discriminates based on sex and gender nonconformity, citing and elaborating on Brandt ex rel. Brandt v. Rutledge (8th Cir. 2022), which held likewise:
Consider an adolescent, perhaps age 16, that a physician wishes to treat with testosterone. Under the challenged statute, is the treatment legal or illegal? To know the answer, one must know the adolescent's sex. If the adolescent is a natal male, the treatment is legal. If the adolescent is a natal female, the treatment is illegal. This is a line drawn on the basis of sex, plain and simple.
In asserting the contrary, the defendants note that the reason for the treatment—the diagnosis—is different for the natal male and natal female. Indeed it is. But this does not change the fact that this is differential treatment based on sex. The reason for sex-based differential treatment is the purported justification for treating the natal male and natal female differently—the justification that must survive intermediate scrutiny. One can survive—but cannot avoid—intermediate scrutiny by saying there is a good reason for treating a male and female differently….
Drawing a line based on gender nonconformity—this includes transgender status—also triggers intermediate scrutiny….
The court concludes that Florida's arguments for why intermediate scrutiny are "largely pretextual" and don't justify the law. (The analysis is too long for me to quote here; see the opinion for the details.) And it also concludes that plaintiffs are likely to prevail on their parental rights claims:
The defendants say a parent's right to control a child's medical treatment does not give the parent a right to insist on treatment that is properly prohibited on other grounds. Quite so. If the state could properly prohibit the treatments at issue as unsafe, parents would have no right to override the state's decision. But as set out above, there is no rational basis, let alone a basis that would survive heightened scrutiny, for prohibiting these treatments in appropriate circumstances.
The court closes with this:
Gender identity is real. Those whose gender identity does not match their natal sex often suffer gender dysphoria. The widely accepted standard of care calls for evaluation and treatment by a multidisciplinary team. Proper treatment begins with mental-health therapy and is followed in appropriate cases by GnRH agonists and cross-sex hormones. Florida has adopted a statute and rules that prohibit these treatments even when medically appropriate. The plaintiffs are likely to prevail on their claim that the prohibition is unconstitutional. And they have met the other prerequisites to a preliminary injunction.
To get the Volokh Conspiracy Daily e-mail, please sign up here.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
“specific kinds of widely accepted medical care” I guess that’s a better way of saying “Chop off their Dicks”
“Patrick Lappert—a surgeon who has never performed gender-affirming surgery—” actually most surgeons only chop off patients dicks or Vulva/Breasts for life threatening diseases.
Frank
You claim to be a doctor and don’t know the difference between surgery and puberty blockers/hormones? I’ve never been to medical school a day in my life and I know the difference between them.
When I went to school it was considered a “Bad” thang to give women Testosterone, makes their pussy all dry and itchy. Same thing with giving men Estrogen (except for things really “Bad” like Prostate Cancer)
Frank
I’m pretty sure those puberty blockers are what they give child rapists to chemically castrate them.
Many (it used to be most, I haven’t looked at recent numbers) American males have parts of their dicks chopped off for no medical reason whatsoever (every few years, proponents of the practice come up with a bullshit fake “medical reason” that is proven to be a bullshit fake within a short period).
It customarily is done long before the age of consent. But this blog is not interested in that mutilation of children’s genitals, because . . . well, just because.
Carry on, clingers. So far as childish superstition, stale bigotry, and general backwardness could carry anyone in an America that is improving against the wishes of its vestigial right-wing culture war casualties.
Jerry Sandusky, ladies and gentlemans, experience in not obtaining “Consent” before mutilating children’s genitals.
I on the other hand, always obtained consent before mutilating new born male’s genitals (it was required if you wanted to pass OB/GYN)
Frank
Circumcision also has zero negative outcomes, statistically speaking. The latest research also indicates no loss in sexual pleasure or feeling. That was always a myth.
But carry on in your ignorance and smelly dick cheese.
I love when public school graduates question me and I have receipts
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3042320/#:~:text=Compared%20to%20before%20they%20were,much%20more%E2%80%9D%20at%20month%2024
public school graduates
Oh, you’re one of those assholes. I thought this kind of open rich asshole thing only occurred in books.
And my response was to a guy who openly mocks and scorns people he doesn’t agree with, and claims himself and his fellow travelers as “your betters”, so you can f@ck right off with the sanctimony.
a) The “public school graduates” statement gives me many impressions of you, none of them are good.
b) Your reference was wrong. We’re talking about infant circumcision and you brought up a study of adult circumcision. But what can you expect from someone who thinks “public school graduate” is a good insult.
However you feel about circumcision, the correct response is not “Hold my beer!”
Clingers gonna cling.
Well, for a bit longer, anyway.
He’s pointing out the bad faith in those making blanket condemnations of one practice and not another similar one.
That’s because there’s no similarity between circumcision and gender transition.
Except for their being a
-voluntary (based on parental consent)
-medical procedure
-done to the reproductive system
-of a minor.
You like one and you don’t like another is not a good reason. In fact, it’s the basis for the accusation of hypocricy.
Yup. Same degree of similarity between piercing your kid’s ears and cutting her ears off. Perhaps similar in some superficial sense, but really not similar.
Actually there is a big difference.
Circumcision is done to an infant, long before the person has any capability of even understanding the procedure.
Hormones are given to a minor who is very aware of the procedure and is the one driving the decision making.
To be morally consistent under Sarcastro’s analysis, supporters of gender-affirming surgery presumably have to support female circumcision performed upon children as well.
Huh?!?
Surely you recognize the difference between a surgical procedure performed on infants and hormones given to prepubescent children who are explicitly asking for it.
And I assume you also don’t support infant male circumcision? Because if so you have a waaay tougher time of justifying your opposition to female circumcision.
Do you think male and female circumcision are the same thing? They aren’t.
Male circumcision is cutting off the foreskin.
Female circumcision is cutting off the clitoris.
Wildly different.
Sure sure
One procedure has statistically 0 complications, no negative effect on sexual function or feeling (and in some studies shows an increase), and decreases the risk of penile cancer, HIV, and other diseases.
The other procedure is gender transition.
The argument that there are benefits to circumcision is maybe not a rout you want to go down.
The health benefits to circumcision are marginal – it’s mostly a religious/cultural act. On the other hand, while I expect you don’t think that there are any health benefits to gender affirming treatment, the court here disagrees.
And by the logic of your defense of circumcision, finding benefits to gender affirming care is sufficient to make it constitutionally required.
Only if the “finding” is correct. A judge who “finds” that up is down compels no other conclusion than that he has shit for brains.
Unlike your claptrap, the judge’s finding matters.
Getting it through your skull that YOUR opinions don’t matter worth beans is a Fool’s Errand I’m not interested in attempting. So keep blithering.
I’m not the one making grand proclamations about what the law and science are. I’m noting what’s going on in the thread and your comments.
You’re the one acting like you’ve never changed your mind in your life.
In your mind, the judge is the final arbiter of whether something is ethically and morally correct. In my mind, decades of research makes me correct.
American males have parts of their dicks chopped off
Yeah, it’s not like there’s any substantive difference between having some skin removed from a body part vs. having the entire part removed. When you get a haircut, do you describe it as a decapitation?
“Health benefits: Male circumcision can reduce a male’s chances of acquiring HIV by 50% to 60% during heterosexual contact with female partners with HIV, according to data from three clinical trials.”
https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/fact-sheets/hiv/male-circumcision-hiv-prevention-factsheet.html
Although I admit the source has been known to spread medical misinformation for its own ends.
Everyone knows that the state can not regulate things that hurt lefties feelings.
As a “POSP” (Person of South Pawness) I resent
liberals/commie/pinko/fags using the term “Lefty” Southpaws suffer real discrimination, not made up BS like every other special interest group. From the second he’s born, left handed kid won’t be able to catch, play Second, Short, or Third, all of which could be easily remedied by reversing the direction of base running every inning, you know, like how they switch sides of the field in every other sport.
Frank “Lefty” Drackman
The constitution says nothing at all about any of this.
That was my feeling at first blush, but the judge’s argument as applied to testosterone treatment seems reasonable to me (again at first blush).
So what, and why do you think that’s relevant?
Only an activist judge will find a constitutional violation where the constitution is silent, or actively disagrees.
And so? You still haven’t explained why that’s relevant. Not that I agree that only an activist judge would do so.
Judges of all stripes make up what the constitution says.
“When the quote from the opinion begins, “This action presents a constitutional challenge to a Florida statute…” to respond to “The constitution says nothing at all about any of this.” with “So what, and why do you think that’s relevant?” indicates brain damage.
No, it indicates that not all of us are originalists.
But most people are (and correctly so) so your pretended ignorance was dishonesty on stilts.
I’d really like to see a citation for the claim that most people are originalists. And it’s originalism that’s nonsense on stilts.
Elena Kagan: “We [the Justices] are all originalists.”
There’s no other way to interpret the Constitution. Stop believing in fairy tales.
Tell it to the legal scholars who aren’t originalists.
When you believe idiot nonsense you’re not a “scholar”, you’re a crank.
Sure, point me to them
nor [shall any State] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws
Even the mentally ill are protected against doctors and others taking advantage of their illness.
There’s noting in “the law” or good sense resulting in minors being allowed to take optional dangerous drugs in order to avoid equal protection concerns. Blocking that protects all minors equally.
This is a Clinton judge, previously most famous for finding (in his ass) that Florida’s statutory and constitutional bans on same-sex marriage were federally unconstitutional.
The dangerous drugs are permitted except when used to affirm a child’s gender identity when it conflicts with their natal sex. Thus, the equal protection challenge cannot be fended off based solely on the drugs’ dangers.
I don’t know what planet you’re living on where drugs for juveniles can’t be allowed for one purpose and not another.
When the prohibited purpose discriminates on the basis of sex, intermediate scrutiny applies. If the justification is danger, the state has to explain why that danger is OK in one case but not the other, and they have to overcome their intermediate scrutiny burden in doing so.
The prohibition here is not “on the basis of sex”.
It’s to protect children of both sexes.
As the judge persuasively argued, testosterone treatments are banned only for girls, not for boys. That facially discriminates on the basis of sex.
Bullshit. Obviously boys are not girls and girls are not boys. It’s not a violation of equal protection to not treat them as if they were exactly the same. And the laws have never done so except where sex is irrelevant.
It’s not a violation of equal protection if the state overcomes its intermediate scrutiny burden.
‘dangerous drugs’ encompasses just about everything available by prescription.
This is a Clinton judge
Yeah, Clinton got real partisan with his district court picks. You’re too much knee-jerk not enough thought.
The words I used were, “There’s noting in ‘the law’ or good sense resulting in minors being allowed to take optional dangerous drugs in order to avoid equal protection concerns. Blocking that protects all minors equally.” That many drugs are dangerous misses the point entirely: Martinned had made no point.
Clinton was partisan? Nobody could think THAT! It’s just an accident that he appointed some Lefty loon.
Your argument applies to all prescription drugs. You think all prescription drugs could be banned by a state so long as there weren’t life threatening consequences?
In the 1990s District Court Picks were not really chosen by the President. Not that you care. CLINTON BAD, is all you need to engage your knee-jerk.
My argument does not REMOTELY apply to “all prescription drugs”. The subject is the USE of drugs, not only dangerous ones but also OPTIONAL ones having no medical benefit in the circumstances where it is proposed to use them: For purposes of agenda-driven child abuse. And the subject was the entire inapplicability of “equal protection”. You can be really stupid when you want to be (which is often) but that’s not going to cut it.
Most prescription drugs are optional.
You’re really bad at this.
No, drugs are generally proscribed because they are deemed to be medically necessary. E.g. hormone analogs (GnRHa) are properly prescribed for central precocious puberty (CPP). They’re “optional” only in the sense that you have the option of leaving a genuine medical problem unaddressed. Doing damage to children in the name of bogus “gender affirmation” is nothing like that.
You’re really bad at this.
Except that it does address a genuine medical problem. That you can’t acknowledge this is irrelevant, it’s clinically recognised.
¨The constitution says nothing at all about any of this.¨
Are you overlooking that this lawsuit includes an equal protection claim? As well as a substantive due process claim regarding parental rights.
Fiction pretending to be a legal opinion.
What do you think is a more reliable guide here, scientific research or your intuition?
I got research too.
“In March 2023, the Norwegian Healthcare Investigation Board issued recommendations that puberty blockers and hormone therapy for trans adolescents be banned outside of research settings, citing concerns over increases in the number of people seeking such treatment, as well as concerns regarding increased rates of neurodivergence, including ADHD and ASD, among those seeking such care” wikipedia
“In 2022, gender affirming healthcare, including puberty blockers and hormone therapy, for those under 18 was banned in Sweden outside of research settings.” wikipedia
Not to be banned because of medical concerns, to be banned because more people need them and, for some reason, the rates of neurodivergence? Sounds like more ‘intuition’ and prejudice than actual concern for patients’ well-being.
“In March 2023, the Norwegian Healthcare Investigation Board issued recommendations that puberty blockers and hormone therapy for trans adolescents be banned outside of research settings, citing concerns over increases in the number of people seeking such treatment,”
Not that such treatment is incorrect, necessarily, but being freaked out about increases in those seeking such treatment. Leaving aside, of course, that societal acceptance of being publicly transgender could easily lead to more people seeking treatment.
Compare to being publicly gay- were there plenty of people living unhappy lives in the closet, who now feel comfortable and more happy being out? Sure. Does that mean there are actually more gay people? Not necessarily. Similarly, increasing popularity of such treatments means that those who might have wanted them but didn’t want to deal with society’s expectations might now be seeking them out.
“as well as concerns regarding increased rates of neurodivergence, including ADHD and ASD, among those seeking such care”
1) It’s not surprising that people who a) have trouble with or don’t understand society’s mores are more likely to want to present differently to society than those who are willing/able to accept society’s constraints and b) who are likely to suffer from hypo/hypersensitivity to sensory stimuli are more picky about their physical apparatuses and the sensory experiences that come from them
2) Many European studies have much worse standards of care for neurodivergent folks, and they’re much less accepted than here. ABA is in high demand there right now among parents of autistic kids because the alternative is more or less institutionalization. In the US, there’s a significant push against ABA because it can cause significant trauma in many of the kids it’s practiced on. If you treat neurodivergent folks as real people who should get to make the maximum number of safe decisions for themselves, regardless of whether or not society approves of them, then autistic people coming out as trans isn’t a problem. It’s only a problem if you think autistic people shouldn’t have autonomy.
We’re talking about sick-in-the-head minors, not autistic people.
Which countries ban “gender affirming care” for minors in Europe? Hint: Not just Sweden.
https://nypost.com/2023/01/30/even-progressive-europe-wont-go-as-far-as-america-in-child-transgender-treatments/
I would prefer real science – not agenda driven fad treatment of mental illness.
You might be able to fool the mentally ill’s mind for a while, but you cant continue to fool the body forever.
Not a mental illness. You didn’t give a shit about how it was categorised until suddenly you all got together and decided to hate trans people.
“Not a mental illness.”
“Delusional disorder is a type of psychotic disorder. Its main symptom is the presence of one or more delusions.
A delusion is an unshakable belief in something that’s untrue. The belief isn’t a part of the person’s culture or subculture, and almost everyone else knows this belief to be false.” Cleveland Clinic
You can keep callng it a delusion – that is, of course sheer bigoted dishonesty driven by hate. I see no reason why a the healthcare of a small group of people should be determined or controlled in the slightest by people who hate them.
Not seeing any “dishonesty” in calling a guy a guy. And, no, the constant practice of dishonesty that you engage in doesn’t give you any extra votes.
‘I’m right and no one can disagree with me, no backsies!’ cries Gandy.
Dude, we all know your opinions. Saying everyone who doesn’t agree with you is totes wrong over and over is boring as fuck.
You may think you’re entitled to declare without contradiction that boys can be girls but that’s not the way it works.
You are literally the argument sketch brought to life, except not funny.
https://montycasinos.com/montypython/sounds/sketches/gainsay.wav
Fact-free conclusory declarations are YOUR specialty, Gaslightr0.
If you’ve got nothing except this whine going for you, maybe it’s time for you to resume the ostrich position.
It’s neither honest nor dishonest, it’s being a massive asshole, as is your right.
You, before: “You can keep call[i]ng it a delusion – that is, of course sheer bigoted dishonesty driven by hate.”
You, now: “It’s neither honest nor dishonest…”
That’s the problem with being so unhinged from reality. There’s nothing to keep you consistent.
You can’t tell the difference between Bob trying to class something as a delusion and you being an ill-mannered lout. Not that there isn’t massive overlap, of course.
o”f course sheer bigoted dishonesty driven by hate”
Boy, you mind readers here are something else. You should take your show on the road.
They’re not really trying to pretend they don’t any more.
You’re ignoring the medical community on gender dysphoria but citing them to abuse a definition of theirs to shore up your own bullshit opinion.
Yep, that’s about the speed of it.
“abuse a definition”
I’m applying the definition.
Only as per your assumption that gender identity is not a thing.
If I assumed mountains were not a thing, I’d see a lot more delusional people as well.
Gender identity isn’t a thing. If you feel pressured to act a certain way because you have a penis, just don’t act that way.
Don’t cut your dick off.
You think the issue is entirely externally driven now? You’re not even consistent with yourself.
What is this “issue” implicated by the observation “If you feel pressured to act a certain way because you have a penis, just don’t act that way”?
If you want to fuck up your body with unnecessary and unhealthy medical interventions, wait until you’re an adult and are qualified to make stupid decisions for yourself.
It’s like, if you’ve a horrible pain in your side that won’t go away, wait until you’re an adult and qualified to make stupid decisions before letting anyone cut into your healthy bdy and remove your appendix.
@Nige: A boy’s penis is not remotely similar to an his appendix.
Queenie: “Gandy’s long crusade against, say, human growth hormone for short kids, is assumed?”
Not by me. Assuming it can be done relatively safely and addresses genuine medical conditions (see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7233750/) why would I oppose that? This is not remotely akin to “gender affirming surgery”, which merely damages or mutilates a child in the name of “affirming” a delusion.
Gandy – it is if to the person seeking treatment it is effectively vestigial.
A delusion is an unshakable belief in something that’s untrue.
Like, “Trump was cheated in the 2020 election?”
Lots of delusional folks around here.
That’s not delusional at all. The only question is whether the cheating was frenetic enough to change the result.
It’s a deliberate lie. Unless you actually believe it’s true. Then you’re just believing a lie.
I won’t go over again what could be plainly seen, and was reported about, what happened at Cobo Hall. Your ignorance is invincible because you choose to be ignorant. And that’s just ONE of the “absentee ballot” scandals.
I wouldn’t go over that laughable shit either, if I were you.
Nige – you are fixated in this “hate” of Transpeople. Real hate is feeding the mentally ills delusions.
There is a reason sweden, norway & the UK have banned this treatment for minors. the so called experts which you rely on for the “gold standard” treatment of the mentally ill are agenda driven advocates, not experts.
Real hate is denying people access to the healthcare they need because of your own personal irrational prejudices and bigotry, while also smearing them as groomers and abusers. The reasons given for the supposed Norway and Sweden bans are non-medical and a bit weird, frankly.
Nige 3 mins ago (edited)
Flag Comment Mute User
“Real hate is denying people access to the healthcare they need because of your own personal irrational prejudices and bigotry, while also smearing them as groomers and abusers. ”
Nige your dishonesty is quite telling, Not once have I have every made a statement based on bigotry or smearing individuals suffering from the transgender mental illness. Nor has anyone else on this blog to my knowledge made a bigoted statement regarding anyone suffering from the transgender mental illness.
No one is against health care that some one needs, I am just against gender affirmation care since that treatment is not treating the mental illness. Its playing, and participating in the patients mental illness instead of providing a long term healthy solution
‘I am just against gender affirmation care since that treatment is not treating the mental illness.’
This is bigotry, posing as sheer pig-ignorance. Years and years of clinical practice has shown that gender affirming care works, and considerng the prejudices against trangender people that was hard-won, and now a resurgent bigotry is trying to roll it back out of sheer spite.
John Money’s catastrophic and tragic failed experiment in gender transition should have ended this ridiculous belief that men can become women and women can become men. Somehow, you idiots still persist in this belief.
Yes, let outliers dicate other people’s healthcare but only in the specific instances with which your bigotry is concerned.
Long term studies of the benefits of these treatments, I bet, were simply erased accidentally by you, Nige.
Yes, by me. Very normal and rational of you.
Nothing of what you seem to be talking about is remotely similar to thinking you are a woman when both your chromosomes and your penis say otherwise. Speaking in tongues may be odd behavior, but it doesn’t contradict any demonstrable facts.
Not similar to believing, or at least claiming to believe, that fairy tales are true?
You’re flailing, clinger.
Nope. Believing things without evidence is nothing like believing things that are plainly not true, such as that anyone who can get pregnant and was born with a vagina is a “man”. You clown yourself with that nonsense.
Grasping basic biological facts is too complex for the Rev
Funny that religious schools outperform public schools by quite a substantial bit, innit?
Here’s some science: Religion is a delusion. Moreover, it helped enforce itself through cultural pressure (cancel culture) and legal control for thousands of years. Maybe 10,000.
Now the shoe is on the other foot. My only lament is nobody learned the lesson to let other people be free. I can hardly blame the backlash on millenia of religious tyranny, though. Beg for your freedom. They did.
We now return you to the amateur burns of the good Rev.
Modern leftism is a religion, too, lest someone think I am choosing sides. It replaces “for God” with “for The People”, and “I will make your life better after you die” with “I will make your life better after my 5 year plan.”
Otherwise the corruption and control are the same. “Here is a feel-good (for you!) reaeson to give me control over your lives, and, more importantly, once I achieve a critical mass of yous*, everyone’s lives.
Having pissed off everyone by attacking the chimeral fantasies that inform they are Good People, deep in their souls, I shall take my leave.
* Ironic that “you” is etymologically already English’s plural you, thou wouldst know.
People believing things you don’t believe or don’t think is well supported doesn’t make those people religious.
So, replacing something that isn’t real with something that is, is religion. I see.
More like scientific intuition. There’s no research to support the standard of care that they think so highly of.
Well, the court listened to the expert witnesses. If only they’d called you to the stand!
The court notably disparaged an expert witness on the basis of never having mutilated even an adult patient.
‘disparaged?’
The finder of fact is allowed to make decisions on which witness is right, if they disagree.
Are you arguing the court got it wrong, or that it made this decision in bad faith?
We’re asserting that this judge is a lunatic. Because he is.
That’s what’s justified when a “finder of fact” “finds” that up is down.
Have you read the opinion, Gandydancer? The district court hewed closely to the evidentiary record.
Bullshit. “gender identity is real” is meaningless distinction-avoiding garbage, not even subject to proof or disproof in an evidentiary record. That this judge has shit for brains is what that statement proves.
I asked, have you read the opinion. You declined to answer. Why am I unsurprised?
I’ve read enough of the opinion to conclude that the judge is a worthless hack with shit for brains. E.g., “Despite the defense admissions, there are those who believe that cisgender individuals properly adhere to their natal sex and that transgender individuals have inappropriately chosen a contrary gender identity, male or female, just as one might choose whether to read Shakespeare or Grisham.” This is strawmanning of the highest order. Choosing whether to read Shakespeare or Grisham isn’t remotely akin to convincing oneself, or being convinced by others, or a nutty delusion. Why on earth should I waste time or brain cells reading more of this crap? I don’t owe that to him or you. If I open a keg of swill and one sip tells me what it is I’m not obligated to force down the whole thing.
Don´t glory in self-imposed ignorance. Ipse dixit assertions and invective are a piss poor substitute for reasoned argument, Gandydancer. You are pitiful.
It’s YOUR ipse dixit assertions that are pitiful. And your self-unawareness would be hilarious if it weren’t so tedious and disgusting.
More swill: “Any proponent of the challenged statute and rules should put up or shut up: do you acknowledge that there are individuals with actual gender identities opposite their natal sex, or do you not? Dog whistles ought not be tolerated.”
The answer of course is no. Gender identity is the same as sex entity is the same as natal identity. A delusion is not an “identity”.
*Identity
And “Dog whistles ought not be tolerated”? Where in the law do I find this particular term of art?
I laughed at that bit. Somehow not an expert in child mutilation because he’s never mutilated a child. YOU DONT SAY!
I’d hate to see who gets qualified as an expert in serial killers.
And this is how you end up with bomb threats against children’s hospitals.
Aren’t these typically false flags? Like the hoax “hate crimes” against middle eastern people from a few years back that invariably turn out to be false?
No, they get reflexively labeled false flags, not the same thing.
All the existing reasearch suggests it works and has high rates of satisfaction.
So does shooting Heroin, but no ones advocating making it legal, oh wait a minute……..
edgebot dreams of escape
It has a high rates of satisfaction for the quacks who do so well making a career out of child abuse.
Aparently Gandy has an objection to doctors being paid for their work and expects them to do it for free. Communism? Slavery? Or just a typical capitalist disdain for labour?
Do you think you’re being clever? Don’t even try, Nige. You’re not.
I don’t expect them to engage in child abuse for free. I want them to be stopped. Or punished, good and hard.
Yes, you’re driven by purely irrational hatred, we know.
Nige – Its been pointed out to you that those high satisfaction surveys have serious level of statistical flaws/deficiencies including very low response rates (most with response rates in the low 50%’s) and relatively short follow up periods.
Normally the low response rates can be corrected using valid statistical methods. However, that cant be done with transgender population since A) the sub population of transgender is exceedingly small, therefore never being able to have a valid sample size and B) the population pool of transgender requires lifelong medical and mental health treatment. Thus losing contact with a patient is major league problematic for the patient both medically and mental health wise , along with greatly skews the responses.
You can point out flaws – transgender people would welcome more and better research, they’ve been calling for it for decades, but what you can’t do is point to anything that indicates otherwise or contradicts those results.
If it works, why don’t rates of suicide drop for people post-transition?
Have you heard the way people here talk about trans people? Representing one side of the political divide in the country? Passing laws against them, smearing them with the most appalling lies, categorising them as practically subhuman? Not great for their mental health.
Absolute bollocks. Even among historically disadvantaged groups, trans suicide rates are extremely high. It’s not simply that “people are mean to them”.
And spare me any rhetoric that trans people are somehow at special risk. Murder rates of trans people have been shown to be much lower than the general population.
No, it’s a lot worse than just meanness.
¨Fiction pretending to be a legal opinion.¨
Have you read the district court opinion, Bob? Yes or no?
Still waiting, Bob.
Bummer to see the courts getting sucked into this bizarre cult, and permitting this sort of child abuse.
Once the court makes the biased finding that “gender identity is real,” everything else it says is both predictable and invalid.
They need to address the incontrovertible fact that “GnRH agonists” effectively sterilize the person so “treated” for life, and thus amount to eugenics if done to someone not old enough to be making his own informed decisions about life-changing treatments.
Each of the plaintiffs is a parent who wants, in line with their child’s wishes, to proceed with the treatments.
Are the parents really on board with the treatment and is it really the child’s wishes?
There is a high incidence of males transgender to females with mothers suffering from mental illness.
seems to be a lot of fad transgender illness de jure diagnosis
Munchausen syndrome (By proxy, in the case of these parents.) is a real thing, unfortunately.
A lazy, casual lie about people you don’t know to boost hatred against a group you despise.
“Munchausen syndrome (By proxy, in the case of these parents.) is a real thing, unfortunately.”
Truth is not “a lie”, even if you don’t know the difference.
Non-professionals diagnosing complete and even theoretical strangers with anything purely in order to justify their bigotry is lying. Surely even you’re not too stupid to know that.
Your lack of self-awareness would be stunning if it weren’t so familiar.
Your rote responses are tedious.
Munchausen syndrome (By proxy, in the case of these parents.) is a real thing, unfortunately.
Well, not hard to see where this ends.
Just want to be left alone, eh, Brett? And yet you have a worldview full of confidence well above your expertise, that ends with institutionalizing the people you disagree with.
You and Stalin, Brett. Sitting in a tree.
“a worldview full of confidence well above your expertise”
I know, right? Why do people disagree with experts in things like gender ideology and astrology, amirite?
Brett didn’t just say ‘gender identity isn’t a thing.’ That’d be stupid unsupported claptrap, but not much more.
He diagnosed people he doesn’t know with a serious mental illness that makes them dangerous to others.
Don’t pretend he’s just disagreeing with experts. He’s taken on the mantle of expert (in many fields) himself.
Is this your plan for this thread, to try and reverse strawman people’s outlandish nonsense into something defendable that they didn’t say?
“you don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows”
“He diagnosed people he doesn’t know with a serious mental illness…”
If you want to cut off your dick or breasts because you think you are “born in the wrong body” you are mentally ill. Absolutely. Any “expert” who says otherwise is a quack.
Dude, we all know your opinions. Saying everyone who doesn’t agree with you is totes wrong over and over is boring as fuck.
As if you are satisfied with dropping your bullshit here only once.
Your entitlement to do so without contradiction is recogniised by no one. Who the fuck do you think you are?
Accuracy is, sadly, boring as fuck.
damikesc – ipse dixit is boring as fuck.
Accurate or not, it’s not engaging, it’s just yelling.
Ipse dixit is YOUR only mode. E.g., your last three comments are something else, how?
I’ve made observations about your comments right here.
You ipse dixit broad principles about gender and identity. Over and over. As though you have a monopoly on truth.
Boring.
No, you’re not escaping the ipse dixit box with merely another ipse dixit assertion. Show your work.
I’m not sure you know what ipse dixit means, at this point.
That seems to indicate you want to institutionalize every parent seeking gender affirming care for their child?
Your contrarianism has backed you into Stalinism, as it has for Brett.
Don’t be a piece of shit.
They should be flogged or worse if they succeed in getting their children abused. So it won’t be necessary to institutionalize of execute them if we can foil them.
Gender affirming care is recognised as effective an beneficial to the people who need it. Your squeamishness is irrelevant.
From what I can tell from the description in the opinion, yes and yes for the three plaintiffs.
‘There is a high incidence of males transgender to females with mothers suffering from mental illness. ‘
No, there isn’t.
Well no amount of dick/clit/tits cutting off changes a person’s sex, so you’re right.
edgebot writes its own porn
“porn
[ pawrn ]
noun
…sexually explicit videos, photographs, writings, or the like, produced to elicit sexual arousal…”
Nah, what gets you hard is very strange. I don’t think Frank could have predicted that or have intended that effect, so you once again get something wrong. But you do that hundreds of time a day, don’t you?
edgebot’s the one indulging in pornographic language and imagery, not me. Pretending you don’t understand that is playing sub to its dom.
If you think “dick/clit/tits cutting off” is arousing I would pity your sex playmates if I thought you had any.
edgebot clearly does.
Wow, you know you’ve got the “Reverend”‘s frilly pink panties flustered when he’s pulling out the “Rural Ford Dealership” card, AND slamming the Zipperheads at Microsoft (You know the “Reverend’s” still got that blinking “C:/” prompt on his 286)
Frank
¨Are the parents really on board with the treatment and is it really the child’s wishes?¨
If they were not on board with the treatment, why would the parents go to the trouble of filing and litigating a lawsuit?
Child abusers.
Since we now have parents bragging about 1 year olds who are transgender and sending their kids down a path of getting their genitals removed before the kids even know what gender is, I don’t think we can really factor parents into it at this point.
As said above, this is a cult, where parents increase their status in their social circle with every kid they convince to mangle their body.
we now have parents bragging about 1 year olds who are transgender
Many such cases.
One would be too many.
They’re supposed to hate their trans kids, not love them and be proud of them.
Was your mother proud of her Mongoloid idiot son?
Really pulling out all the stops on your hate and bigotry, eh?
There’s no bigoty involved in noticing what you are after you’ve spent so much time proving it.
bigotry is just the air you breathe.
‘Bragging’ now means ‘not having the decency to be shamed into silence by a transphobic society.’
I’d prefer the silence to having to look at 30 photos of “Cody’s Neo-Vagina”
Frank
Frank, why are you looking at photos of one-year-olds’ vaginas? You might need to turn yourself in.
Peoples show them at cocktail parties, and a “Neo-Vagina” (see how you could be confused, more precise term would be “Pseudo-Vagina” isn’t a Vagina at all, it’s just a fancy Laceration (some of them not even that “fancy”) there’s a reason “Gash” is a word.
Frank “Prefers the Natural Vaginas”
Perhaps you should stop attending those sorts of cocktail parties.
edgebot can’t stop the voices
Most people can’t, what am I gonna do, leave them to Asphyxiate (not Drowned, there’s a difference) like Ted Kennedy did with Mary Jo Kopeckny??
and most intelligent peoples have an “Internal Monologue” you’d know if you were intelligent.
Frank “Man, there’s alot of N-words here today, oops, did I just say that out loud??”
edgebot’s version of ‘daisy daisy’
I Googled your ‘incontrovertable fact.’ Seems it’s pretty controvertable:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28025851/
GnRH A-SRI induce long-term depression of fertility in male dogs and cats with, however, a large individual variation in onset and duration of efficacy especially in cats.
Risk, certainly. Though that seems more to mitigate towards informed consent. You’re way overplaying your hand.
It really depends on whether you’re using them to prevent precocious puberty, which was the only real former use aside from treating some sex hormone linked cancers, or you’re using them to delay puberty beyond its normal schedule.
The former consensus on the safety of these drugs was based on their use to restore a normally timed puberty. Once they started being used to prevent a normal puberty from happening, long term side effects started being seen.
The OP said this: “the incontrovertible fact that “GnRH agonists” effectively sterilize the person so “treated” for life.”
That is a vastly stronger statement than there are some long term side effects starting to be seen. It also appears to be kinda bullshit.
We have plenty of policies on how to handle side effects.
Yeah, that IS an overstatement. They don’t always completely sterilize the person, frequently they ‘just’ seriously impair fertility, result in early osteoarthritis, that sort of thing.
The point, so far as I’m concerned, is that, no, they AREN’T established to be safe for this off label use. Not remotely. Nobody being treated for precocious puberty would still be on a puberty blocker at these sorts of ages, unless it was just necessary to return their hormone levels to the normal range.
Nor is there any good reason to think that hormone therapy in adults is that safe; Women and men have different hormonal requirements for good health, we’re different on a cellular level, not just gross anatomy.
An adult man with normal testosterone levels for a woman is a prime candidate for metabolic syndrome, for instance. Women can see similar issues from being treated into having a male hormone profile.
They’ve been in use for decades, their safety and side-effect have been well established.
Nige, amateur expert on so many topics!
Mr. Bumble 2 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
“Nige, amateur expert on so many topics!”
Notice how Nige & Queen condemn anyone with basic knowledge that doesnt conform to the “politically correct” de jure science.
Another Bumble fumble. Knowing whether or not hormone therapy has been in use for decades is hardly an expert opinion.
their safety and side-effect have been well established.
Cite.
Brett acknowledges his error below.
Replying to Nige:
So you’re using Brett as your cite?
Brett’s was the original claim, I’m using the same cite as him.
Not an expert in the slightest. Nonetheless, Brett’s assertion is completely incorrect.
They’ve been in use for decades for treating precocious puberty. Not for deliberately delaying puberty in healthy children.
Which means the side-effects are well understood. Thank you for agreeing.
Prophylactics?? too bad Nige-Bot’s Dad didn’t use one.
edgebot longs for a physical body
You call your wrinkled ass a body?? King Tut looks younger. See, because I’m “Edgebot” I know all, and see all, including that shriveled up slim jim you call a dick.
edgebot’s got the sour grapes.
Nige: “They’ve been in use for decades, their safety and side-effect have been well established.”
E.g., “Furthermore, conflicting results have been published on the long-term effects of GnRHa therapy in patients with CPP.”https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7233750/
And that’s in a longer-standing application with different doses and patient profiles than enabling tranny delusions.
‘Since 1981, GnRHa administration has been the standard treatment for CPP. GnRHa suppress LH and FSH and thereby induce a marked inhibition of gonadal activity. This treatment is generally considered to be safe and well tolerated in children and adolescents. The most commonly reported drug reactions were pain, swelling, and urticaria at the injection site. Most events were mild, and there was no interruption in study procedures from these ADRs. Nevertheless, whatever is the frequency of these side-effects, clinicians using these treatments should be aware of the possibility of significant local and general ADRs that can lead to treatment withdrawal in the most severe cases.’
‘Be aware of rare severe side effects.’ Good advice.
No, nothing he said sounds anything like that.
Sounds just like you though, talking out of your ass about the “safety” of these drugs and procedures.
Gandysadder, you are the least interesting or insightful person here. You’re not even a good troll. At least Penis Unattractiveman turns a phrase or two. Joe_badplace knows just enough logic to be dangerous. BonkersCharlieDafty‘s a troll’s troll. Bob does Ohio knows how to rhetorically sideline any conversation by draining it of coherent thought, which can be stunning to witness. But you… you’re just boring.
Now you’re just tediously repeating Gaslightr0’s insults, in quadruplicate. You are both as boring as fuck.
For more than dogs’ and cats’ fertility:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7233750/
Yes, a review of significant adverse reactions will uncover some significant adverse reactions. It may not find they are very common:
Since 1981, GnRHa administration has been the standard treatment for CPP. GnRHa suppress LH and FSH and thereby induce a marked inhibition of gonadal activity. This treatment is generally considered to be safe and well tolerated in children and adolescents. The most commonly reported drug reactions were pain, swelling, and urticaria at the injection site. Most events were mild, and there was no interruption in study procedures from these ADRs. Nevertheless, whatever is the frequency of these side-effects, clinicians using these treatments should be aware of the possibility of significant local and general ADRs that can lead to treatment withdrawal in the most severe cases.
I’m not endorsing everything written in the article, just using it for technical background and admissions against interest. When Big Pharma publishes something you can learn a lot from a critical reading even though, or particularly when, you are aware that it is usually advocacy designed to produce profit. This was my first link to it, posted here for convenience, but I’ve found several other occasions to point to it below (q.v.) to counter nonsense claims.
You haven’t read anything critically in a long time.
You don’t even understand what I said about adverse reaction reviews.
Noting some small adverse reactions is not an admission against interest. Unless you think the pro move is to claim no side effects at all.
I don’t have high hopes about your other links, given now shallowly you engaged with this one.
It’s your quote which is irrelevant and shallow. Do you imagine that the regimen for off-label uses is the same as for others, as here or for cats and dogs?
You do know what disorder CCP is, right? And why GnRHa would be an appropriate treatment for it, right?
Or are you one of those insane people that thinks if a drug is appropriate for treatment in one case, it’s appropriate for treatment of anything at all?
The notion that intermediate scrutiny can’t be applied to something like this seems absolutely baffling to me. Sex (and/or gender, as variously defined) is literally the reason intermediate scrutiny came into being.
The judge didn’t say that intermediate scrutiny can’t be applied. To the contrary, he applied it, holding the state did not overcome its burden.
The judge applied intermediate scrutiny, but he also indicated that the challenged statute would also fail rational basis analysis.
With one exception so far (*), it appears all of the critics of this decision rely on the belief that gender identity is not real; that it is a delusion or a choice, and most perniciously is part of a cult being made on behalf of kids by their parents (grooming). All of that line of reasoning is garbage IMO, and good for the judge for calling it out (even though it is likely the majority view as of now).
(*) The exception was calling into question the safety of puberty blockers given how Norway, Sweden and the UK have restricted their use. That’s a reasonable argument that might justify the law and overcome intermediate scrutiny (I’m not competent to pass judgment).
Josh R 5 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
“With one exception so far (*), it appears all of the critics of this decision rely on the belief that gender identity is not real; that it is a delusion or a choice, and most perniciously is part of a cult being made on behalf of kids by their parents (grooming).”
Josh – its based on a basic understanding of biology which indicates actual transgenderism is highly unlikely to be the “actual reality based illness” , while having all the hallmarks of a mental illness. I have yet to see a single study that the mental illness is biological.
Nor has any “expert” presented such a study.
Well, not necessarily an “illness,” but some studies do indicate a correlation between prenatal hormone exposures and sexual orientation and/or gender identity. Here’s one that looks, at first glance, like a pretty good overview.
Correlation is not Causation
Joe Biden’s from Pennsylvania. Joe Biden’s an Idiot. People from Pennsylvania are Idiots, which is totally untrue.
Some are Sex Criminals like Jerry Sandusky or Stuttering Imbeciles like S-S-S-S-tuttering John Fetterman.
Frank
‘a basic understanding of biology which indicates actual transgenderism is highly unlikely to be the “actual reality based illness’
So a rejection of the actual medically established consensus on the condition. That’s fine. Fuck off out of other people’s health care.
‘I have yet to see a single study that the mental illness is biological.’
It’s not a mental illness.
Nige – its a mental illness
Tell us again where you developed the expertise to opine on basic biology
I don’t have to opine on anything. That it is not classed as a mental illness is a simple fact.
Is the DSM ever wrong about classifications?
Irrelevant. Such a standard of skepticism would have to apply to all classifications, not the individual focus of your obsession.
I suppose that signing over your brain is no sacrifice when you don’t have much of one.
Medical School. I’ve even testified in Court as an “Expert Witness”
edgebot wants to be the subject of a Volokh ‘AI in Court’ entry.
So what happened biologically in 1973 to get Homosexuality taken off the DSM’s list of mental health conditions??
This “it is real” claim is a nonsensical word game. The delusion is a real delusion, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is absolutely a delusion. A guy on hormones or with his dick cut off is a guy on hormones or with his dick cut off, not a woman.
Dude, we all know your opinions. Saying everyone who doesn’t agree with you is totes wrong over and over is boring as fuck.
Captain Tone Police! Everyone better watch your tone, there’s a four alarm tone fire going on and Sacastr0 is just the Federal Angel to put it out!
Yes, this is not the thread for factual nuance or legal arguments.
We never get that from you on any thread, gaslightr0.
Still being boring as fuck.
You think saying “this is not the thread for factual nuance or legal arguments” is entertaining? Or is a factual nuance or legal argument? Why?
I think it’s an observation about the thread people can talk to, or seek to disprove with their posts.
It’s a far sight better than your empty insult, or your repeated unsupported restatement of right-wing conventional wisdom.
I know posting like that is easy on the brain, but it is, as I said, boring as fuck. You came off of my troll rotation, and I am disappoint.
If you think THAT comes off as containing “factual nuance or legal argument” you are delusional. It’s just more empty whining.
I would guess you find lots of people delusional.
You think THAT “guess” is “factual nuance or legal argument”?
On the repeated evidence those are two things you are completely incapable of.
Quite the whiplash from “PARENTAL RIGHTS!” to “PARENTAL RIGHTS — but only so long as the parents in question agree with Ron DeSantis’s entertainment choices, and only so long as the parents consult Ron DeSantis rather than, you know, their DOCTOR, regarding their kids’ medical care.”
The way it works is that you pick a quack whose income comes from cutting off dicks and, wow, surprise, he’s all in favor of cutting off dicks.
You sing the opposite tune for compassionate conversion therapy.
“basic understanding of biology” is a tell.
Sometimes, what you learned like 4 decades ago in middle school isn’t right, or doesn’t address some edge cases.
Sometimes, biology gets advanced. Sometimes it gets involved in sociology. Stamping your foot and insisting it’s simple is a sign the science is not what brought you to your conclusion.
“Sometimes it gets involved in sociology.”
Biology is not “sociology” dude.
Would you ever say “Sometimes physics gets involved in sociology.” ?
What new biological advancement are you referring to?
This white, male, right-wing blog seems peculiarly focused on transgender treatment, lesbian, transgender rest room, Muslim, drag queen, transgender sorority drama, and transgender parenting issues . . . mostly what one would expect a socially awkward, rural, disaffected, teenaged incel to find important and fascinating.
Why?
You are such a fucking misanthrope.
Hey, I’m the fucking Misanthrope on this Blog!
You never seen anyone Mis-an-thrope like me!
Frank “Jeez, that fucking cripple from St. Jude again, die already!!!!”
If that is your defense of the Volokh Conspirators’ choice to bait and lather their target audience (intolerant, disaffected, delusional right-wingers) with a constant stream of transgender-Muslim-drag queen-racial slur-lesbian content while conspicuously ignoring important defamation cases and other developments that Republicans prefer to avoid, you are the defender this blog’s white, male, bigot-hugging law professors deserve.
Dammit, Jerry, somebody got on your last hemorrhoidal nerve today.
I am not one who thinks that this area of medical care is off limits to regulation due to a combination of parental rights and equal protection.
And I’m really not an expert on the studies, other than that I’m pretty convinced that gender identity is real. The standard of care stuff gets to an expertise I don’t claim.
But this law is red meat, not policy. It’s overbroad, it’s not tailored to solve any particular issue; it’s performative.
This is a good decision.
If someone less ambitious to court the shittiest among us gets into the legal mix, we might have more of a conversation on our hands.
So basically the spirit of Josef Mengele is alive and well at a systemic level of the US medical system. They are causing irreparable harm to untold numbers of minors, who are not capable of consent, based on the notion that men can be women and so on. Regardless of age/consent, the idea of “do no harm” is out the window as they hack up people’s bodies, for example creating “neovaginas” which are an open wound that you repeatedly shove blunt objects into 6x a day to keep the wound open.
edit: Didn’t mean to post that as a reply.
Hey. Mengele was one of your guys.
Everyone who disagrees with me is literally a Nazi!!!
People who decide that a vulnerable minority are a legitimate target are pretty Nazi-ish, especially if that target is one shared by the Nazis.
You’re confused. Mengele was one of YOUR guys.
Mengele and co murdered trans people and put them in concentration camps.
a Doctor? OK, gonna get a bad Apple every now and then.
So basically the spirit of Josef Mengele is alive and well at a systemic level of the US medical system.
::wank::
When you’re done performing, maybe try making an argument.
Saying that cutting kids dicks off is very Mengele-like IS an argument. And it’s true.
Not surprised you don’t know an argument from empty partisan preening, given your general ‘quantity not quality’ approach to commenting.
That what your ghoul “doctors” are doing is akin to what Mengele did is the proposition. That horrific things are being done to kids incapable of consent in violation of the Nuremberg Principles is the argument as to why that is true.
You don’t seem to know the meaning of “preening”, either.
Doctors are treating a condition that the children have. You guys want it to be ignored, denied, left untreated. You want to perform this massive medical experiment of denying other people health care they need to satisfy your prejudices.
“Catering to a mental illness for fun and profit” is not “treating a condition”.
Lying about trans people and their health care is just lying.
“left untreated”
I want treatment that treats the underlying delusion.
If someone goes to a doctor and says “the Devil is in my left hand, maybe cut it off and I can be saved”, what is the treatment?
The witch doctor says, “No, it’s your dick” and cuts that off instead, since that’s covered as “gender affirming treatment” in his victim’s insurance plan. And it’s no problem if the dick is perfectly healthy. Win, win.
Your demented fever-dreams aren’t relevant to the reality of anyone’s health care.
Your entirely unqualified and prejudice-driven beliefs about appropriate health care for a group of people you hate is extremely dangerous to them. Not that you care.
“the medical efendants have explicitly acknowledged…that pushing individuals away from their transgender identity is not a legitimate state interest”
I don’t see why these defendants bothered to litigate the case at all.
Protecting children from abuse is absolutely a legitimate state interest. And minors don’t get to transform their delusions into delusional “identities” until the state is no longer responsible for doing that.
a surgeon who has never performed gender-affirming surgery
If someone hasn’t done something that renders them unqualified (or at least less qualified) to speak on the advisability of it? I guess if you’ve never murdered anyone you’re not in a position to say that it’s a bad thing.
Any proponent of the challenged statute and rules should put up or shut up
Well, that certainly sounds like something one would expect from an unbiased jurist.
IANAL, but something tells me this judgment won’t last long. It takes more to remove a state’s age restriction on a medical procedure — a restriction issued by the state’s own Board of Medicine, no less! — than a defendant who declares that there are some who may disagree with it.
Furthermore, this ruling reads more like a blog post than a legal document. What kind of a judge writes things like this in a legal analysis:
Lordy.
Labotamies, eugenics, scientific racialism. All considered obviously true–real–by the experts. “Gender identity” is poison from the same fruit.
Expertise is bad, claims the professor! I have 3 examples from the past century that prove it!!
I knew the “professor” was conservative when I read “Labotamies.”
Carry on, clingers.
I knew President Barry Hussein was an Affirmative Action Admission when he referred to a Navy Corpse-man,
Illiterate bigots are among my favorite culture war casualties . . . and the Volokh Conspirator’s favorite audience.
The Illiterate Bigots with Torches and Pitchforks aren’t booing you, Coach, they’re chanting “Jerr-ree, Jerr-ree!!!”
For most people I expect it’s like fish being unaware of water, and that it mostly becomes evident in people for whom it is at variance with the norm.
I find it difficult to accept the argument that both gender identity is “a deeply felt internal sense of being male or female” and also that one can be “gender fluid” or one of hundreds of varieties of “aces”, “demis”, or “xenogenders”.
You have difficulty accepting that other people can be different, ok.
The judge has some of the truth.
Gender identity is a real neurological condition, and in a very very small number of people develops in contradiction to the gender of the body. This condition is profoundly uncomfortable for the person (enough to drive one to suicide). The only remedy at this time is surgical and hormonal mutilation to give the person a plausible simulation of the neurological gender. Many observers respond to this with simple-minded denialism, including some advocates of the enjoined law.
(Also, in my personal experience, some otherwise flaming liberals.)
However, it is also true that diagnosis of gender dysphoria has increased many-fold in recent years, and that it seems to have become a fad among physicians, counselors, and even parents who want to be “progressive” and not “reactionary” or “bigoted”.
This has led to “false positive” cases, in which persons wrongly diagnosed as gender dysphoric were irrevocably mutilated. Children have been at particular risk of this, as easily influenced by adults and prone to impulsive decisions (especially teenagers).
The enjoined law addresses this problem. It is proper and appropriate for the legislature to do so. The notion that the judgements of “experts” should be immune to any oversight or correction by the people, acting through their elected representatives, is a call for technocratic dictatorship.
If overdiagnosis were the problem, then a) they should have made that case at trial, b) they should have made that case when passing the law, and c) they should have passed a law tailored to that problem.
The law is tailored to it — it applies only to children. Once someone is an adult, they presumably have the maturity to make a decision, and to understand the risks of a wrong decision.
The law is tailored to it — it applies only to children
While the case only addresses that part of the law, the statute itself is broader, and includes obstacles to adults getting care as well.
Why should the accurately-diagnosed children have to suffer because some doctors are overdiagnosing? One way to solve overdiagnosis is to make the malpractice liability more costly, for example. There are solutions short of an outright ban.
There are no boys who are “accurately diagnosed” to be girls.
Let’s assume that it is a real neurological condition, and the only way to “remedy” it is to mutilate the body. Why does society have to allow that?
If a person feels like they aren’t going to feel right with two arms, do we have to let them cut one off? Why does society have to humor the mentally ill, whether they have a “real” condition or not?
Circumcision is not at all comparable to this. It has a track record of thousands of years, and millions of circumcised men who have done well and thrived in every field of life.
That’s an overtuned argument. Circumcision’s is okay because we should have an exception for procedures exactly like circumcision.
For harmless procedures with a minor medical benefit?
As opposed to permanent maiming and crippling procedures?
Yes, they should be treated differently.
Trans people tend to be overwhelmingly satisfied with their procedures too, but apparently trans people’s opinions don’t belong in this debate.
Just because you’re satisified with your Add-a-dick
-to-me doesn’t mean everyone is.
edgebot thinks its feelings are relevant to anyone else
Bullshit. “Gender reassignment” surgery is neither safe nor is it efficacious at, e.g., turning a boy into a girl.
No, that wasn’t my argument. My argument is that mutilation resulting from a mentally ill person’s sick desires should not be humored by society.
“Gender affirming” abuse is neither safe nor effective.
Circumcision is minor surgery, almost always harmless, and often a matter of religious freedom. Try again.
“Circumcision gets a pass because of childish superstition, ‘it’s been around a long time,’ and it doesn’t own the libs?”
Dumb Artie writes sentences that don’t even parse.
Yeah, you would be the type unable to distinguish between your dick and your arm.
People function well in most activities with only one arm. Not so long ago there was a good MLB pitcher who had a long a career with only a partial arm.
Yeah, that’s the ticket to The Show. Get an arm cut off.
Being born with one arm and making the best of it is not the same as choosing to have a healthy arm removed.
Sarcasto said that hoppy’s arm comparison was invalid. I just pointed out that an arm is less important to day to day male function than an amputated penis.
No-one’s going to chop your penis off Bob.
Nothing to see here, just performing my day to day male functions like a normal male human!
You are not even half-normal.
OK, Jim Abbott did have a 10 year MLB career, longer than average, but not sure I’d call it “long”
career Won-Loss record of 87–108 with an ERA of 4.25
and he was born without a Right Hand, so didn’t really have a choice unless he was going to pitch with his foot.
Frank
Who is this “society” and “we” you speak of?
If I decide I have too many arms and want to have one cut off, it is my business and the business of those I ask or contract with to assist me in cutting it off. It’s certainly not your business, or “society’s” unless I demand that you e.g. pay for it or accommodate my self-imposed disability in some involuntary way.
“It’s certainly not your business, or “society’s” unless I demand that you e.g. pay for it or accommodate my self-imposed disability in some involuntary way.”
Like prisons and the armed services paying for gender reassignment and the lifetime of drugs it requires?
The law recognizes the existence of insanity.
Dude, we all know your opinions. Saying everyone who doesn’t agree with you is totes wrong over and over is boring as fuck.
Says the guy who has posted this boring as fuck whine about a half dozen times in response to my REPLIES to repetitive bullshit.
You and your pals don’t have a right to post without appropriate response. Buy a clue.
If trans were not asking us to pay for their illness, and were not demanding that they be covered by public accommodation laws, then you’d have a point. But they are, so you don’t.
Thank you, you said it better than I would have. The problem here is that the “cure” is permanent and nearly irreversible. The state has interest in preventing such radical procedures when it’s not clear that it is needed, and when real damage will be done if it was not.
This is at odds with the actual experiences of trans people, whose health and well being are being held hostage to a scare-induced squeamishness in people who have no business in determining other people’s health care.
‘However, it is also true that diagnosis of gender dysphoria has increased many-fold in recent years, and that it seems to have become a fad among physicians, counselors, and even parents who want to be “progressive” and not “reactionary” or “bigoted”.’
There is no evidence for this at all. The treatment process involves batteries of tests, assessments, evaluations and therapy sessions. Waiting times are lengthy, facilities where treatment is available not all that common.
What about the diagnosis process, which is what he was talking about
Most people who present at gender clinics for assessment do not get diagnosed as dysphoric.
From this judge’s Wiki page:
“In 1999, Hinkle issued a ruling in Pemberton v. Tallahassee Memorial Regional Center that denied damages as claimed by the defendant upon whom the state forced a surgical procedure during labor.
On August 21, 2014, Hinkle issued a ruling in Brenner v. Scott that denied the state defendants’ motion to dismiss and granted the same-sex couple plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. In ordering the injunction, Judge Hinkle found that Florida’s statutory and constitutional bans on same-sex marriage were federally unconstitutional.[3][4]
Hinkle heard the case Jones et al v. DeSantis which concerned a Florida law, SB 7066, which “required felons to pay legal fees as part of their sentences before regaining the vote”.[5] On May 24, 2020, he ruled that the law was “unconstitutional for those unable to pay, or unable to find out how much they owe”.[5] Hinkle’s decision was overturned and the requirement found constitutional by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.[6]
In June 2021, Judge Hinkle preliminarily enjoined a Senate Bill 7072,[7] which levies fines and imposes additional penalties against social media platforms that blocked or otherwise inhibited content from political candidates and media organizations.”
Looks like he’s a garden variety, Klinton appointed homosexual apologist moonbat.
It’s truly Satanic inversion where they claim you have a right to have affirming care if you want to be a different gender, but have no right if you want a different sexual orientation to get affirming care.
When in reality, no human has ever changed their sex while countless humans have changed their sexual orientation.
“while countless humans have changed their sexual orientation.”
Not a shred of evidence that anyone has changed their sexual orientation through “conversion” or “reparative therapy.”
People can make choices to affirm or not affirm or act on an identity and for vast periods of time before our era folks have been “sublimating” their sexual desires in favor of chastity/celibacy or whatever.
There is zero evidence that we’ve figured out i. what causes same sex attraction and can ii. “repair and replace” it with a full opposite sex attraction.
Most people who experience same sex attraction (which is, despite Kinsey’s flawed data well into the double digits percentages of any given population) are not exclusively homosexual in their orientation. But folks who DO have an exclusive homosexual orientation DO exist (slightly less than two percent of the population) and, as it stands cannot be “converted” to having a heterosexual orientation.
It doesn’t work.
‘changed their sexual orientation through “conversion” or “reparative therapy.”’
Of course that’s what he was on about. It’s bad to abuse kids unless they’re lgtbq, in which case torture them all you want, apparently.
It may be a bad law but this opinion is practically begging to be overturned. The judge didn’t even attempt to mask the bias. Conclusory statements and value judgements are appropriate for legislatures, not for the judicial branch.
Don’t like the result? Elect better legislators.
Activist judges like this should be tried for treason.
Treason?? How has Judge Hinkle levied war against the United States or given aid and comfort to its enemies? Please be specific.
Oh yeah, so you’re treating Treason like it’s an actual crime defined in the Constitution.
Yes, he has. Leftists are America’s enemies, so a judge doing the dirty work of the left is giving aid and comfort to America’s enemies.
Is that as true as everything else you have said, hoppy025?
Have you been reading the opinions in the VC these days? On guns, or by Judge Ho, or plenty of others.
This tone is well within the judicial norm.
And it’s applying the law to the facts, not making new policy.
That isn’t to say it’s right, or that it won’t be legitimately overturned by a higher court. But it’s not crazytown in substance, only in that it’s a subject the right is spun up about.
The district court did not enjoin enforcement of the challenged law altogether, but only as to the party Plaintiffs and their children.
Prof. Volokh certainly whipped up quite a transgender-hating lather among his collection of bigoted right-wing fans today.
Just as he intended.
You put things like this together with the stream of vile racial slurs, and some people could get the wrong idea about Prof. Volokh and his movement conservative blog . . .
You sound vaxxed and boosted, lol
Which is worse . . . vaxxed and boosted, or a conservative bigot?
Why do so many critics of Judge Hinkle´s decision invoke the red herring of gender reassignment surgeries (which are almost never practiced upon minors)? The lawsuit does not involve that at all.
How many of these critics have actually read the opinion?
Anyone who can only think of one way to spell a word obviously lacks imagination. I’d tell you who originally said that, but then I’d have to kill you (it’s a joke! and “Top Gun” reference, yeah, right, the “Reverend”‘s never watched “Top Gun”)
“Standard English” like Senescent Joe speaks?? S-S-S-S-S-tuttering John F-F-F-F-etterman?? Sorry Jerry, we’re not a bunch of your freshman at Penn State.
Frank “I after C except before V? what a stupid rule”
Trying to put things into perspective here in terms of “order” of concern.
1. Most obviously is the “bottom surgery” (for MTF). I’d like to get some data as to how many minors who have a “trans” identity actually get this. I suspect it’s not that many. I think the “bottom surgery” can wait until someone is 18.
2. Puberty blockers. Yeah this does worry me.
3. Hormones. I have zero problem with this. Plenty of non-trans folks use these, including many male athletes to gain competitive advantage or cosmetic effect.
Back in my day when I was a minor (80s and 90s) I remember high school athletes getting their hands on steroids or T or related products.
Ask Lyle Alzado how safe anabolic steroids are (I know, he died before AlGore invented the Internets, so he didn’t exist)
I totally agree that in excessive doses roids probably cause health problems, which is why the issue needs to be studied more. I think in the case of male athletes it’s likelier to cause heart problems than cancer; men who are already at the top percentiles of physical strength take insane amounts of it to gain the competitive edge; they end up with “gorilla suits” for bodies; I don’t think it’s comparable to MTF transwomen taking estrogen though.
Likewise for aging men to take smaller amounts of T or steroids to get their testosterone levels back to what they were when they were young men has arguable health benefits.
We could always study men with prostate cancer who take estrogen to see if giving biological males has any negative health effects.
I’m not aware of any.
Well, you’re not a doctor, just like how I wouldn’t recognize a Writ of Man-Damn-Us if it slapped me in the face. It used to be taught that Estrogen lowered the incidence of Coronary Artery Disease and was why women had fewer heart problems than men, up through the 90’s many women were prescribed Estrogen for that fact alone, than it turned out not only did Estrogen not help, it increased the risk, but here’s some of the bad effects of Estrogen in Men
Loss of muscle mass
Increased body fat
Loss of sex drive
Erectile dysfunction
Bone thinning, which can lead to broken bones
Hot flashes
Decreased body hair, smaller genitalia and growth of breast tissue
Fatigue
Sounds great doesn’t it, so while you’re sitting around recovering from your Osteoporosis related Fracture, all hot and bothered, tired, you can’t even jerk off.
Frank
Like you said, you aren’t a Dr. And you are cherry picking your evidence. It’s certainly possible that the long term effects of estrogen on biological *may* have negative effects. But there are plenty of non-op transwoman who can be studied.
Not that I suggest people watch trans porn, but I think a lot of those actors (who look quite healthy and are quite “sexually functional”) would be interesting patients to volunteer for such studies.
I am a Doctor actually, and it’s not Cherry picking to point out the Adverse effects of Estrogen, which is why it’s not prescribed routinely for Menopausal Bee-otches anymore.
Good luck with the trans-porn
Frank
I probably know more trans people than the average American, simply because I’m the parent of a trans daughter who tends to associate with other trans/non-binary people.
So far as I can tell, VERY few of them get “bottom surgery,” most who do are well into adulthood, and none of them are minors.
Of course, things may be changing in terms of speed/ease of “diagnosis” and “treatment” (scare quotes because I think there’s a degree to which there’s a fad, with its own dangers, even assuming real conditions/needs in some cases). Our daughter “came out” to us when she was 16 (we had kind of expected “gay” from the time she was very young; she just always looked and acted “girlish,” but “trans” wasn’t really on the public radar much at the time), and was an adult by the time she’d been through the various medical/psych screenings that preceded hormones, etc. She’s in her late 20s now and my impression (it’s not something we’ve discussed in detail) is that she has no interest in getting the ol’ tallywhacker removed.
“Trans Daughter”
I guess thats better than calling him a “Sissy-Boy”
Frank “my real female daughters can beat up your fake female daughter”
Tom “my real trans daughter knows how to defend herself and owns more guns than I do, so your unfortunate offspring might want to think twice before acting on the kind of impulses which seem to drive you”
And the fact the Nashville Tranny Murderer (Manifesto, Manifesto, where’s the Manifesto) was on Supra-Physiologic doses of Testosterone had absolutely nothing to do with her actions, you know, normal women shoot children like rats all the time.
Frank
Frank: When it comes to people with “mental illnesses” of the schizoaffective disorders, biological men who suffer from such are far likelier to hurt strangers. Biological females are likelier to hurt themselves or their kids. It stands to reason that a biological female who commits a mass murder that’s typically associated with biological males would have a biochemical component to the outcome.
Taking the “culture war” issues out of the equation, men who are high T or who take roids are going to be more aggressive and hence potentially dangerous.
I am not trained in mental health diagnosis and treatment, so I am not qualified to say, but is a consuming fixation on other people´s genitalia a mental illness?
Perhaps it should be called pecker checker syndrome? This blog seems to attract the type.
I think the interest in other people’s peckers has to do with whether the peckers are waved about in public or not, stuck into the unpeckered without invitation, or chopped off peckered children. So pecker concern is largely about :
1. whether it is a good thing for peckers to be chopped off minors, or left until they’re adults (and so mutatis mutandis for other chopping, and drugs that have permanent effects.) ie whether irreversible chopping/drugging should be left till adulthood. I accept that this is a little on the nosey / interfering side and is probably also accompanied by noseyness / interferingness about pimping out your progeny as child hookers. If the child is OK with it, and the parents too, is it for anyone else to interfere ? I recall that there was a small fadlet a while back wherein a small fraction of deaf parents wanted to have their children’s hearing destroyed by surgery, because being deaf was such a boon. I’m guessing that the weirdos who thought this was not a good idea are amongst the folk concerned about early pecker (or breast) chopping.
2. Then there’s the extraordinary spectacle of parents caring whether peckers are on display in the girlls bathrooms and changing rooms, and whether peckered-folk are able to survey the charms of girls and women in sports changing rooms without going to the trouble of drilling holes in the wall, Porky’s style. Fascists all, not doubt.
3. And then there’s the business of peckered inmates raping unpeckered inmates in prison. One might reasonably take the view that once you’ve been incarcerated, who cares what happens to you. But some weirdos still have a problem with this sort of thing.
The court addressed that at pages 38-39 of the opinion: ¨That the FDA has not approved these drugs for treatment of gender dysphoria says precisely nothing about whether the drugs are safe and effective when used for that purpose. Off-label use of drugs is commonplace and widely accepted across the medical profession. The defendants’ contrary implication is divorced from reality.¨
In other words, the judge thinks her medical opinion supersedes that of the FDA.
Yes, use of drugs off-label is fairly commonplace, but not to this extent, and NOT for elective purposes on children who are otherwise healthy!
Her medical opinion? Where do you get the idea that Judge Robert Hinkle is female?
Same way Dr. Richard Levine claims to be one.
It is bizarre. For awhile I was confused if these were quotes from the judge, or quotes from the plaintiffs.
The judge applied intermediate scrutiny. The burden of justifying the challenged statute is accordingly on the government. IOW, ¨put up or shut up.¨
Five hundred comments!
Prof. Volokh certainly knows his audience (of old-timey bigots), and how to lather those right-wing rubes into a frenzy reminiscent of the Salem witch trials.
Carry on, clingers. But be careful. If you keep this up, it might be enough to persuade former Pres. Obama to accept a vice presidential nomination — and it is not entirely clear Donald Trump and Brett Bellmore will find that Kenyan birth certificate in time!
well a 1/2 black male would be preferable to the 1/2 black bee-otch Common-Law Harris.
Out of which you have 15, currently.
Robert Hinkle and his henchman in the North Florida circuit, are not judges, but political activists. With both of them, you don’t get an opinion but a sermon about how evil and bigoted Republicans are. When the 11th Circuit CA overturned Mark Walker’s ruling on Florida’s voting law, it all but accused him of judicial misconduct for his opinion; after Hinkle overturned Florida’s ban on gay marriage, he tried to order the legislature to expunge the statutory language. The legislature–to its credit–told him to go fuck himself. I don’t know the 11th Circuit CA will do on the appeal when Hinkle strikes down the overall law, but I hope the panel includes William Pryor. An appellate decision overturning Hinkle, combined with the 8th circuit decision out of Arkansas, would force the Supremes to take this case, with Barrett replacing Ginsburg, and Kavanaugh replacing Kennedy.
Nothing ¨force[s]¨ to take any case. Even in a case of exclusive original jurisdiction, leave of court to file the initial pleading is required.
Not all all, but everything has limits.
We don’t let 12 year olds drive on a public road even if the parent agrees.
If the mother thinks she actually gave birth to the adopted child, it would be.
“I don’t remember ”
Maybe its early onset dementia?
What a remarkably stupid comment, even for you. You really want all the subtleties and nuances in a blog post?
As a general rule, parents are responsible for their children and determine their education and other important (and not so important) decisions. Like any general rule, it is not absolute, and when there are compelling circumstances, the state has the right to step in when the decision is abusive.
And spare me the collective “conservatives said it.” There are million of “conservatives,” and like any large group, there are always outliers who say silly things, or say things in a way that can be misconstrued.
Feel better?
“Sometimes sociology does modify biology. ”
No it does not. They are legal siblings only, not their biological ones. Nobody [with knowledge] confuses the two things.
“Sociology modifies biology.”
Treating them the “same” does not convert them into biological relations. Never.
Of course they aren’t recognized as such by the law.
“Most people with adopted siblings or children treat them as their siblings in the same way they would biological siblings or children. Sociology modifies biology.”
This is idiocy. The biology of the situation has not been “modified” at all.
Similarly with a guy who takes hormone treatments and/or cuts off his dick. The biology of the situation has not been “modified” at all. He’s still a guy, just a mutilated or damaged one.
“analogous to most everything going on with trans people”
No its not. Many, many on the left are saying that a man can literally become a woman when that can never happen, not ever.
Which “experts”? Experts like those who appear and are recognized by a court (for opposing sides) who give opposite opinions on the same matter?
AQ clarified below. As for me, I said ‘get involved.’
The info flow is both ways – behavior has a social and a biological component, and each informs our understanding of the other.
Nature and nurture; as we get better fidelity, nurture can have some biological observables associated with it.
But also, science is done by humans, who have psychologies and societies.
Hey, I keep it simple, like Hemingway,
Subject, Verb, Adjective, Ejaculate…
Hey, I’ll read Heminway my way, you read it your way,
Frank
“Hey Richie, long time no see”
“Yeah. By the way I go by Richard now.”
“It’s really nice to see you, Richie”
“It’s Richard”
“OK, but to me you’ll always be Richie”
“It was Richie when you used to bully me as a kid. Call me Richard now”
“I’m still always going to think of you as Richie”
“OK, got it. I’m Richard, and you’re a dick.”
You can ask me all you want to treat a guy (with or without mangled parts) as a girl, but he’s not and I won’t. Unlike Lefty, truth is important to me.
And, no, there is no science saying he’s a girl.
Queenie: “So you’d refuse to refer to the biological and adopted children of people as siblings, because unlike Lefty truth is important to you?”
The “So [followed by nonsense]” formulation is quite tedious. Try harder to limit “So…” to things that actually follow from something I’ve said.
Actually, the word “sibling” is IMHO broad enough to include both biological and adopted brothers and sisters. This is not remotely akin to the word “girls” which CAN’T, when used seriously, include boys.
You’re not going to score any points trying to compare circumcision to sterilization. Ask any guy who’s had the procedure.
It’s a mental illness
Huge claims it’s not a mental illness yet he fails to note that all those studies he cites are in psychology publications
Why would they be in psychology publications If it’s not a mental mental illness?
Nige please explain
I’m not sure were capable of producing experts on this topic, because schools are indoctrinating students instead of engaging in scholarship. For example:
This is the key point. Conservatives’ fundamental emotion is fear. Fear of others, fear of change, fear of the unknown, fear of the unusual. (Liberals’ fundamental emotion is hope.)
A changing society that accepts unusual people with an unfamiliar condition is like the scariest possible thing to a conservative.
Stop the bumfumbling! Adopted siblings are absolutely treated as siblings by the law. What are you even talking about?
It’s okay that Brett’s spinning bullshit, because there are no experts. TiP knows this because of one FOX News anecdote.
You love to weave narratives out of single anecdotes an unhealthy amount.
You think psychology publications only talk about mental illnesses?!
I don’t usually call people on here stupid. You’re stupid.
Being mentioned in psychology publications is not a clinical standard for the classification of mental illnesses.
Actually, “your ‘experts’ are cranks” coincides precisely with the reasons for the ban on these abusive procedures in saner countries.
The world would be much improved if this crank judge did that.
Better late than never.
You are correct. I got lost in and misread the thread above.
Nobody other than an asshole would feel the need to make the distinction. That’s the social aspect.
Not sure why people keep mentioning sterilisation. Trans men can and do get pregnant.
I don’t ascribe your problems with reality to that either. Are you on drugs?
Notice how queen lacks the basic education to understand basic biological facts.
Not if they have had a phalloplasty or other “bottom” surgery.
because “Trans men” are women, Duh.
Nige the idiot: “Not sure why people keep mentioning sterilisation. Trans men can and do get pregnant.”
There are no “trans men”.
And we are of course talking about procedures that in many cases do cause sterility, as you know perfectly well.
Not that I want any of these freaks to spawn.
Sacastro – Nige continue to makes the claim that transgender is biological – not a mental illness – but fails to recognize contradiction of all the support for gender affirming treatment is in psychology publications .
I would have thought you had better critical thinking skills
and look how he ended up.
I told the Doctor to keep the tip…
get it??? “Keep the tip”????
Frank “Take my Foreskin, please!”
Was your experience what turned you into a nut?
Conservatives are a large group, but who cares when their political representatives are the ones targeting a group for oppression by denying them access to health care they need and smearing them as groomers and abusers to the shouts and cheers of many of their supporters while any of them who object remain conspicuously silent?
All illnesses are biological. An illness seperate from a physical biological body is something out of a David Cronenberg film.
Psychology is phenomenological/descriptive, and so separated from biological research as currently practiced, but Nige doesn’t appear to be referring to the research discipline narrowly.
If if if. They don’t all undergo the same procedures.
edgebot likes slogan
A suicide? Guess fame isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.
A suicide? I guess accomplishment and fame aren’t all they’re cracked up to be.
Happy?
^^^^ Three “experts” on “conservatism” in a circle jerk.
There’s no need for anyone to take social cues from a lying asshole child abuse enabler like you.
Do you think it’s possible that the current understanding could be equally biased, just in a different direction?
so “Nothing” Biologically happened,
that was simple.
Frank
No human has changed their gender either. So what.
gender jĕn′dər noun
A grammatical category, often designated as male, female, or neuter, used in the classification of nouns, pronouns, adjectives, and, in some languages, verbs that may be arbitrary or based on characteristics such as sex or animacy and that determines agreement with or selection of modifiers, referents, or grammatical forms.The fact of being classified as belonging to such a category.Either of the two divisions, designated female and male, by which most organisms are classified on the basis of their reproductive organs and functions; sex.
Gender and sex are two sides of the same coin.
If you want to regard your adopted brother as your “brother” the word is flexible enough that no one will care, though you might get some quizzical looks if you’re a bad match. But if you insist he’s your sister you’re just lying.
Yeah, we did. And as a reply “Mengele was one of your guys” is a turd talking.
You guys expect a treatise every comment. From others.
Puberty blockers also have a fertility effect.
“Use of GnRH analogues might also have long-term effects on:
Growth spurts
Bone growth and density
Future fertility — depending on when pubertal blockers are started” Mayo Clinic
No it hasn’t. Peoples beliefs about their gender has changed. But not their actual gender.
No, surface appearances are changed. Man puts on a dress, grows his hair and puts on some some makeup is not suddenly a woman, just sorta looks like one.
“they are assigned a sex”
This is your initial error, the sex is merely observed and noted. The doctor doesn’t ever, for instance, say a baby with a penis is a girl.
By any reasonable definition of the word, no one is assigned a name or a sex. (At least not yet).
When these people simply want to change their outward appearance to make themselves feel better, does anyone else have to do anything differently, or do different rules and society expectations have to change? Or is it just a private matter for an adult with no impact on anyone else?
“Assigned a sex”.
Are the doctors flipping coins immediately post delivery to determine this? Does the doctor come in to deliver the baby knowing its pre-assigned sex (and I think you mean “gender”)?
When you use language like that it suggests a desire to be disingenuous.
And only the most extreme of the most extreme think nobody should be allowed to do this ever. The issues are at what age are they mature enough to make that decision. To say there shouldn’t be an age restriction is an extreme position relative to how we’ve always treated children in any item ever.
Nah, got the same exact personality I did at age 7 or 8, still laugh my off at the Zapruder Film, I mean 3 Stooges shorts.
Because in Court you don’t write, you talk, and I talk good Engrish.
And it was a malpractice case where the patient claimed the Anesthesiologist (not me, honest) poisoned him with Cyanide, because since they checked Cyanide levels, he must have been poisoned, when it was the Sodium Nitroprusside, which saved his worthless life, One molecule of sodium nitroprusside is metabolized by combination with hemoglobin to produce one molecule of cyanmethemoglobin and four CN¯ ions, thiosulfate reacts with cyanide to produce thiocyanate, thiocyanate is eliminated in the urine.
Hence, why they checked “Cyanide” levels.
Frank “I don’t swear but I know all the words”
Yeah, thinking that being too short due to correctable medical issues is JUST LIKE thinking you can be a girl when you’re actually a boy.
Short kids aren’t crazy to think that that can be, to a degree, fixed. Girls can’t be “fixed” and become boys and if they imagine otherwise they’re wrong. The difference is obvious.
Dude, we all know your opinions. Saying everyone who doesn’t agree with you is totes wrong over and over is boring as fuck.
Or like with Dr. Richard/Rachel Levine, doesn’t.
‘surface appearances are changed’
To correct inner dysphoria. That’s the whole point.
While I have declared patients dead (as a goof I once told this Indian (Joe Biden 7-11 type) Intern you had to say “Under the power vested in me, I declare you Dead!!!” until he started doing it and people asked him WTF he was doing.
I’ve never “Assigned a Sex” Umm, “OK kid, I know your name is Kevin and you’ve got a dick, but the male nursery is full, so “Whammo!!!!!!!” (HT (Dr.) Bill Cosby) you’re a Girl!!!!!”
you just look, it’s not that hard.
Frank
“This is your initial error, the sex is merely observed and noted. The doctor doesn’t ever, for instance, say a baby with a penis is a girl.”
Unless the doctor “observes” more closely and “notes” that the baby is one of the one in 20,000 or so penis-sporting infants with two XX chromosomes (de la Chapelle syndrome), in which case the doctor just might say the baby is a girl.
Well it’s difficult to diagnose or identify babies who are or will go on to be dysphoric, to be fair.
As if you didn’t think SCOTUS makes shitty decisions.
You love Bruen, right?
The difference I that I am right about the Prog-Kennedy (but I repeat myself) atrocity, and you are invariably wrong.
Yes, we are.
He’s just a cosplayer. No hormones, no “bottom” surgery.
Saw a career path and took it.
Their policies in this area are saner. That they are still too warped to truthfully describe their reasons for what they’re doing doesn’t make them as crazy as this judge. They don’t have to be paragons of sanity or policy to beat out our home-grown loons.
Yes, I really believe that up is up and down is down and I am uninterested in putting obvious truths to a vote. The world is round even if you vote that it is flat.
The creep is causing serious damage to children.
Wanting him to stop is not “psychopathology”.
That would be you.
You’re boring as fuck, even if Gaslightr0 says it’s me.
No it was just Gaslightstr0, Randal and you, Queenie.
She wouldn’t be caught dead in the men’s toilets.
No, WE don’t.
Good to know, but you replied to me when I hadn’t asked you the question.
Your reading incomprehension is right up there with your understanding of gender.
You seem quite stuck on this “real sibling” thing. Were you adopted at the pound?
I didn’t say anything about conservativism in my comment.
You’re just sad you didn’t get to do your boring barely read just contradict thing this time.
Because ML was right — cutting up children was precisely up Mengele’s alley, even if he did tend to concentrate on twins. Whereas bernard’s claim was baseless. Things which are different are not the same.
Not just concerns. Norwegian concerns.
Posting this same whine about getting replied to is even more boring as fuck the sixth time you do it.
Queenie did and Randal did in response to what you wrote and my knowledge of what you say isn’t limited to this one comment. You are known by the company you keep and tolerate and those who keep you as company. Calling what you three are doing as circle jerking seems entirely warranted. It’s not like you are disavowing their nonsense.
Ah, I will admit your posts get less boring as the night wears on… and you get drunker and drunker.
I can almost hear you slurring your words in this rambling rejoinder.
And neither is wanting him to be stopped.
Queenie: “It’s natural you ellipsed(sic) accomplished.”
Who “ellipsed” depressive alcoholic who blew his brains out with a shotgun?
You “hear” all sorts of things, but I don’t drink and never have. The delirium tremens you are experiencing is a solo act.
Facts don’t care about your feelings.
Yeah, but, again, so what? Their choices about their future fertility are none of your business.
Of course there are trans men. You hate that they exist because you’re weird, but there’s not much we can do about that except try to persuade you to behave like a civilised human being when out in public.
Some cause sterility, some don’t, some only have a chance of causing sterility. It ain’t your business.
The doc in question would be making a pretty fundamental error then. de la Chapelle is an abnormality affecting exclusively males, usually resulting from the SRY gene getting flipped to an X chromosome during meiosis.
A more likely mistake is to misidentify a boy as a girl, if the boy has undescended testes. And if he also has a very small penis.
A penis, a uterus, a hairy chest, sexual attraction towards males, a “male” brain, a wide and open pelvis etc are all secondary sexually differentiated characteristics that are consequences of the primary sex characteristic that has already been determined by gonadal sex differentiation.
The genotype is responsible, in large part, for the differentiation of the gonads (and plays a role in secondary differentiation too.)
But neither karotype / genotype nor secondary sexual characteristics are anything other than fairlly reliable proxies for sex. The thing itself is definitively identified from the gonads. Which is why undescended gonads are the sort of thing that can fool the doc.
In any event, as Bob says, there’s no “assignment” about it. It’s an observation and an identification. Which is usually correct and occasionally incorrect. But the error, when it happens, does not consist in the possibility that the child might develop gender dysphoria at some later date, and might profess a gender identity opposite to its actual sex. The error derives from a wrong identification from secondary sex characteristics, ie proxies, and the error is discovered as and when the gonad type is discovered to be different from the sex recorded at birth.
Getting outraged because people with gender dysphoria have a specific word to distinguish their inner and outer sense of their sex/gender is just utter pointelss whining, the sort of picky pernicious cavilling that goes with a desire to dismiss their existence completely.
You’re woefully behind the times in your understanding of gender ideology. For aficionados, gender identity is by no means something possessed by the gender dysphoric alone. That would imply that it’s some kind of abnormality.
Instead it is insisted that everyone has a gender identity – ie those “cisgender” folk who insist that they don’t have a gender identity, they just have a sex which is immediately apparent to them simply by looking down when in the shower – they’re just wrong. They don’t realise they have a gender identity, but they do. Everyone does.
This makes a delicious clash with another central dogma of gender ideology – that gender identity is a purely subjective quality. No amount of objective analysis can gainsay an individual’s professed gender identity. Except in the case of the vast majority of the population who say they don’t have a gender identity, but just a sex.