I think it’s interesting that the judge would frame all witnesses as opposing child medicalization for religious reasons when those of us who are fighting tooth and nail to save our children can only think of the horrific side effects these treatments cause. There’s nothing religious about that. It’s pure parental instinct to protect a child from physical harm. It’s ironic that Moody uses religion to swat the state’s witnesses since it is gender ideology that is the religion(belief system). And, it’s being taught as fact to a whole generation of children in public schools-violating the establishment clause of the constitution. I hope someone brings that case soon
(John/Jane schoolchild vs. US dept of education) Those of us opposed to the ideology need to be the plaintiffs.
This is a really interesting analysis of Brandt, and a devastating indictment of the approach taken by the trial judge. Hope you are correct on the likely attitude to it on appeal.
It is unfortunate that the Swedish study, statistically significant and based on death records, wasn't cited by the witnesses for Arkansas. I learned from Dr. Stephen B. Levine's Florida testimony that this study (Cecelia Dhejne, et al, Karolinska Inst. 2011) that these "trans" -friendly researchers hid the alarmingly high rate of death by suicide in natal women in the years after their sex trait modification surgeries. These women (surgeries 1973-2003), died prior to 2011, so some were rather young, were 40 TIMES more likely than age-matched Swedes (control cohort) who had also passed away. The natal females' data was combined with the 13 TIMES more likely death by suicide by post op natal males. So the combined data was that post op subjects were 19 TIMES more likely than controls to die by their own hands.
For any analysis of the Danish study (Dr. Dorte Glintborg, et al, European Journal of Endocrinology, Aug. 2022) in which natal males were found to have a 93% higher risk of life threatening blood clots, strokes, pulmonary embolism, high blood pressure, increased heart rate and heart attacks as compared to age-matched control subjects not taking estrogen. Glintborg initiated the study to figure out which type of estrogen delivery is better for men who ideate a female persona. She is an "affirming" practitioner. Natal females on T were a mere 63% more likely to have the same deadly cardiovascular disease than age-matched controls, natal females not on T. This was also a statistically significant study, with 2,671 "trans" subjects on wrong sex hormones and 5 same sex, 5 opposite sex age-matched controls' health records examined for comparison. This computes to 26,700 control health records examined. For my analysis, including responses to idiotic Reddit comments and a link to the published summary:
Excellent insights, Lisa. Many judges have shown the arrogance of their ignorance as they adjudicate decisions well outside their areas of understanding and competence. This ruling will be overturned.
Trans activists certainly don't shy from making personal attacks on their opponents, so it's only fitting to call out judge James M. Moody, Jr., for being the privileged nepo baby he is.
There must be something about the water in Arkansas that makes it an incubator for dynasties. Just look at Sarah HUCKABEE Sanders who, like judge James M. Moody, Jr., is following in the footsteps of her powerful daddy, only in the governor's office not the federal bench. Now that Sanders' Lecterngate* scandal is threatening her career, she probably wishes she had Moody Jr.'s lifetime tenure. Let's hope that the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals hands Moody Jr. his own comeuppance in the form of a resounding repudiation of his judicial sleight-of-hand in his ruling on Brandt trial.
Excellent close to an excellent series, UB, thank you so much. I have been waiting with bated breath for your reportage on the Levine testimony and on the Judge--and you definitely didn’t disappoint! I find the judge’s focus on religion very peculiar indeed.
Two questions:
1) on the issue of the handling of religion, if I am understanding this correctly (and please correct me, UB, if I am not), it doesn’t appear that the AK attorneys really stressed this, but rather that the judge made a point of picking it out, which was particulalrly ridiculous in the case of Levine.
2) While there do appear to have been flaws in AK’s approach, so there may be weaknesses in the factual record on appeal, it looks like most of the weakness is in the judge’s determinations, not the factual record on appeal. Is this consistent with your take, UB?
Bottom line: I really appreciate the hard work and thought that went into this series. Thank you!
>this statement from Levine really struck me: “We don’t know what to do and we eventually go along with the patient’s sincere desire to try hormones.” This strikes me as highly problematic as an approach in the practice of medicine—that is, to use an unproven “treatment” just because you don’t know what else to do. Did Levine supply any more detail on what he meant by this?
Re religion: yes, Arkansas didn't stress this and in fact tried to exclude testimony about religion. It was the ACLU's strategy to cast Arkansas as religion-driven--but then the judge ran with it and went even further than the ACLU proposed.
Appeal: Yes, weaknesses all around, but I think the problems with the judge's determinations are enough.
Missouri: thanks for the link! Hadn't seen this latest twist. MO's case is strong on the facts and being litigated by a great team. The plaintiffs are floundering, this latest move is pathetic.
Levine: I agree that testimony is disturbing. The record doesn't contain any mitigating context. There are no heroes here.
I just am perpetually amazed that all of these people really do believe they can forcibly change reality, and force all of us to go along with it, presumably using the full force of the law. There is literally zero evidence that this bullshit works, but that doesn’t make any difference to them.
It’s amazing, isn’t it? The sheer narcissistic hubris and entitlement. Just full on, cult-driven ideology, and they project that onto their “enemies.”
I know he thought he was doing the right thing. It’s when a bunch of people decide to use whatever little power they have to enforce their values on others that we wind up with the messed up situation we have now, with reasonable and essential discussion labeled as “hate speech”
I think it’s interesting that the judge would frame all witnesses as opposing child medicalization for religious reasons when those of us who are fighting tooth and nail to save our children can only think of the horrific side effects these treatments cause. There’s nothing religious about that. It’s pure parental instinct to protect a child from physical harm. It’s ironic that Moody uses religion to swat the state’s witnesses since it is gender ideology that is the religion(belief system). And, it’s being taught as fact to a whole generation of children in public schools-violating the establishment clause of the constitution. I hope someone brings that case soon
(John/Jane schoolchild vs. US dept of education) Those of us opposed to the ideology need to be the plaintiffs.
Oops, I mistakenly put myself as the author!! Don’t give me credit. This is the fine work of UB!!
This is a really interesting analysis of Brandt, and a devastating indictment of the approach taken by the trial judge. Hope you are correct on the likely attitude to it on appeal.
It is unfortunate that the Swedish study, statistically significant and based on death records, wasn't cited by the witnesses for Arkansas. I learned from Dr. Stephen B. Levine's Florida testimony that this study (Cecelia Dhejne, et al, Karolinska Inst. 2011) that these "trans" -friendly researchers hid the alarmingly high rate of death by suicide in natal women in the years after their sex trait modification surgeries. These women (surgeries 1973-2003), died prior to 2011, so some were rather young, were 40 TIMES more likely than age-matched Swedes (control cohort) who had also passed away. The natal females' data was combined with the 13 TIMES more likely death by suicide by post op natal males. So the combined data was that post op subjects were 19 TIMES more likely than controls to die by their own hands.
For any analysis of the Danish study (Dr. Dorte Glintborg, et al, European Journal of Endocrinology, Aug. 2022) in which natal males were found to have a 93% higher risk of life threatening blood clots, strokes, pulmonary embolism, high blood pressure, increased heart rate and heart attacks as compared to age-matched control subjects not taking estrogen. Glintborg initiated the study to figure out which type of estrogen delivery is better for men who ideate a female persona. She is an "affirming" practitioner. Natal females on T were a mere 63% more likely to have the same deadly cardiovascular disease than age-matched controls, natal females not on T. This was also a statistically significant study, with 2,671 "trans" subjects on wrong sex hormones and 5 same sex, 5 opposite sex age-matched controls' health records examined for comparison. This computes to 26,700 control health records examined. For my analysis, including responses to idiotic Reddit comments and a link to the published summary:
https://wordpress.com/post/uteheggengrasswidow.wordpress.com/6488
Thank you for this series! And thank you, UB, for my new favorite term: clownish flaneur.
Excellent insights, Lisa. Many judges have shown the arrogance of their ignorance as they adjudicate decisions well outside their areas of understanding and competence. This ruling will be overturned.
Trans activists certainly don't shy from making personal attacks on their opponents, so it's only fitting to call out judge James M. Moody, Jr., for being the privileged nepo baby he is.
There must be something about the water in Arkansas that makes it an incubator for dynasties. Just look at Sarah HUCKABEE Sanders who, like judge James M. Moody, Jr., is following in the footsteps of her powerful daddy, only in the governor's office not the federal bench. Now that Sanders' Lecterngate* scandal is threatening her career, she probably wishes she had Moody Jr.'s lifetime tenure. Let's hope that the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals hands Moody Jr. his own comeuppance in the form of a resounding repudiation of his judicial sleight-of-hand in his ruling on Brandt trial.
* "Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders's office is under fire for buying a $19,000 lectern." https://www.npr.org/2023/10/14/1205951198/arkansas-gov-sarah-huckabee-sanderss-office-is-under-fire-for-buying-a-19-000-le
Excellent close to an excellent series, UB, thank you so much. I have been waiting with bated breath for your reportage on the Levine testimony and on the Judge--and you definitely didn’t disappoint! I find the judge’s focus on religion very peculiar indeed.
Two questions:
1) on the issue of the handling of religion, if I am understanding this correctly (and please correct me, UB, if I am not), it doesn’t appear that the AK attorneys really stressed this, but rather that the judge made a point of picking it out, which was particulalrly ridiculous in the case of Levine.
2) While there do appear to have been flaws in AK’s approach, so there may be weaknesses in the factual record on appeal, it looks like most of the weakness is in the judge’s determinations, not the factual record on appeal. Is this consistent with your take, UB?
Bottom line: I really appreciate the hard work and thought that went into this series. Thank you!
UB, if you see this, I have two additional questions:
>this is not on Brandt, specifically, but on ACLU et al tactics, and I wondered whether you have seen this before and/or what your view of this tactic is in this case: https://apnews.com/article/missouri-transgender-care-lawsuit-new-judge-45eaecda3bd7bc062318b4a94e5cc159
>this statement from Levine really struck me: “We don’t know what to do and we eventually go along with the patient’s sincere desire to try hormones.” This strikes me as highly problematic as an approach in the practice of medicine—that is, to use an unproven “treatment” just because you don’t know what else to do. Did Levine supply any more detail on what he meant by this?
Re religion: yes, Arkansas didn't stress this and in fact tried to exclude testimony about religion. It was the ACLU's strategy to cast Arkansas as religion-driven--but then the judge ran with it and went even further than the ACLU proposed.
Appeal: Yes, weaknesses all around, but I think the problems with the judge's determinations are enough.
Missouri: thanks for the link! Hadn't seen this latest twist. MO's case is strong on the facts and being litigated by a great team. The plaintiffs are floundering, this latest move is pathetic.
Levine: I agree that testimony is disturbing. The record doesn't contain any mitigating context. There are no heroes here.
UB: Thanks so much for this info and your insights, and glad to know MO has a strong team in place. Have a good week!
You’ve been forensic, I’m in awe.
I just am perpetually amazed that all of these people really do believe they can forcibly change reality, and force all of us to go along with it, presumably using the full force of the law. There is literally zero evidence that this bullshit works, but that doesn’t make any difference to them.
It’s amazing, isn’t it? The sheer narcissistic hubris and entitlement. Just full on, cult-driven ideology, and they project that onto their “enemies.”
While I know this to be true, I still HATE IT. There is no place for a judge to act so biased.
I know he thought he was doing the right thing. It’s when a bunch of people decide to use whatever little power they have to enforce their values on others that we wind up with the messed up situation we have now, with reasonable and essential discussion labeled as “hate speech”