Should trans people be a “protected class” under the US Constitution? The fate of youth medicalization laws like Arkansas’ hangs on this question—which is probably headed to the Supreme Court.
Another excellent installment, thank you! I was struck, among other things, by this: “Trans people have only been seeking “suspect class” status (or “quasi-suspect class,” a term for groups that receive IS but not SS) for about the last decade.” Do you have any idea who or what is driving this approach? Coming up with this level of sophistication in legal argument doesn’t happen by accident. I would think the ACLU is a big player here, but likely not the only one.
I'm guessing the movement came up with the idea long ago and the interesting question is why they pulled the trigger when they did. And yes, there were several other players here like Lambda.
Ah, Lamda, I had forgotten about that org! And I second your curiosity: “and the interesting question is why they pulled the trigger when they did.” I wonder if we will ever know!
If #3 is a stretch, #4 is an absolute whopper! The trans lobby is one of the most politically powerful groups in the western world; consider how quickly they have become a major force in policy/politics. They are funded by billionaire oligarchs, and their law cases are fought by the most prestigious law firms (pro bono).
I can’t recall the source, but I read a fascinating article about the role that large multinational legal firms’ recruitment has played in the outsized influence of the trans lobby. Apparently, to recruit the best candidates from the top law schools, one must offer them more than just money: the Woke universities have instilled a deep hunger for being SJWs among their graduates. In past decades, the young up and comers worked for what we used to call “gay rights”. Since those battles have been decisively won, the firms cast around for the next big thing -- which was trans rights. Now the big firms can offer their young turks the opportunity to be a pro bono leading light in this new field, which also pleases their huge corporate clients (who pay the bills) who, under the principles of ESG, are rabid supporters of gender “equity”. Voila! The corporatization of human rights law/policy.
Direct a message to the children, inside of books meant for them, and place them in Little Free Libraries! This tells parents that the majority of us do not believe in a "changed sex," and as well, the children learn there are logical thought processes. Here's one I've added to in Windsor Terrace, where "woke" and normal are about 50/50.
I would argue that these laws banning "gender affirmation" treatments/procedures (ie. prescribing synthetic cross-sex hormones and having surgical procedures such as double mastectomies, castrations, phalloplasties, etc., which are cosmetic surgeries to change the body's appearance to one that is similar to the opposite sex) are not "targeted" at "trans kids." First, there is no such thing as a "trans kid." "Gender identity" is a purely subjective, undefined and undefinable (except by use of circular definitions that are extremely vague and lack any objective basis) term. Therefore, it cannot form a basis for defining a group against whom the government might be discriminatory. Second, even assuming arguendo that there was such a group, the laws are not seeking to do anything to that group. The laws would prevent the above-defined "gender affirmation" treatments/procedures from being performed on ANY minors, on the basis that these procedures have no medical basis, and the medical community, including medical associations like AAP, has failed to uphold the requirements of the field to "First Do No Harm" by performing these treatments/procedures, with many known negative impacts and unknown negative impacts, without a medical basis.
These laws in no way target minors who identify as "trans," or who have an opposite sex "gender identity," but instead target any minors who would seek out such procedures or to whom such procedures would be recommended by medical providers. An example is a teen who thinks these procedures would be cool and edgy and fun and an "embodiment goal," but who doesn't really think they are the opposite sex or are in the "wrong body." (One might even argue that these laws could apply to protect some minors with dsds, for example, if their doctors recommend procedures to "normalize" ambiguous genitalia, which procedures will require alteration of the genitalia beyond function and into pure appearance and may in fact interfere with their function for the sake of a "normal" appearance.)
Since these bans protect all minors and do not target one group, they only need to have a "rational basis." Many doctors can attest to the lack of medical basis for the treatments/procedures and the harms that stem from them, as well as the minors' inability to provide informed consent for medical interventions that are likely to render them sterile, interfere with their ability to have sexual pleasure, and have many known and many unknown negative side effects such as increased likelihood of heart attack, stroke or cancer, infections, and incontinence.
"gender identity" is based entirely on an individual's feelings. No reasonable judge or panel could conclude that inner feelings are an obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristic. It's purely subjective. If you legally define a woman as anyone who feels like a woman, you open the door to subjective definitions for anything. The law by its nature is based on objective definitions of things.
The Bostock decision (can't discriminate against trans in hiring or housing) avoided dealing with the inherent conflict between sex classification and gender classification. The law already allows for provision of separate facilities based on sex - you can't do that without discriminating against transgenders who want to use the opposite sex facilities, that's an inherent conflict.
Another excellent installment, thank you! I was struck, among other things, by this: “Trans people have only been seeking “suspect class” status (or “quasi-suspect class,” a term for groups that receive IS but not SS) for about the last decade.” Do you have any idea who or what is driving this approach? Coming up with this level of sophistication in legal argument doesn’t happen by accident. I would think the ACLU is a big player here, but likely not the only one.
I'm guessing the movement came up with the idea long ago and the interesting question is why they pulled the trigger when they did. And yes, there were several other players here like Lambda.
Ah, Lamda, I had forgotten about that org! And I second your curiosity: “and the interesting question is why they pulled the trigger when they did.” I wonder if we will ever know!
If #3 is a stretch, #4 is an absolute whopper! The trans lobby is one of the most politically powerful groups in the western world; consider how quickly they have become a major force in policy/politics. They are funded by billionaire oligarchs, and their law cases are fought by the most prestigious law firms (pro bono).
I can’t recall the source, but I read a fascinating article about the role that large multinational legal firms’ recruitment has played in the outsized influence of the trans lobby. Apparently, to recruit the best candidates from the top law schools, one must offer them more than just money: the Woke universities have instilled a deep hunger for being SJWs among their graduates. In past decades, the young up and comers worked for what we used to call “gay rights”. Since those battles have been decisively won, the firms cast around for the next big thing -- which was trans rights. Now the big firms can offer their young turks the opportunity to be a pro bono leading light in this new field, which also pleases their huge corporate clients (who pay the bills) who, under the principles of ESG, are rabid supporters of gender “equity”. Voila! The corporatization of human rights law/policy.
Direct a message to the children, inside of books meant for them, and place them in Little Free Libraries! This tells parents that the majority of us do not believe in a "changed sex," and as well, the children learn there are logical thought processes. Here's one I've added to in Windsor Terrace, where "woke" and normal are about 50/50.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/hYAJ-2kLRoI
Immensely complicated for us on this side of the Atlantic but so beautifully written I had to say something.
I would argue that these laws banning "gender affirmation" treatments/procedures (ie. prescribing synthetic cross-sex hormones and having surgical procedures such as double mastectomies, castrations, phalloplasties, etc., which are cosmetic surgeries to change the body's appearance to one that is similar to the opposite sex) are not "targeted" at "trans kids." First, there is no such thing as a "trans kid." "Gender identity" is a purely subjective, undefined and undefinable (except by use of circular definitions that are extremely vague and lack any objective basis) term. Therefore, it cannot form a basis for defining a group against whom the government might be discriminatory. Second, even assuming arguendo that there was such a group, the laws are not seeking to do anything to that group. The laws would prevent the above-defined "gender affirmation" treatments/procedures from being performed on ANY minors, on the basis that these procedures have no medical basis, and the medical community, including medical associations like AAP, has failed to uphold the requirements of the field to "First Do No Harm" by performing these treatments/procedures, with many known negative impacts and unknown negative impacts, without a medical basis.
These laws in no way target minors who identify as "trans," or who have an opposite sex "gender identity," but instead target any minors who would seek out such procedures or to whom such procedures would be recommended by medical providers. An example is a teen who thinks these procedures would be cool and edgy and fun and an "embodiment goal," but who doesn't really think they are the opposite sex or are in the "wrong body." (One might even argue that these laws could apply to protect some minors with dsds, for example, if their doctors recommend procedures to "normalize" ambiguous genitalia, which procedures will require alteration of the genitalia beyond function and into pure appearance and may in fact interfere with their function for the sake of a "normal" appearance.)
Since these bans protect all minors and do not target one group, they only need to have a "rational basis." Many doctors can attest to the lack of medical basis for the treatments/procedures and the harms that stem from them, as well as the minors' inability to provide informed consent for medical interventions that are likely to render them sterile, interfere with their ability to have sexual pleasure, and have many known and many unknown negative side effects such as increased likelihood of heart attack, stroke or cancer, infections, and incontinence.
"gender identity" is based entirely on an individual's feelings. No reasonable judge or panel could conclude that inner feelings are an obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristic. It's purely subjective. If you legally define a woman as anyone who feels like a woman, you open the door to subjective definitions for anything. The law by its nature is based on objective definitions of things.
The Bostock decision (can't discriminate against trans in hiring or housing) avoided dealing with the inherent conflict between sex classification and gender classification. The law already allows for provision of separate facilities based on sex - you can't do that without discriminating against transgenders who want to use the opposite sex facilities, that's an inherent conflict.
Thank you, learning so much from these posts!
Thought I'd post this arrow of lucidity...
https://youtu.be/dP0P3SzNk8c?si=J4fbipSNSs41N7FC