Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Susan Scheid's avatar

Thanks to you both, as always, for this update and Lisa’s opening commentary. I do have a couple questions:

>it looks like the first and last items refer to the same case. Is that correct? I would be interested to know if anyone has seen GC commentary on this, and whether it is seen to be a good test case to put before the Supreme Court. (I worry it may not be.)

The news report entitled, “One-third of trans people taking testosterone may still ovulate, raising chance of pregnancy” is a good demonstration of failure to communicate arising from use of obfuscating language, isn’t it? Just think if the headline read “one-third of women taking testosterone may still ovulate”.

Last, as many here may know, Andrew Doyle is now on Substack. In a recent post, he put up his keynote speech from the 2023 LGBAlliance Conference (the whole speech is excellent, BTW). In it, he offered this interesting observation, relating to Lisa’s opening point: “This really isn’t an issue of left and right. . . . You cannot vote this out. Whichever major party you vote for, these ideas are embedded into the country. They are in every major institution. They’re in academia, the media, the arts, corporate institutions, the civil service, the police, higher education, absolutely everywhere, you can’t get rid of it. It did not come about by means of a democratic process, and therefore it cannot be eliminated by means of a democratic process.”

I think there’s a lot of truth in that, which is why law suits, parent actions with school boards, concerted public pressure on corporations peddling this stuff (note the fracas over the John Lewis company idiocy in England) and pushing for legislative changes (as Erin Friday and others are doing in CA) are so important.

Expand full comment
Tim Gregory's avatar

Hi Lisa. Re the Maryland Law. There is also some potentially good news coming from my state. Wednesday I testified with others at the committee hearing in favor of HB722 introduced by Delegate Arikan. Any red state type ban on gender medicine is DOA in this deep blue state so the scope of HB722 is very narrow. Under current law youth can get meds including HRT at age 16 and 17 without parental consent in some circumstances. This bill requires parental consent for meds in all cases until age 18. Thanks to Jamie Reed for coming all the way from St. Louis to be on the panel! If this gets out of committee it will be a huge first step here.

Expand full comment
17 more comments...

No posts