Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Kat Highsmith's avatar

The notable thing here is that the plaintiffs, pushing the "trans" lie, are basing their argument on sex. This is after a significant portion of the "trans" agenda have spent years trying to argue that sex doesn't even exist.

Nobody on the Court has asked them--what is sex? Define it. How many are there? Can it be changed?

That ends the case in its tracks right there. Sex is binary (female and male) and immutable. Genetic disorders do not change this or establish a spectrum, just like Down Syndrome does not change the fact that humans are born with 46 chromosomes.

The main ACLU lawyer is "Chase Strangio," a woman named Kate Bacharach. She is still a woman after taking testosterone and removing her breasts--that is an adult human female.

As such, "transition" is impossible and there are no "trans" people because "trans" does not exist. People do not enter a special category for refusing to accept the reality of their sexed bodies.

So the whole purpose of these treatments is nonsense. They are pursuing a goal they cannot reach, so they cannot continue.

Furthermore, if they wanted to keep destroying this lie, they could ask "what is gender?"

No one can answer that. There is no "gender dysphoria." No one can turn a symptom into a condition.

Generally speaking, there is heterosexual male autogynephilia, homosexual male failure, and childhood sexual abuse. These are all based in perversion or trauma. Nobody needs surgery or hormones for this. They need real treatment.

So the whole thing is a fraud. Asking for simple definitions would reveal it easily. It's a shame nobody has done that.

Expand full comment
dollarsandsense's avatar

I take your point about the need to depoliticize a medical issue. But “gender affirming care” is the opposite of medical care. It is iatrogenic harm.

In which case, it is also a moral issue. Do no harm is a moral position. I think it’s fine to point out the immorality of “care” that harms. The fact that some will deny it isn’t, to me, a reason to ignore the moral problem here.

Expand full comment
28 more comments...

No posts