Always appreciate your insightful analyses, here identifying glimmers of hope and possibilities for further exploitation by the tribe of Strangio. Unsurprisingly, her youth as an apparently lesbian athlete who struggled with anti-gay locker room sentiment before deciding -- in her 20s-- to come out as "transgender" is not well-publicized. Now she uses her lawyerly skills to put the kind of child she once was in harm's way.
The comments of liberal justices -- Sotomayor's likening cross-sex hormones to aspirin and Jackson, apparently attempting to burnish her intellectual reputation as the judge who cannot define "woman" -- are ridiculous, revealing ignorance of even the basics in this area. The fact that I find myself agreeing with conservative justices I have long loathed pretty much completes my disenchantment with the wackos who now represent my former political tribe. (Thomas's well-informed concurring opinion takes a critical look at substantive issues surrounding PGM, not just the question of proper scrutiny.)
As for the continuing use of pandering, ideological language even in rulings that express skepticism about "gender identity," the cognitive dissonance is nearly intolerable. It would be nice if the SCOTUS justices with brains would also develop backbones.
Fundamentalists do not experience cognitive dissonance: they are past that, they double down on their beliefs when presented evidence contrary to their beliefs.
The corruption of the legal adjudication processess was long in its course: it started by accepting Clinical Psychology and Psychiatry provided rational bases to adjudicate legal disputes.
It never did, and it never will: the Mind and all Mental Stuff are not Real, they are imaginations, imaginary fabrications called constructs.
And as such, other than whatever Law applies to mere Belief, they should not be used in Court.
I, too, was struck by Roberts' statement that “only transgender individuals seek puberty blockers and hormones for [gender dysphoria]”. Great, so seeking out puberty blockers and hormones for "gender dysphoria" is now proof one is trans.
Also - I lolled at your phrase "the movement for constitutionalized sex mimicry" - it's funny because it's true.
Haven't had time to read the whole decision yet. Thanks, as always, for your pithy, witty analysis. AND for fighting the good fight at Boston Pride, including against Umbrella Dude with the earrings.
Thank you for this helpful, informative, and sometimes hilarious analysis of Skrmetti. :)
Why do you believe the parental rights argument will fail, please?
How does one argue against it? I have been confronted with it increasingly, lately. I'd like to know so I can respond more effectively.
I've been arguing that parents inherently can't give informed consent on behalf of their child when doctors are not providing evidence-based care to begin with, or sufficient, accurate, fully disclosed information.
However, my argument doesn't address the more specific issue of why parents can't consent on behalf of their child, even if doctors were practicing evidence-based care. My argument isn't satisfying - I know it isn't addressing the real issue.id appreciate your insight.
Thank you--what a complete mess these "rights" organizations have made of things.
They have been actively fighting against those who identify as trans getting appropriate medical care, pushing misinformation and bringing the weight of their entire financial, public relations and legal enterprise to bear on anyone who disagrees. I think of them as anti-trans.
Similarly, the ACLU (and it seems, some states) will call parents abusive if they support their kids by looking at the medical research and their kids' histories, and consequently decide medical intervention is a bad idea.
Because the language of all things mental was über twisted from the beginning: the mind is nothing more than a soul claimed to be attached to a brain which like Mythical Vampires does not reflect in a mirror:
The Skrmetti ruling makes the issue of transitioning children (which I strongly oppose) the same as abortion (which I support during the first trimester). Red states will now universally ban the procedure and blue states will continue to allow it. This is probably the future of the United States in most heavily contested areas of public opinion and debate. The era of the national government dictating uniformity on all matters is over. Those who demand that their views are the only ones permitted and most of us, unfortunately, fall into that category are bound to be disappointed.
Always appreciate your insightful analyses, here identifying glimmers of hope and possibilities for further exploitation by the tribe of Strangio. Unsurprisingly, her youth as an apparently lesbian athlete who struggled with anti-gay locker room sentiment before deciding -- in her 20s-- to come out as "transgender" is not well-publicized. Now she uses her lawyerly skills to put the kind of child she once was in harm's way.
The comments of liberal justices -- Sotomayor's likening cross-sex hormones to aspirin and Jackson, apparently attempting to burnish her intellectual reputation as the judge who cannot define "woman" -- are ridiculous, revealing ignorance of even the basics in this area. The fact that I find myself agreeing with conservative justices I have long loathed pretty much completes my disenchantment with the wackos who now represent my former political tribe. (Thomas's well-informed concurring opinion takes a critical look at substantive issues surrounding PGM, not just the question of proper scrutiny.)
As for the continuing use of pandering, ideological language even in rulings that express skepticism about "gender identity," the cognitive dissonance is nearly intolerable. It would be nice if the SCOTUS justices with brains would also develop backbones.
Fundamentalists do not experience cognitive dissonance: they are past that, they double down on their beliefs when presented evidence contrary to their beliefs.
The corruption of the legal adjudication processess was long in its course: it started by accepting Clinical Psychology and Psychiatry provided rational bases to adjudicate legal disputes.
It never did, and it never will: the Mind and all Mental Stuff are not Real, they are imaginations, imaginary fabrications called constructs.
And as such, other than whatever Law applies to mere Belief, they should not be used in Court.
I, too, was struck by Roberts' statement that “only transgender individuals seek puberty blockers and hormones for [gender dysphoria]”. Great, so seeking out puberty blockers and hormones for "gender dysphoria" is now proof one is trans.
Also - I lolled at your phrase "the movement for constitutionalized sex mimicry" - it's funny because it's true.
Haven't had time to read the whole decision yet. Thanks, as always, for your pithy, witty analysis. AND for fighting the good fight at Boston Pride, including against Umbrella Dude with the earrings.
" the moderate myth that gender medicine used to be cautious and rational "
Exactly. It was never rational to believe a "gender" lives in people's brains, and that we can and should change their sex to match it.
Your brilliant work and your dedication make such a difference to me. Thank you for writing
Thank you for this helpful, informative, and sometimes hilarious analysis of Skrmetti. :)
Why do you believe the parental rights argument will fail, please?
How does one argue against it? I have been confronted with it increasingly, lately. I'd like to know so I can respond more effectively.
I've been arguing that parents inherently can't give informed consent on behalf of their child when doctors are not providing evidence-based care to begin with, or sufficient, accurate, fully disclosed information.
However, my argument doesn't address the more specific issue of why parents can't consent on behalf of their child, even if doctors were practicing evidence-based care. My argument isn't satisfying - I know it isn't addressing the real issue.id appreciate your insight.
Thank you again!
😂 the caption under the photo of the Lovings 😂
Great analysis, thank you.
The parental rights cases seem to be the weakest. Are you concerned about the Mahmoud case?
Thank you--what a complete mess these "rights" organizations have made of things.
They have been actively fighting against those who identify as trans getting appropriate medical care, pushing misinformation and bringing the weight of their entire financial, public relations and legal enterprise to bear on anyone who disagrees. I think of them as anti-trans.
Similarly, the ACLU (and it seems, some states) will call parents abusive if they support their kids by looking at the medical research and their kids' histories, and consequently decide medical intervention is a bad idea.
The language has become so twisted.
Because the language of all things mental was über twisted from the beginning: the mind is nothing more than a soul claimed to be attached to a brain which like Mythical Vampires does not reflect in a mirror:
https://federicosotodelalba.substack.com/p/what-is-the-mind-actually-and-what?r=4up0lp
The Skrmetti ruling makes the issue of transitioning children (which I strongly oppose) the same as abortion (which I support during the first trimester). Red states will now universally ban the procedure and blue states will continue to allow it. This is probably the future of the United States in most heavily contested areas of public opinion and debate. The era of the national government dictating uniformity on all matters is over. Those who demand that their views are the only ones permitted and most of us, unfortunately, fall into that category are bound to be disappointed.