Question about the homophobia thread

Forum Index » Website Feedback

◄ 1 2 3 ... 31 32 33 ... 124 125 126 ► Go

Go to page...

06/06/2023 19:34

Subject: Re:Question about the homophobia thread

Anonymous

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:A judge in Florida just granted a preliminary injunction against Florida's prohibition on gender affirming care for minors. Here is the ruling:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flnd.460963/gov.uscourts.flnd.460963.90.0.pdf

The ruling has several parts relevant to this discussion:

The elephant in the room should be noted at the outset. Gender identity is real. The record makes this clear. The medical defendants, speaking through their attorneys, have admitted it. At least one defense expert also has admitted it. That expert is Dr. Stephen B. Levine, the only defense expert who has actually treated a significant number of transgender patients. He addressed the issues conscientiously, on the merits, rather than as a biased advocate.

Despite the defense admissions, there are those who believe that cisgender individuals properly adhere to their natal sex and that transgender individuals have inappropriately chosen a contrary gender identity, male or female, just as one might choose whether to read Shakespeare or Grisham. Many people with this view tend to disapprove all things transgender and so oppose medical care that supports a person’s transgender existence. In this litigation, the medical defendants have explicitly acknowledged that this view is wrong and that pushing individuals away from their transgender identity is not a legitimate state interest.

Still, an unspoken suggestion running just below the surface in some of the proceedings that led to adoption of the statute and rules at issue—and just below the surface in the testimony of some of the defense experts—is that transgender identity is not real, that it is made up. And so, for example, one of the defendants’ experts, Dr. Paul Hruz, joined an amicus brief in another proceeding asserting transgender individuals have only a “false belief” in their gender identity—that they are maintaining a “charade” or “delusion.” Another defense expert, Dr. Patrick Lappert—a surgeon who has never performed gender-affirming surgery— said in a radio interview that gender-affirming care is a “lie,” a “moral violation,” a “huge evil,” and “diabolical.” State employees or consultants suggested treatment of transgender individuals is either a “woke idea” or profiteering by the pharmaceutical industry or doctors.

Any proponent of the challenged statute and rules should put up or shut up: do you acknowledge that there are individuals with actual gender identities opposite their natal sex, or do you not? Dog whistles ought not be tolerated.

Was the part about dog whistles your language or the court? I didn’t find it when I searched but the PDF search isn’t great.

We have been at odds on some trans issues before, but FWIW I think this is the correct decision, as I believe the FL law was overreaching.

It was at the very end of section III. Just look for the heading: IV. The challenged statute and rules. It's right before that.

Found it, thank you very much. I finally read the whole decision. It is a well-drafted decision IMO and a good response to overreach, and I say this as someone who believes that medicalized transition for children is going to be regarded in 25 years like the lobotomy is now. While I think the scientific evidence for medicalized transition for children is shockingly weak, if I don’t want the state interfering with abortion rights, I don’t think the state should be outright banning this either, even though I think the weight of evidence is going to show how harmful it is.

I would be in favor of careful reviews and things like removing malpractice limits. But an outright ban is overreaching and I’m glad it was struck down.