The many false statements and muddled thinking in the Court's decision are also astonishing. A false history of attempting to "convert" people to accepting their biological sex supposedly didn't work and caused shame. What is the basis for this claim? WPATH "guidelines" are said to be "consensus!!!" - Ignoring every professional who disagrees. "Being transgender is natural and is not a choice." And one way to be considered transgender is if you: wish you were the opposite sex and think you think (no typographical error there) like a member of the opposite sex.
What kind of garbage "science" is this? As an attorney, I have seen my fair share of stupid judges and bad decisions, but this takes the cake!
I suspect the basis for the conversion-therapy claim is the same (debunked) Rafferty paper that justified the AAP's affirm-only policy. Which still stands, because what's the rush to correct it? It's an infuriating tower of medical and legal sand.
The amicus briefers, yes, but my friend Leor (whom I haven't met) would say the rest are mainly guilty of plain old apathy. 'If it doesn't affect me, I'm not curious.' Maybe there's some hope for them? I don't know how anyone can fail to be curious about this though.
The many false statements and muddled thinking in the Court's decision are also astonishing. A false history of attempting to "convert" people to accepting their biological sex supposedly didn't work and caused shame. What is the basis for this claim? WPATH "guidelines" are said to be "consensus!!!" - Ignoring every professional who disagrees. "Being transgender is natural and is not a choice." And one way to be considered transgender is if you: wish you were the opposite sex and think you think (no typographical error there) like a member of the opposite sex.
What kind of garbage "science" is this? As an attorney, I have seen my fair share of stupid judges and bad decisions, but this takes the cake!
I suspect the basis for the conversion-therapy claim is the same (debunked) Rafferty paper that justified the AAP's affirm-only policy. Which still stands, because what's the rush to correct it? It's an infuriating tower of medical and legal sand.
The amicus briefers, yes, but my friend Leor (whom I haven't met) would say the rest are mainly guilty of plain old apathy. 'If it doesn't affect me, I'm not curious.' Maybe there's some hope for them? I don't know how anyone can fail to be curious about this though.