You reminded men of so many of the highlight moments in the argument I had forgotten.
Also, I never heard of Queer meds - something new to be horrified by!
What a thorough analysis you have provided.
I agree with Glenna that the decision in this case is not the be all and end all of the fate of so-called gender affirming care. There are many ways this horror can end, evening the Cpurt makes a bad decision. I think of it like Plessy v Ferguson - finding “separate but equal” to be acceptable, later overruled by Brown v Board of Education. The change happened because there was a general change of heart in the greater society. I just hope it doesn’t take 58 years for society to see the folly and inhumanity in what it’s doing to vulnerable kids, teens and adults!!!
Full disclosure: I’m not a lawyer. I’m listening to this case as a layperson so please feel free to correct anything I say that is wrong.
One of the most interesting moments in this case, for me, is Jackson’s application of Loving vs Virginia to to make the following point: under laws that prohibit interracial marriage, a person’s race is relevant because it determines who they are permitted to marry. Such a law doesn’t unfairly discriminate against one particular race, because it restricts both blacks and whites from marrying members outside their race. Laws against interracial marriage are bad laws not because they disadvantage one race relative to another but because they consider race at all.
By analogy, Jackson suggests that laws banning gender medicine for minors are questionable because they allow a hypogonadic male to receive testosterone, but they prohibit a (metabolically healthy) female from receiving testosterone to produce a deeper voice. Jackson suggests it’s the sex of the patient alone that determines whether to give the testosterone under these laws. To be clear, she is not suggesting these laws are unfair to females in particular because the laws would also restrict (metabolically healthy) males, but not hypogonadic females, from getting estrogen.
If you weren’t aware of the serious adverse impacts to function that sex hormones have when dosed at supra-physiologic levels (the levels required for transitioning), then Jackson’s analogy appears to have some superficial plausibility…
…Until puberty blockers come up in discussion. Jackson tries to apply the Loving analogy to them too, but the sex of the patient is NOT in fact considered with puberty blockers. When Rice, the attorney for Tennessee, rightly points this out, the cat suddenly catches Jackson’s tongue, and Sotomayor’s, and Kagan’s too. Lots of silence!
Puberty blockers are specific to pediatric gender medicine. They are not used to transition adults. Loving doesn’t apply to an integral part of pediatric gender medicine.
You reminded men of so many of the highlight moments in the argument I had forgotten.
Also, I never heard of Queer meds - something new to be horrified by!
What a thorough analysis you have provided.
I agree with Glenna that the decision in this case is not the be all and end all of the fate of so-called gender affirming care. There are many ways this horror can end, evening the Cpurt makes a bad decision. I think of it like Plessy v Ferguson - finding “separate but equal” to be acceptable, later overruled by Brown v Board of Education. The change happened because there was a general change of heart in the greater society. I just hope it doesn’t take 58 years for society to see the folly and inhumanity in what it’s doing to vulnerable kids, teens and adults!!!
I super enjoyed this conversation and could take like 3 more hours line by line analysis of the Skrmetti hearing. :)
I love that comment! Thanks, Jane.
Terrrific interview on a broken Court.
Thanks Matt!
Full disclosure: I’m not a lawyer. I’m listening to this case as a layperson so please feel free to correct anything I say that is wrong.
One of the most interesting moments in this case, for me, is Jackson’s application of Loving vs Virginia to to make the following point: under laws that prohibit interracial marriage, a person’s race is relevant because it determines who they are permitted to marry. Such a law doesn’t unfairly discriminate against one particular race, because it restricts both blacks and whites from marrying members outside their race. Laws against interracial marriage are bad laws not because they disadvantage one race relative to another but because they consider race at all.
By analogy, Jackson suggests that laws banning gender medicine for minors are questionable because they allow a hypogonadic male to receive testosterone, but they prohibit a (metabolically healthy) female from receiving testosterone to produce a deeper voice. Jackson suggests it’s the sex of the patient alone that determines whether to give the testosterone under these laws. To be clear, she is not suggesting these laws are unfair to females in particular because the laws would also restrict (metabolically healthy) males, but not hypogonadic females, from getting estrogen.
If you weren’t aware of the serious adverse impacts to function that sex hormones have when dosed at supra-physiologic levels (the levels required for transitioning), then Jackson’s analogy appears to have some superficial plausibility…
…Until puberty blockers come up in discussion. Jackson tries to apply the Loving analogy to them too, but the sex of the patient is NOT in fact considered with puberty blockers. When Rice, the attorney for Tennessee, rightly points this out, the cat suddenly catches Jackson’s tongue, and Sotomayor’s, and Kagan’s too. Lots of silence!
Puberty blockers are specific to pediatric gender medicine. They are not used to transition adults. Loving doesn’t apply to an integral part of pediatric gender medicine.