Thank you for this. I've just finished reading Eliza Mondegreen's excellent piece on all that's wrong with seeking some kind of middle ground when it comes to "gender ideology" and "gender affirming care". Well worth a read. She concludes:
"A lot of good progressives want to avoid the obvious conclusion here, which is that we really fucked this up. There’s no worthy cause to salvage here."
I wish Drs Anderson and Edwards-Leeper could admit that they'd got it devastatingly wrong.
I would love to know who wrote this. It is beautifully argued and tremendously valuable to help readers understand the problems inherent in the way Anderson and Edwards-Leeper are trying to straddle a fence to the detriment of the children they purport to serve. As Harry Truman once said, “I never sit on a fence. I am always on one side or another.” By filing this brief in support of the US government/ACLU position, Anderson and Edwards-Leeper have taken a side, and they need to be judged accordingly.
Thank you for your thoughtful response to our Substack piece. This article was truly a collaborative effort, and we’re gratified to hear that it resonated with you.
Your reference to President Harry S. Truman’s philosophy—“I never sit on a fence. I am either on one side or another”—aptly captures the essence of our critique. By filing this brief in support of the U.S. government and ACLU’s position, Anderson and Edwards-Leeper have indeed taken a definitive stance. It’s crucial to hold them accountable for the implications of their position, especially concerning the well-being of the children they aim to serve.
We appreciate your engagement and look forward to further insightful discussions.
Edwards-Leeper and Anderson are splitting hairs but I don’t think they are fence-sitting. In the brief they say “there is no ‘ongoing debate’ in the medical and mental health communities as to the reasonableness of BANNING CARE [emphasis mine].” They are arguing that banning care is not a useful way to manage the debates ABOUT care. As such, this amicus brief is not inconsistent with their other public statements about pediatric gender medicine. I’m no lawyer but it seems to me the fact that this case has come before SCOTUS fatally undercuts their argument, rendering their brief irrelevant. What do you think?
Not sure I follow your line of thought (which is not a criticism, just not clear to me). What it seems to me they are trying to do is to continue to allow for the medicalization of children via the pretense that there not only can be (which I question) but also are actual, viable safeguards in place (which is definitely not the case). To use another, albeit very tired, cliche, it’s a case of trying to have your cake and eating it, too.
When I read the brief, their position made more sense (not that I agree with it). They argue against banning GAC and argue for CAREFUL GAC. Hair-splitting not fence-sitting. I also don’t ascribe nefarious intent to either of them. I think they are wrong but I don’t think they are being disingenuous or inconsistent. Perhaps there was hope that Edwards-Leeper and Anderson were in the GC “camp” – but they are not. I think they’ve been consistent and am not surprised.
Perhaps my idea that their argument is useless is wrong-headed on my part and I’m just full of wishful thinking -- again!! I definitely agree with others here that the Alabama brief has the potential to blow them all away. Looking forward to seeing how Skrmetti is covered in the press.
I hope amici have countered Anderson and Edwards-Leepers’ disingenuous arguments directly or indirectly. We simply can’t have SCOTUS find that trans kids are real or that they’re a protected class who are entitled to heightened scrutiny in assessing whether restrictions on so-called trans heath care pass constitutional muster. How can “ trans” be considered an immutable characteristic deserving protection when it is well established that most children who have gender problems desist during adolescence and are gay or lesbian? What about the future gay kid’s right not to have his sexual orientation smashed and paved over by a fake trans identity?
Thank you for this. I've just finished reading Eliza Mondegreen's excellent piece on all that's wrong with seeking some kind of middle ground when it comes to "gender ideology" and "gender affirming care". Well worth a read. She concludes:
"A lot of good progressives want to avoid the obvious conclusion here, which is that we really fucked this up. There’s no worthy cause to salvage here."
I wish Drs Anderson and Edwards-Leeper could admit that they'd got it devastatingly wrong.
I would love to know who wrote this. It is beautifully argued and tremendously valuable to help readers understand the problems inherent in the way Anderson and Edwards-Leeper are trying to straddle a fence to the detriment of the children they purport to serve. As Harry Truman once said, “I never sit on a fence. I am always on one side or another.” By filing this brief in support of the US government/ACLU position, Anderson and Edwards-Leeper have taken a side, and they need to be judged accordingly.
Thank you for your thoughtful response to our Substack piece. This article was truly a collaborative effort, and we’re gratified to hear that it resonated with you.
Your reference to President Harry S. Truman’s philosophy—“I never sit on a fence. I am either on one side or another”—aptly captures the essence of our critique. By filing this brief in support of the U.S. government and ACLU’s position, Anderson and Edwards-Leeper have indeed taken a definitive stance. It’s crucial to hold them accountable for the implications of their position, especially concerning the well-being of the children they aim to serve.
We appreciate your engagement and look forward to further insightful discussions.
Edwards-Leeper and Anderson are splitting hairs but I don’t think they are fence-sitting. In the brief they say “there is no ‘ongoing debate’ in the medical and mental health communities as to the reasonableness of BANNING CARE [emphasis mine].” They are arguing that banning care is not a useful way to manage the debates ABOUT care. As such, this amicus brief is not inconsistent with their other public statements about pediatric gender medicine. I’m no lawyer but it seems to me the fact that this case has come before SCOTUS fatally undercuts their argument, rendering their brief irrelevant. What do you think?
Not sure I follow your line of thought (which is not a criticism, just not clear to me). What it seems to me they are trying to do is to continue to allow for the medicalization of children via the pretense that there not only can be (which I question) but also are actual, viable safeguards in place (which is definitely not the case). To use another, albeit very tired, cliche, it’s a case of trying to have your cake and eating it, too.
When I read the brief, their position made more sense (not that I agree with it). They argue against banning GAC and argue for CAREFUL GAC. Hair-splitting not fence-sitting. I also don’t ascribe nefarious intent to either of them. I think they are wrong but I don’t think they are being disingenuous or inconsistent. Perhaps there was hope that Edwards-Leeper and Anderson were in the GC “camp” – but they are not. I think they’ve been consistent and am not surprised.
Perhaps my idea that their argument is useless is wrong-headed on my part and I’m just full of wishful thinking -- again!! I definitely agree with others here that the Alabama brief has the potential to blow them all away. Looking forward to seeing how Skrmetti is covered in the press.
I hope amici have countered Anderson and Edwards-Leepers’ disingenuous arguments directly or indirectly. We simply can’t have SCOTUS find that trans kids are real or that they’re a protected class who are entitled to heightened scrutiny in assessing whether restrictions on so-called trans heath care pass constitutional muster. How can “ trans” be considered an immutable characteristic deserving protection when it is well established that most children who have gender problems desist during adolescence and are gay or lesbian? What about the future gay kid’s right not to have his sexual orientation smashed and paved over by a fake trans identity?
I believe once they read the Alabama brief there will be no doubts
Cults use the same behavior.