It can't be stated often enough: "It's not affirming. It's abuse." There is no such thing as "gender-affirming" except in the addled brains of propagandists.
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.
It appears likely that the blue districts and state governments will continue to dictate what people are allowed to think, say and do. The red districts and states will dictate what people are allowed to do, but so far they are not as inclined as the blue areas to try to control what people think and say, at least not in recent time. Perhaps there will be a generational solution, if Western Civ survives that long. Gen Z is moving in directions politically that were not predicted a few years ago.
I'm not so sure that SCOTUS punting on protected class leaves lower courts "bereft of guidance." If I were a federal judge hearing some gender case, about sports or whatever, I might think to myself, "If the Supreme Court refused to recognize trans people as a protected class, I can safely do the same." Sometimes silence is louder than a shout.
There is no such thing as a "trans kid". There are only children who have been indoctrinated by adults and had their confused thinking cemented in by those who have their own agenda or who will profit from these kids making choices that are abusive to them. https://lucyleader.substack.com/p/the-cinderella-effect-another-way
I think they did address what is referred here as a sex vs gender incongruity: it is best left to the political process.
Reading part of the opinion I noticed Gender Fluidity, its malleability makes it unlikely to be a part of a protected class based on immutability. As opposed to sex which Alito correctly points as immutable. Even as mere legal issue: if it was not, how to give it a protected status?.
And being a contradiction, granting a protected class status on that basis: immutability is a non sequitur, it does not follow. But this was not the case to challenge the idea: it was a medical treatment issue.
Hence Gender and its issues seems to me something better left to the political process to delimit, define and fix its definitions. And congruous with what you claim you did, and probably will do next: talk to legislators.
Taking the battle on Gender Definition into the Political Arena, congruous to their delimitation as a State´s attribution only as a medical treatment issue, not a sex issue, and not a Gender issue.
The opinion to me was quite clear such was the basis to discard the Challenge on 14th Amendment basis: it is a medical treatment denied regardless of sex.
As a parable: if anyone had Religious fluidity, where Religious Belief is not a deeply "HELD" belief integral to who one is and could go from Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Cristian, Catholic and Atheist with no big effort, it is no biggie, then Religion cannot be the basis of a protected class.
The mere rhetoric of Gender Fluidity versus "Deeply held feeling" is a contradiction upon which rational arguments cannot be Built: it leads to nonsense, and to capricious, arbitrary, illegitimate and irrational rulings by the Judiciary.
Otherwise, if the deeply held belief is not shared equally enough by all members of the alleged or "suspected" class, there is no class to being with.
Hence best to avoid them in Court and leave them to the Political Processes...
I touch on the irrationality of Gender in this Post of mine:
Thank you for standing up against this insidious ideology.
Thank you for all your hard work.
It can't be stated often enough: "It's not affirming. It's abuse." There is no such thing as "gender-affirming" except in the addled brains of propagandists.
Every time I write “gender affirming care” in quotes I mean the chemical and/or surgical mutilation and sterilization.
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.
It appears likely that the blue districts and state governments will continue to dictate what people are allowed to think, say and do. The red districts and states will dictate what people are allowed to do, but so far they are not as inclined as the blue areas to try to control what people think and say, at least not in recent time. Perhaps there will be a generational solution, if Western Civ survives that long. Gen Z is moving in directions politically that were not predicted a few years ago.
I'm not so sure that SCOTUS punting on protected class leaves lower courts "bereft of guidance." If I were a federal judge hearing some gender case, about sports or whatever, I might think to myself, "If the Supreme Court refused to recognize trans people as a protected class, I can safely do the same." Sometimes silence is louder than a shout.
In any case, this is a significant victory.
Good point!
There is no such thing as a "trans kid". There are only children who have been indoctrinated by adults and had their confused thinking cemented in by those who have their own agenda or who will profit from these kids making choices that are abusive to them. https://lucyleader.substack.com/p/the-cinderella-effect-another-way
Outstanding. I have restacked.
There is no such thing as settled science in medicine. That is a propagandist statement from the get go.
I think they did address what is referred here as a sex vs gender incongruity: it is best left to the political process.
Reading part of the opinion I noticed Gender Fluidity, its malleability makes it unlikely to be a part of a protected class based on immutability. As opposed to sex which Alito correctly points as immutable. Even as mere legal issue: if it was not, how to give it a protected status?.
And being a contradiction, granting a protected class status on that basis: immutability is a non sequitur, it does not follow. But this was not the case to challenge the idea: it was a medical treatment issue.
Hence Gender and its issues seems to me something better left to the political process to delimit, define and fix its definitions. And congruous with what you claim you did, and probably will do next: talk to legislators.
Taking the battle on Gender Definition into the Political Arena, congruous to their delimitation as a State´s attribution only as a medical treatment issue, not a sex issue, and not a Gender issue.
The opinion to me was quite clear such was the basis to discard the Challenge on 14th Amendment basis: it is a medical treatment denied regardless of sex.
As a parable: if anyone had Religious fluidity, where Religious Belief is not a deeply "HELD" belief integral to who one is and could go from Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Cristian, Catholic and Atheist with no big effort, it is no biggie, then Religion cannot be the basis of a protected class.
The mere rhetoric of Gender Fluidity versus "Deeply held feeling" is a contradiction upon which rational arguments cannot be Built: it leads to nonsense, and to capricious, arbitrary, illegitimate and irrational rulings by the Judiciary.
Otherwise, if the deeply held belief is not shared equally enough by all members of the alleged or "suspected" class, there is no class to being with.
Hence best to avoid them in Court and leave them to the Political Processes...
I touch on the irrationality of Gender in this Post of mine:
https://federicosotodelalba.substack.com/p/definitions-are-also-motivated-including?r=4up0lp
https://jtate519.substack.com/about
SCOTUS ruled that states can protect kids from gender quackery, which is not and never was "medicine".
So I hope you will consider correcting the misleading title of your post.
Brilliant piece.
Well done, all who’ve helped get the fight this far.
As our greatest living PM, Jean Chrétien, famously said, “we have a lot of work to do!”
Elbows up, all!
💪💪🇨🇦