The 6-3 decision from Chief Justice John Roberts, issued along partisan lines, will serve to empower those seeking to discriminate against transgender people.
Roberts writes, "Under SB1, no minor may be administered puberty blockers or hormones to treat gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, or gender incongruence; minors of any sex may be administered puberty blockers or hormones for other purposes." Perhaps different diagnoses/diagnostic codes could be devised, e.g. a code for "transgender" since the opinion says "S.B. 1 does not classify on the basis of transgender status." The logic would be that the person simply IS transgender, a situation that requires hormone treatment, but where they don't have dysphoria, incongruence or an identity DISORDER, they just ARE transgender. So that's one of the "other purposes" where these treatments are allowed. A specific code for being transgender doesn't currently exist, but why not? (N.B. I'm a retired pediatrician)
In some cases when trans people don’t want an F64 diagnosis for whatever reason, but a diagnosis is required for insurance or some other bureaucracy, we might ask a doctor to use a diagnosis of “Endocrine disorder, unspecified” (E34.9) because, you know, my body doesn’t make the hormones I need so technically the diagnosis fits.
Another old insurance trick is to refer a patient for orchidectomy for testicular atrophy (an effect of longterm testosterone suppression) without saying why.
Presumably the drafters of these laws imagine that they would ban this sort of alternate diagnosis, somehow, even though the plain text of Roberts’s ruling seems to depend on the specific diagnosis. It mostly shows how incoherent these policies are.
That would be the ultimate goal, that it's an identity and not a disorder. The other side refuses to accept the existence of transgender people regardless of what the evidence shows.
Reprehensible. Chief Justice Roberts claims justice is colorblind … then precedes to dismantle the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Now states anti-gender laws are perfectly “rational”. Next up, eugenics for the irrational?
I thought doctors (and drug companies) decided who to prescribe medications to. Not the Supreme Court.
All we need is a different diagnosis from the ones prohibited. Surely we can come up with something. How about realizing that certain kinds of depression or anxiety can be treated effectively with hormones such as testosterone or estrogen. If they work to relieve anxiety or depression, then we're all set.
That would be my hope. And it should be easy to demonstrate on these patients that other treatments for their conditions did not and do not work. The bigots will adapt but these kids need care now.
Oh! As long as there’s “ongoing debate” … that’s quite enough, thank you. Oddly, for over two millennia there’s been an ongoing debate about blood guilt — so, antisemitism is a-ok. I just love fine reasoning.
Doesn't the reasoning here pave the way for laws that prevent ANY treatments for people with gender dysphoria, even adults? All a state has to do is "find" experts who think gender dysphoria isn't a medical condition and bob's your uncle.
Thomas’ dissent criticized “self-described experts.” Does he mean all of the doctors who treat transgender patients based on medical evidence? Or does he mean the transgender people who have lived experience? The latest survey shows that the vast majority of transgender people are much happier when they receive hormone treatment and gender-affirming surgery. The few who detransition often cite difficulty in dealing with their family and society’s anti-trans bias.
Minors minors minors - detrans girls & womyn testify to peer, family, & medical establishment pressure to emphasize the ridiculous concept shoved down our throats we were born in the wrong body. Aa fuckin if. Just a socially & medically means to condone eliminating homosexuals.
Karen, I think you nailed it. Did you know that until about two decades ago the Department of Defense used to pay for non-military related cosmetic surgery for military spouses? Someone finally woke up and said why should military spouses get facelifts and nose jobs free when everyone else has to pay for them?
STOP referring to invasive surgeries multilating healthy body parts and a life-long dependency on chemical drugs as "affirming" anything ESPECIALLY on children.
Nah, I'm good (and happily affirmed by my medical decisions). I put a *bit* more stock in the lived experience of myself and the hundreds of thousands of other trans people than someone with an unhealthy obsession with limiting the bodily autonomy of people you refuse to hear.
The bigger goal of the project is to make it easier to engage in sex discrimination. Cis women are the targets and transgender people, whom they also don't consider to have any human rights, just happen to be in the line of fire.
Right. But I believe that far too many people think that while their policy is deeply wrong, that the issue only affects a relatively small number of people (not that that should matter, but when the world is burning down there's a lot to pay attention to). My point is just that they hate you precisely because your very existence violates their gender rules, and they intend to enforce those rules on everyone, not just transgender people. So there's no excuse for anyone to think it's a small or niche problem, or that it's somehow a lower priority. You matter yourself, but it's also much bigger. The same argument applies to immigration; it's not just an issue for noncitizens because their goal is to establish the precedent for denial of due process. Today one group, tomorrow the rest.
So the argument is that it’s not discriminating on the basis of being transgender, it’s only discriminating on the basis of a being a person with a diagnosis that only affects trans people?
One, the "logic" of the ruling was less circular than like a spiral, spinning further and further out beyond the bounds of reasoned thought in pursuit of a predetermined conclusion.
Two, it clearly echoed the bigoted response to bans on same-sex marriage claiming the laws were not discriminatory because gays and lesbians could still get married, provided it was to each other.
Three, Roberts said the law "does not restrict the administration of puberty blockers or hormones to individuals 18 and over." That is, you can get puberty blockers after puberty is or is essentially complete. Kind of like saying you can vote on election day provided you do it the week after.
Finally, there is this horrifying statement: "SB1 does not exclude any individual from medical treatments on the basis of transgender status. Rather, it removes one set of diagnoses from the range of treatable conditions.”
If the first sentence there has any coherent meaning at all - which is quite an assumption - it's that banning trans-related health care is not discriminatory because a trans person can't be denied treatment for, say, diabetes on the grounds of being trans. And, it would follow, it's not discriminatory to deny a diabetic treatment because they can still be treated for cancer.
But the second sentence is the really horrifying one. Its actual argument is that any category of person can be banned from needed treatment by "remov[ing] one set of diagnoses" - the very ones that define the condition for which treatment is sought - "from the range of treatable conditions,” even as it effectively acknowledges these are valid medical diagnoses. "You've been diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes? Sorry not sorry, we've decided that diagnosis cannot be treated."
The sheer inhumane depravity, the cold-blooded indifference to the welfare or even, given the suicide statistics, the survival of trans people of that passage is difficult to grasp.
The majority are simply bigots, cleaving to unscientific prejudices and making up crap accordingly. It is unhealthy to pretend to take their "reasoning" seriously.
Really a tough ruling and set of dissents and concurrences for me to unpack. I think strict scrutiny was called for and not applied and that the state could not have a rational basis in establishing harm to a minor without resorting to circular reasoning. I join the dissenters
Any thoughts as to how or if this case could lead to bans on adult care? Do you think the result would have been different if the case was about adult care?
Perhaps we should start calling this the Thomas Court since the majority no longer even attempts to read nor consider the constitutionality of matters.
The words of the 14th Amendment could not be any clearer:
"No state shall make, or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The Supreme Court just endorsed a law which abridges the privileges of citizens of the United States and deprives persons (yes, transgender people are persons!) of the life, liberty and equal protection mandated by the Constitution. This decision and the precedent it sets will live on in infamy.
Roberts writes, "Under SB1, no minor may be administered puberty blockers or hormones to treat gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, or gender incongruence; minors of any sex may be administered puberty blockers or hormones for other purposes." Perhaps different diagnoses/diagnostic codes could be devised, e.g. a code for "transgender" since the opinion says "S.B. 1 does not classify on the basis of transgender status." The logic would be that the person simply IS transgender, a situation that requires hormone treatment, but where they don't have dysphoria, incongruence or an identity DISORDER, they just ARE transgender. So that's one of the "other purposes" where these treatments are allowed. A specific code for being transgender doesn't currently exist, but why not? (N.B. I'm a retired pediatrician)
In some cases when trans people don’t want an F64 diagnosis for whatever reason, but a diagnosis is required for insurance or some other bureaucracy, we might ask a doctor to use a diagnosis of “Endocrine disorder, unspecified” (E34.9) because, you know, my body doesn’t make the hormones I need so technically the diagnosis fits.
Another old insurance trick is to refer a patient for orchidectomy for testicular atrophy (an effect of longterm testosterone suppression) without saying why.
Presumably the drafters of these laws imagine that they would ban this sort of alternate diagnosis, somehow, even though the plain text of Roberts’s ruling seems to depend on the specific diagnosis. It mostly shows how incoherent these policies are.
That would be the ultimate goal, that it's an identity and not a disorder. The other side refuses to accept the existence of transgender people regardless of what the evidence shows.
Reprehensible. Chief Justice Roberts claims justice is colorblind … then precedes to dismantle the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Now states anti-gender laws are perfectly “rational”. Next up, eugenics for the irrational?
Wouldn't put it past them. It's been tried before. First subjects would be Alito, Thomas and Trump.
With RFK, Jr. at the door with a stethoscope in one hand, a bar of “soap” in the other.
😂😂😂
I thought doctors (and drug companies) decided who to prescribe medications to. Not the Supreme Court.
All we need is a different diagnosis from the ones prohibited. Surely we can come up with something. How about realizing that certain kinds of depression or anxiety can be treated effectively with hormones such as testosterone or estrogen. If they work to relieve anxiety or depression, then we're all set.
That would be my hope. And it should be easy to demonstrate on these patients that other treatments for their conditions did not and do not work. The bigots will adapt but these kids need care now.
Oh! As long as there’s “ongoing debate” … that’s quite enough, thank you. Oddly, for over two millennia there’s been an ongoing debate about blood guilt — so, antisemitism is a-ok. I just love fine reasoning.
Doesn't the reasoning here pave the way for laws that prevent ANY treatments for people with gender dysphoria, even adults? All a state has to do is "find" experts who think gender dysphoria isn't a medical condition and bob's your uncle.
And now, time to for the legislature to determine whether Bob really is your uncle … and what his gender is.
I actually worked with a woman named Bobette. I don't think she claimed to be anyone's uncle.
Unky Bobette—so glad to find you again!! Now about that loan …
The law almost always manages to lag medical science by a couple of generations.
Thomas’ dissent criticized “self-described experts.” Does he mean all of the doctors who treat transgender patients based on medical evidence? Or does he mean the transgender people who have lived experience? The latest survey shows that the vast majority of transgender people are much happier when they receive hormone treatment and gender-affirming surgery. The few who detransition often cite difficulty in dealing with their family and society’s anti-trans bias.
Minors minors minors - detrans girls & womyn testify to peer, family, & medical establishment pressure to emphasize the ridiculous concept shoved down our throats we were born in the wrong body. Aa fuckin if. Just a socially & medically means to condone eliminating homosexuals.
Karen, I think you nailed it. Did you know that until about two decades ago the Department of Defense used to pay for non-military related cosmetic surgery for military spouses? Someone finally woke up and said why should military spouses get facelifts and nose jobs free when everyone else has to pay for them?
I think he was talking about himself.
Still deciding how quickly the universe orbits around Earth.
Too funny, David.
Inhumanity 💔
STOP referring to invasive surgeries multilating healthy body parts and a life-long dependency on chemical drugs as "affirming" anything ESPECIALLY on children.
Nah, I'm good (and happily affirmed by my medical decisions). I put a *bit* more stock in the lived experience of myself and the hundreds of thousands of other trans people than someone with an unhealthy obsession with limiting the bodily autonomy of people you refuse to hear.
You will stop this bigotry right here and now. Leave. You have no idea what you’re talking about and who you’re hurting.
I'll bet you are just fine with male and female circumcision though, eh, maggat?
The bigger goal of the project is to make it easier to engage in sex discrimination. Cis women are the targets and transgender people, whom they also don't consider to have any human rights, just happen to be in the line of fire.
I’m going suggest that we don’t matter only because of what it means to cis gender people.
And that the hate against is a very real goal.
Right. But I believe that far too many people think that while their policy is deeply wrong, that the issue only affects a relatively small number of people (not that that should matter, but when the world is burning down there's a lot to pay attention to). My point is just that they hate you precisely because your very existence violates their gender rules, and they intend to enforce those rules on everyone, not just transgender people. So there's no excuse for anyone to think it's a small or niche problem, or that it's somehow a lower priority. You matter yourself, but it's also much bigger. The same argument applies to immigration; it's not just an issue for noncitizens because their goal is to establish the precedent for denial of due process. Today one group, tomorrow the rest.
So the argument is that it’s not discriminating on the basis of being transgender, it’s only discriminating on the basis of a being a person with a diagnosis that only affects trans people?
A few observations:
One, the "logic" of the ruling was less circular than like a spiral, spinning further and further out beyond the bounds of reasoned thought in pursuit of a predetermined conclusion.
Two, it clearly echoed the bigoted response to bans on same-sex marriage claiming the laws were not discriminatory because gays and lesbians could still get married, provided it was to each other.
Three, Roberts said the law "does not restrict the administration of puberty blockers or hormones to individuals 18 and over." That is, you can get puberty blockers after puberty is or is essentially complete. Kind of like saying you can vote on election day provided you do it the week after.
Finally, there is this horrifying statement: "SB1 does not exclude any individual from medical treatments on the basis of transgender status. Rather, it removes one set of diagnoses from the range of treatable conditions.”
If the first sentence there has any coherent meaning at all - which is quite an assumption - it's that banning trans-related health care is not discriminatory because a trans person can't be denied treatment for, say, diabetes on the grounds of being trans. And, it would follow, it's not discriminatory to deny a diabetic treatment because they can still be treated for cancer.
But the second sentence is the really horrifying one. Its actual argument is that any category of person can be banned from needed treatment by "remov[ing] one set of diagnoses" - the very ones that define the condition for which treatment is sought - "from the range of treatable conditions,” even as it effectively acknowledges these are valid medical diagnoses. "You've been diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes? Sorry not sorry, we've decided that diagnosis cannot be treated."
The sheer inhumane depravity, the cold-blooded indifference to the welfare or even, given the suicide statistics, the survival of trans people of that passage is difficult to grasp.
The majority are simply bigots, cleaving to unscientific prejudices and making up crap accordingly. It is unhealthy to pretend to take their "reasoning" seriously.
Really a tough ruling and set of dissents and concurrences for me to unpack. I think strict scrutiny was called for and not applied and that the state could not have a rational basis in establishing harm to a minor without resorting to circular reasoning. I join the dissenters
Any thoughts as to how or if this case could lead to bans on adult care? Do you think the result would have been different if the case was about adult care?
The six are such busybodies.
Perhaps we should start calling this the Thomas Court since the majority no longer even attempts to read nor consider the constitutionality of matters.
The words of the 14th Amendment could not be any clearer:
"No state shall make, or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The Supreme Court just endorsed a law which abridges the privileges of citizens of the United States and deprives persons (yes, transgender people are persons!) of the life, liberty and equal protection mandated by the Constitution. This decision and the precedent it sets will live on in infamy.
ASB