On protecting transgender people's lives and dignity in the face of this week; Yglesias's "compromise"; and Singal, Powell, & Drum's anti-advocacy cry.
I haven't read the Yglesias article but it seems like a problem that he's calling fundamental human rights “identity issues.” It's the same minimizing that happens with the phrase “culture war.” I really wish that phrase would die a quiet death.
In my humble opinion, this is the most important quote in your column: <As the Movement Advancement Project details it, “Bans on best-practice medical care represent one of the most extreme and coordinated political attacks on transgender people in recent years.”> Let that sink in. This is a BAN ON BEST-PRACTICE MEDICAL CARE legislated by politicians who are disregarding the overwhelming consensus of the medical community who are engaged in treating patients because they - as politicians with a cultural, political and religious agenda - DO NOT WANT THAT BEST-PRACTICE MEDICAL CARE TO BE ADMINISTERED TO THOSE WHO MIGHT NEED IT.
I am a lawyer and an ally. As I have repeatedly pointed out to people - mostly in vain - this issue at base level is NOT about trans folks. This is about whether the government in order to pursue political ends can deprive individuals of medical care that currently exists as best practice within the medical community. I have pointed out - again, mostly in vain - that the government has no business getting involved in that decision. Because if the government can do this to trans folks, it can do this to EVERYONE. And it is doing so as well to pregnant women with reproductive care.
When people start spouting the nonsense about "protecting the kids from mutilation," I tell them fine, this is a debate that should be had WITHIN THE MEDICAL COMMUNITY to establish what constitutes best practices. And when I say that, I sincerely mean it. But such is the prejudice of people against trans folks and the disinformation and lies surrounding what gender-affirming care actually is, that I get nowhere.
Thank you for writing this column. Past free rider, new subscriber.
Yes, great piece and great response. The bans are what's immoderate - not the left's response. I mean, what's a compromise here even supposed to look like? "Oh hello GOP colleagues, I see that today you want to imprison doctors for following best medical practices. Hmm, how about this: Let's throw these doctors in jail for FIVE years instead of ten." (?!)
Once a ban like this is on the table, moderation has already been abandoned. You can't "compromise" on it without implicitly accepting its abhorrent underlying premise: that trans people don't deserve certain rights anymore and that those who offer them should be punished.
I agree 100%. It's not too far from this to banning treatment for HIV or STDs or alcohol abuse issues because folks made a "choice" to be other than chaste or to refuse "demon rum."
These bans suggest that parents can just wander in to any doctor and get treatment for a girl who likes to play with trains, which they take to mean she should have been the boy they actually wanted. There is a LOT of investigation of a child's gender dysphoria and its effects on the child before any doctor will touch any physical treatments.
Agreed, and would add that this is bigger than medical care. This is about the rights afforded to marginalized groups. It starts with trans folks, it ends with...god only knows, but rest assured it will be bad.
The unadulterated arrogance of Yglesias to believe that he has a mandate to dictate a compromise on behalf of a group he neither understands nor cares about is astonishing.
He’s not dictating a compromise. He is purposefully and knowingly actively harming them. He is the perfect example of MLK’s white moderate as described in “Letter from Birmingham City Jail”
You say: "Those compromises — laid out in detailed rules decided upon by sporting associations at all levels for when and under what requirements trans people could participate in sex-specific sporting events — had been established over decades, ever since Renee Richards successfully fought in court for the right to participate in the U.S. Open in August 1977."
I looked up Renee Richards, and it sounds like she would be closer in agreement to Yglesias now. From Wikipedia: "Richards has since expressed ambivalence about her legacy, and came to believe her past as a man provided her with advantages over her competitors. "Having lived for the past 30 years, I know if I'd had surgery at the age of 22, and then at 24 went on the tour, no genetic woman in the world would have been able to come close to me. And so I've reconsidered my opinion."
Transgender rights are more in question now than they were in the past precisely because society has become more accepting, so more people are comfortable coming out. And with more transgender people in society, and more transgender people beginning the transition process in their youth, any long-established norms/rulings/exceptions/etc are coming into question because the context has changed. It's not one kid per decade asking to play with the girls. The impact is greater so scrutiny has increased.
This misses the entire point of the article — and even that section: “Again, so much of this is about taking what were private, optional decisions and creating a statewide governmental requirement or ban — sometimes with criminal penalties attached.”
The issue isn’t that people have different preferred paths, the issue (specifically, to address student sports) is that governments are mandating one — ending the “compromise” discussions that have been going on outside of legislative mandates for decades.
I disagree. We have legislation regulating kids getting tattoos, purchasing firearms, purchasing fireworks, purchasing spray paint glue and aerosols, purchasing and consuming alcohol, purchasing and consuming pornography, participating in legally binding contracts, getting married and consenting to sex, driving a vehicle, inheriting and owning property, attending school, becoming an emancipated adult, voting, types and duration of employment, consenting to medical care, traveling, etc .
Society has consistently viewed minors as a protected class and protecting minors has always been in the purview of lawmakers.
<Yglesias has to utterly distort reality to explicitly blame progressives for this wave of anti-LGBTQ laws, writing that “if progressives take the view that identity issues are fundamental moral principles and are too important to brook any compromise, that encourages people with the non-progressive view to see it the same way.”> The old "her husband wouldn't have started beating her if she was just more quiet" argument. And the folks who advocate for "going slow"? Those are never the folks whose lives are directly affected by the need for acceptance or change.
Oh, look, all the worst people in the world banding together to advocate for the eventual genocide of trans people. That, you know, because America has been slow to do the right thing in the past, we should accept people LOSING RIGHTS that will eventually lead to their very existence being outlawed.
Jesse Singal should be shot into space without a helmet.
> “Bans on best-practice medical care represent one of the most extreme and coordinated political attacks on transgender people in recent years.”
Your entire argument hinges on this being true. Unfortunately, the evidence supporting these policies is nowhere near as solid as the evidence supporting best practice medical care of any other kind, and the people claiming the evidence is sufficient are basically asserting that an exception should be made. The cited reason for the exception also has poor evidence.
Therefore, what else can we conclude except that your entire argument collapses, and a more cautious approach along the lines that Yglesias suggested seems perfectly reasonable?
This is a lie, as is laid out in great detail in many of the district court opinions to have heard testimony and received affidavits and reports from experts on both sides. I have read the decisions, and covered nearly if not all of them to have come down since I launched Law Dork right here.
Sorry, but you're a journalist. No offense, but in 20+ years of engineering, I have yet to read anything from a journalist that accurately covered a scientific topic, and not just because they were trying to present it to a lay audience. You can say you read whatever court documents you like, whose experts are carefully selected to present a specially curated point of view, but I read the actual scientific reviews of various health agencies on the state of gender affirming care. I stand by what I said.
Also, don't conflate mistakes with lies. That alone undermines your credibility.
I’m glad that you, a person with an anonymous account not subscribing to any publications who is claiming unrelated credibility, have decided the issue.
What you have written, however, is literally the opposite of what federal district court judges to review the evidence presented by *both* sides have concluded — something that you seem to be ignoring in your discussion. What you are claiming is merely a talking point advanced and rejected by those judges.
> I’m glad that you, a person with an anonymous account not subscribing to any publications who is claiming unrelated credibility, have decided the issue.
Yes, I have decided the issue. For myself. Which is all anyone can do on any topic. When actual quality evidence becomes available, then I'll reevaluate.
> What you have written, however, is literally the opposite of what federal district court judges to review the evidence presented by *both* sides have concluded
The fact that you prioritize a judge's evaluation of the evidence over the evaluation of actual experts from other developed countries is an interesting choice, but not surprising. People are far too eager to jump on the latest bandwagon thinking they're being righteous, though I'm sure you'll say the same about me. Time will tell who's right in the end.
Again, you are incorrect in regards to your reference to “actual experts from other developed countries” — because none of those other countries have taken steps like the states have done here to issue complete bans. And absolutely nowhere near what Alabama has done, including a felony criminal penalty and including 18-year-olds in their ban.
I’m moving on, as both of our points have been made. Be well.
As the author points out, transphobic polemicists hang their peg on, (a) "bathrooms", then on (b) participatory sports. And subsequently, in a rhetorical sleight-of-hand, move smoothly into supporting suppression of hormonal and surgical treatments of ALL young people trying to manage gender dysphoria. "Parental rights" for some, but not for others...not only are all these various arguments intellectually dishonest, but capitulate to medical ignorance and rank discrimination whilst posturing as "moderates" who only seek "compromise". This is the same line now echoed by the so-called "pro-life" crowd, pushing a limit of 15-weeks for pregnancy termination, with "exceptions" that are largely impossible or impractical to meet, but calling this a "compromise". I can't even imagine how SCOTUS will deal with all the anti-trans bills passed or drawn up in dozens of states when appeals reach them, if indeed the Court even grants certiorari...dark days ahead, I fear.
Every time I read a piece by him, I come away annoyed by his intellectual dishonesty, but this goes well beyond that. It’s like people are joining the anti-trans, anti-gay, anti-woman bandwagon. I guess it’s a fun one for them.
He's just another fat, white middle aged man sticking his fat fingers into the lives of people with different lived experiences who he does not like and has no appreciation for. All these guys suck - as commentators and people.
I’m scared the way some of these federal cases are going. It seems like a SCOTUS decision is inevitable and I tend to not agree with them lately (I don’t have billions of dollars).
Even beyond the moral repugnance of bartering away marginalized people's rights for political advantage, one of the underappreciated aspects of these people's mendacity is that there is no political advantage to be gained because anti-trans legislation is incredibly unpopular! Pretty much every competitive race where Republicans have leaned on transphobia as a core campaign theme has resulted in a loss. Even when they win they underperform compared to other Republicans. Polling consistently shows that while most Americans don't understand trans people, they don't think the state should be banning our medical care or barring us from participating in public life either.
This is all public knowledge, too, so it's hard to believe the Yglesiases and Singals of the world don't know this (although they are---and this cannot be emphasized enough---very very stupid, so it is possible). Which would mean that the reason they want to throw us under the bus isn't to gain political advantage, it's just to watch us go under the wheels.
Anybody who supports a ban on top surgery for trans and doesn't also support a ban on top surgery for cis women is engaging in blatant, facial discrimination. There are far more underage cis teens who get top surgery every year - something like 3000 - to no complaint at all about "mutilation".
Likewise, there are far more cis pre-teens treated with blockers to counter early onset puberty than trans pre-teens given blockers. Nobody is wringing their hands about these children, or questioning the judgement of their parents and doctors.
I am unwilling to credit anyone who supports this line of reasoning, at least after being apprised of these facts, of good faith.
It’s interesting how GLAAD turns rabidly anti-gay as soon the trans get involved. It’s almost as if they should change their name to something else besides an abbreviation for gay&lesbian alliance against defamation. TAAD is catchy. Oh, but then the trans wouldn’t be able to free ride on the goodwill built by gays and lesbians. Hmmm.
Also your understanding of exactly how gay people got their rights (it wasn’t fucking “goodwill [sic]”, and trans people were fighting right there alongside them, leading the charge, in fact) is exactly as abysmal as I’d expect a bigot’s to be.
I haven't read the Yglesias article but it seems like a problem that he's calling fundamental human rights “identity issues.” It's the same minimizing that happens with the phrase “culture war.” I really wish that phrase would die a quiet death.
In my humble opinion, this is the most important quote in your column: <As the Movement Advancement Project details it, “Bans on best-practice medical care represent one of the most extreme and coordinated political attacks on transgender people in recent years.”> Let that sink in. This is a BAN ON BEST-PRACTICE MEDICAL CARE legislated by politicians who are disregarding the overwhelming consensus of the medical community who are engaged in treating patients because they - as politicians with a cultural, political and religious agenda - DO NOT WANT THAT BEST-PRACTICE MEDICAL CARE TO BE ADMINISTERED TO THOSE WHO MIGHT NEED IT.
I am a lawyer and an ally. As I have repeatedly pointed out to people - mostly in vain - this issue at base level is NOT about trans folks. This is about whether the government in order to pursue political ends can deprive individuals of medical care that currently exists as best practice within the medical community. I have pointed out - again, mostly in vain - that the government has no business getting involved in that decision. Because if the government can do this to trans folks, it can do this to EVERYONE. And it is doing so as well to pregnant women with reproductive care.
When people start spouting the nonsense about "protecting the kids from mutilation," I tell them fine, this is a debate that should be had WITHIN THE MEDICAL COMMUNITY to establish what constitutes best practices. And when I say that, I sincerely mean it. But such is the prejudice of people against trans folks and the disinformation and lies surrounding what gender-affirming care actually is, that I get nowhere.
Thank you for writing this column. Past free rider, new subscriber.
Yes, great piece and great response. The bans are what's immoderate - not the left's response. I mean, what's a compromise here even supposed to look like? "Oh hello GOP colleagues, I see that today you want to imprison doctors for following best medical practices. Hmm, how about this: Let's throw these doctors in jail for FIVE years instead of ten." (?!)
Once a ban like this is on the table, moderation has already been abandoned. You can't "compromise" on it without implicitly accepting its abhorrent underlying premise: that trans people don't deserve certain rights anymore and that those who offer them should be punished.
Effectively trans people will then be Second class citizens.
Like the Jews in the third reich.
I agree 100%. It's not too far from this to banning treatment for HIV or STDs or alcohol abuse issues because folks made a "choice" to be other than chaste or to refuse "demon rum."
These bans suggest that parents can just wander in to any doctor and get treatment for a girl who likes to play with trains, which they take to mean she should have been the boy they actually wanted. There is a LOT of investigation of a child's gender dysphoria and its effects on the child before any doctor will touch any physical treatments.
And since when is an 18 year old a child?
Agreed, and would add that this is bigger than medical care. This is about the rights afforded to marginalized groups. It starts with trans folks, it ends with...god only knows, but rest assured it will be bad.
The unadulterated arrogance of Yglesias to believe that he has a mandate to dictate a compromise on behalf of a group he neither understands nor cares about is astonishing.
He’s not dictating a compromise. He is purposefully and knowingly actively harming them. He is the perfect example of MLK’s white moderate as described in “Letter from Birmingham City Jail”
I agree, there's no compromise re human rights or civil rights. It's a pretense for Yglesias to veil right-wing propaganda. There's zero good faith.
My point was the sheer hubris of believing that he's the arbiter of the lives of others.
You say: "Those compromises — laid out in detailed rules decided upon by sporting associations at all levels for when and under what requirements trans people could participate in sex-specific sporting events — had been established over decades, ever since Renee Richards successfully fought in court for the right to participate in the U.S. Open in August 1977."
I looked up Renee Richards, and it sounds like she would be closer in agreement to Yglesias now. From Wikipedia: "Richards has since expressed ambivalence about her legacy, and came to believe her past as a man provided her with advantages over her competitors. "Having lived for the past 30 years, I know if I'd had surgery at the age of 22, and then at 24 went on the tour, no genetic woman in the world would have been able to come close to me. And so I've reconsidered my opinion."
Transgender rights are more in question now than they were in the past precisely because society has become more accepting, so more people are comfortable coming out. And with more transgender people in society, and more transgender people beginning the transition process in their youth, any long-established norms/rulings/exceptions/etc are coming into question because the context has changed. It's not one kid per decade asking to play with the girls. The impact is greater so scrutiny has increased.
This misses the entire point of the article — and even that section: “Again, so much of this is about taking what were private, optional decisions and creating a statewide governmental requirement or ban — sometimes with criminal penalties attached.”
The issue isn’t that people have different preferred paths, the issue (specifically, to address student sports) is that governments are mandating one — ending the “compromise” discussions that have been going on outside of legislative mandates for decades.
I disagree. We have legislation regulating kids getting tattoos, purchasing firearms, purchasing fireworks, purchasing spray paint glue and aerosols, purchasing and consuming alcohol, purchasing and consuming pornography, participating in legally binding contracts, getting married and consenting to sex, driving a vehicle, inheriting and owning property, attending school, becoming an emancipated adult, voting, types and duration of employment, consenting to medical care, traveling, etc .
Society has consistently viewed minors as a protected class and protecting minors has always been in the purview of lawmakers.
<Yglesias has to utterly distort reality to explicitly blame progressives for this wave of anti-LGBTQ laws, writing that “if progressives take the view that identity issues are fundamental moral principles and are too important to brook any compromise, that encourages people with the non-progressive view to see it the same way.”> The old "her husband wouldn't have started beating her if she was just more quiet" argument. And the folks who advocate for "going slow"? Those are never the folks whose lives are directly affected by the need for acceptance or change.
Oh, look, all the worst people in the world banding together to advocate for the eventual genocide of trans people. That, you know, because America has been slow to do the right thing in the past, we should accept people LOSING RIGHTS that will eventually lead to their very existence being outlawed.
Jesse Singal should be shot into space without a helmet.
Thank you for this piece. I'm so glad you're doing this work.
> “Bans on best-practice medical care represent one of the most extreme and coordinated political attacks on transgender people in recent years.”
Your entire argument hinges on this being true. Unfortunately, the evidence supporting these policies is nowhere near as solid as the evidence supporting best practice medical care of any other kind, and the people claiming the evidence is sufficient are basically asserting that an exception should be made. The cited reason for the exception also has poor evidence.
Therefore, what else can we conclude except that your entire argument collapses, and a more cautious approach along the lines that Yglesias suggested seems perfectly reasonable?
This is a lie, as is laid out in great detail in many of the district court opinions to have heard testimony and received affidavits and reports from experts on both sides. I have read the decisions, and covered nearly if not all of them to have come down since I launched Law Dork right here.
Sorry, but you're a journalist. No offense, but in 20+ years of engineering, I have yet to read anything from a journalist that accurately covered a scientific topic, and not just because they were trying to present it to a lay audience. You can say you read whatever court documents you like, whose experts are carefully selected to present a specially curated point of view, but I read the actual scientific reviews of various health agencies on the state of gender affirming care. I stand by what I said.
Also, don't conflate mistakes with lies. That alone undermines your credibility.
I’m glad that you, a person with an anonymous account not subscribing to any publications who is claiming unrelated credibility, have decided the issue.
What you have written, however, is literally the opposite of what federal district court judges to review the evidence presented by *both* sides have concluded — something that you seem to be ignoring in your discussion. What you are claiming is merely a talking point advanced and rejected by those judges.
> I’m glad that you, a person with an anonymous account not subscribing to any publications who is claiming unrelated credibility, have decided the issue.
Yes, I have decided the issue. For myself. Which is all anyone can do on any topic. When actual quality evidence becomes available, then I'll reevaluate.
> What you have written, however, is literally the opposite of what federal district court judges to review the evidence presented by *both* sides have concluded
The fact that you prioritize a judge's evaluation of the evidence over the evaluation of actual experts from other developed countries is an interesting choice, but not surprising. People are far too eager to jump on the latest bandwagon thinking they're being righteous, though I'm sure you'll say the same about me. Time will tell who's right in the end.
Again, you are incorrect in regards to your reference to “actual experts from other developed countries” — because none of those other countries have taken steps like the states have done here to issue complete bans. And absolutely nowhere near what Alabama has done, including a felony criminal penalty and including 18-year-olds in their ban.
I’m moving on, as both of our points have been made. Be well.
You committed the faulty generalization fallacy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization
As the author points out, transphobic polemicists hang their peg on, (a) "bathrooms", then on (b) participatory sports. And subsequently, in a rhetorical sleight-of-hand, move smoothly into supporting suppression of hormonal and surgical treatments of ALL young people trying to manage gender dysphoria. "Parental rights" for some, but not for others...not only are all these various arguments intellectually dishonest, but capitulate to medical ignorance and rank discrimination whilst posturing as "moderates" who only seek "compromise". This is the same line now echoed by the so-called "pro-life" crowd, pushing a limit of 15-weeks for pregnancy termination, with "exceptions" that are largely impossible or impractical to meet, but calling this a "compromise". I can't even imagine how SCOTUS will deal with all the anti-trans bills passed or drawn up in dozens of states when appeals reach them, if indeed the Court even grants certiorari...dark days ahead, I fear.
Every time I read a piece by him, I come away annoyed by his intellectual dishonesty, but this goes well beyond that. It’s like people are joining the anti-trans, anti-gay, anti-woman bandwagon. I guess it’s a fun one for them.
He's just another fat, white middle aged man sticking his fat fingers into the lives of people with different lived experiences who he does not like and has no appreciation for. All these guys suck - as commentators and people.
I have transgender friends and I fear for their safety😢
The threat is real :(
I know 😢
Great piece.
I’m scared the way some of these federal cases are going. It seems like a SCOTUS decision is inevitable and I tend to not agree with them lately (I don’t have billions of dollars).
Even beyond the moral repugnance of bartering away marginalized people's rights for political advantage, one of the underappreciated aspects of these people's mendacity is that there is no political advantage to be gained because anti-trans legislation is incredibly unpopular! Pretty much every competitive race where Republicans have leaned on transphobia as a core campaign theme has resulted in a loss. Even when they win they underperform compared to other Republicans. Polling consistently shows that while most Americans don't understand trans people, they don't think the state should be banning our medical care or barring us from participating in public life either.
This is all public knowledge, too, so it's hard to believe the Yglesiases and Singals of the world don't know this (although they are---and this cannot be emphasized enough---very very stupid, so it is possible). Which would mean that the reason they want to throw us under the bus isn't to gain political advantage, it's just to watch us go under the wheels.
Anybody who supports a ban on top surgery for trans and doesn't also support a ban on top surgery for cis women is engaging in blatant, facial discrimination. There are far more underage cis teens who get top surgery every year - something like 3000 - to no complaint at all about "mutilation".
Likewise, there are far more cis pre-teens treated with blockers to counter early onset puberty than trans pre-teens given blockers. Nobody is wringing their hands about these children, or questioning the judgement of their parents and doctors.
I am unwilling to credit anyone who supports this line of reasoning, at least after being apprised of these facts, of good faith.
It’s interesting how GLAAD turns rabidly anti-gay as soon the trans get involved. It’s almost as if they should change their name to something else besides an abbreviation for gay&lesbian alliance against defamation. TAAD is catchy. Oh, but then the trans wouldn’t be able to free ride on the goodwill built by gays and lesbians. Hmmm.
We’re done here. Go write on Jesse’s posts, because you clearly have no interest in actual discussion.
Patrick, you’re a bigot.
Also your understanding of exactly how gay people got their rights (it wasn’t fucking “goodwill [sic]”, and trans people were fighting right there alongside them, leading the charge, in fact) is exactly as abysmal as I’d expect a bigot’s to be.
Great read, great writing. Thank you