"The elephant in the room should be noted at the outset. Gender identity is real," U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle wrote in barring the state from enforcing the bans against the challengers.
Bostock v Clayton County says it's only illegal if the discrimination involves biological sex. It did not make gender identity a protected status. Banning puberty blockers for transgender individuals but not for cisgender individuals does not discriminate on the basis of their biological sex, only their preferred sexual identity.
In any case, the equal protection claim is a facade. It's intended to litigate a constitutional right to gender-affirming care out of thin air.
I like this rational thing. We've lost that to an extent. This is clearly a medical decision, and not one commonly undergone. That's number one. Number two is the questioning of another person's gender. But also how about the stand that our laws, justice, and enforcement need to be based on reason as well.
A Rep state senator in Louisiana, Fred Mills, cast the deciding vote to block a bill that would’ve banned gender affirming care for minors in the state last week, saying he heard nothing in any of the testimony that indicated children are being harmed by it. I’ll take rational any day
Score one for common sense, personal freedom & decency 👏
Second win of Pride Month. First was 6/2, when a federal judge ruled Tennessee's drag show ban unconstitutional.
More of this, please, legal system!
Yes, indeed! That was covered here as well: https://www.lawdork.com/p/tennessee-anti-drag-law-unconstitutional
While drag performance, like most pornography, is protected speech. The is definitely no constitutional right to gender-transition surgeries.
Given that you include no analysis and the fact you reference doesn’t even apply to this case, I’m thinking you didn’t read this before commenting.
Bostock v Clayton County says it's only illegal if the discrimination involves biological sex. It did not make gender identity a protected status. Banning puberty blockers for transgender individuals but not for cisgender individuals does not discriminate on the basis of their biological sex, only their preferred sexual identity.
In any case, the equal protection claim is a facade. It's intended to litigate a constitutional right to gender-affirming care out of thin air.
Bostock is about Title VII. It’s a statutory interpretation case, not constitutional interpretation.
In any case, you should re-read Bostock.
DeSantis and his rubber-stamp legislature keep passing laws, and they keep getting declared unconstitutional. Funny how that works..............
This was really very good news. Thank you Judge Hinkle.
Judge Hinkle nailed it.
Florida. Where anti-woke goes to get overturned.
I like this rational thing. We've lost that to an extent. This is clearly a medical decision, and not one commonly undergone. That's number one. Number two is the questioning of another person's gender. But also how about the stand that our laws, justice, and enforcement need to be based on reason as well.
A Rep state senator in Louisiana, Fred Mills, cast the deciding vote to block a bill that would’ve banned gender affirming care for minors in the state last week, saying he heard nothing in any of the testimony that indicated children are being harmed by it. I’ll take rational any day
Thank goodness. Now watch Florida try to get a judge in an obscure county in Texas to issue a counter-injunction.