Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Emma's avatar

After reading through the oral arguments, Barrett's question also stuck out to me. The other was the implicit bias is some questions that transgender people are lesser and care should be banned for all just in case a cis person transitions. The other was that stupid 85% detransition statistic coming up as a rational fact, when it's simply not true.

I did enjoy seeing Rice get ripped apart in the early questioning, which was nice.

I think the underlying context of the case though was the immutability of being transgender. Rice basically was saying it is a mental condition (without saying it), and I think Kavanaugh tried to undermine immutability by saying someone who detransitions proves it's changeable (while not saying the same about someone who never detransitions). I think it is this point which underlies a lot of the attacks on our rights, many people think it is a choice. From my reading that seems to be the area which requires a concerted effort on our part, and could help undermine a lot of the hate campaign and moral panic.

Expand full comment
Sandra's avatar

While I suppose it’s good to inject a bit of optimism in this, as a matter of reality I feel like this case was already decided before the first arguments were even heard. In fact, given the current composition of the court, bringing the case before SCOTUS may end up doing more harm than good. The justices will very likely uphold the Tennessee ban 5-4 or 6-3, thus returning the issue to the states. By itself that wouldn’t be the worst possible outcome, since GAC would still be available in the blue states. The problem is that such a ruling would embolden the Trump administration to try to ban GAC nationwide - adults as well as minors. That would set up a classic feds. vs states rights clash, as GAC access is written into the constitutions of several blue states.

Expand full comment
35 more comments...

No posts