SCOTUS case: Trans rights for minors

  • Thread starter Thread starter ZenMode
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 263
  • Views: 2K
  • Politics 
roostra said:
I'm not sure that is insurmountable (at least in front of a pre-2016 Supreme Court). Female Genital Mutilation/cutting arguably has a religious basis (It just happens to be one of the "bad" religions) and it is illegal in 41 states.

This is all a tangent though, I am not advocating for a ban on circumcision, just pointing out that all of the arguments that support banning gender affirming treatment also support a ban on circumcision. So if one is for a ban on gender affirming treatment but opposed to a ban on circumcision, then maybe that person is being disingenuous with their motives and really the basis for their support is animus towards trans folks.
Click to expand...
I'm not suggesting that Free Exercise is a get out of jail free card. Polygamy is a no-go. Same with Peyote. But male circumcision would likely be protected by this court. Reversible puberty blockers would also likely be protected if there were a legitimate religious use of them. Unfortunately, there is no Transianity for the adherents to bring their claim.
 
finesse said:
Physicians removed Hein’s breasts in 2018 and placed her on testosterone later that year, the lawsuit states, which violates guidelines put forth by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health. On Jan. 10, Hein told her gender care physician she was no longer taking testosterone, was in pain all over, no longer identified as male and was not old enough to have consented to the treatments she received as a minor.

If this is true, it's medical malpractice, not an indictment of the procedure. I saw no mention of her parents. Are they alive and what do they say?
Click to expand...
Medical malpractice is always a possibility, for sure. As is the possibility of things like this because kids don't always make the best decisions:

“I was going through the darkest and most chaotic time in my life, and instead of being given the help I needed, these doctors affirmed that chaos into reality,” Hein said in a statement. “I was talked into medical intervention that I could not fully understand the long-term impacts and consequences of.”
 
finesse said:
You can jump off a five story building if you only talk about successful routine jumps with no complications.
Click to expand...
My point is that most anything CAN be regrettable. Walking to the mailbox CAN be regrettable if you get mugged and stabbed.
 
ZenMode said:
Medical malpractice is always a possibility, for sure. As is the possibility of things like this because kids don't always make the best decisions:

“I was going through the darkest and most chaotic time in my life, and instead of being given the help I needed, these doctors affirmed that chaos into reality,” Hein said in a statement. “I was talked into medical intervention that I could not fully understand the long-term impacts and consequences of.”
Click to expand...
Don't you think that should be determined to ,first, make sure of what happened was what she said happened, secondly what her parents, if still alive had to say, and if this was malpractice before this is used as a test case for making what is, on the surface an unnecessary and invasive law?
 
finesse said:
Don't you think that should be determined to ,first, make sure of what happened was what she said happened, secondly what her parents, if still alive had to say, and if this was malpractice before this is used as a test case for making what is, on the surface an unnecessary and invasive law?
Click to expand...
Of course. All details should be considered, but there is a reality that kids making these kind of decisions may simply not be a good idea, right?
 
ZenMode said:
Of course. All details should be considered, but there is a reality that kids making these kind of decisions may simply not be a good idea, right?
Click to expand...
But it sounds like you don't want this to happen even when the kids, parents, and doctors all make these kind of decisions jointly.
 
roostra said:
But it sounds like you don't want this to happen even when the kids, parents, and doctors all make these kind of decisions jointly.
Click to expand...
If I had to pick a side, I would say to allow parents, kids and doctors to make the decision and leave government out of it, but I have a lot of concerns.
 
Calheel said:
I'm not suggesting that Free Exercise is a get out of jail free card. Polygamy is a no-go. Same with Peyote. But male circumcision would likely be protected by this court. Reversible puberty blockers would also likely be protected if there were a legitimate religious use of them. Unfortunately, there is no Transianity for the adherents to bring their claim.
Click to expand...
We could start a Transianity. Courts are supposed to accept religious adherents as they are.

I think that if there were Christian sects who wanted to do peyote, the Court would overturn Employment Division v. Smith in a heartbeat. They are probably going to overturn it soon (it's already been heavily cabined and is on life support), but especially they would if they got a religious drug case that didn't involve Native Americans.

I have trouble believing they would be in favor of polygamy. Especially on religious matters, this Court gives a strong preference to the things the Justices can identify with and/or look kindly upon.
 
finesse said:
The difficulty here is that states do have substantial authority to regulate medical practice. For instance, most states have banned "conversion therapy" for gay people, pursuant to the power to regulate medical practice.


Is that banning medical practice or malpractice? There's no medicine involved in that, just coercive practices and brainwashing for something not considered a disorder. I have no problem with them regulating abusive, unrecognized and/or dangerous treatments. This is real and there are real and recognized treatments. Those seem like entirely different things even if they are currently treated the same under the law.
Click to expand...
Well, the conversion therapists see themselves as medical providers. And what you've stated here is precisely the point: the state has authority to ban medical procedures that it deems unsound. As a general matter, it doesn't have to be accurate in doing so (it only has to be 'rationally defensible" which is a low standard of proof -- it's lower even that "reasonably defensible"). That states have been accurate about conversion therapy isn't terribly relevant to the issue being litigated here (though the accuracy it is highly relevant to the First Am issues).

That's why they are pushing the equal protection issue and/or the "animus" of the state toward his discrete and insular minority. Without that, the plaintiffs' case is weak under existing law.
 
ZenMode said:
but I have a lot of concerns.
Click to expand...
Who fucking cares? I have concerns about a lot of things. In many or most of those cases, though, it's none of my fucking business, and my concerns just don't matter in the slightest.

Again, you sound exactly like the anti-gay idiots from the 80s and 90s who had a lot of concerns about men sleeping together (and women, though gay men have always taken more of a beating).
 
ZenMode said:
That need isn't obvious in the case of gender transition surgery because there's no visibility to the mind of the child who is getting the surgery.
Click to expand...
What the fuck are you talking about? Ask a therapist or a psychiatrist whether they have visibility into the mind of their patients. Go ahead. See what happens.
 
UNCatTech said:
Conversion therapy isn't medically sound, it's quack science based in religion.

This is an example of parents not having their kids best interest in mind.
Click to expand...
It's not medically sound, but the point is that the state does have the power to ban the procedure based on its judgment (usually the legislature's judgment) that it's not medically sound, and that judgment is reviewable but not strictly. Courts give the states a lot of latitude to make these decisions, and the evidence about puberty blockers or surgeries simply isn't sufficiently thorough and undisputed for most courts to second-guess the legislature absent some form of discrimination.

Hence the conversion therapists argued religious freedom, and the trans patients are arguing equal protection.
 
superrific said:
Who fucking cares? I have concerns about a lot of things. In many or most of those cases, though, it's none of my fucking business, and my concerns just don't matter in the slightest.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying you have to care, but I think people generally have a heighten concern for the safety and well-being of children because they often aren't mature, experienced, informed and can be easily manipulated. There are laws, legal protections and resources unique to minors for a reason.
Again, you sound exactly like the anti-gay idiots from the 80s and 90s who had a lot of concerns about men sleeping together
Click to expand...
I don't recall ever having any concern about what happens in anyone's bedroom. I don't recall ever carrying about prostitution. Societal impacts aside, I don't even care about polygamy.
 
I don't think minors should be getting their genitals mutilated. That's all this is. Now, if an adult decides, man, i'd really like to sew on a penis or I'd really like to cut off a penis, by all means, have at it. I'm fine with insurance companies covering it for adults that are paying them premiums, but under no circumstances should tax dollars be used on this. And never should it be allowed for minors. I get so sick of the "affirming care" BS. What is it affirming besides stupidity? It isn't sex reassignment surgery either, you cannot reassign your sex. Just silly. It's like we are living in an episode of south park or something. The fact it's even an issue is absolutely mind boggling.
 
ZenMode said:
There's two ways to see it: government control of personal medical procedures and government protecting those who may not be making serious medical decisions based on the best information.

Like I said, I see both sides. If I had to pick a side, I'd lean toward allowing families and the doctors to make the decision... but it's tough when you're talking about a 14 year old girl have a double mastectomy or transforming his/her genitals.

There's also a possibility that the free market may dictate how this goes via lawsuits against the medical facilities doing the surgeries. It might just become too expensive to do these surgeries on minors.
Click to expand...
Ok, so let's look at it from the protection side.

What data supports the need for protection? How many trans people have later reported that their parents forced them to have surgery?

And also, since talking about the government, where does the protection stop? Take for example vaccines. Look at the COVID vaccine that had some side effects. I believe the final total was 1 in a million had the complications. So, should we forsake the 999,999 to protect the 1? I know that sounds thoughtless, but sometimes that's what it boils down to.

In almost every case one can come up with an outlier that they might need to "Protect" but in doing so they are hurting the vast majority that would have otherwise been helped.
 
ZenMode said:
Sure. Removing a gallbladder CAN be life changing. In itself, a successful, issue-free circumcision isn't likely to be life changing.
Click to expand...
But, you are arguing for protection and not looking at the overall outcomes.

If one botched circumcision leaves a boy unable to father children, isn't that enough to protect everyone?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top