Here is audio from today's oral arguments over Tennessee's ban of pediatric gender-transition treatment. It is missing, however, the opening statement by the Solicitor General.
Thanks for this. I listened live, and Justice Jackson nearly drove me up a wall with her stubborn insistence that this law is about sex. It took awhile for Rice to make a good explanation that the law is about medical need, and medical need alone, but when he finally got there he did a solid job.
I wonder whether that's because she, like too many others, thinks that sex and gender are synonymous. A misperception that bedevils much of this "debate".
Who knows? However, this sheds new light on her confirmation hearing, at which she refused to say what a woman is. At the time I thought she was just avoiding Republican traps, but now I wonder.
Kinda think it will be necessary to change the laws to be able to discriminate on the basis of sex -- for examples, women's sports, "women and children first" for life rafts, and exclusion from military drafts. Though that will require defining "male" and "female" in law which is something of a contentious issue itself.
I felt as though Jackson was playing at sophistry with the questioning about a hypothetical boy who wanted to take testosterone just to get a deeper voice. Sure, the law *in question* wouldn't prevent that, but since another law would, Tennessee's general approach to these treatments is consistent. There's inconsistency only if you adopt an incredible and unwarranted focus.
It was pretty clear to me that Jackson, Sotomayor and Kagan are going to vote against the law. Liberal that I am, I cringe to side with Sam Alito, but that's the world in which we live.
"unwarranted focus" is maybe the crux of the matter, though the "logic" involved is maybe rather convoluted.
But if a boy is allowed to take drugs to enhance or emphasize his "masculine gender identity" then depriving a girl the right to take similar drugs to emphasize or enhance her own "masculine gender identity" might reasonably be seen as discrimination by sex.
My understanding from arguments is that, in Tennessee, if a boy is taking testosterone, it's because he has a diagnosable medical condition that testosterone will address. Also, it should be taken into account that the male body can handle T, whereas the female body reacts differently, and this difference warrants attention, and justifies any discrimination that may occur.
I think the sex discrimination argument relies upon a very tortured view, but then there's not much else upon which to hang objections to the law. Strangio couldn't very well get up in front of the justices and say, "States have the authority to do this, but I just don't think they should."
I couldn't get a read on some of the justices--I'm no lawyer--but the common perception seems to be that the Court will uphold the law. I suppose we'll all know in about six months.
thanks for posting this. pretty breathtaking to hear the pro child abuse side parrot the same lies that hv been debunked time and again. how long are we going to allow people to characterize kids normal psych issues most grow out of as some kind magical person that somehow requires $2 million of health care, all of which makes their mental and phycial health worse, not better. again with the phony detrans #. again with the phony suicide #s. again with the misrepresentations of benefit of care.
Ben, I wonder whether you realize that much of the problem is because so many are conflating sex and gender. Rectifying that seems to be "Job One".
For example, a recent post from "CNN Health 🙄" states this:
"Gender-affirming care is a multidisciplinary approach that includes medically necessary and scientific evidence-based practices to help a person safely transition from their assigned gender – the one a clinician assigned them at birth, based mostly on anatomic characteristics – to their affirmed gender – the gender by which the person wants to be known."
I agree that if people want to be accurate and precise, a person’s sex is fixed and objective and their gender is subjective and subject to change, sometimes different from their sex, making them transgender. Treatments such as cross-sex hormones are meant to change the presentation of a person’s sex so they can reconcile the conflict between their sex and gender.
More or less agree -- except that "gender" is ALWAYS different from "sex". Entirely different categories, completely different kettles of fish. Like musical notes versus vehicle or food types. The late great US Justice Anton Scalia had a cogent analogy that illustrated the difference:
Scalia: “The word 'gender' has acquired the new and useful connotation of cultural or attitudinal characteristics (as opposed to physical characteristics) distinctive to the sexes. That is to say, gender is to sex as feminine is to female and masculine is to male.”
Wikipedia: "Sexual dimorphism is the condition where sexes of the same species exhibit different morphological characteristics, particularly characteristics not directly involved in reproduction. .... Differences may include secondary sex characteristics, size, weight, color, markings, or behavioral or cognitive traits."
Note the "behavioral or cognitive traits". But those traits are ALWAYS different from the sexes since the sexes -- i.e., having ovaries or testicles in humans --are used as the basis or point of reference in determining which OTHER traits are more typical of one sex than of the other.
To a first approximation, "gender" is the set of sexually dimorphic traits, whether they're the result of biology -- for example, breasts are typical of human females, but males can exhibit them, either due to things like gynecomastia, or due to "cross-sex hormones" as with transwomen -- or whether they're "socially constructed" as with pink and blue toys and clothes for girls and boys.
Men with gynecomastia might then be said to have a feminine phenotype or feminine gender while still having or being of the male sex:
I’ve been posting this all over this morning after fuming about it since Wednesday, but “Even aspirin has side effects?“ Really? By the way, we don’t give aspirin to children. But I forgot, Jackson is also not a pharmacist.
I have zero faith in the 85% desistance rate, which was misrepresented at one point as being a detransition rate. The studies that came up with such a figure are too dated at this point. They don't represent the current cultural context. The answer is we don't know. And I don't think anyone is even trying to properly answer the question.
the 85% # based on 11 or 12 studies, some which are old, are the only studies available. they include kids who weren't socially transitioned and didnt take gender meds, per my understanding. certainly advocates for gender care could have studied this issue. but they havent. and that seems intentional. the one study they point to to counter the fact that most kids change their mind without meds - the kids in that study were already on gender meds, were already socially transitioned and were too young for puberty, the time when most kids change their minds unless on gender meds (study claims 5 years of data with ages 7-12 but really they looked at 3.5 years with those ages).
When the only study cited to counter the inconvenient truth that most kids would deist without meds is a blatant PR effort that misrepresents the data, how can these study authors be trusted to be honest about anything? study participants are also likely advocates for this "care". how can they not be? when even scotus judges and potus are forcefully parroting activist talking points how can there be any study with participants who are unbiased? thats why imo, the older studys are more accurate. the substantial placebo effect and cultural warmongering of todays cultural environment wasnt as great then. placebo is temporary but with this issue can last for years resulting in low quality #s. but we now have OK #s of rate of detrans from adults who used gender meds. german insurance records found 50% stop taking gender meds by year 4. US military says a smaller but similar # did. since most adults who detrans say they did so after 10 years, this tracks with 80% detrans by year 10. when the words trans and dysphoria are placed in the page they are given a structure that doesnt match real world experiences. detrans ppl say in retrospect their issues had nothing to do with gender at all. and a lot of the reason they quit is the meds gave them health problems and didnt help any of their issues
imo, the issue of if someone can be termed detrans or desisted is a little like the abortion related issue of when is a baby, a baby. some say its at the instance of conception. others at the ~25 week point when the child could live outside the womb with medical assistance. my own view is that parents should have the right to plan their families in a way that provides the needed resources to children. as anyone whose tended garden knows, there is an opportunity cost to keeping everything thats ever been in the garden. likewise, there is an opportunity cost to the affirmation response to gender dysphoria. since 98% who take blockers for dysphoria go to hormones, affirmation is a one way path that seldom allows desistance in the short term, much like an abortion ban.
my opinion is that someone could be considered trans the moment they start to question their gender in an affirmation environment. in blue state schools, when a child questions their gender, school employees have a legal right to tell that child they maybe trans and keep this info from parents. the affirmation approach prohibits those who have contact with affected persons from questioning the reason why someone maybe questioning their gender. in reality, there are a 1000 reasons why someone maybe questioning their gender, but none of them are becuase they were born in the wrong body. in an explorotory environment, one could be concidered trans after theyve had a chance to explore why they maybe thinking of this. for most its a sign of distress. since gender meds and the affirmation approach dont help dysphoria or mental health, per every gov systematic review ever done on earth, it could be argued that no child can be considered trans. the argument presented by advocates of this "care", that early transition helps ppl fit in later in life is hypothetical and false. where is the proof ppl who have been transitioned as kids do better as adults? there is none. every indicator would suggest they do worse than they would have if they hadnt undergone this intervention
Thanks for this. I listened live, and Justice Jackson nearly drove me up a wall with her stubborn insistence that this law is about sex. It took awhile for Rice to make a good explanation that the law is about medical need, and medical need alone, but when he finally got there he did a solid job.
I wonder whether that's because she, like too many others, thinks that sex and gender are synonymous. A misperception that bedevils much of this "debate".
Who knows? However, this sheds new light on her confirmation hearing, at which she refused to say what a woman is. At the time I thought she was just avoiding Republican traps, but now I wonder.
I'd forgotten about that incident -- seems Jackson may have had a point in declining to answer the question, in her "I'm not a biologist":
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/22/blackburn-jackson-define-the-word-woman-00019543
But she may also have had something of a point in her latest Supreme Court outing:
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/scotus-transgender-care-ban-12-04-24#cm4a4rqt100193b6ny78b005v
But still seems to underline the problem that Ben had addressed in an earlier post:
https://benryan.substack.com/p/how-an-inability-to-clearly-define
Though I think Ben is part of the problem with this bit of his:
BR: "The [Bostock] case concerned a person who was fired from a job in a funeral home after transitioning from male to female."
He -- Aimee Stephens -- didn't do anything of the sort; all he did, apparently, is put on a dress, adopted a more "feminine" attire:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aimee_Stephens
Kinda think it will be necessary to change the laws to be able to discriminate on the basis of sex -- for examples, women's sports, "women and children first" for life rafts, and exclusion from military drafts. Though that will require defining "male" and "female" in law which is something of a contentious issue itself.
I felt as though Jackson was playing at sophistry with the questioning about a hypothetical boy who wanted to take testosterone just to get a deeper voice. Sure, the law *in question* wouldn't prevent that, but since another law would, Tennessee's general approach to these treatments is consistent. There's inconsistency only if you adopt an incredible and unwarranted focus.
It was pretty clear to me that Jackson, Sotomayor and Kagan are going to vote against the law. Liberal that I am, I cringe to side with Sam Alito, but that's the world in which we live.
"unwarranted focus" is maybe the crux of the matter, though the "logic" involved is maybe rather convoluted.
But if a boy is allowed to take drugs to enhance or emphasize his "masculine gender identity" then depriving a girl the right to take similar drugs to emphasize or enhance her own "masculine gender identity" might reasonably be seen as discrimination by sex.
My understanding from arguments is that, in Tennessee, if a boy is taking testosterone, it's because he has a diagnosable medical condition that testosterone will address. Also, it should be taken into account that the male body can handle T, whereas the female body reacts differently, and this difference warrants attention, and justifies any discrimination that may occur.
I think the sex discrimination argument relies upon a very tortured view, but then there's not much else upon which to hang objections to the law. Strangio couldn't very well get up in front of the justices and say, "States have the authority to do this, but I just don't think they should."
I couldn't get a read on some of the justices--I'm no lawyer--but the common perception seems to be that the Court will uphold the law. I suppose we'll all know in about six months.
thanks for posting this. pretty breathtaking to hear the pro child abuse side parrot the same lies that hv been debunked time and again. how long are we going to allow people to characterize kids normal psych issues most grow out of as some kind magical person that somehow requires $2 million of health care, all of which makes their mental and phycial health worse, not better. again with the phony detrans #. again with the phony suicide #s. again with the misrepresentations of benefit of care.
Sotomayor at the 23:20 timestamp: "Some children suffer incredibly with gender DYSTORIA (my emphasis), don't they?"
If you can't get the pronunciation down, its hard to have confidence in your grasp of the meaning.
Ben, I wonder whether you realize that much of the problem is because so many are conflating sex and gender. Rectifying that seems to be "Job One".
For example, a recent post from "CNN Health 🙄" states this:
"Gender-affirming care is a multidisciplinary approach that includes medically necessary and scientific evidence-based practices to help a person safely transition from their assigned gender – the one a clinician assigned them at birth, based mostly on anatomic characteristics – to their affirmed gender – the gender by which the person wants to be known."
https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/04/health/what-is-gender-affirming-care/index.html
Archive link: https://archive.ph/c0VER
The only thing "assigned at birth" is sex -- something of a misnomer -- and that is most certainly not changeable.
I agree that if people want to be accurate and precise, a person’s sex is fixed and objective and their gender is subjective and subject to change, sometimes different from their sex, making them transgender. Treatments such as cross-sex hormones are meant to change the presentation of a person’s sex so they can reconcile the conflict between their sex and gender.
There are two sexes, zero genders, and infinite personalities. To quote Billboard Chris.
More or less agree -- except that "gender" is ALWAYS different from "sex". Entirely different categories, completely different kettles of fish. Like musical notes versus vehicle or food types. The late great US Justice Anton Scalia had a cogent analogy that illustrated the difference:
Scalia: “The word 'gender' has acquired the new and useful connotation of cultural or attitudinal characteristics (as opposed to physical characteristics) distinctive to the sexes. That is to say, gender is to sex as feminine is to female and masculine is to male.”
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep511/usrep511127/usrep511127.pdf
Consider also the concept of sexual dimorphism:
Wikipedia: "Sexual dimorphism is the condition where sexes of the same species exhibit different morphological characteristics, particularly characteristics not directly involved in reproduction. .... Differences may include secondary sex characteristics, size, weight, color, markings, or behavioral or cognitive traits."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism
Note the "behavioral or cognitive traits". But those traits are ALWAYS different from the sexes since the sexes -- i.e., having ovaries or testicles in humans --are used as the basis or point of reference in determining which OTHER traits are more typical of one sex than of the other.
To a first approximation, "gender" is the set of sexually dimorphic traits, whether they're the result of biology -- for example, breasts are typical of human females, but males can exhibit them, either due to things like gynecomastia, or due to "cross-sex hormones" as with transwomen -- or whether they're "socially constructed" as with pink and blue toys and clothes for girls and boys.
Men with gynecomastia might then be said to have a feminine phenotype or feminine gender while still having or being of the male sex:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gynecomastia
Seems rather important to keep that dichotomy in mind.
I’ve been posting this all over this morning after fuming about it since Wednesday, but “Even aspirin has side effects?“ Really? By the way, we don’t give aspirin to children. But I forgot, Jackson is also not a pharmacist.
hmmm....lots of statistics presented....How trustworthy are they?
I have zero faith in the 85% desistance rate, which was misrepresented at one point as being a detransition rate. The studies that came up with such a figure are too dated at this point. They don't represent the current cultural context. The answer is we don't know. And I don't think anyone is even trying to properly answer the question.
the 85% # based on 11 or 12 studies, some which are old, are the only studies available. they include kids who weren't socially transitioned and didnt take gender meds, per my understanding. certainly advocates for gender care could have studied this issue. but they havent. and that seems intentional. the one study they point to to counter the fact that most kids change their mind without meds - the kids in that study were already on gender meds, were already socially transitioned and were too young for puberty, the time when most kids change their minds unless on gender meds (study claims 5 years of data with ages 7-12 but really they looked at 3.5 years with those ages).
When the only study cited to counter the inconvenient truth that most kids would deist without meds is a blatant PR effort that misrepresents the data, how can these study authors be trusted to be honest about anything? study participants are also likely advocates for this "care". how can they not be? when even scotus judges and potus are forcefully parroting activist talking points how can there be any study with participants who are unbiased? thats why imo, the older studys are more accurate. the substantial placebo effect and cultural warmongering of todays cultural environment wasnt as great then. placebo is temporary but with this issue can last for years resulting in low quality #s. but we now have OK #s of rate of detrans from adults who used gender meds. german insurance records found 50% stop taking gender meds by year 4. US military says a smaller but similar # did. since most adults who detrans say they did so after 10 years, this tracks with 80% detrans by year 10. when the words trans and dysphoria are placed in the page they are given a structure that doesnt match real world experiences. detrans ppl say in retrospect their issues had nothing to do with gender at all. and a lot of the reason they quit is the meds gave them health problems and didnt help any of their issues
imo, the issue of if someone can be termed detrans or desisted is a little like the abortion related issue of when is a baby, a baby. some say its at the instance of conception. others at the ~25 week point when the child could live outside the womb with medical assistance. my own view is that parents should have the right to plan their families in a way that provides the needed resources to children. as anyone whose tended garden knows, there is an opportunity cost to keeping everything thats ever been in the garden. likewise, there is an opportunity cost to the affirmation response to gender dysphoria. since 98% who take blockers for dysphoria go to hormones, affirmation is a one way path that seldom allows desistance in the short term, much like an abortion ban.
my opinion is that someone could be considered trans the moment they start to question their gender in an affirmation environment. in blue state schools, when a child questions their gender, school employees have a legal right to tell that child they maybe trans and keep this info from parents. the affirmation approach prohibits those who have contact with affected persons from questioning the reason why someone maybe questioning their gender. in reality, there are a 1000 reasons why someone maybe questioning their gender, but none of them are becuase they were born in the wrong body. in an explorotory environment, one could be concidered trans after theyve had a chance to explore why they maybe thinking of this. for most its a sign of distress. since gender meds and the affirmation approach dont help dysphoria or mental health, per every gov systematic review ever done on earth, it could be argued that no child can be considered trans. the argument presented by advocates of this "care", that early transition helps ppl fit in later in life is hypothetical and false. where is the proof ppl who have been transitioned as kids do better as adults? there is none. every indicator would suggest they do worse than they would have if they hadnt undergone this intervention
It's a good day annoying trans activist take another fat l
You are sick