💬 Off-Topic Transgender Legislation and Litigation

  • ⚙️ Performance issue identified and being addressed.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Autism inbound.

Nobody cares (nor should they) about North Dakota, but this 85 page opinion from a court in Bismarck finding that the state's "gender affirming care" ban for minors is constitutional is an interesting read if you're a lawsperg and/or have any interest in the developing law around troonism, because most of the opinion is the judge going through what laws have been passed around the country and how different courts have treated the issue. The testimony from the various experts that was summarized is also very interesting.

TL;DR:
    • North Dakota passes a law which bans puberty blockers, HRT, and surgical reassignment for minors, and makes it a criminal offense for a doctor to prescribe any of these drugs or perform any of these surgeries; prescribing drugs is a Class A Misdemeanor punishable by up to 360 days in jail, a $3,000 fine, or both, and performing surgeries is a Class B Felony punishable by up to 10 years in the state penitentiary, a $10,000 fine, or both.
    • Parents of a couple of purportedly trans minors and one Doctor Luis Casas, who prescribes HRT to minors, all sue Drew Wrigley, the attorney general of North Dakota, and the state's attorneys (elected county prosecutors) of three of the largest counties in the state, in order to stop enforcement of the ban on the grounds that it:
      • Violates the equal protection clause of the state constitution
      • Violates the fundamental right to parent and the right to personal autonomy and self-determination under the state constitution
      • Violates the procedural due process clause; and
      • Is unconstitutionally vague.
    • In pretrial motions, the judge throws out some of the claims: none of the plaintiffs have standing to challenge the ban on surgeries, because no clinics in North Dakota perform such surgeries on minors, three of the minor plaintiffs and their parents lacked standing to challenge the ban at all because they fell under an exception in the law for people who had already received prescriptions prior to the law being passed, Doctor Casas has first party standing to challenge the ban on the grounds of procedural due process and unconstitutional vagueness, but does not have first party standing to challenge it on the grounds of equal protection or the right to parent, however, he did have third party standing on behalf of his patients to challenge the ban on grounds of equal protection and the right to personal autonomy and self-determination. The judge therefore granted summary judgment to AG Wrigley as to the surgery ban, and the claim that the medication ban violated the right to parent, and also found that the ban did not violate Dr. Casas' right to procedural due process, and was not unconstitutionally vague.
    • The claims that the ban violates the equal protection clause and the right to personal autonomy and self-determination under the state constitution are allowed to proceed to trial.
    • A seven-day trial was held where testimony was received from endocrinologists, psychologists, psychiatrists, US FDA staff, historians, "minors with gender dysphoria" and the parents of "minors with gender dysphoria.
    • The judge ultimately follows the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Skrmetti, 605 U.S., 145 S.Ct. 1816 (2025) and concludes that, because the ban applies equally to both biological males and biological females, it does not discriminate based on sex, but only discriminates based on age and medical purpose, and therefore does not even trigger intermediate scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, but instead rational basis review - the judge finds that this analysis of the federal equal protection clause also applies to the state equal protection clause.
    • The judge finds that the ban was not motivated by an invidious discriminatory purpose.
    • The judge finds that "transgender status" is not a suspect classification like race, religion, national origin, or sex that triggers heightened scrutiny.
    • The judge cites testimony from a psychologist at the state's largest hospital who testified that "there is no way of knowing for certain if a transgender adolescent will desist or persist in their gender identity later in life" and that some individuals will ultimately identify with their "birth sex" later in life, as well as a professor of psychiatry who testified that "the vast majority of children who are left alone who are cross-gender identified, who are not intervened in by changing their gender presentation, the vast majority of those kids desist on their own" and cites to a study co-authored by that professor which found that 67% of children diagnosed with gender dysphoria were no longer gender-dysphoric as adults.
    • Because gender dysphoria can go away, the judge finds that it is not like race, which a person cannot change, and therefore, troons are not a protected class for purposes of the equal protection clause.
    • The judge further notes that "while a small minority, transgender individuals are not politically powerless"
    • The judge finds that cross-sex hormone treatments for minors began in the mid-1970s in Canada, and in 1987 in the Netherlands, and the development of the "Dutch Protocol" in the mid-2000s to early 2010s resulted in the practice of giving puberty blockers to minors with gender dysphoria.
    • The judge finds that the studies which recommended this were flawed, with between 59 and 73% of patients not completing questionaires after treatment, and all patients regularly seeing therapists during the course of the treatment, making it difficult to tell if the increased psychological stability was a result of the puberty blockers, or the therapy.
    • The judge finds that preliminary findings from the UK did not show an improvement in psychological well-being like the flawed Dutch studies claim to, and in some cases, showed worsening problems as a result of puberty blockers, with 37-70% of children showing no change in distress, 15-34% getting worse, and only 9-29% improving.
    • The judge notes that WPATH initially included age-based recommendations in its published standard of care for "transgender and gender-diverse people" but then removed those age-based reommendations as a result of political pressure.
    • The judge notes that while a number of professional associations have written amicus briefs claiming that puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for minors are the only safe and appropriate form of treatment for gender dysphoria,
      • "[T]he positions of these associations are just that - the positions of these associations. Many healthcare professionals may not be members of these associations, and not all members of these associations may share a uniform opinion. Lawyers are not dissimilar. Not all lawyers are members of the American Bar Association. Not all members of the Amercian Bar Association may agree with the positions it may or may not take on a particular issue."
    • The judge finds that the evidence shows that these is a legitimate ongoing debate about the safety and effectiveness of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormone treatments.:
      • Puberty blockers can impact bone density and cause intracranial pressure.
      • Estrogen or testosterone can have permanent impacts.
      • The Endocrine Society admits that sex hormone treatments are "partially" irreversible.
      • Estrogene can cause blood clots.
      • Testosterone can increase blood pressure and the risk of heart disease.
      • It is not the same thing to prescribe estrogen to biological males and biological females, and conversely, it is not the same to prescribe testosterone to biological females and biological males.
      • Testosterone is not prescribed to a female in any situation other than for gender dysphoria.
      • Estrogene is not prescribed to males except for gender dysphoria, and an exteremely rare condition that "most practioners will never see."
      • The exposure of an immature gonad to sex discordant sex steriod hormones is exptected to have a very significant and likely permanent effects on fertility and the likelihood is high that it will result in irreversible sterility.
    • The judge finds that it is a valid concern whether a child has the capacity to consent to a medical proceedure that may result in irreversible sterility, and notes that one of the plaintiff's witnesses, a pediatric endocrinologist, was forced to concede on cross-examination that he had stated the following in his own articles:
      • "as clinicians continue to prescribe hormonal interventions for gender dysphoria, they must also be prepared to prescribe these interventions in situations where the patients are not able to demonstrate clear knowlege and understanding of the interventions"
      • "in our exterience, many adoslecent patients, even those who are not transgender, are often reticent to discuss their future fertility."
    • The judges notes with concern that Dr. Casas testified to the following:
      • Most of [my] patients "know what they want. They have watched youtube, they have watched TikTok, they know exactly what they want."
    • The judge finds that "the risks associated with providing minors with puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones are potentially severe and irreversible. The evidence presented at trial establishes there is a legitimate concern regarding the capacity of minors to understand and appreciate the long term consequences of the practices prohibited by the [ban]."
    • The judges notes that significant testimony from defense witnesses called into question the validity of the Endocrine Society Guidelines, with defense experts testified that there was "a very concerning disconnect between the quality of evidence that's present in those guidelines and the strengths of the recommendations that are made" that the Guidelines are transparently based on "low quality, very low quality... or no evidence" and that the only systematic review conducted by the Endocrine Society was on adults, not children, and was based on only a SINGLE research paper.
    • Similarly, WPATH's "standard of care" did not include any evaluation of the safety of medical gender transition care, WPATH actively prevented groups that were supposed to conduct independant reviews from pubishing their results, and Dr. Levine, who was the chairman of the fifth edition of WPATH's standards of care testified that the standard of care for minors "was not scientifi or evidenced-based and was based on dramatic political influences."
    • The quality of research supporting puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for minors was found by the judge to be consistently very poor, with small sample sizes, no accounting for physical side effects, selection bias, influence by "supportive parents" and poor study designs.
    • The judge talks at length about the Cass Review and seems to approve of it.
    • The judge ultimate finds that North Dakota's ban survives rational basis review.
    • The judge finds that the ban does not infringe on North Dakota's constitutional right to autonomy and self-determination, because that right applies to adults, not minors, and it was historically recognized as a right to refuse medical treatment, not obtain medical treatment.
This will almost certainly be appealed to the state Supreme Court, and when it is, the oral arguments will no doubt be interesting. The North Dakota Supreme Court livestreams all of its oral arguments on its YouTube channel..

Full text of the opinion attached for your perusal.
 

Attachments

The Morning Visitor said:
It's the "assigned at birth" that gets me. "Assigned". They had to make themselves the object, having an act done to them. It couldn't be that the doctor saw the newborn baby and passively observed that the baby had a penis. No, that doctor actively "assigned" a sex to that child like the fucking Hogwarts sorting hat.
Click to expand...
I imagine a doctor or midwife flipping a coin that has one pink side and one blue side.

The phrase really annoys me as sex is set at conception. With advances in modern science with sonograms and prenatal testing, you can find out the sex of the baby before birth.
 
expectant asshole said:
I imagine a doctor or midwife flipping a coin that has one pink side and one blue side.

The phrase really annoys me as sex is set at conception. With advances in modern science with sonograms and prenatal testing, you can find out the sex of the baby before birth.
Click to expand...
It’s literally an extra checkmark during prenatal blood testing — as early as 9 weeks gestation from some suppliers.
 
The Morning Visitor said:
It's the "assigned at birth" that gets me. "Assigned". They had to make themselves the object, having an act done to them. It couldn't be that the doctor saw the newborn baby and passively observed that the baby had a penis. No, that doctor actively "assigned" a sex to that child like the fucking Hogwarts sorting hat.
Click to expand...
Tbf, the term "assigned at birth" has its use in the case DID (Differences in Sexual Developement) in which it actually applies.
Ironically the original MD proponents of gender identity where also cheerleaders for “flipping a coin” and assigning and operating (!) newborns with DID’s at birth.

Queer and Transactivists just did their usual thing
by hijacking and distorting the term. To great effect, as we can see, with a SC judge prostrating themselves using the meaningless jargon.
 
TrannyTracker-5000 said:
Tbf, the term "assigned at birth" has its use in the case DID (Differences in Sexual Developement) in which it actually applies.
Ironically the original MD proponents of gender identity where also cheerleaders for “flipping a coin” and assigning and operating (!) newborns with DID’s at birth.

Queer and Transactivists just did their usual thing
by hijacking and distorting the term. To great effect, as we can see, with a SC judge prostrating themselves using the meaningless jargon.
Click to expand...
I am extremely gender-critical, but I have the utmost empathy for intersex people. My staunch views on adolescent Gender Affirming Care have a carveout for intersex children, so they can grow up to be as normal as their peers. I wish more intersex people would speak out about perverts and degenerates using their condition to justify violating social contracts because it certainly would piss me off if I was used as the poster child for Jonathan Yaniv's lawsuits to ask girls about their periods or to get his balls waxed by a female-only beauty salon.

So yes, intersex people (or "people with DSDs") are sometimes assigned a sex at birth that isn't accurate to their actual biological sex, and that term "assigned at birth" needs to be reserved for just them. If you are a typical XY male that desperately wishes he was born with a pussy or a typical XX female that desperately wishes she was born with a dick, you weren't assigned anything at birth- you were observed at birth and you have a psychological hangup about the coinflip of your conception.
 
The Morning Visitor said:
I am extremely gender-critical, but I have the utmost empathy for intersex people. My staunch views on adolescent Gender Affirming Care have a carveout for intersex children, so they can grow up to be as normal as their peers. I wish more intersex people would speak out about perverts and degenerates using their condition to justify violating social contracts because it certainly would piss me off if I was used as the poster child for Jonathan Yaniv's lawsuits to ask girls about their periods or to get his balls waxed by a female-only beauty salon.

So yes, intersex people (or "people with DSDs") are sometimes assigned a sex at birth that isn't accurate to their actual biological sex, and that term "assigned at birth" needs to be reserved for just them. If you are a typical XY male that desperately wishes he was born with a pussy or a typical XX female that desperately wishes she was born with a dick, you weren't assigned anything at birth- you were observed at birth and you have a psychological hangup about the coinflip of your conception.
Click to expand...
I'll simply state that blood tests available at 10-12 weeks of pregnancy will show whether or not there are any chromosomal abnormalities in the fetus, thereby letting anyone who may be carrying an intersex child aware of the situation well beforehand (it's typically used to look for Downs, but will reveal any chromosomal disorders, of course). CVS can then be used to determine the gametes of the fetus to prove beyond a doubt whether or not the intersex individual is male or female (because even intersex produces only one size of gamete - small or large).

This allows accurate recording of biological sex. No 'assignment'. Just recording. And it's accurate despite genital presentation in the case of abnormalities in physiological development.

But of course, that's a first-world solution, and not available for many people across the globe. Which is unfortunate, because it allows these LARPing assholes to use a medical condition (that they 1,000 to 1 don't actually have) to waggle around girl-dick and whine about being assigned male when born.
 
Diet Coke 4 Life said:
This allows accurate recording of biological sex. No 'assignment'. Just recording. And it's accurate despite genital presentation in the case of abnormalities in physiological development.
Click to expand...

This is the very truth that undermines the arguments so easily. Looking at the technology that existed in the 1970s to determine sex to today’s — the entire premise of being assigned a “sex” is entirely silly.

With the sports cleaning up the brah out of woman’s sports using the same tech hopefully this “assigned” crap can be dustbinned.
 
I call shenanigans said:
Am I the only one that laughed when I read a guy called Weiner was talking about women with dicks, or is Weiner just Aussie slang for penises.
Click to expand...
Nope, weiner's slang for dicks here in the States, too. It's just comedy gold that fucking Senator Weiner is fucking stumping for girl-dick.
 
A troon is suing DHS/TSA since he is no longer allowed to grope women at work.
The clickbait:
2025-11-13_10-52.png

The case:

PDF attached.

Highlights:
2025-11-13_10-55.png
2025-11-13_10-55_1.png
2025-11-13_10-56.png
2025-11-13_10-57.png
2025-11-13_11-00.png
 

Attachments

Maths society withdraws transgender inclusion policy after gender-critical academic's revolt​


The odious grip of trans madness continues ever onwards, even in the face of a Supreme Court ruling on TERF island. Note that the organisation formulated the trans inclusion advice months after the Supreme Court decision, did not withdraw it when someone complained, and finally did withdraw it only after the threat of legal action. I am still flabbergasted at the unrelenting power that trans ideology and ideologists continue to exert, over entire institutions, including ones that are allegedly fucking rational.

I can't convey my bewilderment enough. The highest court in the UK has clarified the law. The majority of the public are in agreement with the court ruling. Yet month after month after month we continue to see open defiance by public and private institutions (including the NHS). I am at a loss.
The row began after John Armstrong, a member and senior lecturer at King's College London, threatened to sue the LMS over its recent publication of a new transgender inclusion policy.

He claimed the policy discriminated against people who hold gender-critical views that sex is biological and cannot be changed.

Mr Armstrong raised issue with several points included in the society's 'Statement of Commitment for Trans Inclusion', which was approved in September.

The public document on the society's website read: 'The society reaffirms its strong commitment to promote equality, foster inclusion and protect the rights of individuals with characteristics protected under the Equality Act of 2010.

'The following commitment lays out the society's approach to trans inclusion.'

Mr Armstrong, a gender-critical academic and commentator, sent a letter to council members at LMS in which he objected to the policy.

He argued restricted free speech and itself discriminated against 'gender-critical' beliefs.

Mr Armstrong said the policy, which 'supported the use of [toilet] facilities that align with a person's affirmed identity' was 'in apparent defiance of the Supreme Court'.

He said in an op-ed for the Spectator , that the LMS 'have chosen to write their first ever trans policy after the judgement and this policy appears to openly flout the Court’s ruling.'

In April, the Supreme Court announced that the definition of a woman is based on 'biological sex' in a landmark judgement.

Mr Armstrong also objected to the policy's threat of disciplinary action against members for 'consistently using incorrect titles, pronouns or names to refer to a trans person'.

Supreme Court justices unanimously decided that 'the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act refer to a 'biological woman and biological sex'.

He said this particular warning from the LMS signified a 'dramatic restriction on freedom of expression' and stopped them from being able to make 'light-hearted or joking comments' because it had been too broadly written.

But the prestigious society, which was established in 1865, rejected his arguments further sparking the wrath of Mr Armstrong, who threatened to sue and sent them a pre-action letter.

In a dramatic U-turn, the LMS withdraw its statement of commitment for trans inclusion last week.

In a notice on their website, posted last week, the LMS said: 'We are committed to advancing equity and diversity so that mathematicians of all backgrounds are treated with dignity and respect.

'Following legal advice we have withdrawn our recent statement. We remain committed to supporting our trans members in the best way possible.

'However, the practical implications of the legal judgment in For Women Scotland are unclear and, like many other organisations, we await further guidance from the EHRC.

'We will continue to support all members of the mathematical community, including our LGBTQIA+ colleagues.'

Mr Armstrong told the Daily Mail he was 'very pleased that the LMS have seen sense and withdrawn this policy'.

'It is disappointing that their latest message emphasises their support for LGBTQIA+ colleagues, but says nothing to reassure the people they were discriminating against - women and gender-critical people,' he said.

'By failing to acknowledge they've let women down, the LMS risks sending the message that women don't count.'

Mr Armstrong added: 'It is ridiculous that I had to lawyer up. Academia needs to start obeying the law.'

The society has not confirmed whether it will issue an amended statement.

The LMS is an eminent mathematics society in the UK, which publishes journals, holds lectures, engages with government policy and strategy, and issues research grants.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Daniel Clair “Danielle Clair” Mittereder:
IMG_2884.jpeg IMG_2883.jpeg
Once identified as gay; has a male partner.

At one time he ran as the Libertarian candidate for Congress (Virginia 11th) but had to drop out because of a sore throat:

One person, Daniel Mittereder, filed for the Libertarian nomination and was accepted. However, he suffered a severe strep throat infection shortly afterward which required a tonsillectomy and was forced to withdraw his candidacy.
Click to expand...

YWNBAW Dan.
 
OttoWest said:
Daniel Clair “Danielle Clair” Mittereder:
View attachment 8166200View attachment 8166199
Once identified as gay; has a male partner.

At one time he ran as the Libertarian candidate for Congress (Virginia 11th) but had to drop out because of a sore throat:



YWNBAW Dan.
Click to expand...
A Libertarian tranny? Despite our indifference to consentual hedonism, trannies usually hate our guts because we don't want to subsidize their lifestyle. It was weird enough that Chase "trans the kids" Oliver got nominated last year and this dude would definitely not make the cut.
 
The Morning Visitor said:
A Libertarian tranny? Despite our indifference to consentual hedonism, trannies usually hate our guts because we don't want to subsidize their lifestyle. It was weird enough that Chase "trans the kids" Oliver got nominated last year and this dude would definitely not make the cut.
Click to expand...

There seems to be a love/hate relationship between trannies and libertarians.

Hate, because according to libertarianism, people should have the freedom to not subsidize their lifestyles or play along with them, misgendering a tranny or making fun of him for his willful stupidity is not a violation of the NAP.

Love, because libertarians are all too often useful idiots for troons (at best). At worst, libertarians are frequently just as degenerate as trannies are, and are drawn to libertarianism precisely because the ideology enables hedonism more often than not.
 
Aero the Alcoholic Bat said:
There seems to be a love/hate relationship between trannies and libertarians.

Hate, because according to libertarianism, people should have the freedom to not subsidize their lifestyles or play along with them, misgendering a tranny or making fun of him for his willful stupidity is not a violation of the NAP.

Love, because libertarians are all too often useful idiots for troons (at best). At worst, libertarians are frequently just as degenerate as trannies are, and are drawn to libertarianism precisely because the ideology enables hedonism more often than not.
Click to expand...
Some libertarians are in their camp because they're disgusting libertines. I simply think taxes are too damn high, but I don't want to legalize dogfucking and I actually consider children as a form of property, similar to pets. Adults should be able to privately and consentually sodomize each other to their hearts' content, but I don't have to like it. That's freedom to me.
 
The Morning Visitor said:
A Libertarian tranny? Despite our indifference to consentual hedonism, trannies usually hate our guts because we don't want to subsidize their lifestyle. It was weird enough that Chase "trans the kids" Oliver got nominated last year and this dude would definitely not make the cut.
Click to expand...
Whilst I don't doubt this person is a tranny, is he a libertarian?

Does he think tax payers ought not provide for gender-affirming 'care'?

Does he think businesses should freely be able to discriminate against trannies?

Does he want the State to stay away from punishing people who misgender or make 'hate speech' against trannies?

Trannyism requires coercion.
 
If you're in the UK, Tribunal Tweets and Nick Wallis are essential follows. If you're not in the UK you'll probably still be interested in their reporting; you're reading this thread, after all. Nick was influential in bringing the UK Post Office scandal to public attention.

Lolcow lawyer Jolyon Maugham (thread in PG) and his Good Law Project are seeking a judicial review of the Equality and Human Rights Commission's (EHRC) now-removed interim guidance following the Supreme Court's decision on the meaning of sex in the Equality Act 2010. Tribunal Tweets were refused permission to tweet but have reported in their usual style at the end of each day, links to Google Docs here [archive].

The parties are the GLP and three anonymous people of gender vs the EHRC. There are also intervenors including Sex Matters. Bridget Phillipson, Minister for Women and Equalities, has an interest as a neutral party. This is where it gets weird because although Prime Minister Keir Starmer said in Parliament on Wednesday, verbatim, "The Supreme Court ruling must be implemented in full and at all levels", Zoe Leventhal KC for the Minister seemed to be trying to find ways around the law and take us back to "allow men into women's spaces on a case-by-case basis".

The hearing ended yesterday and we're now waiting for the judge's decision. The GLP's arguments are bordering on incomprehensible and the judge didn't seem impressed. BBC report on the hearing [archive]. Should the GLP be granted a judicial review and succeed with it, this will not change the law.

More on another upcoming Jolyon suit in A&N.

Meanwhile, in Northern Ireland we have Sara Morrison vs Belfast Film Festival. She's suing for discrimination and constructive dismissal, although the Equality Act 2010 does not apply in NI so any protections she does have will be under different legislation.

Things got very dramatic today as Naomi Cunningham, famed gender-critical lawyer, made an application to have the whole panel recused for apparent bias and Professor Deborah Boyd for actual bias on the fifth day of the tribunal. Boyd is "former director of the Enterprising Women's Network - which is a part of the Women's Regional Consortium" which was copied into emails relevant to the case and has essentially published material to the tune of "trans women are women."

Based on Nick Wallis' reporting, it appeared as though Boyd bristled at the mention of "men who say they're women" on Wednesday and asked for a break. The judge said the break was due to Boyd needing to take medication for her fibromyalgia, but Boyd has now voluntarily recused herself to manage her pain, avoid the long commute and assuage any concerns. The tribunal will continue with the remaining panel members.

Interview and background on Sara from Nick Wallis [archive]. BBC report on today's events [archive].
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom