💬 Off-Topic Transgender Legislation and Litigation

[Sinner's Sandwich]

ITS HERE!

Gonna be a lot of troon meltdowsn today!

View attachment 7522089

United States v. Skremetti

Now they need to get these fuckers out of female sport.

 

[BigGuyOS 6 : Jovial Janny]

ITS HERE!

Gonna be a lot of troon meltdowsn today!

View attachment 7522089

United States v. Skremetti

Hallelujah!

 

[Not Dr. Evil]

That would be fantastic.



From one mentally ill narcissist to another.



ROFLMAO! Bathrooms, sports, and passports are definitely NOT still goood after this because the court EXPLICITLY held that troons are not a protected class and troon related laws are not subject to any heightend scrutiny.

 

[Robot Gentleman]

ITS HERE!

Gonna be a lot of troon meltdowns today!

View attachment 7522089

United States v. Skremetti

About time!

View attachment 7522113
View attachment 7522114
View attachment 7522117
View attachment 7522125
View attachment 7522130

That would be fantastic.

View attachment 7522164

From one mentally ill narcissist to another.

View attachment 7522173

Fuck Tony, fuck Al, fuck Kate Strangio, and fuck everyone who's participated in the widespread grooming and sterilization of kids. Hope they all go to prison.

 

[Anasa Tristis]

ITS HERE!

Gonna be a lot of troon meltdowns today!

View attachment 7522089

United States v. Skremetti

Thanks for the up to the second reporting. Excellent news.

As expected, Sotomayor, Brown Jackson, and Kagan were the 3 voting against.

Ha, ha, Katey Strangio! Ya lost. Neener!

View attachment 7522130


View attachment 7522173

Wu is insufferable. Mr. Not Like Other Troons. Notice too that he's parroting McBride with this "grace" nonsense. https://archive.ph/xOmav

 

[quaawaa]

Thomas destroyed the "experts" in his concurrence:

The Court rightly rejects efforts by the United States and the private plaintiffs to accord outsized credit to claims about medical consensus and expertise. The United States asserted that “the medical community and the nation’s leading hospitals overwhelmingly agree” with the Government’s position that the treatments outlawed by SB1 can be medically necessary. Brief for United States 35; see also Brief for Respondents in Support of Petitioner 5 (asserting that “[e]very major medical association in the United States” supports this position). The implication of these arguments is that courts should defer to so-called expert consensus.

There are several problems with appealing and deferring to the authority of the expert class. First, so-called experts have no license to countermand the “wisdom, fairness, or logic of legislative choices.” FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U. S. 307, 313 (1993). Second, contrary to the representations of the United States and the private plaintiffs, there is no medical consensus on how best to treat gender dysphoria in children. Third, notwithstanding the alleged experts’ view that young children can provide informed consent to irreversible sex-transition treatments, whether such consent is possible is a question of medical ethics that States must decide for themselves. Fourth, there are particularly good reasons to question the expert class here, as recent revelations suggest that leading voices in this area have relied on questionable evidence, and have allowed ideology to influence their medical guidance.

Taken together, this case serves as a useful reminder that the American people and their representatives are entitled to disagree with those who hold themselves out as experts, and that courts may not “sit as a super-legislature to weigh the wisdom of legislation.” Day-Brite Lighting, Inc. v. Missouri, 342 U. S. 421, 423 (1952). By correctly concluding that SB1 warrants the “paradigm of judicial restraint,” Beach Communications, 508 U. S., at 314, the Court reserves to the people of Tennessee the right to decide for themselves.

The views of self-proclaimed experts do not “shed light onthe meaning of the Constitution.” Dobbs, 597 U. S., at 272–273. Thus, whether “major medical organizations” agree with the result of Tennessee’s democratic process is irrelevant. Post, at 5, n. 5 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.). To hold otherwise would permit elite sentiment to distort and stifled democratic debate under the guise of scientific judgment, and would reduce judges to mere “spectators . . . in construing our Constitution.” 83 F. 4th, at 479.

He also cited the Cass Review (which will cause immense troon seethe):

The Cass Review, published in April 2024, offers an influential example of the degree to which the debate over pediatric sex-transition treatments remains unsettled. See H. Cass, Independent Review of Gender Identity Services for Children and Young People: Final Report (Cass Review). After witnessing a 40-fold increase in the number of referrals to its centralized clinic for sex-transitioning services, the United Kingdom’s National Health Service (NHS) commissioned this report to conduct a “thorough independent review of the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones” to treat children with gender dysphoria. 1 App. 333–334. The report concludes that “we have no good evidence on the long-term outcomes of interventions to manage gender-related distress,” and highlights the lack of reliable evidence to support the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in treating transgender kids. Cass Review 13, 32–33 (observing “insufficient/inconsistent evidence about the effects of puberty suppression,” and “‘a lack of high-quality research assessing the outcomes of hormone interventions in adolescents with gender dysphoria/incongruence’”); see also ante, at 23. Among other things, the Cass Review determined that the “evidence [the researchers] found did not support th[e] conclusion” that “hormone treatment reduces the elevated risk of death by suicide” among children suffering from gender dysphoria. Cass Review 33; see also id., at 187 (“[T]he evidence does not adequately support the claim that gender-affirming treatment reduces suicide risk”).

This shifting scientific landscape has forced governments to act quickly under conditions of uncertainty. In the months following the Cass Review’s publication, for example, NHS imposed new restrictions on the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for sex-transition treatments. See ante, at 23. And, just a week after oral argument in this case, the United Kingdom indefinitely banned new prescriptions of puberty blockers to treat children with gender dysphoria, except in clinical trials. See S. Castle, Ban on Puberty Blockers for U. K. Teens Is Settled, N. Y. Times Int’l, Dec. 13, 2024, p. A11. In areas with this much “medical and scientific uncertainty,” courts must afford States “wide discretion.” Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U. S. 124, 163 (2007).

To summarize:

This case carries a simple lesson: In politically contentious debates over matters shrouded in scientific uncertainty, courts should not assume that self-described experts are correct. Deference to legislatures, not experts, is particularly critical here. Many prominent medical professionals have declared a consensus around the efficacy of treating children’s gender dysphoria with puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgical interventions, despite mounting evidence to the contrary. They have dismissed grave problems undercutting the assumption that young children can consent to irreversible treatments that may deprive them of their ability to eventually produce children of their own. They have built their medical determinations on concededly weak evidence. And, they have surreptitiously compromised their medical recommendations to achieve political ends.

The Court today reserves “to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process” the power to decide how best to address an area of medical uncertainty and extraordinary importance. Ante, at 24. That sovereign prerogative does not bow to “major medical organizations.” Post, at 5, n. 5 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.). “[E]xperts and elites have been wrong before—and they may prove to be wrong again.” Students for Fair Admissions, Inc., 600 U. S., at 268 (THOMAS, J., concurring).

 

[BigGuyOS 6 : Jovial Janny]

Let's see how SCOTUS Blog is taking this.

 

[Not Dr. Evil]

Alex is floridly psychotic.

He is also quoting Sotomayor's wacky dissent and not the majority opinion,

 

[obsdj]

Thomas destroyed the "experts" in his concurrence:

Whereas Sotomayor, of fucking course, tried to invoke Loving v. Virginia (the 1967 decision that struck down bans on interracial marriage).

Indeed, judicial scrutiny has long played an essential role in guarding against legislative efforts to impose upon individuals the State’s views about how people of a particular sex (or race) should live or look or act. Women, it was once thought, were not suited to attend military schools with men. Virginia, 518 U. S., at 520–523, 540–541. Men and women, others said, should not marry those of a different race. Loving, 388 U. S., at 4. Those laws, too, posed politically fraught and contested questions about race, sex, and biology. In a passage that sounds hauntingly familiar to readers of Tennessee’s brief, Virginia argued in Loving that, should this Court intervene, it would find itself in a “bog of conflicting scientific opinion upon the effects of interracial marriage, and the desirability of preventing such alliances, from the physical, biological, genetic, anthropological, cultural, psychological, and sociological point of view.” Brief for Appellee in Loving v. Virginia, O. T. 1966,No. 395, p. 7. “In such a situation,” Virginia continued, “it is the exclusive province of the Legislature of each State to make the determination for its citizens as to the desirability of a policy of permitting or preventing such [interracial] alliances—a province which the judiciary may not constitutionally invade.” Id., at 7–8.

This Court, famously, rejected the States’ invitation in Loving to “defer to the wisdom of the state legislature” based on assertions that “the scientific evidence is substantially in doubt.” 388 U. S., at 8. In considering the constitutionality of Virginia’s male-only military academy, too, the Court itself assessed the “opinions of Virginia’s expert witnesses” that “‘[m]ales tend to need an atmosphere of adversativeness,’” while “‘[f]emales tend to thrive in a cooperative atmosphere.’” 518 U. S., at 541. What the Court once recognized as an imperative check against discrimination, it today abandons.

Bolding mine. Fuck off, moron.

 

[toilet_rainbow]

ITS HERE!

Gonna be a lot of troon meltdowns today!

View attachment 7522089

United States v. Skremetti

Had the feeling it’d be upheld. I think it being children being exploited for a social justice movement revolved around medical malpractice was what clinched it. One thing to do that for consenting adults (which is insane enough), a whole other to apply the exact same to children.

 

[Not Dr. Evil]

Tony Reed actually thought the troons were going to win.



Trannies got a second bitch slap today.



Wacky pooner Kate Strangio responds.



50 year old man thinks he is the biggest victim of a decision about children.

 

[Seafarer]

Had the feeling it’d be upheld. I think it being children being exploited for a social justice movement revolved around medical malpractice was what clinched it. One thing to do that for consenting adults (which is insane enough), a whole other to apply the exact same to children.

I listened to the oral arguments for this case and I think the Cass review (study that found mutilating children didn’t help them) was one of the most important factors in the Supreme Court’s decision since it completely undermined the pro-troon argument of “trust the experts”. The pro-troon lawyer would squirm whenever it was brought up.

 

[Nero Fiddled]

Trannies got a second bitch slap today.

Never quite saw how the Trevor Project could justify it's existence when hardly any of their retard callers were ever actually going to commit suicide.

It was simply created to do nothing but continue a false narrative, and certainly should never have been given public money.

Watch out for the thousands of trannys piled up along the roadsides as they all start committing suicide.

 

[Écho Öwl]

I listened to the oral arguments for this case and I think the Cass review (study that found mutilating children didn’t help them) was one of the most important factors in the Supreme Court’s decision since it completely undermined the pro-troon argument of “trust the experts”. The pro-troon lawyer would squirm whenever it was brought up.

I wonder how much of the argument could be relevant to the Canadian medical association lawsuit along the same lines in Alberta?

The argument by the doctors in Canada relate to the freedom of conscience (per 2a of the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms)

Some parallels, but obviously divergent due the border involved.

Also: way to go TN! With this and the uk Supreme Court ruling:

Winning!

 

[AssignedEva]

Winning! Get fucked troons!

View attachment 7489964

Just for additional context on this one, what they're talking about here is Goodwin vs the United Kingdom, wherein the European Court of Human Rights decided not legally recognising trans people was a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 12 (right to marry and to found a family).

Spoiler

Under the laws at the time:

• Goodwin was unable to get married (legally classed as a man, and gay marriage was banned)
• Goodwin was sexually harassed at work via groping, but this was not considered sexual harassment (legally classed as a man)
• Goodwin had to retire at the male pension age rather than the female pension age, which would have revealed trans status to an employer
• The employer could discriminate against Goodwin due to trans status
• Goodwin's files were marked as "sensitive" to avoid revealing trans status, which meant it was hard to contact the benefits office as there was a separate process
• Goodwin's birth certificate would reveal trans status, which prevented Goodwin from a variety of opportunities, such as life insurance, loans and mortgages

The basic points were that the UK government funded medical transition and also allowed for passports and driving licenses to be changed while the individual "lives in a society as a female" then created an incoherence if there was no legal recognition - "a conflict between social reality and law arises which places the transsexual in an anomalous position, in which he or she may experience feelings of vulnerability, humiliation and anxiety". There was also the argument that the medical transition was irreversible and required passing high levels of scrutiny, so it couldn't be argued that "there is anything arbitrary or capricious in the decision taken by a person to undergo gender re-assignment", and because sex was being defined using several tests (gonadal, genital, chromsomal) but surgery and hormone therapy had come on leaps and bounds which just leaves chromosomes to be considered... but the UK recognised chromosomal abnormalities where "some persons have to be assigned to one sex or the other as seems most appropriate in the circumstances", and birth certificates were also amended for things like adoption. Also, the UK had started introducing protections for trans people based on previous ECHR rulings about discrimination by gender being equated to discrimination by sex, and additionally Goodwin "lived as a woman, was in a relationship with a man and would only wish to marry a man".

So basically because of existing laws and precedents set in the UK at the time, we needed to recognise the ability to change sex in order for laws to be coherent, and so the Gender Recognition Act was introduced. Since this ruling, a lot of things have changed; trans people are protected from discrimination for being trans, same sex marriage has been introduced, discrimination by perception is recognised and the scope of sexual harassment widened, the state pension age has been equalised for anyone still working and gender recognition certificates could be used to change birth sex.

The flipside of the change is that medical transition has become incredibly permissive and far less "gatekept" than it was in the 90s when this case first launched. Additionally, the protected characteristic of "gender reassignment" does not require any form of medical transition. A big part of this ECHR ruling focused on the fact that Goodwin had gone through with amhole surgery and "the numerous and painful interventions involved in such surgery and the level of commitment and conviction required to achieve a change in social gender role". That's obviously not the case today.

The argument that's being raised here is that by now reading the Equality Act as requiring trans people to use the facilities of their birth sex, this is contradicting the ECHR ruling that the UK already insisted it was obeying - and that it also specifically could be a violation of Article 8 as it could require trans people to out themselves by noticeably changing what toilet they're using could result in a breach of the right to privacy, as it requires disclosure of trans status (which is what GRCs are supposed to prevent). This isn't relevant for the majority of trans service users as most trans people don't have a GRC, but I do disagree Article 8 completely wouldn't apply - it could form the basis of a legal challenge, although I'm inclined to think as the other relevant detriments have been lessened there's no guarantee of any one particular verdict. May try doing some sort of digging into the Equality laws of other member states.

The UK could just ignore the ECHR because it has parliamentary sovereignty, but in general the closest we've come to that is the ruling about letting prisoners vote. Basically we got told to let all prisoners vote, but eventually the compromise was that prisoners who had been released on temporary license (and so weren't currently in prison) were allowed to vote. Flat out ignoring the ECHR could result in further domestic fallout and potential international implications (e.g. EU trade agreement, Good Friday agreement as they specifically link into adherence with the ECHR).

 

[Not Dr. Evil]

Is Banana Wu illiterate?

The decision has nothing to do with enbies and "self id" whatsoever.



Arguing the decision is the same as child abuse.



I'll take things that never happeend for a thousand Alex!

SCOTUS just confirmed that it isn't Kermit.

 

[Stabby_Pencil]

Is Banana Wu illiterate?

All signs to point to 'YES!', and he appears to be bad at math too.

 

[LaughJoke2.0]

Thank fucking God we have a conservative supreme court I hope Thomas retires under Trump, so it stays this way for at least the next decade if not two.

The Dissent of denying "Gender Affirming Care" would cause physical and psychological harm and what cutting off teen girls' breast and pumping kids full of drugs and hormones that cause lower bone density won't? How about making them social outcast in their formative years is that good for them. & God help if they're female and realize once they grow up, they made a mistake which means they might have cut off their breast, ruined their voices, and possibly have male pattern baldness.

As for "Brianna Wu" and his "I'm a reasonably pretty woman" asshole you weren't even a reasonably handsome man you are one ugly tranny.

Edit: For Grammar.

 

[Not Dr. Evil]

Why does Pocahontas want to troon the kids?



ROFLMAO at anyone citing "The Wide Latina"




Sorry Eli,

But the decision confirmed in precise detail that (1) there is no actual consensus anywhere, (2) troonery is not legitmate healthcare, and (3) trooning out has never saved anyone's life.

 

[DSHK]

The FBI asks you to report your local groomers:
View attachment 7445409
Source (Archive)

The insurance companies know whats coming. They are raising their malpractice coverage for doctors who perform rotdog and stinkditch installations. These "doctors" better start looking for other countries to hide in just like their predecessor josef mengele

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/rising-malpractice-premiums-push-small-clinics-away-from-gender-affirming-care-for-minors

https://www.getindigo.com/blog/detransition-lawsuit-how-doctors-can-reduce-liability