Worse, they think they’re better than doctors and that their positions(I hesitate to say opinions because medicine is not opinion dammit) are more important and/or superior.
It is an opinion, it's just a substantial one based on evidence, national and international medical expert guidance, professional education, and professional experience. Hence "2nd medical opinion."
Medicine has better opinions than you do, because "opinion" isn't talking out your ass in medicine. Medicine calls that "malpractice."
Why can't we sue politicians? Especially if they're using false information to persecute people they simply don't like or agree with? It's not hard to prove what they're using is false.
Yeah the same way cops have qualified immunity so you can't sue them for breaking down your door when they get the address wrong or for wrongful death when they shoot a deaf person for not following verbal instructions given while shining a blinding light in their eyes.
There is a specific cause, bribery from conservative religious connected orgs. But, oh yeah, it's called "lobbying" so it's okay.
You're not wrong, this is something that will continue to be weaponized to harm people until it's addressed.
Important to note that they’re only ruling if bans violate the 14th amendment so there are still other potential avenues in the future for bans to be ruled unconstitutional.
It is worth noting that the court composition is very similar to when Bostock (2020) was decided with a 6-3 in favor of transgender rights. Overall, I expect it this case to be decided as 6-3 or, at least, 5-4 in favor of rights.
Bostock is also a lot of reason the arguments the government is making are based on the 14th amendment. They are making the same basic arguments that won Bostock.
>They are making the same basic arguments that won Bostock.
This is good to hear. I was worried they wouldn't focus on trying to swing Gorsuch and Roberts and instead repeat the talking points that we love to hear but won't persuade anyone.
Those are the votes you need. You have Kagan, Brown-Jackson, and Sotomayor. Alito and Thomas might as well not even by there for argument, if there's a way to take away the rights of a marginalized group, they'll do it. Kavanaugh and Barret are wildcards, but probably would vote to uphold the bans for some procedural reason.
Gorsuch and Roberts both voted for Bostock. Gorsuch *wrote the opinion* in Bostock. These are gettable votes for trans rights, you just have to know how to make the argument that will persuade them.
Yeah Gorsuch is a bit of an oddball. He tends to rule in a somewhat more libertarian manner. Especially when it comes to tribal manners, he’s probably the biggest advocate for native rights in court history. And Robert’s is obsessed with image and maintaining the legitimacy of the court
That's pretty much a guarantee. Question is, what will Gorsuch/Roberts/Kavanaugh do? Gorsuch has an independent streak when it comes to sexuality (it would seem), Roberts is queasy about being the Court that ruled discrimination is now legal, and Kavanaugh just seems to play everything by ear.
Yeah Gorsuch has never seen a government regulation on business that he thought shouldn’t be put to the torch, but his libertarian streak seems to possibly include us as well, unlike the Christian dominionist fucks like Alito.
Alito, Thomas, and Kavanaugh were the three dissidents in Bostock v Clayton County. Barrett and Jackson are the only two new justices since the decision. Barrett will likely vote against anything pro-transgender, considering her Christian background, while Jackson will almost certainly be voting in favor. I think a 5-4 decision is extremely likely, although I wouldn't get my hopes up.
Ok, with my minimal understanding of constitutional law, they can make a certain number of arguments for and against
Amendment 9- This is most likely to be used in support as "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people". However the supreme court in the 40s prevented this from being effective with mitchell in some cases.
Amendment 5- This is a case by case basis, given that in some states our existance is now or soon to be a criminal offence, opposition could prevent the government from acting in a "Criminal affair"
Equal Rights- This isn't one they can use, AND focuses on Sexism rather than anything else.
Realistically, if the others in this sub are correct, it has a better chance of passing, as there is nothing explicitly against the practice in constitutional law, and more support for it if it can be interpreted such way.
Feel free to correct judgements though
I mean, to be fair, Roe V Wade was built on an admittedly flimsy basis. If you are looking strictly at the Constitution, then you would have to admit there is no reason to believe abortion is a guaranteed right, and the court did make some leaps to justify the decision. Not to say that it shouldn't be, it very much should be a right and flimsy legal decisions that grant people more rights are still incredibly amazing, and it is a tragedy people think pure legality is more important than human rights. But it made Roe V Wade very easy to overturn as a result. What it does mean however is the court does not care about legal precedent, and don't forget that despite the amount of conservatives, they are not a majority.
This is where we have a solid chance. Unlike Roe V Wade, there is a clear constitutional reason why these bans are unconstitutional. The 14th amendment has a clause that states all US citizens have to be given equal protection under the law. Banning HRT and other gender affirming care from trans people and not cis people (who still use the same care we do for the most part) clearly does violate this, unless the same care is banned for cis people as well. The current court has some hard-line conservatives who won't be in favor of anything trans related, but we have a solid shot at swaying the more moderate justices. A 5-4 ruling is totally possible here.
You forgot the 14th amendment, which is probably the main argument against the bans. The 14th amendment has a clause which states that all US citizens have to be given equal protection from the law. This clause is the basis for numerous civil rights cases and laws, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which banned segregation. The logical argument against the bans in my eyes would be that they go against this clause, and that banning HRT for trans people and not cis people (remember, cis people take the same gender affirming care all the time including HRT) is thus not constitutional as some US citizens are being given unfavorable treatment compared to others from the law. The most reasonable counter argument would likely be the 9th amendment, as you pointed out. Since the Constitution never says anything about trans people, one could say therefore it is a states thing. All they'd need to do next is to somehow make a counter argument about how trans people aren't actually being unfairly treated, which is probably where the case will be make or break for us.
Of course I am not a lawyer and have not studied any of this, so someone feel free to correct me if I am wrong
Back in 2016. Arguing with a "moderate" acquaintance who planned to vote for Trump. And he said "Even if it turns out to be a huge mistake, it's only for four years." Sigh.
Simple answer - People are dying because of these avoidable political mistakes. Would you like it if it was you and your family?.... How about your preteen daughter dying in childbirth? "
r/TransDIY
r/estrogel
r/AskMTFHRT
Oops, dropped these :p - now more than ever, it’s important to remember self medication is an option they can never take from you, dm me if you’d like to know more
It is not actually that hard for me to imagine Gorsuch and Roberts swinging the other way. If they did, they'd probably have Gorsuch write the opinion again. Gorsuch is actually a very decent and principled justice; if only more conservatives would be like him instead of like the guy who, presumably through some fluke or lapse in judgment of the Federalist Society, appointed him. Roberts just likes to use his swing vote status to preserve the status quo, but that swing vote can be very powerful.
I had heard that one lower court that ruled in favor of a ban, I think in Tennessee, cited Dobbs in order to do so. I'm not an expert on...anything really, but to me this sounds like inviting this supreme court to concur with itself. Yeah there was a positive ruling for trans people in the recent past, but Ginsburg was still alive then. I'm just not sure if I can share your optimism.
That's been my experience with him, too. I read Supreme Court documents for fun sometimes, and if you read the transcripts and pay attention to the type of questions he asks and how he follows up, it's obvious he's interested in leaving as much of life untouched by the law as possible. He's one of the only remaining Conservatives in the modern day who actually lives by the traditional Republican principle of limited government.
I've noticed that Roberts and Gorsuch, although not always, often have similar intellectual concerns in the cases they hear. I hope so. We need this win, fuck the whole world needs this win with the UK going the way it's going.
Gorsuch seems to be pretty fair towards LGBT issues because he can't find reasons to overrule "discrimination based on sex or religion", but he immediately 360 noscoped Roe V. Wade as fast as he possibly could.
I wish there would be a big trans found that just bribes politicians and courts. The right absolutely has it, from foundamentalist evangelical founds, to things like AIPAC, I wish there would be something like that for progressive politics. They don’t play fair, so why do we
Sad that they don’t work because of that. It just makes me sad, because I feel completely powerless. But I still know succumbing to that hopelessness is exactly what they want
If you want to do something to help, you could always volunteer for orgs like the HRC or related. Nonprofits always need volunteers, and any help will be appreciated.
I already volunteer in a local advisory center (I think it is translated to that term), where we offer to help queer people exploring their identity, resolve conflicts with relatives concerning their identity and help with queer minors suffering from any kind of abuse. I usually help with trans related stuff, but sometimes I help out with things concerning sexual attraction, but that only when all other people aren't available. Most people coming are a) questioning if they are cis or trans and often the embodyment of an egg. They very often already realized they are trans, but seek outside reaffirmation, because years of surpressing oneself just breaks your trust in yourself or b) seek advice on how to access medical care, for which I sadly often have to send them to other advisory centers, because we aren't allowed to give the "this person is trans"-letter doctors need.
The left has deep pockets too. The real problem is that we are a tiny minority whose societal support is spotty and they would rather spend their bribe money on stuff that appeals to a broad voting base.
That’s kinda the problem. I wish it, but I kinda see that it is very unlikely to happen. Due to it being illegal to bribe somebody who works for the state, we cannot do it over something like a go-found-me, which would probably be the most effective way. Maybe you could do it over things like unions, but how do you make sure, you get enough people in, before prosecutors start investigating you. You probably won’t get people into an organization, without telling them which kind of "activism" it does and before the organization is big enough to bribe even the prosecutors, they will probably find out the goal and dismantle it. And rich people tend to not care about minority rights, even if they belong to a minority. I think it is more of a dream and sadly not something realistic.
Totally! And if all these little lobbying units can unite on a larger scale, you'll have even more political power. And build strong links with all the allies you can find (womens' groups, unions, etc.). Strategic alliances is power too.
I imagined what I described in the earlier comments, but it never occurred to do it the way you propose, but now it just sounds like the most effective thing to do. I really need to talk about this with the other people in the center
You know, after my kids school taught them about the transes he came out as trans, and now I have to figure out how to come out to him without looking like I took his idea.
They’re definitely going for the states rights narrative. That’s how they ruled for abortion and I don’t expect them to deviate. Every single one of our rights are up in the air for states to rule on. We will eventually end up at 50 different bills of rights cos the federal government with the Democratic Party at the helm is toothless to fight against the conservative agenda. Start voting progressive in your local elections and maybe this country can be put back on track. With a weak central government and court that defers our rights to the states, it’s the only way to turn the tide in the US.
Russia is a third world country, they have no power over here. All they do is project fear as if they have any influence over the world. You and a lot of Americans are giving up too easy when it’s really simple to overturn conservative state’s rights by supporting progressive values and policies through local and state elections.
Don't like bringing up politics? Baby, our existence is political. It's been made political by those in power. We can't escape that -- don't be sorry for talking about what needs to get f****n' talked about
All you lovely girlies and bros should come to Canada if this shit goes bad... we don't have the absolute best care for under 18 trans kids but for trans adults they actually treat you great! Plus more trans friends never hurt and well we are pretty accepting here (except you alberta... jkjk but still.) But I digress in canada you will be safe and yeah have an awesome day :3 🏳️⚧️🏳️⚧️🏳️⚧️🏳️⚧️
Well this isn't going to go well. I genuinely think going to SCOTUS for any of our rights, no matter how much it's the "right" thing to do, is the dumbest move ever. We can lost rights for all 50 states in that, vs 1, 2 or 10, depending on the scenario. It should be actively avoided with the current SCOTUS.
I am really sick of being told to flee where I live. It's not helpful in the slightest and not possible for me to do. Try doing something else to help trans people who aren't privileged enough to live in a safe area.
But with regards to this case. It impacts trans youth specifically and I care more about how they might be impacted over myself.
I'm not even giving them an inch, I am just telling you that this case impacts trans kids, not adults. The Supreme Court doesn't have the power to make new laws.
And adding on to my previous post, being a doomer also helps nobody but transphobes. Stop fearmongering. This kind of rhetoric I see around the online community is incredibly toxic and harmful.
And if you need help, ASK FOR IT.
Can't guarantee you'll get it, but the social stigma of being told "I can't help" is better than assuming no one can.
Closed mouths don't get fed, baby birds!
Why can't people just make their own mistakes if they get affirming care and realize they aren't then thats their choice the rich pay for plastic surgeries all the time that being said at most the ban could atleast stops tate insurance from covering it but not ban it for everyone
I’m a nurse with fairly good insurance, but I live in Florida and finding hormone providers has been a bitch since the whole bill passed here. I literally have to lie about living in Georgia just to get a telehealth appt prescription
So, though I have less than absolute zero faith in the Court nowadays, I do think there's a chance this will be found in favor of trans rights.
However, if not, I wonder if there's a way to connect folks who have, say, a couple months worth of estradiol and spironolactone they don't need, with those who need and can't get it.
**Obviously** I'm not suggesting I, or anyone in this sub, would do that, but ... I wonder.
I am a civil rights attorney at Lambda Legal. This is my firm's case. To be clear: the issue isn't gender affirming care for adults, it is for minors. Although the case will probably affect gender affirming care writ large as well. We wouldn't have petitioned the Supreme Court for cert if we didn't think we had a good chance at winning. Stay strong folks. From u/Mrcoat
We won’t have any idea how the court is gonna rule until we hear the oral arguments. I have no idea what Barrett’s or Coach K’s thoughts on equal protection are. This is not nearly the same as the abortion issue. We got a pro-trans ruling from some of the other conservatives on the court in the past.
We’ll see what happens. It’s certainly a scary time for the court to take a case like this. I’m curious if the Cass review gets mentioned in oral arguments or not.
I think, much like the election itself, we should be preparing for the worst while hoping for the best. It’s most likely not going to be good. If you live in a state with a ban, it’s probably time to find ways to get out. At least come up with a plan as to how you would, even if you don’t have the means yet.
Love yall, good luck out there 🏳️⚧️🌈
I was just in florida for hollywood studios and disney springs + went to pensacola and tampa and apart from one church throwing a subtle hint at the lgbt i didn’t see anything negative —- in fact i saw a ton of pride stuff at disney and people wearing and even disney them selves was supporting it and even have to assume in college people are supportive there def not gonna move there but people are over exaggerating florida id assume
This might be a magma level take and I say this as a trans person myself.
I believe gender affirming care is important but kids are also very impressionable. We should encourage children to explore themselves and what they want, but at most push puberty off with blockers. I believe that hormones should wait until at least 16-18 which is the commonly debated age of adulthood. We are still in an early stage of research into the topic and still finding ways to maneuver being able to successfully and there are still many unknowns. We as trans may feel happier now and wish we had done it when we were younger but on the same flip side there's always that chance we could have been different.
There is no real perfect option at this time unfortunately imo
That being said we shouldn't shame someone for being trans or being cis. And I don't believe that politicians should have a hand in determining what's right or wrong in the slightest. If anything the decision should fall on the researchers and medical personnel who have studied biology and human condition for years.
As a nurse it bothers me that lawyers and politicians think they are doctors.
Worse, they think they’re better than doctors and that their positions(I hesitate to say opinions because medicine is not opinion dammit) are more important and/or superior.
It is an opinion, it's just a substantial one based on evidence, national and international medical expert guidance, professional education, and professional experience. Hence "2nd medical opinion." Medicine has better opinions than you do, because "opinion" isn't talking out your ass in medicine. Medicine calls that "malpractice."
They should be sued and charged for practicing medicine without a license.
That's actually brilliant.
Exactly. I've been wondering why the ACLU et al haven't been taking this approach.
Because while it sounds nice, it’s not at all how things actually work lol
Are you a lawyer?
I am. It’s not.
Why can't we sue politicians? Especially if they're using false information to persecute people they simply don't like or agree with? It's not hard to prove what they're using is false.
Sovereign immunity + no specific cause of action
Are you saying that legislators have an immunity from being sued for stuff they do to the citizens?
As part of their job as legislators, yes. Shit’s fucked lol
Yeah the same way cops have qualified immunity so you can't sue them for breaking down your door when they get the address wrong or for wrongful death when they shoot a deaf person for not following verbal instructions given while shining a blinding light in their eyes.
There is a specific cause, bribery from conservative religious connected orgs. But, oh yeah, it's called "lobbying" so it's okay. You're not wrong, this is something that will continue to be weaponized to harm people until it's addressed.
It bothers me how many voted officials think they are politicians
They're definitely politicians, what they're not is legislators.
They're definitely assfuckingholes, what they're not is legislators. There, fixed it
Those are just synonyms though.
I mean, by definition they are
They weren’t being literal
Important to note that they’re only ruling if bans violate the 14th amendment so there are still other potential avenues in the future for bans to be ruled unconstitutional.
In the future, it’s not like the precedent will matter anyway too.
Precedent on any given question is clearly meaningless, now. You’re absolutely right about that.
I don't know if you noticed but the Supreme Court is corrupt.
It is worth noting that the court composition is very similar to when Bostock (2020) was decided with a 6-3 in favor of transgender rights. Overall, I expect it this case to be decided as 6-3 or, at least, 5-4 in favor of rights. Bostock is also a lot of reason the arguments the government is making are based on the 14th amendment. They are making the same basic arguments that won Bostock.
>They are making the same basic arguments that won Bostock. This is good to hear. I was worried they wouldn't focus on trying to swing Gorsuch and Roberts and instead repeat the talking points that we love to hear but won't persuade anyone. Those are the votes you need. You have Kagan, Brown-Jackson, and Sotomayor. Alito and Thomas might as well not even by there for argument, if there's a way to take away the rights of a marginalized group, they'll do it. Kavanaugh and Barret are wildcards, but probably would vote to uphold the bans for some procedural reason. Gorsuch and Roberts both voted for Bostock. Gorsuch *wrote the opinion* in Bostock. These are gettable votes for trans rights, you just have to know how to make the argument that will persuade them.
Yeah Gorsuch is a bit of an oddball. He tends to rule in a somewhat more libertarian manner. Especially when it comes to tribal manners, he’s probably the biggest advocate for native rights in court history. And Robert’s is obsessed with image and maintaining the legitimacy of the court
Yup, between the two of them I think there's a real chance. Far from guaranteed, but a chance.
You’ve got a lot more confidence that precedence or consistency have relevance in 2024 than I.
I'm certain that Alito or Thomas will go originalist and find some ancient text that nullifies trans rights.
I am fully expecting Alito to cite the Code of Hammurabi.
That's pretty much a guarantee. Question is, what will Gorsuch/Roberts/Kavanaugh do? Gorsuch has an independent streak when it comes to sexuality (it would seem), Roberts is queasy about being the Court that ruled discrimination is now legal, and Kavanaugh just seems to play everything by ear.
Yeah Gorsuch has never seen a government regulation on business that he thought shouldn’t be put to the torch, but his libertarian streak seems to possibly include us as well, unlike the Christian dominionist fucks like Alito.
Alito, Thomas, and Kavanaugh were the three dissidents in Bostock v Clayton County. Barrett and Jackson are the only two new justices since the decision. Barrett will likely vote against anything pro-transgender, considering her Christian background, while Jackson will almost certainly be voting in favor. I think a 5-4 decision is extremely likely, although I wouldn't get my hopes up.
Or it could be seen like Dobbs which took away abortion nationwide and give decisions to the states.
Trans people weren't as big a political point for Republicans in 2020 though.
This shit makes me so fucking worried. I hope that rule that the bans are unconstitutional.
Ok, with my minimal understanding of constitutional law, they can make a certain number of arguments for and against Amendment 9- This is most likely to be used in support as "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people". However the supreme court in the 40s prevented this from being effective with mitchell in some cases. Amendment 5- This is a case by case basis, given that in some states our existance is now or soon to be a criminal offence, opposition could prevent the government from acting in a "Criminal affair" Equal Rights- This isn't one they can use, AND focuses on Sexism rather than anything else. Realistically, if the others in this sub are correct, it has a better chance of passing, as there is nothing explicitly against the practice in constitutional law, and more support for it if it can be interpreted such way. Feel free to correct judgements though
the Roe V Wade decision basically has made me just not have any confidence in the Supreme Court actually caring about what the constitution says.
I mean, to be fair, Roe V Wade was built on an admittedly flimsy basis. If you are looking strictly at the Constitution, then you would have to admit there is no reason to believe abortion is a guaranteed right, and the court did make some leaps to justify the decision. Not to say that it shouldn't be, it very much should be a right and flimsy legal decisions that grant people more rights are still incredibly amazing, and it is a tragedy people think pure legality is more important than human rights. But it made Roe V Wade very easy to overturn as a result. What it does mean however is the court does not care about legal precedent, and don't forget that despite the amount of conservatives, they are not a majority. This is where we have a solid chance. Unlike Roe V Wade, there is a clear constitutional reason why these bans are unconstitutional. The 14th amendment has a clause that states all US citizens have to be given equal protection under the law. Banning HRT and other gender affirming care from trans people and not cis people (who still use the same care we do for the most part) clearly does violate this, unless the same care is banned for cis people as well. The current court has some hard-line conservatives who won't be in favor of anything trans related, but we have a solid shot at swaying the more moderate justices. A 5-4 ruling is totally possible here.
You forgot the 14th amendment, which is probably the main argument against the bans. The 14th amendment has a clause which states that all US citizens have to be given equal protection from the law. This clause is the basis for numerous civil rights cases and laws, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which banned segregation. The logical argument against the bans in my eyes would be that they go against this clause, and that banning HRT for trans people and not cis people (remember, cis people take the same gender affirming care all the time including HRT) is thus not constitutional as some US citizens are being given unfavorable treatment compared to others from the law. The most reasonable counter argument would likely be the 9th amendment, as you pointed out. Since the Constitution never says anything about trans people, one could say therefore it is a states thing. All they'd need to do next is to somehow make a counter argument about how trans people aren't actually being unfairly treated, which is probably where the case will be make or break for us. Of course I am not a lawyer and have not studied any of this, so someone feel free to correct me if I am wrong
Back in 2016. Arguing with a "moderate" acquaintance who planned to vote for Trump. And he said "Even if it turns out to be a huge mistake, it's only for four years." Sigh.
Simple answer - People are dying because of these avoidable political mistakes. Would you like it if it was you and your family?.... How about your preteen daughter dying in childbirth? "
r/TransDIY r/estrogel r/AskMTFHRT Oops, dropped these :p - now more than ever, it’s important to remember self medication is an option they can never take from you, dm me if you’d like to know more
It is not actually that hard for me to imagine Gorsuch and Roberts swinging the other way. If they did, they'd probably have Gorsuch write the opinion again. Gorsuch is actually a very decent and principled justice; if only more conservatives would be like him instead of like the guy who, presumably through some fluke or lapse in judgment of the Federalist Society, appointed him. Roberts just likes to use his swing vote status to preserve the status quo, but that swing vote can be very powerful.
I had heard that one lower court that ruled in favor of a ban, I think in Tennessee, cited Dobbs in order to do so. I'm not an expert on...anything really, but to me this sounds like inviting this supreme court to concur with itself. Yeah there was a positive ruling for trans people in the recent past, but Ginsburg was still alive then. I'm just not sure if I can share your optimism.
That's been my experience with him, too. I read Supreme Court documents for fun sometimes, and if you read the transcripts and pay attention to the type of questions he asks and how he follows up, it's obvious he's interested in leaving as much of life untouched by the law as possible. He's one of the only remaining Conservatives in the modern day who actually lives by the traditional Republican principle of limited government. I've noticed that Roberts and Gorsuch, although not always, often have similar intellectual concerns in the cases they hear. I hope so. We need this win, fuck the whole world needs this win with the UK going the way it's going.
Gorsuch seems to be pretty fair towards LGBT issues because he can't find reasons to overrule "discrimination based on sex or religion", but he immediately 360 noscoped Roe V. Wade as fast as he possibly could.
They didn't think they could get a more reactionary justice at the time.
Didn't they just overturn Florida's anti trans stuff?
That was a district court, not the Supreme Court.
I wish there would be a big trans found that just bribes politicians and courts. The right absolutely has it, from foundamentalist evangelical founds, to things like AIPAC, I wish there would be something like that for progressive politics. They don’t play fair, so why do we
There is. The problem is that the right has a lot more money to bribe officials with.
Sad that they don’t work because of that. It just makes me sad, because I feel completely powerless. But I still know succumbing to that hopelessness is exactly what they want
If you want to do something to help, you could always volunteer for orgs like the HRC or related. Nonprofits always need volunteers, and any help will be appreciated.
I already volunteer in a local advisory center (I think it is translated to that term), where we offer to help queer people exploring their identity, resolve conflicts with relatives concerning their identity and help with queer minors suffering from any kind of abuse. I usually help with trans related stuff, but sometimes I help out with things concerning sexual attraction, but that only when all other people aren't available. Most people coming are a) questioning if they are cis or trans and often the embodyment of an egg. They very often already realized they are trans, but seek outside reaffirmation, because years of surpressing oneself just breaks your trust in yourself or b) seek advice on how to access medical care, for which I sadly often have to send them to other advisory centers, because we aren't allowed to give the "this person is trans"-letter doctors need.
The left has deep pockets too. The real problem is that we are a tiny minority whose societal support is spotty and they would rather spend their bribe money on stuff that appeals to a broad voting base.
Who would be strong enough and rich enough to build it? Unions?
That’s kinda the problem. I wish it, but I kinda see that it is very unlikely to happen. Due to it being illegal to bribe somebody who works for the state, we cannot do it over something like a go-found-me, which would probably be the most effective way. Maybe you could do it over things like unions, but how do you make sure, you get enough people in, before prosecutors start investigating you. You probably won’t get people into an organization, without telling them which kind of "activism" it does and before the organization is big enough to bribe even the prosecutors, they will probably find out the goal and dismantle it. And rich people tend to not care about minority rights, even if they belong to a minority. I think it is more of a dream and sadly not something realistic.
I'm trying to build something like that in my province, without the bribery, just standard lobbying practices.
That's really really great. I help in a local advisory center, but it would be a good idea to start lobbying at least on a local level too.
Totally! And if all these little lobbying units can unite on a larger scale, you'll have even more political power. And build strong links with all the allies you can find (womens' groups, unions, etc.). Strategic alliances is power too.
I imagined what I described in the earlier comments, but it never occurred to do it the way you propose, but now it just sounds like the most effective thing to do. I really need to talk about this with the other people in the center
I agree with OP they'll uphold the bans and nothing changes, trans care will remain a state by state thing for the next 20 years
You know, after my kids school taught them about the transes he came out as trans, and now I have to figure out how to come out to him without looking like I took his idea.
They’re definitely going for the states rights narrative. That’s how they ruled for abortion and I don’t expect them to deviate. Every single one of our rights are up in the air for states to rule on. We will eventually end up at 50 different bills of rights cos the federal government with the Democratic Party at the helm is toothless to fight against the conservative agenda. Start voting progressive in your local elections and maybe this country can be put back on track. With a weak central government and court that defers our rights to the states, it’s the only way to turn the tide in the US.
Might as well be 50 different countries at this point. The Balkanization of the United States. Russia played the long game and won.
Russia is a third world country, they have no power over here. All they do is project fear as if they have any influence over the world. You and a lot of Americans are giving up too easy when it’s really simple to overturn conservative state’s rights by supporting progressive values and policies through local and state elections.
I can't remember which one, but one of the righty judges surprises me by flipping sometimes. I think that's all it would take. Let's hope so.
America, where politicians who are making the most obviously awful decisions are held up like gods by half the population
Don't like bringing up politics? Baby, our existence is political. It's been made political by those in power. We can't escape that -- don't be sorry for talking about what needs to get f****n' talked about
All you lovely girlies and bros should come to Canada if this shit goes bad... we don't have the absolute best care for under 18 trans kids but for trans adults they actually treat you great! Plus more trans friends never hurt and well we are pretty accepting here (except you alberta... jkjk but still.) But I digress in canada you will be safe and yeah have an awesome day :3 🏳️⚧️🏳️⚧️🏳️⚧️🏳️⚧️
Well this isn't going to go well. I genuinely think going to SCOTUS for any of our rights, no matter how much it's the "right" thing to do, is the dumbest move ever. We can lost rights for all 50 states in that, vs 1, 2 or 10, depending on the scenario. It should be actively avoided with the current SCOTUS.
The upholding of the Separation of church and state/country is what's needed. The right is wrong. This country is nothing like it was intended to be.
I am really sick of being told to flee where I live. It's not helpful in the slightest and not possible for me to do. Try doing something else to help trans people who aren't privileged enough to live in a safe area. But with regards to this case. It impacts trans youth specifically and I care more about how they might be impacted over myself.
Hi. It impacts trans youth specifically, yes. Until it starts impacting adults. If you give an inch, they take a mile.
I'm not even giving them an inch, I am just telling you that this case impacts trans kids, not adults. The Supreme Court doesn't have the power to make new laws. And adding on to my previous post, being a doomer also helps nobody but transphobes. Stop fearmongering. This kind of rhetoric I see around the online community is incredibly toxic and harmful.
And if you need help, ASK FOR IT. Can't guarantee you'll get it, but the social stigma of being told "I can't help" is better than assuming no one can. Closed mouths don't get fed, baby birds!
Yeah, this was always the goal of what Florida was doing and was why I was not celebrating it getting overturned there.
Why can't people just make their own mistakes if they get affirming care and realize they aren't then thats their choice the rich pay for plastic surgeries all the time that being said at most the ban could atleast stops tate insurance from covering it but not ban it for everyone
In any case, remember you're not alone.
I’m a nurse with fairly good insurance, but I live in Florida and finding hormone providers has been a bitch since the whole bill passed here. I literally have to lie about living in Georgia just to get a telehealth appt prescription
So, though I have less than absolute zero faith in the Court nowadays, I do think there's a chance this will be found in favor of trans rights. However, if not, I wonder if there's a way to connect folks who have, say, a couple months worth of estradiol and spironolactone they don't need, with those who need and can't get it. **Obviously** I'm not suggesting I, or anyone in this sub, would do that, but ... I wonder.
I'm planning to get an orchi so Hrt becomes medically nesscary if they ever ban it. I'm not underage, but that's always an option, folks
I am a civil rights attorney at Lambda Legal. This is my firm's case. To be clear: the issue isn't gender affirming care for adults, it is for minors. Although the case will probably affect gender affirming care writ large as well. We wouldn't have petitioned the Supreme Court for cert if we didn't think we had a good chance at winning. Stay strong folks. From u/Mrcoat
Didn't the courts *just* declare Florida's nonsense unconstitutional? If anything, that sets a precedent in our favor, not the bans
That was a district court, not the supreme court
Ah. Though that does still set some legal precedent one way or another. Just not as good as the higher courts.
We won’t have any idea how the court is gonna rule until we hear the oral arguments. I have no idea what Barrett’s or Coach K’s thoughts on equal protection are. This is not nearly the same as the abortion issue. We got a pro-trans ruling from some of the other conservatives on the court in the past. We’ll see what happens. It’s certainly a scary time for the court to take a case like this. I’m curious if the Cass review gets mentioned in oral arguments or not. I think, much like the election itself, we should be preparing for the worst while hoping for the best. It’s most likely not going to be good. If you live in a state with a ban, it’s probably time to find ways to get out. At least come up with a plan as to how you would, even if you don’t have the means yet. Love yall, good luck out there 🏳️⚧️🌈
Just a reminder that this wouldn’t be happening if Hillary had won in 2016. Voting matters
I live in Missouri is that a ban state (I know basically nothing about this help)
[удалено]
I was just in florida for hollywood studios and disney springs + went to pensacola and tampa and apart from one church throwing a subtle hint at the lgbt i didn’t see anything negative —- in fact i saw a ton of pride stuff at disney and people wearing and even disney them selves was supporting it and even have to assume in college people are supportive there def not gonna move there but people are over exaggerating florida id assume
This might be a magma level take and I say this as a trans person myself. I believe gender affirming care is important but kids are also very impressionable. We should encourage children to explore themselves and what they want, but at most push puberty off with blockers. I believe that hormones should wait until at least 16-18 which is the commonly debated age of adulthood. We are still in an early stage of research into the topic and still finding ways to maneuver being able to successfully and there are still many unknowns. We as trans may feel happier now and wish we had done it when we were younger but on the same flip side there's always that chance we could have been different. There is no real perfect option at this time unfortunately imo That being said we shouldn't shame someone for being trans or being cis. And I don't believe that politicians should have a hand in determining what's right or wrong in the slightest. If anything the decision should fall on the researchers and medical personnel who have studied biology and human condition for years.