Hacker Neue

Preferences
titanomachy parent
“Denying healthcare on the basis of assigned gender at birth” seems like a deliberately loaded way to state this. Isn’t it more accurate to say it’s a blanket denial of a certain type of treatment to all minors?
wahern
Much of the majority and most of the dissenting opinions in the recent SCOTUS case are exactly about that--is it sex discrimination?: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-477_2cp3.pdf All the opinions are worth a read. The best arguments for both sides are there. Though, I thought all the best arguments on both sides kind of sucked; it's just a very difficult issue. Transgender questions lay to waste 100 years of sex and gender discourse on both the right and left.
titanomachy OP
Thanks for sharing. SCOTUS basically said the same thing I was trying to point out in my comment: it’s not discriminating based on sex, but rather on age and “medical purpose”.

I agree with your assessment, and I am suspicious of anyone (on either side) who claims that there is an obvious “correct” answer to this issue.

KittenInABox
I think where it's ambiguous, it should be left to the parents to decide. Parents can already decline life-saving treatment on their child in the US due to their moral beliefs. Why not let parents also decide if they want to let a 16 yo have hormone treatments. It surely can't be more serious than declining blood transfusion.
stickfigure
This is, of course, the voice of sanity. Unfortunately it's not encoded into our legal system in these terms. On the other hand, if your religion explicitly requires that everyone "art theretofore honest with thy sentiment of masculinity or womanhood" (dress it up in colorful language, ideally quoted from old books with ambiguous authorship) you might have something you can sell to the Supreme Court.
DoctorOW
Personally I think it's less accurate to rephrase medical treatment as "a certain treatment". It's also false to say all minors, since cisgender minors are still approved to receive puberty blockers (and are regularly prescribed them for various reasons).

It's the same medicine from the same medical professionals and the only difference is your gender identity.

titanomachy OP
According to the Supreme Court, the difference is the “medical purpose” of the treatments. Presumably trans-identifying individuals can get the treatments if they meet the same criteria as cis-identifying ones (e.g. premature puberty). If they treated the sexes differently (e.g. those born male can get hormones for gender dysphoria, and those born female can’t) then it would be clear-cut discrimination.
DoctorOW
First off, I fully understand that discriminating on gender identity isn't the same thing as discrimination based on sex however they are both discrimination.

Even if you were to convince me of this legal fiction that gender identity has nothing to do with idemitiy and is in fact just a medical condition the Supreme Court doesn't care to treat, I still would call it a life threatening attack.

If the Supreme Court denied chemotherapy for cancer patients, it'd be perfectly justified to call it life threatening denial of care. The fact that it's available for cancer patients with other diseases that are treatable via chemotherapy is irrelevant.

const_cast
The elephant in the room here is why is the Supreme Court even concerned with how prescription drugs are used? I'm sure are justices are very smart - but they're not doctors. And they're certainly not my doctor or your doctor or every single child's doctor.

It should be up to a doctor to decide if a prescription makes sense for a particular patients symptoms and diagnosis. The Supreme Court should not concern itself otherwise.

At least with Roe v Wade there's an argument to be made about it involving a second hypothetical person. But this? This is strictly between patients, their medical care, and their parents.

titanomachy OP
The Supreme Court is only involved because a state passed a law banning these treatments, and someone brought a case against the state saying the law is unconstitutional. Deciding which laws are unconstitutional is like the main purpose of the Supreme Court.

But I guess what you’re saying is why is the state passing these laws, which is a fair enough question. The Supreme Court says they are allowed to, and they are the authority on which laws are allowed, so I expect the states will keep doing this sort of thing until the voters tell them not to.

Plato did try to warn us that democracy was a terrible idea.

Manuel_D
There's a very big difference between giving a child undergoing precocious puberty blockers until they're 11, and giving a child blockers with the goal of preventing them from every undergoing a same-sex puberty. The latter has a whole host of risks, including infertility and inability to orgasm. To say that the only difference is gender identity is not even remotely honest.
nyanpasu64
I'm pretty sure they're still allowing puberty blockers for premature puberty, inducing puberty in cis teens, and surgically and medically forcing intersex people into a binary sex without consent.
KittenInABox
No, because puberty blockers can be assigned to children (in fact, children are the only applicable group here). They just can't be assigned to children specifically because they are transgender. Similarly, mastectomies are available treatment for teens... they just can't be used as a treatment for teens assigned female at birth.
titanomachy OP
Allowing mastectomies for male-born but not female-born individuals seems like pretty clear-cut gender discrimination. (Not as murky as the hormone issue, at least.) Has that one hit the Supreme Court yet?

This item has no comments currently.