• projectazar@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the right outcome for this court case. There is no conceivable way to interpret the equal protection clause that supports a ban on gender affirming care, especially in light of analysis that targeting trans people is specifically gender discrimination. If the care is available for a person, but for their gender, it seems plainly obvious that the discrimination is based on gender and doesn’t, in my view, even meet a rational basis analysis, let alone the slightly heightened analysis for gender discrimination.

    • admiralteal@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think I can confidently say that every single modern procedure in the umbrella of “gender-affirming care” was developed for use on non-trans people. Most of them, for cis people, or for intersex people in order to make them present cis according to their assigned-at-birth gender.

      And it isn’t HRT that is the most common medical gender-affirming care. It’s breast augmentation. Which regularly gets done to cis women as young as 16.

      When you ban these procedures ONLY for trans kids, you are 100% banning the procedure on the basis of sex. It’s without question a violation of US law.