New York Times - How the Transgender Rights Movement Bet on the Supreme Court and Lost

That’s not how I read it - the article states what various people / organisations etc have claimed then goes on to state there’s little evidence to back up those claims.

It says this at the beginning as that's where the institutions were at the time, what everyone believed. The author later on talks about the discovery that all the US authorities' consensus on the matter was a 'mirage' as all their recommendations were built on the same limited care recommendations from WPATH. So what appeared to be consistent standards between bodies was actually only one source and that even that evidence was flimsy and actually had worrying influences from outside sources for political reasons.

The states actually went further then even WPATH from which affirmation care originated.

A really good article that carefully picks it way through the timelines in the US.

The part that jumped out at me was this quote:-

"But when I asked Romero if the A.C.L.U. had consulted with women’s rights groups before bringing Skrmetti — with its high-stakes claims about sex-discrimination protections — before the Supreme Court, he seemed impatient. “I don’t play ‘Mother May I?’ with a group of sister organizations,” Romero said. “I don’t run a peer-review journal. I make the best decisions for this organization on its own.”"

Trans above all else - no consideration for any wider societal implications.

That is a really excellent article. If they hadn't been so batshit mental, insisting on things that 99.99% of the population instinctively know is untrue, like a penis not being a male body part and sex being assigned at birth, then we would not be in the shit we are right now.

Thank you for link.

Fascinating article, thank you for drawing attention to it. The thing that most strongly struck me was how the Supreme Court's decision on "a Detroit funeral director named Aimee Stephens, who was fired after telling her employer that she planned to begin living and working openly as a woman" was seen as important. Here, with our Equality Act, unless there's a huge amount not being said here, this wouldn't have needed to go anywhere near our Supreme Court - a first-level Employment Tribunal would have seen it as a clear case of direct discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment, and hence illegal.

I haven't read the article yet, but the US Supreme Court ruling feels highly significant. It seems to me that we have reached a turning point and gender ideology is now only going in one direction. Once we stop harming minors - and we will stop harming them - then what is left?

This is a really interesting piece, especially about how they developed the WPATH recommendations!

Thanks, that was an interesting article, but it states that transgender suicide attempts are exceptionally high and are ameliorated by hormone / puberty blocker "treatment." It also gives a lot of authority to the Dutch Protocol, which we know is greatly flawed.

I know the New York times has had a podcast released recently about 'gender affirming care', but are they also starting to report more widely on this and is this a deviation from their previous position? Hopefully those on the left in the US are finally beginning to think more critically about this, rather than dismissing all concerns as a right-wing dog whistle.

I read this the other day. I thought it was interesting they way it talked about progression being incremental, but with the medicalisation of minors, the trans movement overreached and went too far. They drove it off a cliff and took the Democrats with them.