Breakthrough ruling on puberty blockers in US.

[Imnobody4]

Its from Matt Walsh and sounds quite amazing. It completely demolishes all the TRA arguments around 'special' treatment due to oppression etc.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1707832888832479247.html

Last night, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a devastating ruling for the trans cult. No other court decision has so thoroughly dismantled, point-by-point, every disingenuous argument from trans activists.

The case arose because of laws in TN & KY banning the use of puberty blockers & sterilizing cross-sex hormones on kids. The laws were passed after my reporting on Vanderbilt’s gender clinic, and how they see some gender “treatments” as big money makers. x.com/MattWalshBlog/…

First, the ruling establishes that voters have the right to ban medical procedures they believe are immoral or dangerous. That’s true regardless of what the “experts” at Big Pharma say.

Brilliant thanks for posting, I hadn't seen that

That’s very encouraging.

Putting the self-aggrandising of Matt Walsh to one side, this seems really good. I'm glad it punctured the 'most marginalised' bullshit.

Wonder how it’s it going down on ‘X’ twitter 😁

That looks very positive. What will be the impact of this in the US?

That ruling makes for encouraging reading.

One thing about the events of the last number of years has been that I’ve learned to read court and employment tribunal judgements/rulings and find them very interesting.

Ahh that's why the Metro ran that pile of drivel yesterday in favour of puberty blockers. I thought it was a bit out of the blue since the UK ruled on them ages ago. Someone must have been pre-empting this ruling in the US and trying to drum up more demand for the drugs in markets where they are still unrestricted.

I agree. I made it here so far:

"Second, while the challengers do invoke constitutional precedents of the Supreme Court and our Court in bringing this lawsuit, not one of them resolves these claims. In each instance, they seek to extend the constitutional guarantees to new territory. There is nothing wrong with that, to be certain. But this reality does suggest that the key premise of a preliminary injunction—a showing of a likelihood of success on the merits—is missing. Constitutionalizing new areas of American life is not something federal courts should do lightly, particularly when “the States are currently engaged in serious, thoughtful” debates about the issue. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 719 (1997)."

Looks as though the claimants (plaintiffs?) are trying to make case law by going around the actual democratic processes.

HMMMMM.

www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/23a0221p-06.pdf

I love watching TRA waffle and sophistry hit the courts.

Wonder how it’s it going down on ‘X’ twitter 😁

The activists seem to be ignoring it but the ACLU has tweeted

"This fight is far from over. We'll never stop fighting for trans youth and their families to get the medical care they need"

There is over 3k comments on that post and I can't see one that supports the ACLU position.

Could this really be the end?
Feeling a bit emotional..

Will that have knock-on effects to things like abortion and contraception and HPV vaccines?

WDI tweeted their "friend of the court brief" here:

womensdeclarationusa.com/wdi-usa-files-amicus-brief-in-lw-v-skrmetti/

Does this apply across all the US or is it a specific state/s?

I worry about the muddling of puberty blockers and other TRA aims in with abortion/contraception/vaccines etc.

Fear mongering about abortion or contraception is a brilliant tactic used by TRAs to shut down any criticism or attempts to stop the use of puberty blockers.

We need to fight the issues around women’s reproductive health and choices separately to any of this. The arguments and issues are not the same.

Sixth Circuit has jurisdiction over federal appeals arising from the states of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee.

I always find US justice system a bit confusing.

Wow talk about shooting yourself in the foot 🤭 I really hope that this ruling will be used in as many cases as possible

I worry about the muddling of puberty blockers and other TRA aims in with abortion/contraception/vaccines etc.

I agree! The Matt Walshs of the US want nothing more than to stick it to the feminists and deny women access to birth control and abortion. Mr. Anti-all abortions even for pregnant 10 yr old girls doesn't care about women's healthcare.

This is not about Matt Walsh. I nearly put a disclaimer but I thought we were past this.

It's the ruling and reasoning of the court that counts. Abortion etc are a completely separate issue.

Yes. Abortion etc are separate issues.

My worry is that it suits the TRAs to have us too scared to talk about this stuff because we’re worried about all these separate women’s rights issues. They want us to shut up because we fear that saying no to puberty blockers and such like is a slippery slope.

They want us to worry that the wrong types of people might agree with us (and lots of other people) about a set of practices that want to promote and euphemise medical interventions that impede young people’s basic human development for ideological reasons so we will shut up.

The response of ‘what might this mean for abortion?’ is not helpful in this context. It’s not relevant to this.

The only answer to give to that is the true one.

It's possible for laws to be passed about medical treatments that are either dangerous or immoral. As it should be. The public and legislators can discuss whether those things apply to any kind of medical treatments. The decisions will be completely dependent on what the nature of the medical procedure actually is, it's impossible to generalize.

If some people would like to ensure that things like contraception remain legal by making the claim that it is not possible to outlaw medical procedures of any kind, they are fools.

The thing is that most vaccines and medications (including contraceptives) and medical procedures (like abortions) follow proper medical protocols including having robust evidence about benefit and risk.

Puberty blockers used for 'gender reassignment' (not for precocious puberty) have basically bugger all evidence of benefit and there are known risks (with the evidence of irreversible damaging harm growing fast). Any other drugs with that lack of evidence of safety / paucity of demonstration of benefit would not be used. Their use falls well outside what would be acceptable balancing of risks for any other medication or medical procedure.

If suddenly lots of doctors were offering the amputation of healthy arms and there was an epidemic of children wanting this due to social contagion, would it be ok /make any logical sense to say 'oh well, let's just let children amputate their arms if they want to, despite there being overwhelming demonstration of harm and no obvious benefit. If we restrict this then it might affect access to the flu vaccine and contraceptives (both of which have robust evidence bases behind them)'? Because that would be ridiculous.

What the courts should be demanding is that 'gender affirming' care has to meet the standards for evidence of benefits and risks that other drugs / procedures have to meet. At the moment they don't. And they won't ever be able to demonstrate that there is a good clinical basis for these treatments IMO

The whole majority opinion is worth a read. A model of clarity.

The plaintiffs were shooting themselves in the foot on several levels. Fancy making a parents rights argument in this situation. If they’d succeeded, all the laws in blue states threatening parents with loss of custody id they don’t trans their kids would also have been unconstitutional. Not to mention the schools socially transitioning kids behind parents’ backs.

The dissent was the usual “assigned at birth” words salad.

The plaintiffs were shooting themselves in the foot on several levels. Fancy making a parents rights argument in this situation. If they’d succeeded, all the laws in blue states threatening parents with loss of custody id they don’ttrans their kids would also have been unconstitutional. Not to mention the schools socially transitioning kids behind parents’ backs.

Yes, Matt Walsh makes a similar point in his video. He points out the contradiction in TRAs encouraging schools to trans children behind their parents' backs on the one hand and arguing in favour of "parents' rights" on the other.

Look, I disagree with Matt Walsh on many things but he's right on this.