5/ I'm working on a post about LM and other 1st Circuit trans decisions. These New England judges are blazing a trail of inclusivity through the 1st amendment.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
On second read, the NYT story on the trans legal movement makes the moderates look worse than the radicals.
My notes on that and more...🧵
@nickconfessore
2. NYT implies trans advocates should have avoided debates over sex or made up a palatable theory.
But how can you argue trans people are not the sex they seem to be, without making up a novel theory of sex? And why should voters accept a made-up theory of sex?
3. Why is a sex discrimination law prof opining about medical ethics? To avoid talking about the repercussions of trans ideology for her field (it's dark).
She requested anonymity "for fear of blowback from students and colleagues."
Trans activists are scapegoating Chase Strangio for their loss in Skrmetti, to convince Americans that their movement is fundamentally sound.
No. The perfidy predates Strangio and is intrinsic to the argument that we should pretend some people are the opposite sex.
Links⏬
2. Today, NYT eagerly transcribes the anti-Strangio argument of trans activists and anonymous ACLU attorneys while minimizing the bodily injury caused by gender med nytimes.com/2025/06/19/mag…
3. I placed Strangio within the rich intellectual tradition of trans philosophers.
NYT covers Jamie Reed's explosive affidavit, but only the driest parts. Not the desiccated vaginas ripping open, e.g.
NYT asks Jamie whiny questions. "There are so many people who are going to feel so hurt" by Jamie's testimony against gender med.
2. Jamie responds to NYT brilliantly. But because all the horrifying details of medical harm are stripped out, it sounds like she's engaging in a fuzzy abstract debate about how to evaluate a treatment's efficacy.
3. Jamie shares the trauma of working in a gender clinic where doctors ignored her safety concerns and she worried she was hurting kids.
NYT says her experience mirrors that of trans kids who can't be themselves.
NYT sets up Laura-Edwards Leeper as a hero of careful assessment, and Johanna-Olson Kennedy as the villain who opposes assessment.
JOK is a villain but not because of her stance on assessments. Those are, in fact, bogus. Here we go...
2. LEL spent a week in the Netherlands learning.
She was a young shrink hired by Norman Spack, who'd started transing "street kids" in the 70s and "salivated" at the thought of blocking puberty to help boys pass. (NYT doesn't report this.) badfacts.substack.com/p/how-endocrin…
3. LEL felt nervous assessing kids on her own. She made them get therapists because it "felt good" to have a colleague involved. But these therapists were nervous and baffled themselves - she had to teach them about gender.
3. In painting the landscape of people wanting to transition mid-20th century, NYT does not mention the era's crushing homophobia, sexual fetishes, or the fact that many of the women said their goal was to marry their (female) friend. badfacts.substack.com/p/religious-co…