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."
Her job is to argue with them!
4. What would incrementalism look like? The trans rights that Americans support - nondiscrimination at work, sex stereotyping banned - are already in place.
What's left - kiddie sex trait change, compelled speech, girls' sports, co-ed prison.
5. Instead of describing what transition actually entails for a boy - brain fog, sterility, cognitive impairment, stroke and cancer risk, sexual dysfunction - NYT defers to a court filing that was likely crafted by the ACLU.
6. Decent summary of how gender theory changed. But why did it change?
11. Did LGBT orgs center gay marriage before winning that in 2015? Yes, because it was a cash cow.
Trans activism was likely subsidized by gay rights work for over a decade and then inherited almost all its riches, connections, and good will in 2015 🤑 badfacts.substack.com/p/the-fight-ag…
12. Strangio can't be the reason the ACLU went its own way here. In 2016 she was just a young line attorney. ACLU ED Anthony Romero must have thought sex denialism was good for business. He's notoriously fixated on fundraising. lisaselindavis.substack.com/p/brandt-files…
13. I think the radicals are correct. Americans won't accept trans demands unless they first adopt a different (wrong) concept of sex.
14. The moderate alternative to Strangio's outrageous public pontificating is to sneak trans rights through with trickery.
The reasonable course is to avoid and suppress debate about sex. The radical course is to say what you believe.
15. Nah, I think ACLU wanted to fight in federal court because fighting in federal court is its business model.
16. Why did Biden officials have such a blinkered view of state bans on child gender med?
Because DOJ lawyers drafted an alarmist and diversionary memo, is my guess.
17. Why did DOJ intervene in attacking Alabama's PGM ban?
My theory: because that lawsuit was a hot mess and DOJ wanted to salvage it. ACLU might have actually told DOJ it was a hot mess, because its nemeses were plaintiffs' counsel. badfacts.substack.com/p/news-lawyers…
18. Skrmetti was bound to set a bad precedent, yes.
Any trans case would. The moderates know SCOTUS will rule sooner or later that trans isn't a suspect class.
The moderates want to delay the inevitable so they can keep exploiting the lack of precedent.
19. The ACLU's state court prospects aren't great (except for a few gender med cases that they are in fact pursuing).
Blue states have expansive-seeming gender identity discrim laws but ACLU doesn't want to test them. They fall apart under analysis.
20. Is this Strangio's way of screening journalists, to make sure they are sycophantic before going on the record?
21. Anon DOJ official misleads NYT.
DOJ didn't want Alabama going to SCOTUS because lots of bad facts had come out in discovery and the trans legal team was under investigation for judge-shopping and perjury.
Hannah Barnes reports on the UK's "do you like your elbow today?" study of puberty blockers.
Let's look at her quotes from Dr. Cass, the pediatrician who pointed out no good evidence supports blocking puberty based on gender ideation.
🧵
2. NHS is not studying less harmful alternatives to blockers (therapy) because parents are going outside the gender service to get blockers. If NHS can't compete with the black market, parents (supposedly) won't bring their kids in and it can't run a study.
1⃣ This rationale for poisoning children depends on the study being great. But it's not, it's a mess, as Barnes documents.
2⃣ Cass helped create "the environment." Her report failed to disclose the side effects of T. She didn't ask the gender doctors what a woman is. If Cass had exposed the grift and gore of gender instead of pretending it was all a big mystery, fewer parents would seek blockers on the black market.
3. Cass pretends you can't study gender medicine without the cooperation of trans ideologues but that's not true.
1⃣ Point out their lies.
2⃣ Stop excusing the gender doctors' evasions and refusal to provide data about kids they already transed. Call a 🚩 a 🚩
3⃣ Don't accept that the burden of proof is on you to prove their mystical ideas don't work.
🚨
The ACLU's Chase Strangio pretends to be binary in an interview with NYT's @DouthatNYT
Some notes on her rebrand from me, a professor of Strangiology ...🧵
2. In Bostock, SCOTUS vaguely banned anti-trans discrim at work.
Do employers have to let men into the women's changing room? Or does Bostock just protect the men's right to have female names?
ACLU argues employers must pretend workers are the sex they say they are. Biden's EEOC moved to ban women-only changing rooms and "misgendering" at work, citing Bostock.
Strangio doesn't want NYT subscribers to know all that so she just talks about men fired for having the name Mary.
In June, SCOTUS ruled that religious parents have a right to opt their K-5 children out of "LGBTQ" lessons. The case is Mahmoud.
In Mass., the governor and a private firm are advising schools they can practically ignore Mahmoud. 🧵
2. Governor's guidance portrays Mahmoud as a narrow decision.
Instead of admitting parents are entitled to opt out, she says they can't be prevented from opting out.
Instead of admitting it's a broad decision, she emphasizes it's fact-dependent.
3. The right way to advise clients on Mahmoud would be:
"See what Montgomery County did to Mahmoud? Don't do that!"
You'd list the 5 books at issue, because you know they require opt out, and quote specific SCOTUS language about why they're problematic, to help identify other lessons that might require opt out.
"I was a dope, OK ... Focus on the overall message I'm giving."
Stella and Mia's interview of Gordon Guyatt is incredible. My notes 🧵
@stellaomalley3 @_CryMiaRiver
(BTW these 2 have very different reactions to Guyatt's epic admission.)
2. Guyatt is trite about pediatric gender med (PGM). Nothing new here if you've met a buffoon before.
✅ "Multidisciplinary assessments" are key
✅ "My knowledge is superficial"
✅ Cuts off knowledgeable interlocutor
✅ Certain that PGM should be allowed badfacts.substack.com/p/the-psycholo…
3. Guyatt analogizes gender med to "early HIV care."
But doctors have been treating "gender" for 60+ years.
HIV researchers have figured out prevention, detection, and treatments proven to save lives.
Parents have a constitutional right to opt their young children out of "LGBTQ" lessons for religious reasons. SCOTUS declared this in June in Mahmoud v. Taylor.
SPS has not updated its policy 🧵
2. SPS mandates LGBTQ lessons "for the purpose of increasing kindness."
Mahmoud rejects this idea. The lessons inevitably teach kids what to think about sex and "gender identity."
3. ACLU lawyers don't want trans rights to be based on whether someone has had medical interventions. Just "identity."
But in sports cases like BPJ they argue it matters when boys are puberty-blocked. It's just easier to win that way. They can build on the precedent later.