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.
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…
2. In a recent lawsuit against the Dept of State, Strangio suggests passport agents will beat up nonbinary women if their passport indicates they are female (rather than nonbinary).
Hm, this can't be the real reason sex classifications hurt women.
3. In a recent lawsuit against NYC schools for failing to stock period products, three female lawyers refuse to argue sex discrimination, instead relying on a weaker law.
It's almost like denying the binary hurts women and girls. My search continues.