There were a number of articles this morning that caught my eye the first article is this…
Report: Paxton relied on false claims, errors to equate transgender care with child abuse
Austin American-Statesman
By Chuck Lindell
May 2, 2022
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton relied on false claims, exaggerations and errors to conclude that gender-affirming medical care constitutes child abuse, a report by university-level medical experts has concluded.Paxton's legal opinion on transgender care, issued in February, formed the basis of Gov. Greg Abbott's directive requiring Child Protective Services to investigate all reports of families with children who are receiving gender-affirming care.
But the report published Monday by medical and legal experts at Yale University and the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center said Paxton's opinion was so full of errors and false claims that it appeared to have been "motivated by bias" and crafted to reach a predetermined goal: denying medical care to transgender youths.
"The repeated errors and omissions in the AG Opinion are so consistent and so extensive that it is difficult to believe that the opinion represents a good-faith effort to draw legal conclusions based on the best scientific evidence," the report's executive summary said.
Hey! We could have told you that they fudged the data, we know that all of the medical association believe treating trans children saves lives. But we also know that the Republicans knew that and did let a little think facts get in their way.
The rest of the article tears apart Abbott's and Paxton’s lies.
~~~~~~~~~
The next article is from the Oregon Health and Science University…
Surgeon-scientist centers patients in research to improve transgender care
Reconstructive urologist Geolani Dy partners with trans community to study what’s important to them
By Franny White
May 02, 2022
[…]“There’s already a body of evidence that shows gender-affirming care has many benefits, such as improving mental health and reducing suicidality,” says Dy, an assistant professor of urology and of plastic and reconstructive surgery in the OHSU School of Medicine, and also a surgeon involved in the OHSU Transgender Health Program.
“But a critical perspective is missing from medical literature,” she adds. “Now is the time to dig in and truly center transgender patient perspectives about what effective and successful gender-affirming care looks like. Community-informed research is needed to more accurately define and measure care outcomes.”
[…]
Much of what gender-affirming care is today has been determined by the medical community — whose members are largely cis-gender and cannot fully understand the nuances of what transgender patients need. Dy identifies as cis-gender and actively pursues the perspectives of her trans and non-binary colleagues and patients to inform her own work; she wants those experiences to help shape other researchers’ and clinicians’ work, too.
With support from the nonprofit Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, she co-founded the Transgender and Non-Binary Allied Research Collective, or TRANS-ARC, in 2019. The collective seeks out trans and non-binary patient perspectives to shape research related to gender-affirming genital surgeries. Dy and her colleagues encourage researchers to engage with transgender community members early and often, and ultimately embed trans and non-binary people along each study’s steps. They say every research detail should be evaluated through the trans lens and that everything — from which topics should be studied to which survey questions should be used — should be considered in partnership with trans community members.
Hopefully research like this will go a long way to debunk the trash that the Republicans are putting out. The problem is that longitudinal research by its very nature takes time which we don’t have.
~~~~~~~~~
The last article is about court rulings in Indiana and birth certificates there which for those who are born there are almost impossible to change.
Court ruling endangers birth certificate changes for transgender Hoosiers
KPVI
By Dan Carden
May 2, 2022
The ability of transgender Hoosiers to change the gender marker on their birth certificate, and potentially all past gender marker changes, are in limbo due to divisions among the state's appellate judges and continuing inaction by the Indiana General Assembly.In 2014, a three-judge panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals first ruled transgender Hoosiers are entitled to seek a court order to amend their birth certificate to match their gender identity, so long as the change is made in good faith and not for an unlawful purpose.
The Court of Appeals last year extended authorization to seek a birth certificate gender change to the parents of a transgender child, in keeping with the fundamental right of parents to make important decisions for their minor children, so long as the trial court determines such a change is in the best interest of the child.
How to determine the best interest of a transgender child was the subject of a subsequent 2021 Court of Appeals decision that rejected the presumption that a parent's unopposed decision automatically is in the child's best interest, and instead recognized the state also has an interest in any child's well-being, and medical evidence of gender dysphoria, or another condition, may be required before a birth certificate gender change is permitted.
And it doesn’t look good for those born in Indiana with the Republicans controlling the government,
The Republican-controlled General Assembly likewise has not acted to clarify birth certificate gender changes.
[…]
Republican Gov. Eric Holcomb vetoed House Enrolled Act 1041 March 21. Lawmakers are due to return to the Statehouse on May 24 to consider overriding the governor's veto and enacting the proposal into law notwithstanding his objections.
Meanwhile, Appeals Judge Paul Mathias said with more than 38,000 transgender Hoosiers potentially affected by the uncertainty over birth certificate gender changes, and no law addressing the issue, it's the responsibility of the judicial branch to fashion a solution.
So we are in limbo and are at the mercy of the courts. It looks like Indiana Supreme Court will decide our fate this fall.
I read your blog occasionally in an effort to expand my awareness. I'm struggling with recent posts related to gender dysphoria in children and recent court decisions. As to the first, is there an age at which children should be deemed mature enough to make their own decisions related to gender? Society imposes age limitations in a number of areas of which we're all aware under the presumption that children are incapable of making educated, responsible decisions for themselves. Other areas explicitly require parental consent, such as joining the military before one reaches 18. If age is irrelevant as to fundamental issues like gender why then aren't all age restrictions wrong?
ReplyDeleteHow does the presumption regarding a minor's age apply (if at all) as to one's gender?
As to the second, as a lawyer, there was noticeable rejoicing when decisions respecting Obamacare and same-sex marriage were announced, although the counter-argument to those decisions was based on a lack of faith in judicial activism. As one who's litigated quite a bit, litigation is a dice-roll. With that in mind how does the trans community reconcile chancing the good for the bad? When judicial activism agrees, all is good, but not so much when the dice roll doesn't play out. At the heart of most social matters appears to be an unwillingness to seek legislative solutions and a preference for the courts. Why is that?
I admit that I approach trans issues from the starting point that no one has more (or less) individual rights than they have when they enter this world. And I'm at a loss to understand how anyone's rights increase or decrease if they transition from one gender to another, regardless of age. Whether mtf or ftm, one ends up in the same place as all those who retain the sex identity with which they were born and whose rights are static. Thus, it seems that how one presents his- or herself is irrelevant, or should be. At least that seems to be where Justice Gorsuch arrived in the recent equal opportunity opinion he authored. What am I missing? Where and how do one's individual rights increase from birth under our Constitution or our jurisprudence? Should you have the opportunity and inclination, I'd welcome an understanding where my logic is erroneous.
Please have a beautiful day.
To answer your first question, here is the Standard of Care for trans people, there is a section on adolescence.
Deletehttps://www.wpath.org/media/cms/Documents/SOC%20v7/SOC%20V7_English2012.pdf?_t=1613669341
Well as a lawyer you must realize that you pick your cases carefully, you pick the best plaintiff that has the best chance of setting a precedence. You pick your jurisdiction to bring you case. Then you place your bet and roll your dice.
You right.
When we want our rights it doesn’t mean the lose of someone else’s rights, our rights is not a zero-sum game. I personally believe that they feel that when we get our rights that they lose “their right to discriminate.” They feel that they of a right to refuse to serve you in a bakery.
Milo here, thank you. The issue of rights shouldn't be a zero-sum game when all start from the same place. The question becomes, in retaining (or asserting) the same degree of rights (in this case, expression) with which one is born are anyone else's thereby diminished? The baker would argue (and has) that everyone is free to express themselves in public and private as they choose until asserting one's rights diminishes another's. No shirt, no shoes, no service, as it were. And that seems to be the point at which battles are being fought.
DeletePersonally, I couldn't care less how anyone chooses to express themselves. However, I reserve the right to my opinions, to be expressed publicly or privately as I choose.
Thank you for dealing with my question. Your blog is interesting, please keep up the good work, and may you have a beautiful day.