Get the Ricochet app

Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.

Download on the App StoreGet it on Google Play

Become a member.

Tired of the toxicity of social media? Why not join Ricochet for just $5/month? Think of it as an online bar. Come in, have a drink, hang out, say whatever you want. But don’t badger, bully, or berate the other drinkers. That's our only rule.

United States Supreme Court and ‘Transgender’ Minors

Full Size Tabby
@FullSizeTabby
Join to bookmark17likesJoin to like25comments

The United States Supreme Court heard on Wednesday (December 4) oral arguments on a case in which the federal (national) government and others challenged a law passed by the Tennessee legislature that governs what “treatments” medical personnel can provide to minors (not legal adults) who claim to be “transgender.”

I have not followed this particular case closely, so I am not familiar with the details of the Tennessee legislation nor with the details of the legal points made in the courts (including the Supreme Court).

But, from news (including legal news) reports I have read, the oral arguments at the Supreme Court on Wednesday included a lot of discussion of the conclusions and details of various studies and data concerning “transgender” children and youth.

My simplistic analysis is that as soon as you are analyzing data and debating the results of surveys, you are outside the realm of appropriate court decisions and into territory that is unquestionably the realm of the representatives of the people — the legislature.

Courts are lousy venues for analyzing data and comparing benefits and costs. Courts cannot effectively compare costs, benefits, and risks. If the government is going to balance costs and benefits to determine what should and should not be permitted, that is the realm of Congress. Not the courts.

As soon as the justices and lawyers started into an examination of the survey and study findings, the Court should have immediately realized the case was outside their role and concluded that whatever the challenge to the law was, it should be dismissed.

It sounded to me that many of the Supreme Court's oral arguments pertained to what studies to believe. That is not the realm of the courts. If the government is going to get involved, that is the realm of the people's representatives. The challenge to the Tennessee law should be dismissed.

This post was promoted to the Main Feed at the recommendation of Ricochet's members.

Discussion (25)

  • Percival@Percival

    The "experts" here in the US are flogging this guff in favor of preventing bans. The Europeans, relying on their experts, are putting sexual reassignment for minors on hold. Therefore, the science is not settled. Therefore, bans are not unreasonable.

  • Chris O@ChrisO
    Full Size Tabby (View Post):
    It sounded to me that a lot of the Supreme Court oral arguments pertained to what studies to believe. That is not the realm of the courts.

    I thought Alito's questioning went to whether a class to be protected exists at all. If members of that class can flow in and out of it, then there is no population to point to that is definitively within it, and no population that needs civil rights protection.

    The government also led their arguments with assertions that studies pertaining to the subjects in question "transgender" minors, as you say, would be unquestionably disadvantaged by lack of access to the treatments. Alito points out that other studies indicate different conclusions, then asks if the government wants to re-phrase this assertion and not rely upon "studies" that definitively claim something that doesn't seem claimable.

    In other words, and to paraphrase, "Are you going to hang yourself with the 'studies' rope, or leave it out of this altogether?" That's just my interpretation.

  • Chuck@Chuckles
    ReplyingtoChris O

    Chris O (View Comment):

    Full Size Tabby (View Post):

    Full Size Tabby (View Post):
    It sounded to me that a lot of the Supreme Court oral arguments pertained to what studies to believe. That is not the realm of the courts.

    I thought Alito’s questioning went to whether a class to be protected exists at all. If members of that class can flow in and out of it, then there is no population to point to that is definitively within it, and no population that needs civil rights protection.

    The government also led their arguments with assertions that studies pertaining to the subjects in question “transgender” minors, as you say, would be unquestionably disadvantaged by lack of access to the treatments. Alito points out that other studies indicate different conclusions, then asks if the government wants to re-phrase this assertion and not rely upon “studies” that definitively claim something that doesn’t seem claimable.

    In other words, and to paraphrase, “Are you going to hang yourself with the ‘studies’ rope, or leave it out of this altogether?” That’s just my interpretation.

    Seems to me I heard a (black) comedian ask something like "What's a gay baby?" Good question! The answer should be simple: "Give me a break!"

  • Steve Fast@SteveFast
    ReplyingtoChuck

    Chris O (View Comment):

    Full Size Tabby (View Post):

    Full Size Tabby (View Post):
    It sounded to me that a lot of the Supreme Court oral arguments pertained to what studies to believe. That is not the realm of the courts.

    I thought Alito’s questioning went to whether a class to be protected exists at all. If members of that class can flow in and out of it, then there is no population to point to that is definitively within it, and no population that needs civil rights protection.

    The government also led their arguments with assertions that studies pertaining to the subjects in question “transgender” minors, as you say, would be unquestionably disadvantaged by lack of access to the treatments. Alito points out that other studies indicate different conclusions, then asks if the government wants to re-phrase this assertion and not rely upon “studies” that definitively claim something that doesn’t seem claimable.

    In other words, and to paraphrase, “Are you going to hang yourself with the ‘studies’ rope, or leave it out of this altogether?” That’s just my interpretation.

    Chuck (View Comment):

    Seems to me I heard a (black) comedian ask something like “What’s a gay baby?” Good question! The answer should be simple: “Give me a break!”

    Answer - the baby of parents with a specific type of mental illness.

Scroll for later comments
+20 more comments
Join the conversation

You're seeing five of 25 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.