Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[d4m10n]

...it was determined that someone suffering from a diagnosed mental illness would lack the mental discipline required in the armed forces.

The courts determined no such thing; that is merely the rationale of the incumbent administration.

Moreover, the ban applies to anyone ever diagnosed, even if their dysphoria is currently well-managed.

Based primarily on age, not sex or gender, the court found.

Age is certainly a factor, but the law at issue in that case bans medical procedures "performed for the purpose of enabling a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor's sex." Those same treatments would not be banned but for the cross-sex identity which they seek to enable.

 

[smartcooky]

They did not. The ban applies specifically to gender dysphorics, a DSM defined disorder, and it was determined that someone suffering from a diagnosed mental illness would lack the mental.discipline required in the armed forces.

https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out...litary-pauses-gender-transition-pr-rcna191569

​

The U.S. military will no longer allow transgender individuals to join the military and will stop performing or facilitating procedures associated with gender transition for service members, according to a memo from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth filed in court on Monday.​

All transgender identifying people, without exception, and regardless of whether they are diagnosed with any mental condition, are banned from joining the military in the US.

Based primarily on age, not sex or gender, the court found.

Yes, the law prohibits the use of puberty blockers and hormone therapy to treat gender dysphoria in minors. An absolutely correct decision IMO.

I think so, but am currently detoxing from the discussion.

Nah, you just can't handle your claims being challenged and your "facts" being disputed and debunked.

 

[Thermal]

The courts determined no such thing; that is merely the rationale of the incumbent administration.

Read your own link. It specifies that the Trump administration uses the rationale of diagnosed gender dysphorics only.

Moreover, the ban applies to anyone ever diagnosed, even if their dysphoria is currently well-managed.

Same with, for instance, schizophrenia, active, managed, or historical.

Age is certainly a factor, but the law at issue in that case bans medical procedures "performed for the purpose of enabling a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor's sex." Those same treatments would not be banned but for the cross-sex identity which they seek to enable.

Those treatments would not be ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ sought by those without a cross sex identity.

Treatments like testosterone for boys whose puberty is slow in coming is not in the same universe as gender affirmation jazz.

And the courts found that it didn't violate the 14th ammendment, which was all that was in question. In the case of Bostock, the courts opinion solely revolved around the question of whether gender/orientation was covered under sex. They barely mentioned the specifics of the cases at all.

And I said I'm out this bitch for a bit.

 

[Thermal]

https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out...litary-pauses-gender-transition-pr-rcna191569

​

The U.S. military will no longer allow transgender individuals to join the military and will stop performing or facilitating procedures associated with gender transition for service members, according to a memo from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth filed in court on Monday.​

All transgender identifying people, without exception, and regardless of whether they are diagnosed with any mental condition, are banned from joining the military in the US.

From d4m10ns own link:

"On Jan. 20 of this year, President Donald Trump revoked Biden’s order and issued another order requiring Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to put into effect a ban on “individuals with gender dysphoria” – the medical term for the psychological distress caused by a conflict between the sex someone is assigned at birth and that person’s gender identity."

Note the hilited. It doesn't really matter if your cited journalist doesn't understand a medical term being used. It doesn't make them right.

Yes, the law prohibits the use of puberty blockers and hormone therapy to treat gender dysphoria in minors. An absolutely correct decision IMO.

Agreed.

Nah, you just can't handle your claims being challenged and your "facts" being disputed and debunked

See above, oh wise one. If you have a factual issue with d4m10ns citation, take it up with him. I was reading it back to him. Let me guess- you didn't understand that they weren't "my facts ", but his, did you?

 

[smartcooky]

From d4m10ns own link:

"On Jan. 20 of this year, President Donald Trump revoked Biden’s order and issued another order requiring Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to put into effect a ban on “individuals with gender dysphoria” – the medical term for the psychological distress caused by a conflict between the sex someone is assigned at birth and that person’s gender identity."

I have news for you... ALL transgender identified people have 'psychological distress caused by a conflict between the sex they are assigned at birth and their gender identity.' Transgenderism is a mental illness (even if some cherry-picked, ideologically captured members of the mental health profession disagree).

See above, oh wise one. If you have a factual issue with d4m10ns citation, take it up with him. I was reading it back to him. Let me guess- you didn't understand that they weren't "my facts ", but his, did you?

I was speaking of your general seeming inability to cope with having your claims disputed and your "facts" challenged.

 

[Thermal]

I have news for you... ALL transgender identified people have 'psychological distress caused by a conflict between the sex they are assigned at birth and their gender identity.' Transgenderism is a mental illness (even if some cherry-picked, ideologically captured members of the mental health profession disagree).

That is your personal unqualified assertion, which is at odds with the medical community and means jack ◊◊◊◊.

I was speaking of your general seeming inability to cope with having your claims disputed and your "facts" challenged

Which is something you like to say, yet also means jack ◊◊◊◊.

BTW, are you still wrestling with that grade school level math error I had to take the extra time to explain to you?

 

[theprestige]

The way I see it, if you don't have gender dysphoria, then you have no real problems with observing the sex-segregated aspects of the US Military. It's true that you can't properly express yourself in your full nonbinary, pansexual they/them glory. But it's also true that the military is not a place for people who place a high premium of freedom of self-expression.

I suppose there's probably a question about whether you'd get disqualified if you were cross-dressing in your civivies while off duty.

Anyway, yeah, no dysphoria, no problem conforming to the military's preferred set of social constructs around sex and gender. And if that level of conformity to something outside yourself is a sticking point, then military service probably isn't for you.

Meanwhile, if you are dysphoric, you're DQ'd because of your mental health condition.

It all seems pretty straightforward to me.

 

[d4m10n]

...the Trump administration uses the rationale of diagnosed gender dysphorics only.

"The courts determined no such thing..." (emphasis added)

Those treatments would not be ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ sought by those without a cross sex identity.

You cannot think of any other reason why someone would seek pubertal blockade other than gender identity?

Treatments like testosterone for boys whose puberty is slow in coming is not in the same universe as gender affirmation jazz.

I can see a number of obvious commonalities here, the most obvious of which is that the endocrinologists are helping the patient achieve a physique which matches their subjective sense of what it ought to be.

And the courts found that it didn't violate the 14th amendment, which was all that was in question.

Fair enough.

 

[theprestige]

Read your own link. It specifies that the Trump administration uses the rationale of diagnosed gender dysphorics only.

Same with, for instance, schizophrenia, active, managed, or historical.

Those treatments would not be ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ sought by those without a cross sex identity.

Puberty-blocking treatments were initially developed for conditions other than gender dysphoria. They are still used to treat those conditions. The off label use of them to "treat" "gender dysphoria" in minor children is a relatively new development. As far as I can tell, this use has no basis in science or medicine, but there is evidence that it is a bad idea and should not be done.

 

[Thermal]

Puberty-blocking treatments were initially developed for conditions other than gender dysphoria. They are still used to treat those conditions. The off label use of them to "treat" "gender dysphoria" in minor children is a relatively new development. As far as I can tell, this use has no basis in science or medicine, but there is evidence that it is a bad idea and should not be done.

Agreed.

 

[Thermal]

"The courts determined no such thing..." (emphasis added)

The courts considered the wording of the DOD order, which said:

"As directed by the Secretary of Defense in his February 7, 2025, memorandum,
"Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness," it is Department policy that, pursuant to
Executive Order 14183, "Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness," the medical, surgical,
and mental health constraints on individuals who have a current diagnosis or history of, or
exhibit symptoms consistent with, gender dysphoria are incompatible with the high mental and
physical standards necessary for military service"

The argument can be raised that "exhibit symptoms consistent with.gender dysphoria" is meaningless to someone unqualified in evaluating such a diagnosis, so the matter before the court was one of the black and white four corners of the order.

You cannot think of any other reason why someone would seek pubertal blockade other than gender identity?

I can, and gave an example of one. That pretty much exhausts my interest.

 

[smartcooky]

To clarify what @theprestige said...

Puberty blockers were developed in the early 1980s to treat a specific type of early-onset puberty called central precocious puberty (CPP), a condition which involves the premature activation of the hypothalamic-pituitary axis - -the brain's hormonal control system. This is not to be confused with another type of early onset puberty called peripheral precocious puberty (PPP) which, while also a type of early onset puberty, which results from other causes such as hormone-producing tumors or ovarian cysts. PPP is not treated with puberty blockers but rather, by addressing the underlying cause.

The use of puberty blockers is supposed to delay puberty slightly to allow it to happen at a normal, natural juncture, not to stop it altogether. Using it as a treatment gender dysphoria to stop girls from developing into young women (and boys into young men) they way are supposed to, is quackery and ought to be medical malpractice. Its tantamount to Mengelian butchery .

 

[d4m10n]

The argument can be raised that "exhibit symptoms consistent with gender dysphoria" is meaningless to someone unqualified in evaluating such a diagnosis, so the matter before the court was one of the black and white four corners of the order.

To be clear, again, the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on whether Executive Order 14183 meets the standard laid out in Bostock. I'd be willing to bet my backup vehicle that they will find some way to say the EO is just fine, because the Roberts court almost always gives Trump whatever he wants. As Sotomayor says elsewhere "No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates."

Meanwhile, if you are dysphoric, you're DQ'd because of your mental health condition.

If this policy were based on something more than political winds shifting from left to right, it might be justifiable in utilitarian terms. As it stands, though, it's impossible to say whether the benefits of sex uniformity will outweigh the costs of outprocessing highly-trained and well-qualified servicemembers (such as Hunter Marquez) who functioned just fine under the previous administration. As usual when it comes to top-down proclamations without any accompanying agency report, I remain skeptical.

 

[Thermal]

To be clear, again, the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on whether Executive Order 14183 meets the standard laid out in Bostock.

Yes, we know. Which is why your initial question...

Has SCOTUS shown any interest in expanding the logic of Bostock to other areas?

They didn't seem inclined to do so in United States v. Shilling, where the court allowed the trans ban to go forward in the uniformed services.

...was so supremely odd. The court was demanded to make an emergency ruling, upholding the wording of the ban, presumably on its medical basis. Did you expect otherwise?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

To clarify what @theprestige said...

Puberty blockers were developed in the early 1980s to treat a specific type of early-onset puberty called central precocious puberty (CPP), a condition which involves the premature activation of the hypothalamic-pituitary axis - -the brain's hormonal control system. This is not to be confused with another type of early onset puberty called peripheral precocious puberty (PPP) which, while also a type of early onset puberty, which results from other causes such as hormone-producing tumors or ovarian cysts. PPP is not treated with puberty blockers but rather, by addressing the underlying cause.

The use of puberty blockers is supposed to delay puberty slightly to allow it to happen at a normal, natural juncture, not to stop it altogether. Using it as a treatment gender dysphoria to stop girls from developing into young women (and boys into young men) they way are supposed to, is quackery and ought to be medical malpractice. Its tantamount to Mengelian butchery .

Many countries do something very similar to millions of pets every year. Our vets were pestering us to chop the balls off our standard poodle at 6 months old.

 

[theprestige]

Many countries do something very similar to millions of pets every year. Our vets were pestering us to chop the balls off our standard poodle at 6 months old.

Which actually makes a certain amount of medical and even social sense. Neutered pet animals are generally a good thing.

Neutering and mutilating minor children, in the name of anti-science trans ideology, is a bad thing. And too many countries have been doing this thing to children, for several years.

 

[Rolfe]

I wouldn't recommend castrating a dog unless there were specific behavioural problems that would address. Spaying bitches is indicated for a number of good reasons, not just contraception - the marked reduction in risk of pyometra and mammary tumours in later life, for example. However, even there, it is good practice to allow the bitch to have a normal oestrus cycle first, that is to allow her to go through puberty. Yes I am aware of the early neutering fans, but I think they're wrong. I don't think they appreciate the value of retaining as much normal endocrine function as is practically possible, and I think they're basically vets with a God complex towards animals.

But yes, we do take liberties with animals' bodies, manipulating them to make better pets, or more docile livestock. The ethics of that can be and are debated at length by ethologists.

How dare you compare the sexual mutilation of human children to neutering a pet!

 

[theprestige]

How dare you compare the sexual mutilation of human children to neutering a pet!

I happen to think comparing unlike things is useful, especially for discovering that they are unlike each other. I think such comparisons with are even important, when someone raises an unlike thing in a context where he seems to be saying it's a like thing.

So I'd say the comparison is fine, but I still have no idea why Ivor brought it up in the first place, or what he thought it contributed to the discussion of trans rights in public policy. Was he really intending to imply that children and pets are on the same moral/ethical level in our society?

 

[Rolfe]

Perhaps I was unclear, but the "how dare you!" comment was directed to Ivor, not to you.

 

[ahhell]

The comparison is apt and useful on account of the grossness. Totally okay to neuter pets for population control, extrapolate that to people and you are a monster. Experiment with sex changes on puppies, some folks would object, most would wonder why. Experiment with sex changes on children.........?

Your vet recommends neutering, say no or yes, whatever is best for you. Your pediatrician recommends neutering, he's a psychopath. Report him and find another doctor.