These litigators are going to continue to fumble this until they bring gay and lesbian litigators on board. At the very least they should moot their cases with experienced civil rights litigators.
I suggest you look up Genevieve Gluck her substack and podcast Women's Voices and her daily news blog along with co founder Anna Slatz at REDUXX.info Genevieve's research reporting work on WPATH is truly enlightening and greatly disturbing. She has also done extensive research on the history of transvestitism/transsexualism/transgenderism and the people who are behind it.
As well as Jennifer Bilek at the 11th Hour Blog. Jennifer follows the money promoting trans.
Kara Dansky a lawyer who worked for the ACLU over a decade ago and her book "The Abolition of Sex". Kara is the US president of Women's Declaration International, WDI has a YouTube channel that is a great resource with interviews and talks by women from around the world on the trans issue and its effects on woman and children.
Well, I could guess why the state's witnesses and trial strategy seemed to ignore gay people and slant Christian... Because at the end of the day this is a political issue for the politicians. Helping kids just makes it sound good and might at most be a side benefit for them. And the political base they're appealing to...tends to frown on gay people-or at least on gay rights and visibility-and slant Christian. Viola! Suddenly the state seems to make giant mistakes at trial, by avoiding crossing any lines that might alienate the voters and nationwide donors and media attention that they have attracted by passing laws banning gender care for kids. It would be naive to assume that the primary motivation of people like the governor of AK (or any state really, red or blue) is simply to do what's best for kids. Professional politicians do what's best for their re-election first, then consider whether it's the right thing to do.
These litigators are going to continue to fumble this until they bring gay and lesbian litigators on board. At the very least they should moot their cases with experienced civil rights litigators.
The WPATH SOC7 requirements for puberty blockers:
"In order for adolescents to receive puberty suppressing hormones, the following minimum criteria must be met:
1. The adolescent has demonstrated a long-lasting and intense pattern of gender nonconformity or gender dysphoria (whether suppressed or expressed);
"
gender nonconformity is right in there up front. Page 19 wpath "soc" 7. Also Table 5 in Hembree et al 2017, which is reporting them.
and "whther suppressed or expressed" --a long and intense pattern which is suppressed? Send them your children....right.
Thank you!
I suggest you look up Genevieve Gluck her substack and podcast Women's Voices and her daily news blog along with co founder Anna Slatz at REDUXX.info Genevieve's research reporting work on WPATH is truly enlightening and greatly disturbing. She has also done extensive research on the history of transvestitism/transsexualism/transgenderism and the people who are behind it.
As well as Jennifer Bilek at the 11th Hour Blog. Jennifer follows the money promoting trans.
Kara Dansky a lawyer who worked for the ACLU over a decade ago and her book "The Abolition of Sex". Kara is the US president of Women's Declaration International, WDI has a YouTube channel that is a great resource with interviews and talks by women from around the world on the trans issue and its effects on woman and children.
Of course, as with all human customs, what constitutes "gender non-conformity" is a subjective call.
Well, I could guess why the state's witnesses and trial strategy seemed to ignore gay people and slant Christian... Because at the end of the day this is a political issue for the politicians. Helping kids just makes it sound good and might at most be a side benefit for them. And the political base they're appealing to...tends to frown on gay people-or at least on gay rights and visibility-and slant Christian. Viola! Suddenly the state seems to make giant mistakes at trial, by avoiding crossing any lines that might alienate the voters and nationwide donors and media attention that they have attracted by passing laws banning gender care for kids. It would be naive to assume that the primary motivation of people like the governor of AK (or any state really, red or blue) is simply to do what's best for kids. Professional politicians do what's best for their re-election first, then consider whether it's the right thing to do.
Really well done. Thank you.
A very lucid and powerful article.