All I want to know is how skeptical the justices were of the pro-gender medicine case, and whether they made Strange Casio comb her hair before making her biggest appearance yet as a male impersonator.
Thomas and Alito (who was very well informed) seemed most skeptical.
Sotomayor and Jackson seemed most credulous.
However, the efficacy/harms of pediatric "gender medicine" were not on the table. What was being debated was whether the ban was sex discrimination and at which level of review the ban was to be evaluated. If, as the Sixth Circuit held, it could be evaluated on a "rational basis" (a relatively low bar), then Tennessee would have an easier time arguing that the state had an interest in regulating these procedures (that's when the facts of its efficacy could be presented).
But the DOJ and the ACLU were arguing that the ban should be evaluated at a higher standard, intermediate scrutiny. In that case, Tennessee could still argue there was a good basis for the ban, but they would be subject to more scrutiny. This side argued that because a girl who wants to be a boy is not allowed to access testosterone even though a boy (with a medical condition) might be prescribed it, that is a form of sex discrimination.
Tennessee argued the ban was based on such drugs needing to be prescribed for medical purposes. Changing gender identity is not a medical purpose. Both boys and girls are prevented from accessing cross sex hormones, so there is no sex discrimination.
However, Jackson brought up the Loving case, which challenged laws preventing whites and blacks from marrying. In the defense, it was argued that both blacks and whites were both subject to the law, hence no discrimination. However, the DOJ argued that the purpose of the law was racial discrimination, hence violating the 14th Amendment. Jackson seems to argue that because Tennessee's ban in facially not discriminating by sex it is similar to Loving, which was also not facially discriminating by race, and so could be in violation of the 14th Amendment.
Facts are not being argued or are even in the record for this case, only the legal issue of constitutionality.
Ok Eliza, if you ever end up doing interviews for Fox News (has your disillusionment with modern liberalism reached the point where you would be willing to do that?) and they offer you hair and makeup, I want you to promise you'll take it at least once. I'm not saying the Fox look would suit you, but I think it would almost certainly be funny to see what they go for.
I watched this over a few days and decided not to comment before I'd finished so I might need to watch it again before I can say something that's both worthwhile and on topic.
lol, I think I would be too scared to let them touch me! There's a very good reason I don't do all that stuff to my face and hair and it's not just that I'm lazy.
Tis a small shame, but for what it's worth I doubt most people would attribute your aesthetic to laziness. Eccentricity maybe, or the corrupting effects of Feminism, or an almost feline desire to disobey.
All I want to know is how skeptical the justices were of the pro-gender medicine case, and whether they made Strange Casio comb her hair before making her biggest appearance yet as a male impersonator.
Thomas and Alito (who was very well informed) seemed most skeptical.
Sotomayor and Jackson seemed most credulous.
However, the efficacy/harms of pediatric "gender medicine" were not on the table. What was being debated was whether the ban was sex discrimination and at which level of review the ban was to be evaluated. If, as the Sixth Circuit held, it could be evaluated on a "rational basis" (a relatively low bar), then Tennessee would have an easier time arguing that the state had an interest in regulating these procedures (that's when the facts of its efficacy could be presented).
But the DOJ and the ACLU were arguing that the ban should be evaluated at a higher standard, intermediate scrutiny. In that case, Tennessee could still argue there was a good basis for the ban, but they would be subject to more scrutiny. This side argued that because a girl who wants to be a boy is not allowed to access testosterone even though a boy (with a medical condition) might be prescribed it, that is a form of sex discrimination.
Tennessee argued the ban was based on such drugs needing to be prescribed for medical purposes. Changing gender identity is not a medical purpose. Both boys and girls are prevented from accessing cross sex hormones, so there is no sex discrimination.
However, Jackson brought up the Loving case, which challenged laws preventing whites and blacks from marrying. In the defense, it was argued that both blacks and whites were both subject to the law, hence no discrimination. However, the DOJ argued that the purpose of the law was racial discrimination, hence violating the 14th Amendment. Jackson seems to argue that because Tennessee's ban in facially not discriminating by sex it is similar to Loving, which was also not facially discriminating by race, and so could be in violation of the 14th Amendment.
Facts are not being argued or are even in the record for this case, only the legal issue of constitutionality.
Ok Eliza, if you ever end up doing interviews for Fox News (has your disillusionment with modern liberalism reached the point where you would be willing to do that?) and they offer you hair and makeup, I want you to promise you'll take it at least once. I'm not saying the Fox look would suit you, but I think it would almost certainly be funny to see what they go for.
I watched this over a few days and decided not to comment before I'd finished so I might need to watch it again before I can say something that's both worthwhile and on topic.
lol, I think I would be too scared to let them touch me! There's a very good reason I don't do all that stuff to my face and hair and it's not just that I'm lazy.
Tis a small shame, but for what it's worth I doubt most people would attribute your aesthetic to laziness. Eccentricity maybe, or the corrupting effects of Feminism, or an almost feline desire to disobey.
The "Informed Dissent" logo, with the long tail on the "D", reads as "Informed Piss Ant" to me. Maybe not the intended effect?
I love that you're making these conversations a regular thing!