Republican Cruelty Has A Short Shelf Life

Memo to White Conservative Christian heterosexuals: STOP HATING ON TRANSGENDER KIDS!! KTHANXBYE!!

As a nation, we began by declaring that 'all men are created equal.' We now practically read it 'all men are created equal, except negroes.' When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read 'all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.' When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty – to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.

• Abraham Lincoln, Lincoln Letters

For the past couple of years, it’s seemed as if red state legislatures haven’t missed an opportunity to turn the screw on transgender kids…because when you’re a Republican, cruelty IS the point.

New and ever more draconian laws have made it more difficult for trans children to access gender-affirming care, all in the name of “protecting children.” In truth, of course, these laws have nothing to do with protecting children and everything to do with making the lives of those children as arduous and painful as possible.

Because the only concern of White Conservative Christian heterosexuals lies in inflicting as much pain and suffering as possible on trans children. Why? Because White Conservative Christian heterosexuals know they can. If they gave a damn about children, they’d defer to the parents who know their kids best and the medical professionals best equipped and qualified to care for them.

Now-finally- it appears that common sense and at least a measure of compassion are being restored to this matter by the courts…and it’s about damned time.

[A] federal judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking enforcement of Indiana's law banning gender-affirming care for minors. Judge Patrick Hanlon, who was appointed to the federal bench by Donald Trump, determined that "Senate Enrolled Act 480" (SEA 480) shouldn't go into effect while it's being litigated, because it likely violates the Constitution by discriminating on the basis of sex, and because forbidding medical care to trans youth would likely cause "irreparable harm."

As independent journalist Erin Reed notes, that makes Indiana the fourth ban on gender-affirming care to be blocked in court. As of yet, not a single such law has been upheld. Let's hope that continues to be the case. Judge Hanlon found that the care ban fell afoul of three key tests: It violates the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection, requires "heightened scrutiny" because it discriminates on the basis of sex, and would be harmful to trans young people.

Hanlon's order notes that the law is plainly discriminatory on the basis of sex, since it prohibits identical treatments for transgender young people that would remain legal for cisgender youth, as Reed explains:

To put it plainly, if a cisgender boy experiences gynecomastia (enlarged breasts), he can access treatment for reduction; however, this option is denied to transgender boys. Similarly, a cisgender girl can get medical assistance to suppress excessive testosterone, but transgender girls are prohibited from the same treatment. These biased regulations are wholly founded on sex, leading the judge to unequivocally rule that “sex-based classifications are not just present in S.E.A. 480’s prohibitions, they’re determinative.”

So why can a cisgender boy access the same care that a transgender boy is denied? What state interest is served by this double standard? And how can such an overtly discriminatory law be justified?

The short answer is that the sex-based classifications make the clear and undeniable statement that cisgender boys have rights and access to treatments denied to trans kids. That’s both unconstitutional and wrong. Both are equal under the law and thus cannot be treated differently, yet that’s exactly what the Indiana law openly and unashamedly does.

As the judge states in his order, “the law is plainly discriminatory on the basis of sex, since it prohibits identical treatments for transgender young people that would remain legal for cisgender youth.” (emphasis mine)

Imagine, if you can, a law that allows men to access certain services and/or treatments but denies the same to women. What do you think would happen? Of course, the law would be taken to court before the ink on it was dry, and it would be struck down…with good reason. Such a law would be declared unconstitutional as “plainly discriminatory on the basis of sex.”

Indiana’s S.E.A. 480 relies on “sex-based classifications” that “are not just present in S.E.A. 480’s prohibitions, they’re determinative.” In other words, whether a child is cisgender or transgender determines how the law treats them.

That’s the very definition of discrimination, no?

Since the law is a sex-based regulation, the state has an obligation to show that it has an "exceedingly persuasive justification," which Hanlon ruled Indiana had failed to do, since the state claims — wrongly — that gender-affirming care is "controversial and unsettled," even though virtually all reputable medical organizations in the US have endorsed the treatment. Hanlon rejected the state's claims that puberty blockers and hormone therapy have dangerous side effects, and also rejected the claim that European countries have similarly prohibited such treatment.

In fact, Reed points out, no European countries have imposed a blanket ban on gender-affirming care. Even the most restrictive, the UK, allows gender-affirming care in research settings. Finland allows it for cases of "severe" dysphoria, and Sweden allows gender- affirming treatment in research settings and for patients over 16. France and the Netherlands still fully allow care, and some other European states, like Spain and Germany, have relatively few limits.

Hanlon instead agreed with the plaintiffs' evidence that medical interventions for gender dysphoria are in fact life-saving, since they greatly reduce the risk of suicide among trans youth, and that blocking such care would be harmful.

To his credit, Judge Hanlon has exposed S.E.A. 480 for what it is- a thinly veiled attempt by White Conservative Christian heterosexuals in the Indiana Legislature to turn the screws on transgender children.

Precisely what Jesus would do, eh?

Because the Prince of Peace was a mean and nasty son-of-a-bitch who hated transgender kids and never passed on an opportunity to do them harm. And He expects nothing less of his White Conservative Christian heterosexual servants.

When cruelty is the point, things like the suicide rate among trans youth are hardly a consideration for White Conservative Christian heterosexuals. Reducing potential harm isn’t even an afterthought.

Gender identity is real, regardless of whether the White Conservative Christian heterosexual bigots in the Indiana legislature care to recognize it. Gender dysphoria is all too real, and gender-affirming care can help to reduce suicide among transgender children and teenagers.

Not that anyone among the White Conservative Christian heterosexuals in the Indiana legislature gives a damn about transgender kids.

So… what’s the lesson to be learned from this (not that White Conservative Christian heterosexuals will, of course)?

STOP PICKING ON TRANSGENDER KIDS!!