Anonymous #1 17h

(1/2) The first argument the State raises would be that it’s a content-neutral restriction and therefore only subject to intermediate scrutiny (which is easier for them to win under). IMO that would be thrown out incredibly fast, because the State’s concern is often expressly to restrict manifestations of trans-ness in minors.

3

Anonymous #2 17h

1) It’s not, because this is an issue of constitutional compliance not public policy. 2) Minors can drink in many other parts of the developed world and it’s fine.

10

Anonymous #1 17h

(2/2) After that it’s a matter of whether the State has an important enough interest and whether the means selected are not to over/under-inclusive. This I think is where litigation would get a lot more intense. IMO the state’s strongest argument is from its interest in protecting minors’ health but there’s just not enough evidence to support the proposition that their bans have a positive impact at all, let alone strong enough to justify such a major restriction.

4

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 17h

Other parts of the developed world are not the United States. That’s irrelevant. And there’s reasons you can’t just do a lot of things to your body untill you’re a legal adult.

-4

Anonymous #2 17h

I think anyone who’s a legal adult should 100% have access to that if that’s what floats their boat. Minors shouldn’t be making those decisions.

-3

Anonymous #2 17h

It’s not irrelevant, I think we can make more informed policy decisions when we look at the outcomes of policies in similarly-situated jurisdictions. And again, you’re missing the point of my post. This is a LEGAL question, not a policy question.

6

Anonymous #2 17h

Why shouldn’t minors have access to hormone therapies? It’s not like there’s a high regret rate, but refusing care does cause an elevated risk of harm to the patient. Those are just the facts. Even if we wanted to argue public policy (which isn’t what this post is about) you still wouldn’t have any legs to stand on.

4

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 15h

If you genuinely don’t know why then there’s no point in trying to push my point even further

-1

Anonymous #2 15h

I’m going further than saying I don’t know why they should: I explained to you why they *should*. If you can’t contest that with logic then you’re right, there’s no point.

3

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 15h

This Supreme Court would absolutely find that this falls under a State’s interest in protecting minors, and that it’s compelling enough to not offend the First Amendment. All the research in the world wouldn’t change that

6

Anonymous #4 13h

None of that can be reasonably characterized as expressive conduct, that’s why. Gender transition is using your appearance to communicate information to the public regarding both your beliefs regarding gender and society, and how you desire others to regard and interact with you. That’s expressive conduct, doing drugs isn’t. To the extent it COULD be, the state has an overriding interest in prohibiting that form of expression under intermediate scrutiny.

13

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 5h

HRT can cause irreparable changes and or damages to the body… that is why... jfc

0

Anonymous #2 4h

The fact that medicine has side effects does not justify banning effective treatment for children.

1

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 3h

Doing HRT is literally just doing drugs. They're just different chemicals and I do use chemicals to communicate information to other people as well as express my beliefs and inform them how I want to be interacted with. They should both be legal.

0