I have the privilege to announce our uh next and final panel of the day um I think one of the great things about the federal Society is that we get to have uh conversations on controversial topics uh where many of us have strong feelings and I know I certainly do on this topic
Uh which brings me to our moderator The Honorable Elizabeth carer uh the justice has been a longtime friend of the federal society and she began her time on the bench of the second court of appeals in 2017 and was recently reelected by the voters this past November Justice Kerr received her JD
From the University of Texas after receiving her Bachelor’s in English and art history from Rice a very accomplished writer Justice car served as a contributing Editor to the seventh edition of Black’s lawary and has taught legal writing to law students for years as well as also teaching opinion writing to newly elected appella
Judges and with no further Ado I will turn it over to her thank you very much for that introduction I am I’m really honored to have been asked to moderate this panel on uh one of I think it’s fair to say the the most hotly contested issues of our time both legally policy
Matters it uh all all across the Spectrum so the federal Society has put together a wonderful panel of diverse views on this subject so I anticipate a lively discussion what we’re going to do is I’m going to have each panelist speak for uh no more than 10 minutes and with
Maybe one or two follow-ups we’re going to open it up for audience questions I really want to leave a lot of time because I’m sure that y’all will will have some things that you will want to ask on this topic of post boss St where do we go policy wise on gender issues
Issues of fairness and Sport uh the red State BL Blue State divide in terms of who which states are exercising um police powers in a way that you wouldn’t expect a red state to do or a blue State not to do so it’ll be a fascinating discussion I’ll first introduce the
Panelist to my immediate left is Professor Andrew coppelman he’s the John Paul Stevens professor of law professor by courtesy of political science and philosophy Department Affiliated faculty at Northwestern University he received the Walder award for research excellence from Northwestern the heartt dworin award and legal Philosophy from the
Association of American law schools and the Edward Corwin prize from the American Political Science Association his scholarship focuses on issues at the intersection of Law and political philosophy he’s written more than 100 scholarly articles and eight books most recently Burning Down The House how libertarian philosophy was
Corrupted by delusion and greed sounds I want to read that he has a column that appears regularly um in the hill and you can find his recent work at Andrew cpp.com next we have Christopher Mills he’s the founder of Spar Law LLC he was previously a partner at a national law
Firm and a constitutional law fellow at the Becket fund for religious liberty he served as a law clerk to Justice Thomas during the October 2018 term and also clerked for then chief judge David sentel on the DC circuit he’s uh written briefs and motions in the Supreme Court
And at all other levels of courts and is successfully argued in front of the DC circuit he’s co-counsel currently to Alabama defending its law regarding minors and sex modification procedures and has filed several briefs in other states cases about the purported medical consensus Behind These procedures he’s a
2012 Magna cumlat graduate of Harvard Law School was a senior editor of the Harvard Law review an editor of the Harvard Journal of Law and public policy and served on the Executive Board of the Harvard Federalist Society in 2009 he graduated via Kappa and sumacum latti with a degree in economics
From Ferman University lives in Charleston South Carolina with his wife children and a golden retriever uh Shannon Mentor next is the legal director of the national Center for lesbian rights the nclr which is one of the nation’s leading advocacy organizations for lesbian gay bisexual and transgender people Mentor was lead
Council for same-sex couples in the landmark California marriage equality case which held that same-sex couples have the fundamental right to marry and that laws that discriminate based on sexual orientation are inherently discriminatory and subject to the highest level of constitutional scrutiny Mentor was also nr’s lead attorney in Christian legal Society versus Martinez
A US Supreme Court decision upholding student group policies prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity uh Shannon has won awards too numerous to mention uh I’ll just note that in 2005 uh Shannon was one of 18 people to receive the Ford foundation’s leadership for a changing World award serves on the
Boards of faith in America and transgender law and policy Institute he’s previously served on the American Bar Association Commission on sexual orientation and gender identity uh Shannon got his JD from Cornell Law School in 1993 uh he’s he was originally from Texas lived away for while and is now
Back living in Texas and finally we have Christiana kefir who serves as senior council with Alliance defending Freedom where she is a key member of the center for conscience initiatives when she joined ADF in 2012 kefir worked to defend the constitutionally protected freedom of churches religious schools and Christian Ministries to exercise
Their faith without government interference since joining the center for conscience initiatives in 2020 Christiana has worked on on groundbreaking cases to protect the right of women and girls to Fair athletic competition including Su V Connecticut Association of schools she also works to protect the rights of people of Faith to Foster and provide
Loving homes for children in need Christian has testified before Congress and successfully advocated at the Grassroots level and as an ADF commentator she regularly speaks at conferences and comments in television radio and print media she earned her jurist doctorate in 2010 from the Brook College of Law and government policy
Where she graduated first in her class also in 2010 Christiana completed the ADF leadership development program to become a Blackstone fellow so you can see that we’ve got uh a panel of very very noteworthy and distinguished people in this field so without any further Ado I will ask Professor coppelman to to
Start us off by giving first some thoughts on uh how bosck works or doesn’t when it comes to gender issues okay uh well gender identity raises a cluster of distinctive issues locker rooms bathrooms health insurance military service prisons and homeless shelters and we oughtn’t mush them together the two most politically
Salient issues are medical interventions for children and girl Sports they are also distinct questions about What treatments are likely to produce the happiest and best function adults haven’t got much to do with fairness to athletes and encouraging all children to be physically active my primary focus
Today is going to be an issue that cuts across all of them but first I’ve been asked to say something about how bowo affects these issues uh the BTO case clearly prohibits discrimination on the basis of trans status because the Court held that is sex discrimination prohibited by title 7 of the Civil
Rights Act of 19 19 64 gender is irrelevant to one’s qualification for employment Boo’s implications are less clear in areas where everybody agrees that gender is relevant such as women’s sports but BTO does mean that discrimination on the basis of trans status is sex discrimination which implies that where there’s State action
As in public schools intermediate scrutiny applies according to Supreme Court decisions dating back to the 1970s that intermediate scrutiny includes an anti- stereotyping principle law may not impose traditional sex roles The Stereotype that trans girls have unfair advantages because their bodies went through male puberty is an over Brad
Stereotype not all trans girls have experienced male puberty the anti- stereotyping principles also violated by laws that declare that hormone therapy is permissible only when consistent with one sex assigned at Birth birth or that surgery is permissible only to align an intersex child with one sex if sex discrimination law means anything it
Means that the state may not force people into biographies that the state deems appropriate for their genetic sex sponsors of those laws are rightly concerned about adolescents who make irreversible decisions that they will later regret but the bodily changes brought on by puberty are also irreversible and sometimes later
Regretted so blanket ban will generate regrets of its own that’s the very reason why puberty blockers are prescribed for Trans teens the the sponsors of this legislation don’t seem to notice that these children exist and evidently would be happier if they didn’t exist and the desire that a group
Of innocent people not exist is a familiar political phenomenon and it creates political opportunities uh Friedrich Hayek who’s one of the foundational theorists of the American ameran rights right noticed this uh a free Society naturally engenders diversity and this produces a distinctive set of opportunities for political evil in his classic 1944 book
The Road to surom hyek observes I’m going to quote here it is easier for people to agree on a negative program on the hatred of an enemy than on any positive task the contrast between the we and the they the common fight against those outside the group seems to be an
Essential ingredient in any Creed which will solidly knit together a group for common action and for politicians this again quoting has the great advantage of leaving them greater freedom of action than almost any positive program and that is the value of again quoting him the enemy whether he be internal like
The Jew or the kulak or external it’s hard to unify opinion in a democracy but a strategy that sometimes works is to scapegoat a harmless and Powerless minority trans people are the latest victims of this ugly strategy whose most successful practitioner is Governor DeSantis of Florida which has
Helped him to become the leading non-trump Republican presidential candidate with a promising political future even if he doesn’t get the nomination this time uh the war on wokeness with respect to trans people has been in practice a war on vulnerable people uh he talks a lot about protecting children but the laws he
Signed have also made it difficult or impossible for Trans adults to get treatment or even to continue the treatment they’ve been receiving for years uh the attack on transgender Floridians has focused primarily on schools and state colleges where teachers May no longer use their preferred pronouns in class and must use
The bathroom designated for their biological sex as assigned at Birth trans visitors including parents and students from other schools face criminal charges if they use the bathroom on sto School premises that fits their gender identity even though those rules Place trans people at a greater risk of
Assault uh the campaign the pr uh the governor’s presidential campaign reposted a video boasting that he signed I’m quoting from the ad here the most extreme slate of anti-tr laws in modern history which produced some of again quoting the harshest most dra Draconian laws that literally threatened trance existence the deliberately vague
Vigilante enforced don’t say gay law trans targets trance as well as gay people desantis’s press secretary claimed that anyone who opposes that law is I’m quoting probably a groomer and when it was objected that LGBT people were leaving Florida because of these policies she retweeted the news with an
Emoji of a hand waving goodbye uh so in short thousands of people who have lived in Florida all their lives are being terrorized because Republicans needed an issue to mobilize around now there are some reasonable Arguments for declining in some cases to defer to claims about gender identity
Women and girls don’t want to see penises in locker rooms the body of a biological male can give trans women athletes an advantage some issues are just hard and complicated biologically male prisoners have committed rapes in women’s prisons but trans women are particularly at risk of sexual assault
In men’s prisons some women don’t feel safe in homeless and battered women’s shelters where there are biological males in Residence but trans women need Refuge as well these issues demand nuanced and sensitive judgment but the Judgment has to presume that the basic needs of trans people matter a line has
Been crossed when you boast that you have threatened people’s existence and driven them out of their homes and communities and nuances in short supply particularly with with respect to the care of children and this isn’t just about disantis I don’t want to Simply beat on him uh it’s a tendency that runs
Through the Republican party that’s why as a smart and successful politician he’s a very smart man uh he thinks that pandering to that tendency will help his Ambitions 22 states have now enacted laws like Florida’s Banning gender affirming care for minors the best argument for legal restrictions on such
Care is that some clinics have improperly rushed transition treatment and this is unquestionably true on that ground many European countries have tightened eligibility requirements and demanded that they take place in a controlled research setting but the absolute banss are recklessly crude they ignore ample evidence that those treatments are urgently necessary and
Have been spectacularly successful for some children the legislators who purport to be protecting those children are oblivious and uh perhaps indifferent perhaps even hostile to those children not every denial of a transgender claim is a threat to trans existence but trans people are not wrong to feel that their
Existence is in question in every such conversation the politicians who have have advanced their careers by vilifying their innocent fellow citizens ought to be ashamed of themselves thank you okay thank you Professor that’s a that’s a good segue into uh Christopher Mills comments uh as since he focuses a
Lot of his practice on medical issues involving minors so Christopher thank you before I dive into legal analysis I want to acknowledge that these are difficult often emotional issues especially in the medical cases I’m talking about we’re talking about kids who often have many issues other than any gender dysphoria the question before
States is how best to help these children and treat them with Justice and equality under the law as every citizen deserves the Supreme Court has said that our quote our basic concept of the essential dignity and worth of every human being is at the root of any decent
System of ordered Liberty I start from that premise I’m going to describe a few of the basic claims and then analyze them a bit so the first type is state laws regulating sex modification procedures on children puberty blockers cross- seex hormones and surgeries the second uh that I’m just going to touch
On briefly policies prohibiting schools from inform informing parents about social transitions new names pronouns and the like the third are policy basing sports games on biological sex so the first broad set of claims is substantive due process in the medical cases the claims that the constitution provides a deeply rooted substantive due process
Right for parent parents to access sex modification procedures for their children well there’s a few problems here first you know we’ll we’ll put aside that substantive due process is perhaps made up as Justice Thomas has explained uh we’ll start with the level of generality problem we go from a
General parental right to direct the upbringing of their children to a right to care for children to a right to to direct their medical care to a right to obtain experimental gender modification drugs that the FDA has not approved for use it’s an extraordinary jump to say that because there’s a general parental
Right to direct the upbringing that then extends to the right to access these treatments and it violates the Supreme Court’s repeated instructions that substance due process claims must be defined at a narrow level of generality third there’s no reasonable argument that these uh that this right to access experimental drugs however
Specifically you want to define it is deeply rooted in our nation’s history and legal Traditions it is not just as a right to abortion is not right to access these treatments is not the Practical implications are also rather shocking it would mean that parents can countermand FDA decisions and strict scrutiny
Applies every time the FDA approves or doesn’t approve a drug or every time a state does anything uh with drugs um on the other side parental rights claims come up on against some of the policies prohibiting parents from um finding out what’s going on with their child’s education or otherwise exposing them to
Certain curriculum uh I we don’t have time to get too much into these claims uh in my view they’re closer to the core of the parents right to direct the upbringing of their children including their education that the Supreme Court has recognized moving on to equal
Protection um I’m going to focus on the medical cases we’re talking about puberty blockers which are given to Children starting at ages 9 through 11 to block puberty cross cross sex hormones massive doses of estrogen for males and testosterone for females often results in infertility and then surgeries these drugs are not FDA
Approved for these uses this course of treatment did not appear until the 1990s in the Netherlands a quick digression on surgeries they’re typically not challenged probably for PR reasons but first they are happening when you read in the newspaper surgeries on miners are not happening they are happening a
2-year partial rooters investigation of one company’s insurance claims found hundreds of surgeries euphemistically called both top surgeries and bottom surgeries wath the world professional association for transgender Health the only organization that put down standards of care in this area their most recent standard which include a
Chapter on Unix but not a chapter on ethics got R of age limits why because surgeons were already performing these surgeries and they on Miners and they didn’t want them to get sued for malpractice because of the evidence no of course not and why would they need to get rid of it
If these surgeries aren’t happening on minors but in in any event the basic legal theories would apply subst to process eal protection the same the same theories would apply but I don’t want you to forget surgeries because I think it’s important that you know what we’re talking about when you start a little
Boy on puberty blockers when he hits puberty and then transition to massive doses of estrogen he’s almost certainly infertile at that point moreover he won’t have developed far enough for there to be enough tissue for the surgeons to do a vagina plasty which is an an enormously complicated procedure
Performed on males to try and make them look like a woman the result the surgeon has to pull tissue from other places in the body typically the colon with all the complications and issues and uh a low uh success rate that you can imagine just read what happened to Jazz Jennings
So the first question is the level of scrutiny that applies under equal protection the rational basis is the default seems to easily clear that bar it is at least rational to be concerned about whether children had the capacity to consent to unproven risky sterilizing sex modifications procedures when they
Have no frame of reference for those issues sexual relations having children caring for children the AAP in many states do not think that children should be able to consent to getting a tattoo how could they possibly think that children can consent to these courses of treatment many states have regulated similar
Psychosurgical procedures like labotomy also one supported by the American Medical establishment needless to say these procedures are a bit more permanent and destructive than a tattoo that’s why many European countries are putting strict limits on the procedures as the professor said they’re limiting their use to formal research protocols but
What’s important to note is that in most of these countries it doesn’t appear that these protocols even exist yet in other words these are function band of the treatments why because of animus because they want to get rid of trans kids existence of course not because it’s not clear that unstudied
Medications that result in permanent sterility is a good way to help children who cannot possibly understand the ramifications of the treatment and whose identity is still being developed and especially when there are other ways to help these minors suffering from gener dysphoria particularly psychosocial therapy so Sweden says quote the risks
Of these treatments currently outweigh the the possible benefits England says the same France the same Denmark the same Norway the same they found that the puberty blockers stunt growth weaken bones and affect brain development cross- seex hormones increase cancer and stroke RIS and cause sterility over 95% of children
Who start on puberty blockers go on to cross- sex hormones combin that with a drastic unexplained rise in females presenting with gender dysphoria as adolescence a new patient population that has not been studied in any detail and was not the issue of the initial Dutch studies in the 1990s which focus
On children with gender dysphoria add to that the the fact that under the studies that have been conducted 80 to 90% of children with gender in congruence come to identify with their natal sex without interventions and we have no objective way to identify which kids will persist in uh cross-gender identification that
Means that we don’t know whether an intervention is actually going to help or set a child on a path that would be contrary to the identity that would actually develop the stories of the D transitioners who received these treatments and are now trying to detransition are heartbreaking add to that the many
Stories from around the country including at the academic centers that supposedly provide the gold standard of care that kids are getting cross- seex hormones after a single visit with no psychological evaluation at all or maybe a 30-minute talk with a social worker with minimal mental health trait training finally this is not
Evidence-based medicine it is ideology based medicine the studies that supposedly support these procedures are jokes and I mean that they are littered with fundamental methological defects they’re drawn from surveys from transforming websites they exclude participants who commit suicide while they’re on the treatments they exclude the results of Vari variables that
Presumably don’t show the right change and worst of all not a single one of which I’m aware separates patients who receive psychosocial therapy from patients who receive drugs in other words none of them is able to distinguish the impact of medical intervention and noninvasive psychological support the the plaintiffs in these
Cases Primary Response to all this has been an appeal to Authority the major major medical organizations as Judge Brown said the enlightened ones of course only the ones in America because Europe is not on this decide they are relying only on the faulty studies just mentioned I don’t have time to go
Through everything about wath the indocin society and the AAP but they are not telling the truth go to my website sparrow.com Matic review regarding outcomes of treatments in adolescence is not possible that’s not quite true it is possible to conduct a review these treatments just flunk the reviews as
Several European countries have found but the point is that even wath doesn’t pretend that these treatments are evidence-based so that these laws pass rational basis seems obvious so is does intermediate scrutiny apply in my view it makes no difference because for all the same reasons they would pass heightened
Scrutiny they are closely tailored to a compelling government interest in protecting children and states have broad discretion to regulate Health in areas with scientific uncertainty uh but we can play the intermediate scrutiny game for a moment the claim is that intermediate scrutiny applies because the laws discriminate
Based on sex at a basic level this doesn’t make much sense no child can obtain these treatments regardless of sex so we can play the boss St Game Change sex and see what happens start with puberty blockers the same drugs are used for males and females neither can
Get them no discrimination based on sex cross- sex hormones testosterone for females estrogen for males simplifying a bit but there’s no sex discrimination here either under dos regulating a sex-based procedure that only one sex can undergo doesn’t trigger heightened scrutiny the same for surgeries by definition gender transition procedures to make a female
Look like a male or vice versa are ones that only one sex can undergo the plaintiffs will say that well boys with puberty issues can receive testosterone but you won’t let girls have it to transition sex but that’s not the same treatment one treats an indocin disorder
The other is purportedly for a mental diagnosis the indications are different the regimes are different the goals are different is giving a boy with puberty problems testosterone the same as giving testosterone to Lance Armstrong so he can RN win the Tour to France again of course not so the comparison changes the
Sex and the treatment because again the sex is something that only one SE that the treatment is something that only one sex can undergo the consequences of calling this sex discrimination would be absurd medical providers are generally subject to federal laws prohibiting sex discrimination and they don’t have a
Heightened scrutiny exception this issue came up in title 7 and sffa um so if these laws discriminate based on sex so does a provider who only gives test testicular exams to males so does a provider who will only give estrogen to males for transition purposes this is ridiculous they don’t
Discriminate based on sex because neither either sex can obtain the treatment as for gender stereotypes uh these classifications regulate medical procedures they reflect that as a biological matter males and females have different chromosomes genitalia and healthy hormone levels and the Supreme Court has repeatedly warned against deriding such quote basic
Biological differences as quote stereotypes Justice Ginsburg in the VMI case said quote the two Sexes are not fungible if anything these laws stop medical practitioners from foisting irreversible procedures on minors who do not conform to G to sex stereotypes after all children are diagnosed with gender dysphoria for failing to conform
To sex stereotypes thus the laws merely prohibit treating children with risky treatments based on those stereotypes so basically describing different standards of care based on differences in male and female biology as discrimination deprives that word of all meaning assuming for a moment that intermediate intermediate scrutiny does apply there’s
An additional question lurking in some of these cases about whether an as applied intermediate scrutiny claim is cognizable I don’t have time to get into that issue too much but the problem with as applied intermediate scrutiny claims is that a law is supposed to be able to pass intermediate scrutiny if it’s just
Not too over Brad so it can be over Brad bringing an as applied claim suggests that if even one application is is uh too broad then the plaintiff can claim an exemption from a law that would otherwise pass heighten scrutiny collapsing the difference between intermediate scrutiny and and strict
Scrutiny and making them functionally equivalent so that’s a theoretical problem with the as applied intermediate scrutiny claims uh finally real quickly one other related legal question in the sports Cas is uh in most of the sports cases the plaintiffs aren’t disputing that it’s okay to separate boys and
Girls when they’re playing sports the dispute is really about how to define boys and girls in other words Sports laws obviously discriminate based on sex uh so basically the claim is that the definition of girl is under inclusive and must include some biological men such a claim that the
State must expand a protected class to include additional subclasses is probably only subject to rational basis review it doesn’t discriminate the the the definition doesn’t discriminate based on sex and the definition is the only thing being challenged which would suggest that those cases are only subject to rational basis review and
These laws would easily pass such review because the state’s definition mirrors how sex has always been understood which is biologically uh I I uh I’m sure there’s many other issues to talk about but I I’m out of my time so uh we’ll go on the next panelist thank you Christopher yes
We we can see already that uh that gender issues broadly speaking Encompass so many things that we could have this panel go on for an entire day at least I’m sure and not touch on everything so um Shannon Mentor you’ve got I think a different perspective on the idea of Medical Treatments parental
Notifications so floor is yours okay great thank you so much and just thanks for for having me here I’m really so grateful to be here um and I’ll just say uh just as a as a transgender person as a transgender man I’m really grateful to live in a country that protects
Individual freedom and I’m grateful to live in a time where we have Medical Treatments that have been so transformative for me and so many other transgender people and allowed me to uh have a work have a career have a family and and be part of my local community
And my church and hopefully make a positive contribution uh to society and that’s you know that’s I want those same opportunities to be available uh to uh transgender young people CU they they really need those same opportunities uh and I’m really so glad that we’re trying to have some sort of uh conversation
Across the lines about these issues we just there’s not much of that going on at the moment and it’s very unfortunate because these are important issues I really appreciate uh Professor kelan you acknowledging I just want to you know I do want to acknowledge it that
Something’s gone a Miss I think in in uh in our society with so much focus on such a small grp group of people and there has been a kind of a line P that I think should be of concern uh to all of us you know I think of the quote that
Governor Cox from Utah uh said when he vetoed the sports band there rarely has so much fear and anger been directed at so few something unusual is going on and I do think we we need to pay attention to that but I wanted to talk more at a a little bit
More of a meta level and I was really struck by judge Rogers uh remarks which seemed so on point that so often in our history and now you know crisis things that are these you know unusual remarkable events too often end up being the cover for very oppressive policies that have dangerous long-term
Consequences and I I really want us to think about that frame around this issue because for sure these laws in my view do cause a lot of harm to transgender young people and their families but I think they cause other types of harm as well that are a lot less obvious but
That are very real and concerning they’re causing damage to principles and Norms that are of Great Value to everyone I think especially uh to conservative people about the limits of government about the role of the family but because these laws Target such a tiny group of people it’s a marginalized
Group of people most people never met a transgender person it’s a politically unpopular group they provide a cover for really for are breaching boundaries undermining Norms that are critical to protect us against government overreach surveillance intrusion into families into individual Freedom privacy dignity and I really do think that is most
Apparent with these laws that Christopher is talking about the 22 states have now completely banned all medical care for the treatment of gender dysphoria in minors and this again less than 1% of kids have gender dysphoria and then we’re talking about even smaller subset of those who have severe
Enough gender dysphoria to Warrant uh medical intervention and we’re talking about a very small group of kids what we do know is that for the kids who need this care it is very effective and helps them you hear the same stories from parents over and over that their
Children were suffering don’t want to get out of bed in the morning are asking why did God make me this way and then are able with support and medically supervis uh pey blockers and then when it’s required hormone therapy they’re really able they’re they’re indistinguishable from non-transgender
Kids in terms of their mental health profiles and here’s the remarkable thing and this is truly remarkable right now we’ve had seven challenges to these laws seven federal district courts all have enjoyed these laws after hearing evidence presented by both sides four of those judges are were appointed by Republican presidents three by
President Trump and some there are some very conservative judges including the judge in Alabama who heard all of the evidence including some of the allegations that Christopher was making and concluded that the state could not support any of them that the evidence just was not there and instead what that
Judge found as well as every other federal district court judge that has listened to parents to The Experts to the state experts has concluded these medications have been around for 40 years they’re used to treat pre precocious puberty um delayed puberty they’ve been used to treat gender dysphoria and minors for 20 years
There’s a significant body of research showing the benefits they provide they’re done pursuant to these very conservative protocols developed by uh the inocent society and the world professional association for transgender Health uh they’re they’re not banned in any other country uh the the UK is a typical example the UK had one Center
Treating all of these kids and yes it was too many kids and they were cutting Corners what they’re now doing is they have multiple Regional centers to provide the care they’re not Banning the care they’re not restricting the care that’s true across the board there is there other countries are following the
Same model already used in pediatric gender clinics in this country anyway uh the as I said the these the states have not have had every opportunity believe me in front of very open-minded judges willing to hear whatever evidence they have have been unable to substantiate these claims um
So that’s kind of the the the this the state of the sort of evidentiary presentations but in so those judges have found yes there’s equal protection violations but they’ve also found that these laws do violate parent the right of parents to make medical decisions for their children and about that that’s
What I really wanted to to focus on here that right for for parents rather than the government to make decisions about how to raise a child and what medical care to provide to a child that is literally the oldest fundamental right recognized under our constitution goes and before the Constitution it’s deeply
Rooted in the common law it’s deeply rooted in our history and traditions the Supreme Court in 1967 in u the parm case literally held that the the right at issue is the right to seek and follow medical advice so it’s not untr it’s not a right to experimental drugs it’s a
Right to seek and follow established medical advice of course it is not absolute if the state can show that a parent is harming a child of course you can override parental rights a little foot I wanted to mention Justice Thomas of course doesn’t as uh recognize any
Fundamental rights but he has more than once strongly indicated his strong support for parental rights under privileges or immunities clause so uh just want to be clear I think that um uh the the the doctrinal foundation whether it’s substantive due process or privileges or immunities doesn’t matter
What does very much matter is that in our constitutional system this is one of the mo not just our constitutional system our society I mean saying that parents don’t have a right to make medical decisions for their children runs contrary to the most deeply rooted intuitions of every parent in this
Country this is part of what we expect uh the the way the world Works um in our society that again it’s parents not the government making medical decisions for their own children but the concerning thing is that uh recently there’s two appell at courts the sixth circuit and
The 11 circuit have held that that right does not exist and I want to be clear they didn’t say that the government uh had overcome the fundamental right for parents to make medical decisions for their children they didn’t say well in this case there’s enough evidence of harm or that these medications aren’t
Sufficiently supported by evidence that we’re going to say the state can override this right they said literally it does not exist that there is no fundamental right for parents to make medical decisions for their own children I think that is deeply concerning I’m very concerned that because of the subject matter of this
These cases that it’s something that just to be frank most conservative people in this country don’t know much about and are going to have probably initially a a negative reaction to that people are not paying attention to what’s being held in these courts but no matter what you think about this medical
Care and no matter how you think what you think about how these decisions should come out I think a lot of people should be and would be concerned to know that two Federal appell at courts now have held that there is no fundamental right no protected constitutional right
Appearance rather than the government to make these critical medical decisions for their own children and that that the government can regulate in that area under rational basis review which just to State the obvious if that’s true a state could mandate that parents put their children through these treatment
So I think this is something that warrants uh a lot more attention than we have been giving it and that uh you know I think about uh you know Justice Jackson’s uh descent in the katsu decision where he said that a a a very oppressive and yet popular law when the
Court when the Supreme Court upholds a very oppressive yet popular law it may not attract a lot of opposition at the time but that that decision is just lying there like a loaded gun that can be used in many other dangerous context and I think that is
Really that is something that we need to take very seriously in looking at these cases and what uh the way courts I think are getting off track because they’re being distracted by the controversial subject matter and really abandoning principles that are very important to both conservative and non-conservative
Uh parents uh I don’t just going to stop there besides saying a teeny little bit about school policies because I think it looks like on the surface that we have the opposite situation with school policies um but I wanted wanted to point out um that when when we mandate that
Schools must immediately report if a if a student says to a teacher or a school official hey I think I may be transgender that if we adopt rules or policies that say in that circumstance that teacher has to immediately call up the parents and disclose that we’re
Really creating an an exception to the usual rule right now schools do not generally have to tell parents anything about their kids and they don’t I mean teachers know all kind kind of things about kids you have Susi has a crush on Billy or things like that they don’t
Pick the phone up and they don’t have a duty to pick the phone up and call the parents and tell them schools tell parents when a kid is injured before they’re going to give a medication to a child if a child’s being bullied or something like that but these policies
Literally create a very dangerous exception to the general rule where generally we want to encourage students to be able to talk to teachers and school officials freely we want to let teachers and school officials use their judgment now this is different parents should have access to records schools
Shouldn’t like change the child’s name and pronouns and school records without notifying parents I’m talking about the ADV advocacy of policies that literally require the minute a teacher a child says anything to a teacher about possibly being transgender that the teacher has to notify the school I think
That really turns teachers and schools into a big brother and a way that what may appear on the surface to be validating a kind of conservative values but is really encouraging schools the government to play a radically new intrusive role in students lives and in fam’s lives and I’ll just I want to
Share one quick story and I’m going to stop you know when I I grew up in Texas I had a very difficult time as a young person uh in high school uh when I came out as a member of the LGBT community my family had a very hard time accepting it
They were not able to accept it they just didn’t have the information uh the only person in my life who who would talk to me was my high school government teacher who was a very conservative uh Evangelical Christian who told me straight up in his view it was a sin but
That uh he was no more sinful than many things he had done he treated me with kindness and respect he literally saved my life and I guarantee you if there had been some policy that the minute I disclosed to him what was going on with
Me he had to pick up the phone and call my parents it would have destroyed my relationship with my parents it would have destroyed my trust in him and I likely would not have survived the experience so I guess I’ll just close there by putting in a plea that we all
Try not to be overly distracted by our immediate reactions and assumptions about these specific issues and that we take the time to develop some critical dist distance about the underlying principles here and the importance of protecting family autonomy and some degree of individual privacy and Liberty and
Dignity and that we not turn all of our Traditions about the way families and schools operate upside down I’ll stop there thank you Shannon so Christiana Christiana sorry uh changing topics just a little bit your state-of-the-art on issues involving uh girls and women’s sports the department of education’s
Proposed new uh Sports rule so you speak to some of those issues for us certainly well good afternoon I have the privilege today of talking with you about an issue that is frequently in the National eye it was recently under legislative consideration here in the state of Texas
And is undoubtedly near and dear to the hearts of many in this room and that of course is sports the proliferation of women’s sports teams and female athletes in high schools and colleges across the country really are the crowning achievements of Title 9 yet just 50 years after that landmark legislation
Passed government bureaucrats athletic associations and activists are changing the rules and changing the laws governing eligibility for female sports teams you’ve seen the images and the video footage two male athletes in the state of Connecticut won 15 women’s state championship titles in girls high school track titles that once were held
By nine different girls a young woman on a North Carolina volleyball team suffered a life concussion with lifelong effects because she was on the receiving end of a male’s powerful volleyball Spike and perhaps most strikingly just last year a 64 male with wide shoulders powerful arms muscular legs dove into an
Atlanta swimming pool and dominated the female competition which included female Olympians at the NCAA Women’s swimming and Diving championships that same male also exposed his naked body to female athletes in their locker room and without their consent there are examples of males competing in women’s sports in
Virtually all sports at all levels of competition in Most states across the United States but before we dig into the legal analysis I think we first need to answer the question why do women’s sports exist in the first place why don’t we lump everyone male and female together into
The same category and just divide by age or weight class or height it’s because all other things being equal age Training Fitness level dedication access to resources biological sex is the single largest determiner of athletic performance and it gives males a clear athletic advantage over females women
Sports exists to give women and girls fair and safe competition males are generally bigger faster stronger and taller than females they have larger Hearts greater lung capacity denser bones stronger muscles greater explosive power greater higher V2 Max and more efficient respiration the list goes on these by way by the way
Are not stereotypes they are a scientific fact biological sex gives males a 10 to 50% performance advantage over a comparably fit and trained female athletes that ranges from about 10% in running and swimming events to about 20% in jumping events wanted to make sure that was right 30% in events involving
Upper body strength and more than 50% in events involving both upper body strength and speed like the baseball pitch by about age 14 or 15 many high school boys if not most can beat the fastest female Olympians in a head-to-head race in fact back in one year alone
275 High School boys beat the lifetime best of world championship Sprinter Alison Felix in the 400 meter the most decorated track and field athlete in Olympic history male or female but without a protected female category history wouldn’t even record her name so having a female only Sports category
Promotes the inclusion of women in the same way that having a par Olympic category or a featherweight category in weightlifting allows us to celebrate the remarkable achievements of individuals who might otherwise be overlooked if we lumped everyone together well what about testosterone suppression is always the comeback does
That level the playing field in short no at least 19 peer- reviewed studies make clear that suppressing a male’s testosterone does not eliminate his physical advantages and that makes sense it’s simply suppressing a hormon isn’t going to shrink his larger heart or greater lung capacity or his longer
And taller bone structure males also create safety concerns in contact sports like basketball soccer and volleyball as much as I hate to say it females are already more predisposed towards injury in contact sports for example they’re far more likely to suffer a concussion with and one with more longl lasting and
Severe effects and ACL tears as well so if you add into that a a with a harder kick a faster run higher jump more vigorous push or a more powerful spike it puts women and girls at an even greater risk of physical injury and that’s in part why a number of
International sporting bodies including World rugby Fina and World Athletics have recently re-evaluated based on the best and most available science and they have moved to restrict competition in the female category to female athletes only unfor personally the United States is a little behind the international curve in protecting women’s sports some
States are trying to change that we now have 23 states that have passed laws to ensure that only females compete in the female category there are about nine law suits across the country currently pending on this topic and they tend to fall in about three categories number
One female athletes who are suing their athletic associations or school districts because they’ve allowed a male to compete in the girls category number two lawsuits by male athletes against these states that have passed women’s sports laws because they’re demanding access to the female sports teams or third lawsuits by state governments
Against the federal government’s reinterpretation of Title 9 to include gender identity I unfortunately don’t have time to fully develop all of those lawsuits but I do want to pull on one common legal thread and virtually all of these cases both sides claim that title 9 supports their position but does it
Title 9 prohibits as you’re well aware discrimination on the basis of sex in any federally funded education program or activity typically no discrimination on the basis of sex would demand pure sex blindness but that is not the case in Title 9 Title 9 specifically allows for sex separated sleeping quarters
Fraternities and sororities even father son and mother daughter activities and almost immediately after Title 9 the statute itself was passed the precursor to the United States Department of Education passed regulations with Congressional approval that specifically allow for sex separated sports that involve competitive skill or contact which is virtually all sports sex of
Course is not defined in Title 9 and when a term is not defined in Title 9 con law 101 the Supreme Court has said that it should be interpreted according to its ordinary public meeting at the time of enactment and there is really no ser serious question that at the time
Title 9 passed everyone understood sex to mean biological sex the ordinary division of human beings into male and female nothing else and that’s underscored by the fact that numerous times throughout the statute and the regulations they use terms like one sex and the other sex clearly referencing a
Binary concept not a multifaceted one bosc does not change this analysis first bosk recognizes that sex is a distinct concept from gender identity did not conflate the two it did not redefine sex to include gender identity recognized they were distinct and number two bosu’s analysis just doesn’t work in the
Context of Title 9 because Title 9 permits and sometimes requires sex distinctions remember that bosck held that tile 7 forbids employers from taking sex into consideration even in part when they make employment decisions it demands sex blindness but applying the same reasoning here would mean that that title 9 forbids schools from taking
Sex into consideration even in part when Fielding a soccer team or a wrestling team bosck would in essence make all sex separated sports teams unlawful which would spell a death now for women’s sports of course the male athletes in the lawsuits I referen that’s not exactly what they’re going for they
Don’t want to abolish sex separated sports teams they want to take advantage of sex separated sports teams without complying with the rules that make them sex separated in the first place so you can certainly argue all you want I think it should be a legislative debate
Whether or not sex should be or could be redefined to include gender identity but you cannot use bosck to get you there that of course is no barrier to the United States Department of Education uh first of all last summer it relied heavily on bosck to inter to excuse me
Issue an interpretation of Title 9 that said that it would interpret sex discrimination to include gender identity and transgender status that action was of course challenged by 20 State Attorneys General led by the state of Tennessee and they won a preliminary injunction The District Court found that
Bostock was limited to title 7even at least in the sixth circuit and that the department of Ed had violated the administrative procedures act by issuing this reinterpretation of federal law without the proper notice and comment process that case is currently on appeal at the sixth circuit and of course I
Should note that the state of Texas has recently filed a similar lawsuit but secondly the Department of Education also relied heavily on bosck to promulgate two sets of proposed regulations challenge uh regulations or regulatory changes to Title 9 last fall the department proposed a wide- ranging Title 9 rule redefining sex
Discrimination to include gender identity and then more recently this spring the department proposed a new eligibility rule for sports teams that essentially says that schools cannot enforce sex separation unless they’re able to prove that it’s justified by a quote important educational objective for each sport each level of competition
And each grade which frankly I think offers just a fig Leaf of protection for female athletes no school would want to risk their Federal funding and get that analysis wrong so that means that if these rules are implemented and we expect final rules initially they were
Promised in May then it was October now there we’re hearing rumors it could be potentially the end of this near or early next but if these rules are implemented we expect schools will be required to allow males onto female sports teams in virtually all cases finally briefly I just want to
Underscore that we if we accept a future in which sex is no longer respected in law and public policy it impacts Far More Than Just Sports of course you’ve already heard about the impact on vulnerable minors and parental rights but think too about the young woman who’s changing in her locker room who
Has sexual trauma in her past the Young young mom who’s seeking safety from her violent partner at a domestic abuse shelter or the woman who has been imprisoned for her crimes and is literally locked in a Cell these women deserve to know that they are safe in their most vulnerable moments and they
Are only in the presence of other women thank you thank you panel so I’m going to sort of sit back and before we save time I would like to save at least five minutes for audience questions but first I’ll give the panel oh seven or eight minutes maybe to just
React to things that you’ve heard from from your fellow panelists and uh have have kind of a debate so who would like to start well I think that I we’ve got a lot of issues flying around I think that I’d like to keep the focus on what makes the the most sense
Uh because I mean title 9 is we presented with a situation that clearly wasn’t contemplated by the authors of the statute and so there’s a lot of work that can be done to interpret the statute one way or another way but uh but I really want to look past the
Statute and try to think about how we can bring about a state of affairs where everybody is okay and similarly with the Constitutional analysis uh I mean we already heard uh Judge Brown denounced carolene products uh which gave us minimal scrutiny and it’s the same minimal scrutiny that’s available uh that
Uh that Christopher uh was relying on and I’m just I’m not going to evaluate the Constitutional arguments but what minimal scrutiny does what notor notoriously does is it validates statutes that are really stupid you can’t defend the statute in Carol in products pure rent seeking garbage uh on
Behalf of the milk industry uh what wants to sell kids butterfat uh you know Williamson versus Lee obstacle or Railway Express uh you know Silly statutes so I think that you know whatever the level of scrutiny is it just seems to me to be hard enough work
To figure out what kinds of laws make sense and so I’d like to talk about that and just not talk about Title 9 or constitutional scrutiny once we figure out what makes sense then we can figure out how to make that how to accomplish that within the existing legal
Regime thank you so Christopher your name was invoked so uh would you like to respond uh I I I’d really like to leave time for questions so I’ll just say briefly the the explanation of the substantive due process claim um that Shannon gave was seek and follow established medical advice and I just
Want to be clear that what’s going on there is to Outsource constitutional interpretation to the positions of the AMA it’s interesting that established medical advice there doesn’t refer to what the state has determined is safe for its citizens but instead what a private interest group whose Physicians are self-interested and ideological and
Who make a lot of money off of very complicated procedures think that the rule should be that seems to be a very dangerous State of Affairs and very different from any sort of deeply rooted right that we would have recognized at the founding let’s not forget the establish medical establishment in this
Country supported Eugenics labotomy said tobacco was good for you and perform racist medical experimentation so I don’t think we want to Outsource the law and say that anytime we the people deviate from the AMA strict scrutiny applies okay thank you anybody else like to comment before we open up for
Questions oh lordy lordy I don’t want to get into Rel litigating Alabama here but um just to say not relying on the medical organizations relying on the actual evidence the body of medical science and research and that’s again what I just think it’s pretty telling that when these judges have been
Presented with the evidence on both sides uh I believe what the judge Burkin Alabama concludes the state had presented quote no evidence to support its allegations I just guess I just urge people take a look at these decisions before you make your mind up about about
This issue but I just want to Echo what professor coppelman said to me the really urgent thing here we live in a really diverse country transgender people are part of it and so we’re transgender kids and we’ve just got to find a way to incorporate and include transgender people which doesn’t require
Revolutionary change modest accommodations and I can promise you I that transer people just want to be able to be part of this country and to live the same ordinary lives that other people do and we can do this I mean there’s a lot of good sports uh policies
That have worked in practice and could work in the future it doesn’t have to be this All or Nothing black or white either or like banish trans people from existence or uh remake all of uh you know Sports uh and other areas of of Life U doesn’t take a lot to just
Accommodate transgender people as a very tiny little minority of folks in this country I think I also want to add I’m going to agree with Cristiana here on the question of how you construct Sports programs so that everybody gets to participate where the uh cisgender girls are comfortable participating and the
Transgender girls participating is an area where I think people of Goodwill are feeling their way it seems like exactly the wrong time for a nationwide top down mandate from the Department of Education so I don’t think you know again as a matter of policy that is helpful to get a directive from the
Department of Education that is meant to be uh imposed on the whole country I you know some things uh you know yeah Ian you know we know moderate administrative State you know there are children’s lives being saved by the limits on particulate air pollution issued by the Obama Administration that’s the kind of
Thing where you need a uniform solution you don’t want to competition among the states for who can attract polluting industry but this we need we really need state byst state and local experimentation I would just note and passing with respect to Professor Carman I do want to talk about Title 9 I think
There’s a lot to talk about there but um I would just add very briefly that we think there’s a place for everyone to compete in sports so the question is where is it most fair and I think there are a number of different athletic associations that are grappling with
That very question including on the international scene um a number of them for example are turning the men’s category into an open category anybody for any reason that they choose can choose to compete in the open category but I think where we cannot compromise is on protecting the female category we
Cannot harm one group of people in our our attempt to make sure that someone else is able to compete where they prefer okay well thank you all panel um with that I’m sure that there are questions from the audience yes sir I wanted to ask Christopher oh wait you’re you’re
Getting a microphone brought to you one sec hello um I wanted to ask Christopher for because you’ve been dealing with some of these cases I wanted you to address maybe some of the results of the Holdings that Shannon was referring to with the factual records in those could
You could you speak to that sure well uh first as we all know um plaintiffs get to pick their forums uh second um I think what’s telling is on appeal what’s happened in some of these cases as Shandon mentioned both the 11 circuit and the sixth circuit has said uh well there’s
Actually no substantive due process right to obtain sex modification procedures for your children and um only rational basis that applies judge Brasher has an opinion concurring that explains why the law would satisfy height and scrutiny um judge Burke in Alabama the district court judge uh Shannon mentioned you know he
Acknowledged that risks of these treatments include loss of fertility permanent loss of fertility that a a an 11-year-old is supposed to be able to consent to but he he was convinced by the evidence uh again provided by the self-interested medical associations who sort of compile all the faulty studies
Together and and make it look like there’s some sort of consensus here uh even as if you go and read their own standards of care they say the number of studies and their quality is too low for us to be able to make a conclusion um so
You know I I I would say yes in the district courts uh with the backing of again as Judge Brown said the enlightened ones there are plenty of experts who can convince federal district court judges um that uh of of a state of affairs that in my view is not
Accurate thank you other questions okay we got two over here well first of all thank you for coming especially to Shan Miller and Andrew coppelman I admire your courage for coming into a forum where a lot of people probably going to disagree um I want to ask about whether intermediate
Scrutiny should apply in this case um so it seems that bosck you know was Civil Rights Act um case particular and it confined itself to that statute explicitly so um and but intermediate scrutiny seems that’s most appropriate in equal protection context and there are some cases that suggest those are
Similar but others like Washington versus Davis that suggests they’re different that they’re not always the same um so why should uh why should intermediate scrutiny applied why should the equal protection principles be transferred to um what’s more of a uh Civil Rights Act case I think that
Question’s for me uh so uh the equal protection Clause does not as such prohibit classifications it just says no State shall deny to any person the equal protection of the laws but it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to embody an anti- classification principle so a gender based classification gets
Intermediate scrutiny that’s a Judicial construct but it’s been around for half a century uh and so it’s the law that we’ve got and uh whereas title 7 there is an anti- classification principle that is right there in the language of the statute so what happens in BTO is
That Justice Gorsuch reads the language of the statute sees the anti- classification principle says that discrimination against gay and transgender people is a sex-based classification and therefore prohibited by title 7 now something either is or is not a sex-based classification what you mentioned Washington versus Davis Washington versus Davis is also relying
On an anti- classification interpretation of the 14th Amendment a law that does not classify on the basis of race but that has a disperate racial impact is not subject to heightened scrutiny because it is not a race-based classification so 14th Amendment law focuses on classification the court has
Essentially read the 14th Amendment as if it were title 7 and has turned the 14th Amendment into an anti- classification provision now there’s a big literature about whether that’s appropriate or not but that is the law uh so once bowo says that discrimination against gay and transgender people is sex discrimination while something
Either is or is not sex discrimination what uh the court finds in postto is that the employer in order to implement a policy of discrimination against gay people has to figure out what sex a person is in order to figure out whether they’re gay it’s not enough to know my
Employee dates women I have to figure out whether my employee is a woman in order to do that well if the state is going going to implement a policy that discriminates against gay people let’s just say but you know a law like the one in uh Lawrence versus Texas we’re here
In Texas uh that uh specifically prohibits homosexual sex the sex of the perpetrator is one of the elements of the crime that a prosecutor has to prove in order to get a conviction unless the prosecutor introduces evidence of the sex of the perpetrator the defendant is entitled to a directed verdict as I
Understand the Texas statute so that’s manifestly a sex-based classification subject to uh strict to heightened scrutiny now I don’t think you needed BTO to know that but once BTO has said yep it’s a sex-based classification the logic seems to me to readily transfer to the 14th
Amendment thank you way I was just going to say that Justice Gorsuch the author of boso said in the students for fair admissions act uh that actually title 6 and the equal protection Clause are not necessarily coterminous that they actually might lead to different um analyses which makes sense because they
Have different texts and history and so I don’t think it’s as obvious that the uh you know titles the other title title 7 just translates into uh equal protection on I would just note that under dos uh a classification a uh there was a a classification based on sex the
Law used the word woman and the court has repeatedly said that regulations that discriminate based on pregnancy are not uh sex-based uh discrimin uh regulation subject to intermediate scrutiny so I do think there is some complexity here um in terms of uh the analysis going forward I just saying
Students for affirmative action Justice Gorsuch and the majority both agreed and strongly stress that the definition of race discrimination under the Equal clause in in title 6 is exactly the same the bit where he says equal protection clause in title 6 differ is not in the definition of what
Constitutes race discrimination but in under equal protection race discrimination can be justified if there’s a sufficiently compelling reason in under title six that cannot I mean that I believe was the difference he was alluding to I don’t think that anyone could point to a single Supreme Court
Decision that has ever held either in the context of race or sex that there is a different definition of what constitutes discrimination based on either one of those categories under the federal civil rights act and the eal protection Clause so that would be a very that’s another very concerning
Aspect of these six circuit and 11 circuit opinions that to my knowledge and if I’m wrong let’s hear it uh it’s the first time uh federal appell courts have ever held that a statute that literally hinges on sex I mean under these statutes if you want to know
Whether a child can receive this medication you must know their sex it is determinative is outcome determinative that not withstanding that facial Express Reliance not just a reference as women can’t get abortions but sex in this case is literally outcome determinative that they’re going to treat that as though it does not
Facially discriminate based on sex and therefore doesn’t warrant intermediate scrutiny again I get this is about something that a lot of people don’t approve of but once the court issues an opinion like that it opens the door to you know what what’s next then what other expressly sex base statutes or is
The Court’s going to say well it doesn’t doesn’t we’re not going to apply intermediate scrutiny there’s some big changes to our law these are some very significant changes to long-standing precedent in the context of a politically controversial and socially unpopular group and I think that’s a dangerous combination
Okay thank you uh we have time for one one other qu you had a question at the table yes yes I was going to ask Shannon characterized the issue of procedures for children as being one of private parental choice but doesn’t that just beg the question about what is medicine
And in the post-dbs world states have been allowed to make the decision that killing a child in utero isn’t Healthcare and for the same reason can’t states make the decision that permanently sterilizing a child isn’t therapeutic no I don’t think so I think we need to take the court at its word
That when it said that adop abortion is unique because there is the counterveiling issue of of a of a life uh I don’t think that it would be appropriate to read dos as giving States cart blanch to just read def find what constitutes medical science or medical
Practice um I think that would be a a rather extreme reading of that decision and one that puts a lot of power uh in the hands of government officials I don’t know about you but I don’t want to live in that world where States get to dictate what health care parents can
Obtain for their for their children I mean this is one of the odd things about the these cases is these States agree that this is a serious medical condition that left untreated causes very serious harm and then the evidence presented is that these are the only effective treatments for children who require them
So the effect of these state laws is to leave parents with unable to access the only effective treatment for a serious medical condition which is part of why seven federal district court judges and I don’t know about you know form shopping if I were form shopping I
Wouldn’t choose to bring cases in Alama Arkansas you know these are not friendly forums uh but you know they these judges have looked at this evidence and that is what the evidence shows it’s a rare condition kids suffer it’s a it’s a subset of kids with gender dysphoria who
There’s no other effective treatment when they get this treatment they really benefit and their parents should be able to to to get that care for them there’s just no no reason to completely ban it I’m sorry just real quickly I I the the option is not to let them have
Sterilizing sex modification procedures or don’t treat them that is not the options that is before States the options are to let kids have access to psychosocial therapy that has been proven to work and will not render them permanently infertile and wait until their age 18 to
Be able to give informed consent if they want to engage in these other procedures there’s not a single shred of evidence that Psychotherapy can effectively treat severe gender dysphoria and that’s what the judges have heard that’s what state can’t there’s no studies there’s no evidence of that if there were research
Uses psychosocial therapy so if it doesn’t work why do they give it to all the kids who also get sex modification procedures and then the studies just pretend that any positive outcome is because of the sex modification procedure not the therapy Chris far and I obviously have some ser serious
Disagreement I guess I would just come back I would just come back to the principle I would rather have loving parents who know their children better than anyone and who will be living with the consequences of that decision I’d rather have them make that decision than State officials well thank thank you
Panel so very much uh I want to Echo the comment that is it’s so wonderful to bring together people from different ideological viewpoints and have a civil conversation about issues like this which is uh sorely needed in all sorts of platforms and I hope we can continue the conversation going forward so before
Uh before Lisa gives her final remarks I’d like to ask everybody to applaud the Panel
source
