Anonymous #1 20w

(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 20w

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.

9

Anonymous #1 20w

(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 20w

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 20w

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.

-4

Anonymous #2 20w

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.

5

Anonymous #2 20w

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.

3

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 20w

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

-1

Anonymous #2 20w

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.

2

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 20w

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 20w

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 20w

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

0

Anonymous #2 20w

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

0

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 20w

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

Anonymous #4 20w

Water is also a different chemical. You can’t nuke the difference between recreational drugs and a valid medical intervention by just calling them both chemicals. What they do and why they’re used matters

3

Anonymous #3 20w

Well they're both to affirm your beliefs and live the life you want to live, of course. Thanks bro I didn't know water was a chemical?!?! All those years getting a chemistry degree and I never learned that?

0

Anonymous #4 20w

Don’t talk down to 3, you’re the one saying stupid things. Describe the communicative content of doing heroine if your argument makes so much sense.

5

Anonymous #4 20w

Lmao the chemistry degree you suddenly have now that it’s convenient and can’t be fact checked. Okay Walter White

5

Anonymous #3 20w

I do not sell drugs. I'd rather not go to the yard for 10-15. And OP it would be hard to explain because I assume you're unfamiliar with most substances, but basically some chemicals allow you to express yourself or carry yourself (physically or in conversation) in a way that's more affirming to your soul. You will connect with those similar to you as well as it allows introspection and personal growth like any self affirmation should.

1

Anonymous #3 20w

And you're right I actually have a chemical engineering degree but it's quicker and easier to understand if I just say chemistry to regular people lol. Basically you have to do everything required to get a chemistry degree and everything required for any engineering degree. Most credits required out of any major, at least everywhere I've seen/ been. I'm sure I understand chemistry more than the doctors prescribing these chemicals. Probably more than anybody but a PhD chemist.

1

Anonymous amethyst_headphone51 20w

Holy shit your brain is so smooth

0

Anonymous #2 20w

Did I say anything wrong?

0