You must log in or register to comment.
The heart is in the right place: protecting trans folks from those who’d seek to deny us care. But part of me worries this is a path back to pathologizing dysphoria, which can increase hurdles for trans folks from getting the care we need. Like when people had be out living as their gender for a set period of time before receiving care, sometimes stereotypically so.
Transness, like fatness and pregnancy, is a body-difference-based status that’s socially vulnerable enough to need protections, but the easiest legal basis for protection is on the same path as pathologization. Not arguing with you, more musing under what circumstances it is worth it to accept the pathologization-for-protection deal.
Honestly, did we ever de-pathologize dysphoria?
That’s going to make a lot of fascists and bigots mad.
More recognition of human rights please!
It’s a good precedent but very weird because it means the US becomes a checkerboard where people have rights in some states but not others. Not a bad thing that some places have rights but I wish they could do something more federal
The US has always been that way. Allowing states to make important decisions for themselves is the whole point of having states. The downside is it allows states to make horrible decisions about things like human rights, but the upside is that those same horrible decisions aren’t usually foisted on the whole country. Personally I’m glad I was able to escape a lot of Texas bullshit by moving to another state.