• Corvus Nyx@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • PostmodernPythia@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

  • ConsciousCode@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    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

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.