because, depending upon which sex the person was assigned at birth, they were able to access certain kinds of drugs others were not. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, but only upon equal protection grounds.
As written and commented upon by Massha Gessen, a columnist for The New York Times who is also a person who identifies as transgender, it was surprising the case was taken up by the Supreme Court, as the small percentage of people identify as “trans” accounts for approximately 1 percent of the population (approximately 1.4 percent if you include children), and those who seek medical transition is an even smaller percentage (15 percent of the 1.4 percent). However, as pointed out by Gessen, there is a propensity amongst all authoritarian regimes to target minorities for discrimination. Realizing this propensity, the small percentage of people identifying as “trans” makes it a “perfect group to scapegoat” because it really plays upon the anxieties parents have that their “child will turn into a stranger.”27
Gessen found it very interesting that the court in oral arguments on both sides took on such a position themselves, as their arguments did not focus on the equal protection clause that prohibits discrimination based on sex/gender, but instead upon the care itself – even though all medical associations, including medical pediatric associations, filed an amicus brief that the ban was harmful and that in some cases gender affirming care can be lifesaving. What the justices were effectively saying, according to Gessen, was they – and by consequence, parents – were better able to make medical decisions than doctors and other medical experts. But of course, the court was not interested in that question. Instead, the court was arguing we’re not going to allow you to question whether the state has the right to
override parental and medical decisions – we,
the court are granting the state that right.
“We’re just going to ask whether the state is exercising that right in a discriminatory manner.”28 This was a position Gessen founds terrifying, because it extends into arguments and strategies involving reproductive rights.
For example, one of the leading conservative arguments concerning gender affirming care is that children being assigned as female at birth should not be allowed to undertake action that might make them infertile in the future.29 It goes to the issue of men or people of a certain ideology determining when women reproduce, which should concern women and advocates for abortion rights. It also goes to a much larger issue of health care in general, as people identifying as “trans” may not only be denied gender affirming care as a child but access to medications needed later in life, which could quite possibly be extended to other groups in the population at large.
Here the point needs to be reiterated: this goes against not only the notion of the primacy of the individual that has long been a foundation of Liberalism, but the notion of parental rights that has long been a foundation of Conservatism, as at the end of the day it is the State effectively making the decision not the parent. And across this case and most of the segments discussed before, all becomes grounded in the loathing of expertise.
Trump's position on abortion and transgender rights goes against not only the notion of the primacy of the individual that has long been a foundation of Liberalism, but the notion of parental rights that has long been a foundation of Conservatism, as it is the State who makes the final decision.
45