USA – Court rules mandatory pronouns overreach
A California appellate court upended SB 219, which in part forced nursing home workers to use preferred transgender pronouns and names for patients. The pronoun provision, the court said, is a “content-based restriction of speech that does not survive strict scrutiny” and “burdens speech more than is required.” “The pronoun provision at issue here tests the limits of the government’s authority to restrict pure speech that, while potentially offensive or harassing to the listener, does not necessarily create a hostile environment.” Refusing to use preferred transgender pronouns “may be disrespectful, discourteous, and insulting,” said Judge Duarte, but it allows others “to express an ideological disagreement with another person’s expressed gender identity.” More
USA – Medical group Rebuked for removal of birth certificate sex markers
“Due to genetics, males are different from females at the cellular level from fertilization. Biological sex differences due to genetics and sex hormones affect the tendency to develop certain diseases, change responses to drugs, toxins and pain, and also cause important physical, cognitive, emotional and behavioural differences between the two sexes.” Explained Dr Michael Artigues, of the American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) in a statement. This responds to the recent resolution made by the American Medical Association (AMA) after its board of trustees called for the removal of biological sex markers from birth certificates. They reason that marking an infant’s gender at birth could impede a later decision to identify with another gender. In other words, to remove sex markers on birth certificates could lead to problems for such individuals, confusion, and even more issues.
In August 2020, a transgender man – biological woman – as brought to the emergency department reporting to have lower abdominal pain and high blood pressure. The nurse noted Sam was a man (even the medical records stated Sam is male) and evaluated the situation as being an obese man who forgot to take blood pressure tablets. Several hours later it turns out that, the transgender man was actually a pregnant woman in reality and unfortunately gave birth to a stillborn. When physicians disagree with transgender ideology, it’s not that they’re being hateful or oppressive, but instead they are thinking of the complications that could impact the life of such an individual and what it could mean going forward. This is a sad price to pay due to unnecessary caused confusion. Article, A 32-Year-Old Man with Abdominal Pain.
Texas – Declares sex reassignment surgeries on minors child abuse
The Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) has recently declared that performing sex reassignment surgeries on minors with gender dysphoria constitutes child abuse. In a letter the department asserted that, “genital mutilation of a child through reassignment surgery is child abuse, subject to all rules and procedures pertaining to child abuse.” Legal requirements for professionals such as teachers, nurses, day-care employees, doctors and other state employees that work with children who have “cause to believe” that a child has experienced any form of abuse, including genital mutilation, are outlined and provided as well. Specifically, they must report that belief to DFPS within 48 hours of first suspecting the abuse. Failure to do so could result in a prison sentence of up to one year or a fine of up to $4,000.
According to the American College of Pediatricians, additional side effects of puberty blockers include “osteoporosis, mood disorders, seizures, cognitive impairment and, when combined with cross-sex hormones, sterility.” Others who regretted undergoing gender transitions testified on a recent episode of the CBS newsmagazine program “60 Minutes” that the operations they underwent made their mental health worse, not better.
Many medical organizations around the world, including the Australian College of Physicians, the Royal College of General Practitioners in the United Kingdom, and the Swedish National Council for Medical Ethics have characterized these interventions in children as experimental and dangerous. World-renowned Swedish psychiatrist Dr Christopher Gillberg has said that paediatric transition is “possibly one of the greatest scandals in medical history” and called for “an immediate moratorium on the use of puberty blocker drugs because of their unknown long-term effects.”
A year ago, the Finnish Health Authority issued new guidelines, which back psychotherapy, rather than puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, as the first-line of treatment. It took this step after a systematic review of the evidence, which found the evidence for paediatric gender reassignment and treatment “inconclusive”. The Finnish guidelines also warn of the uncertainty of providing any irreversible “gender-affirming” interventions for those 25 and under, due to the lack of neurological maturity. Reporting Article, Texas Gov Statement, ACpeds side-effects, Finland Guidelines.
USA – Three court cases that struck down counselling bans
In 2019, the city of Tampa, Florida lost in court in Vazzo v Tampa case. The ruling permanently struck down the ordinance that prohibited licensed counsellors from providing voluntary talk therapy to willing minors seeking help to reduce or eliminate their unwanted same-sex attractions, behaviours, or identity. The 41-page ruling said that the talk therapy ban interferes with this intimate, private and sensitive moment for a growing young man or woman who talks to a mental health therapist about sex, gender, preferences, and conflicting feelings. The ruling also explained that privacy rights of an individual to refuse or accept therapy already exists but the ban on therapy ordinance ignores this and “Florida’s Constitution privacy amendment suggests that government should stay out of the therapy room.” The ban was struck down, and said to want to occupy a very private space contrary to the constitution policy.
In 2020, the 11th U.S, Circuit Court of Appeals struck down two state laws prohibiting licensed therapists from recommending conversion therapy for children struggling with their sexual orientation or gender identity in the Otto v. City of Boca Raton case. In 2019, New York City Council withdrew its therapy ban fearing that if a federal lawsuit challenging the ban were to reach the Supreme Court, the panel could issue a ruling that protected the practice. Other cases are underway. The monstrous attacks on constitutional rights of willing minors to seek help with unwanted same-sex attraction and identity problems, seem to be losing the power they once yielded. 2019 Vazzo v Tampa case, 2020 Otto v. City of Boca Raton case, 2019 New York City Council withdraws therapy ban.
South Africa – Con court of SA rules hurtful speech does not equal hate speech
On 30 July 2021, the Constitutional Court handed down a unanimous judgment in the controversial and long-awaited case of Jon Qwelane versus the SA Human Rights Commission. The judgment settles the definition of hate speech in Importantly, in the Qwelane judgment, the Constitutional Court emphasised “that the expression of unpopular or even offensive beliefs does not constitute hate speech“, and defined hate speech as expression (i.e. speech, writing and/or conduct) which “travels beyond mere offensive expression and can be understood as “extreme detestation and vilification which risks provoking discriminatory activities against that group’“. On the question of whether Qwelane’s statements in fact amounted to hate speech, the Court found that Qwelane’s statements against the LGBT community were indeed harmful, incited harm and propagated hatred, and therefore amounted to hate speech.
Having regard to the judgment, however, it is clear that statements such as (but not limited to) the following, could amount to hate speech:
– An accusation that the LGBT community is responsible for the rapid decay of societal values;
– The insinuation that their sexual choices are against the natural order of things or akin to bestiality;
– The claim that the LGBT community should be denied the right to marry (i.e. arguing for “law reform” in favour of the removal of legal protection for same-sex marriages); and
– The insinuation that they are not worthy of the protection of the law.
USA – Court vacates ruling favouring trans student, will rehear school bathroom case
The appeals court issued an order on Monday in the case of Drew Adams v. School Board of St. Johns County, Florida, granting a full court hearing before the 12-member court, vacating a three-judge panel’s earlier decision. Born in 2000 as a female but presently identifying as male, Initially, Adams was permitted to use the boy’s restrooms for six weeks in ninth grade. However, eventually, officials barred Adams from doing so. Instead, officials gave Adams the alternative of using a gender-neutral, single-stall bathroom, the student filed a lawsuit against the school district on the grounds of discrimination. The earlier decision that favoured the trans student to use boy’s restroom was dissented by a Judge who concluded that the 2020 panel majority opinion “distorts the policy, misunderstands the legal claims asserted, and rewrites well-established precedent.” “By failing to address head-on the lawfulness of sex-separated bathrooms in schools, the majority recasts the school policy as classifying students on the basis of transgender status,” “And based on this recasting, it reaches the remarkable conclusion that schoolchildren have no sex-specific privacy interests when using the bathroom.” Court Order, Reporting Article.