Hello Friends & Viewers, I've noticed a bit of a glitch that is preventing people from seeing ALL VIDEO COMMENTS. :-( To see all the comments and responses, click 'Sort by' directly above and select 'Newest fist' and all comments should appear. I've notified google but so far they seem flummoxed. Cheers, Dr. Jamie
As a person who is definitely more conservative and isn't really much of an LGBTQ ally, I think this video is very informative and helpful. I've also been concerned with these transgender ban bills. You've pointed out some informative points that I didn't know before. Thank you for making this video and informing me with your perspective.
As a canadian, I'm following this case because some of our conservative provinces are trying to bring in simulator legislation. I was hoping that if the American Supreme Court upheld trans rights, our conservatives might back down. But it's hard to be optimistic.
The pain and sadness of this betrayal from the US government is very real. As a GenX trans person, I really wanted to see trans youth grow up to have normal happy lives, but instead I'm just watching generation after generation suffer needlessly as I did.
I don't know what the Justices are doing, but I'm sure THEY know, and I don't think it reflects government by and for the people. From one veteran to another, Dr. Jamie, thank you for your service. And btw, WE who stand for democracy are the TRUE Americans 🇺🇸.
I've been following the case for a while. It doesn't look good at SCOTUS but frankly we knew that going in. I will tell you one thing: It will not be decided based on scientific evidence but on legalistic parsing with a main course of what constitutes sex discrimination and a side dish of a state's power to regulate the practice of medicine. If you want to be cynical (I usually do), you could say the issue is how the right-wing majority is going to connive an argument as to why _Bostock_ (the 2020 decision that said discrimination against transgender folks in employment is sex discrimination) does not apply to health care. I've already heard some suggest they'll use some version of "applies equally" (to both MTF and FTM transitions) so the law does not discriminate on account of sex, but that is so close to the old arguments to support banning same-sex marriages (gays and lesbians can get married, just to people of the opposite sex, so there is no denial of marriage rights - an argument the Court specifically rejected in the _Obergefell_ case) I doubt even this court would set itself up for such an obvious basis for mockery. We are in for rough times. But if you want a bit of good news, in a unanimous decision on December 11, the Montana Supreme Court upheld a temporary injunction against an anti-trans health care law, finding it likely violates the state Constitution.
@@whoviating Thanks for commenting. This court seems to contradict itself at every turn so I wouldn’t be surprised if their ruling makes no sense at all and defies their own precedent. Yay! Glad to hear Montana hasn’t completely gone to the dark ages.
I'm a Cis gendered straight female Christian pastor who ministers to lots of lgbtq people. I've learned so much from them about what it is like to walk through the world as they do (and I continue to every day). Thank you for your work, especially here, helping to educate the world (if it's willing to listen). For cis gendered people, we need more and more people like you who are educated about transgenderism (is that the right word?) and who are willing to speak out to try and create understanding and compassion. I'm praying for you and ALL of the trans/non-binary citizens of the US, and I'm also praying for SCOTUS - that God will lead them to do the right thing, at least constitutionally if not ethically!
Thanks for your comment. I appreciate your allyship and willingness to learn about our experiences. The world needs more people like you. 💕 The term Transgenderism is no longer used. Transgender is best used as an adjective only. For example, transgender person. It shouldn’t be used as a noun ‘a transgender’ or a verb ‘transgendered. Since being transgender is not a choice or an ideology, the term Transgenderism should be avoided.
I listened to the arguments as they were taking place and then re-listened to them again afterwards, and it really reminded me of the same types of discussion and rhetoric that was used in Florida during legislative debates on our GAC ban bill in 2023 and at the Board of Medicine during the rulemaking process afterwards. I am not super optimistic about our chances here, even though it is so extremely, clearly sex discrimination. (Seriously, if you haven't read the bill being challenged, you should. It is SO full of anti-trans animus and far-right, pseudoscientific talking points that it's remarkable that it passed in the first place, and the word sex appears in it multiple times, so anyone trying to say it was not discriminating on the basis of sex is full of it.)
Dr. Jamie, We seem to hear a lot of all the negative transgender stories, such as detransition stories, and parents seeming to have some sort of Munchausen (sp?) issues, but It seems we do not hear any of the positive stories of transgender people, like yourself and others, for whom gender affirming care has been life changing. And how would you answer the parental fear that children will be unduly influenced into thinking they are transgender, when they are not. As a professional psychiatrist who works in this field, I value your input on these issues.
❤❤❤❤ deep breaths is going to get rocky, not just in the USA.. so hang in, get your passport sorted- always work for you here- in Australia . Can say that, as an older intersex/ transgender person who had to navigate ' transition ' in past 4.5 years. Would be unique. Are only 2 or 3 consulting Phychirist here that specialise in assessment for Gender Affirmation Care. Their books are always full. Ditto- for Phycologist ( are more of them, but they usually refer to higher powers, that be- in medical profession). Please 🙏 consider if you decide to move xxxReikki Kyra
Detransitioners who regret their transitions are few. Some are elevated by those who would use them for their own ends. Those who choose to listen to these narratives ignore medical expertise and the vast majority of trans people who benefit from gender related transition.
Regarding puberty blockers. They are prescribed to children for other conditions, will they be blocked for all children or just trans children? If not, isn't that discrimination?
@@nisagomez4366It’s a clear case of sex based discrimination. However, these justices seem to have difficulty with basic logic. It’s just disturbing. 😔
The logic in question (and NB, I'm pro GAC in any case, and I'm using "biological" terms to illustrate) is this: Is it sex-based discrimination because a male can't have care to support a feminine identity but a female can, ie. males are blocked from certain services simply because they are male, and vice versa. Vs. Is it NOT sex-based discrimination because males and females are both equally barred from GAC, ie. GAC is a banned practice for people of either sex the same as any other illegal activity. It's kind of ridiculous, and the logic clearly stands in trans people's favor afaic, but this is how it's been going in court
The two legal commentators I look to about Scotus are Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley. They seem to come to the same conclusion that there will be a "nuanced" decision that leaves this to individual states. Decision predicted to be next June. So make of that what you will.
In other words, they're predicting that SCOTUS will, as I indicated, finagle some way to say that the _Bostock_ decision, which said that discrimination against trans folks in employment is sex discrimination, doesn't apply to health care. Or, more properly, they'll give the bigots the power they want. I'd say GMTA except I stopped thinking of Dershowitz and Turley as great minds some time ago.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Hello Friends & Viewers,
I've noticed a bit of a glitch that is preventing people from seeing ALL VIDEO COMMENTS. :-( To see all the comments and responses, click 'Sort by' directly above and select 'Newest fist' and all comments should appear. I've notified google but so far they seem flummoxed.
Cheers,
Dr. Jamie
As a person who is definitely more conservative and isn't really much of an LGBTQ ally, I think this video is very informative and helpful. I've also been concerned with these transgender ban bills. You've pointed out some informative points that I didn't know before. Thank you for making this video and informing me with your perspective.
@@Kurushimi1729 You’re welcome 🙂
As a canadian, I'm following this case because some of our conservative provinces are trying to bring in simulator legislation. I was hoping that if the American Supreme Court upheld trans rights, our conservatives might back down. But it's hard to be optimistic.
@@gordoncarscadden7735 Thanks for sharing this perspective. Our politics have global impacts for good or ill it seems.
The pain and sadness of this betrayal from the US government is very real. As a GenX trans person, I really wanted to see trans youth grow up to have normal happy lives, but instead I'm just watching generation after generation suffer needlessly as I did.
@@RealShebang To see so much progress erased makes me very sad too. 😔
I don't know what the Justices are doing, but I'm sure THEY know, and I don't think it reflects government by and for the people.
From one veteran to another, Dr. Jamie, thank you for your service.
And btw, WE who stand for democracy are the TRUE Americans 🇺🇸.
I agree. They know exactly what they're doing.
I've been following the case for a while. It doesn't look good at SCOTUS but frankly we knew that going in. I will tell you one thing: It will not be decided based on scientific evidence but on legalistic parsing with a main course of what constitutes sex discrimination and a side dish of a state's power to regulate the practice of medicine.
If you want to be cynical (I usually do), you could say the issue is how the right-wing majority is going to connive an argument as to why _Bostock_ (the 2020 decision that said discrimination against transgender folks in employment is sex discrimination) does not apply to health care.
I've already heard some suggest they'll use some version of "applies equally" (to both MTF and FTM transitions) so the law does not discriminate on account of sex, but that is so close to the old arguments to support banning same-sex marriages (gays and lesbians can get married, just to people of the opposite sex, so there is no denial of marriage rights - an argument the Court specifically rejected in the _Obergefell_ case) I doubt even this court would set itself up for such an obvious basis for mockery.
We are in for rough times. But if you want a bit of good news, in a unanimous decision on December 11, the Montana Supreme Court upheld a temporary injunction against an anti-trans health care law, finding it likely violates the state Constitution.
@@whoviating Thanks for commenting. This court seems to contradict itself at every turn so I wouldn’t be surprised if their ruling makes no sense at all and defies their own precedent.
Yay! Glad to hear Montana hasn’t completely gone to the dark ages.
I'm a Cis gendered straight female Christian pastor who ministers to lots of lgbtq people. I've learned so much from them about what it is like to walk through the world as they do (and I continue to every day). Thank you for your work, especially here, helping to educate the world (if it's willing to listen). For cis gendered people, we need more and more people like you who are educated about transgenderism (is that the right word?) and who are willing to speak out to try and create understanding and compassion. I'm praying for you and ALL of the trans/non-binary citizens of the US, and I'm also praying for SCOTUS - that God will lead them to do the right thing, at least constitutionally if not ethically!
Thanks for your comment. I appreciate your allyship and willingness to learn about our experiences. The world needs more people like you. 💕
The term Transgenderism is no longer used. Transgender is best used as an adjective only. For example, transgender person. It shouldn’t be used as a noun ‘a transgender’ or a verb ‘transgendered. Since being transgender is not a choice or an ideology, the term Transgenderism should be avoided.
From this atheist, bless you for showing the love your book talks about ❤
I listened to the arguments as they were taking place and then re-listened to them again afterwards, and it really reminded me of the same types of discussion and rhetoric that was used in Florida during legislative debates on our GAC ban bill in 2023 and at the Board of Medicine during the rulemaking process afterwards. I am not super optimistic about our chances here, even though it is so extremely, clearly sex discrimination. (Seriously, if you haven't read the bill being challenged, you should. It is SO full of anti-trans animus and far-right, pseudoscientific talking points that it's remarkable that it passed in the first place, and the word sex appears in it multiple times, so anyone trying to say it was not discriminating on the basis of sex is full of it.)
I agree 100%
www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/112/Bill/SB2696.pdf
Dr. Jamie, We seem to hear a lot of all the negative transgender stories, such as detransition stories, and parents seeming to have some sort of Munchausen (sp?) issues, but It seems we do not hear any of the positive stories of transgender people, like yourself and others, for whom gender affirming care has been life changing.
And how would you answer the parental fear that children will be unduly influenced into thinking they are transgender, when they are not. As a professional psychiatrist who works in this field, I value your input on these issues.
❤❤❤❤ deep breaths is going to get rocky, not just in the USA.. so hang in, get your passport sorted- always work for you here- in Australia . Can say that, as an older intersex/ transgender person who had to navigate ' transition ' in past 4.5 years. Would be unique. Are only 2 or 3 consulting Phychirist here that specialise in assessment for Gender Affirmation Care. Their books are always full. Ditto- for Phycologist ( are more of them, but they usually refer to higher powers, that be- in medical profession). Please 🙏 consider if you decide to move xxxReikki Kyra
Detransitioners who regret their transitions are few. Some are elevated by those who would use them for their own ends. Those who choose to listen to these narratives ignore medical expertise and the vast majority of trans people who benefit from gender related transition.
Regarding puberty blockers. They are prescribed to children for other conditions, will they be blocked for all children or just trans children? If not, isn't that discrimination?
@@nisagomez4366It’s a clear case of sex based discrimination. However, these justices seem to have difficulty with basic logic. It’s just disturbing. 😔
The logic in question (and NB, I'm pro GAC in any case, and I'm using "biological" terms to illustrate) is this:
Is it sex-based discrimination because a male can't have care to support a feminine identity but a female can, ie. males are blocked from certain services simply because they are male, and vice versa.
Vs.
Is it NOT sex-based discrimination because males and females are both equally barred from GAC, ie. GAC is a banned practice for people of either sex the same as any other illegal activity.
It's kind of ridiculous, and the logic clearly stands in trans people's favor afaic, but this is how it's been going in court
You are looking better every time I see you 🥰🥰💯👍
@@carlabridger2137 Thank you! 🥰
Good luck girl stay strong :( 🫶🏻
Thanks! 😊
😭😭😭 🩷🤍🩵❤️🩹
Tragic. Tragic. Tragic.
The two legal commentators I look to about Scotus are Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley. They seem to come to the same conclusion that there will be a "nuanced" decision that leaves this to individual states. Decision predicted to be next June.
So make of that what you will.
Calling the decision "nuanced" is like calling a train derailment "subtle"
In other words, they're predicting that SCOTUS will, as I indicated, finagle some way to say that the _Bostock_ decision, which said that discrimination against trans folks in employment is sex discrimination, doesn't apply to health care. Or, more properly, they'll give the bigots the power they want. I'd say GMTA except I stopped thinking of Dershowitz and Turley as great minds some time ago.