SCOTUS rules on state ban on gender transition 'treatments' for minors in landmark case

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,106]

18 hours ago, Fnord said:

Pretty good list, and I'm mostly in agreement. I'll nitpick #4, though. While I agree it should not be enforceable, refusing to use someone's preferred pronouns is just a dik move. Forgetting to call them by their preferred pronoun isn't quite as bad, but it's still shitty.

I have a friend that's trans, and we told her that calling her a her was an insane expectation since we've known her as a him for almost 30 years. She agreed it was okay for us to say him/he/his, given how long we've known each other. But I've also accidentally called a subordinate at work he instead of she, and while she was cool about it, I felt pretty bad about it. 

Moral of the story is just treat others with respect, even if you think their life choices are insane.

Hmmm...well said.

I would say that for #4, I would call them by their actual name than by any preferred pronoun because I don't want to play those games.  

[iam90sbaby 2,611]

20 hours ago, TheNewGirl said:

No. 

Adults are completely different than CHILDREN, but I understand this is a questionable area for you. 

One is worse, but both should be illegal.

[TimHauck 2,876]

6 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Hmmm...well said.

I would say that for #4, I would call them by their actual name than by any preferred pronoun because I don't want to play those games.  

This is what I suggested in the other thread.

Would you do this even if they “changed” their name?

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,106]

2 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

This is what I suggested in the other thread.

Would you do this even if they “changed” their name?

Sure, I expect they would.  

[TimHauck 2,876]

3 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Sure, I expect they would.  

That’s nice of you (seriously).  I’m sure some would say that’s “playing into their mental illness”

[Fnord 2,272]

17 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Hmmm...well said.

I would say that for #4, I would call them by their actual name than by any preferred pronoun because I don't want to play those games.  

This is the best way to go about it, in my experience. 

I've been given dirty looks for saying things like "hey guys!" to a group of people that includes someone trans; that I don't understand. I don't get dirty looks when I say "hi guys!" to a group of women...

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,106]

1 hour ago, TimHauck said:

That’s nice of you (seriously).  I’m sure some would say that’s “playing into their mental illness”

I don't see it that way. Lots of same names are used for both girls and guys. That I don't have a problem with at all.

[seafoam1 3,025]

I will never call a person who's a he a she. And I will never call that person a they/them.

Because those are lies. 

 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,433]

2 hours ago, Fnord said:

This is the best way to go about it, in my experience. 

I've been given dirty looks for saying things like "hey guys!" to a group of people that includes someone trans; that I don't understand. I don't get dirty looks when I say "hi guys!" to a group of women...

Sure. 

[squistion 2,201]

4 hours ago, Fnord said:

This is the best way to go about it, in my experience. 

I've been given dirty looks for saying things like "hey guys!" to a group of people that includes someone trans; that I don't understand. I don't get dirty looks when I say "hi guys!" to a group of women...

I can see a distinction between the two situations and why in a group that includes a trans, it might not sit well with everyone. 

And I am not confortable saying "hi guys!" to a group of women even though many consider it a "gender neutral" term. 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,433]

12 minutes ago, squistion said:

I can see a distinction between the two situations and why in a group that includes a trans, it might not sit well with everyone. 

And I am not confortable saying "hi guys!" to a group of women even though many consider it a "gender neutral" term. 

The only group of women you see are the cafeteria workers at the institution you are confined to. 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,433]

Trantifa vowing violence in response. 

[jerryskids 6,799]

If it hasn't been posted yet:  Barrett, Thomas, and Alito issued concurring opinions which further argued that transgenders are not a "suspect class" or "quasi-suspect class", including adults:

Quote

The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth in a major setback for the transgender community.

But Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who fully joined the majority in its 6-3 decision in United States v. Skrmetti, wrote a separate concurring opinion suggesting the ruling does not go far enough.

In the opinion, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, Barrett argued that laws classifying people based on transgender status do not trigger heightened scrutiny by the courts.

Legal experts say that if a majority of the court adopts her reasoning for that argument, it could further erode transgender rights.

Why It Matters
Barrett's opinion may come as a surprise to those who have hailed her as a centrist.

Appointed to the court by President Donald Trump in 2020, she has routinely voted with her conservative colleagues, including in the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022. The New York Times recently said Barrett "is showing signs of leftward drift," and noted that she is the Republican-appointed justice most likely to be in the majority of decisions that reach a liberal outcome.

And her siding with liberal justices and ruling against the Trump administration in some recent cases has led to anger from Trump supporters, with some accusing her of being "a radical liberal." But some experts say it's a mistake to believe she is shifting to the left.

What To Know
The court's majority opinion upheld Tennessee's ban on the grounds that the law's restrictions on treating minors for gender dysphoria turn on age and medical use, not sex.

But Chief Justice John Roberts' 24-page majority opinion did not decide whether transgender status is a "suspect class" or "quasi-suspect class" under the Equal Protection Clause.

Barrett argued in her concurring opinion that transgender status does not constitute a "suspect class" entitled to stronger legal protections. Justice Samuel Alito wrote a separate concurring opinion, in which he also said he does not believe transgender status qualifies as a suspect or quasi-suspect class.

Barrett argued that the test to determine whether members of a group is a suspect class is "strict," including considering whether members of the group exhibit "immutable or distinguishing characteristics," whether the group has historically been subject to discrimination and whether it is "a minority or politically powerless."

"Transgender status is not marked by the same sort of "'obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics'" as race or sex," she wrote.

"The plaintiffs here, for instance, began to experience gender dysphoria at varying ages—some from a young age, others not until the onset of puberty. Meanwhile, the plaintiffs acknowledge that some transgender individuals 'detransition' later in life—in other words, they begin to identify again with the gender that corresponds to their biological sex."

She wrote that "a history of private discrimination" against transgender people is not enough because what is relevant is a history of "de jure" discrimination, that is, discrimination enforced by law or official policy.

In a dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that transgender people "have long been subject to discrimination in health care, employment, and housing, and to rampant harassment and physical violence." She added that they have also "been subject to a lengthy history of de jure discrimination in the form of cross-dressing bans, police brutality, and anti-sodomy laws."

Barrett also argued that recognizing transgender people as a suspect class "would require courts to oversee all manner of policy choices normally committed to legislative discretion."

It also implicates "several other areas of legitimate regulatory policy—ranging from access to restrooms to eligibility for boys' and girls' sports teams. If laws that classify based on transgender status necessarily trigger heightened scrutiny, then the courts will inevitably be in the business of 'closely scrutiniz[ing] legislative choices' in all these domains."

https://www.newsweek.com/amy-coney-barrett-unexpected-move-supreme-court-2087851

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,106]

2 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Trantifa vowing violence in response. 

And? Being trans or antifa implies violence.  These are mentally ill people.  They're also all liberals.  Violence is a FEATURE of the left, not an exception.

Though, they will gaslight you and say that America has a "far-right" problem, but everyone knows that it's bunk.  We have a far-left problem.  100% and irrefutable.

And for those of you who are going to jump in here and use the SPLC as "evidence" to try and disprove that - you've already lost the debate. 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,433]

1 minute ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

And? Being trans or antifa implies violence.  These are mentally ill people.  They're also all liberals.  Violence is a FEATURE of the left, not an exception.

Though, they will gaslight you and say that America has a "far-right" problem, but everyone knows that it's bunk.  We have a far-left problem.  100% and irrefutable.

And for those of you who are going to jump in here and use the SPLC as "evidence" to try and disprove that - you've already lost the debate. 

You talking to me? 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,106]

1 hour ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

You talking to me? 

Yeah, sorry.  I know you know this.  I was just repeating it for the tranny lovers that are going to come running in here after your post.  I was just reinforcing your post. 

[TimHauck 2,876]

Riley Gaines chimes in.  @TBayXXXVII thinks she only cares about getting men out of women’s sports lol

https://x.com/Riley_Gaines_/status/1935785082620657795

 

 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,433]

25 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Yeah, sorry.  I know you know this.  I was just repeating it for the tranny lovers that are going to come running in here after your post.  I was just reinforcing your post. 

[TBayXXXVII 2,545]

@TimHauck loves to assume other people's beliefs, because he's in his own world.

[TimHauck 2,876]

10 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

@TimHauck loves to assume other people's beliefs, because he's in his own world.

 

On 6/12/2025 at 10:41 AM, TBayXXXVII said:

• Gaines has NEVER ONCE said that trans people should be ignored, she only said that they don't belong in women's sports. 

 

@TBayXXXVII thinks Gaines only said trans don’t belong in women’s sports.  Lol

[TBayXXXVII 2,545]

7 hours ago, TimHauck said:

 

@TBayXXXVII thinks Gaines only said trans don’t belong in women’s sports.  Lol

@TBayXXXVII is right and @TimHauck is still acting like a whiny 10 year who can't admit their wrong.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,433]

The attorney for the ACLU, a tranny herself, was forced to acknowledge that there is no evidence of a higher suicide race for denial of sex change operations/butchery in minors. Leftards can stop spouting that now. 

[TimHauck 2,876]

54 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

@TBayXXXVII is right and @TimHauck is still acting like a whiny 10 year who can't admit their wrong.

“Gaines only said that trans don’t belong in women’s sports.”

Your words

[BrahmaBulls 763]

1 hour ago, TBayXXXVII said:

@TBayXXXVII is right and @TimHauck is still acting like a whiny 10 year who can't admit their wrong.

I don't know why any of you engage with him.  Ignoring him makes this place 1000 times better.

[TimHauck 2,876]

11 minutes ago, BrahmaBulls said:

I don't know why any of you engage with him.  Ignoring him makes this place 1000 times better.

Hey @BrahmaBulls I think it kinda defeats the purpose of “ignoring” me if you just reply to everyone who quotes me.

I do still find it hilarious though that you proved that my assumption about you which caused you to lose your mind was correct.

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,106]

Give it up, Tim.  You've lost.  I appreciate the tenacity, strawmen and goalpost moving but at some point you have to admit that your argument isn't working.  Now you're just looking desperate.

[TimHauck 2,876]

2 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Give it up, Tim.  You've lost.  I appreciate the tenacity, strawmen and goalpost moving but at some point you have to admit that your argument isn't working.  Now you're just looking desperate.

I posted the proof of @TBayXXXVII being wrong. But I’ll acknowledge that he will never admit he was wrong and move on.

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,106]

Just now, TimHauck said:

I posted the proof of @TBayXXXVII being wrong. But I’ll acknowledge that he will never admit he was wrong and move on.

Give it up, Tim.  It's time to move on.  You've lost the argument based on data, facts and logic.

[TimHauck 2,876]

Just now, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Give it up, Tim.  It's time to move on.  You've lost the argument based on data, facts and logic.

Do you even know what the argument was? 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,106]

31 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Do you even know what the argument was? 

DO YOU?!?!?

You've moved the goalposts so often and created so many strawmen that no one knows what the original argument was anymore. 

[TBayXXXVII 2,545]

2 hours ago, TimHauck said:

“Gaines only said that trans don’t belong in women’s sports.”

Your words

That's right.  Her perspective is that men who claim they are women, do not have the right to play in women’s sports.  She uses these examples to show that these men (boys), aren't women (girls).  At NO POINT, AT ALL, IN ANY POST, does she say that they shouldn't be allowed to do as they want on their own time, in their own lives, to act this way.  Only, that they just shouldn't be afforded the rights/privileges that are exclusive to women.

You choose to pretend that she's making an argument that she's not.  That's fine... it makes you wrong, but you're allowed to be wrong.  When you are though, don't keep going to the well and acting like a baby, hoping someone caves in.

[TBayXXXVII 2,545]

1 hour ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

DO YOU?!?!?

You've moved the goalposts so often and created so many strawmen that no one knows what the original argument was anymore. 

He thanks Gaines is a transphobe and a bigot.  She's not a transphobe, she just doesn't want men in women’s sports.  The only bigot here, if there is one, is @TimHauck.  Though, what he really is, is a whiny little b!tch who got smacked around and can't let it go.  I mean, he doesn't even have to admit to being wrong.  At this point, I don't care.  He could just go away and stop doubling down.

Biles already took the "L", fock, even Stephen A agrees with Gaines.  But Hack?  Nope... double down, triple down, quadruple down, etc.

[TBayXXXVII 2,545]

2 hours ago, TimHauck said:

I posted the proof of @TBayXXXVII being wrong. But I’ll acknowledge that he will never admit he was wrong and move on.

No you didn't.

[TimHauck 2,876]

1 hour ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

DO YOU?!?!?

You've moved the goalposts so often and created so many strawmen that no one knows what the original argument was anymore. 

Yes, my comments stayed consistent.   I was talking about how I was not a fan of Riley Gaines in part because her schtick is NOT just against men in women’s sports, it is against trans folks in general.  Her comment about this supreme court case is yet another example of that.

@TBayXXXVII tried saying “Gaines only said that trans don’t belong in women’s sports” (direct quote) which obviously is incorrect.  In fact, he, not me was the one that kept changing definitions. For example when I called out Gaines for comparing sexual abuse to competing against a boy in high school softball, he started saying things like “she never said sexual abuse happens on the field of play.”

[The Real timschochet 6,764]

18 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

He thanks Gaines is a transphobe and a bigot.  

And? Seems pretty likely to me. 

She’s also a huge whiner. Blaming others for her own mediocrity. 

[The Real timschochet 6,764]

3 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Yes, my comments stayed consistent.   I was talking about how I was not a fan of Riley Gaines in part because her schtick is NOT just against men in women’s sports, it is against trans folks in general.  Her comment about this supreme court case is yet another example of that.

@TBayXXXVII tried saying “Gaines only said that trans don’t belong in women’s sports” (direct quote) which obviously is incorrect.  In fact, he, not me was the one that kept changing definitions. For example when I called out Gaines for comparing sexual abuse to competing against a boy in high school softball, he started saying things like “she never said sexual abuse happens on the field of play.”

Your description of Gaines is accurate. 

[TimHauck 2,876]

17 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

He thanks Gaines is a transphobe and a bigot.  She's not a transphobe, she just doesn't want men in women’s sports. 

She said trans is a “gimmick,” and literally yesterday in response to this ruling said “gender ideology is a house of cards that is bound to crumble quickly.”  Both comments having nothing to do with sports.

She is a transphobe, but you are welcome to continue being oblivious to that fact.

[TBayXXXVII 2,545]

18 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

And? Seems pretty likely to me. 

She’s also a huge whiner. Blaming others for her own mediocrity. 

LOL, you clearly don't know what you're talking about, just like @TimHauck.  It's best that you both stop proving your ignorance and move on to a topic that you wouldn't get owned on.  Not really sure those exist, but keep trying, you may find one.

[TBayXXXVII 2,545]

The nail in the coffin, defining when you've lost the battle.... @The Real timschochet agrees with you.  

[TimHauck 2,876]

55 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

That's right.  Her perspective is that men who claim they are women, do not have the right to play in women’s sports.  She uses these examples to show that these men (boys), aren't women (girls).  At NO POINT, AT ALL, IN ANY POST, does she say that they shouldn't be allowed to do as they want on their own time, in their own lives, to act this way.  Only, that they just shouldn't be afforded the rights/privileges that are exclusive to women.

Ok let me make sure I’m following you.

She doesn’t care what they do, as long as it’s nothing that involves believing they’re women?