SCOTUS Trans Rights Case is About Human Right to Autonomy

From a young age, I enjoyed playing around with gender roles, but it wasn’t until later in my adolescence that I started to have more complex thoughts about my gender identity. What I discovered, both in my childhood and later in my development, was that a lot of trans folks have similarly nonlinear approaches, or nonlinear journeys, to their trans lives. There were moments I was very attached to my femininity, and moments where I felt more masculine. Getting to exist on either side of this gender binary – and explore the middle ground between them – was invaluable.

As a trans person and as a physician, I know just how important it is for young people and their families to be able to talk to trusted health care providers about the uncertainties they’re facing or the questions they have.

However, as I was navigating this complex development, I did not have adults in my life to whom I could turn for guidance and support with my gender. When I was younger, I didn’t have access to the doctors or health care providers who could help me access gender affirming care – or just talk to me about my gender. That’s why, as a trans person and as a physician, I know just how important it is for young people and their families to be able to talk to trusted health care providers about the uncertainties they’re facing or the questions they have.

In my work, I’ve found that speaking with young people about their gender leads to really fruitful conversations about concerns or curiosities that they may have. But medical care, and health care more broadly, isn’t just about questions and answers. It’s about making space for complex conversations that let young people and their families know we can go on this path of self discovery together.

As a physician, I am not looking to “diagnose” a gender, but to support young people, and their families, as they figure out their sense of self.

Adolescence is a time during which many start figuring out who they are, and it’s exciting to see young people question the structures of our society, including the structures of gender. But too often we underestimate young people’s ability to introspect, and we question them when they tell us who they are. As a physician, I am not looking to “diagnose” a gender, but to support young people, and their families, as they figure out their sense of self. No one makes the decision to seek out gender-affirming care on a whim. To those who consider gender-affirming care a drastic decision, I have seen that it is in fact something that is carefully considered by young people, their families, and their provider. And that is who should get to make those decisions. Governments should not be allowed to make decisions about our bodies, and the proliferation of gender-affirming care bans is not only deeply transphobic, but also sets a dangerous precedent.

Right now, this medically-necessary care is being maligned by pseudoscience, fear, and bigotry. We know these treatments are safe. We also know that young people can end up changing their minds. That’s also something that’s safe to do. We've been offering the same therapies for youth who are not transgender for a long time. It only seemed to cause a political problem when it started affecting trans folks.

Every single patient that approaches care, both in a gender-affirming context and in all other medical contexts, has a very individual story, has very individual goals, and has a very specific context in which they might be seeking that care. What I’m really hoping for is a world where trans adolescents have the autonomy and power to make decisions about their bodies without political interference and with the support of family and their health care providers. For me, that is a world where we really celebrate transness for the beauty that I think it is.

Trump's Attempt to Unilaterally Control State and Local Funding is Dangerous, Dumb, and Undemocratic

The Trump administration has not been subtle in its desire to use federal funding for political punishment. Whether threatening to cut off grants to sanctuary cities, to block financial assistance to states that push back against the president’s demands, or to freeze all federal grants and loans for social services across the country, Trump and his allies want us to believe they can wield the federal budget like a weapon. The reality is that the administration’s ability to withhold or condition funding is far more limited than they let on. The Constitution, Supreme Court precedent, and long-standing federal law stand firmly in the way of this brazen abuse of presidential power. Trump’s Attempted Funding Freeze? Blocked Immediately A week into his second administration, Trump attempted to freeze trillions of dollars in federal grants and loans that fund a vast array of critical services already approved by Congress. If allowed to go into effect, this unprecedented and far-reaching...

Documents Reveal Confusion and Lack of Training in Texas Execution

As Texas seeks to execute Carl Buntion today and Melissa Lucio next week, it is worth reflecting on the grave and irreversible failures that occurred when the state executed Quintin Jones on May 19, 2021. For the first time in its history — and in violation of a federal court’s directive and the Texas Administrative Code — Texas excluded the media from witnessing the state’s execution of Quintin Jones. In the months that followed, Texas executed two additional people without providing any assurance that the underlying dysfunction causing errors at Mr. Jones’ execution were addressed. This is particularly concerning given that Texas has executed far more people than any other state and has botched numerous executions. The First Amendment guarantees the public and the press have a right to observe executions. Media access to executions is a critical form of public oversight as the government exerts its power to end a human life. Consistent with Texas policy, two reporters travelled t...

The Supreme Court Declined a Protestors' Rights Case. Here's What You Need to Know.

The Supreme Court recently declined to hear a case, Mckesson v. Doe , that could have affirmed that the First Amendment protects protest organizers from being held liable for illegal actions committed by others present that organizers did not direct or intend. The high court’s decision to not hear the case at this time left in place an opinion by the Fifth Circuit, which covers Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, that said a protest organizer could be liable for the independent, violent actions of others based on nothing more than a showing of negligence. Across the country, many people have expressed concern about how the Supreme Court’s decision not to review, or hear, the case at this stage could impact the right to protest. The ACLU, which asked the court to take up the case, breaks down what the court’s denial of review means. What Happened in Mckesson v. Doe? The case, Mckesson v. Doe , was brought by a police officer against DeRay Mckesson , a prominent civil rights activi...

Search This Blog