U.S. v Skrmetti: Transanity at SCOTUS

I do think (FWIW) that there is some merit to the central argument of Bostock, as I said at the time. I predicted it might be the argument. I mean, the conclusion was kooky...but the argument isn't insane. So the ruling didn't surprise me much. Though I don't remember predicting that Gorsuch would go for it. I'm sorry he did...but he may be right. He's a legal expert and I'm not.

   Unfortunately, however, I also thought it would cause this general kind of problem down the line.

   Just as transanity is in retreat, losing this case would be a serious blow. Or so it seems.

   But, of course, rooting for conclusions is not such a great thing to do. I rail against other people for getting mad about rulings without knowing or understanding the arguments.

   However, the counterargument seems overwhelmingly obvious. The relevant kind of equality isn't sex-blind: different kinds of medical care are appropriate for males and females. To say "well, we give testosterone to boys sometimes, so we have to give it to girls, too" is rather like saying "well, we cut off people's legs if they have cancer or get into horrible car wrecks...so I guess we've got to cut off this kid's legs, too, if he asks for it..."

   Ruling that employers must be sex-indifferent to clothing is very different than arguing that doctors must be sex-indifferent in providing medical care...

   Whether/how this sort of thing shows up in the law, I do not know.