Off-Topic Transgender Legislation and Litigation

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
Of course this insane bill was written by a mentally ill troon.

Minnesota weighs cash aid for families moving for gender-affirming care

Minnesota lawmakers may set aside $1 million to help families moving to the state to seek gender-affirming care.
The big picture: Last year, the DFL-controlled Legislature sought to make Minnesota a "trans refuge state," by adding protections for patients and providers.

  • Advocates say the changes are already leading more people to come here to seek treatment or escape anti-trans policies in other places.
What they're saying: Rep. Leigh Finke, who authored both bills, said the goal is "to help create a soft landing" for such transplants.

  • "When you uproot and move your whole family, sometimes you need a little help getting into your new life," the St. Paul Democrat, who is the state's first openly trans legislator, said during a committee hearing last week.
By the numbers: Data on how many people are moving to Minnesota for gender-affirming care is hard to come by.

  • But one community survey conducted by the nonprofit PFund Foundation in the first six months following implementation of last year's law identified 150 people planning to "seek refuge" here. About a third said they would bring family.
  • The gender health clinic at Children's Minnesota saw a 30% increase in new patient calls in 2023, Dr. Angela Kade Goepferd, who runs the program, told lawmakers.
Zoom in: Supporters say the grants, which would be disbursed by PFund, would also be used to train or recruit more than a half a dozen new health care providers.

  • The foundation's executive director Aaron Zimmerman estimates that would result in 250 more patients treated each month.
The other side: Some members of the committee questioned whether the state should be extending aid to just one demographic group, when there are multiple scenarios that could necessitate moves and industries that need more workers.

  • "There are many groups with valid needs that want to have funding support to move that could enter the workforce and as this committee," GOP Rep. Natalie Zeleznikar said, citing veterans or people seeking treatment for rare diseases or even IVF.
Zoom out: The bill, which was set aside for possible inclusion in a broader jobs spending bill, is one of several priorities for the Legislature's Queer Caucus, which has grown in size and influence in recent years.
 
  • Lunacy
  • Horrifying
Reactions: Procrastinhater, Kiwi Lime Pie, grenouille crétine and 4 others
Has anyone mentioned the dedicated legal pressure groups yet?
There’s a group called TELI who are unpleasant.
Post in thread 'Dr. Rachel McKinnon / Dr. Veronica Ivy / Rhys McKinnon / Rachel Veronica McKinnon / Foxy Moxy / SportIsARight'
https://kiwifarms.net/threads/dr-ra...on-foxy-moxy-sportisaright.49422/post-4486758
This particular rat king legal group overlaps with action for trans health (list of insane demands below) and press for change. They also have people embedded in the UN apparatus like convicted pedo Peter Jewell.
List of ATH demands in the post below;
Post in thread 'Susie Green & Mermaids UK'
https://kiwifarms.net/threads/susie-green-mermaids-uk.30937/post-4592839
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Procrastinhater, Coo Coo Bird and Diet Coke 4 Life
BigGuyOS 6 : Jovial Janny said:
Arkansas removes 'X' gender option on driver's licences. Male or Female only.

Click to expand...
2024-03-13_18-37.png
ID doesn't "reflect their true self" it reflects who you are. When you join the 41% they need to be able to confirm that the male body they find is really you.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Jershua Coomer Troon, Aunt Carol, Procrastinhater and 10 others
March 20 (Reuters) - Eleven attorneys at major LGBTQ rights groups and law firms engaged in impermissible judge-shopping to steer litigation challenging Alabama's ban on gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth away from a conservative judge, a three-judge panel concluded in a newly unsealed report.
U.S. District Judge Liles Burke, an appointee of Republican former President Donald Trump in Montgomery, unsealed the report on Tuesday and directed a group of attorneys and plaintiffs in the litigation to explain why he should not sanction them.

The 50-page report, opens new tab was prompted by Burke's concerns that the lawyers had dropped two separate cases over the Republican-led state's law after they were assigned to him, only to announce they planned to re-file a challenge. The panel's report, by three judges from each of Alabama's district courts tasked with investigating the matter, concluded the lawyers "purposefully attempted to circumvent the random case assignment procedures" for the U.S. District Courts for the Northern and Middle Districts of Alabama.

LGBTQ rights lawyers face potential sanctions over Alabama 'judge shopping'
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Procrastinhater, N Space, Anasa Tristis and 4 others
Last edited:
  • Lunacy
  • Horrifying
  • Informative
Reactions: Jershua Coomer Troon, Procrastinhater, Accidental Protege and 2 others
I realise that many of you would have no idea of what’s going on court wise in Australia currently. I’m linking this video, because as long as it is, the outcome of this court case could affect 168 countries via precedent. I’ve been following it for 18 months, and sorry @Null, this case will get all of my excess income. I don’t want Australia to become the next Transanada. I find it unbelievable that Sally can’t get any Australian press to advertise for her cause against a biological males that wants to infiltrate a female only spaces. This is about the Giggle (womens only) app.
ETA: I don’t give AF about my all AMAB offspring regarding their sexuality, but if any of them come out as trans I’ll absolutely help them pay for non affirming care.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Procrastinhater, BigGuyOS 6 : Jovial Janny, Coo Coo Bird and 1 other person
Random Internet Person said:
View attachment 5836472
Click to expand...
What a whiny bitch.
"They didn't give us bathroom rights. They want us excluded from life." This Tony, among a troonicopia of other shit you cry and hold your breath over, is why some people really delight in disliking you. But Tony, I've got to give it to you. Your excellence and dedication to complete and utter debauched faggotry is without competition.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Procrastinhater, so valid uwu, Diet Coke 4 Life and 1 other person
I call shenanigans said:
I realise that many of you would have no idea of what’s going on court wise in Australia currently. I’m linking this video, because as long as it is, the outcome of this court case could affect 168 countries via precedent. I’ve been following it for 18 months, and sorry @Null, this case will get all of my excess income. I don’t want Australia to become the next Transanada. I find it unbelievable that Sally can’t get any Australian press to advertise for her cause against a biological males that wants to infiltrate a female only spaces. This is about the Giggle (womens only) app.
ETA: I don’t give AF about my all AMAB offspring regarding their sexuality, but if any of them come out as trans I’ll absolutely help them pay for non affirming care.
Click to expand...
That is not how this works. Even if this case concerns one of the UN Human Rights Conventions, the interpretation of this treaty by an Australian court has no influence on the interpretation of this convention in other states. I'm guessing it concerns CEDAW, however I can't really figure it out from skipping around that video. CEDAW specifically has been criticized by trans activists as being to cis-heteronormative and a concerted effort has been made by the Committee of CEDAW and the states parties to the convention to keep the trans stuff out of it as much as possible, especially since many of the states parties will not agree to its inclusion and could potentially leave the convention if this is brought in.
In general in law, there is no precedent for other countries from a different country, even in the case where it concerns an international treaty. Only if such a case is brough before the International Court of Justice could it be argued that the interpretation is more legitimate from an international perspective but still it would not be binding for any other state. This is just fear-mongering because understand the majority of those 168 countries are African, Middle Eastern and Asian, none of which would agree with this interpretation and any such interpretation has commonly been rejected. The ordinary meaning of the language used in the conventions, as well as the object and purpose together with the intent of the parties and the travaux préparatoires all reject this interpretation and therefore even if the Australian court decides otherwise this will not be an authoritative interpretation of the treaty. It might show specific state practice of Australia with regard to the rules in the convention, however it will not be more than that.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Procrastinhater, Coo Coo Bird, Diet Coke 4 Life and 3 others
Random Internet Person said:
View attachment 5839571

Click to expand...
Out of committee ain't done deal legislation. Thankfully.

These sanctuary state laws must be unconstitutional. And ya gotta love the shotgun marriage of abortion rights and trooning out rights.

Can anyone explain to me just WTF happened to Maine? Is it like the Vermont problem where (thanks to the internet) PMC migration out of the liberal cities changed the political landscape?
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Procrastinhater and Diet Coke 4 Life
Random Internet Person said:
Has anyone ever tried to challenge these sanctuary laws?
Click to expand...
Good question. The gears of justice turn very slowly. We're still waiting on a ruling on the 20 states that are suing the feds over Title IX gender identity stuff. And that kicked off in 2021.

There's only a handful of states that are considered trans sanctuary states. AFAIK they have a mish mash of pro tranny laws and none are as openly antagonistic and dismissive towards other states' laws concerning minors besides CA. But I could be wrong on that. (Maybe IL?) Certainly it seems that this is the next Blue state move in the culture wars- to flip the bird at bigoted Red states and to welcome with loving arms the trans dispossessed.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Procrastinhater
Random Internet Person said:
You mean that hasn’t been happening since at least the gutting of Roe v. Wade?
Click to expand...
There’s “reproduction rights” scramble (from post Dobbs) and a trans rights one. Some do commingle to varying degrees. Like VT wanting to become the IVF/surrogacy and late term abortion hub of New England. With all kinds of LGBTQWERTY rights written in concerning their family making (or not) desires. But this trans sanctuary legislating with the intent to defy other state laws concerning minors is new and different territory. As I understand it, a kid can travel to CA demanding sanctuary from their transphobic parents and their transphobic state laws. After a hearing or something similar they can become wards of the state in CA. And get their “trans healthcare” (and food, housing, etc) paid for by CA taxpayers. Parents will have to fight the state of CA to get their kid back. So some states not only want to get in between their own residents and their kids, they want to get in between parents and their kids from other states. Quite a few Blue states have looked at CA’s shiny new law and want to do that too.

As to abortion there have been similar tensions and threats between states (over prosecuting women who cross state lines to get one) but tbh I don’t know what’s been going on there.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Procrastinhater and Diet Coke 4 Life
4. The provision in question that may result in the new law being blocked is a constitutional amendment in 2011 that says "No federal, state, or local law or rule shall impose a penalty or fine for the sale or purchase of health care or health insurance."
Click to expand...
I don't see this going anywhere. These types of laws always target doctors performing the operation with sanctions, fines, or decertification, not the financial transaction. Also, health care and paying a quack to chop off your dick are not the same thing, but good luck telling that officer your crack is "medicinal".
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Procrastinhater, Accidental Protege and Diet Coke 4 Life
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back