All Things LGBTQ+ (1 Viewer)

[Farb]

Didn't really see a place for this so I thought I would start a thread about all things LGBTQ since this is a pretty hot topic in our culture right now

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/17/sup...y-that-refuses-to-work-with-lgbt-couples.html

• The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered a unanimous defeat to LGBT couples in a high-profile case over whether Philadelphia could refuse to contract with a Roman Catholic adoption agency that says its religious beliefs prevent it from working with same-sex foster parents.
• Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in an opinion for a majority of the court that Philadelphia violated the First Amendment by refusing to contract with Catholic Social Services once it learned that the organization would not certify same-sex couples for adoption.

I will admit, I was hopeful for this decision by the SCOTUS but I was surprised by the unanimous decision.

While I don't think there is anything wrong, per se, with same sex couples adopting and raising children (I actually think it is a good thing as it not an abortion) but I also did not want to see the state force a religious institution to bend to a societal norm.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Why not try to bring back turning southpaws into right handed while they’re at it

 

[coldseat]

It’s a very narrow application. Unique to the persons practice. In this case the law violated 1st amendment speech rights. Given the details it should have been 9-0.

The problem with the majority's ruling and reasoning on this matter is that is wasn't just about "speech rights". There are actual scientific studies that have shown that his type of "talk" therapy is harmful to the mental health, even to the point of causing suicide, of LGBTQ+ youth. That is why the state of Colorado has the legal authority to ban it. What happened to protecting children? We have to subject children to harm so that adults can maintain their "free speech rights"? Because that's exactly what this SC majority is saying. To say I'm disappointed in Sotomayor and Kagan is an understatement.

Conservative states are banning transgender medical care that has been scientifically shown to save the lives of transgender youth and improve their mental health. That's okay, but outlawing doing harm to children isn't.

It appears that the only legal medical services approved by the courts in this country are those that do harm to LGBTQ+ youth.

 

[TampaJoe]

well that's disappointing -- mainly b/c I don't think this will set a precedent to keep government out of specifically banning particular medical practices. If this was something where the Supreme Court was not ruling on the government's regulatory/oversight responsibility but on directly banning specific things, then I'd be fine with it... but I suspect that won't be this.

I dunno Jim. This whole area of gender dysphoria particularly as it applies to minors isn’t settled practice. There are still questions about the long term effects. So if follows that medical professionals will disagree or the efficacy of various therapies. The government here wasn’t dictating an outcome but rather recognizing the obligation of a professional to lay out for a patient what they believe treatment options. I can’t see where or why the government would want to interfere in that process. We advise people to get second options all the time. I assume that is good advice in these cases as well. Ultimately when it involves a minor child, the decision should fall to the child and the parents IMO.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I dunno Jim. This whole area of gender dysphoria particularly as it applies to minors isn’t settled practice. There are still questions about the long term effects. So if follows that medical professionals will disagree or the efficacy of various therapies. The government here wasn’t dictating an outcome but rather recognizing the obligation of a professional to lay out for a patient what they believe treatment options. I can’t see where or why the government would want to interfere in that process. We advise people to get second options all the time. I assume that is good advice in these cases as well. Ultimately when it involves a minor child, the decision should fall to the child and the parents IMO.

There are laws now banning gender affirming care for minors (and now proposals to ban for adults). Nothing in psychology is settled science, but there is decent evidence that therapy is helpful and there definitely is not evidence that it is harmful but the government is banning it even when the child, their parents and their doctor agree it should be tried.

Compare that with the Colorado law that was successfully challenged. There is more evidence of the long term harm caused by conversion therapy. And yet the Supreme Court ruled that a therapist’s free speech rights outweigh those concerns.

This should mean a gender affirming therapist’s free speech rights outweigh those bans. Further the Supreme Court has ruled in the past that free speech extends to other forms of self expression and that children have these rights…

 

[TampaJoe]

There are laws now banning gender affirming care for minors (and now proposals to ban for adults). Nothing in psychology is settled science, but there is decent evidence that therapy is helpful and there definitely is not evidence that it is harmful but the government is banning it even when the child, their parents and their doctor agree it should be tried.

Compare that with the Colorado law that was successfully challenged. There is more evidence of the long term harm caused by conversion therapy. And yet the Supreme Court ruled that a therapist’s free speech rights outweigh those concerns.

This should mean a gender affirming therapist’s free speech rights outweigh those bans. Further the Supreme Court has ruled in the past that free speech extends to other forms of self expression and that children have these rights…

My point is that there are disparate points of view among professionals as it relates to this therapy. The govt shouldn’t be limiting a patient from weighing both sides before making a decision.

 

[Optimus Prime]

My point is that there are disparate points of view among professionals as it relates to this therapy. The govt shouldn’t be limiting a patient from weighing both sides before making a decision.

There are disparate points of view in the same way there are disparate point of view about climate change

Are there professionals with a different opinion than the consensus?

Yes

Are those professionals a very small percentage compared with the consensus?

Also yes

 

[Sendai]

The problem with the majority's ruling and reasoning on this matter is that is wasn't just about "speech rights". There are actual scientific studies that have shown that his type of "talk" therapy is harmful to the mental health, even to the point of causing suicide, of LGBTQ+ youth. That is why the state of Colorado has the legal authority to ban it. What happened to protecting children? We have to subject children to harm so that adults can maintain their "free speech rights"? Because that's exactly what this SC majority is saying. To say I'm disappointed in Sotomayor and Kagan is an understatement.

Conservative states are banning transgender medical care that has been scientifically shown to save the lives of transgender youth and improve their mental health. That's okay, but doing outlawing doing harm to children isn't.

It appears that the only legal medical services approved by the courts in this country are those that do harm to LGBTQ+ youth.

It was only about speech rights specifically applied to a “talk therapist”. This particular therapists treatment is designed to help the client pursue their choice. So if they are gay and want help in pursuing being gay and function in society she helps through talk therapy. The problem in this narrow case is when a client wants help to stop being gay, she is restricted, by law, from using talk therapy. It’s only this narrow little area of the law in question. Rest of the law is ok.

Read the decision

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-539_fd9g.pdf

But here is the narrow fundamental.

“On matters of sexuality and gender, Ms. Chiles’s clients,

including minors, come to her with different goals in mind.

Some “are content with” their sexual orientation and gen-

der identity and seek assistance only with “social issues,

family relationships,” and the like. Id., at 207a, 213a–214a.

In cases like those, Ms. Chiles does not try to persuade her

clients to “change their attractions, behavior, or identity,”

but aims instead to help them address their stated goals.

Id., at 214a; see also id., at 207a. Other clients, however,

come to her hoping to “reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual

attractions, change sexual behaviors, or grow in the experi-

ence of harmony with [their] bod[ies].” Ibid. And in these

cases, too, Ms. Chiles seeks to help her clients reach their

own stated objectives. Ibid. In doing so, she does not pre-

scribe any medicines, perform any physical treatments, or

engage in any coercive or aversive practices. Id., at 205a–

207a. All Ms. Chiles offers is talk therapy. “

It’s that narrow. It’s the choice of the client to talk about it.

That’s why it’s an 8-1 and should be a 9-0.

 

[Optimus Prime]

A Tennessee library director has been fired after she refused to relocate more than 100 LGBTQ+-themed children’s titles to the library system’s adult section.

The Rutherford county library board on Monday voted to fire Luanne James following a heated emergency meeting that involved supporters of hers chanting “We stand with Luanne!” while wearing shirts that read “Protect the freedom to read.”

The meeting also drew detractors of James, with one person saying:“Their goal is not trying to get their own kids the books but trying to get it into our kids’ hands – and the things that they’re feeding in these books are just straight lies.”


Ahead of her ouster, James firmly stood by her decision, saying: “I am not going to change my mind.”………

Tennessee library director fired after refusing to move LGBTQ+-themed kids’ books to adult section

Luanne James said as a librarian she had an obligation to protect the public’s right to access information

www.theguardian.com

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

My point is that there are disparate points of view among professionals as it relates to this therapy. The govt shouldn’t be limiting a patient from weighing both sides before making a decision.

Yeah, I get that, but I have a couple of thoughts on this matter. The government can and does regulate health care, and therapy is definitely health care. As far as I can tell, and the lawyers can correct me - the Supreme Court ruled that the government's ability to regulate health care is secondary to the complainant's free speech rights. And that free speech was not just the ability to say the things that they do, but to charge money for it as medical care. So, the questions arises then to what extent can the government ban medical practices? The obvious near term application are all the laws now banning gender affirming care. Does the ban on talk therapy for that now run against this ruling because it violates those therapists free speech rights?

Further, the Supreme Court has ruled before that free speech is not limited to the spoken word but also other forms of self expression. So what about people's right to express themselves as a different gender? Can we regulate that? Even when the child and the parents and the doctor all agree to it?

For myself, I do not think that the form of government regulation should take the form of politicians specifically voting on specific medical practices. I think a much better process is to create medical review boards that handle the licensing of practitioners, and those review boards can revoke the licenses of medical professionals. Further those review boards should be made up of practitioners of the type of medicine being regulated, and so on...

So, while I agree that conversion therapy is bad and harmful... I also acknowledge that I am very much a lay person on this subject, and those sorts of things should not be up to a popular vote, but rather decided upon by a body of professional with the relevant knowledge and experience.

 

[coldseat]

It was only about speech rights specifically applied to a “talk therapist”. This particular therapists treatment is designed to help the client pursue their choice. So if they are gay and want help in pursuing being gay and function in society she helps through talk therapy. The problem in this narrow case is when a client wants help to stop being gay, she is restricted, by law, from using talk therapy. It’s only this narrow little area of the law in question. Rest of the law is ok.

Read the decision

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-539_fd9g.pdf

But here is the narrow fundamental.

“On matters of sexuality and gender, Ms. Chiles’s clients,

including minors, come to her with different goals in mind.

Some “are content with” their sexual orientation and gen-

der identity and seek assistance only with “social issues,

family relationships,” and the like. Id., at 207a, 213a–214a.

In cases like those, Ms. Chiles does not try to persuade her

clients to “change their attractions, behavior, or identity,”

but aims instead to help them address their stated goals.

Id., at 214a; see also id., at 207a. Other clients, however,

come to her hoping to “reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual

attractions, change sexual behaviors, or grow in the experi-

ence of harmony with [their] bod[ies].” Ibid. And in these

cases, too, Ms. Chiles seeks to help her clients reach their

own stated objectives. Ibid. In doing so, she does not pre-

scribe any medicines, perform any physical treatments, or

engage in any coercive or aversive practices. Id., at 205a–

207a. All Ms. Chiles offers is talk therapy. “

It’s that narrow. It’s the choice of the client to talk about it.

That’s why it’s an 8-1 and should be a 9-0.

Bad "talk therapy" can ruin a person's mental health just like bad medicine or physical treatments can ruin their physical health, so why should it be subjected to any less scrutiny or regulation by the state when it has been proven that said therapy can be destructive to a person's mental health? The role of the doctor/therapist isn't just the give a patient what they want, it's to provide medical therapy that will improve their physical/mental health. There are ways that can be done and still respect the desires/wishes of a patient, but telling a gay/trans person that they aren't gay/trans and can live a straight life isn't it. They would still be living in denial and ultimately that will destroy their mental health.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Full text

BREAKING: The Chicago Bulls are waiving Jaden Ivey after he spoke out against the NBA for promoting 'Pride Month' and unrighteousness, according to ESPN.

Ivey recently announced that he was alive in Christ.

"They proclaim Pride Month in the NBA. They show it to the world. They say, 'Come join us for Pride Month to celebrate unrighteousness.'"

"They proclaim it on the billboards, they proclaim it in the streets, unrighteousness."

He said nothing wrong.

 

[coldseat]

Full text

BREAKING: The Chicago Bulls are waiving Jaden Ivey after he spoke out against the NBA for promoting 'Pride Month' and unrighteousness, according to ESPN.

Ivey recently announced that he was alive in Christ.

"They proclaim Pride Month in the NBA. They show it to the world. They say, 'Come join us for Pride Month to celebrate unrighteousness.'"

"They proclaim it on the billboards, they proclaim it in the streets, unrighteousness."

He said nothing wrong.

There's a lot of "unrighteousness" about the NBA and their business, according to the bible. The support of pride-month doesn't even crack the top 10. Funny he didn't have a problem with anything else. But you know what, that's cool. He can stand his ground and say what he wants. The Bulls and other NBA teams can stand on their ground as well.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Montana's Governor Greg Gianforte has signed into law a controversial bill that legally defines sex as binary, based solely on an individual's reproductive system. The legislation, enacted nearly a year after its passage through the state Legislature, officially amends numerous sections of Montana law to include new definitions for "male," "female," "sex," and "gender."

This move comes after a similar 2023 law, Senate Bill 437, was twice ruled unconstitutional. The previous iteration was first struck down in June 2024 due to an unclear title, and again in February 2025 for violating the equal protections clause of the Montana Constitution.…….

What to know about Montana’s controversial new sex definition bill

The move officially amends wide ranging sections of Montana law to include new definitions of ‘male,’ ‘female,’ ‘sex’ and ‘gender’

www.independent.co.uk