TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — A federal judge temporarily blocked portions of a new Florida law that bans transgender minors from receiving puberty blockers, ruling Tuesday that the state has no rational basis for denying patients treatment.
Judge Robert Hinkle issued a preliminary injunction, saying three transgender children can continue receiving treatment. The lawsuit challenges the law Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed shortly before he announced a run for president.
“The elephant in the room should be noted at the outset. Gender identity is real. The record makes this clear,” Hinkle said, adding that even a witness for the state agreed.
Transgender medical treatment for minors is increasingly under attack in many states and has been subject to restrictions or outright bans. But it has been available in the United States for more than a decade and is endorsed by major medical associations.
Hinkle’s ruling was narrowly focused on the three children whose parents brought the suit.
Attention on the new law has focused on language involving minors, and Hinkle’s ruling focuses on the use of GnRH agonists, known as puberty blockers, and cross-sex hormones. The lawsuit doesn’t address other language that makes it difficult to near impossible for adults to receive or continue gender-affirming care.
Hinkle said people who mistakenly believe gender identity is a choice also “tend to disapprove all things transgender and so oppose medical care that supports a person’s transgender existence.”
Banning treatment for minors ignores risks patients might face, Hinkle said.
Research suggests that transgender youth and adults are prone to stress, depression and suicidal thoughts, and the evidence is mixed on whether treatment with hormones or surgery resolves those issues.
Even ahead of contemplating medical treatment, experts agree, allowing children to express their gender in a way that matches their identity is beneficial, such as letting children assigned male at birth wear clothing or hairstyles usually associated with girls, if that is their wish.
“There are risks attendant to not using these treatments, including the risk — in some instances, the near certainty — of anxiety and depression and even suicidal ideation. The challenged statute ignores the benefits that many patients realize from these treatments and the substantial risk posed by foregoing the treatments,” Hinkle said.
He also noted that hormone treatments and puberty blockers are often used to treat non-transgender children for other conditions, so the law makes their use legal for some, but not for others.
The three children in the lawsuit will “suffer irreparable harm” if they cannot begin puberty blockers, Hinkle said.
“The treatment will affect the patients themselves, nobody else, and will cause the defendants no harm,” Hinkle said.
The governor’s office didn’t immediately reply to an email seeking comment.
CaptainImpavid on June 7th, 2023 at 01:21 UTC »
I hate to be the asshole who shits in the punchbowl but... I'm not celebrating until the supreme court has weighed in. Because I'm fairly certain a huge part of this whole circus was to explicitly get this issue before the supreme court. Because when they're bought and paid for justices settle it, it's the law of the land for decades.
Dollars to donuts they come for marriage equality next.
str8nt on June 6th, 2023 at 23:30 UTC »
I'm going to come at this from kind of a weird angle. When this ruling eventually makes it to the Supreme Court, I think it might be upheld...as a cover for something even worse. This is a pattern I've noticed with SCOTUS rulings and it makes me paranoid whenever I hear good news coming from them.
For an example of what I mean, look at Mahanoy Area School Dist. v. B. L. and Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid. Both were decided on the same day. Mahanoy was a major win for free speech rights while Cedar Point was a massive blow to labor. That's just one of the most recent examples I can think of but it's something I've seen happen time and time again. I don't know what they might use trans rights as a cover for but I can guarantee it won't be good.
Devil-Hunter-Jax on June 6th, 2023 at 20:01 UTC »
That article seems a bit basic... Found one from the Independent that makes it seem like the judge was MUCH more scathing with his comments. Here's what he had to say:
“The elephant in the room should be noted at the outset. Gender identity is real. The record makes this clear. The medical defendants, speaking through their attorneys, have admitted it”
"Any proponent of the challenged statute and rules should put up or shut up: do you acknowledge that there are individuals with actual gender identities opposite their natal sex, or do you not? Dog whistles ought not be tolerated"
And in response to the claims made by the state of Florida in regards to regret over transition and that Florida's statements align with international consensus, he said:
“This assertion is false. No matter how many times the defendants say it, it will still be false. No country in Europe entirely bans these treatments.”
Here's the article for anyone who wants to read it.
He absolutely ripped apart the bullshit being used to forward these anti-trans bills. Let's hope this is the turning point and we see these laws completely dismantled.