June 5, 2023 This post is being sent to all subscribers to this Substack. It is free and shareable. If you would like access to content that delves deeper into the movement to protect the sex-based rights of women and girls and to stop the abolition of sex, please consider a paid subscription.
This is a superb, well-argued brief, and, in fact, a brilliant treatise on the entire issue under discussion. It led me to look back at the underlying decision, and the facts that led the plaintiffs to sue. For those unfamiliar, here is one telling example of potential consequences if the government succeeds in its attempted overreach in interpreting Bostock:
Dr. Hurly “recognizes that some biological men may identify as women (and vice versa).” Id. In his practice, Dr. Hurly “has encountered situations ... when he must insist that a patient acknowledge his biological sex rather than the gender identity that he asserts.” Id. at 7. Plaintiffs provide an example: Dr. Hurly “once diagnosed a biological male patient with prostate cancer, but the patient refused to accept Dr. Hurly's diagnosis because he identified as a woman and insisted that he could not have a prostate.” Id. Dr. Hurly “explain[ed] to this patient that he was indeed a biological man with a prostate, and that he needed to seek urgent medical treatment for his prostate cancer.” Id. Plaintiffs claim “Dr. Hurly has treated transgender patients in the past, and he expects to continue doing so in the future.” Id. Plaintiffs further allege: “Dr. Hurly is likely to encounter transgender patients who will deny or dispute their need for health care that corresponds to their biological sex, and he intends to provide care to these individuals in a manner consistent with his ethical beliefs.” Id.
Great brief. Really irrefutable.