This Week's Recommended Reading on Substack:
writes that “it’s easy to point to the mental health part of the equation and say that these are simply disturbed men and there is no rhyme or reason to their behavior. But there is some rhyme to it. They aren’t attacking any random passerby. They’re attacking female ones. It’s misogyny. But it’s not just misogyny. The fact that men with serious mental health disorders seem to be targeting women for violence tells us much more than just ‘they’re crazy.’ It tells us something important about the subtle and not-so-subtle messages we send to men about what they deserve and what women are for.” writes that “to anyone familiar with the complicated history of transgender medicine, the incentives, definitions, and assumptions of the Cass Review are quite familiar. For much of the last century, access to cross-gender hormones and surgeries was regarded by doctors as a last resort for any patient transgressing their gender assignment, measures to only be pursued if the patient’s gender nonconformity persisted after extensive and frequently violent forms of conversion therapy. Sex changes were not an act of autonomy for the patient as much as proof of the doctors’ ability to divine their patient’s ‘true sex’ with the patient mostly getting in the way.” writes that “the bottom line is that there are legitimate — even important — concerns to be raised about when and how broadly criminal statutes are to be used and the implications of those uses in other cases. From the conservative justices, though, who rarely (Gorsuch aside) raise any question about prosecutorial overreach, it was a little rich to see them raise repeated concerns about these prosecutions and about a statutory maximum of 20 years being at issue here — to the point that Prelogar eventually had to state how that statutory maximum had basically nothing to do with the actual sentencing involved in these cases (something that the justices all know very well).” writes that “the ruling will mean further hardship for transgender youth in Idaho, and could signal that the Supreme Court is willing to take drastic action when it comes to transgender healthcare, even if that action is not directly related to the merits of the healthcare bans themselves. The Supreme Court could address the issue on the merits at any time, and it seems increasingly likely that it will in the near future.” writes that “young people are ‘elites’ not because they actually have power, but because the spectacle of them asserting autonomy in any way is at odds with the way things are supposed to be. They are pretentious for the same reason that women or LGBT people or Black people are considered pretentious elites when they contradict their supposed betters. When the right people have power; that’s natural; when the wrong people, marginalized people, have power—that’s an unbearable imposition.” writes that “as a historian I have no problem encouraging remembrances of the past. But there’s a difference between remembering and celebrating. Between recollection and veneration. Between memorializing and valorizing. Confederate Heritage Month lifts up the Confederacy and its heritage as a positive good that should not only be recalled but honored. It calls on people to remember a Confederate heritage, but it is a heritage of hate.” writes that “we’ve seen this before, and it’s led to people getting injured, and even killed. We’ve seen the Proud Boys rally and attack people and we’ve seen cars rammed into protesters. We’ve seen Heather Heyer murdered by a fascist with his vehicle in Charlottesville at the ‘Unite the Right’ hate rally. We know the threat is real, because fascists have already been doing this for some time. They can try to obfuscate their statements, but their actions ring out loud and clear. And deadly.”Comments
No posts