I am by no means an expert here, but I note that your article hinges on the analogy of treatment for trans identifying children with racial discrimination. You do not mention that the key argument facing the Supreme Court's upcoming decision is the argument that race is not the crucial analogy, but age. The analogy with age points towards the potential of child abuse in which all sides must be protected from harm, both enablers and participants. Now how does one determine which analogy is more appropriate re: the trans debate? That's what's at stake in the coming weeks. But this article, for better or for worse, considers one analogy alone, the racial, as if that's all there is to it.
Many thanks for your comment, Professor Newell (I hope this is the correct title, in any case!). I think you have slightly misread the argument I am making there, which is that an analogy can be drawn between how miscegenation was used to ground various senses of political necessity and how trans people are being used to ground a particular political temperament in the present. In this, I am making an empirical claim—this just *is* something that is happening, to significant effect. I would not rule out the possibility of making other arguments, and though I would argue against any equation of gender affirming care with child abuse based on my experience working with trans youth who had been made homeless when their parents kicked them out, I do believe that questions can be raised and responded to in good faith around the question of age. The dynamics that scare me most emerge when the concerns that drive these questions become subject to the kind of reasoning that I'm here drawing a comparison with. (I also apologize if I have misread your comment/missed the substance of what you are saying.)
I am by no means an expert here, but I note that your article hinges on the analogy of treatment for trans identifying children with racial discrimination. You do not mention that the key argument facing the Supreme Court's upcoming decision is the argument that race is not the crucial analogy, but age. The analogy with age points towards the potential of child abuse in which all sides must be protected from harm, both enablers and participants. Now how does one determine which analogy is more appropriate re: the trans debate? That's what's at stake in the coming weeks. But this article, for better or for worse, considers one analogy alone, the racial, as if that's all there is to it.
Many thanks for your comment, Professor Newell (I hope this is the correct title, in any case!). I think you have slightly misread the argument I am making there, which is that an analogy can be drawn between how miscegenation was used to ground various senses of political necessity and how trans people are being used to ground a particular political temperament in the present. In this, I am making an empirical claim—this just *is* something that is happening, to significant effect. I would not rule out the possibility of making other arguments, and though I would argue against any equation of gender affirming care with child abuse based on my experience working with trans youth who had been made homeless when their parents kicked them out, I do believe that questions can be raised and responded to in good faith around the question of age. The dynamics that scare me most emerge when the concerns that drive these questions become subject to the kind of reasoning that I'm here drawing a comparison with. (I also apologize if I have misread your comment/missed the substance of what you are saying.)