Judge Allows Georgia Ban On Gender-Affirming Care for Minors

There has been a lot of discussion lately in other threads in relation to the States that have banned or significantly restricted 'gender affirming care' for minors. As far as I know no State has reversed the decisions to ban or significantly restrict this type of 'care' but in some cases these laws were temporarily blocked by Judges. The following article gives a very good summary.

www.forbes.com... /?sh=387b6c1d3080

The link doesn't seem to work for some reason but you can find the article by typing its title:

Judge Allows Georgia Ban On Gender-Affirming Care Access—Here Are The Other Trans Health Restrictions Facing Court Battles

August 20, 2023U.S.

District Judge Sarah Geraghty placed a preliminary injunction on a Georgia law prohibiting in-state physicians from providing hormone replacement therapy to minors, suggesting it likely violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process and equal protection clauses and “singles out transgender minors for the denial of essential medical care,” though she did not block a ban on gender-reassignment surgeries.

It's worth noticing Judge Sarah Geraghty temporarily blocked the ban on provision of 'puberty blockers' and hormone replacement 'therapy' but she didn't block the ban on body part mutilations. That says something important in my opinion.

A federal judge lifted a temporary restriction on a Georgia bill that bans access to gender-affirming care for minors on Tuesday, allowing the state to resume enforcement of the ban, adding to a list of other court rulings upholding or blocking similar bans or restrictions in other states

September 5, 2023

U.S. District Judge Sarah Geraghty lifted a preliminary injunction she placed on a Georgia law prohibiting in-state physicians from providing hormone replacement therapy or any gender-transition surgeries to minors, allowing the state to resume enforcing the ban.

The same judge who temporarily blocked part of this 'gender affirming care' for minors has now lifted her own preliminary injunction. This is great news as people and judges realise that kids should be left alone and this type of 'care' for minors should be outlawed.

my personal take is that kids born today will live to 120/150 years they have plenty of time to grow and decide who they want to be trying to fix that all within the first decade/decade and a half seems rather rushed and risks being a modern version of the lobotomy..

one day the world may just become a Ian M Banks culture novel where we can think we are the other sex and our bodies will change to be that sex.. i would certainly love to make my lovers toes curl in new ways., but thats me as a grown up and that world is if ever centuries off .

originally posted by: nickyw
my personal take is that kids born today will live to 120/150 years they have plenty of time to grow and decide who they want to be trying to fix that all within the first decade/decade and a half seems rather rushed and risks being a modern version of the lobotomy..

one day the world may just become a Ian M Banks culture novel where we can think we are the other sex and our bodies will change to be that sex.. i would certainly love to make my lovers toes curl in new ways., but thats me as a grown up and that world is if ever centuries off .

It's more of a science fiction scenario where we think we're the other sex and suddenly our wishes become true.

The news of this thread is Judge Sarah Geraghty who temporarily blocked part of the law and then lifted her preliminary injunction.

I guess I will never understand why anyone could argue that a 12yr old kid is perfectly capable of an educated decision on taking puberty blockers and changing their bodies but can't be left to there own to buy a beer. 🤷

originally posted by: Bluntone22
I guess I will never understand why anyone could argue that a 12yr old kid is perfectly capable of an educated decision on taking puberty blockers and changing their bodies but can't be left to there own to buy a beer. 🤷

Nobody does.

a reply to: AlienBorg

I'm sorry the judge didn't block the irreversible hormone therapy.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: AlienBorg

I'm sorry the judge didn't block the irreversible hormone therapy.

It was a temporary block, and she did in fact lift it herself, so that ban is now enforceable too.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: AdifferentOpinion
The obsession continues. Please seek help.

Seriously, OBSESSED.

Did his/her partner/lover transition?

It’s like it’s personal.

I take the mutilation of children fairly seriously.
Not personally though...😂

originally posted by: AdifferentOpinion
The obsession continues. Please seek help.

I agree wholeheartedly, the degree of obsession with these people pushing permanently life altering medical quackery masquerading as treatments on young kids is incredible, and yes, they are all extremely sick and in need of help - although I doubt any of them would avail themselves of it.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: AlienBorg

I'm sorry the judge didn't block the irreversible hormone therapy.

Actually she did block the ban on hormones but allowed the ban on body part mutilations. Now the same judge lifted this temporary block and there is a full ban on 'gender affirming care' for minors.

originally posted by: AlienBorg
There has been a lot of discussion lately in other threads in relation to the States that have banned or significantly restricted 'gender affirming care' for minors. As far as I know no State has reversed the decisions to ban or significantly restrict this type of 'care' but in some cases these laws were temporarily blocked by Judges. The following article gives a very good summary.

www.forbes.com... /?sh=387b6c1d3080

The link doesn't seem to work for some reason but you can find the article by typing its title:

Judge Allows Georgia Ban On Gender-Affirming Care Access—Here Are The Other Trans Health Restrictions Facing Court Battles

August 20, 2023U.S.

District Judge Sarah Geraghty placed a preliminary injunction on a Georgia law prohibiting in-state physicians from providing hormone replacement therapy to minors, suggesting it likely violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process and equal protection clauses and “singles out transgender minors for the denial of essential medical care,” though she did not block a ban on gender-reassignment surgeries.

It's worth noticing Judge Sarah Geraghty temporarily blocked the ban on provision of 'puberty blockers' and hormone replacement 'therapy' but she didn't block the ban on body part mutilations. That says something important in my opinion.

A federal judge lifted a temporary restriction on a Georgia bill that bans access to gender-affirming care for minors on Tuesday, allowing the state to resume enforcement of the ban, adding to a list of other court rulings upholding or blocking similar bans or restrictions in other states

September 5, 2023

U.S. District Judge Sarah Geraghty lifted a preliminary injunction she placed on a Georgia law prohibiting in-state physicians from providing hormone replacement therapy or any gender-transition surgeries to minors, allowing the state to resume enforcing the ban.

The same judge who temporarily blocked part of this 'gender affirming care' for minors has now lifted her own preliminary injunction. This is great news as people and judges realise that kids should be left alone and this type of 'care' for minors should be outlawed.

It appears this judge is waiting to see what the outcome of this appeal trial will be, which she considers a precedent. It will be very interesting to follow as they argue the existing laws, which IMO are outdated and have not kept up with societal changes.

www.them.us...

www.justice.gov...

Unless I am late to the game and this appeal trial already had been decided and this is why this judge went from partial unblocking ban, to temporary full ban, to what? It's new legal territory folks.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: AdifferentOpinion
The obsession continues. Please seek help.

Seriously, OBSESSED.

Did his/her partner/lover transition?

It’s like it’s personal.

Nothing wrong with wanting to protect kids, it should be personal to everyone.

The only people that are obsessed are the ones that want kids under 10 to change sexes.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: AlienBorg

I'm sorry the judge didn't block the irreversible hormone therapy.

It was a temporary block, and she did in fact lift it herself, so that ban is now enforceable too.

Isn't it temporary, pending the outcome of the Alabama appeal trial I posted above? This back and forth banning, partial unbanning is getting confusing.

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: AdifferentOpinion
The obsession continues. Please seek help.

Seriously, OBSESSED.

Did his/her partner/lover transition?

It’s like it’s personal.

Nothing wrong with wanting to protect kids, it should be personal to everyone.

The only people that are obsessed are the ones that want kids under 10 to change sexes.

Ignorance of transgender needs — politically legislated because of Moral Panic does not help these kids.

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: RazorV66
Ignorance of transgender needs

Ignorance of the truth that 'transgender' is anything other than a mental disorder.

politically legislated because of Moral Panic does not help these kids.

But pandering to their delusions to the point of allowing them to engage in permanently life altering medical quackery does?

a reply to: Bluntone22

I guess I will never understand why anyone could argue that a 12yr old kid is perfectly capable of an educated decision on taking puberty blockers and changing their bodies but can't be left to there own to buy a beer. 🤷

I understand that out of two opposing ideologies in the US. The
arguements come from only one.

If truth and reality are bothersome to what someone is feeling?
Then maybe truth and reality should change what someone is
feeling. Because feelings will never change truth and reality.

Trying to make it so surely condones and enables the path to
mental illness. And that's what being confused about ones
gendre is really, mental illness, not well in the head. Truth
and reality certainly aren't the problem no matter who tries
to make into one.

It’s strange some people would argue that you need to be a mature 18 before you tattoo your body, but you can have a doctor cut out your uterus, testicles, invert your penis, whatever. But shooting an earring gun through the ear lobe, nah uh! No way no how!

Anyway I thought Georgia was this huge left leaning population and they’re even suing president Trump cuz SOMETHIN didn’t add up…shouldn’t the state be all for the genital mutilation!? Or is it simply what Trump was forced to take back, that the politics in Georgia ain’t addind up…

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: RazorV66
Ignorance of transgender needs

Ignorance of the truth that 'transgender' is anything other than a mental disorder.

Brain difference. It’s not a choice.

More research is needed. But Neuroscience is showing differences in the brain.


Transgender persons differed significantly from cisgender persons with respect to (sub)cortical brain volumes and surface area, but not cortical thickness. Contrasting the 4 groups (TM, TW, CM, and CW), we observed a variety of patterns that not only depended on the direction of gender identity (towards male or towards female) but also on the brain measure as well as the brain region examined.

Rather than being merely shifted towards either end of the male-female spectrum, transgender persons seem to present with their own unique brain phenotype.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...