The ruling will have enormous impacts for transgender residents in the state.

  • manxu@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    76
    ·
    3 days ago

    The ruling will have enormous impacts for transgender residents in the state.

    For everyone. Everyone benefits when the individual human rights of anyone are protected, shielded, affirmed against an all-out assault by bigots.

    But yeah, especially for transgender residents.

    • LordMayor@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      57
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Some of those sparsely populated states have strong personal liberty biases and strong anti-government biases. This makes for seemingly contradictory—at least to liberals—policies.

      They might protect trans rights while also advocating for unregulated slaughter houses, unfettered drilling and letting any random rancher use public lands for their herds.

      It’s consistent when viewed from the rugged individualist/keep the government outta my business viewpoint.

      • baines@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        37
        ·
        3 days ago

        it’s nice to see personal freedom used not as a dog whistle for misogyny or racial attacks

      • protist@retrofed.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        3 days ago

        Montana in particular has a surprisingly progressive constitution. It was only enacted in 1972, largely in response to rampant corruption in the state. Montanans have the “right to a clean and healthy environment,” included because of the abuses of the mining industry, for example.

  • Jessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    3 days ago

    These days, whenever I see a headline with “trans” and a “Supreme Court” in the same sentence, I brace for the worst.

    I am so pleasantly surprised that we actually can count a W. This will not stop the anti-trans rhetoric or the bills being presented and passed, but, it is something. Of course, the 2 dissenting justices misgendered and otherwise belittled our existences—but they were in the minority, so fuck ‘em.

    I need to get my birth certificate info correct, as I don’t know if I will be able to starting in 2027.

    • Sunshine@piefed.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      3 days ago

      Also screw that third judge who wanted to carry water for a transphobic bill. Pulling out the knife slightly is not enough.

  • Janx@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    3 days ago

    Unfortunately, Clarence Thomas wants another free world-class vacation, so I expect the US Supreme Court to soon rule the way hateful billionaires want them to…

    • fullofredgoo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      3 days ago

      From the article:

      “The majority in this case made the independence of its analysis explicit, writing: “Montana case law interpreting the Individual Dignity provisions directs our analysis, not federal precedent.” The dissent cited Trump v. Orr and Skrmetti—both hostile federal rulings—but the majority rejected them outright. What this means in practice is that Montana’s transgender residents now have a constitutional shield completely independent of the Supreme Court of the United State’s decisions.”