Rational judges would not entertain the notion as being true, regardless of whether the Defense conceded it or not.
If the court is to ignore the evidence presented and rule by his individual opinion, why have a trial at all? Just proceed directly to the judge's decision.
Would that particular methodology apply to trials with a judge who disagrees with your particular opinion? Assuming the judge believes that all such procedures should be legal, he should so rule, regardless of what evidence is presented?
Yes, stopping mutilation of children or crazy people *IS* a valid state interest.
I linked, cited, gave the page number, quoted the order, and underlined the portion stating the order had nothing to do with gender-affirming surgery. It appears that in your court, that is ignored along with any testimony or other evidence.
At 4:
The kinds of care at issue are puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. See Fla. Stat. § 456.001(9)(a). This order uses the term “gender-affirming care” to refer only to these two kinds of treatment, not to gender-affirming surgery.
What has happened in the medical community is that a huge swath of it has jumped on the crazy train because they behave like a herd....
Nah, many have jumped on the cash train. It pays well. If the government or insurance pays for it, you may expect more of it. When the recipient has to pay for it, or the doctor has to do it for free, you will see less of it.
The bulk of the medical community is demonstrably wrong on every measure....
Who do you consult when you have a medical problem, such as chest pains? Wikipedia? Or a doctor? If they are demonstrably wrong on every measure, why would you bother?
That what they actually do. The trial is often window dressing for what they already decided to do anyway.
Kabuki Theater.
Assuming the judge believes that all such procedures should be legal, he should so rule, regardless of what evidence is presented?
That's what they actually do. The trial is often window dressing for what they already decided to do anyway.
I linked, cited, gave the page number, quoted the order, and underlined the portion stating the order had nothing to do with gender-affirming surgery.
When a response gets too long or requires too much reading, I tend to ignore it. Yes, I might miss a valid point this way, but past experience tends to indicate that this is often not the case, and often certainly not worth the trouble to go through it. BroJoeK comes to mind.
Who do you consult when you have a medical problem, such as chest pains? Wikipedia? Or a doctor? If they are demonstrably wrong on every measure, why would you bother?
Don't take my words out of context. The context is Covid 19. They were wrong about every measure they put forth to fight it.
And regarding my personal experience with doctors, it has been a mixed bag. Many do not bother to perform the actual work necessary to accurately diagnose a problem, and they tend to jump to conclusions and refuse to consider anything but what they already want to believe, more or less like many people I argue with.
My second to last visit to a doctor was of this variety.
For most of my life I dismissed such ideas, but with what I have seen in the last two decades, I am now beginning to regard such ideas with a strange new respect.
Much of government/industry seems to be a money redistribution Ponzi scheme.