That goes a long way toward making the case for the judge.
Here you provide me with a good example of one of the absurdities of our legal system. The judge does not exhibit rational agency here. The concession by the defendant is nonsense and should be treated as such by the court.
That the judge takes this claim seriously is evidence the Judge is a wack job. He is like Kentaji Brown who can't define a "woman" because she's not a biologist.
Rational judges would not entertain the notion as being true, regardless of whether the Defense conceded it or not.
Yes, stopping mutilation of children or crazy people *IS* a valid state interest.
"...The widely accepted standard of care ..."
No. 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, and not for valid medical reasons. What researchers who have actually looked at this issue have discovered is that encouraging gender change creates a much worse outcome than discouraging them.
I used to have links on this topic, but I don't even bother debating it anymore.
The medical community has jumped on the crazy train because of social pressure, not because of valid medical studies showing this "treatment" is beneficial to the patient. In that regard, they are very much like the herd mentality exhibited with their insane and non-medical covid response to masks, distancing, and experimental gene therapies
The bulk of the medical community is demonstrably wrong on every measure, and took these steps not because they made good medical sense, but only because of political and social pressure to conform to the diktats of the government and the industry.
In fact, the medical community's response made everything worse.
In any case, an appeal to the "The widely accepted standard of care..." is argumentum ad populum with a side helping of argumentum ad vericundiam. It's a fallacy and has no place being accepted by a rational judge.
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?