Login
Parents’ Rights
The right-wing (plus some alleged liberals cough Singal cough) assault on trans kids is genuinely horrifying. Literally hundreds of anti-trans bills – most focused on trans people under 19 years old – are proposed every year, and some succeed in becoming law.
Unfortunately, it’s obvious which side the conservative majority of the Supreme Court is on. Earlier this month, regarding California’s policy of not outing trans students to their parents, the Court ruled:
Gender dysphoria is a condition that has an important bearing on a child’s mental health, but when a child exhibits symptoms of gender dysphoria at school, California’s policies conceal that information from parents and facilitate a degree of gender transitioning during school hours. These policies likely violate parents’ rights to direct the upbringing and education of their children.
In her dissent, Judge Kagen noted that the conservative majority’s concern for parents’ rights has been inconsistent.
Another contrast—this time, between this case and United States v. Skrmetti (2025)—is also striking. In Skrmetti, several parents challenged Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors. The suit raised claims grounded in both equal protection and substantive due process. As to the latter, the parents in Skrmetti, similarly to the parents here, asserted a right “to make decisions concerning medical care for their minor children.” …And in support of that right, the Skrmetti parents relied on the same precedents the Court does today. But the Court, when deciding to grant certiorari in Skrmetti, limited its review to the equal protection issue: It would not even hear the parents out on their substantive due process claim.
This is typical of Republican hypocrisy – in the courts, but also in the way everyday Republicans talk about parental rights. As journalist Chris Quinn put it, “Republicans always say the parents know best, except when the Republicans know better.”
Some Republicans square this circle by saying that gender affirmative care for minors is child abuse (a claim they support with lies about what the research shows), and child abuse is the exception to parental rights.
But necessary medical treatments, supported by the overwhelming majority of experts and legitimate medical organizations, aren’t child abuse because Republicans arbitrarily declare it so.
Even if you, dear reader, happen to be a centrist weenie who can “see both sides” of this issue, that in and of itself is an argument for keeping gender affirmative care for minors legal. If this issue is complex and multifaceted, that’s even more reason that a minor’s medical care needs should not be decided by random Republican legislators.
Republican legislators don’t know Sam Examplekid; they don’t love Sam Examplekid; they have no familiarity with Sam’s needs or background or condition or individual circumstances. The decision should lie with people who know Sam and are committed to Sam Examplekid’s well-being – Sam, Sam’s parents, and Sam’s doctors.
TRANSCRIPT OF CARTOON
This cartoon has for panels, showing two women talking as they walk through a hilly park. The woman in front has dark hair and is wearing a red t-shirt; the person in the rear has light brown hair and is wearing floral pants. I’ll call them TSHIRT and FLORAL.
PANEL 1
Tshirt is listening as Floral lectures.
FLORAL: Of course teachers should be legally required to “out” trans kids to their parents. Because of parents’ rights.
PANEL 2
FLORAL: It doesn’t matter if it’s outing trans kids, or vaccinations, or what books teachers are allowed to assign. It should always be up to the parents!
PANEL 3
Close-up on Flora, who is pounding a fist into her palm, very intense.
FLORAL: Parents’ rights are sacrosanct! Period!
PANEL 4
Tshirt turns to ask Floral a question; Floral replies cheerily.
TSHIRT: What if parents want their trans kid to have gender affirming care?
FLORAL: Fuck parents’ rights.
CHICKEN FAT WATCH
“Chicken fat” is a long-obscure cartoonists’ term for unimportant but amusing details slipped into the art, which I want to bring back. (“Stop trying to make fetch happen!”)
PANEL 1: A grinning kid is hanging upside-down high in a tree. A notice nailed to the tree shows a sad-looking robot and says “NOTICE: Background gags weren’t made by A.I.” On the ground, Steamboat Willie (the earliest form of Mickey Mouse, now copyright-free) is fleeing from a vicious cat.
PANEL 2: An evil-looking bunny is behind the bush, smoking a cig. High in a tree, a rat has disguised itself as a squirrel by taping a big leaf to its real end, and is trying to pass itself off to a real squirrel. A notice nailed to the tree has a picture of an evilly grinning robot and says “NOTICE: Then again isn’t that what an A.I. would say.”
PANEL 3: On top of a cloud, a cloud-colored person with a mohawk is lying on their back and reading their phone.
PANEL 4: A basset hound is in the hole in the tree. A sign below the hole says “Home Sweet Hole.” The robot from the notices in panels 1 and 2 is hiding behind the tree. Steamboat Willie’s lifeless corpse lies in the grass. A notice nailed to another tree shows a picture of a vague shadow shape, and says “MISSING: Small robot which functions as a visual representation of A.I. in background gags. Extremely hackneyed, but functional.”
T-SHIRT: In panel 1, the t-shirt has a logo of a piece of cake. Panel 2, it’s a peace sign. And in panel 4, it’s a chess piece.
