Doe John
“Justice Department Files Statement of Interest in Lawsuit Concerning Treatment for Gender Dysphoria in Correctional Settings,” published Monday, January 8, 2024, validates my own conclusions regarding gender discrimination. The Statement is a legal opinion which, we may presume, is informed by expert medical opinion. Specific references are not cited. Highlighted are the words, “medically appropriate care for people with gender dysphoria," to that effect.
Although specific medical opinions are not cited, we may, therefore, assume medical professionals consulted have offered these conclusions. Since I am not an expert on any aspect of the matter, it was my earnest desire to avoid expressing an offensive opinion on a matter of grave personal and public importance. I must, at least, thank you, Justice Department, for broaching the subject. Henceforth, I shall take Doe as analogous to an epidemic "patient zero," or, if you prefer, subject zero, as both concern concern the public.
The Justice Department Statement argues that denial of treatment to Doe is cruel and unusual punishment, “consistent with the Eighth Amendment." Since the Statement points to the Bill of Rights, it therefore concerns everyone. Because it concerns everyone, it concerns me; both me, personally, and my paintings of homeless people. I have said homelessness is a Constitutional matter. My future opinions on the matter of homelessness, and art, will be informed by this Justice Department opinion.
For what it's worth, I do not suffer from gender dysphoria. To be clear, it does not affect me, directly, i.e., personally. My interest is in awareness of the rights of others. “Know your rights” means considering the rights of others, as well as your own. I'm not embroiled in any immediate conflict. But, suppose one was concerned about personal associates who may be affected by the condition, without their explicit disclosure of the fact? It is a fact that the matter is complicated by strenuous privacy assertions by those affected.
Whom do I know might be affected? That's a rhetorical question. I take it for granted there are those whom I know who are so affected. My associations certainly overlap the aggregate of everyone, including those who are affected by gender dysphoria. I am as concerned about strangers as I am about friends. I can testify to experiencing stressful interactions with individuals of a certain description. Stress of a different character than (what might be called) "ordinary."
I don't have any sort of personal complaint. I argue (not complain) on behalf of the sufferer. I have met such individuals. They fall under an inclusive umbrella of social dysphoria. They require consideration for their diversity. It is a cognitive impairment, not an arbitrary conflict of ego, that causes misunderstanding. The first time I recognized the effect on personal interaction of cognitive disfunction, was with a person affected by Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD). I had only read about ASD, before.
It was a life-changing event. Previously, I had been advised by others, or completely in the dark about the manifested symptoms. It was a discovery! It permanently altered my social outlook. I was as excited as, I imagine, a successful first diagnosis must be for medical students. Since then, I have recognized cognitive impairments in many individuals. It can make a difference, in a group, between harmony and conflict.
The change in my own social outlook is not in my imagination. Knowledge works. It softens my interactions with those who "don't fit in," makes me more tolerant, patient, and forgiving. I am referring to ASD in general, not, specifically, “gender dysphoria,” but it also falls under the broad, social disability category. What is important is the reduction in interpersonal stress experienced in consequence of correct diagnosis—call it recognition—of a disabling, non-somatic condition.
Arguing for the socially dysphoric, the Justice Department statement continues: "The department’s statement of interest clarifies that gender dysphoria can be a covered disability under the ADA and does not fall within the ADA’s exclusion of gender identity disorders." As long as the condition is manageable, accommodations can be made without harsh enforcement. It is when a condition interferes with the sufferer's daily functioning—and of others—that it becomes a social problem. The Justice Department brief then asks prison authorities to acknowledge Doe's disability in the next paragraph of the Statement:
"The department’s statement also explains that prison officials violate the Eighth Amendment when they categorically refuse to provide medically necessary gender-affirming surgery to incarcerated individuals with gender dysphoria, no matter a person’s particular circumstances."
Imprisonment, without question, interferes with normal functioning. Gender dysphoria, in itself, is not a crime. It seems unfair on the face of it! Perhaps better familiarity with the trial of Doe would reveal what part gender dysphoria played in Doe's conviction and incarceration. At the same time, I think it is going too far to consent to Doe's demands. Physical castration certainly qualifies as the definition of "cruel and unusual," if it had been the Court's sentence for whatever Doe did. What may be interpreted as a violation of Doe's rights, under the Eighth Amendment, should, therefore, be postponed indefinitely, while Doe's gender dysphoria is acknowledged as a legitimate dysphoria, or disability.
Gender reassignment surgery is an elective procedure, not an urgent condition. As a separate, but related matter, withholding an essential medical procedure would indeed be discrimination, a valid Civil Rights case. The offending prison might then be charged by the Justice Department with criminal cruelty. That does not appear to be the case, with Doe. What is called for, for Doe, is a program of intensive social reintegration to prepare Doe for release, parole, and return to normal society.