Podcast Summary: "The Supreme Court Goes Full TERF [TEASER]"

Released on July 1, 2025, "If Books Could Kill" is hosted by Michael Hobbes and Peter Shamshiri. The podcast delves into controversial bestsellers that have significantly influenced public opinion and societal norms. In the teaser episode titled "The Supreme Court Goes Full TERF," the hosts examine a landmark Supreme Court decision impacting transgender rights.

Introduction to the Supreme Court Decision

00:00 - 02:10

Peter and Michael kick off the episode by expressing their frustrations with the Supreme Court's recent decision on transgender rights, specifically the case "Skremetti vs. America." Peter humorously remarks, “All I know about the Supreme Court is that someone should do a podcast about how much it sucks” (00:02), setting the tone for a critical analysis.

Matt Walsh's Twitter Thread and Vanderbilt Trans Clinic

02:10 - 11:12

Michael provides a detailed background on the events leading to the Supreme Court case. He explains that in September 2022, Matt Walsh, a right-wing influencer, targeted the Vanderbilt University Medical Center's transgender youth clinic through a provocative Twitter thread. Michael states, “We are going to peruse the Twitter thread” (02:57), highlighting Walsh's allegations of unethical medical practices.

Peter analyzes the clips Walsh presented, including statements from Dr. Shane Taylor about the clinic's profitability. Michael critiques the lack of context, noting, “she doesn't mention children here” (05:50), emphasizing that the discussed procedures are primarily for adults.

The discussion shifts to Dr. Ellen Clayton's remarks about conscientious objections within the clinic. Peter interprets Clayton's stance as veiled bigotry, stating, “she's dancing around it makes it sound worse” (08:15). Michael adds, “this is an equal protection violation” (24:12), critiquing the Supreme Court's interpretation of the law.

Legislative Actions and Public Response in Tennessee

11:12 - 21:03

The hosts outline the swift legislative response following Walsh's campaign. Governor Bill Lee calls for an investigation (09:16), and the Republican-controlled House issues a demand for answers. Michael sarcastically notes the clinic's response, “we only perform around five top surgeries per year” (14:12), pointing out the minimal scale of the clinic's operations.

Peter comments on the disproportionate focus the right wing places on trans issues despite the low numbers involved, stating, “they don't believe trans people are real” (15:38). This leads to a discussion on the media's role and the broader political implications, with Michael observing, “this is all the Supreme Court does” (31:37).

The Supreme Court's Ruling and Legal Reasoning

21:03 - 31:37

Michael delves into the Supreme Court's decision, critiquing Chief Justice John Roberts' majority opinion and the concurring and dissenting opinions, especially Justice Clarence Thomas'. Peter summarizes the court's flawed reasoning: “he decided that it's not discrimination based on transgender status” (26:34), arguing that this interpretation is absurd and ignores established equal protection principles.

The hosts dissect Justice Thomas' concurrence, highlighting his dismissal of medical consensus and reliance on questionable sources. Michael notes, “most of the substantive citations are to op-eds” (36:45), undermining the concurrence's credibility. Peter echoes this sentiment, emphasizing the misuse of scientific authority to justify discriminatory legislation.

Impact on Transgender Healthcare and Society

31:37 - 51:57

Peter and Michael discuss the broader societal impacts of the Supreme Court's decision. They argue that the ruling not only discriminates against transgender individuals but also undermines established medical guidelines. Michael criticizes the court for ignoring empirical evidence, stating, “if the guidelines were lying about evidence” (51:51).

The conversation extends to the politicization of medical standards, with Peter asserting, “these organizations are like besieged by your Freak allies” (46:38). Michael counters by highlighting the consensus among medical professionals supporting gender-affirming care, contrasting it with the court's narrow and biased interpretation.

Clarence Thomas' Concurrence and Critique of Medical Expertise

51:57 - 60:55

The hosts focus on Justice Clarence Thomas' concurrence, where he challenges the authority of medical experts. He states, “so called experts have no license to countermand the wisdom, fairness or logic of legislative choices” (34:16), reflecting a distrust of established scientific consensus.

Peter points out Thomas' reliance on right-wing sources and his dismissive stance towards medical organizations, noting, “they just go through looking for gotchas” (37:23). Michael emphasizes the flawed logic in dismissing experts who overwhelmingly support transgender healthcare, arguing, “a smart law professor would be like” (31:17).

Conclusion: The Aftermath and Future Implications

60:55 - End

As the episode wraps up, Peter and Michael reflect on the Supreme Court's decision as a significant setback for transgender rights. They express skepticism about the motivations behind the ruling and its alignment with scientific evidence. Michael concludes, “this is anti intellectualism at its core” (61:37), underscoring the perceived disconnect between the court's reasoning and empirical data.

The teaser ends with a promise to delve deeper into the legal and societal repercussions of the decision in the upcoming full episode, leaving listeners anticipating a more comprehensive analysis.

Notable Quotes:

• “All I know about the Supreme Court is that someone should do a podcast about how much it sucks.” — Peter (00:02)
• “We are going to peruse the Twitter thread.” — Michael (02:57)
• “She doesn't mention children here.” — Michael (05:50)
• “That's discrimination based on sex.” — Peter (24:12)
• “This is all the Supreme Court does.” — Michael (31:37)
• “Most of the substantive citations are to op-eds.” — Michael (36:45)
• “These organizations are like besieged by your Freak allies.” — Peter (46:38)
• “So called experts have no license to countermand the wisdom, fairness or logic of legislative choices.” — Justice Clarence Thomas (34:16)
• “This is anti intellectualism at its core.” — Michael (61:37)

Final Thoughts

In this teaser episode, Michael Hobbes and Peter Shamshiri critically examine the Supreme Court's decision impacting transgender rights, highlighting perceived flaws in legal reasoning, the politicization of medical science, and the disproportionate focus on transgender issues by the right wing despite minimal empirical support. The hosts advocate for a data-driven approach to policy-making and express concern over the judiciary's role in shaping social issues without adequate consideration of scientific consensus.