The sky is trans, why wouldn’t I be

Florence Ashley
  • 5.0 (2)
  • Society & Culture
  • Updated Bimonthly

This podcast is an audio repository of Florence Ashley‘s scholarly writing on trans law, bioethics, and more!

  1. Jul 22

    Unreliable Witness Warnings for Police Testimony

    Florence Ashley, “Unreliable Witness Warnings for Police Testimony,” (2026) 59:2 UBC Law Review 293-358 Abstract: In this article, I argue that unreliable witness warnings should be extended to police testimony given the prevalence of police perjury and its contribution to wrongful convictions and the over-incarceration of Black and Indigenous people. Unreliable witness warnings caution the jury of the risk of convicting defendants solely based on the testimony of unreliable witnesses and encourages them to look for corroborating evidence. Traditionally, the category of unreliable witnesses has included accomplices and police informants due to their tendency and incentives to lie. Warnings are justified vis-à-vis these witnesses because the unreliability of their testimony may not be readily apparent to the jury, which creates a systemic risk of wrongful convictions. I argue that police testimony satisfies the underlying rationale for unreliable witness warnings and that, therefore the warnings should be extended to police testimony. While the precise prevalence of police perjury in Canada is unknown, we have reasons to believe that police perjury is pervasive, is personally, culturally, and institutionally incentivized, and is often believed by juries, creating a danger of wrongful convictions and over-incarceration. Extending unreliable witness warnings to police testimony is a modest but important contribution to addressing the dangers posed by police perjury. (Link to article)

  2. Feb 12

    Evidentiary Pragmatism in Transgender Health Care

    Florence Ashley, "Evidentiary Pragmatism in Transgender Health Care," (2026) 116:3 American Journal of Public Health 304-06 Opponents of gender-affirming care for youth often argue that it should be withheld because the available evidence is of low quality. In this article, I explore how such claims are rooted in a catch-22 whereby no evidence is ever good enough to support access to gender-affirming care. Based on the idea that access to interventions should not be predicated on unreasonable evidentiary expectations, I develop the principle of evidentiary pragmatism. A simple but powerful guide to evidence evaluation, evidentiary pragmatism holds that scientific evidence should always be evaluated in relation to the best reasonably achievable evidence. Low quality evidence would not be particularly concerning where the best reasonably achievable evidence is low quality, but may be much more concerning where high-quality evidence could readily be achieved. (Link to article)

  3. 02/13/2025

    Gatekeeping gender-affirming care is detrimental to detrans people

    F Ashley et al, “Gatekeeping gender-affirming care is detrimental to detrans people” (2025)International Journal of Transgender Health Abstract: Gender assessments are often required to access gender-affirming medical interventions. These assessments are typically defended as a way of preventing regret, offering a compromise between the interests of trans and detrans people. Whether they do is integral to ongoing debates about models of care in transgender health. Building on previous work demonstrating the inefficacy of gender assessments, this article explores the impact of gender assessments and argues that they are detrimental to detrans people. Assessments appear to be detrimental to detrans people because they disincentivize honesty and authenticity, inhibit gender exploration, increase shame and anger associated with detransition, foster transnormativity, hinder the development of a strong therapeutic alliance, and diminish the quality of informational disclosure. Given the detrimental consequences of gender assessments, clinicians should reconsider gatekeeping practices in favor of supporting patient decision-making and offering better care to people who detransition. (Link to paper)

  4. 12/11/2024

    Genderfucking as a critical legal methodology

    Florence Ashley, "Genderfucking as a critical legal methodology" (2024) 69:2 McGill Law Journal 177 Abstract: In this essay, I theorize genderfucking as a critical legal methodology. Genderfucking is defined by its focus on the needs and experiences of those who ‘f**k’ with gender, resisting attempts at gender governance through laws, policies, and practices. Adopting a politics of messiness, genderfucking is critical of recognition and calls into question the state’s legitimacy in defining and policing gender categories. Genderfucking offers a rich and fertile approach for analyzing a social, political, and legal world indelibly marked by regimes of gender and, in so doing, steps on the path towards gender liberation. (Link to paper)

  5. 10/08/2024

    Parental Rights Over Transgender Youth: Furthering a Pressing and Substantial Objective?

    Florence Ashley, "Parental Rights Over Transgender Youth—Furthering a Pressing and Substantial Objective?" (2024) 62(1) Alberta Law Review 87–119 Abstract: Parental rights are increasingly being invoked to oppose the growing inclusion of trans youth in education. Recently, some provinces have proposed or adopted laws and policies predicated on the belief that parents have a right to be informed of their child’s choice of name and pronouns at schools and that trans youth should not be allowed to change the names and pronouns they use at school without parental consent, which I term “blanket veto and disclosure laws.” In this article, I explore whether blanket veto and disclosure laws can be justified under two dominant conceptions of parental rights — parental authority and parental entitlement. Using the framework provided by section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I argue that blanket disclosure and veto laws cannot be justified under either conception of parental rights. Conceived as protection of parental authority, blanket veto and disclosure laws are unjustified because they are not rationally or narrowly tailored to their objective. Conceived as protection of parental entitlement, the laws are unjustified because their objective is inconsistent with the values of a free and democratic society. Regardless of the conception of parental rights we adopt, blanket veto and disclosure laws are constitutionally and politically deficient. (⁠Link to article⁠)

  6. 07/02/2024

    Gender self-determination as a medical right

    ​F Ashley. ​“Gender self-determination as a medical right.” (2024) CMAJ, 196, E833–35 Abstract: In this article, I argue that the principle of gender self-determination grants trans people have a presumptive right to gender-affirming care, and that physicians should accordingly rethink barriers to gender-affirming care. By considering gender self-determination as a presumptive right, physicians are more likely to avoid unnecessary barriers to care. This presumption can be rebutted by showing that encroachments are adequately justified by clear and compelling evidence. Many common barriers to gender-affirming care—such as rigid age requirements and the requirement that adolescents prove several years of gender incongruence—do not satisfy this threshold. (Link to paper)

  7. 07/01/2024

    Do trans/humanists dream of electric t**s? CRISPR and transgender bioethics

    F Ashley. "Do Trans/Humanists Dream of Electric T**s? CRISPR and Transgender Bioethics" in Neal Baer (ed), Reshaping Human Nature: The Promise and Peril of CRISPR (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2024) Abstract: ​This chapter explores on the possibilities and risks of CRISPR gene editing for trans lives, discussing its potential use in conversion practices and medical transition before offering some reflections on the ethics of hype. For those who believe in a ‘trans gene’, CRISPR risks being used as a form of high-tech conversion practices to ‘correct’ trans existence. Regardless of its effectiveness in that regard, the spectre of CRISPR highlights lacunas in ethical discussions around conversion practices. CRISPR could more positively be used as a form of high-tech medical transition, helping trans people customize transition-related interventions and better achieve their embodiment goals. However, this prospect is also fraught due to the prevalence of cisnormativity within the medical profession. Rather than loosening gender norms, CRISPR could reinforce them by excluding trans people who do not want to blend in with cisnormative society. CRISPR is hyped. It lets us imagine possibilities that can sustain life as much as destroy it. Given these risks, bioethical engagement with CRISPR should begin by discussing the ethics of hype. Caught in the daydreams of CRISPR’s endless possibilities, let us not forget to fight for a better world.  (Link to paper)

  8. 06/11/2024

    Beyond the trans/cis binary: introducing new terms will enrich gender research

    F Ashley, S Brightly-Brown, GN Rider,. Beyond the trans/cis binary: Introducing new terms will enrich gender research. Nature, 630, 293–95 Abstract: Human experiences are inevitably richer than the categories we carve out for them. But finding the right concepts and language to describe their diversity is an essential part of the scientific endeavour. The term ‘gender modality’ could enable researchers to broaden their horizons. Gender modality refers to how a person’s gender identity relates to the gender they were assigned at birth. Scientists should expand the gamut of gender modalities included in questionnaires given to participants, to capture a broader range of experiences. Researchers can also use gender modality to refine how they phrase questions or discuss results. Lastly, researchers can use gender modality to think more meticulously about what it is that they are really trying to capture in their study. Researching gender should begin with critically engaging with current language and concepts. Thoughtfulness, flexibility, curiosity and empathy are what science needs. Link to paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-01719-9

See All (45)

Ratings & Reviews

5
out of 5
2 Ratings

About

This podcast is an audio repository of Florence Ashley‘s scholarly writing on trans law, bioethics, and more!

Information