- All articles

All articles

- First Major Congressional Fight Over Trans Military Family Members Expected This Week

- Nancy Mace Calls Trans People A Slur After Sit-Ins In Capitol Bathrooms

- Amy Coney Barrett Surprised By History Of Cross-Dressing Laws Targeting Trans People

- New French Guidelines Recommend Trans Youth Care, Denounce "Wait-And-See" Approach

- Ohio Rep: Ending Trans Care Will Make Trans Youth "Less Of An Issue"

- Breaking: SJSU Will Play In Final After 10th Circuit Rules Allegedly Trans Player Can Play

- Governor DeWine Signs Trans Bathroom Ban That Includes Private Colleges In Ohio

- New York Times Journalist Says Solution For Trans Rights Is To Be Nicer To JK Rowling

First Major Congressional Fight Over Trans Military Family Members Expected This Week

ERIN REED | DEC 9, 2024, 4:04 PM EST | SOURCE

A provision added to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) would remove medically necessary healthcare coverage from military family members under 18 through Tricare.

Ted Eytan/CC BY 2.0

News broke this weekend that Republican leaders have unveiled the House version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a traditionally bipartisan bill critical to funding the U.S. military. This year, however, the NDAA has become a battlefield, as Republicans inserted a provision barring TRICARE, the military’s health insurance program, from covering gender-affirming care for transgender dependents under 18. The move explicitly targets the children of servicemembers, a decision that risks derailing the $895 billion defense bill. Reports suggest the controversial amendment may be a non-starter for most Democrats and could jeopardize the bill’s passage, particularly as a handful of Republican defections remain possible.

The newly released 1,813-page bill, unveiled Saturday, primarily focuses on standard defense expenditures. However, buried within its extensive language is a controversial provision: “Section 708.” This clause would prohibit TRICARE from covering any medical treatments for gender dysphoria in transgender youth under 18 that “could result in sterilization.” While the bill itself does not specify which treatments would be banned, as fertility often remains possible for transgender youth receiving gender-affirming care, a separate House GOP memo, obtained by Fox News, clarified the intent: to “ban transgender medical treatment for children,” including “puberty blockers and hormones.”

You can see the NDAA provision and the House GOP memo here:

Trans youth ban in NDAA 2024-2025

GOP Memo describing NDAA Sec. 708

The provision represents a mildly scaled-back version of earlier proposals introduced in the Senate version of the bill prior to the election. Those Senate provisions not only targeted transgender youth but also sought to restrict gender-affirming surgeries for transgender adults in the military. If enacted, such policies could severely disrupt the lives of transgender servicemembers by jeopardizing their access to care and stripping transgender family members of vital healthcare coverage.

Though Republicans campaigned heavily on transgender issues in 2024 and currently control the House, the inclusion of the provision could complicate the bill’s passage. Representative Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, told Politico that he was undecided on how he would vote, stating, “It’s the Republicans taking advantage of a partisan wedge issue.” He further criticized Speaker Mike Johnson, accusing him of “prioritizing the small extremist group of conservatives in a bid to lock down votes to keep the speaker’s gavel in January.”

The bill will reportedly undergo a procedural rule to determine whether a simple majority will suffice for its passage. Some Republicans may vote to block the bill, either due to opposition to the anti-trans provision or frustration over the absence of additional far-right priorities. Without Democratic support, the bill could be pushed into a process requiring a two-thirds majority, a scenario that would likely strip out the anti-equality provision to ensure its passage. Smith stated to Politico that he was uncertain on how Democrats would vote on the procedural motion, stating that he was “sure people will be in different places.”

The type of care that would be targeted is considered lifesaving for many transgender youth. A Cornell review of more than 51 studies determined that trans care significantly improves the mental health of transgender people. One major study even noted a 73% lower suicidality among trans youth who began care. A similar study found a 40% reduction in actual suicide attempts over the previous year. In a recent article published in the Journal of Adolescent Health in April of 2024, puberty blockers were found to significantly reduce depression and anxiety. A randomized controlled trial in Australia, which was only possible through an innovative methodology, showed a 55% reduction in suicidality for trans men able to start testosterone. In Germany, a recent review by over 27 medical organizations has judged that “not providing treatment can do harm” to transgender youth, and a recent medical consensus in France supported their use. The evidence around transgender care led to a historic policy resolution condemning bans on gender affirming care by the American Psychological Association, the largest psychological association in the world, which was voted on by representatives of its 157,000 members.

“Instead of focusing on the needs of the American people and our national security, anti-equality House Republican leaders are hijacking a defense bill to play politics with the healthcare of children of servicemembers. This is not leadership, it’s bullying, and it is a direct attack on military families,” said HRC President Kelley Robinson in response to the provision. “This discriminatory provision is a slap in the face to servicemembers and their families, who sacrifice every day for our country. We ask our servicemembers to defend our country, and in return, we should defend their rights. This cruel and hateful bill suddenly strips away access to medical care for families that members of our armed forces are counting on, and it could force servicemembers to choose between staying in the military or providing healthcare for their children. Politicians have no place inserting themselves into decisions that should be between families and their doctors. We call on members of Congress to do what's right and vote against this damaging legislation.”

HRC also reports that “President Biden has promised repeatedly to veto any legislation that would enshrine discrimination against transgender people into law.”

Gillian Branstetter, a communications strategist at the ACLU, noted that the provision represents a minuscule portion of the medical budget for servicemember’s families, stating, “Trans youth receiving hormone therapy or puberty suppresants represent just 0.1% of all youth on TRICARE, but Speaker Johnson has indicated this is his top priority for the NDAA. And as we know from the Hyde amendment, restrictions like this are very difficult to remove once codified.”

Congressman Ro Khanna, who is on the House Armed Services Committee, indicated that he would vote no on the measure: "I will vote no on the NDAA as I have since coming to Congress. Almost half of the nearly $1 trillion defense budget goes to contractors who are fleecing the American people. This year’s NDAA also includes harmful provisions that attack the dignity and well-being of trans people by prohibiting coverage of medically necessary healthcare. At the same time, Congress has failed to expand access to in vitro fertilization (IVF) for active-duty military members and their families. We must do better to support all military families and reject these harmful policies,” said Rep. Ro Khanna to Erin In The Morning.

The procedural vote is expected this week.

This article was downloaded from https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/first-major-congressional-fight-over at Dec 9, 2024 at 6:20 PM EST.

Nancy Mace Calls Trans People A Slur After Sit-Ins In Capitol Bathrooms

ERIN REED | DEC 6, 2024, 2:05 PM EST | SOURCE

The congresswoman appeared to be taken by surprise by the protest and was seen wandering the halls of the Senate, a different building than the protestors, holding a bullhorn.

Representative Nancy Mace calls trans people a slur after protest - Photo from Nancy Mace on Twitter.

On Thursday, transgender activists, including prominent advocate Chelsea Manning, staged a sit-in at the United States Capitol to protest a new bathroom ban announced by House Speaker Mike Johnson at the urging of Congresswoman Nancy Mace. The ban, which appears to target Congresswoman-elect Sarah McBride—the first transgender congresswoman in U.S. history—also applies to transgender visitors, staffers, and journalists who frequent Capitol grounds. The surprise protest, which caught Republican leaders off guard, sparked an inflammatory response from Mace, who stood outside a police facility with a bullhorn and referred to the protesters as “tr***y protestors,” using a long-recognized slur against transgender individuals.

Protesters from the Gender Liberation Movement, inspired by Civil Rights Movement demonstrations of the 1960s and ACT UP protests of the 1980s and 90s, gathered both inside and outside a bathroom near Speaker Johnson’s office. Holding signs emblazoned with slogans like “FLUSH BATHROOM BIGOTRY” and “CONGRESS STOP PISSING ON OUR RIGHTS,” they demanded an end to discriminatory policies targeting transgender people. Reporters on the scene, including Pablo Manríquez, noted that protesters were threatened with arrest for “sexual misconduct.” While arrests did occur, including the arrest of notable civil rights activist and whistleblower Chelsea Manning, no sexual misconduct charges were ultimately filed. All protesters were released later that day.

Gender Liberation Movement protestors at bathroom sit in - Orion Rummler, The 19th

The demonstration appeared to catch Mace and other Republicans by surprise, forcing some to scramble or reroute around the sit-in. While Mace seemed to have some forewarning—a mass congressional email earlier in the day revealed she had asked fellow congressmembers to borrow a bullhorn—her response during the protest was perplexing. According to HuffPost reporters Jennifer Bendery and Arthur Delaney, Mace was seen wandering the halls of the Senate building, bullhorn in hand. The Senate, of course, is a completely separate branch of Congress and a different building from where the protest occurred.

Shortly after, Mace shared a video to her public account, standing in front of a door marked “Police,” holding the bullhorn, and shouting at the protestors. In the video, she used a widely-recognized slur for transgender people, saying, “Some tra**ny protestors showed up at the Capitol today to protest my bathroom bill, but they got arrested, poor things.” She then mockingly recited the Miranda rights, pausing at the line about not being able to afford an attorney to turn to the camera and sneer, “I doubt many of you could.”

The protest and Mace's inflammatory response occurred just a day after the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in United States v. Skrmetti, a pivotal case that will shape the future of transgender rights nationwide. During the proceedings, attorneys from the ACLU and the U.S. government addressed the historical and ongoing discrimination faced by transgender individuals. Mace's actions—proposing bathroom bans targeting transgender people and employing slurs against them—could be perceived as clear evidence of animus, leading to discriminatory policies. Notably, her use of an official government account to disseminate such statements may serve as evidence of unconstitutional bias and discriminatory intent in future legal challenges to the anti-trans laws she supports.

"I'm here today because every person deserves dignity and respect, both in daily life and in more symbolic places like the U.S. Capitol," said Manning in a statement in the aftermath of her arrest. "As someone who has fought against similar rules, I know what it's like to feel pushed aside and erased. But I also know the incredible power and resilience our community has. I'm not here as a leader or a spokesperson but simply as another member of my community who shows up unconditionally to support my siblings in this fight. I will stand beside them no matter what. We didn’t start this fight, but we are together now."

This article was downloaded from https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/nancy-mace-calls-trans-people-a-slur at Dec 9, 2024 at 6:20 PM EST.

Amy Coney Barrett Surprised By History Of Cross-Dressing Laws Targeting Trans People

ERIN REED | DEC 4, 2024, 7:57 PM EST | SOURCE

The justice is a potential wild card in the recent Skrimetti case around transgender rights.

Credit: Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States

Today's Supreme Court hearing in United States v. Skrmetti was historic, featuring Chase Strangio as the first openly transgender attorney to present arguments before the Court. Strangio's advocacy was both impactful and insightful, addressing justices who hold the future of equal protection for transgender individuals in their hands. The case challenges Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for trans youth, and also will determine if transgender people can be legally discriminated against. Reactions to the oral arguments have been mixed, with some expressing pessimism about the prospects for transgender rights. However, a notable moment occurred when Justice Amy Coney Barrett appeared surprised to learn about the historical de jure discrimination against transgender individuals through anti-crossdressing laws, suggesting she could be a potential wild card in the eventual ruling.

The topic first arose when Justice Barrett posed a question to Solicitor General Prelogar regarding historical de jure discrimination against transgender people. Barrett asked, “You point out in your brief that in the last three years there have been these laws, but before that, we might have had private societal discrimination. However, I don’t know of any instances—am I missing something? Is there a history that I’m unaware of where we have de jure discrimination?”

Several minutes later, Justice Samuel Alito questioned Chase Strangio, expressing skepticism that transgender people could be granted quasi-suspect classification—a legal designation that would subject laws affecting them to heightened scrutiny—due to what he saw as a lack of historical legal discrimination, to which Strangio replied that such historical discrimination existed legally in two places: the military and in anti-crossdressing laws.

The latter appeared to take Justice Barrett by surprise, something that she would return to a few times during her oral arguments. In a follow-up line of questioning towards Strangio, Barrett admitted that she never knew about the long history of cross-dressing laws, indicating that she may be convinced by Strangio that de jure legal discrimination was indeed part of transgender legal history.

“Mr. Strangio, I wanted to give you a chance to clarify. I’m not sure if you named all the laws when we were discussing de jure discrimination earlier. You mentioned bans on cross-dressing and bans on military service. I had thought of the military service ban, but I wasn’t aware of statutes prohibiting cross-dressing. Can you think of any others?” She asked, her tone indicating surprise.

To which Strangio replied, “I would say there are other examples where homosexuality and transgender status are sometimes grouped together in discriminatory frameworks as language has evolved. However, I think the most salient examples would be the cross-dressing bans and the explicit bans on military service.”

She would return to the question again when asking the Tennessee Soliciter General Matt Rice if he had any response, “I was asking your colleagues on the other side about de jure discrimination and what factors we should consider when determining whether transgender people should be recognized as a suspect class under the Fourteenth Amendment. Do you have a response?”

Rice indicated that he had no knowledge of de jure discrimination.

Cross-dressing laws have long been used to target the transgender community. The first such laws appeared in 1843, prohibiting individuals from “wearing the apparel of the other sex.” These laws became tools of enforcement during police raids in the 1960s, particularly around the time of the Stonewall riots. Responding to Justice Barrett’s questioning on social media, the ACLU’s Gillian Branstetter highlighted a 1964 case challenging a cross-dressing law, quoting a newspaper report on the defense: "The defense submitted by the ACLU contends that it is unconstitutional to arrest as a vagrant a transvestite who has done nothing more than wear the clothing of the opposite sex."

Attorneys working on other LGBTQ+-related cases have privately shared intrigue over Justice Barrett’s questioning, with one expressing “surprising hope” about her potential stance on the case. During other portions of the hearing, Chase Strangio appealed to Barrett’s previous rulings on COVID-related cases, where she acknowledged that medical care could intersect with equal protection issues, particularly in the context of religious services. Barrett also gave Strangio an opportunity to discuss the political powerlessness of transgender people amid recent waves of anti-trans legislation—a point Justice Sotomayor later underscored in questioning Tennessee’s attorney. Sotomayor remarked, “When you are less than 1% of the population, it’s very hard to see how the democratic process is going to protect you.” Collectively, her discussion could make her a potential swing vote in the case.

It is also important to note that Justice Barrett has recently sided with liberals in choosing not to hear major cases on LGBTQ+ rights. Justice Barrett refused to reinstate Florida’s drag ban in November of 2023. She also refused to hear an appeal on Washington’s conversion therapy ban, allowing it to stand and joining Roberts and Gorsuch along with the liberals in that decision.

The outcome of this case carries immense weight for transgender rights, with many legal experts predicting the Court may lean towards upholding the Tennessee ban. However, it’s worth remembering that this same Court delivered the landmark Bostock decision, which protected transgender people from workplace discrimination using similar legal principles. As the nation awaits the ruling, likely to come early this summer, transgender people and their allies hold onto hope that at least two conservative justices will recognize the gravity of the case and join in affirming the fundamental rights of one of the country’s most vulnerable communities.

The full Supreme Court transcript may be found here.

This article was downloaded from https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/amy-coney-barrett-surprised-by-history at Dec 9, 2024 at 6:20 PM EST.

New French Guidelines Recommend Trans Youth Care, Denounce "Wait-And-See" Approach

ERIN REED | DEC 3, 2024, 11:08 AM EST | SOURCE

The new guidelines, published by the French Society of Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetology, create the first French national medical consensus on trans youth care.

Révolution Permanente - France - 2024

In a groundbreaking development for the care of transgender youth in France, the French Society of Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetology has released what is being called the first French national medical consensus on trans youth care. The document’s release comes as a variety of other countries consider the politically-influenced guidelines from the Cass Review in the United Kingdom, which has since been heavily criticized and its recommendations rejected by multiple medical societies in other countries. Importantly, the new guidelines recommend transgender youth care, denounce a “wait-and-see” approach for transgender adolescents, and promote individualized care for every transgender patient.

The guidelines, described as both robust and extensive, were meticulously prepared. According to the document, one to three authors were assigned to each section, conducting comprehensive literature reviews. Their findings were then refined through multiple iterations, with input from the broader group until a consensus was achieved. Finally, the recommendations underwent review by external experts. The result is a thorough and authoritative set of guidelines aimed at providing clear direction for doctors caring for transgender youth in France.

The guidelines encompass a wide range of care recommendations for transgender youth, offering official support for puberty blockers and gender-affirming hormone therapy. Regarding puberty blockers, the guidelines emphasize their role in allowing transgender youth to explore their gender identity without the added distress of undergoing puberty, while also reducing the need for future surgeries. For hormone therapy, the recommendations advocate its use for transgender youth who meet the criteria outlined in the ICD-11, ensuring an individualized and evidence-based approach to care.

The recommendations strongly oppose the “wait-and-see” approach for transgender adolescents, often referred to as “gender exploratory therapy.” This practice, considered a form of conversion therapy, seeks to attribute a transgender person’s identity to external factors rather than recognizing it as authentic, delaying access to care—often until adulthood. The guidelines reject this method, stating it “does not reduce psychological distress” and instead “increases the risk of committing suicide and can affect psycho-affective and cognitive development.” These findings align with a report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control showing that 25% of transgender youth in the United States have attempted suicide, alongside another study in Nature Human Behavior indicating that anti-trans laws, including healthcare bans, have caused up to a 72% increase in suicide attempts.

The authors also refute suggestions in the Cass Review around negative impacts of transgender healthcare. For instance, the Cass Review in several occasions speaks of potential “loss of bone density” among trans youth taking puberty blockers. Instead, the French review notes that trans people have low bone densities regardless of treatment due to other factors: “Trans youth have an average BMD before the onset of puberty that is lower than that of the general population, regardless of treatment. This is probably related to the consequences of dysphoria: less physical activity, eating disorders, and/or poor dietary balance,” and they also note that after moving to gender affirming hormones, “BMD comparable to that of the experienced gender.” They also recommend vitamin D and exercise to mitigate potential concerns.

The group also explored suggestions found in the Cass Review that puberty blockers could harm brain development. On this subject, they found that “GnRHa treatments in transgender adolescents have no negative effect on the association between intellectual quotient and academic success nor on executive function performances.”

These guidelines are poised to resonate both in France and globally. As countries and major medical associations increasingly distance themselves from the U.K.’s Cass Review—criticized for its connections to SPLC-designated hate groups—the scientific consensus continues to affirm the importance of gender-affirming care for transgender youth. Their release comes just one day before the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments on healthcare bans targeting transgender youth across the United States. In a climate where medical care for trans youth is under relentless political attack, guidelines like these offer a beacon of evidence-based practice and will be instrumental in shaping a future where access to essential care is protected and secured for all.

This article was downloaded from https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/new-french-guidelines-recommend-trans at Dec 9, 2024 at 6:20 PM EST.

Ohio Rep: Ending Trans Care Will Make Trans Youth "Less Of An Issue"

ERIN REED | DEC 2, 2024, 2:57 PM EST | SOURCE

The Republican Representative, who was the prime sponsor of Ohio's bathroom ban targeting trans youth and some adults, implied that a gender affirming care ban would mean fewer trans youth.

Ohio has become increasingly hostile territory for transgender people. The state has already enacted laws banning gender-affirming care for transgender youth and barring transgender athletes from participating in sports, while also refusing Medicaid coverage for transition-related care for individuals of any age. Last week, Ohio went even further, passing one of the nation’s harshest bathroom bans. The new law bars transgender youth and adults from using bathrooms matching their gender identity on college campuses, including private institutions. Over the weekend, the bill’s sponsor, when pressed on the practicality of enforcing such a ban against transgender youth, suggested that the legislature’s decision to prohibit gender-affirming care would make transgender youth “less of an issue” in bathrooms—a chilling implication that restricting care was meant to reduce the number of transgender youth in the state.

Representative Adam Bird, the sponsor of Ohio’s new transgender bathroom ban, appeared on CNN with Borris Sanchez and was asked about its impact on transgender students. Sanchez pressed him: “What about the concerns of transgender students who feel that it’s a difficult time for them to find privacy when they have to use the bathroom for a gender they don’t identify with… it can trigger harassment in most cases, what would you say to those folks?”

Bird responded, “Certainly the concern there is real, I understand that. I think there may be the practical offshoot of this legislation will mean there will probably be more construction across Ohio of single-use restrooms,” despite the law containing no provisions requiring such construction. He then added, “But then there’s also the point that in Ohio, we passed a bill that said we were not going to allow chemical castration or gender mutilation surgery anymore for those under 18, so I think that will become less of an issue over time,” suggesting that the state’s prohibition on gender-affirming care for minors would lead to fewer transgender youth in Ohio, effectively reducing the population impacted by the bathroom ban.

You can watch the exchange here, first reported by senior reporter at The Independent Justin Baragona:

The statement is alarming, given what is known about the devastating impact of gender-affirming care bans on transgender people. A recent CDC study revealed that 25% of transgender youth have attempted suicide in the past year, many requiring medical intervention. Likewise, a landmark study in the prestigious journal Nature Human Behavior demonstrated that anti-trans laws causally increase suicide attempts among transgender youth by as much as 73% in certain states. When Bird says transgender youth would “become less of an issue,” it’s hard not to interpret his remarks as either celebrating or at least callously acknowledging this grim reality.

The statement echoes sentiments expressed during an earlier Twitter space meeting between Ohio and Michigan Republicans, where they discussed strategies for targeting transgender people through legislation. In that meeting, Representative Gary Click, author of several anti-trans bills in Ohio, openly confirmed that the “endgame” of their proposed laws was to “stop this for anyone,” referring to gender-affirming care at any age. Click elaborated on the approach, stating, “That’s a very smart thought there. I think what we know legislatively is we have to take small bites… We have to take one bite at a time, do it incrementally.”

A more charitable interpretation of Bird’s words is the assumption that transgender youth will cease to be transgender if they cannot access gender-affirming care. This sentiment was echoed throughout the campaign in rhetoric about school officials "transitioning" students, with Trump himself making the outlandish claim that schools would perform sex-change operations on cisgender youth and send them home as a different gender—a claim both absurd and unfounded, particularly given the strained budgets of school nurses and the total lack of evidence. Even under this interpretation, however, denying medical transition does not make transgender youth cisgender; it forces them to endure untreated gender dysphoria, often with devastating consequences.

Ohio’s bathroom ban takes effect on February 25th, giving transgender people in the state just 90 days to figure out how to navigate schools and college campuses under the new restrictions. Transgender students and faculty will still exist—they will simply face heightened scrutiny, harassment, and the impossible task of planning around facilities that now legally exclude them. If transgender people do become “less of a problem,” it won’t be because these laws erased their identities; it will be because they were forced to flee the state or endure far worse consequences.

This article was downloaded from https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/ohio-rep-ending-trans-care-will-make at Dec 9, 2024 at 6:20 PM EST.

Breaking: SJSU Will Play In Final After 10th Circuit Rules Allegedly Trans Player Can Play

ERIN REED | NOV 29, 2024, 12:08 PM EST | SOURCE

The team advanced after Boise State University pulled out. They will play Colorado State or San Diego State University, both of whom played San Jose State University earlier in the season.

SJSU Volleyball

San Jose State University is heading to the Women’s Volleyball Final after the 10th Circuit Court denied an appeal to ban the team from competing over allegations that it has a transgender player. Boise State, which had already forfeited a regular-season match against San Jose State under political pressure, doubled down by refusing to take the court in the semifinals. Boise State’s forfeit decision earlier in the year came after several Idaho state representatives pressured the school through email.

Notably, the athlete at the center of the controversy has never publicly stated her gender identity or her assigned sex at birth. Despite this, she has been the target of anti-trans rhetoric throughout the season, with opponents using her alleged identity to fuel calls for bans.

A complaint filed by Brooke Slusser, her teammate who she roomed with for over a year, highlights the athlete’s height of 6'1". Some conservative leaning papers have latched onto this: Must Read Alaska describes the athlete as "a physically imposing transgender player" who "is 6'1" and towers over opposing teams." However, a quick glance at the San Jose State University (SJSU) website shows that 7 out of 25 players on the team are 6 feet or taller. Additionally, 11 of Boise State’s players exceed 6 feet in height, with many taller than the athlete.

San Jose State University released the following statement: "In this time of Thanksgiving, we are especially thankful for those who continue to engage in civil and respectful discourse. We celebrate and support all of our students, including our student-athletes as they compete for our community on this holiday weekend. While we are disappointed in Boise State's decision, our women's volleyball team is preparing for Saturday's match and looks forward to competing for a championship."

San Jose State now moves forward to face either Colorado State or San Diego State University, both of which competed against San Jose earlier this season without issue. The final match will take place on Sunday, Dec. 1, at 6 PM ET.

For in-depth analysis and daily coverage of LGBTQ+ news, consider subscribing to Erin In The Morning at www.erininthemorning.com/subscribe.

You can read the 10th Circuit’s decision here.

This article was downloaded from https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/breaking-sjsu-will-play-in-final at Dec 9, 2024 at 6:20 PM EST.

Governor DeWine Signs Trans Bathroom Ban That Includes Private Colleges In Ohio

ERIN REED | NOV 27, 2024, 11:53 AM EST | SOURCE

The law is the first anti-trans one to pass in the aftermath of the 2024 election, and comes as Republicans are pushing bathroom bans in congress.

Mike DeWine // CC BY 4.0

On Wednesday, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine signed SB104 into law, banning transgender individuals from using bathrooms that align with their gender identity. Under this new law, trans women will be forced to use men’s restrooms and trans men will be required to use women’s restrooms if gender-neutral facilities are unavailable. The law’s passage marks a significant escalation in anti-transgender legislation, applying to individuals of all ages and extending to colleges and universities, including private institutions known for their high LGBTQ+ enrollment. It also mirrors the recent controversy in Congress, where Speaker Mike Johnson has declared that Congresswoman Sarah McBride will be banned from women’s restrooms on Capitol grounds. As the first anti-transgender law passed following the 2024 election, SB104 signals a troubling development in the national battle over transgender rights.

The Ohio bathroom ban faced significant hurdles in its initial form but was ultimately revived by tying it to the College Credits Plus Act, a popular bill designed to help dual-enrolled students earn college credits. The new law states that “no institution of higher education shall knowingly permit” transgender individuals to use restrooms aligning with their gender identity. Unlike earlier anti-transgender laws that primarily targeted youth, this bill expands its scope to include colleges and universities—both public and private—and applies to transgender people of all ages. Its reach extends beyond students to affect visitors, faculty, and anyone present on college property, marking a significant escalation in the breadth of anti-trans legislation.

There was speculation about whether Governor Mike DeWine would sign the legislation, given his previous vetoes of a transgender sports ban and a gender-affirming care ban in Ohio. Those vetoes were ultimately overridden after significant pressure from prominent Republican figures, including Donald Trump, who pressured breakaway Republicans to force the measures into law. This time, however, DeWine chose to avoid a similar conflict, quietly signing the bathroom ban into law without issuing a signing statement.

House Minority Leader Allison Russo delivered a pointed critique of the new law, questioning its relevance to the everyday challenges faced by Ohioans: “Bathroom bans don’t lower food, prescription, and gas prices, nor do they have any measurable effect on protecting women from perpetrators of violence and sexual abuse. Laws attacking the trans community are simply a distraction from the repeated inability of Ohio’s Republican leaders to solve the complex issues driving Ohio’s poor rankings in economic prosperity, education, population growth, and health.”

Russo’s remarks echo those of Congresswoman Sarah McBride, who is also facing a bathroom ban as such policies gain prominence in political discourse targeting transgender individuals. McBride has endured relentless hostility from her colleague, Representative Nancy Mace, who has posted hundreds of tweets about her over the past few days, misgendering McBride and implying that her presence in women’s restrooms poses a danger of sexual assault.

McBride shared similar words to Representative Russo when asked about her own situation, stating, “I've had conversations with colleagues in the Democratic caucus already that- that span diversity of thought about how the party should engage on a whole host of issues. But I think we are all united that every single American deserves equal rights. I think we are all united that attempts to attack a vulnerable community are not only mean spirited, but really an attempt to misdirect. Because every single time we hear the incoming administration or Republicans in Congress talk about any vulnerable group in this country, we have to be clear that it is an attempt to distract. It is an attempt to distract from what they are actually doing.”

Though these and other Democrats have framed anti-trans bills as a distraction, Republican actions tell a different story. Many state legislatures, along with Donald Trump’s recent presidential campaign, have made targeting transgender people a central focus. In the past two years, over 1,000 bills aimed at the LGBTQ+ community have been filed, and Republicans poured over $215 million into anti-trans ads. Early actions in Congress and states like Ohio suggest that these bills are not a sideshow—they are the main event.

In Ohio, many transgender people will now face the challenge of navigating bathroom laws while simply trying to get from class to class. Colleges like Antioch—a private institution with a predominantly queer student body—must grapple with how they could possibly enforce such a law. Meanwhile, on a national level, some Republicans are pushing for even stricter bathroom bans, with proposals that could extend to airports like Dulles and Reagan, as well as all federal buildings, further complicating the daily lives of transgender Americans.

Ohio’s new law will take effect in 90 days.

This article was downloaded from https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/governor-dewine-signs-trans-bathroom at Dec 9, 2024 at 6:20 PM EST.

New York Times Journalist Says Solution For Trans Rights Is To Be Nicer To JK Rowling

ERIN REED | NOV 26, 2024, 2:24 PM EST | SOURCE

The latest New York Times article interviews transgender leaders to argue transgender rights will come through giving up on sports and being nicer to anti-trans campaigners like Rowling.

In a recent, discourse-eliciting article on transgender rights, The New York Times’ Jeremy Peters pushes arguments that a “confrontational approach” is detrimental to advancing transgender rights. Peters interviews figures like Rodrigo Heng-Lehtinen, director of Advocates for Transgender Equality, and Mara Keisling, founder of the National Center for Transgender Equality and one of the subjects in the extreme anti-trans ads run by Trump. The piece echoes arguments from political pundits and Democratic representatives like Seth Moulton, who have suggested that Democrats should scale back their advocacy over transgender rights. Notably, the article begins by defending someone Peters believes has faced excessive “unsparing criticism” on trans issues: J.K. Rowling, a high-profile anti-trans activist who has denied that trans people were targeted in the Holocaust and referred to a transgender journalist as “a man… cosplaying.”

The piece states, “To get on the wrong side of transgender activists is often to endure their unsparing criticism,” before immediately citing two individuals seemingly presented as undeserving of such criticism. The first is Democratic Congressman Seth Moulton, who, Peters notes, “expressed concern about transgender athletes competing against their young daughters.” The second is J.K. Rowling, painted as merely “an author who disagrees with denying any relationship between sex and biology.”

Of course, Representative Moulton faced backlash not just for expressing “concern about transgender athletes,” but for fueling fear after stating that he didn’t want his daughters “getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete” and claiming that Democrats “spend too much time trying not to offend anyone." As for Rowling, she has denied that transgender people were ever targeted in the Holocaust, dismissing the burning of books from the Institute of Sexology—the first major Nazi book burning and a pivotal moment in trans history—as “a fever dream.” Since then, Rowling has become a firebrand for anti-trans policies, referring to a transgender journalist as “a woman cosplaying” and publicly agreeing with individuals using slurs to describe transgender people.

The article has sparked significant discussion within the transgender community, fueled by its content and remarks from leaders of pro-transgender organizations. Heng-Lehtinen is quoted saying, “We have to make it OK for someone to change their minds… We cannot vilify them for not being on our side. No one wants to join that team,” a statement made in response to what the author frames as “all or nothing voices within their coalition.” These reportedly include criticism of misgendering and so-called “policing language” around terms like male and female. Meanwhile, Keisling cites boycotting Harry Potter and opposing bans on trans athletes in high-level sports as positions that may be “unreasonable.” These remarks have ignited post-publication disagreement, particularly among those concerned about ceding ground on transgender rights.

It remains unclear to what extent Keisling and Heng-Lehtinen, prominent figures in the transgender community, align with the New York Times article on issues like Rowling and transgender sports, or whether those topics were shoehorned in by the author. For example, it is uncertain if Heng-Lehtinen’s call to “make it OK for someone to change their minds” extends to figures like J.K. Rowling, who openly misgenders transgender people, or if this framing is a rhetorical flourish by the Times—a publication often criticized for editorial choices that lean toward anti-trans interpretations.

The transgender community is increasingly wary of figures perceived as compromising on transgender rights. Congressman Seth Moulton has suggested a compromise involving restrictions on transgender athletes in exchange for healthcare rights, though he has not provided specifics on this proposal. This raises concerns about whether immediate concessions, such as limiting sports participation, are being made in hopes of future promises like the Equality Act, which may never materialize. Similarly, political commentator Jon Favreau of "Pod Save America" has attributed electoral losses to activists pressuring Democratic candidates to “publicly embrace unpopular positions,” including support for transgender healthcare for inmates.

One thing is certain though: allowing space for people like JK Rowling would mean an increase in anti-trans hostility within the Democratic Party, an action that is unlikely to improve their electoral chances… and while organizations push for better policy, allowing and promoting a regression on rights does not have many positive results to show for in US history.

Update: Advocates for Transgender Equality have released a statement calling the quotes “taken out of context,” and emphasizing the organization will refuse to cede ground to those targeting transgender people.

Yesterday, Advocates for Trans Equality (A4TE) Execu􀆟ve Director, Rodrigo Heng-Lehtnen, was quoted out of context in a New York Times story, and he released the following statement…

“Yesterday, New York Times ran an article in which I was quoted as saying, ‘We have to make it OK for someone to change their minds,’ and ‘We cannot vilify them for not being on our side. No one wants to join that team.’ Because my quotes were taken out of context, I’d like to clarify what I meant. Those statements were regarding how to persuade every day, undecided people in the public, not people who have already taken actions to oppose our equality…

For nearly a decade, trans advocates have been holding the line against thousands of an􀆟-trans state bills and vile rhetoric to prevent the erosion of hard-fought progress. Now, more than ever, we need to use every tool we have because we cannot afford to cede any ground to anti-equality forces. And we are prepared to confront this period of uncertainty and hardship with the work our community relies upon.”

See their full statement here:

2024 11 27 A4te Response To Nyt Article

584KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

This article was downloaded from https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/new-york-times-journalist-says-solution at Dec 9, 2024 at 6:20 PM EST.

Table of Contents

Erin in the Morning: 2024 Dec 9

All articles

First Major Congressional Fight Over Trans Military Family Members Expected This Week

Nancy Mace Calls Trans People A Slur After Sit-Ins In Capitol Bathrooms

Amy Coney Barrett Surprised By History Of Cross-Dressing Laws Targeting Trans People

New French Guidelines Recommend Trans Youth Care, Denounce "Wait-And-See" Approach

Ohio Rep: Ending Trans Care Will Make Trans Youth "Less Of An Issue"

Breaking: SJSU Will Play In Final After 10th Circuit Rules Allegedly Trans Player Can Play

Governor DeWine Signs Trans Bathroom Ban That Includes Private Colleges In Ohio

New York Times Journalist Says Solution For Trans Rights Is To Be Nicer To JK Rowling