- All articles

All articles

- Veterans Group Urges States To Pass Protective Policies In Response To Trump Trans Bans

- Some Tennessee Libraries Shut Down For “Emergency Closure” Over Transgender Books

- Michigan State Medical Society Greenlights Anti-Trans Hate Group Genspect to Teach Trans Medicine

- Continuing Resolution And Shutdown Compromise Contains No Anti-Trans Riders

- WSU Suspends Hate Group's Medical Courses; Coalition Says Make It Permanent

- 6th Circuit Rules Cis Students May Bully Trans Students By Repeatedly Misgendering Them

- SCOTUS Rules Against Trans People's Passport Gender Markers In Shadow Docket Ruling

- DHS Wants to Make Some Immigrants and Visitors Take a DNA Sex Test

- "A Stunning Rebuke Of Anti-Trans Politics"—Dems Win Elections Nationwide Despite Anti-Trans Ads

- New Poll: Voters Prefer Democratic Candidates Approach To Trans Rights Over Republicans

- The Lavender Ledger: Your Strategic LGBTQ+ Reader By Erin In The Morning

Veterans Group Urges States To Pass Protective Policies In Response To Trump Trans Bans

S. BAUM | NOV 13, 2025, 7:54 PM EST | SOURCE

Trans veterans are being let go without a safety net. Here&#8217;s what your state can do about it.

2017.07.29 Stop Transgender Military Ban, Washington, DC - Wikimedia Commons

Roughly 3,500 newly discharged transgender service members have been forced out of their jobs and stripped of health and housing benefits by the federal government. Now, a coalition of veterans’ groups are waging a campaign to demand that states step in to provide a safety net.

“Most veterans have about a year to plan a transition from active duty to being a veteran, and they get the benefit of a whole constellation of different programs,” Luke Schleusener, CEO of Out in National Security (ONS), told Erin in the Morning. “None of these people are getting that because of the way the executive order is being written and implemented by the Trump Administration.”

ONS, along with the Modern Military Association of America, Service Women’s Action Network, Minority Veterans of America, and SPARTA, have created the Transgender Veterans Toolkit, providing trans service members, veterans, and their allies and loved ones with a roadmap for more local action.

The Department of Defense is “the nation’s largest employer,” according to a now-archived report from the General Services Administration and the Office of Management and Budget. It’s not clear how many current and former service members are trans, but in 2014, the Williams Institute estimated the number was just under 135,000 people. At the same time, these numbers are hard to come by—and getting harder as the federal government takes steps to erase trans people from demographic data.

Michael Haley, a staff attorney with GLAD Law, said the withdrawal of benefits was part of “the general cruelty in attacking transgender people.”

The toolkit from the ONS-led coalition offers model proposals for state governments and agencies to enact without needing permission from the White House. “These recommendations are non-legislative, cost-effective, and executable within 90 days using existing state authority,” the toolkit says. Schleusener added that individuals can call their governor or their state equality office to voice support for the provisions.

Sample policies include a 2024 Maryland Medicaid Bridge Pilot program that reduced coverage lapses for recently separated veterans, a Massachusetts initiative that reserved state-funded supportive housing units for LGBTQIA+ veterans, and a 2022 Utah policy that streamlines the transfer of veterans’ out-of-state work credentials.

However, advocates also emphasized that trans veterans and service members are in for the long haul. Even if a more sympathetic figure won the presidency, some policies—such as the proposed ban on trans women competing on women’s military sports teams—are passed through Congress. This enshrines the anti-trans animus into law, a more permanent fixture than an executive order.

Meanwhile, earlier this week, a group of 17 Air Force members impacted by the anti-trans military ban sued the Trump Administration for rescinding their pensions after they were forced to retire early.

“Ripping away the retirements we have earned is a betrayal of the sacrifices made by servicemembers and our families,” said lead plaintiff Master Sergeant Logan Ireland in a press release. “We should not be thrown into economic hardship or made to feel our years of service are regarded by our country as meaningless.”

This article was downloaded from https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/veterans-group-urges-states-to-pass at Nov 14, 2025 at 11:29 AM EST.

Some Tennessee Libraries Shut Down For “Emergency Closure” Over Transgender Books

S. BAUM | NOV 11, 2025, 7:52 PM EST | SOURCE

It is unclear how many other libraries have or may need to temporarily shut their doors in order to cull their children&#8217;s sections for gender-subversive content.

Photo by Priscilla Du Preez 🇨🇦 on Unsplash

If you tried to go to libraries in Smyrna and Murfreesboro, Tennessee, sometime this week, you might not be able to access them; instead, you’ll be greeted by an “EMERGENCY CLOSURE” notice, The Murfreesboro Daily News Journal reports.

“In order to meet the new reporting requirements from the TN Secretary of State’s Office, this library will be closed from 11/10/25 to 11/15/25 and reopen Monday, 11/17/25, for the purpose of reviewing inventory,” one poster read.

The “review” of books targeted any books that touch upon gender and gender identity, as per several letters that went out to library systems across the state. It is unclear how many other libraries have or may need to temporarily shut their doors in order to cull their children’s sections for gender-subversive content.

An emergency closure notice posted to the Smyrna Public Library. Photo courtesy of Scott Broden and The Murfreesboro Daily News Journal.

“Library decisions should be shaped by the values of the library’s community,” reads an October letter from the Tennessee Secretary of State Tre Hargett. “Libraries, however, often use state and federal funding that is typically facilitated through the Tennessee State Library & Archives to purchase materials for their collections.”

“It is my responsibility and the responsibility of the State Librarian and Archivist to ensure that any recipient of state or federal funds understands that it must comply with all applicable federal and state laws and grant agreements,” the letter continues.

This provision is what evidently triggered the closures. Regional library systems across the state are now tasked with determining the compliance of books with Tennessee’s “age-appropriateness” laws, as well as federal law and President Donald Trump’s slate of anti-trans executive orders.

“I cannot allow the actions of one library to potentially harm and impact over 200 other libraries throughout the state,” Secretary Hargett writes.

Notably, however, there are no federal bans or restrictions on books about transgender people. Nor are local library book bans addressed in Executive Order 14168, alternately titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.”

State law does remove certain “sexual” or “violent” books from school libraries, but that does not seem to apply to the County libraries at hand.

Rutherford County Facebook Post

Rutherford County Library System Board Chairman Cody York told The Murfreesboro Daily News Journal that the closures were a necessary evil in order to assuage impressionable children from the perils of “gender.”

“The library board has a legal and moral responsibility to protect children, and that would include gender confusion and protecting them from materials that lead them to gender confusion,” York said, adding that a book on “transgenderism” may remain in the library so long as the book is not construed as seeking to “promote it.”

The move sparked outcry from members of the community. Many locals said they were confused and blindsided by the closures on the library’s social media.

“So, the library has to remove books from the entire community so that some up tight busybodies don’t have to parent their own children?” one user said.

“The president has NO authority over local libraries,” said another Facebook commenter on The Journal’s post. “Stop being spineless bootlickers.”

A letter addressed to Linebaugh Public Library in Murfreesboro specifically singled out at least one title, Fred Gets Dressed, by Peter Brown. The children’s book follows a young boy who, as one might surmise from the title, gets dressed. But after trying on some of his dad’s clothes, the child realizes that items from Mom’s closet might be more his speed.

It’s a New York Times best-seller, and it has been rebuked by gender extremists.

The temporary library closures come amidst hundreds of book bans being issued across the United States in conjunction with anti-LGBTQ legislative pushes. Tennessee, especially, is rife with book banning controversies. One such recent effort came from Sumner County and its recently-appointed Board Member Riley Gaines Barker, an ex-college athlete turned anti-trans activist.

The full letter sent by the Secretary of State to the Linebaugh Public Library can be viewed below.

This article was downloaded from https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/some-tennessee-libraries-shut-down at Nov 14, 2025 at 11:29 AM EST.

Michigan State Medical Society Greenlights Anti-Trans Hate Group Genspect to Teach Trans Medicine

S. BAUM | NOV 10, 2025, 5:46 PM EST | SOURCE

Anti-trans rhetoric&#8212;sponsored by Moms for Liberty, and brought to you by Genspect&#8212;could be coming to a clinician near you via CME.

Michigan State Medical Society // Wikimedia Commons

Trans people are “anti-art,” according to Helen Joyce, a high-profile activist with the UK-based anti-trans group Sex Matters. She says this is why trans rights groups produce art that is “ugly”; the trans community seeks to normalize “unhealthy and unnatural body types.”

“If you insist on quality and beauty,” meanwhile, “then you’re doing something that’s inimical to trans bullshit,” Joyce said. “That’s something you can all do, without anyone even noticing that’s what you’re doing.”

Joyce is standing at the podium in Lisbon, Portugal, at a 2024 conference for Genspect, which is a Southern Poverty Law Center-designated anti-LGBTQ hate group. Video of that speech is now being used in an official capacity to train medical providers here in the United States.

The courses are provided through CME programs—continuing medical education, which is a requirement for health care providers to maintain their licensure. The idea behind CME is that physicians will use it to stay up-to-date on emerging scientific protocols and topics.

Joyce is not a doctor; she’s a mathematician-turned-journalist and “gender critical” campaigner. And while it’s not unheard of for non-physicians to be featured in CME programming, there are still national guidelines to ensure that the content meets certain standards of scientific validity and balance. Erin in the Morning’s review of Genspect’s CME materials cast a light on what appears to have been an open secret: SPLC-designated hate groups are peddling CME courses and using them to spread dangerous rhetoric to care providers. It’s unclear how far the programs reach, but Joyce’s original YouTube video—available for anyone to watch for free, sans credits—has been viewed almost 40,000 times as of this writing.

Providers who want to receive credit for the CME courses must sign up for Genspect’s Substack to the tune of $180 per year.

The Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the national oversight body for CME programming, says it accredits local partners—such as medical schools or state medical organizations—to certify CME-appropriate materials. The burden falls on these partner institutions to ensure the content is up to par, a spokesperson for ACCME told Erin in the Morning. (There is a confidential complaint form where anyone, regardless of their credentials, can raise concerns about CME content.)

If a CME activity does not adhere to ACCME’s standards, then the host institution could see their accreditation revoked. In Genspect’s case, the primary accredited party appears to be the Michigan State Medical Society (MSMS), which did not reply to requests for comment, nor did Genspect.

Joyce’s video on “gender ideology” (a term Human Rights Watch dubbed a far-right Christian “conspiracy myth”) spends a full three minutes, out of a 30 minute lecture, on Joyce’s disdain for trans aesthetics. She further calls on the audience to use “child gender medicine and sports” as “inroads” in order to eliminate trans rights at large.

“This is why the puberty blockers ban is so important,” she told the dimly-lit conference room in Lisbon, referencing the policy that has brought much of the gender-affirming care in the United Kingdom to a screeching halt—in part due to advocacy by groups like Sex Matters and Genspect.

“There’s not that many people in the UK who’ve ever got puberty blockers. It’s a small number,” Joyce said. “The point of them is they’re a rhetorical and argumentative device.”

Helen Joyce speaks to a Genspect conference in 2024.

Genspect markets Joyce’s lecture as a lesson on “how ideological beliefs have replaced objective standards,” and that viewers “will come away with a deeper understanding of how to defend evidence-based practice.”

On YouTube, Genspect issues a disclaimer on its videos that speakers do not necessarily reflect its views as a group. But its other materials strike a similar chord. In addition to Joyce’s “gender ideology” lecture, Genspect’s CME modules advertise topics like a series on “medical scandals” that compare gender-affirming care to mass lobotomies; a glowing feature on the American College of Pediatricians, yet another SPLC-designated hate group, founded when it split from the American Academy of Pediatrics to target same-sex couples’ rights; plus a panel for “ROGD Awareness Day,” a reference to the discredited effort to invent a diagnosis of “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria,” which positions transness as a “social contagion.”

The ROGD panel was sponsored by at least four other SPLC-designated hate and/or extremist groups—including Moms for Liberty, known for inserting conservative extremism into public schools and stoking political violence.

Moms for Liberty, Courage is a Habit, Awake Illinois, and Our Duty are all SPLC-designated extremist and/or hate groups that sponsored the “ROGD Awareness Day” event, which can be seen in this opening graphic from the video.

“It’s essential that clinicians are informed about the full range of approaches their patients may be using, and that CME is a place where clinicians can learn about and debate controversies,” ACCME guidelines read. “Thus, CME providers need to develop activities that encourage free and rigorous scientific discourse—while ensuring that faculty do not advocate or promote unscientific treatments and that clinical care recommendations are based on established scientific consensus.”

In late October, Erin in the Morning published an article about how another Genspect-adjacent SPLC-branded hate group, the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM), had its own online CME courses certified through the medical school at Washington State University. After complaints were filed, ACCME launched an inquiry into the matter, and SEGM’s CME courses were suspended. The content was evidently removed from the WSU portal, but remains available elsewhere. (Genspect, like SEGM, denounced its “hate group” classification.)

Genspect’s CME offerings are more established. They’ve been selling the courses since at least 2024, but much of its contents are also free to view on Substack or YouTube.

CAPTION: Some of Genspect’s other CME course offerings.

The series is just one part of a years-long international campaign against human rights using weaponized pseudoscience. The Southern Poverty Law Center found this practice has become increasingly commonplace; that prejudice and hate has been dressed up in lab coats and given undue credulity through trusted institutions; and that the scientific method and industry best practices are, in some cases, being swapped with anti-trans propaganda.

“In recent years, anti-LGBTQ+ pseudoscience has become a prominent component of anti-LGBTQ+ policy networks who want to disguise their bigoted motivations with seemingly objective language,” an SPLC report said. “These networks help translate anti-LGBTQ+ pseudoscience into legislative and legal campaigns to limit bodily autonomy and LGBTQ+ people’s human rights.”

This article was downloaded from https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/michigan-state-medical-society-greenlights at Nov 14, 2025 at 11:29 AM EST.

Continuing Resolution And Shutdown Compromise Contains No Anti-Trans Riders

ERIN REED | NOV 10, 2025, 11:59 AM EST | SOURCE

The shutdown package must still get through the House of Representatives, and further fights on appropriations are expected by the new Jan 30 deadline.

Photo by Darren Halstead on Unsplash

On Sunday night, news broke that a group of Democratic senators had reached a compromise with Republicans to reopen the government. Shortly afterward, the Senate voted, with seven Democrats and independent Senator Angus King supporting a package that would fund the government through January 30 and fully fund some agencies for the entire 2026 fiscal year through a series of “minibus” bills. The deal drew swift criticism: Democrats secured no guarantee of extending Obamacare premium subsidies, and wins for core Democratic priorities were nonexistent. One community watching especially closely was transgender Americans, who have been directly targeted by multiple FY26 appropriations bills on the House side. EITM can confirm that the compromise continuing resolution and the accompanying minibus packages contain no anti-transgender provisions.

The deal breaks down as follows: the government will remain open through January 30 under a short-term, “clean” continuing resolution. Republicans agreed to allow a vote on extending Obamacare premium subsidies, though that vote is widely expected to fail. Separately, full-year funding bills have been negotiated for Veterans Affairs and Military Construction, the Legislative Branch, and Agriculture, with SNAP benefits funded for the entire fiscal year. Once January 30 arrives, Democrats and Republicans may find themselves in the same standoff again, either negotiating full FY26 appropriations or passing another stopgap measure to avoid a lapse in funding. Another shutdown remains possible, though its impact would be narrower, as some federal agencies will already be funded for the year under this agreement.

Democrats voting for the agreement include Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, Sen. Jacky Rosen of Nevada, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, Sen. Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, and Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia. Sen. Angus King of Maine, an Independent caucusing with democrats, also voted for the agreement. The agreement must now be fully accepted by the House for the government to reopen, with a vote expected in the next 48 hours.

Notably, the House versions of the VA/MilCon, Legislative Branch, and Agriculture funding bills did contain anti-LGBTQ+ riders before the shutdown. If the House accepts the Senate’s compromise, it would mark some of the first major defeats for those provisions in the FY26 budget fight. The House bills included measures allowing discrimination against LGBTQ+ people under the guise of religious liberty as well as a prohibition on Pride flags from being flown at many federal buildings, and earlier versions of the VA/MilCon bill had a prohibition on funds going to gender affirming care. If the House ultimately adopts the Senate’s compromise versions for the full fiscal year, these riders would be dead—at least for these portions of the federal budget—until late next year.

However, the deal does not touch the most consequential appropriations bill on the House side—the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education package, which remains loaded with sweeping anti-transgender riders but has not been negotiated yet. The most alarming provision would ban “any federal funds” from supporting gender-affirming care at any age. If passed and interpreted broadly—and consistent with how Trump has already wielded his power against youth care—it could strip federal funding from hospitals that treat transgender people, a threat that has already pushed 21 hospitals to end care for trans youth, even in blue states. At minimum, the measure would end Medicaid and Medicare coverage for transgender healthcare nationwide. The House Labor/HHS/Ed bill for FY26 also carries other provisions: gutting protections for queer foster children, imposing a nationwide sports ban, and prohibiting Pride flags in public buildings. This bill was not part of the minibus package, which means that it may come up for a fight on January 30th when the short term continuing resolution ends.

Ultimately, the fate of these provisions—and of the compromise itself—hinges on what the House does next. Punchbowl News reports that GOP leaders expect the chamber to take up the package on Wednesday or Thursday. If they accept the Senate’s language, the government will reopen soon after. But at least one Democrat who voted for the continuing resolution, Senator Jeanne Shaheen, has already warned that another shutdown could follow on January 30th if Democrats are dissatisfied with the appropriations negotiations that unfold during this short-term funding window.

This article was downloaded from https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/continuing-resolution-and-shutdown at Nov 14, 2025 at 11:29 AM EST.

WSU Suspends Hate Group's Medical Courses; Coalition Says Make It Permanent

S. BAUM | NOV 7, 2025, 3:24 PM EST | SOURCE

The fallout comes after Erin in the Morning reported that WSU extended medical credentials to content from SEGM&#8212;an SPLC-branded hate group.

WSU // Public Domain

A coalition of over 30 LGBTQ organizations and allied institutions in Washington and Idaho has launched a campaign calling for greater transparency and accountability after Washington State University allowed the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM), a Southern Poverty Law Center-designated hate group, to offer continuing medical education (CME) credits to medical providers. Taking CMEs is essential for healthcare workers to retain their licensure.

An open letter was penned by Spectrum Center Spokane, and co-signed by groups like Spokane Pride, the Greater Seattle Business Association (Washington’s LGBTQ+ & Allied Chamber of Commerce), and local chapters of the NAACP and Planned Parenthood. This is in addition to the hundreds of people who have already written to WSU leadership about the fiasco as of Nov. 5, Spectrum told Erin in the Morning.

“Trans patients deserve better,” said KJ January, Spectrum’s co-executive director, in a press release. “For some licensed practitioners, continuing education is the only opportunity to learn about transgender healthcare. Accrediting a group that promotes anti-trans propaganda is a disservice to both the medical community and the patients they serve.”

The video series was offered under a joint providership between the university and SEGM.

“The harm of disinformation and bias in medical settings is not hypothetical,” the letter reads. Indeed, a 2022 joint survey from the KFF and the Washington Post found that nearly half of trans adults said they have had to interact with health care providers who know “not too much” or “nothing at all” about trans people. Nearly one in five trans adults reported they had been refused health care from a provider due to their gender identity.

“In a time when transgender individuals face elevated rates of suicidal ideation and barriers to competent care, accrediting courses that spread disinformation is not only unethical but also endangers lives,” the open letter continues.

Among the group’s demands is a mandatory gender-affirming care curriculum for medical students and “stronger review and oversight procedures to ensure all CME partnerships align with evidence-based medicine, professional ethics, and WSU’s own non-discrimination and equity policies.”

The letter comes after Erin in the Morning reported on the CME and SEGM’s SPLC-branded hate group status. Complaints were subsequently filed with the national Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME). The university temporarily suspended the group’s CME credentials as the ACCME conducts an inquiry to determine whether the content violated the organization’s requirements for scientific integrity and balance. It could also weigh in on whether the videos engaged in ACCME-outlined best practices for responsibly broaching “controversial” medical topics in CMEs.

Washington State University did not immediately provide further comment upon request from Erin in the Morning. SEGM, for its part, has contested the SPLC’s hate group label.

See the letter from SPECTRUM Center here:

This article was downloaded from https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/wsu-suspends-hate-groups-medical at Nov 14, 2025 at 11:29 AM EST.

6th Circuit Rules Cis Students May Bully Trans Students By Repeatedly Misgendering Them

ERIN REED | NOV 7, 2025, 12:43 PM EST | SOURCE

The Circuit also seemed to suggest that trans students could not misgender their bullies in return.

6th Circuit Court in Cincinatti, Ohio // Wikimedia Commons

In a devastating ruling for transgender students across Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has held that cisgender students may repeatedly and intentionally misgender their transgender peers in the classroom, striking down an Ohio school board’s policy that prohibited the practice. The court drew no distinction between accidental misuse and targeted, ongoing harassment, concluding that even that conduct does not “materially and substantially” disrupt school activities—the threshold that would allow schools to intervene. In doing so, the panel elevated what it called “biological pronouns,” a term with no prior grounding in U.S. caselaw. The decision also seems to bar transgender students from misgendering their cisgender bullies in return. The result is a newly recognized right to bully transgender students in the 6th Circuit, achieved by reframing their identities as a “political topic” rather than acknowledging the clear and harmful disruption this conduct causes.

The case centers on Parents Defending Education, a far-right organization that has made opposition to transgender rights, critical race theory, and inclusive curricula central to its mission. In 2023, the group contacted the Olentangy Local School District to ask whether students could intentionally misgender their transgender peers, claiming the practice was part of their religious beliefs. The district responded that such conduct would constitute harassment and abuse, but offered accommodations that would allow the student to avoid speaking about their transgender classmates altogether. The parents rejected those accommodations and instead filed suit months later.

After losing in district court—where the judge found that “intentional misgendering has the effect of creating a hostile environment for transgender students on account of their gender identity and therefore causes substantial disruption”—the group appealed, only to lose again before a three-judge panel. They then sought an en banc review, which brings the case before the full 6th Circuit rather than the customary panel. The full court, two-thirds of which was appointed by Republicans, reversed the earlier decisions and held that using what it called “biological pronouns” does not amount to “substantial disruption,” even when the misuse is deliberate and repeated.

Majority Opinion, p.

The majority argued not only that intentional and repeated misgendering does not substantially disrupt transgender students’ classroom experience, but that prohibiting such behavior would actually harm the cisgender students engaged in it. “So forcing these individuals to choose between either violating their scientific and religious beliefs or facing punishment for adhering to those beliefs can cause ‘mental and psychological harm’ to them,” the decision reads. This is in spite of copious evidence submitted in court detailing the harmful effects of bullying and misgendering transgender students, which range from depression and anxiety to suicidal ideation.

Majority Opinion, p24

The majority also carved out a special status for what it termed “biological pronouns,” a phrase it never meaningfully defines. At one point, the judges confronted the obvious implication of their logic: that if intentional misgendering is protected, a student could just as easily target a cisgender peer—for example, calling a smaller or weaker cisgender boy “she” and using she/her pronouns to mock him. To wave this away, the court claimed that such conduct would amount to “ridiculing the physical characteristics” of a cisgender student, while declining to extend the same protection to transgender students subjected to identical behavior. Under this reasoning, a cisgender student may intentionally and repeatedly misgender a transgender classmate, but the transgender student would be barred from responding in kind.

Majority Opinion, P29

In its conclusion, the majority wrote that it was compelled to rule in favor of the students engaging in intentional misgendering because, in its view, “The use of ‘he’ or ‘she’ will lead most to believe that the identified person is male or female,” characterizing the district’s policy against repeated misgendering as a form of “thought control.”

Majority Opinion, P33

The ruling means that public schools across the 6th Circuit—Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee—may now see their policies protecting transgender students from intentional, repeated misgendering struck down under the same logic. The consequences for trans students could be severe, effectively creating a state-sanctioned carveout that grants peers a newly protected right to bully them. It is also yet another blow from the 6th Circuit, which has increasingly become a central battleground in the legal fight over transgender rights, including its Skrmetti decision that greenlit bans on trans youth medical care. And this ruling arrives amid a cascade of court setbacks for queer and trans people this week alone, including a drag ban decision from the 5th Circuit and a national Supreme Court ruling allowing the Trump administration to impose new restrictions on transgender passports.

This article was downloaded from https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/6th-circuit-rules-cis-students-may at Nov 14, 2025 at 11:29 AM EST.

SCOTUS Rules Against Trans People's Passport Gender Markers In Shadow Docket Ruling

ERIN REED | NOV 6, 2025, 4:20 PM EST | SOURCE

The administration has previously indicated it could revoke some trans people's passports if it got this ruling.

Photo by Global Residence Index on Unsplash

In a ruling issued from the shadow docket, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority sided with the Trump administration on an emergency request on transgender passport restrictions—a process historically reserved for true national crises but increasingly deployed to fast-track administration policies. In the unsigned decision, the majority asserted that banning transgender people’s correct gender markers on passports did not constitute differential treatment, while disregarding clear violations of the Administrative Procedure Act and brushing aside the obvious unconstitutional animus embedded in the executive order that enabled the ban in the first place. The ruling leaves transgender people who obtained updated passports under the prior policy in limbo—and all transgender travelers facing profound uncertainty—as the administration now weighs further actions against their documents under a Court that has signaled it is willing to greenlight those efforts.

The passport gender marker ban, which began early in the Trump administration, was blocked after judges found the executive orders behind it—orders that branded transgender people “wrong,” “dishonorable,” and “socially coercive”—were likely discriminatory on their face and in violation of US law. The passport policy had sown chaos in the transgender community, leaving some passport applications frozen for months. Following lower court decisions blocking the passport policy, the Trump administration began allowing transgender people to update their passports if they signed an attestation document, while assuring that those who had their passports updated before the policy was enacted that they would be allowed to use those passports until they expire.

In the prior rulings, judges noted obvious harms: forcing transgender people to travel with documents that out them exposes them to violence and imprisonment in countries hostile to their existence. Judges also noted the daily risks at home—outing in interactions using their passport as identification, harassment, denial of services—as well as the profound mental toll of being forced to carry papers that misstate who you are. The harms, they concluded, are not speculative but immediate and potentially severe for the plaintiffs.

In this new shadow docket ruling, the conservative court has determined with virtually no analysis that the policy did not stem from animus towards transgender people and was not arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA.

“Displaying passport holders’ sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth—in both cases, the Government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment. And on this record, respondents have failed to establish that the Government’s choice to display biological sex “lack[s] any purpose other than a bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group.” Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U. S. 667, 705 (2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). Nor are respondents likely to prevail in arguing that the State Department acted arbitrarily and capriciously by declining to depart from Presidential rules that Congress expressly required it to follow.” reads the ruling.

Justice Jackson, joined by justices Kagan and Sotomayor, issued a blistering dissent:

“The Court ignores these critical limits on its equitable discretion today. The Government seeks to enforce a questionably legal new policy immediately, but it offers no evidence that it will suffer any harm if it is temporarily enjoined from doing so, while the plaintiffs will be subject to imminent, concrete injury if the policy goes into effect.

The Court nonetheless fails to spill any ink considering the plaintiffs, opting instead to intervene in the Government’s favor without equitable justification, and in a manner that permits harm to be inflicted on the most vulnerable party. Such senseless sidestepping of the obvious equitable outcome has become an unfortunate pattern. So, too, has my own refusal to look the other way when basic principles are selectively discarded.

This Court has once again paved the way for the immediate infliction of injury without adequate (or, really, any) justification. Because I cannot acquiesce to this pointless but painful perversion of our equitable discretion, I respectfully dissent.”

Now, with a Supreme Court signaling its willingness to greenlight nearly any administration policy targeting transgender people, the future of transgender Americans’ passports has become a critical inflection point. Previously, the administration suggested it would allow passports updated under the pre-Trump policy to remain valid. But for passports issued during the injunction, applicants were required to sign an attestation form—and a State Department source tells EITM that the department has been collecting data from those attestations. In earlier court filings, the administration indicated that if it secured a ruling like the one it just received from the Court, it would move to revoke those passports. Whether it will follow through is uncertain.

Legal experts tell EITM that this ruling could open the door to a broader assault on transgender identification policies nationwide. Real ID requirements could be weaponized against transgender people’s gender markers even in blue states. Red states could feel emboldened to enact harsher ID restrictions of their own. And with the Court signaling that transgender people may receive no meaningful equal-protection scrutiny, states may have wide latitude to pass discriminatory laws with little fear of judicial intervention—a shift that could unleash a wave of anti-trans policies backed by the Court’s implicit approval.

The ACLU posted a response to the ruling on Bluesky, stating, “This decision undermines the freedom of transgender, non-binary, and intersex people to have our IDs reflect who we are. This fight isn’t over. Our case challenging President Trump’s executive order will still move forward. In the meantime anyone who applies for a new, corrected, or replacement passport, or for a passport renewal, is at risk of having their passport issued bearing the sex they were assigned at birth.”

This article was downloaded from https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/scotus-rules-against-trans-peoples at Nov 14, 2025 at 11:29 AM EST.

DHS Wants to Make Some Immigrants and Visitors Take a DNA Sex Test

S. BAUM | NOV 5, 2025, 2:44 PM EST | SOURCE

The public comment period for the proposal has begun.

Photo by Warren Umoh on Unsplash

A proposed change to a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) rule could impose “biological sex” DNA testing on millions of immigrants and Americans as part of the Department’s mass biometric surveillance program—which also includes retinal scans, voice capture, and more.

In addition to the obvious human rights violations posed by the changes—which, among other things, would amend policy to allow children to be targeted by biometric surveillance—it would put a target on the back of trans, intersex, and gender nonconforming people, as well as women and trans people of color, citizens and non-citizens alike.

“Under this proposed rule, DHS may also require, request, or accept raw DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) or DNA test results, which include a partial DNA profile, as evidence of genetic relationship, to determine eligibility for immigration and naturalization benefits or to perform any other functions necessary for administering and enforcing immigration and naturalization laws,” the proposal reads. “Where evidence of a relationship is required, this rule proposes to grant DHS express authority to require, request, or accept raw DNA or DNA test results (which include a partial DNA profile) from relevant parties such as applicants, petitioners, derivatives, dependents, and beneficiaries, to prove or disprove the existence of a claimed, or unclaimed, genetic relationship or biological sex.”

For example, it says, “DHS may request DNA evidence to prove or disprove an individual’s biological sex in instances where that determination will impact benefit eligibility.”

The policy as proposed doesn’t have many safeguards for privacy or constitutionality—the government can retain someone’s DNA profile indefinitely. It could further be weaponized to deny bids for immigration or asylum, out trans and intersex women being held in detention (who may not even know they are intersex otherwise), and track individuals in perpetuity through “continuous vetting.”

The DHS claims these changes will enable immigration officials to perform more thorough background checks, prevent fraud, and enforce immigration and naturalization laws. But it’s not only new arrivals that could be forcibly subjected to this treatment—longtime residents, naturalized citizens, and the families and sponsors of immigrants may also have to submit to sex tests.

Alejandra Caraballo, an instructor at Harvard’s cyber law program who has also provided legal aid to trans immigrants, called the initiative “dystopian.” When paired with troubling innovations in surveillance tech and attempts to criminalize trans people’s very existence, she says, the devastating potential of this rule, if finalized, cannot be overstated.

“You can create a digital Panopticon,” Caraballo said.

There is a 60-day public comment period ahead of any formal implementation.

The policy in question falls under the guidelines for the Collection and Use of Biometrics by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. It’s a revitalized version of a 2020 proposal from Donald Trump’s first term empowering Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as well as Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to launch dragnet surveillance campaigns.

That original bid was struck down by the Biden Administration before it could take effect, but Trump 2.0 brought it back with added provisions greenlighting sex testing via buccal swab—in other words, testing the chromosomal composition of DNA in a person’s saliva.

These biometrics can be used to trace and quash dissent, surveil marginalized communities, and add massive obstacles to trans, intersex and gender nonconforming people entering the country, including asylum seekers who may be fleeing gender-based violence abroad. If you can’t prove you’re a “biological woman” to the White House’s liking, then your ability to file for relief under, say, the Violence Against Women Act, may become more difficult.

Depending on a variety of factors, such as a person’s country of origin, this kind of sex testing can cost a small fortune. Not to mention the implications of such a policy ahead of the 2028 Olympic Games in Los Angeles—if the U.S. government can grant or deny visa requests based on its own unscientific and inexact definitions of “biological sex,” then it can functionally control who gets to compete. And we know from decades of sports scandals that sex testing is also weaponized against cisgender women, and disproportionately, women of color. Think: Imane Khelif, Caster Semenya, or one of the eight women who suddenly found out they were intersex during sex testing at the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, likely ending their athletics careers.

Even before the DHS added the new sex testing provision, countless medical groups, politicians, legal scholars, and human rights organizations decried Trump’s biometric powergrab. During the public comment process for the 2020 version of the policy, the American Medical Association argued that authorities lack “the capability to collect and process DNA at the appropriate scientific level to ensure evidence-based standards,” and that it further robs women and children fleeing violence of “informed, non-coercive consent.”

Meanwhile, The National Center for Lesbian Rights chimed in that the rule tramples privacy rights and “empowers mass and unprecedented surveillance” of the LGBTQ community. And the Congressional Committee on Homeland Security said the rule would increase the already staggering backlog of immigrant applicants under the DHS while endangering the personal data of millions.

“Like any authoritarian regime, they want control over the population, and they feel like they need control over the identification of every single person, in a multitude of ways, so that they can be tracked,” Caraballo told Erin in the Morning. “There’s no more anonymity.”

This article was downloaded from https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/dhs-wants-to-make-some-immigrants at Nov 14, 2025 at 11:29 AM EST.

"A Stunning Rebuke Of Anti-Trans Politics"—Dems Win Elections Nationwide Despite Anti-Trans Ads

ERIN REED | NOV 4, 2025, 11:58 PM EST | SOURCE

As election results poured in on Tuesday night, it became clear that Democrats were winning nationwide against anti-trans opponents.

In 2024, as election results rolled in and it became clear that Trump had won, LGBTQ+ people across the country braced for what was coming. Their fears proved justified. Over the past year, the administration has unleashed a wave of anti-trans policies and overseen a political landscape flooded with ads vilifying transgender people. Yet tonight told a different story. As race after race was called, Democrats won by wide margins in contests where anti-trans rhetoric dominated the campaign—a stunning rebuke of anti-trans politics. For all the centrist consultants urging Democrats to “moderate” or sacrifice transgender people for political gain, the results suggest the opposite: conviction, not capitulation, is what wins.

The first major call of the night came in Virginia, where Democrat Abigail Spanberger quickly secured victory. By 11 p.m. Tuesday, she led Republican opponent Winsome Earle-Sears by 13 points—a decisive margin that underscored the collapse of Earle-Sears’s central campaign strategy. According to MSNBC, more than 57 percent of Republican ad spending in the Virginia governor’s race went toward anti-transgender messaging, an effort to revive what the party saw as a winning wedge issue in 2024. But a year later, with prices still high and anti-trans rhetoric solving none of voters’ real problems, the strategy appeared to backfire. Voters seemed tired of the culture wars and frustrated that Republicans remained fixated on scapegoating instead of governing.

The victories in Virginia extended far beyond the governor’s race. Up and down the ballot, Democrats scored sweeping wins. Attorney General candidate Jay Jones clinched his race, and by 11 p.m. Tuesday, Democrats were leading in 65 House of Delegates contests. If those results hold, it would mark one of the largest Democratic gains in any state legislature in recent years—positioning Virginia to advance new pro-LGBTQ+ protections and progressive legislation under a governor willing to sign them into law.

In local races, pro-trans candidates also scored key victories. In Loudoun County—targeted by the Trump administration with the revoking of federal funds after it defied Trump threats and upheld restroom access for trans students—voters rejected anti-trans candidate Santos O. Muñoz Melendez. Instead, they elected April Moore Chandler and Ross C. Svenson, both supporters of transgender rights. Svenson, who previously represented trans students in legal battles against Governor Glenn Youngkin’s policies, will now help shape education policy from within the school board itself, ensuring continued protection for transgender students. Similar results played out in nearby Arlington County, where Monique A. “Moe” Bryant, another pro-trans candidate, won in a landslide.

Similar results followed in New Jersey, where Democrat Mikie Sherrill won decisively. Her opponent, Jack Ciattarelli, ran on a platform centered around the forced outing of transgender students and opposition to gender-affirming care for youth. His campaign flooded the airwaves with ads accusing Sherrill of “pushing LGBTQ+ identities on children,” reviving the familiar moral panic that queer visibility is somehow dangerous. The tactic backfired badly. By 10 p.m. Tuesday, Sherrill led by 13 points in a race once expected to come down to the wire—a clear rejection of anti-trans campaigning.

In the biggest news of the night, New York City elected Zohran Mamdani as mayor—a stunning rebuke to his opponents’ anti-trans rhetoric and a victory built on an unapologetically pro-trans platform. Just weeks before Election Day, Mamdani released a two-minute ad set to transgender artist SOPHIE’s “It’s OK to Cry,” pledging to declare New York an LGBTQIA+ sanctuary city, restore millions in transgender health care funding cut under federal pressure, and deploy “hundreds of lawyers” to fight the administration’s anti-LGBTQ+ agenda. His commitment to the community was no campaign pivot; it has been central to his public life. Long before his candidacy surged, Mamdani stood on the front lines protesting NYU Langone’s decision to drop transgender youth care in deference to the Trump administration—a stance that now defines his mandate as mayor.

In a rousing speech, Mamdani proclaimed after his victory, “In this new age that we make for ourselves, we will refuse to allow those who traffic in division and hate to pit us against each other. In this moment of political darkness, new York will be the light. Here we believe in standing up for those we love, whether you are an immigrant, a member of the trans community, one of the many black women Trump has fired from a federal job, a single mom waiting for the cost of groceries to go down, or anyone else with your back against the wall. Your struggle is ours too.”

These were only some of the many other results that clearly broke for Democrats and in favor of transgender rights on Tuesday. In Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court maintained its 5-2 majority, with the Philadelphia Gay News reporting each justice that was retained had a record of protecting LGBTQ+ Pennsylvanians and in California, Proposition 50 wins, which will almost certainly result in a handful of anti-LGBTQ+ Republicans losing their seats in the state.

Taken together, the results amount to a resounding rejection of the notion that Democrats must soften—or stay silent—on LGBTQ+ rights to win. The Republicans who built their campaigns on anti-trans and anti-queer messaging, convinced that bigotry was a shortcut to victory, will not be holding the levers of power. And despite the pleas of centrist consultants urging Democrats to abandon transgender people, it was those who targeted them who saw their electoral fortunes collapse on Tuesday night. For the first time in years, transgender Americans can take a breath and see evidence that the wave of anti-transgender panic aimed at them may finally be receding.

This article was downloaded from https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/a-stunning-rebuke-of-anti-trans-politicsdems at Nov 14, 2025 at 11:29 AM EST.

New Poll: Voters Prefer Democratic Candidates Approach To Trans Rights Over Republicans

ERIN REED | NOV 3, 2025, 10:03 AM EST | SOURCE

A new poll, which surveys voters who will partake in the New Jersey and Virginia governor races, found that voters were not impressed with Republican anti-trans positions.

Left: Mikie Sherrill // Wikimedia Commons, Right: Abigail Spanberger // Wikimedia Commons

Two pivotal governor’s races—New Jersey and Virginia—will be decided by voters tomorrow, and in both contests, transgender rights have taken center stage. Republican candidates have poured millions into anti-trans and anti-LGBTQ+ ads, betting that fearmongering will move the electorate. But a new poll from AtlasIntel, a well-rated pollster, suggests the strategy may be backfiring: both Democratic candidates are leading, and voters say they prefer the Democrats’ approach to transgender rights over their Republican opponents’.

According to the poll, when voters were asked who has a better approach to transgender rights, Democratic Virginia gubernatorial candidate Abigail Spanberger led Republican opponent Winsome Earle-Sears by double digits, with 53 percent favoring her stance. In New Jersey, Democratic candidate Mikie Sherrill also holds a commanding lead on the issue—52 percent of voters prefer her approach compared to just 32 percent for Republican Jack Ciattarelli. Both Democrats are ahead overall, with Spanberger polling at +9 and Sherrill narrowly leading at +1.

Snapshot of Spanberger - Earle-Sears Virginia Poll

Snapshot of Sherrill - Ciattarelli New Jersey Poll

This poll is the latest in a string of surveys suggesting that anti-transgender attacks may be losing traction this election cycle. The ads flooding the airwaves this year closely resemble those that dominated the 2024 races—some even reuse the same talking points. Virginia’s Winsome Earle-Sears has borrowed lines verbatim, including “Spanberger is for they/them, not us,” in a reprise of the bathroom panic playbook. Once credited (somewhat questionably) as an effective wedge in 2024, the strategy now appears to be running out of steam.

One Democratic strategist, Jesse Ferguson, said in an interview with the Washington Post, “They’re falling into the fundamental mistake of trying to refight the last war and not realizing that the battlefield has changed… They can no longer attack Democrats as focused on other issues and pretend that they are so focused on cost of living when most people feel betrayed on cost of living.”

A Republican strategist, Alex Conant, appeared to agree, stating “They realize it’s hard to beat a moderate Democrat in Virginia in this environment so they have to convince voters that she’s a radical… That’s hard to do with someone who is a fairly known commodity and is spending a ton of money on her own talking about her moderate record.”

Virginia will be a critical state to watch in 2025—it was, after all, ground zero for the GOP’s modern anti-transgender playbook. When Glenn Youngkin won the 2021 governor’s race, he did so on a platform steeped in anti-trans rhetoric, buoyed by the rise of “parental rights” activists whose campaigns centered less on parents’ rights for trans kids and more on restricting those kids’ existence. Youngkin’s victory convinced many Republicans that the strategy could work in purple states, setting off a nationwide wave of copycat campaigns built on the same manufactured moral panic.

The poll results arrive at a moment when “centrist” groups are urging Democrats to distance themselves from transgender rights—and when even figures like California Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom are wavering. Yet if these numbers show anything, it’s that abandoning trans people isn’t just morally indefensible; it’s politically misguided. The idea that winning requires exclusion has never been true, and the voters here seem to know it. Standing for equality remains both the right stance and the popular one, especially when compared against Republican opponents stances, who have built their campaigns on fear and hatred of transgender people.

This article was downloaded from https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/new-poll-voters-prefer-democratic at Nov 14, 2025 at 11:29 AM EST.

The Lavender Ledger: Your Strategic LGBTQ+ Reader By Erin In The Morning

ERIN REED | NOV 2, 2025, 10:14 AM EST | SOURCE

Our service for the week to cover the news we did not carry but do not want you to miss.

Inside EITM’s newsroom, we track dozens of breaking stories weekly—tips flood in from readers embedded in state houses, school boards, and organizations across the country. Our sources are everywhere. But here’s our strategic dilemma: while we’re chasing down original leads and working our exclusive angles, critical intelligence is moving through other channels that deserves your attention.

Consider this your weekend drop.

These are the stories that crossed our desk, passed our vetting, and matter to LGBTQ+ people—reported by trusted outlets while we were deep in our own investigations. Think of it as our intelligence-sharing agreement with you: the essential coverage from across the LGBTQ+ media landscape that we’ve been monitoring, verified, and deemed operationally significant.

This week’s important releases:

Crisis calls among Oklahoma LGBTQ+ youth drop after Ryan Walters quit his job as the state’s schools chief, by Christopher Wiggins

Sometimes, good things really do happen. One of the nation’s most virulently anti-LGBTQ+ education officials, Ryan Walters, has resigned—and the impact was immediate. Walters built his career on demonizing queer and transgender students, injecting a brand of far-right Christian fundamentalism into public education that left no space for difference or dignity. His tenure was defined by chaos and cruelty, culminating in the death of transgender student Nex Benedict, whose story sparked national outrage. Now, in the wake of his departure, something remarkable has occurred: youth crisis calls from LGBTQ+ people have dropped by 36 percent.

Sumner County fails to pass transgender book ban after fourth attempt, by Craig Shoup, Katie Nixon, and Angele Latham

Sumner County, a populous suburb of Nashville, has failed for the fourth time to pass a ban targeting transgender-related materials in its public libraries. The latest effort followed the appointment of Riley Gaines—one of the country’s most outspoken anti-trans activists—to the county library board. Her first meeting proved as unproductive as her past crusades: the board deadlocked in a 4–4 tie, blocking the measure once again. The proposal would have barred even adult access to books mentioning transgender people and banned interlibrary loans of such materials. Perhaps the fifth attempt will fare better—but history suggests otherwise.

Grokipedia’s ‘transgender’ page is an absolute dumpster fire, by Amelia Hansford

You may have missed it, but Elon Musk has launched a conservative, AI-generated knockoff of Wikipedia—and it’s every bit as disastrous as it sounds. Among its worst entries is the one on transgender people, which reads less like an encyclopedia and more like a manifesto of misinformation. The article buries credible research showing the benefits of gender-affirming care while elevating discredited pseudoscience that frames transition as harmful. It describes being transgender as a choice and a social contagion, citing debunked studies like Lisa Littman’s and the controversial Cass Report as evidence. In some sections, it even rewrites LGBTQ+ history, recasting figures like Marsha P. Johnson as side characters rather than trailblazers.

This article was downloaded from https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/the-lavender-ledger-your-strategic-b6b at Nov 14, 2025 at 11:29 AM EST.

Table of Contents

Erin in the Morning: 2025 Nov 14

All articles

Veterans Group Urges States To Pass Protective Policies In Response To Trump Trans Bans

Some Tennessee Libraries Shut Down For “Emergency Closure” Over Transgender Books

Michigan State Medical Society Greenlights Anti-Trans Hate Group Genspect to Teach Trans Medicine

Continuing Resolution And Shutdown Compromise Contains No Anti-Trans Riders

WSU Suspends Hate Group's Medical Courses; Coalition Says Make It Permanent

6th Circuit Rules Cis Students May Bully Trans Students By Repeatedly Misgendering Them

SCOTUS Rules Against Trans People's Passport Gender Markers In Shadow Docket Ruling

DHS Wants to Make Some Immigrants and Visitors Take a DNA Sex Test

"A Stunning Rebuke Of Anti-Trans Politics"—Dems Win Elections Nationwide Despite Anti-Trans Ads

New Poll: Voters Prefer Democratic Candidates Approach To Trans Rights Over Republicans

The Lavender Ledger: Your Strategic LGBTQ+ Reader By Erin In The Morning