A town in Maine voted Monday night to continue to comply with the state’s Human Rights Act, allowing a transgender grade-schooler to play on a girls’ recreational basketball team.
The 3–2 vote at the November 10 special meeting of the St. George, Maine, Select Board came after a group of parents submitted a letter at last week’s regular monthly meeting raising their “deep concern” about the St. George Parks & Recreation Department’s youth basketball program allowing a transgender girl to play on its third and fourth grade girls’ team.
“While we understand that Maine law allows children to participate [in sports] based on how they identify, we also believe that these policies have created a very uncomfortable situation for many families in our community,” local parent Emily Chadwick read from the group’s letter during the public comment portion of the November 4 meeting.
In video from the meeting, Chadwick and others who spoke initially seemed to go out of their way not to mention the trans child or indeed to even specify the reason for their “concerns” or to ask the board to take any specific action beyond considering “how these policies impact all the children involved, not just one.”
Noting that the group seemed to be referencing the Maine Human Rights Act (MHRA), which bars discrimination based on gender identity, Select Board Chair Jane Conrad told those in attendance that their proper course of action would be “to lobby your legislators” to change the law. The Select Board members, she explained, “are in charge of enforcing the law.”
The board ultimately decided to schedule the November 10 special meeting to discuss whether it would continue to comply with the law and to allow for the broader community to weigh in.
Monday night’s meeting opened with Colin Hurd, deputy counsel for the Maine Human Rights Commission, clarifying precisely what is covered by the state human rights law.
“Under the Maine Human Rights Act, it’s illegal to prevent a person from playing sports on the team of their gender identity solely because their sex assigned at birth is different from the people that they will be playing with or against,” Hurd explained. “Furthermore, under the same provision, it’s illegal to prevent a person from using the restroom or locker room that most closely corresponds with their gender identity. So, the law, the Human Rights Act, is pretty unequivocal on these matters.”
Following the meeting’s hour-long public comment period, Conrad once again reiterated that it is not the board’s role “to determine or debate the law,” adding that in recent years, the board has consistently voted to follow state law, even when individual members disagreed with it. While she encouraged board members to voice their objections to the law, she also expressed her hope that they would vote to follow it, as not doing so would likely invite a lawsuit that they would lose, “and the taxpayers of our town would have to foot the bill.”
While some speakers at both the November 4 and 10 meetings seemed to reference a February 5 executive order banning transgender women and girls from women’s and girls’ sports (which neither changed nor established any law) and his administration’s interpretation of Title IX, Conrad noted that no court has ruled so far that any federal law supersedes the Maine Human Rights Act. She also noted that attempts in the state’s most recent legislative session to restrict trans people’s participation in sports have all been rejected.
As Them notes, the dust-up in St. George follows Maine’s Democratic Gov. Janet Mills’s months-long feud with the president over her refusal to comply with his anti-trans executive order. Mills has argued that the state’s human rights law prevents her from banning trans athletes from women’s and girls’ sports. However, as Them notes, several school districts in the state have nonetheless opted to institute trans sports bans in compliance with the executive order. An anti-trans advocacy group recently launched a new effort to amend the MHRA via ballot referendum so that it is in compliance with the presidential administration’s anti-trans interpretation of Title IX.
A Virginia transportation security officer is accusing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security of sex discrimination over a policy that bars transgender officers from performing security screening pat-downs, according to a federal lawsuit.
The Transportation Security Administration, which operates under DHS, enacted the policy in February to comply with President Donald Trump’s executive order declaring two unchangeable sexes: male and female.
According to internal documents explaining the policy change that The Associated Press obtained from four independent sources, including two current and two former TSA workers, “transgender officers will no longer engage in pat-down duties, which are conducted based on both the traveler’s and officer’s biological sex. In addition, transgender officers will no longer serve as a TSA-required witness when a traveler elects to have a pat-down conducted in a private screening area.”
Until February, TSA assigned work consistent with officers’ gender identity under a 2021 management directive. The agency told the AP it rescinded that directive to comply with Trump’s Jan. 20 executive order.
Although transgender officers “shall continue to be eligible to perform all other security screening functions consistent with their certifications,” and must attend all required training, they will not be allowed to demonstrate how to conduct pat-downs as part of their training or while training others, according to the internal documents.
A transgender officer at Dulles International Airport, Danielle Mittereder, alleges in her lawsuit filed Friday that the new policy — which also bars her from using TSA facility restrooms that align with her gender identity — violates civil rights law.
“Solely because she is transgender, TSA now prohibits Plaintiff from conducting core functions of her job, impedes her advancement to higher-level positions and specialized certifications, excludes her from TSA-controlled facilities, and subjects her identity to unwanted and undue scrutiny each workday,” the complaint says.
Mittereder declined to speak with the AP but her lawyer, Jonathan Puth, called TSA’s policy “terribly demeaning and 100% illegal.”
TSA spokesperson Russell Read declined to comment, citing pending litigation. But he said the new policy directs that “Male Transportation Security Officers will conduct pat-down procedures on male passengers and female Transportation Security Officers will conduct pat-down procedures on female passengers, based on operational needs.”
Other transgender officers describe similar challenges to Mittereder.
Kai Regan worked for six years at Harry Reid International Airport in Las Vegas, but retired in July in large part because of the new policy. Regan, who is not involved in the Virginia case, transitioned from female to male in 2021 and said he had conducted pat-downs on men without issue until the policy change.
“It made me feel inadequate at my job, not because I can’t physically do it but because they put that on me,” said the 61-year-old, who worried that he would soon be fired for his gender identity, so he retired earlier than planned rather than “waiting for the bomb to drop.”
Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward — a legal organization that has repeatedly challenged the second Trump administration in court — called TSA’s policy “arbitrary and discriminatory,” adding: “There’s no evidence or data we’re aware of to suggest that a person can’t perform their duties satisfactorily as a TSA agent based on their gender identity.”
DHS pushed back on assertions by some legal experts that its policy is discriminatory.
“Does the AP want female travelers to be subjected to pat-downs by male TSA officers?” Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin asked in a written response to questions by the AP. “What a useless and fundamentally dangerous idea, to prioritize mental delusion over the comfort and safety of American travelers.”
Airport security expert and University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign professor Sheldon H. Jacobson, whose research contributed to the design of TSA PreCheck, said that the practice of matching the officer’s sex to the passenger’s is aimed at minimizing passenger discomfort during screening. Travelers can generally request another officer if they prefer, he added.
Deciding where transgender officers fit into this practice “creates a little bit of uncertainty,” Jacobson said. But because transgender officers likely make up a small percent of TSA’s workforce, he said the new policy is unlikely to cause major delays.
“It could be a bit of an inconvenience, but it would not inhibit the operation of the airport security checkpoint,” Jacobson said.
TSA’s policy for passengers is that they be screened based on physical appearance as judged by an officer, according to internal documents. If a passenger corrects an officer’s assumption, “the traveler should be patted down based on his/her declared sex.” For passengers who tell an officer “that they are neither a male nor female,” the policy says officers must advise “that pat-down screening must be conducted by an officer of the same sex,” and to contact a supervisor if concerns persist.
The documents also say that transgender officers “will not be adversely affected” in pay, promotions or awards, and that TSA “is committed to providing a work environment free from unlawful discrimination and retaliation.”
But the lawsuit argues otherwise, saying the policy impedes Mittereder’s career prospects because “all paths toward advancement require that she be able to perform pat-downs and train others to do so,” Puth said.
According to the lawsuit, Mittereder started in her role in June 2024 and never received complaints related to her job performance, including pat-down responsibilities. Supervisors awarded her the highest-available performance rating and “have praised her professionalism, skills, knowledge, and rapport with fellow officers and the public,” the lawsuit said.
“This is somebody who is really dedicated to her job and wants to make a career at TSA,” Puth said. “And while her gender identity was never an issue for her in the past, all of a sudden it’s something that has to be confronted every single day.”
Being unable to perform her full job duties has caused Mittereder to suffer fear, anxiety and depression, as well as embarrassment and humiliation by forcing her to disclose her gender identity to co-workers, the complaint says. It adds that the ban places additional burden on already-outnumbered female officers who have to pick up Mittereder’s pat-down duties.
American Federation of Government Employees National President Everett Kelley urged TSA leadership to reconsider the policy “for the good of its workforce and the flying public.”
“This policy does nothing to improve airport security,” Kelley said, “and in fact could lead to delays in the screening of airline passengers since it means there will be fewer officers available to perform pat-down searches.”
The Texas A&M University System’s board of regents will vote on Thursday on whether to prohibit faculty at its 12 universities from teaching “race or gender ideology” unless those lessons are pre-approved by each campus president or a delegate.
The proposal appears to be the first time that a Texas public university system offers definitions of what kind of instruction related to race and gender should not be permitted.
“Race ideology,” the draft of the proposal says, would encompass any concept that “attempts to shame a particular race or ethnicity” or “promotes activism on issues related to race or ethnicity rather than academic instruction.” The proposal would define “gender ideology” as “a concept of self-assessed gender identity replacing, and disconnected from, the biological category of sex.”
The policy does not say how the university would decide what constitutes “race ideology” or “gender ideology,” or what would happen if a faculty member is accused of violating the rule. A Texas A&M University System spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.
The regents’ Committee on Academic and Student Affairs will hear presentations and consider the proposed policy on Thursday morning, according to the agenda for the meeting. The full board of regents will take public testimony on the proposal and vote on it later that day. The meeting will be livestreamed and the public is invited to testify.
Leonard Bright, president of the Texas A&M Chapter of the American Association of University Professors, said faculty were not consulted on the proposed changes, which he called “a direct violation” of their expertise and freedom to teach.
“And if that’s the case, there’s just going to be a further black eye on higher education here in Texas,” he said.
Robert Shilby, special counsel for campus advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said the proposal would “invite unlawful censorship, chill academic freedom, and undermine the core purpose of a university,”
“Hiring professors with PhDs is meaningless if administrators are the ones deciding what gets taught,” he said. “Faculty will start asking not, ‘Is this accurate?’ but ‘Will this get me in trouble?’ That’s not education, it’s risk management.”
In a Monday email to faculty, Simon North, interim dean of Texas A&M’s College of Arts and Sciences, acknowledged that the proposal raised many questions about its implementation, “such as the criteria that will determine when course content is considered relevant, controversial, or inconsistent with a syllabus; the mechanisms by which course material would be approved and compliance evaluated; and the timing of implementation.” He added that he is working with the provost’s office to answer those questions and that he will seek input on the proposal from other leaders in the college and department heads.
“Approval of these revisions could have far-reaching implications for undergraduate education, and the scope of the implications will depend on the answers to these questions,” North said.
Faculty are already signaling they will show up in force to the regents’ meeting to push back against the proposal. Bright, a professor at Texas A&M’s Bush School of Government and Public Service, said professors are organizing testimony, drafting statements and coordinating with colleagues across Texas to oppose the revisions.
He said the policy would affect disciplines across the university — from political science and history to public service and biology — and that some faculty fear it would shift control over classroom content from faculty to administrators. He added that some of his colleagues believe the revisions are an attempt to “institutionalize indoctrination” and that if the proposed changes are approved, they will likely be challenged in court.
The proposed prohibition comes two months after the system’s College Station flagship fired Professor Melissa McCoul, whose discussion of gender identity in a children’s literature class was secretly recorded by a student and later circulated online, drawing fire from Republican lawmakers and ultimately toppling the university’s former president.
Since McCoul’s firing, other university systems have begun imposing their own restrictions on classroom content.
On Sept. 25, the Texas Tech University System instructed its faculty to ensure their courses comply with a federal executive order, a letter from Gov. Greg Abbott and a new state law that recognizes only two sexes. In the weeks that followed, Texas’ other public university systems — including the University of Texas, University of North Texas, Texas State and Texas Woman’s University — announced or began internal audits of their course offerings. All said they were acting to ensure compliance with state or federal law, though few detailed what they were looking for or what changes might follow.
No state or federal law prohibits instruction on race, gender or sexual orientation in universities. However, recent state legislation has put direct and indirect pressure on how universities implement policies related to race and gender.
In 2023, the Texas Legislature approved Senate Bill 17, which banned diversity, equity and inclusion offices and initiatives at the state’s public universities. Earlier this year, lawmakers approved Senate Bill 37, which gave governor-appointed university regents the final say on whether to approve new courses and prohibited lessons that “advocate or promote the idea that any race, sex, or ethnicity or any religious belief is inherently superior to any other.” An earlier version of the legislation would have required that college courses “not endorse specific public policies, ideologies or legislation,” but the proposal was narrowed down after pushback from professors who said such a restriction would lead to self-censorship and infringe on academic freedom.
The Texas A&M Board of Regents will also consider on Thursday a new policy that would bar faculty from teaching material “inconsistent with the approved syllabus for the course.” The clause mirrors the reason university officials gave McCoul for firing her. They said she refused to change her course content to match the catalog description, but McCoul and other faculty have countered that course descriptions are often broad and that professors are expected to design their own syllabi and teach according to their expertise.
McCoul has appealed her termination through the university’s Committee on Academic Freedom, Responsibility and Tenure, which concluded its hearing last week. The committee is expected to share a recommendation with interim university President Tommy Williams in the coming weeks on how to respond to McCoul’s appeal, but Williams is not obligated to follow it.
Up to an estimated $879 million in LGBTQ+ household and business income has left Missouri in recent years, as queer residents flee a hostile political environment, according to a recent analysis by the Movement Advancement Project (MAP).
The state lawmakers responsible for creating this financial drain were warned, the Missouri Independent reports.
For years, business organizations, advocacy groups, and individuals cautioned officials pushing discriminatory laws that the economic fallout would be one deleterious result.
Local officials and chambers of commerce raised red flags about impacts on workforce recruitment, employee retention, and the ability to lure businesses to the state.
Now, economic data is confirming those predictions.
“When people feel unwelcome or uncertain about their future in a community, they often take their skills and their families elsewhere,” Tracey DeMarea, executive director of the Mid-America LGBT Chamber of Commerce, told The Independent. “That loss affects our workforce, our businesses, and our shared sense of community.”
A 2023 Wells Fargo report revealed that states with bigger LGBTQ+ populations have higher rates of economic growth, while the inverse is also true.
Multiple surveys and studies show that LGBTQ+ people — young adults in particular — have moved or are considering moving from states hostile to LGBTQ+ rights. An estimated 3% of cisgender young people and 5% of all trans people have already fled red states.
The economic impact of ideological legislation on the broader community is often lost on the lawmakers pushing it, according to Naomi Goldberg, MAP’s executive director.
“The responsibility of lawmakers is to represent communities across the state, and when they pass laws that target already vulnerable communities, they should consider their actions,” she said. “When families choose to leave the state, the loss is not only in the vitality and diversity of the community, but also in the economic power and resources that families provide.”
One example of the warnings came in 2024, during a marathon hearing on multiple bills, including proposed rules covering restrooms in private businesses. Lobbyists stayed up late explaining to lawmakers that the bills were a threat to “free enterprise” and “business development.”
“Businesses want to ensure that people feel comfortable and safe in their workplaces,” Kara Corches, president and CEO of the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry, told committee members. “Their ability to recruit and retain talent is their top concern.”
Henry Eubank, governmental affairs coordinator for Greater St. Louis Inc., said that the discriminatory legislation before the committee depicted Missouri as unwelcoming.
“It sends a powerful negative signal to potential residents, investors, businesses, and workers,” he told lawmakers, “that the state of Missouri is not a place that they would want to visit, live, to do business, to start a business, or move their family.”
The last was the final straw for St. Louis restauranteur Rob Connoley, who is gay. He was a newly awarded James Beard finalist for his Ozark cuisine when he was in London representing Missouri at an international food festival not long ago.
“It felt egregious and awkward to be promoting a state in a region that was actively working against my own personal interests,” he told The Independent.
So Connoley packed up his kitchen and headed to Oregon.
“It made more sense for me to take my entrepreneurial skills and go to a community that I think would be more supportive of what I’m trying to accomplish,” he said.
Music superstar Chappell Roan has announced the launch of her organization devoted to supporting trans youth.
The Midwest Princess Project — a nod to her album, The Rise and Fall of a Midwest Princess — has already raised more than $400,000 through fundraising efforts at Roan’s recent pop-up shows.
“Those funds will be donated to incredible organizations making a positive impact for trans youth in their communities,” Roan wrote on social media when launching the project in late October.
The post named six organizations to which it has already donated: The Ali Forney Center and The Center in New York City, the GLO Center and The Center Project in Missouri, and the TransLatin@ Coalition and Trans Wellness Center in Los Angeles.
The TransLatin@ Coalition and The Ali Forney Center are some of the first beneficiaries. The project’s website says its goal is to “uplift trans youth and LGBTQ+ communities through action, care, and connection.”
The project’s launch is in keeping with Roan’s pledge to donate a portion of ticket sales from her tour to trans organizations. During a red-carpet interview at the Grammy Awards in early February, Roan acknowledged the state of transgender rights in the U.S. in just the first month of the current presidential administration.
“It’s brutal right now,” Roan said, “but trans people have always existed, and they will forever exist, and they will never, no matter what happens, take trans joy away, and that has to be protected more than anything.”
“I would not be here without trans girls,” she added. “So, just know that pop music is thinking about you and cares about you. And I’m trying my best to stand up for you in every way that I can.”
During a live show in October, she also opened up about how she struggles with fame but that it’s all worth it to be able to spread queer joy.
She said she has questioned why she continues in her career when it makes her feel so “left out in public” and “so awkward all the time,” but that the tour helped her realize exactly why she keeps going.
“I always felt, actually, ‘Why am I putting myself through this? If this is taking so much away from me, what is this for?’ Then I started doing shows again and it all made sense, it was to literally bring queer people joy,” she said.
“There [are] so many things in the world that are so ‘F**k you’,” she continued, “and then there is this. It’s the only thing that matters is joy anymore to me, and protecting that, and peace and safety. So, I hope you know that when you are here, you are safe, and I want you here. You can be whoever you are tonight. You’re cherished for everything that you are.”
She said protecting that joy is one of the most important things, and “even if you’re not queer, I hope you know that I include you.”
An incident at a gaming arcade and bar in the Chicago area recently had a transgender man and staff at odds over their definitions of safety and discrimination.
Lucien Bates, who is transgender and presents as alt-masculine with facial hair and piercings, was visiting Round1 Bowling & Arcade at the North Riverside Park Mall outside Chicago in September with his fiancé, when the pair decided to use the restroom before gaming.
Bates told the Windy City Times that he opted to use the women’s bathroom, where he said he feels more comfortable and less likely to be harassed.
“I typically feel safer in the women’s restroom, which I guess kind of bit me in the butt this time,” he said.
Before entering, Bates says he checked in with his fiancé and a friend to make sure they were okay accompanying him.
“It’s something that we have to think about often — making that decision about which one to go in, which one’s going to be safer,” Bates said of his bathroom choice.
Within minutes, a female security guard entered the restroom and told Bates, “You know you can’t be in here, right?”
The security guard refused to clarify what she meant, Bates said, and only kept repeating that Bates was “not supposed to be in there.”
“Eventually it got to the point where she was like, ‘You need to be in the bathroom that matches your ID,’” Bates said.
Bates refused to share his ID with the guard, he said, explaining that his fiancé had shown his own, which matched the restroom they were in.
After the group declined to leave, the guard then called for backup, Bates said, and three more security guards entered.
That’s when things started getting ugly.
“They just kept saying, ‘You should know what you’re doing is wrong,’ but they wouldn’t say it outright,” Bates recounted. “Eventually, they said it was dangerous for us to be in the restroom because children visit the facility.”
When Bates and his escorts did leave the restroom, they were confronted with another group of guards now stationed outside the door.
One of the guards “started just screaming in my face,” Bates said. “He just kept saying, ‘You’re going to get arrested,’ but wouldn’t tell me why. I was already on my way out, and now they’re threatening to arrest me — for what exactly?”
Bates and his fiancé decided to leave the arcade but returned to ask for a manager’s contact information to file a complaint.
They were immediately confronted by another staff member, who yelled, “What do you guys want? You have to be out of here,” Bates recalled.
When Bates started recording a video as they were escorted back outside, the manager showed up and told Bates the issue was “loitering.”
“That’s interesting, because I have not heard the word ‘loitering’ from anyone on your staff until right now,” he recalled telling her.
Bates told her the confrontation was “dehumanizing.” The manager responded, “Sorry this happened.”
By all appearances, the security team didn’t share that sentiment.
“Every security guard was smiling and waving cheerfully as we were leaving,” Bates said, providing a pic of the group doing just that.
The guards continued to watch them while Bates and his fiancé sat in his car outside the venue. Guards in cars drove by them several times.
Bates said he later filed complaints with both Round1 and the North Riverside Park Mall, and that a manager offered to add money to his arcade card.
In an emailed statement, a rep for Round1 said the company is “taking this matter very seriously, and that appropriate corrective measures have been taken.”
“Round1 does not tolerate discrimination of any kind — whether by or toward employees, guests, or third parties (such as security, vendors, or contractors),” the statement read. “This includes, but is not limited to, discrimination based on race, color, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, identity, religion, age, or disability.”
Despite those “corrective measures,” Bates is reluctant to return.
“They ruined my whole day,” the Dance Dance Revolution fan said.
“They ruined a place that I liked, and they had enough people who wouldn’t say anything to get away with what they did.”
A U.S. Court of Appeals just reversed a ruling made by a District Court judge in 2023, overturning his permanent injunction against Texas’ wide-reaching and vaguely worded drag ban, which the judge claimed infringed on First Amendment rights.
The plaintiffs in The Woodlands v. Paxton issued a joint statement, saying, “Today’s decision is heartbreaking for drag performers, small businesses, and every Texan who believes in free expression. Drag is not a crime. It is art, joy, and resistance — a vital part of our culture and our communities. We are devastated by this setback, but we are not defeated. […] We will not stop until this unconstitutional law is struck down for good.”
Texas S.B. 12 was signed into law in June 2023 by Gov. Greg Abbott (R) and was set to go into effect on September 1 of the same year. While the bill ostensibly made it a crime to provide “sexually oriented performances” in a commercial space, on public property, or in the presence of minors, the language of the bill and the rhetoric around it made it clear that it was intended to target drag shows in particular.
The law was quickly challenged by LGBTQ+ advocacy groups and drag groups, including The Woodlands Pride, Abilene Pride Alliance, and 360 Queen Entertainment. The case of The Woodlands v. Paxton went to U.S. District Court Judge David Hittner, who originally placed a temporary injunction on the law when plaintiffs’ arguments made it clear that the bill would impinge their First Amendment rights if it was allowed to go into effect. Hittner then doubled down by extending the injunction and then making it permanent in September 2023.
At the time, Hittner wrote that the bill “impermissibly infringes on the First Amendment and chills free speech,” while making it clear that he felt the bill discriminated on point of view, was overly broad, and vague. “Not all people will like or condone certain performances,” Hittner continued in his original decision. “This is no different than a person’s opinion on certain comedy or genres of music, but that alone does not strip First Amendment protection.”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit made a majority ruling today to reverse Hittner’s ruling and remanded the case back to his court. The justices declared that most of the plaintiffs in the case did not have the requisite standing to bring the lawsuit in the first place, as they found the performances of The Woodlands Pride and Abilene Pride insufficiently sexual to have a real risk of punishment under the law’s wording.
They now require that Hittner revisit the case, focusing only on the claims from 360 Queen Entertainment, whose performances include simulated sexual acts and include other features more likely to be targeted by S.B. 12. They are also requiring Hittner to make his new decision under the standard established in the Supreme Court case for Moody v. NetChoice, which set the precedent for First Amendment challenges to only be viable if the law is unconstitutional more than it is constitutional.
One of the Appeals Court judges partially dissented, presenting concerns that the decision “turns a blind eye to the Texas Legislature’s avowed purpose: a statewide ‘drag ban.’” In doing so, he highlighted the rhetoric used by Republicans during the bill’s passage, which clearly expressed their intent, regardless of the letter of the law.
Both Texas and many of its cities already have laws on the books that protect minors from witnessing sexually explicit performances. Gov. Abbott shared on X/Twitter an article titled “Texas Governor Signs Law Banning Drag Performances in Public,” adding the words “That’s right.” Similarly, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R) said it was to “ban children’s exposure to drag shows.” The author of the bill, state Sen. Bryan Hughes (R), provided “drag shows” as an example of the “sexually explicit performances” that would be prohibited.
While the intent is clear from the comments of those involved, the bill’s original text demonstrates the motivations that underpinned it. An earlier version of the bill has a line under the definitions of “features” in “sexual conduct” that includes “a male performer exhibiting as a female, or a female performer exhibiting as a male, who uses clothing, makeup, or other similar physical markers and who sings, lip syncs, dances, or otherwise performs before an audience.” That definition would include everything from Tom Holland’s Lip Sync Battle appearance to cosplayers.
The House Committee report from May 26, 2023, shows the line removed. Instead, the definition of “sexually oriented performances” is edited to include “exhibition of sexual gesticulations using accessories or prosthetics that exaggerate male or female sexual characteristics,” which clearly targets breast forms and packers common in drag shows.
The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled President Trump’s State Department can prohibit transgender Americans from listing their gender identity on their passports, for now.
It hands another legal victory for Trump in his efforts to eviscerate what his administration calls “gender ideology.” The Justice Department brought the emergency appeal after lower courts blocked the passport policy for being rooted in “irrational prejudice.”
“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,” the majority wrote in its unsigned ruling.
The ruling appeared to be along the court’s 6-3 ideological lines, though the justices do not have to publicly disclose their votes.
In dissent, the court’s liberals called the ruling “pointless but painful perversion.”
“Such senseless sidestepping of the obvious equitable outcome has become an unfortunate pattern,” wrote Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.
“So, too, has my own refusal to look the other way when basic principles are selectively discarded,” the dissent continued.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer called lower rulings blocking the administration’s policy “untenable,” casting them as infringing on Trump’s constitutional authority over foreign affairs.
“The President’s choice to revert to prior policy and rely on biological sex—a choice that bound the State Department—should be the last place for novel equal-protection claims or Administrative Procedure Act objections,” Sauer wrote in court filings.
The State Department policy requires passport holders to use their sex assigned at birth as their sex designation, prohibiting transgender people from matching it with their gender identity. The policy also removed the option for people to select “X,” leaving male and female as the only two options.
“This new policy puts transgender, nonbinary, and intersex people in potential danger whenever they use a passport,” American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) attorney Chase Strangio warned in court filings.
Strangio and the ACLU represent transgender and nonbinary Americans who are suing over the State Department’s changes.
They argue it violates federal law and constitutional equal protection rights, convincing a federal district judge appointed by former President Biden and later the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to halt the policy.
It marked the latest case implicating Trump’s Day 1 executive order that cracks down on what he calls “gender ideology” to reach the Supreme Court. Previously, the justices issued emergency orders allowing the administration to enforce its transgender troops ban and cancel diversity-linked health grants.
New digital IDs in the UK could be “catastrophic” for Trans+ people, who could be forced to out themselves when showing their ID – even if they don’t include a sex marker on them.
Keir Starmer announced the new scheme at a gathering of centre-left parties at the Global Progress Action conference. He said the move was designed to ‘crack down’ on people who don’t have the right to work in the UK getting jobs.
If the UK implements these IDs, it would join countries including Bosnia and Herzegovina, United Arab Emirates, China, Greece, France and Afghanistan.
However, within just hours of the announcement, he faced massive opposition to his ‘Brit Card’ system, withover a million people signing a parliamentary petition not to proceed. While we were monitoring the form, it was rising by around 200-300 new signatures every ten seconds.
The mock-ups shareddo not include a sex marker, and only require name, date of birth, nationality or residency status, and a photo. So far, Ministers have stressed there will never be a reason to carry IDs around or to produce them other than for work.
Implications of mandatory ID for LGBTQIA+ people
Keyne Walker, TransActual strategy director, tells QueerAF that even before the plans were announced anti-trans groups have already been lobbying ministers, civil servants and right-wing parliamentarians “to ensure that the single governmental record held lists trans people as their ‘birth sex'”.
Walker believes this scheme could easily be weaponised and hijacked by MPs who are already trying to push anti-trans policies through Parliament. “It could provide the answer to the fundamental unworkability of bathroom bans… you don’t need to ask people to show their birth certificate if instead they have to scan an ID card to take a pee.”
Trans legal researcher, Jess O’Thomson, warns that the policy could have a “catastrophic” potential even just with the risk that it outs Trans+ people who haven’t yet got the legal recognition they need ahead of applying for a job:
“We know that anti-trans campaigning groups are looking for any opportunity to strip back trans people’s rights even further. I have no doubt that these groups will push for digital ID to record “biological sex”, forcibly outing trans people, and pushing them further out of public life.
“The real worry is that our government might go along with them, or else an amendment to the legislation could be forced through. These IDs could be catastrophic for the queer community.”
The UK’s history of ID cards
The UK hasn’t had a nationwide mandatory ID scheme since WWII, which ended after Lord Chief Justice Goddard said in a high court that the continuation of the wartime ID card scheme was an “annoyance” to much of the public and “tended to turn law-abiding subjects into law breakers”. Winston Churchill’s government scrapped them following the ruling and wider criticism over costs and police misuse –BBC
In more recent years, Tony Blair’s Labour government legislated for voluntary ID cards in the early 2000s, but the scheme was scrapped in 2011 by the Conservative-led coalition, which argued it was too costly and intrusive.
Analysis: Lists of queer people are incredibly vulnerable to being weaponised against us
“It is a big red flag when authoritarian governments that keep talking about putting people in camps start making lists of queer people,” Keyne Walker from Trans Actual remarked to QueerAF.
That, of course, is a big-picture view of this story – and we should be careful to see the news in its context at this stage, given there are scarce details on the scheme.
But the warnings from legal and privacy campaigners come amid a wider slide into authoritarian policies the UK has been adopting in recent years, including plans tomake it possible to criminalise wearing a mask at Pride events.
Indeed, from reporting on queer news for the best part of a decade now, I know well that the privacy concerns about the dangerlists of queer people can create, which we’re already hearing from campaigners are far from new.
Privacy campaigner and founding member of QueerAF Kyle Taylor, says on the surface, digital ID cards may seem innocuous enough – but you need only look to history to see how easily marginalised groups become victims of state-sponsored discrimination or violence:
“The last thing you want is for the government to know who you are and where you are when they decide to, for example, make conversion therapy mandatory. Make no mistake, privacy is power and this puts everyone at risk. Especially our community.”
There has always been a present danger of bad actors weaponising central lists; it’s one of the reasons the Covid Track and Trace appwas eventually decentralised amid opposition to how it could create a list of disabled people.
This is a development we should watch carefully, especially amid a growing focus and battleground on the right to privacy amid potential segregation of Trans+ people in public life.
To beat misinformation we need a well resourced queer led newsroom that can cut through the noise and get to the facts.
Our publisher is small, but mighty, and that’s because of some key principles in the way we produce news for you:
Our newsletter always has been, and always will be, free of adverts. That keeps us focused on what counts, not what drives clicks
Readers and members drive our news agenda, because that’s what our community deserves: news told both by and for us
Investing in a new generation of queer journalists, and packing the media full of us, is the best way to address the issue in the sector. Meanwhile, we’ll model the change we want to see and prove it’s possible to do justice to our community’s stories
Journalism is an expensive craft. It takes all week to put together this newsletter, so you can catch up on the queer world in five minutes. And we do that alongside mentoring creatives and lobbying the media sector.
If you believe in our unique model and the change we’re bringing to the queer news sector, please upgrade today if you can – and help us continue to grow.
Roz Keith found out her son was transgender on his terms.
The suburban mom was asking about haircuts, and Hunter, just shy of 14 at the time, texted her some photos. “He started texting me pictures of boys with short haircuts. And I said, ‘Oh, these are very masculine. And Hunter said, ‘Uh huh,’ and walked out of the room.”
It was typical teenage behavior, but the conversation that followed was life-changing, Keith said.
“I went upstairs, knocked on his door, and said, ‘What’s going on?’ And that’s when he told me. He said, ‘I’m a boy. I’m transgender.’ That was how he came out to me.”
Keith was caught off guard on multiple fronts. “All the little things from the time he was super little then became the hammer over the head.” She thought about Hunter playing with boy dolls, preferring time with boys to girls, choosing Narnia’s Prince Caspian over all the Disney princess costumes.
“I saw this one male avatar in a game, this buff, masculine character that he had created, and I said, ‘Oh, that’s a guy.’ And he’s like, ‘Yeah, okay.’ You know, no explanation. So, all along, I just kept saying ‘Okay,’ too.”
Keith wasn’t a helicopter parent. “We really encouraged our kids to be independent,” she said, “and we wanted them to be happy and successful and productive, whatever that meant for them.” But she also said a transgender child “just wasn’t in my consideration set.”
“In my world, I didn’t have a friend who had a trans child. We didn’t have any adult in our community who was trans or in the process of coming out or identified in any way remotely that way. So it was really a foreign concept from that perspective.”
While those conversations weren’t happening in Keith’s world, they certainly were in her precocious online teenager’s.
“He figured it out because he was watching YouTube, and he saw a trans person on this show talking about their coming out. And that was his light bulb moment. And he said, ‘Oh my God, that’s me.’”
Hunter spent a long time contemplating his revelation and researching what to do about it before he shared anything with his family.
“He’d been researching for two years,” Keith recalled. “He had a checklist of everything he wanted to do.”
With Hunter’s declaration, his state of mind came into focus for his mom.
“Based on things he shared when he was younger, he felt different, and he didn’t know why he felt different, and he didn’t have language to explain it,” Keith realized. “And it created a lot of struggle and conflict, and, I think, anger for him.”
“He said, you know, ‘I just felt like the weird kid.’”
Keith decided to close that gap – for her son and for others.
In 2015, she founded Stand with Trans, a support network devoted to trans kids and their parents and caregivers. The nonprofit provides transgender and nonbinary youth with life-saving programs like mental health services, peer support groups, educational resources, and, most importantly, Keith says, “validation and empowerment.”
Stand With Trans also provides critical support to parents or guardians of trans youth. Its Ally Parents program allows loved ones to text, call, or email other parents of trans youth for connection and advice.
Letting go
“Parents can have a hard time when their child comes out and wants to transition to a different gender than the one they were assigned at birth,” Keith said.
“They struggle to let go of the child they thought they had and the dreams that they had, right? If a child was assigned female at birth, a parent might say, ‘I just imagined her walking down the aisle in the white dress,’ you know? And they grieve this child as if the child has died.”
“I never took that approach,” Keith said, “because I knew that my child was very much alive and that it was my job to make sure that he stayed that way. You know, it was my job to make sure that he was mentally well and that he got what he needed so he could thrive.”
For Hunter and his family, checking off those steps to transition wouldn’t come easily.
“There were no pediatric gender clinics who were seeing trans youth covered by our insurance. There were no therapists who we could find who were trained to see trans adolescents. There were no support groups. There were no parent groups. There was nothing for youth. Like, literally every phone call was a brick wall,” Keith said.
But Hunter wasn’t waiting on the details. He decided to come out on Facebook.
“My daughter came to me and said, ‘Did you see what Hunter posted?’ And I said, ‘No.’”
While Keith and her husband had talked to a few close friends about Hunter, the family hadn’t been sharing much “because it wasn’t our story to share — that was up to him.”
With Hunter’s announcement, “It was like the floodgates had opened,” Keith said.
The family agreed to tell their story.
They began speaking publicly about their experience. “And there was just like this swell of relief, I guess, and joy from families in the community who had been trying to manage this process with their kiddo and had no one to talk to. There was really nobody — medically, psychologically emotionally — just literally no one was there.”
“Families like mine, trans adults, multi-generational families, like, every member of the community were reaching out and saying, ‘Oh, my God, I could have uttered those words. Your son reminds me of my son.’”
Hunter’s story had inspired an outpouring of empathy and recognition, but the story he shared online didn’t address his lingering sense of isolation.
“Even my son said, ‘I don’t know anyone like me.’ And so as we started to meet families,” Keith said.
“I was literally arranging play dates for my 14-15-year-old. Like, I was inviting kids to come over and just hang out, and — fly on the wall — they talked about stupid stuff, like, ‘Oh, don’t you hate getting socks for Christmas presents?’ And it showed these kids that being trans didn’t mean that you weren’t like other kids. You know, you were just another teen.”
Those interactions became the heart of the mission that guides Stand with Trans today.
The rise of parents’ rights
The founding of Stand With Trans accompanied a rising awareness of gender diversity in the 2010s, but with that also came a conservative backlash wrought with anti-trans animus.
Before Hunter came out, “Nobody was talking about bathroom bills and trans girls in sports. Those conversations weren’t happening,” Keith said.
Since then, trans kids like Hunter have been buried under an avalanche of discriminatory legislation, from gender-affirming care bans to a trans-erasing, book-banning frenzy organized by groups like Moms for Liberty to an online hate campaign led by accounts like Libs of TikTok.
Adding fuel to the fire: the president’s obsession with “gender ideology” and his “us” vs “them” politics of division.
The right has hawked its anti-LGBTQ+ agenda under the same, one-sided banner: parents’ rights.
Keith said the phrase is self-serving.
“I don’t think that any government should be allowed to say what my child has or doesn’t have access to, because I’m the parent. They’re not in my home parenting my child, so they don’t know what they’re going through. How do you make that global statement?” she asked.
“It is up to me to make a decision about my child’s medical care,” Keith said. “And as far as my child goes, if he was denied the opportunity to go on testosterone and not medically transition, I think our conversation would be very different.”
Keith points to a perversion of theology as one basis of the far-right’s anti-trans animus.
“I’m not Christian. I was raised Jewish. But my understanding from my friends who are Christian and very affirming and very accepting, their response is, ‘The Jesus I know would open the door for everyone, and would welcome everyone to the table.’ There’s really a disconnect between saying you’re a Christian and then not being open to accepting people as they are, as they show up.”
“Far be it for me to tell anyone what they should believe,” Keith added, “but you don’t get to bring it into my home and tell me how to care for my child, because those aren’t my beliefs. That’s not what I understand, right? It’s a secular society.”
“Your belief system should not infringe on my rights.”
Seeing around the corner
Stand with Trans was born to help protect trans kids from the attacks by providing love, knowledge and support — and power over their own lives.
“Our mission is so simple,” Keith said. “It’s empowering and supporting trans youth and their loved ones. So that’s it. We know that if we educate and support the caregivers, the loved ones, the parents, that the young people are going to do better, and if we find ways to make life better and easier for them, they’re not only going to survive, but they’re going to thrive.
“I know with my own kid, they couldn’t see themselves having a future. I think it’s hard enough for young people who don’t see around the corners, right? It’s hard to even imagine, like, ‘What do I want to be when I grow up.’ But for trans kids, it’s even harder.
“So it’s really important for us to show these young people that they can do whatever they want to do,” Keith said.
“Being trans is one part of their identity. It doesn’t define who they are.”
fleeredstates.blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.