Tag: Trans

Oakland gets first rainbow crosswalk: ‘It tells every trans, queer and non-binary person … they are welcome’

Read more at Oakland North.

Dozens of local queer leaders, community members and allies gathered at the Oakland LGBTQ Community Center on a rainy Thursday afternoon to celebrate the unveiling of the city’s first permanent rainbow crosswalk and the second anniversary of the Lakeshore LGBTQ Cultural District.

The crosswalk was installed on Lakeshore Avenue, outside the LGBTQ center, symbolizing Oakland’s commitment to LGBTQ inclusion and visibility, the center said in a news release. Instead of paint, it is made from thermoplastic materials to ensure durability and safety.

“It tells every trans, queer and non-binary person who visits our LGBTQ district that they are welcome, seen, safe, and celebrated right here in Oakland,” said Jeff Myers, chair of the Lakeshore LGBTQ Cultural District Committee, which plans events and does community outreach in the neighborhood.

A two-hour indoor ceremony preceded the unveiling, hosted by center co-chairs Myers and Joe Hawkins and emcee MCYB. It featured music from flutist Piedpiper KJ, singer-songwriter Cadence Myles and the Oakland Gay Men’s Chorus, as well as remarks from elected officials and neighborhood business owners. 

Speakers emphasized the importance of the Lakeshore District, which was established in 2023, and the new rainbow crosswalk as markers of queer visibility in Oakland during a time of fraught messaging from the federal government. 

“The Lakeshore LGBTQ Cultural District is more than just geography,” said Kin Folkz, a visual artist, poet and founder of the neighborhood’s Queer Arts Center. “It is the way that we refuse to disappear.”

Mayor Barbara Lee presented Lakeshore District leaders with a placard proclaiming Nov. 13 as “Lakeshore LGBTQ Cultural District Day.” 

“The rainbow crosswalk is a signal that you are part of the fabric of Oakland’s history and of Oakland’s future,” Lee said.

Hawkins thanked Lee for securing grant funding to support improvements at the center during her tenure in Congress. He also praised the Alameda County Supervisors for helping make up for the center’s recent loss of federal funding. The Supervisors approved $1.5 million for LGBTQ service providers, with the Oakland center getting some of that funding.

“Our city and county are helping,” Hawkins said. “I’m very confident this is more help than we’ve ever received.”

Bucking the trend

Councilmember Charlene Wang, who represents the Lakeshore District, applauded Oakland for installing the rainbow crosswalk, while lamenting the removal of such crosswalks in Florida and Texas cities. U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy launched a “roadway safety initiative” in July, urging governors to remove “political messaging and artwork” from intersections. Following that announcement, Orlando, Miami Beach, Gainesville, and Houston removed colorful crosswalks.

“While those cities caved, we are standing strong and we are adding crosswalks,” Wang said.

Megan Wier, an assistant director at the city’s Transportation Department, told Oakland North that the city worked with the LGBTQ center and Councilmember Rowena Brown’s office on a design that reflected diversity but also followed Americans with Disabilities Act requirements.

After the ceremony, everyone shuffled out of the building and into the rain for the crosswalk unveiling. Onlookers clustered under tents to watch Lee, Myers and Brown cut a ceremonial red ribbon, flanked by members of the Lakeshore District committee and the Transportation Department. 

Oakland resident Darron Lewis said he was overjoyed to be there. Lewis, whose boyfriend works for the LGBTQ center, recently moved from Seattle and expressed his admiration for Oakland. 

“It’s an adaptable place,” Lewis said. “There’s nothing more queer than a rainy day in Oakland.”

0

Christian conservative group that tried to overturn marriage equality vows that it’s not over

Read more at LGBTQ Nation.

Liberty Counsel, the Christian hate group behind Kim Davis’s attempt to have the Supreme Court overturn its marriage equality decision, says their fight to end LGBTQ+ equality is far from over.

“I have no doubt that Davis’s resolve will serve as a catalyst to raise up many more challenges to the wrongly decided Obergefell opinion,” wrote Liberty Counsel President Mat Staver in a message on the group’s website. “Until then, we must pray, fight, and contend for when Obergefell is no longer the law of the land.”

The Supreme Court ruled in its 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision that people have a fundamental right to choose who to marry, regardless of their spouse’s gender. The decision legalized marriage equality in all 50 states.

A county clerk in Kentucky, Kim Davis, refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, which led to a lawsuit and ten years of legal fights.

This year, with help from the lawyers at Liberty Counsel, she filed an appeal to the Supreme Court to overturn a judgment against her that required her to pay $360,000 to a gay couple whom she had illegally denied a marriage license. In that petition, she asked the Supreme Court to end marriage equality, arguing that her case proved that LGBTQ+ equality was inherently a threat to the rights of Christians like herself.

Last week, the Supreme Court rejected her appeal, leaving its decision in favor of marriage rights in place for at least another year.

Anti-LGBTQ+ activists, though, aren’t going to give up.

“This time, Kim Davis is the victim of religious animus and is being deprived of her constitutional freedom of religion,” Staver wrote. “Tomorrow, it could be you.”

“This may mark the end of an era in litigating Davis’s case, but the fight to overturn Obergefell and protect religious liberty has just begun.”

Staver’s argument is similar to an argument that Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito made in 2020 that the mere existence of married same-sex couples is a violation of Christians’ religious freedom because seeing married same-sex couples encourages people to judge Christians “as bigots.” (That opinion was delivered in the context of a different appeal filed by Davis.)

“Since Obergefell, parties have continually attempted to label people of good will as bigots merely for refusing to alter their religious beliefs in the wake of prevailing orthodoxy,” Thomas wrote at the time.

0

Parents demanded that a trans child be banned from sports. The town rejected their request.

Read more at LGBTQ Nation.

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.

0

Lawsuit challenges TSA’s ban on transgender officers conducting pat-downs

Read more at WFAA.

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.”

The legal battle comes amid mounting reports of workplace discrimination against transgender federal employees during Trump’s second administration. It is also happening at a time when TSA’s ranks are already stretched thin due to the ongoing government shutdown that has left thousands of agents working without pay.

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.”

0

Texas A&M System to vote on requiring prior approval for lessons on “race and gender ideology”

Read more at Texas Tribune.

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.

0

LGBTQ+ residents are fleeing red states, taking their talent and tax dollars with them

Read more at LGBTQ Nation.

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.

The new $879 million estimate on Missouri’s losses is based on a survey conducted by MAP in collaboration with The Trevor Project, the LGBTQ+ youth nonprofit.

“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.”

Missouri has passed a slew of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation since, while the state’s attorney general has sued to uphold conversion therapy, gone after trans women in locker rooms, and targeted healthcare workers for assisting trans youth.

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.

0

Chappell Roan launches Midwest Princess Project to support trans youth

Read more at LGBTQ Nation.

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.”

0

Trans man kicked out of women’s bathroom at arcade: It was “dehumanizing”

Read more at LGBTQ Nation.

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.”

0

Federal appeals court revives Texas’ drag ban and lifts injunction

Read more at LGBTQ Nation.

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.

0

Supreme Court reinstates Trump administration’s transgender passport policy

Read more at The Hill.

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. 

0

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑