BANGKOK (AP) — They have been in a committed relationship for more than 13 years, and even had a wedding in 2019. Since then, Danaya Phonphayung and Sunma Piamboon, both women, have considered themselves a married couple, even if same-sex marriages were not legally recognized.
The walls of their home in suburban Bangkok are decorated with faded photos from their happy union, filled with joy and love from their families and friends. Come this Thursday, their wedded status will be recognized by the nation as well, when a law that allows members of the LGBTQ+ community in Thailand to get married and have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples takes effect.
The couple said they can’t wait to formalize their union. They plan to register their marriage at a district office near their home on the very first day that the law allows.
“I think I’ll cry,” Danaya, an office worker, said with a big smile, thinking about the moment that they will sign the paper. “I’m so happy. It’s something that was more than I could’ve dreamed of, that suddenly this day is happening.”
“We live together. We bought a house. We bought a car. But we cannot share these things together like a married couple. When this is happening, we feel that it’s our rights that we need to secure as quickly as possible,” she said.
The marriage equality bill, which sailed through both the House of Representatives and the Senate, amended the Civil and Commercial Code to change the words “men and women” and “husband and wife” to “individuals” and “marriage partners.” It would open up access to full legal, financial and medical rights for LGBTQ+ couples.
Sunma, who owns a travel agency, said that she had realized how crucial being legally married was when Danaya was hospitalized with dengue fever, as they don’t live close to her parents.
“The doctors asked me who I was, and I said I was the girlfriend, and they were like, ‘so what’?’ I couldn’t make any decision until her condition became quite serious,” she said. “I was so upset, like, if I had lost her … there would be nothing that could’ve made up for it. So, I think this is very important for both of us.”
How marriage equality became law
Thailand has a reputation for acceptance and inclusivity, but struggled for decades to pass a marriage equality law. Thai society largely holds conservative values. Members of the LGBTQ+ community say they face discrimination in everyday life, although they note that things have improved greatly in recent years.
The government led by the Pheu Thai party made marriage equality one of its main goals. It made a major effort to identify itself with the annual Bangkok Pride parade in June, in which thousands of people celebrated in one of Bangkok’s busiest commercial districts.
Last week, Government House invited dozens of LGBTQ+ couples and activists for a photo op and a meeting with Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra and several high ranking officials to celebrate the law coming into effect, making Thailand the first in Southeast Asia and the third place in Asia, after Taiwan and Nepal, to legalize same-sex marriage.
“It is almost like a dream, but it’s not. So, congratulations to all,” Paetongtarn said. “I think it’s very important that the world notice us, and know that in this small country we have this kind of thought. We have this kind of support for our people. So, we all should be proud.”
The organizers of Bangkok Pride have collaborated with relevant government agencies to hold a grand celebration in central Bangkok and facilitate couples who wish to register their marriage on the very first day. They said that more than 300 couples have registered to officially tie the knot on Thursday at the event.
“(The law) is about returning our dignity, and confirming that we also have dignity as a human being,” said Ann “Waaddao” Chumaporn, a gender equality activist and the lead organizer of Bangkok Pride. “That day is going to be meaningful to all the couples that have gone through this journey together. I’d like to thank everyone, every love, that has faithfully struggled so that today would finally happen.”
How the law will be implemented
The government and state agencies in Thailand are historically traditional in outlook. To prepare them for change, the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration said that it has organized workshops for staff of all Bangkok district offices who are in charge of handling marriage registration. They included lectures raising awareness about gender diversity and guidance on how to properly communicate with those who come for the service.
“It’s like a missing piece of the jigsaw,” Bangkok Deputy Gov. Sanon Wangsrangboon said at one of the workshops earlier this month. “Society is ready. The law is getting ready. But the last piece of the jigsaw is the understanding from officials.”
He acknowledged there that would be problems in the beginning, but said that he hoped they would gradually improve over time.
After they register their marriage, Sunma said that she’s looking forward to having a “real marriage celebration” with her and Danaya’s families.
“It’s not just the two of us that are happy, but both of our families feel it is a big deal, and it is what everyone has been waiting for. Everyone said they are waiting for Jan. 23,” she said.
The federal government is set to only recognize two sexes, male and female, under an executive order that President Donald Trump is soon expected to sign.
The order would reverse efforts by the Biden administration to broaden gender identity designations, including on passports.
“As of today, it will henceforth be the official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders, male and female,” Trump said during his inaugural address Monday, taking an early step to fulfill one of his culture war campaign promises.
The order, a Trump administration official told reporters Monday, is aimed at “defending women from gender ideology extremism and restoring biological truths to the federal government.” Male and female “are sexes that are not changeable, and they are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality,” the official said.
The federal government would also shift from using the term “gender” to “sex,” and that sex would be “an individual’s immutable biological classification,” the official said.
All government agencies would ensure that official documents, including passports and visas, “reflect sex accurately,” the official said. Also, departments running federal prisons, migrant shelters, rape shelters and other “intimate spaces” would be directed to protect single-sex spaces for privacy. And employee records would also adhere to the executive order, as would federal departments’ messaging.
“Agencies are no longer going to promote gender ideology through communication forms and other messages,” the official said, adding that grants and contracts would be reviewed to ensure that “federal funds shall not be used to promote gender ideology.”
Reversing Biden expansion
Trump’s executive order would dismantle efforts by the Biden administration to be more inclusive of Americans’ gender identification.
As of 2022, US citizens have been able to select “X” as their gender marker on passports. One’s marker does not need to match the gender on citizenship documents or photo ID, nor is medical documentation needed to change one’s gender, according to the State Department.
“We promote the freedom, dignity, and equality of all people – including LGBTQI+ individuals,” the department’s website says. “We are demonstrating this commitment to better serve all U.S. citizens, regardless of gender identity.”
Later that year, Americans were able to start changing their sex identification with the Social Security Administration without needing to provide medical certification. However, Social Security’s record systems still require a designation of male or female, though the administration said it was exploring policy and systems updates to support an “X” designation.
“The Social Security Administration’s Equity Action Plan includes a commitment to decrease administrative burdens and ensure people who identify as gender diverse or transgender have options in the Social Security number card application process,” said Kilolo Kijakazi, the administration’s acting commissioner at the time.
City council members attempted to defund a weekly pizza party for LGBTQ+ students. However, what happened next took everyone by surprise.
In the small town of Ellensburg, Washington, pizza has become an unlikely source of controversy.
City council member Joshua Thompson claims that the weekly pizza gatherings for LGBTQ+ students are influencing high schoolers to adopt a “gay lifestyle” or explore transgender identities, framing the popular dish as a catalyst for these changes.
City council member Joshua Thompson sparked controversy when he declared that the weekly Pizza Klatch at Ellensburg High School—a safe space for LGBTQ+ students and allies—was a “target on minors” and claimed it was influencing students to adopt gay or transgender identities.
During a council meeting in the Yakima Valley town of Ellensburg, Washington (population 18,703), Thompson proposed cutting the $1,400 annual funding for the program, which provides pizza and a supportive environment for an average of 27 students each week. The program, initiated by the Ellensburg Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Commission in 2023, aims to foster connection and safety for LGBTQ+ youth.
Councilwoman Sarah Beauchamp, a mother of an LGBTQ+ child, strongly defended the funding, emphasizing its importance for students’ well-being. “$1,400 a year for these kids to hang out and have friendships,” she said. “We are not making them transgender. We’re not turning them homosexual by having a place for them to gather and feel safe.”
Thompson’s motion to defund the pizza program failed, as did a compromise amendment requiring parental permission for students to attend. Ultimately, the council voted 4–3 to approve the DEI Commission’s $10,000 budget request but excluded the $1,400 for the weekly pizza gatherings.
However, the funding shortfall was quickly addressed by Ellensburg resident Steve Verhey, a former council candidate who raised over $2,200 through an online fundraiser within days. “I’m a little bit annoyed at having to do the city council’s job for them,” Verhey told KNDO News. “The city council’s job is to keep everyone who lives in Ellensburg safe and to give them the conditions they need to thrive.”
Thanks to community support, the Pizza Klatch will continue to provide a welcoming space for LGBTQ+ students—funded entirely by private donations—for another year and beyond.
She argued that transgender youth should be denied medical care, claiming, “God created male and female in His image.” However, the crowd reacted with clear disapproval.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), a leading voice against transgender rights in the U.S., delivered a speech yesterday in front of the Supreme Court as oral arguments were underway regarding Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care.
Her remarks were met with resounding boos from the crowd.
A viral video captures Marjorie Taylor Greene passionately condemning gender-affirming care for trans youth, claiming it involves a “…chemical castration pill to destroy their bodies before they’re ever old enough to vote…” The crowd’s boos grew so loud that much of her speech was drowned out.
Greene shared the full video of her speech on X, where she began by declaring, “God created male and female, in His image, He created us,” emphasizing that her opposition to trans rights is rooted in her religious beliefs rather than concerns about children’s health.
The boos from the crowd were audible in her video as well, and she addressed them directly.
“What you’re hearing is the outcry from the demons and those that worship evil, who are abusing our children, brainwashing our children to believe the lies that come directly from Satan!” she proclaimed as the crowd continued to jeer.
Undeterred, Greene returned to her prepared remarks, touting her federal bill to ban gender-affirming care and highlighting its support from figures like Donald Trump and J.D. Vance.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case challenging Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth. The law, which has been contested by several trans families, is argued to be unconstitutionally sexist. Plaintiffs claim it discriminates by allowing some individuals to access specific medical treatments while denying them to others based solely on their sex assigned at birth.
Outside the courthouse, both pro- and anti-trans protestors gathered. According to The New Republic, the pro-trans contingent significantly outnumbered their opponents, with approximately four times as many supporters advocating for transgender rights.
The Supreme Court has adjourned early, bringing an end to the oral argument session. A ruling in the case of US v. Skrmetti is expected to be issued by June 2025.
Tennessee Attorney Compares Trans Care to Lobotomies
Tennessee’s Solicitor General, Matthew Rice, in response to a question from Justice Brett Kavanaugh about why laws regulating gender-affirming care shouldn’t be left to the states, compared gender-affirming care to the discredited medical practice of lobotomies—removing part of the brain to treat mental illnesses.
He falsely claimed that lobotomies were widely supported by the medical community in the early 1900s, suggesting that gender-affirming care should be regulated in a similar manner. However, as Alejandra Caraballo, an attorney and instructor at Harvard Law CyberLaw Clinic, points out on BlueSky, leading medical organizations at the time opposed lobotomies, making Rice’s comparison highly inaccurate.
Sotomayor Asks How Banning Gender-Affirming Care Protects the Public
Justice Sonia Sotomayor questions how Tennessee Solicitor General Matthew Rice’s claims about banning gender-affirming care protect the public, emphasizing that “when you’re 1% of the population, it’s very hard to see how the democratic process will protect you.”
The Court’s decision could have broader implications, potentially affecting gender-affirming care for adults as well. If the Court accepts Tennessee’s argument about the possible medical risks, this reasoning could be used in future cases to restrict all forms of care.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett asks how Rice’s policies would apply to issues like bathrooms or sports. Rice attempts to distinguish transgender-based challenges from sex-based challenges, arguing that this case is about the medical risks of transgender healthcare, while bathroom and sports cases focus on gender rights and equity. However, he provides minimal rationale for how this distinction would work.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raises concerns about how the gender-affirming care ban mirrors past racist laws, noting that both seek to deny access to public services based on personal characteristics.
Rice tries to differentiate gender-affirming treatments like hormone replacement therapy and puberty blockers, arguing that the medical justification differs when these treatments are administered to transgender children versus cisgender ones. Jackson counters, pointing out that the treatments affect the body similarly, and suggests that Rice is contradicting his own argument about the dangers of these treatments by claiming they have different effects based on gender identity.
Tennessee’s Lawyer Begins Arguments Against Gender-Affirming Care and Immediately Confuses Everyone
Tennessee Solicitor General Matthew Rice takes the floor, arguing in favor of restricting gender-affirming care and allowing Tennessee’s ban to take effect. He asserts that gender-affirming care for minors offers no benefits, a position that contradicts the views of leading medical organizations such as the Endocrine Society, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Psychological Association.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor challenges this, noting that “every medical treatment has risks, even Aspirin,” and emphasizing that there is no valid reason to restrict gender-affirming care on those grounds. She also points out that halting the development of sex-based characteristics is inherently sex-based and therefore discriminatory. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson echoes this argument, pushing back against Rice’s claims that the issue is not sex-based, highlighting that attempting to restrict breast growth, for example, is inherently sex-based.
The Court’s confusion deepens when Rice argues that boys with gynecomastia—a condition causing enlarged breast tissue—who take puberty blockers lack a “medical purpose” for doing so, further muddling his argument and drawing continued pushback from the Justices.
“6th Circuit Got It Wrong,” Strangio Says, Citing Flawed Reasoning for Upholding Health Care Ban
ACLU attorney Chase Strangio argues that the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals “got it wrong” in reinstating Tennessee’s S.B. 1 ban on gender-affirming care, asserting that the court incorrectly applied rational basis review to the case. He argues that intermediate scrutiny should have been applied instead.
Rational basis review is a type of judicial review used to assess whether governments are acting in accordance with regulations. In contrast, intermediate scrutiny involves a more rigorous constitutional review to determine if a legal action aligns with the U.S. Constitution, specifically the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits sex-based discrimination.
In response to Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Strangio also emphasizes that these issues are deeply intertwined with advocacy for gay rights, referencing historical bans on cross-dressing and transgender people entering the military—issues that have also impacted gay individuals.
Strangio further addressed Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s attempt to shift the discussion to transgender people in sports, briefly arguing that anti-discrimination measures could be used to support the inclusion of trans women athletes, while clarifying that this is not the central focus of the current case.
Justice Samuel Alito questioned ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio, asking whether gender identity is immutable, citing detransitioners and gender fluidity as reasons to suggest it might not be. Strangio responded by emphasizing that there is strong evidence supporting the idea that the underlying basis of gender is immutable. He explained that while individuals may experience changes in their conception of their gender identity, their gender itself is not something that can be willingly altered. What remains constant, he said, is that their gender is different from the sex assigned at birth.
Alito then compared trans people to individuals with schizophrenia, suggesting that both could have different treatments. Strangio rejected this comparison, arguing that these are fundamentally different issues. He clarified that, regardless of any variations in how trans people experience their identities, being trans is an immutable status that does not shift in the same way mental illnesses do.
Chase Strangio Draws from Court’s Role in Pandemic Regulations & Says Transition Regret is Rare
ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio drew parallels between the Court’s involvement in pandemic regulations and its role in evaluating gender-affirming care, emphasizing that the Court should respect expert medical opinions in both contexts. He also addressed concerns about transition regret, pointing out that it is rare and that the overwhelming majority of individuals who pursue gender-affirming care report positive outcomes. Strangio argued that this underscores the importance of allowing access to such care, as it is supported by medical evidence and expertise. ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio, the first openly trans person to argue before the Supreme Court, drew from the Court’s role in regulating public health during the COVID-19 pandemic to argue against Tennessee’s S.B. 1, asserting that SCOTUS should rule against the ban in the interest of the common good. He used the same rationale the Court applied in reviewing public health policies during the pandemic to advocate for the preservation of gender-affirming care.
Strangio also addressed claims about high regret and detransition rates, arguing that such figures are often misrepresented to serve a particular agenda. He referenced the ACLU’s reply brief submitted to SCOTUS, which details the organization’s response to these mischaracterizations.
In response to questioning from Justice Alito, Strangio maintained that gender-affirming care for minors is life-saving, noting that it significantly reduces the risk of suicide. He also pointed out that, contrary to claims in the Cass Review, numerous studies show improved mental health outcomes for transgender individuals following gender-affirming care.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson argued that the ban on gender-affirming care is discriminatory, highlighting how it targets a specific group based on their gender identity. She pointed out that such policies are a direct violation of equal protection principles.
ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio then spoke, making history as one of the leading voices in the case. Strangio reiterated the importance of respecting expert medical opinions and legal protections for transgender individuals, advocating for the right to gender-affirming care. His powerful arguments further cemented his role in the ongoing fight for transgender rights.
In response to a line of questioning from Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson illustrates how denying transgender people medical care is discriminatory, highlighting that such care is often granted to cisgender individuals. Jackson compares these discriminatory policies to those implemented in the 1950s and 1960s on the basis of race, referencing Loving v. Virginia, which overturned bans on interracial marriage.
U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar echoes this argument, drawing parallels between the logic used in Loving and the current case.
Shortly thereafter, Chase Strangio, the first openly trans lawyer to speak before the Supreme Court, argues in favor of overturning S.B. 1. Strangio, representing the American Civil Liberties Union and the plaintiffs, responds to Justice Clarence Thomas’s question about his proposed solution, stating that he would want to ensure gender-affirming care for minors is authorized, particularly for his plaintiffs.
Kavanaugh Presses Lawyer on Constitutionality & Veers into Asking About Sports
Justice Brett Kavanaugh presses ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio on the constitutionality of gender-affirming care bans, questioning whether such regulations are in line with constitutional protections. Kavanaugh’s line of questioning shifts when he asks about the implications for transgender athletes in sports, seeking to understand how anti-discrimination measures in this case could apply to sports-related issues. Strangio responds, emphasizing that while the inclusion of trans athletes is an important issue, it is distinct from the core question at hand, which focuses on the legality and necessity of gender-affirming care.
Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh asks U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar why SCOTUS should apply intermediate scrutiny (a type of judicial review to assess constitutionality) to Tennessee’s S.B. 1. Prelogar argues that by imposing restrictions based on assigned sex at birth, the law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, which inherently calls for additional scrutiny.
Kavanaugh then shifts to a separate line of questioning, bringing up the issue of trans women in women’s sports. This leads Prelogar to admit that she believes there should be restrictions on trans women in sports. However, she tries to pivot back to arguing that such restrictions on gender-affirming care should not be in place.
Research indicates that trans women do not have an inherent advantage in sports after transitioning for the prescribed amount of time. Studies have shown their performance to be on par with cisgender women, and there is no evidence of trans women disproportionately dominating women’s sports.
Fertility Issues Don’t Just Affect Trans People, But Intersex People Too, Lawyer Argues at SCOTUS
During arguments at the Supreme Court, a lawyer emphasized that fertility issues are not exclusive to transgender individuals but also affect intersex people. The lawyer argued that restrictions on gender-affirming care could have broader implications, including for intersex individuals who may face similar challenges in accessing reproductive healthcare. This point was raised to highlight the intersection of medical and legal issues affecting both trans and intersex communities.
In response to a line of questioning from Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh about how gender-affirming care could impact fertility—one of the arguments for banning such care being that trans kids might face fertility issues later in life—U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argues that while fertility issues are indeed a concern in transgender care, they are not unique to trans individuals. Prelogar points out that there are solutions available for these issues, which are also found in treatments allowed under S.B. 1, such as invasive surgeries on intersex infants.
Intersex individuals, whose genitalia do not align with typical male or female expectations, are often subjected to invasive surgeries in infancy, which can permanently restrict their ability to have children due to forced conformity to societal norms. Despite these concerns, many anti-transgender policies, including S.B. 1, allow for gender-affirming care for intersex minors, even though advocates call for restrictions on mandatory conforming surgeries and treatments.
Additionally, many intersex individuals identify as transgender, linking these issues inextricably in discussions about gender-affirming care and reproductive rights.
Sam Alito Brings Up Restrictions on Women’s Rights to Oppose Trans Care
Justice Samuel Alito raised concerns about restrictions on women’s rights while arguing against the case for gender-affirming care. He suggested that limiting certain aspects of gender-affirming care could be justified by broader discussions around women’s rights. In his questioning, Alito implied that policies restricting transgender care could be seen as part of a larger debate about the rights of women, sparking further discussions about the intersection of gender, rights, and healthcare.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito argued that previous SCOTUS rulings, particularly Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (which overturned Roe v. Wade) and Geduldig v. Aiello (which allowed the denial of insurance benefits for work loss due to pregnancy), do not support the claim that Tennessee’s S.B. 1 constitutes sex-based discrimination. He pointed out that both rulings suggested that restrictions on pregnancy-related insurance coverage and abortion do not qualify as sex-based discrimination.
U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar countered, asserting that neither of these rulings applies to the current case. She argued that the previous decisions refer to more individualized healthcare concerns, which are unrelated to the broader, sex-based characteristics addressed by hormone replacement therapy and puberty blockers. These treatments, Prelogar emphasized, are inherently sex-based and therefore should not be governed by the same arguments made in those earlier rulings.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined the conversation, echoing Prelogar’s points that the issue at hand is fundamentally about sex classification. She also reiterated her criticisms of the Cass Review and responded to Alito’s claims about European countries restricting care, pointing out the inaccuracies in those statements. Sotomayor pressed for further clarity, helping to illuminate key aspects of Prelogar’s arguments.
U.S. Solicitor General States Her Case as Conservative Justices Bring Up Cass Review
U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar presented her case before the Supreme Court, defending the constitutionality of gender-affirming care and challenging the restrictions posed by Tennessee’s S.B. 1. As she argued, conservative justices, including Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh, raised concerns about the findings in the Cass Review, which suggests that gender-affirming care for minors may lead to negative psychological and medical outcomes.
Prelogar countered these claims by stressing that the Cass Review’s conclusions are not representative of the broader medical consensus. She pointed out that numerous studies and expert medical organizations, including the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, strongly support gender-affirming care as effective and essential for the well-being of transgender minors.
Her responses focused on the scientific evidence and medical expertise backing gender-affirming care, challenging the use of the Cass Review as a central argument for limiting such care.
U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar began outlining her case that Tennessee’s S.B. 1 constitutes discrimination based on biological sex. She argued that because testosterone and estrogen affect individuals differently depending on whether they were assigned male or female at birth, and because these medications vary based on assigned sex, the restriction of gender-affirming care amounts to sex-based discrimination.
Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Chief Justice John Roberts then began their questioning. Alito referenced the controversial Cass Review, a report from the United Kingdom that has been used to justify restricting puberty blockers. The report has faced criticism from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health and Yale researchers for its unscientific approach.
Justice Thomas sought clarification on the specific effects of hormone treatments on youth, while Chief Justice Roberts asked about the Court’s role in regulating individualized care and whether such decisions should be left to the states.
Prelogar maintained that, regardless of the specific details or arguments presented, S.B. 1 is fundamentally discriminatory, emphasizing that no other medications are subject to such broad restrictions in other countries.
All three justices who questioned Prelogar were appointed by Republican presidents.
Supreme Court Hearing on Oral Arguments Begins; Protesters on Both Sides Outside Court
The Supreme Court hearing on the challenge to Tennessee’s S.B. 1 began, with oral arguments being presented inside the Court. Outside the building, protesters gathered on both sides of the issue, with supporters of transgender rights advocating for the protection of gender-affirming care, while opponents of the policy voiced their support for the restrictions. The atmosphere outside was charged with emotion as both sides made their voices heard in what is expected to be a pivotal case for transgender rights and healthcare access.
Live coverage of the oral arguments presented to SCOTUS is beginning on C-SPAN, with the session set to last until approximately 2 p.m. Eastern, when the oral arguments will conclude.
As the courthouse prepares for cameras inside, reporters outside the building are focusing on protests from both sides of the debate. While advocates for transgender care are present, they are scarcely featured in media coverage. In contrast, disproportionate attention is given to opponents of transgender care, including pseudoscience activist groups like Do No Harm and Gays Against Groomers, as well as anti-trans politicians such as Rep. Gary Palmer (R-AL).
People’s Lives Have Been Turned Upside-Down by Gender-Affirming Care Bans
The ongoing gender-affirming care bans have had a profound impact on many individuals, turning their lives upside-down. For transgender youth and their families, these bans have created uncertainty and fear, as they are now faced with limited access to essential healthcare. Many are grappling with the emotional and physical toll of losing access to treatments that are crucial for their well-being, while others are forced to relocate or seek care in more supportive states. The broader consequences of these bans are reshaping lives, highlighting the personal struggles tied to the political and legal battles surrounding transgender rights.
One family from Texas shared their experience of living out of their van in a truck stop in Connecticut, driven by the increased cost of living after relocating to escape Texas’ anti-trans laws. Another parent who made a similar move from Texas to Connecticut remarked that while Connecticut launched a campaign inviting families from anti-trans states to relocate, the state did little to address the issue of affordability. These families are facing significant financial and emotional challenges as they seek safety and access to gender-affirming care in a more supportive environment.
The Trans Rights Supreme Court Case Is Also About Whether Sexism Is Now Legally Allowed in America
The ongoing Supreme Court case challenging gender-affirming care is not just about healthcare access for transgender individuals—it also raises broader questions about whether sexism is now legally permissible in the United States. At the heart of the case is the argument that restricting gender-affirming care based on assigned sex at birth constitutes sex-based discrimination, which may set a dangerous legal precedent. If the Court rules in favor of such bans, it could embolden future policies that discriminate on the basis of sex, further entrenching harmful gender stereotypes and limiting the rights of transgender individuals and other marginalized groups.
Slate’s legal writer Mark Joseph Stern explained in an article the critical stakes in U.S. v. Skrmetti, the challenge to Tennessee’s gender-affirming care ban currently being heard by the Supreme Court. Stern outlines how this case goes beyond the rights of transgender individuals, addressing broader questions about gender equality and the legal protections against sexism.
Stern notes that the pro-trans side argues that banning a trans boy from receiving testosterone therapy while allowing a cisgender boy to receive the same treatment is blatantly sexist. The only difference between the two is their assigned sex at birth, which makes the restriction inherently discriminatory. However, the appeals court disagreed, creating a new “biological difference” exception and arguing that the ban hurts both trans boys and trans girls equally, thereby making it not a violation of sex-based discrimination.
According to Stern, Skrmetti isn’t just about transgender rights—it’s a case that questions the future of gender equality under the law. The key legal issue is whether laws that deny medical care based on sex should trigger heightened scrutiny by the courts. Stern emphasizes that, according to long-established legal precedent, the answer should be yes. If the Court rules otherwise, it could undermine constitutional protections against sex discrimination and pave the way for laws enforcing harmful gender stereotypes. While transgender Americans would be most immediately affected, Stern argues that the case has broader implications for everyone’s ability to reject rigid gender roles without facing state-enforced oppression.
LIVE UPDATES: Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Challenge to Gender-Affirming Care Ban By Mira Lazine
Today, the United States Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments in the case United States v. Skrmetti, which centers on Tennessee’s 2023 bill, S.B. 1, that bans gender-affirming care for minors. While no decision will be made today, the arguments presented are expected to have far-reaching implications for transgender rights across the nation, particularly concerning access to gender-affirming care for minors.
The case involves three families of transgender youth in Tennessee who are challenging the state’s ban on providing their children with life-saving healthcare. The ban also impacts several doctors who seek to provide care to consenting patients. The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee initially ruled to overturn the ban, but the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals allowed it to go back into effect, prompting the case to be brought before the Supreme Court for a final ruling.
The plaintiffs in this case are supported by the Biden-Harris administration and the Department of Justice, which challenge the legality of such a broad ban on gender-affirming care. They are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and attorney Chase Strangio, along with Lambda Legal and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. On the opposing side, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, along with Tennessee Solicitor General Matthew Rice, represents the state of Tennessee. The United States government is also involved as a third party and is represented by U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar.
Although Rep. Jerry Schillinger’s measure didn’t explicitly name Zephyr, she is the only legislator to whom the rule would apply.
An attempt to bar Montana lawmaker Zooey Zephyr and other transgender women from using the women’s restroom in the State Capitol has failed, with several Republicans voting against the measure.
The Montana legislature’s joint rules committee voted down the proposal on Tuesday, according to the New York Times. The measure, introduced by Republican Rep. Jerry Schillinger, was unanimously opposed by Democrats, and some Republican lawmakers also joined in rejecting it. Although Zephyr was not specifically named in the measure, she is the only legislator to whom it would apply, as the rule would have required lawmakers to use restrooms corresponding to their sex assigned at birth, per CNN. Zephyr is also Montana’s first openly transgender woman to serve in the state legislature.
In a post on Bluesky Tuesday, Zephyr expressed relief, writing, “I’m happy to see that this proposed ban failed and am grateful for my colleagues, particularly my Republican colleagues, who recognized this as a distraction from the work we were elected to do.” She also told the New York Times via email that she plans to focus on issues like “housing and health care” in her legislative work moving forward.
According to the Times, Republican Rep. David Bedey argued during the committee meeting that such a rule would “have the effect of making people famous in the national news, and will not contribute to the effective conduct of our business.” Previous efforts to remove Zephyr from the legislature have indeed attracted significant national attention. In April 2023, Montana Republicans voted to censure Zephyr after she delivered an impassioned speech opposing a bill that would ban gender-affirming care for youth. As a result, she was barred from speaking in the legislature for the remainder of the session, although she retained her right to vote. Zephyr subsequently filed a lawsuit against the state, seeking to overturn the censure ruling, but a judge denied her petition, ruling that he lacked the authority to reverse the vote.Despite Republican efforts to censor her, Zephyr was re-elected to the legislature in November, securing 80% of the vote in her district. When she returns to the Capitol in 2025, Zephyr will finally be allowed to speak during floor debates for the first time in nearly two years.
“I want everyone to be treated fairly,” Trump told TIME, apparently without irony.
In an interview with TIME magazine this week, President-elect Donald Trump expressed confusion over the growing attention to transgender issues, stating that he didn’t understand where all the fuss was coming from, but that “we’re all trying to find the guy who did this.”
In a surreal “Person of the Year” interview published Thursday, Trump made a series of false and misleading statements on various topics, including vaccines, immigration, and military policy. When asked about his views on transgender rights and his campaign’s aggressive anti-trans ad campaigns, Trump offered vague responses, emphasizing his desire for “all people [to be] treated fairly.” When the TIME staff reminded him of his 2016 comments supporting equal public bathroom access for trans individuals, Trump avoided the issue, stating he would not “get into the bathroom issue.” He then, somewhat ironically, claimed that the debate had “ripped apart our country.”
“I am a big believer in the Supreme Court, and I’m going to go by their rulings… but we’re talking about a very small number of people, and it gets massive coverage, and it’s not a lot of people,” Trump told TIME.
When asked about his “Kamala is for They/Them” ad campaign, which flooded the U.S. with over $200 million worth of anti-trans attack ads this year, Trump once again sidestepped a direct response. Instead, he portrayed himself as a champion of fairness. “I mean, Trump is definitely for us, okay? And ‘us’ is the vast, vast majority of people in this country. And also, I want to have all people treated fairly. You know, forget about majority or not majority. I want people to be treated well and fairly,” he said.
Trump’s remarks, however, gloss over his prominent role in stoking transphobia for political gain. Both the Republican Party and Trump himself have spent years pushing an increasingly anti-trans agenda, which some experts see as a strategic move to solidify support among evangelical voters. On the campaign trail, Trump decried what he called “transgender insanity” and promised to effectively ban gender-affirming care for trans youth. When asked if he would repeal President Biden’s trans-inclusive changes to Title IX—something he has vowed to do—Trump said he would “look at it very closely.”
Trump also expressed agreement with Delaware Representative-elect Sarah McBride’s statement that Congress should be “focused on more important issues,” as TIME phrased it in their question to the President-elect. McBride, who recently won her election, has reportedly told fellow Democrats that Republican attacks against her—particularly the push by Reps. Nancy Mace and Mike Johnson to restrict Capitol bathrooms based on sex, following her November victory—are mere distractions. She has since stated in a press release that she is “not here to fight about bathrooms.” Reactions from the trans community to McBride’s stance have been mixed, with some telling The Advocate this week that they believe she should be more vocal in opposing such restrictions. The bathroom proposals, if enacted, would primarily affect trans staffers and visitors to the Capitol, as each member of Congress has a private bathroom in their office. Mace has since expanded her proposal to include public parks, government offices outside Capitol Hill, and other public spaces. Them reached out to McBride for comment but did not receive a reply by the time of writing.
Later in the interview, Trump misgendered and spread misinformation about trans athletes, claiming that Americans “don’t want to see a girl get beat up in a boxing ring by a man”—likely referencing boxer Imane Khelif, who is not transgender but was the subject of an anti-trans backlash at this year’s Olympics. Khelif also appeared in an early-November Trump ad. “People don’t want to see, you know, men playing in women’s sports… They don’t want to see all of this transgender [stuff], which is—it’s just taken over,” Trump added.
At various points in the interview, Trump reiterated false claims, including tying vaccines to autism—a debunked conspiracy theory that has nevertheless been endorsed by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whom Trump has selected as his pick for Secretary of Health and Human Services. He also distanced himself from Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s manifesto for his presidency, despite already nominating at least five of its contributors for government positions. Trump told TIME that he disagreed with parts of Project 2025, calling it “inappropriate” that it was published before the election. His own “Agenda47” platform largely mirrors Project 2025, though it notably excludes some of the more controversial elements of the Heritage document, such as a universal ban on pornography.
As with many of Trump’s interviews, it’s unclear whether he truly believes or will act on any of the statements he made to TIME. A 2021 tally by The Washington Post found that Trump made roughly 30,573 false or misleading claims during his first term. Among those, his assertion that he was a “real friend” to LGBTQ+ people might stand out as one of the biggest exaggerations.
He claimed that his experience delivering babies proves that transgender people don’t actually exist, though his argument remains unclear.
Washington, D.C. — Senator Roger Marshall (R-Kansas) questioned Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas at a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing focused on the President’s proposed budget request for the Department of Homeland Security for fiscal year 2025. The hearing examined resources and authorities requested to protect the homeland.
This week, Sen. Marshall introduced the “Defining Male and Female Act of 2024,” a bill aimed at legally erasing the recognition of transgender individuals. Marshall argued that the bill is a response to what he describes as the Biden administration’s effort to “replace biological sex with dangerous radical gender ideology.”
The proposed legislation consists largely of definitions, with terms like “father” and “girl” now explicitly tied to the words “male” and “female.” Under the bill, “male” and “female” are defined as individuals who “naturally have, had, will have, or would have, but for a congenital anomaly or intentional or unintentional disruption, the reproductive system that at some point produces, transports and utilizes sperm or eggs for fertilization.”
Marshall claims the bill would prevent transgender individuals from participating in school sports and ensure “sex separation” in spaces like restrooms, locker rooms, dorms, prisons, and shelters for victims of sexual assault.
“As a physician who has delivered over 5,000 babies, I can confidently say that politicizing children’s gender and using them as pawns in a radical woke agenda is not only wrong, it is extremely dangerous,” Marshall said. However, his experience as a former OB/GYN does not make him an expert on transgender issues. “We must codify the legal definition of sex based on science, not feelings. With this legislation, we can fight back against the Biden-Harris Administration’s assault on our children.”
Marshall’s assertion that the Biden administration is behind the existence of transgender people is inaccurate; transgender individuals have existed long before Biden’s presidency and will continue to exist long after it. Transgender people are not an “ideology”; they are human beings.
A similar bill was introduced in July in the House of Representatives by Rep. Mary Miller (R-IL), who also claimed her bill would prevent Title IX protections from applying to transgender people. However, the argument that transgender individuals are not protected by Title IX hinges on the notion that discrimination based on gender identity is discrimination based on sex assigned at birth. In other words, if a school allows cisgender girls to compete on a sports team but excludes transgender girls, this constitutes discrimination based on sex, as the only difference between the two groups is their sex assigned at birth. Title IX bans sex-based discrimination in education.
While Marshall’s bill is unlikely to pass in the current Senate controlled by Democrats, its introduction could signal plans to reintroduce it next session when Republicans are projected to regain control of the chamber.
The nine-day trial featured witnesses with varying levels of credibility.
A Missouri county judge has upheld the state’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors.
In a 74-page ruling issued on Monday, Wright County Circuit Court Judge Craig Carter stated, “If we don’t let a 16-year-old buy a six-pack of beer and a pack of cigarettes, or allow an adult to purchase them for the teen, should we permit the same child and parent to decide to permanently alter the teenager’s sex?”
The restrictions on gender-affirming care, passed by Missouri lawmakers in 2023, prohibit minors from using hormones, puberty blockers, and undergoing gender-affirming surgeries. The law also blocks state funding for gender-affirming care for adults through Medicaid and for incarcerated individuals in state prisons.
The ACLU of Missouri and Lambda Legal have promised to appeal the ruling.
Judge Craig Carter acknowledged the “ethical minefield” of the case, writing that “the medical profession stands in the middle” with “scant evidence to lead it out.”
The nine-day trial featured witnesses of varying credibility, with the state’s Solicitor General Joshua Divine introducing partisan politics into the proceedings. Some experts presented research that had been retracted, which the plaintiffs argued was problematic. Divine maintained that the scientific community had dismissed the research due to “cancel culture.”
Carter’s ruling was partly based on testimony from Jamie Reed, a whistleblower who previously worked at the Washington University Transgender Center at St. Louis Children’s Hospital. Reed’s affidavit helped inspire the gender-affirming care ban. She testified that the hospital treated many patients with mental health issues without comprehensive psychological evaluations. There was disagreement at trial over whether a licensed therapist’s evaluation was sufficient for gender-affirming care, or if a psychologist or psychiatrist was required.
The judge found Reed’s testimony credible, noting, “Her testimony does not arise from any ideological or other bias.” He also pointed out that Reed is married to a transgender individual.
Reed is now the executive director of the LGBT Courage Coalition, an advocacy group that opposes gender-affirming care for minors. The day before she testified, her partner announced he was discontinuing testosterone treatments and “detransitioning.”
While Carter accepted Reed’s credibility, he was less convinced by some of the plaintiffs’ witnesses. He expressed concerns about deferring to organizations like WPATH, which the plaintiffs relied on. WPATH, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, is a professional group that sets standards for gender-affirming care, but Carter noted that it self-describes as being “committed to advocacy.”
Ultimately, Carter’s ruling emphasized U.S. Supreme Court precedent that grants lawmakers broad discretion in areas “fraught with medical and scientific uncertainty.” He concluded that there is “an almost total lack of consensus as to the medical ethics of adolescent gender dysphoria treatment,” and therefore, the state legislature has the authority to ban the care.
There is no conclusive evidence to support the claim that transgender girls possess a substantial biological advantage in sports.
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, along with attorneys general from 23 other states, filed an amicus brief advocating for the prohibition of transgender girls participating in sports.
The brief specifically requests the Supreme Court to review and overturn an injunction issued by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which had blocked Arizona’s ban on transgender athletes.
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall collaborated with Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin to draft the amicus brief, with support from attorneys general in 22 other states, including Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming.
The injunction being challenged was issued in September by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a unanimous 3-0 decision. This injunction blocked Arizona’s Save Women’s Sports Act, a law imposing a blanket ban on transgender girls participating in girls’ sports, regardless of their transition timeline or use of puberty blockers. The lawsuit challenging the law was filed by two transgender girls and their parents seeking to overturn the ban.
In the court’s decision, Judge Morgan Christen wrote, “[The law] permits all students other than transgender women and girls to play on teams consistent with their gender identities. Transgender women and girls alone are barred from doing so. This is the essence of discrimination.”
The amicus brief presented several arguments in favor of the ban. One claim was that implementing policies allowing transgender girls to join girls’ sports teams would be costly and logistically difficult for schools—despite evidence showing that many schools nationwide have successfully adopted trans-inclusive policies without significant challenges.
The brief also asserted that sex and gender identity are not equivalent under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, a stance that contradicts legal precedent established in Bostock v. Clayton County. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that protections against sex-based discrimination include transgender individuals due to their gender identity.
Additionally, the attorneys general argued that the Circuit Court’s ruling was legally flawed. They suggested that the decision could be interpreted in ways more favorable to their case and called for a rational-basis review. This review would evaluate whether the plaintiffs’ claims were consistent with constitutional equal protection principles or whether they failed to meet that standard.
It remains uncertain whether these arguments will prevail. The Supreme Court has not announced whether it will hear this case. However, the Court has already agreed to consider United States v. Skrmetti, which will address the legality of state bans on gender-affirming care for minors.
Evidence does not support claims that transgender girls have a significant biological advantage in sports. In fact, studies indicate that transitioning, including the use of puberty blockers, can mitigate differences and create a fairer playing field.
Despite this, anti-trans rhetoric continues to shape these legal battles. “Our coalition is determined to preserve the 50 years of work that expanded opportunities and leveled the playing field for girls and women in sports,” Attorney General Marshall stated in a press release.
He added, “But the left continues to pander to a small minority of their base… Parents of daughters are rightfully outraged at the loss of positions on teams and college scholarships. As our multiple briefs to the Supreme Court show, it’s time to return to fairness in opportunity for sports.”
fleeredstates.blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.