LGBTQ+ rights

Subterms

    More stories

    • 225 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      I’m a drag queen in Tennessee. The state’s anti-drag law is silly, nasty, and wrong | Bella DuBalle

      by

      I am the show director at Atomic Rose, a nightclub in Memphis, Tennessee. I first discovered drag through Shakespeare. I’m a founding member of Tennessee Shakespeare Company, and I got to play some drag roles there. Growing up in the conservative south, I had learned to suppress anything considered feminine as a safety mechanism. Drag was the first time I was able to put the feminine parts of me forefront, as a source of pride and strength rather than shame or weakness. I fell in love with the art, and I’ve been doing it now for over a decade.On 2 March, Tennessee Governor Bill Lee signed into law two bills targeting the LGBTQ+ community. The first, SB1, outlaws all gender-affirming healthcare for minors. SB3, the “anti-drag bill,” redefines drag performers as adult cabaret artists and classifies drag as a prurient art form. “Prurient” is a legal term referring to a shameful or morbid interest in sex.If SB3 is enforced in the way its backers would like, it would prohibit any public drag displays – meaning no Pride events, no Drag Queen Story Hours, no drag performances in any place that might be seen by a minor. This would shut down all-ages drag brunches and other family-friendly functions. It would even raise questions about venues like mine that have large windows and lots of passersby. Would that qualify as viewable by a child? The law’s language is vague and incredibly broad.SB3 was supposed to take effect on 1 April but a local drag theatre troupe I used to work with, Friends of George’s, filed a suit against it. “The law prohibits a drag performer wearing a crop top and mini skirt from dancing where minors might see it,” their complaint notes, “but does not prohibit a Tennessee Titans cheerleader wearing an identical outfit from performing the exact same dance in front of children.”A federal judge temporarily blocked the law through 26 May while it is adjudicated. We are confident it will be overturned as a blatantly unconstitutional infringement on free speech. Even the judge – a Trump appointee – has effectively said as much, which is telling. Multiple district attorneys, including Memphis’s Steve Mulroy, have also called the law unnecessary and unfair.As for SB1, the US Department of Justice recently filed suit against Tennessee to prevent the bill from going into effect on 1 July as originally scheduled. We hope to see it swiftly overturned as well.Although neither of these laws currently has legal standing, they have absolutely had a chilling effect on freedom of expression and the queer community. Organizers in Knoxville said they may have to cancel their annual Pride parade if SB3 goes through. I also know some local non-queer venues that have shut down their shows out of fear or uncertainty. Theatre, ballet, and opera companies are asking lawyers, “Can we still produce Peter Pan with a female Pan? Can we do Mrs Doubtfire? Is it okay for us to put on Shakespeare the way it was traditionally performed?”Transgender and gender-nonconforming people are worried about just being in public. The rightwing pundit Michael Knowles recently called for “transgenderism” to be “eradicated from public life entirely”; I think people with that worldview, who view trans folks as embodiments of an ideology rather than actual human beings, could see a trans woman in public and say, “That’s a man impersonating a woman.” SB3’s language never uses the word “drag”; it only refers to “male and female impersonators.” My fear is that the language is intentionally and maliciously vague.These attacks on the queer community are part of a broader political impulse. SB1 and SB3 are just two items on what we call Tennessee’s “Slate of Hate.” I get the sense that many of our elected officials are not as politically experienced, savvy or well-versed in law or public policy as they present. Children and families in Tennessee face very real issues, but our state’s legislative session was obsessively focused on trans kids, pronouns, drag queens, and the like – all in the guise of “protecting children.”Tennesseans overwhelmingly support stronger gun control, particularly after the Covenant shooting – one of many horrific mass shootings in Tennessee in recent years. Yet the legislative session ended having done nothing to address these concerns. This comes as little surprise: our governor recently signed into law a widely-opposed permitless carry bill – at a gunmaker’s factory. How is this protecting children?Last year, the Southern Baptist Convention released a list of over 700 of their ministers accused of sexual abuse, with many of the ministers in Tennessee. And that’s just one denomination. There is no record, not a single documented instance, of a child ever being harmed or abused at a drag show. Statistically speaking, children are far safer at a Drag Queen Story Hour than at church. Yet we aren’t attempting to legislate whether parents can take children to church. How is this protecting children?Tennessee is dead last in the nation in the stability of our foster care system – failing the nearly 9,000 children under the state’s care. This information was released by the Tennessee Commission on Children and Youth after multiple failed attempts to dissolve the commission by state senator Jack Johnson – who incidentally also introduced both SB1 and SB3. How is this protecting children?We have real and difficult issues in Tennessee that require real and difficult solutions. Rather than confront the problems constituents are begging them to address, rightwing lawmakers are concocting solutions to imaginary issues. And it’s not just here in Tennessee; conservative legislatures across the US have realized there is an easy political power grab to be had by vilifying a minority group. Over 650 anti-LGBTQ bills have been introduced in 46 states since the beginning of the year. This is beyond alarming.I am reminded of a not-too-distant past when the Nazi government painted queerness as inherently evil, a danger to families, children and culture. It resulted in pink triangles, camps, executions, the burning of books and the destruction of the Hirschfeld Institute. The othering and dehumanization of a minority group is always the first step toward their eradication.In the last election cycle, about 10% of queer Tennesseans voted. In that same cycle, nearly 60% of our elected representatives ran unopposed. It is well past time we elect officials focused on solving the myriad problems facing their constituents rather than those championing a far-right Christian nationalist agenda.
      Bella DuBalle is a drag artist in Tennessee More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘I am a substantial roadblock’: a Nebraska state senator’s filibuster for trans rights

      by

      When state senator Machaela Cavanaugh set out to block every bill brought by the Nebraskan legislature this session, it was kind of an accident.She was so incensed by the advancement of LB 547, a bill looking to block gender-affirming healthcare for young people in Nebraska, she promised to hold up every single bill the legislature brought – including those she agreed with – unless her colleagues agreed to drop it.If the bill continued to progress, she told her colleagues, she would “burn the legislative session to the ground”.That was 23 February. Ten weeks later, Cavanaugh has spent some several hundred hours speaking on the house floor at length, delaying every single bill the senate tries to pass.Sometimes she has filibustered bills that she would really rather be passing, like one agreeing on state senator salaries – a mere $12,000 a year – which, if she agreed to it, would mean she could get paid. She has filibustered till her lungs became sore; taken naps on her office floor between filibustering; she’s filibustered so much she’s barely seen her family.“I imagine when session is over I will sleep a lot for several days. I’m so exhausted,” Cavanaugh told the Guardian in a phone interview, her voice hoarse.She added: “It wasn’t a deeply thought out plan, it was just the tool I have available to me.” Nebraska’s legislature is technically non-partisan, though each lawmaker identifies either as Republican or Democrat, and that swing is currently in favor of the Republicans, 32-17.“I’m in the minority party here – the only thing I have is time,” she explained. “We have a 90-day session and a limited amount of hours in which we can accomplish whatever we want to accomplish. And so I decided I was going to take control of that commodity. That’s what I’ve been doing ever since,” explains Cavanaugh.Originally, Cavanaugh wanted to force her colleagues’ hands. Would they rather get on with their jobs, passing the huge number of bills – usually more than 200 in one session – required to keep a healthy state moving forward? Or were her colleagues so dead set on passing LB 574 that they would fight over every other bill rather than drop it? So far, they have chosen the latter. But Cavanaugh has stuck to her crusade because she feels she has no other choice.“It targets a vulnerable minority population in such a vicious manner as to deny them access to lifesaving healthcare,” said Cavanaugh. “They are targeting children. I don’t view it as an option to do anything other than fight against it. That’s my job as an elected official,” she says.“I just wish my colleagues would come together and acknowledge this is bad for the state. But they’ve chosen legislating a hateful bill,” said Cavanaugh.One of the bills Cavanaugh has contributed to blocking in recent weeks was a six-week abortion ban in Nebraska.“I’m grateful it failed to move forward. It is a total ban, essentially,” she said, in reference to the fact that many people don’t realize they are pregnant at six weeks, just two weeks after their first missed period. Realizing this, the Republican co-sponsor of the six-week ban also withdrew support from his own bill last week, effectively tanking it – the bill ultimately failed to pass by one vote.Cavanaugh believes there is a marked similarity in the way that Republicans – who have brought 533 anti-trans bills since the 2023 legislative session started – target abortion and trans healthcare.“They talk about the actual healthcare and how horrible it is. They really villainize it. And right before they block access to lifesaving care to people, they say: ‘because children need to be protected’,” she said.“And just like that, you’ve eliminated health care for trans people in Nebraska, and you’ve essentially eliminated trans people’s ability to exist in Nebraska. It’s not about protecting anybody at all.”These arguments certainly sound reminiscent of those used in a huge, ongoing national case, that will decide the fate of a crucial drug used in more than half of abortions in the US.Plaintiffs bringing that case argue mifepristone – which is used in roughly 53% of US abortions – is hurting women and girls. As well as being the preferred method of US abortions, that drug is used in miscarriage care, and for lifesaving abortions. But an argument based on the vulnerability of women could be just the thing that drastically curtails access to the drug.What happens on LB 574 next is unknown. In April, Republicans in Omaha agreed to compromise on the bill, but since then, conversations seem to have broken down. No compromise amendment has been submitted; but Cavanaugh’s colleagues still have 17 days left to try to pass LB 574 if they choose to. It’s unclear if Republicans will have the votes to pass the bill if it is advanced.Cavanaugh and two of her closest allies in the battle against LB 574 – senators John Fredrickson and Megan Hunt – will continue to fight it, regardless.“I think everyone I work with would say that I am a substantial roadblock. They all are as frustrated with me as I am frustrated with all of it … It still has one more round of debate, and it could fail or pass. If it fails, I will stop talking. And if it passes, I will continue talking,” said Cavanaugh.Even if it does pass, Cavanaugh believes the bill won’t make it past an appeals court if challenged – because late last year, the eighth circuit court of appeals blocked an almost identical bill brought in Arkansas.“If this bill passes, it will be tragic for the trans community in Nebraska. It will be tragic for Nebraska writ large … And then it’s likely to be overturned in the courts. And so we will have done all of this harm and it won’t even get the result that they wanted,” she said.But she is looking forward to the session being over, and finally seeing her children and her partner. “I just want to do normal things that normal people do. Over the last 10 weeks, I’ve missed a lot,” she said. More

    • 163 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Moms for Liberty, meet John Birch: the roots of US rightwing book bans

      by

      Moms for Liberty is a Florida-based pressure group which campaigns for book bans in US public schools, an issue at the heart of the national debate as Republican-run states seek to control or eliminate teaching of sex education, LGBTQ+ rights and racism in American history.But rightwing calls for school book bans are by no means a new phenomenon – and a look at the Moms for Liberty website indicates why.Moms for Liberty seeks to organise “Madison Meetups”, events it describes as “like a book club for the constitution!”, featuring discussion of “liberty, freedom and the foundation of our government”. Under “resources that we have found helpful”, the only resource offered is The Making of America, a book by W Cleon Skousen.In the early 1960s, Skousen was a hero to and a defender of the John Birch Society, a far-right group that campaigned against what it claimed was the communist threat to America.Matthew Dallek, a professor of political management at George Washington University, is the author of Birchers: How the John Birch Society Radicalized the American Right. He points out that though the Birchers were not the only ones promoting book bans in the 60s, “they were likely the most visible group promoting book bans or promoting the policing of content in schools, libraries, movie theaters, even on newsstands”.The Birchers, Dallek adds, focused on “the so-called erosion of the moral fiber of the United States, but also the struggle to rid the country of what they regarded as really the socialist left wing”.The society still exists but its influence is greater than its presence, most obviously through a resurgence of Bircher-esque thought and action in the Republican party of Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis.In the society’s heyday, Dallek says, book bans and school board elections, another current battlefield, “gave Birchers a way to take action in their community.“They looked at where their kids went to school and their local library and the movie theater they would pass by. Part of their agenda was to insert what they considered Americanist publications, as opposed to communist propaganda.“What’s frightening now is that I don’t recall a time where those efforts were so often successful. Moms for Liberty and the other successors to the John Birch Society, they’re having a lot more success at actually implementing their vision.”Last month, the writers’ organisation Pen America reported a 28% rise in public school book bans in just six months. As the 2024 election approaches, attacks on the place of race in history classes and teaching on LGBTQ+ issues seem certain to feature in Republican debates and town halls.Dallek considers the Birchers’ influence on the Republican party over more than 60 years. But he can’t recall the society inspiring “any sweeping legislation like Florida has now passed, through three major bills. And one in particular, it’s very Orwellian. They have these education minders who have to approve all texts in school libraries. That was certainly a dream of the Birch Society.”Tactics are familiar too. Birchers often protested against what they called pornography in books and teaching, as a vehicle for communistic thought. Now, the hard right sees pornography in books on LGBTQ+ rights, in drag queen story hours, or in the casting of children’s plays.Dallek says: “Whatever the language is, whether it’s ‘woke’, or ‘progressive’, or ‘pornographic’, or ‘communistic’, in a way the brilliance of the Birchers and other groups is in the way they use language. They’re able to distill ideas and aspects of the culture they find offensive and brand them as something evil, something un-American, something that will twist and pollute the minds of kids.“I don’t know that they meant that it was literally communistic to teach sex ed in schools but it was a kind of brilliant shorthand, because they were able to mobilise a lot of supporters by saying this was a civilizational battle. A battle for whether your children will grow up being moral or not, whether they’ll have a decent life.“And if we want to bring it back to today, Ron DeSantis is out there claiming, ‘We’re only banning books that are pornographic or that kids should not be exposed to.’ But then when you’re talking about banning Toni Morrison? I mean, come on. It’s ridiculous.”But it’s real. The Bluest Eye, Morrison’s first novel, and her masterpiece Beloved have been removed from some Florida libraries.Dallek notes other echoes. For instance, the role of rightwing women.“Historically, schools have been in terms of teaching jobs often reserved for women. And so, ironically, in the 1960s and 70s, as feminism becomes a major force in the culture and many women expect to work outside the home and be active politically, conservative, really far-right women take an element of that and get active in their communities.“Women have been on the frontlines of many of these fights to ban books, to police what kids are learning. Parental rights, the whole idea … is I think focused at the moms and … imposing their version of Christian morals on public education and many public spaces.“To go back to the W Cleon Skousen thing” on the Moms for Liberty website, “it does suggest a link to the past. Skousen continued to write in the 1980s and 90s. He was a defender of the John Birch Society and was held up as a hero.”Skousen died in 2006. Seventeen years later, to Dallek his recommendation from Moms for Liberty “suggests there really is a tradition in modern American politics, on the far right, that has become much more mainstream.“Groups like Moms for Liberty understand that. That there’s a set of ideas, and a literature, and a whole kind of subculture around this effort to police ideas and morality in schools. And they are tapping into that very effectively.”
      Birchers: How the John Birch Society Radicalized the American Right is published in the US by Hachette More

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Court upholds exclusion of transgender lawmaker from Montana legislature

      by

      Zooey Zephyr, the transgender state lawmaker silenced after telling Republicans they would have blood on their hands for opposing gender-affirming healthcare for kids, was barred from returning to the Montana house floor in a Tuesday court ruling hours before the legislature wrapped up its biennial session.A district court judge, Mike Menahan, said it was outside his authority to overrule lawmakers who voted last week to exclude Zephyr from the house floor and debates. He cited the importance of preserving the separation of powers between the legislative, executive and judicial branches.“Plaintiffs’ requested relief would require this court to interfere with legislative authority in a manner that exceeds this court’s authority,” Menahan wrote.The ruling and lawmakers’ decision to adjourn brought a sudden end to a standoff that put a national spotlight on transgender issues and the muffling of dissent in statehouses across the US.Democrats and the transgender community were outraged over Zephyr’s treatment. Republicans were indignant over the vehemence of the response.Attorneys for the state asked the judge to reject an emergency motion from Zephyr’s lawyers. The first-term lawmaker was silenced two weeks ago for admonishing Republicans, then banished from the floor for encouraging a statehouse protest.Zephyr told the Associated Press Menahan’s decision was “entirely wrong”.“It’s a really sad day for the country when the majority party can silence representation from the minority party whenever they take issue,” Zephyr said.An attorney for Zephyr, Alex Rate, said an appeal was being considered. But with the legislative session ending, a ruling would be of little immediate consequence.The punishment against Zephyr was through the end of the 2023 session. Since the Montana legislature convenes every two years, Zephyr would have to be re-elected in 2024 before she could return to the house floor.Lawyers working under the state attorney general, Austin Knudsen, cautioned that any intervention by the courts on Zephyr’s behalf would be a blatant violation of the separation of powers. They wrote in a court filing that the statehouse retains “exclusive constitutional authority” to discipline its own members.Knudsen, a Republican, issued a statement saying the lawsuit was an attempt by outside groups to interfere with the Montana lawmaking process.”Today’s decision is a win for the rule of law and the separation of powers enshrined in our constitution,” he said.Zephyr and several of her Missoula constituents on Monday filed court papers seeking an emergency order allowing her to return to the house floor. Democrats have denounced her exclusion from floor debates as an assault on free speech intended to silence her criticism of new restrictions on gender-affirming care for minors.But lawyers for the state said the censure of Zephyr was “for good cause” following the 24 April demonstration.“One legislator cannot be allowed to halt the ability of the other 99 to engage in civil, orderly, debate concerning issues affecting Montana,” state lawyers wrote.GOP leaders under pressure from hardline conservatives silenced Zephyr from participating in floor debates and demanded she apologize almost two weeks ago, after she said those who supported a ban on gender-affirming care for youths would have blood on their hands.On 24 April, Zephyr raised a microphone in defiance on the house floor as protesters in the gallery demanded she be allowed to speak and refused to leave. Seven were arrested on trespassing charges and two days later lawmakers voted along party lines to oust Zephyr from the floor and gallery.She has since been working from a bench in a hallway or at a statehouse snack bar.The actions against Zephyr have propelled her to political prominence. But in Montana, Republicans hope to capitalize on her high profile by painting Democrats as a party of extremists.The lawsuit seeking to reverse her punishment was filed by attorneys working with the Montana American Civil Liberties Union. It named the house speaker, Matt Regier, and sergeant-at-arms, Brad Murfitt, as defendants. More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Montana governor lobbied by non-binary son to reject anti-trans bills

      by

      The son of the Republican governor of Montana, Greg Gianforte, met their father in his office to lobby him to reject several bills that would harm transgender people in the state, the Montana Free Press reported.David Gianforte told the paper they identify as non-binary and use he/they pronouns – the first time they disclosed their gender identity publicly. They told the outlet they felt an obligation to use their relationship with their father to stand up for LGBTQ+ people in the state.“There are a lot of important issues passing through the legislature right now,” they said in a statement. “For my own sake I’ve chosen to focus primarily on transgender rights, as that would significantly directly affect a number of my friends … I would like to make the argument that these bills are immoral, unjust, and frankly a violation of human rights.”The governor, who assaulted a Guardian reporter in 2017, responded with an email that said: “I would like to better understand your thoughts and concerns. When can we get together to talk about it? Love, Dad.”Brooke Stroyke, a spokesperson for the governor, declined to comment to the Montana Free Press.“The governor loves his family and values their thoughts, ideas and perspectives,” Stroyke said. “Our office will not discuss private conversations between the governor and members of his family.”Republicans across the US have moved to restrict transgender rights. Ten bills in the Montana state legislature this session target transgender people, according to translegislation.com, an online tracker.Those bills including measures that would deny gender-affirming care to minors and limit the definition of sex in state law, which could limit legal protections for transgender people. Another bill prohibits drag shows on any public property or places where minors are present.On Tuesday, the state legislature voted to ban Zooey Zephyr, a transgender Democratic lawmaker, from the statehouse floor. Zephyr previously told lawmakers they would have “blood on their hands”.David Gianforte told the Montana Free Press they didn’t expect their lobbying to ultimately change the outcome of the bill.“I feel like I have a voice and I can be heard,” they said. “And I feel, not only in communicating with my father, that’s not necessarily the main point, but also just showing support for the transgender community in Montana. I think that could be meaningful, especially at this time.”Greg Gianforte pleaded guilty in 2017 to a charge of misdemeanor assault after he attacked the Guardian reporter Ben Jacobs on the eve of his election to the US House. Gianforte received a six-month deferred sentence and served no jail time. He became Montana governor in 2021.A few weeks after the meeting between the governor and David, the governor sent the legislation banning transgender-affirming care back to the legislature with revisions. David said the press release accompanying those changes was “bizarre”.“It’s bizarre to me to read the press release that my father put out,” David said. “He talks about compassion toward children, the youth of Montana, while simultaneously taking away healthcare from the youth in Montana.“It’s basically a contradiction in my mind.” More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Montana Republicans bar transgender lawmaker from the statehouse floor

      by

      Montana Republicans have barred the transgender lawmaker Zooey Zephyr from the statehouse floor for the rest of the session after she told colleagues they would have “blood on your hands” if they voted to ban gender-affirming medical care for trans children.Under the terms of the punishment, Zephyr will still be able to vote remotely. The Democratic representative had been forbidden from speaking for the past week over her comments, which Republicans said violated decorum.The decision to silence Zephyr had already drawn protests that brought the statehouse to a halt on Monday as demonstrators demanded Zephyr be allowed to speak.In a defiant speech on Wednesday before lawmakers voted, Zephyr said she was taking a stand for the LGBTQ+ community, her constituents in Missoula and “democracy itself”.She accused the Republican house speaker, Matt Regier, of taking away the voices of her 11,000 constituents and attempting to drive “a nail in the coffin of democracy” by silencing her.“If you use decorum to silence people who hold you accountable, then all you’re doing is using decorum as a tool of oppression,” she said.Zephyr’s punishment has ignited a firestorm of debate about governance and who has a voice in democracy in politically polarizing times, much like recent events in the Tennessee statehouse where two black lawmakers were expelled after participating in a post-school shooting gun control protest that interrupted proceedings.In Montana, Republicans said they would not let the Missoula lawmaker speak unless she apologized for her remarks last week on the proposed ban, which she refused to do. Conservative Republicans have repeatedly misgendered Zephyr since the remarks, deliberately using incorrect pronouns to describe her.Zephyr’s remarks, and the Republican response, set off a chain of events that culminated in a rally outside the capitol at noon Monday. Protesters later packed into the gallery at the statehouse and brought House proceedings to a halt while chanting “Let her speak.” The scene galvanized her supporters and and those saying her actions constitute an unacceptable attack on civil discourse. Police arrested seven people at the capitol.Tuesday’s floor session was cancelled without explanation, and Republican leaders closed the gallery to the public on Wednesday “to maintain decorum and ensure safety”, they said in a letter to Zephyr.The events have sent shockwaves through Missoula, a liberal college town where 80% of voters sent the first openly trans legislator in state history to the state capital.“When she first ran I thought, ‘they’re going to do something to limit her power’,” said Erin Flint, 28. But she didn’t expect Zephyr to be silenced completely.Montana has long leaned to the right, but with more of a libertarian bent than a zest for culture wars. That allowed Democrats to win the governorship regularly for decades, and occasionally to win control of one or more houses of the legislature.Andy Nelson grew up in a town of 750 people in eastern Montana, and only felt comfortable coming out as gay in his senior year of college at the University of Montana in Missoula, when he volunteered at the Center, a local LGBTQ+ community group where he is now executive director. He remembered long discussions wondering whether such a group was still necessary after gay marriage was legalized nationally in 2015. But that all changed in 2016, with the presidential candidacy of Donald Trump.Trump handily won the state that year and in 2020. Republicans now hold both congressional seats and all statewide offices, although one of the state’s two US Senate seats is held by Democrat John Tester, a top GOP target in 2024. Last year, as Zephyr was elected in her Missoula district of about 11,000 residents, the GOP Republicans rode a surge in popular support to win a supermajority in both chambers of the legislature.Zeke Cork, 62, one of the Center’s board members, recalled the 1970s as a great time to be out in Missoula, though he said he had to follow certain rules to be safe. A railroad dispatcher, Cork has lived all over the US but returned to Montana in 2015. He felt safe enough to transition fully two years ago.Cork has been traveling to the state capitol in Helena to speak against the legislation affecting trans people since it was first introduced. After Zephyr was silenced, he joined dozens of others from Missoula at the capitol earlier this week.“We would much rather be living quiet lives, out of the spotlight, living under the radar, living our best lives,” Cork said. “I don’t want to be having this battle.”But, Cork added, the community has no choice. “She speaks for me and I sent her to that house,” said Cork, who lives in Zephyr’s district. “We’re fighting for democracy right now.” More

    • 213 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      It’s not just trans kids: Republicans are coming after trans adults like me, too | Alex Myers

      by

      On Thursday 13 April, Missouri’s attorney general issued an emergency ruling that restricts access to gender-affirming care for both minors and adults, under the guise that hormone therapy is an “experimental use” rather than an FDA-approved treatment. For the past year, transgender youth have been a football for conservative politicians, with their access to gender-affirming care restricted or outlawed in 14 states. But this move by Missouri’s attorney general is the first attack on gender-affirming care for transgender adults; assuredly, it won’t be the last.The first time I tried to get access to gender-affirming care was in 2003. I was 24 years old and lived in Rhode Island. I’d been out as transgender for eight years by then, eight years spent looking (on a good day) like a 14-year-old boy, until finally the me I saw in the mirror and the me I saw in my head didn’t match any more. Only testosterone would make me feel like myself.I told my doctor, who was kind and sympathetic and said she had no idea about the protocols for administration of testosterone to a transgender person. She did find me a list of all the practitioners in Rhode Island who offered such care. There were three names on the list. True, Rhode Island is not a large state, but still: three names. I called them all. Only one would see me, and only after I had gone to therapy and had a psychologist certify that I was ready to transition.That was the standard back then – and that’s what the Missouri attorney general wants to require of adult transgender individuals now, only more extensive. In 2003 in Rhode Island, I needed to see a therapist for at least three visits. The Missouri AG wants documentation of least three years of “medically documented, long-lasting, persistent and intense pattern of gender dysphoria” before an adult can be approved to get hormones. Three years of therapy is lengthy, time-consuming and expensive; three years is a very long time to suffer before being allowed to get medical attention.Moreover, back in 2003, “gender identity disorder” was in the Diagnostics and Statistics Manual (DSM) as a mental disorder. Doctors required transgender individuals to visit a psychologist so that there was a “legitimate” diagnosis to accompany the prescription of hormones – even though, back then and still today, the use of hormones for gender reassignment is an “off-label” use. But that diagnosis was removed from the DSM in 2013, replaced with “gender dysphoria”.That’s the term Missouri’s AG uses in his emergency ruling and, in doing so, trying to return to the idea that being transgender is synonymous with being mentally ill, a narrative that the right has used at several historical moments to marginalize LGBTQ+ individuals. The narrative here isn’t really about a diagnosis or medical legitimacy – it certainly isn’t about the health of the transgender person. The subtext clearly is that transgender people are mentally ill and delusional, and they need a medical authority to help them figure out who they are.The therapist that I saw in 2003 was a gay man who had a lot of compassion for the situation I was in. He knew it was a hoop I had to jump through, and he also knew he had to do his job. He asked me questions, took notes, and eventually wrote a letter certifying that I fit the diagnosis of “gender identity disorder” and that hormone therapy would help treat this disorder.I felt uncomfortable with the process; it seemed to me then and it seems to me now that there isn’t anything wrong with my gender identity. I know very well who I am; it’s how I feel about my body that needed to be addressed in a medical way. That’s the shift that was made in the DSM – away from “gender identity” and towards “dysphoria”. That’s the shift that the Missouri AG is trying to undo and rewrite.But that diagnosis and that therapist’s letter got me a prescription for testosterone in Rhode Island, a medical intervention that was absolutely transformative and life-saving for me.And then I moved to south-west Florida. I called endocrinologist after endocrinologist, asking if they would see me, look at the paperwork from my Rhode Island doctor, look at the letter from the therapist. A dozen said no – one receptionist told me curtly that the doctor didn’t see “transgendereds”. Another hung up on me. A third said, “Are you kidding me?” Eventually, I found a doctor in the Miami area, a three-hour drive away, who agreed to see me.This was typical for transgender care back then and, sadly, now. Unless you live in or near a major metropolitan area, getting a doctor who is trained, comfortable and willing to provide gender-affirming care is not easy. I was a person with a lot of privilege: health insurance from my employer, a good income, the language and education and time to persist in finding a therapist and a doctor who would treat me. For many transgender individuals, this would be too much, especially to maintain for three years. Missouri is trying to pile more work on to an already significant burden.But more than the details of this particular attack, I hope people will see the mounting pattern here. The first wave of legislation came for transgender youth. This next wave is coming for transgender adults. Put these restrictions next to the rulings against abortion and you can see a larger picture of bodily control. Who gets to make medical decisions about their bodies? Not pregnant women. Not transgender people.Back in 2003, I was so frustrated by my own experience that I vowed to work for improvements. I’ve fought for transgender civil rights and worked in particular for transgender students. There were years when we were making headway, when a conversation between a transgender individual and their doctor was sufficient basis to prescribe hormones. Now, it seems like we are at an inflection point. It’s time to strip away the rhetoric and recognize what’s at stake: our rights to control our bodies, our rights to control our identities. And I’m not just talking about transgender people.
      Alex Myers is a novelist and teacher who lives in Vermont More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Texas state agency orders workers to dress ‘consistent to their biological gender’

      by

      A Texas state agency told its employees this month that they must dress in a manner that is “consistent with their biological gender”, a directive that seemed to be a thinly veiled attack on transgender employees.The state’s department of agriculture laid out the dress policy in a 13 April memo, which was first reported by the Texas Observer.The memo says that “Western business attire” is appropriate and lays out acceptable business casual items.“For men, business attire includes a long-sleeved dress shirt, tie, and sport coat worn with trousers and dress shoes or boots,” it says. “For women, business attire includes tailored pantsuits, business-like dresses, coordinated dressy separates worn with or without a blazer, and conservative, closed-toe shoes or boots.”It prohibits women from wearing clothing that allows for “excessive cleavage” as well as skirts that are shorter than four inches from the knees. It also bans certain footwear – Crocs, slippers and slides are all not allowed. Also not allowed are neon and fluorescent hair colors as well as lip and other facial piercings. Clothing that is “too tight or too revealing” is also not allowed. “You are a professional, look like one,” the memo says.The policy comes as Texas and a number of other US states have moved to attack transgender Americans. There was more anti-transgender legislation filed in Texas this year than in any other state, according to a tally by Axios.Proposed measures would restrict drag performances, impose new obstacles to gender-affirming care and limit teaching about gender and sexuality, the Texas Tribune reported.Texas’s department of agriculture is run by Sid Miller, a Republican who was first elected to his role in 2014. An outspoken supporter of former president Donald Trump, Miller has faced headwinds because of some scandals in recent years.The memo says agency supervisors can exercise “reasonable discretion” in assessing employees’ clothing. Employees’ refusal to comply with a request to change their clothing could result in their dismissal.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“If a staff member’s inappropriate attire, poor hygiene or use of offensive perfume/cologne is an issue, the supervisor should first discuss the problem with the staff member in private and should point out the specific areas to be corrected,” the memo says.The CEO of the LGBTQ+ advocacy group Equality Texas, Ricardo Martinez, told the Texas Tribune that the ambiguities in the policy could lead to confusion. “Are women no longer allowed to wear suits? Can men wear necklaces?” he said.An attorney with the Texas chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, Brian Klosterboer, told the Texas Tribune that the policy violated federal law. Federal civil rights law also protects LGBTQ+ individuals from discrimination by their employers, the supreme court ruled in 2020. More