Candace Owens continues to host anti

After a mid-June suspension, she’s continued to post hateful content that appears to violate YouTube’s policies

Published

on

By

By Alyssa Tirrell | WASHINGTON – In mid-June, Daily Wire host Candace Owens faced suspension from YouTube for violating the platform’s terms of service with an alleged second strike reportedly related to “hateful and derogatory” content.

After Owens and her colleagues responded by denouncing the platform, Candace Owens returned to YouTube with severe anti-gay rhetoric.

YouTube’s terms of service prohibit posting content to “incite hatred” against individuals or groups based on characteristics including gender identity and expression or sexual orientation.

Additionally, YouTube community guidelines specify that three strikes within a 90-day period could result in the removal of a channel from the platform — and according to YouTube monetization policies, ad revenue is contingent on compliance with community guidelines.

However, despite the actions YouTube has taken to penalize her for violating its terms of service, Owens has continued to post content that appears to violate the platform’s hate speech policies. Additionally, the episodes Media Matters has identified as containing potentially violative content are both monetized.

On July 14, Owens published an interview with conservative commentator Brandon Tatum titled “Is Homosexuality Ruining Western Civilization?”

From the July 14, 2023, edition of The Daily Wire’s Candace Owens:

In the interview, Tatum posited that LGBTQ identities are primarily the product of child sexual assault, molestation, and pornography, and Owens added that societal acceptance has made LGBTQ identity an “option” such that it has increased from a “small subset of people who were perhaps molested” to a spreading “social contagion.” Tatum continued, without pushback, to say that the ultimate “agenda” of the LGBTQ movement is to groom children and “push pedophilia.”

A few days later, on July 17, Owens again asserted that child sexual assault is the primary origin of homosexual identity, saying that gay and lesbian people refuse to address childhood trauma and are making a “choice” to remain “homosexual.” Building on her interview with Tatum, Owens also argued that sexual abuse in the Catholic Church is the fault of “homosexual men that have invaded institutions.”

From the July 17, 2023, edition of The Daily Wire’s Candace Owens:

Both Owens’ interview with Tatum and her commentary that followed exhibited an increasingly common right-wing smear baselessly accusing LGBTQ people of pedophilia or “grooming.” The popularization of the “groomer” slur has also been linked to acts of violence against LGBTQ people and allies across the country, including threats to drag story hours, gay politicians, and children’s hospitals.

By fueling this trend of anti-LGBTQ hatred which has led to direct violence at its most extreme, Owens is again seemingly in violation of YouTube policy.

*****************************************************************************************

The preceding article was previously published by Media Matters for America and is republished with permission.

Breaking down the Gay/Trans Panic Defense: Origins & impact

School boards are the battlefield for LGBTQ+ Rights

Attack on LGBTQ bar reflects deteriorating rights in Lebanon

Orlando LGBTQ Center murals defaced, Nazi & anti-LGBTQ hate

“Gay/trans panic” is still a valid legal defense in most states. A look at its origins and impact on LGBTQ+ community

Published

on

By

By Dana Piccoli | VANCOUVER, Wash. – The final episode of the Max documentary series “Last Call: When a Serial Killer Stalked Queer New York” reveals that the man behind the brutal murders and dismemberments of at least four queer men in the early 90s is pediatric nurse Richard Rogers. Thanks to advanced investigative technology, Rogers was finally arrested in 2001 for the crimes.

However, the fact that Rogers was free to commit these crimes and possibly others was due to a defense used in a 1973 murder trial. Rogers was arrested and tried that year for the murder of his University of Maine roommate, Frederic Alan Spencer. He used a defense known as “gay panic” which is still being used today.

As part of his defense, Rogers’ lawyers used the “gay panic” or “homosexual panic defense,” a term coined in 1920 by psychiatrist Edward J. Kempf. The origins of using the strategy as a legal defense can be traced back to the mid-1800s. “Gay panic” and similarly “trans panic” are legal strategies used in criminal trials to justify violent actions claiming that a perceived same-sex advance or proposition provoked the defendant’s actions.

This defense often seeks to downplay the defendant’s responsibility for their actions by suggesting that the victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity caused them to experience extreme emotional distress or panic, leading to a violent reaction. “Gay/trans panic” is still a valid legal defense in most states.

In Rogers’ trial, his lawyers argued that he was defending himself against the unwanted advances of Spencer. A jury agreed, and Rogers was found not guilty, allowing him to spend the next two decades preying on members of the LGBTQ+ community.

At the time of the murders referenced in the Max docuseries, the LGBTQ+ community faced a similar backlash as we do today. AIDS had decimated the community in the ‘80s and early ‘90s, and while help was on the way in the form of more effective medicines and treatments, fear and anger against the LGBTQ+ community were rising.

Activist groups like ACT UP, The Anti-Violence Project and Queer Nation pushed for more acceptance and legal protections while the “Moral Majority,” buoyed by the support of the Ronald Regan administration, spread its anti-LGBTQ+ and family values platform further into U.S. political systems.

While the LGBTQ+ community may now have same-sex marriage and more rights than ever, the backlash we are experiencing is not dissimilar to what our community dealt with three decades prior.

Over 600 anti-LGBTQ+ bills have been proposed in state legislatures this year, from banning transgender students from participating in athletics to erasing all mentions of LGBTQ+ people in the classrooms from kindergarten to eighth grade.

According to UCLA’s Williams Institute, LGBTQ+ people are nine times more likely to be the victim of a violent hate crime. Groomer rhetoric is all over social media, drag story hours are being threatened with attacks and just last week, O’Shea Sibley was stabbed to death in a gas station parking lot after being called gay slurs.

Attacks motivated by anti-LGBTQ+ hate have been on the rise since 2020 according to reports by the FBI, the Anti-Defamation League and GLAAD.

“Extremists, including elected officials, must be held accountable for inciting violence and using vile rhetoric against marginalized people who just want to live in safety and peace,” said GLAAD President and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis, “Targeting people for who they are, or for their race and faith, is an attack on fundamental freedoms, and the health and well-being of all in our country.”

If our community is being attacked simply for existing as queer and trans people, it begs the question: are we entering a new and dangerous phase of “gay panic?”

Currently, there are 34 states where perpetrators of violent hate crimes against the LGBTQ+ community can use “gay/trans panic” as a defense.” This has been widely criticized for perpetuating harmful stereotypes, promoting homophobia and enabling discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals. Still, a majority of the country allows these defenses in some form. There is, however, some positive movement in shutting down this defense.

California became the first state to ban the “gay/trans panic” in 2014. Following California’s lead, Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington have also taken steps to restrict or ban the use of the trans panic defense in criminal trials.

A national law banning the defense has been attempted but to less success. In 2018, Senator Edward Markey (D-MA) and Representative Joseph Kennedy III (D-MA) introduced S.3188 and H.R.6358, which would have banned the “gay/trans panic defense” at the national level. Both bills died in committee, as did the reintroduction of similar bills in 2020.

Over the years, advocacy groups, legal experts and LGBTQ+ activists have pushed for eliminating the gay panic defense, asserting that it has no place in a just legal system. As a result, there has been a growing movement to ban or restrict the use of this defense in various jurisdictions.

The momentum to reject “gay/trans panic” as a defense picked up in the early aughts after the 1998 murder of 21-year-old gay college student Matthew Shepard in Laramie, Wyoming and the 2002 murder of 17-year-old transgender teenager Gwen Araujo. Defendants in both cases used panic defenses but were convicted.

In 2006, then San Francisco district attorney Kamala Harris and her legal team held a symposium titled “Defeating the ‘Panic Defense.‘ In a statement ahead of the meeting, Harris wrote, “The panic defense is an insidious strategy based upon prejudice and hate.” “It has been raised in homicide and assault cases nationwide, inviting jury nullification and attempting to justify violent crime based upon the identity of the victim.”

While the “gay/trans panic defense” isn’t used as often as it once was, it still proves to be a powerful move with jurors. In 2018, a Texas jury recommended just 10 years of probation for James Miller, who was convicted of killing his neighbor Daniel Spencer. Miller claimed self-defense after Spencer became enraged when Miller rejected a kiss. Just last year, despite a recent ban on the “gay/trans panic defense,” a Virginia jury found Isimemen Etute not guilty of the second-degree murder of Jerry Paul Smith.

“Gay/trans panic” is a tool of othering, placing LGBTQ+ victims of violent crimes in a category that reduces our humanity. It makes our lives less than our straight counterparts and cushions the blow of harming us. At a time of extreme anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric, not just in the United States but abroad, LGBTQ+ people risk becoming another statistic of physical and sexual violence.

However, as the LGBTQ+ community has proven time and time again, we are not helpless. Here’s what you can do to try and fight back against “gay/trans panic.”

For federal representatives, visit congress.gov and use the “Find Your Senators” and “Find Your Representative” tools to locate their contact information.

For state representatives, check your state government’s official website or search for your state legislature’s website to find contact information for your state senators and representatives.

For local representatives, visit your city or county government’s official website to find contact information for your local officials.

When writing to representatives, ACLU recommends being clear and concise in your message and verifying that you are a constituent. Clearly ask your representative to take a specific action in abolishing panic defenses.

The trajectory of progress has seen both triumphs and setbacks as the battle against the “gay/trans panic defense” unfolds. As we confront its legacy, every conversation and every shared experience contributes to a more just and empathetic world.

***********************************************************************************

Dana Piccoli, the editor of News is Out, is an award-winning writer who has been covering the LGBTQ+ community for over a decade with a special dedication to queer women’s issues.

Website: http://danapiccoli.com/

***********************************************************************************

The preceding article was originally published by News is Out, a queer media collaborative, and is republished with permission.

Judge debunks “experimental” talking point, plus several other anti-trans talking points, including the idea of “low quality evidence”

Published

on

By

By Erin Reed | ATLANTA – United States District Judge Sarah E. Geraghty, has blocked a gender affirming care ban in the state from taking effect. The bill responsible for the ban is SB140, a bill passed in March of this year.

In hearing a challenge to the ban, the judge evaluated the constitutionality of the law as well as evidence for and against gender affirming care to make a final decision. In blocking the law via temporary injunction, the judge assigned low weight to the anti-trans experts and rebuked common talking points used to justify such bans.

The law banning gender-affirming care is the only one of its kind passed in a state carried by Joe Biden. Enacted on March 22, it featured a series of “legislative findings” intended as factual statements to be considered in court. These include false claims that a majority of transgender youth eventually reject their trans identity and that therapy alone can sufficiently address their needs, insinuating support for conversion therapy. While these statements were presumably added to defend the law in court, the judge dismissed them as lacking credibility.

Three experts testified against the law, while three testified in its favor. Representing the plaintiffs and arguing that the law was unsupported by evidence and likely unconstitutional were Dr. Daniel Schumer, medical director of Michigan Medicine’s Comprehensive Gender Services Program; Dr. Meredithe McNamara, an adolescent medicine physician and assistant professor of pediatrics at Yale School of Medicine; and Dr. Ren Massey, a Georgia-based clinical psychologist who has treated more than 600 children and adolescents with gender dysphoria. The state’s defense presented Dr. Paul Hruz, Dr. Michael Laidlaw, and Dr. James Cantor. This latter group opposes transgender rights and has been discredited in several courts for alleged lack of experience and perceived ideological bias. The judge ultimately assigned high weight to plaintiff’s experts, while assigning low weight to defense experts – in line with those other courts.

The judge, in evaluating the law, ruled that the plaintiffs had standing (they would be reasonably injured by the law). The judge also ruled that heightened scrutiny applies because the law discriminates on the basis of sex: those assigned male at birth would be banned from receiving estrogen, and those assigned female at birth would be banned from receiving testosterone. The final evaluation, under heightened scrutiny, comes in determining if the law serves a legitimate state interest and is narrowly tailored – ane the judge must do so using the evidence available over the care. It is on this final point that the law failed.

The judge determined that the defense’s case rested on three points (emphasis mine):

Much of what is disputed at this stage, both in the paper record and in the expert testimony before the Court, has concerned (1) what the medical evidence shows about the risks and benefits of hormone therapy as a treatment for gender dysphoria; (2) the strength of that evidence, i.e. the Defendants’ contention that hormone therapy is medically controversial and unsupported by sufficient research of sufficient strength; and (3) stray suggestions that care is pushed upon undesiring parents or unready youth. The Court addresses each in turn.

The court ruled on each of these points:

The judge was particularly harsh on defense experts on that second point, noting that they required a “high level of evidence” for benefits but did not hold themselves to that same standard when evaluating risks or claiming ideological bias in medical organizations:

The judge ruled that, given these facts, the law appears to discriminate based on sex in an excessively broad manner. This likely infringes on the plaintiff’s rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Consequently, the law will be suspended until a definitive judgment is reached. This decision marks the seventh instance where a court has halted a gender-affirming care ban in the U.S. So far, only the 6th Circuit Court, which governs Tennessee and Kentucky, has sustained such a ban.

These bans are expected to make their way through the courts in the upcoming months. Multiple states are currently holding hearings on their respective bans. Trans individuals in these states might find solace in recent judgments from Georgia and the other six states that have halted their bans. In the end, it’s probable that these bans will reach the Supreme Court, even though the cases are advancing at a gradual pace. Meanwhile, trans youth in Georgia can take comfort in the knowledge that their care remains safeguarded.

****************************************************************************

Erin Reed is a transgender woman (she/her pronouns) and researcher who tracks anti-LGBTQ+ legislation around the world and helps people become better advocates for their queer family, friends, colleagues, and community. Reed also is a social media consultant and public speaker.

Follow her on Twitter (Link)

Website here: https://www.erininthemorning.com/

******************************************************************************************

The preceding article was first published at Erin In The Morning and is republished with permission.

Newt Gingrich: “I think we are drifting toward the greatest constitutional crisis since the 1850s and the rise of secession & the Civil War”

Published

on

By

By Ethan Collier & Audrey McCabe | WASHINGTON – Right-wing media this week responded to former President Donald Trump’s fourth criminal indictment — this time, for conspiring to subvert the 2020 presidential election results in Georgia — by arguing that the charges signal the end of American democracy and the start of a potential civil war.

***************************************************************************************

The preceding article was previously published by Media Matters for America and is republished with permission.

Medical journal JAMA found that the regret rate for trans chest masculinization, commonly referred to as “top surgery” is extremely low

Published

on

By

By Erin Reed | WASHINGTON – A study published last Wednesday in the prestigious medical journal JAMA Surgery found that the regret rate for transgender chest masculinization, commonly referred to as “top surgery,” is extremely low.

Almost none of the participants expressed regret following their procedures. The research is in line with many other studies which indicate low regret rates for transgender individuals — rates notably lower than many other prevalent medical procedures. This contradicts the accounts of political detransitioners who have testified in U.S. hearings, claiming that gender-affirming care leads to “regret and irreversible damage.”

In response, conservative anti-trans influencers and thought leaders erupted at the findings, offering wild and incredulous explanations, and some even challenged the validity of scientific medical journals themselves.

The study itself is titled, “Long-Term Regret and Satisfaction With Decision Following Gender-Affirming Mastectomy,” and sought to study the rate of regret and satisfaction after 2 years or more following gender affirming top surgery. The study’s results were stunning – in 139 surgery patients, the median regret score was 0/100 and the median satisfaction score was 5/5 with similar means as well. In other words… regret was virtually nonexistent in the study among post-op transgender people.

In fact, the regret was so low that many statistical techniques would not even work due to the uniformity of the numbers:

In this cross-sectional survey study of participants who underwent gender-affirming mastectomy 2.0 to 23.6 years ago, respondents had a high level of satisfaction with their decision and low rates of decisional regret. The median Satisfaction With Decision score was 5 on a 5-point scale, and the median decisional regret score was 0 on a 100-point scale. This extremely low level of regret and dissatisfaction and lack of variance in scores impeded the ability to determine meaningful associations among these results, clinical outcomes, and demographic information.

The numbers are in line with many other studies on satisfaction among transgender people. Detransition rates, for instance, have been pegged at somewhere between 1-3%, with transgender youth seeing very low detransition rates. Surgery regret is in line with at least 27 other studies that show a pooled regret rate of around 1% – compare this to regret rates from things like knee surgery, which can be as high as 30%. Gender affirming care appears to be extremely well tolerated with very low instances of regret when compared to other medically necessary care.

Unsurprisingly, the study provoked a significant reaction from conservative circles. Nearly every conservative figure associated with endorsing anti-trans legislation throughout the U.S. offered their perspective on the research. Leor Sapir of the Manhattan Institute, known for advocating against gender-affirming care, seemed to suggest that individuals discontented with their surgeries might not participate in surveys inquiring about potential regrets.

Chloe Cole, a political detransitioner, appeared to hint at a similar stance. On Twitter, these reactions were met with widespread jest, with many drawing humorous parallels to how these people might treat Yelp reviews and customer service feedback:

When initial arguments fell short, these figures began to scrutinize the scientific process itself. SEGM, a known anti-trans group, issued a non-peer-reviewed “response” arguing that esteemed medical journals serve as “platforms for propagating politically-driven research.” Leor Sapir criticized the peer-review system in gender medicine studies, labeling it as “a broken chain of trust.”

Perhaps most amusingly, Matt Walsh circulated a video asserting that scientific research holds little value, suggesting the low regret rates in the study are because “transgender people are just not admitting their regret” and are “lying to themselves.”

The intense conservative backlash, to the point of disputing reputable scientific journals, likely stems from the fact that reduced regret rates weaken a central narrative these figures have championed in legal and legislative spaces.

Over the past three years, anti-trans entities have showcased political detransitioners, reminiscent of the ex-gay campaigns from the 1990s and 2000s, to argue that regrets over gender transition and detransition are widespread. Some have even asserted detransition rates of up to 80%, a claim that has been broadly debunked.

Yet, research consistently struggles to find substantial evidence supporting this narrative. The rarity of detransition and regret is underscored by Florida’s inability to enlist a single resident to bear witness against a lawsuit challenging the state’s ban on gender-affirming care.

As we progress, courts will continue scrutinize evidence surrounding gender-affirming care in lawsuits aimed at repealing oppressive transgender care bans. Time and again, Republicans have failed in these legal battles, largely due to the absence of robust medical expertise and scientifically credible arguments.

A case in point is Arkansas, where a full review of the facts by a Judge underscored the overwhelming scientific support for gender-affirming care. Should anti-trans groups and Republicans defending these statutes choose to dismiss respected scientific journals outright, their chances of prevailing in court will only diminish further.

****************************************************************************

Erin Reed is a transgender woman (she/her pronouns) and researcher who tracks anti-LGBTQ+ legislation around the world and helps people become better advocates for their queer family, friends, colleagues, and community. Reed also is a social media consultant and public speaker.

Follow her on Twitter (Link)

Website here: https://www.erininthemorning.com/

******************************************************************************************

The preceding article was first published at Erin In The Morning and is republished with permission.

Anti-trans activists have brought up “The Swedish Study” to claim that trans people have 19x higher suicide rates

Published

on

By

By Erin Reed | WASHINGTON – In recent months, many anti-trans activists, Republicans and witnesses have cited a “Swedish Study,” alleging that transgender individuals face a 19 times higher suicide rate after receiving gender-affirming care.

Dr. Jennifer Bauwens mentioned this study in a congressional hearing on gender affirming care recently. Chloe Cole, a political detransitioner, referred to the study in a lawsuit against Kaiser Family Foundation. Even Elon Musk cited the study, suggesting he would “actively lobby to criminalize gender-affirming care for transgender youth.”

The issue? The “Swedish Study” doesn’t support any of these claims. It uses data from several decades ago, a period when transgender people faced heightened abuse rates, to make a statement about that time period. Moreover, the study doesn’t discuss or observe the impact of gender-affirming care on suicidality, contrary to what these opponents suggest.

Typically, when anti-trans activists refer to “The Swedish Study,” they are citing a 2011 study done by a research team led by Dr. Cecilia Dhejne, a medical research doctor specializing in gender identity. The study looked at 324 transgender people who had received sex-reassignment surgery between the years of 1973-2003.

The purpose of the study was to analyze all-cause mortality among the patient population, historically, in order to assess transgender health in that time period. Specifically, the study says that it does not “address whether sex reassignment is an effective treatment or not.

Importantly, the study does not compare transgender people who received gender affirming care with transgender people who did not receive gender affirming care. Instead, it compares transgender people who received care with the general population of cisgender people – this is purposeful, as the point of the study was to evaluate the unique health risks of post-op transgender people.

Again, the study makes no evaluation of the risks or effectiveness of gender affirming care.

The study recorded high rates of all-cause mortality and elevated suicide rates between 1973 and 2003. Such findings are consistent with the challenges faced by the transgender community during this period. Discrimination against transgender individuals was rampant.

The AIDS/HIV epidemic disproportionately affected the community. While the gay rights movement made significant strides, transgender rights often lagged far behind. Past standards of care were extremely restrictive, mandating dozens of very costly therapy sessions.

Access to hormone medication was heavily gatekept. Widespread discrimination was prevalent; during this era, many transgender individuals were compelled to present according to their assigned sex at birth in workplaces, schools, and various public spaces. It was a rough period for the transgender community.

Although the study recorded high rates of mortality and suicide, which is understandable given the political climate decades ago, it crucially did not compare the suicide and mortality rates of post-op trans individuals with those who did not receive care or surgery. This distinction is vital, given frequent assertions that the study claims “gender-affirming care leads to higher suicide rates.”

The study does not substantiate this claim. In reality, the elevated suicide rates in the 1980s likely resulted from widespread sexual violence, abuse, and discrimination faced by the transgender community in that era. It’s likely that the suicide rates were even more pronounced among those who did not access care.

The author of the study has specifically come out against those who use the study to claim that “gender affirming care causes suicide” or that “gender affirming care does not lower suicide rates.” Dr. Dhejne, when addressing these misleading interpretations, stated of the study:

“People who misuse the study always omit the fact that the study clearly states that it is not an evaluation of gender dysphoria treatment. If we look at the literature, we find that several recent studies conclude that WPATH Standards of Care compliant treatment decrease gender dysphoria and improves mental health.”

Despite the study not saying what anti-trans activists claim it says, it is still one of the most commonly cited studies used to justify banning gender affirming care. It has been used in multiple hearings across the United States. The Heritage Foundation has referred to the study to support bans. The Florida AHCA report used to justify banning care in the state likewise leans heavily on the study.

Despite this, some anti-trans activists have noted that misusing the study is akin to willful dishonesty. Dr. Leor Sapir, a political scientist from the anti-trans Manhattan Institute who has advocated against gender affirming care, called out his colleagues over the misuse of the study:

Despite this, there are a wealth of studies that show that gender affirming care does save lives. A recent report from the medical journal, The Lancet, dated July 26, indicates that gender-affirming care is a form of preventative healthcare.

This care is tied to improved quality of life and is vital for the well-being of transgender youth. Multiple studies have found that it leads to positive psychological outcomes and significantly reduces suicidality—with some research noting an impressive 73% drop. The effectiveness of gender-affirming care is bolstered by a compilation of more than 50 papers assembled by Cornell University, each emphasizing its positive effects.

In the future, anticipate more frequent references to “the Swedish study.” Despite the fact that the study draws from data several decades old and doesn’t compare the outcomes of those who received gender-affirming care with those who didn’t, it has become a predominant source of misinformation. It’s vital to be informed about such misinformation, especially as it is employed to support policies that undermine science and potentially transgender individuals globally.

****************************************************************************

Erin Reed is a transgender woman (she/her pronouns) and researcher who tracks anti-LGBTQ+ legislation around the world and helps people become better advocates for their queer family, friends, colleagues, and community. Reed also is a social media consultant and public speaker.

Follow her on Twitter (Link)

Website here: https://www.erininthemorning.com/

******************************************************************************************

The preceding article was first published at Erin In The Morning and is republished with permission.

Ohio is the latest in a series of states that has shown why anti-trans politics are not politically popular

Published

on

By

By Erin Reed | WASHINGTON – On Tuesday, Ohio held a special election during an off-year on a ballot provision named Issue 1. The provision would have mandated a 60% vote threshold for all constitutional protections as well as a signature mandate from every county. It was advanced by Republicans specifically to challenge the abortion ballot measure set for November.

Over $2,000,000 in Republican ads in Ohio framed Issue 1 as an effort to incorporate transgender rights into the constitution, misleadingly described as “sex change surgeries for kids.” The initiative was resoundingly rejected by a 57-43 margin, positioning Ohio as the most recent state to experience how anti-trans politics can impact Republican electoral outcomes and possibly offering a glimpse into the 2024 election cycle.

During the initial advancement of the bill for issue 1 in the legislature, massive protests erupted in the rotunda, with many voters clearly seeing Issue 1 as a direct attack on reproductive rights and abortion.

Current polls surrounding the upcoming November ballot initiative, which seeks to codify abortion rights in Ohio’s state constitution, indicate strong support by a 58-32 margin. Likely anticipating a setback in November, Republicans in the state pivoted towards championing a heightened threshold for ballot initiatives, subtly attempting to shift the conversation from the core issue of abortion to the mechanics of the voting process.

When polls showed that was failing though, they turned to their last ditch effort… shoring up anti-trans sentiment and stating that issue one was REALLY about “sex change surgeries for kids.”

See this ad (content warning: intense transphobia):

The ad blitz was sudden and intense. It featured a video entitled “Your Promise,” as seen above, that stated “out of state special interests” were “encouraging sex changes for kids” and “inserting trans ideology in classrooms” and were using Issue 1 to do so, despite the fact that issue 1 had absolutely nothing to do with transgender people.

Ohio is the latest in a series of states that has shown why anti-trans politics are not politically popular. Republicans tried to make issue 1 about trans people, and it backfired hard

On top of it, Republicans pushed mailers across the state with drag queens on them to attempt to get people to vote against their ability to amend the state constitution the same way they always have been able to do. Not only did they push these ads, they reportedly spent over $2,000,000 on them.

Additionally, they enlisted prominent anti-trans advocates for state-wide campaigns. Chloe Cole, a political detransitioner who tours the nation similar to the “ex-gays” from the 1990s, addressed an audience at a rally opposing Issue 1 in Ohio. During her speech, she framed Issue 1 as pertaining to “sterilizing procedures on minors” and told her audience that endorsing Issue 1 was part of “their responsibility to see this battle [against transgender rights] through with her.”

See Chloe Cole’s speech here (again, content warning):

Despite the significant advertising expenditure aimed at framing Issue 1 around transgender individuals, support for the provision plumeted. Initial polls suggested that Ohioans were evenly divided, with multiple polls indicating a near-even split between ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ responses, accompanied by a considerable number of undecided voters.

The intense campaign targeting transgender people began in late July, marked by a $2 million investment in the “Your Promise” advertisement. Evidently, this tactic of associating Issue 1 with transgender topics didn’t resonate— in fact, it might have jeopardized the Republicans’ chances of passing the measure.

There’s compelling evidence to support this trend from previous election outcomes. In the final stages of the Herschel Walker versus Ralph Warnock race in Georgia, Herschel Walker spotlighted anti-trans swimmer, Riley Gaines, in an attempt to pivot the election focus to transgender athletes.

This strategy backfired considerably, leading to Senator Warnock’s victory. In Arizona, Governor Hobbs faced criticisms because her husband provided therapy for a transgender youth. This line of attack also proved ineffective, as Kari Lake lost the campaign while emphasizing this narrative.

Across the United States, other similar instances where significant anti-trans investments failed to sway elections abound: Michigan’s sweeping win for Democrats, Wisconsin’s Supreme Court race, and the Pennsylvania legislative elections all showcase the pitfalls of the anti-trans agenda for Republicans in broad electoral contexts.

Polling data further reinforces this. A recent Fox News poll indicates that 86% of respondents perceive political attacks on transgender youth as either “a problem” or “a major problem.” The same poll revealed that, among the spectrum of issues of concern, “transgender/woke topics” were ranked the least important.

A more recent survey indicates only 40% of people endorse total bans on gender-affirming care for transgender youth, and a scant 4% consider this a top policy priority. While public opinion on transgender individuals can fluctuate depending on the phrasing of the polling question, there’s a clear consensus: the majority don’t want excessive political focus or resources dedicated to targeting transgender people.

Yet, in a stark contrast, attacks on trans people seemed to pervade state legislatures nationwide, with Republicans introducing over 500 bills targeting transgender individuals this year – a glaring misalignment with the policy preferences of their constituents.

The attempt to use attacks on transgender people to attack abortion rights is not new, either. The issues have been long-linked by Republican thought leaders as well as progressives looking to protect bodily autonomy. In early 2022, Missouri saw the introduction of a bill aiming to prevent residents from crossing state lines to obtain an abortion. Simultaneously, an Idaho representative introduced a bill that, if passed, would criminalize the act of taking transgender youth out of the state for gender-affirming care, potentially leading to life imprisonment. This bill garnered approval from the Idaho House of Representatives, though it was ultimately defeated.

Representative Julianne Young drew the comparison between the Idaho bill and anti-abortion measures:

“I see this conversation as an extension of the pro-life argument. … We are not talking about the life of the child, but we are talking about the potential to give life to another generation. So in that sense, there is a nexus on this issue. I don’t see it as a contradiction.”

Similarly, numerous states have enacted “safe state legislation” aimed at protecting both abortion and transgender care providers and their patients. Advocates are increasingly drawing parallels between transgender rights and reproductive health rights. Meanwhile, anti-trans activists continue to try to damage Democrats by highlighting transgender issues around reproductive rights – an approach that has, as mentioned earlier, continued to fail.

Looking ahead, Republicans will need to reckon with the reality that anti-trans stances could be detrimental, or they risk significant defeat in upcoming elections. Despite the losses already experienced, they seem to be doubling down on this approach. Given this trajectory, the GOP might be setting itself up for a disastrous 2024 election cycle, seemingly unable to pivot from making transgender issues the centerpiece of their policy agenda.

****************************************************************************

Erin Reed is a transgender woman (she/her pronouns) and researcher who tracks anti-LGBTQ+ legislation around the world and helps people become better advocates for their queer family, friends, colleagues, and community. Reed also is a social media consultant and public speaker.

Follow her on Twitter (Link)

Website here: https://www.erininthemorning.com/

******************************************************************************************

The preceding article was first published at Erin In The Morning and is republished with permission.

90% of parents who disagreed felt that it provoked hostility toward LGBTQ people, while 68% of those in favor felt it protected parents’ right

Published

on

By

LOS ANGELES – New research from the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law and Clark University finds 40% of Florida parents surveyed said they would like to move out of Florida—20% very much so and 19% somewhat—because of the state’s Don’t Say Gay law.

Almost 11% said they were very likely to move in the next two years, and another 6% said that it was somewhat likely. The most common barriers to relocating outside of Florida included employment factors, caregiving responsibilities, and financial limitations.

On July 1, 2022, Florida’s HB 1557, the Parental Rights in Education Act, also known as the Don’t Say Gay law, went into effect. The bill prohibits classroom instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity through 3rd grade. In May 2023, the Florida legislature expanded the original law to ban classroom instruction on LGBTQ issues through 8th grade.

Using data gathered from a diverse sample of 106 parents in Florida, researchers examined their perspectives on the state’s Don’t Say Gay law and its expansion. One-third disagreed with the law, and 46% disagreed with the expansion. However, almost half agreed with the original law and 43% agreed with its expansion.

There were stark differences in how the parents viewed the state’s Don’t Say Gay law. For instance, 90% of parents who disagreed with the law felt that it provoked hostility toward LGBTQ people, while 68% of those in favor of the law felt it protected parents’ rights.

It is important to understand the diverse viewpoints Florida parents have around the state’s Don’t Say Gay law,” said study author Abbie E. Goldberg, Professor of Psychology at Clark University and Affiliated Researcher at the Williams Institute. “These parents live in the same neighborhoods and send their children to the same schools. They have the power to work across differences to build strong communities that support the well-being of all children.”

Discussions among legislators & think tanks opposed to gender-affirming care highlight a recurring claim: “There is no high-quality evidence”

Published

on

By

By Erin Reed | WASHINGTON – If you’ve been following Republican legislators and think tanks recently, you might notice a recurring talking point they are using against gender-affirming care for transgender youth: “There is no high-quality evidence for gender-affirming care, and so it should be banned.”

This is a blatant deception – there is plenty of strong evidence around gender affirming care. It is recognized as the standard of care for transgender youth by institutions like the World Professional Association for Transgender Health and the American Medical Association.

The argument that gender affirming care “lacks high quality evidence” hinges on the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system, a method for assessing the quality of evidence in scientific research.

Within the GRADE system, evidence is ranked from “very low quality” to “high quality.” Typically, research is categorized as either observational studies or RCTs (Randomized Controlled Trials). In order to receive a “high quality evidence” score under the system, RCTs are typically necessary. Observational studies, on the other hand, are given “low quality” rankings in this system save for a few rare exceptions (such as strong dose response curves).

Virtually all of the research on gender-affirming care consists of observational studies. In fact, there are over 50 studies examining gender-affirming care from various perspectives. The majority of these studies report large reductions in suicidality, depression, and anxiety.

Though there is plenty of strong evidence for gender affirming care, it is observational in nature – and for good reason! Conducting RCTs for gender-affirming care is highly unethical and impossible. The physical effects of hormones are extremely evident, making blinding for such trials unfeasible.

Furthermore, it would be unethical to pretend to treat a transgender person with hormones while withholding them – no such study would ever get approved given the massive weight of evidence in the favor of gender affirming care.

Gender-affirming care isn’t unique in this regard. Some studies suggest that over 90% of medical care lacks “high-quality evidence” as classified by the GRADE system. However, this doesn’t equate to “90% of medical care is untested, experimental, or questionable.” The GRADE system explicitly does not bar medical care that relies heavily on individualized approaches and is backed by a wealth of observational evidence.

Additionally, over reliance on the GRADE system might not be appropriate for medical treatments where blinding isn’t feasible or where withholding treatment would be considered unethical. This encompasses almost all pediatric medicine and a significant portion of adult medicine.

Here are just some examples of medication and medical procedures with no “High Quality Evidence” under the GRADE system:

Yet, there’s no movement to ban these treatments or medications, despite their ranking under the GRADE system. No one labels gallbladder surgery as “experimental.” Similarly, antidepressants aren’t labeled as “experimental drugs”; they’re part of an individualized treatment approach that prioritizes patient-centered care. Yet if we interpreted the GRADE standards the same way conservative lawmakers and think tanks do, many other procedures would also be challenged.

The GRADE system itself specifically notes that low quality evidence under it’s system is not meant to create a situation where RCT’s are required for medical care. Instead, lower GRADE scores can often lead to strong recommendations on medical care (and indeed, explains why we still allow 90% of medical care despite lower GRADE evidence quality scores):

Although higher quality evidence is more likely to be associated with strong recommendations than lower quality evidence, a particular level of quality does not imply a particular strength of recommendation. Sometimes, low or very low quality evidence can lead to a strong recommendation.

There is an abundance of evidence around gender affirming care that has led to the recommendations under the current standards of care. A recent article in the respected medical journal The Lancet, dated July 26, emphasizes that gender-affirming care serves as preventative healthcare. This care is linked to enhanced quality of life and is essential for the well-being of transgender youth. Numerous studies indicate its role in positive psychological outcomes, with some pointing to a significant 73% reduction in suicide rates. Furthermore, Cornell University has compiled over 50 studies supporting the benefits of gender-affirming care. As a result, describing gender-affirming care as an “unhealthy decision” is inaccurate. It’s a medically backed approach rooted in research, greatly benefiting transgender individuals who need it.

Mischaracterizing the evidence around gender affirming care as “low-quality” is a deceptive practice that relies on a layman understanding of the term. There is no level of evidence that will ever be acceptable to those seeking to ban gender affirming care, as controlled trials where trans youth are put through conversion therapy or denied medication are not ever going to ethically happen – especially given suicide risks among this patient population.

Stating that gender affirming care lacks evidence is not a statement rooted in reality, and all attempts in the future to raise this disinformation should be met with swift rebuttal.

****************************************************************************

Erin Reed is a transgender woman (she/her pronouns) and researcher who tracks anti-LGBTQ+ legislation around the world and helps people become better advocates for their queer family, friends, colleagues, and community. Reed also is a social media consultant and public speaker.

Follow her on Twitter (Link)

Website here: https://www.erininthemorning.com/

******************************************************************************************

The preceding article was first published at Erin In The Morning and is republished with permission.

The judge concluded there’s no right to misgender & bully trans students in the Constitution. He rejected claims based on 1st & 14th amendment

Published

on

By

By Erin Reed | COLUMBUS, OH. – U.S. District Court Judge Algenon Marbley, ruled over the weekend that the U.S. Constitution likely does not guarantee a “right to bully transgender students” in Ohio.

The decision came in response to a lawsuit by Parents Defending Education, an organization that opposes LGBTQ+ rights and has also spoken against policies aimed at preventing racial discrimination. The group has also advocated for book bans related to LGBTQ topics and “critical race theory” in schools.

The lawsuit aimed to overturn a policy protecting transgender students in the Olentangy Local School District from harassment based on sexuality and gender identity, part of the district’s broader anti-bullying measures.

The policy in question provides protections for transgender students, as well as students from other marginalized groups, from identity-based harassment and bullying. Notably, two sections of the student rules were challenged by the group.

Parents who filed a lawsuit through the Parents Defending Education organization objected to these provisions, arguing that students had the right to intentionally and repeatedly misgender their transgender classmates and peers, citing their “sincerely held religious beliefs.” They sent emails to school administrators specifically inquiring if students could engage in this behavior. When told it would not be allowed, the parents objected and filed the lawsuit. Their ultimate goal: to overturn the policies protecting transgender students from bullying entirely.

The judge disagreed with the rationale, noting significant case history protecting people from marginalized classes from harassment and abuse based on their identities. He utilized statistics showing that transgender people are at high risk of harassment and abuse in school. He also pointed to decades of precedent giving schools the right to regulate hate speech that could be disruptive to the education environment and speech that directly attacks other students based on protected characteristics, stating that “the intentional misgendering of other students constitutes verbal bullying.”

See this excerpt from the opinion:

Ultimately, the judge concluded that there is no right to misgender and bully trans students in the US Constitution. He rejected claims by the organization based in the 1st and 14th amendment, noting that 1st amendment rights see significant curtailment when it rises to the level of harassment and bullying in schools.

He also noted that the 14th amendment, while interpreted to allow parents to direct the upbringing of their own children, does not give them the right to direct how a public school teaches or disciplines their children. In doing so, the judge denied the motion for a preliminary injunction.

The issue of a “right to bully” transgender students has come up in legislatures and school boards across the U.S. this year. In April, a federal judge in Indiana ruled that teachers do not have the right to misgender their transgender students, saying that such actions create a hostile environment.

Earlier in the year, Montana enacted a law codifying the right to misgender transgender students in state code. This provision could face challenges as more courts align against attempts to permit bullying of transgender students in schools.

Transgender students in schools are increasingly grappling with policies that shift unpredictably. This year, hundreds of laws have targeted these students in various ways, from pronoun provisions to restrictions on books and bathroom access, and policies that could forcibly out them to their parents.

Taken together, these policies, along with those that permit bullying by other students, appear to aim at pushing these students back into the closet. Courts, however, have increasingly sided with the students and are emerging as a significant defense against widespread discrimination in all aspects of life.

****************************************************************************

Erin Reed is a transgender woman (she/her pronouns) and researcher who tracks anti-LGBTQ+ legislation around the world and helps people become better advocates for their queer family, friends, colleagues, and community. Reed also is a social media consultant and public speaker.

Follow her on Twitter (Link)

Website here: https://www.erininthemorning.com/

******************************************************************************************

The preceding article was first published at Erin In The Morning and is republished with permission.

Doc Martens received calls for boycott from accounts known for transphobia re: design that featured a queer character with top surgery scars

Published

on

By

By Erin Reed | WASHINGTON – On Monday, Dr. Martens became the most recent subject of conservative ire when anti-transgender social media accounts published photos of a shoe collaboration with Jess Vosseteig, a queer artist from Colorado.

The design was never mass-produced and was designed as part of the “DIY Docs” initiative, a project that encourages artists to reimagine the well-known Dr. Marten shoe brand. The brand has traditionally been associated with queer and punk subcultures, with Planet Her referring to the shoe as “a staple in the queer wardrobe.”

Despite the enduring association between the brand and the LGBTQ+ community, conservatives seemed surprised by the modest display of transgender representation. Now, malicious accounts associated with harassment, abuse, and threats of violence have targeted the shoe brand.

The shoe design can be found on the DIY Docs webpage. Jessie Vosseteig, a queer artist who aims to “promote body positivity” and wants her audience “to be seen and heard in her work,” designed the colorful shoe. When asked about the design itself on the Dr. Marten’s DIY Docs page, she stated:

“I wanted to include two stylized people that were part of the queer community. I knew I wanted to incorporate lots of color with rainbows, clouds, and sparkles! I wrote “Queer Joy” on the back of them to send the message that queer joy will always exist.” – Jessie Vosseteig

The outrage was immediate – within hours of posting to her Instagram, Chris Elston (also known as Billboards Chris), a well-known anti-transgender activist known for his self-proclaimed “stochastic terror tours” against children’s hospitals, stated that the shoe company “sells boots to promote the mastectomy of healthy girls.”

Soon after, Libs of TikTok, an account notorious for inciting violent campaigns against LGBTQ+ individuals and their supporters, posted a similar message. Other influential conservative, anti-trans figures joined the criticism: Maya Forstater, a UK-based anti-trans activist, Tiffany Justice, co-founder of Moms For Liberty, and right-wing blogger Ian Miles Cheong all posted similar comments on Twitter. Fox News also participated in the reaction against the brand. Calls for boycotts from their audience quickly followed.

Here is a sample of the conservative outrage over the design:

The response to the shoe brand marks the most recent in a series of attacks on corporations for offering even minor LGBTQ+ recognition. Earlier this year, transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney experienced harassment due to her partnership with Bud Light – a collaboration that resulted in a single beer can featuring her image. The beer company received a torrent of violent emails and bomb threats as a consequence of their support. In a reprehensible move, Bud Light not only abandoned Mulvaney in the midst of the controversy, but also terminated the employment of staff involved in the advertising campaign.

Similarly, Target stores across the United States faced harassment and threats over their Pride merchandise during Pride Month, with several outlets opting to remove their merchandise from display.

While hate campaigns against those companies may have succeeded, such a campaign against Dr. Martens shoes may have a bit more difficulty. The brand has had a long-standing positive reputation with the LGBTQ+ community and has produced LGBTQ+ shoes for years. In 2019, for instance, they released a pride-flag themed shoe. The brand has become so intertwined with the LGBTQ+ community that it has become an iconic brand that people often look for to signify that a person is queer.

Ian Miles Cheong, noted for his anti-trans and extreme far-right views, lamented this fact in his own tweet:

“What is up with all these corporations now celebrating “trans affirming” body mutilation surgeries on perfectly healthy girls and young women? Wokeness is supposed to be dying, but instead it’s only getting worse as the public fights back against the mind virus.” – Ian Miles Cheong

Though boycott initiatives aimed at “wokeness” have achieved minor successes on a few occasions during Pride Month, there are indications that their impact is dwindling. Recent box office successes have conveyed messages that strongly align with anti-racist, feminist, and anti-fascist themes.

Films such as Barbie and Spider-Man: Into The Spiderverse, despite being criticized for their “wokeness,” managed to generate record-breaking ticket sales. Additionally, when American voters were asked to rank their most pressing concerns, “wokeness” was positioned at the bottom of the list, according to a Fox News poll.

Dr. Martens has yet to issue a statement in response to the boycott campaign, and the contentious shoe design continues to be featured on its website. If the brand remains steadfast in its countercultural identity, it is improbable that it will be swayed by such attacks. As for the conservative, anti-trans propagators of outrage, their unrelenting search for the next rainbow flag to scream at will undoubtedly continue.

Disclosure: The author of this piece was not paid by Dr. Martens, but she does own a sweet pair of “woke” docs herself:

****************************************************************************

Erin Reed is a transgender woman (she/her pronouns) and researcher who tracks anti-LGBTQ+ legislation around the world and helps people become better advocates for their queer family, friends, colleagues, and community. Reed also is a social media consultant and public speaker.

Follow her on Twitter (Link)

Website here: https://www.erininthemorning.com/

******************************************************************************************

The preceding article was first published at Erin In The Morning and is republished with permission.

Temecula school district’s forced outing policy detrimental says AG

Orlando LGBTQ Center murals defaced, Nazi & anti-LGBTQ hate

Carlos Santana delivers anti-trans remarks at New Jersey concert

Ramaswamy: ‘cult-like’ LGBTQ threatens the ‘modern order’

CBS reports: Robert Carter’s journey from foster child to father of 5

This is what transgender eradication looks like

Texas high schoolers confronted: “You Deserve Hell”

German Cabinet approves ‘self-determination law’ for Trans, nonbinary people

The arm of imperialism: The church’s anti-gender and anti-SOGIE rhetoric

Out sprinter Sha’Carri Richardson is fastest woman in the world