Sometimes Outrage is Called For

 

Look, I avoid outrage-posting, because we live at a time in which outrage has been turned into a terrible currency, generated to glue us to our devices with indignation, which in turn generates polarization and despair.

But there is something worse than outrage, and that is the pooh-poohing of actually outrageous things.

This week, the US Supreme Court issued the terrible US vs. Skrmetti decision, holding that it is fine for states to ban trans youths from accessing as gender-affirming care he exact same medications and procedures that cis youths can and do access all the time to affirm their (cis) gendered comfort in their bodies and put off puberties that have started when they are not ready.

A large 2022 public health study found that accessing gender-affirming care reduced trans youths’ suicidal ideation by 73%. And trans adults who had accessed puberty blockers in youth have a reduced risk of suicide across their lifespans. There have been multiple related studies, but the Supreme Court said there wasn’t enough research to prove definitively that trans-affirming medical care provides benefits (ignoring what every major medical association has said). The Court also ignored the fact that all research studies on trans health that were being conducted in the US have been defunded this year by the Trump administration as “promoting gender ideology.” Ugh.

News of the Skrmetti decision has felt devastating to trans people of all ages, as it can be used to further erode trans rights for all of us. But it’s been a particular gut punch to trans youth, who have been declared in half of the US states to be deluded. Those state laws declare the proper treatment for that “delusion” to be requiring teachers and doctors and counselors to misgender them, and for any doctor or counselor who tries to provide them gender-affirming care to face legal punishment. Trans youth already face the highest levels of school bullying and parental rejection, which makes their risk of suicidal ideation terribly high—and now they face this decision on top of that burden.

On the same day that the Skrmetti decision was released, the Trump administration sent notice to the Trevor Project, which provides the suicide prevention services to LGBTQIA+ youths through the federally-funded 988 National Suicide & Crisis Lifeline, to stop work. So trans young people thrown into despair by the Skrmetti decision will find the suicide hotline that is supposed to offer them aid cancelled in the same way as their hope of access to medical care.

That is terrible, as many people I’ve pointed this out to agree.

But I've also personally received substantial "oh calm down" feedback and seen a lot of the same on social media about the cancelling of the Trevor Project hotline. Here's some of the things I've been told or heard:

"This is misinformation. Nobody targeted the Trevor Project specifically; the cuts are just part of a cost reduction across the 988 service and the service will still be there, just streamlined a bit."

"This is old news from months ago. It has nothing to do with some coordinated attack on trans people. You're putting unrelated random old and new stories together and catastrophizing."

"I think cutting the Trevor Project from the national suicide prevention hotline is appalling! But in case you didn't notice, the Trevor Project serves LGBT young people. Where is your outrage about the gay and lesbian youth? Why do trans people insist on making this all about them?"

This pushback is quite disheartening, because this is absolutely a case in which outrage is appropriate. Yes, leaked documents from the Trump administration earlier did state that a cut to Trevor Project services would be coming, but the stated date was in 2026. The administration chose instead to send the stop work notice much earlier, on the day the Skrmetti decision was released—and that is no coincidence. Here is what Rachel Cauley, the spokesperson for the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, had to say about it: the Trump administration will not “grant taxpayer money to a chat service where children are encouraged to embrace radical gender ideology by ‘counselors’ without consent or knowledge of their parents.”

Trivializing a suicide hotline as a “chat service” is vile and reprehensible, as is implying that the staffers aren’t truly counselors but something else—presumably “groomers” with malicious goals. But the fundamental message is the worst part. This spokesperson is literally saying that it is better to let trans kids kill themselves than to treat them respectfully in their identified genders.

Think about that.

And yes, this is specifically aimed at trans youth, as the Trump administration announcement states that the National Suicide and Crisis Lifeline will “continue to serve LGB+ youth” after the termination of the contract with the Trevor Project, under its general 988 line, using its regular hotline staffers. And yes, it is absolutely true that this is bad for cis sexual-minority youth, who are losing the counselors specially trained to help them. But the administration is explicitly saying it will serve LGB youth but not trans youth, because supposedly there is no such thing as a trans person. And it is hoping by acknowledging the existence of cis sexual-minority youth to get cisgender LGB adults to be motivated by self-interest to distance themselves from trans people (most of whom are themselves queer, mind you; only about a quarter of people who have gender transitioned identify as straight or heterosexual). Please, cis members of the Pride community—don’t let them divide us and set us at one another! Because the bigots are definitely focusing on trans people’s rights now, which must be recognized—but they’ll be focusing their destructive aims at cis queer folks in due time.

In sum, we can’t spend our lives in a continuous state of outrage, scrolling on our phones. That’s bad for our mental health, yes—but it also deadens people’s impulse to feel outrage when something egregiously abhorrent happens. We see how that has manifested this week, in people reacting to news of the cancelling of the Trevor Project’s national suicide prevention hotline services on the day of the Skrmetti decision. “This is misinformation! You’re catastrophizing by connecting unrelated new and old news items! This is a case of narcissistic trans drama demanding attention when all LGBTQ+ young people are equally harmed!”

Something truly hateful happened this week, and it is important that we treat it as outrageous—because outrage should push us towards action.

 

Don't Give Up Hope!

 

Just waving my little trans flag. Yesterday the Supreme Court ruled by a 6-3 margin that states have the right to ban puberty blockers and any other gender-affirming care being provided to minors. Its supposed reasoning was that the science is unsettled and the topic controversial, so the matter must be left to the states to decide how best to protect trans children.

 

The Court treated flawed, biased, and debunked research by transphobes that has been rejected by all of the major American medical associations as being as valid as reputable, peer-reviewed research. The "medical controversy" it centered is not a controversy within the reputable medical science community.

 

Nor did the Court mention that the Trump administration has cancelled the funding of every single scientific study of trans health, gender affirming care, and the experiences of discrimination of trans, nonbinary, and intersex Americans. (Such funding made up less than 1% of the NIH budget, but has accounted for half of all grant dollars cancelled.) How can such research be considered both vital and determinative by the Court, yet the fact that the federal government is doing everything it can to terminate any such research go unmentioned?

 

The Court also did not care that puberty blockers have been prescribed to thousands and thousands of children who are not trans for decades, with zero controversy, and that this continues today, again without controversy. Nor did the Court note that intersex children who do not request puberty blockers regularly have them imposed--and not only is this accepted by the transphobes who have banned trans care, but framed as obligatory.

 

And all of this is supposed to be to protect trans kids. The youths themselves are thus framed as having no true self-knowledge. The parents who see how gender-affirming care has markedly improved their children's mental health are told that states may hold they are wrong, and are actually abusively exposing their children to harm, when they are in fact doing everything in their power to protect their children's wellbeing.

 

This is not about the government protecting children. It is about the state controlling them, based on bigotry against people like them, like me, like my wife. Want a little proof? On the same day that the Supreme Court announced this decision, the Trump administration ordered the Trevor Project, which provides suicide-prevention hotline services to queer and trans youth, to cease its work. The cruelty is, as ever, the point. They want us to know they don't care if we die.

 

But I care! I see you, all you lovely trans, nonbinary, gender-nonconforming, and intersex folks out there, of every age. And so do so many other people! I wave my little trans flag for you. We cannot be erased--not by some ludicrous executive order, not by some wrongly-decided SCOTUS case, not by all the bigots who blather about their freedoms while blatantly denying freedom to others to live and love as their hearts urge them to do. 

 

Don't give up hope, and never stop fighting and shining!

They'll Marry the Dogs! They'll Marry the Cats!

 

 

Let's have some fun! 

It's Pride Month, June 2025, and this year's celebrations were supposed to be especially festive, because it is the 10th anniversary of the legalization of same-gender marriage in the US. That was ensured by the Supreme Court case Obergefell v. Hodges in June 2015.

Unfortunately, those of us who stand under the Pride umbrella are feeling beseiged--especially those of us who are trans. The Trump administration has declared being trans to be "counter to biology," "deceptive," and a danger to women and children.  

Of course, attacks on our communities lead people to feel anxious and depressed. But it's important to remember that we've been attacked before, and we survived! We deserve to celebrate that during Pride Month. And one great way to celebrate is to look back to the claims that were made by the opponents of marriage equality--and have a good laugh. There were so many ridiculous claims made! True, they were taken seriously by bigots, and they got lots of media attention, and did us damage. But they failed in the end to win the day, and they have failed to stand the test of time.

Some day, we can hope, evil claims being made today--that respecting trans youth in their lived genders is child abuse, that trans women are really men wearing dresses to abuse cis women in bathrooms, that a nonbinary gender identity is impossible, that trans men are just cowardly women who can't stand up to misogyny--will be as obviously ridiculous to the general public as these silly claims about marriage equality are today.

So, here we go!

Claim 1: People would marry pieces of household furniture! Or dogs.

In January 2015, Republican candidate for Wisconsin lieutenant governor Rebecca Kleefish stated in an interview that if we allow same-gender marriage, “at what point are we going to OK marrying inanimate objects? Can I marry this table, or this, you know, clock? Can we marry dogs? This is ridiculous.”

After ten years of national marriage equality, we can see that there has been no rash of people marrying clocks. And while the number of people thinking of dogs as their furbabies has grown, there has not been an upwelling of people marrying their dogs and calling them their sexy furspouses.

Claim 2: Fathers would marry their underage daughters! Or beasts of burden.

Back in 2004, popular evangelical Christian leader James Dobson fumed that if same-gender marriages were permitted, what was to stop "marriage between daddies and little girls? Or marriage between a man and his donkey? Anything allegedly linked to civil rights will be doable, and the legal underpinnings for marriage will have been destroyed.”

You can see that the theme of equating allowing same-gender marriage with allowing marital bestiality came up again and again. They'll marry the dogs, they'll marry the donkeys! (A paler cousin of this claim can be perceived in today's MAGA framing of progressive women as unmarriageable crazy cat ladies who perversely prefer felines to men, like witches.)

Then there's the claim that men would be allowed to marry little girls, potentially incestuously. Let me just note that in 2024, the Republican Missouri legislator who introduced a state bill to ban gender-affirming care for minors argued during a debate on that bill that 12-year-olds should be permitted to get married, if they got pregnant. . .

Claim 3: There would be mass marriage fraud!

In 2014, Georgia Republican Chairwoman Sue Everhart asserted that if same-gender marriage were allowed, there would be a tidal wave of marriage fraud as straight people faux-married one another: “You may be as straight as an arrow, and you may have a friend that is as straight as an arrow. Say you had a great job with the government where you had this wonderful health plan. I mean, what would prohibit you from saying that you’re gay, and y’all get married and still live as separate, but you get all the benefits? I just see so much abuse in this it’s unreal. I believe a husband and a wife should be a man and a woman, the benefits should be for a man and a woman. There is no way that this is about equality. To me, it’s all about a free ride.” 

This is just so silly! First of all, straight people were always able to straight-marry someone they didn't love in order to get insurance benefits and tax benefits. And as that comes without homophobic stigma, it was and remains much more likely. Anyway, conservative pro-marriage groups today praise the idea of marrying or staying married to someone you’re not in love with as morally superior to being single, and advocate for marital benefits as a way to help encourage this. 

In any case, there's been no surge of straight-arrow men marrying one another for the tax benefits.

Claim 4: Straight married couples would cease to be monogamously faithful to one another!

The anti-LGBTQ+ political action group the Family Research Council argues this today, based on a 2003 Vermont study of civil unions cited repeatedly by opponents of LGBTQ+ rights. The FRC writes that the study found “79 percent of heterosexual married men and women, along with lesbians in civil unions, reported that they strongly valued sexual fidelity. Only about 50 percent of gay men in civil unions valued sexual fidelity.”

You’d think this would make the FRC embrace lesbian couples, but no—instead, they say gay men’s acceptance of polyamory will contaminate straight people if gay men can get married. And monogamy is the foundation of marriage, and marriage is the foundation of the family, and families will cease to exist if polyamory is legitimated! It's just a series assertions connected by illogical leaps that is somehow supposed to convince readers that undoing Obergefell and making same-gender marriage illegal again will somehow make man/woman couples more committed to monogamy. 

Claim 5: Being married to women lowers men’s testosterone, which is good, and which can’t be replicated by men marrying men!

This is another claim still being alleged by the FRC today. It’s based in strain of evangelicism that sees Christian worship and "traditional Christian" marriages of breadwinning men to stay-at-home wives as civilizing and domesticating men from their antisocial, un-Christian impulses. Meanwhile on the manosphere side of the MAGAverse, being in a “traditional marriage” is claimed to raise men’s testosterone and make men more powerful and dominant as they should be. This relates to the obsession of the manosphere with the idea that masculine men are endangered today due to low testosterone caused by feminism/big pharma/soy/whatever. That obsession is pervasive and well-documented. 

So, this FRC claim is in conflict with the most predominant contemporary conservative US ideology about testosterone as the liquid essence of MAGA virility, to be ever maximized. It's sort of sweet, almost, in its holding on to the idea that it is good for men to be gentled by love and religion into gentlemen. Why love for another man can't have the same effect is just flat-out ignored as a question, though. It seems to presume the same thing the manoverse GigaChad-lovers presume: hang around girls and your testosterone will fall, making you less aggressive and dangerous. It just frames that as civilized rather than as contamination by girl cooties.

So, in sum: opponents of marriage equality claimed that if same-gender marriages were legitimated, people would all start marrying animals, committing incest, and being wed to inanimate objects. It would make straight people cheat on their spouses, or just marry other random straight people to get a larger tax deduction. And it would lead to overly-high testosterone rates. 

This list isn't exhaustive, and there were plenty of other claims. Queer parents would sexually abuse their kids, or turn them homosexual. Disdain for the supposed laws of God and nature would lead to disdain for the law of the nation, and crime would explode! Straight people would lose all interest in marriage, period, and procreation would cease! Humanity would die out as a species!!

Today, it seems so clear how silly all of these arguments were and are. 

And that's something to celebrate! May the bigoted claims being lobbed at us today seem as bizarre and archaic a decade from now.

Happy Pride.

Half of All NIH Grant Cuts have been to LGBTQ+ Research

 

Research looking at LGBTQ+ health has collapsed in just a few months, as the NIH has canceled grant funding. Some of those studies actually focused on trans health, like projects examining what sort of mental health support best reduced the risks of depression and anxiety in trans youth. But the bulk of the canceled research examined other topics--HIV prevention, the wellbeing of intersex people, the effectiveness of various antibiotics in treating common STIs, LGBTQ+ elder health, diagnosing autism in LGBTQ+ populations. Even studies looking at topics beloved by the Trump administration--increasing the birthrate and opposing gender-affirming care--were defunded. The canceled pregnancy research sought to determine the causes of the high stillbirth rate among lesbian and bisexual women; several studies examining the risks of gender-affirming hormone therapy were also defunded. (I have no idea if these hormone therapy risk studies were canceled because the Trump administration has been incredibly hasty and sloppy in its work, defunding things based on keywords with little human oversight, or if there was actually some weird rationale, like, "Well, what if the study doesn't find the higher risks of breast cancer or heart disease it is looking for? We must stop all studies looking at gender-affirming care so we can say there is no good data!")

It's important to see what is happening right now. In the mirror universe of the Trump administration, where virtues are called evil and evils good things, research attempting to decrease health disparities is now "DEI", said to harm the majority that enjoys the longer lifespan. Good, rigorous, objective studies aimed at improving health are canceled as "anti-science" and "political ideology" because they acknowledge the fact that trans people are a patient group among many that exists, rather than erasing their existence as now commanded by executive order. Increasing the birthrate is to be encouraged--but studies focused on impaired fertility and stillbirths among minority groups including sexual minorities are defunded, because that would "discriminate" against the straight white group the government is solicitous of. . . We're not at active genocide levels of activity--but we're at passive ones. "Don't study how to save these people; if they die, they die," says the administration.

Some researchers are trying to block the grant cuts in court. That's good, but it's slow, and also, this administration is all-in on ignoring what the courts say and seeing if they can get away with that. So it's important that we, the people, are aware of what is going on, and express our opposition.

Celebrating Going Bald on the Trans Day of Visibility

 

 

Here’s my announcement for the Trans Day of Visibility: I’m balding. And I love it!

Times right now for trans folks in the U.S. are not good. Really not good. But I’m not going to post about that today, because today we celebrate being visible. And you know what gets me seen the way I’d like to be seen? Well, the beard sure helps—but at 5’2”, a lot of people look down when they look at me, and you know what they see? My big ol’ bald spot, and the wispy tuft that is all that remains of the front of my hairline.

Now, I know a lot of men don’t like going bald. For some weird reason, going bald is framed as unmasculine and embarrassing by our culture (probably greatly influenced by capitalism, which loves to instill anxieties in people so it can offer expensive “cures”). Elon Musk and Donald Trump were both getting my hairline, and they both got transplants to make them feel more manly. (That is, they got gender-affirming surgeries.)

The idea that balding “unmans” you is very silly, because you know what causes male-pattern balding? Testosterone. Taking testosterone is what transformed me from a person with a thick head of hair and a low hairline with the opposite of a widow’s peak—a hairline I always hated—into someone who could feel gender euphoria as my hairline receded.

I study gender professionally, so I understand fragile masculinity intellectually, but I’ll never understand it viscerally. Men who are all hung up on being “alphas” and on nonconsensual dominance displays are generally yawning pits of insecurity, and it’s all so unnecessary! You’re a man because you understand yourself to be one, at a visceral level, and nobody can take that from you. Losing your hair certainly doesn’t take that from you.

And really, this business of cis men with fragile masculinity being horrified by going bald shows us how strangely people can conflate sex characteristics, gender identity, and gender expression. Those distinctions are obvious to me. My physical sex is intersex, as I’ve written about plenty. I identify as an intersex man—that’s my gender identity, who I know myself to be. But I’m not particularly interested in being masculine. I enjoy a more androgynous, flamboyant self-presentation. When my (also intersex, also trans) wife sees me dressed for the day, she has often said, “Good morning, you look very gay today.” And that makes me grin happily! That’s my ideal of gender expression.

There’s a claim made by TERFs that trans boys and men are really lesbians who are terrified by their cowardly internalized homophobia (or have homophobic parents who are forcing them to transition so that the parents can try to transform their reviled lesbian daughters into “fake” straight sons). I personally never identified as a lesbian during the many years I was forced to live as a woman (though I support and love my lesbian sibs!). For the record, I’m pansexual. And I look much more queer after transition than I did before it. That is a source of gender euphoria for me!

So: you know what makes me happy? Getting dressed in the morning, looking in the mirror as I tie my floral tie, and seeing my balding, bearded head.

Happy Trans Day of Visibility!

Why must I list the sex marker on my original birth certificate to get vaccinated?

 

A personal anecdote about going to the drugstore while trans. . .

I was born right after a vaccine for measles was introduced. In those early years of the vaccine, killed virus was used instead of live, and only a single shot was given instead of a series of two. So, the pre-Kennedy CDC urged people in my age bracket to get a modern MMR vaccine if there was a possibility of encountering measles (initially considered in terms of foreign travel or healthcare work). Now, medical news reports recommend that my age cohort get vaccinated.

So, I decided to get an MMR vaccine at my local Walgreens. I've been getting my vaccines at Walgreens rather than a nearby CVS because the Walgreens registration form to schedule a vaccine just asked me to indicate my "gender," while starting in the first Drumpf administration the CVS form began requiring that I check the "sex originally listed on your birth certificate." But recently, Walgreens started making the same registration demand.

I waffled over whether to ignore the new requirement and just list my lived gender. People of any gender get the same vaccines--they don't come in pink and blue sex-variants. There is zero medical reason for Walgreens to have to know my original-birth-certificate sex in order to vaccinate me. In any case, I was born intersex, and so my original binary birth certificate sex-marker was never accurate. And trans people living outside of large "blue" coastal cities receive medical care that is on average substantially worse in quality than that cis people receive in the US. When I am dressed, I currently have the privilege of being gendered correctly by strangers more often than not. Being balding and bearded thanks to testosterone access has a lot to do with that. Sometimes they recognize that I am transmasculine--but here in Wisconsin, sometimes they just presume I am a cis man. (Transmasculine people face a lot less scrutiny than do transfemmes, so my being 5'2" and pear-shaped can go overlooked fairly often.) Should I not try to conserve that privilege in interactions that could negatively impact my health? After all, I have dependents. . .

In the end, I entered the sex originally listed on my birth certificate, for the same reason that my backpack features trans pins and I wear t-shirts with trans-celebrating graphics and I post about trans topics on social media. As someone who has the privilege of often being properly gendered by strangers, it's important for me to be out, and not leave the hard work of trying to navigate and lessen transphobia to those who don’t have that privilege.

Well. I went to get my shot. I filled out my paperwork at the counter (with "Sex: F" printed at the top right corner next to my name) and took a seat in the waiting area. Twenty minutes later, my name was called. I got up and started walking to the pharmacy tech—young, with feminine makeup and long hair. “No no,” she said, “I’m not calling you.” I looked at her for a moment, then went and sat down while she watched. “Next is Cary,” she articulated loudly. I got up again, and walked over. “Your name is Cary?” she asked dubiously. “Yes, that’s me,” I said. She looked down at the form on her clipboard, where my name sat next to the “F” marker. She looked at me. “OK. . .” she said, and led me into the little vaccination cubicle.

Once we were in and the door was closed and I sat down, she had to go over the checklist of prevaccination questions—all of which I had to answer already on the form—but first she said, with a stony look, “Sorry, Cary is a female name so I was confused.”  I have a standard routine in circumstances like this, bringing up actor Cary Grant, but she never heard of him. So with a smile I said I am old, and many names change in how they are gendered over time, almost always going from traditional men’s names to gender-neutral ones to names seen as quite feminine. Lesley. Beverly. Meredith. Lauren. Taylor. “Really? Beverly was a boy’s name?!” “Yep,” replied I.

She didn’t mention the gender marker, though she did glance several times at my chest. (I wear a binder.) She just went ahead and gave me my shot. But she looked uncomfortable the whole time. Who knows what she was thinking. I didn’t ask, because it was a socially awkward situation, and there were a batch of people awaiting their shots. Getting a simple injection is a short medical interaction, and hard to get wrong, so it’s not like this tech’s discomfort posed a substantial risk to me.

But many other medical interactions do put a person’s health or life at risk.

Folks who are trans, nonbinary, intersex, and gender-nonconforming had been seeing improvement in the quality of our interactions with medical practitioners, but now that’s reversing, because institutions all over the US are caving and pre-complying with executive orders demanding disrespect for trans people that are all being legally challenged. And you see it even in the simplest of interactions, like going to get a shot at the local drug store, and having that experience become more uncomfortable.

It's important that we push back at things like this. There’s no reason to force people to misgender themselves to get a vaccination. Or to get a passport. The cruelty is the point, and we need a nation that is less cruel, not more! I know there are many worse things happening right now, from deportations to the attempt to destroy universities. But so much of our lives exist in little moments and short interactions. . .

This administration has turned a cold cultural civil war into a hot one, but we can mitigate that at least to some degree by being civil to one another. For example, if we’re unsure what’s going on with someone else’s gender when we’re dealing with their paperwork, we can just carry on being friendly and kind.

Do that!
 

Sarah McBride, Desegregating Hero

 

At a House of Representatives hearing yesterday on US relations with Europe, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Keith Self turned to give Delaware Representative Sarah McBride her chance to speak. (McBride is Congress' first transgender member.) Self called upon her as “the representative from Delaware, Mr. McBride.”

Without a beat, McBride replied, "Thank you, Madam Chair." She prepared to give her speech, but first Rep. Bill Keating, the ranking Democrat from Massachusetts, asked Self to correct himself, and when Self again introduced Sarah McBride as "Mr. McBride," Keating asked Self, "Have you no decency?" Self said business would now continue, Keating said not with him until Self properly addressed McBride, and Self said "This meeting is adjourned!" and huffed out.

 Yes, Keating white-knighted Sarah McBride, but she carried herself with great aplomb. She was prepared to do Congressional business despite her being harassed and disrespected by her own peers. She has maintained this coolness in the face of other misgenderings, other attacks, and a federal law being passed by Congressional Republicans to ban trans people from using Congressional bathrooms that match their lived genders--something passed solely to discriminate against her.

On social media, we saw the following comments afterwards:

Self posted, “It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female,” citing Trump’s executive order of January 20th.

McBride posted, "No matter how I'm treated by some colleagues, nothing diminishes my awe and gratitude at getting to represent Delaware in Congress. It is truly the honor and privilege of a lifetime. I simply want to serve and to try to make this world a better place.

Mary Miller, Republican Representative from Illinois, who has also been misgendering McBride, threw in a gratuitous deadname: posting that Self "is right to state the biological reality that [deadname] ‘Sarah’ McBride is a man. Enough with the lies. As God ordained and President Trump declared, there are only TWO GENDERS: Male and Female!"

 And the vile Nancy Mace, Republican of South Carolina and champion bigot, tossed in, "You know what’s indecent? A mentally ill man pretending to be a woman. Biology. Science. The Left should try it some time." 

As a reminder, the racists who fought against desegregation claimed that their Christian beliefs compelled them to do so. So did the bigots who opposed interracial marriage and later same-gender marriage. They always say God is on their side as they kick people in the face. And back when they were segregating bathrooms along racial lines, they claimed science proved this was imperative, citing eugenics.

Anyway, what really impresses me about McBride is her ability to keep her composure in the face of the provocations and bullying and disrespect. She knows--we all know--her attackers are hoping she gets angry and yells at them so they can paint her as dangerous and themselves as reasonable. And she certainly has justification to do so. (In fact, some trans people criticize her for not coming out swinging and getting in the faces of those harassing her, and for using the private bathrooms of Democratic colleagues rather than defiantly marching into the women's bathroom by the House Chamber.) But McBride is doing something much harder than punching back. She is winning the respect of average Americans watching these incidents on social media and the news. Her attackers look nasty and rude, and she looks reasonable, dignified, and unruffled.

We need all kinds of tactics to win battles for the rights of targets of discrimination. Some of those are confrontational, some of them are community building, some of them are legal challenges, and some of them are educational. But one of the hardest is to be among the first people desegregating an institution, be that baseball or a high school or the House of Representatives. Because all eyes are on you, and you have to keep your cool despite people screeching at you and harassing you and spitting on you, and show that you can play the game, or pass the tests, or do the job of legislating under that kind of pressure.

McBride's not rolling over! She calmly misgendered Self right back. But she was prepared to go right on doing her job representing the people who elected her. It was Self, the zero, who huffed out and left the business of Congress (which Republican Congresspeople seem oddly content to just abandon right now) undone.

Sarah McBride is an American hero.

By Exeutive Order: Trans People Don't Exist!

 

Hi! Your friendly local "gender ideology extremist" here, who isn't trans because there is no such thing as a trans person, you see. According to the new federal policy, recognizing trans people in their lived genders is "invalidating the true and biological category of 'woman,'” endangering them and "replacing longstanding, cherished legal rights and values with an identity-based, inchoate social concept!" Therefore, by executive order, the federal government has declared it will not recognize any change of legal sex, in order to protect women’s rights.

Ha, those cherished rights in the Equal Rights Amendment the new administration also won't recognize?

Yesterday as promised, immediately after being inaugurated, the president followed the Steve Bannon Principle of "flooding the zone with sh*t." We all knew it was coming. He signed executive orders declaring he will send troops to the border, and ignore the Constitution by invalidating birthright citizenship. Orders withdrawing the U.S. from the World Health Organization and the Paris Climate Accords, making us a rogue nation promoting pandemics and climate crisis. Pardoning the1600 convicted criminals who invaded the US Capitol four years ago. Strangling the IRS so it can't stop the ultrawealthy from cheating on their taxes. Declaring inclusion to be exclusion and equity to be discrimination. The list goes on! (Of course, the president wrote none of these orders. They were handed to him tied with a bow, in the form of the ultra-reactionary Project 2025, which he claimed never to have heard of while campaigning.)

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The tactic of “flooding the zone” is meant to instill panic and confusion, and to divide and conquer. Don't give in to that! There are so many bad things happening at once, and none of us can fight them all. The hope is that we'll therefore spend our time fighting one another over priorities, or just sit there paralyzed, with everything on fire. Instead, pick a fire to fight and do that, while calling out encouragement to people fighting other fires. And this will be a long fight, so pace yourself. Just do something! If you don't know where to start, ask people how you can help. If you can't think of what else to do and your energy is limited, you can always commit to making one phone call or writing one email every day, or every week. Contact a politician to let them know where you stand, or a community leader to let them know you see and admire what they are doing, or a person you see is suffering to send them emotional support. 

There are a lot of people who are going to need support, and that's just as important as more “political” action! When my government says I do not exist and am instead a deluded hazard, I roll my eyes. Oh, I know that this will have real and concrete negative impacts on my life, but I'm 60 and I have been here before. When I was a teen in NYC and started getting involved in what we'd call LGBTQIA+ politics today, my peers were queer street kids thrown out of their homes around the nation by their parents. They made their way to New York, where many of them were supporting their underage selves with sex work. Then HIV swept the country, and many of them died while politicians talked about “homosexuals” causing a plague, and speculated about putting us in concentration camps where we couldn't infect "the innocent." And so we fought for our lives and those of our friends--protesting with ACT-UP, yes, but also making memorial quilts and advocating with doctors and bringing food to the homes of the sick. 

As MLK would tell you, people don't gain rights by sitting quietly in their homes, hiding and waiting for those mistreating them to see the light and realize what they are doing is wrong. One has to take action--directly, yes, but also indirectly by supporting others.

I saw ACT-UP create change, and Queer Nation grow behind it. There were positive social shifts toward LGBTQIA+ acceptance! But progress sure wasn’t handed to us on a plate by the government. Reagan called queer folk mentally ill. Democrats weren’t much better. Bill Clinton passed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which forbade federal recognition of same-gender marriages if any state should decide to perform them. During the Bush years, a majority of the states passed laws or amended their state constitutions to ban such marriages. I joined thousands of others going door to door trying to convince voters not to support amending their state constitutions. We lost in my state. But we survived and kept fighting! And in 2015 we finally won marriage equality, after decades of struggle. 

So I can take a long view, personally. It’s the young people I worry about. It is so scary to be a trans youth today, and to see your state and then the federal government declaring you have no right to exist, are deluded, are a monster threatening cis girls. A decade ago, we were promising LGBTQIA+ kids that we’d protect them from bullying at school and that they were loved. Today, it’s the opposite, and I see a lot of college students feeling massively betrayed by the people who were supposed to be the wise adults in the room. These young people need us to fight with and for them, and they also need us to support them. To affirm that they are valid and beautiful and loved. 

We know these will be ugly times. But we can preserve beauty in them through love, as people have throughout history! Fight to preserve empathy for others, respect for yourself, justice, truth—in whatever way you can. Once more: none of us can hope to fix all of this. But all of us can do something. 

Take it from your local “gender ideology extremist!”

 

On Bots and Trolls Spreading Transphobia while Pretending to be Leftists

 

This is a photo that appeared in the NY Times today in the coverage of the Supreme Court hearing on a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for minors. (Just over half the states have passed such bans in the past few years, though a number of those are not yet in effect while lawsuits take place. Some of these states--like Tennessee--have made it impossible for adults to legally gender transition as well, by banning changing one's gender marker on a driver's license or birth certificate.) 

Considering this photo, what I want to point out is something I've heard basically no discussion of in the mainstream media, and that is a core tactic being deployed by those opposing trans people's civil rights. There are three main such groups that are real: politicians and influencers who generate outrage for attention, clicks, and votes; transphobes motivated by hate; and foreign nations who deploy social media bots to say provocative things in order to promote division among Americans and weaken the country. But there's a fake fourth group that you find all over social media, and portrayed in big media events like the protests outside the Supreme Court today.

And that fake group is "concerned leftists." Often social media posts state that they are being written by a "lifelong Democrat" who feels compelled to speak up because the party has gotten lost and gone too far. Then that "lifelong Democrat" asserts something outrageous as truth, like "Kindergarten teachers are sending children for sex changes!" This is intended to horrify centrists. Another claim is aimed at progressives: that gender transition is a nefarious rightwing plot to convert gay and lesbian youth into straight people. 

You see both of these forms of propaganda in this photo in the NY Times. Two pre-printed signs read "STOP TRANSING GAY KIDS." And another preprinted sign you can partially see claims that the protest group is "DEMOCRATS AGAINST PUBERTY BLOCKERS."

I am not saying that TERFs do not exist--cis women who espouse a radical feminism for cis women only, and who frame anyone who has or had a phallus as inherently evil. But realistically speaking, they are a small group. This contrasts with what social media threads on trans issues often look like, where it appears that a majority of people opposing trans rights are "lifelong Democrats" and "LGB people" who just have to speak up as the voice of reason, before trans rights renders Democratic politicians unelectable or erases the (cis) gay community.

This is tactical. It is an attempt to convince people on the left that vast swaths of their fellow-travelers oppose gender transition. It is an attempt to move the Overton window to make overt transphobia seem the "normal" position on the left. And its effectiveness can be seen in how little it is noticed and discussed--even though it's hardly new. For example, an organization that played a key role in rolling back the rights of trans youth in Britain is the "LGB Alliance." Supposedly, this is a group of cis gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals who believe gender transition is a mental illness, and one that endangers the existence of LGB people by destabilizing sexual orientation. In fact, the organization is allied with neo-Nazi groups and American anti-LGBT groups, and says opposing same-gender marriage isn't homophobic. Oh--and a poll of people who joined the organization found that the vast majority of the members were straight. It's classic false-flagging, hiding the wolf in sheep's clothing.

As for the NY Times, they keep publishing opinion pieces in exactly this vein, by people who present themselves as LGB progressives who feel morally bound to take a stand against trans rights in the name of sanity, protection of the vulnerable, and preserving the future of the Democratic party. Ugh.

It is important for cis folks on the left to be aware of this tactic. Don't just take it at face value when you read some social media comment that a person spewing transphobic statements is the "lifelong Democrat" they claim to be. Don't believe that there is some huge movement by the cis gay community to ban gender transitions. Do be aware that there are trolls and bots trying to make you believe that you are behind on the trend of people like you reassessing their acceptance of trans folks.

It is important for all of us to be aware of how we can be manipulated!

On Flat Earth Studies, "Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria," and Bad Science

[Illustration by MidJourney]

In the past couple of years, almost half of the states in the US have banned the provision of gender-affirming care for minors. This explosion of transphobic legislation keeping trans youth from working with care providers who support them has been based on two central myths. 

One of these myths is about what sorts of care trans youths access. This panicky myth is that little kids are walking into clinics and being hustled into "mutilating surgeries" and dosed with "experimental and dangerous drugs." (The reality is that most of the care received by gender-dysphoric young people is supportive talk therapy, with a modest subset of patients accessing puberty-suppressing drugs that have been prescribed without controversy for many years to cisgender youths. Surgeries on trans youths are very rare, and most of these are chest reconstructions on 17-year-old trans boys. A vastly larger number of cisgender 17-year-olds get plastic surgeries on their chests every year to support their gender identities, as they are cis boys unhappy with the breast tissue they have grown, or cis girls unhappy with small or uneven breasts.)

But I want to talk to you about the second myth, which is that children are being rushed into medicalized gender transitions when in fact they have "rapid-onset gender dysphoria" caused by "social contagion." The claim is that teens go online and read that it is cool to be transgender, and decide to go along with the fad. Or a cool kid at their school transitions and gets social attention, so they say they're trans too. Then they are hurried into the "medical transition complex" with tragic results because this was just a passing immature delusion of theirs. The proof is that their parents report that their child was "normal" and gender-conforming, until one day they suddenly declared they were transgender and wanted to use a new name and pronoun and transition.

If you have ever tried to support a young trans person, it will be patently obvious to you that this is false. Coming out as trans is really scary for young people. Trans youths face a whole lot of stigma and harassment at school, and at home they may (rightly) fear that their parents will reject them. Only a third of trans minors report having parents who accept them in their identified genders. For this reason, trans youths often try to hide their identities from their families, and conform to their parents' desires for how they present themselves. So when they finally decide they can't hide anymore and must come out, or someone outs them, their unsupportive parents are shocked. As the senior mental health practitioner quoted in this Scientific American article states, “It is not [an issue of] rapid-onset gender dysphoria. It’s rapid-onset parental discovery.”

"Rapid-onset gender dysphoria" is not a real diagnosis. It has been rejected as such by the American Psychological Association. But again and again, when bills banning access to gender-affirming care have been debated and passed by state legislatures, "rapid-onset gender dysphoria" has been cited as proving the ban was necessary. This remains the case as we speak.

This brings us to the central point I want to make as a social scientist, and that is the problem of terribly bad "scientific reports" being generated and occasionally even published in academic journals, specifically in order to promote bigotry and conspiracy theories. The claim made by those who deploy these studies is, "You say science supports providing gender-affirming care to minors? Well, your science is wrong, and we have good science on our side! Your science is produced by corrupt gender ideologues and big pharma! Ours is produced by brave independent researchers!" And transphobic politicians are happy to dismiss the position of 98% of experts in the field, so long as they are handed some published study they can enter into the record.

And that is why it is important to note that one of the two "scientific studies" cited all the time now when transphobic bills are passed (because these two managed to get published) has now been retracted by the journal that published it, The Archives of Sexual Behavior. The reason the journal retracted the article is because the "researcher" who collected the data did not go through the required step of protecting the study subjects and getting their informed consent. But really, that is the tip of the iceberg.

Neither the retracted study nor the earlier study published in 2018, which coined the term "rapid-onset gender dysphoria," actually studied trans young people. Instead, they looked at posts in online groups made up of parents who opposed their children gender transitioning, and surveyed parents in these groups. This means the data they gathered was biased and invalid. 

The retracted study had two authors--one being a controversial psychologist who has been publishing long-critiqued homophobic and transphobic claims for years, Michael Bailey. (Bailey, for example, has framed being gay as a disorder that should be cured, prevented, or selectively aborted.) The second author was not actually a psychologist or academic at all. She used the pseudonym Suzanne Diaz, and is the mother of a gender dysphoric child who was a member of the group for parents who opposed allowing minors to gender transition from which she gathered surveys.

Now, let's be clear: it is ok for people to study subject pools with whom they sympathize! Doctors who are cis white men are "allowed" to study cis white men patients; jazz-aficionado sociologists are "allowed" to study jazz musicians. But researchers need to disclose their social position and potential conflicts of interest. They are supposed to lay out what potential biases they may have. And if 98% of researchers say XYZ, while the author's conclusion is that XYZ is wrong and in fact the opposite is true, they absolutely must acknowledge this and make a convincing argument for why the scientific consensus is incorrect. 

Most of all, surveying people from a group for flat-earth believers cannot tell you if the Earth is truly flat and not a globe. You have to study the actual Earth for the research to come to a valid conclusion. And academic journals should not be publishing invalid articles. This is especially true when those articles are being published in order to support a political campaign, and will impact the lives of thousands, unlike most scientific journal articles, which will only be read by a small pool of academics.

I am glad the Bailey and Diaz article was retracted. But it did great damage in the few years in which it was in print. We have to do a much better job of reviewing submissions that contradict scientific consensus. Sometimes a consensus can be wrong, and careful studies should prove that! But the burden of proof should be a high one, and publishing an article concluding that people may fall off the edge of the Earth based on interviewing people in Facebook groups for flat-earthers does not meet that burden.