cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/7083726

cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/14431

Photo by Suzy Brooks on Unsplash

Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.

On Thursday, the Trump administration’s Department of Health and Human Services, under Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., released a new proposed rule that represents the single most aggressive attack on transgender healthcare in U.S. history. The rule—effectively a “nuclear option” from the administration—relies on expansive and legally dubious authority to restrict Medicaid funding through what are known as “conditions of participation.” Rather than directly banning Medicaid reimbursement for transgender care, the rule would bar any hospital that accepts Medicaid funding from providing gender-affirming care for trans youth at all, regardless of whether that care is paid for by Medicaid. By making this a baseline condition for participation in the program, the administration appears to be weaponizing Medicaid itself to enact a de facto national ban on transgender youth care, following the passage of Marjorie Taylor Greene’s bill in the U.S. House and its likely inability to advance in the Senate.

The rule, document 2025-23465, is sweeping in scope. It introduces a new regulatory term, “sex-rejecting procedures,” defined as any medication or surgical procedure that “attempts to align an individual’s physical appearance or body with an asserted identity that differs from the individual’s sex.” Under the proposal, a hospital “must not perform sex-rejecting procedures on any child” in order to participate in Medicaid. This goes far beyond a simple ban on Medicaid reimbursement for transgender youth care. Instead, it functions as a direct threat to any hospital that continues to offer such care at all, regardless of funding source, and its adoption would likely force every hospital and major clinic that relies on Medicaid to immediately cease providing transgender youth care.

The new rule contains no exceptions for patients already receiving care, meaning transgender youth who have remained in treatment even under some red-state bans would immediately see that care cut off. For many, this would amount to forced medical detransition, particularly for those unable to find another provider—an almost impossible task given that no hospital accepting Medicaid could continue offering care under the rule. The document itself openly acknowledges this choice, stating, “In developing this proposed rule, we considered aligning our requirements with those States that already have restrictions on SRPs but with a variety of exceptions they provide as outlined in Section 1.B of this proposed rule. For example, we could have allowed those currently receiving these procedures to continue receiving them. Ultimately, however, we have decided to adopt the proposed provisions with fewer exceptions than are allowed in these States to maximize health and safety for all children.”

This rule appears to violate multiple U.S. statutes and constitutional limits on federal authority. Most notably, Section 1801 of the Social Security Act explicitly bars the federal government from using Medicaid regulations to exercise direct supervision or control over the practice of medicine. The statute states: “Nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize any Federal officer or employee to exercise any supervision or control over the practice of medicine or the manner in which medical services are provided, or over the selection, tenure, or compensation of any officer or employee of any institution, agency, or person providing health services; or to exercise any supervision or control over the administration or operation of any such institution, agency, or person.” By conditioning all Medicare participation on the cessation of a specific clinical practice, CMS is exercising direct ‘supervision and control’ over the practice of medicine.

The government attempts to get around this by stating that gender affirming care is not part of “the practice of medicine.” In a section dedicated to this anticipated challenge, the new rule states: “Under Section 1801 of the Act, CMS may not “exercise any supervision or control over the practice of medicine or the manner in which medical services are provided, (42 U.S.C. 1395). However, we believe that providing the SRPs for children is not healthcare and hence are not subsumed under the term of “the practice of medicine.” Therefore, the proposed rule would not regulate the practice of medicine".”

Practice of medicine exception

The rule also likely violates the Constitution in two fundamental ways. First, it disregards the separation of powers. The executive branch cannot simply create a de facto nationwide healthcare ban through regulation when Congress has never authorized such a ban in statute. Agencies are empowered to implement laws, not to invent sweeping new prohibitions that Congress itself has declined to enact. Second, the rule represents a direct assault on states’ rights under the Tenth Amendment. By threatening to strip Medicaid participation from hospitals that comply with state laws requiring the provision of care, the administration would effectively coerce states into abandoning their own democratically enacted protections—or face the collapse of large portions of their healthcare systems.

The proposed rule nevertheless asserts that these guidelines would preempt state laws, placing a direct target on the “shield laws” enacted by states like California, Minnesota, and New York. The text is explicit in its intent to override state sovereignty, declaring that any state statute requiring hospitals to provide gender-affirming care—or protecting the providers who do—would be superseded by this federal regulation. In effect, the administration is claiming that a bureaucratic rule change has the power to nullify the democratically enacted protections of “safe” states, attempting to shatter the legal firewalls these states have built to protect transgender youth and their families from persecution and to ensure that care could be continued to be provided.

Federal preemption of shield laws assertion

“These draft rules comprise a dangerous and unconstitutional attempt to undermine the longstanding right of states to ensure the health and well-being of their residents, the right of parents and caregivers to support and love trans and nonbinary young people, and the guidance of doctors and medical organizations on the well-established standard of care. This draft rule is based on a biased “report” written by anti-trans authors that distorts existing evidence and ignores decades of rigorous research supporting the safety and necessity of gender-affirming care for transgender and nonbinary youth,” says Khadijah M. Silver, JD/MPH, Supervising Attorney for Civil Rights at Lawyers for Good Government.

The ban would leave only a narrow window for transgender youth to access care from providers not affected by the rule. The only entities that could continue offering treatment would be private doctors or clinics that do not accept Medicaid at all. While there has been some discussion about establishing such clinics to fill the gap, those efforts have largely failed to materialize. As a result, most transgender youth would be left without any realistic alternative provider for their care.

The full federal rule can be read in this document. An unpublished version is available here, with the official published version expected to appear Friday. Once published, the rule will enter a 60-day public comment period, during which members of the public can submit feedback. After that period closes, the government is required to review and respond to those comments before the regulation can take effect, a process that can take an unspecified amount of time. Court challenges are all but certain, but if the rule is ultimately allowed to go into force, it would likely spell the end of most transgender youth care in the United States.

Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.

From Erin In The Morning via This RSS Feed.

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/7101833

cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/14845

TYEP - Used With Permission

Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.

Over the last several years, many red states have banned gender-affirming care for transgender youth. Since Trump returned to power, that campaign has shifted to blue states, with the administration threatening hospitals and healthcare systems with the loss of federal funding unless they stopped providing care. This week, those threats escalated sharply: a new federal rule, now in its public comment period, would bar any hospital that provides transgender healthcare from receiving Medicaid funds—a move that would effectively force most major hospital systems to end that care altogether. In response, an organization that has already helped families navigate care bans in red states is stepping in again. The Trans Youth Emergency Project (TYEP), spun up by leaders at the Campaign for Southern Equality, says it has capacity to help parents of transgender youth locate independent clinics that may be less vulnerable to the administration’s current and incoming policies and can provide, in some cases, travel assistance.

TYEP’s latest outreach follows the release of a sweeping new federal rule that would bar any hospital system—and any clinic affiliated with those systems—from providing gender-affirming care if they accept Medicaid. The rule contains no carveouts for patients already receiving care, meaning many transgender youth would be forced into abrupt medical detransition unless they can quickly secure alternative providers, should the rule take effect. It explicitly claims to preempt state shield laws in places like California, Minnesota, and New York. The proposed rule further destabilizes an already fragile healthcare landscape for transgender youth, as hospitals and clinics continue to shutter services in preemptive compliance with the administration’s escalating threats.

The rule does leave one narrow avenue for transgender youth to continue accessing care: private, independent clinics and physicians who do not accept Medicaid. Earlier this year, as hospital systems began shutting down services, advocates spoke about spinning up independent clinics to meet the need. Massachusetts advanced a measure intended to funnel funding toward that kind of care, and in New York City, mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani pledged millions to help preserve treatment capacity. But for many families, the talk of these clinics have felt like vaporware—plans discussed publicly that have yet to translate into accessible appointments. There may, however, be a quieter reality beneath the surface: clinicians and small practices that are not advertising openly but remain prepared to provide care. That is where TYEP steps in, working behind the scenes to connect patients with providers who are still able and willing to treat them.

When asked whether TYEP has the capacity to absorb a surge of families seeking alternatives in the wake of the new rule, organizers said unequivocally that they do. They noted that the organization has repeatedly scaled up during previous waves of clinic and hospital closures without issue. Adam Polaski explained, “At every turn, we have been able to pivot and scale up and show people the reason that this is important. Folks have stepped up with their dollars, and also folks have requested support and spread the word. So right now, I don’t want folks to feel like they shouldn’t reach out because they ‘don’t really need it’ or someone else ‘needs it more than them.’ Everyone needs the support right now, and it’s ok. We have the capacity to take it on.”

Polaski compared what the group is doing to efforts that spun up for abortion access in the wake of recent restrictions and bans. “A lot of folks are recognizing that this kind of, you know, practical support network that the abortion access movement has crafted so powerfully is going to be necessary for trans folks.”

The group is likely to face real stress testing in the coming weeks. While the rule change has not yet taken effect—the process will include a 60-day public comment period, additional time for the administration to review comments and finalize the rule, and near-certain litigation that could delay or block implementation entirely—we have already seen that the mere threat of new anti-trans rules is often enough to prompt hospital systems to fold. Even now, EITM is aware of hospital systems actively discussing the proposed rule and weighing preemptive closures in anticipation of compliance pressures. That means independent clinics may begin seeing an influx of patients well before any rule is finalized. In that environment, organizations like the Trans Youth Emergency Project will be essential in helping families navigate a rapidly shrinking and increasingly opaque care landscape.

Families wishing to contact the TYEP about their situation can do so here by filling out their intake form. The national project offers family navigation through one-on-one phone calls to help identify providers unimpacted by restrictions, as well as travel grants of $500.

Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.

From Erin In The Morning via This RSS Feed.

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/7073048

cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/14218

Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

As major anti-transgender bills loom and Congress prepares to vote on sweeping restrictions on transgender healthcare over the next two days, Representative Sarah McBride gathered with reporters outside the Capitol to denounce what she called the Republican Party’s “obsession” with transgender people. McBride was joined by Representatives Ocasio-Cortez and Johnson for the press scrum, which comes at a critical moment: two high-profile bills—one proposing a national felony ban on trans youth healthcare and another seeking to bar Medicaid coverage—are expected to receive floor action, alongside anticipated moves by the Trump administration to pressure hospitals nationwide through Medicaid restrictions.

“So, we are two legislative days away from the Affordable Care Act tax credits expiring, when millions of people will see their healthcare premiums skyrocket, And GOP leadership, with that deadline fast approaching, has decided to schedule two votes on anti-trans bills and precisely zero votes on extending the Affordable Care Act tax credits,” started McBride, before turning to Republican obsession on transgender people.

“They would rather have us focus in and debate a misunderstood and vulnerable one percent of the population instead of focusing in on the fact that they are raiding everyone’s healthcare in order to pay for tax breaks for the wealthiest one percent. All Republican politicians care about is making the rich richer and attacking trans people. They are obsessed with trans people. I actually think they think more about trans people than trans people think about trans people. They are consumed with this and they are extreme on it.”

McBride’s comments come as Congress weighs two major anti-transgender bills. The first, introduced by Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, is expected to be heard today. The bill would enact a nationwide ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth, imposing penalties of up to 10 years in prison on those who provide such care. With amendments expected, the bill could extend its reach beyond doctors to parents as well, a move that would be devastating for transgender healthcare nationwide. While the bill is not expected to survive the Senate, it will function as a high-stakes messaging vote—particularly for Democrats facing pressure from political consultants to shift right on transgender issues, and for Republicans representing more moderate districts. Notably, Democrats recently secured major electoral victories in races where transgender rights featured prominently, a political reality that may give some Republicans pause before embracing the measure.

The second bill, introduced by Representative Dan Crenshaw, would ban Medicaid from covering gender-affirming care nationwide. The proposal is expected to be framed as a more “moderate” alternative to Greene’s felony ban—an apparent effort to peel off support from centrist Republicans and potentially even some Democrats. Like many recent Republican proposals, Crenshaw’s bill also embeds a rigid definition of sex, legally grounding it in reproductive capacity, language the party has increasingly attempted to codify across federal legislation related to gender.

McBride focused on the extreme nature of the bills, including the parental jailing provisions, stating, “They are bringing forward a bill that would put parents and providers at risk of being jailed—literally jailed—for affirming their transgender child and following medical best practices. t is already hard enough to raise a family today. It is already hard enough to be a kid today. And families with transgender young people are navigating complicated and complex situations, making deeply personal healthcare decisions. And regardless of what decision you might make as a parent, government should never insert itself into the personal healthcare decisions of patients, parents, and providers. That is a basic principle and a basic right that should be afforded to all Americans, including transgender people and their families.”

The language marked some of the harshest criticism McBride has leveled at Republicans to date over their targeting of transgender people. She has herself been the subject of Republican attacks, including a bathroom ban advanced earlier this year by Rep. Nancy Mace that appeared aimed directly at her. While McBride has faced criticism since her election—over interviews and statements on transgender rights, including from myself—her forceful posture and visible pushback against this legislation are likely to be received as a welcome sign by transgender people who want to see Democrats in Congress meet these attacks with more than quiet resistance.

You can contact your representatives today to urge them to vote against the anti-transgender provisions. At least one Democrat has expressed uncertainty on how she will vote, Representative Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (WA), and several other Democrats have voted for anti-trans provisions this year, including: Henry Cuellar (TX), Donald G. Davis (NC), Cleo Fields (LA), Shomari Figures (AL), Laura Gillen (NY), Jared F. Golden (ME), Vicente Gonzalez (TX), Adam Gray (CA), Susie Lee (NV), John W. Mannion (NY), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (WA), Kim Schrier (WA), and Thomas R. Suozzi (NY).

Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

From Erin In The Morning via This RSS Feed.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/40180143

What happened

Going against policy, the UK's EHRC chose to not record (or perhaps even destroy) the meeting minutes for a 2023 consultation with trans groups after one of its worst acts towards their rights.

This meeting was the day after the EHRC sent its now infamous letter to Kemi Badenoch, suggesting the Government to rewrite the Equality Act by redefining the words sex, man, and woman to mean “biological sex"

Context for Americans etc.

For context, the EHRC is the UK's primary human rights organisation. However, since Kishwer Falkner's takeover in 2020, the organisation has taken a clear trans-exclusive direction that has only gotten worse over time.

They offer guidance to businesses and the government on how to interpret human rights laws. That guidance authority has been used to twist the meaning of legislation intended to protect minority groups, against all legal precedent, to instead use as a basis for removing the rights of trans people specifically.

The EHRC has since rarely met with trans organisations when deciding how to advise on their rights. Instead, they frequently meet with trans hate groups like Sex Matters. This is to the point that their views closely mirror these hate groups.

Back to the article

Looking at the meeting notes, it's clear why they chose to hide them, as it's clear that they were entirely unable to justify their change in definition of sex and gender, and they knew that it went against the stances of most other human rights organisations.

Have a read for yourself. The long pauses are wild.

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/7023465

cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/13295

As the anti-transgender panic continues to escalate — and as many of the bills seen over the last four years migrate from statehouses to the national level — states that have led the charge have shown no inclination to slow down. Instead of resting on the discrimination they have already enacted, many are pressing forward with new and increasingly punitive ways to target transgender people.

Source

From Truthout via This RSS Feed.

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/7011204

cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/12980

On 3 December, the Women’s Institute announced its “sincere regret” that it will no longer accept trans women as members. The next week, on 8 December, Good Morning Britain (GMB) aired an interview with a trans woman expressing her upset at being expelled.

However, she — Rowena Purdy — also argued that the Women’s Institute should allow “fully transitioned” trans women to join as members. This article is about why this line of thinking is dangerous, regressive bollocks at a moment when trans people’s rights are on the line.

GMB tweeted:

A trans woman, who has been a member of the Women's Institute for nearly 10 years, is being forced to leave after the organisation decided it can no longer offer trans women membership. The W.I. will restrict membership to only those born female from next year, because of a… pic.twitter.com/lyo32So26c

— Good Morning Britain (@GMB) December 8, 2025

Discriminatory and voluntary

As the Canary’s HG previously reported, Melissa Green — the chief executive of the National Federation of Women’s Institutes — said it made the decision to ban trans women with the “utmost regret and sadness”. She stated that:

To be able to continue operating as the Women’s Institute – a legally recognised women’s organisation and charity – we must act in accordance with the Supreme Court’s judgment and restrict formal membership to biological women only.

She added:

But the message we really want to get across is that it remains our firm belief that transgender women are women, and that doesn’t change.

Since the Supreme Court’s ruling on sex in the Equality Act in April, many organisations have either willingly or under pressure from TERFs been excluding trans women and girls. The actual legal pressure to do so is, however, dubious at best.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) took down its interim trans guidance from its website on 15 October. This was the document which held that trans people should be excluded from spaces aligned with their lived gender.

Further, equalities minister Bridget Phillipson hasn’t written EHRC’s trans code into law. As such, there’s absolutely no legally binding basis to exclude trans people.

However, that hasn’t stopped organisations like the Women’s Institute from pre-emptively moving to obey whatever they think the law might be. That they firmly believe that trans women are women is immaterial. Their actual actions are discriminatory and completely voluntary, all in fear of getting sued by some transphobe with deep pockets.

Transmedicalism 101

Anyway, enter Rowena Purdy who argued on GMB that:

We all know that there are men who put dresses on and go around and call themselves women and think that they may now be trans women, but they’re not. To be a trans woman you’ve got an awful lot of medical things to go through. […] And on my behalf, I’m now fully transformed, fully transitioned, and so I go to WI.

As a good rule of thumb, if your argument at any point sounds like a slight variation on something a bigot who wants you to stop existing would say, it’s probably a good idea to reconsider. ‘Men in dresses trying to get into women’s spaces‘ is transphobic shit. Purdy went on to say:

I think the waters are very muddied by people who literally do put a dress on and try and get into womens’ ‘spaces’, if you like, and I think that’s wrong.

Now, regarding Purdy’s argument, presenter Richard Madeley said:

I’ve not heard someone in your position say this before

The problem is that most trans people will have heard this from someone within their communities before. Its a position called ‘transmedicalism’. It’s an ideology that used to be more dominant, but has thankfully waned in recent years.

As Pink Newsexplained:

Often, self-proclaimed transmedicalists will, falsely, claim that a portion of the community are “legitimate” trans people, under a vaguely defined list of requirements such as gender dysphoria or desire for surgery. Anyone who does not fit that criteria, to a transmedicalist, does not have a true trans identity. […]

The belief has since spawned a long list of exclusionary sub-beliefs, such as the idea that non-binary people do not exist and are not valid, and that over the past few years some influencers have begun identifying as trans to keep up with a “trend,” insultingly called “transtrenders”.

We can’t abandon one another

Transmedicalism is harmful for a number of reasons. First and foremost, to transmedicalists like Purdy, it reduces trans identity from something one simply is to something that’s done to you. ‘True’ transness becomes a reward reserved for people who can play the medical establishment game and access HRT and surgery.

As a reminder, the government is desperately trying to restrict access to trans medical procedures. The waiting list for even a dysphoria diagnosis is measured in years. And outside of the NHS, transitioning costs tens of thousands of pounds, which many trans people don’t have.

As such, hinging who gets to be a True Trans on ‘whoever the government allows to transition’ is a non-starter.

Some trans people don’t want surgery because they would like to have children one day. Others can’t have surgery because of healing disorders like keloid scarring. Some people can’t afford surgery, or can’t spend months inactive for recovery because of family commitments.

We’re at an extraordinarily dangerous moment for trans rights in the UK. However, the answer to that — as trans people and allies — cannot be to start throwing each other under the bus. If one portion of the community gets to keep their rights but everyone else lost them, that’s a loss for all of my trans siblings.

I can’t believe I actually have to say this

I don’t want to jump through smaller and smaller hoops for a state that hates me in order to receive a scrap of validation. I’m trans because I am trans. It’s no more complex than that.

Beyond that, I’m going to try to put this as simply as I can:

I don’t think a trans woman’s ability to join an organisation best known for jam and knitting (among many other wonderful endeavors) should hinge on her willingness to allow herself to be sterilised. Would you people fucking listen to yourselves?

Feature image via Unsplash/Norbu Gyachung

By Alex/Rose Cocker

From Canary via This RSS Feed.

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/7003236

cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/12823

Jared C. Benedict/Wikimedia Commons

Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.

One defining feature of the modern anti-transgender panic has been the fixation on bathrooms. While early efforts in 2016 were widely rebuked and ultimately failed, the last four years have seen several states enact new versions of bathroom bans. Most have targeted public schools, but legislators have increasingly pushed further—extending restrictions to colleges and universities, publicly owned buildings, even airports. Now, New Hampshire Republican lawmakers are taking the cruelty a step further: their latest proposal would apply to private businesses that offer public restrooms, turning the simple act of a transgender person using the bathroom into potential “willful trespass.”

The bill, HB1442, at first glance resembles measures enacted in states like Texas, South Dakota, and Wyoming. It bars transgender people from using bathrooms that match their gender identity in government-run buildings, including prisons, schools, and municipal facilities such as public restrooms and highway rest stops. But where most states enforce these laws through civil penalties against the government institutions themselves—allowing cities or schools to be sued—New Hampshire’s proposal goes further by targeting the transgender person themselves. It creates a separate trespass statute tied specifically to bathroom use, mirroring Florida’s approach, which likewise imposes criminal penalties on transgender people for entering the “wrong” bathroom.

Importantly, the new violation applies only to transgender women—not transgender men. In debates over restroom access, Republicans have often grown visibly uncomfortable when confronted with the reality that many trans men present with traditionally masculine features, including beards and attire; trans men have repeatedly pointed out in hearings that forcing them into women’s restrooms would be both unsafe and absurd. Rather than take that point as evidence of the incoherence of bathroom bans, New Hampshire lawmakers appear to have drawn a different conclusion: they carved transgender men out of the “willful trespass” provision entirely, which appears to only apply to transgender women:

See the section here:

HB1442

The new bill also targets transgender people in a way not yet seen in any other state: it applies to private businesses. While previous bathroom bans have generally stopped at public schools or government buildings, HB1442 extends its reach to any “place of public accommodation”—hotels, bars, theaters, concert venues, retail stores, and more—allowing those businesses to pursue willful trespass charges against anyone who enters the “wrong” restroom. The bill does not require businesses to file charges, but it does say that signage is sufficient grounds for doing so. In practice, that means transgender people would have to guess, bathroom by bathroom, which businesses might enforce the law—and risk a trespass charge every time they use a public restroom anywhere in the state.

See the section here:

HB1442

The bill is backed by thirteen cosponsors, including several with significant leadership roles, such as Sen. Kevin Avard, who chaired the Senate Rules Committee in the 2023–24 session, and Sen. Regina Birdsell, who led the Senate Health and Human Services Committee during the same period. Their support does not guarantee the bill’s passage, but it is telling: multiple lawmakers with real influence inside the Republican caucus are choosing to elevate this proposal as a priority for the year.

New Hampshire has seen a sharp escalation in anti-transgender policymaking in recent years. In 2024, the legislature advanced both a school bathroom ban and a ban on trans-related surgeries for youth—measures that passed only because multiple Democrats crossed party lines to support them, the only state to see significant defections on transgender rights among Democrats. Those same Democrats pitched their votes as an appeal to “moderate” voters, yet the party went on to lose several seats that fall as Republicans expanded their control of the state. In 2025, lawmakers doubled down, approving additional bills targeting transgender students and prohibiting gender-affirming care for trans youth. New Hampshire has become a case study rebutting the idea that surrendering on transgender rights slows Republican attacks or protects Democrats politically; neither claim has been borne out.

As the 2025–2026 legislative season begins, New Hampshire now has twelve bills trained on transgender residents—an outlier in a region where most states are expanding civil rights, not dismantling them. It signals yet another year in which LGBTQ+ people and their allies will be dragged back into the same exhausting trench warfare, forced to defend the basic ability to move through public life without fear. The relentlessness of these attacks makes one thing unmistakably clear: the fight is not letting up, and neither can they.

Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.

From Erin In The Morning via This RSS Feed.

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/6977720

cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/12228

Anti-DEI and sports ban provisions for the military still exist in the bill, but the removal of a health care provision is a major victory for transgender people in congressional legislation.

Late Sunday night, congressional leaders released the negotiated text of the National Defense Authorization Act. The House and Senate had each already passed their own versions—both with anti-LGBTQ+ provisions, including a sweeping ban on Defense Department funding for gender-affirming surgeries. That measure, which would have compounded the barrage of anti-trans actions already underway in the military under Donald Trump’s command, was widely expected to survive into the final bill. But in a surprise twist, the negotiated text dropped the surgical funding ban altogether—marking the second time in recent weeks that major anti-trans riders have collapsed during the congressional process. Though the final version still includes anti-DEI language and a transgender sports ban for those enrolled at military academies, defeating the surgical funding ban is a significant and unexpected victory.

Earlier in the shutdown fight, the National Defense Authorization Act emerged as a major secondary flashpoint between House and Senate negotiators. Many LGBTQ+ observers watched its trajectory closely for signs of whether Democrats would fold on transgender rights. On the House side, a slate of amendments from Rep. Nancy Mace passed into the bill—targeting transgender service members and dependents across military health insurance, athletics, bathrooms, pride flags, and more. The Senate side did not have most of those measures, but a major provision remained: a ban on funding for transgender-related surgeries, a policy that would have affected not only service members and their families but potentially any company with a military contract, blocking their insurance plans from covering transgender surgeries. Stunningly, despite parallel provisions having passed in both chambers, the final negotiated bill includes neither. Lawmakers did not split the difference; they removed the surgery ban entirely.

Republican congresswoman Nancy Mace of South Carolina, one of the chief architects of the anti-trans provisions in the House version of the bill, posted immediately after the text was released, writing, “NDAA is out, furiously reading through to see which of our Amendments made it in, and which did not.” In the hours that followed, her account stayed conspicuously silent about the defeat of her anti-trans amendments.

From Erin In The Morning via This RSS Feed.

if you have HRT Related queries or advice please check out !diyhrt@lemmy.blahaj.zone, an entire comm for HRT

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/6953528

For the last several years reactionary conspiracy theorists have spread the dangerous lie that transgender people are disproportionately responsible for political violence and gun violence in general. This deception, based on a gross misrepresentation of gun violence statistics and widespread lies surrounding the background of certain infamous mass shooters, has resulted in direct violence against transgender people and the rise of fascist politicians across the country.

Unfortunately, in the wake of the killing of the far-right propagandist Charlie Kirk on Sep. 10, lies about transgender and “left-wing” violence have reached a new mainstream prominence and bolstered transphobic fascist rhetoric across the bourgeois media landscape. Kirk was discussing the very topic as he was killed. To make things worse, immediately following the killing, many jumped to guess the identity of the shooter with little actual evidence available. Kirk’s colleagues and allies speculated that the shooter must have been either transgender, an immigrant, or a member of a left-wing political organization (if not all three) and quickly wove existing transphobic myths about gun violence into their narratives. In times like these, when fascist attacks against transgender and other LGBTQ+ people are intensifying, progressive forces must stand up to fight back against the lies and organize to defend these communities.

Full Article

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/6952061

The Department of Justice (DOJ) plans to dismantle protections for trans and intersex people in federal, state, and local prisons, jails, and youth detention facilities, according to a government memo obtained by Prism.

The memo, dated Dec. 2, takes aim at existing standards of the Prisonremoved Elimination Act (PREA) that the department says do not comport with the Trump administration’s first-day executive order that, among other things, targeted protections for trans people behind bars. PREA was passed in 2003, and President Barack Obama added new protections for LGBTQIA+ people to the DOJ’s PREA rulebook in 2012.

The proposed changes would affect all facilities that are subject to PREA standards, including adult prisons and jails, lockups, community confinement facilities such as halfway houses, and juvenile facilities

The memo was sent by Tammie M. Gregg, the principal deputy director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance, to all DOJ-certified PREA auditors, who are the only people permitted to review whether facilities are following guidelines under PREA.

While the changes are not yet official, the memo instructs all PREA auditors to ignore those challenged provisions in their audits. It states that facilities “shall not be held to subsections of the PREA Standards that may conflict with” President Donald Trump’s anti-trans executive order until the updates are finalized.

The planned changes to PREA specifically target rules regarding how trans and intersex people are screened for their risk of sexual abuse at a facility, as well as how facilities use that information to determine where trans and intersex prisoners are housed. The memo also threatens trans and intersex people’s ability to shower separately from other prisoners.

The changes also target review protocols for incidents of sexual abuse that take into account whether the abuse was motivated by, among other things, whether the victim was trans or intersex. The memo also mentions rules that bar strip searches and cavity searches of people by officers of different genders than the prisoners, except in specific circumstances, as well as employee training regarding how officials are required to treat and communicate with trans and intersex prisoners.

@transgender
Here to love and be loved with honesty and respect.🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍⚧️

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/6921787

cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/11155

San Jose, CA – On November 22, the San Jose People’s Pride Coalition held a vigil and march for Trans Day of Remembrance, a day commemorating the lives lost to transphobia.

“Fight Trump’s Hate, Honor Their Names” was the theme of this year's action as Trump and Republicans’ attacks on trans people and other oppressed people continue to ramp up.

The event started with emcee Evelyn Cooper asking a member of the crowd to say the names of the 58 people who have died since the last Trans Day of Remembrance. Pictures of all of those named, along with candles, were laid in front of the speakers to underscore the number of those killed.

People’s Pride organizer Hazel Tongzhi began the evening by emphasizing that attacks on trans people did not start with Trump’s administration but are part of a larger systemic issue. “Those who died to violence are almost entirely oppressed nationalities – Black and Chicano – trans women. This is not mere coincidence. This is the structural issue of transphobia and transmisogyny particularly and the intersection of it with race and class,” stated Tongzhi.

From Fight Back! News via This RSS Feed.

Not much to say, I just needed to shout out to the world. It feels great having finally acted on how I have felt for so long. I still got a long way to go, but I feel like this is a turning point and I am just so excited! To anyone who feels similarly but is apprehensive about injections, I have to say that the procedure was so simple and painless (I did IM) that even my shaky nerves couldn't make me mess it up!

With the recent decisions made by the supreme court, is the United states unsafe enough to trans people for us seek asylum elsewhere? I think these decisions are the government officially saying they do not acknowledge us for who we are. Is it time to start looking to seek asylum?

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/6440813

Miss Major Griffin-Gracy, a legendary transgender activist, was known for many things in her community. As a caretaker, she was known for getting Black trans women off the street and housed when they faced poverty and violence. As a fierce advocate for trans rights, she was known for demanding that LGBTQ+ people focus on protecting the most vulnerable among them, like women being policed and incarcerated for trying to survive. And as a veteran of the 1969 Stonewall uprising in New York City, she was known as a queer elder who did not want the past to be used as an excuse for inaction.

Her nonprofit retreat for trans leaders, The House of gg — the Griffin-Gracy Educational and Historical Center — announced her death in an Instagram statement on Monday night. She died at home on October 13 in Little Rock, Arkansas, surrounded by loved ones, the statement said. She was 78, according to the statement, although she doubted official records of her birth and believed she was in her 80s. She was hospitalized twice this year and was recently in hospice care, following a bloodstream infection. She suffered her second stroke in 2019.

Miss Major is survived by her longtime partner, Beck Witt Major, with whom she had a child, Asiah Wittenstein Major, in 2021. She raised other children during her life, through adoption and through relationships with former partners — including Deborah Brown, who gave birth to their son, Christopher, in 1978. But her family relationships extended beyond blood; according to the House of gg, she is also survived by Janetta Johnson, successor of the Miss Major Alexander L. Lee TGIJP Black Trans Cultural Center, and her sisters Tracie O’Brien and Billie Cooper.

She was born in Chicago and grew up with two siblings, Cookie and Sargeant. She loved her parents, “despite their recurring attempts to smack the queen out of her,” according to her memoir.

In the last years of her life, Miss Major felt called to fight back against the rising tide of anti-trans legislation. She wanted to talk directly with young LGBTQ+ people and encourage them to take action. She met with them at protests and at local gay bars, at the Democratic National Convention in 2024 while campaigning for former Vice President Kamala Harris, and during her third visit to the White House in 2023. She relied on motorized scooters and wheelchairs to travel across states, by car, by plane and by Amtrak, to have those conversations. She felt called to keep going for the cause, even as traveling became difficult for her.

Full Article

cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/9461781

I don't know what to think overall because things could still turn out bad, but the first session went off to a great start and was great throughout, surprisingly, to me.

cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/9313943

Consider subscribing to this YouTuber here and on their TikTok channel as well.

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/6183856

"Among our 90 participants we repeatedly used 3D-scanning techniques to measure breast volume and saw up to an increase of 30%. Crucially, we also saw that the study participants were more satisfied with the size, shape and the growth of their breasts compared to participants who did not use progesterone,” adds Raya Geels, PhD candidate at Amsterdam UMC and the study’s first author.

the most popular answer will be her official gender but right now, i can't decide so it's ambiguous and up to your interpretation. (i will use she/her pronouns because she presents as a woman)

so "l" morgado is a portuguese person living in brazil. her name at birth is masculine but since she's presenting as a woman, just goes by L to leave her real name ambiguous.

though femininity does not equal womanhood, l does typically feminine things like wearing skirts/dresses formally and painting her nails, which appears to give her euphoria.

every time she has to act as a character in a play or something, she always chooses the women characters.

she also keeps the fact that she was born male a secret and doesn't tell people so she can live as a woman.

i'm leaving it ambiguous but i would read her as a trans woman.

So, I (FtM) have this one cis woman friend who constantly makes fun of people who use pronouns like xe/xem, neopronouns, etc. I've also heard, though, that those pronouns make fun of the LGBTQ community, so I don't know how I should feel when my friend bullies and makes jokes about neopronoun users online.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/31693938

I (trans man) have a best friend (cis man). Today, he texted me, saying that he encountered one of his friends (cis man) and the friend's boyfriend (trans man).

While I see the friend's boyfriend as quite androgynous leaning masculine, my best friend thinks he looks rather feminine and "just like a girl".

He still is trying to understand LGBTQ stuff, especially since he has had a transphobic, homophobic upbringing.

Anyway, my best friend called the boyfriend "she", so he replied with "I'm a guy, actually."

This confused my friend, apparently, and he said "How was I supposed to know when he looks so feminine?"

What is some advice I can give my friend? He's trying to understand, like I said, and I fully acknowledge and believe we are ALL guys. Everyone involved in this post. Me, my friend, his friend, and the boyfriend.