Tag: lgbtq+ rights
Liberal Think Tank Urges  'Appropriate Restrictions' On Trans Athletes

Liberal Think Tank Urges  'Appropriate Restrictions' On Trans Athletes

"Ending the Backlash on LGBTQI+ Issues" is the title of the report out this week from the respected liberal think tank The Center for American Progress. As you might expect, the Center report urges Democrats to stand firm in supporting transgender soldiers and gender-transition care. But when it comes to girls' sports, it's not what you think.

This is what the liberal group has to say:

"The NCAA recently promulgated a restriction on transgender women playing in women's sports, a decision that it deemed appropriate for its level of competition and the sports it governs. Other associations, such as the National Intramural-Recreational Sports Association, have passed policies allowing students to participate according to their gender identity. This is where these decisions appropriately lie: with sports' governing bodies or schools themselves rather than with politicians. While local bodies and associations should minimize unnecessary exclusion, restrictions may be appropriate under some circumstances."

"Restrictions may be appropriate under some circumstances."

Hallelujah. Not that I'm in favor of restrictions. I'm just against losing elections over them.

"We hope that this lowers the temperature and lets us come out of this really scary moment for folks," said Caleb Smith, CAP's director of LGBTQI+ policy, who is transgender and a co-author of the paper.

Thank you, Caleb. You have, hopefully, given Democrats a place to stand without facing too much backlash.Americans are not voting based on transgender issues. They don't show up on the list with the war and the economy and affordability. But issues like transgender discrimination unfortunately play into that calculus of character, of whose side are you on, that has been wielded so effectively against Democratic candidates.

When Democratic Ohio gubernatorial candidate Amy Acton said last month that she does not "support boys playing in girls' sports," her statement prompted criticism from Democratic advocacy groups and liberal state lawmakers who accused her of dismissing the identities of trans people.

From what I've heard, Amy Acton is a great candidate. What are we doing attacking her? Of all the people to attack, she should not be one. Don't we want her to win?

An overwhelming majority of American voters don't think transgender girls should play girls' sports. I don't happen to be one of them. I feel bad for the handful of girls — and it's usually just a handful — who lose out most directly when a district adopts "appropriate restrictions."

But is it worth risking an election over?

Remember the ad of President Donald Trump's — the most effective of the campaign — using transgender care in prison to attack Kamala Harris for standing for they/them while Donald Trump stands for you. The Harris campaign said they had nothing to say to blunt it. That can't be right. Or it can't be right again.

Barney Frank of Massachusetts was the first openly gay member of Congress and a fierce fighter for gay rights. Before he died this past year, he gave a series of interviews, which I wrote about, in which he cautioned the party not to move too fast on transgender rights, and in particular girls' sports. Barney talked about how the gay rights movement moved toward marriage equality but didn't start there. We have work to be done, which starts with winning the election of people who are willing to recognize the full range of gender equality, even if it comes with some "appropriate restrictions."

The Center report concludes that "all athletes deserve fair competition and a level playing field." I believe that. And we shall achieve it one day. Caleb's report, and Barney's wisdom, will hopefully bring us closer to that day.

Susan Estrich is a celebrated feminist legal scholar, the first female president of the Harvard Law Review, and the first woman to run a U.S. presidential campaign. She has written eight books.

Protecting Trans Rights -- And Rethinking Gender Transition For Kids

Protecting Trans Rights -- And Rethinking Gender Transition For Kids

Within the past few weeks, two major medical groups, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons and the American Medical Association, have issued statements recommending against gender-affirming surgeries on minors. This is a break from the past few years, when all the relevant medical societies endorsed these treatments. It comes on the heels of the first verdict in favor of a detransitioned woman who underwent a double mastectomy at age 16.

As with nearly everything in modern life, this issue has been tainted by politics. The Trump administration, with its characteristic brutishness, has targeted trans people — firing trans service members from the military, forbidding Veterans Affairs hospitals from providing trans care, and more. The right's contempt for people in genuine distress is almost enough to make one embrace the full gender-affirming model.

But not quite, because this is about what's best for kids. As the statement by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons noted, it isn't just surgeries on those younger than 19 that they now discourage, but a whole panoply of gender-affirming care because there is good evidence that a "substantial portion of children with prepubertal onset gender dysphoria experience resolution or significant reduction of distress by the time they reach adulthood, absent medical or surgical intervention."

It's odd that so much ink has been spilled about the question of sports and the unfairness of natal boys potentially snagging prizes over deserving girls. That's unjust, but really, it's insignificant. The number of trans athletes is very small, and the harm, while real, hardly begins to match the damage that may be done to kids who are rushed into transitioning without proper evaluation.

As BBC journalist Hannah Barnes found in her examination of Britain's transgender program, 60 percent to 70 percent of the kids who presented at the clinic with gender distress would eventually grow up to be gay.

Most parents desperately love their kids and don't want them to suffer, so it's inexcusable that some clinicians were telling parents that unless they agreed to support their child's sexual transition, the child would be likely to commit suicide. The doctors sometimes said, "You can have a live girl or a dead boy" or vice versa. Chase Strangio, the ACLU lawyer who argued the U.S. v. Skrmetti transgender case before the Supreme Court, reluctantly acknowledged during oral argument that there is no evidence that gender-affirming care reduces suicide.

Parents have been disserved by a medical establishment that got carried away by a cultural fad and failed to protect children. Puberty blockers were advertised as a fully reversible intervention that would simply give children "time to think" before their bodies began the process of maturation. But in fact, between 96 percent and 98 percent of patients who started puberty blockers went on to cross-sex hormones (whose effects, like body hair, deepening of the voice, and development of an Adam's apple, are not reversible). Rather than a pause, it was a first step on the ladder. As the Cass Review in the U.K. stressed, the studies on these interventions are of poor quality and lack long-term data on how adults who transitioned as children are faring.

If a child proceeds from blockers to transition, one thing many natal males will lose is the capacity to achieve orgasm. Is a child able to understand the nature of that trade-off? Most boys and girls will also lose their fertility.

How many kids are being diagnosed as trans and put on the pathway to transition and lifelong medication, infertility and sexual anhedonia, when their real issue was discomfort with being gay, autism, a history of sexual abuse, depression or mere confusion after absorbing online content? The vast majority of children with gender dysphoria have other medical and psychological issues as well. Are they being carefully evaluated? Not always. Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy, a leading practitioner of transgender medicine, rejected the idea of extensive psychological evaluation in 2018, explaining that "I don't send someone to a therapist when I'm going to start them on insulin."

Throughout history, there have always been a small number of people (mostly male) who feel that they are in the wrong body. But as a number of surveys have found recently, the share of young adults who are trans or nonbinary is dropping. The Cooperative Election Study, which included 60,000 respondents, found that in 2020, 8.6 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds identified as transgender. By 2024, that share had declined to 3.2 percent.

Most of the people who embrace gender identity do so to be inclusive and humane. The movement for trans rights seems like the struggle of gays to achieve true equality. In one sense, it is. Discrimination against trans adults needed to be stopped, and transgender people of all ages deserve respect. But as Europe, our own medical establishment and juries are coming to see, the trend to aggressively alter children's bodies and minds was too much too soon. That Americans are tapping the brakes now is a welcome corrective.

Mona Charen is policy editor of The Bulwark and host of the "Beg to Differ" podcast. Her new book, Hard Right: The GOP's Drift Toward Extremism, is available now.

Reprinted with permission from Creators


What This Army Officer's Exemplary Life Tells Us About Gays In The Military

What This Army Officer's Exemplary Life Tells Us About Gays In The Military

If you are a regular reader of this column, you are no doubt aware that because of what we might call the state of the world, I end up writing about a lot of unpleasant stuff. Just yesterday, I filed two stories about people getting shot when all they did was make a common mistake like going to the wrong address or losing your car in a supermarket parking lot. I write about truly terrible court decisions that threaten rights we as citizens have exercised for decades. I have written extensively about Ukraine’s war against Russian aggression and the number of civilians that have been killed, whole blocks of cities that have been bombed and rocketed out of existence.

I guess if you’re going to write a column like this one, bad news and ugliness comes with the territory.

But every once in awhile something comes to pass that is truly wonderful. Today is such a day, because it gives me great pleasure to tell you that my West Point classmate, Stewart Bornhoft, will be awarded the Legacy Award by Knights Out, the association of West Point LGBTQ graduates and cadets. After leaving the Army, Stewart became a member of Knights Out and joined the advisory board of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) and worked to overturn the odious don’t ask, don’t tell (DADT) policy.

Stewart and I were early members of Knights Out when it was founded back in the 1990’s to oppose the DADT policy that existed for nearly two decades before it was overturned by Barack Obama in 2011. DADT, as the policy was called, forced LGBTQ service members to hide their sexuality, the “don’t tell” part, and in return, military commanders were not supposed to hunt them down and kick them out of the military, the “don’t ask” part.

It was a bullshit compromise created by a coalition of conservative members of Congress led by Georgia Senator Sam Nunn, who passed the policy to outflank President Bill Clinton, who had said he was going to overturn the military’s ban on gay servicemembers with an executive order similar to the one President Harry Truman issued that racially integrated the military in 1948.

DADT was a disaster for the military and for the LGBTQ people who sought to serve their country openly and without shame. More than 13,000 service members were discharged during the 18 years DADT was in effect, belying its stated purpose of allowing gay people to serve if only they remained quiet about their sexual orientation. It cost the nation hundreds of millions of dollars to train people and allow them to serve and then go through the expensive process of discharging them. The DADT policy not only didn’t work the way it was supposed to, it hurt the military by having severely negative effects on morale and readiness.

I received the Knights Out Legacy Award in 2016 for the work I did to oppose DADT by writing op ed articles, making speeches, and appearing on shows like CBS' 60 Minutes, the Today Show, and even on Fox News in its early days, before the network fell into its rabbit hole of right wing paranoia, conspiracy-mongering, and endless lies.

When Stewart receives his Legacy Award tomorrow at West Point, I will be there by his side, along with his husband, Stephen McNabb. Stewart and Stephen have been married for 14 years and together for 25. Stephen is a former Navy lieutenant who flew H60 Seahawk helicopters onboard the aircraft carriers Nimitz and Constellation. Stephen left the Navy because he no longer wanted to serve under the DADT policy.

After graduating from West Point in 1969, Stewart served in the Army Corps of Engineers for 26 years, including two tours in Vietnam and many assignments both stateside and overseas. During his career, Stewart was awarded the Legion of Merit (with 3 Oak Leaf Clusters), the Bronze Star (with OLC), the Meritorious Service Medal (with 2 OLCs), the Air Medal (with 3 awards), the Army Commendation Medal (with 2 OLCs), the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal, the Humanitarian Service Medal, the Parachutist Badge and the Ranger Tab.

All the above is necessary to tell you, at least in part, who Stewart Bornhoft is, and how he served his country. Think of Stewart serving in an Army that said he wasn’t wanted, solely because he is gay. I don’t know how he did it. Nor have I ever been able to understand how the other gay men I knew in the army were able to serve their country, knowing that their country had passed laws banning them from serving, making being gay essentially illegal.

I never understood while I was at West Point and in the army, and I still don’t understand today, why for so long the U.S. government and its military could not bring themselves to recognize that LGBTQ Americans have served in the military for the same reasons everyone did: they are patriots, they feel a sense of duty and honor, and they want to help protect their country and its freedoms. What’s so hard about that? Does who you get into bed with at night affect any of that? Of course not. Are LGBTQ people supposed to be somehow incapable of serving because they are gay? That fiction was tolerated for far too long. All you have to do is look at Stewart’s awards and decorations to know that he was very, very good at being a soldier. Graduating from Ranger School and earning the coveted Ranger Tab alone is evidence of that.

People with their senses turned on half way have known forever that there have been LGBTQ service members along side them in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard. Everyone has known forever, even if they haven’t admitted it, that there have been gay people and trans people serving in militaries since long before the time of Alexander the Great.

Now that DADT is gone and the Obergefell Supreme Court decision legalized same sex marriage, there is exactly zero evidence that either the military or the institution of marriage has collapsed. So, was prejudice the problem all along? Well, yes it was. But there was another problem as well: the unwillingness of people to stand up and say that the entire edifice of discrimination in the military was wrong and had to stop. Truman did that with a stroke of his pen in 1948 when he integrated the military from top to bottom. Prior to that, there was a large school of thought, primarily among Southerners in the military, that Black people can’t fight. Can you imagine? A version of the same prejudice was held against LGBTQ people, utterly without evidence.

Here is how absurd and wrong the military was: My father told me a story when I was still a cadet about an incident that happened in his Infantry battalion the week before they were shipping out to Vietnam in 1966. He got a call late at night from the Manhattan, Kansas, police department in the town next to the Fort Riley army post. They had arrested a second lieutenant in his battalion for cross-dressing at a bar downtown. If dad would come down to the station and collect him, they wouldn’t press charges.

My father got out of bed and drove downtown and picked up his second lieutenant, who was in full make-up, a wig, wearing a dress and high heels. He took him back to battalion headquarters, and as he told me later, asked him a simple question: given his current attire, could he lead soldiers in combat in Vietnam? The lieutenant answered that he could. My father drove him home. The next day, the lieutenant showed up in uniform, and they shipped out to Vietnam a few days later.

“Son,” my father told me, “he was the best platoon leader in the whole damn battalion. I didn’t want to lose him, and I’m glad I didn’t.”

In 1993, while the DADT policy was being debated in Congress, Dad and I and several other straight veterans went to Capitol Hill and spent several days lobbying against the bill and for the complete integration of gay people into the military. Dad was invited to testify at the Senate Armed Services Committee, and gave a moving opening statement about his cross-dressing lieutenant and a gay machine gunner in his company in Korea who had given his life in battle, holding off a Chinese human-wave attack with his machine gun, saving the entire company.

Dad, who was a 1945 graduate of West Point, died before DADT was overturned, but I’m telling you for a fact that he will be with me and Stewart Bornhoft tomorrow when he receives his Legacy Award, and I know Dad will be smiling and proud that we won.

Lucian K. Truscott IV, a graduate of West Point, has had a 50-year career as a journalist, novelist, and screenwriter. He has covered Watergate, the Stonewall riots, and wars in Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan. He is also the author of five bestselling novels. You can subscribe to his daily columns at luciantruscott.substack.com and follow him on Twitter @LucianKTruscott and on Facebook at Lucian K. Truscott IV.

Please consider subscribing to Lucian Truscott Newsletter, from which this is reprinted with permission.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga) puts up transphobic sign outside of her office.

Rep. Greene Mocks Trans Pride Flag Outside Of Her Office

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga) has amped up transphobic attacks in multiple Twitter attacks, culminating in the Qanon congresswoman hanging a sign mocking a transgender pride flag Rep. Marie Newman (D-IL) put across from her office.

"Our neighbor, (Rep. Greene), tried to block the Equality Act because she believes prohibiting discrimination against trans Americans is "'disgusting, immoral, and evil,'" Rep. Newman tweeted. "Thought we'd put up our Transgender flag so she can look at it every time she opens her door."

Then, Rep. Greene retaliated with a similar Twitter post mocking Rep. Newman's original, boasting about displaying a transphobic sign that read, "There are two genders: Male & female. Trust the science!"

Twitter users rushed to defend Rep. Newman, who mothers a transgender girl, and blast Rep. Greene for her blatant, ignorant transphobia.

"Sickening, pathetic, unimaginably cruel," tweeted a fellow Illinois Congressperson Rep. Sean Casten, responding directly to Rep. Greene's tweet. "This hate is exactly why the #EqualityAct is necessary and what we must protect (Rep. Marie Newman)'s daughter and all our LGBTQ+ loved ones against."

Adding to the cruelty, Facebook took down Rep. Newman's post of her setting the transgender pride flag outside of Rep. Greene's office for "hate speech," while leaving up the QAnon congresswoman's.

"Facebook took down our video of me putting up the Transgender flag outside my office and labeled it as 'hate speech,'" Rep. Newman tweeted. "Meanwhile, they're still allowing Marjorie Taylor Greene's transphobic video to be posted. Supporting transgender Americans is NOT hate speech."

Rep. Greene's latest deplorable actions come as she has repeatedly attacked LGBTQ+ rights this week when discussing The Equality Act, which will be voted on Thursday by the House.

"The so called #EqualityAct is evil," she tweeted, while also making false assertions that the bill "destroys women's rights, religious rights, and rights of the unborn."

Then Rep. Greene made multiple transphobic statements, including: "(God) created us male and female." Adding that, "Men who dress and think they are women will have rights over all real girls and women."

Her disgusting, transphobic statements were just the beginning of her attacks on the bill, as she also introduced a hand full of amendments to the bill. One asked that the "entire text" of The Equality Act be removed and replaced with Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act-- an anti-transgender attack that would strip basic human rights from trans women and girls.


Chris Johnson on Twittertwitter.com

All of the claims made by Rep. Greene-- including saying The Equality Act "has nothing to do with stopping discrimination against the LGBT community"-- are entirely false and rooted in nothing but hatred, homophobia and transphobia.

The Equality passed the House in 2019 but never made it to a vote in the Republican Senate controlled by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY). The bill is a top priority for President Joe Biden and is likely to pass the House again, but will be a "slog" in the Senate again, according to Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI)-- who reintroduced it last week.

Rep. Cicilline went on the SiriusXM radio show Julie Mason Mornings saying, "(The Equality Act has) bipartisan support by the American people" and "the only place that seems to be controversial is within the Republican caucus."

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Trending

World