Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.
In the latest episode of their podcast A Touch More, all-star athletes Megan Rapinoe and Sue Bird denounced the International Olympic Committee’s new rule requiring sex testing for athletes competing in the women’s category.
The anti-trans policy will subject athletes competing in the women’s division—and only women’s, not men’s—to invasive sex testing to determine whether they have an SRY gene. Why this is where the International Olympic Committee chose to draw the gender line is arguably arbitrary.
No major medical organization endorses this litmus test as a reliable marker of athletic skill or “biological sex.” Even the scientist who discovered the SRY gene has slammed this practice in sports, saying “science does not support” this “overly simplistic” approach. Rather, it’s an arbitrary line in the sand used to cram unscientific ideas about gender and sex into manmade, binary boundaries.
Nonetheless, if a woman tests positive for the gene, she could be forced to compete in the “male” category. This has had dire consequences the last few times it was deployed against women’s athletes. From 1992 to 1999, cisgender women were forced into testing and found out, on the world stage, that they had intersex conditions they never knew about. The spectacle led to ostracization, disqualification, and at least one suicide before such testing was abolished.
“What we’re doing is subjecting everybody, all women and all people who are identifying as women, to this really invasive testing that only to me just says like, oh, so we’re just trying to whittle it down to a certain type of woman,” Rapinoe said.
Rapinoe is one of the most high-profile athletes in the country, a soccer player with three Olympic competitions under her belt and a decorated career in the U.S. Women’s National Team (USWNT). Bird, meanwhile, is among the most successful athletes in history—the retired WNBA legend spent her 20-season professional career as a point guard for the Seattle Storm, and is a record-breaking Olympian in her own right. The athletic power couple has been engaged since 2020. Together, they’ve long been outspoken advocates for the LGBTQ community.
Rapinoe connected the anti-trans vitriol in sports to the right wing’s broader attacks on queer and trans people, calling the push for sex testing “hateful.”
“They sort of like, lost the battle on gay marriage,” Rapinoe said. “So, it’s just like, we’re going to have this whole campaign for all these years to just hate trans people, which is such a small percentage of the population.”
Countless women, cisgender and transgender alike, have faced harassment and persecution because of the anti-trans athlete witch hunt.
“It’s just a total acquiescence to the Trump Administration,” Rapinoe said. “It’s just horrible, and I’m just sickened by it.”
The IOC rule is part of a broader pattern. In the United States, sports bans have served as a Trojan Horse for more sweeping anti-trans policies. The DOJ’s recent lawsuit over “women’s sports,” for example, also demands that transgender students be banned from bathrooms and locker rooms.
“Can we please stop obsessing over trans people and, I don’t know, maybe focus our time, energy, and resources into real problems women’s sports face?” Bird chimed in. She rejected the idea that sex testing, as the IOC claims, “protects women,” instead calling it a “fear-mongering” political ploy meant to generate support from conservative voters.
“That’s all this is,” Bird said. “If you crack this door open, it gets blown open. You’re now policing women’s bodies across the board.”
Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.
The idea behind these laws seems to be if they can hide that LGBTQ+ people / kids exist they can prevent the acceptance and tolerance of LGBTQ+ kids / people. In the minds of the haters who write these bills hopefully that will force people who are not straight or cis to stay hidden from society. They are desperate to return to the 1950s when LGBTQ+ people had to stay hidden or risk losing everything they had, their job, housing, and friends. They are pathetic in their need for everyone to be the same as they are, feel the same as they do, and to live as they do. Why I did not know or understand. The irrational hate for LGBTQ+ kids is really weird. That they would rather have kids hurt, harmed, assaulted, ostracized, and possibly driven to suicide rather than give them acceptance or simply tolerance. I don’t undestand what their gain is in this? Hugs
The appeals court vacated two separate injunctions against the law, but advocates promise to keep fighting.
John Russell (He/Him)April 7, 2026, 1:00 pm EDT· Updated on April 8, 2026
Shutterstock
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has ruled that Iowa can enforce a 2023 law restricting classroom instruction on LGBTQ+ topics and access to certain books while legal challenges against the law proceed.
On Monday, the three-judge panel overturned injunctions previously issued by lower courts in two separate lawsuits challenging aspects of the Senate File 496, according to the Associated Press and The Des Moines Register.
Passed by the Iowa state legislature and signed by Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds in 2023, the law prohibits “any program, curriculum, test, survey, questionnaire, promotion, or instruction relating to gender identity or sexual orientation” in kindergarten through sixth grade. It also bans materials featuring “descriptions or visual depictions of a sex act” from school libraries and classrooms — a provision which critics say is intended to ban books featuring LGBTQ+ characters and themes.
The law went into effect on July 1, 2023. The following November, the ACLU of Iowa and Lambda Legal sued the state on behalf of LGBTQ+ advocacy organization Iowa Safe Schools and seven students and their families, challenging SF 496’s classroom instruction ban.
Last May, a federal judge issued a split decision, upholding the law’s ban on discussion of gender identity and sexual orientation in K–6 classrooms, but blocking its ban on school “promotions” and “programs” that acknowledge the existence of LGBTQ+ people. U.S. District Judge Stephen Locher also blocked a provision of the law banning schools from providing “accommodation that is intended to affirm the student’s gender identity” without notifying their parents, writing that S.F. 496 was impermissibly vague about what constitutes an “accommodation.”
Writing for the Eighth Circuit on Monday, Judge Ralph Erickson held that the state’s interpretation of the law as requiring school “programs” and “promotions” to only encompass curricular activities does not violate the U.S. Constitution. However, the court did not address whether it is constitutionally permissible for the state to ban specific groups and extracurricular programs, such as Gender & Sexuality Alliance groups, because the Iowa Safe Schools lawsuit did not challenge specific applications of the law, according to the Register.
The court also disagreed with Judge Locher’s ruling that the law’s language around “accommodations” was too vague, restoring S.F. 496’s ban on schools accommodating students’ gender identities without outing them to their parents.
In a separate November 2023 lawsuit, the Iowa State Education Association was joined by publisher Penguin Random House and several prominent authors of banned books in a challenge to S.F. 496’s book-banning provision. Last March, Judge Locher sided with the plaintiffs, issuing a preliminary injunction preventing schools from removing books it considers “obscene” from classrooms and libraries.
Again, writing for the Eighth Circuit in a separate decision Monday, Judge Erickson disagreed w ith Locher’s ruling that school library books are not part a school’s curriculum. Erickson wrote that a school’s library catalogue constitutes government speech and can be restricted by state law, according to the Register.
The decisions on both cases send them back to the district court. But as the Register notes, the Eighth Circuit indicated in both rulings that the plaintiffs could not show a “likelihood of success on the merits” in their challenges to S.F. 496.
At the same time, in a joint press release the ACLU of Iowa and Lambda Legal noted that the rulings narrow “where and how the law may be applied.”
“The prohibition regarding sexual orientation and so-called gender theory applies only to specific, mandatory instruction on these topics during class time. The law, as currently interpreted, does not require schools to prohibit student expression of LGBTQ+ identity nor does it limit the sponsorship or promotion of GSAs,” ACLU of Iowa Senior Staff Attorney Thomas Story said.
“The court’s interpretation of the provision on banning books is that it applies only to those that specifically describe or depict one of those sex acts defined in Iowa’s criminal law. And with the forced outing provision, a report would be made to parents or guardians only if a student specifically requests a school accommodation for the stated purpose of affirming a gender identity different from their registration forms,” Story added.
In a statement responding to the court’s decision, Iowa State Education Association president Joshua Brown told the Register that the case was “about much more than legal technicalities.”
“It is about protecting the freedom of speech and the right to share ideas — values guaranteed by the First Amendment,” Brown said. “Our schools should be safe spaces where students are free to learn, teachers can use their professional expertise without fear, and families can trust that education is based on open inquiry rather than government censorship.”
A spokesperson for Penguin Random House indicated in a statement to the Register that the company intends to keep fighting against S.F. 496. Similarly, Lambda Legal Senior Attorney Nathan Maxwell called the ruling “a setback,” but noted that “it is not the end of this fight.”
“Iowa’s SF 496 is a cruel and unconstitutional law that silences LGBTQ+ children, erases their existence from classrooms, and forces educators to expose vulnerable students to potential harm at home,” Maxwell said in a statement. “We will continue to use every legal tool available to protect these young people. They deserve nothing less.”
Subscribe to the LGBTQ Nation newsletter and be the first to know about the latest headlines shaping LGBTQ+ communities worldwide.
I wish! 😄 Leading Kansas writes this time in regard to data centers, and about addressing our local governments in our own behalf.It works the same in every state.
This cartoon was drawn for the Fredericksburg Advance. But don’t yell at them for it; you can yell at me.
If you live in Virginia, you have been bombarded with flyers about the special election on redistricting. And it’s not just flyers but also TV commercials, which are also popping up online. We are getting these things from both sides.
There is a special election in November on a state constitutional amendment that would give Democrats as many as four seats in Congress. The measure would also temporarily bypass the state’s redistricting commission to redraw maps in the middle of the decade.
The state’s Supreme Court approved the measure to be on the ballot less than a week before early voting began. State Republicans repeatedly tried to stop Democrats from moving forward with the referendum. The irony here is that Republicans claim that voting yes will disenfranchise voters, while they literally tried to keep this off the ballot so people couldn’t vote on it.
This is a direct response to Donald Trump and Republicans redistricting mid-decade to give themselves more seats. Donald Trump even said he was entitled to have more congressional seats. This is one reason why we need to No Kings protest. Donald Trump already believes he’s entitled to win elections he’s lost. (snip-MORE, and it’s on point)
Energy company Deep Fission is in the process of building a new and untested type of underground nuclear reactor in Parsons, KS
The Trump administration has reduced regulations to encourage nuclear power production
The reactor will likely power data centers for artificial intelligence
Large data centers consume huge amounts of water and energy and produce different types of pollution, leading to health risks for nearby residents
In November 2025 a two-year-old energy company called Deep Fission broke ground in Parsons, Kansas. They hope this project will enable them to install the second ever energy producing nuclear reactor in the state, after Wolf Creek, potentially with more reactors on the way in the future. If the early “characterization” drilling goes to plan, they claim the reactor could begin pumping electricity into the grid in the near future.
Parsons is a city of 10,000 in southeastern Kansas, near the Oklahoma border. I’ve lived in Kansas for most of my life and I had not heard of Parsons until last week. So, why is Deep Fission in Parsons, Kansas, and why now? Not coincidentally, the Great Plains Industrial Park, also located in Parsons, has lately been advertised as a prime location for new data centers to power the trillion-dollar (yes, trillion with a T) artificial intelligence boom forced upon us by large technology corporations and their venture capitalist backers. Which means the Parsons nuclear reactor project would likely come as a package with one or more new data centers, along with potential economic prosperity and a host of legitimate concerns that community members have already raised.
Part 2: The New Nuclear Power
While the Department of Energy set a goal for the Parsons reactor to go online in July of this year, Deep Fission themselves are aiming to connect to the grid by 2027 or 2028. Two years is still an unusually rapid rollout for a nuclear power plant, which usually takes 6-10 years from groundbreaking to full operation.
Nuclear energy is typically labeled as “clean” energy compared to coal, oil, and natural gas, meaning that it releases fewer pollutants into the air and water than fossil fuel consumption. Still, there are two main concerns. First is the disposal of nuclear waste, which ranges from the lightly contaminated clothing of plant workers to the lethally radioactive spent fuel a plant produces over time. This latter “accounts for just 3% of the total volume of waste, but contains 95% of the total radioactivity.”
A relatively new method in the US and Europe for disposing of our most dangerous nuclear waste is to bury it very deep underground, so that it can be surrounded by solid rock to provide the same level of pressure containment as required at structure at a surface nuclear reactor facility. The father-daughter team that eventually founded Deep Fission originally created Deep Isolation to dispose of nuclear waste. Deep Fission takes their concept a step further by placing the entire reactor, and therefore its most dangerously radioactive elements, into a borehole drilled one mile underground.
The second main concern related to nuclear energy production is, of course, accidents or attacks. It is true that large-scale nuclear accidents are very rare, but when they happen, they become instant, globally recognized disasters whose names we all know: Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Fukushima. The effects are so widespread as to be practically impossible to quantify. The reactor explosion and meltdown in Chernobyl, for example, caused several dozen deaths directly related to radiation exposure, but various studies have predicted anywhere from thousands up to a million eventual additional cancer deaths. Not to mention the environmental and economic cost to the entire region around Chernobyl. And radioactive boars still terrorize people and farmland in the region around the Fukushima plant in Japan.
But those issues are known, and regulations have historically attempted to shore up potential dangers posed by new plants. In contrast, nothing like the underground nuclear reactor in Parsons, Kansas has ever been attempted before, and thanks to Executive Order 14301, will not need to go through long established design and testing phases that other types of nuclear reactors have been subject to in the past. John Young, a mining environmental regulatory specialist who lives in Sedgwick County, asks, “Why abandon the current regulatory process for something created out of whole cloth with no public input? And no one can define the current regulatory pathways for Federal and State authorizations.
“What,” Young asks in frustration, “could possibly go wrong?”
Part 3: Data Centers and Artificial Intelligence
So that is a glimpse into the nuclear energy side of things. Next we must address concerns around data centers and artificial intelligence. Data centers come in different sizes, like the smaller center being proposed in Wellington, KS, which would reportedly “use roughly 30% of the city’s electrical capacity while generating an estimated $1.3 million in annual electric utility revenue” while consuming only two gallons of water per day. Larger data centers consume resources less modestly. “Around the country, and the world, there is a land race among the big tech companies for sites for their data centers,” claims a November 2024 investigative report by Rolling Stone. Data centers are much newer than nuclear energy technology, yet the ways in which they harm communities near them have already become apparent.
Water: “Large data centers can consume up to 5 million gallons per day, equivalent to the water use of a town populated by 10,000 to 50,000 people,” according to a June 2025 study by the Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI). And data centers built explicitly to power AI represent the fastest growing portion of the market.
Last year, researchers at the University of California, Riverside calculated that ChatGPT—one of several popular Large Language Models (LLMs) vying for marketplace dominance—answered about 10,000 queries per second. The processing load to do so guzzled about 6,000 liters (or about 1,000 toilet flushes) of fresh water per second, all day, every day. That is only generating written text. AI photos require more water, and still more for AI video. “The extraction process is permanent,” explains the University of Alabama at Birmingham Institute for Human Rights. Water used to cool data centers evaporates as it cools hot components, meaning it can no longer be used by people in the region who need water for drinking, cooking, bathing, laundry, and general survival.
Pollution: Unfortunately, it is not only consumption of water to worry about. The evaporation of water cooling data centers leaves behind higher concentrations of nitrates and other contaminants leaked through agricultural fertilizers and pesticides into local water supplies, drastically increasing incidents of “rare cancers, muscle disorders, and miscarriages” among people who live nearby. Geographically, Parsons, Kansas sits atop the Alluvial and Ozark Aquifers.
Reports of noise pollution have increased near data centers as well. Residents in different Virginia towns experienced disturbing high and low frequency humming in a wide radius around two new data centers.
These same experts predict that the disempowerment will not only come at the individual level, but also at the societal level, as lawmakers turn their attention and favor even more toward tech companies and AI services that increasingly take over tasks that used to be performed by human beings.
The purpose of this article is not to overwhelm with doomsaying or inevitability. If the Deep Fission underground reactor works as advertised, it could genuinely provide cleaner energy than fossil fuel and mitigate some of the effects of climate change. But to get there safely, we need to demand transparency and regulatory protections from political and corporate leaders. If enough of us speak up in place like Parsons, Topeka, Sedgwick County, and every corner of our town, state, country, and world, we embolden those watching, each other, and ourselves to continue building the world we want and deserve.
tRump couldn’thelp himself but he had to attack Obama making claims of how bad Obama’s library is. Then Sam describes tRump’s grift / scam on his library, using tax free dollars to build a hotel that he will make money from. Then Sam talks about the citizenship birthright case. Hugs
Because of Mamdani’s policies being for the people to help the people and his huge popularity is going to affect or should affect how other democrats run their races. The people respond to taxing the wealthy more and using those funds to help the lower incomes. Maybe the young today don’t remember how it was before Reagan slashed the taxes on the wealthy when infrastructure was maintained, services for the public were available, when schools were properly funded and higher education was inexpensive and government offices to serve the public were fully staffed along with so much more. But the more the upper incomes take of the country’s money the less is available for the rest of the people. A large part of the democratic party became addicted to that big money from corporate and wealthy donors so they did not fight for the people as they should have instead helping companies and businesses to make more profit. The people saw the shift by the democrats and stopped supporting them. Mamdani has shown how to get the voters back on the democrats side again. Hugs
The problem is the money AIPAC uses to either entrap politicians and these podcasters / influencers or uses its money to threaten and punish them. Hugs
This is a great clip on the situation with the democratic party, democratic leadership, and the democratic message. Also the polls on democratic leader ship is in the negative numbers. One reason is the Israeli genocide in Gaza and the minority leader in the Senate, Chuck Schumer has said his number 1 priority is making sure the left keeps supporting israel. The democratic party leadership has been totally captured by the big money donors, corporations, and large lobbying groups like the Israeli lobby AIPAC. It doesn’t make the people feel they are important to him or the party leaders. Hugs
The largest medical association in the United States supports gender-affirming care — a stance it has reiterated in different ways over the last 10 years. But as Republicans press leading medical organizations on health care for transgender youth, the American Medical Association (AMA) is the latest group caught between political rhetoric and the complex realities of specialized care that few people receive.
As patients, families and doctors navigate this care in an increasingly confusing and hostile landscape, what medical groups say matters. But lately, what they’ve had to say — and how politicians interpret it — has only caused more uncertainty.
The AMA’s stance was already in question after a January meeting between leaders of major medical groups and Dr. Mehmet Oz, the head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. After that meeting, which was first reported by The New York Times, one group in attendance — the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) — muddied the waters about whether it had taken a more restrictive stance on gender-affirming care.
Questions soon followed for the AMA, the nation’s most prominent organization representing doctors.
Twenty Republican state attorneys general are pushing for the AMA to broadly oppose gender-affirming care for minors, in response to news coverage about their recommendations around youth surgeries. The attorneys suggest that the AMA may be violating state consumer protection laws by confusing, or even misleading, medical providers and patients about their stance. They mention wanting to “avoid a formal investigation” into the issue.
The attorneys, led by Steve Marshall in Alabama, wrote a letter in February asking whether the group recommends hormone therapy or puberty blockers to treat gender dysphoria in minors.
“If you agree that there is insufficient evidence to support using surgical interventions to treat gender dysphoria in minors — as your recent statement indicates — we do not understand how you can find that there is sufficient evidence to support using hormonal interventions to treat gender dysphoria in minors,” their letter reads.
This is an escalation of a familiar tactic, said Khadijah Silver, director of gender justice and health equity at Lawyers for Good Government. And if it works, it will be a major weapon in the political fight to delegitimize gender-affirming care, they said.
“If you can convince the public that they have shifted stance, that’s extremely powerful,” they said, referring to the AMA.
In some ways, that impact is already being felt.
In a recent congressional hearing on rising health care costs, the board of trustees chair for the American Medical Association was asked about how patients across the country are struggling to find doctors. Two hours into the hearing, he was also asked about gender-affirming care for trans youth — a topic that affects few Americans, but takes up a lot of political air.
Rep. Erin Houchin, a Republican from Indiana, asked why the medical group changed its position on surgeries for trans youth.
But the AMA maintains that it has not changed its position.
“In surgery and minors, our belief is that it should generally be deferred until adulthood. But, we respect the physician-patient-family relationship in determining that,” Dr. David H. Aizuss answered in response to the question from the congresswoman.
That exchange took only a few minutes out of a hearing that spanned the gamut of crises facing the U.S. health care system, like skyrocketing insurance premiums and a worsening physician shortage. But it represents a growing tension between Republicans and medical groups, as elected officials who oppose gender-affirming care push for major health care organizations to do the same.
The American Medical Association declined to comment on the attorneys general’s letter, which had asked for a response by March 25. In a broader statement, the medical group said it supports gender-affirming care.
“We support evidence-based treatment for medical care, including gender affirming care,” an AMA spokesperson said in an email. “Currently, the evidence for surgical intervention in minors is insufficient for us to make a definitive statement. In the absence of clear evidence, surgical interventions in minors should be generally deferred to adulthood. Treatment decisions should be made between the physician and the patient (and family) based on the best medical evidence and clinical judgment.”
That position aligns with the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), an authority on medical care for trans people. WPATH recommends that patients generally wait until adulthood before seeking surgery. Trans youth rarely undergo surgery of any kind; of the small number performed on adolescents, the majority are mastectomies.
If an adolescent does need surgery, WPATH recommends they meet extensive criteria — including a full understanding of reproductive side effects, a year’s worth of hormone therapy, sustained gender incongruence, plus emotional and cognitive maturity.
The questions surrounding surgery come on the heels of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons’ response to the January meeting with Oz. In what the Times described as a “tense” meeting, Oz pressed leaders of organizations including the AMA and the ASPS on why they recommend gender-affirming care for trans youth. At that meeting, the surgeons group said it would be changing its position, per the Times.
Weeks after the meeting, ASPS released a nine-page statement saying that gender-affirming surgery should be delayed for minors until a patient is at least 19. The surgeons’ group cited insufficient evidence that benefits for surgery outweigh risks, and pointed to a controversial report created by the Trump administration to back its position.
The surgeons group noted that it still opposes criminalization of such medical care. The Trump administration celebrated the announcement.
“Today marks another victory for biological truth in the Trump administration,” said former Deputy Health and Human Services Secretary Jim O’Neill, in a press release. Oz, who has compared gender-affirming care for minors to lobotomies, applauded the American Society of Plastic Surgeons “for placing itself on the right side of history.”
In the following days, the surgeon’s group appeared to backtrack. The American Society of Plastic Surgeons reportedly told NPR that its position “does not include a blanket recommendation for surgery for minors.” The ASPS did not respond to a request for comment on this story.
The AMA has had its own trouble communicating its position. In a recent internal newsletter from the board chair, the association said that its policy on gender-affirming care has not changed at all; and that it requested a correction from The New York Times in response to the outlet’s coverage of its initial statement on youth surgeries. However, the Times says it has received no such requests.
This back-and-forth is taking place against an intense political backdrop: Six states have made it a felony for doctorsto provide gender-affirming care to trans youth. Hospitals across the country have shuttered gender clinics in response to pressure from the administration. As a result, some young patients are cut off in the middle of treatment and medical professionals are grappling with how the law impacts them.
And despite ample news coverage, gender-affirming care is still not widely understood.
Very few transgender youth seek and access surgeries. More rely on hormone therapy and puberty blockers to treat gender dysphoria, which is a medical condition that can cause significant distress for trans people.
Puberty blockers delay the hormones that cause kids to go through puberty, which can be an intense and emotionally fraught time for trans youth. Many families say this treatment is crucial for their child’s wellbeing and prevents distress caused by dysphoria. There are potential risks, like decreased bone density, which is monitored by medical providers. Some providers recommend weight-bearing exercise or diet optimization to boost calcium and vitamin D levels while on puberty blockers.
Hormone therapy, which involves taking testosterone or estrogen to cause physical changes that align one’s body with their gender identity, is another treatment that some trans youth receive to alleviate dysphoria. As with puberty blockers, clinics require a mental health assessment as well as parental or guardian consent for the treatment.
The Endocrine Society and the American Academy of Pediatrics are under federal investigation over their support for gender-affirming care. Both medical groups have sued, as the government seeks information to determine if they have made “false or unsubstantiated representations” regarding the care.
The attorneys’ general letter to the American Medical Association is leveling up that pressure on medical groups, Silver said.
“Because the care is so politicized, any association that stands up and asserts its support for physicians who provide the care, will be made an example of,” they said.
The library director who was fired for refusing to relocate LGBTQ children’s books has garnered substantial community support, with people donating over $84,000 to help her as she navigates the loss of her job. A GoFundMe launched by a community member says that the fundraiser for Luanne James is going “directly toward supporting her family’s basic living expenses during this time.”
James was the director of the Rutherford County Library until the board voted to fire her last week. The termination came after she refused to move 132 children’s books to another section of the library because the LGBTQ themes were deemed inappropriate for children. James said that she “had no choice” but to refuse the board’s request to move the books. She said that she believes librarians are being politicized and that “is not what we signed up for.”
Shutterstock
Scottie's Playtime 