Finally some good news. This is why when the republicans in the red states say they are doing the will of the people, what they really mean is the will of their own minority, not the will of the majority of people. Republicans have always been about a rabid ideologically driven minority ruling over the majority. The majority of the people are pretty accepting with a live and let live attitude. It is only those that demand the right to oppress others and to force others to live according to their church doctrines that support the republican anti-gay anti-trans legislation. Hugs
A new national survey has reassuring findings that Americans of almost all religions and no religion are growing ever more supportive of LGBTQ rights.
For instance, eight in 10 Americans (80 percent) in the Public Religion Research Institute survey support laws against discrimination in jobs, public accommodations and housing against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people. Even 62 percent of white evangelical Protestants, tied with Hispanic Protestants, favor such nondiscrimination laws. Jehovah’s Witnesses were at the bottom of the barrel, yet half support nondiscrimination protections.
Interestingly, in states showing the lowest level of support for nondiscrimination (Alabama, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota), two-thirds of state citizens themselves are against such discrimination, showing that state legislatures are not keeping up with demographics.
But I can find no data showing that this is attracting new voters. Indeed, it’s repelling young voters, and the die-hard GOP base, the Silent Generation (late 70s), is dying off at a clip.
And this, this, is why the GOP is now openly trying to steal elections.
You’re dead-on. With its base eroding, and scapegoats proving less effective, the GOP is becoming more desperate. Blatant disregard for laws and protocols is the order of the day.
in a normal democracy, one that actually represents the people, we LBGTs rights would have been secured a long time ago. The good news, though, is that despite all the efforts of our enemies and the news media, we are winning the hearts and minds of Americans.
SO true, the same with where I grew up! Coming out of closets in the last 50 years to our family, friends and neighbors has made all the difference. They see us as regular normal people now, the old stereotypes are gone for the most part but politicians are still pushing them with their “groomer/pedophile”. It’s not going to work, it will backfire!
I hope you are right. The drag queen stuff is not on this poll, though. I have a feeling that a lot of people will say yes to rights for generic gays and lesbians, but not some other specific subgroups.
And yet, I worry that there’s always a time lag with any cultural shifts. Give it a few years for the GQP’s current anti-gay campaign to take effect and let’s see what the numbers are then. I like to be optimistic, but I often harbor serious doubts about this country whenever this topic comes up.
Give the current gay-positive generation of young people a chance to have children, only then to decide that they’d rather not have their kids be gay and then shift their political allegiances accordingly. I’m old enough to have seen this happen before, as have you.
YES! Those of us who followed Disney over the years have been struck by how quiet and seemingly accepting of the DeathSantis attempt to take over the company. It is shocking because Disney lawyers are known to be tenacious and fierce against all opponents of Disney. Now we know why. While DeathSantis thought he was taking over Disney the company used the governor’s ego / ambition to get a 1.2 billion dollar tax relief now placed on the backs of the Florida taxpayers, and neutered DeathSantis attempt to take over. Notice recently that Disney announced they are sponsoring / holding a very large conference on diversity and inclusion, something that DeathSantis says is illegal in the state of Florida for a company to do. Disney is baiting DeathSantis to come after them. As Ron just said, DeathSantis thinks he is a large shark in a big ocean, but in truth he is finding out he is only a goldfish in an ocean of sharks. DeathSantis and his ideology driven handpicked board thought they were going to use Disney and its properties to force the right wing oppressive regressive agenda on the public. Mermaids would be white again, no boys would be princesses, no princesses would be gay, all characters would be 1950s Leave it to Beaver stereotypes. One last thing, I am tired of these right wing white Christian nationalists racists bigots claiming they are the majority and that they represent the will of the people. They don’t, and they have not for a very long time. That is why they are fighting so hard this last stand to return the country to when they were happy and in control. They are a minority within a small minority. Hugs
Gov. Ron DeSantis’ handpicked board overseeing Disney World’s government services is gearing up for a potential legal battle over a 30-year development agreement they say effectively renders them powerless to manage the entertainment giant’s future growth in Central Florida.
Ahead of an expected state takeover, the Walt Disney Co. quietly pushed through the pact and restrictive covenants that would tie the hands of future board members for decades, according to a legal presentation by the district’s lawyers on Wednesday.
“We’re going to have to deal with it and correct it,” board member Brian Aungst Jr. said. “It’s a subversion of the will of the voters and the Legislature and the governor. It completely circumvents the authority of this board to govern.”
Disney defended its actions.
“All agreements signed between Disney and the district were appropriate and were discussed and approved in open, noticed public forums in compliance with Florida’s Government in the Sunshine law,” an unsigned company statement read.
Taryn Fenske, a DeSantis spokeswoman, called the move “last-ditch efforts” to transfer “rights and authorities” from the district to Disney.
“An initial review suggests these agreements may have significant legal infirmities that would render the contracts void as a matter of law,” Fenske said in a prepared statement. “We are pleased the new governor-appointed board retained multiple financial and legal firms to conduct audits and investigate Disney’s past behavior.”
The new DeSantis-aligned board expressed dismay over the previous board’s actions.
“This essentially makes Disney the government,” board member Ron Peri said. “This board loses, for practical purposes, the majority of its ability to do anything beyond maintain the roads and maintain basic infrastructure.”
Among other things, a “declaration of restrictive covenants” spells out that the district is barred from using the Disney name without the corporation’s approval or “fanciful characters such as Mickey Mouse.”
That declaration is valid until “21 years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III, king of England living as of the date of this declaration,” if it is deemed to violate rules against perpetuity, according to the document.
A development agreement allows Disney to build projects at the highest density and the right to sell or assign those development rights to other district landowners without the board having any say, according to the presentation by the district’s new special legal counsel.
Disney and its affiliates own the vast majority of the land in the district, and other companies have operated there with the corporation’s blessing.
The development agreement bars the board from regulating the height of buildings, which would be solely under the purview of the Federal Aviation Administration.
The previous board also agreed to give Disney vast authority over its own buildings, according to its declaration. The agreement states that Disney must review any exterior changes to the district’s buildings to ensure consistent “theming” with Disney World.
Aungst said he is hopeful Disney will work with the board and correct the agreement in a “very collaborative manner.”
But board members also approved hiring four outside law firms with Chairman Martin Garcia citing a need for “lawyers that have extensive experience in dealing with protracted litigation against Fortune 500 companies.”
Cooper & Kirk’s lawyers will bill $795 an hour, according to the firm’s engagement letter. The boutique firm’s roster of lawyers includes Adam Laxalt, who roomed with DeSantis when he was training at the Naval Justice School in 2005 and made an unsuccessful bid for U.S. Senate last year in Nevada.
The board also approved bringing on Lawson Huck Gonzalez, a law firm that was launched earlier this year. One of its founders is Alan Lawson, a retired Florida Supreme Court justice.
It looks like Disney just checkmated Ron DeSantis. The board DeSantis appointed to “oversee” Disney is now complaining that the company used a loophole to strip them of their power until 2053. https://t.co/xCaxdn4QE4
— No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen (@NoLieWithBTC) March 29, 2023
While the board is complaining, here is a statement from Disney:
"All agreements signed between Disney and the District were appropriate, and were discussed and approved in open, noticed public forums in compliance with Florida's Government in the Sunshine law."
And they thought this through very carefully. I’m sure they have other strategies up their sleeves too. I can’t see how they would allow themselves to be ‘supervised’ by unelected board members, in which they had no say of the choice. People and businesses should have a vote in who represents/controls their district, especially since Disney did nothing wrong in the management of the district that would warrant a state takeover. This will be tied up in the courts for a while, while Disney can strategize other legal options.
If Disney’s lawyers are worth their salaries, they will have long ago identified every conceivable legal threat to Disney, from the highest level to the lowest. And each possible threat will have been gamed out by those lawyers to find a response for each, a course of action likely to be successful. They will have started this long ago and kept it up to date.
They’ve probably been ready for an idiot like deSantis for at least twenty years.
Remember Florida prevents the real history of racism / slavery to be taught in schools and in fact one school district just stopped showing a pg movie about Ruby Bridges a 6 year old black girl who needed bodyguardescorts to go to an all white school because a white parent felt it would hurt white kids feelings to know how racist white people were / are. But we can damn well make sure that monuments to the attempt to keep those racist days and slavery as a state right must be protected and displayed. What does that say to all the black people in the state of Florida? Remember the Confederacy went to war to over turn the legitimate government of the US and to break up the country. The Confederacy was an enemy government that attacked the US and there are people who want to put up statues and monuments to the traitors / enemy soliders. What country does that. The losers of the war are dictating the winners must celabrate the losing army / officials. Hugs https://scottiesplaytime.com/2023/03/28/shameful-ruby-bridges-film-banned-from-school-because-white-parents-feeling-some-kind-of-way/
‘No group, no individual, has the right to demolish history that belongs to all.’
A House committee approved a bill that could end efforts to move or “re-contextualize” confederate monuments and other markers of war.
Rep. Dean Black, a Jacksonville Republican who noted he was a “10th generation resident of Florida,” explained that “history belongs to all Floridians, indeed to all Americans,” in introducing his bill.
“If someone destroys historic monuments in one part of the state, all Floridians are diminished because of it,” Black contended.
Asked by Rep. Jervonte Edmonds why this bill was introduced, Black lamented that “mobs that would descend upon a community and tear down their monuments, statues, works of art” until the community is “compelled” to remove these edifices.
The bill would encompass historical depictions represented in the form of a “plaque, statue, marker, flag, banner, cenotaph, religious symbol, painting, seal, tombstone, structure name, or display constructed and located with the intent of being permanently displayed or perpetually maintained,” honoring military or public service, “past or present,” with no exceptions contemplated.
Black warned that if monuments were torn down, “people would walk in those parks and say that the things memorialized never happened.”
“They already do that with the Holocaust now,” Black contended. “And if we’re talking about the Civil War, that should never be forgotten. All of the stories should be told.”
Monuments could not be removed, and plaques and signs attempting to put those constructions in historical context would only be permissible “on the monument and memorial” if Secretary of State Cord Byrd signs off. And local governments “are expressly prohibited from removing those memorials from public view.”
According to a committee analysis of Senate companion legislation, this process “may incur workload costs” for the Department of State. But the sponsor thinks the price is worth it.
“It is their proper purview,” Black said.
Those who remove or damage monuments would pay treble the cost to restore and move them back, with “punitive damages” also possible.
“No group, no individual, has the right to demolish history that belongs to all,” Black contended.
Public entities owning the monuments, legal residents of the state, and “historical preservation” groups would stand for civil action under this bill.
“I want every Floridian to have the standing to defend the history that belongs to each and every one of them,” Black said.
The bill does allow for moving monuments “for construction, expansion, or alteration of publicly owned buildings, roads, streets, highways, or other transportation projects.” When such a movement happens, the structures must be “relocated to a site of similar prominence, honor, visibility, and access within the same county or municipality in which the monument or memorial was originally located.”
In support of the bill, Rep. Chuck Brannan of MacClenny likened monument removal to graverobbing.
“I may say something today somebody doesn’t like. Is somebody 100 years from now going to go dig my grave up and move me?”
The bill would take effect July 1, if signed.
Black’s bill is the House companion to SB 1096, filed last month by Sen. Jonathan Martin, a Republican from Fort Myers. That measure is also moving through committees.
Florida doesn't want you talking to 17- and 18-year olds about sex or teenage girls about their periods, but it will do everything to protect Confederate monuments.
"House panel advances bill protecting war monuments"
We must defend and learn from our history. This includes protecting historic monuments across the state of Florida. I’m proud to introduce this important bill in the Legislature and look forward to finally CANCELING “Cancel” Culture! https://t.co/RIO76E4E2h
Great news! House Bill 1607 — Protection of Historical Monuments & Memorials, has just passed its first subcommittee and is one step closer to becoming law. Thank you to my colleagues who believe, as I do, that our history belongs to all Floridians and must be preserved! pic.twitter.com/TZ8y5Fwbdi
“History belongs to all of us… And if my family’s history isn’t safe today, no one’s family history is safe tomorrow…”
Then stop banning history books that teach everyone’s history. Obviously POC’s history isn’t safe in Florida… Can’t say gay in Florida… “History belongs to” who, again?
He’s made sure that his great grandchildren won’t be able to read about “his family’s history” in history books that teach the oppression POC and Native Americans were put through by “his family’s history”… aka, HERITAGE!
Gov. DeSantis’ anti-LGBTQ+ crusade has left parents of queer and trans kids devastated. Many say they’re ready to move, yet many more say they’ll stay and fight back.
In early February, a massive carpool descended on Tallahassee, Florida’s capital. Dozens of middle and high schoolers had missed Geometry and English class for the occasion; parents had taken hard earned days off work to chaperone their children. However, this was no school sanctioned event. It was the final deliberation meeting of the Florida Boards of Medicine and Osteopathic Medicine, which would determine whether the state would move forward with a ban on gender-affirming care for trans and nonbinary youth.
Although the Boards had been discussing a potential ban for months, this was the first and only chance the public would have to voice their concerns about the rule. For the young people who had traveled to Tallahassee that day, the decision would have an immeasurable impact on their lives. School would have to wait.
For three hours in a poorly-lit auditorium in the state Department of Transportation office, trans and nonbinary young people described the feelings of liberation, wholeness, and freedom they had experienced after receiving the kinds of medically necessary, gender-affirming care that was now up for debate. They described missing months of school due to dysphoria, and the friendships and self-love that blossomed when they received treatment.
“Having my needs met in this way for the first time ever was the most beautiful experience I could have asked for,” said one teenager.
“Growing up in a religious and fairly conservative household, I didn’t have the opportunity to receive gender-affirming care until I was 18. Because of that, I attempted suicide three times,” said another. “Gender-affirming care saved my life.”
Behind those who testified, dozens of heads — young people, their parents, siblings, and teachers — nodded in recognition.
Despite their testimonies, and the decades-long support of such treatment by most every governing medical body, the Board voted to move forward with a ban on gender-affirming care for youth. Although they had previously claimed that the field needed more research before hormone replacement therapy and other treatments could be approved, the Board also paradoxically banned gender-affirming care for research purposes at public universities in Florida.
GIORGIO VIERA/Getty Images
Unlike other states that have banned gender-affirming care through their state houses, Florida’s ban went into effect exclusively through the state’s medical board, without the vote of any elected officials. This means advocates and organizers have not had a fair chance to lobby against it, and their only opportunity to appeal will be through a right-leaning Federal Court system. In fact, the Tampa Bay Times has reported that members of the Board of Medicine who were appointed by Gov. DeSantis have contributed over $80,000 to his campaigns and political action committee.
He “has figured out a way to subvert the democratic process, subvert the legislature, and utilize politically-appointed people who he can put into power at his will,” said Simone Chriss, Director of the Transgender Rights Initiative at Southern Legal Counsel.
Policies created by these officials have included the Board of Medicine’s decision to move forward with a ban on gender-affirming care for youth; the Board of Education’s ruling to limit trans people’s access to bathrooms; and the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration’s rule that gender-affirming care can no longer be reimbursed with Medicaid. In each of these instances, DeSantis’ politicalappointees have reshaped LGBTQ+ lives in the state.
If “the Board of Medicine can establish new standards of care for any condition regardless of the consensus of the scientific and medical community nationwide, that’s a really scary precedent to set,” said Chriss. “I hope that the rest of the country is watching and is alarmed.”
In the year since DeSantis passedthe Parental Rights in Education Act, or “Don’t Say Gay,” as it has become known, he has used the idea of “parental rights” to reshape Florida in his political image. Since at least the 1960s, conservative Christian activists have used parental rights as a call to arms to assert their beliefs in schools, which activists on the right believe have been eroded by a progressive embrace of LGBTQ+ children and classroom lessons about systemic racism.
The seeds of Don’t Say Gay were planted at the height of the pandemic, when conversations about mask mandates, vaccines, and in-person schooling quickly transformed into culture war talking points. Two days after “Don’t Say Gay,” DeSantis passed the “Stop WOKE Act,” which “prohibits instruction on race relations or diversity that imply a person’s status as either privileged or oppressed.” Over the past year, these bills have had what activists, LGBTQ+ children, and parents describe as a “chilling effect,” creating an atmosphere of self-censorship and fear.
CHANDAN KHANNA/Getty Images
“Everything is a target now,” said Todd Delmay, an LGBTQ+ parent who has a child in public school and recently ran for state senate. That’s not due to what legislators explicitly wrote into the bill, he said; rather, “it’s what they haven’t.”
Indeed, “Don’t Say Gay” is only six short paragraphs. However, those paragraphs were seemingly crafted to create an environment of paranoia and discrimination against LGBTQ+ people, primarily through a clause that empowers parents to sue school districts over any material, at any age, that they deem “inappropriate.”
Over the past year, parents say this has created an environment in which teachers are afraid to mention anything about gender or sexuality, even in casual conversations. “I served in the military, and they’ve essentially created a Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell environment for kids,” said Michael Rothgeb, an LGBTQ+ parent in the state.
This has included several school districts, including Miami Dade, removing their Safe and Inclusive Schools Guide, which offered comprehensive guidance on supporting LGBTQ+ students; the removal of pride flags in classrooms across the state; and the banning of books with LGBTQ+ subject matter, including one about two real-life gay penguins.
“All of the things we were most afraid would happen if this bill [Don’t Say Gay] was signed absolutely have,” said Maxx Fenning, founder of Prism Florida, a youth-led nonprofit that provides free sexual health education.
For many parents, this environment has forced them to consider leaving the state. “It’s a conversation that we have every week in our support group,” said NiX, a Florida parent who runs a group for the families of trans and nonbinary children. According to a recent survey conducted by the Williams Institute at UCLA, more than half of 113 LGBTQ+ parents in Florida said they have considered moving because of Don’t Say Gay, and 20% had started taking the steps to do so.
Zeth Pugh is one of those parents. Last year, as it became clear that a ban on gender-affirming care would come into effect, Pugh realized she had to move in order to protect her 15-year-old son, who is trans. He had been hospitalized for suicidal ideation and depression, and was hoping to speak with a healthcare provider about his options for gender-affirming care. “We can’t even get that kind of consultation now. It’s devastating,” said Pugh, her voice filling up with tears. Although their house is almost packed and they have realtors in Florida and Oregon, where they hope to move, Pugh said that she has “a bag ready” to leave the state with her son at a moment’s notice.
Yet many parents are unable to uproot their lives due to economic or social factors. “There are constraints on people’s ability to [move], and it disproportionately impacts people who are low income,” said Dr. Abbie E. Goldberg, who conducted the UCLA survey. “The fact that they’re even having to look into options to change jobs or find a new home speaks to the fear right now,” she added.
Other LGBTQ+ parents say they see staying put as their responsibility. “When your freedoms are literally being taken away, you have to fight,” said Janelle Perez, who lives in Miami with her wife and two children. Her family fled to Florida from Cuba, and the efforts that they’ve made to build a life — a neighborhood full of siblings, devoted grandparents, supportive queer friends — are too immense to leave behind. “I’m not going to let these people push us out,” she said. “We want people to come here and organize and support us.”
This echoes a sentiment shared by many parents and youth organizers. They worry that if supportive adults leave the state, queer and trans children will be left to fend for themselves in an increasingly hostile political environment.
LGBTQ rights supporters protest against Florida Governor Ron Desantis. GIORGIO VIERA/Getty Images
“We’re trying to combat this idea that Florida is a lost cause,” said Fenning. “It’s the third most populous state in the country. There are so many queer people here. We can’t afford to divest from the state in a way that would harm millions of people.”
Fenning notes that if supportive allies move, disparities in access to healthcare, affirming spaces in schools, and sex education will only widen. Indeed, several school districts have already removed LGBTQ+ sex education from their curricula due to outside pressure, including in Miami-Dade and Sarasota Counties. In Jacksonville, JASMYN recently lost a 20-year-contract to support in-school Gay Straight Alliances after right-wing activists screenshotted an image from their social media accounts of a card game about sex-ed, which they sent to the school district with the false claim that JASMYN was preying on children. JASMYN, which has provided essential medical care across Jacksonville for decades, insisted that the game is only played with consenting adults.
These incidents illustrate increasing tension in the state surrounding LGBTQ+ life. At all grade levels, the political atmosphere created by DeSantis has led to fears that things like HIV tests, mental health resources, and in-school Gay Straight Alliances violate “Don’t Say Gay,” despite widespread evidence that community acceptance lowers rates of suicide and depression. “The fact that these [parents] are being coached by conservative leaders to do things that will result in poorer health and even the death of their own children,” says NiX, “is one of the most evil things I can conceive of.”
And more than half live in states where legislators have filed bans.
In light of these never-ending fires, such as the ban on gender-affirming care, classroom censorship, and harassment, many parents and activists are bracing themselves for a drawn-out fight. And, as DeSantis is widely expected to announce a presidential campaign, people outside of Florida may soon find themselves faced with identical policies. “There is no ‘safe’ anymore,” says NiX. “Only safer.”
Simone Chriss, of Southern Legal Counsel, says that she has to constantly remind herself that her work isn’t just about winning legal cases; it’s the fight itself that matters. In her view, this is the far right’s greatest fear: “kids who are comfortable with who they are, who aren’t afraid, who aren’t hiding, and who are going to hold the people in charge accountable.”
bell hooks once wrote that children are the most vulnerable members of our society, as they have no explicit rights, including the right to vote out the politicians who harm them. “When we love children,” she writes, “we acknowledge by our every action that they are not property, that they have rights — that we respect and uphold their rights.” Back in that room in Tallahassee, without the protection of doctors trained to help them, trans and nonbinary children were practicing the ultimate form of self-love: advocating for themselves, by any means necessary.
Though the full human impact of the current legislative assault on trans existence can never be quantified, a new analysis from the Human Rights Campaign shows its magnitude. According to new statistics from the LGBTQ+ organization, more than one-fifth of trans youth live in states that have passed bans on gender-affirming care for minors.
On Wednesday, HRC released a new map outlining attacks on gender-affirming care by state alongside a new report with information pulled from the organization’s own legislative tracking. The report also drew from data compiled by the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law showing that there are more than 300,000 trans youth aged 13-17 in the United States. The map also illustrates which states have already banned gender-affirming care for minors and which are currently considering laws or policies to do so.
According to the report, 22.9% of trans youth live in states that have passed bans on gender-affirming care for minors, a list that includes Arizona, Utah, Texas, South Dakota, Iowa, Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Alabama, and Florida. In three states — Alabama, Arkansas, and Texas — temporary court injunctions are currently blocking those bans. In addition to youth living in states that have already passed bans on gender-affirming care a further 27.5% of trans youth are at risk of losing access.
Combined, over half of trans youth (50.4%) live in states where they’ve already lost access to or are at risk of losing access to gender-affirming care, according to the HRC report. However, as ACLU communications strategist Gillian Branstetter pointed out on Twitter, this statistic accounts for every state that has a proposed ban, even though many of those bills will likely never pass into law. According to a separate report by HRC, 91% of the anti-LGBTQ+ bills introduced in 2022 failed to become law.
Few things: Most trans youth are already not accessing care. Just 0.2% of all youth 6-17 (in a generation where 2% identify as trans) accessed any GAC. Second, this count is including every state with a proposed bill, including MI, NJ, OR, WA, and others not likely to pass them https://t.co/WBoq4xQz70
However, that doesn’t change the fact that the mere introduction of these bills profoundly impacts LGBTQ+ people, especially trans people. Jay Brown, senior vice president of HRC, stated that Republican politicians “are spreading propaganda and creating more stigma, discrimination, and violence against transgender people just to rile up extreme members of their base.”
A January report by the LGBTQ+ advocacy organization Trevor Project found that state-level anti-trans laws negatively affected the mental health of 86% of trans and nonbinary youth between ages 13 and 24.
“LGBTQ+ people are living in a state of emergency,” Brown said in a press release. “Today’s findings illustrate how the ongoing assault against transgender people is taking hold across the country and underscore how dire the situation is growing for our community by the day. These dangerous and discriminatory policies advocated by power-hungry politicians are void of any credible purpose.”
Montana Republican Admits Detransition Is Rare, Witness States “0 Of My Patients Regret Transition”
A Montana hearing for Senate Bill 99, a gender affirming care ban for trans youth, featured incredible moments. A therapist, when asked, said “none of my patients regret.” A Republican conceded that.
Please support my independent reporting and activism on transgender legislation by subscribing. You help me keep this going and keep people informed.
Montana’s House Judiciary Committee met today to hear a bill that would ban gender affirming care for trans youth. Senate bill 99, which passed the Montana Senate previously, bans gender affirming care, explicitly legalizes nonconsensual intersex surgeries on intersex youth, and attacks Medicaid coverage for institutions providing such care. One of the ways that the bill is supported by proponents is through the use of detransitioners, including multiple political detransitioners. The House hearing was filled with expert witnesses, including people like Dr. Anna Peterson, who has treated transgender people for over two decades. When asked how many people she has cared for have regretted their transition, she stated that of the hundreds of patients she has seen, none have expressed regret. Ultimately, this led to Representative Jennifer Carlson (R) admitting that detransition is indeed rare, undercutting a major justification for the bill.
Montana’s bill would ban gender affirming care entirely for trans youth. It states that no person may provide gender affirming surgeries, hormone therapy, or puberty blockers to anyone under 18, in violation with widely accepted standards of care and medical evidence. It removes doctors licenses and even removes their ability to indemnify themselves using malpractice insurance for youth gender affirming care. A severability clause at the end ensures that if parts are found unconstitutional, other parts will remain in effect, indicating proponents of the bill know that it is likely the bill will indeed be found to be unconstitutional:
Severability clause in SB99
Please support my independent reporting and activism on transgender legislation by subscribing. You help me keep this going and keep people informed.
In order to argue for this bill, people often point to and raise the fear that those who are transitioning will later come to regret it. We often hear this with respect to outlandishly high detransition rates that are often claimed by proponents of bills like this. In this hearing, they brought forward one detransitioner to make this case – he did so using religious justifications for his detransition, not that unlike the old ex-gay movement.
We know from modern studies that detransition is very rare. In the hearing, multiple witnesses in favor of the bill brought up the much-debunked “80% detransition rate.” This rate is based on decades old data and standards. Much of the data comes from a noted conversion therapist, Ken Zucker, who advised the parents of trans kids to do things such as avoiding “wrongly-gendered toys.” We know from modern studies that the actual detransition rate among trans youth is only 2.5% – and many of these who do detransition do so because of lack of acceptance rather than because they are “not trans.”
It is upon these facts that Representative Zooey Zephyr (D) asked Dr. Anna Peterson, a therapist who has worked with transgender youth for two decades, how many people she has seen who have regretted their transition. Dr. Peterson responded, “I’ve worked for many years with this population. Of the hundreds of people over many years… the incidence of regret in my practice, simply put, is zero. And I work with these kids over time, into adulthood.”
See the exchange:
The exchange was enlightening, and it seemed to throw Republican questioners off, who may have intended to rely on high detransition rates to get their point across. Later in the same hearing, Representative Jennifer Carlson (R) brought up detransitioners, but clearly had to adjust her questioning. She stated, “With respect to those who reverse course… go back… which we know is a small number…” and proceeded to ask about the reversibility of the procedures. The moment was significant as it was the first time in the hundreds of hours of legislation I have witnessed where a Republican conceded that point.
It is also notable that in this hearing, there was only a single detransitioner. Many trans people spoke against the bill. If there was an “explosion of detransitioners” as some proponents tried to claim before this exchange, where are they? You might expect that they would out in droves to testify in these hearings, especially if the number is as high as what is commonly cited and the procedures are so damaging. There continues to be no evidence that this is the case.
There were other remarkable moments of questioning, such as when Representative Durham questioned multiple doctors about the use of blood tests to determine someone’s biological sex. When both a psychiatrist and an emergency department doctor both stated that you cannot use blood tests to conclusively determine someone’s biological sex by measuring hormone levels, the Representative seemed to grow dubious, stating that he disagreed. When the crowd shouted, “you’re not a doctor!” he responded, “But I’m married…”
SB99 will come up for executive action in the coming days, and if it is voted out of the committee, it will go to the full Montana House. Should it pass, Montana will become the 10th state to ban gender affirming care fully for trans youth. It is an extreme bill that will harm trans kids in Montana and will usurp parental rights over healthcare decisions. The representatives who are on the fence on this bill should use these lines of questioning and the answers they received to help them realize that this bill does not base itself on scientific fact or any material good for the patient population they seek to legislate.
Disclosure: Representative Zooey Zephyr is the author if this article’s partner.
Please support my independent reporting and activism on transgender legislation by subscribing. You help me keep this going and keep people informed.
This is a guest post from Randy. As most people here already know Randy is someone I admire greatly. Randy is my online brother and a member of our family. Randy is smart, funny, caring, kind, willing to reach out a hand to those in need while also willing to stand up to protect others. Randy is the kind of guy who if he knew a co-worker had no other way to get to a much needed job during a snow storm he would get up out of his warm bed and go take them to work. And not ask any for doing it. I have asked Randy if he would be a guest author as he has time. He has delighted me with the first two posts of what I hope will be many more. Thank you my brother, Hugs.
Why it Matters
In this era of Blue Lives Matter, Black Lives Matter, even All Lives Matter, the defining characteristic is that the authors, the progenitors of the movement, are trying to indicate to the public that there are folks who do not see the lives of some persons either being in jeopardy, being disenfranchised, being set upon as a second class, being abused. The irreparable loses for some came too early, like the Native Americans, and for others they somehow bought in to the larger idea, others still labor under a “lesser than” status that evidences in odd circumstances when people need someone to blame.
It is easy to use extremes to make points in writing, so I’ll use one now. In the late 1930’s an individual rose to power who realized that it was far far easier to capture the public’s anger and fear through hate and destructive rhetoric. Hate is bred from fear, and Germany recovering from WW1 was reeling through poverty, inflation, low productivity, and a miasma from losing a war. This individual captured that fear with not only an ideal he espoused upon the country but a scapegoat: otherwise said is “this is the ideal, but these are the people for whom to blame for our lot.” It should be noted that an erstwhile general failure in his other pursuits, this individual honed a craft of speaking what people begged to hear in a manner that was convincing enough to overpower the very voice of decency within them.
What did that individual do? He convinced people that it was ok to place a mark of second class on another human being. He convinced people that they should be “segregated” for the good of the countrymen. In time, it went from a fringe movement to the government’s position, and men, women, children were rounded up and “quarantined” for the safety of the citizenry. Some bought into this with a passion, others were put into a position of placing their own lives in peril to not go through with this new government program as their neighbors were taken, were abused, disenfranchised and even killed. Only a sociopath would look upon the truth of this matter with anything but horror, but it’s amazing what people can justify to themselves when their own comfort is on the line, when their own well-being is on the line. That individual, after committing war upon his own land, went on to view people in other countries as “lesser than”, as not worthy of existence as neighbors, and went to war with them. The irony learned by the very public this individual used and then abandoned in his bid for power is that they were now only worse off after his blame-game and were forced to face what had been done in their name.
So, why is that relevant today? Anytime, Anytime, Every time we accept a person to be cast as a second-class citizen for no other reason than their very being, we lose. We lost when we decided that Native American Cultures were lesser than. We lost when we decided that African lives, African American lives were lesser than. We lost when we decided that whoever was in power at the moment, however that power was expressed- be it by government, wealth, violence- was the correct arbitrator of a person’s worth as a citizen.
This blog clearly speaks up for those who have felt the abuse of those in power due to their being gay, being trans, being somehow different. Some have looked upon this championing as an acceptable forum for conversation and determination of another’s rights and status when said persons have harmed no one and sought only to be genuine to themselves. The false definition of reality seems a favorite of those who seek to justify abuse, and let it be understood that abuse of power is what it is! I see no debate as warranted or even allowed when we seek to determine how another person defines himself. That is their business, and though we may find it uncomfortable for ourselves we have no right to dictate to another who he or she or they express themselves.
I would like to harken back to the very extreme example used earlier in this writing: Declaring a person to be lower class and unworthy of their own personhood, their liberty, is not American, but damn if it isn’t what Americans seem to demand. Excusing and justifying abuses and horrors in the name of being free is antithetical to the very existence of the Constitution, and yet we do it. Over and over again, we accept abuses on others. You want examples? Ok, we accept a death knell of school children for the right to sell guns to near anyone. We accept the demand that drag shows be stopped because it violates our own religious beliefs. We are demanding that people exhibit who they are defined to be at birth despite who they genuinely feel themselves to be. We demand that children starve in our public schools so that the wealthiest don’t have to pay a fair tax rate. We demand that children go to school, then declare their well-educated instructors abusing them for allowing them to have an education. We demand that the sick seek to gamble their very lives as they balance eating and health care. And, we demand that the mother give birth to her child no matter how old she is, how she became pregnant, the viability of the fetus, the physical and psychological toll it will put on the mother, the financial devastation it will inflict upon her life, even the ability to feed, clothe, educate, and love the child do we still demand she bring it into the world, then we turn our back upon her.
We as a country seem to demand the right to make these decisions for others, to define them, to restrict them, to force them to conform to what we see as comfortable and proper for them, and yet in the near past, especially, have I seen excuse upon excuse for criminal and the worst examples of abuses inflicted upon others. These so-called Christians – and I place that lowercase as they seem to refuse to follow the example of the one written as Jesus Christ – refuse to use a common reality, hold themselves accountable, hold others in their politics driven values accountable, and as I mentioned, refuse to do as Christ demands, yet stomp their feet if someone were to live in defiance of those somehow “deeply held religious beliefs”. And, again, harkening back to the earlier extreme example: 1930’s Germany was a very religious country and look at what they allowed for their politics-driven morals and values.
I really enjoy this author / sub stack writer. I leave in all her requests for support because she deserves it for her work and I am simply borrowing her voice to spread the information she writes about. If you want to know the true that the republican leglisatures are trying to hide to push their agenda on their states, read the article. Hugs
This is one of the most common arguments brought up in anti-trans hearings. The idea that 80% of trans people “will desist” is a complete lie that is easy to debunk.
Please support my independent reporting and activism on transgender legislation by subscribing. You help me keep this going and keep people informed.
One of the most common myths heard in anti-trans hearings is that most trans kids will desist if they are allowed to go through puberty. Sometimes specific numbers are given, such as 80% of trans kids desist. This statistic has been cited as low as 60% and as high as 99% in various legislatures. In Montana, a representative used this statistic to justify passing a medical ban. The Heritage Foundation has also pushed this myth. Nearly every hearing on this topic includes this myth. The desistance myth is one of the most persistent falsehoods and has been used against the trans community for decades. It is misleading and inaccurate as it comes from outdated DSM-4 criteria and decades-old data. Newer studies show that 97.5% of transgender youth are persistent in their gender identities. Let’s examine how this falsehood originated, how it is misused, and what current research reveals about the rarity of desistence and detransition.
See an example of this claim being used on Fox News:
Conservative lawyer Harmeet Dhillon just said trans teens who transition "desist from transition at an 80-90% rate." This is false. pic.twitter.com/0jfiq0b7r9
The DSM-IV, released in 1994, spelled out how to diagnose mental health conditions including “Gender Identity Disorder” (no longer a disorder). In this manual, clinicians made their first attempt to diagnose transgender youth. These first diagnostic criteria were an admiral early attempt, but contained a fatal flaw in how transgender youth were diagnosed: the diagnosis bafflingly did not require a youth to identify as another gender. Instead, it focused on factors such as “preference for cross-sex games and activities” and “preference for friends of the other sex.”
Problems with this diagnostic criteria should be immediately recognizable today: a cisgender tomboy with absolutely no identification as a boy would be diagnosed with gender identity disorder under these definitions. A cisgender boy who likes to put on an Elsa costume and play with girls could be diagnosed with gender identity disorder under these definitions. They were woefully inadequate for judging if youth were transgender. They also came during a time when youth transition did not exist as a medical practice, and so there were no real clinical guidelines on their treatment – thus, little effort was made to change the criteria which were primarily used for discussion in therapist offices and not to support or deny medical transition care.
In 2013, the DSM-V was published and in it, many corrections were made on how gender dysphoric youth are diagnosed. The most important correction was the requirement that a transgender youth demonstrate an insistent, persistent, and consistent desire or identification as the gender that the patient believes they are. The individual factors were also changed and adjusted. These diagnostic criteria were much more stringent, and are the diagnostic criteria used today.
Please support my independent reporting and activism on transgender legislation by subscribing. You help me keep this going and keep people informed.
There is one problem though: until recently, all of the studies that came out used the old criteria. They included several people with no identification with another gender as meeting the criteria for “gender identity disorder,” which is itself no longer a disorder. These studies have a ton of other other problems as well, such as tiny sample sizes, very high dropout rates, old data from a time when youth transition was impossible, and even issues around conversion therapy practiced on trans patients. There are two pieces that are commonly cited. The first is numerous pieces of research by Ken Zucker, including a famous book published in 1995 that serves as the genesis of most “80% detransition” myths. The second is a series of studies from Thomas Steensma, usually centering around his 2011 or 2013 studies. Both of these studies contain the same core methodological flaw above, and both contain their own unique flaws that make them even more inaccurate.
Ken Zucker’s research on transgender youth was performed in 1995, a time when youth could not legally or medically transition. In fact, trans youth in that time likely all “desisted” for some time because of bullying, lack of access to care, and severe repression. I myself grew up as a transgender youth in that time period and I “desisted,” one of the many reasons I am writing this article.
Zucker is the genesis of the number that is most often cited, “80% desist from being trans.” Upon review of Ken Zucker’s research, half of Zucker’s patients did not even meet the definition of diagnostic criteria for transgender youth. His main research consisted of only 45 youth utilizing the old diagnostic criteria. A review of his clinic yielded much darker results, however: Zucker was engaging in conversion therapy practices that sought to push trans youth to identify as cisgender. His clinic was promptly shut down in 2015 as a result of a Canadian anti-conversion therapy law. Although Zucker denies the allegations that he engaged in conversion therapy, his practices and history paint a different picture. In the 1990s, he stated support for gay conversion therapy with the rationale, “a homosexual lifestyle in a basically unaccepting culture simply creates unnecessary social difficulties.”
In shutting down his clinic, a Canadian GIC review was conduced and a report was produced. From the report:
Parents state they were encouraged “not to give into” allowing their youth to wear clothes not of their assigned sex at birth.
Parents state they were told to avoid wrongly-gendered toys.
Parents state they were told to ensure their children would play with children of their assigned sex at birth.
Patients state they were asked intrusive questions about their sexual orientations as early as 9 years old.
Transgender youth were pathologized and correlational mental health issues were interpreted as causative.
Some patients reported pictures of them taken without their consent using cell-phones.
Parental lack of acceptance and desire for the child to identify as cisgender guided treatment.
Because of a tiny sample size, outdated data, the impossibility of youth transition, and Zucker’s clear ideological motivations, his 80% detransition rate clearly should be viewed as false and useless in current research on gender affirming care, especially considering modern data, criteria, and research exists.
Steensma’s 2011 and 2013 studies had similar issues in his research, which in some ways had even worse methodological flaws. Steensma used the old criteria, which is not the way that gender dysphoria is diagnosed today. Worse, the two studies classified every youth who did not return to the clinic as having “desisted” or “detransitioned” with no long term follow-up. Half of the participants in the studies did not return and all were classified as having “desisted.” The sample sizes were tiny at the getgo – only 53 people were in the first study and 127 in the second study. Given the fact that a large portion if not the majority of Steensma’s patients were classified under decades old criteria and assumed permanently detransitioned simply for refusing to follow up, these studies cannot be used to make any reasonable claim of desistance rates.
Furthermore, transgender youth could not meaningfully transition until recently. Medical care for trans youth was highly gatekept if not barred entirely. Transgender youth were rarely, if ever, afforded any form of treatment. Many such youth lost hope in ever being able to transition as puberty took its toll and they were forced to repress over bullying and a dangerous public environment.
Modern studies show a much higher persistence rate as well as important factors behind detransition. In 2015, a study was done on thousands of transgender people, including detransitioners. Only 8% of people reported ever detransitioning – ten times lower than the 80% often cited. Of these 2,000 detransitioners, the largest sample size of any study, 62% of them reported that they only detransitioned temporarily. Among the remaining detransitioners, the most common reason for detransitioning given was parental pressure and discrimination. Only 0.4% of people reported detransitioning because they were no longer trans.
Among trans youth, desistance and detransition rates are incredibly low. The most recent study in the prestigious journal Pediatrics, one of the only studies that use modern criteria, showed that 97.5% of trans youth continue to identify as trans on a 5 year follow-up. The sample size was also larger than all previous sample sizes of this population: 317 youth.
Anti-trans gender affirming care bans often start off with a list of “legislative findings” that seek to “state the science” around gender affirming care. In this list of findings, you might be surprised to see that the later studies are nowhere to be found, but the claims from the former studies pop up and are presented as factual when they are over a decade old, are dramatically outdated, and use standards that are not even in use anymore.
See Georgia’s “legislative findings” section of HB653, which would ban gender affirming care for trans youth
This statistic will continue to be misused to justify anti-trans bans all over the United States. Legislators will state that “80% of people detransition,” even when detransitioning is a statistical rarity. The same dozen detransitioners, like the “ex gays” of the 1990s, will be flown from state to state to justify bans, raising the question as to why they seem to only be able to find a small handful to testify. Meanwhile, actual trans kids who will grow up to still identify as trans, if they can make it to adulthood following these legislative onslaughts, are left to bear the damage of this misinformation.
Please support my independent reporting and activism on transgender legislation by subscribing. You help me keep this going and keep people informed.
In 1 minute, a senate committee in Kansas will be holding a hearing to ban gender affirming care up to the age of 21.
It is one of the most cruel anti-trans bans in the country.
I will be covering it live. Follow along.
🧵
As always, I rely on people like you to do my work. Please consider subscribing to support me at my newsletter, where you'll get over 200 articles focusing on trans news around legislation and life moving across the United States per year.
"I have to remove my hair with laser hair removal"
(advocates for a bill that will force hundreds of trans amab youth through a male puberty which will result in them having to go through laser hair removal and expensive surgeries as adults)
This guy is testifying from "Mass Resistance."
This organization is responsible for a book called "The Hazards of Homosexuality," a pro-conversion therapy outlet that calls gay people's existance a "public health issue"
Dr. Gaylyn Perry is speaking not on behalf of any medical organization.
She’s a pulmonologist, not an endocrinologist.
She’s a sleep therapist.
Also she's stating that Europe is "closing its clinics."
Not a single country she is referring to has categorically banned gender affirming care.
From the Alabama lawsuit, relying on Europe helped sink that bill in court:
"No country in Europe has categorically banned gender affirming care"
Now a retired doctor is testifying.
“I’m here to speak the truth about natural law and the truth given to us by our savior.”
This is not medically oriented testimony and his belief in god should have no bearing on the right of parents to make decisions for their kids.
This doctor is using the old 2011 study of "19x suicide rates" among trans people.
This is an inaccurate reading of the Dhejne study, who has specifically come out against people reading it that way:
Essentially, they are comparing a specific high risk group trans people to the general public, and not to trans people with no interventions, and it was also looking at a 30 year retrospective during some of the worst acceptance of trans people in history. (1980s)
A representative of the Kansas American Academy of Pediatrics with 450 physicians in Kansas.
She’s saying that this decision should be between doctors and patients and families.
The ACLU of KS representative is speaking.
"This bill violates the constitutional rights of children, parents, and doctors"
“It places politicians feelings against medical advice of hundreds of thousands of doctors”
"Every state attempting to defend these bills has lost"
“People will die. Families will suffer. The practice of medicine will be compromised.”
“The very care this bill attacks is responsible for my life.”
Another trans person, a trans man, is speaking.
He was on puberty blockers til 17, and took testosterone.
“College was much easier after I had my medical interventions to be my true self.”
“I can’t imagine such a life without them.”
A WPATH Doctor is speaking.
“This bill will directly impact the lives of transgender youth, directly impacting lives. Their blood will be on your hands. This is unethical.”
"For a minor to access gender affirming care, I ensure in collaboration with mental health experts assess the consistent, insistent, and persistent presence of gender dysphoria and require consent from parents" and she talks about all of the hoops patients have to jump through.
Reverend Kayla Simons Wood is speaking on behalf of Kansas Interaction.
Submits testimony from 10 clergy opposing this bill.
“I and many other Christians believe trans people are created in Gods image.”
Beth Oller:
“I provide full spectrum care from babies to end of life and I provide gender affirming care. I am an actual practicing Kansas physician.”
“The majority of people detransition not because they are not trans, but because of violence and difficulties with family”
"We need to listen to their perspective rather than the curated presentation in front of you"
Senator Stephen is asking Dr. Hubbard, a WPATH doctor, a question.
"Ms. Hubbard, Are you telling me the AAP unwaiveringly supports surgical interventions"
Dr. Hubbard: “I would appreciate it if you refer to me as Dr. Hubbard, please.”
Then points out that the treatments are tailored to the individuals.
Questioner: "Can you tell me where from Kansas you received your gender affirming care?"
"I'm not from Kansas…"
Questioner: "Is this the first time you've testified?"
"No…"
Asking Dr Crabs:
"Your testimony was from the 1980s about transgender suicides. So not current. Can I ask you where you practiced?"
"I did not practice here"
"can you verify you had a license in kansas?"
The chair cut her off.
Now a Senator is asking Dr. Beth Oller where she works (one of the people against the bill):
The doctor responds she works in Kansas.
Strongly pointing out that all of the people in support of the bill are coming from out of state.
Now a Senator is asking one of the trans man transitioners if he was given all of the info around his transition.
He answers in the affirmative.
Now they are asking a question of one of the detransitioners,
"Do you believe you were groomed into the decision to transition?"
“I don’t believe in using that word… it’s too divisive…”
This hearing isn't going super well for them.
(They'll probably still vote it through)
ACLU witness:
“I am referring to the 1.3 million doctors that are represented by the medical organizations that support this care.”
This Senator is claiming puberty blockers and HRT are causing early onset cancer.
There’s no evidence of any sort of outbreak of early onset cancer in trans youth.
Asked of the AAP representative if the majority supports gender affirming care in their chapter.
She testifies yes, most of the 450 do.
Now she is asking about the Missouri whistleblower.
“A radical supporter of the far left has blown the whistle”
“Are there other areas of medical practice where the child directs their health care?”
The doctor: “Everything the child is involved in, but the child themselves does not direct gender diverse issues. It’s parents, doctors”
The doctor in the zoom call wanted to jump in and answer, but the chair cut the committee short and immediately adjourned.
I guess we're done for the day?
That was abrupt.
I have never seen such a rushed hearing with so few witnesses called forward… what the heck did I just see?
Sorry to those of you who showed up to testify who didn't get to.
Well… thanks for following along. We'll watch to see how they vote. Please support my independent reporting and activism by subscribing.