Trans Solidarity Project

Category: Mutual Aid & Activism

  • The Hidden Crisis: Eating Disorders in Transgender Communities

    The Hidden Crisis: Eating Disorders in Transgender Communities

    Gender-diverse individuals are disproportionately affected by disordered eating habits. Research estimates that 12% of transgender people have been diagnosed with an eating disorder at some point.

    There are a LOT of stereotypes about eating disorders, and current psych culture is only beginning to move past those stereotypes. While we are beginning to understand how people of color, men, and other overlooked populations are affected by disordered eating, transgender identity is still invisible.

    Gender-affirming care and strong social support are the strongest protective factors in preventing eating disorders amongst transgender people. Affirming care has been proven to be the most effective and ethical way to interact with transgender patients, although that does not mean all providers are equal.

    Content Warning

    This article discusses eating disorders, medical discrimination, and personal experiences of family rejection.

    Crisis Resources:

    If you or someone you love is struggling with disordered eating, remember that support is always available.

    US Suicide & Crisis Lifeline

    Trans Lifeline

    The Trevor Project

    National Alliance for Eating Disorders

    National Association of Anorexia Nervosa and Associated Disorders

    If you reside outside of the United States, contact your local crisis hotline for immediate help.

    The Statistics: What the Research Shows

    Studies report that 12% of transgender people have been diagnosed with an eating disorder. Still, researchers estimate that the percentage is even higher since 30% to 50% of individuals screened positive for ED symptoms despite never being diagnosed. 

    In the general population, 9% of individuals report having been diagnosed with an eating disorder at least once in their lifetime, and 16% flagging positive during screening.

    Results revealed that TGD individuals were more likely to exhibit elevated levels of EDs, DE, and BIC compared to cisgender individuals. Fewer differences in EDs, DE, and BIC between TGD groups emerged, although transgender men/transmasculine people had higher levels of restriction (vs. non-binary and gender diverse people) and compensatory behaviours (vs. transgender women/transfeminine people). Binary transgender people reported higher BIC than non-binary/gender diverse people.

    Doley et al., Exploring the differences in body image concerns and eating disorder symptoms between cisgender and transgender individuals: A meta-analysis

    Researchers are well aware that eating disorders affect all types of people, and folks with marginalized identities are exceptionally more likely to exhibit symptoms. That doesn’t equate to diagnoses, though.

    Diagnosis requires being vulnerable for treatment and finding a healthcare professional well-versed in disordered eating – and hopefully other issues, too, like gender identity.

    What is Disordered Eating?

    Understanding disordered eating is the core of understanding eating disorders and discussing who exactly is affected by them.

    For decades, eating disorders were described as white female conditions tied to excessive food restriction or vomiting. It wasn’t until recently that researchers broadened the understanding of “purging” also to include excessive exercise, which is a type of food restriction common in men. 

    Diet and exercise can be great things, but they can also morph into disorders when combined with too much stress. Eating becomes disordered when:

    • You experience obsessive or intrusive thoughts about food, eating, and weight that interfere with daily life, such as dieting, calorie counting, body checking, micro-biting, compulsive exercise, and avoiding food-based social outings.
    • You struggle to eat in front of others or in public.
    • You develop rituals or rules around eating, such as eating foods in a certain order, cutting food into small pieces, purposely making food less appetizing, and avoiding certain foods entirely.
    • You have body dissatisfaction that interferes with daily life and your ability to enjoy life.
    • You frequently experiment with diets and eliminating food groups, such as believing “all carbs are bad.”
    • You use exercise or purge behaviors as an antidote or “reward” for eating.

    Barriers to Diagnosis and Treatment for Transgender Patients

    Getting treatment for eating disorders can be a rough process, even if you’re willing. Healthcare providers are likely to overlook disordered eating habits and symptoms as part of broader gender dysphoria.

    Ideally, treatment settings should be affirming and support one’s gender identity while receiving care. In general healthcare settings, 50% of transgender people reported needing to educate their own provider about transgender health.

    Albeit limited, studies show that almost all transgender individuals receiving eating disorder treatment experienced misgendering, discrimination, and non-affirming care.

    Multiple participants described barriers to affordable care… Other participants described difficulties finding providers who could provide holistic care, as well as a paucity of mental health providers.

    Cultural responsiveness was also discussed as a barrier, with one participant raising concern that research and treatment have been primarily focused on white patients with economic means.

    Other less frequently mentioned barriers included the lack of access to TGD specific ED groups as well as weight requirements for certain types of gender affirming surgeries resulting in the perception of physicians as gatekeepers for care.

    Hartman-Munick et al., Eating disorder screening and treatment experiences in transgender and gender diverse young adults

    Gender Dysphoria vs. Body Dysmorphia: Understanding the Difference

    Gender dysphoria and body dysmorphia are distinct conditions, but they can co-exist. Gender dysphoria is distress induced from a mismatch between one’s assigned or assumed gender and internal identity. Body dysmorphia is an anxiety-based disorder that causes obsession over one’s perceived physical flaws.

    At its core, gender dysphoria is all about one’s internal gender identity and the distress that comes from misalignment – which is why gender-affirming care is so effective at treating that distress compared to previous conversion techniques. Body dysmorphia occurs when someone has a distorted perception of themselves as ugly or defective, but has no connection to gender identity.

    Why are Transgender People at Higher Risk for Eating Disorders?

    Acceptance is perhaps the strongest protective factor against eating disorders in LGBTQIA+ people. In unaccepting environments, disordered eating provides control when transgender individuals may otherwise feel completely helpless.

    I had a rough coming-out experience with my parents. After coming out, I was surveilled constantly so that my parents could ensure I was “trying” to be cisgender for their sake, which included dressing femininely, not talking to accepting friends, and being barred from online spaces. From religious sermons to moral condemnations, I heard every potentially awful thing one fears when coming out over that year and a half before moving out.

    At the time, I felt I could not control any meaningful aspect of my person. I was no longer allowed to use my GC2B binder, I was being forced to grow my hair out, and I was even being forced to wear panties. I constantly walked on eggshells out of fear that the wrong move would create another lecture and outburst.

    Disordered eating provided control over my physical body when I felt I had no other options. I had read somewhere online that food restriction could stop one’s period, and everywhere I looked, thinner bodies were more androgynous. If I weren’t allowed to bind or even consider a future of HRT, maybe I could try passing by losing weight from my chest and hips and working out.

    Every morning, I would eat a half-cup of dry oats with a marginal amount of water – something that was readily available from my mother’s ongoing weight loss journey. 150 calories. Due to my family’s socioeconomic status, I had reduced lunches at school that allowed me the freedom to not eat what I wanted. For most school lunches, I had about 400 calories. After school, I’d purposely skip dinner and tell my parents I had eaten a free meal at work.

    I began jogging more frequently, working out at the gym on my family’s pass, and looked up natural ways to boost testosterone. With my work income, I’d buy supplements from the supermarket like DHEA. I counted every calorie. 

    And I was successful – I managed to stop my period for months at a time, and I felt like I passed more frequently despite how long my hair had gotten. But everything felt obsessive. I vividly remember my AP chem teacher pulling me aside after class out of worry since my grade was slipping, but deflecting because any admission meant a possible phone call home, which meant another lecture. On my worst days, I didn’t eat out as a punishment to myself for being a bad kid to my parents because I genuinely believed I was corrupt.

    After leaving home and starting transition, my disordered eating and self-harm habits stopped. However, a few years later, I had a falling out with a friend that left me completely isolated, and I began utilizing old habits and a spiritual downward spiral. I managed to pull myself back out with a new understanding of my boundaries and habits. Even today, it’s something I’m mindful of.

    Transgender people are more likely to engage in disordered eating because they lack control over their physical and emotional boundaries. Additionally, eating disorders effectively limit and stunt secondary sex characteristics during puberty when transgender youth are unable to have gender-affirming care. Even amongst transgender adults, mainstream passing culture and transgender celebrities prioritize skinny bodies to reflect a thin beauty standard.

    What Does Gender-Affirming Eating Disorder Treatment Look Like?

    For gender-diverse individuals to get effective treatment for disordered eating, they must have access to quality care. Primary care providers, psychologists, and eating disorder professionals must be committed to understanding transgender identity to foster spaces where transgender folks are safe enough to be vulnerable and heal.

    Due to its history, mental health treatment centers have a long way to go before getting the public’s trust as safe environments. Ideal treatment facilities will have publicly available information for transgender patients to view on chosen name and pronoun usage by staff.

    Body-gender congruence through gender affirming social and medical interventions (e.g., hormone therapy) were noted as significant for alleviating body image problems and facilitating eating disorder treatment.

    Heiden-Rootes et al., A scoping review of research literature on eating and body image for transgender and nonbinary youth.

    Treatment providers must understand gender dysphoria and transition goals to effectively help transgender people with eating disorders. Forcing a transgender person to gain weight they are avoiding to avoid appearing androgynous won’t be effective and cause significant distress. Eating disorder treatment needs to be integrated with gender-affirming care, such as HRT and general mental health services, to be optimal.

    Treating ED[s]…can run directly up against interventions for tgnc [transgender/gender nonconforming] people. So…if you have an ED…you are often encouraged to practice radical body acceptance or do a lot of body meditations/somatic work where you are trying to push yourself to be in your body. While this works for many cis people, this is sort of the exact opposite of what works for tgnc people, allowing us to make choices about our body changes and helping us live with the dissonance between our bodies and brains.

    Hart-Munick et al., Eating disorder screening and treatment experiences in transgender and gender diverse young adults

    Reframing Recovery: Why Body Neutrality Comes Before Body Positivity

    We exist in an age where body positivity is highlighted. Contrary to what most might think, body positivity isn’t effective for helping those struggling with disordered eating. Forced positivity and mantras can help some folks, but there is a wide gap between their current reality and a potential future that seems feasible.

    Body neutrality is critical to move people from distortion. You aren’t going to love your body suddenly after a few weeks of treatment. But you can see your body… as a body. Focus on how well it does from a purely functional standpoint on keeping you awake and alert. Separate thoughts of worth (both negative and positive) from appearance.

    Eating disorder recovery doesn’t require you to love your body. The goal is to be functional.

    How to Support a Transgender Loved One Struggling with Disordered Eating

    It is distressing to see someone you love struggle with an eating disorder. As much as you love them, you alone won’t be able to fix them. Here are some practical tips for helping a transgender loved one with disordered eating:

    • Express your concern appropriately. If you have identified potential warning signs, have a delicate conversation in a private setting where they won’t feel embarrassed or defensive.
    • Avoid commenting on weight and body changes in everyday conversation, both positive and negative. 
    • Validate the frustration and distress of gender dysphoria, but don’t reinforce harmful behaviors.
    • Don’t moralize food, like equating sweets or carbs as inherently bad.
    • Recognize that it’s difficult to get help for disordered eating. Eating disorders provide a false sense of control and identity, so giving that up for treatment can be terrifying.
    • Encourage and connect them with affirming professional care. Support their commitment to recovery and offer to accompany them to appointments if they’re especially anxious.

    You are never alone. Even if transgender identities are largely invisible in current eating disorder treatment approaches, there is always help available, and you are worth fighting for.

    References, Resources, & Further Reading

    American Academy of Pediatrics. (n.d.). Policy statements and resources on transgender and gender-diverse youth. https://www.aap.org

    American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed., text rev.; DSM-5-TR). American Psychiatric Publishing.

    Association of Anorexia Nervosa and Associated Disorders. (n.d.). About ANAD. https://anad.org

    Doley, J. R., et al. (2026). Exploring the differences in body image concerns and eating disorder symptoms between cisgender and transgender individuals: A meta-analysis.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41494283/

    Hartman-Munick, S. M., et al. (2020). Eating disorder screening and treatment experiences in transgender and gender diverse young adults. Journal of Eating Disorders. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1471015321000441

    Heiden-Rootes, K., et al. (2023). A scoping review of research literature on eating and body image for transgender and nonbinary youth. Journal of Eating Disorders. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37740228/

    Maintenance Phase. (n.d.). Maintenance Phase [Audio podcast]. https://www.maintenancephase.com

    National Eating Disorders Association. (n.d.). About NEDA. https://www.nationaleatingdisorders.org

    Taylor, S. R. (2018). The body is not an apology: The power of radical self-love. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

    The Trevor Project. (n.d.). Research and crisis services. https://www.thetrevorproject.org

    Trans Lifeline. (n.d.). About Trans Lifeline. https://translifeline.org

    Erickson-Schroth, L. (Ed.). (2014). Trans bodies, trans selves: A resource for the transgender community. Oxford University Press.

    World Professional Association for Transgender Health. (2022). Standards of care for the health of transgender and gender diverse people (Version 8). https://www.wpath.org

    Food Psych. (n.d.). Food Psych [Audio podcast]. https://christyharrison.com/foodpsych

  • Flying While Trans: What to Expect at TSA

    Flying While Trans: What to Expect at TSA

    Roughly 12 million people fly each day, ranging from short business commutes to long-distance journeys. After aerial terrorism, largely stemming from 9/11, air travel requires intensive mandatory screening. Each country has unique screening guidelines; here is the most pertinent information for individuals who are transgender and encounter TSA.

    CONTENT WARNING: This post discusses airport security and a personal account of TSA transphobic harassment, forced strip searches, and mistreatment. Reader discretion advised.

    What is the Transportation Security Administration (TSA?)

    The Transportation Security Administration was formed by the United States Department of Homeland Security in 2001 to enforce safety regulations. TSA coordinates with local law enforcement to secure American highways, ports, and railroads, but its primary focus is air travel.

    While TSA is an American agency, all countries enforce similar mandatory screenings. Most countries require screening upon entry into an airport for all departing flights and for international arrivals.

    How Effective Is TSA Screening?

    Compared to other US agencies, TSA is relatively young, and its detection rate makes it fairly controversial. Experts state that TSA screening is largely “security theater” to comfort travelers and deter some criminals.

    When tested by the Department of Homeland Security, TSA has routinely failed to detect 90% of explosives and other weapons despite its massive $9.7 billion budget.

    Standard TSA Procedures (What Everyone Goes Through)

    The following procedures are universal to all TSA screenings unless you participate in PreCheck or CLEAR+ (more on those later).

    Secure Flight Prescreening and Watchlists

    Before you ever arrive at the airport, TSA engages in Secure Flight that ranks passengers’ “risk level” based on names and watchlists. 

    The Privacy Impact Assessment and System of Records Notice state that personal information collection is supposedly minimized, but the main purpose of the Secure Flight prescreening procedure is to block folks on either the No Fly List or individuals marked “Do Not Board” via the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

    Checked Baggage Screening

    Upon arriving at the airport, you may need to check in your luggage. All US flights provide free carry-on and/or personal items, but there are different restrictions on what may be brought in those bags compared to checked.

    The majority of checked luggage is screened without conducting a physical bag search, directing the luggage onward to your planned airline. If TSA does conduct a physical bag search, a notice will be placed inside your bag. Luggage lost or damaged during screening can be filed with TSA directly, although luggage lost or damaged during transport is filed via your airline.

    Don’t have checked luggage? Continue on to your nearest TSA checkpoint – unless you need to check in with your airline for a physical boarding pass.

    Can I lock my checked baggage? Yes, although it won’t really matter regarding TSA. TSA officers use universal master keys certified with Safe Skies Luggage and Travel Sentry to unlock commercially available locks for physical bag inspections.

    If they are unable to remove your lock for inspection, TSA reserves the right to cut and remove locks during screening.

    Carry-On vs. Personal Items

    Carry-on luggage refers to bags that are taken with you on the plane, in contrast with checked baggage, which is stored on the plane separately from passengers. Personal baggage falls under the same screening procedures as carry-on; the only difference between carry-on and personal luggage is size.

    REAL ID Requirements and Identification Checks

    As you approach a TSA checkpoint, you will have to present your identification and boarding pass to an officer after queuing. Identification must be certified as a REAL ID, United States passport, or similar. Regular IDs and driver’s licenses now incur $45 fees at the checkpoint to pass.

    REAL ID is fully in effect. The law was passed some time ago, but TSA will now fine all passengers who do not have REAL ID-level certification and will not let you pass until certification is presented or the fine is paid. Passports and certain other documents hold the same validity as REAL ID, so if you have a passport, you do NOT need REAL ID.

    Legal gender information and outward presentation do not have to match for you to be entitled to entry. In other words, your ID’s gender marker does not have to be updated for TSA to allow you through. Agents should not comment on the discrepancy, but they may require you to explain your situation to confirm your identification is legitimate.

    3-1-1 Explained and Carry-on Screening

    Afterwards, you will proceed to a scanning queue. All carry-on luggage must be placed on the conveyor belt to be screened by a TSA officer.

    • TSA requires all electronic devices be taken out of luggage and into a separate bin for screening. This includes laptops, monitors, tablets, e-readers, and handheld game consoles. Non-American airports may not require electronic devices to be removed from baggage.
    • Shoes must be removed, although you can keep your socks on. Shoes will also be placed in a bin for screening, as well as any belts, jackets, watches, etc. Leave nothing in your pockets. Most other countries do not require shoes to be removed unless you have steel-toe boots that will trigger the sensors.
    • Most food, especially packaged items and fruit, is allowed in carry-on luggage. Liquids, gels, aerosols, baby food, and breast milk have additional requirements.
    • All liquids and gels must comply with the 3-1-1 rule unless they qualify for exemption.
      • The 3-1-1 rule refers to how each passenger is allowed ONE quart-sized bag for carry-on liquids and gels. 
      • All items must fit inside a ONE QUART bag. 
      • All items must be 3.4 ounces (hence the three) or 100 milliliters. 
      • Any non-exempt items that do not comply with this rule must be checked luggage. Two exemption categories bypass the 3-1-1 and 100 milliliter restriction.
        • Prescription medication is allowed in any amount, including if it is in a liquid, gel, or aerosol form. However, you MUST have prescriptions for all medication, have all medication in its original packaging, and have a reasonable amount of your trip.
        • Breast milk, baby formula/food, and toddler drinks are classified as medically necessary by the TSA and allowed in any amount. These items will be screened separately to detect potential drugs, explosives, and harms.

    In practice, I have never seen TSA actually require a quart-sized bag. It’s used as a comparison tool to help passengers visualize how many 100 ml items they are allowed to bring. However, other counties do actually care and require liquids and gels be placed in a ziplock bag during screening.

    Proceed through the scanner. Your carry-on luggage will be screened separately while your body is scanned by an agent. Any flagged luggage will be pulled aside for screening by TSA.

    Don’t know what should go in checked, carry-on, or left at home? Here is the full TSA list, which can be searched and sorted into categories.

    TSA Body Scanners and Transgender Travelers

    The United States uses Leidos body scanners (or any machine labeled as “Advanced Imaging Technology”) as well as metal detectors. Assume you will be scanned by a AIT machine unless you have PreCheck or CLEAR+, since those are standard.

    How AIT Body Scanners Work

    AIT machines scan the entire body, bouncing a signal on every inch of the body in the tube to detect “anomalies.” As far as we know, the scanning technology is safe, albeit invasive. AIT scanners are NOT transgender-friendly and detect transgender bodies as anomalies.

    There are concerns about data privacy and AIT scanning since the machines keep a small record of what your body looks like.

    The official statement is that this data is eventually deleted, although it is a valid concern in a world hostile to transgender lives. The only reason we put up with it is that we have been trained to accept a lack of privacy for security theater.

    Why TSA Scanners Are Gendered

    This occurs because AIT scans are gendered into a male and female binary. When you approach the machine, a TSA agent quickly and silently assigns you a male or female scan. The machine is hypervigilant and flags anything “out of the ordinary,” flagging mundane things like paper left in your pocket. All anomalies will be covered with a yellow or red box on the imaging screen to indicate the flagged region.

    AIT will flag packing prosthetics, lack of penis, presence of unforeseen penis, and binders. It doesn’t matter if you pack, bind, or tuck; there is a fairly high chance you will be flagged.

    Being flagged does not mean you did anything wrong. Remember: AIT machines specifically do not know how to handle transgender bodies, and it is a flaw in the current system. 

    In my experience, metal detectors cause no issues. Assuming you have put all metal items in the conveyor bin for separate scanning, you’ll pass through every time without issue. Outside of the United States, metal detector scanners are the norm rather than invasive screens like AIT.

    You’ve Been Flagged. What Happens Next?

    If your body is flagged by an AIT machine, you will be required to undergo a pat-down by a TSA agent. 

    The Department of Homeland Security provides TSA the authority to conduct pat-downs as the next step in screening.

    Pat-downs are meant to be less invasive and typically take less than 60 seconds, where an agent uses the back of their hands to apply minor pressure over clothing to detect hidden items. TSA agents have the authority to require the following:

    • Agents are allowed to require clothing to be adjusted.
    • Agents are allowed to require head coverings or pieces be removed. If the covering is religious, see the following section for additional rights.
    • Agents are allowed to conduct a pat-down across the entire body, including the groin, buttocks, and head.
    • Agents are allowed to force you to adjust your stance, typically with your feet apart and arms raised. If you have a disability or struggle to raise your arms, see the next section.
    • Agents are allowed to conduct more than one pass for their pat-down.

    Your Rights During a Pat-Down

    Not all TSA officers follow the rules and may not be committed to creating a safe environment. The Department of Homeland Security states that all passengers have the following rights:

    • You are entitled to request a specific gender to pat you down, regardless of gender identity or expression.
    • You are entitled to have a witness present, including if you are taken for a private screening.
    • You are entitled to be moved to a private area if a public pat-down makes you uncomfortable.
    • You are entitled to have the TSA agent change their gloves before screening.
    • You are entitled to inform TSA agents of medical devices you may be wearing, areas that are painful to touch, or if you have difficulty raising your arms.
    • You are entitled to have flagged luggage screened privately rather than in the public queue.
    • You are entitled to remove any religious head covering yourself, pat it down, and have it tested for residue rather than having a TSA agent directly remove the covering.
    • You are entitled to ask for a supervisor if you are uncomfortable or if a TSA agent’s conduct seems inappropriate.

    Have a question about TSA procedures? TSA can be contacted via the Cares Hotline at 1–787-2227 or the TSA Contact Center at 1-66-289-9673.

    As a transgender man, I genuinely cannot say whether it is better to pack or forgo it during screening. I’ve been told both are the “correct” procedure because it seems TSA doesn’t have uniform guidance they’re trained on.

    I took my first flight in 2022 to Mexico, departing from Chicago’s O’Hare airport. Immediately before me, I had seen a disabled person in a wheelchair be harassed by the TSA, requiring them to stand to screen. Based on the circumstance and my inexperience, I chose to be proactive and told the TSA agents prior to entering the Leidos machine that I was transgender and likely to flag, since I was unsure if my packer prosthetic would cause issues. The agents called over their supervisor and had a conundrum they didn’t know how to resolve, eventually having me pass through the metal detector and undergo a pat-down. Afterwards, the TSA agents reprimanded me for wasting their time and stated that next time I should walk through the Leidos machine without giving notice.

    Later that same year, I took another flight to New York City, also out of O’Hare. Based on my past experience, I entered the Leidos machine with the same packer I had previously and did not notify the TSA agent beforehand. The scan presented a red flag over my crotch.

    This TSA agent gave me a quick pat-down and decided he did not like the size of my packer (which was a 5-inch Freetom), stating I required private screening. I asked why and explained the flag was due to my packing prosthetic since I am transgender, but TSA agents always assume that every flag must be treated as a worst-case scenario. The agent escalated, stating my lack of willingness meant he would likely call the police to arrest me unless he was “gracious” enough to change his mind. My friend had already passed through the screening, so I was alone. I followed the agent to a private room, where he pulled aside another male agent to be his witness.

    Upon entering the room, the agents stated I had to strip naked and emphasized that any lack of consent meant they would be calling the police. Since I couldn’t think of any other options, I complied and stripped down to nothing but the thin towel they handed me. I handed them my packer. Both of the agents snickered, one of them elbowing the other while mumbling under his breath. 

    They both were baffled by the prosthetic and claimed they had no idea what it was, despite my trying to explain beforehand. The older agent took a cotton swab to the packer and left to analyze it while the other agent stated I had to wait, standing with nothing but the towel, in essentially a two-square-foot closet. After an agonizing fifteen minutes, the agent returned with a negative result. Both of the agents were visibly disappointed, but then took to quickly commanding me to get dressed and leave immediately. 

    In the end, I didn’t miss my flight – but I did develop a fear of TSA from the encounter. At the time, I was doing exactly what a previous TSA agent had directed me to – but TSA’s transgender guidance isn’t uniform, and there are always bad actors who use scare tactics to harm others.

    I have had fewer personal issues binding while screening, although it has been a while since I’ve had top surgery. The chance your chest will be flagged correlates to the size of your chest, so larger chests are likely to be flagged regardless of compression. Smaller chests are likely to pass through with excellent binding compression without being flagged.

    Does TSA engage in racial profiling? There have been thousands of jokes made about TSA’s “random” screenings, where agents require travelers to undergo more intensive screenings even if they did not flag any alarms.

    Officially, TSA prohibits racial profiling and states that agents are not allowed to discriminate based on race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, or disability. Unofficially, TSA agents are given too much freedom to “randomly” search anyone they want.

    If your luggage is flagged by the conveyor scanner, it is pulled to a separate belt and must be manually verified by TSA. They’ll open the luggage and look for the item in question to determine whether it’s allowed through.

    As mentioned previously, medical prescriptions are always allowed in carry-on luggage in any quantity as long as it is a reasonable amount for your travel. Always make sure your medication has its prescription label and is in its original packaging. The name on your medication must match your identification. The same applies to needles, syringes, and sharps.

    If you inject medication, some folks use specific bags or kits to transport their prescriptions. They aren’t required, but are good accessories and increase stealth while traveling.

    If you are worried about your medication being allowed, you can also bring a signed letter from your prescribing provider to present to TSA. As an American engaging with TSA, I’ve never had issues requiring this, but have done so when taking large quantities traveling abroad.

    Always keep prescription medication in carry-on luggage. Checked luggage sometimes gets damaged and lost, and you may not be able to get a refill upon arrival. Furthermore, checked luggage is kept in storage that gets extremely cold; medications like injectable or transdermal hormones must be kept at a relatively consistent temperature to stay viable.

    Once you have completed body and carry-on luggage screening, you’re done. Put your shoes back on and proceed with your luggage to your assigned flight gate. 

    After your initial screening, you will not have to undergo it again upon arriving at your destination IF it is domestic. Similarly, domestic layovers will not require additional screening.

    However, international layovers may require you to be screened again during layovers, depending on the country. The vast majority of the world uses regular metal detectors, so it’ll be quick and relatively painless. You will also have to be screened upon arrival at any international destination as part of the customs and immigration process.

    TSA Alternatives: Are They Worth It?

    There are several official programs allow travelers to bypass the traditional AIT screening procedure, but they aren’t interchangeable. PreCheck and CLEAR+ are two of the most common Trusted Traveler Programs.

    TSA PreCheck costs approximately $80 for a five-year plan and gives you access to a separate screening lane where electronics are kept in carry-on luggage, you keep your shoes, jackets, and belts on, and you go through a simple metal detector. PreCheck also requires background checks and interview appointments to become eligible.

    CLEAR+ costs $200 every year and uses biometric data (such as an iris or fingerprint scan) to quickly verify your identity rather than forcing you to use the document queue – which is what takes the longest when screening. You’ll be taken directly to a screening machine. However, CLEAR+ users may still use an AIT machine.

    TSA PreCheck is available at over 200 United States airports, while CLEAR+ operates at about 50. Not all airports that have PreCheck have CLEAR+, and not all airports that have CLEAR+ may offer PreCheck – which is why our fantastic consumer market advises travelers to purchase plans for both programs. 

    If you have money to spend and travel frequently, PreCheck is useful for transgender travelers since it will allow you to avoid “advanced” AIT screening. But again, it’s not cheap nor easy to register for.

    Passenger Support Specialist (PSS) Program

    Anyone is allowed to request services from the Passenger Support Specialist Program. PSS is staffed with TSA agents who undergo additional training to better assist travelers with specific needs.

    PSS is free to use, but it requires booking in advance. PSS must be contacted at least 72 hours before your flight via TSA Cares.

    Grounding, Emotional Safety, and Post-Screening Care

    Before any trip and engaging with airport security, take time to take care of yourself. Be aware of your physical and emotional needs, checking in throughout the process to remind yourself of your limits.

    Prep grounding techniques as part of your travel checklist. This could be downloading a self-care app like Finch, writing down mantras and emergency contacts, or learning specific breathing techniques.

    All transgender people are important and worthy of dignity. Airport screening can be traumatic for all travelers, but it’s disproportionately unfair to transgender individuals.

    Further Resources for Trans Travelers

    Advocates for Trans Equality: Airport Security

    Department of Homeland Security Office for Civil Rights and Liberties

    FlyRights App

    Global Action for Trans Equality

    IGLTAF Transgender Advisory Group

    International LGBTQ+ Travel Association

    Justia: Airport Security & Transgender Legal Rights

    TKO Society Travel Tips

    Trans Lifeline

    TSA Contact Center

    TSA Cares

    TSA Office for Civil Rights and Liberty

    TSA Disability Traveler Notification Card

  • Trans History: The Life of Mary Jones

    Trans History: The Life of Mary Jones

    1836 – 1853

    Mary Jones is considered one of the first recorded gender-variant individuals in United States history, her story recorded in early 1800s court documents. While Mary has only been recently interpreted as transgender, she remains crucial evidence that gender-expansive identities have always existed.

    Early Life and Origins

    It is believed that Mary Jones was born in New Orleans under the name Peter Sewally, according to penny press newspapers like The Sun and New York Herald. However, Mary wasn’t well-received by journalists and was targeted with hostile newspaper coverage that published her story for profit rather than factuality.

    Due to misinformation, it’s not clear where exactly Mary is from. Mary originally stated she was from New York City, which is why some sources claim she was born there in 1803, but she gave different origins and ages during other court appearances. Despite this, Mary usually mentioned New Orleans during her testimonies.

    Government census indicates that Mary was a skilled craftsman, although she worked and dressed as a man during the day as a waiter and cook. Mary was believed to be illiterate with little formal education, evidenced by her inability to sign documents during the trial, and claimed to have served a short time in the United States military.

    The Arrest and Trial of Mary Jones

    Mary was employed as a sex worker in Lower Manhattan, like many ostracised communities, using sex to survive. In 1836, Mary was accused of stealing a client’s wallet, which garnered immense media attention.

    The client in question, Robert Haslem, reported the theft to local law enforcement. Officers followed up on Haslem’s report and found Mary with several stolen wallets in her possession. Despite dressing in feminine clothes and using a prosthetic vagina for work, police determined that Mary had male genitalia.

    After having sex with Mary, Haslem realised his wallet had been switched with a stranger’s and a strange bank order for $200 – and he was missing his own wallet and $99. Haslem tracked down the wallet’s owner, who had a similar experience with Mary the night before. Reportably, the other man never came forward because he didn’t want others to know he willingly had sex with a Black sex worker.

    Haslem confessed and reported the theft to Constable Bowyer the next day, who found Mary that evening. Bowyer approached Mary undercover, who led him to the same alley that she had taken Haslem to previously to conduct “business.” Mary gave quite the “tussle” during her arrest, and allegedly dropped multiple stolen wallets during the altercation. One of the found wallets was Haslem’s, which provided sufficient evidence to detain Mary.

    While Mary was kept at the closest watch tower, law enforcement searched Mary’s apartment and found a trunk filled with stolen wallets and bank notes. Haslem was only able to identify a few of the notes as his, which led the police to believe Mary was hiding more money on her person that required a physical examination.

    “Bowyer also discovered,” wrote The Sun regarding the arrest, “to sustain his pretension, and impose upon men as sexus femineus, fabrefactus fuerat pertio bovillis, (cara bubulu) terebratus et apertus similis matrix muliebris, circumligio cum cingulum!!!” This line birthed Mary’s nickname as “Beefsteak Pete.”

    Note: In Jonathan Katz’s review, he suggests that The Sun purposely wrote part of the story in Latin to censor the story from uneducated readers. It roughly translates that Mary “had been fitted with a piece of cow leather pierced and opened like a woman’s womb, held up by a girdle.” Sensationalised accounts claim that Mary filled the prosthetic with beef to mimic a vagina.

    Mary was charged with grand larceny five days later, on June 16th, 1836 – but she was notably not charged for sodomy since Haslem stated they did not participate in anal sex. Mary appeared before the court dressed elegantly as a woman, presumably in the same outfit she was arrested in. However, her attire did not make her sympathetic to the court and instead provided “the greatest merriment in the court, and his Honor the Recorder, the sedate grave Recorder laughed till he cried.” At some point, someone sitting behind Mary “snatched the flowing wig from the head of the prisoner,” which invoked “a tremendous roar of laughter throughout the room.”

    Finally, Mary spoke before the court: “I will be thirty-three years of age on the 12th day of December next, was born in this city, and get a living by cooking, waiting, and live on 108 Greene Street.”

    “What is your right name?” asked the court during Mary’s examination.

    “Peter Sewally,” Mary answered. “I am a man.”

    “What induced you to dress yourself in Women’s Clothes?”

    “I have been in the practice of waiting upon Girls of ill fame and made up their Beds and received the Company at the door and received the money for Rooms and they induced me to dress in Women’s Clothes, saying I looked so much better in them and I have always attended parties among the people of my own Colour dressed in this way – and in New Orleans I always dressed in this way.”

    By the next day, penny press newspapers had published the trial and Mary Jones’ “practical amalgamation,” which was the common phrase of the period to refer to interracial relationships. Mary was presented as uniquely eccentric – but not a sodomite.

    The jury ruled against Mary, returning a guilty verdict that sentenced Mary to five years of hard labor in Sing Sing State Prison for grand larceny. HR Robinson drew a lithograph of Mary Jones titled “The Man-Monster,” which created a stark contrast between the “Man-Monster” title, Mary’s sexual deviance, and how completely unthreatening and normal Mary physically looked. 

    “Despite its salacious title (and many papers’ reluctance to print it), the lithograph portrays Jones as nothing more or less than an elegant black woman” (NYC Department of Records and Information Services). “This apparent discrepancy points to an issue seen throughout Mary’s case: It is clear from the attention given to Mary’s gender in court records and in the media that her gender presentation was considered not only unusual, but indicative of some larger character flaw.”

    Mary was sensationalised and quickly forgotten by the public – although she did come up again. In 1845 and 1846, Mary was repeatedly arrested and sentenced for “playing up [her] old game, sailing along the street in the full rig of a female.”

    Mary’s last recorded words come from her 1848 case against Michael Bonney. Introducing herself as Julia Johnson, Mary stated, “I was born in Jersey, I am twenty-seven years old, I am married, my husband has gone on a trading voyage to New Orleans and other places. I live in the rear of No. 70 or 72 Sullivan Street, and do day’s work for a living.”

    After 1848, nothing more is known about Mary Jones or her aliases. While the public was fascinated with her life, the media made no attempts to record Mary’s experiences beyond sex work.

    Historical Interpretation and Erasure

    Historian Timothy R. Gilfoyle recovered information on Mary Jones in the 1990s in his research on sex work in antebellum New York City. In City of Eros: New York City, prostitution, and the commercialization of sex, Gilfoyle argued that Mary was a gay cisgender man who chose to work as a woman as part of NYC’s larger brothel culture. 

    Jonathan Ned Katz interpreted Mary similarly, suggesting that Mary “acted like a woman” and formed a community as strategic moves to survive in a hostile world. For decades, Mary was written as a cisgender man due to her anatomy and work.

    It wasn’t until the research of Tavia Nyongo and C. Riley Snorton that scholars began to consider whether Mary was genuinely gender-diverse or transgender. While many cisgender gay men crossdressed to engage in same-sex activities at the time, that doesn’t automatically mean Mary was cisgender.

    Neither Gilfoyle nor Katz was necessarily wrong in their interpretations. Transgender is a fairly modern word, and our complicated understanding of gender diversity didn’t begin until the early 1900s. Mary did not identify as transgender, but neither did Elagabalus or Chevalière d’Éon – but they would have likely identified with the notion behind “transgender.”

    The majority of history has been reviewed under a straight cisgender lens. History is written by the victors, and the victors have never been amicable towards the marginalized identities they moved to suppress.

    Mary spent over seven years at New York’s most notorious prisons, including Blackwell and Sing Sing. Despite everything, Mary repeatedly returned to the same neighborhood in women’s attire under feminine aliases even when conforming to cisgender standards would have been safer. 

    Court and census records identified Mary as a skilled craftsperson who could have worked an honest profession as a man and pursued sex with men. Alternatively, Mary could have become a known “female impersonator” in a safer and more socially accepted environment. Mary could have also moved to a new city or neighborhood where she wouldn’t be known – but she did none of these things.

    Bibliography & Further Reading

    “Beefsteak Pete Arrested.” National Police Gazette, 3 Apr. 1858. Transgender Digital Archive, www.digitaltransgenderarchive.net. Accessed 4 Feb. 2026.

    “Court of Sessions: Yesterday.” The Sun [New York], 17 June 1836, no. 869, p. 2. Courtesy of the New York Public Library, Microfilm.

    “General Sessions, Thursday: A Good One.” The New York Herald, 17 June 1836, vol. 2, no. 84, p. 1. Courtesy of the New York Public Library, Online Database.

    “I AM ME Initiative.” “Mary Jones (Deadname: Peter Sewally).” I AM ME Initiative, www.iammecorp.org/post/mary-jones-dead-name-peter-sewally. Accessed 4 Feb. 2026.

    Crenshaw, Madeleine. “Meet the Rebellious Women of 19th Century NYC.” Untapped New York, 20 July 2018, gothamist.com/arts-entertainment/meet-the-rebellious-women-of-19th-century-nyc.

    Gilfoyle, Timothy R. City of Eros: New York City, Prostitution, and the Commercialization of Sex, 1790–1920. W. W. Norton & Company, 1992.

    Katz, Jonathan Ned. Love Stories: Sex Between Men Before Homosexuality. University of Chicago Press, 2001.

    McConville, Mike, and Chester L. Mirsky. Jury Trials and Plea Bargaining: A True History. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2005.

    Mellison, J. “What Mary Jones Teaches Us About the Racist Roots of Transphobia and the Survival of Black Trans Women.” jmellison.net. Accessed 4 Feb. 2026.

    Melville, Herman. Redburn: His First Voyage. 1849. Harper & Brothers, 1849.

    New York City Department of Records and Information Services. “The People vs. Mary Jones.” NYC Municipal Archives Blog, 3 Aug. 2022, www.archives.nyc/blog/2022/8/3/the-people-vs-mary-jones.

    New York Herald. 1836–1837. New York City. Penny press coverage of The People v. Mary Jones.

    Nyong’o, Tavia Amolo Ochieng’. The Amalgamation Waltz: Race, Performance, and the Ruses of Memory. University of Minnesota Press, 2009.

    Old Pros Online. “Mary Jones.” Old Pros Online, oldprosonline.org/mary-jones/. Accessed 4 Feb. 2026.

    OutHistory.org. “Sewally (Mary Jones): The Man-Monster.” OutHistory, outhistory.org/exhibits/show/sewally-jones/man-monster. Accessed 4 Feb. 2026.

    Snorton, C. Riley. Black on Both Sides: A Racial History of Trans Identity. University of Minnesota Press, 2017.

    Sun. “Court of Sessions.” The Sun [New York], 17 June 1836, p. 2. Originally published in Latin. Courtesy of the New York Public Library.

    The People v. Mary Jones. 1836. New York Court of General Sessions. Court records reproduced in secondary archival sources.

    The Sun (New York). 1836–1837. New York City. Penny press coverage of Mary Jones’s arrest and trial.

    Wright, D. Performance records referenced in Mahar, William J. Behind the Burnt Cork Mask: Early Blackface Minstrelsy and Antebellum American Popular Culture. University of Illinois Press, 1998.

  • Miss Major: Black Trans History the World Wanted to Erase

    Miss Major: Black Trans History the World Wanted to Erase

    October 25, 1946 – October 13, 2025

    Miss Major Griffin-Gracy (she/they), alongside other major figures like Marsha P. Johnson and Sylvia Rivera, played a star role in the gay liberation movement. Here’s a brief introduction to her life story.

    Coming of Age as a Black Trans Girl Before the Language Existed

    Media would convince folks that transgender identity is new, a novelty that didn’t exist before the 21st century. And teenagers specifically didn’t identify as alternative genders – but Miss Griffin was proof that wasn’t true.

    Miss Major came out to her parents as transgender around age 12 or 13 while growing up in the Chicago South Side. After coming out, her parents believed that Griffin-Gracy’s identity was a phase they would later grow out of. Due to the time period, Miss Major identified herself as transsexual – the same term popularized by Christine Jorgensen upon her public return to the United States.

    Similar to New York City and San Francisco, Chicago had a thriving underground queer scene that Griffin-Gracy integrated herself into. Between queer balls and chosen family, Miss Major found herself despite the times.

    Although Miss Major graduated from high school early, her young adult life was tumultuous. Her identity led to expulsion from two colleges, turning her towards sex work. Following release from psychiatric incarceration, Miss Major moved to New York City to start fresh.

    Stonewall Was a Riot – and Miss Major Was There

    Griffin-Gracy involved herself in New York’s drag scene and performed as a showgirl – placing her at the perfect time and place for the bubbling revolution for queer rights. The theaters and bars Miss Major frequented were common targets for police raids and mafia blackmail. Griffin-Gracy was present the night that bargoers at the Stonewall Inn were fed up with discrimination.

    The Stonewall Riots weren’t the first act of queer rebellion, but they’re credited as the launch point for LGBTQ rights since they encapsulated the moment when communities across the world felt inspired into action. The actions by Miss Major and other queer individuals at Stonewall pushed visible progress. Until then, queer protesting was uniform, quiet, and easily ignored. Militancy took hold, and the first pride was a riot.

    However, Miss Major sustained major injuries from Stonewall due to a police officer striking her on the head while in custody. Those injuries caused Griffin-Gracy to be admitted to Bellevue Hospital’s psychiatric ward. She was placed in the “queen tank,” a standard practice by mental hospitals at the time to isolate LGBTQIA+ inmates to prevent other patients from being “corrupted.”

    Incarceration, State Violence, and the Making of a Prison Abolitionist

    Miss Major was released from Bellevue Hospital shortly afterwards, pushing her immediately back into the bubbling revolution. It was also during this time period that she was impacted greatly by anti-transgender violence when her friend was likely murdered by a client. 

    Frustrated by a lack of action by the authorities, Griffin-Gracy had to come to terms with the reality that transgender people – especially transgender women of color – are not protected by the government. While the Stonewall Riots had been her initial introduction to activism, protecting her transgender sisters from targeted violence formed her political identity.

    In 1970, Griffin-Gracy was arrested and convicted for robbing one of her customers. Although she was released on parole after a few months of incarceration, she was sent to Dannemora prison (Clinton Correctional Facility) for wearing makeup to her parole meeting.

    Dannemora was a maximum security state prison. Correction officers purposely tried to break Miss Major’s spirit, forcing her into isolation at the facility’s mental ward first. When shaving her hair and eyebrows didn’t break her, officers forced Miss Major to walk through the prison naked. Despite this, Dannemora also put Miss Major in a unique spot – her incarceration led to mentorship under Attica prison uprising leaders like Frank “Big Black” Smith. That mentorship introduced Miss Major to prison reform activism and understanding the prison-industrial complex.

    “Mama Major”: Building Trans Community on the West Coast

    Griffin-Gracy was released from Dannemora in 1974. After meeting fellow drag performer Deborah Brown in New York City, Miss Major had her first child, Christopher, and moved to California. Although her relationship with Deborah didn’t last, Griffin-Gracy was devoted to raising her son. San Diego provided Miss Major the opportunity to mentor young drag performers, which earned her the nickname “Mama Major.” 

    Miss Major was directly impacted by the AIDS crisis when her partner Joe Bob passed away from AIDS. After the construction of the San Diego AIDS memorial garden, she moved to San Francisco to work in HIV outreach and joined the Tenderloin AIDS Research Center as a health educator. 

    Through her work with TARC, Miss Major realized that most unhoused people felt too uncomfortable to seek services from organized facilities. To fill this healthcare gap, Griffin-Gracy started street clinics to provide HIV prevention services. 

    Miss Major joined the TGI Justice Project in 2004, which is the only US organization that specifically assists transgender people in prisons. Griffin-Gracy’s activism – and life – was intersectional.

    Honoring Miss Major Is Honoring the Future

    Social justice doesn’t occur in a bubble. Miss Major’s experiences were the product of her identities and her drive to help others.

    Although Miss Major passed away due to complications of sepsis on October 13, 2025, her legacy in transgender activism, prison reform, and HIV prevention lives on.

    Bibliography & Further Reading

    Angela Y. Davis. Are Prisons Obsolete? Seven Stories Press, 2003.

    Carter, David. Stonewall: The Riots That Sparked the Gay Revolution. St. Martin’s Press, 2004.

    Duberman, Martin. Stonewall. Dutton, 1993.

    Griffin-Gracy, Miss Major. Miss Major! Directed by Annalise Ophelian, Making Waves Films, 2015.

    Griffin-Gracy, Miss Major. Miss Major Griffin-Gracy Official Website, missmajor.net.

    National Center for Transgender Equality. “LGBTQ People Behind Bars.” NCTE, transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/resources/TransgenderPeopleBehindBars.pdf.

    New York Historical Society. “Miss Major Griffin-Gracy.” Women & the American Story, wams.nyhistory.org/end-of-the-twentieth-century/the-information-age/miss-major-griffin-gracy/.

    NYC LGBT Historic Sites Project. “Stonewall Riots.” NYC LGBT Historic Sites Project, https://www.nyclgbtsites.org/site/stonewall-inn-christopher-park/.

    Ophelian, Annalise, director. Major! Making Waves Films, 2015.

    Reddit. “Trying to Track Down What the Dannemora Prison Was Like.” r/lgbthistory, www.reddit.com/r/lgbthistory/comments/12ak1s2/trying_to_track_down_what_the_dannemora_prison/.

    San Francisco AIDS Foundation. “History of HIV/AIDS in San Francisco.” SFAF, https://www.sfaf.org/resource-library/sfaf-history/.

    Stonewall Forever. Stonewall National Monument, National Park Service, https://stonewallforever.org/.

    Stryker, Susan. Transgender History. 2nd ed., Seal Press, 2017.

    The 19th News. “Transgender Activist Miss Major Griffin-Gracy Dies at 78.” The 19th, 13 Oct. 2025, 19thnews.org/2025/10/transgender-activist-miss-major-dies-78/.

    Them. “TransVisionaries: How Miss Major Helped Spark the Modern Trans Movement.” Them, www.them.us/story/transvisionaries-miss-major.

    Tourmaline, Eric A. Stanley, and Johanna Burton, editors. Trap Door: Trans Cultural Production and the Politics of Visibility. MIT Press, 2017.

    TGI Justice Project. TGI Justice Project, www.tgijp.org.

    World Queerstory. Heroes of Stonewall: Miss Major Griffin-Gracy. 13 June. 2020. https://worldqueerstory.wordpress.com/2020/06/13/heroes-of-stonewall-miss-major-griffin-gracy/.

  • Understanding the Insurrection Act in a New Era of Escalation

    Understanding the Insurrection Act in a New Era of Escalation

    US citizens have rallied to the streets in outrage after the unlawful murder of Renee Macklin Good by ICE in Minneapolis. With ICE escalating without limitations on its authority, protestors are being further agitated due to the injustice.

    In response, Donald Trump took to social media to threaten the institution of the Insurrection Act to punish citizens who fail to conform.

    What is the Insurrection Act?

    Formally known as the Insurrection Act of 1807, the Insurrection Act was a federal law signed by President Thomas Jefferson to empower future presidents to deploy the Armed Forces and National Guard to suppress “civil disorder, insurrection, and armed rebellion against the federal government.”

    What power does the Insurrection Act grant?

    Normally, the Posse Comitatus Act forbids the United States military from coordinating with civilian law enforcement. Military interference in civilian government is considered inherently dangerous to liberty.

    The Insurrection Act temporarily suspends the Posse Comitatus Act, allowing the President to deploy the military to assist civil law enforcement. This can be for a variety of reasons, such as the enforcement of federal court orders (such as during desegregation) or suppressing government uprisings.

    The Insurrection Act was created only to be used in crises that are truly beyond the capacity of civilian authorities to manage.

    However, the Act doesn’t limit when it can be used and is still entirely too vague – which is why Trump has leaned into threatening it so much.

    Are there thresholds before the Insurrection Act can be implemented?

    Yes. However, these thresholds aren’t infallible. The Department of Justice 1964 Memorandum identifies three thresholds:

    1. A state legislature or governor must request federal assistance to put down an insurrection against their state.
    2. A federal court must rule that national deployment is necessary to enforce a federal court order.
    3. Federal deployment is necessary and unavoidable due to “state and local law enforcement completely breaking down.”

    Additionally, all uses of the Insurrection Act are not allowed to override the Constitution. Federal deployment of troops is not allowed to violate citizens’ constitutional rights.

    What are historical examples of the Insurrection Act?

    In the beginning, the Insurrection Act was commonly used during the Reconstruction Era after the Third Enforcement Act in 1871 was created to protect Black Americans from attacks by the Ku Klux Klan. A handful of presidents used the Insurrection Act to handle labor conflicts before President Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy invoked the Act during the 20th century to enforce racial desegregation.

    President Bush signed an amendment to the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, which permitted the use of military intervention under the Insurrection Act without state consent. However, all fifty state governors issued a joint statement against it and pushed for its repeal in 2008.

    During his first term, Donald Trump only threatened the use of the Insurrection Act once. Following the murder of George Floyd, Trump stated he would invoke the Insurrection Act in response to protests to “re-establish civil law and order.”

    Federal officials eventually talked Trump out of invoking the Act. And although the National Guard was called in response to the January 6th coup, the Insurrection Act wasn’t invoked.

    By Trump’s second term, he had become accustomed to waving the Insurrection Act around. Beginning January 20th, 2025, Trump ordered the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security to issue a joint report determining whether use of the Insurrection Act was advisable regarding the US-Mexico border. Months later, Trump threatened the use of the Insurrection Act against targeted cities like LA, Portland, Chicago, and Memphis in response to protests.

    A handful of reforms to the Insurrection Act have been proposed throughout history. Due to the vague language of the Act, it provides a relatively simple path towards martial law.

    Under normal circumstances, this couldn’t be a possibility since the Insurrection Act would only be used under extreme circumstances – but Trump repeatedly threatens to invoke the Act in response to civilian protests.

    He alone determines what a “crisis” must look like to overrule civil law enforcement to deploy national soldiers, and we have to trust that determination will be just.

  • Honor the Fallen: Powerful Ways to Take Action This TDOR

    Honor the Fallen: Powerful Ways to Take Action This TDOR

    International Transgender Day of Remembrance has been observed across the world since 1999, created after the brutal murders of Rita Hester and Chanelle Pickett. Transgender activists Gwendolyn Ann Smith, Nancy Nangeroni, and Jahaira DeAlto created TDOR as an annual reminder to honor individuals who have been lost to anti-transgender hatred in a world completely unkind to transgender lives.

    Technically, there is no singular database detailing the number of transgender people lost each year. It is impossible to have a fully accurate statistic since, even in 2025, many transgender people do not openly identify themselves out of safety concerns. Additionally, it is the sole ethical responsibility of one’s loved ones for their transgender identity to be included in police reports, media releases, and obituaries since the dead cannot advocate for themselves.

    The two most comprehensive databases relevant to Transgender Day of Remembrance are Remembering Our Dead and the Trans Remembrance Project.

    Remembering Our Dead estimates that 276 transgender people died unfairly from January 1st, 2025, to November 20th, 2025. 204 deaths were the direct result of anti-transgender violence, 53 were via suicide, 2 occurred due to medical malpractice, and 4 died in police custody. The remaining 13 are uncategorized due to a lack of public information. 

    44 of the 276 deaths occurred in the United States, accounting for 16% of the global rate, and places the USA as the second most deadly place to be transgender after Brazil. Despite claiming to be the most prosperous country in the world, the United States has a long-standing history of being devastatingly deadly towards transgender individuals throughout the years that Remembering Our Dead has collected data.

    Knowing this information, what is the best way to honor the dead? Hundreds of individuals are unfairly taken each year, regardless of the number of vigils held. How can one take meaningful action?

    If you have not done so yet this year, read through the lives of names and stories lost within the past year. Remember that each person was more than a mere name; they were a three-dimensional person with loved ones, hobbies, and passions.

    • Parker Savarese
    • Elisa Rae Shupe
    • Aubrey Dameron
    • Tahiry Broom
    • Sam Nordquist
    • Ervianna Johnson
    • Amyri Dior
    • Linda Becerra Moran
    • Jordan “JJ” Maye
    • Charlene Cook
    • Katelyn Rinnetta Benoit
    • Kaitoria Le’Cynthia Bankz (“Kai”)
    • Norah Horwitz
    • Kelsey Elem
    • Shy’Parius Dupree
    • Karmin Wells
    • Charlotte Fosgate
    • Jonathan Joss
    • Tessa June
    • Jax Gratton
    • Laura Schueler
    • Hope Lyca Youngblood
    • Emma Slabach
    • JJ Godbey
    • Christina Hayes
    • Gabrielle Nguyen (“Cam”)
    • Lily-Dawn Harkins
    • Kia-Leigh Tabitha Roberts
    • Kamora Woods
    • Arty Cassidy Beowulf Gibson
    • Nathaniel Pabón Cruz (“Nata”)
    • Dream Johnson
    • Blair A. Sawyer
    • Rosa Machuca
    • Kasí Rhea (“Kaeyy Holmes”)
    • Onyx Cornish
    • Aurora Pellegrina (“Alexa”, “Luna”)
    • Robyn James Post
    • Blake Sturm
    • Blaze Aleczander Balle-Mason
    • Scarlett
    • Tiara Love Tori Jackson
    • Lia Smith
    • Marisol Payero

    Reach out to LGBTQIA+ organizations and groups near you to find information on community vigils. Around the world, people organize gatherings for TDOR to emphasize the reality that the dead may be gone, but they will never be forgotten. Even if you do not live in an area hosting a TDOR vigil locally, there are several public events hosted online.

    With each passing year, the list of dead grows exponentially, and it becomes easier to fall into grief or fury that nothing changes. While we live in a time where transgender people are more easily documented and identifiable for data compared to decades ago, we still live in a society that demonizes transgender identity. For each transgender person remembered authentically as who they were, there are others who are misrepresented by their obituaries and media reporters. The TDOR list continues to grow just as hate and bigotry festers, leading others to commit acts of grotesque violence or pass anti-transgender legislation to make our existence illegal.

    How will you make this TDOR different from previous years? How do we keep ourselves alive and fighting against inequality? Troubled times make it easy to give into fear and grief, which is why suicide and mental health crises are at an all-time high amongst transgender people. 

    The political rise of Donald Trump normalized hate in a manner that was completely alien and unprecedented for the time. He invited people to spew as much rage and hatred as possible during rallies to congeal his primary base – which was a similar tactic to previous populist leaders. Yet Republicans are hypocrites: the MAGA movement centers on the dehumanization of the “inferior,” but Republicans are the first to cry foul when they are refused compassion such as when Trump was diagnosed with COVID-19 or Charlie Kirk was murdered at a rally degrading transgender people. 

    We live in a society that incentivizes anger – it gets the most attention and the world has no shortage of things to be outraged over. If you must be angry, be furious over the lives that have been unfairly taken and take action. It is exhausting to witness cisgender allies tear up at vigils and fail to do anything more meaningful than light a candle. Vigils are important and we need to be remembered, but greater action is necessary to curb the ever-growing list; there are thousands of ways to take action if you take the time to look.

    Look up your elected officials. Whether they represent your interests in Congress or sit on a local township board, reach out regarding their support of transgender rights.

    When communicating with federal officials, emphasize phone calls and in-person visits. Emails and written letters are overwhelmingly unread and unanswered. All constituents have the right to call their official’s office and discuss issues. Depending on their schedule, you may not speak to your official directly, but all phone calls are answered by assistants who are required to report high-interest matters to your representative. While this process can be exhausting, it’s a highly effective form of lobbying that anyone can do – which is why conservatives use phone lobbying so readily.

    Organizing a vigil or related event for Transgender Day of Remembrance? Don’t let the event be entirely somber. Use the weight of TDOR to move people to action, remind them that they have a right to be angry in a world where their transgender siblings are no longer alive.

    Advocate for programs that prevent transgender-related violence. Emphasize the importance of funding programs and resources – the current administration has taken numerous steps to eliminate funding that benefits LGBTQIA+ people. Money makes the world move, whether it’s more job opportunities or improved training curricula for professionals.

    Donate towards causes that combat anti-transgender violence. Even if you lack money to put forward, you can always donate time by volunteering with local grassroots projects. Find registered LGBTQIA+ nonprofits near you, or donate to national organizations like A4TE, ACLU, GLAD, and Lambda Legal.

    Learn and practice bystander intervention. The majority of individuals find themselves unable to act in times of crisis because they assume someone else ought to help. It’s difficult to do the right thing, but that’s why it’s worth doing.

    Lastly, remember that resilient survival is its own act of rebellion. In a county that condemns transgender identity, each day you continue to survive is another day you live in spite of their agenda.

  • Heritage Foundation uses disinformation to Label Transgender People Terrorists

    Heritage Foundation uses disinformation to Label Transgender People Terrorists

    Last week, The Heritage Foundation released advice urging the United States government to classify all transgender individuals as domestic terrorists. On September 18th, independent journalist Ken Klippenstein stated that the Federal Bureau of Investigation is considering a proposal to categorize transgender people as under “Transgender Ideology-Inspired Violent Extremism (TIVE).” This comes in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s public assassination, the FCC censoring media outlets like Jimmy Kimmel, and Donald Trump using Kirk to further divide the nation.

    The Heritage Foundation and similar groups wrongly believe that transgender people are inherently more likely to commit violence. Conservative conspiracy theorists deny the objective reality that transgender people make up less than one percent of mass shooters. When it was uncovered that Tyler Robinson is not transgender, and simply knows a transgender person, TIVE pivoted to argue that both transgender people and our allies are violent – ignoring the reality that non-allied cisgender men commit the vast majority of violent crime, and Charlie Kirk himself advocated violence against transgender people.

    “They are cynically targeting trans people because the shooter’s lover was trans. The administration has convinced itself that the Charlie Kirk murder exposes some dark conspiracy.” – Anonymous US senior intelligence official to Ken Klippenstein

    TIVE is proposed to be a subcategory of Nihilistic Violent Extremists (NVE), a new domestic terrorism category created by the FBI early this year to replace Biden’s Anti-Authority and Anti-Government Violent Extremists (AGAAVE) – which was created to classify those who participated in the January 6th coup. In support of TIVE, The Heritage Foundation wrote, “TIVE is based on the belief that violence is justified against those who do not share radical views of transgender ideology. It has led to an increasing trend of TIVE domestic terrorist events across the country.”

    Transgender advocates and human rights allies have criticized the proposal. Alejandra Caraballo, a Harvard law instructor and trans legal expert, wrote, “Heritage Foundation has released an absolutely insane policy proposal to label all trans people as domestic terrorists. It uses completely made-up instances of terrorism and made-up statistics but facts don’t matter to them.”

    People are alarmed because this classification would give broad and overbearing authority for the FBI to target transgender people based on identity alone. Even though transgender identity is factually uncorrelated with violence, the United States government could use TIVE to monitor transgender people without the additional evidence traditionally required for such cases. Additionally, people are opposed to most of what The Heritage Foundation proposes due to their fundamental role in anti-equality proposals like Project 2025.

    What exactly is The Heritage Foundation?

    “The bottom line is that this is another example of escalating attacks targeting trans people,” said Cathy Renna of the National LGBTQ Task Force to The Advocate. “It’s another use of lies and misinformation to justify [the right’s] actions. I think this degree of targeting and surveillance and scapegoating is just continuing to erode our sense of safety in this country. And that’s a tremendous concern; that’s something we all need to be engaged in, speaking out about when what their goal is to silence us. But at the end of the day, those of us who can need to be speaking out as much and as loudly as we can.”

    Despite overwhelming evidence that transgender people do not correlate with violent behaviors, the Trump administration seeks to use TIVE to further escalate their war against transgender people – especially in the aftermath of Kirk. Regarding the matter, California state senator Scott Wiener stated, “The obsession with tying trans people to shootings is vile and dangerous. First they try to say the shooter might be trans, and WSJ amplifies that lie. Once that fell apart, they pivot to ‘he lived with a trans person.’ Even if true, who cares? It’s McCarthyism and truly disgusting.”

    “If adopted by the FBI, that would brand a wide range of arguments common among progressive activists and writers as “extremist” rhetoric,” wrote The Independent. The Heritage Foundation gave a comprehensive list of terms “used by TIVEs” to help the FBI identify such individuals. These terms include “cisgender,” “deadnaming, and “misgendering,” amongst others. This logic is also entirely hypocritical: the GOP has actively verbalized its intent to “eradicate transgender people from public life,” advocating for government-sanctioned violence against an entire community of people based on identity alone.

    On the other hand, this news should be taken with a grain of salt. The Heritage Foundation and related Oversight Project explicitly stated that not all transgender people or their allies should be treated as terrorists and “individuals are free to identify as transgender, or support… transgenderism in a non-violent way.” It’s also *just* a proposal – The Heritage Foundation’s presentation of it does not mean the Trump administration or FBI will approve it, similar to Trump’s previous consideration of removing all firearm access from transgender Americans.

  • Do Conservatives Actually Deserve Empathy? Kirk, Exposed.

    Do Conservatives Actually Deserve Empathy? Kirk, Exposed.

    In a jarring turn of events, Charlie Kirk is dead. Kirk was shot with a single bullet to the neck at 12:23 PM on Wednesday, September 10, 2025, while engaged in a Q&A at Utah Valley University. Between law enforcement’s delay in presenting evidence, misreporting by the Wall Street Journal, and propaganda-fueled bots, there is an immense amount of misinformation regarding Kirk’s assassination. Beyond the facts, do far-right individuals like Kirk deserve empathy, especially when their agendas actively promote violence against others?

    Kirk: What Happened?

    As a media personality, Charlie Kirk is grouped with similar far-right types such as Alex Jones, Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro, Nick Fuentes, and Steven Crowder. He was a professional grifter, using rage-bait content to increase views – like all conservative personalities, Kirk capitalized on outrage culture since angry viewers boost views regardless of journalism quality or facts.

    Charlie Kirk, as an individual, was not a remarkable person. What did Kirk contribute to the world? Like his peers, Kirk provided nothing meaningful to society and actively worked to make the world a hateful place. But since so many people are persuaded by hate alone, Kirk rose as a prominent voice within MAGA.

    On the 10th, Kirk was in the midst of a very mediocre rally. Like all conservative events, there was hardly any security – as Kirk himself said, “I think [gun casualties are] worth it. It’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect other God given rights. That’s a prudent deal. It is rational.”

    A spectator in the crowd asked Kirk about recent comments Kirk had made that transgender people are more likely to commit mass violence than their cisgender peers. Just as that spectator began to point out the flaws in Kirk’s baseless lies, Kirk was shot by a sniper round from a nearby rooftop. The crowd started freaking out, and Utah Valley University’s campus went on lockdown. By 2:40 PM, Kirk had died from his injuries.

    It wasn’t until September 12th that Kirk’s assumed assassin, Tyler Robinson, was taken into custody, coordinated by the FBI and local law enforcement. Everything after that gets… fuzzy.

    Almost immediately, The Wall Street Journal reported on a bulletin released by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives regarding the bolt-action rifle and ammunition conveniently left in the woods after the shooting. Despite explicit guidance by the Bureau to read the bulletin with caution due to the lack of substantial evidence, the WSJ wrote that Robinson’s bullet casings had engravings of “expressions of transgender and antifascist ideology.” The WSJ has come under fire due to this journalistic negligence, being forced to amend the article when Utah Governor Cox publicly stated the casings made zero mention of “transgender ideology.” One of the casings does make mention of fascism, but more on that later.

    Conservative conspiracy theorists have been pushing their latest favorite narrative: transgender people are mentally unstable, emotionally dysregulated, and present an unprecedented risk to violence. This narrative was largely disregarded until last month when transgender woman Robin Westman committed a shooting in a Minneapolis Catholic school, which the Trump administration has used to consider an illegal ban to bar all transgender people from owning firearms.

    Kirk himself had been a fan of the theory – this conversation was essentially his final words before Robinson fired. Kirk and conservative personalities don’t care about reality, purposely ignoring established research that proves cisgender men exactly like Kirk make up the overwhelming majority of mass shooters compared to the fraction of a percent that transgender people have committed.

    Tyler Robinson is NOT transgender. He is a straight cisgender male who grew up in a very traditional, conservative family. It is currently believed that Robinson’s partner IS transgender, but they had zero part in Robinson’s crime and were horrified by Robinson’s actions. …And even if they hadn’t, who cares, and why does it matter? Everyone knows a transgender person (whether you’re aware of it or not), but it doesn’t make you more likely to be a murderer.

    Currently, mainstream media is hyperfixated on whether Tyler Robinson was an ANTIFA leftist. He wasn’t, and the media’s inability to understand that is part of the problem.

    The reason mainstream media is so befuddled by Robinson is that the bullet casings, notes, and online presence he’s left look anti-fascist and left on the surface. Some of the bullet engravings included statements like:

    • *Notices bulges* OwO What’s this? (This is actually the bullet that shot and killed Kirk.)
    • Hey fascist! Catch this! ↑ → ↓ ↓ ↓ (Game maneuver used in Helldivers 2, a multiplayer shooter with its own problematic fanbase.)
    • Oh Bella, ciao, bella, ciao Bella ciao ciao ciao. (An Italian anti-fascist song that has been co-opted by the alt-right.)
    • If you read this, you are gay LMAO.

    Traditional journalists who have reported thus far lack deep knowledge of the internet and its subcultures. Tyler Robinson was not a leftist, liberal, nor an ANTIFA. He was a groyper.

    Groypers are most noted by their use of “ironic meme culture.” Pepe the Frog, toxic gaming culture, and using racial slurs for “comedic shock value” – groypers encapsulate everything terrible about middle school boys before they grow a conscience. At some point Robinson was a huge Nick Fuente fan. But groypers are conservative. They are exceedingly far right and use meme culture to disguise their values, similar to how the KKK did (they called their leaders “imperial wizards” and “exalted cyclops”). And groypers intentionally use anti-fascist and leftist slogans to confuse onlookers.

    A select few media outlets are covering this reality, but it’s not the common story being told.

    US Representative Nancy Mace immediately after reading the WSJ’s comments about Kirk’s killer allegedly being transgender.
    And a few days later when Mace found out Robinson was, in fact, not transgender.

    Instead, Trump and his allies hope to use mass confusion to tighten their grip on a crumbling democracy. Matt Forney, in response to Kirk’s assassination, called it America’s “Reichstag moment.” For readers unaware of the Reichstag, it’s attributed as the crucial moment when the Nazi Party took control of Germany by utilizing the recent crisis to their advantage.  Every American, regardless of political affiliation, has an opinion on Charlie Kirk’s murder – but conservatives are outraged that the American left lacks empathy, some of whom are even celebrating Kirk’s demise. Workers of various fields have been fired for anti-Kirk statements, and tourists have been denied entry into the United States for expressing negative views of Kirk.

    Do Fascists Deserve Empathy?

    Short answer, no.

    The long answer is that conservatives have created an empathy paradox. Conservatives condemn liberals, leftists, and anyone else who fails to offer heartfelt condolences to Kirk, but Kirk and his peers are empathy black holes. Kirk regularly advocated for violence against minorities, especially transgender people. Conservatives weaponize the ideas behind empathy to throw in our faces, trying to paint themselves as more humane, kind, and righteous than leftists. After all, if the left is supposed to embody human rights, social justice, and solidarity, isn’t it hypocritical for us to celebrate any human’s death?

    Extending empathy for those who cause great harm to others is not a rational or ethical choice. Honestly, Republicans today make me think they would condemn a Jewish person in 1945 for celebrating the death of Adolf Hitler. Terrible people who deny the humanity of others do not deserve empathy.

    Kirk’s death is hardly the first time that conservatives have pulled this charade. The same song and dance was performed when Americans failed to feel sorry for Trump’s so-called assassination attempt. At the same time, conservatives were publicly gleeful when someone broke into Nancy Pelosi’s home to batter her husband; they’ve expressed adoration of actual mass murderers like Kyle Rittenhouse; and mere months ago, conservatives were ecstatic about the idea of Latinos being fed to wild alligators at their latest detention center. In response to others lacking sympathy for Kirk, conservatives send death threats and hateful rhetoric.

    As a general rule, American conservatives are unable to recognize their own hypocrisy. They aren’t able to look past their own noses – I currently work in social services, and the overwhelming majority of individuals I see are hard Trump followers and express disgust at welfare, minorities, or anything akin to a “handout.” They lack the capacity to realize they’re using welfare services that only exist because of liberals and leftists.

    One answer for why conservatives act this way is their latest “empathy is a sin” ideology, which was pushed by JD Vance and Elon Musk. Everything about the Republican Party goes against human nature to be kind and contradicts the New Testament’s fundamental teachings by Jesus to be compassionate. They don’t want to be compassionate or Christians; American conservatives want to be Spanish Crusaders under the delusional guise of religion – they want blood, not God.

    Equating leftist ideals (ex. universal healthcare, affordable housing, no hate crimes, etc.) to conservative ideals (ex. race-based detainment, death penalties, corporate tax cuts, etc.) is misleading. In a previous article, I wrote how “moderate” isn’t always better: not too long ago, one extreme advocated for race-based lynching while the other wanted integration, equal civil rights, and the capacity to live freely. Only one of those is humane.

    There is a separate conversation about having grief for those around Kirk. Yes, he was a father, a son, a “someone” to people. The majority of unempathetic leftists lack empathy for Kirk directly, not his wife or children.

    Conservatives like Charlie Kirk campaign for the deaths and torment of those unlike them. Kirk and his followers advocate for a world where gender-affirming care is entirely impossible and gender-diverse individuals are imprisoned or killed. A world where young girls are forced to carry the babies of their abusers, regardless of whether they can physically, emotionally, or financially survive. A world where queer people are stoned for expressing same-sex attraction. A world where the disabled are murdered for the simple act of living, a world where only “pure-blooded” white Americans live contentedly and undeveloped countries with people of color are left to be exploited. We are already expected to be civil with those who do us harm. We lack empathy for Charlie Kirk and those like him because his agenda lacks empathy for us. 

    Refusing to hold empathy for a powerful figure like Kirk is not cruelty; it’s a refusal to normalize his harm. Charlie Kirk was a terrible person and will be forgotten one day as the hateful person he was.

    Do conservatives and the far right deserve empathy? People have the right to offer and withhold empathy, BUT expecting empathy for those who built careers on hatred and denying empathy to others is hypocritical and manipulative. Empathy is not a shield that protects oppressive ideologies from critique. Empathy centers on those most harmed, not those who caused harm.

  • How to Discuss Socialist Ideas Without Losing Friends

    How to Discuss Socialist Ideas Without Losing Friends

    Everyone has the capacity to appreciate socialist ideas, but you can’t call them socialist when introducing them. Americans have nearly a century of built-up feelings about communism, so you have to appeal to their ego when presenting these ideas. And when I say everyone, I really do mean everyone. Here are some of the best entry points to get regular folks interested in left-wing ideas.

    Fundamentally, it all comes down to your approach. Leftists struggle to articulate their ideas to regular people, which is where all those stereotypes about theory-wielding college communists come from. Don’t use theory and the Communist Manifesto thinking it will appeal to today’s audience. If you want regular people to understand socialism, you have to talk to them in a way they can understand.

    Present ideas so they can come to their own conclusions. Give folks credit: even if they’ve been brainwashed or conditioned to hate leftism, most people are capable. If they view your ideas as reasonable, they’re more likely to take root if they believe they came up with on their own versus being spoon-fed.

    A Livable Wage & Labor Rights

    One of the most common arguments against increasing the minimum wage is that service employees (ex. fast food, retail) shouldn’t make a comparable wage to white collar workers. After all, aren’t these jobs meant to be entry-level, best suited for teenagers wanting pocket money?

    There are a lot of fallacies with this argument – like in order for a white collar worker to go to McDonald’s on their lunch break, you can’t have high schoolers working and get fed. The retail and food service industry relies on 82% of adults ages 20 and older, and they’re necessary to keep the industry afloat. Even in the most rural regions in the United States, the minimum wage is not sustainable unless you’re working multiple jobs.

    That being said, the most successful argument I’ve made regarding the minimum wage is by appealing to the white collar worker’s ego:

    “Look, I’m not saying a fast food worker should make the same amount as you. It’s not the service employees’ fault that your boss is underpaying your work. That fast food worker should be paid more – but so should you. Your supervisor is the one holding your wage back on purpose.”

    In reality, I believe service employees deserve better wages because the work isn’t easy. They’re tough jobs with high stress. As much as folks bellyache that fast food employees shouldn’t be paid better, they aren’t jumping at the chance for an “easier” job. But calling them a hypocrite won’t win them over.

    Another argument you will likely get back is that companies require low wages in order to operate, and raising the minimum wage to be livable would only cause inflation to increase. That doesn’t have to be the case. If a company is only able to operate through unsustainable wages, they aren’t a successful business. That’s the point of capitalism – but corporations like Walmart and Dollar General come into rural areas and demolish local businesses and job diversity to create a surplus of underpaying minimum wage jobs.

    Corporations don’t have to raise the price of products due to higher wages. They jump at every opportunity to increase prices because they maximize profits for their CEOs and shareholders. Corporations are fully able of shrinking their profits by just a fraction of a percent and pay their employees a decent wage, but they’ve bullied you into believing they can’t afford to.

    The Big Bad Socialist Evil: Universal Healthcare

    The public murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson brought this topic back into the spotlight. Depending on your age, you likely have strong opinions – younger folks are less sympathetic to Brian’s murder and more likely to look up to Luigi Mangione; older individuals find the issue more complicated since they’ll agree the American healthcare industry is out of control, but they don’t want to approve of Luigi or Brian’s murder.

    Most Americans are aware of how unfair the inflated costs of healthcare and medicine in the United States are. The industry has been warped by insurance companies that force their way as the middlemen of healthcare. If you don’t have insurance coverage, you can easily pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for breaking a leg or needing surgery. You might still pay thousands for those same services even if you have insurance.

    The industry thrives on the expectation that people will pay any price to keep themselves or those they love alive. A mother and father will go into debt because they need to pay for their young daughter’s cancer treatments. A young professional has to borrow money for treatment or never work again, falling deeper into poverty while still in pain. In the US, the healthcare insurance industry has put very visible price tags on life.

    As long as you refrain from using phrases like “universal healthcare,” most Americans are supportive of the idea – they’re just scared of the term because it’s “socialist.” The US is the only first-world country that uses healthcare insurance. Brazil, China, South Korea, Canada, Algeria, Saudi Arabia – 69% of the world’s population has coverage from some program like universal healthcare. But US healthcare is hyper-focused on making a profit, not promoting good health – and that’s hard to take pride in. Our government spends billions each year on unnecessary things, but your grandmother has to worry about whether she can afford her diabetes medication. Your sister has to think about how expensive it is to give birth and raise a baby. Do you have money to throw away if you got into an accident and broke a leg? It doesn’t have to be that way because it’s not like that in any other developed country.

    Gender-Affirming Care, Abortions, & Other “Scary Stuff”

    At their core, these are some of the hardest topics to talk about. Compared to other ideas, these topics have the most religious weight to them because Republican politicians ally with religious evangelicals to push specific agendas. Ultimately, if someone is convinced based purely on religion, you will not be able to convince them. There is no magical argument or reason you apply to open their worldview quickly. For these folks, the only way to get them to become open-minded is to open their horizons. 

    Unfortunately, “opening their horizons” isn’t a quick fix. More than any other component, knowing someone directly affected by these policies changes conservative mindsets – even when religion is involved. Folks are quick to demonize illegal immigrants until they meet someone who entered legally, had their passport and papers stolen by an employer, and is being trafficked for farm work. They hate abortion until it’s their middle schooler who was sexually assaulted and is being forced to carry a fetus that might kill them during childbirth. They’ll despise transgender people until they meet a real person and realize they’re just as much of a human as they are.

    Again, there is no winning argument here. The Republican Party stated that empathy is their enemy – and as exhausting as it is, it’s the best medicine for these issues. These are issues people argue based out of blind loyalty to religion and emotion, not logic or reason. 

    Green Energy

    Environmental protections are a weird one – over the years, the GOP has taken a strong stance that global warming isn’t real. Most folks, regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum, do understand that something is fundamentally wrong, even if they struggle with climate change. Natural disasters are becoming more frequent and more dangerous. Where I live, there used to be at least a foot of snow by early December – but now, the grass is still green until mid-February. This isn’t normal.

    Conservatives are well aware that their arguments lack factual evidence. They rely on moral panic to sway votes. When discussing the need for sustainable energy or greater environmental protection, refrain from using fact-based or logical arguments unless you’re certain they’re open-minded enough to base their opinion in reality. No amount of facts will change someone’s mind if their opinion is based on faith alone. Those folks aren’t hopeless, but they need time to come to their own conclusions.

    Emphasize the importance of ensuring a better world for future generations. This idea is even in the Bible – humans are meant to be protectors of God’s creation, after all. They might not have to deal with all of the immediate consequences of climate change, but they can see it in motion. They can see how climate change will further spiral, that their inaction will create an inhospitable world, their future grandchild won’t be able to survive in.

    On the other hand, I also recommend not letting environmental-based conspiracy theories fly. When someone argues that windmills kill hundreds of birds each year, cut them off and state the facts. If they argue that climate change is part of the natural cycle of Earth warming up and cooling off, don’t give them space. Yes, the Earth does have a sort of cycle, but the number of ecological changes you have seen in your lifetime alone is not natural.

    Rehabilitation, Homelessness, and Social Services

    Americans feel entitled to not see poverty in their communities. They get uncomfortable, anxious, and even afraid when they see homeless individuals – but they don’t help them. 

    Traditionally, religion should actually help here. In fact, it’s why JD Vance and the Pope don’t get along – American Christians are distinctly non-Christian when it comes to Jesus’s teachings about compassion and empathy. The Christian answer to homelessness and poverty should never be to imprison people for the crime of simply being homeless. Christians ought to favor greater funding for homeless shelters and social services to lift people out of poverty rather than larger police budgets or prisons.

    Unlike other cultures, Americans don’t have a great sense of duty towards helping the poor. We’ve been hard-wired to perceive wealth as the result of one’s hard work, as well as view poverty as the result of one’s moral failing. If the mythical American Dream is possible, then only lazy folks are unable to pick themselves up by their bootstraps and achieve it, right? Because of this, it’s hard to persuade people into sensitive topics like defunding the police or the value of rehabilitation over punitive punishment.

    If there’s a common theme with all of these topics, it’s that you have to find a middle ground to work from. Fundamentally, Americans aren’t inherently adverse to these concepts if you’re able to separate their pre-existing conceptions. 

    Wouldn’t it be nice if your community were able to utilize other services than the police? If there’s a large amount of theft in your neighborhood, wouldn’t services like food banks and employment opportunities have just as much of a positive impact as constantly patrolling police officers? If there are overdoses and substance abuse, wouldn’t it make sense to put more money into rehab and overdose prevention over policing them? If there’s a significant homeless population, isn’t it more logical to fund homeless shelters, public housing, and jobs rather than putting individuals in jail?

    Police officers have as little as three months of training before being certified and put into the field; they aren’t necessarily required to have a lengthy education, and they aren’t well-trained on substance abuse, homelessness, suicide, or other crises. And greater police budgets haven’t equated to better police officers – the money goes towards larger guns, armored vehicles, and everything that doesn’t actually help your community.

  • Is America Actually Becoming More Conservative?

    Is America Actually Becoming More Conservative?

    Compared to other world powers like Europe, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and Japan, the United States falls short of several indicators of success. These failings are why many are reconsidering the United States’ status as a “first world” country or world power, since these aspects place American society more closely with developing nations with severe inequalities. But why? And why does it feel like the US is becoming more conservative?

    When nations transition out of “developing” status, there is always a common thread that conservatives hate: They embrace some aspect of ‘socialism.’ Of course, international political scientists are quick to point out that these countries aren’t actually socialist, but that doesn’t change the stilted way American media represent them.

    In reality, it’s America that has changed; Fox News would blow a gasket if politicians proposed massive liberal reforms like the New Deal today. Around the time of the Reagan administration, America changed its perspective on the government’s role in helping its citizens – rather than the government actively creating programs to uplift those in poverty and other unfortunate circumstances, these programs were labeled as ‘handouts’ that the undeserving poor didn’t earn, compared to the new tax cuts corporations and the wealthy were receiving.

    At some point in the last 100 years, Americans warped their sense of welfare. As unbelievable as it may sound, there was a time when the majority of Americans believed the government had a duty to provide welfare because there was a moral duty to help those in need. Welfare and charity weren’t always deemed hand-outs; folks weren’t seen as failures for using the system, and welfare was a right that every American could feel confident in. Poverty and struggle were not the failing of the individual, but the result of a greater society and the government failing. For the larger world, this reality still exists.

    Case Study: Canada & Universal Healthcare

    Through the Canada Health Act of 1984, all Canadian citizens and permanent residents have had access to universal public healthcare. ‘Universal healthcare‘ refers to countries where federal taxes are used to pay for healthcare services rather than requiring individuals to pay private insurance companies – it dates back to the late 1800s and is considered one of the most visible markers as to whether a country is doing well. On the global stage, any country that can afford to use tax revenue to offset healthcare must be doing okay compared to countries that utilize capitalism to bar healthcare services to only those who can pay premiums.

    According to the Commonwealth Fund, 73 out of 195 countries have universal healthcare – which comes out to 69% of the world’s population. These countries range from Germany, the United Kingdom, Japan, Australia, South Korea, Singapore, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Armenia.

    Capitalist conservatives are quick to point out that universal healthcare isn’t perfect, commonly bogged down with long wait times to receive specialized care. These are the same folks who argue the United States has better doctors, service options, and general wellness due to capitalism forcing providers to compete – but these are all false. The United States has possibly the worst healthcare and overall health in the global north, evidenced by high disease rates, infant and maternal mortality, low life expectancy, and poor pollution.

    NOT SO FUN FACTS:

    As of 2024, the average life expectancy is 79.5 years, which is more comparable with countries like Cuba (78.3), Saudi Arabia (79.0), and Panama (79.8) rather than ‘similar’ global powers like Japan (84.4), Germany (81.5), Canada (82.7), and Australia (84.1).

    Heart disease makes up 20% of all deaths in the United States!

    5.4 infants die per 1,000 live births in the United States, which is double compared to countries such as Canada (3.8) and Japan (2.6).

    Case Study: Germany & Bürgergeld

    Since 2023, Germany has provided Bürgergeld (translated as Citizen’s Benefit), which provides a basic income to replace previous unemployment programs. All job-seeking adults in Germany are eligible as long as they maintain job-seeking requirements and coordinate with Jobcenter, providing them with €502 per month in addition to rent and energy help. At their core, all unemployment programs are meant to keep working adults afloat while in-between jobs so that they do not sink into crisis.

    In the United States, it is extremely difficult to obtain unemployment funds. Our program is intentionally designed to help as few people as possible. To qualify, you have to prove you’ve lost your previous job through no fault of your own (meaning you weren’t fired and you didn’t quit on your own) and must regularly prove you are applying for new work at the risk of being audited and forced to pay unemployment funds back. The US’s strict definition of “unemployment” is purposely misleading.

    This system promotes individuals to work all the time. Labor rights are weighted for corporations and supervisors – employees who reside in at-will states can be fired at any moment, resulting in them being out of work and unable to pay bills while still not qualifying for unemployment because their job loss was “their fault.” This isn’t a system that moves people out of poverty; it incentivizes it.

    REALITY CHECK:

    Politicians hammer on the reality that the American middle class is shrinking. And it’s true – the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. According to the Pew Research Center, this has been occurring for the past five decades… which is ironically the same amount of time since Ronald Reagan and his “revolutionary” economics changed America.

    In 1971, 61% of adults were classified as middle class, whereas just 50% of American adults met that criteria in 2021. The median income for the middle class has also declined over the past half-century – which affirms the fact that the US isn’t built to uplift citizens and the American Dream is a fantasy.

    Case STudy: India & Gurdwaras

    Technically, Indian gurdwaras aren’t government programs – they’re nonprofit charities that serve all Indians regardless of faith, although they’re operated out of the Sikh tenet of kindness. These temples can overwhelmingly serve their communities through donations and volunteers. Gurdwaras offer food, shelter, and meeting spaces, no matter sex, age, religion, or sexuality. They’re what we wish US homeless shelters could be.

    In the US, homeless shelters rely on government funding because Americans aren’t willing to donate money to these agencies. For most, donating would be akin to enabling the homeless. If one’s wealth and life circumstances are determined by morality, then the homeless are being punished. We struggle with empathy, a basic aspect of humanity that some individuals want to present as radical and wrong. If American shelters are unable to obtain enough government funding, they’re forced to shut down – even if there are still homeless individuals in the area that are then pushed onto the streets. In comparison, Indian gurdwaras use donations and volunteers because they have a surplus; they don’t need government assistance to provide care.

    To add on top of this, the United States is becoming increasingly hostile to homeless populations. Americans feel entitled to not see those in poverty, laws and orders are being pushed to arrest homeless individuals for existing as homeless in public, even when there are no places for them to go.

    Why are Americans content with mediocrity?

    When compared to the rest of the world, why is the United States so unwilling to continue moving forward? It’s a fundamental question that both Republicans and Democrats fail to answer. Corporate profit has kept the US from moving economically forward for the last 50 years. Why are American workers so resistant to rebelling?

    The explanation is two-fold. America’s anti-commie can be traced to the Red Scare when senators like Joseph McCarthy used moral panic to accelerate Americans’ anxieties over the rise of left-wing ideologies in the 1940s and 1950s. McCarthy and the right cemented the underlying belief that to be American, one must be against left-wing ideologies like communism; to favor systems like communism and socialism is to be un-American. McCarthyism was a hard time that led to civil liberties being squashed in the name of patriotism and national security.

    By the 1980s, there was a massive media push to convince Americans that their wealth was the byproduct of pure hard work and good moral character. Propaganda was produced to persuade workers that anyone can become unfathomably wealthy with enough work ethic, obscuring the reality that nepotism, family status, luck, and other uncontrollable factors play parts in our life stories. The ultra-wealthy are of an inherently better moral character because they “worked” for their money; the best route to financial success is not through labor laws that restrict corporate wealth but by licking the boots of one’s supervisors in hopes you will be rewarded. Once one generation had taken the bait set by corporations who bribed Congress and Reagan with lobbying, the rest was history.

    Beyond the United States, these “leftist” institutions, like universal healthcare and affordable college, aren’t socialism. They’re common sense. While most British citizens will moan at the imperfect nature of the NHS, they’ll also be quick to point out that universal healthcare is a fundamental right to them. Japan isn’t any less capitalist because it enforces a livable minimum wage. Germans are more likely to believe programs like Bürgergeld are a right paid for by working citizens rather than extreme leftism – and they’d probably be offended if you insinuated they were communist. These welfare programs are moderate, centrist. They aren’t “socialist” to anyone outside of the United States.

    Fundamentally, the second aspect of America’s issues is the Overton Window. It’s a large reason why the US is so different from its peers. The theory suggests that regular folks find moderate ideas reasonable based on the furthest left and right extremes. The realm of reasonable ideas is the “Overton Window,” where politicians can easily advocate for policies without worrying about major pushback. Yet the Window isn’t static; it moves because society changes.

    Take an issue like the Israel-Palestine conflict. One side of the spectrum pledges full support to Israel (the US right), the other side pledges support to Palestine (the US left). The “reasonable” in-between is to either support both or neither (Democrats). Or, consider the status of marijuana in the United States – one side advocates for harsher prison sentencing and criminalization, while the other argues for recreational legalization. The moderate approach falls somewhere between decriminalization and age restrictions.

    The issue with the Overton Window is that moderate isn’t always better, especially regarding civil rights. Going back to the 1960s, one side argued for the enslavement and dehumanization of all people of color, while the other advocated for equal rights. The moderate solution between the KKK and equality was segregation. When human rights are at the focus, moderate solutions are never reasonable or humane. Both sides of the political spectrum play a metaphorical tug-of-war with the Overton Window. For equal civil rights for Black Americans to be the reasonable solution, people had to keep pushing against the window. But then, Donald Trump entered the political stage.

    Trump doesn’t play by the rules; he plays by what suits him best. Trump has normalized far-right ideas throughout his presidential campaigns, both directly through comments like demeaning Latino Americans and transgender people, as well as indirectly by giving a voice to extremists like Elon Musk’s Nazi salute. He’s quick to call everything he despises socialist to stir up American anxieties, and he’s just as quick to fume when opposition calls him a fascist or neonazi.

    And this time around, Democrats are trying to play moderates rather than rebel against Trump’s status quo – but that led to their failure in 2024 because they failed to appeal to the working class of real moderates.