Trans Solidarity Project

Category: News

  • The 2026 Iran War: Escalation, Ceasefire, and Public Backlash

    The 2026 Iran War: Escalation, Ceasefire, and Public Backlash

    A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about the 2026 Iran War while visiting Vietnam. Conflict erupted after the United States and Israel attacked Iran via wide-ranging missile strikes to kill Supreme Leader Ali Hosseini Khamenei on February 28.

    Conflict escalated, Iran pushing back by launching missile strikes on Israel and in the Gulf. Human Rights Activists in Iran report that at least 3,530 people have been killed in Iran so far, including 1,606 civilians. The United States has targeted nuclear, oil, and gas sites as well as a girls’ school in southern Iran.

    US-Israeli strikes have purposely targeted schools, residential homes, commercial buildings, medical centers, and humanitarian buildings. Further, UNESCO has stated concern regarding ongoing war damage to World Heritage sites such as Golestan Palace, Azadi Sport Complex, Falak-ol-Aflak, Naqsh-e Jahan Square, Chehel Sotoun, Ali Qapu, the Shah Mosque, Jameh Mosque, and Teymouri Hall.

    It is believed that the US and Israeli regimes chose to attack Iran now since it has been weakened from the Israel-Hamas War and the 12-Day War. While Trump claims Operation Epic Fury is to resolve tensions in the Middle East, the American public strongly views the conflict unfavorably, and similar to previous US involvement to promote corporate interests.

    Trump previously stated he wanted to personally choose Iran’s next Supreme Leader after the assassination of Ali Hosseini Khamenei. Unfortunately for Trump, Mojtaba Hosseini Khamenei, Ali’s second son, has assumed the position as Iran’s third Supreme Leader. Majtaba holds aggressive anti-Western stances and has prioritized Iranian retaliation for US-Israeli aggression and the murder of his father.

    Leading up to Easter, Trump made numerous threats and set a 48-hour deadline for Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz – which accounts for 20% of the world’s oil shipping.

    Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell – JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah. President DONALD J. TRUMP.

    – @realDonaldTrump, April 05, 2026 8:03 AM

    A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will. However, now that we have Complete and Total Regime Change, where different, smarter, and less radicalized minds prevail, maybe something revolutionarily wonderful can happen, WHO KNOWS? We will find out tonight, one of the most important moments in the long and complex history of the World. 47 years of extortion, corruption, and death, will finally end. God Bless the Great People of Iran!

    – @realDonaldTrump, April 07, 2026 8:06 AM

    On April 7, Trump announced that a two-week ceasefire agreement had been made between the United States and Iran. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has corroborated these claims.

    Trump stated the strike suspension is contingent on Iran allowing for the “complete, immediate, and safe opening” of the Strait. Iran has agreed to a ceasefire under the condition that “attacks against Iran are halted.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has supported Trump’s ceasefire, but elaborated that a “ceasefire does not include Lebanon.”

    A nation that once styled itself as a force for stability around the globe is now shaking the foundations of the international order. A president who has seemingly relished shattering norms and traditions in domestic politics is now doing the same on the world stage.

    – Anthony Zurcher, BBC

    Both the United States and Iran have claimed “total and complete victory.” Trump asserts an American-based victory due to the reopening of the Strait, which Iran had targeted and closed amid US aggression since February. Iran argues they are victorious due to the US agreeing to its 10-point plan and halting current attacks.

    After the initial announcement, stock prices finally plummeted 15%, and oil fell below $95 per barrel after hitting its previous high. However, political analysts have been wary of the proposed ceasefire and warn that the conflict is likely not over due to Trump’s volatile personality.

    Can a President Declare War? Understanding US War Powers

    Officially, the President of the United States cannot formally declare war and cannot initiate war without explicit congressional approval. That authority is under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which states the authority to declare war is explicitly vested in Congress.

    However, the President serves as Commander-in-Chief, granting him use of the United States military “to respond to direct threats or emergencies.” That has a loose interpretation, and most presidents have used it to incite war without Congressional approval.

    Congress has only officially declared war 11 times throughout all of US history: 

    • War of 1812
    • Mexican-American War [1846]
    • Spanish-American War [1898]
    • World War 1, against Germany [1917]
    • World War 1, against Austria-Hungary [1917]
    • World War 2, against Japan [1941]
    • World War 2, against Germany [1941]
    • World War 2, against Italy [1941]
    • World War 2, against Bulgaria [1942]
    • World War 2, against Hungary [1942]
    • World War 2, against Romania [1942]

    While the last time the United States officially declared war was in 1942, Congress has frequently “authorized” (AUMF) military actions to collaborate with the Commander-in-Chief. Authorization has been required since the passage of the War Powers Act of 1973, mandating that all deployed troops be withdrawn within 60 to 90 days unless approved by Congress.

    In plain terms, the President cannot deploy troops for more than 90 days without Congressional approval. Military actions that do not require troop deployment, such as missile strikes, do not fall under this restriction. 

    It’s not exactly clear when Trump began troop deployment in Iran, although troops have certainly been deployed and are subject to the War Powers Act. Robert Marzan, Nicole Amor, Noah Tietjens, Declan Coady, Jeffrey O’Brien, and Cody Khork were killed on March 1, 2026, at the Port of Shuaiba, following a massive military build-up of air, naval, and missile defense assets in the Middle East in late January. Thus, the clock is ticking – troops won’t be withdrawn, and deployment will still be considered active regardless of the ceasefire.

    Genocide Rhetoric and International Law Violations

    The United Nations has already begun characterizing US attacks on Iran as war crimes under the Rome Statute. Trump’s Easter-weekend tirade took many by surprise due to how openly genocidal his comments were. Regardless of partisan divide, the public views mass killings of civilians unfavorably.

    Many Congressional representatives have vocalized dissent, such as Sarah McBride. McBride made a statement that Trump’s remarks were “horrifying, illegal, and genocidal,” continuing that “a president cannot be allowed to threaten genocide with the United States military.”

    Old-school politicians usually gripe that Trump uses far too much dirty language – prior to 2016, constant name-calling wasn’t the norm for presidential candidates. But everyone has been taken aback at how brutal Trump’s remarks have been. “A whole civilization” implies the suffering and murder of innocent civilians – which is what turned the American public against the government during the Vietnam War once Americans became aware of ongoing campaigns. 

    Trump isn’t just threatening trained military personnel, he is threatening innocent men, women, and children.

    The 25th Amendment: Could Trump Be Removed?

    The 25th Amendment was ratified in 1967 to allow a forcible transfer of power if the vice president and majority of the Cabinet declare the sitting president unfit. It was created due to concerns that future presidents would be unwilling or unable to step down due to health issues, a rising concern that comes with elderly politicians.

    The 25th Amendment has never been used to remove a president against their will, although its language clearly allows it. More importantly, the 25th Amendment requires approval from Vice President JD Vance and Trump’s personally selected Congressional Cabinet – who are far too loyal to use the 25th Amendment. Trump chose Vance over Pence, amongst many in his cabinet, based on personal loyalty.

    Donald Trump has lost his mind and his threats to wipe out the Iranian people should be taken seriously. He’s out of control and his cabinet and those around him must be loyal to the constitution and invoke the 25 amendment. He must be removed.

    – Representative Robert Garcia

    It’s unlikely (i.e. nearly impossible) that the 25th Amendment will be enacted. It is likely that Trump will face another impeachment, which he has already declared will happen if Democrats overturn the upcoming midterms.

    Republican leadership is currently silent and refuses to give any worthwhile remarks regarding Trump’s comments. The White House has dismissed humanitarian concerns as purely partisan and Trump’s rhetoric is necessary as part of his negotiating strategy.

    Still, Republicans barely hold a majority in Congress. The GOP has struggled to remain unified even under Trump, as evidenced by their difficulties establishing a Speaker of the House. Just a few dissenting Republicans are all that is currently needed to throw things into disarray, which is why Congress is struggling to pass budgets despite a GOP majority.

    Republican politicians refuse to hold accountability. Even in my congressional district, my representative has made numerous statements that the sole reason DHS and other programs are not being funded is because of Democrats – but his comment section is always ratioed with people frustrated that he won’t address the elephant in the room: he’s a Republican, and Republicans control both the Senate and House. He and his party hold the power but want to point fingers.

    Of course, it’s also (frustratingly) hypocritical. Politicians rant that they can’t get anything done because the other side is blocking them. It’s not new and I’ve seen both Democrats and Republicans do this my entire life – it’s part of US politics. 

    Are Trump’s remarks illegal? Maybe, but it’s unlikely anything will come out of it for now. Previously, George W. Bush faced a serious lawsuit over the use of military personnel to invade Iraq in 2003, but the US Court of Appeals dismissed the case under the basis that there was not enough evidence that it was purposely genocidal on Bush’s part. That can’t be said here, especially since Trump openly published very clearly genocidal language on his official social media. 

    What Does a Ceasefire Actually Mean?

    Ceasefires are agreements between multiple opposing sides to suspend aggressive actions. They’re meant to be binding, but they’re still only temporary.

    According to the United Nations, ceasefires traditionally apply to an entire geographical area within a conflict – despite what Israel says about Lebanon. In fact, Pakistan has explicitly said Lebanon IS part of the ceasefire.

    Pakistan invited Iran and the United States for a mediation delegation. Trump states reopening the Strait of Hormuz is the key condition for the United States; Iran has stated their key requirement is an end of hostilities by the United States.

    Both the United States and Iran have claimed victory, but how? In reality, they’re both “tied” – Iran responded to aggression and it makes sense that their sense of “winning” is tied to an end of current aggression. However, Trump’s requirement and the Strait being reopened… doesn’t make sense. Prior to the February US-Israeli strikes, the Strait was open and functioning as intended; Iran responded by occupying and restricting the Strait. 

    It’s a pretty defunct “victory” requirement. The only thing Trump has accomplished was killing Ali Hosseini Khamenei, but the new Supreme Leader is even more opposed to the United States.

    What Do Americans Actually Think About the Iran War?

    CNN previously released a poll in early March to visualize Americans’ approval of the Iran War. Just 32% of Americans approved of US missile strikes on Iran compared to 59% that vocalized disapproval. Reuters and Ipsos recently released a new poll illustrating current views.

    56% of Americans believe US military involvement in Iran will negatively impact their own financial security. 86% stated they are worried that the risk to American military personnel will worsen. Just 21% of Americans believe Trump’s military action will improve Iranian quality of life or stability in the Middle East.

    Reuters/Ipsos concluded that Americans currently have bleak views on the Iran War. The poll was conducted at the end of March and released prior to the current ceasefire, but it is important to note it is uncertain whether the ceasefire will hold.

    Similarly, Donald Trump’s polls continue to plummet. As of April 4, Trump holds a 57% disapproval rate and 39% approval rate. Trump has held a negative net approval rating since March 10, 2025, right before he announced his massive tariff plan.

    Taking Action: What You Can Do Right Now

    Everyone can do something. Not everyone needs to be a full-time activist to promote large-scale change. Here are some small actions to take.

    Stay Informed and Think Critically About Media

    All media outlets have political bias. Even if they’re not pro-Democrat or pro-Republican, mainstream media is still often warped by corporate sponsors.

    Don’t simply trust CNN, Fox News, or the White House to give complete stories. This online tool allows you to compare major media outlets for bias and reliability, but consider less objective sources based on the real lives of Iranian people right now. Never spread misinformation, but remember the value in real stories.

    Normalize Your Language to Build Consensus

    Most Americans want similar things if they’re able to get past triggering partisan language. If you simplify it, nearly all Americans are frustrated with the private healthcare system and want something better – even if they’re scared of “socialist” ideas like universal healthcare.

    We don’t exist in a bubble. America is full of leftists, liberals, conservatives, centrists, and apathetics. Use language that doesn’t alienate people and makes them equally frustrated.

    Call Your Representatives (It Matters)

    You’re entitled to be heard by your elected representative. They work for you – even if you voted against them.

    Emails, written letters, and petitions get thrown in the trash unread. A minority of officials read these, but written notes are disregarded unless they’re presented in a remarkable way.

    Representatives HAVE to listen to phone calls. Officials assign lower staff to listen to callers and create reports on top issues. When issues receive enough attention, representatives are pushed to take a stance based on their callers’ views – even if it contradicts their party platform.

    Republican activists excel here. On an average day, right-wingers call their elected officials four times more than other demographics. When specific issues come up, like LGBTQIA+ rights or abortion access, Republicans call 11:1.

    Phone numbers to all elected officials in Congress must be publicly available. If you don’t know who represents you in Congress, use usa.gov/elected-officials to be directed based on your current address.

    From there, insert your officials’ information into house.gov and senate.gov to get contact information. You will likely be directed to their personal website, which you’ll need to navigate to find their PHONE NUMBER. Most contact forms will force you to email them – look for something like “offices.”When calling, have a script. It’s easy to stumble or get overwhelmed, especially over issues that you’re passionate about. This is a practice script I previously wrote over DOGE, but it’s not hard to write one. Keep it simple.

    Support Humanitarian Organizations

    Not everyone can attend protests. That’s life. But you can still do something. Financial support goes a long way.

    As mentioned previously, the United States is purposely targeting civilian institutions crucial to their communities, like hospitals and schools. These are a few organizations that support regular civilians in Iran, regardless of partisan lines.

    A War the American Public Doesn’t Want

    While conflict is currently on hold due to ceasefire, Trump’s volatile personality makes peace difficult to imagine. The American public does not war war with Iran. This conflict is for private wealth and corporations, not world peace or humanity’s benefit.

  • Supreme Court Rules Against Conversion Therapy Ban for Minors: Free Speech vs. Medical Ethics

    Supreme Court Rules Against Conversion Therapy Ban for Minors: Free Speech vs. Medical Ethics

    This International Transgender Day of Visibility, the United States Supreme Court ruled 8-1 against a Colorado law that banned the practice of conversion therapy on minors. This ruling has far-reaching effects and raises the question of whether pseudoscientific practices such as conversion therapy should be regulated as medical treatments or protected under free speech.

    The Supreme Court’s Decision in Chiles v. Salazar

    Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion in Chiles v. Salazar, stating that Colorado law “censors speech based on viewpoint” and violated the First Amendment. This outcome is aligned with recent decisions in favor of “religious discrimination” and skepticism of LGBTQIA+ rights.

    Christian counselor Kaley Chiles petitioned the Court, stating, as “a practicing Christian, [she] believes that people flourish when they live consistently with God’s design, including their biological sex” and hopes to “reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual attractions, change sexual behaviors or grow in the experience of harmony with one’s physical body.”

    Ultimately, Chiles and the Alliance Defending Freedom argued that the Minor Conversion Therapy Law violated her First Amendment rights to religion and free speech.

    Chiles argued that MCTL barred any professional discussion with minors regarding LGBTQIA+ topics unless it was explicitly affirming or positive, making it impossible for parents to find therapists with “alternative viewpoints.”

    Colorado disagreed, arguing that MCTL simply barred therapy that only tried to convert LGBTQIA+ people and allowed for therapists to fully explore identity with patients – and that religious ministers are explicitly exempt from MCTL to interact with minors as long as it is marketed as religious counseling.

    Free Speech, Religious Rights, and Legal Contradictions

    I want to point out that there is something deeply hypocritical and ironic about the basis for this decision, although Republicans have become inept at digesting hypocrisy in recent years.

    Rights granted under the First Amendment are important. Freedom of speech includes protecting speech you don’t necessarily like – this is a viewpoint that even the ACLU has historically backed. I believe that Colorado should NOT ban conversion therapy purely because of free speech, but they should be allowed to ban and regulate medical practices based on scientific evidence.

    That being said, it is hypocritical of the Supreme Court to rule that states cannot ban conversion therapy due to one’s First Amendment rights but also rule that states have the authority to fully ban abortion and gender-affirming care.

    Forcing individuals to give birth regardless of circumstance, including rape, can be seen as unethical and immoral – a violation against one’s personal religion or spirituality, even if it is not part of any official doctrine. Allowing states to fully ban gender-affirming practices that had been previously supported by medical research for decades, like puberty blockers, seems contradictory to this decision.

    What Is Conversion Therapy?

    Conversion therapy is defined as a pseudoscientific practice of changing someone’s sexual orientation, romantic orientation, gender identity, or gender expression – especially to align with heterosexual cisgender norms. Conversion therapy has been proven to be ineffective and causes significant long-term psychological harm.

    Conversion therapy includes a range of practices, such as talk therapy, aversion therapy (also known as electric shock therapy or emetic therapy), chemical and surgical castration, hypnosis, brain surgery, prayer, exorcism, and “corrective” rape.

    Conversion therapy is considered pseudoscience because it has been proven to be ineffective. Psychology, like many sciences, has had plenty of pseudosciences within its history – like hypnosis, phrenology, and polygraphs. 

    Use of conversion therapy is associated with higher rates of depression, substance use, and other mental health issues compared to individuals not exposed to conversion therapy. Despite this, religious advocates argue they have an innate right to practice conversion therapy as part of their mission to save the world from queerness.

    Want to learn more about conversion therapy? Here are some films I recommend:

    • Pray Away (2021)
    • Boy Erased (2018)
    • But I’m a Cheerleader (1999)
    • The Miseducation of Cameron Post (2018)

    Research About Conversion Therapy:

    What This Ruling Means for LGBTQ+ Youth

    The Supreme Court’s ruling potentially affects LGBTQIA+ minors across the nation. Zero states have restricted conversion therapy use on adults, although 23 states have minor-related laws that may be impacted by Chiles v. Salazar.

    This is a dangerous practice that has been condemned by every major medical association in the country. Today’s decision does not change the science, and it does not change the fact that conversion therapists who harm patients will still face legal consequences

    – Polly Crozier, GLAD Director of Family Law

    Today’s reckless decision means more American kids will suffer. The Court has weaponized free-speech to prioritize anti-LGBTQ+ bias over the safety, health, and well-being of children. So-called ‘conversion therapy’ is pseudoscience, not real therapy. It has been condemned by every mainstream medical and mental health association and harms families, traumatizes children and robs people of their faith communities. It is cruel and should never be offered under the guise of legitimate mental healthcare.

    – Kelley Robinson, HRC President

    What Happens Next?

    Laws such as MCTL are not entirely defunct, and conversion therapy is still able to be banned and regulated, despite this decision. The Supreme Court’s ruling states that MCTL relied too heavily on ‘non-neutral viewpoints.’

    MCTL and similar laws will need to be revised to focus on regulation as medical practice rather than restriction of individual rights. However, this still puts minors in jeopardy during this in-between period while state legislatures work to revise their laws.

  • Kansas SB 244: What the New Anti-Transgender Law Means for IDs, Voting, and Safety

    Kansas SB 244: What the New Anti-Transgender Law Means for IDs, Voting, and Safety

    Kansas has reentered national headlines after the passage and implementation of SB 244, which expanded on SB 180 to restrict transgender rights further. Kansas has created numerous anti-transgender laws since 2020 via its Republican supermajority, repeatedly overruling Governor Laura Kelly’s veto power. Here are the basics on what exactly is going on.

    What Is SB 244?

    SB 244 requires legal documents, such as birth certificates and driver’s licenses, to be based on sex assigned at birth and automatically invalidates all previously issued documents.

    Kansas residents received official letters from the Kansas Department of Revenue stating their documents are immediately considered invalid and must be resubmitted following new guidelines.

    It is estimated that SB 244 will affect up to 1,700 licenses and 1,800 birth certificates. Still, transgender residents have already reported online not being included in those numbers despite having an affected document.

    Why Forced Document Changes Put Transgender People at Risk

    Legal documents that do not reflect one’s gender identity and expression are dangerous because they automatically out one as transgender. Although gender identity is technically included in Kansas’s discrimination laws, it will be harder to enforce when you’re forced to be out. 

    Every employment contract, rental agreement, and police interaction requires disclosure. Something as simple as buying beer or cigarettes poses a potential safety risk – it’s not like American police are known for being patient or understanding, and mismatched documents can escalate violent situations.

    Does SB 244 affect people outside of Kansas?

    Not really. SB 244 only applies to Kansas residents. However, other anti-transgender laws, including bathroom restrictions, may still be applied regardless of state residency or citizenship.

    Technically, SB 244 DOES affect anyone BORN in Kansas since you must comply with state law to update your birth certificate. Since Kansas does not allow transgender people to update this document, this means you are unable to amend your birth certificate if you were originally born in Kansas, although you may be able to update your driver’s license in your state of residence.

    These restrictions also apply to passports, since proof of a birth certificate is required for obtaining a U.S. passport – although currently, transgender people are unable to get passports consistent with their gender identity.

    Until individuals obtain “corrected” documents, they face criminal and civil penalties equal to those for driving without a license. People have been quick to point out how unfair this is, since there was no grace period typical of document laws.

    Will affected Kansas residents automatically get a corrected ID?

    No. Obtaining a “valid” birth certificate or driver’s license affected by SB 244 is not free; individuals must pay state fees. Some affected residents will receive an official notice in the mail stating that their documents have been invalidated, but not everyone will get one.

    How SB 244 Affects Voting Rights

    Additionally, SB 244 invalidates transgender Kansans’ ability to vote. Kansas has required voters to present a photo ID when voting since 2012, so SB 244 means transgender people will be unable to vote until they obtain a new license or a related accepted ID.

    How did SB 180 lead to SB 244?

    In 2023, Kansas passed SB 180 to create a legal definition of biological sex – Attorney General Kris Kobach attempted to immediately require all updated legal documents to be based on “original sex at birth.”

    Governor Kelly stated that the Kansas Department of Revenue would continue to process gender marker changes despite Kobach, prompting Kobach to sue. Kobach eventually lost this legal battle after the Kansas Supreme Court rejected his appeal, agreeing with the Kansas Court of Appeals that he failed to provide any evidence that the updated gender markers substantiated a “public safety concern.”

    In the end, despite Kobach’s efforts, transgender Kansans could update their gender marker until SB 244 last month.

    The law also now penalizes transgender people with a misdemeanor for using sex-segregated facilities not aligned with their biological sex. This includes restrooms, changing rooms, locker rooms, and shower rooms in all spaces meant for more than one person.

    Like mismatched documents, this policy forcibly outs transgender people of all ages and puts them in unsafe situations in sex-segregated spaces that make everyone uncomfortable.

    Do Bathroom Bills Make Anyone Safer?

    No. There has been zero evidence that enforced bathroom laws have improved any aspect of public safety. If anything, bathroom bills make everyone less safe by creating an anti-transgender witch hunt that cisgender people can’t pass.

    When bathroom bills first started to come around in 2016, I pointed out to people the reality of how ineffective they were. Sexual assault is illegal no matter what. Transgender people are NOT a high-risk population for committing sex-based crimes, but bathroom bills do nothing other than make people anxious about who is in the stall next to them.

    SB 244 does NOT give individuals the right to demand ID or physical proof of one’s gender while using a sex-segregated facility, although police officers may. You always have the right to remain silent, even when questioned by law enforcement. The ACLU of Kansas has guidelines for transgender individuals who are unsure how to navigate SB 244.

    Instead of meeting the needs of their constituents, Kansas lawmakers have prioritized cruelty… Forcing people into the wrong bathrooms, stripping them of accurate IDs, and allowing government-sanctioned harassment doesn’t make anyone safer — it targets transgender Kansans for no reason and will undoubtedly impact many others who are targeted with animus whether or not they are transgender.

    – Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson

    SB 244 also created a “bounty hunter” provision to allow individuals to sue suspected transgender individuals up to $1,000 for using a facility not aligned with their sex assigned at birth.

    Since its implementation, two transgender Kansans have already filed a lawsuit to block SB 244. Daniel Dow and Matthew Moe (pseudonyms for the case) have requested that the court declare SB 244 unconstitutional and block its enforcement. 

    In theory, Kansas courts previously sided with transgender rights leading up to SB 244 – but if Kansas takes the case to the United States Supreme Court, the Court will likely side with “states’ rights” similar to banning gender-affirming care and abortion. On the other hand, transgender men have purposely taken the lawsuit to force the Court to understand the consequences of forcing men into women’s restrooms despite their vilification of transgender women.

    Are you transgender and have been affected negatively by SB 244? The ACLU of Kansas is currently seeking stories to help build its case.

    Resources for Transgender People Affected by SB 244

    LGBTQIA+ Crisis Lines

    Trans Solidarity Project

    ACLU of Kansas

    Lawyers for Good Government

    Advocates for Trans Equality

    Trans Legal Services Network

    Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders

    Lambda Legal

    Equality Kansas

    National Center for Lesbian Rights

    Transgender Law Center

    OutList Provider Directory

    Trans Health Project

    Erin in the Morning Informed Consent HRT Map

  • 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.

  • Supreme Court Hears Student Cases to Change Transgender Rights

    Supreme Court Hears Student Cases to Change Transgender Rights

    The United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments retarding West Virginia v. BPJ and Little v. Hecox on January 13th, 2026. Both cases center on the legality of student sport bans and transgender rights, meaning the Court’s decision can have far-reaching consequences similar to Roe v. Wade. 

    West Virginia v. B.P.J.

    Three years ago, West Virginia banned transgender girls from participating in all student sports. The law barred Becky Pepper-Jackson from playing cross-country or track with her friends in middle school.

    With the support of the ACLU, Lambda Legal, and Cooley LLP, Becky took the West Virginia law to court and argued it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. She was completely barred despite exhibiting zero physiological changes associated with male puberty due to taking puberty blockers.

    Little v. Hecox

    In Idaho, HB 500 was signed into law by Governor Brad Little to replace the state’s already existing restrictions on transgender students participating in organized sports. HB 500 established Idaho as the first state to outright ban transgender student athletes, which other states like West Virginia later followed.

    Like B.P.J., Lindsay Hecox sued with the ACLU, Lambda Legal, and Cooley LLC due to Idaho’s decision to completely bar transgender students from participating in all sports under any circumstances under the guise of protecting women’s sports.

    What Makes These Cases Different

    Compared to previous court cases regarding transgender athletes, these cases focus on whether it is constitutional to completely bar transgender individuals.

    States have previously been allowed to regulate transgender participation. For example, Idaho once required transgender women to present documentation of at least one year of hormone replacement therapy to participate in sports. These newer laws go further by banning transgender people entirely, without allowing participation even as their sex assigned at birth.

    In consideration of other civil rights cases, the notion seems laughable. It should not be constitutional to bar an entire demographic from an activity without caveats.

    That doesn’t mean the Supreme Court will rule rationally. West Virginia and Idaho are backed by Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian organization also responsible for the overturn of abortion rights in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

    ADF has framed both cases as protecting women’s sports and athletic fairness. However, fairness would involve regulations that allow transgender athletes to participate in some fashion, not banning them entirely.

    It is expected that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of Alliance Defending Freedom due to the Court’s recent pattern of backing conservative parties regardless of outlying factors. This mirrors the Trump administration’s executive order “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports” and new restrictions imposed by the NCAA and U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committees.

    The 19th has reported that neither B.P.J. nor Hecox fit the conservative narrative of “scary transgender athletes.”

    Lindsay Hecox failed to make the cut for her track and field team at Boise State University before Idaho law removed her eligibility entirely. Becky Pepper-Jackson never experienced male puberty and is physically no different from her cisgender classmates.

    Transgender Participation in Sports Is Rare
    It is worth noting that transgender people rarely participate in sports due to stigma and discrimination. NCAA President Charlie Baker stated that out of 500,000 college athletes in the United States, fewer than 10 were openly transgender.

    Assuming the Supreme Court rules in favor of ADF, this decision would not create a national ban on transgender students in sports.

    • Students in equality-driven states like California, Washington, and New York would not be impacted.
    • Transgender individuals participating in competitive sports beyond school wouldn’t be affected either, regardless of state. Those regulations are determined by their professional leagues.
    • Transgender individuals in non-competitive sports outside of educational settings also won’t be affected, such as community sport leagues.
    • States’ individual ability to ban transgender students would be cemented for the time being, unless a better case is presented..

    For the time being, we just have to wait to see what exactly the Supreme Court decides. It is expected that the Supreme Court will formally announce the ruling before June 2026.

  • The 10 Most Important Transgender News Stories of 2025

    The 10 Most Important Transgender News Stories of 2025

    With the return of anti-transgender figures like Donald Trump to power, 2025 has been a turbulent year for transgender rights. The constant onslaught of stories has been heartbreaking and overwhelming. These are the top ten transgender news stories from 2025.

    Trump’s Return to Power and the Implementation of Project 2025

    After the 2024 presidential election, Donald Trump was sworn into office on January 20th. Despite campaign claims denying any knowledge of Project 2025, Trump has managed to implement between 40% and 50% of the proposal, following the Heritage Foundation’s plan to dismantle freedom for all.

    As soon as Trump returned to the Oval Office, he signed a slew of pre-written executive orders.

    UK Supreme Court Ruling Redefines Legal Womanhood

    The United Kingdom Supreme Court ruled in favor of For Women Scotland in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers in April, stating that the legal definition of womanhood was based on biological sex. The case centered around the Equality Act of 2010 and the guidance issued by the Scottish government to include gender transitions recognized under the Gender Recognition Act of 2004.

    Transgender individuals in the UK still have broad protections under federal law, although the decision induced anxiety since it paves the way for other laws to exclude transgender individuals based on biological sex.For Women Scotland is a Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist (TERF) organization that was founded in 2018 to explicitly campaign against the Gender Recognition Act of 2004. FWS has spent seven years attacking transgender equality and celebrated its Supreme Court win.

    The victory by FWS also presents moral questions regarding media. For years, people have defended JK Rowling and the Harry Potter franchise out of nostalgia. – Rowling’s individual reputation has crashed due to her vocal anti-transgender views published online. Fans of her series have attempted to separate the art from the artist after the release of Hogwarts Legacy and HBO’s new television show, scheduled to release in 2027. However, Rowling donated £70,000 to FWS’s crowdfunder for For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers, proving a direct connection between supporting Rowling’s works and her profits being used to attack transgender rights.

    US Olympic and Paralympic Committees Ban Transgender Athletes

    In July, the United States Olympic Committee and Paralympic Committee officially updated their rules to ban transgender athletes from competing in upcoming events, regardless of international standards.

    The change requires all transgender individuals to compete in male divisions, regardless of scientific precedent. Additionally, the new protocol only applies to American competitors since the US Olympic and Paralympic Committees do not override international regulations already guiding how transgender athletes participate.

    Assassination of Charlie Kirk and the Resulting Anti-Trans Panic

    Anti-transgender speaker and professional grifter Charlie Kirk was publicly assassinated during a Utah Valley University rally. Immediately after speaking to an audience member’s question regarding transgender mass shooting conspiracies, a sniper round was fired from a nearby rooftop that quickly led to his unavoidable death.

    Conservatives tried to make Kirk a martyr with mixed results. While newly widowed Erika Kirk has risen to fill Charlie’s shoes, most Americans have forgotten about Kirk’s assassination. Charlie was a divisive man devoid of empathy and advocated for the unrestricted gun access that made his death likely.

    A minimal amount of attention is still focused on Tyler Robinson, the accused party, assumed to be Kirk’s killer. Initial rumors stated Robinson was transgender, aligning with mass panic and conspiracy theories that transgender individuals are inherently more dangerous and mentally volatile. Later evidence proved that Robinson is a straight cisgender male from a traditional, conservative family and was dating a transgender individual during the events, who cooperated in the arrest and compilation of evidence against Robinson.

    Thailand Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage

    The Marriage Equality Act was passed by the Thai House of Representatives and Senate in January, establishing Thailand as the next Southeast Asian country to legalize same-sex marriage and recognize same-sex couples with equal rights to parenthood and adoption.

    The Act was overwhelmingly supported, passing in the House 400 to 10 and 130 to 4 in the Senate. While public opinion supported the legalization of same-sex marriage in Thailand, the country did not previously recognize any form of same-sex union before the Act.

    Other countries, like Vietnam, are expected to follow Thailand’s example in legalizing marriage equality due to growing support for LGBTQIA+ people in Southeast Asia.

    Australian States Expand Conversion Therapy Bans

    New South Wales and South Australia joined other Australian territories in banning conversion therapy. Previously, the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), Victoria, and Queensland had already banned conversion therapy as a criminal offense beginning in 2020.

    With the additions of NSW and South Australia, only the states of Western Australia and Tasmania remain without bans on conversion therapy – which is expected to change soon since both states have already introduced legislation similar to the rest of the country.

    While Australia does not have a nationwide ban on conversion therapy, its conversion therapy laws are remarkably different from American bans. US conversion therapy bans only apply to minors; there is no state where conversion therapy is banned against adults, and only the jurisdiction of Washington DC bans both minor and adult-based conversion therapy. All conversion therapy bans in Australia have included adults.

    Record Number of Anti-Transgender Bills Passed in the United States

    The Trans Legislation Tracker reports that 125 anti-transgender bills were passed across the United States in 2025 across 28 states. The majority of bills involve healthcare access, education, and the legal definition of gender. 

    1,020 anti-trans bills were introduced throughout the year, reaching a historic high compared to the 701 in 2024, 615 in 2023 and 174 in 2022. The only state not to introduce an anti-transgender bill this year was Vermont. Out of the 1,020 total bills, 382 failed to pass – but 513 are still actively being considered.

    New Zealand Halts New Puberty Blocker Prescriptions for Minors

    The High Court of New Zealand has temporarily halted all new prescriptions of puberty blockers for transgender minors, citing a “lack of high-quality evidence that demonstrates the benefits or risks” similar to the UK National Health Service restrictions against clinical trials.

    The ban does not target other forms of transgender-related gender affirming care or discontinue existing prescriptions of puberty blockers like puberty blocker bans in the United States. However, the ban is still problematic since it puts transgender minors in a double-bind – without access to puberty blockers, there can’t be high-quality evidence.

    Zohran Mamdani Elected Mayor of New York City

    /header

    Self-identified democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani was elected as New York City’s newest mayor during the 2025 elections, one of several key wins during the off-year campaign. Mamdani tallied 1,114,184 votes, making up 50.78% of the popular vote to beat previous NYC mayor Andrew Cuomo.

    Mamdani’s win signals a strong step towards a left Democratic Party for the working class. Lukewarm Democrats like Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and Nancy Pelosi have filled the stage for several years, leading to the rise of conservative populism. Additionally, Mamdani is a stern advocate for transgender rights despite moves by other Democrats to exclude transgender equality from the party platform.

    Supreme Court Declines to Hear Kim Davis Case, Marriage Equality Stands

    In an unforeseen sequence of events, the United States Supreme Court declined to review Kim Davis v. David Ermold et al. Davis and conservative allies were hoping the Supreme Court would oversee the case and overturn Obergefell v. Hodges and the Respect for Marriage Act to reverse marriage equality. 

    Kim Davis garnered national attention in 2015 as a Kentucky county clerk when she refused to comply with the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. Davis intentionally and repeatedly denied marriage certificates to same-sex couples within Rowan County, landing her in jail for six days for contempt. 

    The case continued after 2015 when Davis refused to pay $360,000 in damages to the queer couple she had denied since her original gripe was resolved with Governor Matt Bevin’s executive order to remove county clerk names from marriage certificates. Davis’s legal team argued that the State of Kentucky should be required to pay the $360,000; Matt Bevin and the State of Kentucky argued that it was Davis’s responsibility since she intentionally refused to comply with the law and her responsibility as county clerk.

    For now, marriage equality will stand firm as a protected right for all Americans – and Kim Davis is now required to pay the outstanding $360,000. 

  • Astonishing Court Decisions Threaten the Future of LGBTQ Freedom

    Astonishing Court Decisions Threaten the Future of LGBTQ Freedom

    This week saw a flurry of important cases regarding LGBTQIA+ rights, ranging from same-sex marriage to bullying. Here are the most important highlights regarding recent federal decisions on marriage equality, transgender passports, and anti-transgender bullying at school.

    Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Kim Davis Case, Protecting Same-Sex Marriage Rights – for Now

    In an unforeseen turn of events, the Supreme Court declined to review Kim Davis v. David Ermold et al. The case held the potential to overturn Americans’ right to marriage equality since it centered around the ability of court officials to deny marriage certificates to same-sex couples based on religious belief. 

    Who Is Kim Davis and Why Her Case Still Matters

    Davis and conservative allies were hopeful that the Supreme Court would oversee the case, paving the way to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges and the Respect for Marriage Act. In her petition to the Court, Davis’s legal team cited the previous 2010 decision in Snyder v. Phelps to defend the Westboro Baptist Church’s ability to picket a military funeral under the First Amendment.

    Kim Davis was a Kentucky county clerk elected in 2014 and originally achieved notoriety in 2015. Davis had intentionally denied marriage certificates to queer couples within Rowan County in the aftermath of Obergefell v. Hodges, citing her religious beliefs allowed her to act “under God’s authority.” Quickly after, Davis refused to follow federal orders by the Court of the Eastern District of Kentucky and was held for contempt in jail for six days – which she believed made her a martyr.

    After being the laughingstock of the nation in 2015, Davis largely disappeared; she was defeated by Democrat challenger Elwood Caudill Jr. in 2018 and forced to pay $360,000 to the queer couple she had denied. Yet, in her mind, Davis was always the victim, and the Supreme Court’s decision to federally legalize same-sex marriage was a direct attack on the Christian faith.

    “I never imagined a day like this would come, where I would be asked to violate a central teaching of Scripture and of Jesus Himself regarding marriage. To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God’s definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience.”

    – Kim Davis regarding her position as an elected county clerk post-Obergefell.

    In 2015, newly elected Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin issued an executive order that eliminated the names of county clerks on marriage certificates. Bevin had hoped the decision would ease the concerns of individuals like Davis, who believed their documented name indicated approval of same-sex marriage. It had worked – Davis and her attorneys immediately dismissed their appeals.

    Issues followed when Davis refused to pay legal fees to the same-sex couples who had filed lawsuits against her. Davis and her legal team asserted that they had won in a legislative victory via the executive order and therefore were not required to pay damages; Rowan County stated the local government could not pay for the legal damages accrued by a single county clerk. The federal appeals court determined in 2017 that the couples were entitled to compensation.

    By 2019, Governor Bevin had made a public statement that the State of Kentucky would not pay Davis’s legal fees, “Only Davis refused to comply with the law. [Taxpayers] should not have to collectively bear the financial responsibility for Davis’s intransigence.” These back-and-forth actions continued for several years until this July. Emboldened by the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and national abortion access, Davis petitioned the Court to consider her case.

    Renewed Challenge to Marriage Equality

    However, the Supreme Court denied Davis’s petition. For Davis, this means she is now required to pay $360,000 to the same-sex couples affected by her decisions as county clerk without assistance from the State of Kentucky. For the rest of America, this decision preserves the integrity of marriage equality – at least temporarily.

    Out of the nine Supreme Court Justices, only Clarence Thomas has vocalized a desire to revisit Obergefell v. Hodges. Immediately after the overturn of Roe v. Wade in 2022, Thomas stated he believed the Court should revisit Obergefell since both cases were decided on similar grounds. Beyond Thomas, the other Justices have not indicated any plans to reconsider marriage equality – and even hard conservative justices like Alito have stated that the Court is not amenable to overturning marriage equality.

    Beyond the Supreme Court, nine states have proposed legislation that would create limitations on marriage equality within the last year. Since their victory on abortion, conservatives have rallied against marriage equality as one of their next targets. While same-sex marriage would continue to be federally protected under the Respect for Marriage Act of 2022, an overturn of Obergefell v. Hodges would allow many states to stop recognizing same-sex marriages as equal to their heterosexual counterparts.

    Supreme Court Reverses Pause on Trump’s Transgender Passport Order

    The Supreme Court has officially reversed the decision by federal Judge Julia Kobick of Massachusetts, which had paused the Trump administration’s requirement that transgender Americans use passports based on the sex assigned at birth, regardless of current legal or medical documentation.

    What the Supreme Court’s Passport Ruling Really Means

    The Trump administration had made the decision via executive order extremely early in his second term, which was immediately received with backlash. Kobick and dozens of legal advocates argued that mismatching identity documents unfairly outs transgender people when traveling abroad, putting them in unnecessary danger. Executive Order 14160 (Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship) was faced with several lawsuits, including by the ACLU in Orr v. Trump, and Judge Kobick stated a temporary pause to the executive order was necessary while the lawsuit was settled.

    This news is rightfully scary, but these are the key facts to keep in mind:

    • The Supreme Court reversed Judge Julia Kobick’s pause. The Supreme Court did NOT determine the executive order’s constitutionality nor make any determination regarding the active lawsuits it is battling. Lawsuits via the ACLU and other legal powerhouses are still active and pending.
    • This decision does NOT prevent transgender people from obtaining passports. Transgender people are still entitled to obtain and renew passports even under the executive order, although these passports will be flawed with inaccurate information based on one’s sex at birth.
    • All passports submitted or renewed will be documented with the sex one was assigned at birth, regardless of legal, social, or medical transition status. All passports will continue to be issued this way until either the executive order is deemed unconstitutional or revoked by a succeeding President.

    Executive Order 14160 impacts more than just transgender Americans. Before Kobick’s pause, federal workers within the Department of State lamented that the order caused excessive bloat to their workload during a time when Elon Musk had taken over the White House to supposedly eliminate bloat. The order requires thorough research into every single passport applicant to determine their sex assigned at birth – including presumably cisgender applicants.

    Many legal experts expected Trump to revoke the Biden executive order that allowed Americans to self-identify as nonbinary via an “X” marker on passports. It was unexpected that Trump would immediately revoke transgender Americans’ access to updated passports entirely – the Department of State has allowed transgender people to update their passports since 1992 under George H. W. Bush, when submitted with sufficient documentation of medical transition. Since 1992, the process has evolved as each state has created rules and regulations on updating gender information on birth certificates.

    Did you know?

    It wasn’t until 1976 that US passports even obtained sex or gender information. That’s nearly two hundred years!

    Why This Ruling Endangers Transgender Travelers

    The Supreme Court issued the reversal on the basis that biological sex information does not put transgender people at higher risk – which is why media outlets like Bloomberg have stated the Supreme Court is fundamentally illogical. Flawed gender information limits transgender individuals from moving freely throughout the world and inherently puts us at risk.

    In mild-mannered and relatively safe travel destinations, Executive Order 14160 means border agents will be unable to quickly verify the authenticity of transgender visitors. A transgender American visiting the European Union will have sex information that does not make sense based on their current gender expression, which makes a very real passport seem fake or stolen.

    In hostile regions, Executive Order 14160 automatically outs individuals as transgender. The Supreme Court, believing that sex information does not put us at risk, does not make it a reality. There are dozens of countries that treat transgender identity as a jailable or killable offense. While transgender travelers are supposed to be safe in internationally designated spaces such as airports, we are not always safe in those spaces.

    “Such senseless sidestepping of the obvious equitable out­come has become an unfortunate pattern. So, too, has my own refusal to look the other way when basic principles are selectively discarded. This court has once again paved the way for the immediate infliction of injury without adequate (or, really, any) justification.”

    – Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in her dissent of the Supreme Court’s decision to reverse Kobick’s pause.

    Domestically, ICE agents have been able to deport alleged illegal immigrants without due process. Similarly, there is little way to determine whether a foreign country is truly abiding by international standards when transgender travelers pass through during a layover. Each time an individual flies abroad, they must go through security at each location – even if it’s not their final stop. 

    From personal experience, it is fully within reason to believe transgender people will be victimized. I’ve been harassed numerous times by TSA agents in large-scale airports like O’Hare, Kennedy, and Hartsfield simply because my crotch did not align correctly with their 3D imaging software – even though my documentation is fully updated.

    What Comes Next for Transgender Americans

    The decision by the Supreme Court is disheartening, but not all is lost. The ACLU will continue to advance against the Trump administration in Orr v. Trump. It is predicted that the Supreme Court will likely hear the case in January 2026 to determine the fundamental question of whether the executive branch has the overreaching power to make decisions that can easily put citizens at harm.

    I advise readers to use caution when applying for passports at this current moment.

    • If you currently have a passport and are looking to renew, wait until Executive Order 14160 ends unless you absolutely need to leave the United States.
    • Once Executive Order 14160 ends, immediately renew or obtain a passport if you have the financial means to do so.
    • If you currently do not have a passport, use the following resources to consider whether contingency plans are needed. Moving is never an easy choice, but having access to a passport, even if inaccurate, allows you to seek refuge if things become dire.
    TransLash
    Trans Solidarity Project
    Rainbow Railroad
    Help Me Leave
    On Fleeing

    Federal Appeals Court Rules Intentional Misgendering Isn’t Bullying

    The U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that purposeful and repeated misgendering of transgender students by peers does not constitute bullying or harassment. The case was brought by the far-right conservative group Parents Defending Education, which contacted the Olentangy Local School District in 2023 to ask whether purposeful misgendering was allowed since they viewed it as integral to their religious practices.

    Olentangy Local School District replied, stating such actions would likely be considered bullying, but alternative accommodations could be made to prevent students from interacting with transgender classmates. Parents Defending Education was dissatisfied with this outcome and sought legal action.

    Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District lost in the lower courts twice before reaching the Sixth Court of Appeals. At that point, Parents Defending Education misleadingly reframed transgender identity as a purely political issue, and the use of “biological pronouns” did not lead to emotional harm.

    Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District’s current outcome is similar to the Supreme Court’s decision to end the pause on Executive Order 14160. To these judges, stating “objective biological reality” does not constitute genuine harm.

    This news is upsetting and frustrating. It encapsulates centrist misunderstandings regarding misgendering. Transgender people are fully aware of our “biological truth,” just as we are aware of the complex nature of biology after middle school. Yet, humans are more than mere biology. There has never been any singular individual who has truly fit into every single gender role assigned to their biological sex. The pursuit of fitting into those roles is illogical and a prison – toxic masculinity and toxic femininity create emotionally unhealthy humans and generations of harm.

    Conservatives love playing the Devil’s advocate when they state they are simply being objective to biological reality when dismissing transgender identity. Very little of the world is actually objective – society is filled with subjective and relative thinking. After all, money is just pieces of paper that we’ve agreed have meaning; we agree to refer to a woman by a new last name as soon as she’s married, regardless of the name she was born with. Saying “Happy Holidays” on December 23rd is objectively more correct than “Merry Christmas,” but conservatives are the first to put up a fight about hurt feelings.

    What is the purpose of harming others? Most transgender people won’t take great offense to be occasionally misgendered or deadnamed while in the early part of their transition. It hurts, but it’s to be expected when others are adjusting to their new identity. It hurts every time we are misgendered, but we internalize it and move on with our lives under the assumption that the misgendering was NOT intentional.

    Intentional misgendering is its own distinct problem. From that moment, it is a purposeful act of harming others since we are intentionally using language we know will hurt. What is the point of reminding transgender people of our “biological realities,” if it is not to belittle and demean us? Do you expect us to believe you’re making such comments in kindness and good faith?

    It is these same individuals who purposefully misgender transgender people and use pejorative slurs and call us less than human. These acts do not make you appear superior because you are quoting biological truths; they make you morally repulsive because you’re presenting a complete lack of empathy as superiority. These individuals are malicious, not kind, nor truthful.

    In another time, several decades ago, these same individuals would have easily argued that certain slurs, such as the n-word, were not necessarily violent when used against Black Americans. Yet, at the end of the day, they are purposefully using a word that they know will cause emotional damage because it is soaked in generations of hate.

    Most people are aware that words can hurt immensely. In reality, harsh words can lead people to suicide and mass violence. Transgender youth attempt suicide at a disproportionately high rate compared to their cisgender peers when they lack family and community support – and the decision by the Sixth Court of Appeals will directly contribute towards those rates. How many lives will have been taken in anguish before the Court regrets this decision?

    The Sixth Circuit Court’s logic regarding Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District is troubling. When releasing their statement, the Court stated the Olentangy Local School District was performing a form of “thought control” by not allowing students to purposely misgender peers. According to the presiding judges, the school district is not allowed to take any “side” regarding the “transgender issue,” and creating any policy limiting students in this capacity is taking a side. As mentioned earlier, Parents Defending Education chose to frame the lawsuit as a freedom of speech issue – and they succeeded, making the outcome significantly darker.

    This centrist logic is malicious. There are correct and incorrect sides when people debate human rights; the moderate answer is not inherently the right one. A centrist in the 1960s would have advocated segregation as the morally superior answer to Black Americans requesting equal rights versus enslavement and genocide. When Nazis asked whether Jewish individuals deserved to live in the 1940s, there was a right answer – and it wasn’t a centrist one.

    The decision by the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court will NOT affect the majority of Americans. As a circuit court, its decision will only affect states within its jurisdiction (Ohio, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Michigan). All schools and universities within those states will have to abide by this ruling unless it is appealed and heard by the Supreme Court.

  • 2025 Elections Explained: Key Wins and Why It Matters Now

    2025 Elections Explained: Key Wins and Why It Matters Now

    For the majority of Americans, this post-Halloween week was uneventful and insignificant. Yet, for individuals in New York and Virginia, Tuesday was notable; millions of voters submitted ballots after a long first year of a second Trump presidency. These are the key takeaways to consider regarding the 2025 election. 

    Wait, There were 2025 Elections? Understanding Off-Year Elections

    2024 was a presidential election, given monumental importance as the world watched to find out who would be America’s next leader. 2026 will be midterms – the decisive midpoint between presidential elections, when Congress has the opportunity to flip party control. 2025 is neither.

    As an off-year election year, 2025 only had a handful of races. Most elections will occur next year during the midterm cycle; off-year elections are traditionally forgettable since their outcomes affect few people. Despite this, these off-year races proved to be especially important: after a full year of Donald Trump’s second term, it is the first litmus test to predict the 2026 and 2028 elections.

    Regardless of the outcomes, most Americans will see little direct change from the off-year elections unless they live in one of the selected states overseeing a race. Yet, the public is paying attention since 2025’s result will give context for the future of Republicans, Democrats, and third parties.

    For individuals living between states of fear and anxiety due to Donald Trump’s second term, use these key takeaways to inspire hope and faith that life will move forward.

    Zohran Mamdani Becomes NYC Mayor

    Donald Trump has spent months insulting Zohran Mamdani, threatening to illegally arrest and deport him if he successfully won the New York City mayorship. In the midst of Trump’s undemocratic military actions against American cities, Trump has sworn to defund NYC upon Mamdani’s victory.

    Compared to every other race in this election, Mamdani’s was the most visible. In part, Trump’s ire gave Mamdani media attention he may not have otherwise achieved – when the majority of Americans disapprove of Trump, being Trump’s enemy can win voters over. 

    Zohran Mamdani officially ran with the Democratic Party, although he self-identifies with the Democratic Socialists of America. Mamdani’s win proves that Democrats need to shift left rather than continue to push the center.

    The 2024 presidential election was filled with lukewarm Democrats like Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and Nancy Pelosi, who could not sway voters exhausted of the status quo. Until now, Democrats have pushed away self-aligned socialists like Bernie Sanders and AOC because they’re “too radical” – but 2025 might be the proof needed to push them into being the working class’s party again.

    Notably, Mamdani will also become New York City’s first Muslim and South Asian mayor. At the time of this article’s publication, Mamdani has achieved 50.4% of the votes – which totals to 1,036,000 votes. He decisively beat the previous New York governor, Andrew Cuomo, who left office in 2021 following numerous sexual misconduct allegations. Cuomo is a traditional Democrat centrist, forced to run Independent when he lost party favor to Mamdani.

    There are two key points regarding Mamdani’s mayoral victory:

    • Firstly, Zohran Mamdani’s ascent to mayor of NYC is a strong step towards a left Democratic Party. Media outlets like NPR, Politico, and Time Magazine are already calling Cuomo’s defeat the end of the previous era due to the signaled lack of support his peers now have amongst the public. New York City voted for a self-identified socialist; America is finally ready for a change that old-school Democrats like Cuomo can’t provide.
    • While Mamdani’s win is overall good, it is worth appreciating that Cuomo managed to achieve 41.6% of the vote as an Independent. Cuomo lacked the backing of either major party, but collected over 800,000 votes across the city. In the American electoral system, near-wins by third-party candidates like Cuomo are virtually impossible.

    Spanberger and Sherrill Lead a Blue Wave for Governorships

    Abigail Spanberger achieved 57.2% of the vote in Virginia’s gubernatorial race, becoming the state’s first female governor. Along with Mamdani’s win in NYC and Mikie Sherrill’s victory for New Jersey governor, Democrats made a clean sweep along the East Coast.

    Most would assume Virginia is a strong conservative state – but Spanberger won with a larger gap than Mamdani and Cuomo. She is set to succeed Glenn Youngkin, the previous Republican governor who is considered a possible contender for the 2028 presidency. Nearly single Virginia county shifted left compared to last year’s elections.

    As mentioned previously, Tuesday was considered the first test for the GOP after the 2024 election. With Democrats winning in key elections, Donald Trump has even admitted that the GOP failed Tuesday. The GOP must reassess strategies to sway voters by the midterms next year; if they continue on their current trajectory, the GOP will lose both Congress during the midterm elections and the next presidency.

    California’s Prop 50: Gerrymandering or Strategic Countermove?

    On the other side of the country, California voters cast ballots regarding Proposition 50. Propositions refer to California referendums or initiatives decided entirely by the direct vote of the public. Prop 50, specifically, centers on the temporary suspension of district maps previously drawn by independent parties to use gerrymandered districts for Democratic favor.

    Californian voters have sided with Prop 50, to the dismay of CA Republicans. It is critical to remember that Prop 50’s redistricting is temporary; it has a set expiration date when districting will return to nonpartisan groups. Voters also signed up for this – unlike other states undergoing redistricting, California voters were allowed to decline Prop 50 in favor of fair voting practices.

    While Republicans bellyache over the undemocratic and unconstitutional nature of gerrymandering, Prop 50 is the direct response to states like Texas, which began redistricting before California at Donald Trump’s request to rig the 2026 election by flipping additional seats towards the GOP. 

    California Republicans have already stated they plan to sue Prop 50 for violating the 14th and 15th Amendments. Yet, in reality, Democrats likely agree with this sentiment and welcome such lawsuits – since those very lawsuits would also tear down the unconstitutional redistricting occurring in conservative states.

    Currently, California is the only Democratic state to propose redistricting. While most voters believe gerrymandering is wrong and undemocratic, the GOP has used party loyalty to blur their values. On its own, California cannot fully counteract Republican redistricting by 2026 – but they don’t necessarily need to. With the 2025 election completed, the rigging by the GOP may not be enough to keep their advantage during midterms.

    Mississippi Election Breaks a 13-Year GOP Supermajority

    The final takeaway from the 2025 off-year elections centers in the Deep South, where Mississippi managed to break a 13-year-long supermajority. 

    Similar to Georgia, Mississippi is assumed to be a strong Republican state where Democrats have zero chance of creating meaningful change. Yet, Georgia surprised the world in 2020 by voting for Joe Biden over Donald Trump – causing a spark of outrage amongst conservatives who cried fake news and voter fraud since it was so unbelievable that Georgia could vote left.

    Mississippi still maintains a conservative majority, but the recent election allowed Democrats to flip three GOP seats. While most bills are passed with a simple majority vote, there are some circumstances that require a two-thirds vote that the Georgia GOP can no longer force without Democrat support. Overall, Americans want change – which should give us faith that we can survive.

    Want to learn more? Check out these sources.

    NPR
    New York Times
    PBS
    CBS
  • 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.