When you study the field of politics, it is represented as “the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations among individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status.” An accepted definition of a politician is “a person who is professionally involved in politics, especially as a holder of or a candidate for an elected office.”
Politics, if done well and honestly, should not be thought of as dirty and neither should the politician who practices politics. One can be an activist and practice politics without being a politician. But I find it amusing when a candidate running for office says they are not a politician. They may not have been one before they announced their candidacy, but once they have, they are a politician. I believe the majority of politicians in office, or running for office, are doing it for the right reasons.
It is because the term politician has become a dirty word that people are running for office declaring they are not really politicians. An example is the new Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. The headline in the New York Times is “Alvin Bragg Says He’s Not a Politician, Is That the Root of His Trouble?” In fairness Bragg says he shouldn’t act like a politician, which indicates he thinks being a politician is a bad thing.
Bragg, who ran in a primary and then in a general election and now holds office, is by any definition a politician and there is nothing wrong with that. Decisions he makes will be both political in nature and have political ramifications. Whether it is to prosecute, or not prosecute, Donald Trump; or whether his office will cease to seek jail and prison time for all but the most serious crimes, those are in many ways political decisions. They can be political even if based on the facts as he sees them at the time. The reality is on what appeared to be his initial views on both of these issues, he is now vacillating based on the political winds he is facing. He is entitled to change his mind, as can any politician, as long as they don’t give up their principles.
I keep hearing U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland say he will decide what to do about Trump and his acolytes involved in the Jan. 6 insurrection without regard to any politics. Anyone who actually believes that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn you can buy.
We often only hear about sleazy politics or sleazy politicians. They make for great click-bait journalism. But in reality, they are in the minority.
Just consider the politics of fighting for equal justice and economic equality, and the politicians fighting to make them both a reality. We have moved far from what the framers of our constitution wrote to make our country more equal for all. That was accomplished through war in one case, but it was also done through politics and by politicians. Do we have a long way to go? Of course. But we must take heart when we hear Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, now the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, talk about her family and saying, “My family went from segregation to the Supreme Court in one generation.” That, of course is a tribute to her family, but also to politics and politicians.
There have been many times I disagreed with the politics of some groups and the politicians who seem to represent them. But I must accept some people have legitimate views, in their own eyes, different from mine. While I nearly always disagree with Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lisa Murkowski (R-Ala.) and Mitt Romney (R-Utah) it must be recognized they not only voted for Judge Jackson but made strong and resonating statements in support of her.
So it will be important, if we are to move our country back on the track many want to see it on, not to ascribe a negative implication to all politics and politicians we disagree with. We will never agree with all that is done in the name of politics or by every politician. However, we must accept decent people can disagree and the other side is not always being sleazy. We need to learn to respect each other and try to treat each other with dignity.
Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist. He writes regularly for the Blade.
But honestly? I don’t think we look anything alike. Michael has a full head of silver hair — and I’m bald. Michael is at least three inches taller than I am.
And yet, as we travel, I’ve literally lost track of the number of times people have mistaken us for brothers. People often — often — even assume we’re twins!
Here’s the explanation I’ve come up with for why this happens: it’s unusual for two middle-aged men to be traveling together, especially if we’re sharing a room. If we’re in a country or culture where out same-sex couples are unusual or non-existent, people search for a label to apply to us. “Brothers” is the best explanation they can come up with that makes sense to them.
Plus, we act very comfortable and familiar together, like, well, brothers.
Truthfully, if this is the worst thing that ever happens to us on our travels, we’ll be very lucky. And so far, it is the worst thing, at least when it comes to our being gay.
In fact, we’ve found the world to be far more gay-tolerant than we expected, even in countries known for LGBTQ bigotry.
Then again, we’re relatively wealthy Westerners, and the locals in most countries have a financial interest in treating us well. Things are often very different for resident LGBTQ people.
We’re also men, who don’t have to deal with sexism, and we’re conventionally masculine, which means we can easily maneuver in cultures with more traditional gender roles.
We also try to do our due diligence before going anywhere, and we always approach travel with the idea that we’re guests in the places that we visit. That means we try to learn about and respect local customs and values — within reason, of course.
But this doesn’t mean there aren’t still challenges to travel while being LGBTQ.
For one thing, something serious probably will go wrong at some point in our travels, and we’ll have to deal with the local authorities and/or police.
If it’s obvious we’re a gay couple, and there’s some kind of dispute, will the authorities take our side? If the problem involves homophobia, might the authorities even take the side of the bigot?
It’s a scary thought.
Then there’s the general discomfort of constantly having to decide whether or not to come out — and exactly how “out” we want to be in any given situation.
When we were living in Tbilisi, Georgia, we decided to hire a driver to take us and some friends on a road trip into neighboring Armenia for three days. The deal was the driver would supply the car and his expertise, and we would pay him a fee — and also pay for his food and lodging along the way.
But when Michael was making the arrangements via text, he asked me, “Do you think I should tell the driver we’re gay?”
“Why would you do that?” I responded.
“Well, we’re all going to be together in his car for three days. If he’s got an issue, I’d rather know now than once we’re in Armenia.”
“Don’t tell him,” I said. “That seems weird. ‘By the way, we’re gay’? He’ll probably be more freaked out by that than anything.”
“But if I don’t tell him, then it’ll come up during the trip. And how weird would that be? We’re all staying in the same hotels. He’ll see you and I are sharing a bed.”
This was a very familiar conversation — the kind of thing Michael and I discuss all the time. I’m generally more cautious than he is. And in this particular case, the driver had come with a very reasonable price and a strong recommendation from someone we knew. I really didn’t want to lose him, and I said so.
“What if he asks us directly?” Michael asked me.
“If we’re gay?” I said. “Please. He won’t ask. And if he does, we can always lie.”
I could tell Michael didn’t agree with me, but he went ahead and booked the driver without mentioning our being a couple.
And a few weeks later, when we finally met the driver in person, literally the first thing he said, once we were all settled into his car, was, “So, Michael, are you married?”
I was sitting in the back seat with our two friends, which was a good thing because I was pretty sure Michael wanted to strangle me. He lied and told the driver he wasn’t married, just like I had instructed, but even that didn’t help matters. For the next three days, our driver repeatedly peppered Michael — and only Michael — with questions about his love life.
During those three days, I was also very aware how often LGBTQ issues — or details about Michael’s and my relationship — came up in casual conversations with our friends.
By the time we returned to Tbilisi, our driver must have figured out we were a couple. But whether he had or hadn’t, Michael was right: we should have told him in advance.
Still, who needs all that stress?
Then there’s the fact that, safety issues aside, we genuinely want to be out. It’s undignified and humiliating to have to pretend you’re someone you’re not.
And, frankly, we’re from a generation where we’ve always seen our being out as a political act — about yourself but also about a greater “cause”; younger generations seem to see it as more about individual expression, but that’s cool too.
Either way, visibility matters. In homophobic countries, it matters even more. By being out and proud, we can act as role models for younger LGBTQ folks, and we can confound the stereotypes or misinformation that straight people might have about us.
But that’s complicated too. When we lived in Istanbul, Michael got to know the man who ran the bakery near our apartment.
In his regular chats with the man, Michael revealed the details of his and my travels, and the two of them shared social media profiles. But Michael was always unsure how this traditional Muslim family man might react if Michael specifically referred to me as his “husband.”
Which is precisely the point. For me, the best part of our travels has been the connections I’ve made with all the people I’ve met along the way.
But in more conservative countries, being gay — and feeling anxious how people might react to that fact — makes those connections more difficult. How close can you get to someone if you can’t be honest about something so basic about yourself?
On the other hand, sometimes being gay has made those connections even deeper.
That Turkish baker Michael met? Not long after we left town, the baker “liked” a picture of Michael and me being affectionate on social media.
An ever better example came in Vietnam, where we lived several years ago. Michael and I joined a local co-working space, which was run by a Vietnamese woman.
Michael does the grocery shopping in our family, and he also knows that I liked the fruit smoothies made by a vendor there. So every time he made a trip to the local market, he would pick up a mango smoothie for me and stop by the co-working space on his bike to drop it off on his way home.
Before long, the Vietnamese woman began to notice, and she would smile every time Michael delivered me another mango smoothie.
Finally, one day the woman said to me, “You two are a couple, yes?”
I was surprised she’d said this out of the blue, and it made me a little nervous. I knew this woman hadn’t traveled much, and I suspected she didn’t know many out gay people.
But I nodded and said, “Yes. We’ve been together twenty-five years now.”
“He is very loving,” she said. “You are very lucky. You are both loving to each other.”
At that, I couldn’t help but blush. I wasn’t so sure about my always being loving to Michael, but I could absolutely agree with the other part.
And so I laughed and said that. “Well, you’re definitely right about Michael.”
She shook her head. “No. I watch, and I see. You are one of the best couples I’ve ever met.”
I loved that she’d been observing us and had come to such a nice conclusion. Now, more than anything, I felt seen. “Well, thank you very much. That’s one of the nicest things anyone has ever said to us.”
“I am just saying the truth.”
It was another one of those elusive but wonderful travel connections. And if I wasn’t gay — and if Michael wasn’t such a thoughtful person — it might never have happened at all.
Brent Hartinger is a screenwriter and author, and one half of Brent and Michael Are Going Places, a couple of traveling gay digital nomads. Subscribe to their free travel newsletter here.
In 71 countries, being queer makes you a criminal. In 11 of them, the punishment is death. Some countries differentiate between having gay sex and actually being gay, but the result is discrimination no matter the reasoning.
America’s religious right is clamoring for crackdowns on gender expression and LGBTQ rights similar to the laws enforced in less advanced countries. Some prominent Republicans and pastors have gone so far as to suggest America should be a theocracy like some countries on the list.
Iran, parts of Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan, Brunei, Mauritania, Pakistan, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates proscribe the death penalty for anyone proven to be homosexual.
A Californian man is facing charges for threatening to “bomb” and kill Merriam-Webster employees over the publisher’s pro-trans definitions.
Jeremy David Hanson, of Rossmoor, threatened to “hunt down and shoot” workers of the oldest dictionary publishers in the US, procecutors claimed.
he 34-year-old sent online threats to the company based in Springfield, Massachusetts, over entries such as “girl” and “woman“, the US Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts said in a statement Friday (22 April).
He faces up to five years in jail or a thumping fine of $250,000 after he was charged with one count of interstate communication of threats to commit violence. Hanson will appear before the US District Court in Massachusets next Friday.
Using the handle “@anonYmous”, Hanson left a rabble of “despicable” messages and comments on the company’s website. Between warnings he would “bomb” the company offices, he blasted Merriam-Webster for changing certain word definitions.
“It is absolutely sickening that Merriam-Webster now tells blatant lies and promotes anti-science propaganda,” he wrote in one alleged comment. “There is no such thing as ‘gender identity’.
“The imbecile who wrote this entry should be hunted down and shot.”
Bosses at Merriam-Webster were forced to close their Springfield offices for five days, wary of the threats to their staff’s lives.
Man threatened to ‘bomb’ Merriam-Webster over its ‘anti-science t****y agenda’
Many anti-trans campaigners have sought to defend their bigotry by cutting and pasting one common dictionary defintion of a woman, as in an “adult human female“.
But under another definition of “female” in the Merriam-Webster online dictionary is “having a gender identity that is opposite of male”.
Many of the entries Hanson took aim of are inclusive of trans identities in this way, such as a “girl” being a “person whose gender identity is female”.
He also railed against “boy” and “trans woman“, according to an affidavit filed by a Federal Bureau of Investigations agent this month.
From 2 October to 8 October 2021, Hanson spewed various anonymous comments and messages to Merriam-Webster. He also allegedly sent the company various barbs through the “Contact Us” section on its website.
Writing on 2 October in Merriam-Webster’s webform, Hanson seethed: “You [sic] headquarters should be shot up and bombed.
“It is sickening that you have caved to the cultural Marxist, anti-science t****y agenda and altered the definition of ‘female’ as part of the Left’s efforts to corrupt and degrade the English language and deny reality.
“You evil Marxists should all be killed. It would be poetic justice to have someone storm your offices and shoot up the place, leaving none of you commies alive.”
He threatened in another alleged “Contact Us” form to “bomb your offices for lying and creating fake”, prosecutors said.
In October, Merriam-Webster reported the threats to the FBI, the affidavit added. Agents tracked Hanson down through his IP address.
“Hate-filled threats and intimidations have no place in our society,” the US Attorney for the District of Massachusetts Rachael Rollins said in the statement.
She added that Hanson is accused of sending “threatening and despicable messages related to the LGBTQ community that were intended to evoke fear and division”.
But Merriam-Webster was not Hanson’s sole alleged target. Prosecutors have tied him to a laundry bag of other messages sent to top human rights groups, companies and academics. Many of which he accused of being “Marxist”.
Other related threats included: the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International, food co-op Land O’Lakes, toymaker Hasbro, video game news outlet IGN Entertainment and a New York City rabbi.
“Jeremy Hanson is accused of making hate-fueled threats of violence that crossed a line,” Joseph Bonavolonta, special agent in charge of the FBI Boston Division, said.
“Everyone has a right to express their opinion, but repeatedly threatening to kill people, as has been alleged, takes it to a new level.”
A study has confirmed what we all already knew – that the majority of female athletes have absolutely no problem with trans women competing in women’s sports.
The study, conducted by one of Australia’s leading universities Monash University, found that less than a quarter (24 per cent) of women believed “trans athletes have an unfair advantage when they play on a female sport team”.
Despite this, almost half (46 per cent) of men surveyed felt that trans women have an “unfair advantage” when they play on women’s teams.
According to ABC Australia, Morrison did not say when asked in a press conference on Monday (11 April) if he would move to ban trans women from female sports. However, he said he “shares” Chandler and Deves’ views on the issue.
“I share their views. We will have more to say about that at another time,” Morrison told reporters.
“I welcome Katherine’s selection, pleased to play a role in that, I think she’s raised very important issues.
“I think Claire Chandler has also been outspoken and brave on these issues.”
Morrison previously called the bill, which would amend the Sex Discrimination Act to “clarify” that limiting sports on the basis of “biological sex” is legal and not discriminatory, “terrific”.
“I support it, as Claire knows,” the The Sydney Morning Heraldreported him as saying. “I think it’s a terrific bill and I’ve given her great encouragement.”
Morrison’s views echo several cases of bigoted legislation across states in America to ban trans women from participating in sports, with particular debate around a trans college swimmer named Lia Thomas, who scooped several wins in university races.
Multiple states have enacted such legislation so far in 2022, with bans in Iowa, Utah, Oklahoma and Arizona being passed into law in March alone.
“I don’t think biological males should be competing in female sporting events,” he told Sky News during a visit to a hospital on 6 April.
“Maybe that’s a controversial thing to say, but it just seems to me to be sensible.”
Richard Hearne, the founder of inclusive cycling group Pride Out, told PinkNews that Boris Johnson‘s “divisive” and “off-the-cuff” stance is unhelpful, considering that he is no expert on the area. “On what basis and knowledge has he made them?” he said.
He added: “Despite thorough scientific evidence concerning trans participation in sport by experts over many years, it appears that some people simply don’t want to entertain the idea of trans people being able to participate in sport.
“I think it’s a very sad situation, especially when trans people are already badly underrepresented in sport.”
A spokesperson for the charity said: “Trans women do not have an unfair advantage in sports and their participation does not harm cis women.
“To even be considered eligible to compete at an elite level, female trans athletes must undergo hormone therapy and rigorous testing for at least a year prior to training and competing.
“As we’ve seen with athletes such as Lia Thomas and Laurel Hubbard, who’ve both been beaten by cis-female athletes in their respective sports, being trans does not guarantee a win.”
A married gay couple has filed a federal complaint against New York City because the city’s health insurance doesn’t cover in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures for male same-sex couples.
Corey Briskin, 33, and Nicholas Maggipinto, 36, were married in 2016. They want to have a child using IVF and a surrogate. However, they can’t afford to do so without their health insurance covering a portion of the costs.
IVF procedures can run tens of thousands of dollars, and the surrogate’s time and labor (which isn’t typically covered by health insurance) can cost $100,000 or more. Additionally, Maggipinto has a six-figure student loan debt.
So the couple tried to use Briskin’s health insurance, a benefit he earns as an employee of the city of New York. However, the couple were told they were ineligible for coverage.
The city’s insurance limits IVF coverage to employees or spouses who are “infertile,” that is, unable to get pregnant through heterosexual intercourse or intrauterine insemination. This policy covers women, heterosexual couples and lesbian couples, but not gay male couples.
As such, the city’s policy discriminates on the basis of sex and sexual orientation, violating the state’s anti-discrimination law and Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, the couple argued in its complaint to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
New York state law specifically directs insurance providers that cover more than 100 workers to cover at least three cycles of IVF for all insured people, regardless of their gender identity or sexual orientation, the couples’ EEOC filing notes.
“I think what we have here is an old paradigm of what families should look like,” Maggipinto said. “You have policymakers who think a family consists of a man and a woman and two and a half children…. But that’s not what my family will look like.”
The couple now wants the policy changed so that they and other male couples can afford to have children. They also hope the complaint could help encourage insurance providers to cover IVF for male couples across the nation.
A city spokesperson said it would review the couple’s complaint once it was received.
When an LGBTQ person is subjected to so-called “conversion therapy,” society pays a steep price. All told, the impacts of the widely discredited practice are estimated to cost the United States $9.23 billion annually.
According to a first-of-its-kind study published in JAMA Pediatrics, efforts to change a person’s sexual orientation and gender identity create direct costs and, as well, indirect costs associated with anxiety, severe psychological distress, depression, alcohol or substance abuse, suicide attempts, and fatalities.
“Conversion therapy causes the kind of lingering lifelong harm that we wind up spending billions of dollars in order to address and health,” Casey Pick, senior fellow for advocacy and government affairs at The Trevor Project, told Bloomberg. “While we’re trying to put a financial cost on conversion therapy, there is so much that is incalculable that can only be understood by listening to the stories of survivors, to see the true human cost in addition to the additional financial cost.”
The review of 28 published studies showed that LGBTQ people who participated in sexual orientation or gender identity change efforts were more likely to experience negative impacts than those who did not, including serious psychological distress (47% vs 34%), depression (65% vs 27%), substance abuse (67% vs 50%), and attempted suicide (58% vs 39%).
Conversion therapy is banned in some form in 25 U.S. states as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. But these bans apply only to licensed professionals, as religious practitioners are unregulated.
According to the report, about 10 percent of LGBTQ people will undergo some form of sexual orientation or gender identity change effort, typically as a youth.
Researchers noted that there is already a clear consensus from medical organizations and human rights groups that these practices cause harm to patients. Their analysis was intended to add an economic dimension to the discussion, strengthening the argument against providing any public or private funding for these damaging practices.
“There is a growing body of research that shows that transgender or nonbinary gender identities are normal variations in human expression of gender,” said American Psychological Association President Jennifer F. Kelly said in a statement opposing the practice. “Attempts to force people to conform with rigid gender identities can be harmful to their mental health and well-being.”
In a new interview with 20 Minutos, Spanish water polo star Víctor Gutiérrez opens up about his coming out experience as well as the bullying he endured as a child and still to this day.
“When I was eight years old it was the first time they called me a f*ggot,” he recalls. “I didn’t even know what it meant. I had to ask.”
Gutiérrez came out publicly in 2016. He remains one of only a few professional water polo players in Europe to do so. Looking back, he says sharing his truth was “the most courageous and important decision of my life.”
But that doesn’t mean it has been easy.
Gutiérrez says he still faces a lot of homophobia from certain players, including one teammate who told him, “I’d rather have a son with Down Syndrome than a f*ggot.”
Last year, he took to social media to call out a rival player who made homophobic remarks during a match between CN Terrassa, for which Gutiérrez plays, and CN Sabadell.
Gutiérrez reported the comments to the referees. Per Spanish Swimming Federation rules, the incident should have been officially noted. Instead, the whole thing went unpunished.
“This happens every day in swimming pools, soccer fields, tennis courts,” Gutiérrez said at the time. “And it is not only experienced by professionals, but also by children.”
Speaking to 20 Minutos, Gutiérrez says that, despite the abuse he’s suffered, he still has hope for the future, saying it’s possible to “reach the sport’s elite as an LGBTQ person.”
But, he adds, “this fight is not just for LGTBQ people. It is a matter for everyone. I invite everyone to become an agent of change and fight for a society that is free from homophobia.”
If there’s one thing that’s certain in this chaotic world, it’s that scientists know there’s simply no real reason to blanket ban trans athletes from sports.
he vexing debate over trans people kicking a ball or running for a few seconds has increasingly engulfed the minds of lawmakers and pundits.
Yet while research is still scant on the area, advocacy groups and many sports governing bodies generally agree that trans people playing sports is a non-issue.
After all, sport is unfair. Some athletes have naturally advantages, such as height, while others have access to better coaching and resources.
Anti-trans bans invite ‘gender policing’, say activists
For the most part, trans women need to undergo hormone therapy for at least one year to complete. Even then, testosterone, long associated with strength, isn’t even the reason for some performance differences in the first place, studies have suggested.
Last year, for example, the International Olympic Committee released new guidelines that said there is no need for trans women to lower their testosterone to compete against cisgender women.
The framework also applies to women with differences in sex development, such as Caster Semenya, the 800-metre runner told by World Athletics she can only compete if she alters her natural hormones.
No wonder Semenya’s career took a hit, the American Civil Liberties Union says, as “excluding women who are trans hurts all women”.
“It invites gender policing that could subject any woman to invasive tests or accusations of being ‘too masculine’ or ‘too good’ at their sport to be a ‘real’ woman,” the advocacy group said in a statement.
The effects of this can already be seen. According to the US Trans Survey, 22 per cent of trans women who were perceived as trans in school were abused so badly they had to leave school because of it.
The ACLU said that most efforts, whether it be by some sporting regulators or lawmakers, to ban trans women from sports are overwhelmingly based on “harmful” myths.
While research suggests that some trans women have residual physiological advantages, the few trans athletes who compete in top sports tell a different story.
An analysis by The Independent found that Lia Thomas, whose very existence has become a culture war as a college swimmer, doesn’t have an unfair advantage over cis women.
She hasn’t broken as many records as pundits may want you to think, the analysis found, and her times are often on par with cis women – and way below those of cis men.
In American women’s college sports, there are around 200,000 athletes competing. Of them, one researcher estimated, there are about 50 trans people.
Caster Semenya: Sports bodies that exclude trans women are ‘on the wrong side of history’
Doctors, academics, and sports psychologists, meanwhile, told ALCU that such bans balloon an apparent problem that doesn’t exist and, in doing so, foster division within sports.
They stress that sex can greatly vary women person to person – there is no one way a women’s body can be.
Many who rally to ban trans athletes shout that gender is defined by biological sex. But scientists have long said that biological sex isn’t so straightforward and there is no single biological factor that defines a person’s sex.
“A person’s genetic make-up and internal and external reproductive anatomy are not useful indicators of athletic performance,” said Dr Joshua Safer.
“There is no inherent reason why her physiological characteristics related to athletic performance should be treated differently from the physiological characteristics of a non-transgender woman.”
Even when the so-called advantages trans athletes hold are trumpeted by critics, when it comes to elite sports, it’s almost inevitable that a top athlete holds an edge over their peers.
Michael Phelps is a textbook example of this, researchers say. The towering swimmer has a 6’7″ wingspan, flipper-grade size 14 feet and produces half the lactic acid of his competitors, giving him almost superhuman stamina.
Many governing bodies require trans athletes to undergo some form of hormone suppression for a certain number of years. But this is a demand that the United Nations see as “unnecessary, humiliating and harmful”.
The council warned sporting officials “to refrain from developing and enforcing policies and practices that force, coerce or otherwise pressure women and girl athletes into undergoing unnecessary, humiliating and harmful medical procedures in order to participate in women’s events in competitive sports”.
Stonewall recommended to PinkNews that sports embrace a “case-by-case” approach to regulating trans people taking part in sports.
The International Federation of Sports Medicine, which represents 125,000 physicians in 117 countries, agrees.
Given that there is little data on the apparent advantages trans women have, the commission suggested last year that each sport regulate itself rather than blanket banning trans women from the competitive sport altogether.
“Excluding female athletes or endangering our health solely because of our natural abilities puts World Athletics on the wrong side of history,” Semenya said in 2020 as she took her exclusion to the European Court of Human Rights.
“I will continue to fight for the human rights of female athletes, both on the track and off the track, until we can all run free the way we were born.
“I know what is right and will do all I can to protect basic human rights, for young girls everywhere.”
In the first three months of 2022, nearly 199 anti-trans pieces of legislation have been proposed, after a whopping 147 in 2021. These laws prohibit, punish, or severely limit medical transition, athletic involvement, bathroom access, and identity privacy among providers and educators. The reality is that these laws are based on damaging misinformation about transgender children, their caregivers, & their providers.
As a transgender man who has worked with gender-diverse children as young as three years old, I know how vital it is to have scientifically accurate and evidence-based information to keep our children safe and healthy.
So let’s explore some of the most common myths about transgender children:
There are only two genders
One word: science. There is a wide spectrum of genders acknowledged by science and biology, well beyond the binary of male or female. Many people confuse sex assigned at birth (sometimes called “biological sex”) with someone’s gender identity, their deeply-held sense of what their gender is. All people have a gender identity, it simply becomes highlighted when that identity doesn’t match our sex assigned at birth. Sex assigned at birth is not as simple as chromosomes or genitals. Politicians and anti-trans advocates who insist on completely rigid binary genders are hurting all of us and know that this kind of fear-mongering is their most effective weapon in the face of a culture still learning about the reality of trans identities.
Kids aren’t old enough to know their true gender
Some critics argue that children cannot separate imaginary play from a deeply-held identity, believing that children can be coached into expressing a transgender identity, or that youth may be influenced by social media to be transgender. The American Psychological Association states that most children have a firm idea of their gender identity by age 2, including transgender children. I have worked with kids whose first words were “I not boy” or “No dress,” suggesting that even some pre-verbal children are aware of the potential mismatch between their gender identity and how their caregivers see them. Research has established that trans kids’ gender identities are as strong as their cisgender counterparts’ gender identities, emphasizing that even very young children who say they are not the sex they were assigned at birth can and do know their authentic gender.
Medical transition is dangerous for transgender youth
Some people fear that doctors are unquestioningly recommending medical transition (puberty blockers, hormone replacement therapy, and/or surgery) for young children without regard for the permanent changes their bodies will undergo. The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, American Psychological Association, and other major medical/mental health organizations all support gender-affirming care for pubescent youth when appropriate, especially in cases where youth are so dysphoric that they self-harm, sometimes resulting in suicide attempts. Child and adolescent gender clinics employ rigorous, constant evaluation of youth that can extend over 6+ months, to determine what medical path, if any, is appropriate. Medical transition is not utilized for youth who have not entered puberty, and there is plenty of youth with no desire to medically transition. However, access to these services can be lifesaving for transgender youth. Early studies show low rates of transition regret.
Many kids experience transition regret
There can be some confusion in understanding research about trans, gender nonconforming, and gender creative kids. Certain interpretations of early studies suggested that there were high rates of trans children later detransitioning. It has become clear that many of these young people were probably not transgender to begin with. Many of the kids in these studies were recruited from gender clinics their parents brought them to in order to change gender nonconforming behaviors or gender exploration. Many of them did not consistently, insistently, and persistently state they were a gender other than their sex assigned at birth, a hallmark of transgender identity.
Trans kids confuse or upset other kids
Some fear that if children interact with or learn about transgender people, they will be confused about their own gender. In my experience supporting trans kids and their siblings at camps through Gender Spectrum and Camp Aranu’tiq, young children often intuitively understand gender transition and are readily accepting of their trans peers.
If my child is trans, they will be bullied and have mental health issues
Transgender athletes have an unfair advantage over cisgender athletes
Many of the laws targeting transgender children prevent trans youth athletes from participating in sports based on their authentic gender identity. Most public discourse about such laws focuses on a purported advantage of transgirls/transwomen over cisgirls/ciswomen, though research is inconclusive at best. This myth begs larger questions about fairness in sports, and the purpose of youth participation in sports. What is the purpose of youth participating in sports? What do we lose by limiting the goal of these sports to winning, rather than using athletics as an activity that builds community and character?
Allowing transgender youth to use the bathrooms consistent with their gender identity is unsafe
There is no evidence suggesting negative outcomes when transgender kids use the restrooms that correspond to their authentic gender identity. When California state law AB1266, The School Success & Opportunity Act was passed in 2013, opponents feared that male students would masquerade as trans girls to harass young women in the restroom. However, Los Angeles Unified School District had passed a similar district policy in 2004, finding zero instances of such harassment. The reality is instead that trans and gender-nonconforming students continue to experience daily bullying and discrimination in restrooms.
Religion condemns trans and nonbinary identities
Every major world religion has historically acknowledged both humans and deities who move fluidly between male and female categories. Hundreds of cultures throughout human history have acknowledged people who identify with a social category beyond male or female, often referred to as a third gender. Third gender people are often viewed as especially sacred, having a special connection to the divine within their given spiritual tradition. Nearly every mainstream Protestant denomination accepts/ordains transgender people, and every faith community I’ve ever researched has some kind of network, formal or informal, that embraces trans people.
We must get past these myths and instead look to science and facts. The lives of trans and nonbinary people are literally at stake.
Kelsey Pacha is the Board President of Trans Bodies, Trans Selves, the organization responsible for the groundbreaking book Trans Bodies, Trans Selves, and the owner of Kelsey Pacha Consulting, working with clinicians, parents, corporations, & other providers to support the health of LGBTQ people. Trans Bodies, Trans Selves, first published in 2014, is a 728-page resource written by and for transgender, nonbinary, and gender-expansive people. The second edition of the book releases on April 15th, 2022.