Dianne Hensley felt guilty. sitting behind her desk at the county courthouse in Waco, she could hear someone crying outside her office door. The young woman wanted to get married, Hensley recalled, but she couldn’t find anyone to do the ceremony.
It was 2016, the year after the U.S. Supreme Court toppled bans on same-sex marriage in Texas and other states across the country. Told they now must marry all couples or none, the justices of the peace at the courthouse in McLennan County, including Hensley, chose the latter.
The crying woman helped Hensley make a decision. She called a lawyer to see if she could start performing marriages again — but only for opposite-sex couples. Seven years later, Hensley’s lawsuit is set to be heard this week by the Texas Supreme Court.
The front patios at San Diego’s Gossip Grill, one of the few remaining lesbian-focused bars in the nation, were set on fire in an apparent arson attack about 12:30 a.m. Friday.
Damage was limited to the two patios, and no one was injured, Gossip Grill staffers said in social media posts. But the incident was extremely distressing, they said.
“It was intentional and was arson,” they wrote on Instagram and Facebook, adding, “Gossip Grill is one of the last remaining Queer Women’s bars in the country. It breaks my heart knowing that someone intentionally tried to burn it down.”
They thanked the San Diego Fire Department for its quick response and said anyone with information should reach out to the fire department and Gossip Grill. The department’s non-emergency number is (619) 531-2000. It is investigating the cause.
“Everyone is OK and damage was contained to the front patios. We do have cameras and am working with SDPD to find out who lit our Queer Home on fire,” they wrote.
San Diego Pride posted on Facebook, “We are devastated that San Diego’s own Gossip Grill, one of our last remaining Queer Women’s bars in the US, was targeted in an apparent arson attack last night, shortly after midnight.” The group asked for the community to show support for LGBTQ+ businesses such as Gossip Grill, which will be open its regular hours Friday, 2 p.m. to 2 a.m. “We hope you will stop by for a meal or a round of drinks to show the staff your support,” the Pride group added.
There has been an outpouring of support for the bar. “Our hearts go out to the Gossip staff & all our community feeling the weight of what can only be seen as a hate crime against our community as a whole,” San Diego resident Celeste Barbier wrote on Facebook.
Parts of a controversial Southern California school district policy that require school staff to tell parents if their child asks to change their gender identification will remain halted after a judge granted a preliminary injunction Thursday to block them until a final decision is made in the case.
The ruling by San Bernardino County Superior Court Judge Michael A. Sachs, who called portions of the policy unconstitutional, came after another judge temporarily halted the policy in September. California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who filed a lawsuit against the Chino Valley Unified School District in August, said the policy is harmful to transgender and gender-nonconforming students.
“This case is about a policy that is discriminatory,” Delbert Tran, a deputy attorney general representing the state, said at the hearing.
The Chino Valley school board approved the policy over the summer to require school staff — including principals, counselors and teachers — to notify parents in writing within three days of the school finding out their child asks to be identified as a gender different from what is listed on official records. The policy also requires staff to tell parents if their child begins using bathrooms designated for a different gender.
Sachs denied on Thursday the state’s request to block another part of the policy requiring school staff to notify parents if their child asks for information in their student records to be changed.
Emily Rae, a lawyer representing the school district, said at the hearing that parents have the right to know if their child asks to identify as a different gender so that they can better support the child’s needs.
“Chino Valley implemented this policy because it values the role that parents play in the educational process and understands that giving parents access to important information about their children is necessary,” Rae said.
Several other school districts near Chino Valley, which serves roughly 27,000 students, and in other parts of the state have debated or adopted similar policies. Last month, a federal judge blocked a policy at the Escondido Union School District in Southern California that requires staff to refrain from notifying parents if their child identifies as transgender or gender-nonconforming unless the student gives them permission.
School district policies requiring school staff to notify parents of their child’s gender identification change bubbled up after a bill by Republican Assemblymember Bill Essayli, which would have implemented the policy statewide, failed to receive a hearing in the Legislature this year. Essayli then worked with school board members and the California Family Council to help draft the policy that was voted on at Chino Valley.
The lawsuit is part of an ongoing battle between California officials and some local school districts over the rights of parents and LGBTQ students. In July, Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond said at a meeting on the Chino Valley policy that it could pose a risk to students who live in unsafe homes.
In August, the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus planned to announce a bill to somehow combat the policies, but lawmakers decided to hold off for the year. Assemblymember Chris Ward, a Democrat and vice chair of the caucus, said Monday that the outcome of the lawsuit against Chino Valley “will inform the range of possibilities for what we should or shouldn’t do with regard to legislation.”
This all comes amid debates across the country over transgender rights as other states have sought to impose bans on gender-affirming care, bar trans athletes from girls and women’s sports, and require schools to out trans and nonbinary students to their parents. In Wisconsin, a judge earlier this month blocked a school district’s policy allowing students to change their names and pronouns without permission from parents.
A proposed regulation aimed at restricting diversity programs and social activism at Florida’s public universities has stirred confusion, with some saying its broadly worded passages could limit free speech. A draft version being circulated for feedback says in part that universities may not spend public money on activities that “advocate for diversity, equity and inclusion” or “promote or engage in political or social activism.”
Social issues are defined as “topics that polarize or divide society among political, ideological, moral, or religious beliefs, positions, or norms.” The document is “absolutely horrific” and goes beyond what the legislation required, said Andrew Gothard, president of United Faculty of Florida, the statewide faculty union. “It limits ways for students to be active members of society and speak their minds, regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum,” he said.
Our nation’s schools face longstanding challenges in preventing and effectively responding to instances of bullying and harassment. AAUW’s research has shown alarming rates of harassment, bullying and assault in schools and on campuses. Research also shows that LGTBQ+ young people experience higher rates of bullying than their non-LGBTQ+ peers. Bullying and harassment interfere with a student’s ability to achieve high standards and have a significant impact on GPAs, school attendance, dropout rates, and likelihood of completing college.
The Safe Schools Improvement Act would establish federal standards to protect every student from bullying and harassment in K-12 schools, regardless of actual or perceived race, color, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, or religion. It would also require states to report data on incidents of bullying and harassment to the U.S. Department of Education.
The Safe Schools Improvement Act was originally introduced more than a decade ago with bipartisan support. Our students urgently need these protections now. With a bill introduction expected in Congress soon, please ask your U.S. Representative to co-sponsor the Safe Schools Improvement Act.
This article was produced for ProPublica’s Local Reporting Network in partnership with The Salt Lake Tribune. Sign up for Dispatches to get stories like this one as soon as they are published.
This story discusses sexual assault.
Three additional men have come forward to say a therapist recommended and paid for by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints touched them inappropriately during counseling sessions related to struggles with their sexuality. The men’s statements follow allegations by three others, previously reported by The Salt Lake Tribune and ProPublica, that clinical mental health counselor Scott Owen touched them sexually during therapy.
The three who most recently came forward said their counseling sessions were paid for with money donated by church members to help those in need. The church said it has no process in place to vet the therapists its church leaders recommend.
The disclosures follow an investigation by the news organizations this summer detailing allegations against Owen, who gave up his license as a mental health worker in 2018.
Austin Millet, one of the men who have spoken out in recent weeks, said he saw Owen in 2010 while attending Brigham Young University, in Provo, Utah. At that time, he was questioning if he was gay and struggling with how that fit in with the theology of his Latter-day Saint faith.
His bishop suggested he try therapy, Millet recalled, and said he wouldn’t need to worry about the cost — the church would pay the bill. He said the lay leader referred him to a local practice, Canyon Counseling. One of its co-owners, his bishop told him, was a specialist in helping gay LDS men be in romantic relationships with women. Owen was also a bishop during that time, according to the three men The Tribune/ProPublica spoke with for this story.
Millet said that when an employee at Canyon Counseling later called Millet, then 23, to set up an appointment, he was told payment was taken care of.
“It was kind of like, ‘Oh, don’t worry, we’re taking care of it behind the scenes,’” Millet remembered. “‘And your job is to just show up.’”
But Millet said his therapy sessions in Owen’s Provo office quickly turned physical and then sexual — with the therapist cuddling with him, kissing him and groping him.
Owen has not responded to allegations that he touched a number of clients inappropriately and did not answer detailed questions sent to him last week.
The Tribune/ProPublica report in August showed that Utah’s Division of Professional Licensing and LDS church officials had known about allegations of inappropriate touching involving Owen and were slow to act. Utah licensing officials say that, given the evidence they had, they believe they responded appropriately. The church said in response that it takes all matters of sexual misconduct seriously and “this case was no exception.” The church said it annotated Owen’s membership record in 2019 with a confidential marking intended to alert bishops that he was someone whose conduct has threatened the well-being of other people or the church.
In response to the more recent allegations, the church has said that it allows its church leaders to pay for therapy for its members, but added it could not say how much money, if any, bishops have paid to Owen specifically.
Sam Penrod, a spokesperson for the church, said it does not screen therapists that its leaders are paying. He said that Family Services, a nonprofit arm of the church, maintains a list of licensed professionals that bishops can refer to when recommending therapy. It does not individually vet those mental health workers, he added. That, he said, falls to individual church members.
“It is up to Church members who are referred to a therapist by a bishop or other referral to make their own decisions when it comes to using a licensed therapist,” Penrod wrote in an email.
Millet, now 36, said going to therapy with Owen was his bishop’s “firm counsel.” It was that same bishop who had given him the required ecclesiastical recommendation to attend BYU, and he feared that not following what his bishop said could impact his academic career. Losing his bishop’s endorsement meant he would not have been able to attend the church-owned university.
“Since he referred me to Scott, who was another bishop at the time, it seemed that this was required of me academically and religiously,” Millet said. “Trying to say no to either of them would have been overwhelming at that time in my life.”
Sexual touching in a therapy session is considered unethical by all major mental health professional organizations, and Utah licensers consider it “unprofessional conduct” that can lead to discipline. It’s also illegal in Utah.
State licensers stopped Owen from practicing in 2018 after investigating at least three complaints of inappropriate touching in a two-year period. Penrod has said that the LDS legal department also learned of alleged inappropriate conduct that same year. The August article from the Tribune/ProPublica revealed that one former patient had reported the alleged abuse to both his bishop and state licensers in 2016.
Since that article was published, other entities have responded: Police in Provo are investigating. Brigham Young University has reevaluated its relationship with Owen’s business. And Canyon Counseling cut ties with him before announcing in September that it was closing altogether.
But the church has not publicly reevaluated its own role in referring these men to a therapist they now say abused them.
Canyon Counseling in Provo, Utah Leah Hogsten/The Salt Lake Tribune
“Bishop Pay”
According to the church handbook, bishops can pay for clothes, food or medical services for members who are in need. The money for this comes from member donations after monthly Fast Sundays, a prayer-filled day when members are encouraged to donate what money they would have spent on food and drink to help the poor and needy.
Church guidance tells bishops that this money, called “fast offerings,” should be used to pay for only essential items, like food, clothes or housing. It may also “be used to pay for personal services such as counseling, medical care, or vocational training.”
The handbook gives little guidance as to how a bishop should recommend a therapist or other medical professional or how to ensure a church member is receiving quality care. It says that when a church member is seeking counseling about “intimacy,” a bishop should refer them to “professionals who specialize in such counseling and whose beliefs and practices are consistent with Church doctrine.”
The term “bishop pay” is listed as an option for form of payment on several websites of Utah-based therapists, usually on the same page as insurance forms and other pay rate information. Several Utah-based therapy businesses require that anyone using this payment method also sign a confidentiality waiver allowing therapists to share patient information with the patient’s bishop.
When asked what privacy expectations a church member can expect when a bishop pays for their therapy, Penrod said church leaders may follow up with a therapist to ensure the member is keeping their appointments and “pursuing goals set by the therapist.”
“Otherwise,” he said, “it is Family Services policy that HIPAA principles are closely followed and the content of sessions including diagnostics, progress notes and observations are not shared with anyone, including bishops, without a release signed by the client.”
HIPAA is a federal law to protect people’s medical records from being shared by health care providers without a patient’s knowledge.
Owen is one of several Utah therapists who have received church funds for sessions who in recent weeks have been accused of abusive behavior.
One therapist was charged last month with aggravated child abuse after the children of her business partner in an online self-improvement program were found malnourished at the therapist’s home. Her niece said during a Mormon Stories podcast interview that she handled the billing for the practice and that many clients’ bills were paid by their local church leaders.
Another therapist is facing felony charges for allegedly physically abusing a client during counseling sessions. His life coaching and therapy website offers an option for billing to be sent to bishops. It also includes a form that requires patients whose treatment is paid for by the church to agree to waive their privacy rights and allow a therapist to share any health information with their bishop “without limitation.”
Neither of these mental health professionals have entered a plea to the charges against them.
Mark, who is being identified by his middle name to protect his privacy because not all of the experiences detailed here are known to people in his life, is another of the three former patients who came forward after publication of the earlier article. He told The Tribune and ProPublica about therapy sessions the church paid for where, he said, Owen held him.
Mark began to see Owen in 2008, he said, after his church leader suggested therapy. Mark had been in the middle of a disciplinary process with the church at that time after being unfaithful to his wife with a man.
At that time, many Latter-day Saint authorities taught that being gay was a choice, and the church opposed measures to allow same-sex couples to marry. The church has since said that sexuality is not a choice, but still does not allow its members to be married to someone of their same sex.
Mark, who is being identified by his middle name to protect his privacy, was referred to Owen at a time when he was being disciplined by the church. He said he didn’t feel like he had any other choice but to go. (Trent Nelson/The Salt Lake Tribune)
Mark, who is bisexual, had been disfellowshipped — now called “membership restricted” — which means that while he was encouraged to attend church, he was not allowed to take the sacrament, or Communion, enter a Latter-day Saint temple or give sermons. It is considered a step below the most severe action the church can take against its members, which is excommunication, now termed “membership withdrawal.”
Though he’s no longer a believing member, Mark said it was important to him at the time to follow the guidance of his faith leader and attend counseling with Owen in order to get back into good standing with the church.
“There’s definitely a bit of pressure there,” he said. “Like what if I say no? Is that going to make my bishop think that I’m not repentant?”
Mark remembers paying a portion of the therapy cost for the handful of sessions he had with Owen. His bishop, he said, picked up the rest of the bill.
Like other former patients who spoke to The Tribune, Mark recalled how Owen had told him that he had a “fear of intimacy” and suggested that they embrace as they sat on a couch in Owen’s office. Mark did not see Owen for long, relocating shortly after their therapy sessions started.
Millet, the then-BYU student, saw Owen a year later. He said his therapy sessions began similarly, and that Owen also said he was teaching Millet to be “intimate” without being sexual. He trusted Owen because he was a therapist and a church leader, and he remembers that at first the embraces felt powerful — and positive.
“I’m this vulnerable gay kid from BYU,” Millet recalled. “I was just craving this physical touch. And it was wonderful.”
But the touching, Millet said, gradually became more sexual, and he found the sessions confusing. Owen directed Millet to take his clothes off during many sessions, Millet remembers, while the therapist remained clothed. They would often kiss, he said, with Owen touching Millet’s thighs or his bottom.
Millet kept seeing Owen for a year and a half, he said, until the therapist ended their sessions when Millet became engaged to a woman.
“We Opened an Investigation”
Even after Owen surrendered his license in 2018 in response to several patient complaints to licensers of inappropriate touching, there was no criminal investigation, and he appears to have continued to play an active role in his business. A woman who worked at Canyon Counseling for about six months last year — and who asked that her name not be used because she works as a therapist and doesn’t want to be associated with the business — said that Owen led monthly training sessions with the young therapists who worked there and recalled that he taught them about “how to incorporate theology and religion into therapy.”
The woman, whose past employment with Canyon Counseling was verified by The Tribune, said Owen had told her that he no longer saw patients because Canyon Counseling’s “business was booming” and one of the owners needed to focus their work on handling that growth. Owen did not respond to questions asking about his role in the business after he surrendered his license.
Melanie Hall, a spokesperson for Utah’s licensing division, said a therapist who teaches isn’t required to be licensed if they are not also treating patients.
It was only after the publication of the Salt Lake Tribune/ProPublica investigation, however, that Owen’s role in the business changed dramatically. First, on Aug. 15, less than two weeks after the article appeared, Owen was removed from state business records as Canyon’s Counseling registered agent. Soon after, the practice noted on its website that Owen has “no ownership nor any other affiliation in any manner” with the business.
The business itself also faced repercussions. This summer, BYU’s Student Center — where four Canyon Counseling therapists worked — began reevaluating its relationship with the business “as it learned of concerns about one of the owners,” according to university spokesperson Carri Jenkins. She said that because Owen had never practiced there, the Student Health Center was previously unaware that he had surrendered his license.
Then, in late September, Canyon Counseling announced it was closing altogether. A therapist who worked there at that time, Shawn Edgington, has since reopened the business as Palisades Counseling.
Edgington said his business has “no ties” to Owen, adding that “any alleged abuse by Mr. Owen is completely unacceptable and not condoned in any manner by Palisades Counseling.”
“Palisades Counseling and its therapists, do NOT tolerate abuse of any kind,” he wrote in an email. “Any kind of abuse of women, children, or anyone is completely unacceptable and will not be tolerated in any form by Palisades Counseling and its therapists.”
Neither the church nor Utah licensers would comment on whether they reported Owen to police. But Provo police officials said the first time they learned that a former therapist in their city had been accused of sexual abuse was after the news organizations published their investigation in August.
“We opened an investigation after we saw your initial report,” Provo’s Capt. Brian Taylor told a Tribune reporter, “and we have offered interviews to anyone who has something to say about their experience at Canyon Counseling, with Dr. Scott Owen. And we continue to do that.”
Taylor said the investigation is still open, and the Provo police are seeking to speak with other people with allegations of abuse involving Owen. He said they have been in contact with “more than one” alleged victim so far.
It’s the first time local police have looked into whether Owen’s purported therapy practices are illegal.
In Utah, with few exceptions, the state licensing division is not legally required to forward information to law enforcement. At least one state — Ohio — mandates that medical boards report felonies to the police. The Federation of State Medical Boards encouraged boards in a 2020 report to err on the side of reporting physicians to the police in cases of allegations of sexual misconduct.
“Best practices dictate that boards have a duty to report to law enforcement anytime they become aware of sexual misconduct or instances of criminal behavior,” the report recommended.
Hall, the spokesperson for Utah’s licensing division, said licensers do collaborate and report crimes to police agencies “often,” though she would not not explain under what circumstances they would do so.
I am writing this shortly after being released from “house arrest” in Mumbai, India. I came here, where the International Olympic Committee (IOC) is meeting, to lobby them against awarding the 2036 Olympics to a homophobic regime.
Some of the world’s leading anti-LGBTQIA tyrannies are bidding to stage the games, including Qatar, China, Turkey, Indonesia, Egypt and Hungary. Giving any of them the Olympics would not be consistent with an event the IOC claims will “celebrate humanity.”
I thought India was a democracy but I was wrong. The day after I arrived in Mumbai, six police officers turned up at my hotel and placed me under “preventative detention” in my room. I was not allowed to leave, not even to get food and water. Four police were posted guard to prevent me from leaving. Only after the intervention of the British Foreign Office was the “house arrest” order lifted. But I am still banned from “protesting, lobbying, leafleting or holding a press conference” about the anti-LGBTQIA policies of key countries seeking to host the 2036 Olympics.
2036 is the 100th anniversary of 1936 Olympics — staged by a homophobic, anti-Semitic Nazi dictatorship. There is a real risk that 2036 will echo those shameful fascist games.
Just look at the line-up of likely or confirmed bidders. They all criminalize homosexuality or otherwise abuse LGBTQIA human rights — and variously also violate the rights of women, refugees, workers, atheists and ethnic and religious minorities.
The stated and probable contenders for the 2036 Olympics include:
Doha, Qatar
LGBTQIA Qataris suffer street harassment by police, online entrapment, imprisonment, torture and so-called “honor” killing; as well as abusive state-backed conversion treatments. These fake “cures” not long ago resulted in at least one gay Qatari committing suicide. The media depict stereotyped, cliched and demonizing caricatures of LGBTQIAs. Women and migrant workers are treated as second- and third-class citizens.
New Administrative Capital, Egypt
Vague “morality” charges are used to prosecute LGBTQIA people, female social media influencers and rape survivors who speak out. Police exploit dating apps to lure gay and bisexual men to rendezvous and then arrest and jail them — often after torture and blackmail to force them to name other LGBTQIAs. Waving a rainbow flag can get you imprisoned. Protests are brutally suppressed.
Chengdu-Chongqing, China
Repression is increasing against the LGBTQIA community, with the forced closure of LGBTQIA centers and WeChat groups. The state has ordered TV to be cleansed of so-called “effeminate” men. Lesbian and trans women are under further pressure as a result of the new gender law which requires women to “respect and obey … family values.” Over a million Uyghur Muslims, some of them LGBTQIA, have been interned without trial and subjected to forced “re-education.” In Hong Kong, China’s draconian national security legislation is systematically dismantling the city’s freedoms.
Istanbul, Turkey
The government harasses critics and jails political opponents, including LGBTQIAs like Cihan Erdal. Pride parades are regularly banned and violently attacked by the police, with many participants arrested and beaten. President Erdogan has labelled the LGBTQIA community as “deviants.” He’s vowed to defend the traditional family and to combat what he calls “perverse” social trends. His regime is terrorizing the Kurdish minority with armed raids on Kurdish villages and the bombing of Kurdish regions in northern Syria. LGBTQIAs are among the many victims of this anti-Kurdish terror campaign.
Nusantara, Indonesia
Indonesia enacted a new criminal code in 2022 that violates international human rights standards. Marginalized social groups — including women, LGBTQIAs and religious and ethnic minorities — are often ill-treated with no redress. Gay venues are raided by police. Homosexuality is outlawed in the provinces of South Sumatra and Aceh (where LGBTQIAs can also be publicly caned.) A 2008 anti-pornography law has been manipulated to prosecute gay and bisexual men. The military is accused of a slow genocide in occupied West Papua. Tens of thousands indigenous people have been massacred.
Budapest, Hungary
The prime minister, Viktor Orbán, has decried what he calls the EU’s pro-LGBTQIA “offensive.” His government has ended the legal recognition of trans people and banned so-called “homosexual and transgender propaganda” that could be seen by under 18s. Discrimination against LGBTQIA people, women and Roma persists, mostly unchecked. Same-sex couples and individuals are barred from adopting children. Pushbacks against migrants and refugees continue, with LGBTQIA people fleeing persecution almost never granted asylum.
The IOC should not grant any of these countries the prize of the 2036 Olympics. LGBTQIA freedom and other human rights must be prioritized over profits, glitz and showmanship. If it colludes with the contending homophobic regimes, the IOC will betray the LGBTQIA victims of oppression and tarnish its own reputation.
Hosting the Olympics is a privilege, not a right. It comes with obligations and these must include adherence to international and IOC human rights standards. No country should be rewarded for despotism — or for homophobia, biphobia, transphobia and intersexphobia.
The IOC Congress in Mumbai will be a success only if it agrees that the Olympics will never again be awarded to an authoritarian regime that tramples on human rights — no matter how much cash and how many promises they flash at the IOC delegates.
The Olympic motto is “Faster, Higher, Stronger – Together.” Now is the time to add “Diverse, Free, Equal – Together.” Over to you, IOC.
Peter Tatchell is director of the Peter Tatchell Foundation. Netflix is currently streaming “Hating Peter Tatchell” about his 56 years of human rights and LGBTQIA campaigning.
For 11 excruciating days now, I have been in tears and terrified for the safety of my blind mother, paralyzed father and two siblings in the Gaza Strip.
For 11 days, I have been watching horrific Israeli violence defying humanity while being fully supported by the U.S. — liberals and conservatives alike — with the stated intent of destroying the lives of more than two million people, including my family and loved ones. This intent and the magnitude of the destruction and loss of life make a textbook example of genocide, defined as:
Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
On top of the horror of it all, I have watched dehumanizing misinformation about people in the Gaza Strip being spread like wildfire, only to be debunked and proven false. This includes misinformation spread on social media by several LGBTQIA+ individuals in my social circles here in the District — I thought we were friends, until I saw their Instagram posts cheering on Israel’s violence and the threat it poses to my family.
How could they be so quick to judge? How could they be so quick to throw their progressive values out the window and embrace mass murder of women, men and babies — civilians from all walks of life? What goes through their mind when they consciously choose to propagate the wicked and indiscriminate murder of people so casually?
These and a million other questions have been racing through my mind.
Unlike those morally bankrupt people who are using the tragedy unfolding in the region for fleeting validation and personal gain on social media, those of us most impacted by what’s happening are not playing political football and “gotcha” with the lives of our loved ones. We know and recognize that no one in their right mind would relish this violence. In fact, besides the tragic loss of human life, the other tragedy is that this entire situation was preventable, easily and peacefully preventable. Anyone who has been paying attention to the reality of Israel’s brutal military occupation of Palestine — specifically its years-long siege of the Gaza Strip — knows this.
Yet, here we are, at a bloody juncture because of choices made over the course of decades, including the choices of successive administrations here in the U.S. to support and turn a blind eye to Israel’s violations of Palestinian human rights and the apartheid regime it imposes on Palestine.
Sadly, though perhaps unsurprisingly, this context is absent from the content dehumanizing Palestinians that many LGBTQIA+ individuals are thoughtlessly sharing on social media.
Worse yet, is the knee-jerk reaction of some LGTBQIA+ people to grossly generalize and reduce the tragedy we are witnessing to plainly stupid points such as: Israel has Tel Aviv Pride. Hamas hates gays. I, therefore, stand with Israel. Points like this makes no sense.
Homophobia in the Gaza Strip, and Palestine generally, is a problem, just like it is a problem in many parts of the U.S. and many countries around the world. It is not a Hamas problem. Meanwhile, the cause of how and why we got to this horrific violence is squarely an Israeli problem: The brutal military occupation and apartheid regime. Just because Israel hosts an annual Pride parade, it does not mean Israel is a haven for LGBTQIA+ people — certainly not for LGBTQIA+ Palestinians, and certainly not when the Israeli government’s own laws regarding LGBTQIA+ matters is mixed at best. After all, Pride parades are not a measure of a country’s human rights record, which in the case of Israel is abysmal when considering its actions toward Palestine.
LGBTQIA+ posts standing with Israel based on believing in freedom, equality and dignity miss the mark and fail to make any sense when the same freedom, equality, and dignity are not consistently applied and extended to human beings everywhere, including Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. The only way such posts could make sense is by completely removing the humanity of Palestinians — a hateful and repugnant offense.
Freedom, equality and dignity are indivisible human rights — they cannot be upheld and protected willy-nilly, unless the intent is to discriminate and dehumanize. One is either for them or against them — there is no middle ground or cherry picking.
So, if you are reading this and have shared content supporting Israel and stripping Palestinians of their humanity over the past 11 days, which can very well harm my family, I ask that you stop and remember, at the end of the day, as LGBTQIA+ people, we know what it’s like to feel unsafe in our own skin, to be stripped of our humanity for no other reason than existing as we are. That’s what Palestinians like me and my family are experiencing now and have been enduring for years and years.
It is, therefore, incumbent on all of us to make sure that humanity — the same humanity we fight for in the advocacy for our rights and safety as LGBTQIA+ people — prevails so that we can see better days ahead.
Anything less would be a betrayal of our humanity and a blatant display of hypocrisy and warmongering.
If you cannot find it in your heart to simply stop and think before blindly signing up for genocide with an “I stand with Israel” post, your hatred, ignorance and unwillingness are part of the problem that got us to this horrific violence to begin with.
Dorgham Abusalim is a writer and communications professional based in D.C.
Eighteen state attorneys general signed a brief asking a federal judge in Florida to allow states to ban gender-affirming care for transgender people from being covered under state Medicaid programs, using inflammatory language to explain why trans people shouldn’t have equal access to health care.
Last year, the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) finalized a rule banning healthcare providers from billing the state’s Medicaid program for trans people’s gender-affirming care, a rule that covered puberty blockers, hormone therapies, and surgical procedures for adults. Medicaid is a joint federal and state program providing healthcare coverage for low-income people.
Related:
Four trans people and their families sued in federal court for access to needed health care and U.S. District Court Judge Robert Hinkle invalidated AHCA’s rule this past June with a scathing 54-page opinion. “Gender identity is real,” Hinkle wrote, accusing AHCA of making the rule “for political reasons.”
Get the Daily Brief
The news you care about, reported on by the people who care about you:
“Pushing individuals away from their transgender identity is not a legitimate state interest,” Hinkle wrote.
Florida is appealing the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Eighteen Republican attorneys general from other states signed a briefsupporting Florida, arguing that doctors are greedily pushing gender-affirming care on people to make money, including the doctors who work for national medical organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Endocrine Society, which all support access to gender-affirming care for transgender people. The brief’s point was that Judge Hinkle relied on the research of the medical organizations and heeded their opinions more than the odd doctors Florida was able to find to say that trans people don’t need gender-affirming care.
“Medical interest groups, composed of physicians self-interested in Medicaid coverage, are not neutral arbiters of ‘medical opinion,’” the Republicans wrote, accusing the organizations of stifling debate.
The argument is similar to one that AHCA made in the original case that Hinkle rejected, calling it “fanciful to believe that all the many medical associations who have endorsed gender-affirming care… have so readily sold their patients down the river.”
In June, Hinkle ruled that AHCA’s rule violates the federal Medicaid statute, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Affordable Care Act. He also ordered the state to cover gender-affirming care for transgender people on the state’s Medicaid program.
“I am extremely relieved,” said August Dekker, a 29-year-old transgender man and the lead plaintiff in the case. “Florida’s policy effectively denied me the treatment my doctors recommended,” he said. “Now access to that lifesaving, critical care can continue.”
Advocacy groups estimate that 9,000 transgender people in Florida use Medicaid to fund their treatments.
The states that signed the brief are Alabama, Arkansas, Tennessee, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia.
A Japanese family court has ruled that the country’s requirement that transgender people be surgically sterilized to change their legal gender is unconstitutional. The ruling is the first of its kind in Japan, and comes as the Supreme Court considers a separate case about the same issue.
In 2021, Gen Suzuki, a transgender man, filed a court request to have his legal gender recognized as male without undergoing sterilization surgery as prescribed by national law. This week the Shizuoka Family Court ruled in his favor, with the judge writing: “Surgery to remove the gonads has the serious and irreversible result of loss of reproductive function. I cannot help but question whether being forced to undergo such treatment lacks necessity or rationality, considering the level of social chaos it may cause and from a medical perspective.”
In Japan, transgender people who want to legally change their gender must appeal to a family court. Under the Gender Identity Disorder (GID) Special Cases Act, applicants must undergo a psychiatric evaluation and be surgically sterilized. They also must be single and without children younger than 18.
In 2019, Japan’s Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling that stated the law did not violate Japan’s constitution. However, two of the justices recognized the need for reform. “The suffering that [transgender people] face in terms of gender is also of concern to society that is supposed to embrace diversity in gender identity,” they wrote. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a trans government employee using the restrooms in accordance with her gender identity. Her employer had barred her from using the women’s restrooms on her office floor because she had not undergone the surgical procedures and therefore had not changed her legal gender.
The current case before the grand chamber of the Supreme Court asks the justices to eliminate the outdated and abusive sterilization requirement.
