Almost half (46 per cent) of LGBT+ school students in England do not feel safe to be themselves at school, a study has revealed.
LGBT+ education charity Diversity Role Models released its “Pathways to LGBT+ Inclusion” report Wednesday (18 November), which quizzed 6,136 students and 5,733 adults from 90 schools, which were all “at the start” of their journey towards LGBT+ inclusion.
It found that across the board, 46 per cent of LGBT+ students would not feel safe coming out at school. Of secondary school students, this figure jumped to almost three quarters (73 per cent).
In a foreword for the report, presenter Clare Balding said: “Just let that sink in. The place you are relying upon to prepare you for the world, the place where you are supposed to get an all-round education is not currently a safe space if you are LGBT+.”
The report also highlighted a huge disparity between the experiences of LGBT+ students and what the teachers responsible for their care were willing to admit.
While 42 per cent of year five and six primary school students and 54 per cent of secondary school students said that homophobic, biphobic and transphobic language was common at their school, just 26 per cent of teachers admitted this was the case.
When this language did come up, just 67 per cent of primary school teachers and 78 per cent of secondary school teachers said they challenged it.
But, according to students, the situation is even worse. Less than a third (32 per cent) of secondary school kids said that staff challenged anti-LGBT+ language.
Balding added: “The report has discovered that parents, staff and governors tend to underestimate the occurrence of bullying compared to the pupils themselves.
“This is crucial because what adults may think and how adults may react to language will naturally be more considered and resilient. We grow stronger as we grow older but children don’t have those layers of protective experience.
“They respond and react as if stung or burnt and it’s why it is so important that we take these findings seriously and we, as adults, react quickly to protect the most vulnerable.”
Researchers spoke to “selective and non-selective schools, independent, faith schools and non-denominational schools, local-authority-maintained schools, academies, free schools and mixed- and single-gender schools” in London, the West Midlands and the South East of England, to compile the report.
Discrimination and bullying at school can have tragic consequences for LGBT+ youth, who are already at greater risk for mental health problems.
LGBTQ candidates once again made history in terms of the overall number elected to Congress and state legislatures across the country. However, many of them had to contend with homophobic and transphobic attack ads this election cycle.
“There is little doubt that millions of dollars in homophobic and transphobic attacks ads devastated our candidates in key swing districts during the final weeks of their campaigns,” said Annise Parker, president of the LGBTQ Victory Fund, which trains and advocates for queer candidates at all levels of government. “Bigoted politicians and operatives who thrive in the politics of hate were able to peel away support from voters who don’t yet know our community.”
Bigoted ads did not spell defeat for all LGBTQ candidates they targeted, but even the candidates who overcame the attacks did have to invest resources to respond to them.
Impacts ‘hard to quantify’
When it comes to homophobic and transphobic political attacks, “it is hard to quantify the effects,” according to Gabriele Magni, an assistant professor of political science at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles.
“When you have an incumbent president who is such a polarizing figure, it becomes harder to disentangle what is the effect the homophobic attack ad and what is the effect of having Donald Trump on the ballot,” he said.
He also explained that “voter suppression efforts that target constituents that are generally most supportive of Democratic candidates,” also hurt LGBTQ candidates, as the lion’s share of them run as Democrats (at least 90 percent, according to LGBTQ Victory Fund’s estimate).
Whether a candidate won or lost may not be indicative of the impact of the bigoted attacks either, as Magni said the bar tends to be higher for LGBTQ candidates who make it to the general election, so “the exceptional quality of some of these candidates allowed them to overcome the negative effects of some of these attacks.”
Nonincumbents and purple districts
Homophobic and transphobic attacks produced mixed impacts on congressional races, with nonincumbents and those in purple districts most likely to suffer defeat.
In New Hampshire, Democrat Chris Pappas — who in 2018 became the first openly gay man to represent the state in Congress — was able to stave off what supporters called homophobic challenges to his integrity to win re-election against Republican challenger Matt Mowers.
During a debate Oct, 21, Mowers brought up Pappas’ alleged relationship with a lobbyist and accused the candidate of impropriety. Pappas denied the claim, and in a statement after the debate, he said Mowers’ behavior was “despicable” and that he had “crossed a line.”
Rep. Chris Pappas, D-N.H., speaks during a news conference on Sept. 27, 2019.Bill Clark / CQ Roll Call via AP
Mowers’ campaign manager, John Corbett, called the homophobia claims “untruthful accusations” designed to divert public attention from policy issues and obscure Pappas’ relationship with the lobbyist.
“Matt Mowers learned the hard way that his desperate homophobic dog whistle attacks cost him votes amongst Republicans and independent voters in the closing days of the campaign,” Lucas Meyer, campaign manager for Pappas, said in an email to NBC News after his election victory. “Granite Staters saw right through his baseless attacks and rejected his blatant bigotry that he made the focus of his closing message.”
While Pappas was in a purple district, which President Donald Trump carried in 2016, he had the advantage of incumbency this year. “Homophobic attacks are less effective against well-known candidates, because voters already know them,” Magni said.
Nonincumbent congressional hopefuls in purple districts had a tougher time trying to flip red to blue districts.
Two races for which LGBTQ advocates and Democrats had high hopes — Gina Ortiz Jones and John Hoadley — did not pan out.
Hoadley lost against incumbent Republican Rep. Fred Upton, who voted against the Equality Act last year and for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in 2004 and 2006.
Texas Democrat Gina Ortiz Jones, who ran for a House seat in 2018 and 2020, in San Antonio, Texas, on Aug. 10, 2018.Eric Gay / AP file
Former U.S. Air Force Capt. Jones lost to Republican Tony Gonzales, a Navy veteran, failing to flip Texas’ 23rd Congressional District for Democrats.
The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) spent millions of dollars on attack ads against both of these candidates.
“If you are running for congress as a nonincumbent,” Magni said, “not so many people know who they are.” This means that voters may “rely more heavily on stereotypes or homophobic tropes,” especially in the context of Covid-19 in which personal contact is even more limited.
By contrast, derogatory comments directed at Rep.-elect Ritchie Torres did not harm his chances of becoming the first Afro-Latinx LGBTQ person elected to Congress. He easily won the general election for his congressional seat against his Republican opponent in one of the most progressive districts in the country. Magni said the attacks are “less consequential” in heavily Democratic districts like New York’s 15th.
Hateful messages
Magni explained that the diverse candidate pool, with many women, people of color and transgender candidates are “especially vulnerable targets” for anti-LGBTQ messaging.
Jenna Wadsworth, an outspoken progressive, lost her bid for North Carolina’s agriculture commissioner. In October, Wadsworth became the target of online vitriol after she posted a video asking viewers if Donald Trump’s diagnosis with Covid-19 was their “favorite or most favorite October surprise.”
Wadsworth, who described animosity toward her prior to the video as “minimal,” quickly became inundated with thousands of messages on social media.
Many of the hateful messages, however, were not about Wadsworth’s controversial remarks about Trump’s health — they were about her being unfit for office because of her sexual orientation, gender identity and sex.
“That does a lot to you emotionally, psychologically. It’s very draining,” she said.
Some of the messages made Wadsworth fear for her physical safety. “I received gang rape threats after that video,” Wadsworth said. “Until election night, I was not able to stay in my own home for three weeks.”
Magni described North Carolina as a “deeply divided state when it comes to LGBTQ attitudes” and added that part of the electorate “is receptive to these kinds of attacks.”
Wadsworth, who at 31 would have been the youngest LGBTQ statewide elected official in the country’s history, lost the race and said she believes her campaign suffered due to the bigoted attacks. She said she has not decided what is next for her politically.
Unexpected boost?
Several candidates experienced an unexpected boost in support and financing as a result of homophobic and transphobic attacks.
Shevrin Jones easily won his race for Florida Legislature last Tuesday to become Florida’s first LGBTQ state senator.
In August, a blood bank rejected Jones when he sought to donate plasma after recovering from Covid-19 because he is in a same-sex relationship. A robotext, whose sponsor remains unknown, was sent to voters saying Jones was “discriminated against for recent homosexual contact,” and linked to ShevJones.com, which is not Jones’ website and does not appear to ever have had any information on it. Jones was also the subject of a homophobic flyer with a photo of himself and his partner on vacation and asked, “Is this who you want for your next state senator?”
Shevrin Jones.Greg Reed Photography
The attacks did not stop Jones, and paradoxically may have helped in terms of support and funding.
“We raised over $1 million,” Jones said. “When those attacks were coming people just gave more.”
Brianna Titone, who won her bid for re-election to the Colorado Statehouse, experienced several transphobic attack ads.
The group Take Back Colorado released a Facebook ad this month that misgendered Titone and referred to her by her “deadname,” the name she used before her transition. The ad also claimed Titone has “always supported violence” and sexualizes children. Then Republican state Rep. Stephen Humphrey voiced a robocall paid for by the Colorado Family Values Victory Fund attacking Titone’s gender identity.
Magni said transgender candidates may be more likely to become the target of attacks because “public support for trans rights is still lower” than for lesbian and gay rights.
Titone triumphed over the attacks, which led to increases in volunteer support and campaign contributions. “The attacks I had to endure didn’t create any obstacles for me that I didn’t already have,” she told NBC News. “If anything, it helped me with raising money and it convinced some people to support me based on the ads.”
She also feels that her attackers were emboldened by the Trump administration that has “given permission to be rude.”
“I’m curious to see how my new colleagues will treat me. Will they be towing the line of those messages, or will they realize that that is not productive and move away?,” she said.
Omar Leos, who won his race for North East School District board in San Antonio, had a similar experience.
“I think it helped energize the campaign. It mobilized more people to come out to volunteer and it definitely helped me financially too,” Leos told NBC News.
“In my personal opinion, it backfired on them,” Leos said.
Texas Family Action, a political action committee affiliated with the conservative San Antonio Family Association, sent a mailer to voters in Leos’ district describing him as being “‘married’ to same-sex man” and noting he has “no children” in the school district. In contrast, the mailer described Leos’ opponent, Ione McGinty, as a “wife and mother of 6.”
While Leos still won, Magni said that such attacks can “force the campaign to redirect the resources and shift media focus,” he said. “The campaign has to respond.”
Leos did say the homophobic attacks prompted him to shift his campaign message to highlight the unwillingness of his opponent to be an advocate for LGBTQ students.
“Before on my signs was ‘Keep Omar Leos,’” he said. After the homophobic attacks he shifted his message to “A voice for all.”
“I’m a voice for all students, for all people,” Leos said.
‘Soldier on’
There is no reason to believe LGBTQ candidates have seen the last of homophobic and transphobic attacks, but Magni said a swift response by candidates and their allies is important to prevent their opponents from defining the narrative of the campaign.
LGBTQ candidates also need to remember that they are targets because they are strong candidates who have the potential to win, Magni added.
“That should encourage them to soldier on and to keep in mind the ultimate goal — that is, that they are running to serve their constituents.”
Bias attacks based on gender identity rose significantly in 2019, according to a new FBI report on hate crimes.
Released this week, the annual Uniform Crime Report indicates that, last year, 227 hate-crime incidents were motivated by gender-identity bias. That’s up 20 percent from 2018, when 189 such incidents were reported.
Drilling into the data, there were 175 victims of anti-transgender bias and 52 victims of anti-gender-nonconforming bias reported last year, compared to 160 victims of anti-trans bias and 29 victims of anti-gender-nonconforming bias the year prior.
Civil rights advocates have long criticized the report for failing to represent the full number of hate crimes in the United States, since reporting isn’t mandatory. Last year, only 2,172 law enforcement agencies out of about 15,000, or less than 15 percent, reported hate crime data, the FBI said.
Since 2018, the number of agencies submitting hate crime statistics actually decreased by 451.
More than 70 cities with populations over 100,000 either failed to report data or affirmatively reported zero hate crimes. The Human Rights Campaign, the country’s largest LGBTQ civil rights group, said cities of that size not having a single hate crime all year “is clearly not credible.”
“The lack of mandatory reporting means that the FBI data, while helpful, paints an incomplete picture of hate crimes against the LGBTQ and other communities,” the organization said in a statement.https://dataviz.nbcnews.com/projects/20200714-trans-homicide-annual-barchart/index.html?initialWidth=560&childId=embed-20200128-coronavirus-us-count&parentTitle=Anti-transgender%20hate%20crimes%20soared%2020%20percent%20in%202019&=
In 2019, at least 27 transgender or gender-nonconforming persons died by violence, according to the group. Again, the real number is likely higher, as not all deaths are accurately reported, nor are all victims accurately identified.
In 2020, that figure has risen to 36, the most since the group began tracking these deaths in 2013, with more than a month left in the year.
“This year, we saw a tragic new record of fatal violence against transgender and gender-nonconforming people in this country, particularly against Black and Brown transgender women,” HRC President Alphonso David said in a statement. “These alarming statistics represent real trauma for individuals and families across this country who have to bear the brunt of these hate crimes.”
In a statement released prior to the election, Biden vowed to “put forward comprehensive solutions to help empower the transgender and gender-nonconforming community and prioritize the prosecution of anti-transgender violence.”
The FBI’s annual report defines hate crimes as those motivated by bias based on a person’s race, religion, gender or sexual orientation, among other categories.
In all, the bureau received 7,314 reports of hate crimes in 2019, up from 7,120 in 2018 and approaching the record 7,783 in 2008.
Reported attacks based on sexual orientation dipped slightly, from 1,445 in 2018 to 1,429 in 2019. They represented 16.8 percent of all hate crimes, the third largest category after race and religion.
Crimes involving religion-based bias rose, with attacks targeting Jewish people and institutions increasing 14 percent and those targeting Muslims increasing 16 percent. For the fourth year in a row, there was also a significant uptick in hate crimes targeting the Latino community, increasing 9 percent from last year.
Hate crimes against Black Americans dropped slightly, from 1,943 to 1,930.
It’s still hard to perceive that even in 2020 public nudity still evokes a torrent of negativity. On one hand there are the juvenile reactions from people who left their teen years decades ago, and on the other hand there is still so much overwhelming out-of-place Victorian censorship . If you show more than a naked ankle on Facebook their narrow minded self-appointed expurgators will banish you and your FB page from public view until you recant.
It’s a regrettable situation that was part of reason why Belgian choreographer THIERRY SMITS developed a dance piece with 11 male nude dancers. Smits claims that this work is depicting a world “overrun by right-wing and neoliberal” ideals, conflating the unabashed nudity with leftism.
So Bare is a film by ALEKSANDR VINOGRADOV that documents the 11th month journey of Smits creating ANIMA ARDENS from the very start to the premiere performance.
The cameras are there for the very intensive couple of days of auditions. Interestingly one of the dancers questions the fact that they are being filmed naked, and he is concerned what will happen with these images especially if he is not cast. It’s a sad indictment of today’s culture where nude images are so often crudely exploited without permission.
Smits ‘ballet” is strictly about male nudity which is unusual in itself and some of the pieces in it are very phallic. Others however switch from the masculine and in one of the most profoundly moving segments, he has the men giving their own concepts of a birthing experience.
The nudity is not intended to be either erotic or provocative but it does show the sheer beauty of the male form. It actually turns out that most of this diverse group men that make up the cast are gay. This may (or may not) have added a level of both personal freedom and more sensitivity on how they perceived their own nudity
Kudos not just to the dancers and their sheer vitality but also to Vinogradov’s camera capturing so many close-ups that he wove into his beautifully edited film
If there is a novelty at seeing 11 naked men on the screen at the start of the film, that completely dissipates by the end. It’s a celebration of masculinity that was a joy to watchhttps://player.vimeo.com/video/405184049
Its protagonist, Nadir, a young trans man grieving the violent death of his mother and struggling to find his identity, discovers a journal left behind by Laila Z, a mysterious Syrian bird artist who disappeared decades before, in a soon-to-be-demolished building in Little Syria.
By switching between the journal and chapters narrated by Nadir, Joukhadar tells a story of love and loss that begins in Syria in the 1960s and winds its way into Nadir’s present in Brooklyn. Through Laila Z’s journal, Nadir comes to understand that people like him have always existed, even if they had to live their lives in secret.
Throughout it all are birds, both real and imagined. They drop from the sky, land on window ledges, and provide one of the central mysteries of the novel: Did Nadir’s mother, an ornithologist, and Laila Z see the same elusive and unsubstantiated species of bird decades apart?
While Joukhadar untangles the story of Nadir’s mother’s death and Laila Z’s life, he explores the interior life of a young trans man wary of coming out and the larger implications of gender, secrecy, and identity.
Joukhadar spoke to Goodreads contributor Samantha Schoech from his apartment in Sardinia, Italy, where he is sheltering-in-place with his Italian partner during the COVID-19 pandemic. Their conversation has been edited. Goodreads: Congratulations on the new book. What’s it like to have a book coming out in the time of COVID-19?
Zeyn Joukhadar: It’s definitely weird. I do feel lucky that it’s coming out later in the pandemic because I think we have a better handle on doing virtual events and that kind of thing. We’ve figured out how to connect with readers.
Want to ReadRate this book1 of 5 stars2 of 5 stars3 of 5 stars4 of 5 stars5 of 5 stars GR: Before you became a full-time writer, you earned a PhD in pathobiology. First, what exactly is pathobiology, and second, how do you think it informs your writing?
ZJ: I was focused on epigenetics. I think that did come into play when I was writing this book because some of what I was studying was the way that things that happen to us when we are in the womb affect us later on. If your grandmother was pregnant with a child with ovaries, that child already had the egg that would eventually become you. So, the things that happened during your grandmother’s pregnancy also happened to the egg and to us.
We know that trauma is intergenerational. But when you look at resilience and survival, maybe those things also can get passed down. When I was looking at queer and trans ancestors in this book, those were things that I was thinking about—that in a way our ancestors are present with us, maybe more than we can even know.
GR: The protagonist in your book is the grandchild of Syrian immigrants to New York. Even in the present-day New York City of the novel, there is a strong current of culture and history and Syrian identity. Did you grow up with this type of cultural awareness?
ZJ: I think it’s difficult to grow up in diaspora as a person of color in the United States without being made aware of who you are and where you come from. Even if that place is New York, if your ancestors come from somewhere else, you’re not allowed to forget that.
When I was researching this book, and finding out about the existence of Little Syria [in New York], even though this neighborhood was almost entirely torn down to build the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel, the fact that it existed at one time really got me thinking about the fact that there were these people who were living there who were trying to find their own belonging in New York City. There was something really powerful about that. Even though I didn’t grow up in a predominantly Syrian American community or even a predominantly Arab American community, I did live in a community where there were a lot of immigrants.
GR: Do you think being Arab American influences the kinds of stories you’re drawn to telling?
ZJ: I think that that’s always going to be part of my lens, you know, just like for any writer, because that’s my experience. It’s always going to be present, and I think that’s something we should all embrace. Nobody comes to the page without a lens.
GR: OK, back to this novel. There is so much loss in this story—actual death, but also lost love, loss of country, and the loss of an unwanted identity. How do you see these things in relation to one another?
ZJ: Obviously, this book is about someone grieving the loss of his mother, but at the same time there is a realization throughout the book that the mother is very much present in his life and that our ancestors are very much present in our lives.
Grief over somebody dying is a very different thing from transition, and I think that part of the book was also disentangling those.
One of the things I was trying to hold in my mind and heart when I was writing this was the way that something can feel like loss when it’s not really lost. Oftentimes, transition gets framed by cis people as a kind of loss, and sometimes the people around a trans person will react to someone coming out as if it’s a loss, not realizing that the person is still very much the same person and that the only thing that’s happened is that something has been gained, something has been found—a new agency and joy and the ability to actually take joy in existing and in living more fully. I think that that’s a big part of the book.
GR: And what about birds? They’re everywhere in this book. They are both real and symbolic. They are in art and in omens. How did you come to that? Why birds?
ZJ: As I was writing, I started to think about the piece that inspired the title, which is a long Sufi poem that in English translates to “The Conference of the Birds.” The gist of it is that there are these 30 birds that are seeking God and eventually realize that they are reflections of the divine. It became sort of a theme for me in the writing.
I wanted to write something about finding one’s way to a feeling of holiness or sacredness. As a trans person or queer person, we don’t get to feel sacred or feel that we are a reflection of the divine. Nadir is searching in the book for himself. He’s also searching to find the sacred and the divine in himself and to feel like he is whole and loved. I think that that’s where the birds come in.
GR: What kind of research did you have to do to write this book?
ZJ: One of the great sources of information for me was going to see an exhibit about Little Syria at the New York City Department of Records in 2016, before I’d even written a draft. Then, in 2019, I was an artist-in-residence at the Arab American National Museum, and I took the research further in their archives.
Some of it is just knowledge of the times and being able to wonder, “Well, what if this kind of person had lived? What if this had happened?” When you look at queerness and transness in the historical record, you realize quickly that you have to read between the lines to find us. Either queer and trans people get erased outright or they weren’t able to be out. In a lot of ways, it’s very frustrating and sad and difficult. But what’s wonderful about it is that you can look at a period of time in history and know that there were queer and trans people there. It gives you this wonderful freedom to imagine how people lived and loved and had their lives in any time period and any place. And it might have been really difficult, but they must have also known lots of moments of beauty, too. And that’s a complicated feeling, but it’s also a wonderful one.
GR: Who are the writers who really influenced you as a fiction writer?
ZJ: I would say Toni Morrison, for sure. Her fiction, for sure, but I’ve been reading a lot of nonfiction lately for comfort, and I was reading The Source of Self-Regard. It’s brilliant. She writes a lot about craft. She talks about how she chooses her opening sentences and her final sentences. There’s this piece where she talks about Moby Dick and how the author might have been talking about the idea of whiteness in a way that he couldn’t express any other way. I feel like reading her has really made me a better writer.
GR: What’s some of the nonfiction you’ve been reading?
ZJ: I was reading Alexander Chee’s How to Write an Autobiographical Novel. I have been reading memoir and essay collections. I think that as writers, we have this impulse to make meaning out of things that happen. Obviously, that’s part of our craft whether in nonfiction or fiction, right? And I think that it’s been frustrating, for me at least, to not be able to do that yet. We’re in a thing that we can’t see the edges of yet, and maybe reading memoir and essay gives me the tools to try to make sense of what’s happening to me.
ZJ: No, it really has very little to do with my own life. I mean, obviously there’s a trans protagonist from New York, and I’ve lost a parent. But other than that, it’s not autobiographical at all.
I’m not sure I could ever write an autobiographical novel. I find the whole idea very terrifying.
GR: OK, one final question, and I know this is a hard one, but what are the books that you wish were assigned in high school and university courses?
ZJ: It’s really hard to answer that. I definitely wish that when I was that age I had read Love Is an Ex-Country that I mentioned before. I still have to read Laila Lalami’s most recent book, Conditional Citizens; I’m really looking forward to that. But The Other Americans was a really important read for me. And, of course, I wish there had been trans writers that I had been able to read. There’s so much good stuff out now by trans writers.
Join us in Downtown San Rafael to mark Transgender Day of Remembrance on November 20, 2020. We will have powerful speakers, live music, and will read the names of the transgender people who have been killed over the last year due to anti-trans violence.
Please share information about the event widely with your networks: we encourage all to show up in support of trans people in Marin County and beyond!
Transgender Day of Remembrance (TDOR) was started in 1999 by transgender advocate Gwendolyn Ann Smith as a vigil to honor the memory of Rita Hester, a transgender woman who was killed in 1998. The vigil commemorated all the transgender people lost to violence since Rita Hester’s death, and began an important tradition that has become the annual Transgender Day of Remembrance.
TDOR founder Gwendolyn Ann Smith, says “Transgender Day of Remembrance seeks to highlight the losses we face due to anti-transgender bigotry and violence. I am no stranger to the need to fight for our rights, and the right to simply exist is first and foremost. With so many seeking to erase transgender people — sometimes in the most brutal ways possible — it is vitally important that those we lose are remembered, and that we continue to fight for justice.” If you cannot attend the event in-person, it will also be live-streamed over Zoom. You can register for the Zoom meeting at bit.ly/TDORMarin. Please note this is the link to register, and then you will be emailed the actual meeting information. In case of rain, we will be holding the event entirely virtual, so check the weather the day of the event!
It took just one day for Target to pull a screening U-turn Friday (13 November) after it removed a transphobic book off its digital shelves, prompting anti-trans users to pelt the American retail giant into submission.
Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughter, which is currently rated just two-and-a-half stars on Target’s website, has been fiercely upbraided by LGBT+ rights activists since its July 2020 release.×
Penned by renowned anti-trans journalist Abigail Shrier, a firebrand Wall Street Journal writer who has obsessively written about vastly debunked anti-trans theories, the book trumpets that being trans is a “contagion”, a “craze” and an “epidemic”.
While Target initially said it would remove the text, a torrent of anti-trans Twitter accounts, including Shrier, criticised the company for doing so, promoting Target to walk back and relist the book.
Twitter users sought to sound the alarm as to why Target was stocking a book that rails against a so-called “transgender epidemic sweeping the country”. The company, amid backlash, tweeted on Thursday (12 November): “Thank you so much for bringing this to our attention.
“We have removed this book from our assortment.”
Author Shrier quickly took aim at Target, tweeting that the company had made her “book disappear”, igniting countless anti-trans users to send incensed tweets and emails to Target.
Does it bother anyone that woke activists and spineless corporations now determine what Americans are allowed to read?” she added.
Target later tepidly responded to a tweet by a user with less than 1,000 followers and whose display picture is of a painting by Alex Grey. The user called on Target not to “submit to Stalinist thought policing”.
“We want to offer a broad assortment for our guests and are adding this book back to Target.com. We apologise for any confusion.”
Trans people in the US have themselves been reduced to political targets with increasing temerity by the Trump administration in the last four years, where the president’s officials have peeled back a roster of legal protections across countless federal departments and programs – defence, housing, health and education.
All the while, an actual epidemic – one of violence against trans people – continues to rip across the States, with 2020, monitoring groups warn, being the deadliest year for trans people since records began with 34 trans people murdered at the time of writing.
Nearly 1 in 10 transgender Americans are turning to nonprescription sources for gender-affirming hormones — including friends, relatives and internet pharmacies — according to a new study.
While the Affordable Care Act has extended health care to millions, many trans people are still uninsured or are denied coverage for transition-related care, including hormones and gender-affirming surgery.
According to the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund, only 24 states explicitly require private insurance companies to cover gender-affirming treatment. And nine states, according to the fund, have explicit exclusions for trans-related coverage under Medicaid.
On Thursday, two West Virginia men denied hormone replacement therapy filed suit in federal court, challenging the blanket ban on gender-affirming care in state-funded health insurance plans, including Medicaid.
“Every time I go to someone who’s not my doctor, I get misgendered, I get uncomfortable questions. So if I’m not dying, I’m not going to the doctor.”
CECILIA GENTILI
It’s uninsured and underinsured individuals who are more likely to turn to alternative avenues to get hormones, according to Dr. Daphna Stroumsa, an OB-GYN with Michigan Medicine, and the lead author of the new report in Annals of Family Medicine.
“The lack of coverage is a combination of insurance companies being discriminatory in rejecting claims, and in creating excessive layers of [red tape] for something that is very straightforward and actually cost-effective,” Stroumsa told NBC News. “We know gender-affirming hormones immensely improve mental health and lower the risk of depression.”
Among the 27,715 study respondents who said they were interested in gender-affirming hormones, Stroumsa’s team found 15 percent were uninsured, and 21 percent of those with insurance said their claims were denied.
In all, more than 9 percent of the people in the study — 992 individuals — said they were taking nonprescription hormones.
Denied access to treatment, some individuals seeking to transition will use estrogen or testosterone prescribed to a friend, according to Stroumsa. Others will take birth control pills or buy medication off legally questionable internet pharmacies.
While the trend cut across demographics, turning to illicit hormone sources was slightly more pronounced among transgender women, as well as among younger respondents and biracial or multiracial individuals. There was no difference, however, based on education or economic level.
“It actually surprises me that [the number] is so low,” said Latinx trans advocate Cecilia Gentili, principal at Transgender Equity Consulting. “I’d expect it to be much higher.”
Cecilia Gentli.Courtesy Leah James
At the gender-affirming treatment clinic Gentili launched at New York City’s Apicha Community Health Center, demand always outweighed supply. “I started with nine clients, and by the end we had 650,” she said.
Transgender Americans face systemic barriers to care, and increased rates of unemployment and homelessness. Prior to the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies could deny coverage for transition-related treatments by labeling transgender identity a pre-existing condition.
The Trump administration has tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and, in June, revoked health care discrimination protections for transgender Americans. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, a court injunction currently keeps those protections intact.
“Despite the administration’s best efforts, the ACA hasn’t been undermined to date,” Stroumsa said. “And more people are covered under Medicaid.”
‘If I’m not dying, I’m not going to the doctor’
Insurance isn’t always the issue. Outside of large, urban areas such as New York, Miami and Los Angeles, the odds of finding a caregiver who is culturally competent about transgender health become exceedingly low.“That’s why many of us find other ways to procure HRT,” Gentili said. “If you’re going to be misgendered, insulted or mistreated by a doctor, and you can get your meds from India or Colombia, then f— the doctor. I understand it.”
These days, Gentili works with a “terrific” primary care provider, but if she needs treatment in off-hours, she said she thinks twice about going to urgent care.
“Every time I go to someone who’s not my doctor, I get misgendered, I get uncomfortable questions,” she said. “So if I’m not dying, I’m not going to the doctor.”
Taking hormones not prescribed by a medical professional comes with a variety of risks. Not only because they may not be checked for content, quality, formulation or dosing, but because treatment isn’t likely to be monitored.
Estrogen therapy has been linked to blood clots in the lungs and legs, increasing the risk of stroke and possible long-term risk of breast cancer.
A 2018 Kaiser Permanente study found transgender women on hormone therapy were twice as likely as cisgender men or women to have the blood clot condition venous thromboembolism, which can cause shortness of breath, chest pain, lightheadedness or even fainting.
Though the risks of testosterone have been less studied, it can cause the blood to thicken, increasing chances of stroke or heart attack if too high a dose is administered or the dosage increases too quickly.
“The risks are on several levels,” Stroumsa said. “Where are you getting this from? Are you using the best regimen for you? Are we guiding you? Everyone deserves to be able to talk to their physician about their treatment.”
Gentili knows firsthand what getting hormones through less-than-official-routes can be like.
“My mom used to send me hormones from Argentina,” she recalled. “One time they made a mistake and sent me testosterone by accident. And I shot testosterone twice — it was a horrible experience.”
Still, she understands why many go outside the system.
“We have to define risk. What risk means to a white, cis[gender] man is totally different than what it means to someone like me. As a trans woman of color, I’ve been navigating risk as long as I can remember. If I can take a pill without dealing with a doctor who’s going to make me miserable — who’s going to attack my mental health, who I am — it’s worth it.”
Overlooked cardiovascular risks
Even if patients have insurance and go to medical professionals for transition-related care, the risk factors may not be fully appreciated.
A separate report presented last week at the American Heart Association’s Scientific Sessions 2020 conference found many transgender patients already receiving gender-affirming hormone therapy had unaddressed risks for cardiovascular disease, including high blood pressure, hypertension and high cholesterol.
“We get hyper-focused on the specific care they come for … and maybe we should spend more time looking at the larger picture of cardiovascular health,” said lead author Dr. Cecile Ferrando, director of the Cleveland Clinic Transgender Surgery and Medicine Program in Ohio. “There’s a big assessment on mental health before transition, but we’re not looking at the higher [heart-disease] risk.”
Of the 427 adults who sought care at the clinic’s Center for LGBTQ+ Care, nearly 7 percent had undiagnosed high blood pressure and more than 11 percent had undiagnosed high cholesterol. Their risk for stroke or heart attack in the next 10 years was significantly higher than that of cisgender Americans in the same age group.
Among those who had been previously diagnosed with cardiovascular conditions, many were not receiving recommended treatment. Thirty to 40 percent were smokers, another serious risk factor for heart disease.
“If you’re going to start someone on this treatment, you need to know their risks,” Ferrando said. “In general, marginalized groups that have less access to health care or who are stigmatized fall into higher risk groups.”
Unanswered questions linger
There’s been a boom in transgender health in recent years, and yet there are still many unanswered questions.
“Before trans health care was politicized, it was invisible,” Stroumsa said. “We have one or two robust studies on cardiovascular disease on trans women, but we don’t know the long-term risks, because we don’t have the data from people [on hormone replacement therapy] for 20, 30 or 40 years.” When her patients ask which is better — estrogen pills, injections or patches — Stroumsa said she has to tell them she doesn’t know.
“I can extrapolate from hormone we give cisgender women, but I owe them better answers,” she said.
Still, she added, when people get their hormones from unsanctioned sources, they miss out on a chance to interact with knowledgeable medical providers. “Access to hormones can be a doorway to better care on a range of issues, from overall wellness to HIV/STDs,” Stroumsa said.
Gentili would like to see all trans people go to licensed health care providers for their transition care, too. But, she added, it’s up to the medical community to bridge the divide.
“It’s a cycle: If you’re treated like s— by [by your doctors], you don’t go see them, and you start to treat yourself like s—,” she said. “But if you’re affirmed by your providers, you’ll not just go to the doctor you’ll follow up on referrals and tests and everything. You’ll engage with the medical community.”
I was diagnosed with HIV just shy of my 30th birthday. That day, everything changed. I was apprehensive about my prognosis, my treatment plan, and my ability to live a normal life.
Fortunately, medical advances have turned HIV from a certain death sentence into a manageable condition. Still, like all Americans who depend on complex medications to stay healthy, I worry about high drug prices, and this concern has only intensified amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Especially since some of the proposed “solutions” to high drug prices would put patients’ health at risk.
Just recently, the Trump administration announced that it would allow states to import prescription medications from Canada with the aim of saving money for consumers. Doing so, though, could expose millions of Americans to counterfeit drugs, while achieving little in the way of savings.
I’ve seen firsthand how importation schemes can put patients at risk.
Shortly after learning I was HIV-positive, I ordered my anti-retroviral drugs from an online Canadian pharmacy. For two months, I received medications via mail without ever wondering where they were sourced or whether they contained the active ingredients I needed to keep me alive.
Then my doctor intervened. She told me that drugs purchased through online storefronts are often adulterated or counterfeit—in fact, the global trade in fake medicines is a $30 billion-a-year business. Unknowingly, I had been rolling the dice with my health.
There are two types of counterfeit drugs. The first contains potentially deadly substances— everything from arsenic to antifreeze. The second contains few, if any, active ingredients. Though pills in the latter category don’t contain actual poisons, they can be deadly. Anti-retroviral drugs have to be taken exactly as prescribed; missing even a few doses can allow the virus to reemerge.
There is no mechanism in place to regulate the quality of drugs imported by American patients. A senior official at Health Canada explicitly told the U.S. surgeon general that her agency “does not assure that products being sold to U.S. citizens are safe, effective, and of high quality.” The FDA, meanwhile, plainly states that it “cannot ensure the safety and effectiveness of drugs that it has not approved.”
Moreover, drugs purportedly from Canada could come from anywhere. A 2017 study by the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy found that three quarters of online pharmacies claiming to sell Canadian drugs actually sourced their products from places like India, Singapore, and Hong Kong, all major suppliers of counterfeits. Back in 2005, the FDA reported that only 15 percent of imported drugs marketed as Canadian actually originated in Canada. The other 85 percent came from “27 countries around the globe,” meaning that many likely didn’t go through rigorous quality control.
It’s relatively easy to get hoodwinked by online pharmacies that promise quality drugs at bargain prices. CanadaDrugs.com, for instance, started out in 2001 as a seemingly reputable online pharmacy. But soon it turned to distributors outside of Canada to secure medicines. In 2018, a U.S. court prosecuted and fined the company for selling fake cancer drugs to American doctors.
Counterfeiters have shown they are willing to prey on people living with all kinds of diseases, including HIV. In 2011, a British regulatory agency discovered that two fake HIV medications had infiltrated the market and were circulating among patients.
Opening the door to drug imports would allow that kind of thing to happen here, putting us all at risk. And it’s not even certain that legalizing importation would cut costs. The FDA acknowledges that it is “unable to estimate the cost savings” from President Trump’s new plan. Former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb wrote that “when importation of foreign drugs is done under a regulated scheme, it really wouldn’t save money.”
Right now, Americans are anxious enough about our health. Let’s not add drug imports to our list of things to worry about.
Brandon M. Macsata has been living with HIV since 2002, and serves as CEO of the ADAP Advocacy Association, an organization that promotes the AIDS Drug Assistance Program and works to improve access to care.
As we move firmly into November, there’s no escaping the fact that holiday season 2020 is upon us – and with the election result and news of a vaccine breakthrough, it feels like we might feel OK about celebrating this year, after all.
Making that easier for us all, of course, is the annual influx of holiday viewing fare that has already begun showing up on our screens, right on cue, to help us get in the mood. For LGBTQ+ audiences, that has traditionally meant having to settle for getting our fix of seasonal spirit vicariously through stories about straight people – but giving us even more reason to celebrate, this time around, is a plethora of inclusive options in which, at long last, we get to see our queer romantic holiday fantasies played out without having to filter them through a heteronormative lens.
Probably the most significant of these new entries – from the standpoint of cultural politics, at least – is “The Christmas House,” which comes amid the heavy slate of holiday-themed romantic movies from the Hallmark Channel, and represents a seismic shift at the formerly conservative network by placing a loving same-sex couple at the center of its warm and fuzzy storyline. Starring out gay actor Jonathan Bennett (best known as high school heartthrob Aaron Samuels in 2004’s “Mean Girls”), it focuses on a gay couple trying to adopt their first child, and co-stars Robert Buckley, Ana Ayora, Treat Williams and Sharon Lawrence.
To recognize why “The Christmas House” (which premieres Nov. 22) is as meaningful as it is, it’s necessary to look back at Christmas 2019. A lot has happened since then, but if you prod your memory, you’ll likely recall the debacle that took place when Hallmark caved to pressure from right-wing homophobic activists (particularly the misleadingly named “One Million Moms,” a front for known hate group the American Family Association) and pulled several ads for the wedding planning website Zola over the inclusion of a lesbian couple. The backlash from the LGBTQ+ community and its advocates was swift and profound, and a week later the ads were reinstated, with Hallmark vowing to work with GLAAD on a plan to move forward with more inclusive programming. It was an unequivocal victory in the “culture wars,” made even more sweet by the context of a flagrantly anti-LGBTQ political administration and the false perception of legitimacy bestowed upon homophobic social attitudes that it enabled.
For proof that the climate had changed – even before last week’s election – one only has to look at the words of Michelle Vicary, executive vice president of programming for Hallmark, whose statement when “The Christmas House” was announced late last month as part of the network’s seasonal lineup opened by saying, “Our holiday table is bigger and more welcoming than ever.” It might have the ring of carefully manufactured corporate-speak, but that sentence still represents the culmination of a decades-long struggle – and while not every member of the LGBTQ+ crowd may be excited about being represented in the kind of feel-good fare that straight couples have been enjoying together since forever, we can all still look at the fact that it’s finally happening as an important milestone worthy of celebration – though it’s worth noting that One Million Moms has another homophobic petition circulating in protest of this one, too.
Hallmark isn’t the only cable titan unveiling its first same-sex Christmas romance this year; the Lifetime Channel, similarly known for being a family-friendly seasonal juggernaut, is dropping “The Christmas Set-Up,” which stars two actors (Ben Lewis and Blake Lee) who are not only openly gay, but are an actual couple in real life. While the network last year aired “Twinkle All the Way,” which featured a same-sex kiss between two supporting characters, this time they are putting the gay love story front and center.
This one follows Hugo, a New York lawyer (Lewis), whose matchmaking mom (played by Fran Drescher) decides to set him up with Patrick (Lee), his old high school friend – and secret crush. According to the synopsis, things go smoothly between the two men at first, but they take a dramatic turn when (in true made-for-TV romance fashion) Hugo gets a promotion that comes with a relocation to London, forcing him to choose between his career and the man of his dreams. It also stars Ellen Wong (“G.L.O.W”) as Hugo’s best friend.
“The Christmas Set-Up” represents Lifetime’s efforts to bolster its own reputation for diversity and inclusion, in a Christmas lineup that also features the network’s first movie centered on an Asian-American family, “A Sugar & Spice Holiday.” In a statement made in September, when Lifetime’s holiday slate was announced, head of programming Amy Winter said, “The world we create on camera should reflect the world we live in.”
She went on to add, “Our hope with these inclusive films and others is that people will see themselves while enjoying universally relatable holiday romances.”
“The Christmas Set-Up” won’t drop until Dec. 12, but for fans of gay romance, it should be well worth the wait.
It’s laudable that these once-resistant cable networks have opened up their programming to include more diverse representation, of course; but while we have been waiting for them to get on board, we should not forget that streaming giants like Netflix and Hulu have already been leading the charge for quite some time. Both of them continue that tradition this season with LGBTQ-centric holiday offerings of their own.
While Netflix doesn’t have a specifically LGBTQ-centered title coming for the holiday season, it is bringing us “Dash & Lily,” based on the popular YA romance book series by Rachel Cohn and David Levithan, which includes queer characters – not to mention the non-holiday-themed Ryan Murphy adaptation of the Broadway musical, “The Prom.”
Hulu, however, is putting LGBTQ love in the spotlight with “Happiest Season,” a romantic comedy from director Clea Duvall, who also co-wrote with Mary Holland.
Featuring two queer icons (Kristen Stewart and Mackenzie Davis) in the leads, and yet another (Dan Levy) in prominent support, Duvall’s film revolves around girlfriends Abby (Stewart) and Harper (Davis), and Abby’s plan to propose at the annual Christmas dinner held at Harper’s family (Davis) home. When Abby arrives for the big night, she discovers that not only is Harper’s family ignorant of their relationship, they don’t even know that Harper is gay, prompting her to question how well she knows the person she’s planning on spending the rest of her life with.
That synopsis might give the impression that “Happiest Season” is more a soul-searching downer than you might want from holiday-themed romance, but official descriptions assure us that this latest lesbian-themed Hulu Original is “a holiday romantic comedy that hilariously captures the range of emotions tied to wanting your family’s acceptance, being true to yourself, and trying not to ruin Christmas.” And if you are enthusiastic to see the movie – which premieres Nov. 25 – you are in good company. Its star, Stewart, said in a statement: “I think I’ve wished to see a gay Christmas rom-com my whole life.”
Many would say – in this case, at least – that K-Stew speaks for us all.
