S. Baum

/ /

Court sides with ACLU and queer performers over federal trans funding restrictions

The Trump Administration has lost yet another battle with one of its most formidable foes: the arts.

The right has long self-identified as the protector of free speech, except when that speech has to do with race, gender, sexuality, queerness, science, (non-Christian) religion, and anything else the Trump regime deems seditious, such as being critical of the government.

Four plaintiffs — Rhode Island Latino Arts, National Queer Theater, The Theater Offensive and Theatre Communications Group — sued federal officials following the signing of an executive order which directed the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) to disfavor grant applications that “promote gender ideology.” Artists, represented by the ACLU, argued this provision violated the First Amendment, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and the Fifth Amendment.

On Sept. 19, Senior U.S. District Court Judge William E. Smith sided with the plaintiffs’ first two claims, denouncing “a viewpoint-based standard of review to Plaintiffs that disfavors applications deemed ‘to promote gender ideology’” — a catch-all dogwhistle describing depictions of gender and sexuality outside rigid heterosexual marriage. The court “vacates and sets aside Defendants’ current plan to implement the Executive Order.”

The National Endowment for the Arts is an independent agency created by Congress to fund and shepherd great American art. The problem seems to be that Trump wants the agency to discriminate against artists who do not focus on straight, cisgender white men — prioritizing political virtue signaling over actual merit and talent, and stymieing the free marketplace of ideas to advance his political agenda.

While the government argued that NEA projects, which are government funded, are therefore government speech, the judge found that this was instead private speech supported by government funds — which means that artists’ freedom of expression should remain unobstructed.

The Trump Administration also correctly noted that “Plaintiffs undisputedly lack any right” to receive government grants, which are competitive.

But Judge Smith found this rhetoric “unavailing.” The plaintiffs never claimed to be entitled to the grant. “Rather,” Smith writes, “they claim a right to have their applications assessed according to criteria that are not viewpoint discriminatory.”

“This decision affirms what we have always believed: the freedom to create, to express one’s truth, and to tell our stories is a right protected by the First Amendment,” said Marta V. Martínez, the executive director of Rhode Island Latino Arts, in an email to Erin in the Morning. “As an organization deeply rooted in storytelling, theater, and the preservation of cultural history, we are relieved and grateful that the courts have recognized the importance of protecting artistic expression for all people, including those in LGBTQ+ communities.”

As in many authoritarian campaigns, art has been recognized as a vital form of resistance — but bad actors have sought to curtail it accordingly. During the reign of the Nazis, Adolf Hitler waged a vicious purge of German-dubbed “degenerate art,” works which were often made by, for and about Jews (among other things). Another famous example of this, closer to home, was the backlash to The Crucible (1953) by Arthur Miller. The play was a scathing political commentary on McCarthyism that resulted in Miller (and other “subversive” artists) being blacklisted from the industry at the government’s behest; he was even denied a passport. And as Erin in the Morning reported recently, chalk street art in Orlando honoring LGBTQ gun violence victims led to multiple arrests. We also shined a light on an Oklahoma college performance of a show dramatizing the lives of Shakespearean actors, which was cancelled by the school, which allegedly feared backlash if they let it debut. (That play, Boy My Greatness, contained themes of queerness.) And at the Smithsonian, a renowned Black artist cancelled an exhibition rather than let the Trump Administration bully her into removing a painting of a transgender woman dressed as Lady Liberty.

“Congress specifically set up the National Endowment for the Arts to insulate it from this type of political meddling in funding the arts,” said Steven Brown, executive director of the ACLU of Rhode Island. “This ruling is a win for our plaintiffs, and for free speech.”

/ /

Alaska’s medical board moves to ban gender-affirming care for trans minors

An Alaskan podiatrist is leading the State Medical Board’s efforts to take away life-saving health care from transgender youth.

The Board unanimously approved a proposal last week spearheaded by Dr. Matt Heilala, of Anchorage, to move towards eradicating gender-affirming health care for trans minors by reclassifying such treatments—such as puberty blockers, hormone treatments and surgeries—as “unprofessional conduct.” If finalized, this would also give the board broad discretion over the enforcement and “sanctions” doled out, such as fines or loss of licensure. No such restrictions are proposed for the care of cisgender people.

The rule must still undergo a legal review followed by a 30-day public comment period, after which a final vote would determine whether the provision will be enacted.

“I think it will be pretty impactful,” Heilala told the Anchorage Daily News ahead of the vote. Heilala, a podiatrist, does not appear to have any clinical expertise in treating gender dysphoria. It is unclear whether the other five board members do, either. When Erin in the Morning requested information about whether any of the Board members—a general surgeon, a neurosurgeon, a cardiologist, a primary care physician, and a commercial pilot—had any experience serving trans patients, or had any professional training on gender dysphoria at all, a spokesperson declined to disclose due to “concerns with HIPAA.”

However, HIPAA, the gold standard of federal privacy law, does not prevent doctors from disclosing the demographics or diagnoses they have worked with.

“I think it’s very important that we, as medical professionals, can address and talk about what our professional expertise and experience is,” said Dr. Kevin Tarlow, a psychologist and assistant professor at the University of Alaska Anchorage. “How else can consumers evaluate our expertise if we can’t talk about the types of care that we have provided?”

Almost 800 medical professionals in the state have signed a petition protesting the proposed restrictions.

“What I see is a very small number of political appointees who happen to be physicians, going against the consensus of the professions they’re supposed to represent and regulate,” Tarlow added.

It’s not the first time Heilala and this Board have attempted to roll back Alaskans’ access to health care. Earlier this year, with Heilala as the legislative liaison, the Board urged legislators to ban most gender-affirming care for trans youth, treatment that fewer than 100 Alaskans across the state receive. (Heilala also recently announced his gubernatorial campaign, where July polls had him coming in sixth.)

When democratically-elected lawmakers didn’t pick up the offer, the Board decided to take matters into its own hands, with Heilala once again at the helm.

“[T]he Board is now going rogue—attempting to reclassify evidence-based treatment through a political maneuver,” said a press release from Identity, Inc., an LGBT health care provider and advocacy group, in the days leading up to the August 22 vote. “In the same discussion, the Board also moved to target abortion access, revealing a broader ideological agenda, not legitimate medical oversight.”

Ann, an Anchorage mother to a trans young person that had to leave the state, pointed to the state’s historic preservation of Alaskans’ right to privacy. (She requested her surname be withheld from publication due to the violent threatsparents of trans kids are facing.)

“Alaska prides itself on its independence—like, the government staying out of our business,” Ann told Erin in the Morning. “I don’t understand this slide into government and political interference for what can be the most personal issue for families and their medical providers.”

The current proposal draft states that the board will sanction physicians found to be “providing medical or surgical intervention to treat gender dysphoria or facilitate gender transition by altering sex characteristics inconsistent with the biological sex at birth, including but not limited to puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, mastectomy, phalloplasty, or genital modification to a minor under the age of 18 years old.”

As with many anti-trans provisions, it glosses over the immense obstacles already standing between trans people’s access to care; suggests a misleading frequency of certain kinds of procedures, such as a phalloplasty, and carves out exceptions for the often invasive and needless medical interventions used on cisgender intersex children.

It also seeks to codify, within board guidelines, a definition of sex.

“Biological Sex,” the draft reads, is a “male or female designation based on chromosomes, gonads, hormones, and genitals at birth, irrespective of psychological identity.”

“Gender Transition,” meanwhile, is “[a]ny process to align sex characteristics with a gender identity different from biological sex.”

Frequent Erin in the Morning readers may recognize the common mistakes with these definitions: They are highly unscientific, right-wing abstractions about notions of biological sex that don’t actually neatly exist. And they are certainly not recognized by major global medical organizations.

Instead, almost every major medical association—including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, the Endocrine Society, and the American Medical Association—recognizes trans kids’ need for affirming health care. In response to this fact, Board Chairman Brent Taylor told Erin in the Morning that other countries, like Sweden or Britain, have “severely curtailed” health care for transgender people, a claim which Erin in the Morning previously found to be “thoroughly outdated” as “several European nations have moved in the opposite direction.”

He did not cite any particular studies in his statement, nor did the resolution the board passed. Almost 80 people attended the virtual hearing. Alaskans begged the bureaucrats not to interfere. Health care professionals, trans people, and the parents of trans youth showed up to hold the line. One speaker said he was a medical student who took time off from his rotation in pediatrics to advocate for reproductive health care. Another attendee simply sat behind a blank screen, camera and mic off, with the screen name: “Shame on you all.”

“We already are in such a crisis in Alaska and that the state medical Board is taking action that’s one, not addressing that, and two, knowingly doing things that all the data suggests will make it worse,” Ann said after the hearing.

Indeed, mounting economic crises, skyrocketing care costs, and a dire shortage of health care providers mean many Alaskans already do not get the care they need.

Tom Pittman, executive director of Identity, Inc., said in a press release that they would not capitulate to demands that seek to eradicate life-saving for trans youth. “We will continue delivering that care, and we will not back down from defending the right of Alaska’s families and providers to make these decisions free from political interference,” he said. “Our commitment is unwavering: to protect care, defend truth, and stand with trans youth.”

/ /

Largest trans survey ever finds the top reason transgender people stop transitioning is transphobia

A report on the largest survey ever of trans Americans’ health was released on Wednesday, June 11, and its findings reaffirmed what many academics, health care providers and trans people already know: gender-affirming care saves and improves lives, but transphobia often dissuades people from pursuing or continuing it when they need it most.

Over 84,000 trans, nonbinary, and gender nonconforming people aged 18 and up responded to the 2022 U.S. Transgender Survey, spearheaded by Advocates for Trans Equality (A4TE). Of respondents who had transitioned, 9 percent had gone back to living as their sex assigned at birth at some point in their lives, at least for a short while — but in almost every single case, the reason was anti-trans discrimination from one’s family, friends, or community.

“Social and structural explanations dominated the reasons why respondents reported going back to living in their sex assigned at birth at some point,” the report found. “Only 4% of people who went back to living in their sex assigned at birth for a while cited that their reason was because they realized that gender transition was not for them. When considering all respondents who had transitioned, this number equates to only 0.36%.”

Meanwhile, respondents who received gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) or gender-affirming surgery overwhelmingly reported feeling “more satisfied” with their lives, 98 percent and 97 percent, respectively.

This watershed report contradicts the popular narrative being circulated by mainstream media, far-right politicians, and anti-trans groups that transgender people are “detransitioning” en masse due to life-shattering “transition regret.” In reality, it shows gender diverse people are living rich and vibrant lives, so long as they are provided the space, support, and care they need from their health care providers and communities.

The survey found a trans person’s overall health and wellbeing also heavily depend upon rates of familial support, a factor that has a profound influence over a trans person’s lifetime experience of suicidality.

The survey has been released in increments as researchers at A4TE wade through the unprecedented amounts of data from trans people who lent their voice to the project. It is a much-needed, comprehensive overview of the challenges — and victories — seen in trans health care since the prior iteration of the study. The report is especially vital considering the Trump Administration moved to remove transgender people from the U.S. Census and other government websites, rendering trans communities potentially invisible, and robbing researchers of crucial data informing public policy decisions.

“Having real concrete and rigorous data about the realities of trans people’s day-to-day lives is also a vital part of dispelling all of those assumptions and stereotypes that plague the public discourse about our community,” said Olivia Hunt, A4TE’s Director of Federal Policy, during a press briefing this week.

The report also touched upon trans people’s access to health care, which increased between 2015 and 2022; the quality of care, as trust between doctors and trans patients has improved; disparities between trans people across racial groups, which showed trans people of color are generally more prone to experience discrimination compared to white trans people; and the mental health challenges facing the trans community, as 44 percent of respondents met the criteria for serious psychological distress, compared to less than 4 percent of the general U.S. population.

Many of these issues have likely been exacerbated since the data was collected. The lead-up to President Donald Trump’s return to the Oval Office incited a new wave of anti-trans animus, impeding access to care and stirring up transphobic vitriol and harassment.

“From 2015 to 2022, state-level policy environments became more protective in some ways for trans people; however, in 2022 alone, when the USTS was administered, 315 anti-LGBTQ bills were introduced across the country, many of which harm trans and nonbinary people’s access to healthcare, participation in sports, access to public facilities, or other facets of public life,” the report says.

“This political landscape has only worsened since the administration of the 2022 USTS, with the introduction of 571 anti-LGBTQ nationwide in 2023 and 489 in 2024,” it continues. “At the time of writing, data on trans and nonbinary people has been erased from federal health surveys. As funding for LGBTQ research is stripped away, the USTS has become an ever more critical resource on the lived experiences of trans and nonbinary people.”

Nonetheless, trans life and trans joy have persisted, as testimonies featured in the U.S. Trans Survey demonstrate.

“I have thrived in the past 12 months in transition, I have a genuine smile on my face most days & laugh with genuine joy,” wrote Charlotte, a trans woman, in her survey response. “I have grown into the woman I was meant to be.”

And as Roo, a nonbinary person, wrote: “Once I learned what it meant to be trans, I never looked back. I traded in my Regina George-esque life for a future with a balding head and a predisposition for a beer gut. I’ve never been more happy to be alive—every single day. ”