Features

/ /

Nonprofit Group Working to Help Transgender People Escape the U.S.

,

A newly formed group launched two weeks ago seeks to help transgender Americans escape the United States. Nearly three dozen applicants have already sought assistance emigrating from the country or obtaining asylum.

In the wake of anti-LGBTQ+ laws popping up in red states nationwide, many transgender people are seeking ways to leave their homes to find a better life.

This is why TRANSport hopes to step in. It helps transgender people obtain legal documents, such as valid IDs and passports, to ultimately leave the United States.

The organization plans to transport at-risk transgender people abroad into more accepting societies, VICE reports.

About 30 young people have applied for assistance, the group’s founder, Rynn Azerial Willgohs, told the outlet.

“The demographic is typically people in their twenties, which is really surprising because they were initially the ones that were like, Oh, we need to stay and fight, we need to do this, we need to do that,’” Willgohs said.

Willgohs said that although TRANSport focuses primarily on trans people from North Dakota, Oklahoma residents have also contacted the organization. Oklahoma is currently working to ban gender-affirming care beyond those under 18.

“We’re getting a lot of traffic from Oklahoma,” Willgohs said. “So what I’ve done is I’ve created this list saying, ‘Okay, if this is what you want to do, this is what you need to do before you leave.’”

Clients are screened for ancestral links to a potential country that would make moving easier.

Clients can find assistance with changing their legal name, getting a verified medical diagnosis, and shipping medications from the U.S. to other countries.

A key focus for TRANSport is fundraising so that the organization can cover most of its clients’ costs. Willgohs says the whole process from beginning to end costs $2,000 per person.

But experts warn that seeking asylum in Europe will be challenging for transgender Americans because the rules dictate that one must be persecuted in one’s home country. Americans can move from red states to blue states or from states with draconian restrictions to those that do not.

Those states, though, tend to be more expensive and require resources that many transgender people trying to flee their homes don’t have, Willgohs told VICE.

The American Civil Liberties Union is tracking more than 450 anti-LGBTQ+ bills introduced throughout the country, from bills banning gender-affirming care for children and adults to laws that give teachers the authority to misgender trans students.

Republicans have associated gender-affirming care falsely with child abuse.

/ /

Federal judge says Christian teacher has no right misgender students

,

A federal appeals court just told a public school teacher that he does not have a constitutional right to misgender transgender students.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, based in Chicago, ruled that Brownsburg, Indiana orchestra teacher John Kluge could not use his religion as an excuse to violate the school’s policy on transgender students.

“School will be a more comfortable environment” without the conservative Christian teacher.

Kluge said that he was forced to resign in 2018 because he didn’t want to follow Brownsburg High School’s policy on transgender students. The policy said that trans students who submit written consent from a doctor and a parent must be referred to with their correct names and pronouns. 

Kluge said that, as a Christian, he had to call those students by the names they were given at birth.

“I’m being compelled to encourage students in what I believe is something that’s a dangerous lifestyle,” he said at the time. “I’m fine to teach students with other beliefs, but the fact that teachers are being compelled to speak a certain way is the scary thing.”

Kluge said that he had an agreement with administrators to refer to all students by their last names and avoid pronouns entirely. He was supposed to say that he was trying to sound like a sports coach if anyone asked why he was using last names. 

It turned out he couldn’t maintain that level of artifice in his speech and used first names anyway when he was talking to cisgender students. Trans students noticed that he avoided talking to them altogether.

According to one filing in the case, a trans student said Kluge’s behavior made him “feel alienated, upset, and dehumanized. It made me dread going to orchestra class each day.”

The principal met with Kluge and said that his behavior was “creating tension in the students and faculty.” He resigned but later changed his mind and sued the school district in 2019, claiming that his religious freedom was violated.

In 2021, a federal judge in Indianapolis ruled against him. Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson said that when he’s in the classroom he is no longer just a private citizen but a representative of his employer.

Kluge argued that he needed a reasonable accommodation to do his job, like how other employers might be required to adjust uniform rules for Jewish or Sikh employees. But for an accommodation to be reasonable, he would have to be able to adequately perform his job duties.

And Magnus-Stinson wasn’t convinced that the accommodation he requested – referring to students by their last names – was reasonable. She cited testimony from two trans students, Aidyn and Sam, who said Kluge’s behavior “made them feel targeted and uncomfortable.”

“Aidyn dreaded going to orchestra class and did not feel comfortable speaking to Mr. Kluge directly,” Magnus-Stinson wrote in her decision. “Other students and teachers complained that Mr. Kluge’s behavior was insulting or offensive and made his classroom environment unwelcoming and uncomfortable. Aidyn quit orchestra entirely.”

And now Kluge has lost his appeal.

“Kluge’s last-names-only practice stigmatized the transgender students and caused them demonstrable emotional harm,” Circuit Court Judge Ilana Rovner wrote in the court’s opinion. 

One judge dissented because it was unclear whether the school tried to mitigate the negative impacts of the “last name only” policy. He also said that a jury should have decided the original case.

Kluge was represented by the anti-LGBTQ+ and Souther Poverty Law Center-designated hate group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). ADF lawyer Rory Gray said he’s not sure whether they will appeal.

“The Seventh Circuit’s ruling shows why the Supreme Court needs to fix the standard for accommodating religious employees,” he said.

Kluge initially tried to say that his objection to using the correct names and pronouns for trans students was that transgender people face a high suicide rate. A study at the University of Texas at Austin, though, showed that transgender youth who are able to go by their real names are less likely to have suicidal thoughts and to attempt suicide.

“He said that he doesn’t want to condone students going down a path where 20 percent of trans people try to kill themselves but I don’t think he recognizes the people like him and doing things like this are the reason that 20 percent of trans people try to kill themselves,” one of his former students, Aidyn Sucec, said.

“I know he thinks he’s doing the right thing but he’s not listening to the actual people this affects.”

Editor’s note: This article mentions suicide. If you need to talk to someone now, call the Trans Lifeline at 1-877-565-8860. It’s staffed by trans people, for trans people. The Trevor Project provides a safe, judgement-free place to talk for LGBTQ youth at 1-866-488-7386. You can also call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-8255.

/ /

Indiana bans gender-affirming care for trans youth & requires them to detransition

,

Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb (R) signed a ban on gender-affirming care into law – and the ACLU is already suing. 

The law not only prohibits trans youth from both gender-affirming medication and surgery, but it also requires youth already undergoing care to detransition.

The bill’s sponsor said student-athletes physicals would be used to determine if girls are cisgender.

It wasn’t clear at first whether Holcomb would support the legislation. Earlier this week, he called the bill “clear as mud” and said he wanted to clarify some of the “vagueness” before deciding whether or not to sign

ACLU National and the ACLU of Indiana filed a lawsuit on behalf of four trans youths and a doctor who provides gender-affirming care. 

The organization is arguing that the law is unconstitutional, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. It also says the law is a violation of the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid Act by banning essential services that Medicaid would otherwise authorize and reimburse. 

“The legislature did not ban the various treatments that are outlined,” Ken Falk, the ACLU of Indiana’s legal director, told the AP. “It only banned it for transgender persons.”

In a separate statement, Falk asserted that the law will cause “serious injuries” to trans youth.

Studies have indeed shown that gender-affirming care can significantly lower the risk of depression and suicide for trans youth. Additionally, gender-affirming care for both adolescents and adults has been endorsed by the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, and many other professional groups as necessary and frequently lifesaving for transgender individuals.

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) also condemned Indiana’s law. 

“Governor Holcomb’s decision to sign this gender-affirming care ban into law is about nothing more than prioritizing politics over the wellbeing of transgender youth in Indiana,” said HRC State Legislative Director and Senior Counsel Cathryn Oakley. “This law will deny critical, age-appropriate medical care to transgender youth, putting their health and wellbeing at risk. The transgender community is being subjected to a legislative onslaught in states across the country, and it is truly appalling that radical politicians in Indiana are joining in on this harmful campaign that will only make life more difficult for transgender youth and their loved ones.” 

Editor’s note: This article mentions suicide. If you need to talk to someone now, call the Trans Lifeline at 1-877-565-8860. It’s staffed by trans people, for trans people. The Trevor Project provides a safe, judgment-free place to talk for LGBTQ youth at 1-866-488-7386. You can also call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-8255.

/ / /

NJ Gov Declares State “Safe Haven” For Trans Health

Via press release from New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy:

Governor Phil Murphy today signed Executive Order No. 326 establishing New Jersey as a safe haven for gender-affirming health care by directing all state departments and agencies to protect all persons, including health care professionals and patients, against potential repercussions resulting from providing, receiving, assisting in providing or receiving, seeking, or traveling to New Jersey to obtain gender-affirming health care services.

As access to gender-affirming health care is threatened across the country, today’s executive order reflects the Murphy Administration’s commitment to fostering a safe and affirming health care environment in New Jersey.

“Across the nation, we are witnessing attacks led by certain states that seek to undermine the equality, dignity, and safety of the LGBTQIA+ community, especially transgender and non-binary youth,” said Governor Murphy.

“As leaders, our greatest responsibility is ensuring that every person we represent, regardless of their gender identity or gender expression, is entitled to respect, fairness, and freedom. We will continue to uphold these principles in New Jersey and support every person’s right to live freely and authentically by making our state a safe haven for those seeking or providing gender-affirming health care.”

/ /

Idaho governor signs bill banning transition care for minors

Idaho has joined a dozen states across the country in banning or restricting transition-related care for minors.

The state’s governor, Brad Little, a Republican, signed the “Vulnerable Child Protective Act” into law Tuesday evening. The measure prohibits transgender people under 18 from accessing puberty blockers and hormones. It also prevents them from undergoing transition-related surgery, though there is no evidence to suggest minors are getting this type of surgery in Idaho, according to KTVB-TV, an NBC affiliate in Boise. 

“In signing this bill, I recognize our society plays a role in protecting minors from surgeries or treatments that can irreversibly damage their healthy bodies,” Little wrote in a letter to Idaho’s House speaker. “However, as policymakers we should take great caution whenever we consider allowing the government to interfere with loving parents and their decisions about what is best for their children.”

Medical practitioners who violate the law, which takes effect Jan. 1, could be charged with a felony and spend up to 10 years in prison if convicted. 

Critics of the law say it amounts to government overreach and will end up harming, not helping, the state’s transgender youths. 

“We are heartbroken for the families of Idaho today. We are watching parental rights being dismantled in the name of stigmatizing and harming our most vulnerable youth,” Chelsea Gaona-Lincoln, executive director of the LGBTQ advocacy group Add the Words, Idaho, said in a statement.

Most forms of gender-affirming care for minors are supported by the nation’s top medical associations, including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association. Surgery, however, is not typically recommended for people under 18, according to guidance from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health.

Idaho’s Vulnerable Child Protective Act is part of a broader effort among conservative lawmakers throughout the country to restrict the rights of LGBTQ Americans, especially transgender people. So far this year, more than 400 such proposals have been filed in state legislatures, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.

/ /

Even most Republican voters think the GOP is attacking transgender kids too much

,

A new poll found that a majority of Democratic, independent, and even Republican likely voters believe that there is “too much legislation” aimed at reducing LGBTQ+ rights at the state level.

The progressive polling firm and think tank Data for Progress conducted a survey of 1220 participants and asked about the 429 bills presented at state legislatures attacking LGBTQ+ rights. Most of the bills are aimed at transgender youth, and 17 have already become law this year.

Republican lawmakers have worked round the clock to pass oppressive bills targeting gender-affirming care, bathroom usage, drag shows, and trans students. 

72% of Democratic voters agreed with the statement that there is “too much legislation. Politicians are playing political theater and using these bills as a wedge issue,” and only 20% agreed that it’s “the right amount of legislation. Politicians are dealing with a real danger that needs to be addressed.” 65% of independent voters agreed that there is too much anti-LGBTQ+ legislation this year.

The more surprising result – considering how the vast majority of lawmakers voting for these bills are Republicans – was that 55% of Republican voters agreed that there is too much anti-LGBTQ+ legislation. Only 33% said that there is the “right amount” of such bills.

Chart from Data for Progress showing percentages of people who believe that there is too much or just enough anti-LGBTQ legislation

The survey also asked if people believed that being transgender is a “natural phenomenon that has occurred throughout history” that’s “normal” or if they believed that being trans is a “new phenomenon created by our modern woke culture” that will “harm our children.” Most Democrats (78%) and most independents (58%) agreed that being trans is natural. Only 34% of Republicans agreed that being trans is natural, while a majority (55%) said that it’s a new phenomenon.

Chart from Data for Progress showing percentages of people who believe that being trans is natural or not

While Republicans lag on that issue, Data for Progress noted that a majority of all likely voters (57%) said that being trans is natural, which could indicate that attacks on trans youth might not be the potent electoral winner that many Republican strategists believe it is.

While state Republican lawmakers have been introducing anti-transgender legislation for over a decade, there was an explosion of such legislation in 2021, just several weeks after Donald Trump’s loss in the general election. Democrats accused Republicans – many of whom had never shown any concern for the state of girls’ and women’s sports – of using transgender kids to distract from the GOP’s less popular positions on the COVID-19 pandemic and the economy. 

Part of the reason that such a strategy could work is that transgender people make up a small percentage of the population and many people don’t think they know anyone who is transgender. Only 36% of Democrats, 39% of independents, and 25% of Republicans said that they know someone who is trans or nonbinary, and a majority of each group said that they didn’t.

Chart from Data for Progress showing percentages of people who know someone who is trans or nonbinary

And knowing a trans or nonbinary person decreases the chance that someone will see them as a threat. Among likely voters who know someone trans or nonbinary, 78% said that trans people are not a threat to straight families and 66% said that they’re not a threat to children. Among people who don’t know anyone who is trans, though, those numbers dropped to 52% and 41%, respectively.

Chart from Data for Progress showing percentages of people who believe that trans people are a threat to straight families or children

Most Democratic voters (54%) and independent voters (63%) believe that Democratic elected officials should be doing more to fight anti-LGBTQ+ legislation. The survey didn’t ask what they believe Democrats should be doing.

When it comes to drag bans, a majority of Democrats (68%) and independents (55%) said that they had seen a drag performance either live or on TV. 53% of Republicans, though, said that they have never seen a drag performance at all.

/ /

Biden administration appeals judge’s decision that insurance companies don’t have to cover PrEP

,

The U.S. Justice Department (DOJ) is appealing a judge’s decision to nullify a section of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that requires insurance companies to cover the HIV prevention drug regimen PrEP. 

Last week, U.S. District Juge Reed O’Connor struck down a section of the ACA requiring coverage of certain preventive health care services, which, in addition to PrEP, includes some cancer screenings, contraception, immunizations, and more. O’Connor’s decision leaves over 150 million people vulnerable to the added costs of this care. 

A coordinated effort by right-wing media and lawmakers has decimated community-based programs addressing healthcare for LGBTQ+ people in Tennessee

O’Connor’s decision came about in response to a lawsuit filed by two Christian business owners and six individuals who felt being required to cover PrEP promotes “homosexual behavior” and is a violation of religious freedom. The plaintiffs also argued that being required to cover other preventive services makes them “complicit in facilitating… drug use, and sexual activity outside of marriage between one man and one woman.”

In a statement on the appeal, out White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said President Joe Biden “is glad to see the Department of Justice is appealing the judge’s decision” and that the case “is yet another attack on the Affordable Care Act, which has been the law of the land for 13 years and survived three challenges before the Supreme Court.”
 
“Preventive care saves lives, saves families money, and protects and improves our health,” she continued. “Because of the ACA, millions of Americans have access to free cancer and heart disease screenings. This decision threatens to jeopardize critical care. The administration will continue to fight to improve health care and make it more affordable for hard-working families, even in the face of attacks from special interests.”

Michael Weinstein, the founder and president of the Aids Healthcare Foundation, said O’Connor’s decision “will have dangerous consequences” for millions of Americans. 

 “While we expect this unconstitutional ruling ultimately will fail, the decision creates uncertainty and is a threat to public health,” Weinstein said. 

This is not the first ruling O’Connor has made against PrEP and the ACA. In September 2022, he ruled that a provision of the act requiring employee health insurance plans to provide full coverage of HIV-prevention drugs (as well as other preventive health care services) is a violation of religious freedom. That ruling only applied to the companies of the plaintiffs in the case. 

Long known as an anti-LGBTQ+ extremist, O’Connor also ruled in 2021 that businesses that say they’re religious can fire LGBTQ+ people, chipping away at the protections granted by the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton Co. 

He ruled the same year that a Catholic hospital doesn’t have to follow federal anti-discrimination laws when it comes to the provision of health care because of the chance that they’d be forced to provide care for a transgender person that affirms their gender, even if the procedure is not one the hospital objects to. His reasoning for the sweeping religious exemption for the Catholic hospital was that Biden and Barack Obama have a “pattern” of religious animus, so they can’t be trusted to enforce the law correctly.

In 2015, O’Connor blocked federal benefits for Texas workers married to spouses of the same sex.

/ /

Study reveals startling details about the online habits of gay kids

,

A new study has found that queer kids aged 10-14 are spending way longer staring at their screens than their straight counterparts. And it’s probably not good for them.

The study says they spend around 10.4 hours on their screens each day. That’s a whopping four hours more than straight kids.

The study was published in the Annals of Epidemiology. 

It looked at data on over 10,000 preteens culled between 2018-2020. All the youngsters signed up to take part in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study. It’s largest long-term study of brain development and child health in the United States.

The study’s lead author is Jason Nagata, MD, an Assistant Professor of Pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco.

“Lesbian, gay, and bisexual adolescents are more likely to experience school-based bullying and exclusion from peer groups due to their sexual orientation, leading them to spend less time in traditional school activities and more time on screens,” says Nagata in a press statement.

“Texting, and using social media and the internet for virtual communication could be helpful for LGB preteens to find and receive support from other LGB people who may not be available in their local communities.”

On the downside, the kids were also asked if they thought their screen time was problematic. They were asked if they agreed with statements such as, “I play video games so much that it has a bad effect on my schoolwork,” and “I’ve tried to use my social media apps less but I can’t.”

The study concluded that LGB adolescents experienced higher problematic mobile phone and social media use than their straight peers.

Escaping into an online world of gaming and YouTube videos

Nagata told Queerty that turning to the digital world and the internet had benefits but also downsides for gay youngsters.

“Queer youth who don’t have support in their local communities may turn to the internet to find and receive the help they need. Screens can also be helpful to stay in touch with friends and family who live far away.

“Risks of screen use include poorer sleep, less physical activity, and mental health consequences associated with overuse. In another recent study, we found a higher risk of sleep problems among gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth compared to straight youth.”

According to its authors, one of the study’s limitations is that most people don’t identify their sexual orientation until they’re about 17 or 18. Therefore, some of the young participants who said they were straight may turn out to identify as gay when older.

“Some of the adolescents in our study might not have come out yet or fully understand their sexuality. When children in this study were 9-10 years old, 1.5% identified as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. By age 11-12, 4.4% identified as gay, lesbian, or bisexual and 3.8% were questioning. The percentage of study participants who identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual will likely increase through their teenage years.”

The study did not seek to ask kids exactly what they were watching online. However, it noted many said they watch a lot of YouTube videos.

Do parents know how much time their kids spend online?

The researchers recommend parents are aware of how much time their children spend online. It suggests they are active in discussing these issues with their offspring.

“Parents should regularly talk to their teens about screen usage and develop a family media use plan. Parents can develop a family media use plan which could include setting limits and encouraging screen-free time, such as before bedtime or during family meals,” he told Queerty.

“We know screen use interferes with sleep, and good sleep is important for mental health.”

He also recommends parents keep an eye on their kids’ eating habits. This is because “Social media use is linked to body image dissatisfaction in LGB youth.”

Is there a set number of hours that kids should spend looking at their screens?

“The American Academy of Pediatrics used to recommend less than two hours of daily screen time for children and adolescents ages 5 to 18,” he replies. “Now they are moving away from giving specific hours because the reality is that most kids spend far more than two hours a day on screens, and not all screen time is equal. Now they recommend creating a plan based on what makes sense for your family given your kids’ screen habits and your family’s situation.”

/ /

Another survey with HIV long-term survivors. Have we learned anything new?

On Wednesday, March 22, 2023, the Survivors of HIV Advocating for Research Engagement (SHARE) Board conducted a webinar highlighting the results of their survey “Aging with HIV: What do you need to thrive?” They sought to answer questions such as, “What are the key health-related questions/issues that research should address around HIV and aging?,” “What matters most to people aging with HIV?,” and “What health outcomes are of most relevance to people aging with HIV?”

Sadly, the SHARE survey and report revealed nothing new. 

Their overall conclusions were that: 

  • Community members living with HIV can be and need to be included in research projects;
  • Care concerns in long-term survivor groups may reflect the loss of friends and the potential of stigma from family members, necessitating need for paid care;
  • Planning for older adulthood is challenged further when it living into advanced age wasn’t anticipated; and,
  • Significant need exists for financial management, housing, medication burden support. 

It is notable that SHARE meant for the survey not only to identify priority research issues that matter to long-term HIV survivors, but also to facilitate collaboration among long-term HIV survivors, policy makers, clinicians, and researchers. 

They recruited a group of 267 long-term survivors (whom they defined as 50 years or older who had lived with HIV for ten years or more), ranging in age from 42 to 77, with an average length of diagnosis of 29 years. Survey respondents were heterosexual (36%), gay (29%), bisexual (19%), and lesbian (13%), with reported race/ethnicities of Black or African American (33%), Hispanic (28%), and white (52%) from both rural and urban areas around the country. Participants completed a survey and interviews by phone, Zoom, or face-to-face. 

The survey revealed slightly different priorities among those who have lived with HIV for less than twenty years compared with those who have lived with HIV for more than twenty years, but overall, the six most frequently reported needs among long-term survivors were: (1) enhancing quality of life (by far the most prominent issue), (2) addressing mental health and cognitive decline, (3) maintaining physical health, (4) addressing loneliness and isolation, (5) issues of medication, including polypharmacy concerns, and (6) accessing appropriate healthcare. 

Care planning and caregiving were also identified as critical issues, with more than 50 percent of respondents stating “I’m not sure who would provide care for me,” particularly among those who were diagnosed more than twenty years ago. More than 80% of respondents also reported having experienced stigma based on race/ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, and HIV status.

Since January 2016, I have studied and reported on issues faced by us long-term HIV survivors, including several community-based surveys and studies such as this one. I have attended (via Zoom) several webinars reporting on the findings of those studies. While I make no unwarranted claim to expertise in the field of HIV, I can and do claim a great deal of lived experience with HIV as well as knowledge gained through my studying and reporting.

For many years, we long-term survivors have known and made public our concerns about being included in research projects that affect our lives and other issues identified in the SHARE survey. One need look no further than The San Francisco Principals 2020, which five of us long-term survivors wrote and distributed after the virtual AIDS2020 conference. 

In the Principles, we identified the same issues (stigma, financial stress, mental healthcare needs, the lack of trained geriatricians, concerns about the effects of the virus and our medications on our bodies, the lack of political will to address those issues, etc.) and proposed solutions. We were not alone — several major AIDS-related groups have long insisted on the inclusion of us long-term survivors in any and all research and clinical trials that affect us. Nothing about us without us is more than just a catchy slogan — it is a priority that many of us have demanded since as early as 1983 when people living with AIDS promulgated the Denver Principles. 

For me, this webinar raised several questions: What is being done to get the results of this survey, and others, into the hands of policy makers, clinicians, and researchers who can actually do something with them? 

What concrete actions are being taken as a result of these many community surveys? 

How many times must we ask the same questions, getting the same answers, before our answers to those questions are implemented in meaningful ways? 

It seems to me, and to many of my fellow survivors, that our needs — for informed healthcare, for financial help to afford medications and living expenses, for mental healthcare, for community-based solutions, etc. — have been known for long enough. What we need is policies and actions that address those needs.

We already know what we need. When, if ever, will those needs be met?

/ /

Elon Musk Called Out as Anti-LGBTQ+ Slurs Rise on Twitter

,

U.S. Reps. Adam Schiff and Mark Takano, both Democrats from California, Tuesday called on Twitter CEO Elon Musk to address the rise in hate speech, including anti-LGBTQ+ speech, on the platform since he took it over last fall.

They cited a study from the Center for Countering Digital Hate, also released Tuesday, that notes the volume of tweets characterizing LGBTQ+ people as “groomers” has increased 119 percent since Musk assumed control October 27.

“New studies have demonstrated, once again, that hate speech has dramatically increased on the platform. As a result of these studies, we have new data showing that Twitter is not adequately or consistently acting on the hate speech on the platform,” Schiff and Takano wrote in a letter to Musk.

The congressmen had written to Musk in December, “after multiple reports came out demonstrating that since late October, when you initiated numerous layoffs and changes at the company, hate speech has dramatically increased on Twitter,” they stated in the new letter. Musk responded by tweeting that one of them had a brain that “was too small.”

In the first letter, they cited particularly the rise in anti-Semitic and anti-LGBTQ+ speech. Some of it, in addition to racist speech, has been directed at them; Schiff is Jewish, and Takano is gay and Asian American.

“Unfortunately, our letter was only met with open hostility and a false public attack that did not provide the requested data,” they wrote Tuesday. “Your various tweets to our offices included a decrease in hate speech was followed by massive amounts of antisemitic and anti-LGBTQ comments and threats against us on both of our Twitter accounts.”

The two lawmakers said they are writing again following new data available that contradicts Musk’s comments that hate speech is decreasing on the platform. Schiff and Takano cite research from the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD), which found that anti-Semitic tweets had increased by over 106 percent.

“Additionally, the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) released a new study today, which shows there was a 119% increase in anti-LGBTQ rhetoric and slurs on the platform under your leadership,” they wrote. “This follows a February study from CCDH which demonstrated the harms that you have brought to the platform by reinstating tens of thousands of accounts that were espousing antisemitic, anti-LGBTQ, bigoted, misogynistic, and racist ideologies. Most notably they found that just ten of those hateful accounts have accumulated over 2.5 billion impressions on Twitter since December.”

Schiff and Takano’s letter references the CCDH’s findings that Twitter will gain $6.4 million each year from advertising revenue by just reinstating five accounts known for their anti-LGBTQ+ content. 

Those five are Libs of TikTok, Gays Against Groomers, Chris Rufo, James Lindsay, and Tim Pool. The first three “were named by the Anti-Defamation League in its list of the top Online Amplifiers of Anti-LGBTQ+ Extremism,” according to a CCDH press release. Lindsay is known for popularizing the phrase “OK groomer” and was banned from Twitter before Musk’s takeover. Pool was cited by watchdog group Media Matters for appearing to blame the victims of the Colorado Springs LGBTQ+ nightclub shooting and for spreading anti-transgender propaganda.

Schiff and Takano’s letter asks Musk what steps he’s going to take to address hate speech and when; if he has a plan to increase safety for users, particularly those who are LGBTQ+ or Jewish; and how Twitter enforces content moderation and if it will share that process with the public.

In the CCDH press release, CEO Imran Ahmed said, “Hate-filled lies about LGBTQ+ people are spread online to dehumanize fellow citizens and whip up fear purely based on whom they love or how they identify, and is mirrored by an alarming rise in real-world violence. This isn’t an accident. Elon Musk put up the ‘Bat Signal’ to homophobes, transphobes, racists and all manner of disinformation actors, encouraging them to flood onto Twitter. Not only has Musk’s ownership of the platform coincided with an explosion of the hateful ‘grooming’ narrative, but Twitter is monetizing hate at an unprecedented rate.”

Ahmed added: “Twitter must decide if they believe in the fundamental rights and freedoms of LGBTQ+ people, or if they want to continue profiting from and normalizing hate. They cannot do both.”

The Human Rights Campaign, an LGBTQ+ rights organization, also slammed Twitter over CCDH’s findings. 

Jay Brown, Human Rights Campaign senior vice president, programs, research, and training said in a statement that the U.S. is facing “a surge of anti-LGBTQ+ attacks as extremists continue to traffic in dangerous disinformation about our community.”

“These threats have caused a rise in verbal and physical abuse, with nearly one-in-five of any type of hate crime being motivated by anti-LGBTQ+ bias — with a continued epidemic of fatal violence facing transgender people, particularly Black transgender women,” Brown said. “Social media platforms have a responsibility to their users to create a space where the exchange of opposing ideas does not result in physical harm, or discriminatory legislation.”

«‹ 6 7 8 9›»