By Erin Reed | WASHINGTON – “Sex based uniforms are also lawful,” a slide proclaimed at a Sex Matters event in Manchester, England. “Children’s actual sex must be known by everyone in the school environment.”

Meanwhile, in the United States, Harrison County School District made headlines when it announced that students would be forced to dress in clothing “consistent with their biological sex.” In Texas, the department of agriculture released a letter to employees, requiring all state employees in the department to “comply with this dress code in a manner consistent with their biological sex.” Those who oppose the existence and visibility of transgender people in public life now seemingly have turned their efforts of gender conformity to everyone.

In a Manchester museum, the Sex Matters event unfurled, steered by ardent campaigners against transgender rights, Helen Joyce and Maya Forstater. Among the aims of the events were items such as “the fight to make sure the law protects women’s rights.” Interestingly, the gathering presented a distinct dress code for its attendees: “Be the billboard for sex-based rights (Adult Human Female; This Witch Doesn’t Burn – or your preferred slogan); embody the spirit of the Suffragettes in tones of purple, green, and white; or wear whatever you like” (emphasis added).

While giving the presentation, Maya Forstater could be seen in a relaxed pose, donned in trousers and sandals. Behind her, a slide loomed, advocating for stringent measures on social transition for trans people in schools. The restrictions espoused included “Sex-based rules” relating to restroom usage, pronouns, and attire, even barring students from donning “the uniform of the opposite sex.”

Meanwhile in the U.S., a flurry of gender-conformity laws and policies have emerged, seemingly in response to the rising visibility of transgender people. Earlier this year in Mississippi, a transgender girl was told she would be barred from her own graduation walk because she desired to wear the same dress the other girls were wearing.

On graduation day, a cisgender girl met a similar fate, this time for her decision to wear pants. In the midst of this, her grandmother voiced her anguish: “I don’t understand how a moment this important can be taken away from a child that’s worked 12 years to get here.” The district has since solidified its clothing policies, stating that all students must wear clothing “consistent with their biological sex.”

Increasingly, policies that were originally aimed at transgender people are now being aimed at all of society. Major influencers in the modern anti-trans panic such as Ben Shapiro have advocated for local laws dictating what men and women can wear in public. PragerU, recently contracted out to major school districts, advocates for gendered dress codes. Yet, this shift isn’t confined to dress codes alone.

Pronoun and name change bans are also recently coming into effect in school districts across the United States and worldwide. In the United States, 11 states have policies that will lead to the forced outing of transgender people if they change their name and pronouns. In Iowa, Senator Bennett posted a message from a school district stating that in accordance with a recent law passed there, the teacher needed parental permission to start calling a student Joe rather than Joseph. In Canada, similar policies are being enacted.

Increasingly too, the same people that have advocated for gender affirming care bans and dress codes are pushing for gender conformity more overtly. Matt Walsh calls for “traditional masculinity” while chastising “childless women.” Michael Knowles attacked the UN Council on Women for indicating that boys can cry. These appeals to a “more traditional masculinity” are often echoed directly, such as in the recent DeSantis anti-trans political ad with superimposed images of muscular chests and the Governor’s face.

The distance between these views and those who call themselves “gender critical” is increasingly growing narrower. Just this week, a widely mocked tweet from one gender critical activist proclaimed that “girls need blouses and skirts” for biological reasons:

Increasingly, many are questioning whether advocacy for gendered dress codes can genuinely be labeled as “gender critical” or even “feminist.” When the organizers of the Sex Matters event championed policies like sex-segregated classes, they faced sharp criticism from those highlighting the contradictions in their platform. This incongruity isn’t new, though. It continues to cast doubt on whether “gender critical” activists truly seek to dismantle, rather than entrench, gender stereotypes.

The Sex Matters event illuminated how opposition to transgender individuals can eventually affect everyone. The concept of “biological clothing” lacks historical grounding—centuries ago, men donned dresses and baby boys were dressed in white and pink. Imposing limitations not just on an individual’s right to transition, but also on people’s freedom to express themselves, might be more than what was bargained for; nevertheless, it is an easy extension of attacks on transgender people allowed to go on unchecked.

****************************************************************************

Erin Reed is a transgender woman (she/her pronouns) and researcher who tracks anti-LGBTQ+ legislation around the world and helps people become better advocates for their queer family, friends, colleagues, and community. Reed also is a social media consultant and public speaker.

Follow her on Twitter (Link)

Website here: https://www.erininthemorning.com/

******************************************************************************************

The preceding article was first published at Erin In The Morning and is republished with permission.

By Erin Reed | WASHINGTON – Bud Light beer. Costa coffee. Target clothing. It’s hard to keep track of everything conservative’s have cancelled for LGBTQ+ representation in recent months. It seems even the mere mention of a transgender person is enough to get a company targeted these days, and a single rainbow flag could result in harassment and bomb threats.

Now, conservatives have turned their eyes to a new target to be outraged over: Paw Patrol.

Or, to be more accurate, their outrage has turned the Paw Patrol spinoff, Rubble & Crew, a construction-themed spinoff of the original animated series. In a viral video on twitter reaching over 2 million people, conservative influencer and former GOP primary candidate Robby Starbuck opened his video with the ominous statement, “They are coming for your children.” The outrageous content in question worthy of such a bold claim? A single nonbinary character wearing trans colored socks, who appears in only a single episode.

You can watch the video here:

I regret to inform you that Paw Patrol has gone woke. Their new spinoff series "Rubble and Crew" added a trans character. They also hired @lindzamer as a writer. Lindz runs the Queer Kids Stuff YouTube channel that indoctrinates kids into the trans ideology. Hollywood is working… pic.twitter.com/d4OGP58FeH

— Robby Starbuck (@robbystarbuck) September 18, 2023

Robby Starbuck video on Paw Patrol

The video quickly gained traction among prominent conservative influencers and elected officials. Libs of TikTok, notorious for fueling viral outrage and inciting violence against LGBTQ+ individuals and their supporters, circulated the video. They then falsely alleged that Paw Patrol was “embedding pornographic links on their candy wrappers,” a claim refuted by Twitter’s Community Notes feature. The Daily Caller, often criticized for transphobic content, also wrote an article on the matter. Prominent elected officials, like Tennessee House Majority Leader Representative William Lambeth, who penned the state’s ban on gender-affirming care for trans youth, also shared the video.

The video identifies queer author Lindz Amer as the creative mind behind the episode. Amer, a distinguished writer and recipient of the GLAAD Rising Stars Grant awarded for initiatives that “champion intersectional LGBTQ+ issues,” shared their excitement on Instagram: “I wanted to write a nonbinary character that was aspirational and incredibly cool, someone for the pups (and kids at home) to look up to. They found an awesome non-binary actor to voice River and I’m so so happy about how it turned out.”

Representation matters, especially for the LGBTQ+ community. As more individuals embrace their true identities and come out, families are increasingly inclusive of LGBTQ+ members. The Internet and Television Association has observed that over the past two decades, the shift towards greater acceptance of LGBTQ+ individuals can be largely attributed to positive portrayals on TV. Speaking on the matter with the NCTA, GLAAD’s Director of Entertainment Research & Analysis emphasized the significance of LGBTQ+ representation in children’s programming, noting, “By introducing this level of representation to children’s shows, we foster conversations about embracing differences, ensuring that children begin to cultivate a robust sense of self-worth from a young age.”

In recent months, though, conservatives have sought out to stamp out representation in all aspects of public life. Sixteen states have enacted restrictions on LGBTQ+ content in educational settings, under the guise of “Don’t Say Gay Or Trans” laws. In Florida, an educator was dismissed for as little as showing a Disney film featuring a gay character. GOP attorneys general have penned letters to Target, claiming the sale of LGBTQ+ themed apparel for young people violates obscenity laws. In Georgia, a predetermined mock trial saw a teacher fired for reading the Scholastic Kids book, “My Shadow Is Purple.” Virginia witnessed a lawsuit against Barnes & Noble, calling for the removal of LGBTQ+ books from their shelves. Ironically, the same conservatives who once lambasted the notion of “cancel culture” now seem to have fully embraced it.

For those who want to see the episode, it has just been released. The episode is titled, “The Crew Builds An Observatory,” where the characters join together to help River, the nonbinary character in question, catch a picture of a shooting star. You can watch it now on Nick Jr.

****************************************************************************

Erin Reed is a transgender woman (she/her pronouns) and researcher who tracks anti-LGBTQ+ legislation around the world and helps people become better advocates for their queer family, friends, colleagues, and community. Reed also is a social media consultant and public speaker.

Follow her on Twitter (Link)

Website here: https://www.erininthemorning.com/

******************************************************************************************

The preceding article was first published at Erin In The Morning and is republished with permission.

By Erin Reed | WASHINGTON – A cohort of so-called experts has traveled the United States, raking in more than a million dollars to contest gender-affirming care for trans youth in court battles.

Judges have frequently dismissed them as lacking credibility, yet states continue to shell out for their services. A recent deep dive by HuffPost into court transcripts now casts serious shadows over their proclaimed “expertise.”

Astoundingly, one of these alleged specialists, Dr. James Cantor, couldn’t even identify a single drug used in puberty-blocking treatments for transgender youth.

The article uncovers the details around a group of six witnesses that states have paid over a million dollars to defend anti-trans laws. These witnesses include:

• Paul Hruz – An endocrinologist who, according to court documents in Arkansas, has never treated a patient for gender dysphoria.
• Michael Laidlaw – An endocrinologist often associated with the Alliance Defending Freedom who has appeared in conferences that promote “curing homosexuality through faith healing.”
• James Cantor – A psychologist who did not see youth patients in his care typically, has never diagnosed gender dysphoria in young people, and who subscribes to the much discredited theory of “autogynephelia,” essentially calling being transgender a fetish.
• Stephen Levine – An ex-WPATH psychiatrist who argues for removal of gender affirming care for transgender inmates.
• Quentin Van Meter – Former president of the American College of Pediatricians, a SPLC-designated hate group that supports sexual orientation therapy.
• Patrick Lappert – A doctor who is also a deacon for Courage International, a conversion therapy organization encouraging gay people to “live chaste lives.”

Judges have consistently ruled these witnesses as not credible. For example, in Arkansas, Judge Moody declared Dr. Lappert and Dr. Hruz unqualified—both had attempted to defend the state’s law.

Moody pointed out that their views on gender-affirming care “are rooted in ideology rather than science.” In Florida, a judge emphasized in a footnote that Dr. Hruz appeared as “a deeply biased advocate” and highlighted the underlying ideological insinuation from these so-called experts that “transgender identity is not real, that it is made up.”

These witnesses have, at times, made statements widely decried as cruel towards transgender people. Dr. Hruz has, for instance, once allegedly answered claims of transgender suicidality with the statement: “some children are born into this world to suffer and die.”

Meanwhile, Dr. Lappert, in an interview on a Catholic YouTube channel, even compares pronouns to heresy, stating “no one is served by heresy.”

Now, in this latest investigative piece by HuffPost, new court transcripts have been analyzed and unveiled, including this stunning deposition of Dr. James Cantor, when he was unable to name a single puberty blocker:

Because of moments like this, judges at the district court level have frequently ruled against anti-trans experts on the scientific grounds for bans on gender-affirming care. Specifically, in cases from Florida, Arkansas, and Tennessee, judges determined that the facts robustly endorse gender-affirming care’s efficacy in curbing suicidality, anxiety, and depression in transgender youth.

Yet, some of these rulings have been overturned at the appellate level in ongoing court fights. This shift isn’t due to appellate judges being persuaded by these witnesses’ testimonies. Instead, they lean on the recent Dobbs abortion decision, which permits such bans based on the premise that gender-affirming care “is not deeply rooted in this nation’s history and traditions.”

GOP-aligned judges in the 6th and 11th Circuit courts contend that transgender individuals don’t constitute a “quasi-suspect class” under the equal protection clause. They argue that discrimination against transgender individuals doesn’t amount to unlawful gender discrimination, essentially sidestepping the rationale the Supreme Court employed in Bostock v. Clayton County, which established Title VII rights for trans individuals. With this perspective, these circuits employ the “rational basis” review as opposed to intermediate scrutiny.

This means states aren’t obligated to demonstrate that these bans are precisely targeted and evidence-backed, but merely that the law has a rational connection to a legitimate governmental objective. This stance diverges from the 8th Circuit Court, which sustained the preliminary injunction in Arkansas using intermediate scrutiny.

To the advantage of these state “experts,” they can persistently promote pseudoscientific perspectives on transgender care without genuinely substantiating the care’s purported harm. This endeavor has proven exceedingly profitable for them.

Based on public records requests, state and local governments have disbursed $1.1 million to such experts and an additional $6.6 million to affiliated teams. These numbers, as reported by HuffPost, likely are half of the true dollar figure given that many states did not release their spending.

There are many more court cases left – challenges are currently proceeding in places like Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and more states have court cases currently underway. Undoubtedly, these experts will continue to travel and defend anti-trans state laws in many of these states.

You can read the full investigative report from HuffPost here.

****************************************************************************

Erin Reed is a transgender woman (she/her pronouns) and researcher who tracks anti-LGBTQ+ legislation around the world and helps people become better advocates for their queer family, friends, colleagues, and community. Reed also is a social media consultant and public speaker.

Follow her on Twitter (Link)

Website here: https://www.erininthemorning.com/

******************************************************************************************

The preceding article was first published at Erin In The Morning and is republished with permission.

By  Ari Drennen | WASHINGTON – A short video posted Tuesday on the Daily Wire’s YouTube channel contained a by-now familiar disclosure: the platform had suspended Candace Owens, “prohibiting her from posting or appearing on any of the Daily Wire’s YouTube channels.” Multiple Daily Wire personalities have triggered enforcement actions by the platform for their frequent vitriol against LGBTQ people.

In announcing the news, Daily Wire personality Michael Knowles did not say how long the suspension was expected to last, but Daily Wire CEO Jeremy Boreing stated in June that Owens and Knowles had both received two strikes against their accounts for violating YouTube’s policies on hate speech. Three strikes against a YouTube account in a 90-day period can lead to its termination. Because the Daily Wire did not confirm the timing of the first strike, it is possible that it occurred prior to the current 90 window, leaving the podcaster with two strikes.

In response to a request for comment, a YouTube spokesperson stated: “We issued a strike to the Candace Owens Podcast channel for violating our hate speech policy, which prohibits content promoting hatred against protected individuals or groups, including the LGBTQ+ community.”

The video “Carlee Russell The Female Jussie Smollet?!” appears to have been removed from Owens’ channel. Media Matters previously reported on comments featured in the video, which followed Owens’ publication of an interview titled, “Is Homosexuality Ruining Western Civilization?” and included the claim that “it is gay men that are abusing children” in the Catholic Church.

Independent analysis still shows, however, that Owens’ YouTube channel, which is estimated to earn as much as $1.1 million per year, remains monetized with advertiser content. Knowles’ show, which Social Blade estimates to bring in as much as $3 million annually, is monetized as well. 

Knowles responded to his own prior suspension by removing the most extreme anti-LGBTQ rhetoric from his show and telling his audience that they could find the content — including a members-only segment he called “Trans Tuesday” — on the Daily Wire’s website. Owens, meanwhile, plowed ahead with vicious attacks against gay people. 

Content from before Owens’ previous suspension featured accusations that anybody who shopped at the retail chain Target was “gay” and “a pervert,” claims that “transgenderism” is “a cancer and we should fight it,” and boasts that the podcaster could beat up a nonbinary naval service member. YouTube’s hate speech policies say content that “repeatedly targets, insults, and abuses a group based on protected group status across multiple uploads” may lead to penalties. 

YouTube’s enforcement of its policies related to the LGBTQ community has been uneven. In April, after repeatedly targeting TikTok star Dylan Mulvaney, Daily Wire personality and “What is a Woman” filmmaker Matt Walsh had advertiser revenue stripped from his channel, only to have it restored 90 days later despite Walsh publicly vowing not to change his behavior.

The banner image on Owens’ YouTube channel advertises her show as streaming live on DailyWire+, Rumble, and X (formerly Twitter). YouTube, notably, is missing from that list.

***************************************************************************************

The preceding article was previously published by Media Matters for America and is republished with permission.

By Rebecca Farmer | BOULDER, Colo. – The Movement Advancement Project (MAP) released Banning Medical Care and Legal Recognition for Transgender People, the fifth in MAP’s report series, Under Fire: The War on LGBTQ People in America. 

The report details how the dramatic increase in political attacks on transgender youth are just the tip of the iceberg and part of a coordinated effort to eliminate transgender people of all ages from public life.

This year alone, state legislatures introduced more than 725 anti-LGBTQ bills shattering previous records. In 2023, more states enacted bans on transgender youth medical care than passed bans on marriage equality in 2004, one of the worst years in the fight for marriage equality.

“While most of the public focus has been on recent efforts to ban medical care for transgender youth, these attacks are part of a much larger, coordinated effort to try to erase transgender people from public life entirely,” said Logan Casey, Senior Policy Researcher & Advisor at MAP.  “Anti-LGBTQ extremists want to make it impossible for transgender people to be ourselves and to be legally recognized according to our gender identity.”  

This latest report in the Under Fire series from MAP identifies five core tactics opponents are using in their attempts to erase transgender people from public life: 

Tactic 1: Banning health care for transgender youth

The pace at which states are banning access to this care is remarkable. For example, prior to 2021, no states banned medical care for transgender youth.

Today, 22 states have enacted this kind of ban – 19 of them during this year alone. Currently more than 1 in 3 transgender youth live in a state that bans or severely restricts health care for them.  These kinds of laws have been enacted in all but two states in the U.S. South, leaving transgender youth in nearly an entire region without access to medically necessary care.  

Tactic 2: Banning health care or severely restricting health care for transgender adults

Bill introduced across the country are more explicitly targeting transgender adults’ access to care. Nearly one-third of youth-focused medical care ban bills introduced in 2023 would also limit health care for at least some transgender adults.

Some legislation seeks to ban healthcare for transgender adults by redefining a minor to include adults up to age 26.

At least nine states explicitly exclude transgender-related healthcare from Medicaid coverage for adults as well as youth. Some states also ban coverage transgender-related care in state health insurance plans.  Roughly one in seven bills attacking transgender health care included provisions to ban or restrict coverage in private health insurance.  

Tactic 3: Limiting transgender people’s ability to live openly and participate in daily life

Anti-LGBTQ forces are increasingly targeting the ability of transgender people to live openly and safely as themselves throughout their daily lives. This includes making it impossible or extremely difficult to obtain accurate ID, banning the use of bathrooms, restricting social transition, and more.  

ID documents: Four states ban people from updating the gender marker on their birth certificates and another 12 states impose invasive and overly burdensome medical requirements.  

Bathroom bans: Nine states now ban transgender people from using bathrooms and other facilities that match their gender identity. 

New bans, especially in Florida, are expanding their scope to apply not only to schools but also to other government-owned buildings and spaces; Florida’s ban includes major airports, sports arenas, and much more.  

Forced outing: Five states now require schools to out transgender students to their families, often regardless of whether this might put the child at risk of harm.  

Tactic 4: Rolling back legal recognition and protections

Opponents are also working to overturn the existing but limited protections for transgender people, while also working to enact new ways to remove opportunities for legal recognition.

Just in 2023, four states have enacted a new kind of law that defines “sex” throughout state law to allow discrimination against transgender and nonbinary people. Two additional states’ governors issued executive orders to the same effect.  

Fewer than half of states have explicit nondiscrimination protections for transgender people. Some states are working to undermine those existing protections with religious exemptions. 

Tactic 5: Criminalizing and harassing supporters of transgender people

Even supporters of transgender equality are being targeted. Healthcare providers for transgender people are facing loss of their licenses or even criminal penalties for providing medically necessary care that is endorsed by major medical associations.

In five states, it is now a felony to provide best-practice medical care to transgender youth.  Dozens of hospitals have reported receiving bomb threats and other serious harassment for providing medically necessary care to transgender youth.  

Many bills in recent years also target parents who support their transgender children. Florida legislation introduced in 2023 would have allowed the state to remove children from their families if the parents were even suspected of supporting them in receiving best-practice medical care. 

“Make no mistake – this swift and coordinated attack on transgender people in the U.S. is part of a larger war on LGBTQ people,” said Casey. “It’s essential that we see beyond one bill or policy to understand the broader scope of what is occurring. This is a coordinated and organized effort to try to erase not just transgender people, but LGBTQ people overall, from being able to publicly live our lives.” 

The entire “Under Fire” series is available here. 

About MAP: MAP’s mission is to provide independent and rigorous research, insight and communications that help speed equality and opportunity for all. MAP works to ensure that all people have a fair chance to pursue health and happiness, earn a living, take care of the ones they love, be safe in their communities, and participate in civic life. www.mapresearch.org

By Erin Reed | WASHINGTON – In a recent Tuesday statement, the gender clinic at Washington University announced its decision to cease services for transgender youth under its care.

While youth already receiving care were ostensibly protected under a “grandfather clause” following Missouri’s ban on gender-affirming care, another facet of the law was previously underreported: a prolonged 15-year liability window for those same individuals if they allege “harm” from such treatments, even if the care was performed perfectly.

The touted “grandfather clause” exempting trans youth who already were receiving care appears to have been a mirage, one which disappeared the moment this portion of the bill kicked in. Now, Republicans have a mechanism for closing trans clinics around the country, and they’re borrowing an old tactic from anti-abortion laws to do so, with troubling implications for both.

The provision states that medical practitioners are subject to liability for 15 years following gender affirming care for transgender youth. Disturbingly, one need not even prove neglect on the part of a doctor for a lawsuit to be successful. Providing care under such a system would be impossible.

Washington University’s clinic echoed this sentiment in its recent statement where it announced it would end care: “Due to Missouri’s latest legislation on transgender care, a novel legal challenge has emerged for those treated as minors. This claim introduces insurmountable liability for our health professionals, making it impossible for us to continue all-encompassing transgender care for minors without placing the university and our staff under untenable legal risk.”

You can see the liability provision here:

This is not the first time that a state has used stringent liability provisions as a covert method to ban certain medical treatments. The Missouri restriction on clinics serving transgender youth bears a striking resemblance to liability laws targeting another medical procedure: abortion.

In 1997, Louisiana’s Act 825 laid out specific liability consequences for abortion providers. Perversely, under this legislation, a patient who voluntarily sought and underwent an abortion could then sue for “damages” that, bizarrely, encompassed the intended outcome of the procedure itself—the death of the “unborn child.”

Oklahoma followed a similar trajectory, introducing liability tied to mandatory parental notification for all abortions conducted within its borders. Arguably the most extreme manifestation of this trend surfaced recently in Texas, where laws now empower virtually anyone to sue an abortion provider solely for performing the procedure.

These liability provisions make providing care prohibitively difficult. Firstly, their duration is much longer the typical liability timeframe associated with other medications and procedures. To put it in perspective, Missouri’s medical malpractice lawsuits for all other medical procedures have a window of just 2 years.

What amplifies the predicament is that there’s no need to prove neglect—diverging sharply from standard malpractice suits where establishing neglect is pivotal. These specific provisions targeting gender-affirming and abortion care essentially render the practice financially untenable. Yet, the most most damaging aspect of these provisions is in the difficulty in fighting them in court.

Louisiana’s Act 825 came during a period where Roe v. Wade protections still applied. By 1997, Louisiana had lost several lawsuits declaring abortion bans unconstitutional. In 1990, the state had passed an absolute abortion ban with only an exception “to save the life of the woman or in cases of rape and incest.” This was ruled unconstitutional in 1992.

Legislatures contended with repeated findings on the constitutionality of abortion and concocted new ways to target it. Act 825 represented a major breakthrough.

To challenge a law traditionally, one must target an entity that might enforce it against them, often a state’s district attorney or attorney general. However, Louisiana’s Act 825 posed a unique conundrum. Doctors wishing to administer abortions found themselves devoid of a clear entity to litigate against in seeking to negate the law.

Instead, they were confronted with the peril of possibly being sued after performing an abortion and hoping the challenge would falter in court on constitutional grounds. This amplified risk notably heightened the financial strain of facilitating abortions within the state. Nevertheless, a handful of practitioners pressed on, banking on Roe v. Wade to shield them in individual legal battles.

For trans care, though, it is even more perilous. There is no overarching Roe v. Wade law with settled precedent. Instead, that precedent is still developing as courts seek to interpret if transgender people can be legally discriminated against, or if they are offered protections under the 14th Amendment.

Clinics like the Washington University Gender Clinic cannot even sue to overturn the liability provisions, which could be cost-prohibitive if even a single transgender person decides, 15 years later, that they are unsatisfied with their transition.

There are already signs that liability provisions are expanding. In Texas, for instance, SB1029 passed the Senate but was not ultimately enacted into law. Unlike the Missouri law, which limited the liability provisions to trans youth, the Texas bill expanded it to all transgender care. Any doctor could be sued by any patient, even if the care was provided perfectly, and they would remain strictly liable. Should any state wish to ban gender affirming care for all trans adults, bills like this could be a mechanism to do so.

Given the parallels between anti-abortion and anti-trans legislations, it’s foreseeable that similar tactics may target both types of care in upcoming months. The narrative surrounding abortion and trans care—focused on the alleged “harm” they inflict—lays the groundwork for endorsing such legislations.

Furthermore, the liability clauses act as a deterrent to legal challenges, effectively weaponizing undue risk against the providers. This could lead to the cessation of vital services without any constitutional examination of the underlying laws in the near future.

**********************************************************************************

Erin Reed is a transgender woman (she/her pronouns) and researcher who tracks anti-LGBTQ+ legislation around the world and helps people become better advocates for their queer family, friends, colleagues, and community. Reed also is a social media consultant and public speaker.

Follow her on Twitter (Link)

Website here: https://www.erininthemorning.com/

******************************************************************************************

The preceding article was first published at Erin In The Morning and is republished with permission.

By  Eric Hananoki | WASHINGTON – X (formerly Twitter) has been placing ads for major brands like MLB, Bayer, Tyson Foods, and eBay on the account of Stew Peters, a white nationalist streamer who uses the social platform to endorse the killings of politicians and LGBTQ advocates. 

Peters has over 400,000 followers on his account, which he uses to attack people for being Jewish, and recently wrote of the Elon Musk-backed “BanTheADL” campaign: “The ADL controlling free speech has gone on long enough. The final solution should be @elonmusk banning the @ADL from twitter/@x.”   

X CEO Linda Yaccarino has been claiming that her platform is a safe place for brands. She recently tweeted that X has a “commitment to brand safety” and told CNBC in a recent interview that companies are “protected from the risk of being next to” toxic content and, “By all objective metrics, X is a much healthier and safer platform than it was a year ago.” 

That’s false: Media Matters and other observers have shown that X remains a toxic environment, especially for advertisers. Since Elon Musk took over the company, X has placed ads for numerous brands directly on pro-Hitler, Holocaust denial, white nationalist, and neo-Nazi accounts. Ads have also appeared next to unhinged conspiracy theories about Jewish people and 9/11. 

Peters is a far-right conspiracy theorist, white nationalist, and Rumble host who believes that politicians, pro-vaccine advocates, and journalists must be executed.

Peters was previously banned on X when it was known as Twitter, but he was able to reopen an account under Musk. During his time on X, he has authored numerous posts that have spread false claims and conspiracy theories, including recently claiming that a laser weapon caused the Lahaina wildfires. 

He also uses his account to attack people for being Jewish and promote white nationalism. He once posted a celebratory picture of Hitler, writing: “Say what you will about Hitler, but people turned out for his rallies.” 

He wrote of the Holocaust: “The Covid bioweapon genocide is significantly WORSE than the holocaust in terms of worldwide reach and number of deaths.” 

Despite (or maybe because of) his toxic background, numerous political figures have appeared on his program. They include: U.S. Reps. Paul Gosar (R-AZ), Bob Good (R-VA), Pete Sessions (R-TX), and Andy Biggs (R-AZ); Arizona state Sen. Wendy Rogers; and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Peters recently spoke at the ReAwaken America tour in Las Vegas along with Donald Trump Jr., Lara Trump, Kimberly Guilfoyle, and Michael Flynn, among others. During that speech, Peters again called for the hanging of Anthony Fauci. 

Peters openly promotes violence on his account, which is a violation of X’s purported rules. X, however, has repeatedly failed to enforce its rules under Musk and Yaccarino’s watch. 

X placed ads for major advertisers on Peters’ violent posts and account 

We looked at two recent examples of Peters promoting violence and found numerous ads for major brands directly on those posts. We also looked at Peters’ account and found numerous other brand ads. 

Pro-LGBTQ killing. Peters posted an image of a flier calling for the murder of pro-LGBTQ advocates, including the anti-bullying group GLSEN and Target, because they support transgender rights. He wrote: “Apparently some fine Americans are circulating some literature at their local Target store.”

Brand ads on that post include:

• Bayer
• Motley Fool
• NJ.com 
• Outback Steakhouse 
• Puck News
• The Philadelphia Inquirer

While advertising for Bayer — a pharmaceutical company that helped produce a COVID-19 vaccine — has appeared on his account, Peters has said drug companies involved in the manufacturing of the vaccine should receive “the death penalty.” 

Pro-politician killing. Peters posted an image of gallows with the caption “government repair kit.” He wrote: “We have a lot of repairing to do.” 

Brand ads on that post include:

• Action Network 
• The Telegraph 
• The Small Business Administration (U.S. federal government) 
• SB Nation
• Tyson Foods

Peters’ account is filled with other calls for violence. Those include him posting a video of politicians and reporters making pro-COVID-19 vaccine remarks and writing, “Every single one of these people deserve the rope”; and him saying of non-binary singer Sam Smith, “Any serious society would give this demon the Old Yeller treatment.” 

Peters also recently suggested violence against California state Rep. Lori Wilson (D), posting on X regarding a speech she made supporting gender affirming care: “Time for a trip to the woodshed.” (Replies to Peters included “gallows,” “hang,” and “to the big tree.”) 

We also found ads for numerous brands on Peters’ account page: 

• Callaway Golf
• Cox Communications
• DraftKings
• eBay 
• FanDuel 
• Lenovo
• McGraw Hill
• MetLife
• MLB
• Siemens
• PGA Tour
• Vertex Pharmaceuticals

***************************************************************************************

The preceding article was previously published by Media Matters for America and is republished with permission.

By Erin Reed | WASHINGTON – In a video released Monday by Right Wing Watch, Turning Point USA’s Charlie Kirk calls transgender people a “throbbing middle finger to God” and “an abomination.”

He follows up by deadnaming University of Pennsylvania transgender swimmer Lia Thomas, stating, “you’re an abomination to God.” Kirk, an influential conservative who runs Turning Point USA, has previously made statements that could be interpreted to promote violence towards transgender people, such as the time he called for transgender people to be “taken care of” like men did in the “1950s and 60s.”

“The one issue that I think is so against our senses, so against the natural law – and dare I say, a throbbing middle finger to God – is the transgender thing happening in America right now,” Kirk said. “You’re in a church, so it’s important to remember Deuteronomy 22:5, ‘A woman shall not wear a man’s garment nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the lord your God.’ You hear that [Deadname removed] Thomas? You’re an abomination to God!”

You can see the video here (content warning: extreme anti-trans rhetoric, deadnaming):

Charlie Kirk called trans people a "throbbing middle finger to god" and an "abomination to God," then deadnamed Lia Thomas.

He's one of the most influential people in anti-trans policy.

Hate, not science, drives anti-trans ideology.pic.twitter.com/3ATJfR0aV1

— Erin Reed (@ErinInTheMorn) September 11, 2023

Turning Point USA has played a significant role in politics opposing transgender rights. The organization, which operates with a budget in the tens of millions of dollars, supports candidates who emphasize anti-trans stances in their campaigns.

For example, Rep. Braxton Mitchell of Montana authored the state’s anti-drag bill, which passed but was later blocked as likely unconstitutional. Rep. Mazzie Boyd of Missouri penned similar legislation. Both were candidates that were developed through TPUSA or at conventions run by them.

Additionally, Turning Point USA operates the “Turning Point Academy,” an “educational movement” promoting anti-LGBTQ narratives for K-12 students. The organization has collaborated with Libs of TikTok, managed by Chaya Raichik, a notable anti-trans Twitter account criticized for inciting anti-trans violence.

Charlie Kirk has previously made extreme remarks about transgender individuals. Earlier this year, he interviewed swimmer Riley Gaines, known for her anti-trans views, and seemed to suggest transgender people should be dealt with violently, stating that trans people are “sick” and that men should have “taken care of” trans people like “we did in the 1950s and 60s.” Such remarks sparked significant protests at several universities where Kirk was scheduled to speak, including the University of California, Davis.

Charlie Kirk’s organization often conducts speaking tours on college campuses. One notable tour is the Live Free Tour. In 2022, it was advertised as an event to “counter left-leaning propaganda and uphold conservative values in the classroom.”

The 2023 tour includes both Charlie Kirk and Candace Owens. Owens has made violent comments regarding transgender individuals, suggesting she would beat a hypothetical trans grandchild with a cane and advocating for the removal of trans children from their parents.

Here are the 2023 tour dates for the Live Free Tour this year:

• San Jose State University – October 2nd
• University of Central Florida – October 10th
• Georgia Tech – October 12th
• University of Texas, San Antonio – October 18th
• The University of Buffalo – October 25th
• University of California, Los Angeles – November 9th

Kirk, along with many opponents of transgender rights, has often suggested that his views are rooted in science. He has criticized policies that allow transgender participation in sports, saying, “We have entered dangerous territory where science, biology, and facts no longer matter.” Turning Point USA has published videos echoing similar sentiments.

However, Kirk’s recent statements may cast doubt on this position. A majority of the anti-trans care bans over the past two years were crafted by a coalition of religious groups, as per leaked emails covered by Vice News, which characterized the emails as indicative of an “anti-trans holy war.”

With the organization and its leader increasingly emphasizing anti-trans legislation, monitoring their stance in the upcoming months will be crucial, especially as we approach 2024’s elections. While elections centered on trans issues haven’t resulted in many conservative wins—and have arguably led to losses in states such as Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona and Georgia—it’s evident that Kirk and his organization view this as a galvanizing issue to rally a Republican base that opposes transgender rights.

**********************************************************************************

Erin Reed is a transgender woman (she/her pronouns) and researcher who tracks anti-LGBTQ+ legislation around the world and helps people become better advocates for their queer family, friends, colleagues, and community. Reed also is a social media consultant and public speaker.

Follow her on Twitter (Link)

Website here: https://www.erininthemorning.com/

******************************************************************************************

The preceding article was first published at Erin In The Morning and is republished with permission.

By Ari Drennen | WASHINGTON – In an April 24 video posted to YouTube, Matt Walsh confirmed that his channel had been stripped of advertiser revenue, a first step to either permanent demonetization or a ban from the platform, claiming that the penalty would cost him more than $100,000 per month. 

Walsh then explained that he could “get back into YouTube’s good graces” and restore advertiser revenue to his channel by “simply respecting preferred pronouns and refraining from offering any meaningful critiques of gender ideology.”

He didn’t do any of that, misgendering Lia Thomas in multiple videos, attacking Bud Light, Disney, and Target with false accusations of “grooming” and “promoting transgenderism,” and claiming that LGBTQ activists demand child sacrifice. At least half a dozen videos published after Walsh’s demonetization and reviewed by Media Matters appear to violate YouTube’s advertiser-friendly guidelines. Three months later, YouTube restored advertiser revenue to his channel anyway. 

An August 25 YouTube video titled “Kids Are Now Being Forced To Learn Radical Gender Theory” features organic advertiser content while Walsh declares that LGBTQ activists believe “public schools should groom all kids” and that they demand “you offer your children up to them as sacrifices on their altar.” Ad content now also appears on Walsh’s videos from before he was demonetized, including one in which he attacks trans TikTok star Dylan Mulvaney, misgenders her multiple times, and calls her “a monster of our own making,” as well as on a shorter version of the same rant focused entirely on Mulvaney and the influencer’s connection to Bud Light. 

During his suspension from advertiser revenue, Walsh stopped posting the full version of his show to YouTube, opting instead to post it to the Daily Wire’s own website and X.com (formerly Twitter). But in shorter videos posted to YouTube, Walsh continued attacking Dylan Mulvaney and Bud Light, in defiance of YouTube’s disciplinary ruling, with a May 5 video mocking the brand’s poor sales, during which the podcaster declared, “It is going to make brands in the future think long and hard about promoting transgenderism.” 

Walsh’s flouting of YouTube guidelines didn’t stop there. In a video posted May 22, Walsh blasted former Vice President Mike Pence for siding with “the Disney groomers,” whom the Daily Wire personality claimed support “the castration and mutilation of kids” and “pornographic content in elementary schools.” The same day, Walsh called for a boycott of Target, saying, “Anyone who is making anything related to Pride, the Pride flag and all that — it’s all satanic imagery.”

A video posted on June 2 contained some vivid verbal imagery, with Walsh saying, “We take Bud Light and we put its head on a — on a pike, okay, at the entrance of the town, to show the other woke corporations: This is what we can do. We can actually do this to you. We can destroy you.” Walsh then pivoted to Target, with a similarly blunt message: “To be seen walking out of Target carrying the Target bag with the Target symbol — it’s like you’re a groomer too.” 

Walsh also attacked former University of Pennsylvania swimmer Lia Thomas. Throughout an interview with one of Thomas’ former teammates, over a year after her final swim meet, Walsh repeatedly deadnamed and misgendered the swimmer. Walsh himself seemed aware that he was violating YouTube’s community guidelines, as he promoted the interview two days later in a separate video, instructing viewers they could find the video on Twitter or YouTube, at least  “until YouTube takes it down.” Walsh misgendered Thomas in that video as well. 

In a video posted June 9, Walsh called me “depraved and insane” for defending the rights of adults to seek gender affirming care.

Without official ad content, Walsh started inserting ads for gold, skin care brand Genucel, and ExpressVPN into his monologues. At the same time, Walsh excoriated YouTube for its guidelines, saying, “Now they decided that if you just use the word ‘him’ in relation to a man who prefers to be seen as a woman, now that’s harassment.”

The platform blinked first. The Social Blade previously estimated Walsh’s annual advertiser revenue to be as high as $1.6 million per year. Now, following his return from demonetization, he could still be making as much as $1.4 million a year for sharing content that last year earned him the title of Transphobe of the Year. This kind of content fuels dangerous real world actions: a San Bernardino mother of 9 was shot in August defending the Pride flag in front of her store. The shooter had previously shared Walsh’s call to boycott Target and had pinned an image of a burning Pride flag to the top of his account on X.

Update (9/8/23): Matt Walsh reacted to this article by sharing it with his audience on X (formerly Twitter), writing simply “lol.”

lol https://t.co/B9NCIpZFqg

— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) September 8, 2023

In a statement to Media Matters confirming the initial demonetization, a spokesperson for YouTube wrote, “We suspended monetization on Matt Walsh’s channel due to repeated violations of our YouTube Partner Program policies, which include our Advertiser-Friendly Guidelines. These policies apply equally to all creators, regardless of political viewpoint, and channels that repeatedly violate these policies are demonetized.” YouTube’s hate speech policy prohibits content that “promotes violence or hatred against individuals or groups” based on, among other protected categories, “gender identity and expression” and/or “sexual orientation.”

Walsh repeatedly violated those policies during his suspension, and YouTube is rewarding him with cash by the truck load.

***************************************************************************************

The preceding article was previously published by Media Matters for America and is republished with permission.

By Suzanne Trimel | WASHINGTON – A wave of state legislation sweeping the nation is creating the conditions to intimidate educators into self-censorship in schools, according to a new PEN America report released this past month.

“Educational Intimidation: How ‘Parental Rights’ Legislation Undermines the Freedom to Learn” examines the rise of what PEN America has dubbed “educational intimidation bills,” a category of legislation that has the effect of prompting self-censorship in schools through indirect mechanisms, rather than direct edicts. Under the guise of advancing “parental rights,” nearly 400 of these bills have been introduced that risk empowering ideologues to intervene in the curricular and extracurricular decisions of teachers, librarians, and school administrators, overriding the judgment of educators and the views of the majority.

These intimidation bills are distinct from “educational gag orders,” a class of bills previously documented by PEN America that directly ban what can be taught in classrooms, targeting discussions of race, racism, gender, aspects of American history and other “prohibited” or “divisive” concepts. Intimidation bills compound the crisis in public education, casting a chilling effect through new tools that radically expand the avenues for lone parents, government officials, and citizens to monitor and exert control over pedagogical decisions.

“This rising tide of educational intimidation exposes the movement that cloaks itself in the language of ‘parental rights’ for what it really is: a smoke screen for efforts to suppress teaching and learning and hijack public education in America,” said Jonathan Friedman, director of Free Expression and Education programs at PEN America. “The opportunity for parents to inspect and object to school curricula is already commonly granted in public school systems, as it should be. But this spate of provisions dramatically expands these powers in ways that are designed to spur schools and educators to self-censor. These bills risk turning every classroom into an ideological battleground, forcing teachers out of the profession, and jeopardizing the future of millions of students.”

In its Index of Educational Intimidation Bills that accompanies the report, PEN America has identified 392 educational intimidation bills introduced in state legislatures between January 2021 and June 2023, 39 of which have passed into law in 19 states. The organization catalogs 12 types of educational intimidation provisions, including those that:

• would require teachers to post all instructional or professional development materials on public websites, making it easy for any citizen to object;
• would restrict students’ library access or make it easier for individual parents to get books banned for all students;
• invite parents to opt students into or out of certain content, creating unwieldy “a la carte” curricula that risk defeating the unifying purpose of public schools;
• expand the concept of “obscenity” beyond its well-established legal definition, opening educators and librarians up to criminal penalties;
• would deputize teachers with requirements to police students’ gender expression.

The report documents how many of these laws and policies are already responsible for educational censorship across the country. An art teacher in Tennessee no longer teaches about Mexican artist Frida Kahlo or artist and AIDS activist Keith Haring because of the state’s HB 529, which requires teachers to alert parents to any LGBTQ+ content so they can withdraw their children from the lesson. Fear of discipline or criminal liability under some of these new state laws has driven school districts to ban books with sexual or LGBTQ+ content, from Missouri, to Virginia, to Florida, to, most recently, Iowa.

Laws and policies in Florida, Indiana, and at least seven other states require that parents be notified of any significant changes to their child’s gender expression or sexual orientation, turning teachers into what North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum called in a veto message, “the pronoun police.” One school district in Florida even banned ‘Safe Space’ stickers, because the presence of a student in such a space could “trigger a duty” for the school staff to notify a parent of their child’s “well-being.” Such measures, argue the report’s authors, compromise the role of educators and schools in supporting students and exercising professional judgment to engage families constructively in issues affecting their children.

Among the key findings from the report include:

• Between January 2021 and June 2023, 392 educational intimidation bills have been introduced in state legislatures, 39 of which have passed into law. An additional nine policies have been adopted via executive order or enacted as part of state regulatory policy.
• At least 19 states have passed educational intimidation bills or adopted them via state policy.
• These bills overwhelmingly emanate from conservative legislators: 377 of the 392 have been introduced by Republicans.
• Over 80 bills would force teachers to monitor students’ gender expression, forcibly outing students to their parents regardless whether educators believe that such a disclosure is warranted, or how it will be received. Outing provisions are in effect, by law or by executive order, in Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Utah, Kentucky, Alabama, Oklahoma, and Virginia.
• Of the intimidation bills introduced in 2023, 45 percent have an anti-LGBTQ+ provision, including the forced outing of students.
• Missouri (31) has introduced the most educational intimidation bills in the nation, followed by Texas (21), Oklahoma (20), South Carolina (18), Indiana (17) and Mississippi (16).

The ideological motivation behind the bills is another key focus. As the authors explain, the bills are based on model legislation produced by a small group of conservative think tanks and activist groups, with the vast majority sponsored by Republican legislators, sometimes in concert with, or following other legislation that includes more direct censorious prohibitions. One bill proposed in Kansas was described by a supportive lawmaker as a “slick little way” of preventing critical race theory from being taught in classrooms.

The report authors express grave concern about increasing “experimentation and copycatting” across state lines to introduce these laws. Bills that fail during one legislative session are often reintroduced or recycled in the next, and in the current political climate, even provisions that are less extreme in their wording can be interpreted or applied in ways that advance censorship. Similar policies are also being adopted at the district level, making the true impact difficult to quantify.

“These bills are not what they seem,” Friedman continued. “They are the next phase in a years-long campaign to incite panic and impose ideological strictures on schools. Education in a democracy must be characterized by openness and curiosity, by the freedom to read, learn, and think. These bills strike at that foundation, in novel, sometimes subtle, yet potentially irrevocable ways. Their spread should not be taken lightly.”

*************************************************************************************

The preceding article was previously published by PEN America and is republished with permission.