News Analysis
Five myths in House anti-trans hearing
Republicans held a hearing Thursday meant to raise support for banning gender affirming care. It was filled with myths
By Erin Reed | WASHINGTON – Thursday, the U.S. House of RepresentativesĀ held a hearingĀ focused on the subject of gender-affirming care, with the title “The Dangers and Due Process Violations of ‘Gender-Affirming Care’.”
The hearing took place in the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government and featured testimonies from individuals such as anti-trans conservative media darlings Chloe Cole and Paula Scanlan.
Additionally, Jennifer Bauwens from the Family Research Council, from an anti-LGBTQ+ group labeled as aĀ hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, also participated in the hearing. The speakers presented misinformation commonly raised in various state legislatures throughout the United States on gender affirming care.
Here are the five most significant instances of misinformation from the hearing, along with the corresponding fact-checks to address them:
Myth 1: āThe Swedish Studyā and 19x Suicide Rates
Jennifer Bauwens, representing the Family Research Council, consistently cited what she referred to as “the Swedish study” during the hearing. According to her claims, this study indicates that transgender individuals face a 19x higher suicide rate even after undergoing gender-affirming care. This assertion is a frequently used anti-trans talking point and has become one of the most prevalent pieces of misinformation propagated in such hearings. The influence of this misinformation is evident, with even Elon Musk having recently tweeted it in support of anti-trans bills in the United States. Unfortunately, is is simply incorrect.
TheĀ Swedish study she references, however, has been widely misused and misinterpreted because it looks at transgender people in the 70s and 80s when gender affirming care was next to impossible to receive, and when medical and social discrimination was extremely high. Even still, that study did not compare trans people who were allowed to get gender affirming care with trans people who were not – rather, it compared transgender people to the general population. Lastly, the 19x rate that she mentions is an all-cause mortality rate, which includes things like AIDS/HIV deaths – factors that were very prevalent in the decades old data being used here.
It is important to point out that transition in the 1970s-2000s was an extremely discriminatory and traumatizing process – the standards of care at the time forced transgender people to go without hormones while presenting publicly as their gender for two years or longer. Furthermore, many transgender people lost family members and had to move across the country in order to be allowed to transition. While transphobia is certainly still high today, mistreatment of transgender people was uniquely high in the time period studied, and health care quality was notably poor.
The misuse of this study of decades old data has been so widely prevalent that the author of the study has forcefully come out against its misuse:
āThe conclusion that cross-sex hormone treatment increases suicide rate is completely wrong,ā Cecilia Dhejne, author of the study,Ā said in an interview.
Myth 2: Allowing Trans Youth To Get Gender Affirming Care Is Like Allowing Them To Eat Too Much Ice Cream
During the hearing, one of the more peculiar moments arose when Congressman Hunt displayed a picture board featuring the food pyramid, with all foods replaced by “ice cream.” He used this visual to draw an analogy, suggesting that providing gender affirming care to transgender youth under medical supervision and adhering to best practices is akin to allowing a child to choose an unhealthy snack for every meal. While this framing of this myth about gender affirming care is unconventional, the myth has been perpetuated through other comparisons, such as equating it to allowing kids to smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol.
This myth revolves around two fallacies. Firstly, the notion that being transgender is a matter of choice, and secondly, the misconception that transitioning is detrimental to health. In reality, neither of these claims holds true. There is no evidence supporting the idea that being transgender is a voluntary decision; gender identity is an intrinsic aspect of a person. Furthermore, transitioning is far from unhealthy; in fact, it serves as a life-saving intervention for transgender youth who genuinely require it.
AĀ recent reportĀ from the esteemed medical journal, The Lancet, published on July 26, highlights that gender affirming care constitutes a form of preventative healthcare. It is associated with an improved quality of life and plays a crucial role in the well-being of transgender youth. Numerous studies have shown that it leads to positive psychological outcomes and reduces suicide rates significantlyāsome studies report a remarkableĀ 73% decreaseĀ in suicide rates. The endorsement of gender affirming care is supported by a collection ofĀ over 50 papersĀ compiled by Cornell University, all of which underscore its beneficial effects. Hence, gender affirming care is not an “unhealthy decision” but rather a medically sound approach grounded in scientific evidence, which greatly benefits transgender individuals who genuinely require it.
Myth 3: Washington State Will Take Away Kids And Trans Them
Representative Matt Gaetz used his speaking time to spread misinformation about a Washington State law concerning transgender runaways. However, his statements were inaccurate as he incorrectly claimed that SB5599, a bill passed in Washington this year, allows the state to “take kids away” and administer “gender blockersā to them. This misinformation was promptly refuted by Shannon Minter, the witness with whom Rep. Gaetz was engaging when delivering the misleading information.
This misinformation has alsoĀ circulated within right-wing mediaĀ on multiple occasions. Elon MuskĀ boosted itĀ earlier this year. Catelyn Jenner, a right-wing media personality,Ā labeled itĀ as “an absolute disgrace.” Donald Trump Jr.Ā spread similar falsehoods about the bill, alleging, “These sick bastards are evil. WTF happened to ‘reasonable’ or ‘moderate’ democrats? Washington passes bill allowing the state to TAKE CHILDREN AWAY FROM PARENTS that do not consent to their child’s gender transition surgeriesā¦”
Contrary to these claims, SB5599 does no such thing. Instead, the bill addresses a crucial requirement in Washington State. Under the current law, if transgender youth seek shelter, the shelter must report their presence to their parents immediately. However, the bill adds an exception to this parental notification requirement, specifically when these youth have sought or are trying to access gender-affirming care or abortion services and have reason to believe their parents will withhold them.
It is vital to emphasize that SB5599 does not alter child custody law or amend existing child abuse statutes. It does not grant the state the authority to remove transgender children from non-affirming parents’ homes. The bill also does not modify the state’sĀ existing mature minor law, which already allows certain youth under 18 to provide consent for gender-affirming care and abortion services. Instead, it offers trans youth who have already run away an opportunity to seek shelter instead of sleeping on the streets in an attempt to avoid being reported to parents. This compassionate decision addresses the significant issue ofĀ high homelessness ratesĀ among trans youth runaways.
Moreover, the bill serves to protect against forced detransition and abuse. Many LGBTQ+ youth who run away from home do so due to mistreatment or fear of mistreatment. If transgender youth were immediately reported and returned to such parents, they might be forced to undergo detransition and conversion therapyāa deeply traumatic process for them. The bill is a compassionate solution to an existing problem in the state, not a means for the state to ātake kids away and trans them.ā
Myth 4: Being Trans Is Socially Contagious
Dr. Rauwens made multiple statements claiming that the rise in transgender identity is due to “social contagion,” a concept often employed by anti-trans advocates to suggest that young individuals are being “influenced” or “groomed” into being transgender. These advocates argue that transgender individuals emerge “suddenly” as a result of “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria” after being exposed to peers who have come out as trans or through social media, a debunked claim that has gained a foothold in right-wing circles. There is no peer-reviewed evidence supporting the existence of “social contagion” or “rapid onset gender dysphoria,” and several studies have refuted the idea of transgender identity being “socially contagious.”
One such study, published in the Journal of Pediatrics, specifically examined this notion and concluded that it is false. The study found that trans youth have a long-standing awareness of their gender identity before coming out, leading some parents to perceive the onset of their child’s gender dysphoria as “sudden” and “rapid.” Children often wait for 3-6 years or even longer before openly discussing their gender identity and seeking support from clinics. You can review the results of this study here:
The compelling evidence against the existence of “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria” and “Social Contagion Theory” prompted aĀ coalition of more than 60 psychological associations, including the American Psychological Association and the Society of Behavioral Medicine, to call for the abandonment of these terms. Despite this, the myth continues to be perpetuated in various hearings at state legislatures and, concerningly, now within the United States Congress.
Myth 5: Trans Kids Are Put On A Fast Track To Surgery
Representative Hunt made a statement suggesting that transgender youth are rapidly pushed toward gender reassignment surgery, spreading misinformation about gender affirming care and the support they receive. This myth has taken various forms in other hearings, such as labeling bans on gender affirming care for trans youth, which is comprised of social transition, hormone therapy, and puberty blockers, as “transgender surgery bans.” Additionally, press headlines often focus on transgender surgeries among trans youth in the bills, further amplifying this misinformation. Republicans have been known to claim that “little kids” are undergoing gender reassignment surgery in hearings.
However, this myth is far from reality. Gender reassignment surgery, typically referred to as “bottom” surgery, is a procedure primarily performed on adults, with only exceedingly rare exceptions involving minors. Numerous studies and organizations have confirmed that gender reassignment surgery is not happening among transgender youth. For instance, theĀ Louisiana Medicaid StudyĀ reported no surgeries performed on minors between 2017-2021.Ā Vanderbilt Medical Center statedĀ that among all its transgender patients, it conducts approximately five top surgeries per year and no bottom surgeries. Moreover, even among adults, the rate of gender reassignmentĀ surgery remains relatively low, with 1% for transgender men and 10% for transgender women. Therefore, there is no basis for the claim of a “fast track to gender reassignment surgery” for transgender patients of any age.
Additionally, it is essential to note that transgender youth under 12 receive no medical interventions at all. For this age group, the transition is primarily social, involving the use of a new name, preferred pronouns, haircut, and clothing choice. Despite this reality, conservatives across various levels of government have raised concerns about “gender reassignment surgery on kids” to support their attempts to ban all forms of trans care. Such claims misrepresent the nature of gender-affirming care provided to transgender youth.
****************************************************************************
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 articleĀ was first publishedĀ atĀ Erin In The MorningĀ and is republished with permission.
News
Trumpās vow to invoke national emergency powers and use military force for mass deportations roils LA
Fearing loss of constitutional rights, executive overreach, and military involvement in civil law enforcement, immigration community scrambles
Donald Trump has made clear his intention to begin mass deportations immediately upon taking office on January 20, 2025, a promise he made repeatedly during his 2024 presidential campaign.
“On Day 1, I will launch the largest deportation program in American history to get the criminals out,” he declared during a rally at Madison Square Garden in the final days of the presidential race. “I will rescue every city and town that has been invaded and conquered, and we will put these vicious and bloodthirsty criminals in jail, then kick them the hell out of our country as fast as possible.”
This week, for the first time, Trump vowed to invoke national emergency powers to execute this plan and, particularly troubling, will use the Armed Services to do so.
National emergency declarations have long been used by U.S. presidents to access extraordinary powers, often bypassing congressional oversight. The National Emergencies Act (NEA) of 1976 was designed to prevent unchecked executive authority, but its provisions have failed to effectively curb presidential overreach. While the act sets guidelines for declaring national emergencies, presidents have frequently invoked this power to justify wide-ranging actions, from military interventions (abroad) to surveillance programs (domestically and abroad).
For example, in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, President George W. Bush invoked national emergency powers to pass the Patriot Act, which allowed for sweeping surveillance and counterterrorism measures with minimal congressional oversight. This precedent establishes a concerning foundation for Trump’s proposed use of emergency powers in the realm of immigration enforcement.
Trump’s pledge to invoke emergency powers to detain, round up, and deport over 11 million undocumented immigrants would result in a domestic military operation of unprecedented scale.
He vows to build āvast holding facilities that would function as staging centersā for immigrants as their cases progressed and they waited to be flown to other countries. While large-scale deportation efforts have been attempted in the pastāmost recently President Eisenhowerās “Operation Wetback” in the 1950s, which deported 1.1 million peopleātodayās proposed numbers are far greater. Even the Obama administration, which deported 1.8 million people during its tenure, faced significant legal and logistical hurdles that made large-scale deportations difficult to carry out quickly and without consequence.
Many hurdles exist.
Legal challenges are almost certain to engulf Trump’s administration should it pursue such a plan. These challenges will include key issues such as whether the president can lawfully bypass Congress to enforce mass deportations. There will also be significant legal disputes surrounding the treatment of detained immigrants, particularly their Due Process rights under the U.S. Constitution.
The 2018 Supreme Court case Jennings v Rodriguez, reaffirmed that due process protections apply to all individuals on U.S. soil, regardless of immigration status, guaranteeing them rights such as bond hearings and access to counsel.
Any attempt to bypass these rights would invite immediate and substantial legal challenges, further complicating Trumpās efforts.
In addition to these legal complexities, the logistical challenges of executing such a massive operation would be immense. Deporting millions of individuals would require extensive resources for transportation, housing, medical care, and sustenance. Some estimate the price tag could exceed $300 billion dollars.
The U.S. government would need to significantly expand detention facilities and infrastructure to accommodate such a large influx of detainees.
Historical attempts to increase detention capacity, such as the family detention centers under Obama, faced severe criticism for overcrowding, inhumane conditions and the violation of human rights.
Legal objections are likely to arise concerning the use of armed military personnel in civilian spaces. Deploying military forces for domestic law enforcement operations could violate the Posse Comitatus Act, which restricts the use of military personnel in civilian law enforcement activities. Previous efforts to militarize U.S. immigration enforcementāsuch as the use of the National Guard at the U.S.-Mexico borderāfaced constitutional challenges and public backlash.
If Trump proceeds with using the military for mass deportations, it would almost certainly prompt immediate legal challenges based on this law.
Trump has long expressed disdain for the traditional system of checks and balances, viewing even basic constitutional arguments as an obstacle to his leadership.
He has shown that he will not hesitate to bypass Congress and other governmental processes for key appointments. For example, during his first term, Trump repeatedly sought to circumvent the Senate confirmation process, such as with his appointments to the Department of Justice and Health and Human Services, where he clashed with Senate Democrats over key nominations.
Trump is not shy about his broader desire to centralize power within the executive branch, diminishing the role of both the legislative and judicial branches. His antagonism toward agencies like the National Security Council and the Homeland Security Councilāwhich he has accused of undermining his administrationāfurther underscores his aim to weaken institutional checks on executive power. If unchecked, we could see a presidency where unilateral decisions by the executive become the norm, with minimal oversight from Congress or the courts.
Already, Trump has signaled his intent to appoint loyalists to key agencies, many of which he clashed with or feels have hindered his agenda. Examples include his controversial Pentagon appointments, as well as his selection of Director of National Intelligence and Health and Human Services leaders, who have been seen as part of his push to exert more control over agencies he perceives as obstructionist or hostile. He has already assigned a Border Czar, Tom Homan, who separated thousands of families at the border during Trump’s first term; that policy resulted in children never again being found.
Seizing emergency powers would allow Trump to bypass some, but not all, political and legal barriers to implementing his deportation plan.
To make it more feasible, he would likely need to suspend aspects of Due Process protections, militarize public spaces and bypass rules surrounding the detention of individuals without adequate hearings or access to credible legal counsel. This would create a system where any individual could be detained, processed and deported with no actual regard for constitutional protections.
In short, a frustrated Trumpāempowered by a Republican-majority Congress and a potentially willing DOJ and Supreme Courtāmight attempt to suspend the constitution.
This is not without precedent.
Over 120,000 people of Japanese descent were interned in camps throught out the US during World War II, including 20,000 at Los Angeles County’s Santa Anita Assembly Center. (Photo: PBS)
In 1862, President Lincoln issued Presidential Proclamation 94 which suspended the writ of habeas corpus. (Photo from National Archives education division)
During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus to suppress dissent, and during World War II, Franklin D. Rooseveltās internment of Japanese Americans involved the suspension of their constitutional rights in the name of national security.
While these actions were taken during times of war, they set dangerous precedents for the suspension of civil liberties in the face of perceived national crises. Trump has called the immigration an āinvasionā and has referred to migrants and their protectors as the āenemy within.ā
Though few are publicly contemplating this possibility, we must acknowledge that we are on a trajectory toward some form of civil rights suspension, and certainly, we are witnessing a potential for widespread executive overreach.
At the local level, cities and states have vowed to resist Trumpās immigration plans.
The Los Angeles City Council has declared itself a Sanctuary City, and Mayor Karen Bass has pledged that no city resources or personnel will support deportation efforts.
Similarly, Governor Gavin Newsom of California has made declarations on behalf of the state.
However, these measures do not prevent the federal government from taking action on the ground.
In fact, Trump and Congress have the authority to terminate federal funding to uncooperative states and local governments.
In 2021, for example, California received over $150 billion in federal funding, which could be withheld as political leverage at every turn to force compliance with federal immigration policies.
Most immigration rights advocates, attorneys and others want to point out that there is every reason to remain hopeful and that Due Process rights, good judges and justice minded citizens will work to protect most people from unjust treatment and deportation.
However, itās not clear what Due Process or advocacy might look like if Trump militarizes the process and suspends the Constitution.
There are currently several immigration violations that could lead to the deportation of individuals attempting to remain in the U.S. and people who entered the country without authorization are often a focus of immigration enforcement, particularly under the Trump administration.
However, the specifics of deportation policies can vary and it’s important to note that many individuals who entered the U.S. improperly have remained in the country for years, blending into communities.
Some of these individuals have applied for asylum or are in the process of adjusting their status through other legal avenues, such as family-based petitions or employment-based green card applications.
The process for detaining and deporting these individuals can depend on several factors, including whether they have a criminal record, whether they are in removal proceedings or their current legal status.
Ally Bolour, a well-known immigration attorney based in Los Angeles, says he has faith in Due Process but is āconcerned that the process may become much more restrictive and that due process may be minimal and not applied fairly.ā
Bolour has since 1996 worked with individuals facing deportation and specializes in cases involving people who have entered the U.S. without authorization and those seeking asylum.
āSensitivity to the queer minority is going to be minimal,ā under Trumpās immigration system, he says.. āThey won’t care. It’s literally a fact that, if you are a gay person fleeing the Islamic Republic, you’re fleeing because they’re gonna hang you. Credible fear. But after January 20, as I see it,chances of a gay Iranian being able to and pass the credible fear becomes more difficult than it is today.ā
Los Angeles Blade spoke with Bolour about 23 year old Jesus, one of the more than 200,000 LGBTQ immigrants who have made their way to California in the past few years.
His immigration situation as an asylum seeker today illustrates the impact a growing maze of intentional legal and bureaucratic hurdles has on immigrants’ ability to advance their cases.
Jesus made his way to the U.S. seeking refuge from the violence and instability that defined his life in Venezuela.
Born in Caracas, Jesusā childhood was marked by the unraveling of his family’s middle-class life as Venezuela descended into political and economic chaos. His father, once a government worker loyal to Hugo ChĆ”vez, witnessed the systemās collapse from within. He refused to comply with orders from high-ranking officials like Diosdado Cabello, resulting in the familyās swift downfall.
Jesusā early years were defined by loss, as their possessions and status vanished, leaving them targets of a ruthless government.
Venezuelaās economic collapse, particularly between 2013 and 2023, created unimaginable hardship. Hyperinflation and a crumbling economy made basic necessities unattainable, and survival became a daily struggle. But for Jesus, being gay in a country that became increasingly hostile to LGBTQ people added another layer of peril.
“In Venezuela, being gay isn’t just a social challengeāitās a potential death sentence,” he explains, recalling countless friends lost to violence or suicide. The societal rejection and threats, he says, were constant.
Faced with this brutal reality, Jesus made the decision to flee Venezuela. āIt wasnāt impulsive; it was a matter of survivalā he says. Part of a larger wave of over 7 million Venezuelans fleeing the country, Jesus traveled to Mexico City, then to Tijuana, before crossing the U.S. border on foot near San Diego. He chose to surrender to U.S. border authorities, a decision that led to his detention across various facilities in the Southwestern and Southeastern U.S.
During his six months in detention, Jesus faced COVID-19, potential deportation, and constant uncertainty. Yet, even in these grim circumstances, he found a sense of community among other LGBTQ detainees. āWe watched out for each other,ā he recalls. Eventually, a friend bailed him out.
Today, Jesus works and lives in California, grateful for his newfound safety but now facing the prospect of having his American journey crushed by Donald Trump.
Jesus mingles in the crowd at a recent Washington DC Pride celebration. (Photo by Los Angeles Blade)
Because he crossed the U.S. border illegally, his designation remains “Entered Without Inspection” (EWI)āa status that may pose a significant threat to his ability to remain in the country.
Trumpās immigration round up plan appears to target individuals with EWI status no matter how long they have been in the country or where they are in the process of becoming a visa holder (witness his determination to remove even American-born adult children of elderly immigrants in this status).
In an effort to strengthen Jesusā case, his attorney has suggested a bold and complicated strategy: leave the U.S. and re-enter through legal channels.
Attorney Bolour says he would advise against this strategy for someone like Jesus.
āFor those with pending asylum applications and an expired TPS, it is very difficult to obtain Advanced Parole,ā he says. āThere are significant risks involved.ā He recommends that people in this situation ādo not travel until they have some form of approved status, such as TPS.ā
Bolour notes that āevery case is differentā and it is imperative that people āconsult with counsel before making any firm decisions.ā
In the case of Jesus, if he was able to wipe the EWI status from his record, it might help him avoid the First Country Rule.
This rule mandates asylum seekers apply for asylum in the first country they reach after fleeing their home country, and for Jesus, that country was Mexico. If he were able to reset his immigration record, this rule might potentially no longer apply to him.
However, his ability to exit the US and reenter is made risky because his Temporary Protected Status , which had allowed him to stay in the U.S. without fear of deportation, expired in March 2024. Since then, he has been waiting for his renewal application to be processed.
TPS was set for automatic renewal but the system has conveniently failed to renew status for thousands of people.
Without a valid TPS, Jesus cannot legally leave the U.S., as doing so would trigger an automatic ban on his re-entry.
To leave the country legally, he would need to apply for Advanced Parole, a document that permits individuals to travel abroad temporarily without risking their legal status.
But obtaining Advanced Parole is no simple feat. The application process can take months and even if expedited, there is no guarantee of timely approval. Itās impossible, however, without an active TPS.
The intersection of expired TPS, bureaucratic delays and the looming threat of U.S. military lead deportation and harsh immigration policies leaves Jesus in a state of perpetual uncertainty.
Bolour says everyone āmust be prepared for the worst possible outcome: a systematic erosion of civil rights, aggressive federal action, and a significant legal, human rights, and constitutional crisis.ā
To that end, Bolour says the most important thing any person facing immigration challenges should have, is a plan:
- Remain Calm:
- Stay calm and do not physically resist. Immigration agents have the authority to detain you, but resisting can lead to additional charges or complications.
- NOTE: If agents appear at your door with a warrant for your arrest, do not let them in unless the warrant has been signed by a judge.
- Know Your Rights:
- You have the right to remain silent and not answer questions about your immigration status. You also have the right to ask for a lawyer. Remember, anything you say can be used against you in the future.
- You have the right to remain silent and not answer questions about your immigration status. You also have the right to ask for a lawyer. Remember, anything you say can be used against you in the future.
- Request to Contact an Attorney:
- Ask to speak with an immigration attorney immediately. You have the right to legal counsel, and an attorney can guide you through the process and ensure your rights are protected.
- Ask to speak with an immigration attorney immediately. You have the right to legal counsel, and an attorney can guide you through the process and ensure your rights are protected.
- Do Not Sign Any Documents Without Legal Advice:
- Do not sign anything without understanding what it means. Immigration officials may ask you to sign forms or waivers, which could impact your case. Consult with an attorney before signing any documents.
- Do not sign anything without understanding what it means. Immigration officials may ask you to sign forms or waivers, which could impact your case. Consult with an attorney before signing any documents.
- Provide Only Basic Information:
- Only provide your name, address, and date of birth. Avoid answering other questions or providing more personal information without a lawyer present.
- Only provide your name, address, and date of birth. Avoid answering other questions or providing more personal information without a lawyer present.
- Limit Social Media posts:
- Do not post private information or photos and restrict your interactions to known participants. If your page is public, set to friends only and do not share your location.
- Do not post private information or photos and restrict your interactions to known participants. If your page is public, set to friends only and do not share your location.
- Document the Detention:
- If possible, have a trusted friend or family member document your detention, including the time, location, and agents involved. This information can be important for legal proceedings or for advocacy groups that may assist in your case.
- If possible, have a trusted friend or family member document your detention, including the time, location, and agents involved. This information can be important for legal proceedings or for advocacy groups that may assist in your case.
- Exercise Your Right to Make a Phone Call:
- You have the right to make a phone call to family, friends, or your attorney. Immigration authorities should allow you to call a lawyer, though this may vary by location.
- You have the right to make a phone call to family, friends, or your attorney. Immigration authorities should allow you to call a lawyer, though this may vary by location.
- Request a Hearing:
- You have the right to request a hearing in front of an immigration judge. Your attorney can help you with this process and inform you of any options for contesting your detention.
- You have the right to request a hearing in front of an immigration judge. Your attorney can help you with this process and inform you of any options for contesting your detention.
- Avoid Talking About Your Case:
- Do not discuss your case with other detainees, as it may be used against you. Stick to speaking with your lawyer or trusted individuals.
- Do not discuss your case with other detainees, as it may be used against you. Stick to speaking with your lawyer or trusted individuals.
- Stay in Contact with Support Networks:
- Keep your family, friends, and advocacy organizations informed about your situation so they can assist with legal or practical needs during the detention process.
- Keep your family, friends, and advocacy organizations informed about your situation so they can assist with legal or practical needs during the detention process.
- Create an emergency notification group:
- If you are detained or face any urgent situation, inform a trusted core group of family and friends who can collaborate to assist you.
By following such steps, Bolour says, you can help ensure that your legal rights are respected and that you have the best chance of navigating the immigration detention process effectively.
āIt is affecting my health and I donāt know what my real options are,ā says Jesus. āThey keep adding rules and conditions and slowing my ability to keep the case up to date. Itās like a game of musical chairs where you run out of time to get to the right place before Trump stops the music.ā
āBut,ā adds Jesus, āI am not going to give up. I canāt. Even though I donāt know whatās next.ā
News Analysis
Time to double down in the fight for democracy
Our lives and liberties hang in the balance:
This Fourth of July, the LGBTQ community faces an unprecedented crisis as recent legal and political developments threaten to unravel all of our hard-won rights and protections. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM.
The Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling granting former presidents broad immunity from civil lawsuits for official acts has sent shockwaves through the community. This decision could empower future presidents, including a potential second Trump term, to take extreme actions against marginalized groups without fear of personal legal consequences.
“This ruling has catastrophic implications for LGBTQ rights,” warns Sarah Warbeck, director of the HRC’s LGBTQ Rights Project. “A president with such immunity could devastate our community’s protections, from workplace rights to healthcare access for transgender individuals.”
The immunity ruling, coupled with the Supreme Court’s conservative majority and the looming threat of an anti-LGBTQ administration, creates what activists describe as a “perfect storm” of vulnerability.
Critics highlight the mainstream media’s failure to adequately address Trump’s legal issues and his ties to conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation. The Foundation’s “Project 2025” is viewed by many as a blueprint for policies that could eviscerate LGBTQ rights.
While debates about President Biden’s capabilities persist, LGBTQ advocates emphasize the more pressing concern of Trump’s documented machine gun of lies, his misuse of power and ongoing felonious legal troubles.
“We must mobilize immediately to elect officials at all levels who will defend LGBTQ rights,” urges Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.). “There’s no room for complacency. Our community is under attack.”
LGBTQ leaders stress that this fight now encompasses fundamental issues of democratic governance and the balance of powers. They call for unprecedented solidarity, grassroots organizing, and civic engagement.
The Los Angeles Blade issues an urgent call to action: “Every LGBTQ individual, ally, and supporter must double down and engage in renewed activism and constant vigilance. Our lives and liberties hang in the balance,” says publisher Troy Masters. He adds, “Without a strong LGBTQ press, our community will indeed perish. We need your support.”
This Independence Day marks a critical juncture for the LGBTQ community. The time for action is now.
Get out of the weeds of the debate and save yourself.
Research/Study
LGBTQ people in LA County struggle with cost of living & safety
Approximately 665,000 LGBTQ adults live in Los Angeles County, according to new research from the Williams Institute
LOS ANGELES – Approximately 665,000 LGBTQ adults live in Los Angeles County, according to new research from the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law that looks at the lived experiences and needs of LGBTQ people.
The majority (82%) believe that LA County is a good place for LGBTQ people to live and that elected officials are responsive to their needs. However, affording to live in LA County is their most common worry.
Over one-third (35%) of LGBTQ Angelenos live below 200% of the federal poverty level (FPL), including almost half (47%) of transgender and nonbinary people, and they experience high rates of food insecurity and housing instability.
Nearly one in three (32%) LGBTQ households in Los Angeles County and more than one in five (23%) non-LGBTQ households experienced food insecurity in the prior year. In addition, more than 60% of LGBTQ people live in households that are cost-burdened by housing expenses, spending 30% or more of their household income on housing. A quarter (26%) of LGBTQ people live in households where over 50% of the householdās monthly income is spent on rent or mortgage payments.
āLA County represents a promise of equality and freedom to LGBTQ people who live here and throughout the country,ā said lead author Brad Sears, the Founding Executive Director at the Williams Institute. āBut that promise is being undermined by the Countyās rapidly escalating cost of living.ā
This reportĀ used representative data collected from 1,006 LGBTQ adults in Los Angeles County who completed the 2023 Los Angeles County Health Survey (LACHS) conducted by the Los Angeles County Public Health Department. The data also included responses from 504 LGBTQ individuals who participated in the Lived Experiences in Los Angeles County (LELAC) Survey, a LACHS call-back survey developed by the Williams Institute.
More than half (51%) of LGBTQ adults said they have been verbally harassed, with 39% experiencing this in the past five years. As a result, one in five LGBTQ people have avoided public places such as businesses, parks, and public transportation in the last year. About 40% of LGBTQ people do not believe that law enforcement agencies in Los Angeles County treat LGBTQ people fairly.
AĀ companion studyĀ published today surveyed 322 trans and nonbinary individuals in Los Angeles County. Results showed that the cost of living in LA County was the most significant concern for trans and nonbinary respondents, with 59% indicating that it is a serious problem. More than one-quarter (28%) of the participants were unemployed, compared to 5% of LA County overall.
The survey also revealed significant disparities in health and health care access, especially for trans and nonbinary adults who were women or transfeminine, immigrants, and those living at or near the FPL.
āUnderstanding the life experiences of trans and nonbinary people is important so that we can begin to improve the quality of our lives in LA County,ā saidĀ study co-author Bamby Salcedo, President and CEO of the TransLatin@ Coalition. āTrans and nonbinary people are best suited to envision ways to support and uplift the community, along with trans-led organizations that have already been doing this work. LA County must commit to greater support of the organizations serving our community.ā
Survey respondents were twice as likely as the general population of LA County to report having fair or poor health (27%), being uninsured (14%), and going without health care (46%).
āDespite a supportive policy environment in Los Angeles County, experiences of stigma and discrimination still exist and can hinder access to necessary resources for trans and nonbinary residents,ā said lead author Jody Herman, Senior Scholar of Public Policy at the Williams Institute. āIt is crucial for local officials and service providers to enact policies, provide education and training, and establish accountability to ensure respectful and positive interaction with the trans and nonbinary community.ā
AĀ third reportĀ focuses on LGBTQ peopleās assessment of LA County programs and services and recommendations for local elected officials.
āThese findings from the Williams Institute provide invaluable data that will guide our Board, County departments, and the inaugural LGBTQ+ Commission in shaping policies and programs to truly deliver for our diverse LGBTQ+ communities,ā said LA County Board Chair Lindsey P. Horvath, who initiated the motion to present the findings to the Board.Ā
āIt’s especially critical that we support our trans, gender-nonconforming, and nonbinary communities, ensuring they feel safe and supported, and that they are able to afford to live in Los Angeles County. These insights will guide our essential and transformative work.ā
āMany LGBTQ people provided recommendations for elected officials to improve quality of life in Los Angeles County,ā said principal investigator Kerith J. Conron, Research Director at the Williams Institute. āLGBTQ people are asking for visible allyship, increased representation of LGBTQ individuals in elected positions and civil service, and housing and financial support.ā
āThese recent findings serve as a sobering reminder of the persistent barriers faced by the LGBT community in Los Angeles County,ā saidĀ Dr. Barbara Ferrer, PhD, MPH, MEd, Director of Public Health. āThese reports underscore the profound impact of the disparities on the health and wellbeing of a community that include our family members, colleagues, and friends. It is imperative that we not only acknowledge these inequities but actively engage in eliminating them. Through collaborative efforts with community leaders, policymakers, and the public, Public Health is committed to upholding principles of justice and equity by ensuring that every member of our community has the resources they need to thrive.ā
Research/Study
New Polling: 65% of Black Americans support Black LGBTQ rights
73% of Gen Z respondents (between the ages of 12 and 27) āagree that the Black community should do more to support Black LGBTQ+ peopleā
WASHINGTON – The National Black Justice Coalition, a D.C.-based LGBTQ advocacy organization, announced on June 19 that it commissioned what it believes to be a first-of-its-kind national survey of Black people in the United States in which 65 percent said they consider themselves āsupporters of Black LGBTQ+ people and rights,ā with 57 percent of the supporters saying they were āchurchgoers.ā
In a press release describing the findings of the survey, NBJC said it commissioned the research firm HIT Strategies to conduct the survey with support from five other national LGBTQ organizations ā the Human Rights Campaign, the National LGBTQ Task Force, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Family Equality, and GLSEN.
āOne of the first surveys of its kind, explicitly sampling Black people (1,300 participants) on Black LGBTQ+ people and issues ā including an oversampling of Black LGBTQ+ participants to provide a more representative view of this subgroup ā it investigates the sentiments, stories, perceptions, and priorities around Black values and progressive policies, to better understand how they impact Black views on Black LGBTQ+ people,ā the press release says.
It says the survey found, among other things, that 73 percent of Gen Z respondents, who in 2024 are between the ages of 12 and 27, āagree that the Black community should do more to support Black LGBTQ+ people.ā
According to the press release, it also found that 40 percent of Black people in the survey reported having a family member who identifies as LGBTQ+ and 80 percent reported having āsome proximity to gay, lesbian, bisexual, or queer people, but only 42 percent have some proximity to transgender or gender-expansive people.ā
The survey includes these additional findings:
ā¢ 86% of Black people nationally report having a feeling of shared fate and connectivity with other Black people in the U.S., but this view doesnāt fully extend to the Black LGBTQ+ community. Around half ā 51% ā of Black people surveyed feel a shared fate with Black LGBTQ+ people.
ā¢ 34% reported the belief that Black LGBTQ+ people ālead with their sexual orientation or gender identity.ā Those participants were āsignificantly less likely to support the Black LGBTQ+ community and most likely to report not feeling a shared fate with Black LGBTQ+ people.ā
ā¢ 92% of Black people in the survey reported āconcern about youth suicide after being shown statistics about the heightened rate among Black LGBTQ+ youth.ā Those expressing this concern included 83% of self-reported opponents of LGBTQ+ rights.
ā¢ āBlack peopleās support for LGBTQ+ rights can be sorted into three major groups: 29% Active Accomplices, 25% Passive Allies (high potential to be moved), 35% Opponents. Among Opponents, ācompeting prioritiesā and āreligious beliefsā are the two most significant barriers to supporting Black LGBTQ+ people and issues.ā
ā¢ 10% of the survey participants identified as LGBTQ. Among those who identified as LGBTQ, 38% identified as bisexual, 33% identified as lesbian or gay, 28% identified as non-binary or gender non-conforming, and 6% identified as transgender.
ā¢ Also, among those who identified as LGBTQ, 89% think the Black community should do more to support Black LGBTQ+ people, 69% think Black LGBTQ+ people have fewer rights and freedoms than other Black people, 35% think non-Black LGBTQ+ people have fewer rights and freedom than other Black people, 54% āfeel their vote has a lot of power,ā 51% live in urban areas, and 75% rarely or never attend church.
Additional information about the survey from NBJC can be accessedĀ here.
Research/Study
63% of LGBTQ+ people have faced employment discrimination
The report’s findings also show 70% of LGBTQ+ people feel lonely, misunderstood, marginalized, or excluded at work
WASHINGTON -A newly released report on the findings of a survey of 2,000 people in the U.S. who identify as LGBTQ says 63 percent of respondents have faced workplace discrimination in their career, 45 percent reported being āpassed overā for a promotion due to their LGBTQ status, and 30 percent avoid ācoming outā at work due to fear of discrimination.
The report, called āUnequal Opportunities: LGBTQ+ Discrimination In The Workplace,ā was conducted by EduBirdie, a company that provides s professional essay writing service for students.
āThe research shows basic acceptance remains elusive,ā a statement released by the company says. āThirty percent of LGBTQ+ people are concerned they will face discrimination if they come out at work, while 1 in 4 fear for their safety,ā the statement says. āAlarmingly, 2 in 5 have had their orientation or identity disclosed without consent.ā
Avery Morgan, an EduBirdie official, says in the statement, āDespite progress in LGBTQ+ human rights, society stigma persists. Our findings show 70% of LGBTQ+ people feel lonely, misunderstood, marginalized, or excluded at work, and 59% believe their sexual orientation or gender identity has hindered their careers.ā
According to Morgan, āOne of the biggest challenges businesses should be aware of is avoiding tokenism and appearing inauthentic in their actions. Employers must be genuine with their decisions to bring a more diverse workforce into the organization.ā
The report includes these additional findings:
ā¢ 44% of LGBTQ people responding to the survey said they have quit a job due to lack of acceptance.
ā¢ 15% reported facing discrimination āgoing unaddressedā by their employer.
ā¢ 21% āchoose not to report incidents that occur at work.ā
ā¢ 44% of LGBTQ+ workers feel their company is bad at raising awareness about their struggles.
ā¢ Half of LGBTQ+ people change their appearance, voice, or mannerisms to fit in at work.
ā¢ 56% of LGBTQ+ people would be more comfortable coming out at work if they had a more senior role.
At least 32 states and the District of Columbia have passed laws banning employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, according to the Human Rights Campaign. The EduBirdie report does not show which states participants of the survey are from. EduBirdie spokesperson Anna Maglysh told the Washington Blade the survey was conducted anonymously to protect the privacy of participants.
The full report can be accessed here.
Research/Study
2024 GLAAD Social Media Safety Index: Social media platforms fail
Despite moderate score improvements since 2023 on LGBTQ safety, privacy, and expression, all platforms insufficiently protect LGBTQ users
NEW YORK – GLAAD released its fourth annualĀ Social Media Safety IndexĀ (SMSI) on Tuesday giving virtually every major social media company a failing grade as it surveyed Ā LGBTQ safety, privacy, and expression online.
According to GLAAD, the worldās largest LGBTQ+ media advocacy organization, YouTube, X/Twitter, and Metaās Facebook, Instagram, and Threads ā received failing F grades on the SMSI Platform Scorecard for the third consecutive year.
The only exception was Chinese company ByteDance owned TikTok, which earned a D+.
Some platforms have shown improvements in their scores since last year. Others have fallen, and overall, the scores remain abysmal, with all platforms other than TikTok receiving F grades.
ā TikTok: D+ ā 67% (+10 points from 2023)
ā Facebook: F ā 58% (-3 points from 2023)
ā Instagram: F ā 58% (-5 points from 2023)
ā YouTube: F ā 58% (+4 points from 2023)
ā Threads: F ā 51% (new 2024 rating)
ā Twitter: F ā 41% (+8 points from 2023)
This yearās report also illuminates the epidemic of anti-LGBTQ hate, harassment, and disinformation across major social media platforms, and especially makes note of high-follower hate accounts and right-wing figures who continue to manufacture and circulate most of this activity.
Ā āIn addition to these egregious levels ofĀ inadequately moderatedĀ anti-LGBTQ hate and disinformation, we also see a corollary problem of over-moderation of legitimate LGBTQ expression ā includingĀ wrongful takedownsĀ of LGBTQ accounts and creators,Ā shadowbanning, and similarĀ suppressionĀ of LGBTQ content. Metaās recent policy changeĀ limiting algorithmic eligibilityĀ of so-called āpolitical content,ā which the company partly defines as: āsocial topics that affect a group of people and/or society largeā is especially concerning,ā GLAADās Senior Director of Social Media Safety Jenni Olson said in the press release annoucing the report’s findings.
Specific LGBTQ safety, privacy, and expression issues identified include:
ā Inadequate content moderation and problems with policy development and enforcement (including issues with both failure to mitigate anti-LGBTQ content and over-moderation/suppression of LGBTQ users);
ā Harmful algorithms and lack of algorithmic transparency; inadequate transparency and user controls around data privacy;
āĀ Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā An overall lack of transparency and accountability across the industry, among many other issues ā all of which disproportionately impact LGBTQ users and other marginalized communities who are uniquely vulnerable to hate, harassment, and discrimination.
Key Conclusions:
ā Anti-LGBTQ rhetoric and disinformation on social media translates to real-world offline harms.
ā Platforms are largely failing to successfully mitigate dangerous anti-LGBTQ hate and disinformation and frequently do not adequately enforce their own policies regarding such content.
ā Platforms also disproportionately suppress LGBTQ content, including via removal, demonetization, and forms of shadowbanning.
ā There is a lack of effective, meaningful transparency reporting from social media companies with regard to content moderation, algorithms, data protection, and data privacy practices.
Core Recommendations:
ā Strengthen and enforce existing policies that protect LGBTQ people and others from hate, harassment, and misinformation/disinformation, and also from suppression of legitimate LGBTQ expression.
ā Improve moderation including training moderators on the needs of LGBTQ users, and moderate across all languages, cultural contexts, and regions. This also means not being overly reliant on AI.
ā Be transparent with regard to content moderation, community guidelines, terms of service policy implementation, algorithm designs, and enforcement reports. Such transparency should be facilitated via working with independent researchers.
ā Stop violating privacy/respect data privacy. To protect LGBTQ users from surveillance and discrimination, platforms should reduce the amount of data they collect, infer, and retain. They should cease the practice of targeted surveillance advertising, including the use of algorithmic content recommendation. In addition, they should implement end-to-end encryption by default on all private messaging to protect LGBTQ people from persecution, stalking, and violence.
ā Promote civil discourse and proactively message expectations for user behavior, including respecting platform hate and harassment policies.
Read the report here: (Link)
Research/Study
The Daily Wire: New vitamins will boost sperm & fight āwokenessā
Marketing for The Daily Wireās venture tries to cash in on fear of trans people & drag queens promoting an alternative to āwokeā companies
ByĀ Mia Gingerich | WASHINGTON – The Daily WireĀ announcedĀ the launch of a new āmenās lifestyleā company namedĀ Responsible ManĀ on May 1, promoting its only current product ā a menās dietary supplement that it says is ādesigned to help ā¦ sharpen brain cognitionā and that it suggests will help address what the outlet calls the āincreasing health riskā of declining āsperm concentration.ā
On April 30, The Daily Wireās parent company Bentkey Ventures registered the assumed name āDaily Wire Ventures.ā The next day, on May 1, it debuted Responsible Man, a new company for menās health products.
The Daily Wire isĀ promotingĀ Responsible ManĀ as an alternative to āwokeā companies and byĀ fearmongering about some of the outletās frequent targets, namelyĀ gender-affirming careĀ andĀ drag queens, asking its readers, āDo you want to buy your menās health products from a company that partners with drag queens and supports radical organizations that push gender procedures on children?ā Responsible Manās website uses similar language,Ā promisingĀ its customers thatĀ ātogether, we can reclaim masculinityā and claiming that āEmersonās Vitamins are a simple step towards improving yourself, creating order, and building the future.ā
Ad from Responsible Man’s website:
The Daily Wireās promotion suggests Responsible Manās products can help address various health issues, including the purported āincreasing health riskā of declining āsperm concentrationā worldwide, promising to help men stay healthy āfor the survival of the human race.āĀ
The companyās only product, a menās multivitamin, is marketed as being āprofessionally engineered by medical doctorsā to āsupport your immune system, maintain energy production, sharpen brain cognition, and support the health of your heart and muscles.ā
Claims made by The Daily Wireās new company are not FDA-approved
According to disclaimers on Responsible Manās website, the claims made to promote the companyās vitamins āhave not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration.ā Multivitamins do not need to go through an evaluation process prior to entering the marketplace, and have generally proved ineffective in reducing the risk of heart disease and mental decline.
In the past, The Daily Wire has targeted certain medications used in gender-affirming care for trans youth for their use off-label without FDA approval, even though this is a common practice in prescribing pediatric medications. The Daily Wireās Matt Walsh has been particularly fervent in wielding this point to target gender-affirming care.
The Daily Wire is promoting the new company by targeting Menās Health magazine
The Daily Wireās previous ventures into consumer goods have been framed in opposition to specific companies it deemed too āwoke,ā such as Harryās Razors and Hersheyās Chocolate, for refusing to advertise with The Daily Wire and featuring a trans woman in an advertisement, respectively. (Jeremyās Razors and Jeremyās Chocolate, The Daily Wireās answers to Harryās and Hersheyās going āwoke,ā have received poor feedback from customers.)
The Daily Wireās promotion of Responsible Man singles out for criticismĀ Menās Health, theĀ largestĀ menās lifestyle magazine in the United States.Ā ClaimingĀ that Menās Health was āafraid of manhood itself,ā The Daily Wire has declared itself āhere to give you a better option.ā The lone source of outrage cited by the outlet is a Menās HealthĀ articleĀ from November 2021 on āLGBTQ+ Language and Media Literacy.āĀ
******************************************************************************************
Mia Gingerich is a researcher at Media Matters. She has a bachelorās degree in politics and government from Northern Arizona University and has previously worked in rural organizing and local media.
The preceding articleĀ wasĀ previously publishedĀ by Media Matters for America and is republished by permission.
Research/Study
Half of LGBTQ+ college faculty considered moving to another state
Half of LGBTQ+ college faculty surveyed have considered moving to another state because of anti-DEI laws the Williams Institute found
LOS ANGELES – Anti-diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) laws have negatively impacted the teaching, research, and health of LGBTQ+ college faculty, according to a new study by the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law.
As a result of anti-DEI laws, about half of the LGBTQ+ faculty surveyed (48%) have explored moving to another state, and 20% have actively taken steps to do so. One-third (36%) have considered leaving academia altogether.
Nine states have passed anti-DEI legislation related to higher education, and many others are considering similar legislation.
Using data gathered from 84 LGBTQ+ faculty, most of whom work at public universities, this study examined how the anti-DEI and anti-LGBTQ+ climate has affected their teaching, lives outside the classroom, emotional and physical health, coping strategies, and desire to move.
Many faculty reported that anti-DEI laws have negatively impacted what they teach, how they interact with students, their research on LGBTQ+-related issues, and how out they are on campus and in their communities. More than one in ten faculty surveyed have faced requests for their DEI-related activities from campus administrators (14%), course enrollment declines (12%), and student threats to report them for violating anti-DEI laws (10%).
Nearly three-quarters (74%) of the LGBTQ+ faculty said the current environment has taken a toll on their mental health, and over one-quarter (27%) said it has affected their physical health.
Some LGBTQ+ faculty, particularly those who were tenured, part of a union, or well-respected on campus, have responded to anti-DEI policies by becoming more involved in advocacy and activism on (33%) and off campus (26%). Some made positive changes to their teaching, such as adding readings that provide context for LGBTQ+ content and expanding the amount of discussion during class.
āThese findings suggest that anti-DEI laws could lead to significantly fewer out LGBTQ+ faculty, less course coverage of LGBTQ+ topics, and a lack of academic research on LGBTQ+ issues,ā said study author Abbie E. Goldberg, Affiliated Scholar at the Williams Institute and Professor of Psychology at Clark University. āThis could create a generation of students with less exposure to LGBTQ+ issues and faculty mentorship and support.ā
ADDITIONAL FINDINGS:
- About 30% of participants said that their college/university communities were conservative or very conservative on LGBTQ+ issues.6% said that they had experienced harassment or been bothered by supervisors or colleagues due to their LGBTQ+ status, political affiliation, or perceived āwokenessā in the last six months.20% said that they were scared of this type of harassment.
- Nearly 30% of participants said that their home communities were conservative or very conservative on LGBTQ+ issues.5% said that they had experienced harassment or been bothered by neighbors due to their LGBTQ+ status, political affiliation, or perceived āwokenessā in the last six months.37% said that they were scared of this type of harassment.
- Over 60% of survey participants who were parents reported at least one adverse event or change had impacted their children in the past six months, including bullying and harassment (26%), removal of books from classrooms (18%), and curriculum changes (35%).
Read the report here (Link)
Research/Study
Landmark systematic review of trans surgery
Landmark systematic review concluded regret rate for trans surgeries is “remarkably low,” compared to other surgeries & major life decisions
By Erin Reed | WASHINGTON – In recent years, anti-transgender activists have used fear of “regret” as justification to ban gender-affirming care for transgender youth and restrict it for many adults. Now,Ā a new systematic reviewĀ published in The American Journal of Surgery has concluded that the rate of regret for transgender surgeries is “remarkably low.”
The review encompasses more than 55 individual studies on regret to support its conclusions and will likely be a powerful tool in challenging transgender bans in the coming weeks.
The study, conducted by experts from the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, examines reported regret rates for dozens of surgeries as well as major life decisions and compares them to the regret rates for transgender surgeries.
It finds that “there is lower regret after [gender-affirming surgery], which is less than 1%, than after many other decisions, both surgical and otherwise.” It notes that surgeries such as tubal sterilization, assisted prostatectomy, body contouring, facial rejuvenation, and more all have regret rates more than 10 times as high as gender-affirming surgery.
You can see regret rates for many of the surgeries they examined in the review here:
The review also finds that regret rates for gender-affirming surgeries are lower than those for many life decisions. For instance, the survey found that marriage has a regret rate of 31%, having children has a regret rate of 13%, and at least 72% of sexually active students report regret after engaging in sexual activity at least once. All of these are notably magnitudes higher than gender affirming surgery.
Regret is commonly weaponized against transgender care. The recently released Cass Review, currently being used in an attempt to ban transgender care in England, mentions “regret” 20 times in the document. Pamela Paul’s story in The New York Times features stories of regret heavily and objects to reports of low regret rates. Legislators use the myth of high levels of regret to justify harsh crackdowns on transgender care.
Recently, though, anti-trans activists who have pushed the idea that regret may be high appear to be retreating from their claims. In the WPATH Files, aĀ highly editorialized and error-filled documentĀ targeting the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, the authors state that the low levels of regret for transgender people obtaining surgery are actually cause for alarm, and thatĀ transgender people are “suspiciously” happy.
The idea that transgender people cannot be trusted to report their own happiness and regret has also been echoed by anti-transgender activists and influencers likeĀ Matt WalshĀ andĀ Jesse Singal.
The review has sharp critiques for those who use claims of āregretā to justify bans on gender affirming care: “Unfortunately, some people seek to limit access to gender-affirming services, most vehemently gender-affirming surgery, and use postoperative regret as reason that care should be denied to all patients. This over-reaching approach erases patient autonomy and does not honor the careful consideration and multidisciplinary approach that goes into making the decision to pursue gender-affirming surgeryā¦ [other] operations, while associated with higher rates of post-operative regret, are not as restricted and policed like gender-affirming surgery.ā
The review is in line with recent data supporting very low regret rates for transgender people. The 2022 U.S. Transgender Survey, the worldās largest survey of transgender individuals, which surveyed over 90,000 transgender people, found that for those receiving hormone therapy, regret rates are incredibly low: less than 1% report being a little or a lot less satisfied after beginning hormone therapy.
You can view a chart from the 2022 US Transgender Survey showing low rates of regret for hormone therapy here:
There is no evidence that transgender people experience high rates of regret for any transgender care, including transgender surgery. On the contrary, gender-affirming care saves lives.
AĀ Cornell reviewĀ of more than 51 studies found that gender-affirming care significantly improves the well-being of transgender individuals and also concluded that regret is rare. Low rates of regret for transgender people are not “suspicious.” Rather, they are evidence that the care transgender people seek is important, carefully provided, and helps them live more fulfilled lives.
****************************************************************************
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.
******************************************************************************************
The preceding articleĀ was first publishedĀ atĀ Erin In The MorningĀ and is republished with permission.
Research/Study
90 percent of trans youth live in states restricting their rights
Slightly more than 75% of trans youth live in 40 states passed laws or had pending bills that restrict access to gender-affirming care
LOS ANGELES – According to a new report by the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law, 93% of transgender youth aged 13 to 17 in the U.S.āapproximately 280,300 youthālive in states that have proposed or passed laws restricting their access to health care, sports, school bathrooms and facilities, or the use of gender-affirming pronouns. Ā
In some regions, a large percentage of transgender youth live in a state that has already enacted one of these laws. About 85% of transgender youth in the South and 40% of transgender youth in the Midwest live in one of these states.
An estimated 300,100 youth ages 13 to 17 in the U.S. identify as transgender. Nearly half of transgender youth live in 14 states and Washington D.C. that have laws that protect access to gender-affirming care and prohibit conversion therapy.
All transgender youth living in the Northeast reside in a state with either a gender-affirming care “shield” law or a conversion therapy ban, while almost all transgender youth in the West (97%) live in a state with one or both protective laws.
āFor the second straight year, hundreds of bills impacting transgender youth were introduced in state legislatures,ā said lead author Elana Redfield, Federal Policy Director at the Williams Institute. āThe diverging legal landscape has created a deep divide in the rights and protections for transgender youth and their families across the country.ā
KEY FINDINGS:
Restrictive Legislation
Bans on gender-affirming care
237,500 transgender youthāslightly more than three-quarters of transgender youth in the U.S.ālive in 40 states that have passed laws or had pending bills that restrict access to gender-affirming care.113,900 transgender youth live in 24 states that have enacted gender-affirming care bans.123,600 youth live in 16 additional states that had a gender-affirming care ban pending in the 2024 legislative session. |
Bans on sports participation
222,500 transgender youthānearly three-quarters of transgender youth in the U.S.ālive in 41 states that have passed laws or had pending bills that restrict participation in school sports.120,200 transgender youth live in 27 states where access to sports participation is restricted or state policy encourages restriction.102,300 transgender youth live in 14 additional states that had a sports ban pending in the 2024 legislative session. |
School bathroom bans
117,000 transgender youth live in 30 states that have passed laws or had pending bills that ban transgender students from using school bathrooms and other facilities that align with their gender identity.38,600 transgender youth live in 13 states that explicitly or implicitly ban bathroom access.78,400 transgender youth live in 17 additional states that had a bathroom ban pending in the 2024 legislative session. |
Bans on pronoun use
121,100 transgender youth live in 31 states that have passed laws or had pending bills that restrict or prohibit the use of gender-affirming pronouns.49,100 transgender youth live in 14 states that have restricted or banned pronoun use, particularly in schools or state-run facilities.72,000 transgender youth live in 17 additional states that had a restriction or prohibition pending in the 2024 legislative session. |
Gender-affirming care āshieldā laws
163,800 transgender youthāover half of transgender youth in the U.S.ālive in 18 states and D.C. that have passed gender-affirming care āshieldā laws or had pending bills that protect access to care.146,700 transgender youth live in 14 states and D.C. that have passed these protections.17,100 transgender youth live in four additional states that had a āshieldā law pending in the 2024 legislative session. |
Conversion therapy bans
204,800 transgender youth live in 31 states and D.C. that ban conversion therapy or had pending bills that prohibit the practice for minors.198,000 transgender youthāabout two-thirds of transgender youth in the U.S.ālive in 27 states and D.C. that ban conversion therapy for minors.6,800 transgender youth live in four additional states that had a ban pending in the 2024 legislative session. |
āA growing body of research shows that efforts to support transgender youth are associated with better mental health,ā said co-author Kerith Conron, Research Director at the Williams Institute. āRestrictions on medically appropriate care and full participation at school exacerbate the stress experienced by these youth and their families.” |
Read the report: (Here)
-
Ghana4 days ago
Ghanaian Supreme Court dismisses challenges to anti-LGBTQ+ bill
-
Health5 days ago
Breaking down the latest mpox vaccination survey results
-
Nepal3 days ago
Two transgender women make history in Nepal
-
Congress4 days ago
Senate braces for anti-LGBTQ+ attacks with incoming Republican majority
-
a&e features2 days ago
Procrastinatorās gift guide
-
Obituary4 days ago
Honoring the life and legacy of Coya White Hat-Artichoker
-
India2 days ago
Harish Iyer continues his fight for LGBTQ+ rights in India
-
Books22 hours ago
A tale of lesbian romance and growing into your place in life
-
Movies11 mins ago
A mom goes to the dogs in āNightbitchā