On Wednesday, Ohio’s legislature became the first in the country to pass an anti-transgender law post-2024 election. The bill, SB104, originally aimed to help dual-enrolled high school students earn college credits, but a provision was added to bar transgender people from using bathrooms aligned with their gender identity on college campuses. Now, Ohio’s legislature has passed the bill on the first day of a lame-duck session. With this move, Ohio joins a small number of states in passing a transgender bathroom ban that includes adults—following a $215 million anti-trans ad campaign, many of whose ads ran heavily in the state, targeting transgender rights.
The bill declares that “no institution of higher education shall knowingly permit” transgender people to use bathrooms aligned with their gender identity. Originally passed in June, the bill’s future looked uncertain leading up to the 2024 election. But after the election, primary sponsor Adam Bird signaled that targeting trans and queer communities would be a top priority for Ohio’s legislature, calling for state investigations into official diversity initiatives and drag shows. Now, his bill is set to be one of the nation’s most restrictive toward transgender people.
While most states with bathroom bans restrict them to grade school settings, only nine states currently bar transgender adults from some public bathrooms—Alabama, Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, Texas (Odessa), Utah, and now Ohio will become the tenth. Notably, this ban extends to private colleges as well as public ones, making it one of the first adult bathroom bans in the U.S. to apply to private institutions.
Maria Bruno of No Extremism Ohio noted in a Twitter post, “Ohio Senate Repubs just passed a bill that requires all Ohio schools, public and private, including PRIVATE COLLEGES to adopt & enforce an anti-trans bathroom policy. [It] includes schools like CCAD & Antioch, private colleges [with] a majority LGBTQstudent body.”
Indeed, the bill would apply to colleges like Antioch, of which 82% of studentsidentify as LGBTQ+ and 16% identify as transgender. Some private colleges are known for being safe spaces for LGBTQ+ people and thus attract a student body that seeks them for safety. Now, even private colleges like Antioch will be forced to ban transgender girls from girls’ restrooms in the state of Ohio.
Kaleidoscope Youth Center, an LGBTQ+ youth advocacy group, called the bill’s passage undemocratic and malicious, stating, “We are extremely disgusted by the passage of Senate bill 104. The “Protect All Students Act” being added to the unrelated topic of the College Credit Plus Program is a demonstration of underhanded and dishonest leadership. The bathroom ban’s maliciously expedited and undemocratic movement through the legislature lacks transparency. This policy is not only dangerous and unnecessary, it is a blatant display of discrimination,” and followed up with a call for Ohio voters to contact Governor Mike DeWine’s office.
Anti-trans bathroom bans, gender-affirming care bans, and similar restrictions have a profound impact on young people’s mental health. A CDC study found that 25% of young transgender people attempted suicide in the past year. Another study, published in Nature Human Behavior, showed that such laws can lead to an up to 72% increase in suicide attempt rates. Following the recent election, LGBTQ+ crisis hotlines reported a 700% surge in calls as transgender individuals brace for harsh crackdowns in the aftermath of the election. Ohio’s latest legislation has brought those fears to reality.
Many transgender people are watching closely to see what their state legislatures will do next. Ohio could be an early indicator of what to expect from Republican-controlled states emboldened by what they interpret as a mandate to target transgender rights through laws that restrict public life. With several state prefiling deadlines approaching, the coming weeks will reveal more about what the landscape holds for transgender people at the state level. This latest Ohio bill now heads to Governor DeWine’s desk—though he has vetoed anti-trans bills in the past, those vetoes were ultimately overridden.
In the wake of Donald Trump’s election as president, transgender people are left wondering what lies ahead. For this vulnerable community, a Trump administration signals potential disaster: the candidate just won his election after$215 million in anti-trans ads targeting this small minority—a staggering amount that eclipsed spending on other issue-based ads. Now, transgender individuals are searching for ways to protect themselves under a federal government that may view them as top “enemies from within,” a term Trump has used to describe those on the left.
I spoke with experts in transgender care and dozens of transgender individuals to identify steps the community can take now to prepare for a Trump presidency. Trump has pledged numerous actions against transgender people, from investigating educators to banning gender-affirming care for youth and ending legal recognition for transgender individuals. While some of these measures may take time to implement, others could happen swiftly. For instance, the upcoming December budget negotiations are likely to include anti-trans and anti-LGBTQ+ amendments, which Democrats may accept to avoid a government shutdown.
For transgender people and their supporters, being prepared is essential. Here are practical steps the community should consider in the coming weeks to safeguard themselves against these anticipated challenges.
Obtaining or updating your passport.
Obtaining afederal passport is a crucial step for transgender individuals, as it serves as a valid ID in most places and is necessary for international travel. Passports also let you change your gender marker via a simple selection checkbox, making the process of having your official gender marker hassle-free. This last point is especially important—anticipated federal crackdowns could soon make it impossible to update your gender marker on federal documents and might even affect state IDs. Passports are valid for ten years, and some states allow you to align your gender marker with the one on your passport, making this action essential, even if you don’t plan to travel internationally. And should the need for travel arise, you’ll be grateful you took this precaution.
Many transgender people I’ve spoken to have already begun this process. One family, hoping to secure a passport before federal rules change, opted for the expedited service. Ellie, the mother of a transgender teen, shared, “I’m determined to keep my son safe and alive, and we will do everything humanly possible to make that happen.” She noted that they are researching options for moving internationally if gender-affirming care is banned federally, with Spain as their top choice. For transgender individuals, expedited passports are an important consideration to ensure they receive their documents before Trump’s inauguration. Although they cost a bit more, expedited passports are processed much faster.
Some observed a rise in the number of LGBTQ+ people seeking passports in the election’s immediate aftermath. Andromeda, a transgender woman, noted, “At the post office, there were five people in line for passports. Four of us were trans.” She described the atmosphere as “very sullen,” adding, “We were all very nervous but being very strong about it.”
Updating state documents and IDs.
This step is crucial, as transgender people will need as many documents as possible that reflect their correct gender marker to navigate potential laws and regulations targeting them. Although most anti-trans laws specify that legal recognition of sex must align with the sex recorded at or near birth, enforcing these provisions is often challenging. In practice, having licenses and IDs that display an accurate gender marker can help transgender individuals avoid negative interactions and even defuse tense situations with officials. Additionally, obtaining such documentation may become more difficult in the future—Trump could, for instance, leverage laws like the Real ID Act to push for bans on correct gender markers on driver’s licenses.
Many transgender individuals have started this process quickly, anticipating that their opportunity to do so may soon disappear. One such person in South Dakota, Cole, shared, “I need to get my name and marker officially changed before I am barred from the chance.” In South Dakota, the process is particularly onerous, requiring a court order or a signed affidavit from a physician. Cole is concerned that completing it may become impossible once Trump takes office.
Maintaining a supply of medication.
Some individuals are taking steps to secure their access to gender-affirming medications, though this approach carries potential legal challenges. The Trump administration has indicated plans to sue pharmaceutical companies providing gender-affirming care, making medication access disruption a real possibility. Additionally, federal funding bans, threats, and investigations could further complicate access. States like California have announced intentions to enact laws protecting LGBTQ+ individuals from such federal actions. For individuals, practical methods to maintain a medication supply include underdosing to build an emergency reserve, working with a physician willing to prescribe extra medication, or obtaining hormones through online sources, though it is important to note that these steps are not without legal or personal risks.
Nevertheless, many individuals reported taking these precautionary steps. One person, who asked to remain anonymous, shared that her doctor advised her she could continue using estradiol vials beyond four injections, contrary to prior instructions to discard them after four uses. This adjustment has allowed her to build up a supply that could last through a Trump presidency. Another respondent mentioned underdosing her estradiol to justify higher prescription doses, enabling her to maintain a backup supply in case of disruptions.
Changing your social security office gender marker.
This is a step many people overlook, as they may not realize that the Social Security Administration maintains a gender marker on file. If future policies restrict the ability to update identification documents, updating your gender marker with Social Security could help prevent mismatches that might flag your identification within federal systems. The process is straightforward, with an online portal explaining which form to complete and where to submit it. Most people will need to bring the form to their local Social Security office. Fortunately, changing one’s gender marker is as simple as checking a box—no court orders or medical documentation required—making it a relatively quick step to complete.
Consider moving now, if you want to.
For many, relocating is a significant and complex decision—and it’s important to acknowledge that moving isn’t a viable option for a large portion of the queer community. Financial limitations, legal or personal circumstances, and a desire to stay and fight all keep many people rooted in their home states. However, for those considering a move, this may be an opportune moment to finalize those plans. Anti-trans legislation and actions could escalate quickly, potentially even before Biden’s presidency concludes, especially with looming budget negotiations. While the exact scope of potential executive actions remains uncertain, many of the steps outlined here may become far more challenging once such actions are in place.
Many people I’ve spoken with have already decided to move. Sarah, a mother of a trans child from Texas, shared that she plans to relocate to Denver as soon as her house sells. “We’ve discussed moving for several years, and this is the push we needed, I guess,” she said. When asked why she chose Colorado, she explained, “We’re hopeful that, in a blue state with shield laws, there will be some resistance to any national policies. For instance, when Biden made the Title IX changes, Texas fought back, so we didn’t get those protections. I’m hoping it would be like that, but in reverse. It’s also why we’ll rent instead of buying—if another move is necessary, we want to be able to pick up quickly and go.”
Another individual, Tawj, mentioned that they’ve already formed a small caravan of queer people saving and preparing to move to a blue state before the transfer of power. “It’s a small group of five for now… we’re all pooling money to make the move cheaper.”
For Chelsey, a transgender girl who is planning on moving next year, she spoke of her Grandmother’s experiences in Nazi Germany as a major influencing factor, stating, “My grandmother fled Germany and she saw her sister get shot by the Nazis. The stories that I remember from her were, we were never prepared to flee. We got complacent and even with organizing which is good and important. It’s also important to be prepared to flee.”
A recurring topic in discussions about preparing for a Trump administration is the role that going or staying “stealth” may play in ensuring safety. For transgender individuals, “stealth” refers to living in one’s gender identity without disclosing that one is transgender. For many, this involves extra attention to makeup and voice training to pass as cisgender and blend in. For transgender youth, it often means not informing school officials about their gender identity. Such steps may become critical, as schools could feel pressured by the Trump administration to enforce restrictions on trans youth, even in blue states. For trans adults, staying stealth could also offer a measure of safety in the face of increasingly common bathroom regulations.
Many transgender people I spoke with had mixed feelings about going “stealth” under a Trump administration. Some have concluded that it’s the safest option for them, while others have chosen to remain visible, believing that visibility will be essential in the fight for transgender rights. Still others feel that stealth simply isn’t an option for them.
Relying on local community allies.
One essential action transgender people and allies can take is to support community organizations, legal funds, and other resources. Historically, when restrictive laws have targeted the LGBTQ+ community, it has been crucial to connect with groups of LGBTQ+ individuals who can provide mutual support and safety. When choosing organizations to support, state and local groups are particularly valuable, as they offer the most current information on relevant laws and can advise on the best ways to address new challenges under a Trump administration. These organizations are also well-positioned to navigate the specific legal processes and advocacy opportunities within local communities.
The Trump administration is expected to bring significant legal threats for transgender people, but there are steps that can be taken now to mitigate these risks. With a closing window to act before Trump’s inauguration, these measures are time-sensitive. Early preparation may be the difference between enduring four years of intensified crackdowns on trans and queer communities—or facing the brunt of an administration determined to restrict their rights. Taking steps now is essential for those looking to safeguard their futures.
On Thursday, Governor Tim Walz sat down for an interview with author Glennon Doyle, her partner Abby Wambach, and her sister Amanda Doyle during a taping of the We Can Do Hard Things podcast. The conversation touched on key election issues such as abortion and gun violence. However, midway through the podcast, the discussion shifted to queer youth, specifically transgender kids. Rather than shying away from the topic, Walz delivered a passionate, several-minute-long defense of LGBTQ+ rights, including transgender healthcare. He outlined his vision for the administration’s role in protecting these rights.
The question came from Abby Wambach, who turned to the topic after discussing Walz’ founding of a Gay-Straight Alliance at his high school in the mid-90s. Wambach asked, “Well, thank you Governor Walz so much for protecting even in the late ’90s queer kids. And so I have to ask, what will a Harris-Walz administration do to protect our queer kids today?”
Walz discussed positive legislative actions, such as codifying hate crime laws and increasing education, while emphasizing the importance of using his platform to advocate for LGBTQ+ rights. He then addressed the role of judges in safeguarding medical care for queer youth: “I also think what Abby, your point is on this, and I was just mentioning, we need to appoint judges who uphold the right to marriage, uphold the right to be who you are, making sure that’s the case, uphold the right to get the medical care that you need. We should not be naive. Those appointments are really, really important. I think that’s what the vice president is committed to.”
He didn’t stop there. Instead, he directly pivoted to calling out national anti-transgender attack ads which have flooded the airwaves across the United States, often airing besides NFL football games and other major sporting events. The Trump administration has spent upwards of $20 million on such ads, with outside organizations spending $80 million on various races.
“We see it now; the hate has shifted to the trans community. They see that as an opportunity. If you’re watching any sporting events right now, you see that Donald Trump’s closing arguments are to demonize a group of people for being who they are,” Walz said. He continued, “We’re out there trying to make the case that access to healthcare, a clean environment, manufacturing jobs, and keeping your local hospital open are what people are really concerned about. They’re running millions of dollars of ads demonizing folks who are just trying to live their lives.”
He emphasized the importance of representation and the impact of coming out, particularly for parents who may not have been exposed to LGBTQ+ identities and therefore might lack understanding. Walz pointed out, “Look, you’re reaching a lot of folks in hearing this, and for some people it’s not even out of malice and it’s not a pejorative, it’s out of ignorance. They maybe have not been around people. You’ve all seen this, however, it takes you to get there, but I know it’s a little frustrating when you see folks have an epiphany when their child comes out to them.”
The strong defense of queer and trans youth came just one day after Kamala Harris participated in a Fox News interview with Brett Baier. Baier, who maintained a hostile tone throughout, pressed Harris on transgender issues with his second question. Rather than adopting the Republican framing, as some Democrats have done recently, Harris emphasized that the law requires medically necessary care for transgender inmates and criticized Trump for spending $20 million on ads focused on an issue far removed from the priorities of most Americans. Her response prompted Baier to quickly shift to another topic.
In back-to-back days, the Harris-Walz ticket has made it clear they will not back down on queer and trans rights, despite the barrage of anti-trans attack ads. This stance is likely reinforced by the repeated failure of similar ads in recent races, including Wisconsin’s Supreme Court election, legislative races in Pennsylvania and Virginia, Georgia’s Herschel Walker vs. Raphael Warnock election, Andy Beshear’s reelection in Kentucky, and the 2023 losses of 70% of Moms for Liberty and Project 1776 school board candidates across the United States. For transgender people, these interviews are likely a welcome relief after some wavering responses from other Democratic candidates in swing states.
Get excited!In our 2024-25 Season, we will visit cafés in Pennsylvania, a rockin’ courthouse in Massachusetts, have Christmas in Vermont, eat cheeseburgers in Paradise and join the Pirate King and his merry band of bumbling pirates in Cornwall. You won’t want to miss a single minute!
Lock in your seats today and you’ll get…Tickets to 8 fantastic 6th Street Playhouse shows!
20% off our regular ticket prices!The same seat for every performance in both our GK Hardt Theater and our Monroe Stage! Limited time offer! Ends May 31st!Single Tix and “Pick Any” Subscriptions On Sale June 1st!
The pace of anti-transgender legislation has slowed in recent weeks, with several states, known for previously targeting transgender individuals, failing to pass any such laws. However, a different dynamic is emerging across the Gulf South, where three states are advancing bills that would cease the legal recognition of transgender individuals, potentially having significant repercussions for their trans residents. Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama are introducing bills to define sex in a manner that excludes transgender individuals, potentially affecting birth certificates, driver’s licenses, bathroom access, and more.
The bills, dubbed the “Women’s Bills of Rights” by their supporters, fall far short of actually protecting women’s rights. They fail to protect access to birth control or abortion, do not ensure equitable pay, neither allocate funds for nor promote women’s athletics, and lack any provisions designed to curb violence against women. Instead, they categorize sex based on reproductive capabilities and ends legal recognition of transgender individuals’ gender identities.
In Louisiana, House Bill 608 was introduced with a staggering 63 Republican co-sponsors, signaling a strong opposition to any efforts to lobby against the bill. While its primary focus seems to be on restricting bathroom access in schools, prisons, and shelters, a particular section of the bill indicates that “any provision of law enacted by the legislature or any rule adopted by a state agency or other entity subject to the Administrative Procedures Act when applicable to an individual’s sex shall apply those definitions provided in R.S. 9:58.” This provision could lead to the banning of changes to birth certificates and driver’s licenses, effectively ending all legal recognition for transgender individuals. The bill has not yet been scheduled for a hearing, but given the substantial support it has garnered, its progression through the legislative process is anticipated to be swift once it begins.
In Mississippi, Senate Bill 2753 and House Bill 1607 have successfully passed their respective chambers. House Bill 1607 defines sex based on reproductive capacity, and puzzlingly states that for transgender individuals, “equal” does not mean “same” or “identical.” Notably, the bill does not provide a definition for “equal,” a term also left undefined in similar legislation in other states. This ambiguity sparked debate over a comparable bill in Iowa, which is currently stalled in the legislature there in part because of disagreements over that line. As for Senate Bill 2753, it would ban bathroom access for transgender individuals in publicly owned facilities, such as rest stops and the Jackson airport.
In Alabama, House Bills 111 and 130 similarly target transgender individuals. House Bill 111 specifies sex based on reproductive capacity for all vital statistics purposes. Meanwhile, HB 130, although not directly defining sex, will reportedly be amended to add language that extends “Don’t Say Gay” legislation to Space Camp. This addition comes after conservative media expressed outrage over a transgender individual being employed at the state’s renowned Space Camp and could be used to target transgender employees in state facilities.
So far, only five states have passed similar legislation: Kansas, Montana, North Dakota, Tennessee, and Utah. In Kansas, a judge has recently ruled in favor of Attorney General Kris Kobach that drivers licenses and birth certificates must contain transgender people’s old assigned sex at birth, citing the law there. Meanwhile, although such a law does not exist in Florida, rule changes have resulted in a lack of ability for transgender people to change their drivers licenses; reportedly, Florida residents are unable to change their birth certificates as well. Additionally, Oklahoma and Nebraska have executive orders defining sex similarly.
Should these bills become law, an increasing number of states will not legally recognize transgender individuals. The implications of such legislation are profound: individuals who have long since updated their identity documents may face the reversion of those documents back to their assigned sex at birth. These state-issued identification documents could then be employed to enforce additional anti-transgender laws, including bathroom bans. Moreover, these restrictions are bound to create complications for transgender individuals who have legally updated their federal documents to align with their gender identity, as these documents would conflict with their state-issued ones.
There have been calls for a federal legal response to bills that outlaw gender markers and refuse legal recognition to transgender people. For instance, in Florida, the entire Democratic congressional delegation asked the Biden Administration to use the Real ID act, which mandates “gender” be listed on drivers licenses. There has been no response to that request as of Monday.
Multiple lawsuits are underway trying to reverse the laws in court where they have passed, but the legal outcomes are currently pending.
In an article published in the opinion section of The New York Times, opinion columnist Pamela Paul wrote a 4,500-word article filled with factual errors and unfounded assumptions about transgender care and the lived experiences of transgender people. Although the article is presented as a piece on detransitioners, the interviews serve as vehicles through which Paul packages inaccuracies and disinformation with faulty citations and claims that are not supported by the evidence she presents. The article is the latest in a seriespublished by The New York Times to do so, and a simple fact check of the claims presented easily debunks the article’s central premises as highly misleading.
It is notable that this is not the first time Paul has waded into LGBTQ+ issues with the seeming goal of covering for anti-LGBTQ+ policies. Previously, she wrote an article criticizing LGBTQ+ organizations for the use of the word “queer,” a word that many LGBTQ+ people use to describe themselves. She has written articles accusing transgender people of “erasing women.” However, this article is certainly her longest and most in depth attempt to tackle transgender issues; in doing so, she misses the mark.
Claim: Rapid onset gender dysphoria and transgender social contagion is making people trans.
Fact: Rapid onset gender dysphoria and transgender social contagion is not a validated theory, has been widely debunked as pseudoscience by major medical organizations.
“Most of her patients now, she said, have no history of childhood gender dysphoria. Others refer to this phenomenon, with some controversy, as rapid onset gender dysphoria, in which adolescents, particularly tween and teenage girls, express gender dysphoria despite never having done so when they were younger. Frequently, they have mental health issues unrelated to gender. While professional associations say there is a lack of quality research on rapid onset gender dysphoria, severalresearchershave documented the phenomenon, and many health care providers have seen evidence of it in their practices.”
At the beginning of the article, Paul discusses “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria” and “social contagion” as potential reasons for the apparent increase in transgender individuals in recent years, raising concerns that these individuals will detransition. However, her sources clearly contradict her premise. Her first source, used to support “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria,” is an article by Lisa Littman that has been retracted. Littman is notably one of the only researchers to argue for the theory, which has been repeatedlydismissed for lacking factual support and for recruiting subjects from anti-trans websites. Recently, unable to validate the theory, she collaborated with Leor Sapir, who lacks a background in transgender mental health care and works at the anti-trans Manhattan Institute, to broaden the definition of “Rapid” so that even a period of two to four years could be considered rapid. She then published it in a journal run by Ken Zucker, an anti-trans “expert” whose clinic was closed following accusations of conversion therapy.
The second set of links, claiming to show “several researchers” documenting the phenomenon, actually refers to only three researchers, not “several.” These “researchers” include Lisa Littman’s personal website, a retracted article by Michael Bailey (Lisa Littman’s treasurer), and another article by Lisa Littman herself. The sources cited for the “documented phenomenon” are the anti-trans website Transgender Trend and a SurveyMonkey poll distributed on Reddit and Twitter.
The only source that correctly represents the consensus is the source showing that professional organizations oppose ROGD as pseudoscientific. In a letter from over 60 psychological organizations, the coalition for the Advancement & Application of Psychological Science calls for the elimination of the term, stating, “There are no sound empirical studies of ROGD” and “there is no evidence that ROGD aligns with the lived experiences of transgender children and adolescents.” Paul, however, simply and misleadingly presents this letter as the organization stating “there is not enough quality research.”
A study in the prestigious journal Pediatrics entirely debunked the concept of ROGD, determining that most transgender people know their gender identity for years before they come out and seek treatment for gender dysphoria. When transgender people finally do come out, many are overjoyed to finally reveal their true self to the world around them – to others, however, the process may seem “rapid.” To ascertain whether transgender identification occurs “rapidly,” researchers directly asked transgender teenagers: “How long have you known you were transgender?” They discovered that on average, transgender people know their gender identity for four years before first coming out and presenting for treatment.
Claim: Stephanie Winn, a “licensed marriage and family therapist,” spoke out in favor of “approach gender dysphoria in a more considered way” but then was “investigated” for conversion therapy.
Fact: Stephanie Winn suggested the treatment of transgender youth with acupuncture to “see if they like having needles put in them” and stating it could “help spark desistance.” She also pushed the idea that transgender men should be estrogen to make them feel more feminine.
“They have good reasons to be wary. Stephanie Winn, a licensed marriage and family therapist in Oregon, was trained in gender-affirming care and treated multiple transgender patients. But in 2020, after coming across detransition videos online, she began to doubt the gender-affirming model. In 2021 she spoke out in favor of approaching gender dysphoria in a more considered way, urging others in the field to pay attention to detransitioners, people who no longer consider themselves transgender after undergoing medical or surgical interventions. She has since been attacked by transgender activists. Some threatened to send complaints to her licensing board saying that she was trying to make trans kids change their minds through conversion therapy. In April 2022, the Oregon Board of Licensed Professional Counselors and Therapists told Winn that she was under investigation. Her case was ultimately dismissed, but Winn no longer treats minors and practices only online, where many of her patients are worried parents of trans-identifying children.”
Paul then attempts to take readers through to other researchers who are, presumably, being “unfairly treated” for their “unorthodox” views on transgender people. One of those people is Stephanie Winn, who she presents as a “licensed marriage and family therapist” in Oregon. She claims that Winn simply spoke out “in favor of approaching gender dysphoria in a more considered way” and was attacked for this. A simple click on Paul’s link, however, shows how this is a highly misleading claim and misrepresents the brutality of what Winn was proposing.
In the thread linked by Paul, Winn muses that transgender men have a “sense of being less feminine” and could be made to feel more feminine by giving them estrogen. There is absolutely no research behind this claim, and in fact, giving transgender people the hormone of their assigned sex at birth has been tried in the past with disastrous effects. In a paper published in 1967 by Harry Benjamin, one of the first major researchers into transgender care, he stated: “I have heard rather frequently in the patient’s history that androgen had been used in the past in an attempt to cure the transsexualism by masculinization. It is the wrong treatment. It aggravates the condition by increasing libido without changing its character or direction. Androgen is contraindicated.”
Winn has also advocated for the treatment of transgender youth with acupuncture, stating, “they can see how they like having needles put in them.”
“So Your Kid Wants To Live As The Opposite Sex” by Stephanie WinnStephanie Winn has not been investigated or attacked simply for “approaching gender dysphoria in a more considered way.” Rather, attacks on Winn are linked to extremely cruel suggestions and musings around how transgender youth should be dealt using cruel, coercive, and painful conversion therapy techniques.
Claim: Transgender people may actually just be gay, and transitioning is a form of “conversion therapy.”
Fact: Gender and sexuality are different, many transgender people identify as gay or bisexual after transition, and gay acceptance is higher than trans acceptance.
Gay men and women often told me they fear that same-sex-attracted kids, especially effeminate boys and tomboy girls who are gender nonconforming, will be transitioned during a normal phase of childhood and before sexual maturation — and that gender ideology can mask and even abet homophobia. … “I transitioned because I didn’t want to be gay,” Kasey Emerick, a 23-year-old woman and detransitioner from Pennsylvania, told me. Raised in a conservative Christian church, she said, “I believed homosexuality was a sin.”
The claim that transgender people are “actually just gay” is one that has been made repeatedly by those opposed to gender affirming care, and one that has been repeatedlydebunked. Paul wades into this claim by featuring Kasey Emerick, who claims that “believing homosexuality was a sin” played into her transition.
Factually, though, attitudes towards transgender people tend to be “significantly more negative” according to an article in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. This contributes to a much higher rate of violence and discrimination. Many transgender people, such as celebrity Laverne Cox, report that the most common response to coming out is, “couldn’t you have just been gay?”
According to the 2012 National Transgender Discrimination Survey, most transgender people identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or queer after transition. If transition was being used to “cure” being gay, it is a startlingly ineffective cure.
Claim: 80% of transgender individuals desist from being transgender if they go through puberty without intervention, and another study suggests that 30% of individuals stop taking hormone therapy medication.
Fact: Detransition rates are estimated to be between 1-4%. The study citing an 80% detransition rate is based on faulty outdated data, using criteria no longer in use. Furthermore, the study indicating a 30% discontinuation rate is based on military families not refilling their prescriptions through Tricare, rather than actual discontinuation of hormone therapy.
The claim that 80% of transgender youth detransition has been widely debunkedand is contradicted by modern research, which indicates regret and detransition rates of 1-4%, according to a review of newer peer-reviewed studies by Cornell University. Recent studies reveal that 97.5% of transgender youth maintain a stable gender identity after five years. The older article Paul references is a journal article in a publication with a very low impact factor; this article does not provide new data, and instead discusses the same two outdated sources commonly associated with the exaggerated “80% detransition rate” claim: Kenneth Zucker’s research from the 1990s on detransition, which uses outdated diagnostic criteria for “gender identity disorder” that misclassified feminine gay men as “disordered,” and Steensma’s studies from 2011/2013, known for similar methodological shortcomings.
Both of these studies share a similar problem that explains why the numbers are so different when compared to modern studies around transgender care: they utilize outdated criteria for “gender identity disorder,” which misclassified tomboys, masculine lesbians, and effeminate gay men as “disordered.” Notably, Zucker advocated for conversion therapy, arguing that “a homosexual lifestyle in a fundamentally unaccepting culture simply creates unnecessary social difficulties.” He also employed techniques aimed at coercing trans kids to conform to their assigned sex at birth, such as withholding cross-gender toys and advising parents “not to give in” to their trans youth’s desires to wear clothing that aligns with their gender identity.
The old criteria noted that to be diagnosed with “gender identity disorder,” you did not need to desire to be “the other sex.” Instead, the disorder was about gendered behavior that was deemed “too masculine” or “too feminine” by society, and purposefully included gay people who didn’t “act man or woman enough.” The new criteria, however, require the transgender youth to desire or insist to be the other sex.
Steensma’s2011 and 2013 studies had similar issues in his research, which in some ways had even worse methodological flaws. Steensma used the old criteria, which is not the way that gender dysphoria is diagnosed today. Worse, the two studies classified every youth who did not return to the clinic as having “desisted” or “detransitioned” with no long term follow-up. Half of the participants in the studies did not return and all were classified as having “desisted.” The sample sizes were tiny at the getgo – only 53 people were in the first study and 127 in the second study. Given the fact that a large portion if not the majority of Steensma’s patients were classified under decades old criteria and assumed permanently detransitioned simply for refusing to follow up, these studies cannot be used to make any reasonable claim of high desistance rates.
The last study that Paul refers to is a study released two years ago on military continuance of care. That study looked at all hormone therapy distributed under the military Tricare health insurance plan and determined that 30% of people stopped receiving their hormones through Tricare. What the study does not do, as Paul claims, is support the idea that “30% of people discontinued hormone therapy.” In fact, there are many reasons why people would no longer fill their hormone therapy through a military Tricare plan, especially towards the end of the study in 2017-2018:
The Trump administration began targeting transgender servicemembers, and many transgender servicemembers likely stopped filling their hormone prescriptions through Tricare for themselves or their family members, fearing being targeted.
Tricare has notoriously poor transgender care coverage, as evidenced by many military members responding to a thread discussing the results of this study, and many transgender servicemembers may opt to get their medication through a low cost alternative such as Planned Parenthood
Hormone therapy can be discontinued for surgery, fertility and pregnancy planning, and many other purposes.
Some nonbinary patients may obtain all the results they wish from hormone therapy before discontinuing, desiring no future results.
Transgender people may simply have not filled the medication through insurance and instead utilized online pharmacies, which have grown increasingly popular.
Transgender patients can easily fill prescriptions through GoodRX plans, which would allow them more privacy.
Transgender people may have been forced off care by military decisions
Even the authors of the article themselves state that they likely overestimate discontinuation:
“We only collected information on medication refills obtained using a single insurance plan. If patients elected to pay out of pocket for hormones, accessed hormones through nonmedical channels, or used a different insurance plan to pay for treatment before and/or after obtaining gender-affirming hormones using TRICARE insurance, we did not capture this information. This means that our findings are likely an underestimate continuation rates among transgender patients.”
There are many more factual errors contained within Paul’s article; it is 4,500 words long and covers virtually every anti-trans claim made in legislative hearings across the United States. Many advocates for transgender people, medical experts, and journalists have weighed in to cover other aspects of Paul’s piece. You can find those here:
