The National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) and GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) filed a response today in the Equality California case Stockman v. Trump challenging Trump’s transgender military ban in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Today’s court filing is the first in Stockman since Judge Kollar-Kotelly’s ruling last week in NCLR and GLAD’s other case Doe v. Trump, finding Trump’s ban to be unconstitutional and issuing a nationwide injunction against the ban.
“California has the highest number of service members and LGBT people of any state in the country. Trump’s ban is a baseless, malicious attack on our own,” said Equality California Executive Director Rick Zbur. “We’re in this fight, and we’ll keep fighting until this ban poses zero threat to our community and our military.”
“Last week, we secured a nationwide injunction that halts Trump’s ban,” said NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter. “Right now, every transgender service member is protected, and qualified transgender Americans who wish to enlist can do so as of January 1, 2018. But we know this battle is not over—every federal court that declares this ban unconstitutional moves us closer to a permanent end to this nightmare for our dedicated and courageous service members.”
“Trump’s not playing with toy soldiers – these are real people whose lives are at stake. Thousands of transgender Americans are currently serving in our armed forces, and these highly trained, dedicated, and courageous service members have been experiencing real harms since Trump’s impulsive Twitter announcement, ” said GLAD Transgender Rights Project Director Jennifer Levi. “Last week’s clear and powerful ruling from Judge Kollar-Kotelly confirmed what we already know: Trump’s ban contradicts military leaders and expert research, and is based on nothing more than bias against the transgender community. We won’t stop fighting until we are assured every qualified transgender American who wishes to serve our country can do so on equal terms with all other service members.”
Today’s filing is strengthened by reasoning included in Judge Kollar-Kotelly’s recent ruling, and on these key arguments:
In Stockman, the Trump administration makes the same arguments that Judge Kollar-Kotelly found to “wither under scrutiny” and relies on Interim Guidance characterized by Judge Kollar-Kotelly as a “red herring.”
Under Trump’s ban, Stockman plaintiffs suffer actual, imminent, concrete harms:
Plaintiffs are targeted for forced separation solely because they are transgender and will suffer the loss of tenure, career prospects, and medical care,
Plaintiffs are able and ready to accede into service but are categorically excluded simply because they are transgender Americans, and
Plaintiffs suffer from the injustice of a discriminatory classification that demeans their abilities and fitness to serve as transgender people.
In addition to Equality California, plaintiffs in Stockman v. Trump, filed September 5, 2017, include three unnamed and four named plaintiffs. The named plaintiffs include Nicolas Talbott from Lisbon, Ohio, a 23-year old who wants to enlist but is unable to do so because of the ban, and Aiden Stockman from Yucca Valley, California, a 20-year old who wants to join the Air Force and took the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) test in high school. Aiden currently works at a local grocery store and sees the Air Force as a promising career as well as a way to serve his country, but has been prevented from moving forward because of the ban. Tamasyn Reeves, 29, started the process to enlist in the military but has been unable to serve because of the ban. Jaquice Tate, 27, is an active-duty member of the Army, serving as a Sergeant, E-5 Rank. Unnamed plaintiffs who do not wish to disclose their names include John Doe 1, a 28-year old currently serving as a Non-Commissioned Officer E-5 Staff Sergeant in the Air Force. John Doe 2 is a 20-year old currently serving as an E-4 Specialist (SPC) Operator-Maintainer in the Army. Jane Doe is currently serving as a Staff Sergeant, E-5 Rank, in the Air Force, a Risk Management Framework Program Manager at a strategically important overseas base.
Former top military leaders who were instrumental in the meticulous year-long process of assessing and adopting a policy of open service for transgender service members have lent their voices in legal cases against the ban, including retired Admiral and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Michael Mullen, former Secretary of the Army Eric Fanning, former Secretary of the Navy Raymond Edwin Mabus, Jr., and former Secretary of the Air Force Deborah Lee James. All of these leaders have expressed their strong concern about the negative effects of Trump’s ban on military readiness, national security, and morale.
A hearing in Stockman v. Trump is scheduled for November 20 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Equality California, NCLR, and GLAD will continue to fight Trump’s ban in court until it no longer poses any threat to transgender Americans currently serving or who dream of serving our country.
In addition to NCLR and GLAD, plaintiffs in Stockman v. Trump are also represented by Latham & Watkins LLP.
Historically, when children with atypical sex characteristics were born in the United States, the people around them—parents and doctors—made their best guess and assigned the child a sex. Parents then reared them per social gender norms. Sometimes these people—intersex people—experienced harassment and discrimination as a result of their atypical traits. But many lived well-adjusted lives as adults. During the 1960s, however, based largely on the unproven recommendations of a single prominent psychologist, medical norms in the US changed dramatically. Doctors began recommending surgical solutions to the supposed “problem” of intersex traits—internal sex organs, genitalia, or gonads that do not match typical definitions of male and female. This medical paradigm remains the status quo nearly everywhere in the world today.
Defaulting to surgery resulted in stigmatization, confusion, and fear. In some cases, doctors advised parents to conceal the diagnosis and treatment from the child, instilling feelings of shame in parents and children both. And as a result, many in an entire generation of intersex people did not learn about their conditions until they saw their medical files as adults—sometimes as late as in their 50s.
Over time and with support and pressure from advocates, some medical norms have evolved. Today, intersex children and their families often consult a team of specialists, and not just a surgeon. The medical community has changed its approach to intersex cases—which doctors often categorize as “Differences of Sex Development” or “DSD”—by establishing “DSD teams.” These teams convene multiple healthcare specialists, including mental health providers, to advise on and treat intersex patients. Disclosure of a child’s intersex traits to the child is widely recommended. During this evolution in care, cosmetic surgeries on intersex children’s genitals have become highly controversial within the medical community. However, while the establishment of “DSD teams” has been perhaps the most significant evolution in care and has changed practices considerably, it has not addressed the fundamental human rights issues at stake.
Most medical practitioners now acknowledge that in some cases parents may prefer to leave their child’s body intact as a way of preserving the person’s health, sexual function, fertility options, autonomy, and dignity. Consensus among specialists in intersex health has evolved to acknowledge data gaps and controversies—namely that there has never been sufficient research to show either that these surgeries benefit patients or that there is any harm from growing up with atypical genitals. A growing number of doctors are opposed to doing unnecessary early surgery under such conditions. Practitioners also increasingly recognize the suffering of intersex patients who underwent the operations without their consent.
However, despite these promising developments in care for intersex people, the field remains fraught with uneven, inadequate, and piecemeal standards of care—and with broad disagreements among practitioners that implicate the human rights of their intersex patients. While there are certain surgical interventions on intersex children that are undisputedly medically necessary, such as the creation of a urinary opening where one does not exist, some surgeons in the US continue to perform medically unnecessary “normalizing” surgeries on children, often before they are one year of age. These operations include clitoral reduction surgeries—procedures that reduce the size of the clitoris for cosmetic reasons. Such surgery carries the risk of chronic pain, nerve damage, and scarring. Other operations include gonadectomies, or the removal of gonads, which result in the child being sterile and forced onto lifelong hormone replacement therapy.
Healthcare providers are an important source of information and comfort amidst confusion. “Clinicians and parents alike refer to the period after the birth of an infant for whom gender assignment is unclear as a ‘nightmare,’” wrote Katrina Karkazis, a medical ethicist at Stanford University. “Not only does a child with ‘no sex’ occupy a legal and social limbo, but surprise, fear, and confusion often rupture the parents’ anticipated joy at the birth of their child.”
An endocrinologist told Human Rights Watch: “I understand the impulse for a parent to create something that looks normal—or at least normal according to a surgeon—at birth before the kid knows anything about it. I follow the logic pattern, but you have to run it against risks.” He said: “It’s important to be clear that a certain percentage of the time, something does go wrong and you have to do a re-op, and there’s a loss of sensitivity. So then the do-no-harm becomes: don’t do anything. What problem were you solving with surgery anyway?”
In July 2017, three former US surgeons-general, including one who was a pediatric endocrinologist, wrote that they believed “there is insufficient evidence that growing up with atypical genitalia leads to psychosocial distress,” and “while there is little evidence that cosmetic infant genitoplasty is necessary to reduce psychological damage, evidence does show that the surgery itself can cause severe and irreversible physical harm and emotional distress.” They said: “These surgeries violate an individual’s right to personal autonomy over their own future.” The three doctors concluded:
[B]abies are being born who rely on adults to make decisions in their best interest, and this should mean one thing: When an individual is born with atypical genitalia that pose no physical risk, treatment should focus not on surgical intervention but on psychosocial and educational support for the family and child.
For more than 50 years, the medical community in the United States has often defaulted to treating intersex children by conducting irreversible and unnecessary surgeries. Even after two decades of controversy and debate, there remains no research showing that early, medically unnecessary surgery is helpful to the intersex child. Nonetheless, to date, none of the clinics we surveyed have firmly instituted a moratorium on such operations. The evidence is overwhelming that these procedures carry risk of catastrophic harm. And while increasing numbers of doctors believe it is wrong to conduct these procedures, recent data demonstrate that many clinics continue to do so. Alice Dreger, a bioethicist who has written two books on intersex issues and served on a National Institutes of Health multi-site research project before resigning in protest in 2015, wrote of her two decades of engagement on the intersex surgery controversy: “While many clinicians have privately shared my outrage about these activities, in public, the great majority have remained essentially silent.”
International human rights bodies have recognized the practice as implicating and potentially violating a range of fundamental rights, including the rights to health, autonomy, integrity, and freedom from torture. At present, many of the doctors who advise or conduct surgeries on intersex infants and young children cite a lack of data on the outcomes for children who do not undergo surgery. “We just don’t know the consequences of not doing it,” a gynecologist told Human Rights Watch regarding medically unnecessary surgery. Others continue to call for data collection regarding the impact of the intact intersex body on families and society—as if intersex people are a threat to the social order. For example, a 2015 article co-authored by 30 DSD healthcare providers reflecting on genital surgeries published in the Journal of Pediatric Urology stated:
There is general acknowledgement among experts that timing, the choice of the individual and irreversibility of surgical procedures are sources of concerns. There is, however, little evidence provided regarding the impact of non-treated DSD during childhood for the individual development, the parents, society….
Human Rights Watch and interACT believe this approach has it exactly backwards: the experience of those who have undergone the surgery and principles of medical ethics suggest that unless and until there is outcome data establishing that the medical benefits of specific surgical procedures on infants and young children outweigh the potential harms, they should not be used.
Doctors have said they are seeking guidance on the issue so that they can avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. For example, in 2017, Dr. Ilene Wong, a urologist in Pennsylvania, acknowledged the harm in which she took part when she conducted surgery on an intersex child without her consent. She wrote: “Eight years ago, I did irrevocable damage to the first intersex person I ever met.” She said:
While some would argue that surgical practice has improved in the past decades, the fact remains that few attempts have been made to assess the long-term outcomes of these interventions. The psychological damage caused by intervention is just as staggering, as evidenced by generations of intersex adults dealing with post-traumatic stress disorder, problems with intimacy and severe depression. Some were even surgically assigned a gender at birth, only to grow up identifying with the opposite gender.
Others have offered similar testimony. Dr. Deanna Adkins, the Director of the Duke University Center for Child and Adolescent Gender Care, made an expert declaration to oppose North Carolina’s HB2, a sweeping statewide law repealing non-discrimination ordinances protecting lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people and barring transgender people from shared facilities. In her statement, referring to intersex children, Dr. Adkins argued:
It is harmful to make sex assignments based on characteristics other than gender identity. For example, in cases where surgery was done prior to the ability of the child to understand and express their gender identity, there has been significant distress in these individuals who then have to endure further surgeries to reverse the earlier treatments. It has become standard practice to wait until the gender identity is clear to make permanent surgical changes in these patients unless the changes are required to maintain the life or health of the child.
An endocrinologist on a DSD team told Human Rights Watch: “That’s an adage in medicine—above all do no harm.” He added: “I don’t think you’re going to find anybody that runs a DSD clinic that would argue with the fact that outcomes are better when you delay intervention in general.” A DSD specialist Human Rights Watch interviewed argued that “there’s probably rare if any situations where surgery is absolutely necessary.” She said doctors needed “clear guidelines, clear practice standards”—what she called “general principles of care and make it very clear that the emerging data is in favor of not intervening.”
Such guidelines have begun to emerge. In 2016, the American Medical Association Board of Trustees issued a report recognizing that “DSD communities and a growing number of health care professionals have condemned…genital ‘normalizing,’ arguing that except in the rare cases in which DSD presents as life-threatening anomalies, genital modification should be postponed until the patient can meaningfully participate in decision making.” The board recommended adoption of a resolution that, “except when life-threatening circumstances require emergency intervention, [doctors should] defer medical or surgical intervention until the child is able to participate in decision making.”
Accordingly, Human Rights Watch and interACT are urging the AMA, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and other medical bodies, in line with the oath to “Do No Harm,” to support a moratorium on all surgical procedures that seek to alter the gonads, genitals, or internal sex organs of children with atypical sex characteristics too young to participate in the decision, when those procedures both carry a meaningful risk of harm and can be safely deferred.
Stephenie Larsen is a busy mother of six. When she isn’t wheeling across town, dropping her kids off at school or sports, she runs a support network for gay youth.
Larsen opened the nonprofit Encircle LGBTQ Family and Youth Resource Center in downtown Provo, Utah, in February. The center aims to be a safe, open environment for LGBTQ people in this deeply religious community, and offers individual therapy and group counseling services, as well as a variety of daily activities.
Larsen, herself a Mormon, says she doesn’t have a gay child and doesn’t identify as LGBTQ ― but over the years, she witnessed the church’s fraught relationship with the gay community affect family after family, until she felt she had to do something.
HuffPost is hitting the road this fall to interview people about their hopes, dreams, fears ― and what it means to be American today.
Studies have shown that LGBTQ youth are at a greater risk of depression, suicide and substance abuse than their heterosexual peers. Kids who are exposed to supportive and accepting communities and families are more likely to thrive, while those who experience rejection and bullying are at greater risk of having problems in school and engaging in risky behavior.
Larsen wants Encircle to bring families of LGBTQ kids closer together and to foster understanding between them and the Mormon community. It’s fitting that Encircle, housed in a historic blue Victorian, is located just down the street from one of Provo’s two Mormon temples, she said.
The Mormon church did not respond to a request for comment for this story. Last year, a representative for the church gave the following statement about Encircle to HuffPost: “It’s good to see this historic property lovingly restored and used to serve people in the LGBT community.”
HuffPost sat down with Larsen to talk about the challenges she faces in her work and how she hopes Encircle will help LGBTQ kids in Provo.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Tell me about the mission of Encircle. What is its role within the Provo community and the Mormon community?
It’s a safe space for LGBTQ individuals to come and have community, and the whole goal is to keep the youth alive. It’s extremely difficult if their family does not understand, love and respect them for who they are, and it’s even more difficult when they feel like they’re living in a community that doesn’t understand who they are.
We believe that if we can help the family work through when their child comes out as gay, lesbian or transgender, then they can become an affirming family and support this child on their journey. We hope that through the process, we will help change our community. We believe better conversations at Encircle lead to better conversations in the home, churches, schools, neighborhoods.
Our church, the Mormon church, is extremely important in Provo and affects everyone’s life. So instead of pushing against the community, we’re trying to bring the community in and trying to work in their values to help them better understand and love LGBTQ people.
Let’s talk about suicide. Not only are LGBTQ youth at greater risk for suicide, but Utah has one of the highest suicide rates in the country. Do the kids who come to Encircle talk about this?
Most of the youth we work with at Encircle talk about suicide and the struggle they’ve had with it. I think that when you feel like your god doesn’t love you, or there’s that shame involved in who you are, and you can’t change ― I can’t imagine how difficult that would be.
Youth on average realize whether they’re gay by the time they’re 12 years old, but they don’t come out till they’re 22. So there is a 10-year period that these kids are just harboring these feelings within themselves, and no one knows what they’re dealing with. And during that time, they’re hearing what their church thinks of gay people, what their mother thinks, what their aunt thinks, what their neighbor thinks, and they are internalizing that.
What are some of the biggest challenges of your work?
The major challenge is probably communicating with our community in a way of love and respect for their values, while also communicating love and respect for the youth and who they are. Trying to bridge that gap and to create understanding. And not to be seen as an enemy, but to be seen as a true value and resource. We’re not here to protest, we’re here to help the youth.
And I think raising money is one of the hard parts of a venture like this ― you know, you’ve gotta have money to make this thing run. Raising money is a constant distraction from trying to help the youth, but it’s got to get done. You have to do both.
What kind of support have you seen from the church? Have you had a positive response so far?
Yes, we really have. We’ve had bishops come to Encircle, where we get to have hands-on conversations with them, hoping that they will respond well to the youth and families when the youth come out, so the bishops won’t say things that will be damaging and hurtful to the kids.
Do you feel Encircle has made a difference in the short time it’s been opened?
Fifty to 60 kids come to the house every day.
Since we’ve opened, our therapists have seen over 250 new clients. People are coming to therapy, they’re staying, and they’re coming multiple times.
We’ve trained over 400 volunteers who work at Encircle, and I think every time we train a volunteer, they become an ally and more empathetic and understanding of these kids’ lives.
According to the staff page on your website, it appears that the people in leadership roles are mostly white. Does Encircle have plans to hire more people of color in the future?
For sure. It’s very important ― we’re trying to reach out to the Latino community. And to work on that. We reflect our community in our lack of diversity. I love it that you noticed that.
You don’t identify as LGBTQ, but do you have people from that community leading the day-to-day activities of Encircle?
The people who run the house are from the LGBTQ community. Every night we have an event, and the people who run those programs are always LGBTQ. They’re gaining leadership experience, they’re getting to design the program the way they think is most helpful for people with their life experience.
What has surprised you most about this project?
When you walk in this space, it’s always laughter and happiness. People aren’t just talking about how difficult it is to be gay, they’re talking about the good things in life. And I think that’s a really nice part of it ― that they’re just getting to celebrate life and friendship, and just be normal people there.
Anything else you want people to know?
Kids who have the courage to come out in this community ― they’re very brave, and they’re going to change the world. I hope that we can make it easier for gay kids to thrive in America ― that all of us can. I definitely believe they are born this way, and this is not by mistake. They should be honored and loved for who they are.
Thinking about buying a home? For many, the idea of owning their own house is very exciting. It’s a huge purchase, though—it’s probably the most expensive thing you’ll ever buy. That means it’s not a purchase you want to make on a whim. You’d be surprised, though, at how many people buy a house without truly knowing what they’re getting. Someone who may take days comparing and contrasting different cell phones or printers may jump right into buying a house without doing much investigating at all. If you’re buying a house, here are a few important tips to remember so that you not only get the best deal financially, you also get a property that will be your home for years to come.
Understand the Costs
Buying a home isn’t as simple as simply paying the asking price. In fact, there are many other costs you may have to pay, and you need to be prepared for that. These costs may include things such as mortgage insurance, homeowner’s insurance, title insurance, and a number of other things you might have to pay for. Sometimes, the seller pays some of these costs. Other times, they’re all on you. It depends on the deal you and the seller agree to. You can talk to your real estate agent about what costs you might have to pay on top of the price for the property itself.
Check Builder Credentials
Buying a brand new house can be exciting – you often get to be involved in the construction, selecting flooring, colors, and more. However, you do want to research the builder and make certain that they’re known for building high-quality homes. Some do cut corners in order to meet deadlines or come in under-budget. The last thing you want is to purchase a brand new home and then have to make major repairs within a year or two.
Explore the Neighborhood
Many homebuyers forget that they’re buying more than just the property, they’re also buying the location. Spend a little time getting to know the neighborhood. Drive around and see what’s in a 10 or 15 minute drive. You may not think that it’s important to have a gas station or grocery store nearby, but later on you might regret that decision. Also, be sure to visit the area during the day and the night. Drive around with your window down at night and listen. Do you hear dogs barking, loud music, or anything else? See what the neighborhood is like on a weekday and on the weekend. You don’t want to move into a great home only to find that you’re on a very busy or loud street.
Don’t Buy the First House You See
As with any major purchase, always shop around a bit. While the first home may seem perfect, remember that very few homebuyers find a house that truly checks every box on their wish list. Make sure each home you’re seriously considering meets your needs. It’s easy to get wowed by an impressive view or a remodeled kitchen, but you need to make sure you look past these things.
On the other hand, aesthetics do matter. You don’t want to buy a house that you don’t find particularly attractive. Yes, it’s easy to paint a few rooms or swap out a light fixture here and there, but major remodels can quickly add up. If you hate several rooms in the house, it may be best to continue your search instead of deciding to remodel later. At best, you’ll end up spending a lot more money to get the home you want. At worst, you’ll never remodel and you’ll end up spending years in a home you hate.
Find a Great Real Estate Agent
Your real estate agent is an important ally and resource in your home search. That’s why it’s important that you find someone you trust and get along with. If your agent doesn’t seem to get your style, needs, or personality, they may not be the right person to work with. Some people find that they need to connect with their agent on several levels. For example, those in the LGBT community often look for a gay or lesbian real estate agent. They feel more comfortable with an agent who understands where they’re coming from. Many people find these experts on www.GayRealEstate.com, a website specializing in LGBT real estate.
Take Your Time
Unless you’re facing a strict deadline to leave your current residence, take your time with your housing search. There’s no need to rush or to settle for a home that doesn’t meet your needs. Take your time, work with your agent, and trust your intuition. The only time you should not take your time is if you live in part of the country facing a shortage of homes for sale. In this case, once you find the perfect home, be aggressive in making your offer and in what terms you put in your offer. That way, you don’t lose your dream home to someone else.
“A lot of people will list their HIV status in their profile, or their PrEP use in their profile. So it’s pretty easy—and I think pretty common—to serosort or PrEP-sort on apps,” said Kay Nilsson, health advocacy coordinator at San Francisco AIDS Foundation.
One word of warning, though, for people who rely on other people’s PrEP use as their primary HIV-prevention strategy:
“There are some potential drawbacks to this strategy, that may expose you to risk,” said Oliver Bacon, MD, MPH, an HIV clinician and PrEP providers in San Francisco. “One of the breakthroughs of PrEP is that it’s an HIV prevention tool that you have complete control over yourself. You take it, and it protects you regardless of what your partners are doing or not doing. Relying on someone else’s PrEP is not the same thing. In fact, it’s exactly the opposite.”
One such case was recently highlighted during HIV Grand Rounds at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital. Last year, a person in San Francisco contracted HIV after seeking HIV-negative partners on PrEP.
“That was his risk reduction strategy. He himself was never on PrEP,” said Susa Coffey, MD. “This was failure of prevention in a guy who not only was high risk, but knew he was high risk.”
If you’re HIV-negative and worried that you may be at risk for HIV, it’s better for you to consider using PrEP yourself than to try to find HIV-negative partners on PrEP. In San Francisco, said Bacon, just about every person who wants to access PrEP should be able to afford it because of benefit programs that reduce or eliminate the cost. San Francisco City Clinic, where Bacon sees clients, offers drop-in same-day PrEP services. San Francisco AIDS Foundation offers free PrEP services in San Francisco at Magnet, its sexual health clinic in the Castro, and at its headquarters in the mid-Market area.
Learn more about PrEP & find PrEP services
PleasePrEPme.org is a website linking people seeking PrEP services to PrEP providers across the U.S. The site includes a searchable directory (by state, zip code or street address) for users to find PrEP clinics and PrEP clinicians with hours, contact information and health insurances accepted for each listing.
San Francisco City Clinic offers free and low-cost sexual health care to people in the Bay Area regardless of immigration or insurance status. They offer same-day PrEP enrollment during drop-in hours:
For trans people, San Francisco City Clinic offers PrEP services by appointment Thursdays from 8 am – 11 am or during the drop-in hours.
San Francisco AIDS Foundation offers free PrEP services at Strut (470 Castro Street in San Francisco) and at their main office (1035 Market Street in San Francisco). Find more information and make an appointment online.
A federal court in Washington has blocked President Donald Trump changing the governmental policy to bar transgender individuals from serving in the military, according to an Associated Press report published by Time.com.
U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly wrote today (Monday, Oct. 30) that transgender members of the military who had sued over the change were likely to win their lawsuit and barred the Trump administration from banning them from the military.
Trump announced his intention to change the policy, established by President Obama in 2016, that would allowed trans people to serve openly. Even military leaders balked at the idea of the ban.
In her ruling, Kollar-Kotelly wrote, “There is absolutely no support for the claim that the ongoing service of transgender people would have any negative effect on the military at all. In fact, there is considerable evidence that it is the discharge and banning of such individuals that would have such effects.”
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a motion today to defend a Maryland school board’s policies that prevent discrimination, harassment, and stigmatization of transgender and gender nonconforming students in the school system. The policies ensure that transgender students can, among other things, use school facilities in accordance with their gender identity.
A federal lawsuit against the Frederick County School Board was filed anonymously by a non-transgender student and her mother, who claim that allowing transgender students restroom and locker room access infringes upon student privacy rights. However, the only privacy violation alleged in the plaintiff’s complaint was an incident that did not even involve any students that are transgender. The lawsuit also seeks to invalidate policies preventing harassment, and protecting the confidentiality and privacy of transgender students.
The motion to intervene in the pending lawsuit was filed by the ACLU, ACLU of Maryland, and Free State Justice on behalf of James van Kuilenburg, an honor student at Governor Thomas High School who is transgender.
The school board’s policies, adopted in June 2017, were welcomed by community members from all over Frederick County. Van Kuilenburg says that the policies “gave me the ability to finally be myself and access all parts of my education.”
In the wake of the lawsuit, the Frederick County group “Support FCPS Trans Students” has started a social media campaign called #IAmFrederick to show support for their transgender classmates.
According to van Kuilenburg, reversal of the policies would be “devastating.”
“There is an epidemic of trans students feeling unsafe, depressed, and suicidal,” he explained, and a removal of the policies in place to protect them would “create a culture of fear and misunderstanding.”
“It’s important that trans students are given the opportunity to defend themselves against these shameful attempts to isolate and stigmatize them,” said Gabriel Arkles, senior staff attorney at the ACLU LGBT & HIV Project. He added, “Schools can and should provide extra privacy protections or private restroom or changing areas for any student who requests it. But no student has a right to demand that transgender students be segregated from their peers.”
“The Frederick County School Board did the right thing: they created policies that affirm and respect their students’ gender identity,” said Jennifer Kent, managing attorney of FreeState Justice. “We intend to vigorously defend these policies in the interests of our client and affected students in Frederick County Public Schools.”
Counsel on the motion to intervene also includes Leslie Cooper and Arkles of the ACLU; David Rocah and Nick Steiner of the ACLU of Maryland; and John Hayes, Brian Whittaker, and Kenneth Nichols of the law firm Nixon Peabody.
New research indicates that LGBT workers are facing bullying in an area that should be a safe place – their workplace. Two in five LGBT workers (40 percent) report feeling bullied at work, 11 percentage points higher than the national average of all workers combined. Fifty-six percent of bullied LGBT workers report being bullied repeatedly.
The nationwide survey was conducted by Harris Poll on behalf of CareerBuilder from February 16 to March 9, 2017 among a representative sample of 3,420 full-time workers across industries and company sizes in the U.S, including 238 LGBT workers and 3,215 workers in the private sector.
“Bullying of any kind or of anyone has no place in the workplace – period,” said Michael Erwin, director of corporate communications and social media at CareerBuilder. “Employers have a responsibility to create a safe working environment for all employees. They can minimize this destructive behavior by offering sensitivity training and enforcing anti-bullying policies across their organizations.”
Bullying Takes Many Forms
What does bullying look like in today’s workplace? Fifty-three percent of bullied LGBT workers say they were bullied by one person, and 13 percent say it happened in a group setting. Fourteen percent of LGBT bullied workers say they were bullied by someone younger, and 61 percent say they were bullied by someone older.
Among the most common examples of bullying given by LGBT workers who were bullied at work were:
Falsely accused of mistakes you didn’t make (61 percent)
Ignored – comments were dismissed or not acknowledged (50 percent)
Used different standards/policies for you than other workers (49 percent)
You were gossiped about (47 percent)
Picked on for personal attributes (race, gender, appearance) (42 percent)
Constantly criticized by boss or co-workers (40 percent)
Someone didn’t perform certain duties, which negatively impacted your work (40 percent)
Purposely excluded from projects or meetings (31 percent)
Belittling comments were made about your work during meetings (28 percent)
Consequences of Bullying
Being bullied can have many effects, many long-lasting, and LGBT workers are feeling the consequences. Of those LGBT workers who were bullied at work, 19 percent have suffered from health-related problems as a result of being bullied at work, and 15 percent have called in sick because of feeling bullied.
Forty-one percent of LGBT workers who have been bullied at work have left a job because they have felt bullied.
Dealing with Workplace Bullying
Erwin shared the below tips for workers dealing with office bullies.
Take notes. Document interactions with the bully. Keep these notes in a private place, and use them if you need to show the bullying pattern to a third party, such as your company’s HR department.
Rise above, but don’t be afraid to confront. At first, try to minimize time spent around the bully, and ignore any bullying behavior. But sometimes, enough is enough, and you need to confront them. Explain how the negative treatment makes you feel, and ask them to stop. Sometimes perpetrators are not aware of the effect their actions have. Fifty-three percent of workers who were bullied at work confronted their bully, and 20 percent said the bullying stopped.
Bring in the experts. Seventy-two percent of workers who were bullied at work do not report it to HR. Your HR team is trained in dealing with workplace conflict, and can step in to help you solve the issue.
Survey Methodology
This survey was conducted online within the U.S. by Harris Poll on behalf of CareerBuilder among 3,420 employees (employed full-time, not self-employed, non-government including 3,215 in the private sector and 238 LGBT workers) between February 16 and March 9, 2017 (percentages for some questions are based on a subset, based on their responses to certain questions). With a pure probability sample of 3,420, one could say with a 95 percent probability that the overall results have a sampling error of +/- 1.68 percentage points. Sampling error for data from sub-samples is higher and varies.
All LGBTQ seniors are welcome to attend the “Aging Gayfully” classes at Finley Senior Center in Santa Rosa (Wednesdays 10 am – noon) and Sebastopol Area Senior Center (Wednesdays 2:30-4:30 pm). While SRJC classes are officially cancelled this week, I am still meeting with those who feel the need to connect with their peers and be supported during this challenging time.
Vintage House in Sonoma is “closed until further notice” (probably due to power outages) so I may not be able to hold my “Aging Gayfully” class there this Thursday morning and we are still waiting to see if the Sonoma Valley LGBT Seniors Group can have our scheduled monthly discussion group there on Friday morning at 10 am. If we can, we invite LGBTQ seniors in our area who have been affected by the fire to join us. If not, we will be meeting in the banquet room of the Palms Grill (Sonoma Highway at El Vernano Blvd.) at noon for lunch and discussion.
Also I would encourage use of the LGBTQI Elder Resource Center (http://www.sebastopolseniorcenter.org/lgbtqi-elder-resource-center) and for LGBTQI seniors to feel comfortable contacting our Sonoma County Adult and Aging Services as their staff have received multiple LGBTQ cultural competency trainings and are eager to make sure LGBTQ seniors are not lacking in services, especially during this critical time.
Friday, bipartisan legislation was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives to protect currently-serving transgender service members from being discharged due to President Trump’s transgender military ban. The legislation was introduced by Representatives Jackie Speier (D-CA), Charlie Dent (R-PA), Susan Davis (D-CA), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Adam Smith (D-WA), and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ).
“Transgender troops serve this nation with distinction and honor, and President Trump’s unpatriotic attack on their service is unconscionable,” said Stephen Peters, HRC National Press Secretary and Marine Corps veteran. “Qualified Americans who are willing to put their lives on the line for their fellow citizens should be allowed to do so — regardless of their gender identity. We thank Representatives Jackie Speier, Charlie Dent, Susan Davis, Ileana Ro-Lehtinen, Adam Smith, and Kyrsten Sinema for their leadership in defending transgender service members.”
The Senate version of the legislation was introduced last month by Senators Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Susan Collins (R-ME), John McCain (R-AZ), and Jack Reed (D-RI). The legislation is based on an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act introduced by Senators Gillibrand and Collins that was blocked by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) — despite the likelihood of majority, bipartisan support in the chamber.
Ian Thompson, legislative representative with the American Civil Liberties Union, had the following reaction:
“The introduction of this legislation provides still more evidence that bipartisan opposition in Congress to President Trump’s discriminatory and unconstitutional ban on military service by transgender individuals is growing by the day. Reps. Speier, Dent, Davis, Ros-Lehtinen, Smith, and Sinema are to be commended for standing up for transgender service members, like those represented by the ACLU in our legal challenge, who have repeatedly proven that they have the courage and capacity to serve in our nation’s armed forces.
“We have seen one sweeping anti-LGBT action after another from this administration. The commitment of the Trump administration to discrimination is now crystal clear. Members of Congress who support equality under the law for LGBT people must use every tool at their disposal to fight back.”
The legislation would protect transgender service members currently serving from being discharged because of their gender identity and express the sense of Congress that individuals who are qualified and can meet the standards to serve in the military should be eligible to serve.
After Trump in July unexpectedly and callously announced via Twitter that he would impose a discriminatory ban on transgender military service, members of Congress from both sides of the aisle spoke out forcefully against it. A clear majority of Americans believe anyone who is willing and able to serve in our nation’s military should be allowed to do so.