Trans killers? Or killers of trans rights?

So it's being reported that senior officials at the DOJ are talking about a possible federal ban on transgender folks owning guns.

This is building on the right-wing meme machine's notion that trans folks commit a disproportionate number of mass shootings and the ban would be justified on the grounds that people with gender dysphoria are mentally ill and unstable.

If this were a rational world, it would be enough to simply dismiss this as the twisted fantasies of trans-hating bigots politicizing a tragedy to advance their paranoid fears and political ambitions - but unhappily, it is not.

So let's go through it. Note at the top that I’m not going to bother with any arguments about “but the Second Amendment,” questions that seem to be the focus of too many words on this because, y'know, guns and freedom and all that. Not only because I’d be happy to see that widely misused and historically misinterpreted provision dumped from the Constitution, but because it’s actually irrelevant. Instead, a few facts.

1. Gender dysphoria is the stress that arises when there is a conflict between someone's sex, based on their primary and secondary sex characteristics, and their gender, that is, their sense of self. It is not a mental illness. In fact, therapists will often prefer the term “gender incongruence” specifically to affirm that the issue is one of dealing with stress, not in any way one of sanity.

2. Not only are trans folks not over-represented among mass shooters, they are if anything underrepresented.

Snopes and Media Bias/Fact Check both looked at the question of a supposed overabundance of trans mass shooters and the conclusion was the same both times. Snopes called it "False" and Media Bias/Fact Check bluntly called it a "Blatant lie."

The primary sources for each were the Gun Violence Archive and the Violence Prevention Project, which use somewhat different measures for inclusion. The Gun Violence Archive records mass shootings, meaning a shooting in which at least four victims are shot, not including the shooter. The Violence Prevention Project tracks mass killings, one in which at least four people are killed, again not counting the shooter. Despite that difference in focus, their answers to the overall question were the same.

The Violence Prevention Project recorded 195 mass shootings committed by 200 people between 1966 and 2024. Of those 200 shooters, only one was listed as transgender. That's 0.50% of the shooters.

The Gun Violence Archive reports that from January 1, 2013 to August 29, 2025, there were 5,729 mass shootings - involving just five confirmed transgender shooters. If you include a few cases in which the gender identity of the shooter was unconfirmed, there may have been eight. That's between 0.09% and 0.14% of all mass shooters in the GVA database.

So transgender folks, who by varying estimates make up about 1% of US adults, make up something between 0.1% and 0.5% of mass shooters.

Which means that to what should be no one’s surprise, the Department of Injustice is either lying or so wrapped up in their paranoid hatred that they can’t even count.

Meanwhile, cis men, who make up about 47% of the US population, commit about 96% of all mass shootings. What were you saying about over-representation?

Does Sarah McBride speak for the trans community? "Moderates" sure hope so.

Updated I suppose this could be considered a type of full disclosure: This was was prompted by Erin Reed’s piece on Rep. Sara McBride’s “New York Times” interview with Ezra Klein.

I admit to a good deal of sympathy for Sarah McBride in that when she first entered Congress, she indicated she wanted to be seen as "the Gentlelady from Delaware," not "the transgender member of the House." That, of course, while understandable was nonetheless impossible and the first thing she encountered as soon as she passed through the door was the bathroom business, followed by daily humiliations like repeated references to "Mr. McBride." So yes, it's a tough path she's negotiating. Credit her with trying to do it with grace.

The problem here is that with her interview with Ezra Klein she now has allowed herself to be presented as some sort of voice of the community, the "most politically powerful transgender official in the country" (says Faux News), someone who is not merely expressing some personal opinions about tactics (some of which she clearly has not thought through) but communicating Significant Views worthy of Serious Consideration by the Serious People. The choruses of "But Sarah McBride said" and "As Sarah McBride said" are already emerging.

If she now wants to be seen as a community leader, she damn well should have pushed harder on behalf of, as she herself put it (referring to Delaware), the people she represents. If she doesn't, if her goal is just to be "the Gentlelady from Delaware," perhaps in hope of quietly normalizing her presence and that of those who may follow, then she should have refused the interview.

Not only because McBride shows serious signs of already falling into old-style Washington insider ways (such as referring to advocates by the dismissive epithet "the groups"), but because she betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of the dynamics of social change. Specifically, she says fighting across a broad front "regardless of whether the public is ready ... misunderstands the role that social movements have in maintaining proximity to public opinion."

That is utter nonsense. Being where the public is not, being where the public is not immediately ready to go, is exactly the role of social movements. It is their whole purpose.

Indeed, in writing this I recalled writing some years ago that in an odd sort of way, the goal of any movement for social justice is to lose because you should always be somewhat unpopular, somewhat beyond where the public is prepared at that moment to go - and if you do succeed in moving them to where you are, such that they are raising their own voices and you are no longer speaking to them or to power on their behalf, it's time either to shift to a different issue or to a sharper position on the same one. Because there is always more to do.*

The point here is that no movement for justice ever gained broader acceptance by the self-defeating strategy of "follow[ing] the polls." That is a road not to progress but to irrelevance and at best stasis. And whatever it's uses in military campaigns, "strategic retreat" in a political movement is simply giving up ground and at best losing more slowly.

The history of gaining rights is one of leading, not following; is one of struggle, not of settling; is one where compromises follow campaigns, they do not precede them - and, importantly, where such compromises are found only in gains, not losses.

I could go on about this for some time - I certainly have in the past - but to save myself some typing and repetition, I'm going to refer you to my piece called "Newsom and Moulton: A Tale of Two Trimmers" (I'm sure you can guess the topic) which contains some discussion related to "compromise" actually meaning slow-motion surrender.

Instead, I'll repeat something I've said so many times that I should have it tattooed on my forehead to save time:

The movement for peace and social justice in this country has been at its strongest and most influential when we have spoken the truth without giving a flying damn if anyone was "offended" or not. We didn't build a movement against the Indochina War or for civil rights, women's equality, or a cleaner environment by worrying about how we'd be received by the bigots, sexists, or greedy corporate bosses - or how we'd "look" or who we'd "turn off" if we labeled the discriminators and despoilers for what they were.

And while that referred to movements of the dreaded '60s, it has remained true through all the movements since it was first written about 35 years ago. And, I suspect, will continue to be so.

Which Sara McBride does not understand. Know this clearly: I do not fault her for this. As I said above, she may well see her role is to do her job as a congresswoman and to fit in such that being transgender is no longer remarkable. If so, I wish her the best but I am also old enough to remember the Mattachine Society, which adopted a very similar "we're just like you" strategy only to have to wait for decades until such as Stonewall and Act Up! actually get the needle moving.

No matter; Sarah McBride has to decide how she personally will deal with her own situation. But she is not cut out to be - and may well not want to be - a community voice or leader. And she should not be made into one.

Updated to make note of the fact that this post has been viewed over 8000 times, which makes it one of my most popular posts ever. I'm small-time, always have been, always will be, so this is kind of a big deal for me and in the hope they'll see it, I waned to express gratitude to whoever and however it came to so many people's attention. (I just wish a few of those folks had left a comment. Oh, well.)

*I used to enjoy telling people my political philosophy was that of a “socialist-anarchist-communalist-capitalist-eclectic-iconoclast.” Part of the point was the “iconoclast” - because I’d say that there ever was a society designed along the lines I imagine, the first thing I’d do is to examine it for its shortcomings that needed to be addressed. The I Jing says “the only thing that doesn’t change is that everything else changes.” My version is “the only ultimate answer is that there is no other ultimate answer.” There’s always more to do.

Trans folks get Screw-mettied

A few observations on US v. Skrmetti, the case over Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for trans youth, drawn from the reporting from, among others sources, Chris Geidner (Law Dork) and Erin Reed (Erin in the Morning)

For those terminally uninformed, the state of Tennessee had passed a law barring medical gender-affirming care for anyone under the age of 18. On June 18, in a 6-3 split along the usual lines, SCOTUS upheld the law. 

Okay, one thought is that unlike Geidner, who called the "logic" of primary author John Roberts "circular," I'd liken it more to a spiral, spinning further and further out beyond the bounds of reasoned thought in pursuit of a predetermined conclusion. And that was mild compared to Mark Joseph Stern writing at Slate, who called Roberts' ruling "an incoherent mess of contradiction and casuistry," a "travesty," and "a series of half-arguments and specious assumptions stitched together into one analytic trainwreck."

Another thought is that in saying the law is not discriminatory based on sex because it denies treatment to both trans boys and trans girls, the ruling clearly echoes (for not the only time) the bigoted (and rejected) defense to bans on same-sex marriage which claimed those laws did not discriminate on the basis of sex because gays and lesbians could still get married, provided it was to each other.

A third arises from Roberts saying the law "does not restrict the administration of puberty blockers or hormones to individuals 18 and over." That is, you can get puberty blockers, but only after puberty is or is essentially complete. Kind of like saying you can vote in an election provided you do it after the votes have been counted.

Fourth, the decision spouts some blather about evolving standards and there are still, y’know, “questions” and some “controversial” stuff, argued in the face of the overwhelming scientific consensus on the basics: Puberty blockers and HRT work, can be used safely, gender-affirming care leads to improved lives for the vast, vast majority of people affected, and regret rates are, compared to other medical and surgical interventions, remarkably low. But there are still bozos and bigots spinning tales, so there is, yeah, “controversy” and lack of absolutely perfect knowledge so we must give full weight to “both sides” and approve bans where they exist. And I look forward to a SCOTUS suit of someone arguing a school can’t teach students that the Earth is a globe because of the “controversy” about if it is flat or not.

Finally, there is this horrifying statement from the head of the Sleazy Six: "SB1 does not exclude any individual from medical treatments on the basis of transgender status. Rather, it removes one set of diagnoses from the range of treatable conditions.”

If the first sentence there has any coherent meaning at all - which is quite an assumption - it's that banning trans-related health care is not discriminatory because a trans person can't be denied treatment for, say, diabetes on the grounds of being trans. And, it would follow, it's not discriminatory to deny a diabetic treatment because they can still be treated for cancer.

But the second sentence is the really horrifying one. Its actual argument is that any category of person can be banned from needed treatment by "remov[ing] one set of diagnoses" - the very ones that define the condition for which treatment is sought - "from the range of treatable conditions,” even as it effectively acknowledges these are valid medical diagnoses. "You've been diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes? Sorry not sorry, we've decided that diagnosis cannot be treated."

The sheer inhumane depravity, the cold-blooded indifference to the welfare or even, given the suicide statistics, the survival of trans people revealed by that passage is difficult to grasp.

Oh, and as a footnote: Any time a right-wingers comes at you defending a law or policy with any form of “all it does is,” as the Scurrilous Six do here, you can be damn sure it does a hell of a lot more.

A Tale of Two Trimmers

So, as reported by, among others, the estimable Erin Reed, California Governor Gavin Newsom spent much of the first episode of his new podcast sloppily agreeing with reactionary bigot and professional transmisiac¹ Charlie Kirk. Newsom said he "completely aligns" with Kirk in opposing trans women in sports, calling the idea “deeply unfair,” labeled denying gender-affirming surgery to prisoners an easy "90/10" call, accepted a description of gender-affirming care as "butchery" and "chemical castration" to which "we have to be more sensitized," and endorsed a ban on such care for youth.

As a result of which, someone Politico identified only as "a Democratic strategist from a swing state" said Newsom had created "a permission structure for other Democrats to do this, too" - that is, to trash trans rights (plus other "far left" policies) in pursuit of that forever just beyond our reach mass of almost mythical "moderate" Republicans.

Among the comments and responses at Reed's site, there was a lot of questioning of why Newsom would do this, with some saying he was preparing a 2028 run for president (he is term limited and will be out of office as governor in 2026) with others saying this very act will kill his chances for that. But through it all was the throbbing pulse of emotional pain driven be a combination of genuine anger and deep betrayal.

For my part, truth is that I can't say I'm truly shocked by this. (I bet Kirk was a lot more surprised than I was.) Gavin Newsom always kinda creeped me out. He was - I can't put my finger on it, but he was somehow TOO polished, TOO smooth, TOO aware of how he looked, spoke, and moved. Okay, truth is he always seemed to me to be as slick as his hair and every bit as carefully created.

Still, he had built a certain reputation and to see him so casually toss that aside to suck up to the bigoted extremist reactionary right (and for what?) is deeply, deeply saddening and profoundly disappointing. Not so much for the action - because again I'm not really shocked; I've seen too many such cowardly, self-interested betrayals over the years for that - but for the hope that preceded each such betrayal by the institutional Democratic Party; the hope, that is, that this time I was wrong.

Ultimately, Newsom is engaging in old-fashioned triangulation, the tactic of embracing, even actively avowing, some of your opponents' programs or attitudes, intending to insulate yourself against being attacked on those grounds. Bill Clinton made the concept famous. Barack Obama was a master at it. And yes it can be effective, as Clinton and Obama proved - provided, that is, you don't give a damn about the impact on the people affected. Which we now have to assume Newsom doesn't.

On the other coast we can see a different, if you will a "kinder, gentler" version of the same sort of "give 'em an inch and they won't take a mile, we promise" thinking, this time from Massachusetts Rep. Seth Moulton. Stung by the reaction to his comments that he didn't want his daughter getting "run over" by a trans girl on the sports field, Moulton doubled down in a letter sent by an aide to a constituent (quoted in full in the comments to Reed's piece about Newsom).

Moulton’s view, according to the aide, is that "Republicans are using trans people in sports as a means to fearmonger about the trans population at large and get more people on board with their wholly anti-trans agenda."

Okay so far.

"[B]y divorcing sports from the broader issue of fundamental rights ... we can do a better job fighting back. [A] middle ground on sports ... can peel a large chunk of average Americans away from the extremism of the right."

Stop right there. This is utter bullshit. What Moulton actually said in the wake of the 2024 election was “Democrats spend way too much time trying not to offend anyone rather than being brutally honest about the challenges many Americans face. I have two little girls. I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat, I’m supposed to be afraid to say that.” [Emphasis added for clarity.] ²[

There isn't a single goddam word in there about finding this so-called "middle ground." It is all about being "brutally honest" and not being "afraid" to throw trans children under the bus, using the excuse of the election loss to do it.

Later, he blamed criticism of him on "cancel culture" and whined about supposed "shouting from the extreme left corners of social media" and "purity tests."

So no, I don't buy the crap. Rather, I'd say this could be called Moulton's "Sister Souljah moment," a sort of mirror version of triangulation, where rather than embracing the opponent's view, a politician deliberately attacks some person or position that could be associated with their own campaign, a way pf going "Oh no no no, I'm not with them! It got the name when Bill Clinton attacked hip-hop performer/activist Sister Souljah as a way of rejecting Jesse Jackson and proving he wasn't "too pro-black." Later, Barack Obama used it to assert his own patriotism by going out of his way to impugn the patriotism of the movements and activists of the '60s. Here, Moulton declares his self-congratulatory supposed brave independence from those Democrats who apparently prefer seeing "little girls" get "run over" to being "honest."

But you know what, forget all that for now. Leave it aside. Take him at his word. He just wants to "peel away average Americans" from the extremist right and if only - oh if only - we just give them this one point, if we just say "Okay, you're right about that one," if we just say that "the dreams and aspirations" of girls and women in sports must be protected against "unfairness" - or, more exactly, those of cis girls and women must be protected, while the dreams and aspirations of trans girls and women, despite them being every bit as strong and representing every bit as much commitment, are to be, what, martyrs to the cause? Too unimportant for our attention? Whatever, if we would just sacrifice those hopes and aspirations, everything else will be so much better.

Okay, so if it's not bullshit, it's - stupid.

And I mean stooopid.

It's stupid because it won't work. I don't know if it ever has. When has giving into a bully ever satisfied them? The paranoia about trans folks was manufactured almost out of thin air by preying on fears about social change in general and sex in particular. What in hell makes a trimmer like Moulton think that if we surrender on sports they won't just switch back to restrooms? Or go even more in on "obscene" books? Or "trafficking?" Or whatever other "OMG! Save the children!" rant seems useful at the moment, regardless of truth? What have the fanatics ever needed truth or even logic to push their paranoia and when has the right-wing noise machine ever failed to turn that message, that focus, up to 11?³

That's particularly true because, as Reed noted in a different post, sports was never the real issue any more than bathrooms were the real issue when that was the first line of attack back in 2016.

Rather, each of them was a wedge issue, the thing the reactionaries thought they could get people upset about, creeped about, emotional about; they were a way in, a way to render and define trans people somehow as different, as other, as "not us" - and so to make anti-trans laws acceptable, even proper, even necessary.

Which is exactly how it has worked. Virtually every - if not every single - state that has passed a sports ban on the grounds of "fairness" and "protecting women in sports," often with support from the other side in pursuit of "compromise," has followed up with additional bills targeting everything from restrooms, to IDs, to stripping away civil rights protections, to entirely removing trans folks from existence in law, right up to one proposed Texas that would make someone telling their employer or a "governmental agency" (which could include police) that they are anything other than "the biological sex assigned at birth" a case of fraud - that is, telling such people you are trans would be a felony. Admitting you exist would be a crime.

Now, not every one of those proposed laws passed; the one in Texas all but certainly won't (it has no co-sponsors and no hearing scheduled), the caveat "all but" being distressingly necessary these days. And not all will survive legal challenges. But the point is, the bogus claims to "protect women's sports" was the proverbial nose of the camel⁴ that has resulted in damage to and even devastation of the lives of trans folks in 25 states.

Indeed, some among the fanatics will even openly admit it. For example, Reed points to Terry Schilling of the reactionary American Principles Project, who has defined extremism as "loving America," describing "the sports issue" as just the "beginning point," one chosen because among people who never accepted losing on same-sex marriage and had had wet dreams of overturning Roe v. Wade it provided a way to attack trans rights as a first step toward undoing all the changes they find so icky. And note I use the work "icky" deliberately because none of this opposition to basic rights is based on rational consideration of reality. It is all id and super-ego combining while skipping over ego⁵; it's reptilian brain and culturally-conditioned repression and shame about sex overruling rational judgment.

Which means, again, that despite their protestations, Newsom and Moulton and the others eager to follow their lead (such as that "Democratic strategist from a swing state") are not "engaging with the opposition," they are effectively confirming that the doubts and fears the reactionaries try to raise about transgender folks are legitimate questions. They are not in search of "middle ground," they are rationalizing their political cowardice while cowering against the threat that the GOPpers might call them a name. They are not "stripping people away from the right" or setting up for a better resistance to the reactionaries, they are declaring that when the pressure mounts, they will crack, preferring accommodation and slow-motion surrender to taking the risks involving in striving to win.⁶

The rebuttal to all the trimmers and their enablers was presented 165 years ago. It came in a speech by Abraham Lincoln at Cooper Union in New York City on February 27, 1860⁷. Lincoln's target was the demand of legislators from the South that slavery be allowed in federal territories and it's wise counsel for those like to imagine that if we just concede, y'know, just this one little point to the fanatics, they'll be more reasonable about the rest.

Consider these excerpts, with emphasis as in the original and comments for context in brackets:

Judging by all they say and do, and by the subject and nature of their controversy with us [over slavery], let us determine, if we can, what will satisfy them.

Will they be satisfied if the Territories be unconditionally surrendered to them? We know they will not. In all their present complaints against us, the Territories are scarcely mentioned. Invasions and insurrections [such as Harper's Ferry] are the rage now. Will it satisfy them, if, in the future, we have nothing to do with invasions and insurrections? We know it will not. We so know, because we know we never had anything to do with invasions and insurrections; and yet this total abstaining does not exempt us from the charge and the denunciation.

The question recurs, what will satisfy them? Simply this: We must not only let them alone [to practice slavery], but we must somehow, convince them that we do let them alone. This, we know by experience, is no easy task.

What will convince them? This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly - done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated - we must place ourselves avowedly with them. Senator Douglas' new sedition law must be enacted and enforced, suppressing all declarations that slavery is wrong, whether made in politics, in presses, in pulpits, or in private. We must arrest and return their fugitive slaves with greedy pleasure. We must pull down our Free State constitutions. The whole atmosphere must be disinfected from all taint of opposition to slavery, before they will cease to believe that all their troubles proceed from us.

Let us stand by our duty, fearlessly and effectively. Let us be diverted by none of those sophistical contrivances wherewith we are so industriously plied and belabored - contrivances such as groping for some middle ground between the right and the wrong, vain as the search for a man who should be neither a living man nor a dead man.

Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations against us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the Government nor of dungeons to ourselves. LET US HAVE FAITH THAT RIGHT MAKES MIGHT, AND IN THAT FAITH, LET US, TO THE END, DARE TO DO OUR DUTY AS WE UNDERSTAND IT.

And the hell with the trimmers.

As a final note, I'm also reminded by all of this of writing to then-President Bill Clinton around 1997 to saying that he had been foolish in dealing with the GOPpers. I wrote, as best as memory allows so the exact words may be off but the point is accurately repeated, that "Every time you have offered some compromise looking for some equivalent response, it has instead been 'That's nice. Now what else will you give us?' You've got to stop thinking you're dealing with reasonable people," adding that "Whatever value strategic retreat has in military campaigns, in politics you never win by backing up."

Thirty years down the road and it's the same-old-same-old.

Which leads, in a way to a bottom line. The same old bottom line: It's up to us. We can't rely on our "leaders" and we can't rely on electoral politics, certainly not on its own. We have to go beyond, act outside of and beyond, electoral politics. We have to be in public; in the streets, even filling the streets; in the jails, even filling the jails. We have to be loud, noisy, disruptive, but most of all creative; we have to be impolite, rude, to power; and we have to not care what they call us - because they will call us all sorts of things - and keep on going anyway. It’s not a matter of, if I can oversimplify the terms, “protest or politics” (i.e., street protest or electoral politics), it’s a matter of protest informing politics.

Because, as this whole mess should have shown us yet again, political action and change does not come as the result of having "good people" in office; rather, having those "good people" in office comes as the result of political action and change.

Carry it on.

¹I saw someone - I can't remember who, so unfortunately I can't give credit - who used the term "transmisiac," which I have adopted. The suffix "phobia" refers to fear; the suffix "misia" refers to hatred. Bigots like Kirk don't fear transgender folks, they hate them. They should be called the haters that they are.

²D'ja ever notice that in all the concern about sports, the subject of trans boys never comes up? That's gotta be because everybody just knows that "a female or formerly female athlete" could never really compete in sports against a real boy, amirite?

³Yes, that is a "This Is Spinal Tap" reference.

⁴If you don't know the story, see here. Notable here is that a 1915 telling of the fable has as a moral "It is a wise rule to resist the beginnings of evil."

⁵Yes, Freudian psychology is old stuff and pretty much dismissed now. But the image is still useful to describe fears and phobias overriding objective reality.

⁶Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo has said a key ingredient in political victory is "the willingness to lose well," being ready to fight, lose, pick yourself up, and fight again.

⁷The full speech can be found here. For context, the Republican Party accepted slavery in the states where it already existed but opposed its expansion to the territories. Slave-holding states wanted to allow expansion, fearing that otherwise, as those territories later joined the nation as free states, the power and influence of slave states would keep shrinking until the power to maintain slavery against possible Constitutional amendments disappeared.

LGBTQ+ People Will Not Go Back

There was a call for people to post something today, December 3, with the above title as mass expression of support the day before SCOTUS holds oral arguments on United States v. Skrmetti, the challenge to the Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for minors and punishing doctors who provide it. It is the most significant case involving trans rights to reach the Supreme Court and the outcome could - make that would, no matter how it turns out - affect the future of thousands of transgender folks nationwide.

Well, I am not a member of the LGBTQ+ community - I’m, as I’ve said before, a 76-year-old cis straight white guy - but I do think myself an ally.* Because I am not a community member, I’m somewhat hesitant to think of my words here as important in any way beyond their existence as a statement of that support. And I have nothing new or profound to add to the conversation.

So I thought I would make my contribution to that conversation, to the mass declaration, a few snippets of I think related things I’ve said in the past year or so.

From September 2023:

It has become clear to the point that only deliberate dishonesty can deny it. The paranoid (and I mean that in the clinical sense) reactionaries want to disappear trans people. To wipe them from existence. Perhaps - repeat perhaps - not physically, but certainly politically, legally, socially.

But “LGBTQ+ People Are Not Going Back.”

From March 2024, when a transphobe declared “the majority of us are getting tired of” hearing about LGBTQ+, particularly transgender, issues:

Fine. Good. Just dump the bigoted laws, stop interfering with people's ability to live as who they are, stop interfering with medical care, stop trying to force trans people to live lives of secrecy as if they didn't exist, stop demeaning their humanity and denying their human rights, stop calling them "filth" and "abominations," in short just drop the whole damn thing and allow trans folks the same dignity, rights, and respect you would expect for yourself, and you'll hardly ever have to hear about it again. Otherwise, well, otherwise.

Because “LGBTQ+ People Are Not Going Back.”

From April, 2024:

The accusation of "recruitment" is an old anti-homosexual smear with laws dating back to the 1800s. When I was growing up in the '50s, I heard the claim that gay men were always seeking to "recruit" innocent boys into their "perverted lifestyle" because they couldn't reproduce on their own so it was the only way to keep the "lifestyle" going. Consider how transparently idiotic that sounds now as proof of some degree of progress.

I raise this because I want people to bear in mind that what is going on now is not a new phenomenon but a reprise of a standard playbook with a specific goal, one openly declared in a quote I swear I am going to cite over and over until referencing it becomes second nature to as many of us as possible:

"'Back to 1900' is a serviceable summation of the conservative goal." - George Will, in his syndicated column, January 2, 1995

Every time a right-winger says or proposes anything, you should envision the US in 1900, envision the state of rights, social status, and economic well-being of every marginalized person, of every black, every woman, every worker, every LGBTQ+ person, every immigrant, every everyone not among the favored elites, and remind yourself "That is what they want."

They told us. We should listen.

Because “LGBTQ+ People (And Others) Are Not Going Back.”

Again from April 2024, in response to a parent of a trans teen saying that they will aid and abet resistance and not follow unjust laws:

Ditto on the aid and abet. In the struggle for LGBTQ+ rights, as in other struggles for justice, those affected should rightly be in the lead. But there's no reason the rest of us can't stand should-to-shoulder with them.

Because “LGBTQ+ People (And Their Allies) Are Not Going Back.”

From June 2024, responding to a terf comment that trans folks can "live by whatever metric makes them happy so long as it doesn't hurt others."

What if it results in them getting hurt? Fired from their jobs? Denied health care? Getting arrested if they're caught using the "wrong" restroom? Physically attacked? Repeatedly denounced as "groomers," as a threat to children, as someone here called them, "birth defects"? Forced into conversion therapy? Or is it only okay if they stay so far in the closet that the rest of us can pretend they don't exist, just like we did for so very long about gays and lesbians? And yes, that is relevant when you consider what was said about gays and lesbians within my living memory and see the exact same things, and I mean even the exact same words, directed at trans folks today.

Because “LGBTQ+ People Are Not Going Back.”

From October 2024 in a discussion about impacts of recent changes in laws in Texas, when someone said “It’s not going to end well.”

It's not supposed to end well. That, as I'm sure you realize, is the point. It's part of making being trans so difficult, so risky, presenting such constant threat, that the pain of living a self-imposed life of hiding, of denial, of concealment, becomes preferable.

I have compared what the reactionaries want to do to trans folks to an oubliette, a medieval prison cell where prisoners were thrown and then "forgotten." (The name comes from the French "oublier," meaning "to forget.") They want it to be as if trans folks simply do not exist. Not legally, not politically, not socially, "forgotten" like a bad dream.

But “LGBTQ+ People Are Not Going Back.”

Also from October 2024, reacting to a call for building coalitions in face of attacks on LGBTQ+ rights:

I know I'm revealing my age, but I recall the Movement (as we were called) of the '60s and one of our strengths was that we thought of it that way, as "a movement," not as a string of separate issues. We thought of ourselves as one mass of people moving not in lockstep yet in the same general direction and even as we each spent most of our energy on our own particular issues, we regarded those concentrating on other issues as compatriots to be supported and with who we would actively cooperate whenever the occasion arose.

I fear we have lost that sense of community, to our detriment. So consider this a roundabout way of seconding the call to "bridge the gaps." And it may be most important for straight cis folks (like me) to do it if only because there are so many more of us and one of the gaps that exist is one between LGBTQ+ and cis folks and yeah, when it comes to social and political power, numbers do still matter.

And “LGBTQ+ People (And Allies) Are Not Going Back.”

Finally, from November 2024, in reaction to someone’s blaming issues of LGBTQ+, particularly trans, rights for the election outcome:

Your ostensibly helpful advice boils down to "shut up, be as inoffensive as possible, and hope it gets better someday." I shudder to think where we'd be if women, black folks, and gay and lesbian people had followed your (I'm sure you would claim is) sage advice.

Because “LGBTQ+ People Are Not Going Back!”

To be clear, I still have hope, in fact the conviction, that things will get better, that we are living in a reactionary time, a fear-driven reaction to the changes we have seen and are seeing; a time that once survived will have shown, as previous such times have shown, advancement; a conviction that, to quote what has almost become a cliché but nonetheless is spot on, the moral arc of the universe is long but bends toward justice.

But the time between now and then is not going to be easy. And the more we are aware of - and the more we resist - the now, the sooner it will be the then. In the meantime, hold to the words of William Lloyd Garrison (speaking of slavery) and say to the trimmers, to the “wise voices” who think that struggles for human rights can always be delayed to a more convenient time, to them and their enablers and followers, say:

"I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do not wish to think, or to speak, or write, with moderation. No! no! Tell a man whose house is on fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; - but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present."

Because “LGBTQ+ People Are Not. Going. Back!”

*If you react by thinking something like “allies are community members,” thank you. I appreciate it.

Now what?

Welcome to Jon Swift Roundup 2024 readers! Please feel free to offer any comments or feedback and check out any of my other posts.

Two notes: The George Will quote was from his syndicated column for January 2, 1995, and was "'Back to 1900' is a serviceable summation of the conservatives' goal." (For those who don't know, Will is what passes for an intellectual on the right.)

And the "another post" mentioned at the end is here.

In the wake of losing an election, some consideration of why your side lost, that is, doing a postmortem, is an entirely reasonable idea.¹

Assuming, that is, the desire is actual analysis and it's done right.

Neither of which we got. No actual analysis and what was done wasn't even done right. So let me start this by laying out my own bias, my own analysis of the "why," admittedly a limited one.

I think the Harris campaign made three significant mistakes. First, she didn't separate herself from Biden on Gaza.² Doing so would surely have cost her some votes but just as surely gained her a good number more.

Second, she began with a message of what could be summarized as "hope and the future" only to turn her back on her base, preferring to vainly seek votes among those all but mythical "moderate" GOPpers and the all too real 1% by campaigning with Liz Cheney and Mark Cuban instead of with UAW President Shawn Fain or other labor and progressive leaders.

Third, the last weeks of the campaign revolved almost entirely around "I'm not Trump." (Which was, interestingly, the same mistake made in 2016.) A legitimate stand, particularly in the face of the genuine threat to democracy, but nowhere near adequate standing alone, because people are almost always going to vote on immediate concerns as opposed to future hypotheticals, even likely ones.

None of that, of course, was raised in postmortems from the corporate media, political big heads, or consultant coterie. Except, that is, to brush by them in their haste to get to the REAL problem.

Oh, no, they cried almost in unison, the result was all because Kamala Harris was way, way too much into "identity politics," in particular in support of transgender folks who, to hear them say it (but not openly) really are kinda weird and who everybody hates and who we should not only throw under the bus, we should back over the corpse a couple of times to be sure.

Dan Moynihan at Can We Still Govern brings us a New York Times tetrarchy:

- There is Bari Weiss, denouncing "running on extraordinarily niche issues that you find on college campuses and in gender studies departments." Forgetting that, as a married lesbian, just a generation ago she and her rights would have been such a "niche issue."

- There is Bret Stephens, insisting that "today’s left increasingly stands for the forcible imposition of bizarre cultural norms." Because regarding basic human rights as worthy of respect is "bizarre."

- And there's Nicholas Kristof, assuring us that Democrats can only compete if they “focus more on minimum wages and child care than pronouns and purity." As if dwelling on "pronouns and purity" described her practice rather than his paranoia.

- And of course, there is Maureen Dowd, smirking the right-wig mantra "woke is broke" and charging

progressives failed to realize that women can be worried both about reproductive rights and their "daughters compet[ing] fairly on the playing field."³

As if loss of reproductive health care was an equal worry to the hypothetical possibility of facing a trans girl on the other school's team.

In the course of this, she approvingly quoted James Carville and Rahm Emanuel and actually called Michael Dukakis an "avatar of elitism," a title that fits her far better.

On top of that, Dowd got extra exposure from Mika Brzezinski of Joe Scarborough's MSNBC morning program, who read the entire thing on-air the day after it was published. Scarborough, for his part,

went on a wildly transphobic rant on [the day after the election] against “men who transition after puberty competing against young girls,” saying that opposing trans-inclusive athletic policies is “not a hard call.”

In other words, it was a buncha damn, comfortable, secure, rich, white people saying that the rights of vulnerable people which are of no benefit to them are therefore unworthy of consideration.

But of course it wasn't just the media elite, the sneering also came from inside the Democratic Party itself.

As I think folks have heard, there was New York Rep. Tom Suozzi declaring the party must “stop pandering to the far left” on trans rights. “I don’t want to discriminate, but I don’t think biological boys should be playing in girls’ sports," he said, adding "Democrats should be saying that.” Which means, of course, that he does want to discriminate.

More surprising to some, there was Massachusetts Rep. Seth Moulton, offering "I have two little girls. I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat I’m supposed to be afraid to say that,” rather unsubtly patting himself on the back for his supposedly courageous expression of transphobia.

Fortunately, there has been pushback from other Congressional Democrats against these and other trimmers⁴ who are dipping their toe in the waters to see how far they can distance themselves from trans rights without political cost (or better yet, with political praise).

Related to which we now have Jonathan Larsen of The Fucking News reporting that the DNC's search for a new party chair is being defined by people screeching that the party has become too "woke"⁵ and demanding it must "return" to the "center" because they "don’t want to be the freak show party" and do want a party chair "who’s going to be for the guy who drives a truck back home at the end of the day” and I guess women and people of color need not apply for inclusion - unless, I suppose, if they drive trucks (The image of the "guy" "truck driver" came up more than once.⁶)

It appears that's truer than not, since one DNC member described the field of potential chairs as “White Guy Winter,” with the list essentially empty of women or non-white people but including, deity help us, Rahm Emanuel.

All of which goes to raise the point I really wanted to get to. This sort of "we've gone too far" tut-tutting and hand-wringing is neither new nor actually about tans folks except as they serve as the target du jour.

It is, rather, part of an overall effort by the hierarchy of the Democratic Party, the I suppose you could call it legacy party, to find someone, something, some force, to blame for election losses that does not involve, that actively avoids, looking at the campaign itself, looking at the idea that maybe it was the party apparatus that screwed up.

Indeed, it's hard to find any analysis from any such quarter that does not praise the Harris-Walz campaign with terms like "great job" and "no mistakes" while dismissing critiques out it of hand as unproductive or even destructive finger-pointing - while busily pointing destructive fingers at anyone convenient, particularly the vulnerable population of trans folks still struggling for basic recognition of their rights, indeed of their existence. (I say that knowing much the same could be said of a good number of other vulnerable populations; it's just that this time it's trans folks.)

Same as it ever was: After 2016, the same "blame anybody else" game got played. There, the blamed included third party voters, sexism, Russian interference, James Comey re-opening the email-investigation, millennials, and even Bernie Sanders - but not, oh no of course not, the party or the Clinton campaign.

This time it's "wokeness" and trans people, but the real point is the same in each case: to protect the power and position of a party hierarchy more dedicated to their prestige and perks than public benefit and committed to "winning" as a concept rather than as a program of progress.

It other words, it was intended then and is again now to smack down the influence of the actually progressive wing of the party by reasserting the control of the institutional party apparatus.

Which means - coming to the blunt bottom line - that it's time to realize, we have to realize, that the Democrats are not on our side, not on the side of doing what is right and just, not on the side of progress rather than stasis.

Some individual Democrats, yes. The party itself, no, and all the talk about "moving to the center" is about just that: stasis. It's about not advocating anything that does not already have wide support, about following, never leading, about, bluntly, being damn cowards. And doing it even as both public polling and election results on ballot questions says that on a number of those untouchable "too left" issues (including trans rights) the public is already there.

Okay. After all that, you'd think I'm chock full of idea about what to do now.

I'm not.

I'm just sure the one thing we need to do is not give up. To keep going. To seek comfort and find strength in community and, as others have noted, that community is out there and may even be next door.

So we have to, each of us in whatever way we can, just keep going. Just persist. Just be stubborn. If that's too much, then just survive. But like the man in the movie said, "Never give up! Never surrender!" Or, if you prefer a musical reference, "Rejoice, rejoice/We have no choice/But to carry on."

Because it can get better. And comparing ourselves to the 1900 that George Will said the conservatives' goal is to recreate, we have come so far as to astonish the most stoic among us. Even within our own lifetimes we have seen changes to be celebrated and worth building on. And, romantic that I am, I still believe in the line about the moral arc of the universe.

However - and I know it's hard to hear but yes, it's true - it will undoubtedly get worse before it gets better. Which brings me to something else. But that's for another post.

¹Chess grandmaster and one-time world champion Jose Raul Capablanca once said "I have learned more from each of my defeats than I have from all of my victories.”

²Early in her campaign, I thought Harris, who expressions on the need for humanitarian aid was more intense than Biden's, was trying to distance herself from him without openly breaking from the administration of which she was still part. The same issue faced Hubert Humphrey in 1968 over the Indochina War. He finally, "tight-lipped and grim," made the break. She never did, which raises the very real possibility that she didn't separate from him because she never wanted to. However, that doesn't change the judgment that not doing so cost her a good number of votes.

³Recent studies challenge that "concern." One, from 2021 from the Center for American Progress, shows no impact on girls' participation in sports from allowing trans girls to join those teams. Another, published in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism in 2024, found that "physical performance of nonathletic trans people who have undergone GAHT for at least 2 years approaches that of cisgender controls." Finally, in October the British Journal of Sports Medicine published a study saying that at least by some measures, transwomen athletes may be at a disadvantage as compared to ciswomen.

⁴"Trimmer" (referring to trimming the sails of a ship) was a term used in labor struggles to refer to those whose support for worker rights shrank as soon as things got tough.

⁵The next time anyone complains about anything being "woke," tell them the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines it as "aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)" and ask them why they think that's a bad thing.

⁶You know the saying about generals always planning to fight the previous war? It appears the Dems will go after the "bros," planning to fight the previous election.

Another comment worth repeating

On July 23, the estimable Erin Reed posted a piece about a recent column by NYT columnist David Leonhardt in which he proposed that Kamala Harris should be a trimmer on gender rights in order to appear more "moderate."

I replied in a comment which I thought was worth repeating; this is (a very slightly edited and expanded version of) it:

Two points need to be noted about Leonhardt's political, uh, "advice."

One is that it is not driven by either real conviction or the merits of the case but by an underlying attitude of "Well, this doesn't matter to ME, therefore it shouldn't matter to anyone else other than a few flakes who don't count."

Perhaps more to the point, though, is that it presents a line of argument that's been used at some point or another against every liberal, every Democrat, every progressive, every radical, every individual anywhere on the entire left half of the US political spectrum, one that says your arguments must not be couched in the words of conviction or conscience, the words of justice or moral necessity, but rather must be framed by fear, fear of what "they" might say about it, what nasty name "they" might call you.

In fact, unless what you propose is overwhelmingly popular (and even if it is), if "they" can say something nasty, it's likely best not only to not mention it at all, but to openly attack it.

It's a far too common practice that at times has been called "duck and cover" (and if you know what that means without checking, you are older than you look), of politically curling into a defensive position. But I prefer my own name for it: "preemptive capitulation," surrendering before the battle has even been joined.

That is exactly what Leonhardt has proposed Harris do on gender rights: don't mention it and when asked, hold it as far away from you as you can get away with. And I guarantee you there will be a good number of "old hands" among the political jibber-jabberers and the consultant coterie who will regard that as wise counsel.

At moments like this I can't help but draw a comparison to the right-wingers, who, when they are called on their latest lizard-brain inanity will double- and triple-down and after a round or three the media gets bored with asking and the issue fades from the headlines and then from memory. It's sitzfleisch as political strategy¹ while we, when pressed, usually act like we're playing rapid transit², rushing from one mumbled evasion and backtrack to another. I still have memories from a few decades ago of pollsters telling people that their problem with Democrats was less what they stood for than that they didn't seem to stand for anything.

Personally, I'm tired of it. This doesn't mean we don't pay attention to how we say things; in fact, one of my all-time favorite compliments was when after a debate I learned that someone in the audience said I had the ability "to make the most radical positions sound like a voice of sweet moderation." So yeah, I paid attention to how I said things, but there was never any doubt about what it was I was saying. What it does mean is that we should speak the truth as we understand it and when challenged on what we have said, Don't. Back. Down.

That's the message for Kamala Harris and for all of us: If you've changed your mind about something, say so, say "I was wrong about that." Own it. But if you haven't, own that, too. Don't. Back. Down.

¹"Sitzfleisch" is German for "sitting flesh." See my "Rules for Right-wingers," specifically #20.
²Rapid transit is a form of chess where each player has five seconds per move.

Sometimes not losing is enough to celebrate

During his struggles for the rights of migrant farm workers, Cesar Chavez was quoted as explaining the celebratory nature of the union's gatherings by saying "We have so few victories we have to celebrate our losses." He was joking, but the truth of it remains: the importance of hope and even finding joy in the struggle.

Because sometimes, it's enough to not lose. The estimable Erin Reed, tireless tracker of LGBTQ+-related legislation, brings an example.

She reports that legislative sessions in Florida and West Virginia have adjourned sine die - that is, without setting a date to meet again. What that means is that any bills that have not passed are dead and must start from scratch when the legislatures get back together.

Which is good news for the human rights of LGBTQ+ people and their supporters and allies because the effect is that over 20 anti-LGBTQ+ bills in each state are now dead. At the same time, again in each state, only one such bill passed. This dramatic contrast to the results of the past few years not only represents a victory for the increasing pushback against such bills but also provides a respite from the assault and space to plan for the battles to come.

While the passage of any such legislation is yet another attack on basic rights of transgender folks, the failures here are nonetheless heartening. It had already seemed to me that the spread of the legislative bigotry was stalling, with most - not all, but most - of the action this year coming in states that had, as Erin put it, "historically targeted transgender individuals" rather than spreading to new ones.

Some have suggested that this has been a case of the bigots and fear-mongers engaging in some CYA in the run-up to the November elections: Anti-LGBTQ+ stands have not been a big winner for them this year, so they want to downplay the issue now, intending to get back to it once the threat of democracy is behind them.

Personally, I suspect that this is less related to the elections than to the right wing's practice of "slash, burn, move on," that is, of glomming onto some issue where they think they can get an inflamed, unthinking response, loudly and viciously defaming/decrying/denouncing their target, doing as much damage as they think they can before real resistance sets in, then moving on to the next boogeyman.

(After all, how much screeching have you heard about Critical Race Theory of late? Even the general all-purpose smear "woke" has become more of a vapid cliche used ritualistically than a verbal weapon.)

That of course doesn't mean those concerned about LGBTQ+ rights can relax; as Clarence Darrow said, "Ignorance and fanaticism is ever busy and needs feeding. Always it is feeding and gloating for more." But it does mean that as part of strategizing we can include going on the offensive to secure rights in some areas rather then solely resisting their denial.

So hold to hope, embrace justice, and celebrate victories (even the small ones), because like the song says, "Every victory brings another" so long as we "carry it on."

Footnote: Another relevant quote from Cesar Chavez:  "Once social change begins, it cannot be reversed. You cannot uneducate the person who has learned to read. You cannot humiliate the person who feels pride. You cannot oppress the people who are not afraid anymore."

OH-no!

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine recently vetoed an anti-trans care bill, declaring that it's up to parents to make medical decisions for their children. He was applauded by supporters of trans rights.

But a few days later he utterly betrayed those transgender people and their supporters by issuing Executive Orders containing proposed rules that cover much the same ground as the bill he vetoed and are in some ways worse. What follows is a blending of my response to a video on the matter and my more formal comment submitted to Ohio on the proposed rules.

PS: The veto was overridden. There was speculation that DeWine issued the Executive Orders hoping to head off an override; no word yet on if the override will lead to the rules being withdrawn or if he'll seek to combine the worst of both.

For more on what the rules say, check out the invaluable Erin Reed.

Anyway, this is what I said:

The proposed rules stand in stark contrast to the positions and standards of care expressed by, among others, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Endocrine Society, and WPATH (World Professional Association of Transgender Health) - that is, they ignore, indeed reject, the expert scientific and clinical judgments of those who are the leading experts in the field of gender-affirming care in favor of politically-driven posturing and fearmongering.

Rather then protecting anyone's health or safety, these regulations - which are in several ways worse than the bill the Governor vetoed - are a transgender version of TRAP (Targeted Restrictions on Abortion Providers) laws, a method used in anti-choice states to effectively ban abortions without admitting to it by putting more and more restrictions on clinics, often involving medically-unnecessary requirements, to the point where few or even no clinics in a state were capable of meeting them all. That is, don't ban abortions, just make them impossible to get.

The goal is the same here: presenting a facade of preserving access to gender-affirming care while in actuality creating a maze of roadblocks, bottlenecks, and pointless requirements with the effect of making obtaining that care all but impossible - that is, to accomplish by regulation what cannot accomplished by law or, more to the point, accomplish by trickery what can't be accomplished legitimately. I label Gov. Mike DeWine a conscious hypocrite, hoping to get away with talking out of both sides of his mouth, saying on one side "I vetoed the bill" and on the other "I made it effectively impossible to get the care," and using a smokescreen of "protecting youth" as a means to cover an attack all transgender people of all ages.

These proposed rules are, in sum, uninformed and misguided at best, unethical to the point of outright cruelty at worst.

Amend that: It gets worse. Multiple studies have found that obtaining gender-affirming care leads to improved mental health and significant reductions in suicide attempts and actual suicides. Which means that the result of regulations like these is that people will die. We can't say just who, just when, or precisely how many, but based on the data, on the facts, we can say with high assurance that People. Will. Die. Endorsing these rules is endorsing suicide.

I urge these proposed regulations be withdrawn in their entirety and any new such rules be drafted only in consultation with WPATH and other professional organizations dealing with the medical and mental health care issues involved.

Or at the very least have the sufficient honesty to drop the hypocrisy and admit your goal is the total erasure from society of transgender people.

This was not the first attempt this year to deny health care and human rights to members of the LGBTQ+ community. According to the LGBTQ+ Legislative Tracking 2024 site, as of January 14 there have been 219 bills introduced across 25 states and Congress related to community issues. Not every one of these is anti-LGBTQ+ in general or anti-transgender in particular, indeed some may be positive, and of those that are negative, many will not pass or will be combined into a package because they are essentially duplicates. And it’s worthy of note that most of the total are being introduced in states that already have laws denying LGBTQ+ rights; for example, Florida, already so hostile to trans folks that it’s listed as “Do Not Travel,” accounts for 21 of the bills. And some of them have been introduced in states such as Maryland and New Jersey where it can safely be said that their chances of passing are effectively nil.

So the numbers alone do not tell the story, but they do indicate that this onslaught against human rights is not abating. This remains no time to relax - because, remember even if only a small percentage of these bills pass, they still have real consequences for the people affected. But even so, while the infection is not abating, it at least may no longer be spreading.

But that begs the question of what is driving the continued attacks, particularly considering many of these bills amount to little more than piling on. So what combination of ignorance, paranoia, (usually religious) fanaticism, and cold, exploitive, cynical, political ambition is driving it?

That’s a valid question, but it’s one for another time. Hopefully a soon-type time.

Free Speech: $35,000 and up

A GOPper in the Florida Senate by the name of Jason Brodeur has introduced a bill, SB1780, "that would deal a devastating blow to freedom of speech in the Sunshine State" in the words of The New Republic.

The bill would make calling someone a racist, sexist, homophobe, or transphobe "defamation per se," that is, by definition, making them grounds for a civil suit of "at least" $35,000 plus attorney's fees and court costs. At the same time, it would restrict defenses available to the target of such a suit by, for example, limiting who could be considered a "public figure" and making it easier to find "actual malice" in the accusation.

In the case of a transphobic or homophobic bigot, as Erin Reed noted, it's even worse.

The bill says that in cases of "sexual orientation or gender identity," a person can't defend themselves against a suit by "citing a plaintiff’s constitutionally protected religious expression or scientific beliefs" (lines 135-145). What that means, in practical reality, is that truth is no defense.

Bigot: "Homosexuals should be killed!"
You: "You're a bigot."
Bigot: "I'm suing you for defamation."
You: "But it's true! You are a bigot!"
Bigot: "Doesn't matter, that's my 'constitutionally protected religious expression.' Pay up."

Upon reading about this bill, I fantasized about someone saying this during debate:

"If it please the Chair, I rise to propose a friendly amendment to my esteemed colleague's bill, one to which I'm sure he'll agree as it pursues the same object of his own. The amendment would add to his list of terms to be presumptively defamatory accusations of 'groomer' and 'pedophile' plus claims of connections to 'the deep state,' in each case whether directed at an individual, group, or organization. I will yield to Mr. Broder for his response."

It wouldn't be accepted, of course, but it would serve to make the actual purpose of the bill even clearer than it already was.

One other thing: The bill is almost a carbon copy of one introduced last session, which died in committee. Hopefully this one will meet the same fate.

But if this did pass and was challenged in court, don't be surprised if the defense included claiming there is no First Amendment issue because the accusations aren't banned, the state is doing nothing to impede your speech, it's merely a matter of defining the legal meaning of certain terms. If the response is that there's a penalty for using those terms, the comeback would be "Maybe so, but the state isn't the one imposing the penalty, so nothing to do with us."

This style of argument - don't actually do it, just enable others to sue over it and so impose self-censorship - is central to the "Don't Say Gay" bill and Florida has become saturated with it even though the roots, if I recall correctly, lie in a Texas bill about abortion.

071 The Erickson Report for March 1-14

 

071 The Erickson Report for March 1-14

Episode 71 of The Erickson Report has -
- some Good News about the death penalty;
- A Longer Look at Jimmy Carter;
- a reminder about Democrats;
- news on more attacks on transgender rights; and
- an update on Gigi Sohn's nomination to the FCC.

069 The Erickson Report for January 26 to February 8

 

Episode 69 of The Erickson Report notes the anniversary of Roe v.Wade with some recent news on abortion rights, goes over how Medicare Advantage programs are actually backdoor ways to privatize Medicare, and reintroduces Two Weeks of Stupid: Clowns and Outrages, with three Clowns and the Outrage that is Florida.

The Erickson Report is news and informed commentary from the radical nonviolent left. It is advocacy journalism, dealing in facts and logic but having a point of view. Sometimes serious, sometimes sarcastic, sometimes even flip but always with the intent to inform and inspire,The Erickson Report strives to be a tool for justice

Reactions and comments are welcome.

SOURCES:

Guns
https://www.wbur.org/npr/1150667373/monterey-park-shooting-what-we-know-californi
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org
=
Abortion rights
https://hymnary.org/text/onward_christian_soldiers_marching_as
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/3809346-alabama-ag-says-women-could-be-prosecuted-for-taking-abortion-pills/
https://www.npr.org/2006/02/21/5168163/partial-birth-abortion-separating-fact-from-spin
https://www.alternet.org/minnesota-lawmakers-partial-birth-abortion/
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/08/freedom-speech-mississippi-abortion-rights/671202/
https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess124_2021-2022/bills/1373.htm
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and- analysis/blogs/stateline/2022/05/19/some-states-already-are-targeting-birth-control
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2022/12/13/23505459/supreme-court-birth-control-contraception-constitution-matthew-kacsmaryk-deanda-becerra
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Handmaid's_Tale
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-comment-nationwide-ban-abortion-introduced-us-senate
https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2023-01-19/religious-leaders-sue-to-block-missouris-abortion-ban
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2023%3A27-28&version=KJV
==
Medicare Advantage / ACO HEALTH
https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/is-medicare-advantage-a-scam
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2021/09/08/medicare-advantage-profit-scam-time-end-it
https://www.cms.gov/files/document/fy-2022-medicare-part-c-error-rate-findings-and-results.pdf-0
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/11/30/congress-asleep-switch-biden-continues-trump-era-ploy-privatize-medicare
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G8B012QNk9rzEJvfYaLcPwr2HJdZe_hcrR7KU_mAibk/edit
https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/press-releases/cms-announces-increase-2023-organizations-and-beneficiaries-benefiting-coordinated-care-accountable
=
Clowns
https://www.newsweek.com/jim-banks-plans-anti-woke-caucus-bolster-gops-war-wokeness-1773778
https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2023/01/hate-pastors-now-speaking-beer-say-makes-men-feminine/
https://sdg.iisd.org/events/2022-un-climate-change-conference-unfccc-cop-28/
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-politics-united-states-government-only-on-ap-john-kerry-b5d6482d465dcc8fa5063af9a0e44041
=
Outrage
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/florida-blocks-high-school-african-american-studies-class/ar-AA16x9Ds
https://www.commondreams.org/news/ap-african-american
https://floridapolitics.com/archives/574045-in-andrew-warren-suspension-trial-gov-desantis-officials-answer-what-does-woke-mean/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lester_Maddox
https://www.nhl.com/news/nhl-releases-results-of-diversity-and-inclusion-report/c-336511848
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nhl/2018/11/09/racism-lingers-for-nhl-players-60-years-after-oree-landmark/38451681/
https://www.rawstory.com/desantis-hockey/
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nhl/nhl-backtracks-after-florida-gov-ron-desantis-office-blasts-league-for-discriminatory-job-fair/ar-AA16kkpL
https://www.queerty.com/florida-flop-ron-desantis-manages-show-off-anti-blackness-queerphobia-one-sentence-20230124
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/11-black-lgbtq-history-makers-you-should-know-n848631https://www.americanprogress.org/article/black-lgbtq-individuals-experience-heightened-levels-discrimination/

068 The Erickson Report for January 12 to 25

 

Our first show of 2023 looks at two issues we expect to continue to be issues throughout the year:
- the war in Ukraine
- bodily autonomy, including reproductive rights (including abortion) and transgender rights.

We intend to repeat this for the next show or two, giving some attention to other issues that we think will be persistent ones.

We also anticipate the return of our most popular feature, Two Weeks of Stupid: Clowns and Outrges.

Finally, a head's up: I am in the process of moving to another state. Don't be surprised (or dismayed) if sometime in the next four to six weeks I have to skip a show. I will try to let you know in advance.

065 The Erickson Report for November 11 to 23, Page 2: Transgender youth know who they are

Welcome to Jon Swift Roundup Readers!

If you'd like to see the video version of The Erickson Report, go to

https://www.youtube.com/@whoviating/videos.

For more of my writing on transgender rights, try

https://whoviating.blogspot.com/search?q=transgender&max-results=20&by-date=true.

 

065 The Erickson Report for November 11 to 23, Page 2: Transgender youth know who they are

Now on to a topic I have talked about before and expect I will again.

First, do you remember, and it wasn't that long ago, that there was a big surge in stories about "abortion regret?" A wave of orchestrated personal testimonials from women who later regretted having an abortion, some of them describing being tortured by their consciences because "I killed my baby." Remember that? It was a campaign to stampede the public into opposing abortion by playing on fears and any shred of doubt a woman might have about having the procedure.

Well, now we're seeing the same sorts of tales, only this time with transgender youth: "transition regret," with fables of kids either being pressured by parents into transitioning or being convinced it's somehow "cool" to do it and now desperately trying to undo it.

The word "fables" is chosen deliberately because the fact is, the more data we get in, the more research is done, the more the question gets asked, the more we know that transgender youth know who they are, know what is right for them, and the manufactured fears over "transition regret" are just another tactic by the reactionaries to deny the value, indeed the reality, of trans lives.

The results of a study published in 2014 of 50 years of data in Sweden of people who applied to get sexual reassignment surgery - or the more accurate and now preferred name gender affirmation surgery - found that of 767 transgender people who had the surgery, only 2.2 percent of them expressed regret after having it.

That number is even lower for nonsurgical transition methods, like taking puberty blockers. Amsterdam University Medical Center’s Center for Expertise on Gender Dysphoria is the largest gender-identity clinic in the Netherlands. A 2018 study looked at the medical records of transgender young adults who went to a clinic there, covering 1972 to 2015, a period of 44 years. It found that only 1.9 percent of adolescents who started puberty suppressants did not go on to pursue hormone therapy, which is typically the next step in the transition process. Put another way, once they started, 98.1% continued.

And you also have to ask why those who stopped did so. In a 2015 survey of nearly 28,000 people conducted by the US-based National Center for Transgender Equality, only 8 percent of respondents reported detransitioning, and 62 percent of those people said they only detransitioned temporarily, that is, they resumed the process later. Significantly, the most common reason for detransitioning, according to the survey, was pressure from a parent, the opposite of the line the wacko right is pushing. Only 0.4 percent of respondents said they detransitioned after realizing transitioning wasn’t right for them.

And now we have another study, this one published October 20 in The Lancet, one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world. The study looked at data from the Center for Expertise on Gender Dysphoria in Amsterdam from a different angle: Researchers checked the medical records of 720 patients who had historically received at least three months of puberty blockers starting before they turned 18 to see how many continued on to hormone replacement therapy medications.

At the end of the data collection period, 98% of those patients had active hormone replacement therapy prescriptions, effectively confirming the earlier study.

And as before, you don't know why the 2 percent stopped. Indeed, most of those who had stopped had had some form of gonadectomy - that is, gender affirming surgery - and may not know they still need hormone treatment to avoid osteoporosis or other conditions. Some may have decided they are nonbinary and may not want further treatment, some may have decided to detransition, and some may have been pressured into stopping - remember that the most common reason for stopping in that 2015 survey was pressure from a parent.

It is simply a fact: Despite the screeching from the reactionaries, transgender adolescents know who they are.

According to the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law, there are an estimated 1.4 million transgender adults in the US. The UK’s Government Equalities Office “tentatively” estimates there are between 200,000 and 500,000 trans people in Britain and Northern Ireland.

Even if there are as many trans youth in the US as there are adults and that combined estimate is off by an order of magnitude - that is, the total is 10 times the estimate - we'd still be talking about 8% of the population.

So much hatred, so much bile, so much fear, directed toward so few people. And driven almost entirely by cruel exploitation of bigotry in pursuit of political power and selfish gain. It really is a moral disgrace.

065 The Erickson Report for November 11 to 23

 

065 The Erickson Report for November 11 to 23

This episode includes my reactions to some of the election news along with a follow-up to last episode's look at transgender rights.

Sources:

On the election results
shttps://www.aol.com/news/biden-white-house-cheers-red-155101989.html
https://www.thedailybeast.com/here-are-all-the-fox-news-stars-who-promised-a-red-tsunami
https://www.aol.com/news/2022-midterms-republican-hopes-dashed-073721826.html
https://twitter.com/HCTrudo/status/1590222473215315970
https://twitter.com/dellavolpe/status/1590190476334096386
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/11/09/election-deniers-2020-house-senate-races/
https://www.aol.com/news/election-deniers-lose-key-races-200211432.html
https://www.aol.com/news/biden-hails-good-day-democracy-204536495.html
https://www.insider.com/far-right-donald-trump-voter-fraud-baseless-claims-midterm-elections-2022-11
https://www.aol.com/news/minor-poll-problems-twisted-false-181533639.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/11/09/election-deniers-2020-house-senate-races/
https://www.aol.com/news/democrats-outperform-expectations-state-legislatures-215022871.html
https://www.democracynow.org/2022/11/10/midterms_republicans_crime_public_safety_criminal
https://www.aol.com/news/kentucky-michigan-voters-approve-protecting-143639236.html
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3726347-voters-support-abortion-rights-in-all-five-states-with-ballot-measures/
https://www.aol.com/news/voters-approve-recreational-marijuana-maryland-151817054.html
https://www.aol.com/news/much-relief-south-dakota-voters-003234247.html
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/slavery-involuntary-servitude-rejected-by-4-states-voters/ar-AA13U7Fv

Transgender youth know who they are
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262734734_An_Analysis_of_All_Applications_for_Sex_Reassignment_Surgery_in_Sweden_1960-2010_Prevalence_Incidence_and_Regrets
https://www.jsm.jsexmed.org/article/S1743-6095(18)30057-2/fulltext#sec3.3
https://transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/usts/USTS-Full-Report-Dec17.pdf
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanchi/article/PIIS2352-4642(22)00254-1/fulltext
https://www.amsterdamumc.org/en/research/institutes/amsterdam-public-health/strengths/aph-cohorts/the-amsterdam-cohort-of-gender-dysphoria-.htm
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/media-s-detransition-narrative-fueling-misconceptions-trans-advocates-say-n1102686