#1700 Dehumanizing Trans People is Always the First Step for Fascists

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Welcome to this episode of theaward-winning Best of the Left podcast.

(00:03):
You might not be trans yourself, butthat's just like how coal miners aren't
canaries, because when they saw thatthe canaries were under threat, they
knew the danger was all around them.
Fascists always start with thosewho are the easiest to dehumanize.
But they never stop there.
For those looking for a quick overview,the sources providing our Top Takes

(00:27):
in about 50 minutes today include TheBlueprint, Politics Weekly America,
CounterSpin, Amicus, The MajorityReport, Democracy Now!, In the
Thick, and the At Liberty podcast.
Then in the additional Deeper Diveshalf of the show, there will be more

in five sections (00:43):
Section A, Policy rollbacks; followed by Section B,
Dehumanization; Section C, Historicalattacks; Section D, Stories; and
Section E, Trans joy and resistance.
But first, a quick note thatI'm making a big announcement
in the middle of the show.

(01:04):
We are launching a rebrandednew-ish show on YouTube.
It's very important thatyou check out the show.
Share it with everyone you know.
Watch every episode.
Like, comment, subscribe, the whole thing.
For all the details, listen to mycomments in the middle of the show.
But first, your CallTo Action for the week.

(01:27):
Hey everyone, Amanda here with yourweekly roundup of activism actions.
All links can be found atbest of the left.com/action.
A quick reminder that this isnot an exhaustive list, just the
largest nationwide opportunities.
As always, get involved in yourlocal community, however possible.
First up, a reminder that Saturday, April5th is the big nationwide protest We've

(01:48):
been waiting for Indivisible 50 51 Women'sMarch, and many, many more have teamed
up to organize the hands-off National Dayof Action to reject oligarchy and demand
a stop to the looting of our country.
There will be a major presence inDC and Women's is offering bus rides
.to dc.
You can find an event near you, theirsocial toolkit, printable signs,
and more at hands off 2020 five.com.

(02:11):
Just a reminder that a core principleof the hands-off mobilization is
a commitment to nonviolent action.
March 31st is National Trans Day ofVisibility, and if you're near DC
Christopher Street Project will beholding a rally on the National Mall.
At least 15 members of Congresshave confirmed their attendance.
If you're not near DC, you canshow your support in a wide variety
of other ways, but check yourlocal L-G-B-T-Q organizations for

(02:33):
resources to share and advocacy.
C Opportunities.
In light of Trump's latest attemptto unilaterally impose nationwide
voting requirements with an executiveorder, it's a good time to call
your members of Congress to voiceyour opposition to the Save Act.
This bill is a Republican fever dreamto unnecessarily overhaul our elections
and put barriers on the right to vote.

(02:53):
There's so much crap in this bill, butsome of the main highlights are requiring
voters to show proof of citizenshipdocuments most Americans don't have and
requiring names on birth certificatesto match current IDs, which impacts
both married women and trans people.
It also creates barriers forregistering to vote by requiring
a visit to a government officeto show your documents in person.

(03:13):
And finally, if you wanna call in favor ofsomething, tell your members of Congress.
You want them to pass the protectthe right to organize or PRO Act
Per the A-F-L-C-I-O.
The Pro Act would restore the rightof workers to freely and fairly
form a union and bargain togetherfor changes in the workplace.
It is a response to the degradationof the National Labor Relations
Act, which transformed Workerorganizing in the 1930s.

(03:36):
a reminder that All links can befound at best of the left.com/action.
Remember that no one can do everything,but everyone can do something.
Finding community and taking actionare truly the best ways to deal
with everything being thrown at us.
We don't get to choose the times welive in, so we need everyone to act like
everything is on the line because it is.
I wanted to ask you about some of thelegal cases that are referenced in

(03:58):
here and you've worked on some of them.
Bostock versus Clayton County,Georgia, let's talk about that one.
What did that case establish and what arethey hoping in Project 2025 to change?
Yeah, so let's just get rightdown to what Bostock was about.
Three employees, two were gay, onewas trans, were fired from their
jobs because they were gay and trans.
That was the legal question.

(04:19):
And the single question before the UnitedStates Supreme Court is, was it lawful
under the federal law that prohibitssex discrimination in employment to
fire someone just because they aretrans or just because they are gay?
And the Supreme Court said thatfederal employment law that
prohibits sex discrimination includesdiscrimination against LGBTQ people.

(04:39):
That being gay or being trans andbeing discriminated against on that
basis is a form of sex discrimination.
And it was a very logical conclusion.
It was a 6-3 opinion, in essence saying,if you are firing someone because they
are gay, that is because they have anattraction to someone of the same sex.
That is because of sex.
There's no other way to look at it.
If you are firing someone becausethey are trans, it is because they are

(05:03):
coming into work in a way that you don'tthink aligns with their sex at birth.
That is because of sex.
End of story.
Very simple.
So that decision was decided in 2020.
And then under the Biden administration,the administration, I think
quite logically and rightfully,interpreted other federal laws
that prohibit sex discriminationto also protect LGBTQ people.

(05:25):
So that includes Title IX, protectionfrom discrimination in education.
That includes the AffordableCare Act, in healthcare.
That includes the FairHousing Act, in housing.
These are just basic parts ofsociety where, I think, generally,
when people step back and thinkabout it, we think we should not be
discriminated against just becauseof who we are in these parts of life.
This document says absolutely not,they want to erode all of those

(05:48):
protections that were just confirmedin 2020, and they're attacking each
regulatory and subregulatory decisionby the Biden administration to ensure
that LGBTQ people are protected.
And that will be a day one Trumpadministration action, to get rid of
every single federal interpretationof law that protects LGBTQ people.

(06:09):
You better believe it.
That's happening right away.
First hundred days.
It's sometimes hard to envisionand understand what the impact of
these flips, as you said, at thefirst 100 days, if they roll back
these laws, what does it mean?
But we have seen some statesthat give us a sense, right?
Where as much as the Bidenadministration has tried to protect
against discrimination, there are somestates that have done the opposite.

(06:30):
And some laws that are in place are aroadmap for what this would be like.
Are there some that are most glaringto you or that you think people
should really be aware of in termsof what this could look like if
these protections are rolled back?
Absolutely.
I think this is all familiarbecause we've seen it in the states.
We've seen it in Idaho, inTexas, in Florida, in Missouri.

(06:51):
25 states ban medical care fortrans adolescents and ban trans
girls from women's and girls sports.
So we see the blueprint.
We have increasing number of statesacross the country that restrict access to
restrooms in schools for trans students.
We have schools that are allowing teachersto misgender trans students in schools.
We have laws like the so-calledDon't Say LGBTQ or Don't Say Gay

(07:13):
laws that restrict discussion ofLGBTQ people in the classroom.
Increasing censorship in libraries ofbooks that simply mention LGBTQ people.
And of course, they're being pushedin the states by the Heritage
Foundation, by Alliance DefendingFreedom, by America First Legal,
Stephen Miller's organization.
And guess who are thearchitects of Project 2025?

(07:33):
Those same organizations that havebeen using highly gerrymandered state
legislatures to push and enact thesepolicies, have them implemented by
governors like Greg Abbott, like DeSantis.
And then we see the impact.
One of the things that Trump hasobviously been trying to do is back
away from Project 2025, but there's aton of overlap between his policies,

(07:56):
what he's proposed, what he's advocatedfor, and everything in this document.
So if we look at LGBTQ+ rights and therestrictions proposed in here, how does it
overlap with what Trump has proposed andwhat his administration and people around
him are talking about wanting to do?
Yeah.
Obviously the incoherence of Trumpdoes make it hard to pinpoint a
particular policy that he's proposing.

(08:17):
But rhetorically, when he's talkingabout Tim Walz, for example, it's
"He's deep in the transgender world."Well, of course, what he's talking
about is he's conflating legalprotections for people with an ideology.
And it's all coming from therhetoric from Project 2025.
That is Heritage Foundation rhetoric.
And he picked J. D. Vanceas his running mate.

(08:37):
Who could be more closely aligned withthese policies and with this Christian
nationalist version of society inwhich women have a singular role as
bearers of children and caretakersof children and grandmothers?
Yes.
And post-menopausal women, as we know.
The assault on trans existence iscentral, actually, to this notion

(08:58):
of how they understand the genderbinary more generally, and how they
understand the role of cisgender women.
And they are envisioning very much asociety in which the role of women is as
caretaker, as subservient to the husband.
The childless cat lady is as much athreat as the trans person because
both are an assault to this visionof the heterosexual nuclear family.

(09:22):
And so what transness becomes is anexistential threat to that model.
But ultimately what they want toimpose on society is a model that
has hugely detrimental effectsfor cisgender heterosexual women.
And can you tell us Sasha, whatare some of the other orders that
Trump has signed that directlyaffect the LGBTQ+ community?
One of the first one wastheir attempt to redefine sex.

(09:46):
His executive order says "whenadministering or enforcing sex based
distinctions, every agency and all federalemployees acting in an official capacity
on behalf of their agency shall use theterm sex and not gender and all applicable
federal policies and documents".
It's interesting becausestate legislatures have been
trying to do this for a while.

(10:06):
They have a whole range ofdifferent ways to define sex.
They define it as your sex assignedat birth, or what's on your original
birth certificate, or your chromosomes.
In this case it's the small reproductivecell versus the large reproductive cell,
and the only consistency that they have inthese wildly different definitions of sex

(10:26):
is that they carve out transgender peoplesomehow from protections under the law.
That's the consistent motive behind this.
But, the purpose of this is toweaponize these definitions throughout
federal agencies in the United States.
Specifically, this is the executiveorder that was issued on the first day,
and this definition is being used topush out to agencies to issue their

(10:49):
own definitions of how this would look.
And then another one that came out,I think, one, seeking to prohibit
educational institutions from providingaccess to pediatric gender affirming care.
The president signing an executiveorder on Tuesday to end funding for
gender affirming medical care forpeople younger than 19 years old.
That includes puberty blockers,hormone therapy, and surgery.

(11:12):
On his truth social platform, Trump said,"our nation will no longer fund, sponsor,
promote, assist, or support so calledgender affirming care, which has already
ruined far too many precious lives".
He also went on to call gender affirmingcare barbaric medical procedures.
The goal here is certainlyenforcement, but it's also
just to have a chilling effect.

(11:33):
They want people to complyimmediately, and to do so under
a fear rather than having toactually cut the federal funding.
That's part of the objective.
And, Sasha, we've already seen the courtsforced to act against some of these
executive orders, which, as you notedearlier, have been pretty poorly written.
And we know that this is howTrump works: throw everything

(11:55):
at the wall and see what sticks.
It must be kind of exhausting to keepup with them and fight these orders.
What has that experience been like?
Yeah, just to, first of all,it's a privilege to fight.
I have no complaints.
I am like, it's an honor.
It really is.
And, I just, I hope anybody listeningto this podcast in the future,
I hope that, now... there's nobetter time to stand up than now.

(12:16):
So if you're going to do it, do it today.
I worked in judicial nominees for a whileduring the first Trump administration.
And, it's just not an issue that peopleresonate with in ways that they should,
because, in the U S anyway, federaljudges are appointed for a lifetime.
During the Biden administration, lastBiden administration, they really
prioritized getting folks that comefrom different backgrounds, diverse

(12:38):
judges instead of, unfortunately, thedemographics for what we saw during
the first Trump administration werepretty specific, and so that's really
changed the makeup of the judiciary.
And that's going to be so important aswe move into the next four years for the
courts to have courage and to be ableto represent the communities they serve.
And so I'm really excited about seeing howthat will roll out in the coming years.

(12:59):
Of course, these cases will likelybubble up to the Supreme Court, which
has some deeply troubling decisions,but they've also issued really strong
decisions in support of, LGBTQ peopleand trans people in particular.
In 2020, they issued a decisionupholding, our federal non discrimination
law in employment to includeprotections for transgender people.

(13:21):
I don't, I certainly don't think that'sa given that they'll, uphold this kind
of, the kind of discrimination thatthis government's seeking to inflict.
And you mentioned this earlier, butI totally agree that I think that so
far, at least Trump's first days inoffice, even though we've seen this
flurry of really controversial executiveorders, they aren't spurring the same
kind of energy on the left that we hadseen during his first administration.

(13:44):
It seems like there's a lot offatigue and maybe even some despair
among Democrats after they witnessedTrump's second electoral victory.
And I feel like there are some folkswho are just saying, well, it's just
four years, let's just get through itand get to the other side, as if to
question why you would bother bringinglawsuits against the administration
or why the media would botherhighlighting everything that he's doing.

(14:06):
Why do you think that it is soimportant in this moment to fight this?
Yeah, I think, history is notgoing to forgive folks that feel
like they're just a little tired.
People go to dangerous efforts toeven vote in many parts of the world,
and it's just so important thatwhat is right is right is right.
And, what's happening right now is wrong.

(14:26):
And it's negligence and dishonorablein my opinion to stand by and watch
this happen to not just trans people,but to immigrants, to women, to
any, all vulnerable communities,and it's not going to stop.
So it's important to raise yourvoice now, because it's just
going to get worse, especially ifpeople don't stand up and fight.
And on that point about this justnot stopping, there are signs around

(14:49):
the country that the restriction ofrights is not going to stop at trans,
non binary, and intersex people.
I saw a story out of Boise, Idaho thatthe heavily Republican House State
Affairs Committee passed a resolutionasking the Supreme Court to overturn
its 2015 decision that gave same sexcouples the right to marry nationwide.
Now, when the Supreme Courtoverturned Roe v. Wade two years ago,

(15:11):
a concurrent opinion from JusticeClarence Thomas at the time suggested
that same sex marriage could alsobe overturned on similar grounds.
Idaho's measure now movesto the state Senate.
So, Sasha, how far do youthink things could go here?
Yeah, and we've, it's notjust LGBTQ issues either.
We've seen efforts in places like Oklahomato impose Bibles into schools here and

(15:36):
to eliminate any kind of curriculumthat conflicts with the views of the
government and all of that is deeplydangerous to the freedom of speech.
And I certainly think that marriageequality has always been on the
target list for folks that are onthe far right and I think that's
just the beginning, in my opinion.

(15:57):
So, I think that it's a downwardslope and it's hard to predict exactly
where these folks are going to go.
But I think there's just tellingsigns that this is a really
dangerous moment for our country.
So this is just basic constitutionallaw, like I would teach my
first year law students.
Any one of them wouldbe able to spot this.
Under our Constitution, ourgovernment is one of limited powers.

(16:20):
Those powers for the presidencyare delineated in Article 2.
The responsibility of the US president isto execute and enforce the laws that are
passed by Congress, not to make up newlaws, and most definitely not to infringe
upon the rights that are protectedby the United States Constitution.

(16:41):
Right.
Well, we know that the law saying theycan't do something doesn't necessarily
mean -- we can already see that it hasn'tmeant that nothing happens, including
things that can deeply affect people'slives, even if they aren't legal.
So accepting that grayness, whatshould we be concerned about here?

(17:02):
Well, first and foremost, I'd push backon the sense that there's grayness.
Okay.
This is a situation wherethere's black and white.
Our Constitution, which I firmly believein -- enough so that I'm an expert
in constitutional law and I teachit -- limits what a president can do.
So, let me contrast thiswith the president's power
when it comes to immigration.

(17:23):
There's a lot of power in thepresident when it comes to immigration,
because that's an issue over whichour Constitution gives them power.
But our Constitution is one of thegovernment of limited powers, meaning
if power isn't expressly providedvia the Constitution, the president
can't just make up that power.

(17:45):
So for folks who think the presidentis doing something unconstitutional,
or insists he has powers he doesn'thave, the best thing to do is to
push back and say absolutely no.
Part of what we're seeing right nowwith some local hospitals in New York
and elsewhere, essentially tryingto comply in advance in the hope to

(18:08):
appease Trump if one day he does havethe power to do what he says he's
doing, that's absolutely wrongheaded.
We don't, and no one should.
That was why our countrywas founded, despite all the
sins on which it was founded.
A good reason why we were founded wasto make sure that the people retain
the vast majority of the power.
And when politicians, including theUnited States president, pretend they

(18:32):
have more power than they do, it's ourresponsibility as citizens and residents
of this nation to push back and say, no.
Well, I appreciate that, and that thelaw is not itself vague, but that with
folks complying in advance, as you say,and with us just general confusion, we
know that a law doesn't have to actuallypass in order for harms to happen, in

(18:56):
order for the real world to respondto these calls as we're seeing now.
So it's important to distinguishthe fact that the law is in
opposition to all of this.
And yet here we see people already actingas though somehow it were justified
or authorized, which is frightening.
It is frightening.

(19:17):
And I think, again, thatgoes to our responsibility as
Americans, citizens or not.
If you're here, you're an American andyou're protected by the Constitution.
It's our responsibility to push backpeople who are all too ready to take
steps against the trans community, againsttrans people, just like all the other
minority groups President Trump is tryingto subjugate, and to insist, hey, stop.

(19:44):
You're not required to do this.
If you're choosing to dothis, that's a problem.
Well, we are seeing resistance, boththese lawsuits and protests in the street.
I feel like more today than yesterdayand probably more tomorrow than today.
Do you think that folks are activatedenough, that they see things clearly?

(20:06):
What other resistancewould you like to see?
What do you think?
I think protests are a great way forfolks who might not know a lot of
these issues, or might have limitedcapacities, so they're not lawyers,
they're not educators, they're notdoctors, but they're people who care.
That's a great way to push back, putyour name and face and body on the line

(20:31):
and to show you don't agree with this.
In addition to that, I wouldsuggest that people read these
executive orders and know what theysay and know what they don't say.
When I say right now for thetrans community, complying in
advance is one of the biggestproblems we're seeing, I mean it.

(20:51):
I've been on dozens of calls withmembers of the trans community,
including trans lawyers at largeorganizations and law firms, people who
work for the federal government, whoare not what my grandfather would call
using their thinking caps right now.
They're thinking in a place offear, and they're not reading.
They're not thinking critically.

(21:13):
As one example, if Trump were to putout an executive order today declaring
the sky is purple, that doesn't changethe reality that the sky is not purple.
We don't need to pretendthat is the reality.
We can just call it out forwhat it is: utter nonsense.
Beyond that, I would say people should notchange anything about the way they live

(21:34):
their life or go about the world, simplyout of fear that something will be done
to them that no one has the power to do.
I can say it's kind of funny.
I was at a really conservative federalcourt last year and I lost my passport.
I thought I was going tofind it again, but I didn't.
And then I got busy with work.

(21:56):
So, Trump came into office.
So, I finally got my stuff togetherand applied for a new passport.
A lot of people in my communitywere concerned that I wasn't
going to get a passport.
And all I could think was Iread all of the rules, I read
all of the executive orders.
There's nothing that saysI can't get my passport.

(22:16):
I'm not home in New York right now.
But my understanding is mypassport was delivered yesterday.
Okay.
So just going forward, people think mediacritics hate journalists, when really we
just hate bad journalism, which there hasbeen a fair amount of around trans issues.
But there are also some brighter spotsand some improvements, like one you saw
out of what might seem an unlikely place.

(22:39):
Would you tell us a little about that?
One of my friends, Brittany Stewartof an organization called Gender
Justice, which is based in Minnesota,brought a lawsuit against the state
of North Dakota, challenging a ban onminors accessing trans health care.
This case was filed about 2 years ago.
And it just went to a bench trial,meaning it was heard by only a

(23:02):
judge in North Dakota last week.
Very lucky to the people of NorthDakota, there's a wonderful local
journalist by the name of Mary Steurer,who has been following the case for
the last 2 years and attended each andevery day of the 7 day bench trial.
And each day after court, she submitteda story where there were photographs

(23:25):
taken straight from the courtroom of thewitnesses that were not anonymous and
describing what happened for the day.
And it's not just passiverecording that Mary did.
It's really critical reporting.
She picked up on reporting in otherstates where the same witnesses
testified, the shared long summariesof witness testimonies for the day.

(23:51):
And my understanding is her reportingwas so good that the 2 other major
newspapers in North Dakota ran all ofher daily reports on their front pages.
Mary Steurer writes forthe North Dakota Monitor.
I looked through that reporting onyour recommendation and it really was
straightforward just being there in theroom, bringing in relevant information.

(24:15):
It just was strange in a wayhow refreshing it was to see
such straightforward reporting.
She would mention that a certain personmade a statement about medical things,
and she'd quote it, but then say,actually, this is an outlying view in
the medical community, which is relevantbackground information that another
reporter might not have included.

(24:37):
So I do want to say, juststraightforward reporting can be
such sunlight on a story like this.
Chase, after Dobbs came down, you wereon the show with a kind of clarion
warning about how the Dobbs decisionhad just rocket fueled anti-trans
legislation across the country anda real, I think, straight line that

(25:01):
you drew between what had happened inDobbs and what we were missing if we
weren't connecting it to the trans bans.
And I would love for you tojust remind listeners why Dobbs
was never just about abortion.
I mean, there's so many reasons,whether you look at the equality
thread or the autonomy thread in Dobbs.
This is about structural effortsto impede people's abilities to

(25:25):
make decisions for themselves.
And so the way in which Dobbs opened thatdoor in particular for these anti-trans
bans, is that first they revitalized thiscase that we know Justice Ginsburg hated
and we know was really never really talkedabout for a long time called Geduldig.
And Geduldig was the case in whichthe court said that restrictions

(25:46):
on benefits related to pregnancyare not sex discrimination.
And it allowed for this idea to sitdormant for quite a while, but to be
reactivated by Justice Alito in Dobbs,which is that when we're talking about
things related to medicine or health orareas where we can claim that biological

(26:11):
differences between men and women justifysome differential treatment, we're
going to start to erode those generalprotections that we have worked so hard to
build for sex based protections under law.
And to my mind, what is happening herein the two and a half years since Dobbs
was decided, is that you have people whohave long wanted doctrinal openings to

(26:37):
roll back anti-discrimination protections.
Finding a group of people for whom thereis more public support to target, and
then using that to open the door to bigpossible doctrinal gaps and how everyone
can be protected from sex discrimination.

(26:57):
And I see this happeningvery strategically.
Within a week of Dobbs beingdecided, it was cited in every
single anti-trans-relatedcase that we were litigating.
It was cited for the propositionthat, in essence, special deference
is owed to legislatures when theyare regulating in the area of
medicine, when it deals with sex-baseddifferences between men and women.

(27:18):
And if we take a step back andlook at this moment we are in, and
the obsession with trans peopleduring the 2024 elections, it
wasn't really about trans people.
What it was about, the organizing theme,was about gender roles more broadly.
And this is where they are using theseattacks on trans people to reentrench
old notions of what is the properrole of men and women in society.

(27:41):
It's interesting, as you're talking,Chase, one of the things I'm also really
reflecting on is that the two abortioncases last year, both Mifepristone
and the Emtala case, in a lot of wayswere not about abortion, they were
about physicians and their rights andwhat kind of care they could give.
And it is so striking to seea case now that's like, Oh, we

(28:04):
don't care what the parents thinkor what the physicians think.
It really is amazing that just asthe parents are always right until
they're wrong, physicians are alsoalways right until they're wrong.
And it really feels as though that'sa through line that we are seeing
of like deep, deep, deep trust andreification of parental roles and

(28:25):
physician roles, until and unlessthose parents and physicians make
decisions that the state disagrees with.
So it's just, it's not just thatit's an entrenchment of gender roles.
It's this notion that doctors are the onlykind of important autonomous actor in the
abortion context in both cases last year.

(28:47):
But now they're just irrelevant.
They're wallpaper.
Yeah, and not only that, there's thisstunning thing that we seemingly just
accepted as a matter of public discourse,that not only are they wallpaper, they're
part of this vast and far-reachingconspiracy to provide harmful care.
We're talking about care that is supportedby the American Academy of Pediatrics,

(29:07):
the Endocrine Society, the AmericanMedical Association, the doctors who
are providing it at the most preeminentresearch institutions in this country.
And somehow the argument isthey're all conspiring to
provide harmful care to minors.
And if we take a step back, thatis quite a conspiratorial argument.

(29:27):
And whatever people may disagreeabout or feel discomfort about,
these are still good faith parentsand doctors trying to do right by
their patients and their children.
But yet we've somehow allowed thisconspiracy to fester that actually
everyone is just trying to provideharmful care, which is just absurd.

(29:48):
It's interesting.
I was going to ask you about junk scienceand bad data, which has been like if
our show has a major in the SupremeCourt, our minor is like junk science.
And this, as you say, you just listed,just a tiny number of amicus briefs
suggesting that medical and mentalhealth groups and serious scientific

(30:08):
entities, this is not somethingthey haven't thought deeply about.
All these professionalorganizations are right on one side.
And then, as you say, on the other side,the Tennessee brief is just teeming with
weird, deep state conspiracy theorizing.
And I worry because, as I say, this ismy minor now about junk science that

(30:31):
infiltrates court doctrine that makesits way into opinions and then gets cited
as though that junk science is real.
Yeah, it's really scary.
And I think it's also a function ofthe fact that the courts no longer
really care or look at factualfindings of the district court.
They will just pull out the latestnewspaper article that they see.
And there is an actual purpose to testingthe evidence and seeing whether it holds

(30:56):
up, because when we've gone to trial inthese cases and these witnesses are cross
examined, they have admitted that they'reexaggerating, accepted that there's no
underlying scientific support for claimsthat they are making, pointed to the fact
that perhaps it is speculative or basedon internet searches or Reddit sites.
And so this is why when we look atthe outcomes of these cases in the

(31:21):
district courts where the judges arethe closest to the evidence, you have
almost a unanimous set of holdingswhen heightened scrutiny is applied,
that these laws just don't hold up.
When you get more detached from theevidence and it becomes more about vibes,
for lack of a better word, it becomesvery untethered to what is actually going

(31:42):
on, which allows people to say thingslike, well, there's no long term studies.
Well, there are long term studies.
There are studies that are trackingpeople for periods like six years,
which is extraordinary long in pediatricmedicine, and taking snippets of ideas
out of context and not situating it inhow pediatric research actually happens.

(32:03):
And, I think that's wherewe find ourselves now.
This medical care isn't new.
It's been provided for decades.
And that isn't new in medicine.
Think about all of the innovations,even in just the lifetime -- I
have a 12 year old -- in my child'slifetime that we've witnessed.
And so I think that is just so muchdistortion and out of context polemics.

(32:25):
So I'm 52 years old and Ihave tried to be aware of...
You look great for 52, I should say.
Thank you so much.
I have to say that because assomeone else in the fifties.
Melon is amazing.
Clean living.
I don't drink, neverdone drugs, never smoked.

(32:47):
Anyway, thank you.
I appreciate that.
But so for my whole life I've been likefollowing anti-trans legislation and the
trajectory... I think it's important toremind people that in 2016, HB2, the North
Carolina bathroom bill, was introducedand failed and there were several bathroom
bills prior to that year that failed.

(33:10):
And once that failure happened,organizations like Alliance Defending
Freedom, which has been at theforefront of a lot of this anti-trans
legislation, did focus groups andasked people what trans issue would
most galvanize you to be anti-trans.

(33:31):
And they started with sports.
The first anti-trans sportsbill was introduced in 2019.
It failed, but by 2021 the firstsports ban on trans girls competing
in sports was passed in 2021, and nowI believe it's 24 states have bans
on trans girls competing in sports.
Soon to follow was 'we haveto protect the children'.

(33:54):
These LGBTQ people are indoctrinating ourchildren, and they use this old thing.
But, and then it started withgender affirming cure bans for kids.
Now 26 states, I believe, ban those.
So it's simultaneously a propagandisticmeasure that's happened in right

(34:16):
wing media that they've pushed.
If you watched Fox News, 'cause I didthe research, if you watched Fox News
between 2019 and 2023, you would thinkthat trans people were dominating in
sports and taking over because everyother story, there were literally
hundreds of stories on trans people insports on Fox News, in conjunction with

(34:38):
Alliance Defending Freedom presentingthis legislation in mostly Republican
led, legislators... we can talk abouthow all that happened, post-2010.
And what the sports thing did wascreate a permission structure for
people to dehumanize trans people.

(35:00):
That led to 'what about thechildren?' That, now, we do
have bathroom bans, right?
The bathroom bans didn't work in2016, but now several states, Florida,
several states have bathroom bans thatcriminalize trans folks using the bathroom
that aligns with our gender identity.
Obviously, we will get to the federalin a second but one thing that I think

(35:23):
this is all leading to is what MichaelNoel said several years ago: we wanna
eradicate transgenderism from public life.
There's a recent bill that wasintroduced in Texas, it's house
bill—it's not likely a pass, but I justwanna make note of it because it's, I
believe, a precursor—it's House Bill3871 that was introduced in Texas.
And there Texas is at the forefront ofdiscriminating against trans people.

(35:48):
And that law would make it a felonyto assert that you are a gender other
than you were assigned at birth toan employer or to the government.
It would be a felony.
I think two years in prison,$10,000 fines, $25,000
fines, but two years in jail.
So to assert your transnessin Texas would be a felony.

(36:10):
It's not likely to pass this session,but they're gonna keep reintroducing it.
And what we are seeing now, particularlywith people like Gavin Newsom and
so much of the Democratic Party, whoare capitulating to and conceding to
right wing talking points about transpeople, his just saying he thinks

(36:33):
it's not fair, creates a permissionstructure for trans people just to
be dehumanized across the board.
And to watch, in the media, incongressional hearings, in Supreme
Court confirmation hearings, thedehumanization of trans people.
And when I talk about dehumanization,I love what Brené Brown says about it

(36:58):
in her book Braving the Wilderness.
She says that we dehumanize using"primarily words and images" to move
a particular group into a place ofmoral exclusion, meaning that like
we as human beings are not hardwiredto harm each other, to discriminate,

(37:19):
to commit violence against someone.
But, if we take a certain group of peopleand move them into this space of moral
exclusion where they're no longer thoughtof as human beings, then it's fine.
And I think when we look at how transpeople have been spoken about in the
media, particularly on the right wingthat has infiltrated all of media, it is

(37:41):
a coordinated, well-funded dehumanizationproject that has led to all the executive
orders that are affecting trans peopleon the national level in horrifying
ways and potentially genocidal ways.
And I use that term intentionally.

(38:01):
It is really abouterasing us from existence.
They're erasing us from websites,literally, not acknowledging us,
but all of this is in Project 2025.
I did do a post.
Literally, it's page four of theforward, if you recall—I don't know
how long ago you read Project 2025—andon page four of the forward they said,

(38:22):
"we want to eliminate these words" andsome of the words from every government
document, piece of legislation thatexists, the words where gender, gender
equality, gender equity, gender identity,sexual orientation, diversity, equity,
inclusion, reproductive rights, et cetera.
And they're doing it.
We see it in real time.
It's a scary thing to read about and nowjust watch everything that they've written

(38:47):
about come to fruition is horrifying.
And I'm just gonna focus on thetrans folks, but this is across
the board, the dehumanization of
undocumented people.
It is just... culturally... and thenthe relationship between... there's

(39:08):
a lot of—and I wanna ask you guysabout this, because you're steeped
in this—a lot of folks, when theytalk about trans issues or abortion,
they call it cultural war issues.
I prefer civil rights issuesinstead of that language.
And then they also saythat it's a distraction.
And I get the argument that it's adistraction because we understand

(39:29):
that there's a capitalist agendahere, that there's plutocrats
trying to take over everything.
But when you read Project 2025,it's so clear that the Christian
nationalist agenda is about acertain kind of patriarchal White
supremacist order that is constantlyintersecting with capitalism.

(39:51):
So I don't think it's a distraction.
For me, I think it's part ofan overall plan that is White
supremacist, patriarchal,
capitalist in a way that's predatory.
What do you think about
that?
I totally agree with you.

(40:13):
I don't like the framing of distraction.
I think it's minimizing and it makes itso that, once again, the person that's
saying it's a distraction is validatingthe idea that trans people are just
political footballs as opposed to peoplewho are experiencing real outcomes

(40:34):
based on what the Trump administrationand what Republican governors across
the country and legislatures are doing.
And I guess like the trans sportsas a wedge issue thing is something
we've talked about before or it'sthere to evoke a visceral reaction
to further dehumanize trans people.
The thing that sticks out to me ishow Trump brought these folks to

(40:58):
the inauguration and Riley Gainesbecame this kind of celebrity.
They're all White women, right?
And they're using these tropes of Whitewomen being victimized or cis White
women being victimized, whether it beby an undocumented immigrant, they're
using that same playbook with theLaken Riley Act, or whether it comes to

(41:19):
Riley Gaines who tied for fifth placein a swim meet with a trans woman.
They're using age old tropesabout protecting White female
purity to discriminate againstall these groups, and then we're
told, oh, this is a distraction.
No, this is just White supremacyand Christian nationalism again.
M. Gessen, I wanted to ask you aboutthe House subcommittee hearing that

(41:42):
abruptly ended Tuesday after the TexasRepublican Representative Keith Self
intentionally misgendered the newDemocratic Representative Sarah McBride,
the first transgender person to beelected to Congress, by introducing
her as “mister.” As Chairman McBridedelivered remarks, the Democratic

(42:07):
Congressmember Bill Keating interrupted,demanding Self to reintroduce McBride.
This was the exchange.
I now recognize the representativefrom Delaware, Mr. McBride.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ranking member Keating, also wonderful
— Mr. Chairman
— I’m sorry.
— could you repeat yourintroduction again, please?

(42:29):
Yes.
It’s a — it’s a — we have set the standardon the floor of the House, and I’m simply
— What is that standard, Mr. Chairman?
Would you repeat what you justsaid when you introduced a duly
elected representative from theUnited States of America, please?
I will.
The representative fromDelaware, Mr. McBride.

(42:51):
Mr. Chairman, you are out of order.
Mr. Chairman, have you no decency?

That was Congressmember Keating: “Have you no decency?” What hasn’t (42:58):
undefined
been commented on as much is, after
Mr. Self introduced McBride as “mister,”McBride responded, “Thank you, Madam
Chair.” But, M. Gessen, if you canrespond to this overall attack on not

(43:19):
just trans people, but the overall LGBTQcommunity, including the national federal
website honoring Stonewall removingthe “T” from ”LGBT,” despite the fact
that it was trans women who led theprotest that really gave birth to the

(43:41):
modern-day LGBTQ movement in this country?
Well, first of all, this isn’tthe first time that this has
happened to Representative McBride.
She has been the target ofsystematic, explicit, humiliating,
aggressive attacks since shebegan her term earlier this year.

(44:04):
And the fact that we just are watchingthis as a country and accepting
it — not that the sort of television-or whatever-watching public has much
power to stop it, but just beingsubjected to this spectacle of public
humiliation over and over again issomething that is so destructive

(44:28):
to, I think, everybody’s psyche.
And I have a piece actually comingout in the Times this weekend talking
about this attack on trans people.
And it’s not an attack ontrans rights; it’s an attack on
trans people, of whom I am one.
And I think it’s most usefulto think of it in the Arendtian

(44:50):
framework of denationalization.
She argued that before people couldbe herded to concentration camps and
death camps by Nazis, they had to bedenationalized, pushed out of the national
community, stripped of their, what shecalled, their right to have rights.
Right?
We think that we have these rightsguaranteed to us because we’re born.

(45:13):
But, in fact, we have rights because we’repart of a national community, because
courts will enforce these rights, becausecommunities will enforce these rights.
And when they are taken away — andthey’re taken away through a series of
both legal and public rhetorical moves— what happens is the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission has droppedcases of anti-trans discrimination,

(45:38):
even though there’s a Supreme Courtdecision from 2020 that makes it very
clear that trans people are protected bydiscrimination because they’re covered
by the clause “on the basis of sex.”And the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission is basically refusing toenforce the law of the land, because trans

(45:58):
people have been placed outside the law.
Trans people have been receiving — whoeverneeds to renew their passport have been
receiving passports with the birth sexindicated on them instead of the gender
marker that they’ve been living with.
And I want to make veryclear what that is.
It’s not just an insult when youget this passport in the mail or

(46:19):
pick it up from the passport agency.
It’s a real obstacle to moving throughthe world, both sort of on a daily
basis — opening bank accounts, applyingfor loans, applying for financial aids.
If you have discordant documents,those are very hard things to do.
If you have documents that you’retraveling with, whether inside the country

(46:42):
or outside the country, that don’t matchyour gender presentation — you know, I was
once detained in Russia by an officer whothought that I was a teenage boy — I mean,
this was obviously years ago — a teenageboy who was using his mother’s driver’s
license, because my driver’s license hada woman’s name and gender marker on it.

(47:03):
This takes away trans people’s rightto freedom of movement, one of the
fundamental rights of humans, we think.
But they’re very easy to take away.
So, that’s what we are watching.
We’re watching the denationalization ofa very small, vulnerable minority group.
We’ve seen in this country alreadythe denationalization of noncitizens.

(47:24):
Right?
Noncitizens are not membersof the political community.
Noncitizens don’t have the samecivil and legal rights as citizens.
And now trans people are beingput in the same category.
So, as we head into a second Trumpterm, this case has far reaching
implications, and its outcomecould determine whether all trans
Americans are entitled to receiveprotections from discrimination or not.

(47:47):
So, Chase, break down the case for us.
What could it mean in termsof the future of trans rights?
And when I think of you arguing infront of that Supreme court, I'm just
like, what an out of body experience,literally, because you know people
who are there who absolutely hateeverything that you represent.
But tell us about the case,where it stands right now.

(48:10):
Yeah.
So to put it in some context, whenTennessee passed this bill, SB1 in
2023, it was the year that, in essence,half the country bans evidence based
medical care for transgender adolescents.
We went from zero states banning thiscare at the beginning of 2021 to more
than half the country banning it now.
And so just to imagine that upheavalfor people who have been relying

(48:32):
on this care, for parents who havebeen ensuring that their adolescent
children can get this care.
And when Tennessee passed their billin 2023, the ACLU and Lambda Legal
and our law firm partners immediatelyfiled a lawsuit, as we did across the
country with all of these bills, becausewe knew how catastrophic it would
be for these laws to go into effect.
And we were successful in the lowerfederal court, the district court.

(48:56):
The judge issued an extensive opinion,making factual findings that none of the
claims that Tennessee had put forth indefense of this sweeping ban ultimately
held up when you looked at the evidenceand that the law likely violated both
the Equal Protection Clause and the DueProcess Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Unfortunately, Tennessee was veryaggressive in their litigation.
They went immediately to the next levelof federal court to the federal appeals

(49:19):
court to try to block that injunctionto allow the law to go into effect.
And that's really when the tenorof all of this in the courts really
changed, in the summer of 2023, becauseyou had an appeals court in essence
stepping in and saying, Actually,there's nothing wrong with this law.
We are going to let it go into effectand issued an opinion that if allowed
to stand would, in essence, not onlygreen light government attacks on this

(49:42):
health care for trans adolescents, butopen the door to government attacks on
this health care for trans adults and Ithink importantly, really started to use
the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbsoverturning Roe v. Wade to expand the
ability of governments to intrude uponpeople's bodily autonomy by eroding sex

(50:03):
discrimination protections more broadly.
And that's really what's been going onhere and what's at stake in this case
that's now being considered at theSupreme Court and will likely be decided
by the end of this term in June of 2025.
What you're saying, Chase, is that thisis an issue that, even though you're
not trans, it's going to impact you.
It has to do with our bodies, right?

(50:25):
And in this case, the governmentliterally having power over our bodies.
So, Raquel, you at the same time endup leading this fight in this moment
in Washington last week in the Capitol.
This extraordinary moment because ofcourse the United States has a history
of civil disobedience and resistance.

(50:47):
You and a group of 15 otheractivists, including Chelsea
Manning, are part of that history.
Now you were arrested afterparticipating in a sit in inside a
women's restroom on Capitol Hill.
Speaker Johnson, Nancy Mace.
Our bodies are no debate.
Our bodies are no debate.
Speaker Johnson, Nancy Mace...
The sit in was led by agroup that you co founded.

(51:08):
It's called the GenderLiberation Movement.
So, Raquel, you were opposing abill introduced by far right South
Carolina representative Nancy Mace.
And this bill would ban transgenderpeople from using the bathrooms
that align with their genderidentities in federal buildings.
It's like, seriously?
Seriously.
The bill is part of a vicious attackbeing waged by the right on Congresswoman

(51:31):
Sarah McBride, who we all know waselected last month to represent
Delaware, and will be the first openlytransgender person to serve in Congress.
So, our history is kind of fugata, right?
It's like three steps forward and500 million steps back, right?
Raquel, talk about the wider implicationsof this particular bill and tell us

(51:52):
about the action and what you and theliberation movement are calling for.
When I first heard about whatrepresentative Nancy Mace was
pushing in terms of this anti transagenda, I, like, I think, many
other Americans, felt disgusted.
I felt like it was very much aninvasion of not just Sarah McBride's

(52:17):
dignity and humanity, but also allof the staffers on Capitol Hill
who are also trans and non binary.
I think that people often forgetwe've always been here, in every
sector and corner of society.
Maybe not every sector and corner of thegovernment, but definitely within society.

(52:38):
And I also think the implications ofthis kind of bigotry to someone in our
community who has achieved that statusgives people permission to be bigoted
towards trans folks who maybe don't evenhave that power and platform and status.
I am constantly thinking about the youngtrans people who see how she's being

(53:03):
treated and anticipate that kind oftreatment in schools, in public life, and
also maybe even in their own families.
And we don't need that kind ofsociety for our young people.
So, those are the things that I thinkabout going into this on a personal level.
With this bathroom sit in, we reallywanted to draw on the history of these

(53:28):
moments, like the Greensboro sit ins,thinking about the Woolworths counter.
Many of us have probably seen, if wehad a good textbook, images of folks
standing up against racial discrimination.
And going to that counter and experiencingthe hate, the vitriol from racist

(53:50):
White people in that time, but therewere also moments like the Julius Barr
'Sip-In' where gay folks in 1966 werelike, actually, you need to be serving
us in these establishments, oh, alsodon't criminalize us, my existence is
not tantamount to disorderly conduct.

(54:10):
We drew on that historybecause that is the moment that
trans folks are in right now.
And let's be clear, trans folks, andChase has often always rung this alarm,
have always in some way experienced somekind of criminalization or ostracization
within the U. S. That has been a part ofour existence probably since the onset.

(54:32):
So right now, what we're saying isthings are a little different, honey.
We're not just going tosit back and take this.
We have something to say, and we'regoing to act up in the face of it
Before I let you go, I just wannaget the State of the Union, or
what are the rights as you see themin this current era of America?
What are the LGBTQIA+ rights right now?

(54:56):
If you're trying to update your passportor your license or social security
card, if you're looking for hormonesor medical treatment, what are your
rights right now in this country?
Your rights, in terms of what the federalgovernment is doing, are significantly
constrained and we are fighting back.
So, for federal identification,moving forward, there will not

(55:18):
be updates to sex designations.
We are suing over that policywith respect to passports and
hopefully we will prevail.
For people under 19, federal governmentis endeavoring to create national bans
on healthcare by coercing institutionsto stop providing care by threatening
to withhold their federal funding.
So, there is a real assaulton this medical care.

(55:40):
I think importantly though, stateidentification is totally separate.
Go get your state ID if you live ina state that allows you to do so.
Go update your birthcertificate in your state.
That is not controlled by these executiveorders and those are totally independent.
And schools, the administrationis trying to punish schools that
affirm trans students and we will,of course, fight back against that.

(56:00):
But I think the important thingfor everyone: this is scary, but
trans people have resisted so much.
And I have been privileged tobe in the presence of elders, to
be mentored by elders who, youknow, who led so many movements.
Like, Miss Major was part of theAttica prison uprising, and was out

(56:22):
in the streets and in Stonewall.
Her motto is, "we're still fucking here".
I don't know if I'm allowed to saythat, but, and we are, and we've
lived through many systematic attacks.
And, so look to the elders and look tothe ancestors who have paved a path.

(56:42):
And, yes, the rights are constrained,but our spirit and our sense of
possibility, I think never will be.
That's great.
I hope we can say "we are fucking here".
I don't know how it works.
Yeah, me neither.
Me neither.
It's free speech, right?
It's a free speech organization.
Free speech!
Yeah.
Yeah, we're good.
We're good.
That's free speech.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.

(57:04):
Now, I also want to talk about people whoare allies and want to be active allies.
People who, I think about like federal andstate employees, oh, real quick, there's
a note in the chat that I'm following thatsays you're good to say fuck, obviously.
So, we've been givenofficial ACLU permission.
Ok, well I would have said it a lotmore, but I was trying to be respectable.

(57:30):
All right.
This is not a time for respectability.
The time for respectability has passed.
Yeah.
So, I think about somebody who, ifyou're a federal employee and you want
to be helpful to someone who's in thisposition, who's coming to you to apply
for this or change their gender markerthere or whatever, or if you're a high

(57:50):
school PE coach or PE teacher and youwork at a public school and this kid
wants to play sports and how do you, whatwould you recommend to federal employees?
What are their rights?
If they want to be a goodperson, but maybe they also
want to try to keep their job.
I don't maybe that's not maybethat's an impossible thing to answer.
I think the overall pointis don't comply in advance.

(58:12):
A lot of these executive orders haven'tactually changed policy, and we're
seeing a lot of compliance in advance.
We're seeing, the NCAArolled over in two minutes.
That's ridiculous.
There was no basis to do that.
And as the NCAA themselves said,there are 510,000 collegiate athletes
within the NCAA schools and thereare less than 10 who are transgender.

(58:34):
So, if we're sitting here, you'regoing to roll over for that minority
group and when you do not haveto yet, that is just disgraceful.
And I do think we just, we want tosee people not complying in advance.
And of course, we know that there aretimes when you're under threat that you
may not be able to take another course.
But there's other ways to bein solidarity with people who

(58:55):
are under assault right now.
You can be a part of changingthe narrative about trans life.
We are facing, coming off of an electioncycle in which there was 222 million
dollars spent in anti trans advertising.
We have to fight back against thenarrative as much as we have to fight
back against the policies because what'shappening, as we were talking about, is
that people think it's okay to suggestthat trans people are a threat to others.

(59:18):
And once you legitimize that notion,you authorize the government to come
in and attack a group of people.
And we have to all be participantsin disrupting that, just as we
do in all sorts of other ways.
If the government or if our rhetoricand caste and a group of people as
an ideology or something the way thatthe Trump administration is doing with

(59:39):
trans people, then it both legitimizesdebate over people's existence and
then legitimizes policies seekingto attack and eliminate the group.
And that is just simplyan unacceptable position.
That's a great reminder.
I've seen that sentiment shared before.
Don't obey in advance.
Don't comply in advance.
Just because the president signs athing, that does not always mean that

(01:00:01):
you have to do what that thing says.
So don't obey in advance.
Yeah.
Yeah, I think it's really important.
We've just heard clips startingwith The Blueprint explaining the
plan to roll back sex discriminationprotections for trans people.
Politics Weekly America looked atthe impact of Trump's executive
orders targeting the LGBTQ community.

(01:00:21):
CounterSpin highlighted theunconstitutionality of Trump's overreach.
Amicus explained how the repeal ofRoe versus Wade paved the way for
broader discrimination based on sex.
The Majority Report interviewedLaverne Cox about the past and
present of anti-trans legislation.
Democracy Now!
spoke with M Gassen about thetactic of dehumanization being

(01:00:43):
used against trans people.
In The Thick had on Chase Strangioto discuss some of the legal
cases concerning trans rights.
And the At Liberty podcast also spokewith Chase Strangio about knowing
your rights and the importance of notcomplying with discriminatory policies.
And those were just the Top Takes.
There's a lot more inthe Deeper Dive sections.

(01:01:03):
But first, a reminder that this showis produced with the support of our
members who get this show ad free, aswell as early and ad free access to our
freshly launched other show, SOLVED!
That's all caps with an exclamationpoint, just so you know.
That show features our team ofproducers discussing a carefully
curated selection of articles and ideasto then solve -- that's how the show

(01:01:26):
got its name -- some of the biggestissues of our day in each episode.
Members get the podcast of SOLVED!
first each week, but we're alsolaunching it on the Best of the Left
YouTube channel, where episodes willcome out a week later, because we don't
want to keep all of our great ideashidden behind paywall indefinitely.
To support all of the work that goesinto Best of the Left and have SOLVED!

(01:01:47):
delivered seamlessly to the newmembers only podcast feed that you'll
receive, sign up to support theshow at BestOfTheLeft.Com/Support
(there's a link in the show notes),through our Patreon page, or from
right inside the Apple Podcast app.
And as always, if regular membershipisn't in the cards for you, shoot
me an email requesting a financialhardship membership, because we

(01:02:08):
don't let a lack of funds stay inthe way of hearing more information.
If you have a question or would like yourcomments included in the show, upcoming
topics you can chime in on include a deepdive on the shifting internal dynamics of
the Democratic Party that absolutely needssome shifting, and the Republican effort
to dismantle public education and the roleof Christian nationalism in the effort.

(01:02:31):
So get your comments and questions innow for those topics or anything else.
You can leave a voicemail orsend us a text at 202-999-3991.
We're also findable on the privacy-focusedmessaging app Signal at the handle
bestoftheleft.01 or you can simplyemail me to Jay@BestOfTheLeft.Com.
Now for today -- and this is verymuch off topic I know -- but as

(01:02:53):
promised, I just want to give a bitmore detail about our new show SOLVED!
For years now, the Best of the Leftproduction team has been creating
conversational bonus episodes formembers, and that show is exactly
what the new show has grown out of.
What's different now is that we'reshifting to, all new branding.

(01:03:15):
SOLVED!
All caps, exclamation point, andwe'll be putting the show on YouTube
and other social video sites.
Now to address the most obvious questionfirst: If the show was for members only
and now it's gonna be on YouTube, aren'tI worried about members canceling because
they'll be able to get the show for free?

(01:03:36):
And the answer to that is Yes, Iam very much worried about that,
and hope that they won't cancel.
And to that end, I'llexplain why we're doing this.
For all that's great about podcasts,the big drawback is that it's very much
more difficult to find new audiencescompared to shows on sites like YouTube

(01:03:57):
that have algorithmic recommendationengines, so that when people watch a video
it says, Hey, you might also like this.
We don't get that benefit.
So as one point of reference, David Pakmanis the host of The David Pakman Show.
He and I are almost the same age.
We started our shows at almostexactly the same time, and we've
been friends for about 15 years.

(01:04:19):
David just got to his 3,000,000thsubscriber on YouTube.
And we did not.
You'd have to chop off several ofthe zeros before the decimal point
before you started getting close toour subscriber count compared to his.
It's not a perfect comparison.
We do very different shows with differentgoals, but it still gives you an idea of

(01:04:42):
the power of the recommendation engine.
So if we want to grow this showto a reasonable size, we need to
branch out to these platforms thatwill help recommend our show for us.
Now, what's a reasonablesize, you might ask?
The baseline goal would be to get tothe point where everyone who works
on the show could do it full-timewithout having to hold down other jobs.

(01:05:02):
And if we could do that, we couldprobably even produce more episodes.
You know, if that's the sort ofthing you might be interested in.
And of course it's not just about us.
We believe -- and hope you believetoo -- that we are creating shows
that help boost good ideas into theworld, doing what we can to help
bend the arc of the moral universe.
So now you might be thinking, "Well, Jay!

(01:05:24):
and his team seem like good folks andhe certainly paid his dues curating the
best of other great shows for nearly20 years, if you can believe that.
I wonder how I can help himlaunch this new project?
Is there anything I can doto help?" To which I reply,
"Well, that's very kind of you.
I appreciate you sayingthat, and I'm glad you asked.
Because the answer is a resoundingyes!" Here is what you can do.

Number one (01:05:49):
Of course, if you're a member, please don't cancel.
We need your support and hopethat you'll continue to come
along on this journey with us.

Number two (01:05:57):
No matter who you are, check out the show SOLVED!
on the Best of the Left YouTube channel.
And -- and I cannot believe Ifinally have to add this phrase to my
lexicon -- Like, Subscribe, Leave aComment and hit the bell to be alerted
every time there's a new episode.
But beyond that, if you wanna bea super supporter, I've got news

for you (01:06:19):
You can help us game YouTube's algorithm even more.
Liking, Subscribing, Commenting,all those things send signals
to YouTube that you are the typeof person who enjoys our show.
But there's one little trick thatI know sounds fake, but there's
one little trick that can actuallyhelp supercharge the effect.
Let's say in theory that we wantedYouTube to recommend SOLVED!

(01:06:43):
To David Pakman's viewers or watchersof The Majority Report or fans of The
Young Turks or Tom Hartmanniacs, whichI assume his fans call themselves,
or any other progressive show withviewers who would also like our show.
The way to train the algorithm torecommend us to them is for you,

(01:07:05):
super supporter, to watch fullvideos, not just of us, to watch full
videos of those other shows first.
Like, Comment, Subscribe, whateveryou feel comfortable doing.

Pro tip (01:07:18):
keep in mind you don't actually have to be watching the
whole time you are "watching," right?
If you know what I mean.
And then flip straight overto an episode of SOLVED!
Watch the whole thing or haveit play in the background
while you do something else.
And then Like, Comment,Subscribe, the whole deal.

(01:07:39):
That way the recommendation algorithmlearns that enthusiastic and engaged
David Pakman Show watchers or MajorityReport viewers or whatever are also likely
to be enthusiastic and engaged SOLVED!
fans.
And then it will make theproper recommendation.
So that's the news.

(01:08:00):
A newish show, , on abrand new platform for us.
I mean, we've dabbled in YouTubein the past, but not really.
And a new goal to take this wholeproduction to the next level.
Oh, and make sure you're followingus on all the video sharing
platforms for the same reasons.
We're gonna be posting clips onInstagram and TikTok at a bare minimum,
so you can help boost 'em there.

(01:08:22):
And then lastly, did I mentionthat we decided to do SOLVED!
as an animated show?
I promise that it looks nothinglike anything you've seen before
in the world of news and politics.
So check it out for the noveltyof it, if for no other reason.
And now we'll continue to divedeeper on five topics today.

(01:08:44):
Next up, section A policy rollbacksfollowed by section B, dehumanization,
section C, historical attacks,section D, stories and Section
E, trans joy and resistance.
OK, Han, so we were just talking aboutbiological sex and how there's, like,
a lot of variation in other animals.
But what about humans?

(01:09:04):
Like, what's the determiningfactor for, like, sex in us?
So in humans, sex is determinedbased on a variety of factors.
But for the purposes of thisepisode, we're going to focus
on three of the main ones--chromosomal, chemical, and physical.
Wait, I think we need to slow down and,like, break down each of them, right?
Like, so the first one yousaid is chromosomal, right?

(01:09:26):
And I remember learning aboutthis in, like, high school bio.
All the genetic information in ourbodies are packaged in 46 chromosomes,
and they're coupled up to make 23 pairs.
The first 22 pairs tend to look similarlike in all humans, but the last one
is usually either an XX or an XY pair.
And XX is usually assigned to female.

(01:09:47):
XY is assigned to male.
Right, that's true for most humans, notall-- I'll get to that later-- but most.
And Hannah Claire says that nowadays,when doctors predict fetal sex, usually,
they're looking at the chromosomes.
[AUDIO PLAYBACK]
So when folks say that they know thesex of their pregnancy, sometimes
they're referring to ultrasound.

(01:10:07):
But more often-- and especially after2010-- they're referring to this
test called cell-free DNA testing.
[END PLAYBACK]
Hannah is a genetic counseling researcherwith experience in OB-GYN clinics.
We're not using her full name hereor noting her employer, because she's
concerned that speaking publicly couldhurt her ability to fund her research.
But she says this test is super common.

(01:10:29):
Clinicians don't have to wait forthe ultrasound to look at the fetus.
They just do a little blood test.
[AUDIO PLAYBACK]
As a pregnancy is growing, theplacenta sheds DNA into the
bloodstream of the pregnant person.
And so what labs will do is take thatblood, sort out that fetal fraction, and

(01:10:51):
analyze that to look at the chromosomes.
[END PLAYBACK]
Wow, that's really cool.
I know, right?
So this test tells us the chromosomesthat a baby has, but the Y chromosome
isn't, like, an on, off switch for sex.
There are sex influencing genes presentin the other 22 pairs of chromosomes, too.
And there's a lot of variation that'sstill possible within those genes.

(01:11:12):
So for a number of reasons, after birth,the baby can develop in a way that's
different from what the tests predicted.
And that's where this second metricfor determining sex comes in.
Right, and you mentioned the secondmetric being chemical, right?
Like, what do chemicals tell us about sex?
Yeah, so a big part of sex and howit develops has to do with hormones.
Right.
And those chemical hormones, theyfluctuate through your whole life.

(01:11:34):
Like, as a little kid, you had adifferent hormone profile than when
you went through puberty or than whenyou start going through menopause.
Wow.
Yep, yep.
So when does this, like, firstchemical change actually happen?
Puberty?
Way earlier.
All humans have hormoneslike testosterone, estrogen,
progesterone, et cetera.
They just have them in differentquantities and different cycles.

(01:11:56):
Wow.
And those hormones reallyfluctuate through life.
So a fetus gets the first hitof these hormones in the womb.
That triggers things like genital growthand certain types of brain development.
Then there's another hormonesurge in babies after birth
within the first six months.
It's one that endocrinologistscall "mini puberty."
Wow, I did not know any of this.
It's like baby puberty.

(01:12:17):
OK.
[LAUGHS] Yeah.
And after that, in early childhood,the hormones kind of take a break.
One pediatrician I talked to said-- and Iquote-- that "the testes are fast asleep."
[LAUGHS]
[AUDIO PLAYBACK]
So the testes are active andinactive at specific periods
during childhood and adolescence.
I mean, these glands are notmaking things all the time.

(01:12:38):
They kind of go up and down.
So very similar to ovaries.
[END PLAYBACK]
This is Faisal Ahmed.
He's a pediatric endocrinologistat the University of Glasgow.
And he says that once adolescentpuberty hits, there's usually
an increase in hormones.
Yeah.
Those chemicals can also be delayedor boosted, for example, during
gender affirmative hormone therapy.
And they're usually whattrigger the development of a
bunch of other characteristicsthat we use to determine sex.

(01:13:01):
And this brings us to thelast criteria, physical.
OK.
And I'm guessing that's, like, genitals.
Well, yes.
This can refer to internalgenitalia, like ovaries, or external
genitalia, like penis and testes.
Or we could also look at secondary sexualcharacteristics, things that usually
don't develop until puberty, like breastsor facial hair, or even things that are

(01:13:22):
determined, in part, by hormones and areoften used to differentiate sex, like your
voice or your height or the distributionof fat and muscle on your body.
Wow.
I didn't even thinkabout those last things.
Like, you're totally right.
Yeah.
And those physical traits are reallythe main observable characteristics,
the ones that don't require lab work.

(01:13:42):
So usually when people who are not doctorsor scientists are talking about biological
sex, this is what they really mean.
But these physical characteristicsdon't really fall on a strict binary.
I mean, we have tall women and short men.
We have women with flatter chestsand men without facial hair.
Yeah.
People's appearances can really vary.
But I digress.

(01:14:03):
OK, so physical traits, hormones,chromosomes-- we have all these
different ways to determine sex.
And I'm guessing, like, that most of thetime, they align, but not all the time.
Exactly.
All of these things have thepotential to differ from one another
or to be ambiguous or unclear.
Like, someone's chromosomes mightbe XY, but they don't have a penis.
Or they do have a penis, butthey also have internal ovaries.

(01:14:26):
And these differences generallyfall under the umbrella of something
called "intersex conditions."
Intersex is an umbrella term forbiological conditions where a child is
born with, like, physical characteristicsor genetic characteristics that
don't fall into our society's neatdefinitions of what is male or female.

(01:14:47):
This is Ilene Wong.
She's a physician, specificallyan adult urologist.
And she says that althoughintersex conditions are rare,
they're not as rare as you think.
Wait, like, how common are they?
Well, estimates can vary, but the mostcommon number that I've seen thrown
around is that intersex conditionsoverall affect 1 to 2 people in every 100.
So that would make it about as commonas having red hair and even more common

(01:15:10):
than being born an identical twin.
So chances are, if you're listeningto this episode and you're not
intersex, you've probably atleast encountered someone who is.
Exactly.
And Ilene is really passionate aboutintersex awareness because, she says,
her training-- she went to med schoolat Yale; she did her residency at
Stanford-- it still left her reallyunprepared to treat intersex patients.

(01:15:31):
[AUDIO PLAYBACK]
Once you operate on an intersex body,that patient will need to deal with those
complications for the rest of their life.
You can't fix you can't change themback to what nature made them as.
[END PLAYBACK]
Ilene told me that in the past,there was this big push to
normalize intersex patients' bodies.
Doctors would look at an intersex childand operate on them, usually without
those children's full understanding orconsent, so their bodies would conform

(01:15:54):
to more typical sex assignments.
[AUDIO PLAYBACK]
Kids were, quote, "normalized."They were stigmatized.
They were lied to.
Their parents were told that theyshouldn't tell their children because
it would ruin them psychologically.
They were subjected to surgeries,including literal clitoral amputations
that caused dyspareunia, pain, chronicscarring, basically medical PTSD

(01:16:15):
for hundreds and hundreds of people.
[END PLAYBACK]
That's really horrible.
Yeah.
And in 2018, the American Academy ofFamily Physicians issued a statement
opposing medically unnecessarysurgeries on intersex children,
basically saying, this is harmful,and we shouldn't do it anymore.
But Ilene says there's still a hugeinformation gap when it comes to
intersex bodies and medical treatment.

(01:16:36):
Faisal specializes in this kind oftreatment, and here he is again.
[AUDIO PLAYBACK]
So sometimes people feelthat, you know, intersex is a
diagnosis, but it's not really.
It's really like sayingsomebody has short stature.
[END PLAYBACK]
Right, because, like, height is oneof those physical characteristics
you mentioned earlier.
Yeah.
Faisal says that if you're short,there could be a bunch of reasons why.

(01:16:56):
Like, it could be that your parentsare short, or it could be a nutrition
problem or a genetic condition.
And depending on how short you areand the society that you live in, it
might or might not pose a problem.
Like, when I was talking to Faisal,he drew this comparison of urinal
heights in Japan versus in Europe.
[AUDIO PLAYBACK]
But if you go to Netherlands,they're much higher up.
So society is creating this thingwhich makes people not fit in.

(01:17:20):
[END PLAYBACK]
And that's the thing that's key, Gina.
Even though a lot of these metricsfor determining sex are based
in science, the way we interpretthem is rooted in society.
All of the scientiststhat I talked to agreed.
Biological sex is definitely not assimple as two separate categories.
And we lose a lot of nuance andknowledge when we pretend that it is.

(01:17:42):
Here's Anne Fausto-Sterling again.
She's the biologist that we heard fromat the very beginning of the episode.
[AUDIO PLAYBACK]
You can think of a model in whichthere is-- there's only two, and
they completely don't overlap.
You always know which is which, nomatter what measure you're using, whether
you're looking at the genitals or thechromosomes or the gonads or the hormones.

(01:18:03):
And the fact is that that modeldoesn't exist in nature at all.

(01:18:24):
Those were the sounds of protestersinside the Iowa State Capitol
in Des Moines on Thursday.
Their signs read, love thy neighbor.
We are human beings.
Trans rights are human rights.
Trans blood will be on your hands.

(01:18:45):
Trans people shouldn't botheryou more than fascists.
And honestly, family,this was my favorite.
Is this hell?
No.
It's Iowa.
Now, as somebody who went to school in DesMoines, Iowa, attended Drake University,
I'm familiar with this entire area.
And Iowa's actually one ofthe leaders of LGBTQ rights.

(01:19:07):
When they included sexual orientation andgender identity into their civil rights.
Policies 18 years ago.
Well, here we are today.
Nearly 2, 000 people gathered insideand outside of the Capitol to protest
against Iowa removing gender identity as aprotected class in their civil rights law.

(01:19:28):
And it passed pretty easily.
Let's be very clear.
The Iowa Senate passed the bill 33 to15 along party lines and less than an
hour later The house passed the bill60 to 35 and actually five Republicans
joined Democrats against removing genderidentity as a protected clause and family.

(01:19:50):
Can I just tell you howquickly this all happened?
They just introduced this policychange a week ago, one week.
So when they tell you legislationcan't move quickly, it's a lot.
A week ago, they introducedthis, it passed the Senate.
And then less than an hourlater, it passed the house.
And then their Republican governorsigned it into law just like that.

(01:20:16):
And so now Iowa makes the worstkind of history becoming the.
First state in the country to removegender identity as a protected class.
And I just can't overstatehow extraordinary it is.
Right.
To continue to reverse law in thisway, just to be discriminatory,

(01:20:37):
just to be hateful against lessthan 1 percent of our population.
And it's truly wild to watch your countryregress in real time versus progressing.
You feel me?
And like I mentioned earlier, right?
In Iowa, sexual orientationand gender identity were added.

(01:20:57):
When the legislature wasmostly run by Democrats, right?
And 18 years later, it's been removed.
Iowa is basically following inline with Trump's executive order,
declaring there are only two genders.
Which isn't even legally binding.
These executive orders aredeclarations from the highest office.

(01:21:19):
That is it.
That is all.
They absolutely have impact though.
They aren't legally binding,but they have impact.
Because when it comes from the president'soffice, it directly impacts federal
government, funding, and the workforce.
It also greatly impacts policy.
Here we are in Iowa.

(01:21:42):
167 people actually signed up togive public testimony during the 90
minute public house committee hearing.
Only 24 of them were actuallyin favor of this policy.
The people shared their stories.
They pleaded to their elected officialsto not strip them of their rights.

(01:22:04):
Senator Tony Bezziano was truly a brightlight who called out Republicans for
their complete disregard for trans folks.
He said this, These peoplearen't downstairs because
they got nothing else to do.
Their lives are on the line.
And should be taken seriously.
Most of you don't even knowsomeone who's transgender.
You don't even knowthem, but you hate them.

(01:22:24):
You have to hate them because you cannotdo what you're doing today if you didn't.
He goes on to say, Shameon all of you Christians.
Who want to keep talking about yourfaith, when this is what God talked about.
Family, he said, I don't knowwhere you go to church, and I don't
know what you read, but being agood Christian doesn't take much.

(01:22:49):
Do unto others, takecare of your neighbor.
It is so simple, but alas, here we are.
And Republicans are claiming thisisn't a step back because federal
laws offer protections and havingit in the state law is redundant.
Family, when I read this, I promiseI said, I'm mad they get, they are

(01:23:09):
gaslighting people with this propaganda.
I mean, it is literally gaslighting.
Iowa's governor, Reynolds,said it's common sense to
acknowledge the obvious biologicaldifferences between men and women.
In fact, it's necessary to secure genuineequal protection for women and girls.

(01:23:30):
Republicans continuing to saythat this is about women and
girls continues to infuriate me.
It's nonsensical to think that removingrights from a group of people somehow
helps to ensure The rights for anothergroup of people, I promise you, when

(01:23:51):
you protect the most vulnerable amongus, everybody else is more protected.
Everybody.
But the moment you chooseto remove, to pull back
rights from people, you make everyone morevulnerable, especially women and girls.

(01:24:14):
So what does all of this actually mean?
Civil rights acts prohibitdiscrimination at your job.
When you're seeking housing, aneducation, applying for credit,
and for public accommodations.
So now, birth certificates in Iowareflect a person's sex at birth.
They also added new definitionsfor male, female, and sex.

(01:24:37):
The first trans person elected toIowa's General Assembly, Representative
Amy, said this, felt like a gut punch.
This bill revokes protectionsto our jobs, our homes, and
our ability to access credit.
In other words, it deprives us of life,liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
She went on to say, our transsiblings in Iowa refuse.

(01:24:58):
Refuse to give up in despair becausethe greatest act of rebellion that you
can do in these dystopian times is tolive your life unafraid and be happy.
That is her message to ourtrans siblings in Iowa.
So Bostock is the thing that makes ithard to understand how the Sixth Circuit

(01:25:19):
got where they got to, Chase, because insome sense, Bostock is a Title VII case.
This is an equal protection case,but Bostock already decides that
discrimination against trans employees.
Is discrimination onthe basis of sex, right?
Done and dusted.
And I just would lovefor you to explain to us.
And, and, and, and let's just explicitlysay, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch.

(01:25:42):
Chief Justice John Robertsagrees with the reasoning.
The notion that this is, uh, untraveledground goes away after Bostock.
And yet, here we are.
And I would just love for you toexplain how the Sixth Circuit.
gets around it.
So the Sixth Circuit decides, and thisis a departure from all other cases
in which the court doesn't do this,but the Sixth Circuit in essence says,

(01:26:05):
well, Bostock is just about Title VII.
It is just about the statutory contextin which people are prohibited from
discriminating in employment because ofsex and says it's based on the particular
language of that statutory protection.
The problem with that is that,yes, Title VII and the Equal
Protection Clause are different.

(01:26:26):
Everyone agrees about that premise, butthey're different in terms of what is
ultimately prohibited, not insofar aswhat is identified as because of sex.
If the funeral home in Bostock was agovernment employer and that government
employer fired Amy Stevens for beingtransgender, the court wouldn't have

(01:26:46):
said that, well, it is because of sexfor Title VII, but it's not because
of sex for the Equal Protection Clausebecause both provisions are about
protecting individuals, and they makea big deal about this in Bostock,
that Bostock is about the individual.
But guess what?
So is the Equal Protection Clause.
It refers to any person.
And for the originalists on the court,that provision of the Constitution was

(01:27:11):
designed so that People were treatedas individuals, not just as members of
classes, and so they have that in common.
And then the other piece is that, youknow, Title VII asks, Would the outcome be
different if you were of a different sex?
Well, so does Equal Protection.
It asks, Would the outcome be differentif you were of a different sex.
And so the logic of Bostock appliesto the Equal Protection Clause, and

(01:27:36):
I think you have to do a lot of,you know, distortion to suggest that
somehow a sex line becomes sex neutralwhen you're looking at it through the
lens of the Equal Protection Clause.
You've slightly said it, but Iwould love to have you give the most
charitable iteration of what Tennesseeis saying in defense of its law.

(01:28:00):
I mean, I have to say, like, it'shard to read the brief because it's
like, Europe, bad, you know, we founda doctor, like, give me the most, if
you can, compelling argument for whatTennessee says they're doing here.
And I know, let me also bereally clear, you said that.
It starts from the premise that peoplemake wildly reckless, unresearched

(01:28:23):
decisions about their children.
Right.
That is sort of the underlying premise.
I do think it's hard to come up with agrounded, doctrinal explanation of what
they're arguing because even if youtake everything they say about Europe,
which we fundamentally disagree with andthe record doesn't support or the risks
of the treatment that simply does notchange that it is a line based on sex.

(01:28:45):
So that is still not answering thequestion of sort of what has Tennessee
done if not ban treatment because of sex.
So that piece of it.
It goes to whether that lineis justified, and we obviously
disagree about that piece.
The way they claim that this is sexneutral is in essence to say, we're just
banning a medical procedure, not somethingbased on sex, and this isn't about men

(01:29:10):
and women being treated differently.
And I think that really is the crux oftheir argument about why the heightened
scrutiny standard that attends to sexclassifications doesn't apply here.
And from my perspective, it's really hardto reconcile that with the text of the
statute and the Supreme Court's precedent.
And somewhat puzzlingly, Tennesseeeven says in their brief that a law

(01:29:34):
that bans sex inconsistent dresswould be a sex classification.
A law that bans sex inconsistentprofessions would be a sex classification.
And this is just a law that banssex inconsistent medical procedures.
And so it is not clear to me how youget from those points about those other
hypothetical laws to saying that thisis not a law that imposes disparate

(01:29:59):
treatment based on someone's sex.
There's one other piece of this that I'dlove for you to poke at with me, which
is it's not just an argument about thecivil rights of trans youth, but there's
this argument about the rights of parentsto make medical decisions about their
children's care that is kind of the wrong.
Beating heart of substantive due process.

(01:30:22):
It's the beating heart of how wethink about, you know, family autonomy
and privacy and everything that wehave protected constitutionally goes
to this notion that parents get tomake their kids medical decisions.
It is why we have judges who aresaying, you know, parents get to
decide if their kids can have anabortion or use contraception.

(01:30:46):
So how do you get around?
I'm not.
asking how you get around it.
It is very, very strange to have Tennesseetaking the posture that the state actually
gets to override this parental interest inmaking medical decisions about their kids.
I completely agree.
And of course, we have a due processclaim on behalf of the parents that is

(01:31:07):
not before the court because they didnot grant that question, but it bears on.
The Equal Protection claim because at theend of the day, Tennessee is claiming that
they are doing this to protect Children.
But who do they otherwise expect toprotect Children and weigh the risks
and benefits of potential medicaltreatment, if not the parents?

(01:31:27):
That is the role of parents.
Traditionally, and Tennessee is comingin and displacing the line judgment of
an adolescent that adolescence parentsand that adolescence doctor you have
on one side, and The adolescent, theadolescent's parents, the adolescent's
doctor, the entire mainstream medicalestablishment in the United States.
And on the other side, you havethe government of Tennessee.

(01:31:48):
And as you know, it is quite stunningto see state governments like those of
Tennessee and Alabama and Arkansas, allof a sudden arguing that parents rights
don't mean anything because these ofcourse are the same governments that
have aggressively asserted the rightsof parents to, for example, not have to.
have their children mask in school,not have to have their children get

(01:32:11):
vaccinated, not have to have theirchildren learn about other people in
their school history and other classes.
So of course, this is quite an aboutface for those who have been robust
defenders of parents rights to come inand say, but not these parents, not these
parents who are loving and supportingtheir trans children and making this.
same types of informed judgmentthat parents make every single

(01:32:32):
day in complex medical decisionmaking, because that is what we do.
We know our children best.
We are the ones who are incentivizedto do the research to ensure that
our children get the care that theyneed, and Tennessee has come in
and decided that they know better.
Right.
I just think it's such a poignant Markerof where we are that after years, as

(01:32:55):
you say, of hearing parents know best,get the state out of my kids reading
list, get the states out of my kidssex education, get the state out of
my kids masking mandate, but parents.
No best until and unless the statedisagrees with them, which is in
this instance, and it's really ashattering inversion of how we think

(01:33:19):
about how families make decisions.
In more anti trans political news,the military is once again removing
trans service members from active duty.
In a memo filed in court last Wednesday,the Pentagon has 30 days to identify
service members who have a quote, andI'm quoting here, a current diagnosis

(01:33:42):
or history of, or exhibit symptomsconsistent with, gender dysphoria.
Once this list is compiled,family, all of these people will
be removed and lose their jobs.
They will lose their benefits, butyou know, because there's such good
people, our trans siblings who arebeing kicked out of the military, they

(01:34:07):
will be listed as honorable separation.
Now a waiver can be issued forsome trans service members, but you
know, That comes with conditions.
These will be reviewed case by case.
And essentially if theythink you can fight and be an
asset for war, you can stay.

(01:34:27):
Let me tell y'all what it says directly.
It says provided there is acompelling government interest in
accessing the applicant that directlysupports war fighting capabilities.
They literally say warfighting capabilities.
These waivers can only be granted if theservice member also can show evidence

(01:34:51):
of 36 months of stability in theirsex assigned at birth without distress
or impairment, so three years, okay?
They also must demonstrate they'venever attempted to medically transition
and must be willing to adhere to themilitary standards for their sex at birth.
Now after hearing all of that, youtell me who's getting a waiver.

(01:35:11):
Heh, come on, neverattempted medical transition?
Essentially, this memo justfalls in line with Trump's,
you know, Voldemort's executiveorder of there being two genders.
This policy has stated that thegreetings will be binary, okay?
Yes sir, yes ma'am.
The defense department can nolonger use funds for gender
affirming care and surgeries thatwere scheduled are now canceled.

(01:35:34):
No more hormone therapy either.
Now last month, if y'all rememberfamily, because let's be clear.
All of this political nonsense is trulyoverwhelming, so it's hard to keep up.
But last week I shared here on the pod,right, that there has been a lawsuit
filed in response to Voldemort'sexecutive order banning trans folks
from serving, right, the NationalCenter for Lesbian Rights, NCLR.

(01:35:57):
and GLBTQ legal advocates and defendersare fighting on behalf of six active
duty trans members and two trans membersof our community who want to serve.
They are standing on the 14thamendment's equal protection clause
as why this is unconstitutional.
Well, we already know lawsuitstake a whole bunch of time.

(01:36:19):
Okay.
Now the number varies.
But approximately 10 to 15,000 trans folks actually
serve in the military today.
And I will say this time and timeagain, we live in a country with a
volunteer service with a service thatis declining, okay, in recruitment.
And yet here we are talking about kickingout 10 to 15, 000 service members who

(01:36:43):
want to serve this country, Chile.
The last thing they need tobe doing is kicking people out
because guess who's not signing up.
That would be me.
Right, and I just want to, I just wantto clarify that the DeAnda case you're
talking about is DeAnda versus Becerra.
It's a case out of Texas.
where this Christian patriarch basicallywants to make sure that his, his

(01:37:05):
potentially slutty daughters, you know,keep their legs closed and don't go to
title 10 family planning clinics in orderto get contraception on a confidential
basis, which they are entitled to do.
This is a man who wants to make sure thathis daughters who have never sought birth
control and have never even expressedan interest in seeking birth control.

(01:37:26):
But cannot seek birth control atsome other point without his say so.
And so the way that ties back into thegender affirming care cases is that
you have to think about, about parentsbeing aligned with their children in
terms of seeking healthcare, right?
When it comes to LW, right?
Who is the, the, the trend, the transkid at the center of this, uh, the

(01:37:48):
when it comes to LW and their parents.
wanting to seek gender affirming care,then that makes sense because the
parents are aligned with the kids.
When it comes to, I don't know, parentstrying to give their kids lobotomies,
which apparently is a problem in Texas,well certainly the child and the parent
are not aligned in seeking that kindof care because the kid doesn't want a
lobotomy even though the parent does.

(01:38:10):
So it's really, once you sort of lookat the examples that they're given,
they're giving, and then you think aboutthem logically, you see what this is.
It's about parents wanting to controltheir kids, and it's about states
wanting to control the kind of carethat parents can provide their kids.
No, no, no, no, Imani.
It's not at all.
If you ask Justice Kavanaugh, though,what this case is about is the

(01:38:36):
importance of constitutional Right.
The importance of doing fuck all.
I think that's his memoir in the works.
The importance of doing fuck all.
Because he basically doesfuck all on the bench.
I'm still irritated thathe's even sitting there.
But, but truly, that is, that is theman's most Honest principle as a jurist,

(01:39:01):
he was up there today saying things like,well, you know, we don't discriminate on
sex by not discriminating on sex, right?
Like the constitution is colorblind,is neutral to these questions.
And that should be a tremendousflag, because what that is, is
caping, it's covering, right?

(01:39:21):
The constitution is notneutral on these questions.
If it only protects the status quo,like the equal protection clause
actually exists to disrupt that.
And I thought that again, SolicitorGeneral Prelogar, Prelogar, I'll
never get it right, but the SolicitorGeneral was phenomenal here.

(01:39:42):
She was like, well, sure, Brett,like I take your point, but.
Have you heard of the 14th Amendment?
Right.
It exists
for
a reason.
It exists, right?
And these principles aren't neutral,but what's irritating is that even, you
know, the great Chief Justice seemed tobe siding towards, or leaning towards
Kavanaugh's position of Well, you know,the science is just so unsettled, don't

(01:40:07):
you know, and because it's so unsettled,we should just probably stay out of it.
Let the states do their things.
We're just going to, we're just going tolet the constitution leave this really
hairy question of the science around transmedicine, puberty blockers, et cetera.
We're just going to leave that issueto the people's representatives

(01:40:27):
because that's where it belongs.
It doesn't belong with us nine.
We're not doctors.
However, could we possibly make anysort of ruling from a constitutional
perspective on this very difficult issue?
It's like, come on, man.
You do it all the fuckingtime with abortion.
I was just gonna say, are you familiarwith a case called Gonzales v. Carhartt?

(01:40:51):
Chief Justice Roberts and the unsettledquestion around abortion and the
science, like again, we're stillmad at you, Tony Kennedy, right?
Like this is all your legacy,but you're exactly right.
That's pearl clutching around like,Oh my God, whatever should we do?
It was the same bullshit framingthat they used in the state's
battle around abortion until Dobbs.

(01:41:12):
Right.
And we have to remember, like,the reason we're still mad at Tony
Kennedy is because in Gonzalez, theystruck down a, they struck down a
method of performing an abortion.
And in his opinion, he's like, I'mnot really sure if those bitches
start regretting them abortions.
But they probably do.

(01:41:33):
I don't have any science to backit up, but my gut says they do.
So that's what we're going to go with.
I mean, that's basically what he said.
And there is that same sort of concerntrolling about gender affirming care.
Like, I don't know.
Are we using puberty blockers toblock puberty because of precocious
puberty or to deepen people's voices?
It's real weird.

(01:41:54):
I don't think we can really make a rule.
It's just right.
It was
fascination with D transitioners, right?
Like trans folks is justice.
Sotomayor already comprised such asmall fraction of the population.
And within that D transitioners even more.
And that is the object of their focus.

(01:42:14):
You know, you want to know who, Iwant to know what, what the object of
focus was for a man that we both know.
As Neil Gorsuch.
That man was not even there today.
You can not prove to me that he was.
Where the hell was Neil Gorsuch today?
Because frankly, the reasonwhy it's significant that he

(01:42:36):
did not have a thing to say.
at all during these oral arguments isbecause he is the man who in 2019 said
in a case called Bostock v. ClaytonCounty that you cannot discriminate
on the basis that, uh, on the basis ofbeing trans because, because that is.
Discrimination on the basis of sex, right?

(01:42:57):
You cannot discriminate againsttrans people in the workplace.
Why?
Because that kind of discriminationis sex discrimination.
There was so much discussiontoday during arguments about
whether or not this Tennessee lawwas a sex based classification.
And if it is, what do we do about it?
And Neil Gorsuch said nothing.

(01:43:18):
He was the Mariah Carey GIF.
Bostock, I don't know her.
Never heard of her.
Never heard of her.
Don't know her.
But for real, like, this is part of hislegacy, being the great textualist, right?
And Bostock had been somethingthat he had been very proud of.

(01:43:38):
Until it became uncouth to be aperson that stands up for trans
rights, because you have toremember that Bostock was 2019.
That's a mere two years after the hubbubin North Carolina with that bathroom ban
and the NCAA pulled out of North Carolina.
And then I think Indiana tried some shitand everyone was like, don't you dare.
People were up in arms in favor, backingtrans people's right to use the bathroom.

(01:44:01):
And then here we are five years later.
And it's like the deluge of anti translegislation has made anyone who stands
up for trans people a victim of thewoke mind virus or what have you.
And so Gorsuch was just dead ass silent.
And that bodes, that bodesill in my, in my estimation.
Now entering Section B dehumanization.

(01:44:23):
It's always like, we'repursuing this truth.
There must be something herewhere we can portray both sides.
But they, by asking some ofthese questions repeatedly and
with the emphasis they do, yeah.
They call into questionkind of just like basic.
Facts about trans identity, and it'sthis paternalism that bothers me.

(01:44:44):
Yeah.
Of, uh, we know better as New YorkTimes reporters than the very people
who are saying, this is my reality.
Um, yeah.
What, like that, that, if you could justexplain what that's like and, and Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I mean, I always start this off bysaying that, um, you know, gender

(01:45:04):
affirming care for youth is probablythe most prominent one that they.
Go long on all the time.
Um, and the treatment that they'reattacking has been endorsed by every major
American Medical Association in existence.
Um, it's endorsed by numerousinternational boards, you know, um, the

(01:45:25):
French government just came out basicallyand said the affirming approach is.
The correct one.
Um, so you have this laundry listof just the biggest medical experts.
In the world basically sayingthis is the, the right treatment.
And then you have like a handful of crankdoctors on the other side saying, well,

(01:45:45):
no, no, we think there's an issue with it.
And the New York Times gives both ofthem equal weight or sometimes gives
the crank doctors even more weight.
It reminds me a lot of the climatechange debate, um, which they, I
think pretty much did the same thing.
Um, but I, I'll say thisabout the New York Times.

(01:46:07):
I think that they, more than any othernews organization did more to take, uh,
transphobia from a fringe right wingposition to making it this hotly contested
political issue that we have now.
Um, and bringing by bringing it
into polite, liberaldiscourse essentially, right?

(01:46:28):
Correct.
Yeah.
And I would say hypingup hysteria, uh, in.
Communities, like wealthier suburbancommunities that, uh, per, you know,
about this being some sort of thingthey'd have to worry about with
their child that it's spreading.
So, so, um, uh, like, almost likethey portrayed it as like, as it's an

(01:46:54):
infection or something like that, right?
Yeah.
Um, and it's crazy because in 2022.
We saw the Republicanstry to run on transphobia.
Mm-hmm.
And they did not do wellin that election cycle.
But I, it's hard for me to assess ifit's just like kind of Trump and his
force of personality or if it's whatyou described this like normalization

(01:47:19):
of transphobia by these elite mediainstitutions, or, it's probably both.
Yeah.
Uh, I do think that the trans athleteissue more than any other is the most
difficult for the left to counter.
Um, I, you know, I've written about thatissue more than probably any of the others
in my career, but that's also becauseI have a degree in sport management.

(01:47:41):
I was an athlete growing up myself.
Um, I have an inherent interest in it.
Uh, people forget.
I also have two cisgender daughters.
Um, so.
I can see all sides of this issue, andmy focus has always been on the science
and I, I don't think people have agrasp on the science of trans athletes.
I'm not gonna sit here and recite itback to you now because it would take

(01:48:05):
too long, but I wish that sciencewould lead on the trans athlete debate.
Instead of like this gut feeling,quote unquote common sense that we
get, um, from conservatives and a lotof quote unquote conserved liberal.
Well, I mean, it's, frankly, it's a gutfeeling because it's just this like old

(01:48:28):
adage about protecting little white girls.
Yeah.
That you'll see across, uh, you'llsee in historical portrayals of
indigenous Americans, of black Americansand their threat to white women.
I mean that like, what, what's her name?
The fifth place?
Idiot swimmer.
Oh, Riley.
Riley Gaines.
Riley Gaines.
Like that.
That's what she's invoking.
Um, and.

(01:48:49):
That when people say that's theirgut reaction, it's like, have
you ever seen ba, especially prepubescent kids playing sports?
Yeah.
Like there is no, there isnothing you need to worry about.
And if these trans girls get their genderaffirming care in the way that they
need, none of this is gonna be an issue.

(01:49:10):
It wouldn't even be an issue without that.
But it's solved just bytrans care immediately.
But they, but then those same folks aredisinterested and skeptical of transcare,
right?
It, it, it's really interestingthat, uh, when they're making a
medical argument, it's this, uh, likehorribly irreversible, permanent.

(01:49:33):
Drastic change, but, uh, when itcomes to trans athletes, transcare
doesn't do anything actually.
Yeah.
Um, they're talking outtaboth sides of their mouths.
Uh, and I mean, I've seenmy own athletic performance.
Uh, it, it dipped dramatically.
I was a runner when I transitioned,although, um, I haven't been able to
run since Covid, since getting Covid.

(01:49:54):
Um, and my times.
It took an immediate dipwhen I started estrogen.
Uh, it, that's unscientific.
Like there wasn't anybodystudying the before and the after.
It was just my anecdotal report.
But every trans person I know that wasan athlete before will tell you this.
Um, so to us it's commonsense to everybody else.
It's like, you know, thesemen who think that they're.

(01:50:16):
Physically superior to all women.
It's the same people who thinkthat if they played Serena Williams
in a tennis match, that theycould win up and play off of her.
And it's like, no, you,you're not going to.
Right.
Right.
You just overestimate your own abilities.
It's like the guys who think thatthey can wrestle a bear and win,
it's like, no, you would die.
Um, and, and as we wrap up, Caitlin, Iguess that that part of it is really.

(01:50:40):
Um, I think important for peopleto just think about the, the
overfocus in particular ontrans women versus trans men.
Can you talk a little bit aboutwhat conservatives, why they're
fixated particularly on trans women?
Yeah.
I have my own theories, but yeah.
What, what's your assessment?

(01:51:01):
Um, I think it's easy.
And girls, I should saytrans women and girls.
Yeah.
I, I think that they.
It's easy to demonize the appearanceof a trans woman, especially somebody
like me who transitioned a little older,um, and maybe doesn't pass as well.
I think it's easy to portray usas this grotesque other when in

(01:51:24):
actuality where you're next doorneighbor, you know, we're the.
Best player in your video game lobby.
Sorry.
It's true.
Um, you know, we, weuse your grocery store.
We, you know this, that Icould go into everything.
We are your neighbors.
Um, but it's very easy inan online setting to go.

(01:51:46):
You know, they could take my worst selfie.
And believe me, I'vetaken bad ones who hasn't.
And say, look at this person.
You believe that is a woman.
And it's very, very easyto radicalize folks.
And I think that's why there'sso much focus on trans women.
Um, and the thought thatI'll leave you with is this.
The arguments for trans rights.

(01:52:08):
What, in other words, what transpeople are asking for from society
haven't changed in 50 years?
Um, I found a speech the other dayfrom like the 1974 St. Christopher
Street rally of a famous trans woman.
I apologize her, her name escapesme off the top of my head.
Um, it's the, y'allbetter quiet down speech.

(01:52:29):
If, if you're LGBT, youprobably have heard of that.
Uh, but.
She's talking abouttrans people in prisons.
She's talking about how the f you know,gay and trans people can't find housing.
Gay and trans people can't find work.
And those are the same issues thatwe've been asking for, you know,
the same rights that we've beenasking for for the last 50 years.

(01:52:51):
So there's this sense on theright that I think pervaded.
Unquote Normy Society that,oh, trans rights went too far.
And my counter is, is I think youall became way more obsessed with
us because what we're asking forhasn't changed in all of that time.
I think that.

(01:53:11):
You all just needed somebody elseto focus on once gay marriage
became the law of the land.
Yep.
Um, Senate Twink a great name, right?
It's in Sylvia Riviera Rivera.
Uh, I think it's excellent.
Thank you.
I mean, one of the things I've seenis the thing about passports and
the, and gender markers on passports.
And there was a trans woman whohad applied for her new passport

(01:53:33):
and she had fully transitionedand had her F on the passport.
And then she got her passportand they said, we corrected it.
Uh, and turned your, turned your F backto an M. She did a social media video
about it, and the ACU, I think, hastaken on the case for just that idea of
like, And, as she says, and I think thisis such a complicated issue, but please
talk about this, She presents as a woman.

(01:53:54):
So if you're not gonna make her go to themen's room, it doesn't make any sense.
First of all, this entire administration'spolicy is premised on the idea
that every aspect of life has tobe sorted based on our, you know,
cell size at the time of conception.
So the idea that if you have a large cell,you produce a large cell at conception,

(01:54:16):
therefore you're a female and you go tothe And if you have a small cell, you're
male, we don't order the world that way.
It's not like people are walking aroundbeing like, Oh yeah, let me go to the
small cell bathroom and then, you know,doing genetic testing at the door.
Because of course, nothing is binaryin that way, including, you know, the
breakdown of any aspect of, of sex.

(01:54:38):
And the reality is, is we live in.
Move through the world with a selfdetermined sense of our sex with that.
That's what happens.
There's there's not guards at the bathroomdoor and and they're trying to enforce
this idea that they alone can control whatit means to be a man and what it means
to be a woman on federal identificationin restroom uses in public buildings in

(01:55:02):
In sports and health care and how eachindividual and each individual family
understands their bodies and and that is adangerous thing to see to the government.
And the more we see that, the more wegive them the type of surveillance and
control over our bodies that allowsthem to build the type of government
that they want, which is where theyare singularly powerful and our

(01:55:23):
rights as individuals are diminished.
I would imagine you're hearing storiesfrom trans folks around the country about
how this is impacting their life now.
Is there any stories you could sharewith us that you're hearing about
from people around the country?
I mean, it's I mean, I can't even tellyou it's so it's so many stories and
I'm, you know, first as each of theseexecutive actions with the health care,
you know, I'm hearing from what's soheartbreaking is I got so many message

(01:55:47):
from from 18 year olds who are like,I was waiting and waiting until I was
a legal adult so I could go out andhave control over my body over my life.
And they canceled my doctor's appointmenton the way to the doctor because of
this executive order, or parents whohave, you know, their kid has been so
distressed about the onset of puberty,and they've only ever been known in

(01:56:09):
the world as a girl, but were assignedmale at birth, and they were on the
way to the doctor to get the care thatthe parents and the doctors and the
young person all agree was essential.
And then care is shut down.
And families who already relocatedfrom a state where their care
was banned moved to another stateonly now to have the care band.
Again, I mean, these storiesare are just so devastating.

(01:56:32):
And then with with identification.
I mean, for me, I've had anM on my driver's license, my
passport for a very long time.
And the idea of me having toleave the country with a document
that classifies me as female.
Um, and when you're traveling abroad,you use your passport for everything.
You check into a hotel, you,you turn over your passport.
So it would, in essence, announce inevery interaction, you know, both with

(01:56:56):
private citizens and with governmentofficials that, that you're trans.
Then they, you know,and it brings suspicion.
It creates instability.
And, and that's what people are.
And that's what I'm fearful about is,is to be forcibly, um, misidentified
by the government and then to haveto carry that around, not just
domestically, but around the world.
And, and, and I think people arevery, very scared, which is why, you

(01:57:18):
know, we're taking legal action in thecontext of passports, in the context
of healthcare, uh, in the context ofschools, because we need people to feel
like they can exist in the world safely.
And, and, and if, if litigation isone way to show people that we're
fighting back, then that is whatwe're going to continue to do.
Yeah.
And we've talked about this alittle bit, but I'd love for you
to sort of even go a little furtherabout how the Trump administration,

(01:57:42):
some middle aged comedians, uh,have made it seem like trans is
separate from all other categories.
So you can't be, you can't beblack and trans or trans is
you can't, trans is just trans.
It's not.
Poor and trans.
It's not rich in tra like, youknow, in that that there's just
this category of people called transor separate from the rest of us.
Can you talk about how thoseintersections actually do impact

(01:58:05):
the trans people's identity?
Yeah, I mean, I do think there'sthis way to try to exceptionalize
trans existence in an and, and ithappens in a number of different ways.
It's sort of this idea thattransness is so foreign that you
can't ground it in anything elsethat we might considered human.
Um, but then of course, that's sodisconnected from, from reality.
Uh, where obviously there's, you know,there's unhoused trans people, there's

(01:58:27):
disabled trans people, there's blacktrans people, there's trans immigrants
and all, you know, there's trans peoplein all communities and Al always, there
always have been across, you know, all ofhistory and they, there is this effort to
sort of cast transness as this new and,and, and, and weird and unsettling thing.
But, but transness has, has alwaysexisted and, and simply mocking.

(01:58:51):
trans people doesn't make us any lessreal and make us any less part of,
of all, uh, all these communities.
And at the end of the day, what all ofthis reflects from the government policies
to comedians fixating on trans peoplewith basic jokes that aren't even funny
is that the, there's an anxiety about,uh, sort of the malleability of, of the

(01:59:15):
gender binary, the idea that there are.
So many ways that we can be, you know,more than just, uh, sort of how we
think of men and how we think of women.
And that causes people a lot of anxietybecause it does remind us that the
world is more expansive than we're told.
And with that freedom comes a lotof questions for people about,
well, what, what am I supposed todo with all of that possibility?

(01:59:38):
And so I think the reactionis to try to make people.
smaller.
Um, and that happens by suggestingthat trans people are so anomalous.
But another thing I think is important isthe very same ways that trans people are
cast as dangerous or weird or differentthan other historically oppressed groups,

(01:59:58):
that every iteration of discriminationlooks precisely the same way.
Gay people, also, we don't wantyou in our, that, you know,
the same stories were told.
We don't want gay people in the lockerroom because they will sexualize us.
We don't want gay people in the military.
We don't want gay people to be teachers.
That was Anita Bryant's campaign.
And then, you know, we moved onfrom that, sort of, and put the

(02:00:18):
hatred on, on, on trans people.
But, and then, you know,historical oppression and anti
blackness takes the same form.
It's the same story over and over again,suggesting each time that it's new.
And it's not.
It's never new.
It's always the same.
Um, but what was surprising to mewas the ways in which Justice Barrett

(02:00:39):
so easily piggybacked onto that withthis idea that like, wait a second,
you're telling me trans folks havefaced discrimination historically?
Get out!
Well, I'm that out!
What?
What?
I don't know if trans peoplesuffer the kind of discrimination
that the Blacks did.
I mean, Jesus

(02:01:00):
Christ.
Is there a history ofde jure discrimination?
And if so, can you explain it to me?
I, which, I mean.
They did.
Yeah, Chase was like,
uh, cross dressing bands.
Have you heard of them?
And she literally was like, Oh,well, gee whiz, I didn't even
know that such logs existed.
Like Jesus Christ, Amy, you're onlysitting on the bench about to rule

(02:01:23):
on one of the most historic casesfacing trans people in history.
You don't think you could have takensome time to read any of the 7, 000
amicus briefs that were filed insupport of LW's position talking about
the ways in which these bands will be.
It will be expanded to reachthings like cross dressing.
I mean, how do you, how do you siton the bench and ask that question?

(02:01:46):
But she
is exactly the kind of justicethat the conservative legal
movement wants to continue to,uh, you know, sort of bring up.
Like I made this point on bluesky, which by the way, so fun.
Thank you for bringing me over there.
But blue sky, I was like, this iswhy conservatives pursue things like.
Book bans, right?

(02:02:06):
Like, um, control over curriculum,abstinence only, like the lack of
knowledge and particularly historicalknowledge drives present day policy.
So if you control thehistorical narrative, you
control the legal narrative.
And that's what Amy, uh, ConeyBarrett was showing in her

(02:02:28):
ignorance on the bench today.
But it's like, where isthe historical narrative?
They don't even understand the historicalnarrative because apparently, Sonia
Sotomayor is like the only justice who'sever read the goddamn Federalist Papers.
Federalist Paper number 10, to be precise.
Oh, we're going to talkabout Jimmy Madison?
Like For fuck's sake,
look, I don't want to sit here andhave to quote these old white wig,

(02:02:50):
wig wearers of yore, like that'snot my jam, but this falls squarely
into what James Madison, y'allconservatives love James Madison, right?
We don't leave the rights of theminority to the tyranny of the majority.
That's just, that's basic federalistpaper number 10 101, right?
And, and trans people are 1percent of the population.

(02:03:11):
Sonia Sotomayor pointed this out.
Trans people are 1percent of the population.
How is it that they are going to, they'regoing to, they're going to somehow, uh,
be protected by the democratic process?
Right.
But they want to just send,just send the issue back to
the people's representatives.
The democratic processwill take care of it.
Well, as Sonia Sotomayor pointed out, it,it took, it took judicial intervention

(02:03:33):
to protect black people who are about 13percent of the population to protect women
who are about half of the population.
So what the hell are transpeople who are 1 percent of
the population supposed to do?
Where's the political power that theyhave accrued over the years, right?
It doesn't, it's just nonsense.
And it's, it just, it's such bad faith.
Right.
It's just such bad faith.

(02:03:54):
I got to say, and again, apoint that I made on, on social
media, Justice Sotomayor soundedweary in today's arguments.
Not like unhealthy weary,but just tired of this shit.
Right.
And at the same time was one ofthe most effective and forceful.
advocates for trans folks andtrans kids in particular that I've

(02:04:18):
heard from anybody in a positionof power in a long, long time.
And it was refreshing and I can'teven imagine what that must have
been like for trans folks who arelistening to the arguments because she
just straight up wasn't having any.
of it today.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I mean, this is who sheis on the bench, right?

(02:04:40):
She ties these vaunted legalprinciples, these constitutional
principles to real life consequencesto what people are going to face.
How is this going to affect actual people?
Not just some sort ofchin stroking exercise.
That's a lot of theseconservatives seem to want to have.
And just as sort of wary.
or weary as Sonia Sotomayorsounded, Jackson sounded like a

(02:05:04):
combination of like beast mode andalso extreme frustration, right?
Like real frustrated with Tennessee'slawyer for just being a jackass, right?
And refusing to see clear connectionsbetween, you know, SB1, this, this
gender affirming care ban and Loving v.
Virginia.
Am I right?

(02:05:25):
Right.
Oh, yeah.
No, this woman ate her Wheaties today.
She was sounding the alarm on the factthat Tennessee was putting forward
arguments that would upend almost allof equal protection jurisprudence.
She came into this argument clearlysuspect and then saw they were going for
it and was like, guys, what the fuck?

(02:05:45):
Like.
And you can hear it in her voice, youlike, but why, what are you talking about?
I don't understand what you mean.
No, that's not what you've been arguing.
You've been saying this.
I mean, it was very, she was reallygoing back and forth with the lawyer
and the lawyer was just kind of like,almost like, I don't know, like the
conservative is going to rule in my favor.

(02:06:06):
Why do I need to even make sense?
Right.
Right.
Great.
No, I mean, he, you know, hedidn't have to think about it.
And the reality is, is that JusticeJackson is the deepest constitutional
thinker we have on the bench right now.
The fact that she came into thisargument and was immediately able
to make the equal protection analogybetween what Tennessee is trying to
do here and in Loving versus Virginia,which is the interracial marriage case.

(02:06:31):
And basically she said, look, Tennessee,it sounds like Virginia could have gotten
away with its anti miscegenation ban ifthey had just classified it differently.
And Tennessee was like, yeah, probably.
Right.
And, and, and Tennessee, youknow, wants to classify this law
as an age classification, right?
It's preventing.
Minors from using puberty blockersor wants to say, well, even if it

(02:06:53):
is a, even if kind of, even if itis a sex based classification, it
discriminates, discriminates againstboys and girls equally, right?
Because neither can use puberty blockers.
And Jackson's point is.
Well, you could say that the antimiscegenation laws discriminated
against white people and blackpeople equally because it
disallowed them marrying each other.

(02:07:14):
But the point is, it's still aracial classification, right?
The point is, the gender affirming careban is still a sex based classification.
Even if there is some other component,the fact that it's sex based, the
fact that in loving it was race based,that triggers heightened scrutiny.
That just makes sense.
And the Tennessee lawyer was like, no,well, and then shot, you know, started

(02:07:37):
making analogies with morphine andeuthanasia and really degrading just
the level of care that is just degradingtrans people, degrading their lives,
to create degrading what they need inorder to live full, successful lives.
And what is so important and whatwas so smart about what Justice
Jackson was doing in arguments todayis that it really exposed the lie

(02:08:02):
or the truth, depending on how youlook at it, behind the Tennessee ban.
And, you know, that is that Tennesseeis insisting that this, that the
purpose of the ban is, you know,A medical classification ban.
It's not sex based.
It's dependent on the care, right?
That's a tell though, because tomake the argument, Tennessee has to
say that gender affirming care isnever medically indicated, right?

(02:08:24):
That there is no, since there isno case where puberty blockers,
for example, for the purposes oftransitioning would be allowed.
That's the same argumentconservatives make with abortion.
We saw in Tala, we see it allover the place that abortion
is never medically necessary.
In other words, neitherabortion nor gender affirming

(02:08:46):
care are healthcare period.
Full stop.
If you ask conservatives
and they, they have such disdain forgender affirming care, that they're
even willing to go outside the countryto find other countries who have.
similar disdain for gender affirmingcare, like the UK, for example, is
become just like turf central, right?

(02:09:06):
Like, or gender critical.
Now they're calling it thegender critical movement.
And they put out this report, thecast report, which was referenced
multiple times during oral argumentsand the cast report, you know, there
are There's a, an organization calledTransactual that is made up of trans
people who basically debunked the CASTreport as having used a fatally flawed
methodology, as having recommended thingsthat would be harmful to trans kids.

(02:09:31):
It dismisses all clinical evidence abouthow trans people need this kind of health
care and the, the, One of the, the headsof transactual said that underpinning
this cast report is the idea that beingtrans is an undesirable outcome rather
than a natural facet of human diversity.
And if you keep that in the backof your mind, you can see why these

(02:09:52):
oral arguments went the way theydid, because they're not comfortable.
with even the idea of transness and keptwanting to liken gender dysphoria to just
having psychological problems, right?
Or like being mentally ill.
And we don't use this type ofmedical care for the mentally ill.
And it's just, I find it, I find itdisgusting, disgusting and distressing.

(02:10:14):
And I can only imagine what transpeople listening to this bullshit.
feel like after having tolisten to all this crap.
I just,
Absolutely.
And I, in Tennessee, the, you know, the,the guy from Tennessee was basically
arguing that, I mean, he said at onepoint that the, there is a state interest
in gender conformity and that existswell beyond blocking access to gender

(02:10:37):
affirming care for minors, gender.
Conformity and a state interest in thatis how you got cross dressing bans.
It's how you could be fired for being gay.
It is how women could not ownproperty in their own name.
Right?
Like that is when people saythat these are the canary in
the coal mine kind of cases.

(02:10:58):
That's precisely what we're talking about.
Last thing, on an entirelydifferent matter, and I ask because
Stonewall is in your district.
Um, I don't know if you've seenthis development from the Trump
administration or the response to it.
I have a statement here by New YorkState Senator Brad Hoylman Siegel on what

(02:11:20):
he describes as the decision to removereferences to trans transgender people
at the Stonewall National Monument.
And according to the senator, The Trumpadministration has decided to strike
the word transgender from the websitefor the Stonewall National Monument.
Did you know about that, and is thereanything, as, you know, the congressman

(02:11:43):
from Stonewall, as well as the restof your district, of course, um, If
there's anything you would do about it.
It's, it's despicable, Brian.
Um, and the way that this, uh, this Trumpadministration is essentially trying
to erase all diversity in our country.
Uh, it is attacking, uh,is misrepresenting DEI.

(02:12:08):
It is attacking diversity.
It is attacking the verygroups that create the dynamism
and fabric of this country.
Uh, it is true with Black history.
It is true with Asian American history.
And so we will continue to speak out.
And just as a matter of factual historyit's probably worth noting for some
people who don't know that history fromlong ago that there were some trans

(02:12:31):
individuals who were very prominentin the original Stonewall Uprising.
So it's not like it was gratuitouslyput in there for any reason.
There were individuals who werecentral, uh, To, to that day and
those days, and they're taking thatidentity out of the And I will just say
Brian is Lawyer's website apparently.

(02:12:52):
Yeah, it's an attack on transgenders,but it's an attack on all of us.
And we all need to uniteagainst this disgusting hate.
Against transgender and everyone else.
And I take it personally, when theygo after the transgender community,
which is a vulnerable community.
People trying to live theirown lives as they want to.

(02:13:14):
And the government is trying to comein under Donald Trump and tell people
how they should live their lives.
It is the same.
exact thing as they're doingwith reproductive freedom.
They're trying to be inour, uh, doctors offices.
They're trying to be inour places of worship.
They're trying to be in our, uh,community centers and cultural centers.

(02:13:35):
It's despicable and it's anti American.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
And, and what we're seeing too, and, anda OC made this point, like, how do you
enforce a bathroom, a bathroom ban, right?
Are there gonna be police outsidebathrooms, sort of inspecting genitals?
How to use enforce the sports band, right?
Are we inspecting people's genitalia?
But then what we're.
Seeing in real time empirically isthat there are gender police, trans

(02:13:58):
investigators, um, saying, oh, I thinka man, man just went into the bathroom.
And we see, um, many cases onTikTok where usually women of color
have been accosted in bathrooms.
You are a man, you shouldn't be in here.
And they're not men,they're not even trans.
They don't identify as trans.
Um, they're just cisgender womenwho are trying to use the bathroom.

(02:14:20):
So these, what, what, what we know,um, is that these anti-trans laws a,
um, affect all women in negative ways.
I mean, the Imani Klif situationat the Olympics last year, I mean,
there's so few trans athletesthat we have to invent them.
That was.
So incredibly shameful in how, you know,the, um, JK Rowlings and Trumps continue

(02:14:45):
to assert that she's, um, trans and she'snot, is sort of an indication if there's
a certain kind of, but then that againis linked to a certain kind of, um, white
supremacist delusion that, um, wantswomanhood to be a certain kind of woman.
Yeah.
And also.

(02:15:05):
But it's linked to capitaland, and, and rates.
Yeah.
I I would add
that the way I think, I mean, whatyou're talking about, uh, to just go
further in that, that connection is,you're talking about control as if
we're talking about a piece of property.
Yeah.
And, and, and ultimately this is a,a property Right, that goes along
within the context of that hierarchy.

(02:15:25):
Uh, and you know, we don'thear that much about trans men.
In the context of, of,of, of these things.
And I think that is, uh, a part ofthe conscious effort by, you know,
sort of like making it clear, um,when we put people in front of the,
uh, the women's bathroom becauseof it, because we're protecting our

(02:15:49):
property, women's bodies, essentially.
We have the ability to inspect it.
And that inspection alsosort of edifies the idea.
This is our property.
I would inspect it is we wouldinspect any other goods that are,
uh, you know, traveling across statelines or, uh, you know, uh, and
this all, I think, uh, uh, ties in.
I mean, I think there's no doubtthat the, um, this, the, the use of

(02:16:14):
this by the right is, was in partdistracting, but really ultimately
to feed in and essentially fire upthose cylinders from an easy entrance.
From their perspective in sortof like triggering that notion of
hierarchy and triggering that, thatnotion of patriarchy, which both

(02:16:37):
functions within the context of, ofChristian nationalism and within the
context of, of, of, of capitalism.
Because, you know, you, I justremember like, you know Paul
Ryan with that fake story aboutthe brown and bag lunch of kids.
And, and, and the, the whole push inthat era of Republicans to talk about

(02:16:59):
rich people as being morally righteousand poor people not being, I mean,
this is why Donald Trump was able toget on that stage with eight other
Republicans and completely blow them awaybecause George Bush had set the table.
We need a CEO presidency.
The idea of moral righteousness beinga function of how much money you have.

(02:17:20):
Uh, you know, so who's gonna argue withDonald Trump definitionally everything
he says is correct because he's, uh, youknow, a supposed billionaire and that.
That, that's where it begins to tie in.
It's no coincidence that, you know, Kingswere there because God said they could be.
They were the sort of thefirst stop on the hierarchy.

(02:17:41):
They also had all the money.
Yeah.
And, and that's where this all sort of,I think sort of like it, it combine.
So I. Um,
yeah, I had, I was on the view, um,promoting my, my new show, clean Slate,
currently streaming on Prime Video.
Well, I wanna talk about that too,
but,
but on, when I was on the View, I, I,I, I said that, um, we're, um, they're,
they're focused on the wrong 1%.

(02:18:03):
That it is not trans people who are,are the reasons for the price of
eggs and that we can't, you know,housing prices are through the roof
and people can't afford healthcare.
Trans people are not the reason.
There is another 1%, um, that isresponsible for that and that.
I think for, I think part thedamage, so much damage is being done.

(02:18:27):
And you've, you've spoken about thisacross the board on so many levels that,
that it's gonna be really hard to undo.
But I think on a messaging level,on a cultural level, um, for people
who claim to be allies, people whoare, you know, liberally or in the
Democratic party are left aligned.
What I would really suggest is, um, is.

(02:18:50):
Embarking on a rehumanizing projectand, and setting that agenda instead of
reacting to one that we, you know, that,that, that, that everyone does ultimately,
like some of these, um, anti-trans lawstoo, were also a response to states, uh,
state legislatures including trans peopleand civil rights protections in states.

(02:19:12):
Right.
That literally was what, whathappened in North Carolina.
But so, so we have to.
Change rehumanize trans people.
We, and, and that is about language.
When we use words like, um, chemicalcastration, mutilation of children,
um, surgeries on trans, all of thatlanguage is false and it's dehumanizing.

(02:19:34):
So we have to, and I don'twanna be language policed.
And I think that like it's, we get reallytricky around like, you know, people
feeling censored, but language matters.
And, and for me, I think.
Thinking about whether thislanguage is dehumanizing or not.
I mean, it was really clear whenTrump said they're eating the
cats, they're eating the dog.
But that was dehumanizing.

(02:19:55):
But when, um, um, Rand Paul or um, orJosh Hawley says, you know, um, they're
mutilating, um, and chemically castratingchildren, that language is dehumanizing.
And it redu and it re because it reducesus to procedures and medicalization and.
That of human beings.
There was a recent, um, um, bill in,uh, two bills in Montana that one

(02:20:18):
would ban, um, drag all together.
And another one, I forget it was VanessaAnti-Trans Bill and Zoe Zephyr, um, got
up and made this impassion speech and.
Another, then a Republicanwoman stood up in support of her
and they overturned this bill.
And I think part of it is that they, theselegislatures and legislators in Montana

(02:20:42):
know Zoe, uh, and, and work with her.
And most Americans don'tactually know a trans person.
They've met her child.
Um, she is human to them, andthat is so much of the work.
And since most Americans don'tknow someone trans, the media is.
Really important in that, and that'spart of what I try to do with my work

(02:21:02):
as, as an, as an, as an artist, as anactress, as a documentary filmmaker,
et cetera, is it is to humanize usand invite people to see us as human
beings and not as these sort of.
Made up fictional characters that havecome to sort of ruin, um, humanity.
You've reached SectionC historical attacks.

(02:21:23):
And today we end In Europe,Hungary is witnessing massive
protests at the Prime Minister.
Victor Ban's government passed a sweepingnew law banning all LGBTQ plus pride.
Marches.
The law is being seen as the most damagingcrackdown on lgbtq plus rights in Hungary.
Now, while Orban claims the law willquote, unquote, protect children

(02:21:45):
from woke ideology, his critics arecalling it a systematic attack on the
rights of Hung East gender minorities.
Our final story has all the details.
Hungary, a country once known forits vibrant pride marches is now at
the center of a human rights storm.
Earlier this week, within a day ofintroduction, Hungary Parliament

(02:22:08):
passed a controversial law thatbans lgbtq plus pride events,
calling them harmful to children.
The passage of the bill sparked chaosinside the Hungarian parliament.
Where opposition lawmakers set off smokebombs and threw leaflets during the vote.
Amid chaos and a pro, the bill waspassed with a 1 36 to 27 majority

(02:22:35):
pride.
Marches have taken place in Hungary forthree decades, but under this new law, any
event that violates a 2021 ban on lgbtqplus content for minors is now illegal.
The violators will be fined up to $500.
Police will also use facialrecognition to identify offenders.

(02:22:56):
What is happening in thecountry is worrisome.
They're trying to take away more andmore from the Hungarian people what
is actually ours and our rights.
Hungarian's latest crackdown onlgbtq plus rights has drawn alarming
parallels to the suppression oflgbtq plus freedoms in Russia.
If Jenny ov a Russian living inHungary believes that in restricting

(02:23:20):
lgbtq plus freedoms, prime MinisterVictor oban is simply following his
Russian ally President Vladimir Putin.
It's quite terrifying, to be honest.
'cause we had the same in Russia.
It was building up step by stepand this is what's, I feel like
this is what's going on here.
Uh, I'm not surprised that VictorOrban doesn't have any regional ideas.
He only hoping, uh, Putin or Trump.

(02:23:42):
Uh, but it's really terrifying.
I just only hope that there will bemore resistance like this in Hungary.
'cause in Russia, we didn't resiston time and now it's too late.
Ban's party was instrumental ingetting the new ban passed and the
Hungarian Prime Minister has vowedto protect his country's children
from what he calls is wok ideology.

(02:24:06):
A tone which is similar toOBA's closest ally in the west.
US President Donald Trump.
Trump and oban call themselves thecrusaders against woke ideology,
and they are both cracking down onrights of the LGBTQ plus community.
At the same time, human rights groupshave called the New Law a distraction
from the country's deeper problems.

(02:24:28):
As smoke lingers in the Hungarianair on Budapest's bridges and in
the Parliament, the message fromdemonstrators is loud and clear.
And engage art.
And engage art, and engage art.
Despite increasing restrictions,the lgbtq plus community and its
allies say they will not be silenced

(02:24:50):
for them.
This isn't just about pride.
It's about the right to be seen, tobe heard, and to exist without fear.
When the British were busy colonizing theworld between the 16th and 19th centuries.
They also exported their own lawsto the places they took over.
It was kind of like the restof the world were school kids

(02:25:12):
who had to play by their rules.
One of the laws they exported wasthe charmingly named Buggery Act of
1533, which was passed by Parliamentduring the reign of Henry VIII.
You know, the one with the six wives.
The Buggery Act did prettymuch what it said on the tin.
It banned male homosexuality andmade gay sex punishable by death.

(02:25:32):
But it didn't bother to ban lesbianism,probably because nobody really
thought about women at the time.
When the British Empire got going,the authorities were keen to
enforce their idea of moralityon the people they'd colonized.
They also wanted to make sure thatits soldiers and administrators
weren't tempted to shag eachother or their new subjects.
So they imported thisanti buggery law overseas.

(02:25:54):
Homosexuality was finally decriminalizedin England and Wales in 1967, but
not before the U. K. had done someextremely uncool stuff, like force
war heroes like Alan Turing toundergo chemical castration or throw
people in jail simply for being gay.
But although gay sex stopped beingillegal in the rest of the U.
K. by 1982, the laws that forbidhomosexuality are still in the penal

(02:26:17):
codes of many of our former colonies.
It's the reason why LGBTQ people incountries like Barbados, Pakistan, Guyana,
Kenya, Ghana, and Singapore, where I'mfrom, still don't have equality today.
Many of Britain's former coloniesdon't have histories of being
hateful towards LGBTQ people.
Basutu women in present day Lesotho,Africa, still engage in socially

(02:26:41):
accepted relationships with each other.
They call each other theirmotswale, or special friend.
Mwanga II, the 19th century king of whatis now modern day Uganda, had sex with
men until white missionaries broughtChristianity to his kingdom, and everyone
changed their minds about their gay king.
Britain literally exported hatred andhomophobia to the countries it colonized.

(02:27:04):
It's not like these laws justgathered dust in the wind.
They continue to be used againstLGBTQ people to this day.
Between 2010 and 2014, almost600 people were prosecuted under
Kenya's anti gay laws, accordingto official government figures.
In 2010, two gay men were sentencedto 14 years hard labor in Malawi

(02:27:26):
after being convicted of grossindecency and unnatural acts.
They attracted the attentionof the authorities after
holding an engagement party.
When the judge passed the sentence,he said he wanted to protect
the public from people like you.
In August 2018, 20 men were chargedwith illicit behavior after a raid on
a gay club in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

(02:27:47):
Uganda still actively persecutesgay people to this day.
In November 2019, policeraided an LGBTQ bar in Kampala.
dragging out at least 120 peopleand arresting them and throwing
them into the backs of vehicles.
Because institutional homophobia runsdeep in so many former colonies, some
countries have chosen to keep theseregressive laws in their penal codes.

(02:28:10):
In March 2020, despite the bestefforts of LGBTQ activists, a
court in Singapore ruled in favorof keeping homosexuality illegal.
Jamaica was once known as themost homophobic country on earth,
with gay people being lynched byangry mobs into the 21st century.
These days, we've mainly left itup to LGBTQ campaigners to sort out

(02:28:32):
the trouble that the UK left behind.
Would these countries be suchdifficult places for queer people
if it wasn't for the British?
Even former Prime MinisterTheresa May doesn't think so.
In 2018, she said she deeplyregrets the role that the UK had
to play in introducing these antigay laws to its former colonies.
It's a nice gesture,although extremely belated.

(02:28:56):
But saying sorry doesn't meananything to the people who've had
to live in fear and hiding allbecause of their sexual orientation.
Some sins you just can't apologize away.
And again, you know, to the pointthat the ambassador was making
earlier, all of this was takingplace without any legal recourse.

(02:29:17):
or any kind of protection.
So even if the community no longersupports you, there are no laws
that you can look to to defend you.
And, um, would you say that the homophobiaand the transphobia was part of the
totalitarian ideology of Nazi Germany?
And the second question, howis it used for Nazi propaganda?

(02:29:41):
So the Nazi state labeled many groupsas worthless and even subhuman.
And one could say more and more groups,the longer they were in power, so
anti Semitism, racism, homophobia,transphobia, the persecution of people
with disabilities of Roma and Sintibecame the foundation upon which

(02:30:04):
a racist German society was built.
So yes, homo and transphobia werecentral elements of the totalitarian
ideology in Nazi Germany.
The Nazis employed propaganda todivide society and promote the
belief of racial superiority bymarginalizing minority groups.

(02:30:29):
Propaganda framed homosexuality as athreat to the racial purity of the German.
And accusing someone of being homosexualwas also a way to discredit them.
Everyone knew that few peoplewould defend homosexuals.
And the Nazis made use of that.

(02:30:51):
So it could also be used by the Nazis tosilence any form of a, um, opposition.
If somebody was being problematic,this was another accusation that they
could potentially lay against theperson and isolate and remove them.
They did in politics, politicalopponents, military, the
churches, they used it many times.

(02:31:14):
How did the nature ofthis persecution change?
Persecution escalated quickly, so afterthe Nazis changed paragraph 175, in
1935, the police and Gestapo startedto target homosexuals, Systematically.
And in 1936, the Reich Central Officefor Combating Homosexuality and

(02:31:40):
Abortion was established, directlylinking the fight against homosexuality
with Nazi population politics.
So arrests became routine.
In 1940, SS leader Heinrich Himmlerordered that convicted homosexuals
would automatically be deported.

(02:32:01):
Two concentration camps after havingfinished the sentence in the prison.
And each year, strictermeasures were added.
Even castration was discussed.
So as the atmosphere closes in andbecomes increasingly terrifying, what was
the response from gay men and lesbians?

(02:32:23):
Did LGBTIQ people, sorry, IQplus people foresee the radical
persecution coming after 1933?
Tracey, this was a community thatwas just starting to find its way.
No one expected that something as simpleas address books or private letters

(02:32:47):
could become evidence against them.
So if you could have imagined thatthe country would transform so quickly
into a totalitarian state, that wouldeventually become The killing machine.
Most other communities didalso not foresee such a descent

(02:33:08):
into barbarism and evil.
So the exception were those whoalready had been directly attacked.
Many of them went into exile right awayto survive, but many others believed
or hoped that fascism would not last.
And how did the rest of German societyor to the matter other countries react to

(02:33:33):
the persecution of LGBTQIQ plus people?
I don't think that many people wereconcerned about what was happening
to homosexual and transgenderpeople in in Nazi Germany.
Many denunciations coming fromneighbors and from inside Germany
seem to have been motivated byproving loyalty to the Nazi regime.

(02:33:56):
And in many European countriesin the United States, they've
also lost discriminating againsthomosexuals and widespread prejudice.
So I researched, for example,whether homosexual men could escape
Nazi Germany by going into exile.
And one key requirement, as onesurvivor shared with me, was to

(02:34:18):
be very, very secret about yourorientation, your sexual orientation.
No one would have given you a visa.
The 1950s and 1960s saw therise of the term Lavender as
a code word for homosexuality.
Senator Everett Dirksen stated that aRepublican victory in the 1952 election

(02:34:38):
would mean the removal of Lavender Ladsfrom the State Department, and in 1969
Betty Friedan would comment on how theLavender Menace, meaning lesbians, would
destroy the credibility of feminists.
Therefore, titling this 20thcentury moral panic the Lavender
Scare is actually pretty fitting.
While the topic of same sex relationsmay have been glossed over or even a bit

(02:35:03):
taboo for most of American history, withsodomy laws dating back to the early
colonial period in the 1600s, the factis that most of these laws had not been
strongly enforced, and most did not evenspecifically target same sex relations.
It wasn't until the 20th century thatAmerican culture began to seriously
enforce sodomy laws and with thatcame additional risks for homosexuals.

(02:35:28):
This was likely magnified by the factthat homosexuality was becoming a subject
that the public was itself becomingmore aware of with the publication
of Alfred Kinsey's Sexual Behaviorin the Human Male published in 1948.
OK, with that background, let's look athow this manifested in the early Cold War.
On February 9, 1950, Senator JosephMcCarthy made his infamous claim of

(02:35:53):
having evidence of 205 known communistsworking at the State Department.
Eleven days later, he revisited theissue with a lengthy speech on the Senate
floor which offered more specifics.
It was in this speech that he made thelink between homosexuality and communism.
But this wasn't out of the blue, mind you.

(02:36:14):
Prior to McCarthy's statements, antihomosexual programs and laws were
already beginning to appear in America.
Beginning in 1941, the militarydischarged suspected gay men
with so called blue discharges.
In 1946, the State Department hadbegun more stringent security checks.
1947, the US Park Police beganthe Sex Perversion Elimination

(02:36:39):
Program, which targeted gay menfor arrest and intimidation, and
even labelled them as mentally ill.
This atmosphere of institutionalizedoppression towards homosexuals,
especially homosexual men, was anideal breeding ground for McCarthyism's
anxieties about communism to becomeenmeshed with fears about homosexuality.

(02:37:01):
McCarthy claimed that intelligenceofficials had told him that, quote,
Practically every communist is twisted,mentally or physically, in some way,
end quote, and it was from there thatMcCarthy made the logical jump that
because homosexuals were mentallyill, or as he put it, had peculiar
mental twists, That they were moresusceptible to communist recruitment.

(02:37:24):
There were also concerns thathomosexuals were more at risk for
blackmail by the Soviets, making thema greater risk for national security.
A week later, deputy under Secretaryof State, John Puro, the same
purify who would go on to beat USAmbassador Greece, and then Guatemala
revealed the firing of 91 homosexualemployees from the State Department

(02:37:46):
as they were deemed security risks.
And with that, the Lavender Scarewas officially off to the races.
Two government committees wereformed during this time to
investigate the issue of homosexualsemployed by the US government.
The first, which operated from Marchto May of 1950, was known as the Wherry

(02:38:06):
Hill investigation, and consistedof only two men, a bipartisan team
of Republican Senator Kenneth Wherryand Democrat Senator Jay Lister Hill.
Unfortunately, very limited records fromthis investigation have survived, but
we do know that they heard testimonyfrom the head of the DC Metropolitan
Police Department, Vice Squad LieutenantRoy Blick, who claimed that 5, 000

(02:38:31):
homosexuals lived in WashingtonDC and that 3, 700 of them were
employed by the federal government.
Figures, by the way, that appear to haveabsolutely no basis in fact, but were
highly reported by the media at the time.
Lt. Blick also claimed that since thecommittee had begun their investigation,
almost every agency of the governmenthad sent an official to him in order

(02:38:54):
to ask Blick about his knowledge of anyhomosexuals employed by their agencies.
Blick believed that around 100moral perverts had recently resigned
or been fired since the WherryHill investigation had begun.
The Civil Service Commission sentrecommendations to the Wherry Hill
Subcommittee on suggestions for aroutine procedure to rid the offices

(02:39:18):
of government of moral pervertsand guard against their admission.
These suggestions included arecommendation that all arrests
related to homosexual activityshould be reported to the FBI so that
the Civil Service Commission couldbe alerted, thereby ensuring that
all federal employees arrested forreasons related to sexual perversions

(02:39:38):
Could be removed from employment.
Both Senators wary and Hill believedthat this information meant that a
wider investigation was required.
And on June 7th, 1950, the Senateresolved to undertake a more
comprehensive investigation of thealleged employment by the departments
and agencies of the government ofhomosexuals and other moral perverts.

(02:40:01):
On the Senate's recommendation,the HOI Committee was formed a
much larger undertaking far fromthe two members of the Weary Hill.
This investigation had seven Senators andvarious other investigators and clerks.
Included on the committee wereChairman Senator Clyde Hoey, three
Democrat Senators, James Eastland,John McClellan, and Herbert O'Connor.

(02:40:23):
and three Republican Senators, Karl Mundt,Andrew Schoepel, and Margaret Chase Smith.
Senator McCarthy was on the subcommitteeoriginally, but ended up excluding
himself from the investigation,although he did periodically forward
information on suspected homosexuals.
to the committee.
The Hoey committee sent out questionnairesto all branches of the military as well

(02:40:45):
as 53 civilian departments and agencies.
Committee investigators also interviewedagency officials and summarized
these conversations in memoranda.
The agencies came out stronglyagainst the suitability of homosexual
employees in the federal government.
In Secretary of Commerce CharlesSawyer's response to the committee on

(02:41:06):
July 24, 1950, he said, The privilegeof working for the United States
government should not be extended topersons of dubious moral character,
such as homosexuals or sex perverts.
The confidence of our citizenry intheir government would be severely
taxed if we looked with toleranceupon the employment of such persons.
However, some responses took a slightlyless aggressive tone, including

(02:41:30):
this statement from Howard Colvin,Acting Director of the Federal
Mediation and Conciliation Service
Since it is possible, according toour understanding of medical and
psychiatric opinion on the subject,for a homosexual to lead a normal,
well adjusted life, we do not considerthat such a person necessarily

(02:41:51):
constitutes a bad security risk.
We believe that each such case wouldhave to be decided on its own merits.
Not exactly an endorsement of civil rightsfor homosexuals, but certainly a bit more
progressive a stance than most of thegovernment were expressing at this point.
However, many investigations beginto have greater and wider impacts.

(02:42:12):
Government employees could not even resignquietly without having the permanent tag
of possible homosexual on their record.
At the end of their investigation,the Hoey committee issued a report
entitled Employment of Homosexualsand Other Sex Perverts in Government,
which indicated, among other things,that during the three years of the
committee's investigation, close to 5,000 homosexuals had been detected in

(02:42:37):
the military and civilian workforces.
Additionally, the Hoey report alsoindicated that all the government's
intelligence agencies are in completeagreement that sex perverts in
government constitute security risks.
The report concluded that gay peopleshould not be employed by the federal
government because they were generallyunsuitable and constituted security risks.

(02:43:01):
In addition, it reported that gaypeople had a lack of emotional
stability, weak moral fiber, andwere a bad influence on the young.
The report warned that, quote,one homosexual can pollute a
government office, end quote.
This report would go on to be highlyinfluential in shaping government
security manuals for years afterthe investigation concluded.

(02:43:27):
the question that you hold here is,is, is, is, is critical and history
or herstory, as we like to callit is, Is something that the, our
movement, um, has been built on.
And to know history is and to know historyherstory is critical for, um, our movement
to not just only survive, but also thrive.

(02:43:48):
Um, this history is alsoin particular cri um, um.
Key for our movement because oftenwe think of our movement starting as
early as the 60s or as recently as the60s and 70s with the Stonewall riots.
But what Klaus and the work Joannahas shown is that no, in fact, our
movement building predates Stonewall.

(02:44:10):
We have always been here as a movement,and I think it's really critical
to mark that from the beginning.
Then I think for us, this relevance isto understand the roots of oppression.
I mean, as Klaus pointed out, the Naziera marked one of the darkest history,
darkest periods of history for LGBTIQplus people, particularly gay men and

(02:44:33):
trans people who were targeted underparagraph 175 of the general penal code,
where we saw thousands arrested andthousands sent to concentration camps
and forced to endure inhumane conditions.
And whereas this did not You know,end with the fall of the Nazi
regime, but continued for decadesafter, and many survivors were
then reprisoned post war as well.

(02:44:56):
Um, we look at the resilienceof the individuals who then
formed secret support networks.
Klaus mentioned the work of, uh, uh,Gerhard Gadbeck, um, and those who
survived even within concentration campsand worked covertly to protect others,
such as those that Klaus also mentioned.
And these acts of defiance were notjust about survival, but they were

(02:45:18):
about preserving their identity andhumanity against all overwhelming odds.
So here we're really talkingabout a recognition of resilience.
And these stories, um, strengthensthe LGBTI community's understanding
of its own resilience andcapacity to fight oppression.
And so we have seen this before.

(02:45:39):
We have been through this before.
And we will go through it again, sadly.
Right.
And we are going through it again sadlyin parts of the world where we see
the rise of the anti rights movement.
And so as a community, we will learn fromthis and how they have survived, as how
our ancestors and transcestors survivedthrough this, but how we will then also

(02:46:00):
thrive and rebuild from this as well.
So from this history, thisis what has actually shaped
modern LGBTIQ plus activism.
The pink triangle that Klausand Joanna also mentioned, and
that has been reclaimed as asymbol of resistance and pride.
You know, movements like ACT UP,which drew on this history to
fight against the AIDS crisis.

(02:46:22):
Um, slogans such as the lie, silenceequals death have been picked up by
the HIV and AIDS movement, by othermovements, by Um, movements, um,
are pushing back against currentconflicts going on around the world.
And this history is important toensure the, uh, to preserve and
prevent the erasure of LGBTIQ plushistories from mainstream narratives.

(02:46:47):
This is critical.
The work of Klaus that they havedone is very critical to ensuring
that preservation continues.
And this marginalization ends to theongoing struggle for recognition.
So, um, recent efforts have included,uh, classes where, you know, the
work that class has also doneand the perspective in Holocaust
remembrance, such as memorials, museumexhibits and scholarly academic work.

(02:47:11):
Let's just say that Joanna refers to.
Um, so remembering this historyis not just about past, but
it's shaping the future.
And ensuring that these voices areheard, but it's also relevant to the
current, um, um, context that we arefacing with over 110 conflicts going
on in the world and how LGBTIQ pluspeople are particularly vulnerable

(02:47:33):
during this situations, whether it'sin Syria, whether it's in Afghanistan,
whether we've seen the specific targetingin Chechnya right now in Russia, in
other parts of the world as well.
And therefore we canlearn from this history.
So documentation is key.
You know now, and this is howwe sort of build our resilience.

(02:47:53):
One of the key things and keyactivities we do as ILGA World is
work with human rights defenderswhere persecution continues.
Against our identities on how to documentthese crimes, and we've been able to
learn that from the past histories andbring this evidence to the forefront
and use it not just for archivesand a memory as a preservation, but
actually as a form of resistance andas justice for our communities as well.

(02:48:19):
So there, I think it's very important.
Um, and I think in terms of goingback at just one more point that,
um, Klaus mentioned was around thedeep roots within genetic purity.
We've seen this, many of this, uh,work and this press, this, um, acts of
crimes against us, uh, this preservationof society in particular around

(02:48:39):
eugenics, this sort of ethnical, uh,ethnic cleansing, it's, um, And this
denunciation or perception of homosexualscontinues to this very day, where someone
perceived of homosexuality is punished.
You know, if you're in, it was onlyup until recently, where if you
were not wearing the right typeitems of clothing, i. e. what is

(02:49:03):
considered masculine clothing, youcould be arrested on the streets.
You could be, you know, andthis sort of fear and perception
of homosexuality as well.
We also saw, you know, LGBTIQ plus people.
I think I'm perhaps, um, jumpingonto the next part, but what we're
actually seeing as well is, um, thissort of targeted, um, examples where

(02:49:27):
experiments were conducted on gay men inparticular to convert them and to, um,
um, see if conversion therapy can work.
And we still see that today.
We still see those continued practices.
We still see forced sterilization, asparticular against our trans siblings
across the world, who are forced to besterilized if they want to transition.

(02:49:51):
So this is something that Restarks remindsus what this is where it's deeply rooted
in, and that we are still facing this,and how it's spread and used across
other countries as well, especially withthe rise of the anti right movements.
Gosh, thank you so much Namu forelucidating so clearly, uh, why the
past matters, uh, and And for the LGBTIQcommunity today, both in terms of a

(02:50:19):
reminder of the resilience, uh, that,that is there, and that should serve as
an inspiration today as we go forward, andto also understand, you know, that this is
not the first time that one can recognize,obviously, and understand the differences,
as no history is ever identical, butto understand why it is important to
be vigilant for the signs, and, andso thank you so much for doing that.

(02:50:42):
A follow up question.
Why would anyone who doesn't identifyas LGBTIQ, why would they, why
should they care about this history?
What does it got to do with them?
Well, this is our history.
Yeah.
Um, and I'm, in my opinion, and thishistory or this history is to, is how
we can draw parallels from Um, otherpersecutions under the Nazi regime.

(02:51:07):
We've seen how, and Klaus and Joanne havetalked about how the same machine was
used to oppress LGBTIQ plus people todayand used against Jewish people, against
Romani people, Sinti people, peoplewith disabilities, as well as others.
Um, and understanding how the systemtargeted specific groups helps us see
the broader dangers of authoritarianismand unchecked prejudice and how

(02:51:30):
we must work to maintain the sortof balance and checks against.
Um, of power and how democracy today,which is under threat in many parts of
the world is integral to this, despiteits flaws that we know that democracy
is not perfect, but we know that thisis the one tool that we must preserve
to keep, um, Human universal humanrights, um, um, applicable to all.

(02:51:56):
And this, I think this is also clearthat there's a universality of human
rights that applies to all of us as well.
Um, and I think it's also back goesback to this idea of of impression that.
Talks about, for example, Naziideology talked about those who
were deemed a degenerate, unfit, andthat characterized a span of many

(02:52:17):
groups, and this is deep rooted ineugenics and a medicalized model.
And this continued today, evenin today's systems as well.
It was only until the late 90s wherethe WHO De pathologized homosexuality.
I mean, the word homosexual, as Klausrightly pointed out, comes from German,
comes from German psychologists.

(02:52:38):
And, and, the word that we, you know,and it, with the pathologization
that we needed to be fixed.
And, and we've seen this throughouthistory, again with conversion
therapy, but we're not justseeing it with homosexuals.
We're seeing this now withour siblings who are intersex.
We are seeing this now with our siblingswho are, are, are trans as well.
And these examples of medicalexperimentation on marginalized

(02:53:01):
groups, including LGBTI individuals,shows how these systems of oppression
can harm different populations.
We also have a historicalresponsibility again.
I think after the war, after theSecond World War, especially after
the Holocaust, we said never again.
But sadly, we see that we're stillStill not learning from those mistakes
and still crimes against humanity arebeing conducted, uh, being carried

(02:53:23):
out across the world with these110, uh, conflicts that are ongoing.
And then we still see alack of apology as well.
Very few countries haveapologized publicly and
openly to LGBTIQ plus persons.
Canada, UK, the USA, Germany.
And I think there are a few othersto mention, but very few as well.

(02:53:46):
And so when we talk about the importanceof this, it's stronger that we protect the
most vulnerable members of our society.
And how we must stand up for minorities.
I think it goes back to that, you know,that very, very famous quote of Martin
Niemöller, and it's been overused.
And I am, I'm sorry to those who knowthis, but you know, first they came

(02:54:08):
for the socialists, and I did not speakout because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the tradeunionists, and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didnot speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me and there wasno one left to speak for me as well.
And this is a stark reminderthat, you know, um, it goes
back, uh, how united we must be.

(02:54:31):
And I really liked, um, what, um,Klaus talked about population politics.
And this is really whatwe're facing today.
With the rise of the anti rightsmovement, we see, uh, abortion
rights, sexual reproductivehealth rights, feminist rights.
Um, Women's rights, all being attacked.
And these are the same rightsthat are being attacked that

(02:54:51):
are the same as LGBTI rights.
It's all comes down tobodily autonomy as well.
This is Section D stories.
This is Max Kuzma.
He's 33 and he lives in rural Ohio.
Max grew up in a veryconservative Catholic family.
There were like times when I was a childwhere it was time to go to church on
Sunday and they wanted to put me in adress and I was so opposed to it that

(02:55:14):
I actually tore the dress as a child.
Max voted Republican for most of his 20s.
I was.
Very conservative politically, Ivery much felt like I had to be a one
issue voter on a lot of things, kindof looking away and voting, like not
looking too deeply, just voting forthe thing that they kind of told me
to, to vote for and just moving on.

(02:55:36):
But in 2019, at the end of DonaldTrump's first presidency, Max decided
to transition.
I didn't just come out and be like, allright, everybody, I am now transitioning.
And now all my politicalviews are super different.
And like, everythingis completely changed.
I tried not to make it a bomb, but,uh, what ended up happening is that
like, when I talked to my immediatefamily, my parents, My mom's reaction

(02:56:01):
was, transgender is a political word,and kind of just hung up the phone.
Max
doesn't speak with his
parents anymore, and hehas lost a lot of friends.
But he's happy, and he feelstransitioning helped open his eyes
to what else was happening in the
country.
I really felt that when I transitionedthat I became political for the first
time and I think that my mom in away was right when she said that

(02:56:24):
transgender is a political word.
Not because transgender people inand of ourselves are an ideology or
anything like that, but because to be amarginalized person means that politics
are so much more important to your lifebecause it really tangibly affects you.

(02:56:45):
Max found last year's campaign hard.
It was very painful to experience theescalation of the anti trans atmosphere
and attacks that had been, already beengoing on, just to know that the, the Trump
campaign Spent more on anti trans ads thanthey did on almost any other strategy.

(02:57:05):
It's hard to believe, but it's true.
Even the liberal media was shocked.
Kamala supports taxpayer funded sexchanges for prisoners and illegal aliens.
Every transgender inmatewould have access.
Kamala's for they, them.
President Trump is for you.
I'm
Donald
J. Trump.
Now we are seeing the consequences ofall of that rhetoric in policies that

(02:57:27):
will actively harm transgender people.
On his first day in office, Trumpsigned an executive order, which said
that from now on, it will, quote,be the official policy of the United
States government that there areonly two genders, male and female.
The executive order requires, quote,government issued identification
documents, including passports,visas, and global entry cards,

(02:57:49):
accurately reflect the holder's sex.
Following up on that order, theSecretary of State, Marco Rubio,
ordered the U. S. State Department tofreeze all applications for passports
with ex sex markers and changes togender identity on existing passports.
My transition was already well underwaywhen the election results were announced,

(02:58:11):
but there were a few Legal thingsthat I hadn't fully buttoned up yet.
I had a court order for my namechange already from a judge, but I
hadn't gone through and updated everysingle federal document and all these
other things that need to be done.
And so, that was honestly myimmediate move, was to make sure
those things were buttoned up.

(02:58:32):
Max is now in limbo with some of thedocuments he didn't get sorted in time.
And he isn't sure what willhappen over the next four years.
Sitting on the sidelines as somebody whois a white man with a beard and a deep
voice, and knowing that I'm probablynot going to be the one who is attacked

(02:58:52):
when I'm trying to go to the bathroombut having to know and watch and hear
and see as the stories are inevitablygoing to come out about violence
towards the trans community happening.
That weighs really heavily on me.
I also am not currently married andso some of these changes, depending

(02:59:12):
on what happens with my paperworkwith my official documentation
or what happens with other laws.
That could impact my abilityto marry my partner, which
is something I wanted to do.
Despite his anxiety, Max has
hope.
I take a lot of hope from knowingthat trans people and LGBTQ people

(02:59:36):
firstly have, have been around foreverthroughout all of human history.
And also that We have faced challengeslike these before I have had to
find my own family, a found family.
I have had to learn how to engagein mutual aid and social action
that tie together solidarity amongstmarginalized people into resilience.

(03:00:02):
And it's that resiliency that isone of the most beautiful gifts
to me of the LGBTQ community.
And I know that it's that resiliency,which is what is going to sustain
those of us who have to gothrough these next four years into
whatever may come into the future.
I'm glad to hear you describe this asyour like Americana Western story because

(03:00:25):
I want to shout out how incredible thelanguage was throughout that novella,
it was all in this old timey vernacularand it gave such a clear picture of
the world that the characters were in.
It gave me such a clear picture insideBabe, the main character's mind.
The thing I was reallyinterested in was Stag Dance.
was how Babe came to understand hisfeelings about gender without having

(03:00:48):
any of the modern language that we have.
But even when there are no, youknow, available words for Babe to
understand his desires, he goes ondesiring to feel Feminine anyway.
In what ways does our languagearound gender today help people
to understand themselves?
And in what ways doesit fail at explanation?

(03:01:10):
Yeah, I mean that was actually part ofthe project of that story, is that I've
been, you know, talking about trans stufffor ten years, and in a lot of ways I
oftentimes feel That the language isossified, that actually it's, you know,
you hear a word like gender dysphoria andyou have a sense of what it means, but you
don't really have a sense of how it feels.
And in writing this book, I came acrossthis dictionary of logger slang, so

(03:01:34):
like a word for egg, for instance,might be cackleberry, like the hen
cackles and it lays eggs, which arelike berries that they can pick.
So they would say we'reeating cackleberries.
And so the language is totally strange.
And the project was partially.
Can I describe the feelings that Irelate to in language that's totally
alien to me, that's strange to me?

(03:01:56):
And I found that over the courseof the project, yeah, I could.
Actually because, again, the feelingsof like trying to get right with
yourself, the feelings of having desire,the feelings of frustration with the
body that you might have, these aren'tthings that you need, you know, a
degree in gender studies to talk about.
And they were actually almost fresher andmore easily available to me once I sort

(03:02:19):
of develop the cadence of this character'svoice where I could put it in weird logger
slang and I'd be like, Oh wow, that'sactually exactly how it feels for me too.
Even though obviously I wouldnever have said it in logger slang.
You mentioned that Babe is the biggest,strongest, ugliest person in the

(03:02:41):
entire Logging camp, there was a lot ofdiscussion of Babe's looks and Babe's
actually a mean nickname because youknow He's described as looking like
Babe the blue ox like Paul Bunyan'sox It hurt my heart a little bit every
time I saw you know, this characterrespond to that name But there's another
person at the camp who's also going tothe stag dance as a lady named Leeson

(03:03:07):
who's smaller prettier more feminine.
I understand that this is kind of taboo todiscuss, like who passes less naturally,
or as my producer, Liam, tells me, youknow, calling someone quote, unquote,
bricky, why was it compelling to youor interesting to you to explore that?
Well, one of the things I waskind of looking at is actually

(03:03:30):
what constitutes a transition.
In the logging camp, anyone who had abrown fabric triangle over their crotch
would go to the dance as a woman.
And that's like a very gendered symbol.
I oftentimes think of transition asyou're kind of putting on symbols because
a transition You know, I think in thesort of, like, dogma of, kind of, trans

(03:03:51):
thought, the idea is that, like, well,you declare yourself a thing, and then
you go out and kind of become that thing.
And that's not actuallyhow I see it working.
I think that oftentimes genderis actually a negotiation.
with all these people around us.
The dream is that you live in a societywhere you can just say, this is who I
want to be and everybody accepts you.
But in fact, they don't.

(03:04:12):
You're sort of negotiating with people.
And I don't just think that'strans people who are negotiating.
I think if you're a woman and you'relike, I want to be taken seriously
at the office, well, you might weara suit because that's a symbol,
you know, and it's unfortunatethat one would have to like, sort
of take on these gendered symbols.
In order to get respect, butwe're all constantly negotiating
that way, including trans people.

(03:04:33):
Whenever you decide that you're making atransition, you take on certain symbols.
And the thing is, those symbols, theydon't work equally for everybody.
The reality of the way that wetreat bodies in this moment is that.
Certain people could say, well, I'mgoing to transition, like the Leeson
character who's young and pretty.

(03:04:53):
He puts on a triangle,he goes to the dance.
Everyone is going to use shepronouns because they all want to
dance with the prettiest logger.
Well, when Babe shows up, there's noamount of symbols and makeup or anything.
That he could put on his body to havepeople agree to that negotiation.

(03:05:13):
And so there's a way in which certaintransitions become felicitous and certain
transitions don't become felicitous.
And for me, I wanted to write aboutit because it seems like something
that's actually very painful.
Within kind of queer liberation,you can say whatever you
want and that's what you are.
But pretending that's the case when peopleare actually in pain, when they're like,

(03:05:34):
no, nobody's treating this way, eventhough I'm doing it, it's a painful thing.
And it's something that'sdifficult to talk about.
And for me, those kinds ofstories work best in fiction.
I can create a logger and I canbe like, how might this feel?
What's this frustration like?
And when you say that your heartbreaks for that logger, every time
He calls himself ugly, that's thekind of empathy that I'm looking for.

(03:05:58):
I'm looking to generate that for readers.
That makes me think also about how,like in the 1960s and 70s, they
mostly let people who were thoughtto be people who could pass easily
get gender reassignment surgery.
You know, that also affects who weunderstand as trans historically.
Yeah.
And certain people.
Those symbols work on them even thoughthey're not trying to transition.

(03:06:20):
I know somebody who is a sort ofmasculine presenting woman who
is cis and considers herself cis.
She doesn't identify as trans.
And you know, she had an altercation inan elevator because somebody misunderstood
the ways that she presented herself.
You know, these are things that areoperative for all of us, all the time.
And I think it's why I sort ofsay that like, oh, this binary

(03:06:42):
between who's cis and who's trans.
I'm interested in kind of breaking it downand seeing how it works for everybody.
Well, I think the most obvious oneis you wouldn't see it as much like
thematically of them just beinglike, I am putting this together.
You see it more likeexternally kinds of like.
They're taking in their own lives.
Mm-hmm.
The most obvious one for me is our thirdchapter was about a black gender fluid

(03:07:02):
teen, a Micah in West Virginia who hadrecently been experiencing some pretty
grave depression, which was a surpriseto me because when I met Micah, I.
They're just such a force of nature inthis really larger than life personality.
Like just so big, so buoyant,so just lovely and full of life.
And one of the reasons I wanted them to bein this book was to showcase that, right?

(03:07:25):
Like, here's this person that just wasthis incredibly vibrant personality.
I was thinking like, wow, that'sa character that would just really
leap off the page, you know?
Mm-hmm.
Because if you meet Micah,you'll never forget it.
And I wanted to give readers like, youknow, someone they'll never forget.
And I, we still do get to that.
Micah is still all those things.
But at the same time, Micahwas experiencing a pretty
severe mental health crisis.

(03:07:46):
Hmm.
And that had to do with the fact thatfor years they'd had this dream of going
to NYU majoring in musical theater,and they sort of had this entire like
life plan mapped out for themselves.
But unfortunately, as sometimeshappens, they bombed their audition.
Mm-hmm.
Um, they had covid duringthe week of their audition.
I know, I don't know why they didn'treschedule, but that's another thing.

(03:08:09):
Mm-hmm.
Yeah.
They go with the authrough with the audition.
They're barely able to sing, very pitchy,you know, as, uh, Randy Jackson was
once says, and I think starts cryingduring like one of the numbers because
they know they're not doing well.
Like this is not going the way theythought it would because they, you
know, they just had this built upin their head for such a long time.
Mm-hmm.
And then seeing it actuallywas, was just soul crushing.

(03:08:30):
And of course theyended up not getting in.
Mm-hmm.
It was just kind of like,well, what is my life now?
Essentially, I was there as this likeyoung person, was really realizing
just how difficult life can be andthat your dreams don't always work out
for you in the way that you thought.
Right.
And it's like how?
Right.

(03:08:51):
How do you sit with this personas they're finally realizing that?
How do you tell them to like, it'sokay, you can still go leave the house.
You can, you know, thereare other dreams out there.
They were still figuring that outand they hadn't left the house
in like weeks, like months even,because it just had hit them so hard.
And Micah just wasn'tthe person that I knew.
Mm-hmm.
But, you know, through two and a halfweeks of me being there, have somebody.

(03:09:14):
To just like witness your painand like the grief and trauma
that you're going through.
I think that it wasn't anything I did,I think it was just my physical presence
because they had someone to share with.
Mm-hmm.
You know, to share.
And it wasn't like it was just themdoing it because, you know, they,
their family is there and supportiveand like trying, but their mom's busy.

(03:09:34):
You know, she has to work, theyhave their own stuff going on.
Mm-hmm.
Feel sometimes, like they can'talways make adequate space
for each other's struggles.
But here you had somebody whose job.
It was to be there for your struggle.
Mm-hmm.
And to talk about, yeah.
And that really made a big difference.
And sadly, not all kids get that.
Right.
Not all kids are gonna have thisreporter come to their home to listen

(03:09:55):
to them for two and a half weeks.
Yeah.
So I think for me, I hope that, youknow, seeing Micah and the journey
that Micah goes on during, you know,during the two and a half weeks we were
there, they ended up accepting, how doyou say it, the acceptance admittance.
Mm-hmm.
Um, to another call.
Um, that they've been goingthrough and doing great.
Okay.
Um, they, you know, theystarted leaving the house again.

(03:10:15):
They started volunteering withthe A-A-C-L-U of West Virginia.
Mm-hmm.
We went on tour, all these differentplaces that they might like, get a job
and, you know, it all ended up going okay.
But the thing is, is that it wentokay because they had an ally,
they had like support and mm-hmm.
Other kids need that, right?
Mm-hmm.
So for, don't have.
A private social worker to cometo their home or a journalist

(03:10:37):
for two and a half weeks.
You know, what can we do in localcommunities to make sure that they
do have access to those resources?
Mm-hmm.
You know, that can be pride groups, thatcan be like a local community center,
but again, not everybody has that.
Yeah.
Something I think is.
Great is that, um, there's this Alabamaorganization called the Magic City
Acceptance Center, and they have adiscord platform for L-G-B-T-Q youth

(03:10:59):
across the state where people can come,they can like build community, they
can just like vent if they need to, andespecially if they can't access that
in-person space, it means that theyhave a digital space that they mm-hmm.
And I just wish more queer youth andwherever they are, wherever they happen
to live, had something like that.
Mm-hmm.
Or even had an.
Community that would be evenbetter, just so that way they can

(03:11:21):
have these kinds of experiences.
I think we just forget like how impactfuland transformative small things can
be, especially when you're young.
Definitely.
I was just talking to someone aboutthis the other day, about having peer
spaces for trans and queer youth andhow important that is, and having the,

(03:11:43):
the, like you said, the mentors andthe allies to listen to them and, and
help them along in these journeys.
Like if you, if you don't have a, youknow, live in social worker for, with
you for two weeks and, and the demand fordigital online virtual services because.
You know, like in Houston where I am, weare so lucky to have a community center

(03:12:05):
that has an in-person youth group, andI'm not sure if they have the discord.
They probably do, but not everybody hasthat, and so I. That, that's something
that I know parents struggle with totry to find that space for their kids.
The parents who recognize like, my kidsneed something else besides me to, to,
for me to talk to, they need some, athird person, a third party, to, to

(03:12:26):
hear them and to, to get advice from,you know, something that struck me when
you were talking about Micah's story,just thinking about how universal that
is of this either unfulfilled or Iguess shattered dreams or just this.
Oh, it just, my heart hurt when youwere talking about I'm clutching
my, my chest in thinking about justwatching someone grow up in a way, in

(03:12:51):
real time and, and recognizing thatthose things don't always come true.
And I would, I would hope thatthat kind of thing resonates.
With a very wide audience and not justsomeone who is, or, or, or maybe a
reader, an audience who's looking tolearn more about trans kids, but just
like, here's what teens are going through.
They have to learn these really hardlessons and kind of grow up right in

(03:13:17):
front of your eyes, which is heartwrenching and beautiful in a way.
I guess just watching that process,I'm wondering if there were any.
Themes that you saw with the eight kidsthat, that you talked to and followed?
Anything overarching?
No.
And that's what's cool about the bookis that one of the things that made this

(03:13:37):
book so hard to pitch is that publishersdidn't understand what it would be.
Mm-hmm.
And that all of the kids have suchdifferent stories from each other.
Like people wanted this ideathat I'd be really like drawing
out connections and making.
Like, you know, bigger proclamationsof like, oh, these two kids
were both like this, thus alltrans or kids are like this.

(03:13:58):
Mm-hmm.
You know?
Um, but I thought what was so neatis that, and this was not, I kind
of wanted this a little bit, butI got it even more than I thought.
Like I wanted people whowould have different stories.
From each other.
But I didn't just realize like howwildly diverging everyone would be.
That you'd have like, you know, some,one kid would be like, I love being trans

(03:14:18):
and it's the coolest thing about me.
And another kid would be like, I hatebeing trans or not, I hate being trans,
but I hate being known as being trans.
Right?
Like, that's not my goal at all.
Like, um, Clint is a great example.
He was our like.
Six, seven.
Wait, how does this go?
Fifth chapter, um, in Illinois, like hesaid that his goal is to be known as a
boy, not a trans boy, and that he doesn'treally identify with his transness.

(03:14:41):
It's not that he thinks there'sanything wrong with being a trans
as a trans person, it's just notreally how he thinks of himself.
Especially because he had such severedysphoria about his body before, you know?
He's got underg undergone, like,you know, a medical transition
and it's gone really well.
And it's been such like a benefitto his life that he doesn't want to
think about all that stuff before.

(03:15:02):
And when he thinks about beingtrans, it forces him to think about
like where he came from, right?
Mm-hmm.
And all these things he had to go throughto get to the good place he is now.
So he doesn't really identify with that.
He identifies with his muslimness,um, because his family is
Pakistani Muslim, right?
Mm-hmm.
So.
That's the part of hisidentity that he puts first.
And that felt like a really coolperspective to include because I

(03:15:24):
just never heard anything like that.
Mm-hmm.
And I think with this, with this book,I really wanted to make space for
so many kinds of stories that I justhadn't heard in so many different ways.
Whether that was the stories of the kids,the stories of the families, or just like
the ways that they exist in the world.
For me that like multiplicity, theways in which all of these families

(03:15:47):
are so divergent from one another.
That's what makes a booklike this really special.
'cause it makes it feel like life.
Like we're all sodifferent from each other.
Mm-hmm.
We all have such differentways of existing in the world.
Why would I want to create abook where I'm trying to make the
argument that everybody is the same?
Mm-hmm.
To me it's, the argumentis everybody is different.
That's really good.
We should protect that difference.

(03:16:07):
We need laws protecting that difference.
Because right now I think you have allof these lawmakers who are going, well,
these trans kids, they're different in away that I feel like I don't understand
and doesn't comport with my worldview.
Or, you know, my religion seems tolike, you know, cast aspersions on.
And because of that, that differenceneeds to be restricted or illegal.
Right.
And the more that we'd make it clear thatthese kids might be different from you.

(03:16:31):
They might be the same as you.
You could have a lot incommon with them, right?
Some of these, like kids, there's somuch that we had in common, even though
we've come from different backgrounds,different experiences, there was just so
much that we would just really bond over.
Like whether that's, you know, sharedinterests, liking the same movies, having
some of the same things happen to us.
But at the same time, there were waysin which we couldn't relate at all.

(03:16:51):
Right.
And that we were just sodifferent from one another.
And I think that both of thosetwo things are equally beautiful.
To your point about the possibilitythat the things that you write about,
things that you're thinking aboutcould be weaponized, I mean, I get
the sense from reading your workthat you cover a lot of stuff that
perhaps trans people don't alwayswant to talk about in mixed company.
And to a certain degree, I get that.

(03:17:11):
Like in a way, being at NPR forme is being in mixed company.
Uh huh.
Yeah.
Yeah.
You know, this show has.
It's a really wide, diverse audience withall kinds of people, which I love, but
it's a very different experience than thekinds of shows I worked on in the past.
Like for years, I hosted shows that wereprimarily speaking to black audiences.

(03:17:31):
And so, you know, I felt freeto talk about certain things
without adding as much context.
But even now, you know, sometimesit's worth saying something.
a little spicy, or, or getting intoa conversation that might, you know,
not be so cut and dry, because I valuehaving a certain conversation more

(03:17:52):
than the possibility of non Blackpeople being in Black people business.
Yeah.
But I see you having this likevery rich line of inquiry into
all of these taboo topics.
And it feels like a bidthat it's worth discussion.
Like you say, it might helpsomebody, it might free somebody.
Talk to me more about how you value,you know, getting into it more than

(03:18:15):
you're worried about anybody or anyhaters, let's say, weaponizing it.
Well, I think that there's a traditionof this, outside of just trans
communities, of great writers creatingcharacters who are really difficult
to talk about the real issues in a waythat feels, in the end, liberatory.
You can think of Philip Roth writingPoor Noise Complaint, you know, which

(03:18:37):
was totally Jewish communities werelike, this is an outrageous caricature.
I think a lot about ToniMorrison writing The Bluest Eye.
Oh, yeah.
There's kinds of things that The 10 yearold girl thinks about, you know, sort
of valorizing blue eyes or certainlythe treatment of her very abusive
father towards her in a black family.

(03:18:58):
All of that could have been weaponized.
But to me, you can't understand thecontext of racism if you don't see the
tragedy of it, if you don't see the waythat it can warp a young girl's visions
of beauty or warp the way a family looks.
And similarly, I think you can't seeLike, how transphobia and fear of trans

(03:19:19):
people's expression and the way that thatlocks us down can cause such suffering
if you don't show the bad parts, if youdon't show the consequences of that.
And to me, I think that's both importantfor trans people to recognize and it's
important for other readers to recognizethat if you say this character seems
to me sort of monstrous, Well, why?
You know, the first story, theyunleash a contagion that kind of

(03:19:42):
almost destroys the world and worldending fury is a result of the kind of
treatment that these characters feel.
Yeah, let's talk about that story calledInfect Your Friends and Loved Ones, if
you don't mind giving us a synopsis.
Sure, it's the sci fi novella in the book.
It takes place in Seattle where twotrans girls infect the entire world

(03:20:04):
with a contagion that has the effect ofblocking the body's ability to produce
hormones so that everyone will haveto basically take artificial hormones
because their own body's not producing it.
Meaning that everybody in the worldwill have to make the explicit
choice to cultivate their gender.
That trans people already have to make.
And so the question is sort of like,What if everybody has to choose their

(03:20:27):
gender the way that trans people do?
First of all, I want to say youwere in your bag writing this genre.
I just want to say I was likethe pages turned themselves.
I think it's really interesting tomake a world where everyone must
choose, but in that world it'sstill a very constrained choice.
It's not like a utopia of gender where,you know, everyone can kind of pick and

(03:20:50):
choose as they wish because it's hardfor people to get some of these hormones.
Talk to me more about that.
Like why having to choose and gettingto choose are different things.
My joke about it is that actuallywe already live in a world where
everybody has to choose their gender.
And everybody already ischoosing their gender.
It's just they're not aware of it.

(03:21:10):
They're like, oh, I wasborn in this gender.
Well sure, you were born in thatbody, but you're choosing your gender.
You're choosing how you present yourself.
Based on the constraints that you have,what kind of clothes can you afford?
What kind of body do you have?
How much time do you have towork on your body or negotiate
that stuff with other people?
These are all constraintsthat we already have.
And so the irony is actually like adystopian world where everyone has to

(03:21:33):
run around trying to find the thingsthat they can scrounge up to make
a gender that feels good to them.
Well, it's almost exactly.
The world that we live in now,the joke of the dystopia is
actually like this contagion.
Maybe it changed everything Hmm,or maybe it just reveals the
world that we already live in.
Yeah, you know I hate to bring politicsup because I enjoyed your book and

(03:21:58):
was interested in your thoughtsbefore This new administration,
but we live in a country now wheretrans people can't change their
gender markers on their passports.
And there've been executive ordersaimed at restricting health care and
sports participation for trans people.
The T has been cut out of LGBT onthings like the Stonewall National

(03:22:20):
Monument website, which I'm like, therewouldn't be no Stonewall without the
T. You know, it's, it's an erasure.
Given all that, you started thebook with the question, What
does it even mean to be trans?
Does that question have adifferent dimension to it now?
I don't think it has adifferent dimension, but it
definitely has different stakes.

(03:22:42):
You know, I spend part of every year inColumbia, and in a year I have to renew
my passport, and the F marker, whichI've had for years, and which corresponds
with like how I look and things likethat, is going to be taken away from me.
I show that passport, and there's a lotof police blocks because, you know, the
roads are just policed, so I show that.

(03:23:04):
I'll be on the empty road somewhereshowing my passport to a couple of cops.
I do that frequently.
And in two years, you know, I don't knowif it's going to be a danger or not, but
I'm going to be showing something that hasan M on it, you know, in an empty road.
And that's a small thing.
I wrote an essay aboutthat for New York Magazine.

(03:23:24):
That's a small thing, but it'sA new and increased danger in my
life that's a material danger in mylife that is going to be the case.
In so many ways for so many peoplethat things are going to be more
dangerous where prisoners, you know,they're moving all the trans women
prisoners, or they're attemptingto, to move them into male jails.

(03:23:44):
That's going to cause violence.
Your listeners can lookup the word V coding.
V coding to see what happensto trans women in male prisons.
Right.
I will spell it out for them incase they don't have Google handy.
V coding is the practice of placingtrans women in cells with male prisoners
as a reward or a form of social controlthat hinges on trans women being raped.

(03:24:11):
Yeah.
These kinds of things,they have horrific stakes.
And I hope to be able to, you know, kindof write into those stakes, even though
I'm no longer eligible for an NEA grant,you know, I still, I still hope that
I'll be able to write into those stakes.
And finally, section E.Trans joy and resistance.
But in December of 2024, you becamethe nation's first openly trans person

(03:24:34):
to argue in front of the SupremeCourt in U. S. versus Skirmetti.
I, I just want a second, justthe fact that you're Are you
in front of the Supreme Court?
I know it's hard to separate what you werearguing about, but I would imagine that
that was a big day, that there was, thatthere was a lot going on for you that day.
Yeah.
Yes.
Yeah, definitely.
I mean, I guess I'm trying to saylike, there's the, like, I'm here to

(03:24:55):
present the case, but also like I'm infront of the Supreme Court, you know?
Yeah.
It was a big day and it was,um, It just, it takes a lot.
It takes a lot of preparation.
It takes a lot of emotional energy.
Obviously, that emotional energyis escalated when it's a huge civil
rights case and it's a civil rightscase that implicates your own life.

(03:25:15):
Um, when there's this narrative of,of his, you know, it's the first of
something which always, you know,in the U. S. people love that.
So it creates all of this extra.
feedback.
Um, but in general, it is, it's, it's,it is somewhat surreal as a lawyer
to say, okay, I'm, I'm walking up tothe lectern in the Supreme court and,
and going to start my legal argument.

(03:25:37):
It is a surreal experience thatI certainly will never forget.
Was there any, I mean, again, I knowthat we were talking about the case.
Was there any sort of Pride or joyin that experience as someone who's a
lawyer that like, that's a thing thatthat's one of those like goals that
I'm sure many lawyers imagine and have.
Was there, did you feelthe pride of that moment?

(03:25:58):
That's a, so in the moment, Ithink I was just very focused.
And so I didn't, I wasn't like,Oh, I'm very proud in this moment.
It, it was also a very epic timebecause it was right between
the election and inauguration.
And I was very, uh, you know, wickedhad come out the week before and I was
like, very much like, Cynthia Erivo,Elphaba, like, it's just sort of like,

(03:26:20):
this is going to drive me and Cynthia'svoice is, you know, it was a little bit
of defying gravity on repeat and tryingto get myself into, um, to, to the zone.
And, and that was helpful, the, thesort of, you know, musical fight against
authoritarianism, um, in the lead up toinauguration and our Supreme Court case.

(03:26:42):
So, so that I think was, was where I foundthe energy in a, in a very dramatic sense.
Um, and then afterwards, I thinkwhen I, when I was able to actually
take a deep breath, I, I was like,wow, that, that actually happened.
And, and that I think was, youknow, there was very little time to
feel pride given that we went rightinto planning for the Trump, Trump
presidency and then inauguration.

(03:27:02):
But I did try to sort of sit with it,um, and, and sort of feel the energy.
And I, I did.
I love the idea of you like, on, withuh, Defying Gravity, on repeating Cynthia
Erivo as you sort of like, we all haveour get hype music, and that's a, I
love that song being uh, the song that'sgetting you hyped to argue for trans
folks in front of the Supreme Court.

(03:27:23):
That's beautiful.
Uh, you know, it felt like it reallyfit, and, um, so Oh yeah, for sure.
That, that was, uh, really gratefulfor, for Cynthia and Ariana and, and
that coming edge on to it, to come outright before, uh, it felt really good.
I would, I would imagine they'd feelhonored to know that you were, uh,
that you were, that that was thesong that was going through your ears

(03:27:43):
before you argue for trans rights,before you were defying patriarchy.
Yeah, exactly.
We'll do a sort of
A remake, yeah.
You know, a remake of it, yeah.
Cynthia Erivo, if you're, I know youpay attention to things, let's do
defying patriarchy with Chase here.
Boom, boom, boom, boom.
Boom, boom, boom, boom.

(03:28:05):
This win is coming out of Montana.
Now, Montana is whereRepresentative Zoe Zephyr serves.
And if you've listened to this podcast,you've definitely heard me mention her.
Because she's not only made historyin Montana becoming the first
trans person to serve in the House.
But she's also married to Aaron, whoruns the Aaron in the Morning Substack,
which is one of my trusted news sources,along with 20, 000 of you, okay?

(03:28:26):
She does an incredible jobreporting on the news affecting
LGBTQ folks across the country.
Well, in Montana, somethingunprecedented happened.
29 Republicans stood up to their partyand voted against anti trans legislation.
That would have banned dragperformances and pride parades, HB
675 and HB 754 that would literallytake trans kids from their parents.

(03:28:52):
Yeah, you heard me right.
Take children from theirparents for being trans.
Let's start with the ridiculous drag ban.
They would have also givenparents the right to sue drag
performers for harming children.
Drag performers could have been sued.
5, 000 a pop by parents,

(03:29:16):
they lost that vote.
Okay.
44 to 55.
And for context, the Montana houseis controlled by Republicans.
The count is 58 Republicansto 42 Democrats.
Yo, this is huge.
Their house speaker tried to say.
Actually, he didn't try, he did,said that transgenderism is a

(03:29:37):
fetish based on cross dressing.
That's how he described it.
In response, RepresentativeZephyr said, When I go walk him,
speaking of her son, to school,that is not a lascivious display.
That is not a fetish.
That is my family.
This time her speech hit home.

(03:29:58):
And it wasn't alone, RepresentativeSherry Easeman, a Republican.
Representatives spoke up against the bill.
She said.
So much here, in just a fewlines I want to share with you.
Everyone in here talks about howimportant parental rights are.
I want to tell you, in additionto parental rights, parental
responsibility is also important.

(03:30:20):
And if you can't trust a decent parent todecide where and when their kids should
see what, Then we have a bigger problem.
She went on to say, trust parentsto do what's right and stop these
crazy bills that are a waste of time.
They're a waste of energy.
We should be working on property taxrelief and not doing this sort of
business on the floor of this houseand having to even talk about this.

(03:30:44):
family.
After these speeches, 13Republicans flipped their vote
and voted against the bill.
And get this, that wasn't it, right?
You heard me earlier.
There were two bills.
That was just one.
The next anti trans bill was up and transrepresentative S. J. Howell spoke up.

(03:31:08):
They said, I stand to oppose this bill.
When a state intervenes to removea child from their family, that is
one of the most serious and weightyresponsibilities that the state has.
That is not something to be taken lightly.
Every time a child is removedfrom their family, it's a tragedy.
Sometimes a necessary tragedy,but a tragedy nonetheless.

(03:31:31):
This bill does not come close tothe seriousness with which those
decisions should be contemplated.
They went on to say, put yourself in theshoes of a CPS worker who is confronted
with a young person, 15 years old,maybe, who is happy, healthy, living in
a stable home with loving parents, whois supported and has their needs met.

(03:31:54):
And they are supposed to removethat child from that home and put
them in the care of the state.
We should absolutely not be doing that.
Come on S. J. Come on S. J. And thank youErin in the morning for reporting on this.
Family, I'm telling you right now.
If you do not followErin's sub stack, do it.

(03:32:15):
Okay, follow it.
Figure it out.
You understand?
The things she's reportingon are so important.
The depth in which shereports is so important.
Now.
When this bill went for avote, after S. J. 's speech, 29
Republicans voted against it.
If you remember earlier, I saidthat there were 58 Republicans

(03:32:36):
serving in Montana's House.
That was nearly half of them.
Wow.
Thank you, Representative Zephyrand Representative Howell.
All of the activists andadvocates in Montana that are
doing the work every single day.
Yo, I hope you got to smile afterthese wins and take a man a little bit
Because I know y'all got back to work.

(03:32:58):
I know you did.
I know you did, but I really do hopeThat you were able to take this in a
little bit, soak it up, because to getRepublicans to cross the aisle right
now in this climate today, that takesrelationship building, that takes time,
that takes getting to know them, right?
This, this is what we need.

(03:33:20):
More relationships beingbuilt, less ignorance.
So the fourth executive order thatI'm catching during the show here
and the recording of the show is.
called Ending Radical Indoctrinationin K 12 Schooling, and I think for
this one I'm gonna read a littlebit of it because otherwise I'm
gonna muddy the waters on it.

(03:33:42):
So, the purpose and policy, parentstrust America's schools to provide
their children with a rigorouseducation and to instill a patriotic
admiration for our incredible nationand the values for which we stand.
In recent years, however, parentshave witnessed schools indoctrinate
their children in radical, antiamerican ideologies while deliberately
blocking parental oversight.
Such an environment operates as an echochamber, in which students are forced

(03:34:04):
to accept these ideologies withoutquestion or critical examination.
In many cases, innocent childrenare compelled to adopt identities
as either victims or oppressors,solely based on their skin color
and other immutable characteristics.
In other instances, young men and womenare made to question whether they are
born in the wrong body, and whether toview their parents and their reality.

(03:34:26):
As enemies to be blamed, these practicesnot only erode critical thinking, but also
sow division, confusion, and distrust,which undermine the very foundations
of personal identity and family unity.
Need I go on?
Probably not.
No, no, you really don't.
You really don't.
You really don't.
Yeah, so So this executive orderreferences other executive orders in

(03:34:49):
order to kind of bolster what its goal is.
I mean, nobody's been recording ourhistory yet, so we're the ones doing it.
We're the ones writing it.
That's what TransJoy is.
We're rewriting this narrative, right?
We're going to keep making history.
We're going to keep being us, whetheryou teach it in schools or not.

(03:35:10):
And not only that, we'llmake it accessible.
Exactly.
The community will make it accessible to
itself.
Right, right.
We talked last episode about Social mediaand its influence on our ability to do
that and the reminder that I'd put outthere Just like what we were talking
about a moment ago is that we're creative.

(03:35:32):
We've we've got People in allwalks of life with all manner
of skill sets if we need to makeanother Site for our community.
It wouldn't be the first time.
It won't be the last time there'sgoing to be places for us to Maintain
our history document our history.
I know that even here in Georgia.

(03:35:54):
Is it Georgia State thathad a project going on for?
documenting LGBTQ histories QIA historiesI can't remember how far out it expands
whether it's like specific to Atlantaor or broader than that and their
objective was to is was and is to capturestories of just You know, members of the

(03:36:16):
community to get oral histories from.
I participated in that a couple ofyears ago and that's here in Georgia.
So know that that work continueson and all the noise that's
going on in public education.
It's just noise.
It's noise.
all sorts of challenges around it.
There already have been.

(03:36:36):
And so we just got to keep doingwhat we're doing and bob and weave
to adjust to, to the differenttactics, tactics that come up.
So what day is this of the administration?
10, I think.
When did he get sworn in?
Martin Luther King, unfortunately.
So it was Monday.

(03:36:57):
So it's been.
Eight days, right?
I gave it too many
It's fine Probably shouldn't even put thatin here because it's going to take another
couple days to get this thing out butright You know, so that's by the time you
all are listening to this I'm sure therewill be more that more to come out of that
and I know I know that it's stressful.

(03:37:18):
I know that it is really difficult to readI I can say that for me some of what i've
struggled with really It goes all the wayback to, well, well before this too, but
really at time of the election and all thecommercials that were paid for that were
anti trans and then the response from themedia after the election of, you know,
the Democrats really should have spokenout against trans ideologies and air

(03:37:42):
quotes, you know, and that sort of thing.
All of that, it weighs heavily.
It's hard to.
Yeah.
It's hard to constantly be surroundedby noise that doesn't, doesn't even,
it's more than thinking that we're badpeople, it's, it's thinking that we,
like, don't exist, and wishing that wedidn't exist, and plenty of people being

(03:38:04):
willing to make sure that we don't exist.
And that's heavy for us asadults, imagine that for those
children.
Right.
And so I know that I'm, I'm feeling theweight of that and as Adam said earlier on
this show, we were talking about, man, howdo we bring the, the trans joy, capital
letters, joy into a space like this.

(03:38:27):
And I think something that I havethought a lot about around these
conversations, because truly we've hada lot of bad news over the last, really,
since we started doing this podcast.
Uh, and, and.
prior to that too.
So I think some of what I continueto try to remember is that simply my

(03:38:48):
existing, simply my willingness tolaugh at myself and laugh at some of
the silliness that goes on around us.
Don't get me wrong.
I'm taking it very seriously,but my joy is resistance.
My love of my community and my people.
is resistance, my love of myself, myrespect for myself, my willingness

(03:39:10):
to stand up for myself is resistance.
And I, I just don't see a way forthem to take that away from me.
Oh, so I was on vacation last week.
Part of the reason that we, well, thereason that we didn't end up getting
a podcast out over the last week.
And so I'd gone on a cruise ship andthere was a gentleman who was sat down

(03:39:35):
next to me on the ship and All week i'dseen him around he'd been wearing this.
We make america great again hat Ofcourse, this is after the inauguration
and i'm seeing some of these
Executive orders getting signed and Iwas just so annoyed that he would have

(03:39:55):
gotten sat next to me because Of allthe people on this ship Although my
guess is that this ship was pretty Ishouldn't say my guess there was a lot
of this The ship is very queer family.
So I was thinking of all thepeople To sit next to, why am
I sitting next to the MAGA guy?
And there was something within methat just couldn't help but start
speaking louder about just how muchfun my trans ass was having on that

(03:40:19):
cruise and how queer friendly thespace was, and just how welcome I felt
and how much I was enjoying myself.
And it was all true.
Like it all, all, everythingI was saying was true.
And it was a, a good, I mean, mostimportantly, a good reminder to me of.
Whatever, man.
You do you.
I'd rather not be sitting theregrumpy looking like you are.

(03:40:43):
You know, B, there was somethingnice about being able to know that
I was talking about myself in sucha positive way that somebody else
really had to kind of sit and listento, or I mean, I guess he didn't have
to, but You know, he was stuck therenext to me, at least until he finished
his meal, uh, if he wanted to eat.
So it was kind of one of my littleways of joyfully spreading the, the

(03:41:07):
good news of being a queer personand just living a happy life.
Didn't hurt him at all.
It.
Didn't hurt me, but there was somethingabout being able to own myself and take
my frustration with the things thatare going on and turn it into something
kind of honestly kind of joyful and beable to remind myself out loud that I'm

(03:41:32):
having a wonderful time and that I amworthy of having a wonderful time and
saying it loud enough that I knew thatSomebody else who probably doesn't share
the same ideologies I do could hear,and could hear a human speaking about.
Yeah, I don't know.
Something about thathelped me feel better.

(03:41:52):
It's obvious from what we've spoken aboutthat there is a lot that still needs to
change and so much that needs to happen.
And it's amazing that we've gotsuch great advocates like you three
who are helping that all happen.
But I think You see that there is,there's obviously quite a lot of
progression, especially with visibilityof trans people as well at the moment.

(03:42:16):
And as you say, Sky, you were sayingyou grew up with no internet and
such a lack of resources, and nowwe are in this age where people
can actually find that information.
really quickly and explore whothey are a lot easier than when
you were doing it, Bobby and Sky.
But generally there is quite alot of progression in some areas.

(03:42:36):
For example, Greece has just put inthe anti discrimination law, which
explicitly protects trans peoplein education, health, housing.
You've got a lot of countries likeNorway and Portugal who are prohibiting
conversion practices on the groundsof gender identity, stuff like that.
But then, We're also in other areaswhere stagnating or we're regressing that

(03:42:57):
there's quite a few countries now whodo not have gender recognition or going
back on their gender recognition or thereare countries that even these countries
who are thought of as progressive areactually elapsing on their equality
plans and that's not great to see butI was wondering where you think we can
take this in the future and what canactually be done about it and Bobby, to

(03:43:19):
use your words, how do we get straightwhite men interested in this subject?
How do we take this forward?
So getting straight white men interestedin EDI in general, I think one of the
important things to do is to recognisethat being, being a straight white man
is a diversity type in itself and everydiversity type, including straight white

(03:43:43):
men, have diversity type challenges.
So I think if you can start exploring.
The challenges that they face,always having to be seen to be in
control, have the answer, alwayshaving to compete with the challenges
of what to do with all their powerand money, all of those things.
If we can explore those challengesthat they face and start helping them

(03:44:08):
deal with them, then hopefully thatopens up those empathic barriers to
them understanding that they can helpother diversity types, uh, themselves.
We're in a very precarious place, Ithink, not just for trans and non binary
people, but for societies in general.
We're seeing a big resurgence inright wing beliefs across America,

(03:44:32):
in the UK, across Europe and beyond.
And that's fairly typical for a reactionto times of socio and economic pressure.
And we've had some extremepressures over the last five years.
We've had the pandemic.
Before the pandemic, we were in a,Uh, a depression, then we've had

(03:44:54):
the pandemic, and now we're in atime of economic recession again.
So one of our base instincts as aspecies is when we feel under threat,
then the first thing we do is throwaround protective barriers around
ourselves and our families, our tribe,and anything that isn't part of that

(03:45:17):
tribe or we perceive to be outside ofthat tribe is perceived as a threat.
And that's what the right wing.
Views and political parties thrive on it,leverage, and that's what we're seeing.
And that's why we're seeing the pushbackagainst the trans and non binary
community, because we're the easy target.
We're the easy ones to start with, tostart driving a wedge into wider human

(03:45:40):
rights, whether that's bodily autonomyfor women or rights for people of color or
rights for the wider LGBTQIA communities.
So where do we go forward from here?
Well I think really we've got to digin, dig in and really start trying to
push forward, or at least hold the line.

(03:46:02):
And I think that's what the trans and nonbinary community have been trying to do
in the UK and the US for the last five orsix years actually, is not actually make
any progress, but just try and hold theline, try and be the breakwater for future
generations, because it's, however hardit is, To here, I don't think we're going

(03:46:24):
to really get any massive improvementsto trans equality in my lifetime.
I would appreciate that mylifetime might not be as long as
other people's lifetimes here.
But I don't see that's going tobe, I don't see we're going to
have a lot of improvement now.
Because we've had such regression,such pushback, such undermining

(03:46:47):
of the foundations, thatwe've spent the last 50 years.
Building that actually, I think, justholding the position of where we've been.
I mean, certainly that's what,why I've been doing the last
sort of five, six, seven years.
And I've been doing it for 22years now, you know, and the last

(03:47:07):
seven years have been by far thehardest out of all of those times.
If I just would jump in as well andfollowing up on what Bobby said,
we've seen, I think, a lot of like,intentioned work in the courts and
politics get shot down very easilywith what I would consider quite

(03:47:28):
flimsy justification afterwards.
Not just what I mentioned earlier aboutthe NHS, but recently Ryan Castellucci's
case about legal non binary recognition.
In the UK as well and obviously theSMPs self made the and making like
a GRC slightly easier to get Gettingshot down by the use of section 35.

(03:47:52):
So and following up on like alsoanother thing about how I think Trans
people are just the current other.
I would recommend anyone who listensto this to read a book that was really
helpful for me for understanding theintersectionality of like, the issues
that trans people face are often thesame as how other previously and still

(03:48:15):
persecuted minorities face, calledthe Transgender Issue by Sean Fay.
This was a huge I think a hugelyinfluential book from my understanding
in early transition of actually i'm notalone There are things as a trans person.
I should be doing to help out cis peopleof color other lgbt people trans people

(03:48:35):
of color immigrants people with uhDisabilities and that we we all could
be doing that because a lot of thebattles we face are the same secondly, I
would this stuff you want to do to helpthere's so much you can do to help in the
Immediate, in the immediate future, findmutual aid networks, not just explicitly

(03:48:57):
for trans people, but for communitieswith large amounts of trans people in.
Well, there are so many of us, like, whoaren't as fortunate to be in a position
that Bobby, Sky, or myself are in, whoalways need help paying rent, paying
for healthcare, look at, if you know atrans person who's doing a fundraiser
for surgery and stuff, consider givingtowards that, there's all sorts of things.

(03:49:20):
I think we've seen, due to, I think transpeople just broadly and statistically
being among the more Prejudiced, orwas prejudiced by the state members of
society that, yeah, we've had to set upour own means of looking after ourselves.
And there's a line I always hear aboutpassing the same ten pounds or ten

(03:49:40):
dollars back and forth amongst ourselves.
And I'd like, there's something I do withmy career to help trans people, I'd like
to make that amount a lot bigger for us.
And be able to say, like, get in, uh,into a position where I can look at it.
Make the type of work I do or the typeof work that so many of us in the city
do more attractive for trans people towant to get feel they can want to get

(03:50:03):
into no matter what their employmenthistory or their transition history or
If they've had problems or a gap on theirCV or whatever because it's just that
feeling like okay I'm in a position ofwhat can I bring to the table right now
instead of having to have lined yourlife up perfectly from The age of 13.
Yeah, so that's what I Like to achieveand what I tell people looking to be an

(03:50:27):
ally to consider is not like just veryobvious stuff about Oh Being nice and
treating a trans person at work in thecorrect gender, but one thing to do, I
guess, just a bit more reading into it.
And being proactive, and I think that'sso much beyond, I think, I've seen most

(03:50:47):
cis people do that, anyone who does that,I think is like really inspirational.
Raquel, take us to the grassroots.
Help us understand how you and yourfellow activists are preparing the
conversations that you're havingand especially for young people.
I have so many young trans people inmy life and so I'm wondering, you know,

(03:51:08):
what should I be saying as a good ally?
Yeah, well, just to go back to talkingabout families and young trans people,
what was beautiful about the daythat Chase was arguing inside of the
Supreme Court was that outside ofthe Supreme Court, there was this

(03:51:29):
amazing, beautiful, glorious rally.
Freedom To Be Ourselves, cocreated by ACLU, Lambda Legal.
And they really created the spaceon the streets outside of the
Supreme Court that can maybe serveas a vision of what we want to see.

(03:51:51):
I'm 12 years old, I'm in eighth grade,and of course, I'm a trans girl.
Despite me having a normal life, it'swild that people think that trans
kids are just a danger to society.
How did they get that?
But, you know what?
In spite of all of that, I'm standingright here in front of the Supreme

(03:52:15):
Court because to make change, to dowhat's right, to make things, let
me tell you something, I'm proud
of being a trans girl.
They might want to take away our rights.
We had a multi racial, gender diverse,

(03:52:41):
intergenerational, cross movement groupof folks out there in the streets really
just celebrating the fact that we arehere and we're fighting as trans folks.
and as folks who love and care about us.
So I want to share that because Ithink that that's kind of the perfect

(03:53:01):
encapsulation of this effort, right?
We have Chase and other attorneys on theinside of this hallowed institution and
then on the outside are folks who areboth rallying themselves but also cheering
on Chase, right, for being a champion.
So that was beautiful.
In terms of grassroots activism rightnow, I mean, obviously, I can't speak for

(03:53:25):
everyone's experience, but I will say onething I want to make sure I do is talk
about really just what the bathroom said.
And it wasn't just the folkswho got arrested, right?
Who made that happen?
It was all of the folks whomaybe weren't in photos, right?
Who haven't been quoted.
who also made that happen.
The folks who couldn't riskarrest, but showed up and put their

(03:53:47):
body on the line in other ways.
It was also the media folk, right?
Who were like, we need to document this.
Oh, also we believe in what you'refighting for because we believe in
the dignity of trans folks lives.
So that's important.
It was the legal support, the safetysupport, all of these different elements
that made that action successful.

(03:54:08):
And I think that's how we have toapproach Organizing always, but
especially right now is that there isa role for everyone to play and you
have to get creative with what yourgifts are, what your skills are, right?
Chase is using his skills, hisexpertise in law to transform things.

(03:54:30):
As much as he can, to whathe was just saying, right?
But folks are making sure thatpeople are fed and housed, right?
So we need to be puttingresources into mutual aid efforts,
into direct services, right?
Which have been a hallmark of keepingour people alive in our community.
We need more political education, right?

(03:54:51):
We have to be gettingall of this brilliance.
Out to the people because we knowthat the mainstream media ecosystem
is failing a lot of people.
We know the educational system,even before Trump is in office
is failing a lot of people.
So we've got to befiring on all cylinders.
And I don't say that tobe incendiary and violent.

(03:55:15):
I just mean we've got to be active.
I don't want the right to misconstruewhat I'm trying to say right now.
I feel that.
No, I, I, I absolutely feel that.
And you know, Raquel, you've reallybeen living this because last year you
published a really beautiful memoir.
It's called the risk it takes tobloom on life, love, and liberation.
And you tell your own coming of age storyas a black trans woman from the South, and

(03:55:38):
you detail your journey as an activist andas a journalist fighting simultaneously
for your own liberation as well as.
Collective liberation inyour communities, right?
So I would love it ifyou would read a passage.
It's from your epilogue and it feelsreally frankly pertinent right now.
And you reflect on the disillusionmentthat you felt after many of

(03:55:59):
the revolutionary demands ofthe summer of 2020 were then
brushed aside by politicians.
Many of us have realized thatthe precipice of liberation
we tasted a short while ago ismuch farther than we imagined.
I wish I could provide a soothingconclusion where everything

(03:56:22):
feels hopeful and bright.
But it seems we will have to continueto hold the uncertainty of progress.
We'll have to find the balance in thosethings that make our lives harder and
those things that make us helpful.
One thing is for sure, white supremacy,cisheteropatriarchy, classism, ableism,

(03:56:43):
Christofascism, and other systemsof oppression won't be eradicated
unless we truly believe that weare the fruit of precious seeds.
I am constantly in awe of what ourancestors and trancestors were able to
plant despite the wildfires they endured.

(03:57:05):
They didn't wait for the perfectconditions or to be understood.
They had dreams and wittinglyor unwittingly crafted the
scaffolding for our movement.
Like them, we must continue tobuild sites of accountability,
connection, dreaming and healing.

(03:57:25):
Even when the flames It
really feels very relevantfor this particular moment.
Chase, what's your message to thetrans community and to all communities
that are under threat right now?
First, with Raquel's prescience andinsight and wisdom and so I think just

(03:57:49):
the reminder that You know, even ifwe are confronted with hope and then
disappointment that we have the toolsand the capacity to rebuild together,
uh, because I think one of the thingsthat does happen is you are confronted
with this sense of progress and almostintoxicated by the ideas of, of change
and only to often be disappointedwith the resurgence of the very things

(03:58:13):
that you thought you were moving past.
And so contending with hope and despairtogether can be a draining project,
but one that we can tackle together.
And I guess for me, coming out of theargument at the Supreme Court, what
I'll say to the trans community is, isgoing back to Raquel's message about
the rally outside, which is that.

(03:58:34):
You know, we are inside navigating theseold, not very malleable institutions,
and yet coming outside, you're remindedthat no matter what happens in there,
we are building something more beautifuloutside of the literal architecture
that this country was built upon.
And looking out at that sea of youngpeople who had the self awareness.

(03:58:58):
to demand that they be allowed toclaim themselves and listening to
those young people interviewed on CNNthat are in essence like, I exist.
That is not an opinion.
So this is Violet Dumont.
She's a 10 year old trans girl whotraveled with her family from Arizona
to DC to make their voices heard.
And here she is.

(03:59:19):
10 years old, being interviewed on CNN.
What does that feel like, to haveso much attention by all these
politicians on your identity?
It's probably, honestly, theworst thing I've ever felt.
I've heard principal weak politiciansthat say, No, you have the wrong
gender, you're confused, honey.
No, myself is a fact, not an opinion,and they don't get to decide that for

(03:59:41):
me, I get to decide that for myself.
And here's Daniel Trujillo, a 17year old trans boy who also traveled
to D. C. from Arizona with his mom.
When politicians focus on turningus into numbers, a lot of times
they've never met trans people,they don't know trans people.
I've been disrespected, misgendered,dismissed just because of how young I am

(04:00:04):
by these people who want to protect me.
Oftentimes our livesget turned into numbers.
and trauma stories withno name and no face.
Our existence is so, like, so beyond that.
I am just so inspired by the power ofour younger generations of trans people.

(04:00:24):
And so whatever is coming, I know thatwe're calling upon our transcestors
and looking at the people who are much,much younger than me, that we have so
much beauty that we're building and thatthose flames will not be extinguished.
That's going to be it for today.
As always, keep the comments coming in.
I would love to hear your thoughtsor questions about today's
topic or our upcoming topics.

(04:00:45):
We're doing a deep dive on the shiftinginternal dynamics of the Democratic Party
that absolutely needs some shifting,and the Republican efforts to dismantle
public education, and the role ofChristian nationalism in that effort.
You can leave a voicemail orsend us a text at 202-999-3991.
You can reach us on the privacy focusedmessaging app Signal at the username

(04:01:08):
bestoftheleft.01, or you can simplyemail me to jay@bestoftheleft.com.
The additional sections of the showincluded clips from Short Wave, Queer
News, Dora's Deep Dive, Amicus, Boom!
Lawyered, The Majority Report, the AtLiberty podcast, The Brian Lehrer Show.
Firstpost America, Empires of Dirt,the United Nations Outreach Program on

(04:01:33):
the Holocaust, The Cold War, PoliticsWeekly America, It's Been A Minute,
Everyday Trans Activism, Trans JoyCast, T Break, and In The Thick.
Further details are in the show notes.
Thanks to everyone for listening.
Thanks to Dionne Clark and Erin Claytonfor their research work for the show
and their participation in SOLVED.

(04:01:55):
Thanks to our transcriptionist trio, Ken,Brian, and Ben, for their volunteer work
helping put our transcripts together.
Thanks to Amanda Hoffman for all ofher work behind the scenes and her
co-hosting of SOLVED, Thanks to thosewho already support the show by becoming
a member or purchasing gift memberships.
You can join them by signing up todayat best of the left.com/support,

(04:02:15):
through our Patreon page, or fromright inside the Apple Podcast app.
Membership is how you get ad free andearly access to our incredibly good
and often funny weekly show SOLVED, inaddition to there being no ads and chapter
markers in all of our regular episodes,all through your regular podcast player.
You'll find that link in the shownotes along with a link to join

(04:02:35):
our Discord community where youcan also continue the discussion.
And don't forget to follow us onall the social media platforms.
We're new on Blue Sky like everyoneelse, but we're also finally making
the move to video on Instagram andTikTok with our new show SOLVED.
So please support us there.
So, coming to you from far outsidethe conventional wisdom of Washington
DC, my name is Jay, and this hasbeen the Best of the Left podcast

(04:02:57):
coming to you twice weekly, thanksentirely to the members and donors
to the show, from BestOfTheLeft.com.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Dateline NBC

24/7 News: The Latest

Therapy Gecko

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}#1700 Dehumanizing Trans People is Always the First Step for Fascists

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Dateline NBC

24/7 News: The Latest

Therapy Gecko

All Episodes

#1700 Dehumanizing Trans People is Always the First Step for Fascists

Dateline NBC