cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/7274411

cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/17977

Vermont Statehouse, Adam removeden, Creative Commons

Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.

Across the United States, gender-affirming care has come under sustained attack in Republican-led states and from the Trump administration. For transgender youth, those attacks have been especially severe, with roughly half of U.S. states now banning such care outright. At the federal level, the administration has waged an intense pressure campaign against hospitals, threatening funding and prompting many systems to drop their care programs altogether. That campaign has now escalated further, with the federal government moving to threaten hospitals’ entire Medicaid and Medicare funding if they continue providing transgender youth care. In response, some states and cities are beginning to fight back by establishing their own funding mechanisms for trans healthcare. The latest example comes from Vermont, where lawmakers have introduced a bill to create a trust fund for gender-affirming care designed to be entirely insulated from federal funding threats.

H.576, introduced by Representatives Daisy Berbeco, Tiffany Bluemle, and Troy Headrick, would establish the Affirming Health Care Trust Fund. Administered by the State Treasurer, the fund would provide direct monetary support to healthcare providers and nonprofits offering gender-affirming care in Vermont. It would cover costs for patients who would otherwise go without treatment, fund the establishment of Vermont-based clinics, and pay for malpractice and liability insurance for clinicians who continue offering care. The bill is part of an increasing movement towards private clinics as a mechanism to survive federal threats.

The bill also includes provisions designed to protect patient information from both federal pressure and out-of-state threats, going further than the recent “refuge” or “shield” laws passed in several blue states to protect transgender youth care. It explicitly bars the board and other state actors from disclosing patient-identifiable data, the identities of providers, or the identities of award recipients to the federal government. This is a significant protection given the wave of abusive legislation and attempts to subpoena transgender healthcare records nationwide. While federal preemption may ultimately be litigated, these provisions give clinics a stronger legal footing to resist such demands—particularly as similar subpoenas have been repeatedly quashed in recent court cases.

The bill comes as families scramble to locate alternatives to hospital systems that are abandoning them. With more than 20 hospitals closing their doors to transgender youth care out of fear and preemptive compliance with the Trump administration, many families have been forced to seek alternatives. Just this week, major hospital systems across Colorado, for example, have stopped providing care. Groups like the Trans Youth Emergency Project say they have the capacity to refer displaced patients to private clinics, and in many places those clinics do exist and are absorbing demand. But as hospital-based programs continue to shut down and demand rises, those private providers will need sustained support—and more clinics will need to be created. Bills like this are a targeted way to do exactly that.

If this bill passes, Vermont would be the latest state to protect care in this way—but it would not be the only one. Massachusetts passed a similar measure last year, allocating $1 million toward transgender youth care clinics, though that funding has already come under criticism as insufficient to meet statewide need in the wake of major clinic closures. In New York City, newly elected mayor Zohran Mamdani has pledged $65 million for transgender healthcare. If that funding is realized, it would position New York City as a major hub for private clinics capable of absorbing demand created by hospital closures across the country. This strategy could prove to be a critical backstop for private providers that are already emerging—and that are likely to come under increasing strain in the years ahead.

The bill allows funding from state appropriations, private donations, grants, and—importantly—federal funds under a future administration that is protective of transgender healthcare. It would take effect immediately upon passage, with the board required to convene by August 1, 2026. There are still hurdles ahead: the bill must advance through committee, pass both chambers, and ultimately receive meaningful funding to function as intended. But its introduction alone signals something important. At a moment when hospitals are retreating and families are being forced into crisis planning, Vermont lawmakers are putting forward a concrete framework to protect access to care rather than surrender it. For Vermonters who want to see their state take a clear stand, residents can find and contact their legislators through the Vermont General Assembly website to make clear where they stand on protecting transgender healthcare.

Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.

From Erin In The Morning via This RSS Feed.

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/7265203

cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/17623

Denver Health // Google Maps

Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.

It’s a new year but a familiar refrain for Colorado’s transgender youth. For the second time in a row, trans minors seeking gender-affirming care at Denver Health and Children’s Hospital Colorado have rung in the new year with a devastating tug-of-war over their life-saving medical treatments.

On one side sits science-based standards of care. On the other is a political regime hellbent on terrorizing trans children, their families, and their doctors; and some of Colorado’s premiere health care institutions appear to be capitulating to the latter. Last week, both hospitals announced that they would close their doors to transgender minors seeking puberty blockers, hormone replacement therapy, and/or gender-affirming surgery.

“This is the latest in several years of what we’d call ‘pre-compliance’ or ‘overcompliance’— providers feeling threatened into stopping care even before they legally have to,” said Adam Polaski, communications director of the Campaign for Southern Equality, in a statement to Erin in the Morning.

It is not illegal to provide transgender youth with gender-affirming care in Colorado, but that hasn’t stopped the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under President Donald Trump from targeting the practice anyway. The White House and its underlings have threatened to strip hospitals of critical funding via Medicaid and Medicare if they provide such care to trans kids in need.

“These closures will surely be a significant blow to access and I don’t want to minimize that,” Polaski said. “We also know that there are providers all over the country doubling down on keeping their doors open, staffing up, expanding hours.”

Implicit in Trump’s threats are costly and draining legal battles. But in abandoning the duty to provide equal access to care for everyone, cisgender and transgender patients alike, these same health systems put untold lives at risk.

Denver Health, for its part, branded the care stoppage as “necessary.” Children’s Colorado has painted it as the inevitable product of threats wielded by the HHS, arguing that keeping its gender clinic doors open to trans youth would be “risking care for hundreds of thousands of children.”

Spokespersons for the hospitals emphasized that psychiatric care will continue, but for many trans youth, that simply isn’t enough. Such Faustian bargains tend to accrue interest. If trans kids’ care is deemed acceptable collateral—even in the interim as court proceedings play out—it begs the question of who will be on the chopping block next.

Denver Health and Children’s Hospital Colorado made headlines in February last year under similar circumstances. They stopped certain kinds of gender-affirming care for trans youth after Trump threatened to pull federal funding. However, the hospitals reinstated such care following favorable court proceedings.

This time around, the programs shuttered following a Dec. 30 tweet from Mike Stuart, the general counsel for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). He says he “referred” the Children’s Hospital Colorado “for investigation” at the HHS Office of the Inspector General (OIG)—this despite the fact that state law protects if not compels hospitals to provide equal access to both cisgender and trans people’s care.

The office usually focuses on investigating claims of fraud and professional misconduct, but like many government bureaucracies, the Trump regime has turned the oversight body into a political spectacle in hopes of drumming vitriol from its base and inciting fear from its political enemies—in this case, transgender children.

Rachel See, who spent over a decade as a senior attorney in the federal government in senior enforcement and management roles, told Erin in the Morning that Stuart’s social media declaration was “unusual,” but that general counsel does not determine the results of an investigation. At the same time, Trump has been known to oust Investigator Generals whose findings don’t adhere to his agenda.

The bottom line: “This is the Trump Administration, through HHS, opening up yet another front in its campaign against trans healthcare,” See said. “It is another shot that is intended to—and likely will—make institutional healthcare providers feel that providing trans healthcare puts them at risk, legally.”

Private clinics as well as initiatives like the Trans Youth Emergency Project have cropped up in hopes of softening the blow of such care cuts, but inevitably, diminishing treatment options from Colorado’s largest providers is bound to see many trans kids, especially those from low-income families, fall through systemic cracks.

These capitulations mark a grave turning point for a state once touted as a progressive “haven” for trans youth—in a region of the country otherwise hostile towards their existence.

In December, the HHS announced a proposed rule change to defund hospitals that “perform sex-rejecting procedures” on minors, the latest rhetorical creation of the same party that arbitrarily redefines sex and gender on a routine basis.

“The idea that Robert Kennedy and Dr. Oz, who have no medical expertise and have been discredited, are questioning and condemning the judgment of real medical providers and families is disgusting,” said Mardi Moore, chief executive officer at Rocky Mountain Equality, when news of that proposal first broke.

“They don’t know what they are talking about.”

Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.

From Erin In The Morning via This RSS Feed.

If you are thinking about harming yourself — get immediate crisis support. Connect to a crisis counselor 24/7, 365 days a year, from anywhere in the U.S via text, chat, or phone. The Trevor Project is 100% confidential and 100% free.

https://www.thetrevorproject.org/get-help/

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/7206975

cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/16545

A transgender rights activist holds a flag during the Trans Day of Visibility rally on the National Mall on March 31, 2025, in Washington, D.C. Photo: Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images

For trans people in the United States, the year is ending much as it began: with a flurry of assaults on their very existence from Donald Trump’s regime. Attacks on trans people, especially trans youth, have been a constant throughout Trump’s second term so far, but the government took advantage of the year-end lull to attempt to push through a series of measures aimed at fully decimating health care provisions for trans youth.

The Department of Health and Human Services in mid-December announced proposals that, if enacted, would be a de facto ban on all gender-affirming medical care for young people in the entire U.S., where this care is already banned or restricted in 27 states. The new rules, which are now in a 60-day comment period, threaten to cut off federal Medicaid and Medicare funding from hospitals that provide gender-affirming care, including puberty blockers and hormone therapy, to minors — effectively forcing hospitals to stop offering it. Without this funding, practically no hospital can survive.

The same week HHS announced its plans, the Food and Drug Administration sent letters to a dozen manufacturers and retailers of chest binders, warning that the products were in violation of federal law since they were not registered as medical devices.

Heading into 2026, we know we can expect more of the relentless same from Republicans. When it comes to making trans lives unlivable, Trump’s party and its anti-trans zealots will throw everything against the wall to see what sticks. The open question is whether Democratic leaders will learn from their mistakes and actually stand up for the trans kids and adults on the front lines of Trump’s fascist onslaught.

[

Related

How to Keep Providing Gender-Affirming Care Despite Anti-Trans Attacks](https://theintercept.com/2025/03/09/abortion-trans-health-care-doctors-trump/)

Indeed, Democrats nationwide have an opportunity right now to show what it looks like to robustly oppose measures deployed by the Trump administration to hack away at essential health care. They can refuse to let HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his quack accomplice, Dr. Mehmet Oz, quietly and unilaterally push through dangerous and blatantly anti-science rules that would affect every hospital in the country. To do this, though, Democratic leaders must unite to support trans youth.

The latest administration moves are devious – using Medicaid and Medicare funding and FDA regulations as cudgels to coerce health care providers and related businesses to stop offering lifesaving services and tools to young people. Journalist and trans rights advocate Erin Reed described the HHS plan as “the single most aggressive attack on transgender healthcare in U.S. history” since “its adoption would likely force every hospital and major clinic that relies on Medicaid to immediately cease providing transgender youth care.”

Even threatening such a policy serves to chill health care providers. The point is to apply constant pressure and add layers of complication and uncertainty so hospitals and health care systems fall in line out of fear. This has been the Republican playbook for years when it comes to hacking away at reproductive and gender-affirming care. Such efforts depend on compliance, and — particularly when it comes to anti-trans policies and laws — have faced all too little serious opposition from Democratic leaders.

It is a good sign that a coalition of 19 states has already sued to challenge the proposed HHS rules. The lawsuit calls the HHS efforts unlawful and based on bunk scientific claims.

“Secretary Kennedy cannot unilaterally change medical standards by posting a document online,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the lawsuit, in a statement. “No one should lose access to medically necessary health care because their federal government tried to interfere in decisions that belong in doctors’ offices.”

While the lawsuit against HHS signals crucial opposition, this last year has made it all too clear that the courts cannot be relied upon to defend trans people’s basic human rights. After all, the far-right Supreme Court in June upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming health care for trans teenagers.

But legal avenues are limited when the highest court in the land is ruled by a majority of right-wing ideologues. This is a struggle on many fronts. As Reed reported, organizations like the Trans Youth Emergency Project and the Campaign for Southern Equality are “actively assisting families with contingency planning for continuity of care” while the implementation of the proposed new policies is challenged. Organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union and brave trans kids and their loved ones, who have fought every unconstitutional and malicious anti-trans law in court, will continue to need vigorous support and direct funding assistance.

It’s also high time that Democratic leaders treat the assault on trans youth for what it is: the attempted eradication of an entire category of persons, against which committed political opposition should be the baseline.

Democrats’ willingness to align with fascists to criminalize lifesaving health care should have no home in a purported opposition party.

Democratic leaders across the country have so far largely failed to stand up for trans people. California Gov. Gavin Newsom revealed himself to be despicably eager to throw trans people under the bus in service of an ill-thought centrist realpolitik and to buoy his larger political ambitions. Three Democrats joined with Republicans in the House of Representatives to support a bill that would imprison health care providers for providing basic gender-affirming care for anyone under 18. Luckily, the bill is highly unlikely to pass the Senate, but Democrats’ willingness to align with fascists to criminalize lifesaving health care should have no home in a purported opposition party.

As sure as Republicans will continue to push their cruel and deadly agenda, centrist pundits and operatives will urge Democrats to sacrifice targeted communities in an effort to appeal to an imagined group of voters. This pandering only serves the far right by treating its talking points as a legitimate political center as Democrats negotiate against themselves.

[

Related

Gavin Newsom’s Cynical Embrace of the Anti-Trans Agenda](https://theintercept.com/2025/03/07/gavin-newsom-trans-democrats/)

The idea that Democrats benefit electorally by bending rightward on key moral issues like trans rights and immigration has by now been thoroughly debunked. With the midterm elections ahead, Democrats would do well to focus on economic issues that serve America’s working class, the material concerns where Trump is roundly failing Americans — which in no way requires throwing trans people and minority rights under the bus.

In reality, it’s quite the opposite: Democrats simply need to push a consistent platform of health care and dignity for all, while refusing to let far-right fearmongering frame the debate. They must start now, using every possible tool at their disposal to block Kennedy’s underhanded health care ban — or risk forever being remembered for slinking back to the wrong side of history.

The post Trump Spent 2025 Making Trans Lives Unlivable. It’s Time for Democrats to Defend Them. appeared first on The Intercept.

From The Intercept via This RSS Feed.

If you are thinking about harming yourself — get immediate crisis support. Connect to a crisis counselor 24/7, 365 days a year, from anywhere in the U.S via text, chat, or phone. The Trevor Project is 100% confidential and 100% free.

https://www.thetrevorproject.org/get-help/

You may struggle over the holidays if you’re estranged from your family, but you are not alone.

Sending holiday love and cheer out to everyone else with their chosen family or alone right now!

If you are thinking about harming yourself — get immediate crisis support. Connect to a crisis counselor 24/7, 365 days a year, from anywhere in the U.S via text, chat, or phone. The Trevor Project is 100% confidential and 100% free.

https://www.thetrevorproject.org/get-help/

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/7083726

cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/14431

Photo by Suzy Brooks on Unsplash

Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.

On Thursday, the Trump administration’s Department of Health and Human Services, under Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., released a new proposed rule that represents the single most aggressive attack on transgender healthcare in U.S. history. The rule—effectively a “nuclear option” from the administration—relies on expansive and legally dubious authority to restrict Medicaid funding through what are known as “conditions of participation.” Rather than directly banning Medicaid reimbursement for transgender care, the rule would bar any hospital that accepts Medicaid funding from providing gender-affirming care for trans youth at all, regardless of whether that care is paid for by Medicaid. By making this a baseline condition for participation in the program, the administration appears to be weaponizing Medicaid itself to enact a de facto national ban on transgender youth care, following the passage of Marjorie Taylor Greene’s bill in the U.S. House and its likely inability to advance in the Senate.

The rule, document 2025-23465, is sweeping in scope. It introduces a new regulatory term, “sex-rejecting procedures,” defined as any medication or surgical procedure that “attempts to align an individual’s physical appearance or body with an asserted identity that differs from the individual’s sex.” Under the proposal, a hospital “must not perform sex-rejecting procedures on any child” in order to participate in Medicaid. This goes far beyond a simple ban on Medicaid reimbursement for transgender youth care. Instead, it functions as a direct threat to any hospital that continues to offer such care at all, regardless of funding source, and its adoption would likely force every hospital and major clinic that relies on Medicaid to immediately cease providing transgender youth care.

The new rule contains no exceptions for patients already receiving care, meaning transgender youth who have remained in treatment even under some red-state bans would immediately see that care cut off. For many, this would amount to forced medical detransition, particularly for those unable to find another provider—an almost impossible task given that no hospital accepting Medicaid could continue offering care under the rule. The document itself openly acknowledges this choice, stating, “In developing this proposed rule, we considered aligning our requirements with those States that already have restrictions on SRPs but with a variety of exceptions they provide as outlined in Section 1.B of this proposed rule. For example, we could have allowed those currently receiving these procedures to continue receiving them. Ultimately, however, we have decided to adopt the proposed provisions with fewer exceptions than are allowed in these States to maximize health and safety for all children.”

This rule appears to violate multiple U.S. statutes and constitutional limits on federal authority. Most notably, Section 1801 of the Social Security Act explicitly bars the federal government from using Medicaid regulations to exercise direct supervision or control over the practice of medicine. The statute states: “Nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize any Federal officer or employee to exercise any supervision or control over the practice of medicine or the manner in which medical services are provided, or over the selection, tenure, or compensation of any officer or employee of any institution, agency, or person providing health services; or to exercise any supervision or control over the administration or operation of any such institution, agency, or person.” By conditioning all Medicare participation on the cessation of a specific clinical practice, CMS is exercising direct ‘supervision and control’ over the practice of medicine.

The government attempts to get around this by stating that gender affirming care is not part of “the practice of medicine.” In a section dedicated to this anticipated challenge, the new rule states: “Under Section 1801 of the Act, CMS may not “exercise any supervision or control over the practice of medicine or the manner in which medical services are provided, (42 U.S.C. 1395). However, we believe that providing the SRPs for children is not healthcare and hence are not subsumed under the term of “the practice of medicine.” Therefore, the proposed rule would not regulate the practice of medicine".”

Practice of medicine exception

The rule also likely violates the Constitution in two fundamental ways. First, it disregards the separation of powers. The executive branch cannot simply create a de facto nationwide healthcare ban through regulation when Congress has never authorized such a ban in statute. Agencies are empowered to implement laws, not to invent sweeping new prohibitions that Congress itself has declined to enact. Second, the rule represents a direct assault on states’ rights under the Tenth Amendment. By threatening to strip Medicaid participation from hospitals that comply with state laws requiring the provision of care, the administration would effectively coerce states into abandoning their own democratically enacted protections—or face the collapse of large portions of their healthcare systems.

The proposed rule nevertheless asserts that these guidelines would preempt state laws, placing a direct target on the “shield laws” enacted by states like California, Minnesota, and New York. The text is explicit in its intent to override state sovereignty, declaring that any state statute requiring hospitals to provide gender-affirming care—or protecting the providers who do—would be superseded by this federal regulation. In effect, the administration is claiming that a bureaucratic rule change has the power to nullify the democratically enacted protections of “safe” states, attempting to shatter the legal firewalls these states have built to protect transgender youth and their families from persecution and to ensure that care could be continued to be provided.

Federal preemption of shield laws assertion

“These draft rules comprise a dangerous and unconstitutional attempt to undermine the longstanding right of states to ensure the health and well-being of their residents, the right of parents and caregivers to support and love trans and nonbinary young people, and the guidance of doctors and medical organizations on the well-established standard of care. This draft rule is based on a biased “report” written by anti-trans authors that distorts existing evidence and ignores decades of rigorous research supporting the safety and necessity of gender-affirming care for transgender and nonbinary youth,” says Khadijah M. Silver, JD/MPH, Supervising Attorney for Civil Rights at Lawyers for Good Government.

The ban would leave only a narrow window for transgender youth to access care from providers not affected by the rule. The only entities that could continue offering treatment would be private doctors or clinics that do not accept Medicaid at all. While there has been some discussion about establishing such clinics to fill the gap, those efforts have largely failed to materialize. As a result, most transgender youth would be left without any realistic alternative provider for their care.

The full federal rule can be read in this document. An unpublished version is available here, with the official published version expected to appear Friday. Once published, the rule will enter a 60-day public comment period, during which members of the public can submit feedback. After that period closes, the government is required to review and respond to those comments before the regulation can take effect, a process that can take an unspecified amount of time. Court challenges are all but certain, but if the rule is ultimately allowed to go into force, it would likely spell the end of most transgender youth care in the United States.

Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.

From Erin In The Morning via This RSS Feed.

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/7101833

cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/14845

TYEP - Used With Permission

Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.

Over the last several years, many red states have banned gender-affirming care for transgender youth. Since Trump returned to power, that campaign has shifted to blue states, with the administration threatening hospitals and healthcare systems with the loss of federal funding unless they stopped providing care. This week, those threats escalated sharply: a new federal rule, now in its public comment period, would bar any hospital that provides transgender healthcare from receiving Medicaid funds—a move that would effectively force most major hospital systems to end that care altogether. In response, an organization that has already helped families navigate care bans in red states is stepping in again. The Trans Youth Emergency Project (TYEP), spun up by leaders at the Campaign for Southern Equality, says it has capacity to help parents of transgender youth locate independent clinics that may be less vulnerable to the administration’s current and incoming policies and can provide, in some cases, travel assistance.

TYEP’s latest outreach follows the release of a sweeping new federal rule that would bar any hospital system—and any clinic affiliated with those systems—from providing gender-affirming care if they accept Medicaid. The rule contains no carveouts for patients already receiving care, meaning many transgender youth would be forced into abrupt medical detransition unless they can quickly secure alternative providers, should the rule take effect. It explicitly claims to preempt state shield laws in places like California, Minnesota, and New York. The proposed rule further destabilizes an already fragile healthcare landscape for transgender youth, as hospitals and clinics continue to shutter services in preemptive compliance with the administration’s escalating threats.

The rule does leave one narrow avenue for transgender youth to continue accessing care: private, independent clinics and physicians who do not accept Medicaid. Earlier this year, as hospital systems began shutting down services, advocates spoke about spinning up independent clinics to meet the need. Massachusetts advanced a measure intended to funnel funding toward that kind of care, and in New York City, mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani pledged millions to help preserve treatment capacity. But for many families, the talk of these clinics have felt like vaporware—plans discussed publicly that have yet to translate into accessible appointments. There may, however, be a quieter reality beneath the surface: clinicians and small practices that are not advertising openly but remain prepared to provide care. That is where TYEP steps in, working behind the scenes to connect patients with providers who are still able and willing to treat them.

When asked whether TYEP has the capacity to absorb a surge of families seeking alternatives in the wake of the new rule, organizers said unequivocally that they do. They noted that the organization has repeatedly scaled up during previous waves of clinic and hospital closures without issue. Adam Polaski explained, “At every turn, we have been able to pivot and scale up and show people the reason that this is important. Folks have stepped up with their dollars, and also folks have requested support and spread the word. So right now, I don’t want folks to feel like they shouldn’t reach out because they ‘don’t really need it’ or someone else ‘needs it more than them.’ Everyone needs the support right now, and it’s ok. We have the capacity to take it on.”

Polaski compared what the group is doing to efforts that spun up for abortion access in the wake of recent restrictions and bans. “A lot of folks are recognizing that this kind of, you know, practical support network that the abortion access movement has crafted so powerfully is going to be necessary for trans folks.”

The group is likely to face real stress testing in the coming weeks. While the rule change has not yet taken effect—the process will include a 60-day public comment period, additional time for the administration to review comments and finalize the rule, and near-certain litigation that could delay or block implementation entirely—we have already seen that the mere threat of new anti-trans rules is often enough to prompt hospital systems to fold. Even now, EITM is aware of hospital systems actively discussing the proposed rule and weighing preemptive closures in anticipation of compliance pressures. That means independent clinics may begin seeing an influx of patients well before any rule is finalized. In that environment, organizations like the Trans Youth Emergency Project will be essential in helping families navigate a rapidly shrinking and increasingly opaque care landscape.

Families wishing to contact the TYEP about their situation can do so here by filling out their intake form. The national project offers family navigation through one-on-one phone calls to help identify providers unimpacted by restrictions, as well as travel grants of $500.

Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.

From Erin In The Morning via This RSS Feed.

For me, I noticed that a lot of my general negative feelings became more specific, like finally being able to put a name to it let me realize what was at the root of those feelings. Unfortunately, being aware of it more specifically also made the dysphoria worse. Curious about others’ experiences though

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/7073048

cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/14218

Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

As major anti-transgender bills loom and Congress prepares to vote on sweeping restrictions on transgender healthcare over the next two days, Representative Sarah McBride gathered with reporters outside the Capitol to denounce what she called the Republican Party’s “obsession” with transgender people. McBride was joined by Representatives Ocasio-Cortez and Johnson for the press scrum, which comes at a critical moment: two high-profile bills—one proposing a national felony ban on trans youth healthcare and another seeking to bar Medicaid coverage—are expected to receive floor action, alongside anticipated moves by the Trump administration to pressure hospitals nationwide through Medicaid restrictions.

“So, we are two legislative days away from the Affordable Care Act tax credits expiring, when millions of people will see their healthcare premiums skyrocket, And GOP leadership, with that deadline fast approaching, has decided to schedule two votes on anti-trans bills and precisely zero votes on extending the Affordable Care Act tax credits,” started McBride, before turning to Republican obsession on transgender people.

“They would rather have us focus in and debate a misunderstood and vulnerable one percent of the population instead of focusing in on the fact that they are raiding everyone’s healthcare in order to pay for tax breaks for the wealthiest one percent. All Republican politicians care about is making the rich richer and attacking trans people. They are obsessed with trans people. I actually think they think more about trans people than trans people think about trans people. They are consumed with this and they are extreme on it.”

McBride’s comments come as Congress weighs two major anti-transgender bills. The first, introduced by Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, is expected to be heard today. The bill would enact a nationwide ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth, imposing penalties of up to 10 years in prison on those who provide such care. With amendments expected, the bill could extend its reach beyond doctors to parents as well, a move that would be devastating for transgender healthcare nationwide. While the bill is not expected to survive the Senate, it will function as a high-stakes messaging vote—particularly for Democrats facing pressure from political consultants to shift right on transgender issues, and for Republicans representing more moderate districts. Notably, Democrats recently secured major electoral victories in races where transgender rights featured prominently, a political reality that may give some Republicans pause before embracing the measure.

The second bill, introduced by Representative Dan Crenshaw, would ban Medicaid from covering gender-affirming care nationwide. The proposal is expected to be framed as a more “moderate” alternative to Greene’s felony ban—an apparent effort to peel off support from centrist Republicans and potentially even some Democrats. Like many recent Republican proposals, Crenshaw’s bill also embeds a rigid definition of sex, legally grounding it in reproductive capacity, language the party has increasingly attempted to codify across federal legislation related to gender.

McBride focused on the extreme nature of the bills, including the parental jailing provisions, stating, “They are bringing forward a bill that would put parents and providers at risk of being jailed—literally jailed—for affirming their transgender child and following medical best practices. t is already hard enough to raise a family today. It is already hard enough to be a kid today. And families with transgender young people are navigating complicated and complex situations, making deeply personal healthcare decisions. And regardless of what decision you might make as a parent, government should never insert itself into the personal healthcare decisions of patients, parents, and providers. That is a basic principle and a basic right that should be afforded to all Americans, including transgender people and their families.”

The language marked some of the harshest criticism McBride has leveled at Republicans to date over their targeting of transgender people. She has herself been the subject of Republican attacks, including a bathroom ban advanced earlier this year by Rep. Nancy Mace that appeared aimed directly at her. While McBride has faced criticism since her election—over interviews and statements on transgender rights, including from myself—her forceful posture and visible pushback against this legislation are likely to be received as a welcome sign by transgender people who want to see Democrats in Congress meet these attacks with more than quiet resistance.

You can contact your representatives today to urge them to vote against the anti-transgender provisions. At least one Democrat has expressed uncertainty on how she will vote, Representative Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (WA), and several other Democrats have voted for anti-trans provisions this year, including: Henry Cuellar (TX), Donald G. Davis (NC), Cleo Fields (LA), Shomari Figures (AL), Laura Gillen (NY), Jared F. Golden (ME), Vicente Gonzalez (TX), Adam Gray (CA), Susie Lee (NV), John W. Mannion (NY), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (WA), Kim Schrier (WA), and Thomas R. Suozzi (NY).

Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

From Erin In The Morning via This RSS Feed.

If you are thinking about harming yourself — get immediate crisis support. Connect to a crisis counselor 24/7, 365 days a year, from anywhere in the U.S via text, chat, or phone. The Trevor Project is 100% confidential and 100% free.

https://www.thetrevorproject.org/get-help/

If you are thinking about harming yourself — get immediate crisis support. Connect to a crisis counselor 24/7, 365 days a year, from anywhere in the U.S via text, chat, or phone. The Trevor Project is 100% confidential and 100% free.

https://www.thetrevorproject.org/get-help/

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/35361786

if you have HRT Related queries or advice please check out !diyhrt@lemmy.blahaj.zone, an entire comm for HRT

This offered a very interesting peek into trans culture in the 90s which I loved a lot. I like how Feinberg speaks about living openly as a genderqueer person, I related to that a lot.

In approximately 22 hours I will tell a therapist that I am for sure not a cis man and I'm tired of pretending and that I want help. This will be the first time I have said this to anyone, I suppose technically barring this post right here.

Since I made the appointment, my whole body has been painfully tense and my stomach feels like I'm on a roller coaster. I can't tell if I want to cry or throw up or squeal with joy. I can't seem to relax at all or focus on anything. The level of emotional turmoil I am experiencing is... not comfortable.

I think that's good, right? Emotions are hard. But I wouldn't feel this way if it wasn't important to me, I think. So much of this process has been learning not to second guess myself and accepting that growth can be painful.

Anyway wish me luck. Starting something is always scary because you don't know how it's gonna turn out. But nothing ventured, nothing gained, I suppose. Thanks for listening.

EDIT: Session went well, and the anxiety has abated somewhat, though I'm still basically vibrating. Gonna go eat a gummy, take a bath, and listen to a book in the dark. Thanks again everyone for such a welcoming community, I wouldn't be here without you.

If you are thinking about harming yourself — get immediate crisis support. Connect to a crisis counselor 24/7, 365 days a year, from anywhere in the U.S via text, chat, or phone. The Trevor Project is 100% confidential and 100% free.

https://www.thetrevorproject.org/get-help/

I'm trans femme, considering hrt. By a long way, most reports of what it's like say: within the first week I felt different emotionally /in my mind. Feelings seem to vary from calmer, to the author feeling more herself. This initial euphoric feeling is reported to fade over time, usually.

I just wondered how it would feel for a cis man if he were to take it for a week. I understand that if you stopped after a week there would not be any long term effects at all. So I'd be surprised if it hadn't been tried!

Why do I wonder this? I suppose I'm wondering if it feels good for everyone. I'm scared of taking it. But I'm scared of living with the constant doubt. Most gender affirming actions I've taken have been very helpful, really made me feel more myself. But if hrt makes everyone feel better, at least at first, I wouldn't be able to know whether it would be right for me by trialling it (and thereby judge whether it might be worth all the downsides that come along with the positives or not).

Any experience shared is v welcome!

Edit: Thanks everyone for interesting info! I wanted to add here at top that in no way am I saying a person's reaction to hormones has any effect on their gender. I'm not looking to "test" my trans-ness by trying hrt. Just interested to learn more about the range of responses. Many thanks all 🙂

Ever since coming out to my dad, the relationship between me and him got very strained because he's not accepting of it. Over the past 1.5 years we slowly drifted further and further, to the point of us being minimal contact. Up until recently, he sometimes invited me to smaller family gatherings (with my siblings who I'm on good terms with) but most of the time, I didn't come. Most of the time I had a proper reason but I could have also made it work if I would have wanted to.

A few months ago in the car ride back from some family gathering, we made a temporary solution to how we could communicate without him dead naming/misgendering me. The solution was pronouns: it (there's no "they" in German), name: a nickname from my childhood which was completely disconnected from my dead name. We explicitly said that it's a temporary solution until we had a proper talk. That talk was this week...

Most of the talk was just us trying to understand the views of each other and me explaining just how dire my situation before transitioning actually was. We basically got stuck at: we just have a fundamentally different world view and we can't change each other's, no matter how many scientific papers I can bring up (Yes he doesn't agree with science there which bugs the hell out of me).

One of the last things he said towards the end of the conversation: "I love you as a human, but you're -Deadname- in my heart. Do your thing, live your life, I see you the way I see you, isn't it completely irrelevant? I think that the tattoos and piercings of your sister are terrible and she ruins herself with them but I still love her as a person."

My thoughts are just a mess on this whole situation.... I guess I just wanna know if you had similar experiences with family and how did you manage them?

I probably won't respond to any comments...