cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/7404871
cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/21425
Photo by Darren Halstead on Unsplash
Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.
Early Tuesday morning, final appropriations bills for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education—and related agencies—were released, marking the last major funding measures to be negotiated in the aftermath of the record-breaking government shutdown fight in 2025. That standoff featured multiple appropriations bills loaded with anti-transgender riders and poison pills for Democrats, ultimately ending in a short-term continuing resolution that punted many of those provisions to the end of January. While other “minibus” packages funding individual agencies moved forward, the Education and HHS bills were conspicuously absent, as they contained some of the most sweeping and consequential anti-trans riders ever proposed in Congress. Now, with the final bills released, it is clear that no anti-transgender riders were included—meaning transgender people will largely be spared new congressional attacks through most of 2026 should they pass as-is.
As the government shut down on Oct. 1, the state of appropriations bills needed to reopen the federal government for any extended period was extraordinarily dire for transgender people. Dozens of anti-transgender riders were embedded across House appropriations bills, even as those provisions were largely absent from the Senate’s versions. The riders appeared throughout nearly every funding measure, from Commerce, Justice, and Science to Financial Services and General Government. The most extreme provisions, however, were concentrated in the House HHS and Education bills, including language barring “any federal funds” from supporting gender-affirming care at any age and threatening funding for schools that support transgender students. Taken together, those measures would have posed a sweeping threat to transgender people’s access to education and health care nationwide.
Those fears eased somewhat when the government reopened under a short-term continuing resolution funding operations through the end of January. In the months that followed, Democrats notched a series of incremental victories for transgender people, advancing multiple appropriations “minibus” packages that stripped out anti-trans riders as the government was funded piece by piece. As amendment after amendment fell away, those wins grew more substantial, including the removal of a proposed ban on gender-affirming medical care from the NDAA—even after it had passed both the House and Senate. Still, the most consequential question remained unresolved: what would ultimately happen to the high-impact anti-trans provisions embedded in the HHS and Education bills.
Now, the package has been released—and for the moment, transgender people can breathe again. The final HHS and Education bills contain no anti-transgender provisions: no ban on hospitals providing gender-affirming care to transgender youth, no threats to strip funding from schools that support transgender students or allow them to use the bathroom, and no mandate forcing colleges to exclude transgender students from sports or activities like chess or esports. The bills are strikingly clean. As such, they avert yet another protracted shutdown fight in which transgender people are once again turned into political bargaining chips—and, at least for now, remove Congress as the immediate vehicle for new federal attacks, should they pass as-is.
When asked about the successful stripping of anti-trans provisions, a staffer for Representative Sarah McBride tells Erin In The Morning, “Rep. McBride works closely with her colleagues every day to defend the rights of all her constituents, including LGBTQ people across Delaware. In the face of efforts by the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress to roll back health care and civil rights, she was proud to work relentlessly with her colleagues in ensuring these funding bills did not include anti-LGBTQ provisions. It takes strong allies in leadership and on committees to rein in the worst excesses of this Republican trifecta, Rep. McBride remains grateful to Ranking Members DeLauro, Murray, and Democratic leadership for prioritizing the removal of these harmful riders.”
This does not mean that transgender people will not be targeted with policies and rules that affect them in all areas of life. The Trump administration has acted without regard to law in forcing bans on sports, pulling funding from schools and hospitals, and banning passport gender marker updates. The Supreme Court has been increasingly willing to let the office of the presidency under Trump do whatever it would like to transgender people. However, the lack of passage of bills targeting transgender people means that these attacks will only last for as long as we have Trump in the White House, and a future president should hopefully be easily able to reverse the attacks.
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/7353275
cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/20329
Wikimedia Commons
Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.
Some transphobes might be on the cusp of understanding what the trans community has been saying for decades now: anti-trans extremism hurts everyone, transgender and cisgender people alike.
Realistically speaking, it’s doubtful these human rights concerns will be enough to tip the scales in favor of progress for the trans community at SCOTUS. We are staring down the barrel of Supreme Court decisions in Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. BPJ, both of which follow young trans women who had the audacity to want to play sports with the other girls at school.
The decisions could potentially shape how Americans of any sex or gender are treated across all aspects of life—not just trans people, and not just in sports.
“Even Barrett was a bit alarmed about what a broad decision here could do for women,” Alejandra Caraballo, a Harvard Law instructor and civil rights activist, told Erin in the Morning. “It could result in segregation of women in a host of other areas of public life under the rationale that biologically, men are different and they need to be separated.” Underlying this is the assumption there is a universal scientific or legal definition enshrining two binary sexes, which there is not.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who was appointed by President Donald Trump in 2020, previously penned one of the most conservative anti-trans documents in SCOTUS history in an even further right-wing concurring opinion for Skrmetti. In thiscase, however, she seems to at the very least acknowledge that anti-trans policies mandating sex segregation inevitably harm cis women, too.
“Your whole position in this case depends on there being inherent differences,” the Justice told the anti-gender rights camp. “I’d be a little bit concerned about what the ramifications of that might be.”
What if, for example, a state produced evidence that women outperform men in math—that women’s good grades put men at a disadvantage academically? Would women need to be culled from advanced math; would there be a required men’s-only remedial option? “Seems to me like there would be some risk on your understanding that that would be okay,” Barrett remarked.
And as far as competitions go, liberal Justice Elena Kagan added: “How about chess club?”
West Virginia Solicitor General Michael Williams, arguing in favor of the state in BPJ, said this would “fail” to require sex segregation “because there’s an actual lack of evidence of meaningful physiological differences that are reflected in the existence of the express regulations in the athletics context.” (Note: There has nonetheless been a successful push to ban trans women from many gendered chess tournaments, as Erin in the Morning has extensively reported on since 2023.)
Beyond that, despite the snipers atop the roof of the Supreme Court on Tuesday, who oversaw protestors and counterprotestors alike, the tenor inside of SCOTUS was more cordial—on its face. Lawyers exchanged pleasantries. Justices asked them questions about “your friends on the other side.” At least one of the trans youths who fascists have scapegoated to tear apart the country sat quietly as her humanity was interrogated in front of the world.
“A lot of people want to read hope into the justices’ generally more conciliatory demeanor on Tuesday but I fear we cannot afford that luxury right now,” Khadijah M. Silver, Director of Gender Justice and Health Equity at Lawyers for Good Government, told Erin in the Morning.
“We must prepare for a world where whatever decision, however narrow on its face, is read expansively by judges that have been placed in their roles explicitly to erase our legal right to exist,” they said. “This has never been a strict constitutional or statutory inquiry but instead a political one.”
Some expert spectators latched on to milquetoast comments by the likes of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who told the lawyers representing a trans athlete: “I think one of the themes of your argument has been the more people learn, the more they’ll agree with you.”
But this is arguably an off-hand comment at best, and a condescension at worst—a post-Skrmetti affirmation that the court does not see trans people as a distinct class worth protecting. During questioning, many Justices refused to recognize the long and storied history of legal discrimination against the trans community in the United States. Conservative Justices suggested that, because most anti-trans laws do not actually use the word “transgender,” that they can’t possibly be a symptom of discrimination against trans people.
We’ve seen the fallout of this mental-legal gymnastics before; as Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissenting opinion on Skrmetti, this line of thinking was used to justify racial segregation by arguing that, while different races were separated, they all were separated equally.
“[N]early every discriminatory law is susceptible to a similarly race- or sex-neutral characterization,” Sotomayor had said of Loving v. Virginia, which challenged a state antimiscegenation law. “A prohibition on interracial marriage, for example, allows no person to marry someone outside of her race, while allowing persons of any race to marry within their races.”
In today’s legal battle over trans rights, this manifests as trans erasure. The more the government can plausibly deny the existence of trans and intersex people—robbing them of legal recognition—the more it emboldens lawmakers to discriminate. The logic rests on the idea that you can’t violate the constitutional rights of a group if that group does not exist.
On Tuesday, Justices further grappled with the combined and contradictory legacies of the 2025 Skrmetti case, which upheld Tennessee’s law preventing trans youth from accessing many kinds of gender-affirming care, and the 2020 Bostock decision, which established employee anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ people.
Republican-appointed swing Justice Neil Gorsuch was the primary author of the Bostock decision. He argued then that trans people were constitutionally entitled to protections from discrimination on the basis of sex. This time around, Gorsuch sparred with attorneys over what “sex” even means.
But, as University of California - Berkeley School of Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky notes in his analysis on SCOTUSBlog: “Over the last year, the court has failed to follow the logic of Bostock in upholding discrimination against transgender individuals.”
Indeed, the more these cases play out in front of the court, the more the contradictions of anti-trans extremism seem to crumble.
“My sense is that this court is going to sidestep the constitutional questions entirely—they didn’t seem even remotely eager to grapple with the basic reality that trans people are protected under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause,” said Tekla Taylor, a Public Education Specialist at Advocates for Trans Equality.
“It wouldn’t shock me if they ultimately say that states can discriminate against trans girls under Title IX, which completely glosses over the fact that the feminists who fought for Title IX did so to expand opportunity and dismantle sexist stereotypes—not reinforce them.”
Taylor further emphasized how laws are already chipping away at trans, intersex and women’s rights. “It was extremely disappointing,” they said, “though not remotely surprising, to hear Chief Justice Roberts try to wave away the Court’s own ruling in Bostock in order to pretend these laws don’t plainly discriminate against young trans people and deprive them of the same opportunities everyone else has.”
From Erin In The Morning via This RSS Feed.
cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/7283802
cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/18282
Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Across the United States, transgender people have been battered by a relentless wave of anti-trans legislation from Republican-led states. Under the Trump presidency, that pressure has only intensified, leaving transgender people increasingly dependent on whether their state government is willing to protect them or abandon them. While many states have weakened protections or embraced outright hostility, a smaller number have taken the opposite approach—suing the federal government, refusing to cooperate with discriminatory directives, and affirming trans people’s right to live freely. Transgender people are noticing. According to a new poll from the Movement Advancement Project and NORC, an estimated 400,000 transgender people have already fled their home states for safer ones since the 2024 election, relocating specifically in response to anti-trans laws and policies, making it among the largest relocations in modern history in the US.
Surveyors at the Movement Advancement Project polled more than 1,000 LGBTQ+ households, asking respondents about their perceptions and actions since the 2024 election. When asked whether they had moved to a different state, 9% of transgender respondents said that they had. That figure translates into a striking level of displacement. According to Gallup, transgender people make up roughly 1.3% of the U.S. population—about 4.5 million people nationwide. If 9% of that population has moved states, it amounts to approximately 401,000 transgender people relocating in the wake of the election, an extraordinary migration driven by political conditions rather than personal preference.
The likely reasons for this movement appear later in the survey. Transgender people report experiencing startling levels of discrimination in the aftermath of the 2024 election. More than half—56%—said they have faced discrimination because of their gender identity, while 47% reported being harassed in person. In many cases, that hostility is coming directly from the state itself: 24% of transgender respondents said they were discriminated against or mistreated by their local or state government. Faced with conditions like these, which can make even day-to-day life a struggle, relocation becomes less a choice than a means of survival.
The movement is not limited to transgender people. A far larger number of LGBTQ+ people overall have also changed states since the Trump election. While the percentage is smaller—about 5% of non-transgender LGBTQ+ respondents—the raw numbers are much larger, translating to roughly 1.5 million people relocating across state lines since the election. Their reasons closely mirror those cited by transgender respondents: widespread harassment, persistent discrimination, and a growing sense that remaining in place has become untenable.
This is not the first survey to document this kind of movement. In 2023, Data for Progress examined transgender migration in the aftermath of harsh anti-transgender legislation passed at the state level, and found similarly large numbers of transgender people reporting that they had moved to a different state as a result. While the Movement Advancement Project survey focuses only on migration since the 2024 election, the broader pattern is clear: this migration has been underway for several years, and the true number of transgender people who have relocated in response to hostile policy environments is likely far larger than any single survey can capture.
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.
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
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.
Trans
General trans community.
Rules:
-
Follow all blahaj.zone rules
-
All posts must be trans-related. Other queer-related posts go to c/lgbtq.
-
Don't post negative, depressing news articles about trans issues unless there is a call to action or a way to help.
Resources:
Best resource: https://github.com/cvyl/awesome-transgender Site with links to resources for just about anything.
Trevor Project: crisis mental health services for LGBTQ people, lots of helpful information and resources: https://www.thetrevorproject.org/
The Gender Dysphoria Bible: useful info on various aspects of gender dysphoria: https://genderdysphoria.fyi/en
StainedGlassWoman: Various useful essays on trans topics: https://stainedglasswoman.substack.com/
Trans resources: https://trans-resources.info/
[USA] Resources for trans people in the South: https://southernequality.org/resources/transinthesouth/#provider-map
[USA] Report discrimination: https://action.aclu.org/legal-intake/report-lgbtqhiv-discrimination
[USA] Keep track on trans legislation and news: https://www.erininthemorning.com/
[GERMANY] Bundesverband Trans: Find medical trans resources: https://www.bundesverband-trans.de/publikationen/leitfaden-fuer-behandlungssuchende/
[GERMANY] Trans DB: Insurance information (may be outdated): https://transdb.de/
[GERMANY] Deutsche Gesellschaft für Transidentität und Intersexualität: They have contact information for their advice centers and some general information for trans and intersex people. They also do activism: dgti.org
*this is a work in progress, and these resources are courtesy of users like you! if you have a resource that helped you out in your trans journey, comment below in the pinned post and I'll add here to pass it on