Trans rights

Almost two dozen researchers at a top medical journal have published a scathing scientific takedown of the Cass Review. Experts found that the NHS-issued report—a non-peer reviewed publication authored by Dr. Hillary Cass, a pediatrician without clinical or research experience with trans patients—was marred by “unexplained protocol deviations,” “methodological flaws,” and “unsubstantiated claims.”

Published on May 10 in BMC Medical Research Methodology, the report identified critical flaws in the study. The Cass Review led to a ban on puberty blockers targeting trans children in the UK. However, puberty blockers remain readily available to cisgender children, who may need them for conditions like precocious puberty.

“These issues significantly undermine the validity of the Cass Review’s recommendations, such that the Review fails to fulfil its aims as commissioned and should not be used as the basis for policy making,” the researchers said in a statement to Erin in the Morning.

The Cass Review has been rejected by countless medical organizations across the globe which oversee aspects of trans health care—including the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), the Endocrine Society, The American Academy of Pediatrics, the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany, and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, to name just a few.

Nonetheless, it continues to act as the vanguard for anti-trans lawmakers and leaders grasping at straws for a scientific basis to further an extremist political agenda.

The central goal of much anti-transgender rhetoric is to make cisgender people believe that their interests and trans people’s interests cannot be met at the same time. It’s not just the accusation that trans people are different or weird or creepy; it’s that our rights, our healthcare, and our well-being must come at the expense of your well-being. As the infamous ad from Trump’s reelection campaign put it, transphobes want cis people to think that someone who cares about “they/them” could never be for “us.” It fits neatly into the central thesis of Trumpism—that someone else’s suffering will be your gain. It also feeds into the portrayal of the Democratic Party as feckless, effete, and obsessed with the abstractions of identity.

For any politician facing them, there are two ways of handling these attacks: by promising to care less about trans people or by promising to care more about everyone. If you are not responsive to the needs and interests of a broad coalition of working people, you can be more easily caricatured as dedicated to the interests of some nefarious (and often racialized) other. But if you do have a compelling vision for how to improve all people’s lives, the fact that not all of those people are the same carries less weight. It is true that many Americans would rather starve than share a table with someone they view as less deserving or too deviant from their own experience. But it’s especially true if all that’s on the menu is scraps.

[…]

I am exhausted with begging for help and pleading for others to recognize transgender people’s humanity. I’m also exhausted with the shallow brand of identity politics removed from the material concerns of most people–including trans people–adopted by the mainstream of the Democratic Party in the 2010s when it seemed a useful wedge against progressives like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. As Judith Butler told El País earlier this year, “Identity is a great start for making connections and becoming part of larger communities. But you can’t have a politics of identity that is only about identity. If you do that, you draw sectarian lines, and you abandon our interdependent ties.”

It is exactly those interdependent ties that Mamdani won on and that our political future depends on. The politics of forced scarcity being sold by Trump and seemingly bought into by many Democrats is a myth deeply ingrained in our politics, our communities, and our culture. Rewriting it is not simply the work of rhetoric, talking points, and being open to disagreement. It’s also the work of changing how people experience politics to begin with, and showing them their freedom and dignity need not come at the expense of someone else’s. And what I see in Mamdani’s campaign is not only a promise of solidarity with a marginalized group I happen to be a member of. What I see is a promise that nobody will have to do that work alone.

On Thursday evening, independent journalist Ken Klippenstein reported that the FBI is developing tools to identify transgender suspects and classify them as “nihilistic violent extremists.” Within hours, the Oversight Project at the Heritage Foundation—the same outfit driving Project 2025’s blueprint now being implemented inside the federal government—released a four-page memo urging the bureau to go even further. Its proposal: formally designate all transgender activism as “Trans Ideology-Inspired Violent Extremism,” a new category of domestic terror threat. It’s important to note that the Heritage Foundation is not itself the federal government, and to our knowledge, its proposals are not yet in place. But the group’s influence is vast, especially in the wake of a Trump administration openly committed to implementing Project 2025. That makes its latest push far more than just a think-tank memo—it’s a roadmap for policy. Here’s what you need to know about the proposal.

[…]

We’ve seen this playbook before. The U.S. government has a long record of turning surveillance tools against civil rights movements. COINTELPRO, the infamous FBI program from 1956 to 1971, targeted Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, and countless others in an effort to disrupt the civil rights movement. The same tactics were deployed against Vietnam War protestors and the gay rights movement of the ’60s and ’70s. After 9/11, Muslim communities bore the brunt of an expanded national security state, subjected to dragnet monitoring and infiltration. Now, under this proposal, those same techniques could be repurposed against transgender rights leaders and organizations—casting constitutionally protected advocacy as extremism to be neutralized.

Queensland’s controversial ban on puberty blockers and other hormone therapies is unlawful because of a failure to properly consult health executives on a decision affected by political interference, a court has heard.

The supreme court in Brisbane on Wednesday heard the ban should be overturned as part of a legal challenge launched by the mother of a transgender child. The mother cannot be identified for legal reasons.

Her lawyers told the court that Queensland Health’s director general, Dr David Rosengren, was required by law to consult with the executive of any service affected “in developing a health service directive” before he issued the order, banning such transgender hormone therapies for new patients aged under 18, on 28 January.

[…]

On the day the directive was issued, the state’s health executives were called to a Microsoft Teams meeting at 10am for consultation on the decision, which lasted 22 minutes.

At the same time as that meeting, Nicholls was announcing the decision at a press conference, the court was told.

Mark Steele KC, representing the mother, said Rosengren had signed off on publishing the health service directive an hour earlier and had repeatedly urged staff to ensure it was published at 10.30am.

The directive was published at 11.06am.

Steele told the court that Rosengren must have done so to line up with the end of Nicholls’ press conference.

“That can’t be genuine consultation if it’s just a fait accompli,” Steele told the court.

In 1987, the Medical Journal of Australia published a paper titled Gender-disordered children: does inpatient treatment help? by Robert Kosky, then director of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Services in Western Australia.

It described eight children, all under 12, who were hospitalised at Stubbs Terrace between 1975 and 1980 for what the paper called "gender identity disorder".

The children were separated from their families and treated for months at a time. The paper argued their "cross-gender behaviours" were the result of inappropriate family dynamics — and suggested the hospital program corrected them.

When Anja Ravine, a trans youth health researcher at the Murdoch Children's Research Institute, came across it decades later, she was alarmed.

"It's implicit that they were expecting gender identity to return to what was expected. So that is really within the definition of conversion therapy."

Efforts to suppress or change a person's gender identity or sexuality, often referred to as "conversion therapy", are now illegal in most parts of Australia.

"We know now that people who've been exposed to this actually carry long-term psychological scars. It's very harmful," Dr Ravine said.

Despite being nearly 40 years old, the Kosky paper is regularly cited by opponents of gender-affirming care in submissions to lawmakers, courts and medical regulators around the world.

Even in Australia, the National Association of Practising Psychiatrists, has written a clinical guide on how doctors should care for gender diverse youth that also cites the paper.

Dr Ravine said that the study being used is "deeply troubling".

In the UK one can barely turn the page of a newspaper without coming across some article written about transgender people. Such articles rarely tend to be trans‐supportive. Sensational stories about trans women invading women's spaces, appropriating female “sex‐based rights”, and trans women dominating women's sports can be found in print, online, and on television. What is happening in the UK is somewhat paradoxical. On the one hand, the country has strong protections for trans people, but, on the other, hostility toward trans people is becoming more common. We seek to find out why. By using an online survey of UK residents, we found that anti‐transgender views tended to be held most strongly by those people who scored highly on a scale of authoritarianism. What these results mean in a country currently in the grip of an anti‐trans moral panic has yet to be fully determined.

Wow. This is powerful stuff. Much of it is applicable to US law but Part III, which is  more general, is absolutely required reading:

This Article has shown how the conventional reading of constitutional sex equality jurisprudence as grounded in the biology of sex is wrong and harmful to the cause of transgender equality and to the cause of sex equality writ large. It has argued instead for a reading of constitutional sex equality based in sex as a subordinated social class that could unite the class of women and the class of men, whether cisgender or transgender, and considered how this understanding of sex would stand up to scrutiny.

The story I have told is mostly one of law. But the ends this Article seeks to achieve in reframing our understanding of sex cannot be attained through law alone. This must also be a political project. We have work to do to strive for broader acceptance of sex as a social class. Public approval of this new concept of sex will require a social movement whose goal is to promote solidarity between transgender women and cisgender women by emphasizing the social rather than the biological dimensions of sex. This movement could be forged through the shared interests of at least some strands of feminism and transfeminism: bringing an end to the sex binary — the division of the sexes into two classes — and the sex hierarchy — the superiority of masculine over feminine. Such a movement can seek to demonstrate how combatting discrimination against transgender women pushes back against limiting notions of femininity that constrain all women. Only when we recognize how the categories of male and female limit us all will we reach true sex equality.

There’s a story about being trans that you’ve definitely heard, whether you’re cis or trans: such-and-so loudly protested that they were a girl from their youngest days—three or four or five. She—because The Story is always and exclusively about trans women, isn’t it?—played dress-up with Mom’s clothes and high heels, always knew she’d been born in the wrong body, fought for transition from as soon as they knew it existed, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. The Story is so pervasive, so overwhelming that its mere existence keeps many of us from even imagining that we might be trans until we’re well into our lives. Even then, it’s held over our heads through every step of our transitions. “Why didn’t you tell us sooner?” “But you like beer and trucks and building things!” “But there were no signs!”

As if our identities were written in the stars, to be foretold by blind seers in a Greek tragedy. 

The Story is profoundly toxic to the foundations of trans existence at every level. […] The Story demands that extremely young children invent language to describe a thing that their parents don’t even know exists.

[…]

The real problem with The Story is more nuanced. Not having the words to describe a feeling you’re feeling doesn’t mean you don’t feel it—but also—not having those words dramatically changes your understanding of the feeling itself.

In the days since [Charlie Kirk's] killing, the US right wing has fallen over itself to blame trans people or, as Alex Jones put it to his almost 5 million followers, “the tranny death cult”. Similar formulations can be found across social media. Trans people are terrorists, a death cult, like the Taliban, need to be socially ostracised and banned from transitioning. And we all know there is only one type of trans person most of these people are imagining when they call for us to be electroshocked, shunned, and – let’s be real – beaten and killed. And that’s trans women.

It's over. There and here in the UK. Today I doubt I will see another progressive measure (either in legislation or healthcare policy) put in place for trans people in my lifetime. Who knows what may yet be taken away. In the UK, the terf campaign groups make their goals quite clear: they would like transition banned before the age of 25 and for trans women to be compelled to carry male government ID in all contexts. Once the EHRC guidance banning us from all women’s groups and spaces across society is in place, they intend to sue organisations and service providers that don’t exclude us. Right now, I think it’s best to assume all these things are a likely prospect in the next ten years.

In the community itself there’s been a definite shift in the way we speak about the future. The middle-class trans micro-economy that boomed in the 2010s: Pride month corporate sponsorship, jobs at LGBT charities, DEI talks and panels, diversity modelling and ad campaigns, progressive theatre, educational books about being trans etc, which some of us used to make a living, has gone. A friend and I used to riff on the old Susan Stryker joke that as a trans woman you must commodify yourself one way or another: it’s either escorting or the diversity and inclusion panel. The friend (a sex worker) always said she found more dignity (and better money) in the former.

Today the UK Supreme Court, the highest court, returned a verdict that a key piece of equalities legislation — the Equality Act (2010) — explicitly should not be taken to include trans women when referring to women. The judges were unanimous. They said that trans women were still protected under the protected characteristic of ‘gender reassignment’, but that we were not to be included in the category of ‘women’ for legal purposes.

The judges did not meet or consult a single trans person or trans-focussed organisation. It did meet and consult with single-issue pressure groups who exist solely to exclude trans people from public spaces: For Women Scotland, the LGB Alliance, The Lesbian Project (a splinter from LGBA led by Kathleen Stock and Julie Bindel) and others.

The Labour government welcomed the judgement, and recommitted itself to there being ‘sex-based’ rights and spaces. The Conservative opposition openly cheered, with leader Kemi Badenoch gleefully proclaiming common-sense has prevailed and that changing gender is impossible.

[…]

The ruling, which the judges optimistically advised should not be seen as a victory for one side or the other, is at direct odds with the Gender Recognition Act (2004) wherein trans people can legally, for all intents and purposes, be recognised as their correct gender. It is now open season on trans women in any female-coded space, and this will extend to any woman who looks a bit trans. Non-passing trans women, butch women and black women are all going to be harmed by this.