Last week, transgender discrimination, bar exam changes, and medical marijuana protections made headlines. ICYMI, check out Law Street’s best of the week below!

Chinese Court Rules in Favor of Transgender Man for the First Time Ever

Just one day after President Donald Trump banned transgender Americans from serving in the military, a Chinese court decided in favor of a transgender man who had been wrongfully terminated from his job for “looking like a lesbian” and wearing traditionally male clothing.

Is the California Bar Exam About to Get Easier?

The California Supreme Court has decided that it’s time to change the state’s notoriously difficult bar exam after observing very low passage rates for the past few years compared to other states.

Senate Committee Approves Medical Marijuana Protections

The Senate Appropriations Committee approved an amendment Thursday that would block the Department of Justice from using any funds to undermine state medical marijuana legislation.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Just one day after President Donald Trump banned transgender Americans from serving in the military, a Chinese court decided in favor of a transgender man who had been wrongfully terminated from his job for “looking like a lesbian” and wearing traditionally male clothing.

This is one of China’s most signifiant steps ever when it comes to protecting the legal rights of the LGBTQ community. The court awarded the plaintiff, “Mr. C,” the equivalent of $297. The decision states that workers cannot be discriminated against “based on their ethnicity, race, gender or religious beliefs,” according to the Washington Post.

“The defendant terminated the contract with the plaintiff without a legitimate reason” and “infringed on the plaintiff’s equal employment rights,” the ruling said.

The 29-year-old plaintiff, referred to as “Mr. C” to protect his identity and his family, worked at Ciming Checkup, a health services firm, and was fired last year for his appearance as a man despite legally being considered a female. Mr. C claims he was mocked by some co-workers, and was told that he could damage the company’s reputation before he was fired.

LGBTQ activists praised the court’s decision. For one, the case was China’s first on transgender identity, and it resulted in a victory for the transgender individual. The outcome paves the way for China to institute future anti-discrimination laws in the workplace since workers currently are at the mercy of their employers.

“Personally, I think that in terms of employment discrimination, this judicial precedent goes beyond [current] legislation,” Wang Yongmei, the winning lawyer, said.

The victory marks a seminal moment for those pursuing LGBTQ acceptance in a country that restricts free speech, LGBTQ rights, and human rights more broadly.

The Chinese court’s decision stands in stark contrast to the U.S. Department of Justice’s recent comments that workplace discrimination is perfectly legal. The DOJ released an amicus brief concerning a case between a company and a gay employee claiming that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act only covers sex discrimination, not discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Despite the court’s decision, the situation for the LGBTQ community in China is far from perfect. The gay and transgender communities in the country still feel silenced in public spaces. In the past year, Chinese police canceled an LGBTQ conference in the city of Xian, and a month after that internet regulators began to ban LGBTQ content online, according to the Washington Post.

Mr. C is proud that his lawsuit sets a precedent for future employees who may be wrongfully terminated, but also recognizes China–and the rest of the world–still has a long way to go.

“Although the case has ended, we still have a long way to go,” he said.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Chinese Court Rules in Favor of Transgender Man for the First Time Ever appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

America’s First Female Muslim Judge Found Dead in the Hudson River

Yesterday, police found the body of Judge Sheila Abdus-Salaam, the first female Muslim judge in U.S. history, floating in the Hudson River. Abdus-Salaam was 65 years old and had been reported missing earlier that day. Authorities said there were no signs of foul play so far, but the investigation is ongoing. Abdus-Salaam made history as the first black woman on the New York Court of Appeals–she was nominated in 2013 as part of Governor Andrew Cuomo’s effort to diversify the court. Many described her as a professional and intelligent but above all a warm and empathetic judge who often sided with vulnerable parties. Many high-profile New Yorkers expressed their condolences on social media.

Justice Sheila Abdus-Salaam was a trailblazing jurist and a force for good.

On behalf of all New Yorkers, I extend my deepest sympathies. https://t.co/hnic07Shp1

— Andrew Cuomo (@NYGovCuomo) April 12, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: April 13, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Trump’s Ultimatum: Approve the New Health Bill or We’ll Stick with Obamacare

Donald Trump yesterday posed an ultimatum for House Republicans–approve the new healthcare bill, or he will leave Obamacare in place as it is. The vote on the new American Health Care Act was supposed to take place yesterday but was delayed, as too many Republicans had said they would vote against the bill. In a closed-door meeting last night, Trump said he wants the House to vote on the bill this afternoon whether it has enough votes to pass or not–he’s apparently tired of negotiating. If the bill doesn’t pass, Trump said he would move on to other issues, despite touting an Obamacare repeal as a priority throughout his campaign.

The president and VP Mike Pence held a meeting with the extremely conservative House Freedom Caucus yesterday afternoon to discuss the bill. A photo from the meeting circulated on social media and was heavily slammed. One of the main topics of conversation was whether to get rid of essential health benefits regulations, which require insurance plans to cover pregnancy and maternity services. But…notice anything missing from this photo?

Here’s the picture of the leaders negotiating away birth control, maternity care & abortion. Notice anything? #ProtectOurCare

(h/t @Emmya2) pic.twitter.com/X1dYUSa7nO

— Planned Parenthood (@PPact) March 23, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: March 24, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

YouTube features a “restricted mode” that is supposed to make the content that it displays family friendly. You would think that just means no violent or sexual content. But it seems like the filter often sorts out content made by or for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, and over the weekend many users complained about the issue. Some of YouTube’s biggest stars posted screenshots of what their feed looks like in the restricted mode.

Just looked at my videos with the “restricted mode” on. Seeing a bit of a theme here…

LGBT+ content not safe for kids @YouTube? pic.twitter.com/KnhayE4h1y

— fiona (@neonfiona) March 16, 2017

On Sunday, YouTube said that this filter only affects videos with sensitive content, such as politics, health, and sexuality. But some users called its bluff. Singer-songwriter duo Tegan and Sara, two sisters who are both gay, said that several of their music videos disappeared in the restricted mode. The pair pointed out that the only gay content in the videos is them.

If you put @YouTube on restricted mode a bunch of our music videos disappear. I checked myself. LGBTQ people shouldn’t be restricted. SAD!

— Tegan and Sara (@teganandsara) March 19, 2017

Many users didn’t accept YouTube’s explanation that it was looking into the problem, or that it only affects a small group of users. But the video sharing website has always maintained that the LGBTQ community is important and did so again on Sunday evening.

A message to our community … pic.twitter.com/oHNiiI7CVs

— YouTube Creators (@YTCreators) March 20, 2017

Transgender YouTube star Gigi Gorgeous is one of the people whose videos were blocked, and she said that maybe her clips describing her transition were the reason. But, she said, those videos could be very helpful for young people struggling with their own gender identity, who might not know that there are more people like them out there and are looking for role models.

Some people pointed out that the censoring of innocent videos featuring LGBTQ personalities could help increase stigmatization for young gay or transgender people who look to the internet for advice or inspiration. YouTube described the filter as “an optional feature used by a very small subset of users who want to have a more limited YouTube experience.” Apparently the restricted mode relies on users “flagging” certain posts, so it’s not farfetched to believe that some people with anti-gay sentiments are sitting there flagging posts that upset them.

On Monday, YouTube tweeted again that it’s looking into the issue, but many people want more answers about how it could prevent this from happening in the future.

Glad u guys are looking into your mistake. But perhaps u should also share how u will determine what is “sensitive” and will b restricted? https://t.co/ZARor0Lf1E

— Tegan and Sara (@teganandsara) March 20, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why is YouTube Restricting LGBTQ Content? appeared first on Law Street.

Transgender students across the country are fighting for the right to use restrooms that correspond to their gender identities. And an injunction that has thwarted their efforts will officially not be challenged by President Donald Trump’s team.

The Justice Department filed a legal brief on February 10 withdrawing the government’s objections to the injunction, a move that could impact an upcoming Supreme Court case. In August, a Texas federal judge issued the injunction to prevent President Barack Obama’s administration from enforcing a directive which mandates that public schools allow transgender students to choose restrooms based on their gender identities. Non-compliance, according to the previous administration, would violate Title IX, a federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in public schools.

Judge Reed O’Connor wrote in the injunction that the government didn’t follow proper rule-making procedures–also known as “notice and comment”–and couldn’t implement requirements based on “the interpretation that the definition of sex includes gender identity.” 

Trump’s latest move could affect the outcome of a case involving Gavin Grimm, a transgender student who sued the Gloucester County, Virginia school board after his high school refused to let him use the boy’s bathroom. Grimm–who recently received a shout-out from “Orange is the New Black” actress and trans activist Laverne Cox at the Grammys–is scheduled to go to the Supreme Court in March. But the Washington Post reported that because his case is partially based on Obama’s directive, it may not move forward.

While on the campaign trail in April, Trump said he believed that transgender people should be able to “use the bathroom they feel is appropriate.” At the time, he also criticized HB2, a bill signed by North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory that requires people to use only the restrooms corresponding to their biological sex–although Trump primarily addressed the economic impact of the bill on the state’s businesses.

But after the Obama Administration directive came out in May, Trump said he believed the matter should be left up to the states, not the federal government. He used the same argument when he later contradicted himself and announced his support for HB2.   

The DOJ dropped its opposition to the injunction one day after Jeff Sessions was sworn in as Attorney General. Sessions has a history of voting against the expansion of rights for Americans in the LGBTQ community: he has opposed marriage equality, workplace protections for LGBTQ employees, and the inclusion of sexual orientation under the definition of hate crimes. The Human Rights Campaign, an LGBTQ advocacy group which scores politicians on their civil rights records, rates him at 0 percent.

Although Trump has promised to protect LGBTQ Americans (specifically from “the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology”) Vice President Mike Pence’s record on LGBTQ rights is similar to Sessions’. And over the summer, the Republican Party updated its platform to support the idea that parents should be free to make medical decisions for their children. Some saw that move as approval of conversion therapy–the use of psychological and sometimes physical discipline, including electroshock treatment, as a means of changing someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity. 

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Administration Pulls Support for Transgender Bathroom Protections appeared first on Law Street.

You’re out holiday shopping with a friend and suddenly the Chestnut Praline Latte you ill-advisedly chugged hits…what do you do? For most people it’s simple–you find a public restroom–but in the case of 60 percent of transgender Americans, the choice is often to avoid public bathrooms altogether.

According to the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey, released Thursday, nearly 60 percent of transgender Americans have avoided using public bathrooms in the last year because they were afraid of being confronted, harassed, or assaulted.

The anonymous online survey was comprised of the responses from a total of 27,715 transgender adults–approximately 2 percent of the U.S.’s estimated transgender population— making it the largest survey examining the experiences of transgender people in the United States.

The nonprofit National Center for Transgender Equality also found:

• 12 percent of respondents reported being verbally abused in a public bathroom in the past year.
• 1 percent said they had been physically assaulted in a bathroom in 2015.
• 32 percent said they limited how much they ate or drank so that they wouldn’t have to use a public restroom.
• 8 percent reported having contracted a urinary tract infection or kidney infection as a result of avoiding bathroom use.

These results coincide with legal battles between LGBT activists and conservative lawmakers over bathroom battlegrounds.

In March, North Carolina’s controversial “bathroom bill” (House Bill 2) made it mandatory for transgender individuals to use a bathroom according to the sex they were assigned at birth rather than their gender identity. Advocates claimed the law was necessary to protect women from “predators” and children from “untraditional values.”

As a result, the Justice Department filed a complaint against the state of North Carolina to stop the discrimination against transgender people.

But the data extended beyond just bathrooms. Respondents’ answers also showed that transgender people are more than twice as likely as the general public to live in poverty, and three times more likely to be unemployed (and four times more likely to be unemployed if they are a person of color).

Nearly nine out of ten (86 percent) reported being harassed, attacked, sexually assaulted, or mistreated in some other way by police. And 40 percent attempted suicide in their lifetime, nearly nine times the attempted suicide rate in the U.S. population (4.6 percent)

According to the survey’s summary:

The findings reveal disturbing patterns of mistreatment and discrimination and startling disparities between transgender people in the survey and the U.S. population when it comes to the most basic elements of life, such as finding a job, having a place to live, accessing medical care, and enjoying the support of family and community

You can find the complete survey results here.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Survey: Transgender Americans Fear Public Restrooms appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Texas Considers Awful Anti-Transgender Student Bill

Last week, Texas Senator Konni Burton filed a bill that would force schools to out transgender students to their parents. Under Bill 242, ironically filed on National Transgender Day of Remembrance, school staff would face disciplinary action if they fail to tell parents about kids’ physical and psychological states. This sounds vague, but Burton wrote that the bill is a response to previous guidelines that DO allow school staff to withhold information about transgender students from parents. When the media started paying attention, Burton decided to attack journalists in general, claiming the reports were all “clickbait” and claiming that the reporters had not contacted her when in fact, they had.

Anger stoking, click bait sites that do not contact sources to write a story depend on ur anger to keep them relevant. Don’t be their puppet

— Konni Burton (@KonniBurton) November 18, 2016

@the_mical People are upset because a few publications ran with a totally false story & never contacted us to understand it. It’s clickbait.

— Konni Burton (@KonniBurton) November 18, 2016

Transgender individuals and activists were quick to respond, claiming that Burton’s bill will put lives at risk.

@KonniBurton awful lot of kids going to get murdered or forced into suicide by their parents because of this bill

— Transgarbo woman (@Herracks) November 17, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: November 21, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

In a lot of ways, 2016 was the year in which the fight over transgender individuals’ access to the bathroom that corresponds with their gender identity came to the forefront. From North Carolina’s “bathroom bill” that was passed in March, to the directive issued by the Obama Administration in August that instructed all public schools to allow students to use the bathroom that corresponds to their gender identity, it’s been a newsworthy topic for the year. Now, to kick off 2017, SCOTUS will be weighing in on a Virginia case that could provide more clarity on the issue.

Gavin Grimm, who attends high school in Virginia’s Gloucester County, is transgender. He began to take hormones and grow facial hair, and started to use the men’s bathroom early in his high school career. But some parents complained, and the school board decried that students would have to use the bathroom that corresponded to their “biological gender.” So, Grimm sued the school board over the decision. The case has now made it all the way to the Supreme Court, after a federal appeals court ruled earlier this year in favor of Grimm. While the court is deciding, Grimm will still have to abide by the school board’s decision.

Right now, the Supreme Court still only has eight members, as no one has filled the void left by Justice Antonin Scalia’s death. Hopefully a new member will be confirmed by the time the case is actually heard, although in the case of a 4-4 split the lower court’s decision in favor of Grimm would remain.

Grimm wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post in which he explained the humiliating and inhumane experiences he has had at the hands of the school’s policies. He describes how he has had to go off school grounds to use the restroom at some points and how it has been suggested that he use the single stall unisex restroom “so that no one else would have their privacy invaded by using the same restroom as me.” But Grimm also addresses the issue with a sense of hope, saying:

I did not choose to announce to the news media that I am transgender. My school board made that decision for me. But now that I am visible, I want to use my position to help the country see transgender people like me as real people just living our lives. We are not perverse. We are not broken. We are not sick. We are not freaks. We cannot change who we are. Our gender identities are as innate as anyone else’s.

I hope the justices of the Supreme Court can see me and the rest of the transgender community for who we are — just people — and rule accordingly.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SCOTUS to Weigh in on Transgender Bathroom Access appeared first on Law Street.

Chelsea Manning, the transgender whistleblower imprisoned for leaking classified government documents to Wikileaks, ended her hunger strike on Tuesday after the U.S. Army agreed to allow her to undergo gender transition surgery to treat her gender dysphoria.

According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Manning, who is a transgender woman, began the hunger strike on September 9 to demand the “medically necessary and recommended treatment” for her disorder.

“This is a monumental day for Chelsea, who can now enjoy some peace knowing that critically needed medical care is forthcoming,” said ACLU attorney Chase Strangio. “This medical care is absolutely vital for Chelsea as it is for so many transgender people–in and out of prison–who are systemically denied treatment solely because they are transgender.”

The former U.S. Army soldier is currently serving a 35-year prison sentence for espionage at Fort Leavenworth, an all-male Army prison in Kansas, after providing hundreds of thousands of documents to Wikileaks while working as an intelligence analyst in Iraq.

Her lawyers claim that while she’s been at Fort Leavenworth, army officials have subjected Manning to long stretches of solitary confinement and forced her to cut her hair to “male hair length standards”–which does not reflect her gender identity. Manning claims that the lack of care for her disorder contributed to her suicide attempt in July.

In 2014, Manning filed a lawsuit against the Department of Defense so she could grow her hair out, use cosmetics, and receive hormone treatment to in order to express her female gender. The Army eventually agreed to allow her to receive hormone therapy, but it refused to allow her to groom as a woman.

In April 2016, Manning’s psychologist recommended she undergo gender transition surgery as part of her treatment. The Army’s decision to proceed with Manning’s treatment will make her the first transgender inmate to undergo the surgery while in prison.

Manning gave the following statement to the ACLU:

I am unendingly relieved that the military is finally doing the right thing. I applaud them for that. This is all that I wanted–for them to let me be me. But it is hard not to wonder why it has taken so long. Also, why were such drastic measures needed? The surgery was recommended in April 2016. The recommendations for my hair length were back in 2014. In any case, I hope this sets a precedent for the thousands of trans people behind me hoping they will be given the treatment they need.

After news broke of the Army’s decision, social media critics came out in droves to condemn the use of  taxpayers’ money on the surgery.

Why exactly are tax payers footing the bill for Chelsea Manning’s surgery and temper tantrum?

— Tawnie (@Tawnie) September 14, 2016

How is it that “Chelsea Manning” gets a gender-change operation on the tax-payers dime? How is that appropriate use of tax-dollars?

— Greg Granger (@BattleCoachella) September 14, 2016

The Daily Beast, however, argues that if you’re ok with prisoners receiving antidepressants, you shouldn’t get worked up over Manning’s medical treatment. Both hormone treatment and gender reassignment surgery can be deemed medically necessary to treat individuals with gender dysphoria or gender identity disorder.

“Thankfully the government has recognized its constitutional obligation to provide Chelsea with the medical care that she needs and we hope that they will act without delay to ensure that her suffering does not needlessly continue,” said the ACLU.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Chelsea Manning Ends Hunger Strike to Receive Gender Transition Surgery appeared first on Law Street.

Transgender actress, performer, and activist Alexis Arquette passed away on Sunday around midnight at the age of 47. Alexis was the sibling of actors David, Rosanna, Patricia, and Richmond Arquette. The cause of death is not known, but she was reportedly surrounded by family members singing David Bowie’s “Starman” as she passed. According to Alexis’ wishes they all cheered as she “passed to another dimension.”

Alexis Arquette: actor and activist dies aged 47 https://t.co/d5oN9e9R5U

— The Guardian (@guardian) September 12, 2016

Her sister Patricia tweeted a link to Bowie’s song early Sunday, with the words “Breaking through the veil singing StarMan.”

Breaking through the veil singing StarMan https://t.co/A3way5S3Lb

— Patricia Arquette (@PattyArquette) September 11, 2016

Alexis was born as Robert Arquette in Los Angeles in 1969. She came from a family full of actors–the siblings’ father and grandfather were also in the business. She was best known for her roles in “Last Exit To Brooklyn,” “Pulp Fiction,” and as a Boy George impersonator in “The Wedding Singer,” with Adam Sandler. The real Boy George expressed his condolences on Twitter.

R.I.P my sister Alexis Arquette. Another bright light gone out far too soon. Love to the family and all that loved Alexis.

— Boy George (@BoyGeorge) September 11, 2016

Alexis knew early on that she was trans. In a 2008 interview with The Times, her sister Patricia said that Alexis started dressing in girls’ clothes at the age of four and later realized that she wasn’t a gay man, she was simply a woman in the wrong body.

Alexis Arquette was also a prominent transgender activist and appeared in VH1’s reality show “The Surreal Life,” which depicted celebrities living together in a Hollywood house trying to decide what their next step in their careers would be. While on the show, she highlighted transgender issues for a broader audience, and continued to do so in the documentary “Alexis Arquette: She’s My Brother” in 2007. The film focused on her transition through her and her family’s eyes. According to the LA Times, she said:

Coming out as transgender in America from a celebrity family is a lot easier than it can be for private individuals anywhere else in the world. In fact, if you come out as transgender in certain parts of the world, you may be murdered in the street.

The Human Rights Campaign acknowledged Alexis’ work for transgender rights and equality on Twitter.

.@HRC mourns the death of Alexis Arquette, an actor & longtime advocate for transgender equality.Our condolences to Alexis’ family & friends

— HumanRightsCampaign (@HRC) September 12, 2016

Alexis’ siblings posted the sad news about their sister’s death on social media, David Arquette calling her his “hero for eternity.”

Thank you all for your love and kind words about Alexis. My hero for eternity pic.twitter.com/Z18xLtYTBv

— David Arquette (@DavidArquette) September 11, 2016

David’s ex-wife Courteney Cox also expressed her grief.

My heart goes out to anyone who was lucky enough to know Alexis.
We will love and miss you forever.

— Courteney Cox (@CourteneyCox) September 11, 2016

The family also said in a statement:

Alexis was a brilliant artist and painter, a singer, an entertainer and an actor. We learned what real bravery is through watching her journey of living as a trans woman. We came to discover the one truth – that love is everything. We are comforted by the fact that Alexis came into our family and was our brother and then our sister, and that she gave us so much love. We will love you always, Alexis. We know we were the lucky ones.

The Arquette family asked for privacy and requested that people wishing to express their sympathies donate money to organizations that support the LGBT community.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Transgender Activist and Actress Alexis Arquette Dies at 47 appeared first on Law Street.

Just in time for the first day of school for many kids, Federal Judge Reed O’Connor in Texas announced that he is blocking the Obama administration’s directive that allows transgender students to choose whichever bathroom is consistent with their gender identity.

This means schools will face no consequences if they do not accommodate bathroom or locker room options for transgender students. The blocking of the order will apply nationwide for the time being.

The government’s bathroom directive became official in May after the Justice Department sued North Carolina over its bathroom bill, HB2, which prohibited people from using bathrooms that do not correspond with the sex on their birth certificate. U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch compared North Carolina’s policies to racial segregation.

On August 12, Texas and 12 other states filed a lawsuit against the government at a hearing in Fort Worth, saying the bathroom rules are unconstitutional and complaining they would loose billions of dollars if they do not follow the rules. The Texas Attorney General, Ken Paxton, called Obama’s “illegal federal overreach” and said to Associated Press:

This president is attempting to rewrite the laws enacted by the elected representatives of the people, and is threatening to take away federal funding from schools to force them to conform. That cannot be allowed to continue, which is why we took action to protect states and school districts.

But the Obama administration disagreed and argued earlier this year that the bathroom guidelines are non-binding and have no legal consequences.

Even though the government never explicitly said that schools need to follow the bathroom rules to not lose their funding, it was implied in court documents that stated the schools that get federal funding ”are clearly on notice that anti-discrimination polices must be followed.”

Judge O’Connor also claimed that existing laws that require schools to not discriminate people on the basis of sex do not apply to transgender students since “the plain meaning of the term sex meant the biological and anatomical differences between male and female students as determined at their birth.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Texas Judge Blocks Obama’s Directive on Transgender Student Bathroom Use appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Donald Trump and the $400 Million Dollar Question

The White House rejects claims that a $400 million dollar transaction that took place between the U.S. and Iran is anything more than what it is, a legitimate transaction. In January, the United States delivered $400 million in cash to Iran “a long-standing financial dispute,” according to the White House press secretary Josh Earnest. Earnest spent Wednesday deflecting claims and criticism about the money order from all directions, including news outlets and Donald Trump.

Trump tweeted Wednesday that there was more to the money than met the eye:

Our incompetent Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, was the one who started talks to give 400 million dollars, in cash, to Iran. Scandal!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 3, 2016

Sounds like hot air, right? But it wasn’t until other top Republicans started speaking up that things started to get a little iffy.

Obama administration sent plan load of cash to #Iran as ransom as part of deal on hostages. Just unreal. https://t.co/UHfdK4BEyN

— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) August 3, 2016

Rubio and many others are claiming that the money was a ransom payment for four U.S. soldiers who had been taken hostage in Iran after crossing into its surrounding waters. Earnest says that the money was part of a series of unrelated settlement from a decades-old debt and the release of the hostages just happened to be within the same timeline. Earnest claims that while the scandal rumors “make for a more colorful story,” but that the cash was just a boring debt payment. So opponents of the Iran deal need to shut up.

via GIPHY

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 4, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to the RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through the top five controversial and crazy stories in the world of law and policy each day. So who is ranting and who is raving today? Check it out below:

President Obama Schools Us On The Term “Populism”

At a press conference last night involving Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, President Enrique Pena Nieto, and our president, Obama went on quite the tangent. He was barely able to contain his frustration with the common perception that Trump is a populist.

Get ready to get schooled with a little lesson in populism, courtesy of Obama:

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 30, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Not one but two transgender women, both named Misty, won Democratic Primaries held on Tuesday. This is a big step forward for the LGBT community and is well timed since June is National LGBT Pride Month.

In Utah, Misty Snow won the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate, while in Colorado, Misty Plowright won a House primary.

JoDee Winterhof, from the Human Rights Campaign, said to NBC:

It is historic that this November, the top Utah Democrat on the ballot in that state will be a transgender woman. Regardless of the outcome in the fall, both of these candidates have demonstrated to transgender people across the country that our politics are stronger when diverse voices are not only heard, but also included.

Neither of the women have much experience in politics, but want to offer voters an alternative to the other candidates that are running.

Misty K. Snow & Misty Plowright made history yesterday, and also they are my favorite political figures in ages https://t.co/7OoxouQ61Z

— J. Escobedo Shepherd (@jawnita) June 29, 2016

Misty Snow, from Utah, is the first transgender person to run for a Senate seat from a major party. Her day job is at a grocery store and she doesn’t have a college degree, but she beat marriage therapist Jonathan Swinton by a big margin. She is challenging Utah Senator Mike Lee, who is very conservative, with Bernie Sanders-inspired ideas such as $15 minimum wage, paid parental leave, and free college tuition.

Misty Plowright works in tech in Colorado and described herself as “the anti-politician” and an IT nerd. She also beat her opponent, an Iraq war veteran, easily and wants to get private money out of politics and for the whole country to have access to high speed Internet.

Neither of the candidates focused on the fact that they’re transgender women in their campaign, but rather on progressive Democratic ideas. However, winning in November might be harder to do considering how relatively conservative both of their states are. However, after the recent bathroom debate in North Carolina, and the shooting in Orlando, Snow and Plowright provide some positive news for the LGBT community, no matter the outcome of these elections.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Two Transgender Women Historically Won Democratic Primaries on Tuesday appeared first on Law Street.

The plaintiff and lawyer were ordered to stay while the rest of the courtroom was adjourned. The judge’s clerk had noticed legal language that had gone overlooked–delaying the groundbreaking decision. After ten minutes of deliberation, the judge smiled, nodded her head up and down, and Jamie Shupe, the plaintiff, began to weep.

“The sex of Jamie Shupe is hereby changed from female to non-binary,” read Oregon Circuit Court Judge Amy Holmes Hehn’s decision. In that moment the case became first legal recognition of a non-binary gender identity in the state of Oregon, and perhaps the country, according to Shupe’s lawyer, Lake James Perriguey.

It was a routine, drama-less affair. A hearing was not even necessary. “Jamie thought it was going to be a very difficult procedure,” Perriguey told Law Street. “I thought it was going to be very routine. I knew the law didn’t limit gender, there is no specific language in the statute.”

Perriguey, who has been representing the queer and trans community in Oregon since 1998, said that this is the first non-binary case to be brought before a judge in the state. But that does not mean Perriguey finds the victory to be “envelope-pushing”–a term used by the judge after the ruling was dealt. “The envelope was a little too small, and we are sort of opening it up,” said Perriguey.

Shupe was born with the biology of a male. But early on, Shupe felt like a female. For decades, nothing happened.

But in 2013, at the age of 49, Shupe took the first concrete steps toward making that inner identity an outward reality. They started hormone treatments. “Jamie” became Shupe’s legal first name, but what came before that they do not wish to share. Then in a tense legal battle with the United States Army, which they served in for 18 years, Shupe’s Army retirement papers were changed to reflect Shupe’s female identity.

“I have effectively traded my white male privilege to become one of America’s most hated minorities. The documents of my distinguished military career no longer reflect my name,” Shupe wrote in a piece for The New York Times op-ed series “Transgender Today.”

At the time Shupe lived in Pittsburgh, where trans-animus was poignant (Shupe told the Times: “I had neighbors yelling at me for being in women’s clothing”). So Shupe fled, finding refuge in Portland, a place where “nobody cares who or what you are.”

After realizing both the “female” and “male” boxes did not quite fit, Shupe embraced a non-binary identity, and Friday’s decision legally recognized that. But the fight goes on. The next step, according to Perriguey, is to secure non-binary status on legal identification forms: driver’s license, passport, state ID.

Having a judge legally recognize Shupe as non-binary should provide leverage in the fights to come. “Now Jamie has a document from a court of law,” Perriguey said. “Jamie is thrilled.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Oregon Judge Recognizes a Person as Non-Binary appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to the RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through the top five controversial and crazy stories in the world of law and policy each day. So who is ranting and who is raving today? Check it out below:

US Government Issues Guidance on Transgender Access to Public School Bathrooms

Because we all need a little hand-holding on how not to be jerks, the Obama administration is releasing guidelines on how to deal with transgender bathroom use. The letter tells public schools how to make sure none of their students are discriminated against. Any state or school that does not abide by the administration’s “interpretation of the law” could face major consequences, like loss of federal aid, as seen in the current battle with North Carolina.

The federal policy on use of bathrooms by transgender students triggered a swift reaction https://t.co/NV7ldBZS0I pic.twitter.com/8hJLjecQd4

— The New York Times (@nytimes) May 13, 2016

Flint Lets It Rain for the Month of Pay To Clear Out Pipes

The State of Michigan is encouraging Flint residents to use up all the water their hearts desire this month because it will be footing the bill. As with most things that are free, the scenario will play out as a win-win–Flint residents get 100 percent free water and the city’s pipes will be flushed out after remaining sedentary for months. And who knows, maybe Flint will get to clear its name as well? 

President Obama drinks filtered city water in Flint, Michigan, to show it’s safe https://t.co/s3RKh6Savu pic.twitter.com/1avslXmJgR

— The Boston Globe (@BostonGlobe) May 4, 2016

Twitter Suspends Azealia Banks’ Account After Her Rampage on Zayn Malik

The 23-year-old rapper has seen better days. We all fondly remember the inappropriate but fun “212,” right? But today Banks seems to have lost her damn mind. Her recent kerfuffle with singer Zayn Malik comes as no surprise as she’s been involved in several Twitter feuds, like a bizarre one with Sarah Palin. Azealia Banks’ hate finally caught the attention of Twitter admins for ‘abusive tweets and behavior” and she has since been suspended.

The World’s Oldest Person Died Today

At 116 years old, Susannah Mushatt Jones passed away. Born in 1899, the Alabama native had seen a whole century pass and then some. The internet is in awe of what this woman must have seen and endured in her great lifetime. Another centenarian,  Emma Morano-Martinuzzi is now the world’s oldest person, also 116 years old. So what IS the secret to a long life?

A Story of three smugglers and their $3M drug stash

This week three women touched down in O’Hare International Airport from a trip Japan. No one would ever guess they were carrying a buttload of opium and heroin worth over $3 million dollars in street prices. These cute little old ladies almost got away with it too, if it weren’t for those darned customs agents. They are each being held on $50,000 bond.

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: May 13, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

As the war over North Carolina’s restrictive HB 2 wages on, and the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Governor Pat McCrory go head to head, the Obama Administration is officially weighing in. The administration issued a guidance to public schools today, stating that schools must allow transgender students to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity.

The letter, sent by the DOJ and the Department of Education, is intended as “significant guidance.” That means that it doesn’t create any new laws, but “provides information and examples to inform recipients about how the Departments evaluate whether covered entities are complying with their legal obligations.” The letter defines often mis-used terms such as transgender, gender identity, and transition. The letter clearly states its expectations for the nations’ public schools when it comes to dealing with students who are transgender:

The Departments treat a student’s gender identity as the student’s sex for purposes of Title IX and its implementing regulations. This means that a school must not treat a transgender student differently from the way it treats other students of the same gender identity.

As it pertains particularly to restrooms and other facilities like locker rooms, the letter states:

A school may provide separate facilities on the basis of sex, but must allow transgender students access to such facilities consistent with their gender identity.14 A school may not require transgender students to use facilities inconsistent with their gender identity or to use individual-user facilities when other students are not required to do so. A school may, however, make individual-user options available to all students who voluntarily seek additional privacy.

However, unsurprisingly, some states are viewing the letter as fighting words. Texas Governor Greg Abbott has said that he will be working with North Carolina to fight the directive, and Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick stated:

This is truly a modern-day Come and Take It moment. Texans will not stand for this…This will create chaos in America and in its schools, and it’s now going to be one of the key issues in the presidential election. Because she supports this policy, this may have cost Hillary Clinton the election.

It’s clear that the fight over bathroom use isn’t going to go away any time soon, and that transgender students in many states will continue to struggle with discrimination, hate, and fear. As we hurtle toward the 2016 election, we should expect to hear a lot more about the use of public bathrooms.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama Administration Issues Guidance on Transgender Treatment in Schools appeared first on Law Street.

The governor of North Carolina, Pat McCrory, has sued the federal government in response to the federal deadline to begin to remedy the so-called bathroom bill in the state. The law entered into effect in March and bans transgender people from using public bathrooms that don’t correspond with the sex on their birth certificate. Last week the top civil rights lawyer at the Justice Department, Vanita Gupta, called the law a civil rights violation, and McCrory was given until today to respond. Instead, he reacted by suing both Gupta and U.S. attorney Loretta Lynch, for what he called a “radical reinterpretation” of federal law.

McCrory had asked to have the deadline extended, to which the Justice Department answered no, unless he essentially admitted how discriminatory the law is. He refused, saying doing so would be the same as agreeing with the law’s critics. He also fought back against the claims from some that the bathroom bill was similar to segregating bathrooms by race. McCrory stated that transgender people do not have the same civil rights protection issues as people of color, since you can easily see someone’s race, while seeing someone’s gender identity is definitely harder.

According to CNN, McCrory said that the House Bill 2, commonly called the bathroom bill, does not only affect North Carolina, but all of America. He alleges that the Obama administration is trying to change the norm. McCrory called the federal government “a bully” and used the argument that men will be able to go in the women’s bathrooms or locker rooms and molest them as grounds for backing the law.

Tonight, I joined @MegynKelly to talk about the hypocrisy surrounding the common-sense bathroom privacy bill. Watch:https://t.co/RveLPCpFS3

— Pat McCrory (@PatMcCroryNC) April 29, 2016

If North Carolina keeps the law, this means the state could lose about $1.5 billion in funding, as well as risk $800 million worth of federally backed student loans, and possibly face a federal lawsuit. The law has generated a storm of protests from the public as well as celebrities and big corporations, such as Apple, Twitter, and PayPal. Bruce Springsteen and Pearl Jam have cancelled shows in the state, and Target announced that employees and customers could use any restroom they identify with in their stores.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post North Carolina Sues Justice Department Over Bathroom Bill Deadline appeared first on Law Street.

Democrats in the North Carolina state legislature have finally filed the repeal of HB2, the aptly named “bathroom bill,” that has been the center of attention nationwide for the past few weeks. All it took for them to get this repeal in order was, oh, I don’t know, the disapproval of Bruce Springsteen, Paypal, Cyndi Lauper, Ringo Starr, Pearl Jam, Mumford and Sons, Cirque du Soleil, and countless more people, groups, and companies.

After over a month since HB2 was passed, it seems like the anger about the bill is starting to get through to the dense legislature and seemingly oblivious Governor, Pat McCrory. Today, Equality NC delivered 190,000 signatures to the Governor’s office, calling for the repeal of HB2.

We are delivering nearly 190,000 petition signatures calling for repeal of #hb2 @ACLU_NC @HRC @CSElive #RepealHB2 pic.twitter.com/s8BSKIu8fT

— Equality NC (@equalitync) April 25, 2016

Boxes filled with signatures just deliver to Gov Office. #HB2 calling for repeal #abc11 #ncpol pic.twitter.com/pqRU3s70Sz

— Elaina Athans (@AthansABC11) April 25, 2016

Thankfully, House Democrats responded by filing HB946, which is the repeal of HB2.

On the first morning of session, a bill has been filed to repeal HB2. pic.twitter.com/GPPxzN7Ob4

— Guilford Green (@GuilfordGreen) April 25, 2016

#BreakingNews–#ABC11 is there as Democratic lawmakers file House Bill 946, hoping to repeal House Bill 2. pic.twitter.com/ytaEcBS7Zi

— Gloria Rodriguez (@GloriaABC11) April 25, 2016

What this new bill will do is relieve any businesses whose policies were affected by the mandates in HB2 of their obligations to the bill. Essentially, policies won’t have to be changed in response to HB2 if the repeal is passed.

Some people in North Carolina, however, are in support of HB2 and have been protesting any kind of repeal, claiming that HB2 protects women and children in public restrooms.

Supporters of House Bill 2 in NC now rallying near opponents. #ABC11 pic.twitter.com/CExZHTlzAT

— Gloria Rodriguez (@GloriaABC11) April 25, 2016

The NC Values Coalition even hosted a rally in downtown Raleigh in support of the discriminatory bill, claiming to be standing up for traditional values.

Signs of thankfulness for Governor @PatMcCroryNC to stand firm on #HB2. #StandWithNC pic.twitter.com/L9U7sERy7p

— NC Values Coalition (@NCValues) April 25, 2016

If you’d like to see more infuriating tweets, feel free to search the hashtag “#StandWithNC” on Twitter to see some of the ridiculous arguments that proponents of HB2 are making–a large chunk of whom are white men purporting that this bill is the only way to protect women and children from dangerous instances of pedophilia.

If anyone needed more reasons to despise this bill, Ted Cruz has come out in favor of it this week in a speech in Indiana, saying:

So let me make things real simple: Even if Donald Trump dresses up as Hillary Clinton, he shouldn’t be using the girls’ restroom.

To be clear, Donald Trump dressing up as Hilary Clinton and a person being transgender are two totally different things. Cruz attacked Trump for his anti-HB2 opinions, saying that:

He joined them [liberals] in calling for grown men to be allowed to use little girls’ public restrooms. As the dad of young daughters, I dread what this will mean for our daughters—and for our sisters and our wives. It is a reckless policy that will endanger our loved ones.

What Cruz’s argument fails to realize is that the HB2 isn’t “protecting women and children” from grown men. It’s forcing people who identify with one gender to use the bathroom of another, for example, James Sheffield:

@PatMcCroryNC It's now the law for me to share a restroom with your wife. #HB2 #trans #NorthCarolina #shameonNC pic.twitter.com/4b4OdmfmeN

— James P Sheffield (@JayShef) March 24, 2016

Under HB2 this man would be forced by law to use the women’s restroom. How do you feel about that Ted Cruz? Not to mention the fact that even Fox News acknowledges the fact that there are no instances of criminals using transgender protections in order to defend any kind of sexual harassment charges in public bathrooms. Neither groups on the left nor groups on the right have any evidence that any man has ever claimed to be transgender in order to disguise himself as a woman and sexually harass women, which is what HB2 supporters and Cruz are claiming will happen if HB2 is repealed.

At the end of the day, this law is discriminatory, and the people of North Carolina are getting fed up–myself included. Thanks to Democratic lawmakers, though, it’s looking like there is the possibility for a repeal in the near future. And, thank goodness, because it’s about time.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post North Carolina Legislators File HB2 Repeal: It’s About Time appeared first on Law Street.

It’s a sad time for LGBTQ rights in North Carolina and Mississippi, where discriminatory legislators have recently passed horrifyingly intolerant laws that specifically target members of the LGBT community. In response to these laws, companies, celebrities, and communities have begun to speak out for the rights of LGBTQ people and stand up for the repeal of hateful policies.

The North Carolina bill, which requires transgender people to use bathrooms that match the sex listed on their birth certificate, was signed into law last month by Governor Pat McCrory. The Governor claims that this law is a matter of protecting the safety and privacy of women and children in North Carolina. The new law in Mississippi allows churches, religious groups, and private businesses to deny service to people based on their gender or marriage status if they conflict with the businesses’ religious beliefs. Not only are these laws draconian, but they are also getting both North Carolina and Mississippi into some serious trouble.

For starters, these laws are probably going to be challenged constitutionally in court. While it is most likely that these bills are being driven by unwarranted fear and misunderstandings about gender identity, rather than a pure hatred for the LGBTQ community, there is a question of the constitutionality of blatantly discriminatory laws.

North Carolina’s law, specifically, could lose the state $4.5 billion in federal education funding from Title IX because of its violation of the Title’s provisions:

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

This law discriminates against transgender students in the school system, and, therefore, could call into question whether or not the state should still earn Title IX funding.

On the topic of financial hits the two states will be taking, North Carolina is expected to lose millions after PayPal pulled out of its planned expansion in Charlotte. The expansion was going to bring around 400 new jobs to the state, each with estimated yearly salaries of around fifty-one thousand dollars. On top of these tangible losses, large companies, and tech businesses are voicing their opposition to discriminatory laws like the ones in Mississippi and North Carolina. Some of Mississippi’s largest employers, like Nissan and Toyota, have spoken out about how the law will hurt tourism and harm the state’s economy. Funny or Die released a parody tourism commercial for Mississippi, tastefully highlighting exactly how these laws will drive away tourists.

In addition to decreases in tourism, entire cities and states are banning business travel to Mississippi and North Carolina because of these recently enacted laws. Minnesota, New York, Vermont, and Washington are four states who have prohibited employee travel to these two states, with many more sure to join in soon. Several cities including Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Portland, and San Francisco  have also placed travel bans to both states. While travel bans are, for the most part, symbolic, they have the potential to affect local economies and reinforce the overwhelming lack of support for these two states.

If all of the economic hits and the national shame weren’t enough to convince you of how terrible these laws are, big names from all across the country are also lashing out, including, but certainly not limited to, Joel McHale, Ellen Degeneres, and The Boss himself–Bruce Springsteen.

Springsteen canceled his tour stops in North Carolina in response to the bill, claiming that:

Some things are more important than a rock show, and this fight against prejudice and bigotry, which is happening as I write, is one of them. It is the strongest means I have for raising my voice in opposition to those who continue to push us backwards instead of forwards.

“Bruce Springsteen joins North Carolina backlash”https://t.co/NBiQWZJxkf

— Bruce Springsteen (@springsteen) April 9, 2016

Ellen, who is an avid supporter of the LGBTQ community, tweeted support for the people who are being targeted in North Carolina and Mississippi.

The people of #NorthCarolina and #Mississippi deserve better. We won't stop fighting until they get it.

— Ellen DeGeneres (@TheEllenShow) April 5, 2016

And finally, in perhaps what is the best response to this law, Joel McHale decided to perform in Durham, North Carolina and then donate all of his profits to the LGBTQ center of Durham. After reasonably pointing out that “this [law] is fucking crazy,” he announced this decision and promptly received an uproarious cheer from the audience.

Honestly, these laws are downright embarrassing and a great reminder of exactly why we need to keep fighting for all kinds of equality in this country. It is asinine that in 2016 we are still having to tell elected representatives that banning people from using a bathroom and refusing to serve customers because of their sexuality or gender identity is blatant discrimination. So, to Pat McCrory (the governor of my home state), Phil Bryant (Mississippi’s Governor), and the rest of state representatives who have voted in favor of or spoken in favor of laws that are taking our country back centuries in terms of civil rights, I say pull it together. Stop making myself and countless other American citizens feel ashamed of our hometowns because of your antiquated, evil, discriminatory laws. Stop being so hateful towards people who are literally just being themselves. Stop making your states the laughing stock of the entire country and do your actual job: stand up for your people and their rights instead of tearing us all down.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post North Carolina and Mississippi: States Face Consequences for Discriminatory Laws appeared first on Law Street.

North Carolina just passed a ridiculous new law that makes it impossible for cities and towns in the state to pass their own anti-discrimination laws. North Carolina legislators called a special session this week just to pass this law, after the city council of Charlotte dared to vote for a local ordinance that would ban discrimination against LGBT individuals this February.

Of course, fear-mongering played a big role in why the North Carolina House and Senate were so desperate to pass this bill. One big sticking point was that Charlotte’s ordinance would allow transgender individuals to use the bathroom that corresponds with the gender identity that they identify with. The popular and untrue reaction to relatively innocuous provisions like this around the country has been to raise the alarm that it will be used by “sexual predators” to prey on women and girls in bathrooms and locker rooms.

That claim is essentially an outright lie, as there’s no evidence to suggest that passing non-discrimination laws that allow transgender people to use the restroom that conforms to their gender identity leads to more sexual assaults. States and cities that have passed such provisions have not reported increased instances of sexual assault–police departments from various locales in Iowa, Hawaii, Colorado, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Texas have all gone on the record to say so. According to Vincent Villano, the director of communications for the National Center for Transgender Equality, the organization:

Has not heard of a single instance of a transgender person harassing a non-transgender person in a public restroom. Those who claim otherwise have no evidence that this is true and use this notion to prey on the public’s stereotypes and fears about transgender people.

However, the legislators in North Carolina fell for the panic and decided to pass a law that not only ignores what the people of Charlotte want, but could actually cause issues for its schools and public buildings. As David A. Graham of the Atlantic put it:

The student-restroom laws raise other questions, such as how schools might seek to enforce then, and whether enforcement would make schools fall afoul of federal Title IX regulation and thus endanger federal funding. (It would be somewhat ironic if the state’s attempt to preempt cities was itself preempted by federal law.)

So, North Carolina’s reactionary new law accomplishes little besides making it harder to protect people from discrimination. That’s not really a legacy to be proud of.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post North Carolina’s Reactionary New Anti-LGBT Law appeared first on Law Street.

The year 2015 will be marked by many advances for the transgender community, both in the media (hello Caitlyn Jenner) and in legislatures across the United States and the world. All in all, 2015 was a year when transgender rights came further into the forefront of our daily lives and vocabulary. But there was a dark side to 2015 as well. Somehow, even though trans rights were gaining ground, it was still the year with the most trans murders on record. Read on to learn about the transgender murder crisis in 2015.

Why Are Trans People Getting Murdered?

Many of the trans people who were murdered in 2015 were victims of hate crimes. Even worse, the majority were perpetrated against transgender women of color.

Hate crimes, specifically those against people identifying with a certain gender, have occurred for years. But these crimes came into the spotlight in 2009 when Congress passed the Matthew Shepard Act, which added gender identity to the list of possible motivations for hate crimes. The act also requires the FBI to track statistics on gender identity-motivated hate crimes, but those statistics rely on voluntary reporting from law enforcement agencies and many believe that they are grossly underestimated. These crimes may be undercounted because police officers may not report the murders of trans people as hate crimes–or treat these murders like hate crimes–because their gender is often misidentified.

Who are the victims?

Some of the victims, such as Mercedes Williamson and Keyshia Blige, were killed by strangers in the typical sense of a hate crime–people who didn’t want someone different, or outside of their norm, in their community. There is also a subset of these murders that were committed by loved ones. Around half of the transgender murders in 2015 were committed by people who knew their victims. Two examples include Yazmin Vash Payne, who was killed by her boyfriend after an argument, and Bri Golec, who was stabbed to death by her father.

How Many Trans Murders Were There in 2015?

According to the Human Rights campaign, there were at least 21 murders specifically of trans individuals in the United States in the first 10 months of 2015. But these are only the murders that were reported and identified by that group, and only includes part of the year. Other counts put that statistic higher, but the fact of the matter is that based on the available data, we do not know how many trans murders occured. Even then, the 21 identified by the Human Rights campaign marks a notable increase from previous years. In 2013, there were at least 19 murders of trans people and in 2014, there were at least 13.

The true number is almost certainly higher. There have been many articles in the last couple of months detailing the attacks and profiling the victims of these attacks, which flips the normal crime story on its head (since most crime stories talk only about the perpetrator rather than the victims). These profiles and articles were mainly released before November 20, which is the Transgender Day of Remembrance in the United States. There were also protests surrounding the Day of Remembrance where people lay in the streets, feigning death in order to draw attention to this seemingly invisible problem.

Official hate crime statistics from the FBI for the 2015 calendar year won’t be released until later in the year, but that only includes incidents identified as hate crimes and are widely regarded as an undercount of the actual number.

Why the FBI Stats are Lacking

According to the hate crime statistics released by the FBI last November for the 2014 calendar year, there were only 109 gender-identity motivated hate crimes, of which only 23 fit into the FBI’s violent crime category. However, the FBI’s hate crime numbers are thought to be considerably lower than the actual number of offenses. This is because the statistics are voluntarily submitted by law enforcement agencies, many of which reported zero hate crimes in 2014. The Human Rights Campaign even identified crimes that should have been considered hate crimes but were not appropriately reported. In fact, the FBI’s 2014 statistics indicate that of the 4,048 total hate crimes classified as “crimes against persons,” only four were murders, and that includes all potential bias motivations, not just gender identity.

While each jurisdiction has its own reasons for the differing data submissions to the FBI, problems with the statistics could be due to the fact that these crimes may look like accidents. Also, murders aren’t typically considered hate crimes when they are committed by a family member, friend, or partner. Police may also have trouble identifying victims as transgender in the first place, making it harder for data to be accurately gathered–many of the victims identified by the Human Rights Campaign weren’t identified as transgender by the police or media. For these reasons, among others, these murders aren’t being thought of or investigated as hate crimes and are not being reported to the FBI as such.

There is little that the FBI can do about this–it relies entirely on information provided by law enforcement across the country. So it doesn’t matter how many protests take place–as long as law enforcement doesn’t consider these murders to be hate crimes, they will not be included in the FBI’s statistical reports. However, this also provides a glimmer of hope for the trans and LGBTQ community at large. The number of crimes that are classified as hate crimes is getting larger each year, including the number of hate crimes motivated by a person’s gender identity. In fact, 2014’s number is triple the amount of reported hate crimes motivated by gender identity in 2013. The rate of murders against transgender people may not change that much from year-to-year, instead, they may be getting reported more regularly. Therefore, there is hope that the statistics that the FBI releases may be much closer to accurate in the future.

What Can Be Done?

There are several things that can be done to decrease the number of transgender murders in the future. The first is already underway–the FBI has begun keeping track of statistics for hate crimes involving gender identity. The FBI only started gathering statistics on gender identity motivated hate crimes five years ago. There is a lot of room for growth in how the FBI gathers the information for these statistics, but improvement has so far been made each year. Hopefully, these hate crime statistics will give the country–including law enforcement and legislators–an idea of what is happening in the United States and what else needs to be done to protect transgender people. Congress recently created a Transgender Equality Task Force to help identify issues that transgender people face, which according to advocates should include tracking incidents of violence.

Allies and education are other key ways to prevent the murders of transgender people in the future. When any marginalized group of people has allies on their side, it is easier to fight back. Allies, in this case, are people who do not identify as transgender but who support the causes important to transgender people, such as safe spaces and the legal right to be recognized as an individual’s identified gender. Education about what it is like to be transgender is another small thing that can go a long way. Both trans people and allies can work to educate people throughout the country, hopefully helping develop a broader sense of understanding of what it is like to be transgender and what kinds of rights transgender people are still fighting for.

A Look at the Numbers

There is some good news: trans support in the United States is increasing. In April 2015, the Human Rights Campaign noted that the number of people who say they know a transgender person is up 5 percent from the previous year, and 66 percent of those people look favorably on their transgender acquaintances. The percentage of people who were polled by YouGov as saying that they believe being transgender is immoral is down to 31 percent. While it’s still unclear what the actual transgender population is in the United States–FiveThirtyEight postulates that many of the people who claim to not know any transgender people likely do–each person’s choice on how broadly to share their personal life differs.

All of these statistics show a changing tide in the fight for transgender rights, and also show that younger generations are even more likely to support transgender rights and fight for an end to violence against the trans population.

Conclusion

In 2015, there were at least 21 transgender women who were the victims of murders across the United States. 2015 also marked the highest number of murders against transgender people on record. These murders were committed by both strangers and loved ones of the victims, and they have been classified as hate crimes by activists and by the people who were close to the victims. But until law enforcement consistently reports on the set of criteria that would classify transgender murders as hate crimes, the statistics that the FBI is required to release each year will fall short of being accurate. While we do not yet have reliable statistics about murders and hate crimes against transgender people, as awareness increases that will likely improve. While there are many ways to support transgender people–including activism–the most effective way to shrink the number of murders in the future is to compile and release accurate statistics that would show these crimes for what they are. Until then, these sad and gruesome crimes will continue to occur, and transgender people will continue to be victimized.

Resources

Primary

The Federal Bureau of Investigation: FBI Releases 2014 Hate Crimes Statistics

The Federal Bureau of Investigation: Matthew Shepard/James Byrd Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 Brochure

Additional

The New York Times: Obama Calls for End to ‘Conversion’ Therapies for Gay and Transgender Youth

Vanity Fair: Caitlyn Jenner: The Full Story

Rolling Stone: The 5 Best and Worst Trans Moments of 2015

Slate: Five Things Trans People Teach Us All About Ourselves

Huffington Post: Lives Guided By Fear: In Honor of the Transgender Day of Remembrance

Human Rights Campaign: Addressing Anti-Transgender Violence: Exploring Realities, Challenges, and Solutions for Policymakers and Community Advocates

Huffington Post: What Does Transgender Day of Remembrance Mean to the Trans Community?

Broadly: ‘He’s Not Done Killing Her’: Why So Many Trans Women Were Murdered in 2015

Broadly: A Crisis of Violence: Transgender Murders Increased 84% This Year

Vice: Trans Women of Color Face an Epidemic of Violence and Murder

Fusion: 20 Trans People Were Murdered This Year. This is What Happened.

Mother Jones: It’s Incredibly Scary to Be a Transgender Woman of Color Right Now

Time: Why Transgender People Are Being Murdered at a Historic Rate

Rolling Stone: More Trans People Have Been Killed in 2015 Than Ever Before

Crime Museum: History of Hate Crime

The Williams Institute: Suicide Attempts Among Transgender and Gender Non-Conforming Adults

USA Today: Transgender People Face an Alarmingly High Risk of Suicide

Think Progress: As 2015 Sees a Record Number of Documented Transgender Murders, a Glimmer of Hope

Human Rights Campaign: Survey Shows Striking Increase in Americans Who Know and Support Transgender People

YouGov: One-third Think it is Morally Wrong to be Transgender

FiveThirtyEight: Most Americans Say They Don’t Know a Transgender Person – But Many of Them Probably Do

Huffington Post: The Kids Are All Right with Transgender Rights

Amanda Gernentz Hanson

Amanda Gernentz Hanson is a Minnesota native living in Austin, Texas. She holds a Bachelor’s degree in Chemistry from Hope College and a Master’s degree in Technical Communication from Minnesota State University, where her final project discussed intellectual property issues in freelancing and blogging. Amanda is an instructional designer full time, a freelance writer part time, and a nerd always. Contact Amanda at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Transgender Murder Crisis: Why Were There So Many Killings in 2015? appeared first on Law Street.

The Girl Scouts of Western Washington were more than thrilled when they recently received a $100,000 donation to fund activities for girls participating in the organization. However after seeing the note that came attached to the donation, the program made a hard call–to send the money back. According to Seattle Metropolitan magazine, the note read:

Please guarantee that our gift will not be used to support transgender girls. If you can’t, please return the money

This past May the Girl Scouts of America clarified its  longtime policy of allowing transgender girls to be Girl Scouts. While that decision resulted in applause from some, it also garnered protest–presumably the people who sent the note and donation fall into that camp.

The Chief Executive Officer of the Western Washington Chapter, Megan Ferland, claimed to feel very sad after receiving the letter, but sent it back without any hesitation. She said: Girl Scouts is for every girl. And every girl should have the opportunity to be a Girl Scout if she wants to.

With $100,000 covering nearly a third of the organization’s financial assistance program for the year, returning the gift was a big loss. So in an effort to replace the donation, the Western Washington council set up an Indigogo fundraiser, and received significantly more than the original donation. The “Girl Scouts is #ForEVERYGirl” page was able to raise more than $175,000 from more than 3,200 donors in one day, and more than $249,000 from over 4,900 donors in two days.

This is reportedly the second time the Western Washington Girl Scouts under the leadership of Megan Ferland have taken a stand to support transgender individuals, even though the organization has received some controversial feedback in regards to the issue. “Our position is not new,” Andrea Bastiani Archibald, the Girl Scouts USA’s chief girl expert, told CNN. “It conforms with our continuous commitment to inclusivity.”

However, as much as various arms of the Girl Scouts organization have stood up for transgender individuals, Boy Scouts of America has taken a different road when it comes to acceptance of LGBTQ individuals. After long debate, the Boy Scouts of America’s National Council was finally able to vote and ease a long-standing ban and allow openly gay young men in the organization in 2013. The policy took effect in January 2014. Although the vote was considered a milestone, there were some who were distraught with the outcome. There was talk of a new organization being formed, but that has yet to come to fruition. “This has been a challenging chapter in our history,” the BSA chief executive, Wayne Brock, said after the vote. “While people have differing opinions on this policy, kids are better off when they’re in Scouting.”

With a long road ahead, it seems both organizations are taking the necessary steps to ensure Boy and Girl Scouts of America include all people, although the Boy Scouts are clearly trailing behind the Girl Scouts somewhat. This move toward equality is certainly a good thing–whether it means extending membership or not taking donations that don’t go to further equality. 

Angel Idowu

Angel Idowu is a member of the Beloit College Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Angel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Girl Scouts Reject Anti-Transgender Donation appeared first on Law Street.

Caitlyn Jenner, formerly known as Bruce Jenner, an Olympic gold medalist and personality of “Keeping Up With the Kardashians,” just reintroduced herself to the public in her debut on the cover of Vanity Fair. The Vanity Fair portrait, shot by photographer Annie Leibovitz, as well as sneak peeks from Jenner’s interview trended worldwide with overwhelming support. The full 22-page cover story will be released on June 9.

“I’m not doing this to be interesting. I’m doing this to live.” #CallMeCaitlyn http://t.co/Mwfy5PkjTp pic.twitter.com/V2NmSJG2eV

— VANITY FAIR (@VanityFair) June 1, 2015

Millennials took to social media to react to the Vanity Fair news, expressing support, inspiration, and hopefulness that the visibility of Jenner as a trans woman will stimulate necessary change in a world full of LGBTQ+ animosity and violence. Tweets in response to Jenner’s “Call Me Caitlyn” announcement fixated on two primary themes. The first theme was that having a public, affluent woman speaking out for trans rights and sharing the struggles of being a transgender person will cause erroneous, outdated perceptions on what constitutes gender to be shifted in a more understanding direction. There’s also hope that Jenner’s openness will shed light on an issue that is too often kept quiet. The second theme is that, for many, Jenner symbolizes happiness, bravery, and freedom for LGBTQ+ communities.

Transgender people are disproportionately victims of violence across the world and in the United States. Most shocking are the statistics of sexual violence, with a reported 50 percent of transgender people abused or assaulted at some point in their lives. The National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE) and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) released a survey in February 2011 documenting transgender violence. An alarming 78 percent of those who identified as transgender or who expressed gender non‐conformity experienced harassment while in grades K-12, 29 percent reported being harassed by police officers, and six percent were physically assaulted by police officers. A 2013 report by the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP) found that transgender people were seven times more likely than non-trans people to experience physical violence when interacting with the police. Additionally, the report found that transgender people of color were six times more likely to experience physical violence from the police compared to white cisgender survivors. Transgender women were four times more likely to experience violence from the police; transgender men were 1.6 times more likely.

LGBTQ+ people who also belong to habitually marginalized populations such as minorities, lower socioeconomic groups, or who were formerly incarcerated experience even more targeted and often more severe violence. Although Caitlyn Jenner does not represent any of these marginalized groups (as a white, wealthy, non-incarcerated athlete and TV personality) she is considered one of the most famous, openly-transgender Americans. She can still offer support to these groups through encouraging tolerance and acceptance of trans people.

In many cases, both the media and law enforcement attempt to cover up violence inflicted on LGBTQ+ people through a lack of reporting and non-documentation of hate crimes. The Transgender Violence Tracking Portal, (TVTP) launched in 2014, has attempted to counter the deficiency of trans violence reporting through providing reports of these acts. Raising awareness of the incessant yet ignored problem of trans violence and pressuring law enforcement to protect the rights of trans people have become increasingly discussed subjects, provoked further by Jenner’s transition and her June 1st announcement.

There is obviously a huge problem with transgender violence in the United States, which stems from a lack of tolerance, understanding, and acceptance of trans people. These statistics do not include the individuals whose rights were suppressed by the courts–which have their own issues with biases and marginalization. These numbers also do not incorporate the voices that were silenced out of fear or powerlessness. The first step toward sustainable change is visibility of an issue. So, thank you, Caitlyn.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Caitlyn Jenner’s Debut: Will it Help Combat Anti-Transgender Violence? appeared first on Law Street.

The blanket ban on Medicare coverage of sexual reassignment surgery, which had been in place since 1989, was lifted in May 2014. With this move, Medicare officially recognized sexual reassignment surgeries as non-experimental and medically necessary for some suffering from gender dysphoria. Many consider the lifted ban a major victory for transgender rights; however, the move also sparked controversy as many people felt Medicare needs to prioritize the coverage of other medical concerns. Read on to learn how and why Medicare made the decision to lift its ban on sexual reassignment surgery.

What does it mean to be transgender?

According to GLAAD, transgender is “an umbrella term for people whose gender identity and/or gender expression differs from what is typically associated with the sex they were assigned at birth.” “Transsexual” is an older term “preferred by some people who have permanently changed–or seek to change–their bodies through medical intervention.” Gender identity is a person’s innate sense of being female, male, or other. Gender expression is how “a person communicates gender identity to others through behavior, clothing, hairstyles, voice, or body characteristics.”

It’s important to note that being transgender is not considered a mental disorder as it does not cause significant distress or disability; however, those who identify as trans* have difficulty finding “affordable resources, such as counseling, hormone therapy, medical procedures and the social support necessary to freely express their gender identity and minimize discrimination.” The culmination of these experiences can lead to higher levels of anxiety and/or depression than among the cisgender population.

What is Gender Dysphoria?

Gender Dysphoria It is a diagnosis given to people who “experience intense, persistent gender incongruence.” They do not identify with the physical sex they were assigned at birth. For an official diagnosis, the incongruence must last for at least six months. For children, the wish to be a different gender must be apparent and verbalized. People with gender dysphoria exhibit an overwhelming desire to be rid of his or her biological gender characteristics or “strong conviction that one has feelings and reactions typical of the other gender.” In order to cure gender dysphoria, some opt to undergo hormone therapies and or/medical surgeries.

The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) recommends a “real-life experience” and hormone therapy before surgery. A real-life experience is a specific duration of time that a transgender person must completely live as their desired gender while maintaining a mentally healthy and active lifestyle. People transitioning from male to female take testosterone-blocking agents along with female hormones like estrogen and progesterone in order to develop characteristics such as breasts, softer skin, and less body hair. Female to male candidates take testosterone in order to deepen the voice, shrink the breasts, and increase physical strength.

After hormone therapy, there are a plethora of surgical options. People transitioning from male to female may choose to undergo a breast augmentation, orchiectomy (removal of the testicles), penectomy (removal of the penis), vaginoplasty (creation of the vagina), clitoroplasty (creation of the clitoris), and/or labiaplasty (creation of labia). The new constructions are generally built from penile tissue. There is also voice modification surgery to deepen the voice. Transitioning from male to female generally costs $40,000 to $50,000. Female to male transition surgeries are less medically successful. Trans males can undergo a mastectomy (removal of the breast tissue), hysterectomy (removal of the uterus), and salpingo-oophorectomy (removal of the fallopian tubes and ovaries). Patients can have a metoidioplasty (enlargement of the clitoris), but the construction of a penis has yet to be medically perfected. Collectively, transitioning from female to male costs about $75,000. Both trans females and trans males can receive cosmetic surgeries as well.

Medicare’s Prior Policy

Since 1989, Medicare specifically denied coverage for sex reassignment surgery under the National Coverage Determination 140.3. The decision was based on a 1981 National Center of Health Care Technology report, which stated:

Because of the lack of well controlled, long term studies of the safety and effectiveness of the surgical procedures and attendant therapies for transsexuals, the treatment is considered experimental. Moreover, there is a high rate of serious complications for these surgical procedures. For these reasons, transsexual surgery is not covered.

Basically, the surgeries were considered too risky and dangerous.

Since then, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Psychiatric Association began advocating sex reassignment surgery as a productive, effective relief for victims of Gender Dysphoria. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Departmental Appeals Board overturned the decision in May 2014. The board stated that the policy was “based on outdated, incomplete, and biased science, and did not reflect contemporary medical science or standards of care.” This doesn’t mean candidates will automatically be approved for sex reassignment surgery, but approval or denial will be given based on individual cases, not a blanket policy.

Case Study: Denee Mallon

Medicare’s reevaluation of the ban started when 74-year-old army veteran Denee Mallon was denied her request for gender reassignment surgery by Medicare. In turn, she challenged the government insurance ban against sex reassignment surgeries.

After receiving the surgery, Mallon happily stated, “I feel congruent, like I’m finally one complete human being where my body matches my innermost feelings, my psyche. I feel complete.”

Mallon initially realized her gender identity when she was a 12 year old child in the 1940s. She continued to live as a man, having five kids and entering three marriages. When she could afford sex reassignment surgery in the late 70s and early 80s, her doctors refused to approve it because she was participating in consensual sex with women. When she finally received approval in the late 80s, she could no long afford it. She lived her life as a woman aided by hormonal therapy starting at age 40. She hid the fact that she was born male until 2012 when she became open about it and came out of what she calls “stealth mode.”

In response to critics calling being transgender a “lifestyle” choice, Mallon stated, “It’s far deeper than that. It’s so a part of my basic psyche, there’s no escaping it. I’ve tried to be the kind of man that society wanted and my feminine self just kept creeping up.”

Mallon decided to challenge Medicare after she was refused sex reassignment coverage by both her secondary private insurer and Medicare. She could not afford the expensive surgery living on $650 a month in Social Security income. The challenge and review process took about 18 months, before Medicare decided to lift the ban.

Pros of Lifting the Ban

Health Benefits

According to a British study, 88 percent of patients whounderwent male to female sexual reassignment surgery were content with the results. Those with Gender Dysphoria that undergo the transition process have substantial mental health improvement and a decrease in substance abuse and depression. According to a 2010 U.S. study, 41 percent of transgender people have attempted suicide. Sex reassignment surgery is a critical step in creating mental stability for some.

Marci Bowers, a transgender obstetrician and gynecologist in Burlingame, California, reported only two out of 1,300 people on whom she has performed sex reassignment surgery wanted to reverse the procedure. This is a 99.85 percent success rate.

Starting a Trend

The lifted ban is not only a significant win for transgender rights, but perhaps a catalyst for more change to come. Many public and private insurers take cues from the government. This could be the start of a long line of insurers securing coverage for these types of surgeries. In 2002, zero Fortune 500 companies offered transgender benefits. Ten years later, 19 percent did, and by 2014 it was 28 percent.

As of today, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Oregon, Massachusetts, Washington, Illinois, New York, Vermont, and Washington D.C. have banned anti-transgender discrimination in health insurance, and they legally require insurers to provide transgender health insurance.

Backlash

The first attempt to lift the ban came in 2013, but there were protests from conservative and religious groups. Defenders of the ban don’t believe these types of surgeries should be paid for by tax payer money.

Leanna Baumer, a senior legislative assistant with the Family Research Council, stated:

Real compassion for those struggling with a gender identity disorder is to offer mental health treatments that help men and women become comfortable with their actual biological sex — not to advocate for costly and controversial surgeries subsidized by taxpayers.

Frank Schubert, national political director for the National Organization for Marriage, doesn’t believe condoning the surgery sends the right message to America’s youth “to respect who they are, how they were born.”

Conclusion

There’s plenty of evidence to suggest that an overwhelming majority of those who undergo sex reassignment surgery for Gender Dysphoria find a substantial increase in their quality of life. In a demographic that experiences high rates of depression and suicide, the importance of these procedures is clear. The high expense of these surgeries essentially eliminates the option if they aren’t covered by insurance. Most people don’t have an extra $50,000 to spend on treatment for any medical condition. The lifted ban holds important symbolic value for the future and what’s to come.

Resources

Primary

American Psychological Association: What Does Transgender Mean?

Additional

Advocate: HHS to Reevaluate Ban on Gender-Confirming Surgeries

How Stuff Works: Stages of Gender Reassignment

NBC News: Sex Reassignment Surgery at 74

GLAAD: GLAAD Media Reference Guide

National Center for Transgender Equality: Know Your Rights

Trans Health Care: List of U.S. States That Have Banned Anti-Transgender Discrimination in Health Insurance

USA Today: Medicare ban on sex reassignment surgery lifted

Washington Post: Ban Lifted on Medicare Coverage For Sex Change Surgery

Washington Post: Here’s How Sex Reassignment Surgery Works

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Sexual Reassignment Surgery: The Path to Medicare Coverage appeared first on Law Street.

Happy almost Valentine’s Day, my lovelies!

How many of you are planning to spend this Saturday with your wonderful, Cupid-bestowed, significant others?

Awesome. All of the single people want to punch you lovebirds in the face.

But, despite the wave of existential dread this holiday brings to single people everywhere (#foreveralone, am I right?), SCOTUS seems to be in a weirdly lovey mood. In what can only be interpreted as an early Valentine’s Day gift to coupled-up gay people nationwide, SCOTUS dropped a solid hint on Monday that it’ll be making gay marriage a nationwide reality soon.

Early Monday morning, SCOTUS refused to extend the stay on a lower court’s decision that declared Alabama’s ban on gay marriages unconstitutional. Basically, that means that SCOTUS is allowing gay marriages to happen in Alabama right now, despite the fact that the constitutionality of state-level gay marriage bans isn’t on deck to be decided upon until later this summer.

Folks, this is a big fucking deal for gay marriage.

The validity of state-level gay marriage bans are currently under SCOTUS’ consideration, and it’s uncertain which way the court will rule. Will SCOTUS decide that individual states totally have the right to ban gay marriage? Will it decide that that’s bullshit, and all of the states have to allow marriages of all people, regardless of the couple’s gender pairing?

Basically, until this summer, the answer on that is TBD.

With that understanding, SCOTUS could do well to allow states that currently have gay marriage bans to continue on with their marriage banning. If these states were forced to allow gay marriages during this current limbo period—and if SCOTUS ultimately decided that state level marriage bans were A-OK—then a whole mess of married couples would suddenly find themselves in a legal quagmire.

So, why create all that mess? It would make more sense to wait until the decision is final, and then marriages can proceed or not, depending on the official decree.

But that’s the opposite of what SCOTUS did on Monday morning!

The justices ruled, without further comment, that the federal district court in Alabama’s ruling could go forth, allowing thousands of gay couples in the state to get married.

Why would SCOTUS do that if it was planning to uphold the constitutionality of gay marriage bans this summer?

Monday’s decision strongly suggests that, come summertime, SCOTUS will rule that state-level gay marriage bans are unconstitutional, and unfettered gay marriage will reign throughout the land.

I’m really hoping that decision comes through in time for Gay Pride. Can you imagine the parties? GOOD LORD. I’m already excited.

For marriage equality advocates across the nation, SCOTUS’ decision Monday morning comes as a welcome victory. Gays in Alabama are happily marrying, and most likely, all of the gays in all of the states will be able to follow suit very soon.

Hurray for all the gay couples who want to get married, for lots of totally valid reasons! Tax benefits, inheritance, hospital visitation rights, health insurance sharing, co-parenting and custody benefits, and citizen sponsorship are just a few of the myriad benefits that legal marriage affords to couples. Signing your name on that dotted line is a huge deal for a lot of people, and it’s a right that tons of people—many of whom I personally know and love—are fighting really hard to secure.

However.

Let’s not forget that marriage is a discriminatory and problematic institution. It’s not the magical cure-all for the LGBT community’s marginalization and disenfranchisement. It’s not even the most pressing issue on our list of things to fix, despite what organizations like the HRC and Lambda Legal might have you believe.

Violence, poverty, unemployment, criminalization, and homelessness are all issues that are—or should be—more highly prioritized on the docket of LGBT issues than gay marriage. Because let’s face it—while well-to-do gay couples are busy planning their weddings, queer youth of color are dying in the streets.

Literally. I’m not exaggerating. Nearly half of the homeless population is comprised of LGBT kids. Trans women of color are getting murdered left and right. This shit is real.

So, while I’m totally enthused about SCOTUS’ hat tip this week in favor of the gay marriage fight, I’m not waving the rainbow flag of victory just yet. No matter which way their final decision goes this summer, we’ll still have a lot more work to do before the queer community can live safely and equitably in American society.

So Happy Valentine’s Day, lovelies! You might be able to get married soon. And then, after your wedding bells have died down, we’ll all have to keep working towards real justice.

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Happy Valentine’s Day! Gay Weddings May Soon Be Sanctioned by SCOTUS appeared first on Law Street.

Anyone who has ever been to school or needed a simple explanation of a complicated subject, or just needed any information ever, can appreciate Wikipedia. It’s a great resource for background info. Don’t use it for your papers, kids, but feel free to use it for pretty much everything else. Most of the time Wikipedia can be trusted, as long as you’re using it as a resource and not a legitimate source. But every now and again, people mess with the entries to make them incorrect. Usually they’re corrected pretty quickly. If the edit was particularly bad, Wikipedia has the ability to track the IP address and figure out where the offending edit came from.

Here’s a concrete example: on the Orange is the New Black Wikipedia page, the Advocate, a well known LGBT publication, is quoted saying that OITNB “contains the first ever women-in-prison narrative to be played by a real transgender woman.” This sentence was referring to Laverne Cox. Well last week, there was a disturbing edit made to this entry — the phrase “transgender woman” was changed to “a real man pretending to be a woman.”

Not only is that fundamentally incorrect, it’s ridiculously insensitive, disgusting, and bigoted. So what asshole decided to make that edit?

Someone working in Congress, of course.

This has to be an isolated incident, right? There’s no way that Congressional staffers, funded by our tax dollars, sit around and edit Wikipedia pages, sometimes pretty offensively, instead of working to fix a Congress that has an approval rating that is languishing in the low teens.

Nope. That appears to be a lot of what they do — edits from Congressional IP addresses are pretty common. A Twitter bot called @congressedits collects all of them, and it’s had a kind of busy summer. Here are some of my favorites:

Tranny Wikipedia article edited anonymously from US House of Representatives http://t.co/SkIIKhDxBu

— congress-edits (@congressedits) August 20, 2014

Oh look another case where someone in Congress edited an article to do with transgender people…incorrectly and offensively! In case you were wondering, the edit was to change the phrase “assigned sex” to “biological sex.” That’s incorrect. Great job, random Congressional staffer, that was a worthy use of your tax-funded paycheck.

Chrisley Knows Best Wikipedia article edited anonymously from US House of Representatives http://t.co/39F07XgCoU

— congress-edits (@congressedits) August 19, 2014

This one is benign at least. It’s an edit on a Chrisley Knows Best Wikipedia page, an American TV show. Someone with a Congressional IP address thought it was essential that we know exactly what suburb of Atlanta is the setting for the show. Which is at least correct, I presume, but again, not a good use of time or money.

UFO sightings in Russia Wikipedia article edited anonymously from US House of Representatives http://t.co/IsWVBxNqVC

— congress-edits (@congressedits) August 4, 2014

Oh, look, here’s one where the article UFO Sightings in Russia was edited anonymously from a Congressional IP address. A particular incident where a UFO sighting was reported in Russia was added to the article. Why does someone who works in the Capitol Building have such an encyclopedic knowledge of UFO sightings in Russia? I’m not sure, but that seems healthy.

There’s also more edits than can be counted on members’ pages, bills, etc…many of which are incorrect, argumentative, or biased. Wikipedia administrators have blocked anonymous edits from Congressional IP addresses multiple times because of these issues. The IP address used to make the Laverne Cox edits, and many of the edits to do with transphobia, has been blocked three times this summer. While it’s probably the same incredibly immature staffer/intern, there’s no way to actually know.

So real talk, guys. I know that work can be kind of boring in Congress, especially during recess. But seriously, stop with the edits. Play 2048, or prank your coworkers, or take a nap, I don’t care! But this whole editing-Wikipedia thing looks really bad. Just stop.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Johann Dréo via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Good News! Your Tax Dollars Go to Bad Wikipedia Edits appeared first on Law Street.

Thursday, January 30, 2014 saw a huge victory for the rights of transgender students. The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, overturning a decision made by a lower court, held that being transgender does not inhibit the right of equal access to restrooms in public buildings.

Nicole Maines’ rights were violated in the fifth grade, when she was told by school administrators that she must use the staff bathroom instead of the girl’s room at Asa Adams School in Orono, Maine. The case was first brought to Penobscot County Superior Court. Nicole was represented by lawyers of the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, who argued that the student had been deprived of her rights under the Maine Human Rights Act, which requires equal access of all people, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation and other identifications, of public accommodations. However, the court held for the school district, claiming that a 1983 law that mandated schools to have separate bathrooms according to sex outweighed the provision in the Human Rights Act.

The state supreme court noted that the old law really was meant to provide access for all people, regardless of gender, to sanitary facilities in public buildings, including schools. With this interpretation, the court found there was a violation of the Human Rights Act: by prohibiting Nicole from using a female restroom though she identified as female, the school district discriminated against Nicole because of her gender identity.

Other cases around the country hint at further progress on the issue of transgender bathroom use. Two individuals in Iowa, both of whom were born as males and identify as females, won the right to use women’s public restrooms. In June, in Colorado, six year old Coy Mathis’ family won their case against the Fountain-Fort Carson School District that had barred Coy’s use of a female restroom. Now, the Maines case can be added to the list of successes in furthering the rights and acceptance of transgender individuals.

This court decision, the first to invoke an amendment to Maine’s Human Rights Act that protected transgender persons in schools, will have great importance for transgender students across the country. Nicole Maines is certainly not the only individual that has faced hardship in schools due to being transgender. Adolescence can be a difficult time for any pupil, and the problem of bullying has grown in visibility throughout the country. Students like Nicole need the support of their teachers and school officials in the face of adversity, and singling Nicole out as different by requiring her to use a unisex bathroom hardly helps. Children don’t just learn from their teachers in the classroom; they set an example for certain behavior. If school officials, through their actions, show students of transgender identity to be different than others, what’s to stop other students of thinking the same?

The seemingly minor issue of which bathroom to use can mean a lot to a transgender individual. The majority opinion of the court addressed this when it stated, “it has been clearly established that a student’s psychological well-being and educational success depend upon being permitted to use the communal bathroom consistent with her gender identity.” The choice of what bathroom to use reaffirms a person’s notion of their sex. Denying someone the ability to use a bathroom associated with the gender they identify with in effect denies acceptance of their chosen gender.

Moreover, requiring a transgender person to use a separate unisex bathroom not only denies him or her the recognition of their sex identity but makes their private issue into a public one. For instance, Nicole Maines was given access to the staff bathroom but was escorted by a teacher whenever she had to use the facility.  This policy was extremely unfair to Nicole as it clearly made visible the fact that she was transgender, something that, like the choices and beliefs of other individuals, is a personal matter. The school district directly interfered with Nicole’s freedom of expression in disallowing her use of a female restroom, though despite the genes she was given, Nicole is a female. The treatment that Nicole Maines was given in her public school should not have to be experienced by any other transgender individual in the future, and her case’s outcome displays progress in how schools can accommodate the needs of all of their students.

It is hopeful to know that, in fighting the school’s policy, Nicole did not only have the support of her family and lawyers, but many of her fellow classmates. Students reportedly cheered in Nicole’s high school when the verdict was declared. Teenagers evidently understood that a policy was discriminatory when adult school officials did not. Activists like Nicole and her like-minded family and peers give hope that similar discriminatory policies across the country may be reversed in the coming years.

[NPR] [Press Herald] [Maine Legislature] [Daily Mail] [USA Today] [CNN]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Featured image courtesy of [Susan Sermoneta via Flickr]

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post The Significance of Restrooms: Transgender Rights Upheld in Maine appeared first on Law Street.

Happy November, folks! Has everyone ditched their spooky, jack-o-lantern-themed front door decorations for some good, old-fashioned hand turkeys? Yes? AWESOME.

Feels good to start fresh, am I right? Post-Halloween, fall takes on a whole new aura.

And the Senate seems to agree! They’re not swapping out their seasonal front door decorations (or are they?), but they are introducing a new piece of legislation! Yay!

Well, sort of, at least. The Senate’s about to vote on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, affectionately termed ENDA by those of us who talk about this shit all day. It’s not actually a new piece of legislation, since it was first introduced in 1994, and passed in 1998, under President Clinton. But after this vote, it might have some important new provisions.

Specifically, this week’s vote is about adding protections that would benefit the LGBT community, so that all of us non-breeders don’t have to worry about getting unceremoniously fired. That would be good, right?

Absolutely! Except here’s the problem—this new and improved version of ENDA doesn’t have great prospects in the House. A bunch of Congress-people down there are planning to vote against it.

We’re looking at you, Boehner. You are just not a likeable guy these days, my man.

He’s publicly opposed the bill, sending one of his henchmen (I mean, spokespeople! Freudian slip, my bad), Michael Steel, to tell the press, “The speaker believes this legislation will increase frivolous litigation and cost American jobs, especially small business jobs.”

So, passing a bill that will prevent people from getting fired will magically make jobs disappear? Oh, Boehner, you silly goose. You’ve got it backwards! When people don’t get fired, they get to keep their jobs, meaning less unemployment and a better economy for everyone. But you knew that, right?

Right.

Also, frivolous litigation? So, when people sue their employers for wrongful termination, you would consider that to be frivolous? Interesting.

I think what Speaker Boehner is getting at here, is the idea that adding the LGBT community to ENDA is unnecessary. According to him, us queers don’t have a problem with employment discrimination, and if we do, there’s other legislation that can handle it for us.

By that line of reasoning, if we get more laws protecting our employment prospects, queers would pretty much be unfire-able. Every time one of us faces termination—no matter how warranted—we’ll threaten our employer with a discrimination lawsuit, and wind up either suing people left and right, or never being unemployed again.

Ah, if only life were that simple, Boehner. Here’s the reality for queers in the workforce.

Thanks Upworthy!

In the 29 red states on this map, it’s completely legal to fire someone from their job because of their sexual orientation.

Literally. No exaggerations, no equivocations. For real.

In the 29 red states, if your boss does not approve of who you like to fuck in your spare time, he or she can fire your ass, no questions asked.

That is a major problem.

And it’s worse for trans or gender-non-conforming people. There are 33 states where it’s totally legal to fire someone based on their gender identity.

Seriously. And, up to 43 percent of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people have experienced harassment or discrimination at work because of their sexual orientation. Ninety percent of trans folks have had these experiences.

Is it just me, or are those some extremely depressing numbers?

For starters, it sucks being harassed or discriminated against at work. And that’s putting it lightly. We all spend the majority of our lives at work—imagine spending that time getting treated like shit by your boss and/or coworkers, just because of who you are? That shit’s soul crushing.

And that’s if you’re lucky enough to have a job at all. At least in this bummer-town scenario, you’re earning a paycheck.

But what happens when the abuse gets to be so bad that you’re forced to quit? Or when your boss decides that having a fabulous, queermo, rainbow butterfly on his payroll isn’t acceptable, and fires your ass?

Then you’ve got no way to pay your rent. No wonder queers face higher rates of poverty and unemployment.

So, Speaker Boehner, here’s the thing.

Adding sexual orientation and gender identity to ENDA, as two reasons that are NOT legal grounds for firing someone, is a good thing. At the end of the day, it translates to less unemployment, less poverty, and generally, less douche-iness.

So let’s get it done, Congress! Add us queers to your list of legally protected citizens who can’t be discriminated against in the workplace.

Then, maybe next week I won’t write a follow-up piece about how you’re all assholes.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Philippa Willitts via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Congress, Make it Stop: You Can Still Get Fired for Being Gay appeared first on Law Street.

This Wednesday, October 11, will be the 25^th Annual National Coming Out Day. Yay! A day devoted to all of us queers coming out of the closet and running around with reckless, rainbow abandon is super awesome, right?

I remember the first time I was actually out on National Coming Out Day. I was 17, and it was my senior year in high school. I had been coming out, bit by bit, for the last three years, and I was finally at a point in my life where literally everyone who knew me, knew that I was gay. I was also the president of my high school’s Gay Straight Alliance, which made it pretty much impossible to deny that I wasn’t a huge lezzer. So there was that.

Anyway! To honor the special occasion, me and all of my lovely, wonderful fellow GSA members wore purple that day—a sign of queer solidarity—and organized a bake sale. All of the proceeds went to the Matthew Shepard Foundation.

Now, there are tons of LGBT nonprofits we could have donated to. But we chose this particular one because, in October of 1998, Matthew Shepard was brutally attacked in Laramie, Wyoming. He died just in time for National Coming Out Day, making his organization an especially fitting one to benefit from our bake sale that year.

But what exactly is Matthew Shepard’s story, and how has he affected the LGBT community today? That’s a pretty complicated subject, so let’s settle into our rainbow-pride Snuggies and dive right in, mmkay?

In case you don’t already know the story, Matthew Shepard was a 21-year-old college student in Laramie, Wyoming. One night in October, two men abducted him from a local bar and drove him out into the rural, Wyoming night. They beat, robbed, and tortured him, leaving him tied to a fence to die. The next morning, a cyclist rode by, initially mistaking him for a scarecrow. Matthew was rushed to the hospital, but his injuries were too severe and he never woke up. He died on October 12, 1998.

The Matthew Shepard Foundation, which does lots of great work, was a direct result of Matt’s death. His mom, Judy Shepard, founded it with the goal of making the world a better and more accepting place, where people like Matthew won’t be harmed.

On that front, Matt’s legacy has affected us queers in a good way. He’s given us an organization that travels the country, spreading the noble message that it’s OK to be gay. He’s given us a poster child—unequivocal proof that it’s hard, and sometimes dangerous, to be queer. Perhaps most importantly, he’s given this country a vocabulary to talk about sexuality and violence. Those are all great things.

But. There have also been some not-so-great ramifications.

In 2009, the federal government passed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. It was meant to expand upon already existent hate-crime laws to include crimes motivated by gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. It was (and still is) a pretty big deal. Judy Shepard campaigned fiercely for its passage.

Now, at first glance, this little piece of legislation sounds awesome. It means that members of the LGBT community deserve to be valued and protected under the law. It sends a message to homophobic douchebags who want to hurt us—you won’t get off easy.

But, that’s just at first glance. Looking beneath the surface, the Shepard Byrd Act does more than just make prison sentences lengthier for gay bashers. It also funnels a whole lot more money towards state and local law enforcement agencies, and expands the policing power of the federal government.

In short, it makes the U.S.’ police state more powerful.

And you know who gets hurt the most by the U.S. police state? Queer people of color.

Since the 1980s, surveillance and policing in the U.S. have grown exponentially, with incarceration becoming the preferred method of dealing with economically and socially marginalized communities. Over these last 30 years, the U.S.’s federal prison population has risen by 790 percent, while crime rates have remained relatively stable. No other country in the world incarcerates more of its citizens than the U.S., and a disproportionate amount of those inmates are poor, queer, and/or of color.

But how can that happen? Surely, heterosexism, racism, and transphobia can’t possibly be an institutional part of our justice system. This is AMURRICA, the land of the free!

If only. While we’re prancing about in our rainbow, edible underwear for National Coming Out Day, let’s take a second to reflect on the origins of the annual Gay Pride Parade.

Gay Pride wasn’t a thing until 1969, when police raided New York’s Stonewall Inn. Back then, cross dressing was illegal, and if anyone was caught wearing fewer than three pieces of gender-conforming clothing, he or she (or ze!) would get arrested. That meant a ton of trouble for butch lezzies–identifiable by their dapper menswear–trans folks, and drag queens. And what happened if you got arrested for your gender-non-conforming attire? Likely, you’d get beaten and raped. Just ask Leslie Feinberg. This shit used to happen ALL THE TIME. (And it actually still does.)

Then, in 2003, Lambda Legal won the landmark case Lawrence v. Texas, which decriminalized homosexuality. That’s right, folks. It was ILLEGAL to be gay (or at least, to have super hot gay sex between two consenting adults) up until 2003.

I kid you not.

So basically, up until a measly 10 years ago, the cops were trained to arrest us. They were taught to see queer folks as criminals. They were encouraged to treat us with violence and contempt, because we were nothing but perverted delinquents. Historically, queers have had a really terrible relationship with law enforcement as a whole.

Nowadays, even though it’s no longer explicitly illegal to be queer, we’re still targeted. After all, old habits die hard, am I right? Cops routinely troll cruising spots, targeting gay men, they still raid our bars, beat and humiliate us, and they still rape us, all the goddamn time. And that’s just what happens to gay people. Imagine adding all of that targeted bias to issues of race and criminalization, or poverty, or gender variance. It gets so much worse.

Trans women of color know better than any of us what happens when you take all of that intersectional oppression into account–they’re routinely stopped by cops and arrested for solicitation or prostitution, based solely on racist, sexist, transphobic assumptions of criminality. Have you ever been accused of solicitation while you’re walking your dog? Probably not. This is a case of literal fashion police, except there’s no Joan Rivers and it’s not funny at all.

Not to mention, racism, sexism, and transphobia aren’t exclusive to the cops. Lots of people have less than warm and fuzzy feelings towards queers, and that makes it exponentially harder for us to get jobs. I’ve written about how difficult it can be for butch women to score employment, and that goes quadruple for trans people of color. With little or no opportunities for traditional employment, queers are often left with no other options besides sex work to support themselves. And of course, sex work is illegal.

So, to recap, poor queers of color are funneled into the prison industrial complex in two key ways: they’re unfairly targeted for arrest, and they’re forced into criminalized activities because of a lack of other viable options. Both of these realities are a result of racism, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia.

So you can see how it’s problematic that a piece of legislation, which is supposed to protect queer folks, actually strengthens an institution that specifically targets and harms us.

Because, ultimately, the cops aren’t using all that new money to find and punish white supremacists or gay bashers. More likely, they’re using it to harass, criminalize, and incarcerate poor people, queer people, and people of color.

Now, that’s not to say that all cops are bad, racist, homophobic pigs. Absolutely not. I’ve got an old friend whose father serves as a local Chief of Police, and I respect the hell out of him.

It is to say, however, that statistically, poor people, queer people, and people of color are targeted and harmed by the criminal justice system. As a result of that reality, funneling more money into that system is not a great strategy for protecting us.

But these facts often get ignored when we talk about Matthew Shepard. As a middle-class, gender-conforming, white man, his chances for having a run-in with the police were relatively small. No one would have stopped him while he was walking down the street and accused him of solicitation. Incarceration was not something Judy Shepard feared for her son.

And it’s no coincidence that Matthew became the gay hate-crime poster child. Many, many queer people have been violently murdered in the years before and after his death, and the majority of them were transgender women of color. Ever heard of Gwen Araujo? Probably not. And there’s a reason for that.

Reifying a white, cis-gender, middle-class gay man as the face of the LGBT community allows us to ignore the complex issue of intersectional, multifaceted oppression—where race, gender, sexuality, and class status are all inextricably linked.

So this National Coming Out Day, remember Matthew Shepard, but question the piece of hate crime legislation with his name attached to it. It’s not all it’s cracked up to be.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [Ludovic Bertron via Wikipedia]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Come Out, Come Out — and Go to Jail? appeared first on Law Street.