ReportWire

Tag: Gender in sports

  • Oklahoma governor signs gender-affirming care ban for kids

    Oklahoma governor signs gender-affirming care ban for kids

    [ad_1]

    OKLAHOMA CITY — Oklahoma on Monday became the latest state to ban gender-affirming medical care for minors as Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt signed a bill that makes it a felony for health care workers to provide children with treatments that can include puberty-blocking drugs and hormones.

    Oklahoma joins at least 15 other states with laws banning such care, as conservatives across the country have targeted transgender rights.

    Stitt, who was reelected in November, made the ban a priority of this year’s legislative session, saying he wanted to protect children. Transgender advocates and parents of transgender children say such care is essential.

    Stitt signed bills last year that prohibit transgender girls and women from playing on female sports teams and prevent transgender children from using school bathrooms that correspond to their gender identity.

    “Last year, I called for a statewide ban on all irreversible gender transition surgeries and hormone therapies on minors so I am thrilled to sign this into law today and protect our kids,” Stitt said in a statement released after the signing. “We cannot turn a blind eye to what’s happening across our nation, and as governor I am proud to stand up for what’s right and ban life-altering transition surgeries on children in the state of Oklahoma.”

    The bill Stitt signed on Monday makes it illegal to provide gender-transition medical care for anyone under the age of 18. Such treatment can include surgery as well as hormones and drugs that suppress or delay normal puberty.

    Transgender advocates and parents of transgender children say such care is essential.

    Several civil liberty organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma, has promised to “take any necessary legal action” to prevent the law from taking effect.

    “Gender-affirming care is a critical part of helping transgender adolescents succeed, establish healthy relationships with their friends and family, live authentically as themselves, and dream about their futures,” Lambda Legal, the ACLU and the ACLU said in a joint statement.

    At least 16 states have now enacted laws restricting or banning gender-affirming care for minors: Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, South Dakota and West Virginia. Federal judges have blocked enforcement of laws in Alabama and Arkansas, and nearly two dozen states are considering bills this year to restrict or ban care.

    Three states — Florida, Missouri and Texas — have banned or restricted the care via regulations or administrative orders and Missouri’s is the only one that also limits the treatments for adults. A judge has blocked Missouri’s restrictions. Texas’ governor has ordered child welfare officials to investigate reports of children receiving such care as child abuse, though a judge has blocked those investigations.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Conflict over transgender rights simmers across the US

    Conflict over transgender rights simmers across the US

    [ad_1]

    As transgender people have increasingly gained acceptance and visibility, conservative lawmakers have zeroed in on restricting their rights: keeping transgender children off girls’ sports teams and out of certain bathrooms, and blocking them from receiving gender-affirming medical care.

    In response, a growing number of Democratic-controlled states officials have moved to protect such rights, especially access to gender-affirming care.

    In developments this week, one governor is telling lawmakers they’ll have to return for a special session if they fail to pass some restrictions, two others signed protections into law and a transgender lawmaker was barred from a Statehouse floor amid a standoff with colleagues.

    THE BIG PICTURE

    The push by conservatives has mushroomed over the last few years and become, alongside abortion, a major theme running through legislative sessions across the country in 2023.

    Six states have laws or policies in effect barring minors from receiving puberty blockers or hormone therapy. Similar provisions have been adopted but paused by courts in three more. They’ve been signed into law but haven’t yet taken effect in another eight. And one more bill is awaiting a governor’s signature.

    ___

    THE CENTER OF DEBATE

    In Missouri, the gender-affirming care battle is playing out in the Legislature and in court.

    Earlier this month Republican Attorney General Andrew Bailey used an emergency rule to impose restrictions on both children and adults before they can receive such care. Just before it was to take effect this week, a judge halted enforcement until at least Monday and said she could push the date back further while legal challenges are considered.

    Gov. Make Parson, also a Republican, said he would call a special legislative session if lawmakers fail to pass bills that would restrict transgender rights by May 12.

    The GOP-controlled Legislature is on board but not in agreement over exceptions such as whether treatment for people already receiving puberty blockers or hormones would be allowed to continue.

    ___

    BANNED FROM THE HOUSE FLOOR

    Montana House Republicans barred a Democratic transgender colleague from the floor of the chamber for the rest of the legislative session as punishment.

    Zooey Zephyr had told Republicans there would be “blood on your hands” — an expression frequently used in politics — if they approved a ban on gender-affirming care for minors. The bill passed, though it has not yet been signed into law.

    Zephyr’s situation, which echoed the ouster of two Tennessee lawmakers from that state’s Legislature for a protest over gun policy this year, has turned her into a political cause for liberals nationwide.

    She spent the first day of her exile this week battling to use a bench in a Statehouse hallway.

    ___

    THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WEIGHS IN

    The U.S. Department of Justice on Wednesday filed a lawsuit challenging Tennessee’s law, scheduled to take effect July 1, banning transgender youth from receiving gender-affirming care.

    The federal government said “no person should be denied access to necessary medical care just because of their transgender status.”

    Assistant U.S. Attorney General Kristen Clarke sent a letter last month to all state attorneys general warning them that federal law protects transgender youth against discrimination.

    ___

    ACCESS PROTECTED

    Governors’ signatures in Minnesota and Washington on Thursday made them the latest of at least nine states with laws protecting access to gender-affirming care. Vermont lawmakers passed bills with similar provisions this week, though they haven’t been signed.

    The measures aim to shield patients, health care providers and other actors from punishment or investigations into whether they violated gender-affirming care and abortion bans in states that have them.

    So far, officials have not been trying to reach across state lines to enforce bans.

    ___

    DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS IN KANSAS

    The Republican-controlled legislature in Kansas fell one vote short this week of overriding Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly’s veto of a ban on gender-affirming care for minors.

    But lawmakers overrode other vetoes of restrictions on rights for transgender people. One blocks them from using restrooms that correspond with their gender identities at schools, prisons, domestic violence shelters and rape crisis centers.

    At least eight other states have bathroom restrictions, but most of them apply only at schools.

    ___

    ROLING BACK A LIBERAL CITY’S BOYCOTT

    San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday to repeal a measure barring city staffers from making business trips to states with restrictions on abortion, voting and LGBTQ+ rights.

    The 2016 policy also blocked the city government from doing business with companies headquartered in those states.

    Officials said it was doing more harm than good. Instead of exerting pressure on those states, it was raising costs for San Francisco.

    A final vote is expected on Tuesday. California is considering a repeal a similar measure at the state level.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • North Dakota limits bathroom use for transgender people

    North Dakota limits bathroom use for transgender people

    [ad_1]

    North Dakota’s Republican Gov. Doug Burgum has signed a bill that limits access to bathrooms, locker rooms and shower rooms for transgender and gender-nonconforming people in several state facilities

    ByTRISHA AHMED Associated Press/Report for America

    Transgender kids and adults in North Dakota won’t be able to access bathrooms, locker rooms or shower rooms that match the gender they identify with, under a new law covering some state-run facilities signed by Republican Gov. Doug Burgum.

    Dorms and other housing controlled by the state board of higher education would be affected, as well as penitentiaries and correctional facilities for youths and adults. Restrooms and shower rooms will be designated for use exclusively by males or exclusively by females. Transgender or gender-nonconforming people would need to get approval from a staff member to use the restroom or shower room of their choice.

    Burgum’s office announced Wednesday that he signed the bill the previous day. It had passed the state House and Senate with veto-proof majorities.

    The American Civil Liberties Union has said that so far this year, more than 450 bills attacking the rights of transgender people have been introduced in state legislatures.

    The governor’s office declined to comment on the bill Wednesday.

    Rep. Eric Murphy was one of three Republicans who defied their party and voted against the bill when it was in the House.

    “I don’t try to be polarizing. I just don’t think there was a need for the legislation,” Murphy said in an interview with The Associated Press after the governor’s decision. The lawmaker from Grand Forks is a professor at the University of North Dakota.

    Last week, the governor signed a bill that restricts transgender health care in the state, immediately making it a crime to give gender-affirming care to people younger than 18.

    That measure also received veto-proof support from GOP lawmakers — although some Republicans did vote against it, alongside all Democrats.

    Earlier this month, Burgum also signed a transgender athlete ban into law after it similarly passed the House and Senate with veto-proof majorities. In 2021, Burgum vetoed a bill that would have imposed a transgender athlete ban at that time, but House and Senate lawmakers did not have enough votes back then to override his veto.

    ___

    Trisha Ahmed is a corps member for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues. Follow Trisha Ahmed on Twitter: @TrishaAhmed15

    ___

    This story has been updated to correct that the bill was signed Tuesday and announced Wednesday.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Bud Light fumbles, but experts say inclusive ads will stay

    Bud Light fumbles, but experts say inclusive ads will stay

    [ad_1]

    Bud Light may have fumbled its attempt to broaden its customer base by partnering with a transgender influencer. But experts say inclusive marketing is simply good business — and it’s here to stay.

    “A few years from now, we will look back on this ‘controversy’ with the same embarrassment that we feel when we look back at ‘controversies’ from the past surrounding things like interracial couples in advertising,” said Sarah Reynolds, the chief marketing officer for the human resources platform HiBob, who identifies as queer.

    On April 1, transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney posted a video of herself cracking open a Bud Light on her Instagram page. She showed off a can with her face on it that Bud Light sent her — one of many corporate freebies she gets and shares with her millions of followers.

    But unlike the dress from Rent the Runway or the trip to Denmark from skincare brand Ole Henriksen, the backlash to the beer can was fast and furious. Three days after Mulvaney’s post, Kid Rock posted a video of himself shooting cases of Bud Light. Shares of Bud Light’s parent, AB InBev, temporarily plunged.

    This week, Anheuser-Busch — AB InBev’s U.S. subsidiary — confirmed that Alissa Heinerscheid, its vice president of marketing, and her boss, Daniel Blake, are taking a leave of absence. The company won’t say when they will return or whether they’re being paid.

    For some, the partnership went too far at a time when transgender issues — including gender-affirming health care and participation in sports — are a divisive topic in state legislatures.

    “Whether the issue is trans people or anything else, the majority of consumers are pretty vocal about the fact they don’t want brands lecturing them or stuffing politics or social issues down their throat,” said John Frigo, the head of digital marketing for Best Price Nutrition. “If you sell beer, just make beer and leave it at that.”

    But others — including Heinerscheid herself — say reaching out to younger and more diverse consumers is crucial. According to a 2021 Gallup poll, 21% of people in Generation Z identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, compared to 3% of Baby Boomers. Gallup has also found that younger consumers are the most likely to want brands to promote diversity and take a stand on social issues.

    “I had a really clear job to do when I took over Bud Light. And it was, this brand is in decline. It’s been in decline for a very long time. And if we do not attract young drinkers to come and drink this brand, there will be no future for Bud Light,” Heinerscheid said last month in an episode of Apple’s “Make Yourself at Home” podcast.

    Bud Light and Mulvaney declined requests to talk to The Associated Press for this story.

    Bud Light has long been America’s best-selling beer. But its U.S. sales are down 2% so far this year, part of a long-running decline as younger consumers flock to sparking seltzers and other drinks, according to Bump Williams Consulting. Those sales declines accelerated rapidly in April. The week ending April 15, Bud Light’s sales dropped 17% compared to the same week a year ago. Meanwhile, rivals Miller Lite and Coors Lite both saw their sales jump more than 17%.

    Marketing experts say it’s possible Bud Light’s experience will cause other brands to rethink using transgender people in their advertising. Joanna Schwartz, a professor at Georgia College and State University who teaches a course on LGBTQ+ marketing, said companies will still want to reach transgender consumers and their supporters, but might shift to social media and more targeted ads.

    “They’re walking an extremely fine line. They want to appeal to everyone, but that includes people who don’t like each other,” Schwartz said of Bud Light.

    Still, Schwartz said, there are plenty of brands that have successfully featured transgender or non-binary people in their marketing. In 2016, Secret deodorant ran an ad featuring a transgender woman in a bathroom stall, debating whether to walk out and face other women at the sink. Pantene shampoo has run ads and short films supporting transgender people in 2021 as part of its Hair Has No Gender project. And Coca-Cola’s 2018 Super Bowl ad featured young people using different pronouns to describe themselves.

    Thomas Murphy, an associate professor of branding at Clark University, said he tells brands that want to be inclusive to run ads with real people who can talk about the company’s efforts.

    “They can have employees who say, ‘I love Bud Light. I have worked here for 20 years, there are inclusive programs and I came here because I wanted a company that would embrace me,’” he said. “Who couldn’t see and hear that person and say, ‘What a great company’?”

    Instead, Bud Light wound up alienating even transgender customers because it didn’t support Mulvaney after the boycott calls began, Schwartz said. Anheuser-Busch CEO Brendan Whitworth issued a statement on April 14 but it didn’t specifically mention the controversy.

    “We never intended to be part of a discussion that divides people,” Whitworth said.

    By comparison, Nike — which also faced some boycott threats after sending workout clothes to Mulvaney — supported the transgender community in an Instagram post, encouraging followers to be kind and inclusive. Nike didn’t respond to requests for comment.

    Manveer Mann, an associate professor of marketing at the Feliciano School of Business at Montclair State University, said Bud Light should have anticipated the backlash and had a plan in place to handle it.

    Nike learned that lesson in 2018, when it featured football player Colin Kaepernick — who had protested police brutality by kneeling during the national anthem — in its ads. Mann said Nike briefly faced boycott threats, but it stood by Kaepernick and its sales quickly recovered.

    Mann thinks Bud Light’s sales will ultimately recover, too. But in the meantime, it’s alienating everyone, she said.

    “The communication from Bud Light is not clear. Is this coming from your value set or are these things just trending?” Mann said. “You have to know what your values are and what are the values of the customers you are trying to reach.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Bud Light fumbles, but experts say inclusive ads will stay

    Bud Light fumbles, but experts say inclusive ads will stay

    [ad_1]

    Bud Light may have fumbled its attempt to broaden its customer base by partnering with a transgender influencer. But experts say inclusive marketing is simply good business — and it’s here to stay.

    “A few years from now, we will look back on this ‘controversy’ with the same embarrassment that we feel when we look back at ‘controversies’ from the past surrounding things like interracial couples in advertising,” said Sarah Reynolds, the chief marketing officer for the human resources platform HiBob, who identifies as queer.

    On April 1, transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney posted a video of herself cracking open a Bud Light on her Instagram page. She showed off a can with her face on it that Bud Light sent her — one of many corporate freebies she gets and shares with her millions of followers.

    But unlike the dress from Rent the Runway or the trip to Denmark from skincare brand Ole Henriksen, the backlash to the beer can was fast and furious. Three days after Mulvaney’s post, Kid Rock posted a video of himself shooting cases of Bud Light. Shares of Bud Light’s parent, AB InBev, temporarily plunged.

    This week, Anheuser-Busch — AB InBev’s U.S. subsidiary — confirmed that Alissa Heinerscheid, its vice president of marketing, and her boss, Daniel Blake, are taking a leave of absence. The company won’t say when they will return or whether they’re being paid.

    For some, the partnership went too far at a time when transgender issues — including gender-affirming health care and participation in sports — are a divisive topic in state legislatures.

    “Whether the issue is trans people or anything else, the majority of consumers are pretty vocal about the fact they don’t want brands lecturing them or stuffing politics or social issues down their throat,” said John Frigo, the head of digital marketing for Best Price Nutrition. “If you sell beer, just make beer and leave it at that.”

    But others — including Heinerscheid herself — say reaching out to younger and more diverse consumers is crucial. According to a 2021 Gallup poll, 21% of people in Generation Z identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, compared to 3% of Baby Boomers. Gallup has also found that younger consumers are the most likely to want brands to promote diversity and take a stand on social issues.

    “I had a really clear job to do when I took over Bud Light. And it was, this brand is in decline. It’s been in decline for a very long time. And if we do not attract young drinkers to come and drink this brand, there will be no future for Bud Light,” Heinerscheid said last month in an episode of Apple’s “Make Yourself at Home” podcast.

    Bud Light and Mulvaney declined requests to talk to The Associated Press for this story.

    Bud Light has long been America’s best-selling beer. But its U.S. sales are down 2% so far this year, part of a long-running decline as younger consumers flock to sparking seltzers and other drinks, according to Bump Williams Consulting. Those sales declines accelerated rapidly in April. The week ending April 15, Bud Light’s sales dropped 17% compared to the same week a year ago. Meanwhile, rivals Miller Lite and Coors Lite both saw their sales jump more than 17%.

    Marketing experts say it’s possible Bud Light’s experience will cause other brands to rethink using transgender people in their advertising. Joanna Schwartz, a professor at Georgia College and State University who teaches a course on LGBTQ+ marketing, said companies will still want to reach transgender consumers and their supporters, but might shift to social media and more targeted ads.

    “They’re walking an extremely fine line. They want to appeal to everyone, but that includes people who don’t like each other,” Schwartz said of Bud Light.

    Still, Schwartz said, there are plenty of brands that have successfully featured transgender or non-binary people in their marketing. In 2016, Secret deodorant ran an ad featuring a transgender woman in a bathroom stall, debating whether to walk out and face other women at the sink. Pantene shampoo has run ads and short films supporting transgender people in 2021 as part of its Hair Has No Gender project. And Coca-Cola’s 2018 Super Bowl ad featured young people using different pronouns to describe themselves.

    Thomas Murphy, an associate professor of branding at Clark University, said he tells brands that want to be inclusive to run ads with real people who can talk about the company’s efforts.

    “They can have employees who say, ‘I love Bud Light. I have worked here for 20 years, there are inclusive programs and I came here because I wanted a company that would embrace me,’” he said. “Who couldn’t see and hear that person and say, ‘What a great company’?”

    Instead, Bud Light wound up alienating even transgender customers because it didn’t support Mulvaney after the boycott calls began, Schwartz said. Anheuser-Busch CEO Brendan Whitworth issued a statement on April 14 but it didn’t specifically mention the controversy.

    “We never intended to be part of a discussion that divides people,” Whitworth said.

    By comparison, Nike — which also faced some boycott threats after sending workout clothes to Mulvaney — supported the transgender community in an Instagram post, encouraging followers to be kind and inclusive. Nike didn’t respond to requests for comment.

    Manveer Mann, an associate professor of marketing at the Feliciano School of Business at Montclair State University, said Bud Light should have anticipated the backlash and had a plan in place to handle it.

    Nike learned that lesson in 2018, when it featured football player Colin Kaepernick — who had protested police brutality by kneeling during the national anthem — in its ads. Mann said Nike briefly faced boycott threats, but it stood by Kaepernick and its sales quickly recovered.

    Mann thinks Bud Light’s sales will ultimately recover, too. But in the meantime, it’s alienating everyone, she said.

    “The communication from Bud Light is not clear. Is this coming from your value set or are these things just trending?” Mann said. “You have to know what your values are and what are the values of the customers you are trying to reach.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • North Carolina GOP closes in on transgender athlete ban

    North Carolina GOP closes in on transgender athlete ban

    [ad_1]

    RALEIGH, N.C. — A prohibition on transgender girls playing on female sports teams in North Carolina schools cleared a second legislative chamber this week when the state Senate approved a bill Thursday.

    The passage means the Republican-dominated General Assembly appears poised to work out in the coming weeks a final compromise that would limit athlete participation and send it to Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper, who is a strong supporter of LGBTQ+ rights.

    The House approved a similar bill Wednesday. Legislators who back the competing measures expressed optimism that differences can be hammered out.

    “I believe that the Senate sponsors and the House sponsors will be able to work through that,” House Speaker Tim Moore told reporters.

    Cooper’s office criticized the measure, saying politicians shouldn’t get involved in these decisions. The GOP now holds veto-proof majorities in both the Senate and House after a former House Democrat switched parties earlier this month. The margins on this week’s floor votes suggest any Cooper veto could be overridden.

    At least 20 other states have imposed similar limits on transgender athletes at the K-12 or collegiate level. Also Thursday, the U.S. House passed a bill to bar federally supported schools and colleges from allowing any athlete whose biological sex assigned at birth was male from competing on girls’ or women’s sports teams.

    Supporters of North Carolina’s legislation said during the Senate debate that the measure was designed to ensure cisgender girls have fair competitions and to protect their safety.

    “We want to protect women’s sports,” said Sen. Joyce Krawiec, a Forsyth County Republican and bill sponsor during debate before the Senate’s 29-18 party-line vote. “We want our women and our girls to be able to compete against each other, and may the best girl or woman win.”

    Senate Democrats who opposed to the measure agreed with parents of transgender children and their advocates who said in committee meetings this week that the bill would harm already vulnerable students.

    “This bill does nothing to make our schools safer or help our students to succeed,” said Sen. Natalie Murdock, a Durham County Democrat. “Unfortunately, here we go again, waging culture wars with targets on the backs of children.”

    Both bills state that “a student’s sex shall be recognized based solely on the student’s reproductive biology and genetics at birth.” It would apply to sports involving competing middle and high schools and intramurals. The bills contain no information on how the policies would be enforced. Students could sue on allegations that they were harmed by a trans student violating the restrictions.

    The House wants to apply the athlete eligibility restrictions to college and university teams as well. The measure also would place athlete eligibility limits on trans boys and cisgender girls, preventing them from playing on teams designated for male athletes if there was no comparable girls’ team, except for wrestling.

    The North Carolina High School Athletic Association, which runs athletic competitions for over 400 mostly public schools, already has a process by which transgender athletes can play sports based on their gender identities. The association confirmed Thursday that it had received 18 such gender-waiver requests since its policy was instituted before the 2019-20 school year. Sixteen requests have been approved, with 14 of them from cisgender girls requesting to play on boys’ teams, the association said.

    Republican leaders ran the measures through committees this week, hearing from female athletes who say they’ve been harmed physically or psychologically by transgender women participating in their sports. That included Riley Gaines, a former University of Kentucky swimmer known for criticizing an NCAA decision allowing transgender swimmer Lia Thomas to compete against her in a women’s championship race.

    Three House Democrats joined all Republicans present Wednesday in voting for the measure. The GOP supporters included Rep. Tricia Cotham of Mecklenburg County, who was a Democrat until her recent party switch. She has been a longtime advocate for LGBTQ+ rights.

    Senate Democrats also warned Thursday that enacting the restrictions could lead to economic blowback from corporations similar to what happened in North Carolina following passage in 2016 of the “ bathroom bill ” involving transgender people. The law was partially repealed in 2017.

    “We don’t need to go back to that nightmare,” Cooper spokesperson Sam Chan said in a statement. ”Instead, lawmakers should be making sure we fix the teacher shortage, invest in schools and fund more quality child care.”

    Senate Majority Leader Paul Newton, of Cabarrus County, said he didn’t expect a repeat of the financial fallout following the 2016 law if this legislation was enacted, calling the bill “common sense.” Newton also called on the state’s business community to “strengthen its back.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Missouri rules part of rapid push to limit trans health care

    Missouri rules part of rapid push to limit trans health care

    [ad_1]

    LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — The push to restrict health care for transgender people has expanded beyond children, with Missouri placing new limits on gender-affirming care for both adults and minors.

    The restrictions highlight how rapidly states’ efforts targeting the rights of transgender people have grown this year, despite new obstacles from the courts and the Biden administration.

    Here’s what’s happening:

    WHAT’S THE STATUS OF BILLS TARGETING TRANSGENDER PEOPLE?

    More than 450 bills have been introduced in statehouses around the country this year targeting transgender people, which LGBTQ+ advocates say is a record number.

    They include bans on gender-affirming medical care for minors and restrictions on the types of restrooms transgender people can use. Lawmakers have also been advancing measures restricting classroom instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity, and bills that would out transgender students who want teachers to address them by the pronouns they use.

    WHAT RESTRICTIONS ARE IN PLACE?

    The rules announced Thursday by Missouri’s Republican attorney general place several new restrictions on when someone could receive gender-affirming care. They include 18 months of therapy and would require any mental health issues such as depression or anxiety be resolved before anyone could receive care. It also requires documentation of three years of “persistent and intense” gender dysphoria before treatment can begin.

    The rules, which are set to take effect April 27, are believed to be the first limits placed by a state on gender-affirming care for adults. LGBTQ+ advocates have condemned the move and have vowed legal action.

    Missouri is one of three states that has banned or restricted gender-affirming care via regulations or administrative orders. Two Florida boards have banned the care for minors. Texas’ governor has ordered child welfare officials to investigate reports of children receiving such care as child abuse, though a judge has blocked those investigations.

    At least 13 states have now enacted laws restricting or banning gender-affirming care for minors: Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, Utah, South Dakota and West Virginia. Bills await action from governors in Kansas, Montana and North Dakota. All but three of the laws were enacted this year.

    Federal judges have blocked enforcement of bans in Alabama and Arkansas, and nearly two dozen states are considering bills this year to restrict or ban care. A new law signed last month by Republican Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders aims to effectively reinstate Arkansas’ ban by making it easier to sue providers of such care for minors.

    Republican states like Oklahoma have also threatened some funding for hospitals that offer gender-affirming care.

    In North Dakota, Republican Gov. Doug Burgum this week on Tuesday signed new laws that effectively prohibit transgender girls and women from joining female sports teams in K-12 and college. At least 21 states have enacted such laws.

    There’s also been a resurgence this year of bills prohibiting transgender people from using restrooms that align with their gender identity, six years after North Carolina repealed its bathroom law. Republican lawmakers in Kansas last week sent Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly a bill that would impose some of the broadest bathroom restrictions, and appear to have enough votes to override an expected veto.

    Sanders this week signed a bathroom bill that was scaled back following complaints from transgender people and their families. The law makes it a crime for a transgender person to use a restroom that aligns with their gender identity, but only if a minor of the opposite sex is present and if they’re in the bathroom for sexual purposes.

    Sanders has already signed a law prohibiting transgender people at public schools from using the bathroom that aligns with their gender identity.

    WHAT’S HAPPENING IN COURT?

    There have been two major court victories recently protecting the rights of transgender people, even as the flood of legislation continues.

    The U.S. Supreme Court last week allowed a 12-year-old transgender girl in West Virginia to continue competing on her middle school’s girls sports teams while a lawsuit over a state ban continues. Also last week, a federal judge ruled that an Indiana school district didn’t violate a former music teacher’s rights by pushing him to resign after the man refused to use transgender students’ names and gender pronouns.

    Lawsuits have also been filed in recent weeks challenging bans on gender-affirming care for minors in Indiana and Florida.

    More action could be on the way soon. A federal judge who blocked Arkansas’ gender-affirming care ban for minors is considering whether to strike down the prohibition as unconstitutional.

    WHAT HAS HAPPENED WITH RESTRICTIONS ON TRANSGENDER ATHLETES?

    A proposed rule released last week by the Biden administration would forbid schools and colleges from enacting outright bans on transgender athletes but still allows teams to create limits in certain cases.

    The plan has sparked outrage from conservatives but also has drawn criticism from some trans rights activists who note it could still prevent transgender athletes from competing on teams that align with their gender identity.

    The proposed rule, which still faces a lengthy approval process, establishes that blanket bans would violate Title IX, the landmark gender-equity legislation enacted in 1972.

    Schools that receive federal funding could still adopt policies that limit transgender students’ participation, particularly in more competitive high school and college sports.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Sorority sister anonymity barred in Wyoming transgender suit

    Sorority sister anonymity barred in Wyoming transgender suit

    [ad_1]

    CHEYENNE, Wyo. — Seven women who have sued to challenge the admission of a transgender woman to their sorority at the University of Wyoming can’t remain anonymous in court, a judge has ruled in a case highlighting tension over belonging for transgender people in the least-populated state.

    The women must refile their lawsuit with their real names by April 20, U.S. District Judge Alan Johnson in Cheyenne wrote Thursday.

    “The bottom line is this. Lawsuits are public events, and the public, especially here, has an important interest in access to legal proceedings,” Johnson wrote. “Plaintiffs may not levy serious accusations without standing behind them.”

    The seven women identify themselves only as “Jane Does” in their lawsuit filed March 27 accusing Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority of breaking its own rules while admitting the transgender woman last fall. The sorority national office pressured the University of Wyoming chapter to violate those rules, the lawsuit alleges.

    The transgender woman, identified in the lawsuit only by the pseudonym “Terry Smith,” also is a defendant. Johnson is not requiring disclosure of her identity.

    The women suing said they needed anonymity for privacy and safety reasons, including a likelihood of threats and harassment due to the lawsuit. Johnson ruled that they didn’t meet the legal standard for anonymity, however.

    An attorney for the seven women, John Knepper, declined to comment Friday on Johnson’s order but said he planned to file a court document responding to it soon.

    Smith declined to comment in an email Friday.

    The lawsuit claims her presence in the Kappa Kappa Gamma house made some sorority members uncomfortable. Smith would sit on a couch for hours while “staring at them without talking,” the lawsuit alleges.

    The lawsuit asks Johnson to declare Smith’s sorority membership void and to award unspecified damages. The damages should reflect the local chapter’s decline in financial stability and donations because of Smith’s induction last fall, the lawsuit alleges.

    Kappa Kappa Gamma officials declined to comment Friday on Johnson’s order. Executive Director Kari Kittrell Poole has said previously the lawsuit contains numerous false allegations.

    Smith, 21, doesn’t live among the 44 women currently residing in the Sorority Row house because of housing commitments elsewhere, according to the lawsuit.

    The University of Wyoming campus in Laramie has a long history of wrangling with LGBTQ+ issues since the murder of gay freshman Matthew Shepard in 1998 drew attention to them nationwide. Wyoming, along with South Carolina, is one of just two states that has not adopted a hate-crimes law since Shepard’s murder.

    Republican Gov. Mark Gordon recently allowed a ban on transgender athletes in precollege interscholastic athletics to become law without his signature.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden sports plan angers transgender advocates, opponents

    Biden sports plan angers transgender advocates, opponents

    [ad_1]

    A Biden administration proposal to forbid outright bans on transgender athletes sparked outrage from conservative leaders while also angering trans rights activists who note schools could still prevent some athletes from participating on teams that align with their gender identity.

    The proposed rule, which still faces a lengthy approval process, establishes that blanket bans, like those that have been approved in at least 20 states, would violate Title IX, the landmark gender-equity legislation enacted in 1972. But schools could still adopt policies that limit transgender students’ participation, particularly in more competitive high school and college sports.

    Under the proposal, it would be much more difficult for schools to ban, for example, a transgender girl in elementary school from playing on a girls basketball team. But it would also leave room for schools to develop policies that prohibit trans athletes from playing on more competitive teams if those policies are designed to ensure fairness or prevent sports-related injuries.

    Imara Jones, a trans woman who created “The Anti-Trans Hate Machine” podcast, said the proposal shows that President Joe Biden is attempting to “straddle the fence” on a human rights issue ahead of an election year by giving legal recourse to schools that bar some trans athletes from competition.

    “The Biden Administration framed their proposal as a ban on blanket discrimination against trans athletes. But actually, it provides guidelines for how schools and universities can ban trans athletes legally,” Jones said in a statement.

    U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a New York Democrat, also offered pointed criticism, saying in a tweet that the plan was “indefensible and embarrassing.”

    Erin Reed, a prominent trans activist and researcher, said the proposal “alarmingly” echoes right-wing talking points, which argue that trans participation could increase injuries and take away scholarship opportunities from female athletes who are cisgender, meaning their gender identity matches the sex they were assigned at birth. She worries school boards and lawmakers will use it to justify bans.

    Extensive research is virtually nonexistent when it comes to determining whether adolescent trans girls have a clear athletic advantage over cisgender girls.

    “I can’t read this any other way than a betrayal,” Reed said in a tweet. “This entire document is worse than doing nothing.”

    Sean Ebony Coleman, a trans activist and founder of the LGBTQ+ center Destination Tomorrow in New York, said policymakers — particularly on a national level — need to completely rule out any option for trans people to be further ostracized.

    “While it hypothetically prevents across-the-board bans, it offers enough gray area for discrete gender policing and demonization to occur, specifically on a local level,” Coleman said.

    Still, some transgender athletes welcomed the proposal as an important first step toward protecting trans kids’ access to sports.

    “I would love to see protections expanded to include elite and collegiate sports, but this seems like a good start,” said Iszac Henig, a trans man and competitive swimmer at Yale University. “Trans athletes should have the ability to compete on the team of their choice if their athletic skills allow it.”

    Doriane Coleman, a law professor at Duke University, said the proposal allows for schools that receive federal funding to “still choose to have male and female sports teams” and makes sense compared with the “one-size-fits-all approach” found in some states.

    “You wouldn’t be able to make the same argument for kindergarten or elementary school sport that you can make for elite high school and college sport under this two-part test,” Coleman said.

    A way that the federal government, states and advocacy groups can avoid “piecemeal legislation” is by making clear “there is a body of evidence to support generalizable sex-specific eligibility standards for each sport at each level of development,” she said.

    The proposal was quickly assailed by many Republican leaders who said they were ready to fight the plan in court.

    “South Dakota will not allow this to stand,” Gov. Kristi Noem tweeted. “We will lead. We will defend our laws.”

    Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall issued a statement suggesting the state might also try to challenge the federal rule. Alabama lawmakers in 2021 approved legislation that bans trans women and girls from participating on female sports team in K-12 schools. It was also one of 20 states that filed a lawsuit in 2021 seeking to halt directives that extend federal sex discrimination protections to LGBTQ+ people.

    “I have made myself abundantly clear to the Biden Administration that he will NOT impose his radical policies on Alabama athletes. He will NOT destroy athletic competition for our young women & girls. In Alabama our law protects girls’ sports. Stay tuned!” Marshall said in a statement.

    The public will have 30 days to comment on the proposal after it is published in the Federal Register. After that, the U.S. Department of Education will review the comments and decide whether any changes are needed before issuing a final rule.

    ___

    Murphy reported from Oklahoma City, and Schoenbaum reported from Raleigh, N.C. Associated Press writers Carole Feldman in Washington, D.C., Erica Hunzinger in Denver, Kimberly Chandler in Montgomery, Ala., Pat Eaton-Robb in Hartford, Conn., and John Hanna in Topeka, Kan., contributed.

    [ad_2]

    Source link