ReportWire

Tag: transgender

  • Advocates demand that trans youth be protected as cases are argued in Supreme Court

    This Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding two cases about transgender girls in sports: Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. 

    In 2020, Idaho Governor Brad Little signed into law HB 500, which bans transgender girls and women from participating in school sports. This affected the first case’s respondent: transgender student athlete Lindsay Hecox, who was barred from participating in the track and cross country teams as well as intramural soccer and running clubs.

    In 2021, then-governor of West Virginia, Jim Justice, approved HB 3293, which enacts a similar ban. Becky Pepper-Jackson (B.P.J.), now an incoming high school student, opposed the discriminatory policy when it prevented her from joining her then-middle school’s cross country and track and field teams. Pepper-Jackson has also only undergone female puberty due to gender-affirming care, but West Virginia argues that its anti-transgender policies should be upheld because of her assigned sex at birth. 

    For LGBTQ+ advocates and allies, these cases illustrate the burden and harm transgender people face daily as their rights to privacy, dignity, care, and inclusion are constantly at risk of being eroded and stripped completely. 

    Experts also wonder if these cases could potentially reshape the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause as well as the civil rights law, Title IX. The former prohibits discrimination on other factors aside from race, though governments have argued that certain “suspect classifications” can be looked at more closely through “heightened scrutiny.” The latter prohibits sex-based discrimination in federally-funded schools.

    What is unfolding and how local advocates are informing change:

    The fight ahead is weary, and experts are certain that the states involved will not concede their points. In a webinar organized yesterday by the Williams Institute, several LGBTQ+ policy experts, including Rutgers Law School professor and anti-discrimination scholar Katie Eyer, examined where these cases may be heading, as well as efforts to muddy the arguments. 

    “It seems possible that the court might try to sidestep that issue here by saying that these laws don’t target transgender people at all,” Eyer said. “I think for most people, this seems bananas: like an upside-down world. We all know these laws were about transgender people.”

    Jenny Pizer, an attorney for the LGBTQ+ civil rights legal organization Lambda Legal and a co-counsel member for the B.P.J. case, affirmed this sentiment at a press conference organized Tuesday by Lambda Legal and AIDS Healthcare Foundation affinity group, FLUX. “They’ve gone to great lengths to say there’s no discrimination,” Pizer said. “[They’re arguing] it’s just technicalities or classifications.” 

    Eyer was one of three Equal Protections scholars who filed an amicus brief to be considered in the Supreme Court cases. An amicus brief is a legal document submitted by someone who is not involved directly in a case but who may offer additional perspectives and information that can inform the ruling process. 

    Eyer’s brief provided historical context that clarified the disadvantages of blanket sex-based policies. These types of laws, according to Eyer, uphold stereotypes over nuance, truth, and equal protection guidelines. For Pepper-Jackson, who has only undergone female puberty and who does not “benefit” from what dissidents define as a sex-based competitive “advantage,” the state should have provided her the ability to argue that she should have the same rights as other girls. 

    “Of course, the state hasn’t done that here,” Eyer said. “Under these precedents, the Supreme Court should invalidate the laws as applied to those trans girls who really don’t have a sex-based competitive advantage.”

    Who are these bills protecting?

    The states argue that their policies are merely “ensuring safety and fairness in girls’ sports.” But queer advocates understand that this is a veneer for the exclusion of transgender people from society. Forcing trans youth out of sports “does not protect anyone,” according to California LGBTQ Health and Human Services Network director Dannie Ceseňa, who spoke at Tuesday’s press conference.

    “It encourages the scrutiny of children’s bodies. It fuels gender policing, and it creates hostile school environments — not safer ones,” said Ceseňa. “Our youth should not inherit a world that treats their existence as a threat.” 

    Transgender people are systemically disempowered 

    At yesterday’s webinar, Distinguished Visiting Scholar at the Williams Institute Andrew Flores discussed his own amicus brief in support of Pepper-Jackson. The brief highlights the need for “heightened judicial scrutiny” in Pepper-Jackson’s case because the majority of political processes “systemically fail” transgender people. 

    For example, the transgender community faces substantial barriers in exercising their voter rights because of voter identification laws and other policies that regulate and define identity. “Even being able to gain access to the franchise is a burden for transgender people,” Flores said. “The court does play an important role there. It can grant legitimacy to arguments…or at least [acknowledge] that these issues are more complicated than maybe how they’ll receive them.” 

    What’s next?

    Experts are hesitant about where the cases stand. “Bottom line: I don’t know what the court is going to do in these cases. They may send them back down for further development,” Pizer said, who thinks future rulings will not shift more overarching policies regarding transgender rights. “I think they will probably decide based only on laws about sports, not laws more broadly about the rights of trans folks.” 

    But whatever is decided, the impacts will trickle down to everyone. While the cases deal specifically with anti-transgender policies, experts warn that LGBTQ+ issues have always been tied to racial, economic, and disability justice. “There’s this looming constitutional campaign to really undermine civil rights,” said Eyer. “That affects LGBTQ people. It affects people of color. It affects people with disabilities. It affects everybody, and it really is concerning.” 

    As transgender inclusion and safety are being argued on the largest legal stage, advocates are asking: “When are you going to step up?” They are also sending a direct message to transgender youth: “We see you, we believe in you, and we are fighting for you,” said Ceseňa. “You deserve joy, community, and care. You deserve a future that reflects who you are and not who anyone or any politician demands you to be. Trans youth deserve better.” 

    Kristie Song is a California Local News Fellow placed with the Los Angeles Blade. The California Local News Fellowship is a state-funded initiative to support and strengthen local news reporting. Learn more about it at fellowships.journalism.berkeley.edu/cafellows.

    Kristie Song

    Source link

  • Video: Why This 15-Year-Old’s Case Is at the Supreme Court

    new video loaded: Why This 15-Year-Old’s Case Is at the Supreme Court

    On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear two cases involving transgender athletes and their participation in women’s sports. One of the plaintiffs, the 15-year-old track athlete Becky Pepper-Jackson, spoke to the reporter Ann E. Marimow ahead of the hearing.

    By Ann E. Marimow, Sutton Raphael, Alexandra Ostasiewicz, Christina Shaman, Whitney Shefte and Nikolay Nikolov

    January 13, 2026

    Ann E. Marimow, Sutton Raphael, Alexandra Ostasiewicz, Christina Shaman, Whitney Shefte and Nikolay Nikolov

    Source link

  • Supreme Court seems likely to uphold transgender athlete bans in West Virginia and Idaho

    Washington — The Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared likely to uphold state laws that ban transgender athletes from participating in girls’ and women’s sports, wading for the first time into the contentious issue. 

    The justices heard more than three hours of arguments in a pair of cases challenging laws from West Virginia and Idaho that require public school and collegiate sports teams to be designated based on biological sex at birth and restrict transgender girls and women from competing on teams that correspond with their gender identity.  

    Across the arguments, the justices debated the level of scientific evidence behind whether transgender athletes who have received gender-transition treatments hold any athletic advantage over female competitors, as well as whether the laws discriminate based on sex and transgender status, as two transgender athletes who challenged their states’ measures argue. 

    A decision from the Supreme Court could have ramifications for more than half the country: Idaho and West Virginia are among the 27 states that have enacted laws in recent years that forbid participation by transgender athletes in girls’ and women’s sports.

    The two transgender athletes who brought the cases, Lindsay Hecox of Idaho and Becky Pepper-Jackson of West Virginia, filed lawsuits challenging the laws in their respective states several years ago, arguing that they violate the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection and Title IX, the landmark law that prohibits sex discrimination in education programs. The bans, the athletes said, categorically exclude all transgender girls and women from school sports altogether, and treat them worse than their peers. Lower courts ruled in favor of Hecox and Pepper-Jackson.

    But Idaho and West Virginia officials asserted that their bans do not discriminate based on transgender status and draw permissible distinctions between the sexes. They said that the laws’ sex-based classifications are allowed because they are substantially related to their interest in fair and safe athletic opportunities for women and girls.

    Justice Brett Kavanaugh said that the growth of girls’ and women’s sports since Title IX was enacted 50 years ago is one of the “successes in America,” and he warned that allowing transgender athletes to compete on girls’ and women’s sports teams threatened to “undermine or reverse” that success. He said sports are typically a “zero-sum game,” and transgender athletes can displace girls and women if they are selected for a team or take their place on a podium.

    “For the individual girl who does not make the team or doesn’t get on the stand for the medal or doesn’t make all-league, there’s a harm there, and I think we can’t sweep that aside,” Kavanaugh said. He later sought to clarify that a ruling from the Supreme Court on Title IX grounds would be specific to sports and unlikely to open the door to policies that separate males and females in the classroom or other activities.

    Kavanaugh also said that when Congress enacted Title IX decades ago, it understood “sex” to mean biological sex at birth, and it would be up to lawmakers today to adjust the definition in the law. 

    Some of the justices sought to test the lines of when it would be permissible under Title IX for girls and boys to be treated differently. Justice Neil Gorsuch posed the hypothetical scenario of boys having separate high school remedial programs, while Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett raised examples of proficiency in chess or calculus.

    Barrett and Justice Clarence Thomas also questioned whether boys who are less athletically skilled than their male peers could try out for girls’ teams if the laws were wiped away.

    But some of the liberal justices said that Pepper-Jackson and Hecox, as well as other transgender athletes like them, are seeking an exception to the state bans. Lawyers for the athletes told the court they received medical interventions that do not give them an unfair edge over girls and women competing against them.

    “I would think the state would just have to make exceptions where people can demonstrate that the justification that makes the state’s conduct constitutional doesn’t apply to them,” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said.

    Joshua Block, a lawyer with the ACLU who argued on behalf of Pepper-Jackson, told the justices that she and Hecox are categorically excluded from all sports, and said some states are using the definition of “sex” to deny athletic opportunity. He urged the Supreme Court not to issue a broad ruling, but to instead allow the district court to evaluate the facts and evidence related to athletic advantage.

    A decision from the Supreme Court is expected by the end of June or early July.

    Little v. Hecox

    Idaho was the first state in the nation to enact a law barring transgender athletes from competing on girls’ and women’s athletic teams. Called the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, the measure requires public school and collegiate sports teams to be designated “based on biological sex.” Under the law, athletic teams designated for females, women or girls “shall not be open to students of the male sex.”

    If a student’s sex is disputed, the law requires the athlete to provide a health examination and consent form that verifies their biological sex at birth.

    Hecox, a transgender woman who wanted to compete on the women’s track and cross-country teams at Boise State University, filed a lawsuit challenging Idaho’s law and argued it is unconstitutional and a violation of Title IX. Hecox, who takes hormone therapy, tried out for the university’s track and cross-country teams but did not make them. She instead participated in women’s club soccer and running.

    Idaho’s attorney general and two athletes, Madison Kenyon and Mary Kate Marshall, are defending the law. Kenyon and Marshall competed on the women’s track and cross-country teams at Idaho State University and placed behind a transgender student-athlete in various events in 2019 and early 2020.

    “If women don’t have their own competitions, they won’t be able to compete,” Alan Hurst, Idaho’s solicitor general, told the high court. “Gender identity does not matter in sports, and that’s why Idaho’s law does not classify on the basis of gender identity. It treats all males equally and all females equally, regardless of identity.”

    U.S. District Judge David C. Nye ruled in favor of Hecox in 2020, and blocked enforcement of the ban, finding that it “discriminates between cisgender athletes, who may compete on athletic teams consistent with their gender identity, and transgender women athletes, who may not compete on athletic teams consistent with their gender identity.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit affirmed that decision and concluded that Idaho’s ban is likely unconstitutional.

    The Supreme Court agreed in July to take up the challenge to the Idaho and West Virginia laws. But since then, Hecox, now 25, has sought to have the case dismissed as moot. She decided to refrain from playing any women’s sports at Boise State University or in Idaho, and would not participate in any school-sponsored athletics covered by Idaho’s ban.

    West Virginia v. B.P.J.

    West Virginia lawmakers enacted its ban, called the Save Women’s Sports Act, in 2021. Like Idaho’s measure, the law requires athletic teams to be designated “based on biological sex.” The law states that athletic teams or sports designated for females “shall not be open to students of the male sex where selection for such teams is based upon competitive skill or the activity involved is a contact sport.”

    Before the law took effect, Pepper-Jackson wanted to compete on the girls’ cross-country and track teams, and sued to block enforcement of the ban against her, arguing it violated Title IX and the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. Pepper-Jackson, a 15-year-old transgender girl, began socially transitioning in third grade and has taken puberty-delaying medication and hormone therapy. She is now a sophomore in high school.

    Becky Pepper-Jackson poses for a portrait in front of the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 11, 2026.

    Maxine Wallace/The Washington Post via Getty Images


    In 2023, a U.S. district court upheld the law on both equal protection and Title IX grounds, finding West Virginia’s classification based on biological sex is substantially related to its interest in providing equal athletic opportunities for females.

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit and the Supreme Court blocked West Virginia officials from enforcing the ban against Pepper-Jackson while proceedings continued, with Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas in dissent. The 4th Circuit then divided 2-1 in finding that the law violates Title IX because it discriminates based on gender identity, which it said is discrimination on the basis of sex.

    The debate over transgender athletes 

    It’s unclear how many transgender athletes are covered by bans in the 27 states that restrict participation in girls’ and women’s sports. The Williams Institute at UCLA Law School estimates that up to 122,000 transgender athletes could be participating in high school athletics.

    Pepper-Jackson is the only openly transgender student-athlete in West Virginia, her lawyers say, and they argue that neither she nor Hecox have any athletic advantage over their female competitors because they’ve received gender-transition treatments. 

    But West Virginia officials argue that as a result of Pepper-Jackson’s participation in girls’ sports, she displaced at least 400 female athletes in standings in track-and-field events in the spring 2025 season.

    West Virginia Solicitor General Michael Williams and state officials warned that the 4th Circuit’s decision requires states to treat sex and gender identity as synonymous when it comes to sports. 

    “Maintaining separate boys and girls sports teams ensures that girls can safely and fairly compete in school sports. The question today is whether this enduring structure can continue,” Williams told the justices. “It can. Title IX permits sex-separated teams. It does so because biological sex matters in athletics in ways both obvious and undeniable.”

    In filings with the Supreme Court, Idaho officials assert that sex is biological and immutable, and causes the differences between males and females. They say their law is motivated by those physical and physiological differences, and classify based on sex to account for those distinctions.

    The Trump administration is backing West Virginia and Idaho in the cases. In a friend-of-the-court brief, Solicitor General D. John Sauer said the practice of sex-separated sports is justified for transgender athletes, because physiological differences between males and females are unrelated to gender identity and not eliminated by medical treatments like puberty blockers or hormones.

    “In short, the laws of West Virginia and Idaho place trans-identifying athletes on sports teams on the same valid, biology-based terms as everyone else,” Sauer wrote. “That is the definition of equal treatment. It is not gender-identity discrimination at all, much less sex discrimination.”

    On the other side, Hecox’s lawyers first argue her case should be dismissed because she has stopped playing any sports covered by the ban. But the legal teams for both transgender athletes also refute that Idaho and West Virginia’s laws are substantially related to their interests in promoting equality and safety in female athletics. 

    “The statutory text, history, and purpose lead to the inescapable conclusion that the Act intentionally treats transgender women and girls differently — and worse — by categorically barring them from playing women’s and girls’ sports,” Hecox’s lawyers wrote in a filing.

    In Pepper-Jackson’s challenge to West Virginia’s law, her legal team says in court papers that Title IX does not authorize the “wholesale exclusion” of transgender girls from athletics. They argue the state’s restriction subjects Pepper-Jackson to discrimination because it denies her equal access to athletics.

    The legal battles over the state bans for transgender athletes are the latest involving LGBTQ rights to land before the Supreme Court.

    In 2020, the court divided 6-3 in finding that protections from workplace discrimination under Title VII extend to transgender and gay employees, with Justice Neil Gorsuch authoring the majority opinion. Chief Justice John Roberts joined Gorsuch and the three liberal justices in the majority, though he suggested when debating the sports-participation bans that the reasoning in that earlier case may not extend to these legal battles.

    “The question here is whether or not a sex-based classification is necessarily a transgender classification,” he said.

    In its last term, the Supreme Court upheld a Tennessee law barring medical interventions for minors experiencing gender dysphoria. The high court found that the law does not rely on sex-based classifications, but instead draws lines based on medical use and age.

    The Supreme Court has also allowed Mr. Trump to temporarily enforce policies banning transgender people from serving in the military and requiring passports to reflect the holder’s biological sex at birth. Both cases landed before the high court in their early stages, and the Supreme Court has not yet been asked to decide the legal merits. 

    Source link

  • Supreme Court Seems Ready To OK ‘A Huge Can Of Worms’

    Conservative Supreme Court justices on Tuesday appeared sympathetic to arguments that states can ban transgender athletes from playing on girls’ and women’s sports teams.

    The justices heard more than three hours of arguments by Idaho and West Virginia, as well as a Trump administration lawyer, defending laws that bar transgender athletes. The two cases heard back-to-back on Tuesday — Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. — were first brought by a transgender college student and high school student, respectively, who alleged that these laws violated their rights to equal protection under the Constitution and federal anti-discrimination law.

    But the Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative majority seemed poised in both cases to accept the states’ arguments that transgender identity does not equal sex, and therefore the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply.

    During the first case to be heard in the back-to-back session, Little v. Hecox, both conservative and liberal justices raised questions — including those about what level of scrutiny to apply to anti-trans sports bans and whether this case itself was still valid.

    But it was during the second case, West Virginia v. BPJ, that the conservative justices seemed to lean toward allowing state-level bans to stand, focusing on how to square transgender status and sex in terms of anti-discrimination law.

    This case comes from Becky Pepper-Jackson, now 15, who sued the state three years ago when she was barred from trying out for the girls’ track team despite having received medication that stopped her from ever experiencing male puberty. Pepper-Jackson’s family argued, and the lower courts agreed, that the state’s law violated her rights to equal protection and Title IX.

    Justices waded through a variety of hypothetical questions about differences between boys and girls with respect to everything from calculus to chess. But Justice Amy Coney Barrett seemed eager to avoid getting into “similarly situated” arguments.

    “I think it opens a huge can of worms that maybe we don’t need to get into here,” she said.

    However, other conservative justices pressed lawyers on broader questions of the definition of “sex.”

    Hashim Mooppan, arguing on behalf of the Trump administration for Idaho and West Virginia, said that it doesn’t matter if an athlete’s testosterone levels have been suppressed, as is the case with both Hecox and Pepper-Jackson, because no amount of hormonal therapy can change their “sex” as West Virginia defines it. Under West Virginia’s statute, “biological sex” is solely based on a person’s reproductive biology and genetics at birth.

    Joshua Block, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union representing Pepper-Jackson, said that Title IX, which Congress passed in 1972, bars discrimination on the basis of sex and did so without defining it. He urged the Court not to make a decision in this case based on West Virginia’s definition of sex.

    “I think the purpose [of Title IX] is to make sure sex isn’t used to discriminate by denying opportunities,” Block said. “Our argument is that there’s a group of people assigned male at birth for whom being placed on the boys’ team is [harmful], and there’s a word for those people – transgender girls.”

    Block said he would accept some kind of loss at the Supreme Court that might still allow the case to continue in lower courts, which have largely ruled in favor of the transgender plaintiffs.

    Lawyers for plaintiffs in the first case of the morning similarly hoped for a remand decision by the justices. At the center of the case is Lindsay Hecox, a senior at Boise State University who sued over Idaho’s 2020 law banning transgender girls and women from playing women’s sports. She argued that the law violated her rights to equal protection under the Constitution, and she eventually won her case in the lower courts. In September 2025, Hecox argued that her case is moot because she no longer plays or intends to play any college or team sports in the state.

    Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson pressed on that line of thought and highlighted the negative attention the plaintiff has received for being part of the lawsuit. If the justices don’t choose to dismiss the case as moot, they argued, they would be forcing “an unwilling plaintiff” to continue to be part of a high-profile lawsuit. Such a decision could be a dodge for the court: If the justices decide the case is moot, there would be no reason for them to rule on it, and the case would likely go back to the lower courts for any further legal process.

    Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch asked Alan Hurst, Idaho’s solicitor general, if transgender people should be considered a legally protected class in this case — a major and still-unanswered question that comes up in nearly all cases involving transgender rights. Gorsuch wrote a significant 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County that protected transgender employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

    Hurst did not fully respond to Gorsuch’s inquiry but said the court needs to consider the precedent set by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the definition of sex includes gender identity.

    Another conservative justice, Amy Coney Barrett, raised questions about the implications of Idaho’s anti-trans sports law, wondering if the law would bar 6-year-olds, for example, from sports teams matching their gender identity. Hurst claimed without evidence that young boys have an inherent athletic advantage by that age, and therefore, the law could apply to children that young.

    Mooppan, the Trump administration lawyer, argued that the state’s law is legitimate because so few trans women play sports. His statement is a bit ironic, considering that President Donald Trump has rolled back trans rights in part by focusing an outsized amount on this low number of trans athletes. There are about 550,000 college athletes in the country, and only about 10 of them are trans, the president of the National Collegiate Athletic Association told Congress in December 2024.

    Idaho justifies its law by arguing that there’s a need to protect women from people with so-called “biological advantages.”

    Kathleen Harnett, Hecox’s lawyer, said this distinction does not apply to her client, who has a physiology similar to any cisgender woman after receiving testosterone suppression and estrogen therapy for over a year.

    Harnett noted that there are few examples of trans athletes in girls’ and women’s sports who have “participated and excelled.”

    In both cases, the justices also seemed to take an interest in the question of whether one state could force its rules permitting or banning trans athletes on any other state. Currently, 27 states have restrictions on trans athletes.

    “You are litigating this case the opposite way among states that do not prohibit trans women and girls from participating in sports teams. Is that correct?” Justice Elena Kagan asked Mooppan at one point during arguments in B.P.J. “You said, and I appreciate this, that we should not address that question. Are there arguments that do suggest what the answer is on that question?” Mooppan, in response, circled back to how to define sex in the context of transgender status.

    Hecox and Pepper-Jackson are the only known athletes in their states who would be subject to the laws affecting trans athletes.

    “What stands out today is that the Court recognizes that these extreme bans harm transgender kids and pose real fairness concerns. As multiple federal courts have recognized previously, transgender student athletes like B.P.J. and Lindsay Hecox may have no competitive advantage due to medical treatment or other reasons,” Shannon Minter, a lawyer from the National Center for LGBTQ rights, said in a statement following the oral arguments. “The Constitution does not permit states to impose blanket exclusions that ignore reality and override individual circumstances.”

    At a rally outside of the court this morning, hundreds of people showed up with signs and strong feelings on both sides about the participation of trans athletes in women’s sports.

    Ashley, who spoke to HuffPost giving only her first name, said she flew in from Portland, Oregon, in order to represent her 7-year-old trans child.

    “I’ve been feeling helpless, and this is something I could do,” she said, holding a sign with a message from her child. The handmade sign read: “Trans girls in sports rule! Exclusion drools!”

    Across the barrier, one woman, who declined to give her name, said she flew in from Arizona to demonstrate her opposition to trans girls playing in girls’ sports. She said the issue was about the “protection of women,” because “they can be harmed by competing against men.”

    When HuffPost asked if she meant trans men aren’t as strong as cisgender men and could get hurt competing in sports against them, she couldn’t answer if that was her point.

    The arrival of these cases on the Supreme Court’s docket is the culmination of five years of increasing anti-LGBTQ+ legislation led by right-wing lawmakers and activists.

    In 2019, the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian legal group, defended several cisgender athletes who opposed Connecticut’s inclusive sports policy. From there, the group helped author dozens of anti-trans sports bans, including for West Virginia. The ADF’s lawyers are now representing both West Virginia and Idaho.

    These cases could have broad implications not only on the fate of other bans across the country, but also raise other legal questions around privacy, sex discrimination and how transgender people are treated more broadly under the law, advocates told HuffPost.

    The Trump administration has targeted transgender people since his return to office last year, including by threatening to withhold federal funding from schools with trans-inclusive athletic policies, ousting trans people from the military, and barring trans people from updating their passports with the correct gender marker.

    Jennifer Bendery contributed to this report.

    Source link

  • Can states ban transgender athletes from school sports? Supreme Court takes up cases

    The Supreme Court will hear two cases Tuesday that address whether state laws restricting transgender women and girls from participating in sports are constitutional. The first case involves 25-year-old Lindsay Hecox who transitioned from male to female and sued over Idaho’s ban to try out for the women’s track and cross country teams at Boise State University. She did not make either team and is no longer looking to do so, but competed in club-level soccer and running while she studied in Idaho. The second case centers around 15-year-old Becky Pepper-Jackson. She has been taking puberty-blocking medication, has identified as a girl since age 8, and was issued a West Virginia birth certificate recognizing her as female. Pepper-Jackson is the only transgender person who has attempted to compete in girls’ sports in West Virginia. The lower courts in both cases ruled in favor of the transgender athletes who challenged the state bans. More than two dozen Republican-led states, including Idaho and West Virginia, have enacted bans on transgender athletes from girls’ and women’s teams. Today, the mainly conservative justices are expected to focus on whether these sports bans violate the Constitution or Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in education. A decision in both cases is expected to be released by early summer. In the past year, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of state bans on gender-affirming care for transgender youth and allowed restrictions on transgender people to be enforced. Keep watching for the latest from the Washington News Bureau:

    WASHINGTON —

    The Supreme Court will hear two cases Tuesday that address whether state laws restricting transgender women and girls from participating in sports are constitutional.

    The first case involves 25-year-old Lindsay Hecox who transitioned from male to female and sued over Idaho’s ban to try out for the women’s track and cross country teams at Boise State University.

    She did not make either team and is no longer looking to do so, but competed in club-level soccer and running while she studied in Idaho.

    The second case centers around 15-year-old Becky Pepper-Jackson. She has been taking puberty-blocking medication, has identified as a girl since age 8, and was issued a West Virginia birth certificate recognizing her as female.

    Pepper-Jackson is the only transgender person who has attempted to compete in girls’ sports in West Virginia.

    The lower courts in both cases ruled in favor of the transgender athletes who challenged the state bans.

    More than two dozen Republican-led states, including Idaho and West Virginia, have enacted bans on transgender athletes from girls’ and women’s teams.

    Today, the mainly conservative justices are expected to focus on whether these sports bans violate the Constitution or Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in education.

    A decision in both cases is expected to be released by early summer.

    In the past year, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of state bans on gender-affirming care for transgender youth and allowed restrictions on transgender people to be enforced.

    Keep watching for the latest from the Washington News Bureau:


    Source link

  • Supreme Court to hear arguments on transgender athlete bans


    Supreme Court to hear arguments on transgender athlete bans – CBS News









































    Watch CBS News



    The Supreme Court will hear arguments Tuesday on state laws banning transgender athletes in girls’ and women’s sports. CBS News chief legal correspondent Jan Crawford has the details.

    [ad_2]
    Source link

  • RFK Jr. Embraces the Science on Trans Kids | RealClearPolitics

    Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. isn’t always very careful about evidence – but when it comes to gender affirmation treatments, the most painstaking research is on his side.

    Rich Lowry, New York Post

    Source link

  • Social media comment has some local business owners cutting ties with Shop Local Raleigh

    A Facebook comment in an online networking group is causing a stir among some of Raleigh’s small business owners. 

    On Dec. 20, an anonymous commenter in a local networking group on Facebook responded to a post by a parent asking for advice regarding her transgender son. 

    “There’s no such thing as a transgender son. Blessings to
    you, but the sooner you help your son realize this, the more successful he
    (maybe a she) will be,” the anonymous comment read.

    Gigi Stephenson is an administrator of the group. She said
    someone flagged the comment for review. As an admin on the page, Stephenson
    said she could see that the anonymous comment was made by Jennifer Martin, the executive director of the Greater Raleigh Merchant’s Association. 

    Martin has been with the GRMA, which does business
    as Shop Local Raleigh, since 2010. The organization presents many local events
    each year including Falling for Local at Dix Park, the Raleigh Food Truck Rodeo
    Series, the Raleigh Christmas Parade and the annual Brewgaloo craft beer
    festival

    “We’ve had a pretty loud and open stance on you will not be
    able to hide behind anonymous commenting or posts that we feel you are a danger
    to the community,” Stephenson told WRAL on Monday. “This is something that the
    community deserves to know. They’re spending money with this organization.”

    Martin’s post got the attention of other local business
    owners, including Be Like Missy’s Erica Vogel, who made a social media post of her own announcing her business would be stepping away from Shop Local Raleigh and
    Brewgaloo in light of the comment.

    “Being that it was her, I felt really torn because I’ve been
    a big supporter of her and of Shop Local Raleigh for at least five years, and
    I’ve encouraged a ton of my small business-owning friends to join and be a part
    of the community, “ Vogel told WRAL. “I always looked at what she did as
    inclusive and promoting small business, but to see such an ugly and hateful
    comment happen, it made me feel really conflicted.”

    Vogel said Martin emailed her following her post – not
    denying that she made the comment – but correcting her title which was
    incorrectly listed as the owner of Shop Local Raleigh and Brewgaloo.

    “I
    am always open to conversation and work hard to be welcoming and supportive of
    all small businesses in our community. Because your post
    references businesses I do not own, I’m asking that it be removed. If not, we
    will need to have our attorney formally request its removal,” Martin wrote in the email, which Vogel shared with WRAL. “I
    hope we can resolve this quickly and respectfully.”

    The comment prompted a Change.org petition
    calling for Martin to be held accountable.

    “This should include a formal apology, mandatory sensitivity
    training, financial support for one of our local organizations who provide
    direct aid to trans youth and any other corrective actions deemed appropriate
    by SLR. Every person, regardless of their gender identity should feel seen and
    supported by the communities they belong to,” the petition reads. It has gotten
    more than 500 signatures.

    The Night Market Company also posted on Facebook that it
    would not be participating in Shop Local Raleigh events due to the comment.

    Stephenson said she would like to see “education come from
    this.”

    She said she would like to see Martin “really take some time to think about this comment
    and how it affects the people in her community, the very community that has
    carried this nonprofit, and the people who show up at these event.”

    WRAL has reached out to Martin but has not heard back. Several GRMA board members told WRAL they had no comment. 

    Shop Local Raleigh posted on the group’s Facebook page on Monday afternoon:

    “The Board of Directors of the Greater Raleigh Merchants Association (Shop Local Raleigh) is aware of concerns surrounding a recent, personal, social media comment made by our Executive Director. The Board is currently addressing the matter. The comment made does not reflect those of the organization. Shop Local Raleigh is dedicated to a culture of diversity, inclusion and respect.”

    Source link

  • 19 states and D.C. sue HHS over effort to ban transgender care for minors

    A coalition of 19 states and the District of Columbia on Tuesday sued the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, its secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and its inspector general over a declaration that could complicate access to gender-affirming care for young people.

    The declaration issued last Thursday called treatments like puberty blockers, hormone therapy and surgeries unsafe and ineffective for children and adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria, or the distress when someone’s gender expression doesn’t match their sex assigned at birth. It also warned doctors that they could be excluded from federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid if they provide those types of care.

    The declaration came as HHS also announced proposed rules meant to further curtail gender-affirming care for young people, although the lawsuit doesn’t address those as they are not final.

    Tuesday’s lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Eugene, Oregon, alleges that the declaration is inaccurate and unlawful and asks the court to block its enforcement. It’s the latest in a series of clashes between an administration that’s cracking down on transgender health care for children, arguing it can be harmful to them, and advocates who say the care is medically necessary and shouldn’t be inhibited. After taking office in January, President Trump signed an executive order that seeks to cut federal support for certain types of gender-affirming care for people under the age of 19. 

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

    The lawsuit alleges that HHS’s declaration seeks to coerce providers to stop providing gender-affirming care and circumvent legal requirements for policy changes. It says federal law requires the public to be given notice and an opportunity to comment before substantively changing health policy — neither of which, the suit says, was done before the declaration was issued.

    A spokesperson for HHS declined to comment.

    HHS’s declaration based its conclusions on a peer-reviewed report that the department conducted earlier this year that urged greater reliance on behavioral therapy rather than broad gender-affirming care for youths with gender dysphoria.

    The report questioned standards for the treatment of transgender youth issued by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health and raised concerns that adolescents may be too young to give consent to life-changing treatments that could result in future infertility.

    Major medical groups and those who treat transgender young people have sharply criticized the report as inaccurate, and most major U.S. medical organizations, including the American Medical Association, continue to oppose restrictions on transgender care and services for young people.

    The declaration was announced as part of a multifaceted effort to limit gender-affirming health care for children and teenagers — and built on other Trump administration efforts to target the rights of transgender people nationwide.

    HHS on Thursday also unveiled two proposed federal rules — one to cut off federal Medicaid and Medicare funding from hospitals that provide gender-affirming care to children, and another to prohibit federal Medicaid dollars from being used for such procedures.

    The proposals are not yet final or legally binding and must go through a lengthy rulemaking process and public comment before becoming permanent. But they will nonetheless likely further discourage health care providers from offering gender-affirming care to children.

    Several major medical providers already have pulled back on gender-affirming care for young patients since Mr. Trump returned to office — even in states where the care is legal and protected by state law.

    Medicaid programs in slightly less than half of states currently cover gender-affirming care. At least 27 states have adopted laws restricting or banning the care. The Supreme Court’s recent 6-3 decision upholding Tennessee’s ban means most other state laws are likely to remain in place. The case, U.S. v. Skrmetti, marked the first time the Supreme Court had waded into the issue of health care for transgender youth. 

    Tennessee’s law prohibits medical treatments like puberty blockers or hormone therapy for transgender adolescents under the age of 18.  

    The state had argued that it has a “compelling interest in encouraging minors to appreciate their sex, particularly as they undergo puberty,” and in barring treatments that “might encourage minors to become disdainful of their sex.”   

    “Our role is not ‘to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic’ of the law before us, but only to ensure that it does not violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. Having concluded it does not, we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority.  

    Joining James in Tuesday’s lawsuit were Democratic attorneys general from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, Washington and the District of Columbia. Pennsylvania’s Democratic governor also joined.

    Source link

  • Democrats vow to challenge ban on gender-affirming care

    BOSTON — Foreshadowing a legal challenge, Massachusetts Attorney General Campbell is joining a chorus of criticism over the Trump administration’s move to effectively ban gender-affirming care for minors at hospitals that depend on federal funding.

    On Thursday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued new regulations that would once finalized, restrict the use of puberty blockers, hormone therapy and surgical interventions for transgender children.

    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAm%96 DH66A:?8 ?6H CF=6D 2=D@ E9C62E6? E@ 4FE @77 7656C2= |65:42:5 2?5 |65:42C6 7F?5:?8 7C@> 9@DA:E2=D E92E AC@G:56 86?56C277:C>:?8 42C6 E@ 49:=5C6?]k^Am

    kAm“%9:D 😀 ?@E >65:4:?6[ :E 😀 >2=AC24E:46[” w62=E9 $64C6E2CJ #@36CE u] z6??65J yC] D2:5 2E 2 AC6DD 3C:67:?8 %9FCD52J H96C6 96 2?5 @E96C @77:4:2=D 5:D4FDD65 E96 C68F=2E:@?D E@ C6DEC:4E 86?56C277:C>:?8 42C6 2>@?8 >:?@CD] “$6IC6;64E:?8 AC@465FC6D C@3 49:=5C6? @7 E96:C 7FEFC6D]”k^Am

    kAm%96 ?6H 5:C64E:G6D[ H9:49 7@==@H @E96C 5:G:D:G6 A@=:4:6D 3J E96 %CF>A 25>:?:DEC2E:@? 2:>65 2E EC2?D86?56C A6@A=6[ 5C6H DH:7E 4@?56>?2E:@? 7C@> s6>@4C2ED[ 962=E9 42C6 25G@42E6D 2?5 8C@FAD C6AC6D6?E:?8 EC2?D86?56C :?5:G:5F2=D[ H9@ 2C8F65 E92E E96 >@G6 H@F=5 36 5:D4C:>:?2E@CJ 2?5 F?=2H7F=]k^Am

    kAmr2>A36== :DDF65 2 DE2E6>6?E %9FCD52J 27E6C?@@? D2J:?8 96C @77:46 H:== “DE2?5 FA 7@C E96 CF=6 @7 =2H 2?5 E96 C:89E @7 2== |2DD249FD6EED C6D:56?ED E@ C646:G6 >65:42==J ?646DD2CJ 962=E9 42C6” 2?5 D2:5 D96 😀 “AC6A2C65 E@ E2<6 24E:@? :7 2?J F?=2H7F= CF=6 😀 7:?2=:K65]”k^Am

    kAm“|65:42==J ?646DD2CJ 962=E9 42C6 7@C EC2?D86?56C J@FE9 D2G6D =:G6D 2?5 😀 6DD6?E:2= E@ E96:C 6>@E:@?2= 2?5 A9JD:42= H6==36:?8[” r2>A36== D2:5 😕 2 DE2E6>6?E]k^Am

    kAm“(9:=6 E96D6 AC@A@D65 CF=6D 4CF6==J E2C86E @FC EC2?D 4@>>F?:EJ[ E96J H:== AFE >:==:@?D @7 p>6C:42?D’ 962=E9 42C6 2E C:D< 3J 7@C4:?8 9@DA:E2=D 2?5 >65:42= AC@G:56CD E@ 49@@D6 36EH66? C646:G:?8 |65:42:5 2?5 |65:42C6 7F?5:?8 @C 232?5@?:?8 E96:C 25@=6D46?E EC2?D86?56C A2E:6?ED[” D96 D2:5]k^Am

    kAmr2>A36== D2:5 E96 CF=6D “2C6 ?@E =2H” 2?5 E92E A2E:6?ED’ C:89ED 2?5 962=E9 :?DFC6CD’ C6DA@?D:3:=:E:6D F?56C |65:42:5 C6>2:? F?492?865] v6?56C277:C>:?8 42C6 C6>2:?D =682= F?56C 7656C2= =2H[ 2?5 2446DD E@ 86?56C277:C>:?8 42C6 C6>2:?D =682= 2?5 AC@E64E65 😕 |2DD249FD6EED[ D96 D2:5]k^Am

    kAm$:?46 E2<:?8 @77:46 😕 y2?F2CJ[ #6AF3=:42? !C6D:56?E s@?2=5 %CF>A 92D G@H65 E@ 32? EC2?D86?56C AC@465FC6D 2>@?8 E66?286CD[ 2C8F:?8 E92E 86?56C AC@465FC6D 2C6 56EC:>6?E2= E@ 49:=5C6?’D 962=E9 2?5 A2C6?E2= C:89ED 2C6 @7E6? EC2>A=65 😕 E96 AC@46DD]k^Am

    kAm“uC@> s2J ~?6[ E96 %CF>A p5>:?:DEC2E:@? 92D E2C86E65 EC2?D J@FE9 2?5 E96:C 962=E9 42C6 AC@G:56CD[ DAC625:?8 =:6D 2?5 DE@<:?8 762C 23@FE EC2?D A6@A=6 2?5 ECJ:?8 E@ C6DEC:4E 2446DD E@ E96:C 42C6[” s@>:?:BF6 {66[ AC6D:56?E 2?5 rt~ @7 !=2??65 !2C6?E9@@5 {628F6 @7 |2DD249FD6EED[ D2:5 😕 2 DE2E6>6?E] “rFEE:?8 7656C2= 7F?5:?8 @77 7C@> AC@G:56CD @7 E9:D 42C6 😀 ;FDE @?6 @7 >2?J E24E:4D !C6D:56?E %CF>A 2?5 9:D 2==:6D 2C6 FD:?8 E@ ECJ E@ C:A 2H2J @FC C:89ED 2?5 7C665@>D]”k^Am

    kAm|62?H9:=6[ DE2E6D DF49 2D p=232>2 2C6 G@H:?8 E@ AC@D64FE6 A9JD:4:2?D 😕 |2DD249FD6EED 2?5 @E96C DE2E6D H9@ A6C7@C> 23@CE:@?D 2?5 EC2?D86?56C 42C6 7@C E96:C C6D:56?ED]k^Am

    kAmx? yF?6[ E96 &]$] $FAC6>6 r@FCE CF=65 E92E %6??6DD66’D AC@9:3:E:@? @? AF36CEJ 3=@4<6CD 2?5 9@C>@?6 E96C2AJ 7@C >:?@CD 5@6D ?@E G:@=2E6 E96 r@?DE:EFE:@?’D `cE9 p>6?5>6?E] %96 CF=:?8 >62?D D:>:=2C C6DEC:4E:@?D 2AAC@G65 3J 2E =62DE ae @E96C DE2E6D E92E 92G6 C6DEC:4E EC2?D86?56C >65:42= 42C6 7@C J@F?8 A6@A=6 DE2?5]k^Am

    kAmx? C6DA@?D6[ s6>@4C2E:4 =2H>2<6CD 😕 |2DD249FD6EED 2?5 @E96C 3=F6 DE2E6D >@G65 E@ D6E AC@E64E:@?D 7@C 86?56C EC62E>6?ED @C AC@465FC6D[ 😕 D@>6 42D6D 7@C >:?@CD[ 2C8F:?8 E96J 2C6 4C:E:42= E@ 2 49:=5’D 962=E9 42C6]k^Am

    kAmp “D9:6=5” 3:== D:8?65 3J v@G] |2FC2 w62=6J 😕 pF8FDE C6DEC:4ED DE2E6 286?4:6D 7C@> 4@@A6C2E:?8 H:E9 7656C2= @C @FE@7DE2E6 :?G6DE:82E:@?D @C :?BF:C:6D @7 “=682==J AC@E64E65 962=E9 42C6 24E:G:EJ]” xE 2=D@ 3=@42E:@? 23@FE 962=E9 42C6 AC@76DD:@?2=D H9@ AC@G:56 C6AC@5F4E:G6 2?5 86?56C277:C>:?8 42C6]k^Am

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Salem honors Transgender Day of Remembrance & Resilience

    SALEM — In honor of Transgender Day of Remembrance & Resilience, elected officials and community members gathered at City Hall on Thursday to remember the lives of the 64 transgender people in the U.S. who have died in the past year.

    Transgender Day of Resilience, celebrated annually during Transgender Awareness Week Nov. 13-19, was established in 2014 with the Audre Lord Project and created by transgender people of color as a visionary and creative act of defiance to transform grief into love, hope, and strength.

    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAm|2J@C s@>:?:4< !2?82==@ 3682? E96 46C6>@?J H:E9 2 AC@4=2>2E:@? 564=2C:?8 %C2?D86?56C pH2C6?6DD (66< 😕 $2=6>[ 2D H6== 2D }@G] a_ 2D %C2?D86?56C s2J @7 #6>6>3C2?46]k^Am

    kAm“%9:D @3D6CG2?46 C6277:C>D @FC 4@==64E:G6 4@>>:E>6?E E@ E96 =:G:?8[ 2?5 9@?@C:?8 E9@D6 H6 92G6 =@DE 3J FA=:7E:?8 E96 A@H6C[ 4C62E:G:EJ 2?5 6?5FC2?46 @7 E96 EC2?D86?56C 4@>>F?:EJ[” !2?82==@ D2:5]k^Am

    kAm$49@@= r@>>:EE66 >6>36C py w@77>2? DA@<6 23@FE E96 :>A@CE2?46 @7 7:89E:?8 7@C E96 D276EJ 2?5 C:89ED @7 EC2?D86?56C 49:=5C6?[ C2E96C E92? 7@C4:?8 E96> E@ 25G@42E6 7@C E96>D6=G6D ;FDE E@ D64FC6 E96:C @H? C:89E E@ =:G6 2D E96:C 7F== D6=G6D]k^Am

    kAm“%@52J[ E96J H2?E E@ FD6 @FC 49:=5C6? 2D A2H?D[” 96 D2:5] “xE’D ?@E FA E@ 2 49:=5 E@ 36 E96 @?6D E@ 7:89E 7@C @FC C:89ED[ E96J 5@?’E 92G6 E96 49@:46[ 2?5 x’> ?@E 8@:?8 E@ DE2?5 7@C E92E] xE’D FDF2==J E96:C 4:D86?56C A2C6?ED E92E 2C6 D2J:?8[ ‘*6D[ x H2?E >J 49:=5 E@ 36 E96 7246 @7 E9:D 4@>>F?:EJ[’ 3FE :E’D ?@E E96:C ;@3] xE’D @FC ;@3 E@ DE2?5 FA[ 36 3C2G6[ 36 DEC@?8[ 36 H9@ H6 2C6[ 2?5 >2<6 E96 @E96CD F?4@>7@CE23=6]”k^Am

    kAm$:?46 a_`b[ E96C6 92G6 366? 2E =62DE bhh 42D6D @7 72E2= G:@=6?46 282:?DE EC2?D86?56C 2?5 86?56C ?@?4@?7@C>:?8 A6@A=6[ H:E9 E96 ?F>36C =:<6=J 36:?8 9:896C[ 2D >2?J @7 E96 42D6D 8@ F?C6A@CE65 @C >:DC6A@CE65[ 244@C5:?8 E@ E96 wF>2? #:89ED r2>A2:8? u@F?52E:@?]k^Am

    kAm(2C5 a r@F?4:=@C r2C@=:?6 (2ED@?u6=E DA@<6 23@FE E96 :>A@CE2?46 @7 =6G6C28:?8 E96 D25?6DD 2?5 =@DD 6IA6C:6?465 H:E9:? E96 4@>>F?:EJ E@ C6:?G:8@C2E6 E96 7:89E 7@C 6BF2= C:89ED]k^Am

    kAm“(96? x 4@?D:56C @FC EC2?D D:3=:?8D[ 7@C >6[ E96C6 2C6 2 ?F>36C @7 E9:?8D E92E 4@>6 7@CH2C5[” D96 D2:5] “xE’D :?4C65:3=6 H:D5@>[ DEC6?8E9[ 4@FC286[ 2?5 2? 6IAC6DD:@? @7 362FEJ :?D:56 2?5 @FE E92E x E9:?< 6G6CJ 9F>2? D9@F=5 2DA:C6 E@[ 2?5 x D66< E96:C H:D5@> 2?5 8F:52?46 😕 E96 H2J E92E x =625]k^Am

    kAm“pD =@?8 2D E96 7:89E 😀 DE:== ?646DD2CJ[ x H:== 36 E96C6 7:89E:?8 2=@?8D:56 J@F 2?5 7@C J@F] p?5 :7 J@F ?665 >6 😕 7C@?E @7 J@F[ x’== 5@ E92E[ E@@]”k^Am

    kAmv2CJ v:==[ 2=D@ ’D @77:4:2= 5C28 BF66? – DA@<6 23@FE E96 =@?8 FA9:== 32EE=6 D96 2?5 @E96C EC2?D86?56C A6@A=6 92G6 72465 😕 86EE:?8 G:D:3:=:EJ 7@C E96 >6>36CD @7 E96 4@>>F?:EJ H9@ 92G6 366? =@DE[ 2?5 E96 :>A@CE2?46 @7 6=64E65 @77:4:2=D 25G@42E:?8 7@C E96 EC2?D 4@>>F?:EJ]k^Am

    kAm“%96 =2DE 76H J62CD[ x 76=E =:<6 x 925 E@ 4C2> E9:D 5@H? E96 E9C@2E @7 E96 4:EJ @7 $2=6> E@ 6G6? 86E E9:D G:D:3:=:EJ[” D96 D2:5] “p?5 E92E’D H92E E9:D 😀 23@FE –G:D:3:=:EJ[ 2?5 E96 C6>6>3C2?46 @7 6G6CJ3@5J H9@ 92D D24C:7:465 E96:C @H? =:76 D@ H6 42? D:E 😕 E9:D C@@> E@86E96C 2?5 8:G6 @FC :562D 23@FE H92E H6 E9:?<]k^Am

    kAm“%92E’D H9J x’> 3J >JD6=7 >@DE @7 E96 E:>6 – 3642FD6 x’> ?@E 766=:?8 H6=4@>6 😕 E9:D 4@>>F?:EJ 6G6? 27E6C 6G6CJE9:?8 x’G6 5@?6 7@C E9:D 4:EJ] $@ x H2?E E@ D2J 4@?8C2EF=2E:@?D E@ E96 ?6H 4@F?4:=@CD] %2<6 E9:D 2?5 CF? H:E9 :E – =6E :E 36 J@FC 323J]”k^Am

    kAm%96 6G6?E 4@?4=F565 H:E9 C625:?8 E96 ?2>6D @7 E96 ec EC2?D86?56C A6@A=6 H9@ 92G6 366? =@DE D:?46 E96 =2DE %C2?D86?56C s2J @7 #6D:=:6?46]k^Am

    kAm“(6 >F?:EJ 😕 86?6C2= 😀 F?56C 2EE24<[ 2?5 46CE2:?=J E9:D 😀 2 E:>6 😕 H9:49 @FC 4@>>F?:EJ >FDE C2==J 2C@F?5 E96 >@DE GF=?6C23=6[” DE2E6 #6A] |2??J rCFK D2:5] “pD 2? 6=64E65 =6256C 2?5 2==J E@ E9:D 4@>>F?:EJ[ x 7:C>=J 36=:6G6 E92E H6 42?’E AF?49 5@H? H96? A@=:E:42= 6IA65:6?4J 364@>6D E96 ?@C>]k^Am

    kAm“x’> 8@:?8 E@ 4@?E:?F6 E@ H@C< H:E9 $6?] {@G6=J E@ 7:89E 7@C E9:?8D =:<6 86?56C277:C>:?8 42C6[ >2<:?8 DFC6 E92E @FC AF3=:4 D49@@=D 2C6 AC@E64E:?8 E96 AC:G24J 2?5 :?7@C>2E:@? @7 @FC DEF56?ED H9@ 2C6 EC2?D[ 2?5 6?DFC:?8 E92E H6 4C62E6 E96 DA246 E@ FA=:7E E9@D6 G@:46D]”k^Am

    kAm|:4926= |4wF89 42? 36 4@?E24E65 2E k2 9C67lQ>2:=E@i>>49F89o?@CE9@73@DE@?]4@>Qm>>49F89o?@CE9@73@DE@?]4@>k^2m @C 2E fg`fhhda_ak^Am

    By Michael McHugh | Staff Writer

    Source link

  • Gym chain at center of Tish Hyman dispute flooded with negative reviews

    A gym has been flooded with negative online reviews after a woman said her membership was revoked when she complained about a transgender woman in the women’s locker room.

    Singer Tish Hyman took to social media to say she had the “worst experience” at a Gold’s Gym in Los Angeles.

    The gym—which was recently acquired by EoS Fitness, according to local media—has received more than two dozen one-star Google reviews in the past 24 hours, several of which explicitly mentioned the locker-room dispute.

    Newsweek contacted the Beverly Center branch of Gold’s Gym for comment via a contact form on its website.

    Why It Matters

    Since returning to office in January, President Donald Trump has issued several anti-transgender executive orders—such as “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports,” which threatens to “rescind all funds from educational programs” that allow transgender athletes to compete in women’s and girls’ sports.

    The incident at Gold’s Gym touches on a broader national debate over transgender rights and women’s privacy in public spaces, which continues to be a deeply contentious issue in the United States. 

    What To Know

    Hyman said the Beverly Center Gold’s Gym revoked her membership after she complained about a transgender woman being in the women’s dressing room.

    “Today I was naked in the locker room. I turned around, and there was a man there. Boy clothes, lip gloss, standing there looking at me, and I’m butt naked,” Hyman said in a video posted on TikTok.

    She said that when she questioned the individual’s presence in the changing room, they said, “I am a woman and have a right to be in here.” Hyman added that the incident made her feel “violated” and “weird.”

    Hyman also posted a video that showed her filming the individual as they argued and gym employees attempted to intervene. 

    She said the person then followed her into the locker room and called her an expletive, leading to her leaving the locker room crying.

    Hyman wrote on X: “#goldsgym terminated my membership after the MAN was escorted out by police. Then had me escorted out by officers afterwards. It was EMBARRASSING! I left but not before making sure everyone KNEW that they were allowing MEN in the locker room!!!!!”

    Loading twitter content…

    On Instagram, she said other women had previously made several written reports about the individual “coming into our women’s locker room harassing us” and that “the gym staff has done absolutely nothing.”

    Hyman shared another video of herself shouting about the incident in what appeared to be a cafe attached to the gym.

    The gym, which comes up under the name EoS Fitness on Google, has since been flooded with negative reviews, with people saying they were canceling their membership over the incident.

    “Unsafe for women. Please get a membership elsewhere that will protect you as a woman, where you don’t have to worry about grown men in the restroom/locker room/shower area,” one reviewer wrote.

    “What an absolute joke of a gym. Allowing men into women’s locker rooms. SHAME ON YOU! How can any of us WOMEN feel safe when there are MEN in the locker rooms with us??!?!” another added.

    Hyman has also been supported by several prominent conservative commentators on X.

    What People Are Saying

    Paul A. Szypula, a conservative commenter, wrote on X: “Black woman who was kicked out of a Gold’s Gym in Los Angeles because she complained about a man using the women’s locker room. Good for this woman and shame on Gold’s Gym. She should sue both the man and the gym.”

    Riley Gaines, a former swimmer and prominent advocate against transgender women in sports, wrote on X: “If we saw boldness like this back in 2020, this insanity would’ve never been allowed to fester like it has. God bless you for speaking the truth loudly, @listen2tish.”

    What Happens Next

    As of writing, Gold’s Gym had not commented publicly on the incident. It remains to be seen whether the incident will affect locker-room policies.

    Source link

  • Minnesota Supreme Court rules USA Powerlifting discriminated against trans athlete

    Advocates on Wednesday celebrated a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling that found USA Powerlifting violated the state’s Human Rights Act in barring a transgender woman from competition.

    The state Supreme Court in its ruling said that “USA Powerlifting’s policy at the time of the decision was to categorically exclude transgender women from competing in the women’s division” and reversed part of an appeals court ruling on the issue.

    JayCee Cooper is a transgender athlete who was denied entry into two women’s competitions in 2018. She sued, arguing that doing so amounted to discrimination and violated Minnesota’s Human Rights Act.

    USA Powerlifting argued its policy wasn’t because of her transgender status, but because she had “strength advantages.”

    “The court found USA Powerlifting liable for discrimination,” Gender Justice Legal Director Jess Braverman said. “In other words, that when it comes to discrimination, public accommodation, you cannot bar transgender women from women’s sports teams, and that is a huge victory. We are so proud.”

    The Supreme Court did send one issue — a business discrimination claim Cooper made — back to lower court proceedings. But Braverman said the outcome of those proceedings would not affect the settled issue of discrimination in public accommodations.

    “JayCee Cooper won on public accommodations. That’s not changing no matter what,” Braverman said. ” … Even if we took the business claim to its end and even if USA Powerlifting were successful on that, they would still lose on public accommodations and be liable to her for discrimination.”

    WCCO has reached out to USA Powerlifting for comment but has not heard back.

    A statement from Minnesota House Republicans called the state Supreme Court’s ruling “another setback in the fight to protect girls’ sports.”

    This story will be updated.

    WCCO Staff

    Source link

  • SoCal Out100 honoree celebrates the LGBTQ+ community by sharing their coming out stories

    SILVER LAKE, LOS ANGELES (KABC) — Out Magazine has announced its 31st annual Out100.

    The list recognizes the most influential and pioneering LGBTQ+ people across entertainment, politics, activism, sports, and more.

    One of this year’s local honorees is the founder of Baby Gay and host of the Baby Gay podcast, PJ Brescia.

    Brescia stated, “If you told my younger self that you’re going to be a queer nonprofit starter or a queer rights activist, I would have said, ‘No way. You’re crazy. I’m straight.’ It just kind of unfolded.”

    Baby Gay is a nonprofit organization and a media platform celebrating people through the coming out process, through storytelling, advocacy, and togetherness, all while humanizing the queer experience.

    “When I hit 30 and I was kind of feeling very lost in my life, I went on this five-day writing experience,” added Brescia.

    “I started writing this web series. It was a fictional comedy based on my coming out story – someone coming out later in life.”

    “And what formed was the web series called ‘Baby Gay,’ because for me, it wasn’t until I saw someone else’s story that was already out, that I saw myself in, that it kind of unlocked something within me that said, ‘Oh, there. Okay, I’m going to be okay too.’”

    In April of 2025, Brescia launched the Baby Gay podcast to share coming out stories.

    “I love just talking to people and hearing their stories,” said Brescia. “The goal with this project is to kind of highlight that there is no one way to be queer.”

    Baby Gay has partnered with the historic Black Cat Tavern in Silver Lake, throwing National Coming Out Day celebrations since 2023.

    “I think that PJ has an intrinsic understanding of what hospitality means, which is not just that you have a story to tell, but you listen to other people’s stories,” said Lindsay Kennedy, co-owner of The Black Cat. “And that’s sort of what I think PJ’s super power is.”

    Kennedy continued, “My purpose of owning The Black Cat is to tell stories, and to tell queer stories because of the roots of this building.”

    “Joining with PJ to really celebrate National Coming Out Day this year for the third time, is probably one of the more important reasons I’m in this business. It’s really giving me purpose to participate with PJ and National Coming Out Day celebrations.”

    Abdullah Hall, a Baby Gay board member, added, “I saw this booth and I’m like, ‘What is Baby Gay?’ And so PJ Brescia was there and said, ‘Oh, this is Baby Gay,’ and told me it’s a 501(c)(3) nonprofit that assists in the coming out process.”

    “‘Would you like to leave a message to a new person that’s coming out?’ and I thought, that is brilliant. Yes, I would!”

    Hall added, “Because I remember coming out. If somebody had a little message for you and just said, ‘Everything’s going to be okay’ or ‘You’re amazing,’ that would have been great when I came out.”

    Brescia continued, “I see our events and our advocacy going beyond Los Angeles. I want to bring that to other cities and states throughout the country and throughout the world.”

    “I think we’re just at the beginning of this journey, and what’s been so incredible is that it’s just been unfolding, and I feel like I am being guided from above, and I’m this conduit, and I’m just honored to be a part of it.”

    Check out all of the 2025 Out100 at out.com and in Out Magazine, on newsstands October 28.

    Copyright © 2025 KABC Television, LLC. All rights reserved.

    KABC

    Source link

  • Keira Knightley “Was Not Aware” Of ‘Harry Potter’ Boycott Before Joining Audiobook Cast

    While many of her peers boycott the Harry Potter universe, Keira Knightley appears to have avoided the fiery discourse around the franchise.

    After Deadline reported last month that Knightley will voice Professor Umbridge in Pottermore Publishing and Audible‘s Harry Potter: The Full-Cast Audio Editions, the 2x Oscar nominee pleaded ignorance around the backlash sparked by author J.K. Rowling‘s anti-trans views.

    “I was not aware of that, no. I’m very sorry,” Knightley told Decider of the boycott. “You know, I think we’re all living in a period of time right now where we’re all going to have to figure out how to live together, aren’t we? And we’ve all got very different opinions. I hope that we can all find respect.”

    Related Stories

    After Rowling previously celebrated UK’s Supreme Court ruling that prohibits trans women from being legally recognized as women, more than 400 people signed a letter urging the country’s film and television industry to take action against her on trans rights. One such signatory was Paapa Essiedu, who has been cast in HBO Max’s Harry Potter series as Professor Snape.

    Rowling has said she “worked closely” with the show’s writers’ room, and Deadline previously reported she was part of the pitch process for the Warner Bros. Television series, which she will produce through her Brontë Film and TV banner.

    HBO Chairman and CEO Casey Bloys confirmed at the time that Rowling “will be involved. She’s an executive producer on the show. Her insights are going to be helpful on that.”

    Explaining that the controversy around Rowling’s anti-trans statements is “very nuanced and complicated,” Bloys added: “Our priority is what’s on the screen. Obviously, the Harry Potter story is incredibly affirmative and positive and about love and self-acceptance. That’s our priority — what’s on screen.”

    Glenn Garner

    Source link

  • The Complexities of Trans Gun Ownership

    Last month, in the wake of a mass shooting in Minneapolis that investigators say was carried out by a transgender woman, the Department of Justice began looking into ways to strip trans Americans of the right to bear arms. One senior Justice Department official told CNN that the goal is “to ensure that mentally ill individuals suffering from gender dysphoria are unable to obtain firearms while they are unstable and unwell.” (It should be noted that mental illness alone does not currently disqualify someone from owning a gun; federal law stipulates that only those who have been involuntarily committed to a psychiatric institution, or who have been declared mentally incompetent by a legal authority, can be prohibited from gun ownership.) Upon hearing the news about the internal D.O.J. discussions, the National Rifle Association issued a statement declaring its opposition to limiting the Second Amendment rights of any law-abiding citizen—though the N.R.A. did not explicitly name trans people. For even the most full-throated gun advocates, trans people are often the awkward exception: about a month before he was killed, Charlie Kirk, the conservative activist, called for a ban on trans gun ownership. “If you are crazy enough to want to hormonally and surgically ‘change your sex,’ ” he posted on X, “you have a mental disorder, and you are too crazy to own a firearm.”

    As the culture wars erupt into violent extremism, “gender ideology”—which the Trump Administration defines as “the idea that there is a vast spectrum of genders that are disconnected from one’s sex”—has gone from being seen as “woke” to being framed by members of the political right as one of the sources of America’s evils, including its violence. Most violence, political or otherwise, is not perpetrated by trans people. In fact, trans people are four times more likely than cisgender people to be victims of violent crime. Yet right-wing commentators have fixated on two incidents involving shooters who were described by authorities as trans—a mass shooting at the Covenant School, in Nashville, in 2023, and the more recent shooting at Annunciation Catholic School, in Minneapolis—as evidence of “trans terrorism,” in the words of the Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh. The Heritage Foundation, the right-wing think tank responsible for Project 2025, recently issued a call for the F.B.I. to designate “Transgender Ideology-Inspired Violent Extremism” as a domestic terror threat. In both the case of the Nashville shooting and the Minneapolis attack, authorities have not shared any evidence indicating that the shooters’ respective gender identities drove their horrific actions. There was widespread speculation that the shooter at the Covenant School, who had previously been a student there, was motivated by anti-religious resentment. But an investigation conducted by the Metro Nashville Police Department concluded that the shooter, who had enjoyed their time at the school, had been motivated by fame.

    Almost immediately after Charlie Kirk was killed in Utah, three weeks ago, conservative figures began speculating that the shooter was either trans or had murdered Kirk because of his anti-trans rhetoric. (Kirk was talking about trans mass shooters just before he was shot.) Republicans quickly consolidated Democrats, Antifa, and trans people into one radical enemy. “I mean, give me a fucking break,” the congresswoman Nancy Mace said on Capitol Hill. “This guy’s talking about mass trans violence, tranny violence—I’m not going to filter myself—and got shot in the neck like that.” The day after Kirk’s death, the Wall Street Journal reported that the ammunition used in the shooting had been engraved with expressions of transgender “ideology”—a claim that was refuted by Utah’s governor, Spencer Cox, and that the Journal later walked back. First, conservatives said the shooter was trans; then they said the bullets were trans. Now they’ve seized on reports that Tyler Robinson, the suspect in custody, had a trans partner or roommate. As always, their aims are a moving target, with a common enemy.

    The issue of minority gun ownership has long been fraught. In 1857, Chief Justice Roger Taney argued in Dred Scott v. Sandford that Black people should not be recognized as citizens because it would give them the right “to keep and carry arms wherever they want.” Even after Black people became citizens entitled to Second Amendment rights, they often had to deal with discriminatory gun laws limiting their access to firearms. Despite his house being firebombed in 1956, Martin Luther King, Jr., was unable to obtain a concealed-carry permit. Because of this, guns would ultimately become a key component of the Black Power movement. Activists carried guns for community patrols, self-defense, and as a show of force. In May, 1967, the Black Panthers entered the California Capitol Building with shotguns, pistols, and rifles to protest stricter gun-control laws. In recent years, Black and L.G.B.T.Q. gun ownership has been on the rise, with individuals in both groups citing the marked increase in hate crimes as a primary motivator for arming themselves in self-defense.

    Many trans gun owners I spoke with were anxious about the Administration potentially limiting their access to firearms. “The trans people I know, both gun owners and others, see the prospect of the D.O.J. taking trans people’s guns as a prelude to atrocity,” Eden Fenn, a young trans woman, told me. She called herself “the definition of a reluctant gun owner,” describing her ownership as a precautionary measure against the potential of anti-trans violence. Similarly, Margaret Killjoy, a trans musician and writer, told me that she obtained a gun permit after being doxed by far-right extremists.

    I’m not a gun owner, but I understand the instinct: after the shooting at Pulse night club, in 2016, it occurred to me that I might want to learn how to use a gun for my own protection. It took me several years to overcome my squeamishness, and I finally went to a gun range for the first time this past summer. Aside from the employees staffing the front desk, I was the only woman there. My instructor told me to be careful of gunshot residue, since I was showing slightly more skin than the men in camouflage and hockey jerseys next to me. Over all, it was a surprisingly mundane outing. I fired a few rounds and then I left.

    Grace Byron

    Source link

  • Minnesota’s transgender athlete policy violates Title IX, federal investigation claims

    Federal officials say that the Minnesota Department of Education and the Minnesota State High School League both violated Title IX with their policy on transgender athletes, in a Tuesday announcement.

    The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services determined in a joint finding that Minnesota “allowed male athletes to compete” on several girls’ sports teams.

    MDE told WCCO it is “reviewing the letter and remains committed to ensuring every child has the opportunity to thrive in a safe and supportive school community.”

    WCCO also reached out to MSHSL for comment and is waiting for a response.

    The departments issued a proposed resolution agreement to MSHSL and the MDE, ordering them to voluntarily resolve the Title IX violation within 10 days or “risk imminent enforcement action.”

    The agreement requires the two agencies to revise any guidance “permitting males to compete in girls’ sports” to comply with Title IX and submit updated Title IX training, procedure and process materials.

    Under the agreement, MDE must also issue a statewide notice “to all federally funded entities operating interscholastic athletic programs mandating their strict compliance with Title IX by separating athletics and intimate facilities based on sex,” and the notice must require “entities to adopt biology-based definitions of ‘male’ and ‘female’” and have a reminder that non-compliance could place federal funds in jeopardy, according to a press release from HHS.

    Additionally, MDE is ordered to “restore to female athletes all records and titles misappropriated by male athletes competing in female categories,” and to send each athlete an apology letter “for allowing her educational experience to be marred by sex discrimination.” The department must also demand in writing that MSHSL take parallel action.

    Hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding for public schools in Minnesota, which lawmakers defined as a trans refuge state in 2023, are at stake.

    The investigation began in February when MSHSL announced it would not be following an executive order signed by President Trump banning transgender girls and women from competing on sports teams that match their gender identity. Schools that don’t comply with the order risk losing federal funding and could face legal action.

    The U.S. Department of Education elevated the investigation in June and HHS initiated a compliance review around the same time. Officials specifically cited the state champion Champlin Park High School softball team, which was also the subject of another lawsuit because of a transgender pitcher.

    In April, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison announced a lawsuit against the Trump administration, claiming the president’s two executive orders targeting transgender youth and adults violate both the U.S. Constitution and Title IX. The lawsuit requests the court declare the orders unconstitutional and unlawful, Ellison said. U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit in June for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. A judge heard arguments on the motion earlier this month and has yet to make a decision.

    Jonah Kaplan

    contributed to this report.

    Riley Moser

    Riley Moser is a digital producer who covers breaking news and feature stories for CBS Minnesota. Riley started her career at CBS Minnesota in June 2022 and earned an honorable mention for sports writing from the Iowa College Media Association the same year.

    Riley Moser

    Source link

  • Heritage Foundation Uses Bogus Stat to Push a Trans Terrorism Classification

    In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s killing, the Republican policy apparatus went immediately to work. The Heritage Foundation, which published Project 2025, and its spinoff, the Oversight Project, issued a call for the Federal Bureau of Investigation to designate “Transgender Ideology-Inspired Violent Extremism,” or TIVE, as a domestic terrorism threat category. The push comes as President Donald Trump just signed an executive order that seeks to mobilize federal law enforcement against vaguely defined domestic terror networks.

    The Heritage Foundation and Oversight Project document, which defines “transgender ideology” as “a belief that wholly or partially rejects fundamental science about human sex being biologically determined before birth, binary, and immutable,” grounds its policy recommendations in a startling claim: “Experts estimate that 50% of all major (non-gang related) school shootings since 2015 have involved or likely involved transgender ideology.”

    When WIRED asked for the data behind this claim, the Oversight Project did not respond; the Heritage Foundation pointed to a tweet from one of its vice presidents, Roger Severino, claiming that “50% of major (non-gang) school shootings since 2015” involve a transgender shooter or trans-related motive. Severino also lays out what appears to be his entire dataset: eight shootings, four of which, he claims, involve “a trans-identifying shooter and/or a likely trans-ideology related motivation.”

    The data tell a different story.

    Since 2015, at least four dozen shootings have taken place on school grounds, according to data from the K-12 School Shooting Database, which has tracked every incident involving a gun on school grounds since 1966. Only three perpetrators in the database—the 2019 shooter at STEM School Highlands Ranch in Colorado and the Covenant School shooter in Nashville in 2023 among them—have been credibly identified in public reporting as transgender or undergoing gender-affirming care. Nashville police concluded the shooter there was not motivated by a clear political or ideological agenda, but prioritized notoriety and infamy. In Colorado, investigators say one of the shooters, a transgender boy, cited bullying and long-standing mental health struggles as motivations.

    In an August shooting, a 23-year-old individual opened fire outside Annunciation Catholic Church in Minneapolis. The shooter had legally changed their name and written about conflict over gender identity, but there is no public evidence they consistently identified as transgender, making classification uncertain. Police say the attack was fueled by hostility toward Jews, Christians, and minorities, along with a quest for notoriety. Prosecutors added the animus was sweeping, saying the shooter “expressed hate towards almost every group imaginable.”

    The K-12 database, the most comprehensive of its kind, does not include gender data for about 12.5 percent of school shooters since 2015, which only makes it more difficult to draw firm conclusions about broader patterns.

    Other mass shootings at schools, including Parkland in 2018 and Uvalde in 2022, were carried out by young men with histories of grievance, misogyny, or violent ideation. None were tied to “transgender ideology.”

    The larger pattern, researchers say, points in the opposite direction: White supremacist, anti-government, and misogynist beliefs account for the lion’s share of ideologically motivated gun violence. Targeting “transgender ideology” as a terrorism category, they warn, confuses identity with ideology, risks licensing violence against anyone who defies gender norms, and shifts attention away from the real drivers of schoolyard violence.

    Dell Cameron, Andrew Couts

    Source link

  • Denton County Rep. Wants to Institutionalize Transgender People

    Before this week, we’d never paid much attention to Congressman Ronny Jackson. The staunch Republican offices in Amarillo, and we don’t pay much attention to Amarillo…

    Emma Ruby

    Source link

  • Suspect left note saying he planned to kill Charlie Kirk, later confessed in texts, prosecutor says

    Prosecutors brought a murder charge Tuesday against the man accused of assassinating Charlie Kirk and outlined evidence, including a text message confession to his partner and a note left beforehand saying he had the opportunity to kill one of the nation’s leading conservative voices “and I’m going to take it.”DNA on the trigger of the rifle that killed Kirk also matched that of Tyler Robinson, Utah County Attorney Jeff Gray said while outlining the evidence and announcing charges that could result in the death penalty if Robinson is convicted.The prosecutor said Robinson, 22, wrote in one text that he spent more than a week planning the attack on Kirk, a prominent force in politics credited with energizing the Republican youth movement and helping Donald Trump win back the White House in 2024.”The murder of Charlie Kirk is an American tragedy,” Gray said.Kirk was gunned down Sept. 10 while speaking with students at Utah Valley University. Prosecutors allege Robinson shot Kirk in the neck with a bolt-action rifle from the roof of a nearby building on the campus in Orem, about 40 miles (64 kilometers) south of Salt Lake City. Robinson appeared briefly Tuesday before a judge by video from jail. He nodded slightly at times but mostly stared straight ahead as the judge read the charges against him and appointed an attorney to represent him. Robinson’s family has declined to comment to The Associated Press since his arrest.Was Charlie Kirk targeted over anti-transgender views?Authorities have not revealed a clear motive in the shooting, but Gray said that Robinson wrote in a text about Kirk to his partner: “I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can’t be negotiated out.”Robinson also left a note for his partner hidden under a keyboard that said, “I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk and I’m going to take it,” according to Gray.The prosecutor declined to answer whether Robinson targeted Kirk for his anti-transgender views. Kirk was shot while taking a question that touched on mass shootings, gun violence and transgender people.”That is for a jury to decide,” Gray said.Robinson was involved in a romantic relationship with his roommate, who investigators say was transgender, which hasn’t been confirmed. Gray said the partner has been cooperating with investigators.Robinson’s partner appeared shocked in the text exchange after the shooting, according to court documents, asking Robinson “why he did it and how long he’d been planning it.”Parents said their son became more politicalWhile authorities say Robinson hasn’t been cooperating with investigators, they say his family and friends have been talking.Robinson’s mother told investigators that their son had turned left politically in the last year and became more supportive of gay and transgender rights after dating someone who is transgender, Gray said.Those decisions prompted several conversations in the household, especially between Robinson and his father. They had different political views and Robinson told his partner in a text that his dad had become a “diehard MAGA” since Trump was elected.Robinson’s mother recognized him when authorities released a picture of the suspect and his parents confronted him, at which time Robinson said he wanted to kill himself, Gray said.The family persuaded him to meet with a family friend who is a retired sheriff’s deputy, who persuaded Robinson to turn himself in, the prosecutor said.Robinson was arrested late Thursday near St. George, the southern Utah community where he grew up, about 240 miles southwest of where the shooting happened.Robinson detailed movements after the shootingIn a text exchange with his partner released by authorities, Robinson wrote: “I had planned to grab my rifle from my drop point shortly after, but most of that side of town got locked down. Its quiet, almost enough to get out, but theres one vehicle lingering.”Then he wrote: “Going to attempt to retrieve it again, hopefully they have moved on. I haven’t seen anything about them finding it.” After that, he sent: “I can get close to it but there is a squad car parked right by it. I think they already swept that spot, but I don’t wanna chance it.”He also was worried about losing his grandfather’s rifle and mentioned several times in the texts that he wished he had picked it up, according to the texts shared in court documents, which did not have timestamps. It was unclear how long after the shooting Robinson was texting.”To be honest I had hoped to keep this secret till I died of old age. I am sorry to involve you,” Robinson wrote in another text to his partner.Prosecutor says Robinson told partner to delete textsRobinson discarded the rifle and clothing and asked his roommate to conceal evidence, Gray said.Robinson was charged with felony discharge of a firearm, punishable by up to life in prison, and obstructing justice, punishable by up to 15 years in prison.He also was charged with witness tampering because he had directed his partner to delete their text messages and told his partner to stay silent if questioned by police, Gray said.Kash Patel says investigators will look at everyoneFBI Director Kash Patel said Tuesday that agents are looking at “anyone and everyone” who was involved in a gaming chatroom on the social media platform Discord with Robinson. The chatroom involved “a lot more” than 20 people, he said during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in Washington.”We are investigating Charlie’s assassination fully and completely and running out every lead related to any allegation of broader violence,” Patel said in response to a question about whether the Kirk shooting was being treated as part of a broader trend of violence against religious groups.The charges filed Tuesday carry two enhancements, including committing several of the crimes in front of or close to children and carrying out violence based on the subject’s political beliefs.Gray declined to say whether Robinson’s partner could face charges or whether anyone else might face charges.Kirk, a dominant figure in conservative politics, became a confidant of President Donald Trump after founding Arizona-based Turning Point USA, one of the nation’s largest political organizations. He brought young, conservative evangelical Christians into politics.In the days since Kirk’s assassination, Americans have found themselves facing questions about rising political violence, the deep divisions that brought the nation here and whether anything can change.Despite calls for greater civility, some who opposed Kirk’s provocative statements about gender, race and politics criticized him after his death. Many Republicans have led the push to punish anyone they believe dishonored him, causing both public and private workers to lose their jobs or face other consequences at work.___Seewer reported from Toledo, Ohio.

    PROVO, Utah —

    Prosecutors brought a murder charge Tuesday against the man accused of assassinating Charlie Kirk and outlined evidence, including a text message confession to his partner and a note left beforehand saying he had the opportunity to kill one of the nation’s leading conservative voices “and I’m going to take it.”

    DNA on the trigger of the rifle that killed Kirk also matched that of Tyler Robinson, Utah County Attorney Jeff Gray said while outlining the evidence and announcing charges that could result in the death penalty if Robinson is convicted.

    The prosecutor said Robinson, 22, wrote in one text that he spent more than a week planning the attack on Kirk, a prominent force in politics credited with energizing the Republican youth movement and helping Donald Trump win back the White House in 2024.

    “The murder of Charlie Kirk is an American tragedy,” Gray said.

    Kirk was gunned down Sept. 10 while speaking with students at Utah Valley University. Prosecutors allege Robinson shot Kirk in the neck with a bolt-action rifle from the roof of a nearby building on the campus in Orem, about 40 miles (64 kilometers) south of Salt Lake City.

    Robinson appeared briefly Tuesday before a judge by video from jail. He nodded slightly at times but mostly stared straight ahead as the judge read the charges against him and appointed an attorney to represent him. Robinson’s family has declined to comment to The Associated Press since his arrest.

    FBI

    Tyler Robinson, suspect in Charlie Kirk’s assassination

    Was Charlie Kirk targeted over anti-transgender views?

    Authorities have not revealed a clear motive in the shooting, but Gray said that Robinson wrote in a text about Kirk to his partner: “I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can’t be negotiated out.”

    Robinson also left a note for his partner hidden under a keyboard that said, “I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk and I’m going to take it,” according to Gray.

    The prosecutor declined to answer whether Robinson targeted Kirk for his anti-transgender views. Kirk was shot while taking a question that touched on mass shootings, gun violence and transgender people.

    “That is for a jury to decide,” Gray said.

    Robinson was involved in a romantic relationship with his roommate, who investigators say was transgender, which hasn’t been confirmed. Gray said the partner has been cooperating with investigators.

    Robinson’s partner appeared shocked in the text exchange after the shooting, according to court documents, asking Robinson “why he did it and how long he’d been planning it.”

    Parents said their son became more political

    While authorities say Robinson hasn’t been cooperating with investigators, they say his family and friends have been talking.

    Robinson’s mother told investigators that their son had turned left politically in the last year and became more supportive of gay and transgender rights after dating someone who is transgender, Gray said.

    Those decisions prompted several conversations in the household, especially between Robinson and his father. They had different political views and Robinson told his partner in a text that his dad had become a “diehard MAGA” since Trump was elected.

    Robinson’s mother recognized him when authorities released a picture of the suspect and his parents confronted him, at which time Robinson said he wanted to kill himself, Gray said.

    The family persuaded him to meet with a family friend who is a retired sheriff’s deputy, who persuaded Robinson to turn himself in, the prosecutor said.

    Robinson was arrested late Thursday near St. George, the southern Utah community where he grew up, about 240 miles southwest of where the shooting happened.

    Robinson detailed movements after the shooting

    In a text exchange with his partner released by authorities, Robinson wrote: “I had planned to grab my rifle from my drop point shortly after, but most of that side of town got locked down. Its quiet, almost enough to get out, but theres one vehicle lingering.”

    Then he wrote: “Going to attempt to retrieve it again, hopefully they have moved on. I haven’t seen anything about them finding it.” After that, he sent: “I can get close to it but there is a squad car parked right by it. I think they already swept that spot, but I don’t wanna chance it.”

    He also was worried about losing his grandfather’s rifle and mentioned several times in the texts that he wished he had picked it up, according to the texts shared in court documents, which did not have timestamps. It was unclear how long after the shooting Robinson was texting.

    “To be honest I had hoped to keep this secret till I died of old age. I am sorry to involve you,” Robinson wrote in another text to his partner.

    Prosecutor says Robinson told partner to delete texts

    Robinson discarded the rifle and clothing and asked his roommate to conceal evidence, Gray said.

    Robinson was charged with felony discharge of a firearm, punishable by up to life in prison, and obstructing justice, punishable by up to 15 years in prison.

    He also was charged with witness tampering because he had directed his partner to delete their text messages and told his partner to stay silent if questioned by police, Gray said.

    Kash Patel says investigators will look at everyone

    FBI Director Kash Patel said Tuesday that agents are looking at “anyone and everyone” who was involved in a gaming chatroom on the social media platform Discord with Robinson. The chatroom involved “a lot more” than 20 people, he said during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in Washington.

    “We are investigating Charlie’s assassination fully and completely and running out every lead related to any allegation of broader violence,” Patel said in response to a question about whether the Kirk shooting was being treated as part of a broader trend of violence against religious groups.

    The charges filed Tuesday carry two enhancements, including committing several of the crimes in front of or close to children and carrying out violence based on the subject’s political beliefs.

    Gray declined to say whether Robinson’s partner could face charges or whether anyone else might face charges.

    Kirk, a dominant figure in conservative politics, became a confidant of President Donald Trump after founding Arizona-based Turning Point USA, one of the nation’s largest political organizations. He brought young, conservative evangelical Christians into politics.

    In the days since Kirk’s assassination, Americans have found themselves facing questions about rising political violence, the deep divisions that brought the nation here and whether anything can change.

    Despite calls for greater civility, some who opposed Kirk’s provocative statements about gender, race and politics criticized him after his death. Many Republicans have led the push to punish anyone they believe dishonored him, causing both public and private workers to lose their jobs or face other consequences at work.

    ___

    Seewer reported from Toledo, Ohio.

    Source link