cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/32802

Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.

In recent months, some political pundits and organizations have called for the Democratic Party to moderate on transgender issues or cast transgender people aside for votes. Groups like the Searchlight Initiative and Democrats like Seth Moulton and Tom Suozzi as well as Governor Gavin Newsom of California have all leaned into this idea. Last night, however, primary elections in North Carolina told a different story: if you abandon transgender people, your Democratic voters will abandon you. The state's most prominent anti-transgender Democrat, Nasif Majeed, fell to progressive challenger Veleria Levy, who ran on a pro-LGBTQ+ platform, by more than 40 points. Other anti-trans and right-leaning Democrats lost their own primaries as well.

In July 2025, Majeed became one of the most consequential anti-transgender Democrats in the country. He provided the sole Democratic vote necessary for Republicans to override Governor Josh Stein's veto of HB 805, a sweeping anti-trans omnibus bill that banned legal transition through a discriminatory definition of sex, required transgender people's birth certificates to include their assigned sex at birth, extended the statute of limitations for suing gender-affirming care providers, banned gender-affirming care for incarcerated people, and censored school library books. Asked to explain his vote, Majeed offered only: "There were some moral issues in there that I had some sentiments, some deep sentiments about it." Afterwards, the North Carolina Democratic Party revoked his access to VoteBuilder, the party's voter contact software. Majeed had been so entrenched in his district that he ran unopposed in his 2024 primary. Now, he will no longer represent District 99.

Instead, the district will be represented by progressive Democratic challenger Veleria Levy, a community health policy advocate with more than 20 years of experience in healthcare and HIV advocacy. Levy had garnered a slew of progressive endorsements throughout the primary, including from FLIP NC, Carolina Forward, the Sunrise Movement, and the North Carolina Progressive Caucus. She ran on an explicitly pro-LGBTQ+ platform, writing on Facebook that "this campaign has always been about showing up for working families, Seniors, LGBTQ+ neighbors, immigrant communities, veterans and students to ensure our values are consistently represented in Raleigh." She won 69% to 27%. No Republican filed for the seat. Levy will take office unopposed.

Veleria Levy facebook

While Levy's victory was the most notable of the night, other anti-transgender and right-leaning Democrats faced similar fates. Former Representative Michael Wray, who voted with Republicans to override vetoes on both a transgender sports ban and a youth gender-affirming care ban in 2023, attempted to reclaim his seat after losing his 2024 primary by just 34 votes to Rodney Pierce. Wray even appealed to Republicans in his district to temporarily switch their voter registration so they could vote for him in the Democratic primary. It didn't work. Pierce, who had campaigned explicitly against Wray's record of voting with Republicans, demolished him in the rematch, 64% to 36%. Conservative Democrat Carla Cunningham, who was the sole Democratic vote to override Governor Stein's veto of an ICE cooperation bill and declared on the House floor that "all cultures are not equal," lost her own primary to Reverend Rodney Sadler, 70% to 22%.

Anti-transgender Democrats have not fared well in recent years. In 2023, Texas Democrat Shawn Thierry voted to pass a gender-affirming care ban for transgender youth, giving a speech on the Texas House floor calling transgender girls "biological males" and arguing that conversion therapy was the true solution to gender dysphoria. The following year, she lost her primary runoff to Lauren Ashley Simmons, a Black queer union organizer, in a 65-35% blowout. A similar result came in Kansas, where Democrat Marvin Robinson was the sole Democratic vote to override Governor Laura Kelly's veto of a transgender sports ban—a vote his Democratic colleagues accused him of trading to Republicans in exchange for $250,000 in funding for a community gazebo. He lost his 2024 primary, receiving just 22% of the vote.

In recent years, many Democrats have tried to suggest that the party should drop transgender issues and cave to Republicans to curry votes. This is despite the American public siding with Democrats on transgender issues over Republicans at a +22 margin according to a recent Fox News survey. Democratic politicians like Seth Moulton and Tom Suozzi blamed transgender issues for Harris’s loss, with Moulton expressing concern that his two daughters might be “run over on a playing field” by trans girl athletes. Governor Gavin Newsom has vetoed multiple trans-protective bills while even agreeing with Shawn Ryan, a far-right podcaster, that 25 might be too young for someone to transition.

Now, however, there is hope that this strain of anti-transgender sentiment may face resistance moving forward. Anti-transgender Democrats who cast a deciding vote against their own party's values risk their political futures, that much is clear from recent elections. The message from Democratic voters is not subtle. Abandoning transgender people does not win you new supporters—but it may win you an uphill primary challenge you are likely to lose.

Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.

From Erin In The Morning via This RSS Feed.

(making a dedicated post since this doesn't exactly fit with the mega's trans joy theme)

I asked my sister if I could come over to her place after my doctor's appointment to do therapy. She then lets slip to my mom that I've got an appointment. I've basically told my mom everything about my health except the whole trans thing so me not telling her obviously sets off alarm bells. She knows when my last check-up was and it wouldn't make sense to go to this doctor for a work mandated test. Worst of all since I reset my phone I had read receipts on so she could tell that I read her initial message and didn't respond, so I couldn't take time to think of a casual excuse.

I eventually told her that I was trying to introduce a little privacy in regards to my health thanks to work I'd been doing in therapy, which is true on a variety of levels

Was not expecting to have to deal with this. I'm still waiting a little longer to tell my mom but now this is hanging over me

cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/30760

Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.

For those who have read Erin In The Morning over the years, you know that one of my most recognizable types of pieces is the fact check. Anti-trans activists, buoyed by billionaire money, routinely pump disinformation about our care into the most “reputable” outlets, publish misleading reviews to government websites, and launder misinformation with the end goal of turning the general public against transgender people. The attacks on science mirror what we see from the oil and gas industry’s assault on climate research, but tenfold—the far right has decided that transgender people are enemy number one. Now, one of the most prolific anti-trans writers working today, Jesse Singal, has taken his work to the legacy media outlet most willing to publish misinformation that harms transgender people—the New York Times. And unfortunately, it’s time for yet another fact check of this paper that routinely gets things wrong on transgender healthcare.

Singal’s latest piece, “Medical Associations Trusted Belief Over Science on Youth Gender Care,” is riddled with misleading claims, glaring omissions, and sources drawn directly from anti-trans hate groups. These are not accidental… Singal has been writing on transgender issues for years, so when he leaves something out or does not tell you the full truth in a paper like the New York Times, it cannot be recognized as anything less than what it is:direct and cynical lies deployed strategically to harm transgender people. This fact check cannot endeavor to dig into every single lie in his latest piece, but it will cover some of the big ones, showing you exactly how the anti-transgender disinformation machine works.

With no further ado, here is a fact check of Singal’s latest piece:

Claim: The American Society of Plastic Surgeons broke from scientific consensus on transgender healthcare, proving the consensus was always hollow.

Fact: The ASPS position statement was not a clinical guideline. It was issued by the ASPS board in a secretive process that bypassed the organization's own expert task force, relied on the Trump administration's widely criticized HHS report, and set an age minimum matching Trump's executive order exactly. Seven members of the task force the board circumvented wrote an open letter stating they do not even know who authored the statement.

But something confounding has happened in the last few weeks: Cracks have appeared in the supposed wall of consensus. After expressing concerns about the evidence base in 2024,on Feb. 3, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons became the first major American medical group to publicly question youth gender medicine since its widespread adoption. The organization published a nine-page “position statement” advising its members against any gender-related surgeries before age 19 and noting that “there are currently no validated methods” for determining whether youth gender dysphoria will resolve without medical treatment. (The document also acknowledged a similar level of uncertainty surrounding blockers and hormones, though that’s less directly relevant to the practice of plastic surgeons.)

Singal claims that "cracks in the wall" have appeared in the consensus around gender-affirming care, citing the American Society of Plastic Surgeons' recent position statement—a document published and immediately paraded by anti-trans activists across the country. Singal does not tell his readers how incredibly controversial and manipulated the document actually is, nor does he explain why this position statement is not a clinical practice guideline and can never be one. It cannot be held up as a case of scientific consensus breaking around transgender care, because it completely bypassed the scientific process that organizations use to issue their guidelines in favor of a politically-directed process alongside the Trump administration.

According to an open letter by members of the scientific review panel at the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, the organization convened a gender surgery task force comprised of experts in adolescent psychiatry, medicine, and research methodology in May 2025. The task force met monthly for nine months, working toward evidence-informed conclusions. But the ASPS board—led by president Bob Basu, a significant donor to both the Trump campaign and Ted Cruz, was apparently unsatisfied with the pace and direction of the experts' work. Instead of waiting for the task force's conclusions, the ASPS/PSF board secretly developed and published its own unauthored position statement, one that went through no consensus-finding process, no scientific review, and bypassed the scientific committee working on the question entirely.

Most damningly, the process appears to have been directed by the Trump administration, which has made its disdain towards transgender people entirely clear in a slew of anti-trans executive orders, some going as far as to call transgender people “dishonorable” and “false”. The statement’s age 19 cutoff matches Trump’s January 2025 executive order exactly. It relies heavily on and references the Trump administration’s HHS report on gender dysphoria, which I have previously fact-checked and found filled with pseudoscience, discredited theories, and authors connected to anti-trans hate groups. And most importantly, the process appears to have been directly initiated by Trump’s HHS department. The letter states that the ASPS statement was “initiated by a federal agency seeking clarifications of medical society positions on this topic.”

When the board released its nine-page statement on Feb. 3, it blindsided the very experts the organization had assembled to study the question. Seven task force members signed an open letter stating they were “unaware of the statement’s authors and what methodology was used.” And who celebrated? Within hours, HHS leadership issued a press release commending ASPS. RFK Jr. called it a stand against “the overmedicalization lobby.” Deputy Secretary Jim O’Neill called it “another victory for biological truth in the Trump administration.” SEGM, the anti-trans advocacy group that Singal links to elsewhere in his piece as though it were a neutral source, praised it as a “watershed moment.”

None of this is mentioned by Singal. Instead, he presents this document as a genuine break with scientific consensus—as if it were driven by new science, rather than a political process that entirely bypassed the scientific methods medical organizations use to determine their positions.

Claim: European countries are “pulling back” on gender-affirming care and are determining that gender-affirming care is not well-supported.

Fact: The largest European medical consensus on transgender youth care in history—a 400-page set of guidelines from 26 medical organizations across Germany, Austria, and Switzerland—was released in March 2025 and explicitly recommends puberty blockers and gender-affirming care. France’s first national consensus from its Society of Pediatric Endocrinology specifically recommends transgender youth care and denounces the “wait-and-see” approach. Singal’s own citation for France “pulling back” links not to any French medical authority, but to an SEGM article from 2022, an anti-trans advocacy group. New Zealand’s medical organizations are actively suing their government to preserve access to care and winning.

During this same period, a sea change occurred in Europe. Finland, Sweden and Britain conducted systematic evidence reviews of youth gender medicine — a much more transparent and regimented process designed to attenuate the influence of human bias. Every such review revealed deep uncertainty about the evidence base, and as a result the countries that conducted the reviews began more tightly regulating youth gender medicine. (Denmark has since followed suit, and there are some signs France and Norway may as well.) Which science, then, should be trusted? The confident American professional organizations or the skeptical European health care systems? What about when even the professional organizations start to schism?

Singal's framing of international treatment of transgender youth is among the most dishonest moves in his piece. He lists Finland, Sweden, Britain, and Denmark as countries that have pulled back and supported restricting care, then adds that "there are some signs France and Norway may as well." The implication is clear: the world is waking up to the dangers of gender-affirming care, and America's medical organizations are the last holdouts. This could not be further from the truth, and in fact, over the last two years, the anti-trans panic appears to be receding in European countries and internationally, with multiple international medical organizations reaffirming support for transgender youth care.

In March 2025, 26 medical and psychotherapeutic organizations across Germany, Austria, and Switzerland released over 400 pages of clinical guidelines explicitly recommending puberty blockers and gender-affirming care for transgender youth. The guidelines directly criticized the Cass Review's methodology, the very document Singal treats as gospel later in this New York Times piece, as inapplicable due to lack of expertise and transparency. In December 2024, the French Society of Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetology released France's first national consensus on transgender youth care, recommending treatment and specifically denouncing the "wait-and-see" approach as increasing suicide risk. This is what the actual French medical establishment says. But when Singal tells New York Times readers that France may be "pulling back," his hyperlink does not go to any French medical authority. It goes to a SEGM article—the same anti-trans hate group that celebrated the ASPS statement as a "watershed moment."

And the pattern extends beyond just these countries. In New Zealand, the Professional Association for Transgender Health Aotearoa sued the government over its puberty blocker restrictions, and the High Court suspended enforcement, finding the medical organizations had "a strong case." The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists have also reaffirmed the importance of transgender healthcare. Spain maintains progressive guidelines supporting trans youth care. In Canada, the Canadian Pediatric Society rejected the Cass Review's recommendations, announcing that “current evidence shows puberty blockers to be safe when used appropriately, and they remain an option to be considered within a wider view of the patient's mental and psychosocial health.” Singal's "the world is pulling back" narrative is a carefully constructed lie that requires you not to look at the countries he leaves out.

Claim: Dr. Julia Mason, Leor Sapir, and Dr. Sarah Palmer, who Singal leans on to critique the American Academy of Pediatrics, are “members” of medical organizations or independent “critics.”

Fact: Julia Mason is a co-founder and director of the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine, a literal SPLC-designated hate group. Leor Sapir is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank whose “gender identity initiative” was funded by a $400,000 donation from the Edelman Family Foundation—Sapir is not a physician, not a scientist, but a political scientist paid to oppose trans care. Dr. Sarah Palmer has collaborated with SPLC-designated anti-LGBTQ+ hate group Genspect, which has proposed trans care bans up to the age of 25.

Policy statements like this one can reflect the complex and opaque internal politics of an organization, rather than dispassionate scientific analysis. The journalist Aaron Sibarium’s reporting strongly suggests that a small group of A.A.P. members, many of whom were themselves youth gender medicine providers, played a disproportionate role in developing these guidelines.

Dr. Julia Mason, a 30-year member of the organization, wrote in The Wall Street Journal*,* with the Manhattan Institute’s Leor Sapir, that the A.A.P. deferred to activist-clinicians and stonewalled the critics’ demands for a more rigorous approach. Dr. Sarah Palmer, an Indiana-based pediatrician, told me she recently left the A.A.P. after nearly 30 years because of this issue. “I’ve tried to engage and be a member and pay that huge fee every year,” she said. “They just stopped answering any questions.” This is unfortunate given that, as critics have noted, in many cases the A.A.P. document’s footnotes don’t even support the claims being made in the text.

Singal's article frames these sources as brave dissenters who simply want better evidence. Of course, anybody who pays attention to the current political fight around gender affirming care knows who these people are, something Singal does not tell his readers at the New York Times. Mason is not just "a 30-year member" of the AAP who happens to have concerns. She is a co-founder and director of SEGM, an organization the SPLC placed on its hate group list alongside groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom. The organization has gotten into trouble for pushing pseudoscience in the past, such as when it platformed Jamie Reed, an anti-trans activist who has falsely linked transition-related care to political violence and describes transgender identity as ‘a delusion’ in its continuing medical credential courses. It has since had its CME credentials pulled. This is who Jesse Singal is citing at the New York Times without context.

Singal then turns to Leor Sapir, whom Singal presents alongside Mason as a credible critic of the AAP. Sapir is not a doctor. He is not a researcher in any medical field. He is a political scientist who was hired by the Manhattan Institute—a conservative think tank—specifically to produce anti-trans content after a $400,000 donation created a "gender identity initiative." Since joining the institute, Sapir has published dozens of articles attacking trans healthcare in the Manhattan Institute's magazine City Journal, filed amicus briefs in anti-trans court cases, and co-authored the Trump administration's HHS report used to justify banning care, the very same HHS report cited by the ASPS earlier in Singal’s piece.

As for Sarah Palmer, her presence is marked by the same issues. She has worked alongside Julia Mason of SEGM and Patrick Hunter of Genspect, another anti-transgender hate group. She helped develop Resolution-27, promoted by Genspect and rejected by the American Academy of Pediatrics. Palmer attended a 2022 SEGM meeting with U.S. government officials to lobby against nondiscrimination protections in healthcare. And yet she is just portrayed as “an Indiana-based pediatrician.”

When Singal presents these people as "brave dissenters" without giving readers the full context of who they are, he is lying about where the "dissent" is coming from. As this fact check has made clear, opposition to transgender healthcare is a political project, not a scientific one. It is supported by large amounts of money, buoyed by hate groups, and put forward as something grassroots—a sleight of hand Singal attempts repeatedly throughout his entire piece, and one that must be called out for what it is.

Claim: The American Psychological Association may also be quietly retreating from supporting transgender youth care, due to a letter written to the FTC which supposedly contradicts the APA’s earlier policy statements.

Fact: The 2024 policy statement was voted on by APA's Council of Representatives and went through a full consensus process. The letter Singal cites was written by APA Services, the organization's companion lobbying arm, by Katherine McGuire, whose master's degree is in economics. The 2024 policy statement has never been rescinded or modified, and McGuire herself tells Singal in his own piece that the two documents are "consistent." In May 2025, the APA reaffirmed its support for its 2024 guidelines. And in December 2025, the American Psychiatric Association—a separate organization—approved a new position statement supporting transgender youth care and its impact on reducing suicidality. Singal does not mention either.

In 2024, the A.P.A. criticized those “mischaracterizing gender dysphoria as a manifestation of traumatic stress or neurodivergence.” In 2025, it cautioned that gender dysphoria diagnoses could be the result of “trauma-related presentations” rather than a trans identity, and noted that “co-occurring mental health or neurodevelopmental conditions (e.g., depression, anxiety, autism spectrum disorder) … may complicate or be mistaken for gender dysphoria.” It seems undeniable that the 2025 A.P.A. published what the 2024 A.P. A considered to be “misinformation.” (“The 2024 policy statement and the 2025 F.T.C. letter are consistent,” said Ms. McGuire in an email, and “both documents reflect A.P.A.’s consistent commitment to evidence-based psychological care.”)

Singal, at the end of his story, appears to portray even the American Psychological Association as retreating from transgender youth care, claiming that a letter to the FTC contradicts its earlier support for transgender healthcare. The letter itself can be found here, and though it may be a bit imprecise, it does not support what Singal says it does. For one, the APA letter was not written or determined by the APA processes for establishing policy statements, but rather, was written by Katherine Mcguire and APA Services, the organization’s lobbying arm. McGuire talks in the letter about how each case of gender dysphoria in youth is approached with “careful consideration of the unique circumstances, developmental stage, and needs of the individual child” and that care is thoughtful and individualized. These do not contradict the APA’s policy statements, and reflect exactly what we want psychologists and psychiatrists to do.

But here is what Singal leaves out entirely: In December 2025—three months after the APA Services FTC letter he treats as a bombshell—the American Psychiatric Association, a separate but equally major organization, approved a new position statement on gender-affirming care for transgender youth through its full institutional process, voted on by the Assembly in November 2025 and approved by the Board of Trustees in December 2025. It states that "data demonstrates that gender-affirming care reduces the risk of specific adverse outcomes among youth, such as depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation," and that "families and youth should have access to the full range of gender-affirming treatment options." This is the most recent formal position from a major American psychological or psychiatric organization. Likewise, the American Psychological Association has not rescinded any of its 2024 guidelines. Neither the American Psychological Association nor the American Psychiatric Association has retreated from supporting transgender youth care. Singal mentions none of this. One wonders why.

Time and time again, the New York Times spikes the ball on transgender people. The paper has become a central source of misinformation on this issue, repeatedly publishing articles built on falsehoods about trans people, our care, and the medical guidelines that govern it. It has done so so often that the pattern has become a punchline. This latest piece is no different. That the New York Times would turn to someone as egregiously anti-trans as Jesse Singal to continue this crusade is an indictment of the paper as a whole—as if it needed any more.

Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.

From Erin In The Morning via This RSS Feed.

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/7752058

Josef Mengele isn't just a hero to Germans.

The bill has received significant backing from a least one billionaire funder in what appears to be a growing trend around anti-transgender legislation and initiatives. The signature drive was bankrolled by Richard Uihlein, the Illinois billionaire who donated $800,000 through the PAC “Safeguard Girls Sports.” Uihlein, who has given more than $250 million to political causes since 2016 according to OpenSecrets, is also a major funder of the American Principles Project, which routinely spends tens of millions on anti-trans campaign ads during election years. The APP received roughly 80% of its funding from Uihlein in 2022, according to the Human Rights Campaign.

Absolutely evil and I think more people should be aware of exactly who is funding this shit.

99% of the time the "gender neutral" term is masculine anyway, but even if it wasnt, using a "gender neutral" term when id obviously rather be called the equivalent feminine term is not that much better!

Green Lake and its sister Round Lake, are a pair of unique bodies of water located in the aboriginal territory of the Onandoga nation. This writeup will concern itself with Green Lake, but much of this information carries over to its sister.

The final remnants of a plunge pool formed during the last ice age by a glacial waterfall at least twice the size of Niagara Falls; Green Lake is situated in a gorge and fed entirely by rain and groundwater. As a result, it is one of the few meromictic lakes on earth.

So, okay, in general terms, lakes do this:

For the warmer months water organizes into distinct layers, each circulating in their own way. The warmest water, being the least dense, sits at the top. This is where the phytoplankton hang out, producing oxygen and consuming nutrients. The coldest water, being the most dense, sits at the bottom. This is where nutrients tend to accumulate and oxygen gets depleted by animal life. As summer turns to winter the top layers get colder and the water mixes as stratification breaks down, the same happens as winter turns back to summer. This process helps more evenly distribute oxygen and nutrients.

Ok so Green Lake doesn't do this.

The bottom of the lake is totally devoid of oxygen, so no decomposition; whatever falls down there, stays down there. The water is also very high in mineral content, which leaves layers of calcite deposits on anything that isn't moving. Moreover there is a layer of bacterially active water around 18-20 meters down that makes the water purple at that specific depth. Thanks to photosynthetic bacteria that deposit some of the minerals in the water, Green Lake is home to one of the few existing freshwater reefs.

I just think its neat.

Join our public Matrix server!

https://rentry.co/tracha#tracha-rooms

As a reminder, please do not discuss current struggle sessions in the mega. We want this to be a little oasis for all of us and the best way to do that is not to feed into existing conflict on the site.

Also, be sure to properly give content warnings and put sensitive subjects behind proper spoiler tags. It's for the mental health of not just your comrades, but yourself as well.

Here is a screenshot of where to find the spoiler button.

spoiler

First up at 13:00 EST (18:00 UTC) is Jennifer's Body (2009): a horror film that seems to be becoming a sapphic horror classic. I don't remember if it's explicitly gay, but if not it's definitely not that subtle. The film follows Needy's retelling of her relationship with her best friend Jennifer, while navigating high school romance and boys.

Next up at 15:00 EST (20:00 UTC) is Bit (2019): also a sapphic horror film, this time following a woman named Laurel as she moves to LA following her transition and finishing high school looking to start her new life.

Watch on blorp's tracha channel: https://blorp.bot.nu/o/tracha

cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/29122

PBD Podcast

Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.

On Tuesday, the president of the billionaire-backed Heritage Foundation, Kevin Roberts, appeared on the influential far-right PBD podcast to discuss gender-affirming care. During his appearance, he echoed usual far-right anti-transgender talking points, including linking being transgender to being inherently violent. Then, the conversation turned towards what the Heritage Foundation was working on when it comes to the future of transgender people. It was during this shift that Roberts darkly announced that his solution to being transgender was simple: "You outlaw it," and that the organization was working to ban gender-affirming care at all ages through an incremental process he described as "radical incrementalism."

"But where there continues to be disagreement is on what you do with adults. At Heritage, we believe that so-called transgender surgery is bad for anybody because of what you saw in Rhode Island yesterday," said Roberts, referencing a domestic violence shooting at a Rhode Island ice rink the day before. "There does seem to be a mounting body of evidence that suggests a correlation between that surgery at any age, mental health issues, and increasingly, although we're running the numbers on this at Heritage, acts of violence. We have to come to grips with that as a society, in a way that transcends left versus right, because this really is about the human condition." "How do you address this, though?" replied host Patrick Bet-David. "You outlaw it," Roberts responded.

Then, when asked if transgender adults should have their medication taken away, Roberts endorsed the idea, stating, "We like that idea, too. One of the reasons is that we not only work in coalitions, but we often work toward an ultimate goal via incremental steps—sometimes people will call us radical incrementalists. We're willing to take a quarter of the enchilada if we can keep working there. So if that's the kind of thing that policymakers can agree on left and right, Heritage would be fully supportive of that, knowing that ultimately we have an ideal position that would be much stronger than that."

See the clip here:

The Heritage Foundation is the conservative think tank behind Project 2025, which calls for cutting federal funding for gender-affirming care for both children and adults and equates being transgender to pornography. The organization has been a driving force behind anti-transgender legislation nationwide, with its staffers directly assisting in the drafting and promotion of state-level care bans and its analysts testifying in statehouses. Heritage is funded through a web of dark money networks, including DonorsTrust, which gave the foundation $365,000 specifically earmarked for "Going On Offense On Gender Ideology." Its board includes billionaire conservative megadonor Rebekah Mercer, while board member Sean Fieler has funneled at least $18 million since 2010 to anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ+ organizations, including a group that supported Uganda's law criminalizing homosexuality with the death penalty.

The organization's open call for gender-affirming care bans for all ages echoes earlier conversations among conservative legislators in places like Ohio and Michigan for similar policy goals. In a leaked Twitter Space from January 2024, legislators behind anti-trans bills, including Representative Gary Click of Ohio—the sponsor of the state's youth care ban—openly discussed how their plan was to end gender-affirming care for everyone. "In terms of endgame, why are we allowing these practices for anyone?" asked Michigan Representative Josh Schriver, in a conversation referring specifically to adults. Click, who has ties to the Heritage Foundation, confirmed the strategy: "We have to take one bite at a time, do it incrementally." Roberts' language on PBD is strikingly similar—his "radical incrementalism" and willingness to "take a quarter of the enchilada" mirrors Click's "small bites" almost word for word, suggesting a coordinated long-term strategy towards adult care bans.

It is significant that the conversation happened on the PBD podcast. Hosted by Patrick Bet-David, the show reaches millions through its combined YouTube channels. The podcast has provided a platform for far-right figures to promote conspiracy theories and anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric, including guests who have argued that homosexuality is a "worldview" being "inflicted" on children. That the head of the organization behind Project 2025 chose this venue to openly call for outlawing gender-affirming care for adults suggests a growing comfort by the organization to be more open about its plans.

Gender-affirming care bans have been increasingly targeting adults. In 2023, Florida's SB 254 banned nurse practitioners from providing gender-affirming care, resulting in 80% of trans adult care being eliminated overnight. That same year, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey issued an emergency rule targeting transgender people of all ages with requirements so onerous they amounted to a de facto ban; it was blocked in court and withdrawn after roughly three weeks. In 2025, Puerto Rico signed the most extreme care ban in the United States or its territories, criminalizing care for anyone under 21 with penalties of up to 15 years in prison. And of course, Trump’s recent executive orders ban gender affirming care to the age of 19.

One thing is clear: gender-affirming care bans have never been about science, despite attempts by far-right organizations to launder their lobbying efforts through pseudoscientific hate groups and overseas "reviews." Rather, it’s always been about hate. That much is made clear by the openly-stated agenda of a billionaire-funded political machine that has always been working towards one goal: the elimination of transgender people from public life. The only thing that has changed is that they are now saying it out loud.

Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.

From Erin In The Morning via This RSS Feed.

frfr

Join our public Matrix server!

https://rentry.co/tracha#tracha-rooms

As a reminder, please do not discuss current struggle sessions in the mega. We want this to be a little oasis for all of us and the best way to do that is not to feed into existing conflict on the site.

Also, be sure to properly give content warnings and put sensitive subjects behind proper spoiler tags. It's for the mental health of not just your comrades, but yourself as well.

Here is a screenshot of where to find the spoiler button.

spoiler

cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/28787

Idaho Capitol // Wikimedia Commons

Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.

In the modern anti-transgender panic, several states have passed laws banning transgender people from restrooms consistent with their gender identity. Early bills focused primarily on K-12 schools, but the scope quickly expanded. Some states extended bans to even private colleges and universities. Others adopted sweeping “government building” prohibitions, barring transgender people from restrooms in all publicly owned facilities—a far broader category than it sounds, encompassing airports, rest stops, and other everyday spaces. A few states went further still, adding punitive enforcement mechanisms; Florida, for example, attached criminal penalties to its ban. Yet one category remained largely untouched: private business bathrooms. That exception is now collapsing. Multiple states are advancing a new generation of bathroom bills that would extend these bans into private businesses for the first time.

The first clear sign that private business bathrooms could be targeted came this year in Kansas. At the end of January, the state passed SB 244 and HB2426 through a rushed “gut-and-go” process designed to bypass portions of public hearings. The legislation drew attention for several reasons, including provisions revoking the driver’s licenses of transgender people and forcing them to obtain new ones reflecting their assigned sex at birth. But another provision—first identified by Erin In The Morning and later confirmed by legal and advocacy organizations in Kansas and nationally—was even more alarming. The bill appeared to create a mechanism allowing so-called bathroom bounty hunters to sue transgender people encountered in any restroom, whether in a government-owned building or a private business. With little warning, Kansas had advanced what looked to be the first measure directly threatening transgender people’s access to private business bathrooms.

Although the bill was vetoed, Republicans hold enough seats in the Kansas Legislature to potentially override that veto. If they do, the measure would take effect quickly. Transgender Kansans would not only be forced to scramble for updated identification documents reflecting their assigned sex at birth, but would also have to navigate daily life by mapping trips around the availability of gender-neutral bathrooms. Any transgender person who simply continues using the restroom they have always used could face lawsuits seeking substantial damages from individuals eager to weaponize the law for harassment—or profit.

Now, it appears these kinds of bills are spreading. In Idaho, a separate measure—House Bill 607—is scheduled to be heard in committee today and similarly targets transgender people’s access to private business bathrooms. The bill would allow lawsuits against any “place of public accommodation” that permits transgender people to use restrooms consistent with their gender identity. While it does not include the criminal penalties or explicit bounty-style provisions seen elsewhere, its practical effect would be sweeping: private businesses across the state could face legal risk simply for allowing transgender people to use the restroom. The scope of bathroom bans is no longer confined to schools or government buildings. It is expanding.

Erin In The Morning has identified additional bills in state legislatures across the country. In Indiana, HB 1198 would apply to any public restroom—whether privately owned or government-run—and would establish criminal penalties for anyone who “knowingly or intentionally enters a restroom that is designated to be used” by someone of a different assigned sex at birth. In Missouri, HB 2314 would weaponize the state’s Human Rights Act against private businesses that allow transgender people to use restrooms consistent with their gender identity, effectively turning a civil rights law into a tool for restricting transgender rights. And in Idaho, yet another proposal would not only bar private businesses from permitting transgender people to use certain restrooms but would also impose criminal penalties on violators.

It is worth noting that, so far, anti-transgender bathroom bans have had uneven real-world enforcement. In K-12 schools—where administrators wield significant authority—they have been highly effective at policing transgender students. In colleges and public buildings, however, enforcement has been far more sporadic, with only a handful of documented expulsions from restrooms in states like Texas and Florida. But this next wave of legislation could fundamentally alter that balance. By targeting private businesses and imposing civil or criminal liability directly on transgender individuals, these bills move enforcement out of institutional hands and into the realm of lawsuits and vigilantism. And history offers a warning: once a new anti-trans legal strategy gains traction in one state, it rarely stays there.

Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.

From Erin In The Morning via This RSS Feed.

Good on those chapters who are leaving in response. Makes me feel at least a little bit hopeful to see this kind of solidarity coming out of Terf Island and hopeful they're able to form a new and better org.

cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/26257

Photo by ev on Unsplash

Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.

In 2024, whistleblowers familiar with internal discussions at the Tavistock gender clinic in the United Kingdom revealed to the Good Law Project that employees were privately alarmed by a spike in suicides among transgender youth following severe restrictions on care in the aftermath of the Bell v Tavistock ruling. This information was never made public, with administrators concerned that it could cause reputational damage to the clinic. Following the Good Law Project's reporting, the UK government commissioned a report, known as the Appleby Report, that claimed there were only a handful of suicides and denied any increase, with many anti-trans political figures and activists then patting themselves on the back and absolving themselves of any blame. Now, after years of fighting for the data, the Good Law Project has received responses to freedom of information requests from the National Child Mortality Database (NCMD) and discovered that the government report significantly undercounted transgender youth suicides: deaths rose roughly fivefold in the immediate aftermath of the Bell v Tavistock ruling, with a devastating 22 trans kids taking their own lives in a single year.

The data, obtained through a freedom of information request to the NHS-funded National Child Mortality Database, paints a devastating picture. Between 2019 and 2025, 46 trans children under the age of 18 died by suicide in England. The year-by-year breakdown is stark: 5 in 2019-20, 4 in 2020-21, 22 in 2021-22, and 10 in 2022-23, with the remaining spread in the later years. The massive spike in 2021-22 follows directly on the heels of the Bell v Tavistock ruling in December 2020, after which NHS England imposed restrictions on gender-affirming care for young trans people. By contrast, the Appleby Report—the government's official response to inquiries from whistleblowers about rising suicides—examined only the narrow pool of youth who had actually become patients of the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) at the Tavistock, finding just 12 total suicides over six years including adults. The NCMD data captures nearly four times as many deaths among children alone. Importantly, for later years, suicide reports have not been completed, and it is likely that some of the numbers for later years will rise significantly.

The gap between the Appleby Report, which was used to absolve the government of any culpability in trans youth deaths, and the Good Law Project's freedom of information request is no accident, but rather, a deliberate framing choice. The Appleby Report only examined patients of GIDS. But in the aftermath of the Bell v Tavistock ruling, wait times for GIDS appointments skyrocketed, now sitting at an estimated average of 25 years. Youth who were suffering no longer saw a pathway to gender-affirming care. Referrals stalled. Diagnoses became increasingly impossible to obtain. As restrictions piled on, these young people saw their future pathways to obtaining gender-affirming care shuttered in front of them. These youth were ignored in the Appleby report.

More alarming is what appears to be an explicit attempt to cover up trans youth suicide deaths. Those who seek to restrict gender-affirming care also seek to restrict any information showing those restrictions may lead to harm. Among the far right, claims have emerged that transgender youth are in no danger of suicide from the withdrawal of gender-affirming care, but this could not be further from the truth. Numerous studies have shown high suicidality among trans youth and increasing suicidality in places where anti-trans legislation has taken root. Rather than report honestly on the impact of their policies, the UK government appears to have tried to cover it up.

“Those of us in or close to the trans community have been to the funerals of those we love. And we have wept together for those we have been unable to save on Trans Day of Remembrance. We know the truth – we see it with our own eyes. And, to us, the decision by Wes Streeting to commission a review into suicides which downplayed the scale of these tragedies was unforgivable. His report denied the reality of trans deaths, as Streeting’s ban on puberty blockers denied the reality of trans lives,” reads the Good Law Project report.

The UK government fought hard to keep transgender suicide data from the public, and now, two years after its attempt to bury the deaths of children, that data is out. Even what has been released is limited: the NCMD’s own response indicates that its methodology may not capture all transgender youth suicides in the country, meaning the true toll is likely higher. But what is now known is the grisly impact that anti-trans restrictions have had on the youth of England. And in the United States, where a similar effort to restrict gender-affirming care is underway across the nation, it is likely that similar devastation is unfolding, unreported and silent.

You can view the Good Law Project’s report here, and the NCMD and UK government data responses here and here.

Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.

From Erin In The Morning via This RSS Feed.

The Ten Largest, No. 2

The Ten Largest Painting Series

Hilma af Klint was a Swedish abstract artist who was way ahead of her time. She might just be the first abstract painter in Western modern art history but did not get recognition until just recently. Lately, there have been several exhibitions of her work; for example, at Moderna Museet in Stockholm and Malmö, Sweden. Hilma af Klint’s The Ten Largest is iconic and has lately been shown all over the world, most notably at Tate Modern in London and a couple of years ago at Guggenheim Museum in New York. It is one of her most important works, and the large scale of the paintings is quite striking.

Hilma af Klint (1862–1944) started as a landscape and portrait painter after graduating from the Royal Academy of Fine Arts in Stockholm in 1887. During her career, she also had an interest in the spiritual world—an interest she later employed in her art. According to the artist, she received messages from the spirits telling her what and how to paint.

The Ten Largest is a group of works comprising ten 10,76 x 7,87 ft (328 x 240 cm) egg tempera paintings. The paintings depict the spiritual evolution of humans, taking us from childhood, through youth, and adulthood to old age. Let’s take a closer look at the history and the meaning of The Ten Largest!

History of the Paintings

Hilma af Klint took precise notes on her work with The Ten Largest, and therefore we know a lot of the meaning and how to understand the paintings through her notebooks. The Ten Largest is part of a larger series of artwork called Paintings for the Temple, a series she was assigned from the spiritual world. We know, from Hilma af Klint’s notes, that there were more spirits involved in the assignment, whom she called “The High Masters.” She saw herself as a channel between the spiritual world and this world.

Af Klint painted The Ten Largest during a 40-day period in 1907, and the spirits were very specific with the timeline. They told her to paint each painting in four days, following each other, which she completed with help from at least two friends. She created the paintings swiftly and spontaneously, with little planning. She completed the whole series in 40 days.
The Meaning

The paintings depict the evolution of human consciousness and the spiritual evolution of the human mind. Each painting should be interpreted as a phase in life. Hilma af Klint was very interested in spiritualism, which was not uncommon in the early 20th century, especially in the cultural circles. The paintings were supposed to give humanity images of life beyond everything, which were not visible otherwise. However, when Hilma af Klint searched for a suitable place to exhibit and show the world these beautiful abstract paintings, she did so in vain. In 1932 she decided that since the world was not ready to take part in and understand the spiritual messages in her paintings, most of her artwork and her notebooks were to be kept from the public for 20 years.

Childhood

Ten Largest No.1

The two first paintings in the series represent childhood. These two works have a blue background. They also depict Hilma af Klint’s fascination with duality. She described in her notebooks two principles in the spiritual world. These principals were not to be understood as opposites but as something forming a whole together. In these paintings describing childhood, we see a lot of individual shapes forming pairs. According to the artist herself, the lily and the color blue represented the feminine principle, and the rose and the color yellow symbolized the masculine principle. We can see a lot of organic forms and shapes in all of The Ten Largest. Furthermore, in the paintings representing childhood, we see a lot of forms associated with plants and vegetation.

Ten Largest analysis source

Biography source

Join our public Matrix server!

https://rentry.co/tracha#tracha-rooms

As a reminder, please do not discuss current struggle sessions in the mega. We want this to be a little oasis for all of us and the best way to do that is not to feed into existing conflict on the site.

Also, be sure to properly give content warnings and put sensitive subjects behind proper spoiler tags. It's for the mental health of not just your comrades, but yourself as well.

Here is a screenshot of where to find the spoiler button.

Without doxxing myself here, how would one go about finding a trans commune in your respective state?