When Andrew Joseph White, a 26-year-old transgender author, released his third novel, “Compound Fractures,” a young adult thriller, last fall, it became an instant New York Times, USA Today, and Indie bestseller. 

This book is a story about an autistic trans* boy who was dragged into a generational feud. It also mentioned President-elect Donald Trump and his influence on the working class in the American South. The popularity of this novel among young readers shows that modern day teenagers are more political than some folks from older generations expect them to be. 

The novel became a bestseller in the midst of the 2024 presidential campaign and White, in his letter to readers, confessed that he wanted to give it a different intro, but had to speak about how tough it is to be a young trans* person in modern-day America. 

Donald Trump on Dec. 22 confirmed the fears of A.J. White and millions of other LGBTQ folks from Z and Alpha Generations. At the AmericaFest conference, Trump promised to “stop the transgender lunacy” on the first day of his presidency. He was particularly speaking up against trans* young people’s rights, and against trans* adults’ rights to work with young people. 

Donald Trump’s election also increased worries about censorship around children’s and young adult literature, especially in public and school libraries. 

A new report by PEN America showed that during the 2023-2024 school year, book bans increased by nearly 200 percent, targeting not just books about gender and sexuality, but also about racial discrimination, mental health, substance abuse, and other social problems that young people are facing in the everyday world. Such bans are not just making printed books unacceptable for youth who cannot afford buying their own copies. They may prevent authors from writing new books for younger generations, which will also affect American mass culture.

Republicans throughout the U.S. for a long time have behaved more and more authoritarian toward youth. Republicans are trying to attack LGBTQ youth everywhere, erasing them from academia and implementing social media restrictions.

It is tough to be a young person in modern-day America under any administration, even without new laws. All American citizens under 18 can easily be prevented from expressing their religious and political beliefs, forced to stay in abusive environments, can be medicated and institutionalized without their consent, can be separated from their supportive community if their parents say so. Young people under 18 can also be tried in adult court, but they cannot vote or run for office. 

All the decisions about their rights are made by people from the older generation. 

It is legal to pay young people less for their work, and deny the right to manage their property. Young people from non-supportive families are denied any chances to have normal lives until they turn 18, or even 21. This is basically the situation in most Western cultures, but American teenagers could start to change the system with more informational freedom and support.

But now Donald Trump and his supporters are trying to make everyone believe that young people cannot have their own gender identity, do not have any rights to their body autonomy, and should not be asked about their own feelings until they turn 18. Republicans have also tried to deny young people basic knowledge about the complicated world around them, as if this knowledge could be magically downloaded into a person’s mind when they turn 18. 

These dangerous trends will create a generation who is used to obeying, but not very used to thinking for themselves and trusting their own feelings. It is basically a very anti-American, anti-individualistic, and authoritarian tendency. 

This tendency could have a long-lasting impact on world politics. 

It is not an exaggeration to say that no other culture has had such a global impact on the way people around the world think than the American culture, and it is especially true on LGBTQ issues.

When I was an LGBTQ activist in Russia and Ukraine, my fellow post-Soviet activists spoke more about Stonewall and the AIDS epidemic in San Francisco than about the persecution of LGBTQ people in the Soviet Union. By my own experience as a person who was into LGBTQ blogging and journalism in the post-USSR; the videos, posts, features, and essays on LGBTQ issues that you could find on Ukrainian and Russian social media were either a direct translation from English or based on language that American LGBTQ activists created. 

Young LGBTQ people around the world are learning to speak for themselves by watching their peer influencers on English-language platforms.

As a young transgender person from Ukraine who had never heard the word trans* until I was a teenager, I understood that I was trans* since I could remember myself. I began accepting myself only after I read more about the American LGBTQ movement.

I saw a lot of young people from Eastern Europe and the Middle East for whom Lana Watchevski became a first name when they came out to their parents, or the first person who helped them to believe that yes, they could be trans* and have a fulfilling life. Folks accepted their transgender peers because there was a transgender person in a Kardashian show. And we badly need more LGBTQ films, cartoons and books for young people, and more freedom for LGBTQ youth to find their own communities. All of this will more likely come from the U.S.

I think Americans would wonder if they find out how often I saw a situation like that — a young queer Gen Z Tatar person from a small, almost isolated Russian village — or situations when a Gen Z refugee person from Iran felt comfortable to chat about American LGBTQ culture, and use it to explain their own cultural context. American culture, and America’s online spaces are quite universal. 

The same rules work for conservatives. 

It is not enough that such dictators as Vladimir Putin, who mirror old American anti-LGBTQ conspiracies in his statements, say that LGBTQ ideas are dangerous for children, or conservative people all around the world began to use “groomer” rhetoric to describe people who support LGBTQ rights for young people when the pro-Trump Q-Anon movement went global. It is not just endangering LGBTQ youth worldwide, but increasing a gap in mentality between different generations. 

But LGBTQ young people already know that there is something unusual about them, and they need information to figure out who they are. Americans could provide it via mass culture. It is worthy to note that Gen Z is much better at understanding the power of the internet, and American Gen Zers could literally make America greater by helping marginalized people in other countries.

Moreover, LGBTQ young people in America are speaking about their experience. 

They are able to say what they need. All we need to do is listen, or we will have an international atmosphere where the new generation was raised in denial of basic rights to be themselves, and prevented from learning and thinking independently. 

Editor’s note: The author uses trans* in order to be inclusive of nonbinary and gender queer people.

It’s September 1998, and I’m at lunch with several other journalists and a grandmother. As I sip my Coke, I hear a friendly male voice. You can tell he’s smiling. “Time to shake hands now,” he says.

We’re at the Carter Center in Atlanta for a few days. The other reporters and I have received Rosalynn Carter Fellowships for Mental Health Journalism. The grandma sitting with us is former first lady Rosalynn Carter, and the man with the warm smile is former President Jimmy Carter. “As soon as we get on a plane,” Mrs. Carter says, “Jimmy walks down the aisles and shakes hands with everybody. He knows they want to say hi to him.”

Jimmy Carter died Dec. 29 in hospice care in Georgia. President Biden declared Thursday a National Day of Mourning and Carter’s funeral will take place at Washington National Cathedral that day. After the funeral, Carter and his family will return to Plains, Ga. to Maranatha Baptist Church for a private funeral and then to Carter’s private residence for interment.

Twenty-five years ago, we journos were at the Carter Center to meet with experts in mental health so we could report accurately on the issue.  

The fellowship program was founded in 1996 by Rosalynn Carter. Mrs. Carter, who died in 2023 at age 96, was no mere figurehead. She knew every detail about our fellowship projects. Heaven help us, if she’d caught us asleep at the switch.

It takes nothing away from Mrs. Carter to note how essential her personal and professional partnership with her husband Jimmy Carter was to her and her work.

Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter were married in 1946. The first thing that hit you when you saw them together was how deeply they loved each other. There was nothing sappy about how they were with each other.

One morning, President Carter ambled into the conference room before our session on stigma and mental health was about to begin. Kenneth W. Starr had just delivered his report on (then) President Bill Clinton’s alleged abuses and affair with Monica Lewinsky. Naturally, we, the reporters in the room, asked Jimmy Carter how he felt about Bill Clinton. We were committed to mental health journalism. But, a former president was there – standing by the wall.

President Carter didn’t seem to want to hold back. He said he didn’t think that highly of Bill Clinton. But, before he could go on to say more, Mrs. Carter gave him a look. The look you give your spouse after decades of loving togetherness. Especially, if you’re a political couple and your mate’s being grilled by scribes eager to make news. “I know,” Jimmy Carter said, smiling, to Rosalynn Carter, his most ardent supporter and astute critic, “I’m talking too much, darlin’. I’m leaving now.”

You could tell how proud President Carter was of Mrs. Carter. At lunch or dinner, you’d see him nodding approvingly at her when she spoke of her work. You could see it in how he teased her. “Rosalynn talks about mental health all the time,” Jimmy Carter said, with a laugh, one night, as he saw Mrs. Carter chatting with us about how the media reported on mental health.

What I most recall about Jimmy Carter is his generosity of spirit. “I beat Jerry Ford,” President Carter said, “but Rosalyn and I are good friends with the Fords now.”

He wasn’t using the word “friends” in the way politicos often do. The Carters and the Fords were friends who worked together on mental health and other issues.

I hadn’t yet come out as a lesbian when I was at the Carter Center. But I didn’t feel I had to remain closeted or silent about my (then) partner. Carter was, what today likely would be an oxymoron: a born-again Christian, who welcomed everyone.

The Carter Center, which the Carters founded after his presidency, is like a theme park, where, instead of standing in line for attractions, people work to resolve conflicts and eradicate diseases.

Thank you, President Carter for your work, humanity and being an LGBTQ ally. R.I.P., Jimmy Carter.

Kathi Wolfe, a writer and poet, was a regular contributor to the Blade. She wrote this tribute just before she passed away in June 2024.

In recent weeks, the D.C. Council passed the Fairness in Human Rights Administration Amendment Act. Provided that this bill is signed by Mayor Bowser and not objected to by Congress, it will correct some of the loopholes in the District’s sexual harassment laws that were overlooked when the Council passed the latest iteration of the D.C. Human Rights Act in 2022.

In this dangerous moment for women, transgender, and non-binary people, when it appears that incoming federal leaders are hostile to protecting the rights of these vulnerable groups, more robust local protection is a needed step in the right direction. This new D.C. law, when it goes into effect, means that more people who have been harassed because of their gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or expression will be able to escape unfair arbitration clauses and file, publicly, in court. Historically, mandatory arbitration operates as a tool for companies to keep sexual harassment and assault accusations a secret. 

While the D.C. Human Rights Act is, in my view, one of the better human rights acts in the country, it is encouraging to see that the D.C. Council is also willing to expand it to make sure more folks can make use of it to protect themselves. This legislation provides a series of fixes that significantly change the landscape of sexual harassment claims in D.C.  First – the act provides a more expansive definition of sexual harassment. This may appear insignificant—but it’s not! Right now, the narrow definition under D.C. law says that sexual harassment is limited to “conduct of a sexual nature.”  This covers the most egregious and brazen types of sexual harassment, the kind of behavior that often leads to news articles, like sending a colleague unsolicited sexual messages or photographs; using sexually degrading language or slurs; or asking intrusive questions about someone’s sexual preferences.  It doesn’t include, however, the wide spectrum of sexual harassment that I see in working with clients every day: harassment based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or expression.

This can take a lot of forms, like calling someone sex-based, but not sexual, slurs in the workplace; penalizing someone if they do not dress feminine or masculine “enough”; or spreading rumors about someone because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation. Mind you, the D.C. Human Rights Act already banned harassment based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or expression before this new act; but this new act now includes all of those forms of harassment as under the umbrella of sexual harassment.  

Why is it important? Federal law prohibits forced arbitration of sexual assault and sexual harassment cases nationwide, because it is an unfair forum for survivors of sexual harassment and sexual assault. Under federal law, courts have recognized that sex-based conduct may create a hostile work environment constituting sexual harassment, whether or not the conduct is “sexual in nature.” But the D.C. Human Rights Act, until this latest expansion, limited sexual harassment to conduct that is sexual in nature. As a result, harassment based on gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity could be forced to go to unfair arbitration in D.C. – which this new law fixes.  Provided this is signed into law and Congress does not object, those who have been harassed on these bases will be able to publicly pursue these claims against their employers in court.

In addition to this meaningful expansion of the definition of sexual harassment, this new law also increases the statute of limitations of when claims can be brought from one year to two years. This extends the time a person who experiences harassment has to file a claim.

Many of these changes demonstrate the District’s commitment to leading the nation in enacting robust protections for workers and in resisting sexual harassment in all of its forms. I’m grateful to the D.C. Council for their work to make these changes a reality.

Mx. Rachel Green is a plaintiffs’ sexual harassment attorney at Katz Banks Kumin LLP and advocated before the D.C. Council for many of these changes to the law.