For four decades, the SMYAL organization has stood as a lifeline of hope, support, and empowerment for LGBTQ+ youth. It is with immense pride and heartfelt gratitude that I pen these words as we celebrate SMYAL’s 40th anniversary. As I reflect on our history, I am overwhelmed by the incredible heart and vibrancy of this community, an enduring spirit that has consistently uplifted queer and trans youth. 

From the very beginning, SMYAL has been committed to building a community where LGBTQ+ youth are not just respected and protected, but celebrated, seen, affirmed, and safe. We strive to create opportunities where our youth can live authentically and freely, without fear of discrimination or harm. It is our honor to ensure that every young person who walks through our doors feels the warmth of acceptance and the strength of solidarity.

As we look ahead to the upcoming election, the uncertainty of the future looms large. The rights and protections we have fought for so tirelessly could be at risk. Yet, as James Baldwin profoundly stated, “Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced.” In this spirit, we will show up to stand with queer and trans youth, no matter the challenge. Our commitment is unwavering; our resolve is unbreakable. We are ready to face whatever obstacles come our way because the well-being and dignity of our youth are worth fighting for. 

We owe our enduring success to the visionary leaders, dedicated community members, and tireless advocates who have built this organization into what it is today. Their legacy is one of courage and compassion, and it is on their shoulders that we stand. To each of you who have contributed your time, energy, and resources to this cause, we offer our deepest thanks. Your efforts have transformed countless lives. And we need your continued support, advocacy and engagement to help protect LGTBQ+ youth and their futures. 

Moreover, we celebrate our strong community of alumni. These individuals are not just beneficiaries of our programs but are living testaments to the power of love and support. They have grown into advocates, leaders, and changemakers in their own right, continuing the cycle of giving and resilience.

As we commemorate this milestone anniversary, let us also look to the future with hope and determination. We have much work ahead, but with the incredible heart of our organization and the unwavering support of our community, we will continue to empower, protect, and uplift LGBTQ+ youth.

Thank you for standing with us. Here’s to another 40 years of SMYAL.

Erin Whelan is executive director of SMYAL.

We should know what it is about the various parties that keep some who call themselves ‘independent’ from registering as a member. Are they so unhappy with the Democratic, Republican, Green, Workers, or other parties in their state? Each state may recognize different parties, and have different requirements to get a ballot line for a particular party. So, the questions may be slightly different depending on where the voter, who claims to be an independent, lives.

The media are doing a poor job of dealing with the detail when they focus on those who call themselves independents. They need to ask different questions than they now do. They need to get to the bottom of why a person would rather call themselves an independent, instead of joining a political party. One thing we would want to know is do they have a set of principles and positions so different from any existing party, that they would want to make up a new party? Would they be willing to do the work to get that new party on the ballot in their state?

If the answer is no, they would not be willing to work to get a new party in their state, then the first question to ask the voter is, “What does being an independent mean to you?” They should ask them what they believe that stops them from joining an existing political party? What are the principles they have that aren’t represented by any existing party? Then the follow up questions should include: Is there a party they lean to? Is there a party they currently would not consider supporting under any condition? 

We are living in interesting times to say the least. Intelligent people should realize there will never be one candidate of any party, who meets all their expectations. So today when any independent is interviewed on TV, or in newspapers, the first question they are asked should be, “is there any candidate running today who has a set of positions you could never vote for?” The second question should be “is there any candidate today whose personal history makes him/her one you could never vote for?” Their answers to those questions would then lead to the next ones, giving the viewer of a TV interview, or reader of a newspaper interview, a greater understanding and potential to make sense of what the person being interviewed is really thinking. 

If the independent voter says he/she can’t vote for Trump, then you focus on what they want to hear from Harris to get their vote. What she needs to say to them that she hasn’t. Then maybe ask if they have read the Democratic platform which Harris endorses, or looked at her website. Ask them what in the administration she has been a part of, and the votes she actually cast in the Senate, both as senator, and as vice president to break ties, they disagree with? Then, the follow up to that might be, “would you consider not voting?” If they say yes, the interviewer might suggest to them if you don’t consider Trump acceptable, and you don’t vote for Harris, are you in essence helping Trump? Would that make a difference to you? Getting answers to these questions may be a better way to understand what it means to some to be independent.

There is an initiative on the ballot in D.C. to allow “independents” to vote in party primaries. They would not have to indicate they are a member of the party to vote. In D.C., the questions being asked of independents who support this is “why should they help choose the person who will represent a party in the general election, if they don’t even believe in the party enough to join it?”  

In D.C. it’s easy to join a party even just to vote in its primary. If you are a registered voter, but haven’t chosen a party, you can register to join a party up to 21 days before the primary. Anyone listening to the candidates debate the issues will know by then if they want to cast a ballot for one of them. Unfortunately, this initiative has been paired with another proposal giving D.C. ranked choice voting. So there won’t be a clear outcome on whether people like either one of the proposals and because of their being joined, the initiative will most likely be defeated.

Independents are here to stay. We all need to better understand what each person means when calling themselves that.

I don’t think President Eisenhower ever thought of transgender people when the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights was founded in 1957. But today the horrific killings of transgender women of color is too much to be ignored. In 2018, 82 percent of recorded transgender homicides were of women of color.

So it was critical that the commission examine the violence against transgender women of color as part of its larger investigation of racial disparities among crime victims. 

Today, on Wednesday, Sept. 18, as a commissioner, I am proud to present to Congress and the White House our findings and my recommendations to address the rising violence and killings of transgender women of color. 

The commission’s report, and its documentation of this violence, recognizes transgender women of color under federal law. They are entitled to all of the protections of the Constitution and federal civil rights laws.  

Over the past year, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights investigated racial disparities in crime victimization as violent crime rose from 2017-2021.  The commission’s investigation did not find differences in the risk of victimization for different races at a national level, as some might have suggested. But the data shows that LGBTQ+ and transgender communities of color are at a higher risk of violent crime.  

Transgender people, especially transgender African Americans face persistent and pervasive discrimination and violence. Kierra Johnson, the executive director of the National LGBTQ Task Force, testified in how transgender individuals are victimized four times more often than non-trans people, with young Black and Latina transgender women at the highest risk. It was historic for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to recognize that sexual and/or gender minorities face increased risk for violent victimization. 

Still, we must more accurately capture the rates of violent victimization against LGBTQ+ people. There are inadequate data collection measures of gender and sexuality. A large percentage of Black transgender deaths are unaccounted for. 

Transgender homicides are likely undercounted for because of misgendering and “deadnaming” in police and media reports. Audacia Ray at the New York City Anti-Violence Project, explained that transgender individuals often do not share their legal names so when they are reported missing under their known name, their loved ones do not know what happens. 

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 only considers “sex” and does not look at “gender” or “sexual orientation.” So as the commission advises Congress and the federal agencies on the enforcement of modern civil rights, we must incorporate “race” and “gender” under our civil rights purview. The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program should include disaggregated data on sexual and gender identity.  

Transgender and gender-diverse victims of crime are unable to access crucial assistance and vital services. The commission’s investigation formally documented how LGBTQ overall, and especially those of color or transgender experience, continued to face discrimination and harassment by law enforcement. The U.S. Transgender Survey, found that 61 percent of Black respondents experienced some form of mistreatment by police, including being verbally harassed, or physically or sexually assaulted. 

Victim service providers testified that LGBTQ+ survivors hesitate to seek help because of fear of being blamed themselves; distrust or discrimination by the police; and expectations of indifference. Survivors of violence — of any race, sexual orientation, gender, or gender-identity — must be able to receive essential services and assistance to help them heal from the trauma of violence. Mandatory and proper training for law enforcement and victim service providers can help victims feel safe when reporting incidents. 

Queer and trans Americans often fear retaliation by a world where they are living their true selves. The intersectional experiences of race exacerbates this fear. Our federal government needs to do more to ensure that all marginalized communities are better protected in our society. 

I never would have imagined that a federally authorized report to Congress would have the powerful statement on its public record “Black Trans Lives Matter!” That was until Kierra Johnson of the National LGBTQ Task Force said “I am here to say that Black Trans Lives Matter!” I am proud of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights’s report to Congress and the country on the rise of violent crime in America and its highlights of the violence against transgender women of color. 

Glenn D. Magpantay is a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, an independent, bipartisan federal agency that advises the White House and Congress on federal civil rights policy. The views expressed herein are as a commissioner, Magpantay’s own, and does not represent the entire commission.