National
Troop survey draws criticism
Activists assail ‘derogatory’ language in Pentagon questionnaire
Defense Secretary Robert Gates (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
A new Pentagon study that aims to gather the views of military spouses on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal has invoked the ire of LGBT advocacy groups that are claiming bias in the questionnaire.
According to the Defense Department, the survey went out Aug. 20 to 150,000 military households and is intended to inform the work of the Pentagon group working on a plan to end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
“We’re going to look at that information and develop an implementation plan for a possible repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’” said Cynthia Smith, a Defense Department spokesperson.
But LGBT rights groups advocating for repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” say the survey questions are biased and assume a negative impact of repealing the 1993 law banning open service in the U.S. military.
Among the survey questions:
• Has your spouse ever worked on a daily basis with an individual he or she believed to be a homosexual service member?
• Compared with other service members in the community, how much did that service member participate in military social activities?
• Would a repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” affect your preference for your spouse’s plans for his or her future in the military?
• Assume “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is repealed and you live in on-base housing. If a gay or lesbian service member lived in your neighborhood with their partner, would you stay on-base or would you try to move out?
Alex Nicholson, executive director of the Servicemembers United, said Monday in a statement that the spousal survey was even more derogatory toward gay and lesbian personnel than a previous survey sent directly to U.S. troops.
“While it is wise to solicit and consider military spouse input on policy changes that will have a major impact on military families, it is extremely unwise to do so for issues that have minimal impact on spouses while also using poorly designed, biased and derogatory survey instruments,” Nicholson said.
Nicholson added that the Pentagon should be concerned with what he called “real family readiness issues,” such as excessive deployments, inadequate mental health support and low troop pay.
Michael Cole, a Human Rights Campaign spokesperson, said in response to a Blade inquiry on the survey that his organization doesn’t believe the survey is necessary in the first place.
“Gay and lesbian troops are serving now, albeit in silence,” Cole said. “Given that this entire process is about how, not if, to implement repeal, we look forward to the day sometime soon when all of these are non-issues to open service.”
The spousal survey comes on the heels of another survey the Pentagon issued to 450,000 troops to collect their views on eliminating “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
According to the Pentagon, only about one-quarter of those surveys were returned by their due date on Aug. 25. Smith said the Pentagon received 110,000 of the 450,000 surveys it distributed.
Nicholson said such a return rate shows troops have little interest in the survey and don’t care about changing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
“While the Department of Defense and [survey coordinator] Westat are spinning the low response rate to the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ survey as expected and sufficient, neither are disclosing the fact that the military leaders have had to put significant pressure on troops on multiple occasions to even get this level of response,” Nicholson said. “Some commanders and senior leaders have even told subordinates that participation is mandatory.”
Nicholson said the limited responses degrade of the credibility of the survey and “violate ethical standards that prevent researchers from compelling respondents to participate in survey research.”
In addition to seeking input from military spouses, the Pentagon also is working with LGBT groups to find a way to obtain feedback from the same-sex partners of U.S. service members without outing those troops under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Smith said the Pentagon is “currently in the process” of working with advocacy groups to determine how to reach out to partners of gay and lesbian service members.
Trevor Thomas, spokesperson for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said SLDN is among the groups with which the Pentagon is consulting on this matter.
“While there are legal questions and concerns around confidentiality, we’re working to find the safest approach possible and make sure their important voices are heard,” he said.
Palm Center report
shows ‘Don’t Ask’ costs
In a related development, the Palm Center, a think tank on gays in the military at the University of California, Santa Barbara, last week published a report outlining 12 “costs” of the law.
The report, titled “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: Detailing the Damage,” cites several ways in which the U.S. military has been harmed as a result of having the law in place for 17 years.
According to the report, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” harms the armed services by:
• wasting the talents of essential personnel with critical skills who were fired for their sexual orientation, including Arabic language specialists, medical professionals and combat aviators. The report cites a Governmental Accountability Office study saying 757 troops with “critical occupations” were fired between fiscal years 1994 and 2003;
• hampering recruitment and retention by shrinking the pool of potential enlistees for the U.S. military. The report cites a study from the Williams Institute at the University of California that says 41,000 qualified gay Americans may join the U.S. armed forces if the ban on open service were lifted;
• imposing financial costs on the U.S. military. The report cites a 2005 GAO study saying “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” has cost the military $190.5 million: $95.4 million to recruit replacements for service members separated under the policy and $95.1 million to train them;
• wasting the time of officers who must investigate and discharge outed gay, lesbian and bisexual troops.
In a statement, Nathaniel Frank, who wrote the report as a senior fellow at the Palm Center, said the work is intended to draw new attention to the damage that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” inflicts on the military.
“Much of the debate about whether to repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ has focused on the fact that the ban is unfair and unnecessary,” he said. “But there is less familiarity with the profound damage the policy causes, and so there isn’t quite the sense of urgency among some policymakers to lift the ban. This report details a long list of costs imposed by ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’, that show the policy has achieved the opposite of what it was supposed to accomplish.”
National
United Methodist Church removes 40-year ban on gay clergy
Delegates also voted for other LGBTQ-inclusive measures
The United Methodist Church on Wednesday removed a ban on gay clergy that was in place for more than 40 years, voting to also allow LGBTQ weddings and end prohibitions on the use of United Methodist funds to “promote acceptance of homosexuality.”
Overturning the policy forbidding the church from ordaining “self-avowed practicing homosexuals” effectively formalized a practice that had caused an estimated quarter of U.S. congregations to leave the church.
The New York Times notes additional votes “affirming L.G.B.T.Q. inclusion in the church are expected before the meeting adjourns on Friday.” Wednesday’s measures were passed overwhelmingly and without debate. Delegates met in Charlotte, N.C.
According to the church’s General Council on Finance and Administration, there were 5,424,175 members in the U.S. in 2022 with an estimated global membership approaching 10 million.
The Times notes that other matters of business last week included a “regionalization” plan, which gave autonomy to different regions such that they can establish their own rules on matters including issues of sexuality — about which international factions are likelier to have more conservative views.
Rev. Kipp Nelson of St. Johns’s on the Lake Methodist Church in Miami shared a statement praising the new developments:
“It is a glorious day in the United Methodist Church. As a worldwide denomination, we have now publicly proclaimed the boundless love of God and finally slung open the doors of our church so that all people, no matter their identities or orientations, may pursue the calling of their hearts.
“Truly, all are loved and belong here among us. I am honored to serve as a pastor in the United Methodist Church for such a time as this, for our future is bright and filled with hope. Praise be, praise be.”
Federal Government
Republican state AGs challenge Biden administration’s revised Title IX policies
New rules protect LGBTQ students from discrimination
Four Republicans state attorneys general have sued the Biden-Harris administration over the U.S. Department of Education’s new Title IX policies that were finalized April 19 and carry anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ students in public schools.
The lawsuit filed on Tuesday, which is led by the attorneys general of Kentucky and Tennessee, follows a pair of legal challenges from nine Republican states on Monday — all contesting the administration’s interpretation that sex-based discrimination under the statute also covers that which is based on the victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
The administration also rolled back Trump-era rules governing how schools must respond to allegations of sexual harassment and sexual assault, which were widely perceived as biased in favor of the interests of those who are accused.
“The U.S. Department of Education has no authority to let boys into girls’ locker rooms,” Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said in a statement. “In the decades since its adoption, Title IX has been universally understood to protect the privacy and safety of women in private spaces like locker rooms and bathrooms.”
“Florida is suing the Biden administration over its unlawful Title IX changes,” Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis wrote on social media. “Biden is abusing his constitutional authority to push an ideological agenda that harms women and girls and conflicts with the truth.”
After announcing the finalization of the department’s new rules, Education Secretary Miguel Cardona told reporters, “These regulations make it crystal clear that everyone can access schools that are safe, welcoming and that respect their rights.”
The new rule does not provide guidance on whether schools must allow transgender students to play on sports teams corresponding with their gender identity to comply with Title IX, a question that is addressed in a separate rule proposed by the agency in April.
LGBTQ and civil rights advocacy groups praised the changes. Lambda Legal issued a statement arguing the new rule “protects LGBTQ+ students from discrimination and other abuse,” adding that it “appropriately underscores that Title IX’s civil rights protections clearly cover LGBTQ+ students, as well as survivors and pregnant and parenting students across race and gender identity.”
Federal Government
4th Circuit rules gender identity is a protected characteristic
Ruling a response to N.C., W.Va. legal challenges
BY ERIN REED | The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Monday that transgender people are a protected class and that Medicaid bans on trans care are unconstitutional.
Furthermore, the court ruled that discriminating based on a diagnosis of gender dysphoria is discrimination based on gender identity and sex. The ruling is in response to lower court challenges against state laws and policies in North Carolina and West Virginia that prevent trans people on state plans or Medicaid from obtaining coverage for gender-affirming care; those lower courts found such exclusions unconstitutional.
In issuing the final ruling, the 4th Circuit declared that trans exclusions were “obviously discriminatory” and were “in violation of the equal protection clause” of the Constitution, upholding lower court rulings that barred the discriminatory exclusions.
The 4th Circuit ruling focused on two cases in states within its jurisdiction: North Carolina and West Virginia. In North Carolina, trans state employees who rely on the State Health Plan were unable to use it to obtain gender-affirming care for gender dysphoria diagnoses.
In West Virginia, a similar exclusion applied to those on the state’s Medicaid plan for surgeries related to a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. Both exclusions were overturned by lower courts, and both states appealed to the 4th Circuit.
Attorneys for the states had argued that the policies were not discriminatory because the exclusions for gender affirming care “apply to everyone, not just transgender people.” The majority of the court, however, struck down such a claim, pointing to several other cases where such arguments break down, such as same-sex marriage bans “applying to straight, gay, lesbian, and bisexual people equally,” even though straight people would be entirely unaffected by such bans.
Other cases cited included literacy tests, a tax on wearing kippot for Jewish people, and interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia.
See this portion of the court analysis here:
Of particular note in the majority opinion was a section on Geduldig v. Aiello that seemed laser-targeted toward an eventual U.S. Supreme Court decision on discriminatory policies targeting trans people. Geduldig v. Aiello, a 1974 ruling, determined that pregnancy discrimination is not inherently sex discrimination because it does not “classify on sex,” but rather, on pregnancy status.
Using similar arguments, the states claimed that gender affirming care exclusions did not classify or discriminate based on trans status or sex, but rather, on a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and treatments to alleviate that dysphoria.
The majority was unconvinced, ruling, “gender dysphoria is so intimately related to transgender status as to be virtually indistinguishable from it. The excluded treatments aim at addressing incongruity between sex assigned at birth and gender identity, the very heart of transgender status.” In doing so, the majority cited several cases, many from after Geduldig was decided.
Notably, Geduldig was cited in both the 6th and 11th Circuit decisions upholding gender affirming care bans in a handful of states.
The court also pointed to the potentially ridiculous conclusions that strict readings of what counts as proxy discrimination could lead to, such as if legislators attempted to use “XX chromosomes” and “XY chromosomes” to get around sex discrimination policies:
Importantly, the court also rebutted recent arguments that Bostock applies only to “limited Title VII claims involving employers who fired” LGBTQ employees, and not to Title IX, which the Affordable Care Act’s anti-discrimination mandate references. The majority stated that this is not the case, and that there is “nothing in Bostock to suggest the holding was that narrow.”
Ultimately, the court ruled that the exclusions on trans care violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. The court also ruled that the West Virginia Medicaid Program violates the Medicaid Act and the anti-discrimination provisions of the Affordable Care Act.
Additionally, the court upheld the dismissal of anti-trans expert testimony for lacking relevant expertise. West Virginia and North Carolina must end trans care exclusions in line with earlier district court decisions.
The decision will likely have nationwide impacts on court cases in other districts. The case had become a major battleground for trans rights, with dozens of states filing amicus briefs in favor or against the protection of the equal process rights of trans people. Twenty-one Republican states filed an amicus brief in favor of denying trans people anti-discrimination protections in healthcare, and 17 Democratic states joined an amicus brief in support of the healthcare rights of trans individuals.
Many Republican states are defending anti-trans laws that discriminate against trans people by banning or limiting gender-affirming care. These laws could come under threat if the legal rationale used in this decision is adopted by other circuits. In the 4th Circuit’s jurisdiction, West Virginia and North Carolina already have gender-affirming care bans for trans youth in place, and South Carolina may consider a similar bill this week.
The decision could potentially be used as precedent to challenge all of those laws in the near future and to deter South Carolina’s bill from passing into law.
The decision is the latest in a web of legal battles concerning trans people. Earlier this month, the 4th Circuit also reversed a sports ban in West Virginia, ruling that Title IX protects trans student athletes. However, the Supreme Court recently narrowed a victory for trans healthcare from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and allowed Idaho to continue enforcing its ban on gender-affirming care for everyone except the two plaintiffs in the case.
Importantly, that decision was not about the constitutionality of gender-affirming care, but the limits of temporary injunctions in the early stages of a constitutional challenge to discriminatory state laws. It is likely that the Supreme Court will ultimately hear cases on this topic in the near future.
Celebrating the victory, Lambda Legal Counsel and Health Care Strategist Omar Gonzalez-Pagan said in a posted statement, “The court’s decision sends a clear message that gender-affirming care is critical medical care for transgender people and that denying it is harmful and unlawful … We hope this decision makes it clear to policy makers across the country that health care decisions belong to patients, their families, and their doctors, not to politicians.”
****************************************************************************
Erin Reed is a transgender woman (she/her pronouns) and researcher who tracks anti-LGBTQ+ legislation around the world and helps people become better advocates for their queer family, friends, colleagues, and community. Reed also is a social media consultant and public speaker.
******************************************************************************************
The preceding article was first published at Erin In The Morning and is republished with permission.
It’s game, set, and mismatch in unfulfilling ‘Challengers’
D.C. Council member proposes change for Mayor’s Office of LGBTQ Affairs
United Methodist Church removes 40-year ban on gay clergy
Republican state AGs challenge Biden administration’s revised Title IX policies
University students have a right to protest
HHS reverses Trump-era anti-LGBTQ rule
4th Circuit rules gender identity is a protected characteristic
PHOTOS: Capital Pride Pageant
New World Bank US executive director: LGBTQ rights are human rights
