Connect with us

National

Still more marriage questions for Carney

W.H. won’t say whether Obama wants marriage in Dem platform or help in state efforts

Published

on

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney (Blade file photo by Michael Key)

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney faced new questions on marriage Thursday in the first time the spokesperson publicly talked to reporters following President Obama’s announcement in support of same-sex marriage.

In a press gaggle abord Air Force One en route to Seattle, Carney declined to answer inquiries on whether Obama wants to see an inclusion of same-sex marriage in the Democratic Party platform, nor would he would say whether Obama will commit to helping with efforts to pass same-sex marriage in states.

Asked whether Obama will move toward having “pro-gay marriage language in the Democratic national platform,” Carney deferred to the Democratic National Committee.

“Well, party platform issues are for the party to decide,” Carney said. “That process is underway, and I refer you to the DNC on the question about the platform.”

Carney similarly dodged in response to a question on whether Obama will be “outspoken when these issues come up in states” deliberating same-sex marriage.

“I’m not going to speculate about what he may say or statements he might issue,” Carney said. “He has on occasion made his position known on actions by individual states, most recently in North Carolina, and I’m sure that continues to be the case. That will continue to be the case.”

Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, said in response to Carney’s answer on the Democratic platform that those crafting the document should listen the president’s endorsement of same-sex marriage on Wednesday.

“Freedom to Marry’s call for a freedom to marry plank in the Democratic Party — a call that has won huge support from former party chairs, the convention chair, leaders in Congress, 22 senators, and over 40,000 signers on our online petition — continues full force,” Wolfson said. “The Democratic Party should do what the president did so beautifully yesterday: stand for the freedom to marry.”

Wolfson similarly said the onus is on supporters or marriage equality to advance same-sex marriage throughout the nation in the wake of Obama’s endorsement.

“We know that the president’s strong voice and clear message yesterday will have an enormous and ongoing effect in helping people wrestling with this question rise to fairness,” Wolfson said. “It’s the job of all the rest of us to go out and have the conversations that he described so well as helping change his mind.”

John Aravosis, who’s gay and editor of AMERICAblog, said he’s OK with giving Obama a short break after his endorsement of same-sex marriage, but wants to see further action from the president.

“I’m happy to give the president twenty-four hours of honeymoon before I start demanding he do more on marriage, but I do think the community will expect him, and the party, to follow through on his support of same-sex marriage,” Aravosis said. “And that would mean adding marriage equality to the party platform and speaking out more aggressively against anti-gay measures in the states, including those concerning marriage.”

Carney also took questions on the web video ad the Obama campaign on Thursday hyping Obama’s newfound support of same-sex marriage and criticizing Romney for supporting a Federal Marriage Amendment and not even supporting civil unions.

A transcript of the exchange between reporters and Carney during the gaggle follows:

Q: Jay, today the Obama campaign put out a web video that’s attacking Romney on his stance on rights for same-sex couples. Given that the President just came around on this, on the issue of gay marriage yesterday, doesn’t that seem hypocritical and politically motivated more than anything?

Carney: Well, I would refer you to the campaign to talk about ads or videos that they put out.  The president noted in his interview when it came up yesterday with Robin Roberts of ABC, that his opponent, Governor Romney, has a starkly different view of these issues, and a starkly different view of the policy issues, even prior to the president’s announcement yesterday that he had come to the conclusion that he personally supports same-sex marriage.

Gov. Romney is for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would enshrine discrimination into our founding legal document. The president thinks that’s wrong. So their positions were starkly different before yesterday.

Q: The campaign or the president —

Carney: If you want to ask the campaign about its tactics I think you ought to ask the campaign about its tactics. The president was very clear in his interview with Robin Roberts about what his personal beliefs are. The president’s record on these issues of supporting LGBT rights is long and impressive and clear, and he’ll continue to fight to expand and protect the rights of all American citizens.

Q: Can you tell us whom — after he gave his interview, to whom has the president spoken personally, both on the gay advocacy side, and also perhaps on the other side in terms of any religious leaders or people who might want to get an explanation from him about his stance?

Carney:  I don’t have any conversations of the president to read out to you. The president had quite a busy day yesterday, and it continued to be busy after his interview.

Q: And do you suspect that at any point he would just point that out?

Carney: I wouldn’t — I couldn’t predict on that.

Q: Is the president excited to talk about this issue tonight now that he’s going to be doing a fundraiser in California among probably a lot of people who are very supportive of gay marriage? This is sort of the first chance he’ll have to talk about it since revealing his view.

Carney: I think the President has always been clear about his support for LGBT rights and the actions that he’s taken, including repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell”; the fact that he has long opposed the Defense of Marriage Act; the fact that he and the Attorney General, and therefore the administration, have deemed Section 3 of DOMA to be unconstitutional, and therefore the decision not to continue to defend it.

But look, the President’s focus, as I think he also said yesterday in his interview, has been and will continue to be on jobs and the economy.  That’s been the — creating greater security for a middle class in this country that has been under stress for a long time, even predating the Great Recession, has been number-one priority.  It was his number-one priority when he ran for office, for this office, and it has been his priority since he took the oath of office.  And I think you will hear him focus on those issues just as he has — going forward, just as he has in the past.

Q: Will he move to repeal DOMA officially, and have pro-gay marriage language in the Democratic national platform?

Carney: Well, party platform issues are for the party to decide. That process is underway, and I refer you to the DNC on the question about the platform.

The president’s belief that DOMA ought to be repealed is well stated. I’m not aware of the status of the legislative efforts aimed at repeal, but the president certainly supports that and has for quite a long time. I would note that he opposed DOMA back in 1996 and has opposed it ever since.

Q: Why not repeal it?

Carney: He believes it should be repealed.

Q: But why doesn’t he push to repeal to it?

Carney: I said it every time I’ve been asked about the President’s record on the Defense of Marriage Act. I mean, it’s not a “why not” question, it’s a “yes, we know” answer.

Q: Jay, the President is saying that this is a — and the White House is saying this is a states’ issue now. But will the President be outspoken when these issues come up in states about whether they should pass or not?

Carney: I’m not going to speculate about what he may say or statements he might issue. He has on occasion made his position known on actions by individual states, most recently in North Carolina, and I’m sure that continues to be the case. That will continue to be the case.

But I can’t predict when that will take place or with regards to what state issue. The president believes it is a matter for the states. He personally believes that gay and lesbian Americans ought to be able to — who are in committed, loving relationships ought to be able to marry.  But he also — and I think it’s important to note — is respectful of those who disagree. He, after all, traveled some distance to reach this personal decision, and he understands that the whole country has been considering this issue and struggling with it. And we’ve seen a remarkable evolution in the broader public with regards to LGBT rights in general, and specifically with regards to same-sex marriage.

Q: So if he respects people on the other side, why go after Romney?

Carney: You can respect somebody and strongly disagree. And he absolutely disagrees with efforts to — this is the distinction, Jim: He’s respectful of those who don’t agree with him on same-sex marriage. He vehemently disagrees with those who would act to deny Americans’ rights or act to take away rights that have been established in states. And that has been his position for quite a long time.

Q: Could you tell us — did he mention anything this morning at all about how he felt about the announcement yesterday or the impact it’s having so far?

Carney: I’m not going to read out internal discussions, but I think the President was glad to have the opportunity that he had yesterday to speak to the country about his views on this matter and about the journey he’s traveled on it — about the profound importance of equality, about the underlying principle that guided him as he came to this decision.

He cited the Golden Rule and the need to treat others as you would have them treat you.  He spoke about sort of the three areas that affected him as he was dealing with this and thinking about it:  conversations with friends and family and staff members, some of whom are in committed same-sex relationships.  The effect that conversations he had with members of our armed services during the fight to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell.”  And certainly his observation of and consideration of the various ways that states have been grappling with this issue, which he spoke about during his interview.

And I think those — all of those went into the process for him — a process that was a very personal one, as he discussed yesterday in his interview.

Q: When did the president came to that conclusion? I mean, we know he said to Robin Roberts in their interview that he had already decided to publicly take this position. So did he come to the conclusion weeks ago, months ago? When was that evolution complete?

Carney: I don’t have a specific date for you. Like I said, this was a very — this was not a policy debate within the White House or the administration. This was a personal decision about his personal views. I think it’s fair to say that within the last several months he had come to the decision that he talked about yesterday and had concluded that he wanted to convey his views on this to the American people sometime in the next several weeks or months. It wasn’t going to be this week, but because of the considerable focus on the issue this week, the President decided it might as well be this week.

Q: What effect did your — the grilling you got Monday at the briefing have on his sense of expediting this? Did he say anything to you about it?

Carney: I think — part of my job, and I think it reinforced the fact that this had become an issue that was getting a great deal of attention and focus, but certainly not about me.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

The White House

Hundreds protest ICE killing of Renee Nicole Good in D.C.

Married queer woman shot in Minneapolis on Wednesday

Published

on

Hundreds of people took to the streets of D. C. on Thursday night to protest the killing of a U.S. citizen by a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent.

Protests began at the busy — and increasingly queer — intersection of 14th and U Streets, N.W. There, hundreds of people held signs, shouted, and made their way to the White House to voice their dissent over the Trump-Vance administration’s choice to increase law enforcement presence across the country.

The protest, which also occurred simultaneously in cities large and small across the country, comes in the wake of the death of Minneapolis resident Renne Nicole Good at the hands of ICE Agent Jonathan Ross. Good left behind two children and a wife, Rebecca Good.

Records obtained by the Associated Press found that Ross was an Iraq War veteran and nearly two decades into his career with U.S. Border Patrol and ICE.

Good was gunned down just blocks away from where George Floyd was killed by police in 2020, sparking weeks of national protests. Minnesota officials say the FBI has blocked their access to an investigation into the fatal shooting, according to a BBC story published on Friday.

In the nation’s capital, protesters marched from the intersection of 14th and U Street to Lafayette Square, right outside the White House. Multiple D.C. organizations led the protest, most notably Free DC, a nonprofit that works to ensure the right of “self-determination” for District residents, as many local laws can be reviewed, modified, or overturned by Congress. Free DC had organized multiple protests since the Trump-Vance administration was elected.

The Washington Blade spoke to multiple protesters towards the tail end of the protest about why they came out.

Franco Molinari, from Woodbridge, Va., crossed the Potomac to partake in his first-ever protest.

“I don’t appreciate ICE and the use of federal agents being pretty much militarized against America,” Molinari said while holding a “Justice for Renee” sign. “The video of Renee being executed cartel style in her car was enough for me to want to come out, to at least do something.”

Molinari, like many others the Blade spoke with, found out about the protest on Instagram.

“It was my friend there, Sarah … had sent a link regarding the protest to a group chat. I saw it in the morning, and I thought, ‘You know what, after work, I’m head out.’”

He also shared why protesting at the White House was important.

“I already saw the response that the president gave towards the murder of Renee, and it was largely very antagonizing,” Molinari said.

President Donald Trump, along with federal leaders under him, claimed that Good “violently, willfully and viciously ran over the ICE officer.” The president’s claims have been widely discredited through multiple videos of the incident, which show Good was attempting to leave the scene rather than attacking the officer.

“I hope that anybody would be able to see that and see the response and see for themselves that it just is not correct,” Molinari said.

The Blade also spoke with leftist influencer Dave the Viking, who has more than 52,000 followers on TikTok, where he posts anti-fascist and anti-Trump videos.

“We’re out here to make sure that this regime can’t rewrite history in real time, because we all know what we saw … we’re not going to allow them to run with this narrative that they [ICE agents] were stuck in the snow and that that poor woman tried to weaponize her car, because we all saw video footage that proves otherwise,” he told the Blade. “We’re not going to let this regime, the media, or right-wing influencers try to rewrite history in real time and try to convince us we didn’t all see what we know we saw.”

Dave the Viking continued, saying he believes the perceived power of ICE and other law enforcement to act — oftentimes in deadly and unjustifiable ways — is a product of the Trump-Vance administration.

“There’s a line between fascism and anti-fascism. These motherfuckers have been pushing that envelope, trying to label an idea a terrorist organization, to the point of yesterday, crossing that line hardcore. You face the point of looking at history and saying there was this 1989, 2003 America, where we’re just going in, raiding resources. Where is this fucking 1930s Germany, where we’re going in and we’re about to just start clearing shit and pulling knots? Yeah, nope. We proved that shit yesterday.”

Two people were injured in another shooting involving federal agents, this time Border Patrol in Portland, Ore., on Thursday afternoon.

KC Lynch, who lives near American University, also spoke about her choice to protest with a group.

“I came out today because everything that ICE has done is absolutely unacceptable, not only killing this one woman, but also the fact that they’ve been imprisoning people in places that are literally, that have been literally on record by international organizations shown to be human rights violating. It’s unbelievably evil.”

Lynch also echoed Dave’s opinion about parallels between the Trump-Vance administration and the rise of Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany.

“It’s literally what happened before the Holocaust. We should all be scared. We should all be angry. I’m so angry about it … even talking about it — I’m sorry,” she said before getting choked up.

Lynch emphasized that despite the circumstances in which people were protesting together, the sense of community was strong and powerful.

“I feel like it’s important for people to know that we’re angry, even if no policy changes come out of it, and it’s just nice to yell and be angry about it, because I feel like we’ve probably all been feeling this way, and it’s nice to be around people that are like minded and to like have a sense of community.”

Continue Reading

Minnesota

Reports say woman killed by ICE was part of LGBTQ community

Renee Nicole Good shot in Minneapolis on Wednesday

Published

on

(Screen capture via @maxnextsterak/X)

A U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent shot and killed a woman in Minneapolis as she attempted to drive away from law enforcement during a protest on Wednesday.

The Star Tribune newspaper identified the victim as Renee Nicole Good, 37, a Minneapolis resident who lived blocks from where she was shot in the Central neighborhood, according to reports. Donna Ganger, Good’s mother, told the Star Tribune that her daughter lived in the Twin Cities with her wife.

Multiple videos of the shooting have gone viral on social media, showing various angles of the fatal incident — including footage that shows Good getting into her car and attempting to drive away from law enforcement officers, who had their weapons drawn.

In the videos, ICE agents can be heard telling Good to “get out of the fucking car” as they attempted to arrest her. Good, who press reports say was married to a woman, ended up crashing her car into an electric pole and other vehicles. She was later transported from the scene of the shooting and died at the hospital.

President Donald Trump defended the ICE agent on Truth Social, saying the officer was “viciously” run over — a claim that coincides with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s assessment of the situation. Noem, a South Dakota Republican, insisted the officer “fired defensive shots” at Good after she attempted to run over law enforcement agents “in an attempt to kill them — an act of domestic terrorism.”

Multiple state and local officials disputed claims that the shooting was carried out in self-defense at the same time Noem was making those assertions.

An Instagram account that appears to belong to Good describes her as a “poet and writer and wife and mom and shitty guitar strummer from Colorado; experiencing Minneapolis, MN,” accompanied by a rainbow flag emoji.

A video posted to X after the shooting shows a woman, reportedly her wife, sitting on the ground, crying and saying, “They killed my wife. I don’t know what to do.”

“We’ve dreaded this moment since the early stages of this ICE presence in Minneapolis,” Mayor Jacob Frey said during a Wednesday press conference. “Having seen the video myself, I want to tell everybody directly that [the DHS’s claim of self-defense] is bullshit. This was an agent recklessly using power that resulted in somebody dying, getting killed.”

“I have a message for ICE. To ICE, get the fuck out of Minneapolis,” Frey continued. “We do not want you here. Your stated reason for being in this city is to create some kind of safety, and you are doing exactly the opposite. People are being hurt. Families are being ripped apart. Long-term Minneapolis residents that have contributed so greatly to our city, to our culture, to our economy are being terrorized, and now somebody is dead. That’s on you, and it’s also on you to leave.”

Across the Capitol, members of the House and the Senate condemned the actions of the officer.

“There’s no indication she’s a protester, there’s nothing that at least you can see on the video, and therefore nothing that the officers on the ground could see that identify her as someone who’s set out to try to do harm to an ICE officer,” U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said Wednesday night on MS NOW’s “The Weeknight.”

“There is no evidence that has been presented to justify this killing,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said in a statement on his website. “The masked ICE agent who pulled the trigger should be criminally investigated to the full extent of the law for acting with depraved indifference to human life.”

“ICE just killed someone in Minneapolis,” U.S. Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) the highest-ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, posted on X. “This administration’s violence against communities across our country is horrific and dangerous. Oversight Democrats are demanding answers on what happened today. We need an investigation immediately.”

In a statement to the Advocate, Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson wrote, “Today, a woman was senselessly killed in Minneapolis during an ICE action — a brutal reminder that this agency and the Trump regime put every community at risk, spreading fear instead of safety. Reports that she may have been part of the LGBTQ+ community underscore how often the most vulnerable pay the highest price.”

National LGBTQ Task Force President Kierra Johnson also responded to Good’s death.

“We recognize and mourn the loss of Renee Nicole Good and extend our condolences to her family, loved ones, and community,” said Johnson in a statement. “This loss of life was preventable and reprehensible, particularly coming at the hands of federal agents.”

Continue Reading

National

U.S. in midst of ‘genocidal process against trans people’: study

Attacks rooted in Nazi ideology’s views on gender

Published

on

President Trump’s administration has orchestrated myriad attacks on the trans community. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

Earlier this week, the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention and Human Security issued a haunting warning. Dr. Elisa von Joeden-Forgey, president of the Lemkin Institute, stated that the U.S. is in the “early-to-mid stages of a genocidal process against trans and nonbinary and intersex people.” Dr. Gregory Santon, former president of the International Association of Genocide Scholars, flags “a hardening of categories” surrounding gender in a “totalitarian” way. 

Stanton argues that this is rooted in Nazi ideology’s surrounding gender — this same regime that killed many LGBTQIA individuals in the name of a natural “binary.” As Von Joeden-Forgey said, the queer community, alongside other “minority groups, tends to be a kind of canary in the coal mine.” 

In his first year in office, Trump and his Cabinet’s anti-trans rhetoric has only intensified, with a report released late September by journalist Ken Klippenstein in which national security officers leaked that the FBI is planning to classify trans people as “extremists.” By classifying trans people as “Nihilistic Violent Extremists,” far-right groups would have more “political (and media) cover,” as Abby Monteil reports for them, for anti-trans violence and legislation. 

While the news is terrifying, it’s not unprecedented – the fight against trans rights and classification of trans people as violent extremists was included in Project 2025, and in the past several weeks, far-right leaders’ transphobic campaign has expanded: boycotting Netflix to pressure the platform to remove trans characters, leveraging anti-trans attack ads in the Virginia governor’s race and banning professors from acknowledging that trans people exist. In fact last month, two Republican members of Congress called for the institutionalization of trans people

It’s a dangerous escalation of transphobic violence that the Human Rights Campaign has classified as an epidemic. According to an Everytown for Gun Safety report published in 2020, the number of trans people murdered in the U.S. almost doubled between 2017 and 2021. According to data released by the Gun Safety report from February 2024, 34 percent of gun homicides of trans, nonbinary, and gender expansive people remain unsolved

As Tori Cooper, director of Community Engagement for the Transgender Justice Initiative for the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, this violence serves a purpose. “The hate toward transgender and gender expansive community members is fueled by disinformation, rhetoric and ideology that treats our community as political pawns ignoring the fact that we reserve the opportunity to live our lives full without fear of harm or death,” Cooper said.

“The genocidal process,” Von Joeden-Forgey said, “is really about destroying identities, destroying groups through all sorts of means.” And just like the Nazi regime, former genocide researcher Haley Brown said, the Trump administration is fueling conspiracy theories surrounding “cultural Marixsm” — the claim that leftists, feminists, Marxists, and queer people are trying to destroy western civilization. This term, Brown states, was borrowed directly from the Nazi’s conspiracies surrounding “Cultural Bolshevism.”

As Brown explains, historians are just beginning to research the Nazis’ anti-trans violence, but what they are finding reveals a terrifying pattern wherein trans people are stripped of their identification documents, arrested and assaulted, and outright killed. 

Before World War II, Germany – especially Berlin – was a hub for transgender communities and culture. In 1919, Dr. Magnus Hirschfield, a Jewish gay sexologist and doctor, founded the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft, the Institute for Sexual Science. The Institute was groundbreaking for offering some of the first modern gender-affirming healthcare, with a trans-affirming clinic and performing some of the first gender-affirming surgeries in the 1930s for trans women Dora Richter and Lili Elbe. 

Researchers at the institute coined the term “trassexualism” in 1923, which while outdated now, was the first modern term that Dr. Hirschfield used when working with Berlin police to acquire “transvestite passes” for his patients to help them avoid arrest under public nuisance and decency laws. During the Weimar Republic, trans people could also change their names although their options were limited. In Berlin, queer press flourished after World War I along with a number of clubs welcoming gay, lesbian and trans clientele, including Eldorado, which featured trans performers on stage. 

But as Hitler rose to power, trans people were targeted. In 1933, Nazi youth and members of the Sturmabteilung ransacked the institute, stealing and burning books – one of the first book burnings of the Nazi regime. German police stopped recognizing the “transvestite” passes and issuing new ones, and under Paragraph 175, which criminalized sexual relationships with men, trans women (who were misgendered by the police) were arrested and sent to concentration camps. 

As the Lemkin Intsitute for Genocide Prevention and Human Security wrote in a statement

“The Nazis, like other genocidal groups, believed that national strength and existential 

power could only be achieved through an imposition of a strict gender binary within the racially pure ‘national community.’ A fundamentalist gender binary was a key feature of Nazi racial politics and genocide.”

History professor Laurie Marhoefer wrote for The Conversation that while trans people were targeted, there was not extensive discussion of them by the regime. But there was evidence of the transphobia behind the regime’s violence, specifically in Hermann Ferdinand Voss’s 1938 book “Ein Beitrag zum Problem des Transvestitismus.”Voss noted that during the Nazi regime, trans people could and were arrested and sent to concentration camps where they underwent forced medical experimentation (including conversion therapy and castration) and died in the gas chambers.

While there is growing recognition that gay, bisexual, and lesbian individuals were targeted during the Holocaust, few know about the trans genocide through which trans individuals were arrested, underwent forced castration and conversion therapy, and were outright killed alongside gay, lesbian, disabled and Jewish individuals in concentration camps. Historians are just beginning to undertake this research, writes Marhoefer, and to delve further into the complex racial hierarchies that affected how trans people were treated. 

As Zavier Nunn writes for Past & Present, trans people of “Aryan” racial status and those not considered to be homosexuals were sometimes spared from the worst violence and outright murder. Depending on their skills, they could even be considered for rehabilitation into the Volksgemeinschaft, or Nazi utopian community. As Nunn highlights, trans violence was much more nuanced and individualized and should be explored separately from violence against gay and lesbian individuals during the Holocaust.

Marhoefer’s research of violence against trans women, as recorded in police files (as is the persecution of gay and lesbian individuals), is groundbreaking but rare. He gave a talk at the Museum of Jewish Heritage in 2023, shortly after a 2022 civil lawsuit about denial that trans people were victims of the Holocaust. The German court recognized that trans people were victimized and killed by the Nazi regime, but in the United States, there is still a hesitancy by the wider LGBTQ community and leftist groups to acknowledge that we are living during a time of anti-trans violence, that trans people are being used as political scapegoats in order to distract from real problems of accountability and transparency around government policy.

As anti-trans legislation escalates, it’s important to remember and call out how trans violence is not only a feminist issue, it’s a human rights one as well. While Shannon Fyfe argues that the current campaigns against trans people may not fit the traditional legal definition of a genocide, the destruction and denial of life saving care, access to public spaces, and escalating violence is still immensely devastating. 

Kaamya Sharma also notes that the term “genocide” has deep geo-political implications. As she explained, “western organisations are, historically and today, apathetic to the actual lives of people in the Global South, and put moral posturing above Brown and Black lives,” so the choice to use “genocide” is a loaded one. But as the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention and Human Security writes in the same statement: “The ideological constructs of transgender women promoted by gender critical ideologues are particularly genocidal. They share many features in common with other, better known, genocidal ideologies. Transgender women are represented as stealth border crosses who seek to defile the purity of cisgender women, much as Tutsi women were viewed in Hutu Power ideology and Jewish men in Nazi antisemitism.”

Trans people are not extremists, nor are they grooming children or threatening the fabric of American identity – they are human beings for whom (like all of us) gender affirming care is lifesaving. As we remember the trans lives lost decades ago and those lost this year to transphobic violence, knowing this history is the only way to stop its rewriting.  

Continue Reading

Popular