The bill, which includes criminal penalties, would affect many public spaces and prevent local protections. Also: An explanation of Law Dork's legislative coverage plans.
There are some extreme bills being introduced now that are too extreme even for the extremist (hard to believe, but true). They won't have a chance of passing, but they generate a whole lot of outrage and media coverage which can and does obscure the very real laws that _are_ getting passed. Laws that may not _seem_ as extreme, but are devastating
I’m a trans veteran. I love how my service in the Marine corps is met with police brutality (“because I’m a sissy faggot tranny”) book bans, because people didn’t die for the right to free speech or free press. And now in this “modern” America conservatives thank my service by saying I need papers to pee. Nazi germany lacked such restrictions, and dear Utah, Mormonism is a pyramid scheme! I follow Erin Reed’s excellent reporting pertains to anti trans legislation and it’s just disgusting. America is already an apartheid republic, I am ashamed of the country I serve and I miss feeling safe in a war zone. Even in Colorado there is the constant threat of police, and conservative right harassment, please send me back to the desert.
The bill provides a lot of verbiage to address a non-problem. The animus is apparent.
The defenses include matters that won't apply to various people (especially those in transition) and/or are vague (what "medical treatment" will be enough?). In actuality, the actual application will result in arbitrary reactions and abuse. The patina of reasonableness falls apart upon realistic study.
The nationwide nature of this effort -- in 2024 -- is appalling. But then this is a nation that no longer protects reproductive liberty as a national right of citizenship.
I feel & think we are already living in an already too fascist a country and I know I feel as though I am living jn an already too fascist state, Florida.
I am a lawyer and try to think methodically, analytically and rationally, but even I am becoming “Chicken Little” and want someone to tell me, “It’s going to be okay and that if you think methodically, analytically and rationally you will see that. But ever day’s state legislative and school board news tells me otherwise.
We don’t even have Trump again yet, but clearly we don’t even need him for the country to reach “Hell in a hand basket” stage . I fear that even if Biden is re-elected that I should make plans to move out of the country because of the GOP cruelty and active measures to turn this country into one with a caste system.
I have not ever used the word “terrified” as much as since T came down the Golden Trump Tower stairs or escalator. Can you imagine what this country will be like if he is elected or gets into the office in some other fashion such “civll war”?
Thank you for your coverage of these bills. I’m the mom of an amazing trans son who is in his second year of college. The ridiculous waste of time, resources and money that goes into this kind of intolerance is astounding to me, when there are so many positive things we could be doing for our communities and the country as a whole. And yes, Erin is amazing...been following her for nearly two years.
Really appreciate the pointer to other, differently focused coverage. It's an important part of specialist (that is to say, valuable) journalism that I think is underappreciated.
UT state legislature is elected to a two year term and sits for 45 days each year. When you're a part time worker the legislation you draft is subpar at best. Middle school bully's could've drafted this anti trans bill. The misogyny of the UT legislative branch of government,( 45 days isn't a co-equal branch if you can add ), patriarchy is showing just a little bit.
According to an Axios report, it isn't part-time legislative workers drafting this legislation, it's a handful of "Christian and conservative" groups:
"Groups such as the Alliance Defending Freedom, the Family Research Council, the Liberty Counsel and the American Principles Project are behind a multimillion-dollar effort targeting LGBTQ rights through "parents' rights" bills." - Axios, The forces behind anti-trans bills across the U.S.
And, as reported by Erin Reed, "The proposed legislation bears similarities to recent laws in Russia and Hungary, which similarly eradicated legal recognition of transgender people."
Yes others besides legislators frequently draft proposals for bills to become laws. My point is, think of a Venn diagram with three circles: one, large enough for 12 months a year Governor, executive branch duties, two, large enough for 12 months a year Judges, judicial branch duties, three, small enough for <6 months a year State Senators, Representatives, legislative branch duties. Have you heard the phrase: 3 co-equal branches of government for balance? Are the three Venn circles above representative of three co-equal branches of government in your eyes? Which of the 3 branches would be easiest to persuade?
While I have stayed away from politics and it's mechanizations aside from voting, I am aware of the three "co-equal" branches of government. I was surprised to find out, just last weekend, that my state legislature meets for only 60 days of the year. It led me to ask what they do the remaining 10 months of the year, aside form campaigning.
Getting to your Venn diagram, I do agree that they could be subject to additional persuasion from all sorts of groups, especially large-money donors, as it's simply not possible to read all the bills that come up in a single legislative session, and shortcuts, in their many forms, are used.
Do you think a longer session might influence their decision making or actions?
Plenty of legislatures aren't in session a full year, largely due to either population size, or costs or, or well that's just what they decided. Of note Montana is only in session in odd numbered years even though the Representatives are elected to 2 year terms.
In fact Nevada, North Dakota, and Texas do not have sessions this year.
🙏🏻Hey all, accept my apologies, please, for typos and poor grammar above! I still have not figured out how to edit comments when such errors are discovered after the fact.
If I'm reading this correctly, any trans person with pre- AND post-amendment documents can literally go into any "private spaces" they want, out and into the other. Too high a bar, I would say, but aren't there a few bold activists to drive home the stupidity?
I don't read it that way, and I think you're inaccurately describing an earlier birth certificate, for example, as still being a valid document once an amended birth certificate has been issued.
The fact that several states shirk their co-equal branch of government, ( Every states Executive branch works 12 months a year, Every states Judicial branch works 12 months a year ), duties is not a reason for UT legislators to limit it's co-equal branch of government duties resulting in insultingly poor draft legislation.
I'm a 75 year old cis-male, explaining (but not excusing) initial reactions to some LGBTQ issues. I embrace all humans, regardless of whether or not they conform to gender expectations. My head, though, engages old thoughts on Iowa's transgender bathroom law. It needs help rationally working through difficult social issues.
So, please disavow me of this apparently outdated initial reaction: most cis-gender females are shocked when seeing an outwardly appearing male in their designated private space. Since transgenders are a small minority among us, it is they who should be inconvenienced here.
First, are you a cisgender female in a private space? If not, which you say you are not, then I'm not sure your head's reaction to their experience is what matters here. (Also, I'd say "transgender people," not "transgenders" in the future.)
Second, there are countless other places where you could find answers to this — laid out over many years throughout town halls, PTA meetings, legislative debates, litigation, and detailed in articles and on websites — but, assuming good faith initially here, I would say that — using the example of schools — courts have regularly detailed how the students actually in the restrooms rarely are the ones with any issues. It's adults who find out that a transgender student is in the school and complain. More broadly, and more often than not, trans people in restrooms or other so-called private spaces are as if not more interested in maintaining their privacy while in the space. Litigation details how stalls or subdivided spaces are utilized to maintain privacy. Any disruptions regardless of gender identity, if they would occur, would be handled appropriately.
Finally, I think your use of "inconvenienced" is worth reflection. One, you just read — I hope — a piece about a proposed criminal law; this is not a matter of inconvenience. Two, often the impact of these bills would effectively bar trans people from those spaces. Should a trans woman presenting as a women but nonetheless barred from the women's restroom at City Hall under this law go into the men's restroom? Trust that a non-sex-segregated restroom will be there? Trust that she won't need to use the restroom? Or, stay home? Three, maybe we should all think a bit harder about why so much time and effort is being put into restricting the rights of a "small minority," as you say, to go about their lives.
I plead guilty to your charge of being lazy. In hindsight, I could probably do some private research and get a wealth of answers. Please don't mistake my laziness for a lack of good faith.
This thought now strikes me. Many of us older folks are confronting a new culture, and I strongly suspect that my initial thoughts are widespread. Perhaps there's something to learn from my "stupid question."
I don't think I'm alone in having trouble using the proper terminology in a lot of emerging social issues.
Would you prefer that I delete my question? How do I do that?
I definitely didn't call it a stupid question, to be clear. I just think, as you note, that it's a question that an answer could be found for a lot easier than by hoping for a response to a comment on a story. And, if I didn't think there was a likelihood of good faith in your question, I wouldn't have spent the time responding to it.
As to the terminology, understood. That's why I just noted it in parentheses.
I don't think you need to delete — especially now that we've both discussed a lot in it. Maybe, as you said, there will be something for someone else in it.
I'm another "old brain" (61, cis white male) but I'll offer a different take on "confronting a new culture".
I've been fortunate enough to have trans friends and colleagues for over half my life -- over three decades -- so this isn't really "new" culture. Transgender people have lived quietly amongst us for pretty much all time -- and like everyone else, they just want to get on with their lives the best they can and not get picked on for being "different".
What's "new" is the right-wing focus on trans issues and the attendant media coverage around this "outrage". Trans folk using the restrooms and changing rooms and everything else that best matches their identity and presentation has been happening for many, many decades -- and nothing bad happened! No one caused a fuss -- mostly, no one even noticed. The vast majority of cis folk probably didn't know trans people existed and, if asked, would have said they'd never met one.
This was the case for LGB folks for many decades too -- until they became the focus of hostility and finally, after years of campaigning and activism and legislative efforts around the world, got some level of acceptance. The majority of people (at least in the West) are supportive of LGB folks these days and the right-wing outrage machine is no longer as effective when trying to target them... so they've moved on to a smaller subset of "others" and blown the issue up out of all proportion to the number of actual trans people out there.
I've been an "out" bisexual for over 40 years at this point: I came out at university in England where LGBT folks were much more accepted back then than in America. Unfortunately, over the last couple of decades (since I emigrated to California), I've seen anti-trans sentiment steadily rise in my former home country and it breaks my heart to see what my friends there are having to deal with these days.
I truly hope we'll see the pendulum swing back toward tolerance and acceptance, and soon.
As a cis gender woman I have had to spend my life with a vigilance that cis gender men do not face. Being in a public bathroom with other women who are trans is not one of them. It is hard for me to watch my non-binary young adult child struggle with where to go to the bathroom when we are out together. Really if folks are concerned about women's safety, gun laws, reproductive freedom protections, the equal rights amendment, social safety net etc. would be much appreciated.
47 year old trans woman here. If it helps, I might try to add a little perspective based on my own experience. I currently live in a jurisdiction where trans people are given a lot of discretion to decide which bathroom we use, and it might be helpful to say something about what that is actually like.
When I first started transitioning about 10 years ago I used the men’s bathroom because when most people looked at me, they saw a man. It was safest and least inconvenient for everyone that I did so. After a few years though, my appearance had changed so much that everyone seeing me would automatically assume I’m a woman. I was slow at realising that this shift had happened and so for a while there I was using the men’s room while appearing female. What would happen almost always is that it caused conflict: men would ask me to leave, other women would sometimes follow me into the men’s (because in real life we often don’t look at signage and instead follow other people based on perceived gender) and then they would get annoyed at me. It happened so often that it forced me to use the womens purely to accommodate other peoples expectations. I was able to do this precisely because the law (in my jurisdiction) is flexible about how trans people use bathrooms.
Now consider what happens to me if I were in Utah under these laws. I don’t have the documentation that would constitute a legal defence, so now my choices are (a) use the men’s room and cause conflict every time, publicly outing myself every time I use the bathroom and opening up risk of violence (because yes, that does happen sometimes), (b) use the women’s and risk a criminal charge if I’m “caught”, or (c) no longer go out in public in Utah. In practice, the purpose of this legislation is to force trans people to make choice (c). In other words, this isn’t a mere “inconvenience” for us, it’s a blunt instrument to force us out of the public sphere.
Speaking as a cisgender female, I've actually used men's restrooms in a pinch. In fact a bunch of us used one in a night club because the line for the lady's room was too long. No one cared🤷♀️ Though the men were caught off guard after having their bathroom overtaken 🤣 Oh, and THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING PREVENTING A MAN WITH BAD INTENTIONS FROM HIDING IN THE LADY'S ROOM NOW. Funny how no one ever points that out🤔
The executive order — on minors' (nonexistent in state) surgeries — went into effect immediately and I imagine will not be challenged. The rules about all care were proposed and will have to go through the regular rules process so won't be in effect immediately. I'll try to follow up after the override questions are resolved to see where things stand on that, though.
Your coverage criteria is spot on.
There are some extreme bills being introduced now that are too extreme even for the extremist (hard to believe, but true). They won't have a chance of passing, but they generate a whole lot of outrage and media coverage which can and does obscure the very real laws that _are_ getting passed. Laws that may not _seem_ as extreme, but are devastating
And you're right: Erin is awesome. .
I’m a trans veteran. I love how my service in the Marine corps is met with police brutality (“because I’m a sissy faggot tranny”) book bans, because people didn’t die for the right to free speech or free press. And now in this “modern” America conservatives thank my service by saying I need papers to pee. Nazi germany lacked such restrictions, and dear Utah, Mormonism is a pyramid scheme! I follow Erin Reed’s excellent reporting pertains to anti trans legislation and it’s just disgusting. America is already an apartheid republic, I am ashamed of the country I serve and I miss feeling safe in a war zone. Even in Colorado there is the constant threat of police, and conservative right harassment, please send me back to the desert.
It's past time for my state, PA, to declare itself a sanctuary for transfolk fleeing Ohio and other anti trans states.
The bill provides a lot of verbiage to address a non-problem. The animus is apparent.
The defenses include matters that won't apply to various people (especially those in transition) and/or are vague (what "medical treatment" will be enough?). In actuality, the actual application will result in arbitrary reactions and abuse. The patina of reasonableness falls apart upon realistic study.
The nationwide nature of this effort -- in 2024 -- is appalling. But then this is a nation that no longer protects reproductive liberty as a national right of citizenship.
Thanks to you, Erin Reed, et. al. for your work.
I feel & think we are already living in an already too fascist a country and I know I feel as though I am living jn an already too fascist state, Florida.
I am a lawyer and try to think methodically, analytically and rationally, but even I am becoming “Chicken Little” and want someone to tell me, “It’s going to be okay and that if you think methodically, analytically and rationally you will see that. But ever day’s state legislative and school board news tells me otherwise.
We don’t even have Trump again yet, but clearly we don’t even need him for the country to reach “Hell in a hand basket” stage . I fear that even if Biden is re-elected that I should make plans to move out of the country because of the GOP cruelty and active measures to turn this country into one with a caste system.
I have not ever used the word “terrified” as much as since T came down the Golden Trump Tower stairs or escalator. Can you imagine what this country will be like if he is elected or gets into the office in some other fashion such “civll war”?
Thank you for your coverage of these bills. I’m the mom of an amazing trans son who is in his second year of college. The ridiculous waste of time, resources and money that goes into this kind of intolerance is astounding to me, when there are so many positive things we could be doing for our communities and the country as a whole. And yes, Erin is amazing...been following her for nearly two years.
The bill is a freaking insult to the constitution,
And that little bigot that wrote it is already playing the victim card
Really appreciate the pointer to other, differently focused coverage. It's an important part of specialist (that is to say, valuable) journalism that I think is underappreciated.
Chris,
UT state legislature is elected to a two year term and sits for 45 days each year. When you're a part time worker the legislation you draft is subpar at best. Middle school bully's could've drafted this anti trans bill. The misogyny of the UT legislative branch of government,( 45 days isn't a co-equal branch if you can add ), patriarchy is showing just a little bit.
According to an Axios report, it isn't part-time legislative workers drafting this legislation, it's a handful of "Christian and conservative" groups:
"Groups such as the Alliance Defending Freedom, the Family Research Council, the Liberty Counsel and the American Principles Project are behind a multimillion-dollar effort targeting LGBTQ rights through "parents' rights" bills." - Axios, The forces behind anti-trans bills across the U.S.
And, as reported by Erin Reed, "The proposed legislation bears similarities to recent laws in Russia and Hungary, which similarly eradicated legal recognition of transgender people."
Robert,
Yes others besides legislators frequently draft proposals for bills to become laws. My point is, think of a Venn diagram with three circles: one, large enough for 12 months a year Governor, executive branch duties, two, large enough for 12 months a year Judges, judicial branch duties, three, small enough for <6 months a year State Senators, Representatives, legislative branch duties. Have you heard the phrase: 3 co-equal branches of government for balance? Are the three Venn circles above representative of three co-equal branches of government in your eyes? Which of the 3 branches would be easiest to persuade?
While I have stayed away from politics and it's mechanizations aside from voting, I am aware of the three "co-equal" branches of government. I was surprised to find out, just last weekend, that my state legislature meets for only 60 days of the year. It led me to ask what they do the remaining 10 months of the year, aside form campaigning.
Getting to your Venn diagram, I do agree that they could be subject to additional persuasion from all sorts of groups, especially large-money donors, as it's simply not possible to read all the bills that come up in a single legislative session, and shortcuts, in their many forms, are used.
Do you think a longer session might influence their decision making or actions?
Plenty of legislatures aren't in session a full year, largely due to either population size, or costs or, or well that's just what they decided. Of note Montana is only in session in odd numbered years even though the Representatives are elected to 2 year terms.
In fact Nevada, North Dakota, and Texas do not have sessions this year.
.
"People should read LGBTQ media outlets that cover the news"
Joe.My.God is an aggregator (with links) of LGBTQ+ news that l value and visit regularly
https://www.joemygod.com/
.
🙏🏻Hey all, accept my apologies, please, for typos and poor grammar above! I still have not figured out how to edit comments when such errors are discovered after the fact.
If I'm reading this correctly, any trans person with pre- AND post-amendment documents can literally go into any "private spaces" they want, out and into the other. Too high a bar, I would say, but aren't there a few bold activists to drive home the stupidity?
I don't read it that way, and I think you're inaccurately describing an earlier birth certificate, for example, as still being a valid document once an amended birth certificate has been issued.
The fact that several states shirk their co-equal branch of government, ( Every states Executive branch works 12 months a year, Every states Judicial branch works 12 months a year ), duties is not a reason for UT legislators to limit it's co-equal branch of government duties resulting in insultingly poor draft legislation.
I'm a 75 year old cis-male, explaining (but not excusing) initial reactions to some LGBTQ issues. I embrace all humans, regardless of whether or not they conform to gender expectations. My head, though, engages old thoughts on Iowa's transgender bathroom law. It needs help rationally working through difficult social issues.
So, please disavow me of this apparently outdated initial reaction: most cis-gender females are shocked when seeing an outwardly appearing male in their designated private space. Since transgenders are a small minority among us, it is they who should be inconvenienced here.
First, are you a cisgender female in a private space? If not, which you say you are not, then I'm not sure your head's reaction to their experience is what matters here. (Also, I'd say "transgender people," not "transgenders" in the future.)
Second, there are countless other places where you could find answers to this — laid out over many years throughout town halls, PTA meetings, legislative debates, litigation, and detailed in articles and on websites — but, assuming good faith initially here, I would say that — using the example of schools — courts have regularly detailed how the students actually in the restrooms rarely are the ones with any issues. It's adults who find out that a transgender student is in the school and complain. More broadly, and more often than not, trans people in restrooms or other so-called private spaces are as if not more interested in maintaining their privacy while in the space. Litigation details how stalls or subdivided spaces are utilized to maintain privacy. Any disruptions regardless of gender identity, if they would occur, would be handled appropriately.
Finally, I think your use of "inconvenienced" is worth reflection. One, you just read — I hope — a piece about a proposed criminal law; this is not a matter of inconvenience. Two, often the impact of these bills would effectively bar trans people from those spaces. Should a trans woman presenting as a women but nonetheless barred from the women's restroom at City Hall under this law go into the men's restroom? Trust that a non-sex-segregated restroom will be there? Trust that she won't need to use the restroom? Or, stay home? Three, maybe we should all think a bit harder about why so much time and effort is being put into restricting the rights of a "small minority," as you say, to go about their lives.
Chris,
I can't thank you enough. I think you have an amazing mind. Thank you for sharing your truth with all of your readers and subscribers.
Thanks for your thoughtful and respectful reply.
I plead guilty to your charge of being lazy. In hindsight, I could probably do some private research and get a wealth of answers. Please don't mistake my laziness for a lack of good faith.
This thought now strikes me. Many of us older folks are confronting a new culture, and I strongly suspect that my initial thoughts are widespread. Perhaps there's something to learn from my "stupid question."
I don't think I'm alone in having trouble using the proper terminology in a lot of emerging social issues.
Would you prefer that I delete my question? How do I do that?
I definitely didn't call it a stupid question, to be clear. I just think, as you note, that it's a question that an answer could be found for a lot easier than by hoping for a response to a comment on a story. And, if I didn't think there was a likelihood of good faith in your question, I wouldn't have spent the time responding to it.
As to the terminology, understood. That's why I just noted it in parentheses.
I don't think you need to delete — especially now that we've both discussed a lot in it. Maybe, as you said, there will be something for someone else in it.
I'm another "old brain" (61, cis white male) but I'll offer a different take on "confronting a new culture".
I've been fortunate enough to have trans friends and colleagues for over half my life -- over three decades -- so this isn't really "new" culture. Transgender people have lived quietly amongst us for pretty much all time -- and like everyone else, they just want to get on with their lives the best they can and not get picked on for being "different".
What's "new" is the right-wing focus on trans issues and the attendant media coverage around this "outrage". Trans folk using the restrooms and changing rooms and everything else that best matches their identity and presentation has been happening for many, many decades -- and nothing bad happened! No one caused a fuss -- mostly, no one even noticed. The vast majority of cis folk probably didn't know trans people existed and, if asked, would have said they'd never met one.
This was the case for LGB folks for many decades too -- until they became the focus of hostility and finally, after years of campaigning and activism and legislative efforts around the world, got some level of acceptance. The majority of people (at least in the West) are supportive of LGB folks these days and the right-wing outrage machine is no longer as effective when trying to target them... so they've moved on to a smaller subset of "others" and blown the issue up out of all proportion to the number of actual trans people out there.
I've been an "out" bisexual for over 40 years at this point: I came out at university in England where LGBT folks were much more accepted back then than in America. Unfortunately, over the last couple of decades (since I emigrated to California), I've seen anti-trans sentiment steadily rise in my former home country and it breaks my heart to see what my friends there are having to deal with these days.
I truly hope we'll see the pendulum swing back toward tolerance and acceptance, and soon.
Hope that provides some useful context, Clarence?
As a cis gender woman I have had to spend my life with a vigilance that cis gender men do not face. Being in a public bathroom with other women who are trans is not one of them. It is hard for me to watch my non-binary young adult child struggle with where to go to the bathroom when we are out together. Really if folks are concerned about women's safety, gun laws, reproductive freedom protections, the equal rights amendment, social safety net etc. would be much appreciated.
Hi Clarence,
47 year old trans woman here. If it helps, I might try to add a little perspective based on my own experience. I currently live in a jurisdiction where trans people are given a lot of discretion to decide which bathroom we use, and it might be helpful to say something about what that is actually like.
When I first started transitioning about 10 years ago I used the men’s bathroom because when most people looked at me, they saw a man. It was safest and least inconvenient for everyone that I did so. After a few years though, my appearance had changed so much that everyone seeing me would automatically assume I’m a woman. I was slow at realising that this shift had happened and so for a while there I was using the men’s room while appearing female. What would happen almost always is that it caused conflict: men would ask me to leave, other women would sometimes follow me into the men’s (because in real life we often don’t look at signage and instead follow other people based on perceived gender) and then they would get annoyed at me. It happened so often that it forced me to use the womens purely to accommodate other peoples expectations. I was able to do this precisely because the law (in my jurisdiction) is flexible about how trans people use bathrooms.
Now consider what happens to me if I were in Utah under these laws. I don’t have the documentation that would constitute a legal defence, so now my choices are (a) use the men’s room and cause conflict every time, publicly outing myself every time I use the bathroom and opening up risk of violence (because yes, that does happen sometimes), (b) use the women’s and risk a criminal charge if I’m “caught”, or (c) no longer go out in public in Utah. In practice, the purpose of this legislation is to force trans people to make choice (c). In other words, this isn’t a mere “inconvenience” for us, it’s a blunt instrument to force us out of the public sphere.
Speaking as a cisgender female, I've actually used men's restrooms in a pinch. In fact a bunch of us used one in a night club because the line for the lady's room was too long. No one cared🤷♀️ Though the men were caught off guard after having their bathroom overtaken 🤣 Oh, and THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING PREVENTING A MAN WITH BAD INTENTIONS FROM HIDING IN THE LADY'S ROOM NOW. Funny how no one ever points that out🤔
Has DeWine’s administrative actions been challenged, when will they go into effect?
The executive order — on minors' (nonexistent in state) surgeries — went into effect immediately and I imagine will not be challenged. The rules about all care were proposed and will have to go through the regular rules process so won't be in effect immediately. I'll try to follow up after the override questions are resolved to see where things stand on that, though.