16 Comments
User's avatar
Brooklyn Ricky's avatar

Of course, legislating away basic human rights begins with the smallest population of peaceful people within a nation. Once that governmental superpower is unlocked all of our human rights are in jeopardy.

Let it happen to your neighbor and it’s going to happen to you. It’s called karma.

Defend your neighbors individual liberty as if it were your own: because it is.

Expand full comment
Talia Perkins's avatar

Thank you. Very good briefs on the three cases.

Expand full comment
Ellen Adele Harper's avatar

The decisions in these 3 cases will have impacts far beyond their direct issues. If the decisions negatively impact trans and l g b t q rights, they will signal a green light to attack us from every direction. But if scottish stands behind our rights it may significantly impede the attempts of our fasvist government. Unfortunately. I don't feel very good about this.

It's past time to start making connections within your real time communities. Start attending town council meetings. Link up with anybody who is working to support community rights, and build a support network for the poor the homeless the food insecure and the disabled. Community building is the only way we will survive this.

Sending love and joy to everyone.

Expand full comment
Susan Tuzzolino's avatar

Yes! Connecting with community is essential!! Thanks for this!

Expand full comment
Conor Bradley's avatar

The Supremely BIASED Supreme Court.

Expand full comment
Mike Gelt's avatar

Unfortunately the conservatives on the Supreme Court are nothing more than trump lackey’s and will probably give trump what he wants. I will be extremely surprised if any of these cases will go toward protecting the trans community

Expand full comment
Kevin Ajen's avatar

With Chiles v. Salazar, if the state is barred from restricting conversion therapy, are there (non-governmental) professional accreditation bodies that could revoke licensure from providers for practicing conversion therapy?

Also, is a slippery slope argument being used with this case? If conversion therapy falls under free speech, what is to stop a therapist from arguing that they can make sexual advances on clients because it's "free speech"?

Expand full comment
David's avatar

Wait, what? They force teachers to misgender themselves in their own classrooms without batting an eye, but when a therapist wants to actively harm their patient THEN they dare call on free speech? The level of hypocrisy is unbelievable.

Expand full comment
Sandra's avatar

Unfortunately I am not optimistic about any of these cases being resolved in the favor of trans people. It looks bleak. The supreme court has relentlessly done the administration’s bidding lately and there is no reason to think these cases will be different. The passport case is especially worrisome. as a ruling for the administration would essentially green-light open animus against trans people, and it would then tend to extend beyond just federal ID, though that alone is awful enough.

Welcome to the age of open cruelty as public policy. This seems almost surreal, but here we are.

Expand full comment
Leah Abram's avatar

At this point, I don't see the SCOTUS as a legitimate court but a rubber stamp for fascism. I think the decisions are pre-ordained and the SCOTUS will inevitably rule in favor of Trans genocide.

Expand full comment
Liz  Wilcox's avatar

By stating “protecting women…” it’s clearly discriminatory. Don’t the men deserve protection? Why would they be left out? Because it’s all nothing but bullshit. It’s distraction.

Expand full comment
Sarah F's avatar

Thank you, S, for this article. I had seen coverage of the conversion therapy arguments in the mainstream press, but I didn't feel strong enough to read it. I preferred waiting to hear about it from my transgender family.

Expand full comment
Carol Hunt's avatar

I'm confused about the passport case. Would it mean every trans person, even if they've changed their birth cert and already have a passport, would have to give up their passport? Or is this for people who had X on their gender marker?

Expand full comment
Sage 🌿's avatar

That's a bit up in the air at the moment. Currently, passports can be changed between M, F, and X according to the court injunction mentioned (I actually did this a couple of months ago). Trump is asking SCOTUS to overturn that injunction, which would disallow gender markers from being changed between M, F, or X. Erin has reported in the past that if SCOTUS rules in Trump's favor, the Trump admin has plans to reissue passports using the original gender marker. *I think* this would only happen with the passports changed during the injunction (a special document is required to change one's marker, making these changes easy to track), but I could be wrong.

Whether or not this would actually happen is up to debate. There would be a cost of a little over $100 per passport, making this a rather costly endeavor. Although, it seems no price is too high for this admin's hatred.

Expand full comment
Carol Hunt's avatar

Thank you for this info.

Expand full comment
Conor Bradley's avatar

These Republicans must ALL be PERVS AND PEDOS because they are OBSESSED with the Genitals of children. It's sick. No they should NOT get to examine genitalia to determine if they get discriminated against. Sickos!

Expand full comment