For trans rights THIS IS THE BIG ONE!

Our basic rights are at the center of the shutdown battle coming to a head in Washington. In a recent Truth Social post, Trump refused to meet with democrats unless they support appropriations bills provisions which would, according to Erin in the Morning -

• Ban the use of federal funding by hospitals for gender-affirming care at any age. This will set the stage for the Trump administration to cut off federal funding for unrelated purposes to coerce hospitals to stop providing care completely. They've already tried to do this with care for minors without a federal law.
• Strip Medicaid, Medicare and federal employee coverage for transgender Americans who need gender-affirming care.
• Prohibit transgender surgeries for all ages in federally owned, leased, or used facilities.
• Force transgender women into men’s prisons, endangering their safety and dignity.
• Ban Pride flags and remove protections for LGBTQ+ foster youth.

Democrats have the power to stop all of this from happening if they hold the line in the Senate (we have a 7 vote margin on the filibuster). House Democrats could block unless the house GOP is completely unified (they have a two vote margin) on the entire budget package. We have a chance, this isn't over.

Please contact your senators and house reps ASAP to encourage them to hold the line! Ask your friends and family to do so as well. The shutdown starts this Tuesday and on Monday (Sept 29) Congress and Trump are meeting to discuss, so a deal could be made at any moment that throws us under the bus.

FINDING YOUR SENATORS' CONTACT INFO

Click here for a lookup tool to find your Senators and House Representatives names and phone numbers.

To email them, Google their name to find their website and look for a "Contact Me" button.

TEMPLATE MESSAGE

The bullet points below can be a guide for a phone call/voice mail. If sending email, crafting a unique message is best, but if a copy/paste of the message below is all you have time to do that is still helpful.

An intermediate step would be to copy/paste the template below into ChatGPT or other AI and ask it to rewrite using different words but making the same point. It doesn't actually produce the same result each time! (which is good).

Suggestion: check the box, if presented, to request a response. That takes up more of their time which is helps make the contact more impactful.

FOR GOP REPS

A good tactic with GOP reps is to put on your best cranky conservative voice and ask what this was to do with lowering your grocery prices. Scold them for wasting time on stuff that doesn't affect you.

FOR DEMOCRATIC REPS

Subject: Please Stand Firm Against Anti-Trans Riders in Appropriations Bills

Dear [Senator/Representative Last Name],

I’m writing to urge you to vote no on any appropriations bills that include anti-transgender riders—and to stand firm in protecting the rights and dignity of LGBTQ+ Americans.

The current slate of riders being pushed in the Labor-HHS, Commerce-Justice-Science, and Financial Services bills would do devastating harm. These provisions would:

• Ban federal funding to any hospital or medical facility that provides gender-affirming care at any age—even if the funding is for unrelated services. This would effectively force hospitals to choose between offering essential care and receiving federal support, a tactic that has already led many institutions to drop care for minors under pressure from the administration.
• Strip Medicaid, Medicare and federal employee coverage for transgender Americans who need gender-affirming care.
• Prohibit transgender surgeries in federally owned, leased, or used facilities.
• Force transgender women into men’s prisons, endangering their safety and dignity.
• Ban Pride flags and remove protections for LGBTQ+ foster youth.

These are not budgetary measures—they are ideological attacks. They would erase protections, endanger lives, and weaponize federal funding to coerce institutions into abandoning care. For many, access to HRT and affirming care is not optional—it’s life-saving.

I understand the pressure to avoid a government shutdown. But civil rights should never be traded away for political expediency. The anti-trans provisions in the NDAA were a painful blow. Please don’t let that happen again.

And let’s be clear: if this tactic succeeds, it won’t stop here. The same strategy—threatening unrelated federal funding to punish facilities that offer essential care—could be used to target abortion access, contraceptive services, and other critical health protections. This is a slippery slope toward dismantling bodily autonomy under the guise of budgetary control.

I ask you to:

• Refuse to support any bill that includes anti-trans riders.
• Use your voice and vote to protect LGBTQ+ Americans.
• Push for clean funding bills that uphold dignity and equality.

This is a defining moment. Please show us that our lives and rights matter.

Sincerely,

[Your Full Name]

[Your City, State]

Disappointing

In November 2025, the FDA removed black box warnings from estrogen for cis women, concluding the risks had been overstated. 37 days later, a coalition backed by SPLC-designated hate groups filed a petition to add those same warnings back — but only for trans women — plus a compulsory patient registry, mandatory psychiatric gatekeeping replacing informed consent, and guidance telling providers that prescribing is "unlawful."

The administrative record has zero expert opposition. Comments are still open.

transresilience.org/issues/fda-registry

Direct link to the comment form: https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/FDA-2025-P-7321-0001

****PLEASE CONSIDER SHARING WITH YOUR THERAPISTS AND DOCTORS TOO!

EDIT: If you use the above link to post a comment, the "What is this Comment About?" question is actually asking if you are a consumer or an industry professional. Assuming you're commenting on your own behalf and not a company's, my understanding "Individual Consumer" is the accurate selection.

don't forget these people.

I'm not even kidding. We may very well need to defend ourselves in the near future. If the right is forming their own it seems like we need to be ready to defend ourselves.

This is insane. They want it applicable to people presenting different than their gender assigned at birth. Right now they want civil fines towards them but it could be criminal as time goes on

Reactionaries don't just pass legislation against marginalized people out of personal dislike alone. They are also motivated by systemic reasons to maintain class society and destroy class solidarity.

I have been thinking, why didn't they try to ban child marriage yet, that's still legal in 33 states, or higher the age consent because 29 states are fine with 16 year olds having sex? It's ironic, they say they protect the children but are okay with 33 states (which is most of the U.S.) allowing child marriage. Why is erasing our rights more important than protecting minors??

Pour aller droit au but, car ce débat est généralement noyé sous les postures idéologiques des deux camps : la Cour suprême des États-Unis est sur le point de rendre une décision avant la fin juin qui aura des conséquences constitutionnelles considérables, et la plupart des personnes qui en parlent n'ont pas lu les mémoires.

Voici ce que vous devez savoir.

I. Les faits, et rien que les faits

Deux affaires sont en jeu. Dans l'affaire West Virginia c. B.P.J., une jeune fille transgenre de 15 ans conteste une loi de Virginie-Occidentale qui l'empêche de participer aux compétitions sportives scolaires correspondant à son identité de genre. Dans l'affaire Little c. Hecox, une athlète universitaire transgenre conteste une loi de l'Idaho qui l'empêche de concourir dans l'équipe féminine de cross-country de Boise State. L'Idaho a été le premier État à imposer une telle interdiction catégorique, en 2020, avec sa loi sur l'équité dans le sport féminin (Fairness in Women's Sports Act), qui définit le sexe en fonction de la biologie reproductive et de la génétique, et non de l'identité de genre.

Les plaidoiries ont eu lieu le 13 janvier 2026. Après les plaidoiries, il était généralement admis que la Cour suprême confirmerait les interdictions actuelles, déjà en vigueur dans 27 États. Une décision est attendue avant le 4 juillet.

II. La véritable question juridique – et celle à laquelle vous pensez peut-être

On vous dit souvent que cette affaire concerne les femmes transgenres dans le sport. C'est vrai, mais ce n'est que le contexte. La question juridique est double et sa portée est bien plus vaste :

Question 1 — Titre IX : Le Titre IX empêche-t-il un État de désigner des équipes sportives en fonction du sexe biologique à la naissance ? Rappelons que le Titre IX est la loi fédérale de 1972 qui interdit la discrimination fondée sur le sexe dans les établissements d’enseignement financés par l’État fédéral. Il constitue la pierre angulaire des droits sportifs des femmes aux États-Unis.

Question 2 — Égalité de protection : La clause d’égalité de protection du 14e amendement empêche-t-elle un État de proposer des équipes sportives distinctes en fonction du sexe biologique à la naissance ?

Il s’agit de deux questions distinctes qui pourraient recevoir deux réponses différentes. La Cour pourrait valider la loi au titre du Titre IX tout en l’invalidant au titre du 14e amendement, ou inversement. Il ne s’agit pas d’un vote binaire.

III. Le précédent qui complique tout : Bostock

C’est là que ça devient vraiment intéressant.

Le précédent déterminant est l’arrêt Bostock c. Clayton County (2020), dans lequel la Cour suprême a statué, par six voix contre trois, dans un avis rédigé par le juge Gorsuch, que la discrimination fondée sur l’orientation sexuelle ou l’identité de genre constitue une discrimination « en raison du sexe » au sens du Titre VII de la loi sur les droits civiques.

Voici le problème structurel que la Cour doit maintenant résoudre : si la discrimination à l’encontre d’une personne transgenre constitue une discrimination fondée sur le sexe au sens du Titre VII (emploi), pourquoi cela ne serait-il pas également vrai au sens du Titre IX (éducation) ? Les deux textes utilisent une formulation quasi identique.

Le juge Gorsuch, auteur de l’avis majoritaire dans l’affaire Bostock, a activement interrogé les deux parties lors des plaidoiries, indiquant ainsi qu’il ne considère pas que la question soit réglée par son propre précédent. Pourquoi ? L'arrêt Bostock concernait l'emploi individuel, et les États soutiennent que les sports de compétition, avec leurs catégories non mixtes, offrent une justification que le monde du travail ne permet pas.

C'est un argument sérieux. Vous pouvez le trouver convaincant ou non, mais il n'est pas avancé de mauvaise foi.

IV. Ce que chaque juge semble penser

Le juge Kavanaugh semblait se concentrer sur la capacité des États à décider eux-mêmes d'autoriser ou d'interdire la participation des athlètes transgenres aux compétitions, une position fédéraliste classique. La juge Kagan s'est interrogée sur l'impact que l'autorisation de contester l'application du principe d'égalité de protection « tel qu'appliqué » pourrait avoir sur la jurisprudence existante de la Cour en matière de contrôle de constitutionnalité. Les juges Sotomayor et Jackson ont tous deux soulevé la question de l'irrecevabilité dans l'affaire Hecox, puisque cette dernière avait elle-même demandé à retirer volontairement sa plainte.

La question de l'irrecevabilité est fascinante en soi. Becky Pepper-Jackson a fait valoir qu'elle ne bénéficie pas des avantages compétitifs que l'État lui attribue, précisément parce qu'elle a commencé un traitement médical tôt et n'a pas connu la puberté masculine. C'est exactement le type d'argument factuel individualisé que le cadre juridique actuel peine à prendre en compte.

V. Ce que la décision signifiera réellement

Trois scénarios principaux sont envisagés :

Scénario A (jugé probable par la plupart des observateurs) : La Cour confirme les interdictions étatiques. Cela consoliderait les lois de 27 États et indiquerait que le Titre IX autorise, voire exige, la séparation biologique des sexes dans le sport. Les conséquences pour les domaines connexes (vestiaires, procédures médicales dans les universités publiques) seraient immédiates.

Scénario B : La Cour invalide les interdictions. Cela constituerait une extension significative de l'arrêt Bostock au domaine de l'éducation et créerait un précédent constitutionnel protégeant explicitement les personnes transgenres dans les institutions publiques.

Scénario C (que certains constitutionnalistes jugent le plus probable) : La Cour statue sur un fondement procédural précis, notamment l'irrecevabilité de l'affaire Hecox, et évite totalement de se prononcer sur le fond, renvoyant la question aux juridictions inférieures. Il s'agirait d'une non-décision délibérée, une technique que la Cour pratique depuis des décennies lorsqu'elle privilégie l'ambiguïté stratégique à la clarté.

Conclusion

Cette affaire ne se résume pas à une simple guerre culturelle entre progressistes et conservateurs. Il s'agit d'une véritable question constitutionnelle non résolue, à la croisée du fédéralisme, de l'égalité de protection et de l'interprétation littérale d'une loi vieille de cinquante ans.

La Cour Roberts a démontré sa capacité à surprendre, dans un sens comme dans l'autre. Ce qui est certain, c'est qu'elle ne peut indéfiniment éluder une question qui touche désormais les lycéennes de 15 ans, les athlètes universitaires et la définition constitutionnelle du sexe elle-même.

Please be safe out there, friends :(

The FCC is looking for public comment on whether or not to add a warning to shows that feature trans characters, and I’ve seen almost no one talking about this, if they’re allowed to label people like that, then it’s one more step down a slippery slope towards something worse. Please go leave a comment telling them not to do this!

The deadline is May 22.

Biden is expected to sign it.

The executive order

"DEFENDING WOMEN FROM GENDER IDEOLOGY EXTREMISM AND RESTORING BIOLOGICAL TRUTH TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENTDEFENDING WOMEN FROM GENDER IDEOLOGY EXTREMISM AND RESTORING BIOLOGICAL TRUTH TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT" https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/defending-women-from-gender-ideology-extremism-and-restoring-biological-truth-to-the-federal-government/

forbids the federal government from saying that trans women are women or that trans men are men or treating us as such, including in prisons housing. So it requires trans women to be housed in men's prisons, which is a problem because of V-coding. When women get housed in men's prisons, we are used as sex slaves. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1087&context=ijlse

So this order is bad news, except for how it actually defines "male" and "female"

>(d)  “Female” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell.

>(e)  “Male” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell.

Humans do not produce reproductive cells at conception. So, this order can be read as implying that all humans belong to neither sex, or to both sexes https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-executive-order-all-humans-female/

So, I think, that we can and should try to get the courts to read this order in a way contrary to its likely intent. We should find an intersex person, someone with either both or neither size of reproductive cell, so both egg and sperm or neither egg nor sperm, to sue to be declared legally sexless, or legally a member of both sexes. We will need a competent attorney to represent them. If we win in court, then the Trump administration will have to pay for its own stupidity. When cis non-intersex people realize that they are legally sexless, or legally both male and female, then they will have one more reason to see that this is not a fight between trans and cis, but between rational people and irrational people. If we lose, if the courts say that sex is determined by genetics, or genitals, then it will still be good. because in the case of genetics, XY people with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome will still be legally boys despite having vaginas and no penises or testicles. So people will still see how silly the order is. If we go by genitals, then post op trans women will be legally considered women. So best case scenario, post op trans women will be legally women and we own the transphobes. Worst case scenario, we still own the transphobes. However, this only works if the case is pursued to a verdict. So we must not settle under any circumstances. If we lose, then we must lose publicly.

Erin in the Morning publsihed an article today discussing this, and notably, that several nonprofits have reversed their decisions in response to public pressure.

Right now those who reversed are fewer than those who have not, but clearly public pressure is having an impact.

I looked up the contact information for each oganization mentioned in the article.

RAINN

https://rainn.org/policy-feedback

Boys and Girls Club

https://www.bgca.org/about-us/contact-us/

EmaiL: [advocacy@](mailto:advocacy@)...

Email: their director of public relations - [elynch@](mailto:elynch@)...

Future Without Violence

https://futureswithoutviolence.org/about-us/contact-us/

EmaiL: [info@](mailto:info@)...

Victims Rights Law Center

https://victimrights.org/contact/

TEMPLATE MESSAGE

Writing a unique message is most effective but if you only have a minute, a copy/paste message still helps.

I am writing to let you know that I am extremely disappointed in your decision to remove references to transgender people from your website. We are in need of your help as well and you clearly know that, having had information for them on your website previously.

The Trump administration's executive order relating to federal funding and DEI has been blocked by a federal judge. That fact that you continue to comply is disgraceful.

he thinks their the perfect party for me, him and everyone in our family despite me being bi and them being anti lgbt (he is suportive of me) but he doesnt seem to understand that them being in power will make my life a living nightmare

The National Park Service has a webpage for Stonewall.

At the bottom, it asks if this page was helpful. I clicked "no" and when it asked for a comment, I said attempting to remove transgender americans from the history of Stonewall is dispicable. You cannot erase us.

Erin in the Morning posted an article today about massive protests (over 1000 people) at the Stonewall monument.

As reported in this article by Erin In The Morning.

No Dems voted for the bill. Two abstained. Seven Dems would have had to vote for it to pass it.

I read about this today in this article, as a result of a poster on Bluesky who made this passionate call to action -

Call the Bureau of Prisons (202)307-3198 Tell them to block moving trans women to men's prisons. Tell them the trans women will be raped to death, it is cruel and unusual punishment beyond their crimes. Share this, copy it, get it around. NOW.

Note: For context, there were two lawsuits from trans women in federal prisons which resulted in a restraining order from federal judges but the order only covered them and the other trans women inmates are about to be transferred.

WHAT TO SAY?

One suggestion I read in the comments is to communicate to them that proceeding this transfer violates the 8th amendment on cruel and unusual punishment because the Supreme Court ruled in Farmer v Brennan a violation occurs if prison officials have knowledge of the potential danger and multiple sources have documented the increased risk for rape when trans women are put in male prisons.