Politics over the fate of transgender life in this country is taking an outsized amount of recent time, policymaking, and now court battles as Donald Trump has fully embraced a culture that is intent on saying there is no one for whom gender fluidity is presenting a danger.
Trump is pushing aggressive anti-trans politics as the face of the “woke” America that he thinks needs to be squashed wherever it appears. His anti-diversity, equity and inclusion war that wants to wipe away affirmative action hiring, promotion and civil rights has put trans women in the front window as a stand-in for an obsession that he sees as Radical Left and Democratic.
At heart, whether the specifics concern military participation, housing prisoners, overseeing high school and college athletics, allowing visas for the 2028 Olympics for trans competitors or governing bathroom use, the Trump program — backed by Republican majorities in Congress and presumably half the country — is basically that there is no problem. Trans people don’t exist. Or shouldn’t. Nor should “gender ideology,” a campaign favorite
By presidential order, there now are only two genders. For the Trump administration, the only question seems how to threaten and punish schools, hospitals, generals, foreign aid agencies, or leagues that say different — or that think the purpose of government is to defend the civil rights of difference. For Trump, scientists and doctors who know and treat this brand of difference are just wrong.
Other Trump directives suggest ending trans military service, requiring we house federal prison inmates by birth gender, set federal agencies on the hunt for violations of trans school sports team membership, and limit ongoing medical treatments in the military or for minors. In New York, two big hospitals that receive federal research grants have canceled treatments for teens over the threats — parental and medical approvals notwithstanding — only to face a counterthreat from the state over violation of civil rights discrimination.
Policies Have Consequences
This hyper-focus on trans lifestyle bans begs questions. The most obvious: Besides the obvious political “anti-woke” campaign, why are policies affecting trans people a matter for the government at all?
Where is are the policies and actions from this same government about guaranteeing the safety of trans people once these policies kick in? What bigger issues are we not addressing if we have Justice and other agencies focused on patrolling bathroom use and sports participation? If we want to “protect women,” why start with trans athletic competitions and not with equal pay or protected access to doctor-approved medical treatments? Did we learn nothing from Jim Crow-era laws in a pluralistic society?
It recalls statements by the Iranian government a decade ago denying that there were gay Iranians, and or repression of women. Or similar remarks by a Chechnyan leader denying that gays there were being oppressed because he said that Chechnya had no gays. Indeed, more than 70 nations still outlaw gay sex, and at least five hold out the possibility of death sentences upon conviction for homosexuality charges.
Until recently, common thinking in the U.S. was that those kind of exclusivist attitudes were abhorrent and inhumane, as well as incorrect. Still, it took more civil rights years than should have been necessary to recognize civil unions and same-sex marriage. The same kind of head-in-sand thinking seems to apply here, apparently out of some mix of religiosity and discomfort to think that people may want to put themselves through an intense self-examination, extended hormonal treatments, and even physical changes to come to terms with their gender identity.
Who decided this should be up to a public vote or a presidential order to decide for an individual and their medical and psychological advisors? Why do we care that Rep. Nancy Mace, R-SC, is upset about whether new Rep. Sarah McBride, D-Del., in the bathroom off the House floor at the same time? Work it out: Bathrooms in our apartment are unisex, Aren’t yours? I’ll believe more about protecting locker rooms when I see America turn away from over-sexualized advertising and glorification of sexiness on social media. Who really thinks that our children do not have more than enough exposure to gendered imagery by the time they are pre-teen?
Perhaps there are a few instances where the government needs to make decisions about how best to make arrangements about military medical insurance or prisoner conditions, but most questions arising about trans life simply seem to have no place in presidential thinking. Even regarding sports team eligibility, there are leagues and inter-school athletic associations that are setting medically reviewed standards for participation that are totally ignored or overruled in Trump’s orders.
Hey, Mr. Trump, while you’re at it, why not ban loneliness or depression? Maybe you have an order ready that addresses suicides or about the endless stream of disaffected young white men who get their hands on guns to commit mass shootings in our schools?
How Widespread an Issue?
The number of trans people in the country is believed well under 1 percent, according to the Williams Institute in Southern California. The number of self-identified trans soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines varies between 2,000 and 15,000 of 1.3 million, depending on who did a survey and when. Is the problem at hand about medical treatment requirements, as Trump has said, or morale, as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth asserts, or simply bias?
Just this week, two judges ordered that the military allow trans woman soldiers to return to place barracks for women. There has been no subsequent evaluation of change in miliary readiness or lethality — Hegseth’s self-described, if unmeasurable goals. If declaring a win for losing diversity is all for political purposes, these orders are militarily meaningless.
How big is the prison issue? There are some 1,500 federal prisoners who are transgender women, according to the Bureau of Prisons, though they represent 15 percent of those in women’s prisons. There are 750 transgender men among 144,000 in men’s prisons. Federal data shows that transgender prisoners are 10 times as likely to report being sexually victimized as other prisoners. Reassigning them to birth-gender prisons seems a guarantee for violence.
The details of one of the lawsuit filed over federal prison placement illustrates the effects. The transgender woman inmate involved challenged orders to house transgender women in men’s prisons by claiming due process concerns, discrimination over treatment of inmates by gender, and cruel and unusual punishment standard violations in denying medical treatments. The inmate’s lawyers argued that a transfer would create an “extremely high risk of harassment, abuse, violence, and sexual assault.”
It’s a taste of what’s to follow in other court suits. In a 1994 case called Farmer v. Brennan, the Supreme Court acknowledged the vulnerability of transgender inmates and held that the government has a duty to protect prisoners from violence. Halting treatments can result in adverse medical effects, another potential area for legal challenge from families affected by the orders.
The ACLU has filed suit on behalf of several transgender citizens challenging a new Trump policy that prevents people from changing gender markers on passports. Why should the government care?
At some point, the country needs to ask just what the public gains here besides ending the discomfort of those who refuse to recognize transgender neighbors as possibly questioning their inner selves. Couldn’t the same be said for same-sex marriage, interracial relationships and giving women the right to vote?
