The right has been spreading outrageous lies, claiming that kids are going to school as one gender and coming home as another after "impromptu surgeries." The writer points out how absurd this idea is: surgeries, especially gender-affirming ones, aren’t done in schools, don’t happen on a whim, and certainly aren’t performed on minors without extensive parental involvement. It’s a scare tactic with no basis in reality. by Vivian McCall Lately, Donald Trump has been spreading a ridiculous lie that kids are going to school one gender and arriving home another. I wanted to explain how a person doesn’t have to know anything about transgender people, schools, or medicine to know this isn’t true. A little boy isn’t going to come skipping home from school a little girl after an impromptu genital gender-affirmation surgery because gender-affirmation surgeries are not impromptu, are rarely performed on minors, and are never performed on minors without parental consent. They’re not performed in schools at all because schools don’t have operating rooms. Even if there was enough time in a school day to rush a kid to the hospital, this is not a check-up. Nobody waltzes out of the hospital after a major surgery. Think for one second and it makes no fucking sense. Then I heard Trump say that the Democrats want gender surgeries for “almost everyone in the world” because they’re evil. Suddenly, it felt kind of futile and stupid to write a sarcastic, reasonable explanation of the facts because the floor for what Trump is willing to say about transgender people is a chasm.  By his telling, the people cheer him on when he mentions “transgender” at his rallies, and he’ll do anything for the applause. This fervor is also why the hundreds of failed anti-trans bills—or polling that shows Americans by and large don’t really give a shit about trans issues and would rather talk about the economy—won’t dissuade Republicans from launching more anti-trans campaigns and introducing hundreds more bills restricting LGBTQ civil rights. During the World Series, viewers were subjected to anti-trans and anti-abortion ads so graphic that networks issued content warnings explaining that legally they have to air anything a qualified political candidate pays for. We’re not having a rational conversation about trans issues in this country, we’re watching a panic attack about the threat trans people supposedly pose to the concept of gender and the nuclear family. My better angels want me to tell conservatives about the trans people who want children with their spouses, or still love the ones they had before coming out. But if someone believes Big Gender is an evil enterprise, it’ll take someone they love coming out for them to recognize the groomer talk as the manipulative fiction it is. It will always be easier to hate some blue-haired apparition lurking in the shadows of your mind than your childhood buddy Jim when she tells you to call her Linda. For obvious reasons, the possibility of a Trump victory is freaking out people in the queer community, even here in Washington, with our protective laws and Democrat-dominated Legislature. Because what Trump says and does are often different things, they’re unsure of the implications for their health care, their families, their marriages, and their futures.  What We Can and Should Worry About at the Federal Level In 2023, Penny Nance, CEO of the Christian nonprofit Concerned Women for America, asked Donald Trump to sign a pledge that if he won in 2024, he’d direct all federal agencies to uphold that a person’s “gender identity” doesn’t overrule their “sex.” Pledge or no pledge, nothing Trump did as president or has said during this campaign indicates he wouldn’t. While in power, Trump appointed a slate of anti-LGBTQ judges. He banned transgender people from serving in the military and weakened their already tenuous access to gender-affirming care. How much farther he could go is another question. The man’s mind is an enigma. No matter who wins, the courts will remain a chaotic x-factor for us all. By the time Trump took office in 2017, federal courts had recognized existing civil rights laws banning sex-discrimination protected gay and trans people, reasoning that anti-LGBTQ discrimination was, at its core, a reaction to people deviating from the norms of their sex. But the words “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” are not in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or Title IX, a 1972 law prohibiting sex discrimination in education, or Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (the ACA, also known as Obamacare) outlining groups protected from discrimination. Those rights exist, but they’re not codified. Their existence depends on a broader legal interpretation of what sex discrimination even means.  Trump’s administration rejected that interpretation. It rolled back Obama-era non-discrimination protections for LGBTQ people and plotted to erase the word “sex” from federal civil rights laws. In 2019, the House passed the Equality Act, a bill that would add “sexual orientation” and “ “gender identity” to the Civil Rights Act, on a bi-partisan vote, but the Senate didn’t take up the bill after Trump said he wouldn’t sign it. The bill passed the House again with only three Republican supporters, but did not survive a Senate filibuster.  Then at the end of Trump’s presidency, the conservative US Supreme Court delivered a stunning 6-3 ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County that found Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protected gay and trans people from employment discrimination. As Trump’s handpicked appointee Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion, “it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.” Trump, whose White House filed two briefs urging the court to rule the other way, admitted to reporters it was a “very powerful decision, actually.” Not that its “power” changed his thinking.  Yipee! All solved, right? Gay people have rights forever? Gorsuch is competing in International Mr. Leather next year and drinking with us at the Stonewall Inn? Right?  Not quite.  Bostock laid an important legal precedent and textualist argument that’s been cited in hundreds of sex-discrimination cases around the country.  The ruling prompted President Joe Biden to issue an executive order on his first day in office that directed all federal agencies to consider policies banning sex discrimination to apply to gay and trans people. It remains at the core of its interpretations of Title IX, the Violence Against Women Act, the ACA and the federal Fair Housing Act. But Bostock did not end the fight, and its narrow scope leaves some rights potentially vulnerable should Trump take control. Say he’s elected and makes good on his pledge to Nance. The Supreme Court was clear on workplace protections, but Trump’s lackeys could say their ruling doesn’t apply to housing, healthcare, access to public accommodations, and education. Mirroring Biden’s executive order to federal agencies, Trump said he’d reverse Title IX protections for trans students on day one of his presidency. He’s also vowed to ban gender-affirming care for minors, which he’s called child mutilation, and cut federal funding for schools that push “gender ideology.” His running mate, Ohio Sen. JD Vance, introduced five anti-trans bills between 2023 and 2024, which included criminalizing healthcare for trans kids. Saving his most deranged takes for the race’s photo finish, Vance appeared on Joe Rogan’s podcast and suggested middle- and upper-class white kids become trans to get into good schools, so they can, I guess, piss their pants in the lecture hall if a state revokes their bathroom access. As CNN pointed out, trans kids are actually a lot less likely to get into good schools because all the bullying, harassment, and dark thoughts tend to bring down the ol’ grade point average. Harris, Harris, Harris, Harris, Harris. In the 2019 primary, she said she supported gender-affirming surgeries for trans migrants in custody. She’s not special for that–federal law requires the government to provide necessary medical care to inmates, and documents show Trump’s Federal Bureau of Prisons acknowledged that law–but people have made a lot of her apparent lack of support this cycle. When asked about transgender rights, Harris’s canned answer is that she’ll “follow the law.” Without a crystal ball or Ouija board handy, I’d hazard to guess she’d likely follow in Biden’s footsteps and his “follow the law” line is a dodge —perhaps part of her plan to nab all the Republican-leaning voters who can’t stand Trump but may not get trans issues. After all, trans issues have been a fruitful wedge issue precisely because people don’t understand them – and people fear what they don’t understand. That said, laws are not virtues, and trans people are pissed about her lack of commitment. They’re scared because they’ve been pilloried in this election, and following the law in certain states means they don’t have civil rights. Plenty have fled those laws. Her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz has one of the best records on gay and trans rights of any Democratic governor, from his time as a football coach sponsoring a Gay-Straight Alliance in a small town to signing an executive order to make Minnesota a “trans refugee state.” I don’t trust politicians as a rule, but Walz has been an ally much longer than it’s been cool or even acceptable. Now for the part that made me go uh-oh out loud. No matter who wins, these anti-discrimination protections are up against federal courts stacked with conservative appointees, and conservative think tanks have the money, the time, and the zealous devotion to launch sophisticated attacks to invalidate LGBTQ rights and restrict the legal definition of sex in perpetuity. Jaelynn Scott, Executive Director of the Lavender Rights Project, a Seattle-based LGBTQ legal advocacy organization, is convinced the broad interpretation of Title VII will face continual legal challenges until lawmakers amend the Civil Rights Act to include “gender identity” or pass the Equality Act. Federal judges have already blocked Biden’s Bostock-backed interpretations of Title XI and the ACA’s non-discrimination protections. The same Supreme Court justices who ruled in favor of Bostock also blocked the administration's Title IX rules. The court’s recent decision on Chevron Deference compounds the problem. It not only weakened the power of federal agencies to enact new rules that comply with often vague laws from Congress, but it also made challenging federal regulations much easier and shows we can’t count on the Justices to adhere to binding legal precedent, which sucks because this all may come down to if or when the Supreme Court sets limits on Bostock.  We know it will soon decide if laws restricting gender-affirming care violate the US Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. On December 4, the Court will hear US v. Skrmetti, a challenge to Tennessee’s ban on puberty blockers and hormone therapy for minors. The case is important because it could determine what level of protection trans people have under the Equal Protection Clause. Elana Redfield, Federal Policy Director at the Williams Institute, a LGBTQ public-policy research center at the University of California, Los Angeles, says the issue at the heart of this case is whether it is unlawful for the state to ban these treatments in the way that it did.  Recent cases show the state might be able to legally prove no sex discrimination took place. The first is Dobbs, the case that struck down abortion. In the Dobbs decision, the court cited an old case called Geduldig v. Aiello, which found a state could legally deny insurance coverage for medical complications during pregnancy, even though it would have almost entirely burdened cis women, to say states could prohibit abortion. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals applied Geduldig to Adams, a case that upheld a state’s right to enact trans bathroom bans. In Skrmetti, The Sixth Court of Appeals again applied the same exact legal reasoning to gender-affirming care. It ruled the Bostock decision applied only to workplace discrimination and lawmakers had the right to regulate medical procedures as long as they did so without discriminatory intent.  “I know, it's pretty in the weeds, but it is also important,” Redfield said in an email. “In part because it provides a pathway for courts to avoid finding sex discrimination, and in part because they are citing back to cases decided before “intermediate scrutiny” for sex discrimination was even established.” It’s not all bad news. This April, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed lower court decisions that North Carolina’s and West Virginia's bans on gender-affirming care were unconstitutional.  Trump’s focus on trans people has obscured his position on gay rights, which enjoy broader support from the American electorate than trans rights. But would a party more aligned with the religious and extreme right than ever abandon the positions they’ve consolidated power over for decades, just like that? The supposedly “softer” Republican platform that claims the party will leave abortion to the states has not convinced millions of women across the country. Omitting a direct reference to same-sex marriage in that same platform, while still invoking its “sanctity,” shouldn’t convince gays, either.  A second Trump administration would be filled with pre-vetted loyalists. The aides, staff, bureaucracy, and institutions that inhibited his most destructive impulses during his first turn have been foxed out of the henhouse. If Trump follows the plan outlined in Project 2025, he’ll reconstitute the administrative state as a faithful engine of Trumpism. If decisions from the Washington Post’s and Los Angeles Times’s billionaire owners are any indication, institutions may be folding in advance. Trump is promising to throw his political enemies in jail, for God’s sake. When have gay people ever emerged from a regime like that unscathed? Um, What About Washington? Even if everything goes to hell and Trump or the courts change how the government interprets sex-based anti-discrimination protections, Washington State will probably remain a good place to be gay and trans, legally speaking. Though there’s always uncertainty in the brackish waters between federal and state law, we're pretty Trump-proofed. The Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) broadly guards against anti-gay and anti-trans discrimination in housing, places of public accommodation, employment, credit transactions, healthcare, and other areas.  Meaning you should be able to sign a new lease, take out a massive home loan, celebrate with fine dining and heavy drinking, stumbling and falling on your way out the door, breaking your arm, calling an ambulance, arriving at the hospital, and having a qualified medical professional examine you without anyone throwing your gay or trans ass into the street. The WLAD also guarantees access to gender-affirming care and requires insurers to cover it, a protection the Gender Affirming Treatment Act (GATA) strengthened in 2022. The state also allows those born here to change the gender marker on their birth certificate from M to F, F to M, or from either to X. In 2023, Governor Jay Inslee signed laws that sealed name changes for transgender people and protected trans runaways in the shelter system. He also signed a shield law that protects people who seek gender-affirming care and abortions in Washington from the authorities in states that have banned or criminalized their healthcare. Even if the Supreme Court struck down Obergefell v. Hodges, gay marriage would remain legal in Washington, save the Supreme Court losing its mind and allowing for a federal prohibition on same-sex unions, another can of worms that would be litigated to hell along the lines of states rights. Gay couples would still be able to adopt, too. Lesbian couples could count on the law to protect access and insurance coverage for fertility treatments. Adrien Leavitt, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Washington, says in many regards our state constitution is also more protective than the US constitution, that we have a strong State Supreme Court, and that our lawmakers have shown an ongoing commitment to upholding and strengthening protections for LGBTQ people. Our Democratic lawmakers did let the right take one victory on LGBTQ issues this year, however, when it passed Let’s Go Washington’s legally ambiguous, but dog-whistle-y Parents Bill of Rights ballot initiative I-2081. Concerned the law may allow parents to access their child’s counseling records, the ACLU of Washington, QLaw and Legal Voice filed suit. A King County Superior Court Judge later blocked that provision. But passing the law might have been a political calculation in Olympia. HadDemocrats let it go to voters, and it passed, the Legislature couldn’t amend it next session. We still don’t have all the answers. Rebekah Gardea, QLaw’s director of community advocacy and outreach, raised I-2081 as an example in a pattern of attacks on LGBTQ rights across the country able to infiltrate even a progressive state like Washington. Even if advocacy groups can be fairly confident laws banning gender-affirming care would die in committee here in Washington, the right can always introduce an initiative if there’s the money and motivation to do so. In the event of a second Trump presidency, Gardea says her organization is concerned about how our shield law would hold against a federal investigation, or what potential data privacy gaps the state may have. It’s a question the Legislature may have to answer next session. “There’s a lot of unknowns that we’re still looking into,” she said. “We’re trying to figure out how we strengthen those protections as soon as possible so there’s really no room for interpretation.” Should the storm come, the best thing Washington could do is adopt the position that it will live up to its progressive values by vigorously defending them against outside actors, including a federal government that imposed restrictions on LGBTQ rights. Bob Ferguson, the Attorney General and Democratic frontrunner for the governor’s race, said in a statement he’d be ready on “day one” to combat a Trump presidency. That’s all well and good for us, but sanctuary state thinking is a trap. Your civil rights are tenuous if they can disappear at the state line.   These progressive state laws do not regulate hate and intimidation, and if the federal government goes screwball, there’s no telling how that would change the social dynamics in this country. They’ve already changed so much in a short period of time. Eight years ago in 2016, lawmakers nationwide had only introduced 55 anti-trans bills nationwide. That same year, North Carolina's passage of a single anti-trans bathroom bill prompted the NCAA to ban college sports championships in the state, PayPal to cancel plans for a new office and Beatle Ringo Starr to cancel a massive concert. The Associated Press determined the state stood to lose $3.76 billion dollars over the bathroom policy, which is why lawmakers repealed it the next year. In the last two years, we’ve seen between 1,000 and 1,200 bills. Most fail, but plenty are passing. Where are those boycotts now? The only transgender-related social contagion in this country is ignorance. When it comes to hate, state borders are astoundingly porous. I’m very confident Washington won’t pass a gender-affirming care ban in the next five years, or even the next 10 years. But 15? A lot can change. Fifteen years ago, Donald Trump was hosting Season 8 of The Celebrity Apprentice.  The world changes and complacency is one way to speed up that change. There’s a snide attitude in blue states about red states, like the only reason regressive laws get passed is because all the people there are stupid and backward enough to let it happen. I hear variations of this contemptuous position in gay bars and on gay couches at parties all the time, and it totally ignores decades of disenfranchisement and manipulation that have tilted the balance of power in red states.  So the next time you think something to the effect of, “at least I’m safe,” think about the woman going septic in the hospital parking lot, or the trans kid weighing suicide in their bedroom. If you’re not for them, you’re not for anything at all.