The Supreme Court will decide an important LGBTQ+ case this session.
U.S. v Skrmetti is about whether state governments can tell families with transgender kids they can’t get their children health care that their doctors recommend, and that will allow them to be healthy, happy young people.
That’s a pretty harmful thing for states to do. Federal courts all over the country have agreed, saying governments can’t make a rule that the same safe effective medical care that is regularly used to help all kinds of kids must be denied only to transgender kids.
That’s discrimination. And what the Supreme Court is going to decide in this case is whether laws like these that deny something to people just because they are transgender go against an important principle in our constitution, that all people should have equal protection under the law.
And in fact the Court has already said something on this question. Just 4 years ago in a 2020 case called Bostock, the Court said that discriminating against someone because they are transgender, or gay or lesbian or bisexual, is discrimination on the basis of sex. Laws that discriminate on the basis of sex are subject to extra scrutiny. That means governments must be able to show a really strong reason why such a law is necessary even though it discriminates against some people. If they can’t show that compelling reason, the law has to go.
The fact is, states haven’t been able show any compelling reason why health care that has been safely used for decades should be denied just to transgender kids. Most federal courts have recognized that is not about health care, it’s about saying trans kids don’t deserve to get care they need like everyone else.
But a handful of higher courts have decided to ignore that important constitutional principle that everyone is entitled to equal protection under the law and say it’s OK to discriminate against some people – in this case transgender people.
So now the Supreme Court is going to weigh in. There’s no reason the Court should say anything different in this case than they said in Bostock in 2020. Making sure people aren’t treated unfairly just because of who they are is key part of what our constitution stands for.
Kentucky Families and Civil Rights Groups Urge Supreme Court to Rule Against Discriminatory and Harmful Transgender Health Bans
In their amicus curiae Schriftsatz filed today in USA gegen Skrmetti, Kentucky parents and a wide array of civil rights groups say laws like Tennessee’s and Kentucky’s discriminate against transgender people and harm youth and their families
LOUISVILLE, Ky – Kentucky parents of transgender children and a wide array of civil rights groups have weighed in as the Supreme Court prepares to hear USA gegen Skrmetti, the challenge to Tennessee’s ban on healthcare for transgender adolescents. The families are plaintiffs in Doe v Thornbury, a challenge to a similar law in Kentucky, and are joined by SAGE, National Trans Bar Association, LGBT Bar Association of Greater New York, Mazzoni Center, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom (BALIF). They are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, and Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.
The brief argues that the bans in Tennessee and Kentucky, like those passed in other states, intentionally discriminate against transgender youth by denying them medications that are prescribed for other youth. These laws do not ban these medications for all minors, but only when they are prescribed for transgender minors. As a result of this discriminatory treatment, transgender youth are unable to obtain the only effective treatment for the severe distress caused by gender dysphoria.
“The parents challenging these laws have seen firsthand the positive impact appropriate medical care has had on their children’s wellbeing, and the detrimental health impacts their kids experience without it,” said Corey Shapiro, Legal Director at the ACLU of Kentucky. “Denying these treatments to transgender youth who need them is not only unlawful, it is heartbreaking for parents. We are proud to represent these Kentucky families and will continue to fight for their right to make decisions for their families without government interference.”
“You don’t have to know about transgender health care to know that these bans are not about medicine – they are about discrimination,” said Jennifer Levi, Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights at GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders. “They ban safe, effective and widely available medications only when they are prescribed for transgender adolescents. The discrimination baked into these laws is intentional, clear, and devastating. The Supreme Court in Bostock powerfully affirmed that discriminating against transgender people is sex discrimination. Under that standard, no state can justify denying transgender adolescents essential medical care.”
“Families, not the government, should make decisions about medical care,” said Shannon Minter, Legal Director at the National Center for Lesbian Rights. “These bans target youth whose doctors have determined they need this care and whose parents have made informed decisions about what is best for their own children.”
The overwhelming consensus among medical professionals is that established medical treatments are safe, effective, and necessary to protect transgender adolescents’ wellbeing. Yet, 26 states have passed laws banning essential medical care for transgender youth.
Across the country, federal district courts have held that bans like those in Tennessee and Kentucky single out transgender youth in order to deny them safe, effective, and well-established medical care. In U.S. v. Skrmetti, the Supreme Court agreed to review a Sixth Circuit opinion which reversed district court decisions blocking these bans in Tennessee and Kentucky. The U.S. Department of Justice intervened in the Tennessee case, L.W. v. Skrmetti, and the U.S. Solicitor General will argue against the ban when the Supreme Court hears the case later this year.
“If America is to make good on its promises of freedom without favor and equality without exception, families and their doctors, not politicians, must be able to make health care decisions for transgender youth,” sagteRachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “We urge the Court to protect everyone’s right to live as their true selves, free from discrimination or litmus tests, and to access the medical care they need.”
“Transgender older adults have lived through eras where access to hormone therapy was severely limited or non-existent,” said Aaron Tax, SAGE’s Managing Director of Government Affairs and Policy Advocacy. “Fortunately, today we have evidence-based clinical guidelines that affirm what we now know: hormone therapy is safe, effective, and can be life-saving. Every generation deserves the right to access this vital, gender-affirming care.”
“The National Trans Bar Association endorses the request for the Court to reverse the Sixth Circuit’s decision and make clear that denying individuals medically necessary treatment on the basis of their gender identity violates the Equal Protection Clause,” sagteRafael Langer-Osuna, Co-Chair of the National Trans Bar Association. “The National Trans Bar Association supports the right of all transgender people, regardless of age, to have access to medically necessary gender-affirming care. As transgender and non-binary attorneys and law students, we unequivocally stand with the plaintiffs and with the transgender youth of Tennessee and Kentucky, and condemn these states’ discriminatory attempts to deny their citizens life-saving medical care. We will continue to use our legal training and experience to protect transgender people throughout the U.S. and the world against discriminatory attacks on basic human rights.”
“BALIF unequivocally supports the right for transgender youth to have access to gender-affirming medical care,” said Dustin Helmer, Co-Chair of Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom (BALIF). “The consequences of denying this right are not only immoral, but often life-threatening. BALIF endorses the request for the Court to reverse the Sixth Circuit’s decision and make it clear that bans on medicinal treatment for transgender adolescents violate the Equal Protection Clause. We abhor Tennessee and Kentucky’s discriminatory attacks on transgender adolescents, and we will continue to fight for policies that uplift and provide safety and dignity for transgender people all over the U.S. and world.”
“Transgender young people and their families need access to medically necessary treatment, and they need the Court to recognize their right to determine, with their doctors, what is best for them ohne unjustifiable and discriminatory government interference,” said Thomas W. Ude, Jr., Legal and Public Policy Director at Mazzoni Center.
The Kentucky families’ brief is among over 30 friend-of-the-court briefs being filed today. Bioethicists, medical providers, medical historians, family law professors, additional families in states where care has been banned and more are urging the Supreme Court to rule against bans on essential medical care for transgender adolescents so that families can make the health care decisions that are best for their children.
GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders gibt Ricardo Martinez als neuen Geschäftsführer bekannt
Der derzeitige CEO von Equality Texas bringt seine kampferprobte Führungserfahrung in eine der führenden LGBTQ+-Prozessorganisationen des Landes ein – und das zu einem entscheidenden Zeitpunkt im Kampf um den Schutz der Bürgerrechte für queere und transgender Personen und Familien.
GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) hat heute Ricardo Martinez (er/ihn), den derzeitigen Chief Executive Officer von Equality Texas, ab dem 4. September 2024 zum neuen Executive Director der Organisation ernannt.
Als CEO der größten überparteilichen landesweiten LGBTQ+-Interessenvertretung in Texas engagiert sich Martinez seit 2019 an vorderster Front in einem der wichtigsten Swing States der aktuellen nationalen Welle anti-LGBTQ-Gesetzgebung. Unter seiner Führung führte Equality Texas die Lobbyarbeit an, um 961 von über 140 Anti-LGBTQ+-Gesetzentwürfen, die während der Legislaturperiode 2023 eingereicht wurden, und 991 von 76 Anti-LGBTQ+-Gesetzentwürfen, die 2021 eingereicht wurden, zu verhindern.
„Nach einer intensiven landesweiten Suche in Zusammenarbeit mit Koya Partners ist der Vorstand von GLAD stolz, Ricardo Martinez als nächsten Geschäftsführer der Organisation bekannt zu geben“, sagte GLAD-Vorstandsvorsitzender Shane DunnRicardos Erfolge bei Equality Texas in einem turbulenten politischen Umfeld zeigen seine Führungsstärke und Vision. Er hat bewiesen, dass er sich dafür einsetzt, marginalisierten Gemeinschaften Gehör zu verschaffen, und dass er bereit ist, sich an der Basis zu engagieren und aktiv zu organisieren.
GLAD verstärkt sein Engagement, die aufkommenden Anti-LGBTQ+-Gesetze im ganzen Land anzufechten, die Rechte und Fortschritte des letzten halben Jahrhunderts zu verteidigen und auszubauen und sich für positive politische und gesetzgeberische Veränderungen einzusetzen. Wir freuen uns riesig, dass Ricardo jetzt zu GLAD stößt und seine Vision und seine praxiserprobten Erfahrungen in den heftigsten Kämpfen um LGBTQ-Gleichberechtigung einbringt, die wir je erlebt haben. GLAD teilt unsere größte Bewunderung und Wertschätzung für das gesamte Team von Equality Texas und seine wichtige, kontinuierliche Arbeit in unserer gemeinsamen Gerechtigkeitsbewegung. Dunn fügte hinzu. Ricardo wird in einer entscheidenden Phase des organisatorischen Wachstums bei GLAD und in einem kritischen Moment für die Bürgerrechte von LGBTQ+-Personen und -Familien in unserem Land eine transformative Führungspersönlichkeit sein. Ich möchte mich auch bei Richard Burns, dem Interimsgeschäftsführer von GLAD seit Oktober und langjährigen Anführer der Bewegung, für seine Führung und Unterstützung bei der Vorbereitung auf diese nächste Phase bedanken.
Ricardo Martinez
Es war mir eine Ehre, das herausragende und engagierte Team von Equality Texas in den letzten fünf Jahren zu leiten, um enge Verbindungen zu unserer texanischen Community aufzubauen und Hunderte feindseliger Anti-LGBTQ+-Gesetze zu bekämpfen. Diese Erfahrung hat mir auch ein tiefes Verständnis für die Auswirkungen des Gesetzes auf LGBTQ+-Personen und unsere Familien vermittelt und mir die tiefe Erkenntnis vermittelt, dass legislative Interessenvertretung und Rechtsstreitigkeiten Hand in Hand gehen müssen, um Gerechtigkeit zu erreichen und unsere Rechte zu schützen. sagte Martinez. Obwohl es mir schwerfällt, die Menschen und die Arbeit, die ich in Texas liebe, zu verlassen, bin ich voller Energie, einer Organisation beizutreten, die seit fast einem halben Jahrhundert führend bei der Förderung und Verteidigung der Bürgerrechte von LGBTQ+-Personen und Menschen mit HIV ist. Die strategische Rechtsvertretung von GLAD hat sich seit Jahrzehnten positiv für LGBTQ+-Personen im ganzen Land ausgewirkt, mich eingeschlossen. Ich bin stolz darauf, die Arbeit eines so inspirierenden Teams in dieser Zeit leiten und unterstützen zu dürfen, in der die Verteidigung der LGBTQ+-Bürgerrechte vor Gericht wichtiger denn je ist.
Während Martinez' Amtszeit bei Equality Texas erhöhte er die Personalkapazität und die finanzielle Unterstützung deutlich, um der aktuellen Situation gerecht zu werden, und intensivierte die Interessenvertretung für und mit Gemeinden im gesamten Bundesstaat. Unter seiner Führung baute Equality Texas ein Netzwerk von 300 LGBTQ-Organisationen und Verbündeten auf, gründete den Queer Texas Crisis Fund, um Gemeinden, die überproportional von COVID-19 betroffen waren, Nothilfe zu leisten, und arbeitete mit dem Weißen Haus zusammen, um landesweite Pop-up-Kliniken zu organisieren und während des Höhepunkts der MPOX-Ausbreitung Informationen und Zugang zu Impfstoffen bereitzustellen.
„Ricardo hinterlässt Equality Texas und die Equality Foundation gestärkt, und dank seiner Führung sind wir besser aufgestellt als je zuvor, um den Kampf für die Gleichberechtigung der LGBTQIA+-Texaner anzuführen“, sagte Kevin Haynes, Vorstandsvorsitzender von Equality Texas, und Brad Nitschke, Vorstandsvorsitzender der Equality Texas Foundation. Wir wünschen Ricardo alles Gute für seine zukünftigen Aufgaben und danken ihm für seine unschätzbaren Leistungen und seine Führungsqualitäten. Wir alle werden Ricardo vermissen, freuen uns aber, dass dieser Schritt die Verbindung zu GLAD stärkt und freuen uns auf eine gemeinsame, produktive Zukunft.
„In einer Zeit, in der LGBTQ-Menschen um ihr Leben kämpfen, brauchen wir mehr denn je Führungspersönlichkeiten wie Ricardo, die dynamisch und standhaft in ihren Überzeugungen sind.“ sagte Imani Rupert-Gordon, Präsidentin des National Center for Lesbian Rights„Ricardo weiß genau, was zum Sieg nötig ist, und ich bin überzeugt, dass er GLAD auf eine Weise führen wird, die sowohl der aktuellen Situation gerecht wird als auch maßgeblich zum Aufbau einer stärkeren Bewegung für die Zukunft beiträgt.“
Neben seiner Tätigkeit als Leiter von Equality Texas hat Martinez zum Wachstum und Einfluss von Organisationen wie PENCIL, Summer Search, GLSEN und Stand for Children beigetragen und verfügt über eine nachgewiesene Erfolgsbilanz bei der Einbindung von Unterstützern, um die dringend benötigte Interessenvertretung für LGBTQ+-Rechte voranzutreiben.
Martinez, ein Einwanderer der ersten Generation, der als Kind mit seiner Familie von Mexiko-Stadt nach New York zog, wird der erste Latino-Leiter von GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders sein. Durch seinen Beitritt zu GLAD ist er näher an seinem Zuhause in Brooklyn und seiner Familie, während er nach Neuengland umzieht. Martinez ist Absolvent der Stony Brook University und hat einen Master-Abschluss in Non-Profit-Management von der New School for Public Policy, Management, and Environment. Er wurde von der Obama-Regierung als aufstrebender LGBTQ-Leader ausgezeichnet und erhielt den „40 Under 40“-Preis der Stony Brook University für seinen öffentlichen Dienst und sein Engagement.
GLAD profitierte stark von der Führung des Interimsgeschäftsführers Richard Burns, nachdem der ehemalige Geschäftsführer Janson Wu im vergangenen Oktober zum Trevor-Projekt wechselte. Burns wird seine Interimsfunktion bis zum Wechsel von Martinez im September weiterführen.
Über GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders
GLAD wurde 1978 in Boston gegründet und ist führend in der Bürgerrechtsbewegung und setzt sich für LGBTQ+-Personen und HIV-Infizierte in Neuengland und im ganzen Land ein. GLAD führte die Bewegung für die Gleichstellung der Ehe an und sicherte mit dem wegweisenden Fall Massachusetts den ersten Sieg vor einem Staatsgericht. Goodridge gegen das Gesundheitsministerium Urteil vor 20 Jahren und plädierte vor dem Obersten Gerichtshof der USA für die nationale Gleichstellung der Ehe mit der Obergefell Entscheidung im Jahr 2015.
GLAD startete 2008 das erste Transgender Rights Project bei einer LGBTQ+-Rechtsorganisation, erwirkte frühzeitig bedeutende Gerichtsurteile, die die Rechte von Transgender-Studenten festlegten und den Schutz von Transgendern vor Diskriminierung im Rahmen der Gesetze zur Geschlechterdiskriminierung bekräftigten, und bleibt weiterhin Vorreiter bei der Interessenvertretung für Transgender-Rechte.
Im Jahr 1998 erwirkte GLAD ein Urteil des Obersten Gerichtshofs, das bestätigte, dass Menschen mit HIV gemäß dem Americans with Disabilities Act vor Diskriminierung geschützt sind.
GLAD hat vor Kurzem vier weitere Anwälte in sein Rechtsteam aufgenommen, um seine Kapazitäten zu erweitern und den aktuellen Herausforderungen gerecht zu werden sowie die Rechte von LGBTQ+-Personen langfristig zu schützen und zu fördern.
Zu den aktuellen Rechtsstreitigkeiten und Gesetzgebungsthemen von GLAD gehören die Anfechtung gefährlicher Landesgesetze, die Transgender-Jugendlichen den Zugang zu etablierter medizinischer Versorgung verbieten; der Kampf gegen politisch motivierte Angriffe auf öffentliche Schulen und die Gewährleistung einer gleichberechtigten Ausbildung für LGBTQ+-Schüler; die Verbesserung der Rechtssicherheit für LGBTQ+-Familien und ihre Kinder durch aktualisierte staatliche Elternschaftsgesetze; die Verteidigung der Rechte von Transgender-Arbeitnehmern, einschließlich des gleichberechtigten Zugangs zur Krankenversicherung; der Schutz und die Ausweitung des Zugangs zu PrEP, um rassistische Ungleichheiten beim Zugang zu beseitigen und die HIV-Epidemie zu beenden; und die energische Verteidigung der Ehefreiheit.
Über Equality Texas
Seit fast 50 Jahren kämpft Equality Texas an vorderster Front für die Gleichstellung von LGBTQIA+-Personen in Texas. In den letzten Jahren hat Equality Texas über 200 Gesetzentwürfe gegen LGBTQIA+-Personen erfolgreich durchgesetzt. Neben der Interessenvertretung in der texanischen Legislative vermittelt Equality Texas Gemeindemitgliedern Ressourcen, klärt die Öffentlichkeit über LGBTQIA+-Themen auf und bildet Führungskräfte für zukünftige Generationen aus.
This Disability Pride Month, we’re highlighting incredible LGBTQ+ disability justice advocates and organizations fighting to affirm and protect the rights of people with disabilities.
Aubrey Smalls
Aubrey Smalls (he/him) is a Black queer disability advocate and filmmaker with dwarfism. He uses his platform to advocate for the dwarfism community with a focus on education, including running an account dedicated to dwarfism history, spreading information about both historical oppression of and violence toward little people, and uplifting positive figures and moments for people with dwarfism. Smalls is also producing and directing a documentary comedy film about dwarfism, the effects of disability hate groups, and finding your freedom. Smalls has dedicated his creative work to uplifting the stories of people with dwarfism, both in the past and the present.
Jen Deerinwater
Jen Deerinwater (hir) is a bisexual, Two-Spirit, multiply disabled citizen of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma who is a prolific journalist and organizer. Hir studies center politics and government, which inform hir masses of writing on disability rights, along with reproductive rights and climate action. Hir indigenous identity has also influenced all Jen does. Jen founded the nonprofit Crushing Colonialism as a method to uplift indigenous voices, stories, and artists and is on the board Jen is also on the board for the Disabled Journalist Association and is a Senior Advisor for the Disability Culture Lab, along with serving on the Ending the HIV Epidemic among Urban Natives Community Advisory Board.
Olu Niyi-Awosusi
Olu Niyi-Awosusi (they/them) is a Black nonbinary disability activist who described themself as an ethical technologist. They advocate for and help work toward an online world that is useful and inclusive to people with disabilities and people with limited technological access. They work as a front-end web developer while writing and giving talks about how to create a more equitable and accessible “woke web.” They cite their time studying philosophy as what got them interested in tech ethics. In addition to tech focused work, they also founded a mutual aid group to help provide gender-affirming clothing to the LGBTQ+ community in the UK.
Karin Hitselberger
Karin Hitselberger (she/her) is a plus-sized asexual disability advocate, blogger, and consultant. She has a history of work with nonprofits with a specialty in crisis counseling and support for the needs of vulnerable populations. Hitselberger’s blog and other writing focus on disability and how it intersects with body image and pop culture. She believes that writing and voicing her experience as a disabled fat woman is important because it can remind us that we are never alone in our experiences to read about the lives of others.
Syrus Marcus Ware
Syrus Marcus Ware (he/him) is a Black transgender disability and abolitionist artist, activist, and scholar. His artistic work includes painting, installations, performance art, and curatorial practice. Ware’s solo and collaborative works have explored social justice and Black activist culture since 2013. Ware is a core team member of Black Lives Matter and an assistant professor at McMaster University teaching classes on disability performance.
Drag Syndrome
Drag Syndrome is a drag collective including both drag kings and queens with Down Syndrome. Founded in 2019, Drag Syndrome provides a space and funds for artists with Down Syndrome to explore their craft and use drag to mold their own persona and performance art. Daniel Vais, the founder of Drag Syndrome, has discussed how the collective allows performers to be celebrated for their skill, craft, and creativity, he expressed that “[Drag Syndrome] allows them to show their talents. Yes, these are artists who have Down syndrome, but that’s not the main issue…the extra chromosome is only a bonus.”
Transgender, Reproductive, and Fertility Care: The Fight for Health Care Equality and Bodily Autonomy
GLAD has been on the forefront of safeguarding bodily autonomy for decades – and that is critical in this legislative session for transgender people, people who can get pregnant, and LGBTQ+ people who need fertility care. Health care equity work also aims to address the barriers to safe, quality medical care disproportionately affects people of color and low-income individuals as well. These disparities underscore the urgent need to address systemic inequalities and ensure that everyone has equal access to essential health care services.
In the face of escalating threats to transgender health care, GLAD remains vigilant in its defense of trans people’s rights to safe, essential care. Across legal battles in multiple states, GLAD is at the forefront, challenging discriminatory laws and advocating for the rights of transgender youth and adults alike. In Florida federal court, our attorney Jennifer Levi argued at a hearing in December to protect access to transgender people in Doe gegen Ladapo, and in June the court ruled to permanently block that unconstitutional law. In Boe gegen Marshall, GLAD is supporting transgender youth and their families in need of essential care after the court allowed a health care ban to take effect in January. And GLAD has also submitted opposition briefs against similar laws in Tennessee and Kentucky in L.W. v. Skrmetti Und Doe v. Thornbury at the 6th Circuit Appellate Court (which will be heard at the Supreme Court later this year), and others in Oklahoma. Our opposition is committed, strategic, and well-funded, but we rely on our decades-long experience, which has won the day.
In the legislative arena, we are advocating for shield bills designed to protect trans and other vital health care access amidst mounting attacks. We’ve advocated successfully for these crucial bills in Connecticut, Massachusetts, Und Vermont in previous sessions, and most recently in Maine Und Rhode Island. There are currently laws or executive orders protecting care providers in 14 states and Washington, DC. While these bills shield providers and the patients’ families against prosecution for care legal in these states, hostile outside forces like Libs of TikTok have been spreading misinformation and fear to slow the passage of these vital protections.
Health care access struggles are interconnected. States had been chipping away at abortion access years before the Dobbsdecision which overturned Roe gegen Wade, but after the ruling, access fell precipitously. And this crucial care is still being brought in front of our higher courts – the Supreme Court Justices heard oral arguments in March, when a team of anti-abortion medical providers called into question the FDA-approved medication mifepristone, which is used to administer abortions for over 60 percent of US patients. In June, the Justices threw out the lawsuit without ruling on the merits of the case, ensuring continued access to the drug.
And earlier this year, the Alabama Supreme Court delivered a shocking ruling that declared embryos created through in vitro fertilization (IVF) should be considered children. Alabama fertility clinics shut down IVF services for weeks, and sowed concern for people across the country who want to build their family with this treatment. The need to protect access and providers is starkly clear.
Access to safe, patient-centered care is a fundamental right that we must fight for every day. By advocating for the autonomy of patients and care providers in medical decision-making, GLAD is dedicated to ensuring people can access the care they need. Whether it’s affirming gender identity, seeking abortion care, or pursuing assisted reproduction, GLAD stands as a steadfast ally in the fight for health care access and bodily autonomy.
Dedicated commitment to health care equity and patient rights is more than just about a single appointment or procedure – it’s about safeguarding the well-being and dignity of all. As threats to health care access persist, we are resolute in advocating for comprehensive protections that uphold the principle of bodily autonomy for everyone.
A version of this story was originally published in the Summer 2024 GLAD Briefs newsletter. ReAd mehr.
Aktualisieren: On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court issued a shameful ruling that homeless people are not included in the Constitution’s protections against cruel and unusual punishment. This ruling will make homelessness drastically worse and impact the 250,000+ people who sleep outside each night, as well as millions of Americans who are just one missed paycheck away from homelessness.
Over 600,000 people experience homelessness in America, and nearly half of them sleep outside. Safe and affordable housing, not carceral measures like jails, fines, or forced treatment, will solve homelessness.
GLAD and 45 other organizations committed to ending discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community submitted an amicus (friend of the court) brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in the City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, a case concerning the criminalization of homelessness. The organizations argue that local ordinances that punish people for sleeping in public areas when shelter beds are unavailable violate the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment, and have a disproportionate impact on LGBTQI+ people, who already experience elevated rates of homelessness due to discrimination and marginalization.
The Supreme Court heard the case on April 22, 2024. The Court will issue a decision by June 30, 2024.
The amicus brief was filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights and was signed by the following organizations:
Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom, San Francisco, Cal.
Black & Pink National, Omaha, Neb.
Black Alliance for Just Immigration, Brooklyn, N.Y.
Black Trans Nation, Brooklyn, N.Y.
Center for Community Alternatives, Syracuse, N.Y.
The Center for Constitutional Rights, New York, NY.
DC LGBTQ+ Community Center, Washington, D.C.
Desiree Alliance, Calabasas, Cal.
Drug Policy Alliance, New York, N.Y.
Equality Federation, Portland, Or.
Equality New York, New York, N.Y.
Fountain House, New York, N.Y.
Free to Be Youth Project, New York, N.Y.
GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, Boston, Mass.
GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing
LGBTQ+ Equality, Washington, D.C.
Harvard LGBTQ+ Advocacy Clinic, Cambridge, Mass.
Housing Works, Inc., New York, N.Y.
Human Rights Campaign Foundation, Washington, D.C.
If/When/How: Lawyering for Reproductive Justice, Oakland, Cal.
LGBT Bar of New York, New York, N.Y.
Make the Road New York, Brooklyn, N.Y.
National Center for LGBTQ Rights, San Francisco, Cal.
National Center for Transgender Equality, Washington, D.C.
National Trans Bar Association, San Francisco, Cal.
National Women’s Law Center, Washington, D.C.
New York County Defender Services, New York, N.Y.
New York Legal Assistance Group, New York, N.Y.
New York Transgender Advocacy Group, New York, N.Y.
Phoenix Transition Program, Atlanta, Ga.
Rainbow Health Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn.
Rights Behind Bars, Washington, D.C.
Ruth Ellis Center, Highland Park, Mich.
SAGE, New York, N.Y.
Sakhi for South Asian Women, New York, N.Y.
Sylvia Rivera Law Project, New York, N.Y.
Tom Homann LGBTQ+ Law Association, San Diego, Cal.
Trans Pride Initiative, Dallas, Tex.
Trans Sistas of Color Project, Detroit, Mich.
Trans(forming), Atlanta, Ga.
Transgender Assistance Program of Virginia, Virginia Beach, Va.
Transgender Law Center, Oakland, Cal.
Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund, New York, N.Y.
Transgender Resource Center of New Mexico, Albuquerque, N.M.
The Need to Protect Access to Health Care Grows More Urgent
As part of the wave of anti-LGBTQ+ state legislation, 24 states have passed transgender health care bans. As GLAD and others challenge these bans in court, shielding access to care in non-ban states and protecting the providers who deliver it is becoming more urgent.
Health care professionals who provide care for transgender children and adolescents follow well-established standards that have been developed through decades of clinical study. It is age- and developmentally appropriate treatment requiring informed consent of the young person’s parents and informed assent by the patient, and involves in-depth screening by a multidisciplinary care team.
Every major U.S. professional medical association, representing 1.3 million doctors, recognizes this as safe, best practice, and the only proven effective care for transgender adolescents and teenagers suffering from gender dysphoria.
Parents have testified in statehouses and courthouses around the country about how receiving the doctor-recommended care their children need has enabled their young people to live happier, healthier lives – and about their distress over the harmful impact of taking that care away.
Despite all of this, as of March 2024, 24 states have passed laws banning standard-of-care medical treatment for transgender adolescents. 36% of transgender youth aged 13-17 now live in states where the doctor-recommended health care they need has been made illegal. At least two states – Florida and Ohio – have made moves to restrict how transgender adults can access health care as well.
These bans have been pushed by politicians, not doctors or parents. They do not make health care safer for anyone. They do nothing to support parents as they navigate the best options to aid their children’s physical and mental wellbeing. These are blanket bans that take away parents’ ability to make important decisions about their kids’ health care and deny transgender adolescents treatment that has helped them thrive.
GLAD is directly challenging two of these bans in federal court – in Alabama Und Florida – and supporting our partner legal organizations in several other states. When judges have heard the full facts – heard testimony from medical experts, parents, and transgender people – they have ruled against these bans. But as states have pursued appeals into appellate courts that are receptive to backtracking on a range of civil rights protections, including for transgender people, we are starting to see the impact of some of these laws taking effect.
GLAD Attorneys Jennifer Levi and Chris Erchull, and the rest of the legal team from Southern Legal Counsel, Inc., the Human Rights Campaign, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights representing Florida transgender people and families at Doe gegen Ladapo trial in December
The cost to families
Imagine being a parent whose child needs medical care that has been shown to work, is covered by health insurance, and is the widely accepted standard of care. And imagine there is suddenly nowhere in your home state you can get them that care, because some politicians have decided they don’t like it. For many families, the only answer is to travel or in some cases move.
As a recent report from Campaign for Southern Equality shows, there are huge costs to these options. Families across the South and Midwest where these bans have taken effect may now need to spend up to 18 hours driving, or pay for airfare and hundreds of dollars in related travel costs, in addition to time off work and school, to make one health care appointment for their child. That’s in addition to costs associated with starting at a new health care practice, and the time it may take to find and secure an appointment. Moving incurs its own costs of course, and means uprooting your and your children’s lives – something most families would rather not do, and shouldn’t have to simply to ensure their child can get health care.
Diminishing access to care
Imagine being a healthcare provider, talking with a family, knowing there is treatment that can help their child – treatment you are trained to provide – and being powerless to help. Providers are wrestling with this every day in states with active bans, where hospitals and practice groups have been forced to shut down care, clinics have closed, and some pharmacies have stopped filling prescriptions.
This is devastating for families and transgender individuals, and the harmful impacts are not limited to states where care has been completely banned. Increased demand in states where care remains available leads to longer wait times, and uncertainty about the reach of bans is also causing a chilling effect for providers and health care institutions. In Florida, where GLAD is challenging restrictions that prohibit well-qualified nurse practitioners from delivering transgender health care for adults but ostensibly allow doctors to continue to do so, one clinic director told the Washington Post recently that he has been unable to hire physicians, because the new law “made most doctors too nervous to commit.”
Some states with bans are also attempting to track the health care residents receive elsewhere. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, for instance, has sought the medical records of Texas transgender youth who received care from a Seattle hospital. Such efforts are clearly aimed at intimidating families seeking care for their children, as well as the providers who serve them.
The good news is that 13 states and DC have now passed laws to shield providers of transgender health care – as well as reproductive health care which is under attack by the same political forces – from the hostile reach of harmful bans. Another 3 states have Executive Orders protecting care, and 6 states have protections for reproductive health care alone.
GLAD has worked alongside providers and state LGBTQ+ community and reproductive equity advocates to pass such laws in Massachusetts and Vermont, including working this session on bills in Rhode Island and Maine.
While the specifics may vary, shield bills are carefully drafted to align with constitutional requirements, federal law, and a given state’s statutory structure. They do several important things to protect access to care:
They establish that essential reproductive health care and medical care for transgender people are legally protected in the state.
They ensure a state’s resources are not used to further hostile litigation from other states where essential care is banned.
They protect patients from having their medical records about protected health care shared with law enforcement agencies in other states where such care is banned.
They may protect the personal contact information of health care providers – something that can be an important protection as medical care providers have been increasingly personally targeted with harassment and threats.
They may also ensure that insurance plans and health care institutions don’t penalize providers simply for providing medical care that is legal in their state.
These protections are growing more urgent, not only because the number of states banning essential health care is increasing, but because those bans and the disinformation being circulated to support them are designed to have a chilling effect on health care providers and institutions everywhere. At the same time, the tactics being employed by opponents are becoming more and more concerning.
Opponents of the Maine shield bill, LD 227, many of them from outside Maine and spurred on by the anti-LGBTQ extremist group Libs of TikTok, used a campaign of intimidation and disinformation about transgender people to try and stop the bill from moving forward. Bomb threats were called into the state house and the homes of the bill sponsors during the week of the committee hearing. Attorneys General from 16 states with transgender health care bans, led by Tennessee, wrote a letter threatening legal action if Maine passed a law protecting health care within its own borders.
GLAD partnered with Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, Maine health care associations and providers, and many other organizations and individuals to provide accurate information to legislators and counter the false and at times cruel rhetoric being used against the bill. Maine’s Attorney General responded that the state has every legal authority “to decide what access to health care people in Maine receive, free from interference by out-of-state actors.” In the end, a majority of Maine legislators saw through the fear and falsehoods. LD 227 passed on April 12 and was signed into law by Governor Mills on April 22.
If we want access to quality, science-based health care and the ability for each of us – not the government – to make personal medical decisions for ourselves and our families, we have to protect it – in the courts, in our legislatures, and by making sure providers can practice the medicine they are trained to deliver without hostile, politically-driven interference.
Diese Geschichte wurde ursprünglich im GLAD Briefs-Newsletter Sommer 2024 veröffentlicht. ReAd mehr.
Michigan ergreift Maßnahmen zum Schutz von LGBTQ+-Familien mit aktualisiertem Elternschaftsgesetz
Am 1. April unterzeichnete Gouverneurin Gretchen Whitmer die Michigan Family Protection Act, ein Gesetz, das sicherstellt, dass Kinder, die durch künstliche Befruchtung geboren werden und von LGBTQ+-Eltern geboren werden, den gleichen Zugang zu einer sicheren Rechtsbeziehung mit ihren Eltern und den damit verbundenen wesentlichen Rechten haben.
Gouverneurin Whitmer unterzeichnet Michigan Family Protection Act
Ein Flickenteppich veralteter Gesetze im ganzen Land setzt LGBTQ+-Eltern und ihre Kinder sowie alle durch künstliche Befruchtung entstandenen Familien weiterhin einer Gefahr aus. Die Aktualisierung dieser Gesetze, um LGBTQ+-Familien einzubeziehen, ist eine Priorität von GLAD. Mit Gesetzesentwürfen ähnlich dem Michigan Family Protection Act, die in Massachusetts, Minnesota und Pennsylvania, und wir hoffen, dass Michigan eine Inspiration für andere Staaten sein wird.
Polly Crozier, Direktorin für Familienberatung bei GLAD, arbeitete eng mit lokalen Basisaktivisten der Michigan Fertility Alliance sowie mit Rechtsanwältin Courtney Joslin, Berichterstatterin für den Uniform Parentage Act (UPA) von 2017, zusammen, um den Michigan Family Protection Act voranzubringen. Der UPA ist ein überparteiliches Modellgesetz, das sicherstellt, dass die staatlichen Elternschaftsgesetze verfassungskonform, kindgerecht und für alle Familien zugänglich sind, unabhängig von Geschlecht, Familienstand der Eltern oder der Familienstruktur. Michigan ist der erste Bundesstaat im Mittleren Westen und der siebte Bundesstaat des Landes nach Maine, Washington, Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut und Colorado, der seine Elternschaftsgesetze zum Schutz von LGBTQ+-Familien auf Grundlage des UPA 2017 umfassend aktualisiert hat.
„Michigan hat uns gezeigt, wie die Stärkung von Familien im Jahr 2024 aussehen sollte: Es soll allen Familien, einschließlich LGBTQ+-Familien, leichter gemacht werden, die Sicherheit und Stabilität zu erlangen, die mit der rechtlichen Elternschaft einhergeht“, sagt Crozier.
Im vergangenen Juni arbeitete GLAD mit dem Movement Advancement Project, COLAGE, dem National Center for Lesbian Rights und Family Equality zusammen, um einen Bericht über den Stand der Elternschaftsgesetze zu veröffentlichen. Beziehungen in Gefahr: Warum wir die staatlichen Elternschaftsgesetze aktualisieren müssen, um Kinder und Familien zu schützen detailliert dar, wie LGBTQ+-Eltern und ihre Kinder durch den aktuellen Flickenteppich an Elternschaftsgesetzen im ganzen Land – von denen viele seit Jahrzehnten nicht mehr aktualisiert wurden – gefährdet werden.
Fast jeder dritte LGBTQ+-Erwachsene in den USA zieht Kinder unter 18 Jahren groß, viele davon in Bundesstaaten mit noch immer veralteten Gesetzen. Das bedeutet, dass viel zu viele Kinder in LGBTQ+-Familien potenziell gefährdet sind und LGBTQ+-Eltern kostspielige, zeitintensive und invasive rechtliche Hürden überwinden müssen, um ihre Familien zu schützen.
Veraltete Elternschaftsgesetze können dazu führen, dass Kinder ihre Eltern nicht haben, wenn sie sie am meisten brauchen, etwa während einer medizinischen Krise, oder sie können dazu führen, dass ein Elternteil ohne Rechtssicherheit nach dem Recht seines Staates die Verbindung zu seinem Kind verliert, beispielsweise durch den Tod eines rechtlichen Elternteils oder das Ende der Beziehung der Eltern.
Das neue Gesetz in Michigan folgt zudem den aggressiven Bemühungen im ganzen Land, die Fähigkeit der Amerikaner einzuschränken, persönliche Entscheidungen darüber zu treffen, ob, wann und wie sie eine Familie gründen, sowie den Bemühungen, die Gleichberechtigung von LGBTQ+-Personen und -Familien zu untergraben.
Gouverneurin Whitmer und Familiendirektorin Interessenvertretung Polly Crozier
Seit der Oberste Gerichtshof der USA im Jahr 2022 entschied, dass es kein verfassungsmäßiges Recht auf Abtreibung gibt, haben sich die Bemühungen verstärkt, nicht nur Abtreibung, sondern auch Verhütungsmittel und den Zugang zu Familiengründungen wie IVF einzuschränken. Anfang dieses Jahres gab es eine beispiellose Urteil des Obersten Gerichtshofs von Alabama Der Zugang zu IVF in diesem Bundesstaat wurde effektiv unterbunden, bevor die Gesetzgeber mit einer teilweisen und problematischen Lösung eintrafen.
Der landesweite Aufschrei nach dem Urteil in Alabama machte deutlich, dass IVF und andere Formen der Fruchtbarkeitsbehandlung und assistierten Reproduktion für viele Menschen wichtige Optionen zur Familiengründung sind. Doch selbst in vielen Staaten mit starkem Schutz der reproduktiven Freiheit – wie Massachusetts, wo die Massachusetts Parentage Act steht noch aus – Kindern, die durch künstliche Befruchtung geboren werden, fehlt es noch immer an lebenswichtigem Schutz.
„In vielen Staaten sind die Abstammungsgesetze Jahrzehnte veraltet und haben mit der Familiengründung nicht Schritt gehalten“, sagt Joslin. „Das führt dazu, dass viele Kinder, die durch künstliche Befruchtung – einschließlich IVF und Leihmutterschaft – geboren wurden, keine klare rechtliche Bindung zu ihren Eltern haben. Ohne rechtliche Bindung zu ihren Eltern sind Kinder extrem gefährdet; sie haben möglicherweise keinen Anspruch auf Unterhalt oder wichtige staatliche Schutzmaßnahmen.“
„Inmitten der Bemühungen, die reproduktive Freiheit der Amerikaner einzuschränken und den Schutz für LGBTQ+-Personen und ihre Familien zurückzufahren“, fügt Crozier hinzu, „ist der Michigan Family Protection Act ein inspirierendes Beispiel für andere Staaten, in denen Lücken in den Elternschaftsgesetzen Familien weiterhin schutzlos aussetzen.“
Diese Geschichte wurde ursprünglich im GLAD Briefs-Newsletter Sommer 2024 veröffentlicht. ReAd mehr.
Barrieren beim PrEP-Zugang überwinden: Herausforderungen und Chancen
GLAD gründete sein AIDS Law Project 1984, zu einer Zeit, als viele Menschen innerhalb weniger Monate nach der Diagnose starben. Für die Hunderttausenden jungen Menschen, die in den ersten drei Jahrzehnten der HIV-Epidemie starben – und für die Eltern, Kinder, Ehepartner, Partner, Freunde und Betreuer, die sie überlebten – wäre es unvorstellbar gewesen, dass es eines Tages eine voll wirksame, täglich einzunehmende Pille geben würde, die die HIV-Übertragung zu nahezu 100 Prozent verhindert. PrEP ist genau das. Doch weniger als ein Drittel der Menschen, die PrEP (HIV-Präexpositionsprophylaxe) nehmen es in Kauf, weil es weiterhin gewaltige Barrieren gibt, die von Versicherungspraktiken über Stigmatisierung bis hin zu rassistischer Ungerechtigkeit reichen.
Bildnachweis: Michael Fleshman
PrEP wird nach wie vor zu wenig genutzt, insbesondere in den am stärksten von HIV gefährdeten Bevölkerungsgruppen. Im Jahr 2022 berichtete die CDC, dass nur 131 Prozent der Schwarzen und 241 Prozent der Latinx, die Anspruch auf PrEP hatten, diese auch erhielten, verglichen mit 941 Prozent der berechtigten Weißen. Diese krasse Diskrepanz unterstreicht den dringenden Bedarf an Interventionen.
GLAD kämpft gegen Hindernisse beim Zugang zu PrEP und arbeiten an der Verabschiedung von Gesetzen, die die Möglichkeiten für Menschen erweitern, PrEP zu erhalten, insbesondere neue Formen von PrEP wie langwirksame Injektionen. Kürzlich hörte das US-Berufungsgericht Argumente in Braidwood gegen BecerraIn diesem Fall hob ein Gericht in Texas die Anforderung des Affordable Care Act auf, dass Versicherer die Kosten für PrEP übernehmen, ohne dass dem Patienten Kosten entstehen. GLAD reichte eine Stellungnahme als Amicus Curiae ein in dem Fall, der das Gericht an das tiefe Leid und den Tod erinnerte, die so viele Menschen zu Beginn der Epidemie erlebt hatten.
In Zusammenarbeit mit Epidemiologen der Yale University haben wir außerdem den Anstieg der HIV-Infektionen berechnet, sollte das Gericht die Abschaffung dieser wichtigen ACA-Bestimmung bestätigen. Wir kamen zu dem Schluss, dass es in fünf Jahren mindestens 20.000 zusätzliche vermeidbare HIV-Infektionen geben würde, was dem Gesundheitssystem Kosten von 8 Milliarden Dollar verursachen würde! Dieser Schaden wird überproportional Menschen mit dunkler Hautfarbe treffen, die derzeit am wenigsten Zugang zu PrEP haben. Wir hoffen, dass diese wichtigen Informationen über die Folgen seiner Entscheidung dem Gericht helfen werden, die Bedeutung der Aufrechterhaltung des ACA-Schutzes zu verstehen.
GLAD arbeitet außerdem daran, Landesgesetze zu verabschieden, um weitere Hindernisse für PrEP zu beseitigen. Die vorherige Genehmigung, eine Praxis der Krankenkassen, die zu Verzögerungen führt, während Patienten auf die Kostenübernahme warten, erschwert den Zugang zu neuen, langwirksamen, injizierbaren PrEP-Formen erheblich. Injizierbare PrEP ist eine wichtige Option für Menschen, die aufgrund ihrer Umstände, wie z. B. Obdachlosigkeit oder Angst vor einer Offenlegung, nicht in der Lage sind, eine tägliche Pilleneinnahme einzuhalten. Die erforderliche vorherige Genehmigung führt zu Verzögerungen und führt dazu, dass Betroffene die Behandlung nicht in Anspruch nehmen. Selbst nach dieser Verzögerung verweigern die Krankenkassen häufig die Genehmigung.
GLAD arbeitet mit seinen Partnern an Gesetzesentwürfen in Rhode Island und Massachusetts, die es Versicherern verbieten würden, für HIV-Präventionsmedikamente eine Vorabgenehmigung oder Kostenbeteiligung zu verlangen. Der Gesetzentwurf wurde vom Senat in Rhode Island verabschiedet. Sollte er in Kraft treten, wäre er der erste seiner Art und könnte ähnliche Initiativen in anderen Bundesstaaten ankurbeln. Bisherige Erfolge, wie die Gewährleistung des PrEP-Zugangs für Minderjährige in Massachusetts und Connecticut sowie die Möglichkeit des Apothekenzugangs ohne ärztliches Rezept in Maine und Rhode Island, zeigen, wie weit wir beim Abbau von Barrieren gekommen sind.
Wir verfügen über die medizinischen Mittel, um die Epidemie zu beenden. Doch jetzt brauchen wir Gesetze und Richtlinien, die den Zugang zur PrEP für alle ermöglichen.
Diese Geschichte wurde ursprünglich im GLAD Briefs-Newsletter Sommer 2024 veröffentlicht. ReAd mehr.
Meeting People Where They’re At – But Not Leaving Them There
In today’s fragmented world, where many interactions occur online, engaging in meaningful conversations with people with different viewpoints can seem like an uphill battle. Yet, when it comes to issues impacting LGBTQ+ people, these conversations can have a powerful impact. Addressing misunderstandings and discussing issues impacting LGBTQ+ people and our lives can help slow the spread of misinformation, build understanding, and lessen support for harmful legislation.
Plaintiffs and community celebration at the MA State House for the first anniversary of marriage equality.
We’ve seen the power of this throughout our movement. We are celebrating 20 years of marriage equality in Massachusetts this year, but the fact is marriage wasn’t settled after GLAD’s landmark Goodridgecourt victory in November 2003, or even on the day couples finally began to marry on May 17, 2004. It took another three years to build support and defend the freedom to marry in Massachusetts from the threat of a constitutional amendment and another decade to win marriage nationally. And by the time the Supreme Court decided Obergefellin 2015 there was a super-majority of support for marriage equality across the country. That happened, in part, because our community launched a movement that centered our stories—of love, commitment, family, community, and what marriage meant to us. We talked to lawmakers, community groups, clergy, business leaders, friends, and family. People listened and learned and were moved to join the cause.
GLAD staff and board celebrating the success of the Yes on 3 campaign
A similar story played out when, in 2018, opponents attempted to repeal the Massachusetts transgender nondiscrimination law on the ballot. With the Yes on 3 campaign, transgender people told their stories, sharing the joys and challenges of their lives with friends, family, lawmakers, the media, and on the doorsteps of their neighbors and even total strangers. Again, people listened, learned, and joined us. We organized and won the support of city and town councils around the commonwealth and editorial support from major media outlets. On Election Night, Yes On 3 prevailed with a whopping 67.8 percent of the vote, making Massachusetts the first state in the US to uphold protections for trans and nonbinary people by popular vote.
Our personal stories, and those of young trans people in our lives, can help humanize complex issues and foster empathy. Today, when we are facing legislation and local initiatives targeting transgender youth around the country, one-on-one conversations with people in your life can be a powerful place to start to shift misunderstanding. Many people may not know a trans person or know that they do. With so much debate in the media and online, you may find yourself in a conversation with someone you care about who has questions or needs the facts. Our loved ones might not know the best way to talk about these things, but if they feel heard, there’s a great opportunity to build connection and understanding.
Addressing misinformation requires patience, empathy, and a commitment to factual discussions. By emphasizing shared values and finding common ground, we can build understanding even in the face of disagreement. Last year, during the holiday season, Senior Director of Civil Rights and Legal Strategies Mary Bonauto and GLAD’s Public Education department teamed up to create resources for our community on how to talk with people unfamiliar with what it means to be transgender and the harms transgender young people are facing.
Tips for speaking across difference
Give people space to ask questions and help them feel heard.
Start from a place of shared values:
We all want what’s best for children, and families should have access to the best available information to support their kids, including when it comes to medical care.
Equal access to education is fundamental to enable children to grow into healthy, secure adults who can contribute to their communities. All kids deserve to be included and feel like they belong in school life – that includes LGBTQ+ kids
All people are deserving of respect and safety.
It’s ok to not know all the answers – the point is connection and starting a dialogue.
Recognize that creating a safe space for all participants in dialogue is key. With increasing online and offline harassment and doxing, it’s important to trust your gut and take your and others’ level of risk into account. If you feel unsafe or someone is engaging with you in bad faith, you can always disengage.
Navigating conversations like these can be challenging, and it’s essential to approach these discussions with empathy, patience, and a commitment to understanding. While changing someone’s mind may not always be possible, ensuring they feel valued and heard, and sharing your perspective, can further the conversation and get people thinking.
Have you had a conversation with someone who felt differently than you about LGBTQ+ equality? Tell us how it went! Join us on social media to share your experiences and continue the conversation.
Diese Geschichte wurde ursprünglich im GLAD Briefs-Newsletter Sommer 2024 veröffentlicht. ReAd mehr.
Jüngste Entscheidungen des Obersten Gerichtshofs werfen dringende Fragen für LGBTQ+-Personen und Menschen mit HIV auf. Unsere Rechtsberatungs-Hotline „GLAD Law Answers“ kann helfen. Melden Sie sich noch heute.
Deutsch 
Español de México 
Português 
简体中文 
香港中文 
Français 
Tiếng Việt 
العربية 
Polski 
Русский 
Kreyòl Ayisyen