Latest news with #transgenderRights
New York Times
2 hours ago
- Health
- New York Times
Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Transgender Care for Minors
Hosted by Natalie Kitroeff Produced by Shannon M. LinNina Feldman and Stella Tan Edited by Devon Taylor and Lisa Tobin Original music by Diane WongDan PowellMarion Lozano and Elisheba Ittoop Engineered by Chris Wood The Supreme Court handed down a landmark ruling this week that effectively upheld bans on some medical treatments for transgender youth in nearly half of the United States. Azeen Ghorayshi, who covers the intersection of sex, gender and science for The New York Times, explains the scientific debate over the care, and why the court's decision leaves families more in the dark than ever. Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Azeen Ghorayshi is a reporter covering the intersection of sex, gender and science for The New York Times. The Supreme Court's decision, allowing Tennessee and other states to ban gender-affirming care for minors, was a crushing blow for the transgender rights movement. 'The Protocol' podcast explains where youth gender medicine originated and how it became a target of the Trump administration. There are a lot of ways to listen to 'The Daily.' Here's how. We aim to make transcripts available the next workday after an episode's publication. You can find them at the top of the page. The Daily is made by Rachel Quester, Lynsea Garrison, Clare Toeniskoetter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon Johnson, Brad Fisher, Chris Wood, Jessica Cheung, Stella Tan, Alexandra Leigh Young, Lisa Chow, Eric Krupke, Marc Georges, M.J. Davis Lin, Dan Powell, Sydney Harper, Michael Benoist, Liz O. Baylen, Asthaa Chaturvedi, Rachelle Bonja, Diana Nguyen, Marion Lozano, Rob Szypko, Elisheba Ittoop, Mooj Zadie, Patricia Willens, Rowan Niemisto, Jody Becker, Rikki Novetsky, Nina Feldman, Carlos Prieto, Ben Calhoun, Susan Lee, Lexie Diao, Mary Wilson, Alex Stern, Sophia Lanman, Shannon M. Lin, Diane Wong, Devon Taylor, Alyssa Moxley, Olivia Natt, Daniel Ramirez, Brendan Klinkenberg, Chris Haxel, Maria Byrne, Anna Foley and Caitlin O'Keefe. Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Paula Szuchman, Lisa Tobin, Larissa Anderson, Julia Simon, Mahima Chablani, Elizabeth Davis-Moorer, Jeffrey Miranda, Maddy Masiello, Isabella Anderson, Nina Lassam, Nick Pitman and Kathleen O'Brien.
Fox News
14 hours ago
- Politics
- Fox News
"EMOTIONAL IDIOCY": Mary Katharine Ham SLAMS Whoopi Goldberg, the View for Iran Comments
Mary Katharine Ham, FOX News Contributor, Outkick columnist, and co-author of End of Discussion , joined The Guy Benson Show today to respond to shocking comments from Whoopi Goldberg and The View saying that the U.S. is just as 'bad' for 'black people' as it is to be gay in Iran. Ham blasted the left and argued that the left often prioritizes ideological loyalty over honest conversation. She also reacted to President Obama's latest speech attacking Trump, despite Obama's own 9-0 losses in the courts, and weighed in on the AAP's failed Supreme Court challenge against Tennessee's law blocking transgender surgeries for minors. Listen to the full interview below! Listen to the full interview below: Listen to the full podcast below:
News.com.au
14 hours ago
- Entertainment
- News.com.au
Stephen Fry accuses ‘lost cause' J.K. Rowling of being ‘radicalised'
The British actor, broadcaster and writer has criticised the Harry Potter author for her outspoken views on transgender rights. During a recent appearance on The Show People podcast, Fry, who narrated the audiobooks for all seven Harry Potter novels, declared that he disagrees "profoundly" with Rowling's views. "She has been radicalised, I fear - perhaps by TERFs (trans-exclusionary radical feminists), but also by the vitriol that is thrown at her.' 'It is unhelpful and only hardens her. I'm afraid she seems to be a lost cause for us."
Fox News
a day ago
- Entertainment
- Fox News
Boy George's criminal past gets called out by J.K. Rowling after picking fight on transgender rights
Print Close By Rachel del Guidice Published June 19, 2025 Singer Boy George got called out in a particularly sharp way by Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling after he picked a fight with the author this week on transgender rights. In an X post from June 11, Rowling asked, "Which rights have been taken away from trans people?" The singer, whose full name is George O'Dowd, and was convicted of falsely imprisoning and assaulting a male escort in 2007 and served four months in prison in 2009, responded to Rowling's post, saying, "The right to be left alone by a rich bored bully!" 'HARRY POTTER' ACTOR STANDS BY JK ROWLING AT TONY AWARDS AMID CRITICISM OF HER TRANSGENDER VIEWS Rowling posted a reply of her own, calling out the differences between the author and singer, citing gender, fame, O'Dowd's crime and freedom of speech. In her lengthy reply, she addressed why she believes it is critical to keep biological men out of women's spaces. "For more than half my life I was a regular anonymous person," Rowling said. "Some of those years were spent in poverty. That's why I understand the importance of single-sex spaces for women who're reliant on state-funded services. That's why I understand why mixed public changing rooms are a problem for women. That's why I have a problem with men 'identifying' into women's rape crisis centres, domestic abuse and homeless shelters that are supposed to be single-sex. I don't stand against gender identity ideology because I personally still need those services, but because my life has taught me exactly how vulnerable women are when they don't have the money/influence I have now." JK ROWLING FIRES BACK AT LIBERAL COMEDIAN AFTER HE DOUBLES DOWN ON TRANS ATHLETE STANCE The world-famous author and advocate for women also brought up Boy George's assault and prison time. "You yourself have been convicted of violent assault," Rowling said in the post. "The overwhelming number of people who commit crimes of violence are male, just like you. That's why I don't want to see men identifying into women's prison cells or any of the spaces mentioned above. Not all men are violent or predatory, but enough are to make safeguarding necessary." She ended her reply by saying she thinks that the singer no longer values "non-conformity." "Lastly, I'm a writer who believes in freedom of speech and belief," Rowling said. "As we both know, the safe, fashionable thing in the arts world right now is to do exactly what you're doing: parrot TWAW [Trans Women Are Women] and sneer at the unenlightened plebs who think sex is important and matters. For a man who was once all about non-conformity, George, you couldn't have become more predictably or more tediously conformist." CLICK HERE FOR MORE COVERAGE OF MEDIA AND CULTURE In a Monday reply on X about the feud with Rowling, Boy George addressed her personal appearance. "The demolition of her filler face is more laughable! The dragon has been slayed!" he stated in the post. In a subsequent post on Tuesday, he said, "I do not hate women. I cannot be clearer than that. I don't hate men either. I'm just not anti trans. We have [lived] together for centuries without having to be separated. Some men need to be taught to respect women more and some women need [to] stop blaming all men for the bad deeds of the few." CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP Print Close URL
Reuters
a day ago
- Politics
- Reuters
Transgender rights advocates gird for more fights after US Supreme Court loss
WASHINGTON, June 19 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a blow to transgender rights by upholding a Tennessee ban on gender-affirming care for adolescents, but legal experts said the ruling was narrower than it could have been and left open the door for challenges to the rising number of government restrictions aimed at transgender people. The court decided that Tennessee's Republican-backed law, which prohibits medical treatments such as puberty blockers and hormones for people under age 18 experiencing gender dysphoria, did not violate the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment promise of equal protection, as challengers to the measure had argued. The court's six conservative justices powered the ruling authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, with its three liberal members dissenting. Transgender rights advocates called the decision a major setback while the law's backers welcomed the Supreme Court's endorsement and urged other states to adopt similar restrictions. Gender dysphoria is the clinical diagnosis for significant distress that can result from an incongruence between a person's gender identity and sex assigned at birth. The ruling rejected the assertion made by the law's challengers that the measure was a form of discrimination - based on sex or transgender status - that should trigger tougher judicial review and make it harder to defend in court under 14th Amendment protections. Instead, the ruling concluded that the ban classified people based on age and medical diagnosis, and the court applied what is called a rational-basis review, a deferential analysis that merely requires a rational connection between a law and a legitimate state interest. Application of rational basis review by courts generally would make it easier to defend a broader array of measures curbing transgender rights, from bathroom use to sports participation. But Wednesday's ruling did not foreclose the possibility of courts in the future applying tougher scrutiny and finding unlawful discrimination in certain measures targeting transgender people. Karen Loewy, a lawyer with the LGBT rights group Lambda Legal, called the ruling heartbreaking for transgender youths and their families but saw some hope. "I think the court here went out of its way to confine what it was doing here to a restriction on care for minors," Loewy said, adding that it "left us plenty of tools to fight other bans on healthcare and other discriminatory actions that target transgender people." The court concluded that Tennessee did not create a sex-based category or specifically draw a line between transgender people and others, said Georgetown University law professor Paul Smith, who has argued many cases at the Supreme Court including a landmark gay rights victory in 2003. "Other statutes may not be viewed the same," Smith said. Roberts wrote that the "fierce scientific and policy debates" concerning the medical treatments at issue justified the court's deferential review of Tennessee's ban. Roberts added that questions about these treatments should be left "to the people, their elected representatives and the democratic process." Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor in a written dissent disagreed with that view. Judicial scrutiny, Sotomayor said, "has long played an essential role in guarding against legislative efforts to impose upon individuals the state's views about how people of a particular sex (or race) should live or look or act." The ban's proponents welcomed the ruling and the court's reasoning. "Voters, through their elected representatives, should have the power to decide what they believe on serious issues like this one," said Tennessee Governor Bill Lee, a Republican who signed the ban into law. Lee added that the measure protects young people from "irreversible, life-altering medical decisions." "This ruling sends a strong message to the country that states have a clear right and path forward to protect children from irreversible body mutilation," added Republican state legislator Jack Johnson, one of the lead sponsors of the Tennessee measure. The issue of transgender rights is a flashpoint in the U.S. culture wars. Tennessee's law is one of 25 such policies, opens new tab enacted by conservative state lawmakers around the United States, and various states have adopted other restrictions on transgender people. Donald Trump in particular has taken a hard line against transgender rights since returning to the presidency in January. Tennessee's law, passed in 2023, aims to encourage minors to "appreciate their sex" by prohibiting healthcare workers from prescribing puberty blockers and hormones to help them live as "a purported identity inconsistent with the minor's sex." In litigation brought by plaintiffs including transgender individuals and former President Joe Biden's administration, a federal judge blocked the law as likely violating the 14th Amendment. The Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently reversed the judge's decision. Lawyers for the challengers noted that the Supreme Court did not go as far as the 6th Circuit to decline to recognize transgender people as a class of people whose status requires courts to apply tougher judicial review to laws targeting them. The Supreme Court left that question unresolved. Future legal challenges may hinge on whether a law draws a line between transgender people and others, Smith said. "If a state refused to hire transgender people or excluded them from juries, for example, that might well lead the court to apply heightened scrutiny under a sex discrimination theory or under the theory that such a line itself warrants heightened scrutiny," Smith said. "Targeting transgender people out of animus, as other more-recent restrictions have done, still violates equal protection," said Pratik Shah, an attorney who also helped represent the plaintiffs. However, three conservative justices who wrote or joined opinions concurring in Wednesday's outcome - Amy Coney Barrett, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito - agreed with the 6th Circuit that laws based on transgender status do not merit tougher legal scrutiny like laws that divide people based on race or sex. Such a ruling "would require courts to oversee all manner of policy choices normally committed to legislative discretion," Barrett wrote. Though some transgender advocates had expressed concern that a ruling favoring Tennessee could bolster restrictions on transgender adults as well, Jennifer Levi of the LGBT rights legal group GLAD Law said Wednesday's decision was explicitly limited to care for minors and that challenges to restrictions on adults remain viable under existing precedent. The Supreme Court also did not rule on a separate argument made by the plaintiffs that laws like Tennessee's violate the right of parents to make decisions concerning the medical care of their children. Competent adults could similarly claim a right to make medical decisions about their own bodies, Smith said. In a previous major case involving transgender rights, the Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that a landmark federal law forbidding workplace discrimination protects gay and transgender employees. Chase Strangio, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer representing the plaintiffs in the Tennessee case, made history in the case in December as the first openly transgender attorney to argue before the Supreme Court. Strangio emphasized the narrowness of Wednesday's ruling, but acknowledged its practical impact. "Of course the most immediate effect is on our clients, other young transgender people in Tennessee and across the country who need medical care that the government has stepped in to ban," Strangio said. "And for them we are devastated."
