UPDATE – May 1st, 2023, St. Louis County Circuit Judge Ellen Ribaudo granted a 14-day temporary restraining order blocking Attorney General Andrew Bailey’s emergency rule until at least May 15th following a lawsuit filed by ACLU Missouri and Lambda Legal. A hearing is scheduled for 1 PM on May 11th, which could halt enforcement of the emergency rule until after the completion of the lawsuit.

Effective April 27th, an emergency rule issued by MO Attorney General, Andrew Bailey, sets new restrictions for adults and minors seeking gender-affirming care in the state of Missouri. The emergency rule is to remain in effect until it expires on February 6th, 2024.

The emergency rule requires compliance with eleven guidelines from any person or health organization providing “Covered Gender Transition Intervention”, or simply “Intervention”, to patients. “Intervention” is defined in the emergency rule as the provision or prescription of any puberty-blocking drugs, cross-sex hormones or surgery for the purpose of transitioning gender, decreasing gender incongruence or treating gender dysphoria. “Intervention”, as defined within the document, excludes treatment for genetically or biochemically verifiable sex development disorders.

The restrictions set in place by the emergency rule require any person or health organization providing “Intervention” to (listed in order of appearance in the document):

A. Assess annually whether or not the patient continues to have gender dysphoria
B. Obtain informed consent after disclosing 23 specific risks (p. 3-5)
C. Ensure that the patient has exhibited a medically documented, long-lasting, persistent and intense pattern of gender dysphoria for at least the 3 most recent consecutive years
D. Ensure that the patient has received a full psychological or psychiatric assessment, consisting of at least 15 separate hourly sessions over the course of at least 18 months, with a single provider conducting at least 10 of the sessions
E. Ensure that any psychiatric symptoms from existing mental health comorbidities of the patient have been treated and resolved
F. Ensure that the patient has received a comprehensive screening to determine whether or not they have autism (It is unclear whether or not autism is a disqualifying condition. Footnote 34 suggests that, if allowed at all, rehabilitative interventions to address the patient’s autism must occur before providing gender-affirming care. At this time, The Attorney General’s Office has not responded to my inquiry into clarification on the matter.)
G. Ensure, in the case of a patient who is a minor, that the patient has received and will continue to receive, at minimum, an annual comprehensive screening for social media addiction or compulsion and that the patient has not suffered from either for at least six months prior to beginning any intervention
H. Ensure on at least an annual basis that the patient is not experiencing social contagion with respect to their gender identity
I. Adopt and follow a procedure for all patients to track all adverse effects, both expected and unexpected, that arise from any course of intervention for at least fifteen years
J. Maintain data about adverse effects in a form that can be accessed readily for systematic study
K. Keep informed written consent on file either from the patient or from all parents or guardians who have the authority to provide consent in the case of minors – Consent must be renewed quarterly for the first 3 years and then at least twice a year afterward.

The emergency rule is the first of its kind, most notably because the guidelines have not been passed by a legislator or signed by a governor but, rather, are a result of Attorney General Andrew Bailey’s power to enforce consumer protection laws. Bailey cited Missouri’s Merchandising Practices Act, which is typically used to prosecute fraudulent business practices, as reason to enforce new guidelines on providing gender-affirming care. 

Bailey defended the emergency bill in an interview with St. Louis Public Radio, stating the guidelines are “intended to protect all patients and make sure that all patients have access to mental health services.” The American Medical Association stated in a press release that this kind of care is already tested, describing gender-affirming care as “medically-necessary, evidence-based care that improves the physical and mental health of transgender and gender-diverse people.”

Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri issued a joint statement describing the rule as “a shocking attempt to exploit Missouri’s consumer protection laws in order to play politics with life-saving medical care.” They additionally asserted that “the Attorney General’s so-called emergency rule is based on distorted, misleading, and debunked claims and ignores the overwhelming body of scientific and medical evidence supporting this care as well as the medical experts and doctors who work with transgender people every day.” 

In only the first few months of 2023 alone, the ACLU has tracked 469 anti-LGBT+ bills at the time of writing this article. Missouri is responsible for 48 of these, falling short in quantity only to Texas at 52 bills. The passing of anti-LGBT+ bills in 2023 is an exponential increase from the 278 bills tracked by the ACLU  in all of 2022.

Anti-trans legislation has especially been on the rise with 19 anti-trans bills introduced in state houses in 2018, 25 bills introduced in 2019, 60 bills introduced in 2020, 131 bills introduced in 2021 and 155 bills introduced by October of 2022. 

Those who wish to stand with the trans community and push back against the emergency rule can donate to the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri and Lambda Legal to help challenge the actions of Attorney General Andrew Bailey. LGBT+ supporters can also donate to the general ACLU fund or to The Trevor Project to help combat the broader wave of anti-LGBT+ legislation. 

For further action, individuals can also plan a peaceful protest after learning about their rights as protestors, contact local representatives to voice concerns, contact the Missouri Attorney General’s Office directly, vote for political candidates who advocate for LGBT+ rights in the upcoming election or get involved locally by volunteering at community sites such as The Center Project.  

Those who live in safe states (3 or less anti-LGBT+ bills tracked by the ACLU) can also provide asylum or offer transportation through A Place for Marsha to trans adults fleeing hostile states (10 bills or more).

Earlier this month, the internet forum Kiwi Farms was dropped by its primary service provider, Cloudflare, after intense public pressure protesting the website’s encouragement of hate crimes. 

Since its inception nearly a decade ago, Kiwi Farms has been known to be a platform for harassment campaigns, particularly against members of the LGBTQ+ community. The forum has historically been used for attacks on individuals, such as by swatting—sending a false tip to authorities so that police will raid an individual’s home—and doxxing—publishing an individual’s private info on the internet with malicious intent.

A new Kiwi Farms site went online earlier this week, but was reported to have major security flaws in protecting user data. As the site owner of the new Kiwi Farms forum works to resolve the security issues, they warn that account usernames, passwords, emails and IP-address may have been leaked following a massive data breach on Sept.19.

The effort to get Kiwi Farms removed from Cloudfare reached its peak after Clara Sorrenti, a transgender Twitch streamer known as Keffals, was repeatedly doxxed by the forum. Last month, she was swatted and arrested in her own home by London police. Sorrenti fled to Ireland out of fear, where she was found and targeted again in a matter of days.

These attacks resulted in Sorrenti reaching out to multiple news outlets and posting on social media about the harassment she endured. She led a #DropKiwiFarms movement on Twitter that quickly picked up traction.

In the midst of the situation, Cloudflare was hit with widespread backlash. The service ultimately decided to take down Kiwi Farms after violent threats escalated on the forum. Following their decision, users were met with a statement when attempting to access the site: “Due to an imminent and emergency threat to human life, the content of this site is blocked from being accessed through Cloudflare’s infrastructure.” 

Opponents of the take-down argue that by dropping the website, Cloudfare is censoring free speech. Others counter that the harm done by Kiwi Farms far outweighed any semblance of free speech protections that it claimed to have.

Since the removal of the Kiwi Farms forum, an anonymous individual  bought the URL kiwifarms.info and redirected it to the Transgender Law Center website, where people can donate to “advance the rights of transgender and gender-nonconforming people, defend our victories and ensure our movement’s strength.”

In keeping with the theme of having a Lifestyle page that is about, hopefully, helping its readership lead good human lives, March 31st marked Transgender Day of Visibility (TDOV). Though this article is two weeks overdue, I think that the passage of such a day gives the Jewell community an opportunity to once again reflect on the question of: “Are we leading good, social lives?”

Before I get into the nuances of leading a good social life and the ways in which reflecting on TDOV would be conducive to leading such a life, we should first define what TDOV is. 

Specifically, TDOV is “an annual awareness day… dedicated to celebrating the accomplishments of transgender and gender nonconforming people while raising awareness of the work that still needs to be done to achieve trans justice.” 

TDOV, created in 2009 by Rachel Crandall-Crocker, is a day about “celebrating the living.” If this sounds strangely dark, that’s because being gender nonconforming is, well, pretty rough, and a brief look at a smattering of statistics will tell you this. 

According to HRC.org, transgender and gender nonconforming people face an elevated risk of being victims of systemic, institutional discrimination, violence, inequality and stigma. 29% of trans adults live in poverty. Only 30% of women’s shelters house trans women. 47% of trans people have experienced some form of sexual assault in their life time. 

TDOV is meant to be a time to celebrate transgender and nonbinary people’s existence – to take time to enjoy people being who they are and being visible in their identities. TDOV is the sort of day which, because of its focus on trans and non binary visibility, raises awareness of the fact that people do not conform to gender norms and/or the gender binary. Which means that TDOV itself has practical implications for everyone, implications we all should take seriously if we want to lead good human lives. 

Namely: we must eschew the kind of erroneous socialization which would have us believe that the experiences of transgender and nonbinary people are unnatural or wrong. Instead, we should seek to educate ourselves about transgender and nonbinary identities in order to be able to be more educated and be able to lead lives that are respectful of other people’s lived experience. 

The advice I give, I think, is rather simple solidarity-style advice. If you want to be a good ally, and you want to show that you take seriously TDOV, and transgender and nonbinary issues, then you can start simply. Use people’s correct pronouns. Call people their preferred name. Don’t assume people’s pronouns based on their appearance. 

Don’t play gender police. If someone tells you that they identify as a particular gender identity, you should not ask them why or start quizzing them to ensure that they are in fact correct. The epistemic authority in matters of gender identity is the individual person! Not you. No one owes you anything when it comes to their gender identity. 

You can also continuously educate yourself about transgender and nonbinary issues. Pflag.org has a great list of resources that you read in order to educate yourself. You should also keep your eyes on news sources. Anti-trans legislation is constantly being pushed in local, state and federal governments that could negatively impact the lives of transgender and nonbinary people. 

For example, Missouri lawmakers have been trying to push to a bill that would make access to transition-related medical treatments illegal for minors, and another bill which would make students in Missouri schools compete in sports based on their assigned sex at birth. 

Finally, you should engage in mutual aid – whenever you can, donate money to either organization like the Trans Justice Funding Project or to individual transgender or nonbinary people to show your ally-ship, particularly during these awful pandemic times. 

Well, that didn’t take long.

The United States has suffered greatly since the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She was one of the most ardent defenders of women’s and gay rights. She championed the Obergefell v. Hodges case, which resulted in the legalization of gay marriage. Now, two Supreme Court Justices want to tear it all down.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito issued a statement earlier this week declaring that they wanted to repeal their previous decision on the Obergefell case, therefore stripping the LGBTQ+ community of their right to marry. Their reasoning? In Thomas’ own words, the court’s previous decision “enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss.”

See the problem here?

The first amendment in the Bill of Rights is often interpreted to require separation of church and state. The line that states this, usually assigned to Thomas Jefferson, is that the establishment clause of the amendment declares that they build a “wall of separation between the church and state.” This prevented one’s religious beliefs from interfering with their ability to serve the American people. This law ought to invalidate Thomas and Alito’s statement. Technically, they are not supposed to consider how any decision they’ve made would impact people’s religious beliefs, unless it specifically infringes on the right of religious liberty.

But guess what? It doesn’t even matter. There will likely never be a time in the American government that church isn’t somehow connected with state. There is a National Prayer Breakfast held in Washington D.C. every year hosted by members of Congress – it really doesn’t get much more obvious than that. The White House is adorned with specifically Christian-oriented decorations during the winter holidays, including multiple Christmas trees. It shouldn’t be shocking anymore that there are religious reasons why people think same-sex marriage is immoral. That right is now in very serious danger.

This address from two Justices is only one more stepping stone on the path to reevaluating the decision that Obergefell represents. Amy Coney Barrett, who President Trump has nominated for the Supreme Court, has been very vocal about her Catholic beliefs. In 2015, she voiced her dissent with the Supreme Court’s decision to allow gay marriage. Should she truly be appointed to the Supreme Court, it’s almost inevitable that the decision will be appealed. Obergefell barely made it last time, scraping by with a 5-4 outcome. Barrett would sway that vote in the opposite direction.

I don’t know how many times the LGBTQ+ community needs to say it for it to sink in: gay rights are not – and should not be – a political issue. Someone’s mere existence should not be perceived as a threat to “religious liberty.” I’m amazed that this is still up for debate in the year 2020. There are bigger fish to fry. Aren’t we still in the middle of a global pandemic? The focus should not be on whether or LGBTQ+ individuals should be legally allowed to declare their love for one another.

All things considered, removing Obergefell invalidates the existence of millions of LGBTQ+ Americans, including those who are already married. There should be no reason at all that LGBTQ+ individuals pose some kind of a threat to those with religious values. By even considering repealing the case, the rights of such a marginalized community will be greatly impacted. Repealing this decision will be a major step backward in the fight for civil rights for all minorities in this country. The LGBTQ+ community is in serious trouble, and something needs to be done about it.