Latest news with #transgenderRights
The Guardian
5 hours ago
- Health
- The Guardian
Transgender campaigners call for European rights body to report on UK
A collection of groups campaigning on transgender issues have urged Europe's main human rights body to investigate the UK over the implementation of the supreme court's ruling on gender. In a joint letter to the Council of Europe, the organisations said the situation in which transgender people were likely to be barred from using toilets of their acquired sex or joining single-sex organisations placed them in an 'intermediate zone' of gender, saying this was a violation of the European convention on human rights (ECHR). The five groups, Trans+ Solidarity Alliance, TransActual, Equality Network and Scottish Trans, Trans Safety Network and Feminist Gender Equality Network, have asked the council to report on trans rights in the UK, adding: 'We note that the situation is urgent and that without intervention, it seems likely to further deteriorate.' The letter follows April's landmark supreme court ruling that 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act referred only to a biological woman and to biological sex. In its 88-page judgment, the court said that while the word 'biological' did not appear in the definition of man or woman in the Equality Act, 'the ordinary meaning of those plain and unambiguous words corresponds with the biological characteristics that make an individual a man or a woman'. If 'sex' did not only mean biological sex in the 2010 legislation, providers of single-sex spaces including changing rooms, homeless hostels and medical services would face 'practical difficulties', it said. The justices added: 'Read fairly and in context, the provisions relating to single-sex services can only be interpreted by reference to biological sex.' According to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which is consulting on the formal post-ruling guidance, due out later this summer, transgender people should not be allowed to use toilets or changing spaces of the gender they live as, and that in some cases they also cannot use toilets of their birth sex. The letter argues that this would leave transgender people reliant on gender-neutral facilities, which are often unavailable 'and mandating their usage may require trans people to out themselves'. It argues that this, plus the post-ruling interim advice that transgender people would not be allowed to join single sex associations of their acquired sex, would place them in an 'intermediate zone' on sex, a violation of their right to respect for private life under article 8 of the ECHR. The convention is interpreted by the European court of human rights, part of the Strasbourg-based Council of Europe, which is separate from the EU and to which Britain remains a member. Jess O'Thomson from Trans+ Solidarity Alliance said trans people had already experienced 'a huge rollback' of rights even before the final guidance on implementing the ruling had been published: 'We are asking for a report to be opened into the state of trans people's human rights in the UK, in the hope that this will encourage our politicians to listen and take action.' Rebecca Don Kennedy, chief executive of Equality Network, said: 'Trans people and their allies all over the UK are horrified with the recent chain of events following the supreme court ruling in April. The threat to trans people's autonomy, freedom and dignity should concern anyone who values equality and human rights. 'Trans people have a right to public life, and dignity in social interaction, they have a right to use the toilet safely, to leave their homes knowing that they can. They have a right to privacy, a right to engage with the world as themselves, to join clubs that fully celebrate and welcome them as who they are.'
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump exploits Supreme Court ruling to attack transgender people in reality-challenged White House briefing
President Donald Trump on Friday seized on a U.S. Supreme Court ruling about nationwide injunctions by federal district court judges to renew his attacks on transgender rights and LGBTQ+ families, twisting an unrelated legal victory into a platform for his administration's anti-LGBTQ+ agenda. Standing in the White House press briefing room Friday, Trump celebrated the court's 6-3 decision limiting lower federal courts from issuing nationwide injunctions — rulings that have often blocked his policies. Keep up with the latest in + news and politics. Flanking him were U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, two longtime loyalists. Bondi, a former Florida attorney general, rose to national prominence for defending Trump during his first impeachment trial. Blanche, now the second-ranking official at the Justice Department, previously served as Trump's personal defense attorney in the New York state case that led to Trump's 2024 conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to cover up hush-money payments to bisexual adult film star Stormy Daniels. Related: Donald Trump rails against transgender athletes in U of Alabama commencement speech At Friday's briefing, Trump praised the Supreme Court ruling, describing it as a chance to bulldoze through legal obstacles to a raft of policies, including efforts to block federal funding for gender-affirming care. 'Thanks to this decision, we can now properly file to proceed with these numerous policies and those that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis, including birthright citizenship, ending sanctuary city funding, suspending refugee resettlement, freezing unnecessary funding, stopping federal taxpayers from paying for transgender surgeries and numerous other priorities of the American people,' Trump said. 'We have so many of them. I have a whole list. I'm not going to bore you.' Related: BREAKING: Supreme Court allows Maryland parents to opt their kids out of LGBTQ+ lessons in schools Trump appeared to reference his administration's sweeping January executive order declaring it the policy of the United States not to 'fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support' gender transition care for anyone under 19. That order sent shockwaves through hospitals and clinics nationwide, leading several to abruptly suspend care, cancel appointments, and turn away transgender patients — even those who had been receiving care for years. The executive order quickly drew lawsuits. In March, a federal judge in Maryland granted a preliminary injunction blocking its enforcement, ruling in PFLAG v. Trump that the policy could not stand while legal challenges continued. Civil rights advocates argued the order was discriminatory and endangered the health and wellbeing of transgender youth. At Friday's news conference, Bondi tied the Supreme Court ruling on nationwide injunctions to another significant decision handed down the same day: Mahmoud v. Taylor. The court ruled that parents had the right to opt out of lessons about the existence of LGBTQ+ people out of religious reasons. Related: Here are all of Trump's executive orders that have targeted transgender people — so far That case involved parents in Maryland who sued to opt their children out of public school lessons featuring LGBTQ+ picture books that depict families with same-sex parents as part of the factual diversity of family life in the United States. Bondi hailed the opt-out ruling as 'a huge win' that 'restores parents' rights to decide their child's education.' She claimed it would allow families to avoid what she described as 'dangerous trans ideology.' Blanche echoed Bondi's sentiments, calling the decision 'another great decision that came down today.' He argued that the ruling 'restores parents' rights to decide their child's education,' adding: 'It seems like a basic idea, but it took the Supreme Court to set the record straight, and we thank them for that. And now that ruling allows parents to opt out of dangerous trans ideology and make the decisions for their children that they believe is correct.' Pressed by reporters about the opt-out ruling, Trump insisted it was 'a great ruling for parents,' claiming families had 'lost control of the schools' and that the decision was 'a tremendous victory.' He added, 'We will give you back your parental rights. They were taken away.' Related: Donald Trump's government declares that transgender and nonbinary people don't exist Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing in a blistering dissent, warned that the decision 'threatens the very essence of public education,' arguing it hands veto power to parents who object to curricula meant to reflect America's diversity. Civil rights advocates condemned the Supreme Court's ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor. LGBTQ+ advocates fear it could pave the way for broader censorship and further marginalization of queer youth in schools. The Jewish Council for Public Affairs, a leading non-partisan Jewish civil rights organization, also sounded the alarm about the decision's consequences. 'SCOTUS's ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor sets a dangerous precedent,' the group said in a statement. 'Inclusive education is essential to a safe, democratic society, and this decision risks sidelining, stigmatizing, or erasing LGBTQ+ students from the classroom.' GLAD Law, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case alongside the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Family Equality, COLAGE, Free State Justice, the Human Rights Campaign, GLSEN, and The Trevor Project, emphasized that public schools have an obligation to prepare students for life in a diverse democracy. Mary L. Bonauto, senior director of civil rights and legal strategies at GLAD Law, said the ruling doesn't eliminate schools' responsibility to help students succeed in an increasingly diverse society. She noted that Montgomery County's reading curriculum — and similar programs nationwide — uses stories as 'windows and mirrors,' helping children build literacy while also seeing themselves and understanding others. She stressed that LGBTQ+ people and families exist, many students have LGBTQ+ parents, and books that feature queer families shouldn't be singled out for censorship. 'This ruling not only tells LGBTQ+ students that they don't belong, but that their experiences and existence are less worthy of respect,' said Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, in a statement. 'It's wrong, it's dangerous, and it's cruel—plain and simple.' This article originally appeared on Advocate: Trump exploits Supreme Court ruling to attack transgender people in reality-challenged White House briefing Donald Trump's government declares that transgender and nonbinary people don't exist Trump and El Salvador's president attack transgender people during White House meeting Trump signs executive order banning federal support of gender-affirming care for anyone under 19
Telegraph
15 hours ago
- Entertainment
- Telegraph
Bookshop stops selling JK Rowling titles over trans views
JK Rowling 's books have been removed from shelves in a San Francisco shop after the author said she would fund her transgender critical advocacy with the profits from sales. Booksmith, which refers to itself as a 'group of queer book lovers', has stopped selling Rowling's titles in response to her new legal fund, created to support 'women's sex-based rights'. 'With this announcement, we've decided to stop carrying her books,' the San Francisco bookshop wrote on Instagram, encouraging fans of the Harry Potter series to buy second-hand copies instead. 'We don't know exactly what her new 'women's fund' will entail, but we know that we aren't going to be a part of it. As a group of queer book lovers, we also had our adolescences shaped by wizards and elves. Look at us, it's obvious,' the post read. 'If you or someone you love wants to dive into the world of Harry Potter, we suggest doing so by buying used copies of these books.' On Monday, Booksmith, which has operated in the city's Haight-Ashbury neighbourhood since 1976, published a list of fantasy books on its website similar to the Harry Potter series, under the heading: 'Wizards, but not That Wizard'. 'Please find below a list of bookseller-curated suggestions for books we genuinely love that also might fit the HP brief for you and yours,' the website read. The move sparked a censorship row on social media, with one person commenting: 'So you're going to curate your selections to only sell books by authors that you agree with politically. Good to know. I'll be shopping elsewhere.' Another accused Booksmith of 'choosing to silence someone you disagree politically with'. The shop responded by claiming the ban on Rowling's novels is 'not politics at all' and is 'no different' to encouraging readers to buy from independent book stores. 'There are plenty of books we carry that we don't 'agree' with, but in this case, it's not politics at all,' it said. 'When the author of a book states that all sales of those books will contribute to an anti-trans fund, the only way we can choose not to participate is by not selling the books any longer. it's no different than when we encourage you to buy your books in indies rather than purchase them on Amazon. 'It stands in direct opposition to everything we believe in and that we have tried to uphold in our nearly 50 years of selling books. 'If you want to read the HP books, we implore you to buy them used locally, where the money stays in the community you love.' The author in May announced that she would funnel her personal wealth into a JK Rowling Women's Fund, described as a legal endowment to support 'individuals organisations fighting to retain women's sex-based rights in the workplace, in public life, and in protected female spaces'. Although the fund does not mention the transgender community specifically, Rowling has been a vocal defender of women's spaces and sex-based rights. Booksmith is one of several US cultural institutions that have boycotted Rowling over her gender-critical views. In August 2023, the Museum of Pop Culture in Seattle scrubbed its Harry Potter exhibits of all mention of the author, describing her as ' She Who Must Not Be Named '. Despite public backlash against Rowling for her views on transgender issues, there is little evidence of activism impacting on her book sales. The Harry Potter books have sold 230 million copies in the US and 600 million worldwide, making it the bestselling book series of all time, according to US publisher Scholastic. Forbes estimated Rowling has earned more than $80 million (£60 million) a year from book sales and Potterverse brand extensions including films, theme parks and theatre shows since she first began speaking out on women's rights in 2020.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court decision guide: States can block Planned Parenthood from getting Medicaid funding, and other cases to watch in 2025
The Supreme Court is issuing a flurry of consequential decisions this week as the justices wrap up all of their unfinished business before they adjourn for summer break. On Thursday, the high court ruled that states can block Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funding for all services it provides. That decision comes a week after the court issued an opinion in one of the most highly anticipated decisions, delivering a setback for transgender rights. In a 6-3 ruling, the justices upheld a Tennessee law that restricts gender-affirming care for minors. Advertisement The high court has also issued opinions in other bigger blockbuster cases this term: It upheld a Biden administration rule that regulates ghost guns; it blocked a contract for the nation's first religious charter school in Oklahoma; it allowed a lawsuit from an Ohio woman who alleges she was discriminated against for being straight to proceed; and it blocked Mexico's multibillion-dollar lawsuit from proceeding against U.S. gun manufacturers. The court is expected to wrap up its term on Friday by releasing decisions in all of its remaining undecided cases, including rulings on hot-button issues like President Trump's end to birthright citizenship, transgender rights, LGBTQ books in public schools and age verification for porn sites. Here are some major cases on the SCOTUS docket. Yahoo News will be updating the list below as rulings come in; check back for updates. Defunding Planned Parenthood Case: Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic Advertisement Decided: June 26, 2025 Case argued: April 2, 2025 The ruling: Medicaid consists of federal and state funds that help low-income people cover medical costs. Public health funds generally cannot be used for abortions, but this case centered around whether South Carolina or other states could block that money from being used for any of the other services that Planned Parenthood provides — things like contraception, cancer screenings and other reproductive health procedures. In a 6-3 ruling split along ideological lines, the justices found that states can indeed block Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds entirely. Planned Parenthood and other health organizations had argued that cutting off these funds would harm poor South Carolina residents who may struggle to find other providers that accept Medicaid, but Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion that any fallout from the funding freeze was 'a policy question for Congress, not courts.' Advertisement What the ruling means: The ruling could prove to be a major blow for Planned Parenthood, which has been a longtime target of conservatives because it provides abortions among the many other health services it offers. Other conservative states may follow South Carolina's lead in barring Planned Parenthood from receiving any public funds, which could make it even more difficult for low-income Americans to access health care. Nationwide injunctions (aka the birthright citizenship case) Case: Trump v. CASA Not yet decided Case argued: May 15, 2025 Advertisement The issue: A federal judge in one district has the power to block a government policy nationwide, not just for the parties involved in the case. This is known as a nationwide or universal injunction. Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship hasn't been enforced because a few federal judges blocked the policy by issuing a nationwide injunction through lawsuits that challenged Trump's order. Trump is asking the Supreme Court to narrow the birthright citizenship injunctions so they apply only to the individual plaintiffs who brought the case. In this case, Trump wants the injunction limited to the people, organizations and potentially the 22 states that legally challenged his executive order. What's at stake: If the Supreme Court sides with Trump and narrows the injunctions so they apply only to the individuals and others who filed lawsuits, there will be different birthright citizenship rules for different people while litigation plays out. If the Supreme Court ultimately decides to limit national injunctions in general, the Trump administration would have a less challenging time implementing future policies going forward. Parents' religious rights vs. LGBTQ books in public schools Case: Mahmoud v. Taylor Not yet decided Case argued: April 22, 2025 Advertisement Read more from Slate: One of the Most Complex Cases of the Supreme Court Term Is Also One of the Most Straightforward The issue: A group of Maryland parents whose children attend a public elementary school want to be able to have notice and an opportunity to opt their children out of lessons with LGBTQ-inclusive storybooks they feel violate their religious beliefs. The justices will decide whether a Maryland public school district unconstitutionally burdened parents' religious rights under the First Amendment when the school abruptly reversed a policy that provided notice and an opt-out option before the lesson without explanation. What's at stake: The justices could issue a broad ruling affecting how public schools manage their curriculums nationwide. If the justices side with the Maryland parents, the case could set a precedent for greater parental control over public school curriculum, particularly when it comes to gender and sexuality. Drawing Louisiana's congressional maps is a balancing act Case: Louisiana v. Callais Not yet decided Case argued: March 24, 2025 Advertisement Read more from USA Today: Supreme Court weighs racial gerrymandering claim, protections for Black voting power The issue: A congressional redistricting map in Louisiana has been ensnared in years of legal battles. Following the 2020 census, the Louisiana state legislature redrew a congressional map of the state's six House districts in response to population shifts. But the state of Louisiana was sued because it only included one majority-Black district, even though the state's entire population is one-third Black. The plaintiffs argued that the map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which bans voting practices or procedures from discriminating against a voter based on race or color. A federal district judge ordered that the maps be redrawn. The GOP-led state legislature redrew the maps to include a second majority-Black district. But Louisiana was sued again by a group of self-described non-Black voters who argued the new map violated the Equal Protection Clause. This time, a divided panel of three federal judges sided with the group. That's why Louisiana has asked the Supreme Court to intervene and decide whether the latest version of the state's congressional map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander that violates the 14th Amendment. Advertisement What's at stake: The Supreme Court ruling could shift the congressional majority-Black districts in Louisiana. But it also has national implications. The balance of political power in the House of Representatives has frequently come down to razor-thin margins. The ruling could ultimately determine the balance of power in the House in future elections. Age verification for porn sites Case: Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton Not yet decided Case argued: Jan. 15, 2025 Read more from Mashable: What the Supreme Court hearing about age verification could mean for you The issue: The justices will decide whether a 2023 Texas law that requires age verification for porn websites is constitutional. Users are required to submit some form of identification, like a driver's license or digital ID, in order to access the site. Free speech organizations and the porn industry are challenging the law, arguing that it burdens adults' access to content they are legally allowed to consume and it violates their First Amendment rights. Advertisement What's at stake: Currently, 24 states have passed laws requiring some sort of age verification in order to access porn sites, with the goal of protecting minors under the age of 18 from accessing sexual content on the internet. The ruling by the justices will not just affect Texas, but it will have implications for these other laws as well. Defunding Planned Parenthood Case: Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic Not yet decided Case argued: April 2, 2025 The issue: Medicaid consists of federal and state funds that help people with low incomes cover medical costs. Under federal law, Medicaid funds can cover abortion only in cases of rape, incest or to preserve the life of the pregnant person. At the state level, South Carolina does not allow for Medicaid funds to cover abortions, whereas some states like New York and California do. The state wants to block clinics like Planned Parenthood from being considered a 'qualified Medicaid provider' because the clinics provide abortion services. Advertisement The Supreme Court will weigh whether states can remove providers like Planned Parenthood from their Medicaid program because they offer abortion services, regardless of the fact that the clinics also provide non-abortion-related services like gynecological and obstetrical care and cancer screenings. What's at stake: If the high court rules in favor of South Carolina, health care options will be jeopardized for Medicaid patients in the state, and could embolden other states to remove Planned Parenthood from the program, effectively defunding it.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
San Francisco Bookstore Pulls ‘Harry Potter' Books Over J.K. Rowling's Anti-Trans Views
After years of controversy over Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling's stance against transgender rights, the owners of one San Francisco bookstore have had enough. The Booksmith, a popular independent retailer in Haight Ashbury, announced recently on its website that the author is 'using her private wealth from the Harry Potter series to develop the 'JK Rowling Women's Fund,' an organization dedicated to removing transgender rights 'in the workplace, in public life, and in protected female spaces.'' As a result, The Booksmith's owners announced they would remove Rowling's books. More from Deadline Pedro Pascal Calls Out J.K. Rowling For 'Heinous Loser Behavior' For Anti-Trans Views J.K. Rowling Decries Inclusion Of 'Cheat' Trans Sprinter Valentina Petrillo In Paris Paralympics Michael Cera Explains "Big Fear" That Kept Him From Auditioning For 'Fantastic Beasts' 'As a group of queer booksellers, we also had our adolescents [sic.] shaped by wizards and elves. Look at us, it's obvious. If you or someone you love wants to dive into the world of Harry Potter, we suggest doing so by buying used copies of these books,' they said in a statement. Controversies over Rowling's views and activism are not new. Most recently, Pedro Pascal decried Rowling's online celebration of an anti-trans UK Supreme Court ruling. Pascal called it, 'Awful disgusting SH*T' and 'Heinous LOSER behavior.' Best of Deadline Everything We Know About 'My Life With The Walter Boys' Season 2 So Far Everything We Know About The 'Reminders of Him' Movie So Far Everything We Know About The 'Hunger Games: Sunrise On The Reaping' Movie So Far
