Randy Rainbow pokes good fun at Trump again with 'Donald in the John With Boxes'

 Let's waltz into this last week of Pride with smiles and laughter courtesy of Randy Rainbow. With a hilarious parody of the Beatles song "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds," Randy Rainbow blisters Donald Trump and his recent indictment.

'Judge's ruling debunks anti-trans claims often seen in corporate media' & other Fri midday news briefs

Judge’s Ruling Debunks Anti-Trans Claims Often Seen in Corporate Media - When the trans community and their allies were complaining about poor mainstream coverage, this is what they were talking about. Thank you Alex Koren for breaking it down.

Fox News is altering language in AP and Reuters articles on anti-trans legislation — including a quote from an elected official​ - And who should be surprised by this? Fox News is trash. 

NHL bans Pride jerseys even during warmups, Pride Nights will continue - This right here is some b.s.

Democrats reintroduce “long-overdue” Equality Act - We'll see what happens.

Deja Vu - Overturn of Arkansas trans healthcare ban reminder of how state's ban on gay foster parents was defeated

Predictably, Arkansas governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders was not happy with the recent federal court decision to overturn her state's ban on gender-affirming care for trans kids

No one should be distracted by her hysterics. The state lost the case simply because it couldn't justify banning gender-affirming care for trans kids. It's easy to create laws or sway voters with lies but in a court of law, facts matter. And in this case, Arkansas failed to provide the facts. 

Independent journalist Erin Reed (folks should really support her work. She is very good) wrote a brilliant summation of the judge's decision:

The crux of Judge Moody’s ruling lies in the substantial 311 individual statements of fact, many of which decisively dismantle arguments made against gender affirming care. These facts apply to issues from the rarity of detransition to the vital medical benefits that gender affirming care offers transgender youth. The statements also rule on the credibility of the state’s experts as well as the plaintiff’s experts. The court found the plaintiff's experts to be extraordinarily credible, while the state’s experts were deemed to be considerably lacking in credibility and motivated more by religious beliefs than sound policy. Even religious organizations lobbying for anti-transgender laws, such as the Alliance Defending Freedom, are probed within these factual statements.

One statement of fact was about the "experts" Arkansas used to justify its ban:

Judge Moody offered a biting critique of the credibility of the witnesses fielded by Arkansas, stating their opinions were "more rooted in ideology than in science." Backing this statement, Moody pointed out the significant lack of training that state experts possessed in providing gender-affirming care. For instance, Dr. Mark Regnerus, a sociologist specializing in sexual relationship behavior and religion, lacks any clinical or psychological experience with transgender individuals. 

Similarly, Dr. Patrick Lappert, a plastic surgeon, has no experience in mental healthcare, let alone in gender-affirming care. Furthermore, Dr. Paul Hruz, a pediatric endocrinologist put forward by the state, has never treated a patient for gender dysphoria. Of particular note was the involvement of the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) in recruiting the state's experts.

 Judge Moody highlighted that Dr. Regnerus, Dr. Hruz, and Dr. Lappert were all connected through an ADF seminar in Arizona meant to recruit witnesses for court cases like this one. Given the nature of their testimony and how they were recruited, the judge observed that the state experts were "testifying more from a religious doctrinal standpoint than from the perspective expected of experts." 

 In a post last night, I wrote about how one of those experts, Regnerus, created a fraudulent study in 2012 in an effort to justify a ban on marriage equality. The point was to show that the same folks who fought our right to marry are now fighting against the right of trans people to get decent healthcare. 

But there is also another linkage.  

This isn't the first time using poor witnesses led Arkansas to lose a case in which it was attempting to defend anti-LGBTQ law.  And wouldn't you know it? A Huckabee was involved in that situation. Sanders's father, Mike Huckabee, was governor in 2004 when a state judge ruled that gays and lesbians could be foster parents. 

According to a January 1, 2005 edition of  The SF Gate

An Arkansas judge's ruling allowing gays and lesbians to become foster parents contains findings on parental fitness that could have an impact in both the U.S. Supreme Court and a court in San Francisco, where major decisions on the rights of same-sex couples are imminent. In his ruling Wednesday, Pulaski County Circuit Judge Timothy Fox said the ban enacted by an Arkansas state agency in 1999 had nothing to do with protecting children's health or welfare, but instead was an attempt to regulate "public morality," which is beyond the agency's authority. Fox also issued a series of findings, based on testimony by child welfare and mental health experts:

In that case, Arkansas used an "expert witness" by the name of George Rekers. An ACLU Fact Sheet on Rekers said the following:

Rekers is one of the founders of the Family Research Council, a notoriously anti-gay group. 

Rekers relies on the discredited research of Paul Cameron, an anti-gay “”researcher”” who was kicked out of the American Psychological Association for misrepresenting the research regarding homosexuality. 

Rekers has suggested that gays are unsuitable to serve as foster parents because they’re at higher risk for AIDS and other sexually-transmitted disease, ignoring the fact that there is a physical examination required of all foster parent applicants in Arkansas that would weed out any applicants with health conditions that could jeopardize a foster child. 

Rekers says that children are best served when raised by both a mother and a father, but doesn’t favor excluding single heterosexual single women from fostering. 

Rekers is an ordained minister in the southern Baptist convention. He has strong religious beliefs about homosexuality and the role of men and women, including the belief that married women should be submissive to their husband’s leadership in the home. 

Rekers practices “”conversion therapy,”” the attempt to “”cure”” people of being gay. 

Rekers has said he favors pulling children from long-term placements with gay foster parents if the opportunity arises to place them in homes headed by straight parents even though, as he acknowledges, research shows such transitions are traumatic for children.

That should give you an idea of what Rekers would say in his testimony. According to an October 6, 2004 edition of the Arkansas Democrat Gazette:

Little Rock attorney Kathy L. Hall, who represents the Arkansas Child Welfare Agency Review Board, questioned Rekers about his opinion regarding placement of children in foster homes where at least one person is homosexual. The board approved a regulation in 1999 prohibiting such placements. "It would be in the best interest of foster children to be placed in a heterosexual home," 

Rekers began, adding that children in foster care are more likely to already have psychological disorders. He said that because the majority of people in the country — according to one public opinion study — disapprove of homosexual behavior, placing vulnerable children in a home with a gay person would intensify their stress. "That disapproval filters down to children," 

Rekers said. "Children will express disapproval in more cruel, insensitive ways" toward children being raised in a household containing a gay person.

In his ruling, Judge Fox did not give a positive opinion of Rekers's testimony. From The SF Gate:

Fox, in his ruling, described Rekers' testimony as "extremely suspect" and said the witness "was there primarily to promote his own personal ideology."

Rekers later demanded over $200,000 ($165,000 initially plus late fees and other charges) as payment for his testimony. He and the state reached an agreement for $60,000 in 2006. In 2010, Rekers was embroiled in a huge scandal in which he paid a male escort to accompany him on a trip to Europe. The escort claimed that he and Rekers had "heavy petting type sex."

All in all, one would think that Arkansas would have learned its lesson about relying on bad experts to defend anti-LGBTQ laws. Lucky for the state's trans community, it clearly didn't.

'All the celebrities who came out as LGBTQ+ in 2023 (so far)' & other Thur midday news briefs

All the Celebrities Who Came Out As LGBTQ+ in 2023 (So Far) - So far is right. 

Bills, speeches and even playlists: Here's how some lawmakers are celebrating Pride Month - Damn right. We still celebrate Pride.

Christian-Owned Business Can Discriminate Against LGBTQ+ People: Court​ - I don't know about this one. It is a specifically religious business. 

Researcher Who Coined 'Cisgender' Reacts To Elon Musk Labeling It 'A Slur' - So much for "free speech."

 Amid LGBTQ backlash, Latinos in advocacy groups push back - Good. 

GOP focus on trans women in sports at ‘Protecting Pride’ hearing - Telling lies about trans athletes is a big thing now.

Arkansas anti-trans law witness authored discredited study against marriage equality

Mark Regnerus

On Tuesday, I pointed out a similarity between why social media conservatives lost marriage equality cases in court with their recent loss to ban gender-affirming care for trans youth in Arkansas:

. . .far right conservatives using their money and resources to gain legislative and referendum victories which are eventually dismantled in our courts because said victories were built on faulty foundations. In other words, it's easy to scare or persuade people into voting the way you want but in a court of law you have to provide facts proving your point. And far right conservatives simply can't do it. 

 As it turns out, there was another huge similarity which I overlooked. In striking down the Arkansas ban, U.S. District Judge James Moody Jr. listed a number of reasons why he felt the law was unconstitutional. One had to do with the witnesses the state used to prove its case.

According to NPR:

 The court found three of the state's witnesses had been recruited at a meeting of the Christian advocacy organization Alliance Defending Freedom held specifically to gather witnesses trained in various fields that would be willing to testify in favor of laws passed that limit transgender care. "While there is nothing nefarious about an organization recruiting witnesses to testify for their cause, it is clear from listening to the testimony that Professor Mark Regnerus, Dr. Paul Hruz, and Dr. [Patrick] Lappert were testifying more from a religious doctrinal standpoint rather than that required of experts," the ruling reads.

Regnerus stands out for two reasons. For one, his testimony was so abysmal that Moody questioned its relevancy. According to The Arkansas Democrat Gazette:

 . . . His testimony was meandering, repetitive and often confusing as U.S. District Judge James M. Moody Jr. struggled at times to understand the relevance of his testimony to the matter at hand. Regnerus said he had reviewed numerous works by other researchers. He said had observed a bias among providers treating transgender patients, a bias toward affirmation rather than treatment of underlying mental or emotional conditions. The sociologist also testified that researchers had faced pressure to agree with treatment models based on affirmation and that a number of groups exist that "don't feel like they have the freedom to object."

 "There is significant concern that there's a rush to treat minors," Regnerus said, but when asked what research he had done in the area, he continued to point to the work of others that had fallen under heavy criticism. 

 "All I'm hearing is some people are forming opinions which are causing debate," Moody said at one point. "All he's telling me is there was a report and there was back flow and that shows there was criticism ... What does it have to do with the decision I have to make?"

Regnerus has faced this kind of disdain before. He is the author of a 2012 badly done, much rebuked, disputed, and discredited negative study on same-sex parenting.

Regnerus's study was discredited by many sources, including the American Sociological Association, over 200 researchers, the sociology department of  Regenerus's own university (University of Texas - Austin) for its multitude of errors, including the fact that it did not actually compare married gay parents to married heterosexual parents and Regnerus admitted that the study did not establish a connection between negative outcomes and same-sex parenting.

There was also the fact that Regnerus received funding for the study from two groups, the Witherspoon Institute and Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, who were attempting to stop marriage equality from becoming a reality.

According to The American Independent, by way of The Huffington Post, the organizations which funded Regnerus's work deliberately timed its release to influence the Supreme Court's ruling on marriage equality cases, a plan which failed miserably.

 In ruling against Michigan's anti-marriage equality law in 2014, US District Judge Bernard Friedman also rebuked Regnerus, who was testifying for the state:

“The Court finds Regnerus’s testimony entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration. The evidence adduced at trial demonstrated that his 2012 ‘study’ was hastily concocted at the behest of a third-party funder, which found it ‘essential that the necessary data be gathered to settle the question in the forum of public debate about what kinds of family arrangement are best for society’ and which ‘was confident that the traditional understanding of marriage will be vindicated by this study.’ … While Regnerus maintained that the funding source did not affect his impartiality as a researcher, the Court finds this testimony unbelievable. The funder clearly wanted a certain result, and Regnerus obliged.”

Regenerus is more proof that social conservatives are retooling their anti-gay tactics to undermine trans equality.  He is also more proof of how they fail when their tactics run head-on into the brick wall of truth.

'Well-funded 'Christian' group behind US effort to roll back LGBTQ+ rights' & other Wed midday news briefs

Well-funded Christian group behind US effort to roll back LGBTQ+ rights​- Who else but the Alliance Defending Freedom. For years, folks have been warning the LGBTQ community about this group. I did. Media Matters for America did. So many others did also. But we were ignored. And now some who ignored us are pointing fingers at trans people and blaming them for this recent chaos. It's so frustrating. 

 Ohio lawmakers and religious lobbyists coordinate on anti-trans legislation - Unfortunately, it's done like this in so many places. 

Pastor walks out after Christian Reformed Church synod passes anti-LGBTQ+ resolution - It's nice to see a pastor standing up for the community. 

Hospital turns over transgender patient records to Tennessee attorney general in investigation - Sounds like an ugly frame up. I will keep folks posted.

Federal judge overturns Arkansas ban on gender-affirming care for trans kids

From Yahoo News:

A federal judge in Arkansas has permanently struck down the state’s first-in-the-nation ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth, finding that the law violates the constitutional rights of trans patients, their families and health providers. The law – the first-such ban on affirming healthcare for trans youth in the US – is permanently enjoined following a weeks-long trial, marking the first such ruling in the country.

 A decision from US District Judge Jay Moody, who was appointed to the federal judiciary by Barack Obama, joins a wave of legal victories in federal courts for transgender rights and the rights of trans youth to access medically recommended and potentially life-saving care. 

 The law prohibited doctors from providing hormone therapies, puberty blockers or affirming surgeries to anyone under 18 years old. It also barred state funds or insurance coverage for affirming care for people under 18 and allowed insurance companies to refuse to cover affirming treatment for people of any age. Judge Moody had temporarily blocked the law in 2021 as a legal challenge from a group of families with trans children played out.

In his ruling on 20 June, Judge Moody determined that the law discriminates against transgender people and that attorneys for the state of Arkansas failed to contest the “extensive clinical experience” from doctors who testified in the case and the “decades of clinical experience demonstrating the efficacy of gender-affirming medical care.” 

 The judge also debunked the state’s medical claims by pointing to testimony from its own witness and ruled that the state failed to prove any of its claims that affirming treatment is “ineffective or riskier than other medical care provided to minors,” among other statements.

The story is still developing but some folks on Twitter were quick to point out just how the state was unable to prove its case.

It gets better: the court pointed out, after actually examining expertise and evidence, that 3 of 4 expert witnesses the state provided had no expertise, were frequently misleading, and were ideologues, not experts. https://t.co/wkpjxUOH5e

— Q. McLamore (@GhawinRiver) June 20, 2023

Specifically, Judge Moody gave Arkansas an opportunity to justify the trans health care ban in court; it failed spectacularly—whereas the plaintiffs' experts provided hour after hour of compelling testimony about the medical benefits of such treatment. https://t.co/62n3YC6cky pic.twitter.com/2XIx06y4qv

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) June 20, 2023

This will probably be appealed to a higher court but for now, it is a huge victory for trans kids on so many levels. For one, it could be a preview of rulings to come involving other anti-trans laws passed in other states.

 For another, it replicates a cycle we saw in the marriage equality fight - far right conservatives using their money and resources to gain legislative and referendum victories which are eventually dismantled in our courts because said victories were built on faulty foundations.  In other words, it's easy to scare or persuade people into voting the way you want but in a court of law you have to provide facts proving your point. And far right conservatives simply can't do it.