‘Detrans Awareness Day' is Just Another MAGA Political Stunt Meant to Erase Real Lives
The latest Republican-led spectacle, 'Detrans Awareness Day,' is nothing more than another dangerous attempt to undermine transgender rights, weaponizing a subset of people to justify sweeping, harmful policies that attack the entire transgender community while DOGE 'staffers' loot American data. Like clockwork, conservative lawmakers and anti-LGBTQ+ groups have coalesced to use de-transitioners as political props to justify bans on life-saving gender-affirming care and to manufacture fear around the legitimacy of trans identities.
Let's be clear: The vast majority of transgender people who receive gender-affirming care experience improved mental health and well-being. Study after study has shown that regret among those who transition is exceedingly rare—just one percent or less of trans people choose to detransition due to actual regret. But facts don't matter when your goal is to systematically erase a community under the guise of 'protecting children.'
This latest crusade against human rights is part of a well-funded, far-right effort to roll back progress. Many of the 'detransitioners' championed by the GOP have been exposed as grifters—either never actually identifying as trans or deliberately misrepresenting their experiences to fit a preordained narrative. Figures like Chloe Cole, a favorite among far-right lawmakers, have testified in multiple GOP-led hearings advocating for the elimination of gender-affirming care for minors.
These detransitioners were given lucrative platforms in right-wing media not because they represent a movement but because they serve as valuable pawns in a broader campaign to justify policies that strip trans people of fundamental rights.
We've seen this strategy before. The radical right loves to elevate voices that reinforce their agenda—particularly those with proximity to privilege. Caitlyn Jenner, for example, has long used her status to push policies that harm other trans people while remaining insulated by wealth and white privilege. Now, conservative activists elevate select detransitioners to claim trans youth are being 'groomed' or coerced into transition.
Let's talk about the facts: Puberty blockers — the very medical intervention conservatives claim is permanently disfiguring teenagers — are entirely reversible. They have been used safely for decades, and their primary function is to give young people time to explore their gender identity before making long-term decisions about medical transition.
In reality, many trans youth face immense barriers to accessing affirming care, often after years of careful deliberation with doctors, therapists, and family members. Children, their families and their doctors have made decisions about medical care for centuries, and we should all be clear about why politicians, not medical doctors, are attempting to legislate genocide. It's a test case to relegate some among us to second-class citizens while the most privileged among us hoard more resources.
The notion that educators and counselors are pressuring children into being transgender is absurd. Trans identities have existed across cultures and history long before social media, gender studies programs, or so-called 'woke indoctrination.' What is new, however, is the level of institutionalized discrimination trans people face today. Trump's latest executive order restricting federal support for gender-affirming care is part of a larger strategy to erase transgender people from public life.
Teenagers who can live authentically with the support of their families, schools, and communities have far better outcomes than those forced into closets built by bigots, societal pressure, and government mandates. Trans youth who are affirmed in their identity experience significantly lower rates of depression and suicide. They do better in school. They go on to lead successful, fulfilling lives. With love, access to health care, and support, they thrive.
And yet, the Republican playbook continues to focus on limiting trans youth's access to support systems—banning them from sports, censoring books that tell their stories, and rolling back their legal protections. The hypocrisy is astounding. The same movement banning discussions of race, gender, and LGBTQ+ identities in schools under the pretense of 'parental rights' is now advocating for the government to overrule deeply personal medical decisions made by families and doctors.
The fear-mongering surrounding trans identities is more than just political theater—it has real-world consequences. Hate crimes against transgender people are rising, and policies that deny access to care increase the likelihood of mental health crises, homelessness, and unemployment. The Trump administration's relentless attacks on trans rights—including banning trans people from military service, stripping gender identity from federal protections, and restricting access to legal gender markers—are part of a broader authoritarian agenda.
Detransitioners deserve the same compassion and space to share their stories as anyone else, but their existence should not be weaponized to strip rights away from an entire population. If Republicans truly cared about mental health, they would focus on reducing the staggering rates of suicide and violence against trans people, not fabricating crises to justify their next wave of oppressive legislation––such as the deliberate dismantling of Medicaid, which directly threatens access to gender-affirming care and mental health resources so many trans lives depend upon.
Trans people have always existed, and they will continue to exist, regardless of inflammatory rhetoric and policies that seek to erase mention or reference of them. As Transgender Day of Visibility approaches, we should celebrate the strength and resilience of trans people in the face of relentless attacks and remain steadfast in ensuring they have the rights, protections, and opportunities they deserve. None of us can know freedom unless and until trans people know freedom.
Trans people do not need to be debated. They need to be protected. The same is true for all of us.
————-
Dr. David Johns is CEO & Executive Director of National Black Justice Collective
For the latest news, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Post
32 minutes ago
- New York Post
‘60 Minutes' correspondent Scott Pelley warns a CBS settlement with Trump would be ‘very damaging'
'60 Minutes' correspondent Scott Pelley spoke out about President Donald Trump's lawsuit against CBS and its parent company on Saturday, arguing that a settlement would be 'very damaging.' 'Well, it'd be very damaging to CBS, to Paramount, to the reputation of those companies,' Pelley said during a conversation with CNN's Anderson Cooper on Saturday, who asked how harmful a settlement and potential apology would be to the network. Trump filed a lawsuit against Paramount Global, CBS News' parent company, over a '60 Minutes' interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris in October 2024. Fox News Digital confirmed that Trump rejected a $15 million offer to settle his lawsuit, according to a source familiar with the matter, as the president's legal team is also demanding at least $25 million and an apology from CBS News. Cooper, who is also a correspondent on '60 Minutes,' also asked Pelley about former show producer Bill Owens resigning from the program in April. 'Bill's decision to resign may not have been much of a decision for him because he was always the first person to defend the independence of '60 minutes.' Bill didn't work for Paramount. Bill worked for our viewers, and he felt very keenly about that. And so I'm not sure Bill had any choice, once the corporation began to meddle in Bill's decisions about the editorial content, or just place pressure in that area, Bill felt that he didn't have the independence that honest journalism requires,' Pelley said. 4 Scott Pelley warned that a settlement between President Trump and CBS would be 'very damaging.' 4 President Trump rejected a $15 million offer to settle his lawsuit, according to Fox News Digital. AP Pelley also said he wished he had the public backing of CBS News, but added that his work was still making it onto the program. 'You really wish the company was behind you 100%, right? You really wish the top echelons of the company would come out publicly and say '60 Minutes', for example, is a crown jewel of American journalism, and we stand behind it 100%. I haven't heard that. On the other hand, my work is getting on the air, and I have not had anyone outside '60 Minutes' put their thumb on the scale and say, 'you can't say that. You should say this. You have to edit the story in this way. You should interview this person.' None of that has happened. So while I would like to have that public backing, maybe the more important thing is the work is still getting on the air,' Pelley said. 4 The Federal Communications Commission accused '60 Minutes' of heavily editing an interview with Kamala Harris in 2024. 60 Minutes / CBS 4 Former show producer Bill Owens resigned from the program in April. The '60 Minutes' correspondent recently went viral for calling out Trump during a commencement address. 'In this moment, this moment, this morning, our sacred rule of law is under attack. Journalism is under attack. Universities are under attack. Freedom of speech is under attack,' Pelley said during his commencement speech at Wake Forest University. 'And insidious fear is reaching through our schools, our businesses, our homes and into our private thoughts, the fear to speak in America. If our government is, in Lincoln's phrase, 'Of the people, by the people, for the people,' then why are we afraid to speak?' Pelley addressed the remarks during the CNN interview and told Cooper that he felt 'strongly' it needed to be said. 'I don't refer to him or the president or the White House or the administration. But I was talking about actions that have been taken by the government over these last many months. But, there was a little bit of hysteria among some about this speech, and I simply ask you, what does it say about our country when there's hysteria about a speech that's about freedom of speech?' the CBS correspondent added.


San Francisco Chronicle
37 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump's new travel ban takes effect as tensions escalate over immigration enforcement
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump's new ban on travel to the U.S. by citizens from 12 mainly African and Middle Eastern countries took effect Monday amid rising tension over the president's escalating campaign of immigration enforcement. The new proclamation, which Trump signed last week, applies to citizens of Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. It also imposes heightened restrictions on people from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela who are outside the U.S. and don't hold a valid visa. The new ban does not revoke visas previously issued to people from countries on the list, according to guidance issued Friday to all U.S. diplomatic missions. However, unless an applicant meets narrow criteria for an exemption to the ban, his or her application will be rejected starting Monday. Travelers with previously issued visas should still be able to enter the U.S. even after the ban takes effect. While many of the listed countries send few people to the United States, Haiti, Cuba and Venezuela had been major sources of immigration in recent years. Haitian-American Elvanise Louis-Juste, who was at the airport Sunday in Newark, New Jersey, awaiting a flight to her home state of Florida, said many Haitians wanting to come to the U.S. are simply seeking to escape violence and unrest. Haitians continue to flee poverty and hunger while police and a U.N.-backed mission fight a surge in gang violence, with armed men controlling at least 85% of its capital, Port-au-Prince. 'I have family in Haiti, so it's pretty upsetting to see and hear,' Louis-Juste, 23, said of the travel ban. 'I don't think it's a good thing. I think it's very upsetting.' Many immigration experts say the new ban is designed to beat court challenges by focusing on the visa application process and appears more carefully crafted than a hastily written executive order during Trump's first term that denied entry to citizens of mainly Muslim countries. Trump said this time that some countries had 'deficient' screening for passports and other public documents or have historically refused to take back their own citizens. He relied extensively on an annual Homeland Security report of people who remain in the U.S. after their visas expired. Measuring overstay rates has challenged experts for decades, but the government has made a limited attempt annually since 2016. Trump's proclamation cites overstay rates for eight of the 12 banned countries. Trump also tied the new ban to a terrorist attack in Boulder, Colorado, saying it underscored the dangers posed by some visitors who overstay visas. U.S. officials say the man charged in the attack overstayed a tourist visa. He is from Egypt, a country that is not on Trump's restricted list. The ban was quickly denounced by groups that provide aid and resettlement help to refugees. 'This policy is not about national security — it is about sowing division and vilifying communities that are seeking safety and opportunity in the United States,' said Abby Maxman, president of Oxfam America, a nonprofit international relief organization. The inclusion of Afghanistan angered some supporters who have worked to resettle its people. The ban does make exceptions for Afghans on Special Immigrant Visas, generally people who worked most closely with the U.S. government during the two-decade-long war there. Afghanistan had been one of the largest sources of resettled refugees, with about 14,000 arrivals in a 12-month period through September 2024. Trump suspended refugee resettlement his first day in office.


Business Insider
an hour ago
- Business Insider
BlackRock, State Street to urge dismissal of collusion case, Bloomberg says
BlackRock (BLK), Vanguard Group, and the asset management arm of State Street (STT) are headed to court over a lawsuit brought by Republican state attorneys general claiming they colluded to reduce coal output, Josh Sisco and Silla Brush of Bloomberg reports. Lawyers from the companies are set to urge a federal judge to dismiss the case. The suit claims the firm have large stakes in coal producers and profited when energy prices soared. Confident Investing Starts Here: