
The Supreme Court is trying to erase my transgender sister. I won't let it happen.
This issue hits especially close to home for me, as almost exactly a year ago my younger sister came out as transgender.
Watching her grow into herself has been such a joy — from painting her nails for the first time and texting TikTok makeup tutorials back and forth to giving her advice as she navigates online dating and teaching her to style her new, long hair. When I was younger, I always wished for a sister. I just didn't realize it meant that one day I'd have to share my mom's jewelry and handbag collection (something I'm still coming to terms with).
But it hasn't all been joyful. My sister hasn't been able to update her passport to reflect her new identity. She has been hesitant to fly to Florida to visit our grandma, out of fear for her safety. She is worried that one day her doctor will have to stop providing care or that insurance will no longer cover the costs. That fear — of being harassed, denied care, or worse — is a fear that has only been further validated by this ruling.
Growing up, my sister went to school with Chief Justice John Roberts's kids, and for some time, they were her closest friends. She played in their yard and watched movies on their couch. John Roberts introduced my sister to root beer, which to this day is still her favorite soda. We knew the Roberts family during an era when politics felt like something you could keep separate from everyday life. We're far beyond that now.
The decisions being made by the court aren't just political — they're deeply personal, and they're dangerous. And while the court hands down rulings rooted in fear, bigotry and rigidity, my 95-year-old grandmother, who immigrated to the U.S. from Chile over 60 years ago — a woman who is quite literally from another century — is learning and evolving in real time. She now uses my sister's chosen name and pronouns with more grace and consistency than many people half her age. Sure, sometimes she still calls my sister 'he,' but she also mistakenly calls me 'Poppy,' the name of our family dog, who is arguably the favorite grandchild.
After Trump's re-election, my family found itself having impossible conversations. I'm half British on my dad's side, and for a while, we told ourselves that if things got too dangerous here, my sister could go to England. But the truth is, England's not safe either. Regressive legislation in the U.K. has increasingly restricted gender-affirming care and fueled a vicious media campaign against trans people, one that is funded by my sister's favorite childhood author, JK Rowling. The irony is that Chile, the country my grandmother emigrated from, may now be safer for her transgender granddaughter than the U.S. or the U.K.
It's hard to ignore the hypocrisy: many in this country hate immigrants, yet they create unlivable conditions that force its own citizens — especially queer and transgender people, especially non-white people — to flee. The U.S. has spent decades destabilizing governments across the world, including Chile, and now it's turning on its own children. It's pushing people like my sister out of public life, forcing them back into the closet and locking the door.
We're privileged even to consider leaving. So many can't. But I won't. I'm staying, as is my sister, both of us fueled by anger.
I'm staying because my sister deserves to feel joy and safety and autonomy here, in the country she calls home. I'm staying because we need people who are willing to fight, to testify, to tell the truth even when the courts won't listen. And because some of the fiercest advocates I've had the privilege of meeting through this work — people who've taught me how to show up better, louder, more radical — are young, queer and transgender folks from the South who have been fighting the worst kinds of legislation with unimaginable strength and determination.
The other day, I told my sister I was tired. Working in reproductive justice and immigration advocacy, I feel like I am always in flight or fight mode. I joked that in another timeline, I'd be a cute monkey on a beach eating mangoes, minding my business. She laughed and said that in another timeline, she wishes she'd been born cisgender. My heart broke. This country makes it so hard to exist as herself; it shouldn't require this much bravery just to be.
The attacks on our communities are relentless. Every day, we are slowly losing our reproductive rights, bodily autonomy, and our ability to decide if, when and how to create our families. The road ahead will be long and grueling, but we are not powerless. We can and will fight back because we've been left with no other choice. And because, as my favorite quote from author Mariame Kaba reminds me, 'Hope is a discipline.'

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump Orders Colleges to Submit Admissions Data on Race
Trump Orders Colleges to Submit Admissions Data on Race originally appeared on L.A. Mag. President Donald Trump has issued a directive asking colleges and universities to hand over detailed admissions data, including applicants' race, gender, test scores and GPAs. The executive action, signed on Thursday, directs Education Secretary Linda McMahon to ensure compliance from institutions that receive federal financial aid. Noncompliance could trigger penalties under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965. The directive also mandates rigorous accuracy checks and public release of admissions memorandum claims that despite the 2023 Supreme Court decision abolishing affirmative action, colleges continue to use "diversity statements" and other "racial proxies" in their admissions processes, which some conservatives consider illegal discrimination. Thus, the administration seeks to expose and possibly penalize colleges suspected of ignoring the ruling. The Trump administration has already forced data-sharing settlements with Columbia University and Brown University in exchange for restoring their federal research funding. This directive establishes that model see it as a step toward greater transparency and compliance with the Supreme Court's ruling. But critics argue the move is designed to pressure schools into abandoning legally permissible diversity efforts. Richard Kahlenberg, an advocate for class-based affirmative action, warned that collecting race data without socioeconomic data could risk misrepresenting admissions outcomes. For example, data might appear to show that Black and Hispanic students were admitted with lower test scores, in defiance of the Supreme Court decision, when a college might have actually been using information about students' family income as a factor."By failing to request the socioeconomic data, it looks like the administration is going to take us down this very extreme path where a university that achieves racial diversity is suspect, even if it uses a race-neutral means like socioeconomic status,' Kahlenberg said to the the aftermath of the 2023 Supreme Court ruling, colleges have adapted by adding personal essays to gauge applicants' lived experiences. The ruling allowed race to be discussed if tied to a student's character or resilience, although banning it from explicit consideration. Data from the first admissions cycle after the ruling showed mixed results. Some schools, like MIT and Amherst, saw steep drops in Black student enrollment, while other schools, like Princeton and UVA, held University of California system, which struck down affirmative action in 1996, could offer a glimpse into the potential long-term effects. Within two years of the ban, Black and Hispanic enrollment dropped by half at UC Berkeley and UCLA. The system has since implemented programs aimed at low-income and first-generation college students to expand racial diversity at each Trump's executive order leans on existing federal data requirements, legal challenges may emerge. Critics point to potential violations of the federal student privacy law, arguing that the administration's goal is not necessarily enforcement, but ideological directive represents a significant expansion of federal oversight into college admissions practices, particularly those involving race and diversity. This story was originally reported by L.A. Mag on Aug 8, 2025, where it first appeared. Solve the daily Crossword


The Hill
6 hours ago
- The Hill
Trump changing the school year to 6 months? Not true
(NewsNation) — Videos circulating on social media claim President Trump is shortening the school year to six months. Is there any truth to the statement? The claim is completely inaccurate. The president cannot dictate the length of the school year; this is determined by individual states. Outlandish claims across the internet Videos are appearing on various social media platforms spreading the incorrect assertion. The origin of the rumor remains unclear. In one TikTok video titled 'Donald trump announces a new school system where kids attend school for only 6 months,' user @ starts off the video by saying, 'Breaking news, Trump decided kids don't have to go to school anymore, not as much as they used to.' The video has been viewed over 130,000 times. Trump committed to changing education in the US While not reducing the school year to six months, Trump has promised and made sweeping changes to education policy in the country. In March, Trump signed an executive order aimed at getting rid of the Education Department altogether. Although total elimination of the department would necessitate congressional action, the Supreme Court allowed the administration to lay off hundreds of workers in July. These changes come as recent studies indicate a stark decline in test scores since the pandemic. 'This year's National Assessment of Educational Progress showed that 70 percent of 8th graders were below proficient in reading, and 72 percent were below proficient in math,' the executive order said. The Trump administration has also made efforts to shift policy surrounding diversity, equity and inclusion, higher education and protections for transgender students.


Bloomberg
6 hours ago
- Bloomberg
Indigenous Group Wins Land Claim Over Slice of Metro Vancouver
An Indigenous group won claim to hundreds of acres of metropolitan Vancouver after a years-long trial and landmark judgment at British Columbia's supreme court. The Cowichan have aboriginal title to a section of riverbank in the city of Richmond, according to the 863-page ruling published Friday. Interests of the government of Canada and the city in the area alongside the Fraser River outlined in black on a map attached to the ruling 'are defective and invalid,' the judge said.