Latest news with #ChaseStrangio
Spectator
25-06-2025
- Politics
- Spectator
‘Trans rights' has never been a civil rights issue
Indisputably a nutjob, Chase Strangio is the soul of nominative determinism. The lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union is a 'trans man' – meaning a woman, of course; one of the trans movement's lesser impositions is forcing consumers of pliant media to keep translating wishful thinking into real life, much as the unhip once had to keep remembering that 'super-bad' means 'super-good'. Strangio is a rare example of sexual disguise that is reasonably persuasive. The 42-year-old woman passes for a certain kind of man: weedy, slight and very short, with narrow shoulders, Marx Brothers eyebrows, just-credible facial hair, a tight fade over the ears bursting into a cocky skywards coiffure, and a chronically smarmy, self-satisfied expression. Strangio comes across as nerdy, weak and perplexingly vain. Plenty of bona fide males out there fit that general description while to all appearances failing to embody the once-prized attributes of traditional masculinity. At a glance, Strangio belongs to that benighted class of weirdos, wimps and wusses – the ultimate swipe-left. So much trouble and expense lavished on passing as a male sissy, when the lawyer might have made a respectable broad. Is it perversity or hypocrisy? Strangio resents that alphabet land is dominated by the 'gay white men' whose appearance she is aping, decries the Supreme Court – before which she has just appeared – as a 'vile institution', believes as a lawyer that law is 'not a dignified system' and, typically, is highly invested in the alchemy of having changed sex yet does not believe in the existence of sex. 'A penis is not a male body part,' she claims. 'It's just an unusual body part for a woman.' Behold, Exhibit B for the Democrats' foisting of crackpots into positions of responsibility (granted, Donald Trump has form in that regard as well). Naturally, Exhibit A is Admiral 'Rachel' Levine, who may single-handedly have convinced Vladimir Putin to invade Ukraine, because the US military was then apparently a joke. Before the Supreme Court, Strangio headed the ACLU case against Tennessee, which had banned puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and sex-change surgeries for minors. Last week's 6-3 decision in Tennessee's favour rescues similar laws in 26 other states, which prevent doctors from neutering, mutilating and disrupting the maturation of underage patients suffering under the contagious misapprehension that they are not the sex they are. Just like the UK Supreme Court's recent decision that in law biological sex trumps an imaginary 'gender identity', this is a big win for sanity, physical reality and common sense. The ACLU argued that because puberty blockers are occasionally prescribed to arrest precocious puberty, banning their use to make sexual fancy dress more convincing in future amounts to discrimination. The logic is skewed. The world is full of things that are good for one purpose and bad for another. Nothing against picking crops, but if I used a combine harvester to vacuum your sitting-room carpet, I'd expect you to sue. There's a night-and-day medical difference between a double mastectomy to cure breast cancer and the linguistically sanitised 'top surgery' that lops healthy breasts off bamboozled girls who will never breastfeed their children in the unlikely event they can still reproduce. From the start, this whole trans business has been sold as a civil rights issue. But there is no movement in the West to deny transgender people equal access to housing or employment, much less to 'kill trans people', as Strangio asserts. There are no water fountains or lunch counters from which trans people are banished. This is a medical issue – specifically, a mental health issue – slyly packaged as a campaign against bigotry. We don't let children get tattoos, because they're too young to understand the concept of permanence and they could come to regret covering their limbs in dinosaurs. It's therefore just sensible safeguarding for the state to keep kids from opting to take powerful drugs that prevent their bodies from maturing or from opting to get their genitals carved up just because some poor excuses for grown-ups planted this fanciful notion that one can play swapsies with biological sex. This movement's 'trans rights' decode as the rights to: compel other people to mouth lies that contradict what they see with their own eyes; impose the widespread adoption of dehumanising language such as 'menstruators' and 'birthing people'; force the well-adjusted to finance costly elective plastic surgery through taxation and insurance premiums; walk around women's changing rooms with one's wang hanging out; turn women's sports into a farce; and most importantly, it seems, coax children and mixed-up teenagers to make drastic, irreversible medical decisions which may well result in infection, reduced bone density, lifelong reliance on pharmaceuticals, poor ability to form relationships, sexual dysfunction, impotence and infertility. Perhaps also in searing regret – especially once this sick societal obsession finally subsides and its victims no longer constitute sacralised members of the avant-garde but the awkward residue of an old mistake. We're making progress, but this festishistic ideology is perniciously entrenched. Children are still butchered in American blue states. Let's relieve insurance companies and the NHS of the obligation to provide gender-denying care. It's past time we restored the conviction you're really the opposite sex to being a mental illness, and one not necessarily that is best treated by humouring the delusion. Sure, men can wear dresses and women tuxes, but doctors who mangle fully functional body parts violate the Hippocratic oath. Aren't we all to some degree 'born in the wrong body'? I'm an abysmal 5ft 2in, yet I identify as 6ft 7in. I also identify as 23, so that I expect you all to ignore my skin's telltale crenulation and to ask eagerly whether I'm planning to attend graduate school. I identify as beautiful, so watch the mouth. I identify as immortal, too, so that on my deathbed I am sure to identify like fury as an alive person, and if anyone makes a move to call an undertaker I will see them in court. Apologies to the jury in advance, for the smell is apt to be unpleasant.
NBC News
18-06-2025
- Politics
- NBC News
Supreme Court ruling on transgender youth medical care leaves key legal questions unresolved
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruling that upheld a Tennessee law banning certain care for transgender youth left various legal questions open, even as other laws aimed at people based on gender identity, including those involving sports and military-service bans, head toward the justices. That means that even though transgender rights activists face a setback, the ruling does not control how other cases will ultimately turn out. 'This decision casts little if any light on how a majority of justices will analyze or rule on other issues,' said Shannon Minter, a lawyer at the National Center for LGBTQ Rights. Most notably, the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, did not address the key issue of whether such laws should automatically be reviewed by courts with a more skeptical eye, an approach known as "heightened scrutiny." Practically, that would mean laws about transgender people would have to clear a higher legal bar to be upheld. The justices skipped answering that question because the court found that Tennessee's law banning gender transition care for minors did not discriminate against transgender people at all. But other cases are likely to raise that issue more directly, meaning close attention will be paid to what the justices said in the various written opinions, as well as what they did not say. Some cases might not even turn on transgender status. For example, the court could could determine that certain laws — such those banning transgender girls from participating in girls' sports or restrictions on people using restrooms that correspond with their gender identity — are a form of sex discrimination. There are cases all over the country on a variety of trans-related issues that could reach the Supreme Court at some point. 'There are myriad examples of discrimination against transgender people by the government making their way through the lower courts,' said Chase Strangio, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union. President Donald Trump's ban on transgender people in the military, which the court already allowed to go into effect, is one of those potential cases. There are also several appeals currently pending at the Supreme Court involving challenges to state sports bans. One of those cases involves West Virginia's ban on transgender girls participating in girls sports in middle school, high school and college. The court in 2023 prevented the law from being enforced against a then-12-year-old girl. Just this week, a federal judge ruled that the Trump administration cannot prevent transgender and nonbinary Americans from marking "X" as their gender identification on passports. Reading the signals for future cases As soon as the 6-3 ruling was released, experts were reading the tea leaves in Chief Justice John Roberts' majority opinion as well as the three concurring opinions and two dissenting opinions. The bottom line is that only three of the six conservative justices in the majority explicitly said they do not think transgender people are a "suspect class," which would trigger heightened scrutiny of laws targeting them. Those justices are Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Amy Coney Barrett. In a concurring opinion, Barrett indicated the court should not play a major role in reviewing whether lawmakers can pass laws that affect transgender people. She gave restroom access and sports bans as examples. Legislatures, she added "have many valid reasons to make policies in these areas" and laws should be upheld "so long as a statute is a rational means of pursuing a legitimate end." Alito, in his own opinion, said the court should have decided whether transgender-related laws merit heightened scrutiny. "That important question has divided the courts of appeals, and if we do not confront it now, we will almost certainly be required to do so very soon," he wrote. In his view, transgender people are not a suspect class, in part because they "have not been subjected to a history of discrimination" similar to other groups the court has previously recognized merit special protections, including Black people and women. Carrie Severino, a conservative legal activist, said Alito was right to say the court has to decide the issue. That three of the majority tipped their hands was "an encouraging sign that the court understands the risks of throwing the door open to novel protected classes," she added. But neither Roberts and fellow conservatives Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh said anything about their views. Gorsuch's reticence is especially notable, as he authored the court's surprising 2020 ruling that extended discrimination protections to gay and transgender people under the federal Title VII employment law. The court, to the disappointment of some conservatives, did not say that 2020 ruling is limited to the context of employment, although it ruled Wednesday that it did not apply to the specific medical care issue raised in the Tennessee case. With the three liberal justices all saying they believe heightened scrutiny should apply, civil rights lawyers representing transgender plaintiffs still in theory see a path to victory in future cases. "The court left open the possibility that heightened scrutiny could apply," Strangio said.
CNN
18-06-2025
- Politics
- CNN
Takeaways from the Supreme Court's historic decision on transgender care
The conservative Supreme Court dealt a significant blow to transgender Americans on Wednesday, issuing a sweeping decision that may have implications beyond the medical care that was at center of one of the court's highest-profile disputes this year. The 6-3 ruling, which landed at a moment when transgender Americans are facing political and cultural setbacks after years of gains, let stand a Tennessee law that banned puberty blockers and hormone therapy for minors seeking to transition to match their gender identity. Transgender advocates framed the ruling as a 'devastating loss,' but also hoped its impact may be limited to cases involving health care. The decision came amid a much broader debate over other laws aimed at transgender people, including the question of whether people can play on sports teams and use bathrooms consistent with their gender identity. Here's what to know about Wednesday's decision: The court had largely dodged the issue of transgender rights for years but handed down a number of important victories to the LGBTQ+ community more broadly. Most notably, of course, was the historic decision a decade ago to legalize same-sex marriage. More on point, the high court in 2020 ruled that a federal law that bars workplace discrimination based on sex also necessarily prohibits that discrimination based on gender identity – a significant win for transgender Americans. But after making those legal gains, transgender Americans have faced a flood of new restrictive laws passed by conservative states. More than 20 states have enacted laws banning similar gender-affirming care for trans minors. Other states have passed laws barring students from playing on sports teams consistent with their gender identity, or changing their sex assigned at birth on their birth certificates. 'We're in a moment in this country where transgender people in this country are under attack in lawless ways,' said Chase Strangio, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union who represented transgender teens at the high court. 'We are remaining vigilant and ready to fight back.' President Donald Trump touted a promise to end 'transgender lunacy' during his reelection campaign, and he signed an executive order early in his term barring nonbinary markers on US passports. Though the court's opinion dealt with none of the shifting landscape on the issue – and it carefully kept its language neutral on the broader questions at stake for transgender Americans – it nevertheless has added to that shift. 'This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field,' Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. 'The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound.' Nearly three years ago, the court's conservative supermajority overturned the constitutional right to an abortion established in Roe v. Wade, giving state lawmakers the power to determine how much access their residents can have to the procedure. The court on Wednesday similarly zeroed in on states' rights to make policy determinations on a politically divisive issue, especially one where there are differing views on the subject from major medical organizations. 'Our role is not 'to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic' of the law before us, but only to ensure that it does not violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment,' Roberts wrote. 'Having concluded it does not, we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.' The chief justice noted that England's National Health Service decided to pull back on providing gender-affirming care to trans youth. He cited a report published by NHS last year that said there is ''no good evidence on the long-term outcomes of interventions to manage gender-related distress.'' 'We cite this report and NHS England's response not for guidance they might provide on the ultimate question of United States law, but to demonstrate the open questions regarding basic factual issues before medical authorities and other regulatory bodies,' Roberts wrote, going on to say that 'such uncertainty' means debates over the way a prohibition like Tennessee's may impact society are better left for state lawmakers. Major US medical associations – including the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry – agree that gender-affirming care is clinically appropriate for children and adults. Arkansas passed the first state ban on gender-affirming care for trans youth in 2021. Today, more than 110,000 transgender teenagers living in states where restrictions on puberty blockers and hormone therapy exist, according to the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law. In a scathing dissent penned by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court's senior liberal member said the majority had pulled back from 'meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most' and instead 'abandons transgender children and their families to political whims.' Underscoring her displeasure with the court's ruling, the appointee of former President Barack Obama spent 15 minutes on Wednesday reading excerpts of her dissent from the bench. She spoke emphatically and with urgency about the potential costs to trans youths and of the majority abandoning the crucial role of judicial review. She repeated a line from her opinion that she was dissenting in 'sadness.' But in the end, Sotomayor and the court's other two liberal members were unable to stymie the monumental shift her colleagues delivered in the legal landscape of transgender rights. Throughout her 31-page dissent, Sotomayor leaned into the practical impact of the medication at issue in the case, at one point invoking the stories of the transgender youth who challenged Tennessee's law. 'Transgender adolescents' access to hormones and puberty blockers (known as gender-affirming care) is not a matter of mere cosmetic preference. To the contrary, access to care can be a question of life or death,' the justice wrote, adding that access to the health care help reduce the rate of suicidal ideation among transgender minors. She went on to say that the majority's ruling 'does irrevocable damage to the Equal Protection Clause and invites legislatures to engage in discrimination by hiding blatant sex classifications in plain sight.' 'It also authorizes, without second thought, untold harm to transgender children and the parents and families who love them,' she wrote. Though the Supreme Court's majority opinion steered clear of discussion about other laws involving transgender issues – such as those banning minors from playing on sports team consistent with their gender identity – the decision will almost certainly raise questions about the legal challenges to those laws. The court hewed closely to the notion that Tennessee's law did not discriminate on the basis of sex. Because of that, the court applied the lowest form of judicial scrutiny – known as 'rational basis' – and upheld the law. The court also importantly held that the law did not discrimination on the basis of transgender status. Karen Loewy, senior counsel at Lambda Legal, framed the decision as specific to Tennessee's law and said it 'left us plenty of tools' to fight other policies. Loewy said she doesn't think the decision Wednesday offers many clues at all about how the court will look at the sports and bathroom cases. The only member of the majority to raise the sports and bathroom laws was Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a member of the court's conservative wing and sometimes swing vote, who signaled that she would oppose granting transgender status the same anti-discriminatory protections that race and sex have under the 14th Amendment. That could make her vote hard to get for LGBTQ+ advocates in appeals over those other polices that will inevitably reach the Supreme Court. 'Beyond the treatment of gender dysphoria, transgender status implicates several other areas of legitimate regulatory policy – ranging from access to restrooms to eligibility for boys' and girls' sports teams,' Barrett wrote. 'If laws that classify based on transgender status necessarily trigger heightened scrutiny, then the courts will inevitably be in the business of 'closely scrutiniz(ing) legislative choices' in all these domains.' Justice Clarence Thomas was the only other justice to sign on to Barrett's opinion. In dissent, Sotomayor suggested that reasoning was an abdication of the court's role. 'Looking carefully at a legislature's proffered reasons for acting, as our equal protection precedents demand, is neither needless 'second guess(ing),' nor judicial encroachment,' Sotomayor wrote. 'After all,' she wrote, closely scrutinizing those choices 'is exactly how courts distinguish 'legitimate regulatory polic(ies)' from discriminatory ones.'
CNN
18-06-2025
- Politics
- CNN
Takeaways from the Supreme Court's historic decision on transgender care
The conservative Supreme Court dealt a significant blow to transgender Americans on Wednesday, issuing a sweeping decision that may have implications beyond the medical care that was at center of one of the court's highest-profile disputes this year. The 6-3 ruling, which landed at a moment when transgender Americans are facing political and cultural setbacks after years of gains, let stand a Tennessee law that banned puberty blockers and hormone therapy for minors seeking to transition to match their gender identity. Transgender advocates framed the ruling as a 'devastating loss,' but also hoped its impact may be limited to cases involving health care. The decision came amid a much broader debate over other laws aimed at transgender people, including the question of whether people can play on sports teams and use bathrooms consistent with their gender identity. Here's what to know about Wednesday's decision: The court had largely dodged the issue of transgender rights for years but handed down a number of important victories to the LGBTQ+ community more broadly. Most notably, of course, was the historic decision a decade ago to legalize same-sex marriage. More on point, the high court in 2020 ruled that a federal law that bars workplace discrimination based on sex also necessarily prohibits that discrimination based on gender identity – a significant win for transgender Americans. But after making those legal gains, transgender Americans have faced a flood of new restrictive laws passed by conservative states. More than 20 states have enacted laws banning similar gender-affirming care for trans minors. Other states have passed laws barring students from playing on sports teams consistent with their gender identity, or changing their sex assigned at birth on their birth certificates. 'We're in a moment in this country where transgender people in this country are under attack in lawless ways,' said Chase Strangio, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union who represented transgender teens at the high court. 'We are remaining vigilant and ready to fight back.' President Donald Trump touted a promise to end 'transgender lunacy' during his reelection campaign, and he signed an executive order early in his term barring nonbinary markers on US passports. Though the court's opinion dealt with none of the shifting landscape on the issue – and it carefully kept its language neutral on the broader questions at stake for transgender Americans – it nevertheless has added to that shift. 'This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field,' Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. 'The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound.' Nearly three years ago, the court's conservative supermajority overturned the constitutional right to an abortion established in Roe v. Wade, giving state lawmakers the power to determine how much access their residents can have to the procedure. The court on Wednesday similarly zeroed in on states' rights to make policy determinations on a politically divisive issue, especially one where there are differing views on the subject from major medical organizations. 'Our role is not 'to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic' of the law before us, but only to ensure that it does not violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment,' Roberts wrote. 'Having concluded it does not, we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.' The chief justice noted that England's National Health Service decided to pull back on providing gender-affirming care to trans youth. He cited a report published by NHS last year that said there is ''no good evidence on the long-term outcomes of interventions to manage gender-related distress.'' 'We cite this report and NHS England's response not for guidance they might provide on the ultimate question of United States law, but to demonstrate the open questions regarding basic factual issues before medical authorities and other regulatory bodies,' Roberts wrote, going on to say that 'such uncertainty' means debates over the way a prohibition like Tennessee's may impact society are better left for state lawmakers. Major US medical associations – including the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry – agree that gender-affirming care is clinically appropriate for children and adults. Arkansas passed the first state ban on gender-affirming care for trans youth in 2021. Today, more than 110,000 transgender teenagers living in states where restrictions on puberty blockers and hormone therapy exist, according to the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law. In a scathing dissent penned by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court's senior liberal member said the majority had pulled back from 'meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most' and instead 'abandons transgender children and their families to political whims.' Underscoring her displeasure with the court's ruling, the appointee of former President Barack Obama spent 15 minutes on Wednesday reading excerpts of her dissent from the bench. She spoke emphatically and with urgency about the potential costs to trans youths and of the majority abandoning the crucial role of judicial review. She repeated a line from her opinion that she was dissenting in 'sadness.' But in the end, Sotomayor and the court's other two liberal members were unable to stymie the monumental shift her colleagues delivered in the legal landscape of transgender rights. Throughout her 31-page dissent, Sotomayor leaned into the practical impact of the medication at issue in the case, at one point invoking the stories of the transgender youth who challenged Tennessee's law. 'Transgender adolescents' access to hormones and puberty blockers (known as gender-affirming care) is not a matter of mere cosmetic preference. To the contrary, access to care can be a question of life or death,' the justice wrote, adding that access to the health care help reduce the rate of suicidal ideation among transgender minors. She went on to say that the majority's ruling 'does irrevocable damage to the Equal Protection Clause and invites legislatures to engage in discrimination by hiding blatant sex classifications in plain sight.' 'It also authorizes, without second thought, untold harm to transgender children and the parents and families who love them,' she wrote. Though the Supreme Court's majority opinion steered clear of discussion about other laws involving transgender issues – such as those banning minors from playing on sports team consistent with their gender identity – the decision will almost certainly raise questions about the legal challenges to those laws. The court hewed closely to the notion that Tennessee's law did not discriminate on the basis of sex. Because of that, the court applied the lowest form of judicial scrutiny – known as 'rational basis' – and upheld the law. The court also importantly held that the law did not discrimination on the basis of transgender status. Karen Loewy, senior counsel at Lambda Legal, framed the decision as specific to Tennessee's law and said it 'left us plenty of tools' to fight other policies. Loewy said she doesn't think the decision Wednesday offers many clues at all about how the court will look at the sports and bathroom cases. The only member of the majority to raise the sports and bathroom laws was Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a member of the court's conservative wing and sometimes swing vote, who signaled that she would oppose granting transgender status the same anti-discriminatory protections that race and sex have under the 14th Amendment. That could make her vote hard to get for LGBTQ+ advocates in appeals over those other polices that will inevitably reach the Supreme Court. 'Beyond the treatment of gender dysphoria, transgender status implicates several other areas of legitimate regulatory policy – ranging from access to restrooms to eligibility for boys' and girls' sports teams,' Barrett wrote. 'If laws that classify based on transgender status necessarily trigger heightened scrutiny, then the courts will inevitably be in the business of 'closely scrutiniz(ing) legislative choices' in all these domains.' Justice Clarence Thomas was the only other justice to sign on to Barrett's opinion. In dissent, Sotomayor suggested that reasoning was an abdication of the court's role. 'Looking carefully at a legislature's proffered reasons for acting, as our equal protection precedents demand, is neither needless 'second guess(ing),' nor judicial encroachment,' Sotomayor wrote. 'After all,' she wrote, closely scrutinizing those choices 'is exactly how courts distinguish 'legitimate regulatory polic(ies)' from discriminatory ones.'
Fast Company
17-06-2025
- Politics
- Fast Company
Olympic runner Nikki Hiltz and ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio on trans equality in the Trump era
As anti-trans legislation and rhetoric continue to escalate across the U.S.—from sweeping state-level bans on gender-affirming care to renewed efforts to bar trans people from public life —trans nonbinary elite runner Nikki Hiltz and ACLU LGBTQ+ rights lawyer Chase Strangio find themselves at the intersection of justice and representation. Fresh off a historic Olympic run and record-breaking season in 2024, Hiltz has become one of the most visible trans athletes in the world. In the same year, Strangio, the codirector of the ACLU's LGBT & HIV Project, argued a landmark case before the U.S. Supreme Court, challenging Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors. Though their platforms differ, both emphasize the power of showing up authentically, especially in a political climate that seeks to erase trans existence. We asked the two changemakers to interview each other about the personal cost of visibility, the meaning of true allyship in business and beyond, and the LGBTQ+ trailblazers who inspire them to push for progress. This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. Nikki Hiltz: Within the past four years, [you've] been everywhere fighting the good fight. I came out in 2021, which, at the time, had the most legislation passed [targeting] LGBTQ+ and, specifically, trans people. Every year since, it's been more and more. Chase Strangio: I do remember you coming out and a number of cases involving trans athletes in sports. In 2021, the first [anti-trans] sports bill passed, which was in Idaho. I was really focused on sports at the time. Trans inclusion and participation in sports was something that people were very tentative about. Athletes have such an important, critical voice. Hearing and seeing [you] has been a source of inspiration and a lifeline in terms of representation and advocacy. Just seeing you achieve has been really thrilling because so much of trans discourse often is about all of the ways that we're targeted. But I really love watching and celebrating trans success. One thing I'm struggling with a lot right now is that I actually don't like being [so] visible [in the public eye]. And yet, I don't want to disappear. It's become a part of how I do the work. I'm curious how you feel about being visible and being highly seen in all of these different ways. Hiltz: We're on a big stage, especially with something like the Olympics. It's the biggest global sporting event ever. It doesn't necessarily come naturally for me. I've made change through visibility. After the Olympics, I remember a mom messaging me saying that her kid had come out to her as nonbinary, and she knew what that meant because she followed me. Just by being me and running on the biggest stage, I normalized this identity that's been so dehumanized. I don't think it's a coincidence that I've been running my fastest after coming out. Where do you see your visibility play a role in your work? Strangio: In 2013, there was this real absence of people in my field who were trans lawyers speaking out about trans advocacy. It felt important to push myself because I knew on some level that visibility was going to have an impact in both where I'm engaging with lawyers and then also for the public. Leading up to the marriage equality [Supreme Court ruling], this backlash was looming and increasing toward trans people. Very few people who were trans were speaking in the media about being trans in a way that resonated for me. I remember this moment of saying [to myself], 'You have all of the resources in the world. You have support. You have a responsibility.' I have experienced similar things to those that you mentioned: Young people reaching out to me and saying, 'Seeing you made me realize I could do this.' It's that reminder that there's so much fullness in trans life and being a model of that feels absolutely essential. Our power comes through our unapologetic insistence on being ourselves in spaces that don't expect us to. Hiltz: I really relate to that. I feel like we're both just two people who are really good at our jobs. Strangio: There's all different types of visibility. The first way in which my visibility sparked change was being an out trans lawyer at the ACLU, a 100-year-old institution. I was the only trans lawyer there. By being visible in that space and engaging with lawyers and other staff, it allowed the ACLU to shift over time, which I think is one of the biggest impacts I've had, because it is such a large and powerful institution in legal advocacy. I feel that I am an embodied refutation of [our opponents'] arguments about trans life. Before I arrived, there were just fewer opportunities for staff in the legal department to work directly with trans people who were also lawyers. With more trans people coming into the space, we are able to help our colleagues understand the nuances of our legal arguments and the realities of our lived experiences in more concrete ways. Hiltz: In my space, specifically track and field, I've had so much success. It's like, you can't ignore me. The sport has really changed and evolved because they had to make space for me. That has been really cool to witness over the past four years. 'Okay, we have to get Nikki's pronouns right, and that comes down to the whole broadcast team.' Now, it's very normal to tune into one of my races and hear them get my pronouns correct. It's a powerful example for everyone watching. Strangio: The media climate currently [is] informing [people's] view of the world with very reductive narratives. We need there to be entry points to change their understanding about trans people. Trans people are an easy target to make those broader political moves that have serious consequences for everyone. With endorsements, have you felt a sort of hesitancy post-Trump? Hiltz: I think I felt the opposite. I felt more supported. In January, when one of the first things out of [Trump's] mouth was like, there are only two genders, the amount of people that reached out was really cool. Allies are showing up in ways they haven't before because they see what's happening. Lululemon is the biggest brand that I work with. They're my apparel sponsor and a Canadian brand. They're like, 'You can come live in Canada if you want.' Strangio: We've seen a widespread capitulation among powerful law firms. I think that has sent a really damning message. Thankfully, there have been other law firms that have taken on the administration and fought back. It's a situation of just trying to create the conditions for people to be more brave. Hiltz: When I think of training for the world championships this year, it's never going to be one big workout that I do that's going to make the difference. It's the cumulative work, the day-to-day things. I feel the same way about inclusion. Making sure in your life or work you're getting people's pronouns correct. Never assuming people's sexuality or gender identity. Support the organizations that directly help trans lives. Strangio: You know, white supremacy has allowed, especially under U.S. capitalism, to suggest that diversity is somehow in tension with excellence, when the opposite is true. Diversity feeds excellence and achievement. I've been very disappointed and frustrated with corporations slapping on the rainbow logo while still denying healthcare to their trans employees and refusing to stand up against anti-trans bills while donating money to candidates supporting anti-trans bills. You don't get to have it both ways. You can't commodify our fabulous existence and then facilitate the conditions for our eradication. If you want to celebrate us, if you want to enjoy the bounty of queerness, which is plentiful, then you better be working to create the conditions for queer thriving. In 2016, we did see corporations take a stand when North Carolina passed HB2 [the 'bathroom bill,' mandating individuals use public restrooms based on birth sex, not gender identity], and that was really the end of that. We need more of that. It makes a huge difference in the United States. The single most powerful thing is money. Politicians are driven by financial incentives. I'm very learned at yelling at powerful people. I'm litigious. I sue people in power, and that is satisfying. You get paid less if you work in this capacity as opposed to if you represent corporations, but it means you get to fight back in all of these ways, and I feel grateful for that. Hiltz: Totally. [We] wouldn't have it the other way. I feel like every single queer person who wasn't afraid to show up and be themselves has really influenced me. All the trans influencers just sharing their stories is so powerful because it just normalizes it. My mom [grew up] pre-Title IX, so when I started getting into sports, I was like, 'Mom, what sports did you play?' She was like, 'Women weren't allowed to play sports,' and it blew my mind. I want to tell [my kids], 'It was crazy in the early 2020s. Trans people weren't allowed to play sports. It was so weird.' So I always think that's the legacy I'm trying to leave. We're changing the world and it doesn't seem like it right now, because of who's in power, but we're on the trajectory to have that one day be the world. Strangio: I am amazed by just how things can change in a generation or two, not just in terms of the sort of substantive changes, but people's consciousness of what's possible. [Transgender immigrant activist] Lorena Borjas and Pauli Murray are two people I credit the most. Lorena for being relentless. Pauli, a Black, likely nonbinary or trans, queer lawyer, shaped both the Black civil rights movement and the women's rights movement. Just knowing Pauli's legacy was instrumental in getting me into the courtroom. I hope that I'm doing right by Pauli, and I hope that in a few generations there are people who are dreaming up these arguments in far more expansive ways.
