Day 7: Transweek

Today a couple from Connecticut came up to look over the conference, her wife had never been to the Cape and my friend is trans wanted to see what the conference was like.

We ate lunch at Tin Pan Alley again and I just had a bowl of Tomato Bisque soup, I declined the Cheese sandwich that went with it. I didn’t want to fill up on lunch because tonight is the Awards Banquet with a buffet at Montano's Restaurant.

The keynote was excellent and given by Shannon Minter

Never Let Me Go: The Past, Present, and Future of Transgender Rights

From his perspective as a transgender rights litigator for the past thirty years, Shannon will talk about the enormous progress made in securing social and legal protections in the past, the setbacks and dangers we face in the present, and the great promise and perils of the future.

In case you don’t recognize the reference, “Never Let Me Go” is the name of a wonderful novel about clones by Kazuo Ishiguro. Their great struggle, like ours, is to be seen and treated as real people. Oh, and facing their inevitable mortality!

Shannon bio is…

Shannon Minter has made significant contributions to the advancement of LGBTQ rights in his role as Vice President of Legal for the National Center for Lesbian Rights. He has been pivotal in key legal battles, including the California marriage equality case and the Christian Legal Society v. Martinez Supreme Court decision. His work has earned him numerous accolades, including California Lawyer of the Year and recognition from the National Gay and Lesbian Bar Association. Minter’s dedication to legal advocacy continues to impact the LGBTQ community and the broader fight for equal rights.

Shannon is the Transgender Pioneer Award recipient for 2024. A more in-depth biography can be found on page 45 earlier in the guide.

He is hopefully optimistic on the current case before the Supreme Court, the ACLU writes,

Supreme Court Oral Arguments in Landmark Transgender Rights Case Scheduled for December 4

Case: L.W. v. Skrmetti/U.S. v. Skrmetti

October 18, 2024

The Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments in U.S. v. Skrmetti, a challenge brought by transgender youth and their families to a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming medical care, for December 4, 2024.

The case was first filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP on behalf of Samantha and Brian Williams of Nashville and their 16-year-old transgender daughter, two other plaintiff families filing anonymously, and Memphis-based medical doctor Dr. Susan Lacy. The plaintiff families and Dr. Lacy argue that the law violates the equal protection rights of transgender adolescents. The United States intervened also arguing that the Tennessee law violates the Equal Protection Clause.

In June 2024, the Supreme Court granted a cert petition filed in the case by the United States and a petition for split argument time between the U.S. Solicitor General and an attorney representing transgender youth and their families is pending before the Court. The transgender youth and their families remain parties to the case.

Shannon said that looking at the past case he is hopefully optimistic because of the case of R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission where the court found in favor of the trans woman based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against any individual “because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” Looking to the ordinary public meaning of each word and phrase comprising that provision, the Court interpreted to mean that an employer violates Title VII when it intentionally fires an individual employee based, at least in part, on sex. Discrimination on the basis of homosexuality or transgender status requires an employer to intentionally treat employees differently because of their sex—the very practice Title VII prohibits in all manifestations. Although it acknowledged that few in 1964 would have expected Title VII to apply to discrimination against homosexual and transgender persons, the Court gave no weight to legislative history because the language of the statute unambiguously prohibits the discriminatory practice.

And also the Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board where the court ruled the school acted illegally in denying him to use the boys bathroom.

Those two cases give him hope on the outcome of L.W. v. Skrmetti/U.S. v. Skrmetti but if we lose it would be disaster for us!

Tonight is the Award Banquet and I’ll write about it tommow.