Back When I…

I was growing up, they didn’t test you for any learning disorders. I was labeled a “slow learner,” “dull,” “backward,” and “underachiever.”

Electronics was a godsend… it was so orderly and logical. I got all the way through college, just squeaking by… no one ever questioned why.

I went to grad school for my MSW and one of my professors’ day jobs was to evaluate convicted persons before they got incarcerated. When he handed back my midterm exam, he said, “See me after class!” Yikes… I must have bombed the midterm!

He asked if I had ever been evaluated for a learning disorder.

All it took was for him to see my writing on those 10 questions to see what I had been struggling with all my life.

You know that this blog is about the intersections of trans stuff and politics, so what’s political about this post?

Well, Trump, RFK Jr., and company all are saying learning disorders like ADHD, ADD, and ASD are a new phenomenon. They blame it on chemical food additives, preservatives, ultra-processed foods, and stuff like artificial food dyes.

Well, folks… it is the name that is new. It is the realization that it is a disorder of the brain… not laziness. Not “slow learners,” and not all the other things that they called it. It has always been here; we just called it different names.

Now we have the government and conspiracists pushing all these quack reasons for this epidemic of learning disorders, but they have been here all along, just without the names. Just like us.

Spillage

Their hatred for us is so great that it is spilling out into other areas.

Medicaid transgender care rule sets precedent that could restrict coverage of other drugs

Medicaid generally pays for drugs approved by the FDA. Trump’s rule could upend that

Stat

By John Wilkerson

Aug. 24, 2026

The Trump administration plans to use a new approach to deny Medicaid coverage of drugs for gender-affirming care. The precedent it sets could be used to avoid paying for other drugs, too, upending an expectation that Medicaid covers the vast majority of prescription medication.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued a final rule this month barring the use of federal Medicaid and CHIP funding to pay for pediatric gender-affirming medications and surgery. The rule, set to go into effect Oct. 13, attracted attention because it’s the latest development in the administration’s campaign to halt transgender health care for young people.

While KFF shoots it down...

Despite gender-affirming care being a best medical practice, recommended by major medical groups, including the American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Psychological Association, the new rule builds on a range of administration actions aimed at restricting this care, including within the Medicaid program. States have also increasingly sought to limit access, with the number restricting access rising from just 4 in 2023 to 27 states today. Additionally, dozens of providers have ceased to offer services, citing pressure from or fear of the administration. The final Medicaid rule represents the latest barrier to this care, this time focused on limiting access at the payer source.

[...]

As noted, the rule does not prevent states from covering these services using state-only funds, and some states may seek to do so. States have faced similar choices in the context of abortion. The federal Hyde Amendment prohibits use of federal Medicaid dollars to pay for abortions outside of specific contexts, but states can use their own funds to cover abortion services more comprehensively, which 21 states do. It would likely be a relatively small expenditure increase for states to absorb gender-affirming care costs given how relatively uncommon and inexpensive these services are. CMS estimates that Medicaid spent about $31 million on the prohibited services for enrollees under 19 years old in 2023, representing 0.003% of all Medicaid spending that year. Theoretically, families could also pay cash for these services, but given the income limits in the Medicaid program, it is not likely many would have the resources to do so. There could also be charitable funds set up at national or local levels.

Connecticut is one of the states that is suing (See my 1 o'clock post)

This is the Republicans who promised to get the government off of your back is now stepping between your doctor and you! 

Thank You!

The Connecticut Attorney General office just posted this...

 Attorney General Tong Joins Coalition Challenging Trump Administration’s Latest Attack on Healthcare for Transgender Youth

Attorney General William Tong today led a coalition of 22 states in challenging the Trump administration’s attempt to prohibit states from using federal Medicaid funds for gender-affirming care for low-income minors and some young adults.

In the lawsuit, the coalition argues that since the creation of the Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) programs in the 1960s, Congress has always granted states the authority to determine which services would be covered under their Medicaid and CHIP programs, subject only to limits set by statute. The coalition asserts that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) are now acting without statutory authority or a reasoned basis to second-guess state Medicaid agencies’ reliance on individualized medical necessity and treatment decisions made by healthcare providers. Instead, based solely on CMS’s unilateral decision making, the agencies are categorically excluding medically necessary healthcare services from federal reimbursement only when provided to low-income transgender adolescents.

“Once again, Trump is trying to replace the professional medical advice of doctors and the personal choices of patients with his own MAGA political priorities, and abusing our tax dollars and federal healthcare programs to bully everyone into submission. His actions are cruel and illegal, and we have sued and already secured multiple federal court orders to stop him, including blocking his threat to withhold Medicare and Medicaid to hospitals and clinics providing gender-affirming care and his efforts to erase gender-affirming care from Affordable Care Act protections. We will continue to vigorously prosecute our litigation to ensure Connecticut families and providers may continue to live their lives and do their jobs free from cruel partisan meddling,” said Attorney General Tong.

In December 2025, HHS proposed a rule prohibiting federal reimbursement for gender-affirming care for Medicaid beneficiaries under age 18 and CHIP beneficiaries under age 19, despite covering the same healthcare treatment when provided to non-transgender youth. HHS received more than 30,000 comments on the proposal. More than 90% of the comments, including comments from Attorney General Tong and a coalition of state attorneys general, opposed the rule. Despite this strong opposition, the broad medical consensus on the safety and efficacy of transgender youth healthcare and strong state law guardrails to ensure high-quality care, HHS finalized the rule earlier this month, with an effective date of Oct. 13, 2026.

In the complaint, the coalition argues that the rule would set a troubling and unlawful precedent that the executive branch can, without congressional authorization, replace individualized judgments made by licensed medical practitioners with a categorical, agency-determined prohibition on reimbursement for healthcare it disfavors.

The coalition argues that the rule runs counter to several federal and state laws. They also assert that the rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the Spending Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Since the first day of President Trump’s second term, the administration has launched relentless attacks on this small and vulnerable population in nearly every aspect of their lives, but especially in healthcare. Attorney General Tong is fighting to protect access to gender-affirming care across multiple fronts, including suing and securing federal court orders blocking Trump’s threat to withhold Medicare and Medicaid to hospitals and clinics providing gender-affirming care and his efforts to erase gender-affirming care from Affordable Care Act protections.

Joining Attorney General Tong in leading today’s lawsuit are the attorneys general of Illinois, Maryland, California, and Massachusetts. They are also joined by the attorneys general of Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin, along with the governor of Pennsylvania.

Nature/Nurture

The debate continues in earnest, the two schools of thought butt heads at time sometimes when trans people get on the topic of why we’re trans. It sounds like the battle of Katydids: Katie Did!… Katie Didn’t but instead it sound like: Nature! Nurture! Nature! Nurture! So what really is the cause?

Well it is funny that our first lead into of it is nature is Nature.

A sex difference in the human brain and its relation to transsexuality

Jiang-Ning Zhou, Michel A. Hofman, Louis J. G. Gooren & Dick F. Swaab 

Nature volume 378, pages68–70 (1995)

Abstract

TRANSSEXUALS have the strong feeling, often from childhood onwards, of having been born the wrong sex. The possible psycho-genie or biological aetiology of transsexuality has been the subject of debate for many years. Here we show that the volume of the central subdivision of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BSTc), a brain area that is essential for sexual behaviour is larger in men than in women. A female-sized BSTc was found in male-to-female transsexuals. The size of the BSTc was not influenced by sex hormones in adulthood and was independent of sexual orientation. Our study is the first to show a female brain structure in genetically male transsexuals and supports the hypothesis that gender identity develops as a result of an interaction between the developing brain and sex hormones.

Wow! That is pretty good! And in a PubMed research paper…

Brain research, gender and sexual orientation

D F Swaab 1, L J Gooren, M A Hofman

Affiliations Expand

PMID: 7560933 DOI: 10.1300/J082v28n03_07

Abstract

Recent brain research has revealed structural differences in the hypothalamus in relation to biological sex and sexual orientation. Differences in size and cell number of various nuclei in the hypothalamus for homosexual versus heterosexual men have recently been reported in two studies. We have found that a cluster of cells in the preoptic area of the human hypothalamus contains about twice as many cells in young adult men as in women. We have called this cluster the sexually dimorphic nucleus (SDN). The magnitude of the difference is the SDN depends on age. In other human research, two other hypothalamic nuclei (interstitial nuclei of the anterior hypothalamus [INAH] 2 and 3) and part of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BST) have been reported to be sexually dimorphic in the human. Sexual differentiation to the human brain takes place much later than originally claimed. At birth the SDN contains only some 20% of the cells found at 2 to 4 years of age. The cell number rapidly increases in boys and girls at the same rate until 2 to 4 years of age. After that age period, a decrease in cell number takes place in girls, but not in boys. This causes the sexual differentiation of the SDN. This postnatal period of hypothalamic differentiation indicates that, in addition to genetic factors, a multitude of environmental and psychosocial factors may have profound influence on the sexual differentiation of the brain. No difference in SDN cell number was observed between homosexual and heterosexual men. This finding refutes Dörner's hypothesis that homosexual males have a "female" hypothalamus. However, in a sample of brains of homosexual men we did find that an area of the hypothalamus called the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) contains twice as many cells as the SCN of a heterosexual group. A recent report by LeVay claims that another nucleus, INAH-3, is more than twice as large in heterosexual as in homosexual men, whereas Allen and Gorski found that the anterior commissure was larger in homosexual men than in heterosexual men or women. Preliminary research on male-to-female transsexuals is also discussed. The functional implications of these findings in determining adult sexual orientation are as yet far from clear.

There sure does seem to be something going on in there!

What about those who say it is nurture, but anything on that is harder to fine… however, there’s showing it isn’t. The only study that I could find was a study with twins, also from PubMed.

Genetic and Environmental Contributions To Gender Diversity: A Systematic Review of the Twin Literature

Will Conabere 1 2, Louise Bourchier 3, Sue Malta 3 4, Anja Ravine 1 2, Ken C Pang 5 6 7

Affiliations Expand

PMID: 40938572 PMCID: PMC12494644 DOI: 10.1007/s10519-025-10231-3

Abstract

Amidst growing visibility of gender diversity, the aetiology of gender identity has become a subject of increasing public interest. Prompted by the growing public debate, we review here the extant twin literature regarding the origins of gender diversity. Literature was reviewed systematically, searching Medline, Embase and PubMed databases. Studies were deemed eligible if they: (i) conducted a twin study, (ii) investigated gender identity or gendered behaviour, and (iii) provided an estimate of the magnitude of genetic or environmental contribution. After screening 290 non-duplicate titles and abstracts, 16 articles were included in the final review. Most eligible studies provided evidence of both genetic and environmental contributions to gender identity and gendered behaviour. For gendered behaviour, genetic contributions ranged from 0.10 to 0.77, non-shared environmental contributions ranged from 0.15 to 0.75, and shared environmental contributions ranged from 0.00 to 0.49. For gender identity, genetic contributions ranged from 0.00 to 0.84, non-shared environmental contributions ranged from 0.15 to 0.96 and shared environmental contributions ranged from 0.00 to 0.70. Given the variability in results and methodology between studies, the true magnitude of these contributions remains unclear. No consistent differences in contributions were identified between assigned males and assigned females. While there is also recent evidence that prenatal hormone exposure may contribute to gender identity, the overall evidence from the literature is inconsistent. Twin studies indicate both genetic and environmental contributions to gender diversity. These results are important to inform ongoing public debate in this area and highlight the complex interplay of both genetics and environment.

Okay what is the bottom line?

That no one knows what really causes gender dysphoria. But no one knows why people are left-handed. You can see the difference in the way the brain is different for left-handed people but no one knows why? But people are left-handed.

The same holds true for trans people. No one knows exactly why we’re trans, and there may be more than one way that someone becomes trans. But we can see differences in the brains of trans people, including differences that have been observed in people who had not undergone hormone treatment.

However, does it really matter what causes it, or whether there is more than one way that makes us trans?

It doesn’t matter. What matters is that it is real and how you treat us.

They Never Liked It From Day One

The Republicans have been trying to derail it from when President Johnson signed the bill. They have been throwing a monkey wrench ever since then.

The latest is deleting much of Part D coverage for prescriptions!

Trump administration to end Medicare Part D subsidy program in 2027

The prescription drug benefit is used by millions of seniors.

ABC News

ByMichelle Stoddart andArthur Jones II

July 29, 2026

The Trump administration is ending a key health insurance subsidy program that aimed to keep premiums for seniors' prescription drug plans in check, claiming that it benefits corporate insurance companies, according to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz.

Medicare Part D -- the government health insurance program's prescription drug benefit -- is used by tens of millions of older or disabled beneficiaries

The program's subsidies are set to expire at the end of the year, the administration announced Tuesday.

That move will likely result in higher prescription costs and increase premiums for about half of recipients, according to an administration official.

[…]

The move comes as Affordable Care Act subsidies have expired and health care costs remain a top issue for voters ahead of the midterm elections. The ACA subsidies helped lower the out-of-pocket costs for monthly premiums for people who purchased health care through the health insurance marketplace.

 The ABC News goes on to report,

President Donald Trump has repeatedly vowed he wouldn't allow Medicaid to be cut, but House Republicans' bill to fund his agenda aims to cut hundreds of billions of dollars from the program that provides health care for poor, elderly and disabled Americans.

For several months, Trump has promised not to touch the program, though on Monday he urged Republicans to "UNIFY" around the "one, big beautiful bill," which plans to slash Medicaid spending by imposing work requirements for recipients, make more frequent eligibility checks, and penalize states like New York and California that offer Medicaid to illegal immigrants.

In another ABC News article,

The program's subsidies are set to expire at the end of the year, the administration announced Tuesday.

That move will likely result in higher prescription costs and increase premiums for about half of recipients, according to an administration official.

The question is why the cuts, well for one thing, NPR might have a clue,

"Project 2025 was pretty blunt about wanting to push more people into Medicare Advantage," she says, referring to the Heritage Foundation's blueprint for a second Trump presidency. "One way to really accelerate that is to make it very expensive to stay in traditional Medicare."

To avoid the higher premiums for drug coverage, patients may move away from traditional Medicare plans and toward Medicare Advantage plans. While Medicare Advantage may have lower premiums, she says there are tradeoffs, including a more limited network of providers and hospitals that accept Medicare Advantage.

Ah… that sounds more like it! Project 2025 has the fingers in it! Go Health reports that,

Key Takeaways

• Project 2025 is a policy proposal from the conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation that some believe will influence the second Trump administration.
• The document suggests many policy changes that could affect people on Medicare.
• Some of the most significant ideas for Medicare in Project 2025 include shifting Original Medicare to a value-based care model, making Medicare Advantage plans the default option, and eliminating price controls for prescription drugs.

With President Donald Trump back in office, many Medicare beneficiaries wonder what changes could happen to the public health insurance program for people who are over 65 or living with disabilities.

Trump has not made any official announcements regarding his goals for Medicare, but examining Project 2025 could provide some hints. Project 2025 is an approximately 900-page policy proposal published by the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation that lays out plans for transforming the U.S. government.

Conservatives have always hated it!

We have the highest medical costs in the world, and now we will have even higher costs as they disassemble Medicare and Medicaid and let their billionaire friends rake in more of our money.

Smoke And Mirrors

The Trump administration was touting its cuts to Medicaid, saying it was going after fraud—despite the fact that the "fraud" consisted of billing issues, not actual fraud.

Trump administration shares new work requirements for Medicaid recipients

June 3, 2026

NPR Heard on Morning Edition

By Julie Rovner, A Martínez

The Trump administration this week released guidance for states on the work rules many Americans on Medicaid will need to abide by in order to be eligible for benefits on Jan. 1.

A MARTÍNEZ, HOST:

The Trump administration is telling states how to set up work requirements for adults who get their health insurance from Medicaid. That's the program for low-income and disabled people that is funded by the federal government and states. Now, under these new rules, Medicaid recipients will need to prove that they are working, going to school or volunteering at least 80 hours a month. Work requirements were in President Trump's big tax and spending law that he signed last July. That law had a lot of Republican support, and no Democrats in Congress voted for it. Julie Rovner hosts the "What The Health?" podcast. So, Julie, why are Medicaid work requirements such a popular policy for Republicans?

The Georgetown University Center for Children and Families (CCF) wrote that,

Only a handful of these Medicaid and CHIP provisions can be viewed as addressing fraud, waste and abuse but they account for only 2.5 percent of the gross Medicaid and CHIP cuts.3  States will face significant cost shifts under some of the major Medicaid and CHIP cuts, particularly those restricting state use of provider taxes, at the same time states will face other large cost shifts for SNAP benefits under the law.   

Similarly, the law’s provisions related to the Affordable Care Act’s Marketplace eligibility and enrollment policies do nothing to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse.  CBO estimates that these provisions would cut gross federal Marketplace spending by an additional $213 billion over the next ten years.  This also does not account for interactions and revenue effects.4  Altogether, the gross Medicaid, CHIP, and Marketplace cuts total $1.2 trillion over ten years.  Even accounting for interactions, the net Medicaid, CHIP, and Marketplace cuts equal $1.1 trillion over ten years.

But there are side effects that these cuts will cause. People don't stop getting sick just because they can't afford care. It is not like a night at the movies where you can simply choose not to go. People keep getting sick! They go to hospitals, which are legally required to take all patients, regardless of their ability to pay.

About 110,000 poor CT adults could lose Medicaid coverage

A new definition for ‘medical frailty’ published by the federal government on June 1 may mean fewer people qualify for exemptions to work requirements

CT Mirror

by Keith M. Phaneuf and Katy Golvala

June 17, 2026

With about 110,000 poor adults at risk of losing Medicaid coverage under new federal work rules this January, officials are scrambling to avert a swell in uninsured patients forced to seek care through hospital emergency departments.

And while maintaining preventative care for thousands remains a foremost concern, some officials fear this trend could strain hospitals’ finances — just months after state tax changes dedicated hundreds of millions extra each year to the industry.

“This is the most irresponsible piece of legislation in American history,” state Sen. Matt Lesser, D-Middletown, co-chairman of the General Assembly’s Human Services Committee, said of the Medicaid rules changes enacted last July by Congress and signed by President Donald Trump.

The ramifications of that legislation on states, Lesser added, “are staggering and completely boneheaded.”

The bottom line: insurance costs will soar for the rest of us. How do you think the medical system will pay for the care of those who do not have health insurance?

Trump & Company hawk their cuts, waving the banner of "stopping fraud." But they didn't eliminate the cost of healthcare... they just shifted the bill from the government's pocket to ours.

Liar, Liar, Pants On Fire!

That schoolyard chant doesn't mean anything to the Republicans. What they are counting on are lazy voters who take everything they say as gospel.

The Republicans cite a huge number of boys getting breast surgery... which is a Republican lie! There is a medical condition called gynecomastia, which is the overdevelopment or enlargement of breast tissue in boys and men. It is a common condition often triggered by hormonal imbalances during puberty. But they lie and lump all those surgeries in with us! Do you know how many surgeries are done on trans girls to enlarge their breasts? "0", zero! None!

I think that the Republicans know the difference, which means they must be doing it intentionally.

Senate Scrutinizes Gender Transition Care for Minors
By Legis1 Editorial · Edited by Zarrin Ahmed, Joanne Levine
Friday, May 15, 2026

 

 

Why It Matters
The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee is convening a hearing on gender transition procedures for minors at a moment when the medical establishment is shifting, the Trump administration has moved aggressively on the issue, and major hospitals have already changed their practices. What happens in that hearing room on May 21 could shape federal policy on one of the most contested questions in American medicine and politics.

 

[...]

 

What Cassidy Is Driving
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), a physician and HELP Committee chair, announced the hearing alongside a formal investigation into federally funded health entities he alleged were performing what he described as "irreversible gender mutilation on children and vulnerable individuals." Cassidy sent letters to federally supported community health centers scrutinizing whether they were providing puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and related services to minors using taxpayer funds, according to Fox News reporting. He also cited the Department of Justice representation of community health centers or their providers in litigation involving gender transition-related services as a concern.

The hearing is an extension of a sustained oversight campaign. Cassidy had previously expanded his investigation to include the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Endocrine Society, alleging those organizations pressured the World Professional Association for Transgender Health to remove age limitations on gender surgeries. His committee's press office also reported that major U.S. hospitals ended gender transition services for children following actions by President Trump and Cassidy, framing that development as a direct result of the committee's oversight work.

First of all: it is Doctor Sen. Bill Cassidy. You mean to tell me that he, as a doctor, doesn't know the truth?

The Political Fault Lines
The committee's Democratic members, including Sanders, Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), and Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), are expected to push back on the framing of the hearing and defend access to gender-affirming care. Baldwin, the first openly gay person elected to the Senate, has been a consistent voice on LGBTQ health issues.

On the Republican side, senators including Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), and Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) have each been vocal critics of gender transition procedures for minors in other venues and are likely to use the hearing to press that position.

Yay Chris! (More about him later.)

So Dr. Paul knows the truth too, yet he will not violate his doctor's Hippocratic Oath. However, he has voted against trans bills because of cost. MedPage Today writes...

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) immediately pushed back, calling Wednesday's hearing "disappointing."

"It is disappointing in the sense as to why millions of Americans are giving up on the political process," Sanders said. "They look to Washington at a time when they are facing unprecedented crises, and they're saying who is responding to our needs. And today we are ... spending hours on a hearing that impacts an infinitesimal number of people."

He pointed instead to high rates of childhood poverty and hunger in the U.S. as well as high costs of healthcare.

Meanwhile, "what the medical and scientific community tells us is that gender-affirming care is associated with a lower risk of depression, severe anxiety, and suicidal thoughts," Sanders continued. "Bottom line, gender-affirming care for youth should be between a doctor, a patient, and their parents, not politicians and the federal government. Not only would banning gender-affirmative care do nothing to protect kids, it will make it harder for them to get the healthcare they need, and that would be a tragedy."

Hey do you remember the Republican mantra? About "parental rights", smaller government and getting off your back, well...

The government is "attempting to rob families of the right and freedom to make medical decisions about their own children," he contended. Additionally, the government is "baselessly attacking safe and effective medical care." And finally, "in a way we have never seen before in this country, the government is attempting to seize, secretly, the medical records of families to use private medical information about their children for an unlimited and unknown purpose."

"Few principles in American law are more settled than the right of parents to make medical decisions for their own children in consultation with their doctors," he added.

In response to questions from Sanders, Minter noted the "level of anguish" that healthcare professionals and families are experiencing due to the current administration's targeting of gender-affirming care for youth is "really profound."

[...]

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) said Cole's experience is tragic, but contended it is a classic case of medical malpractice. "I think the solution here is malpractice cases," Kaine said. "I think the solution is standards of care by the [American Medical Association] and the plastic surgeons and the pediatricians, which are evolving as more research is done. I don't think the right answer is a federal one-size-fits-all."

Families are packing up and moving to "free states." Just like in the Jim Crow era when Black families fled the South, trans families are now fleeing the South just to get medical treatment for their children!

Listen to him! Take less than 5 minutes to listen to Sen. Sanders and hear the truth, not the Republican lies.

 

I first met Connecticut Sen. Murphy back in 2007 when I went down to lobby for the gender-inclusive version of ENDA, but he was a representative back then. The next time I met the Congressman, I was interning for my MSW at the Connecticut Women’s Education and Legal Fund (now known as She Leads Justice). The last time I met him, I was serving as the Executive Director of the Connecticut TransAdvocacy Coalition. It was at a press conference in the Legislative Office Building (LOB), and by then, he was a senator.

SNAFU

Hey you remember all those people Musk laid-off in the CDC?

The Washington Post wrote back in October that,

More than 1,000 staff at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention received layoff notices, including in units that respond to infectious-disease outbreaks, analyze science and health data to develop policy, and monitor the safety of employees, according to multiple individuals issued dismissal notices and others with direct knowledge of the cuts.

Now they need Ebola specialists they are nowhere to be found!

Is The U.S. Stepping Up In The Fight Against Ebola?

KFF

Authors: Josh Michaud and Jennifer Kates

Published: May 23, 2026

The recently announced Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), which is quickly escalating in the region, emerges at a time when the larger fiscal and programmatic environment for global health efforts faces particular hurdles, and international cooperation has been significantly challenged. This is in large part due to policy decisions made by the Trump administration and presents the first real global outbreak test following those changes.

On May 15, news broke of a large, ongoing Ebola outbreak concentrated in northeastern DRC. Two days later, the Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the outbreak to be a “public health emergency of international concern” (PHEIC) given its size and because Ebola cases were already reported across the border in Uganda, making the outbreak a regional threat. Despite only recently being detected and reported, this already appears to be one of the largest Ebola outbreaks to date, with almost 746 suspected cases and over 176 suspected deaths as of May 21st

[...]

Ongoing effects of foreign assistance funding freeze and cuts. Alongside the dissolution of USAID, in early 2025 the Trump administration implemented a freeze on all foreign assistance funding for a period last year. As a consequence, partner organizations report that they had to fire staff and cease many disease prevention and detection activities, including Ebola-focused activities in Uganda and DRC. . Eventually, the State Department issued “waivers” to allow funding for existing “life-saving” assistance programs to continue, which included infectious disease outbreak detection and response programs. While certain activities resumed, the underlying system itself was affected.

Then we have Trump withdrawing from the UN's WHO and placing roadblock for the CDC to work with the WHO!

Exclusive: Trump admin shutting key US researchers out of global virus response talks, documents and sources reveal

CNN

By Sarah Owermohle

May 25, 2026

Key officials responsible for leading US research on infectious disease threats have been barred from speaking directly with the World Health Organization — effectively shutting some of them out of the global discussions on virus outbreaks, according to documents and multiple sources who spoke to CNN.

The internal Trump administration policy stops individuals at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases from communicating with the WHO unless authorized by senior staff.

The federal health subagency was led for decades by Dr. Anthony Fauci and oversaw developing treatments for public health emergencies including HIV/AIDs and Covid-19.

The prohibition has been in place during an outbreak of hantavirus that some Americans have been exposed to. The communication limits were relaxed slightly in the past week as another virus outbreak — an unfolding Ebola epidemic centered in the Democratic Republic of Congo — intensified.

Can you believe this bull! Putting politics before the health of the country! And don't forget we now have RFK Jr. in charge of the CDC!

Medical Experiments On Inmates

Trump & his cronies wasted no time at all launching another attack on the LGBTQ+ community...

The Federal Bureau of Prisons is running a conversion therapy program. We must not let it stand

Opinion: The Trump administration is imposing unnecessary cruelty on incarcerated transgender people who have nowhere to go, writes NCLR legal director Shannon Minter.

The Advocate

Shannon Minter

Mar 19, 2026

On February 19, 2026, the Federal Bureau of Prisons issued a new policy on the “Management of Inmates with Gender Dysphoria.” The title sounds clinical. The reality is brutal: the federal government has now officially placed itself in the business of punishing transgender people for being who they are, by withdrawing their medical care, confiscating their personal belongings, and subjecting them to forced psychological treatment. It is, in every meaningful sense, a blueprint for a government-run conversion therapy program, one targeting thousands of incarcerated people who have nowhere to turn.

This is becoming increasingly similar to what the Nazis did to the Jews. Conversion therapy is already banned in many states because of the profound harm it inflicts on patients!

NCLR condemns this policy in the strongest possible terms. For now, a federal court order is blocking its enforcement, and we are committed to ensuring it stays that way. But the policy itself is a declaration of intent, and we are calling on everyone, not just those who are transgender, not just those who have loved ones in prison, to recognize what it represents and to oppose it.

Part of the AMA  statement reads:

LGBTQ so-called “conversion therapy”

So-called “conversion therapy” refers to any form of interventions which attempt to change an individual’s sexual orientation, sexual behaviors or gender identity. Underlying these ‘therapies’ is the assumption that homosexuality and gender nonconformity are mental disorders and that sexual orientation and gender identity can be changed. This assumption is not based on medical or scientific evidence. Professional consensus rejects pathologizing homosexuality and gender nonconformity and evidence does not support the efficacy of changing sexual orientation.

“Conversion therapy” often includes unethical techniques including electric shock, deprivation of food and liquid, chemically induced nausea and masturbation reconditioning. These practices may increase suicidal behaviors and cause significant psychological distress, anxiety, lowered self-esteem, internalized homophobia, self-blame, intrusive imagery and sexual dysfunction.

The APA statement on the Supreme Court case reads in part...

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) is deeply concerned that the Supreme Court’s decision in Chiles v. Salazar will potentially harm many LGBTQ+ individuals, particularly minors, who will no longer be protected by state laws against conversion therapy.

Being LGBTQ+ is not a mental illness or disorder. Conversion therapy — efforts to change sexual orientation and gender identity — is not a legitimate therapeutic treatment. Leading health care entities, the APA among them, have concluded that these are potentially harmful, discredited practices and are not supported by scientific evidence.

Question: Do you know who else performed medical experiments on prisoners?

Consider Holmesburg Prison, where incarcerated people, many of them Black were used in pharmaceutical and chemical experiments from the 1950s through the 1970s. Those tests included exposure to dioxin, experimental drugs, radiation, and chemical agents.

And during World War II, a number of German physicians conducted painful and often deadly experiments on thousands of concentration camp prisoners without their consent.

Trump has officially stooped to that level in his pogrom to wipe us out!

It Is All TAS2R38 Gene’s Fault!

Are you a finicky eater… did your mother always tell you to finish your broccoli, only for you to turn up your nose at it? What about Brussels sprouts? Did you turn up your nose at them too? Can you brush your teeth before drinking orange juice? Do you also turn up your nose at artificial sweeteners? Well, there is a scientific reason for that!

It is all the TAS2R38 gene’s fault!

What about the OR6A2 gene? Doesn't have some part in all of this? Yes. Some people who have certain versions of the OR6A2 receptor are much more sensitive to aldehydes, which are compounds found in cilantro… and also in soaps and detergents!

Via Pub Med, the NIH website:

Supertasting, earaches and head injury: genetics and pathology alter our taste worlds

Neurosci Biobehav Rev

L M Bartoshuk , V B Duffy, D Reed, A Williams

Abstract

Family studies using thresholds showed that PROP (6-n-propylthiouracil) tasting is produced by a dominant allele, T. Nontasters have two recessive alleles and tasters have one or two dominant alleles. The bitterness of suprathreshold PROP and anatomical criteria subdivide tasters into medium and supertasters. Supertasters may be TT tasters, but this has yet to be demonstrated. Supertasters preceive the greatest bitterness and sweetness from many stimuli as well as the greatest oral burn from alcohol and capsaicin. Women are more likely than men to be supertasters. Otitis media and head trauma can alter taste and thus PROP classifications, complicating studies on PROP genetics. Some subjects with a history of otitis media show taste reductions, but others show enhanced tastes and appear to have more taste buds per fungiform papilla. Subjects with head trauma show reduced tastes on some oral loci, but there is evidence that severe reductions on the front of the tongue ameliorate reductions at the circumvallate papillae on the back of the tongue by a release of inhibition mechanism.

Do you know what “supertasters” were used for? During the Middle Ages, we were the king’s food tasters. What a job! You get to eat all the king’s best food… if you can stay alive!

This just goes to show that we are all different. As a lobster lover, I cannot get enough of the bug! But others turn their noses up at it, while I hate avocado. We all have different tastes!

---

I have to ask: why is it so hard to think that our sexuality and gender identity do not vary from person to person? Why is so hard for people to understand that we are all genetically we are all different?

This Is What Happens When Trump Packs The Courts

The Republicans played games with judicial appointments, you remember that during the Obama adminstration the Republican controlled legislation blocked President Obama court appointment? And that they did the same with President Biden's appointments. Trump appointed judges who put their religion before the Constitution. 

Then Congress played with Obama's Supreme Court appointment, appointing a justice just days before the elections!

Well it is now coming home to roost.

Court won't block Rhode Island hospital from releasing transgender care records to Texas judge

Reuters

By Nate Raymond

May 20, 2026

Summary

• Hospital turns over anonymized records following court order
• Several judges have previously quashed Justice Department subpoenas as overreaching
• Justice Department now centering probe in northern Texas, a venue favored by conservatives

A federal appeals court has declined to block a Rhode Island hospital from turning over medical records to a Texas ​judge that the U.S. Department of Justice is seeking as part of a Trump administration probe into the provision of gender-affirming care to transgender youth.

A three-judge ‌panel of the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals late on Tuesday rejected, opens new tab a request by the Rhode Island official charged with advocating for children in state care to bar Rhode Island Hospital from handing the records over to U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor after he ordered it to do so.

The panel said Rhode Island Child Advocate Katelyn Medeiros had not shown her agency would irreparably suffer if the hospital ​gave the records to a judge, "particularly one that has assured the parties that the records will not be disseminated unless and until the parties' appeals are resolved."

Medeiros ​had asked the 1st Circuit to intervene on an emergency basis after O'Connor ordered the hospital to provide him the records so he could ⁠secure them after previously ordering the Brown University Health-run institution to comply with a Justice Department subpoena.

So if the names and addresses have been removed, what use is the data for Texas. The will not know if the child is from Texas or not... so how are they going to know if Texas laws were broken. This is a witch hunt.

Judge Blocks Trump DOJ’s Demand for Rhode Island Transgender Kids’ Medical Records

Insurance Journal

By Kimberlee Kruesi

May 19, 2026

A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration’s sweeping demands for confidential transgender patient information from Rhode Island’s largest hospital that provides gender-affirming care to minors.

U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy’s Wednesday ruling is the latest setback for the U.S. Department of Justice, where at least seven other federal courts have agreed to quash or limit the expansive civil subpoenas sent to more than 20 doctors and hospitals last summer.

However, the appeals court overruled the Rhode Island judge.

The Trump adminstration is trying to warp the laws to fit their hatred of trans people. 

Gun Shy!

Trump's attack on trans healthcare is having the exact effects he wants: hospitals are now terrified of anything involving trans care!

Hospitals dodge questions on restoring trans youth care despite judge ruling they can keep providing it

Several hospitals cut trans youth care under Trump administration pressure and still won’t say if those programs will return.

The Advocate

Jack Walker

Apr 27, 2026

Many hospitals that cut off youth from gender-affirming care over concerns around the Trump administration are remaining silent on whether they will resume care, despite a federal court giving their programs legal clearance.

Last December, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President Donald Trump’s secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, directed hospitals across the country to stop providing minors gender-affirming care, or risk losing funds from federal health programs like Medicaid. But on April 18, a federal judge in Oregon struck down the policy, ruling that Kennedy had overstepped the federal government's role and created inconsistencies with existing laws.

Do you really think that any hospital is going to resume healthcare for us when the Trump administration is clearly out to get us?

The Advocate reached out to several hospitals that eliminated gender-affirming care for minors under the Trump administration to ask about the future of their health programs for trans youth in light of the court decision.

That included University of Michigan Health; Fenway Health in Boston; Rady Children’s Health in San Diego; Yale New Haven Health and Connecticut Children’s Medical Center in Connecticut; NYU Langone and Mount Sinai in New York; and Children’s National Hospital in Washington, D.C.

Mount Sinai declined to comment on the court ruling when reached by The Advocate. None of the other hospitals returned requests for comment.

Trump has successfully created an atmosphere of fear among medical professionals and providers.

A significant portion of a hospital's income comes from Medicaid and Medicare, so having those funds threatened makes them run scared. Furthermore, these hospitals know that even if they win in court, Trump is a master of SLAPP lawsuits... except now, his administration has the full power and weight of the United States government behind their legal attacks.

One Ruling Went Our Way

A judge blocked a witch hunt against WPATH.

Federal judge blocks FTC probes into trans medicine groups, citing ‘extensive evidence of animus’

Chief Judge James Boasberg said the Trump administration showed “wafer-thin justifications” in targeting WPATH and the Endocrine Society.

The Advocate

Christopher Wiggins

May 08, 2026

President Donald Trump suffered a pair of legal setbacks Thursday after a federal judge in Washington, D.C., blocked the Federal Trade Commission from enforcing investigative demands against two of the nation’s most influential medical organizations involved in transgender health care guidance.

Chief Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted preliminary injunctions to both the World Professional Association for Transgender Health and the Endocrine Society, temporarily halting FTC investigations that the groups argued were politically motivated and unconstitutional.

[...]

In separate lawsuits filed in D.C., WPATH and the Endocrine Society accused the administration of weaponizing federal investigative powers to intimidate organizations that support evidence-based medical care for transgender patients.

The complaints argued the FTC was not conducting ordinary consumer protection oversight, but instead attempting to chill scientific debate, suppress protected medical speech, and deter physicians and researchers from participating in discussions about health care for transgender people.

Puberty Blockers

Did that get your attention? It is a controversial topic on both sides of the political aisle.

So, why do people take puberty blockers?

The simple answer is exactly what the name implies: to pause puberty. For transgender youth, going through the "wrong" puberty can be a deeply distressing experience.

For trans girls, puberty means their voice deepens and they grow facial hair. Without blockers, they may have to live the rest of their lives with a voice they don't recognize as their own, or undergo expensive, painful treatments to remove their beards. For trans boys, while some changes are different, their bodies still feel like a betrayal as they develop unwanted secondary sexual characteristics.

Why do critics claim they are "new" or "dangerous"?

Republicans often argue that this is a new, experimental treatment, but that is factually incorrect. The science was developed in the late 1970s, and the medication was FDA-approved in the early 1980s. It has been used clinically for decades; it is not new.

Conservatives also frequently rely on misleading data regarding health risks. They often cite studies showing that the bone density of trans children on blockers is lower than that of their cis gender peers. While it is true that bone density may lag during treatment, there is a logical reason for this: puberty itself is what triggers the surge in bone density.

If you delay puberty, you naturally delay that density increase. However, research shows that once a person stops taking blockers and begins hormone therapy or natural puberty, their bone density typically catches up to healthy levels within five years.

I Wonder What Would Happen?

If you refused to pay?

If a therapist sends a bill for Conversion Therapy and you refuse to pay what happens is it not longer a 1^st Amendment issue?

Can Conversion Therapy Be Just Speech?

Trans legal experts discuss Chiles v. Salazar, the Supreme Court conversion therapy case.

May 6, 2026

Riki Wilchins spoke with George Washington University Law scholar Naomi Schoenbaum, CUNY Political Science professor Paisley Currah, and Albany Law School scholar Ava Ayers on the Supreme Court case, Chiles v. Salazar, which by 8-1 struck down a Colorado law banning inflicting conversion therapy on LGBTQ+ kids, saying it was unconstitutionally restrained free speech. 

UPDATE One month after the ruling, the Colorado Senate Judiciary Committee responded by moving forward a law creating a private right for conversion therapy survivors to sue for harm, attempting to circumvent the court’s actions using an approach cribbed from the anti-trans movement, which in recent years has given detransitioners extraordinary rights to sue their providers.

This is fantastic! Did you get this part "conversion therapy survivors to sue for harm"?

Riki Wilchins: We have research repeatedly linking conversion practices to depression, post-traumatic stress, and suicidality. The American Psychiatric Association and the Psychological Association and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry have all rejected conversion therapy. Ketanji Brown Jackson, the sole dissent, noted it was banned in Colorado because of the medical profession's broad consensus. So this is another instance of the Court finding a way to go anti-science and overrule expert medical opinion right?

Since the Supreme Court has made this a First Amendment issue and is ignoring the harmful medical advice that is being given and the actual harm it may do to the children.

Connecticut already has a law protecting us but it might get struck down, the Connecticut law says,

Any conversion therapy practiced by a health care provider shall be considered unprofessional conduct and shall be grounds for disciplinary action,

So we may or may not be covered... like the lawyers say "It is my opinion that it is but I am not a judge" It will take a or a series of judgments to finally get an answer. 

---

Update: @ 2PM

Vatican report admits conversion therapy caused LGBTQ+ Catholics’ ‘profound suffering’

The historic Synod report features firsthand accounts from gay Catholics who say the dangerous practice deepened shame, isolation, and spiritual anguish.

The Advocate

Jacob Ogles

May 06, 2026

Just weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for minors in an 8-1 ruling that cast doubt on similar laws nationwide, a Catholic Church report is warning that so-called “reparative therapies” have caused LGBTQ+ Catholics “profound suffering” and spiritual harm.

The published document comes from theologians assembled for the late Pope Francis’ Synod of Bishops. Remarkably, it includes testimony from two Catholic gay men in same-sex marriages, both of whom were previously subjected to so-called "conversion therapy." That alone drew praise from advocates.

[...]

“This marks the first time that a Vatican report has included stories from LGBTQ Catholics. As such, it marks a significant step forward in the church’s relationship with the LGBTQ community,” Father James Martin, founder of the LGBTQ+ Catholic group Outreach, wrote on his organization’s website.

[...]

“It’s a really good — I would even say historic — document,” Yunuen Trujillo, a lesbian lay minister from Los Angeles, told Religion News Service. “It’s still calling for all Catholics to engage in a process of discernment that is respectful of people’s lived experiences.”

This Is So Wrong!

[Editorial]

If it is legal in Connecticut, why is a law in Louisiana preventing abortions in Connecticut?

Court restricts abortion access across the US by blocking the mailing of mifepristone

AP News

By  GEOFF MULVIHILL and HANNAH SCHOENBAUM

May 1, 2026

A federal appeals court has restricted access to one of the most common means of abortion in the U.S. by blocking the mailing of mifepristone prescriptions.

Friday’s unanimous ruling from a three-judge panel of the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is requiring that the abortion pill be distributed only in person and at clinics, overruling regulations set by the federal Food and Drug Administration.

The ruling, which is likely to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, is the biggest jolt to abortion policy in the U.S. since the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade and allowed states to enforce abortion bans.

Besides the ruling effectively creating a nationwide ban on mailing abortions pills, it also hinders people with other legitimate medical needs! Mifepristone is used to treat Cushing’s Syndrome and has off-label uses for Uterine Fibroids, Meningioma, and Endometriosis.

In the ruling, Judge Kyle Duncan, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, agreed with the state of Louisiana’s contention that allowing the drug to be mailed there makes moot the state’s ban on abortion at all stages of pregnancy.

Beyond this case, Judge Duncan has a history of ruling against the LGBTQ+ community. Lambda Legal  Lambda Legal wrote the following regarding one of his previous decisions

In 2018, after changing her name via court order, Kathrine Jett sent a letter to the Judge in the Eastern District of Texas who presided over her criminal case, requesting that the name on the judgment of committal be changed to reflect her legal name. The district court denied Ms. Jett’s request. Proceeding pro se, Ms. Jett appealed this decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. While the case was pending at the Fifth Circuit, Ms. Jett sent a request to the Court asking that female pronouns be used to refer to her.  “I am a woman—can I not be referred to as one?,” she asked.  On January 15, 2020, the panel majority issued an opinion determining that the lower court did not even have jurisdiction to hear Ms. Jett’s request and then used the bulk of the decision to explain why it would not treat Ms. Jett with respect and courtesy by using female pronouns when referring to her. Judge Kyle Duncan, known for his anti-LGBT work prior to being appointed to the bench by Donald Trump, wrote the opinion in this case.

The mifepristone ruling is only one in a series of right-wing cases he has presided over. Alliance for Justice (AFJ) wrote about his background:

Duncan made his name in 2014 at the boutique religious rights firm the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, when he was the lead counsel on the victorious supreme court contraception case Burwell v Hobby Lobby Stores. That pivotal decision laid the groundwork for corporations to opt out of providing birth control for employees based on religious objections, and it preceded another major contraception case the court heard this spring, one that could further favor the religious and moral objections of employers over the rights of their employees to access healthcare.

He is a devout Catholic and has been accused in the past of prioritizing his religious beliefs over the Constitution. For example, his ruling in "In re Texas S.B. 10" allowed the Bible to be displayed in public schools.

What will the Supreme Court do now that they have been asked to hear the case? In the past, the high court has already dealt with mifepristone in the case of Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine the court ruled Alliance For Justice wrote that,

Duncan made his name in 2014 at the boutique religious rights firm the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, when he was the lead counsel on the victorious supreme court contraception case Burwell v Hobby Lobby Stores. That pivotal decision laid the groundwork for corporations to opt out of providing birth control for employees based on religious objections, and it preceded another major contraception case the court heard this spring, one that could further favor the religious and moral objections of employers over the rights of their employees to access healthcare.

[...]

A large part of his career as an appellate court specialist was spent defending Republican state laws popular with the religious right and social conservatives. He fought to keep Louisiana’s same-sex marriage ban: the matter belongs in the states, would have “unforeseen” consequences, and LGBTQ rights have “nothing” (his empasis) to do with civil rights cases, he argued. He defended a North Carolina anti-trans bathroom law and a similar Virginia school board policy. And he argued in favor of a North Carolina voter ID regulation that the fourth circuit found targeted African Americans “with almost surgical precision”.

Based on past performances, I have no idea how the Supreme Court will rule this time; it is a total crapshoot!

[/Editorial]

---

Update: 5/4 @ 5PM

Supreme Court Temporarily Restores Access to Abortion Pill by Mail

A lower-court ruling had reinstated a Food and Drug Administration requirement that patients visit a health care provider in person to obtain mifepristone.

The New York Times

By Ann E. Marimow and Pam Belluck

May 4, 2026

The Supreme Court on Monday restored nationwide access to a widely used abortion medication in a temporary order that will, for now, allow women to once again obtain the pill mifepristone by mail.

In a brief order, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. paused a lower-court ruling from Friday that had prevented abortion providers from prescribing the pills by telemedicine and shipping them to patients, causing confusion for providers and patients. The one-sentence order imposes a pause until at least May 11. He requested that the parties file briefs by Thursday, and then the full court will determine how to proceed.

The state of Louisiana sued the Food and Drug Administration to restrict access to mifepristone, saying the availability of the medication by mail has allowed abortions to continue in the state despite its near-total ban.

Figures Don’t Lie But...

Desisters

If you listen to Republicans or conservative you would think that it is around 80 or 90 percent of the trans children detransition. That lie goes back to studies in Netherlands and our friend Ken Zucker [That is sarcasm], in those studies they counted anyone who dropped out of the study (Because they moved or they just didn’t want to take part in it anymore.) as de-transitioning. The studies reported desistance rates as high as 60–90%!

It is those studies that get quoted in legislatures, not these.

Common claim that most transgender youth renounce that identity is not supported by statistics, VCU research finds

The argument that studies show transgender youth desist from that identity on average has been used to support anti-gender-affirming care legislation nationwide.

Virginia Commonwealth University

By Madeline Reinsel

April 27, 2026

The frequently cited claim that 60% to 90% of transgender and gender-diverse children and young adults ultimately identify as cisgender – or their gender assigned at birth – is not supported by statistical analyses of published scientific research, according to a new study from Virginia Commonwealth University. The study, which analyzed 11 studies compiled in a commonly referenced 2016 blog post as well as five more recent publications, instead found that almost any stance on gender-affirming care for minors could be supported by different statistical analyses of the same data.

“We should rely on accuracy with our science, and we should rely on accurate science to guide legislation,” said Catherine Wall, Ph.D., an assistant professor of psychology in the College of Humanities and Sciences and the study’s lead author. Wall and her coauthors published their study in the journal APA PsycNet.

The quantitative meta-analysis found that “desistance” – or renouncement – of transgender identity by youth could be estimated to be as low as zero percent to as high as 100%, depending on how the studies’ data were interpreted. Meanwhile, rates of persistence of transgender identity could also range from zero percent to 100%, depending on how the studies – many of which were conducted pre-1990 on small sample sizes – were analyzed.

But many politicians don't care about the facts; they have an agenda to push.

When the first major longitudinal results from the Trans Youth Project came out in 2022, NBC News reported that transgender children are actually highly unlikely to "detransition" or return to identifying with their birth sex five years after a social transition.

The findings, published Wednesday in the journal Pediatrics, come from a larger project called the Trans Youth Project. Researchers at Princeton University began in 2013 to track 317 kids between ages 3 and 12 who socially transitioned — the first and largest sample of its kind, according to Kristina Olsen, the study’s lead author and a professor of psychology at Princeton.

The results showed that five years after their initial social transition, 94 percent of the study participants were living as either trans girls or trans boys. The remaining youth had "retransitioned," as the study called it, and no longer identified as binary transgender. Of that group, 2.5 percent came to identify with their birth sex. 

The findings come as Republican lawmakers in more than two dozen states have tried, over the last two years, to restrict access to gender-affirming care for transgender minors.

That last paragraph says it all: these lawmakers aren't acting in the best interest of children. They are willing to ignore scientific facts to push an agenda at the detriment of trans youth. They even go so far as to drag the same handful of individuals from state to state to testify, pretending a tiny minority represents the whole reality.

Why? Why?

Why does the Trump administration hate us so much? They are constantly finding new ways to attack us—and now they are going after doctors for, of all things, false advertising!!!!

The FTC Is Ramping Up to Target Transgender Rights

A series of new hires and investigations at the agency appear to focus on penalizing gender-affirming care for minors—and those who speak in favor of it.

Wired

Vittoria Elliott

Apr 24, 2026

The Federal Trade Commission appears to be targeting transgender rights, going beyond its usual ways of operating to do so, according to experts and federal employees who spoke to WIRED.

Since July 2025, the agency has been gearing up to frame gender-affirming care for minors as a consumer-protection issue, in a move that a former FTC employee, who spoke to WIRED on the condition of anonymity due to fear of retaliation, described as “very strange.”

“I think their end goal here is to be on the front page, being warriors for the Trump anti-trans agenda,” they claim.

Why? This is pure hatred.

“The FTC has brought lots of cases around phony cures, phony health products,” the former employee says. But those cases were targeted around issues like businesses peddling fake Covid cures. In cases where the FTC has gone after nonprofits, the former employee says, it has involved the nonprofit misappropriating donations.

Who will be the focus of all this? Doctors? Hospitals? The AMA and APA? This is a targeted attack on the trans community, and the official response from the agency to a news organization proves it:

 The former FTC employee described the agency’s move to target nonprofits as “really weird” and said it was “very unusual” to hire lawyers for a specific project or case as opposed to recruiting people based on skill sets, like data protection.

In response to questions from WIRED, FTC spokesperson Joseph Simonson said, “Virtually everything you asked is based off a complete misunderstanding of the law, this agency, and the issue of whether children are potentially suffering from unnecessary mutilation. Stick to computers.”

Contrast this rhetoric with the actual medical data. On the National Institutes of Health (NIH) website, specifically in the article "Mental Health Outcomes in Transgender and Nonbinary Youths Receiving Gender-Affirming Care," published in JAMA, the evidence is clear:

Conclusions and relevance: This study found that gender-affirming medical interventions were associated with lower odds of depression and suicidality over 12 months. These data add to existing evidence suggesting that gender-affirming care may be associated with improved well-being among TNB youths over a short period, which is important given mental health disparities experienced by this population, particularly the high levels of self-harm and suicide.

All the medical evidence shows that this treatment helps us, yet it is being ignored. Instead, the administration is relying on "evidence" from far-right medical organizations. The Wired article concludes by showing this is a coordinated effort across multiple departments:

Other agencies have also targeted trans rights. In July 2025, the Department of Justice subpoenaed doctors and clinics providing gender-related care for minors. “Medical professionals and organizations that mutilated children in the service of a warped ideology will be held accountable by this Department of Justice,” then-attorney general Pam Bondi said in a statement at the time. In December 2025, the Department of Health and Human Services announced that it would bar hospitals that accept Medicare and Medicaid from performing gender-affirming care. Earlier this month, a federal judge overturned the HHS ban, writing, “This case highlights a leader’s unserious regard for the rule of law.”

Naw... tell me again how there’s "no bias" here.

The Courthouse News reports that judges are seeing through this sham.

Trump admin appeals block on subpoena for trans care clinic records

The Justice Department issued over 20 subpoenas to clinics providing gender-affirming care after Trump called for the end of such services.

Monique Merrill 

March 6, 2026

A battle over a subpoena targeting a Washington clinic that provides gender-affirming care to minors reached the Ninth Circuit on Friday, with the Trump administration arguing a judge wrongly blocked its investigation into drug manufacturers.

“It just can’t be right that the administration must choose between advocating for a policy outcome and using tools like regulatory actions and proposing legislation to achieve that outcome on the one hand, and enforcing existing laws to protect consumers within the same space where it’s engaging in policy advocacy,” said Sarah Welch, attorney with the Department of Justice.

The Justice Department issued a subpoena in June to QueerDoc, a telehealth clinic that provides gender-affirming care to adolescents and adults.

The department sought records as part of an investigation into possible violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act by manufacturers of drugs used in gender-affirming care, including puberty blockers and hormone therapies.

[...]

In October, U.S. District Judge Jamal Whitehead quashed the subpoena, agreeing with QueerDoc that the Justice Department had weaponized its investigative authority to advance Trump’s policy goal of eliminating gender-affirming care.

[...]

But U.S. Circuit Judge Daniel Bress, a Donald Trump appointee, questioned why the Justice Department would need patient records.

The Trump administration argued that it needed complete records to verify whether the medications QueerDoc prescribed matched the insurance billing and the patient’s diagnosis.

QueerDoc contended that the Justice Department issued the subpoena under the guise of conducting an investigation but really issued it to advance Trump’s goal of ending gender-affirming care.

No way would Trump be trying to end our healthcare! (This is sarcasm.) 

They Keep Piling On Us!

It seems like every time we turn around...

• They want to require television show to be labeled “trans” if they have any “trans” characters or plots.
• Trump wants to have us labeled as terrorist.
• Trump has stripped us of our life savings healthcare.

Now substitute Black people for trans people.

• They want to require television show to be labeled “Black” if they have any “Black” characters or plots.
• Trump wants to have “Blacks” labeled as terrorist.
• Trump has stripped us of our life savings healthcare.

Do you think that would be allowed? Why is it okay for us to be discriminated against?

There are two mindsets about us: conservatives think we choose to be trans, while liberals know we are born this way. If you look at nature, you will see trans identity everywhere! But we were censored in the animal world along with the human world. Primatologists and anthropologists reported it in their notes, but it never made it to the public back in the 1950s—the era of the "Lavender Scare."

Integrative and Comparative Biology (ICB) writes in Joan Roughgarden’s Evolution’s Rainbow, a book review by Josephine Low that, 

In The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin described life as “endless forms most beautiful.” The field of biology is defined by the pursuit of universal explanations for these infinite possibilities. Despite the enduring desire for objectivity, what scientists choose to study and their interpretation is shaped by cultural norms. Paradoxically, popular culture looks to science to affirm what is “natural” and therefore right, creating a feedback loop which distorts our perception of the natural world and humanity’s place in it.

If enforcing a singular perspective on an infinite world unjustly flattens the world, embracing a multitude of perspectives is the best way to understand an infinite world. To borrow the language of renowned ecologist and evolutionary biologist Joan Roughgarden, we need to learn to see nature’s rainbow.

But that is exactly what the Republicans want to do when they pass laws stating that there are only two genders! The National Institutes of Health website, PubMed, reports in Genetic and Environmental Contributions To Gender Diversity: A Systematic Review of the Twin Literature. The introduction reads, in part:

The aetiological basis for gender diversity remains unknown. However, similar to other complex human traits (Polderman et al. 2015), the prevailing theory is that a complex interaction between genes and the environment collectively contribute to the formation of gender identity (Coleman et al. 2022). Studies using a classic twin study design have assessed the validity of this hypothesis by comparing rates of concordance for a transgender and other gender diverse (hereafter, trans) identity in monozygotic (MZ, identical) and dizygotic (DZ, non-identical) twins (Polderman et al. 2018) (see Table 1 for glossary of relevant terms). Since MZ twins share 100% of their DNA, compared to 50% on average in DZ twins, twin studies offer a powerful opportunity to examine questions about the heritable contribution to gender identity. In addition, using univariate models, twin data can also facilitate assessment of the relative contributions of environmental factors shared between each twin pair (e.g. intrauterine and family environment) and non-shared environmental factors (e.g. unique life experiences) (Neale and Cardon 1992).

[…]

Conclusion

This review of the twin literature suggests that there is likely both heritable and non-shared environmental contributions to gender diversity, but the magnitude of these contributions remains undefined and further research is needed to help clarify this.

But the Republicans still think it is a choice! That one day we sit down and think, "Gee, I want to be trans so I can be beaten up and discriminated against!"

The Guardian reported on:

'Sexual depravity' of penguins that Antarctic scientist dared not reveal

Landmark polar research about the Adélie penguin's sex life by Captain Scott's expedition, deemed too shocking for the public 100 years ago, is unearthed at the Natural History Museum

The Guardian

Robin McKie, science editor

Sat 9 Jun 2012

It was the sight of a young male Adélie penguin attempting to have sex with a dead female that particularly unnerved George Murray Levick, a scientist with the 1910-13 Scott Antarctic Expedition. No such observation had ever been recorded before, as far as he knew, and Levick, a typical Edwardian Englishman, was horrified. Blizzards and freezing cold were one thing. Penguin perversion was another.

Worse was to come, however. Levick spent the Antarctic summer of 1911-12 observing the colony of Adélies at Cape Adare, making him the only scientist to this day to have studied an entire breeding cycle there. During that time, he witnessed males having sex with other males and also with dead females, including several that had died the previous year. He also saw them sexually coerce females and chicks and occasionally kill them.

Levick blamed this "astonishing depravity" on "hooligan males" and wrote down his observations in Greek so that only an educated gentleman would understand the horrors he had witnessed. Back in Britain he produced a paper (in English), titled Natural History of the Adélie Penguin. However, the section about the animal's sexual proclivities was deemed to be so shocking it was removed to preserve decency. Levick then used this material as the basis for a separate short paper, Sexual Habits of the Adélie Penguin, which was privately circulated among a handful of experts.

As a result of that self-censorship, we are demonized! Maybe if they had publicized that being LGBTQ+ is part of the natural process of life back then, LGBTQ+ people would not be persecuted now. Maybe if they taught that in school, we wouldn’t have the hate we have now. And now, once again, they are banning anything LGBTQ+ in schools! What is that teaching the students? What else have scientists hidden from us?

I have always said that Mother Nature loves to experiment. So when you pass laws saying that there are only two genders, you are going against Mother Nature—and she doesn’t like that!

---

Another factor showing that being LGBTQ+ is an inborn trait rather than a choice is statistics!

I’m "sinister"—or left-handed, as they used to call us! We were called witches and burned at the stake. Nuns would whack your hand until it was black and blue and belittle you in front of the class for smudging the ink. According to BBC News:

Approximately 10% to 12% of the world's population is left-handed. While estimates can range from 8% to 15% depending on the study and cultural factors, the 10% figure is the most commonly cited. This ratio has remained remarkably stable for over 5,000 years, with a higher prevalence in males than females

But here is a fact they don’t teach you in school. Psychology Today writes that if you are LGBTQ+, you have a higher chance of being left-handed: 

According to Kenneth Zucker*, a researcher at the University of Toronto's Center for Addiction and Mental Health, homosexuals are more likely to be lefties than heterosexuals. Zucker analyzed data collected in 20 different studies over the past 50 years and discovered a correlation between left-handedness and homosexuality. The findings indicate that lesbians have a 91 percent greater chance of being left-handed or ambidextrous than straight women, while gay men are 34 percent more likely than straight men to not be right-handed. While Zucker says the research provides empirical evidence that links homosexuality to left-handedness, he also adds that "we don't have a definitive answer as to why the relationship exists."

*Hey, I know! Ken Zucker S**ks!

In another PubMed article they write,

Abstract

Handedness preference was assessed in 205 boys with gender identity disorder and 205 clinical control boys referred for other reasons. Boys with gender identity disorder were significantly more likely to be left-handed than the clinical control boys (19.5% vs. 8.3%, respectively). The boys with gender identity disorder, but not the clinical control boys, also had a significantly higher rate of left-handedness compared to three independent, general population studies of nonreferred boys (11.8%; N = 14,253) by Hardyck, Goldman, and Petrinovich (1975), Calnan and Richardson (1976), and Eaton, Chipperfield, Ritchot, and Kostiuk (1996). Left-handedness appears to be a behavioral marker of an underlying neurobiological process associated with gender identity disorder in boys.

Hey! To all you people who think being trans is a choice: is being left-handed a prerequisite for "choosing" to be trans?

Wait, that’s not all. In Nature Communications, the article “Elevated rates of autism, other neurodevelopmental and psychiatric diagnoses, and autistic traits in transgender and gender-diverse individuals” reports:

In conclusion, our study demonstrates that transgender and gender-diverse individuals have elevated rates of autism diagnosis, related neurodevelopmental and psychiatric conditions, and autistic traits compared to cisgender individuals. This study has clinical implications by highlighting that we need to improve access to care and tailored support for this under-served population.

Can you imagine Republicans passing laws like the ones they are passing against us on any other protected class? Why are they allowed to discriminate against us? They justify their pogrom against the trans community with their lies.

The same institutions that tried to "beat the left-handedness out of people" in the past are often the ones trying to "legislate the trans identity out of people" today.

We will not be erased!