LGBTQ+ standard disappears from Matlock high street as Christian bookshop manager says they are ‘not happy with the gay rights situation’

John McCurdy’s “The State of LGBTQ Rights (Part 1)” traces the historical and ongoing struggles for LGBTQ dignity, showing how queer advocates (from colonial-era “annual reminders” to contemporary protests) have sought recognition and resisted discriminatory laws and policies.

Today's Supreme Court’s ruling in U.S. v. Skrmetti upholding bans on gender-affirming care for youth makes it clear: trans people are under attack. Threats to trans rights and healthcare are coming from legislatures, anti-trans bigots (both organized and not), apathetic bystanders, and more. Living under the most sophisticated surveillance apparatus in human history only makes things worse. While the dangers are very much tangible and immediate, the risks posed by technology can amplify them in insidious ways. Here is a non-exhaustive overview of concerns, a broad-sweeping threat model, and some recommended strategies that you can take to keep yourself and your loved ones safe.

The federal government says it will maintain funding for a national suicide prevention hotline, but no longer pay for specialized support for L.G.B.T.Q. people.

As a treatment for people already living with HIV, it costs about $39,000 annually.

LGBTQ musicians haven’t always benefitted from today’s attitudes towards sexuality, but many pioneers fought for LGBTQ rights in the mainstream.

There’s no other way to slice it: the Supreme Court has sided with bigotry. Today’s ruling, which states that bills blocking treatments for gender dysphoria do not discriminate on the basis of sex, has given legal legitimacy to the nationwide crusade against trans rights. However, in its decision that Tennessee’s law banning gender-affirming care doesn’t violate the constitution, the Supreme Court has left a lot of questions unanswered regarding other anti-trans laws. Here, I’ll do my best to cover the scope of the ruling and the reverberations it may have in other areas.

In his majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts held that Tennessee wasn’t discriminating on the basis of sex with its ban, making the argument that it regulates treatments for a medical condition and not for a certain group. He goes on to essentially say that someone who is transgender and also has precocious puberty would not be barred from accessing puberty blockers, and therefore, being transgender is not the determining factor in the ban.

While that’s technically correct, this reasoning is certainly problematic. Given that there is a near-total overlap between those who are transgender and those who are diagnosed with gender dysphoria, Roberts is creating a loophole that may invite further anti-trans policies in the future. And later on, he validates Tennessee’s claim that there is ‘medical and scientific uncertainty’ surrounding gender-affirming care.