As we fight the Trump administration’s anti-trans memo, we can’t be silent about who this dramatic rollback could affect the most — trans and gender nonconforming people of color. This is not a moral nicety, it’s a strategic mandate.
By Key Jackson, Malcolm Shanks
October 22, 2018
On Sunday evening (October 21) The New York Times published “‘Transgender’ Could Be Defined Out of Existence Under Trump Administration,” an alarming article about how the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is pushing relevant government agencies to adopt an anti-trans definition of gender.
That definition, contained in an HHS policy memo The Times obtained, would “narrowly assign gender based only on the genitals that trans and gender-nonconforming people are declared to have at birth.”
Mere weeks before the midterm elections, the definition would strike at the heart of Obama administration policies that expanded the definition of gender.
More from The Times:
The department argued in its memo that key government agencies needed to adopt an explicit and uniform definition of gender as determined “on a biological basis that is clear, grounded in science, objective and administrable.” The agency’s proposed definition would define sex as either male or female, unchangeable, and determined by the genitals that a person is born with, according to a draft reviewed by The Times. Any dispute about one’s sex would have to be clarified using genetic testing.
The impacts of a narrowed definition could be many. Think bathroom bills, health insurance coverage, prison housing policies and work discrimination, among many other issues.
As we talk policy and next steps, it becomes imperative for us to engage in deeper conversations that are racially explicit. As media and community response continues to build over the coming hours, days and weeks, we urge you to consider the following recommendations and observations: http://bit.ly/2q5l9w4.
© 2018 Colorlines. All right reserved.
