The Trump Administration Is Trying to Erase Trans People, but the Law Clearly Protects Them

Over the weekend, The New York Times revealed that officials within the Trump administration are pushing for a definition of the term “sex” in federal civil rights laws that would eliminate non-discrimination protections for transgender people. Transgender people and their families understandably panicked at that news.

The reality, though, is that transgender people are already protected from discrimination in many contexts under federal law. And we are already fighting in court alongside transgender plaintiffs to keep those protections from being taken away.  

Federal civil rights laws bar sex discrimination by employers, schools, landlords, and health care providers, through laws such as Title VII, Title IX, and the Affordable Care Act. Federal courts have consistently ruled that the protection against sex discrimination covers discrimination against transgender people, in contexts ranging from employment to education to access to health care. Recognizing that anti-trans discrimination is a form of sex discrimination makes sense, given that you can’t describe what it means to be transgender without talking about the person’s sex. 

The idea that bans on sex discrimination cover transgender people is not new and it’s not something the Obama administration made up. State courts have ruled this way going back to the 1970s, and federal courts have done so since the 1990s. Today, many federal appeals courts agree that trans people are protected from discrimination under statutes barring sex discrimination, and a wide range of federal agencies has issued rulings or regulations protecting transgender people through bans on sex discrimination. That includes the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Labor.

The Trump administration is trying hard to take away these existing protections and make anti-trans discrimination legal in every context it can find. They are arguing in court that civil rights laws don’t cover transgender people and they have revoked administrative guidance that used to make clear to schools and prisons that transgender people are protected under current law. They have also made clear they will propose new regulations that would leave transgender people without recourse under federal law for discrimination they face in many contexts. 

If successful, Trump’s actions would harm millions of people all across America.

Aimee Stephens, whom the ACLU represents, is one of them. She worked as a funeral director and embalmer for six years at a funeral home in Detroit. Aimee knew she was a girl from an early age. When she came out to her boss and co-workers as the woman she is, her boss fired her for being transgender. Aimee and her wife, Donna, have had to sell off their possessions just to stay afloat. This spring, a federal appeals court ruled that what happened to Aimee was not only wrong, it was unlawful sex discrimination. The funeral home has asked the Supreme Court to reverse the case and leave Aimee with no job and no remedy for the discrimination she experienced. 

On Wednesday, the Department of Justice will file a brief in the case about whether it believes the federal appeals court was right to rule for Aimee. Its position won’t be a surprise: Attorney General Sessions issued a memorandum in September 2017 declaring that the very federal law Aimee sued under — Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — doesn’t protect transgender people from discrimination. 

Aidan DeStefano, another ACLU client, would also face harm if the Trump administration succeeded in undoing legal protections for transgender people. Aidan, who is transgender, used to attend Boyertown Area Senior High School in central Pennsylvania. His school district allows boys like Aidan to use the boys’ restrooms, participate in boys’ sports teams, and use the boys’ locker rooms. The school district adopted that policy in large part because a guidance document from 2016 from the U.S. Department of Education made clear that Title IX, which bars sex discrimination by schools, covers anti-trans discrimination.

But in early 2017, the Trump administration revoked that guidance. Yet when anti-trans activists sued Aidan’s school over its policy allowing transgender students to use the restroom, the courts rejected their challenge and upheld the school’s inclusive policy. The people behind that lawsuit have announced that they will ask the Supreme Court to take up the case.

If the Trump administration had its way, Shannon Andrews would also lose the protections of civil rights laws. Shannon supervises a cancer research lab at the University of Wisconsin. Like other state employees, she gets health care insurance through the state. Shannon faced state rules that specifically excluded coverage for hormone therapy and surgery relating to gender transition, even though her doctors say that care is medically necessary for her.

Last month, a federal judge ruled that the state violated federal law when it barred Shannon from receiving this health care because she’s transgender. What’s more, a jury of Shannon’s peers recognized that the state’s treatment of her was wrong and awarded her damages for the discrimination she faced. 

In this context as well, the Trump administration is working to change the federal government’s official interpretation of one of the laws that Shannon relied on — a portion of Obamacare that bars discrimination based on sex — in an effort to allow discrimination against transgender people. 

The good news here is that this administration doesn’t get the last word on trans people’s rights. Many courageous transgender people are already in court, fighting to maintain these essential civil rights protections. They’ll continue to do so, and we’ll be by their sides, as long as it takes to maintain their basic rights. 

View comments (40)
Read the Terms of Use

Anonymous

When it comes to laws, like Civil Rights Laws, the words "male" and "female" have to be legally defined. Legal definitions are based on tangible facts. Body parts are tangible facts - how you feel is not tangible. You will lose when the Supreme Court finally takes one of these cases.

Anonymous

Intersex people exist btw. Also sex isn't gender and any science article agrees with that. Only reason we will lose is when the court continues to deny facts.

Anonymous

So they get a sex change operation.

DNA is unreliable as well, because of things XO females, XXY males, XY females, etc.

Also, explain intersex people.

Anonymous

Hi,
Legal definitions are usually social, not scientific. Legal definitions can chose to use scientific definitions, but by no means should they. However, in this case the science is that trans women are female and trans men are male. Just fyi.

Anonymous

Your first statement is not true. To prevent discrimination based on sex, we need a definition of “sex” but not of “male” and “female,” which are values we happen to assign to the attribute “sex.” In some human cultures, more than just two values have been assigned. “Sex” is an attribute we apply to humans, but it is based on more than just body parts. The “tangibles” that come into play include body parts, but also chromosomes, hormones, and gonads. All of these are measurable, but they are not necessarily binary. For most people, the measures of these tangibles fall in some arbitrarily acceptable range and conform to one side or the other (e.g., most people who identify and are identified as male have a penis of a certain size, testicles, and no breasts, and a certain combination and measure of sex hormones, which by the way, naturally changes over time). But this is not the case for everyone (i.e., intersex people). Given all of these “tangibles,” there are certainly more that science has yet to uncover, which may eventually lead to tangible bases for currently less understood “intangibles” like the identity people feel. The more we discover, the more we understand how complex “sex” actually is, and we already know that it is not reducible to “body parts” that always clearly fit one of two categories.

Anonymous

You are relying on science that doesn't exist. The most science has ever found in favor of transgenders is correlations. The scientific definitions of "male" and "female" for every species, including humans, is based on roles in reproduction. That's what early scientists and farmers cared about. Every sexually reproducing species has a checklist of tangible body parts that scientists use to sort organisms into male and female.

Mahilena

If the immutability of biological sex is based on chromosomes then the fact that these cannot change, is totally and absolutely irrelevant, since the chromosomes can be rendered useless and insignificant to a person’s physical and behavioral appearance, once the person is determined to alter their sex through surgery and hormonal treatment, the chromosomes will be rendered inoperable or dysfunctional, the individual no longer having the ability to produce their birth sex hormone will
make his or her appearance and behavior conform to the desired sex, once he or she has mastered behavior and appearance to the point of no recognition of the original sex then he or she should be allowed to define herself/himself accordingly, the state would need enormous resources to police the genetics of bathroom users, and any individual should be free to experience this transformation if they desire it, the state should never govern what we do with our bodies

Anonymous

“You are relying on science that doesn't exist.” False. All of the assertions made above related to chromosomes, gonads, hormones, and physiology constitute scientific truth. “The most science has ever found in favor of transgenders is correlations.” False. There is a dearth of scientific research on human individuals identifying as transgender, but none of it is in favor of or opposed to “transgenders.” In fact, where studies do exist, they are predicated on the existence of such individuals. “The scientific definitions of ‘male’ and ‘female’ for every species, including humans, is based on roles in reproduction.” Partially true. Not all sexually reproducing species are classified into male and female. For those that are, these categories are based on generalizations across individuals within species, and variations outside of this dichotomy exist in every species. “That's what early scientists and farmers cared about.” True, but we are not early farmers, we are not talking about raising livestock, and science has come a long way since those times. “Every sexually reproducing species has a checklist of tangible body parts that scientists use to sort organisms into male and female.” False. The complexity of sexual reproductive systems varies greatly by species, including non-genetic systems and several types of hermaphroditism. Your entire comment oversimplifies and misconstrues the science of sexual reproduction, and it fails to account for the complexity of the human experience.

Anonymous

“You are relying on science that doesn't exist.” False. All of the assertions made above related to chromosomes, gonads, hormones, and physiology are widely held as scientific truth. “The most science has ever found in favor of transgenders is correlations.” False. There is a dearth of scientific research on human individuals identifying as transgender, but none of it is in favor of or opposed to “transgenders.” In fact, where studies do exist, they are predicated on the existence of such individuals. “The scientific definitions of ‘male’ and ‘female’ for every species, including humans, is based on roles in reproduction.” Partially true. Not all sexually reproducing species are classified into male and female. For those that are, these categories are based on generalizations across individuals within species, and variations outside of this dichotomy exist in every species. “That's what early scientists and farmers cared about.” Irrelevant. We are not early farmers, we are not talking about raising livestock, and science has come a long way since those times. “Every sexually reproducing species has a checklist of tangible body parts that scientists use to sort organisms into male and female.” False. The complexity of sexual reproductive systems varies greatly by species, including non-genetic systems and several types of hermaphroditism. Your entire comment oversimplifies and misconstrues the science of sexual reproduction, and it fails to account for the complexity of the human experience.

Anonymous

It is time that this administration is legally neutered.

Pages

Stay Informed