Andrew Bostad, center, his mother, Brandi Evans, and stepdad, Jimmy Evans, at their home in Bauxite, Arkansas, on April 15, 2021. Andrew is one of hundreds of transgender youth in Arkansas who could have their hormone therapy cut off under a new state law. AP Photo/Andrew DeMillo^[21]

‘Save our Children’

Anti-gay activist and Florida orange juice queen Anita Bryant first perfected the strategy in the 1970s to oppose ordinances prohibiting sexuality-based discrimination. Bryant’s “Save our Children^[22]” campaign demonized gays and lesbians as “recruiting children.” Bryant successfully encouraged voters to oppose legislative attempts to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination and prompted Florida legislators to bar same-sex couples from adopting children^[23], a law that was overturned^[24] in 2010.

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, conservatives prompted over 40 states to bar same-sex marriage on the basis that all children could be at risk^[25] – those raised by same-sex couples and those introduced to marriage equality at school.

In 2015, when the Supreme Court overturned these bans in the landmark case Obergefell v. Hodges^[26], conservatives began targeting transgender rights.

Conservatives again trained their focus on nondiscrimination measures – this time those prohibiting gender identity discrimination. They misleadingly argued that any measure protecting transgender individuals would place cisgender girls and women – individuals whose gender identity and birth-assigned sex are both female – at risk by allowing men dressed as women^[27] to use women’s locker rooms and restrooms.

There is no evidence^[28] supporting this claim. Yet there is significant evidence^[29] of health and safety risks to transgender students^[30] if they are prohibited from using bathrooms that reflect their gender identity.

Significant costs

Anti-transgender athlete and health care bills follow a similar approach. Advocates for bills targeting trans female athletes claim that transgender teammates will “ruin women’s sports forever^[31].”

Supporters of anti-trans health care bills claim that children are being pressured to employ these therapies, by physicians and parents, and describe the effects as permanent and scarring^[32].

There is little empirical evidence^[33] to back up these assertions. Puberty blockers are an increasingly common treatment precisely because they provide a reversible and less invasive^[34] option for transgender adolescents and are provided only with the patient’s fully informed consent. Cross-gender hormone treatments, which are typically provided in later adolescence, are also relatively low-risk^[35].

And there is little evidence to suggest that transgender female athletes in K-12 settings are unfairly outcompeting their cisgender competitors – particularly if they have been on puberty blockers^[36]. In fact, conservative legislators have pointed to only one instance in their campaigns, when two trans female athletes^[37] in Connecticut took first and second place in a 2017 statewide track tournament. Several cisgender female athletes who lost, unsuccessfully attempted to sue^[38] state officials for permitting transgender athletes to compete.

A far more common story is the relative obscurity^[39] of transgender athletes in women’s sports and their similarities with their cisgender teammates. Many of the states^[40] considering the legislation have no known trans female athletes or have trans female athletes who are performing on par with cisgender female teammates.

And even the cisgender Connecticut athletes who attempted to sue state officials had prevailed^[41] in several championship races against their transgender competitors shortly after filing their lawsuit.

But none of this has prevented bill supporters from stoking fears.

Researchers and healthcare providers do know, however, that the bills will harm^[42] transgender young people.

Prohibiting gender-affirming care, like puberty blockers, or barring transgender-inclusive athletic teams imposes real and devastating risks on transgender youths^[43]. Transgender people who do not have access to the kinds of hormone therapies that are being outlawed are four times more likely^[44] than cisgender people to struggle with depression.

They are also nine times^[45] more likely than cisgender individuals to attempt suicide.

Put simply, gender-affirming policies and supportive health care therapies^[46] are lifesaving^[47].

Furthermore, if upheld in court, the athlete bills could require any female athlete to “prove” their gender to participate, potentially through invasive physical examinations^[48].

The ‘Free Speech Bus,’ painted with the words ‘boys are boys’ and ‘girls are girls,’ is parked on a Boston street on March 30, 2017. A spokesman for the group behind the bus said organizers are pushing back against greater acceptance of transgender people. AP Photo/Steven Senne^[49]

Political landscape

Conservatives may be using these bills – which some describe as “erasing transgender youth^[50]” – to catalyze Republican voters to participate in upcoming midterm elections^[51]. And the strategy could work.

Attempts to bar transgender athletes appeal to at least some self-described feminists^[52]. And some high-profile women’s athletes have joined the fray, convening the Women’s Sports Policy Working Group^[53] in order to “protect^[54]” cisgender female athletes from trans athlete inclusion.

Conservatives also used anti-trans-athlete talking points to oppose the Equality Act^[55], a bill that would have added prohibitions against sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination to existing federal civil rights bills. The House passed a similar measure in 2021, but it failed to pass the Senate.

Transgender advocates have some recourse to fight the bills. Corporate backlash^[56] is one option. Litigation is another. Advocates for transgender rights have secured legal victories^[57] in state and federal court challenges involving bathrooms and locker rooms. More recently, a federal judge in Idaho blocked that state’s anti-transgender athletes^[58] bill passed in 2020.

And the Supreme Court’s 2020 ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County^[59], which protects LGBTQ individuals from certain forms of discrimination, seems at first blush to support transgender student equality. But the Bostock case is relatively new, its application to sports and health care untested and political fervor is mounting. With a solid conservative majority^[60] on the Supreme Court – and in federal courts^[61] across the country – legal battles may be unreliable.

In the meantime, transgender young people across the country are contemplating a more uncertain and dangerous future for themselves and their parents. Some are working with their parents to find out-of-state sources^[62] for puberty blockers. Others are contemplating moves to less hostile^[63] states. All of this because conservatives have channeled trumped-up claims into harmful legislation that outlaws and endangers transgender youth, in an attempt to further divide American voters.

This is an updated version of an article originally published^[64] on May 6, 2021.

[The Conversation’s Politics + Society editors pick need-to-know stories. Sign up for Politics Weekly^[65].]

Authors: Alison Gash, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Oregon

Read more https://theconversation.com/indiana-iowa-and-texas-advance-anti-transgender-agendas-part-of-a-longtime-strategy-by-conservatives-to-rally-their-base-178377