The family has already fled the country

JK Rowling // Wikimedia Commons

Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.

Billionaire TERF influencer J.K. Rowling has announced that she will cover the legal costs of anti-trans groups named in a report by Amnesty International (UK), which called them “anti-rights.”

The report was retracted shortly after publication and replaced with a statement from the organization saying the report was uploaded “without going through the established internal review processes” and that its “language does not reflect the position of Amnesty International UK, which is why it was promptly removed.”

But the withdrawal and public acknowledgement was not enough to sate the organizations that have fought tooth and nail to exclude and/or antagonize the transgender community in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom is notoriously more perilous for free speech than the United States. For our neighbors across the pond, the burden of proof lies with the defendant to prove the statement is true; here in the United States, the burden of proof lies with the aggrieved to prove that a statement is categorically false, and published knowingly or at least recklessly regardless. The US also benefits from “anti-SLAPP” laws to prevent such frivolous lawsuits waged by wealthy individuals or powerful corporations against those who criticize them.

So Rowling capitalized on the spectacle to, in essence, help dozens of groups in what appears to be an attempt to sue Amnesty into oblivion.

CAPTION: Screenshot from Rowling’s Twitter, where she offers “women’s organizations” backing to sue Amnesty International (UK) through her own charitable fund. She quote tweets a group of people who self-identify as “trans widows”—referring to cisgender people whose spouses or ex-spouses came out as transgender.

The saga began earlier this month, when Amnesty International (UK) released a report titled “A growing threat: the anti-rights movement in the UK.” It released a similar report last year, but this year, it added a new category for what appears to be the anti-rights movement’s most rapidly growing sector: “Gender critical” groups, or groups that are antithetical to transgender rights and inclusion.

Rowling rushed to tweet about the situation.

CAPTION: Rowling tweets a group’s response to Amnesty International (UK)’s report on “anti-rights” groups.

She lauded “LGB” groups—another anti-trans buzzword, which, as the name suggests, describes groups that wish to erase transgender people from the queer liberation movement—like the Gay Men’s Network, an organization that has pushed for anti-trans policies. That group posted a public letter indicating it might sue Amnesty International for defamation. The Network demanded a retraction of the report and then claimed that Amnesty is guilty of “trying to control gay and lesbian free speech.”

In the day or so that followed, Rowling retweeted around a dozen similar letters. The posted letters include groups like Genspect, a Southern Poverty Law Center-designated hate group that threatened Amnesty International with legal action, as well as groups like LGB Alliance and Sex Matters.

Amnesty International (UK) did not formally reply to a request for comment for this piece.

Gender critical activists, often financed by Rowling, rely on legal “guerilla warfare” said one U.K.-based trans rights organizer, who could only speak to Erin in the Morning if granted anonymity. The tactic is familiar: Wear down non-profits and individuals who dare speak out against anti-trans and anti-rights groups. They don’t have to win a lawsuit; they can just file again, and again, and again, draining valuable time and resources.

“They have sued organizations into the ground,” the advocate said.

Some context for just a handful of these groups so up in arms about being labeled as hateful: Helen Joyce, the director of advocacy for Sex Matters, gave a speech at a Genspect conference (both are groups on the anti-rights list) about how “beauty” is “inimical to trans bullshit.

She also boasted about manufacturing a moral and medical panic about how, although only a “small” segment of trans kids are prescribed puberty blockers, it has been a strategic “rhetorical device” to erode the rights of transgender people more broadly.

Depending on who you ask, TERFs are considered either a self-branded liberal faction of gender critical ideology, or a different term for what is essentially the same movement. TERF stands for “trans exclusionary radical feminist,” a term to describe self-proclaimed “feminists” who oppose giving transgender women and cisgender women equal rights.

Many of these TERF or “gender critical” groups have close ties to far-right Christian groups. DonorsTrust, the conservative donor behemoth and primary financier of initiatives like Project 2025, also forked over hundreds of thousands of dollars to groups like the Society for Evidence-based Gender Medicine and Thoughtful Therapists, both of whom made the “anti-rights” list because, as Amnesty International (UK) among many others have put it, they promote “conversion practices.”

One major point of contention was the inclusion of Rowling’s own organization, Beira’s Place. It does not primarily seem to function as any sort of advocacy organization. Rather, it’s a women’s shelter for those fleeing domestic violence, but it also has an explicit anti-trans policy, banning transgender women from accessing its services.

However, as the report explained, none of these groups exist in a vacuum. “These entities must be understood as an ecosystem sharing values, goals, strategy and tactics and, for some of them, formal collaboration,” it reads.

Amnesty isn’t the first or last institution or expert to call out gender critical ideology for being anti-rights. UN Women has published materials saying as much.

Meanwhile, University of Sheffield sociologist Dr. Sally Hines has called this framework “deeply conservative.” In the Journal for Gender Studies, she writes that “despite its origins within a branch of radical feminism, [gender-critical ideology] has a profoundly misogynist agenda that stands opposed to the rights of women.” It is a “key force within a current conservative pushback against the rights of women and minoritized sexual groups.”

Gender critical activists continue to use the language of oppression to characterize their plight. Many say “TERF” is a slur. Others believe criticizing a group because of its arguably regressive politics is grounds for a lawsuit.

Despite the fact that the report was pulled down, Erin in the Morning was able to retrieve a copy reposted by an anti-trans news outlet. You can read a full version of that archived version below.

Report A Growing Threat The Anti Rights Movement In The Uk July 2026

345KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

for every $100 philanthropy gives to LGBTQ+ issues, only about three cents goes specifically to trans issues, according to the 2024 LGBTQ Funders Tracking Report. That was the landscape even before this administration took office.

Source (Instagram)

On the 30th of June, the Trans Exile Network issued the following press release countersigned by Compton’s Cafe, Transpilot and ourselves. The UK has become an increasingly hostile place for trans people. This travel advisory outlines some of the legal and practical risks that LGBTQ+ visitors, especially trans people and those perceived to be trans, may face when travelling here. People deserve to make informed decisions about their safety. Please read and share this widely. PRESS_RELEASE_IMMEDIATE_30_June_2026Download - On the 30th of June, the Trans Exile Network issued the following press release countersigned by Compton’s Cafe, Transpilot and ourselves. The UK has

cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/59456

Photo by Pete Alexopoulos on Unsplash

Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.

Last month, the Texas Republican Party held its biennial convention at the George R. Brown Convention Center in Houston, where over 4,000 delegates assembled to elect new leadership, adopt an official platform, and set legislative priorities for the upcoming legislative session. Delegates overwhelmingly elected D'Rinda Randall as the new state party chair, carrying 25 of 31 Senate District caucuses in what political scientists described as a further rightward shift driven by the MAGA wing's primary victories. The platform attracted national attention, but one section of it went unnoticed: a set of anti-trans provisions that, if enacted, would be among the most draconian in the country—including a ban on all gender-affirming care up to the age of 26 that extends to legal name changes, an absolute prohibition on transgender people working or volunteering in public schools, and a ban on private businesses expressing any support for transgender people.

"Gender Identity Ideology in Schools: The official position of the Texas schools shall be that there are only two genders: biological male and biological female, which are immutable and cannot be changed. We support the total prohibition of so-called social transitioning. We oppose transgender normalizing curriculum, library materials, and pronoun use. We support the prohibition of transgender individuals from serving in any school district positions, including in volunteer roles, and mandate the exclusive use of pronouns corresponding to a person's biological sex at birth.”

Plank 116 of the platform goes on to call for banning any curriculum, library materials, or extracurricular offering that "adopts, supports, or promotes gender fluidity or transgender ideology" and prohibiting school staff from "engaging in sexualized drag activities, crossdressing, or transgenderism."

The platform also calls for the criminal prosecution of parents of transgender youth under child abuse statutes—something Governor Abbott has already attempted, directing the Department of Family and Protective Services to investigate families of trans children in 2022. Plank 150 states: "Any agency, individual, or other entity promoting, performing, or facilitating gender-transitioning or gender-modification of a minor child shall be criminally prosecuted for child abuse and exposed to civil actions, enjoying no immunity regardless of profession, relation, or standing." Importantly, the platform does not stop at minors. Plank 149 extends its prohibitions to legal adults as old as 25, banning all gender-affirming "medical or mental health intervention for persons between the ages of 18 and 26," including not just surgery, puberty blockers, and hormones, but even "assigning name and/or pronoun changes.”

See the section of the platform here:

The platform also targets the private sector. Under the heading "Religious Freedom for Business," Plank 203 calls for removing laws that "force business owners and employees to violate their conscience, sincerely held beliefs, or core values"—providing legal cover for businesses to discriminate against transgender people. But for businesses that want to be supportive, the platform offers no such freedom. Plank 203(c) goes further than any state party platform in the country, calling for an outright ban on businesses expressing support for transgender people:

Lastly, the platform does not just target transgender people—it targets LGBTQ+ people broadly. Its section on homosexuality opens with a declaration that would not be out of place in the 1950s: "Homosexuality is an abnormal lifestyle choice." Plank 152 endorses conversion therapy for people of "any age with identity disorder or unwanted same-sex attraction"—a practice condemned by every major medical organization in the country. Plank 208 declares the party is "opposed to same-sex parenting, intentionally subjecting a child to the loss of their biological father or mother, and other non-traditional definitions of family." And Plank 211 calls for nullifying Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage, stating it "has no basis in the Constitution." Taken together, the platform reads as a blueprint for rolling back not just transgender rights but decades of LGBTQ+ civil rights progress.

“I think the most concerning part is that the Texas GOP wants to cut off mental health support for trans people between the ages of 18 and 26. Because of AG Ken Paxton’s aggressive weaponization of the law, Texas is already the only state that bars that kind of mental health care from trans minors in direct violation of the Supreme Court’s recent conversion therapy ruling. Having been personally affected by the prohibition a couple years ago, it gives me chills to think of what will happen if the ban is extended even further,” says trans journalist Aleksandra Vaca, a resident of the state, in a quote provided to Erin In The Morning.

Many of these provisions are not new. The 2024 Texas GOP platform already declared homosexuality "an abnormal lifestyle choice” and already called for criminalizing anyone who facilitates youth transition. However, it is clear that the policy platforms are escalating in the Texas Republican Party. And the party has a track record of turning its platform into law—SB 14 banned youth care in 2023 and SB 8 restricted bathrooms in 2025. Transgender people in Texas, meanwhile, have to sit and wait to see which draconian policy from the platform gets implemented in 2027 due to a party that seeks to make the conditions of life impossible for transgender people.

Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.

From Erin In The Morning via This RSS Feed.

Good.

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/8802567

cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/57846

Ted Eytan // Flickr

Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.

Between the 1940s and 1950s, the House Un-American Activities Committee and Senator Joseph McCarthy's investigations targeted Americans for their beliefs, their associations, and their speech. The mechanism was not primarily criminal prosecution—it was investigation, subpoena, and the threat of institutional destruction. Its goal was compliance through fear. That fire burned through Hollywood, through the federal government, and through universities, before finally being recognized for what it is today: one of the most extreme government overreaches in American history, wielding extraordinary powers to persecute a disfavored group. Now, the federal government is engaged in a structurally identical campaign—but this time, it is waged against transgender people and the institutions that serve them, targeting hospitals with subpoenas, threatening organizations and nonprofits with funding cuts, and hauling medical societies before kangaroo courts in an attempt to beat them into submission. And with a lawsuit filed yesterday against the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) in a transparently forum-shopped court in Texas, the administration has turned toward its most prized target of all: the central organization that advocates for trans healthcare worldwide.

The lawsuit, brought by the FTC and the attorneys general of Texas, Alaska, Iowa, and Nebraska, alleges that WPATH has violated the FTC Act by engaging in "deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce"—weaponizing federal consumer protection law, statutes designed to go after companies selling snake oil and fake cancer cures. The complaint alleges that WPATH "provided the means for medical providers to make false and unsubstantiated claims to parents in order to sell pediatric medical transition services," and that this makes them a target under consumer protection laws. This is despite the fact that WPATH sells nothing—it is a nonprofit medical advocacy organization that publishes guidelines based on its assessment of the available science, advocating for a transgender patient population that governments and medical institutions had historically forsaken. Its advocacy has led to expanded insurance coverage for transgender healthcare, recognition by every major American medical organization that gender-affirming care is legitimate medicine, and an infrastructure of clinical standards that thousands of providers rely on. For this—for succeeding in its mission—the government has deployed an unprecedented legal theory to destroy it.

Or, mostly unprecedented. During the Red Scare, the federal government targeted organizations and individuals not for crimes but for their published views. In 1949, Owen Lattimore, a professor of international relations at Johns Hopkins University, was accused by McCarthy of being "the top Russian espionage agent.” The evidence was Lattimore's published academic writings on China policy, which McCarthy deemed too sympathetic to communism. Lattimore was indicted over testimony about his scholarly work—charges that were eventually dismissed, but not before his reputation was destroyed and he was placed on leave. The government simultaneously maintained a Hollywood blacklist that affected more than 300 people in the entertainment industry—actors, screenwriters, directors—none of whom were convicted of crimes. The government weaponized its investigatory powers specifically to make it impossible for anyone in a position of institutional influence to associate with, employ, or support people whose views ran counter to the government's preferred ideology. This is exactly the architecture we are seeing deployed against transgender healthcare today: the government is threatening any organization that opposes its stance on transgender people, the blacklist is developing in real time, and anyone who pushes back is investigated.

So, too, is there a parallel in the choice of tribunal. During the Red Scare, McCarthy chose the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations because it gave him maximum control—everyone on the committee was sympathetic to his crusade. The FTC's forum shopping follows the same logic. The government first targeted WPATH with subpoenas in Washington, D.C.—the natural venue for an action by a federal agency headquartered there. When that failed, when Judge Boasberg found "extensive evidence of animus and wafer-thin justifications" behind the investigation, the government did not accept its loss. Instead, it ran to the Northern District of Texas—where Trump-appointed Judge Mark Pittman and George W. Bush appointee Reed O'Connor handle virtually every civil case, and where the administration has already centralized its legal campaign against gender-affirming care. The venue justification? WPATH was originally incorporated in Texas in 1980, even though it actually operates out of Illinois and its principal place of business is in East Dundee, outside Chicago. A 46-year-old incorporation filing is the thread on which the government hangs its choice to bypass the D.C. court that already ruled against it and bring its case before a judge it knows will be sympathetic.

Not that this justification even matters, because the government is weaponizing the same forum-shopping playbook against hospitals across the country. The DOJ has been issuing criminal grand jury subpoenas to hospitals demanding lists of doctors and trans youth. When the government attempted to enforce similar subpoenas in the states where the hospitals actually operate, it lost virtually every time. So what was the tactic they used afterwards? The DOJ “based its investigation” in the Northern District of Texas—convening a grand jury there to subpoena hospitals in New York, Rhode Island, and elsewhere—specifically to land before Judge Reed O'Connor, another reliable conservative appointee. Even a federal judge acknowledged from the bench that "it's pretty clear to me that this was shopped to Texas." Harvard Law's Alejandra Caraballo called it "a blatant unlawful effort by the DOJ to intimidate providers of gender affirming care to trans youth by engaging in judge and forum shopping." The rationale is extraordinary: if you base an investigator in Texas, you can use a Texas grand jury to demand the private medical records of children treated at a hospital in Manhattan. The government lost in the courts that play fair. So it found one that wouldn't.

This campaign extends far beyond medical organizations and doctors, but into all organizations for any perceived political or social support of transgender people people. During McCarthyism, the government did not just investigate suspected communists—it demanded that institutions purge any association with disfavored views. Federal employees were screened for loyalty. Teachers were forced to sign oaths. Libraries were pressured to remove books. The goal was not just to punish the accused but to make the ideology itself unspeakable in public life. The Trump administration is executing the same strategy against transgender people.

The administration’s latest proposed federal rule would evaluate every federal grant recipient in America—not the grants themselves, but the recipients—for promotion of "gender ideology," defined as any acknowledgment that gender identity differs from sex assigned at birth. It has already forced the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to erase all references to transgender people from its materials and ordered it to deadname transgender children in its missing persons reports. It pressured RAINN, the nation's largest anti-sexual-violence organization, into removing all support for LGBTQ+ survivors. It has scrubbed federal websites of scientific studies on transgender health, removed data on transgender populations, and erased the word "transgender" from the Stonewall National Monument—the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ+ rights movement. Republican-controlled states have in some cases barred transgender teachers from classrooms. During the Red Scare, the Attorney General maintained a list of "subversive organizations." Today, the federal government is building something just as powerful: a regulatory infrastructure that treats the mere acknowledgment of transgender people as grounds for institutional punishment.

This chapter in American history will be remembered alongside the darkest abuses of government power against disfavored groups. What is happening now to transgender people is structurally identical to those prior abuses. The administration has rejected every check on its power: when courts rule against it, it moves to friendlier courts. When medical organizations push back, it investigates them too. WPATH is its latest target. But this will not stop with WPATH. It will continue until transgender people have nowhere left to turn for care, for recognition, or for the basic dignity of being acknowledged as human beings—unless, as in every previous era of persecution, enough people recognize what is happening and say “enough.”

Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.

From Erin In The Morning via This RSS Feed.

Photo Credit Corey Saunders

Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.

New York City has been ground zero in the fight over Trump's campaign to scare hospitals into dropping gender-affirming care for trans youth. When Zohran Mamdani ran for mayor, he promised to fight back—showing up to protests outside NYU Langone, pledging $65 million for gender-affirming care, and vowing to use every lever of city power to protect trans New Yorkers from federal intimidation. Since taking office, those promises have largely gone unfulfilled: no enforcement action against the hospitals that shuttered their programs, no fines from the Commission on Human Rights despite complaints open for over a year, and no public accounting of the promised funding. So when Health Commissioner Dr. Alister Martin announced Friday that the city would open its first-ever direct-care clinic for transgender people, it seemed like the administration was finally delivering. It isn't. This morning, Erin in the Morning can confirm that Mayor Mamdani's new clinic will deny care to anyone under 19 years of age—adopting the exact age cutoff from Trump's anti-trans executive orders.

"Transgender, gender-nonconfirming, and nonbinary New Yorkers deserve age-appropriate health care that is affirming, respectful, and considerate of all their needs. That’s why, for the first time later this summer, the NYC Health Department will be expanding services to provide gender affirming hormone therapy to adults 19 years of age and older at our Corona Sexual Health Clinic. As with the other clinic services, gender-affirming hormone therapy will be offered at no to low cost and regardless of immigration status. We look forward sharing more details upon launching the pilot,” said a NYC health Spokesperson in a statement to Erin In The Morning.

The confirmation comes after a city council budget hearing on Friday, where the exchange that first surfaced the clinic also revealed the administration’s reasoning. Councilmember Tiffany Cabán asked Commissioner Alister Martin—the city’s top public health official, appointed by Mamdani in January—whether the city would be expanding gender-affirming care. Martin announced the direct-care clinic, calling it “one of the first times a public health department has ever taken that step.” But when Cabán pushed back, pointing out that trans youth are the ones most under attack right now—noting that there are “almost no providers” left for youth the entire city—Martin indicated the clinic would not serve youth, citing the need to “strike a balance” between providing care and avoiding “clawbacks from the federal government.” This morning, EITM can directly confirm that the age cutoff is 19—matching the Trump administration’s executive order threshold, not the standard legal age of adulthood in New York. See the exchange:

Commissioner Alister Martin: “It’s incredibly important that we get the messaging right here and that we lean in on the comms and the campaign here, but it’s also important to deliver for people and to provide the services they need. And we’re excited to say that pretty soon we’re going to be able to offer gender-affirming care directly at our clinics. We have a clinic that will be opening up in Corona which will offer gender-affirming hormone therapy for adults. It’s like one of the first times a public health department has ever taken that step, and we’re proud to not just stop there. We’ll continue moving forward with this.”

Councilmember Tiffany Cabán: “Can I ask a follow-up on that? Particularly because that’s a really big deal, but also—we’re seeing this devastating decrease in services for youth, and especially youth under 13, 12—like, there are almost no providers who provide that care. And the one or two that do is obviously under attack from the federal government. So is there going to—are you thinking about an expansion in that youth care? Because I’m talking to parents all the time and they don’t know where to take their children.”

Commissioner Martin: “As you can appreciate, the balance that we have to strike is—we are committed to this issue and want to make sure that we provide the services and resources for youth, as well as making sure that we don’t expose ourselves to clawbacks from the federal government, which disrupt the rest of the care that we can give. And so there’s much more to come on this, trying to sort of figure out that right balance. We’re eager to work with you on this, but rest assured we are working on this and we’re trying to figure out how to do this.”

The news comes amid mounting questions about Mamdani’s commitment to the promises that helped elect him. During his campaign, Mamdani held a Trans Community Town Hall where pledged to invest $65 million in gender-affirming care. That pledge involved “public hospitals and community clinics,” indicating to many that he could begin opening direct care clinics for youth being forced out of hospitals. His platform also explicitly pledged to hold the hospitals that deny transgender youth care accountable for their capitulation to Trump and to “use every single tool” to stop them from complying with Trump’s illegal executive orders.

Those pledges have largely evaporated. Journalist Aviva Stahl reported for Prism in March that the $65 million was nowhere in the city’s preliminary budget, and as of June, advocates who reviewed the executive budget say the money is still not there. The Commission on Human Rights complaints against NYU Langone and Mount Sinai have sat open for over a year with no enforcement action, and the agency has refused to comment on them in response to questions by Erin In The Morning. And now, Mamdani’s own health commissioner is using the very same rationale NYU Langone and Mount Sinai used to deny trans youth care—fear of federal retaliation.

It is a far cry from when Mamdani stood at a rally outside NYU Langone in March 2025 and declared: “We have seen NYU Langone comply with illegal executive orders out of a fear of their so-called biggest donors. Let us remind them that the city is also one of their biggest donors. Let us remind them that they do not pay a dollar in property tax, [and that] we are a city that is ready to use every single tool to assure compliance with city and state human rights laws.”

Mamdani is not powerless here. He has significant leverage over Health + Hospitals—the largest public municipal healthcare system in the country, with 11 hospitals, more than 70 clinics, and eight existing Pride Health Centers. He controls the board. He can demand H+H absorb displaced trans youth patients tomorrow, with significant power behind those demands. He has the Commission on Human Rights, which can levy fines of up to $250,000 per violation against hospitals that deny care in violation of city law—complaints against NYU Langone and Mount Sinai have been open for over a year with no action. He has a campaign pledge to coordinate with AG James, who has already told NYU Langone that no federal law requires them to stop. He also promised $65 million to this community. The tools are there. The legal authority is there. The money was promised. What is apparently missing is the will to use any of it for the kids who are the most under attack.

It is important to note that in a recent appearance on WNYC's Brian Lehrer Show, a parent of a trans child asked Mamdani directly what his administration is doing for her kid. Mamdani cited a $15 million investment in gender-affirming care over two years. But there are virtually no public details on what the $15 million funds, which agency controls it, which patients it serves, or when it will go into effect. And two days after that interview, Commissioner Martin announced a new clinic that would be adults only, using Trump's executive order age cutoff of 19, and told the city council that the city was afraid of federal "clawbacks"—raising the question of what, exactly, the $15 million "unlocks" for trans youth if the administration's own policy for a new clinic is to avoid serving them. EITM has reached out to multiple NYC agencies and press contacts for the mayor's office and has received no response on whether the adults-only clinic is intended to be part of the $15 million pledge—which is also, notably, a fraction of the $65 million Mamdani campaigned on, and which, as of today, does not serve youth.

Opening a city-run gender-affirming care clinic is, on its own, a meaningful step. But when the clinic adopts the Trump administration's age cutoff, when the health commissioner cites the same federal fears as the private hospitals the mayor protested against, and when the promised $65 million remains unaccounted for while trans kids in the largest city in America are told there is almost nowhere left for them to go, the step is as likely to be seen as a betrayal as it is a meaningful advancement of his promises.