Trump’s Anti-Trans Orders Are “Ultimately Going to Harm Us All,” Says Expert
Clip: 2/28/2025 | 18m 2sVideo has Closed Captions
Chase Strangio joins the show.
Since taking office, President Trump has issued a number of executive orders targeting trans Americans. These orders cover issues from civil rights protections, to blocking gender-affirming medical care for trans youth, to restricting participation in sports leagues. Chase Strangio, ACLU's co-director for the LGBTQ & HIV Rights Project discusses with Hari Sreenivasan.
Trump’s Anti-Trans Orders Are “Ultimately Going to Harm Us All,” Says Expert
Clip: 2/28/2025 | 18m 2sVideo has Closed Captions
Since taking office, President Trump has issued a number of executive orders targeting trans Americans. These orders cover issues from civil rights protections, to blocking gender-affirming medical care for trans youth, to restricting participation in sports leagues. Chase Strangio, ACLU's co-director for the LGBTQ & HIV Rights Project discusses with Hari Sreenivasan.
How to Watch Amanpour and Company
Amanpour and Company is available to stream on pbs.org and the free PBS App, available on iPhone, Apple TV, Android TV, Android smartphones, Amazon Fire TV, Amazon Fire Tablet, Roku, Samsung Smart TV, and Vizio.
Watch Amanpour and Company on PBS
PBS and WNET, in collaboration with CNN, launched Amanpour and Company in September 2018. The series features wide-ranging, in-depth conversations with global thought leaders and cultural influencers on issues impacting the world each day, from politics, business, technology and arts, to science and sports.Providing Support for PBS.org
Learn Moreabout PBS online sponsorshipNEXT TO A STRUGGLE FAR MORE INTIMATE AND PERSONAL.
SINCE TAKING OFFICE PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS TARGETED TRANS-PEOPLE .
NOW BAHRAIN TRANS-PEOPLE FROM SERVING IN THE MILITARY.
IT COMES AMID A NEW DIRECTIVE AGAINST DDI AND AS ANTI-LGBT BILLS ARE IN REDUCED ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
SPEAKING TO THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION THEY EXPLAIN WHY THE GROUP IS BEING TARGETED .
HE SPEAKS FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.
SINCE PRESIDENT TRUMP TOOK OFFICE HE HAS SIGNED A RAFT OF DIFFERENT EXECUTIVE ORDERS.
WE WILL GET TO SOME OF THOSE IN A MOMENT, TARGETING EXPLICITLY THE RIGHTS OF TRANS-PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES.
I GUESS MY FIRST QUESTION TO YOU IS A BIG PICTURE ONE.
WHAT IS THE POLITICAL LANDSCAPE RIGHT NOW FOR TRANS-PEOPLE IN THE COUNTRY AND WHAT ARE YOUR BIGGEST CONCERNS?
>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.
AS YOU KNOW, THE LAST MONTH HAS REALLY BEEN CHARACTERIZED FOR TRANS-PEOPLE BY ONE ATTACK AFTER ANOTHER FROM THIS ADMINISTRATION.
WE STARTED THESE ATTACKS DURING THE CAMPAIGN WHEN THE PRESIDENT AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY SPENT HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FOCUSING ON ATTACK ADS TARGETING TRANS-PEOPLE.
POST JANUARY 20 IT SEEMS LIKE EVERY DAY THERE'S SOME NEW EXECUTIVE ACTION RESTRICTING THE RIGHTS OF TRANS-PEOPLE AND REALLY ZEROING IN ON EFFORTS TO PREVENT THIS FROM HAVING JOBS, GOING TO THE BATHROOM, GOING TO SCHOOL, JOINING THE MILITARY, ACCESSING HEALTHCARE.
IT'S A FULL-SCALE ASSAULT ON TRANS-PEOPLE BEING ABLE TO LIVE FREELY IN THIS COUNTRY.
FOR THE TRANS COMMUNITY, IT'S A TIME OF GREAT ANXIETY AND FEAR AND CONCERN FOR THE FUTURE.
FOR ME IN TERMS OF WHAT I'M LOOKING AT, I'M MOST SCARED ABOUT THESE CONTINUED EROSIONS INTO OUR ABILITY TO ACCESS ESSENTIAL THINGS LIKE HEALTHCARE.
THAT IS ALSO SOMETHING MANY PEOPLE IN THE COUNTRY ARE WORRIED ABOUT.
WILL WE CONTINUE TO SEE THE EXECUTIVE UNILATERALLY TRY TO CUT GRANT FUNDING CONGRESS HAD ALLOCATED TO INSTITUTIONS AND THE STATE.
AT THE TIME OF SIGNIFICANT.
HERRITY AND I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE SUSTAINABILITY OF SEPARATION OF POWERS AS WELL AS THE ABILITY OF TRANS-PEOPLE TO SURVIVE IN THE FACE OF THESE ATTACKS.
>> LET'S GO OVER SOME OF THESE ORDERS.
ON DAY ONE THERE WERE A LOT OF ORDERS THAT HE SIGNED.
ONE OF THEM SAID, IT IS THE POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES TO RECOGNIZE TWO SEXIST MALE AND FEMALE.
THEY ARE NOT CHANGEABLE AND ARE GROUNDED IN FUNDAMENTAL AND INCONTROVERTIBLE REALITY.
THAT SEEMS TO BE THE UNDERLYING IDEA IN SO MANY OF THESE OTHER POLICIES THAT SPRING FROM IT.
>> IT IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
IT WAS A DECLARATION ON DAY ONE IN ESSENCE FROM THE POSITION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TRANS- PEOPLE DO NOT EXIST.
THE ORDER REFERS TO A QUOTE, FALSE CLAIM THAT AN INDIVIDUAL CAN LIVE AND IDENTIFY IN A SEX DIFFERENT THAN ASSIGNED AT BIRTH.
FROM THERE WE HAVE SEEN THE PRESIDENT DIRECT FEDERAL AGENCIES TO PREVENT TRANS- PEOPLE FROM ACCESSING PASSPORTS AND OTHER FEDERAL IDENTIFICATION , TO INSTRUCT SCHOOLS TO NOT PROTECT THE ABILITY OF TRANS- STUDENTS TO PARTICIPATE IN ACTIVITIES ALONGSIDE THEIR PEERS.
TO THREATEN FUNDING TO HOSPITALS THAT ALLOW PEOPLE TO RECEIVE MEDICAL CARE CONSISTENT WITH DOCTOR RECOMMENDATIONS.
THAT IS ONE OF THE UNDERLYING PREMISES THAT TRANS-PEOPLE DON'T EXIST AND THEREFORE THE GOVERNMENT WILL TAKE ALL SORTS OF ACTIONS TO TRY TO PREVENT US FROM LIVING.
WE PLAINLY DO EXIST.
WE ARE HERE IN THE WORLD SO WHAT THAT MEANS IS WE WILL SEE LEGAL ATTEMPTS TO LIMIT OUR ABILITY TO SURVIVE IN LIGHT OF OUR INCONTROVERTIBLE EXISTENCE.
>> ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL THERE WERE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS SPENT ON MAKING THIS A CENTRAL ISSUE.
NOW HE IS IN OFFICE.
HE'S OF THE OPINION THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE COUNTRY OR AT LEAST THE MAJORITY THAT VOTED FOR ME ARE IN FAVOR OF THESE MEASURES.
THAT'S WHY I'M DOING THEM.
THAT'S WHAT HELPED ME GET A IT.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH HIS THINKING?
>> THERE'S A FEW THINGS WRONG.
IT'S NOT CLEAR THAT WHAT HE SAID ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL TRANSLATE TO ANY PARTICULAR POLICY PROPOSAL AT ALL.
IN IT SENSE IT IS SET TO GET RID OF TRANSGENDER PEOPLE.
THAT IS NOT A MORAL, ETHICAL OR LAWFUL POLICY PROPOSAL.
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CANNOT IGNORE CONSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES FOR THE VARIOUS BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT NOT ONLY THAT, INFRINGE ON INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS OF TRANSGENDER PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES.
>> I WANT TO SPEND A COUPLE MINUTES ON AN EXECUTIVE ORDER CALLED PROTECTING CHILDREN FROM CHEMICAL AND SURGICAL MUTILATION THAT DANCE GENDER AFFIRMING CARE TO CHILDREN.
JUST TO SET THE TABLE FOR MOST PEOPLE THAT DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT GENDER AFFIRMING CARE MEANS, EXPLAIN.
>> WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS EXECUTIVE ORDER THAT BANS THE USE OF PUBERTY BLOCKERS AND HORMONE THERAPIES AND A SMALL SUBSET OF SURGERIES FOR TRANSGENDER PEOPLE UNDER THE AGE OF 19.
I THINK THAT IS IMPORTANT.
IT IS NOT JUST BAN THESE TREATMENTS FOR MINORS BUT ALSO 18-YEAR-OLDS AS WELL.
THOUGH THE ORDER IS FRAMED AS ENDING SO-CALLED MUTILATION OF CHILDREN, THERE IS NOTHING MUTILATING ABOUT THIS MEDICAL CARE.
IT IS SUPPORTED AND RECOMMENDED BY EVERY MAJOR MEDICAL ASSOCIATION IN THE UNITED STATES.
IT IS ONLY PROVIDED WHEN THE ADOLESCENT, PARENTS AND DOCTOR RECOMMEND THE CARE OR IN THE CASE OF AN 18-YEAR-OLD THE 18- YEAR-OLD AND THEIR DOCTOR.
IT IS HORMONES THAT ARE PRESCRIBED ROUTINELY TO PEOPLE FOR MANY PURPOSES INCLUDING GENDER AFFIRMING PURPOSES FOR WHICH TRANSGENDER PEOPLE NEED TREATMENT.
YOU COULD HAVE A NON- TRANSGENDER BOY THAT NEEDS TESTOSTERONE BECAUSE OF DELAYED PUBERTY.
HE'S 14, HIS PEERS ARE DEVELOPING.
BUT A TRANSGENDER BOY IS 14 YEARS OLD AND HIS PEERS ARE DEVELOPING AS BOYS CANNOT RECEIVE TESTOSTERONE TREATMENT FOR THE SAME REASONS TO UNDERGO A MALE PUBERTY LIKE HIS PEERS.
DISORDER NOT ONLY IS IT ATTEMPTING TO RESTRICT THE ABILITY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO PAY FOR THE CARE, IT IS FAR MORE EXPANSIVE THAN THAT.
WHAT IT IS SAYING IS IT WILL THREATEN THE FUNDING TO ANY INSTITUTION IN THE UNITED STATES IF IT PROVIDES THIS CARE USING ANY FUNDING.
IF ESTATE IS FUNDING THE CARE IN A STATE HOSPITAL BUT RECEIVES FEDERAL FUNDING FOR OTHER PURPOSES THEY ARE AT RISK OF LOSING ALL OF THEIR FUNDING.
IN ESSENCE HOLDING THE ENTIRE HEALTH SYSTEM HOSTAGE AND SAYING HE MUST STOP TREATING TRANSGENDER PEOPLE.
THAT'S A LOT OF WHAT WE ARE SEEING TRYING TO USE POLICY PREFERENCES TO SHUT OFF ESSENTIAL CARE AND SERVICES THAT PEOPLE NEED ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
>> HEART OF THAT EXECUTIVE ORDER ALSO GETS A LITTLE BIT TO THIS IDEA THAT THERE ARE CHILDREN WHO SOON REGRET THIS.
THE PHRASE THE ADMINISTRATION USED IS THE COUNTLESS CHILDREN SOON REGRET THAT THEY HAVE BEEN, QUOTE, MUTILATED.
THERE WAS A STUDY IN THE JOURNAL OF AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION THAT SHOWED ONLY 4% OF TRANSGENDER TEENS PURSUING THIS TYPE OF MEDICAL CARE EXPRESSED REGRET.
THERE'S ALSO A STUDY OUT THERE THAT REVEALED 30% OF ADULTS WHO BEGAN GENDER RELATED HORMONE TREATMENTS ULTIMATELY DISCONTINUED THEM.
CAN BOTH OF THOSE REALITIES COEXIST?
>> ABSOLUTELY.
THEY ARE ASKING DIFFERENT QUESTIONS.
THE FIRST IS ASKING WHETHER PEOPLE REGRET TREATMENT.
EVERY SINGLE STUDY FOUND THAT THE RATE OF REGRET OF THIS TREATMENT IS NOT ONLY EXTREMELY LOW, IT IS ALSO COMPARATIVELY MUCH LOWER THAN MANY OTHER FORMS OF MEDICAL TREATMENT THAT ARE PROVIDED IN THE PEDIATRIC AND ADULT CONTEXT.
THE OTHER STUDY REFERENCED WHICH IS 30% OF ADULTS, THAT IS JUST ONE STUDY, DISCONTINUE HORMONE TREATMENT.
THAT IS NOT THE SAME AS REGRETTING TREATMENT.
THERE ARE MANY REASONS PEOPLE WILL STOP RECEIVING HORMONE TREATMENT.
ONE IS THAT THEY ARE WHOLLY SATISFIED WITH THE WAY IN WHICH THE TRANSITION HAS PROGRESSED.
THEY DO NOT HAVE A NEED FOR TREATMENT.
LIKELY CONTINUE TO IDENTIFY AS TRANSGENDER AND DO NOT REGRET THE TREATMENT AT ALL.
OTHER PEOPLE CAN NO LONGER AFFORD IT BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO HEALTH INSURANCE.
WE LIVE IN A COUNTRY THAT CONSISTENTLY MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO ACCESS MEDICAL CARE.
THEY ARE LOOKING AT DIFFERENT QUESTIONS BUT THE GOVERNMENT MADE A LOT OF ALLEGATIONS ABOUT WHAT IS TRUE ABOUT THIS CARE.
THEY HAD EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND THE EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND THEY PUT IN NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THERE IS A HIGH RATE OF REGRET, THAT THESE TREATMENTS ARE INEFFECTIVE.
>> THERE WAS A RECENT STUDY THAT LOOKED AT HOW MANY CHILDREN ARE ACTUALLY GETTING THIS.
IT WAS 1/10 OF 1%.
IT'S AN INCREDIBLY MINUTE POPULATION, YET YOU ARE VERY WELL AWARE THAT THERE'S, 26 STATES THAT HAVE LAWS ON THE BOOKS THAT ARE BANNING GENDER AFFIRMING CARE.
WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS?
>> I THINK WHAT IS HAPPENING.
YOU SEE IT WITH RESPECT TO THE EXTRAORDINARILY SMALL NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT RECEIVE THIS CARE.
THE EXTRAORDINARILY SMALL NUMBER OF TRANS-ATHLETES.
IN THE NCAA WE HEARD FROM CHARLIE BAKER THAT IT IS LESS THAN 10.
THAT INCLUDES TRANS WOMEN AND TRANS MEN OUT OF 510,000 ATHLETES.
WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS AN OUTSIZED FIXATION ON AN EXCEEDINGLY SMALL POPULATION THAT IS BEING USED TWO-STROKE FEAR IN PEOPLE THAT DO NOT KNOW TRANS PEOPLE AND DO NOT UNDERSTAND TRANS- PEOPLE.
THAT IS CAUSING PEOPLE TO REACT IN SUPPORT OF DISCRIMINATORY POLICIES.
AT THE END OF THE DAY AS HARMFUL AS THEY ARE FOR TRANS PEOPLE, AND THEY ARE VERY HARMFUL, THEY WILL OPEN THE DOOR TO DISCRIMINATION AGAINST SO MANY OTHER GROUPS OF PEOPLE.
>> I CAME ACROSS SOMETHING STARTLING THAT I HAD NOT HEARD ABOUT WHICH WAS A STUDY SHOWING A CAUSAL LINK OF INCREASED SUICIDE ATTEMPTS AND STATES AFTER THEY PASSED ANTI-TRANS LOSS.
AND YET, I BRING THIS UP BECAUSE THERE SEEMS TO BE AN OPEN QUESTION ON WHETHER OR NOT THIS CATEGORY OF PEOPLE ARE LIVING THROUGH ANY SORT OF MEASURABLE HARM.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT EVEN CAME UP, I GUESS THIS IS TO BURNISH YOUR LEGAL CREDENTIALS, WHEN YOU WERE ARGUING IN FRONT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN A RECENT CASE ABOUT TENNESSEE.
THAT WAS A GROUP OF FAMILIES AND A MEDICAL PROVIDER.
WHAT IS AT STAKE IN THAT CASE AND IN THAT QUESTION THAT SOME OF THE JUSTICES WERE POSING?
>> THIS IS A CASE THAT ASKS WHETHER OR NOT ESTATE CAN CONSTITUTIONALLY BAN TRANS -- GENDER AFFIRMING MEDICAL CARE FOR PEOPLE UNDER 18.
THE QUESTION IS WHETHER SUCH A BAN THAT WAS DEFINED AS A BAN ON MEDICAL TREATMENT INCONSISTENT WITH A PERSON'S SEX AS A FORM OF SEX DISCRIMINATION.
THAT'S THE CENTRAL QUESTION.
THE HARMS AT ISSUE EXTEND TO HUNDREDS OF TRANSGENDER PEOPLE IN TENNESSEE AND AROUND THE COUNTRY WHO RELY ON THIS MEDICAL CARE.
AS OUR CLIENT >> CASE TESTIFIED AND MANY OTHER CASES HAVE TESTIFIED IT'S ONLY BEEN THROUGH THE PROVISION OF THESE CARE THAT THESE YOUNG PEOPLE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO THRIVE AND SEE A FUTURE FOR THEMSELVES.
IT'S ONLY THROUGH THE PROVISION OF THIS CARE THAT THEIR PARENTS HAVE BEEN ABLE TO FINALLY SEE THEIR CHILDREN HAPPY, JOYFUL AND HOPEFUL ABOUT THE FUTURE.
THE GOVERNMENT HAS COME IN AND OVERWRITTEN THE DECISION OF THESE KIDS AND THEIR PARENTS TO BAN THIS MEDICAL TREATMENT.
THE DATA SHOWS THAT TAKEN AWAY THIS MEDICAL CARE IS HARMFUL.
IT CAUSES DISTRESS, ANXIETY, DEPRESSION AND SUICIDALITY.
OUR OPPONENTS FIXATE ON THIS ARGUMENT THAT THEY MAKE WHICH IS THAT THE STUDIES THEMSELVES DO NOT SHOW AN INCREASED RATE IN COMPLETED SUICIDE.
THAT IS TRUE.
THE STUDIES DO NOT SHOW AN INCREASED RATE IN COMPLETED SUICIDE.
THE REASON IS BECAUSE COMPLETED SUICIDE IS GENERALLY RARE AND THAT WHEN YOU HAVE A STUDY WHETHER IT IS 50 PEOPLE OR 300 PEOPLE, THE HOPE IS THAT NOBODY HAS A COMPLETED SUICIDE IN ANY GROUP WITHIN THE STUDY.
WHAT THE STUDIES DO SHOW CONSISTENTLY IS THAT THE MEDICAL TREATMENT DECREASES INCIDENCE OF SUICIDALITY AND INDEPENDENT RESEARCH SHOWS THAT DECREASES IN SUICIDALITY DECREASE COMPLETED SUICIDES.
THE FACT THAT WE ARE GETTING INTO THE DEBATE WHETHER A COMPLETED SUICIDE IS IN METRIC OF WHETHER SOMETHING WORKS IS A HORRIBLE PLACE TO BE.
>> I WANT TO POINT TO A COUPLE THINGS JUSTICE BRETT KAVANAUGH SAID.
HE SAID WHILE THERE WERE FORCEFUL ARGUMENTS TO ALLOW THE MEDICAL TREATMENTS 20+ STATES PUT FORWARD ARGUMENTS ON THE OTHER SIDE.
HOOKING UP THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT TAKE SIDES ON HOW TO RESOLVE THAT MEDICAL AND POLICY DEBATE.
THE CONSTITUTION IS NEUTRAL ON THE QUESTION.
HE GOES ON TO SAY IT SHOULD BE LEFT TO THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS.
>> THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT NEUTRAL ON WHETHER OR NOT IT IS PERMISSIBLE TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST A GROUP OF PEOPLE BASED ON A PROTECTED CHARACTERISTIC.
THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE CANNOT BE CLEAR THAT EACH PERSON IS EQUALLY PROTECTED UNDER THE LAW.
THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST SOMEONE BASED ON A PROTECTED CHARACTERISTIC LIKE RACE OR SEX.
CERTAINLY THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT NEUTRAL.
ANYTIME THERE'S A ROBUST POLICY DEBATE IF THAT'S HOW THE JUSTICES OR OTHERS WANT TO FRAME , THAT POLICY DEBATE CANNOT PROCEED IN WAYS THAT TREAT PEOPLE UNEQUALLY.
THAT IS WHAT THE CONSTITUTION TELLS US.
THAT THERE IS STRONG PROTECTIONS FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS FOR THAT TO BE.
IT IS LIMITED BY THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS OF THE CONSTITUTION.
IT MAKES VERY VERY CLEAR.
THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE WAY THINGS WORK.
YOU COULD SAY THERE WAS A ROBUST DEBATE ABOUT WHETHER IT SHOULD BE LAWFUL TO BAN INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE.
THERE WAS A ROBUST POLICY DEBATE OVER WHETHER OR NOT WOMEN SHOULD BE BARTENDERS.
ALL OF THOSE THINGS WERE SUBJECT TO DEMOCRATIC DEBATE.
THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER THEY USE CLASSIFICATIONS THAT THE COURT THOUGHT SUSPECT AND IMPERMISSIBLE IN THE END.
>> THE PRESIDENT ALSO SIGNED AN EXECUTIVE ORDER KEEPING MEN OUT OF WOMEN'S SPORTS AT AN EVENT SURROUNDED BY YOUNG FEMALE ATHLETES.
HE SAID MEN ARE POSING AS WOMEN .
AS WE DISCUSSED IN THIS CONVERSATION IT'S AN INCREDIBLY SMALL NUMBER OF ATHLETES OUT OF THE HALF 1 MILLION OR SO, BUT THE NCAA CHANGE THEIR POLICY AS A RESULT ALMOST THE NEXT DAY.
I AM WONDERING WAS THE NCAA WRONG TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDER?
>> CERTAINLY THEY WERE WRONG TO CHANGE THEIR POLICY.
I DON'T THINK THEY WERE NECESSARILY COMPLYING WITH THE ORDER BECAUSE AT THAT TIME IT HAD NO LEGAL EFFECTS.
IT MAY HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE BUT THE NCAA WAS WRONG.
THE POLICY THAT ARE CLAIMING THAT TRANSGENDER WOMEN IN SPORTS OR MEN ARE WRONG.
THE PRESIDENT IS LYING WHEN HE SAYS THERE ARE MEN IMPERSONATING WOMEN AND PARTICIPATING IN WOMEN'S SPORTS.
THERE ARE NO EXAMPLES OF MEN IMPERSONATING WOMEN THAT I'M AWARE OF.
IT IS INCORRECT TO REFER TO TRANSGENDER WOMEN AND GIRLS AS MEN AND BOYS.
WHAT THESE EXECUTIVE ORDERS TO, WHAT THESE LAWS DO IS OPEN THE DOOR TO SEX-BASED POLICING WHICH CANNOT BE ENFORCED WITHOUT SUBJECTING EVERYONE TO SOME SORT OF SCRUTINY, SOME SORT OF INVASIVE PROCESS THAT WILL HARM US ALL.
>> THERE WAS A RECENT NEW YORK TIMES POLL THAT WAS ASKING AND FOUND THAT 80% OF AMERICANS THINK TRANS FEMALE ATHLETES SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO COMPETE IN WOMEN'S SPORTS.
I GUESS, WHAT DO YOU SAY TO THOSE THAT ARGUE THAT THE PRESIDENT IS LISTENING TO THE POPULATION AND RIGHT ON THIS.
>> I WOULD SAY TWO THINGS.
THE FIRST IS THAT WHEN I WAS IN MY 20s THAT HOW MANY PEOPLE THOUGHTPEOPLE SHOULD NOT GET MARRIED.
IF YOU POSE THAT QUESTION NOW IT IS VASTLY DIFFERENT.
WHAT CHANGED WAS THAT PEOPLE WERE EXPOSED TO ACCURATE INFORMATION ABOUT A PEOPLE.
NOT ANITA BRIAN STYLE CAMPAIGNS ABOUTPEOPLE HARMING CHILDREN, BUT REAL STORIES ABOUT PEOPLE LIVING THEIR LIVES.
THE SECOND THING I WOULD SAY IS THAT EVEN IF THAT IS TRUE, EVEN IF 80% OF THE COUNTRY BELIEVES SOMETHING, IF IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND WRONGLY DISCRIMINATORY, THAT IS THE GUARANTEE, THAT IS THE PROMISE OF THIS COUNTRY THAT WE HAVE A SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES THAT ENSURES THAT THOSE THAT ARE FACING DISCRIMINATION HAVE A RESOURCE IN THE COURTS.
THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO WERE IN SUPPORT OF PREVENTING WOMEN FROM HOLDING CERTAIN JOBS.
A LOT OF PEOPLE WERE IN SUPPORT OF MAKING IT A CRIME TO MARRY OUTSIDE OF YOUR RACE.
YET THE COURTS HAVE STEPPED IN TO ENSURE THE PROMISE OF THE CONSTITUTION IS ACTUALIZED.
I WOULD SAY WE WANT THAT SYSTEM.
I WANT THAT SYSTEM.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
