The Official "Support Lexi" (and others affected) Thread

[Lexi Darling]

Yes I do understand what you say about JWB. The reason I "singled him out" is that he was the only one in this thread that made light of the possible problems coming down the line. I'm just pointing out that he, or anyone like him, essentially saying "don't worry about it" or "it's not going to be as bad as you think it is" or whatever other way they're minimising the possible risk to you here and trivialising your concerns, should think again and perhaps not be so flippant.

I'm glad you're consulting with your doctor, and glad too that they're prepared to fight the laws, if they're enacted. However, as the article you linked points out, in the long run if it's between going against the new government and maintaining their funding, they are more than likely to go for the latter. After all, they have to continue to provide a service and make a living, and may end up espousing Spock's mantra of the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few.

Not meaning to sound unsupportive or anything, but I just wouldn't rely on them standing up to the govt. Good intentions are all very well, but they don't pay the bills, and the reality is that they'll do what they have to do to remain in business.

Yeah, for sure. I was kinda subtly referring to something my doctor said to me previously where she brought up her/the clinic assisting trans people in a more 'under the table' way. What that could entail remains to be seen of course and I know it's nothing I can truly bank on.

[Trollheart]

Yes I got your meaning, and I applaud them for their attitude. However as I say, that will work until it doesn't. The sad truth is that I could see the Trump administration paying people to report such "breaches", or even having people installed at clinics (some sort of state Obergruppenfuhrer/monitor) and if that happens, no matter how sympathetic they are, no clinic or medical practice is going to risk being shut down, even having criminal charges brought against them, for the sake of yourself and people like you. Very sadly, I could even see agitator scum picketing their houses, threatening their families, you know how far these cunts have gone before, and will do again, especially with tacit approval from the government.

So yes, while they may do an "under the table" deal for trans people, that will in all likelihood be short-lived, and as soon as they're reported, or feel someone is watchng them, are accused or slapped with a "cease and desist" or whatever fucking way Trump and his cabinet of bigots are going to do it, they will of necessity have to stop, or face the consequences. I just wouldn't rely on it, is all. Only person you can rely on is you and your hubby, and probably any sympathetic friends or friends in the same situation. Everyone else, horribly, is going to be someone you look at and wonder if you can trust them. That's the kind of atmosphere that is going to prevail from 2025 in America, I'm afraid, and likening it to Nazi Germany, Romania under Ceascescu, Iraq under Saddam Hussein or North Korea, or choose your favourite dictatorship, is unfortunately not going to be stretching it that far.

[Trollheart]

Saw this on the news today. Not sure if it affects any of your decisions, if it is the first step along a darker road the UK are treading, or even if I'm reading it right, but thought you might like to see it.

UK bans puberty blockers for children

[Lexi Darling]

Saw this on the news today. Not sure if it affects any of your decisions, if it is the first step along a darker road the UK are treading, or even if I'm reading it right, but thought you might like to see it.

UK bans puberty blockers for children

Yeah I heard about that. It's so heartbreaking, speaking as someone who discovered myself at age 15. My heart bleeds for all the trans kids whose life trajectories have been stolen from them. These politicians just love crushing the spark in children's eyes and setting them up for years of dysphoric misery. So absolutely vile.

And meanwhile in America, it's becoming increasingly difficult for me to endure the weight of knowing that such hideous and cruel assaults on human rights and human dignity are being perpetrated by a state government like it's fucking normal. This is what republicans want nationwide, for all of us.

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2024/12/10/new-florida-prison-policy-on-trans-health-care-like-conversion-therapy

[Trollheart]

It's fucking horrible, it's inhumane, but then again it's Florida. Unfortuantely, where Florida goes, others will follow, and this can only get worse. I honestly feel that Republicans (and sadly a lot of ordinary Americans too) would have no problem if all transgender people just died. It really is looking like the notes of alarm sounded during the presidential campaign are growing to a crescendo now, and will end up blaring out a klaxon of doom for trans people. Sorry, that's very flowery metaphor, not what you need right now. But the point is that anyone who said not to worry, it really looks like it's time to worry. And if this is slowly edging its way across the pond, I can only feel for all the trans people in Europe and the UK when it gets, probably not as bad as the US, but still reaches its dark feelers into our society. It's the equivalent of those so-called Christian camps, isn't it, where they claim they will "cure" you from being gay. Detestable.

[Buck_Mulligan]

Here's a legal analysis of the recent SCOTUS oral argument US v. Skrmetti, on the Tennessee gender dysphoria law. I have to copy and paste the entire piece because it's from the free version of Adam Feldman's Legalytics blog on Substack and I don't have a workable link. Not to be confused with the London firm called Legalytics.
Consensus from oral is that the Justices are leaning toward upholding the Tennessee law. A decision is not expected before June.

Overview

Case description: This case concerns a Tennessee law that bans medical treatments for gender dysphoria in transgender adolescents, prohibiting them based on the minor's sex and gender identity. The law has been challenged on the grounds that it discriminates based on sex and transgender status, and its validity is contested amid a wave of similar bans in other states, creating legal uncertainty for transgender adolescents and their families.

Question before the Court: Whether Tennessee Senate Bill 1 (SB1), which categorically prohibits all medical treatments intended to allow "a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor's sex" or to treat "purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor's sex and asserted identity," Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-33-103(a)(1), violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Takeaways from Oral Argument

Attorneys

CHASE B. STRANGIO: Respondents supporting Petitioner [against TN law]

SB1's Sex-Based Discrimination: SB1 discriminates based on sex by banning medical treatments that enable adolescents to live in a manner inconsistent with their birth sex. This sex-based classification requires heightened scrutiny, as the law denies treatments that have previously alleviated suffering for transgender adolescents.
Lack of Justification for the Ban: Tennessee has not provided sufficient evidence to justify SB1's categorical ban on medically recommended treatments like puberty blockers, which have been shown to improve mental health outcomes and have low regret rates. The state's reliance on outdated studies and misleading data fails to meet the burden of proof required under heightened scrutiny.
Judicial Oversight of Suspect Classifications: Courts play a critical role in evaluating laws targeting suspect classifications. SB1 bypasses standard regulatory measures like informed consent, undermining parental and medical judgment without adequately addressing any demonstrated harm, as confirmed by the district court.
ELIZABETH B. PRELOGAR: Petitioner [against TN law]

Life-Saving Medical Necessity: Prelogar emphasizes that access to gender-affirming medications, obtained through a careful consultation process involving doctors and parents, is critical for the well-being and mental health of transgender adolescents. As an example, she explains how Ryan's ability to receive these treatments has been life-saving, enabling him to thrive.
Harm Caused by the Law: The Tennessee law banning these medications categorically denies transgender adolescents like Ryan access to necessary medical care. Prelogar argues that this law directly harms their health and well-being, contradicting the State's claim of protecting adolescent health.
Sex-Based Discrimination and Legal Standards: Prelogar contends that the law discriminates against individuals based on their birth sex, creating a sex-based classification that fails to meet even the low threshold of rational basis review under constitutional scrutiny. She argues that the State's actions are unjustifiable on these legal grounds.
J. MATTHEW RICE: Respondent [supporting TN law]

Medical Purpose, Not Sex Discrimination: The law distinguishes medical treatments based on their purpose, not the patient's sex. Rice argues that using drugs like hormones and puberty blockers for treating medical conditions is different from using them for psychological distress associated with transitioning, and this distinction does not constitute sex-based discrimination.
Legislative Authority and Medical Uncertainty: Rice emphasizes that the law reflects the views of democratically elected lawmakers who, unlike judges, are best suited to assess the evolving medical issues surrounding treatments for minors. They argue that the law takes into account the uncertainty and irreversible consequences of certain medical interventions, with evidence from other countries and states showing caution around these treatments.
Fundamentally Different Medical Treatments: Rice argues that the law treats different medical treatments differently. They distinguish between using puberty blockers for conditions like precocious puberty versus using them for gender transitions. Rice contends that these are not the same treatments, as they affect the body differently and are used for different medical purposes.
Justices' Interests

Alito

Medical Evidence on Gender-Affirming Treatment: Alito questions the evidence supporting the benefits of gender-affirming treatments, particularly puberty blockers and hormones, for transgender minors. They challenge the claim that these treatments significantly improve the physical and psychological well-being of adolescents, citing reports from Sweden and the UK that express concerns over the risks outweighing the benefits. Alito also references a lack of high-quality evidence from the UK's Cass report.
Equal Protection and Legal Precedents: Alito questions the application of the Equal Protection Clause and references legal precedents like Bostock, Geduldig, and Dobbs to challenge the argument that discrimination based on transgender status is equivalent to sex-based discrimination. They ask whether gender-affirming treatments are subject to equal protection standards or whether the decision should be based on medical and procedural concerns that differ by sex.
Classification of Transgender Status: Alito explores whether transgender status should be considered a quasi-suspect classification, questioning the immutability of transgender identity. They challenge whether the fluidity of gender identity should affect its classification under the law, comparing it to other classifications like disability (schizophrenia), which are not considered suspect or quasi-suspect under legal standards.
Barrett

Discriminatory Intent and Equal Burden: Barrett explores whether laws prohibiting access to gender-affirming medications or procedures could be viewed as intentional discrimination, particularly focusing on how such laws treat boys and girls equally (by denying both access to these drugs) and the potential for stereotyping based on biological sex and gender norms. This question connects to whether this constitutes discriminatory intent under the Equal Protection Clause.
Transgender Status as a Suspect Class: Barrett delves into the issue of whether transgender people should be classified as a suspect class under the Equal Protection Clause, specifically questioning the lack of a historical record of de jure discrimination against transgender people. Barrett compares this potential categorization to other suspect classes like race or gender, which have clear histories of de jure discrimination.
Parental Rights and the Impact on Other Legal Claims: Barrett asks about the separation of the current case's resolution from parental rights claims, specifically if a decision regarding gender-affirming care would affect parents' substantive due process rights to make decisions for their children, implying that such a decision might not impact future claims regarding parental rights.
Jackson

Classification and Scrutiny: Jackson highlights the central issue of how the statute is being characterized—whether it is a sex-based classification or one based on age and purpose. She suggests that both classifications could be in play, and the key question for equal protection analysis is whether the statute draws a sex-based line, which would trigger heightened scrutiny in evaluating its constitutionality.
Comparison to Loving v. Virginia: Jackson draws a parallel between this case and Loving v. Virginia, where racial classifications in marriage laws were scrutinized. She expresses concern about whether the Court is properly applying equal protection principles, noting that in Loving, the Court recognized that a law could still be discriminatory even if it applied to both races. Jackson is concerned that the Court might allow legislative classifications based on sex to be justified without fully considering whether the law discriminates.
Medical Purpose and Biological Sex: Jackson further discusses the statute's distinction based on biological sex in the context of medical treatments. She examines hypothetical situations where a person's medical need (e.g., hormone treatment for voice deepening) might be affected by their sex, and she questions whether the law's restriction on certain treatments, based on sex, constitutes a sex-based classification under the Equal Protection Clause. She challenges the notion that a law could differentiate between treatment purposes when the effect on the body might be similar, and stresses the importance of applying heightened scrutiny to such laws.
Kagan

Sex-Based Classification vs. Transgender Status: Kagan questions whether the law should be viewed as a sex-based classification or one that discriminates against transgender individuals, suggesting that the law targets transgender status, which is intertwined with sex.
Underinclusion and Heightened Scrutiny: She discusses how the law's differential treatment of transgender minors (compared to cisgender minors) likely violates heightened scrutiny standards, particularly since no sufficient medical evidence has been provided to justify such underinclusion.
Encouragement of Gender Conformity: Kagan critiques the law's purpose of encouraging gender conformity, arguing that it reflects a negative view of gender non-conformity, particularly targeting transgender youth and suggesting that they are "wrong" for transitioning.
Kavanaugh

Role of the Court and Democratic Process: Kavanaugh emphasizes that the Constitution doesn't take sides in policy debates, such as the decision to allow medical treatments for transgender minors. He questions whether it is best for the Court to step in, given that there are strong arguments on both sides and suggests that this might be better left to the democratic process, where states can make their own policy decisions.
Balancing Risks and Benefits: Kavanaugh acknowledges that both sides of the debate present risks: some minors will suffer if they can't access treatments, while others may regret undergoing treatments and want to detransition. He suggests that the Court must weigh these risks, which is a difficult policy decision. He asks why it is the Court's role to make this decision when it seems like a choice better suited for policymakers.
Impact on Transgender Participation in Women's Sports: Kavanaugh raises concerns about how intermediate scrutiny could affect the issue of transgender athletes in women's sports. He questions whether it is possible to apply intermediate scrutiny to cases involving transgender rights while allowing laws that restrict transgender athletes in women's sports. This brings attention to potential broader constitutional implications, particularly related to fairness in competitive sports.
Roberts

Legislative Deference: Justice Roberts suggests that the issues involved, particularly medical and evolving standards, may be better addressed by legislative bodies rather than the Court. He emphasizes that courts may not be well-suited to make decisions on complex medical matters, such as those involving predictive judgments and the effects of medical treatments, which are more appropriate for legislative determination.
Medical Expertise vs. Legal Judgment: Roberts distinguishes the case from past rulings (like Morales-Santana and Craig v. Boren), noting that those cases involved more straightforward issues like gender distinctions or drinking age laws, which did not heavily involve medical considerations. He points out that the current case involves medical expertise, making it more complex and better suited for legislative deliberation.
Constitutional Allocation of Authority: Roberts raises concerns about the Court stepping into an evolving medical issue where expertise is lacking, highlighting that the Constitution typically leaves such decisions to the elected representatives of the people, not to the judiciary. He cautions against judicial intervention in areas where the situation is dynamic and not yet fully understood.
Sotomayor

Gender Differences and Medical Needs: Justice Sotomayor emphasizes that there are inherent differences between sexes, and that intermediate scrutiny should be applied to ensure that laws are not based on instinctual or prejudiced judgments. She argues that there are children who suffer significantly from gender dysphoria and need medical treatment, and that the purpose of heightened scrutiny is to protect vulnerable groups from unnecessary harm when medical treatments are involved.
Judicial Review of Medical Decisions: Sotomayor challenges the idea that courts are not suited to address complex medical issues, pointing out that the court has the fundamental role of ensuring that any legislation or government action, especially regarding medical treatments, meets constitutional standards. She also questions whether policymakers should be allowed to make decisions on the lives of individuals without proper review, particularly when the consequences of those decisions can have severe effects on a small and vulnerable population.
Sex-Based Distinctions in Medical Treatment: Justice Sotomayor raises concerns about the sex-based distinctions in the medical treatments, pointing out that if a medical condition is the same (such as unwanted hair or breasts), there should not be different access to treatment based solely on sex. She suggests that such distinctions are rooted in sex-based differences and should be subject to scrutiny to avoid discrimination.
Thomas

Age Classification vs. a Ban: Justice Thomas challenges the argument that the case is about a complete ban on medical treatments. Instead, he frames it as an issue of age classification, questioning why the case is framed as a ban when it is focused on minors, and whether the restriction is more about the age of the individual rather than an outright prohibition.
Sex-Based Differences in Medical Treatment: Thomas questions whether there is a physiological difference in the way testosterone and estrogen affect males and females, suggesting that there might be significant differences in how these hormones are processed depending on sex. He emphasizes the importance of understanding these differences in the context of medical treatments.
Equal Protection and Remedy: Justice Thomas probes the remedy being sought in this case, asking whether the petitioner is seeking different treatment based on sex. He compares the case to other equal protection cases, like Boren, in which different groups received different benefits, questioning what remedy would arise in this case based on sex-based distinctions in medical treatment.
Gorsuch: Did not speak

Lower Court's Decision

The court reversed the preliminary injunctions that had been issued by the lower courts and remanded the cases for further proceedings. The injunctions had blocked the enforcement of laws in Tennessee and Kentucky that restricted gender-affirming treatments for minors. The court found that the district courts had abused their discretion by granting such broad injunctions without sufficient justification.

Three Main Points in the Decision

Standing and Redressability: The court raised concerns about the plaintiffs' standing, particularly whether the relief they sought could address their injuries, focusing on whether future treatments would be available and whether the plaintiffs had sufficiently demonstrated how statewide relief was necessary.
Abuse of Discretion: The court concluded that the district courts had abused their discretion by granting such broad relief without properly explaining why such an injunction was necessary, especially considering that a more targeted class action could have addressed the issues.
Public Interest and Harm: The court noted that the harm to the states, Tennessee and Kentucky, if the injunction remained in place, was significant, particularly with regard to their ability to enforce laws passed by their elected representatives to protect minors. The balance of harm favored the states' interests in limiting treatments for minors under these laws.
Notes on Amici

NAACP (for Petitioner)

The NAACP's argument focuses on the discriminatory nature of Tennessee's law banning gender-affirming healthcare for transgender adolescents, asserting that it constitutes a sex-based classification subject to heightened scrutiny. They argue that the law's passage is rooted in animus and prejudice against transgender people, particularly transgender youth, and that it cannot be considered constitutionally valid under the Equal Protection Clause, given the broader context of rising hostility toward LGBTQ individuals.

America First Legal Foundation (For Respondent)

AFLF's argument is that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate standing, particularly the redressability of their injuries, which is necessary for obtaining a preliminary injunction. The court argues that the plaintiffs cannot show that their requested relief would directly address the issue since the private lawsuits allowed under the law would still expose providers to liability.

[Big Papi]

hey yall. its mr. waffles. new name lol. Im just dropping in to say i appreciate yalls support. this shits scary and it feels good knowing lexi has people here that have her back. the whole anti trans shit show has been sobering for me. ive had to draw lines in the sand and cut out people in my life who dont have our back. im real sick of people coming at me making excuses for pro trump shit and still trying to pretend they love and support me and lexi.

anyway. im gonna try to hang around a bit on here. hope yall are doin alright.

[Trollheart]

Good to meet you, Mr. W. I was away from the forum, in mourning when you last lookde in so I never got to speak to you. I don't have to tell you, of course, but your Lexi is a real diamond and it's great to know that someone is really looking after her, as this is a very scary time for her. I hope you both have genuine friends you can rely on, and either of you (or both of you) are always free to talk to us here, at any time.

Take care.
TH

[Lexi Darling]

Well, you know what they say about the best laid plans.

My new years resolution for 2025 was to focus on self improvement, and I had planned to wean myself off of depending on the internet for socializing. But due to a combination of unexpected sickness that has exacerbated chronic health issues, getting a new job at a children's resale store, and a couple of emotional breakdowns, I have decided I really do need community in a time like this. So for the time being I am postponing those plans, though I am still going to be reducing my internet use on the whole due to now working once again.

I actually got this job because I had been volunteering there and they liked me enough to offer me a paid position. And on a positive note more related to this thread's topic, I haven't once mentioned that I'm trans there and nobody else has brought it up, so either I'm passing or it's just that nobody cares. Either way, the people who work there are nice and pleasant to talk to, and it's very comforting and very refreshing to have an environment where me being trans is a complete non-factor; I've gotten so mentally and emotionally worn down by constantly being treated as an 'issue' and a 'debate' online and in politics that it feels nice to just be treated as just a regular person. Even with my IRL queer friends a lot of our conversations end up venting and commiserating about the anti-trans garbage, so it's been a very positive experience so far.

So those are the positives in my life currently, though my home life has been a bit more fraught with emotional distress, in particular when I am alone with my thoughts. I've had a couple times now where i just feel a crushing weight of non-stop sadness and anguish wash over me when I think too hard about what may come in the year ahead. I've talked my way through these breakdowns with the help of my husband and some of my friends in queer discord servers, and that is one reason I feel I cannot take on my planned self actualization journey in my current mental state.

My mother is also undergoing a lot of pain and distress currently due to her mental conditions and we have been working hard alongside her and her doctors to try everything that can be done to help her, and it's very possible she will have to undergo brain surgery. So that's another thing that's adding to the heavy clouds hanging over my heart right now.

It's hard to stay strong, I'll be completely real. I've been reading that more UK clinics are ceasing adult HRT prescriptions and cutting off patients who have been on it for years, if not decades. Given that the US government is not slowing its anti-trans rhetoric, I have no doubt in my mind that things will worsen here very quickly as well. It feels like a tide that can only be pushed against for so long if the right wing direction many countries seem to be moving in continues. So I think, if nothing else, having a supportive community to turn to, even if just to have someone to prevent my brain from breaking down, is a good thing for me to have right now.

Thank you for reading and I look forward to talking with you all soon.

[Guybrush]

@Lexi Darling I'm sad to read you're not happy, though it's obviously completely understandable. I'm happy that our community is a source of support 🫂

I can't put myself in your shoes, but the current state of things is obviously a threat to your wellbeing. Do you have any escapes from it, like maybe a current creative project?

[Trollheart]

Her shoes wouldn't fit you anyway, Guybrush, and I bet she looks a lot better in them than you would! 

Seriously, as usual Lexi I wish there was something I could do. It's easy/hard being on the outside observing and worrying, and completely powerless. You're right about more countries swinging right and deepening the "other" hate rhetoric, whether that's gay, trans, or whatever the current fad is in hate circles, but perhaps it can only go so far before it begins to move the other way? I certainly hope so. I know the first months of this year will be tough for you, and all I can say is what I've said before, that we're here if you need us, whenever you need us. I'm personally happy to pass on my phone number for WhatsApp chats if you think that would help, or you can always drop me an email.

Sorry to hear about your mother; that must be very hard to deal with. Have you other family and if so are they involved? If it's a case of "could be worse", consider this: at least you have someone loving and caring to turn to. I imagine a lot of people in a similar situation to yours are alone and very, very frightened, especially younger people who worry and wonder about the danger of "coming out", and how long they should keep their feelings and desires bottled up. I can't even imagine how hard it must be for you, but like I say, one plus is that you have support.

Like Guybrush says, and like I have said already and do again, hang in there: we're here for you.

[Lexi Darling]

Thank you both so much. <3

@Guybrush I should be able to get back to focusing on my creative endeavors soon; that's probably one reason I've been less occupied, and the reason I haven't been able to focus is in large part due to my physical health and energy being affected by my sickness. I got a bad cold, or some kind of bug, around mid-December followed by laryngitis, and these illnesses have made my chronic acid reflux problem worse as well. So it's harder to find the spark and motivation to do anything beyond the most essential things. But once I can get more recovered I am going to pursue the Youtube music stream performances I had mentioned before.

@Trollheart Yeah, she has people like my dad and a few close friends who are helping her do what she needs to, spend time with her and and get her to medical appointments, alongside Aaron and I. We're all doing everything we can, though it still pains my heart to see her suffering and not mentally herself. And of course my heart aches for the people of the targeted groups who don't have the privileges and support base and life stability that I have. I've learned the stories and the feelings of some of these people through reading their posts and talking with them in places like Discord, Bluesky and Reddit. I'm a member of a couple of trans specific Discord servers that are focused on mental health and shelter from hate. Sometimes those spaces can be too much for my own mental health, but I try to be involved in community support and mutual aid.

[Lexi Darling]

I've collected a few articles and resources on the current events affecting the trans community that I've been posting in a couple places online, so I thought I'd share here as well. Spoilered for some upsetting topics.

Spoiler

An increasing number of clinics in the UK have denying trans adults healthcare, ripping them off of necessary medications.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/gp-nhs-transgender-hormone-treatment-b2658721.html

See above.
https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/local-news/transgender-patients-devastated-nottinghamshire-gp-9827583

Puberty blockers, an important tool in helping trans teenagers safely make decisions regarding medical transition, have been banned in the UK. Here's a bunch of doctors and other experts speaking about the 'review' used to justify the ban.
https://ruthpearce.net/2024/04/16/whats-wrong-with-the-cass-review-a-round-up-of-commentary-and-evidence/

A nice Reddit post I found on the same subject.
https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/1hd7bjz/comment/m1vww4t/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

And here's France's take on the matter.
https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2024/12/new-french-guidelines-show-doctors-overwhelmingly-support-gender-affirming-care/

On the US side, here's a handy collection of the thoughts and statements of the Commander-in-Cheeto regarding trans people and some potential policies he seeks to implement.
https://glaad.org/fact-sheet-trump-transgender/

And let's not forget the SCOTUS.
https://ballsandstrikes.org/scotus/skrmetti-oral-argument-recap/

And here's an example of the things state level politicians are saying about trans people.
https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/ohio-michigan-republicans-in-released?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Here's an article from today about how a certain one of our great united states is treating trans prison inmates.
https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/federal-court-rules-in-favor-of-forcibly

[close]

[Jwb]

@Lexi Darling I'm sad to read you're not happy, though it's obviously completely understandable. I'm happy that our community is a source of support 🫂

I can't put myself in your shoes, but the current state of things is obviously a threat to your wellbeing. Do you have any escapes from it, like maybe a current creative project?

is this the same kind of advice we would be giving Anne Frank as she's hid out in her attic? Maybe start a diary or something to stay busy.

[Guybrush]

is this the same kind of advice we would be giving Anne Frank as she's hid out in her attic? Maybe start a diary or something to stay busy.

Absolutely. I'm sure writing and confiding in "Kitty" helped her in various little ways, like alleviating boredom, getting a clearer perspective on certain things, having some emotional outlet for the things she was going through.