D Dangaran (they/them)
@ddangaran.bsky.social
Assistant Professor of Law, University of Hawai’i at Mānoa William S. Richardson School of Law | constitutional law, family law & civil rights | Co-Chair, National Trans Bar Association | formerly @Rights Behind Bars https://www.rightsbehindbars.org/donate
Reposted by D Dangaran (they/them)
We need more journalists who don’t pretend the rising wave of right-wing inspired transphobia, racism, misogyny, predation, authoritarianism, homophobia and corruption is something they should shrug at and say “we can’t take sides”
Which ofc is taking a side.
Which ofc is taking a side.
December 28, 2025 at 10:02 AM
We need more journalists who don’t pretend the rising wave of right-wing inspired transphobia, racism, misogyny, predation, authoritarianism, homophobia and corruption is something they should shrug at and say “we can’t take sides”
Which ofc is taking a side.
Which ofc is taking a side.
Reposted by D Dangaran (they/them)
He too, btw, is not journalist himself
It’s yet another short step to disqualify queer journalists who don’t toe a political line from covering issues all about us. Condé Nast and NBC did just that, laying off queer journalists en masse and eliminating the v few remaining platforms by and about us
It’s yet another short step to disqualify queer journalists who don’t toe a political line from covering issues all about us. Condé Nast and NBC did just that, laying off queer journalists en masse and eliminating the v few remaining platforms by and about us
December 27, 2025 at 11:50 PM
He too, btw, is not journalist himself
It’s yet another short step to disqualify queer journalists who don’t toe a political line from covering issues all about us. Condé Nast and NBC did just that, laying off queer journalists en masse and eliminating the v few remaining platforms by and about us
It’s yet another short step to disqualify queer journalists who don’t toe a political line from covering issues all about us. Condé Nast and NBC did just that, laying off queer journalists en masse and eliminating the v few remaining platforms by and about us
Reposted by D Dangaran (they/them)
It’s a v short step then for any news org to disqualify, say Black ppl, from covering issues of race. WaPo fired one of the world’s preeminent opinion journalists for daring to quote Charlie Kirk’s own words.
In an interesting convergence, the ceo of FIRE found a way to scold this journalist.
In an interesting convergence, the ceo of FIRE found a way to scold this journalist.
December 27, 2025 at 11:50 PM
It’s a v short step then for any news org to disqualify, say Black ppl, from covering issues of race. WaPo fired one of the world’s preeminent opinion journalists for daring to quote Charlie Kirk’s own words.
In an interesting convergence, the ceo of FIRE found a way to scold this journalist.
In an interesting convergence, the ceo of FIRE found a way to scold this journalist.
Reposted by D Dangaran (they/them)
The nyt has had a de facto ban on hiring/assigning trans journalists to cover trans issues. It’s been true for at least five years.
It’s the exemplification of bigotry. Our being trans automatically disqualifies us from being involved in coverage that is all about us.
It’s the exemplification of bigotry. Our being trans automatically disqualifies us from being involved in coverage that is all about us.
December 27, 2025 at 11:50 PM
The nyt has had a de facto ban on hiring/assigning trans journalists to cover trans issues. It’s been true for at least five years.
It’s the exemplification of bigotry. Our being trans automatically disqualifies us from being involved in coverage that is all about us.
It’s the exemplification of bigotry. Our being trans automatically disqualifies us from being involved in coverage that is all about us.
No. “Disruption” is an exception to the free speech right in public school, under the standard issued by SCOTUS in a case called Tinker. Legislatures can state any rationale they want when they issue non-discrimination policies. In this context, they keep facing (anti-trans) free speech challenges.
December 27, 2025 at 12:46 AM
No. “Disruption” is an exception to the free speech right in public school, under the standard issued by SCOTUS in a case called Tinker. Legislatures can state any rationale they want when they issue non-discrimination policies. In this context, they keep facing (anti-trans) free speech challenges.
As I say in the piece, there is arguably a circuit split between the First Circuit’s decision in L.M. v. Middleborough and the 6th circuit’s decision here. Pronouns are pending in SCOTUS, specifically a parental right to know their child’s pronoun use. (Foote v. Ludlow). I worry we’ll see this next.
December 26, 2025 at 10:22 PM
As I say in the piece, there is arguably a circuit split between the First Circuit’s decision in L.M. v. Middleborough and the 6th circuit’s decision here. Pronouns are pending in SCOTUS, specifically a parental right to know their child’s pronoun use. (Foote v. Ludlow). I worry we’ll see this next.
Steve, the problem is not his view in the piece, but is his wild uncalled for attack on the article in the comments on the Bluesky post and on his page. His views in the article are fine and he tried to say the journalist quoted him out of context, which he clearly did not.
December 26, 2025 at 10:09 PM
Steve, the problem is not his view in the piece, but is his wild uncalled for attack on the article in the comments on the Bluesky post and on his page. His views in the article are fine and he tried to say the journalist quoted him out of context, which he clearly did not.
Listen to the Landor oral argument at 28:14-29:06; 36:15-36:45, and 39:06-42:25.
I’ll be writing about this in a forthcoming piece, “Trans Scapegoats.”
I’ll be writing about this in a forthcoming piece, “Trans Scapegoats.”
November 11, 2025 at 3:50 AM
Listen to the Landor oral argument at 28:14-29:06; 36:15-36:45, and 39:06-42:25.
I’ll be writing about this in a forthcoming piece, “Trans Scapegoats.”
I’ll be writing about this in a forthcoming piece, “Trans Scapegoats.”
The questions do not hide the ball at all. The Court is deciding this issue with Title IX liability—including in the sports cases this term—in mind. That’s why they granted cert despite the circuit courts’ unanimity. They’re poised to issue a ruling even broader than RLUIPA to bar Title IX damages.
November 11, 2025 at 3:48 AM
The questions do not hide the ball at all. The Court is deciding this issue with Title IX liability—including in the sports cases this term—in mind. That’s why they granted cert despite the circuit courts’ unanimity. They’re poised to issue a ruling even broader than RLUIPA to bar Title IX damages.
Lose the moderates to GOP*
October 18, 2025 at 9:47 PM
Lose the moderates to GOP*
"This is about a handful of the wealthiest people on Earth who, in their insatiable greed, have hijacked our economy and our political system." Bernie Sanders speaking at the No Kings rally in DC. Watch here.
October 18, 2025 at 7:31 PM
The people are striving to hold our government accountable. Agents often hide or remove their name plate, turn off body cams before taking abusive actions. The agents are trying to doxx protestors + have their fascist compatriots destroy a person through all potential avenues the tech age provides.
October 18, 2025 at 7:03 PM
The people are striving to hold our government accountable. Agents often hide or remove their name plate, turn off body cams before taking abusive actions. The agents are trying to doxx protestors + have their fascist compatriots destroy a person through all potential avenues the tech age provides.
Neoliberals in power have always raised hell over protesters masking—BLM, antifa. They labeled them criminals. They want to identify protestors to surveil them. The people do not have that tech. Gov’t agents hiding their faces only frustrates potential litigation. It’s an obstruction of justice.
October 18, 2025 at 6:59 PM
Neoliberals in power have always raised hell over protesters masking—BLM, antifa. They labeled them criminals. They want to identify protestors to surveil them. The people do not have that tech. Gov’t agents hiding their faces only frustrates potential litigation. It’s an obstruction of justice.