Heron Greenesmith, Esq.
@herong.bsky.social
3.2K followers 590 following 1.3K posts
Deputy Director of Policy at the Transgender Law Center. (they)
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
herong.bsky.social
The correct responses to Chloe Cole include:

- My trans community affirmatively includes detransitioners and fluid people;

- Everyone deserves housing and fresh food, trans and not, you ghoul;

- Why are you denying human rights to any population, you inhuman ogre.
herong.bsky.social
The response to Chole Cole saying "one detransitioner" undermines immutability and therefore human rights for trans people in the US *isn't* to say "well, detransitioners weren't trans in the first place" or to try to avoid the topic of detransition altogether.
herong.bsky.social
So pro-trans legal workers and liberal legal minds are likewise incentivized to push back and say NO, WE TOTES AREN'T IMMUTABLE. BORN THIS WAY. I'D NEVER CHOOSE TO BE GAY BUT NOW THAT I'M HERE SHRUG MIGHT AS WELL

And this just isn't an accurate reflection of the fluidity of our communities.
herong.bsky.social
Yup. I think the analogy is a really apt one. I'm not sure how many other lower courts like the District of DC have adopted it, but the Supreme Court has so far mostly dodged the question of what level of scrutiny trans and queer rights get at the federal level.
herong.bsky.social
And so the anti-rights Right is incentivized to say that certain characteristics are NOT immutable and don't deserve protections from harm.

Put another way: the anti-rights Right pushes the argument that they should be allowed to discriminate against LGBT people because fluidity exists.
herong.bsky.social
Of course, the immutability argument pokes holes in our American liberal legal arguments.

In the US, no one is entitled to housing because they're human, but if you can show that you were harmed because someone used an unchangeable thing about you to DENY you housing, you can try to sue them. OK.
Reposted by Heron Greenesmith, Esq.
sirosenbaum.bsky.social
glad you wrote this so I didn't have to. I've been arguing for a choice-based protection for gender and sexual identities for so long...
herong.bsky.social
This exact analogy was actually used in DC in Schroer v Library of Congress.

We understand faith to be immutable in the sense that it would cause immense pain to force someone to change. And the judge in Schroer said that's a perfect analogy to legal rights for trans folks too.
herong.bsky.social
Detrainsitioners are a crucial part of the community. Transition, detransition, and retransition are all parts of life for many of us.

Now, *anti-trans* detransitioners can kick rocks. Big rocks and stub their toes badly.

Anti-trans detransitioners who parrot right-wing legal taking points???
herong.bsky.social
I wrote about it extensively back in 2021.

Heritage and ADF have been pushing this argument for ages.

"Born this way" tries to push back against it, but ends up reifying other harmful arguments, and allows us to push detransitioners and fluid people aside.

xtramagazine.com/power/sexual...
What if we weren’t born that way? | Xtra Magazine
How the argument that sexual orientation is innate excludes bisexuals and others with fluid identities
xtramagazine.com
herong.bsky.social
This is classic Heritage Foundation / Alliance Defending Freedom dreck: sexual orientation & gender identity aren't immutable (unchanging) so therefore they're not eligible for human rights.

This is based on the Supreme Court doctrine that characteristics be immutable to gain legal protection.
erininthemorning.com
“The existence of even one ex gay dismantles the central lie of homosexuality, that it is an innate characteristic from birth and therefore should have human rights awarded to it.”

Same shit different era.
Chloe Cole: The existence of even one detransitioner dismantles the central lie of transgenderism, that it is an innate characteristic from birth and therefore should have human rights awarded to it.
Reposted by Heron Greenesmith, Esq.
greylace.bsky.social
The recent ICE raid which emptied an entire apartment building was apparently at the request of Wells Fargo, which is trying to foreclose on the building.
herong.bsky.social
Y'ALL THIS MOVIE IS BORRRRRRRRINGGGGGGGGGG

I miss three days ago when I was watching [Rec]¹ for the first time.
herong.bsky.social
Well, there's certainly lots of close-quarters grappling. And screaming. And AYUDA-ME-ing.
herong.bsky.social
Oh no it's a monkey!!!! Oh god they're hurting the zombie monkey noooooooo. Sad.
herong.bsky.social
Ooh if zombies escape this ship there's gonna be a lot of close-quarters fighting!! Hmmm I wonder if that will happen lol
Reposted by Heron Greenesmith, Esq.
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
The first Law Dork oral argument report of the new Supreme Court term is a doozy: Chiles v. Salazar, over Colorado’s conversion therapy ban.
Supreme Court likely to strike down Colorado's conversion therapy ban
A lesson in how defining the case often resolves the case.
www.lawdork.com
herong.bsky.social
Of course, the revolting end to [Rec]² is very present in my mind here, watching Angela run all over this dang ship.
herong.bsky.social
OK now we're in some sort of abandon ship? A medical ship? Everyone is still very handsome and/or interesting looking.

Sigh I just wish it was still found footage, dangit!
herong.bsky.social
We're back in the apartment building, but it's not found footage. :( very sad. I wonder why they dropped the premise in [Rec]³ anyway. It can't be cheaper to use regular cameras? And a wedding is the PERFECT place for found footage, as the beginning illustrates!
herong.bsky.social
Time to close the circle: it's [Rec]⁴, babies!!