LGBTQ+

6167 readers

69 users here now

All forms of queer news and culture. Nonsectarian and non-exclusionary.

See also this community's sister subs Feminism, Neurodivergence, Disability, and POC

Beehaw currently maintains an LGBTQ+ resource wiki, which is up to date as of July 10, 2023.

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

100

Kansas officials are no longer required to change trans people’s birth certificates, judge says. (apnews.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

6 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I guess it wasn’t just about “protecting the kids.” Cruelty is the point. The republican motto.

All amended birth certificates are to be reverted. This is absolutely gut wrenchingly terrifying for all trans people.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

🤖 I'm a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:

Click here to see the summary

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — A federal judge ruled Thursday that Kansas officials are no longer required to change transgender people’s birth certificates so the documents reflect their gender identities, a loss for those who fought for that ability and leaves questions on how the state will respond.

But Republican Attorney General Kris Kobach asked the court to stop enforcing that agreement because of a new state law that defines male and female as the sex assigned at birth.

Transgender Kansas residents and Kelly argued that refusing to change birth certificates would violate rights protected by the U.S. Constitution, something Crabtree said in his brief order approving the settlement four years ago.

The law also declares the state’s interests in protecting people’s privacy, health and safety justifies separate facilities, such as bathrooms and locker rooms, for men and women.

As for birth certificates, Kobach argued in a recent filing in the federal lawsuit that keeping the full 2019 settlement in place is “explicitly anti-democratic” because it conflicts directly with the new law.

“To hold otherwise would be to render state governments vassals of the federal courts, forever beholden to unchangeable consent agreements entered into by long-gone public officials,” Kobach said.

Saved 81% of original text.