“The Bolshoi has just cancelled a ballet tribute to Rudolf Nureyev, the dance icon who was gay. As far as I can tell, the ballet, which premiered in 2017, ‘touches on’ homosexuality, but that’s apparently enough to drop it completely.”
DON’T SAY NUREYEV
The Florida legislature, gobbling up Ron DeSantis’s anti-woke agenda like rats on cheese, has extended the so-called “Don’t Say Gay Bill” through the end of high school. In its earlier version, the law protecting “parental rights” forbade grade school teachers and staff from discussing sexual orientation, and forced adults to report back to parents if a child came out of the closet as gay or trans.
I don’t necessarily want to bend your ear with Bad Things Coming Out Of State Legislatures, otherwise we would have no time for the rest of our exciting community news agenda. But I was struck by a story out of Moscow, where Putin recently expanded his own, 2013, Don’t Say Gay Anywhere bill to cover anything said by anyone in the country. As of December, Russians may not disseminate “propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations,” in speech, advertising, or any other type of communication. As a result, the Bolshoi has just cancelled a ballet tribute to Rudolf Nureyev, the dance icon who was gay. As far as I can tell, the ballet, which premiered in 2017, “touches on” homosexuality, but that’s apparently enough to drop it completely.
“Nureyev was removed from the repertoire in connection with the law … where issues related to the promotion of ‘non-traditional values’ are stipulated absolutely unequivocally,” said Bolchoi chief Vladimir Urin, at a recent news conference.
Is this where we’re headed? Without a backlash against Florida and other states, the answer is pretty clear.
THE UNBEARABLE DARKNESS OF ALITO
I trust you remember that when our last issue went to press, the Supreme Court was about to decide whether or not to let West Virginia outlaw transgender girls from playing school sports while a challenge to this law went forward in lower courts. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit put a hold on the law, but the parents and religious legal groups arrayed against our side had just asked the justices to overturn that order. Happily, I can announce, the Court refused to go along, and the law will remain unenforceable until the litigation is resolved. I was pleasantly surprised!
As usual with these emergency motions, we do not know the breakdown of the vote. But naturally, Alito and Thomas registered dismay and said they would have given the Mountain State a green light to trans bash. Of course these two jokers are the ones who would have also allowed the abortion pill mifepristone to remain banned nationwide had they gotten their way in mid-April. You recall that a rogue Trump judge in Texas retroactively revoked the FDA’s authority to approve mifepristone (after 20 years or so), and outlawed its use throughout the country in a ruling that he then suspended for seven days. The Fifth Circuit tinkered with that ruling, but the High Court put it completely on hold a few days later. Dissenting from that sensible decision were Thomas and Alito, with Alito crafting a bizarre four-page explanation of his “reasoning” that we won’t go into.
I guess my main point is that there seems to be a pinprick of light emanating from the Supremes, where it seems remotely possible that Roberts, Kavanaugh and/or Barrett might put the law above their religious doctrine—at least now and then. For the record, the law in the mifepristone case is so heavily weighted in favor of the government and the FDA that I can’t see how Texas decision could survive review. Still, it’s all frightening.
Keep in mind, finally, that the Court has two months to issue decisions from this session, which began in October. Those will include the critical case of Colorado web designer, Lorie Smith, who seeks permission to bar same-sex couples from her wedding services in violation of state civil rights law. It’s not too early to start fretting about this one. Bartender!
THINGS YOU SHOULD NEVER DO WITH ALUMINUM FOIL
Two significant transgender health care cases are heading to a review by the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Don’t skip this section! I wrote that headline just to lure you in! I know I have a tendency to delve into appellate law, but that’s because the 12 federal appellate courts are one step removed from the Supreme Court and whatever emerges from their deliberations tends to a) either become binding law throughout large areas, or b) get in line for a Supreme Court showdown. This is the stage where our political discourse, full of sound and fury, actually signifies something.
Plus, lawsuits have satisfying rules and regulations and procedures and timetables that let us actually figure out a bit of what’s likely to happen and when. It’s interesting! Trust me.
In these cases, both North Carolina and West Virginia are attempting to outlaw various aspects of transgender health care; the Tobacco State law involves the state insurance plan, while West Virginia (who starred in our earlier discussion of banning transgender girls in sport) is trying to limit gender transition and hormone treatment under the state Medicaid program. In an unusual move, the cases will be heard by the full court, all 14 judges, tilted ever so slightly towards Democratic nominees.
These cases come at a time when the Missouri Attorney General just issued some kind of “emergency order” restricting gender transitions for people of all ages in the Slaver State. (Slavers is what my wife’s family calls people from Missouri, who attacked Kansas back in the day for being a Free State. Rock Chalk!) Lambda Legal and the ACLU are suing Missouri to stop this unorthodox dictate, which requires individuals to undergo a year and a half of therapy before starting hormones, let alone surgery. I don’t know all the details, but although several states are targeting health care, this is the first time a state executive has taken unilateral action.
Finally, the whole question of transgender treatment for minors is a subject of medical debate at precisely the moment it has become a major front in politically driven culture wars. It’s hard to step back from this battlefield to take a clear-eyed look at scientific studies from Europe and in the U.S. that pose nuanced questions about which treatments are effective, what harms are possible, what ages require different approaches and so forth. These are issues that should be examined without fearing that ground will be lost to “the enemy” in the madness of the current climate.
