March 10, 2022 – Second Reading Podcast

Welcome to the second reading podcast from the university of Texas at Austin, the Republicans were in the democratic party because there was only one party Chacha people on a regular basis. There is still a land of opportunity in America. It’s called the problem is these departures from the constitution.

They have become the norm. At what point must a female side. Raise her hand or her voice to be recognized over the male colleagues in the room.

Ed. Welcome back to the second reading podcast. I’m Jim Henson, director of the Texas politics project at the university of Texas at Austin. I’m very glad to be joined, uh, at least virtually online today. Um, by a long time, a friend and associate Lauren McGaughy of the Dallas morning news. Uh, Lauren is, uh, an investigative reporter.

Focused on gender, sexuality and politics at the Dallas morning. News has been a guest before we were trying to sort out how long it’s been. We think about five years, um, though, you know, given the, the last few dog years where we, it took us a while to figure that out. So, uh, welcome Lauren. Thanks for being here.

Thanks. I’m really happy to be talking about this issue. Let’s get right to it. Then your beat has been a very active one. And I want to start with the most recent issue before we kind of go, go back and look at context and how some of these issues of info have evolved. So I want to start by asking you to bring us up to speed on recent events, in the realm of gender affirmative care for transgender kids in Texas.

Uh, the most recent chain of events seems to me, was triggered. Triggered by LinkedIn announcements by attorney general, Paxton and governor Abbott. Uh, not coincidentally, I don’t think, although we’ll get into that. In the final weeks of the Republican primary. So can you give us some background on that and kind of bring us up to the present?

Sure. Um, I’ll try to make this as user-friendly because it can get in the weeds very quickly. Um, so yeah, uh, in February we saw this opinion come out from. General Paxton. Uh, it’s a non-binding opinion. It’s basically Paxton saying, Hey, I’m going to take a look at current law. That’s already on the books and give you my thoughts.

And he issued a new interpretation of the state’s child abuse law, where he said explicitly that his belief is that certain kinds of gender affirming medical treatments for trans minors are child abuse under the current. So he issues that, and you know, very soon after the governor sends a letter to the department of protective family and protective services saying, Hey, Um, you know, you have to investigate any reports of this quote, alleged abuse.

And he also, CC’d a bunch of other state agencies on it that deal with kids like the education department, the juvenile justice department. And interestingly, the governor also explicitly warned in that letter that, uh, teachers and, um, certain other state workers are required to report. And if they don’t there’s criminal penalties and there are even, even reporting requirements for the public.

So they were very strong statements from two of the most highly elected men in the highest elected officials in the state. And within days we saw. We actually saw a lawsuit from a state worker who works for that same agency, the department of family and protective services who is suing to block this directive from the governor and the attorney general, because this state worker has a transgender daughter, uh, whose teenager getting, uh, gender affirming care.

And the state worker says they were put on leave and investigated for alleged abuse after this directive came out. So where we are right now is, um, tomorrow there’s supposed to be a court hearing in Travis county about this request from the state worker to block the directive from. Just her family. Um, the judge will consider, has said she will consider whether, whether then to block this directive, block, these investigations statewide for everybody.

Um, but it is one of the hottest, um, Uh, political issues right now. And it’s one that is really having a trickle down effect for a lot of groups, teachers, CPS, caseworkers doctors, uh, really anyone whose lives touch the touch, the lives around children and specifically. So, uh, for our listeners, we’re recording this on Thursday.

So that hearing is Friday. Um, yes. And I also want to, I do you, how familiar are you with the legal arguments that the person who’s brought this suit, the family that brought the suit? I mean, what, what is the argument they’re making to try to enjoy this investigation? Do you know? I think you’ve looked, you said you had looked at the court document.

Yeah. So, uh, it’s, it’s the parent, the state worker who’s been put on leave, who has a trans daughter. And then there’s also a physician, a mental health care, um, provider out of Houston and they they’re giving separate arguments. So the parent says, look, the medical, the best practices, medical suggestions are.

That certain kinds of care is appropriate for trans kids. I’ve talked with my daughter doctor about it. I’ve talked with my kid about it. You know, I’m not doing anything that’s outside of the, the regular scope of how you approach treating a transgender minor. And by investigating me for child abuse, not only has it affected my job, but my, my relationship with my child.

So that’s the, the state workers argument. Um, the physician is saying that she has. Uh, medical requirements, ethical requirements to provide care. It like, you know, a doctor can actually be found to be in breach of certain ethical requirements if they deny care or refuse care. And she says by not allowing her to treat trans children, according to the best medical practices currently on the books, um, by investigating her by requiring her to turn over.

Patients and their parents that it would actually breach those ethics. So different arguments on two sides. That’s great. That’s super helpful. I think, um, you know, since we’re talking about, uh, about this care and you braise the arguments of the doctor, um, you know, I’m interested, I know, I know you’ve done some work on this.

Tell us what the nature of the, of gender affirmative care is. I mean, and I ask, you know, in part just to fill in the facts, but also because, you know, as you’re well aware and I, I think you’re probably seen in your Twitter feed, um, you know, a lot of the most hyperbolic support for these kinds of actions that the governor and the attorney generals and have taken.

You know, have taken the form of very extreme portrayals of what gender affirmative care looks like. You know, particularly I think appealing to, you know, bodily anxiety and you know, this, you know, very loose references and, and. Intimations of, of very, you know, uh, fundamental kind of physical surgical procedures, which my understanding is that that is not the case.

And so I I’d be interested if you could tell it Pilsen a little bit more on what you know about what the protocols are and what the nature of this gender affirmative care is. Yeah. Um, thanks for giving me the opportunity to do that. Um, if, if, um, if listeners want to read some of this too, we, we wrote a story back in November.

The Dallas morning news, um, call the headline is Dallas clinic, uh, Genesis cuts care to transgender kids. And it’s actually a primer also on what gender affirming care is. So, um, in a very basic way, there’s, um, there’s multiple tiers of treatment just like there is for, for anything that you’re trying to treat anything.

Right. Um, And there’s a lot of misinformation out there about what’s actually happening. And what is recommended for someone who’s under the age of 18, that is trans the, the actual, um, uh, thing that is being treated is called gender dysphoria. Um, it’s a feeling of discomfort or even like physical distress, um, in someone who, who identifies as a gender different from that assigned at birth, not all trans people experience that.

So some trans people will go their whole lives, never taking a hormone, never thinking about surgical interventions, nothing but gender dysphoria is the actual symptom that you’re treating. Um, if someone is actually considering treatment for. For kids that are prepubescent the only real suggestion by every medical major medical group, all of them, including the ones that deal solely with trans people is it’s all about mental health.

And at most it’s social, uh, social transition, which might be something like a kid trying out a new name. Um, maybe dressing a little differently, maybe using a different pronoun, but no real interventions with, uh, with any medical treatment that you might think of, like, uh, taking a pill or get a shot or something like that.

It’s after the. As begun to experience puberty that oftentimes those discussions begin because, you know, as we all know, puberty is when your body starts changing. Um, and that’s oftentimes when the feelings of gender dysphoria in a youth are the most noticeable, right. They come to the surface and in a literal way.

So. It’s only really after mental health, um, guidance and discussions with mental health providers that a parent and a child and a doctor would consider doing something like puberty, blockers, um, Let me just take a step back out. You’re probably hearing about puberty blockers for hormone therapy and then surgical interventions.

They’re all very different things and they all are appropriate for different age levels and sometimes not appropriate for different age levels. So for kids experienced puberty, younger kids, they may try puberty blockers with the advice of a doctor and, and their parents and with their consent, which is, uh, it’s basically halting.

The, um, the progression of puberty. So it’s, it puts a, a brick wall there. And the idea there is that it allows. The miner to continue therapy, continue those discussions continue working through those feelings of gender dysphoria without having to deal with the continuing changing in their body that they experienced doing during puberty.

If, if afterwards, Uh, I try, uh, uh, a minor in the, with the agreement again, of the doctor in the parrot, believe that there needs to be another intervention. There can be hormone therapy added to, uh, you know, as, as another staff or as a parallel step. And that is actually taking something like testosterone or, uh, uh, a female hormone or a male hormone to see changes in the body.

This is really only. Suggested for people that have, are again already experiencing puberty have been undergoing therapy for an extensive period of time and have tried other things before this happens. It is absolutely not recommended by any major medical group that someone under the age of 18 or under the age of consent, rather get surgery.

Um, to treat gender dysphoria in Texas, the age of consent is 18. And so it is exceedingly, exceedingly rare that someone under the age of 18 would be getting any kind of surgical intervention to treat being gender dysphoria, a trans person. It’s just so rare. It’s almost not happening to be clear that if, you know, if it has happened, it seems like there’s at least a shot that was either some kind of a medical.

You know, contingency related to that, or it was done, you know, separate from, from medical advice. Right. Which I would think would make, because one of the things that makes it so. Right. And you know, like some of these things like puberty, blockers are used already in, in kids who are not transgender, who are experiencing early puberty, you know, you might have a really little kid, who’s all of a sudden undergoing puberty and they’re eight or nine, you know?

And so this is already being prescribed to kids for other medical issues separately. And in those circumstances, my understanding is that when you have a non-surgical, you have a, you know, just broadly speaking, a hormonal or, or pharmaceutical intervention, that’s out early reversible. Near nearly all of them are.

Yes. Um, puberty, blockers are reversible. Uh, so if you see information out there that says puberty blockers are not reversible that according to all of the current studies, that is not true. Um, when we were talking about hormone therapy, there are certain, uh, you know, effects of certain hormone therapies that will permanently change.

Uh, you know, the characteristics of someone, for example, testosterone, sometimes people’s voices get lower when they take it for an extended period of time, that sometimes is not reversible. Okay. Um, and then for trans girls, um, who may be taking female hormones, it depends on the age. It depends on, you know, the fact that they pass puberty and how long they’ve been taking it, but there are.

Study is now looking into fertility short-term and long-term fertility consequences for extended use of, uh, feminine hormones in minors. Um, so these are all, uh, issues that would be discussed with the doctor, mental health care provider, the parent, and the child. Um, because again, they’re serious medical decisions that all of those individuals should.

Well, I appreciate you sharing that research and I, you know, putting you on the spot a little bit since you’re not a doctor, but that was a really great, careful explanation. And I really appreciate it. Um, you know, I, I want, I sort of step back into step back into, but then also back a little bit to mangle the metaphor.

Um, you know, you reported on the high visibility politics in this area for a while. You know, even before you were formally on this beat, it kind of intersected your other beat in a lot of ways in terms of being a state political reporter, you know, I’m, I’m wondering how you see, you know, the longer arc of this issue as we go back to, you know, probably the, the first major emergence of the.

Uh, of related issues, uh, in 2017 with the so-called bathroom bill, which of course, you know, did not pass, was blocked in the house in 2017. I’m in pretty high visibility politics. I mean, How do you see that developing and, you know, um, you know, in simplest terms, I mean, did you expect it to come back after 2017?

I mean, you know, I know you were covering that issue, did you kind of think, okay. We’ve, you know, we’ve, we’ve, you know, this issue has been met and, and controversial, but B you know, sort of didn’t pass. Were you surprised when it came back or not? Um, I wasn’t, um, to take it even a step further back from, from the bathroom bills.

Um, you know, in 2015 was when the us Supreme court declared gay marriage legal, um, for everybody statewide and or nationwide, and Texas was one of those states that had not legalized it. And it was after that case that, um, you know, at least the political Watchers in the room said that conservative legal scholars.

Said. Okay. Well that, that fight is out the window and they turn their sights to transgender rights. Um, the first iteration was the bathroom bill issue, like you said, 2017 that didn’t pass because of mostly because of opposition from big business. Um, but the very next. Year, we saw more LGBT issues. We saw the emergence of the transgender athletes in public schools issue.

Um, which, you know, as we now know past last session, um, took a little bit longer, but it did pass. And now we’re seeing this focus on, um, health care access for trans minors. You know, I think there there’s always going to be a what’s next. Um, for, for individuals who are not happy with the fact that certain groups like LGBTQ people are, are getting more rights and, um, you know, the transgender issue, transgender rights before 2015, we’re not really at the forefront because there were still these other battles being fought.

So I’m not surprised that it’s still such a hot debate because. You know, trans folks don’t have the same rights as LGBT, as, as lesbian gay and bisexual people have, um, it federally or in the state. And I, you know, there’s, there’s not going this isn’t gonna be put to bed until that happens. And probably not after that either.

So I I’m really not surprised, but it all really kind of dates back to that 2015, uh, court case when, when it felt like the gay marriage debate was, was mostly settled and people were thinking. Well, interestingly enough, settled, not only in terms of the legal ruling of the Supreme court, but, you know, and I I’d leave it to Supreme court scholars to parse this more carefully, but, you know, we saw rapid movement in political in, in at least relatively speaking, in public opinion in the Polaroids deal on gay marriage.

Um, that also, you know, was moving in the direction, the courtroom. At the same, you know, who was doing what, and you know, how much tandem or who was out front there. I think one can parse in different ways. You know, your account of that raises a couple of things I wanted to talk about. I mean, you, you talked about business groups, which you also talked about, you know, you made a kind of general reference to piano.

People that were watching people that were engaged, said, well, we’ve lost the. You know, we now have to, you know, let’s move on to this issue on this front. Um, you know, where’s that energy coming from to keep this more in a risk, you know, this restrictive view of transgender rights on the table are there particularly.

Actors per se, and even more interesting to me, are there particular groups? So in other words, choose who continues to push this? I mean, one of the things that was interesting in terms of the bathroom bill is that, you know, even setting the business engagement aside, when we pulled on that, you know, we asked not only what is your position on this.

On this issue and on these proposals in the legislature, but how important do you think it is for the legislature to engage that? And I think that’s one of the things that was one of the more interesting results, because it underlined that even among Republicans, there was. Uh, Republican voters, there, wasn’t a huge amount of interest in pushing this issue forward.

So, you know, I think the question has to be where’s the synergy coming from, you know, within, you know, who are, you know, who are, who are the folks that are pushing this and how are they doing. Um, well, to, to, uh, give a nod to Patrick’s Vtech at the Tribune had a recent story that really looked at the politics of this issue and, you know, leaned on the fact that this did use to be more of a fringe.

Issue and the Republican party. Um, and it’s now taken, it’s become more of a litmus test issue just within, you know, a couple of years. Um, I think that there are multiple groups, national, uh, groups and state groups that are, you know, keeping this debate alive. In fact, there’s a group that, um, that packs and actually cited in his opinion about.

Access to care for trans minors called the society for evidence-based gender medicine, um, that the, he, he cited as, as a source for his opinions that has really, um, been out there as, uh, as a quote unquote health professional group, um, questioning this kind of care for transgender children and adolescents.

Um, and you know, we saw. Most notably in the, on the political side, in the primary campaign. So some of the more, uh, you know, far right conservative candidates in Texas, Don Huffines, uh, you know, a bit from Alan West, um, and Patrick, uh, or sorry, um, uh, Paxton, you know, reacting to the fact that he had multiple challenges, kind of trying to take a stand on this issue.

So I think it’s an amalgam of things. Um, but that’s a great question. I mean, I, that’s something I’m going to put on my question bank. Like what, what are the most groups on this? And who’s keeping it alive. Um, but as, as feedback wrote in his story, you know, it doesn’t look like it’s going to go anywhere.

Uh, anytime soon, it feels very alive. Very, you know, w we’re going to be talking about this for several months, right, right. By going anywhere, it’s not going away. It’s, it’s almost, I mean, it’s almost certainly headed towards the legislative agenda in 20, 23 based on where we are now. So, you know, you talked about the role of business groups and, and this kind of was also, I read this, uh, Patrick’s Exelon story that you referenced, you know, he portrays.

Business groups as more tentative, I think now than they were in the past. Does that make sense to you based on your reporting and what you’ve seen? Yeah, maybe not tentative, but definitely less outspoken. Um, the, there was, I mean, there were coalitions coming together against the bathroom bill in 2017, you know, they were taking out ads and newspapers.

IBM and apple and Facebook. Um, and while they have come out against, you know, more conservative legislation, like the voting rights bill and some of this other legislation in recent years, um, it’s been, it feels like it’s been less like. I have to admit. And, um, as Patrick writes, you know, the Republicans aren’t really going for it anymore.

They’re not really heating the concerns of big business. Like they did five years ago. So I can’t get into the mind of those executives, but I almost wonder if they’re saying well, does it even matter what we say anymore? If they’re not going to listen to American airlines and you know, these other huge companies.

Does it does it, does it matter for us to risk our political cap? What these guys on an issue that they’ve already made up their minds on? I mean, I think, you know, Patrick raises this and, and this has been kind of broadly, widely discussed after 2021, in which, you know, there’s a situation which I think, you know, business groups get engaged in this, you know, it’s often somewhat reluctant, I think, you know, particularly.

Business groups that have a lot of business before the legislature. Um, and there’s an institutional factor here or institutional political factor here is that, you know, Lieutenant governor obviously looms large on an issue. That’s very important to the Lieutenant. Governor, Lieutenant governor has effective control of the Senate as of right now.

And so if you’re a business group with a wide range of your usual regulatory and business concerns before the legislature. Uh, getting involved in what shareholders might or certainly, you know, I think lobby teams might see as, um, non-core issues, uh, uh, becomes difficult to do in the map of that is very hard, you know, it’s very hard and I think we have seen it shift for sure.

Yeah. And, and I think next session, 20, 23, that’s going to be the session where we see. Okay. Did they just set it up? Um, or do they go even harder than they did against the bathroom bills and take a stand and. Well, we’ll have to see what they do. Yeah. I mean, I think there’s a lot of things in play here. I think some of those business groups in, in 2017 were quietly encouraged.

I mean, actually they were directly encouraged by speaker Joe Straus at the time who, as I recall, gave a pretty high profile, a couple of very high profile speeches saying, you know, if you think that measures like this are bad for business in Texas, essentially, I need your help. We can’t do it without. Um, and I don’t think there’s a presence in the Republican party doing that right now.

Um, you know, uh, so, uh, it sounds to me, I mean, I wanted to ask you how strong you thought the cross-currents are in the, in, in the Republican party. We, before we came on, we were talking about some new national polling that just came out, that I should say. Was, uh, released to the 19th. Um, I haven’t had a chance to look at it and I don’t think you’ve been, had a chance to look at the nuts and bolts very quickly, but I think, you know, what we, what we’ve seen in our polling across time and doing it, the UT stuff that we’ve done, and we haven’t.

Pulled on these issues really since last fall. And I think he fairly pointed out things are moving very quickly early on. I felt like there were a lot of cross-currents and public opinion, um, among, you know, including if not, especially among Republicans. Um, as recently as October about a third of the Texans, didn’t really want to make any kind of approval judgment about.

Banning trans kids for limiting trans kids access to high school score and high school sports in public schools. Clearly Republican public opinion was leaning in the more prohibitive direction. Democrats were leaning in a more, you know, in a. In a direction that opposed that kind of legislation, but you could almost sense the, you didn’t have to sense it.

You could see there were large numbers of people that didn’t have an opinion or weren’t ready to express one hadn’t made up their mind, but it does feel like the partisan positions are hardening now. And we are going to see that, I think in the next session. Does that make sense? Oh, for sure. I mean, I think, um, once something becomes the subject of what feels like daily headlines, people are going to.

Develop more of a stance on it. And it’s been in the daily headlines for the better part of three weeks now in Texas. So I do feel like we’re seeing a lot of people make up their minds early on, on this issue. There’s a ton of misinformation out there. You know, like we talked about what gender affirming care actually is, who’s getting it.

Um, and you know, I think what is really fascinating to me, which I would love to see some polling done on. So hint, hint is, um, you know, Texas is a freedom loving state. I mean, that’s our, that’s our thing. Right? And so. What was interesting in the 19th, um, poll this national, this national poll that got released to the 19th is it seems like the way that the, the question was asked was should, um, should the government be involved in decisions about gender affirming care or should that decision be left to families and their doctors?

And I think, um, That is a big, uh, that that’s a big contention that I would see is pay, you know, parents, the parental rights angle of this versus the, you know, state’s interest in defining what child abuse is. Um, You know, we’ve seen in studies about, uh, like what you were talking about previously about the acceptance of gay rights of gay marriage that people’s views radically changed when they had someone who is gay in their lives.

That, you know, a kid came out to them, a friend, a coworker, and for many people, you know, the trans community is so small. They may not have ever met someone or, or not been aware that they met someone who is trans. So it’s not real for a lot of. But I’d be curious to see what people think of the, the concept of, of, you know, a caseworker coming into your house and saying, you don’t get to make that decision for your child.

We’re having those discussions about vaccines and all this other stuff, but for the, for trans health care, you know, the government is, is really getting involved and putting their hands on the issue. Well, I think we’ve seen this, you know, That frame is a very interesting one right now in a lot of different contexts, as you say, I mean, in healthcare, kind of across the board and it, I, I, you know, I think it speaks to a, either a shift or a shift in the attitudes about the role of government and these, that the kind of frames that you’re talking about, um, where the locus of decision-making could be and should be and where, but also how the.

Kind of abstract principle, how well people’s embrace of those abstract principles holds up in different contexts with other strong attitudes. I mean, we see that in other areas, like, you know, talking about state and local authority, et cetera, um, you know, people haven’t, you know, you know, as you, the way you kind of set that up is, you know, the freedom loving Texans, you know, Those principles are often a lot more, um, malleable if you, if you put them in different kinds of contexts.

So it’s an interesting, it’s an interesting way of framing the question. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I guess there are a lot of contradictions, there are a lot of contradictions, you know, in, in any really in any cultural or political discussion, but, um, we have, Josh was on the podcast. He’d be to be talking right now about just, you know, yes.

People, you know, we spend a lot of times trying to smooth over the contradictions in people’s, you know, in, in our own cognitive space. And we see that and we confront that a lot. When we look at polls, Yeah, for sure. Well, and that’s why I brought up the issue of having an LGBT person that directly interacts with someone, because that is the only thing that has, that has shown to, to change people’s views, at least in, you know, in previous discussions about gay rights and same-sex marriage.

Yeah. No, I think, I think that’s a really astute observation and it’s, it’s something I, I think we’ve wondered. In this context where just that the fact of that exposure and the size of the population that we’re talking about has a huge impact. And it’s kind of. You know, it’s something of a structural factor that the activists have to accommodate.

And I think frankly, that, you know, I would be surprised if the activists pushing this legislation have not baked this into their strategy already, you know, that, that they can count on people having limited experience and therefore not having a personal. Human impression of th th you know, that that shapes the position they take.

Um, and that they’re counting on that because of the lack of personal information creates. I think this, this space for the missing or personal experience creates all this space for misinformation and disinformation to be. More direct about it to seep in and shape their opinions, particularly if it’s reinforced because it’s coming from partisan.

Right. And you know, the largest, I just want to say the largest populations of minors who identify as trans live in three states, California, Texas spar for California, Texas, New York and Florida. Right. Big states. So not surprising. Right. But we’re still talking about less than one, fewer than 1% of the population.

Between the ages of 13 and 17. So it’s an incredibly small number of people. Yeah. And I think just, you know, in harsh political terms, that’s a, you know, that’s a problem. I mean, that’s a political. No, that’s not, and that’s obviously not a judgment, but it is just the fundamentals of the situation that really, you know, is makes, makes the arguments harder to make.

If people don’t have access to experience the help, you know, tap into, you know, one might think of as the better, you know, the better angels of their nature. Um, Lauren, thanks for being here and helping with this. This has been, I think incredibly it’s helpful to me. I think it’s informative to people hearing it.

Uh, I hope we can do this again in person, um, as, as things get more normal, but certainly I’d like to have you back, you know, sooner. Five years or whatever we decided that was. Cause I think you’re right. This issue is not, is going to move rapidly and it’s going to it’s it will remain, I think, in the, in a basket of issues that are Sally and at least certainly to political actors, um, in the state.

And we’ll, it’ll be back in the session. So we hope to have you back.

All right. Well, thanks. Thanks to Lauren for her work and for being here. Thanks to our excellent studio production team and the audio studio in the liberal arts development studio here at UT Austin. Thanks for listening. And remember, you can find, uh, some of the data we’ve referenced today and some supplement.

Lots more at the Texas politics project website at Texas politics dot U Texas thought EDU. And we’ll be back soon again with another second reading podcast.

Second reading podcast is a production of the Texas politics project at the university of Texas at Austin.