�鶹��ý����

The Supreme Court of the United States heard arguments in on Dec. 4, 2024. On Dec. 9, Mount Holyoke hosted a panel to discuss the details of the case, how the court may rule and what the future may hold for transgender and gender-diverse people in the U.S.

The panel featured �鶹��ý���� President Danielle R. Holley; alums Joan Erwin ’86, CEO of , and Melissa Stewart FP’19, a Tennessee-based attorney with Donati Law; Mount Holyoke student Liliana Stinson ’27 and , president of the Howard University Student Association. The panel was moderated by Amy E. Martin, director of the Weissman Center for Leadership, and Lily E. Rood ’27, co-chair of Mount Holyoke’s Presidential Task Force for the TGNC Community and project coordinator for .

Emily DeMartino, a primary care provider at the College, spoke ahead of the panel to remind the audience about Massachusetts protections for transgender and gender nonconforming people and the care available to Mount Holyoke students.

“We have that sets standards for insurance coverage and provides and protects prescribing,” DeMartino said. “Mount Holyoke student health insurance has strong coverage for medical transition, including a low deductible and many in-network providers for surgical care — and I anticipate that will continue to be the case. There’s no co-pay to come and see a provider at Health Services; our clinical expertise is available to all students at no charge.”

President Holley gave a brief overview of the case, noting how, in April 2023, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP sued the State of Tennessee to block its ban on medically necessary gender-affirming care for the state’s trans youth. The Supreme Court heard this case about a month after an election during which, according to The Washington Post, Republican campaigns “ on network ads that paint[ed] trans people as a menace to society.”

President Holley discussed the plaintiffs’ and appellant’s argument that prohibiting gender-affirming care for minors violates the Fourteenth Amendment and its provision that “No state can deny equal protection of the laws to anyone within its jurisdiction.”

“The conservative justices are claiming this doesn’t have to do with the regulation of health care specifically for transgender people [and is not] based on gender or sex, but they say that this is simply the regulation of medical care, which the state is allowed to do without any real constitutional supervision,” President Holley said. “And so, they are arguing for a ‘rational basis review,’ which would simply mean that Tennessee needs a rational basis for the passage of this law.”

The liberal justices, President Holley continued, were arguing that this case should be heard under “heightened scrutiny” rather than “rational basis.”

“Heightened scrutiny would mean that Tennessee would have to show that they are advancing an important government interest [and] that the government’s intrusion is there to further that interest,” she said. “Tennessee would need to show that they had a real reason for denying gender-affirming care and that it was necessary to limit gender-affirming care in order to meet the state’s interest.”

Erwin highlighted that changes limiting access to gender-affirming care have already taken place but maintained that there are glimmers of hope.

“We are already hearing from some of the insurance companies with whom we work that they will no longer be covering testosterone in their [plans],” they said. “In my opinion, that is, at best, anticipatory obedience and, at worst, the further dehumanization of trans people to save insurance companies.

“I do want to be clear that I do not see that all is lost at this point,” Erwin continued. “Time and time again, trans people have walked through the fire and come out on the other side. And I really believe that we will do so again here.”

Stewart also saw some glimmer of hope.

“It is unlikely that this particular case will be the vehicle by which trans healthcare, trans-affirming care or gender-affirming care for minors specifically is allowed to be outlawed,” she said. “Mainly because the Tennessee legislature is wildly incompetent and doesn’t know how to write good laws.

“We need to look to[wards] community and to[wards] organizing,” Stewart continued. “It is not a coincidence that 22 different states passed laws targeting not just queer people but the most vulnerable population among us, which is queer trans youth. Trans youth have less of a voice in this fight than anyone else. They have fewer legal rights. They only have so much agency. When legislators target vulnerable people, they don’t ever start at the center of society. They start at the fringes. They target the most vulnerable people, and that is trans youth. So we need to be the answer for trans kids because the courts are not going to be.”

Student Liliana Stinson ’27 discussed the media’s role in influencing public opinion on trans health and trans and gender-diverse people.

“The science supports this care, and it is neither risky nor experimental,” they said. “However, if you read The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Time magazine ... you might not know this. These publications often platform people who question the science. They exclude trans narratives, and they overrepresent people who have detransitioned.”

Jones criticized the framing of gender-affirming care in the political landscape.

“Gender-affirming care is more than just care that affirms our genders,” she said. “It is care that affirms our lives. We have watched representatives begin to pass bills that have limited the first woman of trans experience’s ability to use the bathroom in public official buildings.

“We have to begin having bigger conversations beyond this court case — [including how we can] reframe this conversation in a way that centers the people of trans experiences while also educating [society], and what it means to be a person of trans experience and why that is an affirming lifestyle."

The event was sponsored by the Weissman Center for Leadership, the Office of the President, the Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, the Division of Student Life, and the departments of Politics, Gender Studies, and Critical Race and Political Economy.