By Ann Rostow—
Bravo Boomer
I was surprised at how pleased I was when Congressman Seth Moulton lost the Democratic primary for Senate in Massachusetts. For one thing, I’m generally in favor of younger candidates. Incumbent Ed Markey, who effectively won another six-year term in office by beating the 47-year-old Moulton, is 80. We don’t need more octogenarians of either party in Congress, and Democrats, in particular, need youth and energy to take back the electorate from MAGA.
Moulton is a moderate, presumably open to bipartisan compromise, which is something that I once found useful in a lawmaker. That said, I’m less sure that common ground with GOP legislators is worthwhile at the moment—although they all did pass a housing bill earlier this year.
Those were two reasons I could have supported Moulton, but in a calculated move after the 2024 election, Moulton distanced himself from supporting transgender rights by telling The New York Times that he has two little girls and didn’t “want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete.” This seemed a staged attempt to personify political courage, and Moulton added: “As a Democrat, I’m supposed to be afraid to say that.”
In a follow-up essay for The Washington Post a few weeks later, Moulton doubled down, insisting that fellow Democrats have congratulated him behind the scenes and told him, “Thank you for saying that.” The comments were clearly meant to cause a stir and position Moulton as a brave Democrat willing to take on his party’s sacred cows. It worked for Bill Clinton, but not only was Moulton’s version contrived, it also betrayed his raw ambition. It was not a good look.
While Democrats can’t let themselves be drawn into the catch-22 of turning the midterms into yet another set of culture wars, it is quite possible to focus on, let’s say, the cost of living, without attacking transgender girls. Moulton’s daughters are in no danger of being “run over on the playing field” by trans girls, let alone by “males,” who have never been allowed to play organized sports on female teams. His gratuitous attack on a handful of kids across the country was a self-serving publicity stunt, and it was satisfying to see him pay for it with defeat.
It was even more satisfying because Ed Markey didn’t just sidestep the many aspects of transgender rights in his campaign; he championed them. Yes, he was running in Massachusetts, but still. Transgender rights, said Markey, “have become a defining issue in this race because Massachusetts voters believe it’s disqualifying if you don’t stand up for human rights everywhere and all the time.” That does not just apply to Massachusetts voters, we hope.
What’s Happening Here?
In late August, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a one-line ruling that maintained a block against Trump’s attempt to get transgender health records from New York hospitals, so that’s good. And it came with no dissenting comment, compliments of two Trump appointees and a Biden judge.
I know, I know. In our last column, we wrote about a 2–1 decision against our side out of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where the majority ruled that Trump and company could proceed with such subpoenas without violating health privacy laws. I am struggling to coordinate my coverage of these lawsuits, particularly the motions for injunctions and their trajectories up the court ladders. At a loss, I asked the Google AI bot what was going on and was told that “multiple federal lawsuits and legal challenges have been filed across the United States to block the Department of Justice from seizing private medical records of transgender youth.” And “at least seven federal judges have partially or entirely blocked or quashed DOJ subpoenas directed at hospitals and healthcare providers seeking sensitive patient data, resulting in multiple coordinated legal actions by families and civil rights groups.”
The bot didn’t mention the Ninth Circuit ruling from earlier last month, but I didn’t ask it for further information. Oh, actually I did. I asked for “recent rulings,” and it told me to ask the American Civil Liberties Union. Now I’m torn between spending the next hour or so trying to reestablish a coherent picture of where we stand, and just telling you about the Second Circuit’s ruling and pledging “more to come.”
More to come.
Drag Shows Back in Texas
I’ve resisted help from our new AI friends because I don’t really trust them. As for using AI to write, the problem is that the act of writing itself inspires thoughts and ideas; ergo, using a substitute writer would undermine the entire mission of capturing the soul of our community’s current place in politics and society. Plus, it’s fun to write, and although I’m on a deadline and constantly looking to procrastinate, I’m not a college student trying to bang out an essay.
With those caveats in mind, it was an AI bot that told me a federal judge had just declared that the ban on drag shows in Texas was unconstitutional. I hesitated to believe this, given that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled it was just fine and dandy a few months back. The notoriously conservative Fifth Circuit sent the case back to the lower court for reevaluation given its decision, and lo and behold, the lower court determined that the law could not survive constitutional review.
I guess I had not looked closely at that Fifth Circuit opinion, which actually said that the constitutional issues had not been examined properly. As such, the appellate panel didn’t give the anti-drag law a green light, but a yellow one. I should have anticipated that the lower court could give us a win rather than assume the Fifth Circuit would prevail. Now, I assume the constitutional aspect of the decision will go back up the ladder, and if I pay attention, I’ll know what’s going on the next time this law rears its ugly head.
Trump Asks SCOTUS to Skip to the Chase
Meanwhile, while we’re on the subject of complicated litigation, the Justice Department has asked the Supreme Court to allow Hegseth and company to expel the 29 transgender troops who are suing for the right to serve in the DC-based Talbott case. The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled in June that a lower court injunction protecting the plaintiffs would stay in place. Subsequently, the lower court granted class action status in the case to all actively serving transgender military personnel, roughly 4,200 troops.
Now, even though Talbott is scheduled for a January trial, the Trump administration has asked the justices to step in early and decide this question: “Whether a Department of Defense policy that generally disqualifies from military service individuals who have gender dysphoria, a history of the condition, or a history of related interventions—issued by Secretary of Defense Hegseth in implementing Executive Order No. 14,183—violates the equal-protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.”
You may recall that last May, the High Court used its shadow docket to give the go-ahead for Hegseth to dismiss transgender service members when it lifted an injunction in Shilling v. U.S., the other big military case out of Washington state. The Shilling case is awaiting a decision on the merits out of the Ninth Circuit, and meanwhile, the administration continues to oust trans men and women from the armed forces.
What will the Court do? Will it wait for the Ninth Circuit? Will it wait for the Talbott trial? Will it accept the petition for the session starting in October? Will it combine the cases somehow? Will it rewrite the question? Will it duck the whole thing and leave the petition on its conference agenda for weeks on end?
What was our catchphrase? More to come.
Random Thoughts
What was Hunter Biden talking about the other day when he said he was “48 percent gay”? I guess it was a joke of some sort on the Luke Beasley Show. I haven’t really followed Hunter lately. He’s a bit of a nut. But he did make me think about whether or not there’s a difference between being “bisexual” and being “48 percent gay.” I think there could be. Being “gay” is a thing. I can imagine, in theory, being half gay and half heterosexual. And it would feel different from being bisexual. I think of myself, for example, as being “gay” rather than “lesbian.” I’m not sure why; perhaps it’s a generational habit. But I like the word “gay” and feel as if it suits me.
Now I’m reminded of the big hoopla over the word “queer” earlier this year after conservative gay thinker Matthew Vines wrote an op-ed decrying the Q word in The New York Times. “Queer,” said Vines, was adversarial and reflected a divisive shift in the LGBT movement from those who wanted to be part of society to those who wanted to revolutionize it; or it was something like that. I think the majority of people thought that everyone should use whatever words they like and stop pontificating in the Times.
So what else is new, you ask? I don’t feel like talking about Trump, nor am I in the mood for horrible stories out of Eastern Europe or people shooting each other. I’ve been seeing headlines about this woman who murdered her children, and I gather she’s on trial and the jury can’t decide what to do with her. I learned all of this through headlines alone. It’s too horrible to delve into the actual accounts, so I wonder what’s stopping the jury from sending her to prison, and yet I can’t bring myself to find out.
My two main online vices at present are stories about Harry and Meghan (whom I’ve come to dislike) and the decline and fall of LIV Golf, a Saudi Arabian golf operation that relied on greedy pro golfers to give up their PGA Tour membership in exchange for tons of cash. Now the LIV tour is going bankrupt, and the PGA Tour won’t let the money-grubbers back unless they sit for a year and pay to return. Cry me a river, LIV golfers!
Oh, and I ate five big bites of leftover cheese pasta that my wife just told me had mold on it. I didn’t see any mold. But I did stop eating it. Moving along, let me find one last LGBT story to end our fortnight recap.
Toil and Trouble
It’s been a while since we checked in on our pals at One Million Moms and their many complaints about Life in These United States. Apparently, the TV Land network, which has hitherto escaped our notice, has been airing PrEP Wisdom ads—public service announcements about HIV prevention—and the Moms are mad.
“These particular commercials are airing earlier and earlier in the day, as early as 4 pm, to be exact. In some areas, when this type of commercial airs early in the evening, family viewing time is ruined,” they protest.
“Can you imagine what goes through the mind of a child, tween, or teen when seeing this ad? A parent never expects to discuss sexuality or homosexuality while sitting at home enjoying family time.
“TV Land needs to know it is not acceptable to air mature ads when children are likely watching,” the Moms continue. “Also, the timing of these advertisements is extremely poor, airing during G-rated family-friendly shows such as The Andy Griffith Show.”
Who exactly is enjoying “family time” by watching mid-century TV shows in the middle of the afternoon? Why aren’t the kids in school? And why would you start discussing sexuality because of these ads, which show happy people at parties and shopping?
The Moms are also bent out of shape by a Disney show called Agatha All Along (or Coven), which features supernatural characters. “The Bible tells us clearly in Isaiah 8:19–22 that there is a spiritual realm that is not of God. It warns us not to take part in witchcraft or consult with mediums but to call on God. Deuteronomy 18:10–11 also warns us to avoid witchcraft in all forms.”
Oops. Sorry, Mom.
GLBT Fortnight in Review
Published on September 10, 2026
Recent Comments