Another Victory in the Fight for Fairness for Our Families

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I’d like to draw your attention to a great ruling issued last Friday by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) in our case A.E.H v. M.R.

This case was yet another example of a bad breakup between a same-sex couple where one of the estranged spouses attempted to rewrite their family history in order deprive our client of a relationship with one of her two daughters. Those of you familiar with this blog might know I have strong feelings about people who try to wield our country’s woefully inconsistent – or nonexistent, in many places – state laws governing the recognition of LGBT familial relationships for their own gain in custody disputes. Fortunately, at least here in Massachusetts, such behavior is increasingly becoming legally out of bounds.

GLAD represented A.E.H., who entered into a registered domestic partnership (RDP) in California with M.R. in 2003. The couple agreed to conceive and co-parent children together, and they later moved from California to the east coast when M.R. was pregnant with their eldest child, J. J. was born while the couple lived in Massachusetts, and M.R. and A.E.H. were equal co-parents, acting as a family in every way. The couple decided to expand their family, and A.E.H. became pregnant with their second child, M. During A.E.H.’s pregnancy, M.R. took J. to Oregon under false pretenses and severed all contact between J. and our client.

California RDPs offer all of the benefits, protections and obligations of marriage in that state. That means that both parties in an RDP are the legal parents to any children born into that relationship. Despite that reality, M.R attempted to make the case that our client was not a legal parent to J. because their RDP is not equivalent to marriage in Massachusetts. The Massachusetts Probate and Family Court, however, appropriately recognized both women as legal parents to the children.

The trial judge then determined that awarding physical custody of both children to A.E.H. was in the children’s best interest, citing M.R.’s disruption of the strong emotional bond A.E.H. had formed with J. over the course of parenting her from birth until she was 15 months old, at which point M.R. took off out of state with J. The trial judge also noted that M.R. engaged in a pattern of behavior that attempted to alienate J. from A.E.H., such as prohibiting contact between the two until court-ordered to do so, telling J. that A.E.H. was not her parent, but rather a friend; and asking the court to order that A.E.H. not refer to herself as “mommy” during web chats with her daughter. The Probate and Family Court also found that A.E.H. provided more stability to J. than M., noting that when M.R. moved out of state with J., the child lived in four different homes in less than a year and had “no less than five different care providers.”

M.R. appealed the ruling to the SJC and continued to argue that Massachusetts should not recognize their California domestic partnership, and as such she should retain sole custody of the older child she birthed and have no parental responsibility for the younger child that A.E.H. birthed.

Well, not quite. In a unanimous decision, the SJC declared that the Probate and Family Court did not err when it determined that a California RDP was the equivalent to marriage in Massachusetts and that both our client and M.R. were the legal parents to both J. and M. under California and Massachusetts law. “Because the parties to California RDPs have rights and responsibilities identical to those of marriage,” the Court stated, it is proper to treat “the parties’ RDP as equivalent to marriage in the Commonwealth.” (In doing so, the SJC referenced another recent case of ours, Elia-Warnken v. Elia, in which the Court ruled that Massachusetts must recognize civil unions as equivalent to marriage.)

If you’re familiar with my other posts on these types of cases, you know how this one’s going to end: with my plug for the publication Protecting Families: Standards for LGBT Families , a collaborative effort between national and local LGBT organizations spearheaded by GLAD. The standards are a set of 10 guidelines that aim to remind LGBT people how important it is to legally protect the families they create and to caution parents against wielding anti-LGBT laws and other legal loopholes against their partner should their relationship break up. Until our families are uniformly recognized, respected and protected in every state in our country, sometimes the best we can do is to urge our community to fight fair. We know breaking up is hard to do (that’s the title of Standard #6, as a matter of fact). For the sake of the children involved, it should at least be fair, and reflect the reality of our lives and our relationships.

Oh and one last thing – shout outs to former GLAD Senior Attorney Karen Loewy, who expertly argued this case before the SJC back in May, and Polly Crozier of Kauffman Crozier LLP, who tried the case and served as co-counsel on appeal. Congratulations on an important victory!

Kickin' It Old School -- and New School -- in DC

A must-read post from my colleague Maryse Pearce (who is the third person to the right of the Vice President in the photo below) who attended a BBQ for emerging LGBT leaders hosted by Vice President Joe Biden and his wife Dr. Jill Biden in DC last week. Maryse has a great eye for detail.

My day in DC began with an LGBT policy roundtable. The 150 other “emerging LGBT leaders” and I were welcomed by Gautam Raghavan, Associate Director of the White House’s Office of Public Engagement, and John Berry, Director of the US Office of Personnel Management and the highest ranking openly gay person in Obama’s administration. Berry thanked us all for the work we had done for LGBT people, and said he wouldn’t be surprised if a future president was sitting in the room. “And I’m sure he or she—“

“Or they!” someone called out.

“—will be great,” Berry finished. We are leaders of the new school, indeed.

The morning’s roundtable consisted of 3 panels: “LGBT Rights Are Human Rights” (title taken from Secretary of State Clinton’s speech last November), which talked about the US role promoting LGBT rights abroad; a legal update; and a discussion of health and safety issues for LGBTQ youth.

One of my favorite moments of the day, though, came not from the official panel, but from another attendee. In between panels, 10 minutes were set aside so that the attendees could stand up and give an “elevator pitch” about what they were working on, and ask for help or advice if they needed it. I stood up to say that if people were interested in following DOMA’s downfall, they should follow GLAD’s facebook and twitter updates. A few minutes later, someone from Montana stood up to ask for advice on rural organizing.

“And I just want to say, I’m so happy single-A GLAD is here,” he said. “We use your ‘Everyone Matters’ [transgender rights] video, and it’s really helped.”

That completely made my day. In Public Affairs, we create and distribute educational materials all the time, and it’s amazing to get feedback and thanks, especially from someone from the other side of the country.

In the afternoon, we had time to ourselves. I visited a friend who works at the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund and Institute, learned a little about their upcoming events, and toured their office.

Next, I went to a Senate Hearing on Hate Crimes and Domestic Extremism, at the invitation of Ben de Guzman from the National Queer Asian Pacific Islander Alliance. The focus of the hearing was Muslim and Sikh Americans, who have increasingly been the target of domestic terrorism. Politicians and law professors from both sides of the aisle argued about the benefits and limitations of hate crime laws, but the most moving testimony was from a young man whose mother was murdered while worshipping at a gurdwara in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. 

Finally, it was time for the main event: the LGBTQ BBQ at the VP’s house. 30 minutes and 3 security checkpoints later, my colleague Allison Wright and I made it through Biden’s Naval Observatory compound, and into the backyard of his huge house. It was lucky I got in late: I was standing by the entrance when someone official asked me to move aside; Biden was about to enter. Naturally, I did not move over, and a moment later, Joe and Dr. Jill B walked by me!

The Vice President and his wife were introduced by a West Point graduate, who thanked their administration for all they’ve done for LGBT people, including ending Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, which was repealed exactly a year ago. Dr. and Vice President Biden both spoke about how they have always known and supported LGBT people, and how they see full LGBT equality as the inevitable next step in US civil rights – echoing Michelle Obama’s DNC remarks. “Don’t thank me,” Biden said, getting choked up. “I should be thanking you for all you’ve done, and all the courage you’ve shown.”

When he was done speaking, Biden simply stepped away from the podium. After a moment of hesitation, the crowd surged around him, shaking his hand and taking pictures. I was one person away from Biden when his handlers intervened and asked us to form a line for pictures. The woman who was in the middle of asking him for a picture, a West Point lesbian in a navy blazer, got the Biden treatment: he put one hand on her shoulder and touched her cheek with the other hand, saying, “I’ll follow you. You look like you know what’s going on!”

I took a group picture with the Vice President and several other of the emerging leaders. After the picture was snapped, Biden shook everyone’s hand and asked them where they were from. When it was my turn, I ignored his hand and went in for a hug, which he returned tightly. And then I was moved along, so the next group could have their picture taken.

If you can believe it, the night got better from there. While on my way to get food, I did a double take: Mara Keisling, founding executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, was standing by the pool! She saw me staring at her, and paused her conversation to say hello to me.

“You’ve been one of my heroes for years!” I said after I introduced myself.

“Oh, that’s terrible,” she chided. We spoke for a few minutes, the conversation peppered with Mara’s self-deprecating humor. On my way to get a glass of wine later, I walked by another woman I deeply admire: Janet Mock. I told her how honored I was to meet her, and how excited I was to hear her speak at the Hispanic Black Gay Coalition’s Boston Youth Empowerment Conference in October.

I spent the rest of the night talking with other emerging leaders: someone who fights for trans-inclusive shelters for victims of domestic violence; someone who leads workshops on transgender issues for the DC police; someone who does HIV education in North Carolina; someone from St Louis who mixes politics into her art. I wanted to talk about GLAD’s work (which I did, of course), but everyone had such amazing stories and was doing such incredible things, I could have been content to just listen all night.

At 8:30, I got into a cab with the artist from St Louis, headed back to the center of DC. A man who also needed to go to Union Station hopped into the front seat. After he introduced himself, I realized that “Kevin” was Kevin Cathcart, executive director of Lambda Legal, and former ED of GLAD. We chatted about GLAD lawyers and our respective DOMA cases, and when we got to Union Station, he generously paid for the cab, saying it was his treat as we were in “Lambda territory.”

In short, it was an amazing day spent with both luminaries in the fight for full LGBT equality, and the new school of leaders.

Looking for a Survival Manual: Reflections on National Gay Men's HIV/AIDS Awareness Day

This post was penned by Tabias, one of our fabulous interns, to mark today's National Gay Men's Awareness Day.

I was just told by a co-worker that today is National Gay Men’s HIV/AIDS Awareness Day. I wasn’t previously aware there was such a day, but after a cursory Google search, it seems that every advocacy and legal organization concerned with HIV/AIDS and the plight of those at risk of seroconverting is quite aware of today’s importance. Dr. Kevin Fenton, director the CDC’s National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and Tuberculosis Prevention, released a statement reminding us that “nearly 350,000 gay and bisexual men with AIDS have died, and more than 8,000 still die each year.”

But after taking some time to reflect before writing this post, I realized that my first thoughts were not of those who have died, rather they were of those who are surviving either HIV or AIDS. We hear little about this small, resilient, invisible community. The norm today is to communicate clearly, effectively and quite loudly about the dangers of HIV and the costs of seroconversion. Unlike the story told in the documentary How to Survive a Plague, which chronicles the fearlessness of groups like ACT UP in confronting government apathy in the early days of the epidemic, today’s narrative surrounding HIV is much more about how to spot a plague and run, run, as fast as one can. I cannot help but think about how this narrative failed me just two short years ago.

I suppose I don’t fit the stereotype of an individual at risk for seroconversion (the transmission of HIV). I was a sophomore at a prestigious, private university. I was a prominent student on campus and held more leadership positions than one student probably should. I had the president of the university’s cell phone number and used it when necessary. My GPA was nothing to sneeze at. I was very out and open about my sexuality, as well as its beautiful and complicated intersections with my race and class backgrounds. Being a former sex-ed counselor, I was quite educated about HIV. But just halfway through my sophomore year I would contract HIV from a well-groomed, upper-middle class white male who was similarly educated and well mannered. We followed the rules. We were monogamous. We used protection. The condom broke. I became positive.

The day that I was notified that I could possibly be positive, I simply took a deep breath and went for a long run. I knew that there was nothing that I could do but take one step at a time. Perhaps if I was lucky, I could live a few more years. My mind slowly began to race about the costs of medication. Who would pay for it? I was already uninsured. How would I tell my mother? She was just beginning to cope with my sexuality, and that had taken nearly five years. What about friends? Would they be able to separate my sexuality from my diagnosis? Would they support my decision to battle it openly, publicly, without stigma or shame?

I returned home to my dorm and had a shot of brandy, and frantically scoured the internet for some alternative story – a story with a happy ending, about someone beating HIV, someone surviving and thriving with passion, compassion and style. Fortunately, I found Brandy Lacy Campos, the former co-director of Queers for Economic Justice. I reached out to him and found love, support, direction and a model for survival.

The men that I know today, especially those of us who are seen as most at risk (Black/Latino/Native, young, MSM), are not aware of these national HIV /AIDS awareness days. We are very rarely part of the national conversation, unless we are a part of a death-centered, downtrodden narrative. As members of a community accustomed to survival, triumph and overcoming, these messages, though they may be about us, are simply not written for or to us. It is my hope that next year on this day, there will be a concerted effort to really speak to those who are most at risk. This message will encompass relevant data, cultural competence and a sense of love and compassion. The messengers will know that Black/Latino MSM are less promiscuous than our racial counterparts, but simply encounter a higher prevalence of HIV in our sexual networks. This message will center on stories of survival, overcoming and carrying on. This message will not simply be about us, but for us and most often by us. This message will not be a simple PSA, but instead a Survivor’s Manual.

Plain and Simple: Making the Case for Fair Treatment of Trans Students

by Laura Kiritsy, Manager of Public Education

GLAD has litigated two cases in Bangor, Maine. The first was Bragdon v. Abbott, in which Senior Attorney Ben Klein represented a woman with HIV who was denied treatment by a dentist who had a written policy of refusing to treat anybody with HIV. Ben argued that case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where he won a landmark victory in 1998 that established anti-discrimination protections for people with HIV under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Fourteen years later, Ben and I drove the 440-mile round trip in his 2001 Honda Civic DX (with manual locks and windows) back and forth to Bangor so he could argue another important case, Doe v. Clenchy. GLAD is representing Susan Doe (a pseudonym), a transgender girl who had her education disrupted when the public school she attended did an “about face” by excluding her from the girls’ bathroom after a male student repeatedly harassed her. 

The hearing took place on Wednesday in Penobscot County Superior Court in downtown Bangor before Judge William R. Anderson. The day before his court appearance, Ben followed his standard argument preparation on our drive to Northern Maine. First, he lowered the volume of the Glee soundtrack and treated me to a preview of his argument on the drive up. It was nearly flawless, although I didn’t interrupt with umpteen questions, as judges often do. Then, after a sumptuous dinner at the local Longhorn Steakhouse, Ben retreated to his hotel room for a final review of his notes and a session of yoga and meditation. Meanwhile, I retreated to my room to eat a Snicker’s bar and watch a Civil War documentary.

At counsel table along with Ben were Jennifer Levi, the director of our Transgender Rights Project; John Gause, counsel for the Maine Human Rights Commission, which is also a party to the case, and Jodi Nofsinger, a Maine attorney who is also part of our litigation team. Susan, who is now a sophomore in high school, was seated close behind them, along with her very supportive mother and father.

To give some context for this case, Maine has a statewide law prohibiting discrimination against people based on gender identity and expression in all areas, including public education and public accommodations, plain and simple. To defend against what otherwise seems to be a cut and dry case of discrimination, the school has pointed to a Maine Human Rights Commission regulation that permits schools to have separate restrooms for boys and girls, a regulation the school interprets to mean it can ignore a student’s gender identity in that one instance.

Ben countered that the Commission’s regulation cannot override the state’s non-discrimination law, making his arguments quite thoroughly and forcefully, despite the anticipated barrage of questions from the judge. He made the case that the plain language of Maine’s non-discrimination law prohibits the school from denying a girl access to facilities that other girls use simply because she’s transgender. Lastly, he argued that the school violated the law because not only did it exclude Susan from the girls’ bathroom thereby treating her differently than all other girls, it forced her to use a separate facility thereby treating her differently than all other students. 

Ben was satisfied that the arguments “went as well as they could have,” as the judge really seemed to be wrestling with the issues presented in the case. That’s a common experience; our litigation frequently raises new and novel legal issues that judges are often encountering for the first time. Indeed, just as Judge Anderson is wrestling with the rights of transgender people, the judge in the Bragdon case wrestled with the issue of proper access to care for people living with HIV/ AIDS 14 years earlier. Now, it’s simply a no-brainer that people can’t be discriminated against in any setting because of their HIV/AIDS status. We’re working toward the day when treating transgender people equally and respectfully is also a no-brainer.

As with so many of our cases, we understand that the argument before Judge Anderson is just the first step in a long process that may potentially lead to a full trial, and ultimately a decision from the Maine Law Court, the state’s highest court. So now, we await a ruling.

Stay tuned.

DOMA Lawyer Airs the Issues Online

When they’re not busy writing and filing briefs and other petitions related to either of our two DOMA lawsuits – and there seem to be many filings lately, as the cases inch toward resolution – our DOMA legal team tries to find time to do public education about this discriminatory law’s effect on married same-sex couples.

Today, GLAD Senior Staff Attorney Vickie Henry has a guest post up at Peter Reilly’s Passive Activities blog over at Forbes.com. The post discusses what steps seniors in same-sex marriages can take now to preserve their rights regarding Social Security so that when DOMA is finally tossed out – either in the courts or by Congress – they’ll be better able to access the fullest array possible of benefits. As Vickie writes in her post, “It’s not too soon to start planning for the day of DOMA’s undoing.”

In the meantime, we’re working hard to overturn DOMA as soon as possible, and crossing our fingers that the U.S. Supreme Court will accept the petitions for review in our Gill lawsuit. Will this case be heard in the Court’s 2012-2013 session? Stay tuned.

When you’re done with Vickie’s Social Security post, peruse Peter’s blog and check out his older posts on DOMA and other LGBT issues. With its emphasis on tax issues and other financial topics – Peter is a CPA and a Massachusetts resident -- Passive Activities usually has a unique angle on the issues we’re litigating, so you’ll always learn something new.

My favorite is the post in which he compared GLAD to the iconic fictional attorney Perry Mason.

A Decision Worth Waiting For

Mary Bonauto, the lead lawyer in our DOMA litigation, summed up Tuesday’s victorious decision in Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management best during our post-decision tele-press conference. “I have to say,” she told reporters, “it was worth the wait on this one.”

Worth the wait, indeed. Though we’ve been anxiously awaiting a ruling in Pedersen, the second challenge to DOMA Section 3 that we filed in 2010, for about five months now, we could not have hoped for a better outcome. “The decision today from Judge Vanessa Bryant, I have to tell you, is outstanding,” said Mary. First, she noted, it is outstanding for the way Judge Bryant asserted that classifications based on sexual orientation should receive heightened scrutiny (which effectively means that those who support DOMA have a higher burden to prove the law isn’t discriminatory). Second, Mary praised Judge Bryant’s decision for being an extremely detailed analysis of why arguments made by the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), the congressional leadership body that is defending DOMA in court, don’t pass legal muster. Judge Bryant pretty much eviscerates every anti-LGBT talking point, from the old “gays are bad parents” standby to the more recent “gays are so politically powerful they don’t need protections from the court.”

But for those of you who perhaps don’t have time to read all 103 pages of Judge Bryant’s takedown of DOMA – although I highly recommend you do – we’ve pulled out some choice quotes that will give you a sense of just how powerful her ruling was. Maybe they’ll make you want to read the whole thing, or maybe it’ll give you just enough information to impress people over cocktails this weekend (because we know you love to talk about DOMA all the time).

Highlights from Pedersen Decision 7/31

•  “Notions of what constitutes equal treatment for purposes of the Equal Protection Clause do change.” (35)
•   “Broad-based repressive discrimination [of gay people] has existed at all levels of government.” (41)
•   “In sum, the evidence in the record detailing the long history of anti-gay discrimination which evolved from conduct-based proscriptions to status or identity-based proscriptions perpetrated by federal, state and local governments as well as private parties amply demonstrates that homosexuals have suffered a long history of invidious discrimination.” (43)
•  “Gay men and lesbians are legally discriminated against in a variety of ways.” (64)
•  “The evidence offered by BLAG in support of this trend, establishes that homosexuals are not totally devoid of political power, however it does not establish that gay men and lesbians have sufficient political power to bring a prompt end to the prejudice and discrimination perpetrated against them through traditional political means.” (68)
•   “Even considering that President Obama has nominated four openly-gay judges and one judge has since been confirmed, gay men and lesbians are still grossly underrepresented in the federal judiciary.” (69)
• “Having considered all four factors, this Court finds that homosexuals display all the traditional indicia of suspectness and therefore statutory classifications based on sexual orientation are entitled to a heightened form of judicial scrutiny.” However, the court need not apply a form of heightened scrutiny in the instant case to conclude that DOMA violates the promise of the equal protection as it is clear that DOMA fails to pass constitutional muster under even the most deferential level of scrutiny.” (76)
•   “In this Court’s opinion, homosexuals warrant judicial recognition as a suspect classification.” (76)
•   “The Court finds that no rational relationship exists between the denial of federal marital benefits to same-sex married couples and the objective of discouraging extra-marital procreation.” (82)
•    “Section 3 of DOMA is inimical to its stated purpose of protecting children.” (85)
•    “DOMA, having no impact on the rights afforded to same-sex couples by a variety of states to adopt and rear children, inflicts significant and undeniable harm upon such couples and their children by depriving them of a host of federal marital benefits and protections.” (86)
•   “It is irrational to strive to incentivize the rearing of children within the marital context by affording benefits to one class of marital unions in which children may be reared while denying the very same benefits to another class of marriages in which children may also be reared.” (87)
•   “Section 3 of DOMA disincentivizes heterosexual marriage by relieving homosexual couples of legal obligations imposed on heterosexual couples.” (87-88)
•     “Section 3 of DOMA impacts over a thousand federal statutes and regulations, many of which are entirely unrelated to the notion of rearing children.” (90)
• “Contrary to BLAG’s assertion, there is no universal position shared amongst Judeo-Christian faiths regarding the morality of same-sex marriage.” (93)
•   “DOMA can be seen to frustrate the utility and promise of federalism and the democratic process more generally.” (99)
•   “Section 3 of DOMA obligates the federal government to single out a certain category of marriages as excluded from federal recognition, thereby resulting in an inconsistent distribution of federal marital benefits as all marriages authorized by certain states will receive federal recognition and marriage benefits, whereas only a portion of marriages authorized by other states will receive federal recognition and benefits.” (103)
• “A law which frustrates the very goal it purports to achieve cannot be said to be supported by a rational basis.” (103)

Into the Woods: Providing a Different Kind of Counsel at Camp for Transgender and Gender Variant Youth

by GLAD Transgender Rights Project Director Jennifer L. Levi,
pictured here with her summer camp bunkmates in 1975

The last time I went to summer camp was nearly 35 years ago. Beginning when I was seven and continuing into my early adolescence, I spent between four and eight weeks each summer at overnight camp. The experience of being among peers and away from home was formative and life-changing, as it is for thousands, probably millions, of children throughout the world. I’ll never forget those long summer afternoons surrounded by friends playing kickball for hours followed by dinner (grilled cheese and tomato soup washed down with a tall cup of bug juice), a night game of capture the flag, then milk squad, and staying up late ignoring the counselors’ warnings to “get to sleep.”
 

But for most gender variant, transgender, and gender questioning youth, sharing carefree days of swimming, s’mores and rustic bunkhouses away from home with a bunch of other kids just isn’t an option. The reality is that most summer camps are ill-equipped to support and affirm these young people.

Increasingly, though, several camps have been cropping up across the country where all young people are invited, celebrated, and supported, regardless of their variant gender identity or gender expression.

So, this summer, after so many years of being away I am going to summer camp, thanks to the great folks at Trans Youth Equality Foundation (TYEF), who invited me to their Summer Retreat in the Maine Woods. TYEF’s camp aims to help gender variant and transgender youth develop confidence, self-reliance, and learn a sense of stewardship for the outdoors. I’m packing up my bug repellant and sunscreen, shaking out my sleeping bag and brushing up on the best campfire songs. It will be a unique experience that I’m excited to share with my partner and our daughter, both of whom are joining me on this adventure.

TYEF does important work providing education, advocacy and support for transgender and gender variant children and youth and their families. In addition to running annual summer and fall retreats, they also host parent support groups, youth social groups, educational workshops for schools, businesses and other professionals, and give individual support to transgender and gender variant youth and the people who love them. So while I’m at camp I’ll be doing some workshops to help transgender and gender variant youth and their families better understand their rights and vulnerabilities under the law.

I’ll also be doing double duty as a camp counselor joining in the fun and, hopefully, providing just the right amount of adult supervision along the way. I’m hoping the weekend won’t be filled with karmic payback for the times I played slightly fast and loose with the camp rules. I’m not the best sleeper either, and I hope our bunks are comfortable.

I suspect, however, the chance to see transgender and gender variant young people experience the joys of summer camp without regard to their transgender identity will be more invigorating than exhausting. I love the idea that being at a camp that supports these young people allows them to ignore the identity that brings them there in the first place. They can be exactly who they are: kids.

TYEF’s camp – and others like it – are critical right now, given the dearth of safe and affirming spaces for transgender and gender variant youth. It’s a model of a healthy, supportive environment for our community’s young people that traditional summer camps can look to, so that one day our kids can pick whether to go to transgender-specific camps or general ones and, regardless of which they choose, be celebrated and affirmed for all of who they are.