➤ ANTI-TRANS LAWS, from p.6
ment surgery for those under 18,
then I suspect the outcome would
have been different.”
Since the World Professional Association
for Transgender Heath
(WPATH) standards of care provide
that such surgery should not
be performed before age 18, such a
law would have been quite unnecessary,
as the medical profession
and most courts have accepted the
WPATH standards as the authoritative
guidelines for providing gender
affi rming care for transgender
people.
The non-surgical treatments
prohibited by the Arkansas statute
that are actually provided to
minors under 18 are reversible in
their effects, but Republican proponents
of the measure in the legislature,
as well as lead defendant
Leslie Rutledge, the state’s Attorney
General, have argued that
the measure was necessary to
limit “permanent, life-altering sex
changes to adolescents.”
The state had argued that the
measure fell within the traditional
authority of the government to
regulate the practice of medicine
and was directed at the procedures
involved, not specifi cally at
transgender minors. On its face,
they argued, the statute did not
single out transgender minors, but
prohibited the procedures for all
minors, regardless of their gender
identity.
The AP report of the hearing said
that the judge “appeared skeptical
of the state’s argument that the ban
was targeting the procedure, not
transgender people. For example,
he questioned why a minor born
as a male should be allowed to receive
testosterone but not one who
was born female.” Testosterone is
sometimes administered to cisgender
boys who suffer from hormone
defi ciencies delaying their development
of secondary sex characteristics
in puberty.
“How do you justify giving that
to one sex but not the other and
not call that sex discrimination?”
asked the judge.
The court received amicus briefs
from a long list of professional
medical associations supporting
the plaintiffs, as well as the Arkansas
State Chamber of Commerce
and the Walton Family Foundation.
The Biden administration
also fi led a Statement of Interest
supporting the plaintiffs. On the
other side, amicus briefs from 17
Republican state attorneys general
asked the court to allow the law to
go into effect. Similar bills are under
consideration or have passed
in several of their states.
Attorney General Rutledge announced
that she would appeal
the preliminary injunction ruling
to the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals, where she is almost certain
to obtain a three-judge panel
with a Republican-appointed majority,
because out of the 11 active
judges on the Eighth Circuit, only
one was appointed by a Democratic
president. (Donald Trump
appointed four judges to the
Eighth Circuit.) Even if a threejudge
panel were to leave the
preliminary injunction in place,
Rutledge would have a good shot
at getting a reversal from an en
banc rehearing, but for now, this
ruling is an important victory albeit
not a precedent embodied in
a published opinion.
Judge Goodwin in West Virginia,
who was appointed to the court by
President Bill Clinton, had the easier
task, since he was not the fi rst to
rule on a challenge to a law banning
transgender girls from competing
in women’s athletics. Furthermore,
both the Obama administration
and the Biden administration had
issued opinions on the subject that
supported the plaintiffs’ position.
West Virginia is one of about half
a dozen states that have passed
such laws. In many cases, the laws
passed even though there were no
transgender girls seeking to compete
in those states, supporting the
contention that Republican state
legislators are pressing this issue
mainly to pander to social conservative
constituents.
Judge Goodwin found that the
plaintiffs are likely to prevail both
under the Equal Protection Clause
of the 14th Amendment and under
Title IX of the Education Amendments
of 1972, a law forbidding
sex discrimination by educational
institutions that receive federal
money.
“Essentially, the State contends
that the Equal Protection Clause
is not being violated because B.P.J.
is being treated the same under
this law as those she is similarly
situated with: ‘biological males’” as
defi ned in the statute, wrote the
judge. “But this is misleading,” he
responded. “Plaintiff is not most
similarly situated with cisgender
boys; she is similarly situated to
other girls. Plaintiff has lived as
a girl for years. She has competed
on the all-girls cheerleading team
at her school. She changed her
name to a name more commonly
associated with girls. And of the
girls at her middle school, B.P.J. is
the only girl who will be prevented
from participating in school-sponsored
athletics. Here, there is an
inescapable conclusion that the
law discriminated on the basis of
transgender status.”
West Virginia is within the
Fourth Circuit, so the court was
bound to apply “heightened scrutiny,”
the standard adopted by
the Fourth Circuit in the case
of Gavin Grimm, a transgender
boy suing his school district over
its restroom policy. This means
that the state has to provide an
“exceedingly persuasive justifi cation”
for the law. The state said
that its objective was to provide
“equal athletic opportunities for
➤ NHL PROSPECT, from p.8
“I wouldn’t be able to do this
without my amazing family,
friends, and agents — who have
known this about me and met me
with love and support every step of
the way. I hope that in sharing who
I am, I can help other people see
that gay people are welcome in the
hockey community, as we work to
make sure that hockey truly is for
everyone.”
Following Prokop’s announcement,
NHL commissioner Gary
Bettman issued a written statement
praising Prokop “for sharing
his truth and for being so brave.”
“I share his hope that these announcements
can become more
common in the hockey community,”
Bettman said. “LGBTQ players,
coaches, and staff can only
perform at their absolute best if
they live their lives as their full
and true selves. We do not take the
meaning and importance of this
announcement lightly.” He added,
“We pledge to do everything possible
to ensure that Luke’s experience
is a welcoming and affi rmative
one and continue to work to
ensure that any current or future
NHL player contemplating following
in his trailblazing footsteps
knows our league is ready to provide
full support.”
No out player has ever played in
the NHL, but the league has taken
steps to show support for the queer
community in recent years. According
to Outsports, every NHL
team hosted a Pride or Inclusion
night in 2018 and the league has
maintained a partnership with
the You Can Play campaign, which
helps to foster LGBTQ inclusion in
sports.
Prokop’s announcement comes
less than one month after Carl
Nassib of the Las Vegas Raiders
came out as gay in an Instagram
post. Nassib is the fi rst active NFL
player to come out.
The queer sports world — and
others in the NHL — reacted to
Prokop’s announcement in the
hours following his social media
post. Tennis legend Billy Jean
King, who has been out since the
1980s, posted on Twitter, writing,
“Cheers to @PredsNHL prospect
Luke Prokop, who has become the
fi rst active player under NHL contract
to come out as gay. His bravery
will help so many, as he seizes
the power of living authentically!”
The New York Rangers acknowledged
Prokop’s announcement as
➤ ANTI-TRANS LAWS, continued on p.11
well.
“The New York Rangers are
proud of @lukeprokop_6 and admire
his remarkable courage,”
the team wrote. “We fully support
him and the LGBTQ+ community.
#HockeyIsForEveryone”
Prokop will look to become that
fi rst out player to play in an NHL
game, but for now he is focusing on
educating himself about the community.
“I may be new to the community,
but I am eager to learn about the
strong and resilient people who
came before me and paved the way
so I could be more comfortable today,”
Prokop concluded in his announcement.
“This is just the beginning
of my journey and I am
excited to see where it takes me,
both in hockey and in life. Thank
you!”
GayCityNews.com | JULY 29 - AUGUST 11, 2021 9
/GayCityNews.com
