This was such a fun discussion. It’s important to tell the truth about harmful structures, and the “moral laundering” that comes with participation in fundamentally-bad religious systems. However, what shouldn’t be missed is what comes after deconstruction: the invitation to reconstruct, and to use insights, wisdom, or discernment that can be “redeemed” from not-so-great spiritual experiences.

That’s what we talk about on the Our Lady of Perpetual Brunch podcast. The host, Steve, is an artist, philosopher, and professor — and this combined experience means he’s adept at cultivating deep and creative conversations.

Here’s a link to listen to the podcast from your favorite apps: https://linktr.ee/perpetualbrunch

Follow on Facebook, Instagram, and BlueSky.

Cover Image by Simon Berger from Pixabay.

With and , we are once against traversing sociology, history, and religious studies by diving deep into toxic masculinity.

Maxwell Kuzma

How Purity, Power, and Fear Police Masculinity

Dear Listeners…

Listen now

4 months ago · 2 likes · Max Kuzma, Emma Cieslik, and Willow Sipling

When we look across culture, we see that desire, relationships, and power are often explicitly and implicitly built around maleness — which includes male sexuality, which includes male homosexuality.

In this podcast, we discuss how Catholic culture can instantiate the same structures Andrew Tate proposes. We also talk about how non-male queer folks can be sidelined by the power that cisgender gay men (especially those who are white-passing) can horde.

Follow on Facebook, Instagram, and BlueSky.

Listen to the podcast

In this episode, we talk about the theological social constructs that can lead to coercive control within Catholicism. From ethically-anemic Thomism, to the scrupulosity of mortal sin, to “rules for thee, but not for thee” clericalism, we break down why the Catholic Church has worked so hard to fight against LGBTQ+ people and sexual freedom — and see how abuse-crisis-culture and the constructs of patriarchy benefit from keeping sexual and gender minorities under a theological thumb.

We also talk about the effects of “Catholic guilt” on relationship dynamics and trauma, and how breaking free from a domineering faith can be an open door to a “revived desire.” This kind of internal and intrinsic desire — and not a fear of hell —can provide the motivation to transform ourselves, our communities, and our world.

Listen to the podcast

Follow on Facebook, Instagram, and BlueSky.

Read the Article

In the wake of the Charlie Kirk shooting, conservative pundits and politicians gleefully chased after a supposed connection between the death of the objectively racist and divisive podcaster and “gender ideology,” hallucinating some linkage between a trans-inclusive progressive worldview and a myopically obtuse definition of political violence.

Trans people were immediately scapegoated by MAGA, and propaganda was uncritically and embarrassingly repeated by Saide Gurman and James Fanelli, traffickers of political agitation at the Wall Street Journal — and their un-fact-checked article was repeated by other uncritical outlets and opportunists.

The connection between trans identity and the Kirk shooting is spurious, and even hypotheses about this connection are contradicted by discrepancies between an internally inconsistent probable cause affidavit versus the work of an actual journalist, , in a September interview.

Even if there is something trans in the orbit of the Kirk shooting, there is no evidence —given the available information about the alleged shooter’s background, politics, and internet communities — that there is any sort of link between the shooting and science-based, inclusive gender-affirming viewpoints. The closest correlation, rather, is between far-right, “very online” perspectives about gender transition, and these perspectives are not based on progressive ideals, but in manosphere and incel ideology — the “transmaxxing” mythology.

That being said transmaxxers aren’t in support of gender affirmation but rather “incels falsely believe that women have greater ‘market value’ than men, receive greater societal benefits, and that feminism allows women greater advantages,” Sipling explains (Pride.com, 2025)

And, because of these mistaken, grievance-based beliefs, some incels and incel-related folks believe that transitioning — and transmaxxing — is a “hack” for increasing their opportunities and attractiveness.

To reiterate, the current connection we have between the Kirk shooting and progressive and affirming trans ideology is non-existent. The far right — and folks who accept their talking points in an unexamined way — assume that progressives are responsible for all things trans; but, a seedier, darker version of transition exists in right-leaning, gamer-adjacent “groyper” culture.

Regardless of any connection (if any!) to the Kirk shooting, I think a conversation — as this Pride.com article introduces — regarding transmaxxing and “transmedicalism” within the far right is important, as political agitators may see Dark Web-adjacent movements that have something to do with gender transition, and assume leftist and progressive movements who are pro-gender equality are to blame for any antisocial or violent behavior these fringe groups carry out.

Read the article here: https://www.pride.com/culture/what-is-transmaxxing

Fundamentalism — ranging from new religious movements, to high-control Catholicism, to gender essentialism — creates a “culture industry” that traffics in fear, repression, and a hatred of creativity and difference. However, queer identity can serve as an antidote to these negative systems.

Listen to the podcast:

Maxwell Kuzma

The Transforming Power of Queerness

Dear Listeners…

Listen now

6 months ago · 2 likes · Max Kuzma, Emma Cieslik, and Willow Sipling

As we learn about ourselves, we in turn learn more about our neighbors, our world, and the divine — and so, accepting and appreciating identity draws us into a way-of-being that is truly generative, from a place of intrinsic and internal consolation.

Linguistic obfuscation is found in various fields we can examine with social science — such as propaganda, organizational misconduct, pseudoscience, and other areas — to describe "agitation done with words." I'll define some terms. First, linguistic obfuscation involves using weasel words, confusing language, and agitation techniques (which I'll define momentarily) for the purpose of perception management. "Perception management” describes discourse and acts designed to cause or influence shifts in understanding and behavior.

By "agitation" and "agitation techniques," I mean something fairly specific, drawing from Frankfurt School theorists Leo Löwenthal and Norbert Guterman. They studied media extensively, which gave them keen insight into things like propaganda. Their work Prophets of Deceit is a helpful book on this subject.

I analyzed Löwenthal and Guterman in a chapter called Applying and Extrapolating Prophets of Deceit: Heuristics of Agitator Identification, wherein I outlined markers that can help, well, identify agitators. I want to use this as a lens to examine Graham Linehan's recent arrest in the UK — which we’ll get to momentarily.

Let's first see how agitators operate. The following quotations are from the Applying and Extrapolating Prophets of Deceit chapter:

Agitators allow subscribers to be appeased-via-association with statements or ideologies for which they themselves would normally suffer social consequences. Some examples could include conspiracy theory, denial of history, and racism or xenophobia. In common parlance, a listener harbors tension because they are not allowed to “say the quiet part out loud,” but they can listen intently as an agitator does.

Many people — due to repression, ignorance, or lack of empathy — feel hatred towards certain classes of people (one such group has to do with Linehan’s recent foray into the news). However, anti-discrimination laws and polite society prevent many people from being as outspoken as Linehan has been on the news and social media. Hateful people are eager to support Linehan, usually on places like Twitter, or even through headlines in respectable news articles. Agitators also do another thing, which has to do with plausible deniability.

From the perspective of those “outside of the know,” these individuals form protective boundaries or social plausibility deniability for subscribers. This is because agitators have “crackpot” characteristics (Löwenthal and Guterman 1970: xv), and therefore lack general credibility in some parasocial informational front (Madison et al. 2018), though their rhetorical power flows out of this. Statements that wider social circles consider to be too extreme can be hand- waved away by apologists claiming that they are just “provocateurs” or that it is simply performance. They “suggest a quack medicine salesman,” with “many characteristics of a psychological racket: they play on vague fears,” and yet, “they give their admission- paying audience … a kind of act – something between a tragic recital and a clownish pantomime – rather than a political speech.” This allows agitators to “get away with” extremist “jokes to doubletalk to wild extravagances” because they navigate in a “twilight zone” spectrum between “the respectable and the forbidden” (Löwenthal and Guterman 1970: 4– 5).

So, let’s talk about Graham Linehan, a profoundly unpleasant and obsessively bigoted individual. He was recently detained by the Metropolitan Police on “suspicion of inciting violence.” According to official reports, this arrest followed social media posts in which Linehan allegedly suggested that people should "punch" certain individuals he doesn’t like "in the balls.”

This case provides an instructive example of how media framing can obscure rather than clarify causal relationships. The factual narrative is straightforward:

• Linehan made statements online

• Authorities determined these statements constituted potential incitement to violence

• The statements lead to Linehan’s arrest.

However, media coverage consistently employed linguistic obfuscation techniques that merit systematic analysis. Here are some examples found in headlines:

From Lucy Jackson in Yahoo News: "Graham Linehan 'arrested at Heathrow Airport over gender-critical tweets.'"
From Caroline Davies and Dan Milmo at The Guardian: "Father Ted creator Graham Linehan arrested over posts on transgender issues."
Here's a particularly problematic one by the AP: "TV writer Graham Linehan's arrest over transgender posts sparks free speech outcry in the UK."

Ah. So there’s something trans involved. Spoiler alert: it’s trans people who Linehan allegedly suggested should be assaulted.

These headlines illustrate a pattern of emphasis that obscures the operative legal factor (alleged incitement to violence) while foregrounding ideological content (transgender-related posts and supposedly stifled free speech). This framing technique exemplify Löwenthal and Guterman ‘s agitator methodology. The emphasis on "transgender posts" rather than "incitement to violence" creates plausible deniability for both media outlets and audiences. Editors can claim they are simply reporting on trans-related content while avoiding direct engagement with the legal substance of the allegations.

Worse, this framing causes people to latch on to the wrong sets of issues. For instance, anti-trans people are calling this a “free speech” issue, because they’re (wrongly) assuming the arrest was on account of persecuting someone for not being Woke™️ enough, or something. And, people who feel threatened by the existence of trans people and The Woke™️ use this story’s framing as evidence to fuel their Industrial Persecution Complex. Headlines aren’t neutral.

This case illustrates issues often uncovered through critical media analysis: the conflation of chronological sequence with causal relationship, along with false or collapsed conclusions (e.g., assuming this is an issue about free speech, which it’s not). In social science, and in logic, we distinguish between these concepts to avoid attributing causal significance to simplistic temporal proximity.

The logical structure of this case can be represented syllogistically:

Accurate legal framework:

1. Alleged legal infractions warrant detention

2. An individual commits an alleged legal infraction

3. The individual is detained

But, here’s the obfuscated media framework:

1. Expressing controversial views on transgender issues warrants detention

2. An individual expressed controversial views on transgender issues

3. The individual is detained

The second framework contains a false premise. Expressing controversial opinions, however objectionable, does not constitute grounds for arrest under UK law. The operative factor was the alleged incitement to violence, not the transgender-related content per se.

To demonstrate this distinction in another way, consider Linehan's documented history of anti-trans posts that did not result in arrest. The variable that changed in this instance was not the presence of transgender-related content, but the inclusion of an alleged incitement to violence.

This can be conceptualized as:

Previous posts: Transgender-critical content = no arrest
Contested post: Transgender-critical content + alleged incitement to violence = arrest

The additional variable (alleged incitement) represents the operative factor, yet media coverage consistently obscures this crucial distinction. Had he posted his typical bigoted content without making threats, he likely would have suffered no consequences. We have numerous examples of this: which are all the times Linehan previously said bigoted things, without getting arrested.

This analysis reveals how established news organizations can function as agitators themselves, parroting hot-button sloganeering rather than informing the public. The pattern of emphasizing inflammatory aspects while obscuring legal distinctions serves to generate engagement rather than understanding. It’s about ads, clicks, and revenue, rather than reporting, and ultimately, editors and writers picking headlines are ethically culpable for any Overton Window shifting that comes as a result of their incorrect and agitation-fueled framing.

This fall, I'm hosting a trauma-informed group coaching Support Group called "Reclaiming LGBTQ+ Identity After Non-Affirming Religious Experiences."

If queerness or being a survivor of high-control religious isn’t your experience, but you know of folks for whom this would be helpful, please feel free to share this post with your network.

Spots are still open, so learn more or book a call with me here! https://www.traumaresolutionandrecovery.com/support-groups

For this year’s ASA conference, I presented a working paper on predicting “SOGICE discourse” by identifying “fundamentalism discourse.”

Here’s the why behind the need for this sort of prediction power:

SOGICE is associated with negative social and health outcomes, and the resources required for the wellbeing of SOGICE survivors is a $9 billion dollar per year public health cost, truly a public health crisis (Forsythe et al. 2022:493).

However, while “change efforts” is a broad term, it is difficult to determine the scope for SOGICE studies — methodologies are not always clear concerning what “counts” as SOGICE. Further, not all researchers may be familiar with the “inside baseball” of SOGICE discourse, which may include purposeful obfuscation strategies for legal, public perception, or funding reasons, as well as niche theological debates or discussions. Because of these difficulties, it can be helpful to correlate potential SOGICE discourse with related “frames” for analysis.

What is SOGICE? It’s an acroynm that stands for “Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Change Efforts”:

“Sexual orientation” refers to “refers to the gender to which an individual is emotionally (romantically) and physically (sexually) attracted” (Longe 2022:1082), “gender identity” refers to one’s understanding of their “1) physical, 2) social/cultural, and 3) internal/sensate” masculine-ness or feminine-ness (or something outside this binary)(Skolnik and Price 2017:2), and “Change Efforts,” in this specific and particular context, refer to interventions that seek to change individuals’ attractions or sense of self to fit heterosexual and cisgendered norms (Sipling 2024:1).

And, what is fundamentalism — and in this case, the particular target of Christian Fundamentalism?

Christian fundamentalism subscribes to a belief system and is bound to a worldview which describes the Holy Bible as infallible, free from all errors, and true “in all it affirms” (Mohler 2013, p. 36), in part as a response to perceived theological and ethical liberalism (Antoun 2010). This fairly recent viewpoint, known as Biblicism (Smith 2012), also includes the doctrine of perspicuity, which states that Christian Scripture must be able to be understood by any and all readers, regardless of cultural, linguistic, or historical barriers that would normally apply to the hermeneutics of ancient texts (Richards and O’Brien 2012; Thompson 2016). … From this [fundamentalist] perspective, to make use of [science] would be to deny the doctrines of inerrancy and perspicuity, as innovations within evidence-based approaches could render the Bible lacking in “everything needed for life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:3, New Revised Standard Version, emphasis added). (Sipling 2020:933)

Fundamentalism can therefore be understood to include doctrines such as 1) infallibility, 2) biblicism, 3) perspicuity, and 4) inerrancy. These are not exclusive terms, which are essential to a fundamentalist viewpoint, but in statements of faith — which are often succinct and pithy documents — “dictionary definitions” of these doctrines can be straightforwardly identifiable.

The hypothesis is this: if you see “fundamentalism” in an organization — in a statement of faith, employee handbook, code of conduct, etc. — you’ll likely find SOGICE there, too. How does that play out in a particular field test?

This test investigates whether a fundamentalist statement of faith predicts the presence of SOGICE discourse in institutional policies and official materials. To assess this relationship, a structured content analysis is performed on statements of faith (or supplemental policies), and the presence of SOGICE discourse between fundamentalist and non-fundamentalist institutions is compared.

The sample of institutions is drawn from the Association of Theological Schools (ATS) directory, which provides a comprehensive listing of accredited theological institutions in the U.S. and Canada.

My inclusion criteria were that schools drawn from this pool are that the schools must be 1) Christian and 2) Protestant. It’s not that fundamentalism doesn’t exist in other religions; it’s that we have operationalized identification criteria for this particular sub-group. And for criteria 2:

Because Protestant organizations do not answer to…. authoritative magisterial teaching as Orthodox, Catholic, and other ancient or apostolic churches do, they allow for a range of interpretations and beliefs that include fundamentalism (or not), and SOGICE discourse (or not).

The Test

For the categorization criteria, each ATS school is categorized as fundamentalist or non-fundamentalist based on publicly available statements of faith, as found on webpages, within codes of conduct, or employee handbooks. Criteria for categorization include explicit affirmations of infallibility, biblicism, perspicuity, and inerrancy, and restrictive theological positions on gender and sexuality which logics are grounded in infallibility, biblicism, perspicuity, and inerrancy. To assess the presence of SOGICE discourse, statements of faith (supplemented by other institutional documents or policies, as needed) were systematically analyzed for indicators of fundamentalism and SOGICE. A keyword-based search and qualitative coding approach was used

And here were our results:

The content analysis compared the rate of SOGICE discourse between fundamentalist and non-fundamentalist schools. Due to time constraints, a sample of 141 of the 220 institutions (for a 95% confidence level and 0.05 margin of error) was analyzed. The conclusion is that the presence of fundamentalist discourse is an excellent predictor of SOGICE discourse.

From this sample of 141 schools, 78 institutions (55.3%) demonstrated fundamentalist discourse and 80 institutions demonstrated SOGICE discourse (56.7%). Among the 78 fundamentalist institutions, 77 exhibited SOGICE discourse; among the 63 non-fundamentalist institutions, 3 contained SOGICE discourse. This demonstrates a conditional prevalence of 98.7% among fundamentalist versus 4.8% of non-fundamentalist institutions… Chi-square analysis demonstrated a significant association between fundamentalist and SOGICE discourses (χ²(1) = 125.34, p < 0.001). A large effect size, indicated by Cramér’s V = 0.943, indicates a relationship of substantial magnitude.

Given this, we see that:

Fundamentalist theological markers serve as highly reliable predictors of institutional policies aligned with conversion therapy ideology and anti-LGBTQ+ ideology.

I don’t plan on posting this paper, as I will plan on finishing the full content analysis of the 220-school list, and thanks to some great feedback at the conference, I want to draw distinctions between “LGBTQ+ discrimination” and “SOGICE discourse,” so that’ll be an entirely new section for the finished paper.

Further, I’ve put a table of the content analysis on this page: sogice.com. On that table, you can see where I’ve listed out the schools and whether or not they have fundamentalist discourse and/or SOGICE discourse. You can also use the table’s sorting and grouping functions to play around with this data, as well.

But, in terms of identifying frames to then identify SOGICE more effectively, here’s at least one test — hopefully, among the first of many more! — that demonstrates this method can be somewhat useful.

Here’s a summary of what happened:

In February, OutCenter received an abusive voicemail containing offensive and discriminatory language targeting our organization and the LGBTQ+ community we serve.

OutCenter assisted in identifying the caller, leading to an investigation by a Berrien County detective. The caller, CM, was subsequently charged with malicious use of telecommunications services, a misdemeanor offense under Michigan law. On Tuesday, August 5, 2025, CM appeared at the St. Joseph Courthouse for his pretrial hearing, where he entered a guilty plea.

You can read the full press release about the incident and its resolution here: https://www.outcenter.org/articles/outcenter-comments-on-legal-resolution-of-malicious-communication

Follow on Facebook, Instagram, and BlueSky.

Read on Yahoo

Read on Pride

Read on OUT

Here’s the premise of the article: “The terms top and bottom may have been coined by and for gay men, but the broader queer community and especially sapphics have taken to using the terms to describe sexual dynamics too,” and the article talks about definitions, identity, tips, and more.

On June 26, ABC57 asked OutCenter (one the great community orgs I do work with) to comment on the 10th anniversary of the Obergefell decision, which allowed for equal civil, employment, and medical rights for queer couples.

Read the article and watch the video here: https://www.abc57.com/news/ten-years-since-same-sex-marriage-was-legalize-across-the-country

Read the Article and Watch the Video

Anti-LGBT+ discrimination and bigotry is in full force, seen especially through recent executive orders, SCOTUS decisions, and preemptive compliance from organizations taking advantage of this political moment to turn off the “rainbow washing.” Though it didn’t make the final cut, I got to talk a little bit about the worldviews behind much of the discrimination we see: Christian Nationalism, Toxic Masculinity, and White Supremacy. We instead seek a “Protocol for an Inclusive Future,” turning this “unholy trinity” of harmful worldviews on its head — offering instead Inclusive Communities, Gender Liberation and Equality, and Intersectionality. Read more about the Protocol here: https://www.outcenter.org/protocol.

Follow on Facebook, Instagram, and BlueSky.

SOGICE, as I’ve spoken and written about (see more in the archives on this blog), can be difficult to identify because it can be carried out in socially acceptable, covert, or linguistically obfuscated ways.

One way of measuring and operationalizing the study of things that are hard to identify is to do “framing analysis,” and specifically, “ethnographic framing analysis” — which is the ““systematic investigation of the organizational principles which people draw on in interpreting actions and events” (Lowe 2021), and if you can find cogent “frames” that are correlated to your thing-that’s-hard-to-study, this helps you put a finger on difficult problems.

In this case, a “frame” that appears to be correlated to SOGICE (I’m working on putting such correlation into published material over the next few years) is the frame of “fundamentalist pastoral care;” see my 2018 Springer article on this subject.

The is a limited range for what “counts” here — fundamentalisms are found across religions and ideologies. In this case, fundamentalist pastoral care (or FPC) can be identified through beliefs such as infallibility, biblicism, and perspicuity. Together, you’ve likely got FPC; and if you’ve got FPC, you’ve likely got SOGICE on your hands.

Anyways, you can read the interview here:

Read the Interview Here

https://well.beings.news/p/peer-reviewed-studying-sogice-with-willow-sipling-30faa2b628976d03?gift_content=250e4ea6-0e61-4a30-8103-6f543479acbe

Follow on Facebook, Instagram, and BlueSky.

And here’s the abstract: SOGICE (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Change Efforts) like conversion therapy is harmful. However, a limiting factor — and opportunity — appear throughout research: SOGICE is more than just extreme and overt practices like conversion therapy. “Change Efforts” is a fairly broad term. So, what’s missing is first, 1) the ability to have identification criteria for things that are not extreme or abusive interventions; 2) the ability to code, rank, and rate the differences between less explicit and more explicit SOGICE; and 3) the ability to measure the outcomes of covert and less explicit SOGICE. This paper seeks something more achievable — to seek to identify the “culture” from which SOGICE is carried out from. Further, this paper is only speaking to one particular culture of SOGICE emergence: "Fundamentalist Pastoral Care."

Read on ResearchGate

Read on Academia.edu

Follow on Facebook, Instagram, and BlueSky.

There are five episodes:

1. Responding to Matt Fradd on Feminism and Gender Roles

2. Responding to Fr. Mike Schmitz on Homosexuality and Same-Sex Attraction

3. Responding to Jason Evert on Trans Identities

4. Authority, Certainty, and Religious Trauma in Catholicism

5. Conversion Therapy, Side B, and Catholicism - this one was the episode I was very pleased to contribute to!

Follow on Facebook, Instagram, and BlueSky.

Follow on Facebook, Instagram, and BlueSky.

Privileged Logics aims to raise awareness about issues of privilege in research ethics, generate useful concepts for understanding them, and identify broadly applicable recommendations for addressing them that build on inclusive mentoring and other promising practices that already exist in research ethics.

I had a research assistant appointment which finished at the end of the spring 2025 semester. One major part of this work was relaunching a blog, now found at privilegedlogics.com.

The team is also taking contributions, and interested individuals can find more info here.

I really enjoyed continuing my work in ethics, equity, and public communication, and excited to see the future of projects like these.

This paper examines the complexities and challenges of progressive discourse through the lens of Benjamin Eidelson’s concept of the “etiquette of equality.” Through this example, the paper explores how norms of inclusivity and respect can lead to unintended consequences, and dynamics are analyzed in relation to broader sociopolitical trends, including the instrumentalization of identity politics, neoliberal co-optation, and the tension between individual positionality and collective solidarity.

Drawing on theoretical frameworks from Judith Butler and Asad Haider, the paper critiques “performative” aspects of progressive discourse that risk undermining material struggles for justice. Real-world examples, such as debates surrounding anti-Zionism and antisemitism, illustrate how certain linguistic demands can stifle meaningful dialogue and hinder revolutionary goals. This highlights the need to balance respect with effective strategies for social change while resisting mechanisms that perpetuate false consciousness or dilute collective efforts. By engaging with concepts like performativity, mimesis, and class struggle, the paper offers a nuanced critique of contemporary progressive discourse and its potential pitfalls.

Click below to read the paper:

ResearchGate

Academia.edu

Follow on Facebook, Instagram, and BlueSky.

Want to read or download the paper? You can find it here:

ResearchGate

Academia.edu

This video is about both self-care and communal care as forms of resistance against hyper-individualistic and so-called "efficiency"-driven ideologies. There is great significance in resting and engaging in "useless" activities that foster human connection and personal rejuvenation.

“Therapy speak” — I think for more progressive folks, we’re starting to outgrow the neoliberal, individualistic drive behind much of the conversation surrounding “put your own oxygen mask on first.” Many other (non-Western, non-captial-driven) cultures don’t view other people through a cost-benefit analysis, support of which drains from ourselves in some sort a zero-sum expense.

The Powers That Be don’t want class struggle, and would be more than happy to have a class of folks that are separate from their friends, co-workers, and chosen families in the name of a well-meaning and sanitized “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” mentality. Therefore, you can resist by engaging in communally-embeded rest.

Here’s the brief:

On February 8th, Corewell Health announced a policy to pause gender-affirming care to new patients under 19 years old. OutCenter Southwest Michigan confirmed on February 12th that Corewell has since rescinded their decision, following a statement from Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel and an outpouring of community advocacy supporting healthcare access for LGBTQ+ people. A coalition of organizations across the state, including OutCenter, poured many hours into networking, research, and protest, leading to this significant policy reversal.

The excellent LGBTQ+ journalist covered the situation here:

Erin In The Morning

Corewell, Largest Michigan Provider, Resumes Trans Youth Care Despite Illegal Trump EO

Read more

a year ago · 673 likes · 28 comments · Erin Reed

You can see the full press release at the OutCenter website: https://www.outcenter.org/articles/outcenter-southwest-michigan-responds-to-corewell-health-reinstatement-of-gender-affirming-care-for-new-lgbtq-youth-patients

I’m very glad that my work isn’t contained just to research and writing, but the ground game of policy, advocacy, and more. Hoping to see more victories like this in the days to come.