Apple signs letter opposing ‘anti-LGBTQ’ bills

The Alabama Senate passed the Vulnerable Child Compassion and Protection Act (SB 219) last week. This moves the legislation to the Alabama House of Representatives. If the bill passes the House, the act will make it a felony for doctors to prescribe puberty-blockers or hormones to minors.

More than 40 businesses, a few with connections to Alabama, signed an open letter published through the Human Rights Campaign, a national LGBTQ advocacy organization, on Wednesday morning opposing the more than one dozen bills across the nation that will affect the lives of LGBQT employees, including Alabama’s SB 219 which the HRC calls “Anti-LGBTQ State Legislation.”

Anti-LGBTQ. Image: Alabama State House
Alabama State House
Jonece Starr Dunigan for

“These bills would harm our team members and their families, stripping them of opportunities and making them feel unwelcome and at risk in their own communities,” the letter states. “As such, it can be exceedingly difficult for us to recruit the most qualified candidates for jobs in states that pursue such laws, and these measures can place substantial burdens on the families of our employees who already reside in these states.”

Under the [Vulnerable Child Compassion and Protection Act] act, doctors will face felony charges and up to a decade in prison for prescribing puberty-blockers or hormones to anyone under 19. It also forbids teachers, principals and school counselors from withholding from parents’ information that a student identifies as transgender…

Rep. Wes Allen, R-Troy, who is sponsoring the bill at the state House, has said gender dysphoria is a mental disorder. Thus, minors should receive mental health treatment rather than medication.

MacDailyNews Note: Here is the HRC’s “Business Statement on Anti-LGBTQ State Legislation” letter in full:

2020 National Biz Letter on… by Jonece Dunigan on Scribd


  1. Hmmm… commenting on this will be interesting. Draining the swamp includes stopping the damn break caused by a very few that got their way. Too bad. So sad. If Apple backs up the crazies then Steve Jobs is clearly NOT represented properly. We have to take back our country before it becomes any more of a bizzar. Sounds like we’re still fighting in Arkum, fellas!

    1. Do we live in a police state where the Government can overrule health decisions made jointly by an adult patient (18 yoa), his parents, and his team of medical professionals? At least this bill affects male and female patients equally.

      1. Actually, as a ‘former law man’ you should know better,
        but you prefer to play politics rather than use common sense.

        Would under 18 be better?
        How about if the doctor prescribed whiskey for their nerves?
        Would THAT be legal???

        How about meth for lack of energy, should that be legal for a dr to prescribe?
        Lord knows how lazy teenagers can be.

        yeah, fucking police state….

        1. To the best of my knowledge, prescribing alcohol for surgeons does not fall within the range of approved practices by the American Psychiatric Association. This bill seeks to prohibit doctors from doing what doctors treating gender dysphoria commonly do, namely prescribing medications with the informed consent of the patient and their family that will help the patient deal with their condition. This is not the case of prohibiting a quack “cure” like conversion therapy, but of prohibiting something that might be considered by doctors generally, and not just an outlier, as standard practice. Again, who do we want making medical decisions—physicians or the guys representing rural districts in Alabama?

          1. You misunderstand the point. There are many guidelines the government has for people under 18 including alcohol, smoking, sex, guns, voting, curfews, schooling, etc. These are for their benefit until they are old enough to make informed decisions.

            When you are considering a life-changing situation such as this, most medical professionals would err on the side of caution. For instance, giving a young man a vasectomy just so he can enjoy his college years is not a good idea and he would most likely regret it later.

            With puberty blockers, do you really think the target is for 18 year olds? Do you really think they have enough experience in the world to make that decision at 14??

            When a person is old enough to get out from under the influence of their parents and make a real world decision, THEN doctors should be more open to life altering procedures.

  2. So children are not old enough to smoke, drink alcohol, vote, buy a gun but we are totally ok with them taking drugs to permanently alter their body with no chance of going back. Got it.

    1. I know. It’s totally sad that we need laws to protect people from themselves. The damage of so-called ‘gender transition’ treatment is shocking and sad. Especially since it just stems from confusion about facts.

      May the USA get back to the simple truth:

      1) There are 2 genders/sexes, male and female
      2) There’s no such thing as ‘gender transition’: no one’s DNA is altered.
      3) Everyone knew the above statements until the massive confusion campaign started leading to many children being abused and to many families being broken. It’s shameful.

      So, it’s very disappointing that Apple is making such an evil, ill-informed choice to support furthering confusion about gender and to support child abuse.

      As I’ve said for a while: I really like Apple products, but distinctly dislike their politics. May they reverse course immediately and apologize.

  3. Sane people realize that “trans” people, regardless of age, are mentally ill and should not be mutilated by so-called doctors and/or pumped full of cancer-causing opposite sex hormones and, when they are male chromosomally, forever, regardless of how much estrogen they unnaturally pump into their bodies, they should not be “competing” against actual girls and women in sports as they are taking opportunities from actual girls and women.

    1. Other sane people realize that transphobic people are mentally ill and should not be permitted to act out against those who do not share their beliefs. Do we really think that the Alabama Legislature should be substituting its “medical” judgment for that of family doctors and the families they advise?

      1. Using “transphobic” is a lazy way to argue a point. Disagreeing with such a thing isn’t necessarily bigoted, as the use of the word implies. It’s as loaded with indoctrination as the topic you are speaking against.

      2. If calling transgender individuals insane isn’t evidence of bias against them, what would be? The American Psychiatric Association removed Gender Identity Disorder from the DSM-5 in 2013 because the APA had concluded that gender nonconformity was not a mental illness in and of itself.

        1. Applied to any topic, disagreeing with something doesn’t make one “phobic” of the topic at hand. It’s a loaded/bias word…it wrongly “assumes” validity and credibility.

          Back to the essence….disagreeing with something, doesn’t implicit mean the person disagreeing is “phobic.”

          1. I should have added, if I was a lawyer (or ex), as I believe you are, I’d be embarrassed for using such lazy word-smitting. Adopting a word with an assumed and vaporous meaning is nothing but presumption…hoping to continue the ride on our culture’s non-critical thinking.

            But, you do that…assuming you won’t be checked.

      3. Hey, you’re using a highly emotive word completely wrong. Stop calling people ‘transphobic’ because they KNOW THE TRUTH and simple will not let modern lies replace it, ok?

        In actuality, you are exemplifying what it means to be ‘truthphobic’. But, it’s never too late to take an open-minded look at the facts and reverse course.

        Truth is beautiful.

        1. If you are looking for truth about a psychiatric issue, it might be better to listen to the American Psychiatric Association, rather than to a state legislature that consistently ranks in the bottom quarter in appropriations for mental health services.

          I think we all realize that “transphobic,” like “homophobic” and “xenophobic,” no longer refers literally to fear of the Other, but to bias against individuals based solely on their membership in a disfavored class. Maybe some transsexual individuals are suffering from a mental illness, but do all of them? Maybe some Mexicans are rapists, but not every one of them. Maybe some women are short and hate engineering, but that’s not a reason for denying the others a job or the chance to play center in the WNBA.

  4. Policy makers and the media are doing no favors either to the public or the transgendered by treating their confusions as a right in need of defending rather than as a mental disorder that deserves understanding, treatment and prevention. This intensely felt sense of being transgendered constitutes a mental disorder in two respects. The first is that the idea of sex misalignment is simply mistaken—it does not correspond with physical reality. The second is that it can lead to grim psychological outcomes.

    The transgendered suffer a disorder of “assumption” like those in other disorders familiar to psychiatrists. With the transgendered, the disordered assumption is that the individual differs from what seems given in nature—namely one’s maleness or femaleness. Other kinds of disordered assumptions are held by those who suffer from anorexia and bulimia nervosa, where the assumption that departs from physical reality is the belief by the dangerously thin that they are overweight.

    With body dysmorphic disorder, an often socially crippling condition, the individual is consumed by the assumption “I’m ugly.” These disorders occur in subjects who have come to believe that some of their psycho-social conflicts or problems will be resolved if they can change the way that they appear to others. Such ideas work like ruling passions in their subjects’ minds and tend to be accompanied by a solipsistic argument.

    For the transgendered, this argument holds that one’s feeling of “gender” is a conscious, subjective sense that, being in one’s mind, cannot be questioned by others. The individual often seeks not just society’s tolerance of this “personal truth” but affirmation of it. Here rests the support for “transgender equality,” the demands for government payment for medical and surgical treatments, and for access to all sex-based public roles and privileges.

    With this argument, advocates for the transgendered have persuaded several states—including California, New Jersey and Massachusetts—to pass laws barring psychiatrists, even with parental permission, from striving to restore natural gender feelings to a transgender minor. That government can intrude into parents’ rights to seek help in guiding their children indicates how powerful these advocates have become.

    How to respond? Psychiatrists obviously must challenge the solipsistic concept that what is in the mind cannot be questioned. Disorders of consciousness, after all, represent psychiatry’s domain; declaring them off-limits would eliminate the field. Many will recall how, in the 1990s, an accusation of parental sex abuse of children was deemed unquestionable by the solipsists of the “recovered memory” craze.

    You won’t hear it from those championing transgender equality, but controlled and follow-up studies reveal fundamental problems with this movement. When children who reported transgender feelings were tracked without medical or surgical treatment at both Vanderbilt University and London’s Portman Clinic, 70%-80% of them spontaneously lost those feelings. Some 25% did have persisting feelings; what differentiates those individuals remains to be discerned.

    We at Johns Hopkins University—which in the 1960s was the first American medical center to venture into “sex-reassignment surgery”—launched a study in the 1970s comparing the outcomes of transgendered people who had the surgery with the outcomes of those who did not. Most of the surgically treated patients described themselves as “satisfied” by the results, but their subsequent psycho-social adjustments were no better than those who didn’t have the surgery. And so at Hopkins we stopped doing sex-reassignment surgery, since producing a “satisfied” but still troubled patient seemed an inadequate reason for surgically amputating normal organs.

    It now appears that our long-ago decision was a wise one. A 2011 study at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden produced the most illuminating results yet regarding the transgendered, evidence that should give advocates pause. The long-term study—up to 30 years—followed 324 people who had sex- reassignment surgery. The study revealed that beginning about 10 years after having the surgery, the transgendered began to experience increasing mental difficulties. Most shockingly, their suicide mortality rose almost 20-fold above the comparable nontransgender population. This disturbing result has as yet no explanation but probably reflects the growing sense of isolation reported by the aging transgendered after surgery. The high suicide rate certainly challenges the surgery prescription.

    There are subgroups of the transgendered, and for none does “reassignment” seem apt. One group includes male prisoners like Pvt. Bradley Manning, the convicted national-security leaker who now wishes to be called Chelsea. Facing long sentences and the rigors of a men’s prison, they have an obvious motive for wanting to change their sex and hence their prison. Given that they committed their crimes as males, they should be punished as such; after serving their time, they will be free to reconsider their gender.

    Another subgroup consists of young men and women susceptible to suggestion from “everything is normal” sex education, amplified by Internet chat groups. These are the transgender subjects most like anorexia nervosa patients: They become persuaded that seeking a drastic physical change will banish their psycho-social problems. “Diversity” counselors in their schools, rather like cult leaders, may encourage these young people to distance themselves from their families and offer advice on rebutting arguments against having transgender surgery. Treatments here must begin with removing the young person from the suggestive environment and offering a counter-message in family therapy.

    Then there is the subgroup of very young, often prepubescent children who notice distinct sex roles in the culture and, exploring how they fit in, begin imitating the opposite sex. Misguided doctors at medical centers including Boston’s Children’s Hospital have begun trying to treat this behavior by administering puberty-delaying hormones to render later sex-change surgeries less onerous—even though the drugs stunt the children’s growth and risk causing sterility. Given that close to 80% of such children would abandon their confusion and grow naturally into adult life if untreated, these medical interventions come close to child abuse. A better way to help these children: with devoted parenting.

    At the heart of the problem is confusion over the nature of the transgendered. “Sex change” is biologically impossible. People who undergo sex-reassignment surgery do not change from men to women or vice versa. Rather, they become feminized men or masculinized women. Claiming that this is civil-rights matter and encouraging surgical intervention is in reality to collaborate with and promote a mental disorder.

    Dr. Paul R. McHugh, University Distinguished Professor of Psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, June 12, 2014

    1. Dr. McHugh, 89, is hugely controversial not only because of his views on LGBTQ+ issues, but for his defense of Catholic clergy against accusations of pedophilia. Look him up in a search engine.

    2. The studies mentioned by Dr. McHugh were deeply flawed, e.g., comparing the suicide rate of persons having undergone sex change to that of the general population is inherently comparing the wrong cohorts. The proper study would be to compare the suicide rate of persons having undergone sex change with those that have been forced by others to not have a sex change when they and the medical/psychological community feel they truly need one. I believe that study would show a radically different result.

      For many transgender issues are not “confusion”. A diagnosis of “confusion” has been considered by the medical community as a whole a non diagnosis for many, many decades. There’s no medical or physchological basis for “confusion”. If I show the average person Shoedinger’s relativistic wave equation and ask them to explain it, they’d certainly be confused. Does that mean they have a medical or mental problem? No.

      I agree with other posters here. How dare any govenment step in and claim it knows better for the child than the combined opinion of the child, the parents, and their medical and psychological team. (And yes, I ended that question with a period as it’s rhetorical. I don’t expect a cogent answer saying how the government must do that from anyone.)

      Further, since the bill seems to state that anyone under the age of 19 is covered, how does the proposed law really cover adults of age 18? Is the Alabama Senate really saying, “We know you’re an adult at 18 most other things (even, e.g., consent for sexual relations [that’s 16 in Alabama], marriage, voting, purchasing explosives and firearms, and joining the state guard), but in this case we still consider you a child.”

  5. I do not want Evangelical legislation to be imposed upon secular folks who want to be free to use secular procedures. Big gub’mnt’s dictatorial interference in people’s lives on this issue is an error. I bet that those legislators are themselves queer but trying to hide it by going super strong with this anti-LGBQ law. So Apple is correct.

  6. Evangelical! Where the f did that come from? You magically deduce that anything outside of what you define as secular is evangelical. You also do a magic jump across some chasm in your own mind that the legislators you don’t agree with must be disguising their queerness and follow with the conclusion that “Apple is correct.”

    You logic is like a magical jumping bean.

  7. I’m sorry but neither you nor anyone else has the right to change the meaning of the ***phobic words just to fit an agenda that often justifies immorality. So, stop it. It’s not helpful…it’s just needlessly divisive.

    Also, when someone is morally grounded in truth and acts and speaks congruently with this, it’s not a ‘bias’. Again…a misuse of the language and totally rejected.

    People confused about their gender need truth and a way to deal healthily with their thoughts and feelings and this never leads to mutilation. You should check out the stories of those who made this mistake, regretted it, and then returned to a healthier state. Fascinating.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.