Think Tanks Say Nuclear Arsenals Expanded, Modernized Last Year

June 12, 2023
By RFE/RL

A Yars intercontinental ballistic missile is test-fired as part of Russia's nuclear drills from a launch site in Plesetsk, northwestern Russia, on October 26, 2022.

Nuclear-armed states have continued to expand and modernize their atomic arsenals amid a deterioration of the world's geopolitical situation, investing huge sums of money diverted from other development goals, an influential think tank said in a report published on June 12.

While the total number of the nuclear warheads dipped year-on-year from 12,710 to 12,512, the number of nuclear weapons ready for use at the start of this year -- 9,576, accounting for about two-thirds of the total --grew last year by 86, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) said.

The report said that several of the nine nuclear-armed states -- the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel -- deployed new nuclear-armed or nuclear-capable weapon systems last year.

As a matter of official policy, Israel has declined to comment on whether or not it possesses nuclear weapons.

Separately, a report also published on June 12 by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) said the nine nuclear-armed states spent a total of $82.9 billion on nuclear weapons last year, with the United States alone accounting for more than half of the amount ($43.7 billion). Russia and China were the second- and third-ranked nuclear spenders with $11.7 billion and $9.6 billion in expenditures, respectively.

Russia and the United States together account for more than 90 percent of all the world's nuclear weapons, SIPRI said, adding that transparency about both countries' nuclear weapons declined since the start of Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine in February last year.

China has also substantially increased the number of nuclear warheads that it possesses -- from 350 to 410 year-on-year, SIPRI said.

After many years of a slow decline in the number of nuclear weapons, SIPRI said the trend is reversing.

"The big picture is we've had over 30 years of the number of nuclear warheads coming down, and we see that process coming to an end now," SIPRI Director Dan Smith told French news agency AFP. 

With reporting by AFP

Nations Wasted $157,000 Per Minute on Nuclear Weapons in 2022: ICAN

The U.S. spent $43.7 billion on nuclear weapons last year—more than every other nuclear-armed nation combined, according to the Nobel Peace Prize-winning group.

An anti-nuclear protester holds a placard at a rally in Sydney, Australia on February 5, 2018.
(Photo: Peter Parks/AFP via Getty Images)

JAKE JOHNSON

COMMON DREAMS
Jun 12, 2023

A new report published Monday by the Nobel Peace Prize-winning International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons shows that the world's nine nuclear-armed countries spent more than $157,000 per minute on their atomic weaponry last year, enriching private contractors at the risk of imperiling humankind.

Combined, nuclear-armed nations spent $82.9 billion on their arsenals last year, according to ICAN. The United States was the biggest spender, dumping $43.7 billion into its already massive arsenal in 2022—more than all of the other nuclear-armed countries combined.

"The U.S. Congress allocated $16 billion for the [National Nuclear Security Administration] in 2022 to spend on weapons activities," ICAN's report notes. "In 2022, the Department of Defense requested $27.7 billion for 'nuclear modernization,' including the 'Ground-Based Midcourse Defense, B-21 Bomber, Columbia class submarine, and Nuclear Command, Control, and Communications.'"

Overall, the report shows global spending on nuclear weapons increased for the third consecutive year in 2022.

ICAN describes such spending as immensely wasteful and dangerous to global safety, rejecting commonplace claims that investments in nuclear weapons—particularly as a tool of deterrence—are essential to security.

"Through an ever-changing and challenging security environment, from security threats of climate change to the Covid-19 pandemic to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, nuclear weapons spending has steadily increased, with no resulting measurable improvement on the security environment," the report states. "If anything, the situation is getting worse."

"Luck, not reason or strategy, has kept nuclear weapons from being used in warfare for the past 78 years. But we can't count on our luck to hold in perpetuity."

ICAN argues that consistently growing nuclear weapons spending is an outcome of a vicious cycle whereby tax dollars finance the construction of nuclear weapons by private companies, which proceed to fund think tanks and hire lobbyists to make the case that nuclear weapons are essential to national security—leading governments to continue pouring money "down their nuclear weapons drains."

Last year, according to ICAN's findings, nearly $16 billion in new nuclear weapons contracts were awarded to private corporations.

The companies that received the contracts—such as Bechtel, Boeing, and General Dynamics—"turned around and invested in lobbying governments, spending $113 million on those efforts in the U.S. and France," ICAN notes.

"Together," the report continues, "nuclear weapon-producing companies, nuclear-armed governments, and those in nuclear alliances spent $21-36 million funding the ten of the most prominent think tanks researching and writing about nuclear weapons in nuclear-armed states."

The think tanks highlighted in ICAN's report include the Atlantic Council—which received funding from Bechtel, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and other major contractors in 2021—and the Brookings Institution, which "received between $600,000 and $1,199,997 from three companies that produce nuclear weapons: Leonardo, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman."

ICAN published its report on the same day that a new analysis by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute showed that the number of operational warheads in nuclear-armed nations' arsenals grew last year amid soaring tensions over Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

According to ICAN, "Russia's invasion of Ukraine and overt threats to use nuclear weapons have induced fear across the planet, but have also spurred a resilience and re-thinking of outdated concepts like nuclear deterrence," which suggests the threat of nuclear retaliation is sufficient to deter nuclear-armed countries from using the civilization-threatening weaponry.

ICAN has argued that the idea of nuclear deterrence "makes nuclear use more likely because the threat of use of nuclear weapons must be credible, and so the nuclear-armed states are always poised to launch nuclear weapons."

"Luck, not reason or strategy, has kept nuclear weapons from being used in warfare for the past 78 years. But we can't count on our luck to hold in perpetuity," the group's new report states. "For the first time in decades, the general public was confronted with a very real threat of nuclear war in 2022. The threat that nuclear weapons pose, as long as they exist, became tangible, with iodine tablets selling out across Europe and an increase in demand for nuclear bunkers."

ICAN concludes its report by imploring all nations to sign and ratify the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), a legally binding international agreement that none of the nine nuclear-armed countries have signed. The United States and Russia, which together possess 90% of the world's nuclear warheads, have both opposed U.N. resolutions welcoming the TPNW and urging countries to swiftly ratify it.

To date, more than 90 countries have signed the treaty and nearly 70 have ratified it.


"The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons is the multilateral response to the irresponsible behavior of all nuclear-armed states," ICAN's report says. "It is the normative barricade against threats to use nuclear weapons. All countries should join this landmark international instrument to prohibit the development and maintenance of nuclear weapons and prevent their eventual use by ensuring their elimination."

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for PERMANENT ARMS ECONOMY 

UN Palestinian refugee agency near brink of collapse, its head warns

'It takes political mobilization, political will to prevent agency from sinking completely,' says Philippe Lazzarini

Aşkın Kıyağan |12.06.2023 -

Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) building, Gaza

VIENNA

The UN agency for Palestinian refugees is on the verge of financial collapse, the agency’s head warned on Monday.

The agency tried various methods over the last three years to solve these problems but has yet to get the needed results, Philippe Lazzarini, head of the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), told reporters in Vienna.

The economic decline of the agency would mean that "the rights of Palestinian refugees will also decrease," he explained.

"It takes political mobilization and will to prevent the agency from sinking completely," he said.

Saying the agency has a financial deficit of close to $200 million, Lazzarini stressed the importance of food aid to Gaza, saying that $75 million is needed to continue food aid to the region, especially to the Gaza Strip, where the World Food Program has cut back on its activities.

He added that he hopes the needed financial support can be provided by this September.

The agency was founded in 1948 in the wake of the Nakba or Catastrophe, in which hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were expelled from their homes and lands after the founding of Israel. It continues to help millions of Palestinians in the blockaded Gaza Strip and Israeli-occupied West Bank with such services as education, food, and jobs.

THE HISTORICAL ATTACK ON TRANS RIGHTS

Sweden players ‘forced’ to prove they're women at 2011 WC: Had to show genitals

By Mallika Soni
Jun 12, 2023 

The gender tests were carried out around the 2011 tournament in Germany.

Sweden’s players had to “show their genitalia for the doctor” at the 2011 Women’s World Cup to prove that they were women, team’s centre-back Nilla Fischer revealed in her new book ‘I Didn’t Even Say Half Of It’. Nilla Fischer described the process, which was conducted by a female physiotherapist on behalf of the doctor, as “humiliating”, writing, “We were told that we should not shave ‘down there’ in the coming days and that we will show our genetalia for the doctor. No one understands the thing about shaving but we do as we are told and think ‘how did it get to this?’ Why are we forced to do this now, there has to be other ways to do this. Should we refuse?"

Nilla Fischer in a duel with an American player during the 2011 World Cup. (File)

“At the same time no one wants to jeopardise the opportunity to play at a World Cup. We just have to get the shit done no matter how sick and humiliating it feels," she added.

The gender tests were carried out around the 2011 tournament in Germany amid protests from Nigeria, South Africa and Ghana relating to allegations that the Equatorial Guinea squad included men.

In an interview with the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet, Nilla Fischer said, “I understand what I have to do and quickly pull down my training pants and underwear at the same time. The physio nods and says ‘yup’ and then looks out at the doctor who is standing with his back to my doorway. He makes a note and moves on in the corridor to knock on the next door."

“When everyone on our team is checked, that is to say, has exposed their vagina, our team doctor can sign that the Swedish women’s national football team consists only of women," adding, “We had a very safe environment in the team. So it was probably the best environment to do it in. But it’s an extremely strange situation and overall not a comfortable way to do it.”

Two weeks before the 2011 World Cup began, Fifa issued its current gender recognition policies which state, "It lies with each participating member association to … ensure the correct gender of all players by actively investigating any perceived deviation in secondary sex characteristic.”

KLIMATE KRISIS

Watch: Peak of Austria's Fluchthorn mountain collapses in massive mudslide

TURN SPEAKERS UP

 
Jun 12, 2023 #Nocomment

A mountain rescuer captured the footage in Tyrol, close to the Swiss border. Fluchthorn is the second-highest summit in the Silvretta Alps.

EMOTIONAL PLAGUE

Swedish police union calls for crisis commission to stop gang shootings

STOCKHOLM, June 12 (Reuters) - Sweden's police union urged the government on Monday to set up a crisis commission to stop a wave of gun violence that saw two people shot dead and two others wounded in Stockholm over the weekend.

Shootings have become an almost daily occurrence, according to police statistics, with most blamed on gangs.

"What we are seeing now with these shootings is a threat not only to individuals, but to our whole society," the union said in a statement.

A 15-year-old boy and a 45-year-old man died after Saturday's shooting in southern Stockholm. Another 15-year-old and a woman were wounded.

Two men were later arrested. Police said the motive remained unclear.

The union called for a broad commission including government, local authorities and civil society to stop the violence.

"This isn't something the police can fight against alone," it said.

Sweden's right-wing government came to power last year promising to end the violence that has shocked a nation that until recently prided itself on order and social harmony.

The ruling coalition - supported by the anti-immigration Sweden Democrats - has blamed the unrest on what it says are decades of failed integration policies.

Both the current government and its left-of-centre predecessor have boosted the budget for the police and the criminal justice system, but the shootings have continued.

According to the police, there were 144 shooting incidents in Sweden this year up to the end of May, on average about one a day.

At least 20 people have been killed this year, including the two in Stockholm over the weekend.

In 2022, there were 391 shootings leading to 62 deaths, according to police figures. That was up from 46 deaths the year before.

 (Reporting by Simon Johnson; Editing by Andrew Heavens)

The end of the neo-liberal order?

With a new consensus in Washington, it’s time for Canberra  to consider a shake-up of misguided industrial policy.

US industry incentives have the potential to drain scarce capital and expertise away from Australia 

STEPHEN GRENVILLE

Published 13 Jun 2023

Did US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan’s “New Washington Consensus” speech on 27 April signal the end of the neo-liberal order, when free markets had a paramount role in an economy dominated by private-sector enterprise?

Gary Gerstle’s book, The Rise and Fall of the Neo-liberal Order, provides useful perspective to the Sullivan speech. It fits America’s modern economic history into two “orders”: the New Deal Order, beginning with the Depression and ending with the stagflation of the 1970s; and the Neo-liberal Order, beginning with the election of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan and perhaps ending with the global financial crisis (GFC) in 2008.

The New Deal Order began in an economy with a tiny role for government – the top rate for income tax was 7%. The architect of the New Deal, Franklin D. Roosevelt, was an economic activist but on a small scale. The US government’s role was supercharged by the Second World War and came to maturity in the three post-war decades. Roosevelt was a pragmatist without a clear economic doctrine: Keynesian macro-management came later, and with it a burgeoning role for governments in the provision of social services (education, health) and infrastructure.

The 1970s’ stagflation discredited macro-economic policies. There was also disenchantment with the demonstrated deficiencies of government services and enterprises.
International trade openness is an important marker distinguishing economic regimes – putting autarchic Cuba and North Korea in a different category from America or Australia.

Thus began Gerstle’s Neo-liberal Order, backed by the powerful rhetoric of libertarians such as Milton Friedman. The coincident election of Thatcher and Reagan looked like a watershed order-changing moment.

Meanwhile, academic theory promoted the “efficient markets” hypothesis: free markets would provide optimal guidance for production and output.

This era brought productivity-boosting economic reform. But it also brought income inequality and industrial decline for Western economies as China became “manufacturer to the world”.

The 2008 GFC should have dealt a heavy blow to the “efficient markets” view, especially in its heartland – the financial sector. However, neither the GFC nor the limp recovery afterwards changed much. There was dissatisfaction (see “Occupy Wall Street”), but as no viable alternative was on offer, not much changed.

This near-century period looks like evolution rather than libertarian revolution. The continuities are more obvious than any epoch-defining breaks.

Throughout, markets continued their central role in allocation, while at the same time regulation increased, reflecting technology and complexity. As living standards rose, demand expanded for the kind of services that only governments will provide.

How does all this fit with Sullivan’s New Washington Consensus? Viewed in the context of the huge changes encompassed in Gerstle’s two “orders”, Sullivan’s economic changes are just a tiny tweak. Sullivan is belatedly putting rhetorical flesh around the already-announced policies in the Inflation Reduction Act, the CHIPS and Science Act and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

We should note that John Williamson’s original Washington Consensus was a middle-of-the-road common-sense articulation of the indisputable advantages of markets and international trade, rather than libertarian dogma. Sullivan’s economic initiatives would easily fit within the old consensus.
Subsidies to offset the market’s inability to address climate change are advocated almost universally.

International trade openness is an important marker distinguishing economic regimes – putting autarchic Cuba and North Korea in a different category from America or Australia. But openness is one of the continuities in American policy: free trade was consistently and loudly advocated, even if never perfectly implemented. The liberal side of politics – the Democrats – was always ambivalent about the benefits of free trade. Sullivan’s interventions are well within the quite flexible parameters that characterise the norms of trade openness – and America’s past trade restrictions.

On tariffs, Sullivan says that the intention is to put “high walls around a small yard”. Compare this with Europe’s pervasive agricultural protection, so deeply embedded that it goes without comment. On industrial policies (subsidies and trade protection), major countries routinely give domestic-production preference in defence procurement – just one example of the pervasiveness of industrial policy. Post-Second World War America has always had large government projects and industry subsidies: Eisenhower’s highways; Kennedy’s man-on-the-moon; US Department of Defence (DARPA) technology subsidies, Tesla’s electric cars and Solyndra’s (failed) solar panels.

Subsidies to offset the market’s inability to address climate change are advocated almost universally. Active labour-market programs to address income inequality and soften industrial transition are found in many countries and have long been advocated for America.

In short, Sullivan’s New Washington Order falls well within the economic mainstream.

The element that makes the Sullivan speech seem of greater import is the unambiguous priority of security over these widely-accepted economic norms. US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen’s speech earlier in April carried the same message.

We don’t have an analytical framework to weigh the supposed security advantages against the economic costs. Commentators have noted the doubtful security benefits. Here, we concentrate just on the economic costs – to America, and to its trade-partner allies.
Redirecting our current misguided industrial policies, notably domestic production of nuclear-powered submarines, would be a big step towards economic efficiency.

America, as a huge, resource-rich flexible and diverse economy, pays only a small efficiency cost for these interventions. The main distortions will be in the response of smaller less-diverse economies.

“The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must”. How should Australia react? As a beneficiary and active proponent of multilateral open trade, Australia has been guided by the idea that, just because your trading partners put rocks in their harbours, that doesn’t mean you should also do so. In any case, we don’t produce the high-tech products that are Sullivan’s focus. So, there are no trade policy implications for us.

US President Joe Biden’s climate-change initiatives, however, fall squarely into Australia’s comparative advantage: Australia’s has great potential to be a major global force in solar/wind-based electricity industries. Is America “eating our lunch”?

The climate challenge is so large that there is room for both countries (and others as well). The issue, however, is that Biden’s incentives may artificially suck scarce capital and expertise away from Australia.

We should overcome our usual well-founded presumption against industrial policy. This is the exception to the rule: a legitimate “second-best” argument for matching the incentives provided by the Biden initiative, at least in those aspects where we have clear comparative advantage – industries that require cheap, plentiful electricity, such as green hydrogen. 

Redirecting our current misguided industrial policies, notably domestic production of nuclear-powered submarines, would be a big step towards economic efficiency and enhance our energy security at the same time.

ICYMI

Ancient stones, thought to be 7000 years old, removed to build a hardware store in France

 Jun 13 2023

THREE LIONS/GETTY IMAGES
One of the three large fields of stones near Carnac in Brittany was erected around 4000 years ago.

A site in Western France with ancient stones, thought to be around 7000 years old, has been destroyed in order to make way for a home improvement and DIY hardware store chain, France 24 reports.

The 39 stones in Carnac were around 0.6m to 1.2m in height and were situated close to highly protected pre-historic tourist attraction where similar menhirs exist.

Menhirs are tall upright stones of a kind that were erected during the pre-historic times in the Western Europe.

“The site has been destroyed,” local archaeologist Christian Obeltz told Agence France Presse on Wednesday.

Obeltz believes that the local authorities failed to properly investigate the value of the site before granting the building permit to the DIY chain Mr Bricolage last year.

“There weren't archaeological excavations in order to know if the stones were menhirs or not," he said.

However, Mayor of Carnac, Olivier Lepick, told AFP that he “followed the law” in granting the building permit and the stones found on the site were of “low archaeological value”.




“There were never 39 menhirs in this place. The preventative excavations we carried out in 2015 clearly show this,” Lepick told French news channel CNews.

“It’s really not the kind of images described in certain media articles. I feel like I have destroyed the Mona Lisa when I read certain articles,” he added.

Responding to the situation, the Regional Office of Cultural Affairs for Brittany, France said in a statement: “Given the uncertain and in any case non-major character of the remains, as revealed by checks, damage to a site of archaeological value has not been established."

Nepal mountaineer rescues a Malaysian climber from the ‘Death Zone’ of Mount Everest

Nepal mountaineer rescues a Malaysian climber from the ‘Death Zone’ of Mount Everest

Sherpas are often overshadowed and incorrectly perceived as mere porters

Written byBenju Lwagun

Posted 12 June 2023 

Gelje Sherpa rescued the Malaysian climber by carrying him on his shoulders. Screenshot from a YouTube video by David Snow. Fair use.

Gelje Sherpa, a professional mountaineer and guide from Nepal, accomplished a remarkable rescue operation on May 18th by saving a Malaysian climber on Mount Everest. According to a government official, this “very rare” rescue mission took place at an extremely high altitude where oxygen levels are very low. The area is commonly called the “Death Zone” due to its treacherous conditions and the significant number of fatalities that occur there.

On May 18th, while leading a Chinese climber toward the summit of Mount Everest (8,849 meters or 29,032 feet), Gelje Sherpa made a significant discovery — a stranded Malaysian climber on the verge of succumbing to freezing temperatures. In order to save the climber’s life, Gelje persuaded his Chinese client to end his summit and descend to the Everest Base Camp, allowing him to focus on saving the stranded Malaysian climber’s life.

Twitter user Joe Pompliano said:

In an interview with Guardian News, Gelje mentioned that it was more important to save a life than going for the summit. He carried the stranded climber on his back from 1,900 feet at an extreme altitude; the rescue took about six hours. Gelje wrote in his Instagram account about the rescue: “I carried him myself all the way down to Camp 4 where a rescue team helped from then on.”

Twitter user Naser tweeted:

A strange omission

Gelje Sherpa’s heroic act received applause and accolades from across the globe, with numerous international news channels highlighting his brave act. However, there appears to be one individual who is not very happy about the rescue: the Malaysian climber himself, Ravichandran Tharumalingam. In an Instagram post, Tharumalingam took the opportunity to express gratitude toward his sponsors, failing to mention Gelje Sherpa. Soon after this post, social media users started slamming Tharumalingam for neglecting to acknowledge Gelje’s role in saving his life. As the situation escalated, Tharumalingam posted another message expressing gratitude toward the Sherpas who played a part in his rescue, including Gelje Sherpa.

The role of Sherpas on Everest

Nepal is home to Mount Everest, which is considered the world’s highest peak. Eight of the top ten highest mountain peaks in the world are located in Nepal, making it a popular destination for mountaineers.

The climbing of Mount Everest, revered as the ultimate test for mountaineers, is never complete without a remarkable group of professionals in Nepal known as Sherpas. Often mistaken as mere porters, the Sherpas come from an ethnic community deeply rooted in Nepal’s culture and history. Their community has lived in mountainous regions for generations and has mastered the ability to survive in this challenging atmosphere on a daily basis.

Leveraging their expertise, Sherpas play pivotal roles in each Everest expedition. They assist in establishing camps, cook for the expedition teams, carry oxygen supplies to the camps, and provide guidance and support throughout the arduous journey to the Everest summit. They are the backbone of any expedition and they are some of the world’s best athletes. Not only do they guide the climbers to the summit, but they often take heroic risks to save other climbers.

Regrettably, the Sherpas remain largely unknown to the world, often overshadowed and incorrectly perceived as mere porters. Reports indicate that porters receive a meager average daily wage of five US dollars, while seasoned guides can earn around four to five thousand US dollars for their services during climbs. These porters shoulder an immense burden, carrying over thirty kilograms of weight per person to the base camp. However, their incomes are barely enough to meet their families’ basic needs.

While Sherpas may have contributed to making Everest summits appear easier, the reality is far from it. There are many record-breaking Sherpa mountaineers who have taken the Himalayan Expedition to the international level and given more recognition. Nepal, despite its potential to lead the global mountaineering arena, faces challenges due to the lack of robust government support and adequate human resources.

RIGHT WING STR8 MALE HYSTERIA

Opposition to transgender athletes on teams matching gender identity rises: Gallup 

BY LAUREN SFORZA - 06/12/23 

THE HILL

A transgender flag being waved at LGBTQ gay pride march.

More Americans are saying that they are opposed to transgender athletes playing on teams that match their gender identity, according to a new poll.

A Gallup poll found that 69 percent of American respondents say that transgender athletes should only play on sports teams that match their birth gender, a 7 point increase from 2021. Just 26 percent said that transgender athletes should be able to play on teams that match their identity, an 8 point drop from 2021.

A Flourish chart

“It appears that Americans view transgender sports participation more through a lens of competitive fairness than transgender civil rights. Even Democrats, who mostly support LGBTQ+ rights and affirm the morality of gender change, are divided on the issue of whether transgender athletes should be allowed to participate on teams that match their gender identity rather than birth gender,” according to the poll results report.

This increased opposition also applies to those Americans who say they know a transgender person. Among respondents who say they know a transgender person in 2023, 64 percent said transgender athletes should only play on teams that match their birth gender. This is an increase from 2021, when 53 percent of those who know a transgender person said transgender athletes should only only be allowed to play on teams that match their birth gender.

Among those who said they did not know a transgender person, 72 percent said that they should only play on teams that match their birth gender in 2023. This is a 6 point increase from those who said the same answer in 2021.

While Republicans overwhelmingly oppose transgender athletes being able to play on teams that match their gender identity — with only 6 percent who support it — Democrats are split on the issue. Among Democrats, 47 percent responded that transgender athletes should be able to play on teams that match their gender identity, and 48 percent said that they should only play on teams with their birth gender. Six percent of Democrats said they had no opinion.

The poll also found that a majority of respondents said changing one’s gender is “morally wrong,” which is a slight increase from 2021. Likewise, 43 percent said that it was “morally acceptable,” which is a 3 point drop from 2021.

The Gallup poll was conducted May 1-24 among 1,011 adults from all 50 states and Washington, D.C. It has a sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Why Florida’s anti-trans bathroom bill is so dangerous

BY WYNNE NOWLAND, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR - 06/12/23 

THE HILL

(AP Photo/Armando Franca, File)
A demonstrator holds up a sign during a march to mark International Transgender Day of Visibility in Lisbon, March 31, 2022.

There was a time when Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said engaging in “bathroom wars” was not a “good use of our time.” Apparently, he has changed his mind on that issue.

On May 17, 2023, DeSantis signed legislation that imposes a number of restrictions on the transgender community in his state, including blocking them from using public restrooms that align with their gender identity.

I would argue that DeSantis should continue to see bathroom wars as a waste of time. In fact, the amount of time and energy legislators in Florida and other states across the country are spending on this issue is an outrage to me and, I believe, should be an outrage to every voter.

The trans population in this country represents less than 2 percent of the general population, yet politicians feel we need to occupy a much more significant portion of the political debate space. According to recent statistics, there are nearly 370 active anti-trans bills being considered by state legislators.

With all the serious issues that our country faces, from immigration to inflation to abortion, it hardly seems that bathroom wars should be a priority for politicians. Yet, they routinely return to these kinds of matters, while avoiding the hard work that needs to be done to solve pressing and far-reaching problems.

Florida legislators cite safety as the justification for Gov. DeSantis’s new legislation — a common approach taken when promoting this type of bill. The state legislature even titled the new law the “Safety in Private Spaces Act,” with rhetoric claiming that women will be unsafe if a trans person is in the same bathroom as them. Even though academic studies refute this, those who publicly support bathroom restrictions continue to make it seem like these types of threats to a woman’s safety are common.

Sadly, while the sponsors of these kinds of discriminatory bills base their arguments on unsubstantiated concerns over safety, they ignore the dangers they create for the transgender community.

Consider the draconian details of the new Florida law; in basic language, it limits people to using the bathroom designated for the gender they were assigned at birth. Someone like me, who has gone through all the necessary psychological, medical and legal steps required to fully transition my gender, would still be required to use the men’s room. Safety is given as a reason for these laws, yet no one seems to care how safe I would be if I were forced to use a men’s room at this point in my life.

Those who think this is not an issue for the trans community should consider a 2019 study that explored the prevalence of sexual assault on transgender students who were subject to “restrictive access” to bathrooms and locker rooms, meaning they could not use the spaces that matched their sexual identity. The study found that one in four transgender and gender-nonbinary teens affected by restrictive access were victims of sexual assault. Legislators who are truly concerned about safety cannot ignore those statistics.

As history has shown us, however, people who do not have personal experience with an issue can be led astray and riled up by fear-mongering. That is exactly what is happening with the bathroom wars. Because the trans community is such a small part of the population, most people have no meaningful experience with transgendered persons. As a result, it is easier for politicians to use these issues to demonize us and stir up fear in those who are naive about the topic. It’s also politically safe for politicians to use that approach, since our numbers are not significant enough to make them care about our voting bloc.

Several years ago, legislators in North Carolina passed a bathroom bill that was very similar to the one just passed in Florida. The move sparked a huge wave of public outcry. Corporations moved out of the state, sporting events were canceled, and even Bruce Springsteen said he wouldn’t perform in North Carolina if the law stayed in effect.

That kind of intense pressure caused North Carolina to repeal the law. Now, however, we are not seeing nearly the amount of public outcry in Florida and other states that have become active in the bathroom wars.

The voices of the trans community alone are not enough to fight this battle. It is time for those who were on our side in North Carolina to put pressure on Florida and other states to repeal these kinds of hateful and harmful laws. American life is becoming increasingly unsafe for members of the LGBTQIA+ community, and these laws are a major reason why.

Wynne Nowland, the CEO of Bradley & Parker, transitioned at age 56. As one of the very few openly trans CEOs, Wynne is able to provide unique insight on trans issues and topics as a trans business leader and entrepreneur.