questions that's in the Q and A. So the Equal Rights Amendment actually, it doesn't mean there are no distinctions based on sex, but what it does say is you can't discriminate. So if we remember Ruth Bader Ginsburg actually used one of the first discrimination cases she brought was a man who is who, I think he was being, you probably know this better than I do. He was being discriminated against because he wanted to take time off to take care of for his parents. But because he was a man, they didn't want him, there was no, people don't think that was okay because he's, why would you take off time to care for your parents? It's not a thing. So we do see that some of the earlier discrimination cases were actually men because we know that the judges in those cases, would have more understanding if it was a man being discriminated against than a woman. And so that's why she was very strategic in bringing those cases forward. So if you think of it this way, it doesn't mean that you can't have that there isn't child support, it's spousal support or not spousal support. Child support is based on who is a primary breadwinner and what is needed to take care of those children if you don't have custody. So it doesn't mean that it goes away, it just means it's more equitable and who actually gets, if you're caring for your children and you're not the primary breadwinner then you do need support.  Like I have friends who they got a divorce and they made more than their husband but the husband has joint custody so they have to provide support. It happens and that's a good thing. It's a good thing that we have more equity in our system and it doesn't take away, it just means that more people are eligible to benefit from the laws that we have in place and it makes it more equal. I saw a movie last night, 50 for 50 by 450. It's about women leaders on the national level, presidents, prime ministers and the like and in a lot of countries, they don't really look at mother and father, they look at parental.  You have parental leave and we see that men are able to invest in their families more. It's an obscene amount of men feel like they can't take parental leave when it's offered to them because society says that you can't. They could, but because we have this idea in mind about what makes a man what a man is as a breadwinner it really does harm our families and it harms our future and children and men and everyone involved in that situation. So that's why it doesn't take away but it adds and it brings more people into the picture of who is protected under that amendment. Right, I think that's so important because I think a lot of people don't understand that and they're very concerned about it. Some people will lose if the ERA is passed. No, we all win. That's the beautiful part about it. Right. This is, I mean, I know this is something you hope does not have to happen but is there any path to sort of start anew with Congress passing a new amendment that would have? I'll ask you that question. What do you think? I'll ask everyone here. So unfortunately, we know the society in which we live right now, it is so polarized. Everyone, you can't even get members of Congress to agree that sky's blue when it is. Everyone has to have their nuance shade because we're so partisan and the politics is just the partisanship and the divisiveness is just run rampant. And I know a lot of Republicans actually like to use Ruth Bader Ginsburg actually said we should start over but she said that before we had the 38th state ratify. We're in a very different landscape now than we were when she made that statement but it keeps getting thrown in our face and we're like, we love RBG. She's phenomenal. I actually got to meet her, it was great. But that was a very different landscape and until we get to a place where our politics are not so partisan and polarized, we're not gonna be able to do this again. This is their best shot to get it done and we can get it done. We just need to get people motivated to do the right thing and show them why it's in their best interest to do so. So we have another question who first of us student who first thanks you for sharing your experience and your vision and wonders how do you think an advocate would respond or should respond to a white man who is arguing that these efforts do not involve him or that it is not his fight? So does he have a wife who works? Does he have a daughter? Does he have a son? If he doesn't have any of those things it's a different conversation. But if he has anyone he cares about who is negatively impacted by this, then that's why.  That affects your bottom line. If you have a daughter who might find herself pregnant at some point in her life or a son who might find that he impregnated someone at some point in their life and they're not ready to have a family would you take them to get an abortion? Would you have to leave your state to take them to get an abortion because there are bans in the state in which you live. If you have a trans child at home but I mean there are a number of reasons why personally like for family members but for him himself, what he wanted to help out with his kids more would he wanna be free to take time off of work and not be penalized for it to do so to take care of his family? Would he want to be free of the gendered stereotypes that lock all of us in by this toxic masculinity that some of us see around us and that continues to perpetuate because of these gendered stereotypes that are found their way into our laws? Imagine a world where we're free of much of that because our systems, we're trying to tear down the systems that enforce that on us. We're all in prison in many ways and folks just don't see it, you have to make it relatable to them. Say this is why, even if it doesn't directly impact you though it does, you have to be able to see beyond your lived experience and understand that it's impactful for everyone. Mm-hmm. Yeah, and I think again that fear-mongering has been so powerful that people just have a sense that this is going to either destroy what they have or it doesn't impact me because it's just some sort of marginal group of feminists that are concerned about this. And I think it's so important what you're doing to make it clear that not only does this impact a broad array of rights but it really does impact everybody. So another question is about really how this coalition that you were talking about that you're part of and are leading in terms of the ERA, you have mentioned so many different rights and things that are impacted. How do you sort of prioritize what you focus on? I mean, you mentioned just now that abortion rights is something that is very important and then sort of front of mind right now. How do you kind of make decisions as a coalition about how you're gonna strategically get this moved forward? So everyone in our coalition understands that the Equal Rights Amendment is our main priority. We are the ones driving the effort to get it added to the Constitution. But as part of that, we also uplift campaigns for the rest of our partner organizations. So when we have Equal Payday comes up, we promote Equal Payday amongst our partners and our coalition so that everyone is advancing that. We sign on to letters to Congress. We talk to members of the administration as well. So we do uplift those movements as well. We uplift our partners and their issues but understanding that our main focus is the Equal Rights Amendment and that's the vehicle to which we're going to achieve this larger vision of equality that we have for the country. And so everyone understands that that's what we're fighting for. We have all these other, we have the resources that we use are being used to uplift all of our issues because we are so siloed and that's to our detriment. People, the forces that we wanna keep us separated because they know that if we come together and we work together, we're much stronger, we're much louder and we can actually do more. And so that's what we're really building is that that movement of movements coming together to actually push back against the rollback of our rights because we don't, our movement is funded in the millions and our opposition is funded in the billions. And so we have people power and that's what we're gonna use to get this thing done. Wow. So you had mentioned several times that the job is just beginning once the ERA gets actually enthrined in the constitution. Do you see your organization as continuing that fight or is it, is your job done in terms of the ERA coalition? No, so we're actually, so we're looking, we're coming upon our 10 year anniversary next year. And so as part of that reflection, we're talking about how can we use our coalition that we felt, I mean, we have a massive coalition and we're growing it every month, every day actually. How do we use that to actually make the change we wanna see? And so we're refocusing how we're going to work on implementation of the Equal Rights Amendment once we have the amendment in the constitution. So we are pulling together working groups that are going to, and actually we're doing one today that are really focusing on the different aspects of the work that we do, electoral work, work on the state level, work on the federal level and then communications, public education and awareness. And using those groups to talk about, okay, how do we message the work that we're doing now and how do we build these, the infrastructure for the work that needs to happen during implementation? So we're looking ahead, because we know that we have to get this thing done, but we also need to be mindful of what's gonna happen next because someone's gonna have to take the lead and moving that forward and we're that organization. That's great. So in terms of just the fight that you have been part of for so long, what are some surprises that you have found and maybe what are some rewarding moments that you have found? It's hard to be surprised these days, to be quite honest with you, and especially so like I've worked in the repro rights space for some time also, so like Dobbs wasn't, we knew Dobbs was coming, it was just a matter of when. And we've seen the stacking of the ports that we've seen, we've seen the polarization of our electorate more and more. So I guess sometimes the surprise is when you get people reaching out that you otherwise wouldn't. I don't know, it's small moments usually. It's when someone that you think has a particular point of view shocks you by saying the right thing, right? I can't think of a specific interest, but one of the things that I love to see is I love it when people's eyes light up, when you tell them, we don't have an equal rights amendment. And they're like, what? And I say, and this is how it, and then they start thinking about how it impacts them. And then they're like, then they go off and they tell everyone else, I was like, did you know we don't have this? Did you know this, that and the other? And that spreads and I love seeing that because that organic inquisitiveness and the spreading of that joy and not necessarily joy and energy, but the spreading of that awareness and information is really what's gonna happen because we are not situated in a way that we can actually communicate to the millions and millions of people that we need to outside of our coalition, but every person who takes the time to talk to 10 more people about this, that expands our work. Right, so in terms of, again, our audience is a lot of it is law students who, again, are interested in this, are there and many of them will be looking for jobs soon. So what are some options particularly, and I realize, you know, you're not an attorney, but I know you play one on TV. So what are some options for new lawyers who would like to go into this type of work? So I know you have to pay off your law school debt. So find a firm that does pro bono work in the area in which you're interested in. I have a number of friends who did that coming out of law school. They went to big firms that they knew that the pro bono work they do is in an area that speaks to them. And so that's one way that they could use their skills and talents to help with that. Volunteer, join a board, go knock doors on a weekend if you like to be active. I mean, sometimes knocking doors when it's not freezing cold outside can be therapeutic, right? You go and you talk to someone and you convince them, not necessarily convince them, but you have a conversation about something you're passionate about. It's a very different way to think of the world outside of law school. So I teach the class at Georgetown and every time my students come in, it's a very different class than what they're used to because I want them to focus on themselves. It's a lot very reflective. Why do you wanna run for office? What is it that motivates you? What makes you the best person for that job? And they never have to think about themselves. It's a very different way of looking at the world. And so for them, it's cathartic in some way because it's a break from the monotony, even if it's exciting, from the routine that law school provides for you. So I would say try something, try to find something that finds you joy and do it in a volunteer capacity until you pay off that law school debt. And then once you do that, then you can, I know so many people who went to law school who aren't lawyers right now because they found their passion outside of it, but you can still use those skills and that you learn in that capacity and the knowledge that you have and take that into the world and make real change. So there's so many opportunities out there. Two things, try something and knowing what you don't like is just as important as knowing what you like and be open to opportunities when they present themselves and just take life as it comes. Yeah, and I think for students, they sometimes don't recognize how powerful their voices can be both while they're still in law school and then obviously when they graduate and are lawyers, that it's really such a powerful role that you can play. And it is incredibly rewarding. It's something, you're actually doing something that you care about that makes a real difference in the world. And I try to tell my students that as well, that it's something that is just so central to making you feel like a satisfied and a valuable person in your work.  And so you have these skills and talents that you can take anywhere while you're still in school that people would love to have you use. So I can't stress this enough. Go volunteer right now on a campaign for an organization. I mean, you can join, but we have college students who are on boards, we have grad students who are on boards with me. So you can use your skills, your talents and your enthusiasm right now as a law student in a way that you find passion. Right. So I know we're running a little short on time. If anyone has some final questions if they could put them in the Q and A. And in the meantime, I think we really want to emphasize that something you've been talking about, which is this idea that we can't just sort of sit back and watch other people do these things. And maybe you could give some other sort of encouraging words to all of the audience, both students and there are a lot of lawyers in the audience and others about what we could do to get this past. The biggest thing is talking to more people about it. I mean, if you live in a state like I do where your representative is on the right side of the issue, it's sometimes it's hard to, you can't really call Congress a member of Congress elsewhere. But talk to people who are in states who maybe they could call their member of Congress. Have a conversation with someone. And again, don't try to change their mind. Just have a conversation and just try to drop a few nuggets and just keep it moving. But the more people we know, we talk to who are aware of the situation and we're in the importance of it, especially in the importance in this moment right now, that's key. So amplifying those voices on social media, talking to people who are not on social media but who have audiences themselves. If you find a way to use your megaphone and your platform in whatever way you can do it because that's really how we're going to move the needle is the more people who are engaged and involved in this, the more likely we're going to get it done now instead of having to wait more years down the road. Well, I really want to thank you so much really. I have found this personally very inspiring and you're doing incredible work and I know it's also incredibly challenging. And particularly, I mean, I'm just and some of the questions reflected this. I'm just so impressed and amazed with how many different arenas you're working on and at the same time, the Congress, the archivist, the states, I mean, it's just really incredible. And so I think everybody listening to you is very inspired and I really hope that the law students in the audience really take this to heart because this issue or whatever your issue is that you're passionate about is, you know, it's just, it's so important that you follow that. So I thank you so much, Zakiya, for taking the time to spend time with us. And I'm just looking at my leaders here. They're saying that we are now supposed to be taking a break, a lunch break until 2 p.m. when we have a terrific panel coming up on transgender rights. So everyone have a good lunch and come back and Zakiya, I hope our pass will cross again. And I'll be remiss if I didn't say go to theeracollection.org to learn more about our work and follow us on social media. Oh, that'd be great. Okay, thank you so much. All right, everybody take care and I'll see you at two. Bye everyone. Bye. Good afternoon everyone and welcome to the afternoon portion of the Justice for All symposium. The phrase justice for all dates back to the founding of our country, but it has become increasingly clear that many groups of people are often left out of the all category. A person's race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, citizenship, ability, age, and or socioeconomic status are just a few of the factors that locked them out of receiving equal treatment in our justice system. This morning we had the pleasure to hear from a panel focusing on Title IX and from our keynote speaker Zakiya Thomas from the ERA Coalition. If you are just joining us, please check out the recording which will be posted on the Law School's YouTube channel. This afternoon we have gathered to delve into one of the most pressing and evolving legal issues of our time, the transformation of law in regards to transgender rights and protections for transgender individuals. In recent years, there has been a seismic shift in the legal landscape surrounding transgender rights marked by both advancements and challenges. This panel will encompass a broad spectrum of legal considerations from education, healthcare, criminal justice, housing, employment, and personal freedoms. The legal rights and challenges facing transgender individuals are multifaceted and they intersect with matters of equality, justice, and human rights. It is crucial to recognize that as society's understanding of gender identity and expression evolves, our legal framework must adapt to ensure that all individuals regardless of their gender identity enjoy equal protection under the law. This panel will engage in a thoughtful and constructive dialogue examining recent legal developments, ongoing struggles, and future prospects for the transgender community. Through our collective insights and expertise, we aim to foster a deeper understanding of the challenges transgender individuals face in the legal arena as well as the steps needed to create a more inclusive and legal and just legal system. We hope that this panel will serve as a platform for illuminating discussions and will contribute the ongoing efforts to shape a more equitable and compassionate world for all transgender individuals. Thank you all for joining us in this critical conversation. Without further ado, I will turn it over to our wonderful moderators, Nicole Dyshlefsky and 2L student, Sam Filayashi. Thank you. Thank you, Andrea. And to start off with Sam and I just want to say thank you for having this event today. Thank you for allowing us to moderate this panel. We feel really passionately about these topics and really thankful to have been included. To start off, Sam and I want to acknowledge that we all find ourselves in different places with these discussions and that's okay. The issues we're gonna raise today may not be beginner issues in this topic, but we'll try to elicit information in a way that we're all on the same page. Today, we welcome Attorney Hill, Professor Ward and Professor Weatherby with us. Attorney Hill, thank you for joining this important discussion today. We of course want to start out with some introductions about each of our speakers. Attorney Hill, you're the Chief Legal Counsel for the Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights. Could you tell us a bit about yourself, where you're from and how you fit into this conversation? Thank you for having me, Nicole and Sam and the law school. So as Chief Legal for the Commission for Human Rights, I primarily handle housing discrimination cases but the Commission's enforcement authority extends to discrimination on all protected categories based on in housing, employment, public accommodation, credit and delivery of services. So if a person were to experience discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, gender or gender expression, the Commission for Human Rights would be a place where they could come and make a complaint and have that complaint investigated and we have enforcement authority to take a case to a hearing and achieve an outcome for a complainant if there's merit. So that's the lens that I'm coming to this from is being the State Enforcement Agency for Anti-Discrimination Laws. And the other part of your question, I'm sorry, was... Where are you from? It was a long time ago. That should be an easy question. So I've been in Rhode Island for about seven years and before that I was in Arizona but before that I was in Connecticut and I was a high school teacher. So I'm also coming at this from, my job has an educational component that people need to know their rights, be aware of their rights in order to enforce their rights. Thank you so much, Attorney Hill. All right, and then up next, Professor Weatherby. You teach legal research and writing, employment, discrimination, education law and professional responsibility at the University of Arkansas School of Law. Professor Weatherby is a prolific scholar and a dedicated teacher winning University of Arkansas School of Laws inaugural Dean's Circle Faculty Award for teaching in 2021. Her research focuses on the intersection between religious exercise and public accommodation laws, First Amendment jurisprudence and the impact on student speech, hot button school law issues and emerging legal protections for transgender individuals. So Professor Weatherby, could you please tell us a little bit about yourself where you're from and how you fit into this conversation, please? Sure, thank you so much for having me, Nicole and Sam and Andrea and the whole R view. I'm delighted to be with you today. I've been an academic now since 2013. So primarily I've been thinking, doing research and writing about these issues, but prior to joining the legal academy, I practiced law in New York for seven years and represented school districts. And so I handled everything education law related, but part of my niche really became and really this was somewhat inconsistent with my firm's desire. I gave advice against their liking. They wish that I wouldn't have done this at the time, but it was in 2007, 2008 before people were really engaged with these issues. And I had districts that were ushering gender non-conforming and transitioning students through middle school and high school. And so I along with some really incredible administrators, superintendents and school boards advised with respect to how to handle some of the logistical issues that arose in that context and developed an expertise in the area. And then when I transitioned to legal academia, I started writing about it, thinking about it and advocating on behalf of that population. And it's been a great joy and privilege to have a small voice in this area, especially in Arkansas, where these topics are somewhat controversial. And that's what I bring to the conversation today. Yeah, thank you very much. Professor Ward, Professor Ward, I think my quick biographical statement is kind of underselling you. I could start with like John Ward, American legal hero, but I'm going to go, John Professor Ward is a lecturer at Boston University School of Law in 1978. In response to a pattern of police harassment of gay men, he gathered a group of community activists and founded GLAAD, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, now GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders. Can you tell us a bit about yourself, where you're from and how you fit into this conversation? First I have to unmute. Well, you know, actually, I'm also teaching the same course that I'm teaching at Boston University now at Boston College Law School. So I have this late life career as an adjunct. And my connection with Rhode Island actually goes back a long way. I clerked for Judge Raymond Patine in the district court. In 1976 and 1977, which was one of the most rewarding experiences of my life, Judge Patine was a hero. In my estimation, he took progressive stands about minorities, about draft debaters, about women seeking reproductive freedom, about LGBT folks in the days when it was extremely unpopular and paid a personal price for it. There was a real inspiration to be his law clerk for a year. And so yeah, in 1978, I did found glad. In a, actually, even though on paper, things were much more difficult for LGBT folks in those days, I felt that the wind was at our back that there was very little to lose because we didn't have very much. But for example, in 1980, I did a case actually in front of Judge Patine involving a young man who wanted to go to the prom with another boy. And we won that. And it was kind of, things were on the upswing and they were for a long time. So these are very different times. And even though much has been achieved, I think it's fair to say that we're feeling headwinds more than tailwinds. And so my interest is in sort of being a bully pulpit for the younger generation and finding ways because one of the things that I think has kept the movement going from the beginning is our nimbleness. And we're certainly gonna need that skill now. In terms of transgender folks, when GLAD was started, in all honesty, I can't say that everybody in the gay male and lesbian community was welcoming to trans folks. It's been an educational process. And I think one of the things that perhaps these difficult times have brought about is, if we weren't interested in intersectionality back then, it has come to us.  And it's that that inspires me in my work. So, oh, and by the way, I'm a recent transplant to Providence, Rhode Island, and I'm really loving living here. So I think that's about all. And I don't, I mean, it's very nice to be called a hero, there's that and the other thing, but I'm just one of the voices, you know? And the more I just keep the focus on the work, the more comfortable I feel. Thank you so much for having me. That's exactly what an American legal hero would say. Welcome to the ocean state and welcome to our panel. Yes, welcome to Rhode Island, everyone, even virtually as well. So I think we're just going to dive into our questions here. So this first one is just kind of an introduction to set the stage for everybody, kind of two complimentary questions. What is the current language that academics are now using to talk about transgender issues and transgender people? And what advice would you have for somebody who normally disengages from this topic? Because they care, but they don't want to seem offensive or disrespectful. And I suppose I'll pass the baton to attorney Hill. Thank you, Sam. Well, I'm not an academic. So I can't really say, you know, where the academic world is going. I would say a couple of things that something I'm hearing more now is gender diverse, as kind of an umbrella term for people who just don't fall into a strict binary of gender. And I also like that term better than gender non-conforming because I think it puts it into a more positive light as opposed to non-conforming sounds like it's a deficit as opposed to it's just another reality of how human beings live their lives.  I think that's like my top thing to say. Like if it's something you wouldn't ask a person who you don't know well, you know, regardless of their gender or sex, then you probably shouldn't be asking it to someone who you perceive to be gender diverse. Like it's just not any of your business, what somebody's like, sex life is like. And the other thing is you're gonna mess up. You know, at some point, you're probably going to misgender someone or use the wrong term or use the wrong pronoun. And the thing to do is if you catch it, say sorry, move on. If they catch it, say sorry and move on and try not to do it again. And I think gender diverse people are still people and we're all a lot more than our sex and our gender. And engaging with people in an effort to find out who they are as a person is generally something that won't steer you wrong if you're being genuine and humble about the interaction. Thank you. Hi, Professor Warder, Professor Weatherby, do you have any thoughts? I would just add, I think everything Lauren said I agree with. I would just add that as an academic, I don't look to other academics. I look to the community for the glossary of terms and actually I look at GLAD's website often to make sure that I'm staying on top of transition. This is a language that's evolving and changing quickly.  To the second question about engaging in the dialogue, I think and write a lot about speech tolerance and I think I'll just say that it's not just about the fear of engaging in the conversation, it's about how we receive the mistakes and Lauren mentioned that we're human beings, we make mistakes, I do too. And I think I just always encourage folks to give each other grace. There's going to be outdated non-PC terms that some people are gonna use because the terminology is evolving so quickly and the fear of causing someone offense can often be the reason why folks don't engage in the first place or speak up. And so what ends up happening is that the conversation shuts down rather than people feeling comfortable engaging without being vilified for getting it wrong. So I would just encourage people to show grace, be forgiving in terms of mistakes that others make and not vilify an individual for using a term that is outdated or incorrect or insensitive and try to educate that person in a respectful way so that as Lauren said, the next time they get it right because we can make mistakes, but we learn from them. And I think it's important that everybody shows some tolerance when diving into a conversation that can be sensitive to listeners. I would just amplify that. And my students both at Boston College and at Boston University are completely enthralled by trans issues. That's what they wanna talk about yesterday, today and tomorrow. And particularly now because these cases that are coming down and which I imagine we'll get a chance to talk about a little bit later, Scrimetti and the ECNAS, the 6th and 11th Circuit cases and the horrible way that the courts are treating the issue of appropriate medical care for transgender teenagers is put it right at the forefront. And so, and in terms of the pronoun wars, if I think the older you are, the more difficult it is to adjust. And so I make mistakes. I have trouble to be honest with remembering about they because it's just, but you know, it's like what I tell myself is John, just get it right. And for people, we're gonna actually teach those cases next week, the auto phase and a couple of other cases that talk about professors that refuse to call people by their chosen pronouns. And I mean, we have no trouble going into court and saying your honor. And in some languages, you know, the third person is uses the term of respect. And so what is the big deal, that's my view on it. Thanks so much. So we're gonna, as Andrea said, we're gonna jump around a bit on our questions because we have so much ground to cover. So we're gonna start with education and Professor Ward. We're going to bring you back to Rhode Island. You successfully vindicated the right of a Rhode Island high school senior boy to bring another boy as his prom date. Can you describe the opposition's argument and how your strategy addressed it? And do you think the same arguments would be made today? Okay, I just wanna just add to what I said about the process of it's not to trivialize it. I mean, when you're talking, this is about people's human dignity and their right to be addressed as they choose. I wanna be clear about that. That's not, okay. So getting back to Aaron Frick.  But he said he feared violence. Okay, and that was the basically the defenses. We're afraid that if we let this kid go to the dance with another kid of the same gender, the other students will engage in violent conduct. And so our job was to convince Judge Patine that that wasn't a good enough reason. And we talked to him about you can't allow people to have a heckler's veto over First Amendment activities and that, you know, and we actually went back and discovered that there had been security issues at the Cumberland High School prom in previous years having nothing to do with sexual orientation and that they were able to provide security and do all that stuff. And actually, as it happened, the thing, the prom went without incident. I remember being up late the night before making sure that they both, that their tuxedo orders were properly filled and so forth and so on. But the thing went fine. And it was, actually, there was, after that case was won, it got a lot of publicity back then. And there was a TV program called the Phil Donahue Show and Aaron was on, I don't know if, I guess people remember. And so, you know, from months afterwards, my office would get letters from kids all over the country saying, gee, I thought I was the only one, the only teenager who was, you know, so it was, it's one of the cases that I look back on with the greatest fondness because, you know, I think it was part of what began the long process of social change that's made life easier. One of the things that gratifies me when I teach is that my students don't apparently have the same nonsense in their head that I grew up with for the most part. And that is progress, regardless of what the right wing is doing these days. That is the hope. That is the hope that the next generation and the generation after that don't have the same, don't have the same internalized hatred or internalized barriers or internalized guilt. But that is also the hope going forward that, you know, we're continuing to march in the right direction.  Yeah, thank you. And I especially appreciate it at your point about, you know, people thought that they were the only one and that they would be alone. So especially as far as being gender diverse and like being in that space, it's really important to remember that there's people before you and that there will be people after you and that there are people by your side that have that same experience. So thank you for pointing that out, too. Excuse me, I didn't mean to interrupt you, go ahead. No, of course not, go ahead. I was just gonna say one of the things that I sense sometimes in my classes is that my students, I don't ask anybody's sexual orientation, but my sense is that most of them are queer one way or the other in terms of their gender identity or in their sexual orientation or whatever. But they tend to minimize the degree of oppression that still exists. And I can understand that. I mean, it's a survival technique and it's just, you know, a lot of other things besides our gender identity or our sexual orientation, you know, but I find that I need a little bit to tease that out of them because it's still there. We're not, you know, there's still, I mean the cases that are coming down of the Supreme Court, you know, seek to perpetuate second-class citizenship. The ways may be a little bit more subtle or you can always go and get another wedding cake, blah, blah, blah, blah, but it's still there.  Yeah, thank you very much. And like on the topic of students feeling safe in school that are gender diverse or queer in some way, bullying is a huge issue and often goes hand in hand with any sort of type of discrimination, particularly in Rhode Island, the Rhode Island Safe School Act provides a statewide bullying policy which defines bullying as the use by one or more students of a written verbal or electronic expression or a physical actor gesture or any combination thereof directed at a student. So this policy seems to protect students from other students, but not so much students from teachers or vice versa. And I know that the concept of mandatory reporting in a school is a large issue. So I know like if anyone wants to jump in or I speak to kind of that as far as what students are facing to feel safe in schools or what gender diverse teachers might be concerned about. So I can speak to the legal landscape in Rhode Island. So you're correct that the language in the Safe Schools Act is a little under drafted but I will say that if someone is experiencing harassment or discrimination from a teacher or another student in their school, K-12 or university, you can report that as a Title IX violation. So to the, I think it's the Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Ed and if you're at the university level, you can report that to your Title IX office. I think when we think about sexual harassment, we think about it in the really like traditional men and women in the workplace sense, but it's much broader than that. The challenge with that is that there may be some, I think there was a Supreme Court case recently that called into question being able to collect on emotional damages arising from a Title IX claim and having to prove actual like compensatory damages from something that's largely an emotional event is kind of challenging. I will say in state law, like you said, Sam, it's a little more of a patchwork. In addition to the state law, RIDE, the Department of Education, the Rhode Island Department of Education has a regulation that requires all the school districts to have a comprehensive anti-bullying policy and it sets out what needs to be in that policy but then it delegates developing the specific policies to the school districts. So if your school district is interested in having a really robust policy that's easy to report and offers a high degree of protection to gender diverse students, then you could have a really good experience. Conversely, school districts could sort of slow roll it or offer lesser protection or just make it way more difficult to protect your own rights and to report. So your experience may vary depending on where you go to school, but per those regulations, it doesn't matter whether it's a student and student, a student and teacher or even a student harassing a teacher that it should cover everybody. Yeah, absolutely. And thank you for clarifying those parts as well. I think I'm going to turn it over to Nicole here. Professor, whether it be you unmuted yourself, did you wanna respond? Oh, yeah, I just wanted to say one thing and it was, we're taking a step back to something John said. I think when it comes to legal change, it's often two or three steps behind social acceptance and social tolerance. And we keep seeing a delay or a lag in the law. And my hope is as I see students come through my classroom, even in the conservative state in which I teach, I'm seeing more progressive, more open-minded acceptance and tolerance. And so I'm hopeful I'm an eternal optimist and I'm hopeful that with this next generation and the good work that Professor Ward is doing and that Lauren's doing and all the advocates that are working so hard to raise awareness on these issues that we do have a sea change legally, but it's gonna be behind a lot of social and cultural work. And so I just wanted to say that to the question, the discussion we had a couple of minutes ago. And then with respect to bullying and anti-harassment or discrimination policies, it very much depends on the jurisdiction and the district. I represented schools in New York and the law is pretty strong there actually. And it is now I should say it's evolved. But oftentimes bullying and harassment or discrimination overlap, especially when it involves gender diverse students because of Title IX prohibition against sex discrimination and the way that that term has been interpreted by DOE. And so there is protection for students that fit into the binary or even the spectrum. But for students that are bullied for other reasons that may not be recognized in those categories, it can be tricky. And again, it comes back to local administrators and educators to be protective, to identify what's going on in the classroom and to give the students a voice in terms of raising complaints and dealing with it at the school district level before it raises to the level of a legal complaint and it winds up before Lauren. So I think it really depends heavily on the administrators and the work they're doing. And a lot of that is education. And I used to go into school districts and talk to administrators because these were novel issues at the time I was in practice. Now they're more commonplace. But I think that leadership from the top needs to be sensitive and aware of these issues. And the superintendent's often set the tone for everything that comes below. So that's the only thing I'd add to the conversation. Thanks, Professor Weatherby. I would just say you have to, the administrators need to have that as a value. So, and that's where I see some of this being very difficult. Attorney Hill, did you want to- Oh, I just wanted to say one other thing is, building on what Professor Weatherby said, that it has to do with a systemic policy in your school that it's not a one-off and there's the education component. One of the other things required by the regulations is to have annual trainings for staff. And there's some really good providers here in the state, Thundermist and GLAD, among others. And so they have some idea of whether the school districts are fulfilling that requirement to provide training for their teachers. But it can't just be, we have this wonderful written policy. Look how great it is. It has to be sort of a continuous, are we living up to what's in this policy and enforcing it? I just wanted to add that the other setting where abuse of transgender individuals is systemic is the prison system. GLAD, a few years ago, was enabled for the first time in Massachusetts to place a transgender woman in Framingham in the woman's prison after she spent a number of years under horrendous conditions in Concord. And the correctional authorities in Massachusetts, kind of in response to that, I would argue, slapped a charge of indecent assault on her. And working with another lawyer, we were able to get that charge dropped. But it just, the hostility in that setting in a liberal state like Massachusetts and in other states that are not quite so liberal is unbelievable from some of the other inmates, from lack of education, from the attitude of the correctional officers, from the attitude of the top officials. And in California, where they have a law requiring gender-appropriate placement, the war cry has been, the men are coming. There's this canard, this completely, basically baseless idea that men are masquerading as women to get into women's prison. And it's just, to say it is, it's just not sensical. But so it's an area that really, because prisoners, they take it on the chin in ways that, and kids, I mean, in a sense, they're not so different. They're at the low end of the power totem pole. And so I just wanted to say that that work too was important, you know? And I'm sorry, and the thing about kids, I mean, it's just what's happening to kids in school, despite wonderful efforts here in Rhode Island and in other places, it's, to me, it's heartbreaking. You sort of pre-saged our question to you about the gender-appropriate facilities. So I'm gonna skip to criminal justice and just keep it going. Professor Ward, historically, gender-averse people have been targeted by legislation and by police enforcing that legislation, the most famous example being the Stonewall Riots. But police being called on or confronting people that appear queer is still rampant. Based on your experiences, what do you think needs to happen to build or rebuild trust between the LGBT community and law enforcement? Where do you begin? I mean, I think it's very, it's locale-specific. Some places are better and some places are worse than others. And, I mean, it sort of leads into the larger question of how we envision and manage policing in this country and how we envision and imagine the role, if any, of incarceration. And honest to be honest, I don't know where to begin.  I mean, sometimes you're just kind of reduced to saving one soul at a time, perhaps even if it's only your own. And so in terms of systemic change, I'm not the guy to ask. I wish I were. I wish I had the magic bullet, but maybe you other folks have something to say on that. So one of the things that I'm incredibly proud of at our institution is that we have a required class in the second year called Race in the Foundations of American Law. And we teach our students about prison abolition. And to me, that is when we're asking these questions about trust and policing, when we're asking questions about gender diverse people and the obstacles they face in the prison industrial complex, I at least like sleep better at night knowing that we have a class where we don't shy away from teaching students about prison abolition. We have a class on where that is part of what they read about just like they read cases, they read about prison abolition and we bring in speakers and I'm really, really proud of that. But to your point, systemic change is slow going and hopeless at times. But again, I at least feel like while going forward, maybe things will be better. Sam, did you wanna take the next question? Yeah, of course. And thank you for those thoughts too. It's definitely a hard place to even know where to start. And kind of like talking about housing and just like not just prisons, but public accommodations in general, Professor Weatherby, I know that that's one of your many areas of expertise. So could you please explain what a public accommodation is and the facilities that that term includes? And then as a part three, if that's not too much, why are they a hot button in anti-discrimination and anti-gender discrimination? Sure, I'd be happy to. So public accommodations are essentially businesses and other institutions that provide general public, the general public with goods and services. So we think about libraries, schools, gas stations, hotels, retail stores, movie theaters, all the places that we patronize on a daily basis, hospitals, and currently federal and state laws are designed to protect certain protected individuals, groups of individuals from discrimination to protect minorities access to places of public accommodation. So if a business or other institution in a jurisdiction that requires access to public accommodations fails to provide access equally, that's a violation of the anti-discrimination laws. For example, if a gas station has public restrooms, then those public restrooms are protected by that jurisdiction's public accommodation laws. So federal laws like Title VII, Title IX, prevent discrimination involving public accommodations. Well, your other question, I'm sorry, I forgot. Yeah, no problem at all. So then I think that's a great explanation for what public accommodations law and customs. So then why is this such a hot button topic for gender-adverse people and those rights? Right, so the court recently held that workplace anti-discrimination laws cover gender identity and sexual orientation and so far as Title VII prohibits discrimination in the workplace based on the term sex. But the court expressly made clear that it was not covering all areas of public accommodation. So there's still some question about whether this includes public restrooms and locker rooms. And so it kind of remains clear at least with respect to federal law how places of public accommodations should comply in terms of access to those facilities. But the bulk of anti-discrimination protections does come in terms of public accommodation laws from state and local laws. And I think most cities in the country now have some protections against discrimination in places of public accommodation on the basis of sex. So if you're in a state with a robust public accommodation law, then you have more grounds to challenge lack of access based on sexual orientation or gender identity. If you're in a jurisdiction that doesn't have as great of a law, then you're more at risk. And I think those are some of the issues that come up in this context. And then based on whoever's in power in terms of in Washington, for example, President Trump participated in restrictions on bathroom and locker room usage by executive order overturning some of President Obama, his administration's executive orders. And it just depends at that level who's in the White House. So there's a lot there, but the court's jurisprudence at this point doesn't, it hasn't clarified that locker room and restroom usage in all places of public accommodation should be open and available to all. Thanks so much. You did a great job of contextualizing it and seeing up our next question for Attorney Hill. Professor Weatherby said, okay, but a lot of these protections are state protections. And so I guess our question is about Rhode Island. So there is a housing crisis in Rhode Island. It's a nationwide problem. It's also a local problem. In Rhode Island, are there any protections for tenants against discrimination for gender identity or expression? Are there any gaps in that protection? And what recourse is there if someone believes they're being discriminated against based on their gender expression or gender identity? So the short answer to that question is yes. It is illegal for a housing provider to discriminate against someone on the basis of their sex, sexual orientation, gender or gender expression in housing across a number of things, refusing to rent to them, charging them more, offering them different privileges or facilities, harassment, whether that be your neighbor harassing you if your landlord is aware of it and doesn't take any action to stop it, retaliation for making a complaint about unfair housing practice. And then of course the Federal Fair Housing Act has comparable protections. Yeah, there is an exception though. So there's something that we call the Mrs. Murphy exception. And Mrs. Murphy is this hypothetical little old lady who decides to rent out some of her house to tenants to make extra pocket money, this sort of fictional person. And so it's an exemption for housing accommodations that are owner occupied and fewer than four units. So if that happens to be your living situation, that person, your landlord, that property is not subject to the Fair Housing Practices Act. What I will say is there are a couple of exceptions to the exception. Discriminatory advertisement regardless of the type of accommodations is prohibited. You couldn't put an advertisement in the paper saying cisgender hetero people only. That would not be okay. And then there's also no exemption for race according to HUD. Obviously that doesn't help if you don't belong to a protected racial category and you are a gender diverse person. So the recourse though, if you believe this has happened to you and you're in a housing provider that's covered, you can make a complaint to the commission for human rights. You could make a complaint to HUD but they'd probably refer it to us. And that's a very simple thing to do. You can walk in and fill out a form. You can fill out a form on our website. You can send an email, you can call. Any way you wanna report that, you can make a report to us and we'll investigate that allegation.  Thanks. Yeah, attorney, what did you want? Or sorry, Paul. Yeah. I'm thinking about, there was a case recently in Colorado, a transgender person went to Jack Phillips, the guy who refused to bake a cake for the same sex wedding couple and asked him to bake her a birthday cake. And so far so good. And then she said, I want it to be pink and blue so far so good. And then she explained that that would symbolize for her transition, okay? And at that point, he said, no, I won't bake it, right? I'm simplifying the story, but that's the bottom line. So she went to court and she won both in the district court in Colorado, which has an anti-discrimination law that protects people on the basis of gender identity. And she won in the appeals court. It's now before the Colorado Supreme Court. My fear is that if it gets to the United States Supreme Court, she will not do well because the free exercise clause of the First Amendment is being used actively as a sword by a very, very, very well-funded group who call themselves Christian, although I would dispute the act of capability of that term, the lawyers defending freedom, the Beckett Foundation, all of these groups that are seeking to use religious beliefs as a basis for overturning the anti-discrimination laws. And that's their ultimate goal. So, I mean, this is a serious problem going forward, a serious problem going forward. I mean, it's not, we just in class discussed the 303 creative case where this woman wasn't even doing websites for marriage, for people getting married, but planned to do so in the future and feared that she would be violating the Colorado anti-discrimination law, which forbids discrimination against LGBT folks. And she won in the United States Supreme Court on the basis that she was being compelled to speak a message that violated her beliefs and sort of tagging along to that. The reason it was, it wasn't a free exercise claim, it was a free speech claim, but nevertheless, you get the idea, you know. And what the fallout of that is gonna be is yet to be determined, but it's the current composition of the Supreme Court has an agenda, I mean, I think there's no doubt about that. And when I talk about headwinds, that's a lot of what I'm thinking about. And so the times are perilous in that respect, because they may have lost their prestige, the Supreme Court, but they haven't lost their power. Sorry to get out my soapbox, but I'm pretty exercised about this. No, that's very well put, and especially as someone that's just younger earlier in their career, what the Supreme Court is currently doing and how they're behaving is definitely kind of throwing everything into a tailspin, as far as what we think that we can expect or what we think that we can ask for and ask for what we deserve as well. And those protections too, I kind of wanna shift to the category of employment. So just kind of a basic question, speaking to like balancing personal freedoms with somebody's just rights to not be discriminated against, is an employee getting fired for purposefully not honoring a co-worker's pronouns or a preferred name, a violation of free speech? Or on the other hand, could an employee claim discrimination by their employer if their co-workers are allowed to purposefully misgender them or call them by the wrong name? So I don't know if attorney Hill would, I see you unmute it. Sure, so I mean, as far as getting fired, that's really up to the employer. And a lot of times an employer will see that if an employee is harassing another employee, they're gonna try to manage their risk by firing that person. So, from an economic point of view, that may be how it plays out, but I don't, as far as is that discrimination, does that rise to the level of being like an unfair employment practice? I don't think it would happen from an isolated incident. You make one mistake where you dead named someone or you use the wrong pronoun, but if it's a purposeful ongoing that that could be harassment and that could be actionable under the Fair Employment Practices Act or Title VII, I think is right. And again, if the employer is aware that that's happening and has or provides cover or permission, then the employer could be liable for that employee's actions as well. So yeah, I think under the current state of the law, you could definitely be able to report that as harassment in the workplace. Can I add to that? So, I think it also depends on whether the employer is a private employer or a public employer. In the private context, employers can have policies, and this goes to your question about whether an employee can be terminated for failing to comply with a policy regarding pronoun usage or name usage. In the private context, I think it would be easier for the employer to terminate based on failure to comply with a workplace policy. In the public space, then we get into the, government actors cannot discriminate on the basis of religious belief and other things as Professor Ward spoke to earlier. And so we find ourselves in that tension between religious exercise and a policy that is to respect students, for example, in a public school, a public university setting, gender identity or expression. And so the courts are kind of all over the place in terms of how they handle this. Mary Weather versus Hartop is a case from the Sixth Circuit that dealt with a public professors, and this is an institution of higher education, right to refrain from complying with the university's policies regarding pronoun usage. And the issue became whether it was government speech under the government speech doctrine, and then whether there was a professor's academic freedom exception there and the court sided with the professor. And then in the K through 12 context, there's a case actually from 2023 in the Seventh Circuit that said that a school teacher's religious freedom exercise objection to complying with a school district policy regarding gender and pronoun usage was not a reasonable accommodation for his sincerely held religious beliefs. So it's kind of a patchwork of legal frameworks in terms of how the courts are dealing with this. And I think until we have some clear guidance from the Supreme Court, which I agree is not friendly to these issues, the courts of appeals are kind of all over the place. Can I ask you a follow-up question, Professor Weatherby? You teach in Arkansas and your scholarship focuses on emerging legal protections for transgender individuals. And I don't want to put you on the spot, but I also am really curious, how does that go together? Is there social pressure, are there other pressures to keep some of this work out of your classroom or however you wanna answer that you're comfortable? Sure, I can give you a pretty honest answer. When I moved here in 2013, the city of Fayetteville was undergoing a battle about local ordinance. This was before the Supreme Court took up the issue to extend anti-discrimination protections in the workplace, places of public accommodation and housing to folks in the LGBTQ community. And they asked me to draft an ordinance and I did. And I got death threats for working on that subject matter for being an advocate for the community, for speaking about it publicly. None of this came from my colleagues here at the law school that support me and encouraged me to engage in this work, but from individuals in the community. We have a very conservative, very deeply religious community. And some of the folks that Professor Ward spoke of earlier have a lot of money here in Arkansas. The Duggers are a big influence here. They have a, I don't know if you guys know who the Duggers are, but they were on the learning channel and had a reality TV show. And they've- Professor Wetterby, if you knew me even a little, you would not need to ask as I am addicted to reality TV. And the fact that you are bringing up the Duggers, both makes my heart sing and makes me feel bad for everyone listening, because all I want to do is ask you Dugger questions. Okay. Well, I'm so happy. There was a People magazine edition. This is back in 2013. I'll have to send it to you. And it was my face next to hers, Miss Dugger. And because she was sending out robo calls, there were robo calls with her voice on it, telling people not to support the ordinance and naming me, they called me the Jewish lawyer from New York. And so yeah, I got some hate mail. I got some death threats. We got the local police involved. And there were times where I felt unsafe. Having said that, a lot has changed in 10 years. A lot has changed, both for the better and for the worse. And I don't feel unsafe anymore. I mean, I did when I was really active and involved in the writing of the ordinance. We ultimately put the ordinance up for a vote, which I inherently disagree with, because you never want to put civil rights up for the majority of citizens to vote on other and on minority civil rights. But we felt like politically, that was the best way to get buy-in from the community. It actually passed. And we were very excited. And then it found, it was at the heart of a lawsuit after the legislature passed a law that prohibited municipalities from carving out broader and more expansive anti-discrimination protections for populations that weren't already covered by state anti-discrimination laws. So it was a long legal battle. But to your question, I feel supported by my colleagues. I feel supported by the university. I feel supported by my students. But it has been met with a lot of criticism. The bakers from Oregon who refused to bake a wedding cake for same-sex couple came to visit Fayetteville during this time. And it was an open rally. And I decided to go, I was gonna just sit in the back and listen. It's always good to listen to the opposition. I just wanted to hear what they had to say. And there were cameras there. And one of the individuals who was very active and involved with the duggers and their community that were opposing the ordinance came up to me and started screaming obscenities at me and telling me that I was advocating in my scholarship for cutting the genitals off of young children and just horrible things. And it made the nightly news. And the event happened to be in a church and they called the police and had me escorted out. So I had to call my Dean that night and say, Dean Leeds, I'm so sorry, but you may see me on the nightly news getting escorted out of a church. I'm so sorry. So I guess those are some of my personal experiences that shed light on the fact that these issues in this part of the country are highly controversial and people have very deep feelings about it. And we have a legislature that's very hostile. I think you can vote says legal hero and hero. Oh, not at all, not at all. But, and also it is the case I believe that the Arkansas legislature passed a law forbidding appropriate gender affirming care for teenagers and a federal judge appointed by Donald Trump, no less sensitive opinion striking down that law. So go figure. I know. So I was just gonna say on a personal note, I'm originally from Tulsa, Oklahoma, which is about 90 miles from Fayetteville and grew up in a similar religious environment as a child and would have been one of those people holding a sign in a church. When you're confronted with the evidence, when you're confronted with actual human beings, you can change your mind. I changed my mind. Other people can change their minds. So I think that's a point in engaging in the conversation. I think was it Professor Weatherby who said not to confront or try to change anyone's mind but to have the conversation with them? Yeah, I think it's just really important to have conversation and especially healthcare is one of maybe the hottest area in this topic which can really be saying something. So I know Professor Ward you had mentioned some cases about just healthcare decisions being scrutinized and even the broader theme of this panel, healthcare decisions can tend to fall under more resistance when they have to do with a person's gender. Like even if a woman wants to explore permanent birth control that hasn't had children yet, like that can be a very big obstacle to cross and particularly with transgender people that want to seek hormone replacement therapy and that's the decision between them and their doctor that the courts and legislature are intervening in. So I don't know if you wanted to continue that conversation a little bit more in depth at all. Well, just, I mean, it's a very fraught conversation but it's a long tradition. I mean, Pierce versus Society of Sisters is about a hundred years old now and the strong and Yoda versus Wisconsin, the right of parents to control or to supervise the care and upbringing of their children is no one, even the most right-wing person can deny that that's deeply rooted in tradition and part of substantive due process. So you would think it would be an easy case but I think one of the things that bothers me about the current trend in the Supreme Court is that just as a lawyer, I really detest bad craftsmanship and some of these cases that are coming down, they're just, they're making it up as they go along and if I had a student doing that, I'd give them, I'm a pretty easy grader but I'd give them a very bad mark. I just, I am proud of Judge Moody in the Eastern District of Arkansas who authored the opinion upholding the ban on Arkansas's ban on transgender affirming care and then the Eighth Circuit upheld that and that's huge for this part of the country and of course, the Sixth Circuit and the Eleventh Circuit went the opposite direction. So now we have a split in the circuits. And for the petition for cert, you know, in this or many in the Sixth Circuit case, so I don't know whether. I know and it's very scary. It's very, very scary post-dobs to think about what this court could do with that issue. Because they, I think Scrumetti cited dobs as, you know, it's just right. Yeah. The other case that they cite all the time is the case that I did before the United States Supreme Court Hurley versus the Hurley case, which the gift that keeps on giving. I mean, it's just, you know. On the other hand, you might get a surprise like Bostock. Yes. So, you know, because that was not the way that I expected that case to go. I mean, best summarized is saying, well, duh, of course it protects people who are gender diverse. Me too, I thought, oh, that's crazy. That's never gonna happen. Yeah. You never know, but I mean. There's my internal optimism. We might all be surprised. Let's hope. I'm fortunate there's a lot of. You needed yourself to say something positive. Like, wow, thank you. Okay, in Hyde Park, working class district of Boston, there is now being built a repurposed elementary or junior high school called Pride Housing for LGBT seniors, okay? With the full support of the government, you can't of course say it's only for LGBT folks, but it's a welcoming, wonderful grassroots development. I mean, the courts may be doing what they're doing, but people are changing. They're not changing as fast as we want. The voices of, let's go back to some mythical time in the 50s. By the way, I lived through the 50s and it was not a day at the beach, okay? Those voices are not the majority of Americans. And so, in any case, we've got to keep doing our thing, don't we?  I think that that's a good place for me to sort of ask our last question and to hear your final thoughts, pushes for enhanced legal protection for gender diverse people are almost always met with claims that the vindication of gender diverse people's rights are against their freedom of speech, freedom of religion, public welfare as a whole. And the law has been balancing these sometimes competing or seemingly competing interests. And so I'm sort of interested in your take on each of you on how this is evolving and what we should be looking forward to, what is to come? We spend a lot of time sort of in the educational space, not just studying the past and thinking about now, but thinking about when you're out in practice, what are we gonna look for? So if maybe we could go Attorney Hill, Professor Ward and Professor Weatherby in order and just, you know, how are we, how is this balancing act happening and what do we have to look for on this? Can I ask to pass it off to someone else so I can take a minute to think about that question? Absolutely, Professor Ward, you're up. One of the reasons that I'm so passionate about issues of gender identity and gender fluidity is because I think, you know, almost any movement can be co-opted. You know, the partially successful, partially failed cultural revolution of the 60s was in many ways co-opted. But one of the things about gender is it's much, much, much, if that, I believe sincerely that this gender rigidity needs to be loosened, okay? For the benefit of everybody, for men, for women, for people that identify all along the spectrum and that that's the reason why it's so virulently resisted in certain quarters, but I think it's the truth. And I think if we kind of get over it, we'll all be a lot happier. That may be a very simplistic answer, but I think that the way that we've conceptualized, I hate to use the word, but it's true. Patriarchy is an enormous, it's so omnipresent that it's the sea that we swim in and we can't recognize it. But on the other hand, the amount of harm and that rigid belief holds is a real stumbling block on every level from the environment to social tolerance to you name it. So, and I mean, I take hope in the fact that I do think it's reality that I think that humans are a lot more diverse than we would like to imagine. And that as we slowly come to get our heads around that, all of us, that is the way forward. I mean, will there be storms between here and there? Of course, but so I guess I'm a short-term pessimist at a long-term office. Optimist, I guess that's how I would characterize myself. All right, and then, yes, I, okay, whoever unmute it first. Oh, it's either way. Do you want me to go? Go ahead. Professor Weatherby. Sure, I think I can't help but think just live and let live, you know? Nobody is hurting anybody else. There's no harm involved for individuals who are gender diverse or gender fluid to just be themselves. And I think that's where we find the animus embedded in these claims of offense or imposition on someone's religious exercise. And so I don't know. I guess I find that, you know, when it's shrouded in this guise of religious freedom or religious exercise, there's really more to it. It's crafted an animus. And then the only other thing I'll say, and this is not really adding all that much, but progress is so much, two steps forward, one step back or even one step forward, two giant steps back. And, you know, we see that even with abortion, with the Dobs case. I mean, that was a major, major step back for reproductive rights, for autonomy in personal decision making when it comes to healthcare decisions. And, you know, hopefully that will change. But sometimes when we see these decisions come out of the court and it feels so helpless, it's good to look at the arc of progress and know that, you know, things hopefully will change. Again, with social and cultural acceptance, more tolerance, more exposure. I mean, when I came to Arkansas in 2013, I had a student who saw me at a coffee shop and I was sitting with a friend who identifies as female and is transgender, had been through the transitioning process. And the student came over to me and said hi, and I introduced the student to my friend. And I could see the students like, you know, I could see the wheels turning in her head. And it was a pleasant interaction. And then that Monday she came to my office and she said, was that person transgender? I've never met one before. Those were her exact words. And I said, yes. But she's just a human, like all of us. And she kind of, she was like, oh, okay, you know. But she had never been exposed before. And I guess I'm hoping that with this generation, with more exposure, more tolerance, we will see that forward progress. And I guess that comes from my eternal optimism too. So that's all I'll say. And who knows what will happen in the future. But I think the more we talk about the issues, the more we respect each other in civil discourse, the more tolerance and acceptance and understanding will come. And hopefully then the law will follow. I don't have a lot of eternal optimism. But one of the things you said is like, who is harmed? And I think the harm is people with a tremendous amount of privilege, feeling uncomfortable. And I think the way forward is us all getting proximate with our own biases and being more comfortable, being uncomfortable. And I don't see how as we get moved forward any other way. So Attorney Hill, your predictions for the future? So I mean, I feel like it's set up as kind of a false dichotomy that you can either have people's rights vindicated or you can have free religion and free speech. You know, you can believe whatever you want. There are no laws saying that you can't believe in lizard people or that birds aren't real or whatever other wild conspiracy theory. I think what bothers me is the religious preference. It's not religious freedom. It's preference for a really particular lens of viewing Christianity or other conservative religious movements. And what I would like to see in addition to kind of the courts getting back to, you can believe whatever you want, but we can still enforce these neutral laws that are applicable across the board to everyone. And I would also like to see people who are religious people of other persuasions, the religious left as they say, or people who don't belong to older conservative movements coming out to say, well, I'm religious and this doesn't, I have the freedom to practice my religion too. And this doesn't infringe on my religious freedom. So I think those two things are what I hope to see in the future and in this area of gender equity. Very well put, thank you to each of you. I love the themes of tailwinds and headwinds and steps forward and steps back and just respecting each and every person. And I'm a transgender man, I'm a Christian man and I sleep just fine at night. So I think it's important to find the helpers and for people to speak up and look out for each other. So again, personally, thank you, Professor Weatherby, Professor Ward, Attorney Hill for your time today and for such a, oh, and kind of back to you. And for such a productive, I'm your appearance, sorry. Oh, excellent. Yeah, we could go for much longer and this has been a very productive conversation. So thank you each again for attending this panel today and I will pass it over to the editor-in-chief of the Law Review, Stephanie Fisher. Thank you so much. Thank you. Hello everyone, thank you so much to our esteemed participants and our dedicated attendees and to all of our future viewers. As we come to the conclusion of this virtual symposium event, I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to you all. Your presence here today has made the event a success and your active engagement in these enriching discussions has been so inspiring to all of us. In today's interconnected world, technology has enabled us to come together from diverse corners of the country to share insights, knowledge and expertise. This symposium has served as a platform today for a collaborative exchange of ideas despite these physical distances separating us. I want to emphasize that the ideas shared and the connections made during this symposium are not bound by the confines of this webinar. Furthermore, because of this format, you're able to view the entire webinar event on our YouTube channel. I would like to again thank the Roger Williams University School of Law and Staff, particularly Chelsea Horne, for helping us to organize this event. I'm also especially grateful to our justice for all editor, Hilary Levy-Freedman and our justice for all research and development editor, Andrea Stalen. For everything they did to fill this event with such passionate and informed speakers, thank you so much. Today, we had the pleasure of hearing from a panel focusing on Title IX and from Zakiya Thomas from the ERA Coalition and from a panel focusing on transgender rights, all of which are critical issues in ensuring justice for all. The Law Reviews Justice for All issue is very young, approaching only its third year, but we have the highest hopes for what it can achieve and we are even more hopeful for what you, the attendees can achieve. I'd like to conclude with a few quotes to iterate that point far more eloquently than I ever could. Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced, James Baldwin. The justice for all issue is committed to facing critical issues that need to be changed. And finally, remember, change will not come if we want for some other person or some other time. We are the ones that we have been waiting for. We are the change that we seek, Barack Obama. If you attended today or you're watching this reporting, you are the change we seek and you are the people we have been waiting for. I hope you found today informative, instructional and inspiring and we thank you for supporting our mission.