2SLGBTQQIA+

Dixie Cup

Senate Member
Sep 16, 2006
6,228
3,953
113
Edmonton
American seeks asylum in Canada over Trump’s transgender policies
Author of the article:Denette Wilford
Published Jun 06, 2025 • Last updated 1 day ago • 2 minute read

Hannah Kreager, a transgender American woman applying for asylum in Canada due to Trump's policies.
Hannah Kreager, a transgender American woman applying for asylum in Canada due to Trump's policies. GoFundMe
A transgender woman from Arizona who says the United States is no longer safe for the transgender community because of Donald Trump has applied for asylum in Canada.


Hannah Kreager, 22, has “fled” her home for Calgary, she revealed on a GoFundMe page.


“I have fled in hopes of finding safety, security and the freedom to continue to live my life, and access/take my medications as prescribed,” Kreager wrote in the fundraiser, which she hopes will raise $5,000.

Kreager claimed that attitudes toward the transgender community “have grown increasingly intolerant” due to the influence of the Trump administration, which “takes basic rights away from trans people on the basis of nothing more than their identity.”

The 22-year-old noted: “The danger to trans individuals in the United States is very high, while the threat my community poses is exceedingly low.”

Kreager said she felt her only means of survival was to leave America.


“So I’m here in Canada with a terrific lawyer taking up my unprecedented case: Seeking asylum from the United States of America on the grounds of violation of human rights,” Kreager wrote.

“My case is a precedent-setting one, and if successful, could make asylum for trans people in the U.S. possible in currently pending, as well as future cases.”


On the day Trump took office, he issued an executive order banning use of the “X” marker as well as the changing of gender markers.

The order says a person is male or female and rejects the idea that someone can transition from the sex assigned at birth to another gender.

Kreager’s lawyer, Yameena Ansari, told the Globe and Mail that she and other immigration lawyers have been flooded with inquiries from trans Americans about how they can move to Canada.


“This case is about safety,” Ansari told the publication. “It’s about whether Canada will recognize the threat Hannah faces in the U.S.”



To be granted asylum, Kreager must prove she has fled the U.S. because of a “well-founded fear of persecution,” according to the government of Canada’s website, meaning a return to America would put an individual at risk.

“When one right after another, one protection after another, is taken away from a community or a person, how many rights should she let go before acting in self-protection?” Kreager asked on her donation page.

“How long should she wait to seek help or safety? To me, with the election of Donald Trump after his campaign targeting immigrants and trans people, there is no time left to lose.”
She'd be better off using the $5000 for some mental health counselling. Trump has nothing to do with being Trans - it's all on her!! She's confused!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Taxslave2

Taxslave2

House Member
Aug 13, 2022
4,919
2,793
113
To be granted asylum, Kreager must prove she has fled the U.S. because of a “well-founded fear of persecution,” according to the government of Canada’s website, meaning a return to America would put an individual at risk.
The nut house is full.
 

Serryah

Hall of Fame Member
Dec 3, 2008
10,811
2,716
113
New Brunswick
American seeks asylum in Canada over Trump’s transgender policies
Author of the article:Denette Wilford
Published Jun 06, 2025 • Last updated 1 day ago • 2 minute read

Hannah Kreager, a transgender American woman applying for asylum in Canada due to Trump's policies.
Hannah Kreager, a transgender American woman applying for asylum in Canada due to Trump's policies. GoFundMe
A transgender woman from Arizona who says the United States is no longer safe for the transgender community because of Donald Trump has applied for asylum in Canada.


Hannah Kreager, 22, has “fled” her home for Calgary, she revealed on a GoFundMe page.


“I have fled in hopes of finding safety, security and the freedom to continue to live my life, and access/take my medications as prescribed,” Kreager wrote in the fundraiser, which she hopes will raise $5,000.

Kreager claimed that attitudes toward the transgender community “have grown increasingly intolerant” due to the influence of the Trump administration, which “takes basic rights away from trans people on the basis of nothing more than their identity.”

The 22-year-old noted: “The danger to trans individuals in the United States is very high, while the threat my community poses is exceedingly low.”

Kreager said she felt her only means of survival was to leave America.


“So I’m here in Canada with a terrific lawyer taking up my unprecedented case: Seeking asylum from the United States of America on the grounds of violation of human rights,” Kreager wrote.

“My case is a precedent-setting one, and if successful, could make asylum for trans people in the U.S. possible in currently pending, as well as future cases.”


On the day Trump took office, he issued an executive order banning use of the “X” marker as well as the changing of gender markers.

The order says a person is male or female and rejects the idea that someone can transition from the sex assigned at birth to another gender.

Kreager’s lawyer, Yameena Ansari, told the Globe and Mail that she and other immigration lawyers have been flooded with inquiries from trans Americans about how they can move to Canada.


“This case is about safety,” Ansari told the publication. “It’s about whether Canada will recognize the threat Hannah faces in the U.S.”



To be granted asylum, Kreager must prove she has fled the U.S. because of a “well-founded fear of persecution,” according to the government of Canada’s website, meaning a return to America would put an individual at risk.

“When one right after another, one protection after another, is taken away from a community or a person, how many rights should she let go before acting in self-protection?” Kreager asked on her donation page.

“How long should she wait to seek help or safety? To me, with the election of Donald Trump after his campaign targeting immigrants and trans people, there is no time left to lose.”

Considering the situation, good; hopefully they can get in.

We should be making considerations for anyone wanting to come to Canada to live that is from the US.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
59,884
9,324
113
Washington DC
The conservative majority on the Supreme Court on Wednesday voted to uphold a state ban prohibiting some medical treatments for transgender youths, shielding similar laws in more than 20 other states.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., part of the 6-3 majority, acknowledged the “fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field.” But he wrote in the majority opinion that these questions should be resolved by “the people, their elected representatives and the democratic process.”
New York Times (might be paywalled)

I'm OK with this. Seems to me there's three competing principles here. . .

1. Personal autonomy: I'm all for anybody's right to be whatever they want to be and, insofar as they can afford it, obtain whatever medical assistance they need to be what they want to be. However. . .

2. Parental authority: It's settled law that the basic (but rebuttable) presumptions is that minors should be raised as their parents wish, because it is presumed that parents have a better handle on what's good for the kids than the kids themselves do, and the motivation to bring 'em up "right." Where that fails, however. . .

3. State authority: Where the body politic, through its elected representatives, in whatever wisdom they may have, deem a given activity or desire to be so obviously dangerous to the kid as to override parental authority, it may do so. We don't let minors work in hazardous jobs, regardless of what the parents want. We don't let those under 16 drive, even if Mummy and Daddy think Junior is a wonderfully skilled and responsible 14-year-old. Ditto drinking, or at least drinking without parental supervision.

The interface between parental and state authority is complicated and delicate, especially when the Great Big Sky Daddy is involved. In cases where 15-year-old Robert wants to be 15-year-old Roberta, surgery to effect such a change is sufficiently extreme and difficult to reverse that I think the state is justified in saying "think it over for three years, then do as you will." Even if the Pee and Em think the switch is a great idea.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
116,719
14,129
113
Low Earth Orbit
New York Times (might be paywalled)

I'm OK with this. Seems to me there's three competing principles here. . .

1. Personal autonomy: I'm all for anybody's right to be whatever they want to be and, insofar as they can afford it, obtain whatever medical assistance they need to be what they want to be. However. . .

2. Parental authority: It's settled law that the basic (but rebuttable) presumptions is that minors should be raised as their parents wish, because it is presumed that parents have a better handle on what's good for the kids than the kids themselves do, and the motivation to bring 'em up "right." Where that fails, however. . .

3. State authority: Where the body politic, through its elected representatives, in whatever wisdom they may have, deem a given activity or desire to be so obviously dangerous to the kid as to override parental authority, it may do so. We don't let minors work in hazardous jobs, regardless of what the parents want. We don't let those under 16 drive, even if Mummy and Daddy think Junior is a wonderfully skilled and responsible 14-year-old. Ditto drinking, or at least drinking without parental supervision.

The interface between parental and state authority is complicated and delicate, especially when the Great Big Sky Daddy is involved. In cases where 15-year-old Robert wants to be 15-year-old Roberta, surgery to effect such a change is sufficiently extreme and difficult to reverse that I think the state is justified in saying "think it over for three years, then do as you will." Even if the Pee and Em think the switch is a great idea.
Keep this in mind. Affirmation clinics are out for "lifetime" clients. It's beneficial for them to lobby against age of majority minimums, parental rights and responsibilities. Each clinic client is worth 2.3 million. 100 clients will generate nearly 1/4 Billion. I'd be lobbying too for that kind of loot.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Taxslave2

Taxslave2

House Member
Aug 13, 2022
4,919
2,793
113
New York Times (might be paywalled)

I'm OK with this. Seems to me there's three competing principles here. . .

1. Personal autonomy: I'm all for anybody's right to be whatever they want to be and, insofar as they can afford it, obtain whatever medical assistance they need to be what they want to be. However. . .

2. Parental authority: It's settled law that the basic (but rebuttable) presumptions is that minors should be raised as their parents wish, because it is presumed that parents have a better handle on what's good for the kids than the kids themselves do, and the motivation to bring 'em up "right." Where that fails, however. . .

3. State authority: Where the body politic, through its elected representatives, in whatever wisdom they may have, deem a given activity or desire to be so obviously dangerous to the kid as to override parental authority, it may do so. We don't let minors work in hazardous jobs, regardless of what the parents want. We don't let those under 16 drive, even if Mummy and Daddy think Junior is a wonderfully skilled and responsible 14-year-old. Ditto drinking, or at least drinking without parental supervision.

The interface between parental and state authority is complicated and delicate, especially when the Great Big Sky Daddy is involved. In cases where 15-year-old Robert wants to be 15-year-old Roberta, surgery to effect such a change is sufficiently extreme and difficult to reverse that I think the state is justified in saying "think it over for three years, then do as you will." Even if the Pee and Em think the switch is a great idea.
Pretty much what we have been saying all along. Once you reach the age of majority, do whatever you want and can afford to your body. Just leave the long suffering taxpayers out of it. Teens must not be permitted to do life changing surgery just because they want to. When you are young, the time between 15 and 19 may seem an eternity, but it is not that long in the grand scheme of of things to wait. Some will definitely see the surgeon, many will not. But the decision will be made as an adult.
 
  • Like
Reactions: petros