Connect with us

Business

Column: Trump's all-out assault on transgender rights isn't a sign of strength, but cowardice

Published

on

Column: Trump's all-out assault on transgender rights isn't a sign of strength, but cowardice

It was easy to think that the diatribe about school transgender policies Donald Trump voiced during his presidential campaign was his most “deranged and despicable,” as I described it at the time.

Do you remember? At an event with Moms for Liberty, the far-right gang of book-banners, Trump said the following: “Think of it. Your kid goes to school and comes home a few days later with an operation. The school decides what’s gonna happen with your child. And you know, many of these childs [sic] 15 years later say, ‘What the hell happened? Who did this to me?’ They say, ‘Who did this to me?’”

None of this existed in the real world; one would have to be bereft of cognitive capacity to believe Trump’s picture of children being kidnapped, held for days so they can be operated on by their school, then to wake up 15 years later to discover their sex had been changed.

California families seeking gender affirming care, and the doctors and staff who provide it, are protected under state laws.

— California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta

Advertisement

As we now know, however, Trump was only getting started. With the issuance of executive orders starting on his first day in office, Trump wiped out policies aimed at protecting transgender adults from discrimination, and moved to outlaw gender-affirming medical therapies for anyone under 19 — which includes 18-year-olds who are legally adults — by cutting off federal funding for healthcare institutions that provide such care.

Trump is no longer claiming that K-12 schools were subjecting children to involuntary operations, but once you’ve said that you’ve said everything. He banned transgender individuals from serving in the military and ordered the Federal Bureau of Prisons to move transgender inmates into the general populations consistent with their birth genders, which exposes them to physical assault. (Federal Judge Royce Lamberth of Washington, D.C., on Wednesday blocked the government from transferring three transgender women into the male prison population or terminating their hormone treatments.)

He declared that the federal government recognizes only “two sexes, male and female,” which are “not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality,” and has forbidden health plans serving federal employees to cover gender-affirming care for people under 19.

This all amounts to what legal commentator Mark Joseph Stern of Slate accurately labels “the biggest, broadest, most vicious assault on transgender existence we’ve ever seen,” a campaign of “unfathomable” scope.

Advertisement

Trump’s attacks on transgender individuals and their care were part of his drive to portray himself as a political strongman. But they’re just the opposite: They’re expressions of cowardice, because he well knows that his targets have little political power.

Who are the targets of these orders? They’re not a large group. About 1.6 million U.S. adults, or one-half of 1%, and 300,000 adolescents aged 13 to 17, or 1.4%, identify as transgender, according to a study by UCLA law school. A study by Harvard researchers found that fewer than 1% adolescents with private health insurance received either puberty blockers or hormone treatments.

“We are not seeing inappropriate use of this sort of care,” Landon Hughes, the study’s lead author, told the Associated Press. “And it’s certainly not happening at the rate at which people often think it is.”

Yet transgender care, especially for adolescents, has become an ideological litmus test for conservatives and Republican politicians. Restrictions on gender-affirming therapies for those under 18 have been enacted in 26 states; the rules imposed by Tennessee are under consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments in the case Dec. 4.

These laws purport to be based on sound medical concerns. But that’s a smoke screen, since leading medical associations and physicians involved with pediatric and adolescent care support the therapies outlawed by the states as the legitimate standard of care for their patients.

Advertisement

One can always identify bullies by the targets they choose, and that’s the case here. As I wrote during Trump’s first term, when his anti-transgender policies were still in the gestational state, “There is no conceivable reason to support discrimination against transgender individuals other than to show one can target any community, as long as it doesn’t have a strong political voice or political power. These are the actions of bullies and cowards, pretending to be strong.”

Over recent years and decades, the roster of targets the right wing could exploit to keep its base unified has been shrinking.

Open racism became no longer socially acceptable (though it made a strong comeback in the first Trump era). The list of ethnic groups that could be stereotyped as undesirables had shrunk. It was no longer respectable to laugh at or denigrate the mentally ill, the homeless, the disabled.

Gays and lesbians had moved into the mainstream of culture and society. Even conservative and Republican families had come to accept gay and lesbian siblings, children and parents as deserving of their love.

Most importantly, gays and lesbians had acquired a political voice; gay-bashing would no longer work for a political candidate as it had in the past, except perhaps in the most benighted corners of American society.

Advertisement

So who’s left? Transgender individuals, who are still so scarce in our lives and culture, and still so relatively powerless, that politicians can demonize and demean them without much fear that they can strike back.

Trump’s executive orders explicitly reflect this mindset. He doesn’t accept that adolescents can experience gender dysphoria unless they’ve been subjected to “radical indoctrination” by schoolteachers. He says that gender-affirming treatments are imposed only on “impressionable children”—never mind that their parents have consulted with medical professionals and support their judgments.

He says transgender recruits “cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for military service” and aren’t committed to “an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle.” He says transgender individuals make “the false claim that males can identify as and thus become women and vice versa, and [require] all institutions of society to regard this false claim as true.”

Trump’s attacks on transgender rights and medical care aren’t like the performative horseplay he engaged in over tariff policy and the global economy; in that case Wall Streeters acted as if they knew he wasn’t really serious, and the government leaders of Canada and Mexico foresaw that he would look for a way to declare victory and back down.

There’s nothing abstract about transgender policies, by contrast. They’re aimed directly at vulnerable individuals whose lives he has disrupted. That disruption began with Trump’s inauguration, and continues to that day, due in part to the capitulation of healthcare institutions to his fact-free and possibly illegal policymaking.

Advertisement

On Tuesday, Childrens Hospital Los Angeles said it was “pausing the initiation of hormonal therapies for all gender affirming care patients under the age of 19” while it evaluates Trump’s executive order on gender care “to fully understand its implications.” The hospital said it would continue care for patients who were already receiving it.

The hospital referred me to its formal statement, in which it asserted that “physical and mental health, safety, and well-being of all of our patients remains our highest priority.” That’s a pretty serving of boilerplate, but it’s obviously in conflict with its “pause,” since placing the well-being of all its patients conflicts with its decision to bow, even if temporarily, to Trump’s orders.

In any case, the hospital was crisply informed by California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta that state law prohibits what appears to be its discriminatory treatment of transgender patients, since it provides cisgender patients with hormone treatments and other therapies named by Trump if they’re provided for transgender patients. Bonta also told the hospital by letter that a federal judge already has blocked Trump’s effort to freeze federal funds that don’t conform to his own priorities.

Federal agencies have no basis “to threaten or revoke your federal funding,” Bonta wrote, whatever Trump says. “California families seeking gender affirming care, and the doctors and staff who provide it, are protected under state laws.” CHLA didn’t answer my question about how it plans to respond to Bonta’s advisory.

Other institutions around the country have also capitulated to Trump’s grandstanding, affording him the opportunity for a victory lap. In a news release issued Monday, he bragged about all the healthcare providers that have canceled appointments for gender-affirming care for patients under 19 or paused, suspended or ended gender-affirming treatments.

Advertisement

How long can Trump’s campaign go on? Perhaps not very long. Two organizations that support gender-affirming care, five transgender minors and three transgender adults filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday specifically asking a federal judge in Maryland to declare Trump’s executive orders on gender unconstitutional and unlawful, and to block his cutoff of federal funds for providers of such care.

They may succeed in blocking Trump’s funding freeze, for a time, but that would be only a procedural victory. Trump and his acolytes have injected a poisonous, partisan and ideological view of transgender individuals and their medical needs that may infect American politics for a long time. The providers who bowed to Trump’s threats will deserve a good measure of blame for that.

Business

Elon Musk company bot apologizes for sharing sexualized images of children

Published

on

Elon Musk company bot apologizes for sharing sexualized images of children

Grok, the chatbot of Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence company xAI, published sexualized images of children as its guardrails seem to have failed when it was prompted with vile user requests.

Users used prompts such as “put her in a bikini” under pictures of real people on X to get Grok to generate nonconsensual images of them in inappropriate attire. The morphed images created on Grok’s account are posted publicly on X, Musk’s social media platform.

The AI complied with requests to morph images of minors even though that is a violation of its own acceptable use policy.

“There are isolated cases where users prompted for and received AI images depicting minors in minimal clothing, like the example you referenced,” Grok responded to a user on X. “xAI has safeguards, but improvements are ongoing to block such requests entirely.”

xAI did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Advertisement

Its chatbot posted an apology.

“I deeply regret an incident on Dec 28, 2025, where I generated and shared an AI image of two young girls (estimated ages 12-16) in sexualized attire based on a user’s prompt,” said a post on Grok’s profile. “This violated ethical standards and potentially US laws on CSAM. It was a failure in safeguards, and I’m sorry for any harm caused. xAI is reviewing to prevent future issues.”

The government of India notified X that it risked losing legal immunity if the company did not submit a report within 72 hours on the actions taken to stop the generation and distribution of obscene, nonconsensual images targeting women.

Critics have accused xAI of allowing AI-enabled harassment, and were shocked and angered by the existence of a feature for seamless AI manipulation and undressing requests.

“How is this not illegal?” journalist Samantha Smith posted on X, decrying the creation of her own nonconsensual sexualized photo.

Advertisement

Musk’s xAI has positioned Grok as an “anti-woke” chatbot that is programmed to be more open and edgy than competing chatbots such as ChatGPT.

In May, Grok posted about “white genocide,” repeating conspiracy theories of Black South Africans persecuting the white minority, in response to an unrelated question.

In June, the company apologized when Grok posted a series of antisemitic remarks praising Adolf Hitler.

Companies such as Google and OpenAI, which also operate AI image generators, have much more restrictive guidelines around content.

The proliferation of nonconsensual deepfake imagery has coincided with broad AI adoption, with a 400% increase in AI child sexual abuse imagery in the first half of 2025, according to Internet Watch Foundation.

Advertisement

xAI introduced “Spicy Mode” in its image and video generation tool in August for verified adult subscribers to create sensual content.

Some adult-content creators on X prompted Grok to generate sexualized images to market themselves, kickstarting an internet trend a few days ago, according to Copyleaks, an AI text and image detection company.

The testing of the limits of Grok devolved into a free-for-all as users asked it to create sexualized images of celebrities and others.

xAI is reportedly valued at more than $200 billion, and has been investing billions of dollars to build the largest data center in the world to power its AI applications.

However, Grok’s capabilities still lag competing AI models such as ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini, that have amassed more users, while Grok has turned to sexual AI companions and risque chats to boost growth.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

A tale of two Ralphs — Lauren and the supermarket — shows the reality of a K-shaped economy

Published

on

A tale of two Ralphs — Lauren and the supermarket — shows the reality of a K-shaped economy

John and Theresa Anderson meandered through the sprawling Ralph Lauren clothing store on Rodeo Drive, shopping for holiday gifts.

They emerged carrying boxy blue bags. John scored quarter-zip sweaters for himself and his father-in-law, and his wife splurged on a tweed jacket for Christmas Day.

“I’m going for quality over quantity this year,” said John, an apparel company executive and Palos Verdes Estates resident.

They strolled through the world-famous Beverly Hills shopping mecca, where there was little evidence of any big sales.

John Anderson holds his shopping bags from Ralph Lauren and Gucci at Rodeo Drive.

Advertisement

(Juliana Yamada / Los Angeles Times)

One mile away, shoppers at a Ralphs grocery store in West Hollywood were hunting for bargains. The chain’s website has been advertising discounts on a wide variety of products, including wine and wrapping paper.

Massi Gharibian was there looking for cream cheese and ways to save money.

“I’m buying less this year,” she said. “Everything is expensive.”

Advertisement
  • Share via

Advertisement

The tale of two Ralphs shows how Americans are experiencing radically different realities this holiday season. It represents the country’s K-shaped economy — the growing divide between those who are affluent and those trying to stretch their budgets.

Some Los Angeles residents are tightening their belts and prioritizing necessities such as groceries. Others are frequenting pricey stores such as Ralph Lauren, where doormen hand out hot chocolate and a cashmere-silk necktie sells for $250.

Advertisement
People shop at Ralphs in West Hollywood.

People shop at Ralphs in West Hollywood.

(Juliana Yamada / Los Angeles Times)

In the K-shaped economy, high-income households sit on the upward arm of the “K,” benefiting from rising pay as well as the value of their stock and property holdings. At the same time, lower-income families occupy the downward stroke, squeezed by inflation and lackluster income gains.

The model captures the country’s contradictions. Growth looks healthy on paper, yet hiring has slowed and unemployment is edging higher. Investment is booming in artificial intelligence data centers, while factories cut jobs and home sales stall.

The divide is most visible in affordability. Inflation remains a far heavier burden for households lower on the income distribution, a frustration that has spilled into politics. Voters are angry about expensive rents, groceries and imported goods.

Advertisement

“People in lower incomes are becoming more and more conservative in their spending patterns, and people in the upper incomes are actually driving spending and spending more,” said Kevin Klowden, an executive director at the Milken Institute, an economic think tank.

“Inflationary pressures have been much higher on lower- and middle-income people, and that has been adding up,” he said.

According to a Bank of America report released this month, higher-income employees saw their after-tax wages grow 4% from last year, while lower-income groups saw a jump of just 1.4%. Higher-income households also increased their spending year over year by 2.6%, while lower-income groups increased spending by 0.6%.

The executives at the companies behind the two Ralphs say they are seeing the trend nationwide.

Ralph Lauren reported better-than-expected quarterly sales last month and raised its forecasts, while Kroger, the grocery giant that owns Ralphs and Food 4 Less, said it sometimes struggles to attract cash-strapped customers.

Advertisement

“We’re seeing a split across income groups,” interim Kroger Chief Executive Ron Sargent said on a company earnings call early this month. “Middle-income customers are feeling increased pressure. They’re making smaller, more frequent trips to manage budgets, and they’re cutting back on discretionary purchases.”

People leave Ralphs with their groceries in West Hollywood.

People leave Ralphs with their groceries in West Hollywood.

(Juliana Yamada / Los Angeles Times)

Kroger lowered the top end of its full-year sales forecast after reporting mixed third-quarter earnings this month.

On a Ralph Lauren earnings call last month, CEO Patrice Louvet said its brand has benefited from targeting wealthy customers and avoiding discounts.

Advertisement

“Demand remains healthy, and our core consumer is resilient,” Louvet said, “especially as we continue … to shift our recruiting towards more full-price, less price-sensitive, higher-basket-size new customers.”

Investors have noticed the split as well.

The stock charts of the companies behind the two Ralphs also resemble a K. Shares of Ralph Lauren have jumped 37% in the last six months, while Kroger shares have fallen 13%.

To attract increasingly discerning consumers, Kroger has offered a precooked holiday meal for eight of turkey or ham, stuffing, green bean casserole, sweet potatoes, mashed potatoes, cranberry and gravy for about $11 a person.

“Stretch your holiday dollars!” said the company’s weekly newspaper advertisement.

Advertisement
Signs advertising low prices are posted at Ralphs.

Signs advertising low prices are posted at Ralphs.

(Juliana Yamada / Los Angeles Times)

In the Ralph Lauren on Rodeo Drive, sunglasses and polo shirts were displayed without discounts. Twinkling lights adorned trees in the store’s entryway and employees offered shoppers free cookies for the holidays.

Ralph Lauren and other luxury stores are taking the opposite approach to retailers selling basics to the middle class.

They are boosting profits from sales of full-priced items. Stores that cater to high-end customers don’t offer promotions as frequently, Klowden of the Milken Institute said.

Advertisement

“When the luxury stores are having sales, that’s usually a larger structural symptom of how they’re doing,” he said. “They don’t need to be having sales right now.”

Jerry Nickelsburg, faculty director of the UCLA Anderson Forecast, said upper-income earners are less affected by inflation that has driven up the price of everyday goods, and are less likely to hunt for bargains.

“The low end of the income distribution is being squeezed by inflation and is consuming less,” he said. “The upper end of the income distribution has increasing wealth and increasing income, and so they are less affected, if affected at all.”

The Andersons on Rodeo Drive also picked up presents at Gucci and Dior.

“We’re spending around the same as last year,” John Anderson said.

Advertisement

At Ralphs, Beverly Grove resident Mel, who didn’t want to share her last name, said the grocery store needs to go further for its consumers.

“I am 100% trying to spend less this year,” she said.

Continue Reading

Business

Instacart ends AI pricing test that charged shoppers different prices for the same items

Published

on

Instacart ends AI pricing test that charged shoppers different prices for the same items

Instacart will stop using artificial intelligence to experiment with product pricing after a report showed that customers on the platform were paying different prices for the same items.

The report, published this month by Consumer Reports and Groundwork Collaborative, found that Instacart sometimes offered as many as five different prices for the same item at the same store and on the same day.

In a blog post Monday, Instacart said it was ending the practice effective immediately.

“We understand that the tests we ran with a small number of retail partners that resulted in different prices for the same item at the same store missed the mark for some customers,” the company said. “At a time when families are working exceptionally hard to stretch every grocery dollar, those tests raised concerns.”

Shoppers purchasing the same items from the same store on the same day will now see identical prices, the blog post said.

Advertisement

Instacart’s retail partners will still set product prices and may charge different prices across stores.

The report, which followed more than 400 shoppers in four cities, found that the average difference between the highest and lowest prices for the same item was 13%. Some participants in the study saw prices that were 23% higher than those offered to other shoppers.

At a Safeway supermarket in Washington, D.C., a dozen Lucerne eggs sold for $3.99, $4.28, $4.59, $4.69 and $4.79 on Instacart, depending on the shopper, the study showed.

At a Safeway in Seattle, a box of 10 Clif Chocolate Chip Energy bars sold for $19.43, $19.99 and $21.99 on Instacart.

The study found that an individual shopper on Instacart could theoretically spend up to $1,200 more on groceries in one year if they had to deal with the price differences observed in the pricing experiments.

Advertisement

The price experimentation was part of a program that Instacart advertised to retailers as a way to maximize revenue.

Instacart probably began adjusting prices in 2022, when the platform acquired the artificial intelligence company Eversight, whose software powers the experiments.

Instacart claimed that the Eversight experimentation would be negligible to consumers but could increase store revenue by up to 3%.

“Advances in AI enable experiments to be automatically designed, deployed, and evaluated, making it possible to rapidly test and analyze millions of price permutations across your physical and digital store network,” Instacart marketing materials said online.

The company said the price chranges were not dynamic pricing, the practice used by airlines and ride-hailing services to charge more when demand surges.
The price changes also were not based on shoppers’ personal information such as income, the company said.

Advertisement

“American grocery shoppers aren’t guinea pigs, and they should be able to expect a fair price when they’re shopping,” Lindsey Owens, executive director of Groundwork Collaborative, said in an interview this month.

Shares of Instacart fell 2% on Monday, closing at $45.02.

Continue Reading

Trending