Two months ago I forswore more personal Substack posts, and not only because they're a microdime a dozen. My goal, ordinarily, is to follow my scientist habits and offer substantive original content here. But these times are not ordinary.

At least 75,017,613 people are wondering what to do right now. Many of them spoke of leaving the U.S. if the dictator-in-waiting was elected. Many of them realized, somewhere along the line, that this is easier said than done.

As a transgender woman, I am only one step below the top of the ladder in Trump's wet dreams of inflicting sadistic pain (immigrants, except perhaps from Norway, are of course at the top, close to Black people to whom he generously extends full inclusion with his hatred of anything DEI). So the existential (carefully chosen word alert) question is: how serious is he, and what is the timeline?

Though only one “Day 1” executive order directly addressed transgender issues, it had far-reaching implications. Besides defining “[only two sexes, male and female,” and asserting that gender identity is “false,” “internally inconsistent,” and “disconnected from biological reality,” it formally invalidates all passports of transgender people, disallows their access to public restrooms, and requires federal prisons to incarcerate trans women in men's prisons.

Executive branch actions followed which buttressed this massive PR stunt in more depth, including, for example, invalidation of passports and denial of biologically correct new passports. Court challenges were quickly made, but have not yet been resolved. And despite injunctions, some women are still being held in men's prisons as of a month ago.

The existing legislature will offer no relief, and hopes for meaningful change in 2026 are most likely flights of fancy. The crucial question is whether the courts will be obeyed. For this, it is instructive to look at the number one issue on the Trump agenda: immigration.

Hundreds of people who appeared to be immigrants with tattoos (something gang members have, like a great many young adults today), were recently deported without any legal process to a prison “black hole” in El Salvador. Now, despite compelling evidence that many of them were certainly not gang members, the regime says it can do nothing – it lacks jurisdiction over El Salvador.

How convenient.

Space here doesn't permit discussing this in the detail it deserves. One has to jump to the chase: it means that the Trump regime does not consider itself bound by the laws of the U.S., and will not hesitate to “shoot first and answer questions later.” [In “breaking news,” the courts overseeing this case remain firm in their demand for return. But regime compliance remains in doubt.]

The assault on gender-related rights is broad, deep, and increasingly far-reaching. But the most life-critical issues can be put into a fairly short list:

1) Can we get the healthcare we need (and have legal rights to)?

2) If we find ourselves detained (those “bathroom bills” are not limited to students, and police are remarkably easy to displease at demonstrations), will it be in a physically safe space?

3) If these two conditions are not met, and leaving the country is the only way to attain that safety, will we be allowed to?

Predicting the unpredictable Mr. Trump is, of course, difficult. The presently lower position of transgender rights on his agenda could change quickly. What the immigration story shows is that he and his minions consider legal underpinnings superfluous. For example, they can simply void every passport that they believe doesn't correspond to birth records. They have no need of actual proof, any more than they felt obliged to identify gang tattoos on the immigrants (or even whether they were immigrants). The same applies to potential denial of hormone treatments, or simply our free existence.

One should not conflate probability with possibility. The former is murky, but the latter is no longer in doubt; the trans community in the U.S. is now living with something akin to the doomsday clock. To be sure, the latter pertains to more portentous consequences. But Goldfinger notwithstanding, we only live once, and that life is seriously threatened.

So: what to do? Most will, either by preference or necessity, face the beast here, in solidarity with supportive colleagues, despite the forbidding difficulties these threats impose. Resources severely constrain emigration (even from red state to blue).

Some who are able, however, may see value in following the example of Willy Brandt from the Nazi era and moving to a safer place from which to fight more effectively. In 1944, Col. Claus von Stauffenberg discouraged a junior colleague from joining his plot to assassinate Hitler, arguing that a sacrifice of one's life was justified only if it had a high likelihood of achieving something important. Whether we agree with this moral reasoning or not, it is the sort of decision that we are being forced to confront in the U.S. today.

What recent events have made clear is that we will probably have no warning of the regime's policy changes, and no practical recourse against its manifestly unconstitutional actions. There is simply no denying that ticking clock. Our decisions won't change history for the planet, but they will change our own. Each of us has to make the choice that is right for ourselves.

This Substack is free (though tips are welcome!) because I want the information to get out, and I want people to buy my novel, which is relevant and needed as never before. It's also good literature and a good read! Please check it out at https://www.bedazzledink.com/hannas-ascent.html#/.