The Trojan Horse of Texas v. Becerra: A Fight for Disability Rights, Trans Liberation, and Solidarity

Introduction

A Trojan horse often hides its true intentions behind a façade, appearing as one thing whilst carrying the seeds of something far more insidious. Texas v. Becerra functions in precisely this way. On the surface, it seems like a narrowly focused legal challenge aimed at preventing the inclusion of gender dysphoria under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. To the casual observer, it may appear to be little more than yet another skirmish in the so-called “culture wars,” easily dismissed as irrelevant to anyone outside the trans community. But this lawsuit is no simple policy dispute; it is a calculated and strategic attack that threatens the broader foundation of disability rights in the United States. Beneath its specific focus lies a systemic agenda to erode protections for countless marginalised groups, wielding the language of law and cost to advance a far-reaching dismantling of equity.

In yesterday’s article, I explored the historical and systemic patterns behind the attack on Section 504, using Stafford Beer’s observation that “the purpose of a system is what it does” to illustrate how capitalism and patriarchy repeatedly claw back hard-won rights. Texas v. Becerra is an extension of this same purpose, exploiting societal bigotry against trans people to push a broader agenda that serves power and profit. By attempting to exclude gender dysphoria from the protections of disability law, the lawsuit opens the door to the removal of accommodations for countless conditions deemed “too expensive” or “not explicitly named.” It weaponises the legal principle of textualism—a narrow interpretation of statutory language that ignores context and intent—to erode the adaptability of laws that have long protected disabled individuals.

This is no mere cultural battle; it is a systemic assault designed to preserve the supremacy of capital and patriarchy by stripping away legal frameworks that challenge their dominance. Whilst trans people may be the immediate scapegoats, the consequences of this case will reverberate far beyond, threatening anyone who relies on disability protections to access education, healthcare, or employment. The only effective resistance to such attacks lies in working-class solidarity and the adoption of socialist principles—building a collective movement that values equity and inclusion over profit and prejudice. This lawsuit is not just an attack on trans rights; it is a strike at the heart of disability law and a stark reminder that the fight for justice must be both intersectional and systemic.

Why Gender Dysphoria is Disabling

Gender dysphoria is disabling not because of an inherent flaw within individuals but due to the societal barriers imposed upon those who deviate from rigid binary, patriarchal norms. The social model of disability explains this well: societal structures, policies, and attitudes are what turn natural variations in human experience into disabling conditions. In a state like California, where access to affirming healthcare is relatively accessible, I was able to navigate my transition with dignity. Yet in other states, such as Florida, the roadblocks are almost insurmountable—requiring court orders and bureaucratic mazes just to access hormone therapy. These restrictions are not natural but deliberate, tools of a patriarchal system that enforces conformity to binary gender roles and marginalises anyone who does not fit.

This artificial disabling is reminiscent of Kurt Vonnegut’s Harrison Bergeron, where societal equality is imposed through physical and psychological impairments. Much like the characters in that story, trans individuals are burdened with obstacles that prevent them from living freely. By denying healthcare, legal recognition, and social acceptance, society imposes metaphorical handicaps, making life a constant battle for trans people to survive, let alone thrive.

The Power Threat Meaning Framework (PTMF) takes this understanding further, framing gender dysphoria not as a disorder but as a natural response to the threats and exclusion imposed by a patriarchal, binary-focused society. Discrimination, violence, and systemic barriers generate distress, and the meaning systems that underpin these structures perpetuate a narrative that trans identities are aberrant or pathological. Yet in a just society, as imagined in Ursula K. Le Guin’s The Left Hand of Darkness, such barriers would not exist. Le Guin’s vision of Gethen, a world without fixed gender roles, offers a glimpse of what life could look like without the disabling constructs of patriarchy. On Gethen, individuals are free to express themselves without the constraints of binary categorisation, and the idea of gender dysphoria is rendered meaningless because the societal structures that create it simply do not exist.

In our current world, gender dysphoria is profoundly disabling because of the systemic pressures that force trans individuals to navigate hostile environments. But it need not be. If society dismantled the patriarchal norms and binary obsessions that create these barriers, trans people would no longer face the oppression that limits their access to healthcare, education, and social inclusion. True liberation requires not only dismantling these structures but also reimagining a world where all identities are embraced, and difference is celebrated, not pathologised.

Why These States Are Leading the Charge: The Historical Role of Patriarchy and Capitalism

The states leading Texas v. Becerra form a calculated coalition with a shared goal: dismantling protections under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. These states have long histories of opposing equity and inclusion, from enforcing Jim Crow laws and resisting integration to advancing anti-LGBTQIA+ legislation and anti-labour policies. Their attorneys general often cloak their actions in language about “fairness” and “protecting families,” but the true intent is exclusion—ensuring that societal and economic hierarchies remain intact. This lawsuit is merely the latest tool in that ongoing project.

States like Texas and Arkansas have built their economies on extractive industries such as oil, agriculture, aerospace, and manufacturing—sectors that rely on cheap labour and minimal regulation. Whether someone is trans is irrelevant to their ability to work in these fields, but these states perpetuate narratives that frame trans individuals as a threat. This has little to do with workforce capability and everything to do with maintaining patriarchal norms and rigid binaries. Trans existence challenges the ideological foundations of these hierarchies, making trans people a convenient scapegoat. Alaska’s inclusion in this coalition, however, is curious. The state has a relatively progressive history regarding LGBTQIA+ rights, having enacted same-sex marriage and anti-discrimination protections in 2014. Despite this, Alaska’s attorney general has aligned with more conservative states, prioritising the interests of a national political agenda over the values of its population. This demonstrates how even ostensibly progressive states can become complicit in efforts to dismantle equity frameworks when their leadership aligns with larger conservative coalitions.

The makeup of this coalition—17 states in total—is no coincidence. By joining forces, these states are attempting to fast-track the case to the Supreme Court, bypassing the years it would take for a single state’s lawsuit to wind through the judicial system. With the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority, these states are banking on a favourable ruling that will legitimise their efforts to roll back disability protections. This calculated move is less about the specifics of gender dysphoria and more about using it as a wedge issue to undermine the entirety of Section 504. If the Court rules in their favour, they can argue that they are merely following the law whilst effectively stripping away accommodations for disabilities not explicitly named in the Rehabilitation Act.

This lawsuit is a Trojan horse. Trans people are being targeted first because they represent a small, vulnerable population, but the ultimate goal is far broader: dismantling protections for all disabled individuals. By framing accommodations as costly burdens, these states aim to create a precedent that justifies the elimination of accommodations for autistics, AuDHDers, those managing the complicated life of cPTSD, and diseases like fibromyalgia. This serves the interests of capitalism, which thrives on reducing costs and maximising profits, and patriarchy, which relies on maintaining strict societal hierarchies.

The fight against Texas v. Becerra is about far more than trans rights. It is a fight to preserve the fundamental principle of equity and inclusion that ensures dignity for all marginalised groups. It is a fight against the relentless prioritisation of profit over people and the use of legal technicalities to erode hard-won rights. Alaska’s involvement is a stark reminder that no state is immune to the pressures of a national conservative agenda. The coalition’s strategy to expedite this case to the Supreme Court highlights the urgency of this battle—because a ruling in their favour would reverberate far beyond trans rights, threatening the very foundation of disability protections for millions. To defend Section 504 is to defend the principle that all people, regardless of ability or identity, deserve the opportunity to thrive.

The Lawsuit’s Trojan Horse Language

The language of Texas v. Becerra is far more than a technical legal argument—it is a carefully constructed Trojan horse for advancing the agendas of dominionist oligarchs, far-right think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, and the corporate interests that back them. On the surface, the lawsuit appears to target trans people and the inclusion of gender dysphoria under Section 504, but its true purpose is far more insidious. By leveraging textualism, a legal philosophy that prioritises narrow interpretations of statutes over broader legislative intent, the lawsuit aims to dismantle decades of progress in disability rights. Behind this seemingly legalistic framework lies an agenda to undermine the very foundations of equity, whilst serving the overlapping goals of capitalism, patriarchy, and Christian dominionism.

Dominionists, particularly Christian nationalists, view this lawsuit as a step toward their ultimate goal of “restoring” the United States as a so-called “Christian nation,” despite the fact that it was never founded as such. Their ideology struggles deeply with difference and disability, which they cannot intellectually reconcile with the existence of an omnipotent g-d. To dominionists, disability represents a theological challenge—an imperfection that calls into question their belief in divine design and omnipotence. Historically, Calvinist theology has attempted to resolve this dissonance by framing disability as either a moral failing or a divine punishment, which has led to an enduring agenda to erase difference wherever it is found. This extends to racial and gender diversity, aligning dominionists with the pseudo-intellectual framework of scientific racism, which they wield as a justification for their eugenicist impulses and the drive to “perfect man.”

Texas v. Becerra serves multiple agendas. For the capitalist oligarchs backing groups like the Heritage Foundation, the lawsuit offers an opportunity to roll back costly disability accommodations, cutting into budgets and maximising profit margins. Disabled individuals, who often require accommodations to access education, healthcare, and employment, represent a financial “burden” to these interests. Starting with trans people and gender dysphoria, the lawsuit provides a precedent for challenging accommodations for a range of other conditions not explicitly named in the Rehabilitation Act, such as autism, ADHD, PTSD, fibromyalgia, and long COVID. If successful, this case will open the door to eliminating protections for countless disabled individuals, all under the guise of fiscal responsibility.

Simultaneously, the dominionists see this lawsuit as an attack on what they perceive as “moral decay” and an affirmation of their vision for a patriarchal, able-bodied, and cisgender society. Their fixation on binary gender norms and traditional hierarchies drives their particular hatred for trans people, whose existence challenges their rigid worldview. By targeting gender dysphoria as a wedge issue, the lawsuit provides a pathway for eroding broader protections for disability and diversity, ultimately seeking to eliminate what they view as deviations from their divine ideal.

This lawsuit did not emerge in isolation. It is the result of decades of planning by far-right organisations, which have spent years building networks of attorneys general and judges loyal to their cause. The involvement of 17 states is no coincidence—it is a deliberate strategy to fast-track this case to the Supreme Court, where a conservative supermajority, carefully cultivated by these same forces, is expected to deliver a favourable ruling. This is part of a broader campaign of “lawfare,” a systematic weaponisation of the legal system to erode civil rights and consolidate power in the hands of a select few.

If Texas v. Becerra succeeds, it will embolden dominionist and capitalist interests to escalate their assaults on equity frameworks. The far-right’s divide-and-conquer strategy is central to this effort, using trans rights as a flashpoint to pit marginalised communities against one another and weaken collective resistance. But make no mistake—this battle is not just about gender dysphoria or even disability rights. It is part of a broader agenda to dismantle protections for all who do not conform to their vision of a patriarchal, capitalist, and dominionist order. To defend Section 504 is to stand against this rising tide of systemic oppression, affirming that diversity and difference are not burdens to be eradicated but strengths to be celebrated.

The Bigger Picture: Capitalism, Fascism, and the Attack on Equity

Capitalism lies at the root of the systemic oppression we see in lawsuits like Texas v. Becerra, where trans people, disabled individuals, and equity itself are commodified, erased, or attacked for profit and power. History has shown us that unchecked capitalism inevitably leads to fascism, as the ruling class consolidates power and eliminates threats to its dominance. Fascist regimes have always begun their atrocities abroad, experimenting on marginalised populations in colonised territories, before bringing those same mechanisms of violence home. The German Empire's genocidal practices in Namibia, for example, set the stage for the Nazi regime’s brutal domestic policies, including Aktion T4—the mass killing of disabled children, many of whom were autistic. These atrocities served to normalise state-sponsored violence against targeted groups, paving the way for broader campaigns of oppression and death.

Under capitalism, disability and trans identities are treated as either liabilities to be minimised or as profitable marketing tools, depending on what serves the ruling class’s interests. Disability is framed as an economic burden—an accommodation “expense” that corporations and governments seek to eliminate. Trans people, meanwhile, are simultaneously commodified and attacked. Big Pharma makes billions from hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and gender-affirming treatments, yet these same pharmaceutical companies fund the campaigns of the politicians leading attacks on trans rights. This contradiction is not accidental; it is capitalism’s need for perpetual exploitation at work. By targeting marginalised groups like trans people and the disabled, the ruling class reinforces a divide-and-conquer strategy, ensuring the working class remains fractured and unable to unite against their true oppressors.

The lawsuit against Section 504 follows this well-worn capitalist pattern. Equity is framed not as a moral imperative but as a cost to be eliminated. This is not new. After the abolition of slavery, both the United States and Britain chose to compensate the ruling class rather than the enslaved. In the U.S., reparations for freed people were abandoned, and Jim Crow laws were implemented to funnel Black Americans into prisons where their labour could once again be exploited for free. In Britain, reparations to enslavers were so vast that the government only finished paying off the debt in 2015. These examples underscore capitalism’s reliance on maintaining hierarchies that exploit marginalised groups while enriching the powerful.

Unchecked capitalism, when merged with state power, inevitably gives rise to fascism. Lenin, Stalin, and Mao all recognised this dangerous evolution. Fascism is not a distinct ideology but rather capitalism in its most violent, repressive form, as the state and corporate interests align to crush dissent and consolidate control. The erosion of legal protections for trans people and disabled individuals, as seen in Texas v. Becerra, is part of this trajectory. By removing marginalised groups from public life and rolling back their rights, capitalism erases those it deems unprofitable while simultaneously solidifying the hierarchies that serve its interests.

This lawsuit is not just a legal battle; it is a manifestation of the broader assault on equity driven by the marriage of capitalism and state power. If left unchecked, this alliance will continue to strip rights from the most vulnerable, normalising oppression and paving the way for broader campaigns of exclusion and violence. To resist this trajectory, we must understand that capitalism and fascism are not separate enemies but interconnected forces, and the fight for equity and inclusion is inseparable from the fight against their combined power. Only through solidarity, collective resistance, and a rejection of the capitalist framework can we hope to dismantle the systems that drive oppression.

The Solution: Solidarity and Socialism

The solution to the systemic oppression driving lawsuits like Texas v. Becerra lies in solidarity and socialism—a unified rejection of the capitalist framework that exploits division to maintain power. As Marx wrote in The Communist Manifesto, “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” The current moment is no different. Capitalism thrives on division, pitting marginalised groups against one another and the working class against itself, ensuring that collective resistance never forms. To counter this, we must build a movement rooted in working-class solidarity, one that recognises the interconnectedness of trans liberation, disability justice, and labour rights.

Trans people and disabled individuals face overlapping systems of oppression that capitalise on their marginalisation. By excluding them from public life and framing their accommodations as burdens, capitalism isolates these groups, treating them as expendable liabilities. But their struggles are not separate from the broader exploitation of the working class. All are victims of a system that prioritises profit over people, dividing us along lines of identity, ability, and gender to weaken our collective strength. Solidarity requires understanding that an injury to one is an injury to all. It means recognising that the fight for trans and disabled rights is not a niche issue but central to dismantling the capitalist system that exploits all of us.

Socialism provides the framework to address these injustices at their root. Where capitalism commodifies and exploits, socialism centres human needs, equity, and collective well-being. As Marx argued in Critique of the Gotha Programme, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” Under socialism, difference is not framed as a deficit but as a strength, with society structured to ensure everyone has the resources they need to thrive. Trans people and disabled individuals would no longer be marginalised as “unprofitable” but valued as integral members of the collective, their needs met not out of charity but out of justice.

History offers countless examples of the power of solidarity to achieve progress. The labour movements of the early 20th century, for instance, were instrumental in securing rights that many take for granted today: the eight-hour workday, workplace safety laws, and collective bargaining rights. These victories were not won by isolated groups but through the unified action of diverse workers recognising their shared struggle against exploitation. The Black-led civil rights movements in the U.S. also show how solidarity across race, gender, and class lines can dismantle oppressive systems, achieving victories like the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act despite fierce capitalist and state resistance.

Today’s challenges demand the same level of cross-movement solidarity. Trans people, disabled individuals, and the working class must unite to confront not only the immediate threats posed by lawsuits like Texas v. Becerra but the capitalist system that underpins them. As Marx and Engels wrote, “Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains.” Our collective liberation lies in rejecting the divisions imposed by capitalism and embracing socialism as a framework for justice, equity, and shared prosperity.

Solidarity is not just a strategy; it is a necessity. Through socialism, we can dismantle the systems that perpetuate oppression and build a society where all people—regardless of gender, ability, or identity—can thrive. The fight for trans and disabled rights is not peripheral; it is central to the fight for the emancipation of all. Together, united in solidarity, we can create a world that prioritises human dignity over profit and collective well-being over exploitation.

Final thoughts …

Martin Niemöller famously wrote, “First they came for the Communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.” His words are a stark reminder of how oppression begins by targeting one group at a time, isolating and silencing them until no one is left to resist. Today, in the context of Texas v. Becerra, we face a similar strategy—a coordinated effort to dismantle the rights of marginalised groups, starting with trans people and extending to all those who rely on the protections of disability law and equity frameworks.

This lawsuit is not an isolated event. It is the latest manoeuvre in a broader campaign to erode legal protections and roll back decades of progress. Trans people are the initial scapegoat, targeted because we are seen as politically vulnerable, but the implications are far-reaching. If the plaintiffs succeed, Section 504 will be gutted, and with it, the protections that ensure equity for millions of disabled individuals. This is a deliberate effort to divide us, to pit marginalised communities against each other, and to weaken the solidarity that is our greatest strength.

We must not remain silent. Now is the time to recognise this attack for what it is—a Trojan horse designed to dismantle the rights of all marginalised groups. We must support trans-led and disability justice organisations that are on the front lines. These groups are fighting not only for their communities but for the integrity of the legal protections that uphold equity for everyone. Amplify their voices, contribute resources, and join their efforts.

But resistance alone is not enough. The fight against Texas v. Becerra is not just about preserving rights—it is about building a better, more equitable world. Solidarity is our most powerful tool. Capitalism and its enablers thrive on division, but we can counter this by recognising our shared struggles and uniting across movements. As Niemöller warned, the cost of inaction is far too great. We must refuse to be divided and instead fight for a society where no one is left behind.

Imagine a world where equity is not a contentious issue but a given—where trans people, disabled individuals, and all marginalised groups are free to live without fear. This is the future we must fight for, a future that prioritises dignity and justice over profit and power. The time to act is now, and the choice is ours: will we remain silent, or will we rise together in solidarity to build a better world? Let us ensure history remembers us as those who spoke out, who stood united, and who refused to let oppression prevail.