Heightened Scrutiny
As someone who started calling myself “bigendered” decades ago, trans visibility has been both a blessing and a curse. On the one hand, it’s a relief to no longer have to explain being nonbinary to puzzled and often dubious cisgender folks (gay and straight alike). On the other hand, it’s infuriating to watch as one’s existence is then abruptly erased and turned into an “ideology” by right-wing transphobes. And it’s downright demeaning to have one’s identity suddenly hijacked and transformed into a hip “cause” by cisgender liberals. (The dehumanization inevitably leading to dangers like the NYTimes breathless bothsidesism reporting on trans issues by cis reporters — though no doubt the equivalent would have occurred had the BLM movement been covered exclusively by white folks.) Everyone from haters to allies are so obsessed with pronouns and bathrooms (prurient clickbait) that the crucial bigger picture of bodily autonomy gets swept aside in the larger cis discourse.
Which is why it’s so refreshing and empowering to sit through Sam Feder’s Sundance-debuting Heightened Scrutiny, an up-close look at levelheaded ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio as he embarks on a high-stakes journey preparing to become the first known transgender person to make oral arguments before the most consequential platform of all: the Supreme Court of the United States. And while the recent outcome of U.S. v. Skrmetti, in which SCOTUS upheld a Tennessee state law banning puberty blockers and hormone therapy for the treatment of gender dysphoria in minors (though treatment for other medical reasons is still permitted), is disappointing, Feder is smartly less concerned with keeping score on the trans rights battlefield than with who is representing the team. Finally we, through Strangio, are the dignified adults in charge, taking the narrative back into our own hands and acting as the spokespeople for our own bodies, ourselves. (Here’s to the tattooed advocate following in ACLU board member Thurgood Marshall’s shoes.)
Just prior to the doc’s July 18th opening at DCTV, Filmmaker reached out to Feder, who we last caught up with to discuss Disclosure, the director’s 2020 deep dive into how trans individuals have historically been depicted onscreen.
Filmmaker: How did you first meet Chase? And considering how much he seems to value his privacy — not to mention the fact that he was in preparation to argue a history-making case before the Supreme Court – how did you get him to agree to participate in a film?
Feder: Back when I was researching for Disclosure, I heard Chase speak about the rise of trans visibility and the potential risks it might pose so I asked if I could interview him. I made Disclosure to facilitate conversations about how to prepare for the inevitable backlash. Chase beautifully grounds the film in that issue when he warns us that mainstream “representation of trans people might incite rage in a viewer, a viewer who doesn’t have access to the character but has access to the person on the street.” He goes on to explain that it is “especially important for us to be pushing for actual material redistribution. Otherwise all we’re doing is elevating some people into the sphere of the powerful and not in any way working to disrupt the systems that exclude most trans people from material survival.”
For what would become Heightened Scrutiny, I interviewed Chase along with dozens of journalists and advocates about the ways in which journalism was perpetuating — and sometimes creating — anti-trans bias.
In late June 2024 it was announced that SCOTUS would take the Skrmetti case, and it became immediately clear that following Chase’s preparation would ground the film in the material consequences of the trans coverage in the press. He values his privacy and is very clear about not wanting to be in the spotlight, but he agreed to participate because we share the desire to show young people that we fought for them, that we tried. And he understood the importance of documenting that fight.
Filmmaker: You said in your director’s statement that you “aim to strike a delicate balance between intentionally resisting the tropes of a character study and honoring Chase’s contribution to this historical moment.” So how exactly did you go about this structurally? What did you purposely avoid doing?
Feder: Chase’s preparation was the narrative arc of the film. His story alone, as a character study, would be a beautiful and important film. But the film I wanted to make included the context of the time, and the perspectives of others invested in the issue, including a young trans person.
We showed the context via the role of the mainstream media in perpetuating harmful and untrue narratives about trans people. We showed how Chase’s work is interconnected with and built upon the work of many others. We showed a young trans girl who fights back against this cruelty coming from school boards and the government alike.
Filmmaker: This project was propelled by your desire to delve into why the trans community had lost so many of its allies in recent years, a shift you attribute to the disproportionate amount of anti-trans articles in liberal media, specifically the NY Times. You wanted to figure out how to get them back, how to show them they’ve been misled. Though are you sure the majority of these folks were ever really allies in the first place? After all, virtue signaling with pronouns and rallying to a “cause” is much easier than respecting an actual identity and getting onboard with societal structural change.
Feder: I can’t decide who is really an ally, but I do want to reach people who think of themselves as allies, or those who take more surface-level steps for a variety of reasons. Maybe they are avoiding the harder structural changes, or they think that virtue signaling is enough, or they don’t know how to take more material steps towards change. Regardless, it is important to engage in these conversations and to model and encourage critical thinking and reading practices.
When I have a chance to speak with skeptical people and explain how puberty blockers work, they usually admit that they didn’t know anything about nonsurgical options. Or hadn’t read about how puberty blockers are given at the onset of puberty so that young people questioning their gender, their families and doctors could take things slow and figure out what the best path for them might be.
I add that, tragically, some states are banning puberty blockers only to adolescents questioning their gender. Adolescents who are not questioning their gender continue to have access to puberty blockers as they have for decades. The legal system is saying that it is only safe for one class of the population to access blockers and not another. Often people immediately change their minds when offered a more complete picture.
Filmmaker: Now that we know the outcome of Skrmetti, is there a followup doc in the works?
Feder: We are still focused on getting Heightened Scrutiny out into the world! Heightened Scrutiny is not only about the Skirmetti case – we created the film to address how journalism was perpetuating anti-trans bias and to encourage allies to develop increased media literacy around this subject. That work continues beyond the SCOTUS ruling.
We are now focused on self-distributing the film and trying to raise finishing funds for distribution. This July we have theatrical runs scheduled for NYC, LA and San Francisco, and we have an ongoing impact campaign to leverage these screenings into material structural change and community support. We will have speakers on post-screening panels to share resources and build coalitions, and we will be organizing screenings where the film can offer assistance to organizing efforts throughout 2025-2026. For example, we hope the film will be used in states that have active anti-trans bills working their way through legislatures; and to connect nationally with healthcare workers, colleges, universities and young people.
