She argued that transgender youth should be denied medical care, claiming, “God created male and female in His image.” However, the crowd reacted with clear disapproval.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), a leading voice against transgender rights in the U.S., delivered a speech yesterday in front of the Supreme Court as oral arguments were underway regarding Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care.
Her remarks were met with resounding boos from the crowd.
A viral video captures Marjorie Taylor Greene passionately condemning gender-affirming care for trans youth, claiming it involves a “…chemical castration pill to destroy their bodies before they’re ever old enough to vote…” The crowd’s boos grew so loud that much of her speech was drowned out.
Greene shared the full video of her speech on X, where she began by declaring, “God created male and female, in His image, He created us,” emphasizing that her opposition to trans rights is rooted in her religious beliefs rather than concerns about children’s health.
The boos from the crowd were audible in her video as well, and she addressed them directly.
“What you’re hearing is the outcry from the demons and those that worship evil, who are abusing our children, brainwashing our children to believe the lies that come directly from Satan!” she proclaimed as the crowd continued to jeer.
Undeterred, Greene returned to her prepared remarks, touting her federal bill to ban gender-affirming care and highlighting its support from figures like Donald Trump and J.D. Vance.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case challenging Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth. The law, which has been contested by several trans families, is argued to be unconstitutionally sexist. Plaintiffs claim it discriminates by allowing some individuals to access specific medical treatments while denying them to others based solely on their sex assigned at birth.
Outside the courthouse, both pro- and anti-trans protestors gathered. According to The New Republic, the pro-trans contingent significantly outnumbered their opponents, with approximately four times as many supporters advocating for transgender rights.
The Supreme Court has adjourned early, bringing an end to the oral argument session. A ruling in the case of US v. Skrmetti is expected to be issued by June 2025.
Tennessee Attorney Compares Trans Care to Lobotomies
Tennessee’s Solicitor General, Matthew Rice, in response to a question from Justice Brett Kavanaugh about why laws regulating gender-affirming care shouldn’t be left to the states, compared gender-affirming care to the discredited medical practice of lobotomies—removing part of the brain to treat mental illnesses.
He falsely claimed that lobotomies were widely supported by the medical community in the early 1900s, suggesting that gender-affirming care should be regulated in a similar manner. However, as Alejandra Caraballo, an attorney and instructor at Harvard Law CyberLaw Clinic, points out on BlueSky, leading medical organizations at the time opposed lobotomies, making Rice’s comparison highly inaccurate.
Sotomayor Asks How Banning Gender-Affirming Care Protects the Public
Justice Sonia Sotomayor questions how Tennessee Solicitor General Matthew Rice’s claims about banning gender-affirming care protect the public, emphasizing that “when you’re 1% of the population, it’s very hard to see how the democratic process will protect you.”
The Court’s decision could have broader implications, potentially affecting gender-affirming care for adults as well. If the Court accepts Tennessee’s argument about the possible medical risks, this reasoning could be used in future cases to restrict all forms of care.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett asks how Rice’s policies would apply to issues like bathrooms or sports. Rice attempts to distinguish transgender-based challenges from sex-based challenges, arguing that this case is about the medical risks of transgender healthcare, while bathroom and sports cases focus on gender rights and equity. However, he provides minimal rationale for how this distinction would work.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raises concerns about how the gender-affirming care ban mirrors past racist laws, noting that both seek to deny access to public services based on personal characteristics.
Rice tries to differentiate gender-affirming treatments like hormone replacement therapy and puberty blockers, arguing that the medical justification differs when these treatments are administered to transgender children versus cisgender ones. Jackson counters, pointing out that the treatments affect the body similarly, and suggests that Rice is contradicting his own argument about the dangers of these treatments by claiming they have different effects based on gender identity.
Tennessee’s Lawyer Begins Arguments Against Gender-Affirming Care and Immediately Confuses Everyone
Tennessee Solicitor General Matthew Rice takes the floor, arguing in favor of restricting gender-affirming care and allowing Tennessee’s ban to take effect. He asserts that gender-affirming care for minors offers no benefits, a position that contradicts the views of leading medical organizations such as the Endocrine Society, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Psychological Association.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor challenges this, noting that “every medical treatment has risks, even Aspirin,” and emphasizing that there is no valid reason to restrict gender-affirming care on those grounds. She also points out that halting the development of sex-based characteristics is inherently sex-based and therefore discriminatory. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson echoes this argument, pushing back against Rice’s claims that the issue is not sex-based, highlighting that attempting to restrict breast growth, for example, is inherently sex-based.
The Court’s confusion deepens when Rice argues that boys with gynecomastia—a condition causing enlarged breast tissue—who take puberty blockers lack a “medical purpose” for doing so, further muddling his argument and drawing continued pushback from the Justices.
“6th Circuit Got It Wrong,” Strangio Says, Citing Flawed Reasoning for Upholding Health Care Ban
ACLU attorney Chase Strangio argues that the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals “got it wrong” in reinstating Tennessee’s S.B. 1 ban on gender-affirming care, asserting that the court incorrectly applied rational basis review to the case. He argues that intermediate scrutiny should have been applied instead.
Rational basis review is a type of judicial review used to assess whether governments are acting in accordance with regulations. In contrast, intermediate scrutiny involves a more rigorous constitutional review to determine if a legal action aligns with the U.S. Constitution, specifically the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits sex-based discrimination.
In response to Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Strangio also emphasizes that these issues are deeply intertwined with advocacy for gay rights, referencing historical bans on cross-dressing and transgender people entering the military—issues that have also impacted gay individuals.
Strangio further addressed Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s attempt to shift the discussion to transgender people in sports, briefly arguing that anti-discrimination measures could be used to support the inclusion of trans women athletes, while clarifying that this is not the central focus of the current case.
Justice Samuel Alito questioned ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio, asking whether gender identity is immutable, citing detransitioners and gender fluidity as reasons to suggest it might not be. Strangio responded by emphasizing that there is strong evidence supporting the idea that the underlying basis of gender is immutable. He explained that while individuals may experience changes in their conception of their gender identity, their gender itself is not something that can be willingly altered. What remains constant, he said, is that their gender is different from the sex assigned at birth.
Alito then compared trans people to individuals with schizophrenia, suggesting that both could have different treatments. Strangio rejected this comparison, arguing that these are fundamentally different issues. He clarified that, regardless of any variations in how trans people experience their identities, being trans is an immutable status that does not shift in the same way mental illnesses do.
Chase Strangio Draws from Court’s Role in Pandemic Regulations & Says Transition Regret is Rare
ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio drew parallels between the Court’s involvement in pandemic regulations and its role in evaluating gender-affirming care, emphasizing that the Court should respect expert medical opinions in both contexts. He also addressed concerns about transition regret, pointing out that it is rare and that the overwhelming majority of individuals who pursue gender-affirming care report positive outcomes. Strangio argued that this underscores the importance of allowing access to such care, as it is supported by medical evidence and expertise. ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio, the first openly trans person to argue before the Supreme Court, drew from the Court’s role in regulating public health during the COVID-19 pandemic to argue against Tennessee’s S.B. 1, asserting that SCOTUS should rule against the ban in the interest of the common good. He used the same rationale the Court applied in reviewing public health policies during the pandemic to advocate for the preservation of gender-affirming care.
Strangio also addressed claims about high regret and detransition rates, arguing that such figures are often misrepresented to serve a particular agenda. He referenced the ACLU’s reply brief submitted to SCOTUS, which details the organization’s response to these mischaracterizations.
In response to questioning from Justice Alito, Strangio maintained that gender-affirming care for minors is life-saving, noting that it significantly reduces the risk of suicide. He also pointed out that, contrary to claims in the Cass Review, numerous studies show improved mental health outcomes for transgender individuals following gender-affirming care.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson argued that the ban on gender-affirming care is discriminatory, highlighting how it targets a specific group based on their gender identity. She pointed out that such policies are a direct violation of equal protection principles.
ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio then spoke, making history as one of the leading voices in the case. Strangio reiterated the importance of respecting expert medical opinions and legal protections for transgender individuals, advocating for the right to gender-affirming care. His powerful arguments further cemented his role in the ongoing fight for transgender rights.
In response to a line of questioning from Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson illustrates how denying transgender people medical care is discriminatory, highlighting that such care is often granted to cisgender individuals. Jackson compares these discriminatory policies to those implemented in the 1950s and 1960s on the basis of race, referencing Loving v. Virginia, which overturned bans on interracial marriage.
U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar echoes this argument, drawing parallels between the logic used in Loving and the current case.
Shortly thereafter, Chase Strangio, the first openly trans lawyer to speak before the Supreme Court, argues in favor of overturning S.B. 1. Strangio, representing the American Civil Liberties Union and the plaintiffs, responds to Justice Clarence Thomas’s question about his proposed solution, stating that he would want to ensure gender-affirming care for minors is authorized, particularly for his plaintiffs.
Kavanaugh Presses Lawyer on Constitutionality & Veers into Asking About Sports
Justice Brett Kavanaugh presses ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio on the constitutionality of gender-affirming care bans, questioning whether such regulations are in line with constitutional protections. Kavanaugh’s line of questioning shifts when he asks about the implications for transgender athletes in sports, seeking to understand how anti-discrimination measures in this case could apply to sports-related issues. Strangio responds, emphasizing that while the inclusion of trans athletes is an important issue, it is distinct from the core question at hand, which focuses on the legality and necessity of gender-affirming care.
Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh asks U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar why SCOTUS should apply intermediate scrutiny (a type of judicial review to assess constitutionality) to Tennessee’s S.B. 1. Prelogar argues that by imposing restrictions based on assigned sex at birth, the law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, which inherently calls for additional scrutiny.
Kavanaugh then shifts to a separate line of questioning, bringing up the issue of trans women in women’s sports. This leads Prelogar to admit that she believes there should be restrictions on trans women in sports. However, she tries to pivot back to arguing that such restrictions on gender-affirming care should not be in place.
Research indicates that trans women do not have an inherent advantage in sports after transitioning for the prescribed amount of time. Studies have shown their performance to be on par with cisgender women, and there is no evidence of trans women disproportionately dominating women’s sports.
Fertility Issues Don’t Just Affect Trans People, But Intersex People Too, Lawyer Argues at SCOTUS
During arguments at the Supreme Court, a lawyer emphasized that fertility issues are not exclusive to transgender individuals but also affect intersex people. The lawyer argued that restrictions on gender-affirming care could have broader implications, including for intersex individuals who may face similar challenges in accessing reproductive healthcare. This point was raised to highlight the intersection of medical and legal issues affecting both trans and intersex communities.
In response to a line of questioning from Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh about how gender-affirming care could impact fertility—one of the arguments for banning such care being that trans kids might face fertility issues later in life—U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argues that while fertility issues are indeed a concern in transgender care, they are not unique to trans individuals. Prelogar points out that there are solutions available for these issues, which are also found in treatments allowed under S.B. 1, such as invasive surgeries on intersex infants.
Intersex individuals, whose genitalia do not align with typical male or female expectations, are often subjected to invasive surgeries in infancy, which can permanently restrict their ability to have children due to forced conformity to societal norms. Despite these concerns, many anti-transgender policies, including S.B. 1, allow for gender-affirming care for intersex minors, even though advocates call for restrictions on mandatory conforming surgeries and treatments.
Additionally, many intersex individuals identify as transgender, linking these issues inextricably in discussions about gender-affirming care and reproductive rights.
Sam Alito Brings Up Restrictions on Women’s Rights to Oppose Trans Care
Justice Samuel Alito raised concerns about restrictions on women’s rights while arguing against the case for gender-affirming care. He suggested that limiting certain aspects of gender-affirming care could be justified by broader discussions around women’s rights. In his questioning, Alito implied that policies restricting transgender care could be seen as part of a larger debate about the rights of women, sparking further discussions about the intersection of gender, rights, and healthcare.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito argued that previous SCOTUS rulings, particularly Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (which overturned Roe v. Wade) and Geduldig v. Aiello (which allowed the denial of insurance benefits for work loss due to pregnancy), do not support the claim that Tennessee’s S.B. 1 constitutes sex-based discrimination. He pointed out that both rulings suggested that restrictions on pregnancy-related insurance coverage and abortion do not qualify as sex-based discrimination.
U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar countered, asserting that neither of these rulings applies to the current case. She argued that the previous decisions refer to more individualized healthcare concerns, which are unrelated to the broader, sex-based characteristics addressed by hormone replacement therapy and puberty blockers. These treatments, Prelogar emphasized, are inherently sex-based and therefore should not be governed by the same arguments made in those earlier rulings.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined the conversation, echoing Prelogar’s points that the issue at hand is fundamentally about sex classification. She also reiterated her criticisms of the Cass Review and responded to Alito’s claims about European countries restricting care, pointing out the inaccuracies in those statements. Sotomayor pressed for further clarity, helping to illuminate key aspects of Prelogar’s arguments.
U.S. Solicitor General States Her Case as Conservative Justices Bring Up Cass Review
U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar presented her case before the Supreme Court, defending the constitutionality of gender-affirming care and challenging the restrictions posed by Tennessee’s S.B. 1. As she argued, conservative justices, including Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh, raised concerns about the findings in the Cass Review, which suggests that gender-affirming care for minors may lead to negative psychological and medical outcomes.
Prelogar countered these claims by stressing that the Cass Review’s conclusions are not representative of the broader medical consensus. She pointed out that numerous studies and expert medical organizations, including the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, strongly support gender-affirming care as effective and essential for the well-being of transgender minors.
Her responses focused on the scientific evidence and medical expertise backing gender-affirming care, challenging the use of the Cass Review as a central argument for limiting such care.
U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar began outlining her case that Tennessee’s S.B. 1 constitutes discrimination based on biological sex. She argued that because testosterone and estrogen affect individuals differently depending on whether they were assigned male or female at birth, and because these medications vary based on assigned sex, the restriction of gender-affirming care amounts to sex-based discrimination.
Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Chief Justice John Roberts then began their questioning. Alito referenced the controversial Cass Review, a report from the United Kingdom that has been used to justify restricting puberty blockers. The report has faced criticism from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health and Yale researchers for its unscientific approach.
Justice Thomas sought clarification on the specific effects of hormone treatments on youth, while Chief Justice Roberts asked about the Court’s role in regulating individualized care and whether such decisions should be left to the states.
Prelogar maintained that, regardless of the specific details or arguments presented, S.B. 1 is fundamentally discriminatory, emphasizing that no other medications are subject to such broad restrictions in other countries.
All three justices who questioned Prelogar were appointed by Republican presidents.
Supreme Court Hearing on Oral Arguments Begins; Protesters on Both Sides Outside Court
The Supreme Court hearing on the challenge to Tennessee’s S.B. 1 began, with oral arguments being presented inside the Court. Outside the building, protesters gathered on both sides of the issue, with supporters of transgender rights advocating for the protection of gender-affirming care, while opponents of the policy voiced their support for the restrictions. The atmosphere outside was charged with emotion as both sides made their voices heard in what is expected to be a pivotal case for transgender rights and healthcare access.
Live coverage of the oral arguments presented to SCOTUS is beginning on C-SPAN, with the session set to last until approximately 2 p.m. Eastern, when the oral arguments will conclude.
As the courthouse prepares for cameras inside, reporters outside the building are focusing on protests from both sides of the debate. While advocates for transgender care are present, they are scarcely featured in media coverage. In contrast, disproportionate attention is given to opponents of transgender care, including pseudoscience activist groups like Do No Harm and Gays Against Groomers, as well as anti-trans politicians such as Rep. Gary Palmer (R-AL).
People’s Lives Have Been Turned Upside-Down by Gender-Affirming Care Bans
The ongoing gender-affirming care bans have had a profound impact on many individuals, turning their lives upside-down. For transgender youth and their families, these bans have created uncertainty and fear, as they are now faced with limited access to essential healthcare. Many are grappling with the emotional and physical toll of losing access to treatments that are crucial for their well-being, while others are forced to relocate or seek care in more supportive states. The broader consequences of these bans are reshaping lives, highlighting the personal struggles tied to the political and legal battles surrounding transgender rights.
One family from Texas shared their experience of living out of their van in a truck stop in Connecticut, driven by the increased cost of living after relocating to escape Texas’ anti-trans laws. Another parent who made a similar move from Texas to Connecticut remarked that while Connecticut launched a campaign inviting families from anti-trans states to relocate, the state did little to address the issue of affordability. These families are facing significant financial and emotional challenges as they seek safety and access to gender-affirming care in a more supportive environment.
The Trans Rights Supreme Court Case Is Also About Whether Sexism Is Now Legally Allowed in America
The ongoing Supreme Court case challenging gender-affirming care is not just about healthcare access for transgender individuals—it also raises broader questions about whether sexism is now legally permissible in the United States. At the heart of the case is the argument that restricting gender-affirming care based on assigned sex at birth constitutes sex-based discrimination, which may set a dangerous legal precedent. If the Court rules in favor of such bans, it could embolden future policies that discriminate on the basis of sex, further entrenching harmful gender stereotypes and limiting the rights of transgender individuals and other marginalized groups.
Slate’s legal writer Mark Joseph Stern explained in an article the critical stakes in U.S. v. Skrmetti, the challenge to Tennessee’s gender-affirming care ban currently being heard by the Supreme Court. Stern outlines how this case goes beyond the rights of transgender individuals, addressing broader questions about gender equality and the legal protections against sexism.
Stern notes that the pro-trans side argues that banning a trans boy from receiving testosterone therapy while allowing a cisgender boy to receive the same treatment is blatantly sexist. The only difference between the two is their assigned sex at birth, which makes the restriction inherently discriminatory. However, the appeals court disagreed, creating a new “biological difference” exception and arguing that the ban hurts both trans boys and trans girls equally, thereby making it not a violation of sex-based discrimination.
According to Stern, Skrmetti isn’t just about transgender rights—it’s a case that questions the future of gender equality under the law. The key legal issue is whether laws that deny medical care based on sex should trigger heightened scrutiny by the courts. Stern emphasizes that, according to long-established legal precedent, the answer should be yes. If the Court rules otherwise, it could undermine constitutional protections against sex discrimination and pave the way for laws enforcing harmful gender stereotypes. While transgender Americans would be most immediately affected, Stern argues that the case has broader implications for everyone’s ability to reject rigid gender roles without facing state-enforced oppression.
LIVE UPDATES: Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Challenge to Gender-Affirming Care Ban By Mira Lazine
Today, the United States Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments in the case United States v. Skrmetti, which centers on Tennessee’s 2023 bill, S.B. 1, that bans gender-affirming care for minors. While no decision will be made today, the arguments presented are expected to have far-reaching implications for transgender rights across the nation, particularly concerning access to gender-affirming care for minors.
The case involves three families of transgender youth in Tennessee who are challenging the state’s ban on providing their children with life-saving healthcare. The ban also impacts several doctors who seek to provide care to consenting patients. The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee initially ruled to overturn the ban, but the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals allowed it to go back into effect, prompting the case to be brought before the Supreme Court for a final ruling.
The plaintiffs in this case are supported by the Biden-Harris administration and the Department of Justice, which challenge the legality of such a broad ban on gender-affirming care. They are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and attorney Chase Strangio, along with Lambda Legal and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. On the opposing side, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, along with Tennessee Solicitor General Matthew Rice, represents the state of Tennessee. The United States government is also involved as a third party and is represented by U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar.
Although Rep. Jerry Schillinger’s measure didn’t explicitly name Zephyr, she is the only legislator to whom the rule would apply.
An attempt to bar Montana lawmaker Zooey Zephyr and other transgender women from using the women’s restroom in the State Capitol has failed, with several Republicans voting against the measure.
The Montana legislature’s joint rules committee voted down the proposal on Tuesday, according to the New York Times. The measure, introduced by Republican Rep. Jerry Schillinger, was unanimously opposed by Democrats, and some Republican lawmakers also joined in rejecting it. Although Zephyr was not specifically named in the measure, she is the only legislator to whom it would apply, as the rule would have required lawmakers to use restrooms corresponding to their sex assigned at birth, per CNN. Zephyr is also Montana’s first openly transgender woman to serve in the state legislature.
In a post on Bluesky Tuesday, Zephyr expressed relief, writing, “I’m happy to see that this proposed ban failed and am grateful for my colleagues, particularly my Republican colleagues, who recognized this as a distraction from the work we were elected to do.” She also told the New York Times via email that she plans to focus on issues like “housing and health care” in her legislative work moving forward.
According to the Times, Republican Rep. David Bedey argued during the committee meeting that such a rule would “have the effect of making people famous in the national news, and will not contribute to the effective conduct of our business.” Previous efforts to remove Zephyr from the legislature have indeed attracted significant national attention. In April 2023, Montana Republicans voted to censure Zephyr after she delivered an impassioned speech opposing a bill that would ban gender-affirming care for youth. As a result, she was barred from speaking in the legislature for the remainder of the session, although she retained her right to vote. Zephyr subsequently filed a lawsuit against the state, seeking to overturn the censure ruling, but a judge denied her petition, ruling that he lacked the authority to reverse the vote.Despite Republican efforts to censor her, Zephyr was re-elected to the legislature in November, securing 80% of the vote in her district. When she returns to the Capitol in 2025, Zephyr will finally be allowed to speak during floor debates for the first time in nearly two years.
Ugandan officials have expressed support for the incoming U.S. president.
As the results of the U.S. presidential election were revealed on November 5, showing that former President Donald Trump had secured a second term, homophobic political leaders in Uganda celebrated 7,000 miles away, in the capital city of Kampala.
“The sanctions are gone,” said Anita Among, Uganda’s parliamentary speaker, addressing members of parliament. She was referring to her previous U.S. travel ban imposed by the Biden administration on June 16, 2023, after Uganda passed the controversial “Kill The Gays” law on May 28, 2023.
The law, officially named the Anti-Homosexuality Act, was signed into effect by President Yoweri Museveni on May 28, 2023. The legislation imposes life imprisonment for same-sex acts, up to 20 years in prison for “recruitment, promotion, and funding” of same-sex “activities,” and the death penalty for those convicted of “attempted aggravated homosexuality.”
As the results of the U.S. presidential election were revealed on November 5, showing that former President Donald Trump had won a second term, homophobic political leaders celebrated 7,000 miles away in Uganda’s capital, Kampala.
“The sanctions are gone,” said Anita Among, Uganda’s parliamentary speaker, referring to the fact that she had been barred from entering the U.S. by the Biden administration on June 16, 2023, following Uganda’s passage of the “Kill The Gays” law on May 28, 2023.
The law, officially called the Anti-Homosexuality Act, was signed into law by President Yoweri Museveni on May 28, 2023. It mandates life imprisonment for same-sex acts, up to 20 years in prison for the “recruitment, promotion, and funding” of same-sex “activities,” and the death penalty for those convicted of “attempted aggravated homosexuality.”
On May 8, Among declared that the law’s enactment proved “the Western world will not come and rule Uganda.” The following day, she tweeted: “The president … has assented to the Anti-Homosexuality Act. As the parliament of Uganda, we have answered the cries of our people. We have legislated to protect the sanctity of [the] family. We have stood strong to defend our culture and [the] aspirations of our people,” thanking Museveni for his “steadfast action in the interest of Uganda.”
Among further stated that Ugandan MPs had resisted pressure from “bullies and doomsday conspiracy theorists” and urged the country’s courts to enforce the new law. The passage of this bill, along with Among’s and other African homophobes’ celebrations of Trump’s re-election, indicates the likely direction for Africa’s LGBTQ+ community over the next four years.
For years, political and religious leaders across Africa, including both Christian and Muslim zealots, have exploited homophobia to consolidate political and religious power. They claim that same-sex relations and gay rights are foreign imports from the West and use homophobia to position themselves as defenders of African values. By stoking fear and division, they galvanize popular support and votes.
However, as others have pointed out, homophobia itself is a Western import, rooted in colonial history. From sodomy laws inherited from colonial rule to the parliaments passing these laws today, the tools used by homophobes in Uganda and elsewhere in Africa are themselves colonial legacies.
And homophobia in Africa is intensifying.
In mid-March 2023, Museveni told the Monitor newspaper that “Western countries should stop wasting the time of humanity by imposing their social practices on us.” Kenyan President William Ruto echoed these sentiments in the same month, declaring that “our culture and religion does not allow same-sex marriages.”
On April 2, 2023, Museveni called on African leaders to reject “the promotion of homosexuality,” claiming that homosexuality posed a “big threat and danger to the procreation of the human race.” He further asserted that “Africa should provide the lead to save the world from this degeneration and decadence, which is really very dangerous for humanity.”
On December 29, 2023, Burundian President Evariste Ndayishimiye, speaking in Cankuzo province, made a defiant statement that powerful nations “should keep” their aid if it came with an obligation to extend rights to LGBTQ+ people. He added, “If we find these people in Burundi, they should be taken to stadiums and stoned, and doing so would not be a crime.”
In Ghana, lawmakers have been debating the Proper Human Sexual Rights and Ghanaian Family Values Bill, which was introduced in August 2021. Under current law, same-sex relations are punishable by up to three years in prison. However, the new bill criminalizes even identifying as LGBTQ+, outlaws being transgender, and introduces jail sentences of up to 10 years for advocating for LGBTQ+ rights. It also mandates that all citizens report perceived LGBTQ+ individuals or activities to the authorities.
The bill passed in the Ghanaian parliament on February 28, though President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo has not yet announced whether he will sign it, pending the outcome of two Supreme Court cases challenging its constitutionality. On July 17, the Supreme Court postponed a ruling on the bill until all legal challenges are resolved.
Former Ghanaian President John Dramani Mahama, a leading candidate in the upcoming elections, expressed his opposition to same-sex marriage and transgender rights. He stated during a meeting with clergy in eastern Ghana, “The faith I have will not allow me to accept a man marrying a man, and a woman marrying a woman.” He also rejected the notion of someone changing their gender, stating, “I don’t believe that anyone can get up and say I feel like a man although I was born a woman and so I will change and become a man.”
In Kenya, opposition parliamentarian Peter Kaluma introduced the Family Protection Bill in February 2023. The bill, which mirrors aspects of Uganda’s law, would impose prison sentences of up to 10 years or even the death penalty for same-sex relations. The bill is currently being reviewed by a parliamentary committee, with a full vote expected soon. President William Ruto, an evangelical Christian, has endorsed this legal crackdown on LGBTQI+ rights.
In Mali, the National Transitional Council, effectively the country’s legislature after a military coup in 2020, approved a new penal code on October 31 that criminalizes same-sex relations by 132 votes to one. The exact penalties for same-sex acts remain unclear, but the Justice and Human Rights Minister, Mamadou Kasogue, confirmed that “anyone who indulges in this practice, or promotes or condones it, will be prosecuted.”
Trump’s foreign policy advisors are already preparing an explicitly anti-LGBTQ+ rights agenda for his second term. The Project 2025 report, crafted under the guidance of the Heritage Foundation, proposes that the U.S. “stop promoting policies birthed in the American culture wars” and cease pressuring African governments to respect human rights, including LGBTQ+ rights, women’s rights, and abortion rights.
The report claims that “African nations are particularly (and reasonably) non-receptive to the US social policies such as abortion and pro-LGBT initiatives,” and suggests that the U.S. should focus on “core security, economic, and human rights engagement” without promoting “divisive policies that hurt shared goals.”
The implementation of this policy shift on LGBTQ+ rights in Africa will be overseen by Trump’s nominee for Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, and his selection for Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs. They will be tasked with promoting and funding homophobic groups across the continent, a strategy that is expected to be pursued with enthusiasm.
While African leaders claim they are defending the continent from Western influences, they are in fact advancing their own agendas, often in partnership with right-wing Christian nationalists in the West. However, LGBTQ+ communities in both Africa and the West share a common interest in resisting these attacks, and civil society groups, along with human rights advocates, are increasingly active. As LGBTQ+ activist Eric Gilari from Kenya stated, “One day we shall defeat these assaults on our human rights and triumph in equality and inclusion for LGBTQ persons within African countries. This ideal must be our guiding light in this moment of darkness and tears.”
“I want everyone to be treated fairly,” Trump told TIME, apparently without irony.
In an interview with TIME magazine this week, President-elect Donald Trump expressed confusion over the growing attention to transgender issues, stating that he didn’t understand where all the fuss was coming from, but that “we’re all trying to find the guy who did this.”
In a surreal “Person of the Year” interview published Thursday, Trump made a series of false and misleading statements on various topics, including vaccines, immigration, and military policy. When asked about his views on transgender rights and his campaign’s aggressive anti-trans ad campaigns, Trump offered vague responses, emphasizing his desire for “all people [to be] treated fairly.” When the TIME staff reminded him of his 2016 comments supporting equal public bathroom access for trans individuals, Trump avoided the issue, stating he would not “get into the bathroom issue.” He then, somewhat ironically, claimed that the debate had “ripped apart our country.”
“I am a big believer in the Supreme Court, and I’m going to go by their rulings… but we’re talking about a very small number of people, and it gets massive coverage, and it’s not a lot of people,” Trump told TIME.
When asked about his “Kamala is for They/Them” ad campaign, which flooded the U.S. with over $200 million worth of anti-trans attack ads this year, Trump once again sidestepped a direct response. Instead, he portrayed himself as a champion of fairness. “I mean, Trump is definitely for us, okay? And ‘us’ is the vast, vast majority of people in this country. And also, I want to have all people treated fairly. You know, forget about majority or not majority. I want people to be treated well and fairly,” he said.
Trump’s remarks, however, gloss over his prominent role in stoking transphobia for political gain. Both the Republican Party and Trump himself have spent years pushing an increasingly anti-trans agenda, which some experts see as a strategic move to solidify support among evangelical voters. On the campaign trail, Trump decried what he called “transgender insanity” and promised to effectively ban gender-affirming care for trans youth. When asked if he would repeal President Biden’s trans-inclusive changes to Title IX—something he has vowed to do—Trump said he would “look at it very closely.”
Trump also expressed agreement with Delaware Representative-elect Sarah McBride’s statement that Congress should be “focused on more important issues,” as TIME phrased it in their question to the President-elect. McBride, who recently won her election, has reportedly told fellow Democrats that Republican attacks against her—particularly the push by Reps. Nancy Mace and Mike Johnson to restrict Capitol bathrooms based on sex, following her November victory—are mere distractions. She has since stated in a press release that she is “not here to fight about bathrooms.” Reactions from the trans community to McBride’s stance have been mixed, with some telling The Advocate this week that they believe she should be more vocal in opposing such restrictions. The bathroom proposals, if enacted, would primarily affect trans staffers and visitors to the Capitol, as each member of Congress has a private bathroom in their office. Mace has since expanded her proposal to include public parks, government offices outside Capitol Hill, and other public spaces. Them reached out to McBride for comment but did not receive a reply by the time of writing.
Later in the interview, Trump misgendered and spread misinformation about trans athletes, claiming that Americans “don’t want to see a girl get beat up in a boxing ring by a man”—likely referencing boxer Imane Khelif, who is not transgender but was the subject of an anti-trans backlash at this year’s Olympics. Khelif also appeared in an early-November Trump ad. “People don’t want to see, you know, men playing in women’s sports… They don’t want to see all of this transgender [stuff], which is—it’s just taken over,” Trump added.
At various points in the interview, Trump reiterated false claims, including tying vaccines to autism—a debunked conspiracy theory that has nevertheless been endorsed by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whom Trump has selected as his pick for Secretary of Health and Human Services. He also distanced himself from Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s manifesto for his presidency, despite already nominating at least five of its contributors for government positions. Trump told TIME that he disagreed with parts of Project 2025, calling it “inappropriate” that it was published before the election. His own “Agenda47” platform largely mirrors Project 2025, though it notably excludes some of the more controversial elements of the Heritage document, such as a universal ban on pornography.
As with many of Trump’s interviews, it’s unclear whether he truly believes or will act on any of the statements he made to TIME. A 2021 tally by The Washington Post found that Trump made roughly 30,573 false or misleading claims during his first term. Among those, his assertion that he was a “real friend” to LGBTQ+ people might stand out as one of the biggest exaggerations.
Ohio Governor Approves Ban on Transgender Students Using Preferred Bathrooms
Texas Transgender Community Fights Back After Capitol Bathroom Ban
Residents of Odessa, Texas, are speaking out after the city council amended a local ordinance to ban transgender individuals from using public restrooms that align with their gender identity. Meanwhile, in Ohio, Republican Governor Mike DeWine has signed a law banning transgender students from using bathrooms that correspond to their gender identity. The new legislation mandates that students in K-12 schools, as well as colleges and universities, must use the restroom or facility designated for their sex assigned at birth.
The law clarifies that it does not prohibit schools from constructing single-occupancy restrooms and allows individuals of the opposite gender to enter a bathroom to assist someone else, if necessary.
MORE: Congressional Bathroom Ban Adds to Growing Transgender Policy Debate
Ohio now joins at least 14 other states in restricting transgender individuals from using bathrooms that match their gender identity, according to the Human Rights Campaign.
Supporters argue that the ban addresses concerns about student privacy and safety, while critics contend that it fuels baseless fears about transgender students and could put them at greater risk of discrimination or harm.
Governor DeWine’s office did not respond to ABC News’ request for comment prior to the bill’s signing. However, in the summer, he told reporters that he was reviewing the “specific language” of the legislation.
“I’m supportive of kids being able to use bathrooms that align with their gender assigned at birth for their protection, but I’ll need to review the specific language of the bill,” DeWine told reporters.
Transgender healthcare, bathroom access, sports participation, and other related issues have become central to the Republican legislative agenda across the country in recent years. This trend has led to a surge in anti-LGBTQ bills, with hundreds introduced during the 2024 legislative session alone, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.
DeWine has occasionally bucked the state’s Republican leadership on transgender matters. In December 2023, he vetoed a bill that would have banned gender-affirming care for transgender youth, including restrictions on puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and surgeries.
He claimed that his experience delivering babies proves that transgender people don’t actually exist, though his argument remains unclear.
Washington, D.C. — Senator Roger Marshall (R-Kansas) questioned Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas at a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing focused on the President’s proposed budget request for the Department of Homeland Security for fiscal year 2025. The hearing examined resources and authorities requested to protect the homeland.
This week, Sen. Marshall introduced the “Defining Male and Female Act of 2024,” a bill aimed at legally erasing the recognition of transgender individuals. Marshall argued that the bill is a response to what he describes as the Biden administration’s effort to “replace biological sex with dangerous radical gender ideology.”
The proposed legislation consists largely of definitions, with terms like “father” and “girl” now explicitly tied to the words “male” and “female.” Under the bill, “male” and “female” are defined as individuals who “naturally have, had, will have, or would have, but for a congenital anomaly or intentional or unintentional disruption, the reproductive system that at some point produces, transports and utilizes sperm or eggs for fertilization.”
Marshall claims the bill would prevent transgender individuals from participating in school sports and ensure “sex separation” in spaces like restrooms, locker rooms, dorms, prisons, and shelters for victims of sexual assault.
“As a physician who has delivered over 5,000 babies, I can confidently say that politicizing children’s gender and using them as pawns in a radical woke agenda is not only wrong, it is extremely dangerous,” Marshall said. However, his experience as a former OB/GYN does not make him an expert on transgender issues. “We must codify the legal definition of sex based on science, not feelings. With this legislation, we can fight back against the Biden-Harris Administration’s assault on our children.”
Marshall’s assertion that the Biden administration is behind the existence of transgender people is inaccurate; transgender individuals have existed long before Biden’s presidency and will continue to exist long after it. Transgender people are not an “ideology”; they are human beings.
A similar bill was introduced in July in the House of Representatives by Rep. Mary Miller (R-IL), who also claimed her bill would prevent Title IX protections from applying to transgender people. However, the argument that transgender individuals are not protected by Title IX hinges on the notion that discrimination based on gender identity is discrimination based on sex assigned at birth. In other words, if a school allows cisgender girls to compete on a sports team but excludes transgender girls, this constitutes discrimination based on sex, as the only difference between the two groups is their sex assigned at birth. Title IX bans sex-based discrimination in education.
While Marshall’s bill is unlikely to pass in the current Senate controlled by Democrats, its introduction could signal plans to reintroduce it next session when Republicans are projected to regain control of the chamber.
The nine-day trial featured witnesses with varying levels of credibility.
A Missouri county judge has upheld the state’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors.
In a 74-page ruling issued on Monday, Wright County Circuit Court Judge Craig Carter stated, “If we don’t let a 16-year-old buy a six-pack of beer and a pack of cigarettes, or allow an adult to purchase them for the teen, should we permit the same child and parent to decide to permanently alter the teenager’s sex?”
The restrictions on gender-affirming care, passed by Missouri lawmakers in 2023, prohibit minors from using hormones, puberty blockers, and undergoing gender-affirming surgeries. The law also blocks state funding for gender-affirming care for adults through Medicaid and for incarcerated individuals in state prisons.
The ACLU of Missouri and Lambda Legal have promised to appeal the ruling.
Judge Craig Carter acknowledged the “ethical minefield” of the case, writing that “the medical profession stands in the middle” with “scant evidence to lead it out.”
The nine-day trial featured witnesses of varying credibility, with the state’s Solicitor General Joshua Divine introducing partisan politics into the proceedings. Some experts presented research that had been retracted, which the plaintiffs argued was problematic. Divine maintained that the scientific community had dismissed the research due to “cancel culture.”
Carter’s ruling was partly based on testimony from Jamie Reed, a whistleblower who previously worked at the Washington University Transgender Center at St. Louis Children’s Hospital. Reed’s affidavit helped inspire the gender-affirming care ban. She testified that the hospital treated many patients with mental health issues without comprehensive psychological evaluations. There was disagreement at trial over whether a licensed therapist’s evaluation was sufficient for gender-affirming care, or if a psychologist or psychiatrist was required.
The judge found Reed’s testimony credible, noting, “Her testimony does not arise from any ideological or other bias.” He also pointed out that Reed is married to a transgender individual.
Reed is now the executive director of the LGBT Courage Coalition, an advocacy group that opposes gender-affirming care for minors. The day before she testified, her partner announced he was discontinuing testosterone treatments and “detransitioning.”
While Carter accepted Reed’s credibility, he was less convinced by some of the plaintiffs’ witnesses. He expressed concerns about deferring to organizations like WPATH, which the plaintiffs relied on. WPATH, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, is a professional group that sets standards for gender-affirming care, but Carter noted that it self-describes as being “committed to advocacy.”
Ultimately, Carter’s ruling emphasized U.S. Supreme Court precedent that grants lawmakers broad discretion in areas “fraught with medical and scientific uncertainty.” He concluded that there is “an almost total lack of consensus as to the medical ethics of adolescent gender dysphoria treatment,” and therefore, the state legislature has the authority to ban the care.
She had to slog through deep snow to remove them herself.
Hateful flyers circulated in Billings, Montana, falsely accusing local trans activist Adria Jawort of “grooming children,” according to local news outlet KTVQ. The flyers, which perpetuate the false narrative from the anti-trans right that all trans people are pedophiles, were posted near schools in Jawort’s neighborhood just days before Thanksgiving.
Jawort had to travel across town in heavy snow to remove the flyers herself.
“I was annoyed about it,” she told KTVQ, describing how the flyers misgendered her and made hateful claims about her life and sexuality. “I was just thinking, why am I doing this? Why do I have to do this? Why do people think this is okay?”
“The thing the flyer said, calling me a groomer and stuff, and basically labeling me as a danger to the community,” Jawort added. “It’s like one of the most awful things you can say. How does that become normalized?”
Billings police are currently investigating the incident. Lt. Matthew Lennick spoke on what constitutes hate speech: “Once someone transitions from making a general statement about their beliefs or another group to a targeted attack on an individual… a victim could take civil action against someone attempting to defame them.”
Possible criminal charges could include disorderly conduct, stalking, intimidation, or harassment, among others.
While Jawort knows the group responsible, she says she’s more frustrated by the ongoing attacks on state Rep. Zooey Zephyr (D-MT). Recently, Republicans unsuccessfully attempted to ban her from women’s bathrooms.
Jawort has been targeted before. Last year, a lecture she was set to give at a library was canceled after a drag ban, with staff citing concerns that hosting a transgender person posed “too much of a legal risk.” This led her to file a lawsuit against the state.
With Trump potentially returning to office, I’m concerned that more transgender people will be denied the right that had such a profound impact on my life.
When I learned on August 21st that the Texas Department of Public Safety had quietly revoked the ability to change your gender on driver’s licenses and birth certificates, I was stunned. Devastated. The already daunting process of officially changing one’s name and gender marker had just been taken away. Trans Texans are now stripped of a right that once allowed me to live with less fear. And as Donald Trump nears a potential return to office, many are fearful that trans Americans nationwide could face the same loss.
On a random Tuesday in December 2020, I made the decision to start hormone replacement therapy (HRT). By then, I had been using they/them pronouns for two years and had undergone top surgery eight months earlier. For years, I had thought about beginning HRT, hoping it would help me escape a life where people assumed I was a woman based solely on my appearance. That day, I finally felt ready to silence the voices in my head telling me I’d be letting others down by embracing who I truly was. I was ready to step out of the shadows—out of the expectations others placed on me—and into my own light. I went to an LGBTQ+ clinic, got a prescription for testosterone, and, in that moment, I felt like my life was finally beginning.
And then everything changed.
By April 2021, my voice had deepened, stubble began appearing on my face, and I no longer had a period—physical changes I embraced with open arms. Strangers began noticing too, and suddenly, I was being treated differently. The looks I once got as a perceived butch lesbian shifted to confused stares, discomfort, and sometimes, outright disdain.
‘Dropping off flowers for your wife?’ a receptionist at a gynecologist’s office asked me that same April. ‘Not quite,’ I replied with a nervous laugh. ‘I’m here for an appointment.’ As is customary, I handed over my ID. She glanced at it—name: [something I no longer go by], sex: F—then looked back at me, clearly unsure how to reconcile the mismatch. She called over a coworker, whispering about what to do in this ‘situation.’ I stared at my phone, trying to stay calm as the coworker muttered, ‘Just check her in.’ And she did. I sat down, feeling that familiar discomfort of my presence unsettling others.
Throughout that entire doctor’s appointment, I was treated as though my body was something entirely unique—as if I were the only person who had ever transitioned. In moments like these, I try to chalk it up to ignorance, reminding myself that 71% of Americans say they’ve never met a trans person. But at what point does ‘ignorance’ become too generous?
This same scenario unfolded at the club when bouncers checked my ID, when people hesitated to call me ‘sir’ or ‘ma’am’ as they guided me to a table at restaurants, or when customer service reps asked me twice as many security questions as they did for others. And every time I needed to use the bathroom, I had to make the decision: men’s or women’s? At best, I was made uncomfortable for a few seconds. At worst, I was subjected to slurs or threats of violence. In all those moments, I told myself, ‘It’s no big deal’—as though it were no big deal for my mere existence to constantly puzzle or disturb people. The very fact of my body made others treat me as if I were a problem. I came to expect discomfort every time I stepped outside my door.
Every time I grabbed my keys, phone, and wallet, I weighed the emotional and physical risks of venturing out into the world. This constant calculation is why some trans people delay medical care or feel disconnected from the world around them. It’s also why, after two years on HRT, I finally decided to change the name and gender marker on my ID. But this was not a decision I made lightly.
Until August, changing your name and gender marker in Texas cost $350 (plus lawyer fees, unless you could prove you couldn’t afford it). You also needed a doctor’s note stating that you were ‘receiving clinically appropriate treatment related to your gender identity.’ (The pathologizing of transness is its own burden.) Once you had those documents and filled out a ‘Petition to Change the Name and Sex/Gender Identifier of an Adult’ form, you had to appear before a county judge. That judge could deny your petition for any reason—or no reason at all. It was a request, not a guarantee. In Texas, trans people often seek advice from other trans folks about which counties to target, because not all judges are inclusive. Many travel from across the state to Austin, the third-queerest city in the U.S., in hopes of a more supportive judge. Even then, judges can demand more ‘proof’ than the law requires. In a state where anyone can change their last name after marriage with minimal hurdles, trans people are forced to jump through countless hoops just to have their gender recognized.
It took a month for me to get a letter from a doctor. Another month passed before I could find time to go to the courthouse, which was only open during regular work hours—a schedule that most people can’t easily accommodate. When I finally arrived at the Travis County office, I sat for two hours waiting to be helped. A county clerk, who had warmly greeted other patrons, glanced at my petition and abruptly told me, ‘If you aren’t finished with your papers, we can’t help you.’ Despite the cold reception, I was determined to get this done—to untangle the mess of living as a visibly trans person. I handed in my request, and six weeks later, I received an email with a PDF confirming that my petition had been approved.
Afterward, I spent months updating my name and gender marker on my driver’s license, social security card, passport, and a slew of other official documents. One might ask, ‘Why would anyone willingly sign up for such a cumbersome and clearly prejudiced process?’ The answer is simple: I needed it. My body not matching the letters on my ID had become a life-threatening issue. Without the change, I’d still be trapped in the daily hell of being put in emotional and physical danger. Not all trans people feel the need to change their name and gender marker, but for me, it was crucial. Because this option was available, I’ve been able to build a new life.
The difference between my life from April 2021 to September 2022—when I didn’t ‘look like a girl’ but still had a feminine name and sex on my ID—and now is like night and day. I can hand over my ID and no longer feel like I’m putting myself in harm’s way. It says ‘Kaybee,’ Sex: M (though that still doesn’t feel right, since Texas hasn’t offered an X gender marker yet). Now, when I pass over a piece of plastic, I no longer feel like I’m outing myself or offering my life up for judgment.
In the same month that Texas reversed the right to change your name and gender marker, Trump announced he would sign an executive order banning gender-affirming care for trans youth on his first day back in office. As if it isn’t enough that Governor Greg Abbott, Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, and a whole host of other Texas politicians have pushed so much misinformation about the trans community that people now feel emboldened to mistreat us. As if it’s not enough that Texas attempts to pass transphobic laws every year.
Everything about this group of people—who could never understand what it’s like to hand over an ID that doesn’t match how the world sees you—fills me with disgust. They don’t know even a fraction of what people like me go through, just to live authentically.
Yes, I still have to explain to medical providers that my legal sex and my sex assigned at birth are not the same. Yes, I still out myself every time I take off my shirt, revealing the two beautiful top surgery scars that are part of my journey. My goal was never to ‘pass’ as cis, or to meet the ridiculous expectations that transphobes project onto us. My goal has always been to be myself. Safely.
Trump’s inauguration is on January 20th, and the next Texas legislative session—the period when most anti-trans laws will be debated—starts just a week earlier, on January 14th. In preparation, Texas lawmakers have already prefiled 34 anti-trans bills for the 2025 session. Now is the time to act, to support and defend the psychological and physical safety of trans people. I will be contributing both money and volunteer hours to the Transgender Education Network of Texas. This BIPOC-led organization fights anti-LGBTQ+ laws daily, and they offer a wealth of resources on their website, including guidance on how to file discrimination complaints with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Despite the wishes of those who seek to erase us, trans people like me will be part of the future of Texas—and beyond.
I long for a Texas where trans people don’t just survive, but thrive. We deserve safety here, in the Lone Star State, and anywhere else we choose to be. I spent too much time living under an identity that wasn’t mine, but I was able to change it. Everyone else deserves the same right to do so.
fleeredstates.blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.