Category: LGBTQIA

The Nebraska Supreme Court has upheld a law that restricts both medical care for transgender youth and abortion access

This blog originally appeared at ABC NEWS.

The Nebraska Supreme Court has upheld a law that restricts access to both medical care for transgender youth and abortion.

OMAHA, Neb. — The Nebraska Supreme Court has ruled that a state law combining abortion restrictions with measures limiting gender-affirming health care for minors does not breach a state constitutional amendment requiring bills to address only one subject.

The court acknowledged that abortion and gender-affirming care are distinct types of medical care but concluded that the law falls under the broad category of medical care, thus complying with Nebraska’s single-subject rule. Chief Justice Mike Heavican, writing for the majority, referred to an 1895 ruling, emphasizing that a bill with a general object and a title that fairly expresses the subject does not violate the single-subject rule.

The ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of Planned Parenthood of the Heartland. The lawsuit challenged the law, which restricts abortion to 12 weeks of pregnancy, bans gender-confirming surgery, and limits hormone treatments for transgender minors. The ACLU’s arguments that the hybrid law violated Nebraska’s single-subject rule were rejected by the high court.

Originally, Nebraska lawmakers proposed separate bills: one banning abortion at around six weeks of pregnancy and another restricting gender-affirming treatments for minors. The Legislature combined these measures into a single bill after the six-week abortion ban faced a filibuster. This combination was one of the most controversial pieces of legislation in the 2023 session, leading to an extended filibuster by some lawmakers.

A district judge had previously dismissed the lawsuit, prompting the ACLU to appeal. During the high court arguments, state attorneys argued that combining the measures under health care did not breach the single-subject rule, while Planned Parenthood contended that the Legislature had recognized abortion and transgender care as separate issues by introducing them as distinct bills.

Justice Lindsey Miller-Lerman’s dissent criticized the majority for applying inconsistent standards, accusing the court of giving undue leeway to the Legislature. She argued that the bill should have adhered strictly to the constitutional requirement for a single subject.

Opponents of the ruling expressed disappointment. ACLU Nebraska Executive Director Mindy Rush Chipman and Planned Parenthood North Central States President and CEO Ruth Richardson criticized the decision, emphasizing its potential negative impacts on Nebraskans, particularly in rural areas and among marginalized communities.

Nebraska Governor Jim Pillen and the state’s attorney general praised the ruling. Pillen highlighted his role in advocating for the bill’s passage.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, many Republican-controlled states have enacted abortion bans. Currently, 14 states have bans at all pregnancy stages, while Nebraska and North Carolina have implemented 12-week bans. Similarly, many GOP-controlled states have restricted gender-affirming care for minors, with 22 states enforcing such measures.

In contrast, several Democratic-controlled states have adopted policies to protect abortion and gender-affirming care access, including efforts to shield healthcare providers from out-of-state investigations.

Nebraska voters may have the final say on abortion access with two potential ballot questions in November: one proposing to add a right to abortion to the state constitution and another to enshrine the 12-week ban in the state constitution.

Read more.

0

Appeals court denies request to remove injunction on rule designed to enhance protections for LGBTQ students

This blog originally appeared at NBC NEWS.

Republicans contend that the policy is a ploy to permit transgender girls to join girls’ athletic teams.

A federal appeals court on Wednesday refused to lift a judge’s order temporarily blocking the Biden administration’s new Title IX rule aimed at expanding protections for LGBTQ students.

The ruling from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a preliminary injunction issued last month by a federal district judge in Kentucky. This order blocked the new rule in six states — Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia — though similar legal battles are ongoing in Republican-led states nationwide.

“In our view, the district court likely correctly concluded that the Rule’s definition of sex discrimination exceeds the (U.S. Education) Department’s authority,” the 6th Circuit’s three-judge panel stated in its majority ruling.

The Education Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment via email and phone.

Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman praised the ruling as “a victory for common sense.”

“For 50 years, Title IX has created equal opportunities for women and young girls in the classroom and on the field,” said Coleman, a Republican. “Today, the 6th Circuit becomes the first appellate court in the nation to halt President Biden’s blatant assault on these fundamental protections.”

Chris Hartman, executive director of the Fairness Campaign, a Kentucky-based LGBTQ advocacy group, warned that the ruling would endanger transgender children.

“We believe Kentucky schools have an obligation to protect all students, including transgender students, and that they should implement the new Title IX Rule regardless of the 6th Circuit’s opinion,” Hartman said in a statement Wednesday evening.

The rule aims to expand Title IX civil rights protections to LGBTQ students, broaden the definition of sexual harassment in schools and colleges, and introduce additional safeguards for victims. While civil rights advocates have praised the new protections, opponents argue that they undermine the spirit of Title IX, a 1972 law that prohibits sex discrimination in education.

Most Republican state attorneys general have taken legal action to challenge the new rule.

The regulation is set to take effect on Aug. 1, but judges have temporarily blocked its enforcement while legal cases proceed in 15 states: Alaska, Indiana, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

The regulation faces legal challenges from 12 other states where enforcement has not been paused: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, and South Carolina.

Republicans argue the policy is a ploy to allow transgender girls to participate in girls’ athletic teams. The Biden administration clarified that the rule does not apply to athletics.

In its ruling on Wednesday, the 6th Circuit panel noted that critics of the rule warned that implementing it just before the start of the new school year would impose an “onerous burden” on the states.

The 6th Circuit panel also expedited a full hearing of the case for this fall.

In granting the preliminary injunction last month, U.S. District Judge Danny C. Reeves in Kentucky noted that Title IX was intended to “level the playing field” between men and women in education, but said the department was seeking to “derail deeply rooted law” with the new policy.

“At bottom, the department would turn Title IX on its head by redefining ‘sex’ to include ‘gender identity,’” he said in his ruling. “But ‘sex’ and ‘gender identity’ do not mean the same thing. The department’s interpretation conflicts with the plain language of Title IX and therefore exceeds its authority to promulgate regulations under that statute.”

Responding at the time to Reeves’ action, the Education Department stated: “Title IX guarantees that no person experiences sex discrimination in a federally funded educational environment. The department crafted the final Title IX regulations following a rigorous process.”

The appeals court ruling included a partial dissent from one member of the three-judge panel.

“All three members of the panel, it bears emphasis, agree that these central provisions of the Rule should not be allowed to go into effect on August 1,” the majority ruling said. “Our modest disagreement turns on the question, in this emergency setting, of whether the other parts of the Rule can be separated from these central provisions.”

Read more.

0

Whitmer Enacts Law Prohibiting ‘Panic’ Defenses Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

This blog originally appeared at THE HILL.

Gay and transgender “panic” defenses are now prohibited in Michigan courtrooms, following legislation signed on Tuesday by Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.

Michigan becomes the 20th state to ban these defenses, which permit individuals accused of violent crimes to seek reduced sentences by claiming that the victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity caused them to panic. Although these defenses, collectively known as the LGBTQ “panic” defense, are not standalone defenses, they are often employed alongside other legal strategies to mitigate charges or sentencing.

Michigan’s new law significantly enhances legal protections for LGBTQ individuals against discrimination, prejudice, and hate crimes by ensuring that a defendant cannot use a person’s actual or perceived identity to claim “reasonable provocation” or to argue they acted in the heat of passion.

Democratic state Rep. Laurie Pohutsky, the bill’s primary sponsor, praised Whitmer’s signature as “a huge step toward securing a safe and inclusive state for all Michiganders.”

Tracking “panic” defenses in American courtrooms is notoriously difficult, with no exact figures available. As recently as 2018, the LGBTQ “panic” defense was used to mitigate a murder charge, according to the LGBTQ+ Bar Association.

In a 2013 resolution, the American Bar Association urged federal, tribal, state, and local governments to “take legislative action to curtail the availability and effectiveness” of gay and transgender “panic” defenses in court. “Successful gay and trans panic defenses constitute a miscarriage of justice,” the group stated.

Read more.

0

In Podcast Rant, Elon Musk Says His Trans Daughter Was “Killed by the Woke Mind Virus”

This blog originally appeared at THEM.

Shortly after announcing that his company, X, would be moving out of California due to the state’s newly enacted law that protects trans students, Elon Musk went on a demeaning rant about his own transgender daughter on a right-wing podcast, repeatedly misgendering her and saying that she had been “killed by the woke mind virus.”

The billionaire was a guest on Monday’s episode of The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast, which found the titular conservative influencer interviewing Musk at Gigafactory Texas, where Tesla is headquartered. Toward the end of the podcast, Peterson asked Musk about “one of things that [he’s] been relatively vocal about,” namely gender-affirming care. Peterson referred to trans minors’ access to medical care “the worst medical and psychological malpractice I’ve ever seen anywhere,” adding, “At least the bloody Nazis knew it was wrong and tried to hide it.”

(Peterson was likely referring to the Institute for Sexual Research in Berlin, which performed the world’s first gender-affirming surgeries, and which was a noted target of one of the first and largest of the Nazi book burnings.)

Although trans advocates have been sounding the alarm about Musk since he bought the platform formerly known as Twitter in 2022, the CEO has tilted even further into more full-throated endorsement of transphobic talking points in recent years. In his interview with Peterson, he agreed with the psychologist, calling the term gender-affirming care “a terrible euphemism” and referring to it as “child mutilation and sterilization,” per The Daily Beast.

“You’re taking kids who are obviously often far below the age of consent — almost every child goes through some kind of identity crisis, it’s just part of growing up — so it’s very possible for adults to manipulate children who have are having a natural identity crisis into believing that they are the wrong gender and that they need to be the other gender,” Musk said. Though it is a common right-wing talking point that transness naturally desists in most young people, studies have found that trans youth are actually extremely unlikely to detransition.

But the issue is personal for Musk, as he explained to Peterson, claiming that he was “essentially tricked into signing documents for one of my older [children]… before I had really any understanding of what was going on” — a reference to his daughter Vivian Jenna Wilson, who in 2022 filed a petition to change her name in part because, as she stated, “I no longer live with or wish to be related to my biological father in any way, shape or form.”

Read more

0

Federal appeals court rules that there is no inherent right to alter one’s sex on a birth certificate.

This blog originally appeared at ABC NEWS.

A federal appeals court panel has ruled that Tennessee does not unconstitutionally discriminate against transgender people by not allowing them to change the sex designation on their birth certificates.

National headlines from ABC News

Catch up on the developing stories making headlines.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — A federal appeals court panel ruled 2-1 on Friday that Tennessee does not unconstitutionally discriminate against transgender people by not allowing them to change the sex designation on their birth certificates.

“There is no fundamental right to a birth certificate recording gender identity instead of biological sex,” 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jeffrey Sutton wrote for the majority in the decision upholding a 2023 district court ruling. The plaintiffs could not show that Tennessee’s policy was created out of animus against transgender people as it has been in place for more than half a century and “long predates medical diagnoses of gender dysphoria,” Sutton wrote.

He noted that “States’ practices are all over the map.” Some allow changes to the birth certificate with medical evidence of surgery. Others require lesser medical evidence. Only 11 states currently allow a change to a birth certificate based solely on a person’s declaration of their gender identity, which is what the plaintiffs are seeking in Tennessee.

Tennessee birth certificates reflect the sex assigned at birth, and that information is used for statistical and epidemiological activities that inform the provision of health services throughout the country, Sutton wrote. “How, it’s worth asking, could a government keep uniform records of any sort if the disparate views of its citizens about shifting norms in society controlled the government’s choices of language and of what information to collect?”

The plaintiffs — four transgender women born in Tennessee — argued in court filings that sex is properly determined not by external genitalia but by gender identity, which they define in their brief as “a person’s core internal sense of their own gender.” The lawsuit, first filed in federal court in Nashville in 2019, claims Tennessee’s prohibition serves no legitimate government interest while it subjects transgender people to discrimination, harassment and even violence when they have to produce a birth certificate for identification that clashes with their gender identity.

In a dissenting opinion, Judge Helene White agreed with the plaintiffs, represented by Lambda Legal.

“Forcing a transgender individual to use a birth certificate indicating sex assigned at birth causes others to question whether the individual is indeed the person stated on the birth certificate,” she wrote. “This inconsistency also invites harm and discrimination.”

Lambda Legal did not immediately respond to emails requesting comment on Friday.

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said in a statement that the question of changing the sex designation on a birth certificate should be left to the states.

“While other states have taken different approaches, for decades Tennessee has consistently recognized that a birth certificate records a biological fact of a child being male or female and has never addressed gender identity,” he said.

Read more

0

John Deere & Co. retracts diversity policies, following Tractor Supply’s lead

This blog originally appeared at CBS NEWS.

John Deere joins a growing list of major American companies retracting diversity policies amidst conservative criticism.

The manufacturer of John Deere tractors and other agricultural machinery announced on Tuesday that it would cease participation in “social or cultural awareness” events. Additionally, the company will review its mandatory training materials to ensure they do not include “socially motivated messages,” according to a statement posted on social media by the Moline, Illinois-based company.

This decision follows a similar move by retailer Tractor Supply, which recently ended its corporate diversity initiatives. These actions highlight the increasing pressure on companies to abandon diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. The announcements come amid a conservative-led online campaign, marking another episode in the ongoing debate over the effectiveness and fairness of policies designed to promote organizational diversity and inclusivity.

For decades, many U.S. corporations, colleges, and other organizations have adhered to DEI principles. These ideas gained significant traction four years ago following the murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer. In response to his death, numerous companies committed to strengthening their DEI efforts to make their workforces more racially and culturally representative.

The Supreme Court’s 2023 decision to end affirmative action in college admissions has further galvanized the efforts of conservative and anti-DEI activists to push for the elimination of such policies in the workplace.

“War on wokeness”

Leading the charge against both John Deere and Tractor Supply on the platform X, conservative political commentator and filmmaker Robby Starbuck hailed John Deere’s announcement as “another huge win in our war on wokeness.” However, he deemed the company’s measures insufficient and urged them to fully eliminate their DEI policies.

Last month, Brentwood, Tennessee-based Tractor Supply went a step further by abolishing all of its DEI roles and goals. The company also vowed to stop submitting data to the Human Rights Campaign, the largest advocacy group for LGBTQ+ rights in the country.

Starbuck, a 35-year-old Cuban American, told The Associated Press, “It’s not lost on me my kids would benefit from this stuff,” but he opposes hiring decisions based on race, DEI initiatives, employee resource groups that focus on non-professional activities, and any policies that, in his view, incorporate social issues and politics into company culture.

“People should go to work without feeling compelled to conform to specific behaviors to be acceptable to their employer,” Starbuck said.

Eric Bloem, vice president of programs and corporate advocacy at the Human Rights Campaign, described John Deere’s decision as “disappointing,” calling it “a direct result of a coordinated attack by far-right extremists on American business.”

National Black Farmers Association President John Boyd, Jr., called for the resignation of Deere CEO John May and a boycott of the company on Wednesday. He stated that John Deere “continues to move in the wrong direction” regarding DEI and has “failed to show its support” for Black farmers since NBFA’s founding.

The organization also pointed out that John Deere’s announcement came a month after the company agreed to pay $1.1 million in back wages and interest to 277 Black and Hispanic job applicants following the Labor Department’s allegations of hiring discrimination.

Last month, Target announced it was reducing the number of stores carrying Pride Month-related merchandise after the retail chain faced “confrontational behavior” that had threatened workers’ safety the previous year.

— The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Read more.

1

Court Dismisses Lawsuit Against Drag Show Ban

This blog originally appeared at AP News.

The Associated Press
NASHVILLE, Tenn. — On Thursday, a federal appeals court dismissed a lawsuit challenging a pioneering Tennessee law that imposes strict restrictions on drag shows. This decision overturned a previous lower court ruling that had found the statute unconstitutional and had partially blocked its enforcement.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined that Friends of George’s, a Memphis-based LGBTQ+ theater company that filed the lawsuit, did not have the legal standing to challenge the law.

Friends of George’s had argued that the law would adversely impact their productions, which include “drag-centric performances, comedy sketches, and plays” without age restrictions. However, the appeals court concluded that Friends of George’s was not at risk of breaching the 2023 law because their performances were not deemed “harmful to minors.”

The law, passed last year with backing from the Republican-controlled Tennessee Legislature and Governor Bill Lee, does not explicitly mention “drag.” Instead, it redefines adult cabaret to include “adult-oriented performances that are harmful to minors,” categorizing “male or female impersonators” alongside strippers and topless dancers.

The justices noted that the Tennessee Supreme Court had narrowly defined what constitutes “harmful to a minor” as material lacking “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for a reasonable 17-year-old.”

“FOG has not alleged that its performances lack serious value for a 17-year-old. In fact, it asserts the opposite. A member of FOG’s board admitted that its shows ‘are definitely appropriate’ for a 15-year-old and would ‘absolutely’ have artistic value for a 17-year-old,” the ruling stated.

Friends of George’s has not yet responded to requests for comment on the decision.

1

California’s public schools are now prohibited from forcibly outing queer students

This blog originally appeared at LGBTQ NATION.

“LGBTQ+ students across California can breathe a sigh of relief,” stated one LGBTQ+ organization, following the passage of this groundbreaking law.

California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) has signed a pioneering law banning forced outings in state public schools.

The SAFETY Act prohibits school district policies that mandate educators to inform parents if their child requests to use pronouns or facilities different from the gender assigned at birth.

The law, which takes effect immediately, also protects teachers and administrators from retaliation if they choose not to follow district directives to out queer students to their parents. Additionally, it provides funding for resources to assist parents and families of queer students in having supportive conversations about their identities, ensuring that these discussions occur in a way that makes the children feel safe and respected.

The SAFETY Act — Support Academic Futures & Educators for Today’s Youth — passed the state Assembly in June by a vote of 60-15.

Forced outing policies have proliferated in California since 2023, with more than a dozen school districts implementing rules to notify parents and guardians of students who identify as trans or a gender different from the one listed on their birth certificate.

“The very personal decision for a student to come out should be on their own terms to whoever they choose to share that information with when they are ready,” said the bill’s author, San Diego Assemblyman Chris Ward (D), in a statement. “Teachers should not be the gender police.”

“In California, LGBTQ+ students — like all students — have the right to a safe and welcoming school environment,” Becca Cramer-Mowder with ACLU California Action said in a statement.

“With the Governor’s signature, our state becomes the first in the country to ensure protections against forced outing in school are clearly enshrined in statute,” she added. “LGBTQ+ students and their families deserve to decide on their own terms when and how to have conversations about coming out.”

Eight red states have enacted legislation mandating schools out trans students, while another five have passed laws promoting parental notification, according to the Movement Advancement Project.

In California, the policies have become a lightning rod, particularly in conservative inland areas of the state.

In April, a defiant conservative majority on the board of the Murrieta Valley Unified School District in Riverside County voted to ignore an order from the state to rescind a parental notification policy. A packed audience in the ruby red district cheered the result when it occurred.

Similar battles are being waged in other Riverside County school districts, including Temecula and Chino, both hotbeds of “parental rights” activism.

“We will continue to stand strong, linked arms all over California, to ensure the government does not infringe on parental rights — period,” Chino Valley School Board President Sonja Shaw said earlier this year.

A state investigation in Murrieta was prompted after two teachers filed a complaint. One was filed by 6th and 7th grade teacher Karen Poznanski, who is also a district parent with a nonbinary child.

“This policy, whether enforced or not, hindered our LGBTQ+ students from living authentically,” Poznanski told The Los Angeles Times. “Moreover, it not only compromised their privacy and dignity, but also perpetuated harm and discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals and their families.”

In a statement, the state LGBTQ+ advocacy organization Equality California said, “We are grateful to Governor Newsom for demonstrating his unwavering commitment to the LGBTQ+ community by signing the SAFETY Act into law. Over the past year, more than a dozen extremist school boards across California have considered or passed these harmful policies that openly discriminate against transgender students and prevent them from safely being themselves at school.”

“The SAFETY Act could not be more timely or necessary, and LGBTQ+ students across California can breathe a sigh of relief following today’s action by the Governor,” the statement continued. “LGBTQ+ youth across California can now have these important family conversations when they are ready and in ways that strengthen the relationship between parent and child, not as a result of extremist politicians intruding into the parent-child relationship.”

1

Festivals, in response to DeSantis’ targeting, pledge to forego funding in exchange for restored arts funding

This blog originally appeared at TAMPA BAY TIMES.

The governor singled out the two Fringe festivals when vetoing $32 million in statewide arts and culture funds.

On Thursday, the Tampa and Orlando Fringe festivals issued an open letter to Governor Ron DeSantis, formally offering to forfeit their approved grants for the 2025 fiscal year. The nonprofit International Fringe Festival of Central Florida was slated to receive $102,629, while Tampa’s festival anticipated significantly less at $7,909.

In return, the festivals requested that the governor support a legislative reversal of his $32 million veto on arts and culture funding.

This proposal follows DeSantis’ recent justification for vetoing arts funding statewide last month, where he specifically cited “sexual” content at festivals in Orlando and Tampa. DeSantis pointed to playwright Christen Hailey’s production at Tampa’s Fringe Festival, titled “Captain Havoc and the Big-Titty Bog Witches.”

During a news conference on June 27, DeSantis remarked, “You have your tax dollars being given in grants to things like the Fringe Festival, which is like a sexual festival where they’re doing all this stuff.”

The nonprofit clarified that Florida taxpayer dollars do not directly support artists. “Artists earn their income directly through ticket sales. In fact, 100% of an artist’s advertised ticket price is paid to that artist,” Fringe producers stated in an open letter to the governor. “Instead, taxpayer dollars help cover office expenses, ADA accommodations, and staff salaries.”

The approved funding for Fringe Festivals represented only .002 percent of the vetoed $32 million, a comparison Fringe leadership likened to “canceling Florida’s entire sports industry based on an objection with one player on one team.”

As of Friday, DeSantis’ office had not responded to two emails requesting comment.

Looking ahead, Fringe intends to reapply for state grants in future years. “The idea would be to forgo it this year, but then through collaboration and dialogue, foster a deeper understanding of the arts,” said Tampa Fringe producer Trish Parry.

According to Parry, alongside the show “Captain Havoc and the Big-Titty Bog Witches” on the festival webpage was a comedy performance titled “Florida Fever Dream.” This show featured a political cartoon depicting DeSantis riding an alligator wearing Minnie Mouse ears, with a pile of burning books in a campfire behind him.

“So that might have helped to stir things up, particularly against Tampa,” said Parry. “I’m sure you could find a show at Orlando Fringe with a title like ‘titty’ or something similar. I’m just certain that the ‘Florida Fever Dream’ show probably didn’t help matters.”

Both producers from Orlando and Tampa are hopeful to reconcile with DeSantis. They have extended invitations to him, his family, and his aides to attend their festivals in 2025 in hopes of fostering understanding.

Fringe producers wrote, “We ask that you reciprocate by welcoming and hosting us in October or November 2024 so that we can build bridges of understanding and deepen your familiarity with the benefits of arts & culture investments, thus empowering you to be an impassioned advocate.”

DeSantis has yet to RSVP.

Contributions to this report were made by Lawrence Mower.

https://www.tampabay.com/news/breaking-news/2024/07/12/fringe-festival-tampa-arts-funding-veto-florida/

0

Key Updates on Anti-Trans Legislation: Recap of Events from July 8-12

This blog originally appeared at THEM.

The following weekly digest is authored and curated by the Trans Formations Project, a grassroots nonprofit committed to monitoring and raising awareness about the ongoing crisis of anti-trans legislative efforts across the United States.

Editorial Focus: Project 2025

What does Project 2025, an ultraconservative initiative under a Trump presidency, reveal about its stance on trans individuals? The project’s blueprint, known as Mandate for Leadership, provides the rationale behind many of the anti-trans legislative measures tracked by TFP. This extensive manifesto advocates for goals such as eliminating comprehensive sex education (62, 477), limiting rights for trans employees (584-585), curtailing or banning gender-affirming care for minors (345), and imposing further restrictions on speech and expression (5).

This week, we have categorized and analyzed the primary anti-trans objectives within Project 2025, segmented by section.

Executive Actions and Anti-Trans Legislation in Project 2025

Idea: “[T]he primary purpose of consolidating political power is to undermine the family. Its aim is to substitute people’s natural affections and loyalties with unnatural ones” (4).

Goal: Remove “the terms sexual orientation and gender identity (‘SOGI’), diversity, equity, and inclusion (‘DEI’), gender, gender equality, gender equity, gender awareness, gender-sensitive, abortion, reproductive health, reproductive rights…” from all federal rules, agency regulations, contracts, grants, legislation, and regulations (5).

Goal: Replace Biden’s Gender Policy Council with a Domestic Policy Council to “eliminate… the new ‘woke’ gender ideology, which promotes ‘gender affirming care’ and ‘sex-change’ surgeries for minors” (62).

Civil Rights (especially pages 582-585)

dea: “During the Obama and Biden Administrations, every facet of labor policy was utilized to promote race, sex, and other classifications, often discriminating against conservative and religious viewpoints, including pro-life perspectives.”

Goals:

  • “Limit the application of Bostock’s sex discrimination protections to sexual orientation and transgender status specifically in hiring and termination contexts.”
  • “Revoke regulations that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, transgender status, and sex characteristics.”
  • “Instruct agencies to concentrate their enforcement of sex discrimination laws on the biological binary definition of ‘sex.'”

Education (especially pages 333-346)

Idea: “There is no scientific or legal justification for redefining ‘sex’ as ‘sexual orientation and gender identity’ under Title IX.”

Goal: “Restore the Trump Administration’s Title IX regulation, emphasizing that ‘sex’ refers to a biologically defined fact recognized at birth; and enhance protections for faith-based educational institutions, programs, and activities.”

Idea: “Federal lawmakers should prevent public school employees from keeping information about a child secret from their parents.”

Goal: “Prohibit educators from using a name other than the one listed on a student’s birth certificate or using a pronoun different from the student’s biological sex without permission from the student’s parent(s) or guardian(s).”

Health & Human Services

Idea: “Permitting parents or physicians to ‘reassign’ the sex of a minor constitutes child abuse” (5).

Goals:

  • Enact a federal Parents Bill of Rights (345).
  • Cease Medicare coverage for gender-affirming surgeries.
  • Eliminate discrimination protections for LGBTQIA+ individuals in the Affordable Care Act (475).

Military (104)

Idea: “Gender dysphoria is inconsistent with the requirements of military service.”

Goal: “Revoke policies permitting transgender individuals to serve in the military.” Note: This objective gained momentum recently in the Senate Armed Services Committee report on the 2025 Military Funding Bill, which includes provisions preventing the Department of Defense (DoD) and its insurance plan from funding gender-affirming surgeries for service members and gender-affirming care for their minor dependents.

The Things We Won

Yale Law School and Yale School of Medicine recently collaborated on a report criticizing the Cass Review, authored by Dr. Hillary Cass in the U.K., which evaluated National Health Service (NHS) guidelines on gender-affirming care. The NHS cited the Cass Report in its recent decision to restrict puberty blockers for transgender minors. Additionally, conservative Indiana lawmakers referenced the Cass Report in IN SB0480, a law banning gender-affirming care for minors enacted last year.

The Cass Report concluded that “there is not a reliable evidence base” to recommend clinical interventions for transgender minors. The Yale review highlighted several critical issues with this conclusion, asserting that the Cass Report “obscures key findings, misrepresents its own data, and misapplies the scientific method.”

Federal prosecutors are currently investigating Dr. Eithan Haim for leaking confidential transgender patient files to conservative journalist Christopher Rufo. Outrage over these documents significantly contributed to the passage of TX SB14, a ban on gender-affirming care for minors. Formerly employed by Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston, Dr. Haim claims whistleblower immunity, alleging exposure of “illegal gender surgeries” on minors.

The hospital contends that all care provided was lawful and accuses Dr. Haim of jeopardizing patient and physician safety by leaking the documents. Dr. Haim has garnered broad support from conservative media and politicians. Ryan Patrick, son of Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and former U.S. Attorney during the Trump Administration, will represent Dr. Haim in the ongoing legal proceedings.

Read more.

1

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑