This blog originally appeared at LGBTQ NATION.

The forthcoming inclusive curriculum is scheduled for implementation in the academic year of 2025–2026, aiming to provide a more diverse and equitable educational experience for all students. Additionally, it seeks to foster a greater sense of belonging and understanding among learners from various backgrounds.

Washington state Governor Jay Inslee (D) has officially enacted a bill mandating the inclusion of LGBTQ+ history in school curricula across the state.

Initially proposed in January, S.B. 5462 necessitates that school districts integrate inclusive content and adopt materials that encompass the histories, contributions, and viewpoints of historically marginalized and underrepresented communities. This encompasses individuals from diverse racial, ethnic, religious backgrounds, those with diverse learning needs, disabilities, LGBTQ individuals, as well as those from various socioeconomic and immigration backgrounds, as outlined in the bill.

According to the new legislation, the Washington Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction and the Washington State School Directors’ Association are tasked with developing the inclusive curriculum by June 1, 2025, to be implemented in the 2025–2026 academic year.

The Washington State LGBTQ Caucus expressed its support for the bill in a recent post, affirming that the inclusion of LGBTQ+ history in public education is essential for the representation and affirmation of LGBTQ+ youth. With the enactment of #SB5462, this representation will soon be realized in schools statewide.

According to reports from KOMO News, Sen. Marko Liias (D), the bill’s sponsor, and Danni Askini, Executive Director of National Programs for the Gender Justice League, highlighted studies indicating that students who find representation in their school curriculum tend to have improved attendance and academic performance.

However, Brian Noble, Executive Director of the Family Policy Institute of Washington, voiced opposition to the bill, expressing concerns about what he perceived as the potential “sexualization of children.”

In response, Askini disputed this assertion, arguing that merely acknowledging LGBTQ+ individuals in educational materials is no more about discussing explicit sexual matters than mentioning mothers is about sexual reproduction.

Askini emphasized that recognizing the existence of LGBTQ+ individuals does not inherently sexualize anyone or promote sexual behavior. She also stressed the importance of including LGBTQ+ parents in discussions about education, pointing out that they make up a significant portion of the population and should be reflected in the curriculum.

She rejected the notion that LGBTQ+ people are separate from the broader community, labeling it as “absolutely false.” Acknowledging the diversity within communities, she asserted, does not equate to advocating for particular behaviors or beliefs.

This blog originally appeared at LGBTQ NATION.

Critics argue that banning gender-affirming care harms trans youth, likening it to a “body count.” They stress that these laws worsen mental and physical health by denying necessary support and medical treatments. Such restrictions violate human rights and perpetuate discrimination, endangering the well-being of transgender individuals.

Last Friday, Governor Mark Gordon of Wyoming signed Senate File 99 into law, making Wyoming the 24th state to ban or limit gender-affirming care for minors. This law imposes penalties on medical professionals, including pharmacists, who provide minors with puberty blockers, hormone replacement therapy, or gender-affirming surgeries. Such penalties include revoking medical licenses and prohibiting practice in the state.

With healthcare providers mandated to cease such care, many fear this law will compel numerous transgender youth to abandon their transition, with detrimental effects on their mental well-being.

In a nuanced statement, Governor Gordon expressed support for the bill’s child protections but voiced concerns about government intrusion into family matters. This sentiment was echoed by Gillian Branstetter of the National Center for Transgender Equality, who criticized politicians for meddling in private healthcare decisions and exploiting children for political gain.

Contrary to supporters’ claims that gender-affirming care is experimental and unsafe, these treatments have a long history of safe use in cisgender children for conditions like cancer and early-onset puberty.

Opponents of the law, such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Wyoming, argue that it denies critical support to struggling transgender youth, pushing them into further isolation and endangerment. They vow to continue advocating for transgender rights and support.

Currently, 23 other states have enacted similar laws restricting or banning gender-affirming care for minors, prompting some families with transgender children to relocate to more accepting states. In contrast, 14 states and Washington, D.C. have implemented “shield” laws protecting minors’ access to gender-affirming care and safeguarding their privacy from out-of-state inquiries.

This blog originally appeared at TRUTHOUT.

Medical professionals are worried about the long-term physical and mental effects of anti-LGBTQ legislation.

This year, various states have endeavored to prohibit transgender individuals from using public restrooms and updating identity documents such as driver’s licenses. Legislators across multiple states are pushing to amend state statutes to define sex based on reproductive capability and to omit gender identity from discrimination safeguards.

Thus far, these bills aimed at undermining civil rights protections for transgender people and barring them from public facilities have faced limited success. According to the ACLU, only five anti-LGBTQ+ bills have been enacted into law this year, and several states notorious for promoting such legislation—like Florida, Utah, and West Virginia—have concluded their legislative sessions for the year.

Nevertheless, these endeavors could have dire consequences for the lives of transgender adults, prompting concerns among medical professionals about the long-term physical and mental health implications of the ongoing political campaign to curtail LGBTQ+ rights. Furthermore, many of the active bills could lead to gaps in medical care for transgender individuals during a period of heightened anxiety.

Currently, Ashton Colby finds himself enduring chronic stress. As a 31-year-old transgender man of White ethnicity residing near Columbus, Ohio, he has experienced significant turmoil as state policies regarding gender-affirming care have unexpectedly shifted in recent months.

He expressed, “With my fundamental, basic humanity being up on the public chopping block and up for debate, in so many ways, I feel gutted and dehumanized and completely misunderstood for all that I am.”

Colby, burdened by stress for years over anti-trans policies, never imagined the possibility of trans adults being denied medical care. In Ohio, such a scenario nearly materialized when Republican governor Mike DeWine proposed restrictions on gender-affirming care for adults in lieu of supporting a statewide ban on minors’ care. However, following public outcry, the state’s health agency declared it would not implement those restrictions for adults.

Initially fearing the loss of his medical provider of eight years, Colby contemplated relocating to Denver. He also harbors concerns that his access to necessary documentation and his rights as a transgender individual could be jeopardized if Republicans secure victories in the White House and Congress this year.

Dr. Carl Streed, president of the U.S. Professional Association for Transgender Health (USPATH), constantly reflects on the adverse health outcomes resulting from trans individuals feeling unsafe while navigating society. He believes that anti-trans policies will exacerbate feelings of isolation during what the surgeon general has termed an epidemic of isolation and loneliness in the United States.

“These policies that restrict people’s public life are effectively directly harming them, both in terms of immediate issues around mental health, connection to community, accessing care in urgent situations, but long-term, we’re going to see worse health outcomes in probably the next five, ten years, if not sooner,” he stated.

These worse health outcomes could include increased isolation and the inability to engage in public life and in-person community interactions, leading to diminished cardiovascular fitness and a higher risk of heart attacks and strokes due to elevated cholesterol and hypertension levels. Streed also noted that isolation is linked to impaired cognitive function and reduced memory.

“They’re definitely creating quite the checkerboard of restricted public spaces,” remarked Streed, a primary care physician at Boston Medical Center. “But the issue is, these are national discourses. What happens in Florida is a conversation I have with my patients in the exam room.”

Transgender individuals in states without healthcare restrictions or limitations on accessing public spaces are understandably anxious about such policies in other states, he noted. These restrictions can still impact them while visiting friends and family.

The ACLU is currently monitoring approximately 200 active anti-LGBTQ+ bills advancing through state legislatures this year. Although many bills have been defeated, fear and apprehension within the transgender community, and much of the larger LGBTQ+ community, remain alarmingly high.

In Florida, a series of often convoluted anti-LGBTQ+ policies are designed to instill fear, according to Simone Chriss, an attorney with the Southern Legal Counsel in Florida and director of the organization’s transgender rights initiative. Speaking on a press call in February, she described the intent as creating fear and confusion to obscure individuals’ rights, leading them to err on the side of caution.

Angelique Godwin, an Afro-Latina transgender woman and advocate with Equality Florida, shared with The 19th how transgender Floridians have supported each other amidst mounting restrictions on daily life. Godwin recounted losing access to healthcare last spring when Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a law preventing patients from accessing gender-affirming care from nurse practitioners. Additionally, she faced challenges refilling her prescription for estradiol valerate following the law’s passage, as pharmacies refused service amid the ensuing confusion.

“Thankfully, I had a stash, I had my own little reserve of medications for myself. But there were people close to me that were affected by that who had no access,” she recounted.

Godwin eventually found a facility in Tampa with a doctor offering care on a sliding-scale payment system, maintained coverage through the federal government’s health insurance marketplace, and continued appointments with her regular doctor for mental health visits under the new law.

Mutual aid grants and organizations like Folx Health, an LGBTQ+ telehealth provider, have helped fill gaps in care. Folx requires an in-person doctor’s visit, during which patients review and sign a consent form for care compliant with state laws.

“Those first three months from June to August, a lot of people struggled. Since then, most of the people I know that are here in Florida are still here,” she observed.

Approximately 30 bills seeking to restrict transgender youth and adults’ access to healthcare are still progressing through statehouses, per the ACLU. These bills would prohibit gender-affirming care—such as puberty blockers and hormone therapy—for transgender youth, block insurance or Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming care, and limit access to such care for incarcerated transgender individuals.

Even in states without restrictions on gender-affirming care, accessing it remains challenging for many transgender people across the country. For some, accessing essential healthcare necessitates traveling across state lines.

Dr. Angela Rodriguez, a plastic surgeon specializing in transgender care based in San Francisco, often treats patients who travel to California. She has encountered patients from Alabama, where finding a good dentist or primary care physician is difficult.

She noted a common concern among out-of-state patients over the last several years: who will care for them in the long run?

“I have patients that elect to come back, fly all the way from the East Coast because they don’t feel comfortable talking to a local physician,” she said. She ensures that patients traveling from out of state have a support system, such as a loved one or friend in California who can assist them after a surgical procedure.

Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy, the president-elect of USPATH who works with adolescents and young adult patients at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, observed that the mental health of her young transgender patients has deteriorated as states ban gender-affirming care for minors. Her patients also express concerns about existing in public in certain states and whether they can safely use public restrooms. Florida and Utah have enacted extreme public bathroom bans, while eight other states prohibit transgender individuals from using restrooms aligning with their gender identity in schools.

“I don’t think people have even really grasped the mental health toll of the pandemic, but to have this added on top of it is truly an immense burden for adolescents,” she remarked. A majority of her patients are preparing for college and graduate school — and a significant portion of them intend to steer clear of pursuing higher education in states enacting anti-trans legislation.

Olson-Kennedy herself doesn’t feel secure on social media. As a provider of gender-affirming care, it’s often a hostile environment for her and her colleagues, as their work has been politicized by Republican lawmakers, lobbyists, and far-right media personalities.

“You can only handle so much of hearing threats of violence when you leave your clinic,” she noted. “That’s not something they teach you in medical school… This is uncharted territory for children’s hospitals and pediatricians.”

Olson-Kennedy emphasized the need for more people to comprehend the significance of gender-affirming care. This care is administered over an extended period, with parents and guardians involved for minors, she explained, and it addresses the profound despair caused by gender dysphoria experienced by many transgender individuals.

“I wish people could set aside their discomfort and lack of understanding and truly acknowledge that this care is medically necessary. It’s incredibly important, and it transforms and saves lives,” she stressed.

This blog originally appeared at LGBTQ NATION.

The posts characterize transgender individuals as “suffering from mental illness,” “associated with Satanism,” “viewed as sexual predators,” “labeled as pedophiles,” “portrayed as terrorists,” and “branded as perverts.”

According to a recent report by the LGBTQ+ media advocacy group GLAAD, Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and Threads, has neglected to uphold its own regulations concerning anti-transgender hate content. This failure extends to posts generated by influential political figures and media outlets. The report reveals a multitude of instances where trans individuals are denigrated with slurs like “tr***y” and branded as “mentally ill,” “satanic,” “sexual predators,” “pedophiles,” “terrorists,” and “perverts.” The Washington Post highlighted examples, such as an image depicting a group of people stoning a person identified as transgender to death and another portraying a masked individual armed with a gun standing atop a demon painted in the colors of the transgender flag.

Additional documented posts asserted that transgender individuals aim to “sexualize, sterilize, and harm children.” Others deliberately misgendered transgender celebrities, ridiculed victims of transgender suicide, endorsed violence against medical professionals providing gender-affirming care, advocated for conversion therapy, and called for the “elimination” of transgender individuals.

These posts originated from accounts associated with right-wing outlets such as The Daily Wire, Gays Against Groomers, Chaya Raichik’s Libs of TikTok, The Babylon Bee, and One Million Moms.

Such posts blatantly violate Meta’s declared policies against anti-LGBTQ+ hate speech and “dehumanizing speech” that undermines the dignity of marginalized groups, promotes bullying or harassment, or suggests that a protected group should not exist.

In June 2023, over 250 LGBTQ+ celebrities, public figures, and allies, including Elliot Page, Laverne Cox, Jamie Lee Curtis, Janelle Monáe, Gabrielle Union, Judd Apatow, Ariana Grande, and Jonathan Van Ness, penned an open letter facilitated by GLAAD and the Human Rights Campaign, urging Meta and other social media platforms to take stronger action against the pervasive spread of anti-transgender hate speech. However, the recent report indicates that Meta has not made sufficient efforts to combat this onslaught.

Facebook’s Oversight Board acknowledged in September 2023 that the issue lies not in Meta’s policies but in their enforcement, criticizing the company’s repeated failure to take appropriate action against harmful content despite numerous warnings. GLAAD condemned Meta’s neglect in safeguarding users from hate speech, highlighting Meta’s own acknowledgment of the role hate speech plays in fostering an environment of intimidation and exclusion, and its failure to address this effectively.

Furthermore, some LGBTQ+ content creators on Meta have accused the company of limiting their content’s reach due to new restrictions on political content, including discussions of politicians and queer social issues.

Despite soaring revenues, Meta has been criticized for downsizing crucial trust and safety teams while increasingly relying on ineffective AI systems for content moderation. These enforcement failures have drawn repeated criticism and concern from the Oversight Board, with reports suggesting that some users’ reports on harmful content are not being reviewed at all.

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2024/03/meta-regularly-allows-anti-trans-hate-posts-calling-for-murder-of-pedophiles/?utm_id=sidebar4&utm_term=headline&utm_content=usa&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2024329%20LGBTQ%20Nation%20Daily%20Brief&utm_content=2024329%20LGBTQ%20Nation%20Daily%20Brief+CID_01d8916d372b19b4de9aee6a1a1706a2&utm_source=LGBTQ%20Nation%20Subscribers&utm_term=Meta%20regularly%20allows%20anti-trans%20hate%20posts%20calling%20for%20murder%20of%20pedophiles

This blog originally appeared at LGBTQ NATION.

A legislator voiced alarm over state law deeming self-expression harmful to minors, sparking a debate on the balance between personal freedom and safeguarding youth.

The Republican-dominated legislature of Kansas has passed a bill that opponents argue might outlaw minors’ access to LGBTQ+ content online.

Modeling after legislations in Texas, Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Utah, and Virginia in recent times, S.B. 394 aims to block minors from reaching adult-oriented websites. This bill mandates websites hosting material deemed “harmful to minors” to confirm that Kansas visitors are at least 18 years old. Concerns have been raised regarding the possibility of privacy infringement, as visitors would be required to furnish their government-issued identification.

According to the Associated Press, State Representative Ken Collins, one of the two Kansas Republicans who opposed the bill, expressed concerns that the data used for age verification could be acquired by parties with intentions to misuse it for fraudulent activities.

Accompanied by privacy apprehensions, LGBTQ+ advocates and certain Kansas Democrats are concerned that the state’s definition of material deemed “harmful to minors” could potentially lead to a broad interpretation of the proposed law, effectively prohibiting young people’s access to any LGBTQ+ content online. According to current state statutes, “harmful to minors” material encompasses “sexual conduct,” which includes aspects such as “acts of masturbation, homosexuality, [and] sexual intercourse.”

Rep. Collins pointed out that S.B. 394 leaves ambiguity regarding the scope of its restrictions, while Rep. Brandon Woodard (D) of Kansas argued that, under state law, simply being LGBTQ+ is categorized as harmful to minors.

In a Threads post discussing the bill, Alejandra Caraballo, a trans activist and clinical instructor at Harvard Law’s Cyberlaw Clinic, highlighted that Kansas residents might soon require their state IDs to access content featuring LGBTQ+ individuals.

Notably, S.B. 394 is more stringent compared to similar laws in other states, as it targets websites with 25% adult content rather than the 1/3 threshold observed elsewhere, as noted by Boing Boing. The proposed law mandates fines of up to $10,000 for sites failing to verify the ages of Kansas users and permits parents to sue for a minimum of $50,000 in damages if minors access “harmful content.”

The bill was passed in the state’s House of Representatives with a vote of 92–31 on Tuesday, following unanimous approval in the Kansas Senate last month. While Governor Laura Kelly (D) has not indicated her stance on signing the bill, given the overwhelming support for S.B. 394 in the state legislature, lawmakers likely possess sufficient votes to override a potential veto.

Critics argue that the proposed law may infringe upon the First Amendment’s free speech protections. However, a similar law in Texas was upheld by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals last year. The court determined that Texas’s law did not violate the First Amendment, asserting that the state has a legitimate interest in preventing minors from accessing pornography.

This blog originally appeared at LGBTQ NATION.

The state legislature is poised to override a veto from Democratic Governor Laura Kelly, highlighting political tensions and democratic principles.

The Kansas legislature’s Republican members are on the brink of turning their state into the 25th to prohibit medical care for transgender youth by proceeding with an override vote. Despite Governor Laura Kelly (D) anticipated veto, the Republican party commands supermajorities in both the Kansas House and Senate.

“Today, the Senate demonstrated a steadfast commitment to safeguarding children by emphasizing that extreme transgender ideology and the medical alteration of minors are neither lawful nor embraced in Kansas,” remarked State Senate President Ty Masterson (R) subsequent to Wednesday’s vote, which forwarded Senate Bill 233 to the governor for consideration.

Governor Kelly has affirmed her intention to veto the bill.

If approved, the legislation will prohibit transgender individuals under 18 from accessing crucial medical treatments, such as gender-affirming surgeries and puberty blockers. While gender-affirming surgery is rarely performed on minors, puberty blockers, which delay the onset of puberty, offer transgender youth and their families valuable time for self-discovery before irreversible changes occur. Studies have shown that puberty blockers can significantly decrease the lifelong risk of suicide among transgender individuals.

With the anticipated override, Kansas is set to become the third state this year to outlaw gender-affirming care for minors, joining four other states where similar laws are currently entangled in legal proceedings.

Senate Minority Leader Dinah Sykes (D) appealed to Republicans to demonstrate compassion and empathy by voting against the bill. She emphasized the distress of families with transgender children, expressing concern that the legislation would exacerbate their fears and anxieties.

Sykes addressed Kansans directly, assuring them that some lawmakers empathize with their plight and understand the importance of receiving necessary care to live authentically. She underscored the detrimental impact the law would have on transgender individuals and their families if enacted.

In the previous year, Governor Kelly vetoed a comparable bill alongside another proposal aimed at restricting transgender women and girls from participating in female school sports. However, moderate GOP members refrained from supporting overrides initiated by their far-right counterparts.

This time, the votes in favor of advancing Senate Bill 233 suggest that the Republican supermajorities in both the state House and Senate will succeed in passing the anti-trans legislation.

Like in other conservative-leaning states that have banned gender-affirming care for minors, opponents of the law are expected to challenge it in court. Legal outcomes have been mixed thus far, with federal appeals courts divided on the constitutionality of such bans. Ultimately, the Supreme Court, which currently leans conservative with a 6-3 majority, may ultimately decide on the matter.