Seattle passes anti-discrimination protections for polyamorous partners in unanimous vote

Read more at LGBTQ Nation.

The Seattle City Council voted unanimously on Tuesday to pass an ordinance officially recognizing non-monogamous and polyamorous relationships, as well as multigenerational households, as protected classes.

The measure will amend sections of the Seattle Municipal Code to “recognize genders outside the gender binary, recognize pansexuality and asexuality as orientations, and include consensual relationships with multiple partners as an element of attitudes, preferences, and practices pertaining to sexual orientation.”

Seattle is the 10th and largest city in the United States to pass protections for polyamorous relationships, The Guardian reported. The law will take effect on June 1, 2027.

The protections will apply to employment, housing, business licensure, places of public accommodation, park usage, and “bias-free policing,” according to the proposal. Under the law, residents facing unfair treatment could file complaints and seek remedy through Seattle’s Office for Civil Rights.

The bill’s sponsor, Alexis Mercedes Rinck, said the update helps the law “reflect how our neighbors define themselves and define their families.” Rinck added that the ordinance is part of a “decades-long process” in the city of establishing protected classes with “a degree of inclusivity.”

Seattle resident Jessa Davis reportedly led a grassroots movement to pass the measure after her partner was discriminated against at work due to being non-monogamous. “If we’re not expanding the circle of protections, we are leaving ground for people who aren’t being quiet about the fact that they are coming for marriage equality next,” Davis told The Guardian.

Last year, the Seattle Human Rights Commission wrote a letter to the council supporting the bill, emphasizing the “urgency” to pass it.

“People in multi-parent or multi-partner families, multi-generational households, chosen families, single parents, intentionally single individuals, and those in consensually nonmonogamous, asexual, or aromantic relationships continue to face discrimination in housing, employment, and public life simply because their family structures fall outside outdated norms,” the letter stated.

“By explicitly recognizing family and relationship structure as a protected class, the City affirms that safety, housing stability, employment access, and public participation should not depend on whether someone’s life fits a traditional mold. The proposed amendments do not create special treatment. They ensure equal treatment, closing loopholes that currently allow exclusion, harassment, and denial of opportunity to persist unchecked.”

The Commission also communicated the “cascading impacts” of housing and employment discrimination: “It destabilizes families, limits economic mobility, and undermines public trust in institutions meant to serve all residents.”

Somerville, Massachusetts, near Boston, became the first city in the country to recognize polyamorous relationships in 2020, with an expanded domestic partner ordinance. That legislation granted poly partners the same rights as married couples, including hospital visitation and conferring health insurance benefits. In 2023, the city extended specific anti-discrimination protections in employment and for police interactions.

As well as Somerville, Portland, Berkley and West Hollywood, Cambridge, Massachusetts; Oakland, California; Olympia, Washington; Astoria, Oregon; and Hazel Park, Michigan have all instituted similar protections.

Turkish authorities launch crackdown on LGBTQ+ and HIV support groups

Read more at AP News.

 Turkish authorities cracked down on multiple LGBTQ+ groups and individuals early Sunday morning, detaining dozens of members, breaking into association offices and raiding popular hangouts.

In an escalation of its decade-long hostility toward LGBTQ+ groups, particularly in the lead-up to elections, simultaneous police raids beginning at 1 a.m. took place in the major cities of Istanbul, Ankara, Izmir, Aydin and Mersin.

Justice Minister Akin Gurlek announced on social media that the investigation into 162 suspects, nine associations and 13 businesses was to “protect children, the institution of the family, and public order” in line with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s 10-year executive order relating to families and children.

“As per the duty to protect families and children given to the state by the constitution, no criminal organization, abuse network or illegal activity which targets children, youths or families will be tolerated!” Gurlek said.

The raids targeted both current and former members of multiple prominent LGBTQ+ rights and HIV awareness groups. The organizations’ websites were also blocked.

Gurlek also noted that such associations were found to receive significant funding from international sources and agencies.

The Human Rights Association condemned the raids. “This is not a judicial investigation; it is a political operation aimed at forcing society into a monolithic family model and purging LGBTI+ and independent civil society under the guise of protecting the family and children,” it said.

“To include unrelated charges such as ‘forming a criminal organization,’ ‘drugs,’ ‘prostitution’ and ‘obscenity’ serves not to reveal the truth but to incriminate the entire community.”

The religious conservative Justice and Development Party has been increasingly vocal against LGBTQ+ groups to play up to the more conservative elements of its base. In 2015, it banned Istanbul Pride, which had tens of thousands of attendees in previous years prior. Since then, authorities have violently dispersed any attempted gatherings for Pride.

This summer, an LGBTQ+ cruise ship that tours the Mediterranean and has docked in Turkey multiple times in the past was refused permission to dock there.

The Ottoman Empire, predecessor to the modern republic of Turkey, decriminalized homosexuality in 1858, however there is still significant social discrimination.

Alberta First Nation wants to set up safe haven for gender-affirming care

Read more at CBC.

A First Nation says it aims to defy Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s government by establishing a safe haven for gender-affirming medical care.

Leaders of the Saddle Lake Cree Nation say access to health care is a treaty right and falls under its inherent jurisdiction.

Late last year, Smith’s United Conservative Party government used the Charter’s notwithstanding clause to shield its legislation from court challenges.

The law prohibits doctors from prescribing puberty blockers or hormone therapy to transgender and gender diverse children under 16.

The premier has said its aim is to protect children and their fertility. Doctors and national medical associations have pushed back, noting puberty blockers don’t render a person infertile.

This week, during a gathering to mark 150 years since the signing of Treaty 6, Saddle Lake Chief Dale Steinhauer said the law is one of many that are dehumanizing.

“No longer will our children and families have their rights taken away,” she announced at Fort Pitt Provincial Park, Sask., on Wednesday.

“When one group’s rights are removed, we are all affected.”

The nation, located 170 kilometres northeast of Edmonton, said it’s working to attract clinicians to provide care on its reserve land.

It has also started fundraising to develop its health law and defend it against potential legal challenges.

Steinhauer said clinicians who provide gender-affirming care on reserve land would be exempted from sanctioning by regulatory bodies.

“To the medical profession and regulatory bodies like the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta: when will you stop this violence?” she said.

An email statement from the college said the organization respects Steinhauer and recognizes the treaty rights of all First Nations, as well as the rights and interests of transgender minors and their families.

“CPSA will continue to support regulated members in understanding their professional responsibilities while providing respectful, compassionate and evidence-informed care within the bounds of applicable legislation, including laws that apply to the treaty rights of First Nations.  

When asked on Thursday, Smith said she doesn’t have any authority over the First Nation and respects its sovereignty.

“They are an independent nation, so I’ll be interested to see if they’re able to attract a doctor to do that,” Smith said while attending the Alberta Industrial Heartland Association annual conference in Edmonton.

‘I would have loved to have me as a doctor’

Dr. James Makokis, a two-spirit family physician from Saddle Lake Cree Nation, became emotional at the announcement while speaking about the impact of violence against two-spirit and transgender people, including self-harm.

“That is a public health emergency that has to stop,” said Makokis.

“When there’s a threat to the buffalo calves in the herd, all of the adult buffalo form a circle around those young ones, because they’re the next generation.”

Makokis said providing young two-spirit people with proper gender-affirming care is one way to combat high rates of suicide and other “horrible statistics” affecting the community.

“If I had someone that looked like me, that had braids like me, that spoke Cree like me, that understood our medicine and our ways of being, that would have been incredible,” said Makokis.

“I would have loved to have me as a doctor.”

For parents like Tyler Youngchief, councillor for Kehewin Cree Nation, Steinhauer’s announcement hits close to home. His seven-year-old son, Presley Miyoskwam Napew Youngchief, came out as transgender at the age of three.

“The moment he started vocalizing he was a boy and that’s who he is, there was no hesitation between my spouse or myself or his siblings,” Youngchief told CBC News. “It was just full-on acceptance right from our whole family.”

But both Youngchief and Makokis know the road to creating a gender-affirming care safe haven won’t be easy.

Youngchief said bullying in the form of homophobia and transphobia directed at Presley are his biggest concerns for the future.

Makokis added that fear is a familiar feeling for marginalized groups like trans and two-spirit people.

“It’s really important for us as individual clinicians, as individual physicians, as citizens of this democratic country known as Canada, for people to stand up,” said Makokis.

“Sometimes that means as individuals we have to risk losing some of our own individual freedoms, and in my case that could be my medical licence.” 

Steinhauer cited the medicine chest clause unique to Treaty 6, which says the Crown will keep a medicine chest in the home of each federal government agent working on or near a reserve.

It’s widely understood by First Nations to be a commitment to provide comprehensive health care, and Indigenous leaders have criticized the Crown for failing to live up to the promise.

Steinhauer asked how the Alberta government could stop First Nations doctors from practising, or accessing the medicine chest.

“Have the colonial governments not learned enough from their own history?”

Alberta’s health-care law is one of three from the UCP government impacting transgender people across the province.

Another requires parental consent for students under 16 to change their names or pronouns at school. The third bans transgender athletes 12 and older from participating in amateur competitive female sports.

NDP MLA Brooks Arcand-Paul, who represents Edmonton-West Henday and is shadow minister for Indigenous relations, said the Alberta NDP support Saddle Lake Cree Nation’s exercise of sovereignty.

“As a two-spirit person, I wish I had this protection when I was younger. I wish I had this understanding that our two-spirit kin are scared,” Arcand-Paul told CBC News. “I wish I didn’t have to think I did not belong here.”

Switzerland is on the road to possibly banning conversion therapy nationwide

Read more at LGBTQ Nation.

The Swiss government says it supports a uniform, national ban on so-called conversion therapy, and it’s moving ahead to consider federal legislation to outlaw the discredited practice.

A report from the government published last week details a number of current national regulations addressing the practice, as well as a patchwork of laws or procedures in various cantons (independent member states) across the country, which include their own administrative or criminal measures and corresponding legislative proposals that have been initiated, the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation reports.

Zurich is the latest canton to initiate government action banning the practice. Anyone practicing the so-called therapy in that canton would face a fine, according to the government council’s proposal.

The patchwork of Swiss laws makes a national ban on the practice worth considering at the federal level, the government said.

It’s unclear how widespread conversion therapy is in Switzerland, but several individuals offering it have earned the public’s attention over the last several years, including a homeopathic doctor in Geneva and Vaud who, in 2018, offered to “cure homosexuality,” and also a psychiatrist in Schwyz who, in 2020, recommended himself for the reparative “therapies.”

Conversion therapy, which seeks to change the sexual orientation of those subjected to it, is well known to cause psychological distress, anxiety and depression, and impair self-esteem and social relationships.

So far, 22 U.S. states ban the practice outright, but a decision by the US Supreme Court in the case of Chiles v. Salazar earlier this year could help nullify those bans.

Michigan agreed in August to abandon its ban on anti-LGBTQ+ conversion therapy following a federal judge’s decision against it, making it the first state to say it will stop enforcing its ban in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Cantonal parliaments in Switzerland that have already spoken in favor of a ban include Schaffhausen, St. Gallen, Valais, Vaud, and Bern. Others expressing support for a national ban include Aargau, Basel-City, and Lucerne among them.

Switzerland is made up of 26 full and half cantons. Neuchâtel became the first Swiss canton to ban conversion therapy in 2023.

The European Commission recommended earlier this year that all EU countries ban conversion therapy.

While Switzerland is not an EU member, neighboring Germany outlawed conversion therapy for minors and nonconsenting adults in 2020.

Several other EU countries, including Belgium, Cyprus, France, Malta, Norway, Portugal and Spain, have banned the practice outright. Greece banned it for minors in 2022.

The latest EU nation to address the practice is the Netherlands, where the Dutch Senate in June approved a bill to ban it, following the parliament’s lower house approving the measure in September 2025.

Why LGBTQ Americans Are Moving to Portugal & Europe | Josh in Lisbon Update

Thinking about moving to Portugal or Europe from the United States? For LGBTQ+ Americans concerned about civil rights, politics, healthcare, safety, and their long-term future in the U.S., Portugal has become one of the destinations getting serious attention.

In this episode of the Flee Your Red States Podcast, Bob McCranie and Leslie welcome back Josh in Lisbon, an American who has now lived in Portugal for three years, for an update on what relocating to Portugal actually looks like in 2026.

Josh says something important has changed. Many of the Americans contacting him aren’t simply looking for an overseas adventure anymore. They’re considering leaving the United States because they’re afraid of what may happen next.

We talk about the realities behind that decision: Portugal’s growing international community, LGBTQ+ life in Europe, immigration and residency changes, learning Portuguese, integrating into a different culture, healthcare, employment, bureaucracy, and the financial realities of building a life outside the United States.

Josh also explains some of the differences between buying real estate in Portugal and the United States and what Americans should understand before assuming that purchasing a home overseas works the same way it does back home.

The conversation goes beyond Portugal.

With the 2026 U.S. midterm elections approaching, we discuss what the results could mean for LGBTQ+ migration. Will a political shift convince people to stay? Could further restrictions accelerate the number of Americans considering Europe? And for people who have already decided that their long-term future may be elsewhere, does the election even change the decision?

We also discuss one of the most overlooked parts of international relocation: moving somewhere is very different from becoming part of somewhere.

Language matters. Culture matters. Employment matters. Healthcare matters. And the experience of visiting Portugal is very different from actually building a life there.

Josh shares what he has learned after three years in Lisbon—and what he wishes more Americans understood before packing their bags.

Topics include: moving to Portugal from the USA, LGBTQ+ migration to Europe, living in Lisbon, Portugal immigration and residency, Portuguese citizenship, LGBTQ+ rights and safety, healthcare in Europe, working in Portugal, cultural integration, buying property in Portugal, the 2026 midterm elections, and why Americans are considering leaving the United States.

For information about relocating to Portugal or Portuguese real estate, visit Josh in Lisbon and find Josh on social media at @joshinlisbon.

The Flee Your Red States Podcast explores relocation options for LGBTQ+ people and others concerned about whether their civil rights will continue to be protected where they live. Our goal isn’t to tell people that they should leave. It’s to help people understand what their options are if they decide they need them.

The 15 worst universities in the U.S. for LGBTQ+ students

Read more at the Advocate.

The adult entertainment portal Erobella, responsible for the Sexually Liberal City Index, just released a new study ranking U.S. universities by how LGBTQ+-inclusive they are.

Erobella recently published the Out on Campus: The LGBTQ+ College Index 2026, which measures how “supportive and inclusive” the universities across the country are. The study examined whether universities have professionally staffed LGBTQ+ centers, provide gender-inclusive housing, have written policies that protect trans students from discrimination, have a student health insurance plan that covers gender-affirming care, and allow chosen names and pronouns to be used on official records.

Out on Campus also analyzed the city where the school is located by measuring its score on the Human Rights Campaign’s Municipal Equality Index, the number of LGBTQ+ venues nearby, and whether there is a local PFLAG chapter.

Related: The 15 best universities in the U.S. for LGBTQ+ students

“For LGBTQ+ students, knowing how supportive and inclusive a university really is can make a meaningful difference,” said Brenda Jensen from Erobella’s data and research team. “With the Out on Campus Index, we want to create greater transparency and show which universities are providing concrete support and resources for LGBTQ+ students — while also highlighting where there is still room for improvement.”

Since the Campus Pride Index was shut down after serving as the go-to source for finding LGBTQ+-friendly universities for the past 18 years, this study is more important than ever for students seeking a four-year institution that provides trans and other LGBTQ+ students with support and protection.

New York University came out on top as the most LGBTQ+ friendly university in the country, while at the other end of the spectrum, 81 colleges hold or have sought religious exemptions under Title IX to legally permit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Every school in the bottom 15 is also a religious institution from the South, while not a single Southern school made it into the top ten.

All 1,718 schools in the study started with a score of zero and earned points for the support they provide to LGBTQ+ students and for how LGBTQ+-friendly the city is, but the bottom 15 schools never scored a single point.

The Advocate already showed the top 15 most LGBTQ+-friendly universities; now keep scrolling to see the bottom 15 schools that ranked as the “least welcoming to LGBTQ+ students” in the U.S.

See the list at the Advocate.

22 states sue Trump admin over “unprecedented” attack on gender-affirming care

Read more on LGBTQ Nation.

A coalition of blue states has come together to file a lawsuit against the Trump administration challenging its plan to strip federal funds from gender-affirming care for minors. The lawsuit alleges that the administration is overstepping its authority by trying to dictate what medical procedures can and can’t be covered by federal funding.

“[The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)] has disregarded the law and its own policy precedent in another attempt to restrict transgender individuals’ access to crucial care,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement. “We will not stand by as the Trump administration oversteps its authority and twists the facts to justify its bad-faith agenda against transgender Americans. We will continue to fight to secure access to medically necessary care and protect transgender individuals’ abilities to prosper as their authentic selves.”

The lawsuit targets Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as the head of HHS, as well as Dr. Mehmet Oz in his role as administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Last month, the departments finalized a plan to prevent federal Medicare and Medicaid plans from covering gender-affirming care for anyone under the age of 18, and to bar plans under the federal Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) from covering the care for anyone under 19.

The plan spent months in a public comment period during which is received nearly 35,000 comments, over 90% of which opposed the plan. Despite this, the rule is set to go into effect on October 13 with little change to the text of the final document.

The lawsuit wastes no time highlighting to the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts that the administration’s new plan is not about healthcare, but an attack on trans people.

The introduction states, “The Administration seeks such broad and unprecedented powers in part to advance its social policy agenda, a key component of which involves relentless attacks on a small and vulnerable population—transgender individuals—whose very existence the President scapegoats to stoke national division.”

The lawsuit makes a case that the proposed rule oversteps states’ rights by regulating the practice of medicine, a responsibility that both Congress and existing legal precedent have made clear is reserved for the states themselves. The suing states also say that HHS has cherry-picked its evidence and failed to make a case for its ban on gender-affirming care funding, and that the plan change violates the Social Security Act and HHS precedent by excluding care that has been deemed medically necessary by the states.

The lawsuit also highlights that Congress left the decision for what should be covered by Medicare and CHIP to the states, and therefore the federal government cannot simply impose a rule to prevent the states from exercising their own will.

“The federal government does not have the authority to dictate what medically necessary care New York provides to its residents,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James in a statement. “This unlawful rule threatens access to health care for transgender young people and undermines states’ ability to administer our own Medicaid programs. New York will continue to stand up for patients and defend our authority to provide the care they need.”

The lawsuit additionally includes a nod towards a longstanding argument that banning gender-affirming care is discrimination based on sex, as under the proposed rule cis patients will still be able to receive coverage for the same treatment and care that is being denied to trans patients.

In his statement, Attorney General Bonta was keen to highlight that this proposed rule does not stop anyone from practicing gender-affirming care in any state where it is still legal (which includes California). The only restriction is on the use of federal funds, and the rule explicitly still allows for state funds to be used for the care.

An earlier HHS attempt saw the department pushing a rule that would have barred hospitals and clinics that provided gender-affirming care from receiving any form of federal funding at all. However, a judge struck that rule down in April and the Trump administration seemed to back off from trying to appeal that ruling in July.

Trans journalist Erin Reed called the states’ lawsuit “the next major step in the fight to protect transgender healthcare,” since the removal of federal funding would be ” a virtual death sentence for any hospital system.”

Reed noted that over “40 hospitals and health systems have stopped or paused their programs in capitulation” to the administration despite there being no federal law against the care. Some of these institutions have stopped providing the care in violation of state or local laws that explicitly protect transgender people from healthcare discrimination.

The search for an LGBTQ-friendly college remains difficult

Read more at QNotes Carolinas.

For nearly two decades, LGBTQ+ students looking for a college could turn to the Campus Pride Index for something most college rankings didn’t provide: a way to evaluate how welcoming and safe a campus might actually be for them. 

Launched in 2007, the free database evaluated participating colleges on more than 50 measures across eight areas, including LGBTQ-inclusive policies, housing, campus safety, student life, counseling, health services and institutional support. Students and families could search hundreds of participating schools and compare their LGBTQ+ resources and policies. 

When Campus Pride shut down following a financial scandal involving its former executive director — previously reported by Qnotes — the index went with it. Although the website remains active, the content now seems to be primarily focused on crypto gambling. So far, no single organization has stepped forward to replace the resource. 

However, there are some with short lists of favorites.

The Princeton Review publishes a list of 25 LGBTQ-friendly colleges based on student surveys, while BestColleges released a 2026 list of schools meeting criteria including nondiscrimination protections, gender-inclusive housing and restrooms, and an LGBTQ+ resource center. The Consortium of Higher Education LGBT Resource Professionals also maintains a directory of campus LGBTQ+ centers. 

But those resources don’t allow a student to investigate and compare hundreds of individual campuses using the same detailed criteria. A 2025 study published in the Journal of Homosexuality examined 1,756 four-year nonprofit U.S. colleges and universities and found that only 14 percent had a dedicated LGBTQ+ resource center. 

College admissions professionals have begun discussing how to fill the void that Campus Pride created. In a 2026 newsletter for the New York State Association for College Admission Counseling, Erica Padilla and Marie Nocella called the Campus Pride Index “a useful tool” and noted that, for many LGBTQ+ students, “this was the only tool at their disposal, especially if their environment lacked supportive adults.” 

Students with supportive families can share that work with parents or guardians. Students who aren’t out at home may have to conduct it quietly and alone. For them, determining whether a college is affordable and academically appropriate may not be enough. They also have to answer another question: Will I be safe here?

Unless someone else creates a comprehensive solution, much of the work will continue to fall on students. That can mean digging through individual college websites for nondiscrimination policies, gender-inclusive housing, healthcare, LGBTQ+ organizations, bias-reporting procedures and other indicators of campus climate. For LGBTQ+ students, these steps add layers of research — and uncertainty — to an already complicated and stressful college search.

This story is brought to you by Rosedale Health and Wellness and Dudley’s Place.

Federal judge shuts down Texas drag ban: If you don’t like drag “just don’t go”

Read more at LGBTQ Nation.

A federal judge in Texas ruled this week that the state’s drag ban is an unconstitutional restriction of free speech in violation of the First Amendment.

US District Court Judge David Hittner’s Tuesday decision strikes down S.B. 12, a 2023 law signed by anti-LGBTQ+ Gov. Greg Abbott (R). While the law does not explicitly mention the word drag, it criminalized “sexually explicit” performances in the presence of minors, defining such performances as those featuring “a male performer exhibiting as a female, or a female performer exhibiting as a male, who uses clothing, makeup, or other similar physical markers and who sings, lip syncs, dances, or otherwise performs before an audience.”

Under the law, businesses that host all-ages drag shows faced up to $10,000 in fines, and performers could be charged with a Class A misdemeanor resulting in up to one year in prison.

S.B. 12 was initially scheduled to take effect on September 1, 2023. But several LGBTQ+ advocacy organizations and drag groups — including The Woodlands Pride, Abilene Pride Alliance, and 360 Queen Entertainment — challenged the law. In September 2023, Hittner issued a permanent injunction blocking enforcement of the law, ruling that it constituted “viewpoint discrimination” and that it was “substantially overbroad” and “unconstitutionally vague.”

After Texas appealed the decision, the US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Hittner’s permanent injunction last November, sending the case back to the lower court and instructing Hittner to focus only on the claims from 360 Queen Entertainment. The appeals court’s ruling also allowed the law to go into effect while the case played out.

On Tuesday, Hittner once again ruled that S.B. 12 “is an UNCONSTITUTIONAL restriction on speech” that “violates the First Amendment,” even under the conditions the 5th Circuit outlined, according to The Texan.

The law, Hittner wrote, “applies to countless protected performances that might contain elements that are ‘in some sense erotic’ and meet either the law’s definition of ‘nude’ or ‘sexual conduct’ but are not obscene or obscene for minors and are thus constitutionally protected.” Hittner cited examples including a gymnast performing in a leotard and a singer performing in a lowcut dress.

As NBC News notes, Hittner went so far as to cite the late Dolly Parton, an LGBTQ+ ally who supported drag performers and even gifted a rhinestone guitar to drag performer and advocate Brigitte Bandit, one of the plaintiffs in the case, as an example of a performer who might be targeted by the law for her reputation “as a voluptuous sex symbol because of her big hair, flamboyant clothes and breast exposure.”

Hittner further ruled that “S.B. 12 is unconstitutionally vague because it fails to give a reasonable person notice of what is prohibited.” While “multiple aspects of the law render it vague,” Hittner wrote, the “most glaring issue” relates to the inclusion of the term “prurient interest in sex.” The fact that the term “is undefined in Texas law, lacks a readily ascertainable ordinary meaning, and applies to all performances targeted by the statute,” Hittner wrote, “renders S.B. 12 irredeemably vague… in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.”

“Finally, for those who find such activities as described in this case offensive, the solution is relatively simple,” Hittner wrote. “Just don’t go.”

In several Instagram Stories posts Tuesday, Bandit responded to Hittner’s ruling, writing that “drag is free speech b—-” and that the decision “is a huge win for Texas and my t——.”

Meanwhile, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R), who is running for US Senate, described Hittner’s ruling as “a profoundly flawed decision that endangers our children and is an affront to Texas values.”

“I will appeal this decision immediately and continue to fight to protect our kids,” Paxton wrote in an X post.

NC’s newest bathroom battle is stoking worries about LGBTQ student harassment

Read more at Charlotte Observer.

Transgender students are absorbing the consequences of a growing fight in Cabarrus County Schools, where two federal lawsuits and a Trump administration investigation are challenging how the district handles bathroom access, LGBTQ advocates say. For months, parents, elected officials and community members clashed over whether transgender students should be allowed to use bathrooms and locker rooms that align with their gender identity. But advocates say another question has received less attention: What does the fight mean for LGBTQ students going to school every day?

“When I think about a trans girl going into a girl’s restroom, I worry about her harassment, not what she will do to other young people,” said Sarah Mikhail, CEO of Time Out Youth. Time Out Youth serves LGBTQ young people ages 13 to 24 in Charlotte and surrounding communities. Within the organization, young people regularly talk about the broader social climate surrounding bathrooms, sports and LGBTQ issues in schools, she said. Mikhail said the effect shows up in basic routines. Some young people Time Out Youth works with avoid school bathrooms entirely because they do not feel safe using them. She said that kind of vigilance does not stay confined to the restroom. Students who are constantly calculating where they can go, who might be watching them or whether an adult will support them can have a harder time concentrating, asking for help or feeling comfortable enough to learn. “We have young people that do not go to the bathroom all day at school,” Mikhail said. “This is not uncommonly reported.”

LGBTQ students not only face school rules, they also hear messages from politicians, social media, family members and community leaders about what gender means and what transgender people should be allowed to do. For some students, those messages arrive before they even figure out how they identify or whether they feel safe coming out. That uncertainty, she said, can impact whether students feel comfortable telling a teacher they had a hard night, asking for help on an assignment or using the name and pronouns that feel right to them. “You need to feel emotionally okay to share and be yourself at school,” Mikhail said. “So then you can be open to learning.” How Cabarrus became a legal battleground Cabarrus County Schools does not have a separate policy governing transgender students’ bathroom access. School board attorney William Isenhour has said the district handles the relatively rare situations on a case-by-case basis while attempting to comply with federal law.

The district has repeatedly pointed to a 2020 Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board. In that case, the court ruled a Virginia school board violated Title IX and constitutional protections when it required a transgender boy to use bathrooms based on his sex assigned at birth or use a private restroom. Because the Fourth Circuit includes North Carolina, Cabarrus officials have said the ruling binds the district. The Trump administration now takes a different view. The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights opened a Title IX investigation into Cabarrus in June after complaints that the district allowed transgender students to use girls’ bathrooms and locker rooms. Federal officials said the administration interprets Title IX based on biological sex and is investigating whether the district violated the privacy and safety rights of female students. On July 31, three anonymous 17-year-old Cox Mill High School students and their parents sued the district. Represented by the conservative legal organization America First Legal, they argue transgender students should not be permitted to use multi-person bathrooms and locker rooms corresponding with their gender identity.

A second lawsuit followed one week later. Cabarrus father Brandon Matthews sued after school officials declined to promise they would notify him if transgender students were permitted to use the same sex-segregated bathrooms or locker rooms as his children. He argues parents have a constitutional and religious right to receive that information and request another arrangement. The Cabarrus controversy comes as transgender rights have become a major national political talking point, with fights over girls’ sports, bathroom access and school policies playing out in courts and school board meetings. ‘Stop arguing about bathrooms’ Rebecca Herrick, a mother of three Cabarrus County Schools students, said she sees the bathroom fight as a distraction from other issues in the district. Her own children have thrived socially in CCS, Herrick said, and she wants transgender students to be treated the same. She said the controversy pulls energy away from issues that affect students more, including the district’s ongoing financial and operational challenges.

“It is time to stop arguing about bathrooms,” Herrick said. “By shifting the conversation to social issues, they are successfully diverting public energy.” Herrick said she worries that it sends a message about who belongs in school when adults devote so much attention to policing which bathrooms students use. She said the repeated lawsuits and public fights over bathrooms risk turning transgender students themselves into the subject of controversy. “These bathroom bills and the resulting lawsuits create a climate of fear and exclusion that treats transgender students as problems rather than children who deserve support,” Herrick said. ‘They’re just kids’ Joshua Jernigan said he is already hearing that fear from families. Jernigan founded the Gender Education Network, which works with transgender and gender-diverse children age 12 and younger and their families across North and South Carolina.

Jernigan said his organization has heard directly from families since the lawsuits and federal investigation intensified attention on the district. Some have reached out worried about what the legal fight could mean for their children and whether it will make school feel less safe. “We’ve had a lot of families reach out in a bit of a panic,” Jernigan said. He said transgender and gender-diverse children may not follow the legal arguments themselves, but they hear how adults in their communities talk about people like them. When they hear phrases like “these people” or “those people,” Jernigan said, they understand they are being singled out. That can be especially unsettling for children approaching middle school, he said, when situations involving locker rooms and trying to fit in already feel scary. “There’s nothing sinister or nefarious about trans kids,” Jernigan said. “They’re just kids who want to go out for recess and hate math.”

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑