The federal government is set to only recognize two sexes, male and female, under an executive order that President Donald Trump is soon expected to sign.
The order would reverse efforts by the Biden administration to broaden gender identity designations, including on passports.
“As of today, it will henceforth be the official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders, male and female,” Trump said during his inaugural address Monday, taking an early step to fulfill one of his culture war campaign promises.
The order, a Trump administration official told reporters Monday, is aimed at “defending women from gender ideology extremism and restoring biological truths to the federal government.” Male and female “are sexes that are not changeable, and they are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality,” the official said.
The federal government would also shift from using the term “gender” to “sex,” and that sex would be “an individual’s immutable biological classification,” the official said.
All government agencies would ensure that official documents, including passports and visas, “reflect sex accurately,” the official said. Also, departments running federal prisons, migrant shelters, rape shelters and other “intimate spaces” would be directed to protect single-sex spaces for privacy. And employee records would also adhere to the executive order, as would federal departments’ messaging.
“Agencies are no longer going to promote gender ideology through communication forms and other messages,” the official said, adding that grants and contracts would be reviewed to ensure that “federal funds shall not be used to promote gender ideology.”
Reversing Biden expansion
Trump’s executive order would dismantle efforts by the Biden administration to be more inclusive of Americans’ gender identification.
As of 2022, US citizens have been able to select “X” as their gender marker on passports. One’s marker does not need to match the gender on citizenship documents or photo ID, nor is medical documentation needed to change one’s gender, according to the State Department.
“We promote the freedom, dignity, and equality of all people – including LGBTQI+ individuals,” the department’s website says. “We are demonstrating this commitment to better serve all U.S. citizens, regardless of gender identity.”
Later that year, Americans were able to start changing their sex identification with the Social Security Administration without needing to provide medical certification. However, Social Security’s record systems still require a designation of male or female, though the administration said it was exploring policy and systems updates to support an “X” designation.
“The Social Security Administration’s Equity Action Plan includes a commitment to decrease administrative burdens and ensure people who identify as gender diverse or transgender have options in the Social Security number card application process,” said Kilolo Kijakazi, the administration’s acting commissioner at the time.
Democrats labeled it “yet another example” of GOP extremists “stirring up divisive social issues to create problems where none exist.”
Republicans in Idaho’s House of Representatives are contemplating a formal statement urging the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse its landmark 2015 ruling that legalized same-sex marriage.
The resolution, proposed by Republican state Rep. Heather Scott, characterizes the court’s decision as an “illegitimate overreach.” Scott’s proposal calls for the restoration of the “natural definition of marriage,” despite the fact that various forms of marriage, including same-sex unions, have existed throughout history.
Rep. Heather Scott stated that the purpose of her resolution is to “affirm our state authority to regulate marriage” during a Tuesday hearing.
The 2015 Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, following decades of LGBTQ+ activism. At the time of the ruling, many states still had bans on gay marriage, despite growing public support for such unions.
The decision, made by a 5-4 vote, preceded the appointments of three conservative justices during the presidency of Donald Trump—Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito have since called for a reconsideration of the Obergefell decision.
While Scott’s resolution holds no legal authority, it will be forwarded to the Supreme Court for consideration. The state committee advanced it on Tuesday, and a public hearing will be scheduled at a later date.
State House Minority Leader Ilana Rubel (D) and Senate Minority Leader Melissa Wintrow (D) dismissed Scott’s resolution as a “sad distraction,” criticizing it as another attempt by the far-right of the Republican Party to “gin up divisive social issues to create problems where none exist.” They emphasized that “big government has no business telling consenting adults who they should love.”
They added, “This resolution may be a helpful gimmick for winning in closed GOP primaries, but it should be offensive to all Idahoans who value their individual rights and freedoms and just want to live their lives without egregious government interference.”
In 2021, Rep. Scott compared Idaho’s mask mandate to Nazi Germany’s policies. Despite a federal judge ruling that Idaho’s ban on same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution, the ban remains on the books. Recent polling shows that more Idahoans support same-sex marriage than oppose it.
California must stand strong in support of our trans community members.
Out California State Sen. Scott Wiener (D) has introduced a bill aimed at protecting the privacy of trans people in anticipation of the incoming Trump administration. Wiener warned that Trump’s hostility toward trans individuals and his planned rollback of their rights would “only embolden abusive right-wing extremists.”
The proposed legislation, S.B. 59, known as the Transgender Privacy Act, seeks to create an automatic process to seal all court records related to an individual’s gender transition in the state. This would include retroactively sealing existing records. The bill also ensures that any gender transition records that reference a person’s dead name or sex assigned at birth would be kept sealed.
A similar law protecting youth was passed in 2023, but Wiener’s bill specifically targets individuals over 18.
“The incoming Trump administration and Republican congressional leadership have made it clear that targeting and erasing trans people is one of their highest policy priorities, and California must stand by our trans community members,” Wiener said in a statement. “Making personal identifying information public after someone transitions—such as their dead name or the fact that they are trans or nonbinary—needlessly exposes trans and nonbinary Californians to harassment and potential violence.”
If passed, California would join Washington, Oregon, and New York in enacting privacy laws that protect trans people from being forcibly outed through state records.
“When I learned I was unable to change my name in California without being forcibly outed online and exposed to harassment, I was appalled,” said Hazel Williams, a trans activist who worked with Wiener on the legislation, according to the Bay Area Reporter. “I’m proud to help rally community members and advocacy organizations to fix this. There are 220,000 transgender and nonbinary adults in California. All of us deserve privacy and safety, and this legislation is a vital step in that direction.”
The bill follows a ruling last year by Fresno’s 5th District Court of Appeal, which granted a trans woman the right to seal her transition-related records after being outed on social media, harassed by anonymous users, and forced to close all her accounts. While the decision set a precedent for judges to allow requests to seal such records, it does not mandate it in the way Wiener’s bill would.
“As Trump and his cronies continue their cynical incitements of violence against transgender people, it’s critical that we fight back with progressive protections at the state level,” said Syd Simpson, co-chair of the Harvey Milk LGBTQ+ Democratic Club’s Transgender Caucus, in an interview with the Bay Area Reporter.
“It’s really scary to know that there are people out there who want to hurt you, and that your personal information is just sitting there for them to exploit. The right to privacy and the right to be safe are precious to our community, and we’ve got to fight for them.”
“There are many people who clearly do not want us to be here.”
Police in Santa Cruz, California, have charged 45-year-old James Eason with vandalizing The Neighbor’s, a queer bar, just days after it opened. Eason faces charges of vandalism, arson, and committing a hate crime.
The incident occurred early last Tuesday morning when a suspect set fire to a button panel outside the bar’s front door, which is used to assist disabled patrons. The vandal also attempted to push burning napkins through the door’s cracks and carved a homophobic slur into the glass, according to bar owner Frankie Farr, who spoke with Lookout.
“I was like, ‘You’ve got to be kidding, we’re not even open a week,’” Farr said. “[We are] still a bit in shock that it happened so quickly… There are clearly many people who do not want us to exist.”
They contacted the police, and detectives were able to identify the suspect after reviewing surveillance footage from nearby businesses. At the time Eason was named a suspect in the vandalism, he was already in custody at the county jail for an unrelated offense.
The bar opened in early December with a ribbon-cutting ceremony attended by Santa Cruz Mayor Fred Keeley, City Councilmember Sonja Brunner, and more than 100 patrons eager to explore the new space.
Although the city is home to LGBTQ+-inclusive businesses, Farr felt there was a lack of dedicated spaces for queer individuals to meet, socialize, and build a sense of community. In addition to offering food and serving as a performance venue for regional DJs, queer performers, and drag artists, Farr hopes the bar can also support environmental and social movements and attract LGBTQ+ tourists to Santa Cruz.
“It’s pretty depressing to think of all these people driving over the hill or all the way to San Francisco just to find [queer] community when we have it right here,” Farr said.
Months before the opening, Farr shared, “I really want [the bar] to be a place for people who aren’t out or in unsafe situations where they can’t disclose their sexuality to family or others they live with—where they can give a sly little wave and say, ‘I’m just going to hang out at The Neighbor’s.’”
Despite the attack, the bar resumed normal business hours right away. Farr expressed gratitude that the incident wasn’t worse.
“We’re very fortunate that nobody was inside,” Farr said. “However, there are apartments above, and those residents don’t deserve this either. They could have been seriously injured.”
“I wish people would set aside their personal biases in this situation,” the local police chief stated.
Police in Madison, Wisconsin, have urged the public to stop speculating about the gender identity of the individual responsible for the tragic shooting at Abundant Life Christian School on Monday. The shooting resulted in three fatalities, including the suspected shooter, and left six others injured. Among those expressing condolences for the victims were openly gay U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI) and lesbian Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI).
The suspect, 15-year-old student Natalie Rupnow, opened fire with a handgun around 11 a.m. local time in a study hall, according to CNN. She took her own life, as well as that of a teacher and a student, and left six others injured, two of whom remain in critical condition. Authorities have not yet released any details regarding the shooter’s gender identity or the motive behind the attack. However, transphobic groups have wrongfully used this incident to spread false claims that the shooter was transgender, aiming to further stigmatize the trans community as dangerous.
“I don’t know whether the shooter was transgender or not,” Police Chief Shone Barnes stated during a press conference on Monday evening. “I don’t think whatever happened today has anything to do with how she or he or they may have wanted to identify.”
Barnes emphasized, “I wish people would leave their own personal biases out of this. Whether or not she was, he was, or they were transgender is something that may come out later. But for what we’re doing right now, eight hours after a mass shooting, it is of no consequence.”
While there have been reports suggesting that Rupnow may have left behind writings later shared online by someone claiming to be connected to her, police have not yet verified the authenticity of these writings. The suspected shooter’s parents are reportedly cooperating with investigators and, at this time, face no legal charges, according to authorities.
There have been at least 83 school shootings in the U.S. so far this year, CNN reports. In the aftermath of some incidents, right-wing figures have spread misinformation about the shooters identifying as transgender.
Following Monday’s shooting, anti-LGBTQ+ activist Chaya Raichik, known for running the LibsOfTikTok account, shared a video of Chief Barnes using different pronouns to refer to the shooter. Raichik suggested that Barnes did so due to Rupnow’s gender identity.
In early January, Raichik made a similar claim, posting misinformation that suggested five recent school shooters had identified as nonbinary or transgender. Her image also falsely asserted that the 2022 Uvalde, Texas school shooter was transgender—this was not the case, and the person shown posing with a trans flag in her image was not the actual shooter.
The transphobic billionaire Elon Musk amplified Raichik’s inaccurate post, commenting with “!!” to further spread the misinformation.
In response to the recent shooting, Rep. Pocan issued a statement: “‘Thoughts and prayers’ offer comfort to the families and communities affected but have not changed our unique reality as Americans. It’s time for action. I am a co-sponsor of several gun violence prevention and youth mental health bills that will help prevent future tragedies like this. It’s time for my Republican colleagues to grow a backbone and put our children above the gun lobby by passing commonsense gun safety laws that will save countless lives.”
He continued, “My heart goes out to the victims of the Abundant Life Christian School shooting, their loved ones, and our entire community.” He also expressed gratitude toward the police and first responders who assisted the school.
Sen. Baldwin shared her thoughts on X, saying that her “heart breaks” for the community, which has been “scarred forever.” She added, “My thoughts are with the families mourning, the injured, the teachers and staff, and the entire Madison community that has been traumatized by this senseless gun violence.”
“No one in America should have to suffer like this—let alone kids in school,” she wrote. “I refuse to sit idly by and am committed to being part of the solution to end the scourge of gun violence.”
Echoing the false claims about a trans shooter, right-wing figures like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO), and former Fox News host Tucker Carlson have repeatedly argued that trans people are dangerous because they are “mentally ill.” These transphobes assert that transgender individuals are mentally unstable and seek to “groom” and “sexualize” children with what they call “gender ideology,” which they claim confuses and coerces kids into pursuing “irreversible” medical procedures that will “mutilate” them for life. Boebert has even suggested that affirming trans people’s identities directly contributes to school shootings.
However, the truth is that the vast majority of mass shooters in the U.S. are cisgender males. The right-wing focus on linking trans identity to violence and mental illness often serves to stigmatize queer individuals while distracting from the real issue—gun control. Proposals for stronger gun regulations are often ignored, despite their potential to prevent mass shootings in the first place.
A CNN analyst criticized conservatives for scapegoating trans people in the wake of school shootings. Rather than focusing on the shooter’s gender identity, the analyst emphasized the need to address broader issues, such as mental health, child protection, school security, and firearm safety reforms, as essential steps in preventing future tragedies.
Residents sought councilmembers focused on solving real issues rather than spreading fear.
Voters in Odessa, Texas, have decisively rejected the city’s anti-trans stance by ousting three city council members who backed the controversial bathroom ban and electing the city’s first openly gay councilmember.
Craig Stoker, the executive director of the local Meals on Wheels, ran on a platform centered around improving the city’s infrastructure. In contrast, his opponent, incumbent Denise Swanner, focused her campaign on homophobic rhetoric.
Swanner’s campaign distributed political mailers stating that the only thing she and Stoker had in common was being in relationships with men. Although the race was nonpartisan, this was part of Swanner’s effort to associate Stoker with the Democratic Party.
Craig Stoker remained unfazed by the attacks during the campaign.
“None of it was truly about me,” Stoker told the Texas Tribune. “It was their fear of losing a seat, losing an election, losing the title. I came into this campaign with the mindset that I’m going to have to rely on the work I’ve done in the community and the reputation I’ve built preceding me. That’s all I got.”
He added, “I understood the outcome was too important. If I could pull this off, what I would have the ability to do completely outweighed whatever they were slinging at me. And the ability to represent people who have probably never had a voice in the City Council chamber became too important to me.”
Stoker’s strategy resonated with voters. He secured the at-large seat with 56% of the vote, a remarkable achievement in a county where Donald Trump earned 76% of the vote.
His opponent, Denise Swanner, and two other incumbents—Mayor Javier Joven and councilmember Mark Matta—were key figures in a conservative majority on the six-member council. This group had pushed an agenda that included a $10,000 bounty on transgender individuals who use bathrooms or locker rooms not aligned with their sex assigned at birth.
“Voters said this is not how we want our city run… I agree, and we have to do a better job for the people,” said Cal Hendrick, who defeated Joven, in an interview with the Odessa American, which had dubbed the trio “The Squad.”
The election results have sparked hope among residents that city leadership will pivot away from divisive social issues and refocus on critical local concerns like infrastructure.
Odessa gained national attention for its extreme anti-trans bathroom ordinance, which allows any individual—regardless of residency—to sue a transgender person for at least $10,000 in damages for using a bathroom not aligned with their sex assigned at birth. There is no limit on the potential damages.
Last month, the city council expanded the ordinance to apply to private facilities in addition to public ones. The law also enforces criminal penalties, deeming violations a Class C misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $500. Refusal to leave a bathroom after being asked can result in trespassing charges.
The ordinance defines biological sex based on birth certificates, whether issued at birth or amended for clerical errors. This means transgender individuals with updated birth certificates reflecting their gender identity could still violate the law if they use bathrooms aligning with their gender.
The election marks a significant shift in Odessa’s political landscape and a potential turning point for the city’s future direction.
The activists, part of the group Trans Kids Deserve Better, staged an overnight protest outside the Department of Health and Social Care offices.
In response to the announcement by Health Secretary Wes Streeting and the Department of Health and Social Care that puberty blockers for treating gender dysphoria in trans youth would be banned “indefinitely,” a group of trans youth activists set up a temporary encampment outside Streeting’s office. On December 11, Trans Kids Deserve Better and their supporters set up camp outside Wes Streeting’s office, remaining there overnight until the following day, according to an Instagram post from the group. While puberty blockers have effectively been banned in the U.K. since May, when the Department of Health and Social Care imposed an “emergency ban” on the medication for trans youth, Streeting’s recent announcement on Wednesday further extended the ban. He stated that the National Health Service (NHS) and private doctors are prohibited from prescribing or supplying puberty blockers to trans youth for gender dysphoria treatment until 2027. However, existing prescriptions for trans youth will continue to be honored. In contrast, cisgender youth experiencing precocious puberty are still permitted to receive prescriptions for the blockers.
In an article for Huck Magazine, one of the group’s activists, known as Grin, wrote that “while today isn’t a big change, it is a sign that the denial of our healthcare is now institutionalized.” Gender clinics in the U.K. have faced criticism for notoriously long waiting times, with an August study revealing that trans youth wait an average of two years to begin receiving gender-affirming care.
Grin wrote that Streeting “has promised ‘clinical trials’ on the effects of hormone blockers.” However, many clinical studies on the subject already exist, and the overwhelming majority conclude that hormone blockers are beneficial to the well-being of trans youth.
“But we already know what happens when we get them. We get to live happier, healthier lives because our bodies won’t be permanently altered in ways we don’t want,” Grin continued. “The real trial or experiment he has now created is to keep us from our healthcare and see what happens when an entire generation of trans people grows up knowing the trauma they’ve gone through was avoidable. I’ve not consented to be part of that experiment — I just wanted healthcare.”
The group has been targeting Streeting since August as part of a separate campaign called Trans Kids Are Dying, Wes Streeting. According to Grin’s article in Huck Magazine, the group has visited the secretary’s office daily since July, delivering “handmade paper coffins” to symbolize the lives of trans people already lost and those still at risk. Grin also mentioned that the group had received an invitation to meet with Streeting, but that it “never happened,” despite “constant emails to follow up on his invitation.”
On this occasion, the activists left a life-sized cardboard coffin outside Streeting’s office, as detailed in an Instagram post by Jude Guitamacchi, who participated in the overnight protest.
In their Instagram caption, they wrote, “This healthcare ban starts with trans+ kids but won’t end with them. This is about all of us. We must work together and do everything we can to challenge the ban and fight for the human rights of the trans+ community in the UK.”
Military Veterans, Families, and Service Members with Transgender Children Decry NDAA Provision as a ‘Slap in the Face’
Military veterans, active-duty service members, and families with transgender children are condemning a provision in Congress’s annual defense policy bill that targets certain medical treatments for transgender minors, calling it a “slap in the face” based on misinformation and a lack of understanding about the transgender community.
The provision, included in the compromised version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) negotiated by the House and Senate, would block TRICARE, the military’s health insurance program, from covering gender dysphoria treatments for minors that could potentially lead to sterilization, applying to individuals under the age of 18.
Senate Provision Would Have Explicitly Banned Coverage for Gender-Affirming Hormone Therapy and Puberty Blockers for Minors
A more specific provision, adopted by the Senate Armed Services Committee in its defense bill in July, sought to explicitly prohibit coverage for “affirming hormone therapy” and puberty blockers, as well as other medical treatments for gender dysphoria—distress stemming from a mismatch between an individual’s gender identity and sex assigned at birth—if they “could result in sterilization” for minors.
Hormone treatments, which typically involve doses of testosterone or estrogen, can have mixed effects on fertility, while puberty blockers, used to delay physical changes like breast development or voice deepening, are not known to significantly affect fertility on their own.
Branden Marty, a Navy veteran with a transgender daughter, criticized such policies, noting that they reflect a broader failure to listen to medical experts. “With policies like this, and we’ve seen them in states and at the federal level, legislators and politicians and leaders within our system of government are not listening to experts,” Marty said.
He emphasized that gender-affirming care is about working with healthcare professionals to provide support to families, helping transgender and nonbinary children understand their identities, and ensuring they can live healthy, fulfilling lives at school and home. “It’s about helping a child understand themselves and develop a positive self-appreciation,” he added.
Major Medical Groups Affirm Gender-Affirming Care as Medically Necessary, Lifesaving, and Essential
Leading medical organizations have consistently stated that gender-affirming healthcare for both transgender adults and minors is medically necessary and can be lifesaving. These groups strongly oppose efforts by state and federal governments to restrict access to such treatments, arguing that they are essential for the well-being and mental health of transgender individuals.
Other GOP-backed proposals to reverse the Pentagon’s abortion travel policy and prohibit TRICARE from covering gender-affirming care for transgender service members were removed from the final version of the bill. This suggests that Republicans believe the ban on care for transgender minors will be sufficient to secure broader support for the measure, even if other contentious provisions are excluded.
Democrats Push Back Against NDAA Over Transgender Care Prohibition; White House Remains Silent on Veto
At least one Democrat, House Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Adam Smith (D-Wash.), has announced he will vote against the NDAA over its prohibition on gender-affirming care for transgender minors. Other Democrats, including Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.), also refused to advance the bill on Tuesday, citing the “ideological riders” attached to the legislation, which typically enjoys bipartisan support.
On Tuesday, House Armed Services Committee Chair Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) stated that he disagreed with the inclusion of the healthcare provision in the final NDAA and was not involved in its decision. However, he stopped short of opposing the overall $883.7 billion defense package.
The White House has not yet indicated whether President Biden, who has previously pledged to veto legislation that discriminates against transgender people, would sign the bill in its current form.
Speaker Mike Johnson Defends NDAA Provision as Victory for Troops; Air Force Chief Disagrees on “Lethality” Impact
During a news conference on Tuesday, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) hailed the provision barring TRICARE coverage for gender-affirming care for minors as a victory “for our troops and for our country.”
“We spent a lot of time and effort working on it,” Johnson said of the negotiated NDAA text, emphasizing that service members and their families deserve the best support possible. In a statement on Sunday, Johnson argued that “woke ideology” had infiltrated the military, and that permanently banning transgender medical treatment for minors would help refocus the military on “lethality.”
However, an Air Force chief, who requested anonymity due to his active-duty status, expressed disagreement with Johnson’s characterization, stating that he saw no connection between the provision and improving the “lethality” of the U.S. armed services.
Air Force Chief and Spouse Criticize NDAA Provision, Argue It Undermines Military Readiness
“As someone who has served for over 20 years and is involved in high-level decision-making on the morale, health, welfare, training, readiness, and equipping of service members, I cannot link those things,” said an Air Force chief, identified only as “J,” in an interview with The Hill.
“I don’t understand how he [Speaker Johnson] comes to that conclusion, because, in my mind, it doesn’t make sense at all. Taking away something that families are relying on distracts us from the mission and the task at hand to remain as lethal as we are,” said J, whose teenage daughter is transgender and currently receives medical care covered by TRICARE.
J’s spouse, referred to only as “H,” also weighed in, criticizing the provision’s potential impact on military families. “You can’t say this is going to help our military when you’re scaring military families,” H said, expressing concern about the stress and uncertainty the provision could create for service members and their loved ones.
Military Families Weigh Impact of NDAA Provision on Health Care and Future Service
If the NDAA passes in its current form, “J” and “H,” who live on the West Coast, are considering supplemental health insurance or paying out-of-pocket for their child’s care—options that could put significant strain on the family’s finances. With more than two decades of military service and just two-and-a-half years remaining on his commitment, “J” is also rethinking his future in the military.
“I have a strong desire and propensity to continue to serve, but this will definitely weigh on my and my family’s decision to continue serving,” said “J.” “It’s difficult, but my family’s got to come first.”
Ann, a military veteran and spouse of a senior Pentagon officer, echoed similar concerns. Her teenage son is transgender, and she explained that the latest NDAA adds another layer of complexity to their family’s ability to relocate and maintain stability. Ann, who requested to be identified only by her middle name due to her husband’s active duty status, expressed frustration with the uncertainty the provision creates for families like hers.
Military Families Feel Increasing Pressure as Gender-Affirming Care Restrictions Spread
“The country is kind of closing in on us, like we’re running out of places to go,” Ann said, reflecting on the growing restrictions surrounding gender-affirming care. “Especially with something like the NDAA and just seeing the writing on the wall about a national ban on gender-affirming care.” She referenced one of President-elect Trump’s campaign promises, adding, “The little safety bubbles are getting smaller and smaller.”
Since 2021, more than half of the U.S. states have either heavily restricted or outright banned some forms of transition-related care for minors—and, in some cases, adults. The Supreme Court also appears poised to uphold a Tennessee law that bans gender-affirming care for youth, further escalating concerns among families in similar situations.
Ann, a military veteran who served eight years, including a 15-month combat tour in Iraq, and her husband, a four-time combat deployer who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, have spent roughly five years apart due to their service. The couple now faces the additional strain of navigating an increasingly hostile landscape for transgender care while managing the demands of military life.
Transgender Child Thriving with Gender-Affirming Care, but Family Faces Uncertainty with NDAA Provision
Now relocated to Virginia, Ann shared that her transgender child is “thriving” with the support of gender-affirming care provided through TRICARE. He enjoys fencing, watching sports, and playing in his school’s band. Academically, he has excelled, though Ann noted that his geometry class this year has been a bit “humbling.”
“Trans kids are kids. They are, the overwhelming majority, thriving and doing well and contributing to their community,” Ann said. “They’re happy and they’re healthy, and that’s like all that parents want, right?”
However, while Ann’s husband is not yet ready to retire, the potential loss of coverage for their son’s care would force the family to rethink their future. “If coverage for our son’s healthcare is taken away, that’s pretty much marking the end of the road,” Ann said, expressing the deep uncertainty and frustration many military families like hers are grappling with in light of the proposed policy changes.
Military Spouses Express Concern Over NDAA Provision and Its Impact on Transgender Service Members and Their Families
“If that’s the way we’re going to be treated … if that’s the tone that Congress and the government wants to set, then that’s pretty unfortunate,” said Ann, reflecting on the potential consequences of the NDAA provision. “You’re going to lose combat experience; you’re going to lose leaders with decades of valuable experience that the military needs.” She continued, “It’s a scary world out there, so it’s a pretty sad state of affairs for our national security that you’re going to ask folks to make that decision and not support their families.”
“C,” a veteran spouse whose husband served in the military for 26 years, described the NDAA’s gender-affirming care provision as “an enormous slap in the face.” She, too, has concerns about the direction the military is taking. “C” requested that she be identified only by her first initial because her transgender child, now an adult, is not publicly out as trans.
“C” and her husband both come from military families, and their child had plans to follow in their footsteps with a military career. But with the ban on TRICARE coverage for transgender healthcare and the looming possibility that President-elect Trump may reinstate a policy barring transgender people from serving openly, “C” worries about whether the military will remain a safe place for her child. “It’s all they’ve ever wanted — to be like their dad, to carry on a family tradition of service to the country,” she said. “I don’t think I can truly even express how devastating it would be for them to not be able to fulfill those dreams.”
Similarly, “B,” a military spouse from the Southwest, expressed concern about the long-term implications of the NDAA provision. While the measure doesn’t directly affect her own daughter, an 18-year-old college student, she fears it could set a troubling precedent. “This is kind of a slippery slope,” said “B,” who requested anonymity because her husband, an airman, is actively serving. “If this becomes the first federal law to prevent transgender youth from getting this healthcare, what’s to stop [Congress] from removing TRICARE coverage for trans people of all ages?”
“B” continued, “I do get concerned about that moving forward, that this could impact my daughter, this could impact older trans adults. I don’t know where this ends, so I think it’s a really dangerous road to start down.”
Her daughter, who has been accessing gender-affirming care through TRICARE, came out to “B” and her husband when she was just 12. “It was a very steep learning curve for us … I had never even heard the word ‘cisgender’ before,” said “B.” They sought advice from medical professionals, mental health providers, and other parents before making the decision to support their daughter’s medical transition. “This wasn’t something that we went into blindly or quickly,” she emphasized.
In 2021, while living in Texas, the family was forced to split up after the state began investigating parents who provided their children with gender-affirming medical treatments, with Republican Gov. Greg Abbott calling it “abusive.” “B” fled Texas with their daughter, who had to restart her senior year of high school, while “B”’s husband, unable to leave his post, stayed behind. The family has since reunited, but “B” declined to disclose their current location, citing privacy and safety concerns.
“My spouse is active-duty military. If these lawmakers saw him in the hallway in Congress, they would shake his hand and thank him for his service,” said “B.” “They trust him with sensitive information, and they trust him with the security of the nation, but somehow they can’t trust him with making informed medical decisions for his own child?”
Gay Spanish teacher has won $90,000 after suing her school district for allegedly punishing her for supporting LGBTQ+ students.
Eileen Brennock filed a lawsuit claiming she was subjected to a hostile work environment at Mountain View Middle School in Oregon’s Newberg School District. According to Brennock, the hostility stemmed from her speaking out against Principal Terry McElligot, who, she alleges, told staff at a September 2021 meeting that it was unacceptable to tell students it is okay to be LGBTQ+, as reported by Oregon Live/The Oregonian.
She also claims the now-retired administrator instructed staff not to display Black Lives Matter or Pride signs in their classrooms to avoid “poking the bear.” At the time, the school board had recently implemented a policy banning both types of displays, though a judge later ruled that policy unconstitutional a year after its enactment. The lawsuit claims that after the meeting, Brennock reported McElligot’s alleged statements to Assistant Principal Lindsey Kopacek, who dismissed her concerns, telling Brennock that McElligot never made those comments and that she must have imagined them “due to cortisol and stress levels.”
Brennock responded that if a student told her they were gay, she would say, “Me too!”
Following this exchange, the lawsuit states that Brennock endured a hostile work environment and filed a complaint with the Oregon Department of Education. Even after the department ruled in her favor, Brennock allegedly continued to face harassment from school officials. The department found that the school had violated its agreement, failing, among other things, to implement required staff training on LGBTQ+ issues.
Brennock also accused the district’s former superintendent, Stephens Phillips, of using a gay slur. She further claimed that the district altered the wording in an anti-discrimination presentation to refer to LGBTQ+ identities as a “lifestyle” and LGBTQ+ people as being from the “opposite side of the fence.”
The school district denied McElligot’s use of hateful language at the staff meeting but argued that even if she had said it, it wouldn’t have been discriminatory because it was “not intended to be.”
The Oregon Department of Education disagreed, stating in its ruling that the district “misunderstands what constitutes discrimination under the law.” The ruling emphasized that the alleged comments “clearly articulated that teacher conduct toward students belonging to certain protected classes should be different than conduct toward other students.”
Although the school district did not admit liability in the settlement, it agreed to publicly commit to fostering an inclusive environment for both students and staff. The district also promised to make discrimination complaint forms available online and in print starting the next school year.
Mace faces accusations of staging a “self-serving publicity stunt.”
A 33-year-old man has been arrested for allegedly assaulting Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) in retaliation for her recent opposition to trans rights.
“I was physically accosted at the Capitol tonight by a pro-tr*ns man,” Mace wrote on X. It’s unclear why she chose to censor the word “trans,” but given her outspoken anti-trans views, she may be signaling that she considers it a term to be stigmatized.
“One new brace for my wrist and some ice for my arm and it’ll heal just fine,” she continued. “The Capitol police arrested the guy. Your tr*ns violence and threats on my life will only make me double down. FAFO. #HoldTheLine.”
A statement from U.S. Capitol Police confirmed that foster youth advocate James McIntyre of Illinois was arrested for allegedly assaulting Mace after lawfully entering the building through security. According to sources who spoke to Axios, the incident occurred during an event for the Foster Youth Caucus, of which Mace is a co-chair.
However, three eyewitnesses have accused Mace of fabricating the assault, claiming that she and McIntyre simply exchanged a standard handshake, during which he asked the Congresswoman to protect trans rights.
“From what I saw, it was a normal handshake and interaction that I would expect any legislator to have with a constituent,” former foster youth and LGBTQ+ rights advocate Elliot Hinkle told Imprint.
Hinkle further noted that McIntyre’s arrest – he is also a former foster youth – sends a troubling message: “It sends a chilling effect of, you’re not actually safe to go to Capitol Hill and share an opinion that is true for you, that isn’t violent — because right now if you do, a congressperson might say that they were physically assaulted and call the police on you. So how would a young person in care feel safe?”
In a Facebook post, foster youth advocate Lisa Dickson expressed her frustration with Mace’s actions at the event: “I want to express deep disappointment in the fact that Congresswoman Nancy Mace came to a national foster youth event, told participating youth that it was a safe space — and literally had one of them arrested by Capitol police for simply shaking her hand and asking about trans rights.”
She added in a follow-up: “Today was not the day or the time for a self-serving publicity stunt – especially not a politician lashing out at a vulnerable young person who just took her at her word that, when helping foster youth, ‘all suggestions are welcome.’”
Mace, who has long espoused anti-trans views, has escalated her rhetoric since trans Rep.-elect Sarah McBride (D-DE) won her race for Congress in November.
In response to McBride becoming the first trans person ever elected to Congress, Mace introduced a resolution to ban trans women from using women’s facilities at the Capitol, as well as legislation to bar trans people from using restrooms on all federal property. This comes despite the fact that trans people have been working at and visiting the Capitol for years without incident, and McBride, as a member of Congress, would receive her own private bathroom.
Although Mace’s resolution has not yet been voted on, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) has already instituted a rule prohibiting trans people from using restrooms that correspond with their gender at the Capitol complex.
Over the past several weeks, Mace has continued to escalate her anti-trans rhetoric, even casually using an anti-trans slur in reference to protestors.
After a group of trans rights protestors demonstrated against her, she filmed a social media video in which she said, “Alright, so some tr***y protestors showed up at the Capitol today to protest my bathroom bill, but they got arrested, poor things. So I have a message for the protestors who got arrested. You ready?”
She then took out a bullhorn, despite already being audible through her microphone, and proceeded to read the standard Miranda rights into the bullhorn while facing a police officer. “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.”
Her use of the slur sparked widespread backlash.
And now, it appears that Mace is regularly using the bigoted term in her rhetoric.
“My staff has arrived to another wonderful morning in Washington, DC. Good morning, tr*nnies. #HoldTheLine” — Rep. Nancy Mace (@RepNancyMace), December 9, 2024.
Mace has been leveraging transphobia as a cornerstone of her political career since before she was elected to Congress. In her first campaign, she falsely claimed that a law requiring “transgender equality in the military” existed, blaming her Democratic opponent for it and suggesting that it would result in a Marine Corps base in her district being shut down. The claim was entirely fabricated—no such law existed, and the Marine base remains operational today—but it helped her secure a seat in Congress.
In her second run for office, Mace ran an ad accusing her opponent of providing “SEX CHANGE SURGERY. PUBERTY BLOCKERS. GENDER CHANGING HORMONES. FOR CHILDREN?” Despite the fact that her opponent was a doctor at a hospital that did not provide gender-affirming care, the smear campaign was effective, leading to the opponent’s forced resignation.
Mace’s record on LGBTQ+ rights is abysmal, scoring just 15 and 14 out of 100 on the Human Rights Campaign’s Congressional Scorecard. She has voted against the Equality Act, which would ban federal discrimination against LGBTQ+ people, and opposed the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act because it included protections for transgender inmates.
In her ongoing crusade against trans rights, Mace has referred to Rep.-elect Sarah McBride (D-DE) as “it” and as a “man,” and has made efforts to block McBride from using women’s restrooms at the Capitol. In addition, she has started selling anti-trans t-shirts and has stated that it’s “offensive” for McBride to believe she is “equal” to other congresswomen.
You must be logged in to post a comment.