Category: LGBTQrights

How Feasible Are Trump’s Anti-LGBTQ+ Threats? We Consulted Legal Experts

This blog is originally appeared at Them

Trump has pledged to eliminate gender-affirming care for trans youth, ban trans kids from participating in sports, and erase trans people from public life. Is he actually able to carry out these promises?

As the second Trump administration starts to take form, civil rights advocates are bracing for a new wave of attacks on the LGBTQ+ community. During his first term, Trump’s White House enacted over 200 policies that harmed LGBTQ+ equality, including the ban on openly trans individuals serving in the military, cuts to HIV/AIDS funding, and the repeal of protections for trans patients seeking healthcare and trans individuals in need of emergency shelter.

Trump has made it clear that he intends to continue reversing LGBTQ+ rights once he returns to the White House in January. On his 2024 campaign website, the president-elect outlined an aggressive agenda targeting fundamental rights and protections for LGBTQ+ people. This includes a ban on gender-affirming medical care for trans youth, federal “Don’t Say Gay” policies restricting LGBTQ+ discussions in schools, a nationwide ban on trans student-athletes competing according to their gender identity, and a federal law defining gender as binary and assigned at birth—measures that would have far-reaching consequences for trans, nonbinary, and intersex Americans.

Civil rights groups say they are already bracing for the upcoming battle as Trump assembles a diverse group of anti-LGBTQ+ nominees for his Cabinet. What will bolster his administration’s power to push its far-right agenda is the GOP’s control over all three branches of government: six of the nine Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republican presidents, and conservatives will hold majorities in both houses of Congress for the first time since 2016.

Them spoke with legal experts to assess how feasible Trump’s anti-LGBTQ+ threats are and what strategies advocates might use to fight back. Despite the challenges ahead, Ezra Cukor, co-interim legal director of Advocates for Trans Equality, remains hopeful, believing this is merely “one chapter in a story of trans folks being a part of civil society in the United States.”

“There have been moments of joy, and there have been moments of challenge,” he tells Them. “In this moment, I’m just grateful to be part of a broader civil rights fabric, knowing that there’s a long history of trans folks insisting on our basic rights and working for our liberation and that there are many of us in this together.”

Ending Gender-Affirming Care for Trans Youth

In a January 2023 video posted on his Truth Social platform, Trump vowed to launch an all-out assault on gender-affirming healthcare for trans youth. He called on Congress to pass a law banning “child sexual mutilation” in all 50 states and pledged to cut Medicaid and Medicare funding to any hospital providing gender-affirming care to minors. Trump also promised to instruct the Department of Justice to investigate whether medical providers had “deliberately covered up horrific long-term side effects” of transition care for youth, and he vowed to support a “private right of action” for patients who might later regret the transition treatments they received as children. (This, despite the fact that rates of transition regret are notably low.)

Civil rights groups are already preparing for the fight ahead as Trump selects a range of anti-LGBTQ+ nominees for his Cabinet. What will strengthen his administration’s ability to push its far-right agenda is the GOP’s control over all three branches of government: six of the nine Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republican presidents, and conservatives will hold majorities in both houses of Congress for the first time since 2016.

Them spoke with legal experts to gauge how feasible Trump’s anti-LGBTQ+ threats truly are and what actions advocates might take to resist them. Despite the significant challenges, Ezra Cukor, co-interim legal director of Advocates for Trans Equality, remains hopeful, viewing this moment as “one chapter in a story of trans folks being a part of civil society in the United States.”

“There have been moments of joy, and there have been moments of challenge,” Cukor tells Them. “In this moment, I’m just grateful to be part of a broader civil rights fabric, knowing that there’s a long history of trans folks insisting on our basic rights and working for our liberation, and that there are many of us in this together.”

Ending Gender-Affirming Care for Trans Youth

In a January 2023 video posted on his Truth Social platform, Trump promised to launch a full-scale assault on gender-affirming healthcare for trans youth. He called on Congress to pass a law banning “child sexual mutilation” across all 50 states and vowed to eliminate Medicaid and Medicare funding for hospitals providing gender-affirming care to minors. Trump also pledged to direct the Department of Justice to investigate whether medical providers had “deliberately covered up horrific long-term side effects” of transition care for youth, and he expressed support for a “private right of action” for patients who might later regret their transition treatments. (This, despite the fact that regret rates for transition treatments are extremely low.)

Sasha Buchert, a senior attorney with Lambda Legal, argues that the push for a national trans sports ban exposes the hypocrisy of Republicans’ long-standing stance that LGBTQ+ educational policies should be decided at the state and local level. “Once the far right gets in power, suddenly they feel like they should be imposing their beliefs on the rest of the country,” Buchert tells Them, pointing to the 26 state attorneys general who opposed the Biden administration’s interpretation that Title IX protects trans students from discrimination. “These issues aren’t in isolation. They’re part of a widespread onslaught of attacks targeting the trans community and specifically trans youth.”

Given the potential for a filibuster, Buchert predicts Trump will not wait for Congress to act, instead seeking “immediate gratification” to appease his base. She expects him to issue an executive order that would bar trans students from protection under Title IX, echoing the early days of his first term, when his Department of Education repealed Obama-era guidance that required schools to treat trans students in accordance with their gender identity.

Buchert vowed that Lambda Legal would challenge such an order in court, pointing out that courts have consistently ruled against targeted sports bans, which they view as discriminatory toward trans athletes. Anti-trans sports laws in Arizona and Idaho have been blocked by the courts for now, while the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals blocked West Virginia from preventing a trans student, Becky Pepper-Jackson, a 14-year-old middle school runner, from competing. (West Virginia intends to appeal that ruling to the Supreme Court.)

“The federal courts have agreed that it really does deprive [trans student athletes] and harm them by not allowing them to participate,” Buchert says. “The argument that they can still play on a boys’ team or intramural team doesn’t hold any water. The courts have seen right through that. It’s like saying before marriage equality: ‘You can still get married. You just can’t get married to somebody of the same gender.’”

Enacting National “Don’t Say Gay” Policies

Trump has also pledged to implement broader policies targeting LGBTQ+ students in schools, including “Don’t Say Gay”-style restrictions in the classroom and regulations that would force teachers to out trans students to their parents. His 2024 platform promises to “protect the rights of parents from being forced to allow their minor child to assume a gender” without their consent, frequently repeating false claims that schools are transitioning children without their families’ knowledge. “Can you imagine you’re a parent and your son leaves the house and you say, ‘Jimmy, I love you so much. Go have a good day in school,’ and your son comes back with a brutal operation?” Trump asked at a Wisconsin rally. “Can you even imagine this? What the hell is wrong with our country?”

Should Trump push his proposed policies through Department of Education regulations or an executive order, Chris Erchull, a staff attorney with the LGBTQ+ advocacy group GLAD, believes the legal system will stand with queer students. He points out that courts have long held that all students are “entitled to a full education.” “You go all the way back to the promise of Brown v. Board of Education, which said that separate education is not equal education,” he tells Them, referencing the landmark 1954 Supreme Court ruling that desegregated schools by race. “Those principles apply when we’re talking about the rights of LGBTQ+ students today. For students to get a complete education, they need to see themselves represented. You can’t suppress their identities in the classroom, or you’ll be depriving them of that.”

Erchull also notes that in the past year, advocates have won several key victories in the fight against anti-LGBTQ+ restrictions in schools. In March, Florida settled a lawsuit that rolled back parts of its “Don’t Say Gay” law, narrowing the scope of the state’s regulations. The law was so broadly worded that school districts, fearing lawsuits for noncompliance, had applied it to nearly all aspects of campus life, including student clubs like Gender-Sexuality Alliances. Just two months later, a New Hampshire district court ruled that an anti-LGBTQ+ law restricting classroom discussions in the state was “unconstitutionally vague.”

“Those are really powerful examples of how the courts can step up and be a voice of reason amidst attempts to undermine public education,” Erchull says. “There’s this zero-sum thinking where, if LGBTQ+ students are represented and seen, that’s depriving other people of something, and that’s not true at all. What research shows is that inclusive and supportive school environments benefit all students.”

Federal Law Erasing Trans People

Trump’s campaign website promises that, if re-elected, he will push Congress to pass a law defining gender as strictly male and female, assigned at birth. This pledge echoes a policy from his first presidency, when the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) attempted to narrow the federal definition of gender to “immutable biological traits identifiable by or before birth.” A 2018 memo reportedly circulated within HHS stated that “the sex listed on a person’s birth certificate, as originally issued, shall constitute definitive proof of a person’s sex unless rebutted by reliable genetic evidence.”

Passing a federal bill through Congress to define trans people out of existence would be unprecedented, requiring support from both houses to succeed. Sarah Warbelow, legal director at the Human Rights Campaign, notes that LGBTQ+ advocates have already seen the potential impact of such policies through laws enacted at the state level. In May 2023, Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte (R) signed a law redefining sex as strictly male or female in portions of the state code. While that statute was struck down by a district court earlier this year, Kansas and Tennessee still have similar mandates in place.

Warbelow emphasizes that these types of restrictions have far-reaching consequences on trans people’s daily lives, impacting their ability to obtain identity documents and access spaces that align with their identities. However, she also points out that the full implications of such laws are unclear. After Kansas passed its 2023 law redefining gender, Attorney General Kris Kobach (R) claimed that schools were required to out trans students to their parents, even though the law did not explicitly state this. Warbelow notes that “there are huge unknowns” about how a federal law erasing trans identities would be interpreted or applied, whether by the courts, individual states, or schools.

“It becomes unclear how it would be operationalized,” she tells Them. “To the extent that it is interpreted broadly, it could have ramifications for non-discrimination laws. In Bostock, the Supreme Court interpreted the term ‘sex’ to be broadly understood as including LGBTQ+ people in the context of non-discrimination laws, so it could potentially eliminate those legal protections for LGBTQ+ people in the future.”

That’s why Warbelow says that the Human Rights Campaign, as the nation’s largest LGBTQ+ organization, is exploring “every option” to counter Trump’s anti-trans agenda. She adds that if litigation becomes necessary, the organization will likely invoke constitutional protections related to free speech, equal protection under the law, and due process to challenge a federal redefinition of gender. “We know it’s going to be incredibly tough work, but we have no choice but to fight,” she asserts. “We’ve got to throw our all at preserving democracy and the rights of LGBTQ+ people.”

0

MAGA Education Official Instructs Schools to Show Video of Him Praying for Donald Trump

This blog is originally appeared at LGBTQ Nation


The Oklahoma Superintendent of Schools recently spent $25,000 in state funds on Trump Bibles.

Ryan Walters, the controversial Oklahoma Superintendent of Schools, has directed school districts statewide to show a video of him praying for President-elect Donald Trump. This unusual and politically charged directive, issued amidst a recall effort against Walters, has sparked strong opposition from local school administrators. The video and accompanying order were sent out to schools on Thursday.

At least seven major Oklahoma school districts announced Friday that they will not show a video in which Superintendent Ryan Walters discusses the objectives of his newly established Office of Religious Liberty and Patriotism, concluding with a prayer for former and future President Donald Trump.

The video, which carries a highly partisan tone, criticizes the “radical left” for attacking religious freedom in schools and accuses teacher unions of undermining patriotism.

“We will not tolerate that in any school in Oklahoma,” Walters declares in the video. “We want our students to be patriotic. We want our students to love this country, and we want all students’ religious liberty to be protected.”

The video wraps up with a prayer in which Walters asks for divine guidance for the nation’s leaders and specifically prays for Trump and his team.

“Dear God, thank you for all the blessings you’ve given our country. I pray for our leaders to make the right decisions. I pray in particular for Donald Trump and his team as they continue to bring about change to the country,” Walters says.

Edmond Public Schools Superintendent Angela Grunewald informed parents on Friday that her district will not disrupt its locally approved curriculum to show Walters’ video.

Grunewald emphasized that her district will continue to teach the Oklahoma state standards and the curriculum set by the local school board. “Any changes to that would be based on local decisions,” she said, citing a recent ruling by the Oklahoma Supreme Court that upheld the authority of local school districts to make such decisions.

Similarly, Midwest City-Del City Public Schools Superintendent Rick Cobb told the Oklahoma Voice that his district will not show the video. “We do not believe he has the statutory authority to require us to share this content,” Cobb said.

The Oklahoma Attorney General’s Office supported this stance, declaring the mandate unenforceable. “Not only is this edict unenforceable, it is contrary to parents’ rights, local control, and individual free-exercise rights,” said Attorney General spokesperson Phil Bacharach.

Newly sworn-in Democratic state Sen. Mark Mann, a former member of the Oklahoma City Board of Education, also urged other districts to resist the mandate. “When Oklahoma needs to make gains in reading and math scores, the last thing we need to be doing is pushing the superintendent’s blatant, self-serving political agenda,” Mann remarked.

Walters’ controversial order, which is seen as unenforceable, accompanies his ongoing effort to distribute 55,000 Bibles to Oklahoma schools. On the same day his prayer video was released, Walters posted another video celebrating the arrival of the first 500 Bibles in AP Government classrooms.

Walters’ budget request was specifically aimed at purchasing a version of the Bible known as the “Trump Bible,” which combines the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Old and New Testaments into a single Christian nationalist text. The initial purchase of these Bibles amounted to $25,000.

Walters has been mentioned as a potential candidate for Secretary of Education in Trump’s second-term Cabinet. Both Walters and Trump have advocated for the abolition of the U.S. Department of Education.

0

Twenty-four states submit an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to prohibit transgender girls from participating in women’s sports

This blog is originally appeared at LGBTQ Nation

There is no conclusive evidence to support the claim that transgender girls possess a substantial biological advantage in sports.

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, along with attorneys general from 23 other states, filed an amicus brief advocating for the prohibition of transgender girls participating in sports.

The brief specifically requests the Supreme Court to review and overturn an injunction issued by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which had blocked Arizona’s ban on transgender athletes.

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall collaborated with Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin to draft the amicus brief, with support from attorneys general in 22 other states, including Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming.

The injunction being challenged was issued in September by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a unanimous 3-0 decision. This injunction blocked Arizona’s Save Women’s Sports Act, a law imposing a blanket ban on transgender girls participating in girls’ sports, regardless of their transition timeline or use of puberty blockers. The lawsuit challenging the law was filed by two transgender girls and their parents seeking to overturn the ban.

In the court’s decision, Judge Morgan Christen wrote, “[The law] permits all students other than transgender women and girls to play on teams consistent with their gender identities. Transgender women and girls alone are barred from doing so. This is the essence of discrimination.”

The amicus brief presented several arguments in favor of the ban. One claim was that implementing policies allowing transgender girls to join girls’ sports teams would be costly and logistically difficult for schools—despite evidence showing that many schools nationwide have successfully adopted trans-inclusive policies without significant challenges.

The brief also asserted that sex and gender identity are not equivalent under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, a stance that contradicts legal precedent established in Bostock v. Clayton County. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that protections against sex-based discrimination include transgender individuals due to their gender identity.

Additionally, the attorneys general argued that the Circuit Court’s ruling was legally flawed. They suggested that the decision could be interpreted in ways more favorable to their case and called for a rational-basis review. This review would evaluate whether the plaintiffs’ claims were consistent with constitutional equal protection principles or whether they failed to meet that standard.

It remains uncertain whether these arguments will prevail. The Supreme Court has not announced whether it will hear this case. However, the Court has already agreed to consider United States v. Skrmetti, which will address the legality of state bans on gender-affirming care for minors.

Evidence does not support claims that transgender girls have a significant biological advantage in sports. In fact, studies indicate that transitioning, including the use of puberty blockers, can mitigate differences and create a fairer playing field.

Despite this, anti-trans rhetoric continues to shape these legal battles. “Our coalition is determined to preserve the 50 years of work that expanded opportunities and leveled the playing field for girls and women in sports,” Attorney General Marshall stated in a press release.

He added, “But the left continues to pander to a small minority of their base… Parents of daughters are rightfully outraged at the loss of positions on teams and college scholarships. As our multiple briefs to the Supreme Court show, it’s time to return to fairness in opportunity for sports.”

0

Ohio Senate Approves Controversial Transgender Bathroom Ban

This blog is originally appeared at LGBTQ Nation

The bill affects all students across the state and will limit the rights of thousands of transgender individuals if signed into law by the governor.

On Wednesday, the Ohio State Senate approved Senate Bill 104, a transgender bathroom ban for all students in the state, including those in higher education.

Titled the “Protect All Students Act,” the bill passed with a 24-7 vote, strictly along party lines.

The bill states, “A school shall designate each student restroom, locker room, changing room, or shower room that is accessible by multiple students at the same time, whether located in a school building or in a facility used by the school for a school-sponsored activity, for the exclusive use by students of the male biological sex only or by students of the female biological sex only.”

The bill will soon be sent to Governor Mike DeWine (R) for either approval or veto. While he is expected to sign it, the Associated Press reports that he will first conduct a legal review.

The ban exempts school faculty, children under 10 who require family assistance, and individuals with disabilities.

Rather than defining gender, the bill relies on the concept of biological sex, which it defines as “the biological indication of male and female, including sex chromosomes, naturally occurring sex hormones, gonads, and nonambiguous internal and external genitalia present at birth, without regard to an individual’s psychological, chosen, or subjective experience of gender.”

The bill does not address or provide exceptions for intersex individuals, who do not fit neatly into traditional biological sex categories.

The Ohio Center for Christian Virtue strongly supports the bill. “Today is a huge victory for children and families in Ohio,” said David Mahan, the group’s policy director, calling it “common-sense legislation.”

However, Jocelyn Rosnick, Policy Director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, expressed strong opposition. “We are incredibly disheartened by the Ohio General Assembly’s continuous attacks against transgender and gender non-conforming individuals across Ohio. Senate Bill 104 is a cruel invasion of students’ rights to privacy, which could result in unwarranted governmental disclosures of private, personal information.”

She added, “If allowed to go into effect, SB 104 will create unsafe environments for trans and gender non-conforming individuals of all ages. This bill ignores the material reality that transgender people endure higher rates of sexual violence and assaults, particularly while using public restrooms, than people who are not transgender. All Ohioans deserve to access the facilities they need, in alignment with their gender identity, without fear of harassment or bullying. The ACLU of Ohio remains steadfast in our commitment to standing with trans Ohioans and is closely considering next steps.”

0

Lawmakers Are Rising to Defend Trans Kids Following Trump’s Election Victory

This blog is originally appeared at Them.

“‘I will always stand with trans people and the entire LGBTQ+ community. This Congresswoman sees you and loves you,’ said Rep. Ayanna Pressley.”

It’s clear that a potential second term for Donald Trump would have devastating consequences for queer and trans Americans.

The accused rapist and his party have been outspoken in their opposition to trans rights. According to data from Ad Impact, reported by Washington Post’s Casey Parks on November 5, Republicans spent nearly $215 million on anti-trans ads during the 2024 election cycle. On Trump’s 2024 campaign website, he pledged to redefine gender at the federal level, recognizing only male and female as assigned at birth, and to push for a nationwide ban on gender-affirming care for minors.

To make matters worse, Democrats like New York Rep. Tom Suozzi and Massachusetts Rep. Seth Moulton chose to scapegoat trans people for their party’s failure to win the presidency, House, or Senate.

Despite the troubling implications of the 2024 elections, many Democratic politicians have made it clear that supporting the trans community is a top priority, regardless of what the next four years bring.

From calling out transphobia within their own party to working to enshrine LGBTQ+ protections at the state level, these leaders are standing up for trans rights.

Gov. JB Pritzker and State Rep. Kelly Cassidy (Illinois)
Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker reaffirmed his commitment to LGBTQ+ Americans in a tweet, declaring that Illinois would remain “a refuge for those whose rights are denied elsewhere.”

Pritzker went on to specifically highlight the communities he’s standing with, including “those seeking reproductive healthcare, immigrants working hard for a better life, LGBTQ+ Americans looking for protection, and people with disabilities whose civil and human rights are under attack.

Meanwhile, Illinois State Rep. Kelly Cassidy recently told the Chicago Sun-Times that a coalition of state lawmakers has been working to protect access to trans and reproductive healthcare since the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022. Now, this coalition is examining Project 2025 to assess what additional protections they can put in place in the near future.

Cassidy mentioned that one key issue the coalition hopes to address before the fall legislative session concludes is the use of geolocators to track individuals who access healthcare facilities.

Gov. Gavin Newsom (California)

On November 7, California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced a special session of the California Legislature, set to begin on December 2. This session will focus on strengthening California’s legal resources to safeguard climate action, civil rights, immigrant families, and reproductive freedom in response to Trump’s reelection.

According to a release from Newsom’s office, this special session is a direct response to the public statements and proposals made by President-elect Trump and his advisors, as well as actions taken during his first term. These efforts, Newsom’s office warns, could threaten essential freedoms and individual rights, including women’s rights and LGBTQ+ rights.

In 2023, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed nine LGBTQ+ rights bills into law in just a few days, despite vetoing a bill that would have provided stronger protections for trans children in custody and visitation cases. Earlier this year, he also signed the Support Academic Future and Educators for Today’s Youth Act (SAFETY Act), which prohibits schools from implementing policies that require staff to out students to their parents. The law also mandates the California Department of Education to create resources for LGBTQ+ students and their families.

Salem City Councilor Kyle Davis (Massachusetts)
Salem, Massachusetts City Councilor Kyle Davis called out Massachusetts Rep. Seth Moulton in a series of X posts after Moulton made transphobic remarks to the New York Times.

In an interview with the Times on November 7, Moulton stated, “I have two little girls, I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete. But as a Democrat, I’m supposed to be afraid to say that.”

The following day, Davis responded strongly on X, not holding back in his critique.

‘Resign @sethmoulton,’” he tweeted on November 8. Shortly after, he followed up with a second post, stating, “I’m not looking for an apology from @sethmoulton, I’m looking for a resignation.

On November 11, Davis posted a gif of a woman named Jenn holding the progress Pride flag, with the caption, ‘@Sethmoulton represents this district. He does not represent me.’

The city councilor went on to question the timing of Moulton’s remarks in an interview with the Boston Globe last week.

“With all the things Trump has said about trans people, this is a time when the trans community is feeling a lot of fear,” Davis said.

State Senator Jamie Eldridge (Massachusetts)
Massachusetts Senator Jamie Eldridge also spoke out against Moulton’s transphobic comments. On November 8, Eldridge took to X to share a link to a Boston Globe article highlighting local Democrats who were condemning Moulton’s remarks.

As a legislator fighting for #LGBTQ rights—from marriage equality to #transgender rights to the #ParentageAct—and with pride in Massachusetts being a welcoming state, I condemn Cong. Moulton’s comments on transgender athletes,” Eldridge wrote. “@MassDems do not abandon our values.”

Rep. Becca Balint (Vermont)
Vermont Rep. Becca Balint succinctly summed up the sentiment in a November 9 X post, writing, “Leave trans kids alone.

When Balint was elected in 2022, she made history as the first openly LGBTQ+ person and the first woman elected to Congress from Vermont.

Rep. Ayanna Pressley (Massachusetts)
Massachusetts Rep. Ayanna Pressley reinforced her commitment to the trans and LGBTQ+ communities in a November 10 X post, reaffirming her unwavering support.

This election wasn’t the first time we’ve seen the trans community scapegoated and dehumanized, but know this: I will always stand with trans people and the entire LGBTQ+ community,” she wrote. “This Congresswoman sees you and loves you.

Attorney General Rob Bonta (California)
On November 5, California Attorney General Rob Bonta—who, last year, sued a school district in his state to block a policy requiring teachers to out trans students to their parents—told Cal Matters that his office is already preparing legal challenges to the incoming Trump administration. Bonta’s team has preemptively drafted briefs and tested arguments to counter policies they anticipate Trump will push during his second term, including those that could undermine civil rights for trans youth.

“Unfortunately, it’s a long list [of issues],” the attorney general said. “We are and have been for months developing strategies for all of those things.”

0

At least 36 transgender individuals have been killed in the U.S. this year, with half of the victims being Black transgender women

This blog is originally appeared at Them.



A new report sheds light on the “epidemic of violence” targeting transgender and gender non-conforming individuals.


This article addresses violence against transgender individuals and includes references to graphic content.

The epidemic of fatal violence against transgender individuals in the United States shows no signs of slowing down, with the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) documenting at least 36 killings over the past year. Half of these victims, including Honee Daniels, Kassim Omar, Redd, Vanity Williams, and others, were Black trans women.

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC), which has been tracking the murders of transgender individuals since 2013, released its 2024 report on the “Epidemic of Violence Against the Transgender & Gender-Expansive Community in the U.S.” on Tuesday. The report covers deaths between the day after Trans Day of Remembrance 2023 (November 21, 2023) and November 20, 2024. HRC highlighted that a disproportionate number of victims in the past year were young people of color—75% of all victims were people of color, and 54.3% were under the age of 35. Among the youngest victims was 14-year-old Pauly Likens, a trans girl who was tragically killed and dismembered in her Pennsylvania hometown in June, marking the youngest recorded death. Other young trans victims included 18-year-old Jazzlyn Johnson and 17-year-old Tayy Dior Thomas.

Tori Cooper, Director of Community Engagement for the Transgender Justice Initiative at HRC, stated that transphobia is fueled by disinformation, rhetoric, and ideologies that treat the transgender community as political tools, ignoring their right to live free from fear of harm or death. She pointed out the “disturbing reality” that half of the victims were Black trans women, a reflection of the ways in which racism, misogynoir, sexism, transphobia, and other societal issues disproportionately affect the trans community.

Cooper concluded, “In spite of these tragedies, I choose to remember the beauty brought to the world by those victims who left this earth far too soon and will celebrate their memories by continuing to fight for them through the Trans Justice Initiative’s advocacy and our leadership development work.”

While the statistics in the report are bleak, there was one slightly positive development. According to the report, 41.7% of victims were initially misgendered by the media or law enforcement. While still a significant number, this is the lowest percentage the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) has recorded since it began tracking this data in 2013. However, the report also highlights some alarming “firsts.” For the first time since 2013, transgender individuals were killed in Minnesota, Utah, and Nevada.

The HRC notes that the report is released at a critical moment for the transgender community in the U.S. Last June, for the first time in its history, the organization declared a state of emergency for LGBTQ+ Americans, citing the unprecedented number of anti-LGBTQ+ bills introduced in state legislatures across the country that year. The report also reflects the broader political climate, with former President Donald Trump, who ran on a platform that scapegoated trans people and pledged to ban gender-affirming care for trans youth, recently re-elected. His administration has appointed numerous anti-trans figures, such as Elon Musk, JD Vance, and Matt Gaetz, to key positions in the White House.

0

The Great LGBTQ+ Migration: Escaping Red States

This blog is originally appeared at Texas Pride Realty

In recent years, an increasing number of LGBTQ+ individuals have been relocating from red states to blue states, and even abroad. This video examines the factors driving this migration, the challenges faced by those making the move, and the effects on both the places they leave and the communities they join. We’ll explore the political and social forces behind this trend, its economic implications, and the potential long-term consequences for both the LGBTQ+ community and society at large. Join us as we share the stories of those who’ve made this tough decision and the communities they’ve left behind.

0

The Great LGBTQ+ Migration: Moving from Red States to Blue States and Beyond

This blog is originally appeared at Texas Pride Realty

In recent years, an increasing number of LGBTQ+ individuals have been relocating from red states to blue states, and in some cases, even moving abroad. This video examines the factors behind this migration, the challenges faced by those making the move, and the effects on both the states they leave and those they settle in. We’ll explore the political and social forces fueling this exodus, the economic impacts, and the potential long-term consequences for the LGBTQ+ community and society at large. Join us as we share the personal stories of those who have made this difficult decision and reflect on the communities they’ve left behind.

https://www.FleeRedStates.com
https://www.LGBTQWorldMap.com

0

Key Points on Trump’s Radical Anti-LGBTQ+ Agenda for a Potential Second Term

This blog is originally appeared at THEM.

Donald Trump triumphed over Kamala Harris early Wednesday morning in a presidential election marked by the Republican candidate’s anti-trans and anti-immigrant rhetoric.

On what may go down as one of the darkest days in U.S. history, a twice-impeached former president, who is both an accused rapist and a convicted felon, has been elected to the White House once again.

Donald Trump defeated Vice President Kamala Harris early Wednesday morning in an election dominated by the Republican candidate’s anti-trans and anti-immigrant rhetoric. Trump secured crucial battleground states—North Carolina, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—after weeks of polling that showed him and Harris in a tight race.

“Trump was expected to declare victory even if he had lost, but his actual win now paves the way for what promises to be one of the most extreme presidential agendas in U.S. history. The consequences of another Trump presidency will be particularly dire for LGBTQ+ Americans, with his campaign platform outlining a full-scale assault on queer rights. On his 2024 campaign website, Trump vowed to implement a federal ban on gender-affirming care for minors and to redefine gender at the federal level, recognizing only male and female as legitimate genders—based solely on birth assignment. His platform also called for national “Don’t Say Gay” policies targeting LGBTQ+ students in schools and vowed to “keep men out of women’s sports.” Trump’s running mate, J.D. Vance, a former senator, introduced a bill that would imprison doctors who provide gender-affirming care to trans youth.

These policies would continue the trajectory of Trump’s first term, which was marked by a relentless assault on the LGBTQ+ community. Among the most significant actions were the ban on transgender people serving in the military, the removal of LGBTQ+ references from federal websites, the rollback of protections for trans students, and the opposition to workplace protections for LGBTQ+ employees. His administration also implemented a ban on people living with HIV from military deployment, disbanded the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS, and cut global funding for HIV prevention and treatment.

During his 2024 campaign, LGBTQ+ Americans were once again bombarded with anti-LGBTQ+ messaging. Trump ran on a platform of staunch opposition to trans rights, supported by millions of dollars in ads from right-wing groups that portrayed the trans community as a threat to public safety and decency. One of the most widely circulated ads of the election cycle declared: ‘Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you.’ In his first and only debate with Harris, Trump made headlines by falsely claiming that she supported ‘transgender operations on illegal aliens in prison’—a statement LGBTQ+ advocates later clarified was a misrepresentation of the legal requirement to provide medically necessary care to incarcerated individuals. He also falsely accused Harris’ running mate, Tim Walz, of being ‘very heavy into transgender issues.'”

As advocates have consistently warned, the impact of Trump returning to the White House will be devastating for many vulnerable and marginalized groups. While Trump has repeatedly wavered on whether he supports national restrictions on abortion and contraception following the 2022 overturning of Roe v. Wade, his running mate, J.D. Vance, has made it clear that he ‘would like abortion to be illegal nationally.’ Trump has also floated the idea of defunding schools that teach the history and legacy of slavery, and he has persistently called for the disbanding of the Department of Education. Furthermore, his mass deportation agenda, aimed at expelling thousands of undocumented workers from the U.S., would reportedly cost the federal government millions of dollars each year.

In addition to these proposals, Trump’s allies—such as House Speaker Mike Johnson—have signaled plans to launch another attempt to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. This could jeopardize critical healthcare protections for seniors, pregnant patients, people with disabilities, and LGBTQ+ individuals, potentially leaving millions without access to vital services.

While it will be months before a second Trump administration fully takes shape, the public already has a clear sense of how he plans to govern. Throughout his volatile presidential campaign, Trump vowed to act as a dictator ‘on day one,’ promising to dismiss Jack Smith, the special prosecutor overseeing numerous criminal cases against him. In recent weeks, he has suggested using the National Guard to target American citizens, even fantasizing about journalists being shot, while repeatedly labeling those who oppose his fascistic views as the ‘enemy from within.’ Trump has also reportedly offered key positions in his administration to figures like Elon Musk and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—the latter being an outspoken conspiracy theorist who has advocated for banning vaccines and removing fluoride from public drinking water.

In response to the looming threat of a second Trump term, some LGBTQ+ U.S. residents—particularly families of trans youth—have already fled the country out of fear for their safety and well-being. However, many others who would be directly impacted by his policies will not have the privilege of leaving. As during his first presidency, LGBTQ+ advocates are expected to continue their fight through the courts, the legislature, and public protests, standing firm against a wave of harmful policies that threaten their rights and freedoms.

0

LGBTQ+ rights have long been at the mercy of public opinion. This November will be no different.

This blog is originally appeared at LGBTQ Nation.

LGBTQ+ ballot initiatives have long served as a wedge issue, mobilizing conservative voters and influencing the rights and freedoms typically protected by law. The 2024 election follows this tradition, with LGBTQ+ civil rights once again being subjected to public debate.

In New York, voters will decide whether to include sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression in the state’s anti-discrimination amendment. Meanwhile, reproductive rights will also be up for a vote in 10 other states.

California, Colorado, and Hawaii voters will decide this November whether to repeal their states’ constitutional bans on same-sex marriage.

Since 1998, same-sex unions have consistently been the top issue on state referendums. In that time, 34 states have put the question to voters, with many passing constitutional amendments that prohibited same-sex marriage. These amendments were often used as a political tool to mobilize conservative voters, particularly in the 2004 election when 11 states approved such bans, helping to boost George W. Bush’s campaign.

Marriage equality consistently lost at the ballot box until 2012, when voters in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington approved same-sex marriage, signaling a shift in public opinion that had been building since around 2009, when support for same-sex marriage crossed the 50% threshold in national polls.

In 2015, the Supreme Court’s landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision struck down all state constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage, declaring such bans unconstitutional. However, these amendments remain in place in several state constitutions. Activists are now pushing to repeal them, especially in light of concerns that the conservative-leaning Supreme Court could overturn Obergefell, as Justice Clarence Thomas hinted after the court struck down Roe v. Wade.

The Origins of Ballot Initiatives on LGBTQ+ Rights

California’s 1978 election introduced the first state ballot initiative related to LGBTQ+ rights—Proposition 6, also known as the Briggs Initiative. Sponsored by Orange County legislator John Briggs, the initiative sought to ban anyone who engaged in “public homosexual activity” from working in California public schools. The proposal was part of a broader wave of anti-gay activism spurred by Anita Bryant’s 1977 “Save Our Children” campaign in Florida, which successfully repealed Dade County’s anti-discrimination ordinance based on sexual orientation. Harvey Milk played a pivotal role in organizing the opposition to Prop 6, which was defeated by a 16-point margin.

Since then, other states have introduced ballot initiatives aimed at legalizing or banning discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Over time, voters have increasingly supported anti-discrimination measures. In 1988, Oregon voters overturned the governor’s authority to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation. In 2018, Massachusetts voters upheld a law prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity.

Maine and Oregon: Key States in the Fight for LGBTQ+ Rights

Maine and Oregon have consistently put LGBTQ+ rights to a vote. In Maine, voters initially blocked same-sex marriage in 2009, but then approved it by the same 53% margin in 2012. Maine also rejected anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination protections in 1998 and 2000, only to approve them in 2005. In Oregon, voters defeated a “don’t say gay” measure in 2000 by a narrow 5.7% margin.

Many states also used ballot measures to resist the inclusion of sexual orientation as a protected identity in anti-discrimination laws. In the 1990s, voters in Oregon, Idaho, and Maine approved such measures, protecting sexual orientation as a legally recognized identity.

The Impact of Other Ballot Measures on LGBTQ+ Rights

It’s not just LGBTQ+-specific ballot measures that impact the community. Other laws, such as voter ID requirements in Arkansas and North Carolina, disproportionately affect trans individuals and other marginalized LGBTQ+ people, limiting their ability to vote.

In addition to these referendums, the candidates voters elect at the state level will play a critical role in shaping LGBTQ+ rights. Republican-led legislatures have introduced or passed hundreds of bills targeting LGBTQ+ individuals, particularly in areas such as gender-affirming health care, bathroom access, inclusive education, and sports participation. Supporting state-level and local candidates who champion LGBTQ+ rights will have long-term implications, even if certain issues are not directly decided by referendum.

Civil Rights and Public Opinion

The fight for civil rights has a long history of being put to public referendum. Since 1868, issues related to race, sex, and disability have often been decided by voters, with initial support for discrimination gradually giving way to support for equality. While women’s rights gained public approval in the 1970s, LGBTQ+ rights did not see widespread support until the 2000s.

The question of whether civil rights should be determined by public opinion, rather than by courts or legislatures, has allowed forms of discrimination—such as racism, sexism, and homophobia—to become entrenched in law. Although public opinion on LGBTQ+ rights is often divided and fluid, most polls now show a majority in favor of anti-discrimination laws for LGBTQ+ individuals.

The Importance of Voting

With LGBTQ+ rights on the ballot this November, it’s more crucial than ever to vote. In addition to ballot measures, the elected officials who hold office at the state and local levels will have the power to pass or block pro-equality legislation, impacting LGBTQ+ rights for years to come. Whether through referendums or legislative action, LGBTQ+ rights remain at stake, and your vote matters.

Make your voice heard—not just on ballot measures, but by choosing candidates who will protect and advance equality for all.

0

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑