The state Senate approved a bill Tuesday that includes multiple controversial LGBTQ policies. Democrats objected to a GOP move to add the proposals to a popular House bill, prompting a heated fight over the Senate’s rules.
The original version of House Bill 805 added new consent requirements for pornographic websites, and it got unanimous support from Democrats and Republicans. It would allow people who appear in sexually explicit photos and videos online the option to have them removed.
The Senate added a lot more. Its bill would allow lawsuits against medical providers over gender transitions, and change the definition of biological sex in state law to exclude gender identity. The new definitions would say that gender identity is “a subjective internal sense” that “shall not be treated as legally or biologically equivalent to sex.” The change could affect transgender people seeking to change their birth certificate.
Sen. Buck Newton, R-Wilson, is the bill’s sponsor. “We cannot ignore the biological realities, and we believe our state laws should reflect that,” he said. “Women are being systemically erased from our language, whether it’s changing words from pregnant women to pregnant person, or mother to a birthing parent.”
The bill would also require schools to provide parents with a list of school library books and allow the parents to ban their children from checking out specific titles.
But Senate Minority Leader Sydney Batch says the new provisions are harmful, and it means the original pornography bill likely won’t make it to the governor’s desk.
“When my Republican colleagues loaded this bill with culture war amendments, they didn’t just distract from the problem, they made it impossible to solve,” she said.
The bill put Democrats in the difficult position of voting against legislation titled “Prevent Sexual Exploitation.” Instead of voting no, they took an unusual approach. Asked to vote yes or no, most responded “I vote present.”
Sen. Ralph Hise, R-Mitchell, that’s not an option in the state Senate.
“Notice, you have a green button and a red button, not an extra ‘whatever I came up with today’ button,” he said. “Those are the options under the Senate rules.”
The dispute put a lengthy delay on the vote as senators paged through their rulebooks. Batch said the only law she could find requiring legislators to vote yes or no dates to the 1700s.
“What it does say, if we don’t actually move and we don’t discharge our duty, which I assume that my colleagues are saying today, it’s a $10 fine,” she said, brandishing a stack of cash on the Senate floor. “I have $10 for every single one of the members in my caucus who voted present.”
But Republicans decided to count the present votes as excused absences, so on paper, Tuesday’s vote looks nearly unanimous in support of the controversial bill. It’s unclear if House Republicans will approve the Senate’s version of the bill.
Even if the House doesn’t take it up, Wednesday’s vote could wind up in campaign ads next year. “This was about elections and mailers and things like that,” said Sen. Lisa Grafstein, D-Wake. “You can already see, somebody didn’t get the memo, and they’ve been attacking members on voting no, when we did not vote no. That’s absolutely what it’s about.”
For the past nine years, the transgender flag was included among those that flew around the Stonewall National Monument in Christopher Park during Pride Month. However, the National Park Service(NPS) will no longer be displaying the Transgender Pride flag or the Progress Pride flag, stating a change of protocol as the reason.
The New York City monument commemorating the Stonewall Uprising of 1969 is the first U.S. National Monument dedicated to LGBTQ+ rights, having been designated as such in 2016 by then-President Barack Obama. It has since become tradition for the monument, located in a park across the street from the Stonewall Inn, to be adorned with various Pride flags, including the trans flag. NPS funds the installation of these flags. This year, however, NPS told photographer, advocate, and installation creator Steven Love Mendez that the park will not allow Trans or Progress Pride flags this year.
The censorious move comes after the Trump administration wiped all references to trans and nonbinary people from the monument’s website in February, as part of his wider initiative to purge trans and nonbinary people from all references and resources provided by the federal government. The removal of trans people from a monument in which a transgender person was considered a key figure has led to outrage, with many coming to the monument to protest.
Speaking to CBS, Mendez comments, “It’s a terrible action for them to take.” he continues, “I used to be listed as an LGBTQ activist, and now it says ‘Steven Menendez, LGB activist,’” Menendez said. “They took out the Q and the T.”
The trans-exclusionary initialism of “LGB” is sometimes used by transphobes to encourage a social and ideological split between gay, lesbian, and bisexual people and transgender people, based on their differing gender experiences.
Upon learning of the monument’s trans erasure, many New Yorkers and tourists came to the monument to set up unauthorized pride flags in protest, including smaller trans flags planted in the soil.
Jay Edinin of Queens, New York, was one of the people who brought his own flag and told CBS, “I’m not going to stand by and watch us be erased from our own history, from our own communities, and from the visibility that we desperately need right now.”
Willa Kingsford of Portland, Oregon, stated, “I think it’s absurd. I think it’s petty,”
Patty Carter of Los Angeles, California, stated, “It’s horrible. They’re changing all of our history.”
The Stonewall Riots, to which the monument is dedicated, to began on June 28, 1969. During that time law enforcement commonly raided queer bars since New York had outlawed homosexuality and “cross-dressing.” During the raid at the Stonewall Inn, the LGBTQ+ community decided they had reached their tipping point and fought back against law enforcement. The resulting six days riots were said to have marked the beginning of the LGBTQ+ rights movement and became the reason why Pride Month is celebrated in June.
Two of the most notable figures in this uprising were Marsha P. Johnson and Sylvia Rivera, both trans women. It is believed that Johnson instigated the riot by throwing a brick at a police officer. Rivera is also considered to be a key instigator; she is said to be one of the first people to fight back against the police, to which many quote her as saying, “I’m not missing a minute of this—it’s the revolution!”
Anne Isabella Coombes, a 67-year-old transgender female swimmer, swam topless with her breasts exposed at the Cornwall County Masters swim meet as a protest to being forced to compete with cisgender men by Swim England, the UK’s governing body overseeing the country’s competitive swimming.
Swim England told Coombes she was no longer eligible to compete in the women’s category, despite her doing so in 2022 and 2023. So the organization placed her in a new “open” category where trans female and nonbinary competitors swim against cis men. Swim England replaced its men’s category with its open category starting in September 2023, to “negate… post-puberty transgender females[‘]… biological level of performance advantage post-transition,” the organization wrote.
“It is widely recognised that fairness of competition must be protected and Swim England believes the creation of open and female categories is the best way to achieve this,” the organization said upon announcing the new policy. “The updated policy ensures there are entry-level competitive opportunities for transgender people to participate in the majority of our disciplines within their gender identity.”
When Coombes asked what she’d be required to wear during swim meets in the “open” category, Swim England informed her that she would “need to wear a female swimming costume despite having to compete with the men, which ‘outs’ me as a woman who is transgender,” she told The Reading Chronicle.
“I explained to the person on the phone that they are not allowed to do that, and he didn’t have an answer,” she added, saying that the swimsuit requirement compelled her to stop competitively swimming until 2025. She only resumed in order to protest Swim England’s policies, which say that competitors’ swimwear must be in “good moral taste.”
She said the organization told her that she can swim in a men’s swimsuit without having to ask in advance for a referee’s permission, but that the referee can disqualify her if they choose.
“Deciding on whether exposing my breasts is in ‘good moral taste’ or whether I need to cover them up so that ‘those involved in competitive swimming are appropriately safeguarded’ is an entirely subjective decision of the referee,” she told the aforementioned company.
“In other words, I could turn up to the competition and run the risk of not being able to compete in whichever costume I intend to wear,” she continued. “No other swimmer has this concern. These regulations also mean that Swim England is treating me as a male by default.”
The Reading Chronicle didn’t say whether the referee disqualified her for her protest.
“I’m trying to show the world that this policy isn’t thought through, and it’s meant to hit trans people and nobody else,” she said. “I want to make it clear through this protest that trans people are not a threat when it comes to sport. We aren’t winning everything, and if we started to, then I would be first in line to discuss other options. Right now, it is a non-issue.”
Numerous competitive sports’ governing bodies have recently changed their policies to ban trans women from competing against cis women in the name of fairness — despite previously having policies that allowed trans athletes using hormone therapy to compete with members of their own gender identity.
Critics of these policies say that they mostly harm female athletes who could be subjected to invasive medical investigations in order to prove their gender. Critics also say that these policy changes add to social stigma that vilifies trans female athletes as a threat to women’s rights and do nothing to address the sexism, abuse, and lack of funding that actually harm cis female athletes.
Coombes said she has been protesting against the recent UK high court ruling that the legal definition of a woman under the country’s 2010 Equality Act is based on “biological sex.” Though the court has said that trans women still have anti-discrimination protections under the law, the UK Human Rights Commission said in a confusing “guidance” that trans women can be excluded from “women-only” spaces in hospitals, shops, and restaurants, and trans men can be excluded from “men-only” spaces.
Coombes has spoken at protests against the ruling and told the aforementioned publication, “Most trans people just want to get on with their lives and be treated as the gender they are. But unfortunately, given what the Supreme Court has done, we need to stand up and say ‘I’m trans, I exist, and you’re not going to silence me.’ Existence is resistance.”
A Tennessee state law banning gender-affirming care for minors can stand, the US supreme court has ruled, a devastating loss for trans rights supporters in a case that could set a precedent for dozens of other lawsuits involving the rights of transgender children.
The case, United States v Skrmetti, was filed last year by three families of trans children and a provider of gender-affirming care. In oral arguments, the plaintiffs – as well as the US government, then helmed by Joe Biden – argued that Tennessee’s law constituted sex-based discrimination and thus violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Under Tennessee’s law, someone assigned female at birth could not be prescribed testosterone, but someone assigned male at birth could receive those drugs.
Tennessee, meanwhile, has argued that the ban is necessary to protect children from what it termed “experimental” medical treatment. During arguments, the conservative justices seemed sympathetic to that concern, although every major medical and mental health organization in the US has found that gender-affirming care can be evidence-based and medically necessary. These groups also oppose political bans on such care.
All six of the supreme court’s conservative justices joined in at least part of the decision to uphold the law, although several also wrote their own concurring opinions. In his majority decision, Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized that the ruling primarily rested on the justices’ finding that the law did not violate the equal protection clause, rather than on an ideological opposition to trans rights.
“This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field. The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound,” Roberts wrote. He added: “We leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.”
In recent years, the question of transgender children and their rights has consumed an outsized amount of rightwing political discourse. Since 2021,26 states have passed bans on gender-affirming care for minors, affecting nearly 40% of trans youth in the US. Twenty-six states have also outlawed trans kids from playing on sports teams that correspond with their gender identity.
Many of these restrictions have been paused by court challenges, but the supreme court’s decision could have vast implications for those lawsuits’ futures. A study by the Trevor Project, a mental health non-profit that aims to help LGBTQ+ kids, found that anti-trans laws are linked to a 72% increase of suicide attempts among trans and nonbinary youth.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the majority opinion, alongside Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan. Because the law discriminates on the basis of sex, Sotomayor argued in her dissent, it should face higher legal scrutiny than the majority decided to give it.
“Male (but not female) adolescents can receive medicines that help them look like boys, and female (but not male) adolescents can receive medicines that help them look like girls,” Sotomayor wrote. “By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims. In sadness, I dissent.”
A federal judge on Tuesday blocked President Donald Trump’s administration from refusing to issue passports to transgender and nonbinary Americans nationwide that reflect their gender identities.
U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick in Boston expanded, opens new tab a preliminary injunction she issued in April that allowed six transgender and nonbinary individuals who challenged the policy to obtain passports consistent with their gender identities or with an “X” sex designation while the lawsuit moves forward.
Kobick did so after concluding the policy the U.S. Department of State adopted pursuant to an executive order Trump signed likely discriminated on the basis of sex and was rooted in an irrational prejudice toward transgender Americans that violated the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment.
While Kobick’s April ruling was limited in its scope, the judge, an appointee of Democratic President Joe Biden, on Tuesday granted the case class action status and halted the policy’s enforcement against transgender, nonbinary and intersex passport holders.
Kobick said granting class action status to two categories of passport holders was appropriate given that the administration’s actions affected them uniformly “by preventing them from obtaining passports with a sex marker consistent with their gender identity.”
Li Nowlin-Sohl, a lawyer for the plaintiffs at the American Civil Liberties Union, called the ruling “a critical victory against discrimination and for equal justice under the law.”
White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly in a statement called the decision “yet another attempt by a rogue judge to thwart President Trump’s agenda and push radical gender ideology that defies biological truth.”
The case is one of several concerning an executive order Trump signed after returning to office on January 20 directing the government to recognize only two biologically distinct sexes, male and female.
The order also directed the State Department to change its policies to only issue passports that “accurately reflect the holder’s sex.”
The State Department subsequently changed its passport policy to “request the applicant’s biological sex at birth,” rather than permit applicants to self-identify their sex, and to only allow them to be listed as male or female.
Prior to Trump, the State Department for more than three decades allowed people to update the sex designation on their passports.
In 2022, the Biden administration allowed passport applicants to choose “X” as a neutral sex marker on their passport applications, as well as being able to self-select “M” or “F” for male or female.
The Trump administration is using its anti-trans actions to try to dismantle civil rights for both trans and cis women alike – and it’s taking an unusual route to do so.
The Department of Energy (DOE) is seeking to rescind the section of Title IX that says schools must allow students to play on sports teams with the opposite sex if there is no team for their sex available (unless the sport is a contact sport). The rule has allowed girls to play on boys’ teams in schools that don’t offer an equivalent girls’ team.
The DOE claims the policy “ignore[s] differences between the sexes which are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality” and says eliminating it aligns with Donald Trump’s anti-trans executive order, “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports.”
The rescission of the rule would only apply to schools that receive funding from the DOE, which provides money to some schools for research and other programs, such as its Renew America’s School grant to assist with energy upgrades.
What’s more, the administration is exploiting a loophole to try to rush the rule change through without the standard 60-day public comment period. The DOE is using a process called a direct final rule (DFR), which does not require the formal rulemaking process but is typically used for simple changes, such as form updates.
The DFR process allowed the rule change to take effect on July 15 unless “significant adverse comments” had been submitted by June 16. Thousands of comments were submitted, though they are not visible to the public. It’s not clear whether the rule will officially take effect.
If the rule does change, it will not only affect trans athletes. Schools that receive DOE funding will no longer be required to allow cisgender girls to play on boys’ teams when a girls’ team does not exist.
Shiwali Patel, senior director of safe and inclusive schools for the National Women’s Law Center, told K-12 Divethe change is “blatant sexism, and harmful to women and girls.”
″The Trump administration is trying to gut long-standing Title IX protections that intend to provide women and girls with more opportunities to play sports, and without following the legally required rulemaking process, no less.”
Patel added that the administration clearly “doesn’t actually care about ‘protecting’ women and girls,” as it has used this claim to justify its crusade against trans rights, especially when it comes to trans student-athletes.
Julia Martin, director of policy and government affairs at legal and consulting group The Bruman Group, explained that the administration was able to keep the proposed rule change under wraps for so long because no one would have expected it to come from the DOE, as the Department of Education typically handles these kinds of policies.
The proposed change, in fact, was slipped into the middle of a list of 47 so-called “burdensome and costly regulations” outlined in a DOE press release in May announcing the department’s plan for a major overhaul to puportedly “save the American people an estimated $11 billion and cut more than 125,000 words fro the Code of Federal Regulations.”
“Part of what I see happening is this sense of overwhelm,” Kel O’Hara, senior attorney for policy and education equity at Equal Rights Advocates, told HuffPost. “There’s so much happening that it’s hard to follow. [The Trump administration] is trying to put these things through back doors, which makes it hard for the people who normally keep an eye on these things to catch it.”
O’Hara said the administration’s use of the DFR process is also worrisome for the future of other civil rights protections. “The really concerning part from my perspective is that this could essentially provide a blueprint for dismantling civil rights protections across the board.”
A second proposed rule change also seeks to rescind similar Title IX protections for education programs. The administration is also using the DFR loophole to try to push this change through on the same timeline.
An East Side San Antonio council district will make history again with its incoming, temporary council member.
City Council voted 10-0 to select Leo Castillo, a social media and marketing manager for Thrive Youth Center, to serve as the interim District 2 council member while Councilman Jalen McKee-Rodriguez is out on his upcoming parental leave.
McKee-Rodriguez, who was the first openly gay man elected to the San Antonio City Council, believes Castillo will be the first openly transgender man to serve as a public official in Texas.
At least two transgender women have held public office in Texas before: former New Hope Mayor Jess Herbst and former Judge Phyllis Frye.
“Today is a huge win for our community and another reason to celebrate Pride Month,” McKee-Rodriguez said during the council meeting on Thursday. “At a time when our community is under attack, especially the trans community, this is going to be a — this was a historic vote.”
“I think this just definitely highlights the fact that, you know, trans people are people, and we deserve every opportunity like anybody else,” Castillo told reporters afterward. “And so I’m just really excited to sit with that and celebrate that with my community.”
Castillo was sworn in after Thursday’s vote but will not officially take the seat until Aug. 1. McKee-Rodriguez is expected to return to the council by the end of September.
Castillo and McKee-Rodriguez met at the University of Texas at San Antonio almost nine years ago, and Castillo has been a political volunteer for McKee-Rodriguez.
“It’s just been really incredible just following Jalen along on his journey. And so I thought, ‘you know what, I think I’d be the best person to step up,’” he said.
McKee-Rodriguez said it “just so happens” that Castillo is a member of the LGBTQ+ community
“Leo’s been a very strong member of our community,” McKee-Rodriguez said. “He’s been an advocate who’s organized around many of the same issues that I’ve organized around, including public safety reform, civic engagement, and LGBTQIA rights.”
No-fuss appointment
Though 12 other people applied for the position, including several who had run against McKee-Rodriguez in the past, Castillo cruised to his appointment.
After a first round of short interviews on Wednesday, the council could have chosen up to three finalists for further consideration. But after just 15 minutes of closed-door discussion, they tapped Castillo as the lone finalist.
Thursday’s interview process took roughly 10 minutes before the council officially appointed Castillo as the interim council member.
District 1 Councilwoman Sukh Kaur was away from her seat for the final vote, but she had supported his selection at Wednesday’s meeting.
Alicia Williams, McKee-Rodriguez’s director of constituent services, also told council members that the district staff preferred Castillo for the role, saying he had worked alongside the office “with consistency, humility, and deep care for the people of the district.”
These were the other applicants for the temporary position:
Ruben Arciniega — Certification specialist, ran for D2 council seat in 2019
Brian Benavidez — Owner of bike tour company
Joseph Bravo — Former chief of staff for former D7 Councilwoman Ana Sandoval
Dori Brown — Accountant, ran for D2 council seat in 2021
Chris Dawkins — President of marketing and advertising company, ran for D2 council seat in 2021
Eric Estrada — Nonprofit executive director
Anslem Gentle — Security consultant
Jennifer Martinez — Financial services executive
Stephen Parker — Retired, ran for city council in 1991
Rose Requenez-Hill — Retired, president of Government Hill Alliance, ran for D2 council seat in 2023 and 2025
Carla Sisco — IT business relationship manager, ran for D2 council seat in 2025
Kizzie Thomas — Educator, ran for D2 council seat in 2025
Decision to take leave
McKee-Rodriguez and his husband are expecting their first child, a baby girl, in July, during the council’s traditional recess.
Shortly after his re-election, McKee-Rodriguez announced he planned to take eight weeks of parental leave in August and September.
That falls during the hectic city budget process, when council members hammer out the details of the city’s multi-billion-dollar spending plan. McKee-Rodriguez has said he wants his district to have a voice if he can’t be there full-time.
“And so for me, it was most important that District 2 have a stable voice that was most aligned with mine and that they know that they can trust and rely on. And so… I’ve gotten a lot of positive feedback from that,” he told KSAT of his decision to take leave..
The situation appears to be unique in the city’s history.
“We are not aware of any previous temporary appointment to fill a seat during parental leave,” city spokesman Brian Chasnoff told KSAT after McKee-Rodriguez’s initial announcement.
The last time a council member temporarily vacated their seat was former District 10 Councilman Clayton Perry in the wake of a 2022 drunken hit-and-run crash.
Just over two weeks after Perry went on a leave of absence, the council chose former Councilman Mike Gallagher to fill in for him, following a similar selection process. Gallagher ended up serving six weeks before Perry returned to finish out his term.
While largely avoiding the same level of heated pushback of years’ past, Texas lawmakers passed several bills that give LGBTQ+ people in Texas, specifically transgender residents, less opportunity to receive care and maintain their identities in state records.
Texas legislators filed over 100 anti-trans bills through the session, some containing provisions that have been shot down in years’ prior while others proposed new restrictions. Less than 10 were ultimately approved by lawmakers.
The new bills that are likely to be signed by Gov. Greg Abbott represent a yearslong movement from state conservatives to find new ways to restrict the presence of trans and LGBTQ+ Texans, advocates say. The bills that failed may also be resurrected by lawmakers in future sessions. Here’s what to know.
State definitions of man and woman
Several bills filed in the Legislature aimed to craft legal definitions of sex and gender in addition to their target goals — but House Bill 229 makes that goal its sole purpose, establishing state definitions for male and female and applying those definitions across statute.
HB 229 defines a woman as “an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to produce ova,” and a man as “an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to fertilize the ova of a female.”
Most immediately, the bill will bolster an already existing block from stateagencies on changes to gender markers on state documents, which was backed by a nonbinding opinion from Attorney General Ken Paxton in March. The bill may also force those who have already switched their documents to match their identified gender to have changes reverted when they are renewed.
The longer-term effects of HB 229 are still not immediately apparent, as references to man and woman are used hundreds of times in statute and may ripple into other laws affecting people’s lives. Texas joins 13 other states that have also crafted their own definitions, and several other bills that also passed in the state have individual definitions for related terms like “biological sex.”
President Donald Trump issued an executive order named “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism” in January providing federal definitions of male and female. Similarly, HB 229 has been dubbed the “Women’s Bill of Rights” by supporters, claiming it protects women in the state from men invading their spaces.
Abbott released an executive order of his own shortly after Trump’s affirming the president’s directive, but did not provide his own definitions. In a May post on social media, the governor said he would immediately sign HB 229 into law.
New requirements for medical records and insurance coverage
Tightening the ability to change the gender on state records like drivers’ licenses has been a key issue for conservative lawmakers for years, and while HB 229 sets a precedent in disallowing new changes, another bill creates new requirements entirely. Senate Bill 1188 creates a new section on all state medical records listing patients’ assigned sex at birth and any physical sexual development disorders. It also bans changes to those gender markers for any reason other than clerical errors, and creates civil penalties for medical professionals who do change them.
House Democrats opposing the measure during floor discussion worried that SB 1188 may scare medical providers into inputting vague or inaccurate health information out of fear of fiscal or legal retribution. The bill does allow the new section to include information on a patients’ gender identity, however health care services must opt-in to provide it.
The bill also creates restrictions on where health care providers can store patient data and the physical servers they use to store them, and new regulations on how artificial intelligence can be used to create diagnoses.
SB 1188 is not the only bill opponents have said will create a chilling effect on the LGBTQ+ community. Some bills may be more immediate in blocking options people have to do things like change their state records, but others like SB 1188 and Senate Bill 1257 may reduce what resources are available. SB 1257 was signed by Abbott in May and mandates that insurance companies provide coverage for gender detransitioning care if they already cover gender transition care.
Proponents of the law claim it enforces responsibility onto insurance companies. The law is not a ban on gender-affirming care, however opponents worry it may act as one by incentivizing insurance companies to pull coverage altogether rather than take on potential new costs.
SB 1257 is the first legal mandate for detransition care in the United States, making Texas a testing ground for insurance companies’ appetite to keep or pull coverage. Similar bills in Arizona, Florida and Tennessee did not pass out of their respective state legislatures in 2024.
Less protections and resources for LGBTQ+ youth
Medical gender transition care for minors was banned in Texas by the Legislature in 2023, a restriction that was upheld by the state Supreme Court in 2024. House Bill 18, primarily an overhaul of rural health care including a rural pediatric mental health care program, bans minors from accessing its resources for gender-affirming mental health counseling “inconsistent with the child’s biological sex.”
The current gender transition care ban for minors does not include mental health services, only puberty blockers, hormone therapy and surgery, which is rare for those under 18. Another proposal headed to Abbott’s desk, House Bill 1106, asserts that parents who do not recognize or affirm their child’s gender identity cannot be held liable for abuse or neglect because of that lack of recognition.
More restrictions on LGBTQ+ presence in schools
Access to materials and resources related to LGBTQ+ subjects are also being restricted by legislators through two key bills primarily aimed at schools. Senate Bill 12 bans Texas schools from teaching about sexual orientation or gender identity and forbids student clubs “based on” those subjects.
The bill would prevent clubs like Gay-Straight Alliances and pride clubs, which are often tailored toward anti-bullying initiatives in schools. Opponents of the bill claim a ban on those clubs would cut off LGBTQ+ students from communities and resources that can save lives.
“One of the deadliest things that our youth go through is experiencing the perception at least of isolation, and GSAs are a powerful way that we can combat that and make sure that our youth are getting support,” said Ash Hall, ACLU Texas’ policy and advocacy strategist for LGBTQIA+ rights.
While SB 12 restricts instruction and student groups, Senate Bill 13 gives school boards and new advisory councils greater oversight to remove books from school libraries that go against “local community values.” Some lawmakers and advocates worry school boards and advisory councils would be able to restrict books containing LGBTQ+ material.
A third bill, Senate Bill 18, would have banned “drag-time story hours” at municipal libraries and cut funding to those who host them, however that bill was unintentionally killed by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick after a procedural error at the end of the Senate’s deadline to pass bills.
Bills that failed to pass
The small set of bills passed by legislators shift the state’s treatment of LGBTQ+ Texans significantly, but still represent a fraction of what lawmakers proposed. House Bill 239, this session’s bathroom ban bill, was one of the over 100 bills that did not survive and was never heard by lawmakers despite half of the House signing on as coauthors. House Bill 2704 sought a similar ban through private lawsuits rather than criminal charges, but was never picked up by lawmakers.
Also left unheard was House Bill 3817, filed by Rep. Tom Oliverson, R-Cypress, which would have created a new felony charge for “gender identity fraud” if a person represented themselves as a gender besides the one they were assigned at birth to state agencies or employers.
Advocates like Johnathan Gooch, communications director for Equality Texas, say that the Legislature has kept its course on anti-trans legislation for the last few sessions, and that bills that didn’t get picked up by legislators may be at the forefront of future sessions.
“We’re hearing rhetoric that we’ve heard for a very long time and just more, more bills, a variety of new ways to narrow the rights of trans people,” Gooch said. “It just doesn’t come as a mistake that the number of bills is escalating.”
Citing President Trump’s threat to cut off federal education funding for school districts that provide protections for LGBTQ people, school board members in the Montezuma-Cortez district in southwestern Colorado are poised to remove sexual orientation and gender identity from the district’s nondiscrimination policy.
“Our district uses federal grant monies and Trump has indicated those grants are at risk if any district continues to support certain previously protected classes like sexual orientation, gender expression, or gender identity,” Mike Lynch, a school board member and the policy committee chair, said at a board meeting late last month.
The proposed policy changes in Montezuma-Cortez represent just one example of how some Colorado school districts are rushing to comply — or over-comply — with federal ultimatums based on questionable legal foundations. Many legal experts say the Trump administration cannot, on its own, exclude transgender people from federal anti-discrimination law and that Colorado law, which includes protections for LGBTQ people, supersedes school district policy anyway.
But efforts to remove protections at the local level send harmful messages about who is valued and who isn’t, they say.
“I think it does damage to queer students because it signals that this school district … doesn’t believe that these students are worthy of protection,” Scott Skinner-Thompson, associate professor of law at the University of Colorado Boulder.
Montezuma-Cortez, a conservative-leaning district with about 2,400 students, has taken other steps to curtail LGBTQ symbols and school activities in recent years. The school board is scheduled to take a final vote on the proposed nondiscrimination policy on June 24.
MB McAfee, a retired social worker and district resident, said she doesn’t know of any case where federal funds were withheld by the Trump administration, but worries about that possibility, particularly when it comes to money for students with disabilities.
But she’s also angry about the proposed policy changes, calling them “another step toward exclusion.”
“If we do that,” she asked, “then what’s going to be next?”
School districts react to funding threats
Trump has targeted transgender rights since his first day in office. In January and February, he issued several executive orders on the topic, including one that describes sex as determined at conception and unchangeable and another that threatens to withhold federal funds from schools that allow transgender girls to play girls sports.
The Trump administration has moved to strip federal funding from Maine because that state allows transgender girls to compete on girls’ teams. A judge blocked the federal government from withholding school lunch money while the case continues.
So far, no school district has lost money because of policies protecting transgender students. But Lynch emphasized that risk when he explained the proposed policy revision to the school board in May.
Asked by Chalkbeat what executive order or federal guidance required the removal of “sexual orientation” from the policy, Lynch later said by email that he’d mistakenly cited the term when he spoke to the board about federal dollars being in jeopardy.
For now though, “sexual orientation” isn’t being restored to the policy, he said.
Montezuma-Cortez isn’t alone in making changes spurred by the Trump administration. Officials from several Colorado districts, including Woodland Park and District 49 near Colorado Springs, have cited Trump’s executive orders in pushing policy changes or other efforts aimed at revoking protections for transgender students.
In May, District 49 sued the state and the Colorado High School Activities Association arguing that Colorado law and the association’s policy violate students’ constitutional rights by allowing transgender youth to play on school sports teams that match their gender identity.
Montezuma-Cortez school board members had little to say about the implications of the proposed nondiscrimination policy changes.
Asked about the legal or practical implications, Lynch said he’s not an attorney and doesn’t know. School board President Sheri Noyes did not respond to Chalkbeat’s request for comment. Vice President Ed Rice declined to respond to specific questions from Chalkbeat, saying by email that the policy’s opening sentence “answers everything.”
As proposed, that sentence says, “The Board is committed to providing a learning and work environment where all members of the school community are treated with dignity and respect.” The current version of the policy says “safe learning and work environment” but the revision takes out the word “safe.”
They stood in formation at Falcon Stadium, diplomas in hand, having met every standard of physical endurance, academic excellence, and military discipline. But, on Thursday, when the time came for the U.S. Air Force Academy’s class of 2025 in Colorado Springs, Colorado, to commission as second lieutenants, three cadets were quietly held back.
They are the first out transgender cadets to graduate from the Academy. And under a newly reinstated Trump administration ban, they will not be allowed to serve.
One of them, Hunter Marquez, had spent years preparing to become a combat systems officer. He earned dual degrees in aeronautical engineering and applied mathematics. He passed the Air Force’s fitness standards for men. And he did so as himself, having transitioned while enrolled at the Academy. “I really want to stay in for as long as possible, fight this out,” Marquez toldThe Colorado Springs Gazette.
But the rules changed. On May 6, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to begin enforcing Executive Order 14183, which bans transgender people from military service. The unsigned order—issued without full argument and over the dissent of the Court’s three liberal justices—overturned a Washington state lower court’s preliminary injunction and gave the Pentagon the green light to begin separations.
Marquez, along with the two other graduates, was placed on administrative absence, barred from taking the oath, and warned he might need to repay the cost of his education if he refused to leave voluntarily, the paper reports. That education—funded by taxpayers—is valued in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. According to The Gazette, Marquez was later told by Air Force officials that if he is involuntarily separated, he won’t be billed. But the message was clear: his government does not want him in uniform.
And yet, there is no question he met the standard. “We want warfighters. We want people with grit, that are resilient. They have done all that,” a U.S. Air Force Academy staff member told The Gazette, speaking anonymously for fear of retaliation. All three cadets passed physical fitness tests for both men and women. All three graduated with distinction.
What disqualifies them is not their performance but their identity.
Marquez is a plaintiff in Talbott v. United States, one of the central legal challenges to the policy. In a sworn statement, he wrote that the executive order describes people like him as “undisciplined,selfish, and dishonest.” “None of those are correct descriptions of my character or my abilities,” he wrote. “I have achieved alongside my peers throughout my time at the Academy.”
The policy is not theoretical. It is personal. It has required cadets like Marquez to trek across dorms to find gender-compliant restrooms and showers. It has forced them to race through final semesters in case they’re expelled before graduating. And it has turned what should have been a joyful week of ceremonies into a lesson in resilience.
Marquez, now 23, is applying to the University of Colorado Boulder to earn an advanced degree in aerospace engineering. He is still receiving medical benefits and cadet pay, but he knows that may be temporary. “There’s still a lot of anger and frustration and sadness,” he said. “Just because I have worked so hard to be a second lieutenant in the Air Force, and at the very end that was taken from me.”
Academy alumni have responded with solidarity. Nearly 1,000 graduates have signed an open letter defending transgender cadets and midshipmen. “Being transgender is in no way incompatible with any of our Academies’ cherished virtues and values,” the letter reads, according to Military.com.
fleeredstates.blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.