Category: Trans

UK plummets down European rankings for LGBTQ+ rights – after topping list just a decade ago

*This is reported by Pink News

The Rainbow Map and Index has been published annually since 2009 and ranks all 49 European countries on legal and policy practices for LGBTQ+ people.

The latest rankings, published on Wednesday (14 May), show that the UK had dropped to 22nd, with an overall score of 46 per cent, making it now the second-worst country for LGBTQ+ laws in western Europe and Scandinavia – above only Italy.

The UK was named the best place in Europe for LGBTQ+ rights, with an 86 per cent rating, in 2015. But it has been falling ever since and dropped seven places from last year’s position, mainly because of the recent Supreme Court ruling which deemed that the protected characteristic of “sex” in the 2010 Equality Act was based on “biology” and excluded trans people.

For laws that relate to the recognition of trans people’s gender identity, the UK is now ranked 45th. ILGA-Europe said that the Supreme Court’s verdict constituted a legal block on effective recognition of trans people’s identities. The only other European nations in a similar position are Bulgaria, Georgia, Hungary and Russia.

While Scotland had had introduced the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act, which came into effect last year, the legislation only applies to the devolved nation so had only a minimal effect on the UK’s overall score.

Malta tops the new list, with a score of 89 per cent, followed by Belgium (85 per cent), Iceland (84 per cent), Denmark (80 per cent) and Spain (78 per cent).

Other nations above the UK include Finland (70 per cent), Ireland (63 per cent), Austria (54 per cent), Croatia (49 per cent) and Estonia (46 per cent).

‘The UK must do better’

Commenting on the rankings, ILGA-Europe’s executive director, Chaber, said: “The time to push back is now, before the targeted attacks we’re seeing in countries like Hungary, the UK and Georgia become the norm rather than the exception. Political leaders must lead by example and turn their words into action.”

A spokesperson for TGEU, the European transgender rights network, claimed that while the UK was once a “frontrunner on equality”, it now has a Supreme Court, prime minister and equality watchdog “singing from the same hymn sheet as anti-trans campaigners”.

They went on to say: “The UK Supreme Court’s decision, which defined a ‘woman’ for the anti-discrimination law, has severely undermined legal certainty for trans people. Furthermore, it has reinforced privacy risks and exclusion from essential services such as hospital wards, public toilets, changing rooms and refuges, as well as reception centres for asylum seekers.” 

Meanwhile, Equality Network chief executive Rebecca Don Kennedy said: “It is shameful that having been ranked best in Europe for LGBTI+ laws 10 years ago, we have fallen so far. For our treatment of trans people after the Supreme Court ruling, we are now known as one of the worst countries in Europe. The UK must do better.

“Scotland, when analysed separately, has in the past been considered progressive and a beacon of LGBTI+ equality and human rights. That seems to be quickly deteriorating. We ask the Scottish government to act now and do everything they can to improve the lives of LGBTI+ people and to not submit to growing anti-LGBTI+ narratives both globally and right here in Scotland.

And Vic Valentine, the manager of Scottish Trans, said: “That the UK has slipped so far down the rankings for LGBTI+ equality in Europe is an important reminder that we can’t take progress for granted.

“From the outside, the UK is viewed as a cautionary tale of how things can go backwards rather than forwards. But none of this is inevitable.

“Governments and parliaments can – and should be – forced to protect and promote the rights of everyone. Yet politicians across the UK are quietly watching on as last month’s Supreme Court ruling seems to have set back trans people’s rights by two decades. It is very much in their power to put us back on the right path.

‘We call on the UK government to urgently take whatever action is needed to ensure that trans people can live safely and freely, and [to] reverse this decade of decline in the rights of LGBTI+ people.” 

0

Montana Court Strikes Down Ban on Healthcare for Transgender Youth

*This is reported by Lambda Legal.

Today, a Montana Court struck down SB 99, a 2023 Montana law that categorically bans often life-saving health care for transgender youth.  The Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in Cross v. Montana, holding that SB 99 violates the constitutional rights of transgender youth who are seeking gender-affirming care and the healthcare professionals who are providing that care. 

The lawsuit challenging SB 99 was brought by Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and the ACLU of Montana. This ruling removes completely the threat hanging over Montana transgender youth and their families that their access to critical medical care would be terminated. 

“I will never understand why my representatives worked so hard to strip me of my rights and the rights of other transgender kids,” said Phoebe Cross, a 17-year-old transgender boy. “It’s great that the courts, including the Montana Supreme Court, have seen this law for what it was, discriminatory, and today have thrown it out for good. Just living as a trans teenager is difficult enough, the last thing me and my peers need is to have our rights taken away.” 

“Today, the court saw through the state’s vitriol and hollow justifications and put the final nail in the coffin of this cruel, and discriminatory, law,” said Lambda Legal Staff Attorney Nora Huppert. “No parent should ever be forced to deny their child access to the safe and effective care that could relieve their suffering and provide them a future. Because Montana’s Constitution protects their right to privacy, transgender youth in Montana can sleep easier tonight knowing that they can continue to thrive.” 

“We are very pleased that the Court saw through the State’s unfounded arguments about why gender-affirming medical care should be treated differently from other forms of care,” said ACLU staff attorney Malita Picasso. “The Court recognizes SB 99 for what it truly is, an effort by the State to legislate transgender Montanans out of existence.” 

“The Montana Constitution protects the privacy and dignity of all Montanans,” said Akilah Deernose, ACLU-MT Executive Director. “In the face of those protections, cruel and inhumane laws like SB 99 will always fail.  Today’s decision should be a powerful message to those that seek to marginalize and harass transgender Montanans.” 

In its ruling, the court stated: 

“[t]he Court is forced to conclude that the State’s interest is actually a political and ideological one: ensuring minors in Montana are never provided treatment to address their “perception that [their] gender or sex” is something other than their sex assigned at birth. In other words, the State’s interest is actually blocking transgender expression.” 

Plaintiffs in the case include Molly and Paul Cross and their 17-year-old transgender son Phoebe; Jane and John Doe joining on behalf of their 16-year-old transgender daughter; and two providers of gender affirming care who bring claims on their own behalf and on behalf of their Montana patients. 

On December 11, 2024, the Montana Supreme Court upheld a preliminary injunction that SB 99 was likely unconstitutional under the Montana state constitution’s privacy clause, which prohibits government intrusion on private medical decisions. The ruling rested entirely on State constitutional grounds, insulating transgender adolescents, their families and health care providers from any potential negative outcome at the United States Supreme Court. 

The U.S. Supreme Court will soon rule in U.S. v. Skrmetti, the landmark case brought by Lambda Legal, the ACLU, and the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal on behalf of three families and a medical provider challenging a Tennessee ban on gender-affirming hormonal therapies for transgender youth on the grounds the ban violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.  

More information about the case is available here. 

0

Texas House Passes Bills to Ignore the Lives of Thousands of Queer Texans

The below is from the Equality Texas Facebook page.

🏛 The news out of the #txlege is heavy, but we will continue to fight back against anti-LGBTQIA+ legislation at the Capitol and across Texas.

These bills will have a massive impact on trans Texans. This week is a time of grief and a source of pain for many. During this time of uncertainty and confusion, please hold on to each other and know that you are not alone. Hundreds of thousands of Texans are in your corner.

This past Monday, we passed a key landmark. All House bills that had not been referred out of committee are no longer eligible to become law. That means that 139 of the 200+ bad bills have died—bills that would have criminalized being trans or sought to ban trans care for adults outright.

“Despite some of the worst bills dying, the news of HB 229 and HB 778 passing the House weighs heavy on all of us. No matter where the fight takes us, we will survive, and we will do it together.” -Brad Pritchett, Interim CEO of Equality Texas

💗If you are struggling right now, please consider reaching out to:

Trans Lifeline: (877) 565-8860

Trevor Project: 1-866-488-7386

Equality Texas Support: equalitytexas.org/help

0

Texas House votes to strictly define man and woman, excluding trans people from state records

*This is reported by The Texas Tribune.

Dozens of trans people and their allies gathered in the outdoor Capitol rotunda Friday, chanting at the top of their lungs.

They will not erase us.

The next day, the Texas House of Representatives preliminarily passed a bill that aims to do just that.

House Bill 229 strictly defines men and women based on the reproductive organs they were born with, and orders state records to reflect this binary. The bill, titled the “Women’s Bill of Rights,” lays out the “biological truth for anybody who is confused,” said author Rep. Ellen Troxclair, an Austin Republican.

The bill passed on second reading 86-36 after an at times tense debate, and is expected to be finally approved next week before going to the Senate, which has already passed several bills with a similar focus.

Surrounded by a cadre of Republican women, Troxclair said the goal of the bill was to ensure women’s rights aren’t “eroded by activists” as more people come out as trans and nonbinary. Democrats argued against the bill for almost three hours with Rep. Jessica González, D-Dallas, saying “it is harmful, it is dangerous, and it is really freaking insulting.”

If this bill becomes law, more than 120,000 trans Texans would be forced to be defined in state records by the sex they were assigned at birth, rather than the gender they identify as, even if they’ve already legally changed their birth certificates and driver’s licenses.

Saturday’s debate rehashed a deep fracture over sex and gender that has animated the Texas Legislature, and much of the country, for the last five sessions. In previous years, legislators focused on tangible questions of bathroom access, youth sports and gender-affirming care for minors.

This year, the proposals that have gained the most traction reflect a more fundamental question: what is a woman?

For conservative lawmakers, the answer is simple, and best defined by reproductive organs. For trans people and their allies, the answer is simple, and best left to an individual’s assertion of their gender identity.

Only one of those groups controls the Texas Capitol.

“We’re a state that believes in truth, and we’re a state that honors the hard-won achievements of women, the women who fought for the right to vote, to compete in sports and to be safe in public spaces, to be treated equally under the law,” Troxclair said on the floor. “But if we can no longer define what a woman is, we cannot defend what women have won. We cannot protect what we cannot define.”

In the bill, a woman is defined as “an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to produce ova,” and a man is “an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to fertilize the ova of a female.” Democrats criticized this as overly simplistic, excluding trans people, but also intersex people and those who can’t conceive children.

“Any biologist knows there are variations in sex chromosomes, hormone levels and other traits … where an individual’s biological characteristics don’t align with typical male or female categorization,” said Rep. Jon Rosenthal, a Democrat from Houston. “The real question is, do you believe that all people have the basic rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of their own personal happiness?”

This bill aligns with an executive order from Gov. Greg Abbott, who declared in January that Texas only recognizes two sexes, male and female, and a non-binding legal opinion from Attorney General Ken Paxton, who said state agencies should not honor court opinions to change someone’s sex listed on official documents.

At the Capitol rally on Friday, Lambda Legal senior attorney Shelly Skeen said revoking these changed documents, and preventing people from changing them in the future, “affects every aspect of our daily lives.” Having a birth certificate or drivers’ license that reflects a different sex than their physical presentation, or that doesn’t align with their passport or other documents, could leave trans people in a legal limbo and potentially open them up to violence, she said.

It could impact the state facilities, like prisons, they are sorted into, the bathrooms and locker rooms they are supposed to use and the discrimination protections they are entitled to, Skeen said. Unlike other bills, like the so-called “bathroom bill,” this legislation does not have civil or criminal penalties for using a facility that doesn’t align with one’s sex.

Troxclair did accept one amendment, by El Paso Democrat Rep. Mary González, to clarify how intersex people, who are born with both sets of reproductive organs, fit into these definitions.

The chamber also preliminarily approved Senate Bill 1257, which would require health insurers that cover gender-affirming care also cover any adverse consequences and costs of detransitioning. The bill, authored by Sen. Bryan Hughes and sponsored by Rep. Jeff Leach, passed 82-37.

Leach said he brought this bill on behalf of people who were left with tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical bills because their health insurance wouldn’t cover the costs of detransitioning.

“The illustration that I think best describes this is, if you take somebody to the dance and they want to go home, then you have to take them home,” Leach said during the debate on Saturday.

The bill says that any insurance company that covers gender-affirming care must cover all detransition-related costs for its members, even if that person wasn’t on the health insurance plan at the time they transitioned. Democrats filed more than half a dozen amendments to narrow the scope of the bill, critiquing the bill as a health insurance mandate. None of the amendments passed.

Last session, Texas lawmakers outlawed gender-affirming care for minors. Trans advocates worry that raising the cost of covering gender-affirming care will result in health insurers not covering the treatments for adults, either.

“If you can make it painful enough for providers and insurers, health care is gone,” said Emmett Schelling, the executive director of the Transgender Education Network of Texas. “It doesn’t just feed into gender-affirming care. It bleeds into health care that we all need, that we all deserve.”

Speaking on the floor Saturday, Rep. Ann Johnson, a Houston Democrat, said the Legislature was telling insurance companies not to cover gender-affirming care.

“The reality is this bill, however you couch it, is about eliminating the existence of trans individuals in Texas,” Johnson said. “Stop pretending that you’re for freedom. Stop pretending that this is about the kids.”

0

Heavily amended bill adding legal protections for transgender people passes Colorado Senate

*This is reported by Colorado Newsline.


The Colorado Senate gave final approval Tuesday to a heavily amended bill adding legal protections for transgender people in a 20-14 vote after hours of debate and opposition from Republican senators.

House Bill 25-1312, dubbed the Kelly Loving Act in honor of a transgender woman killed during the 2022 Club Q shooting in Colorado Springs, would make it a discriminatory act to intentionally not refer to a transgender person by their chosen name. It also requires school policies be “inclusive of all reasons” that a student changes their name, and it says schools must allow students to choose from any variation contained in dress code policies. 

The bill includes a provision that says someone does not need a court order if they want to change their gender marker on a driver’s license or other identification a second or third time. Colorado allows an “X” gender marker on state IDs, but that has led to some people having trouble with student loans and passport applications, so some people may want to change their gender markers back. It will also allow a county clerk to issue a new marriage license to someone who has legally changed their name. 

“This bill’s needed because if transgender residents were never harassed, denied services, or mocked in official settings, additional clarification would be unnecessary,” Sen. Chris Kolker, a Littleton Democrat, said Tuesday. “The lived evidence shows that gaps persist.” 

Kolker sponsored the bill alongside Sen. Faith Winter, a Broomfield Democrat, Rep. Lorena García, an Adams County Democrat, and Rep. Rebekah Stewart, a Lakewood Democrat.

The House voted 39-24 to accept the Senate’s many amendments to the measure and 40-24 to approve it again as amended. Democratic Reps. Regina English of Colorado Springs and Naquetta Ricks of Aurora joined Republicans in voting against accepting the amendments to the bill.

House Republicans continued echoing parental rights concerns during debate that went into late Tuesday evening, which bill supporters said were unfounded under the latest version of the bill.

“The continued mischaracterization of these policies needs to stop,” Garcia said Tuesday night. “It is a disservice to Coloradans who are really trying to understand what is in this bill, and we should be honest and truthful about what we are agreeing to or disagreeing with without exaggeration.”

The measure will now go to Colorado Gov. Jared Polis’ desk to be signed into law. Two Democrats in the Senate joined Republicans in voting against the bill: Sen. Kyle Mullica of Thornton and Sen. Marc Snyder of Manitou Springs. 

The Senate adopted an amendment Monday that removed a portion of the bill that would have shielded parents who help their child obtain gender-affirming care from laws in other states that outlaw the practice — a part of the bill some supporters had reservations about due to potential legal implications. A Senate committee cut part of the section last week, on top of many other substantial amendments, but bill sponsors offered an amendment deleting the section entirely. 

Colorado already has a shield law in place that protects people who travel to Colorado for abortion or gender-affirming care from lawsuits and criminal prosecution initiated in other states, and Winter said the original intent of the cut section was to strengthen those protections. 

We are proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with our community in full support of the Kelly Loving Act. Trans liberation is non-negotiable.

– Nadine Bridges, One Colorado executive director

Another two amendments added Monday made technical and terminology changes, and changed the description of a “chosen name” to mean a name someone wants to be known by related to “disability, race, creed, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, marital status, familial status, national origin, or ancestry, so long as the name does not contain offensive language and the individual is not requesting the name for frivolous purposes.” Winter said that change made the policy inclusive of all reasons someone may want to change their name, not just gender identity.

Republican senators acknowledged and thanked bill sponsors for removing provisions that would have affected child custody decisions — the most controversial portion of the original bill — but said many constituents don’t realize that was removed and continue to express concern. Republicans still said the bill would affect parental rights related to chosen names and dress codes in schools. 

Senate Minority Paul Lundeen, a Monument Republican, said Tuesday on the Senate floor that the measure still interferes with the “sacred” parent-child relationship even as amended and draws the state into “personal family matters.”

“(House Bill) 1312, despite its protective intent, creates a system where schools and state agencies become the arbiter of deeply personal family decisions,” Lundeen said. “By mandating inclusive name policies, enforcing gender neutral dress codes, enlisting the (Colorado Civil Rights Division) to police speech, this bill risks transforming schools and courts into areas where the state overrides parental authority. We must not allow government to intrude into and fracture the trust between parents and children.”

Rod Pelton, a Cheyenne Wells Republican, said he received more communications related to House Bill 1312 than any other bill this session. Other senators from both sides of the aisle have said the same. 

One Colorado, one of the largest LGBTQ+ advocacy groups in Colorado, and Rocky Mountain Equality both support the bill in its current form after various amendments were adopted. The organizations initially supported the bill, but changed to an “amend” position with unspecified legal concerns after it passed the House. 

“We are proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with our community in full support of the Kelly Loving Act. Trans liberation is non-negotiable,” One Colorado Executive Director Nadine Bridges said in a statement the organization posted to Facebook. “Pro-equality legislation is not just about creating hope, but creating a better reality. It is a fight that we all need to be in together to protect our community, our family.”

Democrats control strong majorities in both chambers of the Legislature.

. 

0

Texas Senate passes bill that would allow teachers, students to misgender others without punishment

*This is reported by KERA News.

A proposed bill aimed at protecting public employees, teachers and students who misgender their peers cleared the Texas Senate on Thursday, moving one step closer to becoming law.

Senate Bill 1999, authored by Republican Sen. Bryan Hughes of Mineola, would prevent state agencies and schools from punishing employees or students who refer to another person using terms “consistent with (their) biological sex,” even if that term doesn’t match the person’s gender identity. According to the bill, this law wouldn’t limit a school “from adopting policies and procedures to prohibit and prevent bullying.”

“A teacher may have a moral or religious objection that prevents them from using language with a student or other person’s biological sex,” Hughes said. “No teacher, no public employee, should be punished for using a pronoun consistent with a person’s biological sex.”

The bill was passed on a vote of 20 to 11. This came after Sen. José Menéndez, a Democrat from San Antonio, offered a floor amendment on Wednesday that would’ve offered similar protections to those who choose to express their gender identity.

“There are gonna be people out there that are going to feel as if this legislation is trying to take away their right to exist as who they are,” Menéndez said on Wednesday. “Just like we can’t force anyone to use pronouns, we can’t also force someone not to have them or express them.”

Hughes pushed back against the proposed amendment, saying his bill wouldn’t prevent “someone from asking to be identified as whatever they wish,” but would instead prevent teachers and other public employees from being “punished because they get it wrong.”

Menéndez’s amendment was ultimately struck down on Wednesday, paving the way for the bill’s final passage one day later. The bill now heads to the Texas House for consideration.

0

Every Anti-LGBTQ Bill Defeated in Florida’s 2025 Legislative Session

*This is a press release from Equality Florida.

 The 60 days of Florida’s legislative session have concluded. While lawmakers will have to come back in the following weeks to finalize the budget, LGBTQ Floridians and allies across the state are celebrating a resounding and inspiring win: every anti-LGBTQ bill filed in the 2025 legislative session was defeated.

This is more than a policy victory; it’s a testament to the unstoppable force of people power, coalition-building, and a growing refusal to let hate go unchallenged.

“Once again, we’ve done what many thought was impossible: not one anti-LGBTQ bill passed this session,” said Nadine Smith, Executive Director of Equality Florida. “We improved on the tremendous defeat of 21 out of 22 anti-LGBTQ bills last session for a complete sweep this session, defeating every anti-LGBTQ bill. That’s not luck — that’s the strength of our grassroots movement. It’s students and seniors, faith leaders and frontline workers, parents and teachers, standing together and making sure lawmakers hear us loud and clear: we will not back down.”

In 2024, 21 of 22 anti-LGBTQ bills were defeated — many were expected to return this year with greater force, buoyed by the largest Republican supermajority in Florida history and a national climate increasingly hostile to LGBTQ issues — particularly transgender issues. But instead of escalation, lawmakers showed restraint, perhaps weary from years of pushing culture war bills that do nothing to address the real challenges Floridians face. Only four anti-LGBTQ bills were filed in 2025 — and every one of them failed:

  • Pride Flag Ban (HB 75/SB 100), a bill banning government agencies, including public schools and universities, from displaying any flag that represents a “political viewpoint,” including Pride Flags.
  • Don’t Say Gay or Trans at Work (HB 1495/SB 440), a bill aimed at censoring public workplace discussions of LGBTQ issues, and enabling harassment of transgender employees.
  • Anti-Diversity In Local Government (HB 1571/SB 420), a bill attempting to ban cities and counties from recognizing, supporting, and protecting the LGBTQ community and other minorities
  • Banning Diversity & Equity In State Agencies (HB 731/SB 1710), a bill that would defund a broad range of activities and positions under the guise of banning DEI in state agencies and would ban state contractors and grantees from using state funds for DEI.

This powerful blockade against anti-LGBTQ extremism was built by a broad coalition of everyday Floridians. They showed up to the Capitol every single day of session, testified in legislative hearings, sent messages to lawmakers, and organized from the Panhandle to the Keys. This session alone, over 400 grassroots lobbyists came to Tallahassee for our largest advocacy week ever. Over 16,000 Floridians sent emails to legislators, and our Pride At The Capitol participants met face-to-face with lawmakers more than 325 times over the course of session. These direct actions continue the momentum building that has grown Equality Florida’s base by more than 165,000 people in just two years, reaching nearly half a million strong in total.

“This win belongs to every person who stood up, spoke out, and locked arms with their neighbors to stop the attacks before they could advance,” Smith added. “And while we celebrate, we know the fight isn’t over. This session still delivered real harm to democracy and equity that impacts all Floridians — and we are just as committed to undoing that damage and building a Florida that truly belongs to all of us.”

0

Salem, MA City Council unanimously declares trans sanctuary city status

*This was reported by Boston Spirit Magazine in April

This past Friday, the Salem City Council unanimously passed a resolution to make the City of Salem a sanctuary city for transgender and nonbinary individuals. In its proclamation, the council notes this status in necessary because “the federal government’s continued actions have encouraged discrimination towards transgender persons by state and local governments, schools, hospitals, businesses, other public and private institutions.”

“The City Council of the City of Salem hereby reiterates its commitment to uphold transgender rights and equal protections for transgender community members under the Constitutions, Laws, Ordinances and Regulations of the United States, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and the City of Salem and declares itself a sanctuary city and a place of safety for transgender and gender non-conforming people,” states the proclamation in part.

The proclamation goes on to affirm:

“that the City of Salem recognizes the importance of gender-affirming healthcare as a matter of health, privacy, and equality, and to ensure that those rights are upheld for all residents and visitors within the City of Salem.

“that the City of Salem will ensure a safe and supportive environment for all students regardless of gender identity or expression in the Salem Public Schools, including the protection of teachers and other city employees who help to foster such an environment,” and

“that the City of Salem shall endeavor to work with the Salem Human Rights Coalition; to further identify equity shortcomings for the city’s transgender and gender non-conforming community within municipal government, operations, and practices, to ensure the full protection of said community’s residents and visitors.”

0

Spokane passes LGBTQ+ rights ordinance to protect trans folks from the federal government

*This is reported by LGBTQNation.

The City Council of Spokane, Washington, has passed an ordinance enhancing protections for LGBTQ+ people, with a focus on protecting trans folks.

Council members voted 5-2 to implement the ordinance, which updates the city’s human rights code to define gender-affirming care and ensure equal protections for LGBTQ+ people.

A press release explained that both Spokane Municipal Code and state law already provide protections for LGBTQ+ people, but the ordinance adds language to “acknowledge the inherent risks faced by the LGBTQIA2S+ community in Spokane, particularly due to federal policies and interjurisdictional legal processes from states that do not recognize LGBTQIA2S+ rights or are working to deny such individuals access to essential medical care, including gender-affirming care.”

The policy “prohibits the city from collecting or disseminating information about anyone’s sex assigned at birth, unless it’s related to a criminal investigation.”

The ordinance also adds a definition of gender-affirming care to the human rights code’s glossary of terms and adds a section requiring city-provided healthcare to cover it. It also requires the Spokane Police Department to keep an LGBTQ+ liaison officer on staff.

“LGBTQIA2S+ people deserve the freedom to make their own health care decisions and deserve to feel safe in our community,” Council Member Zack Zappone said in a statement.  “That freedom and safety are under threat across the country. This ordinance ensures the City continues to protect LGBTQIA2S+ people and that they know that in Spokane, we all belong.”

“I want to thank all the powerful and heartfelt testimony in support of this ordinance that is about supporting safety, freedom, and dignity,” added Council Member Paul Dillon.  “Spokane is a city where diversity is not just accepted but celebrated, and this ordinance shows our commitment to our city motto that in Spokane, we all belong, especially in a time of targeting and discrimination…”

Councilmembers Jonathan Bingle and Michael Cathcart voted against the ordinance, with Bingle attempting to add five amendments, including measures to ban trans people from using the bathrooms and playing on sports teams that align with their genders and to ban those under 18 from receiving gender-affirming care through city insurance. None of the amendments passed.

During the city council meeting, Bingle defended his position, claiming he doesn’t want anyone in the city to be discriminated against, including those “who have sincerely held religious, moral, or ethical objections to this.”

“It’s a live and let live situation that I’m totally cool with,” he said. “I think that’s a great idea.”

Dozens of people showed up at the meeting to advocate for passing the ordinance.

One mother of an adult trans son said she fled to Spokane from Idaho with her son and his wife after her son experienced horrific mistreatment by doctors in Idaho.

In Spokane, she said, they found support, dignity, and a “welcoming spirit.” But she said hostility has been growing in the city in the wake of the federal government’s anti-trans policies. “We are feeling the fear and stress we thought we left behind,” she said.

The ordinance, she said, “is not just about symbolism; it’s about real protections, real care, real safety for people who are just trying to live their lives.”

0

Allentown PA City Council votes to establish ‘safe haven’ for LGBTQ+ families, gender-affirming care

*This is reported by Eastern Progress.

Allentown City Council passed a resolution at its Wednesday night meeting to protect and grant refuge to the LGBTQ+ community in Allentown by proclaiming the city a “safe and welcoming haven.”

Resolution “R48” was initially discussed at City Council’s Human Resources, Administration, and Appointments committee meeting on April 9, where it received a favorable vote to move forward to the full council. 

The resolution responds to a “record number of discriminatory anti-trans legislative bills and executive orders being proposed and enacted throughout the country,” according to council documents. 

“As attacks against transgender and gender non-binary adults and youth across the United States continue, it is the responsibility of Allentown to ensure transgender and non-binary people, particularly youth, continue to be protected and welcomed,” the resolution states.

It emphasizes the importance of treating all individuals with fairness, respect, dignity, and full human rights, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, or expression. 

Not a single seat was empty at the council’s Wednesday night meeting in anticipation of the resolution’s passage, which had full council sponsorship. 

Multiple public commenters — including members of the LGBTQ+ community, psychologists specializing in transgender affirming care and state representatives — spoke in support of the resolution before council’s vote.

Amelia, a transgender woman, shared her personal experience receiving gender-affirming care in the city of Allentown and what she described as its life-changing impact. 

“Access to this treatment quite literally made my life as one worth living,” Amelia said. “It was the antidote for my dysphoria or gender misalignment that had plagued me since puberty.” 

Christine Hartigan, a licensed psychologist in Allentown specializing in transgender affirming care, also voiced her support for the resolution.

“We have a lot of research backing up what we do, and we know that limiting access to this care is incredibly detrimental to individuals, especially transgender individuals,” Hartigan said.

“They can lead to increased rates of anxiety, depression, substance use, and as several people have already mentioned, even suicide,” she continued. “So this is lifesaving care, and we know it works.”

State Rep. Josh Siegel, a Democrat representing Lehigh County, commended council’s efforts and emphasized the need for state-level protections. 

“I’ve introduced legislation at the state level to create a shield law around gender and affirming care in Pennsylvania and protect our prosecutors,” Siegel said. “Those bills will never see the light of day because our Republican Senate won’t move them.”

“It is more important than ever now that our local bodies, our counties and our cities speak with one voice to push back on this hateful narrative that the reason for people’s hardship in life is that trans kids wants to belong and play sports with their friends,” he continued.

Mayor Matt Tuerk, also present at the meeting, acknowledged the thousands of transgender people in Allentown and outlined policy changes underway. 

“Estimates across the country are that anywhere between 1 and 2% of the population identifies as transgender, which would make the number here in Allentown in the thousands,” Tuerk said. “There are thousands of people that you and I represent who are looking for safety, and that’s our fundamental duty as city leaders.” 

“We looked at the five bullet points that you put out there as policy that you’ve started to craft now at the city of Allentown that would prohibit criminal prosecution or administration penalty against individuals who are seeking gender affirming health care” he continued.

City Council unanimously voted to pass the resolution.

“We might not be able to change the world, but maybe we can change Allentown,” said Councilmember Ce-Ce Gerlach. 

0

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑