Category: Trans

Rainbow Railroad rescues LGBTQ people at risk around the world

Read more at Washington Blade.

In a world and at a point where LGBTQ rights are under increasing threat, organizations like Rainbow Railroad are delivering life-saving action and offering hope as they do. Founded in 2006 as a grassroots response to the grave needs of LGBTQ individuals facing persecution, Rainbow Railroad has evolved into a global leader in queer humanitarian response. Their mission is clear and critical — to help LGBTQ people escape life-threatening situations and access the safety and freedom they deserve.

The Washington Blade was honored to speak with Latoya Nugent, head of engagement at Rainbow Railroad, a determined advocate and strategist who brings lived experience, passion, and vision to this work. In our conversation, Latoya sheds much-needed light on the evolution of the LGBTQ refugee crisis, the organization’s global impact, and how everyday people can get proactive in supporting LGBTQ asylum seekers and those displaced.

Can you share with us a little bit about Rainbow Railroad and how it was formed?

Rainbow Railroad is a global non-profit organization with offices in New York and Toronto. We were founded in 2006 as a volunteer-led initiative focused on helping LGBTQI+ people at risk find safety. Our primary work supports individuals living in what we call “countries of criminalization” – places where it’s illegal to be LGBTQI+.

We officially registered as a charity in Canada in 2013 and received 501(c)(3) status in the U.S. in 2015. Since then, we’ve grown to a team of about 60 staff working across direct service and advocacy. Our mission is to ensure LGBTQI+ people in danger can access safety and support, while also driving global advocacy to improve conditions on the ground.

Largely because there simply weren’t many organizations doing this work. While humanitarian protection has existed for decades, very few have focused specifically on how forced displacement affects LGBTQI+ people. The persecution faced by our community is often deeply personal and not adequately understood or addressed in global protection systems.

Rainbow Railroad was founded by a group of lawyers in Toronto who witnessed extreme anti-LGBTQI+ violence in Jamaica and the broader Caribbean. They knew a solution was needed to create safe passage for those fleeing persecution. What started as a small initiative has now become a global force, responding to crises like the fall of Kabul, the Chechnya purge in 2017, and the Anti-Homosexuality Act in Uganda.

Because we’ve worked so closely with governments, especially the Canadian government, and have deepened our involvement in global coalitions, our ability to respond at scale has expanded. In 2023, we secured a historic partnership with the Canadian government to provide comprehensive, end-to-end relocation support for LGBTQI+ people. That had never existed before within the humanitarian protection framework.

How has anti-LGBTQ and anti-transgender persecution evolved or intensified in recent years?

We’re seeing a rising, coordinated global movement against LGBTQI+ rights, heavily influenced by some religious and political groups. Alarmingly, some countries that had previously decriminalized LGBTQI+ identities are now reversing progress. Take Trinidad and Tobago, for example.

In 2023, Russia labeled the LGBTQI+ movement as “extremist.” In the U.S., under the current administration, we’ve seen federal resources for LGBTQI+ individuals and organizations stripped away. Websites have removed key information, and funding has been cut.

Globally, trans people are often the first targets, whether through state violence or community aggression. While we saw real progress for a while, a lot of that is now under threat. The movement today is focused on holding the line and preventing further erosion of rights.

What are some of the biggest misconceptions the public holds about LGBTQ refugees and asylum seekers?

A major one is the misunderstanding of how deeply personal the persecution is. Even people working in humanitarian spaces sometimes don’t grasp how intimate and life-threatening the experience is for LGBTQI+ people.

Unlike those fleeing war or natural disasters, circumstances that the world is more conditioned to understand, LGBTQI+ asylum seekers are often met with disbelief. People question their identity, their trauma, and even their right to seek protection.

And because the system isn’t designed with us in mind, many are retraumatized throughout the process. There’s also a lack of data. No one is formally tracking how many displaced people identify as LGBTQI+. So we’re forced to estimate based on global population models, but we believe there are upwards of 11 million LGBTQI+ individuals affected by displacement.

Also, the growing anti-immigrant sentiment worldwide paints refugees as threats, and LGBTQI+ asylum seekers get caught in that same narrative. Many wrongly believe that people choose to be refugees, but no one chooses this. It’s called forced displacement for a reason.

Here in the US, how does misinformation shape asylum policy?

Misinformation leads to policies that don’t reflect reality. If you start by distrusting asylum seekers, you miss their humanity. You see them as burdens or threats, not as people fleeing unimaginable violence.

As federal support gets cut, civil society organizations like Rainbow Railroad have to fill the gaps. But we’re not replacing a government system — we’re trying to patch a sinking ship.

And here’s the truth: LGBTQI+ asylum seekers will continue to arrive in the U.S. because it’s still safer than many of the countries they’re fleeing. Even with rising hostility here, they’re not being chased with machetes, like in parts of Nigeria, Jamaica, or Egypt. That’s the level of danger we’re talking about. And that needs to be understood.

In what ways does the US resettlement system fall short for LGBTQ refugees?

Before the federal program we partnered with was suspended in January 2025, we saw firsthand how the system wasn’t built with LGBTQI+ people in mind.

Most LGBTQI+ individuals relocate alone, often fleeing their own families. Yet the resettlement system assumes people arrive with built-in support networks, which they don’t. That leaves them vulnerable to social isolation and instability from day one.

Making an asylum claim also requires proving you deserve protection, which can be incredibly retraumatizing. You’re forced to provide evidence of your identity and persecution — even when you’ve had to hide both for survival. If you can’t “prove” it, your claim may be denied.

Add language barriers, lack of culturally competent translators, and complex paperwork, and you’ve got a system that’s often inaccessible to the very people it’s meant to help.

Can you tell us about the Communities of Care program? What prompted its creation?

The program launched in 2023 as part of a federal initiative to support LGBTQI+ refugee resettlement in the U.S. We mobilized small groups of volunteers, five or more LGBTQI+ individuals or allies, to support refugees as they settled into their new communities. They helped with housing, employment, education, transportation, and creating a sense of belonging.

When the program was suspended in January, we transformed it. Now, it focuses on supporting asylum seekers already in the U.S., many of whom are struggling without federal support.

We call on three or more volunteers to form a Community Support Team and work with an LGBTQI+ asylum seeker for six months. We train these teams to offer trauma-informed, competent care. It’s a way to create chosen family and rebuild community.

Can you tell us about the Community Access Fund?

That fund directly responds to the reduction in U.S. federal support for displaced LGBTQI+ individuals. We realized that many small, grassroots organizations doing vital work are severely underfunded or entirely volunteer-run.

So we created a pool of funds that these organizations can apply to. The first grantee was actually founded by someone we helped relocate to New York a few years ago. He saw that there were countless LGBTQI+ asylum seekers in NYC without access to community or services and decided to create that support himself.

We’ve supported groups in cities like New York, LA, and D.C., and the impact has been powerful. The fund is all about redistributing resources to the people who need them and who are already doing the work on the ground.

What can the average US citizen do to make a difference for LGBTQ asylum seekers and refugees?

So much! First, consider opening your home. Through our Rainbow Housing Drive, we ask people to offer a spare room or apartment at no cost, below-market, or even market rate, to someone in need.

You can also volunteer to form a Community Support Team with just two other people. Or donate to Rainbow Railroad. Honestly, even $5 helps. If everyone did that, the scale of what we could accomplish would be phenomenal.

We also encourage people to contact their elected officials at the city, state, or federal level. Let them know these issues matter to you. Support campaigns that uplift LGBTQI+ immigrants. Solidarity is powerful, and when we act together, we create real change.

This work can be heavy. As the Head of Engagement, how do you stay motivated?

Self-care is essential. Every morning, I wake up early and walk to work. It clears my mind. I take recovery seriously — emotional, physical, social, creative. Some evenings I turn my bathroom into a mini spa — candles, music, and a long bath. It grounds me.

But what really fuels me is my own journey. I’ve personally benefited from the work Rainbow Railroad does. I know how life-saving it is to be lifted from trauma and relocated somewhere you can truly live. Being part of gifting that to others drives me every day.

Our team is incredible. Resilient, dedicated, and deeply committed. And despite the challenges, we celebrate every win, no matter how small. Every life we help change matters.

Finally, what message of hope would you share with LGBTQ people who are fleeing persecution right now?

Hope is real, and it’s on the other side. There’s an entire global community, an army of people, who may not necessarily know your story, but who are bound together by our identities, understanding the persecution and discrimination that we as a community face. that knowledge makes us committed to doing everything in our power to ensure that everyone, every LGBTQI+ person, can live with not only dignity but also safety.

Trust that army to keep doing the work and to show up in solidarity. It may be difficult tomorrow or even next month, but there’s hope on the other side.

For more information, head to RainbowRailroad.org

0

Loudoun (VA) School Board approves LGBTQ proclamation despite opposition

Read more at Loundon Times-Mirror.

Loudoun County School Board proclamations are typically noncontroversial, but a proclamation recognizing October as LGBTQ+ History Month drew three no votes at the board’s Sept. 30 meeting.

Language in the proclamation says it honors the “history, achievements, and contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer people” and celebrates “the strength, resilience, and impact of the LGBTQ+ community, whose contributions have enriched the cultural, educational, and civic life of Virginia and the world.”

The proclamation — whose approval comes as some 600 Republican-sponsored, anti-LGBTQ bills, including 17 in Virginia, have been proposed around the nation — includes a repudiation of discrimination.

“We reject discrimination based on gender identity, sexual orientation, and gender expression, and instead affirm kindness, acceptance, and respect as the foundation of our learning community,” the proclamation states. “Our school division is stronger when every student and staff member can live authentically and feels a true sense of belonging, and when we embrace the full diversity of our community.”

April Chandler, Algonkian; Linda W. Deans, Broad Run; board Vice Chair Anne P. Donohue, At Large; Arben Istrefi, Sterling; board Chair Melinda M. Mansfield, Dulles; and Sumera Rashid, Little River, voted yes.

Deana L. Griffiths, Ashburn; Karen “Kari” LaBell, Catoctin; and Lauren E. Shernoff, Leesburg, voted no.

The proclamation was initially included in the board’s consent agenda, which has items that are approved en masse.

However, Griffiths, who typically has abstained from voting on proclamations since taking office in 2024, wrote in an email that she moved the proclamation to the regular agenda, so she could speak about why she was voting against it.

“There is a meaningful difference between formally recognizing a group in history and promoting that group for its lifestyle to our students,” Griffiths said at the meeting. “It crosses the line into advocacy and raises serious concerns under the (Trump) executive order protecting our children from inappropriate content in our schools.

“Our communications must remain age appropriate and leave conversations about sensitive information to parents. Schools exist to teach children how to read, write, and think critically. Not engage them in conversations about sexuality at any age where they are far too young to process it.”

The January executive order from President Donald J. Trump that Griffiths referred to says people cannot identify as the opposite sex they were born as. It says the administration will “enforce all sex-protective laws to promote this reality,” including cutting federal funding used to “promote gender ideology.”

The Trump administration said in August it was suspending or terminating funding to Loudoun County Public Schools over its policy allowing transgender students to choose which bathroom or locker room they use. Federal money accounts for about $47 million of the current $2 billion LCPS budget.

Shernoff wrote in an email that some constituents complained to her after she voted for the proclamation last year about the way LGBTQ+ History Month was celebrated in schools. Specifically, their complaints were about how “certain spirit days” were celebrated and the effect on young students.

“I did some research into it and that in conjunction with knowing that LCPS also proclaims LGBTQ+ Pride Month in June, I decided to not support this,” Shernoff said. “I did however support the anti-bullying proclamation which specifically names and protects students based on their gender identity. I remain committed to ensuring all students are protected, safe, and can achieve to their fullest potential.”

LaBell said in an interview that she supported the proclamation last year because it was on the consent agenda and voting against it would’ve meant voting against everything on the agenda.

She said she opposed the proclamation because some of the issues it raises are “too political”  to promote in school and might be inappropriate for young students to discuss.

Like Shernoff, LaBell said she voted for the Pride Month and anti-bullying proclamations, but believes one proclamation related to LGBTQ issues annually is enough.

“You want history? Put it in Pride Month,” she said. “It just seems to me it’s being pushed more so than anything else in our school system at this point in time. And it’s a family issue. It shouldn’t be a political issue in our schools.”

Two groups that support LGBTQ rights criticized the rationale of Griffiths, LaBell and Shernoff.

Candice Tuck, an Equality Loudoun board member, said the proclamation isn’t about promoting sexuality.

“There have been many brave queer pioneers throughout history who have fought for civil rights, who have been inventors, and who have moved our democracy forward,” Tuck said in an interview. “There is no reason that the queer community cannot be recognized for those accomplishments without individuals in our community perverting their history.”

Meredith Ray, the head of Loudoun4All, noted in an email that Griffiths previously said she wouldn’t vote for any proclamations, but chose to single out the LGTBQ+ proclamation for criticism.

Ray called Griffiths’ decision “malicious” and said her remarks were “ignorant commentary” on the issue.

“Recognition of history is not ‘promotion of a lifestyle.’ LGBTQ+ students, staff, and families exist in Loudoun and deserve the same dignity as everyone else. Griffiths’ attempt to frame recognition as ‘inappropriate content’ is harmful, especially to young people who already face higher rates of bullying and mental health struggles when leaders stigmatize them,” Ray said. “In fact, decades of research show that inclusive education that teaches respect and representation is one of the most effective ways to prevent bullying and improve school climate.”

0

‘Where am I safe?’: U.K. court ruling leaves trans people’s lives in turmoil

Read more at NBC News.

Nate Rae had always felt secure living openly since coming out as a transgender man in his late 20s — until a recent U.K. Supreme Court ruling on the legal definition of biological sex changed everything.

Now, Rae — a PhD student and science communicator who grew up in a small Scottish town before moving to London — says he finds himself constantly weighing risks and assessing where it is safe — or unsafe — for him to be.

In April, the court affirmed that under equality laws, the term “sex” refers to biological sex, meaning a transgender woman is legally considered male, and a transgender man is considered female.

Equality watchdog EHRC stated in its interim guidance on the ruling’s practical implications that transgender people should be barred from facilities and services, from toilets to hospital wards and refuges, designed for the gender they live as.

“It’s almost like it’s been made legal to harass trans people,” Rae, 33, told Reuters in an interview at Gay’s The Word, Britain’s oldest LGBTQ bookshop, saying he was now “hyper aware” of people noticing him.

“I’ve got to factor in things that I’d never had to factor in before,” he said. “Where can I go? Where am I safe?”

Transgender rights flashpoint

Rae, who only started to medically transition last year, often uses the women’s bathroom as he feels he is still largely perceived as female.

Since the ruling, Rae has been told several times that he cannot use a certain bathroom and has been called “disgusting” when using a female toilet. On one occasion, someone approached him to ask: “Do you know there are kids here?”

Transgender rights have become a political flashpoint in Britain and elsewhere. In the U.S., President Donald Trump has targeted the rights of transgender people in a series of executive orders.

Some critics of the policies say the conservative right has weaponized identity politics to attack minority groups.

But others argue that support for transgender people has infringed on the rights of biological women and their safety in spaces such as hospitals, prisons and domestic violence refuges.

Britain’s government said the judgement brought clarity and a clear position to underpin gender policies, but for many transgender people, including Rae, it has left them feeling excluded from parts of society.

A report released in August by transgender rights group TransActual highlighted how, since the ruling, some trans people have planned to leave the country, concealed their identities, avoided public spaces like hospitals, felt outed at work, or have withdrawn from social life altogether.

Asked about the detrimental impacts of the ruling cited by transgender people, a government spokesperson said laws were in place to protect trans individuals from discrimination and harassment.

Young trans people ‘terrified’

Following a consultation, the EHRC, which is responsible for enforcing equality laws, submitted its updated draft guidance to the government at the start of September and parliament is expected to consider it by the end of the year.

Keyne Walker, strategy director for TransActual, said the interim guidance is already having a “dire effect” and said the EHRC’s interpretation of the judgement could have been far less “extreme”.

Some organizations have already updated their transgender policies. The Football Association has barred transgender women from competing in women’s soccer in England, and the British Transport Police now requires same-sex searches in custody to be conducted according to a detainee’s biological sex.

A spokesperson for the EHRC said everything they had done since the judgement was grounded in the law, and the guidance shared with the government was both legally accurate and clear.

Rae fears the court’s decision will discourage people from living freely in their chosen gender and threatens their safety if they do, as it has shifted public perceptions of transgender people.

“Every young trans person I’ve spoken to is terrified,” said Rae, who teaches science to young people as part of his job, adding that many were now questioning: “Am I going to be able to live the life I want to live as the person I want to be?”

0

Kansas Supreme Court Delivers Big Win For Driver’s License Gender Markers

Read more at Erin in the Morning.

After a grueling two-year fight, starting on Tuesday, the Kansas Department of Revenue (KDOR) will resume issuing accurate driver’s licenses to transgender Kansans, a spokesperson for the ACLU of Kansas told Erin in the Morning.

Last week, the Kansas Supreme Court declined to hear Attorney General Kris Kobach’s request to uphold a district court order preventing the state from updating IDs for trans residents. And while there is still a fight ahead, it marks a notable victory for trans people in a state that has been holding their driver’s licenses hostage for years.

“I want every transgender Kansan to be able to live their lives authentically,” said Kathryn Redman, a 65-year-old resident and a plaintiff in the case, Kansas v. Harper, brought on by the ACLU and Stinson LLP.

AG Kobach asserted that the courts needed to put a stop to the license updates indefinitely, claiming it would interfere with law enforcement’s ability to identify and apprehend criminal suspects. The Court of Appeals called this “mere speculation.”

“There is no hidden agenda,” Redman told Erin in the Morning. “All I tried to accomplish and what I have accomplished by my transition is, I now live my life at peace with myself.”

In theory, the case should now be returned to a new trial court for final resolution. But the conservative Kobach doesn’t want to let that happen. He and other Republican officials have sought to call a special legislative session on the matter—a process they were already undertaking in a transparent attempt at gerrymandering, and it has seen renewed fanfare in light of the court events this past week.

The fight to strip trans Kansans of their rights, state Senate President Ty Masterson wrote in an Oct. 1 letter, is considered “even more important than redistricting.” He called on the Kansas State Republican Caucus to simply “add a few words” to state law to stop Kansans from updating their gender markers.

The legal proceedings have ricocheted from court to court since July 2023, when legislators overrode Democratic Governor Laura Kelly’s veto on Senate Bill 180. The anti-trans law takes after legislation proposed by right-wing, anti-trans organizations, misleadingly dubbed the “Women’s Bill of Rights.” In practice, the only thing the bill does is codify sex segregation and target the equal rights of transgender people. It makes no mention of forcing Kansans to carry a driver’s license with an inaccurate gender marker.

“Rather than accepting the decisions of the two highest courts in our state, Mr. Kobach is resorting to backroom attempts to change the law and shut the courts out of our government so he can have full, unchecked power,” Micah Kubic, executive director of the ACLU of Kansas, said in a statement. “This is, simply put, a power grab by the attorney general that goes beyond his baseline of cheap political theater and wasteful litigation.”

Kubic denounced Kobach’s “extremist and discriminatory agenda,” adding that it “threatens not just the privacy and agency of all Kansans but also the very checks and balances of our state government.”

0

Judge ends Arizona’s “irrational” policy requiring surgery for updating gender markers

Read more at LGBTQ Nation.

A federal judge in Arizona has ruled that transgender people are no longer required to get gender-affirming surgeries in order to update their birth certificates to align with their gender identity. The Arizona Department of Health Services has 120 days to comply with the ruling.

“We are grateful that the Court ruled in Plaintiffs’ favor and found that this outdated requirement violated Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights,” said Rachel Berg, a staff attorney for the National Center for LGBTQ Rights (NCLR), which filed the case on behalf of four trans youths. “We are thrilled that the Arizona Department of Health Services will be permanently enjoined from enforcing this irrational and overly burdensome requirement, and Plaintiffs will be able to amend their birth certificates to reflect who they are.”

The ruling instructs the Arizona Department of Health Services to ignore the state’s law that requires proof of surgery to be able to amend gender markers on a birth certificate. A correction of one’s gender marker on the document still requires a doctor to attest that the patient is living as a different gender from the one assigned at birth.

The Arizona Attorney General’s Office represented the state health department. The office told the Arizona Daily Star that they are studying the ruling while deciding whether to launch an appeal on the matter.

In August last year, the same federal judge, James Soto (who was appointed by former President Barack Obama), made a similar ruling recommending that the Department of Health Services reconsider the surgical requirement for amending a birth certificate.

Soto highlighted that the requirement risked forcing trans people into unnecessary surgeries in order to live authentically or risk outing themselves in potentially dangerous situations. After a failure to act from the Department of Health Services, this week’s ruling from Judge Soto takes the matter out of their hands.

Earlier this year, Arizona Republicans tried to pass legislation to ban gender marker changes on trans people’s birth certificates entirely. While that bill passed both the state’s House and Senate, it was vetoed by Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs.

The governor upheld her promise to veto any anti-trans bills that made it to her desk, saying the legislature should “focus on real issues that matter and impact people’s everyday lives.”

If the Arizona ruling withstands an appeal, it’ll leave only 10 states that require proof of surgery for trans people to correct their birth certificate gender markers. However, several states still refuse to allow trans people to update their gender markers in any way.

The requirement for trans people to receive surgery to update their gender markers is discriminatory, can force people to have surgeries they don’t want, and can cause particular issues for minors who cannot access gender-affirming care.

As Soto noted in his 2024 ruling, “Not every transgender person needs surgery to complete a gender transition. Starting social transitioning and other recommended therapy may eliminate the need for any potential surgical intervention.”

These requirements can mean that minors, regardless of whether they wish to pursue gender-affirming surgeries later in life, are stuck for many years with documentation that includes an incorrect marker. That can lead to situations where a trans person is forced to out themselves, which — aside from being mentally damaging — can also put them at risk for physical harm, given the current climate towards trans people.

In a statement, NCLR noted, “For young people, their birth certificate impacts everything from school records to camp registration. ”

Finally, in most cases the surgeries required for a trans person to update their birth certificate in these states result in sterilization. That forces them to either give up on having biological kids one day, go through expensive processes to preserve their sperm or eggs, or requires them to put off updating their documents until after having children.

0

Canada Updates U.S. Travel Warning for LGBTQ+ Individuals

Read more at Travel Market Report.

Canada has updated its travel advisory for the U.S. to warn LGBTQ+ travelers of increased scrutiny while crossing the border.

On Sept. 29, 2025, the Government of Canada revised its travel advisory for Canadians entering the United States. The updates include new details for entry and exit requirements regarding passports, visas, and U.S. permanent residents, as well as changes to law and culture that could impact 2SLGBTQI+ persons.

The new advisory cautions that U.S. immigration authorities may reevaluate visa status or residency eligibility in some cases, particularly for those with prior violations or irregularities. It also highlights potential challenges for travelers whose passport gender markers — such as Canada’s “X” designation — may not be recognized in U.S. federal systems, which are reportedly transitioning to require sex assigned at birth in some documentation.

“While the Government of Canada issues passports with a “X” gender identifier, it cannot guarantee your entry or transit through other countries,” the advisory warns. “You might face entry restrictions in countries that do not recognize the “X” gender identifier. Before you leave, verify this information with the closest foreign representative for your destination.” 

According to the updated advisory: “Federal systems in the U.S. are changing to no longer accept markers of gender identity. Sex assigned at birth may now be requested by federal forms and processes, including:

  • visa applications
  • NEXUS applications
  • passenger manifests
  • passport applications
  • Social Security applications

“Laws also vary by state and municipality. Some states have enacted laws affecting 2SLGBTQI+ persons. Check relevant state and local laws.”

0

LGBTQ advocates warn of FBI plan to label trans people as ‘violent extremists’

Read more at the Washington Blade.

The nation’s leading LGBTQ advocacy groups are sounding the alarm over reports that the FBI may soon classify transgender people as a threat group — a move advocates say would be unconstitutional, dangerous, and rooted in political retribution.

At a joint press briefing held over Zoom last week, the heads of the Human Rights Campaign, Transgender Law Center, Equality Federation, GLAAD, PFLAG, and the Southern Poverty Law Center condemned the possibility that the FBI, in coordination with the Heritage Foundation, is working to designate transgender people as “violent extremists.”

The warning comes after a story earlier this month by independent journalist Ken Klippenstein, who reported that two anonymous national security officials said the FBI is considering treating trans subjects as a subset of its new threat category. That classification — originally created under the Biden administration as “Anti-Authority and Anti-Government Violent Extremists” (AGAAVE) — was first applied to Jan. 6 rioters and other right-wing extremists.

After pardoning all of the Jan. 6 insurrectionists, the Trump administration shifted the FBI’s terminology, replacing AGAAVE with “Nihilistic Violent Extremists (NVEs),” or, in some cases, “Transgender Ideology-Inspired Violent Extremism (TIVE).” The possibility of such a label follows several high-profile media errors in which reporters incorrectly linked Charlie Kirk’s shooter to the transgender community, fueling anti-trans rhetoric on the far-right.

For more than an hour last Wednesday, LGBTQ leaders denounced the reported FBI proposal and warned of the consequences of targeting one of the country’s most vulnerable communities. They emphasized that such a move would represent a violation of basic human rights, further fuel misinformation, and give legitimacy to political attacks already directed at transgender people.

Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, warned of the broader danger for the LGBTQ community if this happens.

“Americans can no longer count on the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not when political violence runs rampant, not when political retribution goes unchecked, not when hate is being incited by our president.”

Robinson argued that claims of “Transgender Ideology-Inspired Violent Extremism” are not rooted in reality. For example, Gun Violence Archive Executive Director Mark Bryant has said that out of 5,000 mass shootings tracked by the archive, the number of trans or LGBTQ+ suspects is in “the single digit numbers.”

“Trans Americans are more likely to be the victim of a violent crime than a perpetrator of one… violence committed by trans Americans is a lie, a lie that only begets more violence.”

Shelby Chestnut of the Transgender Law Center warned that the federal government’s posture would escalate attacks on the community.

“Bullying communities and manufacturing chaos will never erase the truth that we are far more connected than divided,” Chestnut said. “In the coming days and weeks, you will see increased targeting of our organizations and our communities and mis and disinformation being weaponized at the highest level of government.”

Fran Hutchins of the Equality Federation described the move as a direct assault on trans people, echoing Chestnut’s points — but made it clear that this will not stop organizations supporting transgender people from continuing their work.

“This is a campaign that weaponizes fear and misinformation to isolate and harm our communities,” she said. “Let’s call it what it is. It’s political violence… We will not be erased.”

Sarah Kate Ellis, president of GLAAD, the LGBTQ media watchdog organization, urged the press not to fall into false equivalencies, reminding reporters that transgender people face the highest risk of violence, contrary to the narratives pushed by some MAGA Republicans.

“Trans people exist. They always existed, and they will continue to exist,” she said. “The truth is the real trans terrorism… is the terror experienced by trans people in this country.”

Ellis also emphasized that this is an issue of civil and human rights, not something abstract — with real consequences.

“Do not treat civil rights as a both sides issue.”

Brian Bond of PFLAG (Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) framed the FBI’s proposal as a betrayal of American values, calling it “un-American” and “despicable,” while warning that even if it doesn’t immediately affect everyone, it represents a slippery slope.

“Every child in their family, every family member, every neighbor, transgender or not, is affected.”

He added: “PFLAG parents… will not back down.”

Beth Littrell of the Southern Poverty Law Center underscored the constitutional implications of these potential actions, their consequences for other marginalized groups, and the role of the media in calling out the Trump administration’s tactics.

“The real threat is when the government targets a group of people and those who support them for unequal treatment based only on who they are or what they believe,” Littrell said. “It should go without saying, but I say it anyway, transgender children do not threaten anyone’s ability to safely live and thrive in our nation or anywhere else.”

“What is being reported is unconstitutional. What is happening is dangerous,” she added. “We have seen this playbook before… We fought alongside the communities then, we will continue to do so now.”

Advocates closed the call with a unified demand: that political leaders, the media, and the public reject any attempt to label transgender people as extremists and instead hold accountable those responsible for spreading violence and misinformation.

0

Texas A&M President resigns over controversy in LGBTQ teachings

Read more at Yahoo.

The President of Texas A&M University, Mark Welsh, resigned last week amid controversy over a viral video between a professor and a student debating gender ideology.

Welsh stepped down officially on Friday, September 19, according to a press release where the Chancellor Glenn Hegar thanked Welsh for his service to the university and the nation.

“President Welsh is a man of honor who has led Texas A&M with selfless dedication,” said Hegar. “We are grateful for his service and contributions. At the same time, we agree that now is the right moment to make a change and to position Texas A&M for continued excellence in the years ahead.”

The former president resigned while the university faces heated backlash after a video was posted of a student calling out a professor for teaching gender ideology in the classroom.

Professor Melissa McCoul was sharing an image of a “gender unicorn” that demonstrates concepts of gender expressions, identity and sexuality while reading “Jude Saves the World,” a novel about a 12-year-old who comes out as nonbinary, according to The Texas Tribune.

The student said it was illegal according to an executive order signed by President Trump and went against her religious beliefs.

“[M]y Administration will defend women’s rights and protect freedom of conscience by using clear and accurate language and policies that recognize women are biologically female, and men are biologically male,” Trump wrote in the executive order.

State Rep. Brian Harrison, R-Texas, reposted the video on X.

“The governor and lieutenant governor and speaker have been telling everybody for two years now that we passed bans on DEI and transgender indoctrination in public universities,” Harrison wrote on his X account. “The only little problem with that? It’s a complete lie. … The state of Texas — despite what the governor said in his tweet yesterday, that this is a violation of law — there is no state law that we passed.”

Professor McCoul was later fired, according to press reports.

Former A&M President Welsh allegedly defended the inclusion of LGBTQ content in the classroom.

“Those people don’t get to pick who their clients are, what citizens they serve and they want to understand the issues affecting the people that they’re going to treat,” Welsh said in an audio recording posted by Harrison on X. “So there is a professional reason to teach some of these courses.”

In the past few years, Texas has been one of many states fighting LGBTQ and diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in schools.

0

Slovakia Enshrines Only Two Sexes in Constitution, Restricting Adoption and Surrogacy for LGBTQ People

Read more at Gayety.

Slovakia’s parliament, has approved a sweeping constitutional amendment that legally recognizes only two sexes—male and female, and imposes new limits on adoption and surrogacy, sparking alarm from human rights groups and LGBTQ+ advocates.

The amendment, passed in a narrow 90‑vote majority in the 150‑seat National Council, also restricts adoption to married heterosexual couples and bans surrogate pregnancies. It was framed by Prime Minister Robert Fico’s government as a defense of “sovereignty in cultural and ethical matters” and traditional values. Fico heralded the vote as “a great dam against progressivism.”

The constitutional change marks one of the most significant curbs yet on LGBTQ+ and reproductive rights in the country, critics say, aligning Slovakia more closely with Hungary’s conservative trajectory, and raising concerns about violations of international commitments and human rights.

What the Law Does

  • Defining Sex and Gender: The amendment states explicitly that only two sexes—male and female—are recognized under Slovak law. Legal definitions of gender identity beyond that framework are excluded.
  • Adoption Restrictions: Only married heterosexual couples will now be able to adopt children. Same‑sex couples are excluded from adoption rights under the new wording.
  • Ban on Surrogacy: The law prohibits surrogate pregnancies.
  • Assertion of “National Identity”: The amendment declares that Slovakia retains sovereignty over issues of national identity, culture, and state ethics, even potentially above European Union law in certain areas.

Passage and Political Dynamics

The vote was precariously close. Fico’s coalition controls fewer than the 90 votes required for constitutional amendments, but 12 opposition lawmakers from conservative parties defected last minute, providing the margin required for passage.

Some opposition figures expressed outrage, describing defectors as traitors, alleging the vote was a political maneuver to distract from declining public approval and other unpopular measures.

President Peter Pellegrini said he would sign the amendment into law, framing the constitutional majority as a signal of political consensus in deeply polarized times.

Responses and Broader Implications

Human rights organizations were quick to condemn the change. Critics warn it will lengthen the legal limbo for trans, non‑binary, and intersex people, reduce access to gender recognition, and further institutionalize discrimination.

There are also worries it will lead to clashes with EU law, which guarantees certain protections for minority and LGBTQ+ populations. Legal scholars suggest the amendments may violate international treaties and could become the subject of legal challenges.

For Slovak LGBTQ+ individuals, the change is deeply personal. It removes recognition for anyone who doesn’t fit neatly into “male” or “female,” and restricts family formation for non‑heterosexual parents.

0

Texas enacts controversial “bathroom bill” into law

Read more at CBS News.


Local News

Texas enacts controversial “bathroom bill” into law

By Marissa Armas

Updated on: September 27, 2025 / 1:01 PM CDT / CBS Texas

It’s a controversial new law that’s drawing sharp criticism from LGBTQ advocates across Texas.

Gov. Greg Abbott officially signed the so-called “bathroom bill” on Monday. While some are applauding the move, others say it unfairly targets transgender people and others.

On Monday, Abbott signed Senate Bill 8 into law, which requires people in government buildings and schools to use certain facilities based on the sex they were assigned at birth.

Impact on public institutions statewide

The law applies to restrooms, locker rooms, and other changing facilities in public schools, universities, prisons, jails, and other government-owned buildings. It also limits which family violence shelters transgender people can access.

The only exceptions are for children under 10 accompanied by an adult, as well as custodians, law enforcement, and medical workers.

Community leaders express concern

Because of the new law, community engagement strategist Gordy Carmona is having tough conversations with many of the people they serve.

“It’s just heartbreaking,” said Carmona. “I know how it’s going to impact so many of the people that I care about that I know, both personally and professionally.”

Brad Pritchett, CEO of Equality Texas, said the law’s intent is clear.

“Even though the letter of this law is plainly written, the intent of the law is really about trying to keep transgender, nonbinary, and intersex Texans from being able to participate in public life here in the state of Texas,” Pritchett said.

Supporters call it ‘common sense’

Abbott posted a video Monday about the bill signing, saying, “I signed a law banning men in women’s restrooms. It is a common-sense public safety issue.”

State Rep. Angelia Orr echoed that message, saying, “Let’s hope more states follow suit. This is common sense policy to protect the women and girls of Texas!”

Enforcement details remain unclear

Pritchett said there are still many questions about how the law will be enforced.

“We don’t really know what cities or school districts, or political subdivisions are going to do to try to enforce this bill,” said Pritchett. “There are things that are reasonable, and there are things that are unreasonable, and our goal is to ensure that no unreasonable things are taking place, with regards to how people are accessing essential spaces for themselves.”

Fines target institutions, not individuals

While individuals won’t be fined for violating the law, institutions can face steep penalties — $5,000 for a first offense and up to $125,000 for subsequent violations

The law takes effect on Dec. 4.

0

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑