Tag: gender

New Hampshire House advances transgender bathroom bill, breaking with New England

Read more at the Advocate.

In most of New England, the question of whether transgender people may use bathrooms consistent with their gender identity has largely been settled. In New Hampshire, lawmakers are reopening it.

The Republican-controlled New Hampshire House voted 181–164 on Wednesday evening to pass House Bill 1442, legislation that would allow schools, government buildings, and some businesses to restrict bathrooms and locker rooms based on sex assigned at birth rather than gender identity. The bill now heads to the state Senate.

If enacted, the measure would place New Hampshire further out of step with the rest of the Northeast, where protections for trans residents in public accommodations remain broadly intact.

House Bill 1442 would require bathrooms and locker rooms in public schools and municipally owned buildings to be designated for male or female use based on sex. The bill also allows businesses and other places of public accommodation to require that multi-user restrooms be used according to what the legislation defines as a person’s “biological sex.”

The proposal goes further than many similar measures elsewhere by creating a new legal mechanism tied to restroom use. Under the bill, entering an area designated for females while classified as male under the statute could be considered “willful trespass.”

The legislation also establishes a statutory definition of sex that centers on biological characteristics such as chromosomes and reproductive anatomy, stating that a person’s gender identity does not determine access to spaces designated for males or females.

Supporters argue the legislation protects privacy in intimate spaces. Opponents say it singles out transgender people for exclusion and undermines civil rights protections that the state adopted less than a decade ago.

The vote follows several years of legislative attempts to pass similar restrictions, which repeatedly ran into gubernatorial vetoes.

Weeks ago, Gov. Kelly Ayotte, a Republican, vetoed a comparable proposal that would have allowed transgender people to be excluded from bathrooms, locker rooms, jails, and other gender-segregated spaces. It was the third time in as many years that a New Hampshire governor rejected similar legislation.

Ayotte said the earlier proposal was overly broad and risked creating an exclusionary environment.

Her predecessor, Chris Sununu, who is also a Republican, vetoed a similar measure in 2024, writing that lawmakers were attempting to address problems “that have not presented themselves.”

Yet the issue has returned to the legislature year after year.

Advocates say the persistence reflects a broader campaign targeting transgender rights in the state. According to the advocacy group 603 Equality, several bills introduced during the current legislative session attempt to regulate public facilities based on what lawmakers describe as “biological sex,” part of a wider slate of proposals affecting bathrooms, sports participation, and identification documents.

The group says House Bill 1442 is among the most “sweeping and cruel” of those proposals.

In 2018, New Hampshire added gender identity to its nondiscrimination law, becoming the final state in New England to extend those protections. At the time, the move appeared to complete a regional consensus on LGBTQ+ equality.

In recent years, however, that consensus has begun to fracture.

In 2025, Ayotte signed legislation banning gender-affirming medical care such as puberty blockers and hormone therapy for transgender minors, making New Hampshire the first state in New England to enact such a restriction.

Neighboring states, including Massachusetts, Vermont, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, maintain broad protections for transgender residents across public accommodations and health care.

Even Maine, which, like New Hampshire, has long been politically competitive and regularly elects Republicans to statewide office, has not enacted comparable restrictions on transgender rights. Instead, Maine has become the focus of a separate political fight: a proposed ballot measure backed by national conservative donors that would bar transgender girls from school sports and require schools to separate bathrooms and locker rooms based on sex assigned at birth.

Advocates say such policies place transgender people in untenable situations, forcing them to choose between using facilities inconsistent with their gender identity or risking confrontation.

0

Republican TX AG sues chest binding company & claims its making “a fortune by hurting kids”

Read more at LGBTQ Nation.

Texas Attorney General and U.S. Senate candidate Ken Paxton (R) is suing a New York-based company for marketing chest binders to minors.

Paxton has accused trans and nonbinary-inclusive youth undergarment brand Lola Olivia of violating his state’s consumer protection laws banning false, misleading, or deceptive advertising. The company, he claimed in a February 20 press release, sells chest binders “to Texas girls as young as nine-years-old to ‘transition’ them” without “informing them that they could be subjected to no less than twenty-eight different medical conditions.”

According to the World Professional Association for Transgender Health’s (WPATH) 2022 Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People, trans masculine young people who bind their chests — described as a reversible, nonmedical practice that involves “compression of the breast tissue to create a flatter appearance” — report benefits including “increased comfort, improved safety, and lower rates of misgendering.” Risks such as back/chest pain, shortness of breath, and overheating are common. However, more serious risks, such as those Paxton cites in his lawsuit, like skin infections, respiratory infections, and rib fractures, are rare and more common among adults.

WPATH does recommend that healthcare professionals provide trans and gender diverse adolescents with “accurate and reliable information about the potential benefits and risks of chest binding,” and recommend the use of binders specifically designed for gender diverse people.

Paxton’s complaint includes multiple misrepresentations of medical research. Them notes it cites WPATH’s acknowledgement of certain risks associated with chest binding, but fails to note the infrequency of those risks among young people or the benefits when done properly.

The lawsuit also cites research published in the International Journal of Sexual Health last year, which found a “significant number of negative health implications” reported among trans and nonbinary people who bind. However, researchers also noted that “some studies also found positive effects on dysphoria, life satisfaction, and mental health,” and noted that several studies indicated a lack of knowledge about binding among healthcare providers. Researchers recommended further research “on long-term effects, safer methods, and promoting education” on chest binding.

The complaint also cites the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s recent interpretation of chest binders as Class I medical devices under section 201(h) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act because they are “intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions, or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, or to affect the structure or any function of the body.” Under this interpretation, Paxton alleges Lola Olivia is in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act by not registering its products with the FDA. But the Dallas Voice notes that the FDA has said class 1 medical devices, which include items like manual stethoscopes and bedpans, “are generally exempt from premarket notification and approval.”

In his press release, Paxton falsely described “transitioning” minors as “child abuse” and accused Lola Olivia of making “a fortune by hurting kids.”

The lawsuit seeks a temporary restraining order, injunctive relief, and over $1,000,000 in monetary relief, including civil penalties.

0

Republican TX AG bans “radical” mental health workers from affirming trans youth: It’s “child abuse”

Read more at LGBTQ Nation.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) has declared that it is illegal for mental health care providers licensed by the state to affirm trans youth and that doing so is child abuse.

The virulently anti-trans official issued the opinion on Monday to explain that the state’s gender-affirming care ban applies to mental health care as well. In a press release, Paxton’s office referred to the practice of affirming someone’s gender as “‘transitioning’ our kids.”

“Any radical facilitating the ‘transitioning’ of our kids is committing child abuse,” Paxton said in a statement. “The law is clear that these radical procedures are illegal and in no world should Texans’ tax dollars be used to permanently harm children. This opinion should send a clear warning there will be consequences for any medical professional, whether a doctor or a therapist, who is illegally ‘transitioning’ Texas kids.”

Trans news site Transitics said the opinion can be interpreted as essentially requiring mental health professionals to either refuse to see young trans patients or else engage in conversion therapy. The opinion states that therapists have an obligation to help children with “overcoming” an “underlying… condition,” which in this case is gender dysphoria.

“Even if they want to, they can no longer affirm a trans kid’s identity, offer alternatives in another state, or encourage parents to accept their kids for who they are,” Aleksandra Vaca at Transitics explained. “Under Paxton’s opinion, doing anything other than push a child to accept being their assigned sex at birth will result in providers losing their license and/or being imprisoned. This is conversion therapy, which is recognized by the United Nations as being tantamount to torture.”

Paxton has spent his tenure as attorney general terrorizing the trans community. In 2022, he issued a non-binding opinion calling gender-affirming health care a form of child abuse, which led Gov. Greg Abbott (R) to order the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) to investigate for child abuse any parents who allow their trans children to access gender-affirming medical care prescribed by their doctors.

In a post at the time, Paxton called gender affirming care and puberty blockers – which have been shown to reduce lifetime suicide risk for transgender people who have access to them before puberty – “monstrous and tragic.”

Paxton has also argued it should be legal to discriminate against trans people at work, and he once tried to force a school to cancel its Pride week. He has sued for the right to discriminate against LGBTQ+ students, sued a group that highlighted the rise in hate speech on Elon Musk’s social media platform X, and sued the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) to force it to inspect every athlete’s gender before allowing them to play.

He has also said consensual encounters between consenting same-sex adults should be illegal, and that state workers can deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples. 

Paxton was previously impeached by the Texas House in 2023 for 16 counts of bribery but was later acquitted by the Texas Senate. The FBI also investigated him for years for securities fraud, but the Department of Justice eventually dropped its investigation. He also settled a state securities fraud case against him, paying $300,000 and participating in community service to avoid legal charges.

In July, it came to light that his wife filed for divorce from him due to adultery.

Paxton told his staff about an extramarital affair in September 2018 while holding hands with his wife, The Texas Tribune reported. But while he recommitted to their marriage during that confession, he continued to cheat on her, the publication reported, even going through great lengths to hide affairs from her: using burner phones, secret email addresses, and secret rideshare accounts to meet with his mistress.

0

Ken Paxton sues Children’s Health and Dallas doctor for allegedly providing transgender youth care

Read more at KERA News.

Attorney General Ken Paxton sued Children’s Health System of Texas and a Dallas doctor Wednesday for allegedly violating a Texas ban on gender-affirming care for minors.

The AG asked a Collin County judge for a temporary injunction to stop the two defendants from providing any gender-affirming care or filing any claims to Texas Medicaid for that care.

The suit alleges Jason Jarin, a pediatric and adolescent gynecologist at Children’s Health and associate professor at UT Southwestern Medical Center, violated the law with 19 patients. It alleges he violated a 2023 law that prevents health care providers from giving transgender youth puberty blockers, hormone replacement therapy or surgery for the purpose of transitioning — one of a number of Texas laws aimed at limiting the type of care transgender adults and children can receive.

Paxton also argues Jarin filed claims for these services with Texas Medicaid, which doesn’t cover any gender-affirming care.

“This criminal extremist not only permanently harmed children, but he also then defrauded Medicaid and stuck Texas taxpayers with the bill for this insanity,” Paxton wrote in a statement. “Experimental ‘transition’ procedures on minors are illegal, unethical, and will not be tolerated in Texas.”

Jarin told KERA News Wednesday morning he had just learned of the lawsuit, and declined to comment.

Children’s Health told KERA in a statement its “top priority is the health and well-being of the patients and families we serve.”

“We comply with all applicable local, state and federal health care laws. Due to ongoing legal proceedings, we are unable to comment further at this time,” the statement read.

Jarin became an assistant professor at UT Southwestern in 2016 and has published studies on transgender children, according to his faculty profile.

Many of the lawsuit allegations claim he intentionally prescribed extra hormones for transgender kids leading up to Sept. 1, 2023, when the law took effect, so that they could continue to get treatment.

The law, known as Senate Bill 14, did allow for prescriptions to continue for children who were “already subject to a continuing course of treatment that began prior to June 1, 2023,” and children who “attended at least 12 mental health counseling or psychotherapy sessions over a period of at least six months prior to starting treatment,” according to Paxton’s suit. But those prescriptions had to be for the purpose of weaning the patient off the drug.

Jarin is accused of violating SB 14 with 12 of the 19 patients. If found liable, he could lose his medical license — SB 14 requires the Texas Medical Board to revoke the license of any physician who provides gender-affirming care to a child.

0

European Parliament passes resolution that says trans women are women

Read more at LGBTQ Nation.

The European Parliament agreed to a resolution that says that trans women are women last Wednesday.

The resolution was to adopt recommendations concerning the European Union’s priorities for the 70th session of the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women, which is set to take place next month in New York. The U.N. Commission on the Status of Women is charged with promoting gender equality across the globe.

Citing the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, as well as several other international proclamations, the council set a list of recommendations for the E.U. to pursue at the convention, including: “emphasize the importance of the full recognition of trans women as women, noting that their inclusion is essential for the effectiveness of any gender-equality and anti-violence policies; call for recognition of and equal access for trans women to protection and support services.”

The resolution also mentioned LGBTQ+ people in several other places, including in the statement about needing a “comprehensive tool to monitor and counter democratic backsliding and backsliding in women’s rights” and citing “attacks by anti-gender and anti-rights movements” that “undermine democracy and target women’s and LGBTIQ+ rights.”

The section on funding cuts to non-governmental organizations included “LGBTIQ+ organizations” as needing support. The section on sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) mentioned “access to gender-sensitive mental health services for young women and LGBTIQ+ people.” And a section about the E.U. commitment to foreign policy stressed the need to prioritize “the needs of women and LGBTIQ+ human rights defenders.”

The resolution was adopted in a 340-141 vote, with 68 abstentions.

Independent journalist Erin Reen notes that this now puts the E.U. “on a direct collision course with the United States,” which will also be at the session, a reference to the current presidential administration’s stated policy that trans people’s existence must be denied by the federal government.

While the European Parliament’s recommendations aren’t binding, they are expected to have significant influence on the E.U.’s positions at the forum.

0

Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly vetoes anti-trans ‘bathroom bounty’ bill

Read more at the Advocate.

Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly has vetoed what LGBTQ+ advocates are calling an anti-transgender “bathroom bounty” bill.

Kelly, a Democrat in a heavily Republican state, Friday vetoed Senate Bill 244, passed by legislators in January along party lines, Republicans for, Democrats against. It would have required trans people to restrooms and other single-sex facilities in government buildings according to their sex assigned at birth, not their gender identity. It further would have required the state to reissue any driver’s licenses or birth certificates that reflected a trans person’s gender identity, replacing that gender marker with one for the sex assigned at birth. It further would have banned multi-occupancy gender-neutral restrooms in government buildings.

It would have imposed a fine on individuals of $1,000 for a second violation of the law and would allow those “aggrieved” by the presence of a trans person to sue for damages of $1,000 or the amount of actual damages. The government entity would be fined $25,000 for the first violation and $125,000 for any subsequent violation. The lawsuit provision is not limited to government buildings.

In her veto message, Kelly called the bill “poorly drafted.”

“This poorly drafted bill will have numerous and significant consequences far beyond the intent to limit the right for trans people to use the appropriate bathroom,” she wrote. “Under this bill: If your grandfather is in a nursing home in a shared room, as a granddaughter, you would not be able to visit him. If your wife is in a shared hospital room, as a husband, you would not be able to visit her. If your sister is living in a dorm at K-State, as a brother, you would not be able to visit her in her room. … I believe the Legislature should stay out of the business of telling Kansans how to go to the bathroom and instead stay focused on how to make life more affordable for Kansans.”

Related: Kansas governor passes law requiring ID to view acts of ‘homosexuality’ online, vetoes anti-LGBTQ+ bill

The legislation is known as a “gut and go” bill because it started out with an altogether different purpose. SB 244 originated as a bill to regulate bail bond companies. A House committee deleted those contents and replaced them with the anti-trans language. The gender marker provisions had a public hearing, but not the bathroom provisions.

“Procedurally, it is the absolute worst bill I have ever heard in the Kansas legislature,” Democratic Rep. Dan Osman said during debate on the measure, according to the Kansas Reflector. “It was done with one purpose and one purpose only — to ensure that the absolute least number of people were available as opponents to this bill and that they were unaware that there would even be a hearing.”

Rep. Abi Boatman, the only trans person currently serving in the legislature, said she felt the bill was aimed at her, the Reflector reports. “I have sat here for five and a half hours and listened to this entire room debate my humanity and my ability to participate in the most basic functions of society,” Boatman, a Democrat who was appointed in January to fill a vacancy, said as the debate ended. “From the bottom of my heart, I hope none of you have to ever sit through something like that.” Another Democrat, Rep. Susan Ruiz, said the legislation “spits on basic human decency.”

Democratic Rep. Alexis Simmons said it’s sexism, not trans women, that is a threat to women’s safety. “Here in this building, as an intern, as a committee assistant, as staff and as a legislator, I have been sexually harassed more than you would believe,” she said, according to the Reflector. “If we’re going to talk about women’s safety, we should address the real trauma, which is how women are treated, not putting the spotlight on one new member of our legislature.”

House Minority Leader Brandon Woodard predicted that if the bill became law, it would be struck down in court. Attorney General Kris Kobach, a Republican, lost a court case dealing with gender markers, he noted. “As long as Kris Kobach’s our attorney general, I think he’s going to continue to lose in court,” Woodard said.

The legislation “would cut directly against the inclusive workplace policies many Kansas cities have already adopted,” a Human Rights Campaign press release notes, and its “broad restrictions across public buildings, including schools, universities, airports, and government offices, would affect large numbers of public-sector employees and contribute to a chilling effect at work.”

An override of Kelly’s veto could happen unless some who supported the bill change their minds. Both the House and Senate passed the legislation with more than the two-thirds majority necessary for an override. Kelly has previously vetoed bills banning gender-affirming care for trans youth and barring them from competing in school sports under their gender identity, but legislators overrode those vetoes, so the bills became law.

Senate President Ty Masterson and House Speaker Dan Hawkins, both Republicans, vowed overrides, The Topeka Capital-Journal reports. “I never thought I’d see the day when our state’s own governor would turn her back on women by forcing them to use bathrooms in public buildings with biological men,” said a statement from Masterson. “Sadly, our governor has decided she will side with they/them over simple, scientific truth. Kansans need not worry — the Kansas Senate will restore sanity and override her veto.”

Related: Kansas public universities end LGBTQ+, DEI programs

LGBTQ+ groups, meanwhile, are praising Kelly’s veto. HRC President Kelley Robinson issued this statement: “The length that Republican lawmakers will go in attacking the transgender community instead of solving real issues facing Kansans is appalling. SB244 is about invading privacy, forcing people into the wrong bathrooms, stripping transgender Kansans of accurate IDs, and inviting government-sanctioned harassment — all pushed through using cynical procedural tricks to silence public opposition. Shameful policies like this are part and parcel of a national right-wing anti-LGBTQ+ campaign, and they don’t make anyone safer. They green light harassment and violence targeting transgender people while opening the door to invasive gender policing that affects everyone.

“We’re grateful to Governor Laura Kelly and Kansas State Rep. Abi Boatman for continuing to stand up for transgender Kansans. They have been consistent, courageous defenders of dignity, privacy, and freedom for all. HRC will work to ensure the legislature sustains the Governor’s veto and gets back to work on policies that support all Kansas families, instead of discriminating against them.”

“It is impossible to overstate the harms this extremist legislation would visit on transgender Kansans and many others if allowed to take effect,” Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, senior counsel and health care strategist at Lambda Legal, added in a press release. “ SB244 would require transgender Kansans to use public facilities that do not align with who they are and to carry inaccurate and conflicting identity documents that cause confusion and expose them to harassment and abuse, and would put a target on their backs through a bounty system that will encourage extreme violations of their privacy by those seeking financial gain. Make no mistake, the unprecedented and unlawful bounty system in this legislation would expose all Kansans — not just those who are transgender — to intrusive and abusive violations of their privacy.”

0

Adult trans patients left reeling after Massachusetts hospital cancels vaginoplasties without explanation

Read more at LGBTQ Nation.

Trans women in Massachusetts may be suffering the effects of the Trump administration’s campaign to erase transgender identity from American society, but their hospital won’t confirm or deny it.

Several trans women scheduled for vaginoplasties with a highly regarded doctor specializing in the gender-affirming procedure were informed over the last few weeks that their surgeries had been cancelled and they wouldn’t be able to reschedule them, WGBH reports.

“I’m crushed. I can’t stop crying,” said one patient identified as Avery, who used a pseudonym. “This surgery was life-changing because it finally gives me the body that’s right for me. It has been ripped away with no explanation or follow-up plan.”

Avery’s hospital is UMass Memorial Health in Worcester, Massachusetts, and her surgeon is Dr. Ashley Alford, who introduced an innovative vaginoplasty technique never before used in New England. The surgery involves utilizing abdominal tissue and robotic technology to create a more realistic and functional vagina than other common procedures produce.

Avery had spent months preparing for the surgery, including a switch to a more expensive insurance plan that would cover the procedure.

Then it was cancelled. Avery said she pressed hospital staff for answers and learned that all of Dr. Alford’s appointments had been cancelled. She received no other explanation.

Among the six patients of Dr. Alford’s that were interviewed, all said they’ve received calls in the last two weeks canceling their appointments at UMass; more are identified in a subreddit devoted to the situation, which one describes as “unbelievably confusing.”

Despite the abrupt cancellations, the UMass health system says it’s not curtailing gender-affirming care.

“Although appointments may at times need to be canceled or rescheduled due to the availability of a specific provider, nothing has changed in UMass Memorial Health’s commitment to providing comprehensive, evidence-based health care, including gender affirming care, to all members of our community,” the statement read.

Dr. Alford had no comment on the nixed appointments and procedures.

The second Trump administration has issued a wave of orders curtailing the rights of transgender people, including attempts to end gender-affirming care for minors (early with his executive order addressing so-called “Child Mutilation”) and later, in December, an announcement from Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that any hospital providing gender affirming care for minors would lose Medicare and Medicaid funding.

UMass’s abrupt cancellations of surgeries for trans adults conjure a nightmare scenario for older patients reliant on gender-affirming care.

Chrissi Bates, an advocate for transgender healthcare and Alford’s first patient to undergo the advanced vaginoplasty procedure, sees a hidden hand behind Alford’s sudden unavailability.

“We all love Dr. Alford. We all doubt that it’s her that wants to leave,” said Bates, who planned on seeing Alford for post-op appointments. “It’s really disheartening to hear that UMass is just caving to this unjust kind of healthcare agenda that’s being pushed by the Trump administration.”

Most of all, the UMass patients in Worcester want answers.

“If it is Dr. Alford being pushed out due to concerns from the Trump administration, who’s to say that’s not going to happen in Boston?” said Kara Earp, a North Carolina transplant who moved to Massachusetts just for the gender-affirming care. Her appointment with Alford was cancelled, as well.

“I probably won’t actually be happy until I wake up from surgery and it’s all over with,” she said.

0

Indiana BMV bans trans people from correcting drivers licenses

Read more at LGBTQ Nation.

The state of Indiana just banned trans people from updating the gender markers on their driver’s licenses.

Advocate reports that the state’s Bureau of Motor Vehicles added a small statement to its website on Monday saying that it will no longer allow people to change their gender on state IDs, even if they have a court order.

The notice can be found by clicking through several webpages on the state’s BMV website:

Gender Change Rule Update

Effective Feb. 12, 2026, the BMV will no longer provide customers with the option to change their gender on their Indiana credential by using a court ordered gender change or physician statement per Amended Rule 140 Indiana Administrative Code section 7-1.1-3.

Indiana has been rolling back transgender people’s rights for the past few years. In 2014, trans people were allowed to update the gender marker on their birth certificates with a court order. In March 2025, Gov. Mike Braun (R) signed an executive order banning the practice. The ACLU sued to stop the executive order.

In January 2020, the Indiana BMV stopped allowing people to choose an “X” gender marker on their driver’s licenses, after about a year of allowing it. Then-Attorney General Curtis Hill said that the BMV had overstepped its authority in allowing the nonbinary gender markers and said that “only the General Assembly” has the power to decide if nonbinary gender markers are allowed.

In 2023, then-Gov. Eric Holcomb (R) signed a ban on gender-affirming care for trans minors that also forced trans youth in the state to detransition if they were already receiving hormone therapy.

Holcomb vetoed a transgender sports ban in 2022, but the state legislature overrode his veto that year. The state expanded the ban to include college sports in 2025.

The Movement Advancement Project says that only three states – Texas, Tennessee, and Florida – completely ban trans people from updating the gender marker on state IDs.

Indiana Youth Group, an LGBTQ+ organization in the state, denounced the rule change.

“Denying people the ability to update the gender marker on their identification is not only discriminatory; it is dangerous,” they said in a statement. “In an increasingly hostile climate, mismatched identification can expose individuals to harassment, threats, and violence. It can also create serious barriers to employment, housing, and access to essential services.”

In 2020, a study from Drexel University found that transgender adults with gender-affirming IDs have better mental health than those whose IDs do not match their gender identity.

The study examined data provided by 22,286 trans adults in the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey and found that those with gender-affirming identification — such as passports and driver’s licenses — were 32% less likely to be classified as seriously psychologically distressed. They were also 22% less likely to have seriously considered suicide within the last year and 25% likely to have made a suicide plan within the last year.

“Having IDs that don’t reflect how you see yourself, and how you present yourself to the world, can be upsetting,” said lead researcher Ayden Scheim. “It can also potentially expose people to harassment, violence, and denial of service.”

“Having accurate identification should be a fundamental human right. While many of us take it for granted, obtaining IDs can be very difficult for trans people. This is an area where tangible and relatively simple policy changes could aid public health.”

If you or someone you know is struggling or in crisis, help is available. Call or text 988 or chat at 988lifeline.org. The Trans Lifeline (1-877-565-8860) is staffed by trans people and will not contact law enforcement. The Trevor Project provides a safe, judgement-free place to talk for youth via chat, text (678-678), or phone (1-866-488-7386). Help is available at all three resources in English and Spanish.

0

A Republican governor just vetoed a GOP-led anti-trans bill.

Read more at LGBTQ Nation.

New Hampshire Gov. Kelly Ayotte (R) vetoed an anti-transgender bathroom and sports bill last Friday. Republicans in the state legislature won’t likely have enough votes to override her veto.

The bill, S.B. 268, sought to carve out exceptions to the state’s 2018 anti-discrimination laws (which protect people from discrimination on the basis of “gender identity”) and ban trans people from accessing any restrooms, locker rooms, prisons, detention centers, and non-voluntary treatment centers that match their gender identity. Furthermore, the bill sought to ban trans women from any “athletic or sporting events or competitions” in which “biological males” have physical advantages.

“There are certain limited circumstances in which classification of persons based on biological sex is proper because such classification serves the compelling state interests of protecting the privacy rights and physical safety of such persons and others,” the bill stated, echoing right-wing rhetoric about trans people being a risk to other people’s safety, especially in locker rooms and toilets.

The broadly written bill neither explained how the law would be enforced nor provided any special penalties for violating it. As such, enforcement would have likely depended on individuals filing complaints if they shared a facility with a trans person, leaving state legal authorities to investigate and prosecute such claims.

“I vetoed a nearly identical bill to this one last year,” said Gov. Ayotte, according to The New Hampshire Bulletin. “I made it clear this issue needed to be addressed in a thoughtful, narrow way that protects the privacy, safety, and rights of all Granite Staters. Unfortunately, there is minimal difference between Senate Bill 268 and the bill I vetoed last year, which [Republican] Governor [Chris] Sununu vetoed the year prior.”

When Gov. Ayotte vetoed a similar bill last year, she said, “I believe there are important and legitimate privacy and safety concerns raised by biological males using places such as female locker rooms and being placed in female correctional facilities. At the same time, I see that [this bill] is overly broad and impractical to enforce, potentially creating an exclusionary environment for some of our citizens.”

It’s unlikely that Republican state legislators will have the votes they need to override Gov. Ayotte’s veto in both chambers. New Hampshire state law requires a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate to override a governor’s veto. While the 16 Republicans in the state’s 24-member Senate could reach that threshold, the 222 Republican legislators in the state’s 400-member House could not.

LGBTQ+ advocates cheered on Gov. Ayotte’s veto.

“This is a huge relief for every transgender or gender nonconforming person in New Hampshire,” said Aimee Terravechia, executive director of the statewide LGBTQ+ organization 603 Equality. “In a time of unrelenting legislative attacks and misinformation campaigns around transgender people and their rights, Gov. Ayotte’s veto affirms the basic rights and dignity for all Granite Staters. Transgender and gender nonconforming people deserve safe access to public spaces as they go about living, working, and contributing to our communities. Bathroom bans simply have no place in New Hampshire.”

Heidi Carrington Heath, executive director of NH Outright, said, “This veto is a win for the Granite State, and sends a much-needed message to LGBTQ+ youth and families that they are welcomed and valued members of our communities. Today, Governor Ayotte stood in a long tradition of New Hampshire values protecting freedom and individual liberty. Like all youth, our LGBTQ+ young people deserve access to all of the spaces and places they need to thrive, and this veto helps ensure they can continue to do just that.”

Chris Erchull, senior staff attorney at GLAD Law, said, “We’re pleased with Governor Ayotte’s veto of S.B. 268, which keeps the bipartisan nondiscrimination law passed in 2018 intact and ensures all Granite Staters – including our transgender friends, neighbors, and co-workers – continue to have fair and safe access to our public spaces. Though S.B. 268 will not be the last politically motivated attack on LGBTQ+ people we have to confront in this legislative session, this is a moment worth celebrating – and an opportunity for more Granite Staters to come together in support of fairness, dignity, and freedom for all.”

0

Detransitioner who regrets mastectomy wins $2 million in malpractice lawsuit against doctors

Read more at LGBTQ Nation.

A woman who sued her doctors over a breast removal surgery she received when she was 16 and identified as transgender has been awarded $2 million in damages, marking the first time a detransitioner has won a medical malpractice lawsuit over the care they received as part of their transition.

Multiple right-wing news outlets are calling the decision “historic,” but even the woman’s lawyer is downplaying its significance, insisting the case was never about “the legitimacy of gender-affirming care.”

As The Free Press first reported, on Friday, a jury in New York State sided with 22-year-old Fox Varian, who sued her psychologist and a plastic surgeon, accusing them of failing to adhere to standards of care around gender-affirming care for minors. According to the New York Times, Varian claimed that her doctors did not obtain adequate consent or adequately inform her of the risks associated with a double mastectomy she received in 2019 and came to regret.

As multiple outlets have reported, Varian suffered from depression, anxiety, social phobia, eating disorders, and body-image issues as an adolescent, and was diagnosed with autism at 14. Court documents reportedly show she began questioning her gender at 15. She changed her name multiple times, used he/him pronouns, began binding her breasts, and told her psychologist, Kenneth Einhorn, that she wanted to transition.

According to both the New York Times and the Epoch Times, Einhorn, who has no formal training in treating transgender patients, claimed in court that Varian insisted she needed top surgery. In October 19, nine months after Varian expressed a desire to transition, Einhorn referred her to plastic surgeon Simon Chin.

Crucially, however, Einhorn referred to Varian’s diagnosis as “body dysmorphia” rather than gender dysphoria in his letter to Chin. He also reportedly referred her to an LGBTQ+ nonprofit center for additional counseling, where Varian continued to express uncertainty about her gender. However, Einhorn never followed up with the center. According to the Epoch Times, both Einhorn and Chin admitted in court that had they known about Varian’s continued uncertainty, they would not have referred her for the surgery or performed it.

As both the Epoch Times and the New Republic noted, the jury was not asked to issue a verdict on whether minors should receive gender-affirming surgeries — such procedures are already exceptionally rare — but whether Einhorn and Chin had adhered to accepted standards of care.

Dr. Loren Schechter, president-elect of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), which sets medical standards for gender-related care, even testified as an expert witness on behalf of Varian. Schechter testified that he believed the Einhorn and Chin’s decision to approve the surgery was based on “assumption and inference,” according to the New York Times.

“This case was a medical malpractice case, not a referendum on gender-affirming care,” WPATH said in a statement following the verdict. “When care is delivered ethically and responsibly within these guidelines, the integrity of the field is strengthened.”

Similarly, Varian’s lawyer, Adam Deutsch, issued a statement echoing arguments he’d made in court. “This was never a debate over the legitimacy of gender-affirming care,” he said, according to the Times. “It was about whether medical professionals met the standards that covered their own profession.”

Einhorn and Chin “just didn’t have the experience to deal with someone questioning their gender identity,” Deutsch added. “At the bottom of all of this was a lack of collaboration between the two of them, and lack of communication to follow through.”

At the same time, Benjamin Ryan, an independent journalist who covered the case for The Free Press and who has been critical of gender-affirming care for minors, suggested in a video promoting his reporting that the verdict “could help reshape the legal landscape around youth gender medicine.”

Describing the jury’s verdict as “decisive and historic,” Ryan said that Varian’s case “marks a turning point” and “could contribute to a reckoning over lax assessment standards by care providers when they consider whether irreversible medical interventions should be offered or given to minors with gender dysphoria.”

He said the case “signals a growing wave of detransitioners turning to the courts” and noted that by his count, nearly 30 similar civil cases are currently working their way through courts across the U.S. But as the Times noted, it remains unclear what impact Varian’s case will have on other cases.

Following Friday’s verdict, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) released a statement advising against conducting “gender-related breast/chest, genital, and facial surgery” on people under the age of 19. While the February 3 statement does not mention the Varian case, as the Times notes, it marks the first time a major American medical association has shifted its guidance on gender-affirming care for minors.

0

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑