A federal judge has blocked a gender-affirming care ban for trans inmates in Georgia that has been in effect for several months. Judge Victoria Calvert agreed with the plaintiffs that the blanket ban violated the Eighth Amendment, which bars cruel and unusual punishment.
“The Court finds that there is no genuine dispute of fact that gender dysphoria is a serious medical need,” Judge Calvert wrote in her opinion. “Plaintiffs, through their experts, have presented evidence that a blanket ban on hormone therapy constitutes grossly inadequate care for gender dysphoria and risks imminent injury.”
Georgia Senate Bill 185 was signed into law in May by Governor Brian Kemp (R). The bill prohibited state funds and resources from being used to provide gender-affirming care to inmates in Georgia prisons. That included hormone replacement therapy (HRT), as well as “sex reassignment surgeries or any other surgical procedures that are performed for the purpose of altering primary or secondary sexual characteristics,” and even “cosmetic procedures or prosthetics intended to alter the appearance of primary or secondary sexual characteristics.”
The bill took effect in July, and five plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against it in August. In addition to arguing that SB 185 constituted cruel and unusual punishment, the lawsuit also claimed that it violated the Equal Protection Clause. HRT and other gender-affirming care treatments were not banned under the bill for all inmates, only for those who were trans. The bill also prohibited trans inmates from paying for the care themselves while incarcerated.
“We would never allow a state to decide that people in prison with diabetes should be cut off of insulin just because the state didn’t want to pay for it anymore,” said Celine Zhu, a Staff Attorney for the Center for Constitutional Rights, which is representing the plaintiffs. “So why would we allow Georgia to cut off medically required care for people with a similarly serious diagnosis of gender dysphoria?”
SB 185 was a blanket ban that overruled the opinions of judges, doctors, and the Georgia Department of Corrections, all of whom have previously acknowledged that gender-affirming care is medically necessary for incarcerated trans people.
While the judge’s ruling makes it clear that not every inmate is entitled to gender-affirming care, it puts those decisions back in the hands of medical professionals and the patients rather than having the legislature make medical decisions for trans people.
“The Court requires healthcare decisions for prisoners to be made dispassionately, by physicians, based on individual determinations of medical need, and for reasons beyond the fact that the prisoners are prisoners,” the judge said in her ruling.
Current estimates suggest that there are around 300 out trans people incarcerated in Georgia state prisons.
After the ruling, the Department of Corrections filed a notice of appeal with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
This sort of case has been litigated for over twenty years now. In 2005, Wisconsin introduced a ban on doctors providing trans inmates with gender-affirming care, affecting inmates who had been on hormones since the early 90s. The law was overturned by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court declined to hear the state’s appeal in 2011.
Missouri State Sen. Joe Nicola (R) introduced a bill that would ban “social transition” in schools and forcibly out any transgender and nonbinary students to their potentially unsupportive parents if the students ask a school staff member to address them by a name or gender identity different from the sex assigned to them at birth.
The bill would also allow teachers to be fired and banned from teaching, as well as schools to be sued for affirming trans and nonbinary students’ gender identities, even if a parent approves of their child socially transitioning.
S.B. 1085, one of 21 anti-LGBTQ+ bills recently introduced by Missouri State Republicans, requires school staff members to inform the principal or a designee within 24 hours if any student asks them to “participate in or support” their social transition by having them address them by a name or gender identity that differs from those they were assigned at birth. The principal or designee would then have 72 hours to inform the student’s parents.
The bill would forbid school staffers and counselors from affirming a student’s trans or nonbinary gender identity or teaching about such identities. School districts would also be forced to fire teachers who violate the law and begin proceedings to revoke those teachers’ teaching licenses. Parents and the state attorney general may also pursue a civil lawsuit against any school or school district that violates the law.
The bill has no exception for parents who approve of their child’s social transition. This essentially forces educators to continue misgendering trans students and invalidating their identities even if they personally support trans and nonbinary students. Studies have shown that social transitioning improves the overall health and well-being of trans children.
Trans journalist Erin Reed wrote that the bill “underscores a shift in how anti-trans legislation is being sold to the public.”
“For years, supporters of bathroom bans, sports bans, and ‘don’t say gay’ policies framed their efforts as battles for ‘parental rights.’ Increasingly, though, that language has fallen away as lawmakers move to strip supportive parents of any authority at all, mirroring the approach in medical transition bans that override parental consent entirely.”
Nicola’s bill is just one of numerous anti-LGBTQ+ bills introduced in the state legislature. The other proposed bills would require the state to deny all legal recognition of non-cisgender identities; roll back nondiscrimination protections for transgender people; ban trans students from accessing school facilities or sports teams matching their gender identities; ban schools from displaying Pride flags; and allow anyone working with schools to misgender other employees’ trans/nonbinary gender identities.
The other proposed bills would also forbid state agencies from allowing gender changes on government-issued identity documents; ban trans people from using public facilities matching their gender identities; ban teachers from being a member of any sports organizations that allow trans participation; ban all “obscene” content from schools (including LGBTQ+ educational materials); forbid all gender-affirming care for minors; and designate all drag performances as “adult cabaret” performances (whose viewing by children can be criminally charged).
In April, Nicola voiced support for a state bill that would ban trans and nonbinary people from using “bathrooms, locker rooms, sports facilities, various crisis centers, prisons,” and other sex-segregated spaces that match their gender identity.
When a doctor testified against the bill, noting that such bans negatively affect trans people’s well-being, Nicola replied, “I’m not going to listen to doctors that say one thing that disagrees with a God of creation. You want to kind of berate me a little bit by saying we should listen to what doctors have to say, what your schooling has to say, over what the scripture has to say — it’s not happening with me.”
Nicola may not realize that the Bible has several scriptures that theologians interpret as being supportive of trans people and their identities.
Across the country, LGBTQ+ Americans, people of color, women, religious minorities, and others who feel newly vulnerable under the second Trump administration are quietly constructing “Plan B” escape strategies: securing second residencies, lining up alternate passports, moving assets offshore, scouting communities abroad, or mapping literal escape routes to sanctuary states or neighboring countries.
Some are wealthy enough to buy investment visas in Europe. Others are applying for digital nomad permits that require little more than proof of remote income. Still others are assembling go-bags, stockpiling medication, or rehearsing how they would reach the Canadian border if federal restrictions tightened.
But the phenomenon, a blend of dread, pragmatism, and resignation, is unmistakably rising. None of the people interviewed for this story wants to leave their country. All emphasized that they hope their Plan B remains unused.
They are preparing anyway, because, they say, preparation now feels like survival.
A business built on American anxiety
Eric Major, CEO of the London-based global migration firm Latitude, says his American business has undergone a transformation.
“What used to be a 90 percent, ‘I’m not moving, but I want an insurance policy,’ is now turning into, ‘No, I am moving,’” Major said. “People are saying, ‘I don’t like what I’m hearing or what I’m living or what I’m experiencing.’”
Major, whose company operates across Europe and the Americas, says the shift began in late 2023 and accelerated after Trump’s second inauguration in January, when the administration moved quickly to reinstate the transgendermilitary ban, strip LGBTQ+ recognition from federal websites, and target health care and civil rights protections.
For LGBTQ+ clients, timelines are now one of the first concerns.
The timeline: from 30 days to two years
Major stressed that processing times vary dramatically depending on the country, the type of visa, and how overwhelmed that nation is by American demand.
He says some countries operate at almost lightning speed: Costa Rica, Panama, and other smaller jurisdictions can process residency in as little as 30 to 60 days, depending on background checks and documentation. Malta, too, can process a residency application in approximately three months, making it one of the faster European programs, Major said.
Meanwhile, he noted, countries like Portugal offer popular pathways but now struggle under the sheer volume of applicants. Major said that Portugal’s processing time ranges from six months on the low end to nearly two years on the high end, describing it as a country “victim of its own success.”
Canada, from where Major is originally from, he added, has become similarly stretched; in his experience, no one should expect to receive anything there in under 18 months.
He also emphasized the importance of timing and planning in the application process. Suppose clients know they cannot move until a certain date. In that case, he says the firm essentially reverse-engineers the application, starting preparations early but holding submission to align with a client’s planned departure. Some countries require newly approved residents to arrive almost immediately after approval, he said, which means planning a move is as important as qualifying for one.
‘America is not a safe place in my mind right now’
For “Mark,” not his real name, a gay New Yorker who works as both a physician and a consultant, the ability to pursue multiple residencies is directly tied to his financial circumstances, something he is quick to acknowledge.
He describes himself as “speaking from a very affluent gay perspective,” noting that he has the freedom to work remotely, the savings to invest abroad, and the professional flexibility to relocate. “I have the ability to do such things,” he said. “For me, it was a very no-brainer decision.”
He said the speed at which he could leave mattered as much as the destination.
“When Trump was in office first, I saw the writing on the wall,” Mark told The Advocate in an interview. “I decided one needed an escape mechanism from the United States.”
Mark obtained residency in Portugal, formed a company to gain residency in Panama, and secured status in a Caribbean country. These routes required financial resources, but he stressed that even many of his patients, including those with modest means, are pursuing lower-cost options such as digital nomad visas or temporary residency permits.
Mark said that a significant portion of his own patient population is preparing similar contingency plans. “At least 40 percent of my patients, and 100 percent of my gay patients, all have other residencies now.”
He pointed to Spain’s digital nomad visa, noting that one only needs to show roughly $3,000 in monthly income to qualify. In that program, he said, people can obtain residency and health care after a few years, then become eligible for citizenship after that.
The process brought him a profound sense of security.
“America is not a safe place in my mind right now,” he said. “I’m not going to allow my rights to be taken away from me by some insane lunatic.”
For trans Americans, the calculus is existential
For transgender Americans, the stakes feel even sharper.
Robert, a transgender man in his 60s living in a blue coastal state, began planning immediately after Trump’s inauguration, when the administration reimposed the transgender military ban and targeted trans people’s access to accurate passports and federal recognition.
“I thought we were headed down an authoritarian path — maybe even fascist,” Robert said. “The probability wasn’t zero.”
He initially researched so-called golden passports in the Caribbean, but quickly realized two issues: several of the countries selling them were not LGBTQ+ friendly, and the programs often required investments of $200,000 to $300,000 without guaranteeing a safe environment.
He instead turned to residency programs in Europe and selected Malta, which he identified as one of the most LGBTQ-protective countries in the world. Robert is now deep into the process: he has submitted all documentation, paid the first government fee, and is awaiting final approval before traveling for a required biometric appointment.
But immigration paperwork is only part of his Plan B. Robert has also stockpiled testosterone, a controlled substance, in case access becomes restricted. He has consulted attorneys to secure his real estate holdings, mapped out strategies for exiting the country if his passport is invalidated, and established protocols with his financial institution so that, with a single trigger phrase, his liquid assets can be moved or protected. He said the financial professionals he spoke to did not consider him paranoid; instead, they viewed these preparations as reasonable under the circumstances.
He also acknowledged that his preparation is not something every trans person can do. “My situation is privileged and unique,” he said. “The only thing I tell other trans folks is to at least make a Plan B, even if it’s just knowing how to get to a sanctuary state or across the border.”
For Robert, the red line that would prompt immediate departure is if the government starts signaling that transgender people’s passports could be restricted or invalidated. He said that any move toward requiring trans people to carry identifying markers or any early signs of authoritarian control would also trigger his exit. “Anything akin to the initial steps taken by a fascist regime,” he said.
A new American story
Beyond the logistics and financial planning, the emotional weight of this new reality is heavy.
“People don’t think of what their choices do to people like me,” Robert said. “There’s this level of apathy.”
Mark expressed a similar warning. “Don’t be too late,” he said. “When they start taking passports away and closing borders, it’s too late.”
Major sees this shift reflected in nearly every conversation he has with American clients today. While the process begins with lifestyle questions, financial disclosures, and paperwork, he says the deeper shift is psychological. “Americans are asking: If it gets really bad, where do I go?”
Everyone interviewed emphasized the same hope: that they will never need to use their Plan B.
But preparation itself has become a form of survival.
“I feel it’s a good feeling to be prepared,” Robert said. “I hope I never have to use it. But I’m not willing to gamble my future.”
Mark echoed him, reflecting on how drastically the national mood has shifted. “People usually moved to the United States for better lives. Now people are leaving the United States for better lives.”
A far-right party in New Zealand that is hostile to trans rights preempted a government announcement on Wednesday that the country will indefinitely ban the use of puberty blockers by trans youth.
The New Zealand First party, a minority member of Parliament’s coalition government, made the announcement three hours ahead of the government’s own health ministry, declaring a victory in its “war on woke,” Erin in the Morning reports.
“Today, sanity won another battle in the war on woke,” the surprise announcement read. “After years of dangerous ideological experimentation pushed by radical activists and rubber-stamped by weak politicians, the New Zealand Government has officially banned puberty blockers for children. This is what happens when you back a party that actually delivers.”
“While other parties can’t even define what a woman is, we’ve stood up for families, for truth, and for children.”
The preemptive declaration was one more indication of the politicization of healthcare for trans youth in New Zealand and around the world, and a clue to the party’s intimate involvement in crafting the government’s policy. The change adds New Zealand to a growing list of countries and U.S. states banning gender-affirming care for trans youth.
The government’s own announcement described the decision as “a precautionary approach” to gender-affirming care for transgender youth.
There is a lack of “high-quality evidence that demonstrates the benefits or risks” of puberty-blocking drugs for trans youth, Health Minister Simeon Brown said.
113 patients in New Zealand were using puberty blockers in 2023, according to the health ministry.
While the policy announcement didn’t mention the widely criticized Cass Report, the controversial document claiming a lack of evidence supporting gender-affirming care for young people that was released in the UK last year, it’s the basis of the UK’s own indefinite ban on puberty blockers, which New Zealand is following.
Both countries say they’ll wait for the results of a UK government-sponsored clinical trial on the efficacy of puberty blockers for trans youth before making a final determination on their use. The prohibition won’t affect trans kids currently taking the drugs.
“By pinning the resumption of prescribing to a UK trial result expected in 2031, the Government has effectively sacrificed a generation of trans youth,” said New Zealand civil rights organization Rights Aotearoa. “They are demanding a level of evidence for trans healthcare that they do not demand for hundreds of other treatments routinely used in pediatrics.”
Both bans make an exception for children experiencing early-onset puberty and other conditions, raising equal protection questions.
“This will undoubtedly end up in court – very quickly as the subject of a Judicial Review,” Rights Aotearoa’s Paul Thistoll posted after news of the decision. He called it a “blatant violation” of New Zealand’s Human Rights Act.
Transgender youth in Pennsylvania and their families are celebrating a significant legal victory. A federal court in Philadelphia has rebuffed the Department of Justice’s sweeping attempt to obtain highly personal medical records from the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia about children receiving gender-affirming care.
On Friday, federal district Judge Mark A. Kearney in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued an order quashing DOJ subpoena demands for names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, home addresses, and clinical notes covering minors treated since January 2020. The court found the government “lacks statutory authority for a rambling exploration of the Hospital’s files to learn the names and medical treatment of children.”
Families in Pennsylvania had filed separate motions to quash subpoenas issued by the Trump administration in July that alleged fraud in gender-affirming care. As The Advocatereported, the subpoenas demanded exhaustive data on minors, including “intake forms, consent paperwork, and parental authorizations for puberty blockers and hormone therapy.”
Kearney’s decision reaffirms that the records in question concern lawful medical treatment governed under Pennsylvania law, and that children’s and families’ constitutional privacy interests “far outweigh” the government’s asserted investigative needs. The ruling also criticizes the DOJ’s shifting justifications, noting that at one point the government “replaced” and reminding that “false statements may be subject to a perjury investigation.”
The ruling arrives amid a broader national crackdown on gender-affirming care by the Trump administration, which in July announced more than 20 subpoenas to clinics and hospitals across multiple states. The American Medical Association and other major professional organizations had already pushed back, affirming such treatments as evidence-based and lifesaving.
For advocates and legal counsel representing the children, the decision is a vindication of long-held concerns about governmental overreach. “This is a critical win for everyone who believes healthcare decisions should be made in doctors’ offices, not the White House,” Mimi McKenzie of the Public Interest Law Center said in a press release. Attorney Jill Steinberg of the law firm Ballard Spahr added that the decision signals to transgender youth and their families that they “do not have to fight these battles alone.”
Arlington Mayor Jim Ross stood under the June sun and delivered an impassioned speech in front of a crowd awash in rainbows and glitter.
“You know Martin Luther King taught us way back in the ‘60s, that there’s only one thing strong enough to overcome hate,” the North Texas mayor said.
“Love! Love!” the crowd gathered at the city’s annual Pride celebration shouted, answering his call.
His faith, he continued, instructed him to love his neighbor regardless of their differences.
“So I wanted to come here and say thank you for loving us,” he said. “And I love you!”
Five months later, Ross faced a similar crowd at City Hall on Oct. 14. There was no love in the room.
The Dallas-area suburb was — in an effort to comply with new presidential executive orders — considering eliminating the city’s protections for LGBTQ+ people that prohibit employers and any business providing accommodation from discriminating against them.
More than $60 million in federal funds for parks, roads and public safety were at stake, city leaders said.
“It’s a horrible balancing attempt,” Ross said in a recent interview with The Texas Tribune, referring to protecting the city’s budget and its residents.
Other Texas cities, including Dallas and Fort Worth, have revised city policies and ended programs that comply with Trump’s executive orders that end diversity and inclusion efforts. Arlington is believed to be the first city to consider ending explicit protections for LGBTQ+ residents.
The City Council tabled its vote and is expected to revisit the issue Monday night. The impending vote is the result of a pressure campaign waged by conservative activists, state Republican lawmakers and the White House to roll back protections for LGBTQ+ people they say are unfair and harm women and children.
LGBTQ+ advocates, meanwhile, argue that such revisions push residents further away from public life. And these decisions erode the recognition and acceptance this community worked for decades to secure.
Texas — like many states — has a long history of criminalizing certain acts by LGBTQ+ people. While the U.S. Supreme Court has overturned sodomy laws and legalized same-sex marriage, Texas state lawmakers and Gov. Greg Abbott have since 2023 sought to undo those victories by passing a suite of laws that put new limits on how LGBTQ+ people live their lives and express their identities in public.
Meanwhile, at the federal level, President Donald Trump has, since returning to office in January, instructed government agencies to remove words and phrases associated with diversity, race and transgender people — exerting the full strength of the federal government across the U.S. to achieve its agenda.
It’s those executive orders that triggered the Arlington City Council to review its policies, which LGBTQ+ advocates fought to put in place to provide protections that don’t exist at the state and federal levels.
Brad Pritchett, interim CEO of Equality Texas, one of the state’s oldest advocacy groups, said the policies at the city level are one of this community’s few available safeguard.
“It has fallen on local municipalities to find a way to protect the folks that live in their communities,” he said. “And I think when we see these types of non-discrimination laws passed at the local level, what that’s really doing is sending a message to the residents of these cities that who you are should not impact whether or not you have a job, a roof over your head, or can access basic services.”
Many of the recent efforts to curtail the LGBTQ+ community have been largely targeted toward transgender people. However, Pritchett said the Arlington debate shows more is on the line for all LGBTQ+ people.
“When they shift their gaze to another group of people that they don’t like,” he said, “they’ve proven that they can weaponize government to harm anyone they want.”
Conservative leaders say they aim to reset an imbalance pushed by former Democratic presidential administrations and to protect women. Passing these laws and executive orders, conservatives argue, is a necessary step toward acknowledging the differences between the two genders.
“I think what’s been missing a lot of times from the opposition is the recognition of the rights of women and the vulnerability that women have in these private spaces,” said Mary Elizabeth Castle, director of government relations at Texas Values, a statewide nonprofit that advocates to end abortion, expand religious liberties, and other conservative causes. “It’s very important to have that in law because the dignity of the two sexes is not recognized. A lot of rights and modesty that belong to women are diminished.”
“I promised to obey the law”
Ross, the Arlington mayor, first learned the city might have to revisit its anti-discrimination policies when the city’s lawyer told him the municipality lost out on a $50,000 federal grant because a certain policy used the word “inclusive.”
Ignoring Trump’s orders could come at too great an economic loss for the city. And his job is to obey the law, he said.
“I took an oath, and I promised to obey the law,” Ross said. “I didn’t say I’ll follow the law unless I disagree with it, so I’m torn. I don’t want to do things that are harmful to any part of our community or that paint the perception that we don’t love every single person here.”
To be sure, executive orders are not laws. They serve as marching orders for agencies across state and local governments, said Cathryn Oakley, senior director of legal policy at the Human Rights Campaign, a nationwide LGBTQ+ advocacy group.
The manner in which the Trump administration has issued its orders is meant to intimidate and bully, Oakley said.
“It’s really frustrating if you’re a person who cares about the rule of law,” Oakley said. “It is not clear how folks are supposed to implement these things, and it sets up this culture of fear and intimidation because there’s no safe harbor. Either the president will come after you, or the governor will come after you.”
Presidents of both political parties have used executive orders increasingly to drive policy outcomes. For example, President Joe Biden used executive orders to push a climate-friendly agenda and diversity efforts in the wake of the 2020 Black Lives Matter movement.
Sherry Sylvester, a senior fellow at the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation, said rolling back Biden-era DEI efforts was a return to the status quo — and fundamentally American.
“When you remove Diversity, Equity and Inclusion policies from agencies, universities and public schools, all you’re saying is all decisions must be made on merit,” Sylvester said. “When you interview people for a job, you’ve hired a person who is most qualified for the job. You get no points if you’re African American, no points if you’re female, no points if you have a gender identity based on your sexual preference.”
Executive orders are meant to spur local governments to act quickly and comply to win much-needed capital to keep their cities operating. Conservatives supporting Trump’s efforts say the tactic began with former President Barack Obama.
In 2011, Obama issued a directive intended to crack down on sexual violence in public schools and universities. In 2016, the U.S. Department of Education updated those rules and said that schools receiving federal funding had to respect a transgender student’s gender identity, which Castle said sparked a movement to oppose such acknowledgements, including in Texas.
In 2017, the Texas Legislature attempted to pass a bill restricting transgender people’s access to restrooms. It died in the legislative process. With Trump back in office this year, the movement to regulate transgender people’s actions in public gained momentum and lawmakers passed a bill restricting the restrooms transgender people can use in government buildings and schools. Castle insisted that such a bill would promote safety in restrooms.
“No one is being denied going to the restroom,” Castle said. “They just have to go to the restroom based on their biological gender.”
The result of Trump’s orders naming transgender people undermines decades of work by the LGBTQ+, the scientific and medical community to participate in public life, said Elana Redfield, federal policy director for UCLA’s School of Law. And they undermine years of scientific research that helped governments and communities understand transgender people’s place in society.
“We can’t function in society without bathrooms,” Redfield said. “It’s very difficult to have a job, take public transportation, travel long distances, go shopping, or do anything without access to bathrooms. These kinds of laws really do have the potential to deeply, deeply exclude transgender people from all aspects of society.”
A renewed movement for queer equity
LGBTQ+ Texans are familiar with laws regulating their right to exist publicly and have fought for an equal standing with everyone else for just as long. The modern movement can be traced back to the 1960s, said Wesley Phelps, a historian at the University of North Texas whose focus is the LGBTQ+ community in the south.
At the time, Texas advocates fought sodomy laws banning sex for gay men and lesbian women.
“There were activists all over Texas who understood that as long as that sodomy law was on the books, as long as it was illegal to engage in sex with someone of the same sex, queer people would always wear that stigma of criminality,” Phelps said. “You could be denied employment, you could be denied housing, you could be denied food stamp assistance, because if you were gay, you were an admitted criminal.”
By the 1970s, advocacy groups had been established in major cities, including Dallas and Houston. And in these cities, activists formed political advocacy groups. The sentiment eventually spread farther, reaching Austin, San Antonio and El Paso. Part of that movement included adding local protections to city charters that prohibited housing and employment discrimination that don’t exist at the state or federal level.
And in 2003, the Texas Supreme Court ruled the sodomy law unconstitutional.
The push to eliminate protections for the broader LGBTQ+ community will trigger a backlash, Phelps said.
“I think things like that have reignited a movement for queer equality today,” Phelps said. “It’s not just that we’re entering a period where it’s going to be difficult to win victories, but the ones already achieved are under threat.”
Many Texans told The Texas Tribune that they plan to stay put, regardless of the policies seeking to regulate their everyday lives. They are turning to optimism and each other, reminding themselves of their right to live openly, they said.
In Houston, Daron Yanez Perez hosts support groups for transgender men. Trans Men Empowerment, which he founded in 2023, has more than 200 members and hosts meetings in person and online. As part of the programming, Perez invites policy and mental health experts who help the members understand how the policies affect them.
Many of Perez’s members are reluctant to use public restrooms, he said, out of fear for their safety. Perez said he would not use the women’s restroom because he does not think women would feel comfortable sharing a restroom with him.
“They’re using restrooms to go after us because they don’t like us, but we’re not going anywhere, we’ve always been here,” Perez said.
In Dallas, Javier Enriquez helps LGBTQ+ people who struggle with loneliness. Enriquez, who is president of the Dallas Social Queer Association, hosts about a dozen events a month. Up to 40 attended each event, which include gay trivia and activities tailored for disabled, elderly people, Hispanic and Asian Pacific Islanders who identify as LGBTQ+.
Enriquez said directives that spell out limits for transgender people and rainbow crosswalks are a distraction from real issues like potholes and unmet trash service. And LGBTQ+ Texans as a community are used to enact that distraction, he said. The resources spent on removing the rainbow colors from the crosswalks, he said, could be put to better use on the city’s infrastructure.
Still, he acknowledged that the orders have instilled fear.
“There are people, especially our transgender siblings, who are worried about being able to call Dallas their home with everything going on, and not all of them have the privilege of the resources to be able to move out,” he said. “And to some of them, this is home, where they built their lives and families… and despite what happens in this world, we are here and we aren’t going anywhere.”
A town in Maine voted Monday night to continue to comply with the state’s Human Rights Act, allowing a transgender grade-schooler to play on a girls’ recreational basketball team.
The 3–2 vote at the November 10 special meeting of the St. George, Maine, Select Board came after a group of parents submitted a letter at last week’s regular monthly meeting raising their “deep concern” about the St. George Parks & Recreation Department’s youth basketball program allowing a transgender girl to play on its third and fourth grade girls’ team.
“While we understand that Maine law allows children to participate [in sports] based on how they identify, we also believe that these policies have created a very uncomfortable situation for many families in our community,” local parent Emily Chadwick read from the group’s letter during the public comment portion of the November 4 meeting.
In video from the meeting, Chadwick and others who spoke initially seemed to go out of their way not to mention the trans child or indeed to even specify the reason for their “concerns” or to ask the board to take any specific action beyond considering “how these policies impact all the children involved, not just one.”
Noting that the group seemed to be referencing the Maine Human Rights Act (MHRA), which bars discrimination based on gender identity, Select Board Chair Jane Conrad told those in attendance that their proper course of action would be “to lobby your legislators” to change the law. The Select Board members, she explained, “are in charge of enforcing the law.”
The board ultimately decided to schedule the November 10 special meeting to discuss whether it would continue to comply with the law and to allow for the broader community to weigh in.
Monday night’s meeting opened with Colin Hurd, deputy counsel for the Maine Human Rights Commission, clarifying precisely what is covered by the state human rights law.
“Under the Maine Human Rights Act, it’s illegal to prevent a person from playing sports on the team of their gender identity solely because their sex assigned at birth is different from the people that they will be playing with or against,” Hurd explained. “Furthermore, under the same provision, it’s illegal to prevent a person from using the restroom or locker room that most closely corresponds with their gender identity. So, the law, the Human Rights Act, is pretty unequivocal on these matters.”
Following the meeting’s hour-long public comment period, Conrad once again reiterated that it is not the board’s role “to determine or debate the law,” adding that in recent years, the board has consistently voted to follow state law, even when individual members disagreed with it. While she encouraged board members to voice their objections to the law, she also expressed her hope that they would vote to follow it, as not doing so would likely invite a lawsuit that they would lose, “and the taxpayers of our town would have to foot the bill.”
While some speakers at both the November 4 and 10 meetings seemed to reference a February 5 executive order banning transgender women and girls from women’s and girls’ sports (which neither changed nor established any law) and his administration’s interpretation of Title IX, Conrad noted that no court has ruled so far that any federal law supersedes the Maine Human Rights Act. She also noted that attempts in the state’s most recent legislative session to restrict trans people’s participation in sports have all been rejected.
As Them notes, the dust-up in St. George follows Maine’s Democratic Gov. Janet Mills’s months-long feud with the president over her refusal to comply with his anti-trans executive order. Mills has argued that the state’s human rights law prevents her from banning trans athletes from women’s and girls’ sports. However, as Them notes, several school districts in the state have nonetheless opted to institute trans sports bans in compliance with the executive order. An anti-trans advocacy group recently launched a new effort to amend the MHRA via ballot referendum so that it is in compliance with the presidential administration’s anti-trans interpretation of Title IX.
A Virginia transportation security officer is accusing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security of sex discrimination over a policy that bars transgender officers from performing security screening pat-downs, according to a federal lawsuit.
The Transportation Security Administration, which operates under DHS, enacted the policy in February to comply with President Donald Trump’s executive order declaring two unchangeable sexes: male and female.
According to internal documents explaining the policy change that The Associated Press obtained from four independent sources, including two current and two former TSA workers, “transgender officers will no longer engage in pat-down duties, which are conducted based on both the traveler’s and officer’s biological sex. In addition, transgender officers will no longer serve as a TSA-required witness when a traveler elects to have a pat-down conducted in a private screening area.”
Until February, TSA assigned work consistent with officers’ gender identity under a 2021 management directive. The agency told the AP it rescinded that directive to comply with Trump’s Jan. 20 executive order.
Although transgender officers “shall continue to be eligible to perform all other security screening functions consistent with their certifications,” and must attend all required training, they will not be allowed to demonstrate how to conduct pat-downs as part of their training or while training others, according to the internal documents.
A transgender officer at Dulles International Airport, Danielle Mittereder, alleges in her lawsuit filed Friday that the new policy — which also bars her from using TSA facility restrooms that align with her gender identity — violates civil rights law.
“Solely because she is transgender, TSA now prohibits Plaintiff from conducting core functions of her job, impedes her advancement to higher-level positions and specialized certifications, excludes her from TSA-controlled facilities, and subjects her identity to unwanted and undue scrutiny each workday,” the complaint says.
Mittereder declined to speak with the AP but her lawyer, Jonathan Puth, called TSA’s policy “terribly demeaning and 100% illegal.”
TSA spokesperson Russell Read declined to comment, citing pending litigation. But he said the new policy directs that “Male Transportation Security Officers will conduct pat-down procedures on male passengers and female Transportation Security Officers will conduct pat-down procedures on female passengers, based on operational needs.”
Other transgender officers describe similar challenges to Mittereder.
Kai Regan worked for six years at Harry Reid International Airport in Las Vegas, but retired in July in large part because of the new policy. Regan, who is not involved in the Virginia case, transitioned from female to male in 2021 and said he had conducted pat-downs on men without issue until the policy change.
“It made me feel inadequate at my job, not because I can’t physically do it but because they put that on me,” said the 61-year-old, who worried that he would soon be fired for his gender identity, so he retired earlier than planned rather than “waiting for the bomb to drop.”
Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward — a legal organization that has repeatedly challenged the second Trump administration in court — called TSA’s policy “arbitrary and discriminatory,” adding: “There’s no evidence or data we’re aware of to suggest that a person can’t perform their duties satisfactorily as a TSA agent based on their gender identity.”
DHS pushed back on assertions by some legal experts that its policy is discriminatory.
“Does the AP want female travelers to be subjected to pat-downs by male TSA officers?” Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin asked in a written response to questions by the AP. “What a useless and fundamentally dangerous idea, to prioritize mental delusion over the comfort and safety of American travelers.”
Airport security expert and University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign professor Sheldon H. Jacobson, whose research contributed to the design of TSA PreCheck, said that the practice of matching the officer’s sex to the passenger’s is aimed at minimizing passenger discomfort during screening. Travelers can generally request another officer if they prefer, he added.
Deciding where transgender officers fit into this practice “creates a little bit of uncertainty,” Jacobson said. But because transgender officers likely make up a small percent of TSA’s workforce, he said the new policy is unlikely to cause major delays.
“It could be a bit of an inconvenience, but it would not inhibit the operation of the airport security checkpoint,” Jacobson said.
TSA’s policy for passengers is that they be screened based on physical appearance as judged by an officer, according to internal documents. If a passenger corrects an officer’s assumption, “the traveler should be patted down based on his/her declared sex.” For passengers who tell an officer “that they are neither a male nor female,” the policy says officers must advise “that pat-down screening must be conducted by an officer of the same sex,” and to contact a supervisor if concerns persist.
The documents also say that transgender officers “will not be adversely affected” in pay, promotions or awards, and that TSA “is committed to providing a work environment free from unlawful discrimination and retaliation.”
But the lawsuit argues otherwise, saying the policy impedes Mittereder’s career prospects because “all paths toward advancement require that she be able to perform pat-downs and train others to do so,” Puth said.
According to the lawsuit, Mittereder started in her role in June 2024 and never received complaints related to her job performance, including pat-down responsibilities. Supervisors awarded her the highest-available performance rating and “have praised her professionalism, skills, knowledge, and rapport with fellow officers and the public,” the lawsuit said.
“This is somebody who is really dedicated to her job and wants to make a career at TSA,” Puth said. “And while her gender identity was never an issue for her in the past, all of a sudden it’s something that has to be confronted every single day.”
Being unable to perform her full job duties has caused Mittereder to suffer fear, anxiety and depression, as well as embarrassment and humiliation by forcing her to disclose her gender identity to co-workers, the complaint says. It adds that the ban places additional burden on already-outnumbered female officers who have to pick up Mittereder’s pat-down duties.
American Federation of Government Employees National President Everett Kelley urged TSA leadership to reconsider the policy “for the good of its workforce and the flying public.”
“This policy does nothing to improve airport security,” Kelley said, “and in fact could lead to delays in the screening of airline passengers since it means there will be fewer officers available to perform pat-down searches.”
Up to an estimated $879 million in LGBTQ+ household and business income has left Missouri in recent years, as queer residents flee a hostile political environment, according to a recent analysis by the Movement Advancement Project (MAP).
The state lawmakers responsible for creating this financial drain were warned, the Missouri Independent reports.
For years, business organizations, advocacy groups, and individuals cautioned officials pushing discriminatory laws that the economic fallout would be one deleterious result.
Local officials and chambers of commerce raised red flags about impacts on workforce recruitment, employee retention, and the ability to lure businesses to the state.
Now, economic data is confirming those predictions.
“When people feel unwelcome or uncertain about their future in a community, they often take their skills and their families elsewhere,” Tracey DeMarea, executive director of the Mid-America LGBT Chamber of Commerce, told The Independent. “That loss affects our workforce, our businesses, and our shared sense of community.”
A 2023 Wells Fargo report revealed that states with bigger LGBTQ+ populations have higher rates of economic growth, while the inverse is also true.
Multiple surveys and studies show that LGBTQ+ people — young adults in particular — have moved or are considering moving from states hostile to LGBTQ+ rights. An estimated 3% of cisgender young people and 5% of all trans people have already fled red states.
The economic impact of ideological legislation on the broader community is often lost on the lawmakers pushing it, according to Naomi Goldberg, MAP’s executive director.
“The responsibility of lawmakers is to represent communities across the state, and when they pass laws that target already vulnerable communities, they should consider their actions,” she said. “When families choose to leave the state, the loss is not only in the vitality and diversity of the community, but also in the economic power and resources that families provide.”
One example of the warnings came in 2024, during a marathon hearing on multiple bills, including proposed rules covering restrooms in private businesses. Lobbyists stayed up late explaining to lawmakers that the bills were a threat to “free enterprise” and “business development.”
“Businesses want to ensure that people feel comfortable and safe in their workplaces,” Kara Corches, president and CEO of the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry, told committee members. “Their ability to recruit and retain talent is their top concern.”
Henry Eubank, governmental affairs coordinator for Greater St. Louis Inc., said that the discriminatory legislation before the committee depicted Missouri as unwelcoming.
“It sends a powerful negative signal to potential residents, investors, businesses, and workers,” he told lawmakers, “that the state of Missouri is not a place that they would want to visit, live, to do business, to start a business, or move their family.”
The last was the final straw for St. Louis restauranteur Rob Connoley, who is gay. He was a newly awarded James Beard finalist for his Ozark cuisine when he was in London representing Missouri at an international food festival not long ago.
“It felt egregious and awkward to be promoting a state in a region that was actively working against my own personal interests,” he told The Independent.
So Connoley packed up his kitchen and headed to Oregon.
“It made more sense for me to take my entrepreneurial skills and go to a community that I think would be more supportive of what I’m trying to accomplish,” he said.
Roz Keith found out her son was transgender on his terms.
The suburban mom was asking about haircuts, and Hunter, just shy of 14 at the time, texted her some photos. “He started texting me pictures of boys with short haircuts. And I said, ‘Oh, these are very masculine. And Hunter said, ‘Uh huh,’ and walked out of the room.”
It was typical teenage behavior, but the conversation that followed was life-changing, Keith said.
“I went upstairs, knocked on his door, and said, ‘What’s going on?’ And that’s when he told me. He said, ‘I’m a boy. I’m transgender.’ That was how he came out to me.”
Keith was caught off guard on multiple fronts. “All the little things from the time he was super little then became the hammer over the head.” She thought about Hunter playing with boy dolls, preferring time with boys to girls, choosing Narnia’s Prince Caspian over all the Disney princess costumes.
“I saw this one male avatar in a game, this buff, masculine character that he had created, and I said, ‘Oh, that’s a guy.’ And he’s like, ‘Yeah, okay.’ You know, no explanation. So, all along, I just kept saying ‘Okay,’ too.”
Keith wasn’t a helicopter parent. “We really encouraged our kids to be independent,” she said, “and we wanted them to be happy and successful and productive, whatever that meant for them.” But she also said a transgender child “just wasn’t in my consideration set.”
“In my world, I didn’t have a friend who had a trans child. We didn’t have any adult in our community who was trans or in the process of coming out or identified in any way remotely that way. So it was really a foreign concept from that perspective.”
While those conversations weren’t happening in Keith’s world, they certainly were in her precocious online teenager’s.
“He figured it out because he was watching YouTube, and he saw a trans person on this show talking about their coming out. And that was his light bulb moment. And he said, ‘Oh my God, that’s me.’”
Hunter spent a long time contemplating his revelation and researching what to do about it before he shared anything with his family.
“He’d been researching for two years,” Keith recalled. “He had a checklist of everything he wanted to do.”
With Hunter’s declaration, his state of mind came into focus for his mom.
“Based on things he shared when he was younger, he felt different, and he didn’t know why he felt different, and he didn’t have language to explain it,” Keith realized. “And it created a lot of struggle and conflict, and, I think, anger for him.”
“He said, you know, ‘I just felt like the weird kid.’”
Keith decided to close that gap – for her son and for others.
In 2015, she founded Stand with Trans, a support network devoted to trans kids and their parents and caregivers. The nonprofit provides transgender and nonbinary youth with life-saving programs like mental health services, peer support groups, educational resources, and, most importantly, Keith says, “validation and empowerment.”
Stand With Trans also provides critical support to parents or guardians of trans youth. Its Ally Parents program allows loved ones to text, call, or email other parents of trans youth for connection and advice.
Letting go
“Parents can have a hard time when their child comes out and wants to transition to a different gender than the one they were assigned at birth,” Keith said.
“They struggle to let go of the child they thought they had and the dreams that they had, right? If a child was assigned female at birth, a parent might say, ‘I just imagined her walking down the aisle in the white dress,’ you know? And they grieve this child as if the child has died.”
“I never took that approach,” Keith said, “because I knew that my child was very much alive and that it was my job to make sure that he stayed that way. You know, it was my job to make sure that he was mentally well and that he got what he needed so he could thrive.”
For Hunter and his family, checking off those steps to transition wouldn’t come easily.
“There were no pediatric gender clinics who were seeing trans youth covered by our insurance. There were no therapists who we could find who were trained to see trans adolescents. There were no support groups. There were no parent groups. There was nothing for youth. Like, literally every phone call was a brick wall,” Keith said.
But Hunter wasn’t waiting on the details. He decided to come out on Facebook.
“My daughter came to me and said, ‘Did you see what Hunter posted?’ And I said, ‘No.’”
While Keith and her husband had talked to a few close friends about Hunter, the family hadn’t been sharing much “because it wasn’t our story to share — that was up to him.”
With Hunter’s announcement, “It was like the floodgates had opened,” Keith said.
The family agreed to tell their story.
They began speaking publicly about their experience. “And there was just like this swell of relief, I guess, and joy from families in the community who had been trying to manage this process with their kiddo and had no one to talk to. There was really nobody — medically, psychologically emotionally — just literally no one was there.”
“Families like mine, trans adults, multi-generational families, like, every member of the community were reaching out and saying, ‘Oh, my God, I could have uttered those words. Your son reminds me of my son.’”
Hunter’s story had inspired an outpouring of empathy and recognition, but the story he shared online didn’t address his lingering sense of isolation.
“Even my son said, ‘I don’t know anyone like me.’ And so as we started to meet families,” Keith said.
“I was literally arranging play dates for my 14-15-year-old. Like, I was inviting kids to come over and just hang out, and — fly on the wall — they talked about stupid stuff, like, ‘Oh, don’t you hate getting socks for Christmas presents?’ And it showed these kids that being trans didn’t mean that you weren’t like other kids. You know, you were just another teen.”
Those interactions became the heart of the mission that guides Stand with Trans today.
The rise of parents’ rights
The founding of Stand With Trans accompanied a rising awareness of gender diversity in the 2010s, but with that also came a conservative backlash wrought with anti-trans animus.
Before Hunter came out, “Nobody was talking about bathroom bills and trans girls in sports. Those conversations weren’t happening,” Keith said.
Since then, trans kids like Hunter have been buried under an avalanche of discriminatory legislation, from gender-affirming care bans to a trans-erasing, book-banning frenzy organized by groups like Moms for Liberty to an online hate campaign led by accounts like Libs of TikTok.
Adding fuel to the fire: the president’s obsession with “gender ideology” and his “us” vs “them” politics of division.
The right has hawked its anti-LGBTQ+ agenda under the same, one-sided banner: parents’ rights.
Keith said the phrase is self-serving.
“I don’t think that any government should be allowed to say what my child has or doesn’t have access to, because I’m the parent. They’re not in my home parenting my child, so they don’t know what they’re going through. How do you make that global statement?” she asked.
“It is up to me to make a decision about my child’s medical care,” Keith said. “And as far as my child goes, if he was denied the opportunity to go on testosterone and not medically transition, I think our conversation would be very different.”
Keith points to a perversion of theology as one basis of the far-right’s anti-trans animus.
“I’m not Christian. I was raised Jewish. But my understanding from my friends who are Christian and very affirming and very accepting, their response is, ‘The Jesus I know would open the door for everyone, and would welcome everyone to the table.’ There’s really a disconnect between saying you’re a Christian and then not being open to accepting people as they are, as they show up.”
“Far be it for me to tell anyone what they should believe,” Keith added, “but you don’t get to bring it into my home and tell me how to care for my child, because those aren’t my beliefs. That’s not what I understand, right? It’s a secular society.”
“Your belief system should not infringe on my rights.”
Seeing around the corner
Stand with Trans was born to help protect trans kids from the attacks by providing love, knowledge and support — and power over their own lives.
“Our mission is so simple,” Keith said. “It’s empowering and supporting trans youth and their loved ones. So that’s it. We know that if we educate and support the caregivers, the loved ones, the parents, that the young people are going to do better, and if we find ways to make life better and easier for them, they’re not only going to survive, but they’re going to thrive.
“I know with my own kid, they couldn’t see themselves having a future. I think it’s hard enough for young people who don’t see around the corners, right? It’s hard to even imagine, like, ‘What do I want to be when I grow up.’ But for trans kids, it’s even harder.
“So it’s really important for us to show these young people that they can do whatever they want to do,” Keith said.
“Being trans is one part of their identity. It doesn’t define who they are.”
fleeredstates.blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.