Two of Wisconsin’s largest pediatric hospitals have stopped providing gender-affirming care for transgender youth, Wisconsin Public Radio reports.
Children’s Wisconsin and University of Wisconsin (UW) Health have ended the treatment for minors, after pressure from the Trump administration. Advocates say the end of gender-affirming medical care will lead to negative mental health effects for trans youth.
In a statement, Children’s Wisconsin cited “escalating legal and federal regulatory risk” facing providers across the nation as the reason it is “currently unable to provide gender-affirming pharmacologic care.” The hospital added that LGBTQ+ children should be treated with “support, respect, dignity, and compassion.”
The hospital will continue to offer mental health services for patients and families.
In December, the Department of Health and Human Services, under the direction of Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., announced plans to end all Medicaid and Medicare funding for hospitals that provide gender-affirming care to minors.
“Under my leadership, and answering President Trump’s call to action, the federal government will do everything in its power to stop unsafe, irreversible practices that put our children at risk,” Kennedy said, announcing the funding threat. “This administration will protect America’s most vulnerable. Our children deserve better — and we are delivering on that promise.”
In reality, gender-affirming medications for young people are considered by every major American medical association to be safe, reversible, and essential to the well-being of trans youth.
UW Health said its hospital system will pause prescribing puberty blockers and hormone therapy for patients under 18 years old “due to recent federal actions.” The hospital remains committed to providing “high-quality, compassionate” care to LGBTQ+ patients, officials said in a statement.
“We recognize the uncertainty faced by our impacted patients and families seeking this gender-affirming care and will continue to support their health and well-being,” they said.
Steve Starkey, executive director for OutReach LGBTQ+ Community Center in Madison, said the consequences of ending the care will be grave.
“It will definitely have a negative impact on the rates of suicide, and the mental health of the trans community” in general, he said. “It affects trans adults as well, because it’s like an attack on all trans people.”
Starkey pointed to rates of suicide and suicidal ideation, which are already high for the trans community.
A 2023 study by the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law found that more than 80% of trans adults had suicidal thoughts, while more than 40% had attempted suicide.
“For trans people of all ages, being able to express themselves in the gender that they feel that they are is important for their mental and physical health,” Starkey said. “By not allowing trans people to do that, to have the support, it just means that they are not able to be wholly who they are.”
In the last week alone, hospitals and clinics in Orange County, Riverside, and San Diego, California — and in Tacoma, Washington too — announced plans to shutter gender-affirming care programs for trans youth.
A year ago this week, Trump issued an executive order vowing to end what he called the “chemical and surgical mutilation” of children with gender-affirming care. Republicans have used these terms to outrage people and vilify medical providers of the care, but puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapies don’t “mutilate” kids, and gender-affirming surgeries are rarely (if ever) conducted on minors.
A protester at Children’s Hospital of Orange County this week described the same care as life-saving.
“I’m a transgender woman, and I’m here to tell you that denying people this gender-affirming care doesn’t make gender dysphoria go away,” Stephanie Wade, chair of Lavender Democrats of Orange County, told LAist. “All it does is make it metastasize into suicidal depression. And I’ve been there. I dealt with this as a child. We can’t take this away from kids.”
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.
Missouri’s Supreme Court upheld the state’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors this week, along with a prohibition on Medicaid coverage of gender-affirming care for anyone in the state.
As the Missouri Independent reports, the court’s unanimous decision upholds a 2024 circuit court ruling in a case challenging Senate Bill 49. The law, signed by Gov. Mike Parson (R) in 2023, bans minors from accessing any form of gender-affirming care, including puberty blockers, hormone replacement therapy, and surgeries. It also bans the state’s Medicaid program from covering gender-affirming care for people of all ages.
The challenge against the law was brought by Lambda Legal and the ACLU of Missouri on behalf of three families of transgender young people, medical providers, and LGBTQ+ advocacy organizations, who argued that the law should be subject to heightened scrutiny, a more rigorous legal standard applied to cases involving the classification of individuals by specific characteristics like gender.
According to the Missouri Independent, the state Supreme Court rejected that argument, as had the lower court. While plaintiffs had argued that the law discriminates on the basis of sex and transgender status, Judge Kelly Broniec wrote in the court’s decision that S.B. 49 “classifies only based on medical use and age.”
The court’s reasoning echoes that in the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling last year in United States v. Skrmetti, which held that Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for trans youth does not discriminate on the basis of sex or transgender status.
As the Missouri Independent notes, Supreme Court precedent allows lawmakers broad discretion when it comes to issues “fraught with medical and scientific uncertainty.”
While for decades there has been broad scientific consensus — including among all major American medical associations — that gender-affirming care is safe, evidence-based, and often lifesaving for minors experiencing gender dysphoria, conservative organizations and some American media outlets have made massive strides in recent years in sowing doubt about that consensus.
In September, Lambda Legal attorney Nora Huppert argued that the lower court’s decision upholding S.B. 49 included “legal and factual errors.” But writing for the Missouri Supreme Court this week, Broniec nonetheless said that the state had “demonstrated the ongoing debate among medical and ethical experts regarding the risks and benefits associated with the treatments at issue.”
The court also rejected arguments that the Medicaid ban violates Missouri’s constitution, with Broniec noting that adults in the state can still pay out-of-pocket to receive gender-affirming care.
Gillian Wilcox, director of litigation at the ACLU of Missouri, responded to the decision saying that it “not only allows the state to target transgender Missourians access to health care but also leaves everyone’s health care options at the whims of politicians, should certain care ever fall into the political arena.”
Two bills in Florida advanced out of committee last week that would give the state attorney general more power to investigate and press felony charges against health care professionals who provide gender-affirming care in the state, including against therapists who discuss gender issues with minor patients and pharmacists who fill prescriptions that may be used as gender-affirming care.
Last week, the Criminal Justice Subcommittee passed H.B. 743 in a 12-5 vote, Florida Politics reports. The bill would allow state Attorney General James Uthmeier to sue health care practitioners for up to $100,000 per violation for providing gender-affirming care to minors. Mainstream medical organizations support gender-affirming care for trans kids because it has been shown to be life-saving and safe.
S.B. 1010 would make it a felony for doctors, school counselors, or psychologists to advise minors on gender-affirming care or “aid or abet” another health care professional in helping minors get gender-affirming care. The bill gained near-unanimous support from the state senate’s Committee on Children, Families, and Elder Affairs, according to the Florida Phoenix.
If that version of the bill passes, medical professionals could get a $100,000 fine per violation and up to five years in prison.
“We have to uphold the principles and standards that made this country great, biblical, constitutional law, and order at all costs. And sometimes that stings,” state Rep. Taylor Yarkowsky said at last week’s hearing.
The bill’s sponsor, state Rep. Lauren Melo (R), stressed that pharmacists would be punished under her bill, something she says is necessary because, she claimed, health care professionals are “committing fraud” by prescribing gender-affirming care medications but recording the purpose of the medications as something other than gender-affirming care.
“What we’re seeing is there’s coding that’s actually being used that is becoming the problem, and hundreds of thousands of dollars is spent per child for them to transition and codes are being misrepresented where they are saying that it’s an indoctrination disorder instead of saying it’s a gender identity disorder,” she said.
Democrats stressed that the bill could have unintentional side effects. State Rep. Kelly Skidmore (D) said that the bill is not about gender-affirming care but is being pushed by state Attorney General Uthmeier to expand his power.
“It is about giving one individual and maybe his successors authority that they don’t deserve and they cannot manage,” she said, referring to Uthmeier’s involvement in the Hope Florida scandal, where state Republicans are accused of laundering money and committing fraud. “They’ve proven that they cannot be trusted. This is a terrible bill.”
State Rep. Mike Gottlieb (D) said that doctors might be scared from prescribing hormonal medications to people with severe menstrual symptoms lest a pharmacist misinterpret the reason for the prescription.
“You’re going to see doctors not wanting to prescribe those kinds of medications because they’re now subject to a $100,000 penalty,” he said. “We’re really not considering what we’re doing and some of the collateral harms that it’s having.”
Behavioral health care professional Savannah Thompson told WUSF that the bill would make it more difficult for doctors to even talk to trans patients.
“This could increase the feelings of fear from my clients who are under 18, but it also can increase the likelihood that these professionals won’t be able to talk with their clients, honestly and openly, to give them the care and the support that they deserve and need,” she said.
For LGBTQ+ people, safety has never been an abstract idea. Concerns for our community show up in legislation, healthcare and how the government treats its citizens. In the United States, where LGBTQ+ rights are being rolled back at both the state and federal level following President Donald Trump’s reelection, many people are quietly asking the same question: where, if anywhere, does stability still exist, and what does real safety actually look like?
That question shapes real decisions. Not just about travel, but about long-term plans, family, work, medical care and whether it is possible to build a future without constant political uncertainty. International data from organizations including ILGA-Europe and Equaldex, alongside migration analysis and residency reporting from Get Golden Visa, points to a widening global divide. Some countries are strengthening legal protections and expanding access to care. Others are narrowing definitions of who is protected under the law, often by targeting transgender people first and testing how much rollback the public will tolerate.
The countries highlighted here represent a snapshot of places that currently offer strong legal protections and relative social stability for LGBTQ+ people. This is by no means an exhaustive list, and conditions can change quickly as governments shift and political climates evolve. Still, these examples help illustrate what safety looks like when it is embedded into legal systems, healthcare infrastructure, and public accountability, rather than left to cultural goodwill or temporary leadership.
One country that consistently ranks at the top is Malta. It has held the number one position on ILGA-Europe’s Rainbow Index for multiple consecutive years, a reflection of both legal protections and enforcement. Same-sex marriage has been legal since 2017, conversion therapy is banned nationwide, and gender identity is explicitly protected under the constitution. Legal gender recognition is based on self-determination, without medical or psychiatric requirements, and those protections extend into healthcare, employment, education, and family law, creating long-term security rather than symbolic inclusion.
Iceland also continues to stand out for both legal protections and social acceptance. Same-sex marriage has been legal since 2010, non-binary gender markers are recognized, and gender-affirming care is available through the public healthcare system. Comprehensive anti-discrimination laws are paired with high levels of public trust in institutions, which means LGBTQ+ protections are not constantly relitigated or politicized, but treated as settled rights reflected in daily life.
.Finland has taken meaningful steps in recent years, particularly for transgender people. A 2023 update to its law allows transgender adults to change their gender through self-determination, removing medical gatekeeping that had long been criticized by advocacy groups. While non-binary recognition remains limited, Finland’s strong social safety net and political consensus around equality have kept LGBTQ+ rights largely outside culture war framing, offering stability rather than constant legal vulnerability.
Spain has long been viewed as one of Europe’s most LGBTQ+-affirming countries, and recent legislation has reinforced that reputation. Same-sex marriage has been legal since 2005, and a 2023 gender self-identification law allows people to change legal gender without medical or psychological evaluations. Conversion therapy is banned, and public opinion surveys consistently show strong support for LGBTQ+ equality, particularly in major cities where protections are paired with visible community infrastructure.
In North America, Canada has become a focal point for LGBTQ+ Americans seeking stability. Same-sex marriage has been legal since 2005, non-binary gender markers are available on federal identification, and conversion therapy was banned nationwide in 2022. Advocacy organizations and international reporting have documented a rise in inquiries from U.S. LGBTQ+ residents since the 2024 election, especially among transgender people weighing whether legal protections at home will continue to erode.
The Netherlands remains one of the most legally secure environments for LGBTQ+ people. As the first country to legalize same-sex marriage, it continues to offer robust anti-discrimination protections and publicly funded gender-affirming healthcare. For some U.S. citizens, the Dutch-American Friendship Treaty has made relocation more feasible, a trend that has accelerated since the 2024 US presidential election.
None of these countries are immune to political change, and none represent a perfect solution. But in 2026, they show what becomes possible when LGBTQ+ safety is treated as a structural commitment rather than a cultural preference. As rights erode in some places, the countries that choose to protect them are defining where dignity, stability, and the possibility of a future still exist.
Decriminalized Sodomy: St. Lucia, Niue (reported in 2025; it happened in 2024).
Decriminalized Sodomy in Armed Forces: Dominican Republic
Repeal of Sodomy Laws Proposed: Guyana, Sri Lanka; Massachusetts (USA)
Court Challenges Pending: Grenada, Trinidad & Tobago, Zambia, possibly also St Vincent & the Grenadines and Jamaica
Criminalization Proposed: Niger
The net change in the number of criminalizing states was zero, thanks to losing two states as we gained two others, keeping the total at 65. The same thing happened in 2024, when Mali and Iraq criminalized sodomy while Namibia and Dominica decriminalized it. The number of criminalizing states hasn’t dropped since 2023, when Cook Islands and Mauritius decriminalized. And in fact, prior to 2024, no state had made sodomy a crime since 2019.
It should also be noted that the four states that criminalized sodomy in 2024-25 are all internationally recognized sovereign states with large populations, while the four decriminalizing states include three microstates, two of which aren’t sovereign.
Looking ahead to 2026, we can probably expect the criminalization wave across West Africa to continue into Niger, and possibly some other former French colonies in the area. As for decriminalization, our most likely candidates are Guyana, whose president vowed to decriminalize during last fall’s elections, and Grenada, the last of five Caribbean countries where a constitutional challenge was pending before the local courts. We may see a court challenge go ahead in Zambia this year as well, though the timeline is not currently clear. We’re also unlikely to get a result on the Privy Council appeal of Trinidad & Tobago’s sodomy law until 2027 or later. It also appears that efforts to get decriminalization passed in Sri Lanka have stalled.
Recognition of same-sex unions — 2025 tally and 2026 preview
Equal Marriage Brought into Effect: Liechtenstein, Thailand (both passed in 2024)
Equal Marriage codified: Guanajuato (Mexico)
Codification of Equal Marriage Proposed: Brazil;Virginia, Ohio, Oregon, Missouri (USA, by referendum); Aguascalientes, Chihuahua (Mexico)
Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage: Gabon (passed 2024)
Criminalized Same-Sex Marriage: Burkina Faso
Constitutional Ban on Gay People Adopting: Slovakia
Limited Recognition of Same-Sex Unions: Suriname, Turks & Caicos Islands (UK), Japan, India, European Union (court ruling affecting Poland, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Romania, yet to be implemented)
Court Challenges for Equal Marriage Pending: Japan, Botswana
Civil Union Bill Pending: Poland, Lithuania, Nagasaki (Japan)
Same-Sex Adoption Legalized: Guanajuato (Mexico – Codified), Czechia (stepchild only; passed in 2024), Thailand (passed in 2024)
Ended Discrimination against Same-Sex Couples in Adoption: Luxembourg, Israel, Chile
Surrogacy Legalized: Western Australia
Despite the number of developments listed above, we’ve entered a period where advances in same-sex marriage rights have slowed down, and we should be upfront about that going into 2026. We didn’t win same-sex marriage anywhere, and courts and governments only granted limited civil unions or relationship recognition for a specific limited rights in a handful of jurisdictions.
2026 doesn’t appear to offer much hope for advances, either. A supreme court case in Japan could go either way – or could even find that banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional but order no solution. Sint Maarten (Netherlands) appears to just be waiting for a court challenge to copy the successful challenge in its partner states Aruba and Curacao in 2024, but none has been filed as far as I can see. And no other states in Europe or Latin America appear open to it now, with one asterisk.
At time of writing, the US military has imposed a regime change in Venezuela, removing its sitting president/dictator Nicolas Maduro to stand trial in New York. Who knows who’ll be running Venezuela by the end of 2026? Trump has ruled out the opposition leader who won a Nobel Peace Prize last year, and he insists that the US will be running the country somehow. Meanwhile, Maduro’s vice president has assumed the presidency with the support of Maduro’s supreme court. It’s easy to imagine a democratic Venezuela that is more amenable to LGBT rights than Maduro – there have been intermittent discussions about it in government since 2009. But it’s also easy to imagine that a US-imposed leader may not be keen to advance LGBT rights while dependent on Trump’s support, or another despot taking over in the event of a power vacuum.
Various countries in Africa and in parts of the Muslim world have proposed bills that would impose criminal sanctions on same-sex marriage, including Ghana and Niger. We’ll have to watch out for these.
Poland’s government agreed to a weak civil union bill in the last week of December, but it remains to be seen if even that will survive a threatened presidential veto. And Lithuania’s government has been lukewarm to codifying civil unions into law after the 2025 court ruling made them possible.
Discrimination, hate crime, and conversion therapy protections — 2025 tally and 2026 preview
Gender Identity Discrimination Ban Ordered by Court: Kenya
Discrimination Protections Removed: USA (Trump executive order); Iowa (gender identity protections repealed); UK (supreme court ruled trans women aren’t women under equality law)
SOGIE Discrimination Bans Proposed: Ukraine, Montenegro; Castille & Leon and Asturias (Spain)
Constitutional Ban on SOGIE Discrimination Proposed: Oregon, Ohio, Missouri, Vermont, Connecticut (USA, by referendum)
Conversion Therapy Banned: Spain (penalties enhanced); South Australia & New South Wales (passed 2024); Chiapas, Tamaulipas, Durango, San Luis Potosi & Guanajuato (Mexico, banned federally since 2024); Quezon City (Philippines); New South Wales, South Australia (Australia, both passed in 2024)
Conversion Therapy Bans Proposed/Pending: UK, Ireland, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Austria, Switzerland, Colombia; Tasmania, Western Australia (Australia); Gibraltar (UK)
LGBTQ Hate Crime Laws: Australia (Nationwide)and Victoria and Tasmania; Karnataka (India)
Hate Crime Law Proposed: Mexico
Hate Crime Law Enhancements Proposed: Canada, Argentina, Ukraine, Romania, UK
Blood Donation Ban Ends: Australia
Blood Donation Ban Reinstated: Greece
Once again, we saw very limited gains in 2025 across these fields, though there were some milestones. The court finding that sexual orientation discrimination is banned under the Dominican Republic constitution is a major development that will likely have ripple effects going forward. And the developments across Australia have been positive even if they were mostly traced to last year.
Looking ahead to 2026, we’re probably heading into another bad year in the United States, which will likely only be mitigated or reversed if Democrats pull off major electoral victories in mid-term and state legislative elections in November. But the supreme court also looks likely to strike down all conversion therapy ban laws across the country during this session too.
Prospects look a little bit brighter in Europe, where applicant EU countries are all racing to shore up their LGBTQ human rights standards and discrimination rules as part of the accession negotiation process. I think the European countries with proposed conversion therapy bans also seem likely to actually pass them this year – maybe the Australian states too.
Freedom of expression and assembly — 2025 tally and 2026 preview
New Laws Banning LGBTQ Expression/Pride Events Passed: Hungary, Kazakhstan (signed in 2026), Burkina Faso
These laws, modeled after the “LGBT Propaganda” laws passed by Russia back in 2013 and Uganda’s “Anti-Homosexuality Act” from 2024, have been multiplying in recent years in countries in Russia’s orbit and across Africa. The EU is doing work to push back against such laws, but with limited success.
Hungary will hold elections in the spring, which will present the best chance to get a less hostile government in power — and hopefully they can reverse the worst anti-LGBT and anti-democratic actions of the Orban regime.
Trans-specific issues — 2025 tally and 2026 preview
Gender Recognition Law Passed: Cuba; Veracruz (Mexico); New South Wales, ACT (Australia, passed in 2024)
Gender Care Banned/Restricted: USA (Supreme Court decision upholding bans in 27 states); Brazil; Sweden (passed 2024); New Zealand; Queensland (Australia)
Trans Sports Ban Proposed: Colorado, Washington (USA, referendum pending)
Transfemicide Laws Passed: Nayarit, Mexico City, Baja California, Baja California Sur, Campeche, and Mexico (Mexico)
Trans people made some substantial gains in 2025, particularly in Mexico, but also suffered some huge setbacks as a global anti-trans movement increasingly found its footing with right-wing governments. In particular, anti-trans activists have found success pushing bans on gender care for minors, but the agenda is clear that they want to expand this to all gender care and legal gender recognition cases.
Looking ahead to 2026, I think Mexico and the EU and its applicants are the likeliest states to see positive developments, though the anti-trans movement in Europe has been strong too. Unfortunately, I don’t think we’re going to see a change in the trajectory of the USA on these issues unless Democrats win big in November.
Utah House Speaker Mike Schultz (R) says his Republican majority intends to permanently ban gender-affirming care for minors this year. The move comes more than seven months after the release of a Utah Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) report, mandated by a Republican-backed state law, which found that medical evidence actually supports access to gender-affirming healthcare for minors, a different result than many conservatives were hoping for.
Utah already has what former state Rep. Mike Kennedy (R) — who now represents the state’s third district in Congress — described to Deseret News as a “permanent” ban on gender-affirming care for minors. Passed in January 2023, S.B. 16 banned gender-affirming surgeries for minors — despite such surgeries being exceptionally rare — and instituted an indefinite moratorium on providing puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapy (HRT) to minors for the purposes of gender-affirming care.
Kennedy, who co-sponsored S.B. 16, admitted to Deseret News that characterizing the law’s ban on puberty blockers and HRT as a “moratorium” was essentially a tactic to win over lawmakers who wanted more data on the effects of such treatments. The ban, he said, is already effectively permanent unless Utah lawmakers act to lift it.
S.B. 16 also ordered the state DHHS to commission a review of medical evidence around puberty blockers and HRT prescribed for the treatment of gender dysphoria in minors, with the goal of lawmakers using the report’s findings to inform future policy decisions.
That review, conducted by the University of Utah’s Drug Regimen Center, was released last May, and as Mother Jones reported at the time, its conclusions “unambiguously” supported the benefits of gender-affirming care for trans young people.
However, Utah Republicans, including Schultz, Kennedy, and state Rep. Katy Hall — who co-sponsored S.B. 16 — have dismissed the report.
“Common sense is common sense,” Schultz told Deseret News. “I don’t need a report, one way or the other, to tell me that. I just firmly believe that minors should not be transitioning.”
At the same time, however, Schultz told the outlet that he agrees with a separate review of the DHHS report by anti-trans advocacy group Do No Harm. The group’s review, published early last month, claims that the DHHS report does not meet the standards of a true systematic review of medical evidence, according to Deseret News.
“Unlike true systematic reviews, it does not assess the reliability of studies and whether the research can provide guidance for weighing the risks and benefits of medical intervention for children with gender dysphoria,” Do No Harm’s report claims.
A spokesperson for University of Utah Health defended the Utah DHHS review, telling Deseret News in a statement that it was based on “an extensive body of research regarding the safety and efficacy of these treatments.”
“Our review also found that the consensus of that evidence is that the treatments are safe in terms of changes to bone density, cardiovascular risk factors, and metabolic changes; and they are effective in terms of positive mental health and psychosocial outcomes,” the statement read, according to Deseret News.
A Colorado organization is leading two ballot measures that would restrict rights for transgender children in the state.
Protect Kids Colorado, a coalition led by prominent anti-LGBTQ activist Erin Lee, is gathering signatures for ballot measures that would prevent transgender children from participating in school sports and receiving gender-affirming surgeries. Lee led several anti-LGBTQ initiatives that the Colorado Title Board rejected ahead of the 2024 election.
The group has until Feb. 20 to submit 124,238 valid signatures from registered voters for each initiative to the Colorado secretary of state’s office. If that threshold is met, the measures would be placed on the November 2026 ballot.
Z Williams, co-director of the Denver nonprofit Bread and Roses Legal Center, said both of the issues the ballot measures seek to address are relatively minute. Williams said they have yet to see “actual validated science” that supports the need for the initiatives.
“The number of trans athletes is incredibly small, and the number of gender-affirming surgeries done for transgender youth or minors is even smaller,” Williams said. “We have two ballot measures … that are going to require hundreds of thousands of dollars, waste a lot of time, create a lot of confusion during the election over two pretty much manufactured issues.”
Protect Kids Colorado did not respond to Newsline’s request for comment on the initiatives.
Coloradans value freedom, a freedom that belongs to everyone, including transgender youth and their families.
– Cal Solverson, spokesperson for One Colorado
There isn’t clear data on the number of transgender student athletes in Colorado, and the two major hospitals that provide gender-affirming care to minors do not offer surgeries to minors.
Cal Solverson, spokesperson for LGBTQ+ advocacy organization One Colorado, said the ballot measures are ill-informed and jeopardize individual freedom. They also put transgender people, their families and health care providers across the state at risk, Solverson said.
“Coloradans value freedom, a freedom that belongs to everyone, including transgender youth and their families,” Solverson said in a statement. “The right to exist as we are extends beyond the exam room to the playing field, where every child deserves the opportunity to stay active, develop life skills, and experience the deep camaraderie of a team.”
If the measures make it to the ballot, Solverson said One Colorado trusts that Colorado voters will defend transgender youth and “ensure that freedom continues to exist for all Coloradans and not just some.”
Prohibit certain surgeries on minors
Ballot Initiative 110 would prohibit health care professionals from knowingly performing any surgery on a minor “for the purpose of altering biological sex characteristics.”
The measure would also prohibit state and federal funding including Medicaid from being used to pay for gender-affirming procedures.
Children’s Hospital Colorado and Denver Health have paused gender-affirming care for youth amid the Trump administration’s threats to pull Medicaid and Medicare funding entirely.
A document on Protect Kids Colorado’s website says that Children’s Hospital Colorado performs gender-affirming surgeries on minors, but Children’s Hospital said in a statement that it has never provided gender-affirming surgical care to patients under 18, and it stopped offering such surgeries to adults in 2023. Denver Health stopped offering surgeries to minors in early 2025.
The document also says that while the ballot measure only targets gender-affirming surgeries, the organizations has “a multi-pronged plan to outlaw puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for minors as well.”
The language in the initiative includes medical terms that aren’t necessarily related to surgery, such as prescriptions. It also applies to health care professionals such as podiatrists, dentists and chiropractors, who wouldn’t be performing gender-affirming surgeries in the first place. That adds concern about how the measure would affect other elements of gender-affirming care, according to Mardi Moore, CEO of LGBTQ+ advocacy group Rocky Mountain Equality.
“It’s kind of like they’re throwing the spaghetti at the wall to see what’s going to stick,” Moore said. “There’s not a lot of people you can trust anymore, and I think Protect Kids Colorado is one of those groups that cannot be trusted to think they will keep all children safe.”
If the measure passes, it would lead to discriminatory practices in medical care, affecting all children, not just transgender children, Moore said.
Male and female participation in school sports
Ballot Initiative 109 would create definitions in state statute aiming to define boys and girls based on physical anatomy, excluding transgender people.
Sports teams sponsored by schools or athletic associations would be required to expressly designate those teams as for men, women or co-ed. Schools and their athletic departments would be required to adopt policies implementing the requirements of the initiative.
The measure would not affect any student’s ability to participate in co-ed sports.
The state’s commissioner of education would be tasked with enforcing the measure, and would have discretion to determine how to “take appropriate remedial action” against any school not in compliance with its requirements.
“It would mean a little 8-year-old who loves to play soccer and who happens to be trans couldn’t play anymore,” Moore said of Initiative 109.
Colorado is known to be a safe place for LGBTQ+ people, Williams said, and families have moved to the state from around the country because they share those values.
“When I was a kid, we were ‘the hate state,’ and Colorado has unequivocally disavowed that stance,” Williams said. “So I think we need to remember that these are folks that are trying to use a very marginalized community to rebuild a political ideology that’s been rejected for a very long time here.”
Protect Kids Colorado is running a third ballot measure to increase penalties for people convicted of human trafficking of a minor.
A far-right political action committee says it has collected enough signatures to potentially get a trans sports ban onto Washington state’s ballot in November, and that ban would require girls to undergo physical examinations to participate in school sports.
As the Washington State Standard reports, Let’s Go Washington collected 445,187 signatures in support of Initiative Measure No. IL26-638, exceeding the 386,000 needed to advance the measure. The initiative would ban transgender girls from competing in girls’ school sports statewide
IL26-638 interprets existing state law as requiring students “to undergo a routine physical examination prior to participation in interscholastic sports, which includes documentation of the student’s sex assigned at birth.” It would require school districts and nonprofit entities to “prohibit biologically male students from competing with and against female students in athletic activities with separate classifications for male and female students.”
Under the proposed measure, students who want to participate in girls’ sports would be required to provide “a health examination and consent form or other statement signed by the student’s personal health care provider that verifies the student’s biological sex, relying only on one or more of the following: The student’s reproductive anatomy, genetic makeup, or normal endogenously produced testosterone levels.”
As journalist Erin Reed notes in her newsletter Erin in the Morning, trans sports bans with similar requirements have been highly controversial, as they could potentially result in minors being subjected to invasive physical exams simply to participate in school sports.
Reed cites the failure last March of the so-called Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act, which would have amended Title IX — the federal civil rights law prohibiting sex discrimination in government-funded schools and education programs — to prohibit schools from allowing trans female athletes to participate in athletic programs or activities “designated for women or girls.” The Congressional Equality Caucus noted that the bill could have forced “any student to answer invasive personal questions about their bodies & face humiliating physical inspections to ‘prove’ that they’re a girl.”
Along with the signatures in support of IL26-638, Let’s Go Washington also submitted 416,201 signatures in support of a measure repealing changes to another of the PAC’s recent initiatives. The Let’s Go Washington-backed Initiative 2081, approved in 2024, codified the rights of the parents of public school students into law. As Reed notes, however, state lawmakers watered down provisions that would have reportedly mandated that schools out trans students to their parents.
According to Reed, Let’s Go Washington’s IL26-001 would restore language to the 2024 parental rights law that would effectively require the forced outing of trans students to their parents.
As the Washington State Standard reports, Let’s Go Washington submitted signatures in support of both measures to the Washington Secretary of State’s office on Friday. The Secretary of State’s office told the outlet that it may take up to four weeks to verify the signatures for the initiatives. Once verified, the initiatives will go before the state legislature, which can either approve them or reject them. If the state legislature rejects them, they will either appear on the November ballot on their own or alongside alternatives proposed by lawmakers.
Brian Heywood, the millionaire hedge fund manager and Republican megadonor who leads Let’s Go Washington, claimed that roughly half of the signatures the PAC had collected in support of the initiatives were from independent voters and Democrats. “This is not a partisan issue, this is a common sense issue,” Heywood said, according to the Standard. “This has broad support.”
However, in a statement issued by WA Families for Freedom, Gender Justice League board member Sophia Lee accused Let’s Go Washington of “playing political games with the lives of vulnerable trans and queer kids.”
Reed, meanwhile, notes that the trans sports ban is likely to face constitutional challenges should it become law. But it’s unclear whether the measure would succeed on the ballot. Reed notes that anti-trans messaging from Republicans last year coincided with significant GOP losses across the country in November’s off-year elections.
Japan: The long slow march to eventual same-sex marriage continued in Japan in 2025, with resolution still looking a year or more away. Three more high courts ruled on the constitutionality of the same-sex marriage ban. Those in Nagoya and Osaka found the ban unconstitutional, but a Tokyo high court ruled it constitutional. Together with three other courts that found the ban unconstitutional, that creates a circuit split that will have to be resolved by the supreme court, where a case has already been filed.
A further case has also been filed to the supreme court by a transgender woman who is seeking to have her legal gender changed without ending her marriage to her wife. Lower courts in Kyoto and Osaka ruled against her this year.
In what’s perhaps a bad sign for all this, the supreme court ruled against a married binational same-sex couple who were seeking a residence visa for the non-Japanese partner.
But that hasn’t stopped other progress on relationship recognition. Following last year’s supreme court ruling that same-sex partners should be entitled to surviving family benefits for victims of crime, the government announced in January that dozens of laws that applied to common-law couples would now apply to same-sex couples. These included domestic violence laws, leases and rents, and disaster support, but excluded over 120 laws such as social security and pensions. And the government proposed an assisted reproduction bill that specifically excludes same-sex couples and bans surrogacy.
And Okinawa prefecture enacted a same-sex partnership registry in 2025, while Nagasaki has announced plans to introduce one in 2026. That’ll bring the total to 32/47 prefectures and more than 500 municipalities representing more than 90% of the population.
Japan elected its first female prime minister this year, and she’s a conservative hardliner who has expressed strong opposition to same-sex marriage, so the odds of legislative advancements look slim for the next few years.
China: The government’s attitude toward the LGBTQ community turned icy again this year, with a deepening crackdown on queer expression, including ordering the removal of gay networking apps from app stores, censorship of foreign films to remove queer characters, and arrests of gay erotica writers.
In Hong Kong, the government failed to meet a court-imposed deadline to enact a civil partnership bill, after the legislature voted down the government’s very weak bill in September by a 71-14 margin. It’s unclear what couples can do from here.
Earlier in the year, a Hong Kong court ruled that banning trans people from using gender appropriate toilets was unconstitutional.
Taiwan: The government introduced bills that would open assisted reproduction to single women and same-sex couples, although it does not include surrogacy, which it says will be considered later.
A lawsuit was filed challenging the surgery requirement to change legal gender.
Taiwan was supposed to host WorldPride this year, but it withdrew back in 2022 when WorldPride ordered that it should not use the name “Taiwan” in the event name. The event was instead held in Washington, DC.
South Korea: A life partnership bill was proposed but has not advanced at all in the legislature. Meanwhile, two couples filed a case at the supreme court seeking same-sex marriage rights. And the government announced it would count same-sex couples as “spouses” in its next census.
The newly appointed minister for gender equality said she would make passing a long-stalled anti-discrimination bill, with protections for LGBT people, a priority. So far, no news on that front.
Thailand: Last year’s same-sex marriage and adoption law came into effect in January 2025, making Thailand the first place in southeast Asia to legalize it. Still, married couples continue to face legal discrimination when it comes to accessing surrogacy and residency permits for binational couples.
But a promised gender recognition law never materialized.
Vietnam: The government cracked down on some gay events this year, following a change in leadership of the Communist Party. Talk of expanding LGBT rights and possible same-sex marriage is likely dead for a while.
A long-stalled gender affirmation bill did not advance in 2025.
The government reduced the number of crimes that are eligible for the death penalty from 18 to 10, which it is explicitly pitching as a step toward abolition.
Indonesia: Multiple raids took plays on gay events and gay bars, in what looks like a deepening crackdown on queer people. A bill was also introduced that would ban LGBTQ behavior online.
Indonesia’s new criminal code moves the death penalty from the primary form of punishment to an alternative punishment, which is a baby step toward abolition.
Malaysia: You guessed it, crackdowns on gay events here, too.
Kelantan state amended its shariah-based criminal code to remove sections on sodomy, which the constitutional court said were redundant considering it’s already covered under federal law.
One bright spot – the government is beginning a study in the new year on full abolition of the death penalty. It took a step toward this in 2023 by abolishing mandatory death penalties from its criminal code.
Singapore: Parliament passed a workplace discrimination law that specifically excludes protections for LGBTQ people.
The high court dismissed an appeal seeking abolition of mandatory death penalties from the criminal code, but plaintiffs have said they will appeal.
Philippines: The supreme court ruled that homosexuality was grounds for annulment of a marriage.
Aklan province passed a non-discrimination ordinance.
Timor-Leste: The country joined the ASEAN bloc, and also the Southeast Asian Nuclear Weapons Free Zone.
Central and South Asia
Kazakhstan: The nation enacted a Russia-inspired “LGBT propaganda” law, which includes punishments of a fine and ten days in prison.
Krygyzstan: The government attempted to reintroduce the death penalty for sex crimes involving children this year – which seems to me like a common pretext for a witch hunt against queer people. Fortunately, the president submitted the proposed constitutional amendments to the constitutional court, which ruled that they were unconstitutional, as the current constitution explicitly prohibits reintroducing the death penalty, and doing so would violate Kyrgyzstan’s obligations under international treaties it has signed.
Kyrgyzstanalso signed, but has not ratified the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
Afghanistan: In July, the International Criminal Court issued warrants for two Taliban leaders for their alleged crimes against women, girls, and the LGBTQ community – the first time the ICC has sought warrants for crimes against LGBTQ people.
Pakistan: The government introduced a bill to eliminate the death penalty for two crimes, part of an association agreement with the European Union.
India: The central government took steps to ensure equality for same-sex couples under a number of laws and programs – though it still opposes same-sex marriage. The government was ordered to review all laws and promote equality when the supreme court shot down a marriage case in 2023. The court also considered and refused a petition to revisit that decision this year. Still, lots of other laws are being challenged in the courts by queer couples, including a domestic violence law which is phrased such that it only applies to husband-and-wife pairs, and equal income tax treatment.
Also this year, the court directed the government to review how it is implementing rights for trans people and to review sex education to ensure it is inclusive. A separate case was filed at the supreme court seeking distinct legal recognition for intersex people, as apart from transgender people. The high court of Andra Pradesh state ruled that transgender women are women under domestic violence law. The Kerala high court ruled that the state must issue a birth certificate to a child of a trans person that identifies its parents as “parents,” not “mother and father.” A judge in Madras ruled that same-sex couples have a right to a family life together, and cannot be forcibly separated by disapproving parents.
Karnataka state passed a hate crime and hate speech law that includes protections for LGBT people, and issued new regulations banning anti-LGBTQ discrimination in child protection services. Tamil Nadu state has made LGBTQ sensitivity training mandatory for all doctors.
Bangladesh: I must’ve edited a dozen or more stories about violent attacks on queer people in Bangladesh at 76crimes.com this year.
Bhutan: The government issued a set of film regulations that includes a prohibition on incitement to hatred or violence based on sexual orientation or gender.
Nepal: We still haven’t gotten a final decision from the supreme court on same-sex marriage, but the leading LGBT organization has counted 17 same-sex couples who’ve gotten married in the country since the 2023 ruling legalized it. Nevertheless, Wikipedia editors continue to claim that Nepal is not a same-sex marriage country.
The first gender-affirming surgery was performed in the country in June, and it is now considered available there.
Sri Lanka: There has been no progress on a bill to decriminalize gay sex – and the local Catholic bishop is whipping up conspiracy-based opposition to it. Last year, the island passed a Women Empowerment Act that included a prohibition on discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
Middle East
Israel: Well, at least the war in Gaza has mostly cooled down this year, although it’s clear that the suffering continues and it looks like we’ve just reached a pause in hostilities rather than a cessation.
On LGBT issues, Israel registered its first adoption by a same-sex couple in January. Same-sex adoption had been legal on paper for years, but in practice, the administration threw up so many roadblocks, it couldn’t happen until a supreme court ruling last year ordered the government to stop putting same-sex couples at the back of the adoption queue.
The opposition brought a bill to create civil (secular) marriage (including same-sex marriage) and a couples registry to a vote in the Knesset last week, but despite getting some cross-party support, it failed to pass.
Israel is expected to go to vote on a new Knesset by October 2026, and polling is currently very tight between the government and opposition blocs, but ten months is a long time in Israeli politics. While we can all hope that Netanyahu and his allies are given a thumping defeat next year – anything would be better than this government’s record on Palestinian and LGBTQ rights – the opposition may not be able to deliver same-sex marriage, as its current leading figure has stated his opposition to it in the past.
Lebanon: The state ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
Oman: The country ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, effective Feb 2026. This is a pretty major development, as international jurisprudence holds that the ICCPR requires decriminalization of sodomy.
With less than 48 hours remaining in office, outgoing Mayor Eric Adams rolled out a plan to distribute $2 million in what the city is describing as “emergency funding” to 20 organizations serving transgender, gender non-conforming, and non-binary individuals in a bid to counteract federal budget cuts.
The Department of Health and Mental Hygiene will administer the funding across organizations delivering the most pressing community services, including in the areas of health and wellness, legal advocacy, youth and family support, safety and crisis response, community building, and economic empowerment, according to the mayor’s office.
Organizations are eligible to receive up to $92,000, which can be used for staff, travel, supplies, and services — so long as most of the clients are transgender, gender non-conforming, or non-binary.
Organizations seeking to apply for the grant must fill out an application by Monday, Jan. 5 at 5 p.m.
CitizensNYC, a non-profit which helps cut through red tape and act as an intermediary between the city and applicants to disburse city funding to various organizations in a timely manner, is partnering with the city to help facilitate the funding, though the city will ultimately determine which organizations receive it.
The funding follows a tumultuous year during which the Trump administration repeatedly moved to slash funding for LGBTQ community services in New York City and elsewhere.
After President Donald Trump issued several executive orders early this year targeting funding for LGBTQ organizations and other groups, federal agencies warned non-profits that their budgets could be slashed if they served transgender individuals or conducted what officials described as “equity-related” work. Lambda Legal, which led a lawsuit against the Trump administration in February, later won a court order restoring $6 million in funding for nine nonprofits serving LGBTQ people and individuals living with HIV.
In September, the Trump administration announced it was cancelling around $36 million in funding for the city as punishment for its policies protecting transgender individuals — a move that prompted the city to sue the Trump administration.
Most recently, the Trump administration issued multiple proposed rules that would require healthcare providers participating in Medicare and Medicaid programs to stop providing gender-affirming care for youth.
“We saw a need after federal budget cuts, and we are responding to it,” First Deputy Mayor Randy Mastro said in a written statement. “There are essential services at stake for this community. Therefore, it was an imperative for us to take action and fill that need.”
In a written statement, Adams said the city is “putting our money where our values are and stepping up to serve those who need our care.”
Dr. Michelle Morse, the acting city health commissioner, said the federal government’s attacks on trans and gender non-conforming individuals are “unconscionable.”
“Supporting New York’s community organizations that provide lifesaving services and are eligible for the emergency funds is a key part of the Health Department’s commitment to supporting the health and well-being of all New Yorkers,” Morse explained.
The mayor’s announcement comes roughly three months after Adams sparked widespread criticism when he attacked trans-inclusive bathroom policies in a series of comments. At the time, Adams said he opposed what he described as “girls and boys using the same restroom,” saying he would evaluate his “authority” to change laws on that issue, but ultimately conceded he lacked the power to do so.
fleeredstates.blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.