Aetna to Cover IVF Treatments for Same-Sex Couples After $2M National Settlement

Read more at GayE.

When Mara Berton and June Higginbotham imagined their future, it always included children. What they did not imagine was a $45,000 bill standing between them and the family they dreamed of building.

The Santa Clara County couple, both lesbians, discovered that while their heterosexual colleagues’ fertility treatments were largely covered by insurance, they were excluded from the same benefits. To conceive, they were forced to pay entirely out of pocket, a financial burden that reshaped their timeline, their choices and their emotional well-being.

Last week, that inequity cracked open.

In a landmark national settlement approved by U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam Jr., Aetna agreed to cover fertility treatments such as artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization for same-sex couples on the same terms as heterosexual couples. The agreement applies nationwide across all Aetna plans, making it the first case to require a major insurer to implement such a policy uniformly.

An estimated 2.8 million LGBTQ members will benefit, including about 91,000 Californians. The settlement also requires Aetna to pay at least $2 million in damages to eligible California-based members, who must submit claims by June 29, 2026.

“We knew it wasn’t right,” Berton said in an interview with CalMatters. “What we’re fighting for is about family building and having kids. It was really important to both of us that other couples not have to do this.”

Before the settlement, Aetna’s policy required enrollees to engage in six to 12 months of “unprotected heterosexual sexual intercourse” before qualifying for fertility benefits, according to the class action complaint. Women without male partners could only access coverage after undergoing six to 12 unsuccessful cycles of artificial insemination, depending on age, a requirement medical experts say is excessive and clinically unnecessary.

The policy, attorneys argued, treated LGBTQ members fundamentally differently and effectively denied them a benefit that can be prohibitively expensive.

“This was an issue of inequality,” said Alison Tanner, senior litigation counsel for reproductive rights and health at the National Women’s Law Center, which supported the litigation. “Folks in same-sex relationships were being treated differently.”

In an email, Aetna spokesperson Phillip Blando said the insurer is committed to equal access to infertility and reproductive health coverage and will continue working to improve access for all members.

For Berton, the policy felt personal and dehumanizing. After consulting with a fertility clinic and deciding to move forward with donor sperm, she was told by Aetna that she did not meet the definition of infertility. Multiple appeals were denied. Insurance required her to attempt 12 rounds of artificial insemination,even though her doctors recommended no more than four.

Sean Tipton, chief advocacy and policy director for the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, said policies like that are designed to discourage people from using their benefits. While many doctors recommend three to four cycles of insemination before IVF, studies also show it can be more efficient and cost-effective to move directly to IVF.

In 2023, the society updated its medical definition of infertility to explicitly include LGBTQ people and individuals without partners, a shift aimed at preventing insurers from denying claims like Berton’s.

“It takes two kinds of gametes to have kids,” Tipton said. “Regardless of the cause of that absence, you have to have access to care.”

The settlement comes as California prepares to expand fertility coverage further. A new state law taking effect in January will require most state-regulated health plans to cover fertility care for same-sex couples and single people by broadening the definition of infertility. While that law does not apply to Aetna’s national plans, advocates say the momentum is unmistakable.

And it could not come at a more urgent time.

As LGBTQ rights are increasingly rolled back across the country, from bans on gender-affirming care to restrictions on queer families in schools and public life, access to reproductive health care has become another contested frontier. Who is allowed to build a family, and under what conditions, is no longer just a medical question but a political one. This settlement affirms that queer families are not exceptions to be managed but lives to be supported.

Berton and Higginbotham ultimately moved forward without coverage, pulling together money from family and enduring the physical and emotional toll of fertility treatments, including a miscarriage. Today, they are raising twin girls who love the swings and pulling every book off the shelf for story time.

They built their family before the lawsuit concluded. Still, Higginbotham said the victory matters deeply.

“I know people who don’t have children because this isn’t covered,” she said. “The settlement is such a huge step forward that is really righting a huge wrong.”

In a moment when so much is being taken, the ruling stands as a reminder; equality is not abstract. Sometimes, it looks like a family finally being allowed to exist.

Trans inmates win right to gender-affirming care as judge calls it “a serious medical need”

Read more at LGBTQ Nation.

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.

The decision in the Georgia case comes as the Department of Justice has instructed inspectors to stop reviewing prison standards aimed at preventing sexual assault against transgender, intersex, and gender-nonconforming people.

Donald Trump ends LGBTQ+ health programs under the cover of the shutdown

Read more at LGBTQ Nation.

On Friday, the Trump administration began massive layoffs throughout the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). As part of that, they completely removed the Office of Population Affairs, which was responsible for a wealth of public health programs, including specific initiatives for the LGBTQ+ community.

“This wasn’t a budget decision — it was ideological,” a former member of the Biden administration told The Advocate.  “These are the programs that centered reproductive and queer health, and now they’re gone.”

Donald Trump has welcomed the government shutdown as an opportunity to cut what he has called “Democrat Agencies” to shrink the government. The process is being led by Russ Vought, the head of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and key author of Project 2025, which advocated for such cuts. However, he has also tried to blame those government cuts on the Democrats.

Vought took to X/Twitter on Friday to announce the start of the “Reduction in Force,” or RIF. His office confirmed via Politico that federal employees were being permanently fired, not temporarily furloughed for the duration of the shutdown: “Can confirm RIFs have begun and they are substantial. These are RIFs, not furloughs.”

Adrian Shanker, who served as deputy assistant secretary for Health Policy during the Biden administration, told The Advocate that while the Office of Population Affairs often had its programs politicized, this is “the first time that the office itself is being cut.”

The Office of Population Affairs manages a huge range of public health initiatives. Those include Title X family planning services and grants; programs for adolescents that cover issues such as pregnancy prevention, mental health, and substance abuse; the Embryo Adoption Awareness and Services program; screenings and treatment for sexually transmitted infections and information on preventing the spread of HIV; and LGBTQ+ health initiatives, including information on gender-affirming care.

As well as restricting programming targeted specifically at the LGBTQ+ community, these cuts will restrict access to family planning programs that LGBTQ+ people are more likely to make use of to grow their families.

The cuts to the Office of Population Affairs will leave us lacking when it comes to sex education and with less support for LGBTQ+ youth, Shanker noted, saying it “leaves us more vulnerable to health inequities and worsened health outcomes.”

Wider cuts to the HHS will have broader effects as the CDC is losing over a thousand employees, including the elimination of entire departments. “CDC is over. It was killed,” said Dr. Demetre Daskalakis, the out gay former director of the CDC’s National Center on Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, after 1000 scientists, doctors, and public health officials were fired from HHS on Friday. Daskalakis, an infectious diseases expert, resigned in protest of the administration’s war on science-based public health earlier this year.

“This administration only knows how to break things. They have made America at risk for outbreaks and attacks by nefarious players. People should be scared.”

Some reports have suggested that some laid-off employees have been contacted and told that their reduction-in-force notices are being rescinded. This happened with federal layoffs from DOGE in the past, with some employees being rehired after DOGE cut their jobs. However, reports are unclear on how many RIFs have been rescinded.

Previous federal layoffs have been litigated in court, with some resulting in court rulings that the people cannot be fired, while other courts have allowed the dismissals to proceed. That process, if it occurs here, will take time, during which public health will suffer a setback.

“Without these people in place, it’s unlikely that a lot of these programs will be able to continue even after the government reopens,” predicted Shanker.

Massachusetts lesbian Gov. Maura Healey signs abortion and gender-affirming care shield law

Read more at The Advocate.

Massachusetts has enacted an even stronger shield law for abortion and gender-affirming care.

Democratic Gov. Maura Healey, the first out lesbian governor in the U.S., signed the Shield Act 2.0 into law Thursday. The bill further strengthens protections for patients and providers of reproductive healthcare, while explicitly mandating that abortions be performed when deemed medically necessary.

“Massachusetts will always be a state where patients can access high-quality health care and providers are able to do their jobs without government interference,” Healey said in a statement. “From the moment Roe was overturned, we stepped up to pass strong protections for patients and providers, and with President Trump and his allies continuing their assaults on health care, we’re taking those protections to the next level. No one is going to prevent the people of Massachusetts from getting the health care they need.”

The state’s original shield law, enacted by Democratic Gov. Charlie Baker in July, 2022, prohibits states that have banned the life-saving treatment from punishing those who travel to Massachusetts to receive it by preventing the release of information or the arrest and extradition of someone based on another state’s court orders.

The new law further prevents the disclosure of sensitive data, such as a physician’s name, and prohibits local law enforcement from cooperating with other jurisdictions in their investigations. It also directs the Department of Public Health to create an advisory group to help guide businesses as they implement privacy protections for storing or managing electronic medical records.

“Massachusetts is home to the best health care providers in the country, and we aren’t going to let them be intimidated or punished for providing lifesaving care,” said Lieutenant Governor Kim Driscoll. “Together with the Legislature, we are reminding the entire country yet again that Massachusetts is a place where everyone can safely access the health care they need and deserve.”

British Columbia Offers Fast-Track Immigration for U.S. Nurses

*This is reported by Immigcanada.org

Healthcare professionals in the United States now have a faster and easier path to work in British Columbia. If you’re a U.S.-trained nurse looking for meaningful work and a stable healthcare system, B.C. just made the move more attractive than ever.

In 2025, the province launched a streamlined credential recognition process, slashing wait times from months to mere days. The result? A massive 127% surge in applications from U.S. nurses. This isn’t just policy on paper, it’s creating real change for health professionals and Canadian patients alike.

If you’ve ever considered working in Canada as a nurse, there has never been a better time.

Why B.C. Is a Top Destination for U.S. Nurses

British Columbia offers more than beautiful landscapes and mild winters. It provides a public healthcare system that values stability, team-based care, and inclusivity, qualities many U.S. nurses now actively seek.

Here’s what makes B.C. stand out:

  • Fast-Track Registration: Nurses can now register with the BC College of Nurses and Midwives in a matter of days.
  • No Third-Party Delays: The new process removes the need for lengthy third-party credential assessments.
  • Direct Database Access: Regulators can now verify your education, employment, and exam history directly.
  • Supportive Relocation Help: Health Match BC provides free personalized guidance through the entire process.

See also Canada’s Rising Reliance on Low-Wage Migrant Workers

This combination of speed, support, and stability is why over 1,200 healthcare professionals from the U.S., including 413 nurses, have already shown interest.

How the New System Works

Instead of going through multiple layers of red tape, U.S. nurses can now apply directly to the college. B.C.’s healthcare authorities work closely with American regulators to confirm your credentials using shared systems.

This efficient model is designed not only to bring in talent faster but also to ensure quality and safety remain intact. The ultimate goal? More boots on the ground in critical care areas such as cancer treatment, emergency departments, and rural clinics.

Here’s a quick comparison:

Process StepOld SystemNew System
Registration Timeline3–4 monthsFew days
Third-party AssessmentRequiredEliminated
Credential VerificationManualAutomated via database
Support for ApplicantsLimitedFull support via Health Match BC

Real Opportunities for Real People

Whether you’re from Washington, Oregon, or California, B.C. wants you. A major recruitment campaign is launching soon in these states, targeting areas where interest is already high.

See also Canada Expands International Experience Canada Program for Japanese Youth

This isn’t just about filling vacancies. It’s about building a better healthcare system, one that supports team-based care and is culturally aware, inclusive, and patient-first.

Take the new Victoria Primary Care Network Allied Health Centre as an example. Here, nurses, physicians, social workers, and Indigenous wellness providers work side by side to offer complete care. It’s the kind of environment many nurses dream of but struggle to find in the U.S.

Who Is Eligible to Apply?

To qualify for this fast-tracked process, U.S. nurses need:

  • Proof of nursing education from an accredited U.S. institution
  • Active nursing license in good standing
  • No disciplinary action on record
  • Willingness to live and work in British Columbia

Want to check your eligibility? Book a consultation with RCIC through ImmigCanada and speak with a licensed expert who can guide you every step of the way.

See also PEI Seeks Public Input on Next Phase of Temporary Foreign Worker Protection Act

Why More U.S. Nurses Are Moving North

Besides the improved process, many American healthcare professionals are leaving behind the U.S. system for reasons like:

  • Political uncertainty affecting healthcare rights
  • Rising health insurance costs
  • Limited access to team-based care in underfunded facilities

British Columbia offers a safe, stable, and inclusive alternative. Plus, with competitive salaries, government support, and fast registration, it’s not just an option, it’s a smart move.

Ready to Start Your New Life in Canada?

If you’re a qualified nurse in the U.S. and looking for a rewarding career shift, this is your chance. British Columbia is actively welcoming U.S. nurses with open arms and an efficient path to employment.

B.C. Offers Fast-Track Immigration for U.S. Nurses Canada is calling, and British Columbia is leading the way with fast-track immigration for U.S. nurses. With high demand, faster registration, and full relocation support, now is the time to make your move. Contact ImmigCanada to book a consultation with RCIC and take the first step toward a secure and rewarding future in Canadian healthcare.

Gavin Newsom cut LGBTQ+ health funding. The CA legislature is set to restore $40 million

*This is reported by The Advocate.

The California legislature is expected to restore $40 million in the state budget for LGBTQ+ health programs that was cut by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Lawmakers are set to approve their revisions to the governor’s budget today, according to the Bay Area Reporter, which will restore funding for the California Department of Public Health’s Office of Health Equity (OHE). Newsom had eliminated the funds in his revised budget proposal released last month, drawing heavy condemnation from both lawmakers and LGBTQ+ groups.

The office funds several programs for LGBTQ+ youth, women, and transgender people through its Gender Health Equity Section (GHES), which is “dedicated to eliminating systemic bias that impacts health outcomes based on gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation.” In pausing funds, the governor also paused enrollment for undocumented adults in state healthcare programs.

The Los Angeles LGBT Center, which has been a recipient of some of the funds, including $1.9 million in 2022 for its Audre Lorde Health Program, sharply criticized Newsom’s proposed budget. CEO Joe Hollendoner said in a statement that the cuts were “a betrayal of queer and trans Californians.”

“Let’s be clear: balancing the state budget on the backs of vulnerable queer communities is a moral failure,” he said. “In cutting this funding, Governor Newsom has chosen to sacrifice the health and dignity of those already navigating intersecting barriers of misogyny, racism, transphobia, and xenophobia — including undocumented LGBTQ+ people. These cuts, along with the pausing of enrollment for adult undocumented Californians, are a clear attack on our healthcare system and the people who depend on it.”

The governor must still approve the legislature’s revisions to the state budget, which has has until June 30 to sign into law. Newsom, who is set to negotiate with lawmakers over the next few days, has not indicated whether or not he will agree to leave the funds.

Trump administration opens a “snitch line” to report trans kids getting health care

*This is being reported by LGBTQNation.

The Trump administration has opened a new “snitch line” to report what it calls violations of Trump’s executive order “Protecting Children From Chemical and Surgical Mutilation.” 

In twin actions this week, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) continued its efforts to end gender-affirming care for trans youth with the new whistleblower portal and the launch of an investigation of “a major pediatric teaching hospital” over the alleged firing of a nurse because she sought a religious exemption to avoid administering puberty blockers and hormones to minor patients.

Though unnamed, the nurse is likely whistleblower Vanessa Sivadge, who worked at Texas Children’s Hospital and provided testimony to Congress this week about her alleged termination.

The “snitch line” was shared publicly on Monday with guidance for potential whistleblowers published on the HHS website.

“You have three options to report a tip or complaint related to the chemical and surgical mutilation of children or whistleblower retaliation,” the guidance states, with instructions to provide identifying information of those involved in the alleged order violation.

“Please reference EO 14187 in your complaint,” the guidance states, referring to Trump’s “Chemical and Surgical Mutilation” order.

That order has been blocked by multiple federal judges with temporary restraining orders, but the Trump administration continues to invoke it in its crackdown on doctors and hospitals.

One ruling, by U.S. District Judge Lauren King in the Western District of Washington, termed the order a violation of constitutional protections by “treating people differently based on sex or transgender status.” Those cases continue to make their way through the courts.

The concurrent hospital investigation is designed to showcase the administration’s weaponization of 50-year-old federal anti-abortion provisions known as the Church Amendments to protect anti-trans whistleblowers. Those allow religious accommodation to anti-abortion healthcare providers based on “religious beliefs or moral convictions respecting sterilization procedures.”

Trump’s order characterizes gender-affirming care as “maiming and sterilizing.”

In January, the Justice Department dropped charges against Dr. Eithan Haim, a Texas surgeon accused of leaking private medical information about minors who received gender-affirming care at the same Texas hospital where Sivadge worked. He shared that information with rightwing media outlets.

The DOJ had previously charged Haim with violating HIPAA laws with “intent to cause malicious harm.” He called himself a whistleblower.

The Trump administration continues to characterize evidence-based trans healthcare as “mutilation”, despite every major medical association, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, and the Endocrine Society, supporting the practice.

Dr. Oz is trying to take gender-affirming care coverage away from trans Medicaid recipients

*This is being reported by LGBTQNation.

Mehmet Oz, the newly confirmed administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), is telling state Medicaid officials to stop covering gender-affirming care for transgender youth. Medicaid is the joint state-federal program that covers health care for people with low incomes, including 40% of minors in the U.S.

letter sent from the CMS to state Medicaid directors said that the program should stop reimbursing gender-affirming care for minors, including puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and surgical interventions. The letter says that there is an “underdeveloped body of evidence” supporting gender-affirming care despite the research showing that it’s a safe and effective treatment for gender dysphoria, which is supported by all major medical organizations in the U.S. The letter also cites the U.K.’s “Cass review,” a report on gender-affirming care that has been criticized for its bias against transgender people.

In a statement, Oz – who was confirmed by the Senate earlier this month – said that gender-affirming care can lead to sterilization, and that’s why the CMS is cracking down on it.

“Medicaid dollars are not to be used for gender reassignment surgeries or hormone treatments in minors – procedures that can cause permanent, irreversible harm, including sterilization. CMS will not support services that violate this standard or place vulnerable children at risk.”

Republicans in the Senate at first balked at Oz’s nomination, not due to his lack of qualifications for leading the agency but because he had, on television, expressed more liberal views when it came to acknowledging that trans kids exist and supporting reproductive freedom. The White House assured Senate Republicans that Oz is now transphobic.

Taking away health care from trans minors in low-income families just a week into his tenure at the CMS may reassure Republicans of Oz’s conservative credentials.

In January, the president signed an executive order targeting gender-affirming care for trans minors and some young adults. The order told the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) – under which the CMS is organized – to “take all appropriate actions to end the chemical and surgical mutilation of children,” including by changing “Medicare or Medicaid conditions of participation or conditions for coverage.” Referring to gender-affirming care as “mutilation” is a tactic used by anti-transgender activists to sway public opinion against the care that has been shown to save lives.

Former HHS official Adrian Shanker, who worked at the department under former President Joe Biden, said that the CMS letter misuses regulations to limit gender-affirming care coverage.

“I don’t think this letter is using those regulations in good faith,” Shanker told Advocate. “This letter is using highly politicized language that is not grounded in the mountain of evidence that supports the underlying health and well-being of trans youth.”

“It frankly looks like a campaign document,” he continued. “It looks like a document written by anti-trans activists rather than by public health professionals and health care leaders.”

Shanker pointed out that the letter itself is not legally binding but that it will lead states to cut off coverage for gender-affirming care.

“The significant fear here is that this ‘Dear State Medicaid Director’ letter will be utilized to preclude access to care even further in some states,” he said. “And the risk of that is actually very significant because we have incredible amounts of data that confirms the health impacts of denying access to care for trans youth.”

In 2015, trans reality TV personality and author Jazz Jennings appeared on Oz’s talk show, and he complimented her mother for being supportive.

“I love the support you’ve given your daughter,” Oz said. “It’s wonderful. And you can see the beautiful young woman she’s becoming because of it.”

This was before Oz entered the political realm. The exchange, though, led to Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) sending a letter demanding the administration explain the ten-year-old episode.

“Have your views on this issue changed since you hosted your television show?” Hawley’s letter demanded, asking if Oz supports the administration’s position that “gender transition procedures for minors should be banned.”

In a statement, a spokesperson for the White House said that Oz would follow the president’s views on the matter, saying that everyone in the administration will follow his “playbook.”

A 50-state look at the well-being of LGBTQ+ young people

*This is being reported by University Business.

The well-being of LGBTQ+ young people suffers not because of who they are but due to mistreatment and stigmatization, a leading suicide-prevention organization contends.

The Trevor Project has released a state-by-state analysis of the mental health of LGBTQ+ teens and young adults. The survey of 18,000 LGBTQ+ young people ages 13 to 24 examines suicide risk, access to care, discrimination, bullying and the impact of anti-LGBTQ+ policies, among other factors.

The Trump administration has impacted support and awareness for LGBTQ+ students across colleges and universities. A recent Dear Colleague letter has demanded institutions to dismantle diversity, equity and inclusion programs, which usually house support for LGBTQ students. GOP lawmakers across Florida, Texas and Iowa have also targeted academic programs related to gender studies.

Young people made the following statements about where they live:

I live in a community that is accepting of LGBTQ+ young people.

  • Arkansas: 36%
  • Hawaii: 88%
  • Idaho: 31%
  • Puerto Rico: 60%
  • Washington, D.C.: 97%

I or my family have considered leaving for another state because of LGBTQ-related topics politics and laws.

  • Connecticut: 19%
  • Kentucky: 56%
  • Montana: 53%
  • Texas: 58%
  • West Virginia: 46%

Percentage of LGBTQ+ youth who have seriously considered suicide in the past year:

  • Arizona: 39%
  • Colorado: 41%
  • Louisiana: 32%
  • Michigan: 37%
  • Vermont: 44%

LGBTQ+ young people were physically threatened or harmed:

  • Alaska: 16%
  • New York: 22%
  • Rhode Island: 17%
  • South Carolina: 25%
  • Wyoming: 29%


LGBTQ+ youth who reported experiencing symptoms of depression:

  • Alabama: 56%
  • Kansas: 49%
  • Maryland: 48%
  • Tennessee: 57%
  • Utah: 53%

LGBTQ+ young people who wanted and received mental health care:

  • Florida: 44%
  • Massachusetts: 58%
  • Mississippi: 41%
  • New Jersey: 55%
  • Wisconsin: 53%

I was misgendered for having “female breasts” as a kid. Here’s why it hurt.

*This commentary by Matt Keeley was originally published by LGBTNation.

Some cisgender people think the recent Republican fad of banning of transgender people from sports and bathrooms won’t affect them, and that if people just conform closely to gender stereotypes, they won’t have trouble. But these don’t realize that random nuts have confronted cis women in the ladies’ room just for wearing pants and having short hair.

Gender policing goes from controlling how we look to controlling how we behave. And cis people who have never been misgendered may not realize just how much it can hurt… but as a cis man who has been misgendered, I do.

As a kid, I had gynecomastia, a condition where prominent breasts develop on a boy or man. And my breasts were indeed prominent — probably a C- or D-cup in bra size. It started around when I was 10 or so. While we never figured out the reason, it doesn’t really matter when you’re in middle school and kids confront you in the bathroom, calling you “titty boy.” 

Even friends would make the occasional crack to my chagrin. I remember once talking about how my uncle’s internal organs were backwards; one of my friends immediately joked, “And you’ve got two hearts: here and here,” gesturing at each breast. It didn’t feel great!

I hated my breasts. I often fantasized about chopping them off. It was never gory or gross in my mind — it usually was more like picking off a scab — a little bit of pain at first, but then perfectly fine with a normal chest just like every other boy.

The teasing changed my relationship with my body. My nipples usually inverted into my areolas by nature. But whenever they weren’t, I’d push them back in because, in my weird kid mind, women’s breasts had outward-facing nipples for babies to feed. If mine pointed inward, then that meant they weren’t breasts like what women had, and were…. something different.

I didn’t know the word “dysmorphia” at the time, but looking back, it seems like a manifestation of that. Most of all, I wanted to ignore that my breasts even existed. I hated even using the word “breast” in any context. While taking swimming lessons, I’d refer to the breaststroke as the “whip-kick stroke” based on the leg movements. When I wore collared shirts, they had chest pockets — men had chests, women had breasts.

While the teasing and bullying was bad, unintentional cruelty was somehow even worse. One expects bullies to be mean and to focus on one’s flaws. But if someone unintentionally misgendered me, it felt like they couldn’t help but hurt me, based solely on my appearance, infringing on my misguided attempts to ignore and feel indifferent to my own body.

One moment that’s seared in my brain (and will be for the rest of my life) happened around age 11 one afternoon at an office supply store. I needed a new graphing calculator for math class. I approached a worker kneeling on the floor, re-stocking the bottom shelf. 

“Pardon me, do you know where the graphing calculators are?” I asked.

“Oh, sure, sir,” he said, turning and seeing my shoes. 

His eyes raised to my chest and said, “…ma’am…”

His eyes then hit my face and he quickly went back to “sir,” before telling me where they were located.

I could tell he wasn’t being mean, he was just processing the visual stimuli in the order presented. I could tell he was embarrassed and neither of us wanted to call attention to his error, so I thanked him, and went to pick up the TI-85 calculator I needed. 

I have no idea if he remembers that day at all. Probably not. But it’s a moment I relive over and over. I was wearing my standard uniform of jeans and a loose-fitting green/yellow Hypercolor T-shirt — it was the early ‘90s after all.

It’s hard to explain why it hurt so much to be mistaken for a woman. It wasn’t merely that it proved I was “different” from other boys. It wasn’t shame at being seen as a woman or less than “manly” — in fact, I don’t think real-or-perceived misogyny played a part in what happened or how I felt. I’ve always had various “feminine”-coded interests even as a kid: In first grade, I loved The Baby-Sitter’s Club book series (which features mostly girl characters) and I’d often pretend to be the magical Mrs. Piggle-Wiggle from the classic children’s novels.

The misgendering bothered me more so because it just wasn’t me — I wasn’t being perceived correctly. I couldn’t put it into words; I wasn’t necessarily “manly” and had no real desire to be seen as such, but I was a man (or at least, I would be one day when I grew up).

I was lucky; I was able to get a breast reduction — top surgery in trans masc parlance — the summer I turned 13. My surgeon, Dr. Kropp — whose name somewhat matched his surgical specialty — was excellent, and confirmed that I had excess breast tissue, not just fat. 

That fall, I came into a new school as a high school freshman, and no one ever commented on my chest again; I was thankfully average. Friends even seemingly forgot about it, and no one asked about the change.

It took me a very long time to get over it — my chest was the one thing I was sensitive about. I’m pushing 45 now; it’s been 30 years, and the wounds have finally scabbed over. (The figurative ones, I mean. As for the actual surgical scars, those healed very nicely and relatively quickly after the procedure.)

But it took decades for me to get over the misgendering. And I immediately “passed as male” otherwise, if you wanted to call it that. It was just: one day boobs, one day none. So I can only imagine the pain that accumulates over when a trans person gets misidentified for so long, sometimes even after transitioning. 

Misgendering can lead to depression and psychological distress. (It certainly did for me.) It can also create a sense of emotional exhaustion. I know that when I came home from a particularly bad day at school, I just wanted to shove everything out of my mind, and just veg in front of the TV. But the teasing made me think about self-obliteration. I never attempted suicide — but the idea of just not existing for a while definitely appealed to me.

Truthfully, these days, when I start feeling very anxious, stressed, or depressed, the idea of not existing for a while still appeals to me. And I can’t help but think that this desire to disappear first began when people mocked and mistook me for having “female” body parts.

I have just a glimpse of how cruel Trump and his transphobic followers have been in their constant crusade to demonize and misgender trans people. I can’t imagine feeling the full force from a lifetime of this meanness — the years I endured it was enough for me.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑