Black Trans Lives Matter | THEM

Michelle Henry, a beacon in San Francisco’s transgender community, tragically lost her life.

The San Francisco LGBTQ+ community is grieving the loss of a transgender woman who was killed on May 15th.

“Michelle’s passing is an immense loss for our community,” said Rebecca Rolfe, executive director of the organization, in an email statement. “There are no words to express the depth of our collective grief right now. We extend our gratitude to those who cherished Michelle, and our thoughts are with everyone who had the privilege of truly knowing, loving, and caring for her.”

On Tuesday, friends and family gathered to honor Henry at a memorial vigil held at San Francisco’s bar, Mother. The LGBT Center is currently creating an altar to honor her memory.

Veronica Pritipaul, a navigation specialist at the LGBT Center, described Henry as a “beacon of light in our community” who dedicated her life to transgender liberation. “With her passing, we have not only lost a beloved sister, but also a mentor and steadfast advocate for the trans community,” Pritipaul told the Reporter.

Jackson Asher, a close friend, remembered Henry as “incredibly loving” and a constant source of support over the years. “She was there for me at my lowest points, especially during my struggles with addiction,” Asher recalled. “Her love was unwavering, and her vibrant energy drew people to her.”

Friends suspect that Henry’s death may have been a hate crime targeting a transgender person. However, the San Francisco Police Department is currently not investigating the incident as a bias-motivated killing. “At this time, we do not have evidence indicating that this incident is hate-related,” police stated in a release.

Authorities have arrested 33-year-old Raymani Yuhashi, who faces charges of murder with premeditation, according to the Reporter. As of May 21, Yuhashi’s name did not appear in the county jail’s online records.

Henry’s death has been classified as a homicide, confirmed by David Serrano Sewell, executive director of the city’s Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, according to the Reporter.

A spokesperson for the San Francisco District Attorney’s office stated that the investigation is ongoing. “The police had sufficient cause to make an arrest based on evidence gathered at the scene. However, further investigation is necessary to make informed decisions about criminal charges,” the representative informed the Reporter. “Once the investigation concludes, all evidence will be thoroughly evaluated. If we determine we can meet the burden of proof, appropriate charges will be filed.”

The district attorney’s office extended condolences to Henry’s family and friends, offering support through their Victim Services Division as they navigate this difficult time.

Henry is at least the 15th trans or gender nonconforming person killed this year due to violent incidents, as reported by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC). The HRC’s current database, which lists 14 individuals, has yet to be updated to include Henry’s death. Nearly four out of five of those killed this year have been people of color, with almost a third being Black trans women. The majority of these deaths involved firearms.

As the LGBTQ+ community grieves another tragic loss, San Francisco’s Transgender District honored Henry in an Instagram post, describing her as a “beautiful soul taken from us too soon.” “At 25, she had her whole life ahead of her,” the post reads. “She was a friend to everyone and always ready to lend a helping hand.”

Honey Mahogany, recently named director of the city’s Office of Transgender Initiatives, described Henry as a “beloved member of our community.” Mahogany emphasized that her tragic death serves as a stark reminder that, even in San Francisco, ongoing advocacy is crucial to ensure the safety and welfare of all transgender individuals.

https://www.them.us/story/michelle-henry-trans-san-francisco-killed?utm_source=nl&utm_brand=them&utm_mailing=Them_Weekly_052324&utm_campaign=aud-dev&utm_medium=email&bxid=647003a05dfaff5d630fbb31&cndid=74113754&hasha=90d5433b1347095329a6ab5df0bd392d&hashb=555b342b6918faf1a5515da1bc4cf5731fa62fa0&hashc=f4ee38a7ae4ef690cecccbdd27678ec522f6d3c6f45bef0cc5001fd7abe7557b&esrc=bouncex-test&utm_term=THEM_Daily

States in the Southern region are advancing legislation aimed at revoking legal recognition for transgender individuals | ADVOCATE

Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama are all progressing bills that seek to “define sex” in a way that excludes transgender individuals from obtaining any legal recognition of their gender.

In recent weeks, the momentum behind anti-transgender legislation has subsided in states known for targeting transgender individuals. However, a distinct trend is emerging in the Gulf South, where Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama are all moving forward with bills aimed at ending the legal recognition of transgender individuals. These bills seek to redefine sex in a way that excludes transgender individuals, which could have far-reaching consequences for their rights, affecting areas such as birth certificates, driver’s licenses, and access to bathrooms.

The bills, labeled as the “Women’s Bills of Rights” by proponents, lack comprehensive measures to safeguard women’s rights. They do not guarantee access to birth control or abortion, fail to address pay equity, do not support women’s sports programs financially or structurally, and do not include provisions to combat violence against women. Instead, they focus on defining sex based on reproductive capacities and aim to eliminate legal recognition of transgender individuals’ gender identities.

In Louisiana, House Bill 608, backed by an impressive 63 Republican co-sponsors, reflects a staunch opposition to any opposition against it. While its main focus appears to be on restricting bathroom access in various institutions like schools, prisons, and shelters, a specific clause in the bill suggests that “any provision of law enacted by the legislature or any rule adopted by a state agency or other entity subject to the Administrative Procedures Act when applicable to an individual’s sex shall apply those definitions provided in R.S. 9:58.” This provision could potentially lead to the prohibition of changes to birth certificates and driver’s licenses, effectively erasing all legal recognition for transgender individuals. Although the bill hasn’t been slated for a hearing yet, given its considerable support, it’s expected to progress swiftly through the legislative process once initiated.

In Mississippi, Senate Bill 2753 and House Bill 1607 have both cleared their respective chambers. House Bill 1607 outlines sex based on reproductive capacity and curiously states that for transgender individuals, “equal” does not signify “same” or “identical.” Interestingly, the bill doesn’t define “equal,” a term also left vague in similar legislation in other states. This lack of clarity has sparked debates similar to those seen with a comparable bill in Iowa, currently at a standstill in the legislature there partly due to disagreements over that particular line. Regarding Senate Bill 2753, it proposes to restrict bathroom access for transgender individuals in publicly owned facilities like rest stops and the Jackson airport.

In Alabama, House Bills 111 and 130 are likewise aimed at transgender individuals. House Bill 111 dictates sex based on reproductive capacity for all vital statistics purposes. Meanwhile, HB 130, while not explicitly defining sex, is expected to be amended to incorporate language extending “Don’t Say Gay” legislation to Space Camp. This addition follows conservative media uproar over a transgender individual’s employment at the state’s esteemed Space Camp and could potentially be utilized to discriminate against transgender employees in state facilities.

To date, only five states have enacted comparable laws: Kansas, Montana, North Dakota, Tennessee, and Utah. In Kansas, a judge recently sided with Attorney General Kris Kobach, ruling that driver’s licenses and birth certificates must display transgender individuals’ assigned sex at birth, citing state law. Meanwhile, even though Florida lacks such legislation, alterations to regulations have hindered transgender individuals’ ability to update their driver’s licenses; allegedly, Florida residents face similar challenges in changing their birth certificates. Moreover, Oklahoma and Nebraska have issued executive orders delineating sex in a similar manner.

You can view a map of states with such legislation from the Movement Advancement Project here:

Movement Advancement Project. “Equality Maps: Defining ‘Sex’ to Allow Discrimination.” Accessed March 18, 2024.

If enacted, these bills would lead to a growing list of states refusing legal recognition of transgender individuals. This carries significant implications: individuals who have already updated their identity documents may see them reverted to their assigned sex at birth. These state-issued IDs could be used to enforce further anti-transgender measures like bathroom bans. Additionally, this discrepancy between state and federal documents would pose challenges for transgender individuals who have aligned their federal IDs with their gender identity.

There have been appeals for a federal legal intervention in response to bills eliminating gender markers and denying legal recognition to transgender individuals. For instance, in Florida, the entire Democratic congressional delegation urged the Biden Administration to utilize the Real ID Act, which requires “gender” to be indicated on driver’s licenses. As of Monday, there has been no response to this request.

Several lawsuits are currently in progress, seeking to overturn the laws in court where they have been enacted. However, the legal outcomes of these cases are currently pending.

SCOTUS Declines to Weigh in on Trans Students’ Bathroom Access Case | Them

This blog originally appeared at THEM.

A lower court ruling in favor of trans students will stand.

The Supreme Court has opted not to intervene in the ongoing dispute over transgender students’ rights to use bathrooms that match their gender identities. On Tuesday, the court declined an appeal from an Indiana school district seeking to overturn a ruling that required the district to permit trans boys to use the appropriate facilities.

In effect, this decision upholds a Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in favor of transgender students, requiring the Metropolitan School District in the Indianapolis suburb of Martinsville to continue allowing trans-inclusive restroom access.

The ACLU of Indiana initially filed a lawsuit in December 2021 on behalf of A.C., an anonymous transgender middle school student, and his parents. A.C. was required to use the girls’ restrooms or the single-person restroom in the nurse’s office, which was far from his classes. The ACLU of Indiana argued that these policies were unconstitutional, violating both the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and Title IX.

In April 2022, the plaintiffs were granted a preliminary injunction when a district court ruled to block the policy for the duration of the case. By August 2023, the Seventh Circuit ruled in favor of A.C., finding that the policies preventing him from using the boys’ restroom were indeed unconstitutional.

As The Hill noted, the Supreme Court has largely avoided directly weighing in on cases involving protections for trans youth, which often allows progressive lower court rulings to remain in place. In 2021, the Court declined to review a similar case in Virginia. Gavin Grimm, also represented by the ACLU, filed suit against his school district in 2015 after being required to use the girls’ restroom or the nurse’s bathroom. An appellate court found this policy unconstitutional in 2020, and the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case allowed that decision to stand.

Kenneth Falk, legal director of the ACLU of Indiana, expressed gratitude, stating that the organization was “thankful the Court allowed this momentous victory for the transgender youth of Indiana to stand.”

“In essence, this case is about safeguarding the fundamental right of every student to access a safe and inclusive learning environment. The policy at its core undermines the freedom of transgender youth to express their true selves,” Falk expressed in a press release. “We are committed to ongoing advocacy for transgender individuals and their families, standing firm wherever their legal equality is questioned.”

Kelley Robinson, President of the Human Rights Campaign, hailed the decision as a step in the right direction but stressed the ongoing need for further measures to safeguard transgender youth.

Robinson emphasized the universal importance of treating every child with kindness and respect, underscoring that while the decision is a positive affirmation of transgender students’ rights, significant efforts are still required to ensure comprehensive protection for all.

New Hampshire Republicans Pass Three Anti-Trans Bills in a Single Day

This blog originally appeared at LGBTQ NATION.

The bills undermine trans rights to equal education and health care.

Chris Sununu's headshot

The New Hampshire state legislature passed three bills targeting transgender equality last Thursday. These bills are now headed to Republican Gov. Chris Sununu’s desk.

The bills include H.B. 1205 and H.B. 1312, both of which passed the New Hampshire Senate along party lines. H.B. 1205 bans girls from participating on school sports teams that match their gender identity starting in fifth grade. It requires all girls to submit a birth certificate or “other evidence” of their sex assigned at birth, which the LGBTQ+ organization GLAD says could include a genital inspection. The bill also permits parents to sue their school, the opposing school, the state board that governs school sports, and the state if they believe a transgender student was allowed to play sports.

Sarah Huckman, representing her transgender daughter, testified against the bill as a parent.

“She’s incredibly social and outgoing, and sports have been vital for her mental health,” Huckman emphasized. She noted that her daughter actively engages in cross-country, Nordic skiing, and track, and has received acceptance from her teammates.

Now, she fears that her daughter’s well-being could be jeopardized by H.B. 1205.

H.B. 1312 mandates that schools must notify parents at least two weeks in advance before discussing topics related to sexual orientation and gender identity, categorizing such discussions as “objectionable material.” Democrats argued that the bill’s language is so sweeping that it could potentially lead to the prohibition of books depicting heterosexual couples, as reported by the LA Blade.

State Senator Lou D’Allesandro (D), a former educator, expressed, “This bill is one of the reasons why nobody wants to go into teaching,” as reported by the New Hampshire Bulletin.

“Today, the Senate turned its back on New Hampshire values and conveyed an exceedingly harmful message to all New Hampshire youth. LGBTQ students deserve to learn without facing discrimination at school,” stated Chris Erchull, an attorney at GLAD.

“Transgender students require the chance to participate in sports for the same reasons as other children: to acquire vital life skills as members of a team where they feel included,” Erchull emphasized. “That’s what we desire for all young individuals – the ability to learn, flourish, and feel accepted. That’s why our state and federal laws clearly state – and courts have confirmed – that targeting transgender students for exclusion is unjust.”

Governor Chris Sununu (R) has yet to announce whether he will sign the bills, although he has previously made statements opposing transgender rights.

“I fundamentally don’t believe that biological boys should be competing in girls’ sports. I think it’s dangerous,” he said this past March.

Appeals court rules that state insurance must cover transgender health care | NPG.org

This blog originally appeared at HAWAII PUBLIC RADIO.

Cases concerning transgender rights have been making their way through the courts for years. Here, people demonstrated in support of trans rights in front of the Supreme Court in 2019.

A federal appeals court decision on Monday mandated that state health insurance plans in North Carolina and West Virginia must offer coverage for gender-affirming care. Transgender advocates view this ruling as a significant triumph, particularly amid a surge in state legislative proposals aiming to limit the rights of transgender individuals.

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, rendered its decision on two cases, one of which was filed by transgender North Carolina state employees and their dependents. They were denied coverage for gender-affirming care.

The second lawsuit was filed by transgender individuals in West Virginia who are enrolled in Medicaid. While they could receive coverage for certain treatments such as hormones, they were denied coverage for surgery.

These cases were heard en banc by the 4th Circuit Court last fall, meaning that all the judges on that appeals court participated in the hearing.

During oral arguments, the judges raised questions about procedures like mastectomies. While these are covered for patients with breast cancer, they were not covered by the health insurance plans for transgender patients.

In an 8-6 decision, the majority of the 4th Circuit ruled that these patients were entitled to health insurance coverage for their care. Judge Roger Gregory, who wrote the majority opinion, labeled the denial of coverage as “obviously discriminatory.”

West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, in response to the court’s decision against the state’s stance on gender-affirming surgeries in Medicaid, stated, “Decisions like this one, from a court dominated by Obama- and Biden-appointees, cannot stand: we’ll take this up to the Supreme Court and win.”

North Carolina State Treasurer Dale Folwell labeled the ruling as “unabashed judicial activism” in a statement.

The 4th Circuit comprises seven judges appointed by Republican presidents and eight judges appointed by Democratic presidents.

“We’re delighted that the court affirmed that discriminatory treatment has no place under the law,” said Tara Borelli, senior counsel with Lambda Legal, who presented the case for the plaintiffs.

Borelli points out that the policies have already been updated. Both state health programs have been required to cover transgender healthcare since lower federal district courts ruled in favor of the patients in 2022.

With the appeals court issuing its decision, Borelli emphasizes that it establishes a significant precedent. She urges other states across the country to closely observe this ruling.

Attorneys representing North Carolina and West Virginia contended that the denial of coverage was rooted in fiscal considerations aimed at saving taxpayer funds, rather than bias.

Borelli pointed out that appealing to the Supreme Court would incur additional costs for taxpayers.

The Supreme Court’s recent decisions regarding transgender issues are varied.

Earlier this month, the justices permitted Idaho’s prohibition on gender-affirming care for minors to be implemented.

However, the Court has chosen not to review other cases concerning transgender students’ access to bathrooms and participation in school sports. Observers interpret this as a reluctance to intervene in the contentious issue.

On Friday, the Biden administration implemented a regulation bolstering protections against discrimination for transgender patients nationwide. This regulation extends to all healthcare services, ensuring that transgender individuals, including those seeking treatment unrelated to their gender, such as a broken arm in the emergency room, are not subject to mistreatment.

A coalition of Republican-led states has vowed to contest the regulation in court.

Mississippi lawmakers have discreetly disposed of bills aimed at limiting the legal recognition of transgender individuals. | NBCNews

This blog originally appeared at NBC NEWS.

A proposed bill sought to limit transgender individuals’ access to bathrooms and locker rooms in public facilities, including university dormitories.

Mississippi’s Republican-led Legislature has decided not to proceed with final votes on two bills aimed at restricting the legal recognition of transgender individuals.

The bills quietly died after House and Senate leaders couldn’t reach an agreement on compromise versions before the Monday night deadline. Lawmakers were preoccupied with addressing several other complex issues at the time.

One bill aimed to limit transgender individuals’ access to bathrooms and locker rooms in public buildings, such as university dormitories. The other sought to define sex as determined at birth, asserting that “there are only two sexes, and every individual is either male or female.”

The House and Senate had previously approved distinct versions of both bills. To proceed, the Republican-majority chambers would have to reconcile and settle on a unified version of each bill before they could be presented to Republican Governor Tate Reeves.

In 2021, Reeves enacted a law prohibiting transgender athletes from participating on girls’ or women’s sports teams. Last year, he also signed a measure prohibiting gender-affirming hormones or surgeries for individuals under 18 years old.

The Mississippi proposals were part of a broader trend seen in state legislatures nationwide, where Republicans are pushing for restrictions on transgender individuals’ access to gender-affirming care, restroom facilities, and participation in sports, among other issues.

Florida Colleges Close LGBTQ+ Centers Following Ron DeSantis’s “Dystopian” Anti-DEI Law | LGBTQNation

This blog originally appeared at LGBTQ NATION.

“The LGBT center was one of the main reasons I chose to attend this university.”

The University of North Florida (UNF) has closed its LGBTQ+, intercultural, interfaith, and women’s centers to comply with Gov. Ron DeSantis’s 2023 law banning publicly funded universities from spending money on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs.

The LGBTQ Center, which had been open for 18 years, closed just seven days before graduation. It is one of several queer centers at state schools that have shut down since DeSantis signed the law.

In a message to students, UNF’s now-closed Office of Diversity and Inclusion stated, “Associated physical locations and communication methods are no longer in active operation. We extend our deepest gratitude to every student who supported and engaged with this office throughout the years. It was an honor to have been a part of your UNF journey.”

The LGBTQ Center closed its doors on April 26. Student workers packed up rainbow flags and a bin of free clothing, binders, and accessories. Doyle Tate, an assistant professor of psychology at UNF who researches LGBTQ topics, took the center’s artwork depicting a giant rainbow Osprey, UNF’s mascot.

In January, UNF announced the closure of the office and centers to comply with the anti-DEI law. The law categorizes DEI programs as those that classify individuals based on race, color, sex, national origin, gender identity, or sexual orientation, and promote differential or preferential treatment based on such classification.

“I’m currently safeguarding it in my office until Florida stops its crusade against DEI on college campuses and the LGBTQ Center hopefully reopens one day,” Tate told OutSFL.

When signing the law, DeSantis stated, “DEI is better viewed as standing for ‘discrimination, exclusion, and indoctrination,’ and that has no place in our public institutions. [DEI] has basically been used as a veneer to impose an ideological agenda and that is wrong… If you want to do things like gender ideology, go to Berkeley, go to some of these other places… You don’t just get to take taxpayer dollars and do whatever the heck you want to do and think that’s somehow OK.”

Critics of the law argue that it will hinder efforts to recruit students and educators, as well as shut down courses that examine gender inequality, LGBTQ+ discrimination, and racial injustice.

The statement appears to be clear and informative. It reassures employees that their jobs are secure despite the closures of the DEI office and centers, and it indicates that efforts are being made to find alternative roles for affected staff members within the university.

The sentence effectively communicates the reaction of UNF students to the closure of the LGBTQ+ Center, highlighting their protest against the decision. It provides context about the students’ actions and the location of the protest, offering insight into the level of concern and engagement within the student body regarding this issue.

“Having the center meant finding friends and gaining knowledge about my gender and sexual orientation,” said Lissie Morales, a student at UNF, in an interview with WTLV. “Seeing the turnout warms my heart because it shows how much people care, especially about the LGBT Center, which was a significant factor in my decision to attend UNF.”

The closure will undoubtedly affect UNF’s reputation as a champion of diversity within the university community. Previously recognized as one of the most LGBTQ+-inclusive campuses in the state by Campus Pride, UNF may see its standing impacted by the closure of the LGBTQ+ center.

In 2023, Florida Atlantic University shuttered its DEI centers, and the University of Florida in Gainesville followed suit in March, terminating 13 full-time DEI positions and discontinuing 15 administrative appointments, as reported by the Independent Florida Alligator.

The quote effectively captures the sentiment that the anti-DEI law reflects Governor Ron DeSantis’s agenda of censorship and surveillance, as expressed by Carlos Guillermo Smith, a former Florida House Democrat and advisor to the state LGBTQ+ advocacy group Equality Florida.

Smith criticized the Board of Governors for failing to intervene and instead, he asserted that they blindly followed Governor DeSantis’s political agenda, which he described as centered on censorship.

DeSantis additionally approved the state’s “Stop WOKE Act,” barring schools and businesses from providing educational initiatives on racism and gender-based discrimination. However, the law is currently under review by a court due to concerns about its potential infringement on constitutionally protected free speech rights.

Federal Judge Mark E. Walker, who halted the enforcement of the Stop WOKE Act last year, characterized the law as “positively dystopian,” noting that it “formally prohibits professors from articulating disapproved perspectives in university classrooms while allowing unrestricted expression of opposing viewpoints.”

The quote from Judge Mark E. Walker effectively captures the essence of the law’s restriction on academic freedom. It highlights the condition that professors are only permitted to express viewpoints sanctioned by the state, thereby illustrating the law’s infringement on intellectual liberty.

Target reduces LGBTQ+ Pride Month merchandise following a decline in sales due to right-wing backlash | Advocate

“We’re gonna end it on day one … the whole thing is crazy,” Trump said on a Philadelphia talk show.

On Friday, the Republican nominee stated that if elected president in November, he would overturn President Joe Biden’s transgender protections “on day one” of his administration.

Trump made the statement during an appearance on Kayal & Company, a right-wing radio talk show in Philadelphia.

“The world is like a cuckoo’s nest right now,” he remarked, alluding to concerns such as “men playing in women’s sports” and other transphobic sentiments.

Cohost Dawn Stensland broached the subject of “biological boys” in girls’ locker rooms, citing the Biden administration’s recent enforcement of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the law prohibiting sex discrimination in federally funded educational programs.

The rule, slated to take effect on August 1, stipulates that sex discrimination encompasses discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. It highlights, among other measures, the rights of transgender and nonbinary students to use their preferred pronouns and access facilities such as restrooms and locker rooms corresponding to their gender identity. Numerous states led by Republicans have either filed lawsuits contesting the rule or declared their intention not to enforce it.

“We’re going to put an end to it on day one… the whole thing is crazy,” Trump stated, reassuring Stensland that parents concerned about transgender students in locker rooms need not worry. Throughout his presidency, Trump frequently criticized transgender rights and implemented numerous anti-trans policies.

Trump did not explicitly reference the specific rule, but he discussed Biden’s implementation of transgender protections via executive order and stated his intention to issue an executive order to overturn them. Biden did issue an executive order on his first day in office in 2021, stating that the federal government would not tolerate workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Additionally, he directed agencies to ensure that federal anti-discrimination statutes covering sex discrimination extend to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, thereby safeguarding the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals.

The comprehensive Title IX enforcement rule issued by the Department of Education stemmed from this directive. Unlike executive orders, the federal rulemaking process is lengthier but allows for a more thorough and inclusive approach.

Regarding transgender individuals in school athletics, the recent Title IX regulation doesn’t tackle this issue. The administration has introduced a separate Title IX proposal indicating that outright prohibitions on transgender participation are impermissible, yet transgender athletes could be barred from gender-specific sports under specific circumstances. LGBTQ+ advocates have condemned the proposed regulation, arguing that it could facilitate discrimination.

Trump will be hosting a rally on Saturday in Wildwood, N.J., which is located close to Philadelphia.

Target scales back LGBTQ+ Pride Month merchandise after right-wing backlash impacts sales | Advocate

This blog originally appeared at ADVOCATE.

The retailer, which has nearly 2,000 locations across the United States, will now stock Pride products in only about half of its stores.

Target has reduced its LGBTQ+ Pride Month merchandise in some stores this year, according to Bloomberg.

The retailer, which operates nearly 2,000 locations across the United States, will only stock Pride products in about half of its stores, sources close to the situation told Bloomberg. The company is determining which stores will carry the merchandise based on recent sales data. All products will still be available online.

A Target spokesperson stated, “Target is committed to supporting the LGBTQIA+ community during Pride Month and year-round.”

The retailer has celebrated Pride Month every June for over a decade with a collection honoring the LGBTQ+ community. In May of last year, Target began removing some Pride items in certain locations after threats were made to their employees’ safety, a company spokesperson told The Advocate.

“Since introducing this year’s collection, we’ve experienced threats impacting our team members’ sense of safety and well-being while at work,” they said. The behavior ranged from confrontations between customers and workers and items being thrown, to bomb threats or direct threats against employee safety.

Target CEO Brian Cornell later defended the decision to pull products, telling CNBC in November that employees faced “very aggressive behavior,” including threats, destruction of merchandise, and disruptions in the cashier area. Some customers escalated the hostility by yelling at employees and threatening to “light product on fire” within the stores.

Bloomberg’s recent report did not mention employee safety concerns but instead cited financial motivations behind the decision. Target reported a 5 percent drop in sales from April to June compared to the same period the previous year, attributing the decline to the backlash.

The Target spokesperson expressed optimism for improved second-quarter sales this year but did not provide further details. Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson responded with a statement, saying, “Target’s decision is disappointing and alienates LGBTQ+ individuals and allies, risking not only their bottom line but also their values.”

“Pride merchandise carries significance. LGBTQ+ individuals reside in every corner of this nation, and our presence is undeniable,” she emphasized. “With LGBTQ+ individuals representing 30 percent of Gen Z, companies must recognize that community members and allies seek businesses that demonstrate wholehearted support for the community. This entails visible demonstrations of allyship.”

States with conservative leadership have voiced their refusal to adhere to regulations aimed at preventing discrimination against transgender individuals. | truthout.org

This blog originally appeared at TRUTHOUT.

An LGBTQ advocate emphasized the importance of President Biden ensuring that states adhere to the law.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders, at the time a gubernatorial nominee for Arkansas, delivers a speech during the America First Agenda Summit at the Marriott Marquis Hotel on July 26, 2022, in Washington, D.C.

Were you aware that Truthout operates as a nonprofit and relies on support from readers like you? If you appreciate our efforts, please consider making a donation to support our work.

Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders declared on Thursday that the state would refuse to adhere to a federal regulation aimed at safeguarding the rights of transgender students in schools nationwide.

Sanders issued an executive order on Thursday, reiterating Arkansas’ stance to uphold the ban on transgender students accessing bathrooms corresponding to their gender identity and to restrict teachers from using correct pronouns for transgender students without written parental consent. “To Joe Biden and the federal government, our response is clear: we will not comply,” Sanders declared during a news conference.

Arkansas is rebuffing the regulations unveiled by the Biden administration in April, which prohibit discrimination grounded in sexual orientation or gender identity.

Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson expressed in a statement that the new rules would significantly impact LGBTQ+ youth, allowing them to enjoy the same educational opportunities as their peers, such as attending dances, using restrooms safely, and authentically sharing their life experiences. Robinson urged school administrators to take immediate action by implementing anti-bias, anti-bullying, and harassment programs to ensure the cessation of misgendering and cruelty toward LGBTQ+ students, thereby guaranteeing an education free from discrimination for every student.

This regulation formalizes a 2021 guidance from the Education Department that instructed schools to interpret federal law to safeguard LGBTQ students from discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, and marks the reversal of a Trump administration policy that rescinded Obama-era guidance which directed schools to permit transgender students to use facilities corresponding to their gender identity.

“This revised rule serves as a reminder of the original intent of Title IX for over fifty years: to guarantee students a safe environment free from abuse, harassment, and discrimination as they pursue their education,” Robinson remarked.

Sanders’ directive aligns with similar actions taken by several other states, such as Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Florida, and Nebraska, instructing schools to disregard the rule. Many of these states have initiated federal lawsuits to contest the regulation. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) has filed a lawsuit against the Biden administration seeking to halt the rule, while Republican attorneys general in Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, and Idaho are mounting a separate legal challenge. Additionally, the Independent Women’s Forum, a conservative organization, has filed its own lawsuit against the rule.

An estimated 280,300 transgender youth reside in states where laws have been introduced or implemented to limit their access to gender-affirming medical treatments, participation in sports, and use of sex-segregated facilities or pronoun recognition, according to the Williams Institute. The ongoing debates surrounding these anti-transgender bills have a detrimental impact on the mental well-being of 86 percent of transgender youth, as per a 2023 survey conducted by The Trevor Project.

“This regulation marks a victory for the transgender community and represents significant progress in safeguarding trans youth,” stated Allison Chapman, an LGBTQ legislative researcher, to Truthout. “The Biden administration must ensure that states adhere to the law’s directives.”

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑