Tag: Transgender Rights

Trans woman swims topless at meet to protest being forced to compete against cis men

*This is reported by LGBTQ Nation

Anne Isabella Coombes, a 67-year-old transgender female swimmer, swam topless with her breasts exposed at the Cornwall County Masters swim meet as a protest to being forced to compete with cisgender men by Swim England, the UK’s governing body overseeing the country’s competitive swimming.

Swim England told Coombes she was no longer eligible to compete in the women’s category, despite her doing so in 2022 and 2023. So the organization placed her in a new “open” category where trans female and nonbinary competitors swim against cis men. Swim England replaced its men’s category with its open category starting in September 2023, to “negate… post-puberty transgender females[‘]… biological level of performance advantage post-transition,” the organization wrote.

“It is widely recognised that fairness of competition must be protected and Swim England believes the creation of open and female categories is the best way to achieve this,” the organization said upon announcing the new policy. “The updated policy ensures there are entry-level competitive opportunities for transgender people to participate in the majority of our disciplines within their gender identity.”

When Coombes asked what she’d be required to wear during swim meets in the “open” category, Swim England informed her that she would “need to wear a female swimming costume despite having to compete with the men, which ‘outs’ me as a woman who is transgender,” she told The Reading Chronicle.

“I explained to the person on the phone that they are not allowed to do that, and he didn’t have an answer,” she added, saying that the swimsuit requirement compelled her to stop competitively swimming until 2025. She only resumed in order to protest Swim England’s policies, which say that competitors’ swimwear must be in “good moral taste.”

She said the organization told her that she can swim in a men’s swimsuit without having to ask in advance for a referee’s permission, but that the referee can disqualify her if they choose.

“Deciding on whether exposing my breasts is in ‘good moral taste’ or whether I need to cover them up so that ‘those involved in competitive swimming are appropriately safeguarded’ is an entirely subjective decision of the referee,” she told the aforementioned company.

“In other words, I could turn up to the competition and run the risk of not being able to compete in whichever costume I intend to wear,” she continued. “No other swimmer has this concern. These regulations also mean that Swim England is treating me as a male by default.”

The Reading Chronicle didn’t say whether the referee disqualified her for her protest.

“I’m trying to show the world that this policy isn’t thought through, and it’s meant to hit trans people and nobody else,” she said. “I want to make it clear through this protest that trans people are not a threat when it comes to sport. We aren’t winning everything, and if we started to, then I would be first in line to discuss other options. Right now, it is a non-issue.”

Numerous competitive sports’ governing bodies have recently changed their policies to ban trans women from competing against cis women in the name of fairness — despite previously having policies that allowed trans athletes using hormone therapy to compete with members of their own gender identity.

Critics of these policies say that they mostly harm female athletes who could be subjected to invasive medical investigations in order to prove their gender. Critics also say that these policy changes add to social stigma that vilifies trans female athletes as a threat to women’s rights and do nothing to address the sexism, abuse, and lack of funding that actually harm cis female athletes.

Coombes said she has been protesting against the recent UK high court ruling that the legal definition of a woman under the country’s 2010 Equality Act is based on “biological sex.” Though the court has said that trans women still have anti-discrimination protections under the law, the UK Human Rights Commission said in a confusing “guidance” that trans women can be excluded from “women-only” spaces in hospitals, shops, and restaurants, and trans men can be excluded from “men-only” spaces.

Coombes has spoken at protests against the ruling and told the aforementioned publication, “Most trans people just want to get on with their lives and be treated as the gender they are. But unfortunately, given what the Supreme Court has done, we need to stand up and say ‘I’m trans, I exist, and you’re not going to silence me.’ Existence is resistance.”

0

Homophobic judge denies historical marker for gay bar violently raided by police

*This is reported by LGBTQ Nation

After a year-long effort to install an official historical marker recognizing the LGBTQ+ community at the Rainbow Lounge — a gay bar in Fort Worth, Texas that was targeted in an infamous 2009 police raid — the effort was ultimately thwarted by Republican Tarrant County Judge Tim O’Hare.

The site for the historical marker, 651 S. Jennings Avenue, was the location of the Rainbow Lounge. Shortly after opening, on June 28, 2009, Fort Worth police and Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission agents raided the bar without prior notice, using excessive force and arresting patrons for “public intoxication.” The raid resulted in one man being hospitalized for brain bleeding, and another suffering broken ribs. 

The raid, which occurred on the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots, mobilized the Dallas-Fort Worth area LGBTQ+ community and garnered national publicity, ultimately leading to sweeping reforms of the city’s anti-discrimination laws and the implementation of diversity training for local legal officials.

Unfortunately, the Rainbow Lounge burned down in June 2017. To this day, the site lies abandoned as leasing issues prevent the bar from being rebuilt. Investigators never stated the cause of the fire; arson was never officially ruled out.

Todd Camp, who runs Fort Worth LGBTQ+ history group, Yesterqueer, told The Fort Worth Report that the city approved of a historical marker after Camp gave a presentation on local queer history to city staff.

Everything seemed to be moving accordingly, however, Tarrant County Judge Tim O’Hare issued a letter to the historic commission claiming the application for the historical marker was improperly submitted and did not go through the Tarrant County Historical Commission’s “thorough approval process.” Before a state marker can be submitted to the state for approval, it must undergo a review process from the local county’s historical society.

While O’Hare argued that the process “bypassed established precedent” for approval, former Tarrant County Historical Commission chair Coletta Strickland told The Fort Worth Report that this wasn’t the case. 

“There was nothing untoward or out of the ordinary that was done for this application,” Strickland said.

Nevertheless, O’Hare wrote in a letter opposing the gay bar’s historical marker, “Allowing the marker to proceed under these circumstances risks generating unnecessary controversy and undermining the credibility of both the local and state historical commissions.”

While his letter didn’t directly attack LGBTQ+ people, a statement from the judge’s chief of staff Ruth Ray said that O’Hare does not support a historical marker glorifying radical gender ideology and drag performances.

“People visit public spaces for recreation and relaxation, often with their children. As the vast majority of our nation agrees, transgenderism should not be pushed on our children,” Ray said.

O’Hare has a history of opposing LGBTQ+ rights and having far-right political beliefs. As a Tarrant County judge, he has led efforts to cut funding for non-profits that work with at-risk children, citing their views on racial inequality and LGBTQ+ rights.

There are over 16,000 historical markers that can be found in all 254 of Texas’s counties to commemorate elementary schools, historic mansions, plantations, Black historic locations, and even ones dedicated to historical female figures from Texas.

Despite this large number and the size of the state, there is currently only one officially designated LGBTQ+ historical marker in Texas: “The Crossroads” in the Oak Lawn neighborhood of Dallas, recognizing its significance as the heart of the city’s LGBTQ+ community.

0

US supreme court upholds Tennessee ban on youth gender-affirming care

*This is reported by The Guardian

A Tennessee state law banning gender-affirming care for minors can stand, the US supreme court has ruled, a devastating loss for trans rights supporters in a case that could set a precedent for dozens of other lawsuits involving the rights of transgender children.

The case, United States v Skrmetti, was filed last year by three families of trans children and a provider of gender-affirming care. In oral arguments, the plaintiffs – as well as the US government, then helmed by Joe Biden – argued that Tennessee’s law constituted sex-based discrimination and thus violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Under Tennessee’s law, someone assigned female at birth could not be prescribed testosterone, but someone assigned male at birth could receive those drugs.

Tennessee, meanwhile, has argued that the ban is necessary to protect children from what it termed “experimental” medical treatment. During arguments, the conservative justices seemed sympathetic to that concern, although every major medical and mental health organization in the US has found that gender-affirming care can be evidence-based and medically necessary. These groups also oppose political bans on such care.

All six of the supreme court’s conservative justices joined in at least part of the decision to uphold the law, although several also wrote their own concurring opinions. In his majority decision, Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized that the ruling primarily rested on the justices’ finding that the law did not violate the equal protection clause, rather than on an ideological opposition to trans rights.

“This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field. The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound,” Roberts wrote. He added: “We leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.”

In recent years, the question of transgender children and their rights has consumed an outsized amount of rightwing political discourse. Since 2021, 26 states have passed bans on gender-affirming care for minors, affecting nearly 40% of trans youth in the US. Twenty-six states have also outlawed trans kids from playing on sports teams that correspond with their gender identity.

Many of these restrictions have been paused by court challenges, but the supreme court’s decision could have vast implications for those lawsuits’ futures. A study by the Trevor Project, a mental health non-profit that aims to help LGBTQ+ kids, found that anti-trans laws are linked to a 72% increase of suicide attempts among trans and nonbinary youth.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the majority opinion, alongside Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan. Because the law discriminates on the basis of sex, Sotomayor argued in her dissent, it should face higher legal scrutiny than the majority decided to give it.

“Male (but not female) adolescents can receive medicines that help them look like boys, and female (but not male) adolescents can receive medicines that help them look like girls,” Sotomayor wrote. “By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims. In sadness, I dissent.”

0

US judge blocks Trump passport policy targeting transgender people

*This is reported by Reuters

A federal judge on Tuesday blocked President Donald Trump’s administration from refusing to issue passports to transgender and nonbinary Americans nationwide that reflect their gender identities.

U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick in Boston expanded, opens new tab a preliminary injunction she issued in April that allowed six transgender and nonbinary individuals who challenged the policy to obtain passports consistent with their gender identities or with an “X” sex designation while the lawsuit moves forward.

Kobick did so after concluding the policy the U.S. Department of State adopted pursuant to an executive order Trump signed likely discriminated on the basis of sex and was rooted in an irrational prejudice toward transgender Americans that violated the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment.

While Kobick’s April ruling was limited in its scope, the judge, an appointee of Democratic President Joe Biden, on Tuesday granted the case class action status and halted the policy’s enforcement against transgender, nonbinary and intersex passport holders.

Kobick said granting class action status to two categories of passport holders was appropriate given that the administration’s actions affected them uniformly “by preventing them from obtaining passports with a sex marker consistent with their gender identity.”

Li Nowlin-Sohl, a lawyer for the plaintiffs at the American Civil Liberties Union, called the ruling “a critical victory against discrimination and for equal justice under the law.”

White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly in a statement called the decision “yet another attempt by a rogue judge to thwart President Trump’s agenda and push radical gender ideology that defies biological truth.”

The case is one of several concerning an executive order Trump signed after returning to office on January 20 directing the government to recognize only two biologically distinct sexes, male and female.

The order also directed the State Department to change its policies to only issue passports that “accurately reflect the holder’s sex.”

The State Department subsequently changed its passport policy to “request the applicant’s biological sex at birth,” rather than permit applicants to self-identify their sex, and to only allow them to be listed as male or female.

Prior to Trump, the State Department for more than three decades allowed people to update the sex designation on their passports.

In 2022, the Biden administration allowed passport applicants to choose “X” as a neutral sex marker on their passport applications, as well as being able to self-select “M” or “F” for male or female.

0

Trump Administration Orders Termination of National LGBTQ+ Youth Suicide Lifeline, Effective July 17th

*This is reported by The Trevor Project

The Trevor Project received official notice yesterday that the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) is initiating the closure of the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline’s LGBTQ+ Youth Specialized Services program within 30 days, effective July 17, 2025.

Jaymes Black, CEO of The Trevor Project, released the following statement in response:

“We received official notice that the Trump administration has ordered the closure of The 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline’s LGBTQ+ Youth Specialized Services program, effective July 17, 2025. This means that, in 30 short days, this program that has provided life-saving services to more than 1.3 million LGBTQ+ young people will no longer be available for those who need it.

“This is devastating, to say the least. Suicide prevention is about people, not politics. The administration’s decision to remove a bipartisan, evidence-based service that has effectively supported a high-risk group of young people through their darkest moments is incomprehensible. The fact that this news comes to us halfway through Pride Month is callous – as is the administration’s choice to remove the ‘T’ from the acronym ‘LGBTQ+’ in their announcement. Transgender people can never, and will never, be erased.

“Congress can still act to reverse this fatal decision. We are asking everyone to join the overwhelming public support for evidence-based crisis services, and urge Congress to act. Learn more by visiting TheTrevorProject.org/ActNow.

“I want every LGBTQ+ young person to know that you are worthy, you are loved, and you belong – despite this heartbreaking news. The Trevor Project’s crisis counselors are here for you 24/7, just as we always have been, to help you navigate anything you might be feeling right now.”

In September 2022, The Trevor Project began providing its best-practice crisis services to LGBTQ+ youth through the 988 Lifeline. When individuals contact the 988 via phone, text, or chat, they are given the option to “press 3” or “reply PRIDE” to be connected with counselors trained specifically to assist LGBTQ+ contacts up to age 25. Initially, The Trevor Project served as the sole provider for the pilot phase of 988 LGBTQ+ youth specialized services, before transitioning to serve as one of seven centers that currently make up the LGBTQ+ Youth Subnetwork.

The Trevor Project serves nearly 50% of the LGBTQ+ youth specialized services’ contact volume. In 2024 alone, The Trevor Project directly served more than 231,000 crisis contacts, and trained and supported nearly 250 crisis counselors and operational support staff to support the 988 Lifeline. Previously, the LGBTQ+ Youth Subnetwork received up to $50 million in restricted federal funds to provide these life-saving services.

The Trevor Project’s supporters in the House and Senate advocated for the continued funding for these life-saving programs. The organization launched a petition to demand lawmakers protect LGBTQ+ youth and an Emergency Lifeline fundraising campaign. On June 2, 2025, more than 100 entertainment icons – across film, music, TV, sports, theater, comedy, fashion, culinary arts, and book publishing – joined The Trevor Project’s sign-on letter to protect federal funding for LGBTQ+ youth suicide prevention.

If you or someone you know needs help or support, The Trevor Project’s trained crisis counselors are available 24/7 at 1-866-488-7386, via chat at TheTrevorProject.org/Get-Help, or by texting START to 678678.

0

Trump administration is using anti-trans orders to roll back sports opportunities for all girls

*This is reported by LGBTQ Nation.

The Trump administration is using its anti-trans actions to try to dismantle civil rights for both trans and cis women alike – and it’s taking an unusual route to do so.

The Department of Energy (DOE) is seeking to rescind the section of Title IX that says schools must allow students to play on sports teams with the opposite sex if there is no team for their sex available (unless the sport is a contact sport). The rule has allowed girls to play on boys’ teams in schools that don’t offer an equivalent girls’ team.

The DOE claims the policy “ignore[s] differences between the sexes which are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality” and says eliminating it aligns with Donald Trump’s anti-trans executive order, “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports.”

The rescission of the rule would only apply to schools that receive funding from the DOE, which provides money to some schools for research and other programs, such as its Renew America’s School grant to assist with energy upgrades.

What’s more, the administration is exploiting a loophole to try to rush the rule change through without the standard 60-day public comment period. The DOE is using a process called a direct final rule (DFR), which does not require the formal rulemaking process but is typically used for simple changes, such as form updates.

The DFR process allowed the rule change to take effect on July 15 unless “significant adverse comments” had been submitted by June 16. Thousands of comments were submitted, though they are not visible to the public. It’s not clear whether the rule will officially take effect.

If the rule does change, it will not only affect trans athletes. Schools that receive DOE funding will no longer be required to allow cisgender girls to play on boys’ teams when a girls’ team does not exist.

Shiwali Patel, senior director of safe and inclusive schools for the National Women’s Law Center, told K-12 Dive the change is “blatant sexism, and harmful to women and girls.”

″The Trump administration is trying to gut long-standing Title IX protections that intend to provide women and girls with more opportunities to play sports, and without following the legally required rulemaking process, no less.”

Patel added that the administration clearly “doesn’t actually care about ‘protecting’ women and girls,” as it has used this claim to justify its crusade against trans rights, especially when it comes to trans student-athletes.

Julia Martin, director of policy and government affairs at legal and consulting group The Bruman Group, explained that the administration was able to keep the proposed rule change under wraps for so long because no one would have expected it to come from the DOE, as the Department of Education typically handles these kinds of policies.

The proposed change, in fact, was slipped into the middle of a list of 47 so-called “burdensome and costly regulations” outlined in a DOE press release in May announcing the department’s plan for a major overhaul to puportedly “save the American people an estimated $11 billion and cut more than 125,000 words fro the Code of Federal Regulations.”

“Part of what I see happening is this sense of overwhelm,” Kel O’Hara, senior attorney for policy and education equity at Equal Rights Advocates, told HuffPost. “There’s so much happening that it’s hard to follow. [The Trump administration] is trying to put these things through back doors, which makes it hard for the people who normally keep an eye on these things to catch it.”

O’Hara said the administration’s use of the DFR process is also worrisome for the future of other civil rights protections. “The really concerning part from my perspective is that this could essentially provide a blueprint for dismantling civil rights protections across the board.”

A second proposed rule change also seeks to rescind similar Title IX protections for education programs. The administration is also using the DFR loophole to try to push this change through on the same timeline.

0

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.

0

Here are the new Texas laws that will affect trans and LGBTQ+ people

*This is reported by the Texas Tribune.

While largely avoiding the same level of heated pushback of years’ past, Texas lawmakers passed several bills that give LGBTQ+ people in Texas, specifically transgender residents, less opportunity to receive care and maintain their identities in state records.

Texas legislators filed over 100 anti-trans bills through the session, some containing provisions that have been shot down in years’ prior while others proposed new restrictions. Less than 10 were ultimately approved by lawmakers.

The new bills that are likely to be signed by Gov. Greg Abbott represent a yearslong movement from state conservatives to find new ways to restrict the presence of trans and LGBTQ+ Texans, advocates say. The bills that failed may also be resurrected by lawmakers in future sessions. Here’s what to know.

State definitions of man and woman

Several bills filed in the Legislature aimed to craft legal definitions of sex and gender in addition to their target goals — but House Bill 229 makes that goal its sole purpose, establishing state definitions for male and female and applying those definitions across statute.

HB 229 defines a woman as “an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to produce ova,” and a man as “an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to fertilize the ova of a female.”

Most immediately, the bill will bolster an already existing block from state agencies on changes to gender markers on state documents, which was backed by a nonbinding opinion from Attorney General Ken Paxton in March. The bill may also force those who have already switched their documents to match their identified gender to have changes reverted when they are renewed.

The longer-term effects of HB 229 are still not immediately apparent, as references to man and woman are used hundreds of times in statute and may ripple into other laws affecting people’s lives. Texas joins 13 other states that have also crafted their own definitions, and several other bills that also passed in the state have individual definitions for related terms like “biological sex.”

President Donald Trump issued an executive order named “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism” in January providing federal definitions of male and female. Similarly, HB 229 has been dubbed the “Women’s Bill of Rights” by supporters, claiming it protects women in the state from men invading their spaces.

Abbott released an executive order of his own shortly after Trump’s affirming the president’s directive, but did not provide his own definitions. In a May post on social media, the governor said he would immediately sign HB 229 into law.

New requirements for medical records and insurance coverage

Tightening the ability to change the gender on state records like drivers’ licenses has been a key issue for conservative lawmakers for years, and while HB 229 sets a precedent in disallowing new changes, another bill creates new requirements entirely. Senate Bill 1188 creates a new section on all state medical records listing patients’ assigned sex at birth and any physical sexual development disorders. It also bans changes to those gender markers for any reason other than clerical errors, and creates civil penalties for medical professionals who do change them.

House Democrats opposing the measure during floor discussion worried that SB 1188 may scare medical providers into inputting vague or inaccurate health information out of fear of fiscal or legal retribution. The bill does allow the new section to include information on a patients’ gender identity, however health care services must opt-in to provide it.

The bill also creates restrictions on where health care providers can store patient data and the physical servers they use to store them, and new regulations on how artificial intelligence can be used to create diagnoses.

SB 1188 is not the only bill opponents have said will create a chilling effect on the LGBTQ+ community. Some bills may be more immediate in blocking options people have to do things like change their state records, but others like SB 1188 and Senate Bill 1257 may reduce what resources are available. SB 1257 was signed by Abbott in May and mandates that insurance companies provide coverage for gender detransitioning care if they already cover gender transition care.

Proponents of the law claim it enforces responsibility onto insurance companies. The law is not a ban on gender-affirming care, however opponents worry it may act as one by incentivizing insurance companies to pull coverage altogether rather than take on potential new costs.

SB 1257 is the first legal mandate for detransition care in the United States, making Texas a testing ground for insurance companies’ appetite to keep or pull coverage. Similar bills in Arizona, Florida and Tennessee did not pass out of their respective state legislatures in 2024.

Less protections and resources for LGBTQ+ youth

Medical gender transition care for minors was banned in Texas by the Legislature in 2023, a restriction that was upheld by the state Supreme Court in 2024. House Bill 18, primarily an overhaul of rural health care including a rural pediatric mental health care program, bans minors from accessing its resources for gender-affirming mental health counseling “inconsistent with the child’s biological sex.”

The current gender transition care ban for minors does not include mental health services, only puberty blockers, hormone therapy and surgery, which is rare for those under 18. Another proposal headed to Abbott’s desk, House Bill 1106, asserts that parents who do not recognize or affirm their child’s gender identity cannot be held liable for abuse or neglect because of that lack of recognition.

More restrictions on LGBTQ+ presence in schools

Access to materials and resources related to LGBTQ+ subjects are also being restricted by legislators through two key bills primarily aimed at schools. Senate Bill 12 bans Texas schools from teaching about sexual orientation or gender identity and forbids student clubs “based on” those subjects.

The bill would prevent clubs like Gay-Straight Alliances and pride clubs, which are often tailored toward anti-bullying initiatives in schools. Opponents of the bill claim a ban on those clubs would cut off LGBTQ+ students from communities and resources that can save lives.

“One of the deadliest things that our youth go through is experiencing the perception at least of isolation, and GSAs are a powerful way that we can combat that and make sure that our youth are getting support,” said Ash Hall, ACLU Texas’ policy and advocacy strategist for LGBTQIA+ rights.

While SB 12 restricts instruction and student groups, Senate Bill 13 gives school boards and new advisory councils greater oversight to remove books from school libraries that go against “local community values.” Some lawmakers and advocates worry school boards and advisory councils would be able to restrict books containing LGBTQ+ material.

A third bill, Senate Bill 18, would have banned “drag-time story hours” at municipal libraries and cut funding to those who host them, however that bill was unintentionally killed by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick after a procedural error at the end of the Senate’s deadline to pass bills.

Bills that failed to pass

The small set of bills passed by legislators shift the state’s treatment of LGBTQ+ Texans significantly, but still represent a fraction of what lawmakers proposed. House Bill 239, this session’s bathroom ban bill, was one of the over 100 bills that did not survive and was never heard by lawmakers despite half of the House signing on as coauthors. House Bill 2704 sought a similar ban through private lawsuits rather than criminal charges, but was never picked up by lawmakers.

Also left unheard was House Bill 3817, filed by Rep. Tom Oliverson, R-Cypress, which would have created a new felony charge for “gender identity fraud” if a person represented themselves as a gender besides the one they were assigned at birth to state agencies or employers.

Advocates like Johnathan Gooch, communications director for Equality Texas, say that the Legislature has kept its course on anti-trans legislation for the last few sessions, and that bills that didn’t get picked up by legislators may be at the forefront of future sessions.

“We’re hearing rhetoric that we’ve heard for a very long time and just more, more bills, a variety of new ways to narrow the rights of trans people,” Gooch said. “It just doesn’t come as a mistake that the number of bills is escalating.”

0

Amid Trump’s funding threats, a rural Colorado school district looks to remove LGBTQ policy protections

*This is reported by Chalkbeat.

Citing President Trump’s threat to cut off federal education funding for school districts that provide protections for LGBTQ people, school board members in the Montezuma-Cortez district in southwestern Colorado are poised to remove sexual orientation and gender identity from the district’s nondiscrimination policy.

“Our district uses federal grant monies and Trump has indicated those grants are at risk if any district continues to support certain previously protected classes like sexual orientation, gender expression, or gender identity,” Mike Lynch, a school board member and the policy committee chair, said at a board meeting late last month.

The proposed policy changes in Montezuma-Cortez represent just one example of how some Colorado school districts are rushing to comply — or over-comply — with federal ultimatums based on questionable legal foundations. Many legal experts say the Trump administration cannot, on its own, exclude transgender people from federal anti-discrimination law and that Colorado law, which includes protections for LGBTQ people, supersedes school district policy anyway.

But efforts to remove protections at the local level send harmful messages about who is valued and who isn’t, they say.

“I think it does damage to queer students because it signals that this school district … doesn’t believe that these students are worthy of protection,” Scott Skinner-Thompson, associate professor of law at the University of Colorado Boulder.

Montezuma-Cortez, a conservative-leaning district with about 2,400 students, has taken other steps to curtail LGBTQ symbols and school activities in recent years. The school board is scheduled to take a final vote on the proposed nondiscrimination policy on June 24.

MB McAfee, a retired social worker and district resident, said she doesn’t know of any case where federal funds were withheld by the Trump administration, but worries about that possibility, particularly when it comes to money for students with disabilities.

But she’s also angry about the proposed policy changes, calling them “another step toward exclusion.”

“If we do that,” she asked, “then what’s going to be next?”

School districts react to funding threats

Trump has targeted transgender rights since his first day in office. In January and February, he issued several executive orders on the topic, including one that describes sex as determined at conception and unchangeable and another that threatens to withhold federal funds from schools that allow transgender girls to play girls sports.

The Trump administration has moved to strip federal funding from Maine because that state allows transgender girls to compete on girls’ teams. A judge blocked the federal government from withholding school lunch money while the case continues.

So far, no school district has lost money because of policies protecting transgender students. But Lynch emphasized that risk when he explained the proposed policy revision to the school board in May.

Asked by Chalkbeat what executive order or federal guidance required the removal of “sexual orientation” from the policy, Lynch later said by email that he’d mistakenly cited the term when he spoke to the board about federal dollars being in jeopardy.

For now though, “sexual orientation” isn’t being restored to the policy, he said.

Montezuma-Cortez isn’t alone in making changes spurred by the Trump administration. Officials from several Colorado districts, including Woodland Park and District 49 near Colorado Springs, have cited Trump’s executive orders in pushing policy changes or other efforts aimed at revoking protections for transgender students.

In May, District 49 sued the state and the Colorado High School Activities Association arguing that Colorado law and the association’s policy violate students’ constitutional rights by allowing transgender youth to play on school sports teams that match their gender identity.

Montezuma-Cortez school board members had little to say about the implications of the proposed nondiscrimination policy changes.

Asked about the legal or practical implications, Lynch said he’s not an attorney and doesn’t know. School board President Sheri Noyes did not respond to Chalkbeat’s request for comment. Vice President Ed Rice declined to respond to specific questions from Chalkbeat, saying by email that the policy’s opening sentence “answers everything.”

As proposed, that sentence says, “The Board is committed to providing a learning and work environment where all members of the school community are treated with dignity and respect.” The current version of the policy says “safe learning and work environment” but the revision takes out the word “safe.”

0

Trump administration closes iconic Dupont Circle Park during WorldPride against city’s objections

*This is reported by The Advocate. This comes less than 2 days after they agreed to leave park open.

The Trump administration has closed Dupont Circle Park for the peak weekend of WorldPride in Washington, D.C., fencing off a landmark deeply tied to LGBTQ+ history despite objections from local officials and organizers.

The National Park Service and U.S. Park Police barricaded the park Thursday evening. The closure, which extends through Sunday night, includes the central fountain, grassy areas, and sidewalks within the circle but excludes the surrounding streets, according to Washington’s NBC affiliate, WRC.

Earlier this week, D.C. Councilmembers Brooke Pinto and Zachary Parker announced that the Metropolitan Police Department had withdrawn its request to close the park following backlash from community members. But federal officials proceeded with the shutdown anyway and have not responded to requests for comment.

“I am extremely disappointed and frustrated that Dupont Circle Park will be closed this weekend despite MPD’s commitment to keep folks safe there,” Pinto said in a statement to The Advocate. “This closure is disheartening to me and so many in our community who wanted to celebrate World Pride at this iconic symbol of our city’s historic LGBTQ+ community. I wish I had better news to share.”

According to a June 4 Record of Determination obtained byThe Washington Post, the National Park Service said that the closure was necessary “to secure the park, deter potential violence, reduce the risk of destructive acts and decrease the need for extensive law enforcement presence.”

Despite MPD’s reversal, the U.S. Park Police doubled down. In a memo to NPS Superintendent Kevin Greiss, USPP Commander Major Frank Hilsher wrote that “the threat of violence, criminal acts, and NPS resource destruction has only increased since MPD’s original April 22, 2025, park closure request.” He referenced a local DJ advertising an unpermitted party at Dupont Circle and said, “Less restrictive measures will not suffice.”

The Capital Pride Alliance, which is organizing WorldPride events, told The Advocate it was not consulted about the decision.

“This beloved landmark is central to the community that WorldPride intends to celebrate and honor,” the group said in a statement. “It’s much more than a park — for generations, it’s been a gathering place for D.C.’s LGBTQ+ community, hosting First Amendment assemblies and memorial services for those we lost to the AIDS epidemic and following tragic events like the Pulse nightclub shooting.”

“This sudden move was made overnight without consultation with the Capital Pride Alliance or other local officials,” the statement continued. “No official WorldPride activities have been planned in Dupont Circle this weekend; thus, no events will be impacted.”

While MPD had initially requested the closure, Chief Pamela Smith rescinded that request in a formal letter sent Tuesday. When asked for comment Friday, MPD spokesperson Tom Lynch told The Advocate, “We have nothing to share beyond the letter rescinding the request, which we shared on Tuesday.”

D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser did not respond to The Advocate’s questions, but a spokesperson pointed to an appearance she made on local radio Friday in which she discussed the fencing.

She said the closure represented a breakdown in coordination between federal and local authorities. “I think I put this in the category of an unfortunate error,” Bowser told The Politics Hour With Kojo Nnamdi on WAMU. “We had a communication with the Park Service … and it looks like at this stage, they’re going to proceed with the closure, though we continue talks.”

Pressed on whether the decision originated at the White House or with Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, Bowser said, “I can’t say that with any clarity. I do know, unfortunately, the public safety issue rose to the top over the cultural celebration.” She added, “We don’t control the NPS, though we will continue to try to lean on them for a different decision.”

The Park Service has cited past incidents (none of which were linked to Capital Pride Alliance events), including $175,000 in damage to the fountain during Pride 2023, as well as a recent executive order from President Donald Trump instructing federal agencies to protect national monuments and public spaces. But LGBTQ+ advocates say the move appears politically motivated.

The Partnership for Civil Justice Fund filed Freedom of Information Act requests this week seeking communications and records from the Department of the Interior, the MPD, and the D.C. Mayor’s Office. In a statement Tuesday, Executive Director Mara Verheyden-Hilliard called the decision “a dangerous step and outside the legitimate authority of the Park Service.” Staff attorney Sarah Taitz said, “The LGBTQ+ community and general public deserve to know how and why the decision to shut Pride out of Dupont Circle was made, and how and why that decision was reversed.”

Though no official events were scheduled at the park, many saw its closure as symbolic — a federal message during a global celebration of queer life.

“World Pride will continue this weekend,” Pinto said, “and it will be a time of celebration and commitment to uplift our LGBTQ+ neighbors.”

0

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑