Tag: transgender

Mid-Atlantic Progress: How LGBTQ+ Protections Stack Up in NJ, MD, DE, and VA

While the national conversation around LGBTQ+ rights often focuses on the West Coast or New England, the Mid-Atlantic region has quietly become one of the most dynamic legal battlegrounds in the country. From pioneering healthcare access to a historic marriage equality vote on the horizon, the laws of New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia tell a fascinating story of progress, defense, and active legal engineering.

Whether you are looking to relocate, working in advocacy, or just keeping tabs on civil rights, here is how these four neighbor states compare when it comes to protecting their LGBTQ+ residents.

1. New Jersey: The Brand-New Legislative Firewall

New Jersey has long held a “Safe Haven” designation from major equality groups, but until recently, its protection for transgender healthcare relied entirely on an executive order from the governor’s office. Because executive orders can be easily undone by a future administration, advocates pushed for years to codify these rules into permanent law.

  • The Big 2026 Update: On June 30, 2026, the New Jersey Legislature passed A2218/S2260, a comprehensive statutory shield law.
  • What the Law Does: This statute creates an absolute legal firewall. It legally prohibits New Jersey state courts, law enforcement, and medical boards from cooperating with out-of-state subpoenas, extraditions, or investigations targeting those who receive or provide gender-affirming care in New Jersey.
  • Everyday Protections: Under the Law Against Discrimination (LAD), New Jersey boasts some of the country’s strongest bans on discrimination in housing, employment, and public accommodations.

2. Maryland: Setting the Medicaid Gold Standard

Maryland is a powerhouse of structural equality, focused heavily on ensuring that legal protections translate to actual, affordable healthcare access.

  • The Trans Health Equity Act: Effective in 2024, this landmark law requires Maryland’s Medicaid program to cover comprehensive, medically necessary gender-affirming care. Rather than treating transition-related care as “cosmetic” or optional, Maryland codified it as a fundamental medical right.
  • Civil Rights & Safe Haven: The state’s “Fairness for All Marylanders Act” has protected gender identity and sexual orientation in housing, work, and public spaces since 2014. Additionally, Governor Wes Moore signed an executive order establishing Maryland as a safe state for out-of-state individuals seeking gender-affirming medical services.

3. Delaware: Protecting Rights Under Executive Defense

Delaware has strong, comprehensive civil rights statutes on the books protecting LGBTQ+ individuals from discrimination in housing, employment, and public spaces.

  • The Healthcare Shield: While Delaware has legislated shield protections for reproductive care (like abortion), its protections for gender-affirming care have largely been bolstered by the executive branch.
  • Executive Order 11: In June 2025, the Governor signed Executive Order 11. This directive prevents state agencies from cooperating with out-of-state investigations or extraditions related to lawful gender-affirming medical care provided within Delaware’s borders.
  • Identification: Updating birth certificates and driver’s licenses to match an individual’s gender identity is streamlined, requiring only a simple supporting statement from a licensed medical or social work professional.

4. Virginia: The Southern Battleground & The 2026 Ballot

Virginia occupies a unique space on this list. In 2020, it made history by passing the Virginia Values Act, becoming the first Southern state to enact comprehensive civil rights protections for LGBTQ+ residents in employment, housing, and public spaces. However, enforcement has faced political friction and rollbacks, particularly regarding school policies.

  • The 2026 Marriage Amendment: On November 3, 2026, Virginia voters will head to the polls to decide on a major, proactive constitutional referendum: the Repeal Same-Sex Marriage Ban Amendment.
  • What is at Stake: While same-sex marriage is federally protected under Obergefell v. Hodges, Virginia’s state constitution still contains outdated, unenforceable language banning same-sex unions. This referendum will officially strike that language and enshrine an affirmative, constitutionally protected right to marriage regardless of sex, gender, or race. It is one of the nation’s only proactive pro-LGBTQ+ ballot measures in 2026.

Side-by-Side: The Mid-Atlantic Landscape

StateNon-Discrimination LawsTransgender Healthcare ShieldState Medicaid CoverageNotable Highlight
New JerseyExplicit & Robust (LAD)Statutory Law (Passed June 2026)CoveredCompletely codified protections to survive shifting administrations.
MarylandExplicit & RobustExecutive OrderCovered (Trans Health Equity Act)Exceptional, legally mandated Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming care.
DelawareExplicit & RobustExecutive Order 11CoveredSeamless identity document updates via simple self-attestation.
VirginiaExplicit (Virginia Values Act)NonePartially Covered (highly variable)Currently voting to enshrine marriage equality in its state constitution.

The Takeaway

The Mid-Atlantic is a vital region for LGBTQ+ rights. While New Jersey has just finalized its legal fortress with a new legislative shield, Maryland leads the way in equitable healthcare funding, Delaware stands tall with deep executive protections, and Virginia remains the ultimate battleground—where the community is actively voting to secure the future of marriage equality at the ballot box.

0

Navigating Equality: Top U.S. States with Comprehensive LGBTQ+ and Transgender Legal Protections

In an increasingly fragmented legal landscape, civil rights, non-discrimination protections, and healthcare access for LGBTQ+ and transgender individuals vary significantly across the country. For individuals, families, and professionals seeking to understand where state law provides the most robust safeguards, several states stand out as national leaders.

By evaluating data from the Human Rights Campaign’s (HRC) State Equality Index and the Movement Advancement Project (MAP), we have highlighted key states—including Connecticut, a national pioneer—that have built comprehensive legal frameworks to protect LGBTQ+ and transgender residents.

Key States Leading LGBTQ+ Legal Protections

Connecticut: A Pioneer in Healthcare & Legal Safety

Connecticut stands out as a historic and statutory leader, consistently earning high policy scores for its proactive stance on civil rights and transgender safety.

  • The Original Shield Law: In 2022, Connecticut became the first state in the nation to enact a comprehensive “shield law” specifically designed to protect patients, medical providers, and out-of-state visitors receiving or delivering gender-affirming care. The law blocks out-of-state legal subpoenas, prevents extradition, and bars licensing boards from disciplining providers for administering legal medical care.
  • Data Privacy Protection: Connecticut enacted specialized laws restricting health apps and online entities from collecting, selling, or disclosing consumer data related to gender-affirming care.
  • Explicit Non-Discrimination: Gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation are fully protected under state civil rights laws spanning employment, housing, credit, and public accommodations.

California

California sets a national benchmark for comprehensive LGBTQ+ protections across every major area of civil law.

  • Healthcare & Shield Laws: Following Connecticut’s model, California passed strong safe-haven legislation protecting transgender individuals, families, and doctors from out-of-state legal liability related to gender-affirming care.
  • Non-Discrimination: The Unruh Civil Rights Act and the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) explicitly safeguard gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation in housing, workplace settings, and business transactions.
  • Identity Documents: The state allows streamlined updates to gender markers on driver’s licenses, birth certificates, and state IDs without requiring surgical confirmation or court orders.

Massachusetts

As the first U.S. state to legalize same-sex marriage in 2004, Massachusetts maintains a deeply entrenched system of legal protections.

  • Broad Public Protections: Anti-discrimination laws explicitly cover public accommodations—such as restaurants, retail stores, and healthcare facilities—alongside housing and employment.
  • Youth & Family Safeguards: The state enforces a complete ban on conversion therapy for minors and maintains robust anti-bullying and inclusion guidelines across public school districts.
  • Medicaid & Insurance Requirements: Private insurance and MassHealth (Medicaid) are legally required to cover medically necessary gender-affirming care.

Colorado

Over the last decade, Colorado has transformed into a major sanctuary state for transgender protections in the Mountain West.

  • The Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Care Shield Act: Enacted to shield out-of-state patients and local practitioners from external civil and criminal investigations or licensing penalties.
  • Administrative ID Updates: Jude’s Law permits non-binary “X” gender markers and allows transgender individuals to update state documents smoothly without requiring physician affidavits or court decrees.
  • Anti-Discrimination Enforcement: The Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) covers employment, housing, and public spaces, enforced aggressively by the state civil rights division.

New York

With a deep history rooted in the modern LGBTQ+ civil rights movement, New York’s laws reflect comprehensive protections.

  • GENDA (Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act): Passed in 2019, GENDA formally added gender identity and expression as explicit protected classes across housing, employment, public spaces, and non-sectarian education.
  • Medical Safeguards: Comprehensive shield laws ensure that healthcare institutions and practitioners face no administrative penalties or extradition requests for delivering legally protected medical services.
  • Informed Family Laws: New York maintains progressive legislation supporting gestational surrogacy, legal adoption, and parental recognition for LGBTQ+ families.

Illinois

Illinois serves as a critical legal sanctuary in the Midwest, backed by mature statutory protections.

  • The Illinois Human Rights Act: Enforces complete non-discrimination across real estate transactions, employment, public services, and banking.
  • Education & Youth Protections: State legislation requires public school curricula to include LGBTQ+ history and imposes strict safety and anti-bullying standards across districts.
  • Out-of-State Refuge: Illinois statutes shield healthcare providers treating patients traveling from surrounding jurisdictions, making it an essential hub for safe medical access.

The Bottom Line

Whether evaluating states for personal safety, corporate expansion, or legal analysis, these jurisdictions demonstrate what comprehensive protection looks like in practice. By pairing clear non-discrimination statutes with proactive health-privacy and shield laws, states like Connecticut, California, and Colorado offer the most legally secure environments for transgender and LGBTQ+ residents.

0

Leaving Texas isn’t so simple for LGBTQ residents

Read more at Axios.

LGBTQ Americans aren’t just fleeing red states like Texas for blue enclaves. They are also building lives in cheaper, fast-growing metros where jobs, housing and politics collide.

Why it matters: The “red-state exodus” narrative misses a quieter reality.

  • Affordability and work are keeping some LGBTQ+ people in — and drawing others to — places that may be politically complicated but economically viable.

The big picture: LGBTQ Americans have lower homeownership rates than non-LGBTQ Americans, according to the Williams Institute.

  • And, LGBTQ-friendly cities with stronger LGBTQ protections — such as San Francisco and Boston — often come with significantly higher housing costs, creating a tension between safety and affordability.

By the numbers: Homebuyers needed to earn $150,364 annually to afford the median-priced home in states with LGBTQ housing protections as of 2024, per an Axios analysis of real estate company Redfin data.

  • That’s 46.8% more income needed than in states, like Texas, without such protections.

Zoom in: Around 4% of adults in North Texas identify as LGBTQ, according to Williams Institute data.

  • Same-sex married households in North Texas almost doubled from 2019-24, increasing from around 11,000 couples to roughly 21,600, per a Dallas Morning News analysis of Census Bureau data.

Between the lines: 9% of the region’s homes for sale were affordable for someone earning the local median household income, according to Redfin.

  • By contrast, less than 2% of homes for sale were considered affordable in San Diego and Los Angeles, which have larger percentages of adults who identify as LGBTQ.

Caveat: Researchers caution that LGBTQ migration data remains limited because federal surveys have historically failed to consistently collect sexual orientation and gender identity data.

What they’re doing: Oak Lawn United Methodist Church painted its steps in rainbow colors after Gov. Greg Abbott ordered the removal of rainbow crosswalks statewide last year.

  • “This is our way of speaking to our community of sharing a message of boldness and courage that who you are is beloved and worthy of dignity and belonging,” Rev. Rachel Griffin-Allison, the church’s senior pastor, told NBC5 in January.

The bottom line: The tension between affordability, opportunity and rights is quietly reshaping the map of LGBTQ America.

0

New Jersey becomes latest blue state to pass health care shield law for trans care & IVF

Read more at LGBTQ Nation.

The New Jersey General Assembly passed new legislation on Tuesday, the last day of Pride Month, that strengthens the protections around gender-affirming health care, reproductive care, including abortion and IVF, and more. The bill now sits on Gov. Mikie Sherrill’s (D) desk awaiting her signature, which it is expected to receive.

The passage is a win for the trans community. The bill passed the same day the Supreme Court dealt a blow to trans rights with its West Virginia v. B.P.J. ruling.

Speaking with the New Jersey Monitor after the vote, Jennifer Williams, a Trenton city council member who is trans, said, “New Jersey is a great, liberty-loving state that will remain a safe haven for those who want to live happy, productive lives while accessing medically necessary and proven medical care.”

The bill’s passage comes after a long battle from LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, including Garden State Equality. In a statement, Lauren Albrecht, the organization’s senior director of advocacy & organizing, said, “By passing this bill, the Legislature has sent the message that bodily autonomy and access to medically necessary, best-practice healthcare are New Jersey values. As other states and the federal government attack reproductive and trans healthcare, we have made it clear that the Garden State will protect both the lifesaving care itself and the people who provide it. Our priorities now will be to ensure Governor Sherrill swiftly signs this legislation and, afterwards, to educate healthcare providers on these new and bolstered protections.”

The new legislation makes no changes to what medical care is or isn’t available in the state, but protects access for all to the services that are already provided.

A major aspect of the bill protects providers and patients from being prosecuted by other states, affirming that those who receive or provide care in New Jersey are solely subject to the state laws of New Jersey and to federal law.

That applies not just to citizens of New Jersey, but to “those who travel to [New Jersey] for health care services,” with the bill noting that all “deserve the ability to safely access health care facilities in this State and the critical reproductive health and gender-affirming care services that they provide.”

This prevents states from prosecuting their residents who have crossed state lines to receive healthcare that is banned in their state but legally protected in New Jersey. The authors of the bill point to the fact that since Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022, 21 states have either banned or restricted abortion access. Since then, New Jersey has seen a 30% increase in out-of-state patients.

They also highlighted Alabama’s ruling that embryos are “extrauterine children” and the threat that sort of ruling could pose to IVF fertility treatments, which are often used by same-sex couples to build their families. New Jersey has legally protected the right to access IVF treatment.

While New Jersey is the latest blue state to pass such a bill, theirs includes an aspect that hasn’t been seen in other legislation. The bill includes prohibitions on “interference with reproductive or gender-affirming health care services.” That includes inflicting injury, physically obstructing them, defacing property, recording people accessing care within 100 feet of the entrance to a clinic, or distributing such recordings.

The legislators cite the fact that since Roe was overturned, there has been a 538% increase in obstructions to reproductive health facilities, and in 2023, there were 23 reported violent incidents and threats made to gender-affirming care providers. The legislation states, “This act is intended to ensure that anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ+ persons cannot harm patients or providers.”

Mirroring a proposed shield law in California, the bill also requires the written consent of a patient or their guardian for any of their medical records to be provided to an out-of-state authority. A similar shield law in New York was the reason that patients were informed when NYU Langone Health received a criminal subpoena, insisting that they hand over the medical records for minors who received gender-affirming care at the institution.

0

Gov. signs 3 trans rights bills into law & then marches in Pride parade that afternoon

Read more at LGBTQ Nation.

On Sunday, just hours before he marched in the Chicago Pride Parade, Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker (D) signed three trans rights bills into law.

HB 5095 solidifies the process for trans people to correct the gender marker on their IDs to male, female, or X. HB 5492 mandates that insurance companies cover up to a 6-month supply of prescribed hormone therapy, as well as “the necessary supplies for self-administration.” Both laws take effect on January 1, 2027.

HB 4834 updates the Illinois Prescription Monitoring Program (ILPMP) to remove testosterone and prohibit the addition of estrogen, mifepristone, and misoprostol. The law, effective immediately, will prevent the database, which is used to prevent certain drugs from being overprescribed, from being abused to prevent folks from obtaining gender-affirming and reproductive health care.

“Today, I’m proud to sign landmark legislation expanding on my administration’s work to make Illinois a safe, empowering, and inclusive place for the LGBTQ+ community,” Pritzker wrote on social media. “With my signature, we are a few steps closer to a state where all can live their lives without fear of hate.”

Pritzker then posted a video of himself touting the bills as he prepared to march in Chicago’s Pride Parade. “It’s very important to me that we have a state that stands up and protects the people who live here,” he said. “So I’m very happy, very proud, frankly, to live in the state of Illinois. I hope you are, too.”

Pritzker has been fighting for LGBTQ+ rights long before it was popular, as evidenced by a photo of him that often makes the rounds on social media, in which he is marching in the 1993 Pride parade.

As Governor, he has staunchly defended LGBTQ+ rights and has been especially outspoken for trans youth. He told then-Late Show host Stephen Colbert last year that his late mother was a huge activist who took him to protests when she was young. Her life, he said, inspired the work he does.

At a March 2025 Human Rights Campaign dinner, Pritzker vowed to stand up to anti-LGBTQ+ “bullies” and spoke directly to transgender youth to tell them they are not alone.

“And in the midst of this existential fight, this battle that seems to consume everything, well, let’s not take the soul-sucking path of sacrificing the most persecuted for that which we deem to be most popular,” he said.

“I know that there are transgender children right now looking out at this world and wondering if anyone is going to stand up for them and for their simple right to exist. Well, I am. We are. We will.”

In April of last year, he criticized “do-nothing” Democratic politicians who “want to blame our [election] losses on our defense of Black people, of trans kids, of immigrants instead of their own lack of guts and gumption.” He encouraged Democrats to “fight” the current presidential administration “everywhere and all at once,” even endorsing “mass protests, for mobilization, for disruption.” Last summer, he also announced a landmark free hotline for LGBTQ+ people in the state.

In 2023, he signed a landmark bill making Illinois the first state to bar libraries from banning books. “Here in Illinois, we don’t hide from the truth, we embrace it,” he said in a statement. “Young people shouldn’t be kept from learning about the realities of our world; I want them to become critical thinkers, exposed to ideas that they disagree with, proud of what our nation has overcome, and thoughtful about what comes next.”

0

Trans man flees US after unending discrimination & violence: “I have to get out or I’m going to die”

Read more at LGBTQ Nation.

Since Elliot Hefty came out as a trans man in 2020, he has lost his job, been evicted, and received KKK flyers at his front door – all because of his gender identity. He was also a victim of sexual assault in a men’s bathroom and thinks his gender identity is what caused the perpetrator to act.

After the 2024 presidential election, a person shoved him on the street and began yelling anti-trans slurs. “I’m laying in the street bleeding. Not one person stopped to help me or see if I was okay. And I got up, and I’m bleeding. My hands are bleeding, my knees are bleeding, my face is bleeding.” It was then that he decided he had to leave the country.

“I have to get out or I’m going to die,” he said.

In a conversation with WABE, Atlanta’s public radio station, Hefty opened up about his decision to move to the Netherlands, along with his brother, Koda. The pair share a bedroom in a refugee center in Limburg, where Hefty said he enjoys support from the other LGBTQ+ asylum seekers from around the world who share a kitchen and common dining area with them.

Hefty is part of the record number of LGBTQ+ people in the U.S. fleeing the president’s anti-transgender policies by seeking asylum in other countries, according to a report released last Saturday by the LGBTQ+ asylum relocation assistance group Rainbow Railroad.

Simultaneously, fewer LGBTQ+ refugees from other anti-LGBTQ+ countries are seeking asylum in the U.S., a result of the president’s anti-immigration policies, according to the group’s report, Understanding the State of Global LGBTQI+ Persecution, which was released on World Refugee Day.

Last year, Rainbow Railroad received 20,215 direct requests for relocation assistance from queer and trans people, a 51% increase over 2024 and the highest number of requests the group has received since its founding in 2006.

Approximately 31% of last year’s requests came from people living in the U.S. The previous year, that percentage was about 13%. While past requests to leave the U.S. had in the past predominantly come from queer immigrants who had been resettled in the states, about 88% of the requests in 2025 came from American citizens who said they were fleeing the current administration’s anti-LGBTQ+ policies.

Exactly 1,177 U.S. residents reached out to Rainbow Railroad for support the day after the president was re-elected, Rainbow Railroad’s Chief Programs Officer Devon Matthews told The Los Angeles Blade.

“That single day generated more than twice the number of requests for help we had received from across the United States during the previous 10 months combined,” Matthews said.

Matthews also told WABE that the United States has joined the likes of Uganda, Egypt, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Russia, Canada, Turkey, and Kenya when it comes to the number of LGBTQ+ people seeking refuge outside of their home countries.

Hefty, whose lawyer is currently working on an appeal regarding his refugee status, said he has no plans to reenter the United States, not even to visit for a sibling’s wedding.

Trans people in the United States are also fleeing anti-trans red states and moving to blue states, some of which have declared themselves sanctuaries for trans rights.

An October 2025 survey by the Movement Advancement Project (MAP) found that between November 2024 and June 2025, roughly 9% of trans people in the United States moved to another state, with 43% considering a move.

Gallup estimates there are roughly 4.5 million trans people in the country, meaning over 400,000 people (and their families) have relocated. As anti-trans legislation has only ramped up since June 2025, it’s safe to assume that the number of people relocating has increased as well.

But blue states are struggling to meet the demand. In May, for example, the Seattle LGBTQ Commission petitioned the city’s mayor to declare a civil state of emergency to accommodate the massive influx of LGBTQ+ people, which has strained the resources of community-based organizations that weren’t set up to handle this volume. Those organizations are responsible for a range of services, the letter explained, including “emergency financial assistance, transportation, housing navigation, legal support, safety planning, community connections, and access to gender-affirming healthcare.”

Doctors have also begged blue state legislators for more funding to accommodate the rise in demand for gender-affirming care services.

0

Wanna pee in Idaho? First, get a forced DNA test to prove your gender, state GOP lawyer suggests

Read more at LGBTQ Nation.

A recent court hearing on a lawsuit brought by six transgender Idahoans against the state’s latest bathroom bill has revealed just how unworkable the draconian new law would be. In fact, to enforce it, an attorney for the red state said restroom users might need to undergo forced DNA testing.

House Bill 752, which passed the Legislature this year with only Republican votes, prohibits trans people from using public restrooms that match their gender identity, both in government-owned buildings and private businesses that serve the public.

The law is set to take effect July 1.

The suit says the Idaho law — one of three recently passed by Republican legislatures that impose criminal penalties on offenders — violates the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to due process, equal protection, and privacy. The challenge was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of Idaho, and Lambda Legal.

At the hearing, the judge in the case — Chief U.S. District Judge for the District of Idaho, Amanda K. Brailsford — questioned the state over how exactly they would determine the sex at birth of an individual accused of violating the law, The Idaho Capital Sun reports.

Kell Olson, a trans attorney for Lambda Legal, told the judge that if police confronted him and asked for his ID, officers would find that his ID lists him as male. Brailsford noted, for the record, that most of the plaintiffs suing the state also have state-issued IDs with gender markers that are aligned with their gender identity. 

Idaho Solicitor General Michael Zarian suggested the solution was simple: “There is DNA testing.”

Pressed on whether DNA testing required consent, Zarian hedged, saying that wasn’t necessarily the case and that he doubted the accused would be asked to undergo DNA testing on the spot.

Lambda’s Olson told the court that DNA testing usually requires a warrant. 

Both the Idaho Sheriffs’ Association and the Idaho Fraternal Order of Police called the proposed law impractical and unworkable.

There is no “clear or reasonable way” to determine a person’s sex at birth during a field contact without engaging in “invasive and inappropriate” questioning or searches, said one police group president.

Following the hearing, ACLU of Idaho attorney Emily Croston said the state didn’t help itself on the issue of enforcement.

“I don’t think the state has an answer for how you identify someone’s biological sex,” Croston told reporters. “Are we just going to look at folks as they enter a restroom and determine whether we think they look enough like a man or a woman? That’s ridiculous.”

The hearing only reinforced the plaintiffs’ argument that the law is unconstitutionally vague, and police organizations’ earlier doubts that it’s practically unenforceable.

Proving the former claim, Solicitor General Zarian tried using an exemption in the law to demonstrate how reasonable the ban is. The law allows individuals to use restrooms that don’t align with their sex if they are in “dire need” of going to the bathroom, he pointed out.

Pressed by Judge Brailsford, Zarian acknowledged that it “might be difficult to prove someone had a dire need,” but that vagueness, he claimed, doesn’t mean that the law itself is unconstitutionally vague.

Idaho law enforcement didn’t have to similarly tie themselves in knots when they formally opposed the ban during debate in the Legislature earlier this year. Both the Idaho Sheriffs’ Association and the Idaho Fraternal Order of Police called the proposed law impractical and unworkable.

There is no “clear or reasonable way” to determine a person’s sex at birth during a field contact without engaging in “invasive and inappropriate” questioning or searches, said one police group president.

The ACLU notes that analyses of public safety data have found policies inclusive of transgender people’s access to public accommodations have no impact on rates of harassment or violence, while policies that restrict access actually increase the risk of harassment and violence. Trans people are four times as likely as their cisgender peers to be the victims of violence.

Nine bathroom bans have passed by red state legislatures in recent years, but Idaho’s is the only one to cover private businesses as well as government buildings. A first offense is a misdemeanor, with up to one year in prison; a second offense jumps to a felony, with up to five years in prison.

A fourth violation would constitute a third felony conviction, punishable under Idaho’s persistent violator statute by a mandatory minimum of five years and up to life in prison. 

0

10 Overlooked Affordable LGBTQ Friendly Cities

As seen originally on Facebook Reels of Queer Money Podcast.

Can’t retire fabulously in the US? Try these👇

You don’t need a Silicon Valley paycheck or a Fire Island inheritance to retire fabulously.

Some of the gayest, prettiest, most “wait, I can live THERE?” cities are more affordable than you think.

And no, affordable does not mean cheap.

For this list, affordable means meaningfully less expensive than Chicago, using Numbeo’s cost of living including rent, while still offering LGBTQ+ safety, healthcare access, livability, and real retirement potential.

We also factored in Equaldex, ILGA-Europe where applicable, Williams Institute Global Acceptance Index, and our Queer Money Retirement Rating.

The updated winners?

10. Montpellier, France ~30% cheaper than Chicago Equaldex: 74 | ILGA: 60% | Williams GAI: 7.73 QMRR: 7/10

9. Leipzig, Germany ~25–35% cheaper Equaldex: 80 | ILGA: 70% | Williams GAI: 7.73 QMRR: 8/10

8. Ljubljana, Slovenia ~34% cheaper Equaldex: 65 | ILGA: 54% | Williams GAI: 6.21 QMRR: 8/10

7. Valletta/Sliema, Malta ~20–25% cheaper Equaldex: 80 | ILGA: 88% | Williams GAI: 8.01 QMRR: 8/10

6. Ghent, Belgium ~20–25% cheaper Equaldex: 78 | ILGA: 85% | Williams GAI: 7.95 QMRR: 8.5/10

5. Santiago, Chile ~50–55% cheaper Equaldex: 80 | Williams GAI: 6.83 QMRR: 8.5/10

4. Montréal, Canada ~32% cheaper Equaldex: 92 | Williams GAI: 9.02 QMRR: 8.5/10

3. Mérida, Mexico ~55% cheaper Equaldex: 48 | Williams GAI: 6.50 QMRR: 9/10

2. Valencia, Spain ~37% cheaper Equaldex: 100 | ILGA: 89% | Williams GAI: 8.77 QMRR: 9/10

1. Cascais, Portugal ~20–30% cheaper Equaldex: 77 | ILGA: 67% | Williams GAI: 6.87 QMRR: 10/10

0

America’s best and worst places to be gay and trans? Check your ZIP code

Read more at Yahoo.

Where is the best place to be gay in America? Increasingly, it’s a question of ZIP code.

While Massachusetts and California are known for championing supportive policies and rolling out the welcome mat to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer residents, other areas like Arkansas and Tennessee that have unfurled a wave of LGBTQ+ rollbacks have a less hospitable reputation.

Today, that divide is wider than ever, according to the latest State LGBTQ+ Business Climate Index from Out Leadership shared exclusively with USA TODAY.

The index suggests America’s acceptance of gay people has continued a steep decline, reversing many of the civil rights advances that increased the well-being and safety of the LGBTQ+ population, Out Leadership’s founder and CEO, Todd Sears, told USA TODAY.

The national average score in the index has fallen for four straight years. The 10 highest-ranked states have held steady or improved, but the lowest-ranked have dipped more, and the middle ground is quickly disappearing, according to Sears.

On the index’s 100-point scale, the typical state scores just 53.1 and 26 states fall below 60, he said.

“When we started this index eight years ago, the goal was to show Americans the issues that were still live but invisible − HIV criminalization, conversion therapy, where state legislators actually stood − because once marriage equality passed, a lot of people assumed the work was done. It wasn’t,” Sears said. “What we’ve documented since is a genuine regression.”

4-year slide in gay and trans equality

Each year for the last eight, Out Leadership has released the index to map out where the 9% of U.S. adults who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or something other than heterosexual are least and most welcome. Created as an inclusion reference guide for business leaders, LGBTQ+ people soon began consulting it to figure out where they should – and should not – live and work.

For years, the index has measured such factors as the impact of state government policies and prevalent attitudes, from support for young people and families to health access and safety to nondiscrimination protections.

This year, Out Leadership added 12 new indicators to gauge the impact of anti-LGBTQ+ policies such as bathroom access restrictions, pronoun and name-use prohibitions and restrictions on adult gender-affirming care, Sears said.

Out Leadership decided to make the additions after the Supreme Court struck down state conversion therapy bans.

“For the last several years, we simply weren’t capturing forces that were already hitting LGBTQ+ citizens and their families,” Sears said.

As a result, the national average score fell five points to 60.87 out of 100. And the index shows even greater geographic polarization.

The gap between the most welcoming state – Massachusetts at 93.23 – and the least – Arkansas, 28.06 – widened from 55 points in 2019 to 65 points.

“Something Americans had come to take for granted, that LGBTQ+ people exist and deserve civil rights, has been thrown back into question,” Sears said.

From California to Arkansas, how states rank

Out Leadership’s new criteria boosted some states. California rose in the rankings for its leadership in pro-LGBTQ+ policy while Illinois gained ground for providing protections for access to gender-affirming care, among other measures.

Consideration of these additional factors tanked the rankings of some states. Bathroom bans, health care restrictions and other state measures pummeled Florida while Texas slipped because of anti-trans legislation.

Even LGBTQ+ friendly states fell in the rankings.

Maine, for example, declined, not because it passed unfriendly laws, but because the new indicators rewarded states that enacted protections that it had not. South Dakota, on the other hand, gained five positions because it has not adopted much of the anti-LGBTQ+ legislation that other states have.

Bottom line, half of America is increasingly unfriendly to the LGBTQ+ population, Sears said. “The math shows it,” he said.

Surge in anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment

From Pride parades to the federal legalization of same-sex marriage, for decades, America’s acceptance of gay people was on a steady march.

Bias against gay people declined from 2007 to 2020 and was on track to disappear altogether, according to a 2022 study by Tessa Charlesworth, an assistant professor of management and organizations at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management and Harvard psychologist Mahzarin Banaji.

Then in the early 2020s, the trend reversed. Anti-gay bias jumped 10 points from 2021 to 2024.

By Gallup’s measure, acceptance of LGBTQ people – at an all-time high four years ago – has fallen every year since as public approval of LGBTQ+ legal protections recedes and transgender rights become a culture-war flashpoint.

The political shift has spilled over into the broadly supportive corporate world, which – despite a track record of backing the nation’s LGBTQ+  population – shrank Pride Month budgets, flashed fewer rainbow flags and downplayed solidarity amid the “go woke go broke” backlash against Target and Bud Light and pressure from activists to roll back LGBTQ+ commitments.

They’re out, their employers were proud. Then came the DEI backlash.

According to Charlesworth’s research, bias has been rising in most states since 2020.

Nearly two-thirds of states have seen an increase in implicit bias towards gay people – automatic judgments made about others based on sexual orientation – and three-quarters have seen an increase in explicit bias – the attitudes, prejudices, or stereotypes toward a person or group on a conscious level, she said.

“Geography certainly plays a role in the overall amount of bias toward gay, lesbian and trans people,” Charlesworth told USA TODAY. “There are systematic patterns across places that shape where is more tolerant and accepting versus more hostile.”

Even socially progressive cities in conservative states are no longer as safe or welcoming, Sears said. Surveys show many LGBTQ+ residents in red states have considered uprooting their lives or have already fled.

“Over the next 12 to 18 months, companies are going to feel this, and many already are,” he said. “There’s a talent flight underway. LGBTQ people are leaving anti-LGBTQ states, families of trans, nonbinary, and gay young people are relocating, and employees are going back into the closet. Whatever someone is hiding at work, they’re not bringing their full self, and they’re not bringing everything they could to the company. That’s why the economic impact will be felt for a long time.”

5 highest-ranking states for LGBTQ+

1. Massachusetts

2. New York

3. Connecticut

4. New Jersey

5. Illinois

5 lowest-ranking states for LGBTQ+

50. Arkansas

49. Tennessee

48. Idaho

47. South Carolina

46. Florida

Corrections & Clarifications: Out Leadership updated its methodology which resulted in some score and ranking changes for states in the index.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: The best and worst places for gay people? See where your state ranks

0

Maine kills anti-trans ballot measure over forged & invalid petition signatures

Read more at LGBTQ Nation.

Maine’s Secretary of State Shenna Bellows (D) ruled on Tuesday that Protect Girls’ Sports in Maine, an anti-transgender campaign, submitted invalid and forged signatures in its bid for a November ballot measure that sought to ban trans students from school sports and restrooms. As a result, the measure will not appear on the voting ballot this November, Erin in the Morning reported.

The campaign, bankrolled by out-of-state billionaire Richard Uihlein, submitted 79,692 signatures — well over the 67,682 required to qualify. However, a court review of the campaign’s petitions in May invalidated 12,542 of the signatures, leaving the campaign 532 signatures short of the required number.

Some of the signatures were thrown out because the collectors didn’t witness the signing (as required by state law). Others were invalidated because the signatures did not match the voters’ signatures on voter registries, because the signatories signed more than once, because the signers weren’t registered voters, or because the signatures were forgeries. Collectors were paid $3 to $4 per signature.

Though Bellows approved the signed petitions as valid in March, following a court evidentiary review, she ruled on Tuesday that the petitions fell short of the required number of signatures to get the measure on the November ballot.

The ballot measure would’ve defined a student’s sex as “a biological status as male or female recorded at birth on the person’s original birth certificate,” effectively ending any legal recognition of trans students, not just in the cases of restrooms and sports. It also would’ve carved trans students out of legal protections enshrined in the Maine Human Rights Act (a statewide anti-discrimination law), and would’ve allowed cisgender students to sue any school that allowed trans students to use sex-segregated school spaces alongside them.

In a statement celebrating Bellows’ ruling, David Farmer, campaign manager for the Campaign for Free and Fair Schools coalition, said, “The paid, out-of-state signature gatherers and the billionaire who paid to try to put this question on the ballot failed to follow the rules. We believe that the appeals process and the reviews by the Secretary of State are working as the law intends. They are protecting the integrity of our elections.”

Even if voters had approved the measure in November, it would likely have faced legal challenges, since it would’ve resulted in trans students and their families facing harassment and discrimination.

Transgender journalist Erin Reed noted that Uihlein is a major funder of the American Principles Project, a right-wing conservative organization that has spent tens of millions on anti-trans election ads. Reed also noted that an independent analysis published by Atmos and HEATED found that 80% of the nation’s 45 major anti-trans organizations have gotten funding from billionaires or fossil fuel companies. 

Reed also noted that anti-trans ballot measures will go in front of voters in both Washington and Colorado.

“Both efforts are also funded by conservative megadonors,” she wrote, “and both are part of the same strategy that produced the Maine initiative: Use ballot initiatives to roll back trans rights in states whose elected legislatures have refused to do so.”

Uihlein and Protect Girls Sports in Maine’s efforts came after Maine Gov. Janet Mills (D) repeatedly refused to comply with the president’s extortive attempts to withhold federal education funding in retaliation for the state’s trans-inclusive school policies.

The U.S. Department of Justice has sued Maine, challenging the state’s trans-inclusive interpretation of Title IX. That legal battle is currently ongoing.

0

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑