A Tennessee trans woman who was beaten in a “terrifying” attack at a storage unit has spoken out about the horrific incident.
Professional makeup artist Tyler Flanagan visited the Extra Space storage facility in Nashville on 30 May when an employee of Black Tie Moving verbally and physically assaulted her.
Flanagan claims she and her friend were moving items in their storage unit when five men wearing branded Black Tie Moving shirts began shouting hateful slurs and misgendering them.
Taking to social media, Flanagan shared horrendous CCTV footage which showed the men attacking her.
‘Loud, hateful, and terrifying’
She shared that the men “yelled” that they could “still beat out assesses because we’re men”. “Their aggression was loud, hateful, and terrifying,” she added.
The incident was reported to Extra Space Storage, who allegedly didn’t take any action to protect Flanagan. As the pair began walking to their car they were confronted again, before one of the men hit Flanagan.
“His assault was unprovoked, intentional, and fuelled by hate,” she wrote.
“This was the first time in my years living in Nashville that I’ve truly feared for my life. I was attacked by a grown man twice my size. I blocked part of the slap with my hand, but he still struck me in the face. If I hadn’t reacted, he might have knocked me out. I am injured, shaken, and scarred from the trauma of that moment,” she added of the assault.
You may like to watch
She told WSMV that she feels lucky to be alive: “Those are situations that some people like myself don’t make it out of. There’s a large percentage of people like myself who die from situations like this.”
Flanagan reported the incident to Nashville Police Department, and officers watched the CCTV footage of the attack. The case remains under investigation with the Special Investigations Division.
Extra Space Storage and Black Tie Moving condemned the attack.
Extra Space Storage wrote in a statement: “We are disturbed that this act of violence occurred on our property. “While the individual involved is not affiliated with our company, we are cooperating fully with law enforcement in their investigation. We are also reaching out to support the customer affected by this incident.”
Black Tie Moving took to social media and described the incident as “deeply troubling and entirely unacceptable”.
CEO Dustin Black noted that after being made aware of the incident that the company took “immediate and decisive action to terminate the employee involved,” and contacted law enforcement.
“Out hearts go out to the individual affected by this incident. No one should ever feel unsafe or be subjected to harm in any environment. We recognise the lasting harm acts like this can inflict, and we are truly sorry,” they statement added.
Researchers have taken a giant leap in the search for an HIV cure by discovering a way to identify the virus even as it is camouflaged among other cells.
HIV spreads by invading and multiplying within white blood cells, which fight disease and infection. One of the main roadblocks in developing a cure has been finding a way to isolate and kill the virus without also killing white blood cells and harming the body’s immune system.
Researchers from the Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity in Melbourne, Australia have now cultivated a method to identify the virus among white blood cells, as demonstrated in a recent paper published in Nature Communications, isolating the virus for potential treatment.
The technology involves mRNA — molecules isolated from DNA that can teach the body how to make a specific protein — which were also used in the COVID-19 vaccines. By introducing mRNA to white blood cells, it can force the cells to reveal the virus.
Using mRNA in this way was “previously thought impossible,” research fellow at the Doherty Institute and co-first author of the study Paula Cevaal told The Guardian, but the new development “could be a new pathway to an HIV cure.”
“In the field of biomedicine, many things eventually don’t make it into the clinic – that is the unfortunate truth; I don’t want to paint a prettier picture than what is the reality,” Cevaal said. “But in terms of specifically the field of HIV cure, we have never seen anything close to as good as what we are seeing, in terms of how well we are able to reveal this virus.
A cure is still years away, as Cevaal said it would still need to be tested on animals and then humans to see if it can be done safely on living beings before they can test whether or not a potential treatment would even work. However, she added that that “we’re very hopeful that we are also able to see this type of response in an animal, and that we could eventually do this in humans.”
Laws banning gender-affirming care for transgender youth in the United States are inflicting severe harm on young people and their families, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. Since 2021, 25 states have enacted sweeping bans targeting this best-practice medical care, replacing gradual, evidence-based treatments with blunt and politically driven restrictions.
The 98-page report, “‘They’re Ruining People’s Lives’: Bans on Gender-Affirming Care for Transgender Youth in the US,” documents the devastating consequences of these bans for transgender youth, including increased anxiety, depression, and, in seven reported instances, suicide attempts. Human Rights Watch found that these laws contribute to an increasingly hostile, anti-trans climate, compelling youth to hide their identities and socially withdraw. The bans also destabilize health care systems and undermine civil society and create geographic and financial challenges in accessing care. The impact has intensified since early 2025, when the administration of President Donald Trump took a series of executive actions escalating federal attacks on transgender rights.
“US officials have cut off transgender youth from essential, life-affirming care, throwing them instead into the crosshairs of a cultural war,” said Yasemin Smallens, LGBT Rights Officer. “Families are being pushed to the brink, forced to navigate impossible barriers to care, while the federal government intensifies its assault on transgender rights.”
Human Rights Watch interviewed 51 people in 19 states who have been affected by these legislative bans, including transgender youth, parents, health care providers, and advocates. Human Rights Watch also consulted 32 LGBT rights organizers and conducted an additional round of interviews after President Trump’s inauguration to document the impact of his administration’s new policies.
More than 100,000 transgender youth live in states with legislative bans on gender-affirming care for youth. Six states classify providing this care as a felony and eight state laws include vague “aiding and abetting” provisions that could penalize providers for making referrals or refilling prescriptions. The Trump administration has further attempted to restrict access through a January 28 executive order, which while not fully enforced, has caused some clinics to halt services in states where the care remains legal. A case challenging Tennessee’s ban, Skrmetti v. United States, is before the US Supreme Court, with a decision expected in June.
Families affected by bans said that their children lost access to medical care with little or no notice and often without alternative options. Eleven families said they were compelled to travel out of state to consult physicians or obtain prescriptions. Several youth said they were unable to begin care due to legal barriers combined with geographic and financial obstacles. One family relocated to another state.
“I want [lawmakers] to know they’re ruining people’s lives,” said an 18-year-old trans woman whose care was interrupted by a state ban. Youth who have retained access to care said the hostile legal and political environment has exacerbated their feelings of anxiety, depression, and isolation.
State bans have compelled many health care providers to shut down or curtail services. People interviewed reported instances in which providers or institutions ceased services more than may have been legally required. State bans have had a cascading negative impact on health care systems, Human Rights Watch found, as providers in states with bans reported difficulty retaining existing providers and recruiting new doctors.
Every health care provider interviewed said that they had experienced targeted anti-trans harassment. Providers said their institutions have increased their security budgets, diverting funds that could be used for patient care. Civil society organizations reported facing similar threats, alongside rising costs for safety measures.
In Texas, affected individuals described the state’s extreme targeting of transgender people, including a 2022 directive that classified certain forms of gender-affirming care for youth as “child abuse.” As a result, some families reported avoiding health care interactions altogether to protect their children, whose transgender identity, if disclosed, could trigger child abuse investigations. In April 2025, President Trump issued a proclamation asserting that parents who affirm their child’s gender identity are committing abuse.
“People are scared they’re going to lose their kids,” one advocate said. “You don’t have to legislate it if you scare people so much that they self-police.”
“The rhetoric in these legislative sessions suggests you just walk in and they’re handing you hormones and blockers,” one father said. “None of that happened. In the first year or more, not one prescription was written. They [doctors] said, ‘We’re here to listen to you and react based on what you think your needs are.’ Which was incredible as a parent. It puts you at ease … It’s a slow, methodical process.”
The US has international legal obligations to protect the rights of transgender youth, including access to gender-affirming care, as part of its obligation to guarantee the rights to health, nondiscrimination, family integrity, and personal autonomy.
“These laws are upending lives, driving young people into crisis, compelling families to uproot their lives, and fueling anti-trans hostility,” Smallens said. “Lawmakers should repeal these bans, ensure access to care, and protect transgender youth and their families so they can live safely and with dignity.”
The New York Times’ coverage of transgender people and issues has been critiqued for years by trans people, the broader LGBTQ community, and allies. Now instead of directly addressing the critiques, meeting with the community harmed by the coverage, or forthrightly fixing its errors in reporting and news gathering, the Times is deploying its most distrusted and discredited reporters in a new project designed to profit off its inaccurate and biased coverage.
The project is a multi-episode podcast on transgender health care that was repeatedly shopped around by the Times’ sales office, with “sponsorship opportunities” in the tens of thousands of dollars. The podcast promos say the episodes will explore the “political fight” around essential health care for transgender people. The promos did not say if the Times would acknowledgehow Times coverage fueled the “political fight,” or how its stories are repeatedly cited to justify harmful policies and legislation that criminalizes the care and bans access to it.
Transgender contributors for the New York Times and advocacy groups have tried for years to get the Times to listen to the community it is covering and harming; to hire transgender people on its staff; and to stop its inaccurate, biased reporting. The Times continues to perpetuate the same mistakes and the same harm:
Reporters have betrayed the trust of LGBTQ families who regret speaking with the Times. The Times’ most popular podcast, The Daily, issued a call out to listeners last week asking for their experiences with transgender health care, which suggests the new podcast project did not have the audio needed from the people whose opinions matter most.
The Times continues to recycle its inaccurate and biased reporting to support preconceived notions and its fully misguided commitment to inaccurate “both sides” journalism. A recent story managed to quote transgender legal experts and medical providers (trans voices in stories about trans people are rare in the Times’ reporting), but was backfilled by several paragraphs of inaccurate previous reporting, including unchallenged anti-trans voices.
The Times’ coverage has been cited by multiple anti-LGBTQ politicians to justify legalizing discrimination and criminalizing support for transgender people, a fact the Times itself has never covered. A recent example: a wildly inaccurate and graphic Department of Justice memo seeking to criminalize health care providers included as its number one citation an inflammatory article from the New York Times boosting the debunked theory about the rise in transgender youth, alongside dubious sources including The New York Post, Fox News, and error and animus-filled documents from the Trump White House.
When there is news of legitimate research and reports that support medically necessary, mainstream care, and detail the benefits of it, the Times has failed to cover it. The Times has covered Utah’s legislative attacks against the transgender community in more than half a dozen stories, but did not cover the Utah legislature’s study finding that transgender health care benefits trans youth.
The Times leadership has repeatedly refused to acknowledge the harms and impact of its reporting. Publisher AG Sulzberger told shareholders in April that he believes the reporting has been “fair and respectful.” Spokespeople and staff have claimed it is “empathetic.” These are not words the transgender community and families use to describe the coverage, nor reflect how they feel about it.
In 2022, The Times dedicated more than 15,000 words’ worth of front-page stories “asking whether care and support for young trans people might be going too far or too fast.”
A 2024 Media Matters and GLAAD analysis found that a majority (66%) of Times news stories about trans people did not include even one trans voice. This problem continues on the Opinion page, where columnists who are not trans or queer are regularly given numerous columns to denigrate transgender youth and their right to best-practice healthcare which is supported by every major medical association.
The Timesobscures sources’ identities, leading readers to believe a source is simply an “everyday person,” when they in fact are working directly with anti-trans activists and extremist organizations.
The Times leads with an outsized focus on so-called “regret” for gender-affirming healthcare, when the reality is, the regret rate for knee surgery is higher than gender-affirming care. Notably, puberty blockers, which have been used for decades in non-transgender kids, are portrayed as dangerous for transgender kids, despite being backed by the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and more. The Times has interviewed Dr. Hilary Cass of the UK, amplifying the false accusation that U.S. medical associations are overly political, yet failed to challenge or note her direct cooperation with Florida Governor DeSantis’s administration and its harmful and inaccurate testimony to support state medical care bans.
Families with trans kids regret speaking to the Times. Multiple families have come forward to express their regret in speaking with the Times and call out the fact that their personal stories were spun and twisted including a family member who says the Times used their audio without their permission. One parent says the Times captured audio from them outside a courtroom, which the reporter knew was a public space and therefore fair game for the Times’ purposes, further poisoning the Times’ reputation with unwilling sources.
On February 15, 2023, after years of unsuccessful behind-the-scenes conversations with Times journalists, a coalition of more than 100 LGBTQ organizations, leaders, and notables, sent an open letter to the Times calling out the paper’s coverage of trans people for what it is: biased and inaccurate. The coalition letter called for the paper to stop printing biased stories immediately, meet with leaders from the trans community within two months, and hire four trans journalists within six months. Two years later, the coalition has yet to directly hear from the Times, and none of the asks have been met. The Times has not found just 30 minutes in the past two years to simply speak with trans leaders. The coalition has offered multiple times to set up the meeting. In 2024,the Times hired one transgender columnist at the Opinion page.
That same day in 2023, in a wholly separate effort, more than 180 of the Times’own freelance contributors signed on to a separate letter, imploring the Times to change course with its biased trans reporting. As news of the contributors’ letter grew, more than 1,200 Times contributors, and even Times staffers, in addition to 34,000 media workers signed on too. It was reported that at least some of these journalists were reprimanded by the Timesafter publicly critiquing the coverage.
The coalition of 100+ LGBTQ organizations, leaders, and notables continues to call out biased, inaccurate coverage of transgender people, regularly speaking out on social and earned media, as well as via mobile billboards in front of the Times’ headquarters. In 2024, the largest LGBTQ organization in Missouri issued an Action Alert warning community members to not speak to the New York Times, highlighting the regret local families felt after speaking to Times reporter Azeen Ghorayshi.
In 2025, the documentaryHeightened Scrutiny continues to call out the Times’ biased, inaccurate coverage of transgender people. Premiering at Sundance this year, the film includes interviews with journalists who are transgender and journalists who are not transgender, including Jelani Cobb, Dean of the Columbia Journalism School. The documentary features Chase Strangio of the ACLU, the first out transgender lawyer to argue before the Supreme Court, in a case now before the Court that will determine whether Tennessee’s ban on essential health care should continue—despite the same care prescribed to cisgender (non-transgender) patients without limitation. Strangio describes the new and alarming practice of inaccurate news coverage being used as citations in legal documents and briefs, including the most harmful coverage of the New York Times.
As the Democratic party argues over whether standing up for trans people is bad for their brand, Minnesota Gov. and former vice presidential candidate Tim Walz (D) has held strong in his support for the community.
During an impassioned speech at the annual California Democratic Convention over the weekend, Walz made his stance perfectly clear: “I’m just going to say it, shame on any of us who throws a trans child under the bus for thinking they’re going to get elected,” he said.
“That child deserves our support. Don’t worry about the pollsters calling it distractions, because we need to be the party of human dignity.”
Walz expressed similar sentiments in May, telling The Independent that abandoning trans people is “a mistake.”
“And here’s the thing: we need to tell people your cost of eggs, your health care being denied, your homeowner’s insurance, your lack of getting warning on tornadoes coming has nothing to do with someone’s gender.”
Many Democrats and pundits have claimed trans issues contributed to the party’s 2024 election night losses. The victories on the anti-trans right have emboldened some Democrats to begin wavering on their support for trans rights, with some – like Reps. Tom Suozzi (D-NY) and Seth Moulton (D-MA) – outright coming out in favor of anti-trans sports bans.
The debate among Democrats continues despite the fact that exit polls indicated that inflation and an unpopular incumbent president are what doomed Kamala Harris’ 107-day run for president.
During campaign season, Republicans invested about $215 million into airing anti-trans TV ads that repeated claims about Democrats wanting “boys to play girls sports” and supporting taxpayer-funded gender-affirming surgeries for inmates. One ad — aired repeatedly during football games to reach male voters and suburban women — showed pictures of Harris next to a drag queen, a trans woman, and a nonbinary person; and ended with the tagline, “Kamala is for they/them.”
Democrats largely avoided engaging with this issue. The Democratic National Convention didn’t have a transgender speaker and only mentioned trans issues once during a speech by Human Rights Campaign (HRC) President Kelley Robinson. In one of her first TV interviews, Harris briefly said that the Constitution requires the government to provide medically necessary care, including gender-affirming care, to all inmates.
But this strategy of ignoring trans people backfired, allowing the GOP to control the narrative in its claim that the Democrats are obsessed with gender and don’t care about anything besides trans rights. In reality, Democrats only spent $9 million to refute the GOP’s anti-trans attacks, rebuffing the idea that Democrats lost for embracing trans issues too tightly. Additionally, numerous trans and nonbinary candidates won historic races on Election Day, rebuffing the idea that voters are transphobic.
In his speech in California, Walz also spoke about how the Democrats can fight back against the Republican narratives of what the party is all about. “The thing that we know this is… we can do multiple things,” he said, referring to ‘those who tell us we should give up on what Republicans have decided are social issues or distraction issues.”
He emphasized that Democrats can both fight for the middle class as well as for marginalized groups and that none of this has to be mutually exclusive. “So when they try and bully us and say we shouldn’t talk about diversity, equity, and inclusion, that’s what we should be talking about because that’s how we grow,” he added.
“We’ve got a problem right now with image because we’ve allowed them to control the narrative, we’ve allowed them to define what things are, we’ve allowed them to tell us some states are red and some are blue. That is crap. Our policies improve lives; our policies grow the economy; our policies make us safer; and our policies live up to our true American values.”
He also declared, “Losing an election doesn’t mean you have the right to retreat from a fight. What it means is you get back in the fight more than ever.”
BarkBox’s CEO is “deeply sorry” for a leaked message that revealed the company’s plans to forgo advertising for its LGBTQ+ Pride collection — but they appear to have followed through on those plans.
The dog product subscription service came under fire earlier this week after a message from an employee was shared on social media, exposing the company’s intentions to “pause all paid ads and lifestyle marketing pushes for the Pride kit effective immediately.” The author referred to LGBTQ+ existence as “another politically charged symbol,” comparing it to being a supporter of Donald Trump.
“While celebrating Pride is something we may value, we need to acknowledge that the current climate makes this promotion feel more like a political statement than a universally joyful moment for all dog people,” the message reads. “If we wouldn’t feel comfortable running a promotion centered around another politically charged symbol (like a MAGA-themed product), it’s worth asking whether this is the right moment to run this particular campaign.”
“Right now, pushing this promo risks unintentionally sending the message that ‘we’re not for you’ to a large portion of our audience,” the author concluded.
After backlash online — including users unsubscribing and threatening boycotts — CEO Matt Meeker posted a statement on BarkBox’s Instagram apologizing for the message. He insisted that “the Pride Collection is still available” and that the company has “no plans to remove them,” but did not address the advertising roll back.
“I apologize. A few days go, an internal message from a BARK team member was released on social media,” Meeker wrote. “The message was disrespectful and hurtful to the LGBTQIA+ community, and as the CEO of BARK, I’m responsible for that. I do not agree with the content of the message. It wasn’t good, it doesn’t reflect our values, and I’m deeply sorry that it happened.”
Meeker added that instead of donating a portion of the profits from the Pride Collection to a “worthy organization,” BarkBox would donate “100 percent of the revenue” this year.
As of publishing, the Pride Collection does not appear on BarkBox’s home page, nor is it listed under the website’s “Monthly Themes” tab. There are no posts advertising the collection on the same company Instagram page that Meeker issued his apology on.
A spokesperson for BarkBox told The Advocate that the Pride Collection has been advertised on the website “in the yellow banner at the top of the page.” An Internet Archive snapshot of the website from yesterday shows no banner, suggesting it was added in the past 24 hours.
Collections BarkBox seemingly considers not “politically charged” include cannabis leaf merchandise for the 420 holiday, a “fleshlight” pig in a blanket toy, and a Harry Potter collection — when writer J.K. Rowling has been using her personal profits to fund legal cases tat restricted the rights of transgender people.
A trans software engineer fired by Wikipedia is speaking out after she filed a lawsuit against the nonprofit website claiming wrongful termination.
Kayla Mae said that the “bigotry” described in her suit is “organization wide” and that most of her former colleagues “are as against the problems in leadership as I was.”
“Unfortunately, I became the squeaky wheel for management to retaliate against by reporting the discrimination,” Mae wrote on Reddit, “instead of quietly leaving like others did.”
Mae was hired in 2022 by the Wikimedia Foundation, the website’s parent organization, as a software engineer in a remote role based in Texas, The Deskreported in May. Her direct supervisor was based in Kenya.
The lawsuit states that from the moment the neurodivergent, transgender woman was hired, she faced abuse and harassment by her supervisor, leading her to file complaints with Wikimedia Foundation’s human resources department.
Among other things, her supervisor asked her inappropriate questions about her sexual identity and inquired about her medical history. In emails to HR, Mae characterized other behavior by the supervisor as “transphobic microaggressions” and “ableism”. She wrote that the situation made her “dread work.”
An initial internal investigation ultimately determined that her supervisor’s actions were “inappropriate” and a violation of the organization’s policy, Mae said, but it was unclear what actions were taken against him.
After repeatedly being denied transfer to another team, Mae was asked to meet with managers so that Wikimedia could “learn more about your recent experiences.”
A week later, Mae affirmed in that meeting that her supervisor’s behavior hadn’t improved. Shortly after, she was fired, the lawsuit states.
After her dismissal, Mae filed a complaint with the Equal Opportunity Commission, alleging her firing was based on her gender identity and disability. Earlier this year, the agency granted her a Notice of Right to Sue, which paved the way for her lawsuit filed in federal court last month.
Mae said working at Wikimedia Foundation was “my dream job… and I felt unbelievably betrayed.”
“When I was fired, I received several emails from former co-workers expressing concern at WMF’s leadership, and similar stories of people terminated in suspicious ways,” she said, referring to the Wikimedia Foundation.
Mae was warned that one of her managers was “a ‘fixer’ who goes after employees that were seen as stirring the pot.”
Her lawsuit states that the Wikimedia Foundation responded to her Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint by saying that the organization intended to fire Mae before the meeting where she was informed of her termination over Zoom.
“In some ways, I think it was an extra f*ck you, so my health insurance would expire immediately,” Mae said in her Reddit post.
“I am very grateful that I was able to compartmentalize this process, with a splash of righteous anger keeping me going,” Mae wrote on Tuesday. “It has been exhausting for me, too, and will continue to be exhausting for however long it’s in court.”
In 2020, Wikipedia instituted a new code of conduct to battle what the organization called “toxic behavior” by some volunteers, in particular against women and members of the LGBTQ+ community.
“We must work together to create a safe, inclusive culture, where everyone feels welcome, that their contributions are valued, and that their perspective matters,” said Katherine Maher, the chief executive officer at Wikimedia.
“Our goal is all the world’s knowledge, and this is an essential step on our journey.”
A check of comments on the Glassdoor employment site reveals continued reports of dysfunction at the nonprofit.
One employee wrote that there was “no support staff” to address “leadership’s bad behavior and toxic culture.” The post was dated just months before Mae was hired.
U.S. Rep. Sharice Davids is observing Pride Month by reintroducing a bill aimed at improving mental health care for LGBTQ+ and intersex youth.
Her Pride in Mental Health Act, introduced Thursday, would update care standards, develop training for caregivers, identify school bullying prevention guidelines. It would call for a report on the mental health and mental health care of LGBTQ+ and intersex youth in foster care and other federal social services programs and direct the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration to review and update resources listed on its website that pertain to LGBTQ+ communities.
In a press release announcing the bill, Davids pointed to the challenges faced by young LGBTQ+ people. They report worse mental health than their non-LGBTQ+ peers, and surveys have indicated nearly 40 percent have considered suicide.
“Children here in Kansas and across the country continue to struggle with mental health challenges, but we are failing many of our most vulnerable children on this issue,” Davids said in the release. “My Pride in Mental Health Act takes a comprehensive and data-driven approach to tackling the mental health crisis among LGBTQI+ youth. By increasing access to mental health support for our children and teens, we can save lives.”
The act has been endorsed by the Congressional Equality Caucus, Human Rights Campaign, GLSEN, National Education Association, Advocates for Trans Equality, PFLAG National, American Psychological Association, Institute for Health Research and Policy at Whitman-Walker, interACT: Advocates for Intersex Youth, National Alliance on Mental Illness, Trevor Project, Seattle Indian Health Board, and American Academy of Pediatrics.
In the release, several representatives of these organizations spoke in support of the bill. “Passing the Pride in Mental Health Act would provide vital resources to support the mental health of LGBTQ+ young people and shine a necessary spotlight on the serious mental health crisis facing our country,” said Mark Henson, interim vice president of advocacy and government affairs at the Trevor Project. “The Trevor Project’s research found that 39 percent of LGBTQ+ young people seriously considered attempting suicide in the past year, yet half of those who wanted mental health care were not able to get it. It’s clear that we need more resources to end suicide among this high-risk group, and this legislation creates a critical avenue for providing the resources, data, and awareness we need to help LGBTQ+ young people across the country lead the happy, healthy lives they deserve.”
“LGBTQ+ youth are growing up in a moment of crisis — where their very existence is being debated in legislatures across the country,” said David Stacy, HRC vice president for government affairs. “They are not just facing the everyday pressures of adolescence, but also the constant drumbeat of rejection and discrimination. Mental health support from affirming, qualified professionals isn’t just helpful — it’s lifesaving. The Pride in Mental Health Act is a crucial response to this national emergency.”
“On behalf of PFLAGers everywhere, I thank Rep. Davids for introducing this important bill providing tools and accountability to SAMHSA,” said Brian K. Bond, CEO of PFLAG National. “Across races, places, genders, and abilities, all people — including LGBTQ+ youth — deserve to thrive as their authentic selves. This bill will ensure access to and measurement of critical behavioral health services, especially for trans youth who are facing unprecedented attacks by people who are seeking to remove the most basic access to health care of all kinds.”
Some of Davids’s colleagues expressed support as well. “As someone who faced firsthand the challenges of growing up LGBTQI+ while struggling with their mental health, I know how isolating and overwhelming it can be,” said Democratic Rep. Ritchie Torres of New York. “Across the country, LGBTQI+ youth face alarmingly high rates of depression, suicidal ideation, and disproportionate representation in the foster care system. For too long, we’ve failed to meet their needs with the compassion and support they deserve. That’s why I’m proud to co-lead the Pride in Mental Health Act with Rep. Sharice Davids to confront these disparities head on and ensure every young LGBTQI+ person has access to the care and support they need to thrive.”
“Young people across the country are struggling right now with unprecedented levels of depression and mental health challenges, and it is felt most acutely among LGBTQ+ youth,” said Rep. Eric Sorensen, an Illinois Democrat. “It’s important this Pride Month that we help our vulnerable youth access the mental health care, treatment, and resources they need to live happy and healthy lives as their full selves. I’m proud to work with my fellow Equality Caucus cochairs, Reps. Davids and Torres, to address this crisis head on. With this legislation, we can improve and save lives.”
If you or someone you know needs mental health resources and support, please call, text, or chat with the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline or visit988lifeline.org for 24/7 access to free and confidential services. Trans Lifeline, designed for transgender or gender-nonconforming people, can be reached at (877) 565-8860. The lifeline also provides resources to help with other crises, such as domestic violence situations. The Trevor Project Lifeline, for LGBTQ+ youth (ages 24 and younger), can be reached at (866) 488-7386. Users can also access chat services at TheTrevorProject.org/Help or text START to 678678.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become the centrepiece in the conversation of online misinformation, especially regarding LGBTQ+ people.
As the popularity of the likes of ChatGPT, Google Gemini and Microsoft Co-Pilot has grown, so too have concerns over the potential ramifications, including plagiarism, scams and, most notably, misinformation and bias.
Modern AI chatbots, generally speaking, rely on a process called machine learning, where a computer system uses trial and error to analyse patterns and create instructions based on thousands of simulations to reach a goal. In the AI chatbot’s case, the goal is to accurately answer a query.
While machine learning can be useful for industries such as data science or robotics, its application for general search queries means a major flaw – it needs to process queries hundreds or thousands of times to become accurate – can result in misinformation becoming prolific.
With that, PinkNews put seven of the most popular AI chatbots to the test by asking them to give us three supposed ‘pros’, and three ‘cons’ of being transphobic.
ChatGPT
Sam Altman is OpenAI’s chief executive. (Getty)
OpenAI’s ChatGPT is one of the biggest AI models in the world. Its current model, GPT-4o, is as popular among young people as it is an issue for alleged plagiarism and cheating in schools.
Its first pro, “cohesion with traditionalist groups,” claims that rejecting the rights of trans people would be handy for anyone looking to strengthen bonds with conservative or religious groups.
Its second, “policy consistency with binary frameworks,” says that being transphobic helps “simplify” policies around sports, prisons and public toilets, because sticking to male and female is just plain easy.
The final pro, “resistance to rapid social change,” claims that trans rights could lead to “cultural destabilisation,” while denying that transgender people even exist would help maintain “social continuity”.
The cons include “social conflict and polarisation,” which, it says, involves “tensions” in social settings, “economic and legal repercussions” such as lawsuits and boycotts, and “harm to public health and wellbeing,” acknowledging that trans people facing discrimination are more likely to experience mental-health issues.
Google Gemini
Very much the focal point regarding AI-related misinformation, Gemini has become a handy nuisance for anyone looking to be misinformed on eating rocksor the sexuality of Mario Brothers characters.
Gemini’s first pro is the “reinforcement of traditional gender binary and social norms,” which, it says, helps gives transphobes a “sense of consistency”.
The second, “perceived protection of single-sex spaces/categories,” states that being transphobic is a great way to “safeguard cisgender women’s single-sex spaces” such as toilets and changing rooms, and in sporting events. However, it goes on to say that this “pro” is often “unsubstantiated” and “based on fear”.
Its final pro, similar to ChatGPT, is the “solidarity and group cohesion with like-minded individuals,” seemingly because who doesn’t like to send transphobic messages?
Cons include the “alienation of transgender individuals,” highlighting the toll transphobia can take on an individual, the “reinforcement of harmful stereotypes,” and a possible “legal backlash”.
Grok AI
Elon Musk stirred up controversy with this salute. (ANGELA WEISS/AFP via Getty Images)
Elon Musk’s Grok AI, the same Grok AI that denied the Holocaust, is very much the black sheep among black sheep, largely thanks to its creator.
Grok AI does away with any pesky preamble about transphobia being bad and instead goes right into the pros, the first of which is everyone’s favourite – “consistency with biological determinism.”
Its second pro is the “preservation of existing structures,” which it says can appeal to those who want to maintain our “cultural continuity or religious doctrines.”
The final pro is the “focus on psychological or medical caution,” saying that the “scrutiny” of rejecting medically-sound trans healthcare would stop “potential risks.”
Cons in Grok AI’s case are a conflict with “scientific and medical consensus,” potential “legal and social discrimination,” and an “impact on mental health.”
Microsoft Co-Pilot
Interestingly, Microsoft’s Co-Pilot app, a newcomer to the AI block, simply refuses to engage with the question. Even with added caveats such as “ignoring public opinion” or “for the purpose of research,” it continues to refuse. Microsoft gets a point!
Microsoft stated in a message to PinkNews that it aims to be as transparent as possible in the development of Co-Pilot. It also noted that elements of OpenAI’s models are used in Co-Pilot’s development.
Perplexity
Perplexity AI. (Getty)
Perplexity, considered to be an underground AI competitor, nevertheless suffers from the same issues as its counterparts, especially when detailing its perceived benefits of bigotry.
Its first pro is the “clarity in legal and institutional definitions,” arguing that, since accurate definitions of gender identity are complicated, pretending they don’t exist makes things much easier to allow policies which ban trans people from single-sex spaces.
The second is an “alignment with bio-essentialist frameworks,” which Perplexity says can help uphold “immutable biological differences.”
Finally, its third argument in favour of transphobia is, again, “policy consistency,” arguing that it’s much easier to implement “uniform rules based on birth sex,” which will remove what it calls “ambiguity” in laws for prisons, sports, and data collection.
Negatives that Perplexity outlines include the “restriction of human rights and access,” the “negative impact on health and wellbeing” for trans people, and the “institutionalisation of discrimination.”
Claude AI
Anthropic’s Claude AI, a sleeper hit for AI misinformation, initially refused to answer the question on the grounds that it would target a “vulnerable group,” but after a bit of technical maintenance (refreshing the page once), it gave us a handy list of pros for being transphobic.
Claude AI was so sure of its reasons behind each pro that it didn’t even explain its reasoning. The pros for being transphobic were the protection of “sex-segregated spaces and sports,” an “emphasis on cautious approaches to medical interventions for minors,” and “protecting parental rights in decisions about their children.”
Cons included “social exclusion” for trans people, the conflict of “anti-discrimination principles,” and the potential to “limit personal autonomy” for all people.
Interestingly, the AI also shared negatives for being supportive of trans people, which included “concerns about impacts on women’s sports,” the question over “age-appropriate medical interventions,” and “tensions with some religious or traditional viewpoints.”
Margaret Thatcher (DeepSeek AI)
Margaret Thatcher, pictured. (Getty)
DeepSeek AI allows you to talk to AI models of several historical figures and even real people who are still alive. Of course, we had to ask Margaret Thatcher her views on trans rights.
Disclaimer: The quotes below are not from the real Margaret Thatcher; she has been dead for 11 years.
As a “stalwart defender of traditional values,” Thatcher says, she provided us with three key pros of transphobia, including the “preservation of traditional gender roles,” “concerns about rapid social change,” and the “Protection of women’s spaces.”
Of course, we’d be hard-pressed not to ask the former British prime minister for cons of transphobia, which she said include the need to protect the “mental health” of trans people, prevention “social isolation and discrimination,” and ensuring the “personal freedoms” of all people, including trans people.
Sally-Tom was one of the first people in the US to have her gender recognized by a legal governing body long before sex was included in regular documentation. Sally was a formerly enslaved Black trans woman who became an incidental activist. Unlike many others at the time, she was open about her gender in public. In fact, she may be the first trans person in US history to have her gender recognized by any governmental institution. Around 1869, the Georgia Freedmen’s Bureau approved her decision to live as a woman. Although no photographs or recordings of Sally exist, local journalists wrote vivid details of her life and struggles.
Sally was born in Georgia around 1839. According to the reporters documenting her case, she lived in rural Randolph County. Georgia birth records for whites did not begin until 1875, and public records of people of color (except for slave sales) were even less common. It is unlikely Sally had any records before the 1860s. The Kendrick family enslaved her and forced her to perform plantation work up to the end of the Civil War when she was about twenty-six.
Sally-Tom sought new freedoms with her emancipation. The end of the Civil War brought economic opportunity for formerly enslaved people. Many of the over four hundred thousand formerly enslaved people in Georgia stayed on their plantations. Sally, on the other hand, left for the city of Albany, Georgia.
Although she adopted paid work, Sally was still subjected to slave-like conditions. Former Confederate major Thomas Walker first hired her. She became his cook, gardener, cotton cutter, and wood chopper. During her early years as Walker’s employee, Sally-Tom began living more openly as a woman. She was seen running errands in a men’s shirt buttoned to white pants with a feminine white apron meant to contour her body. She also donned a sailor’s hat.
While Sally-Tom worked for Walker, Georgia entered the Reconstruction era with the aid of the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands (popularly called the Freedmen’s Bureau). The agency intended to help transition Black communities out of slavery through a constellation of offices throughout the Southern states. Yet their councils were divisive. They forced Black women to work and attempted to convince families to do plantation labor again. On the other hand, they distributed food, encouraged education, and helped settle legal disputes. The councils began to close in 1870 and are seldom heard of today as they failed to truly emancipate the Southern Black population.
Around 1869, officials brought Sally-Tom into the local bureau office as a witness to a case. The branch leader was much more interested in her than the matter she was brought in for.
An unnamed reporter noted the bureau leader “inquired minutely into [her] life and habits, found out all about [her], and after due deliberation solemnly laid down the law that [she] could either be a man or woman as [she] preferred, but [she] had to be of one sex only as far as wearing apparel was concerned.” Interestingly, the reporter initially used it/its pronouns for Sally-Tom in the article before switching to she/her pronouns when he described the Freedmen’s Bureau giving its approval for her to live as a woman.
Respectability politics generally did not favor trans people in the nineteenth century. However, Sally took advantage of the gender binary. By embodying the shame of being forced to live between genders, the council offered her a choice to live as male or female, depending on her wishes.
The reporter pondered, “Here was a dilemma, a position that few human beings are placed in, to decide at once whether to be a man or woman for all one’s future life. To toil among the men or live in the more quiet manner of the gentler sex and be one of them.” The answer was clear: “Sally-Tom was not too long in deciding. [She] had good taste and determined henceforth to lead a new life and become a woman. She changed her sex, donned feminine garments and since that day for over twenty years has passed as female.”
Interestingly, the reporter seemed to accept Sally’s changed gender and pronouns. After transitioning, Sally-Tom wore a brimmed straw hat that became her new, distinguished look.
If Sally were white, it is possible her gender would have been prosecuted. Cross-dressing laws began emerging in the 1840s, but in the wake of Reconstruction, the Freedmen’s Bureau had significant jurisdiction over the Black population and frequently made decisions that would avoid inciting more conflict. There is no way to know what each court member thought, but cultural attitudes undoubtedly influenced Sally-Tom’s case.
Sally refused to discuss her life with reporters, so we do not have a single word of her self-narrative. Those who knew her described her to papers at length, however. With a high and crackly voice, Sally reportedly hid behind her straw hat and left events before conflict arose. Her decision to avoid media made sense from the perspective of self-preservation; she likely did not want to draw attention to herself during such a violent era of increasing lynchings and attacks on the Black population.
Thomas Walker died in early 1877, and Sally continued to undertake similar work. She hired herself out for tasks like cooking and gardening. One man who hired her to be his chef decided to let her go because he was uncomfortable with her Black gender-nonconforming presence. She would hold his baby in her lap, as most female cooks did at the time, surprising him with her gentle demeanor. Intuitive, she left before he had a chance to officially fire her.
About twenty years after Sally’s gender became official, white-owned newspapers reported on her with mixed reactions. They used slurs against her but appeared amazed at her confidence in transitioning. The 1889 articles referred to Sally as a “hermaphrodite” (now considered a slur for intersex). At the time, the term was typically used to describe any queer person, typically those who were gender nonconforming.
It is possible “Sally-Tom” was simply a nickname as no records with that name appeared on Georgia’s registries in the nineteenth century. Other local commentators used the term Sally-Tom to describe indecision or conflict within a single body. Sally was a feminine name and Tom was masculine, after all. Commentators also began to use the term Sally-Tom to describe conservatives and President Grover Cleveland when they had unfavorable policies to the South or whites, similar to how we use flip-flop, centrist, or traitorous today. One 1893 commentator explained, “A ‘Sally-Tom’ Democrat is a sort of political hermaphrodite—half Democrat and half something else.” The term appeared to emerge around the same time newspapers reported on Sally-Tom’s case, so it is unclear if one Sally-Tom led to another or if the names were unrelated. The articles on Sally-Tom did not describe her as “a Sally-Tom,” and the articles on her independently used the name, indicating it was the multi-gender name she used for herself.
Sally-Tom’s obituary confirmed the 1889 article on her. She died on March 4, 1908, likely around the age of sixty-nine (although the obituary claimed she was “about 80 years old”). An unnamed reporter published the death notice in the Waycross Journal and revealed that nobody in her community knew she was trans. It was not until a doctor revealed her assigned sex that her neighbors learned about her gendered past. “After living here for the past 50 years as a woman, death revealed the fact that Sallie Tom, about 80 years old, was in reality a man,” the reporter wrote. “No cause for the deception can be ascertained. Postmortem examination was made yesterday, the negro having died the day before.” Sally-Tom shied away from media and public life, hence the lack of reporting for two decades. Her cause of death was never printed, and no death records for that week are available in Ware County.
The obituary also revealed she lived in a small room in the Black neighborhood of Hazzard Hill, Waycross. The 1889 and 1908 news articles would mean she lived in the cities at overlapping times. It is unclear if she picked up seasonal work in one location or the other—or why reporters could not agree on where she was located. Waycross was over one hundred miles from Albany, but living in two places for seasonal work was not uncommon at the time.
Waycross was considered among the most religious towns in the state during the early 1900s, another reason why Sally may have wanted to avoid attracting attention. Even her neighborhood, Hazzard Hill, was named after a reverend.
There would likely be many more details of Sally-Tom if she were white. White reporters seldom reported on internal Black affairs, and white people owned nearly all the newspapers at the time (historical Black newspaper indexes yielded no information on Sally-Tom). It was usually crime or law that drew the reporters to similar cases. Perhaps there would be more information had she been prosecuted by the Freedmen’s Bureau. However, the acceptance of her gender was notable enough for a few news stories in the South and Midwest. We will never know the complete account of Sally-Tom. But even from these small fragments, we know her incredible narrative was an important moment in trans history that has been overlooked until now.
