Gary Carnivele

About Gary Carnivele

Posts by Gary Carnivele:

/ /

CALL TO ACTION: Tell the FTC: Hands Off Gender-Affirming Care

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has launched an alarming Request for Information (RFI) to attack the field of gender-affirming care—a safe, effective, and medically necessary practice grounded in decades of research and clinical expertise—as an “unfair and deceptive practice.”

The FTC’s actions are not grounded in evidence and are a distortion of the agency’s mission to protect the public from actual deceptive practices. Instead, they reflect a deep-seated bias against transgender, gender-diverse, and intersex people.

A person wearing a doctor's jacket and stethoscope gestures and writes on a clipboard. A patient sits beside them with their hands folded.

What’s Happening? 

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has launched an alarming “public inquiry” to attack the field of transition-related healthcare (gender-affirming care)—a safe, effective, and medically necessary practice grounded in decades of research and clinical expertise—as an “unfair and deceptive practice”. 

We are calling on our community, trans people and our allies, to take action in support of the health care that is vital for our lives. The FTC is accepting public comments via Request for Information (RFI) until September 26. 

Under Sections 5 and 12 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the FTC has the authority to launch investigations into misleading, unfair, and deceptive trade practices and issue enforcement orders based on their findings, whenever they deem necessary and appropriate. RFIs such as this are likely intended to inform who they investigate and how. This authority extends to the ability to investigate and issue enforcement orders against those marketing and advertising various health products. 

Why Does it Matter?

The Trump administration has continued to push false narratives about the transgender community. The FTC’s RFI is their latest effort to discredit our essential health care. Gender-affirming care is a safe, effective, and medically necessary field of medicine grounded in decades of research and clinical expertise. The provision of this healthcare to trans youth is overseen by well-trained clinicians utilizing staged and evidence-based clinical guidelines, that prioritize informed consent and open communication between providers, patients, and their families. For trans people, this care can be lifesaving. 

This RFI will also impact intersex adolescents and adults whose healthcare needs significantly overlap with gender-affirming care, and whose identities have also previously been attacked by this administration. Adolescent and adult patients with intersex variations face similar consequences as they often depend on these same medical providers, who treat transgender patients, when seeking care. 

The FTC’s actions are not grounded in evidence and distort the agency’s mission to protect the public from actual deceptive practices. Instead, they reflect a deep-seated bias against transgender, gender-diverse, and intersex people. The FTC should focus on stopping real consumer harm—not undermining trusted medical care that saves lives.   

What Can You Do? 

The FTC has opened a 60-day public comment portal—and your action and your story are urgently needed. This is a critical opportunity to submit your public comments in support of gender-affirming care for adolescents.

Read below for special instructions on how to submit your comment, what to include, and what not to include. Find a template from A4TE to write your comment here.

What You Need to Know Before You Submit

This portal will enable Advocates for Trans Equality to submit your story, on your behalf. This ensures that your submission is not traceable back to the computer or device you used to submit your comment. This “air gap” is a protective measure for our community and our allies. Because Advocates for Trans Equality is submitting your comment on your behalf, you may not notice your comment in the portal right away. We commit to submitting comments by the RFI’s deadline, September 26. Antagonistic, hateful, and threatening comments submitted through this portal will be omitted. If for any reason we encounter difficulty in submitting your comment, we will make every effort to contact you to resolve the issue. We will also retain a copy of your comment securely in our internal records.

Remember Your Audience

We encourage all submitting parties to consider the nature of the actions described in their comments, related to the FTC’s hostile framing of gender-diversity and the provision of gender-affirming care. Given this hostility, the information that you provide should be measured, free of identifying information, and provided in such a manner as to not put yourself or others at risk.  

This portal will enable you to submit to the FTC Request for Information (RFI) with a reduced risk of identification than you may have if you were to make your submission directly to the Federal Regulations Portal. 

As you draft your comment, depending on your experiences with and relationship to transition-related healthcare, also called “gender-affirming care”, there are certain pieces of information you should consider sharing as well as pieces of information you should highly consider omitting.

Legal Disclaimer: As an intermediary party in your submission, Advocates for Trans Equality and Advocates for Trans Equality Action Fund take no responsibility for comments, statements, or actions described in your submission; nor does our delivery of your submission to the FTC represent an endorsement of said statements, attitudes, or actions.

By submitting text to this portal, you are consenting to having the exact, unedited text of your comment uploaded to the FTC’s Regulations.gov comment portal. If you include your name or other identifiable information, we will include this in your submitted comment.

BEFORE YOU SUBMIT A COMMENT, PLEASE READ:

Tips for your Safety

All submitting individuals should read the following guidelines closely to minimize community risk. Don’t see yourself listed below? That’s okay! You can still submit a comment. Reviewing the information below can still help you craft a comment that is safe and helpful!Expand allCollapse all

All Submitting Individuals

These comments will be viewable by the general public as well as this administration’s Federal Trade Commission. Accordingly, we highly recommend that regardless of your experiences, you withhold and avoid disclosing any identifying information. This includes:

  • Your full name (consider using a pseudonym); 
  • Your date of birth, social security number, or other identification numbers; 
  • The name of your patients, children, or medical providers; 
  • The state you currently reside in and where transition-related care was received; 
  • Your address; 
  • The exact location, including the name of the clinic or hospital, where you or your child received care; 
  • Where you work

Again, all submitting parties should withhold the information above, as well as any similar identifying information.

Parents and Caregivers of Trans and Gender-Diverse Youth

Great Information to Share

This RFI is seeking information regarding your experiences accessing and navigating the clinical provision of transition-related healthcare with your minor child. The RFI is looking for information from the public regarding how that care was described to you and your child, as well as the conditions under which it was provided. In that regard the following types of information are excellent to share in your submission:

  • Any barriers to accessing this care; 
  • The ways in which potential adverse effects of various treatments were described to you; 
  • The materials you received about this care; 
  • The depth of the discussion and the number of appointments that pre-dated the first treatment; 
  • How your child was diagnostically assessed; 
  • Your oversight of the treatment process; 
  • The strength of your child’s understanding of their gender identity; 
  • The psychological and mental health support that your child received both before and alongside this care; 
  • The positive effects and benefits of this care for your child; 
  • Your provider’s professionalism; 
  • The deliberate and gradual nature of how this care was provided; 
  • The clinical guidelines that your provider utilized; 
  • Your role in supporting your child in their transition; 
  • The extensive nature of the counseling you and your family received regarding this care.

What to be Cautious of Sharing

This administration, including the FTC, has demonstrated a hostility towards gender-diversity itself as well as the field of transition-related care. Accordingly, the information that you provide has a high potential to be taken out of context and distorted. Within the context of the FTC’s authority to investigate this healthcare, parents/caregivers are likely to be considered “consumers”, much like patients. This, however, is an informed guess and we encourage parents/caregivers to exercise caution with what they communicate in their submission. Some considerations:

  • Avoid characterizing experiences as quick or brief; 
  • Avoid downplaying providers’ disclosures of potential adverse effects; 
  • Do not share the names of your providers, nor any identifying information about them; 
  • Be cautious regarding how you describe the informed consent process.
Medical and Behavioral Health Professionals

Great Information to Share

This RFI is seeking information regarding how adolescents and their families accessed transition-related healthcare. As healthcare professionals you play an integral role in this process, ensuring that transgender adolescents can access the potentially lifesaving medical care that they need to thrive and lived authentic and fulfilling lives. Your role in this care is also under particular scrutiny by the RFI, and as a result you should carefully consider the information you share and how you share it. We have provided a list of recommended Do’s and Do Not’s for you to take into consideration while your draft your comment

DO: 

  • Keep your submission HIPAA compliant. 
  • Do ensure all information about you and your patients is de-identified. 
  • Do share general, high-level descriptions of your experience and expertise. 
  • For example: “As a pediatric endocrinologist who has treated gender-diverse patients for over 23 years…” or “I am a licensed psychotherapist who has treated over 2,000 adolescents during my career…”. 
  • Describe the depth and length of conversations with patients and their parents in equal measure and weight.  
  • Describe the depth and length of your discussions with families regarding the benefits, common adverse effects, and potential adverse effects of treatment. 
  • Describe the procedures related to policy development within professional medical and behavioral health.  
  • Describe the rigor of the informed consent process.  
  • Describe the evidence-based nature of the care you provide. 
  • Feel free to share articles from peer-reviewed journals. 
  • Describe the materials you provide to parents and patients.  
  • Describe the benefits of treatment that you’ve witnessed for patients and their families. 
  • Describe the staged and intentional nature of your clinical approach. 
  • Describe the length, rigor, and depth of your professional training.  
  • Present evidence-based, peer-reviewed statistics and information regarding the patient population. 
  • Keep information focused on the patient/family relationships, to the exclusion of administrative procedures and practices.

DO NOT: 

  • Provide information about the state you practice medicine in. 
  • Provide identifying information about your practice or your patients. 
  • Provide your name. 
  • Provide the exact name of the institutions where you were trained. 
  • Provide the name of your practice, hospital, or clinic where you practice. 
  • Provide license numbers. 
  • Cite op-eds as substantiating evidence regarding this care.
  • Downplay your expertise. 
Adults Who Received Care as a Minor Adolescent

You are likely to be considered a “consumer” by the FTC, you should still carefully consider the information you share in your comment, as well as how you share it.  

Great Information to Share

  • Any barriers to accessing this care; 
  • The ways in which potential adverse effects of various treatments were described to you and your parents; 
  • Your ability to understand and consent to care; 
  • The materials you received about this care; 
  • The depth of the discussion and the number of appointments that pre-dated the first treatment; 
  • The depth and strength of your understanding of your gender-identity prior to initiating care; 
  • The psychological and mental health support that you received alongside this care; 
  • The positive effects and benefits of this care; 
  • Your provider’s professionalism; 
  • The staged nature of how this care was provided; 
  • The clinical guidelines that your provider utilized; 
  • Your parents’ role in supporting your child in their transition; 
  • The extensive nature of the counseling you and your family received regarding this care.

What to be Cautious of Sharing

  • Avoid characterizing experiences as quick or brief; 
  • Avoid downplaying providers’ disclosures of potential adverse effects; 
  • Do not share the names of your providers, nor any identifying information about them; 
  • Be cautious regarding how you describe the informed consent process.

Ready to submit your comment? Click below to tell your story.

SUBMIT YOUR COMMENT HERE

/ /

Republicans resurface anti-trans attacks in the closing stretch of the Virginia governor’s race

As Virginia’s race for governor enters its final stretch, Republicans are turning to a familiar page in their playbook: anti-transgender attacks. 

On the airwaves and social media, GOP Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears and her allies have increasingly zeroed in on attacking Democratic former Rep. Abigail Spanberger’s stances on transgender people’s participation in youth sports and use of school locker rooms and public bathrooms. 

It marks the resurfacing of a culture war issue that emerged as major flashpoint in the 2024 campaign, most notably when Donald Trump used it as part of his closing message against Kamala Harris. 

Now, facing a polling and fundraising deficit ahead of this November’s election, Virginia Republicans are betting that it remains a politically potent way to paint Democrats as extreme and out of touch, as they try to hang on to control of the governorship in a blue-leaning state. 

The Earle-Sears campaign released a digital ad this week claiming that Spanberger “voted to allow men in girls’ sports, bathrooms and locker rooms” when she was a member of Congress. The ad also alleges, “If a child secretly identifies as transgender at school, [Spanberger] says the parents shouldn’t be told.”

The ad’s first allegation cites Spanberger’s vote in February 2021 on a House bill — named the Equality Act – that proposed adding “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the traits protected under various pieces of federal civil rights laws. The House, controlled by Democrats at the time, passed the bill, but it stalled in the Senate.

The ad’s second allegation cites a September 2022 post on X by Spanberger in which she attacked a plan by Virginia Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin that she said would “out kids, require their identities not be respected, and hurt them in the very places where they are supposed to learn and thrive.”

“That’s insane,” the narrator in Earle-Sears’ 30-second ad says. “Spanberger is for they/them, not us,” borrowing a line Trump used in his anti-Harris ads last year. 

Earle-Sears’ campaign launched a second ad this week on TV claiming that Spanberger “wants boys to play sports and share locker rooms with little girls” and that “Spanberger will let children change genders without telling their parents.”

Spanberger’s campaign had generally avoided addressing the issue head on throughout the race. But on Thursday, she began running a TV ad that more forcefully responds to the attacks. 

“Nothing matters more to me than the safety of all our kids, and as a law enforcement officer, I went after child predators,” Spanberger says directly to the camera in that ad. “So it really angers me to hear these lies about who I am. I believe we need to get politics out of our schools and trust parents and local communities.” 

In response to questions from NBC News about Republicans’ focus on trans issues, Spanberger campaign spokesperson Connor Joseph reiterated many of those same points in a statement.

“As a mom of three daughters in Virginia public schools, a former federal law enforcement officer, and a candidate for Governor, Abigail’s priority is making sure that all of Virginia’s kids are safe,” Joseph said in an email to NBC News. 

“As a federal law enforcement officer, Abigail investigated child predators, arrested drug dealers, and worked side by side with police departments to keep Virginians safe — and just last month, Virginia’s largest police union endorsed her for Governor,” Joseph continued, referring to the Virginia Police Benevolent Association’s support for Spanberger.

“Winsome Earle-Sears should stop trying to score political points with the White House and start answering for why she stands with an administration that is driving up costs for Virginia families, killing Virginia jobs, and taking away Virginians’ healthcare,” Joseph added.

Republicans have used anti-trans attacks on the campaign trail to excite their conservative base and portray Democrats as outside the mainstream. The same theme made its way into the first TV ad released this week by New Jersey Republican candidate Jack Ciattarelli, slamming Democrat Mikie Sherrill for caring “more about pronouns and sanctuary cities than” about “solving our problems.” 

The broader issue has so far played a more pronounced role in the Virginia governor’s race. The Republican National Committee has blasted out posts on X across several accounts alleging that Spanberger hasn’t taken a clear stance onhow she feels about trans people participating in sports and use of public restrooms. 

The issue has also played out in recent local headlines. Arlington and Fairfax counties, in the Washington, D.C., suburbs, have sued Trump’s Education Department over funding threats it issued against those counties’ school districts in response to their policies allowing transgender students to use the bathrooms and locker rooms for the gender they identify with. The lawsuits have become a point of contention in the state, with Earle-Sears and conservative groups pressing Spanberger to take a clear stance on the situation.

The tensions over the issue boiled up at a protest last month outside an Arlington County school board meeting in which officials were discussing the policy. Someone held a sign up at that rally that stated, “Hey Winsome, if trans can’t share your bathroom, then Blacks can’t share my water fountain.” Earle-Sears was attending that meeting, and an image of that sign appeared in one of Earle-Sears’ latest ads. Spanberger has denounced the sign as “racist” and “abhorrent.”

In addition, in northern Virginia’s Loudon County, two students were suspendedafter they expressed discomfort with school policies on locker rooms, a story that has made the rounds in the conservative media ecosphere.

Earle-Sears’ campaign indicated that it would continue to hammer Spanberger on the topic.

“Abigail Spanberger can’t run from her record,” campaign spokesperson Peyton Vogel said in a statement. “In Virginia, her radical agenda has resulted in child predators entering girls’ bathrooms and students feeling unsafe. No amount of ad money can erase those facts.”

It’s difficult to gauge how voters evaluate the importance of trans issues in Virginia’s gubernatorial race. The polling that’s been conducted in recent months — the latest of which shows Spanberger leading Earle-Sears within the margin of error — has not surveyed Virginia voters on that particular issue. 

Additionally, Spanberger has maintained a robust advantage on the airwaves. She outspent Earle-Sears on ads almost 2 to 1 from Jan 1. through Labor Day, according to AdImpact, and has outspent her by even more over the last two weeks.

But Republican strategists argued the strategy will help boost Earle-Sears, saying it could help her follow Youngkin’s successful focus on parental and cultural issues in the Virginia’s gubernatorial election four years ago. 

“I think it’s incredibly potent,” said Justin Discigil, a Republican operative in Virginia who currently works for Youngkin’s Spirit of Virginia PAC. “This is an 80/20 issue. And the fact that the ‘moderate standard-bearer’ of the Democratic Party cannot squarely put herself on the 80% side is dumbfounding.” 

“This is perhaps the most commonsense issue in American politics today, and voters inherently get it without much explaining,” he added.

Zack Roday, a Virginia-based Republican strategist who is not working with the Earle-Sears campaign, said that he found it “very surprising” that Spanberger hadn’t yet found a solid message for questions on the issue.

Nationally, Democrats have been divided on how to handle trans issues in the wake of Trump’s 2024 victory. For instance, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a potential 2028 presidential contender, made waves earlier this year when he said it’s “deeply unfair” for transgender athletes to compete in women’s sports, breaking with some in his party. 

In Virginia, some Democrats have pointed to the fact that Earle-Sears, as a member of the Virginia Board of Education earlier in her career, did not take any action to alter the body’s position on gender identity and bathroom and locker use. 

During Sears’ tenure, a Virginia school district became the center of controversyafter a transgender student was allowed to use a restroom that did not match their biological sex. 

Democrats also maintain that the Republican strategy amounts to an attempt to distract from Spanberger’s focus on affordability and economic issues, as well as on her efforts to tie Earle-Sears to Trump. 

“Winsome Earle-Sears can’t defend her extreme record,” Democratic Party of Virginia spokesperson Maggie Amjad said in a statement. “From voting against the right to contraception to dismissing Trump’s threat to Virginia’s economy and Virginians’ healthcare, it’s clear Sears won’t put Virginians first. The Commonwealth deserves a Governor whose number-one priority is Virginia working families, not loyalty to Donald Trump.”

/ /

LGBTQ Equality Maps Updates and Bill Tracking for September 2025

In this rapidly changing landscape, MAP’s LGBTQ Equality Maps provide a detailed snapshot of the current state of LGBTQ laws and policies in the United States. See below for a listing of state and local level policy changes, plus MAP’s bill tracking and policy research updates, as of August 25, 2025.
▸▸ State Policy Updates
Ongoing developments with gender marker changes on identity documentsIn Kansas, residents’ ability to change the gender marker on their driver’s licensesremains contested. After a 2023 law was enacted defining “sex” throughout state law to enable discrimination against transgender people, the state’s attorney general successfully sued the state’s license-issuing agency to force them to stop issuing gender marker changes for transgender people — something the state had been permitting, without issue, since at least 2007.This June, a Kansas appeals court ruled that gender marker changes on driver’s licenses should resume, and that the state’s attorney general had failed to prove any harm would be caused by allowing such gender marker changes. But despite the court ruling, the state’s attorney general instructed the state’s licensing agency to continue to refuse to process gender marker changes while he appeals the ruling and the litigation continues.In Indiana, the state issued a proposed rule — not yet in effect — that would prevent people from changing the gender marker on their birth certificate. For justification, the administrative rule refers to a March executive order from the governor defining “sex” throughout state law in exclusionary and discriminatory ways. Public comments were accepted through July 18, with a tentative effective date in October 2025.

Note: MAP will update the Equality Maps if and when either of these developments are in effect.
“Shield” or “refuge” laws protecting transgender health careSee our Equality Map here and our supporting citations and additional information here.June 20: Delaware’s governor issued an executive order to protect both patients and providers of medically necessary care for transgender people. Delaware is now one of three states with a “shield” executive order that protects access to transgender health care.
Regulating gender to allow discrimination against transgender and nonbinary peopleSee our Equality Map here and our supporting citations and additional information here.

In 2025 alone, eight states total have enacted a new law (7) or executive order (1) defining “sex” throughout state law. To date, 18 states total have such a policy, and more than one in four transgender people (28%) across the country live in these states.June 20: Texas became the 16th state with a law or executive order defining “sex” throughout state law.June 30: Ohio became the 17th state to enact a law, after lawmakers used the state’s budget process to insert and force through multiple anti-LGBTQ provisions. While the governor vetoed some of these provisions, he did not veto this gender regulation/sex definition provision.July 29: North Carolina became the 18th state to enact a law, following the legislature’s override of the governor’s veto.
“Don’t Say LGBTQ” curriculum censorship lawsSee our Equality Map here and our supporting citations and additional information here.June 20: Texas became the 12th state with a “Don’t Say LGBTQ” law. It applies to all grades pre-kindergarten through 12. The same bill also banned DEI-related programs and activities in schools, student groups about sexual orientation or gender identity (such as gay-straight alliances [GSAs]), and more. ACLU has already announced they will sue to challenge unconstitutional aspects of the bill.
Bans on medical care for transgender youthSee our Equality Map here and our supporting citations and additional information here, including a chronology and details on effective dates, exceptions, lawsuits, and more.July 17: Puerto Rico became the first U.S. territory — joining 27 U.S. states — to ban medically necessary care for transgender youth. Unlike other state bans, Puerto Rico’s law explicitly applies up to age 21, making it the farthest-reaching such ban to date. The law also creates criminal penalties for medical providers, with up to 15 years in prison if convicted.August 1: New Hampshire expanded its existing ban on some forms of surgical care for transgender minors to now include both additional forms of surgical care and prescription medication for transgender youth. The expansions will not go into effect until January 1, 2026, and there is a grandfather clause allowing youth who begin prescription medication prior to January 1 to continue receiving that medical care.
Changes in MAP’s policy score categorizationsSee our Overall, Sexual Orientation, and Gender Identity Policy Tally maps here, summarizing states’ scores across all the 50+ laws and policies we track.Virginia’s undermining of its own law against conversion “therapy” dropped the state to “Fair” on our Overall Tally.
▸▸ Local Policy Updates
Conversion “therapy” ordinancesSee our Equality Map with local-level data here and state-by-state listings at each state’s profile.June 23: Columbia, South Carolina, repealed its ordinance protecting LGBTQ youth from the dangerous and discredited practice of conversion “therapy.” This repeal was effectively forced by a development in June, when the state enacted a first-of-its-kind law withholding state funds from any municipality that has a local-level law protecting minors from conversion “therapy.” Because the state’s capital, Columbia, was the only city in the state with these protections, this law effectively targeted Columbia, threatening to withhold nearly $4 million in state funding from the city unless they repealed their ordinance.August 19: Whitehall, Ohio, enacted a new ordinance protecting LGBTQ youth from conversion “therapy.” Whitehall is the 14th municipality in Ohio with such an ordinance.Nondiscrimination ordinancesSee our Equality Maps with local-level data here and state-by-state listings at each state’s profile.August 19: Whitehall, Ohio’s new ordinance protecting LGBTQ youth from conversion “therapy” also prohibits discrimination against LGBTQ people in employment, housing, and public accommodations. While the state lacks similar statewide protections, Whitehall is the 40th municipality in Ohio with fully inclusive, local-level nondiscrimination protections.▸▸ LGBTQ Bill Tracking UpdatesTo continue highlighting trends across the country, included below are our current bill tracking counts for anti-LGBTQ bills in state legislatures.Note: these counts may differ from other organizations or public counts for a variety of reasons, and this work is greatly facilitated by the work of other organizations including the ACLU, Trans Formations Project, and the Equality Federation and their member state groups.

As of August 7, 2025, MAP tracked over 715 anti-LGBTQ bills that were introduced across 49 states — i.e., every state but Vermont — in the 2024–2025 legislative sessions.

Click here to learn more about how the LGBTQ policy landscape has evolved over the last year and how to support on-the-ground changemakers in the fight for equality.
 ▸▸ MAP Policy Research UpdatesIn July, and in partnership with The Trevor Project, MAP published a new report,LGBTQ Policy Spotlight: Laws Protecting LGBTQ Youth From Conversion “Therapy.”
With the U.S. Supreme Court set to hear a case (Chiles v. Salazar) in late 2025 challenging the legality of laws protecting LGBTQ youth against these dangerous and discredited practices, this timely analysis details the history of these laws, the present and shifting landscape of both protective laws and counter-efforts to undermine these protections, and the importance of continuing to protect LGBTQ youth.
To schedule an interview with a MAP researcher or for questions, please contact Dana Juniel at dana@mapresearch.org.
# # #
About MAP: MAP’s mission is to provide independent and rigorous research, insight and communications that help speed equality and opportunity for all. MAP works to ensure that all people have a fair chance to pursue health and happiness, earn a living, take care of the ones they love, be safe in their communities, and participate in civic life. www.mapresearch.org

/ /

‘I Look Like an Expert’: The Sexologist Testifying Against Trans Youth Care

, ,

James Cantor is a Canadian psychologist and sexologist who has been hiredby Alliance Defending Freedom—a Southern Poverty Law Center-designated anti-LGBTQ hate group—and by Republican states to serve as an expert witness in defense of laws that ban or restrict gender-affirming health care.

Last year, Uncloseted Media interviewed Cantor for a larger investigation into expert medical witnesses paid to defend restrictions on trans kids’ access to health care.

Since then, attacks on gender-affirming care have escalated—121 anti-trans bills have been passed in state legislatures this year and a recent Supreme Court decision upheld the constitutionality of bans on gender-affirming health care for minors nationwide. Cantor, who has never treated a trans kid and whose primary research centers around pedophilia, kink and BDSM, has had his expertise called into question by some judges.

Despite this, he’s remained active since we published our article, testifying in support of gender-affirming care bans in South Carolina and North Dakota. And while Cantor didn’t speak at the Supreme Court, his expert testimonies were cited by the defendants.

Since Cantor continues to influence trans health care policy in the U.S., we decided to share a longer cut of our interview to provide more context on one of the most prolific faces in the fight over trans health care.

Spencer Macnaughton: Tell me how you came to know Alliance Defending Freedom. How did they get to you? Or did you get to them?

James Cantor: No, they came to me. I never, in any of these controversies that I’ve been [in]—this is, I guess, the biggest one now. But I’m a sex researcher, I’ve been through several controversies.

SM: Sure.

JC: They came to me. In 2018, I guess it was, the American Academy of Pediatrics came out with a policy, essentially saying, “Do whatever the kid wants.” And I’m just reading and reading. As I went, I [knew] these papers he’s citing. This isn’t what they say. So all I did is take the policy and go through the reference list, every single one, and say, “This is what you said they said,” and then I quoted them directly. Here they are saying the opposite.Just, again, because somebody who obviously doesn’t know this field was grossly misrepresenting the science of it.

SM: So then how did they find you? Because you’re in Canada.

JC: So I published that paper as a peer-reviewed study. So when the Alliance Defending Freedom had its first couple of lawsuits on the topic, they, of course, in any issue like this, need experts to testify to what the content of the science was. They were already working with Stephen Levine, very, very well-established and well known in my field. And so he suggested to ADF, “There’s this guy who always follows the science no matter what and isn’t afraid of the politics.” So then they came to me. We did our first case together. Josephson, freedom of speech case, essentially was a professor who said what a bunch of activists didn’t want to hear. He got disciplined for it. He didn’t let them get away with it. He started his lawsuit challenging his treatment. That was the first one. Then when they say, “Oh, this guy knows how to talk.” So it was networking since then.

SM: And do you actually go? Do you zoom in or do you go? How many cases have you worked with them on?

JC: For them, just that one. All the others, I’ve been hired by the state directly. As I say, it’s really just kind of networking amongst those, and there are not many people willing to do it at all.

SM: Did they like you because of the expert testimony you gave for Alliance Defending Freedom and then they would find you? Cause it’s random to me that you’re from Canada being thrown into the mix in all these states. Is it not or no?

JC: Oh, no, not really. It’s just there are very, very few people able to talk about this and have a mastery of the science at all. But yes, so the Canadian thing really just doesn’t matter. [I’m] just a person who is well spoken, can get an idea across under pressure on the stand, [I have] experience at it. And the state AG offices are networked together in a bunch of different ways and they often have similar kinds of cases. This person knows that person who knows the other person. They’re always looking for experts for whatever their cases are. So when they start looking for someone, I was one of the first people with a peer reviewed paper on the topic. So that very quickly put me on their radar screen. And then it’s just case after case. The ADF—again, although they only hired me for that one case—they also hold events and conferences and so on. And this is one of the topics where they asked me to speak. And so many people from many offices in conservative states are also attending. So when they get a case [they think,] “Oh, I saw this guy who…”

SM: Okay, so the AG offices could go to a conference that the ADF puts on, Dr. Cantor speaks, the AG office says, “I like that,” they reach out and then could have you testify in their state. But it’s the AG officers, with that exception of the one, that would be the ones reaching out to you.

JC: Yes, exactly. So the ADF are assisting with networking like any group. They’re politically conservative. But like any other group, including the ACLU on the other side, sponsor conferences and people network. And so when they need somebody on whatever topical issue like this one, they assist the networking. But they don’t have any direct financial or other connection.

SM: How much do you get paid? How much do they pay you for that?

JC: Same as experts on the other side, 400 an hour U.S.

SM: And they pay for all flights and everything, obviously that would be paid for?

JC: Yeah, the state, yes. That’s part of their usual expert budget.

SM: And how many hours would you spend on a case typically?

JC: Uh, generally anywhere between 15 and 80.

SM: Can you make a salary off it?

JC: It’s ended up pretty much that way for me, which was an unexpected surprise.

SM: Like over 150?

JC: It varies year by year, but somewhere around there per year. But I wouldn’t call it… Again, it’s just dumb luck on my part. I’m towards the end of my career. I’m within five, six years of retiring. So I don’t have a lot to lose. As I say, this was not a plan. It just kinda happened.

SM: What’s your experience treating trans kids? Like how many have [you treated?] I’m assuming, [because] you’ve taught like you’ve treated dozens.

JC: No, I don’t treat kids at all. I’m a sex therapist. If you wanna know if whatever procedure works, you can’t ask the people who use the procedure. Easiest to understand by analogy: You will never find out if astrology works if you only ask the astrologers. If you want to know if Childhood Transition works, you can’t ask the people whose careers and practices depend on the answer being yes. You’re just going to get yes!

SM: Do you talk to kids? I’m assuming you at least talk to trans kids to learn their perspective a little bit given your expert testimony on all these cases. Like do you sit down with them? Do you try and learn—

JC: No.

SM: From them to learn about their—no?

JC: Nope.

SM: Why not?

JC: Because that is exactly the source of bias.

SM: To learn from the people who… I would disagree with that. Don’t you want to learn from the people you’re speaking on?

JC: I learn from the research about the people. An 8-year-old telling me that they were born in the wrong body? They didn’t come up with that themselves. They were told that narrative as a way to help understand themselves. What I am hearing is the accumulation of what the 8-year-old has been told.

SM: So your strategy is literally actually the opposite. Don’t talk. It’s important not to talk to trans kids about it?

JC: Along those lines. Again, it’s because the exception is really easy to exaggerate on the other side. Either side can, at least in theory, be correct. But people are taking, as the definition of expert, the one who has spoken to the most 8-year-olds, but da-da-da. They can color the picture, they can be compelling narratives, they can provide ideas for things to do research on. But the answer is going to come from the neutral, can go either way, does not have an emotional investment in what’s going on. It’s, “What would Mr. Spock say?”

SM: There’s a whole narrative from one subset of the media, mainly the right media, they’ll say, “Transgenderism, it doesn’t exist,” that kind of thing. So do you believe that transgender people exist?

JC: Again, it’s a bit of a loaded question. In the way that they’re saying it as a phenomenon doesn’t exist, that’s a bit of an overstatement. But the very concrete way the opposite extreme is discussing it isn’t exactly true either. You can’t prove things don’t exist. You can only fail to find evidence that it does exist.

SM: Do you believe that it should exist? Would our world be better off if we just didn’t have trans people?

JC: I don’t know if there is a way to answer that question.

SM: Alliance Defending Freedom’s background is alarming, not just for trans stuff but for gay issues, right? The guy who founded it coined a book called The Homosexual Agenda. They passed laws against gay marriage, against gays in the military. They’ve gone to Africa, to Eastern Europe, to promote laws against the entire umbrella of the LGBTQ community. Why affiliate yourself with a group like that, especially as an openly gay man?

JC: That’s an excellent question. First, the way they came to me was exactly the right way. Hand extended, “Dr. Cantor, we disagree probably on every single other issue but this one, but we can work together on this one.” That’s what a liberal is supposed to say. If they’re willing to overlook and work with the gay Jew, who’s the bad guy if I’m saying, “No, I’m sorry, your religious views, I won’t tolerate.” The shoe was on the other foot. I am willing to work with people I disagree with on the other issues. We will be on the opposite side on that issue. We will be on the same side on this issue. So if anybody ever, for any issue asks, “Why is Cantor on whatever side,” there’s gonna be a stack of science behind it.

SM: You mentioned earlier that we shouldn’t be listening to people who are getting paid to have their livelihood like pediatricians make these decisions, right?

JC: That’s standard medical ethics, it’s in every conflict of interest policy, including the associations who have disregarded their own conflict of interest.

SM: Right. But you’re getting paid almost $150,000 to argue against it. So isn’t that the same thing?

JC: No, as I said, that’s what I was saying, has been the same for 20 years. Now it’s associated with money for me to say—

SM: Right, but your argument is that we shouldn’t be listening to those people, but you’re still getting paid to make the argument.

JC: I’ve been expressing these issues for no money in my original paper before any of these laws, never mind lawsuits, existed. It was just the money and the cases came because of the opinion I had already expressed rather than the other way around. And then, I developed an opinion that was convenient because it was marketable. I gave it away for free. Really at this point, my plan for the money was that there would be a couple of cases for a little while so I could take a couple months off afterwards to do the writing that I don’t get to do as much as I used to. That was the plan. Then when there was this flood of cases, I don’t have time to do that and that’s when I mostly shut down my private practice.

SM: Marketable is an interesting word. What do you think makes your opinion so marketable?

JC: A combination of things. One is just my knowledge of science. Their Jedi mind tricks don’t work on me. A lot of lawyers’ questions are loaded questions or come down to people’s fundamental understanding or misunderstanding of science. And because I have a mastery of it, their subtle illogic that other people would not notice or let slide don’t affect me. I’m able to correct it. And part of it, I’m just a natural communicator. I’m good with audiences. I don’t mind being on stage. My adrenaline, let’s say, is under control.

SM: I bet you could bring it in a courtroom.

JC: I look like an expert.

SM: Right, what do you mean you look like an expert?

JC: They tell me that. I just have the right amount of age, gray hair, bit of an accent. I look like an expert. Ohio, oh, they just announced we won the Ohio case. There was a television camera for the news back here and then the courtrooms up here. The next day on social media, all I kept hearing was what a good hair day I was having.

SM: Do you like the feeling of, it feels like a star a little bit, maybe?

JC: I was president of the RPI Players when I was an undergrad. I’ve always enjoyed theater. If I could sing, I’d be on Broadway. So no, I do enjoy a stage. I do enjoy the media. If I could wave a wand, my real career goal was to be the Carl Sagan of sex.

Subscribe for LGBTQ-focused, accountability journalism.

Upgrade to paid

SM: Oh, wow. Okay. And when you go to the courtroom, do you crank it up a little bit? Like, what do you do to kind of bring it in the courtroom?

JC: It’s a subtle part to be cast in, in that overdoing it, the overacting doesn’t help. I have be in character as Dr. Cantor.

SM: Hmm, okay.

JC: So clear, succinct, direct, confident, but not overdoing it either. Not effusive. The hardest part for me is suppressing jokes. I become the Lord of the pith.

SM: Ooh, what does that mean?

JC: Oh, pithy, short, succinct, and I am indeed much more oriented towards being pithy. To get the idea across in a concrete way that gives people the “aha!” Even if they don’t agree with me, they understand what I am thinking and saying. For example, one of the ones that came together in my head relatively recently when you were asking before about what boils down to conflict of interest. I started out by explaining the relevant policies, what’s in it, what’s not in it, why they are the way they are, all of which was absolutely true. And after reading a couple of pages, people went, “Oh, okay.” But when it hit me to say, “You can’t find out if astrology is real by just asking astrologers,” that’s when people went, “Oh, duh! Of course!”

SM: There was obviously a theater kid in you when you were younger. Is this kind of, it feels camp a little bit, going into American courtrooms and kind of like testifying. Is there a part of that that it’s a bit of fulfilling a dream in that respect?

JC: In an unexpected way. It wasn’t a dream in a way that I ever went, “I wish I could.” If anything, it was the opposite. I don’t know about fun, but I enjoyed the challenge and it was a very, very different kind of a thing to do. But being the, loud mouthed New Yorker theater queen that I am, oh, that’s another one of the jokes I used. Whenever they set up a deposition for me, I always kind of have to say, “I’m the most deposed queen in the world.” The first time I was going in court, we were just laughing. Oh, I’ve forgotten her name. My Cousin Vinny. Right, when she comes in, big New York accent.

SM: Yes.

JC: So we replayed that in my head a lot. And the more recent one, do you watch Schmigadoon?

SM: No.

JC: She was in Ally McBeal. She played the lawyer and she comes down in a trapeze and she’s now doing the bells and whistles is the performance she’s giving in the courtroom.

SM: And you felt like her a little bit, like Ally?

JC: “Felt like her.” It was just teasing about a performer on stage, enjoying an audience. And here I’m doing it in a courtroom. So I’m not afraid of it. I’m not intimidated by it. Where most scientists are not like that.

SM: How many trans-related cases in the U.S. have you testified for as expert witness? There was the one with ADF and then how many from their respective states?

JC: I could send you the whole list, it’s about 30-ish.

SM: When you speak for ADF, how much do they pay you? If I can ask.

JC: Oh, it’s not paid to me. It’s like a conference presentation to bring together lawyers, you know, on similar sides.

SM: What’s the biggest one you’ve ever spoken at? Like, how many people go to these things?

JC: The largest ADF one was their Summit, they call it. I guess that was 500-ish?

SM: They’re obviously a legal behemoth, right? So they know what’s up when it comes to the law. What kind of legal tips and tricks do they give you before you go in and Ally McBeal testify?

JC: The particular person that they had me working with is the Yoda to my Ben Kenobi. He has been absolutely wonderful to work with. His training, his knowledge of the strategizing and of the performance aspects in court have been—his advice has been dead on from the beginning.

SM: What are the best points of advice?

JC: It’s really more about his description of the points of view of the several different audiences. The judge, the jury, the other officers, the experts on the other side, and the mindset I need to be in in testimony, in the different kinds of testimony at the different phases of the case. For example, before anything goes to trial, each expert gets deposed. The point is, and it’s a full day, eight hour day, where the lawyers for the other side get to ask you whatever they want for eight hours. And the way that my trainer was explaining that to me was to help me appreciate that I’m not going to counter-argue. There’s no point to it. There’s nobody to convince. There’s no audience here. The judge isn’t going to see or read every word of it. The judge is only going to the parts the other side wants them to see. So a deposition is the portion at which I can lose ground, but not gain any. So once I was aware that, oh, okay, so this is deflecting. This is not counter-attacking. This isn’t making my argument. This is my defending my argument or, what it largely came out to be, untwisting their trick questions. So even if they weren’t testing me, they come out of it with, “Nothing’s gonna work on this guy.” And then the other one for a lot of the cases, the mindset he described to me was the judge is never going to be an expert on this. 

It’s not the judge’s job to be an expert on this, and usually it just boils down to experts on the one side, experts on the other side, and everybody else knows they don’t know. So really the job is [to] tie myself up with dynamite and throw myself on the other expert and neutralize us both.

SM: What does that mean?

JC: It’s really probably not going to happen, that the judge listens to me and decides, “Oh, that’s the scientifically superior argument.” That’s not what happens. In a lot of ways, my favorite part of it is rebutting the arguments of the other side. Here’s what they said, here’s what the citation they’re referring to actually says, oh gosh, it’s the opposite. From the judge’s point of view, it’s just expert versus expert. It’s a mutually assured destruction. They destroy each other. And then from the judge’s point of view, let’s just get back to the legal issue.

SM: Right, because the judge isn’t necessarily going to be able to infer what’s methodologically sound evidence-based research versus what’s not.

JC: Typically not on their own.

SM: What would you say to the many many trans kids and their families across the United States who say, “You’re hurting us, you are hurting us, this is essential care, we need this.”

JC: No 8-year-old ever said that. Eight-year-olds repeat what they’re told, and what they are getting told are from activists. It’s not credible to say that all of this existed, this was so extreme and obvious, and nobody ever noticed it, including the experts doing the research on it who could have gone either way. But everybody all of a sudden noticed it at exactly the same time when smartphones got invented and hit 15 percent. That’s just a coincidence that the demographic who is doing this the most are exactly the same demographic most given to other social contagion issues. Usually young adolescent females, the same group most likely to report suicidality. Not actual suicide, but suicidality. Most likely to report eating disorders. Most likely to dislike their bodies. All sheer coincidence!

SM: But what about so there’s 8-year-olds can’t say that? Sure, I understand that argument. But there’s 14-year-olds, 17-year-olds, 25-year-olds, 40-year-olds. There are people of every single age.

JC: Find me one who didn’t get it from the website.

SM: Who didn’t get being transgender from a website?

JC: Ah ah ah. The “my rights, you’re hurting us,” the “suicide.” Verbatim they are all saying the same thing. None of these are their words. These are words that they’re repeating because of everybody else in their social group.

SM: I want to be clear, because I want to make sure we characterize everything accurately. Do you believe that all transgender people are trans due to social contagion?

JC: No.

SM:. So you believe a lot of people are born trans and feel that way from birth?

JC: No. See? It’s not either one. The tiny fraction of repris- One in tens of thousands who, at this point, kind of essentially born gay, but so gay, they really are happier living as the other sex. Won’t know it until later in life, but they exist.

SM: But you said one in 10,000—

JC: We also have a cluster who, until they’re in their 40s or 50s, are just turned on by the idea of being female. They’re attracted to women. They’re not gay. They’re always men. So we have one in tens of thousands and one in tens of thousands. And then we have this 5% of the entire population which came out of nowhere when smartphones were invented. They are dominating the conversation. They, except for one in ten thousand, they are not trans. They just hate their own bodies and here’s a narrative that’s close enough that says, “It’s not me, it’s everybody else on the planet and somebody else, no effort to me, I just have to lie there, the doctor will come and fix me. It’s not that I have issues to work on because I hate my body.” Taking the easy way out.

Upgrade to paid

If objective, nonpartisan, rigorous, LGBTQ-focused journalism is important to you, please consider making a tax-deductible donation through our fiscal sponsor, Resource Impact, by clicking this button:

/ /

University of Wyoming sorority has the right to admit transgender women, federal judge rules

,

For almost three years, a University of Wyoming sorority has been the unlikely epicenter of a national battle over belonging. On Friday, a federal judge dismissed, for the second and likely final time, a lawsuit by several Kappa Kappa Gamma sisters seeking to block Artemis Langford, a transgender woman, from their chapter.

U.S. District Judge Alan B. Johnson’s 35-page ruling not only rejected the plaintiffs’ claims of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract, but also declared that Kappa, as a private nonprofit, has the right to define “woman” on its own terms. “In short, we are required to leave Kappa alone,” Johnson wrote.

A case that would not end

The lawsuit began in March 2023, when seven sorority members claimed Langford’s admission violated Kappa’s governing documents. They alleged procedural irregularities, from late notice of a vote to the use of a Google form instead of the official sorority software, and insisted the word “woman” could only mean those assigned female at birth.

That argument failed once before. Johnson dismissed the original case in August 2023, ruling that federal courts could not interfere with a sorority’s expressive right to include transgender women. When the 10th Circuit punted the case back on procedural grounds, the plaintiffs tried again, filing a second amended complaint in June. But Johnson’s ruling Friday dismissed the claims with prejudice, noting further amendments would be “futile”.

At the heart of the dispute was language. Plaintiffs argued that Kappa’s bylaws promised a single-sex environment. Johnson disagreed. Not only were the bylaws silent on the precise definition, but Kappa’s national leadership had long published statements clarifying that “woman” includes “individuals who identify as women.”

The sorority had even distributed a “Guide for Supporting Our LGBTQIA+ Members” in 2018, explicitly affirming trans inclusion. Plaintiffs’ reliance on President Donald Trump’s January executive order defining “woman” as an “adult human female” did little to move the court. Johnson said federal executive policy does not override private contracts.

The case turned a small chapter house in Laramie into a flashpoint for America’s broader conflict over gender identity. Conservative outlets seized on the plaintiffs’ claims, framing Langford’s membership as evidence of “woke overreach.” Advocates saw something else: a young woman seeking community, and a sorority affirming that sisterhood is grounded in gender identity, not birth assignment.

This legal fight also unfolded against a volatile national backdrop. The Trump administration’s Department of Education has sought to reinterpret Title IX, suggesting that admitting transgender women undermines the “single-sex” nature of sororities. But courts have recognized fraternities and sororities as exempt from Title IX’s reach, leaving their membership policies to their own governance.

Johnson leaned on that tradition of judicial restraint. His opinion echoed a long line of cases affirming that voluntary associations, from churches to civic clubs, have broad discretion over internal matters unless fraud or collusion is shown.

What the decision means

Friday’s ruling doesn’t just end one lawsuit; it affirms that private associations may evolve on their own terms, even in conservative corners of the country. For Kappa, that means its Wyoming chapter retains the authority to welcome members like Langford. For LGBTQ+ students, the decision represents a rare bright spot amid escalating state and federal efforts to curtail trans rights.

The plaintiffs still have one avenue: they can try to push for a bylaw change at Kappa’s biennial convention, the judge noted. But in court, at least for now, the matter is closed. The plaintiffs may appeal.

/ /

Fighting for LGBTQ+ youth: The cases challenging conversion therapy bans

In 2022, licensed professional counselor (LPC) Kaley Chiles filed a lawsuit against Colorado over its ban on conversion therapies for minors. Chiles states she helps her minor clients to “reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual attractions, change sexual behaviors, or grow in the experience of physical harmony within one’s body” and contends that the ban violates her First Amendment right to free speech and the free exercise of religion. The Colorado Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit upheld the ban; however, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear her case (Chiles v. Salazar) in their upcoming session in October of 2025, and the Alliance Defending Freedom will represent her.

While this case will set a precedent, regardless of how the Supreme Court rules, this case is not unique.

In 2012, Alan Chambers, then president of Exodus International, which was the leading ex-gay Christian organization and conversion therapy provider globally, publicly announced that conversion therapies could not change a person’s sexual orientation and that the practices were harmful. While many questioned the sincerity of his statements and accused him of overlooking his organization’s accusations of physical and sexual abuse of minors, the downfall of Exodus International a year later dovetailed with the beginning of the movement underway to ban conversion therapies on minors nationwide.

And the Christian right immediately mobilized to stop those efforts.

California and New Jersey were the first states to ban conversion therapy on minors in 2012 and 2013, respectively, and lawsuits were filed against both states not long after. Like Chiles v. Salazar, both plaintiffs in those cases (King v. Governor of New Jersey & Pickup v. Brown) insisted that the bans were a violation of free speech. In both cases, the plaintiffs’ supporters came from many of the same far-right anti-LBGTQ+ interest groups. However, the appellate courts upheld the ban on conversion therapies. But for the first time, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case regarding the constitutionality of conversion therapy bans, which has perplexed many legal pundits, as the Supreme Court declined to listen to a similar case from the state of Washington in 2023.

It is also important to note that the bans on conversion therapies only apply to licensed mental health professionals. Conversion therapies have absolutely no evidence base that demonstrates their efficacy or safety, and there is no uniform model available that has undergone any scientific scrutiny. There is, however, a wealth of research that demonstrates people who undergo conversion therapies are at heightened risk of experiencing negative health and social outcomes, especially minors.

While most research has focused on sexual minorities, there is a growing body of research demonstrating the adverse impacts that conversion therapies can have on trans and nonbinary youth, specifically that they are much more likely to attempt suicide after exposure to conversion therapies, compared to sexual minority youth.

Any licensed mental health professional who is approached by a client of any age seeking conversion therapies has the ethical obligation to inform the client of the risks associated with the many so-called practices and refer the client to a clergy setting. It is striking to me that, outside of reaffirming their position that they oppose conversion therapies, the American Counseling Association, which Kaley Chiles maintains her license, has been virtually silent on this case. I contacted the American Counseling Association multiple times by phone and email and received no response.

The involvement of the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) as legal representation for the plaintiff is also a major cause for concern. ADF is a well-funded think tank organization that has an extensive history of demonizing and persecuting the LGBTQ+ community and is classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. ADF has also been extremely outspoken in its support for the re-criminalization of sexual acts between consenting LGBTQ+ adults in the United States following the landmark ruling in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, which struck down anti-sodomy laws in the United States.

Collectively, it is apparent that this case is not about freedom of speech; this case is about right-wing identity politics, driven heavily by Christian nationalism. ADF is still riding the momentum from their previous victories, including the United States v. Skremetti, which upheld the ban on gender affirming care for minors in Tennessee and 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis which ruled the First Amendment prevents Colorado from forcing a website designer to create wedding websites for same-sex couples if doing so would violate her religious beliefs and expressive conduct. In an interesting turn of events, the entire foundation of that case was fictitious, as the gay male listed in the case was a straight man married to a woman.

Given the Supreme Court’s increasing right-wing leanings and the outcome of recent freedom of religion cases, it is likely that the Court will side with the plaintiff in this case. But where will the line be drawn? What other social issues will the Christian right be able to circumvent using free speech as an excuse to justify their quest to eradicate the separation between church and state, and what harm will it cause other vulnerable populations?

LGBTQ+ youth need our help and advocacy efforts, now more than ever, and it is time that we not only speak out but make concerted efforts at the local, state, and federal levels to keep them safe.

/ /

Out Attorney General issues stark warning to “cowardly” hospital eliminating trans health care

,

Gay Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel (D) has issued a warning to the University of Michigan after the school’s medical center announced Monday it will no longer provide gender-affirming care to patients under 19 due to threats from the federal government.

“The announcement from the University of Michigan that they will no longer provide their transgender patients with all of the healthcare options available is shameful, dangerous, and potentially illegal,” Nessel said in a statement. “This cowardly acquiescence to political pressure from this president and his administration is not what patients have come to expect from an institution that has labeled itself, ‘the leaders and the best,’ and my Department will be considering all of our options if they violate Michigan law.”

State anti-discrimination law bans discrimination on the basis of gender identity. Nessel told health care providers that “the availability of federal funding has no bearing on Michiganders’ right to seek and receive healthcare services without discrimination.” 

“Moreover, access to federal funds does not relieve Michigan healthcare facilities and providers of the obligation to comply with Michigan laws,” she added.

An email to staff at the school’s medical center, Michigan Medicine, called the decision to halt gender-affirming care for minors “difficult and complex,” Advocate reported.

It was made, the note said, “in response to unprecedented legal and regulatory threats against our institution and our employees, including threats of criminal and civil charges against our prescribing clinicians.”

“Please know that we are committed to working with our patients/clients to ensure appropriate, individualized care plans,” it continued. “We will offer to meet individually with impacted patients/clients to explore options for ongoing care. We understand how impactful this change is. If you are uncertain about how this change might impact you or your clients/patients, please discuss this with your supervisor.” 

At least 21 hospitals and health systems have suspended or reduced health services for transgender minors and young adults in 2025, according to an NBC News analysis. Many providers cited fears of federal investigations and the potential loss of government funding.

In January, the president signed an executive order directing federal agencies to cut off funding for gender-affirming care for minors and instructing the Department of Justice (DOJ) to investigate and criminalize providers and health centers that offer such care. In April, Attorney General Pam Bondi ordered the DOJ to investigate providers, hospitals, and clinics that provide gender-affirming care to trans youth.

The crackdown escalated earlier this summer when federal prosecutors issued subpoenas to more than 20 hospitals and clinics. In August, sixteen states and the District of Columbia filed suit in an attempt to block the administration’s investigations. However, several providers that received subpoenas chose to suspend offering gender-affirming care instead of waiting for the outcome of the lawsuit.

According to the NBC News review, twelve hospitals have either stopped or announced plans to stop prescribing puberty blockers or hormone therapy to patients under 19, four hospitals have ended surgeries for minors, and one facility halted all gender-affirming care for trans youth under 18. At least six other university-affiliated health systems, including Stanford Medicine, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC), University of Chicago (UChicago Medicine), University of Pennsylvania, Rush University Medical Center, and Yale New Haven Hospital, have ceased offering some or all trans-related health services.

An additional five hospitals have scrubbed their websites of pages advertising transgender services for minors.

/ /

Google Sends Parents of LGBTQ Kids to Conversion Therapy Websites

,

Google is the most powerful search engine in the world, commanding nearly 90% of the global search engine market and generating over $348 billion in revenue last year. Over half of Americans say they trust Google more than their formal education.

But how does Google’s algorithm decide which results show up? And how do these results influence LGBTQ kids, their parents and Americans at large who are searching for help?

Uncloseted Media asked five Americans from around the country to Google five common queries related to LGBTQ identity, religion and parenting.

The results were alarming and raised an urgent question: With nearly 40% of LGBTQ youth seriously considering suicide just last year, what happens when a queer teen or the parent of a gay kid in crisis turns to Google?

Photos courtesy of participants Mark Just, Genna and Melanie Brown, April Samberg, Tommy O’Neil. Photo of Genna and Melanie by Kaoly Gutteriez.

“I’m Christian, my daughter is a lesbian,” Melanie Brown, a Southern Baptist from High Point, North Carolina, types into Google.

When Brown presses enter, Bible Bulletin Board comes up as the third result, with the suggestion of “offering hope for change,” and “lead[ing] the way to the alternative to homosexuality.” It goes on to explain that “homosexuality is contrary to God’s Word. It is sin and as always results in sin’s destructive effects on the individual and on those close to them.”

In the living room, Brown’s 15-year-old daughter Genna, with her dog on her lap, Googles “accurate information on gay kids and what to do.”

Focus on the Family (FOTF) is the first result. She clicks the link and lands on the platform of a hyper-religious organization known for promoting conversion therapy and labeling her sexuality as sinful.

The site, which presents itself as a reputable religious source, features a tab titled “Understanding Homosexuality” and a section under their resources for “Homosexuality.” It states: “[FOTF] is committed to upholding God’s design for the expression of human sexuality: a husband and wife in a marriage.”

It offers suggested reading on “redemption” from a gay lifestyle, along with 11 counseling resources aimed at changing sexual orientation, including The Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity, which guarantees “professional assistance … for persons who experience unwanted homosexual attractions.”

The language is intentionally padded, which means Genna and her mom—and many of the other millions of Christian parents of queer kids—may never know that Google led them to a Southern Poverty Law Center-designated anti-LGBTQ hate group. FOTF is known for its long-standing opposition to LGBTQ rights, for spreading anti-LGBTQ disinformation and for framing homosexuality and transgender identity as sinful and disordered.

In South Boston, Virginia, Tommy O’Neil Googles, “My daughter just came out as trans and I’m a Christian.” As a father of two, he wants what’s best for his kids. According to Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Google’s second result, O’Neil should recognize that God doesn’t make mistakes when assigning sex and give sympathy for those who are indoctrinated in the “transgender cult.”

What O’Neil might not know is that this seminary made the list of Worst Campuses for LGBTQ students. And in 2016, it was granted an exemption to Title IX, allowing it to discriminate against LGBTQ students for religious reasons.

Thousands of miles away in Anchorage, Alaska, 38-year-old bisexual woman April Samberg Googles, “I am bisexual and have a husband who is Christian, am I going to hell?”

The third result is once again an article by FOTF that tells April that “same-sex-attracted strugglers” and “transgender and homosexual lust and behavior are wrong.”

In Cincinnati, 44-year-old Mark Just Googles, “accurate information on homosexual kids and what to do.” FOTF is the top search result.

“I don’t feel good about it,” Just told Uncloseted Media. “It’s disturbing because if there are people out there who want to accept and understand their children or loved ones, this is what they’re being pointed to.”

“[I feel] fear for the queer kids with Christian parents who will be seeing that and thinking it’s good advice, and sorrow for the kids with parents who already have,” says Genna Brown, who was a “self-loathing, suicidal kid” who thought God would punish her for being gay before she came out to her now accepting parents. “It’s pretty awful that this is what’s being pushed for advice. This has no doubt harmed people.”

Uncloseted Media also asked folks in Taiwan, Lebanon, China, Hong Kong, Canada and India to Google similar queries. All of them had FOTF turn up as a top search result.

Upgrade to paid

Why Does Google Allow This?

Google, like other search engines, compiles information and directs users to various websites by referencing the titles of web pages that it judges to be most reflective of what was searched.

“Google’s algorithm is notoriously a black box,” says Jesse Ringer, founder of Method and Metric, a search engine optimization (SEO) growth company. “That’s intentional to keep their competitive advantage.”

What we do know is that Google ranks search results by first crawling the web with an automated program called “spiders” to follow links from page to page and collect data.

It uses text matching to identify documents that it thinks are relevant to a query and then ranks them based on a combination of popularity, freshness, location and previous links clicked.

But for people searching for reliable information, its process can be problematic.

“Google doesn’t rank based on accuracy, but on popularity and query matching,” says Dirk Lewandowski, professor of information research and retrieval at the Hamburg University of Applied Sciences. “This is based on clicks and a network of how many other links are directed to this website. … Of course, users click what is shown in the first position. So we have kind of a rich get richer.”

How to Get a High Ranking

As websites with the highest rankings continue to receive more clicks, websites like FOTF can also employ other tactics to keep their prominent placement.

Backlinking—the process of having other web pages hyperlink back to your site—is one of the ways to maintain your high ranking.

“Backlinks are a big part of popularity. So the relationship between other websites linking to this source is a big part of Google’s algorithm,” says Ringer. “There are SEO businesses that build link farms so that the content of their clients can go higher. They create a network effect and they link to each other. It is not unreasonable to think that [FOTF] has hired either an SEO person or they’ve hired an external agency to contribute to that.”

According to Francesca Tripodi, assistant professor at the University of North Carolina School of Information and Library Science, ranking can also be gamed by matching keywords to content. Tripodi looked at the metadata of progressive and conservative companies and found that conservative content creators “are much better at doing this.”

“They are savvy at creating new sets of words and tagging their content with them,” she says. “That’s not something I’m seeing with progressive content creators.”

Tripodi says that not only does conservatism thrive online, it might be the only perspective returned.

Upgrade to paid

“They are well-funded companies with large production budgets and effective digital marketing teams,” she wrote in a 2019 testimony about conservatism and Google searches. “This is why when you search for liberal phrases like ‘gender identity’ or ‘social justice’ the top returns … are conservative content creators.”

Google declined to speak on record with Uncloseted Media for this story. 

In an email, a spokesperson said: “Like any search engine, Google indexes the content that’s available on the open web, relying on systems like keyword matching to surface relevant results. We are largely guided by local law when it comes to removing pages from search results.”

What If It’s Harmful or Illegal?

The United States notoriously protects harmful or misleading content—including anti-LGBTQ hate speech—under the First Amendment.

“The situation in [other countries] is a bit different than in America,” Lewandowski says. “For instance, Holocaust denial is illegal in Germany. So Google bans these sites, but they don’t ban them in the U.S.”

Section 230 of the U.S. law protects Americans’ freedom of expression online by implying that we should all be responsible for our own actions and statements on the internet. This law largely takes legal pressure off of Google.

And in 2003, an Oklahoma court ruled that Google’s rankings are subjective opinions and thus constitutionally protected.

Google’s policies for tamping down on harmful content “don’t apply to web results.” Thus, there is little moderation on the web pages that pop up for Americans who use the search engine. 

The spokesperson for Google says that “[they] hold themselves to a high standard when it comes to legal requirements to remove pages from Google search results” and that “they don’t remove web results except for child sexual abuse, highly personal information, spam, site owner requests, and valid legal requests.” 

But according to the company, “determining whether content is illegal is not always a determination that Google is equipped to make.” 

Tripodi says this might be why groups like FOTF are still showing up, even though conversion therapy is illegal in 23 states. She says these groups may have found a loophole in Google’s policy by “tricking” the search engine into thinking they are providing “resources” and not simply a recommendation for conversion therapy.

Upgrade to paid

What Can Google Do to Fix This?

“Google has a responsibility for what is coming up in their results because people trust [them],” says Lewandowski. “They think something is correct or accurate because it is number one in Google.”

Fifteen-year-old Genna Brown is one of the 85% of Americans who feel this way, according to a 2025 study.

“Isn’t the first result typically ranked most credible?” she says. “Because I typically trust the first result more.”

“It’s pretty concerning what comes up when you search for these things,” Ringer says. “There needs to be more done to educate the people who are doing the searches on understanding news and information.”

But vulnerable groups, like LGBTQ kids who are living in households where they are told they are going to hell and parents who are often confused and in crisis themselves, are being led by Google’s algorithm to believe that being queer is wrong.

“1000% yes, these results concern me,” says Genna Brown. “We’re talking about organizations that promote practices like conversion therapy, which is insane. … I wish there was some disclaimer. Like, ‘Google has determined this to be a subjective query. As such, we can’t verify the following results. Proceed with caution.’”

Tripodi says she thinks consumers are responsible for about 20% of the burden by researching and verifying the sources they learn from. But she agrees with Brown in that Google carries an ethical responsibility for the content it chooses to rank and promote.

“As a global corporation that gobbles up all other possibilities for information, Google has a responsibility to ensure that its content is accurate and not harmful,” Tripodi says. “[It’s their job] to ensure that the information that they surface is accurate and reliable because we know people trust that information.”

Uncloseted Media reached out to Focus on the Family, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, and Bible Bulletin Board. They did not respond to our request for comment.

Additional reporting by Sophie Holland and Spencer Macnaughton. 

If objective, nonpartisan, rigorous, LGBTQ-focused journalism is important to you, please consider making a tax-deductible donation through our fiscal sponsor, Resource Impact, by clicking this button:

/ /

Ex-police officer pleads not guilty in killing of gay TV reporter and his boyfriend

,

A former police officer in Australia has pleaded not guilty in the case of a prominent gay couple who were murdered last February. 

Beau Lamarre-Condon, 30, entered a plea of not guilty on Tuesday to two counts of domestic violence-related murder and one count of breaking and entering with the intent to commit an indictable offense. He stands accused of killing Jesse Baird and Luke Davies in February, 2024 at the couple’s shared house in Sydney.

Police believe that Lamarre-Condon used his service Glock firearm to fatally shoot the two shortly before 10 a.m. on February 19. Lamarre-Condon was reportedly previously in a sexual relationship with Baird, with investigators theorizing that Lamarre-Condon killed the couple because he was angry Baird ended their relationship.

Lamarre-Condon was arrested four days later on February 23 following a nationwide manhunt. He revealed the location of Baird and Davies’ bodies to law enforcement, leading to their discovery on February 27 at a remote rural property in the Southern Tablelands of New South Wales (NSW). The two had been stuffed into surfboard bags and hastily covered with debris.

Baird, a television host and red carpet reporter for Network 10’s morning show until its cancellation, and Davies, a flight attendant for Qantas Airlines, were beloved within the local LGBTQ+ community. Their murders took place during Mardi Gras, the Australian version of Pride Month, which commemorates the violent police raid of a gay Mardi Gras celebration in 1978.

The event has been likened to the Stonewall Riots and is considered the beginning of the country’s modern queer rights movement. In response to the murders, the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras board asked NSW not to march in the 2024 parade, saying that their presence “could intensify the current feelings of sorrow and distress.”

If convicted, Lamarre-Condon could face a sentence of lifetime imprisonment for each murder, plus an additional penalty of up to 20 years in prison for breaking and entering.

/ /

Crumbl Cookies founder Sawyer Hemsley comes out as gay

Sawyer Hemsley, founder of Crumbl Cookies who serves as the company’s Chief Branding Officer, came out as gay late Monday night after various videos and social media threads publicly discussed his sexuality based on the entrepreneur’s online presence.

Hemsley wrote in an Instagram post shared on Monday, August 25:

“Over the past little while, there have been people online trying to define me, twist things, and share conversations in ways that feel harmful. Instead of letting others write my story, I want to share it in my own words.

The truth is, over the past few years I’ve come to understand and accept that I’m gay. It’s taken me a long time to really process this part of myself and even longer to feel comfortable enough to say it out loud. For most of my life, I didn’t have the clarity to answer the questions or respond to the rumors. Coming to terms with it has been overwhelming and, at times, scary — but it has also brought me peace, joy, and authenticity that I wouldn’t trade for anything.

I grew up with values and beliefs that I still deeply love and respect, which made this journey more complicated. But I remain grateful for my foundation, even as I’ve worked to embrace this truth about myself.

I know some people may have questions or even judgments, but my hope is that kindness, empathy, and love will lead the way. I’ve learned so much through this process — about strength, compassion, and the importance of living authentically.

Hemsley concluded the post writing, “At the end of the day, I’m deeply thankful: for the opportunities I’ve had, for the people who support me, and for the chance to live and share my story. It’s a journey of growth and honesty, and one I’ll never stop being grateful for.”

A feature published on the Utah State Magazine wrote about Hemsley’s upbringing as a Mormon.

“Growing up in Southeastern Idaho, Sawyer Hemsley served as the student body president at Preston High School. He got involved in student politics again at Utah State after serving a mission in Mexico for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but following a stint as student events vice president, Hemsley took an even bigger swing and ran for student body president in the spring of 2017.”

Hemsley cofounded Crumbl Cookies alongside Jason McGowan in 2017 and opened the company’s first store in Logan, Utah. Since then, Crumbl has grown to have “more than 1,000 locations across the United States, Puerto Rico and Canada,” The New York Times reports.

Crumbl also has a huge social media following that includes 10.6 million followers (along with 98.9 million likes) on TikTok, 6.3 million followers on Instagram, 3.9 million followers on Facebook, and nearly 3 million subscribers on YouTube.

«‹ 12 13 14 15›»