According to findings from the Human Rights Campaign Foundation’s 17th Annual LGBTQ+ Community Survey, the proliferation of bans on gender affirming care in conservative states have had “striking” impacts on “the health and well-being of LGBTQ+ adults.”
For example, 79.1 percent of respondents reported feeling less safe as an LGBTQ person as a result of these health care restrictions, while nearly half said the policies affected the physical and/or mental health of themselves or their loved ones.
Some of the specific negative consequences of gender affirming care bans, 80.5 percent of respondents said, include the worsening of “harmful stereotypes, discrimination, hate, and stigma against the LGBTQ+ community.”
HRC conducted the survey, which included more than 14,000 LGBTQ adult participants from all 50 states and D.C., in partnership with Community Marketing and Insights, publishing the findings in a report released on Thursday.
The group noted more than 80 anti-LGBTQ bills were passed in statehouses across the country so far in 2023, including bans on guideline directed gender affirming health care that are now enforced in 19 states — which, collectively, are home to a third of all trans youth in the U.S.
Along with addressing the survey questions, participants submitted written responses that provide more information and context about the ways in which their lives have been impacted by the anti-trans legislation.
For example, the survey’s finding that more than half of transgender and non-binary adults nationwide “would move — or already have moved — from a state that passed or enacted a gender-affirming care ban” is preceded by a quote from a trans/nonbinary man about the emotional decision of having to flee his home state:
“My home state, where I no longer live, is one of the states most affected by the wave of legislation,” he said. “My community there is in so much pain, and it pains me very much that I may never be able to visit home again.”
Anti-trans policies have profoundly shaped how LGBTQ adults organize their lives, the data shows, influencing decisions about where they live, work, go to school, and spend their money.
HRC’s report includes a section on Florida, noting it had issued a travel advisory on the risks of visiting or relocating to the state as a result of the “extremely anti-LGBTQ+ agenda” pushed by its Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, who, by running for president, “has threatened to bring his discriminatory policymaking to the national level.”
“I feel like I am losing my basic rights over my body and my right to exist in public spaces,” wrote a transmasculine/nonbinary Floridian. “I feel dehumanized.”
Redistricting and updated political maps are at the heart of American democracy.
Every 10 years, the U.S. Census Bureau tells lawmakers the demographics of their constituents, and likely, how they’ll vote. Lawmakers then redraw districts, in many cases, along partisan lines to give advantage to a specific party. This process, called gerrymandering, is at the heart of state legislatures across the country, and poses a significant challenge to LGBTQ rights in many states.
Gerrymandering has been at the heart of multiple court challenges since the 2020 election. As of July, 74 cases have been filed challenging district maps in 27 states as racially discriminatory or partisan gerrymanders.
While the conversation around gerrymandering often focuses on race or political affiliation, the LGBTQ community is often left out, despite having massive voting power.
The LGBTQ community has utilized its voting power for a long time, and famously elected Harvey Milk, the U.S.’s first openly gay person to hold public office, to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1977. Since then, the number of openly-LGBTQ politicians is growing, with a record number expected to run in 2024.
Redistricting played a powerful role in Milk’s election. Despite the LGBTQ population making up one fifth of San Francisco’s voters at the time, the city’s at-large electoral system — where council members were elected by the whole city — put LGBTQ neighborhoods at a disadvantage.
Milk and other activists led the fight to change the city’s electoral system to district contests, and in 1977, Milk won his seat on the council.
The LGBTQ+ Victory Fund launched a first-of-its-kind campaign to lobby for redistricting that considers LGBTQ populations in map-drawing. The “We Belong Together” campaign, launched following the 2020 election, has two main focuses: Encourage LGBTQ organizations to lobby to keep LGBTQ areas intact and to gather data showing where LGBTQ communities are located within legislative districts.
“[We worked on] basically how to identify large groupings of LGBTQ people, and then advocate to the decision makers who are doing a lot to say, ‘Hey, this is a community of interest, and you need to make sure that they stick together,’” Victory Fund Vice President of Political Programs Sean Meloy said.
Communities of interest are communities of people that are grouped by a common factor — often race and class — that’s taken into account when redistricting happens. LGBTQ people aren’t classified as a community of interest in many states due to sexual orientation not being part of the census.
“A lot of other demographics are accounted for in the census,” Meloy said. “[The Census Bureau] did a pulse survey recently that asked about LGBTQ people. And that’s a great step in a great direction because every community and demographic has unique vulnerabilities, unique issues that government should understand so that they can help address them because they’re all people that they’re supposed to be working on behalf of.”
The Household Pulse Survey was launched in 2020 and tracks a wide variety of household data including, but not limited to, employment, housing security and access to health care. The survey also tracks sexual orientation and gender identity. According to the Census Bureau’s website, the survey tracks how “emergent issues are impacting households across the country from a social and economic perspective.”
Meloy said that this data collected by the Bureau allows for groups like the Victory Fund to draw maps of “centralized areas where there are same sex married couples.” Using the maps, groups can lobby mapmakers to not “draw a line right through” these communities, dividing up their voting power.
Arizona, California, Colorado, Michigan and Montana are all states where maps are drawn by nonpartisan commissions — as opposed to lawmakers drawing the maps — and are the top targets of LGBTQ outreach going into the 2024 election cycle.
“They have fairer districts, and a lot of those states have districts that actually do respect LGBTQ people as communities of interest, and so you know, we had more LGBTQ led legislators elected in California and in Arizona and in Colorado,” Meloy said.
Other areas, such as New York, Fort Lauderdale, Atlanta and Boise, Idaho, could all see an increase in LGBTQ public officials if LGBTQ voters were taken into account in redistricting, according to Victory Fund.
“We know that once we elect some LGBTQ people, there is a domino effect that people feel they can come out, they can be in office, it breaks that barrier,” Meloy said. “And we’ve seen that in a lot of other places over the last 30 years, but we still have a lot of places that we need to continue breaking down those little barriers.”
The U.N body on the HIV pandemic has raised concerns over a spike in the disease among gay and transgender people in eastern and southern Africa due to harsh anti-homosexuality laws.
The UNAIDS in its latest 2023 Global AIDS Update reportreleased last month notes laws criminalizing consensual same-sex relations have remained a major obstacle in preventing and treating HIV among the LGBTQ community. These statutes have been enacted in the region the disease has impacted the most and in a part of Africa that has seen significant progress in reducing the number of new HIV infections.
New HIV infections have dropped by 57 percent and AIDS-related deaths have decreased by 58 percent among heterosexual people since 2010.
“HIV incidence has reduced substantially by 73 percent since 2010 among adult men aged 15–49 years, but it is not declining among gay men and other men who have sex with men,” reads the 196-page UNAIDS report.
HIV prevalence in 2022 around the world was 11 times higher among gay men aged 15-49 years, compared to heterosexual men within the same age bracket and 14 times higher among trans people.
The report reveals the HIV prevalence among gay men stands at 12.9 percent and 42.8 percent for trans persons in 21 of 24 surveyed countries in eastern and southern Africa where a total of 20.8 million people in live with the virus.
The disease remains rife among gay men and trans people and efforts to combat it among the aforementioned population continues to lag because of stigma and discrimination in accessing equitable HIV care from anti-homosexuality laws in Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania and in other countries.
A total of 67 countries in the world criminalize homosexuality, with nearly half of them being in Africa. Twenty countries criminalize trans people.
A recent survey in 10 sub-Saharan African countries showed HIV prevalence among gay men was five times higher in countries that criminalize consensual same-sex relationships compared Rwanda and South Africa and other nations that don’t.
The survey also notes HIV prevalence was 12 times higher in countries that use anti-homosexuality laws to prosecute gay men, compared to nations without such prosecutions. It also notes HIV prevalence was more than nine times higher in countries that curtail the operations of pro-LGBTQ civil society organizations, compared to nations that do not obstruct them.
UNAIDS Executive Director Winnie Byanyima noted HIV/AIDS killed one person every minute last year. She also called for stronger collaboration and equality to end the disease by 2030.
“HIV responses succeed when they are anchored in strong political leadership to follow the evidence, tackle the inequalities holding back progress, enable communities and civil society organizations in their vital roles in the response and ensure sufficient and sustainable funding,” she said.
The UNAIDS report points out gay men and trans people are left out of HIV treatment programs in eastern and southern Africa, where coverage among adult women stands at 86 percent and men at 78 percent.
The neglect that punitive laws and police harassment exacerbates has, in turn, led to HIV prevention gaps that increase the risk of transmission and limit access to services and sabotages efforts to decrease the impact of the virus among the group.
Uganda this year enacted the Anti-Homosexuality Act with a death penalty provision for “aggravated homosexuality” and severe punishment for organizations the government claims promote homosexuality. A similar punitive bill is set to be introduced in Kenya’s Parliament.
Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni’s decision to sign the Anti-Homosexuality Act in May saw a U.S.-funded HIV treatment clinic in Kampala that normally sees dozens of patients a day almost deserted because clients, many of them gay, feared arrest.
“Removal or reform of these laws in line with public health evidence would boost the HIV response and the human rights of people from marginalized populations, particularly, key populations who continue to have much higher HIV prevalence than the general population,” the UNAIDS report states.
In 2022, a total of $9.8 billion meant for universal HIV financing in eastern and southern Africa was spent. Thirty-nine percent of this money was domestic funding, while the rest came from the Global Fund, UNAIDS, the U.S. Agency for International Development and other international donor organizations. Botswana, Kenya and South Africa contributed the largest share of donor funding.
UNAIDS asks countries to use disaggregated data to effectively identify populations to ensure the LGBTQ community and other key groups are not left out of HIV care since many countries lack programs and size estimates. UNAIDS also requests stronger action against stigma and discrimination at healthcare facilities in order to increase access and use of HIV testing and treatment services by all people, regardless of their sexual orientation.
“Failure to protect people from key populations against HIV will prolong the pandemic indefinitely at great cost to the affected communities and societies,” warns UNAIDS.
UNAIDS notes Singapore and other countries last year repealed laws that criminalize consensual same-sex sexual relations and trans people and introduced statutes that protect gender identity. UNAIDS, nevertheless, in its report raised concerns over an increase in homophobia and transphobia in countries that prompt the introduction of anti-homosexuality laws.
More than two dozen HIV/AIDS advocacy organizations and LGBTQ supportive health centers have filed two separate friend-of-the-court or amicus legal briefs supporting the appeal of a Texas court decision earlier this year that the advocacy groups say would greatly reduce health insurance coverage of the HIV prevention medication known as PrEP.
The two amicus briefs filed by the advocacy organizations in June express strong support for the Biden administration’s appeal of a March 30, 2023, ruling by Judge Reed O’Connor for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. O’Connor’s ruling struck down a provision of the U.S. Affordable Care Act that requires insurers to provide full coverage of preventive care services without co-pay or cost-sharing fees, including coverage for PrEP.
“As an organization representing thousands of physicians and other health care professionals working on the frontlines of the HIV epidemic in communities across the country, we are deeply concerned about the harmful and far-reaching impacts this decision will have if allowed to stand,” said Dr. Michelle Cespedes, chair of the HIV Medicine Association, one of the groups that filed the second of the two amicus briefs opposing the court ruling.
“Reinstating cost-sharing for PrEP would directly cause tens of thousands of preventable cases of HIV transmission and set back decades of progress toward curbing the epidemic,” she said in a statement.
In response to the appeal of the District court decision filed by the U.S. Department of Justice on behalf of the Department of Health and Human Services, which administers the Affordable Care Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit issued an administrative stay placing the lower court ruling on hold while the appeal process moves forward.
The case is called Braidwood Management Inc. et. al v. Becerra. Court records show that Braidwood, a management services company described as Christian owned, Kelley Orthodontics, also described as Christian owned, and six individuals in Texas jointly filed the lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act in September 2022.
U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra, whose name appears on the case, is among the federal officials in charge of administering the Affordable Care Act. The law is sometimes referred to as “Obama Care” after former President Barack Obama who initiated the expansive healthcare legislation that was passed by Congress.
The Braidwood company and the other plaintiffs that filed the lawsuit seeking to overturn the Affordable Care Act provision related to preventive care argue in court filings that forcing them to provide financial coverage to PrEP, among other things, is unconstitutional and violates their religious rights under the U.S. Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
“Notably, the plaintiffs state the requirement to cover PrEP ‘imposes a substantial burden on the religious freedom of those who oppose homosexual behavior on religious grounds,’ claiming further that PrEP drugs ‘facilitate and encourage homosexual behavior, prostitution, sexual promiscuity, and intravenous drug use,’” according to KFF, on online independent news publication that covers health policy issues.
The publication, which analyzed the court filings in the case, says the plaintiffs also contend that the Affordable Care Act’s preventive services provision violates the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which they argue requires government officials making important health care decisions under the Affordable Care Act be nominated to office by the president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.
In their lawsuit challenging the preventive services provision, the plaintiffs note that under the Affordable Care Act, decisions on how to define preventive services that must be covered under the act are now made by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, whose members are not confirmed by the Senate.
The U.S. government appeal of the Texas District court ruling, and the amicus briefs filed by the AIDS advocacy organizations and other groups, including D.C. ‘s Whitman-Walker Health and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, strongly dispute the plaintiff’s assertions.
“We must not allow a couple of individuals who want to discriminate against people who use PrEP and don’t support insurance coverage of preventive services, such as HIV and hepatitis B and C testing, to destroy the public health of our country,” said Carl Schmid, executive director of the HIV-Hepatitis Policy Institute, one of 25 advocacy group that filed a joint amicus brief on June 23.
“We filed this amicus brief to emphasize the important role testing for HIV and hepatitis plays in linking people to life-saving medications and, in the case of hepatitis C, curative treatment, along with the importance of helping people know if they have an infectious disease,” Schmid said in a statement.
“We sought to emphasize that purchasing insurance that includes coverage of PrEP for HIV in no way burdens the ability of plaintiffs to exercise their religion,” said Richard Hughes IV, the lead attorney for the joint amicus filing by the 25 advocacy groups. “In fact, we suggest to the court that granting exemptions for PrEP coverage would have far-reaching and absurd consequences for our society,” Hughes said.
The other amicus brief filed June 28 by the HIV Medicine Association (HIVMA) and the National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors (NASTAD), which represent thousands of physicians and other health care providers throughout the U.S., points out that if the Texas lower court ruling is allowed to stand, tens of thousands of people who rely on preventive care coverage from their health insurance policies will likely lose that coverage.
“Copays and deductibles deter people from accessing healthcare,” said Ben Klein, Senior Director of Litigation and HIV Law at the GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, known as GLAD, which is representing the two groups that filed the second amicus brief. “PrEP is nearly 100 percent effective at preventing transmission of HIV, but it is already underutilized, particularly among Black and Latino communities,” Klein said in a statement.
“As the brief filed today by HIVMA and NASTAD demonstrates, allowing the lower court’s ruling in Braidwood v. Bacerra to stand will exacerbate racial health disparities, increase new HIV diagnoses by the tens of thousands, and have devastating consequences on our efforts to end the epidemic,” Klein said.
The mass shooting in Colorado Springs last November that killed five people inside an LGBTQ nightclub served as a tragic reminder that the hate directed at our community can have deadly consequences.
In the wake of the killings, anti-LGBTQ right-wing figures celebrated on social media and advocated for copycat attacks, prompting bar owners around the country to step up security.
Instead of inspiring lawmakers to pass pro-LGBTQ measures, the shooting turned out to be a precursor to an unprecedented slew of legislative attacks, with more than 450 bills introduced targeting trans healthcare, drag shows, and affirming library books in state houses around the country.
This legislative assault on our equality has consequences beyond restricting the rights of queer people in those states. I recently heard from a mother in progressive, blue Maryland who said her trans daughter wants to sleep with a gun under her pillow because she fears a physical attack despite living in a supportive home.
As state legislatures finally wind down for the year, the ACLU reports that 15 states introduced more than 10 bills each targeting the community.
For trans people, the prospect of having to flee their home states “doesn’t feel theoretical anymore,” Ari Drennen, LGBTQ program director for Media Matters for America, told the Blade last week. “And it’s hard to not be alarmed about the direction that this is all heading,” she said.
The Blade has also been on the receiving end of recent attacks and threats. A few weeks back, I wrote an op-ed criticizing Fox News for its homophobic smear of Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg. Immediately after it was published, I began receiving the usual hate mail filled with anti-gay slurs. But then things escalated. The Blade’s website was hacked and taken down for several hours. The next day, the Blade’s phone system was hacked. Later, we received an email that contained a threat against gay people, which we reported to the D.C. police. Hacker attacks on the Washington Blade and Los Angeles Blade websites have since exploded, resulting in down time and resources spent to restore service and upgrade security.
All of these coordinated, well-funded attacks on LGBTQ equality are culminating just as our community prepares to celebrate Pride month in a few weeks. And it all comes amid the backdrop of a frightening rise in mass shootings, the latest claiming eight lives this weekend at a shopping mall in Texas. As of Monday, we have seen 202 mass shootings in 2023; more than 6,000 Americans have been killed so far this year in homicides, murders, or unintentional shootings, according to the Gun Violence Archive. Those numbers will be higher by week’s end.
As Pride season arrives, community leaders must work with local police and other law enforcement officials to take sensible steps to protect our celebrations. Activists have rightly questioned the presence of uniformed police at some events, but we must explore all avenues to protect ourselves from these growing threats.
In the meantime, elected officials — mostly Republicans — must reconsider their anti-LGBTQ invective. Their legislative attacks and transphobic propaganda endanger lives and frighten queer youth, exposing them to discrimination and violence.
And if you think these attacks on queer youth are only happening in far-flung places in the rural South, think again. I spent Saturday at the Howard County Rainbow Conference in suburban Maryland, where queer youth and their parents attended book readings, enjoyed outdoor activities, and explored an exhibition hall filled with supportive resources from area non-profits. Just beneath the festive atmosphere, many parents I spoke with expressed fear for their children’s futures. One teacher reminded me that in neighboring Carroll County, officials have banned the display of Pride flags on school property. Right-wing figures disguised as “concerned moms” are infiltrating local school boards in counties all over the country, pushing ever more restrictive policies targeting our youth.
So let’s use Pride month to celebrate our progress, but also to commit to another generational fight to preserve and expand on those wins and to counter all the dangerous attacks from our enemies.
Kevin Naff is editor of the Washington Blade. Reach him at [email protected].
Just two weeks after World Athletics banned transgender women from competing in track and field, another organization has pulled the plug on trans women competing in swim meets with other women.
Swim England updated its “Transgender and Nonbinary Competition Policy” Monday to reflect that starting on Sept. 1, only cisgender women will be able to take part on so-called “female teams,” and a new “open” category will be created for nonbinary and trans women swimmers and anyone else who wants to compete outside of the binary, cisgender-based categories.
The organization stated, “Swim England believes that the restriction of certain competition to birth sex females to be justified and proportionate in the pursuit of fair competition,” and claims its new policy “has inclusion and fairness at its very heart,” but trans inclusion advocates criticized the move as exclusionary and disappointing.
“It is widely recognized that fairness of competition must be protected and Swim England believes the creation of open and female categories is the best way to achieve this,” officials wrote in a statement on the group’s website. “The updated policy ensures there are entry-level competitive opportunities for transgender people to participate in the majority of our disciplines within their gender identity.”
But while those entry-level chances will provide a provision for athletes to self-ID at these low-level “unlicensed” events, such as recreational races, timings and scores posted at these events will not be applicable to Swim England rankings or eligible as records. Which is, of course, the point of competitive swimming.
American trans man and trailblazing swimmer Schuyler Bailar called the new policy “transphobic,” noting that by setting an age limit of 12 to have transitioned or gone on puberty blockers, Swim England has effectively excluded all trans women and girls.
“This is not about preserving fairness, this is not about protecting women’s sports, it is about excluding trans people,” he said in a social media post.
“While trans kids can play authentically in non-competitive environments, the policy fundamentally denies trans girls the right to compete as themselves,” said the British trans support outfit,
U.S. House Republicans on Friday passed the Parents Bill of Rights Act, a proposal that would require public schools to share educational materials with parents and also contains provisions that would trigger the outing of LGBTQ students without their consent.
Critics say the legislation’s professed purpose, to equip parents with the information necessary for them to better engage with their children’s educators, is a pretext for its ultimate goals: For schools to censor out content addressing race, or materials containing LGBTQ characters or themes, while also discouraging LGBTQ students from being out at school.
The Congressional Equality Caucus noted the likelihood of that outcome in a statement Friday denouncing the bill, which the group’s chair, U.S. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.), called “dangerous” — pointing to its requirement for “schools to forcibly out transgender students, even if it puts those youth in harm’s way.”
“All children deserve access to a safe and affirming school environment,” Takano said in the statement. “Transgender youth have enough challenges already due to harassment, bullying, and anti-transgender state laws,” he said, adding, “My colleagues who voted for this bill should be ashamed.”
House members voted 213-208 for passage of the Parents Bill of Rights, or House Resolution 5, with Republican U.S. Reps. Andy Biggs (Ariz.), Ken Buck (Colo.), Matt Gaetz (Fla.), Mike Lawler (N.Y.) and Matt Rosendale (Mont.) voting against the legislation with every Democratic member. The bill was first introduced by GOP Rep. Julia Letlow (La.).
With Democrats’ control of the U.S. Senate, movement on the bill will almost certainly be stopped once it reaches the upper chamber, but it may nevertheless still have a harmful impact on the country’s LGBTQ youth.
For example, the National Institutes of Health published a peer reviewed study last year that found a link between anti-trans legislation and “suicide and depression-related Internet searches” using a dataset comprising 40 bills that were introduced and reached committee, of which three were passed and signed into law.
The caucus’ statement noted HR 5 contains “two provisions that would require schools that take steps to respect a student’s gender identity to forcibly out those transgender youth to their parents” along with another that would allow parents to access their children’s answers to survey questions, answers that might include information about a student’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
The risk that their parents will be able to see their answers will incentivize many students to lie about these and other questions, which the caucus said will undermine the federal government’s ability to collect important demographic, statistical and survey data on America’s LGBTQ youth.
Exacerbating that problem is another provision in the legislation, which requires parents to “opt-in” if their children would be asked to share their sexual orientation or gender identity.
America’s largest LGBTQ advocacy organization, the Human Rights Campaign, also issued a statement Friday condemning HR 5.
“The bill, which picks and chooses which families have rights and which don’t, has occupied the chamber’s time while extremist House leaders continue neglecting the very real and urgent problems facing our schools, such as gun violence, teacher shortages and educational inequality,” the group said in its statement.
HRC also noted the legislation’s potential to trigger forcible outing of LGBTQ youth “would endanger students instead of fulfilling school officials’ obligation to make judgments on a case-by-case basis in the best interests of the students under their supervision.”
The organization said it expects House Republicans to move “in coming weeks” on House Resolution 734, “a bill to ban participation by transgender youth in school sports,” and drew parallels between the Parents Bill of Rights Act and the “curriculum censorship seen in harmful, unnecessary bills passed in state legislatures recently.”
U.S. Rep. Melanie Stanbury (D-N.M.), a member of the Equality Caucus, echoed that message in her statement Friday, writing that HR 5 was “modeled after bills passed at the state level, which have censored the teaching of American history, allowed book bans, and violated the safety and privacy of transgender and LGBTQ+ students.”
The White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy on Monday addressing the bill, writing “the administration does not support HR 5 in its current form because the bill does not actually help parents support their children at school” and “moreover, instead of making LGBTQI+ students feel included in their school community, it puts them at higher risk.”
The Southern Poverty Law Center Action Fund published a statement Tuesday condemning the Republican-controlled Georgia Legislature’s passage of S.B. 140, a bill that will criminalize gender-affirming health care for minors.
The statement, issued by Beth Littrell, senior supervising attorney of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s LGBTQ and Special Litigation Practice Group, urges Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R) to veto S.B. 140, calling on him to not “give into pressure from his party” when “the health and wellbeing of young people are at risk” through the denial of “safe, effective medical treatment to transgender youth — based only on prejudice and political pandering.”
Kemp should “leave personal healthcare decisions in the capable hands of parents, children, and their doctors,” Littrell’s statement continues. “We hope the governor will elevate himself and the State of Georgia above this cynical partisan attack on transgender youth, medical autonomy, and parental rights.”
S.B. 140 specifically prohibits “sex reassignment surgeries, or any other surgical procedures, that are performed for the purpose of altering primary or secondary sexual characteristics” when they are “performed on a minor for the treatment of gender dysphoria.”
“Limited exceptions” are made for the treatment of conditions other than gender dysphoria, if deemed medically necessary by the physician or healthcare practitioner, and for the treatment of patients with “a medically verifiable disorder of sex development.”
The mainstream medical societies with relevant clinical expertise have repeatedly spoken out against legislation that limits access to or criminalizes, as in the case of Georgia’s bill, guideline directed interventions for the treatment of trans and gender nonconforming youth.
On March 16, far-right GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who represents Georgia’s 14th Congressional District, called for the state legislature to make the bill more restrictive.
Specifically, in a tweet she urged the lawmakers to amend S.B. 140 such that treatment of gender dysphoria in minor patients with puberty blockers would be criminalized alongside the other interventions covered in the bill and also to remove the covered exceptions.
Two anti-transgender bills advanced in the Virginia House of Delegates on Monday.
A House Education Subcommittee by a 5-3 margin voted to advance state Del. Dave LaRock (R-Loudoun County)’s House Bill 2432, which Equality Virginia notes “would require public school personnel to contact a student’s parent if they believe that the student’s self-identified gender does not align with their ‘biological sex.’” The House Higher Education Subcommittee by a 6-4 margin advanced state Del. Karen Greenhalgh (R-Virginia Beach)’s House Bill 1387, which would ban transgender athletes from school sports teams that correspond with their gender identity.
Both bills will now go before the full House Education Committee.
The House Early Childhood/Innovation Subcommittee last week voted unanimously to kill state Del. Jason Ballard (R-Giles County)’s House Bill 1434, which would have required trans students to obtain a court order to update their name in school records. The Senate Public Education Subcommittee on Jan. 26 also tabled three measures that would have banned trans athletes from school teams corresponding with their gender identity.
Republicans currently control the House of Delegates by a 51-47 margin. Democrats, who have a 22-18 majority in the state Senate, have said they will oppose any anti-LGBTQ measure that reaches their chamber.
A conversative Chilean newspaper’s article on Sunday that said the Women and Gender Equity Ministry was preparing to introduce a bill that would create an LGBTQ and intersex rights undersecretariat prompted mixed reactions across the country.
The ministry in 2022 launched its first “LGBTIQA+ Roundtable” that includes representatives of different public institutions, organizations and Chilean LGBTQ and intersex activists who are working to improve the quality of life for the country’s queer community that over the last year has seen an increase in attacks and hate crimes.
LGBTQ and intersex rights in Chile have gained ground over the last decade.
Civil unions, marriage equality, transgender rights and an anti-discrimination law are some of the successes that took time to take effect. There is, however, no state institution or public policy that works to ensure historically discriminated LGBTQ and intersex Chileans are included. This is why activists feel the “LGBTIQA+ Roundtable” that President Gabriel Boric’s government is promoting is an unprecedented opportunity.
Forty-two organizations from across Chile participated in the roundtable during its first year, which culminated on Jan. 6 with the signing of an agreement between the Women and Gender Equity Ministry’s Women and Gender Equality Undersecretariat and the Interior and Public Safety Ministry’s Crime Prevention Undersecretariat to assist people across the country who are victims of anti-LGBTQ attacks. The roundtable at the same time also announced it will send a bill to Congress later in 2023 that would expand the ministry’s mandate to ensure “the LGBTIQA+ community is included.”
There has yet to be an announcement on the creation of an LGBTQ and intersex undersecretariat.
Most Chilean media outlets covered this report after El Mercurio published it on Sunday. José Antonio Kast, an extreme right-wing politician who is a former presidential candidate, on his Twitter account criticized what turned out to be inaccurate.
“Chile is poorer, more violent and insecure than a year ago and the inept government is dedicated to enlarge the State to deepen its ideological agenda, instead of solving social urgencies,” wrote the Republican Party leader.
The ministry told the Washington Blade that “the roundtable with organizations from the LGBTIQA+ community has just been finalized.”
“One of the demands is to have an institutionality,” said the ministry. “During 2023 it will be defined which is the progressive path, while the anti-discrimination law is improved at the same time.”
Women and Gender Equity Undersecretary Luz Vidal Huiriqueo on her social media networks said “we met with LGBTQ+ organizations for seven months” and the ministry made “security, employment and health priorities.”
“On the 1st we advanced in an agreement with (the Crime Prevention Undersecretariat) to properly address and for the long challenges we committed to propose an institutional mechanism,” said Vidal.
Vidal said in an exclusive interview with the Blade before El Mercurio published its inaccurate report that “finding and giving answers to the demands of the LGBTIQA+ population in Chile is a commitment for President Gabriel Boric’s government that will not be put aside for anything.”
“We at the (Women and Gender Equality Ministry) have embraced the day-to-day needs that this community, in many cases, has to survive,” said Vidal from her office. “That is why, from our ministry, we have created this intergovernmental roundtable to have a fluid and permanent communication with LGBTIQA+ organizations.
Vidal added Boric “instructed us to move from discourse to action.”
“We have to get to work. We have to implement the agreements,” said Vidal. “We can’t just make pretty announcements and that is our commitment. The commitment we have today is to work for women, for gender equity, for and with the entire population, in favor of all citizens and of those who lack the presence of the State.”
The undersecretary told the Blade the need to incorporate the queer community into the ministry’s work is important because “the State, as of today, has no powers to specifically address the LGBTQ+ population.”
“We need to create a progressive path that, whether an institutional or other figure, allows us to implement public policies,” she said.
That supposed institutionality was the one that sparked controversy last Sunday and it will not be an easy path, regardless of the mechanism that Boric’s government ultimately chooses to implement.
“I think it is not going to be an easy process,” said Vidal. “It is not going to be a project that we can say, we are going to take them out at the end of the year, that is clear to us. Even today it is difficult to move forward with projects or the work that the ministry is doing because we currently have a Congress with political forces that are against inclusion and respect for diversity. This is present in our Congress, and it is also present in several Latin American countries.”
Emilia Schneider, Chile’s first trans congresswoman, on the other hand told the Blade that “it seems to me that the announcement of an institutional framework for the LGBTI community within the Women’s Ministry, and also in what has been working with the Justice Ministry to advance in an institutional framework against discrimination, regarding the reform of the Anti-Discrimination Law are two fundamental steps to advance in dignity and rights for sexual diversities and dissidences.”
Schneider said it is important “to make a permanent change in the State, which recognizes the importance of having a space that responds to the needs of the queer population and takes charge of combating inequality, discrimination and violence to which our community is exposed.”
“It seems to me that this is one of the most important commitments, which if realized would be a fundamental legacy of this government in matters of sexual diversity and dissidence,” she said.
Ignacia Oyarzun, coordinator of public policies for Asociación OTD Chile, the country’s most important trans rights organization, said the implementation of an institutional framework to advance LGBTQ and intersex rights “is an advance that goes in the direction of establishing what will be a trans labor quota to achieve a greater integration of the community in society.”
Oyarzun noted employers do not hire people who are trans, or fire them without reason. This lack of employment opportunities, according to Asociación OTD Chile, makes trans people more vulnerable to violence.
Jorge Muñoz of Movimiento Organizado de Gays, Lesbianas, Trans y Heterosexuales (MOGALETH) in Puerto Montt, a city that is roughly 640 miles south of the capital of Santiago, also participated in the roundtable. Muñoz told the Blade that “any approach from the central power to civil society, and especially to the regions, is positive.”
“In this context, we consider it an advance in terms of the demands of the collective in the struggle for the recognition of the historical violation of our rights,” said Muñoz. “The State’s recognition of mistreatment and hate speech towards dissidents has historically been centralized. The regions where we also suffer harassment, mistreatment, difficulties in access to health, education and work have been relegated throughout history. In this sense, what we value most is the recognition of our demands in the territorial context.”