Days after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tennessee could ban gender-affirming health care for minors, Florida officials argued the decision allows them to deny coverage to adults.
In August, a federal judge ruled Florida cannot legally deny health care coverage for gender-affirming care to state employees. The state appealed that decision to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
After the June Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Skrmetti, which upheld a Tennessee law banning hormone therapy and puberty blockers only for transgender minors, appellate judges asked both sides in the Florida case if the verdict impacted arguments.
Attorneys representing the state of Florida said the Skrmetti ruling opened the door to government dictating health care decisions, according to CBS news.
“There were good reasons for the State law in Skrmetti,” wrote Florida attorney Mohammad Jazil in a court brief. Jazil went on to quote from Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts’ 6-3 majority ruling inSkrmetti, adding: “The State legislature ‘concluded that there is an ongoing debate among medical experts regarding the risks and benefits associated with administering puberty blockers and hormones to treat gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, and gender incongruence. … ‘The law’s ban on such procedures responds directly to that uncertainty.’”
But attorneys for Kori Dekker and other plaintiffs challenging Florida’s denial of coverage say Skrmetti should have no bearing on their lawsuit centered around insurance coverage, noting that Skrmetti was “fairly limited in its scope and breadth.” The ruling also importantly did not reverse prior Supreme Court decisions affirming transgender rights, most notably the 2020 ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, which affirmed that employers cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
“Skrmetti did not reject Plaintiffs’ arguments that classifications based on transgender status are subject to heightened scrutiny, as Plaintiffs have argued here,” reads a brief filed by attorney Omar Gonzalez-Pagan.
The Supreme Court also recently ruled that Planned Parenthood cannot challenge South Carolina’s termination of the organization’s Medicaid funding because it provides abortions. Appellate judges also asked how the Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic ruling impacted Florida’s ability to dictate coverage. Jazil argued that it affirms Florida’s ability to regulate Medicaid spending on transgender health care.
“Anything short of some clear and unambiguous rights-creating language prevents a private enforcement suit,” he wrote.
But Gonzalez-Pagan said the state hasn’t made such an argument before.
Moreover, plaintiffs’ attorneys say none of the recent high court decisions mean Florida has can now intentionally discriminate against transgender people by denying health care coverage.
“It is not—and cannot be—the law that transgender people are strangers to our Constitution’s protections against invidious governmental discrimination,” Gonzalez-Pagan’s brief reads. “Skrmetti does not bless nor give license to such discrimination.”
Luke Ash, a southern Baptist pastor, was recently fired from his technician job at Louisiana’s East Baton Rouge (EBR) Parish Library after he repeatedly misgendered his coworker. Now he’s claiming that he was fired for his religious beliefs, and an anti-LGBTQ+ hate group leader and other conservative and religious leaders are sharing his story while they all try to get the library defunded.
Ash recently told Tony Perkins, leader of the anti-LGBTQ+ hate group the Family Research Council, that on July 7, he misgendered someone who uses male pronouns. “I refused to use those preferred pronouns,” Ash said. “The next day, I was reprimanded by my supervisor and the head of reference, and Thursday morning, I was fired.”
On July 8, his manager gave him a copy of the library’s inclusivity policy, which says that the library is a place where everyone is “welcomed, accepted, and respected,” and that everyone has the right to be addressed by their pronouns, blogger Hemant Mehta reported.
Perkins wrote, “It is somewhat ironic that the library has a policy not to fine patrons who do not return books on time or return them at all, yet they fire employees who refuse to engage in forced speech, and play along with a lie.”
Ash told the local news station WBRZ that he disagreed with the policy, saying, “There are, like I said, religious convictions and then there are other kinds of convictions, and when those things are in contradiction with one another, there has to be given preference to one or the other.”
On July 10, Ash sent a letter to Baton Rouge Mayor-President Sid Edwards asking him to “defund” the library over its inclusivity policy.
After Perkins and WBRZ shared his story, Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill (R) wrote via social media, “Louisiana law prohibits discrimination based on religion in the workplace. This was a public employee in a taxpayer funded public library.”
“Government can’t force you to violate your conscience or deeply held religious beliefs,” Murrill added. “This isn’t California or New York. In Louisiana, a Christian has rights just like anyone else.”
Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry also wrote via social media, “Louisianans should never lose their job because they refuse to lie! Louisiana is the real world, and in the real world, preferred pronouns don’t exist— only biological ones!”
Landry made his comment on a re-post from the anti-LGBTQ+ account Libs of TikTok, which is run by Chaya Raichik. The account has been linked to numerous death threats against children, teachers, medical professionals, and LGBTQ+ allies.
“He was just FIRED from a PUBLIC library in Louisiana for refusing to use a co-worker’s ‘preferred pronouns’ because it goes against his religious beliefs,” Raichik wrote. “This is INSANE. This library… receives our tax dollars. Get Luke his job back or defund this library!”
On July 17, David Goza and Lewis Richardson – the leaders of Jefferson and Woodlawn Baptist Churches, respectively – wrote a letter to the East Baton Rouge Parish Library Board telling them to re-hire Ash and end “all DEI-directed policies” that led to his termination. The letter called the library’s inclusivity policy “a blatant infringement upon the God-given conscience and First Amendment protections of religion and speech.”
“Such a policy is not inclusive — it is coercive,” the letter stated. “It creates a hostile environment for anyone who holds to historic Christian beliefs about sex and gender. This is not tolerance; this is tyranny of ideology.”
Logan Wolf — a board member at Forum for Equality, Louisiana’s LGBTQ+ human rights organization — told WBRZ, “You just have to treat someone with basic decency, and I think that’s at the crux here.”
“[Ash] willingly violated policies and procedures of the EBR library towards another employee, and I think that’s not okay.”
Over 80% of transgender employees have experienced discrimination or harassment in the workplace during their lifetime, according to a November 2024 study by the Williams Institute. Trans people are twice as likely as cisgender LGB employees to experience workplace discrimination.
In the 2020 Supreme Court decision Bostock v. Clayton County, the court ruled that trans employees should be protected against anti-LGBTQ+ workplace discrimination based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The current presidential administration and religious conservatives have increasingly tried to narrow the impact of this ruling, claiming that it violates anti-LGBTQ+ “religious freedom.”
Puerto Rico’sRepublican Gov. Jenniffer González-Colón signed into law Wednesday a far-reaching ban on gender-affirming medical care for transgenderpeople under 21, enacting one of the harshest measures of its kind in the United States and its territories and prompting swift condemnation from medical experts and LGBTQ+ advocates.
The law, Senate Bill 350, prohibits the use of puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and gender-affirming surgeries for anyone under 21, threatening doctors and other health professionals with up to 15 years in prison, a $50,000 fine, and the permanent loss of their licenses and permits. Public funds are also barred from being used for such care.
In recent days, the College of Physicians and Surgeons, the Association of Psychology, the College of Social Work Professionals, the Puerto Rican Association of Professional Counseling, and the Bar Association, among other organizations, had urged that the bill be vetoed.
The Advocate previously reported that González-Colón had asked for amendments to protect access to puberty blockers and allow minors already undergoing treatment to continue care, but lawmakers did not adopt those changes. Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Skrmetti that a Tennesseeban on gender-affirming care for minors could be enacted, which allowed other states and territories to continue to ban such care.
“What a disgrace! Jenniffer González, through her actions, declares herself the most anti-equality governor in history. She ignored her own Secretary of Health and the medical associations that support treatment for trans minors. By signing Senate Bill 350 into law, she has just endangered trans youth and their families and criminalized health professionals for doing their job,” Pedro Julio Serrano, president of the Puerto Rico LGBTQ+ Federation, said in a statement to The Advocate.
GLAAD President and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis also criticized the new law. “Everyone deserves to live free from discrimination and with access to essential health care supported by every major medical association,” she said. “Banning this care and stripping the rights of parents to make the best medical decisions for their families creates unbearable burdens for the most marginalized in Puerto Rico.”
Harvard Law Instructor Alejandra Caraballo reacted to the law’s signing on Bluesky. “A twenty-year-old trans person can go drink themselves to death but can’t legally get hormones,” she wrote, noting that the drinking age in Puerto Rico is 18.
The Federation, a coalition representing hundreds of individuals and more than 100 organizations, said it would pursue legal action against the new law.
Two senior House Democrats, including the first out gay immigrant member of Congress, are demanding records and explanations from Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. following what they describe as a politically driven dismantling of HIV prevention, treatment, and research programs under the Trump administration’s fiscal year 2026 budget proposal.
In a Thursday letter to Kennedy, Rep. Robert Garcia, ranking member of the powerful House Oversight Committee and representing California, and Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, ranking member of the Oversight Subcommittee on Health Care and Financial Services and representing Illinois, accused HHS of systematically abandoning decades of bipartisan progress in the fight against HIV and AIDS in both domestic and global contexts.
The lawmakers said the cuts appear driven by conspiracy theories and misinformation, including Kennedy’s previous false claim that HIV does not cause AIDS. Kennedy has claimed that the AIDS crisis was caused by poppersand a “gay lifestyle,” falsely asserting that the virus was not infectious and instead “environmental.” He has also likened transgender youth to chemically altered frogs, repeating debunked claims that environmental toxins are “forcibly feminizing” boys.
Under Kennedy’s leadership, HHS eliminated the CDC’s HIV prevention division, cancelled a $258 million NIH vaccine initiative, and terminated dozens of research grants, including those focused on prevention among Black and Latino gay men. Providers, the letter states, were left in limbo when HHS failed to notify state and local health departments about grant statuses.
“These disruptions would threaten Americans most at risk of contracting HIV,” Garcia and Krishnamoorthi wrote. “This decision is absolutely reckless and puts millions of lives at risk,” Garcia added in a statement, emphasizing the severity of the impact. “Oversight Democrats refuse to let Secretary Kennedy’s reliance on conspiracy theories and misinformation threaten public health. We will fight back against every attack.”
Krishnamoorthi echoed the urgency, calling the rollback “scientifically indefensible—it’s morally unconscionable,” and warned the United States is reversing decades of bipartisan gains in HIV and AIDS prevention and care. The letter also addresses the administration’s January pause on all foreign aid, including funding for the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. While Congress later protected PEPFAR funding amid bipartisan concern, the lawmakers warn that broader global programs remain at risk, with the potential to cause over 100,000 HIV-related deaths in sub‑Saharan Africa in a single year.
The letter warns that the budget’s proposed $1.5 billion cut to domestic HIV programs could result in more than 143,000 new HIV cases and 127,000 deaths within five years. It further expresses concern that funding decisions, which also threaten access to newly approved injectable treatments like lenacapavir, are being made without a clear evaluation of equity or scientific integrity.
“This was our chance to take HIV prevention to a whole new level, and instead we’re hitting the brakes,” Yale researcher Jirair Ratevosian previously toldThe Advocate. “This isn’t just bad policy, it’s a direct threat to public health.”
Garcia and Krishnamoorthi have requested all records and communications about the cuts from HHS by July 31. The department did not respond to The Advocate’s request for comment.
The Trump administration has issued a new mandate requiring all federal agencies to eliminate recognition of gender identity, reinforcing a rigid, binary definition of sex and gender throughout the executive branch by mid-August.
In a July 10 memorandum to department heads, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management directed agencies to implement Executive Order 14168, titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” by revoking gender-inclusive policies, disbanding diversity programs, and enforcing sex-based definitions in all personnel and facility protocols. Agencies have until August 11 to submit a detailed report to OPM outlining the steps taken to comply.
The Trump administration has framed the erasure of trans-inclusive policies as a return to “biological reality.” But for those living through the implications, it’s a dismantling of hard-won rights, cloaked in bureaucratic language and enforced with ruthless precision.
The order, one of the first of the second Trump administration, signed by President Donald Trump on Inauguration Day in January, declares that “sex is binary and unchangeable,” and denounces gender identity as a “radical new movement.” It replaces longstanding civil rights protections for transgenderworkers with language rooted in anti-LGBTQ+ political rhetoric. The memo claims that recognition of gender identity in federal policy “attacks the ordinary and longstanding use of biological and scientific terms,” and frames access to gender-aligned facilities as a threat to women’s safety.
For the millions of federal employees who have operated under inclusive workplace policies for the last decade, the message is clear: any acknowledgment of transgender identity is no longer permitted. All training materials, employee resource groups, identification documents, and facilities that refer to “gender” must now be revised to reflect “biological sex,” and even common features such as pronoun fields in email systems must be removed.
The directive arrives amid a broader crackdown across the federal government. Nowhere is that crackdown more visible, or more contested, than in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Since March, the Trump administration has barred the VA from providing gender-affirming care to transgender veterans, ending coverage for hormones, voice therapy, electrolysis, and access to gender-appropriate facilities. Providers were also instructed to take down any inclusive messaging and signage. A VA psychologist in Virginia resigned due to the agency’s change.
In response, an underground resistance has emerged within the VA system. “We’re building the underground as fast as we can,” a VA physician told The Advocate in June. Transgender patients and clinicians have described encrypted communications, off-the-books referrals, and quiet acts of defiance designed to preserve access to care without triggering retaliation. One senior doctor called the climate “McCarthyistic,” with employees facing investigation for something as simple as a rainbow pin. That doctor said they are wearing extra-inclusive wardrobe components as signals to patients.
In May, 116 VA clinicians across 21 states signed an open letter denouncing the anti-trans policies as “unethical” and “a betrayal of our veterans.” The clinicians warned that the rollback not only threatens lives but erodes the very mission of federal service: to protect, not punish, those who have sacrificed for the country.
The original rescissions package Trump requested called for $400 million in cuts to PEPFAR, the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, which George W. Bush started in 2003.
But in the Senate, Democrats and a handful of Republicans objected to the PEPFAR cuts. Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, said the health program had saved an estimated 26 million lives and allowed nearly 8 million babies to be born healthy to mothers living with HIV.
“There are some cuts that I can support, but I’m not going to vote to cut global health programs,” Collins told reporters last week.
Seeking to tamp down the GOP rebellion, the White House this week agreed to make changes to the package, dropping the PEPFAR cuts to secure GOP votes.
“PEPFAR will not be impacted by the rescissions,” White House budget director Russell Vought told reporters after he huddled behind closed doors Tuesday with Senate Republicans.
Removing those cuts, Vought said, means the package has “a good chance of passing.”
The rescissions package, which would claw back $9 billion in congressionally approved funding for foreign aid and public broadcasting, narrowly passed the Senate early Thursday on a 51-48 vote. Collins was one of two Republicans to vote against the package, lamenting that the White House had not provided details of the cuts and that “nobody really knows what program reductions are in it.”
The House passed the package of cuts early Friday and Trump has vowed to sign it into law.
The White House’s original rescissions request sent May 28 detailed that the cuts would target only HIV/AIDS programs that “neither provide life-saving treatment nor support American interests.”
“This rescission proposal aligns with the Administration’s efforts to eliminate wasteful foreign assistance programs,” the request said. “Enacting the rescission would restore focus on health and life spending. This best serves the American taxpayer.”
But even some deficit hawks in the House said they supported the decision to preserve PEPFAR funding.
“It’s very successful. I think it serves a useful purpose,” said conservative Rep. Gary Palmer, R-Ala., who voted for the rescissions package.
Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee who also supported the package, said, “It’s half the money we’ve given to Ukraine, and it’s saved 25 million lives.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., slammed the legislation and said the PEPFAR-related changes were insufficient.
“Cuts to foreign aid will make Americans less safe. It will empower our adversaries,” he said. “The changes Republicans say they’ve made to PEPFAR are not enough, and nobody’s fooled by small tweaks to this package.”
Some advocates were relieved by the removal of PEPFAR cuts but disappointed with the overall package.
“It is always good news when lawmakers prioritize children, especially children who are orphaned or vulnerable to HIV and AIDS. But the larger trend here is not hopeful,” said Bruce Lesley, the president of First Focus Campaign for Children.
“While a few senators persuaded their colleagues to preserve funding for these children in this case,” he said in a statement, “the Senate’s overall decision to hand $9 billion back to the President suggests that what the legislature does actually doesn’t matter.”
On July 9, 2025, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) held a workshop with the inaccurate and inflammatory title: “The Dangers of ‘Gender-Affirming Care’ for Minors.” The title, event, and invited speakers ignore the consensus of every major medical association and leading world health authority, which all support health care for transgender adults and youth.
Sensationalized and misleading terms such as “mutilation” and “sterilization,” which falsely claim that medical care for transgender people is inherently “dangerous.” The American Academy of Pediatrics states: “There is strong consensus among the most prominent medical organizations worldwide that evidence-based, gender-affirming care for transgender children and adolescents is medically necessary and appropriate.”
Conspiracy theories such as “rapid onset gender dysphoria” which have never been proven and have been debunked by the science community, as well as false claims about a “secret plot” in schools and hospitals to forcibly “transition” children. Affirmation of trans youth has been repeatedly shown to improve mental health, lower the risk of self-harm, and increase academic success.
Exclusion of transgender and gender non-conforming doctors, patients, and families who can testify to the benefits, safety, and medical necessity of the care.
Additional background on incendiary and baseless narratives targeting transgender health care is available here.
Background on FTC Speakers:
Speakers invited to the FTC’s hearing also have a long history of promoting harmful narratives to ban essential health care and restrict transgender people’s access to society. They frequently travel from state to state and appear on right-wing media to push anti-LGBTQ legislation and policy at the local and federal levels.
According to GLAAD’s ALERT Desk, invited speakers for the FTC workshop have been involved in at least 60 anti-LGBTQ incidents nationwide.
29 of these incidents include hateful and harassing comments made while advocating for anti-trans legislation in at least 20 US states.
Speakers including Jamie Reed, Prisha Mosely, Simon Amaya Price, Erin Friday, and Claire Abernathy frequently travel outside their state of residence to push anti-trans legislation into local communities.
Invited speakers also have a history of harassing medical providers, educators, transgender athletes, and other LGBTQ people and allies. Examples include:
April 2025: Erin Friday participated in a protest outside of a YMCA in Berkeley, California, where they harassed employees and patrons over the YMCA’s trans-inclusive locker room policies.
April 2025: Erin Friday and Beth Bourne participated in a protest against the California Interscholastic Federation in Oakland, California, to block transgender youth from participating in school sports in their authentic gender.
March 2025: Beth Bourne harassed employees of the Sacramento City Unified School District during a flag raising ceremony for Transgender Day of Visibility. Defamatory and harmful comments included: “I’m here because I’m opposed to the idea that you as a school district want to indoctrinate kids.”
September 2024: Jamie Reed and Soren Aldaco protested against the American Academy of Pediatrics’ annual conference in Orlando, Florida, over their support for transgender health care. Protestors attempted to interrupt the keynote speech of a leading transgender health official.
February 2024: Prisha Mosely participated in a protest against a Planned Parenthood in Lansing, Michigan, harassing patients and medical providers over the organization’s support for transgender patients. Protestors held signs that read: “Transcare does not equal healthcare.” Health care for transgender people is supported by every major medical association as safe, effective, and lifesaving.
Many of the invited speakers also maintain connections with major anti-LGBTQ organizations:
Paul Dupont represents the American Principles Project – a group with a long history of promoting anti-LGBTQ policies, including attacking trans student athletes, opposing the Equality Act, and spreading disinformation about pro-equality political candidates.
Jay Richards represents the Heritage Foundation, which spearheaded the far-right presidential transition plan “Project 2025.” The plan advocates for firing federal employees who oppose or insufficiently support right-wing policies, ending access to abortion and contraception, eliminating protections for LGBTQ people, and censoring accurate history about LGBTQ people as well as the word “transgender.”
Beth Bourne is the chair of a California chapter of Moms for Liberty – an organization designated as an extremist group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). The group has a long history of calling for book bans, classroom censorship, and bans on teaching about slavery, race, racism, before aggressively turning toward targetingtransgender people and youth.
Dr. Miriam Grossman represents Do No Harm, which SPLC has designated as “an anti-LGBTQ+ hate group that led a campaign to challenge anti-racist and LGBTQ+-inclusive education policies in 2024.”
Leor Sapir represents the Manhattan Institute, which is part of a “pseudoscience network” opposing anti-racist and LGBTQ-inclusive education policies as well as baselessly questioning essential health care. Sapir has no formal training as a medical professional or in youth education.
Dr. Eithan Haim, a self-described “whistleblower,” was accused of leaking confidential medical records of minors seeking gender-affirming care at a Texas hospital. Haim was charged with unlawfully disclosing these records to another fellow at the aforementioned Manhattan Institute, who used the information to push for a ban on health care for trans youth in Texas.
Jordan Campbell is an attorney who represents clients who feel they have been wronged during the medical care they received while identifying as transgender. Campbell is a contributor for the Federalist Society, which has a history of advocating against basic LGBTQ protections including employment non-discrimination, hate crime legislation, and the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. The organization has also platformed an SPLC-designated white nationalist known for his virulently racist and xenophobic immigration stances.
In a family friend’s front yard at around 11 years old, Elle Setiya remembers listening in on her dad’s conversation with Alex Byrne, a philosophy professor at MIT. She recalls Byrne airing his grievances to her dad—who heads up the philosophy department—about the growing trans rights movement.
“Can someone really just say they’re a woman and that’s it? Whatever happened to biological sex?” she remembers Byrne saying.
“I felt it personally in a way that I wasn’t expecting to, because it brought up the feelings of discomfort around my presentation,” Setiya, now 18, told Uncloseted Media. “It did make [transitioning] a little bit harder.”
At the time, Setiya, who would come out to her parents at 14 years old, had no idea that Byrne would go on to apply his perspective in his work with the Trump administration.
In May, Trump’s Department of Health and Human Services released a 409-page report titled “Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria: Review of Evidence and Best Practices,” which criticizes gender-affirming care for minors and argues for the benefits of Gender-Exploratory Therapy, a model which manyexperts have compared to conversion therapy because the practice encourages patients to attribute feelings of gender dysphoria to other causes. The report suggests that gender dysphoria could be the result of undiagnosed autism, borderline personality disorder or childhood trauma.
The report, prompted by an executive order that cracks down on gender-affirming care for minors, was fast-tracked to the public before it finished peer review and kept its nine authors anonymous “to protect them from intimidation tactics and undue pressure campaigns.” After its release, it was criticized by numerousleadingmedical organizations.
Ashley’s post (via Bluesky).
After the report was published, bioethicist and University of Alberta law professor Florence Ashley posted a thread noting that names matching those of Byrne and two consultants employed by the consulting firm Guidehouse appeared in the report files’ metadata.
While Byrne initially declined to comment about his role in the report, he wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post last month in which he identifies himself as one of the authors and accuses critics of the report of “shaming [and] ostracizing.”
“We all stand to benefit from free and open inquiry, in medicine. … That does not mean elevating crackpots or taking wild conspiracy theories seriously. It means that objections should be made using arguments and data,” Byrne wrote.
Since Byrne’s name first appeared, students and colleagues at MIT have expressed concern that Byrne, who claims to support the right of “transgender people to live free from discrimination,” would work with an administration that opposes trans rights.
But beyond that, Ashley told Uncloseted Media that “the fact that Alex Byrne is not somebody who has relevant expertise is certainly concerning” when it comes to the report’s legitimacy.
Who Is Alex Byrne?
Byrne has worked as a professor in MIT’s philosophy department since 1995and specializes in the philosophy of mind, metaphysics and epistemology. He wouldn’t take up the philosophy of gender until a 2018 article where he argues that sex should be understood as binary.
From there, Byrne’s focus on gender would increase. In 2023, he published “Trouble with Gender: Sex Facts, Gender Fictions.” The book was rejected by Oxford University Press because peer reviewers felt it did not cover its subject in “a sufficiently serious and respectful way.”
Despite this, Byrne often spoke in support of trans rights. A philosopher of gender—who spoke with Uncloseted Media on background—doesn’t think Byrne is “out to get anyone.” They say, “[This] is why it’s so sad. … I do think that he’s trying to speak the truth, but his perspective on the truth is somewhat limited,” adding that Byrne’s initial work was not well-informed, though this would improve over time.
While Byrne’s knowledge may be lacking, his work has had impact. His 2019 critique of gender identity was referenced in an amicus brief supporting Florida’s ban on trans health care for minors. An expert witness for the Women’s Liberation Front referenced Byrne at the end of a declaration attempting to force trans women into men’s prisons. And Byrne has given talksat conferences held by Genspect, which the Southern Poverty Law Center has classified as an anti-LGBTQ hate group.
While many wonder why a philosopher would contribute to a report on trans health care, Byrne has argued that “philosophy overlaps with medical ethics.”
Despite this, Ashley says there’s still a problem: Byrne is not an ethicist.
“While it is true that philosophy plays a really central role in bioethics, that is only relevant insofar as the philosopher in question has the relevant expertise and background,” they say. “Philosophical expertise is not just randomly interchangeable, as much as a lot of philosophers would like to think so.”
Since Byrne’s focus pivoted to gender, Setiya remembers hearing him talk about trans issues at family dinners.
“He liked to do this thing where he would say … ‘I want to speak more about it in terms of theory and ideas rather than more controversial political areas,’” she says.
Setiya remembers reading excerpts of Byrne’s book and one line standing out because it went against his “apolitical” rhetoric: “Revolutions devour their own children, and the gender revolution is no exception.”
“It was hurtful, because it felt like it was being done from a very detached perspective,” she says. “The ideas were being presented in a way that implied that it wasn’t impacting people’s everyday lives and was just an abstract theory. Even as somebody who did not fully know at the time who [I] was or hadn’t fully come to terms with it yet, that rhetoric definitely had a negative effect on how I viewed myself.”
Critics of the Report
Byrne has said that “the hostile response to the review by medical groups and practitioners underscores why it was necessary.”
But experts say their key concerns aren’t political but rather methodological. Ashley says that the report’s public release without the completion of peer review, its anonymous authors and its five-month turnaround are all unusual.
By comparison, the similarly controversial Cass Review took four years to be published, and it identified its primary author from the beginning.
“It takes way longer than that to do a systematic review of evidence,” says Ashley. “This indicates that it was probably rushed quite a bit.”
Beyond the methodological flaws, there are political biases. While the report claims not to be a policy recommendation, it was commissioned by Trump—who has railed against the trans community—in an effort to ban gender-affirming care for minors nationwide.
Even though Byrne has said he’s not a fan of the Trump administration, the philosopher of gender says it’s unwise to work with them in good faith.
“Being able to [work with people on the other side of the aisle] is, in principle, okay, but in this particular case, when it comes to Trump, it just goes into the misinformation sphere, and it’s not clear how any of it is going to be used,” they say.
The report’s citations include publications by a number of researchers involved with anti-LGBTQ hate groups who are trying to dismantle gay and trans rights in the U.S. and abroad, including Alliance Defending Freedom-funded psychiatrist James Cantor and Dr. Quentin Van Meter, former president of the American College of Pediatricians.
Student Pushback at MIT
The Stata Center, which houses MIT’s Department of Linguistics and Philosophy (Lucy Li).
All of this prompted a group of MIT Philosophy students to write an open letter titled “Dear Professor Byrne,” where they condemned him for working with the Trump administration. The letter had over 200 signatures, including professors and students from MIT and other universities.
“We have been making an effort … to be a place where trans-inclusive thought can flourish,” says Katie Zhou, a graduate student at MIT Philosophy who signed the letter. “It is disappointing to see this be overshadowed by this one guy.”
“MIT cannot claim to be accepting or friendly to LGBT people while letting its professors collaborate with the Trump administration to kill LGBT kids,” another MIT grad student told Uncloseted Media.
In an email, MIT wrote that they respect “that there is a range of views across our community … and as a general practice, [they] do not comment on the individually held and freely expressed views of any particular community member.”
In a written response, Byrne called the letter “inimical to the mission of the university” and accused it of attempting to chill dissent against gender-affirming care.
But multiple people at MIT Philosophy say that Byrne has had opportunities to engage in dialogue about gender. Zhou says Byrne attended numerous open forums about gender identity, including a 2024 workshop which brought together activists and scholars, though she says he didn’t speak. He also attended a queer and trans theory reading group run by Zhou, where he “mostly just sat there quietly,” occasionally asking a question.
“I’m worried that he could try to push a narrative where we in the department are silencing him, and I just wanted to say for the record that we’ve worked very hard to have spaces where these issues can be discussed openly,” says Zhou.
A grad student at MIT told Uncloseted Media that they felt frustrated with the disconnect between Byrne’s interactions with trans students on campus and his online rhetoric.
“He’ll go online and post this rant about trans people and trans philosophy, and the next day he’ll walk past me in the hallway like nothing happened.”
Subscribe for LGBTQ focused, investigative journalism.
Setiya says she never felt comfortable broaching the subject of gender with Byrne. “I think that if I did try and get into a conversation with him, he would intellectualize things and he would maneuver the conversation in a way that would make me sound uneducated or not fully prepared,” she says. “He has a very sarcastic and sardonic way of approaching things … and if [he] gets a response, [he] can just use that moment to be like, ‘Wow, look at how unhinged these trans activists are.’”
Another MIT student added that keeping up with people like Byrne who pontificate on theories about trans people’s existence is exhausting.
“We don’t have time to go through every poorly conducted study and rebut the pseudoscience point-by-point,” they told Uncloseted Media. “He has the time to generate these bad arguments, and there’s no stakes in it for him, there’s no emotional toll, there’s no consequences if he’s wrong.”
Byrne declined to be interviewed for this story and did not respond to a request for comment.
Moving Forward
The report’s findings are already having impact. The anti-LGBTQ hate group Alliance Defending Freedom has begun citing the report to promote their numerous lawsuits supporting anti-trans legislation. The group’s president, Kristen Waggoner, stated that the report “should lead to the closure of every gender clinic in America” and that “doctors who perpetrate these experiments on children should lose their medical licenses and be sued.”
Ashley says the report’s publication helps legitimize the Trump administration’s ongoing attacks on gender-affirming care under the veneer of science.
“They’re not so much seeking to convince people who already disagree with them, as much as try[ing] to make the people that already agree with them feel heard and validated, and they’re telling the moderates who low-key dislike trans people but are having trouble justifying it to themselves, ‘I hear you, and you are correct.’”
The philosopher of gender, who admired Byrne’s work prior to his shift to gender politics, expressed disappointment that he had taken this path.
“Alex is someone who is a very committed person and wants to think hard about hard questions,” they say. “More than angry, I just feel really sad. … Why did he go down this road? What’s at stake for him? I just don’t understand.”
Elle Setiya, who has known Byrne since she was young, says the report has increased her own fear as a young trans woman and her fear for trans and queer youth in the U.S.
“To feel like their government doesn’t value them and is actively working against them. It just takes a toll on you, I think.”
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:
Texas lawmakers will convene next week for a special session to consider legislation addressing the deadly floods that devastated parts of the state earlier this month — and a bill regarding which restrooms transgender Texans can use.
When Gov. Greg Abbott initially called for a special session in June, it was to tackle six bills he had vetoed during the regular session, among them a contentious measure that would havebanned hemp products containing THC. But after flash floods overwhelmed parts of central Texas on July 4 — resulting in at least 120 deaths with many more still missing — the intended focus shifted to flood relief.
However, when the governor’s 18-point agenda was released last week, it included far more than flood-related measures. In addition to considering bills that would restrict hemp products, Abbott has also asked lawmakers to consider legislation “further protecting unborn children and their mothers from the harm of abortion” and legislation “protecting women’s privacy in sex-segregated spaces.”
On Monday, the first day lawmakers were able to file bills for the special session, none of the 82 measures filed mentioned the deadly July 4 floods, according to KXAN-TV, NBC’s Austin affiliate.
Republican state Rep. Valoree Swanson introduced the so-called bathroom bill, which would require transgender people to use bathrooms that correspond to their birth sex in public schools, government buildings and correctional facilities. If House Bill 32, known as the Texas Women’s Privacy Act, becomes law, public entities that violate the measure could face financial penalties and be subject to civil lawsuits.
Currently, 19 states across the country restrict which bathrooms and other sex-segregated facilities transgender people can use, according to Movement Advancement Project, an LGBTQ think tank.
The federal agency responsible for enforcing laws against workplace discrimination will allow some complaints filed by transgender workers to move forward, shifting course from earlier guidance that indefinitely stalled all such cases, according to an email obtained by The Associated Press.
The email was sent earlier this month to leaders of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission with the subject line “Hot Topics,” in which Thomas Colclough, director of the agency’s Office of Field Programs, announced that if new transgender worker complaints involve “hiring, discharge or promotion, you are clear to continue processing these charges.”
But even those cases will still be subject to higher scrutiny than other types of workplace discrimination cases, requiring approval from President Donald Trump’s appointed acting agency head Andrea Lucas, who has said that one of her priorities would be “defending the biological and binary reality of sex and related rights.”
Since Trump regained office in January, the EEOC has moved away from its prior interpretation of civil rights law, marking a stark contrast to a decade ago when the agency issued a landmark finding that a transgender civilian employee of the U.S. Army had been discriminated against because her employer refused to use her preferred pronouns or allow her to use bathrooms based on her gender identity.
Under Lucas’s leadership, the EEOC has dropped several lawsuits on behalf of transgender workers. Lucas defended that decision during her June 18 Senate committee confirmation hearing in order to comply with the president’s executive order declaring two unchangeable sexes.
However, she acknowledged that a 2020 Supreme Court ruling — Bostock v. Clayton County — “did clearly hold that discriminating against someone on the basis of sex included firing an individual who is transgender or based on their sexual orientation.”
Colclough acknowledged in his July 1 email that the EEOC will consider transgender discrimination complaints that “fall squarely under” the Supreme Court’s ruling, such as cases involving hiring, firing and promotion. The email backtracked on an earlier policy, communicated verbally, that de-prioritized all transgender cases.
The EEOC declined to comment on the specifics of its latest policy, saying: “Under federal law, charge inquiries and charges of discrimination made to the EEOC are confidential. Pursuant to Title VII and as statutorily required, the EEOC is, has been, and will continue to accept and investigate charges on all bases protected by law, and to serve those charges to the relevant employer.”
But even the cases that the EEOC is willing to consider under Bostock must still be reviewed by a senior attorney advisor, and then sent to Lucas for final approval.
This heightened review process is not typical for other discrimination charges and reflects the agency’s increased oversight for gender identity cases, former EEOC commissioner Chai Feldblum told The AP in a Monday phone interview.
“It is a slight improvement because it will allow certain claims of discrimination to proceed,” Feldblum said of the new policy. “But overall it does not fix a horrific and legally improper situation currently occurring at the EEOC.”
Colclough’s email did not clarify how long the review process might take, or whether cases that include additional claims, such as harassment or retaliation, would be eligible to proceed, and the EEOC declined to address those questions.
“This is not the EEOC being clear to either its own staff or to the public what charges are going to be processed,” Feldblum said. “This is not a panacea.”
