A disabled college student is speaking out after conservative figures online bullied and mass reported him when he posted about his gender transition.
Micah Leroy, who ran the account known as “Disabled Trans Boy” on Instagram, became the subject of a right-wing hate campaign after he posted a video celebrating his double mastectomy, also know as top surgery. The 19-year-old has cerebral palsy, a group of neurological disorders that affect body movement and muscle coordination, which is the most common lifelong physical disability according to the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.
“It is important to note that nowhere in this definition does it imply that cerebral palsy negatively impacts an individual’s ability to comprehend the world, make autonomous decisions or understand the concepts of gender and sex,” Leroy told MPR News.
Leroy is a student at the University of Minnesota focusing on disability studies, LGBTQ+ studies and political science. He said that he hopes to one day hold public office, whether in the state legislature or in Congress.
Leroy uses a wheelchair as well as an Eyegaze communication device, though he prefers to communicate with his voice, with the help of his personal care assistants. Leroy, who came out as transgender at the age of 14, emphasized to the outlet that he was the one who sought out and scheduled his medical appointments and took all the steps to legally change his name and gender.
Leroy’s video about his transition went viral, resulting in negative attention from conservative figures such as failed college athlete Riley Gaines, who lied and said Leroy is “non-verbal” while implying doctors performed the surgery without his consent. Georgia Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene called the life-saving procedure performed on a legal adult “criminal.”
Conservatives mass-reported the video, causing it to be removed by Meta, which suspended Leroy’s Facebook and permanently removed his Instagram account for supposedly breaking the platforms’ “Community Standards on child sexual exploitation, abuse and nudity.”
Leroy, who repeated that “I am the one who is posting and I’m over 18,” said that Meta still rejected his appeals, while allowing the abusive comments and messages he received to remain. Still, he said that he hasn’t been deterred from speaking out.
“Even with all the hate this has stirred up, I do believe that any publicity is good publicity in furthering my goals,” Leroy continued. “This experience has only made me want to speak out more about disabled and trans issues as the negative responses I got have shown a side of the world that is intolerant and discriminatory based on what they perceive others can and cannot do.”
President Donald Trump has targeted transgender and nonbinary people with a series of executive orders since he returned to office.
He has done it with strong language. In one executive order, he asserted “medical professionals are maiming and sterilizing a growing number of impressionable children under the radical and false claim that adults can change a child’s sex.”
That’s a dramatic reversal of the policies of former President Joe Biden’s administration — and of major medical organizations — that supported gender-affirming care.
American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Sruti Swaminathan said that to be put into effect, provisions of the orders should first go through federal rulemaking procedures, which can be years long and include the chance for public comment.
“When you have the nation’s commander-in-chief demonizing transgender people, it certainly sends a signal to all Americans,” said Sarah Warbelow, the legal director at Human Rights Campaign.
Things to know about Trump’s actions:
Recognizing people as only men or women
On Trump’s first day back in office, he issued a sweeping order that signaled a big change in how his administration would deal with transgender people and their rights.
The stated purpose is to protect women. “Efforts to eradicate the biological reality of sex fundamentally attack women by depriving them of their dignity, safety, and well-being,” the order says.
The document calls on government agencies to use the new definitions of the sexes, and to stop using taxpayer money to promote what it calls “gender ideology,” the idea broadly accepted by medical experts that gender falls along a spectrum.
Federal agencies have been quick to comply. Andrea Lucas, the acting chair of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, for example, announced this week that she would remove identity pronouns from employees’ online profiles and disallow the “X” gender marker for those filing discrimination charges.
“Biology is not bigotry. Biological sex is real, and it matters,” Lucas said in a statement.
On Friday, information about what Trump calls “gender ideology” was removed from federal government websites and the term “gender” was replaced by “sex” to comport with the order. The Bureau of Prisons stopped reporting the number of transgender incarcerated people and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention removed lessons on building supportive school environments for transgender and nonbinary students.
Researchers have found less than 1% of adults identify as transgender and under 2% are intersex, or born with physical traits that don’t fit typical definitions for male or female.
Requests denied for passport gender markers
In the order calling for a new federal definition of the sexes, Trump included some specific instances in which policy should be changed, including on passports.
The State Department promptly stopped granting requests for new or updated passports with gender markers that don’t conform with the new definition.
The agency is no longer issuing the documents with an “X” that some people who identify as neither male nor female request and will not honor requests to change the gender markers between “M” and “F” for transgender people.
The option to choose “X” was taken off online passport application forms Friday.
The ACLU says it’s considering a lawsuit.
Trans women moved into men’s prisons
Trump’s initial order called for transgender women in federal custody to be moved to men’s prisons. Warbelow, from Human Rights Campaign, said her organization has received reports from lawyers that some have been.
The Federal Bureau of Prisons did not immediately respond to requests for information about such moves.
There have been at least two lawsuits trying to block the policy. In one, a federal judge has said a transgender woman in a Massachusetts prison should be housed with the general population of a woman’s prison and continue to receive gender-affirming medical care for now.
Opening the door to another ban on trans service members
Trump set the stage for a ban on transgender people in the military, directing Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to come up with a new policy on the issue by late March.
In the executive order, the president asserted that being transgender “conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life.”
Trump barred transgender service members in his first term in office, but a court blocked the effort.
A group of active military members promptly sued over the new order this week.
Defunding gender-affirming medical care for trans youth
The care in question includes puberty blocking drugs, hormone therapy and gender-affirming surgery, which is rare for minors.
If fully implemented, the order would cut off government health insurance including Medicaid and TRICARE, which serves military families, for the treatments.
It also calls on Congress to adopt a law against the care, though whether that happens is up to lawmakers.
Twenty-six states already have passed laws banning or limiting gender-affirming care for minors, so the change could be smaller in those places.
Some hospitals have paused some gender-affirming care for people under 19 following the executive order while they evaluate how it might apply to them.
Barring schools from helping student social transitioning
Another executive order seeks to stop “radical indoctrination” in the nation’s school system.
It calls on the Education Department to come up with a policy blocking schools from using federal funds to support students who are socially transitioning or using their curriculum to promote the idea that gender can be fluid, along with certain teachings about race.
The order would block schools from requiring teachers and other school staff to use names and pronouns that align with transgender students’ gender identify rather than the sex they were assigned at birth.
Some districts and states have passed those requirements to prevent deadnaming, the practice of referring to transgender people who have changed their name by the name they used before their transition. It is widely considered insensitive, offensive or traumatizing.
With fear and distress at an all-time high, showing up for trans youth in tangible ways is more critical than ever. The therapists we spoke with shared actionable steps for supporting young trans people in this moment, including, but not limited to:
Acknowledging the executive order and recognizing their feelings about it.
Reaffirming your support. “Remind them of your continued love and support for them and all trans people,” says Brownfield.
Honoring their autonomy. “Listen deeply and validate their fears, pain, and grief—do not minimize their experiences,” says Melody Li, LMFT, a mental health justice activist and founder of Inclusive Therapists. “When the nervous system is overwhelmed, it is natural to feel frozen or detached. Offer to lighten the load by taking action, such as researching resources, peer-support groups, or ways to mobilize in solidarity.”
Helping them access resources. Whether it’s a support group, an affirming therapist, or advocacy organizations, helping trans youth find alternative pathways to care can make all the difference.
Creating a space of belonging. “Facilitating peer connections—whether through online groups, mentorship programs, or supportive networks—can offer trans youth a sense of belonging and shared experience,” says Minor.
Supporting parents and caregivers
The pain of this moment is not limited to trans youth—it extends to their families and loved ones as well. Many parents are grappling with fear, frustration, and uncertainty, wondering how they can protect their children in a country that seems intent on stripping away their rights.
“There is no right or wrong way to process this,” says Minor. “Parents and caregivers need to know that they are allowed to feel whatever they are feeling, and they don’t have to go through it alone.”
For those supporting loved ones of trans youth, Brownfield advises:
Validate their fears and feelings of helplessness.
Remind them they are not alone. “Even with the federal government’s anti-trans hostility, you and many others love their trans kid and love that they affirm their kid,” she says.
Encourage community connection. Minor suggests joining support groups like PFLAG, where parents can share experiences, gain reassurance, and learn advocacy strategies.
Since 2020, there has been a growing legislative attack on transgender people, and particularly on transgender youth. This includes a growing number of bills (and now laws) that explicitly require school staff—and in some cases, any government or public employee—to out transgender youth to their families, often without regard for whether doing so might put the child at risk of harm. Importantly, however, these laws vary in their actual requirements, as shown below. Click the “Citations & More Information” orange button for more detail.*Notes: –States with a caution icon have policies that vary, but generally have vague requirements to notify parents about any “health” or behavioral concern, but that do not make any explicit mention of gender or gender identity. Because these laws could be broadly interpreted and used to target both transgender youth and LGBTQ youth in general, these may contribute to a hostile school climate for LGBTQ youth even without explicitly requiring forced outing. Note that laws that require general parental access to student records are redundant of existing federal law, and so are not included here. See the “Citations” tab or click “Citations & More Information” beneath the map legend for more detail on each state’s policy.
–Note, Nevada’s policy is via regulation, not legislation. –Note, Utah’s law applies only to official changes to a student’s education records (e.g., their gender marker or name officially noted on their record), not daily interaction with the student (e.g., conversational use of preferred name/pronouns). –Note, Virginia’s policy is via agency policy, not legislation or regulation. However, state law requires school districts to adopt this model policy—though there has been resistance, and so implementation or enforcement may vary across the state. See “Citations & More Information” for more detail.
State law forces the outing of transgender youth if they make specific disclosures or requests about their gender identity to school staff (5 states) – Dark Orange
State law requires forced outing of transgender youth, but only if parents ask school staff for the information (2 states) – Medium Orange
State law requires forced outing of transgender youth before school staff can use a student’s preferred name/pronouns, but a student’s mere request to use a different name or pronouns does not itself require forced outing (7 states) – Light Orange
State law does not force the outing of transgender youth in schools (36 states , 5 territories + D.C.) – Yellow
State does not force outing but may contribute to hostile school climate (see note beneath map) (4 states)
Just over a decade ago, in 2014, TIME magazine declared on its front cover that we were at the “The Transgender Tipping Point“.
The cover itself was simple, a full body shot of actress Laverne Cox – who was then playing Sophia Burset on Netflix game-changer Orange Is the New Black – and a byline for writer Katy Steinmetz, who said in the piece that trans rights would be the next civil rights frontier.
“We are in a place now,” Cox told the magazine at the time, “where more and more trans people want to come forward and say, ‘This is who I am.’ And more trans people are willing to tell their stories. More of us are living visibly and pursuing our dreams visibly, so people can say, ‘Oh yeah, I know someone who is trans.’ When people have points of reference that are humanising, that demystifies difference.”
“The Transgender Tipping Point” was a phrase, Jude Ellison S. Doyle noted for Xtra Magazine on the cover’s 10th anniversary, that quickly became ubiquitous across the media, with – often more than not cis – academics and cultural commentators alike pointing to the piece as an example of a paradigm shift on trans visibility and representation in public life.
But, as many more have since pointed out, the catch-all-ness of the phrase is oversimplified and ignores the intersectional struggles and delicate nuances of trans people’s lives that go far beyond ‘being visible’. It also became somewhat of an ironic joke between trans folks who had to wake up the day after that edition of TIME hit the shelves go about their lives, this supposed-watershed moment of greater visibility not helping them pay their bills, access gender-affirming care or walk through the streets without fear.
“If trans people have ‘tipped’ in any direction, it’s backward,” Doyle wrote.
For activist Raquel Willis, co-founder of the Gender Liberation Movementalongside Eliel Cruz, the fight for trans rights and universal bodily autonomy has to move past the visibility era to be truly impactful.
“This idea of simply using visibility as a means to bring about the kind of culture and society that’s going to receive trans folks with the respects that we deserve is over,” she told PinkNews, “and so we have to be thinking in new ways about how to protect ourselves, our voices, our histories and our brilliance without relying on a lot of the institutions that have really pushed the visibility vehicle.”
You may like to watch
Speaking exclusively with PinkNews, Willis and Cruz discussed the organisation, intersectionality and the need for radical defiance in a second Trump presidency.
Activists with the Gender Liberation Movement protest in the House Cannon building, including Chelsea Manning (bottom right) and Racquel Willis (bottom left), on December 5, 2024 in Washington, DC. (Maansi Srivastava for The Washington Post via Getty Images)
The Gender Liberation Movement (GLM) describes itself as an “emergent and innovative grassroots and volunteer-run national collective that builds direct action, media, and policy interventions centering bodily autonomy, self-determination, the pursuit of fulfilment, and collectivism in the face of gender-based sociopolitical threats”.
Mace, a Republican representative from South Carolina, admitted her proposal to ban trans folks from spaces such as bathrooms and changing rooms on Capitol Hill which match their gender was put forth solely in response to Democrat Sarah McBride joining Congress as the first out trans person.
McBride condemned the move as a “blatant attempt from right-wing extremists to distract from the fact that they have no real solutions to what Americans are facing”.
“Half of us went in understanding that we were facing arrest in order to really send a message, particularly because some elected leaders, even some people potentially in the movement spaces, queer people, might see bathrooms as a side issue and not important,” Cruz said.
“But we see bathrooms as the inroad for a larger anti-trans project to eliminate trans people from public spaces and so this was important for us to say, ‘this is the line’ and we’re not allowing this to move forward without a response.”
In a bathroom that was located close to Mace’s office, the protesters held a banner that read “flush bathroom bigotry” and chanted “Speaker Johnson, Nancy Mace, our gender is no debate” and “Democrats, grow a spine! Trans rights are on the line!”, calling out the Dems lacklustre criticism of Mace’s proposal in the wake of their party’s defeat to Donald Trump’s MAGA 2.0 campaign.
“It was really disappointing to see the lack of fight that […] Sarah McBride put forth with these attacks – understanding that she is coming into a new role in a historic way – but also understanding at some point we have to get beyond this idea of career politicians saving us,” Willis said.
“Let’s just be clear, I know for me, I would never be able to – as a Black trans woman – simply say that bathroom access is a ‘distraction’. I come from folks who experienced acutely Jim Crow in the US South and so for me, all of these attacks on our access to public spaces and navigating societies is rooted in a long fight for collective liberation within this country.”
Willis added she was concerned by the lack of support McBride was given by leading Democrats and “what kind of signal that sends to trans youth who are already fearful of the incoming Trump administration”.
A transgender rights supporter takes part in a rally outside of the U.S. Supreme Court as the court hears arguments in the US v. Skrmetti a case about Tennessee’s law banning gender-affirming care for minors and if it violates the Constitution’s equal protection guarantee on December 04, 2024 in Washington, DC. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
Prior to this moment of “radical defiance” – the phrase Willis uses to describe what is needed of protest and civil disobedience at this time – GLM had been fighting for the right to bodily autonomy for trans and cis folks alike; namely access to abortion and gender-affirming care. Having worked previously with those that organised the Brooklyn Liberation March and national Women’s March, in September the group led the first-ever Gender Liberation March in Washington D.C. and at the start of this year launched as an official national organisation to further its work.
Cruz said those involved were “collective” of “queer and trans creatives from nonprofit and advocacy world, as well as folks who are in the art world and fashion world”.
“We really started to think about what was needed in terms of bringing together a larger collective of folks fighting around bodily autonomy and self determination,” Willis said of formalising the organisation, “particularly thinking about the attacks on abortion access and the attacks on access to gender affirming care. That kind of led to this plan for our march in September and from there we realised that we needed this work to continue going on and needed to continue to be the glue between these various movements.”
For many, access to abortion and gender affirming care might be thought of as different social issues impacting distinctly different groups of people; things to campaign for separately but not together. This line of thinking is similar to how trans rights and women’s rights more widely are often framed by the right-wing press as in direct contrast with one another when instead they are not opposites sides of a coin but rather intricately intertwined.
New York Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez noted this in response to Mace’s bathroom ban, telling reporters in November that such restrictions endanger “all women and girls” because “people are going to want to check their private parts in suspecting who is trans and who is cis”.
“The idea that Nancy Mace wants little girls and women to drop trou in front of, who, an investigator, because she wants to suspect and point fingers at who she thinks is trans is disgusting. It is disgusting. And frankly, all it does is allow these Republicans to go around and bully any woman who isn’t wearing a skirt because they think she might not look woman enough,” AOC added.
The intersectionality between the two issues hence sits at the very core of the GLM’s mission because “many of the same forces and entities that are targeting access to abortion are also targeting access to gender affirming care”, Willis said.
Cruz explained: “In the United States, legal precedents are being used to try to pass one another. So these connections are already there in terms […] of those who are making these attacks and for us it was important to marry the different groups of people that people may not necessarily talk about in the same ways.
“Really bringing those connections together in a very intentional way.”
People gather outside the Lincoln Memorial for a People’s March rally in Washington, D.C., United States, on January 18, 2025. (Photo by Nathan Morris/NurPhoto via Getty Images)
Ahead of Trump’s return to the White House, Cruz said GLM has been having a number of internal conversations about what form their work will take but it is about “being a little bit nimble and prepared for preparing for the worst, and doing some safety planning and contingency planning”.
Cruz went on to say whilst “Trump is awful” and “put us through it the first four years” the Democrats have “not been the best” either, noting the fact Roe vs Wade fell under a Dem administration and just before Christmas president Joe Biden signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2025 which contained an anti-trans healthcare clause for children of members of the armed services.
“There’s a lot of catastrophising that we can think about under Trump and without remembering that we’ve kind of already been dealing with a lot, even underneath the Dem administration,” Cruz said.
“We really to lean on our history and our elders. We have been through really horrific eras before and we have gone through it. Our community knows how to build together and come together and keep each other safe.
“So [we] can look at the reality of what’s to come and also remember who we are and our roots and our background, and know that we will get through it together whatever may come.”
Willis echoed this, noting that “before you could simply be as open about who who you are and your identity” leaning on mutual aid networks was a vital resource.
“We have always had organisations, particularly on the grassroots local level, that have fed and housed and closed and safeguarded our people,” she explained.
“Somewhere along the way, we forgot that those entities are the lifeblood of our movement.
“So, it’s remembering that and also being willing to heal some of those past fissures between various parts of our movements and communities and embrace the fact that we’re going to need unlikely accomplices moving forward so we have to be letting go of some of this capitalistic ego around what work a group may own versus another.
Both are encouraging shareholders to vote against resolutions asking them to reevaluate their commitment to DEI. A shareholder resolution is a means by which those who hold stock in a company can seek to influence the company’s policies. Most are nonbinding and most do not receive a majority vote, as the bulk of shareholders usually vote among company lines. But if a resolution receives even 10 percent support, it’s hard for the company to ignore.
The Apple and Costco resolutions were both submitted by National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative think tank. Both cite the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, holding that race-based affirmative action in college admissions is unconstitutional. The Apple resolution also cites the high court’s 2024 ruling in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, which found that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating in transfer decisions even if the transfer didn’t cause great disadvantage.
The resolutions say that DEI programs pose financial and reputational risks to companies, noting that a white employee sued Starbucks for racial discrimination and won $25 million. DEI programs vary from company to company, but their generally promote inclusive practices for groups that have historically suffered discrimination, including people of color, LGBTQ+ people, and women.
“With 310,000 employees, Costco likely has at least 200,000 employees who are potentially victims of this type of illegal discrimination because they are white, Asian, male or straight,” the resolution to the retailing giant states. “Accordingly, even if only a fraction of those employees were to file suit, and only some of those prove successful, the cost to Costco could be tens of billions of dollars.” The Apple resolution doesn’t mention those groups, but it does go into the potential cost of lawsuits.
Apple, in its proxy statement (a document sent to shareholders ahead of the annual meeting), recommends a vote against the resolution because “the proposal is unnecessary as Apple already has a well-established compliance program and the proposal inappropriately attempts to restrict Apple’s ability to manage its own ordinary business operations, people and teams, and business strategies; and our Board and management maintain active oversight of legal and regulatory risks and compliance for our global business.”
“Apple is an equal opportunity employer and does not discriminate in recruiting, hiring, training, or promoting on any basis protected by law,” the statement continues. “Apple seeks to operate in compliance with applicable non-discrimination laws, both in the United States and in the many other jurisdictions in which we operate, and in that regard monitors and evolves its practices, policies, and goals as appropriate to address compliance risks. The proposal inappropriately seeks to micromanage the Company’s programs and policies by suggesting a specific means of legal compliance.”
Apple has a supplier diversity program, set up in 1993, which works with groups such as the National Minority Supplier Development Council and National Veterans Business Development Council, CNN reports. It also has a vice president of inclusion and diversity, a position established in 2017, and 67 employee groups called diversity network associations. The first of these dates from 1986. Apple’s CEO, Tim Cook, is gay (although he did donate personal funds, not company ones, to anti-LGBTQ+ President-elect Donald Trump’sinauguration).
“We are simply asking for a consideration,” Stefan Padfield, executive director of the NCPPR’s Free Enterprise Project, told CNN. “The proposal, if approved, would not automatically result in the abolishment of DEI.”
Costco’s directors, however, say this is the ultimate goal of such resolutions. “The proponent professes concern about legal and financial risks to the Company and its shareholders associated with the diversity initiatives,” the proxy statement reads. “The supporting statement demonstrates that it is the proponent and others that are responsible for inflicting burdens on companies with their challenges to longstanding diversity programs. The proponent’s broader agenda is not reducing risk for the Company but abolition of diversity initiatives.”
The NCPPR published a document called “Balancing the Boardroom” in 2022, Costco notes. It said CEOs and other corporate executives who are “woke” and “hard-left” are “inimical to the Republic and its blessings of liberty” and “committed to critical race theory and the socialist foundations of woke” or “shameless monsters who are willing to sacrifice our future for their comforts.”
“Our efforts at diversity, equity and inclusion remind and reinforce with everyone at our Company the importance of creating opportunities for all,” Costco’s statement says. “We believe that these efforts enhance our capacity to attract and retain employees who will help our business succeed. This capacity is critical because we owe our success to our now over 300,000 employees around the globe. … We believe that our diversity, equity and inclusion efforts are legally appropriate, and nothing in the proposal demonstrates otherwise.”
Costco’s annual shareholder meeting will be held January 23. Apple’s will be held February 25.
On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order titled, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.”1 Although the executive order sweeps broadly across many areas affecting transgender, nonbinary and intersex people, a central tenet of the directive is the redefinition of the word “sex” as applied across federal programs and services to refer only to biological characteristics “at conception,” and as unchangeable.2 Redefining “sex” is something the president attempted to do in his previous term,3 particularly in the context of sex discrimination in education under Title IX,4 and had committed to doing in his second term.5 As part of his “Agenda 47” for the next four years, President Trump has also committed to working with Congress to enact a sex definition statute.6 This policy brief explores the meaning of the executive order and the potential impact for transgender, nonbinary, and intersex people.
Understanding the Scope of the Executive Order
A key function of executive orders is political messaging.7 Executive orders can have practical impacts, but there are limits on what a president can do through this medium.8 Most importantly, an executive order must be supported by an authority the president derives from the Constitution or through an express delegation from Congress.9 Additionally, their implementation is often not immediate. This is because an executive order, much like President Biden’s 2021 order regarding the meaning of “sex” for federal nondiscrimination laws,10 often takes the form of a directive to federal agencies, each of which would have to conduct internal assessments and consider actions such as rulemaking.11 This is how President Trump’s order approaches the definition of “sex” for federal agency programs and agencies.12 Notably, however, agencies under the Trump administration may also take early steps by rescinding practices or interpretations in instances where formal rulemaking is not required13 or taking actions that may encounter fewer procedural constraints.14 The president cites his authority to “regulate the conduct of employees in the executive branch” to support the order.15
Defining “Sex”
There is no universal definition of the word “sex.” The term generally refers to a collection of reproductive, hormonal, anatomical, and genetic characteristics that are commonly grouped into categories of “male” and “female” based on reproductive function.16 However, social scientists and medical professionals have long understood sex and gender as complex and intertwined concepts.17 Moreover, there is substantial variation among sex characteristics themselves, such that even for non-transgender people, categorization in a strict male/ female binary based on sex characteristics at birth does not accurately describe many Americans, such as intersex people.18 For decades, courts have recognized that given the complicated ways that “sex” manifests in society, statutes protecting against “sex” discrimination should be understood to apply to sex stereotyping,19 sexual orientation, and gender identity.20 This understanding was formally adopted into many areas of law under the Biden administration,21 which President Trump now seeks to undo. In response to what he describes as “gender ideology,” President Trump’s order lays out a sweeping redefinition of the term “sex” across many parameters of federal government that is based on a narrow subset of reproductive characteristics:
(d) “Female” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell.
(e) “Male” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell.22
The definition explicitly excludes gender, gender identity, and any other characteristics.23 The order also includes a directive to the Department of Health and Human Services to produce a standard, government-wide definition within 30 days.24
The Impact on Transgender, Nonbinary, and Intersex People
President Trump’s executive order has the potential to affect a broad range of people, including:
Transgender people. Approximately 1.6 million individuals, or 0.6% of the U.S. population aged 13 and older, identify as transgender.25 This includes 300,100 youth aged 13 to 17 who identify as transgender.
Nonbinary people. Approximately 1.2 million LGBTQ adults identify as nonbinary in the U.S.—11% of all LGBTQ adults.26
Intersex people. Intersex refers to people whose sex characteristics do not fall into the typical binary categories of male and female.27 Although data are limited and further research is needed to better understand the size of the intersex population in the U.S., the best estimate to date is that intersex people comprise approximately 1.7% of the population.28 Using this estimate, the Department of Health and Human Services under President Biden estimated that as many as 5 million people in the U.S. may be intersex.29
Although the full impact of an order defining sex—or a statute to the same effect—is difficult to determine, there are a few areas of federal policy where President Trump’s executive order is clearly directed. These include nondiscrimination statutes, federally issued identity documents, prisons, and other sex-separated spaces.
Nondiscrimination laws. The President has instructed agencies to review “laws governing sex-based rights, protections, opportunities, and accommodations” to ensure they “protect men and women as biologically distinct sexes.”30 This includes a directive to the Attorney General to “immediately issue guidance to correct” what is described as a “misapplication of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020)” to allow transgender people to participate in sex-separated spaces based on gender identity.31
Many statutes enforced by federal agencies protect against sex discrimination—this includes Title VII,32 Title IX,33 Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act,34 the Fair Housing Act,35 and even laws such as the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (as amended).36
Early in his presidency, President Biden ordered federal agencies to evaluate whether these statutes should be interpreted to apply to sexual orientation and gender identity in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County.37 Many agencies complied by issuing memoranda,38 interpretations,39 guidance,40 and new regulations.41
The new administration seeks to reverse these interpretive documents and formally redefine these laws to exclude coverage for gender identity (and likely sexual orientation). The executive order also consistently emphasizes the administration’s assertion that nondiscrimination laws do not permit transgender people to access sex-separated spaces based on gender identity.
However, there are barriers that may slow down or block the implementation of these changes. For example, formal rulemaking procedures would be required to make longstanding changes to the definition of sex under these statutes, and the way that definition is enforced.42 It is also important to note that many nondiscrimination laws have been interpreted by courts to protect LGBT people,43 including access to gender-affirming bathrooms,44 and the administration’s actions cannot automatically undo those protections. Additionally, many states offer protections against discrimination in areas such as housing,45 employment,46 and public accommodations.47
Identity documents. President Trump’s executive order addresses sex designations on federal identification documents, including passports and Global Entry cards.48
Passports. The federal government issues several forms of identity documents, including passports through the Department of State.49 Under President Biden, Department of State policy permitted passports to be changed upon request, allowing M, F, and X designations.50 President Trump’s executive order requires that passports “accurately reflect the holder’s sex,” as defined in the order. However, implementation of this policy would need to be determined by the Department of State, and it is yet to be seen how the agency would address the needs of transgender, nonbinary, and intersex people in light of this order. For example, the Department of State could seek to recategorize passports with X designations, revoke such passports, or honor currently existing passports for transgender, nonbinary, and intersex people while imposing new requirements for gender markers on passports in future applications or renewals.
Federal prisons. The executive order directly addresses the placement of transgender women in prison, ordering that they be placed based on biological characteristics at birth rather than gender identity and denying gender-affirming health care.51
The Federal Bureau of Prisons estimates that in January 2025, there were 1,538 transgender women and 750 transgender men in federal prisons.52
Under President Biden, policy guidelines permitted consideration of requests made by incarcerated transgender people to be placed based on gender identity and receive appropriate health care.53 This practice was also consistent with longstanding guidelines to prevent prison sexual abuse.54 President Trump’s order seeks to prohibit transgender prisoners from being held in facilities based on gender identity and prevent federal funding from being used for the provision of gender-affirming care in prisons.55
Notably, the Supreme Court has established that federal prison officials have an obligation not to act with “deliberate indifference” to the health and safety of transgender prisoners,56 which could be a barrier to the success of President Trump’s policy goal. Additionally, state laws and court decisions regarding access to health care in prisons may also serve as a barrier.57
Sex-separated spaces. The order requires that sex-separated spaces, such as homeless shelters and intimate partner violence shelters,58 or “intimate spaces designated for women, girls or females (or for men, boys or males)” funded or operated by the federal government “are designated by sex and not identity.”0
Transgender people are disproportionately likely to experience homelessness. For example, a 2020 study found that 8% of transgender adults reported experiencing homelessness in the past year, compared to 3% of non-transgender LGB people and 1% of cisgender, heterosexual adults.60 Research also shows that transgender people already face substantial barriers to accessing emergency shelters, including denial of shelter access or mistreatment inside of a shelter.61
Studies have also found that transgender people face higher rates of intimate partner violence, compared to cisgender individuals.62
President Trump previously attempted to enact a rule that would bar transgender women from women’s shelters; however, that rule was quickly rolled back by the Biden administration before implementation.63The Biden administration has maintained that transgender people should be able to access federally funded emergency shelters based on gender identity.64 President Trump’s directive would reverse that yet again.
The broad language of the executive order could extend to any space that received federal funding and is sex-separated, particularly where individuals must change clothes or shower.
In addition to the specific areas targeted above, President Trump’s executive order broadly demands that the term “sex” be redefined across the federal government, including in forms, policies, and for the purposes of federal funding.65 This could impact several additional areas, such as bathrooms, sports participation, health care, data collection, and research.
Bathrooms. Although bathrooms are not specifically named in the executive order, they appear to be a primary focus. The order’s purpose statement focuses on countering policies that “permit men to self-identify as women and gain access to intimate single-sex spaces and activities designed for women.”66 The order consistently reiterates a commitment to restricting single-sex spaces based on biological distinctions, which suggests that bathrooms will be a fixture of policies enacted under the order. Most directly, the order may result in restriction of bathroom access in federal government properties based on sex assigned at birth, something that President Trump has said he intends to do.67 Congress has already enacted such a restriction in Congressional buildings.0 This could also extend to other sex-separated spaces that are bathroom-adjacent, such as showers, which are addressed in the executive order,69 and locker rooms. In light of the order’s reference to use of federal funding, it is possible that the executive order could have impacts beyond federal buildings and workplaces, but that is yet to be determined.70 However, bathrooms and other government facilities are largely governed by state and local laws rather than federal laws,71 although it is possible that the federal government could attach funding restrictions regarding bathrooms to entities such as schools that receive federal funding.
Sports participation. The executive order does not directly address participation in sports. However, the President’s order addresses the federal statutes and interpretations that apply to sports participation, such as Title IX, as well as “intimate spaces” which would likely include changing rooms. Nonetheless, changing the regulations themselves will require formal rulemaking, because existing regulations are in place which define sex in a transgender-inclusive manner for educational programs and services (although they are subject to injunctions).72 Furthermore, it is possible that a federal sports ban may come from Congress in coordination with federal executive efforts.73
Health care. Outside of the context of federal prisons, the executive order does not address health care specifically, though it does so indirectly through its requirement that agencies rescind LGBTQ-inclusive interpretations of sex discrimination statutes and federal funding requirements.74 The Biden administration had consistently understood health nondiscrimination requirements to apply to gender identity and gender-affirming care, and that these interpretations applied to grantees.75 Although the full consequences of the executive order’s directives will be subject to procedural requirements and litigation, it is possible that funding for some health care could be disrupted or otherwise affected by policies outlined in the executive order.
Data collection and research. President Trump’s order mandates that “agency forms that require an individual’s sex shall list male or female, and shall not request gender identity.”76 If implemented, this could make it difficult for transgender people to self-report on government forms and nearly impossible for researchers to make observations about transgender experiences using those data. The order also prohibits funds from being used to “promote gender ideology.”77 “Gender ideology” is defined broadly in the order in such a manner as to prohibit the recording of “sex” based on any factor other than reproductive biology at birth.78Currently, federal data allow insights into transgender populations,79 and the federal government also funds research into transgender experiences.80 While the full consequences of this policy for research using gender identity data remains to be seen, this aspect of the order could result in severe restrictions on the ability of researchers to study and understand disparities, service utilization, and other experiences of transgender people.
Regardless of what actions are taken, the implementation of this order is likely to come unevenly—for example, a bathroom ban for federal buildings or employees may be possible to implement quicker if it is found to be feasible to implement without rulemaking, whereas many of the changes described above would require agencies to take actions such as formal rulemaking.81 Many of the provisions of this order, or the corresponding agency actions, will likely also face substantial litigation.82
Health Impacts of Sex Definition Laws
In addition to the direct impacts of discrimination that may be treated as lawful under the Trump administration, a “sex” definition order could also have other downstream effects. For example, regardless of other outcomes, it is likely that there will be effects on the mental health and well-being of LGBTQ people, especially transgender, nonbinary, and intersex people most directly impacted by these policies. Research shows that anti-LGBTQ policies increase negative mental health outcomes for transgender people83 and that affirming policies, such as the ability to obtain affirming identity documents, positively influence the well-being of transgender people.84
Conclusion
President Trump’s attempt to redefine the word “sex” for the purposes of federal law to narrowly refer to certain reproductive characteristics could have a range of consequences. While the actual details and realities of implementation will take some time to understand, research shows that efforts such as these can negatively impact the mental health of transgender people. However, it is likely that the process of implementing the directives will be subject to federal procedural constraints, which means that most efforts will not be effective immediately. Furthermore, these actions will almost certainly be subject to extensive litigation, which means that the ultimate outcome is difficult to predict.
The first large-scale study on the experiences of autistic transgender people finds that they are more likely to have long-term mental and physical health conditions, including alarmingly high rates of self-harm, data from the Autism Research Center at Cambridge University shows.
Researchers found that these individuals also report experiencing lower quality health care than both autistic and non-autistic people whose gender identity matches their sex assigned at birth.
“These findings add to the growing body of evidence that many autistic people experience unacceptably poor mental health and are at a very high risk of suicide-related behaviors. We need to consider how other aspects of identity, including gender, influence these risks,” said Dr. Elizabeth Weir, a postdoctoral scientist at the Autism Research Center, and one of the lead researchers of the study.
The report is a follow-up to 2020 research from Cambridge that found transgender people are more likely to be autistic and have higher levels of autistic traits than other people. Several studies have corroborated that finding in the interim and show autistic people are more likely to experience gender dysphoria than the general population.
Results from the 2020 study were based on responses from over 640,000 people. The new research, published in Molecular Autism, compared the experiences of 174 autistic transgender individuals, 1,094 autistic cisgender individuals, and 1,295 non-autistic cisgender individuals.
Compared to non-autistic cisgender individuals, autistic transgender people were three to 11 times more likely to report anxiety, “shutdowns” and “meltdowns” related to common healthcare experiences.
Transgender/gender-diverse autistic adults were 2.3 times more likely to report a physical health condition and 10.9 times more likely to report a mental health condition compared to cisgender non-autistic adults.
Only one in ten autistic transgender adults agreed with the statements: 1) They understood what their health care professional meant when discussing their health; 2) They knew what was expected of them when seeing a health care professional; and 3) They were able to describe how bad their pain felt.
The study also confirmed the reasoning behind the recognition of autistic people as a priority group in the U.K. Department of Health and Social Care’s “Suicide prevention strategy for England: 2023 to 2028”: compared to people who are non-autistic and cisgender, autistic transgender people are 5.8 times more likely to report self-harm, just above the equally alarming rate of 4.6 times for autistic cisgender individuals.
“We need to consider how to adapt health care systems and individual care to meet the needs of autistic transgender/gender diverse people,” said Prof. Sir Simon Baron-Cohen, Director of the Autism Research Center and a member of the research team. “Policymakers, clinicians, and researchers should work collaboratively with autistic people to improve existing systems and reduce barriers to health care.”
“Greater recognition of challenges and reasonable adjustments are essential for people with marginalized, intersectional identities in clinical practice,” the study concluded.
The Google Calendar app has stopped mentioning various cultural observances, like LGBTQ+ Pride Month, Black History Month, Women’s History Month, Hispanic Heritage Month, and Indigenous Peoples Month.
The company said that it wasn’t “sustainable” to keep mentioning these observances, but commenters accused Google of removing them in response to the recent right-wing pressure campaign against “diversity” efforts.
“Some years ago, the Calendar team started manually adding a broader set of cultural moments in a wide number of countries around the world,” Google spokesperson Madison Cushman Veld wrote in a statement to The Verge. “We got feedback that some other events and countries were missing — and maintaining hundreds of moments manually and consistently globally wasn’t scalable or sustainable.”
Veld said that, in mid-2024, Google returned to showing only public holidays and national observances from timeanddate.com globally, while allowing users to manually add other important observances to their own personal calendars.
Commenters on a Google support forum accused the tech giant of “kissing [President Donald Trump’s] butt,” and another called the removals an “embarrassing … example of the fast descent into fascism.”
“They are trying to erase anyone who isn’t a cis white male,” another commenter added.
The commenters were likely referring to Trump’s recent crusade against all diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts. Attorney General Pam Bondi recently issued a memo instructing the Department of Justice to investigate companies with DEI initiatives “to end illegal discrimination and preferences.”
Labor law attorney Mark S. Spring noted that Bondi stated that “educational, cultural, or historical observances such as Black History Month … or similar events that celebrate diversity, recognize historical contributions, and promote awareness without engaging in exclusion or discrimination are permissible” under Bondi’s order.
Google recently removed mentions of its past DEI commitments from its annual report to the Securities and Exchange Commission and will end its goal of hiring applicants from historically underrepresented backgrounds, MSNBC reported.
The prominent LGBTQ+ rights organization Egale Canada will boycott events in the U.S. in protest of the Trump administration’s continued assault on the transgender community.
“After deep consideration, we have decided not to engage in-person in this year’s Commission on the Status of Women or any other UN, OAS (Organization of American States) or global convergings, including WorldPride, taking place in the United States in the foreseeable future,” a statement from the group reads.
WorldPride, which drew five million attendees to its biannual gathering in New York in 2023, is slated to take place in Washington DC at the end of May.
Egale Canada also withdrew from in-person participation at a meeting of the Commission on the Status of Women at United Nations headquarters in New York in March, where it planned to discuss LGBTQ+-related issues.
The group pointed to threats at the border as the primary reason for their action.
“This decision is foremost based on the need to safeguard our trans and nonbinary staff who would face questionable treatment at land and aviation borders to attend such convenings, and to stand in solidarity with global colleagues who are experiencing similar fear around entry to the U.S.,” the statement continues.
The U.S. State Department will no longer allow gender marker changes on U.S. passports and has halted issuing travel documents with the “X” gender marker preferred by many nonbinary people.
On the department’s website, references to transgender people have been scrubbed, with information for “LGBTQI+” travelers replaced with the acronym “LGB”, cleaving transgender and intersex people from the larger LGBTQ+ community.
The erasure follows Trump’s “gender ideology” executive order, which directed the Departments of State and Homeland Security “to require that government-issued identification documents, including passports, visas, and Global Entry cards” reflect people’s sex “at conception.”
Last Friday, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of seven people unable to obtain passports that match their gender identity following Trump’s directive.
How that directive and Trump’s “gender ideology” order will affect trans and nonbinary people seeking entry to the U.S. remains so far unclear. If a traveler’s federally-issued identity documents do not match their state-issued documents (such as a driver’s license), the mismatch could result in harassment or discrimination by travel security agents or airline workers, the LGBTQ+ advocacy organization Immigration Equality has said.
Egale Canada also cited other threats Trump has made targeting Canada for their boycott decision, including his proposed 25% tariff on Canadian goods entering the U.S. The threats have encouraged some Canadians to consider boycotting U.S. goods, services and travel plans in retaliation.
“It is also founded in the unique situation that has been thrust on Canadians (and citizens of other countries) regarding economic warfare and threats to our national sovereignty,” the group said. “We cannot in good conscience engage in a process of disentangling our organization from the U.S. goods and services… and then proceed to travel to the U.S.”
Trump has trolled Canada about annexing the country as America’s fifty-first state, an idea he reiterated in a Super Bowl interview with Fox News on Sunday.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on Friday called Trump’s threat “a real thing.”
State does not force outing but may contribute to hostile school climate (see note beneath map) (4 states)
