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.”
A transgender girl housed in a male unit of a Washington, D.C., juvenile detention center has been hospitalized after sustaining multiple injuries, including a broken jaw, officials said.
The girl, whose age was not disclosed, was one of two residents of the city’s Youth Services Center to be sent to the hospital on July 7 following violent incidents at the facility, Turnesha Fish, interim chief of staff at the city’s Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services (DYRS), confirmed Tuesday.
The two incidents were isolated, and a full review has been launched, according to officials.
NBC Washington reported that five teens have been charged with violations related to the assault of the trans resident.
Sam Abed, the DYRS director, said the incidents were “unacceptable” and being taken “very seriously” by the agency.
“We appreciate our staff for their quick actions in de-escalating the situations,” he said. “These incidents do not reflect the values or standard of care we aim to uphold.”
Youth Services Center in Washington, D.C.Google Maps
Department officials said the residents involved have been separated and reassigned to different housing units.
According to a copy of the department’s LGBTQ policy, which was shared with NBC News, a classification committee decides on housing assignments for all youth residents and takes into consideration information shared during intake and a health care provider’s recommendation “that may indicate a need for a particular housing situation.”
“All classification and housing decisions at DYRS secure facilities shall be based on youths’ individualized needs, prioritizing the youth’s physical and emotional well-being,” the policy reads.
Transgender and intersex youth “shall not automatically be housed” according to their sex assigned at birth, according to the policy.
The policy, which has been in place since 2012, also states that staff should take the resident’s perception of where they will be “most secure” into account. All residents also have the opportunity to request a re-examination of placement “if they feel unsafe in their current housing.”
I knew something was off when I started growing facial hair at 12 years old. Small chin hairs, but still noticeable to everyone. I’d poke and prod them at first, not out of shame but curiosity and wonder. The more body hair I grew, the more intrigued I became. I thought it was neat that my body changed in this way! I soon found out not everyone would agree with me. My grandmother would tell me not to pick at it or I’d get spots and scars. Other girls in my class soon whispered about me being a man. I vividly remember a girl at my old school, rudely asking about the hair also growing on my knuckles, laughing a bit when she noticed. I didn’t know how to answer at the time. I was just as confused as she was! Eventually, I wanted to tweeze every one of those hairs out of shame. Now they’re something I’ve come to embrace.
I felt like I didn’t belong anywhere.
I always knew my body was different. It wasn’t just the changes I encountered, but how people treated me because of it. I remember learning my now ex-friend was the one calling me “Sasquatch Legs” behind my back. Of course, that nickname followed me throughout high school. Other people around me soon became violent and verbally hateful when seeing just how different I truly was. Pressure from my family to maintain my femininity by wearing makeup and dresses once puberty hit became a central theme in my high school years, marked by arguments and rebellion. Growing up, I was always taught that a woman should be hairless, blemish-free and always present herself femininely. I had bouts of acne, a hairy face (not to mention my even hairier legs) and a dislike of dresses and makeup. It became clear that society’s definition of a woman didn’t fit me at all.I was constantly told by everyone, including my own family, that I had to maintain my body so I could meet these high standards. It only made me feel worse about myself. I felt like I didn’t belong anywhere, too hairy to be a visible and accepted woman, yet I knew I wasn’t a man, despite everyone seeing me as such.I was quickly taught two things during that time of my life: My body was different in a way people didn’t like, and I was the one at fault for not changing it.
Society saw me as a “broken woman.” For a long time, I believed them.
That shame and guilt followed me for a long time. I felt othered in a way I didn’t have words for. Even when I shaved, wore makeup, and put on a dress in an effort to belong, I was still seen as a man. Society saw me as a “broken woman,” and for a long time, I believed them. It seemed no matter where I went or how much effort I put into fitting in, it wasn’t going to work. I wrestled even more with my gender identity. I had cycled through labels I thought made sense, yet none seemed to fit. They all seemed to come with an assumption: that I was raised as a woman who had feelings of dysphoria due to the body and gender assignment I was given. That is a real experience for some people, but wasn’t mine. In my case, I never fit into society’s view of being a woman to begin with, despite my knowing deep down that I am one. I realized that I was at a unique crossroads. Society kept saying I didn’t fit into women’s spaces enough to be seen as one. Yet I didn’t feel a hundred percent comfortable calling myself a man, despite my very masculine features. I knew I had a gender: a very masculine woman, one who didn’t want to give up her masculinity to be seen as woman enough. I didn’t want to compromise on my identity. I desperately hoped I could give it a lens that would make all these years of uncertainty, confusion, and isolation finally fall into place.
I finally had a way to describe my experiences.
Eventually, I stumbled on the term that’d fundamentally shape everything I’ve known about myself: intersex.There was a label for people like me who have variations in their sex characteristics! I sobbed in relief as the term clicked in my brain, filling in all those years of shame and confusion with a new sense of clarity I needed. I could look at my life from a new lens with a better understanding of myself. I finally had a way to describe my isolating yet unique experiences.Over my high school years, I had cycled through terms that I used to describe my gender identity. What I was missing was the idea that I could be intersex, too. Being intersex encompasses a separate set of experiences related to physical variations in sexual characteristics. Finding the label was life-saving. It clarified the line I didn’t know I was walking, trying to know myself through my gender identity but also my body’s sexual characteristics. Still, I didn’t know how I fit as an intersex person. I had no medical diagnoses to explain my traits at the time, but everything about my body clicked—I just knew I belonged. That satisfied me for a while, but eventually I wanted concrete answers.
My features were seen as an issue to be solved.
At 18 years old, I was finally given a word that described my variation specifically. PCOS (Polycystic Ovary Syndrome).Those three words rang in my head like a bell. I felt relieved, but I also left the doctor’s office confused. Confused as to how to take care of myself, wondering just how deep this all went. I was told what my condition was and had a brief explanation: I have hyperandrogenic PCOS, meaning I have higher-than-typical levels of testosterone and/or other androgens (masculinizing hormones). This is why I grew facial hair at 11, barely menstruated, and struggled so hard with being accepted. It soon became very clear to me that my doctor at the time was hoping I’d “fix” what he thought was “wrong” with me. My masculine features were seen as a glaring issue to be solved. My doctor thought he had the solution and suggested I start estrogen to maintain my hormone levels. I refused immediately. Of course, my doctor asked me, “Why won’t you go on hormones? It’d be good for you. You’re just being stubborn!” I had been on estrogen-based birth control prior to my diagnosis and knew it wasn’t right for me. Taking it left me with awful periods to the point where I couldn’t leave my bed. That time of my life was exhausting, and I didn’t want to go through it a second time. I brought up health concerns with taking estrogen, but deep down, I knew it was more than that. Estrogen is a feminizing hormone. I didn’t know how to articulate it at the time, but I’m not someone who’d want the changes estrogen would give me. I was comfortable in my identity as a masculine woman.
I am not broken—my PCOS makes me feel whole.
Now that I am involved in the intersex community, I’ve become more at home in my body. I don’t feel like some “broken woman” or just someone made as the punching bag for jokes. With the intersex community behind me, a space where I’m accepted and seen as I am without any need to conform, I can say how I actually feel. To everyone who mocked my facial hair growing up:To my old doctor, who tried again and again to push estrogen-based HRT onto me, even going as far as to mark me as “non-compliant” when I refused for the final time:To society that deemed me a failed specimen in need of fixing: I’m an intersex masculine woman with PCOS. I refuse to change my body, just so I can fit within the rigid and restraining expectations of how you think a woman should be. I am not broken. If anything, knowing I have PCOS has made me feel more whole than I’ve ever been—facial hair and all.
At interACT, we believe intersex youth deserve to be heard and paid for their labor. That’s why we compensate every young person who shares their story. If you believe in resourcing intersex youth leadership and uplifting their voices, please consider making a donation today. Your support helps ensure youth like Tendaji can keep telling their stories and shaping the intersex futures.
Tendaji Phoenix is an interACT Youth Advocacy cohort member with hyperandrogenicPCOS who uses he/she pronouns. He is an aspiring cybersecurity analyst from Los Angeles. She likes discussing the tech world and listening to lofi music.
Police in Washington, D.C., are seeking the public’s help in finding the killer of a Blacktransgender woman who was shot to death about 12:30 a.m. Saturday.
Bystanders flagged police down to where Dream Johnson, 28, lay unconscious on a city street, having been shot multiple times, the Washington Bladereports. She was taken to a local hospital, “but all lifesaving efforts failed and the victim was pronounced dead,” says a police statement quoted by the Blade.
The police did not identify Johnson as trans, but trans activists and her family said she was. She had planned to legally change her to Dream.
Vanna Terrell, Johnson’s aunt, told the Blade she heard that witnesses saw three men approach Johnson as she walked along the street and used a derogatory term toward her, so Terrell believes they knew Johnson was trans. Terrell also heard that the shooter emptied his gun, leading her to believe her niece was the victim of a hate crime.
A police spokesperson, however, told the Blade there was nothing to indicate Johnson’s killing was a hate crime.
Police are offering a $25,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of whoever is responsible for Johnson’s death. Homicide Detective Natasha Kennedy is the lead investigator in the case, and anyone with information is asked to contact her at (202) 380-6198.
GLAAD posted a statement to Instagram saying, “We cannot allow this pattern of violence against trans people — and especially trans women of color — to continue. No one should live in fear for being themselves.” Fifty-two percent of all anti-LGBTQ+ incidents tracked by GLAAD’s Alert Desk target trans people, the organization noted.
Puerto Rico, long regarded as a leader on transgender rights in the Caribbean, is facing a potential rollback as lawmakers push forward legislation to ban gender-affirming care for youth. The measure could criminalize parents and doctors and cut off vital medical support for the island’s trans community.
The bill, approved by both chambers of Puerto Rico’s legislature, is now awaiting action by Republican Gov. Jenniffer González Colón. Although she had proposed amendments to protect access to puberty blockers and allow minors already undergoing treatment to continue care, lawmakers did not adopt those changes. The governor now faces a decision to sign or veto the bill. The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that the government can limit this kind of care.
Late last month, the Puerto Rican Senate advanced the legislation, which would bar gender-affirming health care for trans people under 21 and impose fines, prison time, and professional sanctions on parents and medical providers who facilitate such care. The House recently passed the bill as well, starting a 30-day clock for the governor to act.
Parents of trans youth have pleaded with the governor to veto the bill, but instead, she sent it back for changes that ultimately failed.
Pedro Julio Serrano, president of the Puerto Rico LGBTQ+ Federation, stated that the island has long been “at the forefront” of trans rights, citing milestones such as allowing trans people to change their birth certificates and a recent court ruling that enabled nonbinary individuals to have an “X” gender marker. However, he warned that the political climate has shifted dramatically.
He told The Advocate that conservative forces in Puerto Rico, particularly the fundamentalist party Proyecto Dignidad, are using anti-trans legislation as a calculated political strategy to attract voters. Serrano noted that the same types of bills now moving through the legislature were blocked in the previous term through activism and lobbying, but have resurfaced under a more conservative government.
The current bill follows the passage of a religious liberty measure and another effort restricting care for trans minors, both of which Serrano said the community is also preparing to challenge in court. “We are on that waiting stage,” he said.
Serrano stressed that while Puerto Rico’s political environment has become more hostile, the island’s broader culture remains deeply supportive of LGBTQ+ people. He described Puerto Rico as a place that is generally “accepting, welcoming, respectful,” and one of the world’s top LGBTQ+ travel destinations. Yet, he acknowledged that pockets of violence and bigotry persist, recalling how Puerto Rico was the epicenter of anti-trans violence in 2020 when seven trans people were murdered.
He noted that the federation formed shortly after the 2020 election, anticipating conservative political gains both locally and nationally. Since then, the coalition has grown to include over 100 organizations and numerous political and community leaders. Its work has included large-scale marches, legislative outreach, community assemblies, legal planning, and grassroots organizing.
Serrano said the island has experienced a groundswell of local activism, with Pride events expanding from one march in San Juan decades ago to more than 20 events across Puerto Rico today, including on smaller islands like Vieques. He said the community is determined to resist efforts to strip away hard-won rights, even if the fight is long and complex. “We know that we’re going to have some setbacks,” he said. “But if we don’t do the fight right now, it’s going to be even harder to win back those things that are taken away from us.”
Groups, including the Puerto Rico LGBTQ+ Federation and GLAAD, condemned the legislation, warning that it would impose unbearable burdens on families and cut off trans youth from lifesaving health care. “Lawmakers must vote to protect access to health care that saves lives, and allow families to make private health care decisions that help loved ones be themselves, be safe, and to thrive,” the groups said in a joint statement.
Advocates also stress that, unlike in the contiguous United States, trans Puerto Ricans cannot simply travel to a neighboring state for care if services are banned locally. Many would be left without options unless they could afford expensive travel to the mainland. Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens but cannot vote for president in the general election unless they reside on the mainland.
Despite political divisions, President Donald Trump’s influence remains limited on the U.S. territory.
“People don’t forget when he threw paper towels at us,” Serrano said, referring to Trump’s widely criticized visit after Hurricane Maria, which many on the island saw as dismissive and insulting during a humanitarian crisis. Serrano added that even Republicans on the island often distance themselves from Trump, and that his policies do not hold the same sway in Puerto Rico as they might in some U.S. states.
The Advocate contacted the Puerto Rican governor’s office to ask whether she plans to sign or veto the bill, but did not receive a response.
Transgender Louisianians will no longer receive Medicaid reimbursement for any gender-affirming care prescriptions if their provider uses certain gender-related diagnosis codes, according to multiple LGBTQ+ organizations.
“Instead of making this change through the legislative process, the state instilled its anti-trans agenda through obscure, extralegal bureaucratic maneuvers,” the advocacy organization Trans Income Project wrote in a statement to the Illuminator. “Now, thousands of Louisianans are losing coverage for trans medicine and incurring unexpected out-of-pocket costs when attempting to pick up their regular prescriptions.”
Gender-affirming care is a catch-all term for medical treatments given to people to align their physical bodies with their identified gender. Such care is administered to transgender people, who identify as a gender different from their sex assigned at birth, as well as cisgender people, who identify as their assigned sex.
The Louisiana Department of Health did not respond to emailed questions asking why the policy has been put in place.
The Williams Institute, a think tank at UCLA School of Law that researches sexual orientation and gender identity law, estimates LGBTQ+ adults are twice as likelyas non-LGBTQ+ adults to take part in the Medicaid program.
Louisiana banned gender-affirming health care for transgender youth in 2023, but the treatments remain legal for transgender adults.
