Transgender / Transsexual

/ /

Utah study on trans youth care extremely inconvenient for politicians who ordered it

In 2022, Utah Gov. Spencer Cox was the rare Republican governor who seemed to truly care about the well-being of transgender kids. “I don’t understand what they are going through or why they feel the way they do. But I want them to live,” he wrote in a letter that year, explaining why he was vetoing a bill that would have banned four trans middle- and high schoolers in Utah from playing on sports teams with classmates who shared their gender identity. “All the research shows that even a little acceptance and connection can reduce suicidality significantly.”

Meanwhile, nationally, Republican politicians were making opposition to trans rights a core tenet of their platforms, filing hundreds of bills attacking trans kids at the doctor’s office, at school, and on the field. Early in the 2023 legislative session, Cox capitulated, signing a bill that placed an indefinite “moratorium” on doctors providing puberty blockers and hormone therapy to trans kids with gender dysphoria. The bill ordered the Utah health department to commission a systematic review of medical evidence around the treatments, with the goal of producing recommendations for the legislature on whether to lift the moratorium. “We sincerely hope that we can treat our transgender families with more love and respect as we work to better understand the science and consequences behind these procedures,” Cox said at the time.

Now, more than two years later, that review is here, and its conclusions unambiguously support gender-affirming medical care for trans youth. “The conventional wisdom among non-experts has long been that there are limited data” on gender-affirming pediatric care, the authors wrote. “However, results from our exhaustive literature searches have lead us to the opposite conclusion.”

The medical evidence review, published on Wednesday, was compiled over a two-year period by the Drug Regimen Review Center at the University of Utah. Unlike the federal government’s recent report on the same subject, which was produced in three months and criticized gender-affirming pediatric treatments, the names of the Utah report’s contributors are actually disclosed on the more than thousand-page document.

The authors write:

The consensus of the evidence supports that the treatments are effective in terms of mental health, psychosocial outcomes, and the induction of body
changes consistent with the affirmed gender in pediatric [gender dysphoria] patients. The evidence also supports that the treatments are safe in terms of changes to bone density, cardiovascular risk factors, metabolic changes, and cancer…

It is our expert opinion that policies to prevent access to and use of [gender-affirming hormone therapy] for treatment of [gender dysphoria] in pediatric patients cannot be justified based on the quantity or quality of medical science findings or concerns about potential regret in the future, and that high-quality guidelines are available to guide qualified providers in treating pediatric patients who meet diagnostic criteria.

In a second part of their review, the authors looked specifically at long-term outcomes of patients who started treatment for gender dysphoria as minors:

Overall, there were positive mental health and psychosocial functioning outcomes. While gender affirming treatment showed a possibly protective effect in prostate cancer in transgender men and breast cancer in transgender women, there was an increase in some specific types of benign brain tumors. There were increased mortality risks in both transgender men and women treated with hormonal therapy, but more so in transgender women. Increase risk of mortality was consistently due to increase in suicide, non-natural causes, and HIV/AIDS. Patients that were seen at the gender clinic before the age of 18 had a lower risk of suicide compared to those referred as an adult.

Submitted with the review was a set of recommendations—compiled by advisers from the state’s medical and professional licensing boards, the University of Utah, and a Utah non-profit hospital system—on steps the state legislature could take to ensure proper training among gender-affirming care providers, in the event it decides to lift the moratorium.

But according to the Salt Lake Tribune, legislators behind the ban are already dismissing the findings they asked for. In response to questions from the Tribune, Rep. Katy Hall, who co-sponsored the 2023 ban, issued a joint statement with fellow Republican state Rep. Bridger Bolinder, the chair of the legislature’s Health and Human Services Interim Committee, that dismissed the study’s findings. “We intend to keep the moratorium in place,” they told the Tribune. “Young kids and teenagers should not be making life-altering medical decisions based on weak evidence.”

Why ignore their own review? Polling, the legislators’ statement suggests. “Utah was right to lead on this issue, and the public agrees—polls show clear majority support both statewide and nationally,” Hall and Bolinder added in their statement. “Simply put, the science isn’t there, the risks are real, and the public is with us.”

Others, like former state Rep. Mike Kennedy, a co-sponsor of the 2023 ban who now represents Utah’s 3rd district in Congress, have so far been silent on the state review’s findings—as has Gov. Cox, who did not respond to the Salt Lake Tribune‘s request for comment.

/ /

What It Actually Looks Like When Trans People Follow Bathroom Bans

,

In Trump’s new America, bathrooms have become politicized battlegrounds.

What may have seemed like an issue resolved in 2017 following the repeal of North Carolina’s infamous HB 2, bathroom bans targeting the trans community have once again made national headlines alongside a spate of new bills.

Nineteen states already have active laws that restrict transgender people from using restrooms that match their gender identity. Many of these bills are more extreme than those in previous years, with Florida and Utah—two states that have banned trans folks from using all government building restrooms that match their gender identity—threatening criminal penalties against violators. Florida’s law classifies the offense of using the bathroom and not leaving when asked as a first-degree misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in prison and a $1,000 fine.

Photo on left by Whitney Brewer for Uncloseted Media.

To understand what these bans look like in practice, Uncloseted Media documented Briden Schueren, a trans man, legally using the women’s bathroom at the University of Cincinnati and Ashley Brundage, a trans woman, legally using the men’s bathroom at Tampa International Airport.

Whitney Brewer for Uncloseted Media.

Schueren, a 37-year-old art studio owner from Columbus, Ohio, walks across the University of Cincinnati’s campus, uncertain of where he can and can’t use the men’s restroom in his home state.

“What are the bills, what is getting passed in the House,” he told Uncloseted Media. “[Keeping up] is just exhausting.”

Ohio is one of seven states that ban transgender people from using bathrooms and facilities consistent with their gender identity in K-12 schools and specific government-owned buildings, including the University of Cincinnati.

Provided by a University of Cincinnati student. 

The public research university made headlines and sparked outrage from LGBTQ advocates when it implemented restroom signs labeled “biological men” and “biological women” to enforce Ohio’s Senate Bill 104. They took the signs down after just one month of protests, with college administrators apologizing to students in an email, saying that the “biological” bathroom signs will be replaced and that they made an “error.”

But even with the removal of the signs, it’s still illegal for Schueren to use the men’s bathroom anywhere on the school’s campus, meaning if he wants to follow the law, he has to use the women’s bathroom or a gender neutral option that is “out of the way,” according to students.

Schueren says he felt uncomfortable entering a space where he knows he doesn’t belong. “I now have to be in this bathroom [even though] that’s not how I identify anymore socially and mentally,” he says. “I don’t belong there. As a masculine person with a very obvious beard, I feel like my bathroom is the men’s restroom.”

Brundage, a 44-year-old transgender woman from Tampa, Florida, has not used men’s restrooms for 16 years since she came out.

Florida’s Facility Requirements Based on Sex Act—that passed into law in 2023—mandates that individuals use restrooms and changing facilities that correspond to their sex assigned at birth in certain public and state-owned buildings, like libraries, schools, post offices and airports.

“It felt weird,” says Brundage, describing the moments before being forced by law to use the men’s restroom at the airport. “It was a little awkward, right? We wanted to make sure that we weren’t making anybody feel uncomfortable.”

Whitney Brewer for Uncloseted Media.

Upgrade to paid

Schueren says that being back in a bathroom that doesn’t align with his identity was painful. 

Research from the International Journal of Transgender Health shows that 49% of transgender youth reported sometimes avoiding public bathrooms and 22% always avoided them. Youth who avoided bathrooms were nearly twice as likely to attempt suicide in the past year compared to those who never avoided public bathrooms. And a 2020 survey found that 85% of transgender youth who faced bathroom restrictions reported a persistent depressive mood.

“We already know that the suicide rates for trans individuals are highest amongst everybody, so it just could cause more,” says Schueren. 

Whitney Brewer for Uncloseted Media.

Bathroom bans are not only emotionally taxing; they can be dangerous.

A 2025 report by the Williams Institute found that transgender people face increased risks when they are required to use bathrooms according to their sex assigned at birth. Transgender men were more likely to experience harassment when using the women’s restroom.

Schueren has faced harassment in both the men’s and women’s restrooms. In the early stages of his transition, he remembers entering a bathroom on his college campus and being followed by a man who knew he was trans. “He was making aggressive movements,” says Schueren.

The man stood outside the stall, punching his hand against the wall. “He was just so angry. … [H]e was much bigger than I was. He was making threats, saying I would ‘be injured.’”

For nearly 45 minutes, Schueren sat on the toilet and watched through the crack in the stall door as the man paced back and forth before finally departing. “I was just sitting in the bathroom shaking hysterically, waiting patiently for him to leave.”

Upgrade to paid

Brundage, who ran for office for the Florida House of Representatives in 2024, sees a massive irony when far-right lawmakers claim these bans will keep women and girls safer.

“I also want to make sure that my kids are safe in bathrooms,” Brundage says. “The people who actually do harm in spaces … are typically cisgender men. And it’s like, ‘Who is the actual villain?’ We should be doing something to address the issue, not scapegoating transgender people.”

Congresswoman Nancy Mace, who has been vocal and accusatory on this issue, has used transgender slurs in press conferences and has framed her stance as a defense of “biological reality” against what she calls “radical gender-bending experimentation.”

In November 2024, she introduced a resolution to ban transgender women from using female facilities on federal property. When asked if the resolution was targeted toward Sarah McBride, the first openly transgender member of Congress, Mace said, “Absolutely.”

Even though McBride said she would follow House rules by using a private bathroom on Capitol Hill, Republican Congresswoman Lauren Boebert mistakenly confronted a cisgender woman in a Capitol bathroom, believing she was Rep. McBride.

Upgrade to paid

Boebert reportedly said, “You shouldn’t be here,” before realizing her error and later apologizing.

In addition, earlier this month, two cisgender women were ordered to leave a Boston hotel after a security officer demanded one of them show identification to “prove” her sex while using the women’s restroom.

“We have to do a better job in the world linking bathroom hypocrisy to [discrimination],” Brundage says, drawing a line from today’s debates to Jim Crow laws from the 1960s, where Black Americans were banned from white-only bathrooms—part of a racist system that falsely promised “separate but equal.”

Whitney Brewer for Uncloseted Media.

Far-right media has created a narrative that allowing trans folks to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity is dangerous and unsafe, especially for young girls.

In 2021, Fox News aired 88 segments over a three-week period about a sexual assault at a Virginia high school, repeatedly suggesting that the incident was related to trans-inclusive bathroom policies. Fox host Will Cain claimed that the school’s “transgender policies led to [a father’s] teenage daughter being allegedly raped in the school bathroom by a man in a skirt.” These claims were false, as the school’s policy was implemented months after the assault.

In addition, transgender men are frequently indistinguishable from cisgender men. This means a male predator wouldn’t need to disguise himself to enter a women’s restroom in a state with a bathroom ban; he could simply claim to be trans.

“A law’s not gonna stop a gross, deranged perpetrator,” says Schueren. “They’re already breaking the law by being a person that wants to be a predator. So it’s not trans people that are doing this, it’s people that just break the law in general, and those tend to be cis [men].”

There is no empirical evidence that allowing trans individuals to use a bathroom of their choosing increases the risk of sexual assault.

Share

Brundage says that beyond the misinformed narratives surrounding anti-trans legislation lies something far more practical and frustrating: a massive amount of wasted taxpayer dollars.

“We’re talking about this wasteful spending issue of trans people,” she says. “Meanwhile, do I have a realistic way to make a living? Am I paying too much for insurance? Do the roads have potholes where I live? All of these things that could actually really affect you on a day-to-day basis aren’t being discussed and aren’t being solved.”

Brundage notes the more than $215 million the Trump campaign and the GOP spent on anti-trans ads during the last election cycle.

She says the constant political targeting of trans people has psychological and social consequences.

“Could you imagine if someone was going to be the president … and every time they got on the microphone, they talked about all the people named Steve in the world, how awful they are, how crappy they are?” she says. “If your name is Steve, you’re going to feel really crappy eventually. You’re going to feel like the whole weight of the largest economy in the world is against you.”

Whitney Brewer for Uncloseted Media.

While using a bathroom isn’t something cis people have to think about, Schueren says it’s often on his mind, especially when crossing state lines. “I recently went on a road trip with a trans person and we both are at different stages of our transition,” he says.

Beyond the emotional toll and stress of planning where to use the bathroom, holding in urine can increase the risk of urinary tract infections, cause bladder discomfort, and—in the long-run—contribute to bladder dysfunction from overstretching.

/ /

Trans Americans consider moves to safer states because of Trump election: Williams Institute

,

With many states and the federal government adopting anti-transgenderpolicies, nearly half of the trans people in a Williams Institute survey have moved to a more welcoming state or are considering such a move.

The institute, located at the School of Law at the University of California, Los Angeles, surveyed 302 trans, nonbinary, and other gender-diverse American adults in December to gauge the effect of Donald Trump’s election on them. They are referred to under the umbrella term “transgender” in the report. Respondents could remain anonymous. More than a third were people of color, and more than 40 percent had an annual income under $50,000. 

Forty-eight percent had either moved to a more trans-friendly state or were thinking about doing so. Twenty-three percent had already made such a move.

“Respondents who lived in less supportive local communities, those in states with laws and policies that were less supportive of transgender people, and those with concerns about the impact of Trump’s presidency on their access to health care, exposure to discrimination, and vulnerability to hate crimes, were more likely to want to move to a state they viewed as more trans-affirming,” says an executive summary of the findings, released this week. “Those with lower incomes were also more likely to want to relocate, even though they may lack the resources to do so.” (The full report is here.)

“When asked more specifically what cities or states they want to move to, most respondents mentioned progressive cities or politically liberal states, with California, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, and Washington Statefrequently named,” the summary continues. But many reported barriers to moving, particularly cost-related ones.

Among those working full-time or part-time in an unfriendly state, 14 percent were applying for jobs in more welcoming states, and 26 percent were considering this action.

Some respondents were considering international moves. Twenty percent said they very much wanted to move to another country, and 25 percent somewhat wanted to do so. There were barriers to this as well, including concerns about visas or other immigration regulations, health care, and language issues.

The anti-trans climate is affecting travel plans too. Thirty percent of respondents said they were traveling less frequently as a result of the 2024 election, and 70 percent said they would be much (48 percent) or somewhat (22 percent) less likely to go on vacation to states they view as less trans-friendly. About one-sixth said they had canceled travel plans to states they consider hostile or were considering cancellation.

“For those transgender people who do pursue relocating, service providers, businesses, and state and local governments should both consider the costs of losing members of their communities and support and welcome those who are making new homes,” the summary concludes. “Many transgender people will need resources to be able to move, and all will need to stay as informed as possible about what a move will and will not accomplish, given the rapidly changing policy landscape. Ultimately, whether or not most transgender people who want to move will be able to do so, the expression of a desire to move is a measure of the extreme pressure that transgender people are feeling about their and their families’ safety and health. Such pressure has mental health, physical health, and economic impacts on those who move and those who remain.”

“This survey was conducted in December 2024, so the desire to move and fears regarding travel for transgender people may be even more pronounced today,” lead author Abbie E. Goldberg, affiliated scholar at the Williams Institute and professor of psychology at Clark University, said in a press release. “Conversely, recent anti-transgender federal policies, which can affect even states with supportive laws, may have lessened the belief among transgender people that relocating will lead to significant improvement.”

“Whether or not the transgender people who want to move will ultimately be able to relocate, the desire to move is a measure of the extreme pressure that transgender people are feeling about the safety and health of themselves and their families,” added author Brad Sears, distinguished senior scholar of law and policy at the Williams Institute. “That pressure has mental health, physical health, and economic impacts on those who move and those who stay.”

An earlier release of the survey findings, which came out in March, noted that many trans people were worried about their access to gender-affirming careunder the Trump administration, were planning to downplay their trans identity, and were taking steps to protect themselves and their families.

/ /

Parents fight for school district to say trans student’s chosen name at graduation

,

A school in the Escambia County Public Schools of Pensacola, Florida, is refusing to call out the chosen name of a transgender student during an upcoming high school graduation ceremony or to print his name on his diploma. 

The student’s supportive parents are now asking their son’s school to change their decision, saying it’s based on a vague and “unwritten” school policy that contradicts years of educators respectfully using their son’s chosen name in school.

The student’s mother, Charline Barger, said that her son will graduate from Escambia Virtual Academy on May 27. However, when she reached out to the academy’s director, Lisa Morgan, she told Barger that honoring her son’s request to be called by his chosen name would violate school district practice and “be a big hassle” since some students may use inappropriate nicknames, Barger told The Pensacola News Journal.

“It has been our practice to announce full legal names, as they appear on birth certificates and diplomas, at commencement ceremonies,” Escambia County Public Schools Superintendent Keith Leonard told the aforementioned publication. Barger noted that while her son has not legally changed his name to his chosen name, Morgan did agree to address him at the ceremony by calling out the first initial of his legal birth name, followed by his legal middle and last names, but his diploma will list his full legal name.

Barger has said that she wants to raise awareness about the district’s “harmful practice,” saying, “This is not just for him, but for any student whose identity isn’t being honored at this once-in-a-lifetime moment.” She said that many LGBTQ+ students experience supportive environments in the district’s schools and classrooms and that the support should continue throughout graduation.

“It’s about a student standing tall, hearing their real name called, and walking proudly across that stage. To deny that moment is to deny their identity,” she added. “It may seem like a small moment to those calling the names, but for the students on that stage, it’s everything.”

Florida has recently passed several anti-trans laws, including one that restricts instruction on LGBTQ+ issues in public schools; one banning trans students from playing on school sports teams matching their gender identity; one restricting trans access to bathrooms in any state school, state university, or government building; one preventing gender marker changes on birth certificates, state IDs, and drivers lisences; and another preventing state Medicaid funds from covering gender-affirming medical care for all trans people.

The restrictive laws have resulted in trans people and their families fleeing the state for “sanctuary states” with more supportive trans policies. An August 2023 survey from the Human Rights Campaign found that 36% of other LGBTQ+ adults want to or plan to move out of Florida because of gender-affirming care bans, and almost 80% of other LGBTQ+ adults feel less safe in the community as a result of bans on gender-affirming care.

/ /

Military commanders will be told to send transgender troops to medical checks to oust them

Military commanders will be told to identify troops in their units who are transgender or have gender dysphoria, then send them to get medical checks in order to force them out of the service, officials said Thursday.

A senior defense official laid out what could be a complicated and lengthy new process aimed at fulfilling President Donald Trump’s directive to remove transgender service members from the U.S. military.

The new order to commanders relies on routine annual health checks that service members are required to undergo. Another defense official said the Defense Department has scrapped — for now — plans to go through troops’ health records to identify those with gender dysphoria.

Instead, transgender troops who do not voluntarily come forward could be outed by commanders or others aware of their medical status. Gender dysphoria occurs when a person’s biological sex does not match up with their gender identity.

The defense officials spoke on condition of anonymity to provide details of the new policy. The process raises comparisons to the early “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which at times had commanders or other troops outing gay members of the military who — at the time — were not allowed to serve openly.

Active-duty troops will have until June 6 to voluntarily identify themselves to the Defense Department, and troops in the National Guard and Reserve have until July 7.

The department is offering a financial incentive to those who volunteer to leave. They will receive roughly double the amount of separation pay than those who don’t come forward.

Initially, officials said the Defense Department would begin going through medical records to identify anyone who did not come forward voluntarily. That detail was not included in the new guidance released Thursday.

While the department believes it has the authority to review medical records, it would rather go through a more routine health assessment process, the defense official said. Traditionally, all service members go through a health assessment once a year to determine if they are still medically able to serve.

A new question about gender dysphoria is being added to that assessment. Active-duty troops who do not voluntarily come forward would have to acknowledge their gender dysphoria during that medical check, which could be scheduled months from now.

A unit commander could expedite the health assessment.

Under the new policy, “commanders who are aware of service members in their units with gender dysphoria, a history of gender dysphoria, or symptoms consistent with gender dysphoria will direct individualized medical record reviews of such service members to confirm compliance with medical standards.”

The defense official said it is the duty of the service member and the commander to comply with the new process. The department is confident and comfortable with commanders implementing the policy, and it does not believe they would use the process to take retribution against a service member, the senior defense official said.

It comes after the Supreme Court recently ruled that the Trump administration could enforce the ban on transgender people in the military while other legal challenges proceed. The court’s three liberal justices said they would have kept the policy on hold.

Officials have said that as of Dec. 9, 2024, there were 4,240 troops diagnosed with gender dysphoria in the active duty, National Guard and Reserve. But they acknowledge the number may be higher.

There are about 2.1 million total troops serving.

In a statement, Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said earlier this month that about 1,000 troops already have identified themselves and “will begin the voluntary separation process” from the military. That can often take weeks.

Trump tried to ban transgender troops during his first term, while allowing those currently serving to stay on. Then-President Joe Biden overturned the ban.

The new policy does not grandfather in those currently serving and only allows for limited waivers or exceptions.

Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth allege that troops with gender dysphoria don’t meet military standards. Hegseth has tied his opposition to a campaign to rid the department of “wokeness.”

“No More Trans @ DoD,” Hegseth wrote in a post on X. In a recent speech to a special operations conference, he said: “No more dudes in dresses. We’re done with that s—.”

/ /

How to fight Trump’s anti-trans messaging that’s poisoning public opinion

,

As President Donald Trump intensifies his second-term campaign to roll back LGBTQ+ rights, new polling suggests that his relentless attacks on transgenderpeople are gaining traction with the public, despite broad disapproval of his presidency overall. LGBTQ+ advocates say this slide requires accurate media representation of trans lives

Public opinion is shifting to restriction

According to a national survey released Saturday by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, a majority of Americans—68 percent—now say gender is determined by sex assigned at birth. Two-thirds oppose public insurance programs like Medicare or Medicaid covering gender-affirming carefor minors. And nearly half of the respondents support banning such care for trans youth altogether, regardless of who pays for it.

Among Republicans, opposition to both youth and adult access to gender-affirming care is overwhelming. Independents are more likely to oppose than support, and even among Democrats, 44 percent oppose public coverage of care for minors, while only 30 percent support it. Resistance also extends to transgender adults, with nearly one-third of Democrats and most independents and Republicans expressing disapproval of publicly-funded care.

Yet, in one area, public sentiment is more complex. When asked whether transgender men and women should be allowed to serve in the military, 37 percent of adults said yes, while 26 percent opposed it. Thirty-six percent remained neutral. That split, which shows greater openness than on other trans-related issues, may reflect years of advocacy and public storytelling from transgender service members, especially amid ongoing legal challenges to Trump’s renewed military ban.

A misinformation strategy that’s working

Despite widespread disapproval of his leadership—Trump’s overall job approval stands at 41 percent—his approval rating on handling transgender issues is nearly 10 points higher. That disparity has alarmed LGBTQ+ advocates, who say it reflects the success of targeted disinformation and a coordinated right-wing strategy to scapegoat trans people for political gain.

Caleb Smith, LGBTQI+ Policy Director at the Center for American Progress, said the findings reveal the results of years of manufactured outrage and misinformation. “The poll released by AP-NORC shows much of what we expect to see after years of the right’s relentless, unscientific, partisan attacks on transgender people,” Smith told The Advocate. “While Trump’s approval rating is historically, alarmingly low, it’s easy to look at these numbers and think anti-trans messages are a winning issue for him. In reality, he’s far underwater on most topics, and the slight approval bump Trump may get from targeting transgender people seems to be more of a pool noodle rather than the life raft his presidency needs to get back towards national approval.”

Visibility gap fuels misunderstanding

Smith added that the poll underscores the urgent need for solidarity and continued visibility. “It’s concerning to see any part of the country agree with anti-trans rhetoric, and it’s crucial for us to continue to show strong and vocal support for the transgender community—particularly transgender young people. No poll detracts from the reality that transgender people—just like the rest of us—deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, deserve access to health care, and deserve not to be obsessively targeted by an administration looking for cheap political wins.” 

Part of the challenge, LGBTQ+ advocates say, is visibility. According to GLAAD’sAccelerating Acceptance 2023 study, less than 30 percent of non-LGBTQ+ Americans say they know a transgender person.

The ongoing shift in public attitudes is occurring alongside an unprecedented nationwide assault on LGBTQ+ rights. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, at least 575 anti-LGBTQ+ bills have been introduced in state legislatures across the country in 2025 alone. These bills target everything from accurate IDs and school bathroom access to gender-affirming health care and free speech in classrooms. The ACLU warns that even proposals that fail to pass into law still fuel a climate of fear, spread harmful misinformation, and deepen stigma against LGBTQ+ people.

Executive orders and legal battles

Although he began with transphobic ads during the 2024 election, Trump’s renewed attacks on transgender rights started the moment he returned to power. On Inauguration Day, he signed Executive Order 14183, declaring that the federal government would no longer recognize transgender or nonbinary people. The directive redefined sex in federal policy strictly as male or female based on birth characteristics, and ordered agencies to strip references to gender identity from all guidance, services, and legal protections. Passports, Social Security records, school policies, and shelter access are among the areas now being rewritten to exclude transgender Americans. 

At the same time, his administration has revoked federal funding for gender-affirming health care, moved to bar transgender students from using bathrooms aligned with their gender identity, and resumed enforcement of a military ban targeting trans service members.

In March, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes blocked enforcement of Trump’s military ban, ruling in Talbott v. United States that the policy likely violates constitutional protections. Reyes called the ban “soaked in animus and dripping with pretext,” and cited the Department of Defense’s data showing that the military spends far more on Viagra than it does on trans-related care. Last week, while considering a stay on a preliminary injunction in a similar case, Shilling v. USA, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the ban to go into effect while appeals continued, handing Trump a temporary legal victory.

“We can beat back the bullshit”

At a recent EMILY’s List gala in Washington, D.C., U.S. Rep. Sarah McBride—the first out transgender member of Congress—confronted the political strategy behind these attacks. “Every single time they say the word ‘trans,’ look at what they’re doing with their grubby hands,” she said. “They’re trying to pick the pocket of American workers.”

McBride vowed she would not be used as a distraction for the GOP’s broader economic agenda. “I’m not going to let them bait me into a fight that simply rewards their attempt at 15 minutes of fame,” she said. “We can beat back the bullshit. We can win back power.”

GLAAD warns against interpreting public opinion as a legitimate gauge of civil rights. “There are going to be a few problems with a poll that asks people about the human rights of other people,” a spokesperson told The Advocate. “In this country, we are guaranteed the right to be treated equally and not be discriminated against, and that is not up to public opinion.”

The GLAAD spokesperson highlighted that of the few Americans who say they know a trans person, fewer still understand the medical, legal, or familial realities of their lives, especially as right-wing politicians and donors pour resources into misinformation campaigns. 

“The poll shows it remains urgent that media include transgender voices in stories about trans people. The poll shows support for transgender people in the military after months and years of GLAAD and others in the community helping trans troops bravely tell their own stories while they show up every day to capably and honorably serve,” the spokesperson said. “When you meet and get to know people in person or through inclusive and accurate stories, understanding and acceptance grow.”

/ / /

Nation’s largest pediatric group slams Trump’s “inaccurate” anti-trans health report

,

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the largest U.S. professional association of pediatricians (representing an estimated 67,000 members), has condemned a report opposing gender-affirming care recently released by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). As such, the AAP has directed its pediatric healthcare providers to “continue to support pediatricians and the well-being of all children” by continuing to provide gender-affirming care to youth as endorsed by almost all major U.S. medical associations. 

“This report misrepresents the current medical consensus and fails to reflect the realities of pediatric care,” said AAP President, Dr. Susan J. Kressly, M.D., in a statement. “AAP was not consulted in the development of this report, yet our policy and intentions behind our recommendations were cited throughout in inaccurate and misleading ways. The report prioritizes opinions over dispassionate reviews of evidence.”

“As we have seen with immunizations, bypassing medical expertise and scientific evidence has real consequences for the health of America’s children,” Kressly’s statement continued. “Patients, their families, and their physicians—not politicians or government officials —should be the ones to make decisions together about what care is best for them based on evidence-based, age-appropriate care.”

AAP’s statement was co-signed by the American Academy of Family Physicians, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American College of Physicians, American Osteopathic Association, and American Psychiatric Association.

At the start of May, the Trump administration’s HHS released a 400-page review of trans youth healthcare that called the current best practices for gender-affirming care— endorsed by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) as well as mainstream medical organizations and professionals — “unproven.” The report was completed in just 90 days, identified none of its contributors, and underwent no peer review process before publication. 

The report ignored numerous studies in which trans people expressed happiness with their transitions and instead pointed to a 1988 study of low employment and romantic partners among trans people as evidence of trans people doing “poorly” after receiving gender-affirming care. The report also pushed conversion therapy to change the gender identities of trans youth and promoted long-debunked claims that trans youth identify as such due to a mass “social contagion,” and are likely to just be gay or to return to a cisgender identity later in life.

The report also pushed claims that European countries are “pulling back” on gender-affirming care after the review of the United Kingdom’s Cass Review, a four-year-long study of trans healthcare research that excluded numerous studies showing the benefits of gender-affirming care. Despite this claim, major medical associations from France, Germany, Austria, and Switzerland have all released reports condemning the Cass Review’s findings.

The AAP has roundly criticized legislative efforts to outlaw gender-affirming care. The AAP joined five other medical organizations representing 600,000 physicians and medical students opposing Republican infringements on the patient-physician relationship, including the Trump administration’s elimination of $477 million in related research grant funding-affirming treatments, removing gender-affirming care as a covered benefit for the children of federal employees and military members, and an April 22 memo from Attorney General Pam Bondi threatening physicians with felony charges for providing certain types of gender-affirming care.

/ / /

Transmasculine / Masc of Center Support Group Meets May 21

Wednesday, May 21·6:00 – 7:30pm

Transgender / Genderqueer / Nonbinary / Genderfluid / Questioning This group is for anyone that has or is questioning their gender and has found themselves identifying with the masculine side of the spectrum. If you’re worried you aren’t trans enough, don’t be, you’ve found your people. We meet on the third Wednesday of every month in Santa Rosa from 6-7:30 pm with a optional social time until 8pm.

Email us for location, questions, or accessibility needs at: soco.tmasc.moc.sup@gmail.com

/ /

Airyn De Niro Talks with Them for First-Ever Interview on Her Transition, Celebrity Parents, and Being the Next “It Girl”

Airyn De Niro: model, voice actress, future counselor, and Them’s newest cover star! Daughter of legendary actor Robert De Niro and model and actress Toukie Smith, Airyn sat down with Them reporter Ava Pauline Emilione for her first-ever interview since starting her gender transition.

She spoke about how for much of her life, her parents tried to keep her out of the limelight, to protect her. “Obviously no parent is perfect, but I am grateful that both my parents agreed to keep me out of the limelight. They wanted it very private. They have told me they wanted me to have as much of a normal childhood as possible,” she said.

Now, 29 and nearly 6 months into her hormone therapy treatment, Airyn is ready to show the world who she really is. “There’s a difference between being visible and being seen,” Airyn said. “I’ve been visible. I don’t think I’ve been seen yet.”

Photography by Aleck Venegas for Them

Beginning this journey in November of 2024, Airyn told Them, “I think a big part of [my transition] is also the influence Black women have had on me,” she says. “I think stepping into this new identity, while also being more proud of my Blackness, makes me feel closer to them in some way.”

She continued to talk about how as an aspiring model, she hopes to provide more diverse representation for trans people. “I want queer people of color and bigger-bodied people to have an Alex Consani. I want queer people of color and bigger-bodied people to have a Hunter Schafer,” she said. “A part of me has always wanted to model and sort of follow my mom’s footsteps. Honestly, if I could be on the cover of Vogue with her or recreating one of her pictures, that would be a dream come true.”

Photography by Aleck Venegas for Them

With the term “nepo-baby” popping up constantly these days, Airyn shared that she hopes to find success on her own, sharing “I wasn’t brought up having a side part in one of dad’s movies or going to business meetings or attending premieres. My dad was very big on us finding our own sort of path,” Airyn says. “I would want [success] to happen on my own merit.” She continued, “I had two auditions for this video game, League of Legends. It’s one of the biggest video games I play all the time with friends. I was like, ‘Oh my God. That’d be so cool. It would be a make-it-or-break-it moment for me.’ Obviously it didn’t happen. I was like, ’What’s the point?’ It’s the really big auditions that you’re like, ‘Fuck, this could have been life-changing, but it just I wasn’t the right fit.’ And sometimes it’s hard to not internalize that.”

On top of modeling and voice acting, Airyn shared that she is also studying to become a mental health counselor, stating, “People of color and queer people definitely need more mental health advocacy and support. So I’m hoping I’m able to do that,” she says. “The field originally was so catered to white cis hetero men — what they deem as wrong or right or mentally ill or whatever, that is from their lens.”

Photography by Aleck Venegas for Them

Going forward, Airyn said that, “I wish people saw someone who is trying their hardest to heal from growing up not feeling good about themselves, and in the process of that, trying to make other people feel good about themselves.”

Read the full story at Them.us and keep up with Airyn @VoiceofAiryn!

/ /

Supreme Court allows Trump to implement transgender military ban

The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed President Donald Trump to implement his ban on transgender people serving in the military.

The justices granted an emergency request from the Trump administration to lift a nationwide injunction blocking the policy while litigation continues.

The court’s brief order noted that the three liberal justices dissented.

“No more trans @ DoD,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said on X. In a separate Defense Department post earlier Tuesday, before the decision was issued, Hegseth said in a video: “No more dudes in dresses. We are done with that s—.”

Just over 4,000 transgender people currently serve in the military, according to Defense Department data, though some activists put the figure much higher. There are around 2.1 million active service members in total.

Among those affected with be the seven individual transgender service members, led by lead plaintiff Emily Shilling, a Navy commander, who had sued to block it.

“Transgender service members have served this nation with courage, skill, and selflessness for years,” Shilling said in a statement Tuesday. “We’ve flown combat missions, led sailors, commanded troops, and stood watch. We are not a theory. We are not a policy debate. We are real people, doing real jobs, in defense of a nation we still believe in, even when it struggles to believe in us.”

“I know this decision will cause fear and doubt in the ranks. To those feeling shaken, I say this: stand tall. You are not alone. You are part of a community that will fight for you, stand beside you, and never stop pushing forward,” she added.

Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, two groups representing the plaintiffs, said in a joint statement that the Supreme Court decision was a “devastating blow” to transgender service members.

The policy “has nothing to do with military readiness and everything to do with prejudice,” they added.

In a separate case, a judge in Washington, D.C., also blocked the policy nationwide, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit put that ruling on hold temporarily while it heard arguments on whether to block it more permanently. The court has yet to rule.

The policy, announced in February, is much more comprehensive ban than a similar proposal implemented during the first Trump term. It “generally disqualifies from military service individuals who have gender dysphoria or have undergone medical interventions for gender dysphoria,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer said in court papers.

In asking the Supreme Court to intervene, Sauer said that judges are required to show “substantial deference” to the Defense Department’s judgment on military issues.

In implementing the policy, the government relied on a Pentagon report from the first Trump term that said people with gender dysphoria are a threat to “military effectiveness and lethality.”

The challengers argued in court that the ban violates the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which requires that laws apply equally to everybody, as well as other constitutional provisions.

Transgender service members have shown in recent years that they can serve just as well as anyone else, their lawyers said in court papers. Then-President Joe Biden had rolled back Trump’s earlier restrictions.

“An unprecedented degree of animus towards transgender people animates and permeates the ban: it is based on the shocking proposition that transgender people do not exist,” the lawyers wrote.

A federal judge in Washington state blocked the policy March 27, saying “it is not an especially close question.” The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to put the ruling on hold, prompting the Trump administration to turn to the Supreme Court.

«‹ 2 3 4 5›»