The Wisconsin Supreme Court cleared the way Tuesday for the state to institute a ban on conversion therapy in a ruling that gives the governor more power over how state laws are enacted.
The court ruled that a Republican-controlled legislative committee’s rejection of a state agency rule that would ban the practice of conversion therapy for LGBTQ people was unconstitutional. The decision, which has a broad impact far beyond the conversion therapy issue, takes power away from the Legislature to block the enactment of rules by the governor’s office that carry the force of law.
The 4-3 ruling from the liberal-controlled court comes amid the national battle over LGBTQ+ rights. It is also part of a broader effort by the Democratic governor, who has vetoed Republican bills targeting transgender high school athletes, to rein in the power of the GOP-controlled Legislature.
What is conversion therapy?
What is known as conversion therapy is the scientifically discredited practice of using therapy to “convert” LGBTQ people to heterosexuality or traditional gender expectations.
The practice has been banned in 23 states and the District of Columbia, according to the Movement Advancement Project, an LGBTQ rights think tank. It is also banned in more than a dozen communities across Wisconsin. Since April 2024, the Wisconsin professional licensing board for therapists, counselors and social workers has labeled conversion therapy as unprofessional conduct.
Advocates seeking to ban the practice want to forbid mental health professionals in the state from counseling clients with the goal of changing their sexual orientation or gender identity.
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed in March to hear a Colorado case about whether state and local governments can enforce laws banning conversion therapy for LGBTQ+ children.
What is happening in Wisconsin?
The provision barring conversion therapy in Wisconsin has been blocked twice by the Legislature’s powerful Joint Committee for the Review of Administrative Rules — a Republican-controlled panel in charge of approving state agency regulations.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling means the conversion therapy ban can be enacted. The court ruled that the legislative committee has been overreaching its authority in blocking a variety of other state regulations during Democratic Gov. Tony Evers’ administration.
The lawsuit brought by Evers targeted two votes by the joint committee. One deals with the Department of Safety and Professional Services’ conversion therapy ban. The other vote blocked an update to the state’s commercial building standards.
Republicans who supported suspending the conversion therapy ban have insisted the issue isn’t the policy itself, but whether the licensing board had the authority to take the action it did.
Evers has been trying since 2020 to get the ban enacted, but the Legislature has stopped it from going into effect.
Evers and legislative leaders did not immediately respond to messages seeking reaction to the ruling.
Ruling weakens legislative power
The Legislature’s attorney argued that decades of precedent backed up their argument, including a 1992 Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling upholding the Legislature’s right to suspend state agency rules.
Evers argued that by blocking the rule, the legislative committee is taking over powers that the state constitution assigns to the governor and exercising an unconstitutional “legislative veto.”
The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed with Evers.
The court found that the Legislature was violating the state constitution’s requirement that any laws pass both houses of the Legislature and be presented to the governor.
Instead, in this case the Legislature was illegally taking “action that alters the legal rights and duties of the executive branch and the people of Wisconsin,” Chief Justice Jill Karofsky wrote for the majority. She was joined by the court’s three other liberal justices.
Conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn, in a dissent, said the court’s ruling is “devoid of legal analysis and raises more questions than it answers.”
Hagedorn argued for a more narrow ruling that would have only declared unconstitutional the legislative committee’s indefinite objection to a building code rule.
Fellow conservative justices Annette Ziegler and Rebecca Bradley also dissented, saying the ruling shifts too much power to the executive branch and holds the Legislature to a higher legal standard.
Bradley said the ruling “lets the executive branch exercise lawmaking power unfettered and unchecked.”
The issue goes beyond conversion therapy
The conversion therapy ban is one of several rules that have been blocked by the legislative committee. Others pertain to environmental regulations, vaccine requirements and public health protections.
Environmental groups hailed the ruling.
The decision will prevent a small number of lawmakers from blocking the enactment of environmental protections passed by the Legislature and signed into law, said Wilkin Gibart, executive director of Midwest Environmental Advocates.
The court previously sided with Evers in one issue brought in the lawsuit, ruling 6-1 last year that another legislative committee was illegally preventing the state Department of Natural Resources from funding grants to local governments and nongovernmental organizations for environmental projects under the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program.
It has been said that the first Pride was a riot, sparked by the Stonewall Uprising in 1969. The meaning of Pride Month has expanded and evolved since Stonewall and the subsequent first Pride Parade in 1970. Though Pride was established before the rise of HIV and AIDS, HIV awareness and advocacy have stood at the center of Pride since the early days of the illness.
Though HIV is no longer the death sentence it once was, there are still approximately 1.2 million people living with HIV in the United States and over 30,000 new infections every year. The continued prevalence of HIV means that HIV education and advocacy still play an important role in Pride Month.
Pride Month presents an opportunity to spotlight advancements made in HIV prevention and treatment. It also gives advocates a chance to take the world stage and be heard, letting people know that HIV is still a factor in the lives of many, especially those within the LGBTQ+ community. Pride is a time to remember the fight for equality, to celebrate living authentically, and to deepen bonds within the community. It can also be a time for promoting testing, educating the public, and keeping the fight to end HIV alive.
Deepening the meaning of Pride
Since its inception, Pride has grown year by year into a worldwide celebration. During the height of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the mid-1980s through the early 1990s, Pride celebrations were intermingled with protests and rallies advocating for more attention to prevention and care for those living with HIV and AIDS. Activists pushed for government intervention at a time when many government officials refused to say the word “AIDS” and the spectre of the disease – and the neglect of people living with it – overshadowed much of the Pride movement for well over a decade.
Today, while Pride Month remains focused on justice and equality for the LGBTQ+ community, HIV advocacy should still take a front seat. This is particularly true in the South, which carries a disproportionate burden of HIV infections.
Regional statistics mixed with a persistent stigma and higher rates of HIV infections among groups such as Latino and Black gay and bisexual men compound the need for more attention on HIV during Pride Month. Working to combat the stigma surrounding HIV and AIDS and promoting information about prevention and care can deepen the meaning behind Pride, making the entire month even more impactful.
Promoting community-led care
Pride Month opens doors for inclusive, community-led advocacy and care in 2025, especially for those in areas of the country with higher rates of HIV infections and a greater need for access to prevention methods. HIV advocacy and care in 2025 looks like cultural understanding, expanded accessibility, and leadership in individual communities and the broader LGBTQ+ community. Partnerships between advocacy groups, community leaders, and health organizations are crucial for achieving the goals we must set each Pride Month. These goals should include reducing stigma and expanding educational resources, especially in areas heavily impacted by the disease, such as the Southern United States.
New care models highlighted during Pride Month must be inclusive of the communities most impacted by HIV today and tailored to diverse experiences across those communities. One mission of Pride Month is the building of trust between community leaders, advocacy groups, and health organizations and those who need the most attention, such as those living with HIV or AIDS.
Pride must not only be a month for education and advocacy, but also for recognizing those who have participated in making HIV an increasingly manageable condition. So many in the LGBTQ+ community are living long, healthy lives with HIV. That in and of itself is worthy of celebration.
Honoring the roots of Pride Month
Pride indeed began as a riot – a collective uprising against discrimination, hate, and inequity. As the HIV/AIDS epidemic took hold, the continued need for collective work toward a better future was evident.
Today, Pride is still an uprising. Keeping HIV awareness and prevention at the heart of Pride Month deepens its mission and continues the promise that no one in the LGBTQ+ community will be left behind or forgotten, in June or any other time.
As we celebrate flying the rainbow flag, marching in parades, and participating in all that makes Pride wonderful, it’s crucial to remember that Pride Month can also be a time of deeper significance. The reality of HIV persists, and Pride Month can be a time to shine a greater spotlight on what still needs to be done to protect the LGBTQ+ community and take greater strides toward eliminating HIV once and for all.
By weaving stigma-fighting prevention campaigns and collaborative efforts between community leaders and health organizations into the celebratory mission of Pride Month, more progress can be made in prevention and care.
Cutting Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits will disproportionately harm the LGBTQ+ community — and women and transgender people will bear the brunt of the changes.
About 15 percent of LGBTQ+ adults — nearly 2.1 million people, including 250,000 trans individuals and 1.3 million lesbian and bisexual women — received SNAP benefits in the past year, according to a new report by the Williams Institute, compared to 11 percent of non-LGBTQ+ adults.
SNAP is the largest anti-hunger program in the U.S., supporting over 42 million people monthly. The current Budget Reconciliation Bill, Donald Trump‘s so-called “Big Beautiful Bill,” would cause an estimated seven million people to either lose their SNAP benefits or see their benefits greatly reduced. It would also cut federal spending on Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) by more than $1 trillion over the next decade.
Almost 70 percent of LGBTQ+ adults who received SNAP benefits had household incomes under $35,000, 66 percent were living with a disability, and 49 percent had a child under 18 living in their household. Over 90 percent of LGBTQ+ adults who received SNAP were either currently working (42 percent), had worked in the past year (6 percent), were students (8 percent), homemakers (9 percent), retired (5 percent), or were unable to work (21 percent).
Parents with dependent children under 18 who receive SNAP benefits are currently exempt from working. The Budget Reconciliation Bill passed by Republicans in the House of Representatives would lower that age to seven, while the version passed by the Senate would lower the age to 14. The bill could also impact students who rely free school meals, who often qualify because their families qualify for food stamps.
“Research shows that LGBT adults and youth are at higher risk of food insecurity compared to non-LGBT people,” lead author Brad Sears, Distinguished Senior Scholar of Law and Policy at the Williams Institute, said in a statement. “Reducing SNAP benefits would disproportionately affect cisgender lesbian and bisexual women, transgender individuals, and LGBT people of color, who are more likely to face poverty and depend on food assistance.”
For those impacted by food insecurity, the LGBT Life Center offers free food pantries — “Pride Pantries” — at their locations. The Queer Food Foundationsalso provides assistance to Black queer and trans people.
The Christopher Street Project, a new political group focused on building support for transgender rights within the Democratic Party, has announced its first slate of congressional endorsements as it moves to equip candidates with political and messaging strategies ahead of the 2026 midterms and the 2028 presidential election.
“Our mission is to build support for the trans community within the Democratic Party and take back the party as one that values people over power,” Tyler Hack, the group’s 20-year-old founder, told The Advocate in an exclusive interview. “We understand that we need to build the playbook for how we win on trans issues over the next decade.”
Hack, who identifies as trans and nonbinary and uses they/them pronouns, said the Christopher Street Project was born from frustration after the 2024 elections, when some Democrats began to distance themselves from trans issues, fearing electoral backlash. Hack noted that since November, they had met with lawmakers who were at a loss for how to counter Republican attacks effectively.
“For all the thousands of PACs in Washington, there wasn’t one dedicated specifically to trans people,” Hack said. “It was really important for us to build up that playbook in a time when Democratic leaders were doing what they thought was right, but were not always given guidance about how to go about that.”
Hack’s vision is clear: Democrats must learn how to respond to Republican attacks and misinformation without abandoning core values. In 2024, Hack said, the party failed by attempting to deflect or move past attacks rather than confronting them head-on. Republicans, particularly the Trump campaign, bombarded Vice President Kamala Harris for her support of the trans community in several attack ads that claimed “Kamala Harris is for they/them, Donald Trump is for you.”
After the Trump campaign bashed Harris for having expressed support for providing essential gender-affirming care to people in federal custody, Republicans painted her views as extreme. Ads attacked her for supporting “taxpayer-funded transgender surgery for prisoners,” even as Trump initiated that policy during his first administration. However, Democrats did not fight back and dismissed the line of attack.
“We never, as any political party or candidate, won an argument by simply saying, ‘Let’s move on to the next question.’ That’s just not how the American electorate thinks,” Hack said. “People don’t respond to that because it’s clear leaders are being evasive.”
Instead, Hack believes Democrats must call out the realities behind Republican proposals. They pointed to the so-called “Protecting Women and Girls in Sports Act,” warning it would lead to invasive policies like “genital inspections for girls as young as four years old.” Hack added, “There’s no swing voter who wants genital inspections for girls as young as four.”
Hack argued that the Republican focus on transgender athletes is both a distraction and a moral failing, designed to exploit a tiny population for political gain. “Trans-female athletes in the NCAA—we’re talking about fewer than 10 people,” Hack said. “It’s really closer to five. These are actual human beings, and they have real consequences when they become political targets.”
Despite GOP attacks, Hack said Democrats can win if they frame trans rights as part of a broader fight against government overreach and cruelty. “There’s no way to discriminate against transgender Americans without a gross government overreach on all people,” Hack said. “We need to reach people where they’re at, emphasize what these bills actually do.”
Hack stressed that the Christopher Street Project’s goal isn’t to demand that every candidate make trans rights their top issue in competitive districts.
“Most people are concerned about the cost of living, about their health care,” Hack said. “But when millions of dollars are attacking you, you need to have a response. You can’t just immediately pivot because the electorate doesn’t respond to that.”
The lawmakers on Christopher Street Project’s initial slate, Hack said, have consistently shown up for the trans community, even when it wasn’t politically convenient. “These are people who have been standing up for the trans community time and time again, regardless of when it’s popular or when pundits are telling them to stop speaking about it,” Hack said. “They show up in their districts and do the work.”
Hack pointed to Titus of Nevada as an example of a lawmaker who has defended trans rights in a competitive district and successfully countered Republican narratives. “She has been unwavering in her support of the transgender community,” Hack said. “She’s been a longtime supporter of the Trans Bill of Rights and is showing what it looks like to be a Democratic member who stands up for trans people and wins in their tough races.”
The Christopher Street Project has already raised several hundred thousand dollars, Hack said, and has contributed financially to each of its endorsed candidates. The PAC will file its latest financial report soon, they said. Hack added that the group is working with lawmakers on legislative strategy, messaging, and campaign organizing. “We’re always looking for ways that we can make the biggest impact,” they said, noting the group’s support for candidates like Adelita Grijalva, daughter of the late Rep. Raúl Grijalva, who died in March, in Arizona’s upcoming special election to fill her father’s seat.
Hack also emphasized the Christopher Street Project’s long-term vision of building political power to influence Democratic messaging heading into 2028. “It’s so important that we build this coalition from the ground up with members from across the country with a variety of experiences, and work to build a party that values transgender people, not just for their votes, but for their voices,” they said.
Among those endorsed, Frost of Florida told The Advocate he was honored to receive Christopher Street Project’s support. “They’re doing the work every day to protect the LGBTQ+ community at a time when they’re under constant attack,” Frost said. “What we’re seeing from Trump and MAGA Republicans isn’t just politics, it’s cruelty. Using trans people as political targets is wrong, and I won’t stand by and watch it happen. In Congress, I’ll keep fighting to protect our rights and build a country where everyone can live with safety, dignity, and pride.”
Hack said Christopher Street Project’s mission remains urgent as Republicans prepare to keep transgender issues at the forefront of the culture wars leading into the next elections. “We’re determined to make sure Democrats don’t leave trans people behind, and that they know how to fight back and win,” Hack said.
The University of Pennsylvania has agreed to ban transgender women from its women’s sports teams to resolve a federal civil rights case that found the school violated the rights of female athletes.
The U.S. Education Department announced the voluntary agreement Tuesday. The case focused on Lia Thomas, the transgender swimmer who last competed for the Ivy League school in Philadelphia in 2022, when she became the first openly transgender athlete to win a Division I title.
It’s part of the Trump administration’s broader attempt to remove transgender athletes from girls’ and women’s sports.
Under the agreement, Penn agreed to restore all individual Division I swimming records and titles to female athletes who lost out to Thomas, the Education Department said. Penn also agreed to send a personalized apology letter to each of those swimmers.
It wasn’t immediately clear whether Thomas would be stripped of her awards and honors at Penn.
The university must also announce that it “will not allow males to compete in female athletic programs” and it must adopt “biology-based” definitions of male and female, the department said.
Education Secretary Linda McMahon called it a victory for women and girls.
“The Department commends UPenn for rectifying its past harms against women and girls, and we will continue to fight relentlessly to restore Title IX’s proper application and enforce it to the fullest extent of the law,” McMahon said in a statement.
The Education Department opened its investigation in February and concluded in April that Penn had violated Title IX, a 1972 law forbidding sex discrimination in education. Such findings have almost always been resolved through voluntary agreements. If Penn had fought the finding, the department could have moved to refer the case to the Justice Department or pursued a separate process to cut the school’s federal funding.
In February, the Education Department asked the NCAA and the National Federation of State High School Associations, or NFSHSA, to restore titles, awards and records it says have been “misappropriated by biological males competing in female categories.”
The most obvious target at the college level was in women’s swimming, where Thomas won the national title in the 500-yard freestyle in 2022.
The NCAA has updated its record books when recruiting and other violations have stripped titles from certain schools, but the organization, like the NFSHSA, has not responded to the federal government’s request. Determining which events had a transgender athlete participating years later would be challenging.
North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein (D) has vetoed several anti-diversity bills, including one that would ban gender-affirming care for transgender inmates in the state prison system.
The bill is H.B. 805, which bans the state from paying for gender-affirming hormone replacement therapy and surgeries for transgender inmates. It would have also required the state to keep a copy of a transgender person’s original birth certificate if they have the gender marker on it updated, and it included language saying that there are only two genders, male and female.
According to WPDE, the bill started as a bipartisan measure requiring age verification for adult websites, but the final version of the bill contained a list of far-right initiatives, including the ones listed above related to transgender people’s rights and another measure that would require school districts to create a policy to allow parents to opt their kids out of activities that “impose a substantial burden on the student’s religious beliefs.”
“My faith teaches me that we are all children of God, no matter our differences, and that it is wrong to target vulnerable people, as this bill does,” Stein said in vetoing the bill.
The other three bills that Stein vetoed on Thursday were related to diversity measures. One of the bills would have cut funding to schools that engage in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Another bill would have banned diversity training and staff positions at state agencies, and it also would have banned state funds from being used for diversity initiatives at those agencies.
“We should not whitewash history,” Stein wrote about the education bill, adding that the state “should ensure our students learn from diverse perspectives and form their own opinions.” He said the bill about state diversity measures is “riddled with vague definitions” and “imposes extreme penalties for unknowable violations.”
The bills passed along party lines, with all state Democrats opposing the diversity bills and only one Democrat voting in favor of the anti-trans bill. Republicans have a nearly veto-proof majority, but they need at least one Democrat to cross party lines in the North Carolina House of Representatives to overturn Stein’s veto.
State House Speaker Destin Hall (R) said in a statement that Stein “has sided with radical activists over the overwhelming majority of North Carolinians who believe in parental rights, biological reality, and protecting women and children.”
Stein signed eight other bills on Thursday, including one that prevents parents from being charged with abuse or neglect if they raise a transgender child “consistent with the juvenile’s biological sex.” It’s not clear that there have been such cases in the state, but the idea that the government will remove trans children from unaffirming parents’ homes has been a rightwing bogeyman for years.
Another bill that he signed bans adoption agencies from denying anti-LGBTQ+ parents the opportunity to adopt if they oppose letting a trans kid live as their gender.
Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy is asking governors in all 50 states to remove rainbow crosswalks that were installed to celebrate Pride, arguing without evidence that drivers get so distracted when they see the rainbow that they crash their cars.
In a letter addressed to state governors, the governor of Puerto Rico, and the mayor of Washington, D.C., Duffy states that 39,345 people died on roads in the U.S. in 2024, a 3.8% decrease since 2023, but still “unacceptable.” The letter discusses the SAFE ROADS initiative for non-freeway roads. Duffy wrote that the initiative stresses “recognizable traffic control devices including crosswalk and intersection markings… free from distractions.”
“Today I am calling on governors in every state to ensure that roadways, intersections, and crosswalks are kept free of distractions,” he continued. “Far too many Americans die each year to traffic fatalities to take our eye off the ball.”
He did not specify how many of the 39,345 traffic fatalities in 2024 were due to rainbow crosswalks.
Duffy was a Fox News host before he was appointed to lead the Department of Transportation following out former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg’s tenure. He was also a Real World reality TV personality earlier in his life.
Cities across the country have painted rainbow crosswalks at some intersections, often to recognize Pride Month, even though they stay in place year-round. Conservatives have railed against and vandalized these crosswalks as well.
In 2019, the administration told the city of Ames, Iowa, to remove its Pride crosswalks, which were installed at one intersection. A letter sent to the city from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) said that the crosswalks were “distracting” and have “a potential to compromise pedestrian and motorist safety by interfering with, detracting from, or obscuring official traffic control devices.”
“The art can also encourage road users, especially bicycles and pedestrians, to directly participate in the design, loiter in the street, or give reason to not vacate the street in an expedient or predictable manner,” the letter claimed, not citing any evidence that people were spending an unnecessary amount of time hanging out in the middle of the crosswalks.
The city refused to remove the crosswalks, saying that the administration had no jurisdiction over local roads.
Last year, a Republican teen, Dylan Reese Brewer, did burnouts on a rainbow intersection in Delray Beach, Florida. He was ordered to pay $6,000 in damages.
The same intersection was vandalized by another 19-year-old, Alexander Jerrich, in July 2021. Like Brewer, Jerrich performed a burnout in his truck — which also had a MAGA flag flying from its rear end — to deliberately leave black marks on the rainbow street art.
A court ordered Jerrich to write a 25-page essay about the 2016 Pulse shooting but declined to pursue a felony criminal mischief charge against Jerrich for fear that it would make it harder for him to find a job. During the trial, Jerrich cried as his father discussed what a disappointment he is. Local LGBTQ+ organizations refused to let Jerrich work with them, even though the judge thought it would help him learn more about the queer community.
Jerrich was sentenced to two years’ probation, 100 hours of community service, and a mental health screening for his crime.
“Defacement of the memorial to the LGBTQ+ community should be considered a hate crime,” said Rand Hoch, the president and founder of the Palm Beach County Human Rights Council, in response to Jerrich’s sentencing. “However, local State Attorney David Aronberg previously determined that since the intersection is owned by a municipality and not an individual, Florida’s hate crime statute does not apply.”
The Trump Administration is ending the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline’s LGBTQ+ Youth Specialized Services – but there’s still help available.
The federal government revealed it will be closing the programthat provides emergency crisis support to queer youth considering suicide effective July 17, several months ahead of its initial October 1 closure deadline that was first revealed by leaked budget draft in April. While Congress can reverse the cuts, it’s unlikely under a Republican-controlled House and Senate.
There are still several existing lifelines for LGBTQ+ youth in crisis, whether it involves mental health, substance use, sexual health, or domestic violence. Here are some of the hotlines available within the U.S.
The Trevor Project
The Trevor Project Lifeline, for LGBTQ+ youth (ages 24 and younger), can be reached at (866) 488-7386. Users can also access chat services at TheTrevorProject.org/Help or text START to 678678.
Trans Lifeline
Trans Lifeline, designed for transgender or gender-nonconforming people, can be reached at (877) 565-8860. The lifeline also provides resources to help with other crises, such as domestic violence situations. Find more information athttps://translifeline.org/
LGBT National Hotline
The LGBT National Hotline provides a confidential safe space where callers of any age can speak about sexual orientation or gender identity/expression issues. It can be reached at 888-843-4564 11 a.m. to 8 p.m. PST (2 p.m. to 11 p.m. EST) Monday through Friday, and on Saturday from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. PST (Noon to 5 p.m. EST).
LGBT National Youth Talkline
The LGBT National Youth Talkline provides youth ages 25 and younger a space to talk about relationship concerns, family, bullying, school issues, HIV/AIDS anxiety, safe sex information, suicide, and more. It can be reached at 800-246-7743 11 a.m. to 8 p.m. PST (2 p.m. to 11 p.m. EST) Monday through Friday, and on Saturday from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. PST (Noon to 5 p.m. EST).
Crisis Text Line
Crisis Text Line has previously partnered with FOLX Health for queer-specific services. It is available by text, web, and WhatsApp in both English and Spanish, connecting those who reach out with a live, trained crisis counselor within five minutes. You can seek support by texting HELLO or HOLA to 741741, or through WhatsApp by messaging 443-SUPPORT or 442-AYUDAME for Spanish.
The Pride Institute
The Pride Institute has helped LGBTQ+ people recover from substance use disorder, sexual health issues, and mental health conditions since 1986. Reach out at 952-934-7554 or at https://pride-institute.com/
National Runaway Safeline
The National Runaway Safeline Provides assistance to runaways, including resources, shelter, and transportation. By calling or texting 1-800-RUNAWAY (1-800-786-2929), you can connect with a trusted, compassionate person who will listen and help you create a plan to address your concerns. Live chat is also available at https://www.1800runaway.org/youth-teens/get-help
The National AIDs Hotline provides resources to people living with HIV, and can direct callers to test sites, medical care, prevention services, housing, and more. Call 800-342-AIDS (800-344-7432) or 800-243-7889 for Spanish. Click here for more hotlines in your state.
The Supreme Court on Thursday waded into the legal fight over state laws that ban transgender athletes from competing in girls’ and women’s school and college sports, taking up cases from West Virginia and Idaho.
The court will hear cases involving two transgender students, Becky Pepper-Jackson and Lindsay Hecox, who challenged state bans in West Virginia and Idaho, respectively.
Both won injunctions that allow them to continue to compete in sports. Pepper-Jackson, now 15, takes puberty blocking medication, while Hecox, a 24-year-old college student, has received testosterone suppression and estrogen treatments.
“Categorically excluding kids from school sports just because they are transgender will only make our schools less safe and more hurtful places for all youth,” said Joshua Block, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, who is part of the legal team representing both students. “We believe the lower courts were right to block these discriminatory laws, and we will continue to defend the freedom of all kids to play.”
West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey welcomed the Supreme Court’s intervention.
“The people of West Virginia know that it’s unfair to let male athletes compete against women; that’s why we passed this commonsense law preserving women’s sports for women,” he said.
Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador, who is defending that state’s law, echoed those sentiments, saying that “women and girls deserve an equal playing field.”
Oral arguments will likely take place later this year, with a ruling expected by June 2026.
The states both enacted bans that categorically bar transgender students from participating in girls’ or women’s sports. More than half the 50 states now have such laws, but legal challenges have not been decisively resolved.
The fight for and against the expansion of transgender rights has become a flashpoint nationwide and was an issue in the recent presidential election, with Donald Trump denigrating Democrats for supporting the effort. His administration has begun to roll back measures taken by President Joe Biden to expand protections for transgender people.
In February, the National Collegiate Athletic Association also changed course,announcing a new policy to limit women’s sports to “student-athletes assigned female at birth only.”
In Pepper-Jackson’s case, a federal judge initially ruled in her favor but concluded in January 2023 that the law was most likely legal and allowed it to be enforced against her. Pepper-Jackson appealed, and the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked West Virginia officials from enforcing it against her.
The Supreme Court in April 2023 rejected the state’s attempt to enforce the law against Pepper-Jackson while the litigation continues, meaning she has been able to continue to participate in school sports, namely cross-country and track.
Hecox, who plays soccer and also runs, similarly obtained an injunction from a district court judge against Idaho officials. She also won on appeal at the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Pepper-Jackson and Hecox both failed to qualify for running teams at their respective schools, according to court papers. Pepper-Jackson did place third in the state for middle school discus and sixth in middle school shot put, losing out to cisgender girls. She finished 67th out of 68 in a cross-country event in eighth grade.
In barring transgender girls from participating in girls sports at the middle school, high school and college levels, the West Virginia law enacted in 2021 says gender is “based solely on the individual’s reproductive biology and genetics at birth.” As such, it says, a female is a person “whose biological sex determined at birth as female.”
The Idaho law, passed in 2020, states that sports “designated for females, women, or girls should not be open to students of the male sex.”
Both cases concern whether such laws violate the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which requires that the law apply equally to everyone. Pepper-Jackson’s case also raises a claim under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits sex discrimination in education.
The Biden administration unveiled proposals on how Title IX applies to transgender athletes, saying that blanket bans would be unlawful but concluding that it may be lawful to limit involvement in competitive sports.
But the the Trump administration has reversed course, with the White House issuing an executive order titled: “Keeping Men out of Women’s Sports.”
In 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that federal law barring sex discrimination in employment protected LGBTQ people, a ruling that angered conservatives. The court is yet to rule on whether the same reasoning applies to Title IX.
On June 18, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors. The 6-3 ruling is expected to have a broad impact as 24 other states have already enacted similar laws, which bar puberty blockers, hormone therapy (HRT) and gender transition surgeries for trans youth.
Uncloseted Media wanted to pass the microphone to the kids and young adults who could be directly affected by SCOTUS’ decision. So we called up Romana, Zavier, Ray, Dylan and Samuel—who are all receiving some form of gender-affirming care—to get their reaction to the decision.
Watch the full interview above or read the transcript here:
Spencer: Hi everyone, I am here with five trans kids and young adults from across the United States. Guys, thank you so much for speaking with me and Uncloseted Media today.
All: Thank you for having us.
Spencer: Last week, the Supreme Court ruled 6 to 3 in a landmark case that prohibits health care providers [and] doctors from administering gender-affirming care to minors. That includes puberty blockers and HRT. I want to know, where were you guys when you heard the news and what was your reaction to that?
Samuel: So I’ve been following this case since November. I think the ruling’s ridiculous. I think it’ll kill kids.
Spencer: When you say this ruling is going to kill kids, that is a really bold statement. Why do you say that?
Samuel: It’s a bold statement. The care that enables so many people to live their lives. I think taking that possibility away from people who need it is incredibly cruel and short-sighted.
Romana: Ifelt disgusted, especially since I think [it’s] just from [the] hate. And I know people who gender-affirming care has saved the life of as teenagers. And I think every kid should be able to have that. And also, this ruling makes me scared that a state might try to ban trans care for adults.
Spencer: It could be a slippery slope.
Romana: Yeah,definitely.
Spencer: When you think about your future as a trans person without the care, what does that look like for you? Why is that so devastating?
Dylan: Because there’s not one.
Samuel: Yeah.
Spencer: Unpack that a little bit more. Why? Like, why do you think there is not one?
Photo courtesy of Dylan Brandt.
Dylan: Personally, now that I have had [testosterone] for almost five years, there would be no way that I would be able to lose everything that I have worked so hard for… And go back to living a life that was not me.
Spencer: Would you compare it to, like, if I were being forced to live as a woman every single day? Is it the exact same thing to you?
Dylan: Absolutely.I mean, if you were forced to be living [as] a woman and you, that was not something that you wanted? Absolutely.
Samuel: I couldn’t do it. I couldn’t do it. When I was younger, it almost killed me then. I couldn’t do it now. I think they’d have to kill me to force me to stop transitioning because it saved my life. I think living as myself, living as Sam, as a man, is so integral to who I am. For somebody to even try to force me to stop that would include stopping me entirely, if that makes sense.
Spencer: Okay, let’s talk about Donald Trump. Trump has tasked several federal agencies to police and ultimately stop gender-affirming care for minors, which he has equated to child abuse and child sexual mutilation. He’s also falsely stated that kids are going to school and coming back with sex changes. I wanna know, as a trans kid, what would you say if you could talk to President Trump right now?
Ray: It’s kind of painful to hear the same argument that he pulls out of his asshole every single time just because he wants to weaponize the fact that we’re a marginalized community and people are afraid of us because they don’t understand so his tactic to basically throw people off is to make us look like we’re indoctrinating kids. We’re coming back from school with surgeries. Which, by the way, you don’t just go to school and be like, “Ah, yes, I would like a surgery please.”
Spencer: Do you guys feel sometimes like you’re being used by adults as political pawns?
Ray: All the time!
Dylan: Yeah, I have been fighting this fight for so long that I’m not even necessarily surprised by what’s said anymore. I think that if I could say something directly to Trump, it wouldn’t be very nice. Because at this point I’m done being nice. At this point I’m just mad, because it has gotten to a point where they’re toying with people’s lives. They are toying with people’s lives making us look like monsters for their political gain. Because if they have people on their side that think that we are everything that they say they are, people are gonna believe ‘em.
Spencer: Especially when most Americans have never even met a trans person before.
Dylan: Absolutely.
Spencer: And trans people represent, as far as we know, less than one percent of the overall population.
Romana: I feel like a political pawn, because there’s so much talk about trans people and so much legislation passed around it and it just feels like we’re being used as a scapegoat and just someone to put the blame on and hate on in society. If I could say something to President Trump, I would proudly say something like, “Just leave us alone.”
Photo courtesy of Romana.
Spencer: It’s hard for me to square away why [Trump] would make trans issues the number one platform of [his] campaign when it’s such a small percentage of the population. It doesn’t really make sense mathematically.
Samuel: I think to your point, it’s exactly because it’s a small area of the population. For a lot of these politicians, the hate is real. But to some extent, it’s like we are the issue they can use right now because we’re such a small community that we’re targetable. It’s the small size of the transgender community and the lack of education that the general public has that is what drives being able to target this group.
Spencer: I think there’s a lot of misinformation in the United States about what gender-affirming health care actually is. So tell me what gender-affirming health care means to you and how did you make the decision to get on it?
Dylan: It took me a really long time to realize or to put words to how I was feeling. And once I did, I spoke with my primary doctor who referred me to the gender spectrum clinic in Little Rock. And I went, had my first appointment with them. And that was a six-month process where you meet with those doctors multiple times. You have to be in therapy. You have to get a psychiatric evaluation to make sure that you are doing this for the right reason. And when I tell people that they’re like, “Oh! I didn’t know that. I didn’t know that there was a process,” and I [would say], “Yeah, I’m not just walking in and saying, ‘Hey can I have it?’” And then with my top surgery too. I had to have been in therapy. I had to get letters of recommendation. I had to get it signed off, basically, by multiple people.
Gender-affirming care, to me, is hope. I graduated last year, and I never thought that I would make it to graduation, and the only reason that I did is because of my gender-affirming care. I’ve been on testosterone for almost five years, and even up until four years ago I was just so unhappy with the way that I looked, with the way I felt. I didn’t want to go out, I didn’t want to go do anything, and now I do.
Sam: I think I resonate with everything Dylan said, from the length of the process to the sort of life-saving benefits. I don’t think I would have made it to 18 without starting care at 14 when I did. I was just so uncomfortable, but the process is long. I think it was two years because my parents weren’t really sure about care at first.
Spencer: I think one of the critiques a lot of adults in this country have on gender-affirming care is that there are irreversible impacts, right? And for things like testosterone, like there are things like facial hair, for example, that you can’t fully go back on, right? Was that decision hard to make when you know that sometimes there will be elements of this that could be not completely reversible?
Photo courtesy of Samuel.
Sam: I can see why it would be a hard decision for a lot of people and I think in some ways that’s like why there’s so many safety checks and it’s also why maybe my parents were so. You know, like…
Spencer: Cautious?
Sam: Nervous, yeah. Especially because they were like, oh, you know my daughter now, you’re no longer my daughter and that was a huge adjustment. But for me, as long as I’ve been out, I’ve known that this is what I wanted to do. Like once I had the language to be able to say, “Yeah, I’m trans,” and knew that that was the path I wanted to go down. So in the end, after considering everything, it wasn’t really a hard decision.
Spencer: And Zavier, you are 11. A lot younger than everyone else on this panel, and it sounds like you are taking blockers, which to any Americans watching are completely reversible and have been given to cisgender girls for things like precocious puberty for decades. Zavier, what does gender-affirming care mean to you?
Photo courtesy of Zavier.
Zavier: Well, when I was 3 years old, I came out and I was wanting to be trans. Once I got older, my parents, they put me on blockers and let me take medicine for it.
Spencer: A lot of people, adults particularly, would say, how could a kid ever know at 3 that they’re trans? What would you say to that? How did you know?
Zavier: I just saw people. I just thought about wanting to be trans and I’ve wanted to be trans ever since.
Spencer: And you’ve always felt like a boy?
Zavier: Yeah.
Spencer: And Ray, how about you? When did you kind of know you were trans or start having feelings that you could be trans and what’s the process for you been like to get on gender-affirming care?
Ray: I’ve known since I was like 6, 7-ish. I’ve always wanted to be the dad, always wanted to be a king. I didn’t want to be a queen, none of that. It took about seven to eight months of doctors visits. First we had to make sure my mental health was good. So they prescribed me like Strattera and other types of medicines to help elevate my levels and stuff. And then they eventually put me on testosterone.
Spencer: And how has that been for you, the transformation? Has that felt good?
Ray Oh, I feel like myself now, finally! I feel like everybody in this call or this meeting feels like themself after they finally take their hormones.
Spencer: So for me, a cisgender gay boy growing up, I’d want to wear my mom’s clothes and kind of act like a girl and do different things that would tap into my femininity. But there’s never been a question that I could be a trans woman, right? What do you think is the difference between how you guys feel versus how I feel about wanting to explore my gender?
Dylan: So in my house, I’ve had both. You know, my brother is a 17-year-old gay man. And when he was little, he did. He put on my dresses and my mom’s high heels and boots and everything. And so we had that, and then we had me. From the time I could dress myself wanting strictly jeans and t-shirts, and nobody was allowed to touch my hair. And there is so much of a difference. My brother was exploring that, and I don’t want to say exploring that as in a hobby, and I was exploring it more as a lifestyle. That sounds wrong to me. But that’s the best way I can explain it.
Spencer: A big difference could be comparing it to some gay guys [who] like to dress up in drag on Halloween. You want Halloween to be every single day for the rest of your life.
Dylan: My entire life, yes, yes.
Spencer: Take me more into your mind about the feelings of wellness, of health, if you are able to live as your gender identity.
Photo courtesy of Dylan.
Dylan: The validation started the moment I cut my hair off. I mean, from that moment, I opened the door for somebody. It was, “Thank you, sir.” We went out to eat with my mom, me and my brother. “What do you boys want?” I mean it was right off the bat. And that’s honestly what made me realize that’s who I was supposed to be, because it made me feel so good. I mean, even to this day, somebody calling me sir or any form of male affirmation, anything, makes me feel so good. Just knowing that these random people in the deep south have no clue who they’re talking to. And if they did, their reaction would be way different. But the fact that these country hicks in the Deep South, who I know voted for Trump, are calling me sir or bub or anything? Makes me feel so good about myself knowing that they have no idea.
Spencer: And Zavier, how about you? You’re the youngest, why is it important for you to transition at such a young age?
Zavier: When I was growing up and people would call me a girl, I would just not feel like I was a girl. And when they said that I would just be like, “No,” inside my head.
Spencer: And do you play on the boys sports teams and do you use the boys bathroom?
Zavier: I do use the boys bathroom and my parents are signing me up for kickboxing.
Spencer: Love it, that’s super cool, yeah. And you feel great since you’ve transitioned. Is there ever any regret or feeling like, “I wanna go back to living as a girl?” No? And that would be the case for everyone here is my sense, right? No regret, no sense of de-transitioning, anything like that, yeah? Do you guys find that when you meet people and actually have conversations with them about who you are and why you need this care, hearts and minds are changed, does that help?
Sam: Yeah.
Spencer: You’re shaking your heads. Yeah, go ahead.
Dylan: [In my] School, everybody knew, I live in a small town. It wasn’t a secret. Even the 60 Minutes episode, I mean, you have no idea how many people watched that and came to me and said, “I am so sorry. I never thought about it the way that you put it. I didn’t understand until I watched that.” Like there were so many people in my school and work that [60 Minutes] truly changed the way that they thought about the transgender community. People have this pre-idea of what the transgender community is. And it’s just not, at all, how it actually is. And you don’t know that until you speak with somebody that is living it.
Spencer: And to your point on misinformation, I mean, if you turn on Fox News, which is the most watched cable news channel in this country right now, misinformation is rampant. There are comparisons that gender-affirming care is literally just bottom surgeries or so-called general mutilation. What do you think those media portrayals of trans kids and gender-affirming care for trans kids does to the mindset of Americans as they see you guys?
Dylan: They see that people are talking about giving 7-year-olds bottom surgery at school. Yeah, that could be scary to somebody that doesn’t understand. You see that, and your brain automatically goes to, “Oh, that’s not right. They can’t do that. That’s not right.”
Spencer: But that’s not happening.
Dylan: That’s not happening, absolutely. But, you see that as somebody that doesn’t know for sure that that’s not happening. And I mean, yeah, I don’t blame them for being like, “Oh, we have to stop this.” But it’s that misinformation of people saying, “Oh this is happening” when it’s not. So they’re scaring people for no reason.
Romana: I definitely agree that they make it sound really scary. And I’ve met people who’ve thought that way. I think the news really paints trans children especially as victims of being trans, which isn’t true. Or like, you’re being groomed into it, which doesn’t happen.
Spencer: Zavier, as an 11-year-old, have you even had conversations about surgeries or anything like that?
Zavier: The answer is no, because I’m only 11 years old, and I started the blockers about a year ago. So, since I’m 11 years old and you usually get surgeries at like 17 or 18, maybe. Nobody’s talked about it to me. Because if I change my mind, which I probably won’t, it’s in like six, seven years.
Spencer: Right, and you started on blockers because it gives you more time to delay puberty so you can still give yourself time to make up your mind. Right? And that’s something that I’m assuming you’re exploring with your family and your doctor to decide what’s best for you, is that right?
Zavier: Yeah.
Spencer: Ray, is it okay if I speak about the experience we had in South Carolina?
Ray: Yeah.
Spencer: Okay, well, we came to film an episode on conservative-minded dads. May your dad rest in peace, I know he passed away, and I’m so sorry about that. When we were filming with your dad, who was a military veteran, who was kind of a redneck—can I say that? From Georgia. I remember him saying to me, “This is completely against Republican ideology, get the government the hell out of my child’s doctor’s office.” Do you guys have anything to say about why it’s all Republicans coming after trans health care when it really is completely opposite to how conservatives see government intervention in family health care and parents’ rights?
Ray: Republicans are really bad at realizing that everything is not their business. We have HIPAA for a reason. They don’t seem to grasp the concept that they don’t to be in everybody’s lives. They feel like they have to protect these children, even though they’re not really protecting them.
Spencer: Is it fair to say that like gender-affirming care can be complicated and it can be nuanced and we need to have conversations about nuance by this but it’s tough to have those when you have people just attacking, attacking, attacking?
Samuel: Yeah, exactly. I mean, it’s medicine and all medicine is complex. Doctors and patients and their families are more qualified than politicians.
Photo courtesy of Ray.
Ray: Politicians, they don’t have like a degree in anything to be able to say, “Oh, this is bad.” Like they’ve never done the research. They do not have a qualification. Until I see them have an MD, they don’t have any qualifications to say anything. And I do believe research should be done. I mean, everything has so many different symptoms for every different person. I believe research is very important.
Dylan: Lawmakers don’t need to be involved in my doctor visits. They have no right. They have no knowledge. I just… They’ve got a lane and they should stay in it.
