Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon, a Republican, has signed a bill into law allowing people to sue if they encounter a member of the opposite sex — which, as defined by the bill, includes any transgender person — in certain single-sex, multi-occupancy restrooms or changing rooms, or if they have to share sleeping quarters with one in a state prison.
House Bill 72, which Gordon signed quietly Monday and which goes into effect July 1, applies to facilities in buildings owned, overseen, or leased by a governmental entity. Titled the Protecting Women’s Privacy in Public Spaces Act, it does not apply to K-12 public schools but does apply to the University of Wyoming and community colleges. State and private prisons are included but not local jails. It applies to both males and females, as designated by reproductive characteristics.
Those who encounter a trans person or a member of the opposite sex in one of these settings has a cause of action to sue the governmental entity overseeing it if the entity did not take reasonable steps to restrict access. “Reasonable steps may include but are not limited to posting appropriate signage and adopting policies and procedures for the enforcement of the provisions of this act,” says an amendment to the measure.
“This bill ensures that women and girls can feel safe and respected in places where privacy is essential — bathrooms, locker rooms, showers, and correctional facilities,” its lead sponsor, Republican Rep. Martha Lawley, wrote in a column for the Powell Tribune in December.
“We have all heard stories of discomfort and fear when policies aren’t clear, leaving institutions scrambling to balance privacy concerns with the risk of lawsuits. It’s time for the Legislature to act. The Protecting Women’s Privacy in Public Spaces Act provides clarity and creates consistent policies that prioritize privacy and safety.”
The American Civil Liberties Union’s Wyoming affiliate denounced the legislation. ”Like previous efforts to expel people of color, people with disabilities, and others from communal spaces, these arguments for privacy just mask a fear of difference. Eroding the fundamental rights of transgender people is dangerous for every one of us,” said an ACLU statement quoted by radio station KGAB.
Lawley is also backing a bill to extend the state’s trans-exclusionary sports law,which now applies to grades 7-12, to intercollegiate sports. It has passed the House and Senate with some differences, which will have to be rectified before it goes to the governor.
She characterizes her anti-trans bills as protections for women, but she has supported legislation to make abortion inaccessible in the state. She backed a bill that Gordon signed into law in February requiring clinics that provide surgical abortions to be licensed as surgery centers — something that medical professionals say is unnecessary and that would require expensive remodeling at Wyoming’s only full-service abortion clinic, the Associated Press reports. That clinic, Wellspring Health Access in Casper, is performing no surgical or medication abortions while awaiting the outcome of a suit it filed to challenge the law, according to the AP. A ban on both surgical and medication abortions was struck down by a Wyoming judge last year, but the state has appealed the ruling.
Despite a federal judge’s order blocking the Trump administration from transferring some transgender women to men’s prisons, the Bureau of Prisons is continuing the practice, putting incarcerated trans women at serious risk, The Guardianreports.
According to civil rights attorneys, trans women not covered by ongoing litigation have been forcibly moved to men’s prisons in recent weeks. Some have had their gender markers changed in prison records before relocation. Others report being denied gender-affirming health care, subjected to pat-downs by male guards, and forced to surrender personal undergarments now considered contraband.
“I’m just continuing to be punished for existing,” Whitney, a 31-year-old trans woman recently transferred, told The Guardian before her move.
The transfers stem from Executive Order 14168, which Trump signed on his first day back in office. The sweeping directive states that the attorney general “shall ensure that males are not detained in women’s prisons or housed in women’s detention centers” and bars the use of federal funds for gender-affirming care in prisons. The order eliminates federal recognition of transgender and nonbinaryidentities and mandates that government agencies operate strictly based on one’s sex assigned at birth.
In February, Washington, D.C., U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth issued an injunction blocking the policy for 12 plaintiffs, ruling that their forced transfer likely violated the Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. However, The Guardian reports that trans women not included in the lawsuit remain vulnerable.
As The Advocate previously reported, Trump’s executive order is part of a broader effort to erase transgender people from federal policy. The order eliminates legal protections across government agencies, affecting passports, healthcare, housing, and workplace rights.
For trans prisoners, the consequences are particularly severe. The Prison Rape Elimination Act requires officials to assess inmates’ risk of sexual violence, but advocates say Trump’s order disregards these protections.
“This is incredibly unnecessary and cruel,” attorney Kara Janssen, who represents trans women in litigation, told The Guardian.
A Texas state bill could charge transgender people with “gender identity fraud,” making it illegal to identify as trans on official documents and potentially leading to jail time.
The bill, which was filed last week by Republican state Rep. Tom Oliverson, would make it a state jail felony if a person “knowingly makes a false or misleading verbal or written statement” by identifying their sex assigned at birth incorrectly to a governmental entity or to their employer. State jail felonies in Texas are punishable by up to two years in jail and a fine of up to $10,000.
Oliverson did not immediately return a request for comment. So far, the bill has no other co-sponsors, making it unlikely to pass, the Houston Chronicle reported. However, the bill is among the first of its kind nationally and is an example of how legislation targeting trans people has become more clear in its intent and more extreme in recent years, particularly in Texas.
Last month, Texas state Rep. Brent Money, a Republican, filed a bill that would make it illegal for a health care provider to treat any patient, including adults, with puberty-suppressing medication, hormone therapy or surgeries if the purpose of the treatment is to affirm the patient’s gender identity.
Money’s bill is a replica of a law enacted in 2023 that prohibits such treatments for minors. The text of the new bill shows the word “child” struck out and replaced with “person” to apply to adults. The bill would also prohibit medical institutions from receiving public funds if they provide any such treatments.
Money did not immediately return a request for comment. After filing the bill, he said on X that the measure is intended to expand the law restricting care for minors.
“I want to make it clear that my heart goes out to those struggling with gender dysphoria,” he said, referring to the medical term for the severe emotional distress caused by the misalignment between one’s gender identity and birth sex. “These individuals deserve compassion, support, and real solutions to address their pain — not irreversible procedures that leave them scarred for life. This legislation isn’t about judgment; it’s about accountability.”
He added that the bill targets doctors and “medical profiteers” who “exploit vulnerable people, pushing costly surgeries and lifetime pharmaceuticals for financial gain rather than offering genuine care.”
Multiple studies have found that access to transition-related care, including surgeries for adults, improves mental health outcomes. Last year, the National Center for Transgender Equality, which is now called Advocates for Trans Equality, released the largest nationwide survey of the trans community, with more than 90,000 respondents, and found that 94% reported that they were at least a little more satisfied with their lives.
Texas has provided a blueprint over the last decade for states that have sought to restrict trans rights, becoming in 2017 one of the first states, alongside North Carolina, to consider a “bathroom bill,” which would’ve barred trans people from using the restrooms that align with their gender identities.
The bill didn’t pass, but the state has enacted other measures targeting trans people. In March 2022, after failing to pass a bill restricting transition-related care for minors, the state’s attorney general issued a legal opinion that resulted in the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services opening child abuse investigations into parents who were suspected of having provided such care to their minor children.
The state went on to pass a transition-related care restriction, and it has also enacted a measure barring trans student athletes from playing on school sports teams that align with their gender identities, among others. Additionally, the state recently announced that an executive order signed by President Donald Trump bars it from allowing trans people to update the gender marker on their Texas birth certificates, state IDs and driver’s licenses.
A federal judge in Maryland has issued a preliminary injunction against Donald Trump’s executive order threatening loss of federal funding for medical professionals and institutions that provide gender-affirming care to trans people under 19. That means the policy cannot be enforced while the lawsuit against it proceeds.
This and Trump’s executive order denying recognition of transgender identity “threaten to disrupt treatment of patients, stall critical research, and gut numerous programs in medical institutions that rely on federal funding,” U.S. District Judge Brendan A. Hurson wrote in his ruling, released Tuesday. “Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have shown that they are likely to succeed on the merits, that they would suffer irreparable harms absent an injunction, and that the balance of equities and the public interest tip in their favor.”
Hurson had already issued a temporary restraining order blocking the policy, and it was set to expire Wednesday. The preliminary injunction extends the block for as long as it takes to hear the lawsuit.
Two transgender young adults, five trans adolescents and their families, and two organizations — PFLAG National and GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBTQ+ Equality — filed the suit February 4 challenging the health care order and the gender identity order. The Trump administration directed federal agencies to withhold funds from health care providers and institutions that offer gender-affirming care, including puberty blockers and hormone therapies, to anyone under 19 for the purpose of gender transition. The treatments are allowed for nontrans people who have early-onset puberty, disorders of sexual development, or other conditions.
The suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Maryland. It names Trump as a defendant, along with the Department of Health and Human Services and other federal officials and agencies. The plaintiffs are represented by Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Maryland, and the law firms of Hogan Lovells and Jenner & Block.
The restrictions placed on funding by the executive orders are likely to be found unconstitutional, Hurson wrote, as the president is trying to withdraw funding that has been approved by Congress, therefore violating the separation of powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the federal government. The orders also will probably be found in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process of law, he noted.
People whose care would be disrupted by the health care order stood to suffer irreparable harm, he continued, as would institutions. The order has been interpreted to ban all federal funding to institutions that provide gender-affirming care to trans youth and young adults, whether or not that funding is related to this specific care, and therefore much funding for hospitals and other organizations was in jeopardy, according to Hurson. Some have already stopped providing the care.
“The court’s decision stopping implementation of these perverse and discriminatory executive orders targeting gender-affirming medical care removes a pall of confusion that affected medical institutions across the country and that threatened transgender young people, their families, and the medical professionals who care for them,” Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, senior counsel and health care strategist at Lambda Legal, said in a press release. “With this decision, doctors and hospitals across the country can continue to provide evidence-based, essential, and often lifesaving gender-affirming medical care to transgender people under 19 without fear of retribution.”
“Today’s decision provides relief to transgender young people, their families, and their medical providers who have been thrown into chaos by this administration,” added Joshua Block, senior staff attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “This order from President Trump is a direct effort to threaten the well-being of transgender people while denying them equal protection under the law, enacted by coercing doctors to follow Trump’s own ideology rather than their best medical judgment. As Judge Hurson has said himself, it is hard to fathom a form of discrimination more nefarious than that which pretends the group of people being targeted doesn’t even exist.”
“Again, the court has ruled to ensure hospitals, doctors, and healthcare professionals in our communities can continue the work to keep our families healthy,” Brian K. Bond, chief executive officer of PFLAG National, said in the release. “Transgender people and their supportive parents and families are good and decent people who deserve the freedom to be themselves and to thrive. PFLAG National and our vast network of chapters, members, and supporters will continue to ensure that love leads in this fight for justice for transgender people.”
“Today’s ruling is a crucial step in resisting the extremist agenda of the Trump administration and reaffirming that trans and nonbinary people deserve dignity, respect, and access to the health care they need,” said Alex Sheldon, executive director of GLMA. “This administration has tried to bully providers into abandoning their ethical obligations, but we will not back down. We will continue to fight for health professionals’ freedom to do their jobs based on medical expertise — not political ideology — and for the right of every patient to receive carefree from discrimination and fear.”
The anti-trans health care order has also been blocked in a separate lawsuit in a federal court in Washington State. The suit was filed by the Democraticattorneys general of Washington, Oregon, and Minnesota, along with three doctors who argued that the order violated constitutional protections and overstepped presidential authority. Judge Lauren King issued a temporary restraining order in mid-February and a preliminary injunction last Friday.
owa Gov. Kim Reynolds signed a bill Friday that strikes gender identity from the state’s civil rights law, making Iowa the first state to remove civil rights from a previously protected class.
The bill passed the Republican-majority state Senate, 33-15, along party lines Thursday. Less than an hour later, the House passed its version of the bill, 60-36, with five Republicans joining Democrats to vote against it.
Reynolds, a Republican, said in a statement Friday that the bill “safeguards the rights of women and girls.” She said the civil rights code’s protections against discrimination based on gender identity “blurred the biological lines between the sexes,” and “forced Iowa taxpayers to pay for gender-reassignment surgeries.”
“We all agree that every Iowan, without exception, deserves respect and dignity,” she said. “What this bill does accomplish is to strengthen protections for women and girls, and I believe that it is the right thing to do.”
The Iowa Civil Rights Act broadly prohibits discrimination in many areas of life, including employment, housing, education and credit. In 2007, the state Legislature, which was then controlled by Democrats, passed a bill that extended those protections to LGBTQ people, adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of protected classes.
The new law removes gender identity from the code. It also requires that birth certificates reflect a person’s sex assigned at birth and removes a clause that previously allowed a trans person to update the sex marker on their birth certificate if they had a notarized affidavit from a doctor and surgeon attesting that they had medically transitioned.
The law also revises a measure Reynolds signed in 2023 that prohibits the instruction of sexual orientation or gender identity in kindergarten through sixth grade to change “gender identity” to “gender theory,” which it defines as the concept that someone can have “an internal sense of gender that is incongruent with the individual’s sex” assigned at birth. Critics have called the measure a “don’t say gay” law.
Democratic Iowa state Rep. Aime Wichtendahl, the first trans person elected to the state’s General Assembly, said during the House debate Thursday that the bill “revokes protections to our homes and our ability to access credit. In other words, it deprives us of our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.”
Wichtendahl added, through tears, that transitioning saved her life.
“The sum total of every anti-trans and anti-LGBTQ bill is to make our existence illegal, to force us back into the closet,” she said.
Republican state Sen. Jason Schultz, who introduced the Senate’s version of the bill, noted that the state’s civil rights code has been cited in some lawsuits and court decisions in favor of trans rights, including a 2023 decision that requires the state’s Medicaid program to cover transition-related care, the Des-Moines Register reported.
“All these legal protections are at risk due to the inclusion of the words ‘gender identity’ in our code,” Schultz said Thursday.
More than 2,000 people rallied to protest the Senate vote Thursday, according to local reports and Planned Parenthood Advocates of Iowa, with signs that read “Trans rights are human rights.” The crowd also booed and yelled at senators following their vote, the Des-Moines Register reported.
Prior to signing the bill, Reynolds said it was meant to bring Iowa in line with federal law and the laws of most states. However, federal law prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity following the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County.
State and local protections from discrimination based on gender identity vary, with 23 states explicitly prohibiting such discrimination in employment, 22 states prohibiting it in housing and 27 states prohibiting gender identity discrimination in public accommodations, according to the Movement Advancement Project, an LGBTQ think tank.
After Reynolds signed the bill Friday, Wichtendahl told NBC News it felt like a “gut punch,” and that she’s heard from trans constituents who are scared for their lives. She said her message to them is to stand together.
“Refuse to give in to despair, because the greatest act of rebellion that you can do in these dystopian times is to live your life unafraid and be happy,” she said. “And I know after yesterday, that’s a new level of challenge, but it’s the greatest act of rebellion, and the greatest thing that you can do for yourself right now is show the world that you are unafraid to live your life.”
President Donald Trump has targeted transgender and nonbinary people with a series of executive orders since he returned to office.
He has done it with strong language. In one executive order, he asserted “medical professionals are maiming and sterilizing a growing number of impressionable children under the radical and false claim that adults can change a child’s sex.”
That’s a dramatic reversal of the policies of former President Joe Biden’s administration — and of major medical organizations — that supported gender-affirming care.
American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Sruti Swaminathan said that to be put into effect, provisions of the orders should first go through federal rulemaking procedures, which can be years long and include the chance for public comment.
“When you have the nation’s commander-in-chief demonizing transgender people, it certainly sends a signal to all Americans,” said Sarah Warbelow, the legal director at Human Rights Campaign.
Things to know about Trump’s actions:
Recognizing people as only men or women
On Trump’s first day back in office, he issued a sweeping order that signaled a big change in how his administration would deal with transgender people and their rights.
The stated purpose is to protect women. “Efforts to eradicate the biological reality of sex fundamentally attack women by depriving them of their dignity, safety, and well-being,” the order says.
The document calls on government agencies to use the new definitions of the sexes, and to stop using taxpayer money to promote what it calls “gender ideology,” the idea broadly accepted by medical experts that gender falls along a spectrum.
Federal agencies have been quick to comply. Andrea Lucas, the acting chair of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, for example, announced this week that she would remove identity pronouns from employees’ online profiles and disallow the “X” gender marker for those filing discrimination charges.
“Biology is not bigotry. Biological sex is real, and it matters,” Lucas said in a statement.
On Friday, information about what Trump calls “gender ideology” was removed from federal government websites and the term “gender” was replaced by “sex” to comport with the order. The Bureau of Prisons stopped reporting the number of transgender incarcerated people and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention removed lessons on building supportive school environments for transgender and nonbinary students.
Researchers have found less than 1% of adults identify as transgender and under 2% are intersex, or born with physical traits that don’t fit typical definitions for male or female.
Requests denied for passport gender markers
In the order calling for a new federal definition of the sexes, Trump included some specific instances in which policy should be changed, including on passports.
The State Department promptly stopped granting requests for new or updated passports with gender markers that don’t conform with the new definition.
The agency is no longer issuing the documents with an “X” that some people who identify as neither male nor female request and will not honor requests to change the gender markers between “M” and “F” for transgender people.
The option to choose “X” was taken off online passport application forms Friday.
The ACLU says it’s considering a lawsuit.
Trans women moved into men’s prisons
Trump’s initial order called for transgender women in federal custody to be moved to men’s prisons. Warbelow, from Human Rights Campaign, said her organization has received reports from lawyers that some have been.
The Federal Bureau of Prisons did not immediately respond to requests for information about such moves.
There have been at least two lawsuits trying to block the policy. In one, a federal judge has said a transgender woman in a Massachusetts prison should be housed with the general population of a woman’s prison and continue to receive gender-affirming medical care for now.
Opening the door to another ban on trans service members
Trump set the stage for a ban on transgender people in the military, directing Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to come up with a new policy on the issue by late March.
In the executive order, the president asserted that being transgender “conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life.”
Trump barred transgender service members in his first term in office, but a court blocked the effort.
A group of active military members promptly sued over the new order this week.
Defunding gender-affirming medical care for trans youth
The care in question includes puberty blocking drugs, hormone therapy and gender-affirming surgery, which is rare for minors.
If fully implemented, the order would cut off government health insurance including Medicaid and TRICARE, which serves military families, for the treatments.
It also calls on Congress to adopt a law against the care, though whether that happens is up to lawmakers.
Twenty-six states already have passed laws banning or limiting gender-affirming care for minors, so the change could be smaller in those places.
Some hospitals have paused some gender-affirming care for people under 19 following the executive order while they evaluate how it might apply to them.
Barring schools from helping student social transitioning
Another executive order seeks to stop “radical indoctrination” in the nation’s school system.
It calls on the Education Department to come up with a policy blocking schools from using federal funds to support students who are socially transitioning or using their curriculum to promote the idea that gender can be fluid, along with certain teachings about race.
The order would block schools from requiring teachers and other school staff to use names and pronouns that align with transgender students’ gender identify rather than the sex they were assigned at birth.
Some districts and states have passed those requirements to prevent deadnaming, the practice of referring to transgender people who have changed their name by the name they used before their transition. It is widely considered insensitive, offensive or traumatizing.
With fear and distress at an all-time high, showing up for trans youth in tangible ways is more critical than ever. The therapists we spoke with shared actionable steps for supporting young trans people in this moment, including, but not limited to:
Acknowledging the executive order and recognizing their feelings about it.
Reaffirming your support. “Remind them of your continued love and support for them and all trans people,” says Brownfield.
Honoring their autonomy. “Listen deeply and validate their fears, pain, and grief—do not minimize their experiences,” says Melody Li, LMFT, a mental health justice activist and founder of Inclusive Therapists. “When the nervous system is overwhelmed, it is natural to feel frozen or detached. Offer to lighten the load by taking action, such as researching resources, peer-support groups, or ways to mobilize in solidarity.”
Helping them access resources. Whether it’s a support group, an affirming therapist, or advocacy organizations, helping trans youth find alternative pathways to care can make all the difference.
Creating a space of belonging. “Facilitating peer connections—whether through online groups, mentorship programs, or supportive networks—can offer trans youth a sense of belonging and shared experience,” says Minor.
Supporting parents and caregivers
The pain of this moment is not limited to trans youth—it extends to their families and loved ones as well. Many parents are grappling with fear, frustration, and uncertainty, wondering how they can protect their children in a country that seems intent on stripping away their rights.
“There is no right or wrong way to process this,” says Minor. “Parents and caregivers need to know that they are allowed to feel whatever they are feeling, and they don’t have to go through it alone.”
For those supporting loved ones of trans youth, Brownfield advises:
Validate their fears and feelings of helplessness.
Remind them they are not alone. “Even with the federal government’s anti-trans hostility, you and many others love their trans kid and love that they affirm their kid,” she says.
Encourage community connection. Minor suggests joining support groups like PFLAG, where parents can share experiences, gain reassurance, and learn advocacy strategies.
Since 2020, there has been a growing legislative attack on transgender people, and particularly on transgender youth. This includes a growing number of bills (and now laws) that explicitly require school staff—and in some cases, any government or public employee—to out transgender youth to their families, often without regard for whether doing so might put the child at risk of harm. Importantly, however, these laws vary in their actual requirements, as shown below. Click the “Citations & More Information” orange button for more detail.*Notes: –States with a caution icon have policies that vary, but generally have vague requirements to notify parents about any “health” or behavioral concern, but that do not make any explicit mention of gender or gender identity. Because these laws could be broadly interpreted and used to target both transgender youth and LGBTQ youth in general, these may contribute to a hostile school climate for LGBTQ youth even without explicitly requiring forced outing. Note that laws that require general parental access to student records are redundant of existing federal law, and so are not included here. See the “Citations” tab or click “Citations & More Information” beneath the map legend for more detail on each state’s policy.
–Note, Nevada’s policy is via regulation, not legislation. –Note, Utah’s law applies only to official changes to a student’s education records (e.g., their gender marker or name officially noted on their record), not daily interaction with the student (e.g., conversational use of preferred name/pronouns). –Note, Virginia’s policy is via agency policy, not legislation or regulation. However, state law requires school districts to adopt this model policy—though there has been resistance, and so implementation or enforcement may vary across the state. See “Citations & More Information” for more detail.
State law forces the outing of transgender youth if they make specific disclosures or requests about their gender identity to school staff (5 states) – Dark Orange
State law requires forced outing of transgender youth, but only if parents ask school staff for the information (2 states) – Medium Orange
State law requires forced outing of transgender youth before school staff can use a student’s preferred name/pronouns, but a student’s mere request to use a different name or pronouns does not itself require forced outing (7 states) – Light Orange
State law does not force the outing of transgender youth in schools (36 states , 5 territories + D.C.) – Yellow
State does not force outing but may contribute to hostile school climate (see note beneath map) (4 states)
Just over a decade ago, in 2014, TIME magazine declared on its front cover that we were at the “The Transgender Tipping Point“.
The cover itself was simple, a full body shot of actress Laverne Cox – who was then playing Sophia Burset on Netflix game-changer Orange Is the New Black – and a byline for writer Katy Steinmetz, who said in the piece that trans rights would be the next civil rights frontier.
“We are in a place now,” Cox told the magazine at the time, “where more and more trans people want to come forward and say, ‘This is who I am.’ And more trans people are willing to tell their stories. More of us are living visibly and pursuing our dreams visibly, so people can say, ‘Oh yeah, I know someone who is trans.’ When people have points of reference that are humanising, that demystifies difference.”
“The Transgender Tipping Point” was a phrase, Jude Ellison S. Doyle noted for Xtra Magazine on the cover’s 10th anniversary, that quickly became ubiquitous across the media, with – often more than not cis – academics and cultural commentators alike pointing to the piece as an example of a paradigm shift on trans visibility and representation in public life.
But, as many more have since pointed out, the catch-all-ness of the phrase is oversimplified and ignores the intersectional struggles and delicate nuances of trans people’s lives that go far beyond ‘being visible’. It also became somewhat of an ironic joke between trans folks who had to wake up the day after that edition of TIME hit the shelves go about their lives, this supposed-watershed moment of greater visibility not helping them pay their bills, access gender-affirming care or walk through the streets without fear.
“If trans people have ‘tipped’ in any direction, it’s backward,” Doyle wrote.
For activist Raquel Willis, co-founder of the Gender Liberation Movementalongside Eliel Cruz, the fight for trans rights and universal bodily autonomy has to move past the visibility era to be truly impactful.
“This idea of simply using visibility as a means to bring about the kind of culture and society that’s going to receive trans folks with the respects that we deserve is over,” she told PinkNews, “and so we have to be thinking in new ways about how to protect ourselves, our voices, our histories and our brilliance without relying on a lot of the institutions that have really pushed the visibility vehicle.”
You may like to watch
Speaking exclusively with PinkNews, Willis and Cruz discussed the organisation, intersectionality and the need for radical defiance in a second Trump presidency.
Activists with the Gender Liberation Movement protest in the House Cannon building, including Chelsea Manning (bottom right) and Racquel Willis (bottom left), on December 5, 2024 in Washington, DC. (Maansi Srivastava for The Washington Post via Getty Images)
The Gender Liberation Movement (GLM) describes itself as an “emergent and innovative grassroots and volunteer-run national collective that builds direct action, media, and policy interventions centering bodily autonomy, self-determination, the pursuit of fulfilment, and collectivism in the face of gender-based sociopolitical threats”.
Mace, a Republican representative from South Carolina, admitted her proposal to ban trans folks from spaces such as bathrooms and changing rooms on Capitol Hill which match their gender was put forth solely in response to Democrat Sarah McBride joining Congress as the first out trans person.
McBride condemned the move as a “blatant attempt from right-wing extremists to distract from the fact that they have no real solutions to what Americans are facing”.
“Half of us went in understanding that we were facing arrest in order to really send a message, particularly because some elected leaders, even some people potentially in the movement spaces, queer people, might see bathrooms as a side issue and not important,” Cruz said.
“But we see bathrooms as the inroad for a larger anti-trans project to eliminate trans people from public spaces and so this was important for us to say, ‘this is the line’ and we’re not allowing this to move forward without a response.”
In a bathroom that was located close to Mace’s office, the protesters held a banner that read “flush bathroom bigotry” and chanted “Speaker Johnson, Nancy Mace, our gender is no debate” and “Democrats, grow a spine! Trans rights are on the line!”, calling out the Dems lacklustre criticism of Mace’s proposal in the wake of their party’s defeat to Donald Trump’s MAGA 2.0 campaign.
“It was really disappointing to see the lack of fight that […] Sarah McBride put forth with these attacks – understanding that she is coming into a new role in a historic way – but also understanding at some point we have to get beyond this idea of career politicians saving us,” Willis said.
“Let’s just be clear, I know for me, I would never be able to – as a Black trans woman – simply say that bathroom access is a ‘distraction’. I come from folks who experienced acutely Jim Crow in the US South and so for me, all of these attacks on our access to public spaces and navigating societies is rooted in a long fight for collective liberation within this country.”
Willis added she was concerned by the lack of support McBride was given by leading Democrats and “what kind of signal that sends to trans youth who are already fearful of the incoming Trump administration”.
A transgender rights supporter takes part in a rally outside of the U.S. Supreme Court as the court hears arguments in the US v. Skrmetti a case about Tennessee’s law banning gender-affirming care for minors and if it violates the Constitution’s equal protection guarantee on December 04, 2024 in Washington, DC. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
Prior to this moment of “radical defiance” – the phrase Willis uses to describe what is needed of protest and civil disobedience at this time – GLM had been fighting for the right to bodily autonomy for trans and cis folks alike; namely access to abortion and gender-affirming care. Having worked previously with those that organised the Brooklyn Liberation March and national Women’s March, in September the group led the first-ever Gender Liberation March in Washington D.C. and at the start of this year launched as an official national organisation to further its work.
Cruz said those involved were “collective” of “queer and trans creatives from nonprofit and advocacy world, as well as folks who are in the art world and fashion world”.
“We really started to think about what was needed in terms of bringing together a larger collective of folks fighting around bodily autonomy and self determination,” Willis said of formalising the organisation, “particularly thinking about the attacks on abortion access and the attacks on access to gender affirming care. That kind of led to this plan for our march in September and from there we realised that we needed this work to continue going on and needed to continue to be the glue between these various movements.”
For many, access to abortion and gender affirming care might be thought of as different social issues impacting distinctly different groups of people; things to campaign for separately but not together. This line of thinking is similar to how trans rights and women’s rights more widely are often framed by the right-wing press as in direct contrast with one another when instead they are not opposites sides of a coin but rather intricately intertwined.
New York Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez noted this in response to Mace’s bathroom ban, telling reporters in November that such restrictions endanger “all women and girls” because “people are going to want to check their private parts in suspecting who is trans and who is cis”.
“The idea that Nancy Mace wants little girls and women to drop trou in front of, who, an investigator, because she wants to suspect and point fingers at who she thinks is trans is disgusting. It is disgusting. And frankly, all it does is allow these Republicans to go around and bully any woman who isn’t wearing a skirt because they think she might not look woman enough,” AOC added.
The intersectionality between the two issues hence sits at the very core of the GLM’s mission because “many of the same forces and entities that are targeting access to abortion are also targeting access to gender affirming care”, Willis said.
Cruz explained: “In the United States, legal precedents are being used to try to pass one another. So these connections are already there in terms […] of those who are making these attacks and for us it was important to marry the different groups of people that people may not necessarily talk about in the same ways.
“Really bringing those connections together in a very intentional way.”
People gather outside the Lincoln Memorial for a People’s March rally in Washington, D.C., United States, on January 18, 2025. (Photo by Nathan Morris/NurPhoto via Getty Images)
Ahead of Trump’s return to the White House, Cruz said GLM has been having a number of internal conversations about what form their work will take but it is about “being a little bit nimble and prepared for preparing for the worst, and doing some safety planning and contingency planning”.
Cruz went on to say whilst “Trump is awful” and “put us through it the first four years” the Democrats have “not been the best” either, noting the fact Roe vs Wade fell under a Dem administration and just before Christmas president Joe Biden signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2025 which contained an anti-trans healthcare clause for children of members of the armed services.
“There’s a lot of catastrophising that we can think about under Trump and without remembering that we’ve kind of already been dealing with a lot, even underneath the Dem administration,” Cruz said.
“We really to lean on our history and our elders. We have been through really horrific eras before and we have gone through it. Our community knows how to build together and come together and keep each other safe.
“So [we] can look at the reality of what’s to come and also remember who we are and our roots and our background, and know that we will get through it together whatever may come.”
Willis echoed this, noting that “before you could simply be as open about who who you are and your identity” leaning on mutual aid networks was a vital resource.
“We have always had organisations, particularly on the grassroots local level, that have fed and housed and closed and safeguarded our people,” she explained.
“Somewhere along the way, we forgot that those entities are the lifeblood of our movement.
“So, it’s remembering that and also being willing to heal some of those past fissures between various parts of our movements and communities and embrace the fact that we’re going to need unlikely accomplices moving forward so we have to be letting go of some of this capitalistic ego around what work a group may own versus another.
On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order titled, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.”1 Although the executive order sweeps broadly across many areas affecting transgender, nonbinary and intersex people, a central tenet of the directive is the redefinition of the word “sex” as applied across federal programs and services to refer only to biological characteristics “at conception,” and as unchangeable.2 Redefining “sex” is something the president attempted to do in his previous term,3 particularly in the context of sex discrimination in education under Title IX,4 and had committed to doing in his second term.5 As part of his “Agenda 47” for the next four years, President Trump has also committed to working with Congress to enact a sex definition statute.6 This policy brief explores the meaning of the executive order and the potential impact for transgender, nonbinary, and intersex people.
Understanding the Scope of the Executive Order
A key function of executive orders is political messaging.7 Executive orders can have practical impacts, but there are limits on what a president can do through this medium.8 Most importantly, an executive order must be supported by an authority the president derives from the Constitution or through an express delegation from Congress.9 Additionally, their implementation is often not immediate. This is because an executive order, much like President Biden’s 2021 order regarding the meaning of “sex” for federal nondiscrimination laws,10 often takes the form of a directive to federal agencies, each of which would have to conduct internal assessments and consider actions such as rulemaking.11 This is how President Trump’s order approaches the definition of “sex” for federal agency programs and agencies.12 Notably, however, agencies under the Trump administration may also take early steps by rescinding practices or interpretations in instances where formal rulemaking is not required13 or taking actions that may encounter fewer procedural constraints.14 The president cites his authority to “regulate the conduct of employees in the executive branch” to support the order.15
Defining “Sex”
There is no universal definition of the word “sex.” The term generally refers to a collection of reproductive, hormonal, anatomical, and genetic characteristics that are commonly grouped into categories of “male” and “female” based on reproductive function.16 However, social scientists and medical professionals have long understood sex and gender as complex and intertwined concepts.17 Moreover, there is substantial variation among sex characteristics themselves, such that even for non-transgender people, categorization in a strict male/ female binary based on sex characteristics at birth does not accurately describe many Americans, such as intersex people.18 For decades, courts have recognized that given the complicated ways that “sex” manifests in society, statutes protecting against “sex” discrimination should be understood to apply to sex stereotyping,19 sexual orientation, and gender identity.20 This understanding was formally adopted into many areas of law under the Biden administration,21 which President Trump now seeks to undo. In response to what he describes as “gender ideology,” President Trump’s order lays out a sweeping redefinition of the term “sex” across many parameters of federal government that is based on a narrow subset of reproductive characteristics:
(d) “Female” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell.
(e) “Male” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell.22
The definition explicitly excludes gender, gender identity, and any other characteristics.23 The order also includes a directive to the Department of Health and Human Services to produce a standard, government-wide definition within 30 days.24
The Impact on Transgender, Nonbinary, and Intersex People
President Trump’s executive order has the potential to affect a broad range of people, including:
Transgender people. Approximately 1.6 million individuals, or 0.6% of the U.S. population aged 13 and older, identify as transgender.25 This includes 300,100 youth aged 13 to 17 who identify as transgender.
Nonbinary people. Approximately 1.2 million LGBTQ adults identify as nonbinary in the U.S.—11% of all LGBTQ adults.26
Intersex people. Intersex refers to people whose sex characteristics do not fall into the typical binary categories of male and female.27 Although data are limited and further research is needed to better understand the size of the intersex population in the U.S., the best estimate to date is that intersex people comprise approximately 1.7% of the population.28 Using this estimate, the Department of Health and Human Services under President Biden estimated that as many as 5 million people in the U.S. may be intersex.29
Although the full impact of an order defining sex—or a statute to the same effect—is difficult to determine, there are a few areas of federal policy where President Trump’s executive order is clearly directed. These include nondiscrimination statutes, federally issued identity documents, prisons, and other sex-separated spaces.
Nondiscrimination laws. The President has instructed agencies to review “laws governing sex-based rights, protections, opportunities, and accommodations” to ensure they “protect men and women as biologically distinct sexes.”30 This includes a directive to the Attorney General to “immediately issue guidance to correct” what is described as a “misapplication of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020)” to allow transgender people to participate in sex-separated spaces based on gender identity.31
Many statutes enforced by federal agencies protect against sex discrimination—this includes Title VII,32 Title IX,33 Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act,34 the Fair Housing Act,35 and even laws such as the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (as amended).36
Early in his presidency, President Biden ordered federal agencies to evaluate whether these statutes should be interpreted to apply to sexual orientation and gender identity in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County.37 Many agencies complied by issuing memoranda,38 interpretations,39 guidance,40 and new regulations.41
The new administration seeks to reverse these interpretive documents and formally redefine these laws to exclude coverage for gender identity (and likely sexual orientation). The executive order also consistently emphasizes the administration’s assertion that nondiscrimination laws do not permit transgender people to access sex-separated spaces based on gender identity.
However, there are barriers that may slow down or block the implementation of these changes. For example, formal rulemaking procedures would be required to make longstanding changes to the definition of sex under these statutes, and the way that definition is enforced.42 It is also important to note that many nondiscrimination laws have been interpreted by courts to protect LGBT people,43 including access to gender-affirming bathrooms,44 and the administration’s actions cannot automatically undo those protections. Additionally, many states offer protections against discrimination in areas such as housing,45 employment,46 and public accommodations.47
Identity documents. President Trump’s executive order addresses sex designations on federal identification documents, including passports and Global Entry cards.48
Passports. The federal government issues several forms of identity documents, including passports through the Department of State.49 Under President Biden, Department of State policy permitted passports to be changed upon request, allowing M, F, and X designations.50 President Trump’s executive order requires that passports “accurately reflect the holder’s sex,” as defined in the order. However, implementation of this policy would need to be determined by the Department of State, and it is yet to be seen how the agency would address the needs of transgender, nonbinary, and intersex people in light of this order. For example, the Department of State could seek to recategorize passports with X designations, revoke such passports, or honor currently existing passports for transgender, nonbinary, and intersex people while imposing new requirements for gender markers on passports in future applications or renewals.
Federal prisons. The executive order directly addresses the placement of transgender women in prison, ordering that they be placed based on biological characteristics at birth rather than gender identity and denying gender-affirming health care.51
The Federal Bureau of Prisons estimates that in January 2025, there were 1,538 transgender women and 750 transgender men in federal prisons.52
Under President Biden, policy guidelines permitted consideration of requests made by incarcerated transgender people to be placed based on gender identity and receive appropriate health care.53 This practice was also consistent with longstanding guidelines to prevent prison sexual abuse.54 President Trump’s order seeks to prohibit transgender prisoners from being held in facilities based on gender identity and prevent federal funding from being used for the provision of gender-affirming care in prisons.55
Notably, the Supreme Court has established that federal prison officials have an obligation not to act with “deliberate indifference” to the health and safety of transgender prisoners,56 which could be a barrier to the success of President Trump’s policy goal. Additionally, state laws and court decisions regarding access to health care in prisons may also serve as a barrier.57
Sex-separated spaces. The order requires that sex-separated spaces, such as homeless shelters and intimate partner violence shelters,58 or “intimate spaces designated for women, girls or females (or for men, boys or males)” funded or operated by the federal government “are designated by sex and not identity.”0
Transgender people are disproportionately likely to experience homelessness. For example, a 2020 study found that 8% of transgender adults reported experiencing homelessness in the past year, compared to 3% of non-transgender LGB people and 1% of cisgender, heterosexual adults.60 Research also shows that transgender people already face substantial barriers to accessing emergency shelters, including denial of shelter access or mistreatment inside of a shelter.61
Studies have also found that transgender people face higher rates of intimate partner violence, compared to cisgender individuals.62
President Trump previously attempted to enact a rule that would bar transgender women from women’s shelters; however, that rule was quickly rolled back by the Biden administration before implementation.63The Biden administration has maintained that transgender people should be able to access federally funded emergency shelters based on gender identity.64 President Trump’s directive would reverse that yet again.
The broad language of the executive order could extend to any space that received federal funding and is sex-separated, particularly where individuals must change clothes or shower.
In addition to the specific areas targeted above, President Trump’s executive order broadly demands that the term “sex” be redefined across the federal government, including in forms, policies, and for the purposes of federal funding.65 This could impact several additional areas, such as bathrooms, sports participation, health care, data collection, and research.
Bathrooms. Although bathrooms are not specifically named in the executive order, they appear to be a primary focus. The order’s purpose statement focuses on countering policies that “permit men to self-identify as women and gain access to intimate single-sex spaces and activities designed for women.”66 The order consistently reiterates a commitment to restricting single-sex spaces based on biological distinctions, which suggests that bathrooms will be a fixture of policies enacted under the order. Most directly, the order may result in restriction of bathroom access in federal government properties based on sex assigned at birth, something that President Trump has said he intends to do.67 Congress has already enacted such a restriction in Congressional buildings.0 This could also extend to other sex-separated spaces that are bathroom-adjacent, such as showers, which are addressed in the executive order,69 and locker rooms. In light of the order’s reference to use of federal funding, it is possible that the executive order could have impacts beyond federal buildings and workplaces, but that is yet to be determined.70 However, bathrooms and other government facilities are largely governed by state and local laws rather than federal laws,71 although it is possible that the federal government could attach funding restrictions regarding bathrooms to entities such as schools that receive federal funding.
Sports participation. The executive order does not directly address participation in sports. However, the President’s order addresses the federal statutes and interpretations that apply to sports participation, such as Title IX, as well as “intimate spaces” which would likely include changing rooms. Nonetheless, changing the regulations themselves will require formal rulemaking, because existing regulations are in place which define sex in a transgender-inclusive manner for educational programs and services (although they are subject to injunctions).72 Furthermore, it is possible that a federal sports ban may come from Congress in coordination with federal executive efforts.73
Health care. Outside of the context of federal prisons, the executive order does not address health care specifically, though it does so indirectly through its requirement that agencies rescind LGBTQ-inclusive interpretations of sex discrimination statutes and federal funding requirements.74 The Biden administration had consistently understood health nondiscrimination requirements to apply to gender identity and gender-affirming care, and that these interpretations applied to grantees.75 Although the full consequences of the executive order’s directives will be subject to procedural requirements and litigation, it is possible that funding for some health care could be disrupted or otherwise affected by policies outlined in the executive order.
Data collection and research. President Trump’s order mandates that “agency forms that require an individual’s sex shall list male or female, and shall not request gender identity.”76 If implemented, this could make it difficult for transgender people to self-report on government forms and nearly impossible for researchers to make observations about transgender experiences using those data. The order also prohibits funds from being used to “promote gender ideology.”77 “Gender ideology” is defined broadly in the order in such a manner as to prohibit the recording of “sex” based on any factor other than reproductive biology at birth.78Currently, federal data allow insights into transgender populations,79 and the federal government also funds research into transgender experiences.80 While the full consequences of this policy for research using gender identity data remains to be seen, this aspect of the order could result in severe restrictions on the ability of researchers to study and understand disparities, service utilization, and other experiences of transgender people.
Regardless of what actions are taken, the implementation of this order is likely to come unevenly—for example, a bathroom ban for federal buildings or employees may be possible to implement quicker if it is found to be feasible to implement without rulemaking, whereas many of the changes described above would require agencies to take actions such as formal rulemaking.81 Many of the provisions of this order, or the corresponding agency actions, will likely also face substantial litigation.82
Health Impacts of Sex Definition Laws
In addition to the direct impacts of discrimination that may be treated as lawful under the Trump administration, a “sex” definition order could also have other downstream effects. For example, regardless of other outcomes, it is likely that there will be effects on the mental health and well-being of LGBTQ people, especially transgender, nonbinary, and intersex people most directly impacted by these policies. Research shows that anti-LGBTQ policies increase negative mental health outcomes for transgender people83 and that affirming policies, such as the ability to obtain affirming identity documents, positively influence the well-being of transgender people.84
Conclusion
President Trump’s attempt to redefine the word “sex” for the purposes of federal law to narrowly refer to certain reproductive characteristics could have a range of consequences. While the actual details and realities of implementation will take some time to understand, research shows that efforts such as these can negatively impact the mental health of transgender people. However, it is likely that the process of implementing the directives will be subject to federal procedural constraints, which means that most efforts will not be effective immediately. Furthermore, these actions will almost certainly be subject to extensive litigation, which means that the ultimate outcome is difficult to predict.
State does not force outing but may contribute to hostile school climate (see note beneath map) (4 states)
