Transgender / Transsexual

/ /

This trans chaplain reminds us that visibility is more than presence. It’s power.

If faith is a journey, Reverend Caroline Morison has taken the scene route—one with a few unexpected detours, a military escort, and a very well-placed tube of mascara.

Long before she was among the first openly enlisted transgender soldiers in the U.S. Army National Guard, Caroline was an “Army brat” raised on duty, discipline, and a globe-spanning childhood. She grew up with a calling to both serve and care. So, Morrison joined the Army’s Chaplain Corps straight out of high school. While most of us were still figuring out how to microwave ramen without starting a fire, Caroline was deploying, serving, and wrestling with a God she hadn’t met yet.

“I wasn’t exactly mature enough to be on my own,” she laughed, recounting her early days in active duty. “Let’s just say I was sewing some wild oats.”

Those oats eventually sprouted into a life lived at the intersection of faiths. As a Religious Affairs Specialist, Caroline ensured the freedom of religious expression for every soldier, whether they were Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Pagan, or simply unsure. In those quiet moments of service, her theology began to shift. “God is where God is sought,” she told me. “It doesn’t have to be Christian. It’s where anyone is asking questions. That’s where God is.”

But Caroline’s questions of self didn’t begin in a pew or a deployment tent. They started in a dictionary.

“Before YouTube, there was the dictionary,” she joked. It was in those pages, somewhere between tranquilize and transubstantiation, that she found the word transgender. “It scared the daylights out of me,” she said. “I was Southern Baptist at the time. That word wasn’t okay. But it was me.”

Cue the mascara.

Wearing it got her in trouble. Keeping it hidden almost destroyed her. “I spent a week in the psych ward at the VA hospital after trying to end my life,” she shared, her voice steady. “They found my clothes. Called me Corporal Klinger. My dad even got a call from my first sergeant.” Yet, by some miracle–or perhaps grace–none of it showed up in her discharge paperwork. Which meant she could come back.

And she did.

In 2016, as President Obama lifted the ban on transgender military service, Caroline was already deep in seminary, falling in love with a God who didn’t wasn’t a punishing or judgmental deity. She came out in 2017; sadly, a month after coming out, President Trump tweeted his first ban. “It was a lot of everything,” she sighed. Still, Caroline persisted. She was among the first openly enlisted trans soldiers to navigate a military system, one with no roadmaps and little understanding. There was a heartbreaking moment during a session with her fellow chaplains. “All of us got together for a training, and I listened to [them] talk about what they could and couldn’t do,” she reflected. “What their denominations wouldn’t allow them to do and would allow them to do for transgender people.” It hurt. Deeply.

But she reminded me, “Can’t say that everyone is created in the image of God if I’m not willing to look for the image of God in everyone.”

Still, one of the most poignant moments in her journey came not in combat boots but in heels.

At an annual St. Barbara’s Day military banquet, with grog flowing and medals gleaming, she spotted Kansas State Representative Pat Proctor, the man who had recently voted to override the governor’s veto of the so-called Women’s Bill of Rights, a piece of legislation that stripped trans people of legal protections.

But Caroline gave him her hand instead of giving him the cold shoulder.

“We’re Iraq veterans,” she noted. Realizing she had an opportunity to show him someone beyond the tropes, she wanted to show him a trans veteran who served with distinction. She walked up confidently and shook his hand. “I just did my best to actually speak…I knew I had a very limited time to actually say something that meant anything.” Caroline didn’t know until later, but her wife snapped a photo of that moment.

For someone who has stood at pulpits and podiums, heard the worst from chaplains, and preached the best from God, it was a moment of radical grace.

I asked Caroline what message she wanted to share on today’s Trans Day of Visibility. Her response is soulful and inspiring. “It’s not a closet–it’s a chrysalis,” she says without missing a beat. “They try to make it a closet, but no. We grow, we change, we become new beings. And once we break free, there’s no putting us back.”

These days, Rev. Morrison is a hospice chaplain, preacher, and theologian who professes a more liberating vision of a God who holds multitudes—genders and transitions. She is also finishing a book on transgender liberation theology. And she’s still showing up for every trans person who hasn’t yet stepped out of their chrysalis.

Because Caroline Morrison isn’t just visible; she’s radiant. And we should follow suit. The bravest thing we can do is show up in our complicated, mascara-wearing truth.

And let the world see us shimmer.

/ /

Another federal judge protects transgender Air Force members from adverse government action

,

A federal judge in New Jersey granted a temporary restraining order Monday blocking the U.S. military from separating two transgender airmen under President Donald Trump’s reinstated transgender military ban, offering immediate protection as the broader challenge to the policy plays out in court.

The order came in Ireland v. Hegseth, filed on behalf of Master Sgt. Logan Ireland and Staff Sgt. Nicholas Bear Bade, who were recently removed from their posts and placed on involuntary administrative absence under the Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness executive order, EO 14183. Both have served with distinction in the Air Force for years.

“These Airmen have risked everything to protect American freedoms — they deserve better than becoming the targets of a calculated, political purge,” said Jennifer Levi, senior director of transgender and queer rights at GLAD Law, which is representing the plaintiffs alongside the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and the law firms Stapleton Segal Cochran, and Langer Grogan & Diver.

The court’s order halts the Air Force from continuing administrative separation proceedings against the two while litigation continues. It follows a separate ruling last week in Talbott v. Trump, in which a federal judge inWashington, D.C., issued a preliminary injunction blocking the ban’s enforcement nationwide. D.C. U.S. District Court Judge Ana Reyes called it discriminatory, unsupported by evidence, and “soaked in animus.”

Despite that ruling, Ireland and Bade were still facing imminent expulsion, prompting a separate filing in New Jersey when the judge in the Talbottcasedenied an amendment to include their names before the injunction hearing.

“These are two guys who needed immediate relief,” Shannon Minter, legal director at NCLR, told The Advocate. “We initially were trying to add them to the D.C. case, but by the time we were seeking to add them, it was too late to include them before the preliminary injunction hearing, so we couldn’t wait.”

In granting the temporary order, U.S. District Judge Christine P. O’Hearn wrote that Ireland and Bade demonstrated both a likelihood of success in challenging the ban and the risk of irreparable harm — including loss of career, damage to their reputations, and violation of constitutional rights.

The court rejected arguments by government attorneys that the plaintiffs could seek relief through internal military channels, citing their removal from deployment and looming involuntary separation proceedings set to begin Wednesday.

“The loss of military service under the stigma of a policy that targets gender identity is not merely a loss of employment; it is a profound disruption of personal dignity, medical continuity, and public service,” O’Hearn wrote.

Pentagon officials told Reyes in D.C. that separations would not begin until Friday.

Bade, a six-year Air Force veteran inspired by his grandfather’s World War II service, had been deployed in Kuwait as part of the base’s security forces. He was pulled from duty and forced home.

“For six years, I’ve strived to embody what Americans expect from their military: expertise, character, and leadership,” Bade said. “Now, I’ve been prevented from serving the troops I mentor and the nation I’ve committed my life to protect — all while living by the Airman’s Creed that I will never falter, and I will not fail.”

Ireland, a decorated 14-year veteran stationed in Hawaii, had been attending a training mission in New Jersey when he was ordered to leave and placed on administrative absence.

“My team in the Indo-Pacific wants their leader back — the one who wears the same uniform and swore the same oath as they did,” Ireland said.

Monday’s ruling comes just days after a tense hearing in D.C., where Reyes grilled Justice Department attorneys over the administration’s last-minute effort to undo the nationwide block on the policy in Talbott.

“There’s nothing in the record right now that tells me how many complaints there have been with respect to unit cohesion or military readiness with respect to gender dysphoria,” Reyes told DOJ lawyer Jean Lin, who was unable to identify who authored the policy or whether Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had even reviewed it.

Reyes accused the administration of “gaslighting” the court and called its claims “frankly ridiculous,” warning that any transgender service member negatively affected before the stay on the injunction is lifted could seek a TRO — which is precisely what Ireland and Bade have now obtained.

As both the Talbott and Ireland cases proceed, advocates stress that the stakes extend beyond a few individual careers. “Thousands of transgender service members like me fill critical roles requiring years of specialized training,” Ireland said. “Removing us creates dangerous operational gaps across every theater.”

The New Jersey case was narrowly focused on preventing immediate harm to the two plaintiffs, Minter said. “We’re just seeking narrow relief for those two, just to prevent them from being put into separation proceedings while this is all getting sorted out in the D.C. and soon Washington cases,” he said. “If the D.C. Circuit allows the injunction to go into effect, then their case is fine. They don’t need to take any further action right now. If it does not, then they will need to seek a PI [preliminary injunction] from that judge.”

The restraining order remains in effect for 14 days unless extended.

/ /

Social Security workers worry Elon Musk may use SS data to target trans Americans

,

Two “insiders” with the Social Security Administration (SSA) warn that the recent accessing of personal Social Security information by billionaire transphobe Elon Musk and agents of his so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) could easily enable the current presidential administration to identify transgender Americans for government persecution.

DOGE representatives Mike Russo and Akash Bobba entered the SSA on January 31 and got access to data on every person in the U.S. with a Social Security number, according to a court filing challenging DOGE’s access to the data. The data includes the addresses, medical and work histories, tax, banking and citizenship information, and family records of every person in the U.S. with a Social Security number, Rolling Stone reported.

DOGE had access to the data for nearly two months before federal Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander ordered DOGE and Musk to delete any non-anonymized data and to stop accessing the data in general. The AFL-CIO, one of the nation’s biggest labor unions, sued over the matter.

When Hollander asked government lawyers why DOGE needed unlimited access to the “personal, confidential, sensitive, and private information” of millions of Americans, the lawyers could provide no reason. DOGE has since claimed that it needs the data to find cases of theft and waste, but one expert who testified in the case says this isn’t true.

Tiffany Flick, a 30-year SSA veteran, testified in the case that DOGE’s demand for the data was “unusual and improper,” adding that neither Russo nor Bobba had the training or security clearances to handle such data. Flick said that a theft and waste audit could be conducted with access to the SSA’s full data set.

She also said DOGE’s access to the data left it vulnerable to mishandling by “bad actors” like hostile foreign governments or U.S. administration officials who could use the data to locate and persecute political dissidents, elected officials, journalists, transgender people, and other “political enemies.”

Zinnia Jones, a transgender activist and researcher, told Rolling Stone that the SSA data could be used to “identify nearly all likely transgender people in the U.S. with 99% confidence.” Jones noted that a 2015 U.S. Census Bureau used the same SSA data that DOGE accessed to estimate the nation’s trans population.

An anonymous former federal employee agreed with Jones’ assessment, adding that the information could be used to identify and remove trans employees from the government. An anonymous current SSA employee also told Rolling Stonethat the information could be used to harass medical providers who offer services of which the current administration disapproves. Currently, these services include gender-affirming care, a type of care that the current administration has sought to defund and eradicate completely.

This prospect seems notable considering that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recently changed its policies to allow spying on LGBTQ+ people & groups as dangers to U.S. safety. The rule change occurred under the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis, an office that has a long track record of violating civil liberties and rights, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.

In response to Judge Hollander’s ruling telling DOGE to stop accessing SSA data, SSA acting commissioner Leland Dudek said he could shut all SSA employees out of the data, saying, “Really, I want to turn it off and let the courts figure out how they want to run a federal agency.”

Dudek later walked back his comment, saying that the court had issued clarifying guidance about its orders. “Therefore, I am not shutting down the agency,” he said.

/ /

Texas is keeping a list of trans people & no one will say why

,

In August, Texas banned drivers in the state from changing the gender markerson their driver’s licenses to match their gender identities. New reporting reveals that employees at the Department of Public Safety (DPS) continue to document every change request by trans drivers for collection in a state database.

At least 42 such attempts — including instances where people asked for guidance about state policies during calls, in-person appointments, and by email — have been reported in the last five months, according to documents shared with The Texas Newsroom.  

DPS staff scanned and saved trans drivers’ information, the records show, and sent the data to a designated internal email account.

Officials at DPS and the Texas Attorney General’s office refused to say why the state is gathering the information, with whom it is sharing it, and whether the data collection is ongoing.

The documents also shed light on how those requests are handled. Some employees allowed the drivers to change the name listed on their licenses, but rejected their requests to update their gender. Others declined both requests.

Some new residents presented out-of-state or federal documents that matched their gender identity but were still denied a matching Texas license or ID.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has called court orders directing Texas officials at DPS and other agencies to change gender markers “illegal.”

Screenshots of DPS’ trans data collection email address circulated online soon after the state banned gender marker changes, and the account was overwhelmed with spam from people protesting it.

Out of 700 pages of emails reviewed in September, only one was about an actual request to change a gender marker. Another 80 came from pranksters and critics.

Someone signed up the email address for newsletters from the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and a bargain hunter website called Krazy Coupon Lady. The address also received emails from QueerMeNow, an explicit gay adult entertainment blog, and Lovehoney, a British company that sells adult toys and lingerie, KERA News reported.

One email read, “oh no someone is spamming your gestapo list wow,” while others called the policy “evil,” “weird,” and fascistic. Some accused DPS employees of acting like a “good little Nαzi” and “a disgrace in the eyes of God.”

The new internal agency documents reveal employees continued to collect data and forward it internally for collection after the spamming uprise.

Last week, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton reiterated that it’s unlawful for trans Texans to change the gender listed on their state IDs, and added that any documents that have been altered are required to be changed back. There is no law prescribing the latter.

Earlier this year, a bill was introduced in the Texas Legislature to imprison anyone whose gender on state documents does not match the one assigned to them at birth.

/ /

City Council declares Boston a ‘sanctuary city’ for transgender community

,

City Council members voted 12-1 Wednesday to make Boston a sanctuary cityfor members of the transgender community.

Councilor-at-Large Julia Mejia and District 9 Councilor Liz Breadon called on Boston to adopt the measure supporting transgender people, pointing to what they see as harmful rhetoric coming from President Donald Trump and the White House.

“Boston is not going to back down,” Mejia said Wednesday. “We’re seeing attacks on our trans loved ones, and here on the local level, a lot of folks are feeling helpless.”

Breadon, the first openly gay woman elected to the council, said the country faces “unprecedented times” when “many of our neighbors are feeling unsafe and insecure for various reasons.”

“This resolution addresses a particular concern that we need to elevate and raise up,” she said at Wednesday’s council meeting. “During the election and since, there’s been an incredible escalation in anti-trans rhetoric and violence that has caused incredible stress and anxiety to our LGBTQI+ community, and especially to our trans brothers and sisters.”

The resolution says, in part, that Boston has “a specific commitment to protecting transgender and gender-diverse individuals. Taxpayer-funded agencies shall not comply with federal efforts to strip resources that safeguard their rights. Boston will not cooperate with federal or state policies that harm transgender and gender-diverse people and remains committed to ensuring their access to healthcare, housing, education, and employment without fear or discrimination.”

Mejia and Breadon acknowledged that the resolution is symbolic and nonbinding, but Mejia said it is a critical first step and an “opportunity to set the groundwork for the legislation.”

Councilor Ed Flynn was the only member to vote against the measure.

“I would like to learn more about what this resolution does,” Flynn said, according to the Boston Herald. “I don’t want to be disrespectful to anybody, but it’s just something I would like to have before I vote.”

Sam Whiting of the Massachusetts Family Institute, a group that describes itself as recognizing “the male and female sexes as a real and enduring part of a person’s created nature, not an imaginary social construct,” pushed back against the councilors’ framing of the Trump administration’s actions regarding transgender people.

“We think it misrepresents the executive orders, and we do support these orders and the efforts to protect children from the harms of gender ideology,” Whiting told NBC Boston.

Boston’s declaration that it’s a “sanctuary city for transgender persons” and other members of the LGBTQ community follows similar actions in the Massachusetts cities of Worcester and Cambridge.

/ /

Man planning to testify in favor of anti-trans bill ends up apologizing to trans people instead

An older Wisconsin man apologized to the transgender community during a hearing on a proposed anti-trans bill in his state’s legislature. 

The man, identified as Larry Jones of Milwaukee by the Wisconsin Examiner, said he originally came to the hearing to voice his support for state Assembly Bill 104, which seeks to ban all forms of gender-affirming care for anyone under 18 and threatens to revoke the medical licenses of any doctors who provide it. But after hearing directly from trans people, Jones changed his mind. 

“I was invited here to give my support for [the bill]. I have very little knowledge of gay people and things like that. So, when I came here, my eyes were opened,” he said during his testimony.

A video of the apology, shared by the ACLU of Wisconsin, explains that Larry waited for over six hours in an overflow room to testify in favor of the bill. While talking to others during the wait, he realized how much he didn’t know.

“I was one of the critics that sat on the side and made the decision there was only two genders,” he said. “So I got an education that was unbelievable, and I don’t know just exactly how to say this, but my perspective for people have changed… I’d like to apologize for being here, and I learned a very lot about this group of people.”

“He could’ve just left,” one person commented on TikTok. “But he still chose to speak and publicly admit he had been ignorant on something and had since changed his mind. What a great man. The world needs more Larrys.”

“This made me cry,” said another. “He showed up. He listened. He learned. He changed his perspective. And then he spoke publicly . That is truly remarkable in this climate. Bravo Larry! I’d love to buy you a beer.”

A third simple wrote: “Hope. There is hope. There is hope.”

Despite Larry’s change of heart, as well as the fact that a reported 79 people appeared to speak against the bill compared to only 18 who spoke in favor (including the bill’s authors), the GOP chose to advance the legislation in a 10-5 vote along party lines. Regardless of what happens next, the bill is unlikely to become law because Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers (D) has vowed to veto anti-LGBTQ+ legislation. 

But State Rep. Lisa Subeck (D) told the Wisconsin Examiner she still believes the emotional hearing was indicative of progress. 

State Rep. Adam Neylon (R) stated during the hearing that his support for the bill is not “judgment on trans people” but rather his desire for a “conservative approach to medical care that may be irreversible.”

“If you’re accusing us of wanting to be conservative when it comes to the medical care of minors, then that is true…,” Neylon said. “That doesn’t mean we want them [deceased], right? That doesn’t mean we don’t recognize their right to exist.”

The bill, he added, “might not be hitting directly where it should and it might come across political, and I understand the pain and I wanted to stay [at the hearing] to make sure that people had an opportunity to share their things… I would be angry if I was young too, but it’s not coming from a place of saying, like trying to other them or saying, like, you don’t belong in our society.”

Subeck said the comments from lawmakers during the hearing “was a little bit closer to the conversations that we often have when we are sitting one-on-one, talking to each other.” 

“In private, legislators have a lot of conversations that don’t reflect the votes that are taken on the floor,” Subeck said. “It makes me a little bit hopeful, because while my Republican colleagues continue down the path of voting their party line — even when they have said they have things to learn and it gives them pause — the fact that they were willing to even sit in that room, in sort of a public sphere, and have a conversation means that there is room for change.”

Not everyone was as open as Neylon, though. Committee Chair state Rep. Clint Moses (R) angered Democrats and trans advocates for allowing most of those in favor of the bill to speak first, rather than alternating between viewpoints, as is typical. 

“We sit here for all this time, all these people, you’re allowing the anti-trans voices to go first. It feels like the world is stacked against us and we’re getting tired of it,” testified Cory Neeley. “My voice is cracking because I’m literally fuming at the fact that I’ve sat here all day long listening to people call me a groomer. People calling me a person who doesn’t care about their children… I’m a good parent.”

/ /

Judge blocks Trump’s transgender military ban

A federal judge Tuesday blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order banning transgender people from enlisting or serving in the military. 

U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes of Washington, D.C., ruled that the ban violates the equal protection clause because it discriminates based on transgender status and sex. 

Reyes said the ban “is soaked in animus.”

“Its language is unabashedly demeaning, its policy stigmatizes transgender persons as inherently unfit, and its conclusions bear no relation to fact,” she wrote.

She added, “Indeed, the cruel irony is that thousands of transgender servicemembers have sacrificed — some risking their lives — to ensure for others the very equal protection rights the Military Ban seeks to deny them.”

Reyes delayed the effect of her preliminary injunction until Friday to give the administration time to appeal it. She added in her order that the government “could have crafted a policy that balances the Nation’s need for a prepared military and Americans’ right to equal protection.”

“They still can,” she said. “The Military Ban, however, is not that policy. The Court therefore must act to uphold the equal protection rights that the military defends every day.”

A spokesperson for the Department of Justice called Reyes’ order “the latest example of an activist judge attempting to seize power at the expense of the American people who overwhelmingly voted to elect President Trump.” 

“The Department of Justice has vigorously defended President Trump’s executive actions, including the Defending Women Executive Order, and will continue to do so,” the spokesperson said in an email. 

President Biden Speaks At West Point Commencement
Cadets arrive at Michie Stadium before the arrival of President Joe Biden during commencement exercises at West Point on May 25, 2024 in West Point, New York. Spencer Platt / Getty Images

Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which is representing several trans service members and trans people who want to enlist in a lawsuit, said Reyes acted quickly “to shield our troops from the harmful effects of this irrational ban.” 

“The ban’s harmful impact and rushed implementation show that it was motivated by prejudice,” Minter said in a statement. “Our plaintiffs include lifelong military personnel who served in combat in Afghanistan, come from multi-generation military families, and have received honors like the Bronze Star. This ban is unjustifiable and attacks brave servicemembers, recruits, and families who sacrifice so much for our country.” 

Trump’s order goes much further than a similar policy he issued during his first term, which prohibited trans people from enlisting and allowed those already serving to continue doing so in a manner consistent with their gender identities and continue receiving transition-related medical care if they came out before the ban. Service members who came out after it were not allowed to receive such medical care and had to continue serving in a manner consistent with their assigned sexes at birth. 

The new policy prohibits trans people from enlisting and requires the military to identify all trans service members who have “a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms consistent with, gender dysphoria,” which is the medical term for the severe emotional distress caused by the misalignment between one’s gender identity and birth sex, according to a memo the Defense Department filed in the lawsuit last week. 

Those identified by the Pentagon will be disqualified from service and must be removed from their jobs. They will receive honorable separations unless their records reflect otherwise, according to the memo.

In January, two national LGBTQ legal organizations, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders and the the National Center for Lesbian Rights, filed suit against Trump’s executive order on behalf of six active-duty trans service members and two trans people seeking to enlist. They argued that the ban discriminates against trans people and “reflects animosity toward transgender people because of their transgender status.”

The order, the lawsuit said, declared that being trans fundamentally “conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life.”

The order said, “A man’s assertion that he is a woman, and his requirement that others honor this falsehood, is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member.” 

Reyes pushed Justice Department attorney Jason C. Lynch on that language during preliminary hearings last month, asking repeatedly whether he believed it showed animus against the trans community. 

“Would it be fair to say that excluding a group of people from military service based on unsupported assertions that they are liars, immodest, lack integrity, are undisciplined and are dishonorable, would you agree with me that — particularly where there’s no support for any of those assertions — that that is animated by animus?” Reyes asked Lynch, who declined to answer. 

Multiple Defense Department memos also say enlisted service members will be required to use pronouns and salutations, such as “sir” and “ma’am,” that align with their birth sexes. Reyes pressed Lynch about how pronoun usage affects military readiness. 

“I don’t —” Lynch said, before the judge interrupted him.

“Because it doesn’t,” Reyes said. “Because any commonsense rational human being understands that it doesn’t.”

/ /

VA will no longer provide transgender care for some veterans

Transgender veterans will no longer be provided hormone therapy through the Department of Veterans Affairs, unless they were already receiving such care through the department or the military, the VA announced Monday.

The reversal of the decade-old policy comes just days after the VA rescinded a 2018 directive that required the department to treat trans veterans “with respect and dignity.” The directive required coverage of mental health care, hormone therapy, pre-surgery evaluation and care after surgery as medically necessary. The VA has never covered gender-affirming surgery for veterans. 

The rescinded directive also required health care providers to address veterans by their gender identity, which included using their requested pronouns and preferred name.

According to Monday’s announcement, trans veterans who weren’t already receiving treatment for gender dysphoria, which is the medical term for the severe emotional distress caused by the misalignment between one’s gender identity and birth sex, will not be able to access it through the VA. 

“I mean no disrespect to anyone, but VA should not be focused on helping Veterans attempt to change their sex,” VA Secretary Doug Collins said in a statement Monday, adding that the “vast majority” of veterans and Americans agree, though he did not point to any data that supports that claim.

“All eligible Veterans — including trans-identified Veterans — will always be welcome at VA and will always receive the benefits and services they’ve earned under the law,” Collins said. “But if Veterans want to attempt to change their sex, they can do so on their own dime.” 

Any money saved by curtailing treatments for gender dysphoria “will be redirected to help severely injured VA beneficiaries — such as paralyzed Veterans and amputees — regain their independence,” the VA said.

In addition to ending coverage of hormone therapy for veterans who weren’t already receiving it, the VA will also no longer provide gender-affirming prosthetics, wigs or letters of support for veterans to access transition-related surgery outside of the VA.

Veterans who receive care in VA facilities will also be required to use “intimate spaces,” such as bathrooms and locker rooms, in accordance with their birth sex, the VA announced.

Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest LGBTQ advocacy group, condemned the VA’s announcement. 

“Transgender veterans share the same commitment and the same love of country as all other veterans,” she said in a statement. “They made the same sacrifices and are owed the same respect and care after their service. Despite this, the VA has decided to turn its back on transgender veterans who committed their lives to serving in our armed forces—complying with an Administration hellbent on harming and scapegoating the transgender community.”

The policy change was brought on by President Donald Trump’s executive order declaring that there are only two, unchangeable sexes, the VA said. The executive order has resulted in sweeping changes regarding trans people across the federal government, from government web pages that mention trans people to passport policies. 

The VA has been providing treatment for gender dysphoria for more than a decade, according to the department’s announcement, which added that the Veterans Health Administration estimates indicate that less than one-tenth of 1% of the 9.1 million veterans enrolled in VA health care are trans, which would be about 9,100 veterans. That number is far lower than previous research has found. The Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law estimated in 2014 that about 134,300 trans people are veterans or are retired from the Guard or Reserve, though it’s unclear if they would all be eligible for VA health care. 

Trump also issued an executive order prohibiting trans people from serving or enlisting in the military. The policy requires all trans people who are currently serving to be separated from the military by next month. Several trans service members and trans people who planned to enlist filed a lawsuit in January to block the policy, and a judge is expected to issue a decision in the case this week.

A majority of Americans, 58%, favor allowing openly trans people to serve in the military, though support has declined, from 66% in 2021 and 71% in 2019, according to Gallup data released last month. The drop was driven primarily by Republican survey respondents, Gallup found. 

In recent years, Republicans have increasingly supported policies that target transgender people, particularly trans youth, by prohibiting trans students from playing school sports on the teams that align with their gender identities and barring them from accessing transition-related health care. 

/ /

Texas AG says courts can’t force state agencies to update trans people’s IDs

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton declared Friday that state court orders to change the sex markers on Texas birth certificates, driver’s licenses and other state-issued IDs are no longer valid.

State agencies have already prohibited transgender people from changing the sex markers on their birth certificates and driver’s licenses through internal policy changes last year. Paxton’s new directive requires them to go further and revert back any sex marker changes that were the result of court orders. The directive is the first of its kind nationwide and marks yet another escalation in the state’s nearly decadelong effort to restrict the rights of trans people. 

“There are only two sexes, and that is determined not by feelings or ‘gender theory’ but by biology at conception,” Paxton said in a statement Friday. “Radical left-wing judges do not have jurisdiction to order agencies to violate the law nor do they have the authority to overrule reality. In Texas, we will follow common sense and restore any documents that were wrongfully changed to be consistent with biology.”

Paxton’s directive came via a nonbinding legal opinion in response to a request from Steven McCraw, director of the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS), in September. McCraw asked the attorney general whether Texas courts have the authority to order state agencies to change a person’s sex designation on government documents. If they don’t, McCraw continued, do agencies like DPS have the authority to revert back sex markers for trans Texans whose documents were changed by court orders?

McCraw said in his request that there has been a “years-long and state-wide effort to alter government records to reflect gender identity.” He added that judges who approve sex-marker changes on documents “may do so with no scrutiny whatsoever,” citing local news reports about lawyers helping trans clients update their Texas documents.  

Transgender advocates say IDs that accurately reflect a trans person’s gender identity are critical to their safety. Documents that show their birth sex and not their lived gender, they say, can cause problems while going through airport security and traveling, starting a new job — where their ID could out them as trans to an employer — voting in elections or interacting with law enforcement. 

However, McCraw said state documents are required to reflect sex, which he defined as “a binary and fixed biological fact” referring to the presence of two X chromosomes or the presence of a Y chromosome, and that accurate identification “has obvious implications for public safety.” Conservative officials have often cited a similar definition of sex, even though scientists estimate that 1.7% of people are born intersex, meaning they have sex characteristics that don’t fit typical definitions of male or female. 

Ash Hall, an LGBTQ policy and advocacy strategist for the ACLU of Texas, said nonbinding legal opinions, like Paxton’s, cannot supersede court orders.

“State agencies have no authority to retroactively change anyone’s valid legal documents,” Hall said in a statement. “If state agencies attempt to implement this non-binding opinion, it would be an unlawful waste of resources that will not hold up in court nor stand the test of time. We should all have identity documents that match who we are as a matter of basic safety and Paxton cannot erase transgender Texans’ right to exist.”

McCraw’s letter and Paxton’s legal opinion are the latest efforts from Texas officials to roll back the rights of trans Texans. 

In 2023, the state enacted legislation that prohibits transition-related care for minors and barred trans student athletes from playing on school sports teams that align with their gender identities. 

Many of the state’s policy changes targeting trans people have circumvented the legislature, by agencies choosing to change their policies internally or by Paxton issuing legal directives for them to do so. In March 2022, after state lawmakers failed to pass a bill restricting transition-related care for minors, Paxton issued a legal opinion and directive 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, though the directive was later blocked by a judge.

The Texas Department of Public Safety and Department of State Health Services also both quietly prohibited trans people from updating the sex markers on their driver’s licenses and birth certificates in August and September. The state justified those changes earlier this year citing an executive order signed by President Donald Trump that declares the federal government will recognize only two, unchangeable sexes. 

So far this year, Texas lawmakers have introduced nearly 200 bills targeting LGBTQ people, according to Equality Texas, a state LGBTQ advocacy group. 

Last week, Republican state Rep. Tom Oliverson filed a bill that could charge trans people with a state jail felony — punishable by up to two years in jail and a fine of up to $10,000 — if they identify their birth sex incorrectly on state documents or to employers. The bill doesn’t have any other sponsors and is unlikely to pass, but it’s the first of its kind in the nation. 

Texas isn’t alone in its efforts to restrict IDs for trans people. Florida agencies rolled out similar policies last year, and, as a result, the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles has started invalidating drivers licenses it issued to trans people with updated sex markers and issuing them new licenses showing their birth sex.

/ /

Fact Sheet: Misleading Narratives About Transgender People and Restrooms, Locker Rooms, and Other Single-Sex Spaces

Current proposals in the US that prohibit transgender people from being able to use public restrooms that align with who they are (e.g. proposals forcing transgender men to use women’s bathrooms, and trans women to use the men’s room) are constructed on intentional falsehoods. This trend of inflammatory fearmongering and demonization is a threat to the health and safety of transgender people, as well as cisgender people perceived to be trans. Safety and privacy is important to all of us, and banning transgender people from these spaces does nothing to make other people safer.

These discriminatory endeavors are part of the broader, escalating wave of attacks on basic civil rights. These attacks include attempts to ban essential health care for transgender youth and adults, restrict participation in sports, block accurate identity documents, curb freedom of expression, endanger transgender inmates by incarcerating them in institutions inconsistent with their gender identity, and suppress and even criminalize books, education, and cultureby and about LGBTQ people.

All of these efforts are part of the same broader goal to roll back the clock on acceptance for transgender people, and make it increasingly difficult for transgender Americans to go about their daily lives.

Reporters should include these facts when reporting on these issues:

  • Current legislative and executive branch efforts to restrict transgender people and youth from public restrooms and similar spaces are based more in fearmongering than facts. Research shows no evidence of safety risks for cisgender people when trans people use restrooms aligning with their authentic gender; in fact, transgender people are at elevated risk for harassment and violence in these spaces.
  • According to the Movement Advancement Project, bathroom bans can result in “high rates of harassment and violence against transgender people as well as cisgender people, particularly women who do not conform to traditional ideas of femininity.”
  • Harming someone in a public restroom is already illegal. Bathroom bans often have no guidance on enforcement, and can result in invasions of privacy for everyone when individual citizens randomly (and oftenmistakenly) attempt to enforce these vaguely constructed statutes.
  • President Donald Trump’s executive orders inaccurately state that there are only two sexes, ignoring the reality of intersex people and decades of established medical and scientific research about sex and gender diversity throughout history and cultures. That’s why every major medical association and health authority in the world recognizes and supports health care for transgender people. President Trump has attempted to use his orders to impose discriminatory anti-trans bathroom bans for restrooms on federal property. The executive orders do not override the US Constitution, federal statutes, or established legal precedent. Federal judges have already struck down many of his executive orders, while the constitutionality of others continues to be challenged in court.
  • Imposing discrimination on transgender people at the federal level would be illegal under the Supreme Court’s Bostock decision, which ruled that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is unconstitutional sex discrimination.
  • President Trump’s executive order mandating the transfer of transgender inmates to prisons that do not align with their gender (e.g. putting transgender men in women’s prisons and transgender women in men’s prisons) endangers the safety of trans prisoners, and is also likely unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled, in a 1994 case brought by a trans inmate, that it is the government’s duty to protect prisoners from violence. The decision noted the particular vulnerability of trans inmates.
  • As of early March 2025, 600 anti-transgender bills have been introduced nationwide, and nine have passed. In 2024, 674 anti-trans bills were proposed and 50 passed. Of the potential bills in 2025 so far, 44 seek to restrict transgender bathroom access.
  • Transgender people should not be unfairly discriminated against and should be allowed to “use facilities and participate in activities that match who they are,” notes the ACLU. “We believe it is not only the right answer from a human point of view, but it is also legally required by statutory and constitutional bans on sex discrimination.”

When a bill or proposal explicitly addresses transgender people and the use of restrooms, locker rooms, or other single-sex spaces, journalists should contextualize it with the facts above, speak with transgender people and organizations to include their perspectives, and make note of broadscale patterns of targeting trans people with false, harmful, and dehumanizing narratives in efforts to retract their basic civil rights.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

  • GLAAD: Debunking the “Bathroom Bill” Myth report explores the harmful effects of bathroom discrimination on transgender people, and debunks misinformation spread by proponents of anti-trans legislation: “Opponents of discrimination protections typically focus on generating fears about bathrooms, falsely claiming that such laws will make it legal for sexual predators to enter women’s restrooms.”
  • Movement Advancement Project (MAP): tracks laws and potential legislation. MAP shares this data via an interactive map.
  • The ACLU tracks anti-LGBTQ legislation nationwide and shares data through an interactive map that allows users to sort information by issue, state, and status.
  • The Trans Legislation Tracker monitors legislation attempting to ban transgender people from various public services and facilities.
  • Harvard School of Public Health: A 2019 LGBTQ Teen Study, an anonymous survey of more than 3,600 youth ages 13 to 17, revealed that transgender and nonbinary teens face a higher risk of sexual assault when forced to use bathrooms and locker rooms that don’t match their gender identity: “36% of transgender or gender-nonbinary students with restricted bathroom or locker room access reported being sexually assaulted in the last 12 months.”
  • MAP/GLSEN: “Singling out transgender students and telling them they must use separate restrooms is humiliating and discriminatory … forcing transgender students into restrooms that don’t match the gender they live every day puts their safety at even greater risk.” Nearly three-quarters of transgender students (70%) say they have “avoided bathrooms because they felt unsafe or uncomfortable.”
  • The Trevor Project: “Transgender and nonbinary young people who had access to gender-affirming clothing, gender-neutral bathrooms at school, and had their pronouns respected by the people they live with had lower rates of attempting suicide compared to those who did not.”
‹ 1 2 3 4›»