A judge in Missouri has upheld the state’s ban on gender-affirming care for transminors and on restrictions for the treatment for adults.
Judge Robert S. Carter of the Cole County, Mo., Circuit Court ruled Monday that the law did not violate the Missouri constitution and wrote that there is “an almost total lack of consensus as to the medical ethics of adolescent gender dysphoria treatment.” This comes even though every major medical organization supports such care.
The bans are contained in Senate Bill 49, which Republican Gov. Mike Parson signed into law in June 2023. The law took effect in August of that year after another judge refused to block enforcement of it while the lawsuit against it proceeds.
The suit was brought in July 2023 by the families of three transgender people, Southampton Community Healthcare and two of its medical providers, and two organizations, PFLAG and GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBTQ+ Equality. They are represented by Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, and Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP. Gov. Parson is named as defendant. The suit is known as Noe v. Parson, Noe being one of the anonymous plaintiffs.
The law indefinitely bans gender-affirming surgeries for trans minors (genital surgery, however, is almost never performed on minors) and temporarily bans the administration of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. The latter ban is set to expire in August 2027, and young people who were already on the treatment when the law was enacted are allowed to stay on it. Gender-affirming treatment is still legal for cisgender youth for conditions such as early-onset puberty or a disorder of sex development. The law also bans Medicaid funding for gender-affirming treatment for the purpose of transition, even for adults, and gender-affirming surgeries for incarcerated people.
The statute violates the Missouri constitution’s guarantee of equal protection of the law, similar to that provided in the U.S. Constitution, according to the lawsuit, and interferes with parents’ right to manage their children’s health care. Trans minors in Missouri will suffer irreparable harm under the law, the suit states.
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, a Republican, issued a press releasepraising Carter’s ruling and calling gender-affirming care “child mutilation.”
“The Court has left Missouri’s law banning child mutilation in place, a resounding victory for our children. We are the first state in the nation to successfully defend such a law at the trial court level,” Bailey said in the release. “I’m extremely proud of the thousands of hours my office put in to shine a light on the lack of evidence supporting these irreversible procedures. We will never stop fighting to ensure Missouri is the safest state in the nation for children.”
Before the legislature acted, Bailey had issued an emergency rule to severely restrict gender-affirming care. He withdrew it when lawmakers passed SB 49 and sent it to Parson, saying it was a stopgap measure until the legislature acted. But his rule had been blocked by a St. Louis County judge while a lawsuit against it proceeded.
Bailey has been in a legal battle with a medical center in St. Louis, as he has sought release of unredacted records on gender-affirming care. The center has refused, and a judge has sided with it. He has won release of documents from three other health care providers.
Lambda Legal and the ACLU of Missouri said they will appeal Carter’s ruling. His decision is “largely copying a brief submitted by the State and ignoring thousands of pages of a transcript not yet provided to the parties that reflects nine days of testimony in the case,” which was heard in September and October, says a press release from the groups.
“We are extremely disappointed in this decision, but this is not the end of the fight and we will appeal. However, the court’s findings signal a troubling acceptance of discrimination, ignore an extensive trial record and the voices of transgender Missourians and those who care for them, and deny transgender adolescents and Medicaid beneficiaries from their right to access to evidence-based, effective, and often life-saving medical care,” Lambda Legal and the ACLU of Missouri said in the release.
“Despite heartfelt testimony from parents of transgender youth, transgender adults who’ve benefited from this care at various stages of life, a transgender minor, and some of Missouri’s most dedicated health care providers, the state has prioritized politics over the well-being of its people,” the organizations added. “This ruling sends a chilling message that, for some, compassion and equal access to health care are still out of reach.”
During a live newscast on Washington, D.C.’s NBC affiliate WRC Thursday evening, anchor Jim Handly referred to DelawareCongresswoman-elect Sarah McBride as “congressman.” The moment, during the station’s News 4 at 6 newscast, happened as Handly reported on a new policy from Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson barring transgender people from using restrooms that align with their gender identity in the House-controlled sections of the U.S. Capitol complex.
Handly, a veteran broadcaster who is gay, quickly corrected himself, using McBride’s proper title and pronouns in subsequent references during the same segment.
A spokesperson for WRC addressed the incident in response to The Advocate’srequest for comment.
“An anchor momentarily lost in the script during a live news segment misread the word ‘Congresswoman.’ The anchor used the proper title and pronouns in several subsequent references to the Congresswoman-elect during the same news segment,” the spokesperson said. They did not indicate whether an on-air correction would be made.
McBride, who will be sworn in this January as the first out transgender member of Congress, represents a historic milestone in LGBTQ+ representation. Yet, even as the station downplayed the error, advocacy organizations such as GLAAD and the Trans Journalists Association urged media organizations to view this as a moment for correction, reflection, and growth.
A teachable moment
GLAAD, which works with newsrooms to improve their coverage of LGBTQ+ issues, emphasized that mistakes like this, even when unintentional, carry weight. Misgendering — whether accidental or deliberate — perpetuates societal biases and reinforces the marginalization of transgender people.
Misgendering (verb, noun): The act of using gendered words that are inappropriate or the wrong pronouns for someone, intentionally or unintentionally. – Trans Journalist Association
A GLAAD spokesperson told The Advocate that the organization would connect with WRC to learn more about the incident and offer the station guidance.
“Mistakes happen on the air and in everyday conversation, and the best course is to apologize, correct, and move on, then work to not repeat it,” GLAAD president and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis told The Advocate in a statement.
She described McBride’s election as an opportunity for newsrooms to review their protocols and language conventions to ensure respectful and accurate reporting.
“GLAAD’s general guidance for reporters is to ask for and use the names, pronouns, and titles of people they are covering,” Ellis said. “This is accurate and respectful journalism that builds trust with those sources as well as viewers and readers from marginalized communities.”
The Trans Journalists Association offered additional guidance, advising that corrections should address errors as with any incorrect information and that the wrong information shouldn’t be repeated.
“In the correction, it may be appropriate to briefly mention that the person’s name, pronouns, or gender have been incorrectly identified in past articles, but do not restate the incorrect information. Take care to correctly identify the person’s gender going forward,” the TJA advises.
Misgendering in context
McBride’s misgendering reflects a more extensive, systemic issue within the media and society. Women, including transgender women, who step into leadership roles traditionally dominated by men often encounter linguistic habits that struggle to catch up with the times. GLAAD points to the persistence of terms like “chairman” or “congressman,” even when describing women, as a vestige of a deeply male-centric view of authority.
For transgender women, the stakes are even higher. According to GLAAD, misgendering doesn’t just misrepresent — it questions the validity of a person’s identity. McBride’s case highlights the challenges she will face in an institution that has historically excluded people like her.
Moving forward
Advocates argue that media organizations are responsible for learning from incidents like the one at WRC and improving their coverage of marginalized communities.
GLAAD recommends that newsrooms take active steps to improve how they report on McBride and other transgender people. This starts with training staff to ask for and use accurate names, pronouns, and titles in every story. Hiring transgender journalists and involving members of the transgender community in discussions about newsroom practices can help build understanding and foster more thoughtful coverage, the group says. GLAAD notes that it’s also important to include transgender voices in stories beyond topics specifically tied to their identities.
The group urges media outlets to keep covering these issues. The group notes that some newsroom managers express fear about “getting it wrong,” but GLAAD stresses that avoiding coverage entirely is the real mistake. Newsrooms should lean into their curiosity, consult experts, and learn from those with lived experience. The goal is to report with care, accuracy, and confidence, not to shy away from important stories.
Texas wasted no time escalating its attacks on transgender people as the state GOP prefiled 32 anti-trans bills on the first day of the 2025 legislative session’s prefiling period. In recent years, Texas has become a hotbed for anti-trans legislation, with each session delivering harsher crackdowns. Last session alone, the state passed six anti-trans laws, including a criminal ban on drag (currently enjoined in court), sports bans, a youth healthcare ban, and DEI restrictions. Following a national ad campaign which saw hundreds of millions poured into demonizing transgender people, Republican-controlled states are now under scrutiny over their future plans for transgender residents. Texas GOP lawmakers have made their intentions clear: the next wave of crackdowns is on its way.
The bills filed by Texas Republicans target transgender people in nearly every aspect of their lives. One such measure, HB1123, would impose stricter laws on sports by requiring every athlete in the state to undergo a chromosome test—an invasive and costly procedure that could wreak havoc on high school and college athletics. Many people are unaware they have atypical chromosomes, making this requirement particularly problematic. A similar guideline was used at the 1996 Olympics, where mandatory chromosomal testing of female athletes revealed that eight women had XY chromosomes without knowing it, due to unknown intersex conditions. The discovery led to widespread backlash as intersex athletes faced threats of removal and the emotional toll of learning their genetic status. Chromosomal testing was subsequently discontinued, deemed deeply violating, unfair, and unworkable as a standard.
Other bills take aim at transgender people’s use of bathrooms. House Bill 239mirrors Florida’s adult bathroom ban, and would bar transgender individuals from using facilities in any publicly owned building in Texas. This sweeping measure wouldn’t stop at the Texas Capitol or courthouses—it extends to park bathrooms, rest stops, schools, state-run hospitals, and even major airports like Dallas-Fort Worth, a critical hub for American Airlines. Texas has already garnered attention for Odessa’s “bathroom bounty” law, which allows cisgender individuals to sue transgender people for using the restroom, promising a minimum $10,000 payout for successful claims.
Bounty bills also resurface in the latest wave of filings. Texas HB 1075 would allow any individual performing in drag to be sued for a $5,000 bounty. The bill’s definition of “drag” and “perform” is alarmingly broad, labeling anyone “exhibiting a gender that is different from the performer’s gender recorded at birth using clothing, makeup, or other physical markers” as being in “drag.” This definition clearly encompasses transgender people. Should a bill like this become law, transgender performers would undoubtedly be targeted. In Montana, under a similar drag ban, the first person targeted wasn’t a drag performer but a transgender public speaker discussing transgender history at a library. Additionally, such a measure would almost certainly force the cancellation of Pride parades across Texas, where transgender people and drag performers dance, lip-sync, and otherwise celebrate.
Multiple bills take aim at transgender people in schools, as well as books about queer and transgender individuals. Among the most troubling is Senate Bill 86, which would require parental permission for high school students to join a Gay-Straight Alliance or any club that “promotes themes of sexuality, gender, or gender identity.” According to Lambda Legal, this requirement violates the Equal Access Act, which mandates that rules apply equally to all student groups and prohibits singling out GSAs for restrictive policies.
Many bills aim to strip transgender Texans of legal recognition of their gender identity entirely. Senate Bill 84, for example, mandates that government documents classify individuals based on their “biological reproductive system,” defining “female” as “an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to produce ova.” The bill notably fails to address how it would handle intersex individuals or those with congenital conditions that prevent them from producing gametes. The same bill specifies that “biological differences between the sexes are enduring,” and says that those differences “warrant the creation of separate social, educational, athletic, or other spaces.”
With Texas as the first state to unleash a torrent of anti-transgender legislation, 2025 is shaping up to be a brutal year for transgender people nationwide. Emboldened by the Trump administration, Republican-led states are poised to escalate their attacks, expanding the ways they target transgender communities. Nationally, similar bills could gain traction, while some political pundits and even a few Democratic politicians argue that accepting such laws is a price worth paying for political victories. But the real cost is borne by transgender individuals themselves—those most at risk, facing a future stripped of rights and dignity. Texas has made its stance clear, and it serves as a chilling preview of what lies ahead.
U.S. Sen. Roger Marshall, a Kansas Republican, has introduced a bill to deny transgender identity.
Marshall Wednesday introduced the Defining Male and Female Act of 2024, which a press release from his office calls “a bill to codify legal definitions of male, female, and sex to ensure they are based on biology rather than ideology.”
It would write a binary definition of sex into federal law. “In human beings, there are two — and only two — sexes: male and female, which refer to the two body structures (phenotypes) that, in normal development, correspond to one or the other gamete — sperm for males and ova for females,” the legislation says.
“Every individual is either male or female” and “an individual’s sex can be observed or clinically verified at or before birth,” it continues. “Rare disorders of sexual development are not exceptions to the binary nature of sex. In no case is an individual’s sex determined by stipulation or self-identification.” Gender should not be used as a synonym for sex or shorthand for gender identity or expression, the bill says.
Separate restrooms, locker rooms, and other single-sex facilities according to sex assigned at birth, plus separate sports teams and leagues organized in this fashion, “do not constitute unequal treatment under the law,” it goes on.
Marshall pointed to his experience as a medical doctor as justification for the bill. “As a physician who has delivered over 5,000 babies, I can confidently say that politicizing children’s gender to use them as pawns in their radical woke agenda is not only wrong, it is extremely dangerous,” he said in the press release. “I didn’t think we would need legislation to tell us that there are only two sexes: male and female, but here we are. We must codify the legal definition of sex to be based on science rather than feelings. With our legislation, we can fight back against the Biden–Harris Administration’s assault on our children.”
Actually, transgender identity is recognized as real by major medical and mental health organizations.
Marshall’s bill will likely go nowhere in the Senate, as Democrats still control the chamber until January. U.S. Rep. Mary Miller, an Illinois Republican, introduced a similar bill in the House of Representatives in July. It was referred to the House Judiciary Committee, and there has been no further action. However, such legislation may be a harbinger of what’s to come in the new Congress, with Republican majorities in both chambers under Donald Trump’s presidency. Marshall’s bill has the backing of right-wing groups Heritage Action for America (a sister organization of the Heritage Foundation, the group behind the anti-LGBTQ+ Project 2025), Concerned Women for America, the Family Research Council, and the Alliance Defending Freedom.
This is not Marshall’s first attack on trans people or LGBTQ+ people in general. In 2023, he introduced a bill to ban gender-affirming care for trans minors nationwide and one to ban federal funding for such care for trans people of all ages. Neither bill passed. He put out similar, equally unsuccessful, bills in 2021. In 2022, he led an effort to police LGBTQ+ content in children’s TV programs, which also went nowhere, as did his plan the same year to block school meal funding in protest of the Biden administration’s support for LGBTQ+ rights.
The introduction of his latest bill came on Transgender Day of Remembrance, an annual observance that commemorates trans people lost to violence.
West Virginia advocate Ash Orr said he’s rushing to legally change his name and update the gender marker on his passport.North Carolina lawyer Katie Jenifer is trying to prepare one year’s worth of estrogen for her transgender daughter. Oregon comedian and writer Mx. Dahlia Belle is focused on advocating for immigrants and people with disabilities.
This trio is among nearly a dozen transgender Americans, plus the parent of a trans teen, who talked to NBC News about how they’re readying themselves for the second administration of a president-elect who has promised to restrict their ability to modify identity documents, receive transition-related health care, enlist in the military and participate on sports teams, among other things.
Though trans people told NBC News they have a variety of concerns about President-elect Donald Trump’s campaign promises regarding trans people, nearly all shared a similar message: They are better prepared than they were eight years ago.
Heron Greenesmith, the deputy director of policy at the Transgender Law Center, who uses they/them pronouns, said they felt “clear-eyed” the day after the election, whereas in 2016 they were crying and felt devastated by the election results and the effect that Trump’s policies would have on marginalized communities, including trans people.
“This time around is not going to be any different,” Greenesmith said, “but this time around, I know what to do.”
Even though trans people had their rights targeted under the first Trump administration, Greenesmith added, “we also thrived.”
“We provided safety for ourselves and mutual aid, we defended ourselves from criminalization and got ourselves out of jail when we needed to — and provided health care for folks who needed it.” said Greenesmith, who is based in Massachusetts. “We’ll do the same thing again. We got us.”
Day 1 promises
During his campaign, Trump and his supporters spent nearly $60 million on eight anti-trans network-TV ads, one of them in Spanish, between Sept. 19 and Nov. 1, according to AdImpact, a firm that tracks political ad spending.
He has supported a number of policies targeting transgender people, who make up less than 1% of adults in the U.S. At campaign rallies over the summer, he promised to take at least two actions regarding the trans community on his first day in office: undo Biden administration Title IX protections that allowed trans students to use the school bathrooms that align with their gender identities, and cut federal funding for schools “pushing critical race theory, transgender insanity and other inappropriate racial, sexual or political content onto the lives of our children.”
Trump also promised to reinstate a policy enacted during his first term that barred trans people from enlisting in the military and to institute a new policy barring transition-related care for minors nationwide. The agenda on his websitesays he would declare that any hospital or clinician that provides transgender care to minors would “no longer meet federal health and safety standards for Medicaid and Medicare — and will be terminated from the program immediately.”
The president-elect’s agenda also includes issuing guidance to federal agencies to define sex only as one’s sex assigned at birth, which would make it harder for trans people to change the gender markers on federal documents such as passports.
Plans for IDs, moving and medical care
The State Department began offering the gender-neutral “X” marker on passports, in addition to the standard “M” or “F,” in April 2022, but a new federal definition of sex could end that policy, legal experts say. If the Trump administration still allows trans people to change the gender marker on their passport, Greenesmith said, it might require them to provide proof of gender-reassignment surgery, putting gender-marker changes out of reach for the majority of trans people.
As for those who already have a passport with an “X” gender marker, if the Trump administration discontinues issuing new “X” passports, the future of those existing identity documents is unclear, according to both Greenesmith and Sasha Buchert, the director of the nonbinary and transgender rights project at Lambda Legal, an LGBTQ legal advocacy organization. There is no existing policy that would allow the government to require people to turn in “X” passports, for example.
“In response to what needs to be done in this moment, now is always a good time to update any identity documents that you need to update,” Buchert said.
A person fills out a passport application with an X gender marker at their home in Virginia in 2022.Stefani Reynolds / AFP via Getty Images
Ash Orr, who lives in Morgantown, West Virginia, and is the press relations manager for Advocates for Trans Equality, the nation’s largest trans rights organization, said the election prompted him to legally change his name. His name-change hearing is scheduled for Jan. 15, and he plans to apply to update his passport as soon as his name change is complete.
He also plans to leave his home state by the spring as a result of the election, and because West Virginia’s state politics have become increasingly conservative in recent years. He declined to share the state he and his partner are moving to due to safety concerns, noting he has received an increasing number of threats over the past two years.
“West Virginia is my home, and it has always been my home, and I’ve had to come to the realization that your home isn’t always a place where you can thrive,” Orr said, adding that he’s struggled with the feeling that he’s abandoning his community and the trans people in the state who can’t afford to leave.
Finn Franklin, a 20-year-old who is finishing his associate’s degree at Rogue Community College in Grants Pass, Oregon, said the election has affected where he plans to apply to finish a four-year degree.
“I was looking at some rural schools because I like the smaller school size,” Franklin said. But after the election, “I’m not going to be applying to schools outside of the West Coast because I don’t want to live somewhere that is not Washington, Oregon or California for the next four years. I think I want to be in a metro area because of the typical politics difference between urban and rural areas, and access to health care.”
Finn Franklin, 20, said the election has affected where he plans to apply to finish a four-year college degree.Courtesy Finn Franklin
Franklin said he receives his testosterone through telehealth offered by Oregon Health & Science University Hospital, which is in Portland, about five hours north. He’s worried about how the incoming administration could affect that treatment, as well as a top-surgery consultation he has scheduled in October 2026, because he receives health care through the Oregon Health Plan, the state’s Medicaid program. OHSU Hospital, which has a program that provides gender-affirming services to children and teens, could be affected if Trump follows through on his promise to cut Medicaid funding for hospitals that provide transition-related care to minors.
“If the funding for those kinds of things goes away, then it kind of becomes utterly inaccessible, and that’s definitely very scary,” Franklin said.
North Carolina lawyer Katie Jenifer said she is trying to secure a year’s worth of estrogen for her 17-year-old daughter, Maddie, in case Trump does issue federal restrictions that could curtail access to transition-related care for minors nationwide. Her daughter’s doctor prescribed her enough medication for a year, but their insurance will only cover one month at a time. Out of pocket, the medication costs $109 a month, but Jenifer received a coupon from the pharmacy that brings the cost down to $49 per month.
Katie Jenifer and her transgender daughter, Maddie, at the White House for a Pride Month celebration in June.Courtesy Katie Jenifer
Jenifer previously told NBC News that she had plans to move with Maddie out of the state or out of the country depending on the election outcome.
“If I can get enough medication on hand to get Maddie to 18, then we will try to stay through high school graduation in June and continue to monitor and make plans to exit soon after or before if necessary,” Jenifer said Tuesday. “If we cannot get the needed meds, then we will probably try to leave mid- to late January. Where we go will depend on my job search.”
Advocates say the election is already having an effect on LGBTQ young people, in particular. The Trevor Project, an LGBTQ youth suicide prevention and crisis intervention organization, saw a 700% increase in crisis contacts in the 24 hours after the election compared to weeks prior. About one-third (30%) of the contacts identified as LGBTQ young people who are Black, Indigenous or people of color, and more than 40% were trans or nonbinary young people, a spokesperson told NBC News.
Organizing within community
Some trans people told NBC News that after the election, they immediately started organizing with local community groups.
Orr, for example, said he planned to volunteer with Holler Health Justice, a reproductive health organization led by queer people of color, to deliver emergency contraception and other reproductive health supplies across West Virginia.
Bennett Kaspar-Williams, an entertainment lawyer based in Los Angeles who is skilled in martial arts, said he is working with other local activists to organize self-defense classes for LGBTQ people and women in response to increased fears of violence given Trump’s rhetoric about trans people.
Bennett Kaspar-Williams is organizing self-defense classes for LGBTQ people and women in Los Angeles.Courtesy Bennett Kaspar-Williams
Ahead of the 2020 election, he said, he volunteered for Democrats because at the time he was pregnant, and, as a trans man, he was afraid of what the future would look like for his child if Trump were re-elected.
“If you had told me that in four years he’s going to win again, I definitely would not have believed you,” he said. “I feel really scared for the generation of people who were waiting until they were old enough to be able to start a medical transition, who are now facing the possibility of never being able to do that at all, and what that means for them.”
Many trans people also mentioned giving directly to mutual aid groups, specifically those that support trans people of color.
Aldita Gallardo is the the director of the Action for Transformation Fund, a partnership between the Transgender Law Center and the Emergent Fund, a national rapid response fund that supports groups led by LGBTQ people of color. The $1 million Action for Transformation Fund was a pilot effort to move funds directly to trans activists working within their local communities. Gallardo noted that foundations that provide money to LGBTQ communities allocated less than 4 cents per $100 of their total giving to U.S. trans communities and issues, according to a 2021 report by Funders for LGBTQ Issues.
Gallardo, who is based in Oakland, California, said the Action for Transformation Fund, which launched in September and just made its first round of grants, wasn’t previously thinking about long-term fundraising, but that changed after the election.
“Now we see it as an opportunity to bring more dollars for the increasing amount of need,” Gallardo said. “We know that things will escalate in the four years of the administration.”
Some of the groups that were supported by the fund’s first round of grants include House of Tulip, which provides housing to trans people of color in Louisiana; Transgender Advocates Knowledgeable Empowering, or TAKE, which provides services to trans people of color in Birmingham, Alabama; and the Unspoken Treasure Society, a Black, trans-led organization in Jacksonville, Florida.
Mx. Dahlia Belle, a comedian and writer based in Portland, Oregon, who also works as a peer support operator for a trans nonprofit, encouraged trans people to support those outside of their immediate community as a second Trump administration begins. She fears her job with the trans nonprofit could “cease to exist” if Congress passes a bill that would allow Trump to target nonprofits’ tax-exempt status. If that were to happen, she could lose access to health care. Still, she said she still feels comparatively safe and privileged.
Mx. Dahlia Belle said she’s focused on advocating for immigrants and people with disabilities.Courtesy Dahlia Belle
“We as a community are facing a very real existential threat,” Belle said. However, she added, “in the grand scheme of things, the threat we are facing pales in comparison to the immediacy and severity that will be faced by immigrants and people with disabilities and people who may be in need of reproductive care.”
She acknowledged that trans people and LGBTQ people more broadly fit into all of these categories and said it’s “those intersections of identity where I feel our advocacy is most needed and needs to be focused.”
Donald Trump is reportedly planning to reinstate his trans military ban through executive order on his first day in office. Reports say the president-elect will not only bar trans people from joining but also that he plans to medically discharge the 15,000 trans personnel who are currently serving.
If carried out this way, the ban will be significantly harsher than the first time he banned trans people from the military in 2017, when trans people already serving were allowed to remain in their positions. Because the military is already experiencing recruitment issues, experts are worried the policy will significantly impair military readiness.
“These people will be forced out at a time when the military can’t recruit enough people,” an anonymous source told The Times.“Only the Marine Corps is hitting its numbers for recruitment and some people who will be affected are in very senior positions.”
“Should a trans ban be implemented from day one of the Trump administration, it would undermine the readiness of the military and create an even greater recruitment and retention crisis,” added Rachel Branaman, executive director of Modern Military Association of America, “not to mention signaling vulnerability to America’s adversaries.”
“Abruptly discharging 15,000-plus service members, especially given that the military’s recruiting targets fell short by 41,000 recruits last year, adds administrative burdens to war fighting units, harms unit cohesion, and aggravates critical skill gaps,” she continued. “There would be a significant financial cost, as well as a loss of experience and leadership that will take possibly 20 years and billions of dollars to replace.”
A trans officer in the U.S. Air Force who also chose to remain anonymous expressed worry about filling highly skilled positions. “There are very few members of my career field with this experience, and in the event of a large-scale contingency, it would be difficult to replace the level of experience that I bring to the table.”
Trump-Vance transition spokesperson Karoline Leavitt denied that Trump has any concrete plans to ban trans military members. “These unnamed sources are speculating and have no idea what they are actually talking about. No decisions on this issue have been made. No policy should ever be deemed official unless it comes directly from President Trump or his authorized spokespeople.”
The Obama administration opened up military service to transgender people in 2016, but in 2017, Trump announced a trans military ban via tweet. “Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail,” Trump declared.
How the ban would be implemented was unclear, since Trump had given the Pentagon no heads up that his tweet was coming.
Trump consulted no military experts before announcing the ban. Though he claimed that trans healthcare was too expensive for the military, it was revealed that the military spends $41.6 million annually on the erectile dysfunction medication Viagra, around five to 20 times what it costs to fund trans-related healthcare.
President Joe Biden reversed the ban when he took office in 2021.
The majority of transgender employees, 82%, reported experiencing workplace discrimination or harassment because of their gender identity or sexual orientation at some point in their lives, according to a new survey.
The survey, conducted by the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law, an LGBTQ research think tank, defined “discrimination and harassment” as being fired, not hired, not promoted, or verbally, sexually or physically harassed. Trans employees were more likely to report such experiences than cisgender lesbian, gay, bisexual and queer employees, at 45%, and nonbinary employees, at 59%.
“Transgender people are a particularly vulnerable and marginalized group in the workplace,” Brad Sears, lead author of the report and founding executive director at the Williams Institute, said in a statement. “Many are not bringing their full selves to work and face unsupportive workplace environments, which makes them less likely to fully invest in their current employer and job.”
Previous research from the Williams Institute has estimated that there are about 1.3 million trans adults in the U.S. The new report surveyed 1,902 LGBTQ adults in the workforce, including 86 trans adults, in the summer of 2023, and compared the experiences of trans adults to their cisgender lesbian, gay, bisexual and queer peers.
Half of the trans adults surveyed were people of color and 6 in 10 were making less than $50,000 a year. Of the trans respondents who reported having experienced workplace discrimination or harassment at some point in their lives, 65% reported experiencing verbal harassment, 34% reported experiencing physical harassment and 42% reported experiencing sexual harassment.
Many of the trans respondents provided examples of being persistently misgendered or deadnamed, referring to someone intentionally using the incorrect pronouns or their previous name, and reported that colleagues asked invasive questions about their body or transition, among other types of verbal harassment.
The report includes quotes from respondents who described some of their experiences. For example, one trans employee from Massachusetts said their boss, supervisor and co-workers all asked them too many personal questions “about how I do things as a trans person,” including how they get dressed and wear a binder to flatten their chest and how their sexuality changed when they transitioned.
Trans employees who reported experiencing discrimination were two tofour times more likely than cisgender LGBQ employees to report being fired (12% vs. 5%), not being hired (20% vs 5%) or not being given career advancement opportunities (15% vs 5%), based on their gender identity or sexual orientation in the past year.
Trans people attempted to mitigate workplace discrimination and harassment by concealing their gender identity at work or by looking for another job, according to the report. More than 1 in 3 trans respondents, or 36%, said they are not out as trans to their current supervisor; 13% said they are not out as trans to any of their co-workers; 71% said they’ve engaged in behaviors to cover up their gender identity, such as changing their voice or mannerisms while at work; and 67% said they had left a job because of how they were treated based on their gender identity or sexual orientation.
A Texas city infamous for placing a $10,000 bounty on trans people who use bathrooms and locker rooms that do not align with their sex assigned at birth has voted to make its policy even more strict.
On Tuesday, the Odessa City Council voted 5-1 to maintain its bathroom ban and allow individual citizens (whether or not they are Odessa or even Texas residents) to sue a trans person for a minimum of $10,000 in damages if they violate it (there is no cap on how large the bounty can be). It also approved an expansion of the law. Once applied only to public facilities, it will now apply to private ones as well.
“You are putting a target on the queer community’s back by offering a reward and taking money out of their pockets,” Odessa resident and business owner Bradley Burke told the council during public comments, as reported by Lonestar Live.
“The trans community is not a threat to Odessa or anyone in the bathroom,” added Matilda Mann-Morales, president of local LGBTQ+ group Out in West Texas. “We’re just trying to live out our lives. I don’t want the government in the bathroom.”
Speakers also argued that trans people have not historically posed any risk to people in the bathroom and are instead statistically far more at risk of being abused or harassed while trying to use facilities. Lonestar Live reported that Odessa police have not received any report about public restrooms in three years, and police in several states have said they have been unable to identify any cases of trans people harassing anyone in a public bathroom.
A letter from the ACLU of Texas to the Odessa City Council and Mayor Javier Joven, pointed out that the last-minute addition of private facilities in the legislation is a likely violation of the Texas Open Meetings Act because the city did not “provide adequate notice to business owners and Odessa residents that the local government was exposing them to immense liability on private property.”
The letter also pointed out that “the proposal to place a bounty of $10,000 per occurrence on anyone using a restroom on private property could bankrupt many businesses and Odessa residents, as well as flood the courts with frivolous lawsuits.”
The organization also urged the city council to reject the ordinance because it is discriminatory and does not “reflect the values” of Odessa: “Transgender people are part of the fabric of our community, our families, our workplaces, and our neighborhoods. Like everyone else, they are small business owners and homeowners and should be allowed to use their private property without undue government interference. But the sweeping proposed changes affixed to your upcoming council agenda trample on their rights and threaten to create a gender-policing witch hunt on both public and private property across the City.”
In addition to granting the right to sue, the ordinance also invokes criminal penalties for individuals who use bathrooms that align with their gender identity. The provision states that a “person violating the provisions of this ordinance shall be deemed guilty of a Class C misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine not to exceed five hundred dollars” and that anyone who refuses to use a bathroom aligned with what the city perceives as their biological sex, even after being asked to leave by a building owner, may be guilty of misdemeanor trespassing.
The bounty defines biological sex based on birth certificates, either at the time of birth or corrected if there was a clerical error. This means that any transgender individual who gets their birth certificate updated to reflect their gender identity would still be violating the law if they used bathrooms that align with their gender.
This ban lacks any exceptions for disabled people who may be accompanied by a person of a different gender and may open the door to lawsuits targeting anyone who is gender non-conforming.
Many of us have watched with alarm as trans people have been increasingly targeted by extremists – culminating in Donald Trump’s hateful presidential campaign. Trans people deserve full, authentic, and healthy lives, not to be attacked by anti-trans politicians who are trying to distract and divide us.
Now, we are entering a new chapter of resistance, and we are ready. Having already lived through a Trump presidency, we know firsthand the devastating impact a second term could have on our rights, our safety, and our future. Many in the LGBTQ+ community, particularly trans people and their families, are understandably feeling fear and uncertainty about what lies ahead.
However, we want to make it clear: you are not alone. We are in this together. As a community, we stand united in this fight. Earlier this year, two trans-led organizations, the National Center for Trans Equality and the Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund, merged to form Advocates for Trans Equality (A4TE), a unified force dedicated to building the power, strength, and resilience we need for the long haul.
Our vision for an inclusive and hopeful future for all trans people is unwavering. The pursuit of equality will continue. No matter the obstacles we face, we will care for each other.
Our team of experts is working hard to protect our trans community, and we’re in close communication with our allies in Congress and state legislatures across the country. Allied politicians who stand with us are deeply committed to upholding human dignity, ensuring equitable healthcare access, and fighting against discrimination. They understand that the trans community deserves the same rights as everyone else, and that access to gender-affirming care, supported by strong legal protections, is essential for the well-being and safety of trans individuals.
In times like these, it’s crucial to acknowledge that grief and stress affect everyone differently. Some may need time to step back and process; others may throw themselves into work to regain a sense of control. Some may experience both. All of these reactions are valid. We encourage you to take a moment to reflect on where you are and check in with yourself. Above all, we urge patience, empathy, and kindness — both toward yourself and others. Grief is a process, and it’s okay to feel anger, fear, or sadness. There is no rush to find “closure” or make big decisions.
But even in the face of difficulty, it is essential to remember our wins. This year, Sarah McBride (D-DE) made history as the first openly trans member of Congress. Emma Curtis, an A4TE-endorsed candidate, became the first openly trans elected official in Kentucky when voters selected her for the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council. Out lesbian Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) secured re-election to the Senate. For the first time, two Black women — Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD) and Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE) — will serve together in the Senate. In New York, Prop 1 passed, enshrining gender identity and sexual orientation protections along with abortion rights. And across several states — including Arizona, Missouri, and Montana — abortion rights have been enshrined in state constitutions.
These victories are proof that even in the face of challenges, we are part of a movement that is growing stronger, more united, and more determined. This is why A4TE merged: to build the power necessary to weather storms like this one. We’ve prepared for this possibility. We’ve developed contingency plans. We will adapt our programs as needed, and we will continue our work with renewed urgency.
As we look to the future, we also recognize the ongoing battle we face. Anti-trans politicians continue to push harmful, unfounded rhetoric about our community. This rhetoric is both completely false and very dangerous. Transition-related healthcare has been studied for over four decades and is supported by every leading medical association. And the research is clear: the harmful narratives being pushed are taking a direct toll on the physical, mental, and emotional health of trans people.
By targeting the trans community and denying us the right to live safe, healthy, and authentic lives, these politicians are distracting from the real issues facing all Americans — issues like underfunded schools, rising costs of living, and the climate crisis. Every person, including trans people, deserves the opportunity to live authentically, to be healthy, and to be supported in their identity.
Our mission has never been more vital. Not only for trans people but for the broader LGBTQ+ community. The stakes are higher than ever before. We will fight. We will organize, testify, march, and protect each other. We’ve faced repression before when regressive forces tried to control us. But each generation has fought back — and now, it’s our turn to pick up the baton. We will stand firm for our freedoms, for our families, and for our futures.
The arc of history is long, and a second Trump presidency is just one chapter in that story. It is not the whole book. Together, we will continue to write the next chapters, and we will ensure that the future we create is one of equality, safety, and justice for all.
On Wednesday, Ohio’s legislature became the first in the country to pass an anti-transgender law post-2024 election. The bill, SB104, originally aimed to help dual-enrolled high school students earn college credits, but a provision was added to bar transgender people from using bathrooms aligned with their gender identity on college campuses. Now, Ohio’s legislature has passed the bill on the first day of a lame-duck session. With this move, Ohio joins a small number of states in passing a transgender bathroom ban that includes adults—following a $215 million anti-trans ad campaign, many of whose ads ran heavily in the state, targeting transgender rights.
The bill declares that “no institution of higher education shall knowingly permit” transgender people to use bathrooms aligned with their gender identity. Originally passed in June, the bill’s future looked uncertain leading up to the 2024 election. But after the election, primary sponsor Adam Bird signaled that targeting trans and queer communities would be a top priority for Ohio’s legislature, calling for state investigations into official diversity initiatives and drag shows. Now, his bill is set to be one of the nation’s most restrictive toward transgender people.
While most states with bathroom bans restrict them to grade school settings, only nine states currently bar transgender adults from some public bathrooms—Alabama, Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, Texas (Odessa), Utah, and now Ohio will become the tenth. Notably, this ban extends to private colleges as well as public ones, making it one of the first adult bathroom bans in the U.S. to apply to private institutions.
Maria Bruno of No Extremism Ohio noted in a Twitter post, “Ohio Senate Repubs just passed a bill that requires all Ohio schools, public and private, including PRIVATE COLLEGES to adopt & enforce an anti-trans bathroom policy. [It] includes schools like CCAD & Antioch, private colleges [with] a majority LGBTQstudent body.”
Indeed, the bill would apply to colleges like Antioch, of which 82% of studentsidentify as LGBTQ+ and 16% identify as transgender. Some private colleges are known for being safe spaces for LGBTQ+ people and thus attract a student body that seeks them for safety. Now, even private colleges like Antioch will be forced to ban transgender girls from girls’ restrooms in the state of Ohio.
Kaleidoscope Youth Center, an LGBTQ+ youth advocacy group, called the bill’s passage undemocratic and malicious, stating, “We are extremely disgusted by the passage of Senate bill 104. The “Protect All Students Act” being added to the unrelated topic of the College Credit Plus Program is a demonstration of underhanded and dishonest leadership. The bathroom ban’s maliciously expedited and undemocratic movement through the legislature lacks transparency. This policy is not only dangerous and unnecessary, it is a blatant display of discrimination,” and followed up with a call for Ohio voters to contact Governor Mike DeWine’s office.
Anti-trans bathroom bans, gender-affirming care bans, and similar restrictions have a profound impact on young people’s mental health. A CDC study found that 25% of young transgender people attempted suicide in the past year. Another study, published in Nature Human Behavior, showed that such laws can lead to an up to 72% increase in suicide attempt rates. Following the recent election, LGBTQ+ crisis hotlines reported a 700% surge in calls as transgender individuals brace for harsh crackdowns in the aftermath of the election. Ohio’s latest legislation has brought those fears to reality.
Many transgender people are watching closely to see what their state legislatures will do next. Ohio could be an early indicator of what to expect from Republican-controlled states emboldened by what they interpret as a mandate to target transgender rights through laws that restrict public life. With several state prefiling deadlines approaching, the coming weeks will reveal more about what the landscape holds for transgender people at the state level. This latest Ohio bill now heads to Governor DeWine’s desk—though he has vetoed anti-trans bills in the past, those vetoes were ultimately overridden.
