Before we know it, election day for the November 2024 presidential election will be upon us. We’ve heard time and again that this is the most important election of our lives, something we might be tired of hearing every four years. There is obviously a lot at stake in this election, from abortion rights to how future elections will be held. But what is at stake specifically for the queer community?
Many members of the LGBTQ+ community likely already know who they are going to vote for. In the broadest terms, Donald Trump’s campaign has attacked LGBTQ+ rights and Kamala Harris’ has made moves in a positive direction. But to fully understand the situation, and to be able to explain it to others who might need reminding what a vote in one direction or another might mean for those they love, it’s important to know the full details.
We’re going to take a look at what each of the two leading presidential candidates have said about LGBTQ+ issues, what they’ve promised for the future, and what they’ve actually done. This is all about the top of the ticket. It’s important to remember that the down ticket races are also extremely important as they will help to decide the House, the Senate, and the people making policies on the state level from court houses to schools. Ultimately, the presidential candidate will set the tone for the nation, so let’s start there.
What the 2024 Harris campaign promises on LGBTQ+ issues
When it comes to campaign promises related to LGBTQ+ issues, the Harris is putting all her eggs in one basket. Under the heading of “Protect Civil Rights and Freedoms,” Harris promises that, if elected, she will fight to pass the Equality Act, noting that it would “enshrine anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQI+ Americans in health care, housing, education, and more into law.”
The Equality Act would update past civil rights laws, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to create explicit protections against discrimination on matters of sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity at a federal level. In addition, it updates what is defined as a “public space” to include businesses that might otherwise try to skirt civil rights protections. Passing the Equality Act would fairly immediately create a positive legacy for a Harris presidency, but it’s also a big swing. The campaign notably says that she will “fight to pass the Equality Act.” Even as president, she would not have the power to pass the act through executive order and would need Congress to sign off on it.
While most US citizens seem to support the principles behind the Equality Act, a version of the most recent iteration of the bill was introduced in Congress in 2015 and failed to pass. Since then, it has been reintroduced several times only to die in committee. The most recent version was in 2023 and was referred to the committees of jurisdiction. Then-President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden supported the Equality Act in 2015, and Biden and Harris have both repeatedly pushed for it to be passed since taking office. For Harris to pull off passing the Equality Act as president, she’d also need a Democratic majority in Congress, or else convince a lot of Republicans to support it.
The only other mention of LGBTQ+ matters in Harris’ campaign platform is in a note about “Trump’s Project 2025 Agenda.” Laying out some of Donald Trump’s plans highlights where she stands in relation to her opponent. Perhaps a stark contrast, but it’s a promise of what she won’t do, rather than what she will do for LGBTQ+ people in the United States.
What Harris has done on LGBTQ+ issues
Harris has been relatively quiet on LGBTQ+ issues during the campaign. However, there is probably good reason for that. Harris is already seen as the safer vote by many LGBTQ+ voters and raising the topics opens the door for more vitriol from opponents and the creation of sound bites for attack ads. That feels disheartening, but in many ways what is more important than what she promises to do is what she has already done in the past and continues to do.
As San Francisco’s district attorney:
Harris established a hate crimes unit that worked to prosecute those who committed violent crimes against LGBTQ+ youth and brought heavier punishments for those crimes as a deterrent.
She refused to defend Proposition 8 (which banned same-sex Marriage in California) when it was challenged. After the ban was overturned, Harris officiated the first same-sex marriage, that of Kris Perry and Sandy Stier, two of the plaintiffs in the case against Proposition 8.
Harris opposed North Carolina’s 2016 trans bathroom ban, adding California to a legal brief from several states opposing first trans bathroom ban in the United States.
As a senator from 2017-2021,
Harris worked on bills to support the LGBTQ+ community and to prohibit discrimination against them.
She pushed for conversion therapy to be ineligible to receive federal funds.
Kamala Harris co-sponsored bills to ban the gay and trans panic defenses federally.
Note: In a Republican-controlled Senate, these bills were largely not voted on.
As Joe Biden’s Vice-President & as a presidential candidate
The Biden-Harris Administration has been much more overtly pro-LGBTQ+ than past administrations. Among the many positive moves for the LGBTQ+ community, the administration passed the Respect for Marriage Act and worked to dismantle previous anti-LGBTQ+ legislation, such as the 2017 ban on trans people in the military.
In education, Harris has forcefully opposed “Don’t Say Gay” lawsthat force LGBTQ+ teachers to hide their identities from their students.
Harris has pushed for the defense of fundamental rights, citing the attacks on the LGBTQ+ community’s freedoms, during her campaign and her October media blitz.
Harris has one major black mark on her record. That comes from her time as California’s attorney general. In 2015, she issued legal briefs denying gender-affirming surgeries for two inmates in the California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation. She has since taken responsibility for the decision and apologized, noting in 2020 that there needed to be a better understanding of the needs of trans people. During her 2019 presidential run, Harris supported gender-affirming care for prison inmates in her answers to an ACLU questionnaire.
Related
Harris’ pick for running mate
While Harris’ campaign might be light on LGBTQ+ policy statements, her choice of Tim Walz as her running mate says a lot about her intended direction. Walz has consistently been ahead of the curve on LGBTQ+ issues.
While working as a high school teacher, Walz sponsored the creation of Mankato West High School’s first Gay-Straight Alliance.
Walz ran for the House of Representatives on a platform supporting same-sex marriage.
In Congress, Walz voted to end Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and co-sponsored the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act.
As Minnesota’s Governor, Walz signed a statewide conversion therapy ban.
In 2023, he signed an executive order to protect the right to gender-affirming care in Minnesota, both for residents of the state and those from other states.
What the 2024 Trump campaign promises on LGBTQ+ issues
Donald Trump’s campaign site includes an abbreviated explanation of his platform. Of the 20 points, only two deal with LGBTQ+ issues. Point 16 takes issue with queer identities being taught or discussed in schools: “Cut federal funding for any school pushing critical race theory, radical gender ideology, and other inappropriate racial, sexual, or political content on our children.” Point 17 uses dog whistle language to attack trans athletes by implying that they are not the gender that they are: “Keep men out of women’s sports.”
The more detailed manifesto, marked as the 2024 GOP Platform, is 15 pages long and elaborates more on these points. Trump promises to “ban Taxpayer [sic] funding for sex change surgeries,” which presumably means removing gender-affirming care from Medicare, a policy already enacted in Florida which has done massive damage to trans people in the state. He also vows to “stop Taxpayer-funded Schools from promoting gender transition,” something that isn’t happening, but rather an idea that Trump has been trying to push despite other Republicans acknowledging that it is untrue. At the 2023 CPAC, Trump also stated he would “revoke every Biden policy promoting the chemical castration and sexual mutilation of our youth and ask Congress to send me a bill prohibiting child sexual mutilation in all 50 states.” Trump is presumably alluding to gender-affirming surgeries being performed on minors. A Harvard studyfound that gender-affirming surgeries were non-existent in young children and rare among teens (and also requiring parental consent). Along with plans to “reverse Biden’s radical rewrite of Title IX Education Regulations,” what this would actually do is discriminate against trans people, particularly trans youth, and leave them to be misgendered and denied access to basic accommodations and reasonable healthcare.
Donald Trump and Project 2025
It’s hard to talk about Donald Trump’s campaign promises without talking about Project 2025. The Democratic campaign has worked hard to align the two. Trump, however, has worked to distance himself from it, claiming that he “knows nothing” and had “no idea” who is behind it. CNN has listed 140 former Trump advisers who have worked on Project 2025, so it is perhaps hard to believe that Trump was entirely ignorant of its existence, content, and origin (although, if he was, that’s perhaps also worrying). Most gender-affirming surgeries in teens were actually found to have been for cis men who wanted chest reductions. Among many of the plans laid out in the 900 page document, Project 2025 takes aim at the progress made in recent years by planning to rescind prohibitions on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, and more (find the full details on page 584).
Whether Trump aligns himself with Project 2025 or not, it is worth being aware of the vision it lays out for America. The manifesto was spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank that influenced the Reagan administration, opposed the Respect for Marriage Act, has been behind a huge number of the anti-trans bills that have appeared in legislatures across the country in recent years, and is consistently ranked as one of the most influential think tanks in the United States.
Related
What Trump has done on LGBTQ+ issues
Trump has been loud on LGBTQ+ issues, particularly on trans topics. As he is a Republican and many of the other politicians in his party have run on anti-trans platforms in recent years, that perhaps isn’t surprising. Prior to winning the presidency in 2016, Trump’s comments and actions wavered a little with some overtures made to the LGBTQ+ community but became more consistent after attaining office. The best way to understand Trump’s views and the actions he can be expected to take if he becomes president after the November 2024 elections is to look at his record in office and on the road.
In 2016, Trump said he would “strongly consider” appointing Supreme Court judges inclined to overturn the same-sex marriage decision, saying he disagreed with the ruling.
The Trump administration rolled back protections for transgender students, withdrawing from working for protections and revoking Obama administration guidance that protected trans students under Title IX.
Nominated Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court, a judge with an anti-LGBTQ+ record.
Trump announced removal of sexual orientation and gender identity topics from 2020 census, helping to erase the LGBTQ+ from data and make it harder to provide assistance to the queer community.
Trump announced a ban on trans people serving openly in the military. The ban would be held up in the courts and opposed by generals and admirals, before going into effect in 2019. The ban was overturned by the Biden administration in January 2021.
Trump’s department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced regulations for allowing medical providers to deny care for LGBTQ+ patients if it went against their personal beliefs, even in a life-or-death situation.
The Trump administration argued in the Supreme Court thatemployers should be able to fire LGBTQ+ people because of sexual orientation or gender identity.
Nominated Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court, a judge who defended those dissenting in the case that legalized same-sex marriage.
After leaving office in 2021, Trump continued to make comments about the LGBTQ+ community with the focus moving to transgender people. Here are some plans that he has stated at rallies but not listed in his Agenda 47 platform.
Ban transgender athletes from competing on teams that match their gender identity
Ask Congress to pass legislation to only recognize gender assigned at birth, and to only include binary options.
Ask the FDA to “investigate whether transgender hormone treatments and ideology increase the risk of extreme depression, aggression and even violence.” A request phrased to imply that trans people are dangerous and violent, which as been pushed by recent false reporting and is not supported by the data.
Donald Trump has made his plans for LGBTQ+ people clear, and his selections for vice-president have reflected that. In 2016, Trump chose the famously anti-LGBTQ+ Mike Pence as his running mate. With Pence not returning to Trump’s ticket for the 2024 campaign, Trump had an opportunity to provide balance to his ticket. However, he selected Ohio senator JD Vance, who similarly has an anti-LGBTQ+ pedigree and has been happy to parrot Trump’s remarks on the campaign trail after doing a heel turn on previous comments about Trump and formerly identifying himself as a never-Trumper.
Vance’s approach to LGBTQ+ issues has evolved with his political ambitions. Prior to his more recent posturing, Vance supported his friend Sofia Nelson through their transition , attended a Pride parade in San Francisco, and gave a positive response to the experience. He has since turned his back on Nelson.
Vance equated discussing LGBTQ+ identities in schools with pedophilia, referring to people who wanted comprehensive sex and gender education in school as “groomers.”
In 2023, JD Vance introduced a bill called the “Protect Children’s Innocence Act.” The bill would not only prohibit the gender-affirming surgeries that Trump’s platform cites, but all transition-related healthcare, including puberty blockers and hormone treatments.
Vance proposed a bill to ban the ability to use “X” as a gender on US passports.
When it comes to LGBTQ+ rights, freedoms, and protections, the 2024 presidential election offers the opportunity to move forwards or to take some big steps backwards. While our choices are rarely perfect, there is one candidate in this race who is clearly going to help to make the United States safer for queer people. It is also important to remember the down-ballot races when voting in this election. The president might set the tone, but from Congress to school boards anti-LGBTQ+ policies can still be enacted if the wrong people get their hands on power.
Election day is November 5, 2024. Early voting has already started. For information on casting your vote visit Vote.org, and check out our guide for voting while trans.
Over 30 years ago, I met Katharine Graham, at the time the publisher of The Washington Post, and only later did I realize what an honor that was. Now, as a late–blooming journalist, I can truly appreciate her place in history.
After taking over the newspaper following her husband’s death in 1963, she grew the Post into one of the most influential publications in the world. Graham made bold editorial decisions, such as supporting the reporting of the Pentagon Papers and uncovering the Watergate scandal, which cemented the Post’s role in holding power accountable. Her emphasis on journalistic integrity and fearlessness in exposing the truth set a new standard for the role of a free press in a democracy.
Now, Friday, in one ominous decision, Graham’s memory, influence and integrity were shattered. Based on the decision of one man, its owner, billionaire Jeff Bezos, the Post will not be making a presidential endorsement this year for the first time in decades.
The editorial teams of both papers were ready to endorse Vice President Kamala Harris for president, and those endorsements now sit in the proverbial trash can — the dustbin of history.
Before we get into why this happened, let’s dispute the old adage that newspaper endorsements don’t matter. They do. Earlier this week, The Advocateendorsed Vice President Kamala Harris. I heard from several people who said, sarcastically, “What a surprise.” But the reason is this election is so consequential, so crucial, so imminent that there can be no gray areas. We had to put a stake in the ground on behalf of our community.
Those of us in the know know why Bezos and Soon-Shiong pulled the plug, but for those who are ill informed, a nonendorsement implies that there are no differences between Harris and former President Donald Trump, and that works only to the advantage of one candidate — Trump — and his campaign took advantage of the news by touting the nonendorsement.
In this election, every endorsement matters because voters are turning to every source of information they can to try and make their decision about who to vote for. When Gen. John Kelly, a former Trump chief of staff, has the guts to come forward and call Trump a fascist, so too should reputable news organizations, which must go above and beyond this year to prevent a fascist from winning the election.
And when news organizations go silent, they open the doors to fascism. This is not hyperbole. Immediately after the Post’s decision, California Congressman Ted Lieu tweeted, “The first step towards fascism is when the free press cowers in fear.”
That’s exactly what’s happening. Ben Smith, the editor-in-chief and co-founder of the news site Semafor, told NPR, “One of the central media stories in the U.S. right now is the people who run big media companies making accommodations for a second Trump presidency and thinking about how to avoid antagonizing him.” Going silent appeases fascism.
In Nazi Germany, the media played a critical role in aiding Hitler’s rise to power, not only through propaganda but also through its silence. Many newspapers, under state control or fearing repercussions, chose not to speak out against Hitler’s regime, effectively allowing Nazi ideology to spread unchecked.
In a critical election, the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times endorse fascism
The lack of dissenting voices, whether from fear or complicity, created an environment where the public was largely shielded from the horrors being committed. This silence contributed to Hitler’s ability to manipulate public opinion and consolidate his authoritarian rule without significant resistance from the press.
So why did Bezos and Soon-Schiong, in appeasing a wanna-be dictator, rip up their newspapers’ endorsements?
Soon-Shiong, in addition to owning the Times, has a diverse range of business interests, particularly in health care and biotechnology. He is a surgeon and billionaire, but he is not and never has been a journalist.
He founded a network of companies focused on advancing health care technologies, He also developed the cancer drug Abraxane and has invested in various biotech firms. These ventures are cash cows, and if he wants grants from the federal government for research or any other program, which can total hundreds of millions of dollars, he would rather put his head in the sand than stand up for democracy.
Money first. Grants second. Investors third. L.A Times fourth. Democracy fifth. The same goes for Bezos — just replace the Times with the Post.
We all know Bezos is the founder of Amazon, one of the most powerful companies in the world. In addition to other investments, Bezos owns Blue Origin, a space exploration company.
Read again: Bezos is not a journalist and never has been. The holidays are right around the corner, when retailers, like Amazon, make a large portion of their annual sales, estimated to be around 25 percent. That’s billions of dollars for Bezos, and many in the Trump and MAGA camps watch Bezos like a hawk. If his newspaper endorsed Harris, that would turn off a segment of consumers, and they would most certainly scream “boycott.”
That’s why companies are caving to the pressure to discontinue their DEI programs lest they piss off part of their customer base.
We learned this week that another space nut — and Trump supporter and appeaser — SpaceX founder Elon Musk, has a real-life dictator friend, his phone buddy Russian President Vladimir Putin. Again a billionaire gone rogue all in the name of money. Billions of dollars are being invested by the federal government into space programs, and neither Bezos or Musk wants to miss out on any funding, even if that money comes from Russia.
The decision of the Post and L.A. Times not to endorse a presidential candidate poses a significant danger to the role of the free press in a functioning democracy. By refusing to take a public stance, these influential newspapers risk playing into the hands of their wealthy owners, whose business interests might be better served by political neutrality or silence.
More ominously, such passivity could open the door to authoritarianism, as a weakened press fails to hold power accountable or provide voters with clear, informed perspectives, just like it did for Hitler. The silence of major media outlets serves not as impartiality, but as complicity in the erosion of democratic values and the rise of fascism.
I should only imagine that the beloved Katharine Graham is not only turning in her grave but shedding a tear from above for her beloved Washington Post.
Voices is dedicated to featuring a wide range of inspiring personal stories and impactful opinions from the LGBTQ+ community and its allies. Visit Advocate.com/submit to learn more about submission guidelines. Views expressed in Voices stories are those of the guest writers, columnists, and editors, and do not directly represent the views of The Advocate or our parent company, equalpride.
Darts player Noa-Lynn van Leuven has qualified for the darts world championships – the first time a trans woman has done so.
Dutch player Noa-Lynn van Leuven, who transitioned in 2021 and has faced controversy for playing against cis women, qualified for her first PDC (Professional Darts Corporation) World Championship on Saturday (19 October) following a 5-3 victory over English star Beau Greaves in the 21st PDC Women’s Series in Leicester.
Van Leuven’s appearance at Alexander Palace in December will mark the first time a trans woman has secured a place in the mixed-gender competition, the largest and most prestigious event in competitive darts.
Commenting on her loss, Greaves said van Leuven “power-housed” her: “Sometimes in darts you’ve just got to allow it to happen and that was one of those days for me. Fair play to her, she played really well and she deserved the win. I fell asleep at times where I should have been hitting more trebles, and she punished me.”
However, not everyone has taken the result with such good grace.
Social media users misgendered the Dutch star, using he/him pronouns and calling her a “man”. Others labelled her a “cheater” and said she “stole a spot from a woman”.
Noa-Lynn van Leuven will play in her first world championships. (PDC Darts)
This is not the first time Van Leuven has been attacked for being a trans darts player.
Earlier this year, she was thrust into the centre of a gender storm after she became the first trans player to win a PDC tour event, the mixed-gender Challenge Tour in Germany, and beat Ireland’s Katie Sheldon in the PDC Women’s Series.
People accused van Leuven of “only being trans to win darts matches”, and tennis legend Martina Navratilova, who has repeatedly opposed trans women competing against cis women, wrote on social media: “No male bodies in women’s sports please, not even in darts. Again, women get the short end of the stick and it stinks.”
Van Leuven’s involvement in the Dutch women’s darts team also prompted two compatriots, Anca Zijlstra and Aileen de Graaf, to quit the national squad, citing disagreement with rules around trans inclusion.
In addition, British darts player Deta Hedman twice refused to take on van Leuven, first at the Denmark Open in May, then in a singles match in July, saying there shouldn’t be “a man in a women’s event”.
Van Leuven spoke out after that, saying that a “lot of people forget that I am also a human being” and telling PinkNews she things got so bad that she didn’t even want to step out of her to house for a while. She has also spoken about getting death threats and being left “haunted” by the abuse.
“In my DMs, on Instagram, it was getting so harsh, from bullying to death threats. I remember going home, I was at Schiphol [Amsterdam airport]. I looked around for one-and-a-half minutes before entering a bathroom because I was getting texts like: ‘If I ever see you walking into the ladies’ room after my daughter, I will kill you’,” she told the i news.
“They still haunt me to this day. It has impacted me massively.”
The Professional Darts Players Association notes on its website that governing body the Darts Regulation Authority (DRA) encourages mixed-gender events in darts with the only exceptions being the Women’s Series and Women’s Matchplay operated by the PDC.
The DRA Trans & Gender Diverse Policy says transgender and non-binary players must be treated with respect, welcomed as any other member would be and accepted “in the gender they present”.
LGBTQ+ ballot initiatives have long been used as a wedge issue to turn out the conservative vote and to give or take away freedoms that are usually guaranteed by the government. The 2024 election is no different. This November continues a decades-long tradition of leaving LGBTQ+ civil rights up to public debate.
New Yorkers will consider whether to add sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression to their anti-discrimination amendment in the state constitution. Reproductive rights are on the ballot in 10 states as well.
And California, Colorado, and Hawaii voters will decide if their states will repeal their constitutions’ bans on same-sex marriage.
Same-sex unions have, in fact, always been the top issue on state referendums. 34 states have sent the question to voters since 1998, many passing state constitutional amendments against same-sex partnerships. Putting these amendments on the ballot was used as a strategy to turn out the conservative vote for George W. Bush in 2004, when 11 states passed them.
Marriage equality lost at the ballot box every time until 2012, when it was put to a vote in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington and won in all of them. This followed national public opinion polls, where support for same-sex marriage crossed the 50% threshold around 2009.
All states’ anti-marriage equality constitutional amendments were rendered invalid in 2015 with the Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court decision, but the amendments remain in several state constitutions. As such, activists are fighting to repeal them, especially in the event the conservative-dominated Supreme Court overturns Obergefell – something Justice Clarence Thomas hinted was a possibility after the court overturned Roe v Wade.
“Saving” the children
The 1978 election in California introduced the first state ballot initiative related to LGBTQ+ rights. Prop 6, also known as the Briggs Initiative since it was sponsored by Orange County legislator John Briggs, garnered national attention and public denunciation from then-president Jimmy Carter (D), and even from then-California governor Ronald Reagan (R).
The initiative sought to ban anyone who engaged in “public homosexual activity” or “conduct” from working in California public schools. The proposal was part of a trend of other states repealing anti-discrimination measures, inspired by anti-gay activist Anita Bryant’s successful 1977 “Save Our Children” campaign to repeal Dade County, Florida’s ordinance banning discrimination based on sexual orientation, also done by popular vote. Harvey Milk helped to lead the campaign against Prop 6, which was defeated by a 16-point margin.
Other state ballot initiatives have sought to legalize or ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity — and voters more often sided with anti-discrimination as the years went on. In Oregon in 1988, voters revoked the governor’s authority to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation, and in 2018, Massachusetts voters upheld a law prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity.
Maine and Oregon have most frequently put LGBTQ+ rights to a vote. In Maine, voters first blocked same-sex marriage in 2009 and then approved it in 2012, both times with 53% of the vote. Anti-discriminating protections for LGBTQ+ people in Maine were denied by referendum in 1998 and 2000 and then approved in 2005. In Oregon, voters defeated a “don’t say gay” measure in 2000 by a 5.7% margin.
The concept of using sexual orientation as a protected identity at all was also put to a vote multiple times as a conservative strategy to block “homosexuality” from being added to anti-discrimination ordinances. In the 1990s, the majority voted to allow sexual orientation to be a protected identity in Oregon, Idaho, and Maine.
And it isn’t just laws explicitly about LGBTQ+ rights that affect the community. Other ballot-driven Voter ID laws, including those in Arkansas and North Carolina, will no doubt prevent some trans folks from voting, as well as other LGBTQ+ people who are intersectionality marginalized.
Regardless of ballot measures, the state representatives voters choose this election will also have a significant impact on LGBTQ+ rights. Legislatures led by publicly-elected Republicans have introduced or passed hundreds of anti-LGBTQ+ bills in recent years, including banning or limiting access to gender-affirming health care, bathrooms, accurate IDs, inclusive education, inclusive books, drag performances, and sports participation. Voting for state-level and local candidates who support LGBTQ+ rights will impact laws for years to come, even when they are not put to referendum.
Vote like your rights depend on it
Civil rights for other groups have also gone to public referendum dozens of times since 1868, like the question of legality of discrimination on the basis of race, sex, and disability. Like sexual orientation, voters supported discrimination in earlier years and began to support equal rights later on. Women’s rights, however, gained approval in the 1970s while LGBTQ+ rights didn’t see popular support until the 2000s.
The decision to provide or deny civil rights is more often determined by courts and legislatures — which are becoming more conservative — and the idea that constitutional rights can be determined by public opinion has allowed racism, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of discrimination to become enshrined into law.
Public opinion about LGB and transgender rights is often conflicted and in flux, so ballot measures are not a safe option for gaining rights either, though the majority do currently support anti-discrimination laws for LGBTQ+ people.
Nevertheless, LGBTQ+ rights are on the ballot. As such, it’s essential to vote this year — both on the LGBTQ+ rights referendums and for candidates who will have the power to enact pro-equality legislation.
Police are investigating a threatening, homophobic e-mail sent to WNBA power forward Breanna Stewart‘s wife as the New York Liberty compete in the finals.
Police did not identify the person who filed the report, but said a 33-year-old woman made an aggravated harassment report on Oct. 10 after receiving “a threatening email.” Stewart confirmed the threats and that her wife filed the report after practice during an interview Tuesday.
The email in question said the couple, “don’t deserve to live and I hope you both die.”
Stewart, 30, who plays for the New York Liberty, is married to former WNBA player and Spanish National Team athlete Marta Xargay Casademont, 33. They married in July 2021 and share two children together.
The Hate Crimes Task Force is investigating the matter as a possible bias incident on the grounds of sexual orientation discrimination. The New York Postwas the first to report on the threat.
“The fact it came to Marta’s email is something she (had to) see. The level of closeness was a little bit different,” she told reporters, according to The Associated Press. “Make sure that myself and Marta are okay, but that our kids are the safest.”
Stewart said she reported the threat to the team and league and Xargay filed a complaint with police. “Being in the Finals and everything like that it makes sense to file something formal,” Stewart said.
The threat came after the Liberty lost in Game 1 of the WNBA finals against the Minnesota Lynx. In that game, Stewart missed a free throw with less than a second left in regulation that would’ve given the Liberty the lead, and later missed on a layup that would have tied the game at the end of overtime.
“Sometimes people are taking things a little bit too far and too out of context. And Marta had gotten homophobic death threats. A few other things have happened,” she said. The two-time MVP said they reported the matter to make sure “we’re doing as much as possible to continue to make sure that our team and the league is aware of the situation and continue to keep everybody safe.”
NBC News has reached out to the New York Liberty and WNBA for comment.
WNBA Commissioner Cathy Engelbert also spoke on the rising amountof hateful speech players have received on social media in her address before Game 1.
She said the leaguewill meet with the players association, players and teams to address the matterusing technology and prioritizing mental health and reinforcing security.
“First of all there’s no place in sports for this,” Engelbert said. “It just is something where we have to continue to be a voice for this, a voice against it, condemning it, and making sure that we find every opportunity to support our players, who have been dealing with this for much longer than this year.”
The Liberty and Lynx face off again for Game 3 on Wednesday night.
“I’m happy to announce that the NFL is continuing their support by making a $100,000 donation to the Trevor Project,” Nassib said on the NFL Network’s Good Morning Football.“So for those who don’t know, young LGBTQ people are actually four times more likely to harm themselves, and so the Trevor Project provides lifesaving support to these kids, and so this $100,000 is going directly to that organization to continue that work. So huge, huge thank you to the NFL … it’s a really positive step.”
Nassib came out in 2021, becoming the first active NFL player to do so. He was then a defensive end for the Las Vegas Raiders. Over the course of his career, he also played for the Cleveland Browns and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. When he came out, he made a $100,000 donation to the Trevor Project, which assists LGBTQ+ youth experiencing suicidal ideation and other crises, and the NFL matched that.
He retired in 2023 and is now focusing on his company, Rayze, a social media app that connects donors and volunteers with nonprofit organizations.
He has called himself a “pretty private person,” but he felt that after having been released by teams many times, he had nothing to lose by coming out. “After all that it was like, who cares if somebody says anything about me being gay? I couldn’t care less,” he told The Advocate this year.
With Rayze, he said in the same interview, “I go to bed every night and I can’t wait to go to work the next day. It’s crazy, going from the NFL, which is fiercely competitive and cutthroat, and now working with nonprofit organizations, who are dedicating their lives to help other people. The passion that they have for their mission is so invigorating.”
In announcing the donation, he released this statement: “When I came out in 2021, it was important to me to let LGBTQ+ young people know that they are not alone. It has been an absolute honor to use my platform to shine a light on the Trevor Project’s lifesaving services. The Trevor Project is near and dear to my heart, so it’s especially meaningful to me that the NFL has renewed their $100K commitment to support the organization’s mission to end suicide among LGBTQ+ young people.”
Trevor Project CEO Jaymes Black added, “Since partnering over four years ago, the NFL has been steadfast in their commitment to fostering LGBTQ+ inclusion in sports, and we are beyond grateful for their generous donation this National Coming Out Day. When sports leagues like the NFL are vocal about supporting the Trevor Project’s mission, it sends a clear message to LGBTQ+ young people that they are welcomed and accepted in athletic environments.
“The Trevor Project’s research found that 68 percent of LGBTQ+ young people reported that they had never participated in sports, with many citing concerns of discrimination and harassment from peers and coaches, fears of how others would react to their LGBTQ+ identity, and policies preventing them from playing on the team that matches their gender identity. Now, more than ever, it’s crucial for coaches, athletic directors, and teammates to create safe and affirming spaces for LGBTQ+ athletes to thrive openly as their authentic selves, both on and off the field.”
Jonathan Beane, the NFL’s senior vice president and chief diversity and inclusion officer, had this to say: “We are thrilled that the Trevor Project will continue to be a partner in our shared commitment to an LGBTQ-inclusive league and world. The Trevor Project’s work in championing LGBTQ youth and mental health is an inspiration, and we are proud to support the positive strides they are making to help communities in need.”I
f you or someone you know needs mental health resources and support, please call, text, or chat with the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline or visit988lifeline.org for 24/7 access to free and confidential services. Trans Lifeline, designed for transgender or gender-nonconforming people, can be reached at (877) 565-8860. The lifeline also provides resources to help with other crises, such as domestic violence situations. The Trevor Project Lifeline, for LGBTQ+ youth (ages 24 and younger), can be reached at (866) 488-7386. Users can also access chat services at TheTrevorProject.org/Help or text START to 678678.
A fourth university has forfeited its women’s volleyball match against San José State University following controversy over the gender identity of one of the team’s players.
Utah State University said in a brief statement Tuesday that it would not play its Oct. 23 match against SJSU, joining the University of Wyoming, Boise State University and Southern Utah University, which have all forfeited matches against the California school over the last three weeks.
The San Jose State University Spartans line up for the playing of the national anthem and player introductions for their NCAA Mountain West women’s volleyball game against the Colorado State University Rams in Fort Collins, Colo., on Oct. 3, 2024. Santiago Mejia / San Francisco Chronicle via Getty Images
None of the universities explained their decisions, though the University of Wyoming said the decision was made “after a lengthy discussion.” The universities have not responded to requests for additional comment.
Michelle Smith McDonald, senior director of media relations for SJSU, said the university will not address the gender identity of any student due to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, a federal student privacy law.
“It is disappointing that our SJSU student athletes, who are in full compliance with NCAA and Mountain West rules and regulations, are being denied opportunities to compete,” McDonald said in an emailed statement on behalf of the university. “We are committed to supporting our student-athletes through these challenges and in their ability to compete in an inclusive, fair, safe and respectful environment.”
The forfeitures began after months of speculation in conservative websites about the gender identity of one of SJSU’s players. In April, the far-right website Reduxx published an interview with an anonymous parent of an SJSU player who said there were “rumors” that one of the other players was a transgender woman.
The teammate in question did not return requests for comment. NBC News is not using her name because she has not made a public statement about her identity or confirmed that she is trans.
On Sept. 23, SJSU player Brooke Slusser joined a lawsuit filed by more than a dozen women athletes against the NCAA, which oversees collegiate athletics, arguing that its policy allowing trans women to compete on women’s teams violates Title IX, a federal law protecting students against sex discrimination in federally funded schools and programs. The suit is led by Riley Gaines, a former 12-time NCAA All-American swimmer who competed for the University of Kentucky and objected publicly to the participation of University of Pennsylvania swimmer Lia Thomas, the first trans woman to win an NCAA championship.
In the lawsuit, Slusser says the teammate who was the subject of the media coverage told her she was a trans woman. When Slusser asked the teammate, whom Slusser had roomed with on team trips, why the teammate hadn’t shared this information with her before, the teammate said “there never seemed to be a good time to bring it up,” and that she was afraid Slusser would not be her friend if Slusser knew the truth, according to the suit, which uses “he” pronouns for the teammate. Slusser said she told the teammate she didn’t want her to be bullied but that she questioned whether it was safe or fair for the teammate to play on the women’s team.
Soon after, according to the suit, SJSU officials convened a meeting to address the news article about the teammate’s gender identity, and told members of the volleyball team that they shouldn’t speak about the teammate’s gender with anyone outside of the team. Slusser says that the teammate was stronger than other members of the team and that volleyball hits from the teammate caused more bruising and pain than hits from other players.
The suit says Slusser has experienced “physical and emotional injuries, embarrassment, humiliation, emotional distress, mental anguish and suffering” due to the teammate’s participation on the team and the NCAA’s policy that allows trans women to compete. Slusser did not return a request for additional comment.
The NCAA said in a statement that it “will continue to promote Title IX, make unprecedented investments in women’s sports and ensure fair competition for all student-athletes in all NCAA championships.” Michelle Brutlag Hosick, director of external communications for the NCAA, declined to comment further.
Trans rights advocates have noted that the teammate hasn’t confirmed her gender identity, but, if she is trans, it appears the information has been shared and spread without her permission, outing her nationally. Her profile with the team indicates she has played on women’s teams since at least high school and also played at SJSU for two previous seasons without public controversy.
Tony Hoang, the executive director of Equality California, said that in forfeiting matches against SJSU, school administrators are harming all students involved.
“Let’s be clear — this isn’t actually about sports; it is part of a coordinated nationwide attack on the LGBTQ+ community led by extremist right-wing politicians,” Hoang said in a statement Thursday.
The Republican governors of both Utah and Idaho publicly supported decisions by Southern Utah University, Utah State University and Boise State University to cancel their matches against SJSU.
Idaho Gov. Brad Little applauded Boise State for working “within the spirit” of a bill he signed to prohibit trans student athletes from playing on the school sports teams of their gender identities in K-12 schools and colleges, though the law is currently blocked by a lawsuit.
Conservatives have increasingly attempted to restrict trans inclusion in sports, among a variety of other LGBTQ-related issues. Half of states, including Idaho, Utah and Wyoming, prohibit trans student athletes from participating on the school sports teams that align with their gender identities as opposed to their assigned sexes at birth. Idaho’s and Utah’s laws are currently blocked by lawsuits.
Previously, trans athletes’ participation in sports was regulated by state sports associations, school districts and, in college athletics, the NCAA. In January 2022, the NCAA updated its trans athlete policy to adopt a sport-by-sportapproach that allows sports governing bodies to determine their own eligibility criteria. USA Volleyball requires trans women athletes to submit documentation of their testosterone levels to ensure they do not exceed the upper limit of the normal female range.
Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and Mikie Sherrill of New Jersey announced Tuesday that their bipartisan legislation had passed the House of Representatives and would be sent to President Joe Biden for his signature.
The bill to honor King, the tennis Hall of Famer and activist, had already passed unanimously in the Senate.
Sherrill, a Democrat, said in a statement that King’s “lifetime of advocacy and hard work changed the landscape for women and girls on the court, in the classroom, and the workplace.”
The bill was introduced last September on the 50th anniversary of King’s victory over Bobby Riggs in the “Battle of the Sexes,” still the most-watched tennis match of all-time. The medal, awarded by Congress for distinguished achievements and contributions to society, has previously been given to athletes including baseball players Jackie Robinson and Roberto Clemente, and golfers Jack Nicklaus, Byron Nelson and Arnold Palmer.
King had already been awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2009. Fitzpatrick, a Republican, says she has “broken barriers, led uncharted paths, and inspired countless people to stand proudly with courage and conviction in the fight for what is right.”
Standing in line at a popular gym in West Hollywood waiting to check in for a workout class, the instructor, hunched over and leaning against the desk, looked at me almost painfully and said, “I’m still recovering from the weekend.”
That past weekend was Pride, and he told me about how many “overpriced” $20 vodka sodas he drank while celebrating.
A girl nearby laughingly responded, “Well, you just have to do it—I mean, come on, it’s Pride.”
For about five minutes before our workout began, people all around me recounted their alcohol-infused Pride weekend festivities. It made me think about a session with a client earlier in the day and how he talked about his experience at the festivities, feeling alone and not “part of the community” because he doesn’t drink or party.
Since living in Los Angeles and working closely with my community for more than twenty years, I’ve known far too many LGBTQ+ individuals who struggled with addiction or overdosed on drugs or alcohol. Among them was a young man I worked with who died of an overdose, someone who worked at a bar before the pandemic. Even in sharing his death, everyone I spoke to said, “He was so handsome.” This young man embodied what most people, especially those living in West Hollywood, would consider ideal: external beauty and strength.
But each of us has an inner world more than what appears outside.
I used to think that getting a drink — or drunk — was part of celebrating, well, anything. After working at a popular gay bar in West Hollywood for 11 years, alcohol-infused Pride weekend festivities were the rule rather than the exception.
That’s no longer true for me, and for the past nine years, I’ve found freedom in sobriety.
As we approach National Overdose Awareness Day, it’s essential to be mindful of those who struggle with addiction or who have overdosed. I would venture to say that every person in the LGBTQ+ community has known someone who has struggled with addiction or whose life has been affected by an overdose. Making National Overdose Awareness Day all the more important to shine a light on, especially for members of the LGBTQ community—many of whom seek social connection inside of bars.
Recently, I heard an interview on NPR with the lead singer of a local band. The singer is newly sober and discussed how sobriety influenced his music. What struck me most was when he said that if we’ve ever had the thought that our drinking or drug use might be a problem, chances are it is.
He noted, “It’s your subconscious mind speaking to you and trying to send you a message.”
The subconscious SOS applies to everyone. However, as a gay man who has navigated religious trauma, shame, addiction, and HIV, I often think about the level of self-acceptance among gay men. Currently, the highest level of risk for HIV belongs to gay men between the ages of 17 and 29. What’s more, gay men continue to report higher levels of drug and alcohol addiction than their heterosexual counterparts. Crystal meth, specifically, is a silent epidemic among gay men throughout communities across the United States.
It’s one thing to be out of the closet, but another to fully accept and embrace ourselves wholeheartedly and unconditionally for who we are.
Over the past few months, a common theme among many of my therapy clients is a reactivation of familial homophobic trauma. Many of my new clients are seeking support to help them heal from unprocessed religious trauma that the surge of anti-LGBTQ legislation in the United States has triggered, affecting their mental, emotional, and spiritual well-being. Recently, a newly sober client told me there was “no room” for him to be gay at home growing up, and it felt like he could never fully breathe. While he’s a 35-year-old adult man, we’re only just beginning to process the shame that he internalized from the adults around him in his childhood about his sexuality.
The experience, I told him, is like having a thousand paper cuts and not realizing how painful they feel until you jump in the ocean.
For that reason, increased rates of gay men turn to drugs and alcohol to anesthetize the pain of growing up and not being fully seen. There is a distinct difference between tolerance and genuine acceptance. I can be openly gay and attend all the Pride festivals I want, but if I don’t accept myself on the inside, my paper cuts still hurt.
Since coming out of the closet nearly twenty years ago, I’ve been privileged to meet people worldwide at various stages of their coming-out process. This has been a reminder of the connectedness of our human condition. It has also reminded me that although the LGBTQ community has made tremendous progress, there is still more for us to do.
With nearly 15 years of anesthetizing my pain with drugs and alcohol and nine years of sobriety, I’ve come to learn from my path that connecting with our spirituality, loving ourselves from the inside out, and taking full responsibility for our lives and choices is where pride lies at the deepest level.
Chris Tompkins is an LGBTQ-affirming therapist who specializes in gay men’s identity and religious trauma. He’s also author of the book, Raising LGBTQ Allies: A Parent’s Guide to Changing the Messages from the Playground. His work has been featured on TEDx, NBC, HuffPost, Psychology Today, Healthline, and more. www.aroadtriptolove.com
A federal judge extended a temporary order Tuesday for a transgender girl to play soccer for her high school team while considering arguments for a longer-term order and a possible trial as the teen and another student challenge a New Hampshire ban.
The families of Parker Tirrell, 15, and Iris Turmelle, 14, filed a lawsuit Aug. 16 seeking to overturn the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act that Republican Gov. Chris Sununu signed into law last month. While Turmelle doesn’t plan to play sports until December, Tirrell successfully sought an emergency order allowing her to start soccer practice on Aug. 19.
U.S. District Court Chief Judge Landya McCafferty found that Tirrell had demonstrated likely success on the merits of the case. She extended that order Tuesday, the day it was expiring, for another two weeks through Sept. 10. McCafferty also listened to arguments on the plaintiffs’ broader motion for a preliminary order blocking the state from enforcing the law while the case proceeds.
McCafferty also raised the possibility of a trial this fall, before winter track season starts for Turmelle, who attends a different school.
Chris Erchull, an attorney at GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders representing the the students, said he would be ready for a trial. Michael DeGrandis, an attorney for the state, said he would need to discuss that with the attorney general’s office.
“As soon as Iris walks into school next week, she’s going to be suffering harm because of the way this law impacts her,” Erchull said in a news conference afterward. “She has no guarantees that she will be able to participate in school sports this year.”
The lawsuit said the law violates constitutional protections and federal laws because the teens are being denied equal educational opportunities and are being discriminated against because they are transgender.
Lawyers for the state said the teens’ lawyers haven’t proven their case and they haven’t shown why alternatives, such as participating in coed teams, couldn’t be an option.
The bill signed by Sununu bans transgender athletes in grades 5 to 12 from teams that align with their gender identity. It require schools to designate all teams as either girls, boys or coed, with eligibility determined based on students’ birth certificates “or other evidence.”
Sununu had said it “ensures fairness and safety in women’s sports by maintaining integrity and competitive balance in athletic competitions.” He said it added the state to nearly half in the nation that adopted similar measures.
The rights of transgender people — and especially young people — have become a major political battleground in recent years as trans visibility has increased. Most Republican-controlled states have banned gender-affirming health care for transgender minors, and several have adopted policies limiting which school bathrooms trans people can use and barring trans girls from some sports competitions.
