Since 2020, there has been a growing legislative attack on transgender people, and particularly on transgender youth. This includes a growing number of bills (and now laws) that explicitly require school staff—and in some cases, any government or public employee—to out transgender youth to their families, often without regard for whether doing so might put the child at risk of harm. Importantly, however, these laws vary in their actual requirements, as shown below. Click the “Citations & More Information” orange button for more detail.*Notes: –States with a caution icon have policies that vary, but generally have vague requirements to notify parents about any “health” or behavioral concern, but that do not make any explicit mention of gender or gender identity. Because these laws could be broadly interpreted and used to target both transgender youth and LGBTQ youth in general, these may contribute to a hostile school climate for LGBTQ youth even without explicitly requiring forced outing. Note that laws that require general parental access to student records are redundant of existing federal law, and so are not included here. See the “Citations” tab or click “Citations & More Information” beneath the map legend for more detail on each state’s policy.
–Note, Nevada’s policy is via regulation, not legislation. –Note, Utah’s law applies only to official changes to a student’s education records (e.g., their gender marker or name officially noted on their record), not daily interaction with the student (e.g., conversational use of preferred name/pronouns). –Note, Virginia’s policy is via agency policy, not legislation or regulation. However, state law requires school districts to adopt this model policy—though there has been resistance, and so implementation or enforcement may vary across the state. See “Citations & More Information” for more detail.
State law forces the outing of transgender youth if they make specific disclosures or requests about their gender identity to school staff (5 states) – Dark Orange
State law requires forced outing of transgender youth, but only if parents ask school staff for the information (2 states) – Medium Orange
State law requires forced outing of transgender youth before school staff can use a student’s preferred name/pronouns, but a student’s mere request to use a different name or pronouns does not itself require forced outing (7 states) – Light Orange
State law does not force the outing of transgender youth in schools (36 states , 5 territories + D.C.) – Yellow
State does not force outing but may contribute to hostile school climate (see note beneath map) (4 states)
The following is a letter I sent to President Trump in response to his comments about gender on day one of taking Office. I was seeking a publication with a wide audience to get this message out. The lives of my daughter and countless others depend on it.
Dear Mr. President,
Sometimes words from our leaders can shake a parent’s entire world. On Monday, your words shook me to my core. As I listened to your statement, I felt a physical pain in my chest – the kind of visceral fear that only a parent can understand when they sense their child’s future, safety, and very existence might be at risk. This isn’t just momentary panic — it’s now a chronic, gnawing terror that follows me through every hour of every day. The thought of feeling this sick with fear, wondering what each new declaration might bring, is unbearable. As I write this letter, my hands are shaking. I am writing to you today not as a political advocate, but as a mother with a story I believe you need to hear.
In 2006, I gave birth to a son. However, by seven months of age, my baby was already showing signs that would challenge everything we thought we knew about gender. In our local KB Toys store, my child repeatedly crawled from the boy toy aisle directly to the girl toy aisle with unwavering determination. At nine months, there was a persistent refusal to wear boys’ clothes, tearing them off in favor of being draped in blankets or towels like dresses.
As language developed around age one, so did clearer expressions of identity. By eighteen months, my child was dancing and twirling, using any available fabric as a skirt or dress. Then, at two and a half years old, came the clear, unprompted declaration that would confirm what these early signs had been telling us: “I’m a girl.”
One moment stands crystallized in my memory as both beautiful and heartbreaking. When my daughter was three, on Halloween – traditionally a night when children can be anything they want to be – she chose to dress as Snow White. The transformation I witnessed wasn’t just about putting on a costume; it was about watching my child truly emerge. Before that moment, she had been withdrawn, depressed, observing life from the sidelines. But as Snow White, she didn’t just walk – she floated, radiating joy, her smile stretching from ear to ear as we trick-or-treated through our Sherman Oaks neighborhood. She carried her treat bag with a prop poison apple, fully embodying her character. I had never seen her surrounded by such light; she was finally her whole, authentic self.
That magical evening was shattered by her father’s words: “Next year, it’ll be Batman or Superman, but no more of this girl s**t.” This moment drove the first wedge in our family, eventually leading to our divorce. The pain of watching one parent reject what the other parent could so clearly see – our child’s true identity – created fractures that would ultimately break our family apart.
Mr. President, I want to be clear: My views on gender identity are more conservative than some might assume. I don’t disagree with the basic concept that there are two genders: male and female. However, I need to make an important distinction. My daughter’s experience — evident from infancy and consistent throughout her life — represents something fundamentally different from today’s broader gender discussions. What I’m talking about is not about fashion, social movements, or choosing pronouns. I’m talking about individuals who are genuinely born with a profound misalignment between their brain and body — a real, medical condition that causes deep, persistent suffering if not addressed.
“My daughter’s experience — evident from infancy and consistent throughout her life — represents something fundamentally different from today’s broader gender discussions.”– Jessica, mother of a trans daughter
normal
There’s another crucial distinction that needs to be made. My daughter’s experience is fundamentally different from those who transition later in life, such as Caitlyn Jenner. My daughter could have never lived as a male until adulthood — she would have died before being forced to live that inauthentically. This wasn’t a gradual realization or a choice made in maturity — this was a primal, innate truth present from her earliest moments of consciousness. When someone’s identity is this deeply hardwired from birth, there is no ‘choosing’ to wait or conform. For my daughter, living as her true self wasn’t a choice — it was a matter of survival from her very first awareness of self.
Mr. President, here’s something fundamental about human development that many people don’t realize: Every human fetus begins as female. It’s only through a complex cascade of hormones, genes, and chromosomal influences that some fetuses develop as male. This isn’t ideology — it’s basic embryology. If we can accept that nature’s developmental process can result in variations affecting any other aspect of human development — from heart formation to limb development — why is it so hard to understand that this same complex process of gender development might not always follow a perfect path? When you consider that every human starts as female, and that it takes multiple biological steps to shift that development toward male, the possibility of variations in this process becomes straightforward and logical. This isn’t about ideology or choice — it’s about understanding that the same biological processes that can result in other developmental variations can affect gender development in the brain.
Mr. President, you speak of defending women and “biological truth,” suggesting that transgender individuals are somehow a threat to women’s spaces. Let me be clear — my daughter has never been a threat to anyone. From the moment she could crawl, she has simply been trying to live authentically as who she is. This isn’t about “gender ideology extremism” — this is about a child who, from her earliest moments, consistently and persistently knew who she was. When you speak of “ideologues,” you’re not describing my family’s reality. We’re not pushing any agenda – we’re simply living our truth, one that revealed itself long before my daughter could even speak.
Furthermore, Mr. President, you’re conflating two entirely different concepts. Gender, as we know it today, is actually a social construct that wasn’t even conceptualized until the mid-20th century — it’s about roles, expectations, and societal norms. What my daughter experiences isn’t about gender as a social construct — it’s about something far more fundamental and biological. It’s about brain structure, neural pathways, and hormonal influences during fetal development. When you dismiss transgender individuals by reducing this to a debate about “gender ideology,” you’re missing the critical scientific distinction between socially constructed gender roles and the hard-wired biological reality of one’s innate identity.
I’ve never shared this publicly before, but I need to tell you something profound that opened my eyes to the biological reality of gender development. While undergoing fertility treatments to conceive my daughter, our fertility specialist urgently warned us about my husband’s use of Finasteride, explaining that this common hair loss medication could affect a fetus’s reproductive organ development in the womb. During the same visit, I was asked if I wanted a girl or a boy because they could spin the centrifuge so the weaker (male) sperm fall off, separating the two. Mr. President, if we can actually control a fetus’s biological sex through such simple medical interventions — if a common hair loss medication can influence sexual organ development, and if we can separate sperm by sex through basic centrifugal force — how can anyone definitively claim that gender identity is always simple and binary?
If you acknowledge that babies can be born with obvious physical variations — a missing limb, an extra finger, a heart on the wrong side — how can it be so hard to understand that variations in gender identity could occur in the brain during fetal development? This isn’t ideology — it’s basic human biology. Nature doesn’t always follow a perfect blueprint. Medical science clearly recognizes that countless factors during gestation can affect human development — why is it so hard to accept that gender identity could be one of them?
Mr. President, with all due respect, what medical or scientific expertise allows you to declare that my daughter — who has known her true identity since infancy — doesn’t exist? What qualifies anyone, even a president, to dismiss 18 years of lived experience? How do you explain away a seven-month-old baby’s determined crawl toward their truth, or a toddler’s consistent, unwavering knowledge of who they are?
“Mr. President, with all due respect, what medical or scientific expertise allows you to declare that my daughter — who has known her true identity since infancy — doesn’t exist?”Jessica, mother of a trans daughter
normal
When you declare there are only two genders and that trans people don’t exist, you’re not just making a political statement — you’re telling my daughter that her entire journey, her struggles, her joy in finally being herself, are all invalid. You’re telling me that the light I saw in her eyes that Halloween night when she was three, the first time she could truly be herself, was somehow a delusion.
The fear your words have sparked isn’t just about today or tomorrow — it’s about survival. Every news alert makes my heart race. Every headline about gender sends me into a spiral of anxiety about my daughter’s future. How do I protect my daughter in a world where the president himself denies her existence? Where do we turn when the highest office in our nation tells us that what we’ve lived through isn’t real?
My daughter is now 18 years old. That determined child who once crawled through toy store aisles, who lit up the night as Snow White, has grown into a beautiful, smart, talented, and charismatic young lady. She is my one and only, my heart, and I love her more than anything in the world. Her journey to becoming the remarkable woman she is today demonstrates what is possible when a transgender child is loved and supported. Yet now I find myself sick with fear about her future in a world where her very existence is being denied.
What you may not know is that my daughter is only one degree of separation from someone in your immediate family. When you make such sweeping declarations about gender, you never know who your words are hurting. It could be someone much closer to you than you realize. These issues of gender identity touch all of our families, directly or indirectly, often in ways we cannot see.
It’s taken my ex-husband, my daughter’s father, a long time to accept that his child is transgender, but he did come around. If someone from a traditional background, who was once firmly set in his conservative beliefs and initially struggled to understand, can make this journey of understanding and acceptance, I have hope for the rest of us. His transformation reminds us that change is possible, that understanding can grow, and that love can ultimately transcend our initial prejudices and fears.
This journey of acceptance doesn’t happen overnight. It takes time to understand, accept, and even embrace — but it does happen. While our family’s path has been an 18-year-long struggle in many ways, there are no regrets at all. None. The only regret would have been denying my daughter the chance to live as her authentic self.
Understanding often comes through personal experience, through knowing and loving someone who is transgender. But right now, I’m terrified. Your words have the power to shape not just policy, but public opinion and understanding. They have the power to either illuminate the complexity of human biology or to deny the reality that families like mine live every day. I implore you to consider the weight of declaring that people like my daughter don’t exist, and the fear such declarations instill in parents like me who have witnessed their child’s truth from the very beginning.
At our core, we are all human beings trying to live authentically in this world. The measure of our humanity lies in how we treat those whose experiences we may not fully understand. In the end, beneath policies and politics, beyond declarations and debates, we are all simply humans deserving of respect, dignity, and the right to exist as our true selves.
With hope for understanding, Jessica
Jessica is a mother professional organizer and LGBTQIA youth advocate from Los Angeles.
Just over a decade ago, in 2014, TIME magazine declared on its front cover that we were at the “The Transgender Tipping Point“.
The cover itself was simple, a full body shot of actress Laverne Cox – who was then playing Sophia Burset on Netflix game-changer Orange Is the New Black – and a byline for writer Katy Steinmetz, who said in the piece that trans rights would be the next civil rights frontier.
“We are in a place now,” Cox told the magazine at the time, “where more and more trans people want to come forward and say, ‘This is who I am.’ And more trans people are willing to tell their stories. More of us are living visibly and pursuing our dreams visibly, so people can say, ‘Oh yeah, I know someone who is trans.’ When people have points of reference that are humanising, that demystifies difference.”
“The Transgender Tipping Point” was a phrase, Jude Ellison S. Doyle noted for Xtra Magazine on the cover’s 10th anniversary, that quickly became ubiquitous across the media, with – often more than not cis – academics and cultural commentators alike pointing to the piece as an example of a paradigm shift on trans visibility and representation in public life.
But, as many more have since pointed out, the catch-all-ness of the phrase is oversimplified and ignores the intersectional struggles and delicate nuances of trans people’s lives that go far beyond ‘being visible’. It also became somewhat of an ironic joke between trans folks who had to wake up the day after that edition of TIME hit the shelves go about their lives, this supposed-watershed moment of greater visibility not helping them pay their bills, access gender-affirming care or walk through the streets without fear.
“If trans people have ‘tipped’ in any direction, it’s backward,” Doyle wrote.
For activist Raquel Willis, co-founder of the Gender Liberation Movementalongside Eliel Cruz, the fight for trans rights and universal bodily autonomy has to move past the visibility era to be truly impactful.
“This idea of simply using visibility as a means to bring about the kind of culture and society that’s going to receive trans folks with the respects that we deserve is over,” she told PinkNews, “and so we have to be thinking in new ways about how to protect ourselves, our voices, our histories and our brilliance without relying on a lot of the institutions that have really pushed the visibility vehicle.”
You may like to watch
Speaking exclusively with PinkNews, Willis and Cruz discussed the organisation, intersectionality and the need for radical defiance in a second Trump presidency.
Activists with the Gender Liberation Movement protest in the House Cannon building, including Chelsea Manning (bottom right) and Racquel Willis (bottom left), on December 5, 2024 in Washington, DC. (Maansi Srivastava for The Washington Post via Getty Images)
The Gender Liberation Movement (GLM) describes itself as an “emergent and innovative grassroots and volunteer-run national collective that builds direct action, media, and policy interventions centering bodily autonomy, self-determination, the pursuit of fulfilment, and collectivism in the face of gender-based sociopolitical threats”.
Mace, a Republican representative from South Carolina, admitted her proposal to ban trans folks from spaces such as bathrooms and changing rooms on Capitol Hill which match their gender was put forth solely in response to Democrat Sarah McBride joining Congress as the first out trans person.
McBride condemned the move as a “blatant attempt from right-wing extremists to distract from the fact that they have no real solutions to what Americans are facing”.
“Half of us went in understanding that we were facing arrest in order to really send a message, particularly because some elected leaders, even some people potentially in the movement spaces, queer people, might see bathrooms as a side issue and not important,” Cruz said.
“But we see bathrooms as the inroad for a larger anti-trans project to eliminate trans people from public spaces and so this was important for us to say, ‘this is the line’ and we’re not allowing this to move forward without a response.”
In a bathroom that was located close to Mace’s office, the protesters held a banner that read “flush bathroom bigotry” and chanted “Speaker Johnson, Nancy Mace, our gender is no debate” and “Democrats, grow a spine! Trans rights are on the line!”, calling out the Dems lacklustre criticism of Mace’s proposal in the wake of their party’s defeat to Donald Trump’s MAGA 2.0 campaign.
“It was really disappointing to see the lack of fight that […] Sarah McBride put forth with these attacks – understanding that she is coming into a new role in a historic way – but also understanding at some point we have to get beyond this idea of career politicians saving us,” Willis said.
“Let’s just be clear, I know for me, I would never be able to – as a Black trans woman – simply say that bathroom access is a ‘distraction’. I come from folks who experienced acutely Jim Crow in the US South and so for me, all of these attacks on our access to public spaces and navigating societies is rooted in a long fight for collective liberation within this country.”
Willis added she was concerned by the lack of support McBride was given by leading Democrats and “what kind of signal that sends to trans youth who are already fearful of the incoming Trump administration”.
A transgender rights supporter takes part in a rally outside of the U.S. Supreme Court as the court hears arguments in the US v. Skrmetti a case about Tennessee’s law banning gender-affirming care for minors and if it violates the Constitution’s equal protection guarantee on December 04, 2024 in Washington, DC. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
Prior to this moment of “radical defiance” – the phrase Willis uses to describe what is needed of protest and civil disobedience at this time – GLM had been fighting for the right to bodily autonomy for trans and cis folks alike; namely access to abortion and gender-affirming care. Having worked previously with those that organised the Brooklyn Liberation March and national Women’s March, in September the group led the first-ever Gender Liberation March in Washington D.C. and at the start of this year launched as an official national organisation to further its work.
Cruz said those involved were “collective” of “queer and trans creatives from nonprofit and advocacy world, as well as folks who are in the art world and fashion world”.
“We really started to think about what was needed in terms of bringing together a larger collective of folks fighting around bodily autonomy and self determination,” Willis said of formalising the organisation, “particularly thinking about the attacks on abortion access and the attacks on access to gender affirming care. That kind of led to this plan for our march in September and from there we realised that we needed this work to continue going on and needed to continue to be the glue between these various movements.”
For many, access to abortion and gender affirming care might be thought of as different social issues impacting distinctly different groups of people; things to campaign for separately but not together. This line of thinking is similar to how trans rights and women’s rights more widely are often framed by the right-wing press as in direct contrast with one another when instead they are not opposites sides of a coin but rather intricately intertwined.
New York Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez noted this in response to Mace’s bathroom ban, telling reporters in November that such restrictions endanger “all women and girls” because “people are going to want to check their private parts in suspecting who is trans and who is cis”.
“The idea that Nancy Mace wants little girls and women to drop trou in front of, who, an investigator, because she wants to suspect and point fingers at who she thinks is trans is disgusting. It is disgusting. And frankly, all it does is allow these Republicans to go around and bully any woman who isn’t wearing a skirt because they think she might not look woman enough,” AOC added.
The intersectionality between the two issues hence sits at the very core of the GLM’s mission because “many of the same forces and entities that are targeting access to abortion are also targeting access to gender affirming care”, Willis said.
Cruz explained: “In the United States, legal precedents are being used to try to pass one another. So these connections are already there in terms […] of those who are making these attacks and for us it was important to marry the different groups of people that people may not necessarily talk about in the same ways.
“Really bringing those connections together in a very intentional way.”
People gather outside the Lincoln Memorial for a People’s March rally in Washington, D.C., United States, on January 18, 2025. (Photo by Nathan Morris/NurPhoto via Getty Images)
Ahead of Trump’s return to the White House, Cruz said GLM has been having a number of internal conversations about what form their work will take but it is about “being a little bit nimble and prepared for preparing for the worst, and doing some safety planning and contingency planning”.
Cruz went on to say whilst “Trump is awful” and “put us through it the first four years” the Democrats have “not been the best” either, noting the fact Roe vs Wade fell under a Dem administration and just before Christmas president Joe Biden signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2025 which contained an anti-trans healthcare clause for children of members of the armed services.
“There’s a lot of catastrophising that we can think about under Trump and without remembering that we’ve kind of already been dealing with a lot, even underneath the Dem administration,” Cruz said.
“We really to lean on our history and our elders. We have been through really horrific eras before and we have gone through it. Our community knows how to build together and come together and keep each other safe.
“So [we] can look at the reality of what’s to come and also remember who we are and our roots and our background, and know that we will get through it together whatever may come.”
Willis echoed this, noting that “before you could simply be as open about who who you are and your identity” leaning on mutual aid networks was a vital resource.
“We have always had organisations, particularly on the grassroots local level, that have fed and housed and closed and safeguarded our people,” she explained.
“Somewhere along the way, we forgot that those entities are the lifeblood of our movement.
“So, it’s remembering that and also being willing to heal some of those past fissures between various parts of our movements and communities and embrace the fact that we’re going to need unlikely accomplices moving forward so we have to be letting go of some of this capitalistic ego around what work a group may own versus another.
Both are encouraging shareholders to vote against resolutions asking them to reevaluate their commitment to DEI. A shareholder resolution is a means by which those who hold stock in a company can seek to influence the company’s policies. Most are nonbinding and most do not receive a majority vote, as the bulk of shareholders usually vote among company lines. But if a resolution receives even 10 percent support, it’s hard for the company to ignore.
The Apple and Costco resolutions were both submitted by National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative think tank. Both cite the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, holding that race-based affirmative action in college admissions is unconstitutional. The Apple resolution also cites the high court’s 2024 ruling in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, which found that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating in transfer decisions even if the transfer didn’t cause great disadvantage.
The resolutions say that DEI programs pose financial and reputational risks to companies, noting that a white employee sued Starbucks for racial discrimination and won $25 million. DEI programs vary from company to company, but their generally promote inclusive practices for groups that have historically suffered discrimination, including people of color, LGBTQ+ people, and women.
“With 310,000 employees, Costco likely has at least 200,000 employees who are potentially victims of this type of illegal discrimination because they are white, Asian, male or straight,” the resolution to the retailing giant states. “Accordingly, even if only a fraction of those employees were to file suit, and only some of those prove successful, the cost to Costco could be tens of billions of dollars.” The Apple resolution doesn’t mention those groups, but it does go into the potential cost of lawsuits.
Apple, in its proxy statement (a document sent to shareholders ahead of the annual meeting), recommends a vote against the resolution because “the proposal is unnecessary as Apple already has a well-established compliance program and the proposal inappropriately attempts to restrict Apple’s ability to manage its own ordinary business operations, people and teams, and business strategies; and our Board and management maintain active oversight of legal and regulatory risks and compliance for our global business.”
“Apple is an equal opportunity employer and does not discriminate in recruiting, hiring, training, or promoting on any basis protected by law,” the statement continues. “Apple seeks to operate in compliance with applicable non-discrimination laws, both in the United States and in the many other jurisdictions in which we operate, and in that regard monitors and evolves its practices, policies, and goals as appropriate to address compliance risks. The proposal inappropriately seeks to micromanage the Company’s programs and policies by suggesting a specific means of legal compliance.”
Apple has a supplier diversity program, set up in 1993, which works with groups such as the National Minority Supplier Development Council and National Veterans Business Development Council, CNN reports. It also has a vice president of inclusion and diversity, a position established in 2017, and 67 employee groups called diversity network associations. The first of these dates from 1986. Apple’s CEO, Tim Cook, is gay (although he did donate personal funds, not company ones, to anti-LGBTQ+ President-elect Donald Trump’sinauguration).
“We are simply asking for a consideration,” Stefan Padfield, executive director of the NCPPR’s Free Enterprise Project, told CNN. “The proposal, if approved, would not automatically result in the abolishment of DEI.”
Costco’s directors, however, say this is the ultimate goal of such resolutions. “The proponent professes concern about legal and financial risks to the Company and its shareholders associated with the diversity initiatives,” the proxy statement reads. “The supporting statement demonstrates that it is the proponent and others that are responsible for inflicting burdens on companies with their challenges to longstanding diversity programs. The proponent’s broader agenda is not reducing risk for the Company but abolition of diversity initiatives.”
The NCPPR published a document called “Balancing the Boardroom” in 2022, Costco notes. It said CEOs and other corporate executives who are “woke” and “hard-left” are “inimical to the Republic and its blessings of liberty” and “committed to critical race theory and the socialist foundations of woke” or “shameless monsters who are willing to sacrifice our future for their comforts.”
“Our efforts at diversity, equity and inclusion remind and reinforce with everyone at our Company the importance of creating opportunities for all,” Costco’s statement says. “We believe that these efforts enhance our capacity to attract and retain employees who will help our business succeed. This capacity is critical because we owe our success to our now over 300,000 employees around the globe. … We believe that our diversity, equity and inclusion efforts are legally appropriate, and nothing in the proposal demonstrates otherwise.”
Costco’s annual shareholder meeting will be held January 23. Apple’s will be held February 25.
On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order titled, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.”1 Although the executive order sweeps broadly across many areas affecting transgender, nonbinary and intersex people, a central tenet of the directive is the redefinition of the word “sex” as applied across federal programs and services to refer only to biological characteristics “at conception,” and as unchangeable.2 Redefining “sex” is something the president attempted to do in his previous term,3 particularly in the context of sex discrimination in education under Title IX,4 and had committed to doing in his second term.5 As part of his “Agenda 47” for the next four years, President Trump has also committed to working with Congress to enact a sex definition statute.6 This policy brief explores the meaning of the executive order and the potential impact for transgender, nonbinary, and intersex people.
Understanding the Scope of the Executive Order
A key function of executive orders is political messaging.7 Executive orders can have practical impacts, but there are limits on what a president can do through this medium.8 Most importantly, an executive order must be supported by an authority the president derives from the Constitution or through an express delegation from Congress.9 Additionally, their implementation is often not immediate. This is because an executive order, much like President Biden’s 2021 order regarding the meaning of “sex” for federal nondiscrimination laws,10 often takes the form of a directive to federal agencies, each of which would have to conduct internal assessments and consider actions such as rulemaking.11 This is how President Trump’s order approaches the definition of “sex” for federal agency programs and agencies.12 Notably, however, agencies under the Trump administration may also take early steps by rescinding practices or interpretations in instances where formal rulemaking is not required13 or taking actions that may encounter fewer procedural constraints.14 The president cites his authority to “regulate the conduct of employees in the executive branch” to support the order.15
Defining “Sex”
There is no universal definition of the word “sex.” The term generally refers to a collection of reproductive, hormonal, anatomical, and genetic characteristics that are commonly grouped into categories of “male” and “female” based on reproductive function.16 However, social scientists and medical professionals have long understood sex and gender as complex and intertwined concepts.17 Moreover, there is substantial variation among sex characteristics themselves, such that even for non-transgender people, categorization in a strict male/ female binary based on sex characteristics at birth does not accurately describe many Americans, such as intersex people.18 For decades, courts have recognized that given the complicated ways that “sex” manifests in society, statutes protecting against “sex” discrimination should be understood to apply to sex stereotyping,19 sexual orientation, and gender identity.20 This understanding was formally adopted into many areas of law under the Biden administration,21 which President Trump now seeks to undo. In response to what he describes as “gender ideology,” President Trump’s order lays out a sweeping redefinition of the term “sex” across many parameters of federal government that is based on a narrow subset of reproductive characteristics:
(d) “Female” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell.
(e) “Male” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell.22
The definition explicitly excludes gender, gender identity, and any other characteristics.23 The order also includes a directive to the Department of Health and Human Services to produce a standard, government-wide definition within 30 days.24
The Impact on Transgender, Nonbinary, and Intersex People
President Trump’s executive order has the potential to affect a broad range of people, including:
Transgender people. Approximately 1.6 million individuals, or 0.6% of the U.S. population aged 13 and older, identify as transgender.25 This includes 300,100 youth aged 13 to 17 who identify as transgender.
Nonbinary people. Approximately 1.2 million LGBTQ adults identify as nonbinary in the U.S.—11% of all LGBTQ adults.26
Intersex people. Intersex refers to people whose sex characteristics do not fall into the typical binary categories of male and female.27 Although data are limited and further research is needed to better understand the size of the intersex population in the U.S., the best estimate to date is that intersex people comprise approximately 1.7% of the population.28 Using this estimate, the Department of Health and Human Services under President Biden estimated that as many as 5 million people in the U.S. may be intersex.29
Although the full impact of an order defining sex—or a statute to the same effect—is difficult to determine, there are a few areas of federal policy where President Trump’s executive order is clearly directed. These include nondiscrimination statutes, federally issued identity documents, prisons, and other sex-separated spaces.
Nondiscrimination laws. The President has instructed agencies to review “laws governing sex-based rights, protections, opportunities, and accommodations” to ensure they “protect men and women as biologically distinct sexes.”30 This includes a directive to the Attorney General to “immediately issue guidance to correct” what is described as a “misapplication of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020)” to allow transgender people to participate in sex-separated spaces based on gender identity.31
Many statutes enforced by federal agencies protect against sex discrimination—this includes Title VII,32 Title IX,33 Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act,34 the Fair Housing Act,35 and even laws such as the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (as amended).36
Early in his presidency, President Biden ordered federal agencies to evaluate whether these statutes should be interpreted to apply to sexual orientation and gender identity in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County.37 Many agencies complied by issuing memoranda,38 interpretations,39 guidance,40 and new regulations.41
The new administration seeks to reverse these interpretive documents and formally redefine these laws to exclude coverage for gender identity (and likely sexual orientation). The executive order also consistently emphasizes the administration’s assertion that nondiscrimination laws do not permit transgender people to access sex-separated spaces based on gender identity.
However, there are barriers that may slow down or block the implementation of these changes. For example, formal rulemaking procedures would be required to make longstanding changes to the definition of sex under these statutes, and the way that definition is enforced.42 It is also important to note that many nondiscrimination laws have been interpreted by courts to protect LGBT people,43 including access to gender-affirming bathrooms,44 and the administration’s actions cannot automatically undo those protections. Additionally, many states offer protections against discrimination in areas such as housing,45 employment,46 and public accommodations.47
Identity documents. President Trump’s executive order addresses sex designations on federal identification documents, including passports and Global Entry cards.48
Passports. The federal government issues several forms of identity documents, including passports through the Department of State.49 Under President Biden, Department of State policy permitted passports to be changed upon request, allowing M, F, and X designations.50 President Trump’s executive order requires that passports “accurately reflect the holder’s sex,” as defined in the order. However, implementation of this policy would need to be determined by the Department of State, and it is yet to be seen how the agency would address the needs of transgender, nonbinary, and intersex people in light of this order. For example, the Department of State could seek to recategorize passports with X designations, revoke such passports, or honor currently existing passports for transgender, nonbinary, and intersex people while imposing new requirements for gender markers on passports in future applications or renewals.
Federal prisons. The executive order directly addresses the placement of transgender women in prison, ordering that they be placed based on biological characteristics at birth rather than gender identity and denying gender-affirming health care.51
The Federal Bureau of Prisons estimates that in January 2025, there were 1,538 transgender women and 750 transgender men in federal prisons.52
Under President Biden, policy guidelines permitted consideration of requests made by incarcerated transgender people to be placed based on gender identity and receive appropriate health care.53 This practice was also consistent with longstanding guidelines to prevent prison sexual abuse.54 President Trump’s order seeks to prohibit transgender prisoners from being held in facilities based on gender identity and prevent federal funding from being used for the provision of gender-affirming care in prisons.55
Notably, the Supreme Court has established that federal prison officials have an obligation not to act with “deliberate indifference” to the health and safety of transgender prisoners,56 which could be a barrier to the success of President Trump’s policy goal. Additionally, state laws and court decisions regarding access to health care in prisons may also serve as a barrier.57
Sex-separated spaces. The order requires that sex-separated spaces, such as homeless shelters and intimate partner violence shelters,58 or “intimate spaces designated for women, girls or females (or for men, boys or males)” funded or operated by the federal government “are designated by sex and not identity.”0
Transgender people are disproportionately likely to experience homelessness. For example, a 2020 study found that 8% of transgender adults reported experiencing homelessness in the past year, compared to 3% of non-transgender LGB people and 1% of cisgender, heterosexual adults.60 Research also shows that transgender people already face substantial barriers to accessing emergency shelters, including denial of shelter access or mistreatment inside of a shelter.61
Studies have also found that transgender people face higher rates of intimate partner violence, compared to cisgender individuals.62
President Trump previously attempted to enact a rule that would bar transgender women from women’s shelters; however, that rule was quickly rolled back by the Biden administration before implementation.63The Biden administration has maintained that transgender people should be able to access federally funded emergency shelters based on gender identity.64 President Trump’s directive would reverse that yet again.
The broad language of the executive order could extend to any space that received federal funding and is sex-separated, particularly where individuals must change clothes or shower.
In addition to the specific areas targeted above, President Trump’s executive order broadly demands that the term “sex” be redefined across the federal government, including in forms, policies, and for the purposes of federal funding.65 This could impact several additional areas, such as bathrooms, sports participation, health care, data collection, and research.
Bathrooms. Although bathrooms are not specifically named in the executive order, they appear to be a primary focus. The order’s purpose statement focuses on countering policies that “permit men to self-identify as women and gain access to intimate single-sex spaces and activities designed for women.”66 The order consistently reiterates a commitment to restricting single-sex spaces based on biological distinctions, which suggests that bathrooms will be a fixture of policies enacted under the order. Most directly, the order may result in restriction of bathroom access in federal government properties based on sex assigned at birth, something that President Trump has said he intends to do.67 Congress has already enacted such a restriction in Congressional buildings.0 This could also extend to other sex-separated spaces that are bathroom-adjacent, such as showers, which are addressed in the executive order,69 and locker rooms. In light of the order’s reference to use of federal funding, it is possible that the executive order could have impacts beyond federal buildings and workplaces, but that is yet to be determined.70 However, bathrooms and other government facilities are largely governed by state and local laws rather than federal laws,71 although it is possible that the federal government could attach funding restrictions regarding bathrooms to entities such as schools that receive federal funding.
Sports participation. The executive order does not directly address participation in sports. However, the President’s order addresses the federal statutes and interpretations that apply to sports participation, such as Title IX, as well as “intimate spaces” which would likely include changing rooms. Nonetheless, changing the regulations themselves will require formal rulemaking, because existing regulations are in place which define sex in a transgender-inclusive manner for educational programs and services (although they are subject to injunctions).72 Furthermore, it is possible that a federal sports ban may come from Congress in coordination with federal executive efforts.73
Health care. Outside of the context of federal prisons, the executive order does not address health care specifically, though it does so indirectly through its requirement that agencies rescind LGBTQ-inclusive interpretations of sex discrimination statutes and federal funding requirements.74 The Biden administration had consistently understood health nondiscrimination requirements to apply to gender identity and gender-affirming care, and that these interpretations applied to grantees.75 Although the full consequences of the executive order’s directives will be subject to procedural requirements and litigation, it is possible that funding for some health care could be disrupted or otherwise affected by policies outlined in the executive order.
Data collection and research. President Trump’s order mandates that “agency forms that require an individual’s sex shall list male or female, and shall not request gender identity.”76 If implemented, this could make it difficult for transgender people to self-report on government forms and nearly impossible for researchers to make observations about transgender experiences using those data. The order also prohibits funds from being used to “promote gender ideology.”77 “Gender ideology” is defined broadly in the order in such a manner as to prohibit the recording of “sex” based on any factor other than reproductive biology at birth.78Currently, federal data allow insights into transgender populations,79 and the federal government also funds research into transgender experiences.80 While the full consequences of this policy for research using gender identity data remains to be seen, this aspect of the order could result in severe restrictions on the ability of researchers to study and understand disparities, service utilization, and other experiences of transgender people.
Regardless of what actions are taken, the implementation of this order is likely to come unevenly—for example, a bathroom ban for federal buildings or employees may be possible to implement quicker if it is found to be feasible to implement without rulemaking, whereas many of the changes described above would require agencies to take actions such as formal rulemaking.81 Many of the provisions of this order, or the corresponding agency actions, will likely also face substantial litigation.82
Health Impacts of Sex Definition Laws
In addition to the direct impacts of discrimination that may be treated as lawful under the Trump administration, a “sex” definition order could also have other downstream effects. For example, regardless of other outcomes, it is likely that there will be effects on the mental health and well-being of LGBTQ people, especially transgender, nonbinary, and intersex people most directly impacted by these policies. Research shows that anti-LGBTQ policies increase negative mental health outcomes for transgender people83 and that affirming policies, such as the ability to obtain affirming identity documents, positively influence the well-being of transgender people.84
Conclusion
President Trump’s attempt to redefine the word “sex” for the purposes of federal law to narrowly refer to certain reproductive characteristics could have a range of consequences. While the actual details and realities of implementation will take some time to understand, research shows that efforts such as these can negatively impact the mental health of transgender people. However, it is likely that the process of implementing the directives will be subject to federal procedural constraints, which means that most efforts will not be effective immediately. Furthermore, these actions will almost certainly be subject to extensive litigation, which means that the ultimate outcome is difficult to predict.
The United States’ first Black and gay professional tennis player isn’t letting her identity define her, even as it changes. After starring in her own reality show and competing in the ITF World Tennis Tour, Johnson is now focused on giving back to her community through private tennis clinics catering to underrepresented groups.
“People are either going to support you or not,” Johnson tells The Advocate. “So, you need to know what your journey is, and whatever you need to do to make yourself feel comfortable, you need to do that as long as you’re not hurting anyone.”
Johnson made history in 2020 when she came out as gay while playing professionally. She made waves again a few years later by coming out as nonbinary, and has since fully realized her identity as a trans-femme person. Though it’s been an uphill battle, it’s one that the athlete takes great pride in.
Johnson’s journey was partially documented in the reality series about her life, Deuces and Love. When you have a television show about your life, “you just have to get used to people being in your business and talking good and bad about you,” Johnson says, though she adds that she’s “definitely at the level of fame where I’m comfortable at.”
“I really felt that it was important to show my story just because of me being a double minority,” she says. “There isn’t really anyone out there right now [publicly] going through what I’m going through.”
This is especially true in the world of professional tennis, where Johnson says “there’s always a white male that I have to go through to.” In New York, where Johnson is based, it’s also especially “expensive to even get tennis lessons.”
That’s why Johnson has launched her own tennis club that offers private and group lessons for all levels. The sessions are priced at an affordable rate, but for those who “can’t afford a private lesson or other classes, we usually help them out.” Johnson explains that “we typically do a sliding scale for queer people and people of color.”
“Tennis is a very elusive sport,” Johnson says. “I wanted to create a tennis club that offered tennis lessons in a fun, relaxed environment and also an affordable price as well.”
Johnson actively seeks to help LGBTQ+ get involved in sports at a time when transgender people are being banned from sports that align with their gender identity. Donald Trump, U.S. president, recently signed an executive order that specifically banned trans women from women’s sports.
While ITF rules would allow Johnson to compete in the women’s category after spending at least four years on hormone replacement therapy, Johnson said that she is content to stay where she is for the sake of her career. She even celebrates being the “first trans-femme to play professional tennis on the men’s tour.”
“Right now I want to continue to represent my country how I started,” she says. “I’m still going to be representing America as a black gay athlete. … I’m the first gay black tennis player. Whether I transition or not, that’s still a part of me. I don’t want that to get taken away.”
Still, Johnson intends to use her platform to continue speaking out for underrepresented communities, as she believes now more than ever “we need to come together.” She’ll be hosting an ongoing anti-racism tennis clinic throughout February in honor of Black History Month in an effort to educate athletes about the disparities minority groups face in sports.
“Words have power. In this day and age, athletes have power,” Johnson says. “Athletes have the power to change the world, because the spotlight’s on us whether we’re winning or losing on the court. We have that mic and we can talk about whatever we want to talk about, and people are going to listen to us whether they like us or not.”
The first large-scale study on the experiences of autistic transgender people finds that they are more likely to have long-term mental and physical health conditions, including alarmingly high rates of self-harm, data from the Autism Research Center at Cambridge University shows.
Researchers found that these individuals also report experiencing lower quality health care than both autistic and non-autistic people whose gender identity matches their sex assigned at birth.
“These findings add to the growing body of evidence that many autistic people experience unacceptably poor mental health and are at a very high risk of suicide-related behaviors. We need to consider how other aspects of identity, including gender, influence these risks,” said Dr. Elizabeth Weir, a postdoctoral scientist at the Autism Research Center, and one of the lead researchers of the study.
The report is a follow-up to 2020 research from Cambridge that found transgender people are more likely to be autistic and have higher levels of autistic traits than other people. Several studies have corroborated that finding in the interim and show autistic people are more likely to experience gender dysphoria than the general population.
Results from the 2020 study were based on responses from over 640,000 people. The new research, published in Molecular Autism, compared the experiences of 174 autistic transgender individuals, 1,094 autistic cisgender individuals, and 1,295 non-autistic cisgender individuals.
Compared to non-autistic cisgender individuals, autistic transgender people were three to 11 times more likely to report anxiety, “shutdowns” and “meltdowns” related to common healthcare experiences.
Transgender/gender-diverse autistic adults were 2.3 times more likely to report a physical health condition and 10.9 times more likely to report a mental health condition compared to cisgender non-autistic adults.
Only one in ten autistic transgender adults agreed with the statements: 1) They understood what their health care professional meant when discussing their health; 2) They knew what was expected of them when seeing a health care professional; and 3) They were able to describe how bad their pain felt.
The study also confirmed the reasoning behind the recognition of autistic people as a priority group in the U.K. Department of Health and Social Care’s “Suicide prevention strategy for England: 2023 to 2028”: compared to people who are non-autistic and cisgender, autistic transgender people are 5.8 times more likely to report self-harm, just above the equally alarming rate of 4.6 times for autistic cisgender individuals.
“We need to consider how to adapt health care systems and individual care to meet the needs of autistic transgender/gender diverse people,” said Prof. Sir Simon Baron-Cohen, Director of the Autism Research Center and a member of the research team. “Policymakers, clinicians, and researchers should work collaboratively with autistic people to improve existing systems and reduce barriers to health care.”
“Greater recognition of challenges and reasonable adjustments are essential for people with marginalized, intersectional identities in clinical practice,” the study concluded.
I have a message to anyone who voted for Donald Trump, particularly those who thought he’d lower their food and gas bills, or those who questioned whether Kamala Harris was a good candidate: your stupidity is revolting. You deserve all the tyranny that is about to befall you — and unfortunately, the rest of us who heeded the waterfall of warnings about Trump and voted for Harris.
I’m laughing about how obtuse Trump voters were about him “lowering prices” while telling them about increasing tariffs. Practically every economist in the world warned that prices would rise if Trump imposed new tariffs. Mark Cuban told me the same thing when I talked to him before the election.
But no, Trump voters would prefer to believe a reality star who lies, lies lies, versus someone like Cuban who oozes common sense. Trump just instituted new and shameful tariffs on our neighbors Canada and Mexico, and our adversary China. Wait till Trump voters see what happens to their grocery bill. Stupid is as stupid does.
Because of what’s happening — all the tremendous destruction of our economy, liberties, and values — there is no such thing as “coming together” or “healing a divided nation.” “Healing” was part of a package of blatant lies Trump told on the campaign trail.
I may have been wrong about Harris winning, but I’ve been 100 percent right about the disaster that would occur if Trump won. I said America’s “better angels” would prevail and elevate Harris. That didn’t happen. Instead, the doltishness of America’s devils made the sadistic Trump president, and I’m damn mad about it.
The anger has been prevalent on my social platforms, from friends and followers who are up in arms about the horror Trump is creating. And, on the flip side, the abject incomprehension of others who are trying to explain away his behavior. A first-cousin who shared a post from a random account that said Trump renaming the Gulf of Mexico, and trying to take Greenland and Canada were based on international laws, not his egomania. Seriously?
I don’t have the tolerance anymore to hear this b*lls**t. I have no room — at all — for anyone who defends this monster.
Now, Trump claims to have a “mandate.” He won by one of the smallest margins in history. So it’s those voters, who only looked out for themselves by voting for Trump, who are to blame for the catastrophe and dismay that we find ourselves mired in.
To those who voted for Trump: I implore you to take a hard look at what your decision has wrought in just the first two weeks of his new term. The consequences are not hypothetical any longer. They are already unfolding around us, and they are devastating. If you cast your ballot for this man, you have tied your name to the unraveling of democracy, the degradation of civil rights, and the abandonment of fundamental decency.
Consider what he has already done to the LGBTQ+ community. First, I wrote several columns last year about how he would seek to destroy the lives of queer Americans. I saw a harbinger of this hate when my best friend of 40 years, went on a tangent of vile hate against the LGBTQ+ community. His vomited insidious words about trans people, about our Pride month, about how children are being “forced to learn unnecessary things.”
Does all of this sound familiar now?
Within days of returning to power, mentions of LGBTQ+ Americans were scrubbed from White House and other federal websites. This isn’t just symbolic erasure. It signals a chilling intent to exclude millions of people from the fabric of this nation. When a government erases a group from its language, it begins the process of erasing them from its protections.
Trump and his ilk have gone hard against the trans community, and criminally, in my view, towards trans youth, including gender-affirming care and how they are treated in schools around the country that receive federal funds. The fallout from the harsh executive orders will harm, and tragically end, trans lives. There’s no denying this.
Trump’s dictator behavior has declared only two genders. If you are trans, your passport is no longer valid if it doesn’t indicate your gender assigned at birth. Government programs for HIV treatment for trans humans? Gone. The goal of wiping away trans people from society is in full effect, and guess who’s next?
LGB servicemembers will be banned from the military — it’s coming. And watch Trump and his faux Christian supporters try and take away marriage equality — it’s coming too.
And the cancellation of government DEI programs has been chilling, and the implications of ending these programs will spread far and wide. We’ve been getting hints of how they are already causing stinging disruption.
Again, I foreshadowed what happens when DEI programs become non-existent. Trump voters bark about “woke” but ignore the fact that if woke went away, racism would take its place. Trump inexplicably blamed the fatal plane and Black Hawk helicopter collision on DEI. Why? Because he knew that one of the pilots of the helicopter was a woman. What Trump was signaling when he pointed the finger at DEI was that only straight, cisgender, white men should be servicemembers.
This was validated on Friday when we reported that the Defense Secretary on Friday “signed an order that removed federal recognition of Pride Month, Black History Month, Holocaust Remembrance Day, and other cultural observances, cutting off decades of recognizing marginalized communities within the federal government.”
Meanwhile, Trump’s horrid and life-destroying immigration policies have become more brazen and brutal. His administration has introduced quotas for immigration round-ups, turning human lives into numbers on a spreadsheet. Families are being torn apart to meet these quotas, all in service of a xenophobic agenda masquerading as “law and order.”
They are planning to raid schools, churches homes, and private businesses. Schools? This is what you voted for: Trump’s thugs barraging into classrooms and terrifying children. Trump lackeys aren’t just seizing violent offenders. To date, a sizable number of those who have been rounded up have no criminal records. The administration is on the precipice of destroying lives, homes, and communities all over the U.S.
And speaking of “law and order,” Trump has undermined it at every turn. He released 1,500 January 6 convicts back into society, many of whom seemed not repentant but emboldened, ready to exact violent retribution on his behalf. They know they will be pardoned for any crimes they commit.
The Justice Department, once a cornerstone of accountability, is being gutted. Career professionals have been fired en masse, leaving a vacuum where impartiality and fairness once resided. Civil rights litigation has been frozen, sending a clear message: This administration does not value justice, especially not for the marginalized. And FBI agents are going to be fired en masse.
And as if to underscore the chaos, Trump’s appointment of a drunk and accused serial sexual abuser as Defense secretary reveals the moral rot at the core of this administration. This isn’t governance; it’s a dystopian nightmare unfolding in real time.
There’s so much more that he’s done that is in the fine print and that will also have severe ramifications. And there are things he hasn’t yet done that will haunt and spook us probably more so than right now.
To those who voted for Trump, do you understand the weight of what you’ve done? Your vote was not an abstract exercise. It was a choice that has unleashed a torrent of destruction. For those of us who didn’t vote for him, we are now left grappling with the fallout of your decision.
If you’re not ashamed, you should be. And if you are, it’s time to step up and speak out because this country is careening toward autocracy, and silence is complicity. We are on the brink of hell, metaphorically and perhaps literally, and if you don’t recognize that now, you will when the flames start to lick at your own feet.
The time to save America is quickly slipping through our fingers. If you voted for Trump, ask yourself: Will you be proud to tell your children what you did? When immigrants start dying, when people in lower economic countries start dying, when immigrant children are imprisoned — and die, when those with chronic health problems feel the effects of disruptions in their treatments, will you feel culpable? Will you have blood on your hands?
Or will you live with the guilt of having stood on the wrong side of history, watching as everything crumbles and America becomes even less than one of Trump’s so-called “shithole” countries. What he’s done will take years — decades — to correct, and he’s only just begun.
If you didn’t vote for him, and you’re angry, shocked, frightened, and mortified by Trump’s actions, and you’re looking for someone — anyone — to be angry with, you can start with those who voted for this monster. Your anger toward anyone who voted for Trump is more than justified.
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.
LGBTQ activists in New Jersey say they’re fortunate to live in New Jersey as the new administration kicks-off its term by attacking the transgender community and diversity initiatives. Advocates at Garden State Equality say New Jersey sets a standard for legal equality that can inspire states throughout the country.
As part of its education and advocacy “Going Local” programming across the country, the GLAAD Media Institute (GMI) – GLAAD’s training, research and consulting division – convened meetings with local leaders and community advocates at Garden State Equality and throughout the nation. Attendees who complete a program or session with the GLAAD Media Institute are immediately deemed GLAAD Media Institute Alumni, who are equipped to maximize community impact by leveraging their own story for culture change.
The state is known for its tough pro-equality laws like New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), which is considered one of the most comprehensive anti-discrimination laws in the country. Yet, new laws in the state legislature help combat a rise of LGBTQ disinformation and hate speech, straight out of Project 2025. The anti-LGBTQ hate machine has affected dozens of Jersey school board’s policies on book bans, critical race theory, and sex education.
Main Street, home to Garden State Equality Headquarters; photo by Lana Leonard
Since Garden State Equality’s founding in 2004, over “230 LGBTQ civil rights laws” have been enacted at the state, county, and local levels. According to the organization’s website, that’s “more laws in less time than in any other state in American history.”
On a federal level, President Trump began his second term signing executive orders to dispute the fact that transgender and gender diverse people exist. On Trump’s first days in office he signed an executive order titled Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government. The order is used to delegitimize trans truth, history, and science, which promptly raised concerns over a federal ban of the “x” gender marker for people of nonbinary, trans or gender nonconforming experience in the United States.
“As of today, it will henceforth be the official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders, male and female,” President Trump incorrectly said upon signing the order.
Garden State Equality says they’re ready to resist these efforts by the current administration, and continue to encourage diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, while uplifting best practices for LGBTQ youth and adult community members as they have within their state government, says advocates.
“We want our youth to understand that they don’t just live in a bubble here in New Jersey, that the work that they are doing to be activists here in our state is going to influence other states and other students across the nation,” Natalie Hernandez told GLAAD.
Natalie Hernandez, camp director and project manager & trainer; Screenshot by Lana Leonard
Hernandez is the Camp Director of Garden State Equality’s Changemakers Youth Leadership summer program. Empowering youth leaders helps inform the work of other departments and so forth, it’s a collaborative effort to fight for legal equality for the state organization.
Hime Sarah Thomas, project manager and trainer with the Education and Youth Development Department, grew up in a queer family who introduced Thomas to Garden State Equality through the Changemakers Youth Leadership summer program. Thomas works to encourage youth to become “changemakers” by giving them an outlet to express their frustrations, and amplify their voices.
Only a small number of youth actually transition: less than one-tenth of one percent of teenagers with private insurance in the United States are transgender and receive gender-related medicine, according to a study by JAMA Pediatrics.
“These youth need a space where they can talk about all the things that are happening in the news and the world because they don’t have the autonomy to be able to vote and make those choices on who is representing them,” Thomas said.
For Aisling MacDonald, a project manager for the organization’s Training and Trans Resiliency Program, which advocates for the wellness of transgender and gender nonconforming adults and families moving into New Jersey for their LGBTQ protections.
“Our world is ever evolving. There are some very legitimate anxieties, and also… we are really, really fortunate to live here,” MacDonald said.
MacDonald spends much of her day building coalition relationships and legal resources for name changes and documents for trans people who have been under attack on social media, through legislation, and the news.
Hime Sarah Thomas, project manager & trainer; Screenshot by Lana Leonard
“My experience as a woman of trans experience who is from some very particular demographics, and a very particular flavor of multiple marginalizations, is that we do not have a lot of trust for systems, institutions and legislators, especially,” MacDonald said. “And I think more than anything else in 2025 we have an opportunity to build a different kind of community.”
These insights into the LGBTQ community of Asbury Park lead into a larger narrative about community needs in New Jersey and beyond. Even still, Garden State Equality recognizes that there are hurdles that must still be overcome.
More about the GLAAD Media Institute: The GLAAD Media Institute provides training, consultation, and actionable research to develop an army of social justice ambassadors for all marginalized communities to champion acceptance and amplify media impact. Using the best practices, tools, and techniques we’ve perfected over the past 30 years, the GLAAD Media Institute turns education into armor for today’s culture war—transforming individuals into compelling storytellers, media-savvy navigators, and mighty ambassadors whose voices break through the noise and incite real change. Activate with the GLAAD Media Institute now at glaad.org/institute
Since coming into office, Trump and his Republican allies have moved swiftly to enact their shared radical agenda-one that centers around a mass political upheaval of our democracy and institutions with the goal of authoritarian control.
In that context, Trump’s pardon of 1,500 January 6th insurrectionists and right-wing paramilitary leaders Enrico Tarrio and Stewart Rhodes have set free insurgents who posed the single largest threat to democracy in the U.S. since 1861. Their get-out jail-free card wasn’t just about Trump appeasing his voters. It set loose the shock troops to force the MAGA agenda on the country through extralegal means and solidify the GOP alliance with these extremists at every level of government.
These goals clearly present a danger to our society, especially vulnerable communities. Most susceptible are transgender people, a particular group in their cross-hairs. With the rise of anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment overall, and transphobia specifically, trans-Americans are an affinity point for these militia members and politicians, linking their shared goal of upheaval and anti-democratic destabilization.
The sad truth is that the country has already entered into a new era of political instability made possible by violence. According to Reuters, politically motivated acts of force are at a level not seen since the 1970s, driven by those on the far right. The events of January 6th were a turning point in this dramatic rise, and Trump’s subsequent pardons of those extremists have given their actions new legitimacy, putting lives at risk.
But we didn’t have to be this way. In fact, four years ago, after the public backlash and legal repercussions of January 6 became apparent, paramilitary groups were in a defensive crouch. The power of the national government forced them to reevaluate.
Yet they didn’t remain cowed for long, adapting their strategy to keep their movement alive. These groups retreated from the national landscape and redirected their efforts to cities and towns. Proud Boys Founder Gavin McInnes told me this “go local” strategy suited the organization.
A key galvanizing force for these more atomized efforts was a group of people they saw as vulnerable: queer and trans communities across the country.
Between 2021 and 2024, we saw hospitals end gender-affirming care after waves of bomb threats, protests of libraries with LGBTQ+ books, and the harassment of queer people at Pride events. These events have reached such a fever pitch that the FBI issued its first-ever domestic terrorism threat assessment for the LGBTQ+ community last year.
The numbers underscore why.
According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, there are now more hate groups on record than ever; in 2023 alone, nearly half of all the demonstrations of force by white power groups were organized to take aim at the LGBTQ+ community. But there is a particular part of the queer community singled out: drag entertainers, especially drag story hours. From June 2022 to May 2023, the Institute for Strategic Dialogue report recorded 203 incidents that targeted drag events across the U.S.
This upsurge in localized anti-LGBTQ+ violence did not occur in a vacuum.
Since 2021, there has been an explosion in anti-trans laws, with over half the states passing anti-trans legislation. 658 GOP-sponsored bills were introduced in 2024 alone, doubling 2023’s number, targeting trans kids and their families.
The fact that the Republican Party has transformed itself into an anti-trans party means that the local actions by militia groups in the wake of January 6 have found receptive compatriots in communities across the country.
As paramilitary groups targeted families attending drag storytimes, Republican lawmakers similarly targeted trans youth, solidifying a dangerous link between extremist violence and legislative oppression. What they both have in common is a shared ideology, part of the so-called “Great Replacement Theory,” which emphasizes the danger of gender fluidity to White Christian births.
Though outside of the mainstream, one only needs to look at the deeply red state of Idaho to see how this alignment is a full-fledged alliance. Organizations such as the Idaho Freedom Foundation, the most influential Republican think tank in the state, have collaborated openly with paramilitary groups to shift the state’s politics to be more extreme. Highly-rated IFF politicians have used gatherings like pride events in Coeur d’Alene to call out members of militia groups like Patriot Front, with help from social media accounts like Libs of TikTok, to protest. These flashpoints serve to intimidate citizens who oppose their agenda and to galvanize others in support of radical policies, such as a bill to legalize paramilitary groups across the state. With only a few weeks into 2025, politicians in Idaho are now moving to roll back LGBTQ+ marriage.
But this isn’t only about Idaho.
The state serves as a sort of petri dish for this mix of paramilitary groups, politicians, and local organizations that cement anti-trans ideology and overall extremism across the state. We are already seeing similar trends in Tennessee, Florida, and Texas, to name a few.
Trump’s campaign recognized the success of these on-the-ground shifts and saw an opportunity. That’s why they dropped nearly $250 million in anti-trans ads to devastating effect and harped on trans people at every turn. And it’s why, on the first day of his Administration, Trump targeted trans people with sweeping executive orders. Anti-trans ideology keeps Trump close to the voters whom he credits with giving him his margin of victory and with the extremist shock troops, as well as politicians vital to giving muscle to his agenda.
Added to this toxic mix is the fact that Trump’s FBI and Justice Department nominees are very likely to deprioritize combatting these groups, and the domestic terrorism threat that they pose – will likely only get worse.
The combination of pardons and political reassurances means that political violence in support of the Trump agenda is on the verge of surging – and it will be trans people who are targeted first.
Imara Jones is the creator of TransLash Media, a platform dedicated to telling trans stories to uplift, empower, and save trans lives. Like and follow Imara on Instagram at @imara_jones_.
Voices is dedicated to featuring a wide range of inspiring personal stories and impactful opinions from the LGBTQ+ and Allied community. Visit advocate.com/submit to learn more about submission guidelines. We welcome your thoughts and feedback on any of our stories. Email us at voices@equalpride.com. 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.
State does not force outing but may contribute to hostile school climate (see note beneath map) (4 states)
