A sweeping executive order that President Donald Trump issued on Monday bans the State Department from issuing passports with “X” gender markers.

Former Secretary of State Antony Blinken in June 2021 announced the State Department would begin to issue gender-neutral passports and documents for American citizens who were born overseas.

Dana Zzyym, an intersex U.S. Navy veteran who identifies as nonbinary, in 2015 filed a federal lawsuit against the State Department after it denied their application for a passport with an “X” gender marker. Zzyym in October 2021 received the first gender-neutral American passport.

The State Department policy took effect on April 11, 2022.

“The secretaries of State and Homeland Security, and the director of the Office of Personnel Management, shall implement changes to require that government-issued identification documents, including passports, visas, and Global Entry cards, accurately reflect the holder’s sex,” reads Trump’s executive order.

The gender marker is among the provisions contained within Trump’s executive order titled “Defending women from gender ideology extremism and restoring biological truth to the federal government.” Trump in his inaugural speech said the federal government’s “official policy” is “there are only two genders, male and female.”

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt on Tuesday told the NOTUS website the executive order is not retroactive and will not invalidate current passports with a gender-neutral gender marker.

“They can still apply to renew their passport — they just have to use their God-given sex, which was decided at birth,” said Leavitt. “Thanks to President Trump, it is now the official policy of the federal government that there are only two sexes — male and female.”

The Los Angeles Blade will have additional reporting on Trump’s executive orders and their impact on the LGBTQ+ community.

LGBTQ advocates have expressed alarm in recent weeks, as Meta has taken steps to undermine protections for queer youth and apparently worked to appease the incoming conservative administration in Washington.

Meta, the parent company of popular social media and messaging companies Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, is owned by Mark Zuckerberg, who was once considered to be an ally of the LGBTQ community.

Two weeks ago, the internet was afire with discussion of Liv, the now-deleted Instagram profile of a “proud black Queer momma of 2” AI made by Meta as part of its AI user dreams. 

Then, last week, independent tech journalist Taylor Lorenz revealed that Instagram had been blocking teens from searching LGBTQ-related content for months. 

This comes as no surprise to Celia Fisher, a professor of Psychology and the Marie Ward Doty University Chair in Ethics at Fordham University who has spent her career studying children and adolescent health, especially for marginalized groups like the LGBTQ community.

When speaking to the Washington Blade in November 2024 on TikTok, Fisher remarked that it was increasingly difficult to research the Meta platforms. Fisher and her team have used advertisements on social media to recruit youth for anonymous surveys for studies. “One of the advantages of social media is that you can reach a national audience,” she says.

The advertisements are specifically linked to keywords and popular celebrities to reach LGBTQ populations of youth.  When she spoke to the Bladeagain this week, she was not surprised to hear that keywords were being blocked from youth. “Now, there is a major barrier to being able to recruit when you are doing online studies.”

It makes her research—which has looked at the mental health of youth online, HIV prevention strategies, and COVID vaccine barriers—impossible. “If Meta prevents researchers from using the platform, then the research can’t be done,” she said. 

The search blocks are not just a threat to the research, they are a threat to youth. “Hiding those terms from youth means they can’t see that there is a community out there. That’s a tremendous loss, especially for transgender youth,” said Fisher.

Fisher suspects where the restrictions are coming from, not that Zuckerberg has been particularly opaque as he cozies up to the new administration. “I think there’s been a creeping fear on the part of companies not to do anything that might elicit the ire of more conservative politicians,” she said.

A Meta spokesperson told Lorenz that the restriction was a mistake. “It’s important to us that all communities feel safe and welcome on Meta apps, and we do not consider LGBTQ+ terms to be sensitive under our policies,” said the spokesperson.

Meta backtracked immediately; the next day the company removed longstanding anti-LGBTQ hate speech policies.

Zuckerberg announced large changes to the platform via video in which he sported a $900,000 watch. (More than 1 in 5 LGBTQ adults are living in poverty. More than 1 in 3 transgender adults are living in poverty.)

The changes, which eliminate independent fact-checking for a system similar to X’s “community notes,” have been highly critiqued by journalists and fact-checking organizations. Many experts see it as a “bow” to Trump.

Zuckerberg also noted that the platform would “remove restrictions on topics like immigration and gender that are out of touch with mainstream discourse.” He directly linked the changes to the recent election. 

Those changes happened quickly. That same day GLAAD, an LGBTQ media monitoring non-profit, reported the changes to the hateful conduct policies. Changes include allowances for calling LGBTQ people mentally ill and the removal of prohibitions against the dehumanization of protected groups, among many. Notably, Meta’s guidelines include the right-wing transphobic dog whistle “transgenderism.” 

On Jan. 9, reporting from The Intercept and Platformer on internal training documents revealed the use of even more slurs. The t-slur against transgender people is now allowed on the sites with no restrictions. Phrases like—and this is a quoted example—”A trans person isn’t a he or she, it’s an it” are allowed on the sites with no restrictions.

Notably, the training manuals differentiate between different members of the LGBTQ community. For example, The Intercept found that the phrase “Lesbians are so stupid” would be prohibited while “trans people are mentally ill” would not be.

(These training manuals also include permissive use of racist and dehumanizing language for other marginalized groups.)

And then, as a cherry on top, Meta removed DEI programs and deleted the transgender and non-binary Messenger themes, on Jan. 10.

These changes are undeniably bad. Arturo Béjar, a former engineering director at Meta with expertise in online harassment, told the Associated Press, he is horrified by the changes.

“I shudder to think what these changes will mean for our youth, Meta is abdicating their responsibility to safety, and we won’t know the impact of these changes because Meta refuses to be transparent about the harms teenagers experience, and they go to extraordinary lengths to dilute or stop legislation that could help,” he said. 

Fisher, who has researched the effects of hate speech online on LGBTQ youths’ mental health, agrees that the results will be devastating. “We had many people who said they observed transgender harassment for others or were actually attacked themselves,” said Fisher. “This prevents people from wanting to come out online and to actually engage in those kinds of online communities that might be helpful to them.”

What is happening also confirms LGBTQ youths’ worst fears. “We’ve found that a major concern is that there would be an increased violation of civil rights and increased violence against LGBTQ individuals,” she said.

Fisher, a psychologist, sees this as “putting us back into the dark ages of psychiatry and psychology when LGBTQ individuals were seen as having some kind of a mental health problem or disorder.”

Fisher emphasized: “This kind of misinformation about mental illness is certainly going to be putting transgender people, especially at even greater risk than they were before.”

(This story is part of the Digital Equity Local Voices Fellowship lab through News is Out. The lab initiative is made possible with support from Comcast NBCUniversal.)

President Donald Trump, during his inaugural address on Monday, previewed some anti-trans executive orders he has pledged to sign, though it was not yet fully clear how and when they would be implemented.

“This week, I will also end the government policy of trying to socially engineer race and gender into every aspect of public and private life,” he said. “Today, it will henceforth be the official policy of the United States government, that there are only two genders, male and female.”

The president added, “I will sign an order to stop our warriors from being subjected to radical political theories and social experiments, while on duty. It’s going to end immediately.”

After taking the oath of office inside the U.S. Capitol building, Trump was expected to sign as many as 200 executive orders.

On issues of gender identity and LGBTQ rights, the 47th president was reportedly considering a range of moves, including banning trans student athletes from competing and excluding trans people from the U.S. Armed Forces.

NBC News reported on Monday, however, that senior officials with the new administration pointed to two forthcoming executive orders — the official recognition of only two genders, and “ending ‘radical and wasteful’ diversity, equity and inclusion programs inside federal agencies.”

With respect to the former, in practical terms it would mean walking back the Biden-Harris administration’s policy, beginning in 2022, of allowing U.S. citizens to select the “x” gender marker for their passports and other official documents.

“The order aims to require that the federal government use the term ‘sex’ instead of ‘gender,’ and directs the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security to ‘ensure that official government documents, including passports and visas, reflect sex accurately,'” according to NBC.

Additionally, though it was unclear what exactly this would mean, the first EO would take aim at the use of taxpayer funds for gender-transition healthcare, such as in correctional facilities.

The Human Rights Campaign in a press release Monday indicated that a “fulsome review of executive actions” is forthcoming, but the group’s President Kelley Robinson said, “Today, the Trump administration is expected to release a barrage of executive actions taking aim at the LGBTQ+ community instead of uniting our country and prioritizing the pressing issues the American people are facing.”  

“But make no mistake: these actions will not take effect immediately,” she said.

“Every person deserves to be treated with dignity and respect in all areas of their lives,” Robinson said. “No one should be subjected to ongoing discrimination, harassment and humiliation where they work, go to school, or access healthcare. But today’s expected executive actions targeting the LGBTQ+ community serve no other purpose than to hurt our families and our communities.”

She continued, “Our community has fought for decades to ensure that our relationships are respected at work, that our identities are accepted at school, and that our service is honored in the military. Any attack on our rights threatens the rights of any person who doesn’t fit into the narrow view of how they should look and act. The incoming administration is trying to divide our communities in the hope that we forget what makes us strong. But we refuse to back down or be intimidated.”

“We are not going anywhere. and we will fight back against these harmful provisions with everything we’ve got,” Robinson said.

The U.S. Senate on Monday confirmed U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) to become the next secretary of state.

The vote took place hours after President Donald Trump’s inauguration. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Monday advanced Rubio’s nomination before senators approved it by a 99-0 vote margin.

The promotion of LGBTQ+ and intersex rights abroad was a cornerstone of the Biden-Harris administration’s foreign policy.

Rubio in 2022 defended Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” law that Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed. The Florida Republican that year also voted against the Respect for Marriage Act that passed with bipartisan support.

Rubio during his Jan. 15 confirmation hearing did not speak about LGBTQ+ rights.

GLAAD has identified and catalogued LGBTQ+-inclusive content or references to HIV that appear on WhiteHouse.gov and the websites for several federal government agencies, anticipating that these pages might be deleted, archived, or otherwise changed shortly after the incoming administration takes over on Monday.

The organization found a total of 54 links on WhiteHouse.gov and provided the Washington Blade with a non-exhaustive list of the “major pages” on websites for the Departments of Defense (12), Justice (three), State (12), Education (15), Health and Human Services (10), and Labor (14), along with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (10).

The White House web pages compiled by GLAAD range from the transcript of a seven-minute speech delivered by President Joe Biden to mark the opening of the Stonewall National Monument Visitor Center to a readout of a roundtable with leaders in the LGBTQ+ and gun violence prevention movements and the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy’s 338-page FY2024 budget summary, which contains at least a dozen references to LGBTQ+-focused health equity initiatives and programs administered by agencies like the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

Just days after Trump took office in his first term, news outlets reported that LGBTQ+ related content had disappeared from WhiteHouse.gov and websites for multiple federal agencies.

Chad Griffin, who was then president of the Human Rights Campaign, accused the Trump-Pence administration of “systematically scrubbing the progress made for LGBTQ+ people from official websites,” raising specific objection to the State Department’s removal of an official apology for the Lavender Scare by the outgoing secretary, John Kerry, in January 2017.

Acknowledging the harm caused by the department’s dismissal of at least 1,000 employees for suspected homosexuality during the 1950s and 60s “set the right tone for the State Department, he said, adding, “It is outrageous that the new administration would attempt to erase from the record this historic apology for witch hunts that destroyed the lives of innocent Americans.”

In response to an inquiry from NBC News into why LGBTQ+ content was removed and whether the pages would return, a spokesperson said “As per standard practice, the secretary’s remarks have been archived.” However, NBC noted that “a search of the State Department’s website reveals not much else has changed.”

Parties in Doe v. Ladapo, a case challenging Florida’s ban on healthcare for transgender youth and restrictions on the medical interventions available to trans adults, presented oral arguments on Wednesday before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta.

The case was appealed by defendants representing the Sunshine State following a decision in June 2024 by Judge Robert Hinkle of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, who found “the law and rules unconstitutional and unenforceable on equal protection grounds,” according to a press release from the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which is involved in the litigation on behalf of the plaintiffs.

The district court additionally found the Florida healthcare ban unconstitutional on the grounds that it was “motivated by purposeful discrimination against transgender people,” though the ban and restrictions will remain in effect pending a decision by the appellate court.

Joining NCLR in the lawsuit are attorneys from GLAD Law, the Human Rights Campaign, Southern Legal Counsel, and the law firms Lowenstein Sandler and Jenner and Block.

“As a mother who simply wants to protect and love my child for who she is, I pray that the Eleventh Circuit will affirm the district court’s thoughtful and powerful order, restoring access to critical healthcare for all transgender Floridians,” plaintiff Jane Doe said. “No one should have to go through what my family has experienced.”

“As a transgender adult just trying to live my life and care for my family, it is so demeaning that the state of Florida thinks it’s their place to dictate my healthcare decisions,” said plaintiff Lucien Hamel.

“Members of the legislature have referred to the high quality healthcare I have received, which has allowed me to live authentically as myself, as ‘mutilation’ and ‘an abomination’ and have called the providers of this care ‘evil,’” Hamel added. “We hope the appellate court sees these rules and laws for what truly are: cruel.” 

“Transgender adults don’t need state officials looking over their shoulders, and families of transgender youth don’t need the government dictating how to raise their children,” said Shannon Minter, legal director of NCLR. “The district court heard the evidence and found that these restrictions are based on bias, not science. The court of appeals should affirm that judgment.” 

Noting Hinkle’s conclusion that the ban and restrictions were “motivated by animus, not science or evidence,” Simone Chris, who leads Southern Legal Counsel’s Transgender Rights Initiative, said, “The state has loudly and proudly enacted bans on transgender people accessing healthcare, using bathrooms, transgender teachers using their pronouns and titles, and a slough of other actions making it nearly impossible for transgender individuals to live in this state.”

Lowenstein Sandler Partner Thomas Redburn said, “The defendants have offered nothing on appeal that could serve as a valid basis for overturning that finding” by the district court.

“Not only does this dangerous law take away parents’ freedom to make responsible medical decisions for their child, it inserts the government into private health care matters that should be between adults and their providers,” said Jennifer Levi, senior director of transgender and queer rights at GLAD Law.

LGBTQ+ and civil rights advocacy groups and Democratic lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives denounced legislation passed on Tuesday by the Republican majority that would prohibit schools that receive federal education funding from allowing transgender students to participate in girls’ and women’s sports.

As the bill was brought to a vote, ultimately passing 218-206, Democrats slammed the measure in speeches on the House floor, statements from their congressional offices, and social media posts. Among them were the out LGBTQ+ leadership of the Congressional Equality Caucus and several allies who serve as vice-chairs.

Freshman U.S. Rep. Sarah McBride, the first transgender member of Congress, did not participate in the floor debate.

“Republicans are moving a bill that would ban transgender students of all ages from participating in sports and put all female athletes at risk for harassment and abuse,” U.S. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.), who is gay and chairs the Equality Caucus, said in a video on X.

“This sports ban opens the door to subjecting all female students to secret investigations, intrusive demands for medical tests, or reviews of their private medical information,” he said. “This bill is so vaguely written that it could force any girl to undergo invasive medical exams to ‘prove’ that they are a girl.”

The congressman continued, “This bill isn’t about equity. It isn’t about fairness. It is a weaponization of the federal government against a small group of people at the expense of privacy rights for all students.”

“It does nothing to address the real inequities that female athletes face,” Takano said, “and instead overrides the authority of interscholastic and intercollegiate sports federations, as well as athletic organizations.”

Instead of lowering costs, House Republicans are pushing an anti-trans sports bill that would threaten student athletes with intrusive exams and jeopardize the fairness and safety of female athletics. pic.twitter.com/zTqeprJYXj

— Mark Takano (@RepMarkTakano) January 14, 2025

Gay U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), who chaired the caucus in the previous Congress and now serves as a co-chair, said “No bill is before us to lower costs for Americans, instead it is a political attempt to divide us as a nation, stigmatizing some kids so some adults can get MAGA merit badges.

“The Republican governor of Utah vetoed a similar piece of legislation after he shared that of the 75,000 students in high school sports in Utah, only four were trans, and only one a girl playing sports. But he also mentioned the very real 86% of trans kids reporting suicidality due to issues like adults stigmatizing kids for political gain.

“Instead, today, the proposed solution is in search of an actual problem. Suggests we somehow ban girls from sports with some sort of process to determine who is a girl. Does this mean hiring potential predators to peek at the private parts of kids in locker rooms?

“Now that sounds like an actual problem to me, creating a solution to a non-existent problem by creating a problem instead of lowering costs for Americans as a sign of an ineffective congressional majority at best, I urge a no vote, and I yield back.”

The House GOP's trans sports ban would subject girls as young as four to invasive physical inspections of their private parts by adult strangers.

Yes, really.

Republicans should focus on lowering costs instead of a bill that puts ALL girls at risk. pic.twitter.com/O8uRj9OKpl

— Rep. Mark Pocan (@RepMarkPocan) January 14, 2025

U.S. Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.), a lesbian co-chair of the caucus who previously taught middle school history and social studies, delivered an impassioned floor speech, telling Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson (La.) “I rise in fierce opposition to this bill”:

“Trans Americans are not the problem. This obsession with monitoring kids’ genitals is absolutely the problem.

“Let’s be clear. This is about kids. My kids, your kids, all kids. All kids, even elementary school kids playing basketball. I’m a mom of two teens. I’m a former teacher. I know what kids are going through in school. They are already self-conscious about their bodies. They just want to be on the soccer field with their friends. They certainly do not want to be humiliated by members of Congress.

“So, come on, let’s talk about what enforcement looks like, because you guys, you don’t want to talk about it. We know there is only one logical conclusion to this. This is interrogation of young girls. About their bodies. This is asking people to show them what is underneath their underwear.”

“That is what we’re talking about. This is the logical conclusion for this bill. So, it’s vile. It’s twisted. They don’t want to talk about the details. It’s an absolute invasion of children’s privacy. Far from protecting anyone, it puts our children at risk. And actually, I urge colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject this government overreach.”

Banning trans kids from sports solves *none* of the problems that Americans are facing.

Let's be real: Trans kids aren't the reason we can't afford groceries. Trans kids aren't the reason young people are giving up on ever owning a home.

Corporate greed is. pic.twitter.com/sKRzm1DGTk

— Rep. Becca Balint (@RepBeccaB) January 14, 2025

Gay caucus co-chair U.S. Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) voiced his opposition to the bill in a post on X.

House Republicans brought up a bill designed to hurt trans youth and athletes and ban them from playing sports in schools. The real effect beyond that cruelty is it would allow gender checks on young girls and athletes. This was sick and shameful and I voted NO.

— Congressman Robert Garcia (@RepRobertGarcia) January 14, 2025

Other out LGBTQ+ Democratic co-chairs of the caucus spoke out from the House floor on Tuesday.

An especially comprehensive floor speech came from U.S. Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.), a caucus co-chair, who began her remarks by proclaiming that “the so-called Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act” will “actually do the opposite and make sports more dangerous for women and girls.” The congresswoman said:

“This bill is a ‘one size fits all’ approach that would apply equally to every sport from K-12 schools to colleges. Currently schools, parents, and communities manage youth sports leagues and write rules about who can participate in different sports at different levels. Many states, schools, and athletic associations across the country have allowed equal participation for transgender athletes for years and it’s working just fine. 

“This legislation would revoke all federal funding from schools that include transgender students on girls’ and women’s sports teams. This is damaging and discriminatory to transgender students, who benefit, as all students do, from participating in school sports, and also damaging to the entire school that’s threatened because federal funding benefits all students.

“Keep in mind, colleagues, that as of last month, of the approximately 510,000 athletes who play at the NCAA level — 10 are transgender.  Not 10,000. Ten. Out of 510,000. 

“Transgender students — like all students — they deserve the same opportunity as their peers to learn teamwork, to find belonging, and to grow into well-rounded adults through sports. Childhood and adolescence are important times for growth and development, and sports help students form healthy habits and develop strong social and emotional skills. Sports provide meaningful opportunities for kids to feel confident in themselves and learn valuable life lessons about teamwork, leadership, and communication. Teams provide a place for kids to make friends and build relationships.

“Yet my colleagues across the aisle want to take these opportunities away from certain children; that’s discriminatory and it’s wrong.

“My colleagues are apparently so afraid of people who are different from them that they’ve manufactured false and dangerous presumptions based on outdated stereotypes about transgender people, especially transgender women and girls.

“Additionally, there is no way this so called “protection” bill could be enforced without opening the door to harassment and privacy violations. It opens the door to inspection, not protection, of women and girls in sports. Will students have to undergo exams to “prove” they’re a girl? We are already seeing examples of harassment and questioning of girls who may not conform to stereotypical feminine roles; will they be subject to demands for medical tests and private information? That’s intrusive, offensive, and unacceptable, especially from a party of limited government.

“I want to be very clear, there are real problems harming women and girls in sports, but transgender students are not why. Today, we should be working to solve the real, pervasive problems in athletics that deter women and girls from participating, including sexual harassment and assault, lack of equal resources, and pay inequality.

“We should be working on those issues, and also on the issues that improve the lives of the people we represent back home, like increasing access to affordable health care and housing, lowering costs for everyday Americans, and fighting the climate crisis.

“But instead, here we are again. We’ve seen this time and time again—Republicans fearmonger about the trans community to divert attention from the fact that they have no real solutions to help everyday Americans with the pressing problems they face.

“We must not discriminate against kids because of who they are. Transgender youth already face high hurdles, and research shows that this type of discriminatory policy is associated with declines in mental health and higher suicide risk among already threatened LGBTQI+ youth. We don’t need adults in Congress making things worse.

“As Republican Governor Spencer Cox from Utah said in his veto statement of a similar bill, “When in doubt, however, I always try to err on the side of kindness, mercy, and compassion.”

“Republicans, who have voted consistently against the Violence Against Women Act, who have taken the rights of all women to have control over their own body, who as women are bleeding out in parking lots, now want to pretend today that they care about women,” U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D-N.Y.), a vice-chair of the caucus, said in a floor speech.

She continued, “And why? To open up genital inspection on little girls across this country in the name of attacking trans girls. We have two words. Not today.”

AOC: Republicans who have voted against consistently against the violence against women act, who have taken away the rights of all women to choose and have control over their own body, now wants to pretend today that they care about women. pic.twitter.com/7FRqELTrjV

— Acyn (@Acyn) January 14, 2025

These and other House Democrats began calling the legislation the “GOP Child Predator Empowerment Act” to highlight the risk that if it becomes law, the ban could lead to genital exams of minor student-athletes by adults and therefore might help facilitate child sexual abuse.

While the House Education Committee chair, U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.), said that birth certificates should be used to settle questions about students’ gender, the bill’s opponents said the absence of a workable enforcement mechanism leaves open a range of ways in which students’ bodies and privacy could be violated.

U.S. Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.), for instance, who is also a vice-chair, noted in her floor speech that “We have already seen an investigation like this” into a student’s gender “at a high school in Utah, and unsurprisingly, they targeted someone who wasn’t trans.”

She was referring to a case in Utah in 2022 that was kicked off when the parents of athletes who placed second and third in in a state level competition suspected the winner might be trans and filed a complaint the Utah High School Activities Association. Records showed her sex was listed as female since kindergarten.

Advocacy groups

“Just five days after Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed an anti-transgender sports ban in 2021, a cisgender girl faced brutal harassment from the sidelines at a lacrosse game simply because she had short hair,” the Human Rights Campaign wrote in a press release Tuesday that highlighted many of the same harms addressed by House Democrats who rose in objection to the bill.

“We all want sports to be fair, students to be safe, and young people to have the opportunity to participate alongside their peers,” HRC President Kelley Robinson said in a statement included in the release. “But this kind of blanket ban deprives kids of those things. This bill would expose young people to harassment and discrimination, emboldening people to question the gender of kids who don’t fit a narrow view of how they’re supposed to dress or look.

Robinson added, “It could even expose children to invasive, inappropriate questions and examinations. Participating in sports is about learning the values of teamwork, dedication, and perseverance. And for so many students, sports are about finding somewhere to belong.”

“We should want that for all kids — not partisan policies that make life harder for them,” she said.  

HRC also argued that excluding trans women and girls from competitive athletics, denying them the benefits to their physical and mental health that come with participating in sports, can cause tremendous harm since these students “face higher risk of anxiety, depression, and bullying” than their cisgender peers.

In Monday in advance of the debate and floor vote, 405 national and local civil rights, education, and gender justice organizations joined a letter issued on Monday by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights urging House lawmakers to reject the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act.

“Although the authors of the legislation represent themselves as serving the interests of cisgender girls and women, this legislation does not address the longstanding barriers all girls and women have faced in their pursuit of athletics,” the letter reads, in part. “Instead of providing for equal facilities, equipment, and travel, or any other strategy that women athletes have been pushing for for decades, the bill cynically veils an attack on transgender people as a question of athletics policy.”

“We are fortunate that transgender, nonbinary, and intersex people are present in our community, and we fully embrace them as members of our community,” the signatories wrote. “As organizations that care deeply about ending sex-based discrimination and ensuring equal educational opportunities, we support laws and policies that protect transgender people from discrimination, including full and equal participation in sports, access to gender-affirming care, access to school facilities, and access to inclusive curriculum. We firmly believe that an attack on transgender youth is an attack on civil rights.”

Along with HRC, which is the nation’s largest LGBTQ+ rights organization, other advocacy groups that signed the Leadership Conference’s letter also issued separate statements Tuesday following passage of the bill.

Among them was GLAAD, whose President and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis said “Legislators who voted today in favor of banning transgender girls from participating in school sports should be ashamed of themselves.”

“Right now, gun violence is the number one cause of death to American children, yet extremist lawmakers ignore this reality to push bills that further endanger and isolate LGBTQ youth who just want to be themselves and play with their friends.

“Legislators have an obligation to stand up for all, not just some, of their constituents. Allowing students to participate in sports is about equal opportunity, the ability to make friends and belong, and stay active, healthy and happy. Young transgender people should not have to watch lawmakers debate their basic humanity.

“Legislators must meet with transgender youth, their families, teammates, and coaches who would be harmed by this dangerous legislation; propose ways to protect all youth; and stop pushing anti-LGBTQ discrimination in a phony attempt to protect women and girls. Protect all kids and let them play.”

GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders (GLAD Law) Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi said, “It’s disgraceful to see the new Congress make one of its first priorities a sweeping bill that would deny transgender kids of any age the opportunity to play school sports and strip from them the many educational benefits sports provide.”

“Thoughtful policies can successfully balance fairness and inclusion in sports at multiple levels of competition, as local school districts and sports associations have done for many years,” she said. “We appreciate those in Congress who voted against this extreme bill and hope the Senate will recognize that blanket bans imposed by politicians don’t serve athletes, students, or sport.”

Despite the 53-vote GOP majority in the Senate, Republicans will need seven Democrats to support the sports ban for the bill to pass, which is unlikely. Still, President-elect Donald Trump promised to intervene with executive action, which would likely mean directing the U.S. Department of Education to investigate schools that allow trans women and girls to compete in sports for violations of federal law prohibiting sex-based discrimination.

He and the conservatives backing the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act believe athletes whose birth sex is female have actionable Title IX claims on the grounds that they are unfairly disadvantaged when competing against their transgender counterparts, even though the research on this question is mixed.

In a fundraising email, the LGBTQ Victory Fund denounced the effort by House Republicans to “rewrite Title IX, the federal civil rights law that prohibits sex discrimination in educational institutions,” adding that “The author of this hateful bill” U.S. Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.) “even went so far as to claim trans people and trans identities are made up, before launching into a transphobic rant!”

Speaking from the House floor on Tuesday, the GOP congressman said, “Our culture and civilization continue to be subject to the perverse lie that there are more than two genders or that men can be women and women can be men.”

Allison Scott, director of impact and innovation at the Campaign for Southern Equality, said: “The passage of HB28 by the U.S. House of Representatives is a cruel and unjust abuse of power that targets a very small number of young people who just want to play school sports with their friends.

“It’s appalling that one of the first priorities of this new Congress is to bully children with the weight of a federal law. I want to send a clear message to transgender young people and their families: No law can strip you of your inherent dignity and humanity, and we will never stop working alongside you and a huge community nationwide to ensure all people can live authentically and with joy.

“The Senate should do the right thing here, refuse to exclude and marginalize children, and reject this legislation.”

The U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday voted 218-206 to pass a bill that would ban transgender students from competing in girls’ and women’s sports in elementary school through college.

Fiery exchanges erupted on the House floor, with conservatives in many cases using anti-trans language and Democrats, including several openly LGBTQ+ members, arguing that the bill is harmful to children, discriminatory, and unnecessary.

The decision by House Republican leadership to bring the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act to the floor on just the second week in which the 119th Congress is in session signals the majority’s appetite for legislation targeting trans rights and the extent to which the issue will remain a major focus and priority for conservative leadership in the Capitol and, beginning next week, in the White House.

All Republicans who were present voted in favor of the bill, while all Democrats voted no — with the exception of two members representing swing districts in Texas, U.S. Reps. Henry Cuellar and Vicente Gonzalez.

Cuellar opposed the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act when it was introduced in 2023, explaining in a statement that he changed his position “based on the concerns and feedback he received from constituents.”

Gonzalez did not vote on the measure in 2023, but this year issued a statement explaining his support for the bill: “I believe that there should be rules to keep our sports fair and that boys should not play in girls sports,” the congressman said, using talking points that are popular among Republicans who often refer to trans women and girls as men and boys, whether for purposes of insulting them or because they refuse to acknowledge or choose to deny the existence of gender diverse people.

“Members of Congress must have the freedom to vote in a manner representative of their district,” Gonzalez said in his statement. “As Democrats, we should not be afraid to vote our district’s values because we’re afraid of Washington.”

During the 2024 campaign, Gonzalez’s Republican opponent ran negative ads about his support for gender affirming health care for trans minors. The congressman told Spectrum News in 2023 that “I have never supported tax dollars paying for gender transition surgeries and never will.”

Despite the newly seated 53-vote GOP majority in the U.S. Senate, the bill could languish in the upper chamber as the 2023 iteration did under Democratic control.

Still, President-elect Donald Trump promised to effectuate a ban, which experts believe would likely involve directing the U.S. Department of Education to find any school in violation of federal Title IX rules, which prohibit sex-based discrimination, in cases where they allow trans women or girls to participate in competitive sports.

Trump and other conservatives argue that cisgender women and girls are biologically disadvantaged compared to trans women and girls, which yields unfair outcomes for athletes whose birth sex is female, though research on the question of physical performance is mixed.

Proponents of the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act, who believe trans women and girls to be unfairly advantaged by their biology, argue that excluding them from sports is necessary to ensure fair outcomes in high-stakes competitions at the elite level, such as college athletic scholarships.

At the other end of the spectrum, the legislation contains a carveout that would theoretically allow for trans women and girls to participate in sports in limited circumstances: “Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit a recipient from permitting males to train or practice with an athletic program or activity that is designated for women or girls so long as no female is deprived of a roster spot on a team or sport, opportunity to participate in a practice or competition, scholarship, admission to an educational institution, or any other benefit that accompanies participating in the athletic program or activity.”

As the measure was debated on Tuesday, opponents accused their GOP colleagues of exploiting a culture war issue to “divert attention from the fact they have no real solutions to help everyday Americans,” as U.S. Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.) put it.

Several Democrats — who argued that in the absence of an enforcement mechanism, adults might inspect students’ genitals to determine their gender, which could facilitate child sexual abuse — began calling the legislation “the GOP Child Predator Empowerment Act.” 

The House Education Committee chair, U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.), responded that birth certificates should be used to settle questions about students’ gender.

Opponents of the bill like U.S. Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.), a lesbian and co-chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, contended that boundary-violating scrutiny of girls’ bodies is the “logical conclusion” of the measure.

President Joe Biden will leave the White House next week after leading what advocates consider to be the most pro-LGBTQ+ administration in American history.

The past four years offer a wealth of evidence to support the claim, from the passage of legislation like the landmark Respect for Marriage Act to the promotion of LGBTQ+ rights abroad as a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy, impactful regulatory moves in areas like health equity for gay and trans communities, and the record-breaking number of gender and sexual minorities appointed to serve throughout the federal government and on the federal bench.

As demonstrated by the deeply personal reflections that he shared during an exclusive interview with the Washington Blade in September, Biden is especially proud of his legacy on LGBTQ+ rights and believes that his record reflects the bedrock principles of justice, equality, and fairness that were inculcated by his father’s example and have motivated him throughout his career in public life.

For instance, during a trip to New York in June, where he delivered remarks to commemorate the opening of the Stonewall National Monument Visitor Center, Biden explained he was deeply moved by the “physical and moral courage” of those early gay rights activists, adding that the monument honoring their sacrifices “sets an example” in the U.S. and around the world.

Likewise, Biden told the Blade he decided to publicly express his support for same-sex marriage in the midst of his reelection campaign with then-President Barack Obama in 2012 because of his experience attending an event hosted by a gay couple with their children present.

“If you saw these two kids with their fathers, you’d walk away saying, ‘wait a minute, they’re good parents,’” he said. From that moment forward, Biden was unwilling to continue to demur, even if that meant preempting Obama’s “evolution” toward embracing marriage equality.

To fully appreciate Biden’s leadership — especially during his presidency, and particularly on issues of transgender rights — it is worth considering his record against the backdrop of the broader political landscape over the past four years.

By the time he took office in 2021, conservative activists and elected leaders had positioned the trans community at the center of a moral panic, introducing hundreds of laws targeting their rights and protections and exploiting the issue as a strategy to undermine support for Democrats.

In the face of unrelenting attacks from his Republican political adversaries, Biden set to work building an administration that “looked like America” including with the appointment of trans physician and four-star officer Dr. Rachel Levine to serve as assistant health secretary, and on day one he issued an executive order repealing his predecessor’s policy that excluded trans Americans from military service.

As the 2024 election neared, with Donald Trump’s campaign weaponizing transphobia as a wedge to score votes, Biden’s support remained vocal and sustained. In each of his four State of the Union addresses to joint sessions of Congress, for example, the president reinforced his commitment to “have the trans community’s back.”

Meanwhile, midway through his term the U.S. Supreme Court overturned abortion protections that were in place since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, with conservative statehouses across the country taking the opportunity to pass draconian restrictions.

Democrats sought to exploit the unpopular abortion bans, especially as the presidential race was in full swing, but many were concerned that Biden might be an ineffective messenger because of his personal opposition to the practice as a devout Catholic.

While he directed his administration to take measures to protect access to abortion in the U.S. and spoke publicly about the importance of reproductive autonomy and the freedom to access necessary medical care for family planning, the Associated Press reports that as of March 2024, Biden had only used the word “abortion” in prepared remarks once in four years.

The daylight between how the president has talked about transgender rights and how he has talked about abortion offers an interesting contrast, perhaps illuminating how impervious Biden can be when pressured to compromise his values for the sake of realizing his political ambitions, while also demonstrating the sincerity of his conviction that, as he put it in 2012, anti-trans discrimination is “the civil rights issue of our time.”

Biden was scheduled to deliver a farewell address to the nation on Wednesday evening.

Far-right U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) called U.S. Rep. Sarah McBride (D-Del.) a “groomer” and “child predator” in a post on X Monday, responding to a video shared by the anti-LGBTQ+ account Libs of TikTok in which McBride is seen reading to kids in a classroom.

According to the signage featured in the clip, McBride, who is the first transgender member of Congress, was participating in the Human Rights Campaign Foundation’s “Jazz and Friends National Day of School and Community Readings.”

The program is part of the organization’s Welcoming Schools initiative, which provides “trainings and resources for elementary school educators” to help “welcome diverse families, create LGBTQ and gender inclusive schools, prevent bias-based bullying, and support transgender and nonbinary students.”

Prior to her first election to the Delaware state legislature, McBride served as press secretary for HRC from 2016-2021.

Monday’s post was not the first time in which Greene has baselessly accused LGBTQ+ people and allies of child sexual abuse or grooming for their support of age-appropriate classroom instruction on matters of LGBTQ+ history, sexual orientation, and gender identity.

The Washington Blade has reached out to representatives from HRC, McBride’s office, and the Congressional Equality Caucus for comment on Greene’s post.