Nov. 20 marked Transgender Day of Remembrance — an international day of mourning where the trans community and its allies come together to honor and mourn those lost to violence, hate crimes, and suicide. Much of this violence is fueled by discriminatory policies and deep-seated hatred against transgender people.

Yet, just two days before TDOR, Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) introduced HR1579, a transphobic resolution aimed at prohibiting “members, officers, and employees of the House from using single-sex facilities other than those corresponding to their biological sex.” The resolution’s definition of “single-sex facilities” goes beyond restrooms to include changing rooms and locker rooms within the Capitol or House Office buildings.

This resolution is a blatant attempt to ban Rep.-Elect Sarah McBride (D-Del.), the first openly transgender congresswoman, from using women’s bathrooms and locker rooms in Congress. Far-right Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) claimed that Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-La.) expressed support for the resolution behind closed doors, stating, “He committed to me, there in the conference, that Sarah McBride will not be using our restrooms.” In an interview, Rep. Mike Johnson doubled down: “For anyone who doesn’t know my established record on this issue, let me be unequivocally clear: a man is a man, and a woman is a woman, and a man cannot become a woman.”

Both Greene and Mace repeatedly misgendered McBride on social media and in comments to reporters. On Transgender Day of Remembrance itself, Speaker Johnson declared McBride would be treated as a man under House rules, forcing her to use men’s restrooms or gender-neutral facilities. 

Mace claimed her actions were about “safety,” even suggesting McBride could pose a threat of sexual assault. However, during an appearance on Greg Kelly Reports, Mace went full mask off, calling it “offensive” that McBride could consider herself her equal.

This decision and language is more than offensive — it is outright discriminatory. McBride will have no other choice but to walk to her office every time she needs to use the restroom, unable to access the common bathrooms like her colleagues. Additionally, the resolution jeopardizes the safety of hundreds of transgender staffers, all of whom lack McBride’s visibility or privilege. Trans staffers have long used restrooms matching their gender identity without issue, but this policy opens the door to increased harassment and exclusion, with reports of such incidents already surfacing. 

McBride issued a statement saying that while she “disagrees” with the rules, she will comply. Unsurprisingly, McBride’s compliance was not the end of the conversation. Mace introduced a bill to ban transgender people from using bathrooms matching their gender identity in federally owned spaces, from national parks to major airports. Mace declared on social media, “This fight isn’t over just yet. We want to ban men from women’s spaces in EVERY federal building, school, public bathroom, everywhere.”

Adding to this, Congress’s gendered dress code could also be weaponized to further degrade and bully McBride, targeting her presentation or honorifics. This was never about bathrooms, safety, or fairness—it has always been about control and erasing transgender people from public life. 

Despite these attacks, multiple studies have found no evidence supporting claims that transgender people pose safety threats in bathrooms. Yet transphobic rhetoric dominated the 2024 election, with anti-trans ads like “Kamala is for they/them; President Trump is for you,”, signs targeting McBride at polling places in Delaware, and violent vitriol aimed at dehumanizing transgender Americans.

This tidal wave of hate culminates in the upcoming Supreme Court case, U.S. v. Skrmetti, a case that will determine whether bans on gender-affirming care for youth are unconstitutional. The stakes are high: 27 states already ban gender-affirming care, and 26 have implemented restrictions on trans youth in sports. With Donald Trump’s return to the White House and a Republican-controlled government, the situation doesn’t look great.

In the Delaware State Senate, Sarah McBride championed policies like paid family leave. The idea that she’s a danger to others is laughable. The real danger to others lies in the multiple Republican cabinet nominations with histories of sexual assault and abuse. 

If a respected lawmaker who happens to be transgender is considered a threat, where does that leave the rest of the trans community?

In the wake of Kamala Harris’s election loss, trans people have been used as scapegoats, with moderate Democrats and political pundits alike calling them political liabilities. For the past few weeks, we’ve seen op-eds in the New York Times and Washington Post claiming that trans rights have gone too far and are political bombs. 

How dare they? In the face of violent transphobia in our nation’s Capitol, now is the time to strengthen support for our transgender siblings. The moment the public and political establishment abandon transgender Americans, is the moment we’ve entered the last steps of the waltz into fascism.

The mere presence of a transgender woman in power asking to be treated as an equal has sent the GOP into a media frenzy. Mace has been running to Fox News and Newsmax to attack her future co-worker. She’s been obsessively posting on X (formerly Twitter) about Sarah McBride and “men in women’s spaces.” 

Mike Johnson’s seeming endorsement of a “separate but equal” framework also evokes painful memories of segregationists during the Civil Rights Movement. This behavior is not only unacceptable but shines a light on the long history of white far-right politicians from the South fighting for their “right” to discriminate.

This isn’t a culture war thing; this is a fight for our very right to exist. Transgender Americans are facing a crisis. The incoming administration seeks to define us out of existence: they want us to detransition, to hide, to live in fear. They want us to remain in the closet. 

For many, the closet is deadly. Trans people already die by suicide at higher rates, denying us the right to exist will only skyrocket the mental health crisis in America. Since Nov. 5 alone, the Trevor Project, a crisis organization for LGBTQ youth, reported a heartbreaking 700% increase in calls. People are dying now, and now is the time to protect trans people. 

Defending McBride is the easiest way to signal support for trans people. This is about more than supporting one congresswoman — it’s about standing for the safety, dignity, and respect of every transgender American. We need leaders who will defend us in the face of the fascistic far-right.  

As trans people, we recognize the emergency facing our community and are screaming our lungs out to a party that is considering abandoning us. It’s been said again and again but we need each other now more than ever.

LGBTQ voters pay attention to which representatives support and fight for their right to exist. According to the 2022 U.S. Transgender Survey’s Civic Engagement data, 82% of eligible transgender individuals are registered to vote. In the 2020 presidential election, 75% of eligible respondents reported voting, compared to 67% of the general U.S. population. Furthermore, initial exit polls showed that LGBTQIA+ voters overwhelmingly supported Kamala Harris.

The Democratic Party is at a crossroads: Will they fight for equality or allow the GOP’s attacks to stain their legacy and lose a vital and engaged voting bloc? 

The truth is stark: transgender Americans deserve to exist without fear. This fight is about more than politics — it’s about life and death. In the reality we woke up to on Nov. 6, trans people and LGBTQ rights in general are on the chopping block. 

Democrats have the chance to make history by standing on the right side of it. The fight for trans liberation is far from over, but this moment demands strong, progressive leadership. The future of the party — and our country—depends on it.

Vienna Cavazos (they/them) is the Diversity Lead and LGBTQIA+ Public Policy Specialist at Bulletproof Pride.

It will be the fifth Christmas season I will have as a person who is estranged from their ultra-religious and abusive parents. 

I have never seriously regretted my decision to estrange my family, despite it sometimes felt tough. Well, I regret not seeing my little brother, but all communication with him was controlled by my parents, and without them I was estranged from him as well. Hope he will find me one day, but I didn’t mourn not having my parents near me, more like I’m mourning a perfect family I dreamed about and never actually had.

The holiday season could bring an additional toughness for people like me, especially now, when more and more families are broken apart by a political turmoil that shattered and polarized American society after the election. Donald Trump winning the 2024 presidential election is more than just a regular political event; it is a social phenomenon that shows a lot of American trends.

Gen Z and Millennial adults are less likely to become Republicans and Trump supporters than their parents and grandparents who are Baby Boomers, Gen X, or members of the Silent Generation. Of course, it is not universal, because Trump somehow managed to win the hearts of alienated young men, while some Boomers turned left in this election. Not all LGBT people are Democrats, but the vast majority of them are. 

This year the LGBT electorate moved away from Trump even more dramatically than in the previous election. Many young LGBT people felt like they were betrayed by the older generation and their cis-hetero peers; LGBT youth felt scared, angry, and helpless. Despite the fact that the majority of LGBT people are leftists and liberals who generally do not support free arms trading, after Trump’s victory, more and more LGBT people — and cis/hetero women — bought guns and are learning how to defend themselves. Folks do not feel safe near Trumpists! 

You may see what tension exists in the society if LGBT people need to take such a radical step as arming themselves or cutting family ties. And during the holidays, when our culture pushes families to meet together and makes you believe that there is something deeply wrong with you if you do not want to spend the festive season with your loved ones, this tension could move from streets to houses and could lead to serious problems.

It is particularly tough when we are speaking about conservative religious families that do not accept their queer children and siblings. Despite the fact that Christmas has had less religious and more cultural meaning in recent decades, it is still a deeply religious holiday, and so that day all the religious-based, bigoted, homophobic, transphobic, and biphobic conversations with well-meaning relatives who “just wanted to save your soul” will be more likely to accrue. It is especially true for white families. Despite the majority of Black religious people supporting Harris, MAGA supporters are often the white Christian religious people. According to a pre-election  Pew Research Center survey, 61 percent of white Protestants were planning to support Trump during the last election, and among them 82 percent were white Evangelicals. NBC News showed a similar statistic, with 72 percent of white Protestants, including 82 percent of white Evangelicals, being Trump supporters. 

Some of them even saw Trump as a savior with a divine mission.

I personally knew how it felt because my toxic father was trying to justify Russian military aggression as a divine mission and promoted Trumpism during our holidays dinners, and it was almost impossible to argue with a person who justified political violence by supernatural means. In this case being an enemy of a political figure made you into the enemy of God. Religious zealotry and political bigotry are hard to bear even when they are not intersected, but together they may bring something that was planning to be a perfect family reunion with vibes of the “Home Alone” ending scene turned into a nightmare that will leave you broken and completely traumatized. 

You may dread the Christmas season like other folks dread complicated medical operations, or have a strong but fading hope that the Christmas miracle will occur, and the family will accept you for who you are. Unfortunately, it is not very likely to happen, and there are always chances that home could be the most dangerous place.

I wouldn’t advise someone to estrange their family because of political or religious beliefs, and I know a lot of cases when people had a good relationship with someone who has completely different beliefs as you are. The fact that someone is voting for Trump or visiting a homophobic conservative church does not automatically make a person dangerous, but if this person is trying to push their views on you and change who you are, it is a big red flag. Unfortunately, in our society we used to forgive parents for things we would never forgive any other human beings. I had a pretty traumatic experience with it, and I spent years in therapy because of it.

If you are a well-meaning friend of an LGBT person who had family problems, the only good thing you may do is to let the person make their own decisions and not press on them. Sometimes the home — and the church — is the least safe place in the world, and you may never know what is going on behind closed doors.

Ayman Eckford is a freelance journalist and an autistic ADHDer transgender person, who understands that they are trans* since they were 3-years-old.

Of all of Trump’s problematic Cabinet nominees, Pete Hegseth’s stands out as a sick joke. Unfortunately, if he is confirmed, the joke will be on the world. 

Hegseth has ZERO qualifications to be Secretary of Defense. If merely serving in the military (and I thank him for his service in the National Guard) constitutes an acceptable qualification, then millions of veterans are qualified. While so many of them would be better qualified than Hegseth, they are still not qualified simply based on their service, and I think nearly all would agree on that. 

The Department of Defense is one of the largest organizations in the world and the most lethal. What is coming out now as people look at Hegseth’s past is he was apparently forced to step down from one small veterans’ rights non-profit based on financial, and other issues. Then there are the issues his mother brought to light when he was in the process of divorcing his second wife, when she sent him an email saying he was a sleazebag all his life when it came to his dealing with women. 

Then there are the allegations of excessive drinking from a number of sources, including those who worked with him at Fox News. So, it’s not just one thing, it’s a host of things added to his admission that he was investigated for sexual assault, and then paid off the woman who made the allegations. Hegseth’s views on the LGBTQ community have been made clear a number of times. GLAAD reported, “such as when he opposed the New York Times’s decision to announce same-sex marriages writing ‘that it was a path to incest and bestiality: At what point does the paper deem a ‘relationship’ unfit for publication? What if we ‘loved’ our sister and wanted to marry her? Or maybe two women at the same time? A 13-year-old? The family dog?”

Were he to be confirmed, we would be the laughing stock of the world. I am pretty confident that there will be at least four Republican senators who will vote against his confirmation, if it’s not withdrawn before a vote. How could Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) herself a veteran who served overseas during the Iraq war, vote for someone who has said women should not be allowed in combat? Ernst herself is clearly more qualified to hold the position than Hegseth. I am not supporting her, but compared to Hegseth, she is the superior choice. But then most people compared to Hegseth would be better. I see Ernst is now kowtowing to Trump, going as far as saying she is keeping an open mind on Hegseth, but it will be interesting if the FBI investigation comes up with even more negative reports on him. 

The Republicans in the Senate are faced with working with Trump. They can go along with every dumb thing he wants to do, or face his wrath. I am betting there are four senators who will not go along with everything. They will show they have some balls. While I can’t off-hand name the four, it is my hope and prayer, they will materialize. 

We are living in a weird world where Trump can nominate Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence , another nominee with absolutely no qualifications. Her support of deposed Syrian dictator Assad may come back to haunt her. Then there is Trump nominee Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. as Secretary of HHS, with his dangerous views on healthcare. Republicans will somehow have to deal with these nominations and now they have added a new issue. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) tweeted, “It will be my objective to phase out Social Security, to pull it out by the roots.” We will see what the Senate does with that, and what the House of Representatives does with it. We will be looking to see what the views of the person Trump named to head the Social Security Administration, Frank Bisignano, thinks. Let’s hope the Senate committee vetting him will ask detailed questions. Then Mike Johnson, Speaker of the House, hasn’t guaranteed he won’t support some cuts to Social Security. 

If Congress cuts either Social Security or Medicare, it just might be the fastest way for Democrats to take back the House in 2026. 

Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist.

“Ladies and Gentlemen, please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.” I clearly remember this call from a pulpit decades ago because it seemed so odd to hear such a thing in church. Rev. D. James Kennedy, a ballroom dancing instructor in the 1950s who became senior pastor of Coral Ridge Ministries in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., grandly announced: “The Pledge of Allegiance to the Bible!”  

Down from the rafters, hanging on wires above the pulpit descended a huge Bible seemingly ablaze. Accompanied by old time miracle-riffs on an organ, Kennedy’s congregants stood with hand over heart to recite a chilling pledge of allegiance to The Word: “I pledge allegiance to the Bible….”.  I went to Coral Ridge to see for myself how Kennedy preached about “the infamous men of Sodom who have moved into our churches.” I was one of those men.  In the 1980s, when visiting my hometown Dallas, I attended what is still considered the largest LGBTQ church in the world, the Cathedral of Hope. I had helped this church raise money for a chapel to be designed by gay architect Philip Johnson (1906-2005). I had not experienced Christian Nationalists warning about the “men of Sodom moving into our churches” until I saw that giant hanging Bible in Fort Lauderdale.

A pledge of allegiance to a flying Bible seems quaint compared to today’s Christian Nationalist movement, now a pillar of the new Trump presidency, which evangelical leaders liken to a “Red Sea moment in America.” One leader recently compared Donald Trump to Moses parting the Red Sea allowing his people safe passage into a new Promised Land. Amanda Tyler, the lead organizer of  the Christians Against Christian Nationalism Campaign of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty in Washington, D.C., warns in her new book the U.S. is now at “a high tide of Christian Nationalism.”  

Tyler, a devout Baptist from Austin, is direct about the threat Christian Nationalism poses to religious freedom in the U.S. “Christian Nationalism is a political ideology that seeks to fuse American and religious identities….into one set of political beliefs…..It is pernicious and insidious,”  she explains in her book, “How to End Christian Nationalism.” Besides being written by a Christian from Texas who asks hard questions, what makes this “how to” book such a good read is Tyler’s rejection of the despondency of the moment. She has no time for that. “We all have a role to play in ending Christian Nationalism,” she explains, by organizing in our communities, churches and with our legislative allies nationwide. This, she emphasizes, includes all who are impacted by Christian nationalism in unequal ways including “people of color, people who are not Christian, LGBTQIA+ people and people who belong to more than one of those identity groups.”

Tyler lays it out: Christian Nationalism exists in a multiverse beyond the old-school haters we once knew and loved. How can one forget “God Hates Fags” Rev. Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church? When my friend the conservative Republican Sen. Alan Simpson of Wyoming said he favored same-sex marriage, Phelps called him a “Senile Old Fag Lover” (2003). Today, Tyler writes, Christian Nationalists have smoothed those rough edges “using Christianity as a prop to achieving power” in their drive toward an authoritarian theocracy. She explains with cool precision how they evolved into a “well-funded and highly organized political” movement that “points not to Jesus of Nazareth but to the nation….as the object of allegiance.”

A Texan to her Baptist core, Tyler draws from her unique experience working at “ground zero of the culture wars,” the Texas Legislature. Following a proposal to post the Ten Commandments in every classroom in the Texas public school system (which passed in Louisiana) came legislation to replace licensed counselors in the public schools with religious chaplains.  Using her “how to” logic she tells the story of Texas State Rep. James Talarico (D-Austin), a committed Christian and seminarian, who successfully opposed the school chaplain bill. Talarico told Tyler that his years as a public school teacher and his Christian faith meant he couldn’t stay silent “in the face of the Christian Nationalist agenda.” Tyler asks, “What would happen if a broad-based coalition of people of faith joined state Rep. James Talarico in saying we don’t want religious instruction happening in our public schools?” Tyler puts this to readers as a basis for action to be carried from the lawmaking trenches of Austin to Washington itself.  Tyler’s how-to book rises beyond anger, despondency and “hopium” into concrete ideas for organizing and action among believers and non-believers alike. 

Maybe Amanda Tyler’s campaign will take root in states like Oklahoma where the Superintendent of Schools issued a request for vendors to supply 55,000 Bibles (for $59.99 each) that sounded a lot like Donald Trump’s “God Bless the USA” Bible printed in China for $3. The Bibles were to be used for classroom instruction in history, supporters claimed. After a storm of derision, the superintendent’s request was revoked without explanation. 

Charles Francis is president of the Mattachine Society of Washington, D.C., and author of “Archive Activism: Memoir of a ‘Uniquely Nasty’ Journey.”

This is not the time to cave to Donald Trump and normalize his attacks on democracy and decency. Nor is it the time to throw the transgender community under the bus. Or to accept anti-vaxxers as head of Health & Human Services or dilettantes as defense secretary or credibly accused sex traffickers as attorney general.

Yet, here we are, and some prominent Democrats — like gay Colorado Gov. Jared Polis — are leading the charge to capitulation. 

Polis this week said he is “excited” by Trump’s nomination of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to head HHS.

“He has helped us defeat vaccine mandates in Colorado in 2019 and will help make America healthy again by shaking up HHS and FDA,” Polis posted on X. 

What madness is this? Is Polis afraid of incurring Trump’s wrath? Is he suffering from COVID amnesia? As a reminder, more than 14,000 Coloradans have died of COVID since 2020; that number would be exponentially higher if RFK Jr. had been running the show back then when he called COVID vaccines, “the deadliest vaccine ever made.” He falsely claims that vaccines lead to autism; that the FDA is poisoning the American people; and that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS. He has even asserted that chemicals in the drinking supply are impacting children’s gender identity. 

So, of course, Trump would nominate him to run our country’s health system, or rather to dismantle it, jeopardizing the lives of untold numbers of Americans. 

But that doesn’t explain why Polis is parroting MAGA nonsense about making “America healthy again.”

Polis is one of the wealthiest politicians in America, worth an estimated $400 million, according to the Denver Gazette. The money comes from his family’s investment in the impossibly cheesy, schmaltzy Blue Mountain Arts greeting card company that sold for nearly $800 million in 1999, a reminder that no one ever went broke underestimating the taste or intelligence of the American public. 

So is Polis just falling in line behind Trump and his wealthy cohorts? Will leaders in the LGBTQ movement distance themselves and denounce this move? Don’t hold your breath. The Blade reached out to the Victory Fund for comment and so far has (predictably) received no response. Don’t expect our so-called advocates to attack Democrats, even the ones working to normalize Trump’s assault on democracy.

Sadly, Polis isn’t the only prominent Democrat ditching the LGBTQ community and even scapegoating us for Kamala Harris’s defeat. 

Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) told the New York Times last week that he doesn’t want his two daughters “getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete.”

Thankfully, Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey, a lesbian, promptly rebuked Moulton, noting, “It’s important in this moment that we not pick on particularly vulnerable children.” She’s right. Trans Americans are living in fear now; brave transgender service members are awaiting expulsion from the military. Trans people living in red states are already under severe attack. Texas lawmakers this week proposed banning all taxpayer money from funding “gender reassignment;” another bill would even allow children to sue drag performers. 

We are living in dystopian times with draconian attacks on the most vulnerable among us. It will only get worse as Trump and his rogues’ gallery of criminals, incompetents, and demagogues assumes control of the government and turns it loose on the rest of us.

We need a strong Democratic resistance, especially with Republicans taking monopolistic control of the federal government. What we don’t need are myopic, selfish politicians like Polis and Moulton running for cover and normalizing this sick behavior. If they won’t fight these attacks, then they should get out of the way. We won’t overcome Trump by capitulating. We must start by fighting against these dangerous Cabinet nominees.

Kevin Naff is editor of the Washington Blade. Reach him at [email protected].

The trans umbrella represents inclusivity. But who is actually being accounted for under this term? Nonbinary, gender nonconforming, queer, genderqueer and genderfluid people– everyone but trans Chicanas and Latinas.

In a time where LGBTQ+ lives are constantly being scrutinized and contested, it is crucial to protect trans Chicana and Latina identity, by not using language that diminishes our visibility or erases our existence. There is a need for an intersectional definition of transgender.

Besides, we must ask ourselves: for a movement so keen on diversity, why the need to squeeze an ever-expansive number of gender identities into a singular category?

Trans scholar T. Benjamin Singer warns us of the trouble of the trans umbrella in an article published by Transgender Studies Quarterly at Duke University.

“Umbrellas should arrive with a disclaimer,” Singer cautions. “One size does not fit all.”

And it is true. Boxing me into the trans umbrella eradicates the multifacetedness and complexity of my trans Chicana and Latina identity, which is why I agree with Singer’s ‘one size does not fit all’ argument.

I mean—when has that ever been true?

Trans Chicanas and Latinas do not fit neatly into mainstream definitions of transgender that render trans identity as a limitless umbrella term capable of holding any and all gender identities, mainly because trans Chicanas and Latinas embody a unidirectional gender identity. 

To force such a loose definition on trans Chicanas and Latinas, would be to erase the intersectional identity of the brown trans female subject, and therefore, erase trans Chicanas and Latinas altogether.

Singer is one of many voices cautioning against the umbrella metaphor. Trans Chicana and Latina Eden Estrada–famously known as Eden the Doll–touched on the topic of the trans umbrella in an interview with YouTuber Matt Cullen. “There’s also a lot of negative stigma now because of how big the umbrella term is,” Estrada admits.

I have experienced the stigmatization Estrada mentions, which usually manifests itself in being branded as someone who is unstable, perverse, and confused. This form of trans de-legitimacy is doubly harmful to trans Chicanas and Latinas because we contend with racism on top of transphobia.

Equally concerned about the trans umbrella argument is Dr. Natalia P. Zhikhareva, a clinical psychologist and trans specialist, who wrote the letter that expressed my readiness for sex reassignment surgery in 2020. 

“Transgender is a huge, huge umbrella term right,” said Dr. Zhikhareva in a video posted to her YouTube channel. “And that’s another problem with the language that we have today. We’re using the word trans and transgender … to cluster everybody underneath, and I personally think that’s quite problematic.”

Many trans Chicanas and Latinas fit into the gender binary system, however, not without posing challenges to cis-heteronormative spaces. Trans Chicanas and Latinas embody a form of transness with a specific landing locale–meaning that for many trans Chicanas and Latinas transition looks like undergoing social and medical transition from male to female, and while there might be stops along the way, the end point is typically womanhood.

A video posted by the Trans Latin@ Coalition website titled “Dying to be a Woman, Morir Por Ser Mujer,” Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy, and even the CEO and Founder of Trans Latin@ Coalition, Bamby Salcedo, spoke on the urgency for many trans Latinas to medically transition and embody a form of cis-femininity and womanhood.

The problem with a definition of transgender that deems it an umbrella term is that it lacks nuance. Transgender is a gender category contingent upon time, geography, and racial or ethnic backgrounds.

As a self-identified trans Chicana and Latina, who lived as a hyper-femme, gay man for over five years, I have often felt misplaced when gender variant people, genderfluid, or those who do not subscribe to the gender binary are placed within the transgender category. 

It feels like being a guest in your own home.

Make no mistake. This critique of the trans umbrella metaphor is not a call to exclude gender identities that don’t meet a laundry list of requirements to be transgender nor an attempt to start a conversation surrounding the construction of qualifications for being transgender.

My critique simply highlights the fact that a universal definition of transgender that deems it an all-inclusive gender category is not representative of the intersectional identity of trans Chicanas and Latinas, and, in fact, erases Chicana and Latina trans-ness.

These are frightening times for those of us on the target list of Project 2025, the blueprint for Donald Trump’s second term that he secured in landslide fashion on Tuesday.

Many of us are wondering how this could happen again. Kamala Harris is one of the most qualified presidential candidates to run in our lifetime. She ran against a 34-times convicted felon who staged an insurrection against the government and who faces a sentencing hearing in just three weeks for his crimes. A man who was twice impeached, who courts Vladimir Putin’s attention and approval, and who was found liable for sexual assault. Despite that last fact — and Trump’s bragging about overturning Roe v. Wade — 44 percent of women voters supported him, far more than the polls and pundits predicted.

Those polls turned out to be pretty accurate and Harris was brought down by lingering concerns over the economy and the toll inflation has taken on lower and middle class Americans. Sure, sexism, and racism played a role in this, but too many of us live in a bubble, insulated from the everyday concerns of disaffected blue collar Americans. While many of us crowed about last week’s Wall Street Journal lead story on the booming U.S. economy being the envy of the world, voters in the former “Blue Wall” states were struggling to put food on the table. When you can’t feed your family, you’re not going to vote for the incumbent vice president. 

So what’s next? We’ve seen this movie before. Trump will appoint a series of sycophants to run the government; he will undermine the federal workforce and try to fire as many longtime civil servants as he can. He will have a compliant GOP-majority Senate to rubberstamp his Cabinet and judicial appointees. He will probably ban transgender service members from the military on day one. The list goes on.

“The next conservative President must make the institutions of American civil society hard targets for woke culture warriors,” Project 2025 begins. “This starts with deleting the terms sexual orientation and gender identity, diversity, equity and inclusion, gender, gender equality, gender awareness, gender-sensitive … out of every federal rule, agency regulation, contracts, grant regulation, and piece of legislation that exists.”

Indeed, Project 2025 seeks to send us all back to the closet. But, as Harris rightly intoned throughout her short campaign: We are not going back.

The good news — and there is some — is that voters for the first time elected two Black women to the U.S. Senate to serve at the same time, Angela Alsobrooks in Maryland and Lisa Blunt Rochester in Delaware. Sarah McBride becomes our nation’s first out transgender member of Congress. She’s a formidable figure and will be an important voice for trans equality in the face of Trump’s inevitable attacks. At this writing, control of the House hasn’t been decided. If the Democrats can manage to flip it, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, a capable strategist, becomes the face of our resistance.

We need our LGBTQ allies and advocacy groups more than ever. If you have the resources, donate to Lambda Legal and other legal groups gearing up for the many battles ahead, including over marriage equality. (Some more good news on that front, as California voters overwhelmingly approved Prop 3, which will enshrine marriage rights in the constitution of our largest state.) Volunteer your time with your local equality group, especially if you live in a state like Florida with draconian anti-LGBTQ laws on the books. 

No one said being part of a social justice movement would be easy. Sometimes pioneers in these fights don’t live to see the end of the road. Now’s the time to double down on hard work, determination, and compassion, especially for the trans community, which sadly will take the brunt of the incoming attacks. Those of us who are a bit older need to reassure younger voters and activists that their efforts this time are not in vain. Harris’s meteoric ascent to the top of the Democratic ticket and the incredible campaign she ran will make it easier for the next woman to run. That final, ultimate glass ceiling will fall in our lifetime.

So for now, take a breath. Hug the dog. Take a walk in the woods, whatever you need to refocus. Four years is a blip and will fly by. The Democratic bench is deep. And the march toward full equality for our community is unstoppable. Setbacks are inevitable but we learned a long time ago that love wins. So fight on.

Kevin Naff is editor of the Washington Blade. Reach him at [email protected].

Right now, there are active campaigns to secure the freedom to marry for same-sex couples in dozens of countries around the world – spanning every continent and a wide variety of political contexts. While each of these campaigns is rooted in unique cultural and political dynamics, they have in common the potential to harness the power of marriage as both a goal and a strategy – leveraging the marriage conversation to change hearts and minds about LGBTQ people. Public campaigns for the freedom to marry are a unique opportunity to demonstrate that LGBTQ people are part of families and have the same need for family recognition as everyone else – helping to bring the needs and rights of  LGBTQ people into a more familiar context for the broader public.  

Not only does changing public attitudes toward LGBTQ people and their families have immediate, tangible impacts for the community, marriage campaigns have proven to yield an array of long-term benefits for LGBTQ civil society and democratic participation – including increasing overall support for LGBTQ causes, strengthening civic organizations, testing the implementation of new strategies to engage decision makers, training new generations of LGBTQ leaders, and instilling belief in activism, the rule of law, and effecting democratic change. 

By familiarizing the public with LGBTQ couples and families and lifting the voices of allies, campaigns for the freedom to marry reduce homophobia and transphobia, leading to greater acceptance. The public conversation about the freedom to marry is uniquely centered on the resonant values of love and family, as well as freedom and dignity, helping non-gay people better understand gay people as individuals with loving relationships and families, just like everyone else. Also, unlike other policy changes, the legalization of marriage for same-sex couples is typically accompanied by strong media attention that magnifies the campaign’s potential to shift public attitudes. Even after securing the freedom to marry, polling data shows that public support for LGBTQ people continues to accelerate, creating a more inclusive society and enabling political progress on several other fronts, especially those most important to LGBTQ people. 

For example, after Costa Rica in May 2020 became the first Central American country to affirm the freedom to marry for same-sex couples, a poll conducted by international research firm Borge & Asociados found an 18% increase in support for civil marriage for same-sex couples, as well as an increase in support for LGBTQ people more broadly. Nearly 40% of poll respondents reported personally developing a more positive opinion of gay and lesbian people in the previous 12 months and support for adoption and transgender nondiscrimination grew strongly after securing the freedom to marry. Costa Rica went on to enhance hate crimes and second parent adoption laws shortly after the marriage victory. 

After Taiwan in 2019 became the first government in Asia to end the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage, support grew significantly. According to government polling, only 37.4 percent of country residents had previously reported that they believed same-sex couples should be able to marry. However, by May 2023, four years after the marriage victory, the same agency reported that support for marriage had increased to strong majority support (62.6%), an increase of 25.2 percentage points. By 2024, support had climbed an additional 6.5 percentage points to reach an all-time high of 69.1%. 

Even in countries that have not yet achieved victory, marriage campaigns are making an impact. In Romania, advocacy organization Asociatia ACCEPT launched a public education television ad in late 2023 that featured parents and their LGBTQ children. Months later, polling demonstrated a 26% swing in support for legally protecting same-sex couples, with a growth of 13% while opposition to protections decreased by 13% compared to 2021. Parents – the target audience of Accept’s paid media campaign – showed significant increases in support, with 55% now saying that if their child were gay they would like the law to allow them marry like anyone else, an 11 point increase. Demonstrating impacts beyond the issue of relationship recognition, the overall visibility of LGBTQ people in Romanian society has increased, with the number of people who know or interact with an LGBTQ person, from 19% in 2021 to 29% in 2024 as a result of a large-scale public education campaign centering LGBTQ people, their families, and marriage.

Similarly, Panama’s 2023 polling showed a 15.3% increase in support for protections for same-sex couples after two years of their “Sí Acepto” marriage campaign. Support for legal protections among Catholic Panamanians rose to 74.5% and, when asked about specific protections, such as visiting their partner in the hospital or making legal decisions together, Catholic Panamanians supported gay and lesbian couples at 84.3%. While the goal of achieving marriage may be a longer journey in countries like Romania and Panama, campaigns for the freedom to marry can still drive significant achievements in public opinion, paving the way for eventual victories.

Research shows similar gains in other countries where marriage campaigns are active. For instance, behind the efforts of Marriage for All Japan, support for marriage in Japan is now at an all-time high of 72%, rising 7% in two years. The Czech Republic also reached 72% support for marriage in 2023, months before the Jsme Fér campaign won the passage of civil partnership, representing an increase of nearly 25 points in four years of active campaigning. Pew research showed 60% support for marriage in Thailand in 2023, one year before the Thai legislature passed marriage legislation with a wide bipartisan majority.

Experience gained from working on marriage campaigns trains campaign leaders to achieve advancements on other issues. Once marriage was secured, Taiwan’s Marriage Equality Coalition, the campaign organization, was re-formed as the Taiwan Equality Campaign. Using strategies implemented to win marriage, TEC led successful advocacy efforts in 2023 to allow same-sex couples to adopt children to whom they are not biologically related. The large-scale campaign for the freedom to marry strengthened Taiwanese civil society, enabling sustainable, ongoing progress and paving the way for future victories. Government leaders now cite marriage for same-sex couples as a key indicator of Taiwan’s democratic society. 

Achieving victory in a change campaign invites civil society organizations to empower leaders and supporters to engage in the democratic process, hold elected leaders accountable, and build the political power they need to make change. Marriage campaigns have encouraged leaders to learn and deploy key (and for some countries, new) tactics such as engaging business or faith voices, monitoring and publicizing elected officials’ stands and evolution, and promoting voter engagement. Freedom to Marry Global has worked with advocates to share best practices from around the globe and support local leaders as they test and implement these strategies in ways that suit the local context. This type of coordination and skill-sharing among LGBTQ groups within and across regions is exactly what our LGBTQ movement needs more of to succeed and not reinvent the wheel campaign by campaign. 

Additionally, each campaign victory sends a positive message of momentum to neighboring countries. As the first-of-its-kind public education campaign in Latin America, Costa Rica’s Sí Acepto served as a model for the region. Leaders of Sí Acepto collaborated to export the materials and successes to other Latin American countries working to implement the Inter-American Court of Human Rights Advisory Opinion (OC-24). As a result, the impact of the Sí Acepto campaign is felt far beyond the borders of Costa Rica with similarly styled campaigns now active in Guatemala, Panama, Bolivia, and Peru. Progress is powerful and radiates in powerful ways beyond national borders.

While the freedom to marry and the critical protections and fundamental freedom and dignity that marriage brings to LGBTQ couples and their families are important ends in themselves, the public campaigns to secure marriage deliver much more. Marriage is important not just for the tangible and intangible meanings and protections it entails, but also as a strategy to fundamentally change the perception of LGBTQ people, generate momentum and support for further gains, and empower leaders with the skill and political muscle to continue making progress for their communities and their countries. Campaigning for the freedom to marry and the marriage conversation yield meaningful economic and democratic dividends for everyone. Love wins – and we all win.

Freedom to Marry Global and Council for Global Equality advocate for marriage equality in countries around the world.

As Hispanic Heritage Month, LGBTQ History Month and the final sprint of election season converge, two queer Latinas in politics want you to know that your vote could make history. We each come from families that faced discrimination simply for who they are, and we each live with intersectionality that opponents have tried to use against us. But the truth is, we’re proud of all parts of our identities, and we know that our life experiences have made us the leaders we are today. 

Many of us who are children and grandchildren of immigrants learn early on that hard work and perseverance are necessary for success. We carry with us the traditions we love that remind us of family, like listening to Los Lobos and roasting a lechon on Noche Buena. And we also have learned that who we are may not fit the expectations our family had for us, or that we had for ourselves. But the most beautiful part of coming out is bringing all parts of our identity to light, out of the shadows. This is how we can show the younger generation that there is nothing shameful in being exactly who you are. This makes us stronger leaders too, especially as we show the country that queer Latina women belong everywhere, including in politics. 

This election season is monumental for Emily, who could become the first out queer Latina in Congress this November. When she was elected in 2018, she became the first queer state senator in Washington’s history. It’s also an incredibly critical time for Janelle, a former candidate herself who ran for Florida State Senate and who leads LPAC, the only organization working to build political strength and increase representation for and with LGBTQ+ women and nonbinary candidates. LPAC endorsed Emily in her 2018 race and in her current one. When all of LPAC’s federal candidates win this cycle, we could see the number of LGBTQ+ women in Congress double. 

Often, people focus entirely on presidential elections. And of course, there is a world of difference between a future shaped by Kamala Harris’s presidency and Trump’s: one where women, LGBTQ+ people and immigrants are valued and protected from discrimination, and one where we’re used as political pawns and then trampled on in return. And yet when it comes to the day-to-day issues affecting our kids’ safety in school, our access to quality healthcare, and our protection from discrimination in the workplace, Congressional and state legislatures are absolutely critical. That’s why we need to champion candidates up and down the ballot who are fighting for all of us. 

When we think back to our childhood, we didn’t see people who looked like us in politics. It’s so hard to hold onto a dream if you can’t imagine yourself in it. That’s a big part of why we each were inspired to work in politics – to show the young kids in our families and communities that who they already are is perfect, and that they deserve to live their dreams.

We are just weeks out from a turning point in American history. None of us can afford to sit on the sidelines. The time is now to make your voice heard, your vote count, and to help shape a future where our youth can thrive. 

Janelle Perez is executive director of LPAC, the only organization in the U.S. working to elect lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer women and nonbinary people. Emily Randall is a third generation Washingtonian, and a Washington State Senator running for U.S. House of Representatives. 

I was recently thinking about how campaign season has a way of testing everything—patience, endurance, and sometimes even friendships. It’s easy to get caught up in the whirlwind of politics, where every issue feels personal and each opinion is louder than the last.

So, what happens when you and a close friend find yourselves on opposite sides of the ballot?

Does it mean the end of a friendship?

I’ve been struggling with that question lately because, to be honest, a few of my close friends have revealed themselves to be supporters of candidates who are known racists. Even worse, some have thrown their weight behind Donald Trump. It’s a tough pill to swallow. I never expected to find myself on the opposite side of the political spectrum from people I care about. I thought our values were aligned.

What now?

For a while, I wondered if those friendships were over. How could I maintain a bond with someone who backs a person whose platform actively harms people like me and those I advocate for? I had to take a step back and ask myself some hard questions: Is it possible to hold on to the people you love, even when their political choices seem to go against your very identity? Is there room for disagreement on issues that hit so close to home?

The truth is, I’m still working through it. I’ve had to set boundaries with some friends because the weight of their political choices is too much to carry into every conversation. Plus, I am at that age where I will cut a fill-in-the-blank off in the blink of an eye. But, I’ve also realized that cutting people off won’t change the fact that we live in a country where this divide exists. It won’t make the issues go away, and it won’t create a path toward understanding.

Instead, I’m trying (and it’s getting harder and harder), to focus on open dialogue— though it’s far from easy. I’ve learned to prioritize my mental health and protect my energy while still trying to have honest conversations.

Sometimes that means taking a break from political discussions altogether with certain people, especially when it starts to feel like we’re not hearing each other. Friendship, like anything worth having, takes work. It also requires mutual respect, even in the face of stark disagreements.

Here’s the thing: disagreements are inevitable, but respect is non-negotiable. Maybe my friends support a candidate I can’t stand or believe in policies I think are harmful causing me to give them the side eye.  That doesn’t make them any less of a friend—it just makes them human, with their own experiences and viewpoints. Maintaining a friendship during campaign season is about knowing when to have those heated debates and when to set them aside for something more important—like the shared memories, laughs, and loyalty that brought us together in the first place.

My friendships aren’t just built on politics—they’re built on shared experiences, history, and trust. It’s tough to reconcile all of that with the reality of today’s political climate, but I’m learning that holding on to a friendship doesn’t mean compromising my values. It means knowing when to stand firm and when to let the conversation rest so that we don’t lose each other completely after Election Day.

Friendship doesn’t have to end on Election Day. The key is understanding that what’s on the ballot is temporary, but the people I care about are not. So this election season, I’m choosing to keep the conversation civil, listen without needing to agree, and remind myself that the friendships I’ve built, matter more than any political argument.

Because when the yard signs come down and the votes are counted, I’d rather still have my friends standing next to me.

Jasmyne A. Cannick is an award-winning journalist, Democratic political strategist, and advocate.  Find her at iamjasmyne.com.