Jimmy Carter is venerated for his many notable accomplishments including support for African-American civil rights, Nobel Prize recipient, energy security, conservation, transportation deregulation, and remarkable post-presidency accomplishments, among others. As to LGBTQ rights, Carter’s less than admirable White House legacy reflects societal prejudices during his 1977 to 1981 presidency.

At the 1972 Democratic National Convention, the Platform Committee rejected by a vote of 54 to 34 a plank to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. At that convention, Jim Foster and Madeline Davis became the first openly gay delegates to address a national political convention’s plenary session. Foster and Davis’s addresses on July 12 were scheduled at 5 a.m. for Minority Report #8, which Walter Cronkite called “the Gay Lib plank.”

As a 1976 presidential candidate, Carter courageously endorsed the Equality Act, which would amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include sexual orientation. Carter appointed Midge Constanza, a closeted lesbian to head his Office of Public Liaison. Constanza, a former Rochester City Council member, had served as Carter’s New York State campaign coordinator. Constanza was the only woman in a senior position on Carter’s White House staff. 

On March 26, 1977, Constanza hosted the first meeting of gay representatives at the White House. The group of 12 included gay pioneer Frank Kameny, Rev. Troy Perry, and Jenn O’Leary and Bruce Voeller, co-chairs of the National Gay Task Force. After being alerted by a National Gay Task Force press release, major news organizations covered the story. The following day, Anita Bryant, who started a Christian crusade against homosexual rights stated that the Office of the President had been duped into blessing an abnormal lifestyle and vowed to “lead such a crusade to stop homosexuals as this country has not seen before.”

By 1978, Constanza was demoted; her office moved from adjoining the Oval Office to the basement; and her staff of more than a dozen cut to one. In August 1978, she resigned.

In November 1977, Harvey Milk became a San Francisco Supervisor. He was one of the first openly gay Americans to be elected to public office. In 1978, Milk was assassinated. That year 70% of Americans opposed discrimination protections based on sexual orientation. In 1979, Carter launched his campaign for reelection. 

At the 1980 Democratic National Convention, 77 of the seated delegates were openly gay and lesbian up from the handful at the 1976 convention. Melvin Boozer, an African-American Ph.D. from Yale and head of the DC Gay Activists Alliance was nominated for vice president of the United States. In Boozer’s remarks, he stated he wouldn’t accept the nomination, but called on delegates to adopt the gay rights plank.

Twelve years later, at the 1992 Democratic National Convention and with the support of party presidential candidate Bill Clinton that Bob Hattoy, a gay man with AIDS and Roberta Achtenberg, cofounder of the National Center for Lesbian Rights became the first openly gay delegates to address the convention in prime time. There were rainbow flags and signs for “Lesbian and Gay Rights Now!” 

Carter did not embrace homophobia. He was one of the nation’s most decent and foresighted leaders. While he disappointingly broke his campaign promise to support the Equality Act, like other historic figures Carter’s record should be assessed within the context of society’s then social constructs and political realities. 

Based on the totality of his legacy, Jimmy Carter left the world a better place. His memory is a blessing.

Malcolm Lazin is executive director of LGBT History Month. Learn more at lgbtHistoryMonth.com.

As we move toward Jan. 20, when Donald Trump and his acolytes complete their takeover of the government, we really have no idea what will happen. Trump and his co-president, Elon Musk, lie with impunity. It’s hard to tell if they believe their own lies. 

For Trump, a decision is often based on who whispered in his ear last. He is easily riled, and when it comes to Musk, it was fun to see him feel he had to respond when Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) called Musk, President Musk. In a Phoenix rally Trump felt obliged to explain Musk couldn’t be president as he wasn’t born here. We know Trump is losing it, often mixing up where he is, names, and dates. Will the media report on that the way they did with Biden?  It is getting more apparent the media is being cowed by Trump. Recently the New York Times reported, “Ann Telnaes, a Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist for The Washington Post, said on Friday evening that she was resigning after the newspaper’s opinions section rejected a cartoon depicting The Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos, (and other media moguls) genuflecting toward a statue of President-elect Donald J. Trump.” 

The first test of how the Republican Senate will respond to Trump will begin shortly as they start the hearings on his Cabinet nominees. We will soon know if even the few rational Republican senators left keep their lips firmly glued to Trump’s ass, or will at least four of them find their balls? While most of Trump’s nominees will sail through, no matter how bad they are, there are a few we need to watch closely. Those are Pete Hegseth for Defense Secretary; Kash Patel for FBI Director; RFK Jr. for Secretary of Health and Human Services; and Tulsi Gabbard, for Director of National Intelligence. These nominations are an abomination and dangerous. 

Hegseth’s hearings will be conducted by the Armed Services Committee with Chairman Roger Wicker, (R-Miss), and Jack Reed (D-R.I.), ranking member. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will first need to get through the Senate Finance Committee; Michael Crapo (R-Idaho) chair, and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), ranking member. Patel will go to the Senate Judiciary Committee with Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) as chair, and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), as ranking member. Tulsi Gabbard will go to the Senate Intelligence Committee with Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) as chair, and Mark Warner (D-Va.), as ranking member.

I am not holding my breath that any Republicans will ask the tough questions. But we can hope Democrats will. It will be interesting to see what they focus on. Will they ask RFK Jr. the important questions on children’s vaccines? We know he opposes them but will he take away the mandate for insurance to pay for them? Will he try to get school systems to abandon their requirement that children be vaccinated before coming to school? Will he oppose continuing to have NIH do the research to develop a vaccine to prevent HIV/AIDS? What will he do about the polio vaccine and ensuring it is paid for all children? Will he recommend we withdraw from the World Health Organization? 

Then will they ask Gabbard about her meeting with deposed Syrian dictator Assad, her relations with Vladimir Putin, and the war in Ukraine? How she would handle classified documents and what did she think about how Trump handled them? What are the changes she wants to make in the agencies reporting to the Director of National Intelligence? Does she even know what each of them does? How does her background qualify her for this important and sensitive job? 

Then there is Hegseth. What will they ask him? What does he see as his qualifications for the job? Does he understand what the job is, and his relationship to the Joint Chiefs of Staff? What are Patel’s qualifications to lead the FBI? Will he go after an enemies list based on all his previous statements? 

I would assume Democrats on the committees will be prepped with a long list of questions to ask each nominee, and will work together to try to make the American people understand how each is totally unqualified to head the agency they are being nominated to lead. Then we will have to look at how the media report on all these hearings. 

One of the things the American people need to understand is whether or not they believe in Trump’s version of ‘America First,’ each of these nominees will impact how we deal with the world, and whether we are ever trusted again. 

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

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].

Los Angeles County’s form of government hasn’t changed since 1912, when our population was just 500,000 and women didn’t have the right to vote. Today, we are home to over 10 million people — one of the most diverse populations in the world. Despite this growth, our governance remains stuck in the past, with just five elected Supervisors representing two million people each. It’s clear this outdated system no longer works. Measure G offers a once-in-a-generation opportunity to build a county government that is more transparent, representative, and accountable to Angelenos.

Transparency is central to Measure G. It requires an open and public budget process, ensuring the county’s budget is developed in full view of the public. No more closed-door decisions — our communities will have clearer oversight of how their tax dollars are spent.

Measure G also establishes an independent Ethics Commission to hold elected officials accountable, especially those who have violated public trust. The commission will oversee campaign finance, lobbying, and county contracts to ensure leadership operates with integrity and transparency. The Ethics Commission would be codified by a vote of the people, so it isn’t subject to the whims of future supervisors. This ensures lasting ethics oversight, creating a permanent structure to safeguard public trust for generations to come.

At its core, Measure G is about ensuring that our county government can meet our greatest challenges. One of the key reforms it introduces is the creation of an elected county executive, which is not merely an elected CEO but instead a separation of executive and legislative powers that creates checks and balances. For the first time, the people of Los Angeles will choose who manages the county’s $46 billion budget. Just as cities have mayors and states have governors, LA County will adopt a system of checks and balances, making leadership more accountable to the public. This change is critical to tackling major crises like homelessness and housing.

Another essential reform is the expansion of the Board of Supervisors from five to nine members. Instead of one supervisor representing two million people, each Supervisor would represent about one million. For communities that have long been underserved, this means a real voice at the table, bringing representation closer to the people. Measure G ensures a more inclusive government, where the public has greater access to their elected officials.

Importantly, Measure G achieves these reforms without adding any cost to taxpayers. The existing county budget will be restructured to support this new system, ensuring no programs or services are sacrificed. For decades, experts have called for these changes — expanding the Board, introducing an elected county executive, and strengthening ethics oversight. Measure G makes these long-overdue reforms a reality.

This marks the first significant change to Los Angeles County’s government in over a century. Nearly nine in 10 voters agree that our government needs reform, and Measure G is the solution we’ve been waiting for. It’s time to build a government that is responsive, transparent, and representative of the people who live here.

Now is our chance to create real transformative change and bring Los Angeles County into the 21st century. Let’s seize this moment and ensure LA County has a government that truly works for everyone. We urge you to support Measure G and help shape a better future for us all.

By Supervisor Lindsey P. Horvath and Dr. Sara Sadhwani, PhD