The use of silicone injections and other unconventional fillers like cooking oils, have gained traction within the transgender community as a method for body enhancement. These substances — often used in non-medical settings — are offered as cheaper, quicker alternatives to professional, medically supervised, gender-affirming procedures. While these treatments may seem like a lifeline for some people, their consequences are far more complex.

Imagine living a life wearing a suit that doesn’t quite belong to you, explained Dr. Natalia Zhikhareva, better known as Dr. Z, a gender psychologist based in Los Angeles.

Every day, they step outside, and people see a body—responding, interacting and defining based solely on what they perceive. Inside that body, there’s someone else. Someone with a different gender identity, and each time people misgender them based on that outer shell, it makes them feel like they’re being punched. It’s not just uncomfortable, but also painful, and a constant reminder that who they see, doesn’t match who they are.

This psychological distress is known as gender dysphoria. For many transgender individuals, altering their appearance can be an essential part of alleviating  dysphoria, allowing them to feel more at home in their own bodies and engage with the world in a way that authentically reflects who they are.

According to a 2023 study by the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law, “81% of transgender adults in the U.S. have thought about suicide.” This statistic highlights the need to address the systemic inequalities and societal pressures that transgender individuals face. From discrimination in healthcare, to pervasive stigma in everyday life, transgender people are navigating a world often hostile to their identity. 

The emotional and physical impact of body enhancements

 “I started to transition when I was about 19. At that time, they were using cooking oil [for body enhancements]. And I had that procedure done on my body. I got the oil injections because I looked at my trans friends, who were so beautiful and slender. It was easy for me to agree to do it,” Maria Roman-Taylorson, vice president & chief operating officer of the TransLatin@ Coalition, said in Spanish. 

The procedure involved injecting oil into different body areas, creating pockets under the skin. Her body later rejected the procedure and she found herself in the emergency room.

“It seems either the liquid was infected or the technique was flawed, and I got infected all over my lower back and hip,” she explained. “The doctor had to cut each pocket to drain it, which was incredibly painful.” 

Why trans people turn to these methods

Dr. Z explains that many people endure prolonged mental anguish to the point where they are willing to sacrifice their physical health to recover their peace and sense of self. She reflects on how access to gender-affirming care is both limited and costly, and in the current socio-political climate, it is becoming even more restricted. Dr. Z noted that in her practice, she has witnessed individuals taking extreme measures to alleviate their distress, such as self-administering silicone injections or traveling to other countries without knowing if the practitioners are qualified, all in a desperate effort to find relief.

“When society doesn’t provide treatment options, people have no choice,” she stated. 

“The trans community is part of society. I pay taxes. I contribute and as such, I should have a place where they can provide me with services that respect my life and focus on helping and offering me with the best quality of services,” affirmed Roman-Taylorson. 

Dr. Z believes that some people struggle to understand the complexities of gender, mainly because many of them don’t think about it in their daily lives. However, just because some may not fully grasp the concept, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, nor does it negate the profound pain and unhappiness it can cause for some individuals. People often seek concrete facts—like a specific gene or medical evidence—to explain gender identity, but she feels this is the wrong approach. 

Instead, she emphasizes the importance of recognizing when a fellow human being is in deep distress and pain, even to the point of contemplating suicide. Dr. Z believes that when witnessing such suffering, the compassionate response is to offer help in whatever way possible. For her, gender-affirming care is one of the most effective means of providing that support. 

In a 2016 study, the National Library of Medicine indicated that liquid silicone injections could cause serious complications, including “…chronic cellulitis and abscess formation, ulceration, pneumonitis, cosmetic irregularities and asymmetries, perforation or injuries to critical structures, foreign body reactions and migration of silicone. These can present even years after injection.” 

Silicone, in particular, can migrate over time, distorting the intended body shape and potentially leading to embolisms — blockages in blood vessels — if the substance reaches the bloodstream. 

Roman-Taylorson describes that at 55 years old, she was hospitalized due to her body’s rejection of the silicone. She shared that in her case, one of the side effects of the liquid silicone injections, is cellulitis which led to a severe infection. The side effects cause her skin to turn black or red, swell, and become hot as if she has a fever. At times, the pain is so intense that it prevents her from walking, requiring hospitalization. Reflecting on her experience, Roman-Taylorson, acknowledged that she has paid a high price for the body she has today. 

She said that desperation for acceptance can lead people to disregard fear, even in the face of considerable risk. Rather than dwelling on the dangers, she emphasizes that her decision to accept liquid silicone injections was driven by the possibility of finally being accepted by the world. She longed to be recognized as the woman she truly felt she was. For her, the surgery she underwent was the sole accessible option to achieve that sense of recognition and validation. 

“When visiting the emergency room, doctors often lack the knowledge to address complications from these injections properly,” said Roman-Taylorson. In addition to medical challenges, trans people face judgment from healthcare providers who subtly question their decision to undergo these procedures. This leads to a sense of guilt and discrimination in the way they are treated. She emphasized that dealing with these biases only adds to the difficulty of managing their serious health issues. 

The unpredictable journey 

Yahni Ross, intake specialist and research assistant the TransLatin@ Coalition, expressed that despite having undergone the procedure herself, she would not recommend it to others because of the risks involved. At 32, she lives with loose silicone in her body and acknowledges that anything could happen. She explained that in the event of an accident, the silicone could shift, causing severe complications. She shared the story of a friend who was attacked and left with a deformed body after being stomped on. Ross noted that if the silicone in her body were to move, especially to sensitive areas like her eye, it could cause blindness. She stressed that the risks posed by silicone are significant and unpredictable. 

An analysis by the National Library of Medicine reveals that many trans women turn to fillers, not just for enhancing their appearance, but also for safety. By using fillers to achieve a more feminine look, they aim to blend in and avoid being recognized as transgender in situations that could potentially put them at risk for transphobic violence or harassment, like being unwelcome in bathrooms or locker rooms, or being misgendered. 

The threats of using liquid silicone and other harmful substances as body fillers highlight the urgent need for nationwide, accessible, and considerate gender-affirming care. Providing safe, affordable, and supportive medical procedures can save lives—not just by preventing dangerous physical complications, but also by ensuring trans people feel understood, and respected. 

“People are born experiencing gender dysphoria, and as a result, [they] sometimes suffer decades and decades,” said Dr. Z. She advises that people don’t have to change their views to show compassion and kindness towards trans people.

The Biden-Harris administration has a historic opportunity to help end HIV. New, cutting-edge drugs that prevent HIV are hitting the market, but insurance companies are trying to twist the rules to deny access to these remarkable therapies.

The White House could stop these abuses and put the country on the right course for decades ahead and prevent hundreds of thousands of new HIV transmissions.

Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) drugs represent one of the strongest tools we have to combat HIV. These highly effective therapies can reduce the risk of contracting HIV by up to 99%. So far, the FDA has approved two once-daily PrEP pills, and in 2021 approved the first long-acting version of PrEP. Other groundbreaking PrEP innovations, such as a biannual dosage form, are in active development. 

PrEP is a major reason why new HIV infections dropped 12% from 2018 to 2022. Yet there’s still work to do. Currently, just 36% of people who could benefit from PrEP are using it. Racial and ethnic groups face wide disparities in PrEP uptake. For example, Black individuals constitute 39% of new HIV diagnoses but only 14% of PrEP users. Hispanics make up 31 percent of new HIV diagnoses, but only 18 percent of PrEP users.

A new federal directive, if properly enforced, could help close these gaps. In August 2023, a panel of prevention experts issued an updated recommendation to clinicians, recommending PrEP — including long-acting forms of the drugs — to people who want to prevent HIV acquisition. Under the Affordable Care Act, most newly issued private health plans must cover without patient cost-sharing to comply with this recommendation beginning this month.

Yet many HIV experts and patient advocates have raised concerns that insurers could misinterpret — or downright ignore — the task force’s decision and keep barriers to PrEP in place. 

One top concern is that insurance companies could decide to cover only one kind of PrEP, even though the task force’s recommendation isn’t drug-specific — it applies to all versions. For example, a health plan might refuse to cover long-acting PrEP and force patients to take oral pills instead. 

Yet long-acting PrEP is a critical option for many patients, such as those who struggle to adhere to once-daily drug regimens, are unhoused, or have confidentiality concerns. One study found that patients taking long-acting PrEP had a 66% reduction in HIV infections compared to those using oral pills. Another analysis calculated that long-acting PrEP could help avert 87% more HIV cases than oral pills, and could save over $4 billion over the course of a decade.

Another concern relates to insurers’ increasing use of “prior authorization,” a practice in which health plans refuse to cover certain drugs unless doctors obtain prior permission. Insurers could also force patients to try a number of therapeutic alternatives before agreeing to cover the medicine they and their doctors agreed upon — this is known as “step therapy.” There’s evidence that “prior authorization” policies may disproportionately impact Black and Hispanic individuals, who are already at higher risk of HIV.

Fortunately, these insurer-imposed barriers aren’t inevitable. The Biden-Harris administration, through the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), has an opportunity to issue clear, detailed guidance that ensures health plans follow through on the legal requirement to cover PrEP for all eligible patients and at no cost.

CMS’s guidance should clarify that insurance companies are obliged to cover all FDA-approved versions of PrEP, including both daily pills and long-acting injectables. When now Vice President Harris was Sen. Harris, she introduced groundbreaking legislation called the PreP Access and Coverage Act, which would require all insurers to cover all forms of PrEP without cost-sharing and prior authorizations. So we know where she stands on the issue. 

A number of states, including New York and California, have already established similar coverage requirements and prohibitions on prior authorization for PrEP. 

A similar requirement already exists for contraception. Plans are required “to cover without cost sharing any contraceptive services and FDA-approved, -cleared, or -granted contraceptive products that an individual’s attending provider determined to be medically appropriate.”  

CMS just needs to adopt language along these lines for PrEP. Doctors — not insurance companies — should decide which drugs best suit patients’ needs.

Thanks to revolutionary research happening every day, people with a reason to be on PrEP have more options available to them than ever before. Yet insurers are intent on restricting access to these innovative therapies. New federal guidance can help combat this and if properly enforced set us on a path toward ending HIV.

By Dacey Romberg, Madison Zucco, Luke Lamberti, and Xan Wolstenholme-Britt

Around the country, Women’s Bills of Rights (“Women’s BoRs”) have emerged as a mechanism to spread anti-transgender policy under the guise of women’s rights. These laws redefine terms like gender, sex, woman, and man to binary definitions that exclude protections and recognition of transgender, nonbinary, and in some contexts, intersex individuals. The focus of these laws is on public institutions and facilities, such as restrooms and changing rooms.  

What do these laws mean for students and employees of public institutions, such as public schools and government agencies? How may private employers react to these laws? We will dive into the rise of Women’s BoR laws, their impact on workplace protections, and what we can expect with the rise of anti-transgender policies.  

In early 2022, Independent Women’s Voice and the Women’s Liberation Front introduced the Women’s BoR as model legislation seeking to limit legal recognition of sex to one’s sex assigned at birth. While both groups identify as women’s advocacy organizations, Independent Women’s Voice and the Women’s Liberation Front have long sought to limit the rights of transgender Americans as a primary area of focus. The Women’s BoR entered mainstream politics when Republicans in the House of Representatives and Senate attempted to endorse the legislation in a resolution in 2022. While federal attempts to pass a national Women’s BoR have not been successful, states have begun to adopt similar bills. Throughout 2023 and 2024, state legislators in Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Utah enacted statutes based on the federal bill. 

Advocates frame Women’s BoR as supporting women, but they do not positively affect or protect cisgender or transgender women; in actuality, their only impact is to exclude transgender Americans from legal recognition and erase the experience of nonbinary and intersex individuals. In light of this worrisome impact, transgender, nonbinary, and intersex people may wonder what protections they have in workplaces if their state has passed a Women’s BoR.  

Each state’s Women’s BoR is unique depending on what laws it sought to amend and how far-reaching its impact will be, but clear throughlines exist nationwide. Transgender, nonbinary, and intersex employees are affected by the redefinition of terms including sex, gender, men, and women, as legislators use outdated and transphobic lenses to categorize individuals and essentially erase any protection of those who do not identify as cisgender women or men. Furthermore, some of these bills place legal consequences on transgender, nonbinary, and intersex employees who use public facilities that align with their gender identity. For example, under the Louisiana Women’s Safety and Protection Act, an individual who alleges they have suffered “any direct or indirect harm as a result of a violation of” this law may file a lawsuit against the party in violation for relief that may include injunctive relief (a court order to do something or to stop doing something) and attorney fees, damages, and costs associated with the lawsuit. The state seems to be incentivizing these cases by waiving a procedural hurdle that is usually required to get an injunction.  

What do these bills mean for transgender, nonbinary, or intersex employees that are employed in states that have enacted a Women’s BoR? If the individual is employed by a state government, public school, or another form of public institution, that institution may take the position that only cisgender employees are protected by the state’s anti-discrimination laws, which they may now interpret as only applying to cisgender women and men.  

Oklahoma’s Women’s BoR states that “any policy, program, or statute that prohibits sex discrimination shall be construed to forbid unfair treatment of females or males in relation to similarly situated members of the opposite sex.” By stating that laws only forbid “unfair treatment of females or males,” the bill may result in transgender, nonbinary, and intersex employees no longer being covered by the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act. Montana similarly appears to have passed legislation that limits “sex discrimination” to only males and females, which could be interpreted as removing transgender, nonbinary, or intersex individuals from the protections of the Montana Human Rights Act.

These employees may still be protected by federal anti-discrimination laws, though, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employment discrimination based on gender identity. For instance, if a transgender employee is barred by their employer from using the office locker room that aligns with their gender identity, they may be able to establish a Title VII violation. Similarly, a Title VII or Affordable Care Act violation may be established where a transgender employee is denied coverage for gender-affirming care but cisgender employees are covered for the same procedure or treatment. 

Though not all have been labeled Women’s BoR, more than 40 “re-definition” bills were introduced in state legislatures this year, according to the ACLU, marking a significant increase in this type of legislation. This indicates a concerted effort by certain political groups to roll back protections and recognition for transgender and nonbinary individuals. This legislative push not only threatens to erode hard-won rights but also fosters a climate of discrimination and exclusion. As these bills have gained traction in the past few years, it becomes increasingly important for employers and allies to stay informed and engaged to protect and advance the rights of transgender and nonbinary individuals at both the state and national levels. 

It is essential for public and private employers to understand the implications of these laws and how they might affect their workforce. When possible, employers should be proactive in counteracting harmful policies by incorporating specific protective language into their company policies and providing robust support systems for their transgender, nonbinary, and intersex employees. This could involve conducting informational sessions to ensure that employees know their rights and the potential impacts of these laws.  

While public employers in states that have passed Women’s BoRs may be more limited in how they can support their transgender, nonbinary, and intersex employees, private employers can support their employees by implementing inclusive policies and practices such as anti-discrimination policies that explicitly protect gender identity and expression; providing comprehensive healthcare benefits that cover gender-affirming treatments and ensuring that facilities, such as restrooms, are accessible to all employees. Additionally, providing support networks, such as employee resource groups, and ensuring that all employees are aware of and have access to these resources can significantly enhance the sense of belonging and safety for transgender, nonbinary, and intersex employees. By doing so, employers can create a more inclusive and supportive work environment, helping to mitigate the negative effects of these legislative changes on their employees. 

Dacey Romberg, Madison Zucco, Luke Lamberti, and Xan Wolstenholme-Britt are with Sanford Heisler Sharp.

I don’t think President Eisenhower ever thought of transgender people when the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights was founded in 1957. But today the horrific killings of transgender women of color is too much to be ignored. In 2018, 82 percent of recorded transgender homicides were of women of color.

So it was critical that the commission examine the violence against transgender women of color as part of its larger investigation of racial disparities among crime victims. 

Today, on Wednesday, Sept. 18, as a commissioner, I am proud to present to Congress and the White House our findings and my recommendations to address the rising violence and killings of transgender women of color. 

The commission’s report, and its documentation of this violence, recognizes transgender women of color under federal law. They are entitled to all of the protections of the Constitution and federal civil rights laws.  

Over the past year, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights investigated racial disparities in crime victimization as violent crime rose from 2017-2021.  The commission’s investigation did not find differences in the risk of victimization for different races at a national level, as some might have suggested. But the data shows that LGBTQ+ and transgender communities of color are at a higher risk of violent crime.  

Transgender people, especially transgender African Americans face persistent and pervasive discrimination and violence. Kierra Johnson, the executive director of the National LGBTQ Task Force, testified in how transgender individuals are victimized four times more often than non-trans people, with young Black and Latina transgender women at the highest risk. It was historic for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to recognize that sexual and/or gender minorities face increased risk for violent victimization. 

Still, we must more accurately capture the rates of violent victimization against LGBTQ+ people. There are inadequate data collection measures of gender and sexuality. A large percentage of Black transgender deaths are unaccounted for. 

Transgender homicides are likely undercounted for because of misgendering and “deadnaming” in police and media reports. Audacia Ray at the New York City Anti-Violence Project, explained that transgender individuals often do not share their legal names so when they are reported missing under their known name, their loved ones do not know what happens. 

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 only considers “sex” and does not look at “gender” or “sexual orientation.” So as the commission advises Congress and the federal agencies on the enforcement of modern civil rights, we must incorporate “race” and “gender” under our civil rights purview. The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program should include disaggregated data on sexual and gender identity.  

Transgender and gender-diverse victims of crime are unable to access crucial assistance and vital services. The commission’s investigation formally documented how LGBTQ overall, and especially those of color or transgender experience, continued to face discrimination and harassment by law enforcement. The U.S. Transgender Survey, found that 61 percent of Black respondents experienced some form of mistreatment by police, including being verbally harassed, or physically or sexually assaulted. 

Victim service providers testified that LGBTQ+ survivors hesitate to seek help because of fear of being blamed themselves; distrust or discrimination by the police; and expectations of indifference. Survivors of violence — of any race, sexual orientation, gender, or gender-identity — must be able to receive essential services and assistance to help them heal from the trauma of violence. Mandatory and proper training for law enforcement and victim service providers can help victims feel safe when reporting incidents. 

Queer and trans Americans often fear retaliation by a world where they are living their true selves. The intersectional experiences of race exacerbates this fear. Our federal government needs to do more to ensure that all marginalized communities are better protected in our society. 

I never would have imagined that a federally authorized report to Congress would have the powerful statement on its public record “Black Trans Lives Matter!” That was until Kierra Johnson of the National LGBTQ Task Force said “I am here to say that Black Trans Lives Matter!” I am proud of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights’s report to Congress and the country on the rise of violent crime in America and its highlights of the violence against transgender women of color. 

Glenn D. Magpantay is a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, an independent, bipartisan federal agency that advises the White House and Congress on federal civil rights policy. The views expressed herein are as a commissioner, Magpantay’s own, and does not represent the entire commission. 

“I stopped reading Facebook feeds,” one of my queer Jewish American friends told me. I won’t say their name, but they are one of the many who showed similar sentiments.

We were speaking about increasing antisemitism among the LGBTQ community, and they were devastated.

Unfortunately, recent events in the Gaza Strip caused a peculiar situation when all Jewish people are blamed for the brutal response of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government; and LGBTQ Jews faced microaggression and direct violence, get insulted and attacked, even at Prides. 

First and foremost, I want to say that indiscriminate slaughtering of Gazan civilians is definitely a war crime that should be condemned and avoided in the future, but there are a lot of articles written on this topic by others who are more competent on this topic. This time I deliberately wouldn’t discuss Hamas and Israeli politicians here, because this story is not about them — this story is about the way the LGBTQ community is treating their Jewish siblings right now.

There are not so many visible queer politicians among Netanyahu supporters, and they are not spending time in social media queer groups. 

Moreover, right-wing LGBTQ people with connections to the Israeli government don’t care much about LGBTQ communities in the US, the UK, or Russia. 

LGBTQ people who suffer from everyday antisemitism are the ones who need community the most. Unfortunately, we live in a world where many families don’t accept their LGBTQ children, and for many queer people, the LGBTQ community became the only family support they had. 

And now antisemitism is taking this support away.

Why political opposition toward the Israeli government turned into Middle Ages-style bigotry is a very good question that doesn’t have a simple answer. 

Double standards

For a person who is not deeply into political and social issues, this situation may seem quite typical. After all, people are often used to judging the whole nation based on what their government did, right? Actually, wrong.

As a person from Ukraine, I may say that I spoke a lot about the Russian-Ukrainian war with LGBTQ and progressive activists in the West, and most of them showed enormous levels of compassion to “ordinary Russians,” despite the fact that the vast majority of the Russian population supports the Russian-Ukrainian war. Moreover, even after Russia in 2022 deliberately bombed the Mariupol Theater with Ukrainian children inside, Russians en masse weren’t called “child killers” by the American and European LGBTQ communities, and Russian activists still welcomed at Prides.

So it is definitely not about bombing children.

Also, all LGBTQ organizations in the US, UK, and European Union known to me that now openly support Palestine and call themselves anti-Zionists have never openly spoken up against concentration camps, ethnic cleansing, and the genocide of Muslim Uyghur populations in East Turkestan, which is under Chinese occupation right now. 

But LGBTQ groups and activists have never called themselves anti-Chinese, didn’t create a “queer for Eastern Turkistan” movement, and didn’t push Chinese LGBTQ people on campus to condemn the actions of the Chinese government.

So, it is also not about fighting Islamophobia.

What is it about? I have been a refugee in three different countries, and I have been involved in LGBTQ activism in some way in Russia, Ukraine, the UK, and the US, and I may say that antisemitism in LGBTQ communities exists in all those countries in some way. 

And in different cultural contexts, antisemitism represents itself differently among LGBTQ people. 

Eastern European antisemitism 

Me and three other LGBTQ activists in 2018 held a small demonstration in the middle of St. Petersburg on Victory Day, a big state-promoted holiday when Russians celebrate the Soviet victory over Nazism. We were holding posters about the common threats between Nazi Germany and the modern Russian Federation, including the persecution of LGBTQ people.

Suddenly, a very respected-looking man came to us, blaming us for an anti-Russian Western conspiracy just because we criticized the Russian government, and then started to say that the Holocaust never happened. When I yelled back at this man, telling him that I’m partly Jewish and daring him to repeat his antisemitic accusation, the man announced that Jews “paid to live in Auschwitz, so later they would create their own state.”

No one said anything against this man, but Russians were angry with me for “spoiling a holiday.”

Holocaust denial and everyday antisemitism are extremely prominent in Eastern Europe, from Poland to Russia. It is especially strong in Russia.

Russian pride about “victory over Nazis” is not about fighting Nazi ideology, but rather about being proud of a Soviet legacy. Simplifying Nazis is bad only because they killed Russian Soviets.

Even in state Russian Orthodox Churches, you could buy the “Protocol of the Elders of Zion” Nazi propaganda book.

LGBTQ activists in Russia are generally less antisemitic than the majority of the population, but all the same, they were raised in this culture, so they allow themselves antisemitic jokes and sometimes share Russian supremacy ideas.

So, for them, anti-Zionism is just another, new, and more appropriate way to hate Jews, and they didn’t even try to hide antisemitic rhetoric, especially because many prominent Jewish LGBTQ people moved to Israel or to the US, so the community is mostly non-Jewish. 

Western European and American antisemitism

The situation is quite different in America and Western Europe.

“Why are you supporting Palestine in a way you have never supported people from other war zones, including any other Muslim lands?” I asked my friend and activist from Sheffield in the UK.

“Because there is a first time in modern history when a country committed such an attack against civilians!” They answered me. “Especially with our government’s support.”

I closed my eyes, suddenly remembering the Iraqi city of Mosul that was wiped out to the ground by US-led allies, killing not just ISIS fighters, but also peaceful townsfolk stuck under the occupation of the self-proclaimed “caliphate,” or the Syrian town of Baqhuz Fawqani, where families of ISIS fighters, including babies and pregnant women, were bombed together with Syrian civilians. 

And to mention, once again, Russian “clearing” operations and bombings in Chechnya and Ukraine, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s crimes against his own people in Syria, crimes committed by ISIS, or the ongoing war in Mali. 

My friend has no idea how wrong they were. 

Modern wars are extremely brutal, and there is an ongoing problem of dehumanizing enemies and war crimes that need to be solved. It’s a much broader problem than just Israeli‘s actions, but like one of my Jewish nonbinary friends is saying, “no Jews, no news.” 

Western antisemitism in the LGBTQ community, including the idea that all Jewish people are extremely privileged white oppressors, is based on a simple ignorance, no less than on prejudice. If in Russia I saw more activists who hate Jews and just want to be anti-Jewish in a modern way, in the UK and US LGBTQ community I saw more people who are generally caring about war crimes. But they refused to make their own analysis and refused to use the same standards for Jews that they use for other minorities — for example, not pushing them to condemn crimes they never committed.

The Palestinian rights movement has one of the biggest and more successful PR campaigns in modern history, while Jewish organizations failed to promote their agenda among non-Jewish populations.

“Most of them [LGBTQ activists and friends] don’t even know what Zionism is, to be really anti-Zionist,” my queer American friend noticed.

But, just like in Russia, some queer people are just bigots who now could show their hate publicly in a way that wouldn’t be condemned by their community.

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

Although few Americans heard about it at the time, LGBTQ+ Africans remember that Kamala Harris stood up for them when she visited Africa as vice president in March 2023.  

On March 27, 2023, she appeared at a joint news conference in Accra, Ghana, with Ghanaian President Nana Akufo-Addo. The final question came from Zolan Kanno-Youngs of the New York Times. Referring to the bill that would impose harsh jail terms on LGBTQ+ people, then being considered by the Ghanaian parliament, and citing the Biden administration’s commitment to” calling out any foreign government that advanced anti-gay legislation or violates human rights,” he asked her “what have you said to the president and plan to say to other leaders on this trip about the crackdown on human rights?”

Under the “Human Sexual Rights and Ghanaian Family Values Bill,” which was passed by the Ghanaian parliament on Feb. 28, 2024, people who engage in same-sex relations will be subject to up to three years imprisonment, anyone who promotes LGBTQ+ rights can be jailed for six to 10 years, and all LGBTQ+ organizations will be banned. The act is now being challenged in the country’s Supreme Court as unconstitutional.

As Nii-Quarterlai Quartner, professor at Pepperdine University, writes in his new book, “Kamala, the Motherland, and Me,” “even before he completed his inquiry, members of the Ghanaian cabinet made their disapproval apparent. You could see their faces get tight and hear the whispers. You could even hear some laughter. Was it nervous laughter? Was it belittling laughter? Was it somewhere in between? I don’t know. But the immediate shift in energy was palpable. Despite the angry stares and even some snickers from around the room, Vice President Harris never paused or hesitated in her response.”

Standing at Akufo-Addo’s side, Harris answered the question directly and at length. 

“I’ll start,” she said, “I have raised this issue, and let me be clear about where we stand. First of all, for the American press who are here, you know that a great deal of work in my career has been to address human rights issues, equality issues across the board, including as it relates to the LGBTQ+ community. And I feel very strongly about the importance of supporting freedom and supporting and fighting for equality among all people, and that all people be treated equally. I will also say that this is an issue that we consider, and I consider to be a human rights issue, and that will not change.”

Former President Donald Trump’s policy, if he wins the election this coming November, would be quite different.  

According to the Project 2025 report, prepared under the direction of the Heritage Foundation by leading Trump advisors, in Trump’s second term, the United States will “stop promoting policies birthed in the American culture wars” and stop pressing African governments to respect the rule of law, human rights/LGBT+ rights, political and civil rights, democracy, and women’s rights, especially abortion rights. “African nations are particularly (and reasonably) non-receptive to the US social policies such as abortion and pro-LGBT initiatives being imposed on them,” by the United States, the report declares. Therefore, “the United States should focus on core security, economic, and human rights engagement with African partners and reject the promotion of divisive policies that hurt the deepening of shared goals between the US and its African partners.”

The fate of LGBTQ+ Africans may not matter much to most American voters, but the results of the US election matter to them. Their safety, freedom, and lives depend on it.

Daniel Volman is the director of the African Security Research Project in Washington, D.C., and a specialist on US national security policy toward Africa and African security issues.

Ukrainian men are being pulled away from vital humanitarian work and drafted into the military under new conscription laws, according to local activists.

One huge challenge facing Ukraine’s war effort is a shortage of conscripts. Kyiv hopes new laws passed in April 2024 aimed at recruiting many more soldiers will help it get on the front foot militarily, particularly after a fresh wave of attacks from Russia in May 2024 in the northeast.

Vasyl Malikov is the Kharkiv coordinator of Alliance.Global northeastern Ukraine. The NGO provides a wide range of services to the LGBTQ community in the Kharkiv region, including HIV prevention and testing, psychosocial help, medical, and humanitarian aid.

He told me that most of the men who work with the organization to provide these services as well as their volunteers are liable to be called up for military service under the new conscription drive.

Russian invasions of Ukraine in 2014 and 2022 have resulted in a protracted war being fought along a front line stretching over several hundred miles. In August 2024 Ukraine opened a new line of attack when it pushed into Russia’s Kursk region, with reports estimating Ukraine could commit as many as 10,000 troops to the attack. Despite the widespread use of new technology on the battlefield, much of the war is being fought by more traditional means, with large numbers of soldiers armed with rifles defending the country from trenches.

The new laws aim to reinforce Ukraine’s tiring military and lower the age of conscription from 27 to 25, although volunteers over 18 are still accepted.

Ukraine has for a decade been successfully pressing the United States government and leaders in Europe for weapons to defend itself against Russian aggression, but having enough soldiers to use them is a significant challenge.

An initial target of conscripting 450,000 to 500,000 new recruits has been lowered, but it is not clear what the new number is. I’ve been regularly reporting from the front line in and around Kharkiv, the country’s second biggest city, over the last two years, and it’s obvious that Ukraine’s military is running short of personnel.

Malikov says some of the men who work with Alliance.Global have already been called into the army, and are hard to replace. “Good international practice is that many of the services we provide to LGBTQ people are best done by social workers and volunteers who come from the communities they serve (peer-to-peer),” he said. 

“We do an enormous amount of work providing vital social and other support to gay men and bisexual men in and around Kharkiv. Trust is important in the outreach to these communities, and if men from our team are taken for the army you can’t just get anyone to replace them. These are experienced professionals, committed to this work.”

A few of the Alliance.Global team are exempt from the military draft on medical grounds, or for some other reason. Malikov is himself currently exempt because he is also a university professor, but this academic certificate has to be renewed every three months – a long bureaucratic process, he says, which can involve him queueing for five hours at a time. 

This new challenge comes as the country’s LGBTQ community confronts a halt to progress on legislation to introduce same-sex civil partnerships, despite more than 70 percent of Ukrainians polled saying that LGBTQ people should have the same rights as other citizens. This is a huge improvement from 2010 attitudes, when only 28 percent of Ukrainians thought that “gay men and lesbians should be free to live their lives as they wish.”

Yet, as Bogdan Globa, president and co-founder of QUA – LGBTQ Ukrainians in America, notes, “thousands of LGBTQI+ are serving in the army with a civilian partner back at home. For straight couples, if something happens with a military partner (wounded or killed), a civilian partner will obtain a variety of government benefits, from cash support to housing. In the case of same-sex couples, they are invisible to the government and have no help or recognition. A civilian person has no right to even bury their partner’s body.” 

Malikov says, “any Ukrainian man could find himself in the military in a matter of weeks from now, because it’s a civic duty of Ukrainian men during wartime, including any number of the 80 or more men who are part of the Alliance.Global network.” 

The new recruitment drive presents new tests for his work in Kharkiv. “It makes things very difficult to plan. We don’t know who will be called up, or when, and it’s another layer of unpredictability to an already uncertain future,” he says.

For more, see Human Rights First’s new report, “New Recruits: Ukraine’s Military Conscription Laws Threaten Humanitarian Efforts,” written by Maya Fernandez-Powell and myself.

Brian Dooley is senior adviser for Human Rights First.

It is time those who keep trying to compare this election to previous elections to recognize there is no comparison. There has never been a sitting vice president running against a disgraced former president, who lost the last time he ran. There has never been an African American/Asian American woman, running for president as a major party nominee. There has never been a candidate who replaced the original candidate of a major party on the ticket, with only three months until the election. 

There also has never in recent years been such a unified Democratic Party, running against not a political party, but a cult. There has never been a major party candidate running for president held liable for sexual assault and convicted of 34 felonies. There has never been a time when a woman’s right to control her own healthcare has been taken away after being considered a constitutional right for nearly 50 years. There has never been a time when a woman’s right to an abortion has been on so many state ballots. And there has never been a candidate who rants regularly on his social media platform, mostly inane nonsense, at the same time his running mate tells a sitting vice president to ‘go to hell,’ in response to something she never even said. We have never had a candidate for vice president who has in essence told women without children they are useless. The total lack of class of the MAGA Republican ticket is also something we have never seen before. So to all those like the MAGA Republican Marc Theissen, who writes in the Washington Post, saying he can compare this election to previous ones, they might want to take the time to read some history.

What’s clear is we don’t know who will win this election. We don’t know how many Americans there are who would choose to vote for a once defeated former president, convicted felon, who tried to stage a coup to remain in office. Yes, he could win even if that were to seem like an alternate reality. Unfortunately, with today’s divided electorate, we can surmise what the result in 43 states will be. It is only in seven states that there is some doubt about the result. I wish I had a crystal ball, but I don’t, and neither does anyone else. From what we have seen in recent years, polling is not an accurate predictor. 

There are the types of issues in this campaign we have seen in previous elections, when wars and the economy have played a big role. Today we have divisions over the Israel/Hamas war, with debates on how the United States should deal with Israel, and the future of the Palestinian people. There is the war in Ukraine and questions some have about our continued support for Ukraine, and how we are working with our allies. Then there are what are usually called kitchen table issues: inflation, and the cost of food, gas, rent, and education. Then add the issue of crime. We know climate change is taking a much larger role in elections, especially for young people who will live longer with the results if we do nothing about it. These are the issues, even if not exactly the same, that have been around in previous elections. Yet this election is still so different. 

It is what is new and scary I believe this election will be decided on. It will be decided by a very small number of voters, in a small number of states. It will be won by Harris if enough voters fully understand our democracy is actually at risk if Trump wins. They must understand the impact of the Supreme Court ruling granting a president nearly absolute immunity. Understand what happens if Trump’s acolytes, who will be in his government, remake our government based on the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025. It will be decided by those who understand what additional rights will be taken away if Trump is able to appoint more judges with lifetime terms to the Supreme Court, and other federal courts.

With all this at stake we still don’t know how people will vote. But I have confidence in the American people, and believe Kamala Harris and Tim Walz will win. But I also know for that to happen, they will need everyone who supports them to be out and working hard, whether raising money, knocking on doors, or talking to family and friends to get them to vote. That last one can really have the greatest impact over the next two months. 

Everyone who supports the Harris/Walz ticket needs to sit down and make a list of every one of their friends and family members. Then start calling. First you need to ask each person for a commitment to vote. Then you must help them understand why their vote is so important. Explain to them they are not only voting for themselves in this election, they are voting for you. 

You need to share with them what this election could mean to your life. If you are a young person concerned with climate change, explain to them they are voting to make the world safer and healthier for you, who will be living in it the longest. If you are a woman who wants to ensure you have control of your own healthcare, and the right to an abortion, explain to them why this election is so crucial to you. If you are a member of the LGBTQ community and want to ensure your rights aren’t taken away, and instead of going backwards, you have a chance to get full equality, explain to them why their vote in this election will have a direct impact on your life. If you are African American and want to ensure you have your civil rights, economic equality, the right to vote, and that the nation doesn’t go back to giving police ultimate power, and the right to ‘stop and frisk’ as Trump has stated he supports, then explain to them why this could literally be a vote for your life. If you are Latino and a Dreamer, and want the right to live safely in this country without looking over your shoulder every day, worrying about the possibility of a member of your family being deported, explain to them why this is a vote for your safety and your future. If you are Asian American and want to ensure you can live without discrimination, explain why this is a vote for you. 

This election must be made to feel personal for each voter. People need to understand what electing Trump will mean to each one of us, and how it will directly impact every person’s life. You can do that by calling all your friends and family, and then asking them to call their friends, like a giant telephone tree. It will make the difference to winning or losing.

Again, in the end, this election is about all of us. It is about our individual rights as guaranteed in our Constitution. It is about what our country will look like going into the future. It is about how we interact with the rest of the world knowing we have a global economy, and the result and impact of doing nothing about climate change doesn’t stop at our border. It is about the opportunity to continue to move forward toward that ‘more perfect union,’ promised in our Constitution. So, when you speak with your friends and family do so honestly, and do it with passion. Because for all of us to live a good, safe, and healthy life, in a peaceful, safer, and healthier world, Kamala Harris and Tim Walz must win.

Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist. He writes regularly for the Blade.

The backlash against DEI and other inclusive programs at America’s largest companies continues, with news last week that Ford Motor Company will scale back its internal DEI initiatives.

The announcement follows a move by retailer Target to reduce its Pride merchandise in June and, of course, the uproar last year over Bud Light’s trans-inclusive marketing efforts. 

The Ford news was first reported last week when a memo from CEO Jim Farley was leaked to Reuters by right-wing activist Robby Starbuck, “who has campaigned against DEI programs as well as corporate participation in LGBTQ events and the issuance of public statements concerning — or the deployment of business strategies to address — matters from climate change to systemic racism,” as the Blade reported.

Starbuck, a music video director-turned-anti-woke crusader claimed credit for Ford’s decision, writing that the company “fears” him. “We’re now forcing multi-billion dollar organizations to change their policies,” he said in a post on X.

No one had ever heard of this guy or his homophobic and racist campaign until recently, which begs the question: Why are some of America’s largest companies reflexively caving to these destructive demands?

In addition to Ford, Starbuck has claimed credit for sparking similar changes at Tractor Supply, John Deere, Harley Davidson, Polaris, and most recently Lowe’s, after threatening to expose “woke policies” at the companies. 

Lowe’s last week revealed in a memo that it would stop participating in the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index and would no longer sponsor parades and festivals like Pride celebrations. 

Of course, some of these changes are normal business decisions driven by the bottom line. Does expending internal resources to comply with HRC’s criteria for a good score do anything to boost business? Are these companies hedging now in anticipation of retaliation by a Trump administration if he wins in November?  

But the timing of these recently announced changes raises eyebrows given all the pronouncements by Starbuck and they are disconcerting because our corporate allies have sometimes made the difference between anti-LGBTQ laws taking effect or not. 

It’s maddening that one pony-tailed blogger could scare huge corporations into abandoning affirming programs for its employees and customers. Starbuck has called DEI programs “evil” and CNN reported that his wife Landon is a leading opponent in Tennessee of affirming medical care for trans teens and drag queen story hour events.

Predictably, Starbuck is a Trump supporter whose scientifically challenged opinions have been amplified by Elon Musk. He is a climate change denier and anti-vaxxer who told CNN that LGBTQ Pride events promote sex to children, the oldest and most disgusting slur used against our community. 

The corporate CEOs and boards caving to this homophobe should grow a spine.

Thankfully, the news from corporate America isn’t all bad. In April, JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon in a shareholder letter touted a range of programs — “from resource groups for employees who are Black, LGBTQ+, or have disabilities to a fund aimed at helping entrepreneurs of color, investments in rural communities, and recruiting efforts at historically Black colleges and universities,” according to a report in Axios. “He also said that the $30 billion racial equity commitment the bank made in 2020 was ‘nearly completed’ and would become a permanent part of the business.”

“We’re thoughtfully continuing our diversity, equity and inclusion efforts,” he wrote.

And earlier this week, Aetna announced that it would become the first major health insurer to offer intrauterine insemination (IUI) as a medical benefit to all members nationwide, regardless of a patient’s sexual orientation or partner status. Aetna is the nation’s third largest health insurer, so the policy change “has wide-reaching implications for LGBTQ Americans,” the company touted in a release.

For those corporate leaders searching for a response to Starbuck and his ilk, I suggest they listen to former Macy’s CEO Jeff Gennette whom I interviewed for the Blade in January upon his retirement. Gennette, who’s gay, pioneered Macy’s own extensive DEI programs and disagreed with how Target and others caved to right-wing demands. 

“It’s when you flip and succumb to pressure that you get yourself sideways,” he said, noting that, “It always comes back to your core values. We had Pride merchandise at the front of our stores and we were participants in Pride parades around the country. George Floyd put us on notice about being vocal about our internal programs and how you use your CEO voice to be true to what you’re doing internally.”

 There remain plenty of CEOs out there who are doing the right thing. Ford, Lowe’s, and the others placating MAGA blowhards are alienating potential customers and undermining their LGBTQ employees and should reverse these misguided and cowardly decisions.

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

In an era of social and political uncertainty, the importance of LGBTQ representation in corporate leadership has never been more critical, according to diversity experts.

Despite increasing visibility, LGBTQ+ individuals continue to face discrimination and challenges in the workplace. A recent study by GLAAD found that 70% of non-LGBTQ adults believe in the importance of inclusive hiring practices. However, representation in top corporate positions remains inadequate.

“Having LGBTQ+ individuals in C-suite positions is more than an issue of fairness — it drives real cultural change,” said Aidan Currie, Executive Director of Reaching Out MBA.

According to Gallup data, 7.6% of all U.S. adults identify as LGBTQ, with the percentage rising to 22% among Gen Z adults. This demographic shift underscores the need for diverse leadership in corporate America.

The impact of LGBTQ+ representation extends beyond social progress. McKinsey & Company’s 2020 report found that companies in the top quartile for gender diversity were 25% more likely to see higher profitability. Similar principles apply to LGBTQ+ representation.

However, challenges persist. The FBI reports a 19% increase in hate crimes targeting LGBTQ+ people, highlighting ongoing societal issues.

To address these challenges, organizations like Reaching Out MBA (ROMBA) are working to increase LGBTQ+ influence in business. ROMBA’s annual conference brings together LGBTQ+ MBA students, recruiters, and business leaders.

This year, ROMBA is introducing PRIZM, a multi-day event for experienced, mid-career LGBTQ+ business professionals. The event aims to equip participants with skills needed to advance to C-suite roles.

“It’s incumbent upon us to make sure our community is prepared to lead, and it’s incumbent upon corporate leaders to stand behind their commitment to inclusion,” said Zeke Stokes, former Chief Programs Officer at GLAAD.

As the business landscape evolves, the push for greater LGBTQ+ representation in corporate leadership continues. Experts argue that this representation is not just a matter of equity, but a crucial factor in driving innovation, profitability, and positive societal change.

For more information on ROMBA and PRIZM, visit https://reachingoutmba.org/

Written By AIDAN CURRIE and ZEKE STOKES

#