Showing posts sorted by date for query PUBERTY BLOCKERS. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query PUBERTY BLOCKERS. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Wednesday, December 31, 2025



In the Face of Anti-Trans Escalation, We Need More Than Legal Strategies

The swiftness with which Trump dismantled decades of meager, hard-fought protections exposed the limits of legal work.

December 31, 2025

People attend a Trans Day of Visibility rally in Washington, D.C., on March 31, 2025.BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / AFP via Getty Images


In a year marked by escalating attacks on transgender people, the Trump administration has seemed to outdo its own cruelty at every turn. While the administration has led a series of attempts to curtail trans people’s rights, recognition, and safety, neither Congress nor the Supreme Court seem willing to provide a meaningful check on the administration’s brazen targeting of trans people and other demonized communities. Transgender people are rightly concerned about what the coming years will mean for our rights and survival opportunities. But as we close out 2025, I am convinced that this bleak moment offers us critical opportunities to build outside of the law and across movements for more transformative change.


The Anti-Trans Year in Review




On his first day in office, President Donald Trump made clear that he would follow through on his campaign promises to systematically target transgender people across law and government. He announced in his inaugural address that it would be the policy of the United States that there are only two sexes determined at conception and that being transgender is a “false claim.” To effectuate his declaration that transgender people do not exist, Trump has directed his administration to mandate discrimination against us in education, employment, housing, health care, the military, on our identification documents, and in carceral settings.

While attempting to upend legal protections via executive order and coercive funding threats, the administration has also used deliberately dehumanizing rhetoric to situate trans people as inherently fraudulent. The president has declared that being transgender is inconsistent with “an honorable, truthful, and disciplined life”; referred to medical treatment for transgender minors as “child abuse”; and consistently demeaned transgender life by referring to our very existence as “transgender insanity.”

The administration’s attacks on trans life have continued throughout this first year, culminating in the latest set of attacks by both the Justice Department and the Department of Health and Human Services.



Trump’s Anti-Trans Policies Embolden Far Right, But Our Existence Challenges It
Trans existence challenges the fundamental tenets of fascism and exposes the fragility of authoritarian power. By Zane McNeill , Truthout November 20, 2025


Earlier this month, the Justice Department announced a directive to abandon safety protocols for LGBTQ people in prison. In 2003, Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA). PREA directed the Justice Department to address endemic sexual violence in custodial settings. Given the extensive data documenting that transgender people are uniquely vulnerable to sexual violence while in prison, the Justice Department’s PREA standards recommended specific protections to safeguard against violence targeted at individuals because of their LGBTQ status.

Now, the Trump administration is telling agencies to disregard those standards. It is hard to see this latest action as anything other than a command to increase violence against trans people in custody. Linda McFarlane, executive director of Just Detention International, an organization that has spent decades working to implement PREA, puts it plainly: “The Department of Justice would rather see incarcerated people, including children, be sexually abused than allow trans people to express their gender identity.”

In addition to the latest attacks on PREA standards, the administration also published two sets of proposed regulations that seek to block the provision of evidence-based, medically necessary care for transgender people under 18 — care that is supported by every major medical association in the United States, including the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics. These rules threaten to cut off all federal Medicaid and Medicare funding to hospitals that treat transgender minors with puberty blockers, hormone therapy, or surgery to treat gender dysphoria. Though the regulations are not final, they reflect the administration’s far-reaching goal of limiting trans survival opportunities across all areas of life.

The swiftness with which the Trump administration has been able to do away with decades of meager but hard-fought protections exposes the limits of legal and policy work in securing meaningful protection.

Unfortunately, the administration has been helped considerably in its goal of targeting transgender people by a Supreme Court eager to undermine civil rights. While many of the administration’s actions transparently run afoul of longstanding statutory and constitutional protections, the Supreme Court has readily rubber-stamped them on its so-called emergency docket (the Supreme Court’s consideration of cases in a preliminary and “emergency” posture before it addresses the full merits). That has meant that lower court victories blocking the administration’s efforts to expel transgender people from openly serving in the United States military and to force transgender people to use passports that list our sex assigned at birth have been short-lived.

Even more troubling than the practical impact of allowing these sweeping policies to go into effect has been the Supreme Court’s apparent willingness to greenlight even more sweeping discrimination against transgender people. In an abbreviated and unsigned order in Trump v. Orr, the Supreme Court not only permitted the administration’s reversal of decades of policy across administrations that had allowed transgender people to update the sex designation on our passports, but it did so in a way that suggests that it may be impossible for transgender people to claim discrimination in many contexts moving forward. The court’s order reasoned: “Displaying passport holders’ sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth — in both cases, the Government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment.” For this court, it appears that transgender people cannot claim discrimination when the government refuses to honor who we are.


Thinking Beyond Legal Advocacy




The swiftness with which the Trump administration has been able to do away with decades of meager but hard-fought protections exposes the limits of legal and policy work in securing meaningful protection.

Though the mainstream LGBTQ legal movement enjoyed a decade of success at the Supreme Court in cases challenging restrictions on marriage equality and clarifying that federal prohibitions on sex discrimination encompass prohibitions on anti-LGBTQ discrimination, the past year has shown how unstable even the clearest precedents against the pressures of a global movement to retrench norms around gender and sexuality.


Trans people have spent generations mapping possibility onto scarcity.

If we are to measure our prospects of future success solely on the metric of prevailing before the Supreme Court or convincing this administration to reduce its attacks, then there is little to be hopeful about for the coming year.

But if instead we look at this moment as a stark reminder of the limits of legal advocacy and as an opportunity to invest more in community and power-building, then we can begin to map out meaningful strategies for change.

That is not to say we give up on legal advocacy. Bringing challenges to discriminatory policies in state and federal court remains a vital tool for delay and harm reduction, but as the Supreme Court’s Orr order lays bare, it is temporary and limited. But alongside those challenges, those of us who have been fighting primarily on the legal terrain need to connect with broader movements for bodily autonomy, decriminalization, and disability justice, building power and cultural change.

Now is thus the time to dream and act outside of the confines of our legal advocacy. Trans people have spent generations mapping possibility onto scarcity. As just one example, the majority of trans people have had mismatching and inaccurate identification for part or all of our lives. We have a deep well of strategies for navigating around and through systems of governance that never contemplated our existence. And so now, we tap into and deepen that well.

In her recent press tour about her biography of the legendary Black trans leader Marsha P. Johnson, Tourmaline spoke often about problems and solutions. And she did so in the language of dreaming and manifesting, not in the language of law.


What we deserve is something bigger than the law offers us.

“We are in a moment with big, big problems, and we’re wanting to let in big, big solutions,” Tourmaline reflected to NPR. “And I think Marsha is someone who transmutes problems into solutions.”

Tourmaline went on: “And so I’m a big believer, just like Marsha was, in terms of the bigger the problem, the bigger the solution — right? — and that when we’re in these harsh conditions, that is the perfect time to imagine what is the world that we deserve.”

What we deserve is something bigger than the law offers us. While we are confronted with the law’s brutal and unimaginative limits, let’s move into 2026 with a dream for something more.

This article is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), and you are free to share and republish under the terms of the license.


Chase Strangio
Chase Strangio is a lawyer and trans activist in New York City. Follow him on Instagram: @chasestrangio.

Monday, December 22, 2025

Court lifts injunction on trans law after Alberta uses notwithstanding clause

This is a cruel and dangerous move by a government that will harm vulnerable young people,


Protestors take part in a Gay Straight Alliance rally at the Alberta Legislature in Edmonton 
THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jason Franson

The Canadian Press

EDMONTON — A judge has granted an Alberta government appeal and lifted an injunction on a law preventing youth from accessing gender-affirming care.

Two advocacy groups, Egale and Skipping Stone, launched earlier this year a challenge over the law, which prohibits doctors from prescribing puberty blockers and hormone therapy to those under 16.

A judge later granted the injunction, saying the law raised serious Charter issues that needed to be hashed out, and the province filed the appeal.

Earlier this month, Premier Danielle Smith's government invoked the notwithstanding clause to shield the law and two others affecting transgender people from court challenge.

Heather Jenkins, press secretary for Justice Minister Mickey Amery, says the United Conservative Party government is pleased the injunction has been removed.

The government has said the gender health-care law is necessary to protect youth from making potentially life-altering medical decisions they may later regret.

The advocacy groups said they plan to apply for another injunction based on criminal law, since doctors who don't comply could face fines or imprisonment.

"This is a cruel and dangerous move by a government that will harm vulnerable young people," the groups said in a statement Thursday.

The groups added the law is "not a total ban" on gender-affirming care, as some youth will still be eligible to receive puberty blockers and hormones.

The groups said they plan to continue their challenge against Alberta's law requiring parental consent for children under 16 to change their names or pronouns at school.

They said they're also committed to challenging a law banning transgender Albertans 12 and older from participating in amateur female sports.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Dec. 18, 2025.















Wednesday, September 24, 2025

 

Brazilian researchers warn that healthcare for transgender people is under threat



Article published in Nature Medicine points to the risk of setbacks in research focused on this population. Experts question new rules in Brazil and other countries.




Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo





Recent restrictions on public policies and healthcare for transgender people in several countries, including Brazil, threaten to dismantle existing care structures for this population and could lead to setbacks. This warning is contained in an article published in the scientific journal Nature Medicine by a group of Brazilian researchers.

The text discusses the new resolution (No. 2,427), issued by the Federal Council of Medicine (CFM) in April. The resolution banned the use of hormone blockers for minors under 18 in Brazil, increased the minimum age for cross-sex hormone therapy from 16 to 18, and permitted gender transition surgeries only for individuals over 21.

In addition to prohibiting the clinical use of blockers in transgender youth, the Brazilian resolution also prevents research in this area. Hormone therapy involves administering sex hormones to promote physical changes compatible with gender identity. These procedures had been adopted based on the CFM’s previous resolution (No. 2,265) published in 2020.

According to the authors, these rules not only generate an intimidating effect among health professionals but also hinder the provision of adequate care. This can increase the risk of depression, social isolation, and even suicide among transgender youth – those who do not identify with their birth sex. The group also believes that science is being stifled by limits or prohibitions on research and treatments aimed specifically at this group.

The article also calls on professional entities and the academic community – including institutions, funding agencies, scientific journals, and researchers – to reaffirm their support for evidence-based care for transgender individuals.

“Public policies and health legislation need to be based on evidence and ethical principles, not ideology. Everyone, including transgender youth and their families, health professionals, and researchers, needs to participate, be heard, and understand what’s happening,” Alexandre Saadeh, a psychiatrist and one of the authors of the article, who has been working in the field for over 35 years, told Agência FAPESP.

Saadeh is the coordinator of the Transdisciplinary Outpatient Clinic for Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation (AMTIGOS), located at the Institute of Psychiatry of the Hospital das Clínicas, the hospital complex administered by the University of São Paulo. AMTIGOS is a pioneer in welcoming transgender youth in Brazil and is recognized for its care protocols for children and adolescents. Over the past ten years, approximately 120 children and over 350 adolescents have received treatment there, out of a total of 1,300 individuals who underwent screening.

When contacted by Agência FAPESP, the CFM cited Sweden, Norway, Finland, and England, as well as the United States, as “countries that have revised their guidelines in recent years and restricted the use of puberty blockers and hormone therapy for minors, reflecting the need for more research and a more cautious approach to prescribing these drugs.”

In a statement, the council said, “The Federal Council of Medicine respects opposing opinions and reiterates that one of the objectives of the changes proposed in the resolution, based on more than 100 scientific studies published in recent years, is to protect children and adolescents from procedures that are often completely irreversible and can cause lifelong problems and sequelae.” The council added that the standard was approved in a plenary session composed of 28 federal council members from all states “of different ideological hues.”

Principle of progressive autonomy

In Saadeh’s assessment, gender identity has always existed. “It isn’t a disease, it isn’t a disorder, it’s a variation that occurs in human beings in all cultures and in all countries. We have to look at these people, listen to them, and not try to prevent them from being who they are. It isn’t by restricting rights that we’ll protect children and adolescents,” the psychiatrist argues. 

The Statute of the Child and Adolescent (ECA) ensures that young people can participate in decisions about their health through the principle of progressive autonomy.

Bruno Gualano, professor and president of the Center for Lifestyle Medicine at USP and co-author of the article, believes that the new CFM standard hinders scientific production. “The resolution removes the possibility for doctors to prescribe, for example, hormone blockers, as was done under the council’s previous standard, which had specific rules. On the other hand, it demands more scientific evidence on the effects of this procedure on young people. But if it’s prohibited, how are we going to produce evidence?” he asks.

The researchers point out that the previous CFM resolution guided the care provided to 79 transgender adolescents with puberty blockers at AMTIGOS. “Adverse effects were rare, with few discontinuing the blockers and only one expressing a desire to detransition after hormone therapy, and this occurred without regret. These results are in line with international standards, showing detransition rates below 2% when appropriate assessment protocols are followed,” the group writes in Nature Medicine.

Gualano is currently the lead researcher on the project “Eating Behaviors, Symptoms of Eating Disorders, and Obesity in Transgender Youth: A Proposal for Assessment and Intervention,” developed by nutritionist Bruna Caruso Mazzolani, who is also a co-author of the text. Supported by FAPESP, the study aims to assess behaviors and possible eating disorders and to develop and implement a specific lifestyle intervention for this population.

Preliminary data obtained by Gualano’s team suggest that AMTIGOS patients and their guardians strongly oppose the major changes introduced by the new CFM resolution. “Naturally, any proposal to change the care of transgender people should take into account what they think,” the researcher argues, hoping that the new data will shed light on the discussion.

Brazil lacks official statistics on the transgender population and has few studies and research involving these individuals, especially young people. In 2021, a survey by the Botucatu School of Medicine at São Paulo State University (FMB-UNESP), published in Scientific Reports, showed that the country has 3 million people identified as transgender or non-binary, corresponding to approximately 2% of the adult population.

The 2023 National Demographic and Health Survey (PNDS), conducted by the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE) in partnership with the Ministry of Health, included the collection of data on the sexual orientation and gender identity of Brazilians aged 18 and over for the first time. However, the results have not yet been released.

Other cases

In the United Kingdom, the National Health Service (NHS) has restricted access to puberty blockers to research settings only.

Following an Executive Order by President Donald Trump’s administration (published in January this year) prohibiting gender-affirming care for minors under the age of 19, only 14 of the 50 states decided to maintain healthcare services for transgender people in the United States. The restriction was approved despite opposition from medical bodies such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association, which support care for this population based on evidence-based protocols.

The new policies have serious ethical implications for researchers, compromising everything from the right to health – “when appropriate medical care is denied for political reasons” – to the possibility of transgender people seeking care from professionals who do not recognize their gender identity.

“In Brazil, the CFM resolution may lead these young people to seek out untrained doctors or even self-medicate, jeopardizing their health. In addition, these policies have a greater impact on low-income families, threatening important achievements in rights and health,” Saadeh says.

Care at AMTIGOS

The clinic receives individuals who seek health services on their own. They fill out a registration form and then undergo screening. Upon admission, the children and young people have access to follow-up care, including psychiatric evaluations and multidisciplinary teams specializing in speech therapy, social work, psychology, psychiatry, pediatrics, nutrition, physical education, and more. Families participate in the process and guidance. The clinic serves adolescents until they reach adulthood.

“This is a moment that tests medicine’s commitment to evidence over ideology. From AIDS to reproductive rights, the scientific community has defended equity in health and integrity. (...) Medical care is necessary, ethically grounded, and widely supported by evidence. Its rollback is unjustifiable,” the researchers conclude.

About São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP)
The São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) is a public institution with the mission of supporting scientific research in all fields of knowledge by awarding scholarships, fellowships and grants to investigators linked with higher education and research institutions in the State of São Paulo, Brazil. FAPESP is aware that the very best research can only be done by working with the best researchers internationally. Therefore, it has established partnerships with funding agencies, higher education, private companies, and research organizations in other countries known for the quality of their research and has been encouraging scientists funded by its grants to further develop their international collaboration. You can learn more about FAPESP at www.fapesp.br/en and visit FAPESP news agency at www.agencia.fapesp.br/en to keep updated with the latest scientific breakthroughs FAPESP helps achieve through its many programs, awards and research centers. You may also subscribe to FAPESP news agency at http://agencia.fapesp.br/subscribe

Sunday, August 24, 2025

Trump vs gender care: President and his team ratchet up attacks as more young people identify as transgender


Kelly Rissman
Sun 24 August 2025 
THE INDEPENDENT





The Trump administration has ramped up its attacks on gender-affirming care as young people are identifying as transgender at a higher rate than their older counterparts.

Transgender Americans have been made a target of President Donald Trump’s second presidency since his first day in office, when he issued an executive order declaring the United States only recognizes two sexes: male and female. Since returning to the White House, the president has made more than 300 attacks against LGBTQ+ people, according to advocacy group GLAAD.

This week alone demonstrates the fervor with which the Trump administration has taken aim at transgender Americans across the country.

The Air Force ordered that military boards “must recommend separation” for transgender service members, circumventing the typical board review process that includes a “fair and impartial hearing.” A Yosemite National Park ranger who hung a trans pride flag at Yosemite’s El Capitan was terminated. MAGA world erupted when two students were suspended from a Virginia high school after a Title IX investigation found they sexually harassed a transgender student.

The Trump administration’s attacks against gender-affirming care, in particular, have ramped up this week amid a new analysis showing that 2.8 million Americans aged 13 and older identify as transgender.

Of that group, more than three-quarters are under 35 years old and one-quarter are between 13 and 17, suggesting more young people are likely to identify as transgender compared to their older counterparts, the Williams Institute, a UCLA Law think tank, found in an analysis released Wednesday.

“LGBTQ people, especially transgender youth, are more comfortable being themselves than ever before,” a GLAAD spokesperson told The Independent in an email. “No president or administration will ever censor us away.”

The Independent has reached out to the White House for comment.

The report relied on data from a CDC survey. In an apparent remark on the political climate, the authors noted that they’re unclear about what data sources will be available in the future and said it’s “also unclear whether individuals’ willingness to disclose on surveys that they identify as transgender will remain unchanged in the years to come.”

In a direct onslaught on transgender youth, the Justice Department issued a subpoena to the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia demanding records related to minors’ gender-affirming care, filings made public this week reveal.


Attorney General Pam Bondi announced in July that the Justice Department had issued 20 subpoenas to doctors and clinics involved in providing gender-affirming care to minors (AP)

Last month, Attorney General Pam Bondi announced the DOJ had issued subpoenas to more than 20 doctors and clinics involved in providing gender-affirming care to minors. “Medical professionals and organizations that mutilated children in the service of a warped ideology will be held accountable by this Department of Justice,” Bondi said in a statement in July.

The subpoena asks the hospital to produce documents that identify which patients were prescribed puberty blockers or hormone therapy, records related to diagnoses that formed the basis for prescribing these treatments, and documents related to informed consent and parental authorization. The DOJ wants documents dating back to January 2020, when no state had banned gender-affirming care. Now, 27 states have placed limits on such care, according to KFF.

“The subpoena is a breathtakingly invasive government overreach,” Jennifer L. Levi, senior director of transgender and queer rights at legal advocacy group GLAD Law, told the Washington Post. “It’s specifically and strategically designed to intimidate health care providers and health care institutions into abandoning their patients.”

The GLAAD spokesperson suggested that the Justice Department instead “apply itself to exacting justice for the creeps in the Epstein files if they truly cared about keeping young people safe. Their energy is misdirected and intentional, and every American knows it.”

The Trump administration has been using different methods for months to try to seek such information.

A month before Bondi announced the subpoenas, the FBI urged the public to call in tips about any hospitals, clinics or providers performing gender affirming care.


President Donald Trump’s administration has ramped up its attacks against gender-affirming care (Middle East Images)

In May, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services sent letters to hospitals asking for information about their policies and information related to gender-affirming care treatments. “Hospitals accepting federal funds are expected to meet rigorous quality standards and uphold the highest level of stewardship when it comes to public resources,” Dr. Mehmet Oz, CMS administrator, said.

The administration’s laser focus on the trans community — who make up just 1 percent of the population aged 13 and older, according to the analysis — extends far beyond collecting hospital data into policies.

Last Friday, the Office of Personnel Management issued a memo stating “chemical and surgical modification of an individual's sex traits through medical interventions (to include ‘gender transition’ services)” will no longer be covered under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program in 2026.

The document notes that “counseling services for possible or diagnosed gender dysphoria must still be covered.”

Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, a lawyer and health care strategist at Lambda Legal, slammed the policy as “illegal.”

“This discriminatory policy denying medical care to government employees and their dependents is not only cruel—it is illegal,” he said in a statement. “The federal government cannot simply strip away essential healthcare coverage from transgender employees while providing comprehensive medical care to all other federal workers.”

This policy will also likely impact dependents of federal employees who may need access to such care.

The analysis revealed young people are more likely to identify as trans than adults. Among those aged 13 to 17 in the U.S., 3.3 percent identify as transgender, the analysis found; by contrast, of all U.S. adults, just 0.8 percent identify as transgender.


A new analysis showed that more young people are identifying as transgender compared to their older counterparts in the U.S. (Williams Institute)

On Thursday, the Trump administration unveiled its latest attack on trans minors by terminating the California State Personal Responsibility Education Program, a federal grant aiming to educate young people on both abstinence and contraception. The grant was worth $12 million, Reuters reported.

“California’s refusal to comply with federal law and remove egregious gender ideology from federally funded sex-ed materials is unacceptable,” Andrew Gradison, the acting assistant secretary at the Administration for Children and Families, said in a statement. “The Trump Administration will not allow taxpayer dollars to be used to indoctrinate children. Accountability is coming for every state that uses federal funds to teach children delusional gender ideology.”

Defunding the grant marks the latest salvo in the administration’s battle with California over transgender rights. Last month, the Trump administration sued California’s department of education over its policy to allow transgender athletes to compete in girls’ sports.

The Independent has reached out to the state’s department of education for comment.

“If it’s a day ending in y, President Trump is attacking kids’ safety, health, and access to education as part of his culture war,” a spokesperson from California Governor Gavin Newsom’s office told The Independent in a statement.





















Sunday, August 17, 2025

 

The Epoch of Reaction

AUGUST 15, 2025

The attack on trans rights is part of a broader right wing offensive and can be resisted by unifying all the struggles against it, argues Alex Burt.

Throughout the election campaign last year, progressive and socialist voters were repeatedly told we were to vote Labour to ‘get the Tories out’. LGBT+ people with concerns about the speed at which our Party had capitulated to Telegraph columnists were hushed away with a simple phrase: ‘It will be worse under the Tories.’

The sneering arrogance of a narrow clique who felt they were ‘owed’ progressive votes off little more than 14 years of Conservative austerity has now transitioned. It has gone from an inconvenient truth of two-party politics that there will always be a lesser evil, to a sense that change merely meant a new colour of tie cracking off-colour jokes about womanhood at the dispatch box while a new set of power-obsessed cabinet ministers lament in the columns of the right-wing media that common sense has died and that ‘trans rights activists are silencing the voice of a ‘sensible majority’. The simple answers to complex questions have not gone away under a Starmer ministry: in fact, they have only got worse.

As a Party and as a country, we have entered an epoch of reaction. Government is not run by the elected representatives of the people, but by an obsessive media class where outrage farming and an old world struggling to die make an alliance of convenience to cling on to relevance and power in a socioeconomic landscape that has long moved past them. Long gone are the days of neoliberal affluence; now there exists a politics fractured among a vast and growing working poor who know something is broken, but cannot agree on what or how to fix it.

It is in this climate, where the government feels out of control and where it feels like nothing ever works or will work again, where reactionary and far-right politics can thrive so well. It is a common critique of ‘Starmerism’ that it lacks a unifying vision or purpose, one that most voters in the country would agree with, and it is an ideological void which is filled by a reactive approach to government. Rarely has this administration set the agenda; instead it has reacted to events around it in increasingly desperate attempts to cover the growth of Reform. It does not recognise that the growth of Reform is precisely because they have a vision of what they believe the UK should look like beyond the current crises.

In very few areas is this more patently manifest than in how the government has approached ‘culture war’ issues, particularly its vicious approach towards the ‘trans debate’. Our 2024 manifesto promised to “remove indignities for trans people”, alongside a promise for a trans-inclusive conversion therapy ban. The latter was mentioned in the King’s Speech in what looked to be a legislative flurry in stark contrast to Tory inaction. Over a year later, a bill including that ban has not been introduced, and the indignities have been far from removed…

Cass, Courts and Cruelty

The Cass Review, published on the eve of the general election, was an immediate opportunity for us to view what “removing indignities” would look like. The Tories had introduced a ban, upheld by the high court, on the prescription of puberty blockers for under-18s. Wes Streeting would go on to extend that ban ‘indefinitely’ until the results of a proposed study into the social and biological impacts of puberty blockers can be held. It should be mentioned at this point that this proposed study is seen as wildly unethical by the medical community, on grounds ranging from consent to control groups. So much for “removing indignities” so far then…

More sinister than this though has been the day-to-day impact of the Cass Review on the provision of care to transgender people. Not long after the publication of the review, some GPs began refusing to fulfill prescriptions for HRT, even where they had been made previously, citing a lack of confidence or training that, as an observer who is not a medical professional, seemed to suddenly appear after Cass undermined 40 years of consensus on best practice for treating gender dysphoria.

The Good Law Project are also reporting that, in the wake of the Cass Review, social services have begun investigating families who seek puberty blockers via private provision for “safeguarding concerns”. One family told their story of a CAMHS session with their brother being used to interrogate him about his sister’s care, as part of a safeguarding investigation into the use of puberty blockers where a diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria already existed prior to the Cass Review. Health and social services have been cocked and readied as weapons of the state, under the watch of a Labour Government, limiting our access to care with one hand and criminalising any attempt to use the private sector with the other.

All of this is without mentioning the Supreme Court’s ruling in For Women Scotland vs the Scottish Government which left Gender Recognition Certificates significantly legally weakened. The ruling, as an interpretation of the Equality Act, has effectively re-written it. Transgender people have lost access to services that match their gender identities, of particular significance within abuse services (where transgender people are disproportionately victimised), even when they have been through the laborious process of gaining a GRC.

It is also noticeable that since then, the trans-exclusionary lobby have been targeting organisations and individuals who have spoken up for trans inclusion, continued to operate trans-inclusive policies (at the behest of members), or even workers they accuse of being trans, with escalating threats and abuse. EHRC guidance in the wake of the ruling has brought very little clarity, ruling that access to facilities should be made via sex at birth, without ruling how this can be checked and established.

The reality of this has left trans people functionally excluded from public life, forced to out themselves if they wish to engage legally or having to live in a constant legal grey area. Many groups, including our Party, have chosen to simply abolish women’s structures or cancel elections where gender-balancing is complicated by the terrifying presence of a trans person. Keir Starmer, it should be remembered, welcomed the ruling for the clarity it provided.

Where Next?

There is so much more I can say about this last 13 months and the way in which trans rights have been deliberately undermined or neglected, but it ultimately distills into one primary fact: our Party is reacting to events. When faced with accusations that the EHRC guidance is unclear, we defer to the Supreme Court. When families with transgender children try to access support, we defer to Cass. Constitutionally, the executive in the UK is a manifestation of its parliamentary support and Parliament is the ultimate authority in all UK political life. Looking at the facts and events I have laid out in isolation, you would not get this impression.

The executive does not use its massive Commons majority to fix some of the obvious flaws in trans rights policy: it defers them in the hope of appeasing a maniacal media class that knows its political dominance, and the grip of neoliberal capitalism more broadly, is breaking. They offer us good headlines; in return we do their cultural bidding.

What they will never have is a movement from below. The anti-trans movement has an outsized influence and voice, but it has no human touch. In the wake of the Supreme Court ruling, thousands and thousands took to the streets to show their solidarity. In Leicester we organised something far bigger than any of us could have anticipated. In London, Manchester, Edinburgh and many other cities it was a bigger mobilisation still. We cannot let this anger fizzle into hopelessness as happens so often. Our challenge now is to challenge misinformation and embed into all our struggles the mantra that we cannot win unless all of us win.

The media playbook against trans people is the same one which it pulls against refugees. Its ignorance of trans voices in favour of transphobes matches its preference of Israeli voices to Palestinians. Though it may not seem it, our individual struggles against the forces of reaction and media conservatism are linked, both by playbook and by purpose. The dominance of the post-Thatcher consensus and of neoliberal affluence is collapsing and old media are collapsing with it. As the old world dies, the new world struggles to be born – and if we want that new world built by workers liberated and freed from the social determinisms of the past, then we must pull our disparate movements together as one class, the working class, united and unbowed.

Alex Burt is East Midlands Officer for Labour For Trans Rights.

Image: https://www.liberationnews.org/uk-court-ruling-on-trans-childrens-care-puts-bigotry-before-science/ Creator: Ted Eytan Licence:CC ATTRIBUTION-SHAREALIKE 4.0 INTERNATIONAL.

Saturday, July 19, 2025

 

LGBTQ+ advocacy group criticizes Puerto Rico law criminalizing gender-affirming care
LGBTQ+ advocacy group criticizes Puerto Rico law criminalizing gender-affirming care

Puerto Rico’s LGBTQ+ Federation on Thursday denounced a recently passed law that prohibits the use of puberty blockers, hormone treatment, and gender-affirming surgeries for anybody under the age of 21. The law, called the “Law for the Protection of the Health and Wellbeing of Minors in Puerto Rico,” imposes an up-to-15-year sentence and a $50,000 fine on offenders. The law effectively prohibits “medical procedures or surgeries that alter the biological sex of minors under the pretext of a gender transition, including irreversible hormonal interventions.” Additionally, the law aims to revoke the licenses of any medical professional in contravention.

Pedro Julio Serrano, the president of La Federación LGBTQ+ de Puerto Rico, said that the law targets transgender minors and their families trying to better their life opportunities. He also said that the federation is looking to seek legal recourse, challenging the constitutionality of the law. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Puerto Rico also criticized the law, stating that the law not only “criminalizes mothers, fathers and doctors, but directly discriminates against transgender people and denies the existence of trans childhood and youth.” Serrano also criticized Governor Jenniffer González-Colón, telling The Advocate that “Jenniffer González, through her actions, declares herself the most anti-equality governor in history. She ignored her own Secretary of Health and the medical associations that support treatment for trans minors.” 

Prior to the bill’s passage, parents of trans youth lobbied the governor to veto the bill after it passed the Puerto Rican Senate, but she instead sent it back and ordered modifications. GLAAD, a non-profit focused on LGBTQ+ advocacy, along with the Federation, released a joint statement condemning the bill:

Every person in Puerto Rico deserves to live free from discrimination and with access to essential health care. Every major medical association supports health care for transgender people and youth. Banning this care and stripping the rights of parents to make the best medical decisions for their families would create unbearable burdens for the most marginalized in Puerto Rico. Lawmakers must vote to protect access to health care that saves lives, and allow families to make private health care decisions that help loved ones be themselves, be safe, and to thrive.

The US Supreme Court recently upheld a Tennessee law prohibiting gender-affirming care for people under 18 years of age. Multiple US states have passed laws banning transgender health care, with some states even considering banning care for trans people up to 26 years of age. The Tennessee law, like Puerto Rico’s, permits such hormonal and surgical treatments to treat congenital defects or other medical conditions unrelated to gender dysphoria.

Thursday, June 26, 2025

Hungary tells EU partners not to attend Pride parade banned by police


Hungary on Wednesday warned its EU allies not to attend a Pride march in Budapest the capital's mayor authorized despite the police banning the event as part of Prime Minister Viktor Orban's crackdown on LGBTQ rights.



Issued on: 26/06/2025 - 
By: FRANCE 24

A pride organizer peeks out from their office door as volunteers make an inventory on high-visibility jackets at the Rainbow Mission Foundation office on May 30, 2025, in Budapest. © Attila Kisbenedek, AFP

Hungary has warned EU ambassadors and their staff not to attend Saturday's Pride march in Budapest, saying that police had banned the gathering, according to a letter seen by AFP on Wednesday.

March organisers meanwhile sent their own letter, insisting that police had no authority to ban the procession and vowing it will go ahead as planned.

Since Prime Minister Viktor Orban returned to power in 2010, Hungary has passed a series of laws criticised at home and across the European Union for curtailing LGBTQ rights in the name of "child protection".

Last week, police banned the country's main Pride march from taking place in Budapest, but the capital's mayor has defied the interdiction, saying that police had no right to ban an event organised by city hall and vowing it would go ahead as planned.



"The legal situation is clear: the Pride parade is a legally banned assembly... those who take part in an event prohibited by the authorities commit an infraction," said the letter signed by Justice Minister Bence Tuzson and dated Tuesday.

"Kindly ensure that your co-workers and colleagues are duly informed of these facts, in order to maintain clarity," it added.

Pride organisers, in turn, sent a letter to embassies insisting the police had no right to ban the event -- organised by the city council -- and that the march is "neither banned nor unlawful".



















"We continue to work on ensuring that Hungary's largest Pride takes place this Saturday in a safe and secure environment," Budapest Pride president Viktoria Radvanyi said.

Police have said the ban was necessary under recent legislation that bans the promotion of same-sex relationships to under-18s.

The conflict over the Pride march has already sparked protests in Hungary.

Several members of the European Parliament have said they will attend the parade.

European equalities commissioner Hadja Lahbib is expected in Budapest on Friday and may attend the march, as may ministers from several European Union countries, according to the organisers.


Attendees risk a fine of up to 500 euros ($580). Police may use facial recognition technology to identify them.

Organisers risk a one-year prison sentence.

EU chief Ursula von der Leyen called on the Hungarian authorities to reverse the ban and not to punish organisers or participants.

"I call on the Hungarian aurothities to allow the Budapest pride to go ahead, she wrote on X, calling herself an LGBTQ ally.

(FRANCE 24 with AFP)

 


United States v. Skrmetti: Supreme Court Affirms State Ban Against Certain Medical Treatments For Transgender Minors – Analysis

Panorama of the west facade of United States Supreme Court Building at dusk in Washington, D.c. CC BY-SA 3.0

By 

By Jared P. Cole and Madeline W. Donley


On June 18, 2025, the Supreme Court affirmed a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, ruling that a Tennessee law “banning certain medical care for transgender minors” does not classify on the basis of sex or transgender status, and does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Court’s decision arrives amid widespread public debate about whether certain medical treatments should be available for transgender minors to address discordance between a person’s sex characteristics and gender identity. A number of states have passed laws prohibiting specific treatments to treat conditions like gender dysphoria for minors, including puberty blocking medication (“puberty blockers”), hormones, and surgical procedures. Several states have asserted, among other things, that the treatments are too experimental and can have potentially irreversible effects. Some parents of transgender minors, among others, have argued that these laws deny critical medical care to transgender minors and discriminate based on sex or transgender status in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court in Skrmetti ruled that Tennessee’s law did not classify based on sex or transgender status and was not subject to heightened scrutiny. Rather, the law made two classifications—based on age and medical use—subject to the deferential rational basis standard of review.

This Sidebar begins with a brief background on how courts approach challenges brought under the Equal Protection Clause, followed by an explanation of the split that developed among appellate courts regarding state laws that prohibit certain medical services for transgender minors. The Sidebar continues by examining the Supreme Court’s decision in Skrmetti, including the majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions. Finally, the Sidebar concludes with some observations about potential implications of the decision and considerations for Congress.

Equal Protection Background

The Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause prohibits states from denying individuals “the equal protection of the laws.” In the most general terms, states must not classify or differentiate among similarly situated individuals in a manner that violates this constitutional guarantee. 

When analyzing an equal protection challenge, a court must first determine which legal standard to apply. The most deferential standard of equal protection review is rational basis, under which a court will generally uphold a challenged classification as long as it is reasonably related to a legitimate government purpose. Courts subjectclassifications based on sex, however, to a more stringent standard—intermediate scrutiny. If intermediate scrutiny applies, the parties seeking to defend a sex-based classification must show an “exceedingly persuasive justification” or “important government objective” for classifying individuals based on sex and must demonstrate that the classification is “substantially related” to achieving that objective. (Laws that classify based on race, alienage, or national origin trigger strict scrutiny and will be upheld only if narrowly tailored to meet a compelling government interest.)

In equal protection challenges raised in another context—school restroom access—several federal appellate courts have concluded that laws prohibiting transgender individuals from access consistent with their gender identity amount to sex-based classifications subject to intermediate scrutiny. In addition, the Fourth and Ninth Circuits have held that transgender individuals constitute a quasi-suspect class for equal protection purposes—that is, a class of individuals who warrant heightened protection under the law—and that transgender-based classifications are subject to intermediate scrutiny on that basis. Not all federal appellate courts have reached this conclusion.

Circuit Split over Medical Treatments for Transgender Minors

Plaintiffs challenging state laws that prohibit specific medical treatments for transgender minors have sought federal court orders to prevent these states from enforcing the laws until final resolution of the cases. Several federal district courts granted preliminary injunctions to halt enforcement of challenged state laws during the pendency of the legal challenges, in part based on the conclusion that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their equal protection claims.

When analyzing the preliminary injunctions at issue, federal appellate courts have split as to the applicable standard of review. The Eighth Circuit viewed one such state law as classifying individuals based on sex; applied intermediate scrutiny; and concluded it was likely that the plaintiffs would prevail on their claim. By contrast, the SixthSeventh, and Eleventh Circuits reversed preliminary injunctions, holding that rational basis review applied to these laws and that they neither contained a sex classification nor targeted a quasi-suspect class. (The SixthSeventh, and Eleventh Circuits also rejected arguments related to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which were not at issue before the Supreme Court in Skrmetti.)

The Supreme Court ultimately granted certiorari in the Sixth Circuit case on the issue of whether a Tennessee law that limits the medical treatments available to minors to treat gender dysphoria violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

Supreme Court Decision

In a 6-3 judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Sixth Circuit, holding that state laws regulating access to medical services according to age and treatment type are subject to rational basis review in an equal protection challenge.

Majority Opinion

The majority began by determining that rational basis review applied to the Tennessee law at issue, SB1. The Court held that SB1 classifies based on age (i.e., whether an individual is a minor) and medical use (i.e., whether a treatment is used to treat gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, or gender incongruence), neither of which warrant heightened review. The Court rejected the argument that SB1 classifies based on sex. While the Court acknowledged that the “excluded diagnoses” necessarily involve some reference to sex, in the majority’s view, “the application of that prohibition does not turn on sex.”

The majority did not address whether transgender individuals constitute a quasi-suspect class because, in its view, SB1 does not classify based on whether or not an individual is transgender. Rather, the Court reiterated that SB1 classifies only on the bases of age and “medical use.” The Court acknowledged that only people who are transgender would seek treatment for the “excluded diagnoses,” but not all transgender individuals seek that treatment. Therefore, the class of those who do not seek treatment includes both transgender and cisgender people. The Court pointed to Geduldig v. Aiello, a 1974 opinion holding that an employee disability insurance plan that excluded coverage for pregnancy-related conditions did not discriminate against women. In Geduldig, the Court reasoned that not all women are pregnant, and that even though the class of pregnant people consists only of women, the group of people who are not pregnant includes both women and men. Because women are in both groups, the Court found that the exclusion was based on the “physical condition” of pregnancy, not sex. The Skrmetti Court held that the same reasoning applied to SB1.

In a portion of the Court’s opinion joined by five Justices, the majority also found it unnecessary to address whether the reasoning of a different case, Bostock v. Clayton County, applied to the equal protection analysis. In Bostock, the Court ruled that the ban on sex discrimination in employment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) encompasses discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Assuming that the term “sex” in Title VII refers to biological distinctions between females and males, the Court in Bostock found it is impossible for an employer to discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity without considering a person’s sex. The majority in Skrmetti held that this reasoning did not change its conclusion that SB1 was not based on sex because the availability of certain treatments under SB1 is based on diagnosis—the treatments specified under the law would be denied to any minor who sought to treat excluded conditions, regardless of their sex. Federal courts of appeals have disagreed as to whether the logic of Bostock applies to analysis under the Equal Protection Clause, as well as other contexts. Because the majority did not address this issue, disagreements among federal courts of appeals remain unresolved.

After determining that rational basis review applied to SB1, the Court held that the law “clearly meets th[at] standard.” Tennessee had argued that the exclusions in SB1 sought to promote the health and welfare of minors, because the state had determined the efficacy and safety of the prohibited medical care to be unknown. Noting“fierce scientific and policy debates” around the issue, the Court “decline[d] . . .to second-guess” the state’s determination.

Concurring Opinions

Concurrences were filed by Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Alito. Justices Thomas and Alito would have held that the logic of Bostock does not apply to the equal protection context. Justice Barrett, joined by Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito, writing separately, would have held that transgender status does not constitute a suspect class subject to heightened scrutiny. All three Justices agreed with the Court’s judgment, but Justice Alito joined only part of the majority opinion. Unlike other Justices in the majority, Justice Alito would have assumed that SB1 classifies on the basis of transgender status, but would still sustain the law under rational basis review.

Dissenting Opinions

Justice Sotomayor filed the primary dissent, joined by Justice Jackson and in part by Justice Kagan. The dissenting Justices argued that SB1 expressly classifies on the basis of sex and should have been reviewed under intermediate scrutiny. Noting that SB1 excludes some treatments only when used to allow minors to identify with a gender inconsistent with their biological sex, Justice Sotomayor wrote that “sex determines access to the covered medication.” Justice Sotomayor also stated that SB1 discriminates on the basis of transgender status, and that transgender status “bear[s] the hallmarks of a quasi-suspect class.” Justice Kagan authored a separate dissent in which she agreed that SB1 was subject to intermediate scrutiny but expressed “no view on how SB1 would fare under heightened scrutiny.”

Implications of Skrmetti and Considerations for Congress

The Supreme Court’s decision will likely have implications beyond the parties to the case. As an initial matter, going forward, laws and policies that regulate access to medical services for gender dysphoria according to age and treatment type will be subject to rational basis review rather than a heightened form of judicial scrutiny. However, not all states impose prohibitions on medical treatments similar to SB1, and the Court’s decision does not require states to adopt restrictions similar to the ones in the case.

The reasoning of the Court’s decision might be invoked in cases addressing similar laws and policies that restrict access to medical services for adults, though application of the decision may depend on the particular characteristics of the restriction. For instance, the West Virginia Medicaid program includes a blanket coverage exclusion for “transsexual surgery,” and North Carolina’s State Health Plan for Teachers and State Employees (NCSHP) categorically excludes coverage for treatments “leading to or in connection with sex changes or modifications.” In Kadel v. Folwell, decided prior to the Court’s decision in Skrmetti, the Fourth Circuit reviewed both West Virginia and North Carolina’s coverage exclusions under intermediate scrutiny and held that they violated the Equal Protection Clause. Both states have filed petitions for certiorari, but the Supreme Court has not yet decided whether to hear the case. Following the decision in Skrmetti, and absent clarification to the contrary from the Supreme Court, lower courts might be asked to apply rational basis review to similar coverage exclusions. The outcome of these cases will likely turn on whether a court views the medical treatment exclusions like those in Kadel, which apply regardless of age, as meaningfully different from the exclusions at issue in Skrmetti, which are limited to minors. The Supreme Court may address these questions if it decides to take up Kadel.

It is uncertain to what degree the Skrmettdecision might have implications for how lower courts analyze equal protection claims involving transgender persons outside the health care context. For instance, a federal government policy bans individuals with “a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit[ing] symptoms consistent with” gender dysphoria from military service. Some military servicemembers have challenged implementation of the policy. Before Skrmetti was decided, the Supreme Court granted a stay of a preliminary injunction issued against its implementation. It is not clear whether courts will take the ruling in Skrmetti to mean that policies like the federal military service ban are based on diagnosis rather than sex, and thus subject only to rational basis review.

More broadly, the majority opinion in Skrmetti ruled that Tennessee’s law did not classify based on transgender status, and did not decide whether transgender individuals are a suspect or quasi-suspect class. Thus, the opinion did not resolve whether a law that does classify on that basis warrants heightened scrutiny.

About the authors:

  • Jared P. Cole, Legislative Attorney
  • Madeline W. Donley, Legislative Attorney

Source: This article was published by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).


CRS

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) works exclusively for the United States Congress, providing policy and legal analysis to committees and Members of both the House and Senate, regardless of party affiliation. As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS has been a valued and respected resource on Capitol Hill for nearly a century.