News
Fears over women’s safety made wedge issue in Equality Act hearing
A Senate hearing on the Equality Act, which would expand the prohibition on discrimination under federal law, put on full display Wednesday the use of fear mongering about women’s safety and the integrity of women’s sports as a tool to thwart attempted progress on LGBTQ rights, although more traditional objections based on religious liberty also played a role.
Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) pulled no punches during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing — the first-ever hearing for the Equality Act in the U.S. Senate — in heightening fears about threats to women in sex-segregated spaces.
When Abigail Shrier, a journalist who has built a career campaigning against gender transitioning for youth, was presenting testimony as an expert witness, Kennedy went straight to the locker rooms.
“Would this bill prohibit the boy with gender dysphoria from exposing his penis to the girls?” Kennedy asked.
The questioning put Shrier, who was testifying against the Equality Act, in a bind. The Equality Act does prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity in locker rooms, but says nothing about that particular issue and laws against lewd conduct are in place. “I’m sorry would it prohibit that?”
When Kennedy repeated the questions, Shrier replied, “I don’t believe the bill addresses genitalia.” Kennedy went to ask her if it prohibits them from dressing together. “No,” Shrier replied. “Would this bill prohibit them from showering together?” “No.” Kennedy then asked about boys being able to access girls’ sports.
“He wouldn’t have to have gender dysphoria,” Shrier said. “Anyone who says they’re a girl at any time under this bill, they don’t have to be transgender-identified, they don’t have to have gender dysphoria.”
Kennedy said he had intended to get to that point and asked her if the Equality Act would require schools to allow boys with gender dysphoria to compete in girls’ sports. Shrier replied, “Yes, anyone who identifies as a woman.”
Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), top Republican on the committee, brought up a specific incident in Connecticut where transgender girls were allowed to compete in a girls track event. Grassley named one of the girls who filed a complaint over the situation, Chelsea Mitchell, as he displayed images of three girls involved behind him.
“Many women and girls before her fought for legal protections under Title IX, which recognizes that sex specific distinctions are appropriate in some instances,” Grassley said. “As a father, grandfather and husband, I have celebrated the athletic successes of talented young women in my own family, so I am deeply concerned about this act’s potential negative implications for all girls and women in sports.”
The Equality Act says nothing about sports, but would prohibit discrimination against transgender people in education and federally funded programs. It should be noted the ruling last year from the U.S. Supreme Court in Bostock v. Clayton County, which found anti-LGBTQ discrimination is an illegal form of sex discrimination, has broad applications, including for Title IX of the Education Amendment of 1972, which bars discrimination on the basis of sex in sports. As a result, refusing to allow transgender kids in sports would likely already be illegal.
Fears of the impact of LGBTQ rights advances on religious practices also came up during the hearing. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), for example, raised a question about whether churches that conduct services with members of the congregation divided by sex would be liable as a public accommodation under the Equality Act.
Mary Rice Hasson, a fellow in Catholic Studies at the Ethics & Public Policy Center, served as a Republican witness and maintained churches could be held liable under the Equality Act “by expanding public accommodations to mean wherever Americans gather, even virtually.”
“Compromise your religious beliefs or risk endless litigation,” Hasson said. “Recipients of federal funds are also targeted, even for the simple act of maintaining sex segregated bathrooms.”
HRC President Alphonso David, responding to an earlier question from Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), contested the idea that churches would be liable, which would be consistent with the religious exemption the Equality Act would retain under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
“The Equality Act does not affect how religious institutions function,” David said. “That is very different than institutions that actually provide public accommodations, institutions that are open to the public and are providing goods and services to the public.”
A major issue of contention was a provision of the Equality Act that would preclude the use of the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a law intended to protect religious minorities, as a potential legal defense in cases of discrimination. Scolding Republican critics who indicated the Equality Act would gut RFRA, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said the bill does nothing of the sort, but Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) shot back there was “an explicit carve out in the Equality Act for RFRA.”
“I’m aware of no other law that seeks to shred RFRA in this way, and the effect of it basically is that churches, religious ministries, Christian colleges and universities, they’ll be unable to pursue their missions, particularly if they involve service to the poor, service to the needy,” Hawley said.
During a hearing in which Democratic members of the committee largely focused on their witnesses and Republicans stuck with theirs, Kennedy was an exception and asked David if there are more than two sexes. David initially deferred to medical experts and noted sex and gender can be different concepts, but then concluded “it’s not limited to two,” citing for example people who are intersex.
Shrier made an attempt during the hearing to qualify her opposition to the Equality Act, saying her opposition is based on potential consequences of the bill on women’s safety.
“If S. 393 merely proposed to extend employment, and public housing rights to gay and transgender Americans, I would be supporting this bill, instead of testifying against it,” Shrier said. “I am here today because the bill does much more, and no one who wrote it appears to have thoughtfully considered what it would mean for women and girls.”
Tillis open to ‘compromise’ on LGBTQ rights
Despite the issues raised by Republicans, one key moment came when Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), whose vote would be key to reaching the 60-vote threshold to end a Senate filibuster on the Equality Act, appeared to make a good faith effort to reach across the aisle.
“On the one hand, we have the fact that even in 2021, our LGBTQ friends, family, neighbors, still face discrimination from employment to healthcare to housing to homelessness among LGBTQ youth is a very real problem with discrimination,” Tillis said. “I think it’s wrong, in any aspect. But on the other hand, we have millions of Americans who are people of faith who have serious and legitimate issues of conscience.”
Although Tillis said the Equality Act “falls short of the goal” he seeks in addressing both sides, he added he’s “open to finding a compromise.” The last committee member to ask questions during the hearing, Tillis also lamented members of the committee “were talking past one another” about their concerns without coming closer to an ultimate conclusion.
Two issues that appeared to concern Tillis were the provision in the Equality Act against use of RFRA in cases of discrimination and whether the Equality Act’s ban on LGBTQ discrimination in federally funded programs would require prisons to house transgender women consistent with their gender identity. Tillis posed a question on whether a male serial rapist could say he identified as a woman and be allowed in women’s prisons; Shrier said that “absolutely” would be the case.
Meanwhile, proponents of the Equality Act continued to make their case for the bill based on its general objectives, to ban anti-LGBTQ discrimination in all aspects of public life.
Durbin, kicking off the committee hearing, displayed a video highlighting milestones in the LGBTQ movement, including the election of Harvey Milk and the swearing-in of Pete Buttigieg, as well as media coverage on passage in the U.S. House of the Equality Act.
“Unfortunately, some opponents have chosen to make exaggerated claims about what the Equality Act would do,” Durbin said. “Let me be clear, those of us working to pass this legislation are open to good faith constructive suggestions on further improvement and strengthening the bill. In fact, that’s why we’re having this hearing, but many of the texts on this bill are nothing more than the latest in a long, long, long line of fear mongering targeting the LGBTQ community.”
Stella Keating, a 16-year-old student from Tacoma, Wash., made the case for the Equality Act as a witness in the simplest way possible: Introducing herself as a transgender person.
“Hi, I’m Stella, and I’m transgender,” Keating said, “I’m here before you today, representing the hundreds of thousands of kids, just like me who are supported and loved by their family, friends, and communities across the country.”
Honduras
Corte IDH reconoce a Thalía Rodríguez como familia social de Leonela Zelaya
Se construyeron una familia tras más de una década de convivencia
Por DORIS GONZÁLEZ * | TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras — En la sentencia del caso Leonela Zelaya y otra vs Honduras emitida por la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos se estableció un hito jurisprudencial para las personas LGBTQ en Honduras, así como en la región en relación a las diversas conformaciones de familias existentes. La Corte IDH interpretó por primera vez el concepto de familia social, indicando que la construcción de familia no debe restringirse a la familia nuclear o a nociones tradicionales, bajo el entendido de que hay diferentes formas en las que se materializan los vínculos familiares.
Este análisis se trae a colación debido al contexto de discriminación, prejuicio y violencia que atravesamos las personas LGBTQ, el cual se puede manifestar incluso dentro de nuestras propias familias. Esta violencia se manifiesta a través de actos de odio como ser el desarraigo familiar, violencia física, psicológica, social, económica, expulsiones de los hogares, violaciones correctivas e incluso, culminando en muertes violentas. Esta violencia motivada por la orientación sexual, identidad y expresión de género de las personas imposibilita la convivencia familiar.
Ante esto, las personas LGBTQ construimos vínculos sociales fuera del vínculo familiar tradicional, los cuales a través de la convivencia, amistad, apoyo económico-social y construcción de vida en común constituyen familias, tal como ocurrió en este caso.
Tras el abandono de su familia biológica, Leonela Zelaya y Thalía Rodríguez construyeron una familia tras más de una década de convivencia, en los cuales se apoyaron mutuamente en diversas situaciones, viviendo como mujeres trans, portadoras de VIH, ejerciendo el trabajo sexual y en situación de pobreza, enfrentando constantes episodios de detenciones arbitrarias y violentas por parte de los órganos policiales.
Tras su asesinato, fue Thalía quien recogió el cuerpo de Leonela en la morgue de Tegucigalpa y quien gestionó el féretro a través de la Funeraria del Pueblo. Los servicios fúnebres de Leonela Zelaya fueron realizados en un bar por mujeres trans, trabajadoras sexuales, al cual no asistió ningún miembro de su familia biológica.
El asesinato de Leonela y la falta de esclarecimiento generaron a Thalía un sentimiento de inseguridad, frustración e impotencia. Por estas violaciones de derechos humanos, la Corte reconoció a Thalía Rodríguez, en calidad de familiar de Leonela, como víctima del caso, generando estándares aplicables a todas las personas LGBTQ.
A juicio de la Corte, esta situación lleva a que, en casos de muertes violentas de mujeres trans, las personas que integren las redes de apoyo de la persona fallecida puedan ser declaradas víctimas por la violación de sus derechos a la integridad psíquica o moral, siempre que se acredite la existencia de un vínculo estrecho con la víctima y una afectación a sus derechos, derivada, por ejemplo, de las gestiones realizadas para obtener justicia. Esta sentencia logra reconocer que las personas LGBTQ construimos familias sociales, familias elegidas, e indica que estas deben ser reconocidas y validadas.
* Abogada litigante del caso Leonela Zelaya y otra vs Honduras, Red Lésbica Cattrachas
District of Columbia
Eleanor Holmes Norton ends 2026 reelection campaign
Longtime LGBTQ rights supporter introduced, backed LGBTQ-supportive legislation
The reelection campaign for D.C. Congressional Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, who has been an outspoken supporter of LGBTQ rights since first taking office in 1991, filed a termination report on Jan. 25 with the Federal Elections Commission, indicating she will not run for a 19th term in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Norton’s decision not to run again, which was first reported by the online news publication NOTUS, comes at a time when many of her longtime supporters questioned her ability to continue in office at the age of 88.
NOTUS cited local political observers who pointed out that Norton has in the past year or two curtailed public appearances and, according to critics, has not taken sufficient action to oppose efforts by the Trump-Vance administration and Republican members of Congress to curtail D.C.’s limited home rule government.
Those same critics, however, have praised Norton for her 35-year tenure as the city’s non-voting delegate in the House and as a champion for a wide range of issues of interest to D.C. LGBTQ rights advocates have also praised her longstanding support for LGBTQ rights issues both locally and nationally.
D.C. gay Democratic Party activist Cartwright Moore, who has worked on Norton’s congressional staff from the time she first took office in 1991 until his retirement in 2021, points out that Norton’s role as a staunch LGBTQ ally dates back to the 1970s when she served as head of the New York City Commission on Human Rights.
“The congresswoman is a great person,” Moore told the Washington Blade in recounting his 30 years working on her staff, most recently as senior case worker dealing with local constituent issues.
Norton has been among the lead co-sponsors and outspoken supporters of LGBTQ rights legislation introduced in Congress since first taking office, including the currently pending Equality Act, which would ban employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
She has introduced multiple LGBTQ supportive bills, including her most recent bill introduced in June 2025, the District of Columbia Local Juror Non-Discrimination Act, which would ban D.C. residents from being disqualified from jury service in D.C. Superior Court based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.
For many years, Norton has marched in the city’s annual Pride parade.
Her decision not to run for another term in office also comes at a time when, for the first time in many years, several prominent candidates emerged to run against her in the June 2026 D.C. Democratic primary. Among them are D.C. Council members Robert White (D-At-Large) and Brooke Pinto (D-Ward 2).
Others who have announced their candidacy for Norton’s seat include Jacque Patterson, president of the D.C. State Board of Education; Kinney Zalesne, a local Democratic party activist; and Trent Holbrook, who until recently served as Norton’s senior legislative counsel.
“For more than three decades, Congresswoman Norton has been Washington, D.C.’s steadfast warrior on Capitol Hill, a relentless advocate for our city’s right to self-determination, full democracy, and statehood,” said Oye Owolewa, the city’s elected U.S. shadow representative in a statement. “At every pivotal moment, she has stood firm on behalf of D.C. residents, never wavering in her pursuit of justice, equity, and meaningful representation for a city too often denied its rightful voice,” he said.
Sharon Nichols, who serves as press spokesperson for Norton’s congressional office, couldn’t immediately be reached for a comment by Norton on her decision not to seek another term in office.
Uganda
LGBTQ Ugandans targeted ahead of country’s elections
President Yoweri Museveni won 7th term in disputed Jan. 15 vote
Barely a week after Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni secured a 7th term in an election marred by state violence, intimidation, and allegations of fraud, the country’s queer community spoke about how the election environment impacted it.
The LGBTQ lobby groups who spoke with the Washington Blade noted that, besides government institutions’ failure to create a safe and inclusive environment for civic participation by all Ugandans, authorities weaponized the Anti-Homosexuality Act to silence dissent and discourage queer voter engagement.
The rights groups note that candidates aligned with Museveni’s ruling National Resistance Movement — including Parliament Speaker Anita Among — during the campaigns accused their rivals of “promoting homosexuality” to discredit them while wooing conservative voters.
Queer people and LGBTQ rights organizations as a result were largely excluded from the formal political processes for the election as voters, mobilizers, or civic actors due to fear of exposure, stigma, violence, and legal reprisals.
“This homophobic rhetoric fueled public hostility and emboldened vigilante violence, forcing many queer Ugandans into deeper hiding during the election period,” Uganda Minority Shelters Consortium Coordinator John Grace stated.
Some queer people had expressed an interest in running for local council seats, but none of them formally registered as candidates or campaigned openly because of safety concerns and local electoral bodies’ discriminatory vetting of candidates.
“UMSC documented at least three incidents of election-related violence or intimidation targeting LGBTQ+ individuals and activists,” Grace noted. “These included harassment, arbitrary detentions, extortions by state and non-state actors, digital cat-fishing, and threats of outing.”
Amid such a militarized and repressive election environment, Let’s Walk Uganda Executive Director Edward Mutebi noted queer-led and allied organizations engaged in the election process through restricted informal voter education, community discussions, and documenting human rights violations.
“Fear of backlash limited visibility and direct participation throughout the election cycle,” Mutebi said. “But despite the hostile environment of work, Let’s Walk Uganda was able to organize a successful transgender and gender diverse youth training on electoral security and safety.”
Museveni’s government escalated its repressive actions during the Jan. 15 elections by shutting down the internet and suspending nine civil society organizations, including Chapter Four Uganda and the National Coalition of Human Rights Defenders, for allegedly engaging in activities that are prejudicial to the security and laws of the country.
The suspension of the rights organizations remains in force, an action both Mutebi and Grace condemn. They say it prevents queer Ugandans from accessing urgent services from the affected groups.
“For the LGBTQ community, the impact has been immediate and deeply harmful. Many of the suspended organizations, like Chapter Four Uganda, were critical partners in providing legal representation, emergency response, and documentation of rights violations,” Grace said.
This has compelled UMSC and its other partners to handle increased caseloads with limited resources, while navigating heightened scrutiny and operational risk.
“The suspension has disrupted referral pathways, delayed urgent interventions, and weakened collective advocacy for marginalized groups and minority rights defenders, which calls for urgent international solidarity, flexible funding, and protection mechanisms to safeguard the work of grassroots organizations operating under threat,” Grace stated.
Mutebi warned that such repressive actions are tyrannical and are indicative of shrinking civic space, which undermines democratic accountability as the promotion and protection of human rights is ignored.
With Museveni, 81, extending his tenure at State House from a landslide win of 72 percent, UMSC and LWU consider a bleak future in the protection of rights for queer Ugandans and other minority groups.
“Without significant political and legal shifts, LGBTQ persons will face continued criminalization, reduced civic space, and heightened insecurity, making sustained advocacy and international solidarity more critical than ever,” Mutebi said. “ It is unimaginable how it feels to live in a country with no hope.”
Grace, however, affirmed the resistance by local queer lobby groups will continue through underground networks, regional solidarity, and digital organizing.
The duo noted that a win by Museveni’s main challenger and rapper, Bobi Wine, who only managed 24 percent of the total votes cast, could have enabled the opening up of civil space and human rights protections in Uganda.
Wine, for his part, spoke in favor of the respect for the rule of law and human rights during his campaign.
“While Bobi Wine’s past stance on LGBTQ rights was inconsistent, his recent shift toward more inclusive rhetoric and international engagement suggested a potential opening for dialogue,” Grace said. “A win might have created space for policy reform or at least reduced state-sponsored homophobia, though structural change would still require sustained pressure and coalition-building.”
Mutebi stated that a change in Uganda’s leadership to a youthful leader like Wine could have offered an opening, but not a guarantee for progress on inclusion and human rights. Mutebi added existing institutionalized and societal homophobia remain in place.
‘The Director’ highlights film director who collaborated with Hitler
ICE agents murder another American citizen in Minneapolis
Corte IDH reconoce a Thalía Rodríguez como familia social de Leonela Zelaya
Eleanor Holmes Norton ends 2026 reelection campaign
Convert rent check into an automatic investment, Marjorie!
The felon in the White House must be stopped
LGBTQ rights at forefront of 2026 legislative session in Va.
Companies participate in ‘Pride on the Promenade’ at World Economic Forum
El 2026 bajo presión
