National
How I — a trans man — went undercover on a TERF dating site
Female-only app asserts lesbians must be ‘biologically female’
It turns out the “lesbian renaissance” only has 85 people.
No, I am not talking about the Renaissance as defined by Chappell Roan, Billie Eilish, Bottoms, and Drive-Away Dolls. That Renaissance is well populated.
It’s the Renaissance defined by Jenny Watson, a lesbian and self-described TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist) committed to the idea that lesbians can only be “biologically female.”
My number comes from Watson’s female-only lesbian and bisexual dating and community app, L Community, which took LGBTQ news and Twitter by storm last month when it claimed it could identify and exclude trans women to a rate of 99.89% accuracy using AI-powered “sex recognition software.”
As of Aug. 7, more than 60 days since launching, the website couldn’t even break 100 users.
After reading L Community’s definition of biological sex – “biological sex is firmly linked to distinct reproductive anatomies dedicated to producing sperm or eggs for reproduction” – I realized that I – a transmasculine person– fit the bill for “adult human female.”
So, I checked the box verifying that I was “biologically female,” snapped a picture of my face – and signed up for the dating app. I didn’t shave beforehand, so my testosterone-induced stubble remained in the picture. Chest photos were not required so my flat chest raised no alarms.
Not that any of that would have mattered, Watson is clear that her app can’t be trans-exclusive because “there are many biological women who identify as males and we would certainly welcome those women.”
I paid and was refunded the $12.75 to verify my identity. And I was ushered into the community, which was notably silent. The only content was from Watson. Posts include telling members the proper dating app portion was on its way via an invite-only basis and asking if anyone wanted to join a Zoom meet up since “our recent event had only 6 attendees.” Another user posted sporadic lesbian-themed memes.
I used my legal name to register, as the platform requested. Conveniently, I haven’t changed my name to Henry yet. At the same time, I reached out to Watson multiple times for comment under the name I publish under and use.
(To counter any claims of misrepresentation, my chosen and legal names are irrevocably tied together on the internet due to my brief time publishing with both. A cursory search of either name identifies both as associated with me).
In response to an initial email request for an interview, she wrote “To ensure our message is accurately conveyed, I would prefer to answer your questions via email,” and provided the background “L’App is designed to create a safe and respectful space exclusively for lesbians, utilising facial recognition technology to ensure that only biological females can sign up.”
Watson noted, “This innovation addresses specific concerns raised by many in our community regarding their dating experiences.”
When I followed up with specific questions, as requested, such as the number of active users or their approach to people using the singular “they” pronoun or how they plan to approach intersex individuals, Watson failed to respond in a five-day comment period. I extended that to 7 days out of courtesy, and heard nothing.
Ten days after I reached out with my questions, Watson asked for another week to respond. I provided her with a work-week deadline and never heard back.
Watson’s stances on the non-binary, intersex, and trans community are of public record, however.
Watson had previously described a queer, non-binary musician – who happens to be in a relationship with a man – as “a straight woman LARPing.” She tweeted in dismissal of the inclusion of non-binary and intersex people in lesbian bars and lesbian history.
In the same interview Watson said trans men were welcome on the app because they are actually women, Watson repeated that no trans woman could be a woman, to the surprise of the conservative interviewers who questioned if Watson’s conviction held “if they have gone through it, and they’re completely a woman now.” It, of course, being transition.
By the logic presented in the interview, trans men who pass as men, who have testosterone levels equal to that of a cisgender man, and who have received top and bottom surgery are eligible for participation in the community, but trans women who pass as women, have received top and bottom surgery, and have testosterone levels of a cisgender woman cannot.
Not that passing is something that every trans person wants, can do, or should be a necessity to gain respect or protection from discrimination.
Additionally, Watson’s app may not be open to cisgender women as well.
Watson was quick to tweet against Imane Khelif, the cisgender boxer whose gender was questioned by a coalition of far-right actors ranging from J.K. Rowling to J.D. Vance. (The only “proof” that Khelif has XY chromosomes comes from a highly discredited Russian sports organization).
The L Community website states that: “In humans, biological sex is firmly linked to distinct reproductive anatomies dedicated to producing sperm or eggs for reproduction. At birth, human reproductive anatomy is unmistakably male or female in over 99.98% of cases.” Meaning, that there are only .002% of people who are intersex.
This statistic is categorically incorrect. The Cleveland Clinic estimates that 2% of people worldwide are intersex. Other medical and advocacy organizations consistently argue that the number likely is 1.7%, drawing from the research of sex and gender biologist Anne Fausto-Sterling.
Where did Watson get that number? It is likely from Leonard Sax, a medical doctor and psychologist, who has argued that 0.018% of people are intersex. Sax has also argued that gender is biologically hardwired between females and males on numerous occasions, including on conservative talk shows and for the far-right think tank the Institute for Family Studies.
Even if Sax’s and Watson’s proposed statistic was correct, Watson and L Community offer no guidelines about the inclusion of intersex people, regardless of their gender identity. Watson’s derision of Khelif suggests intersex people may not be welcome in the community.
This is not the only case where Watson’s assertions may be faulty. Watson initially claimed that her AI-powered software only messed up 0.10% of the time. She provided no proof to verify the claim.
Recent peer-reviewed research from CU Boulder studied gender recognition accuracy in multiple softwares and found that gender recognition software accurately categorized cisgender women 98.3% of the time, meaning that it miscategorized cisgender women 0.17% of the time, or a little less than double what Watson’s app does.
Importantly, CU Boulder was examining some of the most advanced and well-supported models out there, looking at Amazon, IBM, Microsoft, and Clarifai programs. For those who don’t know Clarifai, it’s an AI-specific company that employs over 100 people. The rest need no introduction.
Not only is Watson working with a much smaller team — LinkedIn estimates 2-10 employees – Watson’s software also must account for the diversity of gendered appearances within the lesbian community, ranging from butch to femme, in addition to differentiating “biologically female” trans men from men and “biologically male” transwomen from women, meaning their software must be highly advanced.
The Boulder research team found that transgender men were categorized as women approximately 38% of the time and men the remaining 62% of the time, meaning they are incredibly hard to accurately categorize in either direction.
Dr. Morgan Klaus Scheuerman, one of the authors of the CU Boulder study, said, “A lot of people have this view that tech is somehow abstracted from human bias or human values, but it’s not in any capacity.” While Scheuerman knew the topic of my interview, we only spoke about his research, not about the app specifically.
Biometric AI and computer vision – how computers can identify objects or people – consistently shows bias against transgender individuals
Watson’s team manually verifies sex from submitted selfies using a script on the website which uses publicly available datasets and APIs (Application Programming Interfaces). Per UCLA, APIs help dictate how software works and share information. There are several publicly available gender differentiation APIs.
Scheuerman explains that, “at a broad level, most computer vision works by defining the categories which you want the system to recognize. In gender, this is often male or female.”
As Scheuerman’s research explains, large data sets of images, qualitatively labeled by people for specific characteristics like gender, can be trained to predict those qualities in future images.
Since the foundation of computer vision is human training, Scheuerman says, “these generative AI models, or these large foundation models, ideally can do anything you want them to do.”
Fundamentally, Watson’s model wants to differentiate between ciswomen and transwomen. Since existing computer models successfully read transwomen as women most (87.3% per Scheuerman) of the time, Watson likely needed to train her model specifically for its task.
The specifics of Watson’s model remain under wraps. But ostensibly to get the level of accuracy, Watson’s model must have been trained on photos of both transgender women and cisgender women, in addition to transmen. This raises questions of consent.
Where did Watson get the photos? Stock photo websites often include collections of transgender people available for republication, but some explicitly exclude their collections to be used in Machine learning or AI data, while others encourage it. Research has found that AI models often use copyrighted work as data to train models, regardless of if they have explicit permission.
That is even if Watson used stock photos. “Scraping” data from publicly available sources like social media is very common for AI training and research and has previously been used to target trans people.
For example, an investigation by Vice found that the University of North Carolina Wilmington scraped more than 1 million images of trans people from YouTube without permission to create a dataset to learn more about terrorism. An interesting research question, seeing as a highly disproportionate number of terrorists are not transgender.
Although we don’t know how Watson went about sourcing the data used to train her model, the broader question remains: What would models think about their photos being used in this way?
Shae Gardner, director of policy at LGBT Tech, who has worked in the field of tech policy and research for eight years, says, “While there has been zero transparency in how this app’s facial recognition system was trained, if it involved the non-consensual scraping and inclusion of images of transgender women, that constitutes a severe breach of privacy, trust, and consent.”
Gardner emphasizes that “developing a technology with the explicit goal of identifying members of a marginalized group raises significant ethical concerns. Openly stating an intention to use that technology to exclude said group confirms them.”
Scheuerman says that “a lot of people have this view that tech is somehow abstracted from human bias or human values, but it’s not in any capacity.”
He hopes that “the field of computer science would be more open to understanding these types of concepts [like equity and diversity] because they’re our responsibility and a moral responsibility. Plus, it’s actually valuable within the market.”
The politics of consent and AI are just beginning to be negotiated and already have led to multiple lawsuits.
The first trans-exclusionary lesbian app Giggle for Girls, started in 2019 by Sall Grover, is currently facing a lawsuit from a transwoman, Roxanne Tickle. The app shut down in August 2022 with 20,000 members. Grover’s Twitter bio says the app is under renovation and will be re-launched soon.
Grover and Watson used to be collaborators of sorts, having joined each other’s podcasts to hype up the small world of female-only dating entrepreneurs.
That collaboration seems to have soured as both are claiming to be the first trans-exclusionary dating app. Giggle started first, but Watson claims it did not begin to discuss dating – just finding community – until after L Community launched. Grover claims otherwise.
However, a dedication to in-person events is unique to Watson’s mission. She plans to open a bar in London for women — her definition — only. It will be a member’s only club, so the exclusion of transwomen is legal.
Watson recently hosted a counter event to London Pride, protesting trans and asexual inclusion at the event. Estimates Watson promotes put her event at 150 people. To put that into perspective, their event was under .005% of the size of London Pride.
These numbers are not surprising. A 2023 YouGov survey found that 84% of cisgender lesbians think of transgender people “very positively” or “fairly positively.” Another 13% don’t care (“neither positively nor negatively” and “fairly”). Only 3% felt “very negatively” about trans people.
The Her App, a trans-inclusive lesbian dating app, that has critiqued Watson and L Community, has more than 15 million users. Grover’s app before it shut down was 0.0013% the size of that. Watson’s app is .000005% the size of that.
Perhaps no comparison is more jarring to show that Watson and her followers are a stunning minority within the lesbian community.
Kansas
ACLU sues Kansas over law invalidating trans residents’ IDs
A new Kansas bill requires transgender residents to have their driver’s licenses reflect their sex assigned at birth, invalidating current licenses.
Transgender people across Kansas received letters in the mail on Wednesday demanding the immediate surrender of their driver’s licenses following passage of one of the harshest transgender bathroom bans in the nation. Now the American Civil Liberties Union is filing a lawsuit to block the ban and protect transgender residents from what advocates describe as “sweeping” and “punitive” consequences.
Independent journalist Erin Reed broke the story Wednesday after lawmakers approved House Substitute for Senate Bill 244. In her reporting, Reed included a photo of the letter sent to transgender Kansans, requiring them to obtain a driver’s license that reflects their sex assigned at birth rather than the gender with which they identify.
According to the reporting, transgender Kansans must surrender their driver’s licenses and that their current credentials — regardless of expiration date — will be considered invalid upon the law’s publication. The move effectively nullifies previously issued identification documents, creating immediate uncertainty for those impacted.
House Substitute for Senate Bill 244 also stipulates that any transgender person caught driving without a valid license could face a class B misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. That potential penalty adds a criminal dimension to what began as an administrative action. It also compounds the legal risks for transgender Kansans, as the state already requires county jails to house inmates according to sex assigned at birth — a policy that advocates say can place transgender detainees at heightened risk.
Beyond identification issues, SB 244 not only bans transgender people from using restrooms that match their gender identity in government buildings — including libraries, courthouses, state parks, hospitals, and interstate rest stops — with the possibility for criminal penalties, but also allows for what critics have described as a “bathroom bounty hunter” provision. The measure permits anyone who encounters a transgender person in a restroom — including potentially in private businesses — to sue them for large sums of money, dramatically expanding the scope of enforcement beyond government authorities.
The lawsuit challenging SB 244 was filed today in the District Court of Douglas County on behalf of anonymous plaintiffs Daniel Doe and Matthew Moe by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Kansas, and Ballard Spahr LLP. The complaint argues that SB 244 violates the Kansas Constitution’s protections for personal autonomy, privacy, equality under the law, due process, and freedom of speech.
Additionally, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a temporary restraining order on behalf of the anonymous plaintiffs, arguing that the order — followed by a temporary injunction — is necessary to prevent the “irreparable harm” that would result from SB 244.
State Rep. Abi Boatman, a Wichita Democrat and the only transgender member of the Kansas Legislature, told the Kansas City Star on Wednesday that “persecution is the point.”
“This legislation is a direct attack on the dignity and humanity of transgender Kansans,” said Monica Bennett, legal director of the ACLU of Kansas. “It undermines our state’s strong constitutional protections against government overreach and persecution.”
“SB 244 is a cruel and craven threat to public safety all in the name of fostering fear, division, and paranoia,” said Harper Seldin, senior staff attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Rights Project. “The invalidation of state-issued IDs threatens to out transgender people against their will every time they apply for a job, rent an apartment, or interact with police. Taken as a whole, SB 244 is a transparent attempt to deny transgender people autonomy over their own identities and push them out of public life altogether.”
“SB 244 presents a state-sanctioned attack on transgender people aimed at silencing, dehumanizing, and alienating Kansans whose gender identity does not conform to the state legislature’s preferences,” said Heather St. Clair, a Ballard Spahr litigator working on the case. “Ballard Spahr is committed to standing with the ACLU and the plaintiffs in fighting on behalf of transgender Kansans for a remedy against the injustices presented by SB 244, and is dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights jeopardized by this new law.”
National
After layoffs at Advocate, parent company acquires ‘Them’ from Conde Nast
Top editorial staff let go last week
Former staff members at the Advocate and Out magazines revealed that parent company Equalpride laid off a number of employees late last week.
Those let go included Advocate editor-in-chief Alex Cooper, Pride.com editor-in-chief Rachel Shatto, brand partnerships manager Erin Manley, community editor Marie-Adélina de la Ferriére, and Out magazine staff writers Moises Mendez and Bernardo Sim, according to a report in Hollywood Reporter.
Cooper, who joined the company in 2021, posted to social media that, “Few people have had the privilege of leading this legendary LGBTQ+ news outlet, and I’m deeply honored to have been one of them. To my team: thank you for the last four years. You’ve been the best. For those also affected today, please let me know how I can support you.”
The Advocate’s PR firm when reached by the Blade said it no longer represents the company. Emails to the Advocate went unanswered.
Equalpride on Friday announced it acquired “Them,” a digital LGBTQ outlet founded in 2017 by Conde Nast.
“Equalpride exists to elevate, celebrate and protect LGBTQ+ storytelling at scale,” Equalpride CEO Mark Berryhill said according to Hollywood Reporter. “By combining the strengths of our brands with this respected digital platform, we’re creating a unified ecosystem that delivers even more impact for our audiences, advertisers, and community partners.”
It’s not clear if “Them” staff would take over editorial responsibilities for the Advocate and Out.
Federal Government
Two very different views of the State of the Union
As Trump delivered his SOTU address inside the Capitol, Democratic lawmakers gathered outside in protest, condemning the administration’s harmful policies.
As President Donald Trump delivered his State of the Union address inside the U.S. Capitol — touting his achievements and targeting political enemies — progressive members of Congress gathered just outside in protest.
Their message was blunt: For many Americans, particularly LGBTQ people, the country is not better off.
Each year, as required by Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, the president must “give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union.” The annual address is meant to outline accomplishments and preview the year ahead. This year, Trump delivered the longest State of the Union in U.S. history, clocking in at one hour and 48 minutes. He spoke about immigration, his “law and order” domestic agenda, his “peace through strength” foreign policy doctrine, and what he framed as the left’s ‘culture wars’ — especially those involving transgender youth and Christian values.
But one year into what he has called the “Trump 2.0” era, the picture painted outside the Capitol stood in stark contrast to the one described inside.
Transgender youth
In one of the most pointed moments of his speech, Trump spotlighted Sage Blair, using her story to portray gender-affirming care as coercive and dangerous. Framing the issue as one of parental rights and government overreach, he told lawmakers and viewers:
“In the gallery tonight are Sage Blair and her mother, Michelle. In 2021, Sage was 14 when school officials in Virginia sought to socially transition her to a new gender, treating her as a boy and hiding it from her parents. Hard to believe, isn’t it? Before long, a confused Sage ran away from home.
“After she was found in a horrific situation in Maryland, a left-wing judge refused to return Sage to her parents because they did not immediately state that their daughter was their son. Sage was thrown into an all-boys state home and suffered terribly for a long time. But today, all of that is behind them because Sage is a proud and wonderful young woman with a full ride scholarship to Liberty University.
“Sage and Michelle, please stand up. And thank you for your great bravery and who can believe that we’re even speaking about things like this. Fifteen years ago, if somebody was up here and said that, they’d say, what’s wrong with him? But now we have to say it because it’s going on all over, numerous states, without even telling the parents.
“But surely, we can all agree no state can be allowed to rip children from their parents’ arms and transition them to a new gender against the parents’ will. Who would believe that we’ve been talking about that? We must ban it and we must ban it immediately. Look, nobody stands up. These people are crazy. I’m telling you, they’re crazy.”
The story, presented as encapsulation of a national crisis, became the foundation for Trump’s renewed call to ban gender-affirming care. LGBTQ advocates — and those familiar with Blair’s story — argue that the situation was far more complex than described and that using a single anecdote to justify sweeping federal restrictions places transgender people, particularly youth, at greater risk.
Equality Virginia said the president’s remarks were part of a broader effort to strip transgender Americans of access to care. In a statement to the Blade, the group said:
“Tonight, the president is choosing to double down on efforts to disrupt access to evidence-based, lifesaving care.
“Rather than allowing families and doctors to navigate deeply personal medical decisions free from federal interference — or allowing schools to respond with nuance and compassion without putting marginalized children at risk — the president is instead advocating for reckless, one-size-fits-all political control.
“At a time when Virginians are worried about rising costs, economic uncertainty, and aggressive immigration enforcement actions disrupting communities and families, attacking transgender young people is a blatant political distraction from the real challenges facing our nation. Virginia families and health care providers do not need Donald Trump telling them what care they do or do not need.”
For many in the LGBTQ community, the rhetoric inside the chamber echoed actions already taken by the administration.
Earlier this month, the Pride flag was removed from the Stonewall National Monument under a National Park Service directive that came from the top. Community members returned to the site, raised the flag again, and filed suit, arguing the removal violated federal law. To advocates, the move was symbolic — a signal that even the legacy of LGBTQ resistance was not immune.
Immigration and fear
Immigration dominated both events as well.
Inside the chamber, Trump boasted about the hundreds of thousands of immigrants detained in makeshift facilities. Outside, Democratic lawmakers described those same facilities as concentration camps and detailed what they characterized as the human toll of the administration’s enforcement policies.
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), speaking to the crowd, painted a grim picture of communities living in fear:
“People are vanishing into thin air. Quiet mornings are punctuated by jarring violence. Students are assaulted by ICE agents sitting outside the high school, hard working residents are torn from their vehicles in front of their children. Families, hopelessly search for signs of their loved ones who have stopped answering their phones, stop replying to text… This is un-American, it is illegal, it is unconstitutional, and the people are going to rise up and fight for Gladys Vega and all of those poor people who today need to know that the people’s State of the Union is the beginning of a long fight that is going to result in the end of Republican control of the House of Representatives and the Senate in the United States of America in 2026.”
Speakers emphasized that LGBTQ immigrants are often especially vulnerable — fleeing persecution abroad only to face detention and uncertainty in the United States. For them, the immigration crackdown and the attacks on transgender health care are not separate battles but intertwined fronts in a broader cultural and political war.
Queer leadership
After delivering remarks alongside Robert Garcia, Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, took the stage and transformed the freezing crowd’s anger into resolve.
Garcia later told the Blade that visibility matters in moments like this — especially when LGBTQ rights are under direct attack.
“We should be crystal clear about right now what is happening in our country,” Garcia said. “We have a president who is leading the single largest government cover up in modern history, we have the single largest sex trafficking ring in modern history right now being covered up by Donald Trump and Pam Bondi In the Department of Justice. Why are we protecting powerful, wealthy men who have abused and raped women and children in this country? Why is our government protecting these men at this very moment? In my place at the Capitol is a woman named Annie farmer. Annie and her sister Maria, both endured horrific abuse by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. As we move forward in this investigation, always center the survivors; we are going to get justice for the survivors. And Donald Trump may call this investigation a hoax. He may try to deflect our work, but our message to him is very clear that our investigation is just getting started, and we will we will get justice for these survivors.”
He told the Blade afterwards that having queer leaders front and center is itself an act of resistance.
“I obviously was very honored to speak with Kelley,” the California representative said. Kelley is doing a great job…it’s important that there are queer voices, trans voices, gay voices, in protest, and I think she’s a great example of that. It’s important to remind the country that the rights of our community continue to be attacked, and then we’ve got to stand up. Got to stand up for this as well.”
Robinson echoed that call, urging LGBTQ Americans — especially young people — not to lose hope despite the administration’s escalating rhetoric.
“There are hundreds of thousands of people that are standing up for you every single day that will not relent and will not give an inch until every member of our community is protected, especially our kids, especially our trans and queer kids. I just hope that the power of millions of voices drowns out that one loud one, because that’s really what I want folks to see at HRC. We’ve got 3.6 million members that are mobilizing to support our community every single day, 75 million equality voters, people that decide who they’re going to vote for based on issues related to our community. Our job is to make sure that all those people stand up so that those kids can see us and hear our voices, because we’re going to be what stands in the way.”
A boycott — and a warning
The list of Democratic lawmakers who boycotted the State of the Union included Sens. Ruben Gallego, Ed Markey, Jeff Merkley, Chris Murphy, Adam Schiff, Tina Smith, and Chris Van Hollen, along with dozens of House members.
For those gathered outside — and for viewers watching the livestream hosted by MoveOn — the counter-programming was not merely symbolic. It was a warning.
While the president spoke of strength and success inside the chamber, LGBTQ Americans — particularly transgender youth — were once again cast as political targets. And outside the Capitol, lawmakers and advocates made clear that the fight over their rights is far from over.
ACLU sues Kansas over law invalidating trans residents’ IDs
After layoffs at Advocate, parent company acquires ‘Them’ from Conde Nast
Spring into sold
Plan your wedding the LGBTQ way
Calendar: February 27-March 5
Rob Jetten becomes first gay Dutch prime minister
More than a dozen LGBTQ athletes medal at Olympics
New book profiles LGBTQ Ukrainians, documents war experiences
PHOTOS: Queen of Hearts
