National
Meta’s policy changes ‘putting us back in the dark ages’
Expert says rolling back hate speech protections threatens queer youth
LGBTQ advocates have expressed alarm in recent weeks, as Meta has taken steps to undermine protections for queer youth and apparently worked to appease the incoming conservative administration in Washington.
Meta, the parent company of popular social media and messaging companies Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, is owned by Mark Zuckerberg, who was once considered to be an ally of the LGBTQ community.
Two weeks ago, the internet was afire with discussion of Liv, the now-deleted Instagram profile of a “proud black Queer momma of 2” AI made by Meta as part of its AI user dreams.
Then, last week, independent tech journalist Taylor Lorenz revealed that Instagram had been blocking teens from searching LGBTQ-related content for months.
This comes as no surprise to Celia Fisher, a professor of Psychology and the Marie Ward Doty University Chair in Ethics at Fordham University who has spent her career studying children and adolescent health, especially for marginalized groups like the LGBTQ community.
When speaking to the Washington Blade in November 2024 on TikTok, Fisher remarked that it was increasingly difficult to research the Meta platforms. Fisher and her team have used advertisements on social media to recruit youth for anonymous surveys for studies. “One of the advantages of social media is that you can reach a national audience,” she says.
The advertisements are specifically linked to keywords and popular celebrities to reach LGBTQ populations of youth. When she spoke to the Bladeagain this week, she was not surprised to hear that keywords were being blocked from youth. “Now, there is a major barrier to being able to recruit when you are doing online studies.”
It makes her research—which has looked at the mental health of youth online, HIV prevention strategies, and COVID vaccine barriers—impossible. “If Meta prevents researchers from using the platform, then the research can’t be done,” she said.
The search blocks are not just a threat to the research, they are a threat to youth. “Hiding those terms from youth means they can’t see that there is a community out there. That’s a tremendous loss, especially for transgender youth,” said Fisher.
Fisher suspects where the restrictions are coming from, not that Zuckerberg has been particularly opaque as he cozies up to the new administration. “I think there’s been a creeping fear on the part of companies not to do anything that might elicit the ire of more conservative politicians,” she said.
A Meta spokesperson told Lorenz that the restriction was a mistake. “It’s important to us that all communities feel safe and welcome on Meta apps, and we do not consider LGBTQ+ terms to be sensitive under our policies,” said the spokesperson.
Meta backtracked immediately; the next day the company removed longstanding anti-LGBTQ hate speech policies.
Zuckerberg announced large changes to the platform via video in which he sported a $900,000 watch. (More than 1 in 5 LGBTQ adults are living in poverty. More than 1 in 3 transgender adults are living in poverty.)
The changes, which eliminate independent fact-checking for a system similar to X’s “community notes,” have been highly critiqued by journalists and fact-checking organizations. Many experts see it as a “bow” to Trump.
Zuckerberg also noted that the platform would “remove restrictions on topics like immigration and gender that are out of touch with mainstream discourse.” He directly linked the changes to the recent election.
Those changes happened quickly. That same day GLAAD, an LGBTQ media monitoring non-profit, reported the changes to the hateful conduct policies. Changes include allowances for calling LGBTQ people mentally ill and the removal of prohibitions against the dehumanization of protected groups, among many. Notably, Meta’s guidelines include the right-wing transphobic dog whistle “transgenderism.”
On Jan. 9, reporting from The Intercept and Platformer on internal training documents revealed the use of even more slurs. The t-slur against transgender people is now allowed on the sites with no restrictions. Phrases like—and this is a quoted example—”A trans person isn’t a he or she, it’s an it” are allowed on the sites with no restrictions.
Notably, the training manuals differentiate between different members of the LGBTQ community. For example, The Intercept found that the phrase “Lesbians are so stupid” would be prohibited while “trans people are mentally ill” would not be.
(These training manuals also include permissive use of racist and dehumanizing language for other marginalized groups.)
And then, as a cherry on top, Meta removed DEI programs and deleted the transgender and non-binary Messenger themes, on Jan. 10.
These changes are undeniably bad. Arturo Béjar, a former engineering director at Meta with expertise in online harassment, told the Associated Press, he is horrified by the changes.
“I shudder to think what these changes will mean for our youth, Meta is abdicating their responsibility to safety, and we won’t know the impact of these changes because Meta refuses to be transparent about the harms teenagers experience, and they go to extraordinary lengths to dilute or stop legislation that could help,” he said.
Fisher, who has researched the effects of hate speech online on LGBTQ youths’ mental health, agrees that the results will be devastating. “We had many people who said they observed transgender harassment for others or were actually attacked themselves,” said Fisher. “This prevents people from wanting to come out online and to actually engage in those kinds of online communities that might be helpful to them.”
What is happening also confirms LGBTQ youths’ worst fears. “We’ve found that a major concern is that there would be an increased violation of civil rights and increased violence against LGBTQ individuals,” she said.
Fisher, a psychologist, sees this as “putting us back into the dark ages of psychiatry and psychology when LGBTQ individuals were seen as having some kind of a mental health problem or disorder.”
Fisher emphasized: “This kind of misinformation about mental illness is certainly going to be putting transgender people, especially at even greater risk than they were before.”
(This story is part of the Digital Equity Local Voices Fellowship lab through News is Out. The lab initiative is made possible with support from Comcast NBCUniversal.)
Puerto Rico
The ‘X’ returns to court
1st Circuit hears case over legal recognition of nonbinary Puerto Ricans
Eight months ago, I wrote about this issue at a time when it had not yet reached the judicial level it faces today. Back then, the conversation moved through administrative decisions, public debate, and political resistance. It was unresolved, but it had not yet reached this point.
That has now changed.
Lambda Legal appeared before the 1st U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston, urging the court to uphold a lower court ruling that requires the government of Puerto Rico to issue birth certificates that accurately reflect the identities of nonbinary individuals. The appeal follows a district court decision that found the denial of such recognition to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
This marks a turning point. The issue is no longer theoretical. A court has already determined that unequal treatment exists.
The argument presented by the plaintiffs is grounded in Puerto Rico’s own legal framework. Identity birth certificates are not static historical records. They are functional documents used in everyday life. They are required to access employment, education, and essential services. Their purpose is practical, not symbolic.
Within that framework, the exclusion of nonbinary individuals does not stem from a legal limitation. Puerto Rico already allows gender marker corrections on birth certificates for transgender individuals under the precedent established in Arroyo Gonzalez v. Rosselló Nevares. In addition, the current Civil Code recognizes the existence of identity documents that reflect a person’s lived identity beyond the original birth record.
The issue lies in how the law is applied.
Recognition is granted within specific categories, while those who do not identify within that binary structure remain excluded. That exclusion is now at the center of this case.
Lambda Legal’s position is straightforward. Requiring individuals to carry documents that do not reflect who they are forces them into misrepresentation in essential aspects of daily life. This creates practical barriers, exposes them to scrutiny, and places them in a constant state of vulnerability.
The plaintiffs, who were born in Puerto Rico, have made clear that access to accurate identification is not symbolic. It is a basic condition for moving through the world without contradiction imposed by the state.
The fact that this case is now being addressed in the federal court system adds another layer of significance. This is not a pending policy discussion or a legislative proposal. It is a constitutional question. The analysis is not about political preference, but about rights and equal protection under the law.
This case does not exist in isolation.
It unfolds within a broader context in which debates over identity and rights have increasingly been shaped by the growing influence of conservative perspectives in public policy, both in the United States and in Puerto Rico. At the local level, this influence has been reflected in legislative discussions where religious arguments have begun to intersect with decisions that should be grounded in constitutional principles. That intersection creates tension around the separation of church and state and has direct consequences for access to rights.
Recognizing this context is not an attack on faith or religious practice. It is an acknowledgment that when certain perspectives move into the realm of public authority, they can shape outcomes that affect specific communities.
From within Puerto Rico, this is not a distant debate. It is a lived reality. It is present in the difficulty of presenting identification that does not match one’s identity, and in the consequences that follow in workplaces, schools, and government spaces.
The progression of this case introduces the possibility of change within the applicable legal framework. Not because it resolves every tension surrounding the issue, but because it establishes a legal examination of a practice that has long operated under exclusion.
Eight months ago, the conversation centered on ongoing developments. Today, there is already a judicial finding that identifies a violation of rights. What remains is whether that finding will be upheld on appeal.
That process does not guarantee an immediate outcome, but it shifts the ground.
The debate is no longer theoretical.
It is now before the courts.
National
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Interest in gun ownership has increased since Donald Trump returned to office
By JOHN-JOHN WILLIAMS IV | As the child of a father who hunted, Vera Snively shied away from firearms, influenced by her mother’s aversion to guns.
Now, the 18-year-old Westminster electrician goes to the shooting range at least once a month. She owns a rifle and a shotgun, and plans to get a handgun when she turns 21.
“I want to be able to defend my community, especially being in political spaces and queer spaces,” said Snively, a trans woman. “It’s just having that extra line of safety, having that extra peace of mind would be important to me.”
Snively is among what some say is a growing number of LGBTQ gun owners across the United States. Gun rights organizations and advocates say interest in gun ownership appears to have increased in that community since President Donald Trump returned to the White House last year.
The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner’s website.
Tennessee
Tenn. lawmakers pass transgender “watch list” bill
State Senate to consider measure on Wednesday
The Tennessee House of Representatives passed a bill last week to create a transgender “watch list” that also pushes detransition medical treatment. The state Senate will consider it on Wednesday.
House Bill 754/State Bill 676 has been deemed “ugly” by LGBTQ advocates and criticized by healthcare information litigators as a major privacy concern.
The bill would require “gender clinics accepting funds from this state to perform gender transition procedures to also perform detransition procedures; requires insurance entities providing coverage of gender transition procedures to also cover detransition procedures; requires certain gender clinics and insurance entities to report information regarding detransition procedures to the department of health.”
It would require that any gender-affirming care-providing clinics share the date, age, and sex of patients; any drugs prescribed (dosage, frequency, duration, and method administered); the state and county; the name, contact information, and medical specialty of the healthcare professional who prescribed the treatment; and any past medical history related to “neurological, behavioral, or mental health conditions.” It would also mandate additional information if surgical intervention is prescribed, including details on which healthcare professional made a referral and when.
HB 0754 would also require the state to produce a “comprehensive annual statistical report,” with all collected data shared with the heads of the legislature and the legislative librarian, and eventually published online for public access.
The bill also reframes detransitioning as a major focus of gender-affirming healthcare — despite studies showing that the number of trans people who detransition is statistically quite low, around 13 percent, and is often the result of external pressures (such as discrimination or family) rather than an issue with their gender identity.
This legislation stands in sharp contrast to federal protections restricting what healthcare information can be shared. In 1996, Congress passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, requiring protections for all “individually identifiable health information,” including medical records, conversations, billing information, and other patient data.
Margaret Riley, professor of law, public health sciences, and public policy at the University of Virginia, has written about similar efforts at the federal level, noting the Trump-Vance administration’s push to subpoena multiple hospitals’ records of gender-affirming care for trans patients despite no claims — or proof — that a crime was committed.
It has “sown fear and concern, both among people whose information is sought and among the doctors and other providers who offer such care. Some health providers have reportedly decided to no longer provide gender-affirming care to minors as a result of the inquiries, even in states where that care is legal.” She wrote in an article on the Conversation, where she goes further, pointing out that the push, mostly from conservative members of the government, are pushing extracting this private information “while giving no inkling of any alleged crimes that may have been committed.”
State Rep. Jeremy Faison (R-Cosby), the bill’s sponsor, said in a press conference two weeks ago that he has met dozens of individuals who sought to transition genders and ultimately detransitioned. In committee, an individual testified in support of the bill, claiming that while insurance paid for gender-affirming care, detransition care was not covered.
“I believe that we as a society are going to look back on this time that really burst out in 2014 and think, ‘Dear God, What were we thinking? This was as dumb as frontal lobotomies,’” Faison said of gender-affirming care. “I think we’re going to look back on society one day and think that.”
Jennifer Levi, GLAD Law’s senior director of Transgender and Queer Rights, shared with PBS last year that legislation like this changes the entire concept of HIPAA rights for trans Americans in ways that are invasive and unnecessary.
“It turns doctor-patient confidentiality into government surveillance,” Levi said, later emphasizing this will cause fewer people to seek out the care that they need. “It’s chilling.”
The Washington Blade reached out to the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, which shared this statement from Executive Director Miriam Nemeth:
“HB 754/SB 676 continues the ugly legacy of Tennessee legislators’ attacks on the lives of transgender Tennesseans. Most Tennesseans, regardless of political views, oppose government databases tracking medical decisions made between patients and their doctors. The same should be true here. The state does not threaten to end the livelihood of doctors and fine them $150,000 for safeguarding the sensitive information of people with diabetes, depression, cancer, or other conditions. Trans people and intersex people deserve the same safety, privacy, and equal treatment under the law as everyone else.”
Calendar: April 10-16
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
Celebrations of life planned for Sean Bartel
The ‘X’ returns to court
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
D.C. is the place for the Democratic Socialists of America
PHOTOS: The Bonnet Ball
Key lifestyle changes can help patients cope with diabetes
Trump budget would codify expanded global gag rule
