Connect with us

National

NETROOTS: Bloggers, activists discuss LGBT issues at pre-conference

Greater trans inclusion, more accurate representation of LGBT people in media among topics mentioned

Published

on

MINNEAPOLIS — More complete representation of the LGBT people in the media and greater attention to transgender issues were among the issues bloggers and activists discussed on Wednesday during an LGBT pre-conference for the annual Netroots Nation convention.

About 115 activists and bloggers were registered for the pre-conference — organized by gay D.C. blogger Mike Rogers — to facilitate greater cooperation for shared goals in the LGBT movement.

During an opening session of pre-conference, LGBT bloggers and activists aired concerns and made observations about issues that they felt weren’t receiving enough national attention.

* Pam Spaulding, lesbian blogger for Pam’s House Blend, said too much national attention is focused on advancing marriage rights in states where they don’t exist or retaining marriage equality in states where it may be taken away.

Meanwhile other states, such as North Carolina and Minnesota, face the possibility of passing marriage amendments even though they have statutes prohibiting same-sex marriage. Minnesota voters face a ballot measure in 2012 and North Carolina will also likely face one in 2012.

“I’ve heard people say that it’s a lost cause to do anything in the South, but North Carolina staved off an amendment six times in a row,” Spaulding said. “So, I think that there is a lot of … people who have ‘blue’ state protections who ignore places where there’s a lot of activism going on and the distinct possibility that we could stave this off.”

* Jillian Weiss, a transgender blogger for the Bilerico Project, urged for greater emphasis on transgender inclusion. Even for LGBT issues that primarily affect gay, lesbian and bisexual people, Weiss said there should an effort to show how the issue affects transgender people.

“To use a prime example is ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ where [we’re] concentrated specifically on gay and lesbian soldiers, which is definitely very important, and I’m behind that 100 percent, but very few people talk about the fact that it’s leaving transgender and transsexual veterans behind,” Weiss said. “If we don’t speak about these other portions of the community, they get completely lost.”

* Daniel Villarreal, a gay blogger for Queerty, said greater pressure should be placed on media to include representation for all parts of the LGBT community, including LGBT people of color.

“GLAAD just released a report that looks mainly at cable and networks’ depictions of queer people,” Villarreal said. “The number of bisexual, lesbian and transgender people are incredibly low, depressing low. Not only that, the numbers of minorities are incredibly low.”

Villarreal said all media — even LGBT media — should be “taken to task” for not accurately representing the LGBT community as a whole.

“The only time I ever see a black guy outside of RuPaul’s Drag Race on Logo is in an HIV commercial, and that’s pretty fucking sad,” Villarreal said.

* Felipe Matos, a gay Miami-based strategist, said more attention should focused on the pressures LGBT immigrant youths face. Matos said after coming out, LGBT immigrant youths are often ostracized from their communities, and, if they’re undocumented, could be apprehended by the police and deported.

“When you come out, many times you are, in your community and outside your community, you are hurt and then you don’t have any recourse [or] anyone to go to because you are afraid the police is going to deport you,” Matos said.

As part of his work with an youth group in Florida, Matos said these situations happen “over and over again.” LGBT youths, he said, are afraid to talk about their sexual orientation or gender identity for fear of being cast aside and potentially deported.

* Christopher Edwards, communications manager for Immigration Equality, said there should be greater emphasis on the impacts that state immigration laws have on LGBT people. Pending legislation in Utah, Edwards said, would increase the penalty for harboring undocumented immigrants and prevent bi-national couples from staying together in the state.

“A lot of bi-national families include a partner who is undocumented, so you could basically be arrested for living with your partner,” Edwards said.

Edwards also said his organization is having “a horrible time” convincing Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) to sign on as a co-sponsor of the Uniting American Families Act, which would enable gay Americans to sponsor their foreign spouses for residency in the United States.

* Zack Ford, a gay blogger with Think Progress, said activists should devise a better way to present the sexuality of LGBT people as more mainstream. In the fight for same-sex marriage, Ford said LGBT people have moved away from presenting themselves as sexual beings.

“We’ve hidden our sexuality from the mainstream world, but I think as long as that ick factor works against us, we need to find ways to show we’re not just people that deserve to be married, but whole, healthy, happy human beings,” Ford said. “I think finding some better approaches to talking about queer sexuality in a positive, affirmative way will be very helpful.”

* Jeremy Hooper, the gay blogger for Good as You, said LGBT activists could do better with the way they talk about same-sex marriage and how it wouldn’t impact religious freedom.

“From my experience, LGBT people and progressives are better at understanding true religious freedom than the opposition, yet we let them work the idea that we’re seeking something more … than [what] we deserve,” Hooper said. “We don’t want churches to marry us. We’re not asking for that. What we’re seeking is civil marriage.”

Several breakouts sessions followed the opening sessions of the LGBT pre-conference and hit on topics including the intersection of immigration and LGBT issues as well as fitting the fight for same-sex marriage into the broader LGBT movement.

For the immigration session, activists working for passage of the DREAM Act, an immigration bill that would provide a path to U.S. citizenship for young, undocumented youths, called on the LGBT community for greater supporter.

* Tania Unzueta, advocacy co-ordinator for the Association of Latino Men for Action’s LGBTQ Immigration Rights Project, said LGBT rights supporters should have been made last year when Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) voted for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal, but against the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act.

“There really wasn’t anything from the LGBT community that was like, ‘This was bad,'” Unzueta said. “It was always, ‘Thank you, thank you, thank you.'”

Unzueta said her organization has been devising ways to change the discussion on LGBT issues and immigration issues to demonstrate that they are, in fact, both part of the larger struggle for human rights.

In the marriage session, activists and bloggers talked about whether the fight for same-sex marriage had become too much of a priority for the LGBT community and making other issues secondary.

* Andy Szekeres, a gay activist and progressive political consultant, said the fundraising that groups undertake to win same-sex marriage can be used for the fights to win other battles.

“Marriage is where the money is,” Szekeres said. “Look at the trans groups, look at the adoption groups, look at the immigration groups. The marriage world is 10-1 fundraising over them, so we need to figure out a way to sort of spread the wealth.”

* Carisa Cunningham, director of public affairs and education for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, said the fight for marriage came about to address fundamental issues facing the LGBT community.

“I think the question of whether it’s strategic is kind of neither here nor there,” Cunningham said. “It’s here because we went through the AIDS epidemic and gay men found that at the end of their lives, they could not have their partners come and see them in the hospital [or] make medical decisions for them. Gsy men found that they could not have any say over their partner’s bodies when they died and their partner’s families could come, swoop in and take everything away.”

Cunningham continued, “The other thing was the lesbian baby boom. Women were leaving straight marriages and finding out that they had no rights vis-a-vis their children or they were creating families with their partners and finding again that rights that come to you vis-a-vis your children automatically by marriage have to fought for. There is a real sense that the marriage movement has demand-driven; it has been driven by the bottom up.”

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article underestimated the number of attendees at the LGBT pre-conference. The Washington Blade regrets the error.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Federal Government

Texas Children’s Hospital reaches $10 million settlement with DOJ over gender-affirming care

Clinic specializing in detransition care will be established

Published

on

Justice Department in D.C. (Washington Blade photo by Joe Reberkenny)

The Justice Department announced May 15 that it has reached a settlement with Texas Children’s Hospital, one of the nation’s top pediatric hospitals.

Under the agreement, the hospital will pay more than $10 million in damages and civil penalties related to its provision of gender-affirming care and will establish a clinic specializing in detransition care.

The DOJ partnered with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office to resolve allegations that the hospital submitted false billings to public and private insurers to secure coverage for pediatric gender-affirming procedures. The department alleges the conduct violated the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the False Claims Act, and federal fraud and conspiracy laws.

The settlement was reached out of court, meaning neither party formally admitted wrongdoing. Both the DOJ and Texas Children’s Hospital denied liability.

“The Justice Department will use every weapon at its disposal to end the destructive and discredited practice of so-called ‘gender-affirming care’ for children,” Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a DOJ press release. “Today’s resolution protects vulnerable children, holds providers accountable, and ensures those harmed receive the care they need.”

The DOJ’s hardline stance on gender-affirming care sharply contrasts with the positions of major medical organizations, transgender healthcare advocates, and human rights groups, which broadly support gender-affirming care as an evidence-based treatment for gender dysphoria.

Adrian Shanker, former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health Policy and Senior Advisor on LGBTQI+ Health Equity at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under during the Biden-Harris administration, told the Washington Blade the settlement could have sweeping consequences for trans youth and healthcare providers nationwide.

“The Trump administration’s framing of gender-affirming care is wildly inaccurate, scientifically implausible, and frankly, just mean-spirited,” Shanker told the Blade. “What’s really clear is that the science hasn’t changed, the evidence hasn’t changed — it’s only the politics that have changed. Unfortunately, the people that lose out the most with a settlement like this one are the patients that are denied access to care where they live.”

According to Shanker, the agreement also requires Texas Children’s Hospital to revoke privileges for physicians involved in providing gender-affirming care, potentially limiting their ability to practice elsewhere.

“This is a weaponized Department of Justice doing absurd investigations against providers that are providing care within the established standard of care,” he said. “They’ve come up with an absurd remedy in their settlement to require a so-called ‘detransition clinic’ to open at Texas Children’s. It’s harmful to science, it’s harmful to trans people, and it’s harmful to the medical profession.”

Shanker argued the case reflects a broader politicization of trans healthcare.

“Every American should be concerned about the weaponized Department of Justice and their obsession with trans people and their access to care,” he said. “These hospitals that provide gender-affirming care, the providers of gender-affirming care, have done nothing wrong. They followed the standards of care that are well established and followed the mountain of evidence.”

Karen Loewy, senior counsel and director of constitutional law practice at Lambda Legal, echoed those concerns.

“For Texas Children’s to capitulate to this pressure campaign of both Paxton and the Trump administration and end this care, and go after physicians who had been lawfully and faithfully taking care of their patients, it’s hard to see that as anything other than bending the knee in the face of political pressure,” Loewy told the Blade. “That’s not putting your mission above politics. Your mission is to provide health care for kids that need it.”

Loewy said the settlement reflects years of efforts by Paxton and the Trump-Vance administration to target gender-affirming care providers. Paxton has pursued investigations into providers across Texas since 2022 and supported a 2023 law banning gender-transition-related medical care for minors. Meanwhile, the Trump-Vance administration moved quickly in its second term to restrict trans healthcare access, including through Executive Order 14187, titled “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation.”

“This is a perfect storm of Ken Paxton’s own mission to stigmatize and target trans young people and their healthcare in Texas with the Trump administration’s targeting of trans people and gender-affirming medical care,” Loewy said. “It is the two of them together. Without that, you wouldn’t have had this settlement.”

Loewy also emphasized that the settlement is part of a broader legal strategy targeting providers nationwide.

“You can’t view this one in isolation from all of the other administrative subpoenas that have been sent to hospitals or other kinds of medical providers that have provided gender-affirming medical care to trans adolescents,” she said. “It is all part and parcel of the same direct line from the executive orders that were issued in the first days of this Trump administration.”

“Every court that has considered those subpoenas has found them illegitimate and issued for an improper purpose, or at least narrowed them really dramatically,” she added. “Courts agree these hospitals didn’t do anything wrong. It’s the DOJ that has the problem here.”

Shanker also criticized the settlement’s requirement that the hospital establish a detransition clinic, arguing the move contradicts existing medical evidence.

“The irony shouldn’t be lost on anyone that the Trump administration is claiming that gender-affirming care lacks a scientific basis, and then is requiring the opening of a so-called detransition clinic, which certainly lacks a scientific basis,” Shanker said. “There’s less than a 1% regret rate when it comes to gender-affirming care. That’s lower than knee surgery, lower than bariatric surgery, lower than childbirth, lower than breast reconstruction, and lower than tattoos.”

Loewy was similarly blunt in her criticism.

“This is the most craven, political, ridiculous elevation of ideology over evidence,” she said. “They are creating a program built on an outcome that almost never happens. It is unprecedented and politically mandated rather than healthcare mandated.”

She said the settlement’s broader effect will be to intimidate providers and further marginalize trans people.

“The real effect here is to further stigmatize trans people and intimidate healthcare providers,” she said. “This is about sending a message nationwide that the DOJ is coming after the doctors. These are committed, faithful, law-abiding physicians and healthcare providers who just want to provide the healthcare their patients actually need.”

Both Loewy and Shanker warned that restricting access to gender-affirming care could deepen health disparities for trans people.

“We know that when transgender Americans lack the care that they need, we end up with higher rates of depression, higher rates of anxiety, higher rates of self-harm and suicidal ideation,” Shanker said. “We know that gender-affirming care is a medically appropriate, scientifically grounded form of care that resolves these challenges and leads us toward health equity. It’s unfortunate that the Trump administration has politicized not only transgender medicine, but the very basis of public health.”

Shanker said the restrictions are already prompting some trans people to relocate in search of care.

“We’re already seeing medical refugees leave states that have restricted access to care to move to states where it’s still available,” he said. “Frankly, we’ve already seen some trans people go to other countries to receive care or maintain access to care.”

Loewy said the DOJ’s recent subpoenas targeting hospitals, including those issued to NYU Langone Health in New York, suggest the administration is escalating its legal strategy.

“We’ve seen the DOJ escalate this by convening a grand jury and issuing grand jury subpoenas to hospitals,” she said. “That is going to be the next front in this fight.”

In addition to , there has been as large increase in anti-trans legislation in the past few years — with 126 federal pieces of legislation introduced this year and 26 state level policies passed across the country.

Still, Loewy pointed to recent court victories as evidence that challenges to these policies can succeed.

“Just yesterday, a state court in Kansas struck down that state’s ban on gender-affirming medical care in one of the most meticulous recognitions of the medical consensus and the harm of denying care to trans young people,” she said. “When courts actually look at the science and the impacts on trans people, they still can rule the right way.”

Asked whether there is any optimism to be found amid the ongoing legal battles, Loewy said she continues to draw hope from advocates, families, and community organizers fighting back.

“The solidarity of the community is really what brings hope,” she said. “There are incredible lawyers, advocates, families, and organizations fighting every day to protect these kids and their privacy and safety. It is that community strength and collaborative effort that continues to give me hope.”

Continue Reading

Commentary

‘Live Your Pride’ is much more than a slogan

Waves Ahead forced to cancel May 17 event in Puerto Rico

Published

on

(Courtesy image)

On May 5, I spoke by phone with Wilfred Labiosa, executive director of Waves Ahead, a Puerto Rico-based LGBTQ community organization that for years has provided mental health services, support programs, and safe spaces for vulnerable communities across the island. During our conversation, Labiosa confirmed every concern described in the organization’s public statement announcing the cancellation of “Live Your Pride,” an event scheduled for Sunday in the northwestern municipality of Isabela. But beyond the financial struggles and organizational challenges, what stayed with me most was the emotional weight behind his words. There was pain in his voice while describing what it means to watch spaces like these slowly disappear.

This was not simply the cancellation of a community event.

“Live Your Pride” had been envisioned as a celebration and affirming gathering for LGBTQ older adults and their allies in Puerto Rico. In a society where many LGBTQ elders spent decades hiding parts of themselves in order to survive, spaces like this carry enormous emotional and social significance. They become places where people can finally exist openly, without fear, apology, or shame.

That is why this cancellation matters far beyond Isabela.

What is happening in Puerto Rico cannot be separated from the broader political climate unfolding across the U.S. and its territories, where programs connected to diversity, inclusion, education, mental health, and LGBTQ visibility increasingly find themselves under political attack. These changes do not always arrive through dramatic announcements. More often, they happen quietly. Funding disappears. Community organizations weaken. Safe spaces become harder to sustain. Eventually, the absence itself begins to feel normal.

That normalization is dangerous.

For years, organizations like Waves Ahead have stepped into gaps left behind by institutions and governments, particularly in communities where LGBTQ people continue facing discrimination, social isolation, economic instability, and mental health struggles. Their work has never been limited to organizing events. It has involved accompanying people through loneliness, trauma, rejection, depression, aging, and survival itself.

“Live Your Pride” represented much more than entertainment. It represented visibility for LGBTQ older adults, many of whom survived decades of family rejection, religious exclusion, workplace discrimination, violence, and silence. These are individuals who came of age during years when living openly could cost someone employment, housing, relationships, or personal safety. Many learned to survive by making themselves invisible.

When spaces like this disappear, something deeply human is lost.

A gathering is canceled, yes, but so is an opportunity for healing, connection, recognition, and dignity. For many LGBTQ older adults, especially in smaller municipalities across Puerto Rico, these events are not secondary luxuries. They are reminders that their lives still matter in a society that too often treats aging and queer existence as disposable.

There are still political and religious sectors that portray the rainbow as some kind of ideological threat. But the rainbow does not erase anyone. It illuminates people and stories that society has often tried to ignore. It reflects the lives of young people forced out of their homes, transgender individuals targeted by violence, older adults aging in silence, and families that spent years defending their right to exist openly.

Perhaps that is precisely why the rainbow unsettles some people so deeply.

Its colors expose abandonment, hypocrisy, inequality, and fear. They force societies to confront realities that are easier to ignore than to address honestly. They reveal how fragile human dignity becomes when political agendas decide that certain communities are no longer worthy of protection, funding, or visibility.

The greatest concern here is not solely the cancellation of one event in one Puerto Rican town. The deeper concern is the message quietly taking shape behind decisions like these — the idea that some communities can wait, that some lives deserve fewer resources, and that safe spaces for vulnerable people are expendable during moments of political tension.

History has shown repeatedly how social regression begins. Rarely with one dramatic act. More often through exhaustion, silence, budget cuts, and the slow dismantling of organizations doing essential community work.

Even so, Waves Ahead made one thing clear in its statement. Although “Live Your Pride” has been canceled, the organization will continue providing mental health and community support services through its centers across Puerto Rico. That commitment matters because people do not survive on slogans alone. They survive because somewhere there are still open doors, trained professionals, supportive communities, and people willing to remain present when the world becomes colder and more hostile.

Puerto Rico should pay close attention to what this moment represents. No healthy society is built by weakening the organizations that care for vulnerable people. No government should feel comfortable watching community groups struggle to survive while attempting to provide services and compassion that public institutions themselves often fail to offer.

The rainbow has never been the problem.

The real problem is the discomfort created when its colors force society to confront the wounds, inequalities, and human realities that too many people would rather keep hidden.

Continue Reading

Federal Government

Bureau of Prisons declines to reconsider transgender inmate policy

Democratic lawmakers raised concerns this week, lawsuit filed

Published

on

(Photo by Andrushko Galyna/Bigstock)

Following a letter sent Monday by several Democratic senators raising concerns about the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ updated transgender inmate policy, the BOP responded to a request for comment from the Washington Blade, saying it does not plan to reverse the changes implemented earlier this year.

The policy was revised in 2025 to comply with President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 14168, titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.”

In a statement to the Blade, BOP spokesperson Donald Murphy said the updated policy is rooted in medical guidance and data-driven decision making.

“The BOP implemented the February 2025 policy to ensure that inmates with gender dysphoria are properly diagnosed and treated consistent with best medical practices,” he said. “Unlike the prior administration’s one-size-fits-all approach, the BOP’s new policy ensures individualized assessments and treatments. And while the previous administration’s policies on treating inmates with gender dysphoria was driven by radical ideology, the BOP’s current policy is based on medical studies, medical expert opinions, state correctional policies, caselaw, and penological concerns. Absent court order, there are no plans to reconsider or revisit the policy.”

U.S. Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), and Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) signed the letter, arguing that the policy change fails to adequately prioritize the safety of trans inmates — protections they say are guaranteed under the Constitution.

This inquiry comes days after a federal lawsuit was filed against the Justice Department specifically on the concern that trans inmates are not receiving adequate care.

Earlier this month, the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, a legal organization focused on LGBTQ rights since 1977, filed a lawsuit in District Court of the District of Columbia against the Trump-Vance administration in collaboration with GLAD Law, Lowenstein Sandler LLP, and Wardenski P.C.

The suit, filed on May 6, alleges the administration is “ignoring federal protections” designed to prevent sexual abuse of incarcerated trans people.

“Transgender people in prison are sexually abused or assaulted at nearly 10x the rate of the general prison population,” the press release announcing the lawsuit states, adding that federal legislation was enacted to address those risks.

The plaintiff in the lawsuit, Paulina Poe, is a trans woman currently incarcerated in a men’s facility. According to the complaint, she has been “propositioned, groped, sexually harassed, and assaulted” by male inmates and subjected to strip searches by male officers — circumstances the Prison Rape Elimination Act regulations were intended to prevent.

The lawsuit also argues that the policy changes violate constitutional protections and deny trans inmates medically necessary care.

“The Eighth Amendment requires prisons and jails to provide ‘adequate medical care’ to incarcerated people which includes adequate treatment for people diagnosed with gender dysphoria,” says the Transgender Law Center. “‘Adequate medical care’ should be delivered according to accepted medical standards, such as WPATH’s Standards of Care. Some courts have said that in some circumstances ‘adequate medical care’ for gender dysphoria includes providing gender-appropriate clothing and grooming supplies, and the ability to present yourself consistent with your gender identity.”

GLAD Law Staff Attorney Sarah Austin also issued a statement when the lawsuit was announced, saying those responsible for the policy changes — and the rollback of protections under the Prison Rape Elimination Act — will be “held accountable for this egregious and lawless action.”

“The federal government’s unlawful attempt to roll back binding Prison Rape Elimination Act regulations is an especially dangerous step in its ongoing campaign to strip transgender people of legal protections,” Austin said. “The targeting of transgender incarcerated people is a deliberate choice to put vulnerable people in harm’s way simply because of who they are.”

The Justice Department has not responded to the Blade’s request for comment.

Continue Reading

Popular