National
Lesbian who fought workplace discrimination ‘honored’ to attend SOTU
Kilker to join handful of guests in first lady’s box
Lorelei Kilker (left) with her partner Sara Nelson (photo courtesy Kilker)
The invitation to witness the State of the Union address on Tuesday alongside first lady Michelle Obama came as a surprise to a lesbian analytical chemist who last year fought alleged workplace sex discrimination.
In an interview with the Washington Blade, Lorelei Kilker, 31, of Brighton, Colo., said she learned she was invited to attend the speech upon receiving a call from a White House official on Sunday.
“It was a Sunday and the middle of the day,” she said with a laugh. “They left a message on my phone from someone who said, ‘This is the White House.’ I was very shocked. I didn’t think that anything like this would happen. I was honored and shocked.”
One of a handful of guests that have been selected to sit in the first lady’s box in the House gallery, Kilker will watch President Obama deliver his speech at 9 p.m. before a joint session of Congress.
Kilker described the feeling of being able to sit next to first lady Michelle Obama to watch the president as he gives his speech as “overwhelming.”
“You see the president and you see the first lady on TV,” Kilker said. “You recognize them, but I never in a million years would have thought I would have the opportunity to see them in person. It’s pretty great.”
Kilker said she’ll be traveling to D.C. with her partner of three-and-a-half years, Sarah Nelson, who’s 33 and works at Dick’s Sporting Goods. They have two children, ages four and seven. However, Kilker will be attending the speech on her own.
The message that Kilker hopes to hear from President Obama on Tuesday night: “getting America back together, becoming united.”
Asked whether she’d like to hear something from Obama on LGBT issues, such as an endorsement of same-sex marriage, Kilker replied, “I think that that’s important. There have been steps, but we need something stronger.”
What would Kilker want to say to Michelle Obama if they have an opportunity to chat? Kilker said she’d commend the first lady for being an admirable person.
“The only thing I would say to her is that I think she’s a positive and strong female role model, and the Obama administration has done a lot for civil rights as opposed to other administrations,” Kilker said.
Kilker was invited to attend the State of the Union address after she received monetary relief in an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission case that investigated alleged sex discrimination she faced at while employed at the Western Sugar Cooperative.
According to an EEOC statement from when the case was resolved in October, EEOC found Western Sugar denied women training and promotions, gave them less desirable work assignments and segregated positions by gender at its Ft. Morgan, Colo., facility. Additionally, the company allegedly denied year-round employment and paid lower wages to women.
Western Sugar has denied any wrongdoing and maintains it’s an equal opportunity employer, but agreed to resolve the matter through EEOC’s reconciliation process.
But Kilker contends that women “had certain jobs they were allowed to have, and there were certain jobs that they were not allowed to have.”
“The jobs that women had were mediocre, they paid less,” Kilker said. “There was really no opportunity for advancement. The male jobs were higher-wage, promotions, things like that.”
When she tried to enter one of these “male jobs,” Kilker said she was repeatedly denied the opportunity despite her record.
“The management would come up to me and promise me that they were going to do this, they were going to do this,” Kilker said. “Then, they would go back and say, ‘No we’re not going to do this. No we’re not going to this. We changed our mind.”
Additionally, Kilker said management at the company singled her out for sexual harassment that made her “working life miserable” until she eventually quit her job.
“My family received phone calls saying that I was doing sexual activities in order to do jobs, and things like that,” Kilker said. “It got pretty disgusting.”
Kilker said the discrimination she faced was the result of her gender and not her sexual orientation. She said she doesn’t believe her former employer knew she was a lesbian.
On the grounds that the alleged discrimination was in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Kilker filed charges on behalf of herself and other women at the company.
As a result of arrangements that were achieved through a cooperative process between the employer and EEOC, Kilker and others involved in the class-action case received $550,000 in relief. Further, Western Sugar agreed to remedial relief such as training for all employees and appointed an internal representative who’ll report to the EEOC to monitor the company’s employment practices for the next three years.
Kilker said she received “the majority share” of the $550,000, although she couldn’t recall the exact portion of that amount she received.
“I was so happy,” Kilker. “It had taken so many years that I just had kind of gotten to the point where I was over it. And then, the investigator at the EEOC really got into it, and it was just amazing how far they came with that.”
According to the White House, EEOC has obtained almost $50 million in monetary relief through administrative enforcement for victims of sex-based wage discrimination since the creation of the President’s Equal Pay Task Force in January 2010. Additionally, EEOC obtained changes to workplace practices that benefit more than 250,000 workers, and filed five cases including sex-based wage discrimination claims.
Although EEOC was able to resolve the issue, Kilker said more advancements are necessary to protect workers against discrimination.
Kilker said she supports the idea of Obama taking action administratively to bar discrimination in the workplace. Some LGBT rights advocates have urged the president to issue an executive order preventing federal dollars from going to companies without LGBT-inclusive workplace non-discrimination protections.
“I think that’s a great idea,” Kilker said. “It’s just another step in the right direction, and that’s what we need.”
But Kilker won’t be the only LGBT person attending the State of the Union. The other lesbian invitee is Air Force Col. Ginger Wallace, who’s 43 and lives in McLean, Va. She’s currently training to deploy to Afghanistan in the spring through the Afghanistan-Pakistan Hands program.
The Washington Blade reported in December on Wallace’s partner Kathy Knopf participating in her “pinning-on” promotion ceremony, the first reported instance of such an event happening with a same-sex partner since the lifting of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
On Tuesday, Wallace told the Blade that she and her partner are “honored and humbled” to represent LGBT people and families who’ve served in the armed forces.
“We’re just amazed that we were chosen to do that,” Wallace said. “We’re just humbled to represent this unique section of people. There are really are a lot of exceptional gays and lesbians who serve in our military.”
If she has an opportunity to speak with Michelle Obama, Wallace said she’d thank the first lady — as well as second lady Jill Biden — for their work leading the national campaign called “Joining Forces,” which was launched in April to support military families through public service outreach and partnerships.
“They have worked tirelessly to increase support for military families, ensure that military families are taken care of,” Wallace said. “That’s important work, especially today. After 10 years of conflict, 10 years of deployment — that’s taken its toll.”
Wallace said she hopes Obama during his speech will the end of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as one of the accomplishments of his administration.
“I hope it is highlighted as a success, and I think, more importantly, I hope it is received by the audience as a success,” Wallace said. “I hope this is seen as the success I think the administration thinks it is.”
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
