National
Bi congressional candidate accuses opponent of homophobic tactics
Critics dismiss Sinema’s charges as ‘preposterous’

A former Arizona state lawmaker who could become the first openly bisexual person elected to Congress is accusing a Democratic primary opponent of telling potential supporters that she can’t win because of her sexual orientation. Meanwhile, LGBT supporters of her opponent have rushed to his defense.
Kyrsten Sinema, who was a state lawmaker for seven years, is competing in a three-way primary set for Tuesday with Andrei Cherny, a former chair of the Arizona Democratic Party, and State Senate Minority Leader David Schapira. The winner gets the Democratic nod to represent the state’s 9th congressional district in the U.S. House.
In a Washington Blade interview on Friday, Sinema had particularly harsh words for Cherny, whom she said has engaged in “very, very, very dirty” campaign tactics by telling potential supporters she wouldn’t be a good choice for the Democratic nomination because she’s bisexual and single.
“Unfortunately, his strategy every time he runs for office has been to really seek to tear down his opponent instead of putting forth his own positive ideas for the future,” Sinema said. “We’re seeing that same strategy again in this election.”
In one instance, Sinema said she was told by a union — which ultimately chose to endorse her — that Cherny said during an earlier endorsement interview that she couldn’t win because of her sexual orientation.
“I got a call from some union folks who support my campaign because of my long history of standing with working families,” Sinema said. “Apparently, he had told some of them in interviews that I couldn’t win the election and that I shouldn’t get the endorsement because I’m openly bisexual and can’t win a general election.”
Sinema said the union asked her later about her sexual orientation and she replied, “It’s true that I’m openly bisexual, I have been my entire adult life, and I’ve managed to win four elections, and, meanwhile, he’s lost two, so perhaps it was being straight that was the problem here.”
Before becoming chair of the Arizona Democratic Party, Cherny lost an election for California State Assembly in 2002 and lost an election to become Arizona state treasurer.
Additionally, Sinema accused Cherny and his wife of telling potential donors she wouldn’t be the right choice because she’s “not a family person.” While Sinema is single and has no children, Cherny is married and has two children.
“I spent nearly two decades as a social worker and an educator with kids,” Sinema said. “So, my whole life has been about helping middle-class families. So it’s just kind of a hollow argument to say I’m not a family person.”
However, Sinema said the strategy “backfired” and as a result of him allegedly making these comments to potential donors, she’s received phone calls from individuals offering help because they considered it “a distasteful strategy.”
Sinema declined to identify the union or the potential donors to whom Cherny allegedly made the accusations.
Seth Scott, Cherny’s campaign manager, responded to Sinema’s accusations by denying the charges and calling her a liar.
“Kyrsten Sinema’s false accusation is a dirty, desperate and slanderous lie,” Scott said. “Sinema’s willingness to make up such egregious lies tells us all we need to know about her own personal character, her standing in the polls and her fitness for office.”
It’s not the first time Sinema has accused Cherny of underhanded campaign tactics. In May, The Hill newspaper reported that Sinema and Schapira issued a joint statement criticizing Cherny for what they called “Karl Rove-styled attacks” from an earlier campaign as well as in the current primary.
According to The Hill, Sinema and Schapira criticized Cherny for his 2002 campaign for a seat in the California State Assembly. The mailer featured a photograph of a tattooed black male with a gun, suggesting voters would be unsafe under Cherny’s opponent. Further, Sinema and Schapira reportedly accused Cherny of circulating false information to right-wing publications, misrepresenting news articles and employing guilt by association to attack other Democrats. Cherny’s supporters reportedly said the other candidates were smearing him and Cherny was quoted as saying the 10-year-old flier doesn’t reflect the work he’s done over the past 15 years.
Sinema, who is known as an LGBT rights advocate in Arizona and led campaigns against state ballot initiatives prohibiting same-sex marriage, has been endorsed by major LGBT organizations, including the Human Rights Campaign and the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund.
Denis Dison, a Victory Fund spokesperson, said the campaign tactics that Sinema says Cherny is employing against her aren’t unusual in tight races involving LGBT candidates.
“It’s something we’ve seen before in races as they’ve come down to the wire and our candidates are in a good position,” Dison said. “Unfortunately, even in Democratic primaries, you see people start to play this ‘sexual orientation’ card. It’s particularly unfortunate that this is happening in a primary in a party that is supposed to beyond this type of politicking. But you see it from time to time, and it’s unfortunate that it is apparently happening now in Kyrsten’s race.”
Some prominent LGBT individuals in Arizona rallied behind Cherny in the face of the accusations, saying that they couldn’t believe he would make homophobic remarks and that Sinema was making accusations without offering proof.
Jim Kolbe, a gay Republican who formerly represented Arizona in the U.S. House, called the allegations against Cherny “preposterous” and said there’s no way the candidate would employ such campaign tactics.
“I’ve known Andrei for a number of years and there has never been anybody that is more open, more gay friendly,” Kolbe said. “It’s just inconceivable that he would try and make that charge. It’s ironic, I guess, a sign of times, that gay politics has come to this, where instead of accusing somebody of being gay, you accuse of maybe not being gay enough. But, obviously, that’s not true. I feel absolutely certain that’s not accurate.”
Neil Giuliano, a gay former mayor of Tempe, Ariz., and former head of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, said he knows Cherny and there’s “nothing homophobic or anti-gay” about the candidate.
“I understand it’s been a really rough race between the three of them,” Giuliano said. “They’re all good people, but I’m compelled to weigh in on Andrei’s behalf because I just can’t, for the life of me, believe that kind of an accusation against Andrei Cherny. I just don’t believe it.”
According to Federal Election Commission reports, Giuliano has contributed a total of $1,500 to Cherny, but Giuliano said he otherwise has stayed out of the race.
Rebecca Wininger, a lesbian Phoenix, Ariz., activist, said she backed Cherny early in his campaign and doesn’t believe he would make homophobic comments because people within his family are members of the LGBT community.
“I’ve seen him interact with them with love and support, and I can’t believe the Andrei I know would make such statements,” Wininger said.
Wininger is board president of Equality Arizona, but she said she was speaking on her own behalf and not as part of any organization.
The three Democrats have been involved in a fierce fundraising battle with less than one week before the primary. The Washington Blade was unable to find any recent, independent polls reflecting the state of the campaign.
According to the most recent Federal Election Commission reports, Cherny has raised the most money, a total of $861,477 while spending $572,889 and having $289,088 in cash on hand. In comparison, Sinema has raised $747,403, spent $592,909 and has $154,495 in cash on hand. Meanwhile, Schapira has $237,889 in net receipts, spent $223,826 in expenditures, has $14,063 in cash on hand.
Besides making allegations about Cherny, Sinema said during the Blade interview she’s committed to LGBT issues and sees passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and second-parent adoption as priorities along with other initiatives if she’s elected to Congress.
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court to consider bans on trans athletes in school sports
27 states have passed laws limiting participation in athletics programs

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear two cases involving transgender youth challenging bans prohibiting them from participating in school sports.
In Little v. Hecox, plaintiffs represented by the ACLU, Legal Voice, and the law firm Cooley are challenging Idaho’s 2020 ban, which requires sex testing to adjudicate questions of an athlete’s eligibility.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals described the process in a 2023 decision halting the policy’s enforcement pending an outcome in the litigation. The “sex dispute verification process, whereby any individual can ‘dispute’ the sex of any female student athlete in the state of Idaho,” the court wrote, would “require her to undergo intrusive medical procedures to verify her sex, including gynecological exams.”
In West Virginia v. B.P.J., Lambda Legal, the ACLU, the ACLU of West Virginia, and Cooley are representing a trans middle school student challenging the Mountain State’s 2021 ban on trans athletes.
The plaintiff was participating in cross country when the law was passed, taking puberty blockers that would have significantly reduced the chances that she could have a physiological advantage over cisgender peers.
“Like any other educational program, school athletic programs should be accessible for everyone regardless of their sex or transgender status,” said Joshua Block, senior counsel for the ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Project. “Trans kids play sports for the same reasons their peers do — to learn perseverance, dedication, teamwork, and to simply have fun with their friends,” Block said.
He added, “Categorically excluding kids from school sports just because they are transgender will only make our schools less safe and more hurtful places for all youth. We believe the lower courts were right to block these discriminatory laws, and we will continue to defend the freedom of all kids to play.”
“Our client just wants to play sports with her friends and peers,” said Lambda Legal Senior Counsel Tara Borelli. “Everyone understands the value of participating in team athletics, for fitness, leadership, socialization, and myriad other benefits.”
Borelli continued, “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit last April issued a thoughtful and thorough ruling allowing B.P.J. to continue participating in track events. That well-reasoned decision should stand the test of time, and we stand ready to defend it.”
Shortly after taking control of both legislative chambers, Republican members of Congress tried — unsuccessfully — to pass a national ban like those now enforced in 27 states since 2020.
Federal Government
UPenn erases Lia Thomas’s records as part of settlement with White House
University agreed to ban trans women from women’s sports teams

In a settlement with the Trump-Vance administration announced on Tuesday, the University of Pennsylvania will ban transgender athletes from competing and erase swimming records set by transgender former student Lia Thomas.
The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights found the university in violation of Title IX, the federal rights law barring sex based discrimination in educational institutions, by “permitting males to compete in women’s intercollegiate athletics and to occupy women-only intimate facilities.”
The statement issued by University of Pennsylvania President J. Larry Jameson highlighted how the law’s interpretation was changed substantially under President Donald Trump’s second term.
“The Department of Education OCR investigated the participation of one transgender athlete on the women’s swimming team three years ago, during the 2021-2022 swim season,” he wrote. “At that time, Penn was in compliance with NCAA eligibility rules and Title IX as then interpreted.”
Jameson continued, “Penn has always followed — and continues to follow — Title IX and the applicable policy of the NCAA regarding transgender athletes. NCAA eligibility rules changed in February 2025 with Executive Orders 14168 and 14201 and Penn will continue to adhere to these new rules.”
Writing that “we acknowledge that some student-athletes were disadvantaged by these rules” in place while Thomas was allowed to compete, the university president added, “We recognize this and will apologize to those who experienced a competitive disadvantage or experienced anxiety because of the policies in effect at the time.”
“Today’s resolution agreement with UPenn is yet another example of the Trump effect in action,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement. “Thanks to the leadership of President Trump, UPenn has agreed both to apologize for its past Title IX violations and to ensure that women’s sports are protected at the university for future generations of female athletes.”
Under former President Joe Biden, the department’s Office of Civil Rights sought to protect against anti-LGBTQ discrimination in education, bringing investigations and enforcement actions in cases where school officials might, for example, require trans students to use restrooms and facilities consistent with their birth sex or fail to respond to peer harassment over their gender identity.
Much of the legal reasoning behind the Biden-Harris administration’s positions extended from the 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case Bostock v. Clayton County, which found that sex-based discrimination includes that which is based on sexual orientation or gender identity under Title VII rules covering employment practices.
The Trump-Vance administration last week put the state of California on notice that its trans athlete policies were, or once were, in violation of Title IX, which comes amid the ongoing battle with Maine over the same issue.
New York
Two teens shot steps from Stonewall Inn after NYC Pride parade
One of the victims remains in critical condition

On Sunday night, following the annual NYC Pride March, two girls were shot in Sheridan Square, feet away from the historic Stonewall Inn.
According to an NYPD report, the two girls, aged 16 and 17, were shot around 10:15 p.m. as Pride festivities began to wind down. The 16-year-old was struck in the head and, according to police sources, is said to be in critical condition, while the 17-year-old was said to be in stable condition.
The Washington Blade confirmed with the NYPD the details from the police reports and learned no arrests had been made as of noon Monday.
The shooting took place in the Greenwich Village neighborhood of Manhattan, mere feet away from the most famous gay bar in the city — if not the world — the Stonewall Inn. Earlier that day, hundreds of thousands of people marched down Christopher Street to celebrate 55 years of LGBTQ people standing up for their rights.
In June 1969, after police raided the Stonewall Inn, members of the LGBTQ community pushed back, sparking what became known as the Stonewall riots. Over the course of two days, LGBTQ New Yorkers protested the discriminatory policing of queer spaces across the city and mobilized to speak out — and throw bottles if need be — at officers attempting to suppress their existence.
The following year, LGBTQ people returned to the Stonewall Inn and marched through the same streets where queer New Yorkers had been arrested, marking the first “Gay Pride March” in history and declaring that LGBTQ people were not going anywhere.
New York State Assemblywoman Deborah Glick, whose district includes Greenwich Village, took to social media to comment on the shooting.
“After decades of peaceful Pride celebrations — this year gun fire and two people shot near the Stonewall Inn is a reminder that gun violence is everywhere,” the lesbian lawmaker said on X. “Guns are a problem despite the NRA BS.”