Connect with us

News

Fears over women’s safety made wedge issue in Equality Act hearing

Published

on

From left, Ranking Member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) at the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing for the Equality Act on Wednesday. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

A Senate hearing on the Equality Act, which would expand the prohibition on discrimination under federal law, put on full display Wednesday the use of fear mongering about women’s safety and the integrity of women’s sports as a tool to thwart attempted progress on LGBTQ rights, although more traditional objections based on religious liberty also played a role.

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) pulled no punches during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing — the first-ever hearing for the Equality Act in the U.S. Senate — in heightening fears about threats to women in sex-segregated spaces. 

When Abigail Shrier, a journalist who has built a career campaigning against gender transitioning for youth, was presenting testimony as an expert witness, Kennedy went straight to the locker rooms.

“Would this bill prohibit the boy with gender dysphoria from exposing his penis to the girls?” Kennedy asked.

The questioning put Shrier, who was testifying against the Equality Act, in a bind. The Equality Act does prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity in locker rooms, but says nothing about that particular issue and laws against lewd conduct are in place. “I’m sorry would it prohibit that?”

When Kennedy repeated the questions, Shrier replied, “I don’t believe the bill addresses genitalia.” Kennedy went to ask her if it prohibits them from dressing together. “No,” Shrier replied. “Would this bill prohibit them from showering together?” “No.” Kennedy then asked about boys being able to access girls’ sports.

“He wouldn’t have to have gender dysphoria,” Shrier said. “Anyone who says they’re a girl at any time under this bill, they don’t have to be transgender-identified, they don’t have to have gender dysphoria.”

Kennedy said he had intended to get to that point and asked her if the Equality Act would require schools to allow boys with gender dysphoria to compete in girls’ sports. Shrier replied, “Yes, anyone who identifies as a woman.”

Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), top Republican on the committee, brought up a specific incident in Connecticut where transgender girls were allowed to compete in a girls track event. Grassley named one of the girls who filed a complaint over the situation, Chelsea Mitchell, as he displayed images of three girls involved behind him.

“Many women and girls before her fought for legal protections under Title IX, which recognizes that sex specific distinctions are appropriate in some instances,” Grassley said. “As a father, grandfather and husband, I have celebrated the athletic successes of talented young women in my own family, so I am deeply concerned about this act’s potential negative implications for all girls and women in sports.”

The Equality Act says nothing about sports, but would prohibit discrimination against transgender people in education and federally funded programs. It should be noted the ruling last year from the U.S. Supreme Court in Bostock v. Clayton County, which found anti-LGBTQ discrimination is an illegal form of sex discrimination, has broad applications, including for Title IX of the Education Amendment of 1972, which bars discrimination on the basis of sex in sports. As a result, refusing to allow transgender kids in sports would likely already be illegal.

Fears of the impact of LGBTQ rights advances on religious practices also came up during the hearing. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), for example, raised a question about whether churches that conduct services with members of the congregation divided by sex would be liable as a public accommodation under the Equality Act.

Mary Rice Hasson, a fellow in Catholic Studies at the Ethics & Public Policy Center, served as a Republican witness and maintained churches could be held liable under the Equality Act “by expanding public accommodations to mean wherever Americans gather, even virtually.”

“Compromise your religious beliefs or risk endless litigation,” Hasson said. “Recipients of federal funds are also targeted, even for the simple act of maintaining sex segregated bathrooms.”

HRC President Alphonso David, responding to an earlier question from Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), contested the idea that churches would be liable, which would be consistent with the religious exemption the Equality Act would retain under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

“The Equality Act does not affect how religious institutions function,” David said. “That is very different than institutions that actually provide public accommodations, institutions that are open to the public and are providing goods and services to the public.”

A major issue of contention was a provision of the Equality Act that would preclude the use of the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a law intended to protect religious minorities, as a potential legal defense in cases of discrimination. Scolding Republican critics who indicated the Equality Act would gut RFRA, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said the bill does nothing of the sort, but Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) shot back there was “an explicit carve out in the Equality Act for RFRA.”

“I’m aware of no other law that seeks to shred RFRA in this way, and the effect of it basically is that churches, religious ministries, Christian colleges and universities, they’ll be unable to pursue their missions, particularly if they involve service to the poor, service to the needy,” Hawley said.

During a hearing in which Democratic members of the committee largely focused on their witnesses and Republicans stuck with theirs, Kennedy was an exception and asked David if there are more than two sexes. David initially deferred to medical experts and noted sex and gender can be different concepts, but then concluded “it’s not limited to two,” citing for example people who are intersex.

Shrier made an attempt during the hearing to qualify her opposition to the Equality Act, saying her opposition is based on potential consequences of the bill on women’s safety.

“If S. 393 merely proposed to extend employment, and public housing rights to gay and transgender Americans, I would be supporting this bill, instead of testifying against it,” Shrier said. “I am here today because the bill does much more, and no one who wrote it appears to have thoughtfully considered what it would mean for women and girls.”

Tillis open to ‘compromise’ on LGBTQ rights

Despite the issues raised by Republicans, one key moment came when Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), whose vote would be key to reaching the 60-vote threshold to end a Senate filibuster on the Equality Act, appeared to make a good faith effort to reach across the aisle.

“On the one hand, we have the fact that even in 2021, our LGBTQ friends, family, neighbors, still face discrimination from employment to healthcare to housing to homelessness among LGBTQ youth is a very real problem with discrimination,” Tillis said. “I think it’s wrong, in any aspect. But on the other hand, we have millions of Americans who are people of faith who have serious and legitimate issues of conscience.”

Although Tillis said the Equality Act “falls short of the goal” he seeks in addressing both sides, he added he’s “open to finding a compromise.” The last committee member to ask questions during the hearing, Tillis also lamented members of the committee “were talking past one another” about their concerns without coming closer to an ultimate conclusion.

Two issues that appeared to concern Tillis were the provision in the Equality Act against use of RFRA in cases of discrimination and whether the Equality Act’s ban on LGBTQ discrimination in federally funded programs would require prisons to house transgender women consistent with their gender identity. Tillis posed a question on whether a male serial rapist could say he identified as a woman and be allowed in women’s prisons; Shrier said that “absolutely” would be the case.

Meanwhile, proponents of the Equality Act continued to make their case for the bill based on its general objectives, to ban anti-LGBTQ discrimination in all aspects of public life.

Durbin, kicking off the committee hearing, displayed a video highlighting milestones in the LGBTQ movement, including the election of Harvey Milk and the swearing-in of Pete Buttigieg, as well as media coverage on passage in the U.S. House of the Equality Act.

“Unfortunately, some opponents have chosen to make exaggerated claims about what the Equality Act would do,” Durbin said. “Let me be clear, those of us working to pass this legislation are open to good faith constructive suggestions on further improvement and strengthening the bill. In fact, that’s why we’re having this hearing, but many of the texts on this bill are nothing more than the latest in a long, long, long line of fear mongering targeting the LGBTQ community.”

Stella Keating, a 16-year-old student from Tacoma, Wash., made the case for the Equality Act as a witness in the simplest way possible: Introducing herself as a transgender person.

“Hi, I’m Stella, and I’m transgender,” Keating said, “I’m here before you today, representing the hundreds of thousands of kids, just like me who are supported and loved by their family, friends, and communities across the country.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

India

Indian Supreme Court orders government to reconsider trans blood donor policy

Transgender people, MSM ineligible to donate under 2017 guidelines

Published

on

(Bigstock photo)

The Indian Supreme Court on May 14 ordered the central government to consult experts and address policies that label transgender people as “high-risk” blood donors, a designation rooted in assumptions rather than scientific evidence.

“Are we going to brand all transgender individuals as risky and stigmatize them?” said Justices Surya Kant and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh. “You cannot say that all transgender individuals are indulging in sexual activity.”

These restrictions stem from guidelines that the National Blood Transfusion Services, under India’s Health and Family Welfare Ministry, issued on Oct. 11, 2017. The regulations categorize trans people, men who have sex with men, female sex workers, IV drug users, and those with multiple sexual partners as ineligible to donate blood due to presumed risks of HIV, Hepatitis B or C, and require clearance by a medical officer.

The justices considered a petition that contested the constitutional validity of Sections 12 and 51 of the guidelines.

Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, representing the central government, stated the rules, which the National Blood Transfusion Council’s panel of medical experts crafted, aimed to prioritize public health and safety without intending to stigmatize any group. The justices during the hearing noted barring trans people from donating blood reinforces their social exclusion, questioning whether these restrictions deepen existing societal biases.

“Just think of something that such feeling does not come, and health standards are not compromised,” they said, granting the government time to address these concerns while maintaining medical safety.

The justices further observed that evolving times and emerging medical technologies offer solutions to screen blood donations for infections without excluding entire groups, allowing broader participation in civic programs.

Bhati said she would relay the court’s recommendations to medical experts for consideration. She explained that donated blood goes directly to blood banks, critical for thalassemia patients and other vulnerable groups who depend entirely on these supplies for their survival.

“As a group, transgenders are considered a high-risk group the world over, with certain exceptions,”Bhati told the justices. “There is a period within which infection has to be identified, and the risk window has to be carefully considered. Nobody can claim to have a fundamental right to donate blood. These guidelines must be seen from the perspective of public health as the idea is not to stigmatize anyone.”

The Washington Blade on Aug. 28, 2024, reported Shariff D. Rangnekar, a gay man from Delhi and director of the Rainbow Literature Festival, challenged the constitutionality of India’s blood donor rules, which bar trans people, MSM, female sex workers, and others from donating blood due to presumed health risks.  

The Supreme Court on July 30, 2024, agreed to hear Rangnekar’s petition that Ibad Mushtaq filed and lawyer Rohin Bhatt wrote. It questions the policy’s reliance on outdated stereotypes from the 1980s. Rangnekar notes the U.S., the U.K., Canada, and Israel are among the countries that have updated their blood donor policies. He urged India to adopt individualized risk assessments. 

South Asian countries have varying blood donation policies for trans people and gay men, with some avoiding blanket bans and others enforcing them. 

Equaldex notes Nepal allows MSM to donate blood without specific restrictions based on sexual orientation or gender identity, suggesting trans people and gay men face no categorical bans. Bangladesh also lacks a specific ban on such donors, although its policies remain ambiguous due to limited documentation.

Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Malaysia ban MSM and trans people from donating blood, categorizing them as high-risk groups for HIV and other infections.

“It is not just LGBTQIA+ people whose blood can test positive for infections, it could be anybody. All blood that is transfused needs to be tested before transfusion,” said Harish Iyer, a prominent LGBTQ activist in India. “If that is not happening, we have much reason to worry. There is no test on fidelity, regardless of the sex, gender, or sexual orientation. There are open marriages and clandestine affairs that happen in every sexuality. The solution is to speak of safe sex practices and not to take anyone’s word and to test every packet of blood before transfusion.”

Iyer told the Blade that branding and banishing minorities by stereotyping them is an underlying cause of hate crimes. He highlighted that MSM and trans people for years have been seen as simply vectors of HIV, and not as people who lead happy, fulfilling lives. Iyer added the blood donor ban further accentuates this divide and further marginalizes the community.

Iyer said the government should enhance public awareness campaigns around safer sex practices and ensure that all blood undergoes rigorous testing before transfusion. Ankit Bhupatani, a global DEI leader and LGBTQ activist, told the Blade the justices’ directive represents a long-overdue recognition that India’s blood donation guidelines require scientific scrutiny rather than perpetuating stigma.

“By asking the government to seek expert opinion, the bench has opened a path toward evidence-based policy reform. The bench’s observation that labeling all transgender persons as ‘risky’ is troubling, shows judicial wisdom in identifying how these guidelines institutionalize prejudice,” said Bhupatani. “This intervention creates an opportunity to align our healthcare policies with constitutional values of equality and dignity while maintaining necessary medical safeguards.”

He said the 2017 guidelines are a form of structural discrimination.

“Such policies do not merely restrict access to a civic activity; they codify stigma into our healthcare system and reinforce harmful stereotypes about LGBT individuals,” said Bhupatani. “The international trend has indeed moved toward individual risk assessment rather than categorical exclusions. India’s policy remains anachronistic in its approach.” 

“The government absolutely should implement individualized medical screening based on specific behaviors rather than identity,” he added. “The current policy creates the paradoxical situation where a heterosexual person engaging in high-risk behaviors faces less scrutiny than a transgender person in a monogamous relationship. The selective application of supposed ‘public health concerns’ reveals that these guidelines are more informed by social prejudice than medical evidence. Rigorous individual screening would better protect our blood supply while eliminating discriminatory practices.”

Continue Reading

District of Columbia

Adams Morgan queer bar broken into and vandalized

Sinners and Saints targeted Thursday night

Published

on

Homophobic vandalism left in Sinners and Saints following the break in. (Photo courtesy of Sinners and Saints' Instagram page)

On Thursday night, Sinners and Saints, a popular queer bar in Adams Morgan and the only QTBIPOC (queer, trans, Black, Indigenous and people of color) bar in D.C., was broken into and vandalized with homophobic slurs, according to a recent Instagram post from the establishment.

The iron gate and glass door of Sinners and Saints smashed. (Photo from Sinners and Saints’s Instagram page)

“Last night, our bar — the only QTBIPOC bar in DC — was broken into and hate-crimed during DC Black Pride, a time meant for celebration, resilience, and joy — and on the eve of WorldPride 2025. We are heartbroken, but we are not broken,” the post read.

The statement was accompanied by a slideshow showing the damage: the front iron gate door and its glass counterpart shattered, glass strewn across the floor, and the word “FAGGOT” scrawled in black ink on the wall.

“This space exists to protect and celebrate queer and trans BIPOC communities, and this attack only strengthens our resolve,” the post continued. “We will NOT be silenced. We will NOT be intimidated. We will NOT back down.”

“To those who tried to harm us: hate fuels our defiance. To our community: we see you, we love you, and we will continue fighting for you. Sinners and Saints is resistance. We will rebuild. We will STAY OPEN. And we will keep our doors — and hearts — wide open for all who need refuge.”

They ended the message with a call to action: “Stand with us. Share this. Show up. We keep us safe.”

“What happened was truly disheartening, but we won’t be silenced,” co-owner Fazeel Ashraf told the Washington Blade. “QTBIPOC spaces are so important in this current political climate. I’d love to do a phone interview with one of my fellow partners.”

Despite the heartbreak surrounding the break-in and what Ashraf described as “a hate crime,” the LGBTQ community quickly rallied in the comments, offering support and assistance.

“Please let us know how we can help!” wrote Nik Battaglia. “I’m a handy queer with handy queer friends — I can fix shit, paint shit, and am happy to stand guard outside.”

Even national figures chimed in.

“RuPaul’s Drag Race” star Laganja Estranja commented, “Incredible response! I believe in you. Sending so much love and strength.”

The Blade reached out to the Metropolitan Police Department regarding the break-in but has not received a response.

To view the damage, and some of the LGBTQ community’s supportive statements, visit the Sinners and Saints’s Instagram page.

Continue Reading

Local

Comings & Goings

Freedman-Gurspan takes role in Mass. governor’s administration

Published

on

Raffi Freedman-Gurspan

The Comings & Goings column is about sharing the professional successes of our community. We want to recognize those landing new jobs, new clients for their business, joining boards of organizations and other achievements. Please share your successes with us at [email protected]

The Comings & Goings column also invites LGBTQ college students to share their successes with us. If you have been elected to a student government position, gotten an exciting internship, or are graduating and beginning your career with a great job, let us know so we can share your success. 

Congratulations to Raffi Freedman-Gurspan on being appointed Associate Director, Federal Funding & Infrastructure Office, at the Massachusetts Executive Office for Administration & Finance. Freedman-Gurspan will be returning to her hometown of Boston and joining Gov. Maura Healey’s Administration. Freedman-Gurspan served in both the Obama and Biden administrations as well as worked in LGBTQ and redistricting advocacy during her 11 years in D.C. 

Freedman-Gurspan was the first openly transgender person on the White House staff when she worked for President Obama. She most recently served at the U.S. Department of Transportation in former Secretary Pete Buttigieg’s office, as Deputy Director of Public Engagement. Previously she worked with the National Redistricting Action Fund/The All On The Line Campaign, as Deputy States Director.  She worked for the National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE) as Director of External Relations. In the Obama White House, she worked in the Office of Public Engagement, as Senior Associate Director. She was the White House Liaison to the LGBTQ community responsible for management of all public inquiries on matters regarding LGBTQ people, including recommending public responses to senior leadership, assisting in drafting administration talking points, and coordinating stakeholder engagement with the White House offices.  She worked with the White House, Presidential Personnel Office (PPO), as Outreach and Recruitment Director.  

Prior to that she was on the staff of Commonwealth of Massachusetts, House of Representatives Office of State Rep. Carl Sciortino, as legislative director, and worked for the City of Somerville, Health Department, Office of Commissions, Somerville, Mass., as LGBTQ Liaison.  

Freedman-Gurspan served on the United States Holocaust Memorial Council, the Presidentially Appointed Council; and as a member, and Board Member, Boston University, College of Arts and Sciences, Women’s, Gender & Sexuality Studies Program.

She earned her bachelor’s degree in Political Science and Norwegian, concentration in Nordic Studies, from St. Olaf College, Northfield, Minn.  

Continue Reading

Popular