A Maryland federal judge issued a temporary restraining order halting President Trump’s executive action restricting access to gender-affirming care for minors. This action, challenged as unconstitutional and discriminatory, prevents federal agencies from withholding funds from medical providers offering such care. The executive order prohibits federal funding for gender-affirming care, including puberty blockers and hormone therapy, for individuals under 19, impacting federal programs like TRICARE and Medicaid. The plaintiffs, including transgender minors and advocacy groups, argued the order violates existing law and harms vulnerable youth.
Read More
President Javier Milei’s administration has issued a decree prohibiting gender-affirming care for minors in Argentina, reversing a 2012 law provision. This decision follows recent LGBTQ+ protests against Milei’s statements condemning “wokeism” and associating homosexuality with pedophilia. The government justifies the ban by claiming children lack the maturity to make irreversible medical decisions. The decree effectively ends access to gender-affirming care for those under 18, regardless of parental consent.
Read More
The Senate overwhelmingly approved the $895 billion National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2025, despite significant criticism. The bill includes controversial provisions banning gender-affirming care for children of service members and prohibiting the Pentagon from citing Gaza casualty figures from the Gaza Ministry of Health. Opponents decried the bill’s high cost and argued that these provisions prioritize political agendas over the well-being of service members and their families. Advocates are urging President Biden to veto the NDAA, which they contend is the first federal legislation restricting access to medically necessary healthcare for transgender adolescents.
Read More
The House passed the $895 billion 2025 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which includes a pay raise for service members and significant military funding for Israel. However, the NDAA also incorporates restrictive measures barring the use of Department of Defense funds for gender-affirming care, including surgeries and hormone therapy for minors. These provisions, found in Sections 708 and 709, are based on misleading claims about the effects of such treatments. Despite the bill’s controversial elements, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries allowed a member-by-member vote, resulting in bipartisan support for its passage.
Read More
A last-minute amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) would eliminate TRICARE coverage for gender-affirming care for transgender children of military families. This provision, deceptively framed as preventing sterilization, targets medically necessary care like puberty blockers and hormone therapy, not surgeries which are rarely performed on minors. The amendment has drawn sharp criticism from LGBTQ+ advocacy groups and some Democrats, who argue it jeopardizes the well-being of military families and recruitment efforts. The fate of the provision hinges on a potential Democratic-Republican coalition to remove it from the bill.
Read More
At a rally outside the Supreme Court preceding oral arguments in *US v Skrmetti*, Marjorie Taylor Greene faced significant backlash for her anti-transgender remarks. Greene’s speech, filled with false claims about gender-affirming care, was met with loud boos from a predominantly pro-transgender crowd. The Supreme Court case itself will determine the constitutionality of state bans on gender-affirming care for transgender minors. Arguments presented emphasized the discriminatory nature of such bans and highlighted the crucial role of this care in alleviating suffering for transgender youth.
Read More
Following the 2024 election, the trans community faces widespread anxieties regarding access to healthcare, legal protections, and personal safety. The election of Donald Trump, coupled with the rise of anti-trans legislation and rhetoric, has fueled fears of losing gender-affirming care and increased discrimination. Many trans individuals are taking proactive steps, such as updating legal documents and seeking community support, to mitigate potential risks. Simultaneously, organizing and mutual aid efforts are strengthening community bonds and providing crucial resources in the face of escalating threats. The Supreme Court’s upcoming decision on gender-affirming care for minors will further impact the community’s future.
Read More
A federal appeals court has upheld an Indiana law banning puberty blockers and hormones for transgender children under 18, mirroring similar legislation passed in other Republican-led states. The court rejected arguments that the law discriminates based on sex or violates parental rights, concluding that the law applies equally to all minors and that parents do not have an unfettered right to any medical treatment for their children. This decision aligns with rulings in other states and sets the stage for the Supreme Court to potentially decide the fate of such laws nationwide, with proponents arguing they protect children from experimental treatments and opponents citing the positive mental health outcomes associated with these treatments.
Read More
Ken Paxton’s continued presence in office despite his questionable criminal record leaves me baffled. It is evident that he wields his power in a corrupt manner, as demonstrated by the recent lawsuit filed against a Dallas doctor for allegedly violating a gender-affirming care ban. The Gender-Affirming Care (GAC) ban itself is a misnomer, often causing unnecessary obstacles for individuals seeking essential medical treatment. As someone living in New York with hypogonadism, I received prompt diagnosis and treatment, unlike individuals in Texas who face months of hurdles to access necessary care.
The laws governing gender-affirming care in Texas are not only discriminatory but also far-reaching, impacting a wide range of individuals beyond the intended target demographic.… Continue reading
As a Texan, the recent news of the appeals court blocking the state from investigating families seeking gender-affirming care for trans youth comes as a relief. The rule, expanding the definition of “child abuse” in relation to gender-affirming care and mandating child abuse investigations, was a gross overreach of governmental power. In a society where one should be accused of committing an **actual** crime before being investigated, this rule was a blatant violation of personal freedoms.
Gender-affirming care is all about providing support and affirmation to individuals seeking to align their gender identity with their true selves. Professionals engaging in conversations and treatments to assist individuals in their gender journey should not be penalized or subjected to investigations by the government.… Continue reading
John Q. Hosedrinker