Javier Milei’s rise to power marked a sea change in Argentine politics that profoundly impacted the country’s LGBTQ+ community.

His first year in office has seen a combination of hostile rhetoric and concrete measures that have dismantled historic advances in human rights.

“Javier Milei’s administration is fighting a two-way battle,” Congressman Esteban Paulón, a long-time LGBTQ+ activist, pointed out to the Washington Blade. “On the one hand, symbolically, with an openly homo, lesbo and transodiant discourse, and on the other, in concrete facts, such as the closure of the Ministry of Women, Gender and Diversity, and INADI (the National Institute Against Discrimination, Xenophobia and Racism).”

The decision to eliminate these key institutions sent a clear message: Diversity policies are no longer a state priority. This dismantling left LGBTQ+ Argentines without national advocacy tools.

Some provinces have tried to fill this void, but many others have followed the national government’s lead. This trend, according to Paulón and other activists, has left LGBTQ+ Argentines even more vulnerable.

“What we are seeing is not only a setback in public policies, but also a direct attack on the dignity of thousands of people who, until recently, felt the support of the state,” said Paulón. 

One of Milei administration’s first acts was to close the Women, Gender and Diversity Ministry and INADI. These decisions, which Milei said was necessary to reduce “unnecessary public spending,” eliminated agencies that played an essential role in the promotion of human rights and the fight against discrimination.

“Without these institutions, the LGBTQ community has been left unprotected against violence and prejudice. Now, discrimination cases that used to be handled by INADI end up shelved or without follow-up,” Paulón warned. “The message this sends is that our lives don’t matter to this government.”

Paulón and other activists say one of the Milei government’s most alarming decisions is to allow employers to fire employees without legal consequences.

“Today, a person can be fired because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, without the possibility of recovering their job,” warned Paulón. 

The new policy has left many employees — especially transgender people — without legal recourse. Advocacy groups say companies have taken advantage of this regulation to carry out selective firings. The freezing of a trans-specific labor quota has deepened employment discrepancies for one of the country’s most vulnerable communities.

Paulón told the Blade that anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric from Milei and several of his ministers has also had an effect on Argentine society.

“Today, anyone feels they can say anything without consequences,” said Paulón, who noted that ultraconservative and religious sectors view Milei’s government as an ally. 

This rhetoric, according to Paulón, has yet to translate into widespread violence.

“We are not yet in a situation of systematic violence as in other countries, but the risk is there,” he said. “Every word of hate from power legitimizes violent actions.”

Congress, civil society leads resistance

In the face of this adverse scenario, resistance has taken various forms.

Paulón and other opposition lawmakers have worked on bills to protect LGBTQ+ rights and reverse regressive measures.

“We will not stand idly by. We put forward concrete proposals to guarantee access to health care, inclusive education and labor protections,” said Paulón.

Activists have strengthened alliances with their counterparts in neighboring countries, such as Brazil and Chile, and Mexico. They are also working with international organizations that have expressed concern about the situation in Argentina.

Although the outlook is bleak, Paulón said he remains hopeful. 

“Milei is going to pass, like all processes in democracy,” he said. 

Paulón stressed that marriage equality and the transgender rights law are deeply rooted in Argentine society, and act as barriers to stop further setbacks. The challenge now, he says, is to maintain resistance, organize the community, and strengthen international ties.

“We have an organized movement, tools to defend ourselves and a mostly plural and diverse society. This process will also come to an end,” said Paulón. “In this context, the struggle for LGBTQ rights in Argentina is a reminder that social conquests are never definitive and that resistance is vital to preserve the achievements made.” 

Parties in Doe v. Ladapo, a case challenging Florida’s ban on healthcare for transgender youth and restrictions on the medical interventions available to trans adults, presented oral arguments on Wednesday before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta.

The case was appealed by defendants representing the Sunshine State following a decision in June 2024 by Judge Robert Hinkle of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, who found “the law and rules unconstitutional and unenforceable on equal protection grounds,” according to a press release from the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which is involved in the litigation on behalf of the plaintiffs.

The district court additionally found the Florida healthcare ban unconstitutional on the grounds that it was “motivated by purposeful discrimination against transgender people,” though the ban and restrictions will remain in effect pending a decision by the appellate court.

Joining NCLR in the lawsuit are attorneys from GLAD Law, the Human Rights Campaign, Southern Legal Counsel, and the law firms Lowenstein Sandler and Jenner and Block.

“As a mother who simply wants to protect and love my child for who she is, I pray that the Eleventh Circuit will affirm the district court’s thoughtful and powerful order, restoring access to critical healthcare for all transgender Floridians,” plaintiff Jane Doe said. “No one should have to go through what my family has experienced.”

“As a transgender adult just trying to live my life and care for my family, it is so demeaning that the state of Florida thinks it’s their place to dictate my healthcare decisions,” said plaintiff Lucien Hamel.

“Members of the legislature have referred to the high quality healthcare I have received, which has allowed me to live authentically as myself, as ‘mutilation’ and ‘an abomination’ and have called the providers of this care ‘evil,’” Hamel added. “We hope the appellate court sees these rules and laws for what truly are: cruel.” 

“Transgender adults don’t need state officials looking over their shoulders, and families of transgender youth don’t need the government dictating how to raise their children,” said Shannon Minter, legal director of NCLR. “The district court heard the evidence and found that these restrictions are based on bias, not science. The court of appeals should affirm that judgment.” 

Noting Hinkle’s conclusion that the ban and restrictions were “motivated by animus, not science or evidence,” Simone Chris, who leads Southern Legal Counsel’s Transgender Rights Initiative, said, “The state has loudly and proudly enacted bans on transgender people accessing healthcare, using bathrooms, transgender teachers using their pronouns and titles, and a slough of other actions making it nearly impossible for transgender individuals to live in this state.”

Lowenstein Sandler Partner Thomas Redburn said, “The defendants have offered nothing on appeal that could serve as a valid basis for overturning that finding” by the district court.

“Not only does this dangerous law take away parents’ freedom to make responsible medical decisions for their child, it inserts the government into private health care matters that should be between adults and their providers,” said Jennifer Levi, senior director of transgender and queer rights at GLAD Law.

LGBTQ+ and civil rights advocacy groups and Democratic lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives denounced legislation passed on Tuesday by the Republican majority that would prohibit schools that receive federal education funding from allowing transgender students to participate in girls’ and women’s sports.

As the bill was brought to a vote, ultimately passing 218-206, Democrats slammed the measure in speeches on the House floor, statements from their congressional offices, and social media posts. Among them were the out LGBTQ+ leadership of the Congressional Equality Caucus and several allies who serve as vice-chairs.

Freshman U.S. Rep. Sarah McBride, the first transgender member of Congress, did not participate in the floor debate.

“Republicans are moving a bill that would ban transgender students of all ages from participating in sports and put all female athletes at risk for harassment and abuse,” U.S. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.), who is gay and chairs the Equality Caucus, said in a video on X.

“This sports ban opens the door to subjecting all female students to secret investigations, intrusive demands for medical tests, or reviews of their private medical information,” he said. “This bill is so vaguely written that it could force any girl to undergo invasive medical exams to ‘prove’ that they are a girl.”

The congressman continued, “This bill isn’t about equity. It isn’t about fairness. It is a weaponization of the federal government against a small group of people at the expense of privacy rights for all students.”

“It does nothing to address the real inequities that female athletes face,” Takano said, “and instead overrides the authority of interscholastic and intercollegiate sports federations, as well as athletic organizations.”

Instead of lowering costs, House Republicans are pushing an anti-trans sports bill that would threaten student athletes with intrusive exams and jeopardize the fairness and safety of female athletics. pic.twitter.com/zTqeprJYXj

— Mark Takano (@RepMarkTakano) January 14, 2025

Gay U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), who chaired the caucus in the previous Congress and now serves as a co-chair, said “No bill is before us to lower costs for Americans, instead it is a political attempt to divide us as a nation, stigmatizing some kids so some adults can get MAGA merit badges.

“The Republican governor of Utah vetoed a similar piece of legislation after he shared that of the 75,000 students in high school sports in Utah, only four were trans, and only one a girl playing sports. But he also mentioned the very real 86% of trans kids reporting suicidality due to issues like adults stigmatizing kids for political gain.

“Instead, today, the proposed solution is in search of an actual problem. Suggests we somehow ban girls from sports with some sort of process to determine who is a girl. Does this mean hiring potential predators to peek at the private parts of kids in locker rooms?

“Now that sounds like an actual problem to me, creating a solution to a non-existent problem by creating a problem instead of lowering costs for Americans as a sign of an ineffective congressional majority at best, I urge a no vote, and I yield back.”

The House GOP's trans sports ban would subject girls as young as four to invasive physical inspections of their private parts by adult strangers.

Yes, really.

Republicans should focus on lowering costs instead of a bill that puts ALL girls at risk. pic.twitter.com/O8uRj9OKpl

— Rep. Mark Pocan (@RepMarkPocan) January 14, 2025

U.S. Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.), a lesbian co-chair of the caucus who previously taught middle school history and social studies, delivered an impassioned floor speech, telling Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson (La.) “I rise in fierce opposition to this bill”:

“Trans Americans are not the problem. This obsession with monitoring kids’ genitals is absolutely the problem.

“Let’s be clear. This is about kids. My kids, your kids, all kids. All kids, even elementary school kids playing basketball. I’m a mom of two teens. I’m a former teacher. I know what kids are going through in school. They are already self-conscious about their bodies. They just want to be on the soccer field with their friends. They certainly do not want to be humiliated by members of Congress.

“So, come on, let’s talk about what enforcement looks like, because you guys, you don’t want to talk about it. We know there is only one logical conclusion to this. This is interrogation of young girls. About their bodies. This is asking people to show them what is underneath their underwear.”

“That is what we’re talking about. This is the logical conclusion for this bill. So, it’s vile. It’s twisted. They don’t want to talk about the details. It’s an absolute invasion of children’s privacy. Far from protecting anyone, it puts our children at risk. And actually, I urge colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject this government overreach.”

Banning trans kids from sports solves *none* of the problems that Americans are facing.

Let's be real: Trans kids aren't the reason we can't afford groceries. Trans kids aren't the reason young people are giving up on ever owning a home.

Corporate greed is. pic.twitter.com/sKRzm1DGTk

— Rep. Becca Balint (@RepBeccaB) January 14, 2025

Gay caucus co-chair U.S. Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) voiced his opposition to the bill in a post on X.

House Republicans brought up a bill designed to hurt trans youth and athletes and ban them from playing sports in schools. The real effect beyond that cruelty is it would allow gender checks on young girls and athletes. This was sick and shameful and I voted NO.

— Congressman Robert Garcia (@RepRobertGarcia) January 14, 2025

Other out LGBTQ+ Democratic co-chairs of the caucus spoke out from the House floor on Tuesday.

An especially comprehensive floor speech came from U.S. Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.), a caucus co-chair, who began her remarks by proclaiming that “the so-called Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act” will “actually do the opposite and make sports more dangerous for women and girls.” The congresswoman said:

“This bill is a ‘one size fits all’ approach that would apply equally to every sport from K-12 schools to colleges. Currently schools, parents, and communities manage youth sports leagues and write rules about who can participate in different sports at different levels. Many states, schools, and athletic associations across the country have allowed equal participation for transgender athletes for years and it’s working just fine. 

“This legislation would revoke all federal funding from schools that include transgender students on girls’ and women’s sports teams. This is damaging and discriminatory to transgender students, who benefit, as all students do, from participating in school sports, and also damaging to the entire school that’s threatened because federal funding benefits all students.

“Keep in mind, colleagues, that as of last month, of the approximately 510,000 athletes who play at the NCAA level — 10 are transgender.  Not 10,000. Ten. Out of 510,000. 

“Transgender students — like all students — they deserve the same opportunity as their peers to learn teamwork, to find belonging, and to grow into well-rounded adults through sports. Childhood and adolescence are important times for growth and development, and sports help students form healthy habits and develop strong social and emotional skills. Sports provide meaningful opportunities for kids to feel confident in themselves and learn valuable life lessons about teamwork, leadership, and communication. Teams provide a place for kids to make friends and build relationships.

“Yet my colleagues across the aisle want to take these opportunities away from certain children; that’s discriminatory and it’s wrong.

“My colleagues are apparently so afraid of people who are different from them that they’ve manufactured false and dangerous presumptions based on outdated stereotypes about transgender people, especially transgender women and girls.

“Additionally, there is no way this so called “protection” bill could be enforced without opening the door to harassment and privacy violations. It opens the door to inspection, not protection, of women and girls in sports. Will students have to undergo exams to “prove” they’re a girl? We are already seeing examples of harassment and questioning of girls who may not conform to stereotypical feminine roles; will they be subject to demands for medical tests and private information? That’s intrusive, offensive, and unacceptable, especially from a party of limited government.

“I want to be very clear, there are real problems harming women and girls in sports, but transgender students are not why. Today, we should be working to solve the real, pervasive problems in athletics that deter women and girls from participating, including sexual harassment and assault, lack of equal resources, and pay inequality.

“We should be working on those issues, and also on the issues that improve the lives of the people we represent back home, like increasing access to affordable health care and housing, lowering costs for everyday Americans, and fighting the climate crisis.

“But instead, here we are again. We’ve seen this time and time again—Republicans fearmonger about the trans community to divert attention from the fact that they have no real solutions to help everyday Americans with the pressing problems they face.

“We must not discriminate against kids because of who they are. Transgender youth already face high hurdles, and research shows that this type of discriminatory policy is associated with declines in mental health and higher suicide risk among already threatened LGBTQI+ youth. We don’t need adults in Congress making things worse.

“As Republican Governor Spencer Cox from Utah said in his veto statement of a similar bill, “When in doubt, however, I always try to err on the side of kindness, mercy, and compassion.”

“Republicans, who have voted consistently against the Violence Against Women Act, who have taken the rights of all women to have control over their own body, who as women are bleeding out in parking lots, now want to pretend today that they care about women,” U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D-N.Y.), a vice-chair of the caucus, said in a floor speech.

She continued, “And why? To open up genital inspection on little girls across this country in the name of attacking trans girls. We have two words. Not today.”

AOC: Republicans who have voted against consistently against the violence against women act, who have taken away the rights of all women to choose and have control over their own body, now wants to pretend today that they care about women. pic.twitter.com/7FRqELTrjV

— Acyn (@Acyn) January 14, 2025

These and other House Democrats began calling the legislation the “GOP Child Predator Empowerment Act” to highlight the risk that if it becomes law, the ban could lead to genital exams of minor student-athletes by adults and therefore might help facilitate child sexual abuse.

While the House Education Committee chair, U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.), said that birth certificates should be used to settle questions about students’ gender, the bill’s opponents said the absence of a workable enforcement mechanism leaves open a range of ways in which students’ bodies and privacy could be violated.

U.S. Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.), for instance, who is also a vice-chair, noted in her floor speech that “We have already seen an investigation like this” into a student’s gender “at a high school in Utah, and unsurprisingly, they targeted someone who wasn’t trans.”

She was referring to a case in Utah in 2022 that was kicked off when the parents of athletes who placed second and third in in a state level competition suspected the winner might be trans and filed a complaint the Utah High School Activities Association. Records showed her sex was listed as female since kindergarten.

Advocacy groups

“Just five days after Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed an anti-transgender sports ban in 2021, a cisgender girl faced brutal harassment from the sidelines at a lacrosse game simply because she had short hair,” the Human Rights Campaign wrote in a press release Tuesday that highlighted many of the same harms addressed by House Democrats who rose in objection to the bill.

“We all want sports to be fair, students to be safe, and young people to have the opportunity to participate alongside their peers,” HRC President Kelley Robinson said in a statement included in the release. “But this kind of blanket ban deprives kids of those things. This bill would expose young people to harassment and discrimination, emboldening people to question the gender of kids who don’t fit a narrow view of how they’re supposed to dress or look.

Robinson added, “It could even expose children to invasive, inappropriate questions and examinations. Participating in sports is about learning the values of teamwork, dedication, and perseverance. And for so many students, sports are about finding somewhere to belong.”

“We should want that for all kids — not partisan policies that make life harder for them,” she said.  

HRC also argued that excluding trans women and girls from competitive athletics, denying them the benefits to their physical and mental health that come with participating in sports, can cause tremendous harm since these students “face higher risk of anxiety, depression, and bullying” than their cisgender peers.

In Monday in advance of the debate and floor vote, 405 national and local civil rights, education, and gender justice organizations joined a letter issued on Monday by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights urging House lawmakers to reject the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act.

“Although the authors of the legislation represent themselves as serving the interests of cisgender girls and women, this legislation does not address the longstanding barriers all girls and women have faced in their pursuit of athletics,” the letter reads, in part. “Instead of providing for equal facilities, equipment, and travel, or any other strategy that women athletes have been pushing for for decades, the bill cynically veils an attack on transgender people as a question of athletics policy.”

“We are fortunate that transgender, nonbinary, and intersex people are present in our community, and we fully embrace them as members of our community,” the signatories wrote. “As organizations that care deeply about ending sex-based discrimination and ensuring equal educational opportunities, we support laws and policies that protect transgender people from discrimination, including full and equal participation in sports, access to gender-affirming care, access to school facilities, and access to inclusive curriculum. We firmly believe that an attack on transgender youth is an attack on civil rights.”

Along with HRC, which is the nation’s largest LGBTQ+ rights organization, other advocacy groups that signed the Leadership Conference’s letter also issued separate statements Tuesday following passage of the bill.

Among them was GLAAD, whose President and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis said “Legislators who voted today in favor of banning transgender girls from participating in school sports should be ashamed of themselves.”

“Right now, gun violence is the number one cause of death to American children, yet extremist lawmakers ignore this reality to push bills that further endanger and isolate LGBTQ youth who just want to be themselves and play with their friends.

“Legislators have an obligation to stand up for all, not just some, of their constituents. Allowing students to participate in sports is about equal opportunity, the ability to make friends and belong, and stay active, healthy and happy. Young transgender people should not have to watch lawmakers debate their basic humanity.

“Legislators must meet with transgender youth, their families, teammates, and coaches who would be harmed by this dangerous legislation; propose ways to protect all youth; and stop pushing anti-LGBTQ discrimination in a phony attempt to protect women and girls. Protect all kids and let them play.”

GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders (GLAD Law) Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi said, “It’s disgraceful to see the new Congress make one of its first priorities a sweeping bill that would deny transgender kids of any age the opportunity to play school sports and strip from them the many educational benefits sports provide.”

“Thoughtful policies can successfully balance fairness and inclusion in sports at multiple levels of competition, as local school districts and sports associations have done for many years,” she said. “We appreciate those in Congress who voted against this extreme bill and hope the Senate will recognize that blanket bans imposed by politicians don’t serve athletes, students, or sport.”

Despite the 53-vote GOP majority in the Senate, Republicans will need seven Democrats to support the sports ban for the bill to pass, which is unlikely. Still, President-elect Donald Trump promised to intervene with executive action, which would likely mean directing the U.S. Department of Education to investigate schools that allow trans women and girls to compete in sports for violations of federal law prohibiting sex-based discrimination.

He and the conservatives backing the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act believe athletes whose birth sex is female have actionable Title IX claims on the grounds that they are unfairly disadvantaged when competing against their transgender counterparts, even though the research on this question is mixed.

In a fundraising email, the LGBTQ Victory Fund denounced the effort by House Republicans to “rewrite Title IX, the federal civil rights law that prohibits sex discrimination in educational institutions,” adding that “The author of this hateful bill” U.S. Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.) “even went so far as to claim trans people and trans identities are made up, before launching into a transphobic rant!”

Speaking from the House floor on Tuesday, the GOP congressman said, “Our culture and civilization continue to be subject to the perverse lie that there are more than two genders or that men can be women and women can be men.”

Allison Scott, director of impact and innovation at the Campaign for Southern Equality, said: “The passage of HB28 by the U.S. House of Representatives is a cruel and unjust abuse of power that targets a very small number of young people who just want to play school sports with their friends.

“It’s appalling that one of the first priorities of this new Congress is to bully children with the weight of a federal law. I want to send a clear message to transgender young people and their families: No law can strip you of your inherent dignity and humanity, and we will never stop working alongside you and a huge community nationwide to ensure all people can live authentically and with joy.

“The Senate should do the right thing here, refuse to exclude and marginalize children, and reject this legislation.”

Broadway Cares/Equity Fights AIDS on Monday announced it has awarded $500,000 in emergency grants to organizations that are responding to the Los Angeles wildfires.

A press release notes the Entertainment Community Fund received $250,000, the California Fire Foundation Wildfire and Disaster Relief Fund received $100,000, the Los Angeles Regional Food Bank received $100,000, and Project Angel Food received $50,000.

“All of these organizations are providing much-needed, on-the-ground support for residents and first responders,” said Broadway Cares/Equity Fights AIDS.

“Our compassionate community knows the power of coming together in times of need,” added Broadway Cares Executive Director Danny Whitman. “Because of the generosity of the theater community — those onstage, backstage and in the audience — these emergency grants will immediately provide meals, shelter, medical care, clothing and emergency financial assistance, all first steps on the long road toward recovering, rebuilding, and healing.”

The U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday voted 218-206 to pass a bill that would ban transgender students from competing in girls’ and women’s sports in elementary school through college.

Fiery exchanges erupted on the House floor, with conservatives in many cases using anti-trans language and Democrats, including several openly LGBTQ+ members, arguing that the bill is harmful to children, discriminatory, and unnecessary.

The decision by House Republican leadership to bring the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act to the floor on just the second week in which the 119th Congress is in session signals the majority’s appetite for legislation targeting trans rights and the extent to which the issue will remain a major focus and priority for conservative leadership in the Capitol and, beginning next week, in the White House.

All Republicans who were present voted in favor of the bill, while all Democrats voted no — with the exception of two members representing swing districts in Texas, U.S. Reps. Henry Cuellar and Vicente Gonzalez.

Cuellar opposed the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act when it was introduced in 2023, explaining in a statement that he changed his position “based on the concerns and feedback he received from constituents.”

Gonzalez did not vote on the measure in 2023, but this year issued a statement explaining his support for the bill: “I believe that there should be rules to keep our sports fair and that boys should not play in girls sports,” the congressman said, using talking points that are popular among Republicans who often refer to trans women and girls as men and boys, whether for purposes of insulting them or because they refuse to acknowledge or choose to deny the existence of gender diverse people.

“Members of Congress must have the freedom to vote in a manner representative of their district,” Gonzalez said in his statement. “As Democrats, we should not be afraid to vote our district’s values because we’re afraid of Washington.”

During the 2024 campaign, Gonzalez’s Republican opponent ran negative ads about his support for gender affirming health care for trans minors. The congressman told Spectrum News in 2023 that “I have never supported tax dollars paying for gender transition surgeries and never will.”

Despite the newly seated 53-vote GOP majority in the U.S. Senate, the bill could languish in the upper chamber as the 2023 iteration did under Democratic control.

Still, President-elect Donald Trump promised to effectuate a ban, which experts believe would likely involve directing the U.S. Department of Education to find any school in violation of federal Title IX rules, which prohibit sex-based discrimination, in cases where they allow trans women or girls to participate in competitive sports.

Trump and other conservatives argue that cisgender women and girls are biologically disadvantaged compared to trans women and girls, which yields unfair outcomes for athletes whose birth sex is female, though research on the question of physical performance is mixed.

Proponents of the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act, who believe trans women and girls to be unfairly advantaged by their biology, argue that excluding them from sports is necessary to ensure fair outcomes in high-stakes competitions at the elite level, such as college athletic scholarships.

At the other end of the spectrum, the legislation contains a carveout that would theoretically allow for trans women and girls to participate in sports in limited circumstances: “Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit a recipient from permitting males to train or practice with an athletic program or activity that is designated for women or girls so long as no female is deprived of a roster spot on a team or sport, opportunity to participate in a practice or competition, scholarship, admission to an educational institution, or any other benefit that accompanies participating in the athletic program or activity.”

As the measure was debated on Tuesday, opponents accused their GOP colleagues of exploiting a culture war issue to “divert attention from the fact they have no real solutions to help everyday Americans,” as U.S. Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.) put it.

Several Democrats — who argued that in the absence of an enforcement mechanism, adults might inspect students’ genitals to determine their gender, which could facilitate child sexual abuse — began calling the legislation “the GOP Child Predator Empowerment Act.” 

The House Education Committee chair, U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.), responded that birth certificates should be used to settle questions about students’ gender.

Opponents of the bill like U.S. Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.), a lesbian and co-chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, contended that boundary-violating scrutiny of girls’ bodies is the “logical conclusion” of the measure.

Ugandan Foreign Affairs Minister Henry Oryem has revealed U.S. and EU sanctions over the country’s Anti-Homosexuality Act and other human rights violations have pushed Kampala to join the BRICS bloc.

Oryem noted Western powers’ decision to sanction other countries without U.N. input is against international norms, and Uganda needed to shield itself from such actions by aligning with the bloc that includes China, Russia, India, South Africa, Brazil, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Ethiopia, Iran, and Indonesia. (Consensual same-sex sexual relations remain criminalized in the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Ethiopia. Iran is among the countries in which consensual same-sex sexual relations remain punishable by death.)

Kampala officially became a BRICS member on Jan. 1, joining eight other countries whose applications for admission were approved last October during the bloc’s 16^th annual summit in Kazan, Russia.  

“The United States and European Union, whenever they impose sanctions, expect all those other countries to make sure they abide by those sanctions and if you don’t, you face penalties or even they sanction you,” Oryem said. 

Oryem spoke before parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday.

MPs asked him to explain the circumstances that led Uganda to join BRICS and the country’s financial obligation from the membership.      

“Now because of that and the recent events, you have realized that the United States and European Union have started freezing assets of countries in their nations without UN resolutions which is a breach of international world order,” Oryem said. “Uganda can’t just standby and look at these changes and not be part of these changes. It will not be right.”

Oryem also said President Yoweri Museveni’s Cabinet discussed and approved the matter before he directed the Foreign Affairs Ministry to write to the BRICS Secretariat about admitting Uganda into the bloc.

The U.S. and other Western governments condemned Museveni’s decision to sign the Anti-Homosexuality Act, and announced a series of sanctions against Kampala. 

Washington, for example, imposed visa restrictions on government officials who championed the Anti-Homosexuality Act, re-evaluated its foreign aid and investment engagement with Uganda, including the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), and reviewed Kampala’s duty-free trade with the U.S. under the African Growth and Opportunity Act for sub-Saharan African countries.

The U.S. in May 2024 imposed sanctions on House Speaker Anita Among and four other senior Ugandan government officials accused of corruption and significant human rights violations.

Although the EU criticized the enactment of the Anti-Homosexuality Act, the 27-member bloc did not sanction Kampala, despite pressure from queer rights activists. The state-funded Uganda Human Rights Commission and several other human rights groups and queer activists, meanwhile, continue to pressure the government to withdraw implementation of the law.

UHRC Chair Mariam Wangadya, who called on the government to decriminalize homosexuality last month, has said her commission has received reports that indicate security officers who enforce the Anti-Homosexuality Act have subjected marginalized communities to discrimination and inhuman and degrading treatment

“As a signatory to several international and regional human rights conventions, Uganda is committed to ensuring non-discrimination and equality before the law,” Wangadya said.  “At the domestic level, Uganda’s constitution, under Article 21, prohibits discrimination based on gender, ensuring equality before the law, regardless of sex, race, ethnicity, or social status.”

Museveni’s son comes out against Anti-Homosexuality Act

Museveni’s son, Army Chief General Muhoozi Kainerugaba, has also emerged as a critic of the Anti-Homosexuality Act.

“I was totally shocked and very hurt. Japanese are warriors like us. I respect them very much. I asked them how we were oppressing them. Then they told me about the AHA,” he said on X on Jan. 3 while talking about how the Japanese questioned him over Uganda’s persecution of queer people during his recent visit to Tokyo. “Compatriots, let’s get rid of that small law. Our friends around the world are misunderstanding us.”

Kainerugaba, who is positioning himself as Museveni’s successor, had already declared an interest in running for president in 2026 before he withdrew last September in favor of his 80-year-old father who has been in power for more than three decades.

In his X post, Kainerugaba also indicated that “we shall remove this Anti-Homosexuality Act in 2026.” He left the platform six days later after his posts threatened Uganda’s diplomatic relations.

“They (gays) are sick people, but since the Creator made them … what do we do? Even ‘kiboko’ (whips) might not work. We shall pray for them,” Kainerugaba said. 

The Supreme Court is currently considering a case that challenges the Anti-Homosexuality Act. The Constitutional Court last April upheld the law.

President Joe Biden will leave the White House next week after leading what advocates consider to be the most pro-LGBTQ+ administration in American history.

The past four years offer a wealth of evidence to support the claim, from the passage of legislation like the landmark Respect for Marriage Act to the promotion of LGBTQ+ rights abroad as a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy, impactful regulatory moves in areas like health equity for gay and trans communities, and the record-breaking number of gender and sexual minorities appointed to serve throughout the federal government and on the federal bench.

As demonstrated by the deeply personal reflections that he shared during an exclusive interview with the Washington Blade in September, Biden is especially proud of his legacy on LGBTQ+ rights and believes that his record reflects the bedrock principles of justice, equality, and fairness that were inculcated by his father’s example and have motivated him throughout his career in public life.

For instance, during a trip to New York in June, where he delivered remarks to commemorate the opening of the Stonewall National Monument Visitor Center, Biden explained he was deeply moved by the “physical and moral courage” of those early gay rights activists, adding that the monument honoring their sacrifices “sets an example” in the U.S. and around the world.

Likewise, Biden told the Blade he decided to publicly express his support for same-sex marriage in the midst of his reelection campaign with then-President Barack Obama in 2012 because of his experience attending an event hosted by a gay couple with their children present.

“If you saw these two kids with their fathers, you’d walk away saying, ‘wait a minute, they’re good parents,’” he said. From that moment forward, Biden was unwilling to continue to demur, even if that meant preempting Obama’s “evolution” toward embracing marriage equality.

To fully appreciate Biden’s leadership — especially during his presidency, and particularly on issues of transgender rights — it is worth considering his record against the backdrop of the broader political landscape over the past four years.

By the time he took office in 2021, conservative activists and elected leaders had positioned the trans community at the center of a moral panic, introducing hundreds of laws targeting their rights and protections and exploiting the issue as a strategy to undermine support for Democrats.

In the face of unrelenting attacks from his Republican political adversaries, Biden set to work building an administration that “looked like America” including with the appointment of trans physician and four-star officer Dr. Rachel Levine to serve as assistant health secretary, and on day one he issued an executive order repealing his predecessor’s policy that excluded trans Americans from military service.

As the 2024 election neared, with Donald Trump’s campaign weaponizing transphobia as a wedge to score votes, Biden’s support remained vocal and sustained. In each of his four State of the Union addresses to joint sessions of Congress, for example, the president reinforced his commitment to “have the trans community’s back.”

Meanwhile, midway through his term the U.S. Supreme Court overturned abortion protections that were in place since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, with conservative statehouses across the country taking the opportunity to pass draconian restrictions.

Democrats sought to exploit the unpopular abortion bans, especially as the presidential race was in full swing, but many were concerned that Biden might be an ineffective messenger because of his personal opposition to the practice as a devout Catholic.

While he directed his administration to take measures to protect access to abortion in the U.S. and spoke publicly about the importance of reproductive autonomy and the freedom to access necessary medical care for family planning, the Associated Press reports that as of March 2024, Biden had only used the word “abortion” in prepared remarks once in four years.

The daylight between how the president has talked about transgender rights and how he has talked about abortion offers an interesting contrast, perhaps illuminating how impervious Biden can be when pressured to compromise his values for the sake of realizing his political ambitions, while also demonstrating the sincerity of his conviction that, as he put it in 2012, anti-trans discrimination is “the civil rights issue of our time.”

Biden was scheduled to deliver a farewell address to the nation on Wednesday evening.

The Indian Supreme Court on Jan. 9 rejected a series of petitions that challenged its 2023 ruling against marriage equality

A 5-judge bench — Justices Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai, Surya Kant, Bengaluru Venkataramiah Nagarathna, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, and Dipankar Datta — said there were no errors in the ruling that justified a review.

A five-judge Supreme Court bench, led by Chief Justice Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, on Oct. 17, 2023, in a 3-2 decision ruled against recognizing the constitutional validity of same-sex marriages in India.

The court emphasized it is parliament’s rule to decide whether to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples. It also acknowledged its function is limited to interpreting laws, not creating them.

The judges on Jan. 9 stated they had reviewed the original rulings.

“We do not find any error apparent on the face of the record,” they said. “We further find that the view expressed in both the judgments is in accordance with law and as such, no interference is warranted. Accordingly, the review petitions are dismissed.”

A new bench of judges formed on July 10, 2024, after Justice Sanjiv Khanna unexpectedly recused himself from hearing the appeals, citing personal reasons. The reconstituted bench included Narasimha, who was part of the original group of judges who delivered the ruling.

“The fact that we have lost is a comma and not a full stop for equality,” said Harish Iyer, a prominent LGBTQ+ rights activist in India and one of the plaintiffs of marriage equality case. “The admission of review petitions is a rarity, and while we will proceed with all legal recourses available this is not the only fight.”

Some of the plaintiffs in November 2023 appealed the Supreme Court’s original decision. Udit Sood and other lawyers who had represented them in the original marriage equality case filed the appeal.

The appeal argued the ruling contained “errors apparent on the face of the record,” and described the earlier ruling as “self-contradictory and manifestly unjust.” It criticized the court for acknowledging the plaintiffs face discrimination, but then dismissing their claims with “best wishes for the future,” contending this approach fails to fulfill the court’s constitutional obligations toward queer Indians and undermines the separation of powers envisioned in the constitution. The appeal also asserted the majority ruling warrants review because it summarily dismissed established legal precedents and made the “chilling declaration” that the constitution does not guarantee a fundamental right to marry, create a family, or form a civil union.

While speaking to the Washington Blade, Iyer said this setback is a reminder that our futures can be shaped by collaboration and numerous small victories along the way.

“We will have a multi-pronged approach,” he said. “We need to speak to parents groups, teachers, police personnel, doctors, and medical staff, news reporters, podcasters, grassroots activists, activists from allied movements, our local/state and national level elected representatives. We all need to do our bit in our circle of influence. These small waves will create a force that will help us propel toward marriage equality.”

Iyer told the Blade he is confident the community will achieve marriage equality within his lifetime, offering assurance to every queer individual.

“I just hope that I am not too old to find someone to marry with by then.”

As per the Supreme Court’s rules, a ruling is reviewed only if there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, the discovery of new evidence, or any reason equivalent to these two. Justices typically consider appeals without oral arguments, circulating them among themselves in chambers. The same set of justices who issued the original ruling typically rules on the appeal. In this case, however, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and S. Ravindra Bhat, and Chandrachud, who were part of the original bench, had retired.

Souvik Saha, founder of Jamshedpur Queer Circle, an LGBTQ+ organization that conducts sensitization workshops with law enforcement and local communities, described the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the appeal as not just a legal setback, but a significant blow to the hopes of millions of LGBTQ+ people across India. He said the decision perpetuates a sense of exclusion, denying the community the constitutional promise of equality under Article 14 and the right to live with dignity under Article 21.

“This decision comes at a time when global momentum on marriage equality is growing,” said Saha, noting Taiwan and more than 30 other countries around the world have extended marriage rights to same-sex couples. “The lack of recognition in India, despite the 2018 Navtej Johar judgment — decriminalizing homosexuality, leaves the LGBTQ community in a vulnerable position.”

Saha further noted in Jharkhand, a state in eastern India where socio-cultural stigmas run deep, the Supreme Court’s refusal highlights the fight for equality is far from over.

He shared the Jamshedpur Queer Circle recently supported a young lesbian couple who were disowned by their families and faced threats when attempting to formalize their relationship. Saha stressed that without legal safeguards, such couples are left without recourse, underscoring the urgent need for marriage equality to ensure protection and recognition for LGBTQ+ people.

“While the decision delays progress, it cannot halt the movement for equality,” said Saha. “Marriage equality is inevitable in a country where nearly 60 percent of Indians aged 18-34 believe that same-sex couples should have the right to marry (Ipsos LGBT+ Pride Survey, 2021.) This ruling highlights the need to shift our advocacy strategy towards building a stronger case for social and political change.”

Saha proposed several calls to action and strategies for moving forward.

He emphasized to the Blade the need for mobilizing the community through state-level consultations and storytelling campaigns to humanize the issue of marriage equality. Saha also highlighted the importance of developing stronger petitions, supported by case studies, international precedents, and data to effectively address judicial concerns.

Saha suggested working with allies in civil society and corporate India to push for incremental changes. He advocated for engaging policymakers in dialogue to promote legislative reforms, emphasizing the economic benefits of inclusion. Saha also called for campaigns to counter misinformation and prejudice, while establishing counseling and support groups for LGBTQ+ people and their families that provide guidance and support.

“Legal recognition of marriage is not just about ceremony; it is about the basic rights, dignity, and respect that every individual deserves,” said Saha. “Together, through collective action, we will ensure that the arc of justice bends in our favor.”

Indrani Chakraborty, an LGBTQ+ activist and mother of Amulya Gautam, a transgender student from Guwahati in Assam state, described the Supreme Court’s appeal denial as an “insensitive approach.”

“Love and commitment are emotions that can never be under boundaries. Rejection of same-sex marriage is an oppressive approach towards the LGBTQI+ community,” said Chakraborty. “This is discrimination. Marriage provides social and legal security to the couple and that should be irrespective of gender. Same-sex relationships will be there as always even with or without any constitutional recognition. The fight should go on, as I believe, this validates the intention. The community needs to stand bold, and equality be achieved.”

Far-right U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) called U.S. Rep. Sarah McBride (D-Del.) a “groomer” and “child predator” in a post on X Monday, responding to a video shared by the anti-LGBTQ+ account Libs of TikTok in which McBride is seen reading to kids in a classroom.

According to the signage featured in the clip, McBride, who is the first transgender member of Congress, was participating in the Human Rights Campaign Foundation’s “Jazz and Friends National Day of School and Community Readings.”

The program is part of the organization’s Welcoming Schools initiative, which provides “trainings and resources for elementary school educators” to help “welcome diverse families, create LGBTQ and gender inclusive schools, prevent bias-based bullying, and support transgender and nonbinary students.”

Prior to her first election to the Delaware state legislature, McBride served as press secretary for HRC from 2016-2021.

Monday’s post was not the first time in which Greene has baselessly accused LGBTQ+ people and allies of child sexual abuse or grooming for their support of age-appropriate classroom instruction on matters of LGBTQ+ history, sexual orientation, and gender identity.

The Washington Blade has reached out to representatives from HRC, McBride’s office, and the Congressional Equality Caucus for comment on Greene’s post.

Anti-LGBTQ+ evangelist Franklin Graham will deliver the invocation for President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration on Monday, Jan. 20, according to a copy of the program that was circulated on X.

Graham, who serves as president and CEO of Samaritan’s Purse, the evangelical Christian humanitarian aid organization, and of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, which was named for his late father, offered the opening prayer for Trump’s first inauguration in 2017.

As documented by GLAAD, the Asheville, N.C.,-based evangelist has attacked the LGBTQ+ community throughout his life and career.

He supported the draconian laws in Russia targeting “propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations” that have been used to suppress media that presents “LGBTQ identities and relationships in a positive or normalizing light.”

Praising Russian President Vladimir Putin for taking “a stand to protect his nation’s children from the damaging effects of the gay and lesbian agenda,” Graham also bemoaned that “America’s own morality has fallen so far that on this issue.”

Graham’s anti-LGBTQ+ advocacy on matters of domestic policy in the U.S. has included opposing Pride events, which he compared to celebrations of “lying, adultery, or murder,” and curricula on LGBTQ+ history in public schools, telling a radio host in 2019 that educators have no right to “teach our children something that is an affront to God.”

When his home state rolled back rules prohibiting gender diverse people from using public restrooms consistent with their identities, he tweeted that “people of NC will be exposed to pedophiles and sexually perverted men in women’s public restrooms.”

Graham has repeatedly smeared LGBTQ+ people as predatory and said the community seeks to “recruit” children into being gay, lesbian, or transgender.

He has also consistently opposed same-sex marriage, claiming that former President Barack Obama, by embracing marriage equality, had “shaken his fist at the same God who created and defined marriage,” adding, “it grieves me that our president would now affirm same-sex marriage, though I believe it grieves God even more.”

Graham also supports the harmful and discredited practice of conversion therapy, which he likened to “conversion to Christianity.”

When Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg announced his bid for the Democratic nomination for president in 2020, Graham tweeted that “Mayor Buttigieg says he’s a gay Christian. As a Christian I believe the Bible which defines homosexuality as sin, something to be repentant of, not something to be flaunted, praised or politicized. The Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman — not two men, not two women.” 

Graham embraced Trump well before he was taken seriously in Republican politics, telling ABC in 2011 that the New York real estate tycoon was his preferred candidate.

Particularly during the incoming president’s first campaign as the GOP nominee and during his first term, the evangelical leader’s support was seen as strategically important to bringing conservative Christians into the fold despite their misgivings about Trump, who was better known as a philandering womanizer than a devout religious leader.