China’s Supreme People’s Court on May 8 issued a rare response to a petition involving LGBTQ+ discrimination.

In a surprising response; it discussed sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression. The response also mentioned workplace discrimination, public humiliation, and school bullying, language considered uncommon from China’s legal system.

The response stemmed from a proposal submitted by a postgraduate student in Qingdao through China’s xinfang petition system on March 25, urging the court to establish clearer judicial standards against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Six weeks later, the Supreme People’s Court Research Office issued a written reply.

The Research Office is an internal legal and policy body within the Supreme People’s Court. It studies legal issues, drafts judicial guidance, and responds to legal inquiries submitted through official channels. Its responses do not carry the same legal weight as a judicial interpretation or court ruling.

“The opinions and suggestions you raised are of great value,” reads a translated version of the Supreme People’s Court Research Office response. “In order to thoroughly implement the Constitution, Civil Code, Employment Promotion Law and other legal provisions, and effectively protect citizens’ personality rights from infringement, the Supreme People’s Court has guided local courts at all levels to handle a number of related cases, and through typical cases and other forms has clarified adjudication rules.”

The response stated that courts may determine public insults, defamation and, discriminatory conduct targeting sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression as infringement of personality rights. It also said employers treating individuals differently in hiring, employment, transfer or dismissal based on those characteristics could face employment discrimination claims. Schools could also bear legal responsibility for improper discipline or bullying involving students based on sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression, according to the response.

“It’s not a systematic change from the authorities recognizing LGBTQ rights,” said Renn Hao, an LGBTQ+ activist in China. “However, it’s an informal statement from the Supreme Court. According to a scholar researching LGBTQ legal cases in China, courts are recognizing more cases involving LGBTQ discrimination and same-sex partners through their verdicts.”

China decriminalized consensual same-sex sexual relations in 1997 and removed homosexuality from the country’s list of mental disorders four years later. Chinese law, however, does not recognize same-sex relationships.

Public advocacy involving LGBTQ+ issues also remains tightly controlled. Authorities in recent years have continued restricting community organizing, public events, and online expression involving sexual minorities.

Discussions involving LGBTQ+ issues are also frequently censored on Chinese social media platforms. 

Activists and advocacy groups say Chinese authorities in recent years have removed online content, shut down LGBTQ+ student group accounts and restricted public discussion involving sexual minority issues. After the Supreme People’s Court response began circulating online, related posts and articles were also removed from some Chinese platforms.

“It may still be too early to fully assess the long-term impact, as this development has only just happened and the situation is still unfolding,” said Xiaogang Wei, a Beijing-based LGBTQ+ rights activist, filmmaker, and founder of the China Rainbow Collective Foundation. “Although the reply is not legally binding, it represents a rare form of institutional acknowledgment of SOGIE-related discrimination in China. For Chinese LGBTQ people and advocates, this could become a meaningful reference point for future legal advocacy, public communication, and community awareness.”

Wei said the rapid removal of related posts and articles limited the development’s broader public impact and underscored how fragile LGBTQ+ visibility remains in China. 

“This is why we believe it is important to continue sharing verified information and ensuring that this development is not erased from public understanding,” Wei said.

Chinese courts in recent years have also heard a number of LGBTQ+-related employment discrimination cases, despite the absence of explicit nationwide protections based on sexual orientation or gender identity. In one notable case, the Supreme People’s Court in 2018 formally recognized “equal employment rights disputes” as a legal cause of action, allowing some discrimination-related cases to proceed through the courts.

Chinese courts have previously handled several LGBTQ+-related disputes involving employment discrimination, custody, and so-called conversion therapy. In 2024, a Beijing court drew attention after recognizing visitation rights for a child involving a same sex couple, a decision activists described as a milestone for LGBTQ+ families in China.

Kenya’s High Court has ruled the country’s government cannot refuse requests to amend gender markers on birth certificates and other ID documents.

Audrey Mbugua, a prominent transgender activist, and two other people in 2020 sued Attorney General Dorcas Oduor, the Registrar of Births and Deaths, the National Registration Bureau, and Immigration Services Director General Evelyn Cheluget after they did not receive amended birth certificates.

The Washington Blade previously reported the three plaintiffs argued documents that do not correspond with their gender identity “has denied them opportunities and rights.” Oduor, for her part, in response to the plaintiffs’ claims argued “a person’s gender is based on fact — not feelings — and the plaintiffs at birth were registered and named based on their gender status.”

High Court Justice Bahati Mwamuye ruled on May 20.

“The silence and delay cannot defeat rights,” ruled the court, according to the Daily Nation, a Kenyan newspaper. “Constitutional rights cannot be delayed over administrative convenience.”

The court in 2014 ordered the Kenya National Examinations Council to change Mbugua’s name on her academic diplomas and to remove the male gender marker from them.

Kenya’s intersex rights law took effect in 2022. The government in February 2025 announced intersex people can receive birth certificates with an “I” gender marker.

The Daily Nation notes Mwamuye ordered the Registrar of Deaths and Births and other government agencies to “begin receiving and considering applications for gender-marker changes within” 60 days.

“Access to legal identity documentation is not just a human rights issue; it is a foundational pillar of socio-economic inclusion,” said the Initiative for Equality and Non-Discrimination, a Kenyan advocacy group, in response to the ruling. Without accurate IDs or passports, individuals face severe barriers to employment, financial systems, global business travel, and participation in governance and democratic processes.”

“This ruling marks a critical step forward in reducing administrative discrimination and fostering an inclusive environment where every Kenyan citizen’s legal identity aligns with their dignity,” added INEND.

Outright International, a New York-based global LGBTQ+ and intersex advocacy group, in a statement described Mwamuye’s ruling as “a meaningful shift towards aligning Kenya’s legal framework with constitutional guarantees of equality, privacy, and human dignity. Outright International also applauded Mbugua and other activists who fought for this change.

“Today, we celebrate a milestone — one achieved through resilience, solidarity, and an unwavering belief in justice,” said the group. “Outright International stands with transgender and intersex Kenyans in honoring this victory and reaffirming our commitment to advancing rights, recognition, and equality for all.” 

The scene would have seemed impossible only a few years ago.

The name of Raúl Castro Ruz appearing formally inside a United States federal criminal indictment. Cuba’s former general of the Army, for decades one of the most powerful figures inside the Havana regime, accused in connection with the shootdown of the Brothers to the Rescue aircraft and the deaths of American citizens in 1996. And all of it unfolding in Miami, inside the Freedom Tower, on May 20.

That detail matters.

Because this indictment arrives at one of the most fragile and politically tense moments in recent relations between Washington and Havana. It comes as Cuba faces deep economic collapse, growing political exhaustion, mass migration, blackouts, and increasing public frustration both inside and outside the island. It also arrives on a date carrying enormous symbolic weight for Cuban exiles — the anniversary of the founding of the Cuban Republic in 1902.

But the true significance of this moment goes far beyond symbolism.

What happened in Miami represents something much larger: the collapse of the idea that certain men would never face accountability.

For decades, Raúl Castro embodied the permanence of revolutionary power in Cuba. Defense minister. Military strategist. The man who oversaw the armed forces for generations. One of the central architects of the Cuban political and security apparatus built alongside Fidel Castro. A figure many believed would leave this world untouched by any court, shielded forever by power, time, and history itself.

Today the image is very different.

Today his name appears inside the language of American criminal prosecution.

And that changes the historical dimension of this case completely.

Because this is no longer simply a political accusation voiced by the Cuban exile community. It is now a formal federal criminal indictment publicly announced by the United States government against one of the highest-ranking figures in the history of the Cuban regime.

The setting itself carried enormous meaning.

The Freedom Tower is not just another building in Miami. For generations of Cuban exiles it represents memory, displacement, survival, and the beginning of a new life after fleeing Cuba. Thousands of Cubans passed through those doors after escaping the revolution. Families arrived carrying fear, uncertainty, grief, and hope all at once. Announcing these charges from that location transformed the moment into something far deeper than a legal proceeding.

And the people witnessing it were not only members of the exile community.

Among those present were relatives of the young men killed nearly 30 years ago. Families who spent decades waiting to hear words they feared might never come. Families who carried the weight of loss while believing the men responsible would never be formally accused by any court.

That emotional weight still surrounds this case.

On Feb. 24, 1996, two civilian aircraft operated by Brothers to the Rescue were shot down over the Florida Straits by Cuban military jets. Armando Alejandre Jr., Carlos Costa, Mario de la Peña, and Pablo Morales were killed. The flights were connected to humanitarian rescue efforts searching for Cubans attempting to flee the island during the migration crisis of the 1990s.

Those aircraft were not military bombers.

They were not attacking Cuba.

They were civilian planes associated with rescue operations involving Cubans risking their lives at sea.

That reality has always shaped how this tragedy lives inside the memory of the Cuban exile community.

For many, this was never viewed simply as a geopolitical conflict between hostile governments. It was seen as the use of military force against civilians connected to humanitarian missions during one of the darkest chapters in modern Cuban migration history.

But for many Cubans, the indictment reaches far beyond the Brothers to the Rescue case itself.

It touches decades of unresolved pain tied to one of the central figures behind Cuba’s military and political system.

It reaches mothers who buried sons lost in compulsory military service or in distant wars they never chose to fight. Families who spent years believing promises that were never fulfilled. Political prisoners who disappeared into silence. Relatives who watched loved ones die trying to flee the island.

And for many LGBTQ Cubans, the moment carries another layer of historical weight.

Long before official campaigns promoting tolerance and inclusion emerged from within the Cuban government, there were years of persecution, fear, forced silence, and humiliation carried out under the revolutionary system itself.

The UMAP labor camps remain one of the deepest scars in modern Cuban history. Gay men, pastors, religious believers, artists, and others considered incompatible with the revolutionary ideal were sent away under the language of “re-education” and forced labor.

In recent decades, public gestures toward LGBTQ inclusion promoted by figures close to the Cuban leadership attempted to project an image of progress and openness to the international community. But for many survivors, and for many Cuban LGBTQ people, those gestures never erased the trauma or the historical responsibility tied to the same structures of power that once persecuted them.

For many, acknowledgment without accountability still feels painfully incomplete.

That is why this indictment resonates so deeply today.

Because it arrives while Cuba once again faces profound national crisis. The island is losing entire generations through migration. Public frustration continues to grow. Economic collapse shapes daily life. And the revolutionary narrative that once projected permanence and control appears increasingly eroded by reality itself.

Against that backdrop, the image emerging from Miami becomes even more striking.

A man once viewed as untouchable by history now formally accused by the United States government and legally transformed into a fugitive wanted by American justice.

History moves slowly until suddenly it does not.

And for many Cubans, both on the island and throughout the diaspora, what happened today inside the Freedom Tower felt like witnessing something they once believed they would never live long enough to see.

As a Cuban, as an immigrant, and as someone who has lived close to that pain, one thought keeps returning tonight:

Justice takes time.

But when it finally arrives, it arrives with history behind it.

For a while, it seemed that Scott Wiener, a gay California state senator, would be a shoo-in to succeed Nancy Pelosi in the state’s 11^th Congressional District. But Monday, 15 days before the June 2 primary election, Pelosi threw a wrench into the race by endorsing one of his rivals, San Francisco Supervisor Connie Chan.

Wiener remains ahead in the polls; he, Chan, and former software engineer and congressional staffer Saikat Chakrabarti are the leading candidates in the race. They are among eight Democrats running, along with one Republican and one candidate declaring no party preference. In California’s primary system, the two top vote recipients in the primary advance to the general election, regardless of party. The district is heavily Democratic.

Pelosi is retiring after representing the district, which covers all of San Francisco, since 1987. In endorsing Chan, Pelosi said in a video, “She’s a mom who knows her power and knows her why. She has fought tirelessly to rebuild our middle class, strengthen our safety net, and protect our rights.” She also called Chan “the leader best prepared to carry forward the fight for San Francisco in the Congress of the United States.”

Wiener released a statement on the endorsement, saying, “I have tremendous respect for Speaker Emerita Pelosi and deep gratitude for everything she has done for our city and our country. Whoever wins in November will have giant stilettos to fill.” To the San Francisco Chronicle, he added, “I think it’s been crystal clear that I would be honored to have her endorsement, and I respect that she has made a choice, and that is entirely her choice to make, and that she’s made a choice.”

“There’s no longstanding disagreement nor any personal animus behind Pelosi’s decision,” political columnist Joe Garofoli wrote in the Chronicle. But Pelosi “bristled” when Wiener announced his candidacy for the seat last year, before she confirmed that she wouldn’t run again, Garofoli noted. She and Chan are also close allies of organized labor, although Wiener has significant labor support as well. And Pelosi, the first woman to be speaker of the U.S. House, often supports women for public office and urges them to “know their why”—why they’re running.

In a poll this month by the Chronicle, 40 percent of likely voters supported or were leaning toward Wiener, while 18 percent chose Chan and 17 percent preferred Chakrabarti. So Pelosi’s endorsement may not push Chan ahead of Wiener, but it may push her ahead of Chakrabarti, setting up Chan and Wiener to face off in the general election, according to Garofoli.

“This endorsement is more than an adrenaline shot in the arm for Chan’s campaign,” David McCuan, a professor of political science at Sonoma State University, told the columnist.

But Pelosi has not always backed winners. Last year, she called California Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis a particularly great candidate for governor, but Kounalakis soon dropped out of the crowded race. Some of the San Francisco supervisors she’s supported have won their elections, and some have not. She did endorse then-Congressman Adam Schiff for U.S. senator from California in 2024, and he won. Pelosi remains popular in San Francisco, though some constituents wish she had stepped aside earlier in favor of younger pols.

Schiff has endorsed Chan in the 11^th District race, along with many high-profile politicians and activists, such as Congresswoman Judy Chu, former San Francisco Mayors Willie Brown and Art Agnos, former California Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (a gay man), and veteran gay activist Cleve Jones. She has also been endorsed by the Harvey Milk LGBTQ Democratic Club, which praises her as a champion of the working class.

Wiener has the endorsement of the California Democratic Party and many LGBTQ+ groups, including the Human Rights Campaign PAC, the LGBTQ+ Victory Fund, Equality California, Equality PAC, and the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus. He has been endorsed by The Bay Area Reporter, San Francisco’s largest LGBTQ+ publication, as well.

Both Chan and Chakrabarti have positioned themselves to the left of Wiener, who “would be identified as pretty far to the left in most places; in San Francisco, he’s deemed a moderate,” Mother Jones noted. The three share many positions—support for LGBTQ+ rights, opposition to Donald Trump’s brutal treatment of immigrants, and condemnation of his cuts to many federal programs. They differ on new state taxes on the wealthiest residents, with Wiener opposed and Chan and Chakrabarti in support. Wiener does want to reverse Trump’s federal tax cuts for the rich.

However, the biggest problem facing San Francisco is a shortage of housing, at least housing that middle- and working-class people can afford. The three leading candidates have ideas to address that, but they differ on details. Wiener has pushed for more housing for residents of all income levels and for loosening regulations as an incentive to build. Chan opposes deregulation and says the focus should be on “housing that working people can afford,” she recently told local publication The Frisc. Chakrabarti is friendlier to deregulation and has proposed a public national bank to finance housing.

As a state senator, Wiener has put forth several bills calling for the construction of high-density housing near public transit, including in areas where such buildings were not previously allowed; he finally got one passed and signed into law in 2025, and it goes into effect July 1. Previous bills had drawn opposition from those who wanted to keep their neighborhoods exclusive to single-family homes, as well as from groups worried that the new construction would push out low-income residents. The law’s effective date could be delayed because of confusion over how to implement it; Wiener told Politico he’s open to that if it’s based on “good-faith feedback.”

Wiener was involved in another controversy recently, this one over the war in Gaza. At a candidates’ forum in January, he stayed silent when asked if Israel’s actions in the region constituted genocide, while Chan and Chakrabarti had said yes. Less than a week later, he shifted positions, saying the term was appropriate. Criticism from his fellow Jews then led him to resign as co-chair of the California Legislative Jewish Caucus. He went on to call Israel’s government an “abomination” that “is making Israelis less safe,” as quoted by The American Prospect.

A bit more about each candidate: Wiener was first elected to the California Senate in 2016. He previously represented Harvey Milk’s district on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, S.F.’s city council, and before that, practiced law. In the Senate, his persistence has annoyed some colleagues, but he has said it means he gets things done. Chan is a first-generation immigrant, having been born in Hong Kong and coming to the U.S. at age 13. She was an employee in several city departments, including a stint as an aide to then-District Attorney Kamala Harris, before her election as a supervisor. Chakrabarti amassed a fortune with Stripe, a payment processing company, and has put millions into his campaign. He was briefly chief of staff to U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York but offended many in Washington with his criticism that mainstream Democrats weren’t doing enough to fight Trump.

The hard-fought primary campaign will come to a head June 2—but expect another hard-fought campaign leading up to November.

Written by Trudy King, this is a cross-post from Karen Ocamb’s LGBTQ+ Freedom Fighters Substack.

The U.S. House of Representatives passed a federal “Don’t Say Trans” bill on Wednesday, attempting to force teachers to out transgender students nationwide.

The bill, House Resolution 2616, also called the “Stopping Indoctrination and Protecting Kids Act,” would require schools to get parental consent before allowing students to use their preferred, rather than originally assigned, gender markers, pronouns, or preferred name on any school form, and to use any sex-based accommodations, including locker rooms or bathrooms.

The bill amends Section 8526 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, legislation that allows for federal aid to help elementary and secondary education programs — particularly those under its lowest-income Title I-A program — to stop allocating funds to any education that teaches concepts “related to gender ideology.”

This is directly related to Executive Order 14168, also known as the “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government” order, one of President Donald Trump’s first executive orders of his second term. It requires the federal government to recognize only sex assigned at birth and dismiss gender identity rather than sex.

The bill was sponsored by U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) and passed by a 217-198 margin. The vote fell mostly along party lines; however, eight Democrats voted for its passage. They were U.S. Reps. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), Donald Davis (D-N.C.), Cleo Fields (D-La.), Laura Gillen (D-N.Y.), Vicente Gonzalez (D-Texas), Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.), and Eugene Vindman (D-Va.).

Proponents of the bill argue a child’s gender identity should be directed by parents at home rather than in public schools.

Critics say this is dangerous and will force students to be outed by their teachers to parents — some of whom may not be supportive of their gender identity — which could lead to violence or possibly conversion therapy.

California Congressman Mark Takano, chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, spoke on the House floor while the bill was being debated.

“Republicans claim to be the party of small government, but they have no problem bringing the full force of the federal government down against children. The GOP thinks they can legislate transgender people out of existence with this inhumane Don’t Say Trans bill, but all they’re doing is making life worse for a small minority of already-vulnerable children,” Takano said. “I spent 24 years as an educator where I worked with hundreds of high school students and their parents. Most children go to their parents when they need help or are struggling — including transgender children — but not all parents are accepting. The forced outing provision of this bill puts teachers in an impossible situation by requiring them to out trans kids to their parents in certain situations — even if the teacher knows the student will likely face physical abuse. Students like these are who Republicans want to put in immediate physical danger with this bill.”

The Los Angeles Blade talked to Tyler Heck, founder and executive director of the trans advocacy organization and Christopher Street Project PAC, following the bill’s passage.

“Most queer kids go to their families when they are figuring out who they are, and then not all queer kids have that option,” Heck told the Blade. “If this became law, it would harm those already vulnerable kids who rely on school as a safe place and might not have a safe place at home.”

They explained this is not about protecting parents’ rights to know what is going on with their children, but rather the weaponization of trans identity that has become a mainstream Republican ideal pushed by the Trump-Vance administration.

“Young people deserve the space to figure out who they are without the federal government interfering in their lives,” they said. “It is beyond the pale, or rather it should be beyond the pale, and has become a norm for Republicans in Congress to villainize kids, because I mean, this bill targets kids, it’s in the name of the bill, and it’s in the implications.”

Heck continued, saying that amid the rising cost of everyday necessities — from gas to groceries — and while the Trump-Vance administration continues to defund programs intended to help the most vulnerable Americans while creating slush funds for political allies, this is not what Congress should be focusing on.

“At a time when people are really struggling, and politicians need to be focused on lowering costs, they’re using queer and trans kids as political pawns,” Heck said. “They want to divide and conquer this country, and we need to stand up against them and unite behind values of inclusion and of trust in our teachers.”

David Stacy, the Human Rights Campaign’s vice president of government affairs, provided a statement to the Blade.

“Trans kids are not a political agenda — they are students who deserve safety and affirmation at school like anyone else,” Stacy said. “Despite the many pressing issues facing our nation, House Republicans continue their bizarre obsession with trans people. HR 2616 does not protect children. It targets them. This bill is cruel, and we’ll continue to fight to ensure it never becomes law.”

The bill will move to the U.S. Senate in the coming days and weeks, but it must first be reviewed by a Senate committee before leadership schedules it for a floor vote, where it will need 60 votes to pass.

About 80 days into the U.S.-Iran war, while much of the world struggles with oil supplies, India is confronting a different crisis: a widening condom shortage. Health activists warn the supply disruption could worsen HIV/AIDS risks in the world’s most populous country.

Disruptions in maritime trade through the Strait of Hormuz have strained supplies of petrochemicals and industrial lubricants used in condom manufacturing. The crisis has increased production costs across the sector and pushed retail prices sharply higher.

India’s condom manufacturing industry is valued at nearly $1 billion. 

Production depends heavily on silicone oil and ammonia. Silicone oil, a key lubricant used in manufacturing, is in short supply. Ammonia, which stabilizes raw latex, is expected to see price increases of 40-50 percent. Rising packaging costs have added further pressure. Some manufacturers and retailers have reported condom prices increasing by as much as 50 percent.

India is home to an estimated 2.5 million people living with HIV, the world’s second-largest population of HIV-positive people, according to a 2024 report. The Health Ministry’s India HIV Estimation 2025 technical report said 5.4 percent of HIV cases in 2024-2025 were linked to transmission between men who have sex with men.

In 2024, India recorded an estimated 64,470 new HIV infections and 32,160 AIDS-related deaths nationwide. The figures marked declines of 48.69 percent and 81.42 percent, respectively, compared with 2010.

Ankit Bhuptani, an LGBTQ+ activist in India, told the Los Angeles Blade that the country has made significant progress in reducing HIV infections over the past two decades. But, he said, that progress depended heavily on affordable condoms, targeted outreach programs and on-the-ground work by NGOs serving MSM and transgender people.

“Pull one thread and the whole thing loosens. What worries me about this particular shortage is that it arrives at exactly the moment when India’s LGBTQ community was beginning to access healthcare more openly after the Section 377 reading down,” said Bhuptani. “Young queer Indians in tier-two cities were just starting to trust government health systems enough to engage with them. A price spike that prices them out, or a shortage that sends them to substandard alternatives, could set that trust back by years.”

The Indian Supreme Court in 2018 struck down Section 377, a colonial-era law that criminalized consensual same-sex sexual relations.

In March, the Commerce and Industry Ministry acknowledged the difficulties faced by Indian exporters due to disruptions caused by the war in West Asia and launched a roughly $51.5 million Resilience and Logistics Intervention for Export Facilitation, or RELIEF, program. It provides credit insurance support for exporters whose shipments have been stranded because of the conflict.

“Price elasticity in sexual health products is brutal. When a condom pack goes from 20 rupees to 40, usage drops. It’s that simple,” said Bhuptani. “And when usage drops in populations with higher baseline HIV exposure, you don’t see the consequences for two or three years. Then the numbers arrive and everyone acts surprised.”

The situation has been further aggravated by the structure of India’s condom market, which operates on a high-volume, low-margin model designed to keep products affordable for a population of more than 1.4 billion people. Industry analysts say that model is now under growing pressure from rising raw material and shipping costs.

Reports in Indian media said supply constraints and price volatility involving PVC foil, aluminium foil, and packaging materials have disrupted production and complicated order fulfilment across parts of the condom manufacturing sector.

“Supply chain vulnerability assessments almost never include sexual health commodities. They should. India imports roughly 86 percent of its anhydrous ammonia from West Asian countries including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Oman, with that ammonia being essential for stabilizing the natural rubber latex used in domestic condom production,” said Bhuptani. “That is a documented strategic dependency that was never flagged as a risk. The Iran war converted it from a latent vulnerability into an active supply shock in a matter of weeks.”

The National AIDS Control Organization, or NACO, which oversees India’s HIV/AIDS programs, during the 2026-2027 fiscal year received an allocation of about $249 million, up from roughly $238 million the previous year. By comparison, the U.S. approved a $6 billion funding package in 2026 for global HIV/AIDS programs, according to the United Nations.

“The gay and trans community in India report high perceived HIV risk and adopted PrEP through non-profit and private channels, with cost and access remaining consistent concerns,” said Bhuptani. “The community organizations managing that risk perception are now operating in a tighter supply environment while simultaneously absorbing the downstream effects of USAID funding cuts. Health workers seeing increased anxiety among community members are observing the predictable consequence of removing redundancy from a system that had very little to begin with.”

The Blade reached out to Indian condom manufacturer Manforce several times, but the company declined to comment.

Harish Iyer, an LGBTQ+ and equal rights activist in India, told the Blade that this is the time when the government needs to step in. Condoms, Iyer said, are not about pleasure, but about life.

“Not just in terms of HIV, it is also a source of contraception in a nation which is heavily populated. So, if there is a crisis in the condom industry, it has an adverse effect on the LGBTQ community,” said Iyer. “And eventually it has a compounding effect on the economy as well. Because if the cases of HIV wrecks to rise, if the population was to explode, it is going to have a straining effect on the economy as well. So, I think it is time that the government steps in, and condoms should be recorded as a necessity commodity rather than making it feel like any kind of commodity that some (privileged people) can afford.”

Iyer told the Blade that the government should provide condoms free of cost. 

He pointed to the Nirodh Scheme, India’s long-running family planning and safe sex program launched by the government in 1968. Condoms, Iyer said, are a necessity, not a luxury product. He urged the government to classify them as essential items and either remove the Goods and Services Tax or reduce it to a minimum.

The Nirodh Scheme was launched by the Health and Family Welfare Ministry to promote contraception and prevent the spread of sexually transmitted infections, including HIV, through the nationwide distribution of subsidized and free condoms.

Former U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1981 until his retirement in 2013 and who became the first member of Congress to voluntarily come out as gay in 1987, died on May 19, at the age of 86, at his home in Ogunquit, Maine.

His passing came less than a month after he announced he had entered home hospice care due to terminal congestive heart failure under the care of his husband, Jim Ready, and shortly after finishing writing a new book entitled, “The Hard Path to Unity: Why We Must Reform the Left to Rescue Democracy.”

Despite his frail health, during the last few weeks of his life, Frank agreed to do interviews with multiple news media outlets, including the Los Angeles Blade, where he reflected on his sometimes-controversial positions on issues such as transgender rights.

He told the Blade he had been living with his husband in their shared home in Maine since the time of his retirement in 2013 and called his husband a “saint” for caring for him during his illness. In 2012, at the age of 72, Frank married Ready, becoming the first sitting member of Congress to marry someone of the same sex.   

News of his passing prompted an outpouring of praise and reflection on his life as a groundbreaking out gay lawmaker by current and former members of Congress and LGBTQ+ rights leaders.

Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey announced on May 20 that she had ordered the U.S. flag and the state flag to be lowered to half-staff at all state buildings in honor of Frank’s life and legacy and the recognition of his passing.

“Barney Frank was nothing short of a trailblazer,” said Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest LGBTQ+ advocacy organization, in a statement. “At a time when being openly gay in public service could cost you everything, he chose visibility,” Robinson said.

Robinson and other LGBTQ+ advocates also pointed to Frank’s role in speaking out in Congress for stronger efforts to address the AIDS epidemic during the early years of HIV/AIDS, his push for the repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy to initially allow gays to serve openly in the military, the enactment of marriage equality for same-sex couples, and broader anti-discrimination protections.

Frank has also been credited with helping to pass the federal Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Protection Act of 2009.

In addition to his longstanding support for LGBTQ+ rights, political observers have said one of his most important achievements in Congress was his role, as chair of the House Financial Services Committee, in becoming co-author of what became known as the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010.

Coming at the time of a nationwide banking crisis, the New York Times has called the Frank bill that he and then-U.S. Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) wrote “the most significant overhaul of the nation’s financial regulations since the Great Depression.”

Frank was born and raised in Bayonne, N.J., and graduated from Bayonne High School.

He graduated from Harvard College in Massachusetts in 1962 and worked in various places, including as an assistant to then-Boston Mayor Kevin White, before winning election to the Massachusetts House of Representatives in 1972, where he served for eight years representing a Boston area district. During that time he attended and graduated from Harvard Law School and became a member of the Massachusetts bar in 1979 after passing the bar exam.   

In 1980, Frank became a candidate for the U.S. House in the Massachusetts 4th Congressional District, which he won with 52 percent of the vote in a four-candidate race, taking office in January 1981. He won re-election decisively over the next 30 years until announcing in 2012 his plans to retire and he would not run for re-election that year.  

The New York Times is among the publications that have reported this week since Frank’s passing that his record as an esteemed and admired lawmaker helped him survive a sex scandal that surfaced in 1990 linking him to male prostitute Stephen Gobie.

Media reports at the time said Frank had patronized Gobie as one of his customers and for a time had Gobie as a roommate in Frank’s D.C. residence in the Capitol Hill neighborhood. In its article this week, the New York Times says Gobie “claimed that in the mid-1980s he had run a prostitution ring out of Mr. Frank’s home.”

Like other media accounts, the Times report adds that following an investigation, “The House Ethics Committee did not substantiate that claim, but it did find that Mr. Frank had fixed 33 parking tickets for Mr. Gobie and sought to shorten his probation on drug and sex-offense convictions by writing a misleading memorandum on congressional stationery to an official involved in supervising Mr. Gobie’s probation.”

The full House voted 408-18 to reprimand Frank for misuse of his office, but it rejected calls by some to censure or expel him.

“I should have known better,” Frank said in a speech on the House floor at that time, according to the New York Times. “There was in my life a central element of dishonesty,” the Times quoted him as saying. “Three years ago, I decided concealment wouldn’t work. I wish I decided that long ago,” he said referring to his 1987 decision to come out publicly as gay.

Despite all of this, Frank was re-elected that year with 66 percent of the vote, a development that his friends and supporters attribute to his reputation as a beloved and highly regarded public figure.

PFLAG, the national advocacy group for parents and friends of LGBTQ+ people, is among the groups that issued statements this week reflecting on Frank’s positive impact on the LGBTQ+ community.

“Frank was not only the first openly gay member of Congress, but he was also co-author of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 as chair of the House Financial Services Committee, which helped enshrine housing access for LGBTQ+ people,” PFLAG says in a statement.

“He was also a leading advocate on laws to combat HIV/AIDS,” the statement says, adding that PFLAG’s national office honored Frank with its Champion of Justice Award in 2018.

“Barney was candid, outspoken, quick-witted and downright funny, and he always had his eye on making progress,” said U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), the first openly lesbian woman elected to the U.S. Senate, in a statement. “He was willing to take on anyone who was in his way, regardless of who they were — I should know, I was one of the many who on occasion got an earful from him,” Baldwin said.

‘But I, and anyone else who spent time with him, were lucky to watch him in action and learn from him,” her statement continues. “Barney was a masterful legislator, savvy and strategic, and always thinking of the long game,” she said. “Our country is a better, more just, more equal place because of him, and he will be sorely missed.”

U.S. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.), who serves as chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, which represents LGBTQ+ members of Congress and their congressional allies, issued his own statement on behalf of the caucus pointing out that Frank was one of the two founding members of the caucus.

“I was honored that he came to campaign for me during my run for Congress just a few years after he co-founded the Congressional Equality Caucus, which I now have the distinct honor of leading,” Takano said.

He was referring to Frank and then-Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin’s action in 2008 to found the House LGBT Equality Caucus as the only two openly gay members of Congress, which evolved into the Congressional Equality Caucus.

“Barney proved that what mattered most was the work you did for others,” Takano says in his statement. “I truly believe that we are closer to a more equal world because of Barney Frank,” he said, adding, “Congressman Frank’s legacy touches every part of our fight for LGBTQI+ equality: from his work advocating for HIV and AIDS research to helping pass major pro-equality legislation like the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act and the Hate Crimes Prevention Act into law.” 

In his May 5 interview with the Blade, Frank responded to criticism he received during his tenure in Congress from some LGBTQ+ rights advocates, especially trans activists, who claimed he had not provided sufficient support for trans rights legislation.

He said he fully supported ongoing efforts to advance trans rights but said those efforts could be jeopardized by pushing issues for which many voters have yet to accept, such as “male to female transgender people playing in women’s sports.”

Among those praising Frank’s life and legacy at the time of his passing is longtime trans activist Diego Sanchez, who became the first openly trans congressional staffer when Frank hired Sanchez as his office’s Senior Policy Advisor. Sanchez remained on Frank’s staff until Frank’s retirement in 2013.

“Barney was a revered statesman for our country at the local, state, and federal levels and a treasured friend to me,” Sanchez told the Blade in a statement. “His belief that prejudice comes from ignorance and is only stricken by visibility explains how he came out openly and how he brought me to his staff, with intent and without apology,” Sanchez said.

He added, “I miss him terribly and am glad I got to spend a week with his husband Jim and him this month. Barney made sure that members of Congress could not say they had never met a trans person. I was honored to be a groomsman in their wedding and will miss Barney’s brilliance, counsel, friendship, and wit.”

Sanchez said celebration of life events are expected to take place in Boston and D.C. and details of those events will be announced soon. 

Republicans confirmed Darin Smith as U.S. Attorney for the District of Wyoming on Monday, regardless of his history as interim U.S. Attorney for Wyoming and a state senator.

While serving as interim U.S. Attorney for Wyoming — after being appointed by President Donald Trump last July despite never trying a case outside of his time as a law student intern — former state Sen. Darin Smith likely prejudiced jurors during grand jury proceedings.

Nine felony grand jury indictments tied to Smith’s tenure were dismissed last week.

Judges dismissed felony indictments against Cheyenne Swett, Richard Allen, Michael Scott Hopper, Brian Joseph Johnson, Dennison Jay Antelope, Matthew Christopher Jacoby, Matthew Miller Jr., Wolf Elkins Duran, and Jose Benito Ocon. The now-dismissed charges included felony firearm possession, drug distribution, and possession of child pornography, among other allegations.

Smith allegedly told the grand jury that the defendants were “bad guys,” described them as “murderers,” and said deliberations “won’t take long.”

Even the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Wyoming acknowledged that Smith’s comments were “ill-advised.”

Smith has a history of aligning with Trump over the Constitution and supporting anti-LGBTQ+ legislation.

In 2025, Smith co-sponsored House Bill 0194, titled “Obscenity amendments,” which, among other provisions, would have criminalized drag shows. The bill also would have repealed exemptions for public and school librarians from the crime of “promoting obscenity” to minors. The wording of the bill was so vague that Republican state Rep. Lee Filer said, “We will end up having to arrest somebody for allowing a child to read the Holy Bible.”

Smith also co-sponsored SF0062, a bill requiring public school students to use restrooms, sex-designated changing facilities, and sleeping quarters that align with their sex assigned at birth. In March 2025, the Wyoming governor signed the bill into law, along with its House companion.

He also attended the Jan. 6 Capitol riot alongside thousands of other Trump supporters.

“Smith was on the Capitol grounds on Jan. 6 … and made the reprehensible claim … that the hundreds of Capitol Police officers who risked their lives that day were guilty of ‘massive incompetence.’ Smith blames the police for what happened on Jan. 6. Without evidence, he claimed that rioters who breached the Capitol were victims of entrapment,” U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said. “Moreover, Smith is not remotely qualified to be a U.S. Attorney. He’s going to be in the package — take it or leave it. Prior to becoming the interim U.S. Attorney, he had no courtroom or litigation experience whatsoever. None. And Smith’s lack of experience has had real-world consequences.”

Prior to his work in the Wyoming state legislature, Smith worked as Director of Planned Giving for the Family Research Council, an organization that describes homosexuality as “harmful” to society with “negative physical and psychological health effects.”

The organization also believes that sexual orientation “should [not] be included as a protected category in nondiscrimination laws or policies, as it is not comparable to inborn, immutable characteristics such as race or sex.”

During questioning before the U.S. Senate, he denied that his work with the organization shows he has loss of impartiality when it comes to matters of LGBTQ+ rights.

Also questioning, Smith was asked about a now-deleted Facebook post in which he appeared to express support for Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who was found to be unconstitutional in her refusal to issue same-sex marriage licenses, despite Obergefell v. Hodges.

“Perhaps Hillary and Obama can share the cell with Kim Davis for refusing to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act,” the post said.

When asked why he posted it, Smith told Durbin: “I do not recall.”

Josh Sorbe, spokesperson for the Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats and Durbin, said:

“Anti-LGBTQ+ extremist Darin Smith has no business serving as a top law enforcement officer in any state — let alone a state with as much history of queer importance as Wyoming. He’s an unqualified insurrectionist with no experience litigating criminal or federal matters, and his bigotry puts into serious question his commitment to upholding the law for all Americans.”

Human Rights Campaign Vice President of Government Affairs David Stacy also condemned Smith’s confirmation to the U.S. Attorney’s office.

“The justice system in America is supposed to be about ensuring the law is applied fairly and equally. But Darin Smith has spent his career obsessed with making life worse for LGBTQ+ people, opposing marriage equality, cosponsoring state legislation targeting transgender youth, and smearing LGBTQ+ people in public statements,” Stacy said. “Just over two decades after Matthew Shepard was brutally murdered in that same state, Wyoming deserves better than tired anti-LGBTQ+ hate at the helm of federal law enforcement. The Senate should reject Darin Smith and demand a nominee who will put the people — and justice — first.”

State Sen. Steven Heffernan (R-Addison) equated transgender people to bestiality on the Vermont Senate floor on May 15 while debating an animal cruelty bill.

Heffernan, who was elected in 2024 to the state Senate, constructed a scenario in which a trans person is indistinguishable from someone committing bestiality.

“In these crazy times, what happens if the individual identifies as an animal having intercourse with an animal? How is the courts going to handle that?” the former member of the Vermont Air National Guard said while debating House Bill 578. “Being that we voted through Prop Four, and if it does make it through this state, and I have a gender identity that I identify as a dog and had sex with my dog, is this law going to affect me?”

State Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (D-Chittenden Central), who presented H. 578 responded professionally.

“The bill that we are putting forward in the current law is quite clear that any act between a person and an animal that involves contact with the mouth, sex organ, or anus of the person, and the mouth, sex organ, or anus of the animal, without a bona fide veterinary purpose, will be a crime.”

In the video, Heffernan continued to ask inappropriate questions — questions that Vyhovsky answered.

“If I identify as that animal, will this be able to … It says a person. I’m not a person. I’m identifying as this animal I’m having intercourse with,” he said. “We are identifying genders, of whatever gender we decide we want to be, and I think I like this bill. I’m going to vote for this bill, but I want to make this chamber aware of what’s coming.”

Vyhovsky made a statement saying this was a planned move in an attempt to “other” trans Vermonters instead of protecting them.

“Senator Heffernan knew exactly what he was doing,” said Vyhovsky. “Sen. Heffernan is using the same dehumanizing playbook that has been used against LGBTQ+ people for generations — the false, ugly suggestion that queer and trans identity is synonymous with deviance and harm. It was wrong then and it is wrong now.”

This derogatory action at the expense of trans people appears to be part of a pattern of behavior from Heffernan in his official capacity.

In March, Heffernan left the floor right before lawmakers voted on Proposal 4, conveniently missing the bill vote. PR 4, if passed by the state’s voters in the fall, would amend the state constitution to enshrine protections against unjust treatment, including discrimination based on a “person’s race, ethnicity, sex, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or national origin.”

Heffernan told VTDigger at the time that he left because his stomach was feeling “agitated” and he needed to use the restroom. He said he had not made up his mind on how to vote on the amendment, largely because he’d heard from constituents urging him both to vote for and against it.

“My pizza hit at the right time, I guess,” he said, calling the timing “convenient.”

Despite his leaving — and being the only lawmaker to do so — the state Senate voted to pass it 29-0, with Heffernan marked “absent.” This came after the state House of Representatives voted to pass it 128-14 last week.

Vermont Senate Democrats condemned the statement and used the opportunity to emphasize the need for the state to pass PR 4 on Nov. 4.

“In the wake of Sen. Heffernan’s comments, the stakes of this election couldn’t be more clear,” the statement provided to the Los Angeles Blade read. “Transgender and nonbinary Vermonters are our neighbors, our friends, and our family members. On Friday, Sen. Heffernan used his platform as an elected official representing the people of Vermont to dehumanize them. Senate Democrats will never stop fighting for dignity for all Vermonters. We demand Senator Heffernan apologize to those he has harmed with his words and actions.”

State Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (D-Chittenden Southeast), speaking in her capacity as chair of the Senate Ethics Panel, responded to similar transphobic comments made by President Donald Trump in a White House counterterrorism strategy document last week, in which he said those with “extreme transgender ideologies” should know “we will find you and we will kill you,” stating:

“A lot of people are living in fear in this country because of what somebody with the power of the pen and the power of the military is saying every day,” Hinsdale said. “Just because [speech] is protected does not mean it is worthy of this institution, and does not mean it is worthy of the office we hold and the power that we wield in the lives of Vermonters.”

The Blade reached out to Heffernan for comment but has not heard back.

There is a dangerous silence surrounding intersex lives in Ghana — a silence shaped by fear, misinformation, cultural misunderstanding, and institutional neglect. Today, amid discussions around the possible passage of the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, 2025, that silence risks becoming law, reinforcing exclusion and deepening the marginalization of already invisible lives. 

Much of the national debate surrounding the bill has focused on LGBTQ+ identities. Yet buried within it are implications for intersex persons that many Ghanaians do not fully understand because intersex realities remain largely invisible. 

Intersex persons are born with natural variations in chromosomes, hormones, reproductive anatomy, and/or genital characteristics that do not fit typical definitions of male or female bodies. Intersex is not a sexual orientation or gender identity. It is a biological reality. Ghana’s Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) has clearly acknowledged this distinction. 

Despite this distinction, the bill mistakenly collapses intersex realities into a legal framework linked to LGBTQ+ criminalization. 

Although the bill contains only limited references to intersex persons, under certain medical exceptions, these references do not amount to recognition or protection. Instead, they frame intersex bodies as abnormalities requiring regulation, correction, and institutional management. This approach is inconsistent not only with Ghana’s constitutional guarantees of dignity, equality, privacy, and liberty, but also with emerging African and international human rights standards. The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights Resolution on the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Intersex Persons in Africa – ACHPR/Res.552 (LXXIV) 2023 affirms protections relating to bodily integrity, dignity, freedom from discrimination, and against harmful medical practices. Additionally, the United Nations has repeatedly condemned medically unnecessary and non-consensual interventions on intersex children. Rather than affirming the humanity and autonomy of intersex persons, the bill risks legitimizing systems of surveillance, coercion, violence, and institutional erasure. 

This is not protection.

It is managed erasure.

A child born intersex in Ghana already enters a society shaped by secrecy and stigma. Families are often pressured to hide intersex children or seek “correction” to make their bodies conform to social expectations. 

The bill risks intensifying this pressure.

Clause 17 creates space for “approved service providers” to support interventions relating to intersex persons, yet offers little protection around informed consent, bodily autonomy, confidentiality, or coercive treatment. Under the language of “correction” or “support,” harmful interventions may become normalized.

The intersex community has documented painful lived experiences of intersex Ghanaians that reveal the devastating consequences of stigma and invisibility. 

One heartbreaking case involved intersex twins born in Ghana’s Eastern Region in 1993, who were repeatedly forced to move from village to village because of rejection and ridicule. After losing their father, their main source of protection and support, they became even more vulnerable and reportedly experienced severe emotional distress, including suicidal thoughts linked to years of stigma and exclusion. This is what invisibility looks like in practice. 

Another painful example is the story of Ativor Holali, whose lived experience exposed the cruel realities intersex persons face in sports and public life. Ativor Holali endured invasive scrutiny, public humiliation, and social suspicion because her body did not conform to rigid expectations of femininity. Rather than being protected as a Ghanaian athlete deserving dignity and privacy, she became the subject of speculation, gossip, and institutional discomfort.

Her experience reflects a broader social crisis: when society insists that every body must fit a narrow binary definition, intersex people are forced to defend their humanity in spaces where dignity should already be guaranteed.

Intersex Persons Society Of Ghana (IPSOG)’s Ŋusẽdodo research further revealed that approximately 70 percent of intersex respondents reported depression, anxiety, trauma, or severe emotional distress linked to medical mistreatment, family rejection, bullying, and social exclusion.

The bill risks transforming these existing prejudices into institutional policy. Several provisions risk deepening surveillance, restricting advocacy, weakening confidentiality, and discouraging public education around intersex realities. Intersex-led organizations providing healthcare guidance, legal referrals, psychosocial support, and community services may face serious challenges.

This places IPSOG and other intersex-led organizations in Ghana at serious risk.

For many intersex Ghanaians, these spaces are not political luxuries.

They are survival mechanisms.

Governments derive legitimacy by protecting the natural rights of all persons, including dignity, liberty, bodily autonomy, and freedom from arbitrary interference. The bill raises concerns because it risks weakening these protections for intersex persons through surveillance, coercive interventions, and restrictions on advocacy.

Ghana’s Constitution declares that “the dignity of all persons shall be inviolable.” Articles 15, 17, 18, and 21 specifically protect dignity, equality, privacy, expression, and freedom of association. These protections should apply equally to intersex persons. 

Intersex persons are not threats to Ghanaian culture.

Intersex children are not moral dangers.

Intersex bodies are not political weapons.

They are human beings deserving dignity, healthcare, safety, and constitutional protection. 

The true measure of a democracy is how it protects those most vulnerable to exclusion. At this moment, Ghana faces a choice: deepen fear and silence, or uphold dignity, bodily autonomy, and constitutional freedom for intersex persons. 

History will remember the choice we make.

Fafali Delight Akortsu is the founder and president of the Intersex Persons Society of Ghana (IPSOG).