The Monday Roundup | May 12, 2025

Anti-trans policies escalate—but science, courts, and communities push back.

Hey there, Well Beings. If you’ve felt like last week’s headlines were a coordinated campaign against trans lives—you’re not wrong. From the Supreme Court greenlighting a military ban to major newspapers backing pseudoscience, the attacks are loud, layered, and relentless. But so is the resistance. In this issue, we’re cutting through the noise with a clear roundup of what’s moving, who’s fighting back, and why the science still stands on our side.

This Week in Queer Health Politics

President Trump’s sweeping anti-trans policies are not only reshaping federal programs—they’re also enjoying surprising public backing. A new AP-NORC poll found that about half of U.S. adults approve of Trump’s handling of transgender issues, with two-thirds agreeing that gender is determined at birth—a stance that contradicts medical consensus. Meanwhile, the administration has canceled over $800 million in LGBTQ health research funding, affecting studies on HIV, cancer, and mental health.

LGBTQ nonprofits are also under pressure, facing demands to remove terms like “transgender” and “queer” from their materials to retain federal funding. In Texas, a $400,000 federal grant for an anti-hate program targeting LGBTQ violence was abruptly cut, leading to the program's collapse. These moves are part of a broader strategy to redefine gender strictly as male or female at birth, affecting everything from healthcare access to military service.

🛡️ States Push Back: A Wave of Wins for Trans Rights

While anti-trans rhetoric ramps up nationally, local victories are stacking up—and they’re anything but small. In a historic turnaround, Florida’s LGBTQ+ community successfully blocked every anti-queer bill this legislative session, a first in years for a state at the epicenter of anti-trans policy. Meanwhile, Maine beat the Trump administration in federal court, restoring school meal funding after refusing to enforce a trans athlete ban.

Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs vetoed three bills, including a birth certificate ban and two DEI restrictions targeting trans people. In Colorado, a bill expanding legal protections for trans folks passed the Senate, even after heavy amendments. And in New York, Democrats helped stall a trans sports ban by spotlighting its absurdity: requiring genital checks for student athletes.

The takeaway? Trans communities and allies are proving that organized resistance can and does work—even in tough territory.

📉 The Rollback: Anti-Trans Bills Keep Gaining Ground

Even as resistance grows, the anti-trans policy machine hasn’t slowed its roll.

In Texas, lawmakers are advancing HB 229, a bill that would force transgender people on Medicaid to detransition by halting coverage for gender-affirming care. It’s expected to pass this week and take effect September 1. HB 1257 passed, forcing private insurance to cover detransition costs (a fate they can conveniently escape by refusing to cover transition care), and HB 3817 was introduced, seeking to charge trans people with a felony for self-identifying to either employers or police. Meanwhile, Georgia just passed a law banning gender-affirming medical care for transgender inmates, making it the latest state to limit healthcare access for incarcerated trans people.

At the federal level, Trump’s HUD has begun dismantling housing protections for transgender people. Discrimination complaints are being closed without investigation, and the Obama-era Equal Access Rule—once a lifeline for trans folks in shelters—is being rolled back. And in Utah, the Department of Health and Human Services quietly scrubbed mental health data on transgender youth from its website, raising red flags about transparency and accountability.

In a deeply chilling move, the U.S. Supreme Court has once again sided with the Trump administration, allowing its trans military ban to go into effect. The policy bars transgender people from serving openly in the armed forces, describing them as “untrustworthy” and “dishonorable.” Advocates fear the decision will encourage further rollback of civil rights protections for trans people in other areas.

🚫 Expert Bodies Slam US and UK Anti-Trans Reports

Medical and research institutions are coming out swinging against what they call pseudoscience in the Trump administration’s recently released HHS report on trans health—and its intellectual backbone, the UK’s Cass Review.

In a joint statement, WPATH, USPATH, and EPATH condemned the HHS report [PDF] for misrepresenting data, promoting stigma, and ignoring global medical consensus. The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Association, Fenway Health, Yale, and more have also denounced it as scientifically bankrupt.

The Cass Review, long hailed by conservatives as “proof” that gender-affirming care is harmful, was recently exposed in BMC Medical Research Methodology for deep methodological flaws, cherry-picked citations, and unsupported claims.

These reports are more than just talking points—they’re being used to justify anti-trans policies with real-life consequences. The scientific community is drawing a line: this isn’t a debate. It’s bad science being weaponized.

📰 WaPo’s Editorial Swing Toward Pseudoscience

In a stunning nameless editorial, The Washington Post threw its institutional weight behind the Trump administration’s anti-trans health report—endorsing its core claims and even suggesting that randomized controlled trials (RCTs) be conducted on transgender youth, despite overwhelming medical consensus that such trials would be unethical and harmful. Notably, even the HHS report itself clarifies that RCTs are inappropriate when gender-affirming care is concerned.

WaPo: What is clear is that, with many gender transition procedures ongoing and fierce debate over their effectiveness, better research is needed, and the government should be called on to support this work. Better research means randomized and controlled studies that compare the effectiveness of the medical path with that of the best alternative psychotherapies. Today's clinicians should be involved in this effort - after all, they have gained a wealth of clinical knowledge and have demonstrated their strong interest in helping children with gender; HHS: 13.4.1 Research Ethics Multiple SRs, commissioned by leading international health authorities and conducted by independent academic researchers, have concluded that the evidence underpinning the expected benefits of PMT is of low or very low certainty. 99 A natural response among researchers to the absence of higher quality evidence is to conduct more and better research. Whether and how such research should be conducted, however, is a matter of significant ethical controversy. One controversy concerns RCTs, the "gold standard" for clinical research, 100 Some proponents of PMT claim that RCTs on the effects of PBs or CSH would be infeasible and unethical. 101 With respect to feasibility, because the effects of PMT interventions are so apparent, it is not possible to blind researchers and participants in an RCT for which the control group receives only psychotherapeutic support. Some worry that many adolescents would refuse to participate in a study that does not guarantee they receive hormonal interventions, or that they would drop out if randomized to the control group. These challenges may be harder to overcome in the current climate in which adolescents have been led to believe that hormonal and surgical interventions are well-supported by the evidence and even life-saving. 102 However, randomization does not require blinding, and until an RCT is attempted, speculation about how potential participants will respond is just that-speculation.

Washington Post Editorial Board (left) and the HHS report (right)

While the Post has previously criticized RFK Jr. for promoting pseudoscience, it is now echoing the same discredited ideas—this time targeting trans youth. Critics argue that the paper’s editorial not only legitimizes anti-trans propaganda but also opens the door for policies that could lead to forced experimentation under the guise of “evidence-based” care.

That’s a wrap on this week’s top headlines. If you’re a free subscriber, this is where we part ways for now. But if you want access to the latest research, studies, and scientific deep dives on queer and trans health, consider upgrading to a paid subscription—we promise it’s worth it.

Subscribe to read this section.

Become a paying member to get access to the weekly Research Roundup, as well as our original reporting and other subscriber-only content.

Already a paying subscriber? Sign In.

Reply

or to participate.