By Selena Simmons-Duffin

Updated Thursday, December 18, 2025 • 2:20 PM EST

Health officials from the Trump administration announced several moves Thursday that will have the effect of essentially banning gender-affirming care for transgender young people, even in states where it is still legal.

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Dr. Mehmet Oz, who leads Medicaid and Medicare, announced the measures in a press conference at the headquarters of the Department of Health and Human Services in Washington, D.C.

The ban takes the form of two new proposed rules from Medicaid and Medicare. The first would prohibit doctors and hospitals from receiving federal Medicaid reimbursement for gender-affirming care provided to transgender patients younger than age 18. Medicaid is the health care program that covers low-income Americans.

The second would block all Medicaid and Medicare funding for any services at hospitals that provide pediatric gender-affirming care. Virtually every hospital in the country takes Medicare, which covers older Americans and the disabled. Because hospitals rely on Medicare, the rule would have a wide-ranging effect.

Supporters and opponents of transgender rights agree that, taken together, the forthcoming hospital rules could make access to pediatric gender-affirming care across the country extremely difficult, if not impossible. The care is already banned in 27 states. The proposed rules will be entered into the Federal Register on Friday and that starts a 60-day comment period. The rules would not take effect immediately.

The American Civil Liberties Union has announced plans to sue to stop the rules.

Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

As major anti-transgender bills loom and Congress prepares to vote on sweeping restrictions on transgender healthcare over the next two days, Representative Sarah McBride gathered with reporters outside the Capitol to denounce what she called the Republican Party’s “obsession” with transgender people. McBride was joined by Representatives Ocasio-Cortez and Johnson for the press scrum, which comes at a critical moment: two high-profile bills—one proposing a national felony ban on trans youth healthcare and another seeking to bar Medicaid coverage—are expected to receive floor action, alongside anticipated moves by the Trump administration to pressure hospitals nationwide through Medicaid restrictions.

“So, we are two legislative days away from the Affordable Care Act tax credits expiring, when millions of people will see their healthcare premiums skyrocket, And GOP leadership, with that deadline fast approaching, has decided to schedule two votes on anti-trans bills and precisely zero votes on extending the Affordable Care Act tax credits,” started McBride, before turning to Republican obsession on transgender people.

“They would rather have us focus in and debate a misunderstood and vulnerable one percent of the population instead of focusing in on the fact that they are raiding everyone’s healthcare in order to pay for tax breaks for the wealthiest one percent. All Republican politicians care about is making the rich richer and attacking trans people. They are obsessed with trans people. I actually think they think more about trans people than trans people think about trans people. They are consumed with this and they are extreme on it.”

McBride’s comments come as Congress weighs two major anti-transgender bills. The first, introduced by Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, is expected to be heard today. The bill would enact a nationwide ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth, imposing penalties of up to 10 years in prison on those who provide such care. With amendments expected, the bill could extend its reach beyond doctors to parents as well, a move that would be devastating for transgender healthcare nationwide. While the bill is not expected to survive the Senate, it will function as a high-stakes messaging vote—particularly for Democrats facing pressure from political consultants to shift right on transgender issues, and for Republicans representing more moderate districts. Notably, Democrats recently secured major electoral victories in races where transgender rights featured prominently, a political reality that may give some Republicans pause before embracing the measure.

The second bill, introduced by Representative Dan Crenshaw, would ban Medicaid from covering gender-affirming care nationwide. The proposal is expected to be framed as a more “moderate” alternative to Greene’s felony ban—an apparent effort to peel off support from centrist Republicans and potentially even some Democrats. Like many recent Republican proposals, Crenshaw’s bill also embeds a rigid definition of sex, legally grounding it in reproductive capacity, language the party has increasingly attempted to codify across federal legislation related to gender.

McBride focused on the extreme nature of the bills, including the parental jailing provisions, stating, “They are bringing forward a bill that would put parents and providers at risk of being jailed—literally jailed—for affirming their transgender child and following medical best practices. t is already hard enough to raise a family today. It is already hard enough to be a kid today. And families with transgender young people are navigating complicated and complex situations, making deeply personal healthcare decisions. And regardless of what decision you might make as a parent, government should never insert itself into the personal healthcare decisions of patients, parents, and providers. That is a basic principle and a basic right that should be afforded to all Americans, including transgender people and their families.”

The language marked some of the harshest criticism McBride has leveled at Republicans to date over their targeting of transgender people. She has herself been the subject of Republican attacks, including a bathroom ban advanced earlier this year by Rep. Nancy Mace that appeared aimed directly at her. While McBride has faced criticism since her election—over interviews and statements on transgender rights, including from myself—her forceful posture and visible pushback against this legislation are likely to be received as a welcome sign by transgender people who want to see Democrats in Congress meet these attacks with more than quiet resistance.

You can contact your representatives today to urge them to vote against the anti-transgender provisions. At least one Democrat has expressed uncertainty on how she will vote, Representative Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (WA), and several other Democrats have voted for anti-trans provisions this year, including: Henry Cuellar (TX), Donald G. Davis (NC), Cleo Fields (LA), Shomari Figures (AL), Laura Gillen (NY), Jared F. Golden (ME), Vicente Gonzalez (TX), Adam Gray (CA), Susie Lee (NV), John W. Mannion (NY), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (WA), Kim Schrier (WA), and Thomas R. Suozzi (NY).

Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The Trans Relocation Guide: Finding Trans Asylum and Safe Havens offers resources to help trans people in the US understand and navigate the relocation process within the U.S. or abroad.

Kill me. I'm so traumatized from the last year that I barely function. I keep trying to do the work but I need psych care that would put me at more risk now that mental healthcare providers are giving data to ICE.

I look out of the window from the room in which I sleep and its raining hard. I'm near Renton Washington and everywhere is flooding, people are dying, and things are getting worse as the weather pummels Washington.

Folks are helping me. The community here is amazing but I am still so afraid of everyone. I put on my best big girl face, hike up my dress, and do the work but it's not helping. Every day I grow more isolated and feel more alone. All these trees remind me of how I survived hanging myself. They remind me how small I am. The terror of scale with no one to hold me is almost unbearable.

The praxis of accepting help is a the hardest labor I've ever done. Nothing feels right. Everything is getting worse and these amazing folks who are showing great love and support need it returned. I can't do that and it hurts in a way that I can't explain.

I keep saying that the parts of me that have been burned away weren't needed. That they weren't important but its not what I feel. I don't have dreams for a future. Those were burned away. So was my success at not self harming for decades. This isn't a forge and I'm meat not metal. I am doing my best but for reals I'm not okay.

I was approved for psych disability so i have more than nothing. I guess that's something for as long as the feds keep paying and I stay out of their grubby little hands.

Maybe I'll wake up and I'll not think im in my car or cry out. The folks here haven't mentioned it but they must hear me having the night terrors.

I can't talk about big stuff that might put the face of yours truly on the public front line of our fight for international asylum. I'm fucking terrified of becoming visible in a way that increases danger for me. I'm hoping I don't fuck it up because trans children and their families need asylum. I can't imagine the consequences of our failure on this front. I can barely stand, psychologically, and I don't want to do any of this. I want to go to sleep for good not take on a truckload more fuckin guilt and responsibility than I already feel.

I need rest. I'll be sure to keep fighting. Not for me because I'm not there yet but tomorrow I'll fight to stay, for Faye. Tomorrow is for Faye.

kthxbye - Opal

Thank you for reading till the end. Have some pics so you can fall in love with me and make me your pretty princess and protect me.

In its decision, organization cites province's bill affecting transgender athletes

What happened

Going against policy, the UK's EHRC chose to not record (or perhaps even destroy) the meeting minutes for a 2023 consultation with trans groups after one of its worst acts towards their rights.

This meeting was the day after the EHRC sent its now infamous letter to Kemi Badenoch, suggesting the Government to rewrite the Equality Act by redefining the words sex, man, and woman to mean “biological sex"

Context for Americans etc.

For context, the EHRC is the UK's primary human rights organisation. However, since Kishwer Falkner's takeover in 2020, the organisation has taken a clear trans-exclusive direction that has only gotten worse over time.

They offer guidance to businesses and the government on how to interpret human rights laws. That guidance authority has been used to twist the meaning of legislation intended to protect minority groups, against all legal precedent, to instead use as a basis for removing the rights of trans people specifically.

The EHRC has since rarely met with trans organisations when deciding how to advise on their rights. Instead, they frequently meet with trans hate groups like Sex Matters. This is to the point that their views closely mirror these hate groups.

Back to the article

Looking at the meeting notes, it's clear why they chose to hide them, as it's clear that they were entirely unable to justify their change in definition of sex and gender, and they knew that it went against the stances of most other human rights organisations.

Have a read for yourself. The long pauses are wild.

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/7011204

cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/12980

On 3 December, the Women’s Institute announced its “sincere regret” that it will no longer accept trans women as members. The next week, on 8 December, Good Morning Britain (GMB) aired an interview with a trans woman expressing her upset at being expelled.

However, she — Rowena Purdy — also argued that the Women’s Institute should allow “fully transitioned” trans women to join as members. This article is about why this line of thinking is dangerous, regressive bollocks at a moment when trans people’s rights are on the line.

GMB tweeted:

A trans woman, who has been a member of the Women's Institute for nearly 10 years, is being forced to leave after the organisation decided it can no longer offer trans women membership. The W.I. will restrict membership to only those born female from next year, because of a… pic.twitter.com/lyo32So26c

— Good Morning Britain (@GMB) December 8, 2025

Discriminatory and voluntary

As the Canary’s HG previously reported, Melissa Green — the chief executive of the National Federation of Women’s Institutes — said it made the decision to ban trans women with the “utmost regret and sadness”. She stated that:

To be able to continue operating as the Women’s Institute – a legally recognised women’s organisation and charity – we must act in accordance with the Supreme Court’s judgment and restrict formal membership to biological women only.

She added:

But the message we really want to get across is that it remains our firm belief that transgender women are women, and that doesn’t change.

Since the Supreme Court’s ruling on sex in the Equality Act in April, many organisations have either willingly or under pressure from TERFs been excluding trans women and girls. The actual legal pressure to do so is, however, dubious at best.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) took down its interim trans guidance from its website on 15 October. This was the document which held that trans people should be excluded from spaces aligned with their lived gender.

Further, equalities minister Bridget Phillipson hasn’t written EHRC’s trans code into law. As such, there’s absolutely no legally binding basis to exclude trans people.

However, that hasn’t stopped organisations like the Women’s Institute from pre-emptively moving to obey whatever they think the law might be. That they firmly believe that trans women are women is immaterial. Their actual actions are discriminatory and completely voluntary, all in fear of getting sued by some transphobe with deep pockets.

Transmedicalism 101

Anyway, enter Rowena Purdy who argued on GMB that:

We all know that there are men who put dresses on and go around and call themselves women and think that they may now be trans women, but they’re not. To be a trans woman you’ve got an awful lot of medical things to go through. […] And on my behalf, I’m now fully transformed, fully transitioned, and so I go to WI.

As a good rule of thumb, if your argument at any point sounds like a slight variation on something a bigot who wants you to stop existing would say, it’s probably a good idea to reconsider. ‘Men in dresses trying to get into women’s spaces‘ is transphobic shit. Purdy went on to say:

I think the waters are very muddied by people who literally do put a dress on and try and get into womens’ ‘spaces’, if you like, and I think that’s wrong.

Now, regarding Purdy’s argument, presenter Richard Madeley said:

I’ve not heard someone in your position say this before

The problem is that most trans people will have heard this from someone within their communities before. Its a position called ‘transmedicalism’. It’s an ideology that used to be more dominant, but has thankfully waned in recent years.

As Pink Newsexplained:

Often, self-proclaimed transmedicalists will, falsely, claim that a portion of the community are “legitimate” trans people, under a vaguely defined list of requirements such as gender dysphoria or desire for surgery. Anyone who does not fit that criteria, to a transmedicalist, does not have a true trans identity. […]

The belief has since spawned a long list of exclusionary sub-beliefs, such as the idea that non-binary people do not exist and are not valid, and that over the past few years some influencers have begun identifying as trans to keep up with a “trend,” insultingly called “transtrenders”.

We can’t abandon one another

Transmedicalism is harmful for a number of reasons. First and foremost, to transmedicalists like Purdy, it reduces trans identity from something one simply is to something that’s done to you. ‘True’ transness becomes a reward reserved for people who can play the medical establishment game and access HRT and surgery.

As a reminder, the government is desperately trying to restrict access to trans medical procedures. The waiting list for even a dysphoria diagnosis is measured in years. And outside of the NHS, transitioning costs tens of thousands of pounds, which many trans people don’t have.

As such, hinging who gets to be a True Trans on ‘whoever the government allows to transition’ is a non-starter.

Some trans people don’t want surgery because they would like to have children one day. Others can’t have surgery because of healing disorders like keloid scarring. Some people can’t afford surgery, or can’t spend months inactive for recovery because of family commitments.

We’re at an extraordinarily dangerous moment for trans rights in the UK. However, the answer to that — as trans people and allies — cannot be to start throwing each other under the bus. If one portion of the community gets to keep their rights but everyone else lost them, that’s a loss for all of my trans siblings.

I can’t believe I actually have to say this

I don’t want to jump through smaller and smaller hoops for a state that hates me in order to receive a scrap of validation. I’m trans because I am trans. It’s no more complex than that.

Beyond that, I’m going to try to put this as simply as I can:

I don’t think a trans woman’s ability to join an organisation best known for jam and knitting (among many other wonderful endeavors) should hinge on her willingness to allow herself to be sterilised. Would you people fucking listen to yourselves?

Feature image via Unsplash/Norbu Gyachung

By Alex/Rose Cocker

From Canary via This RSS Feed.

Warning could change due to the latest presidential election.

Kast had a damning history of prejudice: he had railed against the ‘indoctrination’ of children through so-called ‘gender ideology’, had insisted that a transgender woman was in fact a man and years earlier, on a day when Government House had been lit up in rainbow colours, he had tweeted angry accusations that the Bachelet government had surrendered to the ‘gay dictatorship’.