IN THE NEWS
Two New Studies Undermine the Entire Basis for Trans Athlete Bans
The science moved. The policy didn’t.
Feb 10
In the span of five days in late January and early February, two research teams on two continents published findings that undercut the central empirical claim behind every major ban on transgender women in sports: that prior testosterone exposure confers permanent physical advantages hormone therapy cannot erase. The first, a longitudinal brain imaging study out of Germany, tracked structural changes in 64 trans participants over six months of gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) and found receptor-driven cortical remodeling—the brain physically reorganizing in response to hormones. The second, the largest meta-analysis ever conducted on transgender athletes, reviewed 52 studies and 6,485 participants and found no statistically significant differences in strength or aerobic capacity between trans women and cis women after one to three years of hormone therapy.
Both landed the same week the NCAA’s blanket ban on transgender women athletes turned one year old. The ban covers more than 530,000 student-athletes. When the NCAA’s president, Charlie Baker, was asked by Congress in December 2024 how many of those athletes were transgender, he said he was aware of “fewer than 10.” He called the ban “clarity.”
Ari's Threads is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
The brain study
The Hüpen team used surface-based and voxel-based morphometry—imaging techniques that measure the thickness, folding, and depth of the brain’s outer layer—to track what happened to cortical architecture over six months of GAHT. They found distinct, divergent changes in cortical thickness: localized thickening in trans men, widespread thinning in trans women, with both groups converging in the occipital cortex. These spatial patterns aligned with maps of where sex hormone receptors are most densely concentrated in the brain, suggesting a receptor-mediated mechanism—meaning the brain was responding to hormone therapy through its own existing receptor infrastructure, in region-specific patterns.
Improved psychological well-being paralleled the neurobiological changes.
There are some caveats to these findings. As of now, the study has not been peer-reviewed. A sample of 64 trans participants is large for neuroimaging—most prior longitudinal studies in this area have worked with far smaller cohorts—but not definitive. Six months is enough to detect cortical changes, not enough to map their full trajectory. The finding is consistent with prior literature on estrogen’s effects on brain morphology, but questions about long-term outcomes remain open.
The sports study
The same week, a different set of researchers was looking at a different question: whether hormone therapy changes what the body can do.
The Sieczkowska meta-analysis in the BJSM reviewed 52 studies covering 2,943 trans women, 2,309 trans men, 568 cis women, and 665 cis men, ages 14 to 41. After one to three years of hormone therapy, trans women showed no significant differences from cis women in upper-body strength, lower-body strength, or maximal oxygen consumption (VO₂ max)—the standard measure of aerobic fitness. Trans women did retain higher absolute lean body mass than cis women. That difference did not translate into superior functional performance.
The evidence has real limitations. The studies reviewed were mostly low-certainty and varied in quality. Only 16 of 52 included any physical activity assessment. Only seven controlled for confounding factors like training history, diet, and baseline fitness. Most participants were not competitive athletes. There is essentially no data on elite-level trans athletes.
Prof. Alun Williams of Manchester Metropolitan University—who has received International Olympic Committee research funding and has published findings reaching different conclusions—offered a critique in the Science Media Centre’s expert roundup: the longitudinal data does not show convincing evidence that hormonal treatment eliminates the known performance gap between men and women. Strength measurements depend on voluntary effort, and none of the reviewed studies assessed effort directly. Hormonal treatment after puberty does not change skeletal dimensions like height, limb length, or shoulder width.
The absence of data on elite trans athletes does not demonstrate that elite trans athletes have an advantage. It demonstrates that the sample barely exists. As the BJSM authors note: “Transgender women remain under-represented in elite athletics, highlighting the lack of dominance by transgender athletes in practice.”
The distinction between “finding no evidence of advantage” and “proving no advantage exists” is real. It is also the distinction that separates “more research” from “blanket ban.”
The policy
The bans preceded both studies by a year. On February 5, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14201, titled “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports,” directing federal agencies to withhold funding from educational institutions that allow transgender women to compete on women’s teams. The NCAA changed its participation policy the following day—not after a review period, not after consulting the evidence base. The following day. Baker praised the order for providing “a clear, national standard.”
That standard applied to fewer than 10 known transgender athletes out of 530,000. For context: the NCAA has more student-athletes named “Jake” than it has transgender women competing in women’s sports. Baker called the situation a matter requiring immediate national clarity. He did so within 24 hours of being told to by the president.
Since then, according to the Movement Advancement Project, more than two dozen states have enacted bans on transgender athletes in school sports. In November 2025, USA Hockey quietly approved a new Participant Eligibility Policy—adopted in response to directives from the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee, which had itself aligned with Trump’s executive order—barring trans athletes from all sex-restricted programs. The ban extends to adult recreational leagues. It takes effect April 1, 2026.
Harrison Browne—the first openly transgender professional hockey player, who competed in the National Women’s Hockey League from 2015 to 2018 and came out as a trans man in 2016—told reporters: “USA Hockey is basically telling me I can’t play in a recreational league with friends that I played my entire career with.”
Under the new USA Hockey rules, trans men who have begun testosterone therapy cannot compete in women’s leagues (because they’ve taken testosterone) or in men’s leagues (which Browne described as unsafe for gender non-conforming individuals). The co-ed option remains. The sex-restricted option—every sex-restricted option—does not.
What the evidence says about what the policy says
The blanket bans rest on a specific empirical claim: that transgender women retain inherent physical advantages from prior testosterone exposure, advantages that hormone therapy cannot erase. The largest meta-analysis ever conducted on the question, published in a peer-reviewed journal, found that the data does not support that claim for the functional performance metrics—strength, aerobic capacity—on which the bans rely. The Hüpen brain study, if it survives peer review, further undermines the “experimental treatment” frame by documenting receptor-mediated neurobiological changes consistent with established endocrinology.
Neither study is conclusive. The BJSM evidence is mostly low-certainty. The brain study is a preprint. Williams’s critiques about skeletal dimensions and effort-dependent strength testing deserve engagement, not dismissal. The scientifically honest position is that the question is not fully resolved.
The policy position is that the question is settled. It was settled on February 6, 2025, the day after the executive order, when Baker called it “clarity.” It was settled for a population he estimated at fewer than 10 people.
Bruno Gualano, the lead senior author of the BJSM study, told El País: “Most of these policies are based on the assumption that transgender women retain inherent physical advantages and would therefore dominate women’s competitions. The data does not support this idea.”
On April 1, USA Hockey’s policy takes effect. Harrison Browne will be ineligible for women’s recreational leagues and men’s recreational leagues. Both. For beer hockey.
Conversion Therapy Since 1886: A Dark History of the Discredited Practice
Even though conversion therapy is psychologically damaging, the Supreme Court appears poised to overturn Colorado’s ban on the practice.
Feb 10
Design by Sophie Holland.
This story was produced in partnership with @hankycodemagazine, an LGBTQ+ history publication.
Throughout history, the belief that homosexuality is a disease that needs treatment has been pervasive. During the Cold War, the moral panic from the “lavender scare” caused many folks to view homosexuals as national security risks. And many still believe that homosexuality is a threat to the nuclear family.
Since at least the 1800s, doctors and religious organizations have created various types of conversion therapy in an effort to cure LGBTQ people. But over time, the practice has become widely condemned by major medical organizations, 24 states have banned it for minors and a United Nations expert has said it “may amount to torture.”
Despite this, the Supreme Court appears set to overturn Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy in a case that was brought forth by Southern Poverty Law Center-designated anti-LGBTQ hate group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF).
The history and development of conversion therapy is long and complex. To make sense of it, here’s a timeline of key events over the last 140 years.
1886
Richard von Krafft-Ebing. Photo from the National Library of Medicine.
German psychiatrist Richard von Krafft-Ebing publishes “Psychopathia Sexualis,” a foundational sexology text that describes homosexuality as a psycho-neuropathic degenerative illness. Krafft-Ebing attempts to convert patients to heterosexuality through hypnosis. The practice marks an early foundation of what later becomes known as conversion therapy and reflects the medical community’s early efforts to find a cure for homosexuality.
According to the “Encyclopedia of Gender and Society,” Krafft-Ebing’s stance drastically changed by the end of his life:
“The experience of getting to personally know and work with such a great number of homosexual individuals made him change his initial views that same-sex desire was caused by hereditary degeneracy and accompanied by mental affliction and moral corruption. He came to the conclusion that most of his subjects were physically, mentally, and morally healthy, and that homosexuality was not the result of mental illness.”
1897
Magnus Hirschfeld, who was dubbed the “Einstein of Sex,” was unique in an era when people tried to cure LGBTQ people because he used science to argue against homophobia. In his 1902 “psychobiological questionnaire,” for example, he sought to provide data to show that homosexuals weren’t mentally ill. In 1897, he founded the Scientific Humanitarian Committee, the first LGBTQ rights organization, which had the motto: “Through science to justice.” Rather than trying to cure a patient’s homosexuality, he provided consultations to patients, often free of charge. Notably, Hirschfeld—who founded the Institute for Sexual Research in 1919—was the first documented physician in the world to provide hormone treatments and modern gender-affirming surgery to transgender folks. His work, however, would be tragically short lived when the Nazi’s destroyed the institute in 1933.
1899
German psychiatrist, physician and paranormal researcher Albert von Schrenck-Notzing claims he turned gay men straight through 45 sessions of hypnosis and trips to the brothel. Schrenck-Notzing’s theory stems from the now debunked idea that behavioral modification—such as forcing patients to engage in heterosexual activity with sex workers—could cure homosexuality.
1913
Abraham Brill. Photo from the National Institutes of Health.
American psychiatrist Abraham Brill publishes “The Conception of Homosexuality” in the Journal of the American Medical Association. He writes:
“Of the abnormal sexual manifestations that one encounters none, perhaps, is so enigmatical and … so abhorrent as homosexuality. … I can well recall my first scientific encounter with the problem, ten years ago, when I met a homosexual who was a patient in the Central Islip State Hospital. Since then I have devoted a great deal of time to the study of this complicated phenomenon.”
Brill claims that “curing” homosexuality is possible, worth pursuing and that he’s achieved it multiple times. He distinguishes himself by practicing psychoanalysis and by criticizing physical “treatments” his peers experiment with, such as bladder washing, rectal massage and castration.
1918
Physiologist Eugen Steinach and surgeon Robert Lichtenstern—who both believe that homosexuality is caused by the testicles—begin work on the connections between hormones and homosexuality and publish “Conversion of Homosexuality through Exchange of Puberty Glands.” The article describes an experiment in which Lichtenstern replaces the testes of homosexual men with those of heterosexual men. After the transplant, they study the men’s sexual tendencies and conclude that heterosexual inclinations replace homosexual ones following surgery. However, the surgeon’s varying results lead medical professionals to doubt the validity of their findings.
1920
Sigmund Freud. Photo by Ferdinand Schmutzer.
In “THE PSYCHOGENESIS OF A CASE OF FEMALE HOMOSEXUALITY,” Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, argues that homosexuality develops under specific conditions and describes conversion as unlikely. Unlike many of his predecessors, Freud does not see homosexuality as an illness or neurosis. He writes that “to convert a fully developed homosexual into a heterosexual does not offer much more prospect of success than the reverse.”
1930
Austrian physician and psychologist Wilhelm Stekel views homosexuality as a disease and publishes “Is Homosexuality Curable?” in The Psychoanalytic Review. Like Freud, he focuses on psychoanalysis and says that treatment works best when the patient wants it, writing:
“My experience during the past few years absolutely confirms my belief that homosexuality is a psychic disease and is curable by-psychic treatment. Tersely expressed: This disease in question is not a congenital condition but a psychic state which can be handled by treatment correctly applied.”
1952
The American Psychiatric Association (APA) defines homosexuality as a mental disorder in the first edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), a book that outlines recognized mental disorders and provides symptoms and evaluation criteria. The DSM classifies it as a “sociopathic personality disturbance.” This fuels a new era of psychiatrists and psychoanalysts who offer theories and cures, including talk therapy; aversion therapy, such as electric shocks or nausea-inducing drugs; hypnosis; and—in some cases—lobotomies.
1956
Psychoanalyst Edmund Bergler claims that if gay people want to change and receive the right therapeutic approach, they can be cured in 90% of cases. He uses confrontational therapy and frames punishment and shame as part of treatment, saying homosexuals suffer from “psychic masochism.” He publishes books with titles such as “Homosexuality: Disease or Way of Life” and “Counterfeit-Sex: Homosexuality, Impotence, Frigidity.”
In a 2025 paper in The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, the authors criticize Bergler’s findings, writing that:
“[He] pathologized homosexuality as a psychological illness and a moral failing, reinforcing the stigmatizing narratives about same-sex desire in mid-20th-century psychiatry. By sensationalizing his work through inflammatory language, Bergler positioned himself as a moral crusader, blurring the line between scientific inquiry and ideological condemnation.”
1973
After years of pressure from gay activists, the APA finally removes homosexuality from the DSM. The removal prompts many medical professionals to distance themselves from conversion therapy techniques. However, the DSM still contains “sexual orientation disturbance”—which would later be renamed “ego-dystonic homosexuality”—referencing individuals who are conflicted about their sexuality. For the next 14 years, this would serve as a backdoor to legitimizing conversion therapy as a valid practice.
Frank Worthen. Screenshot via Homosexual Confusion Redeemed.
A so-called “ex-gay” Christian ministry, Love in Action—also known as Restoration Path—is co-founded by Frank Worthen, who describes himself as a former homosexual.
One of their programs, Refuge, was a two-to-six week conversion therapy camp. Participants—mostly teenage boys—would spend their days engaging in acts such as “healing touch,” where the organization’s leaders would cradle and rock the boys in an effort to cure them.
In 2005, 16-year-old Zach Stark, who was a participant, wrote on his MySpace blog:
“Even if I do come out straight, I’ll be so mentally unstable and depressed it won’t
matter.”
1987
The APA removes “ego-dystonic homosexuality” from the DSM-III-R, with experts arguing:
“If there are no categories of mental disorders for short people who are unhappy with their height, eye colour or complexion, then why should there be one for distress related to sexual orientation?”
1991
Joseph Nicolosi.
American clinical psychologist Joseph Nicolosi publishes “Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality: A New Clinical Approach.” In the book, Nicolosi advocates for conversion therapy for “non-gay homosexuals,” or people who face conflict due to the societal stigmatization of their sexuality and—as a result—do not want to be gay.
1992
Alongside psychiatrists Charles Socarides and Benjamin Kaufman, Nicolosi launches the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality. The organization positions itself against mainstream medical views of sexuality and aims to “make effective psychological therapy available to all homosexual men and women who seek change.”
1998
Family Research Council, the American Family Association and 13 other far-right Christian groups spend $600,000 to promote the effectiveness of conversion therapy through full-page newspaper ads, including in The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. Family Research Council Director of Cultural Studies Robert Knight describes the ads as the “Normandy landing in the culture war.”
A few months later, the APA releases a position statement formally rebuking any “reparative” or “conversion” therapy designed to change a person’s sexuality. The position states that reparative therapy runs the risk of harming patients by causing depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior. The APA joins the American Psychological Association, the American Association of Social Workers and the American Academy of Pediatrics in making a policy against reparative therapy.
2001
U.S. Surgeon General David Satcher issues a report stating that “there is no valid scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed.” That same year, American psychiatrist Robert Spitzer publishes a study that claims highly motivated homosexual people can become primarily heterosexual with the help of reparative therapy.
2009
The American Psychological Association adopts a resolution stating that patients should not be advised they can change their sexuality and that treatments predicated on homosexuality being an illness promote harm. Judith M. Glassgold, the chair of the task force, says:
“There is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation.”
2012
Exodus International, a major “ex-gay” faith-based ministry network that expanded into hundreds of local ministries since it was founded in 1976, publicly renounces conversion therapy. Their president, Alan Chambers, says, “We do not subscribe to therapies that make changing sexual orientation a main focus or goal.” Shortly after, Chambers would close the organization and apologize to participants for the “hurt” its programs caused.
That same year, Spitzer recants his study: “I owe the gay community an apology for my study making unproven claims of the efficacy of reparative therapy.”
2013
New Jersey becomes the first state to ban conversion therapy for minors by licensed psychologists, with the law receiving no pushback and immediately going into effect. This contrasts with California, which passed a ban in 2012 but received legal pushback and a preliminary injunction that delayed its enactment into law.
2018
Researchers at San Francisco State University find that attempted suicide rates among LGBTQ youth more than double when parents attempt to change their sexual orientation, and those rates increase further when therapists and religious authorities attempt conversion therapy.
2021
ADF, the Christian legal group that helped overturn Roe v. Wade, files a lawsuit on behalf of Brian Tingley, a licensed marriage and family counselor in Washington State. In the suit, ADF argues that the ban on conversion therapy practices hinders Tingley’s ability to treat patients despite the abundance of evidence showing how harmful said practices are.
The case is dismissed, appealed, dismissed again, denied to be reheard and finally declined to be heard by the Supreme Court in 2023. One judge states that health care providers should not be able to treat gay children by telling them that they are “the abomination [they] had heard about in Sunday school.”
2023
A letter titled “United States Joint Statement Against Conversion Efforts” is signed by 28 medical and psychological associations. It reads: “The purpose of the United States Joint Statement (USJS) is to protect the public by committing to end the practice of so-called conversion therapy in the US, which could have a spillover effect in other countries as well.”
2025
Twenty-seven states, D.C. and Puerto Rico have some form of protection for youth against conversion therapy. However, none of these protections apply to religious leaders.
Photo: Fred Schilling
The Supreme Court hears oral arguments in a case brought forward by Colorado mental health counselor Kaley Chiles, who argues that her state’s conversion therapy ban infringes on her freedom of speech. Chiles is represented by ADF. After hearing oral arguments in October 2025, the Supreme Court appears set to side with Chiles and the Christian legal group.
The court will rule on the case later this year. If they side with ADF, their decision could have implications for other states with conversion therapy bans and undermine care and rights for LGBTQ youth across the country—more than 40% of whom seriously considered suicide in 2023.
Additional reporting by Nico DiAlesandro.
Trans Youth Suicides Skyrocketed In UK After Care Drawdown; Government Covers It Up
A Freedom of Information request to the National Child Mortality Database reveals that 22 trans children under 18 died by suicide in England in 2021-22 alone.
Feb 9
In 2024, whistleblowers familiar with internal discussions at the Tavistock gender clinic in the United Kingdom revealed to the Good Law Project that employees were privately alarmed by a spike in suicides among transgender youth following severe restrictions on care in the aftermath of the Bell v Tavistock ruling. This information was never made public, with administrators concerned that it could cause reputational damage to the clinic. Following the Good Law Project's reporting, the UK government commissioned a report, known as the Appleby Report, that claimed there were only a handful of suicides and denied any increase, with many anti-trans political figures and activists then patting themselves on the back and absolving themselves of any blame. Now, after years of fighting for the data, the Good Law Project has received responses to freedom of information requests from the National Child Mortality Database (NCMD) and discovered that the government report significantly undercounted transgender youth suicides: deaths rose roughly fivefold in the immediate aftermath of the Bell v Tavistock ruling, with a devastating 22 trans kids taking their own lives in a single year.
The data, obtained through a freedom of information request to the NHS-funded National Child Mortality Database, paints a devastating picture. Between 2019 and 2025, 46 trans children under the age of 18 died by suicide in England. The year-by-year breakdown is stark: 5 in 2019-20, 4 in 2020-21, 22 in 2021-22, and 10 in 2022-23, with the remaining spread in the later years. The massive spike in 2021-22 follows directly on the heels of the Bell v Tavistock ruling in December 2020, after which NHS England imposed restrictions on gender-affirming care for young trans people. By contrast, the Appleby Report—the government's official response to inquiries from whistleblowers about rising suicides—examined only the narrow pool of youth who had actually become patients of the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) at the Tavistock, finding just 12 total suicides over six years including adults. The NCMD data captures nearly four times as many deaths among children alone. Importantly, for later years, suicide reports have not been completed, and it is likely that some of the numbers for later years will rise significantly.
The gap between the Appleby Report, which was used to absolve the government of any culpability in trans youth deaths, and the Good Law Project's freedom of information request is no accident, but rather, a deliberate framing choice. The Appleby Report only examined patients of GIDS. But in the aftermath of the Bell v Tavistock ruling, wait times for GIDS appointments skyrocketed, now sitting at an estimated average of 25 years. Youth who were suffering no longer saw a pathway to gender-affirming care. Referrals stalled. Diagnoses became increasingly impossible to obtain. As restrictions piled on, these young people saw their future pathways to obtaining gender-affirming care shuttered in front of them. These youth were ignored in the Appleby report.
More alarming is what appears to be an explicit attempt to cover up trans youth suicide deaths. Those who seek to restrict gender-affirming care also seek to restrict any information showing those restrictions may lead to harm. Among the far right, claims have emerged that transgender youth are in no danger of suicide from the withdrawal of gender-affirming care, but this could not be further from the truth. Numerous studies have shown high suicidality among trans youth and increasing suicidality in places where anti-trans legislation has taken root. Rather than report honestly on the impact of their policies, the UK government appears to have tried to cover it up.
“Those of us in or close to the trans community have been to the funerals of those we love. And we have wept together for those we have been unable to save on Trans Day of Remembrance. We know the truth – we see it with our own eyes. And, to us, the decision by Wes Streeting to commission a review into suicides which downplayed the scale of these tragedies was unforgivable. His report denied the reality of trans deaths, as Streeting’s ban on puberty blockers denied the reality of trans lives,” reads the Good Law Project report.
The UK government fought hard to keep transgender suicide data from the public, and now, two years after its attempt to bury the deaths of children, that data is out. Even what has been released is limited: the NCMD’s own response indicates that its methodology may not capture all transgender youth suicides in the country, meaning the true toll is likely higher. But what is now known is the grisly impact that anti-trans restrictions have had on the youth of England. And in the United States, where a similar effort to restrict gender-affirming care is underway across the nation, it is likely that similar devastation is unfolding, unreported and silent.
You can view the Good Law Project’s report here, and the NCMD and UK government data responses here and here.
Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.
European Parliament Votes Overwhelmingly For "The Full Recognition Of Trans Women As Women"
The resolution, though nonbinding, is a significant shot at those who seek to erode transgender rights on the continent.
Feb 13
On Wednesday, the European Parliament voted to adopt a resolution establishing the European Union's priorities for negotiations at the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, the principal global body dedicated to gender equality, which convenes in New York next month. The resolution was progressive in many ways, including protections for abortion access and opposition to online hate speech targeting women. But perhaps its boldest provision was a call for the full recognition of transgender women as women—a statement that has already drawn ire from the global right, which has fought to roll back transgender rights both in the United States and abroad, and one that may signal the European bloc is increasingly willing to defend transgender people on the world stage.
Item (y) of the report recommends that the Council of the European Union "emphasise the importance of the full recognition of trans women as women, noting that their inclusion is essential for the effectiveness of any gender-equality and anti-violence policies" and "call for recognition of and equal access for trans women to protection and support services" when the EU attends the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women next month. The resolution passed 340-141, with 68 members abstaining. Though the resolution is non-binding, it establishes a significant policy position for the European Parliament moving forward.
Significantly, the vote gathered support not only from left-leaning groups but also from the majority of the European People's Party, the largest and most powerful center-right bloc in the European Parliament. The center-right support drew sharp criticism from the far right: the Patriots for Europe group, which includes Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán's Fidesz and French far-right leader Marine Le Pen's National Rally, voted against the resolution and denounced its exclusion from negotiations over the text. The European Conservatives and Reformists, the group of Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni's Fratelli d'Italia, also voted against. But their combined opposition was not enough to block the resolution, which passed with support from a broad cross-ideological majority.
The vote puts the European Union on a direct collision course with the United States heading into the same forum. On Trump's first day in office, he signed a slew of executive orders targeting transgender people, withdrawing federal recognition of transgender identities and ordering agencies to stop funding anything that "promotes gender ideology." At last year's session of the Commission on the Status of Women, the Trump delegation disassociated itself from the session's political declaration, declaring that the administration would "defend Americans from unhealthy and extremist gender ideology" and that "women are biologically female, and men are biologically male," while also rejecting the United Nations' 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development entirely. The two positions are now set to collide again when the Commission convenes in New York next month.
The reaction from the global far right was swift, with many commentators expressing dismay and anger at the progressive policy statement. CitizenGO, a Madrid-based conservative advocacy group, described the resolution as part of a "pro-abortion" and "gender ideology" agenda and said it would campaign against it at the upcoming UN session. Genevieve Gluck, cofounder of anti-trans blog Reduxx, called it "legalizing sexual predation" and accused the European Parliament of trying to "get to children." Cristian Terhes, president of the Romanian National Conservative Party—which sits in the European Conservatives and Reformists group alongside Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni's Fratelli d'Italia—said that "recognizing legally that a man who pretends to be a woman is a woman undermines the very essence of our civilization and the progress made in protecting the rights of actual women." Terhes comes from a conservative party in a country with the one of the worst records on LGBTQ rights of any EU member state.
The resolution will now go to the Council of the European Union ahead of the Commission on the Status of Women next month. The Parliament's recommendation is not binding on the Council, but it will form a significant foundation for the Council’s stances. The European Parliament will also send its own delegation to the Commission on the Status of Women when it convenes in New York on March 9. Whatever comes of the negotiations there, the Parliament has made its position clear: in a world where conservative leaders of countries are working hard to erase transgender people, Europe may be willing to push acceptance at the world stage.
Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.