Figure 1: Count of Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination Laws in the Year 2024
A resurgence of backlash against the rights of transgender individuals is posing a renewed threat to the protections for this community in the United States. Legislatures in a range of states have introduced numerous anti-trans bills, aimed at diminishing rights such as access to gender-affirming healthcare and legal gender recognition. In response to this growing anti-trans sentiment, many states have recently begun passing gender identity nondiscrimination laws. While only 3 states had nondiscrimination protections in 2000, by last year, more than two-thirds of states (37) have enacted at least one such law.
Although the legal presence or absence of such laws doesn’t fully capture the experiences that transgender individuals face, the legal landscape can provide us insight into the broader structural support or discrimination they may encounter. These laws legalize protections in employment, public accommodations, housing, education, insurance, and state employment. Some state legislatures, such as Wisconsin, have outlawed discrimination in all six areas based solely on sexual orientation, but have only recently added a gender identity clause to three of these laws. It is imperative not to conflate sexual orientation and gender identity, as they are distinct and involve unique challenges that cannot be compared.
Figure 1 illustrates the political environment encountered by the trans community using data from the Human Rights Campaign’s State Inequality Index (HRC) and the Movement Advancement Project (MAP), which provides a comprehensive overview of state-level policies assessing the extent of protections for LGBTQ+ communities. In short, the figure suggests that a plurality of states have adopted some measure of anti-discrimination policy, while others have taken an antithetical stance, enacting policies that undermine equality and contribute to a fragmented legal framework.
While many states along the East and West Coasts have established protections in all six areas, much of the Deep South has yet to solidify equality legally. In states like Alaska, political unrest driven by conservative interest groups led the state’s human rights agency to rescind all existing interpretative protections in 2022, except those in employment. This regional disparity characterizes the polarization occurring across the United States over transgender rights, with individuals being able to easily discern when they've crossed into ‘red’ or ‘blue’ territory. Moreover, the Supreme Court's decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia made it federally illegal to discriminate against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity in the context of employment. However, this protection only applies at the federal level, meaning the community remains vulnerable to permissible discrimination in states without protective laws. Other inconsistencies include state legislatures’ reluctance to establish protective regulations, and instead deferring to agencies and attorneys general to interpret existing prohibitions on sex discrimination as encompassing sexual orientation and gender identity. These nuances become problematic when protections vary widely between states, leaving transgender individuals vulnerable to discrimination in areas without legal safeguards. Fortunately, states have been consolidating equality in recent years to ameliorate the disparities faced by the trans community.
Since Governor Whitmer took office, Michigan has made significant progress in gender identity anti-discrimination laws, most notably with the recent extension of the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act in 2023. Prior to this, Michigan offered minimal protections in housing, public accommodations, and employment related to gender identity. Conversely, several Southern states have found alternative methods to provide a measure of protection. Despite Florida's Republican-controlled government, the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) has stated that they explicitly interpret existing protections against discrimination to cover sexual orientation and gender identity as well. Although trans identities are not overtly protected by law there, state agencies like the FCHR have made an effort to extend existing ones to marginalized communities.
Figure 2: Religious Exemption Laws in the Year 2024
As more anti-discrimination laws are enacted, certain state legislatures have countered by passing religious exemption laws intended to defend religious freedoms. These exemptions weaken the permeance of anti-discrimination protections by enabling organizations to bypass these standards if they conflict with their religious beliefs, morals, or conscience. Currently, 28 states have passed a state Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), designed to shield religious liberties from what are perceived as infringements by anti-discrimination laws. [BY1] As shown in Figure 2, these types of laws are now in place in 29 states, making them more common than not across the country. Additionally, Arkansas and Tennessee are two states with three types of anti-equality laws, specifically that have state laws prohibiting municipalities from passing nondiscrimination ordinances that would protect categories broader than those protected by state laws.
The legislative effort to eradicate transgender individuals from public life has led many states to counteract by passing protective laws to provide legal safeguards. This denotes a complex situation, positioning the community at the intersection of these legislative decisions and facing the impact of conflicting policies. Codifying the presence of their rights, or lack thereof, can provide insight into the politicized landscape this community navigates.
[BY1]I would add a direct reference to Figure 2 - you included it in the blog post but I don’t see a discussion or a connection to it. Just adding a sentence like, “As indicated in Figure 2…”
