Commentary
Social inclusion key to equity in the Americas
Betilde Muñoz-Pogassian of OAS underscores need for intersectionality


Dr. Betilde Muñoz-Pogossian is the director of the Organization of American States’ Department of Social Inclusion of the Secretariat for Access to Rights and Responsibilities. (Photo courtesy of Geovanny Vicente Romero)
Editor’s note: Geovanny Vicente Romero is the Washington Blade’s newest contributor who seeks to highlight the LGBT rights movement in Latin America and efforts to extend rights to these communities.
Women’s empowerment, eradicating hunger and poverty and promoting the inclusion of people who are vulnerable. Many of those who are often treated as second-class citizens — such as people of African descent, indigenous people and members of the LGBTI community — do not have equal access to basic benefits and services as well as the protection human rights in general. These issues are part of the life and works of Dr. Betilde Muñoz-Pogossian, director of the Organization of American States’ Department of Social Inclusion of the Secretariat for Access to Rights and Equity.
Muñoz-Pogossian is Venezuelan with a PhD in political science from Florida International University in Miami and a master’s degree in international relations from the University of South Florida in Tampa, Fla.
Her more recent publications include the volume “Equity and Social Inclusion: Overcoming Inequalities Towards More Inclusive Societies” in 2016; and “Women, Politics and Democracy in Latin America” in 2017 from the “Crossing Boundaries of Gender and Politics in the Global South” series. Following her tenure of more than a decade as the OAS’ political-electoral secretariat of the OAS, in 2015, Muñoz-Pogossian assumed the leadership of working on social inclusion issues at the OAS General Secretariat.
She recently spoke with the Washington Blade in D.C. about the progress made and the main challenges regarding the equity agenda in the Americas.
BLADE: What is equity? What are the key issues in the equity agenda in the Americas?
Muñoz-Pogossian: All human beings, from the time we were kids, understand how situations of inequity feel; those situations in which due to gender, race, age, migration status, ethnicity, sexual orientation or identity, a person cannot enjoy their rights and cannot have access to all goods and services in a society. We are all equal before the law. That is a basic obligation of democratic governments. But equity is something else. Equity makes evident the differences amongst all individuals, of their life trajectories that often impede equal access to opportunities. It seeks to generate conditions to level the playing field so that all can effectively have access to education, health, housing, social protection, jobs, to the benefits of economic growth and development throughout their life cycle, and ultimately, to all their human rights. Because the Americas continues to be the most unequal region in the world, the General Secretariat of the OAS has decided to prioritize its efforts to promote more equity in the region, and to contribute to ensuring more rights for more people.
Apart from eradicating poverty and extreme poverty, the regional equity agenda must be focused on the social inclusion of populations in situations of vulnerability. The emphasis should be placed on promoting and ensuring the enjoyment of the rights of children and youth, people of African descent and indigenous peoples, LGTBI people, people with disabilities, and to continue moving forward with the gender equity agenda. This is where we have had the most progress, but where there is still much to be done.
This work needs to focus, on one hand, on generating conditions of real democracy where these populations can, on a comparable basis as the rest of the members of society, enjoy their civil and political rights, namely, to elect and be elected, to have influence in decision-making processes, and to have incidence in the political agenda. On the other hand, the equity regional agenda must refine the series of public policies that have been implemented so far to ensure a more equal distribution of the benefits of economic growth and development. But we must also move one step further regarding economic and social rights. More political will is needed to ensure the full socio-productive inclusion of these populations, and to ensure a life free of discrimination for all. This, in the end, has everything to do with their capacity to exercise their civil and political rights. Which person who has to provide for his or her basic needs regarding food, housing or health can effectively enter the political arena and compete for public office? The discussion regarding what to prioritize is a national one. The fact is, however, that the continued existence of socioeconomic inequities that are replicated in the power asymmetries in the political sphere have a negative impact for the stability of our democracies, and on the levels of citizens’ trust in political institutions. This is something that should concern us all.
BLADE: Which progress should we celebrate? Which challenges should we prioritize?
Muñoz-Pogossian: One of the most important achievements in the last few years has been to have moved the scale in favor of the gender equity agenda. Women’s right to vote is today the norm in all countries of the Americas, and legal frameworks guarantee their right to be elected. According to data from ECLAC (Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean), the average number of national female legislators went up from 9 to 25 percent between 1990-2015. Today practically all countries of the region have implemented quota or parity reforms, and some have even legislated in favor of targeted political financing for female candidacies. This has been manifested in greater representation of women in national legislatures, in ministerial cabinets, and although in 2018 we will only have one woman directing her country’s future in Trinidad and Tobago, we have had a number of women as heads of state in a few Latin American countries.
The challenge that we must prioritize is actually a historic debt that we have as a region. We have about 200 million Afro-descendants and 50 million indigenous people in the region. These populations are generally in the most vulnerable situations: 90 percent of these populations in the countries of the region live in poverty or extreme poverty, and in many cases, do not enjoy universal access to health, education, housing and potable water. This perpetuates a situation of political underrepresentation. At the same time, this translates into the formulation of public policies that do not consider the ethnic specificities of these populations, which again affects the representativeness of the decisions that emerge from the political system, and people’s trust in democracy.
BLADE: What is the OAS doing to promote the equity agenda in the region?
Muñoz-Pogossian: At the OAS Secretariat for Access to Rights and Equity for its Department of Social Inclusion, we strive to give our support to member states in their efforts to address inequality in all its forms using an integral, inclusive and sustainable approach. We base our work in the commitments established in the OAS Charter, the Social Charter of the Americas, the Inter-American Democratic Charter, the Protocol of San Salvador, and the numerous inter-American juridical instruments on human rights. The OAS work on the equity agenda is organized along three key strategic lines:
1. Supporting intersectoral dialogue processes at the highest level to capitalize national capacities, both human and institutional, as well as to promote the exchange of lessons and solutions that contribute to the full exercise of all human rights by the people of the Americas.
2. Promoting and strengthening efficient cooperation strategies and the generation of alliances amongst countries of the region to promote social inclusion and the exercise of economic, social, and cultural rights, to contribute to the eradication of poverty and extreme poverty in particular, and to revert situations of inequity and discrimination.
3.Accompanying countries of the region to fulfill obligations contained in the inter-American normative frameworks regarding development, social inclusion and no discrimination of groups in vulnerable situations, to ensure the effective protection of their human rights.
We at the OAS understand equity as the goal, and social inclusion as the process to achieve it. Promoting more rights for more people is our strategy to tip the scales in favor of equity in the region.
At the end of the conversation with Muñoz-Pogossian, it is clear that, although there is much to do, there has been important progress made in our region to ensure more social and political equity. It is also clear that we have the tools to do it. Via legislation, administrative measures and public policies with a rights-based perspective, we can reverse situations of inequity. The work is monumental, urgent and difficult because we are dealing with people who are in highly vulnerable situations. The work, however, is worth it because it brings us closer to having better democracies and better societies.
Commentary
America’s detransition: The far-right’s coordinated attack on climate policy and trans rights
Progress framed as ‘mistake that must be undone’

What if the far-right’s endgame isn’t just stopping progress, but erasing it altogether? From banning trans healthcare to reversing climate policies, they aren’t just resisting change — they’re trying to force the world back into an imaginary past that never existed.
Across climate policy and trans rights, the right isn’t just opposing change — it’s actively detransitioning America, unraveling progress under the guise of “common sense” and “restoring order.” But this isn’t just about ideology. It’s about power.
From pulling out of the Paris Agreement to banning gender-affirming healthcare, the right has perfected a political strategy that frames progress as a mistake that must be undone. Whether it’s climate action or trans visibility, any step toward justice is framed as dangerous, unnatural, and in need of correction.
And if we look closer, these attacks aren’t just similar — they are deeply connected. By comparing the right’s climate rollbacks and its war on trans rights, we can see a broader strategy at work: One that fuels fear, manufactures doubt, and ultimately serves the interests of those already in control.
The fight isn’t just about policy. It’s about who gets to belong in the future.
The manufactured crisis: Who profits from reversal?
To justify rolling back both trans rights and climate protections, the right leans on manufactured crises — presenting change as a dangerous social experiment gone wrong. And the most effective way to do that? Weaponizing doubt.
Take climate change. Despite overwhelming scientific consensus, climate denialists cherry-pick uncertainties — using rare instances of changing climate models to cast doubt on the entire field.
Similarly, the right has latched onto detransition stories, amplifying a handful of cases where individuals regret transitioning to suggest that all trans people will regret their identities.
By focusing on individual regret rather than systemic realities, these movements create the illusion that climate action and trans healthcare are harmful mistakes rather than necessary progress. The message is clear: We must “correct” these wrongs by detransitioning the country back to a time before this supposed damage occurred.
But who actually benefits from this rollback?
- Fossil fuel companies profit from climate skepticism, ensuring we remain dependent on dirty energy.
- Right-wing politicians fundraise off anti-trans fearmongering while avoiding economic issues that might actually improve people’s lives.
By making people believe they are “fighting back” against elites, the right obscures the actual elites profiting from this manufactured outrage.
The spectacle: Turning trans lives and climate policy into distractions
None of this would work without media spectacle. Right-wing politicians and media outlets know that the most effective way to keep people from questioning power is to keep them emotionally invested in a performance.
Take the far right’s obsession with trans youth. They flood the airwaves with panic over puberty blockers, despite the fact that gender-affirming care is exceedingly rare.
A peer-reviewed study analyzing private insurance claims found that out of more than 5 million adolescents ages 8 to 17, only 926 received puberty blockers and 1,927 received hormone therapy between 2018 and 2022.
Similarly, climate policies are attacked as elitist schemes to control the working class — painting green energy initiatives as an attack on personal freedom, just as gender-affirming care is framed as an attack on children.
By shifting the focus onto symbolic enemies — the “radical trans activist” or the “climate elitist” — the right gives people someone to hate while avoiding the real sources of economic and environmental crisis.
And this isn’t just a cultural strategy. It’s a business model.
Capitalism is in the business of creating problems, then selling solutions.
- Oil companies push carbon capture technology while continuing to pollute — ensuring the crisis is never fully solved, only managed.
- The right promotes “detransition support” while banning trans healthcare, creating a crisis where one didn’t exist.
Both strategies ensure that nothing actually changes, while making people feel like they’re participating in a fight for freedom.
It’s a distraction, and it’s working.
Nature as a battleground: The far-right’s fear of fluidity
At its core, the war on trans people and the war on climate action stem from the same fear: The fear of change.
Queer ecology tells us that nature itself is fluid, adaptive, and in constant transition. Yet, the far-right insists on rigid, binary categories:
- Man/Woman.
- Fossil Fuels/Renewables.
- Traditional/Disruptive.
In both cases, fluidity is framed as unnatural — something that must be controlled through political intervention.
- Fossil fuels are labeled “natural” energy, while renewables are framed as “forced” and “unnatural”—a rhetorical tactic explored in a 2025 study on far-right climate discourse.
- Trans identities are labeled “unnatural choices,” requiring government bans to prevent people from making “mistakes.”
But what’s truly unnatural? The attempt to freeze society in time. The climate has always changed. Gender has always been fluid. The far-right isn’t defending nature — they’re defending control.
The far-right’s detransition obsession mirrors climate rollbacks
Capitalism is not interested in actual progress — it only cares about control.
The obsession with detransition mirrors climate rollbacks in that both are framed as necessary corrections to a mistake.
- The Paris Agreement withdrawal was presented as a return to “energy independence.”
- Trans bans are framed as returning to “biological reality.”
But the goal isn’t returning to a real past. It’s about constructing a version of the past that justifies present oppression.
- Climate denial isn’t about scientific debate — it’s about maintaining corporate power, as Time reported in 2025.
- Anti-trans laws aren’t about protecting kids — they’re about enforcing gender hierarchies, according to a 2025 New York Times editorial.
Neither of these rollbacks is accidental. They are part of a deliberate strategy of control — one that tells us that progress is always temporary and can always be reversed.
Who owns the future?
If we allow the right to detransition America, we risk a world where progress is always reversible, and power remains in the hands of those who benefit from disorder and fear.
The real question isn’t whether these issues are linked — it’s why they were ever separated to begin with. The fights for climate justice and trans rights are one and the same:
- A fight against the illusion of permanence.
- A fight against manufactured crisis and controlled reversal.
- A fight for a future that actually belongs to all of us.
So what do we do?
- We must refuse to accept their manufactured doubt — trans rights and climate action are not mistakes that need fixing.
- We must reject their false nostalgia — there is no past to return to, only a future to create.
- And most importantly, we must recognize that these struggles are connected.
If we fail to see this, we risk allowing reactionary forces to shape the future. But if we understand their playbook, we can disrupt the spectacle and refuse to let them dictate what comes next.
Because this fight isn’t about going back. It’s about moving forward — and making sure no one can take that future away.
Cody Hays is a Ph.D. student at Arizona State University’s Walter Cronkite School, researching media psychology, public understanding of science, and digital misinformation, with a focus on ideological worldviews; they are a Graduate Research Fellow in the MIDaS and Views and Values Labs, executive editor of the Journal of Public Interest Communications, and a nonprofit communications strategist with over a decade of experience in combating disinformation and mobilizing action.
Commentary
History of D.C. Pride: 1995-2007, a time of growth and inclusion
Rainbow History Project plans expansive WorldPride exhibit

In conjunction with WorldPride 2025 the Rainbow History Project is creating an exhibit on the evolution of Pride: “Pickets, Protests, and Parades: The History of Gay Pride in Washington.” In “Freedom on America’s Main Streets,” we discuss how during the 1990s the LGBTQ communities became more prominent across all areas of American life, the circumstances of moving official Pride activities to Pennsylvania Avenue, and the origin of the name “Capital Pride.”
Throughout the 1990s, LGBTQ visibility increased significantly in American society. The LGBTQ community’s presence extended beyond news coverage of AIDS activism, with members participating in various social movements. Gay Black men joined the Million Man March in 1995, carrying banners and signs proclaiming “Black by Birth, Gay by God, Proud by Choice.” Lesbians led abortion-rights rallies, LGBTQ Asians joined Lunar New Year parades, and LGBTQ Latinos marched in Fiesta DC.
Once again, financial difficulties around Pride activities led to the dissolution of the Gay and Lesbian Pride of Washington as an organization and the gay arts and culture non-profit One in Ten took over organizing Pride. One in Ten’s mission was not solely Pride planning, but rather year round activities, including an attempt to make an LGBTQ history museum. Due to the explosion of activities, the crowd sizes, and the growing concerns around feelings of exclusion brought on by the neighborhood’s identity as a primarily gay white male space, in 1995, One in Ten moved the Pride parade and festival out of Dupont Circle to Freedom Plaza on Pennsylvania Avenue.
Although the struggle for bisexual visibility had successfully added the B to the 1993 March on Washington, the push to add Trans and Queer identities to Gay Pride’s name was not yet successful; Pride was reborn as The Freedom Festival. Two years later, in 1997, the Whitman-Walker Clinic became not just a sponsor but also a co-organizer to alleviate some of the organizational and financial challenges. It was during this time that the event was officially renamed Capital Pride.
The name change sparked debate within the community. Frank Kameny, who had organized the 1965 pickets, harshly criticized the new name, arguing that it “certainly provides not an inkling of what we really mean: Pride that we are Gay.” He lamented that the name change “represents Gay shame.” However, others celebrated the inclusivity of the new name. L. A. Nash, a self-identified lesbian, wrote, “Gay is good—Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender is far better.” Elke Martin further supported the change, stating, “A name is your identity, it gives you legitimacy and a seat at the table.” Capital Pride’s official name was now “Capital Pride Festival: A Celebration of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered Community and Friends.”
In April 2000, the Millennium March on Washington highlighted divisions within the gay civil rights movement. Unlike previous grassroots marches organized by local activists, this event was orchestrated by national organizations like the Human Rights Campaign. However, its Millennium Pride Festival was by far the largest event with major headliners performing, including Garth Brooks and Pet Shop Boys. Critics argued that these events represented a corporatization of activism that sidelined political demands and local groups struggling for recognition.
In 2001, Capital Pride events were attracting 100,000 attendees. The festival was held on Pennsylvania Avenue with the U.S. Capitol in the background of the main stage. This location, often referred to as “America’s Main Street,” symbolized a significant visibility boost for the LGBTQ community. However, the Washington Post failed to cover the event beyond a simple listing in its events calendar. The outrage that ensued led Capital Pride director Robert York to state: “This is the biggest and best Pride we’ve had, and it is important to see it covered other than in the gay press.”
It wasn’t until 2007, however, that SaVanna Wanzer, a trans woman of color and Capital Pride board member, successfully established Capital Trans Pride. “The transgender community needs its own event,” Wanzer stated, “rather than just using us as entertainment. That’s all we’ve been allowed to do.” Trans Pride’s creation was a significant step toward greater inclusivity within the LGBTQ community.
Our WorldPride 2025 exhibit, “Pickets, Protests, and Parades: The History of Gay Pride in Washington,” will be installed on Freedom Plaza on May 17 to coincide with DC Trans Pride. We need your help to make it happen.
Commentary
On this Transgender Day of Visibility, we can’t allow this administration to erase us
All people deserve to have our experiences included in the story of this country

By KELLAN BAKER | Since 2009, the world has observed Transgender Day of Visibility (TDOV) each March 31. The importance of ‘visibility’ feels especially significant this year, not only as a trans person but for me as a researcher whose career has been centered on equity and inclusion for transgender people. My work over the past 16 years, which has focused on advancing fairness, access, and transparency in health care for gender diverse populations, could not have prepared me for the speed and cruelty at which the Trump administration has worked to literally erase transgender people from public life.
From banning transgender people from serving openly in the military, blocking access to best practice medical care, and making it all but impossible for us to obtain accurate identification documents that match our gender, the impact of these attacks will be felt for years to come. As a scientist dedicated to fostering the health and wellbeing of diverse communities, I am particularly devastated by the intentional destruction of the federal research infrastructure and statistical systems that are intended to ensure the accurate and comprehensive collection of data on the full diversity of the U.S. population.
The importance of data cannot be understated. This makes the efforts by the federal government to remove survey questions, erase variables from key data sets, and stifle research even more alarming. By simultaneously removing access to existing datasets, removing gender (and other key measures, such as sexual orientation, race, and disability) from key surveys, terminating federal funding for research projects that include trans people, and censoring research projects at federal data centers, this administration’s goal is to erase the lived experiences of trans people – with the idea that if we don’t exist in data and in research, the federal government can claim that we don’t exist at all.
Just in the past two months, we’ve seen a rapid decimation of the inclusion of transgender people in federal research and their visibility in the federal statistical system.
Data sets that included gender measures have disappeared from federal websites. Critical data sets used by federal and state policymakers, public health staff, and researchers, such as the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS), were removed from the CDC website in response to a Trump executive order that made it the policy of the administration to recognize only two sexes, male and female. Although some datasets have been put back up, gender variables have been removed.
Surveys that had asked about gender identity no longer do. Claiming that the removal of gender identity measures from key national surveys such as the American Housing Survey, Household Pulse Survey, and National Health Interview Survey were “non-substantial,” the Trump administration has essentially skipped the extensive notice and public comment process that is required to make these types of changes—the same process that were used to add gender identity (and sexual orientation) measures.
In addition, attempts to exclude trans people and other communities facing disparities from surveys will result in a lack of large enough sample sizes to conduct quality data analysis, while reducing any chance of analyzing racial and ethnic differences among trans people.
Hundreds of grants supporting inclusive research have been terminated. The unprecedented move of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to terminate research grants that include transgender people is just one example of this administration’s rush to eliminate funding from active scientific projects. In many cases, similar agencies are also now required to remove gender identity measures from federally supported surveys. Prominent trans health researchers have watched as their research portfolios are halted, work stopped, staff laid off, and participants left without care.
At the Institute for Health Research & Policy at Whitman-Walker, for example, we have already had seven studies terminated, with a financial impact that exceeds $3 million. One of these cancelled grants was a multi-year, longitudinal study in partnership with the George Washington University to explore the impact of structural racism and anti-LGBTQ bias on HIV risk among young queer and trans people of color nationwide. The notices of termination for this and other awards clearly spell out the administration’s disdain for groundbreaking research that seeks to understand and address health disparities related to LGBTQ populations, particularly trans people.
Censoring research. As seen with recent changes implemented by the CDC, the censorship of gender-related terms on federal websites and scientific publications is intended to further the erasure of evidence detailing the disparities faced by LGBTQ people.
On a day dedicated to honoring the lives and contributions of trans people, the impact that these egregious actions will ultimately have on the health and wellbeing of trans and nonbinary people is chilling. Without access to this knowledge, researchers will not be able to examine the repercussions of the harmful policies put forth by this administration and many states across the country, including bans and restrictions that negatively impact trans people’s physical and mental health, economic security, and educational outcomes.
Although there has been an effort by non-government entities to collect and store previously collected data prior to the Trump administration’s purges, state surveys, private research firms, and academics cannot fill the void left by the federal government’s decision to halt data inclusion. Ensuring that public entities and researchers can continue to use these datasets is only one piece of the puzzle being taken on by groups such as the Data Rescue Project and repositories like Data Lumos. Work also continues thanks to the efforts of the U.S. Trans Survey, the California Health Interview Survey (CHIS), and the important research and analysis of both Gallup and The Pew Research Center. Yet, gaps still exist due to threats of federal funding cuts to organizations committed to safeguarding inclusive data assets in the wake of the administration’s continued assault on trans rights.
This administration suggests that removing one of the only tools available for identifying an entire population of people is a “non-substantial” action. This not only questions the intelligence of the American people but is a direct insult to trans folks everywhere. All people deserve to be counted and to have our experiences included in the story of this country. Transgender people have always been a part of this country, and even if our nation’s surveys choose to exclude us, we continue to exist—authentically, unapologetically, and forever visible.
Kellan Baker, Ph.D., M.P.H, M.A., is executive director of the Institute for Health Research & Policy at Whitman-Walker.
-
Opinions4 days ago
It’s time for new leadership on the Maryland LGBTQIA+ Commission
-
The White House4 days ago
White House does not ‘respond’ to reporters’ requests with pronouns included
-
Noticias en Español5 days ago
INDIGNACIÓN: ¡El transfeminicidio de Sara Millerey en Colombia nos cuestiona como sociedad!
-
Congress5 days ago
House Republicans advance two anti-trans education bills