Connect with us

Commentary

Post midterm notes: Drexel Heard, Kipp Mueller, Max Huskins and me

Knowledgeable experts to explain what it all means

Published

on

I choked up Election Night. For months, every waking and sometimes dreaming moment not devoted to my job was consumed by the image of democracy slipping like water through my clenched fist.

The historical imperative of the midterm elections forecast a MAGA Republican tsunami victory akin to the tidal wave in Tea Leoniā€™s ā€œDeep Impact.ā€

After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, stripping us of our fundamental right to bodily autonomy and threatening to overturn marriage equality and recriminalize homosexuality ā€” which was met with the same kind of tisk-tisk reaction to decimating the Voting Rights Act ā€” the path ahead looked strewn with more murdered and maimed bodies of women, people of color and LGBTQ people who couldnā€™t fit into a gilded glass closet.  

Alarmed that the Democratic Party was not reaching out to our numerous intersectional LGBTQ communities for money, engagement, and votes as they had in the past, I felt an overwhelming compulsion to do something and coaxed my equally freaked out Millennial ally friend Max Huskins to create an LGBTQ-targeted YouTube series of candidate interviews and expert political prognostications which we would produce in partnership with the Los Angeles Blade.

We didnā€™t know if our Race to the Midterm series would make a difference ā€” but at least me and Max were not doing nothing. 

Weā€™ve interviewed a range of extraordinary people who immediately grasped our mission and wanted to participate: out Los Angeles County Democratic Party Chair Mark Gonzalez; gay Palm Springs candidate Will Rollins (here and here); Equality California Executive Director Tony Hoang; major ally candidate Christy Smith (here and here); Victory Fund President Annise Parker; California Assembly candidate Rick Chavez Zbur;Ā  TransLatin@ Coalition CEO Bamby Salcedo; U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.); National Black Justice Coalition Deputy Executive Director Victoria Kirby; and Black, gay, HIV+ Dallas candidate Venton Jones; gay military veteran candidates Shawn Kumagai (California Assembly) and Joseph Rocha (California Senate); and history-making U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) for closing arguments. (See our series, with additional ā€œadvancers,ā€ and the Bladeā€™s political coverage here.)

From top left: Karen Ocamb, Max Huskins, Kipp Mueller, and Drexel Heard
(Photo Credit: Screenshot/Huskins)

No matter the outcome, I knew we had to have knowledgeable experts to explain what it all means. I asked Drexel Heard, Black gay former executive director of the Los Angeles County Democratic Party whoā€™s now a Democratic political strategist, and Kipp Mueller, who ran for state Senate in the Santa Clarita Valley area alongside Christy Smith in her 2020 run for Congress, to share their insights with us after the dust settled a bit.

I met Kipp while working on Senate Bill 1149, the Public Right to Know Act, which was co-sponsored by Public Justice and Consumer Reports, shepherded by attorney and Legal Ethics Professor Richard Zitrin, Kippā€™s mentor. 

Little did I know that the dust settling over the midterms was choking MAGA Republicans and allowing me, Max, Drexel and Kipp to exhale, exhale, breath deeply, exhale and laugh. By the time we recorded our Zoom session, the Democrats looked likely to retain the Senate and maybe, maybe, if California broke right ā€” retain the House. What the hell! HISTORY was being made in defiance of Trump cultism. 

ā€œMy honest takeaway is that the GOP is utterly lost,ā€ Kipps says in our final episode. ā€œMy honest takeaway is that, despite all of the odds being in their favor, they’ve fumbled it. It’s amazing to me. And I have some unsolicited advice for the GOP: First, banish Trump. He’s a loser. He loses every time. He lost the popular vote in 2016 when he managed to win the Electoral College. And ever since then, he’s lost horribly ā€” every single time. And the fact that they don’t see that on the wall blows my mind. He’s a total loser. 

ā€œAnd the second,ā€ he continues, ā€œis to start standing for things. To your point about what can we take from this (California Assembly) speaker negotiation and work it into. Well, I have some conditions on that. I’m open to that with Republicans. But I have some conditions ā€” start proposing solutions; stop being a party of bizarre fearmongering about litter boxes in school bathrooms. And because they’re not going to survive the 21st century of being a party of 20th century lunatics, what do they even want? What do they stand for ā€” other than tax cuts for the rich? We know who they don’t like. We know who some of them hate. But what do they even want? I can’t even answer that …

ā€œThey’re just visionless bullies right now. And it’s only going to get worse because they might eke out a slight majority in the House, and then they’re going to have to kowtow to the likes of Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert and Trump. And they’re going to lose horribly again. So my unsolicited advice to them is ā€” become normal again.ā€

Max opined ā€œthat, hopefully, the future is looking brighter than expected, at least from our perspective here, because of Millennial turnout and the Gen Z turnout was pretty damn strong. Young people showed up to the polls and showed up to vote for important issues that pertain to all generations.ā€

Their most pressing issue, aside from student loans and climate change? 

ā€œWomen’s rights to bodily autonomy, for sure,ā€ Max says. ā€œI think that was one of the drastic social problems that we’re facing this time around, that people were motivated to go out and vote.ā€

ā€œOverturning Roe was a huge motivator for Democrats to come out, for independents to come out and vote,ā€ says Kipp. But (gay pollster) Nate Silver found that in the states where people felt like these rights were more protected, it less directly influenced turnout and people showing up.ā€

I noted to Drexel that both Mark Gonzalez and Tony Hoang strongly advocated for Proposition One, which would codify reproductive rights in the California Constitution (it passed.)  

ā€œI think a lot of folks pushed Prop One to make a national stance because as California goes, so goes the nation,ā€™ Drexel says. ā€œSo, if California is making the big push, it is going to be at the forefront of votersā€™ minds. One of the things that I have said about not just Prop One is about our Democratic messaging on since Dobbs (the case the Supreme Court used to overturn Roe and abortion rights) has been making it an economic issue, not just a reproductive freedom issue … We cannot separate Roe v. Wade from how it impacts the economy. 

ā€œWomen are a huge portion of our workforce,ā€ he explains. ā€œObviously, reproductive freedom has a huge impact on how folks ā€” how women ā€” are impacted in the workforce, and not many other states have family policies like California. ā€œI think that we box up choices. We forget how choices are impacted, not just, ā€˜Hey, I’m not ready to be a parent because I’m not ready to be a parent.ā€™ But why are you not ready to be a parent? And that is, in a lot of cases, an economic issue,ā€ that impacts the trajectory of a single motherā€™s life, such as going to college or work and paying for childcare. 

These are just some of the issues we tossed around in our casual, free-flowing conversation about the midterms and what might happen next. My thanks to Drexel and Kipp for the smart fun. 

But after we wrapped the interviews, Max mentioned an Oregon initiative that I knew nothing about ā€” Measure 112, ā€œa change to the stateā€™s constitution, stripping language that for more than a century has allowed for slavery and involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime,ā€ according to opb.org.

Wait – what? But hereā€™s the really big deal: as of Nov. 13, Measure 112 passed by 55.53 percent of the vote, compared to 44.47 percent opposed. Translation: 945,075 Oregonians voted to remove slavery language from state constitution ā€” but 756,779 Oregonians voted to KEEP the slavery language!

ā€œRemoving language referencing slavery from the Oregon Constitution is a good thing and is long over due,ā€ state Rep. Travis Nelson (D-Portland), who won election Tuesday as stateā€™s first Black, openly LGBTQ lawmaker, told OPB. ā€œItā€™s a big number … Thatā€™s troubling to me.ā€

ā€œThis was a state that was meant to be a white utopia and was not welcoming to people who were not white,ā€ Nelson added. ā€œGiven the history of Oregon, the results that have come from Measure 112 are disappointing, but not incredibly surprising.ā€

ā€œWe have conversations all the time about our Oregon values, and now we know that thereā€™s a segment of the population that values slavery being a form of punishment,ā€ Jennifer Parrish-Taylor, director of advocacy and public policy at the Urban League of Portland, which backed Measure 112, told OPB. ā€œThatā€™s a hard conversation, but I think itā€™s also reflective of the broader national conversation that weā€™re seeing just in terms of this rise of white nationalism, of racial hatred thatā€™s happening, folks feeling further and further isolated and disconnected from each other.ā€

Oregon Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley has introduced legislation that would addressed language in the U.S Constitutionā€™s 13th Amendment that has similar exceptions for slavery as a criminal punishment. ā€œThis horrific loophole in our Constitution is a moral abomination that launched the mass incarceration we see continuing to this day,ā€ Merkley said at a news conference. ā€œ[T]here should be no exceptions to a ban on slavery.ā€

I know some folks in the Deep South still love their Civil War Confederate soldier monuments. But it never occurred to me that so many Northerners would find an excuse for any exception to an outright ban on slavery. 

We have so much more work to do. 

Deconstructing the 2022 Midterms | Post-Election Special:

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Commentary

America’s detransition: The far-right’s coordinated attack on climate policy and trans rights

Progress framed as ‘mistake that must be undone’

Published

on

Beach erosion in Fire Island Pines, N.Y. The far-right has launched a coordinated attack on climate policy and transgender rights. (Photo courtesy of Savannah Farrell / Actum)

What if the far-rightā€™s endgame isnā€™t just stopping progress, but erasing it altogether? From banning trans healthcare to reversing climate policies, they arenā€™t just resisting change ā€” theyā€™re trying to force the world back into an imaginary past that never existed.

Across climate policy and trans rights, the right isnā€™t just opposing change ā€” itā€™s actively detransitioning America, unraveling progress under the guise of “common sense” and “restoring order.” But this isnā€™t just about ideology. Itā€™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 itā€™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 arenā€™t just similar ā€” they are deeply connected. By comparing the rightā€™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 isnā€™t just about policy. Itā€™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 ā€” 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 ā€” 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 ā€œcorrectā€ 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 peopleā€™s lives.

By making people believe they are ā€œfighting backā€ 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 rightā€™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 ā€” 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 ā€” the ā€œradical trans activistā€ or the ā€œclimate elitistā€ ā€” the right gives people someone to hate while avoiding the real sources of economic and environmental crisis.

And this isnā€™t just a cultural strategy. Itā€™s a business model.

Capitalism is in the business of creating problems, then selling solutions.

Both strategies ensure that nothing actually changes, while making people feel like theyā€™re participating in a fight for freedom.

Itā€™s a distraction, and itā€™s working.

Nature as a battleground: The far-rightā€™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 ā€” something that must be controlled through political intervention.

But whatā€™s truly unnatural? The attempt to freeze society in time. The climate has always changed. Gender has always been fluid. The far-right isnā€™t defending nature ā€” theyā€™re defending control.

The far-rightā€™s detransition obsession mirrors climate rollbacks

Capitalism is not interested in actual progress ā€” it only cares about control.

The obsession with detransition mirrors climate rollbacks in that both are framed as necessary corrections to a mistake.

But the goal isnā€™t returning to a real past. Itā€™s about constructing a version of the past that justifies present oppression.

  • Climate denial isnā€™t about scientific debate ā€” itā€™s about maintaining corporate power, as Time reported in 2025
  • Anti-trans laws arenā€™t about protecting kids ā€” theyā€™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 ā€” 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 isnā€™t whether these issues are linked ā€” itā€™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 ā€” trans rights and climate action are not mistakes that need fixing.
  • We must reject their false nostalgia ā€” 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 isnā€™t about going back. Itā€™s about moving forward ā€” and making sure no one can take that future away.

Cody Hays is a Ph.D. student at Arizona State Universityā€™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.

Continue Reading

Commentary

History of D.C. Pride: 1995-2007, a time of growth and inclusion

Rainbow History Project plans expansive WorldPride exhibit

Published

on

The Gay Men's Chorus of Washington performs at the Lesbian and Gay Freedom Festival on March 18, 1995. (Washington Blade archive photo by Clint Steib)

In conjunction with WorldPride 2025 the Rainbow History Project is creating an exhibit on the evolution of Pride: ā€œPickets, Protests, and Parades: The History of Gay Pride in Washington.ā€ In ā€œFreedom on Americaā€™s Main Streets,ā€ 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 ā€œCapital Pride.ā€

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.ā€ 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 Tenā€™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 neighborhoodā€™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 Prideā€™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.ā€ He lamented that the name change “represents Gay shame.ā€ However, others celebrated the inclusivity of the new name. L. A. Nash, a self-identified lesbian, wrote, “Gay is goodā€”Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender is far better.ā€ Elke Martin further supported the change, stating, “A name is your identity, it gives you legitimacy and a seat at the table.ā€ Capital Prideā€™s official name was now ā€œCapital Pride Festival: A Celebration of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered Community and Friends.ā€

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: ā€œThis is the biggest and best Pride weā€™ve had, and it is important to see it covered other than in the gay press.ā€

It wasnā€™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,ā€ Wanzer stated, ā€œrather than just using us as entertainment. That’s all we’ve been allowed to do.ā€ Trans Prideā€™s creation was a significant step toward greater inclusivity within the LGBTQ community.

Our WorldPride 2025 exhibit, ā€œPickets, Protests, and Parades: The History of Gay Pride in Washington,ā€ will be installed on Freedom Plaza on May 17 to coincide with DC Trans Pride. We need your help to make it happen.

Continue Reading

Commentary

On this Transgender Day of Visibility, we canā€™t allow this administration to erase us

All people deserve to have our experiences included in the story of this country

Published

on

The transgender Pride flag drawn near the entrance to the Stonewall National Monument in New York on March 13, 2025. The National Park Service has removed transgender-specific references from the Stonewall National Monument's website. (Washington Blade photo by Michael K. Lavers)

By KELLAN BAKER | Since 2009, the world has observed Transgender Day of Visibility (TDOV) each March 31. The importance of ā€˜visibilityā€™ 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. Ā 

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 administrationā€™s goal is to erase the lived experiences of trans people ā€“ with the idea that if we donā€™t exist in data and in research, the federal government can claim that we donā€™t exist at all.  

Just in the past two months, weā€™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 ā€œnon-substantial,ā€ the Trump administration has essentially skipped the extensive notice and public comment process that is required to make these types of changesā€”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 administrationā€™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 administrationā€™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 peopleā€™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 administrationā€™s purges, state surveys, private research firms, and academics cannot fill the void left by the federal governmentā€™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 administrationā€™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 ā€œnon-substantialā€ 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 nationā€™s surveys choose to exclude us, we continue to existā€”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.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular