News
Spanish lawmakers reject transgender rights bill
Activists say prime minister’s party blocked measure
Lawmakers in Spain last week voted against a bill that would have allowed transgender people to legally change their gender without medical or psychological interventions.
The Congress of Deputies on May 18 by a 143-78 vote margin with 120 abstentions rejected the “Proposed Law for Real and Effective Equality of Transgender People,” which Human Rights Watch in a press release notes “would also have allowed non-binary and blank gender markers on identity documents, acknowledging the rights and dignity of people who do not identify with a rigid gender binary.”
Mané Fernández, vice president of Federación Estatal de Lesbianas, Gays, Transexuales y Bisexuales (FELGTB), a Spanish LGBTQ advocacy group, on Monday told the Washington Blade during a telephone interview from Gijón, a city in the Asturias region of northern Spain, said Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez’s Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party and the governing coalition of which it is part promised to introduce the bill.
Trans activists have accused the PSOE of blocking it. The Associated Press in March reported Deputy Prime Minister Carmen Calvo, who is a PSOE member, said the measure could undermine the rights of women and other groups.
Mar Cambrollé Jurado — a trans activist in Spain who is the president of Asociación Trans de Andalucía-Sylvia Rivera, president of Federación Plataforma Trans and RESPETTTRANS’ Europe spokesperson — on Monday noted trans activists began a hunger strike on March 11.
Human Rights Watch in its press release notes all PSOE members of the Congress of Deputies voted against the bill. Cambrollé told the Blade that “it seems to us that Spain, with the Socialist Party’s vote, has set LGBTI rights in Spain back 10 years.”
“It is inconceivable that a party that has a historical trajectory of defending LGBTI rights and social advances has voted against allowing us trans people to have a legal framework that guarantees us equality of opportunities to access basic rights like employment, education, sport,” said Cambrollé. “[It would also] regulate the issue of trans people in prison, protection of children, trans migrants, the recognition of non-binary trans people and specifically provide historic reparations to those trans people who were victims of the (Franco) dictatorship and today live in the utmost precariousness.”
“We are not only talking about the right to self-determination of gender,” Fernández told the Blade.
“We are talking about all that it makes up and about how it effects any person or any citizen in Spain, or children who have to get an education, occupational health and the judiciary,” added Fernández.
Argentina and Malta are among the countries in which trans people can legally change their gender without medical or psychological intervention. Fernández said FELGTB remains optimistic the bill “will be approved” during the current government.
District of Columbia
Celebrations of life planned for Sean Bartel
Two celebrations of life are planned for Sean Christopher Bartel, 48, who was found deceased on a hiking trail in Argentina on or around March 15. Bartel began his career as a television news reporter and news anchor at stations in Louisville, Ky., and Evansville, Ind., before serving as Senior Video Producer for the D.C.-based International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers union from 2013 to 2024.
A memorial gathering is planned for Friday, April 10, 11:30 a.m.-1:30 p.m. at the IBEW International Office (900 7th St., N.W.), according to a statement by the DC Gay Flag Football League, where Bartel was a longtime member. A celebration of life is planned that same evening, 6-8 p.m. at Trade (1410 14th St., N.W.).
Puerto Rico
The ‘X’ returns to court
1st Circuit hears case over legal recognition of nonbinary Puerto Ricans
Eight months ago, I wrote about this issue at a time when it had not yet reached the judicial level it faces today. Back then, the conversation moved through administrative decisions, public debate, and political resistance. It was unresolved, but it had not yet reached this point.
That has now changed.
Lambda Legal appeared before the 1st U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston, urging the court to uphold a lower court ruling that requires the government of Puerto Rico to issue birth certificates that accurately reflect the identities of nonbinary individuals. The appeal follows a district court decision that found the denial of such recognition to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
This marks a turning point. The issue is no longer theoretical. A court has already determined that unequal treatment exists.
The argument presented by the plaintiffs is grounded in Puerto Rico’s own legal framework. Identity birth certificates are not static historical records. They are functional documents used in everyday life. They are required to access employment, education, and essential services. Their purpose is practical, not symbolic.
Within that framework, the exclusion of nonbinary individuals does not stem from a legal limitation. Puerto Rico already allows gender marker corrections on birth certificates for transgender individuals under the precedent established in Arroyo Gonzalez v. Rosselló Nevares. In addition, the current Civil Code recognizes the existence of identity documents that reflect a person’s lived identity beyond the original birth record.
The issue lies in how the law is applied.
Recognition is granted within specific categories, while those who do not identify within that binary structure remain excluded. That exclusion is now at the center of this case.
Lambda Legal’s position is straightforward. Requiring individuals to carry documents that do not reflect who they are forces them into misrepresentation in essential aspects of daily life. This creates practical barriers, exposes them to scrutiny, and places them in a constant state of vulnerability.
The plaintiffs, who were born in Puerto Rico, have made clear that access to accurate identification is not symbolic. It is a basic condition for moving through the world without contradiction imposed by the state.
The fact that this case is now being addressed in the federal court system adds another layer of significance. This is not a pending policy discussion or a legislative proposal. It is a constitutional question. The analysis is not about political preference, but about rights and equal protection under the law.
This case does not exist in isolation.
It unfolds within a broader context in which debates over identity and rights have increasingly been shaped by the growing influence of conservative perspectives in public policy, both in the United States and in Puerto Rico. At the local level, this influence has been reflected in legislative discussions where religious arguments have begun to intersect with decisions that should be grounded in constitutional principles. That intersection creates tension around the separation of church and state and has direct consequences for access to rights.
Recognizing this context is not an attack on faith or religious practice. It is an acknowledgment that when certain perspectives move into the realm of public authority, they can shape outcomes that affect specific communities.
From within Puerto Rico, this is not a distant debate. It is a lived reality. It is present in the difficulty of presenting identification that does not match one’s identity, and in the consequences that follow in workplaces, schools, and government spaces.
The progression of this case introduces the possibility of change within the applicable legal framework. Not because it resolves every tension surrounding the issue, but because it establishes a legal examination of a practice that has long operated under exclusion.
Eight months ago, the conversation centered on ongoing developments. Today, there is already a judicial finding that identifies a violation of rights. What remains is whether that finding will be upheld on appeal.
That process does not guarantee an immediate outcome, but it shifts the ground.
The debate is no longer theoretical.
It is now before the courts.
National
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Interest in gun ownership has increased since Donald Trump returned to office
By JOHN-JOHN WILLIAMS IV | As the child of a father who hunted, Vera Snively shied away from firearms, influenced by her mother’s aversion to guns.
Now, the 18-year-old Westminster electrician goes to the shooting range at least once a month. She owns a rifle and a shotgun, and plans to get a handgun when she turns 21.
“I want to be able to defend my community, especially being in political spaces and queer spaces,” said Snively, a trans woman. “It’s just having that extra line of safety, having that extra peace of mind would be important to me.”
Snively is among what some say is a growing number of LGBTQ gun owners across the United States. Gun rights organizations and advocates say interest in gun ownership appears to have increased in that community since President Donald Trump returned to the White House last year.
The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner’s website.
