Protesters gathered at the Iowa state Capitol in February to oppose a newly enacted law that removed gender identity as a protected class from the state’s civil rights code. This controversial legislation, which went into effect on July 1, is the first of its kind in the United States.
Signed by GOP Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds, the law was supported by Republicans who argued that it aimed to protect the rights of women and girls. However, critics, including Democratic Rep. Aime Wichtendahl, the state’s first openly transgender lawmaker, expressed deep concerns about the detrimental impact on the transgender community. They view this move as a step backward in terms of civil rights progress in Iowa.
The law not only eliminates legal protections for transgender individuals but also seeks to redefine gender as solely synonymous with biological sex, disregarding modern medical and psychological understandings of gender identity. This means that transgender people are now prohibited from changing the gender marker on their birth certificates, further complicating their lives and potentially putting them at risk of discrimination.
The repercussions of this law are significant for transgender and nonbinary individuals in Iowa. Without the previous civil rights protections, they face heightened legal vulnerability, making it harder to challenge instances of discrimination in various areas such as employment, housing, and healthcare. Having inaccurate gender markers on official documents could also expose them to uncomfortable or unsafe situations, as they may be forced to disclose their transgender status to strangers.
Advocates and experts warn that this discriminatory law will make everyday life more challenging for transgender and nonbinary people in Iowa, increasing the risk of harassment and violence. It represents a regressive shift in the state’s approach to LGBTQ rights and could set a troubling precedent for other conservative-led states across the country.
Goldberg mentioned that Americans inquired whether similar situations are occurring in other states. According to data from the Movement Advancement Project, more than a dozen states, primarily conservative, have yet to include gender identity as a protected class in their civil rights laws. Conversely, 31 states have laws prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity, with no active bills aiming to remove these protections, as noted by Goldberg. However, the level of LGBTQ protections varies significantly from state to state.
In Texas, the American Civil Liberties Union is monitoring 88 bills deemed anti-LGBTQ during the 2025 legislative session, the most of any state. In contrast, Vermont has no bills of this nature being tracked by the ACLU.
Regarding federal action, there has been a rise in new legislation and lawsuits targeting transgender individuals nationwide. The Supreme Court may decide to hear cases related to transgender rights, potentially making it a focal point for the second consecutive year. Notably, the Court upheld Tennessee’s prohibition on certain medical treatments for transgender minors during Pride Month, a victory for conservative states.
Former President Trump, known for his stance against what he termed “transgender lunacy,” has aimed to reverse the Biden administration’s efforts for more inclusive gender identification policies. Trump has issued executive orders, such as defining only two genders, restricting transgender women from participating in women’s sports, and banning transgender individuals from serving in the military.
Trump also influenced Iowa to consider legislation aligning with his views on gender ideology. However, Iowa lawmaker Wichtendahl emphasized that transgender individuals seek the freedom to live their lives without government intervention, advocating for equal treatment under the law and a sense of dignity and rights.
