Liz Saila

@lizsaila

738 Folgt2.514 Follower2.392 Posts

Website Bluesky

trans

Ist das dein Profil?Übernimm es — dann gehört dir lizsaila.dirty.social.Profil übernehmen

Liz Saila@lizsaila· Jul 1

Yeah... I'm picking away at adding more data to 2011-2013 atm. Right now those years may be a little light on representation more for the corresponding positive legislation graph than the negative one, but here's where it's at today (thumbnail clips the interesting bits)

Graph of "Number of Bills" on the Y axis (ranging from 0 to 1000) vs. "Year" on the X axis ranging from 2004 to 2026.

Red columns represent anti-queer bills targeting sexual orientation, Blue columns for targeting gender identity.
The left half of the graph up to 2015 is dominated by red columns, at their largest in 2004 with a wave of anti-same-sex marriage bills in the wake of Massachusetts legalizing marriage equality effective that year. It's at 138, then the numbers drop into the 50s and 60s for most of 2007-2014 with single digit numbers for the anti-trans bills.

Then we get the first wave of anti-trans bathroom bans in 2015 peaking in 2016 with 73 and dropping off after North Carolina HB 2 got a bad reaction.

There was a regrouping at the October 2017 Values Voters Summit and the big model bills against gender affirming health care and trans sports were developed for the 2020 and 2021 sessions and the blue columns shoot up.

Slightly obscured by the tall blue columns of multiple hundred anti-trans bills, especially from 2023 onward, is the accompanying rise of anti-LGB bills, by last year exceeding the 2004 peak.

Liz Saila@lizsaila· May 17

When you look at the numbers of bills targeting gay, lesbian, bi, & pan folks the past few years, they've grown to match or exceed their prior high water marks in the immediate aftermath of marriage legalization in Massachusetts in 2004 - which you might not notice for all the anti-trans bills.

Bar graph of number of bills targeting vs sexual orientation (in red and dominating the earlier years) and gender identity (in blue and dominating more recent years) spanning from 2004 (the immediate aftermath of legal same-sex marriage in Massachusetts) through 2026.

Starting around 2022, while gender identity targeted bills surge, the bills targeting based on sexual orientation meet or exceed the numbers doing so in the 2004-2008 era at their prior peak. Raw data and numbers at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Cw2QMIulP1Uq31qem0FLdgSV92F_k70YGWjyYnfZHeA/edit?usp=sharing

Liz Saila@lizsaila· Feb 26

How it started How it's going

Headline from October 2017:
Values Voter Summit Panelist: 'Divide & Conquer' To Defeat 'Totalitarian' Trans Inclusion Policies

Headine from Erin in the morning:
Kansas Sends Letters To Trans People Demanding The Immediate Surrender Of Drivers Licenses

The legislature did not include a grace period

Erin Reid
Feb 25, 2026

Liz Saila@lizsaila· Oct 18

Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) at the Boston No Kings rally today, wore the trans pride flag like a scarf draped over his shoulders and included in his speech. "Because here in Massachusetts, we stand for what is right. We stand with trans people because trans rights are human rights."

Sen. Ed Markey, a white man with white hair, standing at a lectern with a dark background, and Sen Elizabeth Warren to camera right, in a black top with a red blazer. Markey wears a trans pride flag draped over his shoulders. The closed caption reads "trans people because trans righs are human rights. We" The chiron underneath reads "No Kings Rally Underway In Boston"

Liz Saila@lizsaila· Sep 9

A couple things: The HHS budget for 2026 below, Sec 244 is exactly the same as the Markup budget for the Justice & Commerce Departments & Science Markup budget Section 610. (Left pic) It's also similar to what they tried to pass in last year's HHS budget (US 2023 HB 9029) Sec. 247.

Screenshot of a section of this year's Full Committee Markup bill for the Departments of Commerce, & Justice, and for Science Appropriations for FY 2026.

Text reads: "SEC. 610. None of the funds made available by this act may be used for any social, psychological, behavioral, or medical intervention performed for the purposes of intentionally changing the body of such individual (including by disrupting the body’s development, inhibiting its natural functions, or modifying its appearance) to no longer correspond to the individual’s biological sex."

Excerpt from US bill 2023 HB 9026, the Appropriations Bill for the Department of Labor, HHS, and the Department of Education, Section 247.

Text reads: "SEC. 247. None of the funds made available by this or any other Act may be used for social transitioning, or for drugs or surgery that alter bodily sex traits as interventions for gender dysphoria."

Liz Saila@lizsaila· Aug 25

Your periodic reminder that the notion that the brain isn't fully developed until age 25, is bullshit. The push to use it as an incremental goal-post shift for things like gender affirming health care bans is similarly based on bullshit. slate.com/technology/2...

Left side: black text on white background; Right side comic book panel

Left side text:
Panel from Outlaws (March 2020)

Writer: Eve L. Ewing
Artist: Kim Jacinto
Color Artist: Espin Grundetjern
Letterer: VC's Clayton Cowles

Right side: comic book panel showing testimony before a Congressional committee. In the foreground, a white man with brown hair, glasses, wearing a grey-brown suit coat, white button down shirt and red and yellow striped tie. He points to an 8 1/2" x 11" piece of paper with the picture of a brain on the top and text below. He stands in front of a table upon which rests a pen and paper. Seated to the image's left is a similarly attired woman with ginger hair. Standing in teh background are three additional white men in dark suits with white shirts, in front of brown, wood paneled walls with high ceilings.

The standing man with the brain picture has a speech bubble reading:

"...the adolescent brain. As you can see here. The prefrontal lcortex is not fully developed until age 25.
This affects impulse control, risk-taking behaviors--"

Liz Saila@lizsaila· Apr 6

We have these at the @legialerts.org archive as well, going back to 2009 data. bsky.app/profile/lizs...

Graph titled "Anti-LGBTQ Bills by Type and Year" showing Number of Bills (range or y axis) vs. Year (domain or x axis)

The Bills axis goes from 0 to 200.
The Year axis goes from 2009 to 2025.

There are 6 lines of different colors representing different types of bills. In general, they start with very low numbers from 2009 through 2014.

The yellow line representing Bathroom bans rises in 2015 and 2016 and drops again through 2022 before rising again.

The other bill types rise beginning in 2020, with a small peak for sports bans in 2021 (higher than the bathroom bans from earlier) and a very large peak for all types in 2023, slight drops in 2024 and sharp rises again in 2025.

The data from right to left are:
Blue: Gender Affirming Care Ban

2025 117
2024 87
2023 164
2022 43
2021 36
2020 25
2019 7
2018 5
2017 5
2016 1
2015 1
2014 0
2013 1
2012 1
2011 0
2010 2
2009 4

Red Sports Ban
2025 115
2024 55
2023 77
2022 58
2021 68
2020 23
2019 5
2018 1
2017 2
2016 3
2015 5
2014 1
2013 1
2012 0
2011 0
2010 0
2009 0

Yellow: Bathroom Ban

2025 76
2024 48
2023 37
2022 11
2021 6
2020 4
2019 8
2018 18
2017 35
2016 40
2015 12
2014 2
2013 3
2012 0
2011 1
2010 0
2009 0

Green: Don't Say Gay

2025 42
2024 49
2023 90
2022 27
2021 12
2020 1
2019 1
2018 0
2017 0
2016 1
2015 0
2014 0
2013 0
2012 0
2011 0
2010 0
2009 0

Orange: End Legal Recognition
2025 72
2024 51
2023 39
2022 4
2021 2
2020 8
2019 3
2018 1
2017 10
2016 10
2015 1
2014 1
2013 1
2012 0
2011 0
2010 0
2009 0

Grey: Forced Outing By Schools

2025 42
2024 49
2023 90
2022 27
2021 12
2020 1
2019 1
2018 0
2017 0
2016 1
2015 0
2014 0
2013 0
2012 0
2011 0
2010 0
2009 0

Liz Saila@lizsaila· Apr 6

Current graphs of Anti-LGBTQ bills vs. year. 1st overall bills & laws enacted. 2nd breaks down those explicitly targeting based on gender identity and based on sexual orientation. All taken from the Big Compilation Anti-LGBTQ Legislation Sheet. @legialerts.org docs.google.com/spreadsheets...

Graph titled "Anti-LGBTQ Bills" showing Number of Bills (range or y axis) vs. Year (domain or x axis)

The Bills axis goes from 0 to 1000.
The Year axis goes from 2009 to 2025.

There are four data lines with points and numbers marked on them, all starting with low numbers and rising to higher numbers.

Labeled above the graph:
Blue represents Bills Active Current Year
Green: Carried over from Prior Year's Session
Yellow: Enacted
Red: Total Bills Current Session

The data from right to left are:

Red line:

2025 857
2024 858
2023 626
2022 212
2021 166
2020 97
2019 57
2018 69
2017 67
2016 96
2015 51
2014 54
2013 32
2012 48
2011 53
2010 45
2009 18

Blue Active Current Year:
2025 846
2024 667
2023 612
2022 183
2021 163
2020 86
2019 56
2018 60
2017 65
2016 63
2015 50
2014 46
2013 29
2012 24
2011 51
2010 33
2009 18

Green Carried Forward to Next Session
2025 0
2024 14
2023 243
2022 15
2021 60
2020 3
2019 23
2018 1
2017 21
2016 2
2015 37
2014 1
2013 16
2012 3
2011 30
2010 2
2009 17

Yellow Enacted
2025 46
2024 63
2023 88
2022 25
2021 23
2020 3
2019 1
2018 2
2017 6
2016 2
2015 1
2014 0
2013 3
2012 2
2011 5
2010 0
2009 0

Graph showing Number of Bills (range or y axis) vs. Year (domain or x axis)

The Bills axis goes from 0 to 1000.
The Year axis goes from 2009 to 2025.

There are three data lines with points and numbers marked on them, all starting with low numbers and rising to higher numbers.

Labeled above the graph:

Blue represents Bills Active Current Year
Red: Bills Targeting Gender Identity
Yellow: Bills targeting Sexual Orientation

The data going from right to left are:

Blue Active Current Year:
2025 846
2024 667
2023 612
2022 183
2021 163
2020 86
2019 56
2018 60
2017 65
2016 63
2015 50
2014 46
2013 29
2012 24
2011 51
2010 33
2009 18

Red Targeting Gender Identity

2025 671
2024 466
2023 558
2022 165
2021 136
2020 67
2019 26
2018 30
2017 57
2016 58
2015 21
2014 5
2013 6
2012 2
2011 2
2010 2
2009 4

Liz Saila@lizsaila· Nov 21

PSA Do not engage, Block.

Liz Saila@lizsaila· Nov 6

Channeling my stress and angst.

Picture of a resistor - a tan cylinder with slightly wider diameters on its ends, and with a white metal wire extending from either side. The color code bands have been replaced with the light blue, pink, white, pink, and light blue of the trans pride flag. It is on a white background with the words "Trans Resister" below.

Liz Saila@lizsaila· Oct 27

Looking at the trends in anti-LGBTQ data over time from 2009 to 2024, you can see the same-sex marriage bans dominate before 2014 (though I need to fill in more post-Obergefell data), followed by the bathroom bans from 2015-2018 then it all shoots up peaking in 2023 with GAC bans dominating.

Screencap of a graph titled “Anti-LGBTQ Bill Types By Year” plotting Number of Bills on the range (Y) axis (ranging from 0 to 200), vs. Year on the domain (X) axis (running from 2009 to 2024).
The key to the right of the graph lists six different bill types which are: “Gender Affirming Care Ban, Sports Ban, Trans Bathroom Ban, Don’t Say Gay, Drag Ban, Same-Sex Marriage Ban”

Broadly, the same-sex marriage bans dominate the left-most part of the graph from 2009-2014, peaking with 39 bills in 2011, then follows the Trans Bathroom ban bills dominating from 2015-2018, plateauing in 2016 and 2017 around 36 bills.

With all types starting with low numbers in 2019, there is a sharp rise of sports bans and gender affirming care bans starting in 2020, with sports bans dominating for 2021 with 67 to GAC bans’ 43, and with all bill types but marriage peaking in 2023 with GAC bans at 151, Don’t Say Gay at 88, sports 71, drag bans 49, and trans bathroom bans 32.

For 2024 there’s a drop in all types except for a slight rise in bathroom bans to 39. The other types, besides marriage, are still very high with GAC bans at 78, sports 53, Don’t Say Gay 45, and drag bans 35.

Liz Saila@lizsaila· Oct 18

These are the data on numbers of anti-LGBTQ+ bills proposed, enacted, failed, and carried over to the next year for the past decade. Older data may underrepresent anti-LGBTQ+ bills that were focused on sexual orientation only.

Data table with 10 sets of two rows. Each row has the first 7 columns with a red background, and the final two with an orange background. Data and title follow:

Title: Anti-LGBTQ Legislation by Year

Total Bills 2024 Session: 857;
2024 Bills: 673;
Carried Over from 2023 Session: 184;
Enacted: 61;
Vetoed: 10;
Failed: 515;
Carried Forward to 2025 Session: 12;
Pass Rate: 9.06%;
Fail Rate: 76.52%;

Total Bills 2023 Session: 591;
2023 Bills: 591;
Carried Over from 2022 Session: 0;
Enacted: 86;
Vetoed: 1;
Failed: 253;
Carried Forward to 2024 Session: 241;
Pass Rate: 14.55%;
Fail: 42.81%

Total Bills 2022 Session: 209;
2022 Bills: 182;
Carried from 2021 Session: 27;
Enacted: 25;
Vetoed: 1;
Failed: 148;
Carried to 2023 Session: 6;
Pass: 13.74%;
Fail: 81.32%;

Total Bills 2021 Session: 159;
2021 Bills: 159;
Carried from 2020 Session: 0;
Enacted: 20;
Vetoed: 3;
Failed 71;
Carried to 2022 Session: 58;
Pass: 12.58%;
Fail: 44.65%;

Total Bills 2020 Session: 94;
2020 Bills: 83;
Carried from 2019 Session: 11;
Enacted: 3;
Vetoed: 0;
Failed: 78;
Carried to 2021 Session: 1
Pass: 3.61%;
Fail: 93.98%;

Total Bills 2019 Session: 57;
2019 Bills: 57;
Carried from 2018: 0;
Enacted: 1;
Vetoed: 0;
Failed: 32;
Carried to 2020: 24;
Pass: 1.75%;
Fail: 56.14%;

Total Bills 2018 Session: 66;
2018 Bills: 57;
Carried from 2017: 9;
Enacted: 2;
Vetoed: 0;
Failed: 54;
Carried to 2019: 1;
Pass: 3.51%;
Fail: 94.74%;

Total Bills 2017 Session: 64;
2017 Bills: 64;
Carried from 2016: 0;
Enacted: 5;
Vetoed: 0;
Failed: 39;
Carried to 2018: 20;
Pass: 7.81%;
Fail: 60.94%;

Total Bills 2016 Session: 62;
2016 Bills: 56;
Carried from 2015: 6;
Enacted: 2;
Vetoed: 1;
Failed: 51;
Carried to 2017: 2
Pass: 3.57%;
Fail: 91.07%

Total Bills 2015 Session: 21;
2015 Bills: 20;
Carried from 2014: 1;
Enacted: 0;
Vetoed: 0;
Failed: 11;
Carried to 2016: 9;
Pass: 0.00%;
Fail: 55.00%

Liz Saila@lizsaila· Oct 2

One of Vance's more recent anti-trans jokes/fear stokes is the notion that students would be doing better at school if they didn't take on the mental load of learning about "87 genders". I figure I should be ready if he brings that up tonight. I'm not sure about 87, but I've got ideas for a few:

Text reads:
h. The following prepositions govern the accusative case:
ad, to
adversus, against
ante, before
apud, at, among
circiter, about
circum, around
cis, this side of
citra, this side of
contra, against
erga, toward
extra, outside
in, into, against
infra, below
inter, between
intra, within
juxta, near
ob, on account of
per, through
post, after
praeter, past
prope, near
propter, on account of
secundum, next to
sub, under, toward
super, over
supra, above
trans, across
ultra, beyond
versus, toward

Hines, Lillian M., Welch, Edward J. Hopkinson, Joseph W. Our Latin Heritage Book II, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York, 1966. page 434

Liz Saila@lizsaila· Sep 26

Updated data bad bills this year not including carryovers in the state: about 660, including federal bills - about 700 including carryovers - about 850. Bad laws so far: 60.

A line graph plotting Anti-LGBTQ+ legislation (bills in blue, laws in red) vs. time (in years). The legislation count axis (Y) runs from zero to 800. The Time axis (X) runs from 2011 to 2024. The data plot lines that are small value and steady then rising at the year 2020 and sharply rising at 2023.

The data are:
2011: 1 bills, 0 laws
2012: 1 bills, 0 laws
2013: 3 bills, 0 laws
2014: 2 bills, 0 laws
2015: 19 bills, 0 laws
2016: 51 bills, 2 laws
2017: 59 bills, 3 laws
2018: 43 bills, 2 laws
2019: 46 bills, 2 laws
2020: 79 bills, 3 laws
2021: 148 bills, 18 laws
2022: 171 bills, 26 laws
2023: 567 bills, 86 laws
2024: 661 bills, 60 laws

Liz Saila@lizsaila· Jun 10

How it started _and_ how it's going. A plot of amount anti-LGBTQ+ legislation (bills in blue, laws in red) in the U.S. vs. time from 2011 to now, excluding the pre-Obergefell (2015) anti-marriage equality bills.