Iowa Becomes First State to Remove Transgender Civil Rights Protections

cnn.com/2025/07/05/us/iowa-trans-civil-rights-law

Revised Article

Iowa became the first U.S. state to remove gender identity as a protected class from its civil rights code when a new law took effect Tuesday. The Republican-backed measure, signed by GOP Governor Kim Reynolds, ends 18 years of civil rights protection for transgender people in Iowa. Reynolds defended the law as safeguarding 'the rights of women and girls,' while Democratic Representative Aime Wichtendahl, Iowa's first openly transgender lawmaker, called it 'a dark moment in our history.'

The law significantly impacts transgender Iowans by removing state-level protections against discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations. Without these protections, transgender people who face discrimination have fewer legal options for recourse. The law also redefines gender as synonymous with biological sex and prohibits transgender people from correcting gender markers on birth certificates, potentially creating uncomfortable or dangerous situations when identification documents don't match their presentation.

While Iowa represents the first state to actively remove existing protections, more than a dozen states have never included gender identity in their civil rights laws. Currently, 31 states prohibit some form of discrimination based on gender identity, though protections vary significantly. Texas leads with 88 anti-LGBTQ bills tracked by the ACLU in 2025, while Vermont has none.

The Iowa law aligns with broader federal actions under President Trump, who campaigned on ending 'transgender lunacy' and has signed executive orders declaring only two genders exist, banning transgender women from most women's sports, and barring transgender military service. The Supreme Court recently upheld Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors, and more transgender rights cases may be heard this term. However, federal employment protections remain through Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which the Supreme Court ruled in 2020 covers gender identity discrimination.

Missing Context & Misinformation 4

  • Iowa had been one of the earlier states to include gender identity protections, adding them in 2007 during a period when few states offered such protections, making this rollback particularly significant historically.
  • Federal protections for transgender people remain in place through Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which the Supreme Court ruled in 2020 covers discrimination based on gender identity in employment contexts.
  • The law's redefinition of gender as synonymous with biological sex conflicts with major medical organizations including the American Medical Association and American Psychological Association, which recognize gender identity as distinct from biological sex.
  • Iowa's civil rights code still protects against discrimination based on sexual orientation, meaning gay and lesbian people retain protections that transgender people have lost.
  • The Movement Advancement Project tracks that 21 states plus DC have comprehensive non-discrimination laws covering gender identity, while 16 states have no such protections and others have partial protections.

Disinformation & Lies 1

No disinformation or lies detected in this article.

Bias 3

The article contains some bias but it is largely fair and useful. The bias includes: 1) Emotionally charged language like 'dark moment in our history,' 'dangerous consequences,' and 'attack on trans people' - while this language shows clear sympathy for transgender people, it's proportional to the significance of removing civil rights protections and helps readers understand the real-world impact. 2) The article primarily quotes advocates and opponents of the law, with limited neutral expert voices - however, this serves the useful purpose of showing how the law affects real people. 3) Framing Trump's policies as 'dismantling' and 'targeting' - while partisan, this accurately describes the systematic rollback of protections. The bias is warranted because it highlights genuine civil rights concerns and helps readers grasp the practical implications of losing legal protections. The emotional language, while not neutral, serves to convey the serious nature of civil rights rollbacks that neutral language might minimize.