The Legislature’s Trans Obsession Harms Every Kansan

Legislative leadership needs to direct its focus away from what's in people's pants towards what's in people's wallets as well as towards the quality of our education and healthcare.

If you want to understand what our Legislature leadership prioritizes, look at what it does first. On January 13th, one day after the Kansas legislative session officially convened, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on House Bill 2426, which would make the terms gender and sex equivalent in state law.

This is a Deliberate Choice

HB 2426 is only the latest example of anti-trans legislation, and it unfortunately won’t be the last. The details have, and will, vary from bill to bill - IDs one week, schools the next, health care after that. But the through line is constant: an ongoing fixation on transgender Kansans - on transgender kids - as a legislative priority. That fixation obviously harms the transgender community and their families and friends directly. But it also harms every other Kansan by consuming our collective bandwidth through political theater, increasing administrative and legal costs, degrading school and health system capacity, and crowding out the actual work a legislature should be doing.

To get a feel for what’s been going on with respect to anti-trans actions in the Kansas legislature over the last several years, see the following (though it goes back farther than this):

• Majority Rule Does Not Preclude Transgender Minority Rights: February 17, 2025

• KS Legislators - Sustain an SB 233 Veto: March 31, 2024

• Adding Some Curiosity to Common Sense: March 19, 2023

• Popping Bubbles of Hate and Ignorance: November 27, 2022

And yes — I know there are Republican legislators who privately dislike this but succumb out of fear to the leadership’s arm-twisting and/or the pressure from some of their more vocal constituents (ramped up under the Trump regime) - fear of losing legislative positions, fear of being primaried, fear of being ostracized, and fear for their physical safety. A few of them have confirmed this to me in previous email conversations. This post is probably more for them than any of the other legislators.

This is Personal

For my family, this is personal. Here’s what the fallout looks like from my perspective, taken from one of the multiple emails I’ve previously sent to Kansas legislators. This is the partial text from an email sent in reference to a specific bill (SB 233 in 2024) targeting gender affirming health care for trans youth. I’m not looking for any sympathy. I’m simply pointing out what the impact can look like at an individual and family level.

I am emailing you as the parent of a transgender young adult, and I know first hand from the gender affirming care our son has received that there is no reason for these bills other than to try and legislate my son and other trans people out of existence.

The falsehoods and hateful rhetoric spread in support of this bill, and subsequently reported in the media, only further the effort of spreading fear and disinformation. Words have consequences - they can decrease a youth’s mental health and increase the risk of physical and verbal attacks.

Nex Benedict, the Oklahoma trans teenage student who was recently beaten and subsequently died, is but the latest example of the psychological and physical abuse LGBTQ+ individuals experience, fueled by anti-LGTBQ+ rhetoric and fear-mongering, especially when it comes from places of authority.

This is the nightmare scenario for my family. That our youngest will lose his life because someone thought he was an abomination or a pervert - that he didn’t deserve to live simply because of who he is. It’s always in the back of our minds - and that stress and fear is always a little more during our state’s legislative session. Bills like this and the rhetoric that goes with them just make this horror more likely to happen to our family and others.

I’m pleading with you to stop doing this to trans individuals. Stop sacrificing the physical safety and mental health of my son and other LGTBQ+ individuals so you can score some political points with your base. Legislating should be about improving the lives of ALL Kansans, not targeting different groups for political or religious purposes.

I rarely get a response from Republicans. When I do, it’s either from a) members who recognize the harm, but essentially admit they’re too afraid to speak up or b) members ignoring the supporting science and raw emotions included in the emails, providing the basic form response of Thanks for your input. Occasionally the latter group will also rub salt in the wound by spouting MAGA, White Christian Nationalist, bigoted, anti-trans talking points (which aren’t supported by the evidence).

Now expand those impacts to every other trans person in the state, along with their families and friends. We know that such talking points, the legislation, the words and testimony of these GOP legislators and anti-trans lobbyists, and the hate and othering that all of this helps generate makes the trans community less safe. Genocidal scholars have recently warned that “… the attacks on transgender and nonbinary people in the U.S. represent a ‘genocidal’ attempt ‘to destroy a gender group.’” And some families are leaving the state to help ensure access to gender affirming care for their minors, as well as seek less hostile environments in general. It galls me to know this is exactly the outcome many GOP legislators desire.

No wonder there are days when things seem really bleak for my son and the other trans and nonbinary people I know. Those are the people you need to have sympathy for, or really empathy for, and take some action.

This Harms all Kansans

But it’s not just the trans community who is harmed. This weird fixation of the far right also comes with a hefty public price tag that includes the direct administrative and legal costs associated with the passage of these bills. Even when a fiscal note can’t fully quantify the costs, the impacts are generally the same: government agencies, schools, and healthcare organizations must rewrite policies, retrain staff, modify record systems, create complaint processes, conduct investigations, and brace for litigation.

Direct Costs

For state agencies, such laws can impose an implementation burden because they require agencies to change core administrative systems and workflows - recordkeeping, notices, document issuance, and enforcement - often while anticipating continued legal conflict. For example, Kansas’s fiscal note for HB 2426 shows executive agencies being directed to review and correct vital records, correct DMV records, send written notices, and reissue documents, with costs tied to staff time, IT/developer work, and mailing. It also notes the Attorney General expects continued litigation because the underlying subject is already being litigated. Similarly, the fiscal note for SB 63 shows executive agencies and boards being pulled into enforcement and risk management. It describes a framework that triggers more complaints/investigations and anticipates increased litigation defense costs for the Attorney General’s office. The costs associated with all of this are ultimately paid by us, the taxpayer.

For health care, such laws can impose an implementation burden because they require operational changes across billing, compliance, and clinical workflows. For example, as documented in Kansas Medicaid guidance, a Kansas Medical Assistance Program (KMAP) bulletin (reposted by Sunflower Health Plan) notifies providers that “new initiation of pharmacologic (hormonal) treatment … among Medicaid members under the age of 18 years will not be covered,” and that treatment initiated prior to the law’s effective date “must be terminated by December 31, 2025.” In addition, the SB 63 fiscal note references the mechanisms that increase legal and regulatory exposure for clinicians and institutions, including the creation of a civil suit pathway (increasing cases in district court) and the Attorney General’s expectation of increased litigation defense costs.

When required operational changes, reimbursement restrictions, and increased legal/regulatory exposure occur together, combined with the lack of needed details often associated with such legislation, health systems may respond by adopting simpler, more restrictive internal rules to reduce ambiguity and organizational risk, limiting the scope of services offered or referrals made. This interpretation is consistent with peer‑reviewed research findings that in states where bans were proposed/passed, providers reported institutional pressure (perceived and actual) limiting the ability to provide care (including mental-health components that are ordinarily part of multidisciplinary care) due to the increased burden and concerns about legal action. The reduction in services and associated staffing and expertise can reduce capacity and continuity for broader pediatric, adolescent, and behavioral‑health services that share the same teams and infrastructure, negatively impacting more than just the trans community.

For school districts, bills like this can impose a significant implementation burden because they push districts to build (or expand) compliance systems: revising policy, training staff, documenting decisions, handling complaints, and coordinating with counsel (without the additional funding provided to do so). Kansas’s own fiscal materials for SB 76 (Given Name Act) make the exposure explicit: the fiscal note states the bill creates a civil cause of action allowing claims for “injunctive relief, monetary damages, [and] reasonable attorney fees”, and it adds that KSDE cannot estimate the fiscal effect on local school districts even though the cause of action could create one. The same fiscal note includes the Kansas Association of School Boards’ warning that enactment could have a long‑term fiscal effect on districts and postsecondary institutions “primarily from legal fees, investigations, and dealing with Title IX complaints.” Geary County USD 475 (Fort Riley Middle School) has already had to pay $95,000 for a lawsuit settlement involving a names/pronouns controversy, including damages and attorney fees.

And the SB 76’s supplemental note points out how this just adds more litigation‑risk management work to the day-to-day of district leadership. These laws take away from a school district’s primary mission, and often forces educators, staff, and administrators to weigh supporting vulnerable kids versus minimizing legal and financial risks. It takes away from the funding needed for a district’s core mission, reduces educational effectiveness, increases the stress among teachers, staff, and students, and it decreases teacher and staff retention.

And Kansas fiscal notes, including that of SB 180 (2023), warn that when these policy fights are embedded in contested constitutional frameworks, litigation can be prolonged and expensive. The SB 180 (2023) fiscal note states constitutional challenges are likely, could run two to four years, may require specialized outside counsel, and could expose the state to paying plaintiffs’ attorney fees and costs if challengers prevail - conditions that increase uncertainty for public institutions (including school districts) operating under overlapping state and federal obligations. For a concrete sense of what outside counsel can look like in public-sector budgeting, Kansas has posted outside-counsel contract templates showing hourly rates (though these appear to be from 2010).

Lost Opportunity Costs

In addition to the these direct costs harming Kansans, there are numerous lost opportunity costs due to finite legislative bandwidth and public resources. Gov. Laura Kelly’s SB 63 veto message explicitly argues that lawmakers should be focused on “ways to help Kansans cope with rising prices” and warns that this kind of legislation can worsen a “workforce shortage,” instead of “focusing on issues that improve all Kansans’ lives.” Meanwhile, Kansas political reporting (KCUR, Kansas Reflector) shows the 2026 session opening with both parties publicly prioritizing “affordability” issues -property taxes, housing costs, wages, childcare costs, and rural health expenses -precisely the kinds of outcomes that get crowded out when committees and floor time are consumed by divisive culture war issues, particularly those targeting vulnerable groups.

The lost opportunities are visible in what Kansas leaders and Kansans themselves say they want funded and improved. The Governor’s FY 2027 budget framing (based on the statewide People’s Budget tour) highlights priorities Kansans identified: fully funded public schools and special education, investments in health care and mental health capacity, early childhood/childcare systems, and long‑term water planning and infrastructure. Independent reporting (Kansas Reflector, KSNT) on that budget rollout similarly emphasizes outcomes like special education capacity, mental health services, and a long‑term water plan as top priorities - work that competes for the same attention and budgetary focus as these culture war issues attacking a vulnerable minority.

Referencing the legislature’s YouTube page, I used Microsoft Copilot to provide a rough estimate (emphasis on rough) of the percentage of committee time spent on anti-trans legislation during the 2025 regular session (through April 11, 2025). Three committees - House Committee on Education, Senate Committee on Education, and House Committee on Health and Human Services - were the easiest to estimate for Microsoft Copilot. These three committees held approximately 86 hours worth of combined standing committee meetings and hearings (excluding conference/joint meetings), and the tracked anti-trans bills accounted for up to 11% of those hours. That’s not an insignificant amount of committee time devoted to attacking a very small group of Kansans (about 0.4% in 2022).

The lost opportunity costs boil down to this: Every committee hour and public dollar spent policing identity, targeting a vulnerable minority, is an hour and a dollar not spent lowering costs, strengthening schools, expanding health care access, addressing water conservation issues, or keeping communities healthy and connected.

Curiosity (Due Diligence) Checklist

We hear common sense sometimes used as a shortcut - an easy label to support ignorant and ideologically driven perspectives and policies while avoiding the harder work of gathering and evaluating evidence, tradeoffs, and consequences. But we need our legislators to be curious while employing critical thinking skills (e.g. Adding Some Curiosity to Common Sense) because that’s what competence looks like in public service. Curious legislators ask questions, dig into the nuances, and expand their understandings based on the available evidence before casting a vote, writing a press release, spreading their talking points, or posting on social media.

In governing, curiosity is due diligence. It forces clarity: What problem are we solving? How will it work in real life? What are the consequences? What does it cost - money, time, staff capacity, trust? Who will it impact, benefit, or harm, and how? Honestly and transparently answering these questions is how you separate serious from performative policymaking. When leaders stay curious, they maximize the benefits for all Kansans, reduce unintended harm, minimize legal risks, and protect limited legislative time for issues that actually improve people’s lives.

So here’s a potential test: if a bill can’t survive a basic curiosity examination - if it doesn’t address a verified and measurable need(s), if the implementation realities aren’t spelled out in detail, if the predictable impacts aren’t honestly estimated, and the lost opportunity costs not considered - then there’s a good chance the bill is a distraction, and likely a harmful one. Performative culture war bills are easier to assemble than solving hard problems, they’re easier than actually governing. And vulnerable groups like trans kids pay the price. Here’s a basic curiosity checklist legislators and the public may want to consider using to evaluate proposed legislation. But these must be answered honestly and transparently.

• What Kansas problem or issue is this addressing - measurably?

• Who will be impacted (including benefits and harms) and how?

• What are the implementation and administrative costs?

• What legal risk or enforcement burden does it create?

• What predictable impacts land on state agencies, city/county governments, healthcare organizations, schools, universities, etc.?

• What priorities get delayed because we spend time on this?

An Ask

Good governing means making sure all legislative agendas are centered on measurable Kansas outcomes that benefit all Kansans - what will reduce harm, improve services, strengthen public safety, and build trust - rather than rewarding culture war legislation that generates attention but doesn’t demonstrate positive impact (and in fact often harms different groups of Kansans). When the public sees discipline, follow-through, hard questions asked early (curiosity), fairness, transparency, and a focus on the common good, confidence rises: not because everyone agrees, but because the process becomes a serious effort focused on benefiting all Kansans.

So here’s the ask: raise the bar. Make curiosity the default - require real impact assessments, implementation planning, administrative capacity checks, and legal and fiscal scrutiny before moving bills forward. And for constituents, engage in ways that reward competence (with your votes and advocacy being key here). The goal is to build a legislature that spends its limited time on actions that improve daily life across Kansas. Though this will also likely mean voting out multiple GOP members (because of some combination of a) lacking a spine and b) an embracement of white supremacy, white Christian nationalism, autocracy, and oligarchism).

Ask: Legislators

• Stop making anti-trans, identity-policing bills session priorities.

• Make sure all committee agendas are centered on measurable Kansas outcomes and issues having a real impact on Kansans.

• Require genuine fiscal, implementation, human impact, and legal analyses (that are transparent) before advancing bills with significant administrative, enforcement, legal risk, and financial risk implications.

• Meet directly with affected constituents and frontline professionals (with actual expertise) before legislating complex real-world impacts. AND LISTEN TO THEM.

Ask: The Public

• Contact your legislators and tell them to stop attacking vulnerable minorities - stop wasting our taxpayer dollars - and instead focus on legislation that will benefit us all.

• When the opportunities arise for various bills, submit written testimony. Pull from your own experiences and expertise when possible. If you’re able to provide verbal testimony in person or remotely, do so.

• Thank lawmakers who demonstrate curiosity, compassion, and courage - reinforce the behavior we want to see.

• Vote when the time comes and give your support (dollars and time) to the candidates who embody curiosity, compassion, and courage (not to mention those who actually support democracy as opposed to a dictator).

• Sources available to help you do this include, but aren’t limited to, Loud Light, KIFA, Trans Lawrence Coalition, and Six Degrees of Activism - Kansas Edition.

---

This all boils down to the following: Obsession with culture war issues and what’s in people’s pants weakens our ability to govern and positively impact the lives of all Kansans. It’s cruel and divisive, makes Kansas less inviting to individuals, families, and businesses, and tarnishes our collective soul. Nor does Kansas benefit when limited legislative time is consumed by bills that a) target vulnerable minorities, b) can’t show measurable gains, c) can’t be implemented cleanly, or d) carry predictable downstream costs in administration, enforcement, and lawsuits, all of which damages the public trust. And this is further compounded by the lost opportunity costs of delayed work on the issues that actually impact our lives - from economic stability, to water conservation, to quality public education, to equitable health care access.

Kansans deserve better than these repetitive, culture war performances that legislators find easy (or that have been decreed by the dear leader - either at the state or federal level). If we want a stronger Kansas, we have to demand the standard that produces it - competence, evidence, and expertise over theater, outcomes over optics, benefiting all Kansans vs attacking vulnerable minorities, and a process that proves its claims before it asks Kansans to bear the cost.

And I’ll say it again, stop worrying about what’s in the pants of trans kids. It’s creepy.