Utah's Legislature has overridden Republican Gov. Spencer Cox's veto of House Bill 11, which now mandates young transgender athletes can play only for teams based on their sex, not their gender identification.

Opponents of this type of legislation said it is another way to discriminate against young transgender people, and can have serious mental-health consequences.

Rep. Kera Birkeland, R-Morgan, the bill's sponsor, countered it safeguards opportunities for female athletes.

"There's 24 activities under the High School Activity Association umbrella," Birkeland noted. "Five of those are women's activities. So, we're only asking to keep five single-sex categories for women. That's 19 other categories kids can participate in, from all different backgrounds."

Utah is now one of at least 12 states limiting the participation of athletes based on their sex at birth. The legislation will likely now face lawsuits challenging its constitutionality before it takes effect July 1.

The bill was originally tasked with creating a commission to evaluate requests made by transgender athletes to compete based on their gender identity. A last-minute amendment went further, banning transgender girls from participating in sports alongside genetic or cisgender female athletes.

In his monthly address, Governor Cox spoke of the financial burden on Utah taxpayers if the Legislature took action against transgender athletes "at the last minute."

"Everyone knows what's going to happen, and that is, there will be a lawsuit," Cox acknowledged. "And it will be a very expensive lawsuit. It is very likely that this bill will bankrupt the Utah High School Athletic Association. Those are their words, not mine."

But Birkeland does not believe financial concerns outweigh the bill's intent. She said coaching girls basketball informed her decision to sponsor it, and override the governor's veto.

"I was officiating a basketball game, and there were some concerns brought to me by some parents," Birkeland stated. "They were aware that there were transgender athletes competing in different sports around the state, and they wanted to know my thoughts and what would be done about it."

As Pride Month comes to a close and Disability Pride Month begins, advocates are raising awareness about the intersection of being LGBTQ+ and having a disability.

For many LGBTQ+ Americans, marriage equality came in 2015 when the Supreme Court decided Obergefell v. Hodges. But for people with disabilities, marriage can impact eligibility for certain Social Security benefits.

Chris Fagan is a self-advocate and president of People First St. Joseph. He said that's an obstacle for people who rely on those benefits.

"I have a boyfriend that is not only my boyfriend, but he is my best friend too," said Fagan. "We have needs also, and we also should be able to marry each other if we want to."

Author Sean Gold, an advocate for the disability community who is nonverbal, echoes the need for fully inclusive marriage equality.

He noted, "We fight for so much change, but with every big issue, even with Roe v. Wade, until we connect with how these issues connect with the disability community, nothing will change."

A bill has been introduced in Congress to eliminate a requirement that adults with disabilities remain single to receive Social Security benefits from a parent's earnings record.

Jessie Eikmann, a grocery store worker and poet from St. Louis, said among people without disabilities, there's often a lot of sexual gatekeeping of those with disabilities and false assumptions.

"They just assume that people like me with disabilities," said Eikmann, "that they really can't decide whether they're queer first of all, which is just silly to me, or that they just don't have sex."

Studies estimate 3 to 5 million LGBTQ+ Americans have a disability, and can face unique challenges - from limited access to fully inclusive health care and community services, to added barriers to employment and disproportionate incarceration.

For instance, 40% of incarcerated women identify as LGBTQ+, and nearly half of women in jail reported a disability.

June is Pride Month, and businesses are showing their support for the LGBTQ community in a number of ways. But some corporations are being called out for also supporting anti-LGBTQ candidates for office.

Ian Morton is the executive director of the Q Center in Portland. He said his community has come a long way from the days when participants in Pride parades couldn't show their faces for fear of retaliation from their employers.

But he added that the hypocrisy of some companies' support this month is disappointing.

"Seeing organizations who are willing to stand against the community that they would purport to serve or to celebrate," said Morton, "makes the LGBTQ+ community very wary of where they put their support, and whether that rainbow flag that goes up for the 30 days - if that's actually meaningful, or if it's just performative."

A report from last year found 25 major corporations that showed support during pride had also given a total of $10 million in donations to support members of Congress who earned a 'zero' rating on the Human Rights Campaign scorecard.

Craig Hill is the client and treasury manager with Beneficial State Bank, which works with the Q Center. He said his bank strives to work in service of social equity and environmental sustainability.

Hill said he thinks it's misleading for companies to hoist rainbow flags and, at the same time, support discriminatory policies at the legislative level.

"Some of the nation's biggest banks, for example, fund anti-LGBTQ+ policies with their political donations," said Hill, "despite publicly supporting those agendas and sponsoring Pride Month events. It's really a form of 'rainbow washing,' if we're being honest."

Hill said people can use websites like Mighty Deposit to find out how their financial institutions are using their money.

Morton said it's helpful to know he's working with companies that align with his own values.

"Having those moments whenever you recognize that the folks you're doing business with actually have concern about your community's wellbeing and want to show up in meaningful ways," said Morton, "that helps folks, especially in the nonprofit sector and in the advocacy sector, to give them the energy to soldier on."

Oral arguments were held this week on an appeal blocking an Arkansas law from going into effect. The law would prevent young people from getting gender-affirming health care.

Act 626 of 2021 banned health care professionals from providing or referring transgender youth for medical care.

The ACLU of Arkansas filed suit against the state, and a federal judge in the Eastern District of Arkansas granted a preliminary injunction last July.

Now, the state is appealing the decision, saying gender-affirming care is experimental and potentially harmful to youth.

Sarah Everett, policy director for the ACLU of Arkansas, said the clients they represent in the case believe this kind of care has been lifesaving.

"Gender dysphoria is a difficult problem to live with as a young person, especially when you add the kind of bullying and discrimination they face on top of that," Everett observed. "Gender-affirming care helps to bring their physical appearance into alignment with their gender identity."

The Arkansas Legislature overrode a veto of the act last year by Gov. Asa Hutchinson. The act would also permit private insurers to refuse to cover gender-affirming care for transgender people of any age.

Arkansas was the first state to pass a ban on gender-affirming health care for transgender youth. Since then, an Alabama law has gone into effect and lawmakers in other states have introduced similar legislation. Everett sees the case as a possible litmus test for health care access for transgender youth on a national level.

"We hope that our District Court decision would deter other states from doing the same," Everett stressed. "And we hope that a good decision from the Eighth Circuit will cement the fact that kids have a right to receive this care, not to be discriminated against simply because they're transgender."

U.S. District Court Judge James M. Moody, Jr., who temporarily blocked Act 626 from going into effect, is scheduled to hear the case, Brandt v. Rutledge, this October.