Worlds Behind Words 5: Trans Remembrance, Asylum, and HIV Cuts

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/12/05

William Dempsey, LICSW, is a Boston-based clinical social worker and LGBTQ+ mental-health advocate. He founded Heads Held High Counselling, a virtual, gender-affirming group practice serving Massachusetts and Illinois, where he and his team support clients navigating anxiety, depression, trauma, ADHD, and gender dysphoria. Clinically, Dempsey integrates EMDR, CBT, IFS, and expressive modalities, with a focus on accessible, equity-minded care. Beyond the clinic, he serves on the board of Drag Story Hour, helping expand inclusive literacy programming and resisting censorship pressures. His public scholarship and media appearances foreground compassionate, evidence-based practice and the lived realities of queer communities across North America.

On Transgender Day of Remembrance, Scott Douglas Jacobsen speaks with Will Dempsey about a 2025 Advocates for Trans Equality report documenting trans erasure, rising murders, and suicides, especially among youth and Black trans women. Dempsey reflects on hopelessness, entrapment, and policy-driven harm: harsher asylum regimes for LGBTQ seekers, workplace retaliation for Pride symbols, and cuts to HIV services that revive a “let them die” mentality. He discusses the Pelosi legacy, imperfect but evolving allies, and how culture, politics, and discrimination collide at work. Throughout, he stresses de-escalation, legal protections, and affirming care as lifelines against despair.

Interview conducted on November 20, 2025. 

Scott Dogulas Jacobsen: Today is Transgender Day of Remembrance, observed annually on November 20. In 2025, a new report from Advocates for Trans Equality was released. The report documents the extent of erasure, institutional abandonment, and violence against transgender Americans. It is their 2025 Remembrance Report.

According to the report, the organization documented 27 violent deaths of transgender and gender-nonconforming people over the past year, along with 21 deaths by suicide.

The report also notes that 61% of the transgender people who died by suicide were between the ages of 15 and 24—essentially the final, formative years of identity development. What are your thoughts on having a National Day of Remembrance, and on the report’s findings of increased violence, murders, and suicides?

Will Dempsey: I think the Day of Remembrance is essential for instilling hope and showing people—who clearly, based on how high the suicide numbers are—how much hopelessness exists in the community, especially within that age range. Anyone in that demographic often feels a sense of hopelessness. Still, when you add any form of marginalized identity, such as being queer and specifically being trans, especially in this political climate, that hopelessness intensifies. Having a day like this reminds people that there is a community that supports their existence, advocates for change, and offers a light through the darkness, to put it a bit poetically.

I think it is essential, and the rise in these statistics does not surprise me, whether we are talking about self-inflicted violence or violence from others. We saw this during the last Trump presidency: the rates of violence increased against marginalized communities, especially trans people. Even when it is self-inflicted, it does not surprise me. Having a Day of Remembrance is one way to try to counter that.

Jacobsen: As with everything in America, race and ethnicity shape these patterns. On the conservative side, there is often a refusal to acknowledge the historical context; on the liberal side, there is sometimes an overemphasis on it in every conversation. But the data is precise: Black trans women are disproportionately impacted. According to the report, 15 of the 17 transgender women of colour who were killed were Black, and gun violence accounted for 17 of the 27 total deaths. What we see here is a racialized pattern of murder tied to American gun violence. Any final thoughts on this before we move on?

Dempsey: It is always striking why we see such a disproportionate impact of murder rates on Black trans women, compared with trans women or other transgender individuals of different races. I do not know if I have a definitive statement beyond noting that it has always been a striking pattern. I have my own hypotheses based on the research I have read and pulled together, but I do not want to state anything that might be inaccurate. I will probably keep those thoughts to myself.

Jacobsen: Time Magazine reports on LGBTQ asylum seekers. There was a report in another outlet a few weeks ago on a similar trend, focusing on an individual story. This one looks more at broader patterns than at a specific case. They reference the historical example of the Cuban Mariel boatlift in 1980 to contextualize it. The overarching issue is that Trump-era judges and laws are making it harder for LGBTQ individuals to seek asylum than it otherwise would be. We covered the last case, and you mentioned the separation from loved ones. I think you were referencing the Russian case. When it becomes systemic—embedded in laws and adjudication—what does that do for a person’s sense of safety in a culture where someone seeking asylum is already under extreme duress?

Dempsey: It increases rates of anxiety. It can bring up symptoms of PTSD. Many people seek asylum because the circumstances they are fleeing are traumatic, so the possibility of being sent back to those circumstances is terrifying. We are seeing rapid rates of deportation in the country right now. It also instills feelings of hopelessness, especially if the asylum seeker has not yet arrived. Suppose coming here was their plan for escaping their situation or seeking safety, and their options are becoming more limited. In that case, it becomes hopeless, petrifying, and overwhelming.

Jacobsen: What about the feeling of entrapment? Being in a dangerous context, wanting out, looking for a legal way out, and finding the process onerous or impossible—what does that sense of defeat or entrapment do?

Dempsey: Anyone would feel that. To connect it to what we were discussing, I think that same sense of entrapment is part of why we are seeing increased rates of queer youth ending their lives. Legislation is sending the message that they are trapped in their assigned sex at birth or in circumstances hostile to their identity. Anyone stuck in a situation that is not conducive to their mental health will only experience more distress when that situation feels inescapable.

Jacobsen: This next topic is international. Nancy Pelosi is retiring. The LGBTQIA+ report in Gay Times highlighted her legacy from the AIDS crisis to marriage equality. They reviewed her track record—she served for 38 years representing the San Francisco district and has been recognized since 1987 as one of the most significant voices supporting LGBTQIA+ rights. Do you have any personal thoughts on her? And what is the importance of having prominent, decades-long, consistent figures in the fight for equality and civil rights in the United States?

Dempsey: This always comes up around politicians and how much we should weigh their past positions or votes when evaluating them now. If I am remembering correctly, this conversation happened with Kamala Harris, and I am confident it happened with Obama. It will always come up.

I personally try to give people a pass. I would not be surprised if, forty years from now, things I believe today seem wild. That is parallel to societal change. There are some things people should be more aligned on. One example that comes to mind is that the lesbian community understood it was their responsibility to care for gay men during the HIV/AIDS crisis. Even though there was an understanding that the virus could be transmitted, they knew someone had to show up. I use that example to say: you do not have to be in the majority to understand what is right. And I still think people should be allowed to change.

From my limited understanding of Nancy Pelosi’s record, she endorsed the Equality Act, she has a family member who is trans and has advocated for trans rights, and she has been involved in some capacity with the HIV/AIDS response, possibly in the 1980s when it was a major political issue.

I do not think any politician will ever have a “perfect” track record. We really need to consider how they handled situations at the time, rather than judging a decision from 1985 through a 2025 lens.

Jacobsen: David Maltinsky, who worked for the FBI for 16 years, is suing the Federal Bureau of Investigation, alleging he was fired last month—in October—because he had a Pride flag draped near his desk. This is based on CBS News reporting. He reportedly was weeks away from becoming an agent. He claims the firing was unlawful and created fear among LGBTQ employees within the Bureau.

Maltinsky stated, “We are not the enemy, we are not the political mob, we are primarily of the FBI, and we have a mission to do. We go to work every day to do it.” In a letter, Patel wrote: “We have determined that you exercised poor judgment with an inappropriate display of political signage in your work area during your previous assignment at the Los Angeles Field Office. Pursuant to Article II of the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States, your employment with the Federal Bureau of Investigation is hereby terminated.” This is reportedly from an official termination letter sent to Maltinsky.

Workplace harassment is a significant issue. With disagreements over what constitutes political signage and what does not, what is the appropriate measure in a workplace—de-escalation, discrimination protections, and adherence to constitutional obligations in a federal position? And what about the potential for harassment due to displaying an LGBT flag?

Dempsey: I am not a civil rights attorney, obviously, but I would imagine that, based on the employment protections against discrimination that exist—recognizing that many states still lack them, but federally there are significant protections—people should be protected against discrimination.

Regardless of identity or how someone expresses elements of their culture—which I would consider a culturally significant flag under the umbrella of workplace cultural expression—people should be protected. I think it makes sense why he is suing. I will say that.

Jacobsen: When you work with clients dealing with workplace harassment—whether they are a boss managing a belligerent employee, or an employee dealing with a coercive, abusive, or dismissive supervisor—what language is used in either case? What are your general recommendations in those situations? And what about disagreements over what counts as a cultural expression at work versus a political expression? How do those feelings, the social dynamics, HR involvement, and everything else come into play?

Dempsey: In terms of de-escalation, there should always be an opportunity for conversation. Ideally, communication between an employee and an employer never reaches a point where formal de-escalation techniques are required—things like maintaining a calm tone, steady breathing, and mindful phrasing.

The question you bring up—when culture bleeds into politics and how that should be handled—is a compelling one. Someone should be able to express themselves at work as long as it is not disruptive or overwhelming. “Flashy” is relative, but generally speaking, modest cultural expression should be fine.

For example, if someone had a MAGA hat at their desk, I wouldn’t like it. But as an employer myself, I would let it go. There is a difference between that and covering your entire office in political memorabilia or making a point to bring it up constantly in conversation. There is a pretty clear line—at least to me—between personal expression and political campaigning in the workplace.

So, think about the difference between a small rainbow lapel pin, a MAGA hat, or a Republican elephant or Democratic donkey pin on a desk. Any cultural expression can be political in some contexts, but we need to be careful. Take the rainbow flag, for instance. To compare it directly to a MAGA hat might not be the best example, because there are many conservative, even MAGA-supporting, queer people. So if someone says the Pride flag is inherently political, yes, but also no. Queer people exist across the entire political spectrum. It is not automatically political in the same way partisan symbols are.

Jacobsen: HIV services are being cut back in America’s new global health strategy. When people have something essential and then lose it, the psychological impact of the loss is often far more painful than the original gain—loss aversion is powerful. Within the LGBT—

Within the LGBTQ community—particularly among gay men, as you mentioned earlier—the HIV/AIDS epidemic was lethal. For some, it resulted in lifelong compromised immune systems. It has historically impacted the community severely, and it continues to do so. 

When essential HIV services are available and then removed as part of a country’s shifting global health strategy, where does that leave someone in terms of their sense of social safety, access to care, and support? This is not like losing access to a counsellor and deciding to talk to Aunt Becky more. We are talking about the equivalent of a vaccine or ongoing, life-preserving medical treatment that another person cannot replace.

Dempsey: And not even just standard, but something that can still kill you. The rates of death have gone down because of the healthcare we have, but without access to that care, HIV can still progress to full-blown AIDS, and you can die. There is no softer way to say it. It is also part of a larger issue: if the illness does not kill you, the depression might, because you know what is coming.

Many queer people do not have access to the funds needed to pay for these medications out of pocket, and they are costly. The American healthcare system is profoundly dysfunctional and wildly overpriced. It is getting worse, especially with the recent government funding resolution. To de-prioritize people’s wellbeing—especially when that de-prioritization aligns with who the government perceives as primarily affected—connects right back to attitudes from the 1980s and 1990s. I do not think that perception has entirely shifted.

Jacobsen: Could this be phrased more precisely as: those whom some in the current administration consider less deserving of care?

Dempsey: Yes, very much so.

Jacobsen: In international health contexts, Americans see this clearly. As a footnote for our series, the U.S. is 4% of the global population and mostly an echo chamber to itself. But when you look at the actual global strategy, you see countries whose healthcare systems have not had the time or resources to develop and are in tatters, paired with extreme homophobia. The “let them die” mentality becomes strong there as well. Of course, statistically, you will find people like that in any country. Please continue your point about healthcare.

Dempsey: And to your point, it parallels the political landscape and the current administration’s stance toward the LGBTQ community. What gives me some sense of hope—while I never want trans folks to become scapegoats or be sidelined now that sexual orientation issues have gained more attention—is the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear Kim Davis’s case, even with a very conservative Supreme Court, which indicates that change is still happening. People will disagree about how significant that is, but the vast majority suggests we are making progress. I am hopeful that the administration’s actions are not as indicative of the future as they sometimes feel.

Jacobsen: Will, thank you for your time. 

Dempsey: Thank you very much.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices.  In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.