A Louisville Ordinance Promises to Protect The Transgender Community. Some Advocates Aren’t So Sure.
A Louisville ordinance meant to protect transgender people from state and federal crackdowns is heading to a committee hearing this week. The law would declare Louisville a safe haven for transgender people.
But discussions between those who wrote the ordinance, LGBTQ+ organizations and other stakeholders across the city have been fraught. A debate has raged over whether or not the ordinance will actually help the community it aims to protect.
It continues to face what two local leaders in talks called “an impasse”.
In a press conference in April this year, District 6 Louisville Metro Democratic Councilmember and Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) member J.P. Lyninger (he/him) introduced the “Safe Haven Law,” that would protect the rights of transgender and gender non-conforming people” He highlighted the support for the ordinance by quoting more than 3,000 signatures from local organizations and residents.
What the Trans Safe Haven Ordinance Would Do
Ordinances like the Trans Safe Haven come on the heels of real concerns that impact gender non-conforming and BIPOC transgender communities as state legislatures continue to introduce and pass anti-LGBTQ+ legislation and normalize anti-trans rhetoric. The Buckeye Flame, an LGBTQ+ news organization covering Ohio’s communities, reported Cleveland Heights and Athens were two cities that voted to enact trans safe haven resolutions.
An ordinance differs from a resolution in that a resolution is a formal statement of a city’s position or policy on an issue, while ordinances are permanent laws that govern jurisdictions and agencies and include penalties. Resolutions are largely symbolic gestures, and ordinances regulate people and property in the city.
The ordinance, drafted in collaboration with Lyninger’s legislative assistant Nick Conder (they/them) and Dare (she/her), a staffer who is a member of the DSA, aims to do approximately five things to offer protections to trans people. Conder said it was modeled on sanctuary city ordinances that were passed in cities to protect immigrants and their rights.
According to the ordinance, Louisville Metro would not use city resources, defined in the ordinance as “time spent by Metro employees, officers, or contractors while on duty, or the use of Metro Government property,” to:
- Detaining persons for seeking or providing gender-affirming healthcare.
- Providing information about a person’s gender identity as a transgender or gender non-conforming person to the federal government or any state or local government.
- Restricting the ability of transgender or gender non-conforming people to access any public accommodations, programs, or services provided by Louisville Metro Government, based on their gender identity.
- Not to prohibit entertainment by male or female impersonators or prohibitions on performers wearing non-stereotypical dress or costume based upon the entertainer’s actual or perceived gender.
- Sections V, VI and VII detail training on provisions that would be provided to Metro Government employees, and disciplinary policies up to and including termination for employees who violate the ordinance.
The ordinance defines gender non-conforming clothing as “Clothing, hairstyles, makeup, or accessories that deviate from traditional societal expectations of how a person should appear based upon their assigned sex at birth.”
But significant gaps persist.
The extent of what constitutes “gender-affirming care” has not been detailed, and how this would impact medical providers and grassroots groups working to bring healthcare to trans and gender non-conforming people. What constitutes “sensitive information” is undefined under the ordinance, which could span medical records, legal documents, birth certificates. But there are no further specifics on training, agencies involved and disciplinary measures.
From Resolution to Ordinance: How the Draft Took Shape
Meetings with community members, DSA members and LGBTQ+ organizations in the city were described as “contentious” by attendees who spoke to Queer Kentucky. Discussions about the ordinance first emerged in 2025 and have evolved around the strategy, approach and language within it.
While organizers and grassroots groups acknowledged that the intentions behind the ordinance were good, an overarching concern remains: whether the draft ordinance – numbering five pages – is robust enough to ensure the safety of the community, the timing of the legislation and the potential for blowback from anti-trans conservatives at the state and local level, regardless of the legislation passing or failing.
Nick Conder, Lyninger’s legislative assistant who co-authored the ordinance, said it was initially submitted as a resolution, but was rewritten as an ordinance, with input from the Jefferson County Attorney’s Office, and introduced at the end of March 2026.
The idea of a trans safe haven sanctuary policy received attention soon after December 2024, shortly after President Trump was elected.
“Especially in the beginning of last year, there was a flurry of executive orders that seemed to be kind of confusing, and states were passing laws. Kentucky has relatively unfriendly laws towards trans people,” Conder said.
In early conversations about the ordinance, Conder said they got the impression that people mostly wanted to see the city take a stance on using the city government to enforce transphobic federal policies or to comply with out-of-state transphobic policies. The DSA has also received the backing of many student groups, has members and representatives who are transgender
But timing matters, said many LGBTQ+ groups and nonprofits in the city. Discussions around the timing of the legislation have gone by the wayside, according to some community members, leaders and activists of organizations that have had a long-standing presence in the LGBTQ+ community.
“Why Now?” The Debate Over Timing and Risk
For many years, a familiar face has emerged at rallies, legislators’ offices and the Kentucky State Capitol’s rotunda. Chris Hartman, executive director of the Fairness Campaign, has been part of the coalition of leading advocacy and lobbying efforts to thwart anti-LGBTQ+ bills, engage with communities and legislators, and push for laws that protect LGBTQ+ Kentuckians.
The Kentucky Legislature has, according to Hartman, been using the LGBTQ+ community as a boogeyman. And the possibility of being hypervisible due to the proposed Louisville ordinance, “could put a target on our backs.”
“Upon deep analysis, this is a symbolic piece of local legislation only, and it is not worth the risk of what could happen in Frankfort to pass a straw man ordinance,” Hartman said.
“As we look at the proposed ordinance and particularly in consultation with transgender leaders, and leaning on the leadership on Black trans leaders in Kentucky, we determined that the ordinance would not have an impact on their lives.”
He added, “It is trying to pre-empt state and federal laws, the likely, and instead the likeliest outcome that a successful ordinance passage would have would be retribution from conservative lawmakers in Frankfort who would see it as an opportunity to advance really egregious anti-trans legislation, which they are always considering doing, but as this year, you know, we can have success even in trying times.
Conder, co-author of the legislation, views this impasse as a clash of political strategies. Playing defense and trying not to provoke the legislature, they said, works most of the time, but it doesn’t work 100% of the time. They see trying and failing to pass legislation as a part of the process.
“If you’re not ever gaining any ground, you’re dying by inches,” Conder said.
Some Trans Leaders Say the Ordinance Misses the Mark
When Alden Jones (they/them), a trans academic based in Louisville, first asked people if they’d heard of the trans safe haven ordinance, they heard positive responses. They were excited at the prospect of an ordinance that would protect trans people in Louisville.
“People had signed on, but [I asked] “did you read it?” and then I read it, and then I wasn’t anymore,” they said.
They attended the most recent meeting in April and said they had noticed a power differential.
They said they were concerned about the lack of voices in community input around the ordinance. They’re also in favor of solutions like a needs assessment or wider study around concerns of transgender Kentuckians across socio-economic classes, race, and material realities. But the space for that conversation, Alden finds, is limited.
“If you are trying to get something done, and you meet resistance, you don’t wait for the resistance to come to you with solutions. You seek out the solutions and the amendments from established organizations,” they said.
The lack of definition on terms like “gender affirming care” or “information” or how they would be used against trans people without further explanation worries Jones.
“I think we can work together to get something going socially and work on an ordinance that helps real things. I just want the things that help us to benefit everyone so it helps them,” Jones said.
Jaz Williams, (he/him), Trans Health Director at the Kentucky Health Justice Network and a Black trans person, directly works in providing resources for gender-affirming care, which is mentioned in the ordinance.
The fundamental disagreement he has with the DSA is the lack of an intersectional approach to the ordinance. “Being trans and being seen as trans is different for Black and brown communities. The biggest harm is visibility.” In one meeting, Williams said he observed an unequal racial dynamic in a DSA meeting that included trans members.
Gender affirming care is hard to get. One thing Williams pointed out was the sudden mention of Flock cameras brought up in meetings by DSA members that could potentially be used to track trans people getting gender affirming care, though there is no documented evidence of it happening, nor is it in the current ordinance.
“It doesn’t make sense. Because anyone who is getting subpoenaed from another state for travel for healthcare, unless that state they’re travelling to they get the healthcare in, isn’t going to comply. The mom of the trans kid who takes her kid to Illinois once every couple of months for puberty blockers: It doesn’t matter that she goes dark in Louisville, say we even comply with that. The moment she ends up in Indiana and Illinois, they’re not going to comply. What does it do to protect people?” he said.
The DSA members who authored the legislation did not reach out to KHJN, he said. “It’s problems that aren’t there. It’s a problem that we haven’t experienced yet. And if these are problems, we don’t have the apparatus for it.”
“It only fearmongers and creates problems where they’re not there. And if anything, it gives their enemies the playbook that they didn’t know they had,” he said.
What a Stronger Ordinance Could Look Like
For Tamarra Wieder, the Director of Planned Parenthood Kentucky, any legislation that could potentially impact rural communities by a new preemption from the Kentucky legislature should be centered around marginalized and impacted communities, even if it’s a Louisville Metro Council ordinance.
“I think when there are Black and brown trans Kentuckians, when there are rural voices who are not feeling centered in a conversation, who are especially not centered in a conversation that is going to impact their futures. I think that’s when we take a pause, and we need to find a middle ground on making sure that whatever is being moved forward best centers their needs, especially on a piece of legislation that is going to get a lot of attention from the opposition.”
For over 25 years, Louisville has had a Fairness Ordinance in place, thanks to a coalition of organizers across the state. The ordinance has now spread to 23 other cities in Kentucky. Wieder says fairness is a successful movement-building model that focuses on building coalitions.
“There’s still the Fairness Coalition that is across the Commonwealth, you know. We haven’t really seen DSA [operate] in the same way that Fairness has,” Wieder added.
Weider doesn’t see this process as an impasse, but she’s been trying to push for more discussion and a potential redraft.
“We can listen to the Trans Health Kentucky Network, see what they’re hearing, and see what’s needed. We can look at what the students are feeling. We can see where the gaps from the fairness ordinances are,” she said.
The ordinance is set to come up in a Louisville Metro Council committee hearing on Wednesday, June 3.
Chris Watson | Creative Commons