How do states rank in terms of anti-discrimination laws for trans individuals?
Executive summary
States can be ranked only by the laws and policies used as metrics — notably comprehensive non‑discrimination coverage in employment, housing and public accommodations, youth protections, healthcare access, and identity‑document rules — and those metrics show a clear three‑tier pattern: a bloc of states with broad, explicit protections; a middle group with partial or uneven protections; and a set of states with few or no protections and growing anti‑trans legislation [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. What “ranking” means: the policy yardsticks that matter
Ranking states on anti‑discrimination protections for transgender people relies on discrete policy categories tracked by major researchers — MAP’s gender‑identity tally of roughly 25 laws and policies across non‑discrimination, youth, health and identity documents, and HRC’s State Equality Index which aggregates statewide laws and policies — not on a single score, so any list is an aggregation of those categories rather than a single objective measure [2] [3] [1].
2. The states with the strongest, most explicit protections
Roughly two dozen jurisdictions lead on statutory protections: in 21 states plus the District of Columbia there are explicit statewide protections against discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations for sexual orientation and gender identity, and those jurisdictions tend to also have safer‑school and healthcare policies for transgender people as reflected in Freedom For All Americans’ survey and HRC’s SEI summaries [4] [3]; Movement Advancement Project’s mapping similarly identifies states that score highly across the five transgender‑specific categories including document changes and youth safeguards [1] [2].
3. The middle: patchwork protections and important gaps
A larger middle tier contains states that protect transgender people in some arenas but leave gaps in others — for example, states that have employment protections but lack public‑accommodations or healthcare guarantees — a reality emphasized by HRC and MAP’s state‑by‑state reporting and by the Advocate’s state breakdowns noting that some states have robust non‑discrimination policies yet fall short on healthcare equity or protections for incarcerated transgender people [3] [2] [5].
4. The weakest/most hostile states: few protections plus active anti‑trans laws
A distinct group of states has little to no statewide legal protection for transgender people and, in many, legislatures have advanced bills that restrict gender‑affirming care, participation in sports, or make identity‑document changes harder; Freedom For All Americans reported that 27 states lack explicit statewide protections in key areas, and U.S. News identified seven states with none of several youth protections (Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Alabama, Idaho, South Dakota, West Virginia), while trackers and civil‑rights groups document an explosion of anti‑trans bills and targeted measures in multiple states [4] [6] [7] [8].
5. How to read rankings going forward: methodology, politics, and volatility
Any snapshot is vulnerable to rapid change because MAP and HRC update as laws move, and 2024–25 saw record numbers of anti‑trans proposals and passes that can flip a state’s standing quickly; moreover, different organizations use different criteria (HRC, MAP, Freedom For All Americans, ACLU, and independent trackers emphasize varied mixes of youth, healthcare, and public‑accommodation measures), so consumers of rankings should inspect the underlying metrics and recent legislative activity rather than rely on a single headline ranking [3] [2] [7] [8] [9].