Within a week, Law Professor Dara E. Purvis’s talk on the legal protections of transgender individuals went from progressive to doubtful. His reason: the recent election of the Trump administration.

Purvis wanted to warn that significant changes are potentially coming with President-elect Donald Trump’s appointments of Justices to the Supreme Court and commissioners to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

“Two weeks ago this would’ve of been a nicely, optimistic discussion of reforms that are happening, and now it just probably more doom and gloom,” Purvis said.

Purvis divided her talk into three main kinds of legal actions at large: both federal and state-level statutes or ordinances that are passed by cities and counties, agency rulemaking, decisions and guidance — which are under the executive branch’s authority but operate under their own discrete topics — and executive orders.

There is only one federal law that speaks to transgendered individuals — the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act — which was signed into law by President Barack Obama in 2009. It’s an amendment of the 1969 United States hate-crime law which added sentencing enhancements for motivated hate crimes against sexual orientation and gender identity. The law also requires the FBI to track these specific types of hate crimes, however it doesn’t address how local law enforcement are identifying and treating these hate crimes, said Purvis.

Purvis also said there was an unlikely chance of a federal bill being passed in a Republican Congress granting transgender people protection from employment discrimination and harassment.

However, there is some protection on the state-level with 20 states issuing statutes prohibiting discrimination of sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing and public accommodations. Many municipalities and counties in these states offer the same ordinances.

Purvis, trying to keep optimistic, said that these were “better than nothing.”

While there are statutes that do protect transgender people, there has been in uptick in those that target them — most notably HB2 in North Carolina which prohibits transgender citizens to use their preferred bathroom. HB2 also prohibits municipalities and counties from adding discrimination against sexual orientation or gender identity to their provision, Purvis said.

Religious-freedom protection laws have also allowed state-level legislatures to protect discrimination against sexual orientation or gender identity because of an individual’s religious right to do so.

Some jurors have argued for protections granted from the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX be extended to transgender citizens. Title VII and IX protect individuals of discrimination of sex in employment and public schools. There is a chance those potential protections may be abandoned, Purvis said.

Anirudh Chatty wasn’t aware of the legal struggles of transgender citizens until he came to the United States.

“I grew up in a very conservative family and society because I grew up in the Middle East, and I really wasn’t exposed to any of this,” Chatty (junior- industrial engineering) said. “Moving here, I realized how much more open people are about this topic, and I tried to learn more, tried to interact with them [transgender people] more, tried to learn their culture.”

Aunite Dot, a transgender woman hoping to convert her home as a safe haven for transgender youths, attended the discussion to understand her legal restrictions and how to overcome them. She described herself as a “fighter” and as someone who “usually gets what they want.” She doesn’t want the current generation to feel as hopeless and lost as she has in the past.

“When there’s a will, there’s a way,” Dot, 50 of Osceola Mills, said. “I am very open minded and very determined to get what I want, and what I want is equality and rights for trans.”

Purvis’s talk was part of Penn State’s first-ever Transgender Visibility Week.