We The People

Category: Perspectives

  • Pride is a test of true allyship. Corporate sponsors’ retreat is a dangerous sign

    In the United States, June has long been recognized as Pride Month — a time for LGBTQ individuals and allies to celebrate identity, progress, and resilience. Historically, this month has also been a time for partners in government and the private sector to voice their support for our community, not just with words but with action.

    After the Supreme Court legalized marriage equality in 2015 with the Obergefell v. Hodges decision, corporate sponsors rushed to align with the outcome. And, with them, visibility, funding, and the power of mainstream recognition for hundreds of Pride celebrations across America. But lately, that momentum has stalled, and what’s replacing it is deeply troubling.

    In 2024, many corporations cited “budget constraints” as their primary reason for scaling back their Pride sponsorships. But this year, the reasons are unmistakable. The current administration’s open hostility toward diversity, equity, and inclusion has created a chilling effect. Support for LGBTQ+ communities is being withdrawn, not because companies can’t afford to support us financially, but because they’re afraid to.

    Specifically, our peers here in New York saw an estimated $750,000 shortfall in corporate support ahead of this year’s New York City Pride festivities. San Francisco Pride, which had previously received funding from Meta, “formally [cut] ties” with the company after it eliminated internal policies designed to increase diverse hiring practices.

    While many allies continue to show solidarity through actions like marching, volunteering, or attending Pride events, the previous rapid rise and now sudden fall of tangible financial support, such as sponsorships and corporate donations, is most revealing. DEI policies have become a lightning rod for political controversy, prompting large corporations to retreat from public support to avoid being targeted. These sponsors are not unaware of the optics. They’re choosing to step back because standing beside us comes with political consequences in 2025.

    This drawback from corporate sponsors of as much as $200,000 to $350,000 per event sends a dangerous message to corporate America: support for the LGBTQ+ community is secondary to external political pressure.

    This phenomenon raises a problematic question for LGBTQ Americans: How sincere was the corporate support, whether intangible or tangible, in the first place?

    And many of us are asking this question.

    How sincere was the rainbow logo on your company’s social media pages? How earnest was the big donation to our festival after the 2020 election? Did these companies ever care about us, or were their pre-2025 actions just performative virtue signaling? To be clear, performative allyship is not a new concept. But we wonder: was it all just “rainbow capitalism?”

    Support and allyship for our community should not be confined to one month – that is what makes people question its authenticity. Sure, anyone can produce a feel-good video about how their company supports LGBTQ staff. But if it all stops on July 1, it does nothing for LGBTQ individuals.

    And we aren’t blind to it. Pew Research Center reported that 68% of LGBTQ adults think corporate promotion of Pride is just as they believe it is good for business. We know the difference between performative allyship and real, courageous support. Real allyship doesn’t disappear under pressure. It doesn’t end when the month does. It shows up 365 days a year, especially when it’s hardest. We know how to ask the hard questions: What backs this up? How does this support go beyond Pride Month? How can organizations show their support during the other eleven months of the year?

    The lack of sponsorship and support during this year’s Pride answers these questions. It shows that too many corporations never truly cared about the LGBTQ community but chased public sentiment when it was “in style” to support us.

    As a festival organizer and LGBTQ executive, I’ve felt firsthand how these retreats sting, especially for our Trans siblings, who the current administration has relentlessly targeted. We’re not dismissing the value of past support; many Pride events genuinely could not have happened without it. But when that support evaporates in the face of political backlash, it’s hard not to wonder if it was ever genuine to begin with.

    This moment is a loyalty test. Who will stand with us now, not just when it’s popular, but when it’s hard? Who will invest in our future, even when it’s under attack?

    Allyship doesn’t need to come in the form of a float or a flag. But it does need to be consistent. It needs to be visible in boardrooms, in hiring practices, in advocacy, and in year-round support of the grassroots organizations doing the work on the ground. If you genuinely care about the LGBTQ community, help us access the spaces historically off-limits to us and show your support for the companies that celebrate our lived experience.

    The implications of corporate withdrawal go beyond the immediate loss of funds. Paired with a recent Supreme Court decision weakening protections for transgender individuals, it signals that political agendas are again taking precedence over the fundamental rights and dignity of vulnerable people. Pride was never just a party; it has always been a protest. And while we still celebrate, we are once again reminded that our joy is a form of resistance.

    Rather than joining in celebration, our community is once again forced to rise above political hostility and cultural backlash. We will continue to rebuild, advocate, and celebrate ourselves in ways that reflect our worth — not only in June, but all year long. True allyship doesn’t retreat; it shows up when it’s needed most.

  • Opinion: Between outlawing firearms or affection, they’re hellbent on making gay sex the real crime

    A couple of years ago, I wrote about Speaker Mike Johnson’s persistent fixation on gay sex. Sure, he loaths the LGBTQ+ community as a whole and abhors same-sex marriage, but the physical act itself really rubs Johnson the wrong way. 

    Pun intended.

    Johnson seems unable to discuss queer people without conjuring up an image of what we might be doing in the bedroom. My conclusion then was simple, and that’s when a politician is this singularly focused on other people’s private, consensual sex lives, it says far more about them than about the people they’re condemning.

    Now, it looks like Pete Hegseth is breathlessly itching to catch up to Johnson in the “how much can I talk about gay sex?” contest. There are underwear contests, measurement contests, and drag contests. But for Hegseth, Johnson, and other warped Christian conservatives, it’s all about who can outdo the other on condemning gay sex.

    Hegseth, the waxed and tatted Defense Secretary “warrior” recently posted a video in which a preacher says that gay sex should be banned. The video featured another one of those “hell hath no fury like a pastor demonized” Doug Wilson, who is the co-founder of the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC).

    According to the CREC’s “story,” they seek “to uphold traditional Reformed distinctives, resisting fundamentalist and modernist trends that dilute doctrinal purity and ecclesiastical structures.” What they mean, in a nutshell, is returning our society to the days of the repressed 19th century. What a bunch of forward-looking thinkers!

    Sarcasm intended.

    Now, you might be asking yourself, “Why would Hegseth, with all that’s going on in his world, wars, disclosing military secrets on Signal, and militarizing the streets of Washington, D.C. want to concern himself with gay sex? 

    Well, this isn’t the first time he’s bucked this bronco. It aligns perfectly with what Hegseth wrote in his book late last year, where he railed against the inclusion of LGBTQ+ people in the military, mocked trans service members, and insisted that women should not be in combat. 

    He claimed that diversity efforts and inclusive policies had weakened the armed forces and undermined their heterosexual “warrior culture.” In his telling and tome, the military is meant to be an all-male, all-cisgender, all-straight bastion of masculinity, a place where his idealized image of the warrior can reign unchallenged.

    What’s he so afraid of? Is the sight of two men holding hands enough to send him reaching for a Bible and getting down on his knees? Or is it the thought of what they might be doing later making him ill?

    Because to come out and say “gay sex should be banned” is not a broad, policy-based statement to be sure. He’s making a frantic leap into other people’s intimate lives, which makes you wonder who’s really doing the fantasizing here? After all, gay military and uniform porn is one of the most popular plot lines out there. Maybe Hegseth just saw something done by a subpar director.

    This man is so obsessed with his own looks, his tattoos, his gym body, and his rugged, camera-ready image. Remember, he had a make-up studio installed in the Pentagon for himself.

    His fixation on what other people do sexually is more than a little suspicious. It’s the same voyeuristic streak Johnson has, but wrapped in military fatigues, machismo, and his vaunted “warrior ethos.”

    Finally, why does the top man at the Pentagon, with bottom-of-the-barrel leadership skills, who lacks versatility (he only has one title compared to others who have several), think he’s an expert of gay sex?

    Because Hegseth is taking his cues from people like Doug Wilson, both longing for the days when our military rode around on horses, hurtling spears, and every man in the military was completely thought-to-be straight. 

    Hegseth appreciates that Wilson, the preacher, has painted LGBTQ+ people as predators and degenerates, preaching a gospel of exclusion that trades in fear and falsehood. Hegseth’s rhetoric fits neatly into that mold, moral outrage rooted in some strange personal preoccupation.

    Which brings me to the real question. What makes a man so hateful toward men who have sex with men? Some studies have shown that intense homophobia among some straight men can be tied to insecurity about their own masculinity, fear of being perceived as feminine, or even unacknowledged same-sex attraction. 

    I don’t know where Hegseth lands on that spectrum.

    Anyway, in authoritarian or hyper-religious environments like we are in today with Hegseth’s despot boss, Donald Trump, those feelings often get repressed and then projected outward as over-the-top anger toward queer people. In other words, the louder the condemnation, the deeper the personal conflict may run.

    There was a guy I worked with years ago who made gay joke, after gay joke, after gay joke. I never told him about my sexuality, and bit my tongue. Then I saw him wasted one late night at a gay bar in NYC, and it all clicked!

    This is why the Mike Johnson comparison is unavoidable. Both men wrap themselves in faith and patriotism, so much so, it just makes you want to doubt their sincerity. 

    If push came to shove, in a choice between outlawing gay sex or outlawing guns, it would be no contest. They’d argue that everybody should have guns, and no one should have gay sex. Things would be much better and safer if it were the other way around.

    I can assure you, that in the end, Hegseth share of the ban-gay-sex video says far more about him than it does about any gay man. For a man desperate to prove his toughness, there’s nothing more revealing than how fragile he gets when faced with someone else’s sex life.

  • Trump’s war on harm reduction will cost LGBTQ+ lives

    The Trump administration is wrong about a lot of things when it comes to LGBTQ+ health and well-being. They have attacked transgender medicine, disbanded federal HIV prevention offices, and even endorsed conversion therapy under a new name. There seems to be no floor to how low this administration will go to undermine the health and well-being of LGBTQ+ people in the United States and around the world.

    Their most recent action is yet another example of the destructive policies that worsen LGBTQ+ health: President Trump signed an executive order instructing SAMHSA, the nation’s scientific agency administering behavioral health and substance use interventions, to defund harm reduction programs nationwide.

    Harm reduction is a proven public health intervention that acknowledges that incremental steps toward healthy decision-making can save lives and prevent the spread of disease. Case in point: syringe access programs are an effective public health intervention for people who use drugs and who are not yet ready to quit.

    By providing new syringes, harm reduction organizations prevent the spread of communicable blood-borne diseases like HIV and Hepatitis C. Harm reduction agencies also educate their clients about methods to prevent and reduce overdose as well. They distribute naloxone and provide training on its proper usage. They inform people of the drug consumption methods that are least likely to result in overdose. They provide care to people who are often forgotten about: people who actively use drugs, including those who are unsheltered or unhoused.

    The Trump administration goes so far as to call for the forced institutionalization of homeless populations. Despite the constitutional concerns, this is not an effective public health strategy. It will worsen mental health and isolation. And the evidence is clear that the effectiveness of substance use treatment requires the person to want to quit. We can’t institutionalize our way out of this problem. We can address it by providing care, building trust, and helping people quit drugs when they are ready. And keeping them safe from HIV, Hepatitis C, and overdose until they are prepared to quit.

    That’s harm reduction. That’s what Trump is defunding.

    In the Biden-Harris administration, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services published the first-ever federal Harm Reduction Strategy. It increased the federal investment in evidence-based harm reduction programs. This aligned with the National HIV/AIDS Strategy and efforts to respond to the opioid epidemic. President Trump’s executive order stated that harm reduction programs “only facilitate illegal drug use and its attendant harm.” This is a bold-faced lie.

    The evidence is clear that harm reduction programs work as intended, preventing HIV, Hepatitis C, and overdose. Trump’s team just didn’t read any of it. There is no evidence that harm reduction programs increase drug usage or encourage non-drug users to start using.

    While it’s reasonable to periodically reassess evidence-based programs to ensure that funded programs continue to be effective and aligned with current research, the people who should be deciding which programs to fund should be scientists at federal agencies that administer these grants, not political leaders and certainly not the President.

    This is happening at the same time as the other components of the U.S. HIV prevention infrastructure are being systematically dismantled. The entire staff of the HHS Office of Infectious Disease and HIV Prevention was fired. The CDC / HRSA Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS was disbanded. Numerous grants in LGBTQ+ sexual health and HIV prevention have been cancelled.

    LGBTQ+ Americans are disparately impacted by HIV and STIs. Our communities have increased rates of substance use compared to the majority population. So, harm reduction programs are of unique importance to the LGBTQ+ community because of these disparities. While harm reduction programs serve all people who need support equally, the existing health disparities in substance use mean that LGBTQ+ people are at increased risk for new cases of HIV and Hepatitis C, as well as overdose, as a result of Trump’s executive order.

    Harm reduction works. Harm reduction saves lives and prevents the spread of disease. Harm reduction treats drug users with dignity and humanity. When people are ready to quit using, they have a trusted agency they can talk to for a referral for medically assisted treatment.

    Defunding these programs will cost lives. We cannot afford for politically-driven decisions to undermine evidence-based healthcare that saves and improves LGBTQ+ health and well-being. President Trump is wrong about this and so much more. Preventing HIV and Hepatitis C and reducing mortality from drug overdose is actually a good thing.

  • Why Pete Buttigieg’s comments on trans athletes are so disappointing

    Since the 2024 election, it has become increasingly fashionable to sacrifice trans people on the altar of political approval. Within hours of Kamala Harris’ loss in November, some pundits were already throwing trans people under the bus. This is painful enough when they’re coming from Democrats in red states and those who are looking to dodge a complicated issue. But the comments that recently came from former Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg leave a particularly bad taste in the mouth.

    Not only has Buttigieg historically shown support for the LGBTQ+ community (of which he’s a part), but he has also built his brand on being able to explain nuanced and complex issues in a careful and compelling way to right-wing viewers on Fox News. Now, Buttigieg’s take on trans athletes fails both the trans community and his own reputation.

    Buttigieg’s comments came at the end of July during a discussion with Steve Inskeep for NPR’s Morning Edition. Inskeep brought up Rahm Emanuel’s recent interview with Megyn Kelly, where Emanuel agreed that a “man cannot become a woman” and the ensuing backlash, and then asked Buttigieg how he approached the topic.

    Buttigieg arguably started out well, saying that we need to treat trans people with compassion. He also suggested that we need to approach, with empathy, those who are concerned and recognize their confusion. 

    Taken by itself, that suggestion has merit: a lot of people have been fed lies and propaganda about trans people for a long time, and responding by telling people to blindly get over it hasn’t been working. Educating those people on the science behind trans people and why they absolutely have a place in the restrooms and sports teams that match their gender identity is not unwarranted.

    We gain acceptance through understanding, and that understanding can come from a lot of places. But right now, both sides are throwing out claims without taking the time to support them, and the anti-trans crowd is packaging their lies in fear and hate, which makes them more appealing for those who are looking for someone to blame.

    Unfortunately, after an acceptable start to his response, Buttigieg went off the rails and spouted some of the same anti-trans rhetoric that we’ve heard seeping into Democrats’ discussions in recent months. Without further prompting from Inskeep, Buttigieg suggested that “most reasonable people would recognize that there are serious fairness issues […] when a trans athlete wants to compete in women’s sports.”

    Inskeep asked whether that meant a parent complaining about a trans athlete competing against their child had a case, and Buttigieg agreed that they would. Those comments very quickly take Buttigieg’s potential argument from “there’s nuance to be understood and science to be explained, but ultimately trans people belong in sports” to “maybe trans people shouldn’t be playing sports.”

    When Inskeep quoted Donald Trump’s comments about “no boys in girls’ sports” and said that it didn’t sound like Buttigieg is signing on to that, Buttigieg didn’t shut it down, but rather deflected, noting that “chess is different from weightlifting and weightlifting is different from volleyball, and middle school is different from the Olympics.” It’s important that politicians highlight just how much the anti-trans movement is primarily about ostracizing trans people from society, and banning trans women from women’s chess is a great example of that. But the way that Buttigieg raised it here suggests that he thinks there’s room to discriminate against trans people in some places but not others.

    It’s perhaps worth noting that a trans woman who is on hormones will lose muscle mass, etc., and her weightlifting ability will be much closer to that of her female counterparts: the science behind all of that is being examined and is evolving. That might be hard to trot out in an interview, but again, that’s what makes this quite so disappointing: Buttigieg has shown he can present that sort of data and nuance in a discussion, but here he seems to be bringing out the new weak Democratic messaging on trans people instead of speaking up for a marginalized community.

    While we’ve seen other Democrats throw people under the bus or deliver less-than-perfect messaging, this is different. When someone like California Gov. Gavin Newsom does it, it’s not as surprising as it should be, as he’s proven to be so motivated by political ambition. Rep. Sarah McBride (D-DE) has been heavily criticized for some of her comments because she’s trans herself and expected to stand up and be the “model minority”—perfect on everything. But compared to someone like Buttigieg, she’s relatively inexperienced with this sort of matter and handling the level of attention it has been receiving. 

    Whether it’s a matter of following new talking points or getting pressured by an interviewer into making concessions, Buttigieg should know better and has shown that he can hold his own in situations like this, so this all feels like more of a choice on his part to support some of the anti-trans messaging around inclusivity in sports.

    Buttigieg has since done another interview where he sought to clarify his points. This time, he didn’t talk about whether someone would have a case to complain about trans athletes’ inclusion in school sports. Additionally, rather than vague “fairness” concerns, he suggested that people were “going to have questions about how to make sure that’s fair,” which (to give him the benefit of the doubt) leaves the door open for trans inclusion under certain considerations.

    But crucially, the problem with his second interview is that he doubled down on another point he originally brought up. In pushing that trans people shouldn’t be a “political football,” he suggested that the solution to all of this was to remove the discussion from politics and instead leave it to the sports leagues and school boards.

    While trans people have received too much political attention with bans on everything from our healthcare to our ability to go about our daily lives, what Buttigieg is suggesting here is simply passing the buck in the most dangerous of ways.

    When it comes to school sports, there are issues of Title IX discrimination at play with whether trans students are allowed to compete with students of the same gender identity. That very definitely is a matter that needs to be addressed by federal politicians because Title IX is a federal statute that bans discrimination on the basis of sex in education.

    The idea that the solution for this issue of discrimination against trans people is to leave it to the leagues is as flawed as Trump’s suggestion that we leave abortion up to the states in the wake of Roe v. Wade being overturned. No, politicians shouldn’t be the ones unilaterally deciding on people’s access to reproductive care, but they should be listening to scientists and data to ensure that everyone gets the appropriate access that is best for their well-being.

    If ending segregation had been left up to the states, many states would still be segregated: we know this because the National Guard had to be sent in to force local agencies to allow Black students into school. Politicians shouldn’t be restricting gender-affirming care against a medical consensus that such health care is safe and life-saving; instead, they might need to enshrine protections for it by working with doctors and researchers. 

    Politicians might need to work with sports leagues and experts to ensure that trans athletes can be included, but leaving decisions up to the leagues while Trump is loudly influencing such choices is simply not enough. Buttigieg’s words are an attempt to avoid the issue altogether rather than actually engage with protecting the vulnerable.

    Right now, a lot of the trans community is justifiably feeling betrayed by Buttigieg. Whether he misspoke or was taking up talking points handed to him, the appearance is very much that he has decided trashing trans people is acceptable if it helps him to set up a 2028 run for president that’s more palatable to centrists and conservatives. 

    We can give him the benefit of the doubt, but if he wants the trans and ally vote, he’s going to need to come out swinging in defense of trans people. Going “Eh, it’s complicated” and essentially leaving our rights to the bigots is not going to be enough.

  • Duckling Tim Cook basks in the stench of the odorous Donald Trump and lauds him with the gift of gold

    A few weeks ago, I was running along the Hudson River when I had to pause as a duck strutted across the walkway, its head held high as if it owned the pavement. Behind her, a couple of ducklings scurried, scrambling to keep up. It was sweet and charming, despite what they leave behind and what I step in constantly.

    Keep up with the latest in LGBTQ+ news and politics. Sign up for The Advocate’s email newsletter.

    And then this week, I saw something eerily similar, but instead of charm, it reeked of desperation and groveling. On Wednesday, there was Tim Cook, the 5’9″ CEO of Apple, trailing 6’3″ Donald Trump into the Oval Office. 

    All I could think of was that duck and her ducklings, but in this version, the duckling was a sycophant, and the air was thick with something much fouler than duck droppings.

    Now, when I put Trump and stench in the same sentence, I know what you’re thinking. Thank God I’ve never been close enough to him to verify whether said rumor is true, but it seems like lots of people like to talk about it.

    However, this isn’t about physical odor. Instead, it’s the moral malodor of Trump’s vicious attacks on the LGBTQ+ community and on migrants, many of whom make up the very labor force that assembles Apple’s devices across the globe. And what Trump is doing just stinks.

    Further, Cook, as a gay man and as CEO of a company that benefits from cheap labor in countries Trump would refer to as “shitholes,” turned his back on both communities by debasing himself to this odorous man.

    And if that weren’t bad enough, Cook presented Trump with a gift, an opulent sculpture made of glass with the Apple logo and 24-karat gold. Presumably, so it would feel right at home among the other tacky, gilded ornaments Trump has offensively nailed to the walls of the Oval Office. 

    It was as if Cook were auditioning for one of the three wise men, who offered gold, frankincense, and myrrh to the self-appointed messiah of MAGA. Remember, Trump thinks he’s akin to the second coming of Christ. But in this case, there’s no room for Christ, who was humble, Trump’s bloated ego just thinks he’s God.

    Cook has now arguably dethroned Elon Musk as Trump’s favorite corporate CEO, and just like everyone else who tries to cozy up to Trump, this Cook is going to get burned. People are already trashing him on social media. 

    I’m sorry, but did anyone in Apple PR have the gonads to say to him, “Um, Mr. Cook, it’s probably not a good idea to present his majesty with more gold, lest the court jesters mock thee as the enemy.”

    But Cook is such a coward, because if he doesn’t indulge and appease his majesty, Cook will also get burned on Trump’s Truth Social.

    Just a side note, I always thought it was ironic that “musk” was close to the stink bomb Trump. But “cook” makes sense as the new heir to the throne because MSNBC’s Alex Wagner once said Trump smelled like “cooking oil.”

    OK, now back to our regularly scheduled programming.

    Cook has a history of schmoozing and groveling before Trump, but this latest stunt was way over the top. The gift, the photo op, the Nancy Reagan gaze, it was all too much. 

    I say this all the time because it’s always true: Cook’s toadiness was all about the money. If Trump told Cook to help build the new White House ballroom, Cook would have worn overalls with a tool belt to the White House on Wednesday. Like Cook or Apple needs more money.

    Cook is one of the richest men alive, at the helm of one of the most powerful and lucrative companies in human history. Based on what happened this week, Cook apparently can’t get enough money. So he stoops low enough to inhale the gaseous fumes of Trump in exchange for favor and profit. 

    It’s an overtly sickening sight, especially if you’re a queer employee at Apple or a poorly paid worker in South Asia making the very devices Cook uses to buy power and access.

    Instead of issuing a dignified press release on Wednesday to announce Apple’s latest U.S. investment, which, if it even materializes, won’t show results anytime soon, Cook chose to deliver it in person so Trump could bask in the announcement’s glow. As if he had anything to do with it.

    Well, he did, by extorting companies with tariff threats. Trump bullies corporations into making splashy investments on U.S. soil to avoid the wrath of tariffs, while conveniently scoring political points along the way. Like he did on Wednesday with Cook. The optics and location suggest Trump made this happen.

    And while these announcements might sound good in headlines, they mostly serve wealthy multinational corporations that can afford to throw money at Trump and weather the tariff storm. Small businesses will suffer mightily. They can’t curry favor with golden trinkets and billion-dollar press conferences. They just try to survive.

    Under Trump, the rich are thriving, wealthy individuals are profiting off tax breaks from the “big beautiful bill,” and corporate empires are handing him 24-karat gold as tribute. Meanwhile, Trump’s war on higher education means only the wealthy will soon be able to afford a degree. 

    His war on truth means the media bends to his lawsuits with huge financial gifts. Just like law firms. And courts, ruling in favor of migrants and the marginalized, are frustrated that the Justice Department won’t adhere to rulings.

    If Cook’s foaming at the pulpit with Trump showed anything, it’s that only the rich survive in the era of the gilded Donald. 

    When all else fails, as it was my hope that corporate America would step up, or step in and rescue democracy. But honestly, since so many companies caved to Trump by scrapping their DEI programs (Apple didn’t, but it can get away with having DEI because of Cook’s money and tricks), they’ll most likely continue to bend their knees, or get on their knees.

    All hope is gone that they would be the grown-ups in the room. The institutions with resources, independence, and influence. But if Tim Cook, one of the most prominent CEOs in the world, is any indication, then we’re in freefall. 

    If this is what leadership looks like, then we will be living under authoritarian rule faster than you can say “iPhone.” And that’s the kicker. We can all say what we want about Tim Cook. We can ridicule him. We can protest his prostration to Trump. We can threaten to boycott…

    No, we can’t. Because we are all addicted to our iPhones, our iPads, and our Macs, and so when push comes to shove, we’ll laugh, shrug, shake our fists, and then turn our heads back toward our phones.

    Cook may come across as approachable and chill, but make no mistake, he is, at his core, a ruthless money-monger. He showed us who he is. He proved he’s no different from Mike Johnson, Sam Altman, Shari Redstone, or any of the others handing Trump their loyalty in the form of adulation, power, and, yes, gold.

    And he feeds our addiction, while ducking out of responsibility for capitulation to a dictator.

    Voices is dedicated to featuring a wide range of inspiring personal stories and impactful opinions from the LGBTQ+ community and its allies. Visit Advocate.com/submit to learn more about submission guidelines. Views expressed in Voices stories are those of the guest writers, columnists, and editors, and do not directly represent the views of The Advocate or our parent company, equalpride.

  • How Elon Musk turned his pain into policy—and targeted the trans community

    What if the tidal wave of anti-trans legislation sweeping across America could be traced, in part, to the wounded pride of the world’s wealthiest man?

    Elon Musk—CEO of Tesla, SpaceX, and X (formerly Twitter)—is not just a public figure. He is a force of culture, capital, and controversy. But behind his carefully crafted persona of rebellious genius lies a quieter, more personal story: that of a child who transitioned, took a new name, and severed ties with her father.

    Musk’s daughter, a transgender woman, filed legal paperwork in 2022 to change her name and gender identity. She made her wishes unmistakable: she no longer wanted to “be related to [her father] in any way, shape or form.” In other words, she rejected not just his name but his brand, his ideology, and—perhaps most painfully—the Olympian-ordained quest for patronal approval: a pursuit he may have seen as mythic, even heroic, but which she experienced as petty, hollow, and in the end, anticlimactic.

    Soon after, Musk began using his platform and his wallet to signal animosity toward the trans community. He posted mocking comments about pronouns, amplified far-right accounts known for targeting trans people, and donated upward of $250 million to GOP candidates and causes, many of whom subsequently centered their campaigns around anti-trans policy agendas.

    This raises a chilling question: Could the extraordinary vitriol we see directed at trans people—particularly trans youth—be fueled not by ideology or feigned concern, but by the private grievances of the world’s richest man?

    Consider the influence such a donor wields: Musk’s money helped fund legislative efforts to ban gender-affirming care, restrict educational content, police bathrooms, and strip legal protections from an already vulnerable segment of our population. His contributions empowered candidates who thrive on cultural wedge issues, and the trans community quickly became the favored target. We are watching state after state move to criminalize doctors, isolate families, and erase trans existence from public life.

    For what? To win elections? To consolidate power? Or perhaps, to settle a personal score.

    At the highest levels of wealth, taxation becomes optional, and power can become addictive. The wealthiest Americans often carry expectations on par with their wealth: comfort raised to the height of luxury; levels of quality that pass for perfection; and a final-word authority that’s rarely, if ever, challenged. But when that authority is challenged—especially by a dependent declaring autonomy—the reaction can be ferocious.

    This is not to suggest that the anti-trans movement began with Elon Musk. It didn’t. But his story exemplifies a larger truth: personal grievances, when paired with immense economic and political capital, can rapidly metastasize into public policy.

    What would it mean if the pain of one estranged father helped bankroll the suffering of thousands of children like his own?

    We often ask ourselves how we got here—how a group as small and marginalized as the trans community came to be painted as a threat to the republic. The answer may be as human as it is disturbing: hurt people hurt people. When the hurt person is a billionaire, the damage can metastasize into the systemic oppression of our disenfranchised.

    We can no longer afford to treat this wave of cruelty as the usual ebb and flow of politics. It is something darker, more intimate, and immensely more dangerous. World history compels us to recognize this for what it is—a tale repeatedly told, with a moral repeatedly forgotten:

    When private vendettas are allowed to dictate public policy, no one is safe.

    Voices is dedicated to featuring a wide range of inspiring personal stories and impactful opinions from the LGBTQ+ community and its allies. Visit Advocate.com/submit to learn more about submission guidelines. Views expressed in Voices stories are those of the guest writers, columnists, and editors, and do not directly represent the views of The Advocate or our parent company, equalpride.

  • Why Anti-Trans Hate Makes a Toxic Environment for Women Athletes

    Earlier this year, 16-year-old AB Hernandez became the target of nationwide hate and harassment when the president of a local school board publicly doxxed the track and field athlete and outed her as transgender. Right-wing activists misgendered her and called her mom “evil;” swarms of adults showed up to heckle her at games; Charlie Kirk pushed state governor Gavin Newsom to condemn her; and President Donald Trump threatened to withhold federal funding from California over her participation.

    While transgender athletes are very rare, this type of harassment towards them is playing out across the country and internationally. A trans girl was harassedat a soccer game in Bow, New Hampshire, by adult protestors wearing XX/XY armbands, representing an anti-trans sports clothing brand. And in British Columbia, a 9-year-old cis girl was accosted by a grown man who accused her of being trans and demanded that she prove her sex to him.

    While research into the relative athletic capabilities of trans and cis women is ongoing, far-right groups, including the Alliance Defending Freedom and the Leadership Institute, have been putting hate before science to turn the public against trans athletes since at least 2014. And it’s working.

    Laws, rules or regulations currently ban trans athletes from competing in sports consistent with their gender identity in 29 states, with 21 beginning the ban in kindergarten. The majority-conservative Supreme Court announcedthis month that it’ll be taking on the question of the constitutionality of the bans. Meanwhile, the federal government is pressuring states without bans to change their policies in compliance with a Trump executive order that attempts to institute a nationwide ban.

    Trump signs an executive order calling for bans on trans women and girls from women’s sports. Photo by: The White House.

    These bans have been successful in part because of a toxic and ruthless ecosystem of far-right influencers, like Riley Gaines, who have formed entire careers around attacking trans athletes by prioritizing hate and misinformation.

    “So much of what we see … just seems like it’s wrapped up in really hateful and negative messages that aren’t good for anyone,” says Mary Fry, a professor of sport and exercise psychology at the University of Kansas. “We’re creating issues where maybe we don’t need to.”

    Harassment and Mental Health

    Grace McKenzie has been deeply affected by these hate campaigns. A lifelong athlete, McKenzie has stayed healthy by playing multiple sports where she’s met “amazing people.” Shortly after she transitioned in 2018, she was thrilled when she was invited to join a women’s rugby team at the afterparty of a Lesbians Who Tech conference.

    Grace McKenzie. Photo courtesy of McKenzie.

    “Rugby became my home, it was my first queer community, it was the space where I really discovered my own womanhood,” McKenzie told Uncloseted Media. “I could be the sometimes-masculine, soft-feminine person who play[s] rugby and loves sports.”

    But that started to change in 2019, when McKenzie and others on her team started to hear rumors that World Rugby was considering a ban on trans athletes. Fearing the loss of her community, she started a petition that racked up 25,000 signatures—but it wasn’t enough, and the ban took effect in 2020.

    As anti-trans rhetoric in sports has ramped up, McKenzie says she’s had soul-crushing breakdowns that have left her “sobbing uncontrollably and unconsolably.”

    “It would be these waves of such intense despair and rage—it was like going through grief for five years,” she says. “I have to wake up every single day and read about another state or another group of people who say that they don’t want me to exist.”

    While McKenzie says she’s found the strength to keep playing where she can, sports psychologist Erin Ayala has seen clients leave sports altogether due to the hate toward trans athletes.

    “It can be really difficult when they feel like they’re doing everything right … and they still don’t belong,” says Ayala, the founder of the Minnesota-based Skadi Sport Psychology, a therapy clinic for competitive athletes. “Depression can be really high. They don’t have the strength to keep fighting to show up. And then that can further damage their mental health because they’re not getting the exercise and that sense of social support and community.”

    That was the story of Andraya Yearwood, who made national headlines in high school when she and another trans girl placed first and second in Connecticut’s high school track competitions. The vitriol directed at her was intense: Parents circulated petitions to have her banned; crowds cheered for her disqualification; the anti-LGBTQ hate group Alliance Defending Freedom launched a lawsuit against the state for letting her play; and she faced a torrent of transphobic and racist harassment.

    “It’s a very shitty experience,” Yearwood, now 23, told Uncloseted Media.

    Fearing more harassment, she quit running in college.

    “I understood that collegiate athletics is on a much larger and much more visible scale. … I just didn’t want to go through all that again for the next four years,” she says. “Track obviously meant a lot to me, and to have to let that go was difficult.”

    It’s understandable that Yearwood and other trans athletes struggle when they have to ditch their favorite sport. A litany of research demonstrates that playing sports fosters camaraderie and teamwork and improves mental and physical health. Since trans people disproportionately struggle from poor mental health, social isolation and suicidality, these benefits can be especially crucial.

    “In some of these cases, kids have been participating with a peer group for years, and then rules were made and all of a sudden they’re pulled away,” says Fry. “It’s a hard world to be a trans individual in, so it’d be easy to feel lonely and separated.”

    Caught in the Crossfire

    The anti-trans attacks in sports are also affecting cis women. Ayala, a competitive cyclist, remembers one race where she and her trans friend both made the podium. When photos of the event were posted on Facebook, people accused her of being trans, and she was added to a “list of males who have competed in female sports” maintained by Save Women’s Sports.

    Ayala isn’t alone. Numerous cis female athletes have been “transvestigated,” or accused of being trans, including Serena Williams and Brittney Griner. During the 2024 Paris Olympics, Donald Trump and Elon Musk publicly accused Algerian boxer Imane Khelif of being trans after her gold medal win, as part of a wave of online hate against her. She would later file a cyberbullying complaint against Musk’s X.

    While women of all races have been targeted, Black women have faced harsher scrutiny due to stereotypes that portray them as more masculine.

    Yearwood remembers posts that would fixate on her muscle definition and compare her to LeBron James.

    “I think that is attributed to the overall hyper-masculinization and de-feminization of Black women, and I know that’s a lot more prevalent for Black trans women,” she says. “It made it easier to come for us in the way that they did.”

    Upgrade to paid

    A Big Distraction

    Joanna Harper, a post-doctoral scholar at Oregon Health & Science University and one of the world’s leading researchers on the subject, says that the jury is still out on whether the differences in athletic performance between trans and cis women are significant enough to warrant policy changes.

    “People want simple solutions, they want things to be black and white, they want good guys and bad guys,” Harper says, adding that the loudest voices against trans women’s participation do not actually care about what the science says.

    “This idea that trans women are bigger than cis women, therefore it can’t be fair, is a very simple idea, and so it is definitely one that people who want to create trans people as villains have pushed.”

    Even Harper herself has been the victim of the far-right’s anti-trans attacks. Earlier this year, she was featured in a New York Times article where she discussed a study she was working on with funding from Nike into the effects of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) on adolescents’ athletic performance.

    After the article came out, Riley Gaines, Turning Point USA and Fox News-affiliated sports outlet OutKick attacked Nike for funding the study.

    Riley Gaines and OutKick founder Clay Travis attack Harper’s study on X.

    “That Nike chose to fund a study on trans athletes doesn’t actually say that they’re supporting trans athletes. They’re merely supporting research looking into the capabilities of trans athletes,” Harper says. “You don’t know what the research will show until you get the data … but the haters don’t want any data coming out that doesn’t support what they want to say.”

    Harper says this anti-trans fervor and HRT bans are making it more difficult to conduct studies in the first place.

    And while the far-right argues that they are “protecting women’s sports” in their war on trans athletes, multiple athletes and experts told Uncloseted Media that this distracts from bigger issues in women’s sports, including sexual harassment by coaches and a lack of funding.

    “If the real goal was to help women’s sports, they would try to increase funding [and] support for athletes,” says Harper, noting that women’s sports receive half as much money as men’s sports at the Division I collegiate level. “But that’s not what they’re doing, and it becomes pretty evident the real motivation behind these people.”

    Share

    Moving Forward

    Since Trump’s reelection, Grace McKenzie has somewhat resigned herself to the likelihood of attacks on trans people getting worse. Despite this, she finds hope in building community with other trans athletes, such as the New York City-based trans basketball league Basketdolls.

    “If that’s the legacy that [the anti-trans movement] wants to leave behind, good for them,” McKenzie says. “Our legacy is going to be one about hope, and collective solidarity, and mutual aid, and I would much rather be on that side of the fence.”

    Meanwhile, Fry remains hopeful that conflicts can be resolved and that trans people may be able to find a place in sports over time.

    “If we could all have more positive conversations and not create such a hateful environment around this issue, it would just benefit everyone.”

    If objective, nonpartisan, rigorous, LGBTQ-focused journalism is important to you, please consider making a tax-deductible donation through our fiscal sponsor, Resource Impact, by clicking this button:

    Donate to Uncloseted Media

  • Trump administration bars trans women athletes from ‘extraordinary ability’ visas

    The Department of Homeland Security will update visa policies to prevent transgender women from traveling to the U.S. to participate in elite women’s sporting events.

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services issued guidance Monday intended to bar trans women athletes from obtaining “extraordinary ability” visas to compete in female sports, as was first reported by the conservative news website The Daily Wire. The guidance builds off of an executive order President Doanld Trump issued during the early weeks of his presidency that intended to bar trans women from competing in female sports. 

    The guidance doesn’t use the word transgender or refer to trans women, but rather refers to “male athletes” who seek to compete in women’s sports.

    Matthew Tragesser, a spokesperson for USCIS, said in a statement that the agency is “closing the loophole for foreign male athletes whose only chance at winning elite sports is to change their gender identity and leverage their biological advantages against women.” 

    “It’s a matter of safety, fairness, respect, and truth that only female athletes receive a visa to come to the U.S. to participate in women’s sports,” Tragesser said in the statement. “The Trump Administration is standing up for the silent majority who’ve long been victims of leftist policies that defy common sense.”

    The policy update applies to three visa categories for individuals who possess “extraordinary ability” in science, art, education, business or athletics. It also affects national interest waivers, which allow applicants to self-petition to waive the labor certification for a green card if they can show that their work serves the national interest. 

    The updated guidance clarifies that USCIS “considers the fact that a male athlete has been competing against women as a negative factor” in determining whether they are among the top in the sport.

    The guidance adds that it is not in the national interest of the U.S. to waive the labor certification requirement for trans women athletes “whose proposed endeavor is to compete in women’s sports.”

    USCIS did not respond to a request for comment regarding how many people could be affected by the new policy or whether there are recent examples of trans female athletes traveling to the U.S. under the affected visa categories. 

    Within the National Collegiate Athletic Association, the nonprofit group that regulates college athletics, about 25,000 international student athletes compete in NCAA sports out of the more than 500,000 total who compete each year, according to the association. While it’s unclear how many NCAA athletes are trans, the association’s president, Charlie Baker, told a Senate committee in December that he is aware of fewer than 10.

    The USCIS policy update may have affected athletes who planned to travel to Los Angeles for the 2028 Summer Olympics; however, the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee barred trans women from competing in female sports last month. 

    Only a handful of trans athletes have ever competed in the Olympics. Weightlifter Laurel Hubbard became the first out trans athlete to compete in the Olympics in the Tokyo Games in 2021, though she did not medal. American skateboarder Alana Smith and Canadian soccer star Quinn also competed in the Tokyo Games, and Quinn became the first nonbinary and trans athlete to ever medal when their team won gold that year.

  • World Athletics Rule Reignites Gender Verification Debate Ahead of Tokyo Championships

    Female athletes aiming to compete in international women’s track and field events will be required to undergo a one-time genetic test to confirm biological sex, under new regulations from World Athletics set to take effect September 1, according to a press release. 

    The policy, announced ahead of the 2025 World Championships in Tokyo, mandates testing for the SRY gene, which typically indicates the presence of a Y chromosome and is used as a marker of male biological sex. The test can be administered via blood sample or cheek swab and will be overseen by national federations under World Athletics’ supervision.

    The update provides procedural clarity for competitions moving forward but deepens what has long been one of track and field’s most polarizing debates — the eligibility of transgender women and athletes with differences in sex development (DSD). Critics say the policy singles out and targets gender-diverse athletes, particularly trans women and intersex athletes, while imposing no such testing on cisgender men or trans men. 

    Alejandra Caraballo, of the Harvard Law Cyberlaw Clinic, noted in a BlueSky post that a previous attempt to test women athletes ruined their lives and led to the suicide of Pratima Gaonkar, an intersex swimmer who won a silver medal in the 4×400 relay in the Junior Asian Athletics Championships, among other tragedies and near-fatalities. 

    World Athletics currently bans transgender women who have gone through male puberty from competing in women’s categories, and imposes strict testosterone suppression requirements on DSD athletes. The new rule, recommended by a working group earlier this year, adds a pre-competition SRY gene screening as an eligibility prerequisite.

    The issue of gender verification in sport has caused international controversy since Caster Semenya, a South African runner with DSD, rose to prominence after winning her first world title in the 800 meters in 2009. Semenya became the public face of the debate, especially after refusing to comply with World Athletics’ 2018 policy requiring athletes like her to reduce their natural testosterone levels to compete.Just three weeks ago, Semenya won a partial legal victory at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France, which ruled that she had not received a fair hearing when the Swiss Supreme Court upheld the sport’s prior regulations. While the judgment did not overturn World Athletics’ DSD policy, it cast further doubt on the legal processes behind those rules.

  • How the Trump administration is greenlighting discrimination against LGBTQ+ federal employees

    This week, the Office of Public Management (OPM) issued a memo urging federal agencies to “robustly protect and enforce” federal employees’ right to engage in religious expression in the workplace. This right includes efforts of employees to persuade others of the correctness of their religious views, encourage them to pray or attend religious services, and display religious items, such as crosses and religious posters, in the workplace.

    While the five-page memo briefly mentions the limits on this religious expression—it can’t be harassing in nature, and employees can’t be disciplined for disagreeing or declining to participate—the memo’s major chord pushes religious expression rather than preventing discrimination and harassment.

    For LGBTQ people employed by the federal government, the memo does not merely overlook discrimination; it endorses it.

    In two national surveys conducted by the Williams Institute in 2021 and 2023, over half of employees who experienced discrimination or harassment reported that the mistreatment was motivated by religious beliefs, including almost two-thirds (64%) of LGBT employees of color and 40% of public sector employees.

    Why did employees feel their negative treatment in the workplace was motivated by religion? In almost all cases, because the people discriminating told them so. In response to our 2021 survey, over one-third of those who reported religiously motivated discrimination were told something that God believed or required, such as God “hates gay people,” “only made two genders,” is “against marriage equality, “doesn’t want people to be publicly gay,” and doesn’t want “LGBTQ people at work.” 

    Many of the stories that respondents shared with us echo what the OPM memo encourages. For example, the memo specifies that “during a break, an employee may discuss why his faith is correct and why the non-adherent should rethink his religious beliefs.” The “religious beliefs” that LGBTQ employees are asked to rethink are related to their identity and moral values.

    The OPM memo also states that “an employee may invite another to worship at her church despite belonging to a different faith.” For LGBTQ employees, often these aren’t just invitations to religious services, but a request to change their core identity. As a nonbinary employee from Washington shared, “I received encouragement to go to church and reconsider who I am.” Respondents to our survey reported being repeatedly asked by coworkers and supervisors to pray and attend church services. They also received religious pamphlets at work and were told to seek “conversion therapy.”

    The findings from our survey also make clear that these religious beliefs are not always “politely” shared but frequently justify and accompany conduct that is clearly unlawful. As a lesbian respondent to our survey from South Carolina shared about her coworkers, “They quoted a Bible verse and said it is their God-given right to treat anyone who is gay badly.”

    The unlawful conduct that religious beliefs justified included all types of workplace discrimination and harassment. For instance, a bisexual woman from Texas was told “to go to hell during a job interview for liking women.” Another lesbian employee from South Carolina shared that when her boss learned she did not have a male partner, he “withdrew an offer for promotion, saying that I was an abomination and did not align with God’s vision.”

    For some, religious beliefs even justified physical and sexual assault. A gay man from Pennsylvania reported that his attackers said that “because I was an abomination, they could do whatever they wanted and God would be OK with it.” A bisexual woman from Virginia shared that she was assaulted by a coworker “who told me he was enacting ‘God’s will’ on me.”

    Of course, the OPM memo doesn’t endorse unlawful discrimination that extends beyond religious expression, but when LGBTQ people encounter religiously motivated discrimination and harassment in the workplace, what are their options?

    According to the OPM memo, they can ask that the proselytizing stop and decline invitations to engage in religious practices or services. However, the OPM memo makes it clear that there should be no difference between what a coworker can do and what a supervisor can ask of their direct reports. Imagine being the nonbinary employee from Connecticut who was forced to pray with their supervisor before he ate and withstand requests every Friday to attend his church. “He would say, ‘If you really want to be saved and forgiven, please meet me there for 10 AM service this Sunday.’” To reject these religious advances from a boss would risk your job. 

    If LGBTQ employees can’t respond directly, they are left with the options of staying in the closet or looking for another job, if they can find one. As research by the Williams Institute and others has shown, both of those options have significant health and economic costs for employees as well as employers.

    When examining religiously motivated workplace discrimination, it’s important to note that the majority of adherents to most religious denominations in the United States support LGBTQ rights, and many LGBTQ people are also people of faith.

    According to a recent survey by the Pew Research Center, the only sizeable denominations in the U.S. where a majority of members still say that “homosexuality should be discouraged” are Evangelicals (61%), Muslims (55%), and Mormons (50%). But even that paints with too broad a brush. Only 36% of members of historically Black Protestant churches think homosexuality should be discouraged. You have to combine race (white) and denomination (Evangelical) to pinpoint the primary faith with a majority of anti-LGBTQ members.

    Further, many LGBTQ people are also people of faith. A 2020 Williams Institute study found that nearly half (47%) of LGBT adults in the U.S. are religious. The rates are even higher for LGBT people of color, where 71% of Black LGBT adults and 57% of Latinx adults consider themselves religious.

    So, what the OPM sets up for some is not a clash between religion and LGBTQ rights, but a clash between religious beliefs. A bisexual respondent from Illinois wrote, “I am a Christian myself, and a lot of other Christians say that God would not love anybody who is a part of the LGBTQ community.” In contrast, some LGBTQ employees reported that what runs counter to their religious beliefs is discrimination against LGBTQ people.

    In the first six months of the Trump Administration, LGBTQ federal workers have been stripped of civil rights protections that prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity. They have been denied health care benefits that provide gender affirming care for their families and have seen support for DEI and LGBTQ Pride programs and events abandoned and prohibited. For those who remain in federal service, this week’s OPM memo greenlights some of the most common forms of discrimination and harassment that LGBTQ workers face. It contains nothing that would prevent the promotion of religious expression from being extended to the private sector, impacting not only LGBTQ workers, but employees from many faiths, who are not religious, or who are viewed as sinners by Evangelicals. 

    Brad Sears is the Distinguished Senior Scholar of Law and Policy at the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law.

    Voices is dedicated to featuring a wide range of inspiring personal stories and impactful opinions from the LGBTQ+ community and its allies. Visit Advocate.com/submit to learn more about submission guidelines. Views expressed in Voices stories are those of the guest writers, columnists, and editors, and do not directly represent the views of The Advocate or our parent company, equalpride.