Perspectives

/ /

It’s time to stop watching and do something

In today’s world, being gay in San Francisco is a privilege. A loud, public, and often colorful privilege. We walk through neighborhoods where our LGBTQ+ flags fly high. We have businesses that reflect us and city officials who hear our voices. This isn’t true everywhere, and we know it. But even here, even now, I see a growing numbness, especially among younger gay men. Myself included.

Because being a younger gay man today means being born into the aftermath of a war we didn’t fight. We’re the first to inherit a kind of queer ease that many of our elders couldn’t have imagined. We aren’t closeted in the workplace by default. We have dating apps, community centers, and corporate sponsorships. But most strikingly: we have each other, out in the open.

And yet all around us are generations of queer people who remember fighting just to survive. People who buried partners, watched whole friend groups vanish, and still got up and marched anyway. Fighting through the silence of a government that let their friends die during the AIDS crisis. Fighting against religious zealotry, the criminalization of their love, and the moral panic in classrooms.

I try to shut up and listen during Pride, to make space for memory. Because if I don’t, I risk forgetting that this was never just a celebration, it was a bitter fight. And it still is. Take a step back from the glitter and look at where we are right now.

This year, there are over 500 anti-LBGTQ+ bills introduced across the United States. Transgender people are being banned from sports, bathrooms, and healthcare. Drag shows are criminalized. Books that include queer characters are pulled from school shelves. Children are being told their queer families are unnatural. In some states, simply discussing queer identity is now seen as “indoctrination.”

In June, the Department of Defense stripped Harvey Milk’s name from a Navy ship, allegedly to remove “politics” from military naming conventions. But how is it apolitical to erase the name of a man who gave his life speaking truth to power? A man who had to leave the Navy because he refused to stay silent about his sexuality? A man who became the first openly gay elected official in the United States?

This year felt different. Pride was subdued. It was still provocative, loud, and unapologetically us. But there was fear, and it makes me wonder what we would do if the country decided Pride was no longer constitutional. I hope we will be like Hungary, defying Orbán’s Pride ban.

Many of us here in coastal cities cheer from the sidelines. We post infographics. We change our avatars. We celebrate with a bottomless brunch. But what are we doing for the people in Kentucky, Texas, Florida, and Idaho? Or queer kids who don’t see a way forward, let alone a rainbow? Are we fighting for them like our elders fought for us?

I say this not to shame us, but to wake us up.

If generations before us ran a marathon through fire, we can’t just stand at the finish line with signs that say “Yas, queen!” The baton is in our hands now. And the torch isn’t just symbolic.

It’s still burning, because the work isn’t finished.

Pride was born from protest: it was a riot against police brutality, a refusal to be erased. That spirit still matters. Because the pendulum is swinging again, hard and fast, and this time it’s coming for everything: from books to bodies, education to healthcare, our trans siblings to our queer visibility.

I know it’s tempting to feel safe here in San Francisco. But safety can breed complacency. And the truth is, if one of us is under attack, we all are. Queer liberation isn’t a local issue. It’s an international one.

So yes, go out and celebrate in your authenticity. Be joyful. Joy is resistance, too. But don’t forget that grief is part of this story, and so is responsibility. Ask yourself what you’re doing to protect the next generation. Donate to legal defense funds. Support queer youth orgs. Show up to school board meetings. Vote like your life depends on it, because theirs does.

Pride means more when you remember who died to make it possible. The parade doesn’t end at the afterparty. It ends when we all have the same rights, dignity, and chance to live fully and freely. We inherited Pride, now let’s earn it.

So grab the torch. It’s heavy, yes. But it’s ours now.

/ /

Fighting for LGBTQ+ youth: The cases challenging conversion therapy bans

In 2022, licensed professional counselor (LPC) Kaley Chiles filed a lawsuit against Colorado over its ban on conversion therapies for minors. Chiles states she helps her minor clients to “reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual attractions, change sexual behaviors, or grow in the experience of physical harmony within one’s body” and contends that the ban violates her First Amendment right to free speech and the free exercise of religion. The Colorado Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit upheld the ban; however, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear her case (Chiles v. Salazar) in their upcoming session in October of 2025, and the Alliance Defending Freedom will represent her.

While this case will set a precedent, regardless of how the Supreme Court rules, this case is not unique.

In 2012, Alan Chambers, then president of Exodus International, which was the leading ex-gay Christian organization and conversion therapy provider globally, publicly announced that conversion therapies could not change a person’s sexual orientation and that the practices were harmful. While many questioned the sincerity of his statements and accused him of overlooking his organization’s accusations of physical and sexual abuse of minors, the downfall of Exodus International a year later dovetailed with the beginning of the movement underway to ban conversion therapies on minors nationwide.

And the Christian right immediately mobilized to stop those efforts.

California and New Jersey were the first states to ban conversion therapy on minors in 2012 and 2013, respectively, and lawsuits were filed against both states not long after. Like Chiles v. Salazar, both plaintiffs in those cases (King v. Governor of New Jersey & Pickup v. Brown) insisted that the bans were a violation of free speech. In both cases, the plaintiffs’ supporters came from many of the same far-right anti-LBGTQ+ interest groups. However, the appellate courts upheld the ban on conversion therapies. But for the first time, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case regarding the constitutionality of conversion therapy bans, which has perplexed many legal pundits, as the Supreme Court declined to listen to a similar case from the state of Washington in 2023.

It is also important to note that the bans on conversion therapies only apply to licensed mental health professionals. Conversion therapies have absolutely no evidence base that demonstrates their efficacy or safety, and there is no uniform model available that has undergone any scientific scrutiny. There is, however, a wealth of research that demonstrates people who undergo conversion therapies are at heightened risk of experiencing negative health and social outcomes, especially minors.

While most research has focused on sexual minorities, there is a growing body of research demonstrating the adverse impacts that conversion therapies can have on trans and nonbinary youth, specifically that they are much more likely to attempt suicide after exposure to conversion therapies, compared to sexual minority youth.

Any licensed mental health professional who is approached by a client of any age seeking conversion therapies has the ethical obligation to inform the client of the risks associated with the many so-called practices and refer the client to a clergy setting. It is striking to me that, outside of reaffirming their position that they oppose conversion therapies, the American Counseling Association, which Kaley Chiles maintains her license, has been virtually silent on this case. I contacted the American Counseling Association multiple times by phone and email and received no response.

The involvement of the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) as legal representation for the plaintiff is also a major cause for concern. ADF is a well-funded think tank organization that has an extensive history of demonizing and persecuting the LGBTQ+ community and is classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. ADF has also been extremely outspoken in its support for the re-criminalization of sexual acts between consenting LGBTQ+ adults in the United States following the landmark ruling in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, which struck down anti-sodomy laws in the United States.

Collectively, it is apparent that this case is not about freedom of speech; this case is about right-wing identity politics, driven heavily by Christian nationalism. ADF is still riding the momentum from their previous victories, including the United States v. Skremetti, which upheld the ban on gender affirming care for minors in Tennessee and 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis which ruled the First Amendment prevents Colorado from forcing a website designer to create wedding websites for same-sex couples if doing so would violate her religious beliefs and expressive conduct. In an interesting turn of events, the entire foundation of that case was fictitious, as the gay male listed in the case was a straight man married to a woman.

Given the Supreme Court’s increasing right-wing leanings and the outcome of recent freedom of religion cases, it is likely that the Court will side with the plaintiff in this case. But where will the line be drawn? What other social issues will the Christian right be able to circumvent using free speech as an excuse to justify their quest to eradicate the separation between church and state, and what harm will it cause other vulnerable populations?

LGBTQ+ youth need our help and advocacy efforts, now more than ever, and it is time that we not only speak out but make concerted efforts at the local, state, and federal levels to keep them safe.

/ /

Trump’s “A-Gays” are an arrogant, delusional, and obtuse bunch of noxious narcissists

The New York Times this week profiled Donald Trump’s so-called “A-Gays,” an offensive clique of lily white, self-appoionted power gays who, in the Times’words, strut around a militarized D.C. like “a new power tribe.” 

What the story reveals is that this “tribe” is anything but glamorous. The asinine A-Gays are a grotesque display of hypocrisy, delusion, and self-importance. These poor excuses for gay men have chosen to bow before the very administration that is taking a knife to the LGBTQ+ community. 

In broad daylight, while giddy, gutless A-Gays gawk at the gruesomeness. The A-Gays have their noses so far in the air, and so far up Trump’s ass, that the only thing they smell besides Trump’s stench is the stink of their own snootiness. 

This group of Nazi-like close-cropped haircuts and fancy suits is crowing about finding acceptance in Trump’s cult of narcissism. The A-Gays are a perfect fit: too caught up in themselves, just like their vanglory-in-chief.

They are cheap, throwaway props, who, despite all the evidence to the contrary, say that Trump is “not really homophobic.” Really? Does anyone believe Donald Trump would ever walk into a gay bar, or even speak at a Log Cabin Republicanevent? There’s your answer.

Need more proof? Trump and his bruv homophobes, following the virulently anti-LGBTQ+ Project 2025, have been busying themselves with obliterating (the A-Gays love this word) LGBTQ+ protections. 

They are defunding queer youth suicide hotlines, gutting HIV programs at home and abroad, destroying trans rights, and erasing LGBTQ+ history from the nation’s story. 

These A-Gays aren’t A-list anything, except in their arrogance. In the real world, they wouldn’t even make the Z-list.

The Times quoted one of the A-Gays, Casey Flores, who smugly suggested that “the battle for gay rights has basically been won.” Really? Seriously? Perhaps Flores has a flip phone and no access to the internet (DOGE took that away), so he’s illiterate about the news.

Tell couples wondering if their marriages will survive a Supreme Court waiting for the chance to rip equality to shreds, not to worry. Tell queer youth staring down skyrocketing suicide as hotlines and resources are eliminated, that it’s going to be ok.

It takes a special kind of obtuse stupidity to insist the fight is over. 

But why worry? Because Flores is busy sitting in a leather chair in an uppity club, sipping a martini, pining for an invitation to Peter Thiel’s house, while talking loud enough on his flip-phone so people in the room can be witnesses to his self-importance.

I’ve seen this lot before. When I worked on Capitol Hill in the late ’80s, I stumbled into a beach house in Rehoboth where a cabal of closeted Reagan staffers stayed. Their walls were plastered with pictures of themselves with the very man whose administration ignored AIDS while their friends died. This sounds very harsh, but that was the reality.

They were smug too, and equally self-important, and worshipful of a president who didn’t care if they lived or died. Sound familiar? Those men ended up in the dustbin of history, or worse.

Some of them got sick and died, and yet their loyalty never wavered. I spoke with James Kirchick when his fascinating book, Secret City: The Hidden History of Gay Washington, came out. We talked about Reagan strategist Terry Dolan, himself gay, who succumbed to AIDS as Reagan still refused to say the word. Many of his contemporaries died in secret. 

Reagan even went so far as to deny his close friendship with Rock Hudson after he died of AIDS complications in October of 1985. When I went to that house, it was 1988, Reagan’s last year in office, and these toadies were still enthralled with him. Ignorance begets ignorance.

That’s what these Trump A-Gays remind me of, because they are of the same ilk. They, too, are men so desperate for proximity to power that they’ll overlook the casualties of Trump’s cruelty piling up around them.

The absurdity reaches new heights when Melania enters the picture. The Timesreports that Melania is an icon to this group. I had to read that twice, because Melania doesn’t “love the gays” at all. 

The article cites two appearances she benevolently made for Log Cabin Republicans, one at Trump Tower and one at Mar-a-Lago. But that might be a huge lie. She went, not out of the goodness of her non-heart, but because it was a money-making scheme for her. She allegedly charged them six figures to show up for each event. I wrote about this last year.

Yet the Times’ Shawn McCreesh fails to note that key fact, painting her as a gay ally when she’s really a paid prop. 

With all this, I couldn’t help but be reminded about the A-gay-A, Richard Grenell, who idiotically said earlier this year that Trump attracts “normal gays.” I wrote about that too, saying if he thinks he’s “normal” then thank God I’m not.

This is all so repulsive. These sycophants cling to Trump as if he’s the key to their acceptance, blind to the reality that the very MAGA bros and Christian extremists they cozy up to despise them. 

Their foolishness is only matched by their sheer lack of awareness. I bet none of the A-Gays has ever been to a Trump rally, and heard the word “f*g” bandied about like a conjunctive.

Do they really think guys like Mike Johnson, Pete Hegseth, and Stephen Millerrespect them? Hell no!

The Times article notes that these men are unwelcome in D.C.’s actual gay bars, iced out on dating apps, mocked as sellouts. Um, do ya think?

No one wants to get close to someone who cheerfully sells out their own community for a selfie with Trump or preens at a table at the Monocle, while squealing, “Look at me!” “Look at me!” “Look at me!”

What’s most insidious is the A-Gays’ willingness to redefine “community” as their exclusive club. One of the A-Gays, Charles Moran even brags about keeping a spreadsheet of Trump gays in government, as if they’re some secret fraternity. 

I’m sorry, but keeping a spreadsheet on A-Gays is about as creepy as it gets. I can see some wanna-be A-gay frantically calling around, “Can you get me on Charles Moran’s spreadsheet?”

The A-Gays make themselves out to be something fabulous. But, there’s nothing fabulous about defending a man who would gleefully roll back marriage rights, who mocks Pete Buttigieg’s marriage while renaming the Navy ship that rightfully honored Harvey Milk. And what about trans rights? 

These pathetic A-Gays are nothing more than collaborators in Trump’s quest to burn down democracy and establish an autocracy. When that happens, we will all know what the “A” in A-Gays stands for.

Trump will throw these A-Gays under the bus once MAGA wakes up and sees that the A-Gays are nothing more than DEI hires.

Trump dances to “Y.M.C.A.” onstage, sure, but behind the curtain, he cuts AIDS relief, mocks drag queens, and greenlights Christian extremists who believe our very existence is a sin.

History will not be kind to these men. Just as Reagan’s closeted loyalists are remembered with shame and revulsion, Trump’s A-Gays will be remembered as lamentable sycophants, too vain to see that they were being used, and too pompous to stand with their own. 

Trump’s A-Gays won’t be remembered for their power or their proximity, just as pathetic spreadsheet sellouts, and useful idiots who helped crush freedom, democracy, and gay rights.

/ /

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

‹ 1 2 3 4›»