In November of 2016, Brock McGillis became the first openly gay men’s professional hockey player. Now retired, he has spent years advocating for inclusivity in sports, and now, through his U.S. Shiftmakers Tour, he continues. He’s challenging homophobia, fostering inclusion, and inspiring the next generation of athletes.
Last year, The Advocate wrote about McGillis’ tour across Canada, where he proved that real change is possible. The Canadian tour was so successful that now, backed by sponsors including the NHL, NHLPA, Seattle Kraken, Chicago Blackhawks, and Warner Bros, he has expanded his efforts into the United States.
Now, McGillis has been touring the country and going to cities like Seattle, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Boston, with stops in the Midwest as well, reaching out to youth hockey teams and organizations, emphasizing that fostering inclusive environments is not just a moral imperative, it’s essential for the future of the sport.
“It’s a lot of work,” McGillis said. “There was one stretch where I worked 72 hours and was up for 64 of them. I’m putting in 12-plus-hour days on the road, minimum. But it’s been so worth it.”
McGillis’ approach is both deeply personal and highly practical. He shares his own journey not as an endpoint, but as a means to start conversations about being a “shift maker.” His goal is to empower young athletes to stand up against discrimination, to rethink their language, and to create a safer, more inclusive hockey culture.
“I challenge them to be brave,” McGillis explains. “To not laugh when someone’s being bullied, to stand up when someone gets picked on, to intervene when their teammates or friends do something harmful. It’s about being courageous in everyday situations.”
One of his key teaching methods involves three ways to create change, humanizing issues, shaping the environment, and focusing on language. Through team discussions, McGillis encourages players to open up in ways they often don’t.
“I ask them to tell me something about themselves,” he stated. “They always have two answers in their head, the surface-level one, and the one they’re afraid to share. I accept either, but they know which one they gave me, and we go from there.”
Since implementing this approach, McGillis has witnessed powerful moments of vulnerability that are transforming locker rooms.
“I’ve had players talk about self-harm. Others have admitted they hate pretending to laugh along at racist jokes. One player stood up and said, ‘I have a stutter. You guys make fun of me to the point where I don’t want to speak in public.’ These are things they’ve never said out loud before. And when they do, it changes everything,” McGillis pointed out.
The impact of the Shiftmakers Tour has been overwhelmingly positive. “We do surveys everywhere we go. The feedback is resoundingly good. I never expected the level of engagement I’ve gotten,” McGillis said. “It’s fueling me.”
What’s perhaps most surprising is that his message is resonating across political and cultural divides. “I’ve been in conservative areas, and I’ve had staunch Republicans in tears,” he noted. “It transcends politics. People are seeing the human impact of bullying and excluding someone.”
McGillis credits this success to his approach. “A friend of mine pointed out that we need more advocates who work from the inside to shift hearts and minds. Social media has created an environment where whoever yells the loudest gets the most influence. My approach is different. Even when people completely disagree with me, I don’t argue. I advocate.”
And it’s working. The NHL and NHLPA have supported McGillis for two years in a row. Teams in both the U.S. and Canada are on board. Coaches are seeing the change firsthand.
“We can’t create a safe space for LGBTQ+ players, BIPOC players, women, or disabled athletes if straight white kids are tearing each other down,” McGillis said. “This has to be a holistic approach. And once players recognize their privilege and understand how their behavior impacts others, it builds empathy. It creates a movement.”
The movement is growing beyond individual teams. Players who have participated in McGillis’ sessions are staying in touch, sending messages of gratitude, and sharing their experiences.
“There was a kid whose family is in Ukraine. He’s here playing hockey alone. At first, he shared something lighthearted: ‘I sing in the shower,’ he said.’ But after hearing his teammates open up, he went again: ‘I don’t know if my family is in a shelter or not. When I talk to them, I feel like I can’t be a kid. I can’t complain about hockey or school or friends because they’re dealing with so much worse.’”
McGillis paused for a moment, and reflected on that. “How does a kid go and bully someone like that after they share something that vulnerable? And how do his teammates ever mistreat him after hearing that?”
These moments are what drive McGillis forward. With each city he visits, each locker room conversation he sparks, the culture of hockey shifts. And as the Shiftmakers Tour continues to expand, he hopes to reach even more players, coaches, and communities.
“This isn’t just about hockey,” McGillis explained. “It’s about creating a world where everyone belongs.”
Major League Baseball has removed the word “diversity” from its MLB Careers home page in reaction to President Trump’s executive order ending “equal opportunity” for people of color and women in recruiting.
MLB’s retreat makes it the latest entity to pull back on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) practices amid threats of legal action from the Trump administration.
Trump’s Justice Department is using a broad reinterpretation of Civil Rights-era laws to focus on “anti-white racism” rather than discrimination against people of color.
Freedom has never been a passive gift. It is a fight we carry forward, generation after generation.
Living in Alabama, I’m aware that every right we enjoy was won by the people—not simply granted by lawmakers. Black elders in Montgomery remind us that the Montgomery Bus Boycott wasn’t just a symbolic protest—it was 381 days of relentless organizing, sacrifice, and resistance. These histories are blueprints for our movements today, and we need them now more than ever.
As a volunteer for Montgomery Pride United, I have witnessed how the LGBTQ movement is sustained by elders who survived bar crackdowns, led revolutionary marches, and endured the HIV/AIDS crisis. And now, we’re seeing the state of Alabama work to intentionally suppress this crucial history.
On the federal level, under the current Administration, LGBTQ people are facing an aggressive, coordinated effort to censor our stories and restrict equal access to public life. Currently, 456 anti-LGBTQ bills have been introduced across the United States. Here’s what is at stake in Alabama:
House Bill 4 introduces the vague term “gender-oriented conduct” into the state obscenity law—an intentional tactic to ban books about queer and trans people from public libraries.
House Bill 67 is a drag ban also designed to target and criminalize innocent trans people for simply existing in schools or libraries.
House Bill 244 expands “Don’t Say Gay” through 12th grade, further isolating queer and trans youth while censoring free speech, LGBTQ history, and the contributions of queer and trans leaders from classrooms.
House Bill 246, the “Pronoun Bill,” would prohibit public school, college, and university employees from using a student’s name or pronouns without explicit written parental permission.
The inaccurate and harmful act ignoring the existence of intersex, transgender, and nonbinary people , was recently signed by Governor Ivey. It enshrines medically inaccurate definitions of “male” and “female”and aims to block people from their own accurate identity documents and justifies bathroom restrictions that are vague and dangerously enforced. This bill takes effect on October 1.
Anti-LGBTQ bills have emboldened extremists on the ground in Alabama.
These bills are not just targeting LGBTQ people, they are a direct attack on First Amendment freedoms. When Alabama lawmakers passed an anti-DEI law last year, a Black Student Union was forced to give up its meeting space, excluding Black students from necessary and safe places to find community. These actions are part of a broader strategy to roll back civil rights and silence those who challenge systemic oppression. In 2023, lawmakers threatened the Alabama Department of Archives and History’s budget for inviting Invisible Histories, a community archive organization, to present a lecture on Alabama’s rich, and too often untold, LGBTQ History.
Image via Instagram @montgomeryprideunited
Since 2024, we have seen an increase in challenged and banned books across public libraries – including The Pronoun Book, The Meaning of Pride, The Hate U Give, and Being You: a First Conversation about Gender. Our local LGBTQ community center, managed by Montgomery Pride United, has also heard from many queer teens that they fear repercussions by teachers and students alike for being themselves. This onslaught of oppressive laws is meant to make life harder for queer and transgender people in the state.
But here’s what lawmakers fail to understand: LGBTQ people are not leaving Alabama. No amount of hateful legislation will erase us. We are active in our communities, schools, churches, and in every facet of public life across the state. Our history is our power. And right now, lawmakers are not just trying to ban books—they are trying to deny we exist online and in real life. You can help ensure this never happens by joining the collective effort to preserve LGBTQ histories, both digitally and physically, by signing up with Invisible Histories, a community-based archive working with LGBTQ organizations across the South to protect the legacy of LGBTQ Alabamians and help safeguard the online records of DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) programs set to be eliminated because of the President’s executive order.
An attendee pictured in rainbow colored angel wings at Renaissance City Pride in Florence, AL. (Credit: Darian Aaron)
We’ve survived attacks against LGBTQ people before, and this time, we have the tools to protect our history. Our elders were battle-tested, building movements from the ground up and laying the foundation for the social progress we no longer can take for granted. It is our turn to ensure their wisdom and resilience are imparted to future generations. LGBTQ Alabamians shouldn’t have to leave home to thrive, and those intent on making life intolerable for the most marginalized in our state should never be in the majority.
Jose Vazquez (they/them) organizes in Montgomery, Alabama, via South Florida. They are on the founding team of the Bayard Rustin Community Center, the only LGBTQ space and thrift store in central Alabama, and on the Board of Invisible Histories, a community-based archive.
The University of Maine System said Friday that it was found to be in compliance with federal and state laws, as well as NCAA rules that were changed following President Donald Trump’s executive order to prohibit transgender women and girls from competing in female sports.
“We are relieved to put the Department’s Title IX compliance review behind us so the land-grant University of Maine and our statewide partners can continue to leverage USDA and other essential federal funds to strengthen and grow our natural resource economy and dependent rural communities through world-class education, research and extension,” Dannel Malloy, the system’s chancellor, said in a statement to NBC News.
In the 2024 fiscal year, UMS, which comprises seven universities across the state, received almost $30 million in USDA funding, according to the school system.
The statement from UMS followed an announcement from the USDA on Wednesday that said the university system “clearly communicated its compliance with Title IX’s requirement to protect equal opportunities for women and girls to compete in safe and fair sports, as articulated in President Donald J. Trump’s Executive Order.”
Trump’s transgender sports order, which he signed last month, prohibits trans women and girls from participating in female sports and states that the federal government will rescind funds from educational programs that don’t comply. The order, which refers to trans women as men, says that having trans women in female sports “is demeaning, unfair, and dangerous to women and girls, and denies women and girls the equal opportunity to participate and excel in competitive sports.”
The USDAtemporarily paused UMS’ funding, the system said in a news release on March 11. In an email, the USDA’s Office of the Chief Financial Officer said it was evaluating “if it should take any follow-on actions related to prospective Title VI or Title IX violations,” according to the release.
“USDA is committed to upholding the President’s executive order, meaning any institution that chooses to disregard it can count on losing future funding,” U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins said last month, according to a news release.
Samantha Warren, UMS’ chief external and governmental affairs officer, said Maine’s public universities have always been compliant with state and federal laws and with NCAA rules, and the system “remained compliant when the NCAA updated its rules in February.”
In 2022, the NCAA adopted a sport-by-sport approach for transgender athletes, deferring to policies set by each sport’s national governing body, subject to review and recommendation by an NCAA committee. Last month, following Trump’s executive order, the college sports association updated its policy to limit “competition in women’s sports to student-athletes assigned female at birth only.”
CORRECTION (March 24, 2025, 9:10 a.m. ET): A previous version of this article misstated which Maine institution was found to be in violation of Title IX. It was the Maine Department of Education, not the University of Maine System.
Each March, we have the opportunity to examine the contributions of women throughout history and honor those who inspire us. As an advocate working to get more LGBTQ+ people elected to public office, I have the privilege of supporting many incredible leaders in their campaigns and beyond, including many inspiring women.
As we look back on the milestones in our movement for equitable representation, LGBTQ+ women have much to celebrate.
The first successful out LGBTQ+ candidate in American (and possibly world) history was Kathy Kozachenko, who won local office in Ann Arbor, Michigan, as a third-party candidate in 1974. The first out LGBTQ+ state legislator was a woman, Elaine Noble, who won her seat in the Massachusetts House in 1974 as well. All three out LGBTQ+ people who have served in the U.S. Senate have been women. As executives, lesbians and bi women have served as governors of three states and have been elected mayor in cities like Chicago, Houston, Madison, Tampa and Seattle. And in recent years, we’ve made even more progress in Congress, with the first out trans representative, the first Native, Black and Latina women in the House, and many more state-level “firsts”– all LGBTQ+ women.
Running for office as an out queer woman brings many challenges, and we must all do our part to give extra support to the women leaders in our communities. Based on survey research conducted by LGBTQ+ Victory Institute and Loyola Marymount University, LGBTQ+ women are more likely to be discouraged from running for office than their gay and bi men counterparts – even more so for transgender women candidates. The research also found that LGBTQ+ women seeking public office faced attacks on their appearance and clothing at an alarming rate and that women are more likely to be undermined by the media.
LGBTQ+ women making history this year
Many people are unaware that various jurisdictions in the U.S. hold elections every year and that nearly every month there is an election taking place. Working for an organization that endorses candidates for offices large and small and in states, territories and tribal governments across the country, I see firsthand the impact our candidates have when they win their elections and take office. These women are often our community’s fiercest champions, and we need even more of them to win and fight for us. Even though we’re only three months into this election year, there are already dozens of women candidates for state and local office who have been endorsed by LGBTQ+ Victory Fund and deserve our support.
From major cities to small villages, LGBTQ+ women are running for mayor – a role that touches the daily lives of each of their constituents. In San Antonio, Texas, former Air Force official Gina Ortiz Jones is running to bring down the cost of housing and increase opportunities for workers in her hometown. In Downington, Pennsylvania, scientist and businesswoman Erica Deuso – who has broad community support in her race – could make history as the first out trans person elected to executive office in state history.
Elsewhere across the country, women are stepping up to lead in their communities. Environmental justice advocate Charlene Wang is running for Oakland City Council to ensure growth and sustainability go hand-in-hand. Downstate in San Diego County, Imperial Beach Mayor Poloma Aguirre is running to represent the concerns of over 700,000 constituents as a county supervisor for District 1. In Madison, Wisconsin – where lesbian Satya Rhodes-Conway serves as mayor – Carmella Glenn is running to add important LGBTQ+ representation to the city council, where she’ll fight for more opportunities for constituents affected by bias in the criminal justice system.
As culture wars continue to rage over schools and libraries, LGBTQ+ Victory Fund candidates are answering the call to fight disinformation and work to create inclusive school districts and library systems all around the country. Candidates like Vanessa Abundiz, Emily Gilbert, Alena Hansen, Elana Jacobs and Ali Muldrow all are running for key seats on school or library district boards and deserve our support.
Now more than ever, we must double down on our efforts to elect LGBTQ+ candidates – and especially queer and trans women – to offices big and small. It’s often said that if you’re not at the table, then you’re on the menu. With hostility against our community growing in statehouses around the country and now the White House, I urge you to join the fight to ensure our voices are heard in the halls of power.
(Amsterdam) – Candidates for the presidency of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) failed to adequately address human rights and good governance in documents outlining their proposed programs, in advance of March elections, the Sport & Rights Alliance said today.
“The International Olympic Committee affects the lives of millions of athletes, workers, fans, journalists and communities worldwide,” said Minky Worden, director of global initiatives at Human Rights Watch. “It is essential for candidates who want to oversee global sport to make clear that they will uphold the IOC’s human rights framework, commitments and responsibilities, and commit to meeting with stakeholders and operating with transparency and good governance.”
The next eight years will bring a wave of challenges for the IOC, including selecting the host for the 2036 Olympic and Paralympic Games and delivering the 2028 Games in the United States, where international human rights are currently under threat, it is paramount for the next president to not only uphold but champion human rights and good governance throughout their term. IOC members who will vote for the next president should consider candidates’ commitments and track records on human rights and transparency as they cast their vote.
“In times when the principles of the rule of law are under pressure globally, the standard of good governance in sports becomes a key to supporting transparency, accountability and respect for human rights,” said Tor Dølvik, special adviser at Transparency International Norway. “This is critical because the Olympic movement has an enormous impact on the world even beyond sports, especially on young people.”
The election, at the 144th IOC Session on March 19-21 in Greece, is the first since the IOC added amendments recognizing its responsibility to uphold “respect for internationally recognized human rights” to the Olympic Charter. The IOC also adopted its Strategic Framework on Human Rightsin 2022, which sets out four-year objectives and actions to ensure the IOC respects human rights as an organization, as owner of the Olympic Games, and as leader of the Olympic Movement.
“Given that this is the first time a new president will be elected under the new Olympic Charter, it is deeply troubling that so few of the candidates have even mentioned human rights in their election campaigns,” said Steve Cockburn, head of labor rights and sport at Amnesty International. “At a time when rights are under sustained attack, we deserve to know whether the next IOC President will be ready and willing to put freedom, equality, and dignity at the heart of world sport.”
The Sport & Rights Alliance analyzed the formal written proposed programs submitted by the seven candidates, as required by the IOC. The alliance also wrote to each of the candidates, though only received responses from HRH Prince Feisal Al Hussein of Jordan, Lord Sebastian Coe, and Morinari Watanabe. As stakeholder engagement is foundational to the ability of any organization—and any leader—to uphold their human rights responsibilities, it is concerning that only these three candidates took the time to respond, the alliance said.
David Lappartient was the only candidate to address human rights in any depth throughout his program, highlighting the need to “leverage our influence to promote compliance with human and labour rights.” The programs of Johan Eliasch, Hussein, and Coe did mention human rights, but only in relation to ensuring access to play sport. In written responses to the Sprot & Rights Alliance, however:
Hussein said that he plans to strengthen the IOC’s efforts through updating the Strategic Framework as part of Olympic Agenda 2036 and proposed to meet with the Alliance whether he is elected or not.
Coecited the human rights initiatives of World Athletics, saying that these were introduced under his presidency and should generate confidence toward his commitments.
Watanabe responded to each of the Alliance’s questions on human rights issues, presenting ideas to mitigate human rights and governance issues ranging from hosting the Games in multiple separate countries to bringing in third-party monitoring.
“There is no doubt that the right to participate in sport is incredibly important, but it is also just the beginning of advancing human rights in and through sport,” said Ginous Alford, director of sport and human rights at World Players Association. “Human rights should not be seen as constraints on the IOC, but rather as cardinal values to help navigate the organization through the many geopolitical, social and economic challenges ahead.”
The IOC has long neglected to recognize athletes’ rights as workers to organize and collectively bargain, which would allow athletes an equal say on all matters affecting their careers, wellbeing, and livelihoods. While Coe, Hussein, Lappartient, and Eliasch mentioned athletes’ voice and participation in policymaking in their programs, none mentioned union representation or collective bargaining.
“World Players’ recent public polling shows broad support for the IOC to change its business model and governance to include athlete voices and pay them fairly for their work,” said Matthew Graham, head of UNI World Players. “If the IOC is to keep up with the demands and expectations of all stakeholders in the modern professional sport era, the next president must prioritize embedding the fundamental rights of athletes—not forgetting that this includes labor rights—and recognizing athletes’ hard work and dedication.”
Several proposals addressed the need to protect athletes’ wellbeing, but only two provided specific strategies. Watanabe focused on improving the IOC’s Integrity and Compliance Hotline, and Hussein made several proposals including integrating “safe sport” into all International Federations and National Olympic Committees and ensuring safeguarding training is available in multiple languages.
“The next IOC president must realize that true and effective safeguarding is not possible without athlete voices,” said Andrea Florence, director of the Sport & Rights Alliance. “Current ‘safe sport’ approaches continue to lack consultation, support and confidentiality with and for affected people. This needs to change.”
None of the candidates addressed lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI) rights, though Lappartient did discuss the participation of transgender athletes in his section on inclusion and diversity, emphasizing the need to balance “respect for human rights” with “fair competition” and to make decisions “grounded on solid scientific evidence.” In contrast, the proposals by Juan Antonio Samaranch, Eliasch, and Coe call for “safeguarding” women’s categories in terms that are at odds with the recommendations of the IOC Framework on Fairness, Inclusion and Non-discrimination.
“At a time when the rights of LGBTI people—and especially athletes—are under attack around the world, these positions from the IOC presidential candidates are extremely concerning,” said Gurchaten Sandhu, director of programs at ILGA World. “The IOC has done incredible work over the last few years to consult with athletes, understand the research, and set clear, rights-based guidelines by adopting the IOC Framework on Fairness, Inclusion and Non-discrimination. Electing any president who plans to discard these important achievements would have a tremendous negative impact on the lives and safety of trans, intersex, and gender-diverse athletes at all levels, including youth.”
Regarding workers’ rights, Lappartient praised the social charter negotiated between businesses and workers at Paris 2024 and expressed the desire to replicate it at future Olympic Games, but none of the other candidates mentioned labor rights or any concerns for workers, including migrant workers, who will help deliver many future Olympic Games.
The candidates also neglected press freedom and safety for journalists though Kirsty Coventry cited a need to improve communication, access and openness to scrutiny. Watanabe proposed splitting Olympics hosts between five continents and to “obtain a commitment [to prevent labor exploitation] from the government” of cities bidding for the Games.
But none of the candidates said that the IOC should assess potential host cities’ commitment to human rights in the selection processes. This longstanding failure to do proper human rights due diligence in advance of awarding events has been a source of serious human rights violations in the past.
To read the Sport & Rights Alliance’s letter to the candidates, please click here.
***
The Sport & Rights Alliance’s mission is to promote the rights and well-being of those most affected by human rights risks associated with the delivery of sport. Its partners include Amnesty International, The Army of SurvivorsCommittee to Protect Journalists, Football Supporters Europe, Human Rights Watch, ILGA World (The International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association), the International Trade Union Confederation, Transparency International, and World Players Association, UNI Global Union. As a global coalition of leading nongovernmental organizations and trade unions, the Sport & Rights Alliance works together to ensure sports bodies, governments, and other relevant stakeholders give rise to a world of sport that protects, respects, and fulfills international standards for human rights, labor rights, child wellbeing and safeguarding, and anti-corruption.
As disgusting as the Trump administration’s destruction of democracy is, what makes the pain that much worse is the sheer fecklessness of the response by the so-called opposition. Perhaps it was always too much to expect the elite mainstream media, which has always been as much amused as appalled by Trump, to call out the damage that he is doing (The New York Times has long been particularly disastrous on this account).
But you would think that at least the Democrats would take Trump’s attacks on government, civil rights, and human health as the crises that they are. Instead, the party has been acting as if the main problem is figuring out what the right focus-group message is to win next year’s midterm elections.
Consider Sen. Elissa Slotkin’s (D-MI) response to Trump’s address to Congress – the one where he threatened to annex Canada and Greenland, jail parents of trans children, and sell citizenship to the highest bidders. Slotkin’s speech was positively decorous by comparison. She said that Ronald Reagan would be rolling over in his grave, but only people in their 50s remember the Reagan presidency. She said that democracy is “at risk,” as if it isn’t already under direct assault.
“You want to cut waste? I’ll help you do it,” she said about Elon Musk and his chainsaw attacks on government. “But change doesn’t need to be chaotic or make us less safe.”
The speech underscores the fact that Democrats are stuck in the same mindset as before Trump was elected. The mistake that Democrats keep making is that they adopt Republicans’ framing but not Republicans’ tactics.
Republicans would never acknowledge that the government needs cutting. Instead, they would cry that veterans are on the verge of being made homeless by a heartless billionaire. They would say that it is only a matter of time before RFK’s crackpot beliefs kill us. They would insist that Trump only cares about fat cats and tax cheats. And they would use that language, not the kind of language that is oh-so-respectful of Republicans’ feelings.
And that message would be a lot easier to hear, not just among disheartened Democrats but among the independent Trump voters who have buyer’s remorse.
Perhaps the worst example of this false belief that Democrats can engage politely with the other side was the shameful performance of Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Newsom trashed the trans community while appearing on the Charlie Kirk podcast.
The fact that Newsom even appeared on Kirk’s podcast is itself reprehensible. In doing so, Newsom legitimized a fringe figure who should be, at a minimum, shunned when he’s not being condemned. As a reminder, Kirk regularly engages in hateful anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric and has even discussed stoning gay people.
And there’s the governor of the largest Democratic state, a would-be Democratic presidential candidate, nodding in agreement to an attack on a minority group. Clearly, Newsom thinks this is good politics, but it’s not. (It’s also bad morals). He’s just ceding ground to extremism.
The point now is to dig in at every possible moment. Democrats can’t pretend that it’s business as usual. For every inch that they give, Republicans will take a mile. As a case in point, ten Democrats agreed with Republicans to censure Rep. Al Green (D-TX) for his willingness to shout out his support for Medicaid during Trump’s speech. So, while Republicans are burning down the government, some Democrats are upset at Green’s table manners. Meanwhile, having gotten that victory, Republicans now want to strip him of his committee assignments.
This is what happens when you try to appear reasonable with unreasonable people. The Republican party is now a cult, and you can’t bargain with a cult. It will only keep coming at you for more, eroding protections, rights, and democracy itself until there is nothing left to defend.
The idea that Democrats can wait until the 2026 midterms to fix the problem is flat-out wrong. The problem isn’t getting Democrats back in power. The problem is preserving the nation now. By the time the midterms roll around, the damage will already have been done. Democrats need to stop acting as if it’s politics as usual and start acting as if it’s war. We’re in a fight to save democracy, not Congressional seats.
It’s a Thursday night or a Sunday afternoon, and you’re sitting on your couch with your phone in your hand.
What are you going to do?
That’s the question at the heart of a loneliness crisis that’s overwhelmed the LGBTQ+ community.
The rise of social media and “the apps,” a wave of bar closings during the COVID pandemic, and a hostile political environment have conspired to produce a sense of dread for gay Americans that still has a lot of us sheltering in place — alone together.
But the obstacles keeping us apart in real life are giving way to a connection revival.
Three years after the pandemic, more bars are opening. Movie theater attendance is up. Restaurants are bustling, and people are reassessing the value of living their lives online.
And politics are galvanizing the LGBTQ+ community.
“Look, just being gay, or lesbian, or trans, or in drag is in and of itself a political act, because they have made it that way,” says Daniel Narcicio, owner of Red Eye bar in New York and a longtime promoter. “Being yourself is inherently political when people in power are telling you that what you are is wrong. Being out, literally in a club or figuratively out of the closet, is a political act.”
Buffeted by an onslaught of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation, Grindr, gentrification, and pandemic lockdowns, the gay bar is reemerging as a center of LGBTQ+ community, reimagined as a more inclusive space and primed for protest.
Mario Diaz at his Sunday party Hot Dog at El Cid in Silver Lake | Mario Diaz Presents
“They are and have always been our homes away from home,” says Mario Diaz, a club king in Los Angeles who hosts Hot Dog Sundays at El Cid in Silver Lake. “And to those of us that have been disowned by our blood families, simply our home. So they are essential. Community is crucial. And spaces for celebration are indispensable. This is what life is all about: connection and love.”
And Diaz adds, “If history has taught us anything, it’s that no one parties like the oppressed.”
Part of hooking up is the eye contact and that excruciating second between when you look down and look away and then look back to see if he’s looking back at you. But if you’re looking at your phone, you miss out on that.Sociology Professor Greggor Mattson
Gay bars took a hit
History can also teach us something about the gay bar business, and the political context they operate in.
“It is certainly the case that in 2017, gay bar owners said they saw a surge of patrons who had become complacent during the Obama years and rediscovered their need to find a place to gather together,” says Greggor Mattson, professor and chair of Sociology at Oberlin College in Ohio, who chronicled the state of gay bars across the United States in his 2023 book, Who Needs Gay Bars?
“I would never say that Trump is good for gay bar business because he’s so bad for members of our community,” Mattson adds, but history looks like it’s repeating itself.
By Mattson’s count, there are just over 800 gay bars operating across the United States (he visited several hundred in his cross-country research), and 2023 was the first year there had been an increase since 1997.
Many closed during the pandemic lockdowns and never recovered. Others fell victim to gentrification and redevelopment — the scrappy dive bars in low-rent neighborhoods that appealed to low-income regulars, slumming tourists, and real estate speculators alike.
Related:
One example of pandemic resilience is Troop 429 in Norwalk, Connecticut, which managed to weather the COVID lockdowns by gaming the system.
“They were quite creative,” Mattson says. “Bars were closed, but retail was an essential business that was allowed to stay open. So they partnered with a record store and turned the bar into a record store where you could buy cocktails. That kept them open and allowed them to survive through COVID.”
Other bars partnered with food trucks, and some jurisdictions loosened rules around outdoor drinking, turning parking lots into open-air beer gardens.
At The Raven in Anchorage, Alaska, staff took it upon themselves to keep a voluntary log of everyone who came to the bar.
“When one of their patrons reported that they had tested positive for COVID, they called everyone to let them know. They were using skills they had honed during the AIDS crisis for community care. And in that way, I think gay bars may have had an advantage over other communities’ bars because this was not our first pandemic.”
The problem with phones
While lockdowns disappeared with the pandemic, Grindr still haunts the gay bar.
“Everything is different in bars because of phones,” says Mattson.
“One of the questions I was always asking owners who had been in the business for a while was, ‘What’s changed?’ And they all said people are worse conversationalists, and they don’t know how to be fun at the bar because we are all so used to when we feel borderline-uncomfortable whipping out our phone and looking down. And as you know, part of hooking up is the eye contact and that excruciating second between when you look down and look away and then look back to see if he’s looking back at you. But if you’re looking at your phone, you miss out on that.”
To be queer in my lifetime has consistently been a life on the fringe in a society full of judgment and shame. This is why our spaces are so important. LA promoter Mario Diaz
Worse than that, phones wielded in community spaces like gay bars are a sign of the addictive quality of the apps that users are glued to.
“To the extent that social media apps are driven by algorithms that are meant to get people to spend more time on them, I don’t think that we can trust they would be good for mental health,” says John Pachankis, the David R Kessler professor of Public Health and Psychiatry at Yale University.
“They keep people, straight or gay, out of the real world and into a world that’s built to be addictive, and addictive in ways that rely on self/other comparisons, self-evaluation, and ultimately feeling inferior,” Pachankis says.
Those symptoms can plague anyone who spends time on social media, but it might be particularly damaging to the mental health of LGBTQ+ people — because they’re set up for it.
“Probably the two biggest drivers of the mental health disparity affecting LGBT people happen at an early age,” Pachankis says.
“LGBTQ people are disproportionately exposed to parental non-acceptance and to peer rejection or bullying, and we know that those two types of stressors are targeted to an important aspect of who one is. They are evaluative and shame-inducing and are about the most stressful events and experiences that people can have. That sets people up for later mental health risk.”
Even in crowded places, our phones can keep us apart | Shutterstock
Ironically enough, there’s a good chance that the guy at the bar who’s looking away during a “borderline-uncomfortable” moment is on Grindr, simultaneously widening his selection of potential dates, shutting down the ones in front of him, and sparking a stressor unique to queer men.
“Research does show that to the extent that gay and bisexual men, for example, experience stressors from within the gay community, their mental health is particularly likely to suffer with outcomes like depressed mood, body image disturbance, and even sexual risk-taking,” Pachankis says.
“All is not lost,” though, says Mattson.
“As a teacher of young people, young people are vaguely aware of what they’re missing. And I think it’s incumbent on queer elders, particularly people older than 32, who now count as queer elders, to keep the art of witty bar side banter alive and to help people put their phones away,” he says.
“Some of the bar owners and some of the bartenders are really skilled at this like they are at the front lines of holding on to our humor,” Mattson explains. “There was one bar owner who said he instructed his bartenders to take people’s phones and that they could only have them back after they had introduced themselves to a stranger, and that sometimes they would get so involved that they would forget to get their phones back.”
Club impresario Nardicio has a different strategy for keeping his customers offline.
“Just last week, I threw my infamous Nardi Gras party and had a 15-person marching band come through at midnight,” he says. “And I can tell you, no one at the club was on Grindr. They were living for it.”
I will say that with everything that has happened since Trump’s come into office, I have seen even more support for what we are doing and more excitement for what we are doing.Rikki’s Women’s Sports Bar co-creator Sara Yergovich
Broadening gay bars’ appeal
Smaller gay bars, though, have had to come up with other strategies to bring customers in, despite the lure of the apps — by broadening their appeal.
“Owners of bear bars or leather bars would ask me, you know, ‘What should we be doing?’” says Mattson. “I directed them to lesbian bars because lesbian bars have been doing this now for almost 30 years. Every lesbian bar that I interviewed was open to everybody.”
Lesbian bars experienced decades of decline before a bounce back following the pandemic. There were over 200 women’s bars in the 1980s, and fewer than 20 by the start of the pandemic. Since then, the Lesbian Bar Project counts 34 lesbian bars up and running across the U.S.
That number will bump up to 35 with the May opening of Rikki’s Women’s Sports Bar in San Francisco’s Castro District.
“Our definition of women’s sports is broad and all-encompassing,” says Danielle Thoe, one of Rikki’s co-owners. “It’s hard to fit that in just a couple sentences when you’re describing the space and what we’re building, but I think that welcoming aspect is really important,” she says.
To live a free and joyful life as a queer person is the ultimate act of resistance.LA promoter Mario Diaz
“Sports have a different connection,” says Sara Yergovich, Thoe’s business partner. “They’re a different way to connect with people. We’re very community-based, and as long as they want to support women’s sports, everyone is welcome.”
The pair say politics have worked their way into Rikki’s even before the bar’s opening.
“I will say that with everything that has happened since Trump’s come into office, I have seen even more support for what we are doing and more excitement for what we are doing,” Yergovich says. “It feels like people have kind of latched onto this as, you know, maybe bad things are happening, but there are some good things that are happening, too, and trying to really hold on to that.”
“Trans athletes belong in sports,” says Thoe. “They are some of our investors, our backers, our community members, and so that’s something that we’ll really look to highlight and make clear as we continue to get up and running.”
The resistance is alive and well at the gay bar
Nardicio’s New York bar is highlighting its resistance, as well, in gestures subtler than a marching band.
“Take for instance, at Red Eye, we recently got an ‘A’ from the health department ’cause we keep it clean behind the bar. We took that ‘A,’ put it in the window and proudly put a ‘G’ and a ‘Y’ next to it, so it says ‘GAY’ boldly in our window. We aren’t backing down. It’s in your face. We’re here, we’re queer, and we keep a spotless bar!”
Daniel Nardicio at his Red Eye nightclub in New York | Daniel Nardicio
“I think many of us learned a few lessons in lockdown,” says LA promoter Diaz. “Lessons about what’s really important in life. About the importance of human connection. Lessons on how short and unpredictable life can be.”
“To be queer in my lifetime has consistently been a life on the fringe in a society full of judgment and shame,” Diaz says. “This is why our spaces are so important. We need these places to survive and hold onto our joy. To live a free and joyful life as a queer person is the ultimate act of resistance. The moment we lose that, we lose the fight.”
“When people tell me, ‘We don’t need gay bars anymore,’ I ask them how they felt when they first went back to a restaurant after the COVID lockdowns, and they rhapsodize about how amazing it was to be out in public and to see people,” says Mattson.
“And I said, for queer people, we still need that. Even if we lived in a perfect world that was perfectly accepting, we are still a minority. We are still often raised by very lovely straight people, but who can’t be there for us in all the ways that we need. So we’re always going to need places where we can gather together. And there’s something deeply human about our need to be around other humans.”
Since the 2024 election, some Democratic commentators have suggested that Democrats need to flip the switch. They call on Democrats to abandon so-called identity politics and ‘move back to the middle.’ I understand the fury. I appreciate the anger at what we all expected, but the idea that we should abandon our principles is the ultimate betrayal. Instead, I argue that the Democratic Party must return to being a party of pragmatic ideas and solutions, actively anti-corruption and anti-bigotry, and pro-inclusion. The party once hailed as the beacon of the underdog has lost its pragmatism and ability to talk to people.
The party that revolutionized health care, saved American automobile manufacturing, promoted inclusion and religious freedom worldwide, and ensured marriage equality across the land has failed to communicate its governing principles or justify its policies to voters. This is not to suggest that the policies are wrong – Ukraine, student loan debt forgiveness, medical debt forgiveness, and more – these policies are shielded from transparent and open dialogue, allowing false narratives and disinformation to thrive.
The Impact of Identity Politics on Election Outcomes
Identity politics won the recent US election. Look at Trump, the architect of Birtherism, who campaigned on what he calls ‘racism against white Americans.’ He has demonized and dehumanized millions of people, suggesting that trans people, immigrants, and African Americans pose a threat to American prosperity and greatness. And the talking heads across the media let him get away with it. Our diversity is our strength, and Democrats need to push back against Republicans’ ongoing dehumanization of our friends and loved ones. The party’s messaging hasn’t taken into account the reality that same-sex parents, trans military personnel, and trans youth are our neighbors and our family members.
Democrats should openly express pride that our party is inclusive, that our party championed the Civil Rights Movement, the Equal Rights Amendment, the Lily Ledbetter Act, the Respect for Marriage Act, and expanded existing legislation to consider new protections for LGBTQIA+ individuals and same-sex families. Democrats fall into the trap of old conservative arguments when, instead, we should be focused on humanizing traditionally marginalized people and bringing their American story into the public narrative.
The Impact of Identity Politics on Election Outcomes
Trump weaponized fear, anger, and resentment – whilst propping up white nationalists, homophobes, transphobes, and misogynists. His running mate said that Trump would earn the votes of the ‘regular gay guy,‘ as clear a homophobic comment as any, and has flirted with the idea of punishing women who flee anti-abortion states for health care elsewhere in the country.
First, conservative anger at academia’s scholarship on Critical Race Theory. Now, it is conservative opposition to a fairer society. Diversity, Equity, Equality, and Inclusion (DE2I) principles are designed to promote fairness and empower people who have been traditionally excluded, underrepresented, and undervalued. It is justice. It is about creating pathways for people who have been traditionally excluded from them. That is the argument the Democratic Party should make in response to the Conservatives’ rejection of DEI.
Addressing Conservative Opposition to Inclusion
Democrats should flip the coin and ask conservatives exactly why they reject diversity, equality, and inclusion (DEI). Until conservatives openly express what they are rejecting or why they oppose equality, the Democratic Party will find itself on the defensive and trapped in the abstract, further distancing itself from working-class voters and independents.
What is the Republican argument against making our workplaces, schools, military, health care system, social housing, financial system, or other aspects of American life more inclusive and fair? Besides arguments around ‘reverse racism,’ their only counterpoint is a whitewashing of American history that suggests abolition, desegregation, and integration would have arrived suddenly and eventually with time.
Until Democrats call out Republicans’ hatefulness and force them to explain what, exactly, they oppose, Democrats’ messaging will continue to fail to resonate and connect with more voters. And the issue isn’t just the messaging in Washington, DC—this is a national messaging issue that the party needs to address before the 2026 cycle.
There are countless horrifying videos across social media documenting Black delivery drivers’ experiences traveling for work in sundown towns across the country today. Why are Republicans silent about this ongoing racial injustice? The death of affirmative action in college admissions hasn’t impacted legacy admissions decisions. Why have the Republicans been quiet on that issue? Why are Republicans gleeful about blocking efforts to fix our student loan debt crisis, but they do not take issue with millions in fraud that stemmed from Trump’s PPP program?
The Democrats must move themselves out of the defensive, put these questions directly to Republicans, and ask the public to decide. Trans and gender-nonconforming people are not going anywhere, and Democrats must stand together to resist Trump’s proposed maneuvers to force trans people out of public life and deny them life-affirming health care. The party’s silence and inability to humanize trans people has only strengthened the Republican’s culture of hostility and bigotry directed at transgender and gender non-conforming Americans.
I was concerned when a popular Democratic commentator recently argued that the party should step away from trans rights. The commentator argued that it is foolish to give trans children access to gender-affirming care, and that will cost the Democrats essential votes. I insisted that his comments were similar to what was said to lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth not so long ago. Queer youth were told that it was ‘just a phase’ until we came of age. The idea that LGBTQ+ youth should wait until age 18 before living authentic lives does far more to stigmatize LGBTQ+ people and our relationships than many conservatives might imagine, and I expect greater empathy from Democrats.
A Call for Unified Democratic Messaging
Democrats cannot continue to fall into the trap of discussing toilets and sports as if these are the pivotal issues of our lifetime. We should make it clear that the mistreatment and abuse inflicted on trans people is an attack on us all. Individuals staunchly opposed to gender-affirming care for trans youth and active duty trans military personnel should consider what type of life they expect for them to live while they ‘hurry up and wait’ until either age 18 in the case of the youth or retirement in the case of active duty personnel. Instead of engaging in the abstract, the Democrats can humanize trans and gender non-conforming youth by posing these very real questions.
More Republican members of Congress have been caught toe-tapping in public restrooms seeking to engage in acts of public sex than transgender members of Congress have been caught attempting to attack someone or violate any woman’s privacy in a congressional bathroom. And, yet just a few months ago, the Republican-sponsored ban that was designed to prevent one new member of Congress, the first-ever openly trans member of the US House of Representatives, from using the toilets at her new workplace, was a red-herring and the lack of Democrats’ unwavering solidarity on the issue is devastating.
Democrats Standing on Business
Democratic framing around issues is too complicated, and the party is not connecting with members of the public where they are. the party needs to focus on streamlining the dissemination of talking points and relatable figures that explain why we stand so firmly behind inclusion for all Americans. It is a simple concept – we’re not recreating the wheel here. But, where Republicans actively engage voices and influencers, they can get their hands on stories and relatable narratives that rile people up and drive them to act; Democrats appear too focused on an outdated traditional playbook and speak far too often in the abstract. Obama gave Americans a tangible and attainable vision that today’s party leaders repeatedly fail to do.
We are currently at a standstill perpetuated by dehumanization. And the only party that can save the country from that is the Democratic Party. It is time that party leaders start acting like they want to. Unapologetically and vocally, it is time for the Democratic Party to tell voters that we will not leave any American behind.
How we communicate with voters and prospective voters looking ahead is an economic issue, a national security issue, and a social fabric issue, and it is time that we start acting like it. The Democrats’ next step should not be a reverse in the party’s social and civic-minded positions. It should be towards working to repair a loss of trust with voters by hitting restart on how the party communicates, looking further to find capable and moving messengers, and creating a culture – one that Biden himself said he wanted to foster – of proudly and loudly boasting Democratic wins and policy positions that meant something to people.
Jamie-Lukas Campbell is a PhD candidate in political history and a former public affairs professional specializing in race, identity, and the politics of belonging. They previously worked in government before transitioning to academia. Their research explores race, the military, and LGBTQ+ service members’ experiences, focusing on the impact of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
In a recent article, Mother Jones highlighted a chilling resurgence of fear among LGBTQ+ federal employees, reminiscent of the oppressive Lavender Scare of the 1950s. The Trump administration’s recent policies, including a memorandum from the Office of Personnel Management prohibiting employee resource groups that promote diversity initiatives, have instilled anxiety among LGBTQ+ workers.
Reports of mass terminations and demands for the names of LGBTQ+ employee resource group leaders have only heightened these concerns. This hostile environment has forced many LGBTQ+ resource groups to go underground, as employees fear being targeted or fired based on their gender identity or sexual orientation.
Then, as The Advocate reported, the Trump Administration announced earlier this month the launch of EndDEI.ed.gov, which allows anyone to report “divisive ideologies and indoctrination,” dubbing it “illegal discriminatory practices at institutions of learning.” Thankfully, it’s getting hit with tons of spam.
This won’t be a one-off. More than likely, the Trump Administration is returning to the era of snitching on LGBTQ+ people and other so-called “deviants.”
Reflecting on my own experiences working on Capitol Hill during the late 1980s and 1990s, I am struck by the haunting parallels between then and now. Back then, the federal government was a treacherous landscape for queer individuals. The fear of being outed was pervasive, and the consequences were dire. I was constantly looking over my shoulder.
To navigate this perilous environment, I and other gay Hill staffers developed covert methods to connect. When I had dates, for example, we would arrange clandestine meetings on street corners. And when I dated a Marine, we slipped into movie theaters only after the lights dimmed and the film had begun. This ensured our interactions remained shrouded in darkness. That’s the way he wanted it, and I didn’t mind, because I too, felt like I was doing something wrong.
I remember being in the hallways of the Canon, Longworth, and Rayburn congressional buildings, and I would occasionally pass other gay men I recognized from bars. Our eyes would avoid contact, and we would walk past each other without a hint of acknowledgment, each encounter a silent pact of mutual protection — at least that’s what I assumed.
The specter of HIV/AIDS also loomed large during this era. I recall instances where two colleagues were present in the office one day and then vanished the next, never to return. Whispers would circulate, hinting that they had succumbed to the disease that society stigmatized and feared. These losses were profound, yet mourning was a solitary act, as openly expressing grief could inadvertently reveal your own hidden identity.
The constant pressure to conceal your true self inevitably led to moments of personal turmoil. For example, one night, after consuming more alcohol than I should have, which was a near nightly occurrence, I made an ill-advised advance toward a straight friend. The following day, he confronted me, directly asking if I was gay. Panic surged through me, and I vehemently denied it. I was so ashamed. I remember after I walked away just wanting to go hide somewhere and never come back.
Seeking refuge and a sense of community, I would occasionally escape to places like Rehoboth Beach, Delaware. It was a literal escape, since I was in a beach house in Dewey Beach, which is where all the straight D.C. crowd partied.
I usually got wasted with my friends, snuck away at some point, and jumped on the “Jolley Trolley” which took you back and forth from Dewey to Rehoboth. I would slip off in the dark, and drunkenly hit the gay bars trying to hook up.
It was during one such visit in the late 80s that I met a guy and went home with him after the bars closed. To my horror, the house was filled with individuals who identified as Reagan Republicans, all deeply closeted. I recognized some of them because they were prominent. I was quite surprised. The dissonance between their public personas and their private lives was glaring, underscoring the pervasive fear that drove so many of us to live dual existences.
The Showtime series Fellow Travelers, which aired last year, poignantly depicted the harrowing reality of hiding one’s sexuality within the corridors of power. The show illuminated the devastating consequences of exposure, mirroring the very real dangers that many of us faced.
In conversations with James Kirchick, author of Secret City: The Hidden History of Gay Washington, I found a profound resonance with my own experiences. Kirchick’s meticulous chronicle of the clandestine lives led by gay individuals in D.C. sheds light on the systemic discrimination that was rampant in the federal government.
His work delves into how, for decades, policies explicitly barred homosexuals from federal employment, branding them as security risks and moral deviants. This institutionalized bigotry not only deprived countless talented individuals of careers but also perpetuated a culture of fear and secrecy.
And it shocks and deeply saddens me that we might be returning to this unacceptable misery.
The recent developments reported by Mother Jones are a stark reminder of a past many hoped was long buried, including me. The revival of policies that marginalize and endanger LGBTQ individuals in federal service is not just a regression but a profound injustice. If you’re someone of a certain age like me, it’s enormously difficult to believe that this might be happening again.
And if you are from a younger generation, you need to do everything you can to fight back.
It is imperative that all of us recognize these patterns and advocate fiercely for an environment where no one is compelled to hide their true self in fear of retribution. The lessons of the past demand that we strive for a future where authenticity is met with acceptance, and where diversity is celebrated as the strength it truly is.
Trust me, you don’t want to meet on street corners or dark theaters again. If those days are truly behind us, then we must be more visible than ever.
