LGBTQI+

In Austin, attorney Meghan Alexander used to receive maybe three calls a week about second-parent adoptions. The week after the election, she received 26. The calls and emails haven’t stopped.

“The advice is the same as it’s been for the last couple of decades, which is to do a second-parent adoption. Do not depend on the federal government or the gay right to marry to give you parental rights,” Alexander said.

Alexander recommends to her clients that parents get an adoption instead of a parentage order because in Texas, for example, parentage orders for LGBTQ+ families have not been thoroughly challenged in the court system, Alexander said, while adoptions have been upheld by the courts many times.

Adoptions are a popular option because they are also more commonly understood and “universally recognized” across states and countries, said Nancy Polikoff, professor emerita at American University Washington College of Law and an expert in LGBTQ+ family law. Still, it ultimately will depend on state laws and the parents’ preferences as to which avenue they pursue.

[…]

“When we are looking at the possibility of cutting back on LGBT family recognition, states that are not inclined to recognize the legitimacy of parenting by LGBT people are going to be emboldened to deny that status whenever they can,” she said.

Polikoff said she does not believe that gay marriage will be overturned in the next four years, but what may be more likely to happen is that states and courts will try to cut back on some protections LGBTQ+ people have recently secured. Parenting relationships could become easy prey. 

Using chaos and fear to enforce conformity:

Some bathroom bills cover all K-12 schools, colleges, and government-owned buildings or spaces. Some cover just K-12 schools, while others cover some government buildings but not others, according to the Movement Advancement Project. Proposed drag bans are similarly haphazard: North Dakota’s proposed ban characterized all drag shows as “adult-oriented,” making them equivalent to strip clubs, while West Virginia lawmakers floated a ban that appeared to criminalize transgender people being around minors, period. The net effect is that it is impossible to know for sure what is permitted and what is prohibited.

This is a feature, not a bug. Just as the earlier “cross-dressing” laws were vague enough to make any non-conformity treacherous, modern-day analogs do the same. Anyone who falls outside the mainstream of traditional gender presentations, regardless of whether they happen to also be queer, now faces heightened scrutiny thanks to a patchwork of laws across the country.

All of these laws and proposals have one goal: making LGBTQ+ people—or anyone else not wedded to traditional gender roles—feel uncomfortable and unsafe. If people feel unsafe in this fashion, they will retreat from public life or radically change their self-presentation to conform better. Conservatives are likely thrilled with either result, as in both cases, they will have robbed queer people of their ability to fully and authentically participate in society. And that’s exactly the point.

This is why I find the "attacking LGBTQ people is a vote loser," arguments no consolation. There are six good (i.e. bad) reasons why fascists do it, and winning votes is only one of them:

This report explores the connection between two escalating crises: the systematic targeting of LGBTQ communities and democratic backsliding worldwide.

It examines how the rhetorical, political, and physical attacks targeting the LGBTQ community are, in addition to a critical rights issue, a key tactic in the authoritarian playbook, cloaking themselves as culture war politics as usual. 

[…]

It outlines six goals of LGBTQ scapegoating: 

• Stigmatize: By censoring discussions and depictions of marginalized groups, perpetrators further stigmatize them, reinforcing their status as scapegoats.

• Mobilize a Base: Turning LGBTQ communities into a common enemy energizes and consolidates political support among certain factions.

• Win Elections: Exploiting fears related to the scapegoat helps gain electoral support and secure victories in political contests.

• Polarize: Manufacturing controversies along fault lines unifies authoritarian movements and sows divisions within a political opposition.

• Distract: Inflaming fear, disgust, and anger at scapegoats diverts attention from critical issues, government failures, or unpopular policies.

• Normalize Political Violence: Targeting LGBTQ individuals through intimidation, violence, and militia activities desensitizes the public to violence against this group and society at large.

In a 2015 survey of more than 27,000 trans adults, nearly 1 in 7 said that a professional, such as a therapist, doctor, or religious adviser, had tried to make them not transgender; about half of respondents said they were minors at the time. By applying this rate to population estimates, the Williams Institute at UCLA projects that more than 135,000 trans adults nationwide have experienced some form of conversion therapy.

Despite the data, lawmakers frequently don’t believe that conversion therapy is still happening in their community, says Casey Pick, director of law and policy at the Trevor Project, the LGBTQ suicide prevention group. “We’re constantly running up against this misconception that this is an artifact of the past,” she says. So, five years ago, the Trevor Project began scouring psychologists’ websites and books, records of public testimony, and known conversion therapy referral services, looking for counselors who said they could alter someone’s gender identity or sexual orientation.

As the research stretched on, Pick noticed webpages being revised to reflect changing times. “We saw many folks who seemed to leave the industry entirely,” she says. “But others changed their website, changed their keywords, [from] talking about creating ex-gays to talking about ex-trans.”

[…]

And in Las Vegas, Cretella drew a direct connection between the old work of the Alliance and the new work of gender-exploratory therapists. “It truly is very similar to how the Alliance has always approached unwanted SSA [same-sex attraction],” she told the assembled therapists. “You approach it as ‘change therapy’—or, even less triggering, ‘exploratory therapy.’”

When the history of the 21st century comes to be written, surely the cuddly and playful ranks of the gay furry hackers will be remembered as our Greatest Generation.

A group of self-proclaimed “gay furry hackers” says it breached the Heritage Foundation earlier this month, releasing two gigabytes of the right-wing think tank’s internal data on Tuesday. On its Telegram channel, the hacktivist collective SiegedSec — which has previously claimed responsibility for hacking NATO’s computer systems — said the Heritage hack was part of its #OpTransRights campaign, which also targeted the far-right media outlet Real America’s Voice and the Hillsong megachurch. The group also cited their objections to Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s policy proposal for a second term for former President Donald Trump, as a motivating factor.

In an email to The Verge, Heritage Foundation spokesperson Noah Weinrich denied that Heritage had been hacked, calling it a “false narrative and an exaggeration by a group of criminal trolls trying to get attention.” 

[…] 

A SiegedSec representative who goes by vio told The Verge they “completely expected” Heritage to deny that it had been hacked. “Many companies try denial to save face,” vio said. “The server we hacked was linked to The Daily Signal, and the server was named ‘first-heritage-foundation’. Clearly, Heritage was genuinely hacked.”

“Mike’s threats and insults showed anger that confirmed what Heritage denied,” vio said.

In a statement on Telegram, SiegedSec said the goal of the hack was to draw attention to — and combat — the Heritage Foundation’s anti-LGBT and anti-abortion policy proposals.

I am pornography. Granted, it's not necessarily the first thing you'd notice about me. That is to say, I am not the subject of pornography, but the thing itself, 24/7. It's jolly tiring, I can tell you.

The prominence of pornography in Project 2025 is no mistake, of course; it’s absolutely core to the authors’ agenda for Trump. The attack on porn is inseparable from the attacks on abortion and contraception, on marriage equality and trans rights, and of course on drag queens and library books—all of which, they believe, threaten the straight, married family as the natural bedrock of society. All of these threats, to them, constitute pornography. By calling on the president to outlaw porn, they’re calling for the eradication of all these imagined enemies of the family.

Though Project 2025 does not define “pornography,” their concern clearly extends beyond porn itself. Pornography, according to the Mandate, is responsible for the “normalization” of non-normative gender expression and identity among young people—what the right often calls “gender ideology.” Pornography could be anything that contributes to that purported normalization. “Pornography,” Roberts continues, is “manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children.” And how should it be outlawed? “The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned. Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders. And telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered.” Project 2025 is not targeting “pornography” as something that’s harmful to children per se, but rather redefining anything concerning sexuality and gender that they say is harmful to children as pornography. 

The US Bill of Rights? That's pornography. Have you seen what's in it? Can you imagine how exposure to that sort of thing might harm children?

To me, the lynchpin that enables the other problems listed here is that "LGBTIQ+ rights are [being] wedged into existing ‘culture-war’ narratives":

Media and political campaigns have positioned the rights of LGBTIQ+ people as negotiable and debatable. Some try to frame the human rights of transgender people as being at odds with women’s rights, even asserting that trans women do not face gender-based discrimination or that they pose a threat to the rights, spaces, and safety of cisgender women.

While they vary by cultural context, these campaigns often portray the push for LGBTIQ+ people’s rights as merely a generational dispute, part of a so-called “culture war”, or in some cases an imperialist agenda. 

Many such narratives position trans and non-binary gender identities as new or Western concepts, ignoring the rich history of diverse sexual orientations, gender identities, gender expressions, and sex characteristics across cultures and within the global South in particular.  

Falsely portraying the rights of LGBTIQ+ people, and particularly of trans people, as competing with women’s rights only widens divisions in the broader gender equality movement. This has given anti-rights actors space to advance rollbacks on sexual and reproductive health and rights, comprehensive sexuality education, and other critical issues.
 

Six councillors voted in favour. It begins…

A Sydney council has voted to place a blanket ban on same-sex parenting books from local libraries in a move the New South Wales government warns could be a breach of the state’s Anti-Discrimination Act.

At a meeting last week, Cumberland city council in western Sydney voted on a new strategy for its eight council-run libraries.

The amendment, put forward by the former mayor and current councillor Steve Christou, proposed that the council take “immediate action” to “rid” same-sex parents books and materials in its library service.

During the meeting, Christou brandished a book he alleged had received “really disturbing” constituent complaints, saying parents were “distraught” to see the book, Same-Sex Parents by Holly Duhig, displayed on a shelf in the children’s section of the library.

The book, originally published in the UK, explores the experience of having two mums or two dads and features two men and a young child on the front cover.

Six councillors voted in favour of the amendment and five voted against, while four councillors were not present to vote.

“We’re going to make it clear tonight that … these kind of books, same-sex parents books, don’t find their way to our kids,” Christou said during debate. “Our kids shouldn’t be sexualised.

“This community is a very religious community, a very family-orientated community.

“They don’t want such controversial issues going against their beliefs indoctrinated to their libraries. This is not Marrickville or Newtown, this is Cumberland city council.”

Christou said toddlers shouldn’t be “exposed” to same-sex content and that the proposed amendment was “for the protection and safety of our children”.

“Hands off our kids,” he repeated.

This is straight out of the Project 2025 template.

A completed draft Texas Republican Party platform refers to homosexuality as “an abnormal lifestyle choice,” gender-affirming care as “child abuse,” and Drag Queen Story Hour as “predatory sexual behavior.” The platform has been voted on by state party delegates and will be formally adopted on Wednesday after a final vote count.

The list of state party priorities calls for an end to legal same-sex marriages, same-sex parenting, all LGBTQ+ anti-discrimination laws, all transgender rights — including gender-affirming care for children and adults — a ban on LGBTQ+ content in schools and libraries, the defunding of all diversity-equity-inclusion (DEI) initiatives, and legal protections for anyone who discriminates against queer people based on “religious or moral beliefs.”

Furthermore, the Texas GOP platform calls for a complete end to all of the following: pornography, federal welfare programs, minimum wage laws, mandatory sick or family leave policies, net neutrality, removal of Confederate monuments, pro-immigrant sanctuary cities, public education of undocumented children, no-fault divorce, non-abstinence sex education, abortion, birthright citizenship, professorial tenure in colleges and universities, cannabis legalization, anti-climate change legislation, contact tracing for the tracking of communicable diseases, federal regulations ensuring safe farm food production, and U.S. participation in the United Nations and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

This year alone, nearly 500 anti-LGBTQ+ bills have been introduced in state legislatures nationwide. Last year, more than 75 anti-LGBTQ+ bills were signed into law, prompting the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest LGBTQ+ civil rights organization, to declare a state of emergency for LGBTQ+ people in the United States.

Previous Data for Progress polling of the LGBTQ+ community has found that many LGBTQ+ Americans feel unsafe in their communities and that a majority of transgender adults report a low sense of belonging in U.S. society, while less than half feel comfortable expressing themselves in their local community.

In this new report, Data for Progress surveyed 873 LGBTQ+ adults, including an oversample of transgender adults, nationally using web panel respondents. The findings emphasize the negative impacts of recent anti-LGBTQ+ policies and rhetoric on LGBTQ+ people’s lives, including a worse quality of life and mental health, experiences of discrimination and harassment, and difficulties accessing health care. Additionally, the findings point to the importance of having access to LGBTQ+ representation in media and LGBTQ+-affirming online spaces and resources, particularly for young people.