The pipeline from 'gay marriage' to radical trans ideology



This is part of an ongoing series on the relationship between the campaign for redefining marriage and trans activism.

"The greater acceptance of trans people is a huge step forward for all of us," writes prominent gay marriage advocate Andrew Sullivan in a recent New York Times opinion piece. "But abolishing the sex binary for the entire society? That’s a whole other thing entirely. And madness, I believe."

So no, Mr. Sullivan: Despite your rosy-colored memories of an earlier, more civil era of gay activism, you have no right to be surprised by the excesses of the trans rights lobby.

Sullivan is hardly alone among fellow LGBT activists in thinking that the movement with which he once identified has gone too far.

But the trans radicals are not so different from the “mainstream” that now disavows them. In fact, these trans radicals use tactics pioneered and perfected during the fight to redefine marriage.

Imposed tolerance

As one who defended (and continue to defend) marriage between a man and a woman as good public policy, I can only say this: We tried to tell you.

Mr. Sullivan's 1996 book "Virtually Normal" presented gay marriage as a modest demand for "formal public equality" before the law, while rejecting the "political imposition of tolerance" and "the regulation of people's minds and actions."

Ten years after Obergefell finally made this "equality" the law of the land, Sullivan is scandalized to find that the newly ascendent trans wing has no intentions of stopping there:

Dissenters from gender ideology are routinely unfriended, shunned, and shamed. Almost all of the gay men, trans people, and lesbians who have confided in me that … they think that J.K. Rowling or Martina Navratilova have some good points, have said so sotto voce lest anyone overhear. That’s the extremely intolerant and illiberal atmosphere that now exists in the gay, lesbian, and transgender space. This little community used to champion all manner of expression or argument or speech, eccentrics and visionaries. Now it’s fearful, self-censored, and extremely uptight.

Sullivan may be surprised that people in the “LGBT space” suppress dissent within their own ranks, but I'm not.

A history of harassment

Remember Brendan Eich, who donated $1,000 to the pro-marriage Proposition 8 campaign in 2008? Gay activists did not have a rational conversation with him. They harassed him so much that he had to resign from the company that he founded.

“Marriage equality” activists published interactive maps showing names and addresses of Prop 8 donors so they could be systematically doxxed. Anti-Prop 8 protesters surrounded the Mormon temple in Los Angeles and beat people to the ground. In the years since Prop 8, many people have become fearful for their jobs if they say anything that could be construed as “hateful.”

Welcome to our world, Mr. Sullivan. Some of us have felt “fearful, self-censored, and extremely uptight” for some time.

Free speech foes

We share Sullivan's alarm at ACLU lawyer and trans activist Chase Strangio's reaction to a book criticizing childhood transition: “Stopping the circulation of this book and these ideas is 100% a hill I will die on.”

But he loses us when he goes on to portray the gay rights movement as First Amendment champions. "If censorship was in the air, gay men and lesbians were the first to oppose it.”

That’s not how I remember it, Mr. Sullivan. Didn’t you know that gay activists pressured Amazon to remove books by authors like ex-gays Joe Dallas and therapist Joseph Nicolosi?

Maybe you forgot the time when the Log Cabin Republicans insisted that the pro-family group Mass Resistance be banned from a Conservative Political Action Conference meeting in 2018 because of its book “The Health Hazards of Homosexuality"?

I haven't forgotten. I wrote an article about the book and the controversy it sparked when it first came out in 2017. Amid the ubiquitous outcry, not one critic bothered to offer evidence countering even a single claim in the 600-page, meticulously footnoted book.

In 2020, gay activists succeeded in getting the book banned from Amazon, where it remains unavailable.

And so it is that much harder for people with same-sex attraction to access a resource providing accurate, albeit unpleasant, information about the medical and psychological risks associated with acting on those attractions. Is removing this book from the biggest book distributor in the world really a way of “treasuring” free speech?

RELATED: Gay marriage has a hidden cost — and children are paying the price

Valerii Evlakhov/iStock/Getty Images

Live and let live?

Mr. Sullivan writes, “The gay rights movement, especially in the marriage years, had long asked for simple liberal equality and mutual respect — live and let live . ...We will leave you alone."

Baker Jack Phillips would dispute the “live and let live” claim. He did not challenge the legal right of same-sex couples to wed; he just didn't want to bake a cake celebrating that union. So in 2012, activists dragged him to court.

When the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, another activist dragged him back into court for not baking a cake to celebrate his "transition." Phillips' nightmare didn’t come to an end until 2024.

A new version of 'homophobic'

Despite his misgivings about the radical trans agenda, in his article, Mr. Sullivan uses the word "transphobic" without a hint of irony. It is a word meant to cast any disagreement with trans ideology as "hate."

It is the direct successor to the word "homophobic," which similarly attempted to discredit our objections to gay marriage. We learned that “hate” was the only possible reason anyone would disagree with such obviously correct views.

I should know. I ended up on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s hate list for my unacceptable, intolerant views that prioritize children’s rights to their parents over adults’ rights to feel good about themselves.

And who invented the term “heteronormative,” the (supposedly erroneous) belief that heterosexuality is normal? (News flash: Heterosexuality is normal, in all mammal species.) Perhaps the same person who later came up with “gender affirming care” as a euphemism for drugs and surgeries performed on perfectly healthy, though confused, young people.

So no, Mr. Sullivan: Despite your rosy-colored memories of an earlier, more civil era of gay activism, you have no right to be surprised by the excesses of the trans rights lobby.

I implore you to rethink your presumptions. Your tactics laid the groundwork for the trans movement. If you are sincerely appalled by their tactics (and I hope you are), I would appreciate an apology. I bet Brendan Eich, Jack Phillips, and the Mormon Church would, too.

But I’m just getting started. My next column will describe how “gay-friendly” policies set the stage for “trans-friendly” policies.

Bearded lady set to fight child sex-change ban before SCOTUS tells CNN toddlers can be trans



To the chagrin of LGBT extremists, Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee (R) ratified Republican legislation in March 2023 protecting children in the state from sex-change mutilations and puberty blockers. Three teen transvestites and their parents, later joined by the Biden Department of Justice, sued the state, seeking to put sterilizing puberty blockers and deformative hormone therapy back on the kids' menu.

The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments for and against the Republican mutilation ban Wednesday. The court's decision could ultimately reinforce or spike similar bans in dozens of other states.

Ahead of the hearing before the high court, a bearded woman with the American Civil Liberties Union — the radical outfit representing the plaintiffs — explained to CNN Tuesday why she felt the law should fall, claiming at one point that toddlers can know they are transvestites.

Chase Strangio, the transvestic ACLU attorney formerly known as Kate who is set to argue against the Tennessee law before the Supreme Court, told talking head Jake Tapper that this case "is a critical inflection point for transgender people across the country. We're coming off of an election season where transgender people played an outsized role in people's consciousness in terms of the way in which we were situated as — as a threat to others."

The election helped highlight a trend: Americans are increasingly rejecting gender ideology and radical LGBT policies.

The New York Times noted that an analysis conducted by Future Forward, failed presidential candidate Kamala Harris' top super PAC, found that the campaign ad with the tagline, "Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you," shifted the race nearly three percentage points in President-elect Donald Trump's favor. Ahead of announcing that he was stepping down, Texas Democratic Party Chairman Gilberto Hinojosa effectively admitted on the basis of fellow travelers' electoral failures that the "a big bulk of our population does not support" extreme "transgender" policies.

While some Democrats may be shocked, the turning tide is no secret. A Washington Post-KFF poll found last year that 57% of Americans say gender is biologically determined; 68% oppose the use of puberty blockers by children; 58% oppose hormonal treatments for teens; and 62% say male transvestites should not be able to compete in girls' sports.

"When we look at the map of states that ban this type of evidence-based health care, we went from zero states that had these bans in 2020 to now more than half the country," continued Strangio.

The ACLU attorney indicated that she will argue before the high court that the Tennessee law, Senate Bill 1, is a form of sex discrimination.

When Tapper raised the question of whether there is sufficient data to prove that sex-change treatments for kids is beneficial, Strangio replied, "We have decades of both clinical experience and research data showing that this is medical treatment that provides critical benefits to adolescents who need it."

Strangio apparently missed the memo about the Cass Review, which revealed earlier this year that where so-called gender science is concerned, "There is not a reliable evidence base upon which to make clinical decisions, or for children and their families to make informed choices."

The massive multiyear investigation commissioned by NHS England found that most of the "research" underpinning so-called gender science is of "poor quality," demonstrating "poor study design, inadequate follow-up periods, and a lack of objectivity in reporting of results."

In the case of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones foisted on children, the review made clear that the uses "are unproven and benefits/harms are unknown."

"In addition to this making it difficult for clinicians to know whether these are appropriate treatments to offer, it is also challenging to provide children, young people, and families with sufficient information on which to make an informed choice," said the review. "The duty of information disclosure is complicated by many 'unknown unknowns' about the long-term impacts of puberty blocker and/or masculinizing/feminizing hormone during a dynamic developmental period when gender identity may not be settled."

Strangio suggested to Tapper that toddlers' confusion is actionable and that in some cases, the "best" remedy is life-altering drugs.

"These are doctors who are wanting to treat their patients in the best way that they know how, based on the best available evidence to us," said Strangio. "And these are young people who may have known since they were two years old exactly who they are, who suffered for 6 or 7 years before they had any relief. And what's happening here? It's not the kids who are consenting to this treatment; it's the parents who are consenting to the treatment."

Journalist Mia Hughes highlighted in her 242-page report, published in March by Michael Shellenberger's think tank, Environmental Progress, that Dianne Berg, a member of World Professional Association for Transgender Health and co-author of the child chapter of the organization's Standards of Care 8, indicated that while adolescents are not mature enough to understand "the extent to which some of these medical interventions are impacting them," some parents also lack the requisite health literacy to understand the treatments.

"What really disturbs me is when the parents can't tell me what they need to know about a medical intervention that apparently they signed off for," said Berg.

"As a parent, I would say we — when our children are suffering, we are suffering," said Strangio. "And these are parents who love their children, who are listening to the advice of their doctors, of the mainstream medical community, and doing what's right for them, for their kids in the state. ... Tennessee has displaced their judgment."

Those keen to prevent or remedy suffering might take into account the Cass Review's indications that:

  • the "systematic review showed no clear evidence that social transition in childhood has any positive or negative mental health outcomes, and relatively weak evidence for any effect in adolescence";
  • puberty blockers compromise bone density and have no apparent impact on "gender dysphoria or body satisfaction";
  • there is "insufficient and/or inconsistent evidence about the effects of puberty suppression on gender dysphoria, mental and psychosocial health, cognitive development, cardio-metabolic risk, and fertility";
  • there is "a lack of high-quality research assessing the outcomes of hormones for masculinisation or feminisation in adolescents with gender dysphoria or incongruence and few studies that undertake long-term follow-up"; and
  • so-called gender-affirming care is "an area of remarkably weak evidence."

Other studies have similarly demonstrated the fallout of the drugs Strangio wants kids to access. For instance, a 2022 study published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy confirmed that puberty blockers adversely impact bone density and noted that there "is increasing evidence for negative effects on cognitive and emotional development and on sexual functioning."

Tennessee noted in February that the state "acted rationally, reasonably, and compassionately to protect its children, and the Act survives any level of review. Nothing in the Constitution deputizes Petitioners to override the legislature's judgment and demand a policy they believe to be more favorable. Concluding otherwise would violate 'the most deeply rooted tradition in this country ... that we look to democracy to answer pioneering public-policy questions.'"

The Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Skrmetti is not expected for several months.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

After Trans Activists Try To Ban ‘Irreversible Damage,’ It Becomes A Bestseller

Trans activists keep bullying businesses into removing content through fear tactics rather than by countering the message with their own better one.