HATE REDUCTION = HARM REDUCTION

A collection of information, thoughts, statistics and personal stories

about the ongoing stigmatization of 2SLGBTQIA+ community members
An exercise in trying to understand the matter and how we might do better
A public health approach to community healing*

Version 5 | July 2025

Ted Yudelson
Author and curator
Concerned citizen
Creator, The HUMAN DIGNITY Project

 Just as harm reduction in public health saves lives by meeting people where they are, hate reduction
saves communities by interrupting cycles of violence and building pathways to healing.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
OVERVIEW: Anti-2SLGBTQIA+ hate is on the rise in Canada 5
UNDERSTANDING THE ISSUE
• 10 Myths About the “Gay Agenda” 14
THE ROOTS OF ANTI-LGBTQ SENTIMENT
• To what can we attribute anti-LGBTQ backlash in British Columbia? 16
• To what can we attribute anti-LGBTQ backlash in Canada? 19
• To what can we attribute anti-LGBTQ backlash in the U.S.? 21
HATE SPEECH AND ONLINE HATE 22
WITH CONDEMNATION AND LACK OF ACCEPTANCE COMES HARM 25
SPREADING HATE HAS CONSEQUENCES 31
HOW MUCH DOES HATE COST? 38
UNDERSTANDING HOMELESS POPULATIONS 44
TRYING TO FIND ANSWERS
• What's all the hubbub about parental rights and what is the real source of this concern? 45
• How is it that non-affirming religious institutions continue to dig their heels in,
continuing to propagate and perpetuate the condemnation of LGBTQ+ community
members? 48
• How can one justify religious beliefs that encourage the demonization of a community?
More importantly, what is the benefit to society of even perpetuating this kind of
belief system? 56
• What are we to make of institutions that are intent on perpetuating systemic harm
against the LGBTQ community? 57
WHAT ABOUT ACCOUNTABILITY? 59
• How much harm must be done before we see change? 60
• The Malice of Non-Affirming Religious Folks is not a Good Look 62
SOME THOUGHTS FROM THE PEANUT GALLERY
A variety of articles:
• On Gender, Phantasms, and Moral Panics 65
• The Origins of Organised Homophobia 66
• Seven Tough Questions the Church Should Ask Itself 67
• Why Would Anyone “Choose” to be Gay? 67
• Everyone Belongs Here: How Affirming and Non-Affirming Church Messages
and Imagery Cause Different Feelings of Acceptance in 2SLGBTQIA+ Christians 68
• Religious Homophobia: It’s About Straight Sex, Not Gay Sex 68
• Homosexuality: What Does the Bible Actually Say? 69
• What does the Bible say about homosexuality?
Well, for starters, Jesus wasn’t a homophobe 70

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 2

SOME THOUGHTS FROM THE PEANUT GALLERY
A variety of articles (cont’d):
• Is It Homophobic to Consider Homosexuality Sin? 72
• His work was used to exclude LGBTQ people from church. He argues the opposite. 74
• Hard Truth or Hate Speech? Challenging Church Messaging 75
• Did God Make Me LGBTQ Just to Condemn Me? 78
• To The Gender-Critical Crowd: I Am Sorry 81
• A Letter to a Young Gay Christian from a Gay Christian in His 30s 83
• What If the Prodigal Son Was Gay? 86
• What Evangelical Parents Still Don’t Understand About Their Gay Kids 90
• The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion 93
• The Challenge of Accepting Gender and Sexuality in Religion 94
PODCAST: Why I Stopped Being a Christian Nationalist | The New Evangelicals 95
REPORT: Mapping the Landscape of Faith-Based Heterosexism and Transphobia in Canada 96
QUESTIONING INTENTIONS 97
WHY HAS REGRESSIVE TREATMENT BECOME MAINSTREAM? 100
THE FALSE FRAMING OF LGBTQ+ PEOPLE AS "GROOMERS" AND PEDOPHILES 102
ADDRESSING CRUELTY 105
ADDRESSING LANGUAGE 110
ADDRESSING RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 112
ADDRESSING THE HATE 115
• A RECIPE FOR HARM REDUCTION 118
• A LETTER OF CONCERN TO LGBTQ+ ADVOCATES 120
• A NOTE TO WOMEN AND GENDER EQUALITY CANADA (WAGE) 126
• ALRIGHT, LET’S TALK ABOUT SIN 129
MOVING FORWARD
• STOP THE HATE, STOP THE HARM 132
• What mechanisms exist in Canada to combat the demonization of LGBTQ+ community
members by non-affirming institutions? 134
o A Look at SOGI 123 in BC 135
• What mechanisms exist in the US to combat the demonization of LGBTQ+ community
members by non-affirming institutions? 139
• NURTURING A CULTURE OF CARE 141
• CERTAINTY IS THE ENEMY OF TOLERANCE 142
• THE RIGHT WAY TO SAY THE UNSAYABLE 143
QUOTES 144

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 3

MORE THOUGHTS FROM THE PEANUT GALLERY
Excerpts from some other articles:
• Why I Speak Out About Being Queer — and Why You Don’t Have To 146
• Why LGBTQ+ People Don’t Owe You An Education 147
• Is the 2SLGBTQIA+ Community Prepared to Revolt? 150
• Love, Religion, and 2SLGBTQIA+: The Relationship Dilemma You Can’t Ignore! 152
• A Queer Plea to Progressive Christians: How to improve faith 154
• Sarah McBride wasn’t looking for a fight on trans rights 156
• Why Trans People Became the Target of a Changing World 157
• “Gender Ideology” Is a Conspiracy Theory 159
• No, Biology Doesn’t Say What You Think It Does 160
• Largest-ever survey of trans people reveals the real reason they detransition 167
• The Age of Unfairness 168
• The ‘Natural Family’ Agenda 170
• The Three-Gender Problem 172
• How Respectability Politics Rewire the LGBTQ Brain 175
• Breaking Oppression’s Chains: How Self-Acceptance Powers 2SLGBTQIA+ Resistance 189
• Should Christians Support Pride Month? 185
• It’s Simple – We Evolve or We Die 187
LESSONS FROM DARING GREATLY:
• Understanding and Combatting Shame 188
• The Vulnerability Armory 191
• Who are the main purveyors of homophobic cruelty and how might we combat it? 193
• The importance of connection and belonging 195
ON HUMAN NATURE 197
ADDRESSING MORALITY 200
HOW TO DO BETTER 201
Actionable steps you can take right now to support 2SLGBTQIA+ people
A DECISION THAT ENSURED THAT ALL RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS WERE AFFIRMING
WOULD BE A GAME-CHANGER 206
STOP THE HATE, STOP THE HARM (reprise) 209

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 4

OVERVIEW
Anti-2SLGBTQIA+ hate is on the rise in Canada.
It’s deeply concerning and mirrors a broader global trend of increasing hostility toward
marginalized communities. In Canada, incidents of hate are evident in various forms, including
protests against drag events and LGBTQ-inclusive school policies (with heated exchanges and
arrests reported during rallies), vandalism of Pride symbols and spaces, baseless accusations of
"grooming" and even desecration of election signs with homophobic slurs. Additionally, some
municipalities and school boards have outright banned the display of Pride flags, further
marginalizing these communities.
The statistics paint a grim picture of the current situation:
1. In Canada, police-reported hate crimes based on sexual orientation increased by 69% in
2023, rising for the third consecutive year, as part of a staggering increase of 388% from
2016-2023.28,29
2. Public acceptance of queer and trans people is declining, with less Canadians
supportive of queer and trans people being open about their sexual orientation or
gender identity in 2023 compared to 2021. Across the country, drag spaces and pride
events are being met with anti-2SLGBTQIA+ protestors. Queer community leaders in the
public eye are being targeted with hate and online attacks. Efforts are underway to roll
back 2SLGBTQIA+ inclusion in schools, notably regarding essential privacy protections
for trans and gender-diverse students. Rhetoric equating 2SLGBTQIA+ people with
pedophiles abounds in the online world.30
3. A 2019 Canadian Health Survey of Children and Youth identified that 77% of sexually and
gender diverse youth reported being the target of bullying in the previous year. Not only
are sexually and gender diverse youth more likely to be bullied, but their mental health is
also often worse than cisgender youth attracted exclusively to a different gender. 31
Globally, the situation is equally alarming. Europe has seen its most violent year for LGBTQ+
communities in a decade, with hate speech and attacks on the rise. In the U.S., anti-trans
legislation and rhetoric have surged and DEI initiatives have been eliminated, while countries
like Uganda and Kenya have enacted or upheld laws that criminalize LGBTQIA+ identities.
This reflects a troubling pattern seen worldwide, where anti-gender rights movements and
harmful rhetoric are gaining traction, often fueled by political polarization and misinformation.
In fact, the rise in anti-LGBTQ and specifically anti-trans hate is directly linked to the spread of
misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation. To a large extent, coordinated anti-
2SLGBTQIA+ movements are relying on the general public’s lack of familiarity with trans and
gender diverse people to disseminate harmful disinformation and malinformation, arising from
a combination of factors rooted in societal biases and political movements.
• Misinformation: This refers to false or inaccurate information that is spread, regardless of intent. The key here
is that misinformation is not deliberately meant to deceive—it might simply be shared unknowingly or due to
a lack of understanding.
• Disinformation: Unlike misinformation, disinformation is false information shared deliberately to mislead or
manipulate. It's intentionally crafted and distributed, often for personal, political, or financial gain.
• Malinformation: This term refers to information that is factual but shared in a harmful or damaging way. This
could include releasing private data, taking facts out of context, or using truthful content to promote harmful
agendas.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 5

The rise in anti-2SLGBTQIA+ violence and hate crimes in Canada and
elsewhere is indeed a deeply concerning trend.
And, sadly, much of this hate is precipitated by folks in positions of power who
continue to foment the same biases we’ve heard for years — that queer people
are sinners, an abomination, and an unwelcome influence on children.
Which suggests that the origins of this contempt and hate towards the 2SLGBTQIA+
community are deeply rooted in historical, cultural, and religious beliefs.
As with many conversations about injustice, talks typically turn almost exclusively on the
victims and the consequences of societal ills rather than on their origins.
It’s time to address the elephant in the room.
We simply cannot overlook the fact that many non-affirming religious institutions and
conservative political figures continue to propagate harmful rhetoric, demonizing and
dehumanizing 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals. By portraying non-heteronormative behaviors as
deviant, often rooted in religious doctrines condemning homosexuality, these narratives have
shaped laws, social norms, and cultural attitudes that perpetuate discrimination.
Unfortunately, the rhetoric has real-world consequences.
And the consequences are profound, with severe and lasting impacts on the
2SLGBTQIA+ community1,3,5:
1. Mental Health: Due to societal stigma and discrimination, 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals face
higher rates of depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation.
2. Economic Challenges: Discrimination leads to underemployment, poverty and higher
rates of homelessness among 2SLGBTQIA+ people.
3. Physical Safety: The rise in hate crimes translates to an increased risk of violent attacks
and harassment.
4. Healthcare disparities: Discrimination in medical settings can lead to inadequate or
delayed care for 2SLGBTQIA+ people, contributing to poorer overall health outcomes.
5. Legal Inequality: In many places, laws regarding marriage, adoption, and gender
recognition still fail to fully protect 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals.
6. Social isolation: Many 2SLGBTQIA+ people experience rejection from their families or
communities, leading to increased loneliness and reduced access to support networks.
7. Educational Barriers: Bullying and discrimination in schools can hinder academic success
and limit future opportunities.
8. Workplace Discrimination: Even in places with protections, bias in hiring, promotion,
and workplace culture continues to impact job stability and career growth.
It’s remarkable, isn’t it? The way some folks cling to the idea that love - when it doesn’t look
like their version of it - is somehow a threat to society. They’ll tell you it’s about protecting
children, as if kids are fragile little snowflakes who might melt at the sight of two men holding
hands. Meanwhile, these same protectors of innocence are busy teaching their kids that hate is
a virtue, as long as it’s wrapped in scripture. It’s like watching someone set fire to their own
house and then blame the neighbors for the smoke.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 6

Unfortunately, members of the LGBTQ+ community are at the mercy of people
who have been fed a diet of contempt and hate for them.
It's a heartbreaking reality as hate and contempt are often taught, not inherent.
They stem from deeply rooted beliefs that have been passed down and
reinforced over generations.
Which begs the question,
‘Why is so much effort being expended to demonize the
LGBTQ+ community?’
What's the real end game here?
The effort to demonize the LGBTQ+ community, in Canada and elsewhere, seems to be part of a
broader cultural and political strategy aimed at consolidating power, controlling societal norms,
and advancing reactionary agendas. It’s a deeply troubling reality, one where LGBTQ+
demonization is often deployed as a political tool to rally support, distract from larger societal
issues, and consolidate ideological control. This kind of fear-based rhetoric isn't new; it's been
used throughout history to marginalize different groups and reinforce existing power
structures.
Key motivations and the underlying "end game" appear to comprise the following:

Motivations Behind Demonization

1. Political Power and Mobilization:
• Anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric is often used as a tool to rally conservative bases by framing
LGBTQ rights as a threat to traditional values or societal stability. This strategy helps
politicians and organizations gain support from voters who fear social change. 1,4,7
• Policies like restricting gender-affirming care or banning inclusive education are framed
as protecting "parents' rights" or "children's safety," which resonate with conservative
ideologies.4,6
2. Weaponization of Misinformation:
• Anti-LGBTQ+ hate is heavily driven by misinformation, disinformation, and
malinformation about trans and gender-diverse people. These tactics exploit the general
public's unfamiliarity with these communities to spread harmful narratives.22,23
• Harmful pseudoscience and false narratives, such as linking LGBTQ+ people to grooming
or pedophilia, are deliberately spread to create fear and justify discrimination. These
tactics lower the threshold for violence against LGBTQ+ individuals by dehumanizing
them and portraying them as societal threats.1,5
• Coordinated anti-LGBTQ+ movements deliberately manipulate information to create
fear and misunderstandings about issues like gender identity, puberty blockers, and
trans rights.22,23

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 7

3. Cultural Control:
• The rise of anti-LGBTQ+ hate is part of a larger "culture war" aimed at resisting
progressive changes in society. Opponents of LGBTQ+ rights often view gender diversity
and queer identities as challenges to traditional gender roles and religious norms.3,4
• Efforts to censor LGBTQ+ representation in schools, libraries, and public spaces reflect
attempts to control narratives about identity and suppress visibility.4
4. Political Backlash:
• Reactionary movements opposing gender diversity have gained momentum globally,
including in Canada. These movements often align with conservative political agendas
that reject progressive policies on LGBTQ+ rights.24,25
• In Canada, political figures and parties have introduced policies restricting gender-
affirming care or limiting LGBTQ+ visibility (e.g., banning Pride flags or requiring parental
consent for pronoun changes in schools).24,25
5. Economic Interests:
• Some groups exploit anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment for financial gain, leveraging outrage to
fundraise or sell products tied to their ideological campaigns.4
6. Historical and Systemic Discrimination
• LGBTQ+ individuals face systemic barriers across various sectors, including healthcare,
employment, and legal systems. Examples include discriminatory blood donation
policies and challenges for sexual-minority immigrants.19
• Persistent biases rooted in traditional gender norms continue to marginalize LGBTQ+
people, especially in rural or conservative areas.19,26
7. Global Influence
• Anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric from influential global figures, such as U.S. President Donald
Trump, has amplified – in fact, condoned – hate speech and policies that trickle into
Canadian society.7
• International anti-gender movements have inspired local protests and legislation
targeting LGBTQ+ rights in Canada.24,27
• Some groups seek to export anti-LGBTQ+ policies internationally, creating a broader
network of suppression that aligns with far-right ideologies.4
8. Lack of Familiarity
A significant portion of Canadians do not personally know someone who is trans or gender-
diverse. This lack of exposure makes it easier for harmful stereotypes to take root. 23

The End Game

The ultimate goal of anti-LGBTQ+ movements appears to be the preservation of
traditional norms and hierarchies and the rollback of progressive rights, rooted in a
desire to maintain established power structures and resist social change.
These efforts to curtail LGBTQ+ rights aren't just about specific policies, but about shaping
societal norms and maintaining control over who gets to be visible, accepted, and empowered.
Historically, these tactics have been used against many marginalized groups, reinforcing
systemic hierarchies that benefit those in power.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 8

Specific objectives include:
• Erasure of LGBTQ Visibility: Limiting discussions of LGBTQ+ identities in education, media,
and public spaces ensures that queer people remain marginalized.4,6
• Legislative Suppression: Enacting laws that criminalize gender-affirming care, restrict
marriage equality, or ban LGBTQ-inclusive policies consolidates systemic discrimination.4,7
• Consolidation of Conservative Ideology: By framing LGBTQ+ rights as antithetical to family
values or societal health, these movements aim to reinforce heteronormativity and
cisnormativity as societal norms.4,7
There's a longstanding pattern where movements use fear and "traditional values" as
justification for restricting rights. In many cases, this isn't just about LGBTQ+ communities, but
about maintaining broader structures of inequality. These movements are marked by:
• threats to traditional values or societal stability
• resistance to progressive changes
• preservation of traditional gender norms
• preservation of traditional hierarchies
• rollback of progressive rights
At its core, anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric seems to operate by framing LGBTQ+
individuals as the common enemy and a perceived threat to traditional family
values, rallying support through fear and division. This tactic not only fosters
hostility, but also distracts from addressing real societal challenges.
It’s a strategy that exploits prejudice rather than promoting genuine
understanding or unity.
• By presenting a group or identity as a so-called "threat" to cherished concepts like family
values or societal stability, individuals or groups can rally supporters by framing their stance
as one of defense or preservation. This tactic not only stirs emotional reactions like fear,
anger, or moral outrage, but also creates a clear "us versus them" narrative.
• The term “common enemy” is key here, as it fosters unity among the in-group by focusing
their attention on opposing an external group. This approach often relies on exaggerating or
distorting facts to portray the targeted group as harmful, immoral, or a danger to societal
norms. In doing so, it can mask the underlying intent, which might not always be about
values at all, but rather about maintaining power structures or political influence.
• Labeling this as a defense of "family values" is particularly potent because it appeals to
deeply held emotions and cultural ideals. The idea of protecting families resonates strongly
with many, making it an effective way to draw support—even from those who might not
otherwise engage in discriminatory behavior.

But this framing obscures the real harm it causes by legitimizing prejudice,
fostering division, and denying equal rights to those who are targeted.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 9

It not only affects the immediate victims, but also reinforces broader societal biases and
inequalities, and can be understood through various socio-cultural and political lenses:
1. Threats to Traditional Values or Societal Stability
Many people view societal traditions, often rooted in religious or cultural beliefs, as the
backbone of stability. The acceptance of LGBTQ+ rights or lifestyles is seen by some as a
challenge to these values. This fear may stem from the belief that changes could erode the
fabric of society by questioning long-held norms about family, marriage, and reproduction.
2. Resistance to Progressive Changes
Societal change, especially progressive movements, can sometimes be met with resistance
from those who feel alienated by rapid evolution. For many, LGBTQ+ activism represents a
larger wave of progressivism that includes challenges to established norms, which can
trigger unease or backlash.
3. Preservation of Traditional Gender Norms
Gender roles have historically defined how societies function—such as clear divisions of
labor, expectations in relationships, and family dynamics. The LGBTQ+ movement,
particularly with the rise of awareness around non-binary and transgender identities,
disrupts these conventional ideas, leading some to react defensively in an effort to maintain
what they see as natural or divinely ordained roles.
4. Preservation of Traditional Hierarchies
Traditional hierarchies often include patriarchal systems, where men hold dominant roles in
public and private spheres. LGBTQ+ rights challenge these hierarchies by promoting equality and
dismantling systems that place one group above others based on gender or sexual orientation.
5. Rollback of Progressive Rights
This sentiment often stems from political ideologies that favor conservative or authoritarian
governance, seeking to reverse reforms viewed as unnecessary or harmful. Anti-LGBTQ+
sentiment is used as a rallying point to energize a specific voter base, framing the rollback of
rights as a return to a more "virtuous" or "orderly" society.
This complex cocktail of resistance to change highlights a mix of outdated fears,
values, and power dynamics, none of which justify anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment but
provide insight into why it continues to surface in some societies.
BUT THE ROOT CAUSE IS THE SAME: Religious rhetoric that reinforces traditional values
• Religious rhetoric seeks to uphold traditional values and perpetuate a binary understanding
of family and morality, overlooking the diversity and complexity of human experiences and
the broader ethical imperative to foster inclusion and equity. It serves as a reminder of the
importance of critically evaluating and evolving long-standing frameworks to build more
compassionate societies.
• Religious rhetoric continues to play a significant role in shaping societal attitudes toward
LGBTQ+ individuals.
• Religious rhetoric continues to marginalize people who don't conform to traditional norms
of sexual orientation and gender identity.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 10

THE RESULT: Religious rhetoric continues to inflict tremendous harm by working to
justify discrimination under the guise of protecting moral or spiritual values,
despite its clear detrimental impact on fostering thriving, inclusive communities.
Fortunately, not all religious communities or leaders uphold these exclusionary views.
Progressive movements within many faith traditions are actively reinterpreting traditional
teachings, advocating for inclusivity, and embracing diversity in sexual orientation and gender
identity. These efforts demonstrate that religion can also be a powerful force for acceptance
and positive change.

YET, PROGRESS REMAINS PAINFULLY SLOW, AND THE HARM

PERSISTS UNABATED.
Entrenched institutions continue to resist meaningful reform, allowing
discrimination to continue unchecked. This reality highlights the urgent need for
decisive action: comprehensive education, committed allyship, and robust
policy measures that do more than merely protect rights—they must actively
dismantle discriminatory systems.
THIS DOCUMENT explores the nature and devastating impacts of sex and gender-based
discrimination—the systematic mistreatment of individuals based on their sex, gender identity,
or gender expression—and charts pathways toward genuine acceptance and inclusion.

INCREMENTAL CHANGE IS NO LONGER SUFFICIENT.

THE TIME FOR TRANSFORMATIVE ACTION IS NOW.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 11

BTW
One LGBTQ+ advocate that addresses religious persecution specifically is
Rainbow Faith and Freedom (RFF).
RFF is an Ontario-based organization dedicated to confronting religious-based discrimination
against LGBTQ+ individuals. It aims to create safe and inclusive spaces within faith communities
by promoting understanding and acceptance. The organization focuses on advocacy, education,
and collaboration to address issues of homophobia and transphobia rooted in religious beliefs.
Moreover, RFF appears to be unique in that it seems to be the only organization that recognizes
that religious-based discrimination is a significant problem - the most powerful and influential
source of homophobia and transphobia in Canada, not to mention elsewhere.

In contrast to most other 2SLGBTQIA+ human rights organizations,

RFF does not believe that religious beliefs can be ignored any longer in
the fight to end homophobia and transphobia.
Because religious institutions continue to weaponize beliefs that perpetuate discrimination of
2SLGBTQIA+ people, and because religious belief is a human right, religious-discrimination must
be confronted from a religious perspective that both affirms and is inclusive of 2SLGBTQIA+
identity and faith.
It is time to address the fact that the vulnerability and shame experienced by
members of the LGBTQ+ community is largely the result of religious rhetoric
that has been, and continues to be, propagated and perpetuated by non-
affirming institutions.
It's particularly disheartening when those in power - those who should be setting an example
and working toward the common good – are, in fact, contributing to this prejudice and, worse
yet, its resultant harm. The hypocrisy is glaring and underscores the need for accountability and
a shift in societal attitudes to ensure safety and acceptance for all.
Ah, yes. Nothing says ‘love thy neighbor’ quite like making them feel ashamed for existing.
The beauty of selective morality is that it allows people in power to champion ‘family values’
while conveniently ignoring the harm those values inflict on actual families. It’s like watching
someone trip another person, then patting themselves on the back for being kind enough to
call an ambulance. The message is clear: Dignity is conditional, safety is a privilege, and
acceptance is something we’ll get around to - right after we finish policing love.

RFF’s Worshipping With Love research project, the first phase of the organization's Ending Religious-
based 2SLGBTQIA+ Discrimination in Canada: Faith Sector Awareness and Education Program,
provides a clearer understanding of the relationship between places of worship and the queer
community. With the support of the Government of Canada’s Women and Gender Equality (WAGE)
grant, important research is helping to better address and take on religious-based 2SLGBTQIA+
discrimination and exclusions.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 12

Citations:
1. https://www.canada.ca/en/women-gender-equality/free-to-be-me/federal-action-2slgbtqi-
communities/facts-stats.html
2. https://www.yorku.ca/news/2023/10/27/queerphobic-hate-is-on-the-rise-and-lgbtq-communities-in-canada-
need-more-support/
3. https://policyalternatives.ca/news-research/gender-based-violences-disproportionate-impact-on-2slgbtq-
communities/
4. https://www.splcenter.org/resources/extremist-files/anti-lgbtq/
5. https://cphs.ca/the-ongoing-challenges-faced-by-2slgbtqia-women-in-canada/
6. https://globalnews.ca/news/9393280/canada-lgbtq-hate-trans-west-block/
7. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/csis-lgbtq-warning-violence-1.7114801
8. https://egale.ca/egale-in-action/2023-hate-crimes-july29/
9. https://www.splcenter.org/resources/reports/10-anti-gay-myths-debunked/
10. https://www.canada.ca/en/women-gender-equality/free-to-be-me/federal-2slgbtqi-plus-action-plan.html
11. https://www.nsvrc.org/blogs/fact-sheet-injustice-lgbtq-community
12. https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/07/01/governments-demonize-lgbtq-rights-children-lose-most
13. https://amnesty.ca/human-rights-news/anti-2slgbtqia-hate-in-canada-must-end/
14. https://www.international.gc.ca/transparency-transparence/women-peace-security-femmes-paix-
securite/2023-2029-implementation-plans-mise-ceuvre-wage-fegc.aspx?lang=eng
15. https://egale.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Egale-Canadas-Response-to-the-Federal-2SLGBTQI-Action-
Plan-3.0.pdf
16. https://www.canada.ca/en/women-gender-equality/free-to-be-me/federal-2slgbtqi-plus-action-
plan/progress/priority-area.html
17. https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/441/FEWO/Brief/BR13525820/br-
external/ItGetsBetterCanada-e.pdf
18. https://egale.ca/awareness/conversion-therapy-ban-canada/
19. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/jr/lgbtq/docs/rsd_rr2021_lgb-people-in-western-canada-eng.pdf
20. https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/441/FEWO/Brief/BR13528939/br-external/EgaleCanada-e.pdf
21. https://egale.ca/rainbow-action-hub/
22. https://egale.ca/rainbow-action-hub/misinformation/
23. https://egale.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Difficult-Conversation-Guide_V-01.pdf
24. https://celeste.lgbt/en/2025/01/january-2025-canadian-anti-trans-risk-assessment-map/
25. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/2slgbtq-rally-stjohns-1.7460883
26. https://amnesty.ca/human-rights-news/anti-2slgbtqia-hate-in-canada-must-end/
27. https://www.cbabc.org/Newsroom/Announcements/2024/Statement-from-CBABC-President-on-Anti-Trans-Prote
28. https://egale.ca/egale-in-action/2023-hate-crimes-july29/
29. https://united-church.ca/news/new-data-shows-spike-hate-crimes-targeting-2slgbtqia-communities
30. https://www.momentumcanada.net/act4queersafety?active=act4queersafety_understandingtheissue_understan
dingtheissue
31. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/200723/dq200723a-eng.htm
32. https://www.adl.org/resources/article/what-grooming-truth-behind-dangerous-bigoted-lie-targeting-lgbtq-
community

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 13

UNDERSTANDING THE ISSUE
10 Myths About the “Gay Agenda”
Anti-2SLGBTQIA+ propaganda is on the rise, often based on these common myths
By ARAYA BAKER, M.Phil.Ed., Ed.M.
https://aninjusticemag.com/10-myths-about-the-gay-agenda-7f8f89bb6a2e

Key points
• “Gay agenda” myths have coincided with a surge in anti-2SLGBTQIA+ hate crimes and
500+ proposed anti-2SLGBTQIA+ bills.
• Ignorance about centuries of 2SLGBTQIA+ activism may fuel myths that political wins
involve force or secrecy.
• Dominant groups may misread social movements as threats, due to out-group bias and
political self-interest.
• Minority groups that de-center dominant/privileged groups can be pathologized or
scapegoated as punishment.
Globally, 71 nations have criminalized being 2SLGBTQIA+, and in the U.S., at
least 510 anti-2SLGBTQIA+ bills have been proposed since 2023. At the same
time, “gay agenda” propaganda has increased and has coincided with a rise in
anti-2SLGBTQIA+ hate crimes.
While some will always remain committed to ignorance, it’s never too late for the rest of us to
unlearn. Below are some common myths about 2SLGBTQIA+ people or the so-called “gay
agenda.”
Myth 1: 2SLGBTQIA+ people are anti-religion.
Many 2SLGBTQIA+ people who critique organized religion are concerned with religious abuse,
not opposing religion itself. In most cases, it’s neither disbelief in God nor opposition to
people’s religiosity that drives their critiques, but instead a pointed questioning of a hateful
fixation that certain religions have with 2SLGBTQIA+ people.
Myth 2: 2SLGBTQIA+ people are anti-family.
Healthy dynamics — not gender roles or family size — are what make a family functional. And
2SLGBTQIA+ parents are too busy creating these dynamics to be plotting (allegedly) the
institutional downfall of heterosexual marriage.
Myth 3: 2SLGBTQIA+ people are anti-masculinity.
Toxic masculinity — not masculinity in and of itself, but the kind that leads to hate crimes — is
what most 2SLGBTQIA+ people critique.
Myth 4: Gay men infiltrate and manipulate the media to feminize men.
Across racial groups, gay men attain more bachelor’s degrees than any other group (52 percent
vs 35 percent for straight men), are more likely to major in the arts/humanities, and are twice
as likely as straight men to hold advanced degrees — all factors which likely contribute to their
overrepresentation in creative/media fields.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 14

Myth 5: Kids are too young to know they’re 2SLGBTQIA+.
According to GLSEN, 45% of students in grades 3–6 reported that their peers used the word
“gay” in a derogatory way. Students also reported hearing many other anti-gay/trans words.
Many of these youngsters might claim to be heterosexual, if asked; yet anti-2SLGBTQIA+ adults
wouldn’t consider that problematic. They struggle to comprehend that a romantic orientation
doesn’t require sexual exposure/experience and that adults, not kids, sexualize love.
Myth 6: 2SLGBTQIA+ people “force” their queerness on others, especially kids.
At least 22 states have not banned adults from subjecting 2SLGBTQIA+ minors to abusive
conversion “therapy”, and 1,300 conversion “therapists” actively practice in the U.S. Their work
is the epitome of non-consensual interaction with kids. Yet, as recently as 1978, California
legislators proposed a bill to fire openly gay teachers, under the guise of “protecting” kids from
queer predators. The kicker? 82% of child predators are heterosexual.
Myth 7: Being 2SLGBTQIA+ is a “lifestyle” choice or byproduct of one’s environment.
In the words of TS Madison: “Lifestyle is, I don’t go past row-six on the plane. Lifestyle is, I need
a black car everywhere I go. Life is, I am gay. Life is, I am trans. Life is, I am lesbian. Life is, this is
me. This is not a ‘style’ or something that I can just — if I lost this tomorrow — find another
way.”
Myth 8: Being 2SLGBTQIA+ increases the risk of suicide.
In 1973, 5,854 of 10,000 psychiatrists voted for the American Psychiatric Association to
declassify homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder (“sexual deviance/perversion”).
Unfortunately, even today, some people continue to weaponize psychiatry in service of hetero-
supremacy by victim-blaming 2SLGBTQIA+ folks for minority stress.
In reality, 2SLGBTQIA+ folks face bias in banking, education, employment, faith communities,
healthcare, housing, the military, prisons, policing, and courts. The connection between these
kinds of structural trauma and suicide is well-documented.
Myth 9: 2SLGBTQIA+ people are mostly young.
Until 1969, police routinely raided LGBTQ businesses and nightlife establishments. And only
in 2003 did Texas strike down its “Homosexuality Conduct Law.” These repressive laws — which
often made it actively dangerous for members of older generations to be “out” publicly — are
just a couple of reasons “out” 2SLGBTQIA+ people tend to be younger.
Myth 10: 2SLGBTQIA+ people are mostly white.
42% of 2SLGBTQIA+ folks are non-white, and we have been influential throughout history, even
if we weren’t accounted for.

For more details,

see https://aninjusticemag.com/10-myths-about-the-gay-agenda-7f8f89bb6a2e

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 15

THE ROOTS OF ANTI-LGBTQ SENTIMENT
To what can we attribute anti-LGBTQ backlash in British
Columbia?
Anti-LGBTQ backlash in BC has manifested in various ways, including protests, vandalism, and
attempts to limit LGBTQ content in schools. The trend is particularly concerning as it coincides
with a sharp increase in hate crimes targeting sexual orientation, which rose by 77% from 2017
to 2018 in British Columbia.2 Additionally, British Columbia recorded one of the highest hate
crime rates in Canada in 2022, with 10.2 incidents per 100,000 population.10 This can be
attributed to several interconnected factors:
1. Political opportunism: Some conservative politicians, like John Rustad of the BC
Conservative Party, have been capitalizing on anti-LGBTQ sentiment, particularly targeting
SOGI 123 resources in schools.4
2. Organized protests: There have been persistent anti-LGBTQ demonstrations, such as those
on the Mountain Highway Overpass in North Vancouver. Groups opposing SOGI 123
education have been organizing demonstrations at various locations, including highway
overpasses and Drag Queen Storytime events.1,7 These demonstrations often involve false
statements about transgender people and other conspiracies.
3. Online hate and misinformation: The spread of false information and conspiracy theories
online has fueled anti-LGBTQ sentiment, often spilling over into real-world actions.9
Statistics Canada data shows a dramatic rise in anti-LGBTQ hate crimes in the province. This
increase reflects growing hostility towards the LGBTQ community.
4. Far-right and social conservative groups: There has been an increase in far-right groups
targeting LGBTQ spaces and events, with some pivoting from COVID-19 conspiracies to anti-
LGBTQ rhetoric.1,3 These groups have organized against initiatives like BC’s SOGI 123 anti-
bullying program. Their opposition to such programs has fueled anti-LGBTQ sentiments.
5. Political and social climate: The boldness and overtness of homophobia and transphobia
have increased, with some political figures and organizations giving platforms to anti-trans
speakers.
6. Imported culture wars: Some of the anti-LGBTQ sentiment appears to be influenced by
similar movements in other parts of Canada and the United States, with rhetoric around
"parental rights" being adopted.6,8
7. Misunderstanding of SOGI 123: There is a misconception that SOGI 123 programming is
harmful or leads to the "sexualization of children," despite it being designed to create safe
and inclusive environments for all students.4,7
8. Increased visibility of LGBTQ issues: As LGBTQ communities have gained more rights and
visibility, there has been a reactionary pushback from socially conservative groups.2,8
These factors contribute to the ongoing challenges faced by the LGBTQ community.
In fact, mental health experts warn that this rise in anti-LGBTQ sentiment and actions can have
severe negative impacts on the mental health of LGBTQ individuals, particularly youth, leading
to higher rates of anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation.5,9

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 16

Many conservatives are adamant that SOGI should not be
discussed in school, but that dogma about the demonization
of LGBTQ+ members should!
Many conservatives strongly oppose the inclusion of discussions about sexual orientation and
gender identity (SOGI) in schools, yet at the same time, work to promote rhetoric that
demonizes LGBTQ+ individuals.
It’s a concerning contradiction to say the least.
Conversations about sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) in schools are meant to
foster understanding, inclusivity, and respect for all students, whereas demonization only
fuels division and harm. Education plays a crucial role in shaping young minds, and discussions
around SOGI can help create safer environments for LGBTQ+ students who often face
discrimination and bullying.
Even so, in recent years, social conservatives and far-right groups in Canada and elsewhere
have become preoccupied with the idea that public schools are trying to indoctrinate children
with "gender ideology." In Canada, initiatives like the "1 Million March 4 Children" have
demanded the removal of SOGI resources from classrooms. Similar campaigns in the United
States are part of a broader conservative effort to reshape public education.
For example, the BC Conservative Party has specifically targeted SOGI 123 - a suite of
educational tools aimed at making schools safer and more inclusive for students of all sexual
orientations and gender identities. Their platform pledges to eliminate lesson plans, seminars,
policy guides, and curriculum elements linked to SOGI 123. BC Conservative leader John Rustad
has controversially likened SOGI education to the legacy of residential schools, portraying it as
unwarranted government interference in parental rights - a comparison that has been widely
condemned as fear-mongering and historically inaccurate.
In the U.S., Florida Governor Ron DeSantis enacted the contentious "Don’t Say Gay" law in
2022, and other Republican-led states have moved to ban books from schools and libraries.
These actions reflect the concerns of socially conservative parents who want to restrict their
children’s exposure to ideas they find objectionable.
Far-right groups in both countries have also fueled a moral panic around
"gender ideology" in schools, particularly targeting transgender students.
Using the rhetoric of "parental rights," these groups are working to increase conservative
influence over public education through new laws and by electing like-minded candidates to
school boards, while also advocating for greater privatization options for families wishing to
withdraw from the public system. Although this pattern has been evident in Alberta for some
time, it is now spreading to other parts of Canada as well.
Regardless of political ideology, ensuring that schools remain spaces for learning, empathy, and
acceptance is essential. No one benefits from silencing conversations that promote
understanding while allowing harmful narratives to thrive.

Which begs the question—what kind of world do we want to build for the next generation?

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 17

Citations:
1. https://pressprogress.ca/hundreds-of-people-rallied-in-vancouver-against-anti-lgbtq-hate-heres-what-they-
had-to-say/
2. https://pressprogress.ca/anti-lgbtq-hate-crimes-have-risen-dramatically-in-british-columbia-statistics-canada-
data-shows/
3. https://briarpatchmagazine.com/articles/view/fighting-rising-anti-trans-hate
4. https://vancouver.citynews.ca/2023/10/03/bc-conservatives-ant-sogi-comments/
5. https://bc.cmha.ca/news/mental-health-for-all-no-space-for-hate/
6. https://www.sfu.ca/publicsquare/events/2024/sogi-parental-rights.html
7. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/north-vancouver-highway-anti-trans-demonstrators-
court-order-1.6842934
8. https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2024/10/07/Is-There-Hope-Trans-People-BC/
9. https://vancouversun.com/health/local-health/fears-for-lgbtq-mental-health-as-flood-of-online-hate-spills-
into-real-world
10. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/240313/dq240313b-eng.htm

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 18

THE ROOTS OF ANTI-LGBTQ SENTIMENT
To what can we attribute anti-LGBTQ backlash in
Canada?
The recent anti-LGBTQ backlash in Canada can be attributed to several interconnected factors:
1. Rise in far-right movements: There has been an increase in far-right groups targeting
2SLGBTQIA+ spaces and events, with a significant pivot from COVID-19 conspiracies to anti-
LGBTQ rhetoric.1
2. Imported culture wars: Some of the anti-LGBTQ sentiment appears to be influenced by
similar movements in the United States, with Canadian politicians adopting rhetoric around
"parental rights" and moral panic.4
3. Online hate and digital violence: Coordinated online hate campaigns have contributed to
the rising hostility towards 2SLGBTQIA+ communities, often with real-world consequences.3
4. Political opportunism: Some conservative politicians have been capitalizing on anti-LGBTQ
sentiment to rally their base, proposing policies that could negatively impact 2SLGBTQIA+
rights.4
5. Rehashing of old stereotypes: The backlash often relies on recycling harmful stereotypes,
particularly those targeting the trans community and drag performers.1
6. Increased visibility: As 2SLGBTQIA+ communities have gained more rights and visibility,
there has been a reactionary pushback from socially conservative groups.1,4
7. Intersecting systems of oppression: The backlash is exacerbated by interconnected factors
such as colonialism, systemic racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination.5

This backlash has manifested in various ways, including protests against drag
storytimes, vandalism of Pride flags, and attempts to limit 2SLGBTQIA+ content in
schools.1,3,4 The trend is particularly concerning as it coincides with a sharp
increase in hate crimes targeting sexual orientation, which rose by 69% in 2023
compared to the previous year.2

Citations:
1. https://globalnews.ca/news/9542496/anti-lgbtq2-protests-rise-canada-explainer/
2. https://egale.ca/egale-in-action/2023-hate-crimes-july29/
3. https://amnesty.ca/human-rights-news/anti-2slgbtqia-hate-in-canada-must-end/
4. https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/november-2023/lgbtq-rights-history/
5. https://www.canada.ca/en/women-gender-equality/free-to-be-me/federal-2slgbtqi-plus-action-plan/federal-
2slgbtqi-plus-action-plan-2022.html
6. https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/rights-lgbti-persons.html
7. https://www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/issues_development-enjeux_developpement/human_rights-
droits_homme/rights_lgbti-droits_lgbti.aspx?lang=eng
8. https://www.macewan.ca/campus-life/news/2023/07/news-conversation-jahangir-wells-23/

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 19

Although Canada is a leader in LGBTQ+ legislation, many people in
different sectors of Canadian society still experience homophobia and
transphobia at alarming levels.
Unfortunately, equality in law does not mean equality in lived experience. 2SLGBTQIA+
discrimination in Canada continues despite progressive legislation.
Canadian authorities have been responding to the rise in anti-LGBTQ protests in
several ways, though some argue that more action is needed:
1. Law enforcement interventions: Police have made arrests at protests in various cities,
including Ottawa, Halifax, Vancouver, and Victoria, for offenses such as "inciting hatred"
and displaying hateful material.3
2. Support from school boards: Many local school boards, particularly in Ontario, have issued
statements expressing support for LGBTQ students, staff, and families, reaffirming their
commitment to inclusivity.3
3. Calls for stronger action: Despite these efforts, LGBTQ advocates argue that Canada's
current laws are insufficient to protect them from rising hate. There is a push for stronger
legislation to address the increasing number of hate incidents.4
4. Government initiatives: The federal government has promised to develop a National Action
Plan on Combatting Hate, though updates on its progress and implementation timeline are
still pending.2
5. Municipal-level responses: Some recommendations for local governments include:
o Engaging with local 2SLGBTQIA+ communities
o Passing bylaws to protect 2SLGBTQIA+ community events
o Enacting buffer zones to keep anti-2SLGBTQIA+ protests away from community spaces
o Implementing public awareness campaigns to combat misinformation2
6. Calls for ally support: Authorities and advocates are encouraging LGBTQ allies to actively
stand up against hate, recognizing that the burden shouldn't fall solely on vulnerable
communities.5
While these responses indicate some level of action, many LGBTQ+ organizations and
advocates argue that more comprehensive and swift measures are needed to effectively
combat the rising tide of anti-LGBTQ sentiment in Canada.1,4

Citations:
1. https://catalystmcgill.com/canada-is-failing-its-lgbtq-community/
2. https://www.keystonebrucegrey.org/open-letter-from-egale-all-levels-of-government-in-canada-have-a-
responsibility-to-combat-the-rise-in-anti-2slgbtqi-hate/
3. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/rallies-gender-schools-1.6972606
4. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunder-bay/lgbtq-advocates-thunder-bay-unsafe-1.7000329
5. https://globalnews.ca/news/9542496/anti-lgbtq2-protests-rise-canada-explainer/
6. https://www.youthline.ca/youthline-responds-to-growing-anti-2slgbtq-movements-defending-youth-and-
inclusivity/
7. https://egale.ca/rainbow-action-hub/
8. https://www.yorku.ca/news/2023/10/27/queerphobic-hate-is-on-the-rise-and-lgbtq-communities-in-canada-
need-more-support/

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 20

THE ROOTS OF ANTI-LGBTQ SENTIMENT
To what can we attribute anti-LGBTQ backlash in the
U.S.?
The surge in anti-LGBTQ sentiment in the US is fueled by several interconnected forces,
including:
1. Legislative actions: There has been a significant increase in anti-LGBTQ laws and proposals,
including restrictions on transgender bathroom use, bans on gender-affirming care, and
anti-LGBTQ curriculum laws.
2. Public demonstrations and rhetoric: Far-right and social conservative groups have
organized protests and spread misinformation, often using terms like "groomer" to falsely
accuse LGBTQ individuals and their allies of harmful behavior.
3. Political and social climate: The polarized political climate has emboldened individuals and
groups to express anti-LGBTQ sentiments more openly.
4. Cultural and moral panic: The backlash has been described as part of a larger culture war
and moral panic, with some scholars citing it as an example of democratic backsliding.
Each of these elements reinforces the others, creating an atmosphere that threatens the rights,
safety, and visibility of LGBTQ+ individuals. Together, these factors create a cycle that makes
meaningful progress difficult.

FYI Project 2025 - a political initiative led by the Heritage Foundation, aiming to reshape the U.S.
federal government by consolidating executive power and promoting conservative policies -
implies that queer people simply existing around children should be imprisoned as sex
offenders.

Nebraska state senator filibustering proposed ban on trans youth health care forms new PAC:
'Don't Legislate Hate'
There are over 400 anti-LGBTQ bills around the country, according to the ACLU.
By ABC NEWS
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nebraska-state-senator-filibustering-proposed-ban-trans-
youth/story?id=98320160
This article discusses the actions of Nebraska State Senator Machaela Cavanaugh who worked to
filibuster a bill (LB574) that sought to ban gender-affirming health care for transgender youth
under 19. She has also launched a political action committee called "Don't Legislate Hate" to
oppose such legislation.

Turning back the clock 40 years on 2SLGBTQIA+ violence

By Meredith J. Batt | February 25 2025
https://nbmediacoop.org/2025/02/25/turning-back-the-clock-40-years-on-2slgbtq-violence/
The article reflects on the history of violence against 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals, focusing on the
tragic murder of Charles O. Howard in 1984. Howard, a gay man, was attacked and thrown off a
bridge by teenagers in Bangor, Maine. The piece explores the societal homophobia of the time
and highlights the importance of remembering and addressing such injustices.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 21

 The adjacent text comes from the Women’s
Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF)
website, specifically from their section on hate
speech and online hate.
LEAF focuses on the impact of hate speech on
women and gender-diverse individuals,
emphasizing how such speech undermines their
dignity, self-worth, and safety, which are essential
for full participation in democratic society.

Hate speech frequently intersects with broader patterns of discrimination,

particularly those targeting gender and sexual orientation. A significant portion
is rooted in homophobia and transphobia, frequently wrapped in religious
justifications that claim to uphold “family values.” This messaging not only
marginalizes gender-diverse individuals, but actively works to undermine their
legitimacy and dignity, reinforcing harmful societal narratives.
As we know, hate speech frequently targets marginalized groups, reinforcing
existing systemic inequities and promoting environments of hostility and exclusion.
When it intersects with gender and sexual orientation, it amplifies the marginalization of
individuals who already face significant societal challenges. Non-affirming religious rhetoric
plays a crucial role in this context, as it often leverages moral or spiritual justifications to
delegitimize or stigmatize gender-diverse individuals, including transgender and non-binary
people.
Such rhetoric typically suggests that gender diversity is unnatural or sinful, effectively
invalidating the experiences and identities of those it targets. This can—and does—manifest
in public discourse, political policy-making, or even interpersonal interactions, where such
views are used to deny basic rights, respect, or recognition to gender-diverse individuals.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 22

The impact goes beyond words, as it fosters an environment where
prejudice, discrimination and abuse are normalized.
Hostile language—whether overtly derogatory or subtly dismissive—can reinforce harmful
stereotypes, such as portraying gender-diverse individuals as deceptive, immoral, or socially
disruptive, thereby contributing to a broader culture of hate and exclusion. These stereotypes
perpetuate fear and misunderstanding, further marginalizing these individuals and eroding
their sense of safety and belonging.

Moreover, the broader societal implications are significant.

This culture of exclusion influences real-world actions, from barriers to healthcare and
employment to instances of violence and social ostracism. It also affects mental health, as the
constant invalidation and rejection contribute to increased rates of anxiety, depression, and
suicidal ideation among gender-diverse populations.
The result: Increased pressure on societal support systems and added strain on
public resources including:
• Healthcare systems, which must address untreated physical and mental health
conditions caused by marginalization.
• Social services, which face an increased need for interventions such as homelessness
support, unemployment aid, and crisis assistance.
• Educational institutions, which need to invest more in anti-bullying programs and
mental health resources.

When systemic exclusion persists, the ripple effects impact everyone,

not just 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals. Society loses out on the
contributions of diverse talents and perspectives, while public
resources are stretched thin trying to counteract preventable harm.
Systemic exclusion creates far-reaching consequences that reverberate across society as a
whole. When barriers to equity and acceptance exist, they stifle social cohesion, limit economic
potential, and undermine the collective well-being of communities. The exclusion of
2SLGBTQIA+ individuals perpetuates cycles of discrimination, discourages diverse perspectives,
and restricts opportunities for everyone to engage in meaningful interactions and
collaborations.
Moreover, systemic exclusion often sustains prejudices that affect more than just
the targeted groups. It fosters an environment where marginalization becomes
normalized, paving the way for other forms of inequality and oppression.
In such societies, the lack of inclusion diminishes trust, increases polarization, and hampers
efforts to solve shared challenges collectively—whether they relate to health, education, or
social justice. It’s not just about the immediate harm to marginalized groups—it’s about the
broader societal impact, where division and distrust become entrenched.
When inclusion is absent, it’s like pulling threads from a fabric; eventually, the whole thing
unravels.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 23

It’s interesting how some people treat inclusivity as if it’s a limited resource—
something that, if shared too freely, might run out. You’d think basic dignity
was being rationed by the government, like it’s the last roll of toilet paper in a
pandemic. Meanwhile, the folks pushing exclusion are the same ones insisting
they’re just protecting ‘traditional values.’ As if tradition was some fragile relic
that might disintegrate the moment someone different walks through the door.
But sure, let’s keep pretending that turning people into second-class citizens is
about preserving morality and not just about keeping certain folks comfortable
in their outdated worldview.
The truth of the matter is that by ensuring inclusivity, societies can not only honour the dignity
of 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals, but also create stronger, more interconnected, and resilient
communities for all - which ultimately benefits everyone by driving progress, empathy, and
unity forward.

With that in mind, it is both essential and pressing to challenge

harmful anti-LGBTQ rhetoric by promoting affirming language,
implementing inclusive policies, and fostering comprehensive
education that cultivates understanding and empathy.
Creating spaces where acceptance and dignity are prioritized not
only benefits 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals, but strengthens society as
a whole.
And isn’t that the ultimate noble goal?

Queerphobic hate is on the rise, and LGBTQ+ communities in Canada need

more support
By Staff | October 27, 2023
https://www.yorku.ca/news/2023/10/27/queerphobic-hate-is-on-the-rise-and-lgbtq-communities-in-canada-
need-more-support/

“When people have lived with assumptions long enough,

passed down through the generations as incontrovertible fact,
they are accepted as the truths of physics, no longer needing
even to be spoken. They are as true and as unremarkable as
water flowing through rivers or the air that we breathe.”
• Excerpt from Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents, by Isabel Wilkerson
A comment that applies to caste but equally applies to the treatment of the LGBTQ
community

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 24

WITH CONDEMNATION AND LACK OF ACCEPTANCE COMES HARM
The ongoing stigmatization and demonization of LGBTQ+ individuals, in
particular by non-affirming religious institutions, can and does inflict significant
harm on this community.
Let’s be clear. The persistent stigmatization and vilification of 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals often
lead to profound harm within this community, with a significant portion of this negativity
rooted in the rhetoric of non-affirming religious institutions.
Sure, religious beliefs can be a source of comfort and community for many, but when used to
marginalize or dehumanize others, they can perpetuate cycles of discrimination and pain. That
said, following are some Government of Canada statistics that highlight the inequality that
persists for 2SLGBTQIA+ communities in Canada, followed by a description of the varied harms
that are typically inflicted on this community.

Around the globe, people experience violence and discrimination because of their sexual
orientation or gender identity or expression. 2SLGBTQ2IA+ people experience discrimination
and harassment in housing, the workplace and the classroom. These people are also often
victims of hate-motivated violence34, including:
• physical attacks
• arbitrary arrest
• torture
• sexual assault
• murder

Types of stigmas
The top five types of stigmas that Canadians perceive these communities to face are:
1. 57% being shunned by family
2. 52% being verbally harassed or threatened
3. 50% feeling like others don’t understand them
4. 49% being physically harassed or threatened
5. 48% being harassed or threatened online
The top drivers of stigma include:
1. people being threatened by something they don’t understand
2. people not feeling comfortable with people who are different
3. people believing that being part of 2SLGBTQI+ communities is unnatural

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 25

The range of harms impacting the 2SLGBTQIA+ community is
wide and largely interrelated.
The challenges faced by the 2SLGBTQIA+ community are interconnected, spanning
discrimination, lack of access to healthcare, legal vulnerabilities, and social stigmatization.
When policies or cultural movements fuel exclusion, these harms compound—making it harder
for individuals to thrive and for communities to foster resilience.
Here is a detailed list of typical harms and some related statistics:
Psychological and Emotional Harms
1. Depression and Anxiety: Persistent stigmatization leads to mental health struggles.
2SLGBTQIA+ individuals typically experience higher rates of depression and anxiety due
to discrimination and stigma16. Per numerous studies, their mental health is often
worse than cisgender individuals attracted exclusively to a different gender.
After considering socio-demographic and socio-economic factors, it was found that
sexually and gender diverse youth were twice as likely to describe their mental health
as poor (33%) compared with other bullied youth populations (16%) and non-bullied
sexually and gender diverse youth (16%).33
2. Internalized homophobia: Absorbing negative societal attitudes fosters self-rejection.
Exposure to anti-gay religious teachings can foster and sustain internalized
homophobia.3
3. Low self-esteem: Feelings of inadequacy arise from societal rejection.
2SLGBTQIA+ individuals in non-affirming religious contexts often experience lowered
self-esteem.15
4. Shame and self-hatred: Internal conflicts create deep feelings of guilt and disdain for
one’s identity. In particular, religious-based stigma can lead to profound feelings of
shame and self-loathing.15
5. Suicidality: Heightened risk due to relentless mental health strain and societal pressures.
2SLGBTQIA+ people exposed to religious-based stigma have higher rates of suicidal
ideation, attempts, and deaths by suicide6.
• 45% of SLGBTQIA+ youth seriously considered suicide in the past year.17
• 14% of 2SLGBTQIA+ youth attempted suicide in the past year.17
• Transgender and nonbinary youth have higher rates, with nearly 1 in 5
attempting suicide.17
• Sexually and gender diverse youth were twice as likely to consider taking their
own life (27%) compared with other bullied youth (13%).33
Social and Relational Harms
1. Bullying and Harassment: Sexually and gender diverse youth more likely to be bullied.
Harassment and bullying not only contribute to lower self-esteem16, but more
importantly, erode safety and confidence.
• 36% of 2SLGBTQIA+ youth reported being physically threatened or harmed due to
their sexual orientation or gender identity.17
• Bullying leads to feeling less connected to school and having lower achievement
goals.16

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 26

 2. Discrimination: Inequitable treatment hinders opportunities and respect.
• 73% of 2SLGBTQIA+ youth reported experiencing discrimination based on their
sexual orientation or gender identity at least once in their lifetime.17
• 65% experienced discrimination based on sexual orientation.17
• 71% of transgender and nonbinary youth experienced discrimination based on
gender identity.17
3. Loss of relationships: Rejection from loved ones leads to isolation.
2SLGBTQIA+ individuals may experience deteriorated family relationships and social
isolation due to religious-based rejection.1
4. Strained family dynamics: Estranged relationships often have long-term emotional
impacts.
5. Disconnection from community: Feelings of alienation prevent support and belonging.
Some may cut off friendships or romantic relationships with other 2SLGBTQIA+ people
due to religious pressure.1
6. Forced into mixed-orientation marriages: Pressure to conform often leads to strained
and unfulfilling unions. Some 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals enter heterosexual marriages due
to religious expectations, often leading to painful separations and divorces.6
Spiritual and Religious Harms
1. Loss of faith: Rejection by religious groups leads to a crisis of belief.
Many 2SLGBTQia+ individuals lose their faith or feel disconnected from their spiritual
beliefs due to non-affirming religious experiences.15
2. Feeling unloved by God: Teachings of condemnation cause spiritual alienation.
2SLGBTQIA+ people may feel judged and condemned, believing God doesn’t love them.1
3. Excommunication: Formal expulsion isolates individuals from faith communities.
Some religious institutions may formally exclude 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals from their
communities.1
Physical and Behavioral Harms
1. Physical Violence: Increased vulnerability to hate crimes and attacks.
• A majority of 2SLGBTQIA+ people have been threatened, harassed, or experienced
violence due to their sexual orientation or gender identity.16
2. Substance Abuse: Coping mechanism for relentless psychological stress.
• Increased substance use is correlated with the harassment and victimization
experienced by 2SLGBTQIA+ youth.16
3. Sexual Risk-Taking: Reduced self-worth results in unsafe practices.
Some studies indicate an increase in high-risk sexual activity among 2SLGBTQIA+ people
who have experienced discrimination, stigma or religious trauma.5
4. Impaired sexual functioning: Trauma and stress disrupt healthy intimacy.
Religious-based stigma can also lead to loss of sexual feeling or impotence1.
5. Compromised safety: Increased susceptibility to harm.
Safety for gender-diverse people means living free from violence, discrimination, and
harm in all forms—physical, emotional, and systemic. It ensures autonomy over one’s
body, access to supportive resources, and the ability to participate fully in society. Safety
goes beyond protection; it fosters empowerment, dignity, and collective well-being for
all.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 27

Educational and Professional Harms
1. Academic Performance: Stress negatively impacts learning and grades.
2SLGBTQIA+ youth experience poorer academic performance and increased truancy due
to harassment and bullying.16
2. Disrupted education: Harassment leads to missed schooling or dropout.
2SLGBTQIA+ students in non-affirming religious schools may experience discrimination
and harassment, affecting their academic performance.4
3. Employment difficulties: Bias restricts job access and career growth.
Stigma can lead to profound disruption in employment and personal finances.6
Research shows that lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals, relative to their heterosexual
counterparts, are more likely to:
• earn lower incomes
• experience discrimination on the job
• encounter barriers in finding and advancing in employment 33
Conversion Therapy
1. Exposure to Conversion Therapy: Discredited practice causes severe emotional and
psychological damage.
• 17% of 2SLGBTQIA+ youth reported being threatened with or subjected to
conversion therapy.17
• More than 1 in 5 transgender and nonbinary youth have been threatened with or
subjected to conversion therapy.17
• It is associated with negative mental health outcomes and greater suicide risk.17
NOTE: Conversion therapy aims to change an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity,
often under the guise of faith-based counseling or "reparative therapy". It is often promoted by
organizations or individuals with ideological, religious, or pseudoscientific beliefs that reject
2SLGBTQIA+ identities. Some groups frame it as a form of "treatment" or "healing," despite
overwhelming evidence of its harm and lack of scientific validity.
The practice can cause profound emotional and psychological harm, such as depression,
anxiety, self-hatred, and trauma. Survivors have reported lasting negative impacts on their
mental health, relationships, and sense of self-worth. Efforts to enforce or promote conversion
therapy are considered violations of human rights and dignity, and its existence continues to face
strong opposition worldwide.
Lack of Support and Affirmation
1. Non-Affirming Environments: Rejection perpetuates fear and isolation.
• Fewer than 1 in 3 transgender and nonbinary youth found their home to be gender-
affirming.17
• 2SLGBTQIA+ youth who found their school to be 2SLGBTQIA+-affirming reported
lower rates of attempting suicide.17
2. Limited Access to Mental Health Care: Barriers in 2SLGBTQIA+-competent care
exacerbate health challenges. Moreover, inadequate resources worsen health
disparities.
• 60% of 2SLGBTQIA+ youth who wanted mental health care in the past year were not
able to get it.17

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 28

Additional Considerations
1. Intersectionality: 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals of varying races, abilities, and socioeconomic
statuses face compounded discrimination.
2. Poverty: Poverty is an ongoing issue in Canada and those socially marginalized such as
2SLGBTQIA+ individuals can be considerably more vulnerable to it. For instance,
systemic discrimination, limited access to stable employment, and inadequate support
networks can make it more difficult for members of these communities to achieve
economic stability.
3. Homelessness: There is an overrepresentation of individuals experiencing homelessness
among 2SLGBTQIA+ communities due to family rejection or social stigmatization.33 This
can lead to cycles of poverty that are difficult to break without targeted interventions.
Among reasons for housing loss often cited are:
• mental health issues
• having a conflict with a parent or guardian
These harms highlight the severe and wide-ranging impacts of stigmatization
and demonization on 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals, affecting their mental health,
physical safety, educational experiences, and overall well-being, not to mention
their general quality of life.
Each of these harms reveals the intricate ways in which stigma can ripple through an
individual's life and underscores the critical need for acceptance, support, and affirmation of
2SLGBTQIA+ individuals in all aspects of society.
Of equal importance is the related impact on societal support systems.
The multifaceted harms faced by 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals extend beyond individual suffering;
they also strain the broader social fabric. For instance, when members of this community are
marginalized, their access to equitable healthcare, education, and workplace opportunities may
diminish. This, in turn, places greater pressure on public services and social support systems as
these institutions attempt to address the fallout from systemic discrimination.
Moreover, the pervasive stigma can foster environments that perpetuate
ignorance and intolerance, hampering societal growth and cohesion.
In contrast, fostering acceptance and affirmation not only uplifts individuals, but also
enhances societal resilience. Communities thrive when all members feel valued and
supported, creating spaces where creativity, productivity, and empathy can flourish.
That said, the current context underscores the urgency for collective action—policymakers,
educators, businesses, and individuals must work together to dismantle stigma and build a
foundation of equality and respect. It's a shared responsibility with benefits that ripple across
society as a whole.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 29

Citations:
1. https://www.nursing.umaryland.edu/media/son/academics/professional-education/Intersectionality-of-
Sexuality-Gender-and-Religion-Spirituality-ONLINE.pdf
2. https://journals.mcmaster.ca/aletheia/article/view/3401
3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3523746/
4. https://www.insightintodiversity.com/psychological-associations-demand-lgbtq-protections-at-religious-
colleges/
5. https://ir.ua.edu/bitstreams/2ed055d9-bb8f-4b9a-a576-384b5c02f50d/download
6. https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/HESA/Brief/BR10439056/br-
external/GenerousSpaceMinistries-e.pdf
7. https://www.thetrevorproject.org/research-briefs/religion-and-spirituality-among-lgbtq-youth-dec-2022/
8. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9543796/
9. https://scholarworks.umb.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1353&context=doctoral_dissertations
10. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/lgbtq-christianity-press-release/
11. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1831&context=sociologyfacpub
12. https://www.canlii.org/en/commentary/doc/2021CanLIIDocs13038
13. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8321984/
14. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/public-opinion-religious-exempt/
15. https://www.hrw.org/report/2018/02/19/all-we-want-equality/religious-exemptions-and-discrimination-
against-lgbt-people
16. https://milnepublishing.geneseo.edu/introlgbtqstudies/chapter/prejudice-and-discrimination-against-lgbtq-
people/
17. https://www.thetrevorproject.org/survey-2022/
18. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/09/well/live/gay-lesbian-lgbt-health-stigma-laws.html
19. https://www.canada.ca/en/women-gender-equality/free-to-be-me/federal-action-2slgbtqi-
communities/facts-stats.html
20. https://www.mcleanhospital.org/essential/lgbtq-mh
21. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3707280/
22. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9642061/
23. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6864400/
24. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(23)00312-2/fulltext
25. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8158111/
26. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/internalized-homophobia
27. https://ontario.cmha.ca/documents/lesbian-gay-bisexual-trans-queer-identified-people-and-mental-health/
28. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31659745/
29. https://www.thetrevorproject.org/resources/article/facts-about-lgbtq-youth-suicide/
30. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/lgbt-workplace-discrimination/
31. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4144327/
32. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/82-003-x/2024011/article/00002-eng.htm
33. https://www.canada.ca/en/women-gender-equality/free-to-be-me/federal-action-2slgbtqi-
communities/facts-stats.html
34. The human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, 2-spirit and intersex persons
https://www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/issues_development-enjeux_developpement/human_rights-
droits_homme/rights_lgbti-droits_lgbti.aspx?lang=eng
35. LGBTQ+ Resources
https://www.thetrevorproject.org/resources/

THE ULTIMATE PERSONAL GOAL:

Getting to a place that feels like home
See https://www.facebook.com/reel/620139660723344?mibextid=wwXIfr

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 30

SPREADING HATE HAS CONSEQUENCES
Anti-LGBTQ+ hate can lead to severe consequences. It fosters discrimination, exclusion,
and mental health struggles for LGBTQ+ individuals, which can ripple through communities.

LGBTQ+ Mental Health: What You Need To Know

https://www.mcleanhospital.org/essential/lgbtq-mh
LGBTQ+ individuals are more than twice as likely as heterosexual people to experience a mental
health condition in their lifetime. Discrimination, microaggressions, and fear of hate crimes
contribute to higher rates of anxiety, depression, PTSD, and even avoidance of medical care.
Conversion therapy and workplace discrimination further exacerbate these disparities.
Excerpt from
Social support in schools and related outcomes for LGBTQ youth: a scoping
review
By ENOCH LEUNG · GABRIELA KASSEL-GOMEZ · SAMANTHA SULLIVAN · FLAVIO MURAHARA · TARA FLANAGAN
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44217-022-00016-9
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) youth spend most of their lives in
schools, navigating through the difficult and threatening space. Schools can be a threatening
space for LGBTQ youth as they experience increased victimization and a lack of safety. This fact
is alarming since students spend most of their time in schools, approximately 175 to 220 days
per year with an average of 5 - 8.5 hours per school day. Schools, then, can be thought of as
youths’ second home, particularly concerning for LGBTQ youth due to the lack of safety in their
school environment.
Many studies have indicated that LGBTQ youth experience numerous socioemotional,
educational, and health risks at school due to LGBTQ-specific prejudice and victimization.
This includes isolation from peers, low social support, low school engagement, low academic
success, school dropout, stress, anxiety, depressive symptoms, and suicidal ideation and
attempts.

Crisis calls from 2SLGBTQIA+ youth spiked by 700 percent after Election Day
2SLGBTQIA+ youth are afraid, confused, and anxious about the outcome of the American
election, the Trevor Project said. Here are some resources.
By ORION RUMMIER
https://19thnews.org/2024/11/election-lgbtq-youth-crisis-calls/

Bigots Are Trying to Take Over My Canadian School System

I work for the Board — I’m scared
By ESTHER SPURRILL-JONES
https://medium.com/prismnpen/bigots-are-trying-to-take-over-my-canadian-school-system-dc46882f1c6d

Pattern Constraints
The persistent stress that sexual and gender minorities experience can lead to harmful mental
health consequences
By JESSICA CERRETANI
https://magazine.hms.harvard.edu/articles/pattern-constraints

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 31

Excerpt from
The Unseen Toll of Navigating Life as a Gay Man:
Visible & Vulnerable
When being seen becomes both salvation and danger. Reflections on visibility from someone
who’s lived between cultures, identities, and continents
By GINO COSME
https://medium.com/prismnpen/the-unseen-toll-of-navigating-life-as-a-gay-man-visible-vulnerable-50c5d118f518

Photo by Judy Beth Morris on Unsplash

I still remember the first time someone called me a “faggot” in the streets of Cape Town.
I was 19, having just moved from my family’s Portuguese-immigrant enclave to a more
cosmopolitan neighborhood. This wasn’t the first time I’ve had that word thrown at me, but this
time it hit like a physical blow — not because I didn’t know I was gay, but because I suddenly
realized others could see it.
That moment fundamentally changed how I think about visibility in queer communities. And it’s
why I find myself feeling deeply conflicted when Trans Day of Visibility comes around.
Don’t get me wrong — celebration and recognition matter. But as someone who’s navigated
the complexities of multiple identities — being gay, from a Portuguese immigrant family that
fled political turmoil in the ’70s to South Africa in the ’70s, moved across five cities, and is now
back in Portugal — I’ve learned something crucial:
Visibility is not inherently healing. Sometimes, it’s the opposite.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 32

The Visibility Double Bind No One Talks About
There’s a psychological weight to being seen that rarely makes it into the celebratory Instagram
posts and corporate rainbow logos. I’ve experienced firsthand what I’ll refer to as the “visibility
paradox.”
The paradox goes something like this:
Being invisible hurts.
It disconnects you from community, reinforces shame, and keeps you isolated.
But being visible?
That can hurt, too — exposing you to discrimination, violence, and the exhausting
labor of constantly educating others about your existence.
A trans friend once told me something that’s been echoing in my mind ever since:
“Some days, I just want to exist without being a statement.”
Damn. That hit me hard.
Because I recognized that feeling immediately.
As a gay man with an accent that places me between cultures — think Portuguese meets British
meets South African meets German — there have been countless moments when I just wanted
to be a person, not a representation of something. Not an opportunity for someone to tell me
about their one gay friend, or their vacation to the Azores, or their opinions on South African
politics.

What Living Under the Microscope Does to Your Brain

When your identity makes you hypervisible, your sympathetic nervous system —
responsible for the body’s “fight or flight” response — stays on high alert.
I lived this reality growing up in South Africa during apartheid’s final years, where my family’s
Portuguese immigrant status placed us in a strange liminal space — not quite fitting with the
white South African power structure, yet benefiting from privileges denied to Black South
Africans.
Add being gay to that mix, and I developed what I now understand was “environmental
hypervigilance” — constantly scanning rooms for potential threats, modulating my voice
and mannerisms differently in different spaces, calculating which parts of myself to
reveal where.
The neuroscience here is clear:
Prolonged states of vigilance deplete your psychological resources.
Your brain’s executive function — the part responsible for decision-making, impulse control,
and emotional regulation — gets overworked. It’s like running too many programs on your
computer at once; everything slows down.
I didn’t understand this when I was younger. I just knew I was constantly exhausted.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 33

The Complex Dance for People with Multiple Marginalized Identities
This visibility calculus becomes exponentially more complex when you’re navigating multiple
identities.
In Portuguese immigrant circles in South Africa, I emphasized family connections but
downplayed my sexuality. In gay spaces, I highlighted being queer but noticed how my accent
made people place me as “foreign” or “other.” In professional environments, I carefully
calibrated which parts of myself to reveal.
This constant identity calculus is exhausting. It’s something I’ve particularly noticed impacts
queer people with multiple cultural or racial identities in ways that mainstream LGBTQ+
narratives rarely address.
When I first encountered trans identities during my university years — ironically, while studying
psychology — I’m ashamed to admit I didn’t get it. Here I was, learning about human behavior
and mental processes, yet completely missing the reality of gender identity.
My own journey to accepting my sexuality had been so consuming that I couldn’t immediately
understand gender identity as a separate axis of experience. It’s humbling to recall sitting in
psychology lectures, thinking I was developing expertise in human experience while being blind
to transgender realities happening right around me.
But living between cultures had taught me one vital lesson: just because I don’t personally
experience something doesn’t mean it isn’t profoundly real for others.
So I listened. I read. I built relationships. And I came to recognize familiar patterns in the
visibility struggles many trans people described.

Why “Just Be Yourself” Is Sometimes Terrible Advice

Here’s something I rarely admit: I sometimes strategically hide parts of my identity in certain
contexts.
I know that’s heresy in some queer circles. But after decades of navigating the real-world
consequences of visibility across different countries and cultures, I’ve learned that blanket
prescriptions for “living your truth” can sometimes cause more harm than good.
When my family first immigrated to South Africa, my parents instinctively knew that
assimilation in some areas would protect us. They adjusted their accents, adopted local
customs, and carefully managed when and how they expressed their cultural difference.
Was this internalized shame? Perhaps partly. But it was also survival wisdom.
Similarly, there were years when I wasn’t out in certain professional contexts. Not because I
was ashamed, but because I was calculating risks and benefits in environments where being
seen as gay could limit opportunities I desperately needed.
The older I get, the more I respect these strategic visibility decisions — both my own and those
others make.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 34

The Under-Discussed Trauma of Conditional Visibility
One of the most insidious patterns I’ve observed throughout my life is what I call
“conditional visibility acceptance” — the subtle and not-so-subtle ways society
communicates: “We’ll accept you being visible, but only on our terms.”
For trans folks, this often manifests as acceptance only if they “pass” according to cisgender
standards. For gay men like me, it shows up as acceptance only if we’re not “too gay,” whatever
that means.
I remember a former supervisor telling me during my internship how “professional” I was
compared to “other gay guys who make it their whole personality.” He meant it as a
compliment. Disbelief at hearing this from a psychology academic aside, I felt sick because I
recognized I’d been carefully managing my self-expression to earn exactly that kind of approval.
The psychological impact of this conditionality is profound. It creates “performance fatigue” —
the exhaustion of constantly calibrating your self-expression to meet external standards.
I’ve experienced it this way: “I’m not just trying to be myself. I’m trying to be the version of
myself that won’t make others uncomfortable while still being authentic enough that I don’t
hate myself.”
It was like solving a human Rubik’s cube every morning.

What Helped Me (Beyond Simplistic Visibility Narratives)

After decades of navigating visibility challenges across different cultural contexts, I’ve learned
some things about what actually supports psychological wellbeing. And surprise — it’s not as
simple as “come out, be proud.”
What’s helped me navigate visibility includes:
1. Developing “contextual wisdom” — the ability to discern which environments can hold
my full self safely and which cannot
2. Building “identity sanctuaries” — relationships and spaces where my visibility requires
no explanation or defense
3. Practicing “strategic vulnerability” — choosing when, where, and how much of myself
to reveal based on a clear-eyed assessment of both risk and potential connection
4. Working through the shame that told me hiding parts of myself was always unhealthy
(sometimes it’s just pragmatic self-protection)
Notice that none of these involve simplistic prescriptions about visibility. They’re nuanced
approaches that honor both the healing power and potential danger of being seen.

Why We Need Better Conversations About Visibility

When I first returned to Portugal as an adult, I experienced a strange reverse culture
shock. Here I was, “returning” to a homeland I barely knew, navigating Portuguese identity
after growing up in South African Portuguese immigrant communities that had preserved
cultural elements from the 1970s that modern Portugal had long moved past.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 35

The experience reinforced something I’d been feeling for years: our conversations
about identity and visibility are too simplistic. They rarely account for the complex
ways people move between cultures, contexts, and self-understandings.
This is particularly true for trans visibility. The public narrative oscillates between celebrating
highly visible trans icons and mourning those lost to violence, with precious little space for
discussing the complex everyday negotiations most trans people make around being seen.
The irony isn’t lost on me that my psychology education initially failed to prepare me for
understanding trans experiences. The textbooks I studied categorized gender identity issues as
pathology rather than natural human variation. It took stepping outside that academic
framework — and applying the lessons from my own multicultural existence — to really begin
understanding. The very discipline meant to illuminate human experience had, in some ways,
obscured it.
This problem persists even now that I’m living in Portugal, where I encountered startlingly
orthodox approaches in some universities when exploring further research opportunities. I
remember sitting in meetings, listening to faculty discuss gender identity through frameworks
that felt decades out of date. Some didn’t discuss it at all.
When I tried to introduce more contemporary perspectives, I was met with polite but firm
resistance — the kind that makes you question whether pushing back is worth the energy it
would consume. What for anyway? Further credentials for the sake of what? The experience
left me wondering what academic validation would actually add to my understanding that lived
experience and genuine connection hadn’t already provided.
As someone who once didn’t understand trans experiences but committed to learning, I’ve
come to see striking parallels with other visibility struggles — including my own as a gay man
navigating multiple cultural contexts.

What I Wish Everyone Understood About Visibility

As we celebrate Trans Day of Visibility, here’s what I wish everyone understood:
Visibility is not an achievement or end goal — it’s an ongoing negotiation influenced by
safety, context, and personal needs.
For some, invisibility is traumatic. For others, hypervisibility is the wound. Most people need
space to figure out where they fall on that spectrum in different areas of their lives.
The most profound healing I’ve witnessed and experienced hasn’t come from universal
visibility, but from developing the discernment to know when being seen serves our wellbeing
and when it might compromise it.
This isn’t just theory for me. As a gay man who’s moved through different visibility contexts
across continents, I’ve lived the complexity of these negotiations. And that lived experience has
convinced me of one thing:
We need to build a more nuanced understanding of visibility — one that honors both its
power and its potential cost.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 36

If you’re struggling with your own visibility calculations, remember that the goal isn’t perfect
authenticity in all contexts. The goal is developing the wisdom to know which parts of yourself
to reveal where, and building the support systems that can hold your full, complex humanity.
Sometimes, the bravest thing isn’t being seen.
Sometimes, it’s having the courage to protect yourself until visibility feels like liberation
rather than exposure.

This story was a response to the Prism & Pen writing prompt,
“March 31 Is a Day To Celebrate Trans Folks. Let’s Write About Visibility!”

See also
15 Years Hating Myself for Being Gay: What Finally Made Me Feel Worthy
The brutal truth about why hiding didn’t fix my self-hatred (and what actually did)
By GINO COSME
https://medium.com/prismnpen/15-years-hating-myself-for-being-gay-what-finally-made-me-feel-worthy-
aab8539cecdf
This is a story about learning to accept yourself. About understanding that the voice saying “not normal”
isn’t the truth — it’s just an old story I learned when I was too young to know better.
I share what took me 15 years to learn: authenticity isn’t negotiable. It’s a daily practice of choosing
self-compassion over self-judgment, even when it’s hard.

Why Resilience Culture is Failing LGBTQ+ People

The ‘Just Be Stronger’ resilience movement frequently neglects essential needs
By GINO COSME
https://medium.com/prismnpen/why-resilience-culture-is-failing-lgbtq-people-48ffebf80ef9
What mainstream resilience culture consistently overlooks is the foundational reality of minority
stress — the chronic, unique, and socially-based stressors that LGBTQ+ individuals experience as a direct
result of their stigmatized identities.

Pastor & mother of trans son pens beautiful ode to visibility:

“God made them trans on purpose”
"Being see... is not a matter of ego, 'wokeness,' or forcing one's identity on other people," she
said. "It is a matter of basic human dignity."
By MOLLY SPRAYREGEN
https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2025/05/pastor-mother-of-trans-son-pens-beautiful-ode-to-visibility-
god-made-them-trans-on-purpose/
This article discusses an essay by pastor Serena Rice, who is the mother of a transgender son, explaining
why visibility is crucial for transgender people. Rice argues that the desire to be seen and recognized for
who we truly are is a fundamental human need tied to dignity and worth - comparing it to a child's joy
when spotting their parents in an audience. She connects this to biblical themes, stating that being seen
by God is transformative, and argues that transgender people are "made in the image of God"
intentionally. Rice contends that while it might be safer for trans people to remain hidden given current
political pressures, visibility is essential not just for their own dignity, but so others can recognize the
divine in them and understand God's diverse creativity.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 37

HOW MUCH DOES HATE COST?
This may seem like an odd question to ask, but frankly, it’s probably the most important
question that should be considered, especially at a time when targeted hate seems to be on the
upswing.
Targeted hate against the 2SLGBTQIA+ community creates a destructive cascade
of consequences—from profound individual trauma to weakened community
bonds and significant economic losses that ultimately diminish our collective
prosperity and well-being.

Current Context and Scale in Canada

The magnitude of anti-2SLGBTQIA+ hate continues to escalate across Canada.
In 2023, hate crimes targeting sexual orientation increased 69% from the previous year,
representing an alarming and persistent trend. The number of hate crimes motivated by sexual
orientation reported to police in Canada in 2023 amounted to 860, compared to only 186 ten
years earlier—a more than four-fold increase.2
Among the 860 hate crimes related to sexual orientation reported in 2023, more than half
occurred in Ontario, though the problem spans all provinces and territories. Nearly three-
quarters (74-88%) of these crimes specifically targeted gay and lesbian populations, with
additional crimes targeting bisexual individuals and people of other non-heterosexual
orientations.
Canada is now home to approximately one million people who identify as members of the
2SLGBTQIA+ community, with 30% of 2SLGBTQIA+ Canadians between ages 15-24, compared to
just 14% of the non-2SLGBTQIA+ population. This younger demographic faces particularly acute
risks and challenges.

Personal Costs
Targeted hate against 2SLGBTQIA+ people inflicts deep and lasting personal harm. Victims often
suffer from multiple interconnected consequences:
• Psychological Impact: Victims of hate crimes often experience severe emotional
distress, including anxiety, anger, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and
self-blame.5,9 The trauma can lead to self-doubt, fear, and isolation, creating lasting
barriers to mental wellness and social connection.3
• Physical Harm: Hate crimes or abuse can result in physical violence, leading to injuries,
trauma or even fatalities.9 Transgender Canadians are generally far more likely to
experience violence than cisgender people, facing disproportionate risks of physical
assault and harassment.
• Identity Suppression: Many LGBTQ+ individuals may feel compelled to hide their
identity to avoid discrimination, leading to a loss of self-expression and personal
fulfillment.49 This constant vigilance and self-monitoring creates chronic stress and
prevents authentic social connections.3
• Emotional and behavioral impacts: Fear of being open about their identity, isolation,
and diminished quality of life contribute to increased risks of substance abuse, self-
harm, and suicide—particularly among 2SLGBTQIA+ youth. 3,5,10

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 38

 • Ripple Effects: Even indirect exposure to negative societal attitudes can erode mental
health, limit access to social support, and make it difficult to build healthy relationships
or develop effective coping mechanisms.5

Societal Costs
Targeted hate affects not just individuals but entire communities and society, creating
widespread social disruption:
• Community Fear and Fragmentation: Hate crimes send a message that certain groups
are unwelcome, fostering fear and division within communities.49
o Witnesses and bystanders to hate incidents experience fear, anxiety, and guilt,
creating a ripple effect through families, schools, and workplaces.5
o Discrimination and exclusion force many LGBTQ+ people to hide their identities,
reducing openness and participation in society.9
This atmosphere of hostility forces 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals to reduce their openness
and participation in community life.
• Erosion of Social Cohesion: Communities with high levels of discrimination develop
weaker social bonds, leading to increased distrust and institutional instability. Hate-
motivated abuse undermines community cohesion and perpetuates destructive cycles
of fear and mistrust that can persist across generations.9
• Educational and Workplace Disruption: 2SLGBTQIA+ students face significantly higher
rates of bullying, absenteeism, and violence, which disrupts educational achievement
and future employment prospects. Workplace discrimination also remains a persistent
challenge despite legal protections.5
• Public Services Strain: Law enforcement, healthcare, and social services must allocate
additional resources to address hate crimes, and their aftermath, diverting funding from
other essential community services and creating additional budgetary pressures on
provincial and municipal governments.50
• Healthcare System Burden
Research from the Trans PULSE Project found that 40-45% of the transgender
population surveyed had low-income and unmet health needs, creating additional strain
on the healthcare system and requiring specialized services and support.
Society as a whole suffers when it tolerates discrimination, as it limits the potential
contributions of LGBTQ+ individuals and damages social trust. 6,7
Monetary and Economic Costs
The economic impact of targeted hate and discrimination against 2SLGBTQIA+ people creates
substantial financial burdens at multiple levels within the economy:
• Direct costs include medical bills, mental health services, property damage repair, lost
earnings from missed work, and relocation costs when individuals are forced to move
for safety. These direct costs often fall on victims, their families, and public health
systems.9,11
• Indirect costs stem from reduced productivity, unemployment, and barriers to education
and advancement for LGBTQ+ people, resulting in significant economic losses. 4,7,8

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 39

 • Healthcare System Burden: Victims of hate crimes often require medical and
psychological care, increasing healthcare costs. Mental and physical health disparities
caused by discrimination generate significant additional healthcare costs annually within
Canada's publicly funded system.8,10
• Legal System Costs: Investigating and prosecuting hate crimes requires significant
financial resources from police, courts, and correctional systems.51 These costs include
specialized training for personnel, extended investigation periods, and complex
prosecution processes under Canada's Criminal Code hate-crime provisions.
• Workplace and Economic Productivity Losses: Research shows that lesbian, gay and
bisexual individuals are more likely to earn lower incomes, experience job discrimination
and face barriers in finding and advancing in employment, relative to their heterosexual
counterparts.
Studies indicate that 31% of lesbian women and 32% of gay men have experienced
workplace discrimination, compared to 18% of bisexual individuals51 More than half of
2SLGBTQIA+ employees (58%) report engaging in covering behaviors at their current job
to avoid harassment or discrimination, which reduces productivity and job satisfaction.
This workplace discrimination leads to lost labor time, reduced productivity,
underinvestment in human capital, and inefficient allocation of human resources across
the economy.
• National Economic Impact: Research shows that improved legal protections for LGBTQ+
people are associated with increased GDP per capita. Conversely, discrimination
imposes measurable losses in economic output, reduced tax revenue, and increased
social service costs. Canada’s investment in 2SLGBTQI+ inclusion, such as the Federal
2SLGBTQI+ Action Plan, recognizes both the moral and economic imperatives of
equality.4

Comprehensive Cost Summary

Cost
Specific Examples Estimated Impact
Category

Mental health treatment, physical injuries,

Depression, PTSD, increased suicide risk,
Personal quality of life reduction, identity
chronic stress-related health conditions
suppression costs

Educational disruption, workplace Higher absenteeism, reduced civic

Societal harassment, community fear, reduced participation, weakened community
social cohesion, public service strain bonds, diverted public resources

Healthcare expenses, lost productivity, Significant annual costs to healthcare

Economic/
property damage, legal costs, career systems, productivity losses, reduced
Monetary
limitations, reduced GDP growth economic participation

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 40

Summary
Targeted hate against LGBTQ+ people causes profound personal suffering, erodes
community well-being, and imposes massive economic burdens on society
through higher healthcare costs, lost productivity, and reduced economic
output.5,7, 9,10
Addressing and preventing such hate benefits not only individuals, but society and the
economy as a whole.
But it won’t happen on its own.
It requires proactive policies, education, and community support in order to mitigate these
costs and foster a more inclusive society.

The Path Forward in Canada

Canada has made significant progress in 2SLGBTQI+

rights and protections, including comprehensive human
rights legislation, the Federal 2SLGBTQI+ Action Plan,
and strong legal frameworks.29
However, escalating hate crime statistics demonstrate that legal protections alone are
insufficient. Addressing targeted hate requires sustained investment in:
• education,
• community support,
• enforcement of existing laws, and
• ongoing policy development.2
Effective solutions necessitate comprehensive approaches, including:
• robust enforcement of hate crime legislation,
• educational initiatives to combat prejudice in schools, religious institutions and
workplaces,
• strong community support systems, and
• continued investment in 2SLGBTQIA+ inclusion programs at all levels of government.2,29
The cost of inaction continues to compound as hate crimes increase dramatically
year over year.
Immediate, sustained intervention is both a moral imperative and an economic necessity.
Creating truly inclusive communities—where all can participate fully and safely—represents
one of the most effective strategies for building stronger, more prosperous communities for
everyone.2,4

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 41

Citations:
1. https://www.lgbtmap.org/news/unfair-price-news-release
2. https://egale.ca/egale-in-action/2023-hate-crimes-july29/
3. https://changemh.org/resources/lgbtqi-and-mental-health/
4. https://lgbt-token.org/advancing-lgbt-is-key-to-canadas-economic-growth-says-government/
5. https://digitalcommons.wcupa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=ramifications
6. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2016/01/the-real-cost-of-lgbt-discrimination/
7. https://lgbtq-economics.org/2020/10/02/how-lgbtq-economic-equality-benefits-everyone/
8. https://cuisr.usask.ca/documents/publications/2000-
2004/The%20Cost%20of%20Homophobia%20Literature%20Review%20on%20the%20Economic%20Impact%2
0of%20Homophobia%20On%20Canada.pdf
9. https://galop.org.uk/resource/impacts-of-hate-crime-on-lgbt-people/
10. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8902682/
11. https://bcsh.bard.edu/files/2023/03/BCSH-Economic-Cost-of-Hate_3-13-23_Online-.pdf
12. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4144327/
13. https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-scholarly-research-say-about-the-
effects-of-discrimination-on-the-health-of-lgbt-people/
14. https://rcmp.ca/en/corporate-information/publications-and-manuals/hate-crimes-and-incidents-canada
15. https://www.thetrevorproject.org/blog/new-poll-emphasizes-negative-impacts-of-anti-lgbtq-policies-on-
lgbtq-youth/
16. https://www.york.cuny.edu/english/writing-program/the-york-scholar-1/volume-5-fall-2008/how-are-lesbian-
gay-bisexual-and-transgender-lgbt-youths-affected-by-discrimination-and
17. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/jr/wwvh2-tavh2/pdf/RR_2023_Hate_crimes_chapter_Update_Final.pdf
18. https://www.stophateuk.org/2023/08/30/the-impact-of-hate-crime-and-discrimination-on-mental-health/
19. https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2019/12/discrimination-impacts-health-lgbt-people-analysis-finds
20. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953621006183
21. https://ontario.cmha.ca/documents/lesbian-gay-bisexual-trans-queer-identified-people-and-mental-health/
22. https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/discrimination/lgbti-rights/
23. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08974454.2021.1988034
24. https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/anti-lgbtq-hate-social-media-legislation-1.6663528
25. https://www.nsvrc.org/blogs/fact-sheet-injustice-lgbtq-community
26. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia
27. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/how-the-rise-of-anti-lgbtq-hate-and-violence-is-impacting-the-
community
28. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/discrimination-and-barriers-to-well-being-the-state-of-the-lgbtqi-
community-in-2022/
29. https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/combatting-hate/action-plan.html
CANADA’S ACTION PLAN ON COMBATTING HATE
30. https://abcnews.go.com/US/hate-crimes-lgbtq-community-rise-fbi-data/story?id=113962673
31. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/economic-cost-anti-trans-hate-what-businesses-stand-lose-paschall-c0gue
32. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2072932/
33. https://bcsh.bard.edu/files/2023/03/BCSH-Economic-Cost-of-Hate_3-13-23_Online-.pdf
34. https://www.lgbtmap.org/news/unfair-price-news-release
35. https://www.petertatchellfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/report-a4-lo-res-1.pdf
36. https://www.sddirect.org.uk/blog-article/economic-costs-discrimination-against-lgbtqi-people
37. https://galop.org.uk/resource/impacts-of-hate-crime-on-lgbt-people/
38. https://www.lgbtmap.org/policy-and-issue-analysis/unfair-price
39. https://time.com/6297323/malaysia-1975-matty-healy-lgbt-economic-costs/
40. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/250325/dq250325a-eng.htm
41. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Impact-LGBT-Discrimination-South-Africa-Dec-
2019.pdf
42. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/impact-lgbt-discrimination-ga/
43. https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2021/6/25/counting-the-economic-cost-of-anti-lgbtq-laws
44. https://www.mapresearch.org/policy-and-issue-analysis/unfair-price-lgbt-people-of-color

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 42

45. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/statistics-canada-lgbtq-pride-report-1.6066638
46. https://cuisr.usask.ca/documents/publications/2000-
2004/The%20Cost%20of%20Homophobia%20Literature%20Review%20on%20the%20Human%20Impact%20o
f%20Homophobia%20On%20Canada.pdf
47. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/527261468035379692/pdf/940400WP0Box380usion0of0LGB
T0People.pdf
48. https://www.canada.ca/en/women-gender-equality/news/2024/06/security-funding-to-support-pride-
organizations-amidst-increased-hate.html
49. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/victim/rd4-rr4/p4.html
UNDERSTANDING THE COMMUNITY IMPACT OF HATE CRIMES: A CASE STUDY
50. https://bcsh.bard.edu/files/2025/03/The-Societal-Impacts-of-Hate-Crimes-A-Case-Study-centered-final-
031125.pdf
THE SOCIETAL IMPACTS OF HATE CRIMES: A CASE STUDY
51. https://bcsh.bard.edu/files/2023/03/BCSH-Economic-Cost-of-Hate_3-13-23_Online-.pdf
ECONOMIC COSTS OF HATE CRIMES

Here are some other insightful articles on the cost of anti-LGBTQ+ hate:
1. The Hill discusses how anti-LGBTQ+ laws negatively impact businesses and innovation in
the U.S. It highlights how restrictive policies can hinder economic growth and America's
global competitiveness. You can read it here.
2. World Economic Forum explores the economic and social consequences of LGBTQ+
discrimination worldwide. It estimates that discrimination in India alone could cost the
economy up to $32 billion annually. Check it out here.
3. 4 Public Education examines the financial and emotional toll of anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric,
particularly in schools. It details the costs associated with increased security, lawsuits,
and disruptions caused by hate groups. Read more here.
Each article provides a different perspective on the issue, from economic impacts to societal
consequences.
See also “The Price of Exclusion,” a video from the UN Free & Equal campaign that highlights
the social and economic damage caused by discrimination against LGBTQ people globally.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 43

UNDERSTANDING HOMELESS POPULATIONS
Homelessness can affect a wide range of individuals, but certain groups are more vulnerable
due to various factors. Here are some common characteristics of those most likely to
experience homelessness:
1. Single Adult Males: This group often represents a significant portion of the homeless
population.
2. Youth: Young people, especially those who have aged out of the foster care system or
experienced family conflict, are at higher risk.
3. Women and Families: Women, particularly those fleeing domestic violence, and families
facing economic hardships are also vulnerable.
4. Indigenous People: Indigenous populations experience higher rates of homelessness
due to historical and systemic inequalities.
5. Individuals with Mental Health and Substance Use Disorders: Mental health issues and
substance use disorders are significant factors contributing to homelessness.
6. People with Histories of Trauma and Violence: Those who have experienced trauma,
violence, or abuse are more likely to become homeless.
7. Economic Hardship: Poverty, unemployment, and lack of affordable housing are major
drivers of homelessness.
Homelessness often disproportionately affects marginalized communities due to
systemic inequalities and various socio-economic factors.
Here are some key characteristics:
1. Economic Hardship: Individuals and families experiencing poverty, unemployment, or
lack of affordable housing are at high risk.
2. Mental Health and Substance Use Disorders: Those with mental health issues or
substance use disorders are more vulnerable to homelessness.
3. Youth and Children: Young people, especially those who have aged out of foster care or
experienced family conflict, are at risk.
4. Victims of Domestic Violence: Women fleeing domestic abuse are often forced into
homelessness.
5. Indigenous and Racial Minorities: Indigenous people and racial minorities face higher
rates of homelessness due to historical and systemic discrimination.
6. Veterans: Many veterans struggle with mental health issues and reintegration
challenges, leading to homelessness.
7. 2SLGBTQIA+ Individuals: 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals, particularly youth, often experience
homelessness due to family rejection and discrimination.
Indeed, the majority of those who experience homelessness come from already marginalized
communities. Addressing this issue requires targeted interventions that consider the unique
challenges faced by these groups.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 44

TRYING TO FIND ANSWERS
What's all the hubbub about parental rights and what is the real
source of this concern?
The debate over parental rights has become a significant and contentious issue, particularly in
the context of education, with heated debates around the extent to which parents should have
control over what their children are taught in schools.
Supporters of the parental rights movement argue that parents should have the final say in
what their children learn, particularly regarding topics like race, gender, and sexuality. They
believe that parents should have more influence over their children’s education and be able to
restrict certain content they find inappropriate. This has led to efforts to ban books and limit
curriculum content that addresses these topics.
On the other hand, opponents believe that such restrictions can hinder comprehensive
education and limit students’ exposure to diverse perspectives. They argue that schools should
provide a broad and inclusive education that prepares students for a diverse society.
The US Supreme Court, for one, has historically upheld parental rights, recognizing parents’
fundamental right to direct the upbringing and education of their children. In Canada, the term
"parental rights" has resurfaced in discussions about LGBTQ-inclusive education policies. Some
provinces have introduced measures requiring parental consent for children under 16 to
change their name or pronouns at school, sparking protests and counter-demonstrations. The
debate over parental rights in education has also sparked discussions about book bans and
curriculum restrictions. Some school boards have faced pressure to remove materials that
include LGBTQ+ themes, sparking debates over inclusion versus parental control.
The broader debate reflects deeper societal tensions over authority, autonomy, and the role
of the government in children's upbringing. Here are some key points in the debate:
Parental Rights Movement
The parental rights movement emphasizes the authority of parents in shaping their children's
education and upbringing. Advocates push for more parental control over school curricula,
particularly in areas related to gender, sexuality, and race. They argue that parents should have
the ultimate decision-making power over what their children learn, especially on, what some
consider, sensitive topics. At its core, the movement leverages constitutional rights and
religious freedoms to curtail students’ exposure to ideas in the classroom, particularly those
one might consider progressive.
Impact on LGBTQ Community
1. Curriculum and Book Bans: Many parental rights advocates push for the removal of
books and materials that discuss LGBTQ topics from school libraries and curricula. They
believe these topics are inappropriate for children and should be taught at home, if at all.
2. Transgender Rights: There is significant concern over policies that affect transgender
students. Some parental rights groups oppose allowing transgender students to use
bathrooms or participate in sports teams that align with their gender identity. They
argue that such policies infringe on the rights of other students and parents.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 45

 3. Outing Policies: Some proposed laws require schools to inform parents if their child
identifies as LGBTQ+ at school. Critics argue that this can put LGBTQ+ students at risk of
abuse or rejection at home.
Source of Concern
The real source of this concern stems from broader cultural and political divides. On one side,
there is a push for more conservative values and greater parental control over children’s
exposure to certain ideas. On the other side, there is a push for inclusivity and protection of
LGBTQ+ rights within educational settings.
This debate is part of a larger struggle over the role of education in society and the balance
between parental authority and the rights of students to receive a comprehensive and inclusive
education, not to mention the role of religion in all this.
But let’s be clear.
The debate over parental rights, particularly regarding the treatment of LGBTQ+
community members, is deeply intertwined with religious rhetoric and concerns
about indoctrination.*
Here are some key points:
Religious Rhetoric
1. Moral and Ethical Beliefs: Many supporters of the parental rights movement come from
religious backgrounds that hold traditional views on gender and sexuality. They argue
that LGBTQ-inclusive education contradicts their moral and ethical beliefs.
2. Religious Freedom: Some parents and religious groups claim that being forced to accept
LGBTQ-inclusive curricula infringes on their religious freedom. They believe that they
should have the right to educate their children according to their religious values.
Indoctrination Concerns
1. Fear of Indoctrination: A significant concern among these groups is that exposure to
LGBTQ topics in schools will indoctrinate children into accepting lifestyles and identities
that contradict their religious teachings. This fear is often expressed in terms of
protecting children from what they see as inappropriate or harmful influences.
2. Legislative Actions: In response to these concerns, there have been legislative efforts to
limit or ban discussions of LGBTQ topics in schools. For example, laws like the “Parental
Rights in Education Act” (often referred to as the “Don’t Say Gay” law) aim to restrict
the teaching of sexual orientation and gender identity in certain grades.
This issue, though, is part of a larger cultural and political struggle over the role of education in
society. It reflects broader debates about the balance between parental control, religious
freedom, and the rights of students to receive a comprehensive and inclusive education.
At its core, this conversation is about power and influence—specifically, who
gets to shape the worldview that children are exposed to. The problem is that one
side seeks to narrow the worldview and, in so doing, limits the potential to be more open and
accepting of others.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 46

The challenge here is that education serves as both a foundation for knowledge
and a reflection of societal values, and when competing ideologies clash, the
stakes feel incredibly high.
The push for parental control often centers on concerns about what children are
exposed to, but restricting viewpoints can ultimately shape minds in a way that
limits understanding, empathy, and acceptance.
Proponents of inclusive education argue that schools should foster environments where
students can learn about diverse perspectives, identities, and experiences—preparing them for
the realities of the broader world.
When education becomes a battleground for cultural and political influence, it raises critical
questions like:
Should schools reflect the diversity of society, or should they prioritize the
beliefs of the dominant cultural or religious groups within a community?
This struggle isn’t just about policies—it’s about the long-term impact on future generations.
By narrowing worldviews, there’s a risk of creating more division rather than fostering critical
thinking and open-mindedness.
The real question then is: What kind of society do we want young people to step
into when they leave the classroom?

 The concept of indoctrination is often wielded strategically, with both sides accusing the
other of imposing a worldview—whether by restricting certain perspectives or by actively
promoting inclusivity. It raises the broader question of what education is meant to achieve:
Is it simply about imparting knowledge, or is it inevitably a tool for shaping societal values?
Religion plays a crucial role in this dynamic. In fact, it can be said to be the crux of the whole
conversation, as it can itself be considered a form of indoctrination, one which can strongly
mold and influence one’s values and beliefs.
For many, faith is an anchor that defines morality, ethics, and community identity, but it can
also serve as a mechanism for reinforcing specific viewpoints and discouraging ideological
divergence. This influence extends beyond personal belief systems and into policymaking,
education, and social expectations. When religious principles are deeply intertwined with
discussions about parental rights and educational curricula, the conversation becomes even
more complex.
At the heart of it all is the question of balance—how do societies navigate
between preserving tradition and embracing change? And perhaps more
importantly, how do they ensure that education remains a space for growth
rather than an echo chamber for any single ideology?

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 47

How is it that non-affirming religious institutions continue to
propagate and perpetuate the condemnation of LGBTQ+
community members?
How can they justify the harm they continue to inflict on this community all the while
insisting that we are all created in God's image and that we should love our neighbour?
It's a deeply troubling paradox.
Churches that struggle to support anti-discrimination laws for LGBTQ+ individuals often do so
due to deeply ingrained theological interpretations, historical traditions, and cultural
influences. Some religious institutions prioritize conservative readings of scripture that view
LGBTQ+ identities as incompatible with their beliefs, while others fear backlash from their
congregations or broader communities. Some of the rationale is explored below:
1. Interpretation of Religious Texts: Many religious groups interpret their sacred texts in ways
that define marriage and gender roles traditionally, often excluding same-sex relationships
and non-binary identities. They are unable to move beyond outdated and possibly
misinterpreted documents, likely written by a bunch of men quite a while ago. They are
resistant to applying critical thinking to ancient texts that clearly work to marginalize and
discriminate all the while claiming to follow the Golden Rule.
How can anyone justify this failure to evolve and be accepting of all, especially
those in the role of moral authority?
Clearly, it’s an issue with deep roots. Here are some perspectives on why this resistance to
change persists:
1. Historical Context: Many religious texts were written in historical contexts that
reflected the societal norms and values of their time. These texts have been
interpreted and reinterpreted over centuries, often by those in positions of power
who may have had vested interests in maintaining certain social structures.
2. Authority and Tradition: Religious institutions often place a high value on tradition
and the authority of their sacred texts. This can make it difficult for them to adapt to
new understandings and social changes, as doing so might be seen as undermining
their foundational beliefs.
3. Fear of Losing Identity: For many religious communities, their beliefs and practices
are central to their identity. Changing these beliefs can feel like a threat to their very
existence. This fear can lead to a strong resistance to change, even in the face of
evolving social norms.
4. Selective Interpretation: Interpretations of religious texts can be selective. Some
religious leaders and communities may focus on certain passages that support their
views while ignoring others that promote love, acceptance, and equality.
5. Moral Certainty: Many religious individuals and leaders believe that their
interpretations of sacred texts are morally correct and divinely inspired. This sense
of moral certainty can make it difficult to accept alternative viewpoints, as they may
see them as fundamentally wrong or sinful.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 48

2. Cultural and Social Traditions: Religious communities often have long-standing cultural and
social traditions that reinforce specific views on gender and sexuality. These traditions can
create a strong sense of identity and community, making it challenging to accept differing
perspectives. But what are we to make of traditions that reinforce discrimination? How can
such traditions that marginalize and discriminate trump the application of the Golden Rule?
How can anyone justify this failure to evolve and be accepting of all, especially
those in the role of moral authority?
Here are a few perspectives on why these issues persist and how they might be addressed:
1. Historical and Cultural Inertia: Traditions that reinforce discrimination often have
deep historical and cultural roots. Changing these traditions can be seen as a threat
to the identity and cohesion of the community. This inertia can make it difficult for
religious groups to evolve, even when their core teachings, like the Golden Rule,
advocate for love and acceptance.
2. Interpretation of Sacred Texts: Many religious leaders and followers believe that
their interpretations of sacred texts are divinely inspired and therefore immutable.
This belief can make it difficult to reconcile these interpretations with more
inclusive, modern understandings of gender and sexuality. However, it’s important
to note that interpretations can and do change over time, often through the efforts
of progressive theologians and activists within the community.
3. Fear of Losing Authority: Religious institutions often hold significant moral and
social authority. Admitting that past interpretations were wrong or harmful can be
seen as undermining this authority. This fear can lead to resistance to change, even
in the face of clear evidence that such interpretations are discriminatory.
4. Selective Application of Teachings: The Golden Rule, which advocates treating
others as one would like to be treated, is a central tenet in many religions. However,
its application can be selective. Some religious groups may prioritize other teachings
that they believe are more important or relevant, even if this means marginalizing
certain groups.
5. Social and Political Pressures: In some regions, religious groups may face social and
political pressures to maintain conservative views on 2SLGBTQIA+ issues. These
pressures can come from within the community or from external sources, such as
political leaders or other influential groups.
6. Lack of Dialogue and Education: Promoting dialogue and education about
2SLGBTQIA+ issues within religious communities can be challenging.
Misunderstandings and prejudices can persist in the absence of open, respectful
conversations and accurate information.
3. Fear of Change: Change can be difficult for any community, especially when it involves
deeply held beliefs. Some religious groups may fear that supporting 2SLGBTQIA+ rights
could lead to a loss of their traditional values and identity.
Beliefs are based on ideas reinforced by leadership. If community leaders believe that
discriminatory policies are worth perpetuating, that is what we will see in community. But
how can policies that marginalize and discriminate trump the application of the Golden
Rule? What is a ‘value’ if it does not work to enrich and better a community?

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 49

 How can anyone justify this failure to evolve and be accepting of all, especially
those in the role of moral authority?
The essence of moral authority should be rooted in the principles of fairness, compassion,
and dignity for all. When policies and beliefs actively marginalize and harm others, they
contradict the fundamental ethical teachings found in many faith traditions—including the
Golden Rule, which emphasizes treating others as one would wish to be treated.
Justifications for this failure often stem from fear—fear of losing identity, fear of disrupting
tradition, or fear of challenging deeply entrenched power structures. Some leaders may
argue that upholding restrictive interpretations of doctrine is necessary for maintaining
religious integrity and moral values, but in reality, institutions evolve over time.
A true value should strengthen and uplift a community, not divide and exclude.
If an institution’s beliefs perpetuate harm rather than progress, it raises an urgent question:
Are these values serving humanity, or are they simply preserving outdated power
dynamics? Those in positions of influence have a responsibility to lead with wisdom,
courage, and love—anything less is a disservice to the communities they claim to serve.
4. Political and Social Pressures: In some regions, religious groups may face political and social
pressures to maintain conservative views on 2SLGBTQIA+ issues. This can be particularly
true in areas where there is significant opposition to 2SLGBTQIA+ rights.
Conservative views persist because they are perpetuated by community leadership.
Pressures to maintain long-held discriminatory beliefs means we are caught in a vortex of
our own self-made belief system.
How can anyone justify this failure to evolve and be accepting of all, especially
those in the role of moral authority?
Justifying this failure is difficult, particularly for those in positions of moral authority who
claim to champion principles like compassion, justice, and love. When traditions prioritize
exclusion over inclusion, they become mechanisms of control rather than reflections of true
ethical leadership.
Political and social pressures certainly play a role in preserving discriminatory perspectives,
especially in regions where opposition to 2SLGBTQIA+ rights is strong. In such cases,
religious institutions may fear alienating their base or losing influence if they choose to
embrace change. Some leaders justify their resistance by citing doctrinal purity or divine
authority, but at its core, this is often about maintaining power rather than nurturing a truly
just and compassionate community.
At what point does tradition stop being a guiding force and instead become a barrier to
human dignity? When an institution’s values are no longer serving people—when they
perpetuate harm instead of healing—it’s a moral imperative to reevaluate them. If moral
authority is used to justify oppression rather than progress, it ceases to be moral at all.
The real question is: What does it take to break free from this vortex and demand change
from within? Those who challenge oppressive ideologies are often met with resistance, but
every movement toward justice begins with voices willing to speak up. It’s an ongoing battle
to shift deeply ingrained beliefs.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 50

5. Lack of Education and Awareness: There can be a lack of education and awareness about
2SLGBTQIA+ issues within religious communities. This can lead to misunderstandings and
resistance to change. Sadly, the reinforcing of discriminatory thinking and a lack of
openness to critical thinking and acceptance of others means we are stuck in an echo
chamber of our own beliefs.
How can anyone justify this failure to evolve and be accepting of all, especially
those in the role of moral authority?
Again, justifying this failure is difficult, especially for those who claim moral authority. Many
religious institutions rely on long-standing traditions and interpretations of scripture, but
the unwillingness to reexamine these beliefs in light of evolving societal understanding is
often rooted in fear—fear of losing congregants, fear of disrupting deeply ingrained
teachings, and sometimes fear of challenging power structures that have remained intact
for generations.
Education plays a crucial role in breaking this cycle. When communities prioritize learning
about the diverse experiences and struggles of 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals, they open doors to
empathy and progress. Some faith leaders are stepping forward to reconcile their teachings
with inclusion, but others remain resistant, choosing rigid certainty over growth.
Ultimately, moral authorities should be grounded in compassion and justice.
When institutions fail to uphold those values by excluding or discriminating, they
betray the very principles they claim to champion. The question then becomes—
how do we encourage more voices to challenge these stagnant perspectives and
push for change?
Some might say: “It's absolutely hubris to imagine that they ever could change”.
The concept of hubris—excessive pride or self-confidence—can be deeply relevant when
discussing non-affirming religious institutions. Historically, many religious institutions have
maintained rigid doctrinal positions, sometimes resisting evolving social understandings of
inclusion and affirmation. This resistance can be seen as a form of institutional hubris, where
the belief in doctrinal infallibility overrides engagement with contemporary ethical and human
rights considerations.
In the context of non-affirming religious institutions, it could highlight the idea that these
organizations might assume authority over defining morality, spirituality, or human identity
without fully understanding or embracing the lived experiences of the people they exclude. It
could equally relate to non-affirming religious institutions in the context of their resistance to
inclusivity. For many non-affirming institutions, the idea of embracing full inclusion challenges
long-standing doctrines, traditions, and power structures. This resistance can stem from a belief
that changing their stance would be overstepping or corrupting their religious integrity,
reinforcing the notion that they "never could" affirm LGBTQ+ identities. Some may see it as
theological arrogance—the refusal to acknowledge that faith and compassion can be
intertwined without compromising religious convictions. It encapsulates the mindset of
institutions that believe they hold absolute moral authority or divine truth, dismissing the
possibility that their interpretations might evolve or expand to include LGBTQ+ individuals.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 51

Some might argue that such institutions exhibit hubris by claiming to speak on behalf of a
higher power while dismissing or invalidating identities and relationships that don't align with
their doctrine. Others might say that they are simply adhering to their theological convictions,
believing their stance is rooted in divine truth rather than human arrogance.
At the same time, the phrase—"That's absolutely hubris to imagine that you ever could."—
might also apply to external forces pushing for mandated affirmation. Those advocating for
inclusive change within religious spaces might hear opposition claiming, "It's hubris to imagine
that faith institutions could ever alter their teachings in such a way." This presents an
ideological clash between deeply ingrained traditions and evolving societal understandings of
justice and equity.
In the Canadian context, religious institutionalism has been shaped by legal frameworks such as
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects religious liberty but has
historically focused more on individual rights rather than institutional autonomy. This has led
to ongoing debates about whether religious institutions should have the right to maintain
non-affirming stances while still receiving legal protections. It raises questions about whether
religious institutions should be subject to greater scrutiny when their influence conflicts with
principles of inclusivity and equality.
Additionally, critics of post-secularism argue that religion never fully lost its influence and still
shapes society, and that religious institutions continue to exert influence in ways that reflect
historical entanglements between reason and faith. Some scholars suggest that the
persistence of non-affirming religious institutions is not merely a matter of theological
conviction, but also a reflection of broader cultural and political dynamics that shield certain
religious traditions from external critique. Ultimately, this critique reinforces the argument that
secularism does not mean the absence of religion but rather an evolving relationship between
faith and modern society.
At the end of the day, whether affirmation is viewed as a moral imperative or
an impossible shift hinges on religious institutions' approach to humility, their
openness to reinterpretation, and their commitment to placing human dignity
at the core of faith.
That said, we also have to wonder about the character of the congregants.
How it is that congregants of non-affirming institutions don’t seem to care about the harm
they inflict on others. How do they rationalize this attitude?
People often rationalize harmful attitudes through psychological mechanisms that allow them
to maintain their beliefs while minimizing the moral discomfort associated with their actions.
One framework that explains this is the techniques of neutralizationA which include:
• Denial of responsibility: Believing they are simply following tradition or doctrine, rather than
making personal choices.
• Denial of injury: Convincing themselves that their stance does not actually harm others.
• Denial of the victim: Framing those affected as deserving of exclusion or mistreatment.
• Condemnation of the condemners: Distrusting critics and viewing them as biased or misguided.
• Appeal to higher loyalties: Prioritizing religious or ideological commitments over concerns
about harm.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 52

The above-noted tools enable individuals to justify actions that might otherwise conflict with
their moral intuitions. For example, congregants in non-affirming institutions may genuinely
believe they are upholding sacred traditions rather than actively harming marginalized groups.
This allows them to avoid confronting the ethical implications of their stance.
Additionally, misattribution and rationalizationB play a role in unconscious discrimination.
People may misattribute their biases to seemingly neutral reasons, allowing them to justify
exclusionary behavior without recognizing it as discriminatory.
In certain contexts, agents may be more prone to unintentionally discriminate without realizing
it, because they take their decision to be fair, i.e., not based on facts that involve
disadvantaging a member of a certain social group. Moreover, the context makes it so that
agents are less likely to receive feedback that they made a mistake. This can be explained in
terms of:
• misattribution: the agent attributing their evaluation to the wrong source
• rationalization: the agent being able to rationalize their decision as non-discriminatory
Misattribution and rationalization further complicate the picture. When individuals misattribute
their biases to seemingly neutral reasons—such as "protecting religious values" or "preserving
tradition"—they can maintain a self-image of fairness while perpetuating exclusion.
Rationalization ensures that even when confronted with evidence of harm, they can reinterpret
their actions as justified, avoiding the discomfort of acknowledging discrimination.
These mechanisms help individuals maintain their worldview while avoiding cognitive
dissonance. They allow individuals to maintain exclusionary beliefs while shielding
themselves from moral discomfort, creating a self-reinforcing cycle that sustains
discrimination.
It’s a complex interplay of psychology, social conditioning, and institutional
reinforcement, a rationalization of harmful attitudes that is both fascinating and
deeply troubling.

Social Conditioning and Institutional Reinforcement

Social conditioning plays a crucial role in shaping these attitudes. From an early age, individuals
are exposed to narratives that frame exclusionary beliefs as normal or even virtuous. Religious
institutions, family structures, and cultural norms reinforce these perspectives, making them
feel like objective truths rather than subjective biases. When an entire community shares these
beliefs, dissent becomes difficult—those who challenge the status quo risk ostracization,
further discouraging critical reflection.
Institutional reinforcement solidifies these attitudes by embedding them in doctrine, policy,
and leadership structures. Non-affirming institutions often provide theological justifications for
exclusion, lending an air of divine authority to discriminatory practices. This institutional
backing makes it easier for congregants to dismiss criticism as secular interference or moral
relativism, rather than legitimate ethical concerns.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 53

The Bizarre and Impactful Interplay
What makes this interplay particularly bizarre is the way it allows individuals to act in ways that
contradict their own moral principles without realizing it. Many congregants likely see
themselves as compassionate, loving people, yet they participate in systems that inflict harm.
The psychological mechanisms at work ensure that they rarely experience the cognitive
dissonance that should arise from this contradiction.
The impact is profound. These rationalizations not only perpetuate harm but also make
change incredibly difficult. Because individuals feel morally justified in their beliefs, they resist
challenges, often doubling down when confronted with opposing viewpoints. This creates a
feedback loop where exclusionary attitudes persist across generations, reinforced by both
personal conviction and institutional authority.

Breaking the Cycle

Disrupting this cycle requires intentional efforts to foster critical thinking, empathy, and
exposure to diverse perspectives. Encouraging individuals to engage with the lived experiences
of those affected by exclusion can help counteract denial of injury and denial of the victim.
Education that highlights the psychological mechanisms behind rationalization can empower
people to recognize and challenge their biases. Institutional change—such as affirming
leadership and inclusive policies—can also play a crucial role in shifting collective attitudes.
Ultimately, the challenge lies in helping individuals see beyond their
rationalizations and recognize the real-world consequences of their beliefs.
It’s a difficult but necessary process if we hope to create more inclusive and compassionate
communities.

What are your thoughts? Do you think certain interventions are more effective
than others in breaking these patterns?

A. Techniques of neutralization explain how offenders rationalized or justified their behaviour.

https://soztheo.de/theories-of-crime/learning-subculture/techniques-of-neutralization-sykes-und-
matza/?lang=en&copilot_analytics_metadata=eyJldmVudEluZm9fY2xpY2tTb3VyY2UiOiJjaXRhdGlvbkxpbmsiLCJ
ldmVudEluZm9fY29udmVyc2F0aW9uSWQiOiJWaHdkSG43cU5ORjZzNVNVeU5TajkiLCJldmVudEluZm9fbWVzc2
FnZUlkIjoiQThzcUV0WTJyd1lNWFhjMWlWNjdDIiwiZXZlbnRJbmZvX2NsaWNrRGVzdGluYXRpb24iOiJodHRwczpc
L1wvc296dGhlby5kZVwvdGhlb3JpZXMtb2YtY3JpbWVcL2xlYXJuaW5nLXN1YmN1bHR1cmVcL3RlY2huaXF1ZXMt
b2YtbmV1dHJhbGl6YXRpb24tc3lrZXMtdW5kLW1hdHphXC8/bGFuZz1lbiJ9&citationMarker=9F742443-6C92-
4C44-BF58-8F5A7C53B6F1
B. Explaining unconscious discrimination: misattribution and rationalization
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11097-025-10061-
y?copilot_analytics_metadata=eyJldmVudEluZm9fY2xpY2tTb3VyY2UiOiJjaXRhdGlvbkxpbmsiLCJldmVudEluZm9
fY29udmVyc2F0aW9uSWQiOiJWaHdkSG43cU5ORjZzNVNVeU5TajkiLCJldmVudEluZm9fbWVzc2FnZUlkIjoiQThzc
UV0WTJyd1lNWFhjMWlWNjdDIiwiZXZlbnRJbmZvX2NsaWNrRGVzdGluYXRpb24iOiJodHRwczpcL1wvbGluay5zc
HJpbmdlci5jb21cL2FydGljbGVcLzEwLjEwMDdcL3MxMTA5Ny0wMjUtMTAwNjEteSJ9&citationMarker=9F74244
3-6C92-4C44-BF58-8F5A7C53B6F1

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 54

Excerpt from
After their son came out, this conservative Christian couple went into a
closet of their own
By JOHN BLAKE, CNN
https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/03/us/conservative-christian-coming-out-gay-cec?cid=external-
feeds_iluminar_flipboard

‘I felt I had to choose between loving God and loving my child’

Sadly, there are millions of conservative Christians in the US who still do not accept what some
call the “homosexual agenda.” They say normalizing LGBTQ+ relationships represents a threat
to the American family and religious liberty. And their perspective is gaining political
momentum. A record number of anti-LGBTQ+ bills were introduced across the US in 2023.
This backlash against LGBTQ+ acceptance has led to a crisis in the conservative religious
community.
An estimated 40% of the nation’s youth experiencing homelessness identify as LGBTQ. Many of
these youths are being cast out by conservative religious families. Some parents shun their gay
children when they can’t change them. The harm that many LGBTQ kids suffer after being
rejected by conservative religious families is widespread but barely acknowledged or addressed
in conservative Christian communities.

This article tells the story of Greg and Lynn McDonald, a conservative Christian couple whose son, Greg
Jr., came out as gay. This revelation forced the McDonalds to confront their faith and their love for their
child, leading them on a journey of self-discovery and acceptance.
Initially, they kept their son's sexuality a secret, fearing rejection from their church and community. Over
time, they struggled to reconcile their religious beliefs with their unconditional love for their son. Their
journey highlights the hidden crisis within conservative Christian families dealing with LGBTQ issues and
the challenges of balancing faith and family.
It's a powerful narrative about love, faith, and the complexities of acceptance.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 55

How can one justify religious beliefs that encourage the
demonization of a community? More importantly, what is the
benefit to society of even perpetuating this kind of belief system?
As already noted, justifying beliefs that demonize the LGBTQ+ community often relies on
outdated interpretations of religious texts or appeals to tradition. However, these justifications
crumble when held against the principles of compassion, justice, and equality that many faiths
claim to uphold.
Demonization not only causes great harm to individuals (see WITH CONDEMNATION
AND LACK OF ACCEPTANCE COMES HARM on page 25), but also fractures communities,
fostering division instead of unity.
So, in the matter of societal benefits—there really aren’t any.
Perpetuating anti-LGTBQ+ beliefs stifles progress, alienates valuable members of society, and
perpetuates cycles of discrimination and inequality.
A society thrives when it embraces diversity and ensures that everyone feels
valued and included.
Belief systems that marginalize others ultimately weaken the moral and social
fabric they claim to protect.
Let’s have a look at some of the negative societal impacts:
1. Discrimination and Violence: These beliefs can lead to discrimination, violence, and
marginalization of LGBTQ+ individuals, affecting their mental and physical well-being.
2. Social Division: Promoting intolerance can create deep social divisions, fostering an
environment of hostility and exclusion.
3. Hindrance to Progress: Societies that cling to discriminatory beliefs may find it harder to
progress towards equality and human rights for all.
4. Loss of Talent and Potential: Marginalizing any group means losing out on the
contributions they could make to society, whether in arts, sciences, or other fields.
The real question is:
How do we encourage those holding onto these beliefs to reflect,
evolve, and embrace inclusivity? Or, better yet, how might we change
our mind for the benefit of the common good?
Change often starts with dialogue, education, and courageous leadership willing to challenge
the status quo.
Changing minds—whether our own or others’—often requires some discomfort, but it’s also
how societies progress.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 56

What are we to make of institutions that are intent on
perpetuating systemic harm against the LGBTQ community?
It's deeply troubling that some institutions continue to perpetuate systemic harm against the
LGBTQ+ community. Influential community leaders continue to perpetuate the narrative that
the LGBTQ+ community are threatening to society and should be condemned and vilified. As
we’ve already established, this often stems from deeply ingrained beliefs and doctrines that
resist change, even in the face of evolving societal norms and scientific understanding. These
institutions justify their actions by adhering to traditional interpretations of religious texts or
cultural norms, which they see as immutable truths.
Ah, yes, tradition—the perfect excuse for continuing to make life miserable for people who just
want to exist in peace. Some institutions seem to treat progress like a contagious disease,
covering their ears and humming loudly in hopes it won’t spread. It’s impressive, really—if
ignorance were an Olympic sport, they’d be collecting medals left and right. But sure, let’s keep
pretending that cruelty is just a ‘deeply held belief’ rather than a choice that could, at any
moment, be swapped out for something resembling human decency.
The harmful narrative that the LGBTQ+ community poses a threat to society is rooted in
misinformation, fear, and deeply ingrained prejudices. This rhetoric has been perpetuated by
influential figures across different spheres—including politics, media, and religious
institutions—who use their platforms to spread stigmatizing views. The consequences of these
narratives are far-reaching, leading to discrimination, social exclusion, and even violence
against LGBTQ+ individuals.
Historically, efforts to marginalize LGBTQ+ people have relied on unfounded claims that their
existence disrupts societal norms, endangers family structures, or contradicts certain moral or
religious beliefs. These narratives often frame LGBTQ+ rights as an attack on traditional values,
fueling division rather than fostering understanding. Such rhetoric has led to discriminatory
policies, including restrictions on marriage equality, limitations on access to gender-affirming
care, and bans on LGBTQ+ discussions in educational settings.
Despite this, extensive research and advocacy work demonstrate that LGBTQ+ inclusion
contributes to healthier, more accepting communities. Many social scientists, human rights
organizations, and medical professionals affirm that LGBTQ+ people do not pose a threat to
societal well-being—rather, they enrich it through diversity and lived experiences. Progress
continues to be made as individuals and allies challenge these harmful perspectives and
advocate for equal rights and protections.
Remarkably, the continuation of harm toward a marginalized group is often allowed due to a
combination of factors, including:
1. Legal Protections: In some regions, religious institutions are granted significant
autonomy and protection under the law, allowing them to maintain discriminatory
practices without facing legal consequences.
2. Cultural Resistance: Deep-seated cultural and societal norms can be slow to change,
especially in communities where conservative values are strongly upheld.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 57

 3. Lack of Accountability: There may be insufficient mechanisms to hold these institutions
accountable for their actions, particularly when they are protected by powerful allies or
have significant influence.
4. Fear of Backlash: Efforts to challenge these institutions can be met with strong
resistance and backlash, making it difficult for advocates to push for change.
The persistence of systemic harm against the LGBTQ+ community is frustrating to say the least,
but it isn’t accidental—it’s sustained by structures that reinforce the status quo. These factors
don’t just exist in isolation; they work together to shield institutions from meaningful scrutiny
and change.
Legal protections often serve as a buffer, allowing discriminatory practices to be justified
under the guise of religious freedom. In many cases, laws prioritize institutional autonomy over
individual rights, making it difficult to challenge harmful policies. Meanwhile, cultural resistance
keeps exclusion alive by reinforcing outdated norms, often framing progress as an attack on
tradition rather than an evolution toward equality.
Lack of accountability is another major issue. Institutions with significant social or political
influence are rarely held to account, especially when they have powerful allies who actively
defend them. Even when harm is exposed, consequences are often minimal or slow to
materialize, allowing harmful practices to persist unchecked.
And, of course, fear of backlash discourages advocates from speaking out. Those who push for
change often face social ostracization, threats, or legal obstacles designed to silence dissent.
The reason this cycle continues is that these mechanisms feed into each other.
Without sufficient legal reform, education, advocacy, cultural
progress, and institutional accountability, change remains
slow and difficult.
Addressing this issue requires a multifaceted approach that works to promote inclusivity and
protect the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals. It's a challenging and ongoing struggle, but progress is
possible through persistent efforts and collective action.

What do you think is the most effective way to address this issue?

Many will say that the tension between religious beliefs and LGBTQ
rights is a complex and sensitive issue. No, it’s not.
It’s a failure of religious institutions to respect their mission
statements.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 58

WHAT ABOUT ACCOUNTABILITY?
Shouldn’t we be holding people and institutions that do harm to others accountable for their
actions – and, in particular, those that claim to be a moral authority?
Religious organizations, for one, wield significant influence, and when they fail to uphold values
of compassion, equity, and community-mindedness, they betray their ethical responsibilities.
When they neglect their duty to foster kindness and inclusion, they not only fail their
communities but also diminish their own credibility as moral leaders.
Accountability can take different forms:
1. Public Advocacy & Awareness: Some non-affirming churches have faced pressure to change
their stance from within their own congregations. 2SLGBTQIA+ members and allies within
these churches often advocate for more inclusive and affirming policies. Educating
communities about the harm caused by non-affirming institutions creates pressure for
change. Speaking out, sharing stories, and amplifying marginalized voices can shift societal
perspectives.
2. Policy & Legal Action: Challenging discriminatory practices through legislation and legal
means ensures protections for LGBTQ+ individuals. Anti-discrimination laws are vital tools
to hold organizations accountable.
3. Community-Led Change: Faith-based organizations can evolve from within. Members of
congregations can challenge leadership, demand inclusivity, and support affirming spaces.
4. Economic & Social Pressures: Withholding financial support from institutions that
perpetuate harm, or supporting inclusive alternatives, can push organizations to reconsider
exclusionary stances.
5. Legal Accountability: In many countries, freedom of religion and speech protects churches
from legal repercussions for their beliefs and teachings, even if those teachings are non-
affirming or perceived as anti-2SLGBTQIA+. However, if a church’s actions cross into hate
speech or incitement to violence, they may face legal consequences.
6. Social Accountability: Non-affirming churches often face social backlash and criticism from
2SLGBTQIA+ advocacy groups, other religious organizations, and the general public. This can
lead to protests, negative media coverage, and a decline in membership.
7. Internal Accountability: Within the church community, there can be varying degrees of
accountability. Some denominations have internal mechanisms for addressing harmful
behavior, such as review boards or councils that can censure or remove leaders who
propagate hate.
The question then becomes:
• Are religious institutions abdicating their responsibilities with respect to
civility and community-mindedness?
• How do we hold our institutions accountable?
• What avenues feel most impactful for creating accountability?
• What actionable steps can individuals take to demand meaningful change?

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 59

How much harm must done before we see change?
While progress can be slow and challenging, sustained efforts in these areas can lead to
meaningful change. It's about creating a momentum where the demand for justice and equity
becomes irresistible, prompting institutions to evolve and align with the values of inclusivity
and community building.
Here are a few thoughts on how we might address this issue:
1. Hold Institutions Accountable: Religious institutions should be reminded of their core
values, which often include love, compassion, and acceptance. Highlighting these values
can help challenge discriminatory practices.
2. Promote Inclusive Interpretations: Many religious texts can be interpreted in ways that
support LGBTQ rights. Promoting these inclusive interpretations can help shift
perspectives within religious communities.
3. Accountability Mechanisms: Ensuring that there are effective mechanisms for holding
institutions accountable for their actions is essential. This includes transparent
oversight, independent investigations, and consequences for harmful practices.
4. Build Alliances: Allies within religious communities can be powerful advocates for
change. Encouraging and supporting these allies can help amplify voices for inclusion.
5. Ensure Legal Protections: Ensuring strong legal protections for LGBTQ individuals can
help mitigate the impact of discrimination. Advocacy for comprehensive anti-
discrimination laws is crucial.
6. Educate: Continuing to educate and engage in dialogue about the harms of
discrimination and the importance of acceptance can foster greater understanding and
empathy.
7. Awareness and Advocacy: Change often begins with raising awareness of the issues and
mobilizing public advocacy. When people are informed about the harm being done and
united in their demands for change, it creates pressure on institutions to reform.
8. Legal and Policy Reforms: Strengthening laws and policies that protect marginalized
communities can compel institutions to act more responsibly. Legal action and policy
advocacy play crucial roles in driving systemic change.
9. Cultural Shift: Changing deeply ingrained beliefs and doctrines within institutions often
requires a cultural shift. This involves education, open dialogue, and leadership that
champions inclusivity and equity.
10. Empowerment and Support: Empowering and supporting affected communities to
voice their concerns and participate in decision-making processes is vital. Their lived
experiences and insights can guide more compassionate and effective institutional
practices.
It’s a challenging path, but with persistent effort and support, positive change is possible.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 60

Addressing these challenges requires a multifaceted approach that
includes education, advocacy, policy reform, and persistent efforts to
hold institutions accountable. It's about creating a culture where the
principle of "Do no harm" is not just a guideline, but a deeply
embedded practice.

What steps do you think we can take to start driving this change in
our own communities?

All this talk should remind us of the essence of all religions:

Love towards all, malice to none
At their heart, most religious teachings emphasize compassion, kindness, and unity.
Principles like unconditional love, empathy, and treating others as one would like to be
treated often serve as a moral compass in these traditions. However, human interpretation
can sometimes cloud these universal values, leading to division rather than harmony.
When we embrace the shared essence of love, compassion and goodwill, regardless of our
beliefs, it fosters deeper connections and a sense of belonging.

It's a reminder that humanity thrives not on what separates us but on the
common threads that bind us.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 61

The Malice of Non-Affirming Religious Folks is not a Good Look
When non-affirming institutions justify malice under the guise of righteousness,
it reflects a deeply troubling dynamic.
When religious communities or individuals hold non-affirming beliefs, particularly towards
marginalized groups such as LGBTQ+ individuals, the actions or attitudes that stem from these
beliefs can sometimes appear—or indeed, be—malicious. This malice can manifest as
judgment, exclusion, or even outright hostility, behaviors that contradict or undermine the
foundational principles of love, compassion, and empathy that many religious traditions
advocate and claim to uphold.
Such contradictions have deeply harmful impacts. For those who are the targets of this malice, it
can lead to feelings of rejection, shame, or alienation, especially when the condemnation comes
from a faith community that they may have once considered a source of belonging. On a broader
level, this behavior can damage the reputation of religious groups, leading to perceptions of
hypocrisy and a disconnect from the inclusive values that society increasingly embraces.
Here's why a non-affirming approach is a shameful non-starter:
1. Weaponizing Morality to Justify Harm
Non-affirming policies, particularly those targeting marginalized groups like LGBTQ+
individuals, are often framed as moral imperatives or doctrinal necessities. For example,
some churches adopt non-affirming stances that restrict LGBTQ+ individuals from
leadership roles or marriage within their communities while presenting these exclusions as
acts of fidelity to scripture or tradition. However, this reasoning masks the real-world
consequences—alienation, mental health struggles, and systemic discrimination—inflicted
on those affected. Cloaking harm in righteousness neither absolves the perpetrators nor
mitigates the damage.
2. Ambiguity as a Tool of Oppression
Some institutions avoid transparency about their non-affirming policies, placing them in
peripheral sections of their websites or failing to disclose them altogether. This lack of
clarity compounds harm by creating environments where individuals unknowingly engage
with organizations that do not fully accept them. Ambiguity, in this context, becomes a tool
to maintain power while avoiding accountability.
3. Historical and Contemporary Parallels
The justification of malice through claims of moral superiority is not new. Anti-LGBTQ
sentiment often hides behind claims of moral superiority, where discriminatory actions are
framed as protecting societal values, religious beliefs, or traditional norms. This justification
has been used to marginalize LGBTQ+ individuals and deny them equal rights.
For example, laws restricting same-sex marriage or adoption rights have been defended as
preserving the "sanctity of marriage" or protecting children, despite evidence showing that
LGBTQ+ families are just as capable of providing loving and stable environments. Similarly,
conversion therapy—a harmful practice aimed at changing someone's sexual orientation or
gender identity—has been justified as a moral obligation to "correct" perceived deviations,
causing immense psychological harm.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 62

 In some cases, anti-LGBTQ rhetoric is cloaked in concerns about public safety or privacy,
such as debates over transgender individuals' access to bathrooms. These arguments often
ignore the lived experiences of transgender people and perpetuate harmful stereotypes.
This pattern demonstrates how claims of moral superiority can be weaponized to rationalize
exclusion and harm, underscoring the need for critical examination of such justifications to
ensure they align with principles of equality and human dignity.
Such actions also reveal a pattern: When institutions prioritize control over truth or
compassion, they betray their stated values.
4. Theological Contradictions
For faith-based entities, justifying exclusion contradicts core theological tenets like love and
grace. But such exclusion often stands in stark contrast to the foundational principles of
many religious traditions, such as love, grace, and compassion. These tenets emphasize the
inherent worth of every individual and the call to treat others with dignity and kindness.
For example, the concept of grace in Christian theology is about unmerited favor—
extending love and acceptance regardless of one's actions or identity. Similarly, love is often
described as unconditional and all-encompassing, as seen in teachings like "Love your
neighbor as yourself." When faith communities exclude LGBTQ+ individuals, they contradict
these ideals, and fail to embrace a shared humanity.
Some argue that exclusion is based on traditional interpretations of sacred texts, while
others advocate for reinterpreting these texts in light of modern understandings of gender
and sexuality. Many inclusive faith groups highlight that the essence of their beliefs calls for
welcoming all people, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
The fact of the matter is that the impact of exclusion is profound, not only for LGBTQ+
individuals who may feel alienated from their faith, but also for the broader perception of
religious institutions. It raises questions about whether these entities are living up to their
own spiritual values.
5. A Call for Accountability
The refusal to affirm marginalized communities while claiming moral high ground is a failure
of leadership and ethics. Institutions must move toward transparency and inclusivity—not
as concessions, but as moral imperatives aligned with justice and human dignity.
In summary, justifying harm with righteousness is a betrayal of both moral integrity
and societal progress. It perpetuates cycles of exclusion and oppression while eroding
trust in institutions meant to serve all people equitably.
Thankfully, as society evolves, many religious communities have begun reexamining these
interpretations, seeking ways to reconcile their faith with a more affirming and inclusive stance.

What do you think would be the most effective next steps in pushing
for change?

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 63

Citations:
1. https://www.churchclarity.org/score-definitions
2. https://learn.ligonier.org/articles/westminster-confession-faith
3. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/academic-world-must-react-pillar-shames-removal
4. https://digitalcommons.luthersem.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1015&context=phd_theses
5. https://www.bcbsr.com/topics/church_history.html
6. https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1938&context=law_facultyscholarship
7. https://united-church.ca/sites/default/files/why-become-an-affirming-ministry.pdf
8. https://newideal.aynrand.org/ceo-lives-matter/
9. https://biblehub.com/commentaries/1_peter/2-1.htm
10. https://www.thelawstudies.com/2023/01/malicious-prosecution-overview.html
11. https://digitalcommons.schulichlaw.dal.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2211&context=dlj
12. https://biblehub.com/commentaries/proverbs/12-28.htm
13. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/501/496/
14. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00916471231185811
15. https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenChristian/comments/jkbrcn/why_are_lgbtq_affirming_christians_so_vilified_by/
16. https://www.qchristian.org/blog/welcoming-inclusive-or-affirming
17. https://www.lgbtchristianresources.com/four-views
18. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/00916471231185811
19. https://respectfulconversation.net/2016-2-1-welcoming-but-not-affirming-html/
20. https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/sgd-sgd0000162.pdf
21. https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2430&context=honorstheses%2F
22. https://pointofview.net/articles/shame-on-buzzfeed/
23. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil/
24. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-moral/
25. https://academic.oup.com/book/42104/chapter-abstract/356112481?redirectedFrom=fulltext
26. https://academic.oup.com/book/9681/chapter-abstract/156808083?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false
27. https://academic.oup.com/book/40501/chapter-abstract/347810907?redirectedFrom=fulltext
28. https://academic.oup.com/book/27016/chapter-abstract/196254724?redirectedFrom=fulltext
29. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/modesty-humility/
30. https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/5670/index.do
31. https://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2129&context=scholar
32. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/aps.1895
33. https://www.canlii.org/en/commentary/doc/2024CanLIIDocs3079
34. https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1286/index.do
35. https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/7837/index.do
36. https://www.cato.org/supreme-court-review/2010-2011/snyder-v-phelps-hard-case-did-not-make-bad-law
37. https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1388&context=tlr
38. http://www.earlychristiancommentary.com/early-christian-dictionary/law-mosaic/
39. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6143989/
40. https://www.academia.edu/40144954/Salvation_for_the_shamed_Some_critiques_and_a_way_forward

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 64

SOME THOUGHTS FROM THE PEANUT GALLERY
Excerpts from
On Gender, Phantasms, and Moral Panics
By Julia Serano
https://signsjournal.org/judith-butlers-whos-afraid-of-gender/#serano
Judith Butler’s book Who’s Afraid of Gender? examines the global moral panic surrounding
gender, tracing how fears about “gender ideology” have been socially and politically
weaponized by reactionary movements to fuel fear and political backlash against gender equity
and LGBTQ+ rights. The book explores the origins of these anxieties in the Catholic Church, their
expansion into right-wing movements, and their intersections with authoritarianism,
colonialism, and racism. Butler dismantles anti-gender rhetoric, refuting misconceptions about
sex and gender while highlighting how these movements threaten LGBTQIA+ rights, gender
equity, and democracy itself.
Butler chronicles how “gender” (sometimes labeled “gender ideology” or “gender theory”) has
become a pervasive phantasm across the globe: “a psychosocial phenomenon . . . where
intimate fears and anxieties become socially organized to incite political passions.” Here,
“gender” serves as a catch-all term that represents the progress made by feminists and
LGBTQIA+ activists in recent decades regarding gender equity, reproductive justice, bodily
autonomy, and legal recognition of gender and sexual minorities. But this conceptualization of
gender is also somewhat amorphous and readily shaped to serve varied political interests:
“Gender represents capitalism and gender is nothing but Marxism; gender is a
libertarian construct and gender signals the new wave of totalitarianism;
gender will corrupt the nation, like unwanted migrants, but also like imperialist
powers. . . . The contradictory character of the phantasm allows it to contain
whatever anxiety or fear that the anti-gender ideology wishes to stoke for its
own purposes, without having to make any of it cohere.”
The damage inflicted on the LGBTQ+ community by these narratives is profound.
The spread of misinformation and conspiracy theories about gender has led to policy
restrictions, increased discrimination, and social stigma. Anti-trans rhetoric, in particular, has
contributed to harmful legislation, barriers to healthcare, and heightened violence against
LGBTQ+ individuals.
Butler’s work calls for a broad coalition to resist these attacks and advocate for justice,
emphasizing the need for solidarity in the fight against oppression.

Citations
1. www.cbc.ca
2. www.goodreads.com

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 65

Excerpt from
The Origins of Organised Homophobia
Is discrimination against same-gender attraction a natural human reaction to difference? Or is it
learnt?
BY KAY ELÚVIAN
https://medium.com/seroxcats-salon/the-origins-of-organised-homophobia-3865f96c21f4

Is homophobia a natural human reaction to difference? No.

Human sexual differences have been recorded throughout history and received different
reactions in different places and times. What makes the last 2,000 years different is the spread
of the Abrahamic faiths, all three of which derive from Bronze-Age Israelite and Zoroastrian
views. They have institutionalised homophobia, transphobia and gender roles.
Those specific religions have succeeded in making the link between LGBTQ people and ‘sinful
deviants’ as obvious and self-evident as the link between rain and puddles.
Having internalised and assimilated that in Western Europe, we then exported it world-wide.
We made the unnatural seem natural. We made the idea of diversity and spectrum around
gender and sexuality sound foolish and dangerous.

This article argues that homophobia is not a natural human instinct, but a cultural and
religious construct rooted in ancient survival logic and later codified by religious doctrine. It
traces the origins of institutionalized homophobia to Bronze-Age religious laws, particularly in
early Judaism, later absorbed and reinterpreted by Christianity, Islam, and Zoroastrianism.
These religions enforced strict gender roles and condemned same-gender attraction largely
because such relationships didn’t contribute to population growth, a key concern for small,
vulnerable ancient communities.
Over time, these views became embedded in global culture through colonialism and empire,
especially by European powers exporting religious and legal systems that criminalized LGBTQ
identities. In contrast, many non-Abrahamic cultures—such as those in pre-colonial Africa, the
Americas, Asia, and the Pacific—held more diverse, tolerant, or ambiguous views on gender
and sexuality.
The text emphasizes that the connection between queerness and sinfulness was manufactured
and exported globally, making what was once seen as cultural diversity appear as moral
deviation. The narrative closes by noting that much of today’s organized homophobia stems
from ancient survivalism, religious absolutism, and colonial power structures, not from any
universal or timeless human truth.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 66

Excerpt from
Seven Tough Questions the Church Should Ask Itself
A Deep Dive into Church Decline
By DAN FOSTER
https://medium.com/backyard-theology/seven-tough-questions-the-church-should-ask-itself-f806e4f9aafd

What is so bad about the church that people want to leave?

In a way, it wouldn’t be a bad thing for churches to hold “exit interviews” with departing
congregants. In the absence of that, we have to turn to research. Bandon Flannery asked 1200
people why they had left the church and arrived at some interesting conclusions.
His survey revealed that the top reason that people leave the church initially
was the church’s treatment of members of the LGBTQ community (21%).
Another study by the Barna Group conducted among 16–29-year-olds asked non-Christians
about their perception of Christians. The most common perception of Christians among non-
believers is that Christians are anti-gay, with 91% of non-Christians saying they believe that
Christians show excessive contempt and unloving attitudes towards the LGBTQ community and
make homosexuality a bigger sin than anything else. I guess many church-goers have become
uncomfortable being attached to an institution that is viewed in such a light.

Excerpt from
Why Would Anyone “Choose” to be Gay?
What’s the Selling Point, in Such a Bigoted World?
By JASON PROVENCIO
https://medium.com/bouncin-and-behavin-blogs/why-would-anyone-choose-to-be-gay-a3b1a7741d69

I was thinking about my LGBTQ brothers and sisters this morning. The things they endure and
have to go through as part of the LGBTQ community. The nasty things that are said behind their
backs. You hear it from conservative religious folks and mean-spirited bigots far too often:
“Being Gay is a choice. You are choosing to live that lifestyle of sin.”
Excuse me, Sir?
Being gay is a “choice”? And loving someone of the same gender is a “sin”?
This made me wonder if the people who say this actually believe it. Or are they just saying it to
be mean-spirited bigots like so many of us think they are?
I feel that when you remove religion from the equation, you’re dealing with a
far more rational set of people.
COMMENT
This is a good opportunity to repeat a quote from physicist Steven Weinberg:
"With or without [religion], you would have good people doing good
things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil
things, that takes religion."

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 67

Excerpt from
Everyone Belongs Here: How Affirming and Non-Affirming Church Messages and
Imagery Cause Different Feelings of Acceptance in 2SLGBTQIA+ Christians
By JUAN CARLOS HUGUES and STEVEN V. ROUSE
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/00916471231185811
Most US churches are non-affirming toward the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or
questioning and other LGBTQ+) communities, but a few have developed affirming theologies.
This paper investigates the causal link between church messages and imagery on the
expectation that queer Christians would feel accepted in a church.

BY THE WAY
Baumeister and Leary (1995) proposed belongingness as a basic human need. Defined as
unconditional social acceptance, they argued that the need to belong reflects an innate
capacity for humans to form and maintain at least a minimum quantity of interpersonal
relationships to sustain their biopsychosocial well-being. Because their theory presented
belongingness as a motivator, they also predicted that the lack of belongingness has affective
consequences such as stress, depression, and suicidality. Moreover, they proposed that a
person must first believe they are loved, liked, and cared for to feel like they belong. Their
theorized need to belong might be applied to churches; by providing a community that
communicates belonging, a church might help fulfill a basic psychological need, and when this
need is unmet a person may be at increased risk of psychological distress.

Excerpt from
Religious Homophobia: It’s About Straight Sex, Not Gay Sex
By KEN WILSON
https://medium.com/solus-jesus/religious-homophobia-its-about-straight-sex-not-gay-sex-2dd2c8668fe0
It’s About Projection, Stupid
Projection — taking the negative energy that we subject ourselves to and redirecting it toward
someone else — is the mechanism behind scapegoating. And it works. It brings temporary relief
to conflicted people.
And here’s the truly perverse thing about projection. It only works when we don’t realize we’re
doing it. Remember, it’s something we resort to in order to relieve ourselves of our most hidden,
shame-surrounded, neurotic, funky, behind-the-curtain pain. There’s something about ourselves
that we hate in ourselves, and it’s just such a relief to hate that something in someone else,
instead. Once we recognize projection for what it is — self-loathing turned other-loathing — we
have to do the much harder work of facing that self-hatred in ourselves, head on. And who wants
to do that, when the hating self is the one that has to do the hard work? Wretched people that
we are, sometimes!
I pastor a church that includes many gay congregants — about a third of our congregation. Like
most LGBTQ people at this time in history, they have been subjected to this kind of projection
in the throes of religious, political and, often, grass-roots family controversy. And controversy
always shines a spotlight on the people about whom the controversy rages. This unwanted
attention has been screaming a great falsehood to LGBTQ people: It’s all about you and your
sexuality!!!

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 68

Excerpt from
Homosexuality: What Does The Bible Actually Say?
Toxic authority of a mistranslation
By GARY L ELLIS
https://medium.com/backyard-theology/homosexuality-what-does-the-bible-actually-say-33b8b4ff80af

Many people assume that the Bible has always condemned homosexuality, but the
word “homosexual” didn’t even appear in Bible translations until 1946 (RSV).
Language shapes understanding. When a word like “homosexual” is added to a sacred text, it
influences how people interpret that text. The addition of this word in the 1800s and beyond
reflected the cultural beliefs about sexuality at the time.
This change led to centuries of debate and confusion about what the Bible says concerning
same-sex relationships.
For many years, people used these verses as evidence that the Bible condemns all forms of
homosexuality. But when you realize that the word didn’t exist in earlier translations, and that
the original Greek might have meant something different, it opens the door to deeper
questions about what the Bible is really saying.

See also 1946: The Mistranslation That Shifted Culture, a feature documentary that
follows the story of tireless researchers who trace the origins of the anti-gay movement among
Christians to a grave mistranslation of the Bible in 1946: https://www.1946themovie.com/

COMMENT
The belief that the Bible is the ultimate authority for conduct can lead to conflicts in how
certain communities, particularly the 2SLGBTQIA+ community, are treated, given the
interpretations of certain biblical passages. Here are some potential areas of concern:
1. Biblical Interpretation: Certain passages in the Bible have traditionally been interpreted as
condemning 2SLGBTQIA+ relationships. This can lead to exclusion or stigmatization of
2SLGBTQIA+ individuals within some Pentecostal communities, making them feel
unwelcome or marginalized.
2. Religious Authority: When the Bible is seen as the final and absolute authority, it can limit
the acceptance of differing perspectives or modern understandings of sexuality and gender
identity. This can hinder open dialogue and the adaptation of religious beliefs to
contemporary societal values.
3. Cultural and Social Impact: The teachings and beliefs derived from such interpretations can
influence broader social attitudes and policies. This can affect 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals’
rights and acceptance in society, contributing to discrimination and exclusion.
4. Personal Struggles: 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals within the faith might experience internal
conflict between their identity and their religious beliefs. This can lead to significant
emotional and psychological distress, as well as struggles with self-acceptance.
5. Community Responses: Some religious communities may take a conservative approach to
2SLGBTQIA+ issues, emphasizing traditional interpretations of scripture. This can impact the
community's overall inclusivity and acceptance of diverse identities.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 69

Excerpt from
What does the Bible say about homosexuality?
Well, for starters, Jesus wasn’t a homophobe
By GERALD WEST
https://theconversation.com/what-does-the-bible-say-about-homosexuality-for-starters-jesus-wasnt-a-
homophobe-199424
This article explores interpretations of biblical scripture regarding homosexuality, emphasizing
Jesus' inclusive teachings. It critiques the use of scripture to exclude LGBTQ+ individuals and
highlights Pope Francis' progressive stance on LGBTQ+ matters. It notes that when Pope Francis
was asked about his views on homosexuality in February 2023, he reportedly replied:
“This [laws around the world criminalizing LGBTQ+ people] is not right.
Persons with homosexual tendencies are children of God. God loves them.
God accompanies them … condemning a person like this is a sin.
Criminalising people with homosexual tendencies is an injustice.”
This isn’t the first time Pope Francis has shown himself to be a progressive leader when it
comes to, among other things, gay Catholics.
It’s a stance that has drawn the ire of some high-ranking bishops and ordinary Catholics, both
on the African continent and elsewhere in the world.
Some of these Catholics may argue that Pope Francis’s approach to LGBTQ+
matters is a misinterpretation of Scripture (or the Bible). But is it?
As a biblical scholar, I would suggest that church leaders who use their cultures and theology to
exclude homosexuals don’t read Scripture carefully. Instead, they allow their patriarchal fears
to distort it, seeking to find in the Bible proof-texts that will support attitudes of exclusion.
Those who would exclude homosexuals from God’s kingdom choose to ignore Jesus, turning
instead to the Old Testament – most particularly to Genesis 19, the destruction of the cities of
Sodom and Gomorrah. Their interpretation of the story is that it is about homosexuality. It isn’t.
It relates to hospitality.

COMMENT
Pope Francis’s statements—affirming the dignity and belovedness of LGBTQ people and
condemning criminalization and personal condemnation—mark a substantial pastoral
and moral shift within the Catholic Church. But sadly, these do not amount to a formal
doctrinal directive for all churches to become fully affirming of LGBTQ identities. The
reasons are rooted in the Church’s doctrine, authority structure, and approach to
change…which begs the question, why is so much bureaucracy standing in the way of
doing the right thing, including living Jesus's message of love and acceptance?

The question touches on a disturbing tension within the Catholic Church:

the interplay between its hierarchical structure, doctrinal tradition, and the
evolving understanding of human dignity and love.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 70

 Pope Francis has taken significant steps to foster a more inclusive and compassionate
tone toward LGBTQ individuals, emphasizing their inherent dignity and God's
unconditional love. However, the Church's bureaucracy and doctrinal rigidity often act
as barriers to change.
The Church's doctrine is deeply rooted in centuries of theological interpretation and
tradition. Changes to formal teachings require extensive deliberation, often involving
bishops, theologians, and the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This
process is designed to ensure continuity and fidelity to the Church's understanding of
divine revelation, but it can also slow the pace of reform.
While Pope Francis has encouraged open dialogue and pastoral sensitivity, he has also
faced resistance from more conservative factions within the Church who fear that rapid
changes could undermine its doctrinal integrity. Sadly, what they do undermine is the
consistency of the church's message of love, compassion and acceptance.
The very foundation of the Church's moral teachings—love thy neighbor, the
Golden Rule, and Jesus's message of radical compassion—should ideally make
unconditional acceptance a natural extension of its ministry.
It has been said that resistance to change often emerges from fear:
• fear of losing control over tradition
• fear of alienating conservative believers
• fear of misinterpreting sacred texts
Unfortunately, it is the misinterpretation of sacred texts and the related decision to
override the very foundation of the Church's moral teachings that has led the long-
term marginalization of the LGBTQ+ community.
This is the deep and painful truth, and highlights the tragedy of this apparent religious
conundrum: the misinterpretation of sacred texts has not only distorted the Church's
central teachings of love and compassion, but it has also perpetuated harm against the
very people those teachings are meant to uplift and protect. Fear, in this context, acts as
a tether, binding the Church to outdated interpretations and societal prejudices that
stand in direct opposition to the radical inclusivity Jesus embodied.
It's heartbreaking that the fear of losing control over tradition or alienating
conservative believers is prioritized over the well-being and dignity of marginalized
communities. Because the Church’s resistance to affirming LGBTQ+ individuals leaves
an indelible mark of exclusion on a faith that promises universal belonging.
The tension between tradition and progress is not unique to the Catholic Church; many
institutions grapple with balancing their foundational principles with the need to adapt
to contemporary realities. More importantly, though, it highlights a failure to evolve,
correct the apparent hypocrisy and confront past misjudgments.
Acknowledging mistakes—especially those that have caused harm—is a cornerstone
of growth and integrity. For the Church, an admission of error in its treatment of
LGBTQ+ individuals could be a profound step toward reconciliation and healing. Yet,
the fear of dismantling long-held interpretations or alienating certain factions seems
to hold greater sway than the courage required to embrace this necessary evolution.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 71

Excerpt from
Is It Homophobic to Consider Homosexuality Sin?
Can faith justify homophobia? Read on to find out why it can’t.
By TANNER THE HUMANIST
https://medium.com/@tanner_79717/is-it-homophobic-to-consider-homosexuality-sin-ddd554b85d45

It is not a secret that homophobic, racist, and bigoted content online is in abundance.
Some of it even gets published on platforms like Medium, which, ironically, can be a good thing.
The reason being, unlike some other sites that trap you in echo chambers of like-minded
people, Medium’s algorithms let you see the ugly side too.
One of the most common justifications homophobic people use for their behavior is religion.
They argue that since their religion considers homosexuality a sin, they’re off the hook for being
homophobic. “It’s not me, it’s my religion,” they say. But let’s cut the nonsense and get to the
point. Is it homophobic to consider homosexuality a sin?

Your Belief, Your Business

Everyone’s entitled to their own beliefs. If your religion tells you to adopt certain moral
guidelines in your personal life, fine. You can follow those all you want. Want to wait until
marriage to have sex? Go ahead. Feel like avoiding pork, shellfish, or wearing mixed fabrics?
That’s your business. You do you.
But there’s a line you can’t cross, and that’s when you start applying those beliefs to other
people’s lives. If your religion tells you that same-sex relationships are sinful, you’re perfectly
welcome to avoid those relationships yourself. But when you start using your beliefs to judge or
discriminate against others, that’s where it turns into homophobia. If you’re calling people
“sinners” because of who they love, or you’re actively trying to block their rights based on your
religious views, you’re no longer minding your own business — you’re spreading bigotry.

Why It Is Blasphemous to Say Homosexuals Will Go to Hell

Uncover why claiming ‘Homosexuals will go to Hell’ is both theologically flawed and
blasphemous in Christianity.

Christianity Is Not a Free Pass for Bigotry

Let’s talk about Christianity for a moment because that’s often the religion people use to justify
their homophobia. First off, Jesus wasn’t out there telling people to judge each other. Quite the
opposite, actually. If you’ve ever cracked open a Bible, you’d know that Jesus said to love others
and leave the judging to God. So, if you’re walking around with your “homosexuality is a sin”
banner, you’re actually going against the core teachings of your own religion.
The whole “judge not, lest ye be judged” thing seems to be lost on a lot of people.
Christianity, or any religion for that matter, doesn’t give you a free pass to spread hate.
Just because something’s written in a religious text doesn’t mean it gives you the right to
discriminate against others or make their lives more difficult. And if that’s how you’re using
your religion, then yes, you’re being homophobic.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 72

The Sin Argument Is Flimsy at Best
The whole “homosexuality is a sin” argument isn’t even as solid as people like to think. There’s
plenty of debate among theologians and scholars about what the Bible actually says regarding
homosexuality. Some interpretations suggest that those infamous verses condemning
“homosexual acts” are really talking about things like temple prostitution or abusive
relationships, not loving, consensual same-sex partnerships. But even if we assume your
interpretation is correct, what gives you the right to judge others based on your personal
understanding of ancient texts?
It’s a cop-out to say “it’s my religion” when you’re really just uncomfortable with the idea of
homosexuality. Don’t pretend you’re not homophobic just because you’re quoting scripture.
Whether it’s a verse or your personal distaste, if you’re condemning people for being who they
are, you’re being homophobic, plain and simple.

Homosexuality in the Islamic Empire Will Totally Puzzle You

Does Islam inherently hate LGBT+ people, or is the violence against them due to cultural
influences?

Live and Let Live

If you’re religious and believe that being gay is a sin, fine, that’s your belief. But keep it to
yourself. You don’t get to shove your personal morals down other people’s throats. It’s the
same as how I see raising children with scientific falsehoods as a form of abuse. Do I think it’s
wrong to teach kids that evolution isn’t real? Absolutely. But I don’t go around trying to stop
other people from raising their kids that way. I can’t control what others do; I can only decide
how I raise my own children.
You’re free to believe whatever you want, but you have to recognize that your beliefs don’t
give you the right to discriminate. You don’t like same-sex relationships? Fine, don’t be in one.

Before You Go
So, is it homophobic to consider homosexuality a sin?
No, not on a personal level. However, when you judge others for not following
your personal moral code, try to control their rights, or make them feel like
they’re less than you, you’re engaging in homophobia.
Religion is no excuse for bigotry, and it never has been.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 73

Excerpts from
His work was used to exclude LGBTQ people from church.
He argues the opposite.
By SCOTT DETROW
https://www.npr.org/2024/09/15/nx-s1-4922708/his-work-was-used-to-exclude-lgbtq-people-from-church-he-
argues-the-opposite

Prominent Christian theologian Richard B. Hays' work was often cited as a reason for not
allowing same-sex relationships in Christian churches. In a new book, 'The Widening of God's
Mercy,' co-written with his son Chris Hays, he reverses course, and cites Biblical support for
allowing LGBTQ relationships in Christianity.
Why do you think this has taken up so much mental space for so many
Christians over the last couple decades?
HAYS: There are many people, especially in the more conservative evangelical churches, who
have a view that every word of the Bible is divinely inspired, and it can never change. And so if
there's half a dozen verses in the Bible that pass negative judgment on same-sex relationships,
that's the end of the discussion, period, full stop. And I think that that is a naive and actually
inappropriate way of reading the Bible. So our new book is partly trying to reframe how the
Bible is authoritative. It's not rejecting Biblical authority, but it's trying to have a more nuanced
view of how the Bible works as a narrative to shape Christian communities.

Citations:
1. https://wordandway.org/2024/08/27/review-the-widening-of-gods-mercy/
2. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/reviews/gospel-shaped-womanhood/
3. https://www.centerforfaith.com/blog/review-of-the-widening-of-god-s-mercy-by-christopher-b-hays-and-
richard-b-hays

BY THE WAY
In his article “The Invention of Heterosexual Culture,” Louis-Georges Tin challenges the
assumption that heterosexuality has always been the dominant cultural force. While
heterosexual practices are universal, Tin argues that the culture of heterosexuality—its symbolic
primacy and celebration—was constructed over time.
Historically, heterosexuality was not always the default cultural norm. In premodern Europe,
homosocial bonds (strong relationships between men) were often privileged over heterosexual
relationships. Tin explores how feudal, religious, and medical institutions resisted the rise of
heterosexual culture, showing that its dominance was not inevitable but rather the result of
social and historical shifts.
This perspective is crucial in addressing anti-LGBTQ sentiment.
By demonstrating that heterosexual culture is a social construct rather than a natural or
universal truth, Tin’s work challenges the idea that non-heterosexual identities are deviations
from an inherent norm. Recognizing that heterosexuality itself was historically contested can
help dismantle rigid binaries and promote a more inclusive understanding of sexuality.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 74

Excerpts from
Hard Truth or Hate Speech? Challenging Church Messaging
Raygun’s Dance and the Dangers of ‘Hard Truths’
By DAN FOSTER
https://medium.com/backyard-theology/hard-truth-or-hate-speech-challenging-church-messaging-63c9f18b2de0

The world needs to hear the hard truth about how lost and hopeless they are
without God… apparently. In Pastor Andrew’s world, harsh and uncompromising words are
the only way to communicate a “truth.” In his view, if the church is not offending people, it isn’t
doing its job.
If you want to watch the whole video, here is a link. Otherwise, read on for a summary below
and a fairly robust critique of this piece of social media dribble.

Source: Instagram
Here is a full transcript:
“How you end up in Australia with the kangaroo lady and nobody told her, “Honey,
you’re an idiot?” Should we bring back bullying, guys? I was online, and someone
commented, and I thought this is the best comment I’ve ever seen. Correction is now
called hate speech. Rebuking is now called bullying. Conviction is now called
controversial, and truth is called hate. This is very, very important. Conviction is now
called hate speech, and every time you preach the Bible, they’re gonna tell you that’s
hate speech, but what they really mean is speech that they hate. I don’t call it hate
speech. I call it hate truth. What is hate truth? It’s “truth” that you hate. It’s “hate
reality.” It’s reality that’s inconvenient. It’s hate facts. It’s facts that you don’t agree
with, so what you want to do is change reality, censor reality, and remove reality. When
you reject God, you reject reality. When you reject Christianity, you reject the truth.
When you reject the God of the Bible, you become extremely delusional.”

Whoa!
There’s a lot to unpack here.
So, let’s start with the obvious.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 75

Bring Back Bullying
So, I have a big problem with a pastor suggesting that someone ought to have been “bullied out
of something.” The way he suggests that “bringing back bullying” was the best idea he’s ever
heard left me speechless. I mean, really? Bullying?
Sedra’s conflation of bullying with delivering “hard truths” is a dangerous slippery slope. By
implying that bullying should be brought back to toughen people up, he’s normalizing the idea
that cruelty and mockery are somehow beneficial or even necessary for spiritual growth.
Our truth is THE truth
Then Sedra flips the script by suggesting that when he, or his church, delivers a hard “truth” like
“homosexuals don’t go to heaven,” — which is something that both he and his church have said
openly in the past — that it’s not actually hate speech.
In his view, it’s simply the truth. And because this “truth” comes from his interpretation of the
Bible, it must be above any reproach or criticism. This tactic is not new. It’s a well-worn defense
used to shield harmful rhetoric behind the authority of scripture, as if quoting the Bible
automatically absolves someone from the consequences of their words. But here’s the thing:
when your “truth” actively harms or marginalizes people, and you say those words repeatedly, it
is actually the definition of bullying.
However, for Sedra, the backlash his church receives isn’t a sign that maybe, just maybe, their
message is hurtful or misguided. Instead, he sees it as proof that the world simply can’t handle
“the truth.” But what’s really happening is that the people on the receiving end of these
statements — the 2SLGBTQIA+ community, for instance — are speaking up and saying, “Hey, this
isn’t okay.” Rather than engaging in dialogue or reconsidering his stance, Sedra seems to double
down, framing any pushback as an attack on God’s truth.
If the world is offended, it’s their problem.
Sedra perpetuates the idea that the problem isn’t with either his message or his communication
style but with the rest of the world. By doing so, he creates a persecution complex around
himself and his church. The world, in his view, is just too fragile or deluded to handle the tough
truths he’s preaching. This narrative not only deflects any responsibility for the harm caused by
his words but also paints him as a sort of martyr, standing firm in the face of criticism.
Instead of asking whether the message itself might be hurtful or divisive, Sedra frames every
disagreement as further proof that he’s on the right track. If you’re offended, well, that just
means he’s telling the truth, and you’re simply unwilling to hear it. It’s a convenient way to avoid
self-reflection, and it shuts down any possibility for meaningful conversation or spiritual growth.
The tyranny of the ‘delusional’ label
According to Sedra, “When you reject the God of the Bible, you become extremely
delusional.” Using the word “delusional” is a deliberate and strategic choice. It immediately
dismisses any opposing viewpoint as irrational or detached from reality. By framing
disagreement as mental instability, Sedra reinforces the idea that his version of the truth is the
only one grounded in reality — anyone who disagrees isn’t just wrong; they’re incapable of
seeing the truth altogether.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 76

Try to imagine how that kind of messaging plays out in his church. You walk in, already dealing
with doubts or personal struggles, and instead of finding a space where those questions can be
discussed, you’re told that rejecting his version of God means rejecting reality itself. It leaves no
room for curiosity, no space for wrestling with faith, and certainly no avenue for a different
perspective. Disagreement isn’t just seen as wrong — it’s evidence that you’re lost, blind to the
“truth” that everyone else there supposedly understands.
This black-and-white thinking creates a system where people suppress their doubts and silence
their inner conflicts to maintain the one thing they desire most — to feel like they belong.
Sedra’s messaging creates an echo chamber where only one perspective is accepted. Those
who doubt or think differently are either forced to conform or leave. Framing alternative beliefs
as “delusional” crosses into spiritual abuse territory, as it manipulates people into feeling as
though their worth and sanity are tied to agreeing with Sedra’s views.
A call for humility
When I was much younger, a wise elder at my church taught me an incredible principle. He
said, “Don’t assume that you have the truth. We are far too susceptible to getting it wrong. So,
whenever you talk to others about the faith that you have, don’t speak in black-and-white
terms, as if you have all the answers. Use disclaimer language.”
What does disclaimer language look like? Here are some examples.
• “I could be wrong about this but…”
• “This is what I believe, though I’m still learning…”
• “From my understanding, it seems like…”
• “I’m still wrestling with this, but here’s where I stand right now…”

This type of language invites conversation rather than shutting it down. It opens the door for
dialogue, reflection, and even the possibility that we might be missing something important.
Disclaimer language reflects a posture of humility — a recognition that none of us have a
perfect grasp on either God or life’s complexities.
This kind of language is the exact opposite of “If you don’t believe my truth, then
you are deluded.” Binary, either/or, black-and-white thinking is the kind of thing
that builds walls between the church and the world.
Therefore, I want to tear it down.
If the truth is true, it becomes self-evident. It does not need to be rammed down someone’s
throat. Instead, it can be shared gently, allowing others to explore and wrestle with it in their
own time.
And we certainly don’t need to bully people into belief.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 77

Excerpt from
Did God Make Me LGBTQ Just to Condemn Me?
What remains when religion demands you to apologize for existence?
By DAYNA A. ELLIS
https://medium.com/prismnpen/did-god-make-me-lgbtq-just-to-condemn-me-6dfb546d7487

Whenever I hear religion being preached or spoken of, a flood of questions rises in my mind.
Some of them I’ve already asked in a previous essay, God Wasn’t There.
But there are others — questions well-known to many of us who fall within the beautifully
diverse spectrum of LGBTQ+ lives.
If you, dear reader, believe you have the answers, feel free to share them in the comments —
just, I ask, without proselytizing.
This piece references Christianity most directly, as it’s the tradition I’m most familiar with, but
the same questions apply to other Abrahamic faiths — and to any belief system that makes
similar claims.
The most urgent question is this:
If God is loving, infallible, and purposeful — then why create someone with
traits that are condemned as sinful?
I don’t ask this to mock your beliefs. I ask because I want to know:
What happens when those beliefs collide with a life like mine?
I don’t think anyone needs a reminder of how often we’re portrayed as sinners. Or how religion
has denounced, condemned, and at times outright persecuted the LGBTQ+ community —
treating our existence not as variation, but as violation.
I’ve heard it said that being LGBTQ+ is not sinful in itself, only that acting on those feelings is. As
if queerness is a temptation I am meant to spend my entire life resisting, like some sort of
divine endurance test.
But it doesn’t stop there. In many religious spaces, people like me aren’t just accused of giving
in to temptation — we’re treated as if we are temptation.
Simply existing as we are, speaking openly, dressing in ways that reflect our truth, or even just
being visible in public life is framed as a threat to others — especially the young, the faithful,
the “pure.”
We are cast as corrupting influences, living stumbling blocks. Living temptation.
Not because of what we do, but because of who we are.
And if that’s the role we’ve been given in someone’s holy story, then I have to ask:
Who wrote this script — and why must I be the villain in it?
It’s said that we are all created in the likeness of God — that His image is instilled in every one
of us. That this is where our dignity comes from.
But lo and behold, I am a transgender lesbian woman. None of these traits were chosen — not
who I am, nor whom I love.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 78

So I ask:
What was the unknowable plan of the infallible God when I was made this way?
Why am I a woman, whose womanhood is so often denied?
Why was I born in a body that felt like betrayal?
Why do I love women, and feel no desire for men?
These aren’t traits I acquired. They are traits I was born with. Not the result of a life of sin — but
what some would say led me to one.
And yes, I gave in to those so-called temptations. Willingly. Freely.
Because if this is how I was made, why should I apologize for it?
Why must I deny what has been there from the very start?
All love is beautiful — whether shared between a man and a woman, two men, two women, or
people of another gender entirely.
Why should one be denied partaking in its beauty?
And what is authenticity, if not being honest about who you are — both with
yourself and with the world? How can honesty be sinful?
And if this is the way I was created — supposedly by a deity who knows all, loves all, and never
errs — then why create a being destined for damnation from the start? Why make one choose
between authenticity and erasure, threatening eternal torment for choosing the former, as if
being true to oneself is something despicable?
If you ask me, I say it’s not how love works.
Let me spare you the number of times I’ve heard, “But such is God’s plan.” Because if we
assume such a plan exists, it looks less like divine wisdom — and more like divine cruelty.
“But God gives His toughest battles to His strongest soldiers,” you might say. I’ve heard that one
too. And I see the logic — if we’re talking about grown adults, maybe.
Maybe.
But what about the queer children?
What did a gay boy do to deserve being shoved into conversion therapy that
scarred him for life? Where was justice for a transgender girl bullied until she took
her own life?
Those weren’t tests. They were crimes.
No religion, no dogma, no sacred law will ever justify what was done to them. Those were but
two examples of many.
If these were God’s soldiers, then where was their relief? Where was their mercy? Where was
the hand that was supposed to lift them up when they fell?
Because I’ve seen what that “plan” looks like. I’ve seen queer kids pray through tears, beg for
answers, plead to be made “normal,” only to be met with silence.
Not transformation. Not comfort. Just silence.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 79

And if the only response to their suffering is, “God works in mysterious ways,”
then maybe it’s time we stop calling that love.
To be fair, not all believers are like that.
I’ve met people of faith who live their values with grace and compassion. People who offer
kindness without caveats, who don’t treat love like a bargaining chip, or dignity like
something to be earned.
And to them, I say: thank you. You are the rare few who make it harder to hate religion entirely.
But I still wonder — do you truly understand the systems you’re upholding?
Do you see the cost of staying silent while others speak hatred in your name?
Do you realize that even your gentlest words — “love the sinner, hate the sin” —
still carve a wound?
Because that phrase isn’t compassion. It’s condemnation wearing a soft voice.
It says, “You as a person are tolerable — but your love, your body, your truth? That’s still filth.”
That’s not love. That’s a velvet-covered blade. And it cuts just as deep.
So, to the well-meaning believers concerned for our immortal souls: I don’t doubt that you
believe what you say. And I won’t accuse you of acting in bad faith — many of you speak with
genuine concern, offering what you believe is hope.
But no matter how often you say, “Jesus loves you,” or “God is merciful,” no matter how gently
you urge us to “repent our sins,” the truth remains: we’ve already heard, again and again, from
those who claim to speak in His name — that we are not allowed to be who we are. That we are
sinners who have failed the divine test. That we are condemned for the so-called crimes of love
and identity.
So if you still feel called to preach to me, to save me, to win back my soul — know this:
I’ve heard your offer.
And I’ve chosen something else. Not rebellion. Not defiance. Just honesty. Just peace.
Just the quiet dignity of living as I am.
Without shame.
Without apology,
Dayna

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 80

Excerpts from
To The Gender-Critical Crowd: I Am Sorry
Really.
By DAYNA A. ELLIS
https://medium.com/prismnpen/to-the-gender-critical-crowd-i-am-sorry-48fc710251b4

Dear haters, bigots and all those who deem it necessary to spill their vitriol wherever they go…
I am sorry.
Yes, you read that right. I am sorry. Not for who I am. Not for who I love. And not for the words
I write.
I am sorry for you.
You might not know me, but I know you. I’ve seen you before – across comment sections,
forums, feminist spaces, Pride events where you hiss at your own.
And each of those times I can’t help but wonder, what makes you like that? What pain you
carry, what shame, what fear? What makes your heart burn with such hatred?
What makes you act as if a child bereft of love and attention? Like a school bully, trying to pick
out a victim to lash out at, while avoiding responsibility for own actions?
What makes you so afraid of someone like me? Is it that I exist without your permission? That I
defy the rules you cling to like a lifeline – rules that were never designed to liberate, only to sort
people into neat little boxes you can understand and control?
You act like someone fighting a battle, but the only war is the one inside you – the war between
the self you were taught to be and the part you’ve spent your life trying to bury. You spit
venom because it’s easier than facing your own reflection. Easier to attack someone else than
admit you’re scared, lonely, or hollowed out by shame you never asked for.
To the “concerned citizens,” the ones “raising valid questions” and demanding “honest
discussion”…
Are your concerns truly born of care? Or are you simply grasping for scraps of self-worth, a
fleeting sense of control, a moment of importance in a world where you feel increasingly
irrelevant?
You speak of decency, yet your obsessions betray you. The fixation on other people’s bodies –
bodies that are none of your business. The relentless preoccupation with genitals, as if they
determine a person’s worth. What does it matter whether someone has a penis or a vulva
unless you (boldly) plan to be intimate with them? And if you don’t – then why do you care?
Sometimes, you attempt to cloak your hostility in respectability: What about sports? you cry,
suddenly experts in physiology, fairness, and competition. But let’s be honest – your interest
only ignites when a trans woman wins. Not when she competes. Only when she succeeds.
That’s not fairness. That’s resentment in costume.
And if you’d paid attention, you’d know how rare those moments are. You’d see that the panic
isn’t about dominance – it’s about presence. About the fact that someone like me dares to take
up space at all.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 81

Was it fairness when a female Algerian boxer was publicly humiliated, accused of being a man
just for winning a match? Or was it, as always, a thin excuse for cruelty?
Other times, you claim to be protecting the children.
From what, exactly? From the idea that humanity is diverse? From learning that it’s okay to be
different? Or is it the old, tired myth of “queer predators” that keeps you up at night?
If so, let me be clear: your child is in far more danger at church than at a pride parade or next to
a transgender person. Think about that – if you ever really cared.
And since we’re talking about children, what about the queer ones? The ones who suffer in
silence because of who they are? Is conversion therapy – torture by another name – really
better than allowing a child to grow up into a proud queer adult?
What about the trans kids? The ones denied medical care, denied the simplest dignity of having
their identity acknowledged? Where is your concern when those children are humiliated and
dehumanized? Where were you when a trans child was driven to suicide?
We both know where you were.
But I’ll spare you the embarrassment of spelling it out.
To the TERFs – the cowardly women who call themselves feminists but betray
everything feminism was meant to stand for…
You claim to fight the patriarchy. You speak of protecting women, advancing our rights, carving
out space in a world built to erase us. But tell me – how do your actions match your words?
You say you’re against control, against policing women’s bodies. Yet you turn around and do
just that – declaring who qualifies as a “real woman” based on genitalia, chromosomes, or the
childhood socialization you imagine we all experienced the same way.
You denounce male violence while upholding its logic – rigid hierarchies, exclusion, punishment
for nonconformity. You mimic the very systems you claim to fight, turning them on women like
me because we make you uncomfortable. Because we don’t fit your blueprint.
Let me be clear: if you don’t have the strength to fight the actual structures of power, no one
will shame you for stepping back. But don’t you dare claim moral high ground while punching
down.
“Trans women are actually men,” you say – invoking biology, socialization, or whatever makes
you feel righteous that day. But if you would spend even a fraction of your time learning rather
than lashing out, you might spare yourself the embarrassment of parroting arguments even
conservatives find tired.
To the “Drop the T” LGB crowd…
What exactly are you trying to achieve? To make yourselves more palatable to those who
would rather see all of us gone? Or have you simply forgotten your own history?
You stood on the shoulders of trans women at Stonewall – then tried to saw through the bone
beneath your boots. That truth was laid bare when the “T” was erased from the memorial
plaque. Revisionism dressed as respectability.
Yet we were always in this together. We still are – whether you like it or not.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 82

You speak of the freedom to love, but you draw lines around who gets to belong. You imagine
you’re preserving something sacred. What you’re really doing is digging a grave for solidarity.
To the lesbian women in certain spaces – you know who you are…
Ladies, I know that being gay is hard. You deal with men who ignore your boundaries, who
don’t take “no” for an answer, who treat your orientation like a challenge instead of a fact. I
understand the exhaustion. The constant vigilance. The years of being dismissed, erased,
disrespected.
It’s okay to question yourself. To explore. To have doubts. We’re all human.
But it is not okay to denounce others because of your own insecurities.
It’s okay if you don’t want to date a transgender woman – because there’s no chemistry, or
you’re simply not attracted. It’s okay to have preferences, even genital preferences. What’s not
okay is using those personal preferences as justification for sweeping generalizations, for
exclusion, for discrimination.
It’s not just trans women who face this. I’ve seen bisexual and pansexual cis women treated the
same – branded as “tainted,” as lesser, simply for ever having loved someone who wasn’t a
woman.
You speak often of “safety,” of “boundaries,” of “preserving lesbian spaces.” But those
arguments say more about your fear than they do about anyone else’s danger.
One last thing…
Having said all this, I hold no hatred toward you. No rage. Not even resentment.
Only pity.
I hope – truly – that you find something good in your lives. Something real. Something that
softens your grip on fear and bitterness before they consume you completely.
Because make no mistake: hatred devours from the inside out. And the only
thing it ever truly destroys is the one who clings to it.
With love and solidarity,
Dayna

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 83

Excerpt from
A Letter to a Young Gay Christian from a Gay Christian in His 30s
You are not alone
By JONY MASTERS
https://medium.com/inclusive-christianity/a-letter-to-a-young-gay-christian-from-a-gay-christian-in-his-30s-
c1636e10c935

Dear friend,
I am writing to you from the far side of thirty — a long way from where you are now. I’m gay.
I’m a Christian. I’ve learnt you can be both. When I was your age, I wish I’d known someone like
me. Now, I know there are thousands of us. Let me tell you my story as an offering of hope for
what the future holds.
When I was young, I thought I was alone. I thought I was broken. I was waiting for the day when
my attraction to women would blossom. I waited until my mid-20s. It never did.
I remember a car journey with my conservative Christian father in my teens. He asked me if
there were any girls at school I fancied. I told him yes, thinking of an intelligent one I half knew
and who was in none of my classes. Far enough away for me to have a reasonable excuse not to
talk to her if my dad ever asked about her again.
A few years later, when I’d moved away, my dad came to stay. I was in a shared house, so he
was sleeping in the same room as me. He told me that gay people don’t have good fathers —
that’s why they’re gay. The irony made me smile briefly. The pain in my heart made me cry for
far longer as I hid beneath my covers.
That night, and on many others, I prayed to be changed. I prayed to be ‘normal’.
I thought about ending my own life. The thought of my dog having no one to let her out and
feed her the next day kept me going through the worst times.
As the years passed and I came to terms with my sexuality I explored the possibility that God
wouldn’t change me and that I should accept my gayness. For a few years, I intended to remain
single. I stayed depressed. It is not good for man to be alone.
So I started to read. I read books that affirmed my sexuality and encouraged gay relationships
like God and the Gay Christian by Matthew Vines and Undivided by Vicky Beeching. I read books
encouraging gay singleness such as Is God anti-gay? by Sam Allberry and The Plausibility
Problem by Ed Shaw. In the pages of those books, I found myself leaning towards an affirming
position. Was this because I felt lonely and sought affirmation? Probably. Is that a bad thing? I
think not. It is not good for man to be alone.
I finally decided to join an online dating site. After several months, I found someone. We
chatted on the phone for a couple of weeks before meeting in person, and we never looked
back. Four years later I married him. I thank God every day for him. Our wedding was full of
worship and praise, thanking God that the love we find in marriage is a sign of God’s love for
the world. My Dad was there, and he gave a speech about his own journey to acceptance. He
sees God’s love in our marriage too.
Now, two years on from our wedding, we have started a journey towards adoption.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 84

I tell you all this, my anonymous friend, to say that you are not alone. Your journey does not
have to mirror my journey. You do not need to come to the same conclusions as me. But, you
do need to know you are loved, you are precious and you are enough.
If you were scared to even open this letter, I understand. You’ve made it this far, so you are
braver than you thought. As a gay person, you will need much courage. I still pray for courage
and wisdom. You can pray for it too.
When I was ready to read about same-sex relationships, I devoured theology about them. I
would have been annoyed if a letter like this offered none. So, if you are looking for theological
reasons to support same-sex relationships I will offer one here, and then point you to another
couple of books I read recently that are theologically helpful.
In Matthew 7:16 Jesus says, “By their fruit, you will know them.” He goes on to talk about
good fruit and bad fruit as ways to recognise his followers.
When I look at the fruit of condemning same-sex relationships I see depression,
pain, self-loathing, anger, family breakdown, and suicide. Are they the fruit of a
godly choice?
When I look at the fruit of celebrating same-sex relationships I see love, wholeness, joy, self-
love, reconciliation and hope. To me, these are far more godly.
If you are hungry for more theology regarding same-sex relationships I recommend Amazing
Love edited by Andrew Davison and The Possibility of Difference by Marcus Greene.
Go, gay child of God, and live knowing that the one who made you says to you:
Do not fear, for I have redeemed you;
I have called you by name; you are mine. (Isaiah 43:1)
You are not alone.
Yours in Christ,
Jonny Masters

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 85

Excerpt from
What If the Prodigal Son Was Gay?
Finding Yourself in a Story That Was Never Meant to Exclude You
By DAN FOSTER
https://medium.com/backyard-theology/what-if-the-prodigal-son-was-gay-69c18030e89b

I was nineteen when a friend told me he’d finally come out to his parents. He’d rehearsed it for
weeks — the words, the timing, the hope. But when he said the actual sentence — “Mum,
Dad… I’m gay” — his father didn’t even look up from his plate. His mother just stood and
walked out of the room.
There was no shouting. No name-calling. Just a quiet withdrawal of love.
He packed his bags a week later.
I couldn’t stop thinking about that when I read the parable of the Prodigal Son again. Not
because the story says anything about sexuality — it doesn’t. But because so many queer
people know what it’s like to leave home. Not for wild living, but for survival.
Let’s just say it: If the Prodigal Son came home today and told his evangelical father he was gay,
the welcome party would’ve been canceled. The fatted calf would still be breathing, the robe
would’ve stayed in the closet, and the father might’ve launched into a sermon instead of a
sprint.
So here’s the question I can’t shake:
What if the Prodigal Son was gay?
Now, before you fire off an angry comment, hear me out. I’m not claiming the Prodigal
Son was gay. The parable doesn’t say that — and that’s not the point. This isn’t a historical
investigation; it’s a thought experiment. A way of holding this familiar story up to the light and
asking what it might reveal when read through the lens of someone who’s been cast out, shut
down, or told they don’t belong.
But if you follow the thread of the story with this lens in mind — not to distort it, but to feel its
weight from another angle — something begins to shift. The leaving, the longing, the coming
home… it all takes on new emotional gravity.
So let’s walk through it again.
Not to rewrite it — but to reimagine it.
And let’s start where the story starts:
With the leaving.

Leaving the House: Not Just Rebellion, But Refusal

Most sermons frame the Prodigal’s departure as selfish — a dramatic exit by an impatient son
who didn’t value what he had. But sometimes, leaving isn’t about entitlement. It’s about
survival of the self.
James Baldwin, the Black American writer and civil rights activist — and one of the most
powerful voices on race, identity, and queerness in the 20th century — once wrote:
“Love takes off the masks that we fear we cannot live without and know we cannot live within.”

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 86

That’s what the younger son does. He takes off the mask. He steps away from a house that
likely taught him how to behave, how to belong, how to be acceptable. And he walks out with
nothing but his name and the freedom to lose it.
I’ve known people — maybe you have too — who left not because they wanted to chase
pleasure, but because they couldn’t keep performing someone else’s version of love. The son’s
“wild living” doesn’t start with wine and women. It starts the moment he says: I can’t do this
anymore.
Leaving is costly. But so is staying.
That’s the deeper grief in this story. The son doesn’t just leave his father’s house — he leaves a
version of himself behind. And the ache that follows isn’t just about where he ends up. It’s
about everything he had to walk away from to discover who he really was.

Shame, Hunger, and the Lies We Swallow

At some point, the son ends up in the dirt. He’s broke, alone, and starving. He’s taken a job
feeding pigs — unclean animals, by Jewish standards — and he’s so desperate, he finds himself
envying their food. For generations, this moment has been framed as the consequence of sin:
go off the rails, and this is where you’ll land.
It’s often told with a moralistic wink — “See what happens when you stray too far?”
But what if the pig pen isn’t punishment for bad behavior? What if it’s not about
sin at all, but about shame? Not because of who the son is, but because of the
crushing weight of who he’s been told he isn’t allowed to be.
For many people, especially those raised in conservative or religious environments, the
pigpen isn’t a place you end up because you lived wildly. It’s where you wake up after years
of trying to be someone you’re not — after exhausting yourself trying to earn love that was
never unconditional in the first place.
Henri Nouwen, who spent years reflecting on this very parable, wrote,
“The greatest trap in our life is not success, popularity, or power, but self-rejection.”
That line cuts deeply for anyone who has been taught that they are inherently disordered,
broken, or outside the bounds of belonging. Not every queer person carries that wound, of
course. Many have found places of affirmation and healing. But for those who have been
spiritually exiled — who were told in subtle and explicit ways that their existence was a
problem — the pigpen is not a symbol of failure. It’s a symbol of the toxic stories they’ve
absorbed and, eventually, had to confront.

The Run Toward Grace: A Father Who Doesn’t Flinch

In Jesus’ telling, the father doesn’t wait on the porch with questions or conditions. He doesn’t
ask where the son’s been, or what he’s done, or whether he’s sorry enough. He runs. He throws
dignity aside — something no patriarch in that culture would do — and races to embrace the
one he’s been aching for.
There’s no screening process. No purity test. No preconditions. Just a robe, a ring, a feast, and
love that won’t wait another second.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 87

This moment has undone me more times than I can count. Because for all the damage the
church has done in God’s name, this image still lives in the gospel like a flare in the dark. A
father who runs. A God who flinches at nothing.
And yet, here’s the question that lingers in the minds of so many queer people
who’ve heard this story weaponized against them: Would the father still have run if
the son had come home and said, “I’m gay” — not as a confession, but as a truth?
The answer is not “in spite of it.”
The answer is not “we don’t know.”
The answer is “of course!”
Because the son was never the problem.
The scandal of this story is not who the son is, but how quickly and
extravagantly he’s embraced. And that’s what makes grace offensive — not to
God, but to those of us who’ve built systems around worthiness.
Now imagine this moment through queer eyes — not as a symbol of being forgiven for who you
are, but of finally being seen. What if the father didn’t just allow his son’s return, but celebrated
his wholeness? What if he wasn’t running to reclaim the version of his son who left, but to
welcome the version who finally came home as himself?
No asterisk. No quiet conditions. No hoping he might change.
That kind of love still makes people uncomfortable. It always has, which brings us to the older
brother.

The Older Brother: Resentment, Respectability, and the Rejection of Grace

There’s always someone who thinks the celebration is too much.
In Jesus’ story, it’s the older brother — the one who never left, never broke the rules, never
embarrassed the family name. He hears the music, sees the dancing, and refuses to go in. The
father comes out to meet him too, but this conversation doesn’t end with hugs and feasting. It
ends with bitterness.
The older brother can’t stomach the party because it violates the world he’s built: a world
where worth is earned, belonging is conditional, and love must be deserved. To him, grace isn’t
beautiful — it’s offensive.
We still see it today. In every sermon that says “God loves you, but…” In every parent
who says “We accept you, just not your lifestyle.” In every church that claims to
welcome all, while quietly making sure queer people know which roles are off-limits.
These are modern echoes of the older brother — defenders of a thinner grace, one that draws
lines and calls it holiness.
But here’s the thing Jesus won’t let us ignore: the father comes out to meet him, too. He
doesn’t shame him. He doesn’t scold him. He simply says, “Everything I have is yours… but your
brother was dead and is alive again. He was lost, and is found.”
In other words: This joy isn’t a threat to you. It’s an invitation.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 88

But the story ends there. No resolution. No final moment of embrace. Just a party still
happening in the background, and a brother standing outside, arms crossed.
And maybe that’s the choice Jesus leaves us with.
Will we join the celebration of someone finally becoming whole? Or will we stand outside,
clinging to a version of righteousness that requires someone else’s exclusion?

The Last Word

I know someone out there is already upset.
Not about the grace. Not about the scandal of welcome. But about the fact that I dared to ask if
the Prodigal Son might’ve been gay.
They’ll say I’m twisting Scripture.
That I’m pushing an agenda.
That I’ve missed the point.
But maybe they’re the ones missing it.
Because the point isn’t that the son was gay. The point is that it wouldn’t have
mattered. Not to the father. Not to the God Jesus came to show us.
The point is that love runs faster than judgment.
That grace doesn’t flinch when honesty walks up the road.
That God throws a party long before the speech is finished — and doesn’t cancel
it when the son comes home wearing the truth he once had to hide.
Some people will always get stuck on the wrong part of the story. They’ll latch onto the word
“gay” and miss the sound of music and dancing. They’ll clutch their theology so tightly they
forget how to open their arms.
But I’m holding out hope for something better. For a world where the queer kid comes home —
and nobody looks away from the table. Where the church finally stops debating who deserves
to be embraced… and just starts running.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 89

Excerpt from
What Evangelical Parents Still Don’t Understand About Their Gay Kids
How Misguided Theology Fuels Depression, Shame, and Suicide in LGBTQ+ Youth
By MIKE ROSEBUSH, PhD
https://medium.com/backyard-theology/what-evangelical-parents-still-dont-understand-about-their-gay-kids-e7b1dd2e7064

This essay is a deeply personal account by a gay Christian who nearly died by suicide twice due
to religious rejection. The author shares statistics showing LGBTQ+ youth in rejecting religious
families are significantly more likely to feel unsafe, be bullied, and attempt suicide. Through
various scenarios and his own experience with clinical depression, he illustrates how religious
condemnation creates trauma that can be fatal, while also demonstrating that recovery is
possible with acceptance, medical treatment, and affirming community support.

According to Guiding Families of LGBTQ+ Loved Ones by Bill Henson, 85% of LGBTQ+ youth in
rejecting families (usually Evangelical or Fundamentalist) feel unsafe coming out. They’re 91%
more likely to be bullied. And they’re up to eight times more likely to attempt suicide than
their straight peers. These aren’t just numbers to me. They’re a mirror.

Typical Scenarios Among Gay Christians Who Later Consider Suicide

An eight-year-old boy wants to play on the playground during recess. He feels more
comfortable with the girls. The other boys’ natural “rough and tumble” ways of having fun
seem intimidating to the boy. Occasionally, he has tried to join the boys, but they seem to not
welcome him. He occasionally hears some of the other boys calling him names like “gay, faggot,
and sissy.” He is not sure what those words mean, but he knows it is a put-down. Once, a bully
pushed him down into the dirt. All he can think about is, “Why don’t they like me?”
A 14-year-old young man feels like a misfit in his Evangelical church’s youth ministry. He has a
dark secret that he has never told anyone: he thinks he is gay. One day, he approaches his
youth pastor after everyone else has left. He courageously confides that he thinks he might be
gay. The youth pastor is very kind and comforting. He reassures the young man that this is just a
phase that he will outgrow. The youth pastor also informs him that there are confidential
groups for males who are “struggling with same-sex attraction.” Furthermore, he informs the
young man that he has heard of people who have “left homosexuality” and have later become
happily married to their wives.
A college gay person listens to his Fundamentalist pastor tell the congregation, “We must pray
for our country. Gay rights steadily increase, as do gay marriages. But we know that gays can
only mock God’s truth for so long. As the Word declares, gays are an abomination and there is
no place for them in the Kingdom of Heaven.”
A gay man marries a woman, believing his same-sex attraction will fade. He occasionally enjoys
intercourse with his wife, but his same-sex attractions remain. He has never been unfaithful to
his wife. The husband eventually feels a moral obligation to tell his wife that he is gay — and
that he is deeply in love with her and will never leave her. She explodes and screams at him,
“Why didn’t you tell me this in the first place. I would have never married you if I knew this!”
The wife spends the rest of their marriage closely watching her husband and checking up on his
every activity. She even requires him to take a lie-detector test (which he passes). He feels
hopeless, since he knows he cannot eliminate his same-sex attractions.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 90

Depression and the Gay Christian
According to the Journal of American College Health, there is strong research that
demonstrated the connection between having clinical depression and being gay.
Being gay, in and of itself, is not a cause of depression. However, cultural,
religious, and family abuse of gays is very likely to cause depression.
Clinical depression is a very debilitating condition to be in. It is not something that is simply “all
in your head,” nor something to casually dismiss as a passing emotion that will soon end.
Depression brings down the mood of the person, reduces the person’s desire to engage with
life, and can feel as though it is never going to end.
Depression is also often a precursor to suicide thoughts or actual suicide.
According to the JED Foundation, 60% of people who die through suicide had been diagnosed
with depression or some mood disorder. That statistic goes even higher if the person has been
plagued with social isolation. And many gay Christians feel detached from friendship, their
church, and their gay-disdaining parents.
Here’s a hard truth I’ve seen again and again: show me a male (especially in his teens) who has
clinical depression, and I will show you someone who may very well be struggling with being
gay.
Not all gay Christians deal with depression, but according to Psychiatry.org, gays in general
are at a higher risk than their straight peers.
Depression is treatable. Just ask me. I am clinically diagnosed with acute depression. I have had
two very real incidents of suicidal thoughts. And yet today I am a happy, stabilized person. Most
people describe me as “someone who is always smiling and kind.” So, what are my secrets for
overcoming depression? First, I stay on my anti-depression medications. Also, I have a very
positive viewpoint about my gay identity (i.e., “There is nothing wrong with being gay; it is
simply a different attraction”). Furthermore, I have a gay husband who is incredibly loving, plus
two wonderful adult “kids” who fully affirm me. Finally, I also belong to a church that affirms
gays and provides them exactly the same rights and opportunities as those who are straight.
If you are an Evangelical or Fundamentalist reading this article, and you have a gay son, please
never provide him anti-gay messaging! Please help him find other gay Christians who can be his
friend. Please introduce him to a gay affirming church that love Jesus.
Please don’t let your theology become your child’s trauma.
Be the love of Jesus to them. Fully. Freely. Without conditions.

COMMENT
Religious discrimination harms entire communities, not just LGBTQ+ individuals, in
several profound ways:
It fractures families and social bonds. When religious institutions teach rejection of
LGBTQ+ members, they force impossible choices between faith and family. Parents lose
relationships with their children, siblings become estranged, and extended family
networks break apart. This creates isolated, grieving families where love becomes
conditional.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 91

 It undermines the healing mission of religious communities. Houses of worship
traditionally serve as sources of comfort, belonging, and moral guidance. When they
become sources of trauma for vulnerable members, they lose their capacity to be
sanctuaries for anyone struggling with life's challenges. The broader community loses a
vital support system.
It perpetuates cycles of mental health crisis. The essay shows how religious rejection
creates depression, suicidal ideation, and social isolation. These mental health crises
ripple outward, affecting friends, family members, coworkers, and entire social
networks who witness or try to support someone in crisis.
It wastes human potential. When communities reject members based on sexual
orientation, they lose the contributions, talents, and perspectives of those individuals.
This represents an enormous loss of leadership, creativity, and service that could benefit
everyone.
The author's transformation from someone contemplating suicide to someone
described as "always smiling and kind" demonstrates what becomes possible when
communities choose acceptance over rejection.

Religious discrimination doesn't just harm LGBTQ+ individuals—

it impoverishes entire communities by destroying the very bonds
of love and belonging that make communities strong.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 92

Excerpt from
The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion
By DOMINIC TIMOTHY
https://medium.com/@dominic.timothy/the-righteous-mind-why-good-people-are-divided-by-politics-and-
religion-2012-326e8dbeb562

For the modern liberal secular humanist, the prime ethical credo is easy to espouse:
Human existence is sacrosanct; the quality and freedom of our lives is supremely
salient; non-harm is a primary ethical axiom; reason and positivism will realise
the best outcomes for us.
Needless to say, this is not a uniform paradigm across most human cultures, nor has it been the
normal socio-cultural context for most humans across history.
Modern liberal secular humanism is an ethical philosophy that emphasizes the importance of
human existence, the quality and freedom of our lives, and the principle of non-harm. Here are
some key aspects:
1. Human Existence is Sacrosanct: This means that human life is considered sacred and
inviolable. Every individual has inherent worth and dignity, and their well-being is of utmost
importance.
2. Quality and Freedom of Life: Secular humanists believe that the quality of life and personal
freedom are paramount. This includes the freedom to make choices about one’s own life, as
long as those choices do not harm others.
3. Non-Harm Principle: A primary ethical axiom in secular humanism is the principle of non-
harm. This means that actions should be guided by the intention to avoid causing harm to
others. It is closely related to the concept of empathy and compassion.
4. Reason and Positivism: Secular humanists rely on reason, evidence, and the scientific
method to understand the world and make ethical decisions. They believe that rational
thinking and empirical evidence will lead to the best outcomes for humanity.
5. Ethical Responsibility: Secular humanism places human responsibility at the center of
ethical decision-making. Individuals are responsible for their actions and the consequences
of those actions. This responsibility extends to how we treat others, including non-human
species and the environment12.
6. Separation of Religion and State: Secular humanists advocate for the separation of religious
institutions from state institutions. They believe in the freedom to hold religious or non-
religious beliefs and the freedom to practice those beliefs as long as they do not harm
others3.
Overall, secular humanism is about living ethical, meaningful, and deeply satisfying lives
without reliance on superstition, religious dogma, or guilt.
1: Secular humanism – a modern Secularism worldview
2: Secular humanism - Wikipedia
3: Secularism, Humanism, and Secular Humanism: Terms and Institutions
Secular humanism posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or belief in a
deity. It does not, however, assume that humans are either inherently good or evil, nor does it present humans as
being superior to nature.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 93

Excerpt from
CHANGING PERSPECTIVES ON 2SLGBTQIA+ IN FAITH
The Challenge of Accepting Gender and Sexuality in Religion
Discussing Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation in Faith
By SAM DAVID PARKER
https://medium.com/@sdparker/the-challenge-of-accepting-gender-and-sexuality-in-religion-96e705e88b88

Gender identity and sexual orientation are tough topics in religious settings.
Religion is an array of social-cultural systems, their designated behaviors and practices, morals,
beliefs, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, and ethics.
The organizations relate us humans to supernatural, metaphysical, and spiritual elements.
However, most churches don’t recognize same-sex marriages, and in the 2SLGBTQIA+
community, this is the discrimination deal-breaker.
Stigmatics
What is the reason for this stigmatization that pushes many individuals away from
religion? What causes churches to fail in their support of anti-discrimination laws?
Between religious settings and the 2SLGBTQIA+ community the tension often stems from long-
standing interpretations of religious texts, social traditions, and cultural values.
Many spiritual teachings within Christianity, Islam, and Judaism include interpretations of
scripture that define marriage and gender roles in ways that may exclude same-sex
relationships and non-binary gender-bending.
Defining Marriage
For example, traditional interpretations of the Bible, Quran, and other Holy Scriptures define
marriage as a union between a man and a woman, central to the moral framework of many
religious groups.
Traditional religious belief is one factor contributing to stigmatization and discrimination.
Religious communities view their sacred texts as divine guidance. Traditional interpretations
often frame heterosexual relationships as the only morally acceptable form of intimacy.
The result is that most churches see 2SLGBTQIA+ identities as incompatible with
their religious teachings on family, gender, and sexual behavior.
Then, people who identify as 2SLGBTQIA+ may feel excluded or morally judged within the
settings of these places of worship. The practice of microaggression against 2SLGBTQIA+ people
in religious spaces is historically replete with examples.
Religious figures might tell one to whom heteronormative identity is uncomfortable that their
sexuality is a source of shame or the work of Satan. There are warnings against ever
experiencing intimacy because doing so would be an indication they are unsaved and heading
for Hell.
Will churches understand these issues without falling into the “Christians versus queer
peer group” trap?

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 94

PODCAST
Why I Stopped Being A Christian Nationalist
With APRIL AJOY | The New Evangelicals
https://youtu.be/28E8D49rUEI

The New Evangelicals: Tim Whitaker interviews April Ajoy about her book 'Star Spangled Jesus:
Leaving Christian Nationalism and Finding True Faith.' They discuss April's journey from a deeply
rooted Christian nationalist background to a more inclusive and empathetic faith. The
conversation explores the intersections of theology, politics, and personal experiences,
highlighting the challenges of deconstructing fundamentalist beliefs and embracing a more
expansive understanding of faith. April shares her personal stories, the impact of her father's
death, and the importance of empathy in navigating the complexities of faith and identity.

Fortunately, there are some exvangelicals that are correcting their message.
The New Evangelicals have emerged as a space for those seeking a more inclusive, justice-
oriented approach to faith while still holding onto core Christian beliefs. Exvangelicals—those
who have moved away from traditional evangelicalism—are challenging rigid interpretations
that have historically marginalized communities, including LGBTQ+ individuals.
Their work highlights how faith can evolve without abandoning its essence, showing
that spirituality can embrace equity, compassion, and critical reflection. They are committed to
building a caring community that emulates the ways of Jesus by reclaiming the evangelical
tradition and embracing values that build a better way forward.
It’s encouraging to see voices advocating for a faith that doesn’t exclude but rather welcomes
honest questioning and social progress.
One such group is the Evangelical Alliance that offers a variety of resources on sex, sexuality
and gender. One of their publications is Relationships Matter: Affirmations that notes:
“Evangelicals believe that living in line with the Bible has a positive impact on
the lives of individuals and communities and that an orthodox sexual ethic
furthers human flourishing. These affirmations set the discussion of same-sex
sexuality within the context of the gospel of grace and Christian teaching on
love, marriage, and sex more generally. They supersede previous versions
updating the language to be more accessible and bringing clarity concerning our
beliefs and their theological foundations.”

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 95

REPORT
Mapping the Landscape of Faith-Based Heterosexism
and Transphobia in Canada
By BRIGITTE PAWLIW-FRY
https://awakeningproject.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Final-Report-Mapping-the-Landscape-of-Faith-Based-
Heterosexism-and-Transphobia.pdf

Religion continues to be one of the strongest determinants of a

person’s view of homosexuality.
Mapping the Landscape of Faith-Based Heterosexism and Transphobia in Canada (2021) is a
report that examines the deep-seated influence of religious beliefs in perpetuating
institutionalized heterosexism and transphobia across Canadian society. The report highlights
that, despite Canada’s largely secular nature, its institutions are still shaped by Christianized
norms of heteronormativity and transphobia. It surveys research from the past fifteen years
and details the long-lasting impacts of faith-based discrimination in key sectors such as families,
worship spaces, education, and healthcare.1,2,3
Key findings include:
• Religious beliefs are not monolithic—there is diversity within faith communities.
• Sexuality is shaped by society, not determined solely by biology.
• Gender and sexual diversity are not new phenomena.
• Religious institutions have historically enforced colonization through homophobic and
transphobic violence.
The report calls for more coordinated efforts and public data to address the religious roots of
discrimination and make institutions safer and more inclusive for 2SLGBTQ+ individuals.1,2,3

Citations:
1. https://awakeningproject.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Final-Report-Mapping-the-Landscape-of-Faith-
Based-Heterosexism-and-Transphobia.pdf
2. https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2021/06/02/2240579/0/en/Rainbow-Faith-and-Freedom-
Launches-Pride-Month-with-Major-Research-Report-Mapping-the-Landscape-of-Faith-Based-Heterosexist-
and-Transphobic-Discrimination-in-Canada.html
3. https://financialpost.com/globe-newswire/rainbow-faith-and-freedom-launches-pride-month-with-major-
research-report-mapping-the-landscape-of-faith-based-heterosexist-and-transphobic-discrimination-in-
canada
4. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5c40e14112b13fb574c1214b/t/62cc7d667829b27c76818f6b/1657568
631861/Mapping+the+Landscape+of+Faith-Based+Heterosexism+and+Transphobia_2021.pdf
5. https://stopconversionpractices.ca/research/
6. https://podcasts.apple.com/it/podcast/queer-devotions/id1539414887
7. https://rainbowfaithandfreedom.org/queer-devotions-podcast
8. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGfcLxjU4f0
9. https://stopconversionpractices.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/FaithAffirming-Pamphlet.pdf
10. https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/ijcyfs/2021-v12-n3-4-ijcyfs06484/1082692ar.pdf

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 96

QUESTIONING INTENTIONS
How is it that non-affirming religious institutions continue to
propagate hate with no legal repercussions?
I think we have to question the intentions of any group that insists on disdain
toward other people as a membership requirement. It may be disguised as
belonging, but real belonging doesn’t necessitate disdain.
The persistence of non-affirming institutions operating without legal repercussions ties into
broader debates around religious freedom, free speech, and anti-discrimination laws. In many
places, religious organizations have legal protections that allow them to uphold beliefs that may
be exclusionary, even when those beliefs can cause harm. This creates a complex intersection
between safeguarding religious expression and protecting marginalized communities.
What’s particularly troubling is when exclusion is framed as moral righteousness.
While institutions have a right to hold their beliefs, society is also right to question the impact
of these beliefs—especially when they perpetuate harm. Non-affirming religious institutions
often operate under the protection of religious freedom laws, which allow them to practice and
express their beliefs without interference from the government. This principle is enshrined in
many constitutions and legal frameworks around the world, including in Canada and the United
States.
Here's a deeper look into why these institutions might continue to propagate hate with no legal
repercussions:
Legal Protections for Religious Freedom
• Constitutional Rights: In many democratic countries, the constitution guarantees the
right to freedom of religion. This means that religious organizations can teach and
practice their beliefs, even if those beliefs include discriminatory views.
• Freedom of Speech: Similar to religious freedom, freedom of speech allows individuals
and groups to express their beliefs, even if those beliefs are harmful or offensive to
others. This right is often protected unless the speech directly incites violence or
unlawful actions.
Challenges in Legal Intervention
• Subjectivity of Beliefs: Determining what constitutes "hate speech" versus "religious
belief" can be highly subjective and complex. Courts often have to balance protecting
individuals from harm while respecting religious doctrines.
• Separation of Church and State: Many legal systems emphasize the separation of
church and state, limiting the government's ability to intervene in religious matters. This
separation helps protect religious groups from state control, but it can also shield them
from accountability.
• Legal Precedents: Past legal rulings often influence current practices. Courts may be
reluctant to set new precedents that could be seen as infringing on religious freedoms.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 97

But is homophobia a message that these institutions really want to propagate?
Is the propagation of harm a direction leadership really wants to promote? And what of their
mission statement?
It’s time to seriously reflect on the true intentions and impact of the doctrines
and rhetoric of non-affirming religious institutions. Because harm is being done.
(see WITH CONDEMNATION AND LACK OF ACCEPTANCE COMES HARM on page 25)

Propagation of Harm and Leadership Intentions

Homophobia and Mission Statements: Non-affirming religious institutions may not explicitly
set out to propagate homophobia. Often, their teachings stem from long-standing
interpretations of religious texts and traditions. However, the effects of these teachings can be
harmful, regardless of intention. Here's a closer look:
1. Mission Statements: Many religious institutions have mission statements focused on
love, compassion, and service. It's worth questioning how messages of exclusion align
with these core values. Leadership within these institutions may need to re-examine
whether their teachings truly reflect their mission statements.
2. Leadership's Role: Leaders may sincerely believe they are upholding their faith's tenets.
However, there's a growing awareness and discussion about how these beliefs impact
LGBTQ+ individuals, specifically the resultant harm being inflicted. Leadership can and
should engage in self-reflection and dialogue to understand the real-world implications
of their teachings.
Change begins when leaders and communities are willing to critically assess
their values and whether their actions align with principles of love and
inclusion.
Addressing Hate in Non-Affirming Institutions
While legal repercussions may be limited, there are several ways to combat the propagation of
hate within non-affirming religious institutions:
1. Community Advocacy: Grassroots movements and advocacy groups can raise
awareness about the harm caused by discriminatory teachings and promote more
inclusive practices.
2. Education and Dialogue: Engaging in open and respectful conversations with members
of non-affirming religious communities can help challenge harmful beliefs and
encourage greater acceptance.
3. Supporting Affirming Communities: Highlighting and supporting religious institutions
that embrace LGBTQ+ individuals can provide alternative spaces for worship and
community.
4. Policy Change: Advocating for policies that protect LGBTQ+ individuals from
discrimination, even within religious contexts, can create a safer and more inclusive
society.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 98

Steps Toward Inclusivity
1. Re-evaluating Doctrines: Religious leaders can re-examine their interpretations of sacred
texts. Scholars and theologians within these communities often debate and reinterpret
texts, leading to more inclusive understandings.
2. Engaging in Dialogue: Open conversations with LGBTQ+ individuals and allies within the
congregation can provide valuable perspectives. Understanding their experiences can help
leaders see the practical effects of their teachings.
3. Fostering Compassion: Emphasizing the aspects of religious teachings that promote love,
compassion, and acceptance can shift the focus away from exclusion. Many faith traditions
have rich histories of inclusivity that can be drawn upon.
4. Supporting Mental Health: Recognizing the mental health impacts of exclusionary teachings
and providing support can help mitigate harm. This support can come in the form of
counseling, support groups, and inclusive community practices.
5. Leading by Example: Religious leaders have the power to set a positive example. By publicly
affirming the dignity and worth of LGBTQ individuals, they can foster a more inclusive
environment.

Conclusion
Creating change often requires a multifaceted approach that balances legal protections with
efforts to educate, advocate, and build inclusive communities. It's a complex and ongoing
challenge, but meaningful progress is possible. In this case, I believe progress may need to be
pursued through cultural shifts and legal challenges that push institutions to reevaluate their
stance in the context of human dignity and equality.
The fact of the matter is that religious institutions hold significant influence and
have the potential to be powerful advocates for positive change.
With their deep-rooted traditions and extensive community networks, religious institutions can
be instrumental in shaping cultural attitudes and fostering inclusion. When they actively
embrace diversity and advocate for justice, their influence can create lasting, meaningful
change.
Reflecting on the alignment between their mission statements and the impact of
their teachings can lead to more compassionate and inclusive practices, not to
mention thriving communities.

FOR DISCUSSION
What are your thoughts on how we can effectively promote inclusivity
within religious institutions?
What are your thoughts on how religious institutions can better align
their practices with their stated values?

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 99

WHY HAS REGRESSIVE TREATMENT BECOME MAINSTREAM?
The normalization of regressive attitudes and policies targeting marginalized
groups—such as women, immigrants, and 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals—has become
increasingly evident in politics and popular culture.
This disturbing trend often relies on framing these groups as existential threats to "traditional"
values or societal stability, a tactic explored in Whitney Phillips and Mark Brockway's book "The
Shadow Gospel: How Anti-liberal Demonology Possessed U.S. Religion, Media, and Politics" 11
Such framing bypasses rational debate, appealing instead to fear and identity-based loyalty,
and justifies actions like rolling back rights under the guise of protecting "family structures" or
"traditional values." 10
In popular culture, it shows up in the resurgence of dehumanizing stereotypes or rhetoric,
amplified by influential figures and media platforms. By portraying these issues as battles
against an encroaching liberal menace, regressive actions gain traction not as backward steps,
but as necessary defenses of societal integrity.
What’s particularly insidious is how this dynamic is amplified by media and
political ecosystems that repackage harmful narratives to appear palatable or
even necessary, making it harder to challenge them without being dismissed.
It’s a chilling reminder of how the power of language and framing can be
weaponized to sustain division and fear, and shape societal norms.
The result is a troubling shift: regressive, dehumanizing attitudes are no longer confined
to fringe spaces but are now mainstreamed by influential politicians and media figures.
This resurgence is deliberate, fueled by political actors and well-funded campaigns that
weaponize culture war rhetoric for electoral and ideological gain. 1,3,6 In both the U.S. and
Canada, leaders have enacted or proposed policies that erase trans identities, restrict
reproductive rights, and frame gender diversity as a societal threat, all while amplifying anti-
immigrant and anti-LGBTQ narratives.1,6,7 This rhetoric often portrays 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals
not just as people with differing lifestyles or beliefs, but as symbols of a larger, insidious force
undermining traditional values, faith, and family structures.
Historically, this demonization has been tied to moral panic and conspiracy theories, such as
claims that 2SLGBTQIA+ rights threaten societal stability or that 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals are
part of a "grooming" agenda. These narratives align with the "shadow gospel" framework,
which casts liberalism—and by extension, LGBTQ+ advocacy—as a malevolent force to be
eradicated.
The consequences are severe, including increased hate crimes, political violence,
and the rollback of hard-won rights for marginalized groups. 3,4,6
Social media and news platforms further normalize this hate, using outrage and division to drive
engagement and deepen polarization. 2,5 This strategy not only distracts from substantive issues,
but also reinforces traditional hierarchies at the expense of vulnerable communities. 3,4,7

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 100

A central theme of anti-LGBTQ+ organizing and ideology is the opposition to
LGBTQ+ rights or support of homophobia, heterosexism and/or cisnormativity
often expressed through demonizing rhetoric and grounded in harmful
pseudoscience that portrays 2SLGBTQIA+ people as threats to children, society
and often public health.3
It's alarming to see regressive attitudes gaining traction in mainstream spaces, especially when
amplified by influential figures. This resurgence often thrives on fear-mongering and divisive
rhetoric, exploiting societal anxieties for political or cultural gain. When such behavior is
normalized, it emboldens discrimination and undermines progress toward equity and inclusion.
The shift from fringe voices to politicians and media giants reflects a troubling trend:
the weaponization of platforms that should ideally foster dialogue and understanding.
Instead, these platforms are being used to perpetuate harmful stereotypes and dehumanize
marginalized groups. This normalization of discriminatory attitudes not only affects individuals,
but also erodes the social fabric, making it harder to build a society rooted in dignity as well as
mutual respect and understanding.
The question becomes—how do we counteract this?
Advocacy, education, and holding those in power accountable are essential.
Amplifying voices that challenge regressive narratives and promoting inclusive policies that
protect marginalized communities are a must if we are to quash this tide of division and fear.

I certainly hope so anyway.

Citations:
1. https://nwlc.org/press-release/nwlc-reacts-to-trumps-day-one-executive-orders-attacking-women-lgbtqia-
community-and-immigrants/
2. https://news.ncsu.edu/2020/05/20/social-media-and-hate/
3. https://www.splcenter.org/resources/extremist-files/anti-lgbtq/
4. https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/11/women-lgbtq-democracy-authoritarianism-trump
5. https://intellectualtakeout.org/2025/01/media-is-trying-to-make-you-mad/
6. https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/march-2025/women-trans-rights/
7. https://fenwayhealth.org/wp-content/uploads/Project-2025-Brief_FINAL_7_30_24.pdf
8. https://www.aclu.org/legislative-attacks-on-lgbtq-rights-2025
9. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/2slgtbq-issues-federal-election-1.7507295
10. https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/how-demonology-won-the-2024-election/
11. https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262552271/the-shadow-
gospel/?_gl=1*1xvpoye*_ga*MTM2NTQwNjg1My4xNzQ1NzcxNDY0*_ga_LKJ2S6BH0S*MTc0NjAzMTgwNC4zLj
EuMTc0NjAzMTgyOC4wLjAuMA..

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 101

THE FALSE FRAMING OF LGBTQ+ PEOPLE AS "GROOMERS"
AND PEDOPHILES
The accusation that LGBTQ+ individuals are inherently linked to pedophilia or "grooming" is a
baseless and harmful myth that has been weaponized for decades to stigmatize and marginalize
the community.1,2,3 This narrative has no foundation in scientific research or credible data. In
fact, extensive studies and statements from major psychological and child welfare organizations
have repeatedly shown that LGBTQ+ people do not molest children at higher rates than non-
LGBTQ+ people.2,3
The Origins and Impact of the "Groomer" Myth
• The term "grooming" has been misappropriated by anti-LGBTQ+ extremists to falsely
accuse LGBTQ+ people of preying on children, especially in the context of education and
public events.1
• This rhetoric surged in recent years, particularly in political debates and social media,
fueling harassment, threats, and violence against LGBTQ+ individuals and organizations.1
• The myth is rooted in a long history of bigotry and has been used to justify
discriminatory laws and policies, as well as to incite public fear and moral panic.1,2,3
Scientific and Institutional Consensus
• The American Psychological Association and other leading authorities have found no
evidence that LGBTQ+ people are more likely to abuse children than heterosexuals.2,3
• Studies show that the vast majority of child sexual abuse is perpetrated by heterosexual
men, often within the victim's own family or social circle.3
• LGBTQ+ organizations universally reject any association with pedophilia and have
consistently condemned non-consensual behavior of any kind.3
The Reality of Institutional Abuse
While LGBTQ+ people have been falsely accused, institutions that have long claimed moral
authority—most notably the Catholic Church—have faced well-documented, systemic scandals
involving the sexual abuse of minors by clergy. Investigations have revealed thousands of cases
worldwide, with patterns of cover-up and inadequate responses from church leadership. These
scandals have led to public outrage, legal action, and a crisis of credibility for the Church.4,5
Recommended Article
For a comprehensive, evidence-based debunking of the "groomer" and pedophile myth
targeting LGBTQ+ people, the following article is highly recommended:
• What is “Grooming?” The Truth Behind the Dangerous, Bigoted Lie Targeting the
LGBTQ+ Community (Anti-Defamation League)1
This article details the origins, spread, and real-world consequences of the false narrative, and
provides clear evidence that the LGBTQ+ community is not linked to child abuse at any higher
rate than the general population.
In summary, the framing of LGBTQ+ people as pedophiles or groomers is a dangerous and
thoroughly debunked myth, while institutions like the Catholic Church have a documented
history of systemic abuse. The evidence overwhelmingly supports the innocence of the LGBTQ+
community in this regard and highlights the need to challenge such harmful stereotypes.1,2,4

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 102

Citations:
1. https://www.adl.org/resources/article/what-grooming-truth-behind-dangerous-bigoted-lie-targeting-lgbtq-
community
2. https://www.splcenter.org/resources/reports/10-anti-gay-myths-debunked/
3. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/07/30/fact-check-lgbtq-community-rejects-false-
association-pedophiles/5462805002/
4. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/law/catholic-church-sexual-abuse-scandals
5. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-44209971
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBTQ_grooming_conspiracy_theory
7. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6026966/
8. https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/groomer-pedophile-old-tropes-find-new-life-anti-
lgbtq-movement-rcna23931
9. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/SORS-LGBTQ-May-2022.pdf
10. https://endsexualviolencect.org/fighting-anti-lgbtq-grooming-rhetoric/

BY THE WAY
Anti-LGBTQ+ narratives are often used to distract from real cases of institutional pedophilia for
several interrelated reasons:
• Scapegoating and Moral Panic: Accusations that LGBTQ+ people are “groomers” or
pedophiles create a convenient scapegoat for society’s anxieties about child safety,
diverting attention away from actual perpetrators within powerful institutions. This
tactic leverages moral panic—a phenomenon where fear and suspicion are directed at a
marginalized group, even when evidence points elsewhere.1,2,3
• Political and Social Power: By framing LGBTQ+ individuals as threats to children, those
in power can consolidate support for restrictive policies and maintain the status quo.
This allows institutions with documented histories of abuse—such as religious
organizations—to avoid scrutiny and accountability.2,3
• Historical Precedent: There is a long history of using accusations of pedophilia and
grooming against LGBTQ+ communities to justify discrimination and repression. Laws
and rhetoric targeting LGBTQ+ people often claim to “protect children,” but in reality,
they serve to suppress LGBTQ+ visibility and rights.2,3
• Distraction and Deflection: Focusing public outrage on a marginalized group enables
institutions with real abuse scandals to deflect criticism. When public discourse is
dominated by false accusations against LGBTQ+ people, it becomes easier for
institutions to avoid addressing their own systemic failures.2,3
These narratives are not only harmful to LGBTQ+ individuals—they also hinder efforts to
protect children by misdirecting resources and attention away from where abuse is most likely
to occur. The Anti-Defamation League and other experts have documented how these false
claims are used to justify harassment, violence, and discriminatory legislation, while
institutional abusers remain shielded from accountability.1,2
Anti-LGBTQ+ narratives are a form of misdirection, harnessing fear and
prejudice to protect powerful institutions and distract from their own histories
of abuse. This tactic exploits public concern for children to advance political
agendas and maintain existing power structures.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 103

Citations:
1. https://www.adl.org/resources/article/what-grooming-truth-behind-dangerous-bigoted-lie-targeting-lgbtq-
community
2. https://outwritenewsmag.org/2023/06/think-of-the-straight-children/
3. https://theconversation.com/calling-drag-queens-groomers-and-pedophiles-is-the-latest-in-a-long-history-of-
weaponising-those-terms-against-the-lgbtiqa-community-205648
4. https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/groomer-pedophile-old-tropes-find-new-life-anti-
lgbtq-movement-rcna23931
5. https://www.reddit.com/r/QueerTheory/comments/z4n0kf/i_hate_to_ask_but_does_the_main_body_of_wo
rk_of/
6. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8888370/
7. https://endsexualviolencect.org/fighting-anti-lgbtq-grooming-rhetoric/
8. https://www.splcenter.org/resources/hatewatch/pastor-who-called-for-execution-of-gay-people-accused-by-
his-children-of-abuse/
9. https://www.iicsa.org.uk/reports-recommendations/publications/inquiry/final-report/executive-
summary.html
10. https://www.splcenter.org/resources/hatewatch/anti-lgbt-conference-showcases-breadth-church-movement-
hate/

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 104

ADDRESSING CRUELTY
Some see kindness as a weakness and disregard the meek.
By extension, does this mean cruelty shows strength?
On his album Natural Light Dan Mangan addresses themes of societal reflection, survival, and
political resistance. His lyrics, including "They see kindness as a weakness and disregard the
meek," highlight a troubling reality—how compassion is often dismissed in favor of dominance
and exclusion. This sentiment directly connects to rising anti-LGBTQ+ attitudes, where empathy
and acceptance are frequently undermined by rigid ideologies that prioritize control over
inclusion.
The song's message suggests that society is at a crossroads, where kindness and
vulnerability should be embraced rather than dismissed.
In the context of anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment, this lyric underscores how rejection and
discrimination stem from a worldview that devalues empathy. By disregarding the meek—those
who seek acceptance and equality—non-affirming institutions and individuals perpetuate harm
rather than fostering a thriving, inclusive community.
Mangan's work encourages reflection on how societal structures can either uplift or suppress
marginalized voices. His emphasis on connection and resistance against harmful norms serves
as a call to challenge exclusionary practices and advocate for a world where kindness is seen as
strength, not weakness.
Ultimately, this reflection challenges the notion that cruelty equates to strength.
Instead, it argues that genuine strength is found in fostering inclusivity,
advocating for marginalized voices, and ensuring that love and acceptance are at
the core of societal progress.
But sometimes, cruelty is the point.
This phrase, "cruelty is the point," has been used to describe certain forms of discrimination,
including anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment, where harm isn't just an unfortunate side effect—it's part of
the intent. In many cases, anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric and policies are framed as protecting traditions
or morality, but when they actively seek to deny rights, dignity, and even safety to LGBTQ+
people, cruelty itself becomes a fundamental feature rather than a byproduct.
For example, when laws are enacted that make it harder for LGBTQ+ individuals to access
healthcare, adopt children, or simply exist without fear, the harm is not incidental—it's directly
imposed. Similarly, in cultural and social contexts, hostility toward LGBTQ+ people can
sometimes be less about ideological disagreement and more about exerting power, control, or
reinforcing social hierarchies through exclusion and suffering.
Historically, marginalized groups have often faced cruelty justified under various
guises—whether religious, political, or social.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 105

But when the actions taken cause direct harm rather than merely reflect a different
opinion or belief system, it’s fair to say cruelty isn't accidental; it's intentional.
And the sad reality is that the sentiment—“cruelty is the point”—is a barrier to building a
thriving, inclusive society. If cruelty is being used as a tool to marginalize certain groups, then
fostering a healthy community requires actively countering that harm with values like
compassion, equity, and mutual respect.
A thriving society isn’t built on exclusion or suffering; it’s built on connection,
opportunity, and the ability for all individuals to contribute meaningfully without fear.
Recognizing patterns of cruelty—especially when they target vulnerable communities—helps
highlight where systemic changes or cultural shifts are needed. Whether it’s through policy,
education, or direct community engagement, rejecting cruelty as an acceptable norm is crucial
for any society striving for collective well-being.
It’s also valuable to understand why cruelty persists in some spaces. Sometimes, it emerges
from fear, misinformation, or an attempt to maintain power dynamics. But when individuals
and communities prioritize empathy and refuse to normalize cruelty, they create a foundation
for trust, inclusion, and progress.
A crucial step is fostering environments where open and respectful dialogue can happen,
allowing misconceptions to be challenged and bridges to be built. The more a society focuses
on understanding, fairness, and empowerment rather than hostility or exclusion, the closer it
gets to thriving.

FOR DISCUSSION
What approaches do you think might be most effective in shifting
these dynamics?

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 106

In his book "How to be Perfect," Michael Schur writes about cruelty:
In her masterwork, “Ordinary,” philosopher Judith Shklar makes a compelling
argument that cruelty—not pride or envy or wrath or any of the other classic
“deadly sins”—is actually the worst human vice, and should be placed atop the
list of things to avoid.
“Putting cruelty first,” she writes, “is to disregard the idea of sin as it is understood by revealed
religion. Sins are transgressions of a divine rule and offenses against God.… However, cruelty—
the willful inflicting of physical pain on a weaker being in order to cause anguish and fear—is a
wrong done entirely to another.
When we think only of religious “sins” as the ultimate bad stuff we want to avoid, we end up
manufacturing justifications for horrible atrocities.” Her example is the European conquerors
coming to the “New World,” encountering its Indigenous peoples, and rationalizing genocide as
the will of a Christian God. If we elevate cruelty—transgressions against other humans—to the
top of the “worst crimes we can commit” list, we can no longer find and exploit any such
loopholes.

How might this help non-affirming institutions see the grave error of harmful
their ways and encourage them to change course?
Schur's discussion on cruelty emphasizes that it is one of the worst moral transgressions
because it directly causes suffering to another being. This perspective could be instrumental in
helping non-affirming institutions recognize and reassess their harmful actions.
Here's how this argument might encourage change:
1. Humanizing the Impact: By focusing on the real and immediate harm caused to
individuals, institutions might better empathize with those affected. This shift from
abstract theological sins to tangible human suffering can make the impact more
relatable and urgent.
2. Moral Re-evaluation: Encouraging institutions to place cruelty at the top of their list of
moral wrongs can lead to a profound re-evaluation of their principles. It challenges them
to consider the ethical implications of their actions beyond doctrinal justifications.
3. Historical Context: Schur's reference to historical atrocities committed under the guise
of religious justification can serve as a powerful reminder of the dangers of prioritizing
dogma over human dignity. It highlights the need for a critical examination of past and
present behaviors.
4. Practical Ethics: Schur’s approach offers a practical framework for making ethical
decisions. Institutions can use this framework to guide their policies and practices,
ensuring that they prioritize the well-being and rights of all individuals.
Ultimately, elevating cruelty as the ultimate wrong encourages a compassionate
and humane approach to decision-making, fostering environments where the
dignity and welfare of all individuals are safeguarded.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 107

 COMMENT
I fail to understand the lack of legal and governmental overreach in
order to limit harm done under the guise of religious values.
The balance between protecting religious freedom and preventing harm or discrimination is
delicate and often contentious to say the least.
Canada has made significant strides in protecting LGBTQ+ rights while balancing religious
freedoms. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a cornerstone of this balance,
ensuring equality for all individuals, regardless of religion, race, sexual orientation, or gender
identity.
In landmark cases like Egan v. Canada (1995), the Supreme Court recognized sexual
orientation as a ground for discrimination under the Charter. Similarly, in Vriend v. Alberta
(1998), the Court ruled that excluding sexual orientation from provincial human rights
legislation violated the Charter. These decisions have reinforced the principle that religious
freedoms cannot be used to justify discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals.
Canada also legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in 2005, becoming one of the first
countries in the world to do so. Conversion therapy was criminalized under federal law in
2022, further demonstrating the country's commitment to LGBTQ+ rights.
While Canada has robust protections, challenges remain in ensuring that religious freedoms
do not infringe upon the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals. For example, debates occasionally arise
over the extent to which religious institutions can refuse services or employment to LGBTQ+
individuals based on their beliefs.
In many countries, including the United States, laws like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act
(RFRA) aim to protect individuals’ rights to practice their religion without undue government
interference. However, these protections can sometimes be interpreted in ways that allow for
actions which may harm others or infringe on their rights. For example, the U.S. Supreme
Court’s decision in the Hobby Lobby case allowed certain businesses to deny contraceptive
coverage to employees based on the owners’ religious beliefs.
Critics argue that such interpretations can lead to discrimination against vulnerable groups,
including women and the 2SLGBTQIA+ community. On the other hand, proponents believe
that strong protections for religious freedom are essential to prevent government overreach
and ensure that individuals can live according to their beliefs.
Finding a balance that respects religious freedom while also protecting
individuals from harm seems to be an ongoing challenge.
Balancing religious freedoms with protections against harm requires thoughtful consideration
of individual rights, societal values, and the need for inclusivity. It also involves creating legal
safeguards and policies that ensure people can practice their faith freely, without allowing
those practices to harm or marginalize others.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 108

REFERENCE
Excerpts from
Religious Liberty Should Do No Harm
Policymakers should ensure that religious liberty extends to all Americans—and that it is not
misused as a license to discriminate.
By EMILY LONDON and MAGGIE SIDDIQI
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/religious-liberty-no-harm/

Religious liberty policies should reflect the moral values of equality, inclusion,
and freedom for all to live without fear of discrimination.
Administrative and legislative options exist at the federal, state, and local levels to ensure that
religious liberty is not used as a justification for discrimination. Policymakers should ensure that
laws like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act uphold the right to religious liberty while also
ensuring that populations particularly vulnerable to the abuse of religious liberty are legally
protected from such discrimination. This menu of policy options serves as a model to create
and maintain protections ensuring that the original intentions of religious liberty are upheld.
These policy options would protect many people from the potential harm of a warped
application of religious liberty—particularly populations that are most vulnerable, such as
women, people of color, religious minorities, and LGBTQ individuals.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 109

ADDRESSING LANGUAGE
The words we use shape how we think, and how we think
shapes the world we live in.
When we allow one set of ideas to be consistently demonized while giving others a
free pass, we’re not just playing word games — we’re actively warping our political
reality. This matters.
Language is a powerful force that shapes perception, policy, and ultimately, reality. When the
LGBTQ+ community is consistently demonized through rhetoric, it’s not just about words; it’s
about reinforcing harmful narratives that justify discrimination and erode fundamental rights.
The term "cancel culture," for instance, has increasingly been used as a rhetorical shield,
particularly by certain political groups, to deflect criticism and reframe accountability as
persecution. When applied to LGBTQ+ issues, this tactic has often manifested in efforts to
discredit advocacy for equal rights by painting it as an oppressive force silencing dissent.
For example, those opposing LGBTQ+ rights may frame backlash against homophobic or
transphobic remarks as an attempt to suppress "free speech" rather than acknowledging the
legitimate harm such rhetoric can cause. This framing allows discriminatory views to be recast
as victims of an overzealous culture rather than facing consequences for spreading
misinformation or prejudice.
Additionally, policies aimed at inclusivity—such as protections for LGBTQ+ individuals in schools
or workplaces—can be portrayed as coercive mandates that supposedly punish those with
"traditional values." This narrative shifts the focus away from marginalized communities
seeking equal rights and instead casts opponents as being unfairly targeted.
In a broader sense, the misuse of "cancel culture" arguments can contribute to the
demonization of LGBTQ+ individuals by fostering a sense of grievance among those resistant to
social change. It fuels opposition under the guise of defending freedom when, in reality, it often
works to preserve systemic inequalities.
Across the world, far-right and conservative forces have weaponized anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric to
push political agendas. In many cases, LGBTQ+ groups are labeled as threats to traditional
values, destabilizers of society, or even agents of foreign influence. This kind of framing isn’t
accidental—it’s a deliberate strategy to marginalize and restrict freedoms. In places like
Hungary, Russia, and Uganda, governments have passed laws that criminalize LGBTQ+ identities
and behaviors, using language that conflates homosexuality with pedophilia to stoke fear and
justify repression.*
Social media has also played a role in amplifying this demonization. Following Florida’s “Don’t
Say Gay or Trans” law, anti-LGBTQ+ misinformation surged by over 400%, with extremist
politicians and influencers driving a coordinated campaign to spread harmful narratives.
Platforms failed to enforce their own policies against hate speech, allowing slurs like “groomer”
and “pedophile” to proliferate unchecked. This isn’t just about online discourse—it has real-
world consequences, fueling violence and discrimination.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 110

The normalization of this rhetoric warps political reality by making discrimination
seem like a legitimate policy stance rather than a violation of human rights.
It’s a tactic used to rally certain voter bases, distract from other political failures, and justify
oppressive laws. But the resistance to this demonization is strong—activists, organizations, and
allies continue to push back, demanding accountability and fighting for equal rights.
This conversation matters because words matter. They shape laws, influence minds, and
determine whose humanity is recognized.
The fight against this kind of demonization is a fight for truth, dignity, and justice.

 In the U.S. and Canada, the legal landscape for LGBTQ+ rights is significantly different from places
like Hungary, Russia, and Uganda, but that doesn’t mean discrimination and harmful rhetoric don’t
exist.
In the U.S, many states have introduced laws restricting LGBTQ+ rights, particularly targeting
transgender individuals. Several states have passed bans on gender-affirming care for minors,
restrictions on drag performances, and laws limiting discussions of LGBTQ+ topics in schools. The
rhetoric surrounding these laws often frames LGBTQ+ identities as dangerous to children, echoing
historical attempts to stigmatize the community. Additionally, some states have attempted to roll
back anti-discrimination protections, making it harder for LGBTQ+ individuals to access healthcare,
employment, and housing.
While Canada has stronger legal protections for LGBTQ+ individuals, challenges still remain. LGBTQ+
individuals, particularly youth, still face higher rates of bullying, homelessness, and mental health
struggles. While Canada has banned conversion therapy, some conservative groups continue to
push harmful narratives about LGBTQ+ identities. Hate crimes against LGBTQ+ individuals have also
been on the rise, showing that legal protections alone don’t eliminate discrimination.

Language isn't just about communication; it's about shaping the world we live in.
Here are some articles that explore the impact of harmful rhetoric on the LGBTQ+
community:
• LGBTQ+ Victimization by Extremist Organizations: This article examines how extremist
groups across different ideologies use anti-LGBTQ+ narratives to justify discrimination
and violence.
• Anti-LGBTQ+ Groups and 'Natural Family' Rhetoric: A deep dive into how certain
organizations push rhetoric rooted in racist and anti-immigrant conspiracy theories to
delegitimize LGBTQ+ rights.
• The Importance of Inclusive Language in the LGBTQ+ Community: A deep dive into how
language can either uplift or marginalize individuals, and why inclusive terminology is
essential for fostering acceptance.
Each of these articles provides valuable insights into how rhetoric fuels discrimination and
why it's crucial to challenge harmful narratives.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 111

ADDRESSING RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
Religious rights continue to be top-of-mind in the fight for acceptance and
inclusivity. This was brought home again when I read this article:
How children’s picture books got to the Supreme Court
By Nadra Nittle and Orion Rummler | April 22, 2025
https://19thnews.org/2025/04/supreme-court-children-books-lgbtq-censorship/

The article provides a deep dive into the complexities of Mahmoud v. Taylor, a Supreme Court
case that stems from a dispute between religious parents and a Maryland school district over
LGBTQ-inclusive children's books in elementary classrooms. The parents, from Muslim,
Christian, and Jewish backgrounds, argue that the school board's refusal to allow opt-outs for
these books violates their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion. The case
raises significant questions about religious freedom, parental rights, and the role of public
education in shaping discussions around gender and identity, including:
• Should parents have the right to opt their children out of certain educational materials
based on religious beliefs?
• Does allowing opt-outs create a precedent for broader censorship in schools?
• How does this case impact LGBTQ+ students and families in public education?
• Could a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs erode the separation of church and state in
classrooms?
• What role should the Supreme Court play in determining school curriculum?
This case is unfolding at a time when several US states are introducing policies to inject religion
into education, such as requiring schools to post the Ten Commandments or include religious
stories in the curriculum. The outcome could have far-reaching effects on education policy and
civil rights.
Given its tremendous impact, an investigation of this matter is warranted because it
strikes at the very core of the discriminatory issues that plague the LGBTQ+ community.
This case isn’t just about parental rights or religious liberty—it’s about the broader structures
that continue to enable discrimination under the guise of personal beliefs. Investigating these
patterns is critical because they reveal how laws, policies, and cultural attitudes intersect to
either challenge or reinforce systemic injustices.
It’s not just about the immediate effects of restricting LGBTQ-inclusive content in schools—
it’s about the long-term consequences of legitimizing exclusion, fueling misconceptions, and
reinforcing the idea that some identities are inherently controversial or inappropriate.
When these arguments gain traction in legal and political spaces, they don’t just influence
classrooms—they shape the cultural fabric, influencing everything from workplace protections
to healthcare access.
Scrutinizing cases like this helps us understand the mechanisms that allow discrimination to
persist, and it challenges us to rethink how rights are defined and protected in a truly inclusive
society.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 112

How Did Children's Picture Books End Up at the Supreme Court?
The controversy began when Montgomery County Public Schools introduced LGBTQ-inclusive
books into its curriculum for pre-K through fifth grade in 2022. Initially, parents were allowed to
opt their children out of these lessons, but the district later revoked that option, prompting a
lawsuit. The parents contend that exposure to these books forces their children to engage with
ideas that contradict their religious beliefs, particularly regarding gender identity and same-sex
marriage.
Supreme Court Proceedings and Expected Decision
The case reached the Supreme Court after lower courts ruled against the parents, stating that
mere exposure to different viewpoints does not constitute coercion or a violation of religious
rights. During oral arguments, conservative justices expressed concerns about whether the
books impose a moral framework on children, while liberal justices questioned whether
allowing opt-outs could lead to widespread censorship in public education. The Court's
decision, expected by early July 2025, could have significant implications for religious freedom
and LGBTQ-inclusive education.
Does This Support Anti-LGBTQ Hate?
The case is deeply polarizing. Supporters of the parents argue that it is about religious liberty
and parental rights, while opponents fear it could set a precedent for restricting LGBTQ
representation in schools and fostering discrimination. Some experts warn that a ruling in favor
of the parents could embolden efforts to censor LGBTQ-related content in education,
reinforcing stigmas against LGBTQ students and families.
The Supreme Court's ruling will likely shape the future of LGBTQ-inclusive
education and religious accommodations in public schools.
COMMENT
The problem in all this is that the argument of 'religious liberty' hinges on an interpretation of
scripture that demonizes LGBTQ+ individuals which, in itself, raises all kinds of questions
about the legitimacy of scripture, its ability to trump rules of societal civility and anti-
discrimination laws, and the hypocrisy of countering the compassionate mission statements
of religious institutions.
Herein lies the critical conundrum—one that has long shaped legal debates and social
discourse:
The invocation of religious liberty in cases like Mahmoud v. Taylor often
hinges on interpretations of scripture that conflict with evolving societal
norms around inclusion and equality.
While religious freedom is a foundational right, courts have historically ruled that it does not
grant individuals or institutions carte blanche to discriminate, particularly in settings like
public education where diverse perspectives must coexist.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 113

 The contradiction between religious institutions' stated missions of compassion
and the exclusionary interpretations of scripture is particularly striking.
Many faith traditions emphasize love, acceptance, and care for all people, yet certain
interpretations have been used to justify exclusion or marginalization. That raises the
broader question of whether religious doctrines should adapt to reflect modern
understandings of dignity and equal rights, or whether they should remain rooted in
traditional interpretations.
At the heart of this case is the balance between individual religious rights and
societal obligations to protect marginalized groups from harm.
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of opt-outs for LGBTQ-inclusive books, it may reinforce a
precedent that allows religious objections to override anti-discrimination principles,
potentially emboldening broader efforts to restrict LGBTQ representation in public life.
These conversations challenge the fundamental ways in which religious liberty, civil rights,
and evolving cultural norms intersect.

How might one see this playing out in the long run?
I see this being not only an issue of the separation of church and state - which appears to be
non-existent, but also the creation of conditions wherein we give permission to do harm.
The erosion of the separation between church and state in cases like Mahmoud v. Taylor
suggests that religious beliefs are being leveraged to shape public policy in ways that directly
impact marginalized communities. When institutions allow religious interpretations to
dictate policies that restrict representation or education, it raises serious concerns about the
implicit permission to discriminate.
The idea of "giving permission to do harm" is particularly chilling. While religious liberty is a
fundamental right, its application in this context risks legitimizing exclusion and reinforcing
systemic inequalities. When opt-outs for LGBTQ-inclusive education are framed as a matter
of personal belief rather than discrimination, it opens the door for broader rollbacks on anti-
discrimination protections.

This case is part of a larger pattern where arguments rooted in religious

freedom are used to justify policies that disproportionately affect LGBTQ
individuals, from education to healthcare and even workplace protections. The
consequences extend beyond the classroom, shaping cultural narratives that
normalize exclusion and embolden opposition to equal rights.
Which begs the question,
Does religious freedom provide carte blanche to do harm?
If so, we have some bigger issues to address, not the least of which is the role of
religion in our society.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 114

ADDRESSING THE HATE
Despite Canada's reputation as a progressive nation, the proliferation of anti-LGBTQ incidents
highlights the urgent need for education, allyship, and inclusive policies to counteract this
growing hostility. Community support and advocacy remain critical in fostering a safer and
more accepting environment for all.
Addressing this issue is critical and requires a multifaceted approach:
1. Education: Promoting comprehensive education about 2SLGBTQIA+ issues can help
dismantle stereotypes and prejudices. This includes integrating 2SLGBTQIA+ history and
rights into school curriculums and public awareness campaigns. Increasing education
and awareness about 2SLGBTQIA+ issues within religious communities is also crucial.
This can involve workshops, seminars, and discussions led by knowledgeable and
empathetic individuals who can provide accurate information and personal stories to
foster understanding.
2. Critical Reflection: Encouraging critical reflection on traditional interpretations of
religious texts can help communities evolve. This involves examining the historical and
cultural contexts in which these texts were written and considering how their messages
can be applied in a modern, inclusive way.
3. Dialogue and Engagement: Creating spaces for open and respectful dialogue is
essential. Encouraging conversations between religious leaders, community members,
and 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals can help break down barriers and build empathy. These
dialogues can challenge misconceptions and highlight common values.
4. Highlighting Inclusive Teachings: Many religious traditions have teachings that
emphasize love, compassion, and justice. Highlighting these teachings can help
communities see that supporting 2SLGBTQIA+ rights is consistent with their core values.
For example, the Golden Rule—treating others as one would like to be treated—can be
a powerful tool for promoting acceptance.
5. Role Models and Allies: Having respected leaders and role models within the
community who advocate for 2SLGBTQIA+ rights can make a significant difference.
These individuals can use their influence to promote more inclusive attitudes and
challenge discriminatory beliefs.
6. Legislation: Enacting and enforcing anti-discrimination laws can protect 2SLGBTQIA+
individuals from hate crimes and ensure equal rights. This also involves repealing laws
that criminalize 2SLGBTQIA+ identities.
7. Support Systems: Providing robust support systems for 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals,
including mental health services, community centers, and legal aid, can help mitigate
the effects of discrimination and violence. Building support networks for 2SLGBTQIA+
individuals within religious communities can provide a sense of belonging and safety.
These networks can also serve as a platform for advocacy and education. Religious
leaders who advocate for inclusivity and reinterpret traditional teachings in a more
affirming way can drive significant change.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 115

 8. Visibility and Representation: Increasing the visibility and representation of
2SLGBTQIA+ individuals in media, politics, and other public spheres can challenge
negative stereotypes and promote acceptance.
9. Community Engagement: Encouraging dialogue and collaboration between 2SLGBTQIA+
communities and other groups can foster understanding and solidarity.
10. External Influences: Sometimes, external influences such as broader societal changes,
legal frameworks, and international human rights standards can encourage religious
communities to reconsider their positions. Highlighting positive examples from other
communities that have successfully embraced inclusivity can also be persuasive.
By addressing the root causes of this hate and working towards a more inclusive
society, we can hope to create a safer and more accepting world for
2SLGBTQIA+ individuals.
However, this will require sustained effort and commitment from all sectors of society,
including government, education, media, and community organizations.
By challenging harmful narratives, promoting inclusive education, and fostering supportive
environments, we can begin to dismantle the structures that perpetuate hate. It's a long road,
but every step towards understanding and acceptance makes a difference.
So we have to continue to ask the big questions like:
• What is the most effective way to address this issue?
• How are we to deal with rhetoric that gives permission to do harm?
• Are there effective ways to counteract this type of rhetoric without
alienating those who may have unknowingly bought into it?
• What steps do you think could be most effective in encouraging religious
communities to embrace more inclusive attitudes?
• What steps do you think are most effective in promoting belongingness,
understanding and acceptance?
These are the beginnings of challenging, but crucial, conversations to navigate.
Of course, countering harmful rhetoric without alienating others can be tricky. It requires a
thoughtful and empathetic approach.
Here are some strategies that can help:
1. Start with Empathy: Recognize that many individuals who adopt these views may not do so
out of malice, but because of limited exposure to diverse perspectives or deeply ingrained
beliefs. Approaching them with compassion, rather than confrontation, can open the door
to meaningful dialogue.
2. Encourage Critical Thinking: Ask open-ended questions that gently challenge assumptions.
For example, instead of arguing, you might ask, "What makes you feel that this group poses
a threat?" or "Have you considered how this perspective might affect someone personally?"
This invites reflection without being accusatory.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 116

3. Share Personal Stories: Humanizing the issue is often more effective than presenting
abstract arguments. Sharing real-life experiences of individuals who have been affected by
such rhetoric can foster empathy and make the consequences more relatable.
4. Focus on Common Values: Highlight shared ideals, such as fairness, dignity, and respect, to
find common ground. Frame the conversation around building inclusive communities that
benefit everyone, rather than opposing specific groups.
5. Provide Accurate Information: Misinformation often fuels discriminatory beliefs. Offering
factual, accessible resources in a respectful manner can help counter misconceptions
without making the other person feel attacked.
6. Be Patient and Persistent: Changing deeply held beliefs takes time and requires a series of
conversations. Even small shifts in perspective are meaningful steps toward progress.
7. Lead by Example: Demonstrate inclusive and affirming behavior in your own actions. People
are often influenced by observing how others treat those who are different from them.
8. Address Systems, Not Just Individuals: Sometimes the best way to combat harmful rhetoric
is through systemic change—supporting policies, education initiatives, and organizations
that promote inclusivity and equity.
Conversations like these can feel uncomfortable, but they are essential for fostering
understanding and building strong communities. It's about planting seeds of doubt in harmful
ideologies while nurturing a culture of empathy and respect.
And right now, many religions continue to do both and the hypocrisy is shameful.

See the Prime documentary

The Kindness Within: A Journey to Freedom
https://youtu.be/YQ_Rbpj812Q
A soul-stirring documentary that follows Leon Logothetis, known as "The Kindness Guy," on a
transformative journey across India. The film explores themes of healing, spiritual awakening,
and the universal quest for meaning and connection. Guided by spiritual leaders and humanity's
helpers, Leon immerses himself in diverse practices to find the answer.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 117

A RECIPE FOR HARM REDUCTION
Cut the BS about homosexuality being an abomination
Harm reduction, particularly when it comes to 2SLGBTQIA+ issues, requires
cutting through harmful rhetoric and misinformation. The narrative that
homosexuality is an "abomination" is rooted in outdated, often religiously
motivated dogma that has been used to justify discrimination and violence
against 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals for centuries.
To truly reduce harm and create a more inclusive society, here’s what needs to
happen:
1. Challenge Harmful Narratives
• Reject Misinterpretations of Religious Texts: Many arguments against homosexuality
stem from selective readings of religious texts. Scholars and progressive faith leaders
have repeatedly shown that these interpretations are often taken out of context and do
not reflect the core messages of love, compassion, and acceptance found in most
religious traditions.
• Promote Science and Facts: Homosexuality is a natural variation of human sexuality. It
is not a disorder, disease, or moral failing. The World Health Organization (WHO)
declassified homosexuality as a mental illness in 1992, and decades of research affirm
that sexual orientation is not something that can or should be "changed."
2. Foster Inclusive Education
• Implement Evidence-Based Curricula: Programs like SOGI 123 in British Columbia aim to
create safe and inclusive environments for all students by teaching respect for diversity.
These initiatives are not about indoctrination but about reducing bullying, fostering
empathy, and ensuring every student feels valued.
• Teach Critical Thinking: Encourage students to question harmful stereotypes and
engage with diverse perspectives. This empowers young people to form their own
opinions based on evidence rather than prejudice.
3. Amplify 2SLGBTQIA+ Voices
• Center 2SLGBTQIA+ Experiences: Harm reduction starts with listening to those most
affected by discrimination. 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals should have platforms to share their
stories, struggles, and triumphs.
• Support Representation: Visibility matters. Seeing 2SLGBTQIA+ people represented
positively in media, education, and leadership roles helps combat stigma.
4. Address Systemic Discrimination
• Strengthen Legal Protections: Enforce laws that protect 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals from
hate crimes, discrimination, and harassment.
• Combat Misinformation: Actively counter false narratives about 2SLGBTQIA+ people
through public awareness campaigns.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 118

5. Promote Allyship
• Encourage Allies to Speak Up: Allies play a crucial role in challenging homophobia and
transphobia wherever they occur—whether at home, in schools, or in workplaces.
• Create Safe Spaces: Allies can help build environments where 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals
feel safe to express themselves without fear of judgment or harm.
6. Focus on Mental Health Support
• Provide Resources for 2SLGBTQIA+ Youth: Many 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals face higher
rates of depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation due to societal rejection. Access to
affirming mental health care is essential.
• Train Educators and Counselors: Ensure that those working with youth are equipped to
provide support that affirms diverse identities.
By rejecting harmful rhetoric like "homosexuality is an abomination" and
replacing it with compassion, understanding, and evidence-based approaches,
we can create a society where everyone—regardless of their sexual orientation
or gender identity—can thrive without fear of discrimination or harm.

See the film that might change minds

1946: The Mistranslation That Shifted Culture

is a feature documentary that follows the
story of tireless researchers who trace the
origins of the anti-gay movement among
Christians to a grave mistranslation of the
Bible in 1946.
It chronicles the discovery of never-before-
seen archives at Yale University which unveil
astonishing new revelations, and casts
significant doubt on any biblical basis for
LGBTQIA+ prejudice. Featuring commentary
from prominent scholars as well as opposin g
pastors, including the personal stories of the
film’s creators, 1946 is at once challenging,
enlightening, and inspiring.

“A powerful tool for love and

justice that will save lives.”

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 119

A LETTER OF CONCERN TO LGBTQ+ ADVOCATES
Non-affirming religious institutions have, and continue to do, great
harm to members of the LGBTQ community by perpetuating the
stigmatization, demonization and dehumanization of this group.
I am writing to you today to request your help in addressing a LGBTQ issue of particular concern
to me.
It seemed like we were making good progress in terms of LGBTQ rights and visibility in the late
20th and early 21st centuries, but I get the feeling that recently we’ve been seeing increasing
pushback. Much of the controversy seems to revolve around SOGI policies and transgender
issues, evidenced by regular protests of trustee and city council meetings and LGBTQ-related
events, and scores of anti-LGBTQ legislative policy proposals. We’ve certainly heard all kinds of
claims about the indoctrination and sexualization of children, the risk of predatory behaviour
toward children, much rhetoric about how any talk about gender diversity will somehow
negatively affect our ‘values’ and how unwelcome gender ideology is being imposed.
Indeed, it’s perplexing and maddening, especially given that it’s really all about acceptance and
respect. Ultimately, we know that by promoting understanding and inclusivity, we can create a
more compassionate and supportive environment in our schools, in our communities and in our
world.
So how do we move forward?
Personally, I think we have to look beyond the symptoms, much of which are expressed in
physical protests, online hate, tropes and the dissemination of misinformation and
disinformation. We have to recognize that these are just expressions of a bigger problem. And
while we can certainly work to address this stuff, it’s really like putting band-aids on a sore.
I think we need to look deeper and address the real source of the problem, because ultimately,
that is the most effective way to kill the disease. It won’t be easy because it’s a structural
problem, well-ingrained in the fabric of our society.
I don’t think I’m going out on a limb here in stating that non-affirming religious institutions
have, and continue to do, great harm to members of the 2SLGBTQIA+ community by
perpetuating and propagating the outright condemnation of this group. And I believe we are
doing a great disservice to the LGBTQ community by not holding non-affirming religions
institutions accountable for decades, if not centuries, of harm.
It's not surprising that there is still a fear of coming out of the closet. It’s dangerous. It’s fraught
with risk. And it’s because people have been – and continue to be - given permission by those in
authority, people with influence, to demonize and dehumanize.
But let me say this, any institution or organization that condones the hatred or condemnation
of members of our society is complicit. The resultant harm is deep and enduring and
undermines the health – and ultimately, the success - of a community.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 120

Is it not against the law to propagate hate? If so, how is it that non-
affirming religious institutions continue to do just that against
members of the LGBTQ community?
In Canada, the spreading of hate is an indictable offence. Section 319 of the Criminal Code
specifically addresses:
1. Public incitement of hatred: The communication of statements in any public place, that
incite hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a
breach of the peace
2. Wilful promotion of hatred: The communication of statements, other than in private
conversation, that wilfully promote hatred against any identifiable group
In the United States, hate speech laws are more complex due to the strong protections for free
speech under the First Amendment. However, there are still laws that address hate crimes and
incitement to violence:
1. Incitement to Violence: The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that speech that incites
imminent lawless action is not protected by the First Amendment. This is known as the
“Brandenburg test,” established in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). Speech can be restricted
if it is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or
produce such action.
2. Hate Crimes: The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act
(2009) allows the federal government to prosecute hate crimes. This includes crimes
motivated by bias against race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation,
gender identity, or disability.
As such, how is it that non-affirming religious institutions can continue to propagate hate
against members of the LGBTQ community? Is there no legal recourse to prevent this from
happening or are the offending organizations protected under the cloak of religious freedom?
It seems unfathomable that we can somehow justify the longstanding and continuing
vilification of the LGBTQ community by non-affirming houses of worship. Especially when we
know the long-term fall-out of harm is egregious and well-documented:
• Historical Harm: Non-affirming views have contributed to significant harm, including
discrimination, mental health issues, and violence against LGBTQ individuals. The long-
term fallout includes higher rates of depression, anxiety, and suicide among LGBTQ
people.
• Documented Evidence: Studies have shown that exposure to non-affirming religious
messages can lead to internalized homophobia, lower self-esteem, and increased
mental health struggles.
1. Mental Health: Many 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals experience religious trauma, which
can lead to severe mental health issues such as depression, anxiety, and PTSD-like
symptoms. The constant message that their identity is sinful or wrong can cause
deep psychological harm.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 121

 2. Increased Risk of Suicide: Studies have shown that 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals who face
rejection from religious communities are at a higher risk of suicidal thoughts and
behaviors. The internal conflict between their identity and their faith can be
overwhelming.
3. Substance Abuse: The stress and trauma from non-affirming religious environments
can lead to higher rates of substance abuse among 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals as a
coping mechanism.
4. Homelessness: Rejection by religious families and communities can result in
2SLGBTQIA+ youth being kicked out of their homes, leading to higher rates of
homelessness.
5. Spiritual Harm: Non-affirming religious practices can damage an individual’s spiritual
sense of self and meaning. Common spiritual practices, when misapplied, can cause
significant harm.
6. Physical Health: The stress from religious rejection can lead to physical health
issues, including elevated blood pressure and cortisol levels.
These impacts not only highlight the need for more inclusive and affirming practices within
religious communities to support the well-being of 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals but, more
importantly, show a clear and urgent need to hold offending institutions accountable. In fact,
it’s long overdue.
Is it not time to push for legal accountability?
I firmly believe that the ongoing harm and resultant downstream costs are too great a price to
pay to do otherwise. Don’t you?
So I must ask, how might you help make this happen? How can you help us move forward? How
might we finally achieve real impactful change?
I very much look forward to your feedback and suggestions.

Together, we can make a difference.

Be part of The HUMAN DIGNITY Project.
https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world
BECAUSE THERE’S NO BETTER TIME TO CHANGE THE WORLD FOR THE BETTER THAN NOW.
P.S. Perhaps we need to ask what Jesus or Mohammed or Allah would do. I think it’s fair to say that the
core teachings of these figures emphasize love, compassion, and justice. Interpreting these teachings in a
way that promotes inclusivity and support for all individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation or
gender identity, aligns with these fundamental values. So what are we missing?

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 122

See also
Why aren’t all houses of worship affirming?
By TED YUDELSON
https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world/post/why-aren-t-all-houses-of-worship-affirming

Everyone Belongs Here: How Affirming and Non-Affirming Church Messages and Imagery
Cause Different Feelings of Acceptance in 2SLGBTQIA+Christians
By JUAN CARLOS HUGUES and STEVEN V. ROUSE
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/00916471231185811

LGBTQI: Love is Love No Matter What Anyone Says

Including family, friends, strangers, neighbors, co-workers, your church, or government
By Michael Horvich
https://medium.com/prismnpen/lgbtqi-love-is-love-no-matter-what-anyone-says-6f6ee622c50e

The Role of Christianity and LGBTQ

Lovers or shamers?
By Gary L Ellis
https://medium.com/backyard-theology/the-role-of-christianity-and-lgbtq-7eb32938d791

Christianity's Anti-LGBT History Church Wants You to Forget About

By TANNER THE HUMANIST
https://medium.com/@tanner_79717/christianitys-anti-lgbt-history-church-wants-you-to-forget-about-
4c839115de72

Some key studies that highlight the harm non-affirming religious institutions can have on the
2SLGBTQIA+ community:
1. The Impact of Religious Trauma on the 2SLGBTQIA+ Community: A Systematic Review
By Miranda Goodwin (2022): This study systematically reviews the adverse religious experiences
faced by 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals, including microaggressions, abuse, and rejection based on
sexual identity. It found significant impacts on mental health, including increased rates of
depression, anxiety, suicidality, and substance abuse.
2. International Solutions for Continual Gaps in 2SLGBTQIA+ Education and Exposure
By Dustin Z. Nowaskie & Samuel D. Garrison (2024): This article discusses the health disparities
faced by 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals due to pervasive discrimination and victimization, including in
non-affirming religious spaces. It highlights the mental and physical health impacts, such as
depression, anxiety, substance use, and chronic health conditions.
3. Countering Public Perceptions of Religion: Faith Communities in Support of LGBT
Equality
By Michelle Lin: This study examines the disproportionate reliance on anti-2SLGBTQIA+
commentary from religious institutions and its impact on public perceptions and the well-being
of 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals.
These studies provide a comprehensive look at the various ways non-affirming religious
institutions can harm 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals, emphasizing the need for more inclusive and
supportive practices.
Ultimately, the real question is:
At what point does enduring harm trump religious freedom?

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 123

For this I refer you to the ‘Do No Harm’ principle
https://oxgs.org/2022/02/04/the-do-no-harm-principle%ef%bc%9aso-simple-so-easy-to-misunderstand/

The canonical statement on harm occurs in JS Mill’s Essay ‘On Liberty’ where he sets forward
‘One very simple principle’. In summary form this reads:
“The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or
collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of their number, is self-
protection…the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised
over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent
harm to others.”
On Liberty (1974), pp. 68-69, Penguin Books.
According to Mill’s theory of knowledge the ‘Do No Harm’ principle is a derivative of three
overarching epistemic principles:
1. an ‘infallibility’ principle that states that our claims to certainty in the social and natural
sciences must always be seen to be open to disproof;
2. a ‘corrigibility’ principle that in order to achieve progress in the real world we must
have procedures that allow us to correct received understandings, policies and
practices;
3. a ‘vitality’ principle that we need our authority structures to advance our
understandings by encouraging open discussion and ‘experiments of living’.
John Stuart Mill’s concept of “experiments of living” and his “Do No Harm” principle are both
central to his philosophy.
• Experiments of Living
Mill believed that individuality and diversity in ways of living are crucial for personal and
social progress. He argued that people should be free to try different ways of living, as long
as their actions do not harm others. This idea is encapsulated in his notion of “experiments
of living,” where individuals and communities can explore various lifestyles and values.
Mill saw this as essential for discovering the best ways to live and for fostering human
development.
• Do No Harm Principle
Mill’s “Do No Harm” principle, also known as the Harm Principle, states that the actions of
individuals should only be limited to prevent harm to others. This principle is a cornerstone
of Mill’s liberal philosophy, emphasizing the importance of personal freedom while ensuring
that one’s actions do not negatively impact others.
• Connection Between the Two
The connection between these concepts is that the freedom to conduct “experiments of
living” is bounded by the Harm Principle. Individuals are free to pursue their own paths and
lifestyles, provided they do not cause harm to others. This balance allows for personal and
societal growth while maintaining a respectful and safe community.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 124

How, you might ask, does this apply to the current demonization of the LGBTQ
community by non-affirming religious institutions?
John Stuart Mill’s “harm principle” from his essay On Liberty suggests that the only justification
for exercising power over an individual against their will is to prevent harm to others.
This principle can be applied to the current situation involving the LGBTQ community and non-
affirming religious institutions in several ways:
1. Prevention of Harm: According to Mill, actions that harm others can be rightfully
restricted. Demonizing the LGBTQ community can lead to significant harm, including
mental health issues, discrimination, and even violence. Therefore, such actions could
be seen as violating Mill’s principle, as they cause harm to others.
2. Liberty and Individual Rights: Mill emphasizes the importance of individual liberty and
the right to live without interference unless one’s actions harm others. LGBTQ
individuals have the right to live freely and express their identities without facing harm
or discrimination from others, including religious institutions.
3. Moral and Legal Boundaries: Mill’s principle also touches on the limits of moral and
legal authority. While religious institutions have the right to their beliefs, these beliefs
should not infringe upon the rights and well-being of others. Demonizing or
discriminating against the LGBTQ community crosses this boundary, as it imposes harm
based on personal or institutional beliefs.
In essence, applying Mill’s harm principle would argue against the demonization of the LGBTQ
community by non-affirming religious institutions, as such actions cause harm and infringe
upon the liberty and rights of individuals.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 125

A NOTE TO THE MINISTER for Women and Gender Equality Canada
EMAILED TO: Emelyana Titarenko, Director of Communications
Office of the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth
Government of Canada
CC: media@fegc-wage.gc.ca
April 9 2025

Hi -
I recently read with great interest your web page on Strengthening 2SLGBTQI+ communities to
advance equality in Canada where you note that Everyone deserves the freedom to be their
authentic selves and have every opportunity to participate in Canada’s economic, social and
political life. A society where people are safe, valued, and empowered to reach their full
potential is one where everyone thrives.
I also see that you note your support of a variety of projects which will:
1. advance equality for 2SLGBTQI+ communities across Canada and address the rise in
hate;
2. empower communities, support victims and survivors, and build community trust;
3. focus on community-informed initiatives that address barriers, including by facilitating
systemic change and developing knowledge, tools, and support for communities;
4. help build organizational capacity through strategic and financial plans;
5. conduct research and studies that address issues and barriers experienced by
2SLGBTQI+ communities in Canada.
That said, I am wondering what projects will specifically address the systemic interventions and
initiatives required to dismantle the ongoing condemnation and stigmatization of 2SLGBTQIA+
communities perpetuated by non-affirming religious institutions?
Specifically, what projects or strategies might work to:
1. Reinterpret religious teachings to align with inclusivity, moving beyond traditional
exclusionary interpretations?
2. Engage religious leaders as advocates for 2SLGBTQIA+ acceptance, leveraging their
influence to shift congregational attitudes?
3. Bridge interfaith and queer advocacy collaborations, fostering partnerships between
faith communities and 2SLGBTQIA+ organizations?
4. Address structural barriers (e.g., discriminatory policies, conversion practices) within
religious institutions?
5. Promote education and dialogue to counteract misinformation and foster cultural
humility among faith communities?
6. Support 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals navigating intersections of faith and identity,
particularly youth in non-affirming environments?

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 126

Systemic change requires dismantling entrenched theological, cultural, and institutional norms,
including:
• Theological Reimagining: Projects like Dr. Jay Michaelson’s work (e.g., God vs. Gay?)
reframe religious texts to emphasize love, compassion, and justice, countering
weaponized interpretations.1
• Leadership Training: Initiatives engaging clergy, imams, and rabbis in allyship education
to model inclusive practices and challenge exclusionary doctrines.1,3
• Policy Advocacy: Efforts to ban conversion therapy and mandate inclusive policies in
faith-based schools, healthcare, and community programs.1,3
• Intersectional Education: Programs exposing faith communities to 2SLGBTQIA+ people-
of-faith as role models, countering narratives that queer identity and spirituality are
incompatible.2,3
• Safe Space Creation: Faith-inspired activism fostering dialogue, such as interfaith
partnerships with groups like Egale Canada to provide resources for youth navigating
identity and faith.2,3

The ongoing stigmatization and demonization of 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals by

non-affirming religious institutions can and does inflict significant harm on this
community (see attached).
We can no longer ignore that religious-based discrimination is a significant problem. In fact, it is
the most powerful and influential source of homophobia and transphobia in Canada (and
elsewhere).
Religious beliefs cannot be ignored any longer in the fight to end homophobia
and transphobia, because the resultant harm is too great.
The Honourable Marci Ien, Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth notes:
"Through this investment, we are standing alongside 2SLGBTQI+ communities to help break
down systemic barriers to true equality. Together, we are working to fight discrimination in all
of its forms so that everyone can live authentically, free from judgment, bias, and hate."
WE NEED YOUR HELP.
Looking forward to your feedback.

Together, we can make a difference.

Be part of The HUMAN DIGNITY Project.
BECAUSE THERE’S NO BETTER TIME TO CHANGE THE WORLD FOR THE BETTER THAN NOW.
https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 127

Citations:
1. https://awakeningproject.ca/2023/12/24/2slgbtq-folks-faith-in-canada/
2. https://egale.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Faith-and-2SLGBTQI-Youth-Promising-Practices-for-Inclusive-
Schools.pdf
3. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/15365042241229707
4. https://lgbtqfamilyacceptance.org/faith-based-resources/
5. https://dmjzone.ca/seeking-lgbtq-inclusion-in-religious-communities/
6. https://www.thetrevorproject.org/resources/article/navigating-lgbtq-identities-and-religion/
7. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/jr/ct-tc/p4.html
8. https://advocacy-canada.lgbt/faith-based-2s-lgbtqia-discrimination-in-canada/
9. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00916471231185811
10. https://www.hrw.org/report/2018/02/19/all-we-want-equality/religious-exemptions-and-discrimination-
against-lgbt-people
11. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9543796/
12. https://www.canada.ca/en/women-gender-equality/free-to-be-me/federal-2slgbtqi-plus-action-plan/federal-
2slgbtqi-plus-action-plan-2022.html
13. https://justice.canada.ca/eng/rp-pr/jr/ct-tc/pdf/rsd_rr2024-ct-tc-eng.pdf
14. https://www.mcgill.ca/morsl/equity-inclusion/resources/queer-faith-resources
15. https://campusmentalhealth.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/CICMH-2SLGBTQToolkit_v2.pdf
16. https://www.canada.ca/en/women-gender-equality/news/2025/01/strengthening-2slgbtqi-communities-to-
advance-equality-in-canada.html
17. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/5-ways-people-faith-led-lgbtq-advocacy-efforts-since-1969-
stonewall-riots/
18. https://reformationproject.org
19. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10392841/
20. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8389760/

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 128

Alright, let’s talk about sin
At an art exhibit challenging secondary school students to create works that incorporate the
theme of personal identity, I was struck by a piece called “Why is being different a sin?”
An excellent question and certainly one that should be seriously considered. Of course, the
obvious answer is, it shouldn’t. But it’s not so obvious to many. And herein lies the problem.
The question strikes at the heart of many societal challenges, particularly in the context of
2SLGBTQIA+ issues. It challenges the assumptions and biases that label difference as something
negative or sinful, urging viewers to reflect on how societal norms and interpretations of values
impact the treatment of those who diverge from them.
Art has a unique ability to communicate complex ideas and evoke emotion, fostering empathy
and understanding. Pieces like this not only spark important conversations about inclusivity and
acceptance, but also highlight the courage it takes to question and confront ingrained beliefs.
They remind us of the importance of embracing diversity and creating spaces
where all identities are respected and celebrated.
Sadly, the mechanism of discrimination derives its power from the concept of sin,
enabling people to label others as "sinful" based on aspects like sexual orientation or gender
identity. This dehumanization allows oppressors to strip away the humanity of their targets,
freeing themselves from moral accountability. And once oppressors are able to convince
themselves that some people lack humanity, they’re released from the constraints of their
conscience. They think the quest to eradicate sin allows them to perform any act without
consideration as to its cruelty or lack of humanity. This mindset becomes a tool for erasing
empathy and humanity from their worldview.

It’s time to cut the BS about homosexuality being an abomination.

In fact, it’s well overdue. The resultant longstanding and long-term harm being inflicted on a
community whose greatest sin is to live an authentic life is well documented.
The sad fact is that it’s a liturgical fabrication under the guise of a divine dictate.
It’s the 21st century, folks, and, the thing is, we now better understand the continuum of sexual
orientation and gender identity. We better understand the range of human existence and the
importance of being your true self. Yet many are still holding on to harmful crap which
continues to pass as “family values” when we know that loving thy neighbour and the Golden
Rule are the real life lessons we should be espousing. The hypocrisy is shameful.
The real sin is that propagated by many community leaders who preach implicit hate by
condoning the condemnation and demonization of LGBTQ individuals.
The real sin is that perpetuated by trusted institutions persist in dehumanizing the LGBTQ
community, condemning them for simply embracing and expressing their authentic selves.
The real sin is that promoted by moral authorities who hammer away at the notion that
excluding LGBTQ members from society is justified. They rationalize the harm caused by their
stance through selective interpretations of outdated scripture, turning exclusion into a
supposed virtue.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 129

So to continue to propagate the notion that homosexuality is a disgraceful sin, that it is a way of
being that has no place in our society, knowing full well the grave resultant harm inflicted is
unconscionable, dangerous and, frankly, ungodly.
And it has to stop.
• What are we to make of the use of the concept of sin as a mechanism to
justify discrimination, particularly against LGBTQ individuals?
• How can we justify labeling individuals as "sinful" based on their sexual
orientation or gender identity enabling oppressors to dehumanize them,
thus bypassing moral constraints and justifying harmful actions?
• How can we overlook the resultant dehumanization that reduces people to
objects in the minds of bigots, stripping away their humanity and facilitating
acts of discrimination without moral accountability?
Sadly, the concept of sin has historically been weaponized to marginalize groups, creating a
framework where certain identities are seen as inherently flawed or abominable. Of particular
note is the treatment of LGBTQ individuals, whose authentic selves are condemned based on
selective interpretations of religious texts. Such condemnation not only perpetuates harm but
also contradicts fundamental teachings of compassion and equality found in many religious
doctrines.
The argument underscores that modern understandings of sexual orientation and gender
identity reveal these aspects of humanity as natural variations within the continuum of human
existence. In fact, scientific and psychological advancements have dismantled outdated
prejudices, yet many institutions and community leaders persist in promoting exclusionary
ideologies under the guise of "family values" or divine mandates.
The reality is that it is this propagation of implicit hate that is, in fact, THE GREAT SIN
because it causes tangible harm—psychological distress, societal exclusion, and even physical
violence—against LGBTQ individuals.
Let’s be clear.
The persistence of discriminatory attitudes toward LGBTQ individuals reflects a
failure to reconcile modern understandings of humanity with outdated
interpretations of morality. True adherence to principles like love and equality
demands rejecting harmful ideologies disguised as divine dictates and the
embrace of diversity and inclusivity, recognizing the inherent dignity and
humanity in all individuals.
The harm caused by labeling homosexuality as an "abomination" is undeniable, and the
justification of such views through selective interpretations of scripture has perpetuated
systemic exclusion and suffering. Challenging these narratives is not just overdue—it's essential
for fostering a more inclusive and compassionate society

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 130

COMMENT
The concept of "sin" has been historically and culturally weaponized to justify discrimination,
particularly against the LGBTQ+ community.
The concept of sin often carries moral and religious weight, defining behaviors or identities as
contrary to divine laws or ethical principles. When certain groups or individuals frame LGBTQ+
identities or actions as "sinful," they can use this label as a moral justification for exclusion,
stigmatization, or unequal treatment. This creates a mechanism of discrimination that derives
its power *through* the authority and influence of religious or moral frameworks.
In this context, "through" emphasizes the process: the concept of sin is actively invoked as a
tool or channel to reinforce discriminatory practices:
• Religious doctrines are interpreted in ways that label LGBTQ+ relationships as sinful.
• These interpretations can then shape laws, policies, or social attitudes, limiting rights
such as marriage equality or protection from discrimination.
• Social ostracism or judgment may arise from the belief that "sin" must be condemned or
avoided, fostering environments of intolerance.
This mechanism gains its power not only from the concept of sin itself but also from
the societal and institutional structures that uphold and propagate these beliefs.
Over time, the association between LGBTQ+ identities and the concept of sin perpetuates
systemic discrimination, making it difficult to dismantle these biases.
It is time to challenge religious and moral authorities who justify discrimination by
selectively interpreting scripture while ignoring broader principles of love and inclusion.
It is time to reevaluate societal norms that perpetuate exclusion and harm under
religious pretenses.
It is time to address the structural biases that operate to entrench domination over
marginalized groups, undermining substantive equality by perpetuating power
imbalances.

Citations:
1. https://livingthelifegodintended.com/2023/06/discrimination-v-sin/
2. https://jedfoundation.org/resource/understanding-discrimination-and-bias/
3. https://baysidechurch.com.au/blog/the-sin-of-discrimination/
4. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/gender-identity-and-sexual-orientation/
5. https://www.equalrightstrust.org/ertdocumentbank/Intersectional%20Discrimination%20and%20Substantive
%20Equality%20A%20Comparative%20and%20Theorectical%20Perspective.pdf
6. https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbtq/orientation
7. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/religious-discrimination-and-cultural-context/religion-culture-and-
religious-discrimination/CCED22D4DF34702148223904938EEAA7
8. https://www.hrw.org/news/2004/01/29/sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 131

MOVING FORWARD
STOP THE HATE, STOP THE HARM
One of the most shameful examples of cause and effect is happening in our houses of
worship, perpetrated by our religious leaders, by our so-called moral authorities.
They’re convincing good people to be bad. They’re convincing good people that some kinds of
hate are perfectly acceptable, in fact, that they’re duty-bound to hate. They’re convincing good
people that certain kinds of sin is fine and even encouraged. It seems unbelievable that this is
actually happening in our houses of worship. Yet it has. For decades, if not centuries. And it has
to stop.

There is a growing discomfort over the demonstrably harmful policies

stigmatizing LGBTQ+ people. How do non-affirming religious institutions
continue to deny the harm, the injury and the suffering they inflict on others?

What about lifting people up instead of beating them down?

What if we redirected the energy now invested in stigmatizing
and ostracizing others to creating systems that actually serve
human flourishing?
Where is the retribution for harm done?
It all begins with refusing to perpetuate harm proposed by a system that encourages division.
It begins with the radical act of seeing each other not as abstractions but as fellow travelers on
a wonderful journey.
The harmful impacts of non-affirming rhetoric on the 2SLGBTQIA+ community call
for significant changes.
Here are some steps that could help move forward:
1. Education and Awareness: Promote understanding and acceptance through education.
Increase awareness about the harmful effects of discrimination and the importance of
acceptance. This can involve workshops, seminars, and discussions within religious
communities to highlight the importance of inclusivity and the harmful effects of
exclusionary practices.
2. Advocacy and Support: Support organizations and movements that advocate for
2SLGBTQIA+ rights within religious contexts. This can include both local and global
initiatives aimed at fostering inclusive practices.
3. Dialogue and Engagement: Encourage open and respectful dialogue between religious
leaders and 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals. Building bridges through conversation can help
break down misconceptions and foster mutual understanding.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 132

 4. Policy and Accountability: Advocate for policies within religious institutions that protect
2SLGBTQIA+ individuals from discrimination. Holding institutions accountable through
clear policies and consequences for harmful rhetoric is crucial.
5. Role Models and Allies: Highlight and support religious leaders who are already
advocating for 2SLGBTQIA+ inclusion. Their voices can inspire others and create a ripple
effect within their communities.
6. Promote Inclusive Interpretations: Encourage religious leaders and communities to
adopt more inclusive interpretations of their texts.
7. Support Legal Protections: Advocate for strong legal protections against discrimination.
By working together, we can create a more inclusive and compassionate society.

Believe in the power of your voice, impact, and ability to bring light
and goodness into this world one act at a time.
Be role models for the goodness in the world we want to see.

Emphasize the message of LOVE.

The overarching message should be about love for our fellow humans. The institution should
implore us to surrender our biases, to set aside what divides us, to replace rancor with good
will, to stop playing the us-versus-them blame game, and begin seeking out more ways to be
helpful, generous, loving neighbors to one another.

From a CBC Radio interview on Q, Sept 13

“Create proximity where there might be distance.”
- Matthew Rankin

See also Protecting LGBTQ+ Rights in Canada: The Progress and Challenges of
Human Rights Legislation
https://www.privacyinfo.ca/protecting-lgbtq-rights-in-canada-the-progress-and-challenges-
of-human-rights-legislation/

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 133

What mechanisms exist in Canada to combat the demonization of
LGBTQ+ community members by non-affirming institutions?
Canada has implemented several mechanisms to combat the demonization of LGBTQ
community members by non-affirming institutions. Here are some key initiatives:
1. Federal 2SLGBTQI+ Action Plan: Launched in 2022, this plan aims to advance rights and
equality for Two-Spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, and
additional sexually and gender diverse (2SLGBTQI+) people. It focuses on six priority
areas, including: advancing 2SLGBTQI+ rights, supporting Indigenous 2SLGBTQI+
resilience, and fostering a more inclusive future.
2. Human Rights Protections: The Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination
based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Organizations like Egale Canada work
to ensure these protections are enforced and expanded.
3. Support for LGBTQ Organizations: The government provides funding and support to
LGBTQ organizations to help them advocate for and serve their communities. This
includes mental health crisis hotlines and sex-ed support lines.
4. Public Awareness Campaigns: Efforts to raise awareness and improve understanding of
2SLGBTQI+ communities and issues are ongoing. These campaigns aim to reduce stigma
and promote acceptance.
5. Data Collection and Research: Strengthening data collection, analysis, and research on
2SLGBTQI+ communities helps inform policy-making and address disparities.
And while Canada has implemented several mechanisms to combat the demonization of LGBTQ
community members, not all of them are legally binding. This could be due to a few reasons:
1. Legislative Challenges: Introducing and passing new legislation can be a lengthy and
complex process. It requires consensus among various political parties and stakeholders,
which can be difficult to achieve.
2. Provincial Jurisdiction: Canada's legal system is a federal one, meaning that both federal
and provincial governments have jurisdiction over different areas. Some protections and
initiatives may fall under provincial jurisdiction, which can lead to variations in how they
are implemented and enforced.
3. Incremental Progress: Legal changes often happen incrementally rather than all at once.
While some protections are legally binding, others may be part of broader social and
cultural initiatives that take time to become fully codified into law.
4. Balancing Rights: There is always a need to balance different rights and interests.
Ensuring that new legal protections do not infringe on other rights or create unintended
consequences can be a delicate process.
Despite these challenges, Canada has made significant strides in protecting LGBTQ rights, such
as including sexual orientation and gender identity in human rights legislation and banning
conversion therapy. The journey towards full legal protection is ongoing, and continued
advocacy and public support are crucial in this effort.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 134

A LOOK AT SOGI 123 IN BC
SOGI 123 seeks to empower schools to create safe and supportive environments
for all students—regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
By equipping educators and students with tools for understanding and empathy, SOGI 123
challenges misinformation and prejudice while promoting respect and inclusivity. They often
include measures such as anti-bullying initiatives and professional development and have been
instrumental in reducing discrimination and building stronger, more accepting communities.
However, there has been a fair amount of opposition to SOGI policies, much of
which stems from misconceptions or fears about their impact. Critics argue that
these policies infringe on parental rights or promote ideologies they disagree
with. Some protests have been fueled by misinformation, such as claims that
SOGI policies impose specific beliefs or encourage inappropriate discussions in
classrooms in schools.
At the end of the day, the debate around SOGI policies highlights the broader
influence of community institutions who continue to spread messages that work
against societal cohesion, acceptance and inclusion.
The debate brings into sharp relief the powerful impact of community institutions—such as
religious organizations, school boards, and civic groups—on societal values. These institutions
often act as pillars of local communities, shaping public opinion and influencing social norms.
However, when they propagate messages that oppose inclusivity, acceptance, and
understanding, they can unintentionally (or intentionally) erode societal cohesion.
Institutions that frame SOGI policies as threats to tradition or morality contribute to polarizing
narratives. They may leverage their platforms to spread fear or misinformation, portraying
LGBTQ+ rights as undermining family values or cultural identity. These actions sow division,
reinforcing prejudices and encouraging exclusion, ultimately harming not only LGBTQ+
individuals but the fabric of society as a whole.
On a broader scale, such resistance hinders progress by blocking efforts to create safer, more
inclusive spaces—whether in schools, workplaces, or public life.
This underscores the importance of holding institutions accountable and
encouraging them to adopt affirming language, policies, and practices.
When institutions actively promote acceptance and inclusion, they can shift societal norms
toward greater empathy and understanding, fostering environments where diversity is valued
and celebrated.
The debate over SOGI policies is, at its heart, a battle over the kind of society we aspire to
build—and the role institutions will play in that journey.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 135

The main arguments used by anti-LGBTQ protesters in British Columbia focus
primarily on opposition to SOGI 123 (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity)
education in schools.
Their key points include:
1. Parental rights: Protesters argue that parents should have more control over what their
children learn about gender and sexuality.3,4
2. Protection of children: Some claim that SOGI 123 materials are inappropriate for
children, alleging they encourage children to question their gender or promote early
sexualization.1,3
3. Religious values: Some protesters argue that SOGI 123 goes against their religious
beliefs.3
4. Gender ideology concerns: Opponents claim that schools are promoting a "gender
ideology" that they disagree with.4
5. Misinformation: There are false claims that SOGI 123 encourages children to undergo
gender-affirming surgery or change their gender.3
6. Denial of transgender identities: Some protesters, like Jenn Smith, argue that
transgender people are "delusional" and that transgender women are not women 1.
7. Safety concerns: Some protesters falsely claim that inclusive policies put students at risk
of harm.1
8. Cultural and Political Influence: Some protesters draw on American-style culture war
rhetoric, claiming that public schools are sites of progressive indoctrination and
advocating for policies like school choice or privatization as alternatives.9,10
These arguments are often based on misunderstandings, misinformation, or ideological
opposition to LGBTQ inclusion. Many of these claims have been refuted by educators, LGBTQ
advocates, and mental health professionals who emphasize the importance of inclusive
education for student well-being.2,5

Citations:
1. https://thetyee.ca/News/2019/05/28/Anti-SOGI-Speaker-Attracts-Dubious-Company/
2. https://bcfed.ca/statement/no-space-for-trans-hate
3. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/what-is-sogi-1.6975304
4. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/rallies-gender-schools-1.6972606
5. https://psacunion.ca/september-20th-protests-against-2slgbtqia
6. https://www.ctvnews.ca/vancouver/article/bc-united-leader-under-fire-for-saying-protesters-have-legitimate-
concerns-ahead-of-anti-lgbtq2s-demonstrations/
7. https://xtramagazine.com/power/vancouver-protesters-rally-against-lgbt-inclusive-school-program-86123
8. https://theconversation.com/anti-trans-protests-the-conservative-party-could-use-ideological-polarization-to-
win-voters-214934
9. https://pressprogress.ca/very-dangerous-educators-warn-bc-conservative-platform-seeks-to-force-far-right-
anti-lgbtq-ideology-on-bc-schools/

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 136

The Early Edition with Stephen Quinn
SOGI 123 and the election | Aired: Sep. 26, 2024
SOGI 123 and books about sexuality in libraries.
They are part of B.C’s education system, but often misunderstood and a source of conflict.
We hear about how the issue may factor in the provincial election from the CBC's Chad Pawson.
https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio/1-91/clip/16097249 https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio/1-
91/clip/16097249

Seeing increased polarization over SOGI 123 materials, anger, rancor, protest
Some parents are against SOGI 123 and want to protect their kids in the education system
Protect them from what?
The concern about the materials has been that they somehow promote children wanting to
change their genders, or they go against religious ‘values’ or that they confuse children and
they put them at odds with the course that their parents want.
Educators have stated that this is absolutely not going on in classrooms. These materials have
made classrooms safer. They have helped students understand each other better.
Is this a misunderstanding of convenience?
It seems to be very difficult to get to the heart of who is behind the anti-SOGI sentiment and
what is their reasoning for it. And if they don’t want to defend their reasoning but simply
engage in protest and disruption, how can you move forward? How do you achieve true
understanding?

Chad Pawson from CBC has written about how SOGI 123 and books about sexuality in libraries have
become a contentious issue in British Columbia, especially in the context of the upcoming provincial
election.
SOGI 123, which stands for Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, was established in 2016 to provide
resources and guides for teachers to create inclusive and supportive environments for 2S2SLGBTQIA+
students. However, it has faced opposition from some parents and groups who believe it encourages
children to change genders or goes against their religious values.
The issue has created division in the streets and between party leaders, with some politicians promising
to remove SOGI 123 if elected. Despite the controversy, educators maintain that the program is
misunderstood and is essential for addressing discrimination and bullying in schools.

How turfing SOGI and banning books became part of B.C.'s election
Conservative Party Leader John Rustad says he would remove education tools established in 2016
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/sogi-123-sexual-education-b-c-election-2024-1.7333988

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 137

Mobilizing Fear and Misinformation: Anti-SOGI and ‘Parent's Rights’ Movements
As ‘parental rights’ movements resurge within the political right and far-right, the LGBTQ2S+
community, specifically transgender youth and Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI)
inclusive education, are becoming their latest lightning rod issue. As a result, youth in Canada
who identify as LGBTQ2S+ are being targeted by the anti-trans and anti-SOGI movements. The
spread of misinformation and stoking of moral panic serve these groups in their efforts to deny
queer and trans youth recognition and resources.
This panel event identified the harm of these campaigns for queer and trans youth. The expert
speakers and skilled moderator discussed the ways in which inaccurate and harmful messaging
can be resisted, and showcase how prioritizing ‘parental rights’ within schools, communities,
and our society, comes at the cost of the rights and well-being of queer and trans youth.
The panelists Dr. Travers, Dr. Victoria Thomas, and Dr. j wallace skelton considered the facts
and fictions surrounding SOGI-inclusive education and trans youth. Along with moderator
Michelle Eliot, they discussed the misleading message of ‘parental rights’ and how prioritizing
this rhetoric can come at the cost of the well-being of queer and trans youth.
The event was hosted SFU Public Square, online and in-person (Vancouver, BC) on February 7th,
2024.
https://youtu.be/JuKfhStySV0?si=mNoI1dRFvjOzXyvt

FOR DISCUSSION
What are your thoughts on the balance between legal protections and
social initiatives?

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 138

What mechanisms exist in the US to combat the demonization of
LGBTQ+ community members by non-affirming institutions?
In the United States, several mechanisms are in place to combat the demonization of LGBTQ
community members by non-affirming institutions:
1. Federal Executive Orders: The Biden-Harris administration has issued executive orders
to advance equality for LGBTQ individuals. These orders aim to combat discrimination,
eliminate disparities, and defend the rights and safety of LGBTQ people.
2. Non-discrimination Protections: While there is a patchwork of state laws, many states
and localities have enacted non-discrimination protections based on sexual orientation
and gender identity. However, there are still gaps in federal civil rights laws that leave
many LGBTQ individuals without protection3.
3. Support for LGBTQ Organizations: The federal government provides funding and
support to LGBTQ organizations to help them advocate for and serve their communities.
This includes mental health crisis hotlines and sex-ed support lines.
4. Public Awareness Campaigns: Efforts to raise awareness and improve understanding of
LGBTQ communities and issues are ongoing. These campaigns aim to reduce stigma and
promote acceptance.
5. Human Rights Advocacy: The U.S. Department of State and other federal agencies work
to promote and protect the human rights of LGBTQ individuals both domestically and
internationally.

THE BRANDENBURG TEST

Established in the 1969 Supreme Court case Brandenburg v. Ohio, it determines when
inflammatory speech advocating illegal action can be restricted.
According to this test, speech can only be prohibited if it is directed to inciting or
producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.
When it comes to non-affirming churches and their stance on 2SLGBTQIA+ issues, the
Brandenburg test can be relevant in assessing whether their speech crosses the line into
illegal incitement. If a church’s rhetoric explicitly encourages imminent violence or illegal
actions against 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals, it could potentially be restricted under the
Brandenburg test. However, general expressions of disapproval or non-affirmation, even if
they contribute to a hostile environment, are typically protected under the First
Amendment as long as they do not meet the criteria of inciting imminent lawless action.
This distinction is crucial because it underscores the balance between protecting free
speech and preventing harm. While non-affirming churches may express views that many
find harmful or offensive, these views are generally protected unless they directly incite
violence or illegal acts.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 139

America isn't becoming less spiritual. It's becoming differently
spiritual.
By Landon Schnabel | April 14, 2025
https://religionnews.com/2025/04/14/america-isnt-becoming-less-spiritual-its-becoming-differently-
spiritual/?utm_medium=social

This article explores the transformation of spirituality in America, emphasizing that the country
isn't becoming less spiritual but rather differently spiritual. This religious transformation stems
from what we call individualization, a phenomenon in which people increasingly craft their
spiritual lives according to personal values, rather than institutional dictates.

The concept of individualization plays a central role, as people increasingly

shape their spiritual lives based on personal values rather than adhering to
institutional norms.
The individualization process becomes most visible in regard to moral questions, particularly
LGBTQ+ inclusion. As one participant who left her Protestant church told us:
“I can’t grapple with the idea that you can be Mother-freaking-Teresa, live your
life for others, but if you are attracted to people of the same sex you burn in hell
forever. That doesn’t make sense to me.”
Regarding LGBTQ+ communities, the article highlights how individualization fosters a more
inclusive approach. Many individuals reject religious organizations they perceive as rigid or
judgmental, particularly toward marginalized groups like LGBTQ+ people.
This transformation allows for spiritual practices that align with values of
acceptance and equality, creating spaces where LGBTQ+ individuals can engage in
spirituality without fear of discrimination.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 140

NURTURING A CULTURE OF CARE
In the matter of LGBTQ rights, how will we nurture a culture of care —
for ourselves, our community and our shared futures?
Nurturing a culture of care for 2SLGBTQIA+ rights involves a multifaceted approach that centers
around empathy, respect, and education. Here's how we can work towards this:
1. Self-Care: It starts with taking care of oneself. Understanding one's identity, seeking out
supportive communities, and prioritizing mental and physical health are crucial.
Encouraging self-expression and self-acceptance can lead to a more confident and
empowered community.
2. Community Support: Building strong, inclusive communities is essential. This can be
achieved by fostering safe spaces where 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals feel welcome and
valued. Offering resources like support groups, counseling, and educational programs
can help individuals navigate their experiences and find solidarity.
3. Education and Awareness: Education is a powerful tool in breaking down prejudices and
misconceptions. Promoting comprehensive and inclusive education about 2SLGBTQIA+
issues in schools, workplaces, and public spaces can foster understanding and
acceptance. Celebrating 2SLGBTQIA+ history and culture can also raise awareness and
appreciation for diversity.
4. Advocacy and Allyship: Being an active advocate for 2SLGBTQIA+ rights involves
standing up against discrimination and pushing for equitable policies. Allies can play a
crucial role by using their voices to support the 2SLGBTQIA+ community, educating
themselves, and challenging harmful behaviors and attitudes.
5. Policy and Legal Protections: Ensuring that laws and policies protect 2SLGBTQIA+ rights
is fundamental. Advocating for anti-discrimination laws, marriage equality, and
protection against hate crimes can provide a safer and more equitable environment for
everyone.
6. Intersectionality: Recognizing that individuals have multiple, intersecting identities is
important. Addressing the unique challenges faced by 2SLGBTQIA+individuals who also
belong to other marginalized groups, such as people of color or those with disabilities,
ensures that no one is left behind.
By nurturing a culture of care through these actions, we can create a more
inclusive and supportive environment for ourselves, our community, and our
shared futures. Every small step towards understanding and empathy contributes
to a larger movement of acceptance and equality.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 141

CERTAINTY IS THE ENEMY OF TOLERANCE
Certainty can sometimes lead people to become rigid in their beliefs, making it challenging to
accept different perspectives or tolerate ambiguity. Being open to uncertainty and the
unknown allows for greater empathy, understanding, and tolerance toward others' views and
experiences. In other words, a bit of doubt can keep our minds flexible and open.
Uncertainty fosters empathy and understanding in several ways:
1. Openness to New Ideas: When we're uncertain, we're more likely to listen to others
and consider their perspectives. This openness helps us understand different
viewpoints, which is essential for empathy.
2. Curiosity: Uncertainty can spark curiosity, driving us to learn more about others'
experiences and feelings. This deepens our understanding and connection with them.
3. Humility: Acknowledging uncertainty reminds us that we don't have all the answers,
making us more humble. This humility allows us to appreciate the complexities of other
people's lives and experiences.
4. Flexibility: Uncertainty encourages us to be flexible in our thinking. When we're flexible,
we're better able to adapt to new information and adjust our understanding of others.
5. Mutual Respect: By recognizing that our beliefs and experiences are just one piece of
the puzzle, we develop a greater respect for the diversity of human experiences.

Uncertainty creates a space for empathy and understanding to flourish by

allowing us to be more open, curious, humble, flexible, and respectful.
Embracing uncertainty invites a sense of vulnerability, which can be a powerful catalyst for
connection and growth. It’s in those moments of "not knowing" that we find opportunities to
truly listen, explore different perspectives, and build deeper empathy.

Be open. Be curious.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 142

Excerpt from
The Right Way to Say the Unsayable
How to speak truth without fear—but avoid alienating everyone you know
By ARTHUR C. BROOKS
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/09/speaking-truth-without-fear/679901/?utm_campaign=the-
wonder-
reader&utm_content=20240921&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=The+Wonder+Reader

This article explores how to express difficult truths with moral courage while maintaining
relationships. The author emphasizes balancing honesty with empathy to avoid alienating
others, offering practical advice for navigating sensitive conversations effectively.

Ostracism threatens at least four psychological needs:

1. belonging,
2. self-esteem,
3. control, and
4. meaning.
If you are rejected by your friends or family, you lose the identity of belonging to a particular
group and the meaning this brings to your life; you feel diminished by disapproval; and you lose
control of your social situation.

Moral courage, which involves acting in accord with one’s convictions despite a natural fear
of retaliation or punishment, is not easy to muster. “It is curious,” Mark Twain wrote, “that
physical courage should be so common in the world, and moral courage so rare.” Fortunately,
moral courage isn’t just a virtue; it is also a skill that can be developed. Here are four steps to
help you do so:
1. Make the threat real.
2. Don’t go in hot.
3. Practice, practice, practice.
4. Tell it slant and with love.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 143

QUOTES
“I have nothing against Christians per se, and certainly nothing against anyone
living the life Jesus taught: A life of love thy neighbor, care for the poor, turn the
other cheek, and all that jazz.”
“What if the script were flipped, and we were the privileged ones? That is, what
if we (the Pride month people) were the dominant entity in society and
Christianity just had to be satisfied with a Christianity month?”
“What if this were a Pride nation instead of a Christian nation? What if the
radically judgemental variety of Christians just had to deal with rainbows
everywhere all the time? What if?”
“If it was Pride everywhere every day all the time… that would mean
everybody could just be who they are and no one would ever feel a
need to conceal anything about their identity, their personality, their
fashion sense, or who they love. No closets in Pride Nation… well
other than the ones used to store all those fabulous colorful outfits.”
Excerpts from
What If “Pride” Were Every Day Everywhere All Over America?
What if instead of a “Christian” nation, we were a Pride nation?
By FAY WYLDE
https://medium.com/prismnpen/what-if-pride-were-every-day-everywhere-all-over-america-6e3837d7c08f

“Being gay is like being left-handed—some people are, most people

aren’t, and nobody really knows exactly why. It’s not right or wrong;
it’s just one of the many natural ways to be. The world works best
when everyone gets to live as they truly are. So if you ever feel out of
place, remember: you’re not broken, you’re just beautifully different—
and that’s something the world needs.”
- Jodie Foster

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 144

QUOTES
“Ready? Repeat after me: Who you love should not be a political issue;
neither should your gender identity. Done, now let’s get some tacos.
I’m being facetious, but at the same time, I’m dead serious. Stay with me, here.
The point is — none of this should even be up for debate. And that’s half of the
problem. The idea that the basic human rights and realities of the LGBTQIA+
community require regulating at all is absurd. Similarly, it would also be absurd
to challenge the basic human rights of those of us who identify as straight.”

“…inequity and prejudice aren’t differing belief systems —

they are basic systemic failures.
The entitlement of a governing body to try to control gender and sexuality is
deeply inhumane. And to categorize this as a debatable issue sets us up for a
world where there is no way to truly make things better.
In other words, if we treat gender and sexuality as an “issue” it will
always be one.”
Excerpts from
LGBT Issues Only Feel Controversial Because You See Them As “Alternative” Instead of Basic
Tolerance is not inclusivity
By BONNIE J SLUDIKOFF
https://medium.com/@BonnieSludikoff/lgbt-issues-only-feel-controversial-because-you-see-them-as-alternative-
instead-of-basic-91056b910b36

Inequity refers to unfair, unequal treatment or opportunities for different groups of people.
Prejudice involves preconceived, often negative, judgments or opinions about individuals based on their
membership in a particular group. When these issues are described as “systemic failures,” it means they
are ingrained in the structures and institutions of society, such as education, healthcare, employment,
and the justice system.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 145

Excerpts from
Why I Speak Out About Being Queer — and Why You Don’t Have To
Visibility is powerful, but not everyone owes the world their story
By ELENI STEPHANIDES
https://medium.com/bouncin-and-behavin-blogs/why-i-speak-out-about-being-queer-and-why-you-dont-have-to-
3401b2a2c1c4

Calling the need for visibility “political” is a common way to dismiss marginalized
communities who aren’t asking for special treatment — just recognition.
Trans and nonbinary people face this too, even when simply trying to live authentically — using
names and pronouns that fit, dressing in ways that feel aligned, and asserting the right to exist
in a world that demands conformity.
What if straight people were told to tone down their expressions of affection?
“We get it, you’re straight.”
“Nobody needs to see that — what about the children?”
“Why do heteros always have to shove it in our faces?”
“Could you just be straight a little less loudly?”
“Do you have to hold hands in public? That’s a lot.”
Imagine asking someone wearing a wedding ring why they’re so “loud” about their marriage.
When a cis man says, “My wife and I,” or posts engagement photos, it’s not seen as political —
it’s just life.
Many of us express identity, whether through rings, family photos, playlists, or Instagram bios.
The difference isn’t in the act of self-expression but in how that expression is perceived. Some
of us are celebrated for it, while others are subtly dissuaded.
When queer people build families or hold hands in public, there is no agenda.
There’s just a desire to live in truth. We’re simply saying: I exist. This is real.

Few of us choose to have our identities politicized or marginalized. We didn’t

turn our queerness into a statement. The world did, by casting us as outsiders.
As “other.” As something to debate, dismiss, or simply tolerate.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 146

Excerpt from
Why LGBTQ+ People Don’t Owe You An Education
The toll and burden of being a teachable moment
By DAYNA A. ELLIS
https://medium.com/prismnpen/why-lgbtq-people-dont-owe-you-an-education-de4a27e7cccf

“So, you’re, like, trans, right? When did you decide to become a woman?”
The young man with a straight ally flag pin asked me, as if I were a foreign movie with subtitles.
I hardly restrained myself from rolling my eyes. It was the third time I’d been asked the same
question that evening — at an event dedicated to combating homo- and transphobia.
I get it. People are curious. They want to understand. And in theory, I’m all for dialogue. But
what happens when “dialogue” means explaining your existence over and over again? What
happens when you can’t even attend an inclusive event without being turned into someone’s
teachable moment?
It’s not that the question is malicious — most of the time, it’s not. But it’s invasive. It assumes
I owe you an answer. That my identity, my past, my body, my choices are fair game the
moment you find out I’m transgender.
And it’s exhausting.

Not your lesson

We’re expected to justify our existence. We’re expected to satisfy others’ curiosity — even
when the questions are invasive and inappropriate.
It’s not just tiring. It’s dehumanizing.
Because every time I’m asked to explain myself, I’m reminded that I’m seen as an exception, a
curiosity, or worse — a debate topic.
My identity is not a philosophical puzzle. I am not a walking FAQ. And yet, I find myself fielding
questions no one would dare ask a cis person, let alone a stranger: about my genitals, my
hormones, my sex life, my childhood.
It chips away at you. The constant vigilance. The careful calculations of which questions are safe
to answer, which ones to deflect, when to smile politely and when to say “that’s none of your
business” — and brace for their reaction. Because somehow, you become the rude one, simply
for having boundaries.
It doesn’t stop there, though. Sometimes people don’t like your answers — or your refusal to
give one — and things can turn ugly fast.
They might get argumentative, trying to corner you into responding. Or they launch into
monologues about their own beliefs, explaining how your identity or sexuality isn’t real. You’re
just confused, they say. It’s a phase. You haven’t met the “right” person yet.
And then there are those who take it a step further — offering unsolicited “solutions,” as if you
were a problem to be fixed.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 147

When it’s just words, it stings. But too often, words escalate. Raised voices. Threats.
Sometimes worse.
I’ve learned to read the air, to measure my answers, to brace myself. Because explaining myself
isn’t always safe.
Think about it for a moment: Would you ask a cisgender, heterosexual person those kinds of
questions?
“Why are you straight?”
“Why are you the gender you are?”
It sounds absurd, right? The answer would be obvious — “I was born this way.”
And it’s the same for us. We don’t choose who we are. We don’t choose whom we love. We
just are — yet we’re the ones asked to defend it.
What’s different is that we don’t have the privilege of being the standard. We aren’t the default
setting of society.
Just watch this video showing a straight couple treated the way queer couples so often are:

News video “If Straight Couples Were Treated Like Gay Couples”
https://youtu.be/v7Ywa97m__U

It’s laughable — until you realize how true to life it really is. What looks like parody for one
group is reality for another. Even well-meaning allies can slip into this pattern. Not out of
malice, but out of ignorance. But intent doesn’t undo impact.
So why do we still do it?
Why do we keep explaining ourselves, again and again?
Sometimes, we simply have no choice. When we’re cornered, when refusing to answer might
escalate things, when silence feels more dangerous than compliance — we speak. Out of self-
preservation.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 148

Other times, it’s compassion.
Because the one asking might mean well. They might be genuinely curious. Or maybe they’re
quietly struggling under the weight of internalized shame, not yet ready to admit who they are
— not even to themselves.
Some of us choose to educate publicly. Not because we owe it to anyone, but because we hope
that by sharing our truths, we might help shift something in the wider world. That maybe, just
maybe, the next generation won’t have to explain themselves quite so much.
Of course, some people just want someone to hate. There’s little we can do about them.
But there are others — the uncertain, the misinformed, the ones drowning in a flood of hateful
noise — who might still be reached.
And for them, every voice matters. Every quiet act of truth-telling helps remind the world that
we are not monsters. We are human. We are normal. We are valid. Just like anyone else.
But this must be voluntary. Willing. Without compulsion or coercion.

A couple of things we want you to do

If you truly care, there are better ways to understand LGBTQ+ people and our culture:
• Read what we’re writing. Our community is full of voices raising real concerns, sharing
lived experiences, and offering insight. That information isn’t hard to find — it’s already
out there.
• Google before you ask. Especially if your question is invasive. Truly — there’s a wealth
of freely available information just a few clicks away.
• Think before you speak. Would you say that to a cisgender or heterosexual person?
Would it be appropriate?
• Don’t treat us like a syllabus. We’re not case studies, curiosities, or walking
encyclopedias. We’re people.
• Respect our boundaries. No means no. It’s not personal if someone doesn’t want to
discuss something — it’s self-respect. Please honor that.
So…
…no — I didn’t answer him that night. Not because I was rude, or because I had something to
hide, but because I was tired. Tired of being seen as a curiosity. Tired of repeating the same
truths, again and again, just to be granted the dignity others receive without question.
I don’t owe the world my story on demand. None of us do.
Sometimes I choose to share. Sometimes I want to explain. But that’s on my terms.
Because I’m not a walking documentary. I’m not a syllabus, a spokesperson, or a stranger’s
shortcut to understanding.
I’m a person.
And sometimes, I just want to attend an event in peace.
With love and solidarity,
Dayna

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 149

Excerpts from
Is the 2SLGBTQIA+ Community Prepared to Revolt?
It won’t be long until we find out what we’re truly made of.
By RAND BISHOP
https://medium.com/prismnpen/is-lgbtq-community-prepared-revolt-3928f6b719b9

This essay is a personal reflection by a 70-year-old queer man who recounts his journey from
being a gender-bending activist in the 1970s—suffering violent attacks for his public defiance of
gender norms—to living in the relative safety of Portland's accepting environment. He expresses
growing alarm that LGBTQ+ rights are under severe threat again, noting that younger
generations who grew up with more acceptance may lack the "revolutionary verve" needed to
resist the current backlash.
The author catalogs escalating harms: corporate retreat from Pride support, violence against
queer businesses and their owners, armed harassment of families at drag events, book bans,
and the incoming administration's plans to eliminate gender-affirming care and target
sanctuary jurisdictions. He fears the community may be forced back into hiding or will need to
return to the militant activism of earlier decades.

The pendulum has swung back.

The rights of all non-normative humans are currently under very real attack… again!
What’s next?
I’m afraid the time has come to ask for more than simply being accepted as normal. It might be
time — and it might even be necessary for our survival — to become radical, revolutionary, and
defiant again.
Is our community prepared for what’s next?

The signs are all around us.

Bigoted, egomaniacal influencers are intimidating retail giants into dialing back their support for
2SLGBTQIA+ Pride.
Previously supportive corporations are cancelling DEI programs and data collection meant to
track employee treatment in the workplace.
Queer- and trans-friendly small businesses have had bricks thrown through their windows and
received bomb threats. Owners have been murdered in cold blood!
Armed militias taunt and harass parents for bringing their children to drag story hours.
Books are being banned, rainbows banished in schools. The mere mention of same-sex
romantic partnership, two-dad and two-mom families is being silenced.
And now, the incoming US administration plans to terminate federal grants and programs to
fund life-saving, gender-affirming treatments, while lowering the boom on sanctuary cities and
states.
I’d say it’s getting real. But, that would be a belated understatement.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 150

I hate to be an alarmist. But, if these homo-/transphobic forces can’t make us
disappear altogether, they will certainly be doing everything they can to shove
us all back into a mass closet.
And now, they have permission from the president-elect to do just that.

COMMENT
When discrimination and violence against marginalized communities
receive tacit or explicit endorsement from the highest levels of
government, the harm is magnified exponentially.
Presidential rhetoric and policy positions don't just reflect existing prejudices—they
legitimize and amplify them, creating a permission structure for harassment,
discrimination, and violence at every level of society.
This top-down validation transforms isolated incidents into systematic oppression,
emboldening those who would harm LGBTQ+ people while simultaneously making it
harder for victims to seek protection through normal institutional channels. When the
federal government signals that certain groups are less deserving of equal treatment, it
undermines the very foundation of civil rights protections and can rapidly erode
decades of hard-won progress toward equality and safety.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 151

Excerpts from
Love, Religion, and 2SLGBTQIA+: The Relationship Dilemma You Can’t Ignore!
By TYLER THE SKEPTIC
https://medium.com/@tylerthesceptic/love-religion-and-lgbtq-the-relationship-dilemma-you-cant-ignore-
12395b7ba097

An 2SLGBTQIA+ Pride March in Ottawa

In the ever-evolving landscape of love and relationships, it’s imperative that we

constantly evaluate the values and principles that underpin our connections with others.
A relationship should ideally be a space of love, support, and mutual respect.
However, sometimes, we encounter situations that challenge these ideals. One such scenario is
when intolerance rears its ugly head, especially within the context of our romantic relationships.
In this essay, we will explore the importance of addressing intolerance, irrespective of its
origins, and how it can affect the dynamics of a relationship.
Let’s begin with the story of Emily and her boyfriend, Ahmed. Emily finds herself at a
crossroads, torn between her love for Ahmed and her commitment to her brother, who
identifies as 2SLGBTQIA+. The conflict arises from Ahmed’s intolerant stance towards her
brother’s sexual orientation. Emily is faced with a moral dilemma: Should she prioritize her
relationship with Ahmed or her brother’s well-being?
It’s crucial to address the boyfriend’s intolerance, regardless of Emily’s brother’s sexual
orientation. This behavior reflects his character, and being Muslim should not be used as an
excuse for his bigotry. It’s worth noting that many modern Muslims fully accept and support
2SLGBTQIA+ individuals, while some may not fully understand their experiences but still respect
their right to be themselves.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 152

Religion often plays a significant role in shaping one’s beliefs and values, and it can
be a complex and deeply personal matter. However, religion should never be
wielded as a tool to justify discrimination or intolerance. True faith encourages
compassion, empathy, and understanding, not judgment and prejudice.
Therefore, it’s essential to make a clear distinction between religious beliefs and intolerance.
While one’s faith may guide their moral compass, it should never be a shield from
discrimination or hate.
In Emily’s case, it’s important for her to engage in open and honest communication with
Ahmed. She should express her concerns and attempt to understand his perspective. It’s
possible that Ahmed may be holding onto biases due to ignorance or misinformation, and
through thoughtful dialogue, he could come to a more compassionate understanding of his
brother’s identity. However, if Ahmed remains unwilling to learn and grow, Emily may face a
difficult decision: whether to continue her relationship with someone who holds intolerant
views.
In any relationship, compromise and growth are essential elements. This applies not only to
romantic relationships but also to friendships, family ties, and connections with the broader
community. When faced with intolerance, it is crucial to assess whether the relationship
allows room for personal growth and mutual understanding. If not, it might be necessary to
reconsider the relationship in favor of one that promotes acceptance and empathy.
Ultimately, the resolution of Emily’s dilemma depends on the choices she and Ahmed make.
Emily must prioritize her own values and the well-being of her brother. She should be prepared
to take a stand against intolerance, regardless of the source, to create a more inclusive and
accepting world for everyone. Ahmed, on the other hand, has an opportunity for personal
growth and enlightenment. If he chooses to embrace tolerance and understanding, he can not
only strengthen his relationship with Emily but also become a force for positive change within
his own community.

In a Nutshell
Intolerance in a relationship should never be tolerated.
Regardless of its origins, it is crucial to address and confront intolerance head-on. Religion,
while deeply personal, should never be a shield for bigotry. In a world where love,
acceptance, and understanding should be our guiding principles, it is our responsibility to
foster an environment where differences are celebrated rather than shunned. Love, after all,
should always be about growth, compassion, and unity.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 153

Excerpt from
A Queer Plea to Progressive Christians
How to improve faith
By LAURA WESTFORD
https://medium.com/prismnpen/a-queer-plea-to-progressive-christians-9a48681e54f1

Humble beginnings
Christianity is, as anyone who has spent any amount of time around Christians will note,
somewhat varied in terms of how people practice the religion. There are countless different
denominations that all have different views on the Bible, Jesus, and the like.
Furthermore, the views of people within these different branches of the faith are even more
different from person to person, even those who do belong to a given denomination or church.
While Catholics or Evangelicals in the US would likely be seen by many as a more conservative
faction of Christianity, there are still many people who would consider themselves part of those
denominations who would be on the more progressive political side.
Something I find somewhat funny when debates between more conservative and progressive
Christians occur is the insistence from conservatives that progressives are negotiating with the
text of the Bible in any number of ways or that they are imposing a given interpretation of it.
This is, of course, correct; however, this is true for every Christian regardless of their political
affiliation or the denomination they are a part of.
Likewise, you will see progressive Christians accusing conservative Christians of imposing their
views upon the Bible, and this is something that I want to talk about today.
A while back, a post went viral on Twitter for claiming that “real Christians don’t hate LGBTQ
people”, and this is a point that I’ve seen people say a lot in my discussions with progressive
Christians and I find it really frustrating.
For one thing, I find this to be a deep revision of history for a number of reasons. If we look at
the history of ancient Rome, for instance, homosexuality wasn’t necessarily looked down upon
provided they took the dominant role with men who were often slaves or former slaves.
As a matter of fact, it has even been noted by historians that for much of the history of Rome,
homosexuality was practiced widely, most notably by those in the upper class, even at times
including emperors. When we fast forward to the reign of the first Christian
Emperor Constantine the Great, homosexuality was swiftly criminalized and people who
engaged in homosexual acts were executed.
This was just one of the many examples from ancient history that saw gay people be horrifically
persecuted by Christian leaders and governments. Later on, of course, we have the publishing
of Liber Gomorrhianus by Peter Damien which condemned homosexuality as a sin in some of
the most horrific and vile ways that we’ve ever seen.
If we once again fast-forward to more recent times, the entire pushback we’ve seen against gay
rights in the last several decades has come from the religious right. Anita Bryant is arguably the
most infamous/noteworthy opponent of gay rights in recent memory, and she was a staunch
Christian.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 154

Bryant gained notoriety for claiming that gay people were “recruiting” young kids and grooming
them into homosexuality because they couldn’t reproduce on their own. This led to a massive
uptick in homophobia and it all came from the Christian Right. Ronald Reagan and many of his
cabinet celebrated AIDS as a “gay disease,” as they thought it was God’s way of punishing
homosexuality.
Even today, we still see massive attacks on gay rights, and it all comes from the Christian right.
One of the most obvious examples of this in recent years is when (Christian) conservatives
argue that bakers shouldn’t bake a cake for a gay wedding and that their refusal to do so isn’t
bigoted. Of course, this makes no sense because you could just as easily argue that someone
who thinks interracial marriage is a sin isn’t racist. Clearly, this is nonsense.
You also have the fact that people on the Christian right in the U.S. ferociously attack gay
marriage, saying it goes against religious freedom and is itself an attack on Christianity. Even
someone like Ben Shapiro, who is Jewish and not Christian, decries any notion of “celebrating”
homosexuality because he thinks it’s a sin, and this is a mainstream position on the right in the
U.S.
But even a person who is strictly Christian, Matt Walsh, has made countless horrific
claims about LGBT people. He also very frequently invokes his Christianity during his tirades and
attacks on LGBT people in order to give them more legitimacy.
Chris Rufo, a conservative commentator who originally came from the Christian creationist
Discovery Institute, has also spent years demonizing LGBT people. You also have the fact
that Republicans in the wake of overturning Roe v. Wade, have called for the abolition of gay
marriage, once again citing their Christianity as a justification.
Now, I know progressive Christians may argue that these people are weaponizing Christianity in
service of their reactionary politics, that this is not a true reflection of what Christianity teaches
or something to that effect.
I would completely agree with this point; however, it does come with a catch. The Bible is
obviously not univocal, and one can draw almost any message from it that one wants.
Furthermore, it’s simply a cop-out to say that the most powerful and numerous self-identified
Christians are not true Christians. You can argue that they are rejecting or ignoring huge and
important aspects of the Bible and/or teachings of Jesus; however, that doesn’t change the fact
that reactionary Christians are historically the most numerous and have wielded the most
power over society and, indeed the world.
If you want to change Christianity and make it into a more progressive
religion/social force, you need to acknowledge the problems. Otherwise, you’re
not going to get anywhere. Pretending that Christianity and Christian
institutions have not almost universally been on the side of reactionary politics
and oppression, especially when it comes to LGBT people, is nothing more than
historical revision.
My plea to progressive Christians is that they must acknowledge this fact and do better.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 155

Sarah McBride Wasn’t Looking for a Fight on Trans Rights
The first trans person elected to Congress discusses how to respond to a bathroom bill and
transphobic attacks from her new colleagues in the House.
By DAVID REMNICK
https://www.newyorker.com/podcast/the-new-yorker-radio-hour/sarah-mcbride-wasnt-looking-for-a-fight-on-
trans-rights

This article profiles Representative Sarah McBride, the first openly transgender person elected
to the U.S. Congress, as she prepares to take office. Despite not seeking confrontation, McBride
faces immediate challenges, including proposed "bathroom bills" and transphobic rhetoric from
fellow House members, such as Speaker Mike Johnson. The piece highlights her strategies for
responding to these attacks—emphasizing resilience, grace, and advocacy—while also
discussing her broader goals for her time in Congress and her commitment to advancing
LGBTQ+ rights.
See also https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/sarah-mcbride-wasnt-looking-for-a-fight-on-
trans-rights/id1050430296?i=1000678325058

Are we allowing the space and grace – i.e room and understanding - for people
to grow, evolve, and change their views without facing shame or bullying for
differing opinions or mistakes? We can't hope to change minds if we are quick
to condemn and demonize those who think differently.
Growth and change are fundamental to personal development, and creating an environment
where people feel safe to express their evolving views is essential. When we rush to judge or
condemn, we stifle open dialogue and discourage the very growth we seek.
It's important to foster a culture of empathy and understanding, where mistakes are seen as
opportunities for learning rather than reasons for punishment. By allowing space for differing
opinions and constructive conversations, we can build bridges and find common ground, even
in disagreement.

How do you think we can better cultivate this kind of environment in

our communities?

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 156

Excerpt from
Why Trans People Became the Target of a Changing World
By SHANNON ROSE
https://medium.com/@dinkerdee/why-trans-people-became-the-target-of-a-changing-world-2465898e5942

We’re living in a moment of rapid change. Identities are evolving, traditional roles are shifting,
and the very idea of how we define ourselves is being reimagined. And for some, that’s
terrifying.
In April 2025, a UK Supreme Court ruling on the definition of "woman" in the Equality Act has
reignited fierce debate. Online, far-right voices and gender-critical activists have celebrated
what they see as a victory. But the atmosphere feels bleak. Trans people—who have done
nothing but try to live their lives authentically—are once again in the spotlight, not as people,
but as problems.
What’s really going on here isn’t just a debate about legal definitions or access
to spaces. It’s about something much deeper: a society struggling with change.
Transgender people embody change in a way that’s deeply symbolic. Not just personal change
— but change in how we understand gender, identity, autonomy, even the body itself. And for
people already uncomfortable with how fast the world is shifting, that visibility becomes a
trigger.
It’s not really about bathrooms, sports, or definitions — those are just battlegrounds.
At its core, it’s about this:
“If something as ‘fundamental’ as gender can change… then what else can
change? What else have I been wrong about? And what does that mean for
me?”
They challenge fixed ideas of gender, identity, and even the body. For those already feeling
overwhelmed by a world moving faster than they can process, trans identities feel like the
pinnacle of transformation—so they become the target.
This isn't new. Every movement toward greater freedom and inclusion has met with backlash.
Black people during desegregation. Women demanding rights. Gay people fighting for marriage
and recognition. The pattern repeats: progress leads, fear follows.
The people pushing back aren’t all the same, but their worldviews often share roots:
• Some are genuinely uncomfortable. They were raised in rigid systems and struggle to
adapt.
• Some are ideologically driven—feminists or religious conservatives who see trans rights
as a threat to their worldview.
• Some are political opportunists, weaponizing culture wars to gain influence.
• And some are truly hateful, using difference to fuel their sense of superiority.
But here’s the truth: they won’t win.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 157

Progress is generational. Young people today don’t see gender in rigid binaries. Trans people
are more visible and connected than ever, and that visibility can’t be undone. Hatred, no matter
how loud, burns out. The truth of people’s humanity always breaks through eventually.
When they scream about "biological sex," what they’re often doing is using a
partial truth to justify full exclusion.
Trans women aren’t trying to invade spaces—they’re trying to feel safe and be seen. The focus
on bathrooms, sports, or documents is a distraction from the real issue: who gets to belong.
And let’s be clear—this fight was never really about definitions. It’s about power. The power to
decide who is worthy. The power to deny. The power to erase.
But the world is changing. And while some cling to the past, clawing at the edges of fading
certainty, others are building something better. More fluid. More open. More human.
Trans people are not a threat to society—they are part of what society is becoming. They won’t
be erased. And those who try to stand in the way of progress will find themselves swept aside,
not by anger, but by time.
Change is inevitable. And no amount of fear will stop it.
Let’s be the ones who choose empathy over fear.
Truth over panic. Community over control.
Because the future doesn’t belong to those who cling to the past.
It belongs to those who dare to live it.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 158

Excerpt from
“Gender Ideology” Is a Conspiracy Theory
By JULIA SERANO | May 7, 2024
https://juliaserano.medium.com/gender-ideology-is-a-conspiracy-theory-3cd8b837bb2b

Despite trans people comprising less than 1 percent of the population, we are
now routinely portrayed as an all-powerful cabal that has institutionally captured
the media, health care, science, and the education system.
Yet we are also (paradoxically) depicted as incredibly weak: trans people have supposedly been
brainwashed by gender ideology, rendering us insensible to logic and facts; like zombies, our
only purpose is to recruit and infect other people. Much of this moral panic centers on
fearmongering over “social contagion” and “grooming,” which are essentially the same charge:
both paint trans people as contagious and capable of contaminating otherwise pure and
vulnerable children (who are often coded as straight, white, and female). These same fears of
corruption animate the specter of the transgender sexual predator who preys on women in
restrooms and other sex-segregated spaces (despite all evidence to the contrary).

This essay argues that the term "gender ideology" is often used as a conspiracy theory to
delegitimize trans people and gender-affirming care. It traces the origins of the phrase,
highlighting how it has been weaponized by different groups, including religious institutions and
"gender-critical" activists, to frame trans existence as artificial or harmful. The author critiques
the conspiratorial thinking behind claims that trans people are part of a secretive cabal
controlling institutions, brainwashing youth, or engaging in "social contagion."
The author describes how this conspiracy thinking has created a moral panic around trans
people, particularly targeting transgender youth and their access to healthcare. The essay
suggests these fabricated narratives paint trans people as predators who "groom" children and
threaten women in spaces like restrooms, despite evidence to the contrary.
The essay also examines how gender-affirming care is misrepresented as a fraudulent
scheme, despite extensive scientific evidence supporting its benefits. It highlights the irony of
those who claim trans people are "creating" trans youth while ignoring the natural variation in
gender identity. The piece ultimately calls for recognizing how misinformation and conspiracy
theories distort discussions about trans rights and healthcare.
The impact on the LGBTQ+ community is significant, as these conspiracy
theories fuel discrimination, policy restrictions, and social stigma.
By framing trans identities as unnatural or dangerous, opponents of gender-affirming care
contribute to harmful narratives that affect mental health, access to healthcare, and legal
protections for LGBTQ+ individuals. The essay underscores the need for evidence-based
discussions and advocacy to counter misinformation and promote inclusivity.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 159

Excerpt from
No, Biology Doesn’t Say What You Think It Does
Unpacking the misuse of ‘biological reality’ in anti-trans discourse
By DAYNA A. ELLIS
https://medium.com/lost-in-transitions/no-biology-doesnt-say-what-you-think-it-does-0c0c69504e06

Every time the topic of transgender people comes up — especially in media debates or online
arguments — someone eventually invokes “biology,” often with an air of smug certainty. It’s
the same tired refrain: “You can’t change your sex.” “It’s basic science.” “Biology says…”
Except it doesn’t. Not like that.
What I’ve noticed — painfully often — is that when people say “biology,” they’re not
referencing any real scientific understanding. They’re echoing half-remembered school lessons
or something they once heard on a podcast, wielding it like a shield to avoid deeper reflection.
The reality is far more complex — and far more human.
As a transgender woman, I’ve had my existence debated in exactly this way — reduced to
chromosomes, dismissed by people who couldn’t explain the difference between XX and XY if
you handed them a biology textbook. And I’ve seen how deeply this misinformation spreads,
shaping public opinion, influencing policy, and hurting people like me.
So I decided to write this.
Not as a debate tactic. Not as a lecture. But as a reality check, grounded in evidence and
offered in good faith. Because if we’re going to keep talking about biology, we should at least
understand what it means.
PLEASE NOTE: This essay is not about opinions, beliefs, or ideology.
It is about documented scientific findings.
If any of the information presented here happens to contradict your personal views and you
feel compelled to challenge it, I ask only this: do so in the same spirit. Provide references. Offer
credible sources. Bring evidence, not outrage.
Also, recognizing variation doesn’t mean denying legitimacy. Trans people may not be
biologically identical to cis people — and no one needs us to be. What matters is that our
identities, bodies, and lives are as real and meaningful as anyone else’s.

Sex, Gender, and the Words We Use

Before getting into the science, let’s take a moment to talk about the language we use —
because a lot of the confusion around sex and gender starts with how these words are defined
and used.
Historically, the word sex referred to biological traits like chromosomes, reproductive organs,
and secondary sex characteristics. This usage goes back to the 14th century¹. The word gender,
on the other hand, originally came from grammar, not people — it described word categories
like masculine or feminine in language¹. Over time, though, gender began to appear in phrases
like “the female gender,” sometimes used as a softer or more polite alternative to sex.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 160

It wasn’t until the 20th century that their meanings began to split more clearly. Sex took on a
second meaning related to sexual activity, while gender came to describe the social and
psychological traits typically associated with being male or female — what we might call
masculinity or femininity¹. That’s where we get terms like gender roles, and later, gender
identity and gender expression.
• Gender identity means a person’s internal sense of who they are — whether male,
female, a blend of both, or neither².
• Gender expression is how people show that identity outwardly, through clothing,
mannerisms, voice, and other cues².
By the end of the 20th century, people were often using gender as shorthand for gender
identity, especially in conversations about transgender people¹. In more technical or medical
settings, though, a distinction is still made:
• Sex refers to biological attributes like chromosomes and anatomy³.
• Gender refers to the social, cultural, and psychological aspects of being a man, woman,
or another identity³.
That said, in everyday speech and even in law or journalism, the two terms are often blurred.
We’re more likely to hear gender discrimination than sex discrimination, even when the issue is
based on biology. Terms like gender equality, gender bias, and gender gap have become
standard, even when the comparison is simply between men and women¹.
This inconsistency can create confusion — especially in emotionally charged debates — but it
also points to a deeper reality: human experience doesn’t always fit into neat categories.
And language, like people, evolves to reflect that.

The Myth of the Binary

When people talk about sex, they’re usually referring to someone being either male or
female³,¹. It’s a distinction that feels natural, fixed, and for many, unchangeable. The notion of
sex as binary is so deeply ingrained that it’s often used to invalidate transgender and especially
non-binary people: “You’re either male or female — end of story.”
But biology rarely writes stories with such neat endings.
While gametes — sperm or egg — are binary, biological sex is not. It’s shaped by multiple
factors: chromosomes, hormones, internal and external anatomy, and how the body responds
to those hormones. Each of these traits can vary independently, and sometimes they don’t
align in predictable ways⁹.
So while most people’s sex characteristics cluster toward what we call “male” or
“female,” many are born with combinations that don’t fit neatly into either.
These variations, collectively known as intersex traits, are part of the natural diversity of human
biology.
Biology doesn’t lie. But neither does it simplify. And when we reduce the conversation to “just
biology,” we ignore the very evidence that shows how rich and varied biology actually is.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 161

What Defines Biological Sex?
Chromosomes
XX = female, XY = male. That’s the basic schoolbook version — but it doesn’t hold up under
scrutiny.
People with Swyer syndrome have XY chromosomes but develop typically female anatomy
because their bodies don’t respond to the genetic signals that initiate male development⁴.
Those with Klinefelter syndrome (XXY) are usually classified as male but may develop traits
typically associated with females, like breast tissue⁵.
Some people are mosaic — with different chromosomal makeups in different cells. Others have
just one sex chromosome (XO), as in Turner syndrome.
These are all natural biological variations.
Gonads and Hormones
Gonads (testes or ovaries) produce sex hormones — estrogen and testosterone — that shape
secondary sex traits. But again, variation is common.
In Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS), people with XY chromosomes produce
testosterone, but their bodies can’t respond to it. They develop outwardly as female and often
live their lives without knowing they have XY chromosomes⁶.
Anatomy
Doctors typically assign sex at birth based on visible genitalia. But internal and external
anatomy don’t always match. Some babies are born with ambiguous genitalia, and while
surgeries to “normalize” their appearance were once routine, medical consensus is now shifting
away from these interventions⁷.
Intersex Conditions
All these variations fall under the umbrella of intersex conditions. Intersex people are estimated
to make up around 1.7% of the population — about as common as red hair⁸.
Their existence directly challenges the binary. Sex is better understood as a spectrum, with
male and female as common clusters — not fixed points.

Why This Matters?

The claim that “biological sex is binary” is often used to undermine the identities of
transgender and non-binary people. But science paints a far more complex picture.
Trans people are not exceptions to biology — they are part of it. And so are intersex
people, who have always existed, even if they’ve often been erased from the conversation.
When we talk about biological sex, it’s tempting to look for a single defining trait — like
chromosomes or genitals — and call it decisive. But in reality, it’s the combination of multiple
biological factors that determines how a person’s sex is classified: chromosomes, hormones,
gonads, internal and external anatomy, and how the body responds to hormonal signals. These
traits can align in typical patterns, but they don’t always. And when they don’t, the result isn’t
confusion — it’s diversity.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 162

Rather than thinking of sex as a switch with only two positions, it makes more
sense to view it as a spectrum, shaped by how these factors come together in
each individual. Some people fall squarely into the typical male or female range
across all traits.
Others may have a mix — such as XY chromosomes and a typically female body, or ambiguous
genitalia with hormone levels more common to one sex than the other. These combinations are
not mistakes or anomalies — they’re part of natural human variation. And they remind us
that biology doesn’t draw hard borders — it sketches ranges.

Brain Structure and Neurological Findings

The idea that gender is purely a social construct doesn’t hold up to what
neuroscience increasingly reveals: gender identity is rooted in the brain.
Over the past few decades, studies using MRI, PET scans, and diffusion tensor imaging have
shown consistent structural and functional differences in the brains of transgender people —
differences that cannot be explained by upbringing or socialization alone.

Structural and Functional Differences

One of the earliest and most cited studies, by Zhou et al. (1995), examined the BSTc (bed
nucleus of the stria terminalis), a sexually dimorphic structure in the hypothalamus. In
transgender women, the size and neuron density of this region were more similar to those of
cisgender women than cisgender men¹⁰.
Kruijver et al. (2000) replicated and expanded this finding by looking at neuron count instead of
volume, reinforcing the idea that gender identity has a neurological basis¹¹.
Later work by Garcia-Falgueras and Swaab (2008) concluded that “the brain is the structural
basis of gender identity,” supporting the notion that trans people’s brains align more closely
with their gender identity than with their assigned sex at birth¹².
Rametti et al. (2011) used diffusion tensor imaging to study the white matter microstructure of
transgender men before they began hormone therapy. Their white matter patterns more
closely resembled those of cis men than cis women — again, before any medical transition had
occurred¹³.
Further studies have identified differences in:
• Cortical thickness in regions related to identity and self-awareness¹⁴
• Functional connectivity during tasks involving gendered stimuli¹⁵
• Brain activation patterns in response to voice or body perception cues¹⁶

Many of these findings precede hormone therapy, strongly suggesting a neurodevelopmental

origin for gender identity — likely influenced by genetics, hormone exposure in utero, and
other factors during early development.
While no single brain feature defines gender identity, the aggregate pattern across
studies is clear: transgender identities are not imagined or chosen — they have a
biological basis, grounded in the structure and function of the brain.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 163

Endocrine Realities
Hormones play a central role in shaping our bodies — especially during puberty. In gender-
affirming care, hormone therapy is used to align secondary sex characteristics with a person’s
gender identity, bringing their physical presentation closer to their lived experience.
Hormone Therapy
• Estrogen (and anti-androgens) in transfeminine individuals promotes breast
development, softens skin, reduces body hair, and redistributes fat into a more typically
feminine pattern.
• Testosterone in transmasculine individuals increases muscle mass, deepens the voice,
promotes facial and body hair, and halts menstruation¹⁷.
These changes are not just cosmetic — they’re systemic. GAHT reshapes body structure and
function in meaningful, measurable ways.
Puberty Blockers
Puberty blockers (GnRH analogs) are medications that delay the onset of puberty by
suppressing the release of sex hormones. Originally developed to treat precocious puberty,
they’ve been used safely for decades¹⁹.
Their use in transgender youth offers time to explore identity without the distress of unwanted
bodily changes. And despite controversy, their effects are reversible — once discontinued,
puberty resumes its natural course¹⁸.
Far from experimental, puberty blockers are a well-established medical option — used as part
of individualized treatment plans under careful supervision.

Debunking the Misuse of Biology

Despite all of this, phrases like “biological reality” continue to be wielded as weapons. We hear
it in politics, media, and online arguments: “You can’t change your chromosomes.” “There are
only two sexes.” “It’s just science.”
But these arguments aren’t scientific — they’re ideological.

Cherry-Picked Science Isn’t Science

Anti-trans rhetoric often relies on selective citation — pulling out a single biological trait (like
chromosomes) and using it to dismiss an entire identity. But no serious biologist or medical
authority would reduce a person’s existence to one trait. We don’t do it in any other medical
context — and we shouldn’t do it here.

Biology as a Moral Argument in Disguise

When people invoke biology to deny rights, what they’re really doing is masking discomfort
in the language of science. This becomes especially clear when they ignore the consensus of
every major medical organization — including the American Medical Association, World Health
Organization, and Endocrine Society — which recognize gender-affirming care as essential,
evidence-based treatment²¹–²⁸.
Biology is not being used to clarify, but to exclude. Not to understand, but
to control.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 164

The False Dichotomy of “Real” vs. “Trans”
A common refrain is that transgender people are not “real” men or women — a claim rooted
in the idea that certain biological traits are unchangeable. But gender-affirming care changes
biology in profound and measurable ways.
Physiological Alignment
Hormone therapy leads to lasting changes in secondary sex characteristics — from body fat
distribution to skin texture to voice. These aren’t surface-level effects; they restructure the
body in alignment with the person’s gender identity.
Neurological and Epigenetic Effects
Hormone therapy also influences brain structure and function — with changes in connectivity
and brain volume patterns aligning more closely with the affirmed gender.
Even more recently, researchers have found that hormone therapy induces changes at
the epigenetic level — altering DNA methylation patterns, which influence gene expression²⁹–
³². This suggests that gender-affirming care doesn’t just affect how a body looks — but how it
works on a molecular level.

The Reality
The misuse of “biological reality” isn’t about truth — it’s about power. It’s about
who gets to exist without question. Who gets to be believed. Who gets to be seen.
To invoke biology as a reason to deny rights, healthcare, or dignity is to do violence — not only
to people, but to the spirit of scientific inquiry itself.
Because science, at its best, is about discovering truth — not enforcing dogma.

REFERENCES
1. Merriam-Webster. Sex vs. Gender: Usage Guide. https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/sex-
gender-usage
2. American Psychological Association. Definitions Related to Sexual Orientation and Gender
Diversity. https://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/sexuality-definitions.pdf
3. World Health Organization. Gender and Genetics. https://www.who.int/genomics/gender/en/
4. Mayo Clinic. Swyer Syndrome. https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/swyer-syndrome
5. MedlinePlus. Klinefelter Syndrome. https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/condition/klinefelter-syndrome/
6. NIH Genetics Home Reference. Androgen Insensitivity
Syndrome. https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/androgen-insensitivity-syndrome
7. InterACT Advocates. What is Intersex? https://interactadvocates.org/intersex101/
8. Blackless, M. et al. (2000). How sexually dimorphic are we? American Journal of Human Biology.
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6300(200003/04)12:2<151::AID-AJHB6>3.0.CO;2-F
9. Scientific American. Sex Redefined: The Idea of 2 Sexes Is Overly
Simplistic. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-
simplistic1/
10. Zhou, J.-N. et al. (1995). A sex difference in the human brain and its relation to transsexuality. Nature,
378(6552), 68–70. https://doi.org/10.1038/378068a0
11. Kruijver, F.P.M. et al. (2000). Male-to-female transsexuals have female neuron numbers in a limbic nucleus. J
Clin Endocrinol Metab, 85(5), 2034–2041.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 165

12. Garcia-Falgueras, A., & Swaab, D.F. (2008). A sex difference in the hypothalamic uncinate nucleus: Relationship
to gender identity. Brain, 131(12), 3132–3146.
13. Rametti, G. et al. (2011). White matter microstructure in female to male transsexuals before cross-sex
hormonal treatment. J Psychiatr Res, 45(2), 199–204.
14. Luders, E. et al. (2009). Increased cortical thickness in male-to-female transsexualism. NeuroReport, 20(8),
749–753.
15. Burke, S.M. et al. (2021). Altered structural connectivity in transgender individuals. Human Brain
Mapping. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.25339
16. Kilpatrick, L.A. et al. (2019). Functional brain activity during mentalizing in transgender people. NeuroImage,
186, 30–40.
17. Mayo Clinic. Feminizing Hormone Therapy. https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/feminizing-
hormone-therapy/about/pac-20385096
18. Healthline. Are Puberty Blockers Reversible? https://www.healthline.com/health/are-puberty-blockers-
reversible
19. Cedars-Sinai. Puberty Blockers for Precocious Puberty. https://www.cedars-sinai.org/blog/puberty-blockers-
for-precocious-puberty.html
20. Mayo Clinic. Puberty blockers for transgender and gender-diverse
youth. https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/gender-dysphoria/in-depth/pubertal-blockers/art-
20459075
21. American Medical Association. AMA to states: Stop interfering in health care of transgender
children. https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-states-stop-interfering-health-care-
transgender-children
22. World Health Organization. WHO announces the development of the guideline on the health of trans and
gender diverse people. https://www.who.int/news/item/28-06-2023-who-announces-the-development-of-
the-guideline-on-the-health-of-trans-and-gender-diverse-people
23. Endocrine Society. Gender Dysphoria/Gender Incongruence Clinical Practice
Guidelines. https://www.endocrine.org/clinical-practice-guidelines/gender-dysphoria-gender-incongruence
24. American Medical Association. AMA reinforces opposition to restrictions on transgender medical
care. https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-reinforces-opposition-restrictions-
transgender-medical-care
25. WHO. Gender incongruence and transgender health in the
ICD. https://www.who.int/standards/classifications/frequently-asked-questions/gender-incongruence-and-
transgender-health-in-the-icd
26. Endocrine Society. Position Statement on Transgender Health. https://www.endocrine.org/advocacy/position-
statements/transgender-health
27. WHO. Update on the Guideline Development Group on the health of trans and gender diverse
people. https://www.who.int/news/item/20-06-2024-update-on-the-guideline-development-group-on-the-
health-of-trans-and-gender-diverse-people
28. AMA. Clarification of Evidence-Based Gender-Affirming Care H-185.927. https://policysearch.ama-
assn.org/policyfinder/detail/H-185.927
29. Wikipedia. Feminizing Hormone Therapy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminizing_hormone_therapy
30. Wikipedia. Masculinizing Hormone Therapy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculinizing_hormone_therapy
31. Nature Human Behaviour. (2023). A systematic review of psychosocial functioning changes after gender-
affirming hormone therapy. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-023-01605-w
32. Clinical Epigenetics. (2022). Gender-affirming hormone therapy induces specific DNA methylation signatures in
transgender individuals. https://clinicalepigeneticsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13148-022-
01236-4

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 166

Excerpt from
Largest-ever survey of trans people reveals the real reason trans
people detransition
Conservatives say many trans people later regret their transitions. That's untrue, but here are
the facts...
By ARIN WALLER | June 12, 2025
https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2025/06/largest-ever-survey-of-trans-people-reveals-the-real-reason-trans-people-
detransition/?utm_source=flipboard&utm_content=LGBTQNation/magazine/LGBTQ+Nation
This article addresses persistent claims from conservatives that many transgender people regret
transitioning. It highlights findings from the largest survey of transgender people to date, which
show that the primary reasons for detransition are not regret or a change in gender identity, but
rather external pressures such as anti-trans discrimination, transphobia, and pressure from
family, friends, or community. The article emphasizes that detransition is rarely due to internal
doubts and is instead overwhelmingly driven by societal barriers.

Released by Advocates For Trans Equality (A4TE) on June 11, the survey questioned over 84,000
trans, nonbinary, and gender nonconforming people aged 18 and older in 2022. Of all
respondents, 9% had detransitioned at some point in their lives. The survey also revealed that a
trans person’s overall mental health and wellbeing depend upon rates of familial support,
which also has a profound influence on one’s lifetime experiences and suicidality.
“Social and structural explanations dominated the reasons why respondents reported going
back to living in their sex assigned at birth at some point,” the report reads. Its findings
demonstrate that Isolation from one’s support network can have devastating impacts on one’s
mental health.
The survey’s findings contradict conservative media narratives about transition regret, which
suggest that large volumes of trans people detransition because they later regret their
transition as a mistake. The survey found that only a small number of people detransition, and
the decision is largely due to external factors.
The report also touches on trans healthcare between 2015 and 2022. Respondents said that
trust between them and their doctors had improved, but the survey also found that racial
disparities, with trans people of color more likely to experience violence than white trans
people.
Additionally, mental health challenges still face the trans community in large numbers: 44% of
respondents met the criteria for serious psychological distress, compared to less than 4% of the
general U.S. population.
Many of these issues are likely exacerbated since 2025 when Trump took office for a second
presidential term. He has launched attacks against the trans community that have affected
healthcare access, increased anti-trans policies nationwide, and stirred up transphobic vitriol
and harassment.
When a person with a massive public platform spreads information that
encourages violence, attacks become more likely.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 167

Excerpt from
The Age of Unfairness
By ROBLIN MEEKS
https://humanparts.medium.com/the-age-of-unfairness-8493eb661b8a
This personal essay examines how notions of victimization and resentment have shaped political
narratives, especially around gender and trans rights. The author specifically examines anti-
trans rhetoric, noting how Republicans framed trans participation in sports as "unfair" to other
students. However, they argue this position "collapses almost immediately" when examined
closely, pointing out that trans people don't casually "declare" their gender but make difficult,
necessary decisions for their survival, often facing extreme danger. The author concludes
ominously that "we are entering a new age of unfairness" where "people will suffer" and many
"will do so not just unfairly but unjustly" - suggesting systematic harm is coming to marginalized
communities, including LGBTQ+ people.
The author writes: The anti-trans position fits better into the unfairness packaging that it
usually arrives in. If we allow males to just declare themselves female so that they can
dominate sports, the argument goes, that’s unfair to my little girl on the swim team. I can see
how this kind of message would resonate with lots of folks in a way that gay or interracial
marriage might not. Even the smallest town has youth sports, and often the smaller the town
the bigger the sports.
Whatever its power, the anti-trans unfairness position collapses almost immediately the
second you begin to think about it.
Trans people don’t just “declare” themselves male or female like flipping some
sort of switch from pink to blue; they have made a deep and difficult decision,
arrived at over a long period of time, necessary to make their lives better or, more
likely, endurable at all. Being trans is also extremely dangerous.
Why would anyone choose to endure what trans people face
just for a couple of mail-order medals?
Besides, sports have never been fair in this way. Go to any school football or basketball game or
swim meet, and someone will win, often by a lot. Or think about the middle and high school
teammates and competitors of Katie Ledecky, who at 15 won a gold medal in 800-meter
freestyle at the 2012 London Olympics. Is it fair that so many girls’ time in the pool happened to
overlap with Ledecky’s? Unlucky, maybe, but not unfair. Participating in sports at any age
provides a recurring, vivid lesson that there is always someone faster, stronger, more skilled,
more dedicated, genetically outlying. That’s just the way it goes.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 168

 COMMENT
The essay highlights significant harm to LGBTQ+ communities, particularly:
• Political targeting: Anti-trans messaging was prominently featured in the Republican
campaign and appears central to the presidency
• Vulnerability of safe spaces: Places like Smith College and Northampton - which
have historically been havens for marginalized communities - now face an uncertain
future under hostile federal leadership
• Escalating danger: The author notes being trans in America is "extremely
dangerous," and the political climate suggests this will worsen
• Broader marginalization: The "unfairness" framework extends beyond trans issues
to target women, people of color, and other marginalized groups
The author dances around the deeper truth. While the essay analyzes the "unfairness"
framing as a political strategy, the evidence it presents actually points to something
much darker.
The author notes several telling details:
• Republicans admitted the Springfield pet-eating story was "completely made up" but
claimed it was still "getting at something really important"
• Anti-trans rhetoric was prominently featured in the campaign's final days and early
presidency plans
• Being trans in America is "extremely dangerous"
• The remedy isn't "to help build a better and more fair country but to make someone
pay"
The sports argument falls apart under minimal scrutiny, as the author demonstrates. If
it were genuinely about competitive fairness, there would be nuanced discussions about
hormone therapy timelines, different sports categories, or case-by-case evaluations.
Instead, we see blanket bans and rhetoric that dehumanizes trans people entirely.
The "unfairness" frame is a veneer of respectability over what is
fundamentally about punishment and exclusion.
It allows people to express cruelty while maintaining they're the reasonable ones
protecting children or fairness. But the goal isn't creating fair systems - it's making
trans people disappear from public life entirely.
The author seems to recognize this, ending with the stark warning that people "will do
so not just unfairly but unjustly." That distinction - between unfair and unjust - captures
the essence of the problem: this isn't about fixing perceived inequities, it's about
inflicting deliberate harm on vulnerable people because they exist.
The cruelty, as many have observed, appears to be the point.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 169

Excerpt from
The ‘Natural Family’ Agenda Says LGBTQ+ Families Like Mine Don’t Belong
Our friends’ adopted son demonstrates how divisive this message is.
By Tom Bilcze
https://medium.com/prismnpen/the-natural-family-agenda-says-lgbtq-families-like-mine-don-t-belong-7b165585c524

This personal essay by an LGBTQ+ advocate addresses Ohio's proposed "Natural Family Month"
legislation, which would designate the period between Mother's Day and Father's Day to
celebrate families defined narrowly as marriages between "biological males and females"
raising biological or adopted children. The author, who has been married to his husband for 35
years (legally since 2009), argues that this seemingly benign proclamation is actually part of a
calculated strategy to delegitimize LGBTQ+ families, single parents, and non-traditional family
structures.
The author contends that while the bill appears to celebrate families, its use of "natural"
language creates a hierarchy that renders diverse family forms invisible or "unnatural." He
shares personal anecdotes, including a story about two gay fathers who adopted a foster child
and raised him successfully, to illustrate that family bonds are defined by love, care, and
commitment rather than biology or gender composition.
The essay positions Ohio's bill within a broader national movement to erode LGBTQ+ rights
through incremental legislative steps that use family-friendly rhetoric to mask exclusionary
intentions.

What defines a natural family? Who decides?

The author writes: For me, the nature of a family is built on love, care, and support, not limited
by biology or gender. Natural families nurture, show compassion for, and mutually support
each other.
The Ohio legislature seeks to impose a definition modeled by the Natural Family Foundation. It
narrowly defines a natural family as a marriage between a biological male and a biological
female in a marriage raising biological or adopted children.
This exclusionary definition makes single parents, extended families, and LGBTQ+ families
invisible, implying that only certain family structures are legitimate.
It’s another chapter in the divisive playbook of the conservative Ohio legislature directly
targeting the LGBTQ+ community. Previous actions included bills restricting gender-affirming
care, bathroom access, and excluding or limiting LGBTQ+ resources in schools and libraries.
Now, their efforts extend to the very definition of family.
To rally support, they promote themselves as the defenders of family values. They frame
LGBTQ+ people as the villains. It’s a false and damaging narrative that sounds reasonable to
someone with no connections to the LGBTQ+ community or unaware of the consequences of
the issue on people’s lives.
This is how rights are eroded quietly, slowly, and go unnoticed. It begins with a targeted
coordinated effort that grows in an echo chamber, reinforcing their views. The movement gains
traction outside of that chamber, fueled by apathy and misinformation. Eventually, it harms not
just the targeted groups but even many who initially supported it.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 170

 COMMENTARY ON ANTI-LGBTQ+ LEGISLATION
The persistence of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation despite its documented harmful effects
reflects several intersecting factors:
Political Strategy: As the author notes, these measures often use positive framing
("protecting families," "parental rights") that appeals to voters unfamiliar with the
actual impacts. This rhetorical strategy allows discriminatory policies to gain broader
support by masking their exclusionary nature.
Cultural Backlash: Legal advances for LGBTQ+ rights, particularly marriage equality,
have triggered organized resistance from groups seeking to restore what they view as
traditional social hierarchies. This represents a classic pattern of progress followed by
backlash.
Incremental Approach: Rather than direct attacks, many of these efforts use seemingly
modest steps—like non-binding resolutions or parental notification requirements—that
establish precedents for more restrictive measures. This "death by a thousand cuts"
strategy makes each individual action appear reasonable while building toward
significant erosion of rights.
Moral Panic Dynamics: Politicians and advocacy groups have successfully framed
LGBTQ+ visibility, particularly around transgender rights and youth, as threats to
children and families. This taps into powerful protective instincts while deflecting
attention from the actual harm caused by discrimination and rejection.
The inherent cruelty lies in the contradiction: while claiming to protect children and
families, these measures actively harm LGBTQ+ youth and families, contributing to
higher rates of mental health issues, family rejection, and social isolation. The irony is
that laws purporting to strengthen families often weaken them by creating division and
forcing some family members to choose between their identity and their relationships.
This legislative trend represents not just policy disagreement but a fundamental
question about which families deserve recognition, protection, and dignity in American
society.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 171

Excerpt from
The Three-Gender Problem
Piling a problem higher and deeper doesn't work
By DOUGLAS GILES, PhD
https://dgilesphilosopher.medium.com/the-three-gender-problem-ee3c87b84431

This article argues that gender is a social construct distinct from biological sex, which is
determined by chromosomes, bodily organs, and hormones. It explores how gender is a learned
performance shaped by cultural expectations, citing Judith Butler and Johnathan Flowers.
People are expected to conform to their assigned gender roles, and deviations come with
societal consequences.
It critiques the concept of adding a "third gender," arguing that it simply creates another
restrictive category rather than addressing the fundamental issue. Instead, the text advocates
for rejecting gender as a concept altogether, promoting an understanding of individuals outside
of predefined social identities. It suggests that true freedom comes from dismantling gender
expectations, rather than expanding them.

First, a Foundational Issue

Few things in life are simple, but this one is. Sex is not gender. Gender is not sex. If the
conversation doesn’t start from the reality of that difference, we can never get to a place where
we respect individuals for who they are.
Sex is the product of chromosomes, bodily organs, and hormones. These traits are biological
realities, but they vary by individual person.
Gender is a socially dependent designation. Genders vary by time and place because they are
defined differently in different societies at different times. A “man” in 2020s America is
different than a “man” in 1920s America, much less a“man” in any time in any other society.
What’s more, within a particular society’s amorphous designations of genders, there are wide
variations among individuals. There aren’t only two immutable, concrete genders.
What Gender Is
A gender is a set of attitudes and actions that is defined for us. You don't get to decide what
attributes make a "man" or "woman." The definitions were set before you got here. How you
are and how you act will be in the context of those social definitions.
Judith Butler observed that gender is a performance. Social gender norms and roles socialize
people into particular ways of behaving and even thinking. Children are taught what it is
to act like a boy or like a girl, and are told to act according to their gender. People young and
old perform a gender according to a set of norms defined by the society in which they are
raised.
Johnathan Flowers, drawing on Japanese and American cultures, shows how gender is an
affective perception—a cultural awareness that individuals perceive and learn. Individuals need
to be aware of and learn about gender expectations because gender is a culturally mediated
transaction that individuals have with the social world. In other words, individuals are being
gendered by their culture—taught to feel a sense of gender in alignment with their culture’s
forms and habits.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 172

Society sets out a large number of expectations for social behaviors, and gender performance is
one of them. To be in and part of the society, aware people organize their bodies and actions in
alignment with the organization of society. People are expected to perform according to their
designated gender and are recognized as acceptable only if they perform according to
expectations.
Feeling a Gender
People can say “I am a man” or “I am a woman” but only within their awareness of society’s
definitions of gender into which they have been socialized. If one “feels like a woman” or a
man, regardless of their chromosomes, bodily organs, and hormones, one is aware of having
feelings that are in alignment with culture’s forms, habits, and definitions of “woman” or
“man.” An individual with such feelings may wish to perform (in Butler’s terminology) or
transact (in Flowers’s terminology) as a “woman” or “man,” regardless of their bodily organs.
What one feels is real — subjective, but tangible. An individual is a person
embedded in a social world. How one relates to and transacts with the social
world is a culturally mediated transaction — a combination of subjective
perspective and objective social realities.
There are three different ‘beingnesses’ here. An individual can:
1. have the chromosomes, bodily organs, and hormones of a biological sex,
2. feel a certain gender, and
3. perform or transact as a certain gender.
Plus, an individual can have any combination of those three different ‘beingnesses’. Each
individual has that individual’s unique combination of these three different ‘beingnesses’.
The Gender Trap
If gender is a performance, as Judith Butler says, then for whom are we performing?
In general, we are performing for everyone — for society at large. Closer to home, we perform
for those with whom we come into contact. We learn, in our transactions with other people
within our society, to perform within gender expectations, whether or not the performances
reflect our inner feelings.
For all intended audiences of our gender performances, we are donning a costume and acting a
role. They are costumes and roles even if our feelings are in alignment with the gender
performance. That’s because, in a real sense, all of our public actions are performances to
greater or lesser degrees. We act in ways that we’ve learned will help us navigate our world and
have desired affects on other people.
Society defines gender through a set of implicit and explicit social norms. Those norms
delineate the performances and transactions expected of “men” and “women.” Thus, we act
within the boundaries of social norms, and we must organize our bodies and actions in
alignment with society’s norms. Therefore, gender is an identity only in that it is culturally
defined and attributed to someone. It is a trap in which each of us is placed, and society
extracts a cost from us if we perform contrary to expectations.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 173

Third Gender?
Understandably, some people chafe at being pigeonholed into the two gender definitions of
“man” and “woman.” Why, if one is biologically male or female does one have to act as social
norms dictate that a gendered man or woman should act? Remember, gender is not sex, and
chromosomes, bodily organs, and hormones are not gender. Society forgets that truth and
assumes that biological sex leads to social gender. Society sees a newborn’s genitalia and
assigns to that person not only a sex but also a gender; and from birth, society hangs on that
person all of the performance expectations of that gender. We are all socialized into
conforming to those expectations.
One way that some people have hoped to escape the trap of gender expectations is to claim
that they have a third gender — neither “man” nor “woman” — and thus can’t be held to the
expectations of either gender. The problem is that idea of a third gender — by whatever name
assigned to it, and there are a number — doesn’t change the central dynamic of social roles to
which individual people are expected to conform.
Adding a third gender is adding a third pigeonhole in which to trap people. It doesn’t matter
what you call your third gender; it is still a gender. It is still a socially dependent designation; it
is still gendering people. People would still be expected to perform according to their
designated gender and they are recognized as acceptable only if they perform according to
expectations.
Having added a third gender, some people could then legitimately say they don’t fit into any of
those three sets of attitudes and actions that are defined for them, so, they’d have to claim a
fourth gender. Then we’d have four pigeonholes, four sets of attitudes and actions that are
defined for people who are expected to perform according to their designated gender and
recognized as acceptable only if they perform according to expectations. The comparisons and
creations of new genders could be endless.
Awareness of No Gender
There may only be two types of gametes — male and female — but that’s sex. Sex is not
gender. Having a limit of two genders is not the problem. Having genders is the problem.
Genders are definitions that inherently depersonalize people. Gendering people means judging
individuals on the basis of their conformity to costumes worn and roles performed. Lost is the
individual person, what that individual feels, how that individual wants to adorn and act, and
who they are.
I advocate seeing individuals, seeing individual people, not seeing how they conform to
abstract, arbitrary gender definitions. We can’t solve the problem of two genders by creating a
third gender, or fourth or fifth. We might as well say they are as many genders as their are
individuals. That would make some sense, actually.
What would make more sense is to forgo the concept of gender altogether.
It is, after all, nothing more than an abstract concept. Awareness of that reality would free us
all. No-gender is not a third gender, it is a refusal to play the game — a refusal to be gendered
in any way. “Non-binary” doesn’t quite work because its the concept of gender not the number
of genders that’s the problem.
“Non-conforming” is the best description of rejecting all pigeonholes.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 174

Excerpt from
How Respectability Politics Rewire the LGBTQ Brain
Authenticity is the road to both liberation and healing
By DAYNA A. ELLIS
https://medium.com/prismnpen/how-respectability-politics-rewire-the-lgbtq-brain-77c8f2fc2d83

Brain image licensed from Adobe Stock.

This essay explores how "respectability politics" - the pressure on LGBTQ+ people to appear "palatable"
to mainstream society - literally rewires the brain in harmful ways.
Co-authored by Dayna and psychologist Waheed Ahmed, the piece argues that chronic discrimination
and the need to suppress one's authentic self creates measurable neurological changes. The brain's
threat-detection system (amygdala) becomes hyperactive, while areas responsible for decision-making
and self-advocacy weaken. This creates what the authors call a "fawn response" - a survival strategy of
appeasing those in power rather than resisting.
The essay explains how intermittent acceptance (like corporate Pride displays) creates an addictive cycle
similar to gambling, where the brain chases sporadic validation rather than demanding genuine equality.
The authors emphasize that marginalized groups within the LGBTQ+ community - particularly trans
women of color and other multiply-marginalized individuals - serve as "canaries in the coal mine" for
systemic dysfunction.
The solution, they argue, isn't assimilation but authentic resistance. Public visibility, civil disobedience,
and unapologetic self-expression function as "exposure therapy" that can literally rewire both individual
brains and cultural attitudes. The authors conclude that liberation is both a political and neurological
healing process - one that requires moving from "begging for acceptance" to "demanding recognition"
and embodying freedom rather than waiting for permission to exist.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 175

EVERY YEAR, as Pride Month begins, a familiar voice resurfaces within our community — a
voice that urges us to embrace respectability politics. It tells us to make ourselves palatable to
the cis-heteronormative majority. To tone it down. To keep it “respectful.” Not to scare the
cishets.
At first glance, this advice seems protective — perhaps even wise. But in truth, it often becomes
an invisible, insidious trap — one that doesn’t just shape our behavior, but literally reshapes
our brains to accommodate oppression.
In this essay, co-authored with psychologist Waheed Ahmed, we explore how respectability
politics affect not only our communities, but our neural architecture. What begins as a survival
strategy can hardwire stress, fear, and self-erasure into our brains. Understanding this process
helps us begin to undo it.
The Trauma Brain
Modern neuroscience shows that prolonged exposure to discrimination doesn’t just hurt
emotionally — it reshapes the brain in measurable ways. In people who experience chronic
marginalization, the amygdala — the brain’s built-in alarm system — often becomes
hyperactive.
This structure is wired to detect threats, but under persistent stress, it begins to fire too often,
too intensely. It stays on high alert not just for physical danger, but for social cues: a
disapproving glance, a hostile comment, or a subtle withdrawal of acceptance.
This heightened vigilance doesn’t occur in isolation. Over time, it alters the prefrontal cortex —
the region responsible for decision-making, emotional regulation, and identity.
The result is a brain primed to anticipate rejection — often at the cost of authenticity.
Discrimination doesn’t just change how we feel — it reshapes how we think and
who we become.
Dr. Ilan Meyer’s pioneering research on minority stress reveals that LGBTQ+ people experience
chronic activation of the body’s stress systems. Over time, this leads to what neuroscientists
call allostatic load — the cumulative wear and tear on the body and brain caused by sustained
stress.
Brain imaging shows how this affects neural function. In those under chronic minority stress,
areas involved in self-advocacy and decision-making tend to show reduced activity, while
regions tied to threat detection and social conformity become overactive.
These changes don’t just affect individuals. When shared across a community, they produce
what researchers call cultural trauma — a collective injury that alters how people relate to
themselves, to each other, and to the world. Its effects can echo for generations.
Maintaining a “respectable” facade while hiding one’s authentic self takes a serious toll.
The internal conflict — known as cognitive dissonance — activates the anterior cingulate cortex,
a region associated with both physical pain and emotional distress. The brain experiences the
disconnect — between who we are and who we’re forced to be — as a kind of injury.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 176

Closeted LGBTQ+ people show elevated cortisol levels, disrupted sleep, and weakened immune
function — all signs of chronic stress. And over time, that stress rewires the brain. Circuits tied
to fear and shame are reinforced, while those supporting joy, connection, and confidence
weaken. What begins as protection can become a lifelong neurological burden.
The Fawn Response
Respectability politics is, in many ways, a social-level expression of the fawn response — one of
the four ways humans react to perceived threat, alongside fight, flight, and freeze. Fawning
prioritizes appeasement. Rather than resist or flee, the individual — or community — seeks
safety by pleasing those in power.
Psychologist Pete Walker, in his work on complex PTSD (C-PTSD), describes the fawn
response as an adaptation developed by those who learn that survival depends on placating
their oppressors. It might seem to be a weakness, but it is a strategy.
But when an entire group adopts this pattern, it becomes respectability politics: a
system of self-regulation meant to minimize backlash. It creates a cruel double
bind: conform and erase yourself, or resist and risk rejection, violence, or exile.
Over time, this rewires the brain’s threat detection systems. Even in environments that are
objectively safe, authenticity can feel dangerous. The brain, conditioned by years of
suppression, can’t always distinguish between real danger and the memory of it.
Neuroimaging in C-PTSD shows hyperactivity in the amygdala and weakened connections
between the prefrontal cortex and limbic system. This makes it hard to assess threat accurately,
leading to chronic hypervigilance and self-censorship. The result is increased risk for anxiety,
depression, and suicidality — patterns echoed in longitudinal studies on minority stress among
LGBTQ+ populations.
The Dopamine Trap of Conditional Acceptance
Small gestures of acceptance — like rainbow-washed corporate logos or a rare kind word from
someone otherwise hostile — can feel disproportionately affirming. These moments trigger
dopamine, the brain’s chemical reward for social success. But there’s a catch. This inconsistent
validation reinforces the very behaviors that uphold inequality.
When rewards are delivered unpredictably, psychologists call this intermittent reinforcement.
This pattern is more powerful in shaping behavior than consistent affirmation, and it’s the same
mechanism behind addiction.
MRI studies show that people who receive intermittent social validation exhibit increased
activity in the nucleus accumbens — the brain’s reward center — compared to those receiving
steady, unconditional acceptance. The brain learns to chase sporadic approval. This state
nudges us toward belonging through compliance rather than liberation. So we chase approval
instead of demanding justice.
It also explains why Pride Month at work can feel good — even when those same companies
support policies that harm LGBTQ+ people. The brain prioritizes the dopamine reward over
critical analysis. In the moment, the validation feels real — even when it’s not.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 177

Intersectionality and Systemic Sensitivity
One of the most important lessons from both neuroscience and liberation theory is this: a
movement’s health can be measured by how it treats its most vulnerable members. Trans
women of color, neurodivergent people, undocumented migrants, and LGBTQ+ people from
disadvantaged communities are often diagnostic canaries — early warnings of systemic
dysfunction.
Their distress is not accidental. It reveals how deeply the system is failing, much like how
certain personality disorders surface more visibly under stress.
The Trevor Project reports that while suicide rates among LGBTQ+ youth have declined overall
since 2010, the risk for trans youth in U.S. states that banned gender-affirming care rose by 18%
in 2023. That spike is diagnostic. It shows where the system harms those who need it most.
Too often, movements elevate cis, white, affluent queers as “acceptable faces” of progress. This
creates ingroup/outgroup bias and fractures solidarity. It echoes family dynamics where one
child is cast as the “good kid” while another absorbs blame.
To dismantle oppression, we must center those most marginalized — the ones
whose pain most clearly shows what’s broken.
Rewiring Ourselves and the Society
Neuroscience shows why liberation movements must prioritize authenticity over
assimilation. Self-expression, truth-telling, and visibility aren’t just ethical — they’re
neurologically necessary.
If suppression rewires the brain to reinforce trauma, then resistance can function as collective
reprogramming. Effective strategies must address the neurological effects of marginalization
while reshaping both individual and communal trauma responses.
Public acts of visibility — like drag story hours or Pride marches — serve as exposure
therapy on a cultural scale. They confront phobic avoidance with unapologetic presence.
Disruptions, civil disobedience, and mass walkouts recalibrate what society tolerates. They
redraw the lines of acceptable resistance and raise the costs of oppression.
Sharing lived experience is a form of narrative exposure therapy — used in trauma treatment
to help people reframe pain and integrate truth. For marginalized people, telling the truth is a
radical act of healing.
Unapologetic resistance means refusing to shrink for others’ comfort. It means uplifting each
other, supporting grassroots efforts, and showing up — for ourselves and each other.
To be seen. To be real. To be human.
Neurochemistry of Authentic Action
When we shift from begging for acceptance to demanding recognition, we don’t just change
the social landscape — we begin to rewire our brains. Authentic self-expression releases
oxytocin and endorphins — chemicals tied to connection and emotional safety — while
lowering cortisol, the stress hormone. These shifts promote lasting neurological health.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 178

In contrast, suppressing identity in order to fit in activates stress pathways similar to those in
chronic pain. It increases inflammation and disrupts neurotransmitters, contributing to fatigue,
depression, and anxiety. Fortunately, the brain is adaptable. Thanks to neuroplasticity, patterns
like learned helplessness can be unlearned. Trauma-informed therapy calls these turning points
corrective experiences — moments that defy internalized beliefs of powerlessness.
Respectability politics fuels self-suppression and interferes with neurological
healing. Empowerment, by contrast, begins with reclaiming one’s voice and right
to exist without apology.
From Neural Chains to Liberation
Neuroscience makes one thing clear: freedom isn’t just a political goal — it’s a
healing process. Liberation requires us to rewire the ways our brains have been
shaped by fear, suppression, and self-erasure.
We must let go of the illusion that fitting in brings safety. That kind of safety is conditional and
costly. Just as power-driven personality disorders don’t respond to empathy but to
consequence, systems of oppression don’t yield to moral appeals alone. When justice is denied,
we must raise the cost of injustice.

A life spent waiting for permission is not a life — it’s a plea.

And neuroscience reminds us: we can’t wait to be set free. We must act — starting with
breaking the patterns that keep us small, compliant, and afraid. Liberation begins in the brain
— but doesn’t end there.
When we disrupt, resist, and reclaim joy, we don’t just change the world — we
change ourselves. And in doing so, we lay the foundation for a future where
freedom isn’t begged for.
It’s embodied.
Sincerely,
Dayna and Waheed
List of sources used in this essay is available here.

RESPONSES (13)
James Finn
Thank you both very much for working so hard on this important story. This is absolutely fascinating. I
could have highlighted everything, but I tried to stick to a few crucial elements.
I love your inclusion, because by resisting, we really can change ourselves and the world for the better.
Jonny Masters
This article is fascinating. Realising that how we respond to oppression shapes and reshapes our brain is
liberating. Kira's questions are helpful- standing up for justice while remaining safe is difficult. Is it even
possible?

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 179

Excerpt from
Let’s Write Tales of Resistance: Queer People Need These Stories Right Now!
Breaking Oppression’s Chains: How Self-Acceptance Powers
2SLGBTQIA+ Resistance
Internalized shame is a tool of oppression
By Dayna A. Ellis
https://medium.com/prismnpen/breaking-oppressions-chains-how-self-acceptance-powers-lgbtq-resistance-
d5622e97a539

Photo courtesy of Pixbay via pexels.com

For anyone who doesn’t fit into cisgender, heteronormative boundaries — whether
because of their sexuality, gender identity, or simply their nonconformity — the
feeling of being “less than” is all too familiar. At some point, nearly all of us have
wrestled with the thought that we are inherently wrong, that we don’t belong.
This internalized shame is not only painful — it’s a tool of oppression, one that keeps us from
living freely and fighting back. But by challenging these deeply ingrained beliefs, we can reclaim
our power and resist a system that seeks to erase us.
What happens when the stories we’ve been told — by society, by media, by politicians, by
religious leaders, by those around us — become the stories we tell ourselves? And how can we
unlearn them to finally see ourselves as whole?
To understand how these stories take hold, we must first examine how the world around us
shapes the beliefs we carry within.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 180

The Narrative of Normalcy
The human mind is an amazing construction — a true wonder of nature — but it’s not without
its flaws. Sometimes, the very mechanisms that help us learn, develop, and grow can also work
against us.
This is especially true of the intricate process known as internalization. Psychology uses this
term to describe how the external world seeps into us, influencing the way we think, feel, and
act. It’s a process so subtle and subconscious that we often don’t even realize it’s happening.
We absorb concepts, beliefs, and attitudes from our families, communities, media, and culture.
Over time, these external influences shape who we are. Repetition plays a key role: when we
hear something often enough, it becomes harder to question. Slowly, we may begin to accept
even harmful or false narratives as truth.
2SLGBTQIA+ people, in all their amazing diversity, represent a minority, with less than 10% of
the world population identifying as such. In contrast, cisgender and heterosexual identities are
seen as the default. The world we live in is tailored to this majority.
From the media we consume to the laws that govern us, from traditions to cultural practices,
nearly everything is designed with the cishet person in mind. Many religions go so far as to label
any deviation from the cishet standard as sinful or condemnable.
All too often, these “default” sentiments are framed as the only truth — the righteous path.
Any deviation is painted as unnatural, dangerous, or worthy of punishment. This framing is
frequently justified in the name of protecting “family values” or safeguarding children, as
though the mere existence of 2SLGBTQIA+ people poses a threat to either.
Those who stand out, who are seen as different, are expected to conform, stay silent, and keep
their heads down to avoid challenging the status quo. After all, this status quo is comfortable
and predictable for the majority, who rarely question its fairness or impact on others.
The Chains That Bind
Conformity, to some extent, is necessary for society to function. Traditions can provide a sense
of belonging and identity, while laws (and the consequences for breaking them) enhance safety
— both of which are basic human needs. However, these structures should serve everyone, not
just the majority. A society that truly values fairness would recognize and address its
shortcomings, inequalities, and injustices. In an ideal — or even a reasonable — society, these
issues would not be ignored but actively corrected.
But I digress.
For many 2SLGBTQIA+ people, the awareness of their “otherness” begins in childhood.
Sometimes it’s a quiet realization, sparked by observing others and noticing subtle differences.
Other times, it’s made painfully clear through explicit messages from parents, religious leaders,
or the wider society.
That’s when the first seeds of doubt are planted. Children learn from their surroundings —
their parents, teachers, and peers. When they are told they are wrong — not because of
something they did, but because of who they are — it leaves a lasting mark.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 181

The child begins to question and doubt themselves. If they are repeatedly reminded of their
“wrongness,” they start to internalize it. Over time, they may strive to conform to whatever is
expected of them, doing whatever it takes to avoid rejection. The lack of positive, relatable role
models or representation of 2SLGBTQIA+ identities deepens their isolation, making them feel
not just lonely but inherently “wrong.”
But repressing yourself and keeping up an act is anything but easy. Slowly at first, but steadily,
it begins to take its toll. The child grows ashamed of who they are, guilty for being the way they
are — for being what others deem “wrong.” Fear becomes a constant companion, silencing
them and keeping them from ever speaking their truth, lest they face rejection or worse.
This self-policing — the endless monitoring of every move, word, and thought — invites
anxiety into their life. At first, it’s a fleeting visitor, but soon it settles in, becoming an
unwelcome but constant presence. Anxiety grows into an insidious voice, whispering that
they’re wrong, inadequate, invalid.
It’s a vicious cycle. The shame, guilt, and fear feed the anxiety, which in turn
perpetuates the very feelings they’re trying to suppress. Over time, it becomes
harder and harder to see a way out. Then comes depression and self-loathing,
compounding the already pervasive negativity. And this doesn’t necessarily start
in childhood — it can happen at any point in life, whenever a person begins to
realize who they are deep inside.
Often, this overwhelming negativity gives rise to anger — anger at oneself for being different,
for not being “normal,” whatever that may mean in the context of their world. This anger
becomes a weapon turned inward, intensifying self-loathing. But sometimes, it also turns
outward, directed at others who share the same struggles — especially those who dare to live
authentically and openly.
In these cases, the person suffering from oppression may align themselves with the oppressor.
Whether to fit in, to be seen as “one of the good ones,” or simply as a way to cope with the
unrelenting self-loathing and sense of wrongness, they begin to uphold and even perpetuate
the very systems that harm them.
The Hardest Battle
Sometimes the internal battles are the hardest to fight, yet they are often the
most important ones. Breaking free from negativity and the stereotypes imposed
by those who seek to erase anyone different — those they don’t understand,
those they fear — is an act of resistance like no other. It is defiance in the face of
adversity. It is a display of strength, resilience, and an unbreakable spirit.
The journey to breaking free begins with recognizing the weight of those imposed beliefs.
Internalized bigotry thrives in silence — it grows in the shadowy corners of our minds, where
societal messages about what is “normal” or “acceptable” take root. These messages tell us
that we must shrink, conform, or disappear to survive.
But survival is not enough. We deserve to thrive — to live authentically,
unapologetically, and finding joy in self-expression.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 182

To resist is to reclaim. Reclaiming your narrative, your identity, and your sense of self is no
small feat. It requires looking inward with compassion and honesty, confronting the voices
that echo the world’s prejudices, and silencing them with your own truth.
It’s about saying: I refuse to hate myself for who I am because others cannot see
my worth. I am not wrong. I am valid.
Casting off the chains that bind you is neither easy nor straightforward. There will be moments
of doubt — days when the weight of societal expectations feels crushing. Yet every step toward
self-acceptance chips away at those chains. Each moment of self-love, no matter how small, is
an act of rebellion against a world that tries to convince you that you are not worthy of it.
The paths to achieving this freedom are many, and even a short description would require
another essay. But I will say this: it’s not a journey you need to walk alone. Reach out to those
who accept you, those who understand, and those who have walked this path themselves.
Among them, you will find support and advice to help you on your way.
Educate yourself by reading about the experiences of others, and if you feel ready, write about
your own — whether in a private journal or on a platform where you can share it with others. If
it’s an option available to you, a professional therapist can help you process the layers of
thoughts and feelings and guide you toward the freedom and self-love you deserve.
Breaking the Chains of Oppression
The negative messages we internalize — the constant barrage of criticism and judgment
aimed at us — are nothing but tools of oppression, wielded by those who seek to erase us.
But we do not have to succumb to these narratives. We do not have to give in. It is within our
power to reject these lies, to resist erasure, and to fight for a better, more just future.
Those who stand against us want to divide us because they know they cannot make us
disappear when we stand together. They try to pit us against each other, twisting our beautiful
diversity into a weapon against ourselves — the oldest trick in the book. But I urge every one of
you to see beyond our differences, to recognize the shared humanity that binds us. No matter
how they try to portray us, at our core, we are human beings simply trying to live our best,
most authentic lives — a pursuit that is as natural as it is universal.
By loving ourselves, we break the chains of oppression. We reclaim the power stolen from us,
and in doing so, we open the door to a liberated future — for ourselves, for our communities,
and for the world.
When we stand together, when we choose love over shame, solidarity over
division, and authenticity over fear, we are unstoppable.
Our existence is an act of resistance, and our love — both for ourselves and for each other — is
the foundation of the change we so desperately need.
So I leave you with this: refuse to hate yourself. Reject the lies that others would have you
believe about your worth. Embrace your truth, your strength, and your beauty.
Together, as individuals and as a community, we will thrive. In thriving, we will not only change
our lives — we will change the world into one that celebrates all of us for who we truly are.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 183

This story is a response to the Prism & Pen writing prompt, Let’s Write Tales of Resistance:
Queer People Need These Stories Right Now!
To resist is to reclaim. Reclaiming your narrative, your identity, and your sense of self is no small
feat. It requires looking inward with compassion and honesty, confronting the voice...
It is tough, but it's an exercise that we must take in order to fully love ourselves and our bodies.
Thanks for sharing this post. It's a beautifully written article on self-love.

See also The Unfair Burden of 2SLGBTQIA+ Individuals to Justify Their Identities
No One Owes Any Explanations
By DAYNA A. ELLIS
https://medium.com/prismnpen/the-unfair-burden-of-lgbtq-individuals-to-justify-their-identities-
3966226d173a

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 184

Excerpt from
Should Christians Support Pride Month?
Are Christians hypocrites about Pride Month? Here’s the truth
By Pritam Laskar
https://medium.com/illumination/should-christians-support-pride-month-79509ffe95df

Do you believe in treating people equally? If you are a Christian, it should certainly be yes.
Talking about justice is not tiptoeing around the subject in the Bible. For example, Leviticus
19:15 does not show favoritism. In Matthew 7:12, Jesus drove the point home deeper:
“Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them.”
However, as Christians, if we advocate for fairness — we should expect it in our workplaces, on
social media, or at the ballot box — why would we not allow 2SLGBTQIA+ people that same fair
treatment?
Think about it. Every day, Christians are discriminated against — shunned from classrooms,
ridiculed in films, and slaughtered for their faith in some regions. So why would we then turn
around and abuse someone else when their life was not aligned with ours?
Let us get to the big one — Is being gay or transgender a sin? The answer is probably yes for
Christians with a traditional Bible view. Same-sex relations are contrary to God’s design, as
stated in Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1:26–27. Genesis 1:27 tells us that mankind — male and
female, were part of creation.
Here is the bitter bit — defining sin does not license judgment, ridicule, or hatred. None of us
would get through, they say — if sin disqualified people from grace.
Genesis 5:2 makes it unmistakably clear that there are two genders, male and female. This is
supported by biology — XX and XY chromosomes are not something that can be surgically
changed. However, what should be the Christian response to someone who identifies as
transgender?
By misgendering them? Mocking them? And do we just expunge ourselves from their lives?
The gospel sounds like none of these. If a trans person is in your life, love them. Not in a
patronizing way. Not with strings attached. Love them because they are a person made in the
image of God.
We all know mental health is one of the issues that marginalized groups find hard to discuss —
it’s the proverbial ‘weird unmarked van.’ This is where it also becomes very human. The rates of
depression, anxiety, and suicide are notably higher among those identifying as 2SLGBTQIA+.
Some Christians attribute this to their lifestyle. Some attribute it to social ostracism.
But what if it’s both? What if neither response actually serves? We, Jesus lovers, are called to
be a safe place for the broken. Are we doing that — or are we piling on? Food for thought.
The reality is that Christianity is walking a tightrope. It is about keeping grace in one hand and
truth in the other, about the fact that all men, 2SLGBTQIA+ or not, are loved by God.
Christians need to keep asking the mysteries of the self. Do we reflect Jesus in the way we
interact with people? Or are we more concerned with correctness over righteousness?

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 185

In the article "Should Christians support Pride month?", Pritam Laskar notes: We all know
mental health is one of the issues that marginalized groups find hard to discuss — it’s the
proverbial ‘weird unmarked van.’ This is where it also becomes very human. The rates of
depression, anxiety, and suicide are notably higher among those identifying as 2SLGBTQIA+.
Some Christians attribute this to their lifestyle. Some attribute it to social ostracism.
Let’s be clear. The first order of business is for Christians to recognize that their beliefs may
actually be working to cause harm to others. For those who want to pawn it off to a lifestyle
choice simply don't understand the true nature of LGBTQ community members for whom the
matter is not a lifestyle choice, but a way of being. Christians have a choice to honor and
respect their humanity or not. I'm pretty sure Jesus would choose the former.
Recognizing the harm that certain beliefs and actions can cause is a critical step
towards fostering a more inclusive and understanding society.
Here are some key points:
1. Impact of Beliefs: It's important for Christians, and people of all belief systems, to critically
reflect on how their beliefs and actions might affect others, especially marginalized groups.
Understanding that one's own worldview might inadvertently contribute to another's
suffering is essential for growth and empathy.
2. Misconceptions About Lifestyle: The notion that being 2SLGBTQIA+ is a lifestyle choice is a
common misconception. For many, their identity is intrinsic and not a matter of choice.
Recognizing and respecting this truth is fundamental to honoring their humanity.
3. Choice to Support and Respect: At the core, individuals and communities have the choice
to either support and respect the humanity of 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals or perpetuate harm
through exclusion and discrimination. It's a moral and ethical decision that reflects one's
true values.
4. What Would Jesus Do: Drawing from the teachings of Jesus, who emphasized love,
compassion, and inclusion, it's reasonable to believe that he would advocate for honoring
and respecting all individuals, regardless of their identity.
This is all about empathy and understanding and the recognition that this kind of reflection and
change can lead to a more compassionate and equitable society. And isn’t this the ultimate
noble goal?

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 186

Excerpt from
Transformation | Personal and Cultural Growth
It’s Simple — We Evolve or We Die
Humanity is now facing its ultimate existential challenge
By RICHARD LOWENTHAL
https://medium.com/illumination/its-simple-we-evolve-or-we-die-c4c12450b47d

Our near-term prospects are grim.

Since the vast majority of human beings, so far, are not embracing conscious growth and
evolution — while many are now moving in reverse and embracing greed, hate, racism, cruelty,
and destruction — our near-term prospects are looking increasingly grim.
The perhaps insoluble problem is that most humans are not stepping up to the challenge. Most
of us are burying our heads in the sand or finding endless ways to distract ourselves or divert
our attention. Most of us are NOT choosing to learn, grow, heal, and consciously evolve.
When faced with the choice to ‘evolve or die,’ you can still choose life, growth, and conscious
evolution. No matter what our societies or those around us are doing, each of us has the innate
power to choose openness, love, and conscious growth.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 187

LESSONS FROM DARING GREATLY
Excerpts from Daring Greatly, by Brené Brown
https://site.ieee.org/sb-nhce/files/2021/06/Brene-brown-book1.pdf
Chapter 3, Understanding and Combatting Shame
“We live in a world where most people still subscribe to the belief that shame is a good tool for
keeping people in line. Not only is this wrong, but it’s dangerous. Shame is highly correlated
with addiction, violence, aggression, depression, eating disorders, and bullying. Researchers
don’t find shame correlated with positive outcomes at all—there are no data to support that
shame is a helpful compass for good behavior. In fact, shame is much more likely to be the
cause of destructive and hurtful behaviors than it is to be the solution.”

COMMENT
Brené Brown's insights on shame are incredibly relevant to understanding the challenges faced
by the LGBTQ community. Shame can have devastating effects on individuals and communities,
and its use as a tool for control or compliance is harmful rather than helpful.
When it comes to the treatment of the LGBTQ community, shame has often been employed as
a means of enforcing heteronormativity and traditional gender roles. This manifests in several
harmful ways:
1. Discrimination and Bullying: LGBTQ individuals are frequently targeted with shame-
based rhetoric, leading to higher rates of bullying and discrimination. This can cause
significant emotional and psychological harm.
2. Mental Health Issues: As Brown points out, shame is closely linked to mental health
problems like depression, anxiety, and eating disorders. LGBTQ people, who may be
subjected to shaming because of their identity, often experience these issues at higher
rates than their heterosexual and cisgender peers.
3. Internalized Homophobia and Transphobia: When societal norms and messages tell
LGBTQ individuals that their identities are shameful or wrong, some may internalize
these feelings. This can lead to self-hatred, low self-esteem, and a myriad of other
psychological issues.
4. Barriers to Support: Shame can prevent LGBTQ people from seeking the support they
need, whether that's from friends, family, mental health professionals, or community
resources. This isolation exacerbates the problems they face.
5. Violence and Aggression: As Brown mentions, shame is correlated with violence and
aggression. LGBTQ individuals are often victims of hate crimes and violence, driven by
societal shame and stigma.
Promoting acceptance, understanding, and empathy is essential to combat these issues.
By rejecting shame as a tool and embracing love and support, society can help create a safer,
healthier environment for everyone, including LGBTQ individuals.
It's clear that the path forward involves dismantling systems that use shame to control or
marginalize and instead fostering an inclusive society where everyone can thrive.

What do you think are some effective ways we can work towards this goal?

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 188

LESSONS FROM DARING GREATLY
Excerpts from Daring Greatly, by Brené Brown
https://site.ieee.org/sb-nhce/files/2021/06/Brene-brown-book1.pdf
Chapter 3, Understanding and Combatting Shame
“When looking at the attributes associated with masculinity in the US, researchers identified the
following: winning, emotional control, risk-taking, violence, dominance, playboy, self-reliance,
primacy of work, power over women, disdain for homosexuality, and pursuit of status.
I think it’s important to add that for men, there’s also a cultural message that promotes
homophobic cruelty. If you want to be masculine in our culture, it’s not enough to be straight—
you must also show an outward disgust toward the gay community. The idea of “do this or
dislike these people if you want to be accepted into our group” emerged as a major shame setup
in the research.
It doesn’t matter if the group is a church or a gang or a sewing circle or masculinity itself, asking
members to dislike, disown, or distance themselves from another group of people as a condition
of “belonging” is always about control and power.
I think we have to question the intentions of any group that insists on disdain toward other
people as a membership requirement. It may be disguised as belonging, but real belonging
doesn’t necessitate disdain.”

COMMENT
Brené Brown's observations on masculinity and shame provide a crucial lens through which to
understand the treatment of the LGBTQ community. The cultural attributes associated with
masculinity, such as emotional control, dominance, and disdain for homosexuality, create a
framework where shame is used to enforce conformity and exclude those who don't fit
traditional norms. This societal pressure not only harms those who are targeted but also
perpetuates a cycle of shame and violence.

Relation to LGBTQ Treatment

• Homophobia and Exclusion: The cultural message that masculinity requires outward
disdain for homosexuality can lead to widespread homophobia, making LGBTQ
individuals feel unsafe and unwelcome. This is seen in discriminatory laws, hate crimes,
and pervasive societal stigmas.
• Mental Health Impact: The shame inflicted by these cultural expectations contributes to
higher rates of mental health issues within the LGBTQ community, as individuals
struggle with their identity in an environment that demands their exclusion.
• Internalized Homophobia: LGBTQ individuals may internalize society's disdain, leading
to self-hatred and further psychological distress. This internal conflict is a direct result of
the shame-based mechanisms described by Brown.

Implications for Non-Affirming Churches

Non-affirming churches often find themselves at a crossroads when confronted with these
insights. Here are some ways this understanding can help them rethink their approach to
building community:

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 189

 1. Redefining Belonging: True belonging should not require the exclusion or disdain of
others. Churches can foster a sense of community that is inclusive, welcoming all
individuals regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
2. Promoting Acceptance: Embracing a message of acceptance rather than exclusion can
create a healthier community where members feel valued and supported. This can lead
to stronger, more resilient congregations.
3. Fostering Open Dialogue: Encouraging open, honest discussions about sexuality and
gender can reduce stigma and promote understanding. This can help dismantle the
shame associated with being LGBTQ within the church.
4. Mental Health Support: Acknowledging the mental health challenges faced by LGBTQ
individuals and offering support can make the church a sanctuary rather than a source
of pain.
5. Leading by Example: Churches have the power to lead by example, showing other
communities that acceptance and love are core values. By rejecting shame-based
exclusion, they can inspire broader societal change.

Moving Forward
Building a community that is truly inclusive requires a fundamental shift in how belonging is
defined. By questioning the intentions of groups that insist on exclusion and disdain, and by
promoting love and acceptance, churches and other communities can create environments
where everyone can thrive.

FOR DISCUSSION
What are your thoughts on how we can create more inclusive
communities in other aspects of society?

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 190

LESSONS FROM DARING GREATLY
Excerpts from Daring Greatly, by Brené Brown
https://site.ieee.org/sb-nhce/files/2021/06/Brene-brown-book1.pdf
Chapter 4, The Vulnerability Armory
“As children we found ways to protect ourselves from vulnerability, from being
hurt, diminished, and disappointed. We put on armor; we used our thoughts,
emotions, and behaviors as weapons; and we learned how to make ourselves
scarce, even to disappear. Now as adults we realize that to live with courage,
purpose, and connection—to be the person whom we long to be —we must again
be vulnerable. We must take off the armor, put down the weapons, show up, and
let ourselves be seen.”

“If we want to fully experience love and belonging, we must believe that we are
worthy of love and belonging. But before we talk more about numbing and
disconnection, I want to share two more definitions with you. I shared my
definition of love on page 105, here are the definitions of connection and
belonging that emerged from the data.
Connection: Connection is the energy that is created between people when they feel
seen, heard, and valued; when they can give and receive without judgment.
Belonging: Belonging is the innate human desire to be part of something larger than us.
Because this yearning is so primal, we often try to acquire it by fitting in and by seeking
approval, which are not only hollow substitutes for belonging, but often barriers to it.
Because true belonging only happens when we present our authentic, imperfect selves to
the world, our sense of belonging can never be greater than our level of self-acceptance.
These definitions are crucial to understanding how we become disconnected in our lives
and how to change.”

COMMENT
Brené Brown's message on vulnerability speaks volumes, especially within the
2SLGBTQIA+ community, where the need for protection is often even greater due to
societal prejudices and discrimination. Brown's encouragement to embrace vulnerability
can still offer profound benefits, but it must be approached with awareness and care.
For members of the 2SLGBTQIA+ community, vulnerability does not have to mean
exposing oneself to unnecessary risks. Instead, it can mean finding safe spaces and
supportive communities where they feel empowered to express their true selves. Here
are some ways Brown's message might apply:
1. Building Resilience: Embracing vulnerability can lead to greater resilience. By
allowing themselves to be seen, even in small, safe ways, 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals
can build confidence and strength over time.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 191

 2. Finding Allies: Vulnerability does not mean baring your soul to the world at all times.
It involves discerning and sharing with trusted friends and allies who respect and
support you. This network can provide a sense of belonging and emotional safety.
3. Advocating for Change: By sharing personal stories and experiences, members of
the 2SLGBTQIA+ community can help foster understanding and empathy, advocating
for broader societal acceptance and change. This process requires courage but can
lead to significant progress.
4. Authenticity: Living authentically, even if selectively, can enhance one’s sense of
self-worth and belonging. When 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals believe they are worthy of
love and connection, it empowers them to seek and nurture genuine relationships.
5. Cultural Competency: 2SLGBTQIA+ members can benefit from developing cultural
competence within their communities. This can help them navigate different social
settings while maintaining their authenticity and protecting their well-being.
Embracing vulnerability in the 2SLGBTQIA+ context means balancing openness with self-
protection, ensuring that the journey toward authenticity and connection is both
courageous and safe.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 192

LESSONS FROM DARING GREATLY
Excerpts from Daring Greatly, by Brené Brown
Who are the main purveyors of homophobic cruelty and how might
we work to combat it?
In Brené Brown`s book "Daring Greatly", she notes that “for men, there’s a cultural message
that promotes homophobic cruelty.”
Brené Brown's observations point to a pervasive cultural message that promotes homophobic
cruelty, particularly among men. This message is propagated by various societal forces.
Main Purveyors of Homophobic Messages:
1. Media and Pop Culture: Television, movies, music, and social media often reinforce
stereotypes and negative attitudes towards LGBTQ individuals. Characters and
narratives that portray homosexuality negatively or use homophobic slurs contribute to
a culture of disdain and exclusion.
2. Peer Groups: In many social circles, particularly among young men, there is pressure to
conform to hyper-masculine norms. Displays of homophobia can be used as a way to fit
in or assert dominance within these groups.
3. Religious Institutions: Certain religious organizations and leaders promote doctrines
that condemn homosexuality, framing it as immoral or sinful. This can reinforce negative
attitudes and behaviors towards LGBTQ individuals.
4. Family and Upbringing: Parents and guardians who hold and express homophobic views
can pass these beliefs on to their children, perpetuating cycles of intolerance and
discrimination.
5. Political Figures and Policies: Politicians and policies that oppose LGBTQ rights and
equality can legitimize and amplify homophobic sentiments. When leaders speak out
against LGBTQ communities, it can embolden individuals who share these views.

Combating Homophobic Messages:

1. Education and Awareness: Promoting education about LGBTQ issues and fostering
awareness can help dismantle stereotypes and misconceptions. Schools, workplaces,
and community groups can provide training and resources to promote understanding
and acceptance.
2. Positive Representation: Encouraging positive and diverse representations of LGBTQ
individuals in media and pop culture can help change perceptions. When people see
LGBTQ individuals depicted positively and authentically, it can challenge and change
harmful stereotypes.
3. Supportive Communities: Creating and supporting spaces where LGBTQ individuals are
welcome and safe is crucial. This can include LGBTQ support groups, affirming churches,
and inclusive workplaces and schools.
4. Legislation and Advocacy: Supporting policies and laws that protect LGBTQ rights and
promote equality can help combat institutionalized homophobia. Advocacy and activism
are key to pushing for these changes.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 193

 5. Challenging Homophobia: Individuals can play a role by challenging homophobic
remarks or behaviors when they encounter them. Speaking out against prejudice and
supporting LGBTQ individuals in everyday interactions can make a significant impact.
6. Role Models and Allies: Encouraging prominent figures—whether they be celebrities,
athletes, or community leaders—to speak out in support of LGBTQ rights can have a
powerful influence on public attitudes.
By addressing these societal forces and promoting a culture of acceptance and
respect, we can work towards a world where everyone, regardless of their sexual
orientation or gender identity, can thrive.

FOR DISCUSSION
What do you think are some effective strategies to implement these
changes in your community?

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 194

LESSONS FROM DARING GREATLY
Excerpts from Daring Greatly, by Brené Brown
THE IMPORTANCE OF CONNECTION AND BELONGING
Brené Brown notes in her book “Daring Greatly”,
“If we want to fully experience love and belonging, we must believe
that we are worthy of love and belonging.”
Connection: Connection is the energy that is created between people when they feel
seen, heard, and valued; when they can give and receive without judgment.
Belonging: Belonging is the innate human desire to be part of something larger than us.
Because this yearning is so primal, we often try to acquire it by fitting in and by seeking
approval, which are not only hollow substitutes for belonging, but often barriers to it.
Because true belonging only happens when we present our authentic, imperfect selves to
the world, our sense of belonging can never be greater than our level of self-acceptance.

Connection and belonging are crucial to building community.

How might institutional allies help promote this and how might we address
those that don't?
Institutional allies play a pivotal role in fostering connection and belonging within communities.
Here's how they can help promote these values and address those who may not be supportive:
Promoting Connection and Belonging
1. Inclusive Policies and Practices: Institutions can implement and enforce policies that
promote diversity, equity, and inclusion. This includes anti-discrimination policies,
support for 2SLGBTQIA+ rights, and creating accessible spaces for all individuals.
2. Education and Awareness: Providing training and resources on cultural competency,
unconscious bias, and the importance of inclusion can help employees and community
members understand and embrace diversity.
3. Support Systems: Establishing support groups, counseling services, and mentorship
programs can create safe spaces where individuals feel seen, heard, and valued.
4. Community Engagement: Encouraging participation in community events and fostering
dialogue can help build stronger connections. Institutions can host forums, workshops,
and social events that celebrate diversity and promote understanding.
5. Visibility and Representation: Highlighting diverse voices and ensuring representation
in leadership positions can empower marginalized communities and provide role models
for others to follow.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 195

Addressing Non-supportive Institutions
1. Advocacy and Pressure: Advocates and allies can apply pressure on institutions to adopt
inclusive policies through petitions, social media campaigns, and public awareness
efforts.
2. Building Coalitions: Forming coalitions with other supportive organizations can amplify
voices and create a unified front advocating for change.
3. Dialogue and Education: Engaging in constructive dialogue with non-supportive
institutions can help raise awareness about the importance of inclusion and the benefits
it brings to everyone.
4. Legal and Policy Measures: Pushing for legislative changes that mandate inclusion and
protect the rights of marginalized communities can compel institutions to comply with
these standards.
5. Alternative Options: When institutions remain unyielding, creating and supporting
alternative spaces and organizations that embrace diversity and inclusion can provide
safe havens for those in need.

Institutional allies have the power to drive significant change by

promoting environments where every individual feels a sense of
connection and belonging. By addressing non-supportive entities,
they can help create a more inclusive and compassionate society.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 196

ON HUMAN NATURE
Nathan J. Robinson's article "The Right-Wing Story About Human Nature Is False" critiques the
idea that humans are inherently selfish, violent, and power-hungry. Instead, it argues—drawing
from Rutger Bregman’s book Humankind—that people are naturally cooperative and altruistic.
If we apply this perspective to LGBTQ+ acceptance, it suggests that hostility toward LGBTQ+
individuals is not an inevitable part of human nature but rather a product of social
conditioning. If humans are fundamentally inclined toward kindness and cooperation, then
acceptance of LGBTQ+ people could be seen as a natural extension of our intrinsic social
instincts rather than something that must be imposed through strict laws or cultural
enforcement. This challenges the idea that discrimination is "natural" and instead frames it as
something learned rather than inherent.
Philosophical traditions have played a significant role in shaping perspectives on human nature
and LGBTQ+ inclusion. Here are some key philosophical frameworks that have influenced
attitudes toward LGBTQ+ rights:
1. Humanism and LGBTQ+ Inclusion
Humanism, which emphasizes reason, ethics, and human dignity, has been a strong
advocate for LGBTQ+ rights. Humanists argue that morality is based on human well-being
rather than religious doctrine, leading to a strong stance in favor of equality and non-
discrimination.21 Humanist organizations have actively supported marriage equality and
protections for LGBTQ+ individuals in employment and social policies.
2. Utilitarianism and LGBTQ+ Rights
Utilitarianism, a philosophy that seeks the greatest good for the greatest number, has been
used to argue for LGBTQ+ inclusion. If allowing LGBTQ+ individuals to live freely and without
discrimination increases overall happiness and reduces harm, then policies supporting
LGBTQ+ rights align with utilitarian principles.22 This framework has been influential in legal
arguments for same-sex marriage and anti-discrimination laws.
3. Deontological Ethics and LGBTQ+ Rights
Deontological ethics, particularly Kantian philosophy, emphasizes moral duties and the
inherent dignity of individuals. From this perspective, LGBTQ+ individuals have intrinsic
rights that must be respected, regardless of societal norms or consequences.22 This approach
has been used to argue that discrimination against LGBTQ+ people is inherently unjust.
4. Intersectionality and LGBTQ+ Advocacy
Intersectionality, a concept from feminist and critical race theory, highlights how different
forms of oppression—such as racism, sexism, and homophobia—intersect. This framework
has helped LGBTQ+ activists recognize that experiences of discrimination vary based on
race, gender identity, and socioeconomic status.22 It has led to more inclusive advocacy
efforts that address multiple layers of marginalization.
5. Natural Law and LGBTQ+ Rights
Natural law theory, historically used to justify traditional gender roles and heterosexual
relationships, has been challenged by modern interpretations that emphasize human
dignity and autonomy.23 Some philosophers argue that human nature includes diverse
expressions of gender and sexuality, making LGBTQ+ identities a natural part of human
existence rather than deviations.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 197

6. Virtue Ethics
Virtue ethics, rooted in Aristotle’s philosophy, emphasizes character and the cultivation of
virtues such as empathy, courage, and justice. In the context of LGBTQ+ rights, virtue ethics
encourages individuals and societies to foster inclusive and compassionate communities.
The focus is on developing moral character traits that support acceptance and respect for
diversity, rather than merely following rules or maximizing utility.
7. Relational–Cultural Theory (RCT)
RCT is a modern framework grounded in feminist philosophy and social justice values. It
highlights the importance of relationships, connection, and mutual empowerment,
especially for marginalized groups. RCT is particularly relevant for LGBTQ+ advocacy as it
addresses the barriers of disconnection and social exclusion that LGBTQ+ individuals often
face, promoting relational growth and equity.4 This approach is used in counseling and
community work to support the well-being of LGBTQ+ people, especially those with
intersecting marginalized identities.
8. Ethics of Care
The ethics of care, developed by philosophers such as Carol Gilligan and Nel Noddings,
centers on the moral significance of caring relationships and empathy. This framework
challenges abstract, impersonal moral reasoning by emphasizing the importance of context,
relationships, and the needs of vulnerable individuals. Applied to LGBTQ+ inclusion, the
ethics of care advocates for policies and practices that prioritize the well-being and dignity
of LGBTQ+ individuals through attentive, responsive, and supportive relationships.
9. Democratic Theory and Personal Autonomy
Philosophical traditions emphasizing personal autonomy and participatory democracy argue
that all individuals, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, have the right to
pursue their own life plans as long as they do not harm others. This perspective, rooted in
liberal democratic theory, supports LGBTQ+ equality by asserting that there are no moral
grounds for considering LGBTQ+ identities inferior and that respect for autonomy is a
foundational democratic virtue.5 It also calls for democracies to develop philosophically
informed rationales for equality and inclusion.
10. Psychological Ethics and Human Rights
Recent developments in psychological ethics, especially in Europe, have established
frameworks that explicitly include sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender
expression (SOGIE) concerns. These ethical codes emphasize the responsibility of
professionals and institutions to support the human rights and dignity of all individuals,
including LGBTQ+ people.2 This approach is informed by international human rights
conventions and advocates for inclusive research, practice, and advocacy.
These frameworks demonstrate that LGBTQ+ acceptance is deeply rooted in diverse
philosophical traditions. They collectively reinforce the view that inclusion and respect for
LGBTQ+ individuals are not only social or political imperatives, but also profound ethical
commitments grounded in our most fundamental philosophical understandings of human
dignity, autonomy, and flourishing,1,2,4,5

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 198

Citations:
1. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID3573820_code2527570.pdf?abstractid=3573820&mirid=1
2. https://psychologyinrussia.com/volumes/index.php?article=8422
3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7497468/
4. https://tpcjournal.nbcc.org/tag/theoretical-framework/
5. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/10021563/1/131145.pdf
6. https://philosophersmag.com/applied-philosophy-out-of-the-closet/
7. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_theory
9. https://researchmethodscommunity.sagepub.com/blog/lgbt-research-ethics-and-experiences-in-the-field
10. https://philosophycompass.wordpress.com/2016/06/06/lgbtq-rights/
11. https://www.forbes.com/sites/teddymcdarrah/2021/06/22/5-lgbtq-philosophers-every-leader-should-know/
12. https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/i1ue00/philosophy_regarding_being_lgbt/
13. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7513438/
14. https://www.apaonline.org/page/lgbtq_apastudies
15. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Global-Acceptance-Index-LGBT-Oct-2019.pdf
16. https://oxfordre.com/politics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-
e-1291
17. https://www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/issues_development-enjeux_developpement/human_rights-
droits_homme/rights_lgbti-droits_lgbti.aspx?lang=eng
18. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19419899.2024.2372047
19. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3573820
20. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBTQ_movements
21. www.hrc.org
22. philosophynest.com
23. papers.ssrn.com

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 199

ADDRESSING MORALITY
The defining quality of the human race is that we, unlike all other animals, have a
sufficient degree of intelligence to be self-aware, to consider the repercussions of
our action, and to have the option to abide by moral principles.
Which begs the question, who is defining morality?
If we cannot improve on the actions of animals that are unconscious, then our species has
overrun this planet to no real end — we’re just the most successful of the swarming pests.
Arguments that justify moral views on the basis of what’s already occurring
somewhere in the world are calls for us to be either perpetually trapped in a cycle
of wrongness or, worse yet, an invitation to devolve into a spiral of ever more
immoral actions.
That is exactly the whole point of morality. It is a set of guiding principles, which inform human
behavior, and lead us as a whole towards greener pastures.
When done right, it improves upon the world — making it a kinder, happier,
safer, and more loving place. When done wrong, it has the exact opposite
effect.

REFERENCE:
The Moral Argument That Is Ruining the World
What we ought to do should never be based on what is
By MARTIN VIDAL
https://medium.com/original-philosophy/the-moral-argument-that-is-ruining-the-world-6d0775aaad14

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 200

HOW TO DO BETTER
Actionable steps you can take right now to support 2SLGBTQIA+ people and
build an inclusive future.

Love comes in all shapes and sizes and your support should too!
That's why EGALE CANADA has put together actionable steps you can take right now to
support 2SLGBTQIA+ people and build an inclusive future.
1. Check your knowledge with our Egale Explains series of resources to keep up to
date on current mis/disinformation.
2. Know how to respond and hold space for a young person coming out to you.
3. Participate in a free upcoming Draw The Line Against Transphobic
Violence webinar.
4. Empower yourself with the knowledge you need to have a difficult
conversation about anti-2SLGBTQIA+ hate.
5. Improve upon service gaps that 2SLGBTQIA+ older adults face.
6. Learn how to provide better care to 2SLGBTQIA+ people as mental health service
providers.
7. Understand the discriminatory legislation threatening the rights, safety, and
freedom of 2SLGBTQIA+ people in Alberta.
8. Discover ways to increase your understanding of anti-racism, Indigenization and
faith in Canada from a 2SLGBTQIA+ context through our Building Bridges
resources.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 201

Taking Real Action
As has been noted in various sections of this document, stopping hate and harm
against 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals requires a comprehensive, multi-level approach.
The most effective strategies combine legal protections, education, community support,
visibility, and individual action. Below are some key methods, supported by current research
and expert recommendations:
Legal and Policy Measures
• Strengthen laws against hate speech and hate groups
• Enact and enforce anti-discrimination and hate crime laws that explicitly protect
2SLGBTQIA+ people. This includes prosecuting acts of violence, strengthening
prevention and reporting mechanisms, and ensuring remedies for victims.5,8
• Challenge and repeal laws that criminalize same-sex relationships or restrict gender
expression, as these laws perpetuate stigma and violence.5,8
• Ensure equal access to education, healthcare, housing, and employment by prohibiting
discrimination in all these areas.5
Education and Awareness
• Implement anti-bullying and inclusive education programs in schools to address bias at
an early age, as young adults are often the most frequent perpetrators of hate crimes.2
• Promote public education campaigns to debunk myths, foster empathy, and challenge
stereotypes about 2SLGBTQIA+ people.5,7
• Encourage self-reflection and awareness of implicit biases through training and open
dialogue in workplaces, schools, and communities.3
Community and Social Support
• Create and maintain safe spaces—both physical and social—where 2SLGBTQIA+
individuals can express themselves without fear of judgment or harm. This includes peer
support networks, community centers, and inclusive environments in schools and
workplaces.4,6
• Support and fund grassroots organizations that provide direct services, advocacy, and
capacity-building for 2SLGBTQIA+ communities7. Fund community programs that fight
discrimination.
• Foster social connections and support groups to reduce isolation and improve mental
well-being.1,6
Visibility and Representation
• Increase positive 2SLGBTQIA+ representation in media, arts, and public life. Visibility
helps normalize LGBTQ identities and reduces stigma.3,6
• Raise up 2SLGBTQIA+ voices by supporting their leadership in advocacy, policy-making,
and community initiatives.4

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 202

Advocacy and Allyship
• Work to address the injustice of exclusion, dehumanization, and policing of who belongs
through open dialogue, education, and a collective effort to dismantle harmful biases
and structures. Advocacy can take many forms, from amplifying 2SLGBTQIA+ voices and
creating spaces where people can share their experiences, to pushing for inclusive
policies that protect rights and dignity. Stories of resilience and humanity are powerful
tools in fostering empathy and awareness.
• Speak up against hate, discrimination, and harmful language in everyday situations—
whether online, at work, or among friends and family.3,4
• Get involved with or support 2SLGBTQIA+ organizations through volunteering,
donations, or attending events.3
• Encourage allies to move beyond labels and take concrete actions that demonstrate
support for 2SLGBTQIA+ rights and inclusion.3
Mental Health and Well-being
• Protect 2SLGBTQIA+ rights and access to gender-affirming health care
• Address mental health stigma within 2SLGBTQIA+ spaces by promoting open
conversations, education, and access to culturally competent mental health services.6
• Encourage self-care, creative expression, and resilience-building among 2SLGBTQIA+
individuals coping with discrimination.1
Government and Institutional Responsibility
• Governments should lead by example, protecting 2SLGBTQIA+ people from violence
and discrimination, supporting victims, and ensuring that policies are inclusive and
responsive to community needs.5,7,8
• Institutions should collect and analyze data on hate crimes and discrimination to inform
targeted interventions and measure progress.2,7

Summary Table: Key Strategies

Strategy Description
Legal Protections Anti-discrimination laws, hate crime prosecution, decriminalization
Education & Awareness Anti-bullying programs, public campaigns, bias training
Community Support Safe spaces, peer networks, grassroots funding
Positive media portrayal, leadership opportunities for LGBTQ
Visibility & Representation
individuals
Advocacy & Allyship Speaking out, supporting organizations, concrete ally actions
Mental Health Focus Open conversations, accessible services, self-care promotion
Government & Institutional Policy leadership, data collection, support for victims and community
Action initiatives

Combating 2SLGBTQIA+ hate and stigmatization requires sustained, collective

action across society. Legal reforms, education, visible support, and strong
community networks—combined with everyday acts of advocacy—are the most
effective means to stop the hate and, by extension, stop the harm.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 203

YOU CHANGE THE WORLD WHEN YOU CHANGE YOUR MIND.
Changing one’s mind about LGBTQ+ rights can have profound ripple effects, both
personally and societally.
Anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment is often rooted in misinformation, cultural biases, or fear of the
unknown. When individuals challenge these beliefs—whether through education, personal
experiences, or empathy—they contribute to a broader cultural shift that can dismantle
systemic discrimination.
Personal Transformation Leads to Social Change
When a person reconsiders their stance on LGBTQ+ issues, they often begin advocating for
inclusivity in their immediate circles—family, friends, workplaces, and communities. This shift
can:
• Reduce Harm: Acceptance leads to safer environments for LGBTQ+ individuals, lowering
rates of mental health struggles, homelessness, and violence.
• Influence Others: One changed mind can inspire others to reconsider their biases,
creating a domino effect of understanding and acceptance.
• Challenge Harmful Policies: As more people reject anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment, pressure
mounts on governments and institutions to enact protective laws and policies.
Economic and Cultural Impact
Anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination has measurable costs—lost productivity, healthcare burdens, and
economic exclusion. When societies embrace LGBTQ+ rights:
• Businesses Thrive: Inclusive workplaces attract diverse talent and foster innovation.
• Public Health Improves: Reduced stigma leads to better mental and physical health
outcomes.
• Culture Evolves: Media, education, and public discourse shift toward representation
and equality.
Historical Examples of Changing Minds Leading to Progress
• Marriage Equality: Public opinion on same-sex marriage shifted dramatically over
decades, leading to legal recognition in many countries.
• Trans Rights Advocacy: Increased awareness has led to policy changes in healthcare,
legal recognition, and workplace protections.
• Corporate Inclusion: Companies that once ignored LGBTQ+ issues now actively support
Pride and implement inclusive policies.
The Power of Individual Action
Every conversation, vote, and act of allyship contributes to dismantling prejudice.
Changing one’s mind isn’t just a personal evolution—it’s a step toward a more just and
equitable world.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 204

Citations:
1. https://www.bmindfulpsychology.co.uk/post/coping-with-lgbtq-discrimination-and-stigma-strategies-for-
mental-health-and-wellbeing
2. https://scholars.org/contribution/understanding-and-handling-hate-crimes-against
3. https://www.betterup.com/blog/lgbtq-acceptance
4. https://www.virgin.com/virgin-unite/latest/how-you-can-help-end-lgbt-discrimination
5. https://www.unicef.org/media/106481/file/_Ending_violence_and_discrimination_against_lesbian,_gay,_bise
xual,_transgender_and_intersex_people.pdf
6. https://www.eastcoastmentalwellness.com/2024/05/20/de-stigmatizing-mental-health-in-lgbtq-spaces-
strategies-for-overcoming-stigma-and-promoting-open-conversations/
7. https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/combatting-hate/action-plan.html
8. http://www.globalequality.org/storage/documents/pdf/hrf_lgbti_blueprint.pdf
9. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2021/05/3-ways-to-protect-lgbti-rights-across-the-world/
10. https://journal.canadianschoollibraries.ca/confronting-anti-2slgbtq-hate-in-schools/
11. https://glaad.org/smsi/anti-lgbtq-online-hate-speech-disinformation-guide/
12. https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/discrimination/lgbti-rights/
13. https://www.teachingchannel.com/k12-hub/blog/how-schools-can-support-lgbtq-students-while-reducing-
stigma/
14. https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/diversity/education/stress-and-trauma/lgbtq
15. https://www.splcenter.org/resources/extremist-files/anti-lgbtq/
16. https://www.psychiatry.org/news-room/apa-blogs/five-ways-to-support-lgbtq-mental-health
17. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-sex-and-relationships/202310/lgbtq-hate-crimes-how-
can-we-stop-these-attacks
18. https://www.coe.int/en/web/youth/-/recommendation-on-measures-to-combat-discrimination-on-grounds-
of-sexual-orientation-or-gender-identity
19. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK563176/
20. https://www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/issues_development-enjeux_developpement/human_rights-
droits_homme/rights_lgbti-droits_lgbti.aspx?lang=eng

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 205

A DECISION THAT ENSURED THAT ALL RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS
WERE AFFIRMING WOULD BE A GAME-CHANGER.
A look at the benefits and drawbacks that could change the course of LGBTQ+ acceptance
A universal mandate for religious institutions to be affirming of LGBTQ+ individuals would
undoubtedly be a significant shift with wide-reaching implications, profoundly reshaping
societal dynamics.
This shift would be transformative, not only for LGBTQ+ individuals but for
society as a whole. By fostering inclusivity and acceptance within religious
institutions, we would see a ripple effect that extends beyond faith communities,
influencing cultural, social, and even legal landscapes.
Here’s a closer look at the potential benefits that highlight the significance of such a mandate:
Benefits:
1. Greater Safety & Inclusion: LGBTQ+ individuals would no longer face exclusion,
discrimination, or rejection in their communities, fostering a sense of belonging and societal
support. Affirming religious spaces would serve as a sanctuary for those who struggle to
reconcile their faith with their identity, ensuring they no longer have to choose between
their spiritual community and their authentic selves.
2. Mental & Emotional Well-being: The alignment of faith and identity can be healing,
reducing the psychological distress often caused by religious-based stigma.
3. Reduction in Harm: Many LGBTQ+ individuals face rejection, discrimination, or attempts to
change their identity due to the messaging of non-affirming religious institutions. Embracing
an affirming stance could greatly reduce the psychological and emotional harm caused by
exclusionary practices, including harmful conversion therapy, and provide protection from
trauma.
4. Strengthening Community Bonds: When religious institutions embrace diversity, they
foster deeper connections between different groups, leading to greater understanding and
unity across society. Affirming religious spaces could bridge divides, encouraging dialogue
and acceptance across diverse backgrounds.
5. Ethical & Social Progress: Religious institutions have historically played a major role in
shaping ethical standards. If they were affirming, it could encourage broader social change
and reduce discrimination in various spheres. Ensuring that institutions uphold values of
equality and dignity reinforces broader human rights principles.
6. Interfaith Collaboration & Unity: When religious institutions embrace affirmation, it can
encourage interfaith dialogue and cooperation, fostering unity among different religious
traditions that share a commitment to love and acceptance. This could lead to stronger
alliances in advocating for human rights and social justice.
7. Empowerment of Marginalized Voices: Affirming spaces would amplify the voices of
LGBTQ+ individuals within religious communities, allowing them to participate fully in
leadership, ministry, and theological discussions without fear of exclusion.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 206

8. Encouraging Theological Growth & Reflection: A mandate for affirmation would prompt
religious institutions to engage in deeper theological reflection, encouraging
reinterpretation of texts in ways that align with modern understandings of love, dignity, and
justice. This could lead to a more compassionate and progressive approach to faith.
9. Economic & Social Stability: Many LGBTQ+ individuals face financial instability due to
discrimination in religious-affiliated workplaces, schools, medical facilities and charities. By
adopting an affirming stance, these institutions could help eliminate barriers to
employment, education, and essential services, fostering greater economic security and
social well-being for LGBTQ+ communities.
10. Positive Influence on Future Generations: Young people growing up in affirming religious
spaces would be less likely to internalize shame or fear regarding their identities. This would
foster a generation that embraces diversity and carries forward values of acceptance and
love.
11. Reduction in Religious Trauma: Many LGBTQ+ individuals experience religious trauma due
to rejection or harmful teachings. Affirming institutions would help heal past wounds,
allowing individuals to reconnect with their faith in a way that nurtures rather than harms.
12. Stronger Advocacy for Human Rights: Religious institutions hold significant influence in
shaping societal norms. Their affirmation of LGBTQ+ individuals would strengthen global
human rights movements, reinforcing the idea that dignity and equality are fundamental
values across all faith traditions.
Ultimately, a universal mandate for affirmation would not only benefit LGBTQ+ individuals but
would also enrich religious communities, making them more compassionate, inclusive, and
aligned with their core values of love and acceptance.
That said, here’s a closer look at what some might consider potential drawbacks of the change:
Drawbacks & Challenges:
While some may consider the following as drawbacks, it’s important to recognize that each of
these drawbacks is questionable in that it presents a challenge to fostering a truly thriving
community and upholding the stated religious goals of love, compassion, and acceptance.
1. Resistance & Backlash: Religious beliefs are deeply rooted, and some institutions might
strongly oppose enforced affirmation, leading to division and potential conflicts.
COMMENT: While deeply rooted beliefs deserve respect, outright opposition to affirmation
fosters division rather than unity. A thriving community is built on mutual understanding
and inclusion, but resistance to change can lead to exclusion and alienation of marginalized
groups. Love and compassion require openness to growth, yet backlash against affirmation
contradicts these principles by prioritizing tradition over human dignity.
2. Loss of Autonomy: Some argue that religious institutions should have the freedom to
interpret their doctrines without external mandates, meaning enforced affirmation could be
seen as undermining religious autonomy.
COMMENT: Religious autonomy is important, but it should not be used to justify exclusion or
discrimination. A thriving community prioritizes love, acceptance, and human dignity over
rigid interpretations of doctrine, ensuring all individuals feel safe, valued, and respected
within religious spaces.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 207

3. Risk of Superficial Compliance: If institutions are required to be affirming, some might only
do so nominally, leading to performative inclusion without genuine respect or meaningful
change.
COMMENT: Performative inclusion without genuine respect undermines the very essence of
affirmation. A thriving community requires sincerity and meaningful engagement, not
empty gestures. Love and compassion are not just words—they require action. If
institutions only comply nominally, they fail to create a truly welcoming environment,
leaving marginalized individuals feeling tokenized rather than embraced.
4. Pushback from Conservative Institutions: Resistance from certain communities could lead
to conflict and divisions, possibly slowing progress.
COMMENT: Resistance from conservative groups can slow progress, but progress is essential
for fostering a thriving community. Love and compassion require adaptability and a
willingness to embrace those who have historically been marginalized. If institutions refuse
to evolve, they risk alienating future generations and failing to uphold their own stated
values of acceptance.
5. Interpretational Differences: Different faith traditions interpret religious texts differently,
making uniform affirmation challenging to implement.
COMMENT: While different faith traditions interpret texts differently, the core tenets of
most religions emphasize love, kindness, and inclusion. A thriving community does not
allow interpretational differences to justify exclusion. Instead, it seeks common ground in
the shared values of compassion and respect. If institutions prioritize rigid interpretations
over human dignity, they fail to embody the true spirit of their teachings.
6. Global Variability: In places where religious identity is deeply tied to governance, enforcing
such a mandate could be complex.
COMMENT: In regions where religion is deeply tied to governance, enforcing affirmation
may be complex, but complexity should not be an excuse for inaction. A thriving community
works toward justice and inclusion, even in challenging circumstances. Love and compassion
should transcend political and cultural barriers, ensuring that all individuals are treated with
dignity regardless of location.
7. Potential Loss of Religious Identity: Some fear that external mandates on doctrine could
undermine traditional religious teachings.
COMMENT: Religious identity should evolve to reflect the principles of love and acceptance.
A thriving community does not cling to exclusionary traditions at the expense of human
dignity. Instead, it embraces growth and ensures that religious spaces remain places of
refuge, not rejection.
Each of these challenges, while understandable, ultimately fails to promote a thriving
community because they prioritize institutional preservation over human dignity.
Love, compassion, and acceptance are not passive ideals—they require active commitment to
inclusion. If religious institutions truly seek to embody these values, they must move beyond
resistance and embrace affirmation as a fundamental expression of their faith.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 208

STOP THE HATE
STOP THE HARM
This tagline is a powerful and urgent call to action. It emphasizes the importance of creating a
world where everyone is free to be themselves without fear, judgment, or harm. Advocating for
love, understanding, and inclusion is not just about protecting individuals—it’s about building
healthier, more compassionate - and ultimately, more successful - communities for everyone.

Hate reduction recognizes that sustainable change happens

through understanding, connection, and addressing the
conditions that allow hatred to flourish.

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 209

 When we reduce hate, we reduce harm.
When we reduce harm, we build stronger, more resilient
communities where everyone can thrive.

Together, we can make a difference.

Be part of The HUMAN DIGNITY Project.
https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world

Human rights | racism

The HUMAN DIGNITY Project is a new website that attempts to
deal with and understand a problem that just won’t go away.
It’s a veritable treasure trove of, dare I say, racially motivated (but
in a good way) stuff to stir the soul, feed the mind, encourage
thought, and initiate discussion.

FEEL FREE TO CONTACT US: humandignity.changetheworld@gmail.com

Prepared by The HUMAN DIGNITY Project | https://humandignity.wixsite.com/change-the-world 210