Main Edition
US
FR
June 7, 2024 - 10:00am
A new poll from Ipsos has found that support for same-sex marriage among Americans has fallen to just 51% approval.
The finding marks an eight-point drop since a peak for support in 2021, part of a steady decline following the rapid rise in approval around the time the US recognised same-sex marriage nationwide. When asked their opinion on same-sex couples in the new poll, 51% of Americans supported legal marriage, 14% supported some form of legal recognition besides marriage, and 18% supported no legal recognition.
The decline in support since 2021 is a major reversal from the years prior, when approval was consistently growing. In 2014, 46% of Ipsos respondents believed gay couples should be allowed to marry. That climbed to 59% by 2021, then dropped to 54% in 2023 and decreased a further three points this year. The post-2021 decline in support has been smaller than the pre-2021 rise, but it has occurred at a much faster rate.
During the 2010s, there was a rapid change in public policy and opinion on the issue. The US had a patchwork of laws alternately recognising and banning same-sex marriage at state level until 2015, when the Supreme Court ruled that states were required to recognise and license same-sex marriages. Approval rapidly rose afterwards.
But just a few years earlier, same-sex marriage was unpopular with American voters, including many Democrats. For example, in deep-blue California voters passed a ballot measure officially banning same-sex marriage in 2008 — the same year the state voted for Barack Obama by a 24-percentage-point margin. Obama himself had campaigned against same-sex marriage.
Following a years-long rise in support for gay marriage, a groundswell of anti-woke sentiment emerged around 2021, much of it directed at LGBT activism as parents gained a new window into their children’s curriculum when schooling went remote during the Covid-19 pandemic. Elected Republicans at state level enacted a wave of legislation restricting child gender transitions and school curricula on gender and sexuality.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe“On March 24, 2013, GLAAD announced that it had formally dropped the ‘Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation’ from their name and would now be known only as GLAAD to reflect their work more accurately; the name change was a commitment to incorporate bisexual and transgender people in their efforts to support the LGBTQ+ community in its entirety”
In other words, we know they are nothing to do with gays and lesbians. And since they now work in furtherance of a ‘community’ that’s entirely imaginary, they can tread their own path to perdition.
And appear to be doing so. All good!
Funny how it’s “support the community in its entirety” right up to the point that lesbians refuse to get involved with guys pretending to be women. It’s as if “lesbian” is some new term whose meaning is not yet known.
Congrats LGBTQWXYZLOL++ crazies! By invading and colonising the existing and successful movement for gay and lesbian equality and integration, a smokescreen for you to smuggle in deeply disturbing trans and ‘queer’ ideology, you’re turning the clock back to the 90s for gay men like me. Why, it’ll be only a matter of months ’til gay-bashing comes back into fashion and my partner and I will need to book a twin rather than a double room when we travel.
Well done! Trans & Queer euphoria and just in time for the annual fetish fest for chix with dix, fallopian dudes and spicy straights that ‘Pride’ has become. Call it Shame month because no gay man or lesbian I know has been near Pride in years – it doesn’t represent us. I don’t blame the heterosexual majority in being heartily sick of the whole rainbow sh!tshow – believe me many if not most gay and lesbian people are too.
Angry at how these lunatics have managed to conflate homosexuals with their freakshow in the minds of much of the public? You bet I am.
As a heterosexual man I totally agree with you. I’ve always been pro LBG rights and live and let live etc. But I, like many others, am getting sick of this, often perverted, ideology being shoved down our throats, so to speak.
It is predictably having a counterproductive effect on societies that had organically become more tolerant anyway.
Agree with you 100% and thanks for making that distinction. Organisations like LGB Alliance and Gay Men’s Network are fighting a rearguard action but I sense a backlash against TQ+ emerging that will, unfortunately, affect LGB people too.
Totally agree. Leave it at LGB and ignore the rest. Sure, men can get pregnant…sure sure….LGB is normal and the rest is just gen x crap
Gen X?? leave us out of it.
Can it agree with you more. You saved me making the same point.
It’s not just the extreme wing of the alphabet tribe, it is also the substantial number of affluent white liberals who champion events that present gays as caricatures.
Yes, I work with a number of them.
Yes. Doubly irritating because they can just deny their ‘allyship’, leaving us in the firing line.
Bingo! It’s just a parlour game to them. To us its existential.
What concerns me more are the parents who seem intent on sexualizing their children, beginning with toddlers. It’s difficult not to see ulterior motives there.
What is required is reasonableness.
Its also the indoctrination that has also happened across the board of so many young people, celebrities, into this ideology that is now also manifesting itself and co-opting into other so called minority movements. I, like many others, were once an ally to the LGB cause. Pride everything. It has morphed into a religion which seeks total domination of the public space. This, is what I no can no longer tolerate. Every arts scene is Pride filled – spaces that were once a conflagration of many creative junctures are now predominately Trans. Their ‘god’ and identity is their sexuality and only their sexuality. It is blatant and in your face. i think we are all past the point of saturation. This is where you will start to see the massive push-back. As always, and what seems like all of these ‘ideologues’, when you as a group can no longer ‘call out’ and abhor the actions of one of your own, so to speak, (certain individuals sexualising children and calling for their sexual freedom – think Andrea Chu), which is blantant and abhorrent, then there is only so much anyone can take. Once you start on children, then I’m afraid is it any wonder.
https://albertmohler.com/2004/06/03/after-the-ball-why-the-homosexual-movement-has-won/
In the 1979 BBC series Penmaric the adult Philip is accused of assaulting his young nephew. HIs brother comforts him saying that he fully understands that a gay man is not interested in children, as a he as a heterosexual man is only interested in grown up women. Historically, gay man had to deal with accusations of sex with male minors. Penmaric reflects an attitude that discards these accusations and sees gay men as ordinary adults and members of society. Last year New York parents could hear: We are here, we are queer, we are coming for you children’ As Douglas Murray so well explained this trans movement is an existential threat to ordinary gays and lesbians and eventually will wipe out any acceptance for them. Remember that clause 28 was introduced to counteract the claims by militant organsations that British family life needed to be destroyed. It was never applied in practice and the world took a different turn, but these echos from the past cannot be ignored.
Partly it’s the trannies. Partly it’s the queer activists. Between these, they are destroying the tolerance of normal people for perversion. Perversion between adults in private can be tolerated. Forced tolerance to the point of getting fired if you misgender someone is not private.
“Historically, gay man had to deal with accusations of sex with male minors.” If I may say so, the misapprehension is understandable.
The distinction between arsenokoitai, pederasty and the modern institution of homosexuality is far from clear to the layman. Indeed the question is not settled within the Gay Community as Mr Peter Tatchell has so emphatically reminded us.
The situation is not helped either by much ‘Queer History’ and its allied excercises in the humanities to ‘reclaim’ figures, artefacts and practices as somehow merely ‘legitimately different’ when they would in fact be rightly criminal today.
A recent letter to the TLS made this point about the re-presentation of Byron as a ‘Queer Icon’ when it is quite clear from his letters his same-sex dalliances were uniformly with little boys, that is to say with children.
The same is true of the famous expression – ‘the love that dare not speak it’s name‘. Wilde defined it in in his evidence at trial as being “great affection of an elder for a younger man […] such as Plato made the very basis of his philosophy”.
Now we know who try to know our Classics (as Wilde did) know that what he is really referring to here is Pederasty. The romance Wilde has in mind, that between Pausanius and Agathon is drawn from Plato’s Symposium and began as a Pederastic relationship between and older man and a child which continued to adulthood.
Add to this the recent attempt by the the British Museum to rehabilitate the Warren Cup as another Gay Icon – when it clearly shows the penetration of a pre-pubescant youth by a mature man.
So what ‘historical’ disctinction are we really talking about here? I cant see that modern respectable, conventional, adult male relationships, continued in a domestic setting, with an underlying sexual component, have any parrallel in history whatsoever. It is entirely new.
But I would, quite genuinely, be interestd to see if such an historic condition of life could be found, if you could point me to it.
We think pederasty is worse, and I agree, but historically it seems to have been more common than peer homosexuality.
Pederasty exists, but adult men are more likely to sexually abuse girls.
Uh so? The majority of men are heterosexual. And we don’t actually know about pederasty numbers because it hurts the narrative.
It’s not just that normal people have to tolerate gays. Now we have to sacrifice our children on the alter of Moloch. We normal people have to pretend that drag is an innocent activity for children, that pretending that the 6’3″ clerk is really a girl named Rose, and that fellas can be housed in women’s prisons. More importantly, we have to agree that parents should not know when school-based perverts are grooming their children. Yes, my tolerance is gone.
The issue you have here is referring to our fellow sane and rational gay citizens as not normal. They most certainly are normal and welcome and they do not necessarily have anything to do with Queer politics (which is really its own thing trying to gain control of our shared culture by hiding behind our friends and family who just happen to prefer intimate partners of their own biological sex)….
In my local park there is a rainbow painted on tarmac. If it were anything else it would be deemed graffitti. Getting up peoples’ noses doesn’t help. I would be in the 18% who favour some legal protections but not marriage, not because I am against homosexuals but because I fear the dilution of marriage will have negative effects on society. BTW, some heterosexual marriages also weaken marriage bonds.
Yes, and if, instead of “gay marriage” there were civil partnerships for gay/lesbian couples, with all the legal privileges as marriage provides, I think those on the “religious right” would have much less of an objection to this concept.
Such civil partnerships came into law in New Zealand from memory in around 2005. At the time, strong assurances were made that this would satisfy same sex couples along with male/female couples who were not interested in the ‘sanctity’ of holy matrimony as they would have the legal benefits as you mention. Only lasted a few years……
Civil partnerships with all the legal privileges as marriage are effectively marriages. A lot of this trans stuff is regressive nonsense, but I’m not sure any of us should be voting on other people’s marriages.
Disagree. People have forgotten how to think about society and civilization. Stable marriage and the proliferation of children is not simply private indulgence; it is the very bedrock of nations and ensures it’s continuity. It never should have been f’d with.
Yes which we argued for at the time.
The trans insanity is doing damage to gay rights everywhere. Can you imagine what it’s doing to LGB rights in the non Western World
Any social movement without a clearly defined finish line will eventually end up becoming what it set out to oppose ~ Zuby
I agree that marriage is between one man and one woman, but I find it hard to care about this issue. It’s other people’s lives and their decisions, what they call “marriage” themselves, etc..
We have far deeper problems than being unable to articulate what “marriage” is.
The legal entity is important. Principally for heterosexual couple, it’s meant to be a means to a more secure way of bring up children.
When there are no children, it represents a codification of property rights and next of kin issues. In my view, these are central to all couples who decide to commit to each other.
They deeper and religious issues need not be considered with the legal necessities.
In 2022, in America, 52% of Black men had never been married and 49% of Black women had never been married.
If it is so good to be in favour of same-sex marriage, is it racist to also be in favour of Black people getting married, with all the benefits of social stability that that brings to society?
Part of that is the glorification of black men who are fathers to children with multiple women. They talk about this openly, and brag about it. It’s really a polygamous ethos, without the obligation of actually supporting the multiple brats that they drop. Sure, the black athletes pay, and they set the example that is followed by non-athletes. The non-athletes don’t actually pay, nor do they take any responsibility.
So, the entire black family situation is completely pathological. That’s the real reason black kids are in gangs and shoot each other. There are good examples – LeBron James is married, is an active father, and doesn’t seem to have known kids by other women. But many athletes do fu(k around. Scum..
The decline in marriage in the US particularly for poor people, which had a great impact on the black family, was a stipulation in Federal welfare regulations that denied poor families welfare if there was a man present in the household, the thinking being that he would provide for his family, hence, fathers abandoned the mothers of their children to keep them getting welfare benefits.
There was a similar situation with benefits in the U.K., though less racist in its effects.
It’s a classic case of unintended consequences. It’s a mistake politicians make again and again, by failing to ask the question: and how is people’s behaviour likely to change in response to this policy? What are we incentivising them to do?
Not the whole story. I know a number of women, black, white and other, who don’t want to be hitched to a man. We’re too much work, too much trouble, too lazy.
Some of these women want to have children. So that’s what they do. Anyone who tells you that women lack a sense of agency is imagining things.
This is what happens when you refuse to take ‘yes’ for an answer and accept victory. It’s part and parcel of ALL activism, no matter the cause. The race hustlers and feminists alike pretend that this is 1924, not 2024. None of the above will ever stop. They can’t. If they do, there go there go their livelihoods and outsized political influence.
One of the most telling things is how a group called Gays Against Groomers is attacked constantly by the entirety of the left-wing apparatus, from media to activists to politicians. Gay folks have dealt with the stigma or accusation of child molestation forever, and the T movement targeting kids plays right into that. Yet, the left dutifully flogs the idea of surgery and drugs on children as “affirming” care. Who could have possibly predicted that this would go badly.
I recall reading Rod Dreher make “slippery slope” arguments prior to same-sex marriage being legalized in the US. I did not take them terribly seriously. I did think that “trans” was going to be the next big thing, but I naively imagined that most of the really bonkers stuff, like male rapists in women’s prisons, would get shut down, as well, obviously crazy.
I now think Rod’s “slippery slope” argument has been proven very much correct. I do wonder sometimes if I had known that “getting a win” on same sex marriage would result in a massive roll over women’s rights to their own spaces whether I would have supported it. I still think that taken exclusively on its own merits the arguments for same sex marriage in modern society are convincing. Unfortunately, the downstream consequences of giving a bunch of bad actors a level of social and political capital they should never have been granted appear fairly disastrous.
I don’t believe it has been a slippery slope. What it has been is an unpopular cause has piggybacked onto a much more popular and successful one, and it has been allowed to happen by a few special interest groups desperate to keep the donations rolling in
I don’t think they’re mutually exclusive. Rod’s point would have been that once you concede that legally redefining the term “marriage” from its traditional plain meaning is fine and good, then it is an easy slip to the next thing of “what is a woman?” The sort of professional activist incentives, to move to the next thing to keep the donations, are of course also a factor.
We’ll agree to disagree on that one. I fail to see how changing the legal definition of a marriage is in any way related to the trans debate. The only way they’ve become linked is because of groups such as Stonewall adding the T to the LGB in order to give themselves a new campaign to fight
What about men’s rights to their own spaces like golf clubs or whatever? Feminists demanded than these spaces become open to females and in many countries demanded that governments impose restrictions on said spaces that didn’t comply.
Feminists demand equal rights without equal obligations- like conscription for example.
600,000+ Ukrainian male soldiers have been killed over the past 2 and a half years. About 10 Ukrainian female soldiers died over the same period.
Equality my a*se!
Feminism is the ultimate ideology of hypocrisy.
I can see you point, by you must concede that women are not a dangerous threat to you the way men are in our (women’s) spaces.
You weren’t aware that men commit 97% of violent crimes? Women aren’t a threat to men on golf courses, in restrooms, prisons or lockerrooms. You seem to have a very limited comprehension of social realities promoted everyday by the millions of Harvey Weinstein’s, Bill Cosby’s, Dana River’s, Zion Teasleys and their ilk.
Like many I don’t like/approve of LGBness but I can tolerate it as actions between consenting adults. However the T and other letters (and the ‘aggressiveness’ of Pride) have now annoyed/worried me so much that my unease about gay marriage etc is now firming up to be against it while I was fairly neutral before. If they are going to attack me and mine then I am going to have to fight back.
Many gays and lesbians don’t even go to the pride events anymore. The gender ideology movement has taken over, and they are the aggressive ones. They also want to shove their beliefs down our throats, and will get physical with anyone (women) who gets in their way. LGB people are being dragged into the TQ + whatever mess.
Yep, I’ve gone from “tolerance” to “disgusted opposition” for gay
Racism is undergoing the same evolution when instead of great thinkers like Thomas Sowell we are sold the BLM scammers
From the beginning of this movement back in the nineties, I’ve always favored civil unions or whatever you want to call it. As a libertarian, I’m frankly not a fan of the government recognizing ‘marriage’ in any form, heterosexual or otherwise. It’s a religious and cultural institution. If some church wants to declare two dudes ‘married’, who cares. Unfortunately, it became a civil rights issue because there are so many tax related and legal consequences to marriage, like spousal privilege, joint tax filing, hospital visitation, etc. I’m not a fan of any of the above either but since that ship has long since sailed, the LGB movement always had a legitimate civil rights argument.
What made me suspicious of the movement was that far too many of the activists and the loudest voices insisted on campaigning for ‘marriage’ specifically and were not satisfied with a civil union or some other such notion that conferred the same rights as marriage. This told me two things about the movement, or at least the most activist, vocal part of the movement. First, that they had no respect for people who disagreed and no intention to ever compromise. Second, that the civil rights arguments were a smokescreen to campaign for something far more difficult to win than equal rights, that is social acceptance enforced by the government. This was always my complaint with the gay marriage movement. I questioned whether it was really about civil rights or more about using government power to influence and control social and cultural attitudes, which is dangerous no matter how righteous the cause. I sympathized with the individual LGB people who faced unequal treatment in the face of government sanctioned marriage, but I was always suspicious of the ‘movement’ and the people behind said movement.
Years later, it sure looks like I was correct to be suspicious. Once they got civil rights for homosexuals, they barely took a victory lap before moving on to this trans nonsense, for which there never was any legitimate civil rights argument. It was never, repeat never, illegal for a man to dress up as a woman, pretend to be one, or to have gender change surgery, such as it is, but then this never was about civil rights, was it? There aren’t any government privileges specifically reserved for males or females. There used to be quite a few, but considerable effort has been properly spent to give men and women equal rights beginning with the women’s suffrage movement and there are a number of laws concerning this already on the books. This battle has long since been fought. No, this is a step further. It’s no longer about equal rights, or even gender or sexuality. It’s about using government to push one set of values and beliefs and discourage others in the public sphere, and impose harsh social consequences for anyone who disagreed. The aim is to establish an ‘acceptable’ position and shame and stigmatize those who disagree. Turns out, the gay marriage movement was a backdoor to government sanctioned religion that was left open by the government conferring legal and economic advantages to a religious and cultural institution. This is the worst use of government power. Once the precedent is established, what has been used for a decent cause today can be used to promote something far more nefarious down the line, and here we are.
This is a difficult issue, because I agree with the civil rights portion of the gay rights movement, and I personally don’t see anything wrong with two consenting adults doing mostly whatever they want in their private lives. I have known gay people and gay couples and I endeavored to treat them the same as anyone else. I’m less enthusiastic about jumping on the table and demanding that everyone else adopt the same values as myself. That’s the problem. The people have a right to expect and demand equal rights and equal treatment under the law. This is a right any freedom loving person should value and support. We do not have any right to have everyone accept our personal life choices, nor to have the government attempt to coerce or force those who disapprove to change their beliefs. Using the gay rights movement in this way has ultimately weakened the notion that people are entitled to have their own beliefs and values and live according to their personal religious and ethical beliefs.
That’s the worst part. It’s not just the trans movement nonsense that we’re enduring now. The door is now wide open for any other sort of nonsense that comes down the pipe and happens to get a significant and loud minority of activists behind it. That’s the problem with using government power to push values. If it can push a value that seems good to most of us today, it can also be used to oppress a minority or even a majority by someone else later on. The only way to ensure government doesn’t push the worst sort of values and devolve in totalitarian dystopia like China is to prevent the government pushing any social values at all. The liberals aren’t wrong when they claim racism and hate are on the rise and could conceivably be incorporated into government policy. What they don’t get or won’t accept is that in their overenthusiastic zeal to right social injustices through government action, they opened the door and blazed a trail for anybody else to follow. I have sympathy for what homosexuals must have endured on an individual and personal level, both presently with trans nonsense and in the past with bible thumping zealots. They have as much right to equal rights as anyone else, but they shouldn’t expect or demand universal acceptance. I’m pretty sure most of them don’t expect any such thing. It’s the activist groups and the people who drive them that create the problem. I can’t bring myself to have much sympathy at all for them. These true believers determined to use government to make the world a better place will end up doing the opposite. They’ll make things worse, more intolerant, and more unfair. I blame them for what they’ve done, and I will blame them for everything they’ve enabled down the line, and there’s no knowing what might come down the pipe next.
Give me a “bible-thumping zealot” but save me from a godless man. The first believes in a God who is not him; the second one believes in a God who is himself.
I don’t understand libertarians. You fear the government will force its values on the population, like gay marriage. But the government, or the Supreme Court, is simply making sure all Americans have the same rights. Your argument got me thing about The Civil Rights Act and The Voting Rights Act. I’m hoping that you would agree that black people living under Jim Crow in the South deserved to be free to vote and go to schools and universities. If not for the two Acts, where would blacks today? I know many live in poverty or gang-infested communities, but it did make it possible for many to become middle class. (The South is trying to undo the voting rights of minorities right now. So there’s that.) Anyway, don’t be paranoid.
A libertarian who opposes gay marriage isn’t a libertarian
Not every marriage has to be a religious ceremony, mine made no mention of Jebus or any Gods yet it means as much as any that do.
You don’t have to believe two women getting married constitutes a proper marriage, but if they do believe it then why should you be able to prevent them from getting married? Why does it affect you in any way?
I don’t think many of us realized the number of pride parades we’d be subjected to.
I suspect that the number of people from the right that on religious grounds is probably fairly small but they’ll never change.
I also believe that most people don’t care very much and are content to let people live as they wish. Moreover, many probably recognised the injustices faced by partners in gay couples over things like inheritance right etc.
I’m sure that the acceptance of gay relationships would have continued to grow. But, they blew it. Or the representatives of gay people blew it. Pride day; fine, pride month? You’re having a laugh.
I haven’t changed in my views. I always felt that society’s prejudice against homosexuality was ridiculous. But, I don’t understand why we are expected to celebrate this.
Groups like Stonewall have insulted our intelligence and insulted women with their preposterous stance on trans issues. It wouldn’t have been difficult to persuade us to be more tolerant of trans people but they want us to accept lies and that mutilation of healthy young people helps them.
UNHERD.
Why am I getting a constant stream of emails about subscribing when I AM a paying subscriber?
This is an unforced error.
How hard is it to take your existing subscribers out of the promotional pitch emails? It makes me want to unsubscribe, not subscribe.
EVERYONE GETS TOO MANY EMAILS. Don’t drive people away with this stuff.
Odd. I’m a subscriber and I don’t receive such emails.
It could be that, or it could be the reverse. That if one aspect of wokeness is discredited in the public eye, this may tend to discredit the programme as a whole.
So attacks on trans ideology may rub off on other woke developments like gay marriage. In contrast to the perspectives of various activist groups, the general public may bundle all these developments together as part of a general thing called “woke”. Increasingly they may see this as having gone too far already, or take a “look where it’s led” attitude.
I usually laugh in the face of bigotry but the hatred and anger in the comments below are actually quite horrible. The wretched fury of you people is horrific.
Evil sh*t librul dumpclucks like you should shut up.
It seems like the wretched fury of *your* people is what led to it.
Below? There’s nothing below, except for two one liners laughing at you. After all this time, you’ve still failed to click where you sit in the scheme of things.
Sometime even I am surprised at how dumb you people are!
You really are just phoning them in these days.
Get a hobby.
I may not agree with all the comments, but I don’t see any bigotry. Most comments are politely worded, especially compared to some of your hurtful comments, CS, where rather than engaging, you summarily dismiss those you disagree with as bigots and liars.
Miraculously, CS manages to find racism wherever he looks for it.
Somehow comments seem to gradually digress and degenerate.
CS’s comments are sort of degenerate from the start.
I honestly think the “queer” and “trans” extremists who have co-opted the “movement” are having a larger negative impact than the religious right. GLAAD, HRC and other orgs are trying to make money off of a “political movement” that is no longer necessary. Gender reassignment for minors, exposing children to graphic depictions of sexuality, promoting “polyamory” helps absolutely no LGB people.
I think most conservative Christians opposed to same-sex marriage have opted for a live and let live approach. Muslims are definitely a different story; but in the West, conservative “right wing” Christians for the most part have accepted that same-sex marriage is legal and have moved on.
Ask a guy if he should respect a “gay” man. Typically, the answer is “yes, I respect him, if not his choice.” What follows, however, is a new societal norm, one that influences society at large.
Does that blithe “yes” take into account all future implications, including its impact on the nuclear family, the young, and small and large societal clusters?
I will note that Rome fell after “male-to-male” love became widely accepted, and a millenia of darkness fell over the Earth.
This was sadly predictable. The gay rights movement has been co-oped by virtual signaling “progressives” with a lunatic agenda that puts gay kids at risk, and annoys anyone with half a brain. Pregnant men. Jesus wept! The irony is that many, if not most, of these people are heterosexual. Straight people who “identify” as “queer” and think telling gay kids they are in the wrong body and can be fixed is the future. We’re getting it from both side now. It’s exhausting.
“Straight people who “identify” as “queer”… telling gay kids they are in the wrong body and can be fixed”. Boom.
Bev Jackson is bang on. The LGB and sane part of the T (of which there are many, including Corrina Cohn and more) need to fully grok what is happening here, and push back. Thank God for UK LGB groups leading the way here yet again. We’re waaaay behind down in Oz. Again.
Meh, the slippery slope is real. You can’t suddenly legitimize something that has never been in history and then say okay but it stops at this point and goes no farther. Not many can say this is a surprise, conservatives predicted it long ago; however they did expect polyamory to happen faster than the trans stuff.