Articles have been appearing about large sponsors pulling out of Pride events all over the country. Almost unilaterally these articles blame Trump and his war on DEI.
The Atlantic put a predictably negative spin on it.
To boil it down, most articles imply that corporations are afraid to sponsor Pride events due to Trump. They seem to want to paint Trump as the boogyman.
I think this is disingenuous and wrong. Many of these companies supported Pride through multiple Presidencies. Regan, Bush I & II, Clinton, Obama, Trump, & Biden.
During the Regan years I don’t think these companies supported Pride out of DEI policies, they supported them because A) There was money to be made, and B) It was the right thing to do.
Back in the day Pride was about basic civil rights, and visibility of people who literally were treated as second class citizens because of who they peopled their beds with.
When HIV started killing gay men, these companies stayed in the Pride events because it was right to shine a light on the problem. HIV was being ignored, insurance companies refused to pay for HIV care. Some insurance companies specifically excluded HIV care or hospitalization from their policies Others would cancel an individual’s coverage entirely if they tested positive for HIV.
Back then, gay people of all walks of life were being denied fundamental rights or services. Housing, Medical care, Jobs, loans, and myriad other things that everyone else enjoyed, simply because they chose to sleep with members of their own sex.
That was fundamentally wrong and Anti-American.
One could make a case that today’s trans people experience similar oppression. I can maybe see their point. But, generally speaking, the LGB community of old weren’t trying to “Gay everyone”, they were simply demanding equal representation and rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights and Constitution.
Trans people cannot, under law, be discriminated against. They may face harsh words, or people who refuse to use arbitrary pronouns, but they have the same rights everyone else has. In other words, the very rights the old LGB movements fought for are granted without question to the Trans people of today.
The Atlantic says young people will lose rights. I’m not sure that I see their point or that what they’re printing is true.
The Trans movement has gutted the LGB community. More and more “moderate” and even “liberal” gay people are walking away. The LGBTQIA+ whatever community is a confused and confusing mishmash of conflicting goals and seems to be mostly about rage & victimhood.
A Trans person these days will as quickly open up a screaming tirade on an LGB person as they will on anyone else who dares to question them.
They’ve become off-putting and simply too difficult to understand or deal with. It doesn’t help that so many Trans people have in recent years been mass shooters.
Sure, the LGB had Jeffery Dahmer but he was a rarity. He was a cannibal that also was gay, or perhaps it was the other way around. Either way, he was a very disturbed individual who was in desperate need of psychiatric help.
The point is, the trans movement has co-opted the LGB community to such an extent that normal gays are no longer interested. That means they’re not attending Pride, which means that the advertising benefit large corporations derived from being supportive, is diminishing too.
It always comes back to dollars.
Add to it, that most of America, including LGB people are sick and tired of the Trans activism, protests, & conflict, and it makes perfect sense that large corporations are pulling back.
What exactly can’t Trans people do? What rights don’t they have? Name something. Oh maybe you can make a case for a man who thinks he’s Trans to be in a women’s locker room.
The real question is should he be in that locker room waving his dick around at children?
If the answer is “yes” then all locker rooms and bathrooms should be co-ed and at that point who gives a shit?
Along that line of reasoning comes this reality. No-one man, woman, or “other,” can be offended if they’re in a bathroom, locker room, or designated changing area, and they see a dick, hairy chest, a pussy, or tits.
Everyone would be 100% equal and that’s the end of the story. A.K.A. the end of victimhood.
It also means that women will have to clean up after themselves in public restrooms. Because while men may piss on the floor around a urinal, women are traditionally much filthier in public restrooms. I know, I’ve cleaned bathrooms, and I’ll generally take cleaning a men’s room any day of the week.
Trans people have access to medical care, lots of insurance companies cover the hormone costs. The real problem seems to be that the Trans agenda is to transition people as early in life as they can.
That’s a problem.
In most states, someone under 21 can’t smoke, drink, get a tattoo, body piercing, or a host of other things they might like to do because they’re not old enough to make up their mind. They lack the maturity.
By that logic, a child shouldn’t have the maturity to undergo gender re-assignment. Yet, the Trans activists push for it. So which is it?
That’s not loss of rights, that’s something entirely different.
When a person is over 21, they’re welcome to start taking whatever hormone therapies, or undergo whatever surgeries they want. They’re adults, of age, and can make their own decisions.
Much of America seems to have concluded that the Trans issue is something else.
Not because of bigotry, although I’m sure it’s there.
When Trans activists are given copious ink bemoaning that straight men should sleep with them or they’re transphobic, something is wrong.
Most straight men want to have families. A trans person (M to F) isn’t capable of producing the necessary genetic components to satisfy a straight man’s desire for children. So straight men aren’t interested. I’d suggest that straight men aren’t so much transphobic as they are trans-disinterested.
They might go for a quick fuck, but they’re not likely to be interested in a long term relationship. Let’s face it a trans person generally has a lot more baggage than even the most spoiled gold digger woman, to boot.
At least with a gold digger, you know you’re likely to have some kids.
Then people will say, “Well, there are F to M Trans people.” Yep, but most straight men want a woman that looks like a woman, they’re not likely to get turned on by a woman who’s got more hair on their chest than a female gorilla. So that leaves the F to M Trans person sleeping with who?
I’ve seen a lot of them bemoaning that Gay men aren’t interested in them. Well, Duh! A gay man is interested in another man and that means a penis and a male mindset. F to M trans people in many cases don’t meet either requirement.
Don’t get me wrong, there are some straight men who are just gay enough, and some gay men who are just straight enough that F to M Trans people could find happiness.
In neither case, do the Trans people have less rights. They can get married, they might have issues with their ID or passports, but I think there’s existing legislation that allows for changing all ID documents.
I believe where the trouble occurs is when someone hasn’t done the precursor work going all the way back to their birth certificate. I don’t think I can renew my passport with a different gender and name without having the underlying paperwork in order first.
Is that an infringement on rights?
Or do these blocks exist to prevent creating false identities? If identity is no longer a stake in the ground, then why have documentation at all? Bank accounts? Mortgages? Rental Agreements? Retirement accounts? Jobs?
So demanding that you do the work, and alter all your ID to match your new gender isn’t a loss of rights, it’s about needing to work within a framework that ensures there are no complications in making sure an individual’s rights are preserved.
I think the overarching pull backs on the part of large corporations isn’t about DEI. It’s about dollars, and that the LGBT community has become the TRANS community. That’s a community that has become viewed very negatively by a large swath of America and indeed the world.
Even Gay bars had to reduce orders of Budweiser beer. Why? Because LGB people joined in the boycott. What does that say about the Trans?
I think corporations are pulling out of Pride because there’s no percentage in it. Pride has become synonymous with Trans activists.
We’re all tired of hearing Trans this and Trans that. Nobody cares anymore, and I for one look forward to Pride not being a cash cow for the HRC, Glaad, and all the other organizations who should have disbanded once their job was done.
Pride might need to go the way of the dinosaur.
I’m glad Pride month is over. I’d be fine with Pride month being cancelled entirely.
Maybe I’ll go out to Palm Springs in July to sample the prevailing opinion of gay men.
The geometry of the new pride flag reminds me of the Hamas Palestinian flag.
Hate speech laws seem to be a growing standard, people are trying to push hate speech laws even in America.
I doubt seriously that any of these all too easily offended people were offended when half their genome was hanging in their daddy’s balls waiting to be jacked down a toilet! A lot of these humorless scolds should have been loads their momma’s swallowed. 
Right off the bat I noticed a couple of historical omissions. They completely erased two of the three most common flags.
There was the standard 6 color rainbow everyone is familiar with. There was the Bear Flag that came after the rainbow and there was the Leather flag.
The Leather pride flag was much the same. It represented the crowd within the LGB community that liked a bit more spice in their sex life. They too were underrepresented at the time. Dating was difficult, because they’d chat up a prospective bed partner only to find out that their “Date” for the night was only interested in vanilla missionary sex.
Could it be that Bears, and Leather men once again don’t fit the narrative? You know, because they are CIS gendered, happy with who they are and not super worried about marching lockstep with a community that no longer represents them?
