Opinions
The dangers of pointing the ‘Pinkwashing’ finger
Simplistic accusation risks distracting from underlying problems

Protesters on Jan. 23, 2016, gather outside reception at the National LGBTQ Task Force’s annual Creating Change Conference in Chicago that was to have featured two LGBT rights advocates from Israel. (Photo courtesy of Andy Thayer/Gay Liberation Network)
Controversy erupted at the recent annual Creating Change conference, hosted by the National LGBTQ Task Force, when protesters shut down a reception featuring Israeli LGBT advocacy groups A Wider Bridge and Jerusalem Open House.
The Task Force had originally cancelled this reception after vociferous criticism from one segment of the LGBT community and reinstated it following uproar from another segment of the LGBT community (including many LGBT Jews). The complaint against the reception: a charge of “pinkwashing,” the belief that Israel was holding out its positive record on LGBT equality as a way to distract from its otherwise poor human rights record.
“Pinkwashing” may be a relatively new term but the phenomenon it describes is not new at all. Governments have always downplayed areas where they fall short on human rights by highlighting areas of progress. The idea that countries are advancing human rights unevenly is nothing new. Look at most human rights reports from around the world.
It is still relatively uncommon, however, for LGBT issues to be an area where a country is improving against a backdrop of serious human rights concerns. More often, countries that are “bad” on human rights in general tend to be “bad” on the human rights of LGBT citizens. This is no longer the case. Interestingly, we can also see examples where some portions of the LGBT community are gaining where others are not—for example, the emergence of “third gender” categories in parts of Asia where same-sex sexual activity remains illegal.
“Pinkwashing” is most typically raised in association with Israel, but one could also make a case that a variation of this happens in Cuba where legislation protects LGBT people from discrimination but there remain serious human rights concerns on issues like arbitrary detention and the right to free expression. As the use of this term increases, it is an important moment for us to decide how we as a human rights community want to react to this type of uneven progress.
This situation raises another question, which is why the activist community responded to the NGOs as if they were responding directly to the government itself. As an activist based at an NGO in a country that has an imperfect human rights record, I worry when I see critics make that leap.
While I stand with any community that is shining the spotlight on human rights abuses and even pointing out hypocrisies that exist among the governments perpetuating those abuses, I would argue that over-investment in the concept of “pinkwashing” does little to help advance human rights for anyone. We should rethink our approach on this issue as it is likely to continue to come up in other settings around the world.
For a government that has made significant advances for the human rights of LGBT people, but has lagged in other areas, charging Israel with pinkwashing does nothing to promote additional positive action. Legitimate gains should be recognized as such. For a government to muster the political will to make the lives LGBT people better only to have those advances ignored or belittled does not provide an incentive for it to continue its progress.
We sell activists in such countries short by dismissing the gains they have made, which have often come at great expense to their personal lives and safety. Refusing to acknowledge their accomplishments because others have been left behind ignores the intersectionality of those who may face multiple forms of oppression and sets up the exact types of “rights hierarchies” we would otherwise find problematic.
We also sell ourselves as a human rights community short by imagining that we will be so dazzled with progress on LGBT issues that we will somehow overlook other human rights issues. I believe that human rights activists can walk and chew gum at the same time – that we can, in a particular country, recognize those human rights situations that have improved alongside those that haven’t, or that have become worse. I worry that a focus on pinkwashing will also divert precious resources from the real challenge of fighting the underlying human rights abuses that give rise to the charge in the first place.
When I was in Cuba in 2014, I met many members of the LGBT community and learned about their daily lives. They were grateful for the advances that had occurred in their country but they still recognized the challenges they faced in organizing political opposition or even just accessing information online. They were quite aware of the uneven way in which their rights had been affirmed but they weren’t ready to throw out the gains they’d made just because they hadn’t yet achieved everything they would like to achieve.
To varying degrees, you can see a lot of other countries with similar patterns. Here in the United States we now have nationwide marriage equality — yet people are still regularly sentenced to death in U.S. courts. We still hold detainees indefinitely without charge or trial in Guantanamo. We still have a problem with impunity among law enforcement. Rather than denigrate the advances we’ve made because we still have problems in other areas, we should point to these advances as a way to prod the United States to further action.
It would be easy to classify this argument as naively optimistic — but I don’t believe that it is. The human rights abuses the activists at Creating Change called out are real, and I recognize that activists will and should use every opportunity to call attention to them. But I believe that reducing all of the controversy to a claim of “pinkwashing” is too simplistic and risks distracting from the underlying human rights concerns.
In a world where some 80 countries still criminalize homosexuality and it’s still possible to be executed for one’s sexuality, we cannot afford to ignore important progress when we see it.
Shawn Gaylord is Advocacy Counsel, LGBT Rights at Human Rights First. Follow him @shawngaylord.
Opinions
Barney Frank’s powerful legacy for LGBTQ federal employees
The ‘Great Gay Communicator’ deserves respect
Former Congressman Barney Frank, who died last week, was dogged during his life over being gay. The self-proclaimed only “left-handed, gay, Jewish congressman,” in Congress deserved better.
Frank’s perseverance paved the way for others. With wit and intelligence, he helped educate Americans about sexuality. As a federal employee and a member of the Federal Gay, Lesbian or Bisexual Employees (GLOBE), a government-wide organization founded by Dr. Len Hirsch, I saw Frank’s unforgettable speaking style when he was a guest speaker at our monthly events.
Frank’s detailed presentations about federal employment policies were not recorded. The only record of them, edited by Dr. Hirsch and other members of the GLOBE board, is in the minutes of the GLOBE meetings. I held several positions in GLOBE, including secretary, assistant newsletter editor, and as an elected member of the board. I drafted the minutes of the meetings.
GLOBE’s minutes were edited to protect the identity of federal employees. This was important because then-U.S. Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) attempted to obtain the minutes. Helms felt LGBT advocacy in the federal workplace was an illegal form of political activity. GLOBE was also concerned that the minutes would be illegally accessed and forwarded to Helms or used to blackmail federal employees. GLOBE’s minutes are preserved at the National Archives.
When I was named Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual Program Manager at the Department of Agriculture in 1993, I immediately notified Frank’s office of my appointment. After a federal newsletter published an article about a speech I gave, Helms accused me of using government resources to support “a homosexual agenda.” During several hours on the evening of July 19, 1994, Helms told the Senate and C-SPAN’s television audience that LGBT federal employees had their minds in their crotches. He called LGBT federal employees “perverts.”
Helms had government documents that described the position of “Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual Program Manager.” It was a program that used the incendiary words “promote” and “recruit” homosexuals. It was a huge mistake for government bureaucrats to have written such a program. Helms published it in the Congressional Record. Frank helped us through this battle and others.
Aside from Frank, there were other LGBT members of Congress in the 1990s. Gerry Studds (D-Mass.), Steve Gunderson (R-Wisc.), and James Kolbe (R-Ariz.). Studds was censured for an affair with a 17-year-old male page in the House. Gunderson was publicly outed by a fellow House Republican. Kolbe was subject to sexual accusations.
Among these gay congressmen, Frank weathered a hostile media, personal scandal, and vicious attacks from his Republican colleagues. In 1995, former Texas GOP House Majority Leader Dick Armey was caught referring to Frank as “Barney Fag.” His apology was grudging.
“I rule out that it was an innocent mispronunciation,” responded Frank. “I turned to my own expert, my mother, who reports that in 59 years of marriage, no one ever introduced her as Elsie Fag.”
After celebrating his 72nd birthday, Frank married his longtime partner. He successfully worked to place marriage equality into the 2012 Democratic platform, which President Obama endorsed.
Still, Frank was dogged by homophobia. The Tea Party’s Doug Mainwaring called Frank’s wedding “a mockery, a parody, a staggering caricature of the most fundamental and towering of American institutions.”
In an interview with Washingtonian magazine, Frank said he “hates being classified as ‘the gay congressman,’” as his legislative accomplishments go beyond gay rights. He co-sponsored the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
Frank will especially be remembered in Washington for his sharp wit. He once referred to advocating for gay marriage legalization as “cruising for gay rights.” He wrote devastatingly funny op-ed pieces, notably for the Washington Post.
Though Frank may not have wanted to be known as a gay congressman, when he spoke, the LGBT community listened. He was the Great Gay Communicator. Barney Frank deserved respect. May his memory be a blessing.
James Patterson, a life member of the American Foreign Service Association, is a writer and communications consultant in the D.C. area.
If I admit I’m HIV positive, some men immediately reject me. If I lie and say I’m HIV negative, many of those same men will gladly have unprotected sex with me.
That contradiction has haunted me for years and made me wonder: What would the gay men who died of AIDS in the 1980s think if they could see us now?
The future would absolutely astonish them. Everybody carries around a handheld device that can instantly broadcast their thoughts, faces, bodies, and lives to the entire planet. We elected a Black president twice. Same-sex marriage is legal. Gay people can openly marry, raise children, grow old together, and even get divorced like everybody else. HIV itself is no longer “the deadly disease” it was when I learned I was infected in 1985 at age 23.
Back then, life expectancy was often measured in months. Surviving long enough to grow old felt like science fiction.
Now there are medications that can suppress the virus so effectively, a person living with HIV can become “undetectable,” meaning they cannot sexually transmit the virus. Countless people who once expected to die can now live long enough to worry about all the ordinary things people worry about as they age: heart disease, bad knees and what restaurant closes too early.
Back then, that wasn’t even a pipe dream. But the future also got weird.
What shocks me most is not the medical progress. It’s the emotional contradiction surrounding it. The general public no longer fears sharing space with people living with HIV. Most people understand you cannot get HIV from a hug, a handshake, sharing food, breathing the same air, or sitting next to someone on a plane.
But sex is different. Especially in the gay world, where stigma still lingers in strange and contradictory ways.
I’ve watched gay men reject HIV-positive men while simultaneously engaging in anonymous unprotected sex with people whose status they know only because somebody typed a word into an app. “Negative.” “Clean.” “DDF.”
As if viruses never lie.
At the same time, we now live in a sexual culture far more open and visible than anything most gay people from the 1980s could have imagined. The bathhouse has largely been replaced by hookup apps and social media. Sexual behavior is documented, broadcast and archived in real time.
But greater sexual freedom did not necessarily bring greater emotional clarity.
Some men still fear HIV intensely. Others eroticize it. Some even document their attempts to acquire it.
We solved the medical crisis of HIV far faster than we solved the psychological, emotional and sexual contradictions surrounding it.
As a long-term survivor, I sometimes feel like a time traveler trapped between two worlds: one that remembers the terror and one that barely remembers the war.
That feeling became the seed for my new novel,“The Unfrozen Few.” I imagined a group of AIDS patients from the late 1980s choosing cryogenic freezing rather than death, only to wake up in present-day America. They emerge into a world of smartphones, same-sex marriage, social media and medical breakthroughs, but also into a world that still doesn’t fully know what to do with people living with HIV.
In many ways, the frozen few are simply long-term survivors with the volume turned all the way up.
I think the dead would be amazed by how far we’ve come. And stunned by the ways we still haven’t.
Randy Boyd is a longtime HIV survivor, five-time Lambda Literary Award finalist and author of five novels, including ‘The Unfrozen Few,’ a speculative series about AIDS patients who were cryogenically frozen in the 1980s and awaken in present-day America. More information is available at randyboydauthor.com.
Opinions
Dual endorsement for Independent Council-at-large: Patterson or Crawford
Let’s move the District forward
(Editor’s note: This column reflects the writer’s opinion and does not constitute a Washington Blade endorsement of any candidate.)
The race for Independent Council-at-Large is interesting. There are three main candidates and I suggest making your choice easier by first eliminating Elissa Silverman from consideration. She is a retread, and it is time to move forward, not backward.
There are two candidates whom I have taken the time to talk with in some depth. They are both impressive, and either will make a great addition to the D.C. Council. I have some minor issues with both, but then have never found a candidate who I would agree with 100%, and never expect to.
Jacque Patterson has held public office, and served the community well, as president of the D.C. State Board of Education. Just recently a study was released, and while we know there are many outstanding issues in our schools, this new Education Scorecard report from Harvard, Stanford, and Dartmouth, ranks District of Columbia students first in the nation for academic growth in both math and reading between 2022 and 2025. While they are still not doing as well as we want all our students to do, progress is important, and this scorecard shows how the District is working to help its students. Take a look at Jacque’s website to see what he will focus on. You will find it impressive. He understands among other issues what small businesses mean to D.C., what we need to do for safer communities, and to provide more opportunities for all our youth.
Then take a look at Doni Crawford who has now been serving on the Council for about four months, having been chosen to replace Kenyan McDuffie until the election, when he resigned to run for mayor. She previously worked in his office as committee director for the Council’s Committee on Business and Economic Development. Prior to that she worked at the D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute. Her focus is also on safer communities, economic development, housing, and youth. You can look at Doni’s website to get a more detailed understanding of where she intends to focus her time.
Both candidates have talked about how they will work to fight for D.C. statehood, and to ensure the 700,000 residents of the District can set their own budget priorities, and make their own legislative decisions, without oversight from Congress.
When looking at who you choose to vote for as a Council member in D.C., it is important to understand the person you select will be working closely with 12 other members. They have to understand the art of compromise to get their initiatives passed. They must have the personality that will demand respect of the other members, and a style that will make them stand out on the Council. I think Jacque and Doni are the two choices in this Independent Council-at-large race who will be able to do that. Also, remember in an at-large seat on the Council the focus is a little different than when you are selecting a Council member for your own ward. These members need to have a little broader view, and be able to balance all constituents in every ward of the city. That is a little more difficult.
I know from talking with them that both Jacque and Doni are committed to equality, and just as important, economic equality. They understand for the District to do well; everyone needs a fair playing field. I have gotten the strong feeling they both understand what is happening around the nation is impacting the people of D.C. That includes the resurgence of antisemitism, as well as racism, Islamophobia, homophobia, and sexism. They understand we are faced with a White House, and Republican-controlled Congress, who instead of doing anything to combat these issues, are making them worse. And because home rule still gives Congress and the felon in the White House much-too-much control over D.C., this impacts us directly. I have confidence in both Patterson and Crawford, that they will fight this, and do it intelligently, and successfully, to the benefit of all the people they are looking to serve.
So, my recommendation is you look at both their websites and decide who your first choice will be. Then rank that person #1 on your ballot for Independent Council-at-large. Then because you can with ranked choice voting, rank the other one #2. Then stop! You don’t need to rank any more.
Again, I think either Jacque Patterson or Doni Crawford will serve us well on the Council. They are both smart, experienced, and both will bring something new to the Council. Elissa Silverman had her chance before, and there were reasons the voters turned her out. Let’s not go backwards, but rather let’s move the District forward, with either Jacque Patterson or Doni Crawford.
Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist.
-
China5 days agoChina’s top court acknowledges anti-LGBTQ discrimination
-
2026 Midterm Elections5 days agoKen Paxton wins Texas Republican primary runoff
-
Out & About5 days ago‘How to Survive a Plague’ screens June 5
-
District of Columbia5 days ago‘Queer Love’ campaign launched to address domestic violence
