Connect with us

Opinions

From an A to the Ts: We see you

‘Invisible’ orientation leads to misinformation

Published

on

As an asexual woman, I stand in solidarity with the transgender community; from an A to the Ts, I see you. But the problem is not enough people do. A lack of authentic, multifaceted representation has caused harm to both of our communities and it’s time for a change.

Shrouded in misinformation and hearsay, the trans community faces persecution daily. Many individuals who do not know any trans people do not understand them, nor do they have access to quality depictions of the trans community in the media. So, they have become the target of political fearmongering painting trans individuals as immoral entities instead of human beings. Despite most favoring protecting trans rights, in 2022, there were 174 anti-trans laws proposed and 26 passed; 2023 has already seen 537 with 63 passed.

Asexuals are not under attack the way trans individuals are, but our “invisible” orientation does lead to misinformation. After all, most people shorten it to LGBT, no A in sight.

Asexuality is the lack of or low sexual attraction to others. There is a broad spectrum of asexual identities, which are better defined on the Asexual Visibility and Education Network. Most asexuals struggle just to discover themselves and then to find relationships that fit their needs. We can be the target for corrective rape, poor healthcare, and other challenges in our day-to-day lives, but it is harder to call people who are less sexual than most sexual deviants, an insult hurled frequently at the trans community. But perceptions and treatment of both the A and T of LGBT+ can improve with positive, authentic representation in the media.

Many of the myths that are used against the trans community come from harmful representation. Lindsay Ellis did a captivating video essay about pop culture transphobia that shows where ideas like trans individuals attacking women in the bathroom came from. Some of the language being used to attack the trans community is very similar to that used in the 1980s against the gay community. “Grooming” and the idea that the LGBT+ community has inappropriate relationships with children has been around for more than a century and is used even today to justify attacking LGBT+ individuals in legislation and daily life. But history shows we can make progress on knocking down these stereotypes with more inclusive media.

Representation in media has the power to build empathy, self-esteem, and social change. With more diversity portrayed in media, people are exposed to more variety of stories, opening up possibilities for connection and empathy. We have seen representation change the culture of the United States. Until the 1990s gay men were not represented in media as main characters, only as side or “lesson of the week” (usually related to AIDS) characters. But shows like “Will & Grace” started changing the public perception of gay individuals. As more complex representation became common, stereotypes were challenged, and acceptance began to grow. Today, six in 10 adults express positive views of same-sex marriage. That number was unthinkable in the 1980s. Changing our representation in media has the potential to transform how our communities are perceived and treated by others.

For representation in storytelling to be authentic, it must include authentic perspectives. A trans individual can bring in a perception that simply cannot be recaptured by even the best-intended CIS creator. This is not to say that CIS creators should avoid trans characters; however, there must be genuine expression in the representation. In addition to authenticity, we need multifaceted representation. Queer stories that always follow tropes are not interesting. There will always be persecution for being different and thus we will always see that storyline, but we don’t need it in every piece of media. Instead, we need characters who are more than their identity. “Schitt’s Creek” offers a perfect example. The character of David Rose is not straight, but there is no homophobia on display in the small town. Children’s media, much like young adult fiction, has recently offered more quality representation, such as Steven Universe, She-Ra and the Princesses of Power, and Owl House, that all display LGBT+ characters and relationships without homophobia. The characters are just people who fell in love or people who are different, but who are judged the way any person should be, based on their character and choices.

Trans representation is getting better; there are more characters and shows branching out but at a much slower pace. In “Orange is the New Black,” one of the most interesting characters is Sophia Burset, a side character we see every few episodes played by Laverne Cox. I want more. I want more trans characters who are people, who get to make mistakes and grow, who are main characters. And I want more asexual characters.

Asexual representation has also been slow to come to mainstream media. Poor or troublesome portrayals where asexuality is a thing to be cured or the character is sadistic, such as in House and Dexter, are harmful and misleading. But shows like “Sex Education,” with admittedly a small side character (but a very good discussion of asexuality from a main character) or Bojack Horseman’s complex character Todd Chavez offer better, more authentic depictions of asexuality. Entertainment giant Disney has LGBT+ characters in shows and as side or background characters in movies but has yet to feature LGBT+ main characters in any movies. Would there be backlash? Yes. There always is. But genuine portrayals can also quietly change minds and sometimes even hearts.

Kayla Reed is an assistant professor and Discovery, Systems, & Digital Strategy Librarian at Grinnell College. Her research and teaching centers on diversity and LGBTQ+ issues, with a focus on asexuality.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Opinions

D.C. is the place for the Democratic Socialists of America

Our endorsed candidates hold their affiliation as a badge of honor

Published

on

Members and supporters of the Democratic Socialists of America march in a 'No Kings' protest on Oct. 18, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

D.C. is the place for the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). We believe in a District where everyone can live a happy and dignified life. That means housing, healthcare, transit, education, and safety are treated as guarantees rather than privileges reserved for the wealthy and well-connected.

Our endorsed candidates do not hide what they believe. They engage in the democratic process openly, explain their politics clearly, and ask their fellow members to spend long nights and weekends doing the hard work of campaigning. And as the last six years of local elections have shown, including three successful D.C. Council campaigns and the overwhelming passage of Initiative 82, D.C. voters are often a great deal more interested in the endorsement of Metro DC DSA than in the handwringing of the Washington Post editorial board.

That is what makes Peter Rosenstein’s April 2 op-ed in the Blade so revealing. His piece was not just wrong. It was smug, unserious, and politically disconnected from the actual lives of queer people in this city. Worse, he used the platform of our local LGBTQ outlet to disregard Palestinian humanity while scolding democratic socialists for refusing to join him in that moral failure. Put plainly, Rosenstein has been publishing crank op-eds for years, and this one was no exception.

My name is Hayden Gise. I am a transgender, lesbian, Jewish, Democratic Socialist, and I am a union organizer. I do not speak on behalf of the national DSA organization, the local chapter, or any campaign. But I will not sit quietly while Rosenstein wraps himself in the mantle of queer Jewishness to sell the lie that anti-Zionism is antisemitism.

He packages that lie in the same kind of pinkwashing rhetoric used by Benjamin Netanyahu, who mocked solidarity with Palestinians by saying, “Some of these protesters hold up signs proclaiming ‘Gays for Gaza.’ They might as well hold up signs saying ‘Chickens for KFC.’” Rosenstein’s liberal Zionism is not thoughtful, brave, or nuanced. It is just a more polished way of telling Palestinians their lives matter less and telling queer people we should be grateful for the empire so long as it flies a rainbow flag. Which, by the way, is showing itself to be a losing strategy.

The ongoing genocide in Gaza is not some tragic deviation from the history of an otherwise peaceful Israel. The Nakba was the mass expulsion and displacement of Palestinians during Israel’s establishment in 1947–49, when hundreds of thousands were driven from their homes. My Jewish values tell me that is wrong. Rosenstein’s politics treat anti-Zionist Jews like me as illegible. No serious person should treat that accusation as an argument.

But the deeper problem with Rosenstein’s piece is that he has no real understanding of why Democratic Socialism resonates here. For queer people in D.C., Democratic Socialism is not an abstract theory. It is rent that does not consume half your paycheck, a union on your job, childcare you can actually afford, public transit that works, and a city where working-class Black and brown queer people are not displaced so developers and donors can cash in. Queer politics is not only about recognition. It is also about whether ordinary people can afford to survive.

That is why D.C. is fertile ground for Democratic Socialism. In the race for mayor, one of the leading candidates is Kenyan McDuffie, whose campaign already looks like a focus-grouped merger of Andrew Cuomo’s slogan and Donald Trump’s graphic design instincts, backed by big business interests and the super PAC money that follows them. The other has the endorsement of the major labor unions in the District. Who has a cohesive vision to make D.C. more affordable and childcare universal. Who puts people over profit and human rights over political expediency. Our next mayor, and our first Democratic Socialist Mayor: Janeese Lewis George.

D.C. is exactly the kind of city where Democratic Socialism should grow: working-class, queer, tenant-heavy, union-minded, and tired of being told that dignity is too expensive. Which side are you on? I know what side the queer people of the District of Columbia will be on.


Hayden Gise is a union organizer in Washington, D.C.

Continue Reading

Opinions

Now more than ever: the importance of LGBTQ activism

What would Jeffrey Montgomery do?

Published

on

Jeffery Montgomery in 'America You Kill Me.' (Screen capture via Gravitas Ventures/YouTube)

For half a century, the arc of LGBTQ progress in America has bent—slowly, imperfectly—toward justice. We fought for visibility, for legal protections, for the right to marry, serve openly, and live with dignity. Each generation built on the courage of the last.

And yet today, that progress is in peril. Across the country, lawmakers are rolling back protections, demonizing LGBTQ people for political gain, and trying to erase us from public life.

Opponents of our equality are working to erase us from the Constitution, and indeed, public life. In moments like this, based on my personal involvement working with one of the most effective leaders for LGBTQ rights I find myself asking a simple question: What would Jeffrey do?

Jeffrey Montgomery—the focus of a new documentary “America You Kill Me” and a long time Michigan activist and founder of the Triangle Foundation—was never content with quiet advocacy or compromise. He was a rabble-rouser, a strategist, and a relentless thorn in the side of powerful bigots. When politicians tried to marginalize LGBTQ people, Jeffrey didn’t politely ask for scraps. He forced the issue.

Jeffrey Montgomery started with his own determined voice and turned it into a movement. His story is living proof that personal courage can spark national conversations about justice and inclusion.

At a moment when the LGBTQ movement again faces hostility and regression, Jeffrey’s playbook offers lessons we would be wise to remember.

First, Jeffrey understood the importance of punching above our weight. In the early days of LGBTQ organizing, our movement was small, underfunded, and politically marginalized. But Jeffrey refused to let opponents see us that way. Through visibility, media savvy, and relentless organizing, he made LGBTQ advocates appear larger, stronger, and more unified than our numbers alone might suggest.

That perception mattered. Political opponents think twice before attacking a movement that looks organized, energized, and capable of mobilizing public pressure. Jeffrey knew that power is partly about reality—but also about what your opponent believes your power to be.

Second, Jeffrey never compromised on the value of our lives. Movements make compromises all the time. Politics often requires it. But Jeffrey understood that some things are not negotiable. The basic humanity of LGBTQ people is one of them. You can’t put our basic rights on the ballot. You don’t tell people to wait their turn. There are no turns. It’s now. It’s always now.

Too often, our opponents frame equality as something to be bargained over—as if the dignity and safety of queer people were a policy preference rather than a fundamental right. Jeffrey rejected that premise entirely.

You can negotiate strategy. You can negotiate timelines. But you cannot negotiate the worth of human lives.

And finally, Jeffrey understood the power of coalition. Today, one of the most effective tactics used against marginalized communities is division. If LGBTQ people can be fractured—by identity, ideology, generation, or strategy—our collective strength weakens.

Jeffrey instinctively resisted that trap. He worked with civil rights groups, labor leaders, faith communities, civic leaders and allies across movements. He understood that the fight for LGBTQ equality was never isolated from the broader fight for justice.

When opponents try to divide us, the answer is not retreat into smaller camps. The answer is to build broader ones.

If Jeffrey Montgomery were here today, he would not be discouraged by the backlash we are seeing. He would recognize it for what it is: the predictable response of those who feel their power slipping away.

And he would remind us that progress has never been linear. It has always required courage, persistence, and a willingness to challenge power directly.

So, when the moment feels uncertain, when the political winds shift against us, and when our opponents try to make us feel small, the question remains a useful one: What would Jeffrey do?

If history is any guide, the answer would be simple. He would make some noise. And making noise, today, means refusing to let fear, fatigue, or false unity quiet us when our lives are on the line.


Sean Kosofsky was director of policy at the Triangle Foundation.

Continue Reading

Opinions

D.C. not the place for antisemitic Democratic Socialists of America

Candidates like Janeese Lewis George should reject its endorsement

Published

on

D.C. Council member Janeese Lewis George (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

D.C. is not the place for the antisemitic Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), who advocate for the end of the State of Israel from the ‘river to the sea.’ The candidates they endorse agree to their platform, which includes not talking to any Zionist organizations. Being a Zionist simply means supporting the existence of the State of Israel. It does not mean supporting the war criminal who heads the government, or what he is doing, including murdering innocent Palestinians, or bombing civilians in Iran and Lebanon. As Ron Halber, CEO of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington, wrote in a column in DC Jewish Week, the views of the DSA are totally unacceptable.

The Council is non-political, but I am not. I can say one candidate for mayor, Janeese Lewis George, has asked for, and received, the endorsement of the DSA, and by doing so agrees to its antisemitic platform. After her endorsement became public, George tried to ‘privately apologize’ saying she didn’t see the questionnaire submitted by her campaign, rather it was submitted by a staffer. Now George says she is both not antisemitic, and supports Palestinians. Well, that sounds good. But she, and anyone else who accepts the DSA endorsement, has to answer a series of questions: 1. Are you for a two-state solution and the continued existence of the State of Israel, contrary to the position of the DSA? 2. Do you support BDS? 3. What is your definition of a Zionist? 4. What is your acceptable definition of antisemitism? 5. Will you meet with Zionist groups in DC?  

Then, we must recognize if one candidate, like George, can go after and accept an endorsement from an antisemitic organization, it gives tacit permission for others to do the same with organizations that might be Islamophobic, racist, homophobic, sexist, or anti-immigrant. All unacceptable. I urge D.C. voters to reject any candidate, for any office, who has the endorsement of the DSA. That is not what we want the leaders of our government to represent.

Thankfully, there are many choices in this year’s Democratic primary elections for every office. There is a race for mayor, congressional delegate, attorney general, Council chair, two D.C. Council at-large seats, additional Council seats, Democratic State Committee seats and ANCs. D.C. political leadership will look very different after this election. 

I urge voters to whittle down their choices by first rejecting anyone endorsed by the DSA. The DSA’s platform, aside from being antisemitic, also includes suggestions to ‘Defund the Police.’ That is a slogan some of the candidates running adopted a few years ago, thinking the people wanted it. They quickly found the people of D.C. didn’t want fewer police, they wanted their police better trained, with better community oversight. They wanted to be sure the police were here to protect them, not to harass them. People should know the DSA at one point even withdrew its endorsement from Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) as she wasn’t strident enough in her opposition to Israel and actually met with a Zionist organization. There are many Zionists like me — a gay, Jewish man — who support the existence of the State of Israel, yet want to see Netanyahu, a war criminal, a murderer, tried for his crimes and in jail, and his government replaced. Zionists who support Palestinians and want them to have their own free state.

As you decide who gets your vote, one way to find out about a candidate is looking at their website. I would suggest you reject any candidate who doesn’t have a strong issues section. The least you can expect of a candidate is to tell you in detail what they intend to do if you elect them. That includes our delegate to Congress, even if they won’t have a vote. If Democrats take back the House of Representatives, we can expect our delegate to once again get a vote in committee, and that can be very important. 

In the next couple of weeks, I will make some endorsements and share them with you in the Blade, for anyone who might be interested. They will detail why I endorse a particular candidate. I will not suggest second, third, fourth, or fifth choices. That is for you to decide. No matter who you give your first vote to, even with ranked choice voting, you can still vote for only one person. If you decide to list more choices, make sure the views of your second, and other choices, coincide with those of your first choice. 

So here is to an honest election season, one in which we end up with candidates winning who really care about our city, who have proven track records, and who will make us proud. Your job is to VOTE, and I hope everyone will. 


Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist.

Continue Reading

Popular