Connect with us

Opinions

LGBTQ voters eager to head to the polls

Here’s why that matters

Published

on

A September 2024 poll by the Human Rights Campaign Foundation found that 95 percent of LGBTQ+ adults in the U.S. are registered to vote. This startling statistic is in sharp contrast to the general population, where only 69 percent of U.S. citizens over 18 years of age are registered to vote, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Further, the Human Rights Campaign poll found that 93 percent of LGBTQ+ adults are motivated to vote in the November 2024 election. 

This poll suggests that sexual minorities, as members of the LGBTQ+ community, represent a significant and powerful voting bloc. A 2022 Gallup poll found that 7.1 percent of the U.S. population identifies with the LGBTQ+ community, with higher shares among younger generations.

Voter registration, perhaps in part, stems from social activism. Queer people are no strangers to the fight for human and civil rights. Hard-fought advances have been made by supporting elected officials who recognize and protect the queer community and the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals. Based on our decades of research on cities and culture and LGBTQ+ studies, we suggest three reasons that the LGBTQ+ community is registered to vote at record levels and motivated to vote.

• The LGBTQ+ community is motivated to participate, engage, and act. Through a long track record of fighting for rights through protest, strategic lobbying and grassroots action, members of the LGBTQ+ community have fought many hard-won battles. Victories for LGBTQ+ people include federal legislation and U.S. Supreme Court actions that have expanded the legal rights of LGBTQ+ citizens in marriage equality, military service, and hate crime protection. 

Though many rights have been gained by LGBTQ+ people, the status of these rights remains tenuous and under assault. Still elusive, for example, is equitable access to employer healthcare for same-sex couples and spouses and equal protections in workplaces; distressingly, it still remains legal for businesses to choose not to provide services to members of the LGBTQ+ population, which was re-affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2024. This license to discriminate perpetuates oppression against sexual minorities by setting up social boundaries.

• LGBTQ+ rights are threatened with assault, making the 2024 November elections urgent. Project 2025 threatens the societal well-being of individuals who identify as LGBTQ. Many members of the LGBTQ+ community are worried by the bellicose insinuations made in the Project 2025 policy platform published by the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation. Project 2025 would undoubtedly constitute an unofficial policy agenda if he is re-elected. Project 2025 threatens to strip away equal rights for many minority groups, including the LGBTQ+ population. The plan views sexual minorities and same-sex relationships as inconsistent with conservative family values, and it would seek to abolish, if not overturn, same-sex marriage. 

Project 2025 is not only dangerous to those who lean left politically, it is dangerous for everyone as it undermines well-established law, practice, and precedent in our country. It is authored by a group seeking to circumvent the legal structure to set policy in a way that has never been done before in America. To further its radical agenda, Project 2025 proposes constitutional amendments and a revision of the way our government conducts business. Surprisingly, aside from serving as a talking point, Project 2025 remains largely unaddressed by the left, with the current administration taking no concrete action to address it. 

• The LGBTQ+ community is motivated to vote in any election because LGBTQ rights are constantly under threat. With Project 2025, the upcoming November election becomes increasingly important to LGBTQ people, because Project 2025 squarely places LGBTQ+ rights under direct attack with the immediate threat of being rescinded or retrenched. 

The LGBTQ+ community possesses meaningful experience fighting for equal treatment. For centuries gay, lesbian, transgender, and queer individuals have been scrutinized, harassed, and treated differently by heteronormative society. LGBTQ+ people have learned how to organize, how to band together for safety, and how to motivate communities into action.

If LGBTQ people formed their own political party, it would surely be a successful one. If the LGBTQ+ voting bloc were its own party, it would count an endless string of firsts among the elections of governors, senators, mayors, and scores of others. Democrats love LGBTQ people, because LGBTQ people vote for Democratic candidates more frequently. While some Democratic politicians have helped in the ongoing fight for LGBTQ rights, far too many have stood by silently while rights came under assault. Republicans sometimes surprise the LGBTQ community in providing support for LGBTQ individuals, but too often Republicans are swayed by a larger, wealthier, and more vocal constituency, the religious right. This dichotomy is often portrayed by the media as a simple tug-of-war between LGBTQ people and religious conservatives. However, like many issues, the nuance is less straightforward, and in fact, a fair number of LGBTQ individuals also define themselves as religious. Therefore, the two are not mutually exclusive.

The fact is, LGBTQ individuals are routinely faced with a tough choice between the lesser of two poor choices, with no party willing to actively—and consistently—join the fight for LGBTQ rights. Regardless, the astonishingly high share of LGBTQ adults signaling enthusiasm to vote in our upcoming elections strongly suggests that the fight for civil and human rights is not finished, and that LGBTQ people will not rest until all sexual minorities have achieved full and unquestioned acceptance in society and have been granted undeniable equal rights and protections under the law.


Alex Bitterman is a professor in the Department of Architecture & Design at Alfred State University. Daniel B. Hess is a professor in the Department of Urban and Regional Planning, School of Architecture and Planning at the University at Buffalo.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Opinions

Just when you think Trump can’t sink any lower, he does

We must depose him with our votes

Published

on

President Donald Trump (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

The racist felon in the White House has sunk to what many people consider a new low, with his posting the disgusting depiction of the Obamas on his social media site. The depths to which he will sink would be considered unfathomable to many. But there is nothing we should think him incapable of. With this latest post, and refusal to apologize, I have to question the principles and decency of anyone, who still in any way, is willing to support him. 

I once thought to give people taken in by his lies and carnival barker routine, the benefit of the doubt. I had the benefit of always knowing Trump was a liar and slimeball, having met him years ago in New York. I understood he learned well at the feet of his mentor, Roy Cohn, who was one of the more disgusting figures in New York politics. But not everyone knew that history. But now, after his behavior and actions, during the first year of his second term, I will not give the benefit of the doubt to anyone. If you still stand with the felon, you are a person with no principles, or decency, yourself. If you still support him you are standing with a man who first glorified the murder of a VA nurse, Alex Pretti, in Minneapolis, calling him a domestic terrorist. A man who said the ICE agents who did it were just doing their job. He did the same when they murdered Renee Good in cold blood, calling her a ‘domestic terrorist.’ He supported his agents acting like the Gestapo when taking a five-year-old boy into custody on his front stoop. 

The felon went to Davos and in a stunning attack on our allies, claimed the men and women in their military never joined us on the front lines in Afghanistan, insulting all those who fought, and died, with our troops. He was either too dumb to know, or chose to disregard, that Article 5, a critical clause in the NATO pact, which means an armed attack on one member of the alliance will be treated as an attack on all members, was only invoked once in NATO’s history, and that was after the Islamist terrorists attacked the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001. 

He is destroying our country, and all our credibility around the world. He bows down to Putin and other despots. He clearly wants to be King of our country, and now an Emperor in the eyes of the world, as he threatens Greenland, and threatens to attack numerous other countries.

The problem those sycophants have, is I believe the people of the United States will finally understand he is destroying what is best in their lives. They will rise up and depose him; they will do it with their votes. Many of those who believed his lies and promises, are now seeing him as the “Emperor with no clothes.” He lied to them, and fooled enough of them, to win the election. They are waking up to the fact he is more senile than they thought Biden was, and clearly much less intelligent. They are seeing him for the grifter he is and finding out he cares not a bit for them, or their welfare. He clearly couldn’t care less that their grocery prices are going up, their rents are going up, their heating costs are going up, and for some, their healthcare costs are tripling. None of that bothers him in the least. He cares more about getting gift planes from Qatar, selling crypto coins, seeing Melania make money on a weird so-called documentary, and giving tax breaks to his rich friends and corporations. 

The American people have fought a revolution before. We fought a king and won. This revolution may look different from that, and from the French Revolution. We may man/woman the barricades but will do so without guns. We will win with our votes. 

The wealthy like Jeff Bezos, and others who see themselves as American nobility, corporate and media giants, who think the felon will make them even richer if they kneel before him, will in the long run be very disappointed. He has some power for a few more years, but even that will be curtailed when Democrats take back Congress in January 2027. 


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

Continue Reading

Opinions

Gay man details secret struggle with bulimia

February is Eating Disorder Awareness Month

Published

on

Kyle Ridley (Photo courtesy of Kaptured By Kasper)

I was a “chubby” kid. A “husky” kid. Horrible terms that still make me cringe. Food issues stem through the family tree. I remember hearing a family member vomit when I was in elementary school; the residual scraps left floating in the toilet. I tried sticking my finger down my throat as a teen — an easy purge after a buffet binge. “Easy” being a sick way of looking at such a violent act to oneself, but the swiftness of an occasional act turning to addiction is frighteningly simple. 

I was in my early 20s when I went on another diet in a series of crash diets, but this one hit different. I barely ate and worked out intensely each day. I decided to reward myself at the end of the week with a large pizza and breadsticks. Devouring a whole pizza (and more) was not new to me. I could down an alarming amount of food and hit the pillow in a haze. I didn’t know about nutrition, calories, or balance for many years to come. The meal went down the toilet, and I resumed my starvation diet. The calorie deficit pushed me closer to addiction’s ledge, and the hunger sent me over. 

The sporadic binge turned to several a week — running to the local country store for a smattering of chips, candy, soda, honey buns, cookies, anything to fill me up. Soon, it was a regular appointment, arranging a home buffet to mindlessly stuff my body for hours ‘til I knelt over the ceramic bowl. 

The binge-n-purge cycle turned twice daily. If I couldn’t binge at home in private, I would gorge at buffets or in my car — throwing up in restaurants, grocery stores, lobby restrooms. I lived in a house with a septic tank at the start of my illness. I clogged the tank, causing vomit to rise to the surface of the soil. Fearing further damage, I started throwing up in trash bags, collecting them in large bins, and driving them to public toilets to dispose of them. This went on for seven years, all through college, internships, and my first corporate job. 

The older man I was with was losing himself at the same time, falling deeper into the abyss of severe depression he’d battled lifelong. We saw the best in each other at the start, and the worst by the demise. His bouts of darkness were beyond my repair, no matter how hard I tried to tackle the impossible fix. How is a 21-year-old supposed to convince a 46-year-old to seek treatment, talk him down from suicidal tendencies, get him to understand people love him? I couldn’t navigate it, and food seemed to be the one thing in my control.

It also became my reward and my excuse to treat myself in the face of any stress or accomplishment. He wants to kill himself: binge. I aced a test: binge. Work was rough: binge. Food was all I lived for. Friends, family, love all took a backseat. I was ruled by a hidden hunger I kept secret from nearly everyone, though my emaciated frame didn’t go unnoticed. 

I was productive through the battle, working full time, graduating college summa cum laude, landing a solid job and moving up the ladder. All common addict attributes. Bulimia consumed me ‘til I was nearly 30 — four years after splitting from my first love, two years after he killed himself, and three years into a relationship with the man who would become my husband, and later my ex-husband.  

They say the difference between privacy and secrecy is that privacy is about respect, whereas secrecy has shame attached. So, let’s drop the shame and the secrets held far too long. It’s been 12 years since I spent my days, nights, and thousands of dollars gorging and purging for hours. Twelve years since I was face down in a toilet at my own will. 

I was a TV producer for a decade, booking more than 15,000 segments through the years. I often received pitches for February’s Eating Disorder Awareness Month and made a point to share these stories every year. Still, every pitch and every spokesperson I booked was with a woman. The stigma surrounding body dysmorphia in men continues despite men representing up to 25 percent of people with eating disorders, with members of the LGBTQ+ community at a higher risk, according to the National Association of Anorexia Nervosa and Associated Disorders. Men are also more likely to not recognize a problem, and their cases tend to be more severe by the time they see a doctor. 

Living in secret and hiding is not living. It’s shame-based and the ultimate red flag that something needs to change. It will haunt you ‘til you are unrecognizable to yourself and everyone around you. You don’t need to share your story with the world, but opening up to someone is a crucial step in recovery and healing. Living in lies and maintaining deception is the heaviest of burdens

Addiction is blinding. You are unable to see the joys, the freedoms, and opportunities awaiting when you’re solely focused on soothing your addiction’s rage. Living for the fix pushes every other interest out of focus. When you start to release the devil on your back, you make room for wings to spread and space to fly into passions suffocated far too long.

It’s taken a lot of work, therapy, reflection and learning. Not to say I’m recovered, not to say I’m healed. I’ll forever have this devil on my back. It’s about learning to quiet his rage, soothe his anxiety, and ensure his safety and love. It’s a lifelong path of healing more with each day, each year. 

And there is always hope. Even in the deepest depths of despair and isolation and ‘I’ll-never-get-better-ness.’ Whatever your circumstances, those tinges of hope are worth clinging to. They’ll carry you through. 

I don’t know where I’ll be next year, let alone a future once so clear. And I’m okay. You’re okay. The other side isn’t perfect. Nothing is. But what a gift to make it there and experience life unshackled from your ghost. 

There’s so much to see.  

Kyle Ridley is an Emmy Award winning journalist with more than two decades in print and television.

Continue Reading

Opinions

Why trans suffering is more palatable than trans ambition

We are most readily accepted when framed as victims

Published

on

(Photo by nito/Bigstock)

In the current media and political climate, stories of trans suffering move quickly. Stories of trans ambition do not.

A trans teenager denied healthcare. A trans woman attacked on public transit. A trans man struggling with homelessness. These narratives circulate widely, often accompanied by solemn op-eds, viral posts, and carefully worded statements of concern. The pain is real. The coverage is necessary. But there is a quieter pattern beneath it: trans people are most readily accepted when they are framed as victims—and most resisted when they present themselves as agents with desire, confidence, and upward momentum.

This distinction has sharpened in recent years. As anti-trans legislation has proliferated across statehouses and election cycles have turned trans lives into talking points, the public script has narrowed. Trans people are legible as objects of harm, but far less comfortable to many audiences as subjects of ambition. Survival is tolerated. Aspiration is destabilizing.

The reason suffering travels more easily is not mysterious. Pain reassures the audience. It positions trans people as recipients of concern rather than participants in competition. A suffering subject does not threaten status hierarchies; they confirm them. Sympathy can be extended without requiring a recalibration of power, space, or expectations. In this framing, acceptance remains conditional and charitable.

Ambition disrupts that arrangement. A trans person who wants more than safety—who wants money, authority, visibility, creative control, or institutional influence—forces a different reckoning. Ambition implies permanence. It implies entitlement. It implies that trans people are not passing through society’s margins but intend to occupy its center alongside everyone else.

You can see this discomfort play out in real time. When trans people speak about wanting success rather than safety, the response often shifts. Confidence is scrutinized. Assertiveness is reframed as arrogance. Desire is recoded as delusion. The language changes quickly: “unstable,” “narcissistic,” “out of touch,” “ungrateful.” In public discourse, confidence in trans people is frequently treated not as a strength, but as a warning sign.

Media narratives reinforce this dynamic. Even ostensibly positive coverage often relies on redemption arcs that center suffering first and ambition second—if at all. Success is framed as overcoming transness rather than inhabiting it. A trans person can be praised for resilience, but rarely for dominance, excellence, or command. Achievement must be softened, contextualized, and made reassuring.

This is especially visible in cultural reactions to trans people who refuse modesty. Trans figures who express sexual confidence, professional competitiveness, or political authority routinely face backlash that their cis counterparts do not. They are accused of being “too much,” of asking for too much space, of wanting too much too fast. The underlying anxiety is not about tone; it is about proximity. Ambition collapses the safe distance between observer and observed.

Politically, this preference for suffering over ambition is costly. Movements anchored primarily in pain narratives struggle to articulate futures beyond harm reduction. They mobilize sympathy but have difficulty sustaining leadership. A politics that can only argue from injury is perpetually reactive, always responding to the next threat rather than shaping the terrain itself.

This matters in a moment when trans rights are no longer debated only in cultural terms but in administrative, legal, and economic ones. Influence now depends on institutional literacy, long-term strategy, and the willingness to occupy decision-making spaces that were never designed with trans people in mind. Ambition is not a luxury; it is a prerequisite for durability.

Yet ambition remains suspect. Trans people are encouraged to be grateful rather than demanding, visible rather than powerful, resilient rather than authoritative. Even within progressive spaces, there is often an unspoken expectation that trans people justify their presence through pain rather than through competence or vision.

This is not liberation. It is containment.

A society that can tolerate trans suffering but recoils at trans ambition is not offering equality; it is managing discomfort. It is willing to mourn trans deaths but uneasy about trans dominance, trans leadership, or trans desire that does not ask permission. It prefers trans people as evidence of harm rather than as evidence of possibility.

None of this is an argument against documenting suffering. That work remains essential, particularly as legal protections erode and violence persists. But suffering cannot be the only admissible register of trans life. A politics that cannot imagine trans people as ambitious cannot sustain trans people as free.

Ambition does not negate vulnerability. Desire does not erase harm. Wanting more than survival is not ingratitude—it is the baseline condition of citizenship. The question is not whether trans people deserve ambition. The question is why it remains so unsettling when they claim it.

Until that discomfort is confronted, acceptance will remain conditional. Sympathy will remain cheap. And trans futures will continue to be negotiated on terms that stop just short of power.


Isaac Amend is a writer based in the D.C. area. He is a transgender man and was featured in National Geographic’s ‘Gender Revolution’ documentary. He serves on the board of the LGBT Democrats of Virginia. Contact him on Instagram at @isaacamend

Continue Reading

Popular