Connect with us

Opinions

Why we need to protect ‘sacrilegious’ art

Australia sets dangerous precedent for classifying LGBTQ works as offensive

Published

on

(Photo by sqback/Bigstock)

On July 8, Divine Playhouse opened inside a deconsecrated 158-year-old former church on Kent Street in Sydney, Australia. Although the organizers had a permit and received a $100,000 grant from Create NSW to host events in the previously unused space for a whole year, the organizers were forced to shut down after just three days of operations after receiving a tenant breach notice about “offensive trade” under the 1919 Conveyancing Act.

A day after the Divine Playhouse opened, Redevelop, the company leasing out the church (that was deconsecrated almost a century ago) to Heaps Gay Events cited a clause in their contract that prohibits tenants from noisy business. The clause didn’t include any note about political or religious imagery, but even so, Redevelop wrote that Divine Playhouse “insulted and mocked the sincerely held religious beliefs of millions of Christian Australians.”

On opening night, members of conservative Christian and Catholic groups including Fit for the Kingdom and Prodigal Sons protested (without proper authorization) the live music, cabaret shows, and performances they argued mocked the Christian faith. Protesters called drag queens dressed as nuns (the legitimate vestments of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence) and events like the Sunday Mess, a brunch party that incorporated religious imagery, “equivalent to hate speech” according to the Redevelop landlords and their lawyers. 

But as reports show, the organizers were aware of concerns from the nearby Christian community and made changes in good faith to address those concerns before opening, including changing the name from Unholy Playhouse to Divine Playhouse. Organizers intentionally changed the name in order to make it more inclusive, rejecting the idea that they were mocking religious beliefs in their performances.

But this has not swayed members of conservative Christian groups who, on opening night, shouted at attendees that they “should be ashamed” and were “disgusting.” Redevelop gave the organizers two days to cease operations. As The Guardian reported, volunteers and organizers took down signage and painted over a mural that had all been commissioned for the year-round residency.

While the organizers initially explored whether they could sue for discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals, the organizers decided to cancel all upcoming events and close the space to protect performers, as protesters filmed people entering and leaving the event without their consent on opening night. Along with facing a breach of contract, Meta also shut down all of Divine Playhouse’s social media accounts, along with personal accounts and LGBTQ+ community accounts. This is an increasingly common problem for queer content creators. 

Now, the LGBTQ+ community is in a justified uproar, and conservative Christians in Australia and beyond are furious about what they are calling “offensive art.” The lease violation sets a dangerous precedent for classifying LGBTQ+ art as offensive, which could lead to laws or local restrictions that could be used by developers to discriminate against people who they deem “offensive,” i.e. LGBTQ+ individuals and organizations. This already exists in the United States, where racial covenants enforcing segregation remain on the books.

As theater lecturer Charlotte Farrell wrote, there is a long history of art and performance in church spaces, but Farrell largely cites art in more progressive Christian spaces as opposed to Catholic ones. Queer art in Catholic spaces (including operational and consecrated Catholic churches) do exist, including God is Trans: A Queer Spiritual Journey hosted by the Church of St. Paul the Apostle in New York City in 2023 (although this show also generated controversy). 

With the risk of empowering conservatives to lobby for laws or restrictions that would allow them to deny renting to “offensive” people or on the grounds that a person’s art is “offensive,” I argue further that there is an urgent need to call out what this situation was–the explicit attempt to equate queer art that challenges religious institutions, trauma, and abuse as inherently “offensive” and to use this to deny an artist and community’s right to exist in a space. 

Art has historically been a vital way not just to evangelize but also to challenge religious institutions that use their power and influence to not just isolate and abuse LGBTQ+ people and other marginalized communities but to systematically oppose their rights. Take for example Sinead O’Connor’s protest performance on the October 3, 1992 episode of Saturday Night Live. O’Connor, who had experienced severe institutional confinement in a Magdalene Laundry run by the church and had experienced intense physical and emotional abuse by her devout mother, tore up a photo of Pope John Paul II. 

While she originally planned to hold up a photo of a refugee child, she swapped it with a photo of the pope after singing an a cappella version of Bob’s Marley’s “War” where she changed the lyric to “child abuse.” She looked at the camera and said “fight the real enemy” before throwing the pieces to the ground. At the time, the Irish singer faced intense backlash and a lifetime ban from SNL, but as more information came out about her time in the Laundry, her mother’s emotional abuse, and systemic sexual abuse and people attempting to cover it up in the Catholic Church, people today recognize her protest as the start of a vital conversation.

For some people, O’Connor became a secular saint, a prophet exposing systemic sexual abuse before people were willing to confront the lived experiences that survivors were sharing and religious leaders were covering up. Dr. Margaret Kennedy, founder of Ministry and Clergy Sexual Abuse Survivors and author of “The Courage to Tell,” wrote for Premier Christianity that “when she tore apart a picture of the Pope on Saturday Night Live in 1992, she was preaching.” 

Is O’Connor’s religious liberty to preach through this act of protest not equal to that of her critics? Did O’Connor, like anyone at the Divine Playhouse, threaten any religious person? 

No, they made a statement about religious institutions and people that continue to abuse people. If that can be targeted so can any other form of protest or acts of resistance that threaten systems of power.

Protest art like O’Connor’s is at the bedrock of human rights in any democratic country. When people stop creating art or move out of spaces out of fear of precipitating anti-LGBTQ+ violence, or are forced out because of claims of lease violations, the whole society loses a vital way to challenge and confront abuse and exploitation. There is a need not just to legally protect people creating protest art but also protest artists themselves so that their work cannot be censored or attacked on the grounds of religious liberty. 

To be clear, protecting people’s rights to create protest art is not the same as allowing people to insult or desecrate the imagery of marginalized faiths that face persecution and misrepresentation in the United States today. It’s also not a license for anti-religious bigotry or violence that hurts anyone. Instead, the protection of protest art is a protection of the right to protest itself, the right to challenge and grapple with institutional abuse and religious trauma in ways that cause no one physical harm. 

As James Thorpe, co-chair of the Night Time Industries Associates, explained to The Guardian, “Christians have a right to preach, protest and stand outside Divine Playhouse and pray. Queer artists have the right to make art that is confronting, irreverent, and yes, offensive.” Thorpe says that LGBTQ+ artists and communities, and all marginalized groups, have a fundamental right to create art that unsettles people, that challenges social systems that prioritize and sacralize a cisgender, heterosexual norm intrinsically connected to Christian nationalism. 

Because in a society where Christian nationalism is fast becoming mainstream, protest art, sacrilegious art is the only language that far right religious groups understand. At the heart of the issue is civility politics, or a strategy used by conservative and far right groups to argue that marginalized communities censor their protests and calls for change to be “respectful.” What respectful is and who deems it respectful is deeply subjective, often the creation of a dominant social group like Christians in the United States. 

If far-right forces want to call LGBTQ+ protest art like that at the Divine Playhouse “offensive” or “sacrilegious” so be it. Yes, calling our art, our identities, “offensive” is a form of bigotry, a practice of hate. It reminds many of us raised in high control religious spaces that we are outsiders to the very religious systems that raised us and cultivates the same shame, guilt, and abuse that caused many of us to leave or explore affirming religious or spiritual traditions. 

But calling art “offensive” doesn’t change or invalidate the fact that it is a fundamental exercise of our right to free speech, and our fundamental human right to create art that unsettles and upsets people in positions of power. It also doesn’t change the fact that for many of us, creating protest art is a spiritual practice, a form of sacred resistance that helps us challenge systems that have long abused us through purity culture, conversion therapy, and cultures of shame. 

Protecting the right to create protest art isn’t just enshrining our right to free speech but for many of us, our right to practice a spiritual act of resistance. And in a time where LGBTQ+ identity, people, and bodies are deemed “offensive. Because at its core, this isn’t just an issue about art anymore, it’s about protecting our right to exist in public spaces and our right to create safe spaces for ourselves. 


Emma Cieslik is a D.C.-based museum worker and public historian.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Opinions

The right to be an ordinary transgender man

And the freedom to become unremarkable

Published

on

Perhaps successful visibility should eventually produce another freedom: the freedom to become unremarkable. (Photo by barsik/Bigstock)

For years, transgender Americans have been told that visibility is important. We should tell our stories, educate people, speak publicly about our experiences and show younger transgender people that a future is possible. I understand that argument because I have participated in that kind of visibility myself. Nearly a decade ago, I appeared in National Geographic’s “Gender Revolution,” in 2017, hosted by Katie Couric. I have written publicly about being transgender, participated in LGBTQ politics and spent years thinking about what it means to transition in America. My history is hardly a secret. But as I have gotten older, I have increasingly found myself wanting something considerably less dramatic: I want the right to be an ordinary man.

That does not mean I am ashamed of being transgender, nor does it mean that transgender activists should stop fighting for our rights. Many of the freedoms I enjoy exist because previous generations of LGBTQ people were willing to be conspicuous when visibility carried considerable personal risk. But equality cannot require permanent visibility. There is a strange expectation placed upon members of minority groups that our lives should contain some larger social meaning. A transgender person who overcomes adversity is called “brave.” Someone who talks openly about transition becomes “inspiring.” Someone who succeeds becomes an example of “trans resilience.” Sometimes those descriptions are deserved and sincerely appreciated. But sometimes I do not want to represent resilience. Sometimes I just want to walk my dogs, sit in a coffee shop with my laptop, complain about Northern Virginia traffic, go swimming, write books and figure out what I am having for dinner. I also want to be able to gossip with my friends in meaningless ways and do off kilter things that resemble fun: axe throwing, bowling, and karaoke. 

When I was younger, being transgender occupied an enormous amount of psychological territory. Transition required decisions, explanations and difficult conversations. Other people had questions. My body seemed consequential in a way that other people’s bodies did not. There was always another milestone ahead of me, and for a while it was difficult to imagine reaching a point when gender would no longer dominate my thoughts. Eventually, however, something unexpected happened: life became life again. The questions that occupy me today are increasingly the same mundane questions that occupy millions of other adults. What kind of career do I want? Am I being a good friend? What should I write next? What kind of person do I want to become?

Most strangers who meet me today simply see a man. They do not know my medical history or what I looked like years ago. They don’t know that I looked like a skinny track star, and then was put into the resemblances of a meager nonbinary body. They do not know the chronology of my transition unless I decide to tell them. There is tremendous freedom in that, and I have come to think of it not as deception but as privacy. Nobody introduces himself by providing strangers with a complete inventory of his medical history, childhood insecurities and previous identities. Human beings reveal themselves gradually. Different people know different parts of us, and intimacy develops when we decide that somebody has earned access to more of our story.

Yet transgender people are frequently encouraged to regard disclosure as a measure of authenticity. I no longer believe that it is. There are circumstances in which being transgender matters enormously, and there are others in which it barely matters at all. When I am writing, I want somebody to care about the quality of the sentence. When I am working, I want somebody to care whether I did the job well. When I make a friend, I want that person to discover the complicated human being underneath the surface: my ambitions, flaws, anxieties, ridiculous stories and sense of humor. Being transgender may eventually become part of that conversation, but it does not have to be the first thing somebody knows about me.

That, to me, is one of the least discussed promises of equality. For decades, LGBTQ people fought for the right to be seen because invisibility was often enforced through shame and discrimination. Visibility therefore became a form of liberation. But perhaps successful visibility should eventually produce another freedom: the freedom to become unremarkable. A gay couple should be able to bore their neighbors with complaints about their mortgage. A lesbian should not have to become an ambassador for lesbianism whenever she enters a room. A transgender man should not have to turn his body into a public seminar about gender. He should occasionally be allowed to be some guy. Transgender people, in a sense, should also have the right to be flawed: sometimes we yell at our romantic counterparts, and other times we get fired from jobs for being obnoxious. But we are only human, just like you. 

There are, of course, transgender people who cannot or do not want to disappear into ordinary life, and there are young transgender people desperately searching for evidence that adulthood is possible for them. Visible transgender people can provide that evidence. But there should be another story available to those young people as well: you can grow up, transition and eventually spend less time thinking about transition. You can become preoccupied with your career, fall in love, get divorced, write a terrible first draft and spend three days fixing it, worry about your parents, buy groceries and acquire all the wonderfully tedious problems of adulthood.

That might not sound revolutionary, but perhaps that is precisely what makes it meaningful. The ultimate promise of transgender equality should not be that every transgender person becomes visible, celebrated, courageous, or inspirational. It should include the possibility that a transgender man can walk into a room and nobody finds his gender history particularly interesting. He can simply be a man living his life. Increasingly, I think that ordinary freedom is what I wanted from transition all along.


Isaac Amend is a transgender man and writer based in D.C. In 2017, he starred in National Geographic’s ‘Gender Revolution’ documentary. He sits on the board of the LGBT Democrats of Virginia. His author’s portfolio is available at isaacamend.com, and you can catch him on Instagram at: @isaacamend.

Continue Reading

Opinions

LGBTQ community must vote in big numbers

We have a chance to retake Congress and flip governors’ mansions

Published

on

(Photo by Fredex/Bigstock)

On Nov. 3, we have a chance to make a difference for our own community, and for so many others, who are being hurt by the lying, grifting, felon in the White House, his fascist aides, and sycophants in Congress. The danger they pose is real.

We have seen members of the LGBTQ community have their lives threatened, and some even killed. The anti-trans language, and anti-trans legislation, both supported and proposed by this administration, and their MAGA followers around the nation, is real. In the Department of Defense, we have seen trans heroes drummed out of the military. Books on our community taken off library shelves, and our history being wiped out. Even the history of the Enola Gay, the plane that dropped the atomic bomb, was wiped out before someone actually told the dangerous, moron, Pete Hegseth, Secretary of Defense, that Gay was the name of the pilot’s mother, not a reference to our community. 

Many members of the Log Cabin Republicans will proudly tell you that the administration is actually pro-LGBTQ, as there are gay members of the felon’s administration. What they don’t like to dwell on, is their silence during these attacks on the community. Yes, there are people like Richard Grennell, who destroyed the Kennedy Center. He cancelled concerts by the Gay Men’s Chorus, and programs by drag queens. Then there is Scott Bessent, the highest-ranking queer, a clearly self-hating, Secretary of the Treasury. A man who benefitted from the work of all the activists in our community, so he could get married, and have children, but then won’t speak out for the community. I wrote a column suggesting when his children grow up, they will be embarrassed by what their father didn’t do. Most of the other members of the LGBTQ community in this administration are either members, or supporters, of Log Cabin, and have sworn fealty to the lying, grifting, Trump in order to get, and keep, their jobs. 

So, it is beyond time, for the LGBTQ community, and our allies, to vote, and vote in large numbers, to say ‘ENOUGH’, we will not continue to stand idly by while we, and others, are being hurt by this self-serving, venal administration.

Barney Frank once said “If we aren’t at the table, we are on the menu.” But we have come to realize, not every one of us at the table, will work to protect us. There are some at the table today who either agree with what the administration is doing, or are remaining silent out of fear. They remind us every day of the truth of the slogan, ‘Silence = Death.’

So, Nov. 3 is our next chance to speak out. We can do it with our votes. If we vote in large enough numbers, we have the chance to not only take back the Congress, the House and Senate, but to impact state governments, cities, and local communities. We have the real chance to take back the governor’s mansions in Ohio, by electing Amy Acton; in Iowa, by electing Rob Sand; in Florida, by electing David Jolly; and in Georgia, by electing Keisha Lance Bottoms, among other states. These races are all close, and our voting in big numbers can make the difference. Then we can flip state legislatures, mayor’s offices, local commissions, and even school boards. We have seen even in small communities like Rehoboth Beach, Del., when we vote, we elected the first out lesbian mayor, Susan Stewart. In Key West, we elected a commissioner, Christopher Massicotte. Our votes, along with so many other decent people, do make a real difference. 

It is not only electing members of the LGBTQ community. It is electing those who will have our backs, and fight for us. We must support, and vote for, candidates who will have our backs and fight against the homophobia, and vicious attacks, on our community by today’s MAGA version of the Republican Party. While the numbers vary, there have been more than 500 anti-LGBTQ bills filed in state legislatures thus far in 2026. I may have missed something, but as far as I know the felon’s administration has not opposed any of them. They have endorsed a host of them through their words and actions.

So, I beg you, as a member of the LGBTQ community, and someone who believes in equal rights, and human rights, for all; please vote. Make the effort to get all your friends and family that support you, to vote as well. Martin Luther King, Jr., who I had the honor of meeting and taking with, once told me “Each one of us can make a difference.” This is your chance! 


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

Continue Reading

Commentary

Washington Blade responds to concerns over White House pool duties

Inaccurate media reports create confusion but we stand with our colleagues

Published

on

A photo from inside the White House on Monday. (Washington Blade photo by Joe Reberkenny)

Last week, President Trump announced his unconstitutional ban of CNN, MSNow, and Politico from the White House. Coincidentally, on Monday, it was the Washington Blade’s turn to serve as the print pool reporter on duty covering the president’s actions that day. This important responsibility is shared and rotated among the print members with each serving roughly once per month. The Blade is the only LGBTQ outlet with a seat in the briefing room, a slot in the pool rotation, and membership in the White House Correspondents’ Association, something we fought for decades to secure after enduring years of discrimination, ridicule, and resistance to openly queer journalists working inside the White House. We take our responsibilities there seriously. 

There are two pools that cover the president: broadcast and print. The other four members of the broadcast pool — ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox News — agreed to boycott their pool duties. There has been no boycott among the print pool, which is a separate entity. I called the president of the White House Correspondents’ Association on Monday to confirm that no outlets in the print pool were boycotting. 

A boycott by the Blade would set us back and lead to our expulsion from the pool and briefing room and our replacement by a right-wing outlet sympathetic to President Trump’s approach to attacking the media. The LGBTQ community is far better served with the Blade in the room than a far-right blogger taking our seat.

Let’s be clear: the Blade stands for diversity, equity, and inclusion and we stand for the First Amendment and freedom of the press. In solidarity with the broadcast pool, we made two important decisions on Monday — the first day anyone had to think about any of this. First, we refused to take or share any videos or still photos of the president, which would have undermined the broadcast boycott. Second, when Politico’s turn comes up for pool duty in mid-October, the Blade will not fill in and cover for them while they are banned. Politico must be readmitted and allowed to do their job. 

After a rough day navigating and reporting on all of this, the Advocate published a reckless and inaccurate story suggesting that the Blade had crossed a picket line. Not true, as there is no print pool boycott. They claimed that I wouldn’t talk to their reporter. Also not true. I called their reporter within 90 minutes of receiving his message and he didn’t take the call or call me back. Their story named me and our White House reporter, immediately exposing us to public criticism and worse. The environment in D.C. is so toxic and even violent these days that subjecting our staff to unfair and false accusations like this invites harassment, doxxing, and worse. To do that without even talking to us is next level irresponsible and the antithesis of journalism.

On Tuesday, I talked to two reporters and an editor at the Advocate but they refused to retract anything in their inaccurate story. If the reporter had returned my call, I could have explained all of this but they are more concerned with clickbait and sensational headlines, a dangerous practice in these troubled times. 

Back to the pool. The Blade was in the briefing room in the Reagan era, when Press Secretary Larry Speakes made jokes about AIDS and the reporters in the room laughed out loud. We endured all of that abuse and worse for decades, always standing in the back of the room and never being called on. The Blade’s journalists persevered. When President George W. Bush was re-elected in 2004, the Blade’s White House credentials were revoked amid an earlier press crackdown. Notably, no one boycotted or stood up for us. When Barack Obama won election in 2008, I received an email from his communications director informing me that effective midnight on Jan. 20, 2009, the Blade’s credentials would be restored. 

So we have had quite a ride navigating administrations and their changing requirements for gaining access but always playing the long game. As Barney Frank used to say, “If you’re not at the table, then you’re probably on the menu.” The Blade is at the table and we do our best to ensure the LGBTQ community’s issues are addressed by both parties. 

Thanks for reading and supporting the Blade’s work. If you have questions about our approach, you can reach me at [email protected].  


Kevin Naff is editor of the Washington Blade. Reach him at [email protected].

Continue Reading

Popular