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.
When we’re out with friends, we ask a question that sometimes surprises people: Are you on PrEP?
PrEP is a medication that reduces the risk of getting HIV by about 99 percent when taken as prescribed. We’re both on it. And we both talk about it openly because too many people in our communities still haven’t heard of it, can’t access it, or have been made to feel like asking for it says something about who they are.
It doesn’t. Taking PrEP is about taking control of your health. It’s that simple.
But getting there wasn’t simple for either of us. Our paths to PrEP looked different.
Del. Martinez learned this firsthand. When he asked his primary care doctor about PrEP, the response wasn’t medical — it was judgment. Instead of a prescription, he got a lecture. He had to leave Maryland entirely and go to Whitman-Walker in D.C. just to get basic preventive care. He serves on the Health Committee and sits on the public health subcommittee. Even he couldn’t access HIV prevention in his own state. That reality was soul-crushing, not just for him, but because he immediately thought about every person in his community who doesn’t have the resources to find another way.
Phillip came to PrEP through his work at FreeState Justice, where he was learning about HIV transmission rates and the gap in PrEP access for queer people of color. Black Marylanders account for 65 percent of new HIV diagnoses but only about 35 percent of PrEP users. Latino Marylanders account for nearly 19 percent of new diagnoses but fewer than 8 percent of PrEP users.
Seeing those numbers, he had to ask himself why he wasn’t on it. When he walked into Chase Brexton’s HIV Prevention clinic in Baltimore, the experience was easy and affirming, exactly what it should be for everyone. No judgment, just care. That’s the kind of experience every Marylander deserves.
A proposed bill would make it the standard in Maryland. HB 1114 would let people walk into their neighborhood pharmacy and access PrEP without waiting months for a doctor’s appointment, remove insurance barriers that slow things down, and connect them to ongoing care.
Our stories are not unusual. When we talk to friends about PrEP — and we do, regularly — we hear the same things. People who didn’t know about it. People who tried and gave up. People who assumed it wasn’t for them. People who couldn’t afford it or couldn’t find a provider. There’s still misinformation out there, and there’s still stigma. Among women in Maryland, most new HIV diagnoses come from heterosexual contact, but PrEP is still rarely part of the conversation from their doctors.
When we talk to our friends about PrEP, we lead with honesty. Here’s what it does, here’s what it costs, here’s where to go. We talk about the different options: daily pills or long-acting shots. Generic options are available, and in many cases, free. If you’re sexually active, it might be right for you. It’s not a morality question. It’s a health question.
We try to make it feel approachable, because it should be. We answer every question, because sometimes we’re the first person someone has had this conversation with. It’s a conversation between people who trust each other. And it works, but it can only go so far when the system itself is still in the way.
We have the medical tools to virtually end new HIV transmissions. What we need now are the policies to make sure everyone can reach them. At a time when the future of federal HIV prevention programs is under attack, Maryland has both the opportunity and the responsibility to lead.
We’re asking our friends to take charge of their health. We’re asking Maryland to make it possible.
If PrEP sounds right for you, talk to your provider. If you know someone who could benefit, share what you know. And if you want to see Maryland get this right, tell your legislators to support HB 1114.
State Del. Ashanti Martinez represents District 22 in Prince George’s County in the Maryland House of Delegates, where he serves as Majority Whip and sits on the Health Committee. Phillip Westry is the executive director of FreeState Justice, Maryland’s statewide LGBTQ+ advocacy organization.
Opinions
A dream: Democrats focus on candidates who can win
Defeating every Republican has to be the goal in 2026, 2028
I know this is just a dream, but I am a dreamer and continue to hope Democrats can get beyond Black or white, gay or straight, man or woman; to look at who can win in 2026, and then in 2028. It’s often said each election is the most consequential in our lifetime. The next two actually are.
The reality is without change; we face losing our democracy. We have a racist, sexist, homophobic, lying felon, in the White House. He has a Cabinet of vile incompetents, and a cadre of fascist advisers, controlling our government. They threaten our freedoms, and even our health. They think the military is theirs to use at will, without restrictions. Again, my dream for elections in 2026 and 2028, is we put our personal desires aside, for the good of the nation.
Everyone is being hurt by Trump. Black women being fired in huge numbers. Transgender people literally having their lives threatened. The LGBTQ community facing new threats. Civil rights are being undermined, and the Latino community across the country is targeted. Women are losing the right to control their bodies. Our voting rights are being threatened, and all this is happening with the consent of the Republican sycophants in Congress who are either in complete agreement with the felon, or threatened into submission by him, and his fascist cohorts. This is what we are facing in the next two election cycles as we try to take back our country. As the opposition party, we must first take back Congress in 2026. If we succeed, we must replicate that success as we work to reclaim the White House in 2028.
I believe we must all be represented in our elected officials. For years I felt comfortable looking at the equality issue in choosing a candidate, as even in the worst-case scenarios, when losing meant the election of the likes of a Richard Nixon or Ronald Reagan, I never believed my country’s existence was threatened. They, and others like them, may have been vile, but none professed wanting to be king. They didn’t go to court seeking full immunity for anything they did and getting it from judges they appointed.
I am a proud gay man but will not automatically vote for an LGBTQ candidate in the next elections. In 2024, I worked hard, and proudly, to see two strong Black women elected to the United States Senate. In the 2008 primary I was proud to stand with Hillary Clinton, then support Barack Obama when he won the nomination. In 2016, I again stood with Hillary. In 2020, I proudly supported Kamala Harris as vice president and then supported her for president in 2024.
Today, I am looking at the next two election cycles differently. I have written the only way to win back my country is to look at which Democrat can win in a particular race. I will support a Democrat committed to voting for the Democratic leadership in the House and the Senate, and in their state legislature, even if they don’t support fully everything I want. Because when Democrats win the leadership, they set the agenda. The Democratic platform has been about the same for many years. It stands for equality in every area. Have we accomplished all we stand for, clearly NO. Have we made progress, clearly YES.
In these upcoming elections each Democrat may win their race with a different set of issues at the forefront. I have suggested in the morning they go to the diners in their district, and in the evening to the bars, to find out what people are talking about, and concerned about. Then respond to that by running on those issues. If there is a primary, demand each candidate pledge to fully support the winner. Think about what is said about Democrats and Republicans, “Democrats fall in love; Republicans fall in line.” Well in the next two election cycles, Democrats need to fall in line with every Democrat on the ballot in the general election willing to say, “if elected I will vote for, and support, the Democratic leadership.”
If we don’t commit to doing that in the next two election cycles, we may actually not have future elections. It is the only way we can stop the felon, and his fascist government, from winning. Defeating every Republican in 2026 and 2028, has to be the goal for all who care about our country, and moving on to the next 250 years. Not winning is not an option.
Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist.
Opinions
Capital Pride must be transparent about sexual misconduct investigation
More questions than answers after two board members resign
We are living through some very difficult times in our country. We have a felon in the White House who has surrounded himself with incompetent sycophants and fascists. A Congress that bows down to him, often based on his threats. Things have gotten so bad that his supporters are beginning to wake up to the fact that he cares not a whit for them. They are demanding he stop hiding his involvement with the convicted sex trafficker, Jeffrey Epstein, and come clean. So, to distract them from this, he began a war in the Middle East in which members of the American military have already lost their lives. He says more lives will be lost. He hopes this war of distraction will have Americans forget his failed domestic policies and the Epstein scandal.
But at the same time that all of this is happening, I am forced to look around at organizations I support and ask if they are being open and honest in the way we are demanding of the felon in the White House.
Recently, I have received calls about an organization I have the utmost pride in: Capital Pride. The calls are about Capital Pride’s internal investigation of “a claim” made against a former board chair, who resigned and no longer has any role with the organization. There has been no public proof of any wrongdoing. At the time, Capital Pride announced it had retained an “independent firm” to investigate the complaint. Now, more than four months later, a second board member has resigned sharing her letter of resignation with the Blade.
Taylor Lianne Chandler, a member of the Capital Pride board of directors since 2019 who served as the board’s secretary, submitted a letter of resignation on Feb. 24 that alleges the board has failed to address instances of “sexual misconduct” at Capital Pride.
“This board has made its priorities clear through its actions: protecting a sexual predator matters more than protecting the people who had the courage to come forward. … I have been targeted, bullied, and made to feel like an outsider for doing what any person of integrity would do – telling the truth,” Chandler wrote in her resignation letter.
The Blade reported the organization announced, “As we continue to grow our organization, we’re proactively strengthening the policies and procedures that shape our systems, our infrastructure, and the support we provide to our team and partners.”
Again, it is four months later, and there has been no information from Capital Pride regarding that investigation.
Chandler said a Capital Pride investigation identified one individual implicated in a “pattern” of sexual harassment related behavior over a period of time. She added she was bound by a Non-Disclosure Agreement that applies to all board members and she cannot disclose the name of the person implicated in alleged sexual misconduct or those who came forward to complain about it. She added, “It was one individual, but there was a pattern and a history.”
Again, reading that letter from Chandler and because of the news being full of the Epstein scandal, it makes me want assurances that no organization representing my community will ever think it can cover up issues like this. Capital Pride leadership must be totally transparent.
Capital Pride is a wonderful organization with so many incredible people working and volunteering there. They make our community proud. I never want to see a blemish on the organization. So, I am calling on them to be open and transparent about the investigation they themselves announced, and let the community know what they found, in detail. More important even than the entire community knowing, is for their staff and volunteers to know what they found. No one should be bound by an NDA, which leads to people thinking something really bad is going on.
I thought twice, even three times, before writing this column. I don’t want it to be seen as casting aspersions on all of Capital Pride, or anyone who may have worked there, or volunteered there. But again, because of the focus on the Epstein scandal, and my writing about the felon and his Cabinet officials involved in it, my calling for them to come clean and tell us all they know, I feel compelled to say the same to the organization I have supported over the years, which even honored me as a Capital Pride Hero in 2016. I want them to move forward and be a beacon of light for our community for many years to come. The work they do makes a difference for so many.
I wrote in my memoir that coming to a Pride event helped me to come out, and I am sure it has done the same for so many others in our community. What Capital Pride does is important and it must be as transparent as we demand of any other organization.
Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist.
-
Health4 days agoToo afraid to leave home: ICE’s toll on Latino HIV care
-
Movies4 days agoIntense doc offers transcendent treatment of queer fetish pioneer
-
The White House3 days agoTrump will refuse to sign voting bill without anti-trans provisions
-
Colombia4 days agoClaudia López wins primary in Colombian presidential race
