Bridging the Gap Between LGB and T Communities

Not long after the Obergefell decision, it became apparent that transgender rights would be the next major battleground. Yet the alliance between LGB and T struck me as misaligned. Gays and lesbians urged society to accept them as they were; transgender individuals pressed for acceptance of who they are, in a way that differed from the prior aims. More troubling, advocates for transgender rights directed nearly all of their efforts toward youth: school bathrooms; educators urging students to conceal transitions from their parents; medical interventions for minors; biologically male athletes competing in female sports; and more. For many years, gay men were painted as grooming predators. Growing up in New York City in the 1990s, I heard endless jokes about gay priests and Scout leaders abusing children. Yet the T in LGBT seemed to center on young people.

The concerns of gays and lesbians always seemed distinct. I wondered if gay-rights groups quietly worried about this LGB-T merger but stayed silent for fear of accusations of transphobia. It feels like the moment of truth has finally arrived, at last.

The Log Cabin Republicans will no longer advocate on transgender issues. Ross Hemminger, the President of LCR, published an essay in Townhall addressing the matter.

In 2015, the Log Cabin Republicans Board of Directors voted to bring the “T” under the umbrella of our mission — grounded in the belief that all adults should be free to pursue happiness without government interference, provided it does not infringe on others’ inalienable rights.

At that time, we could not have foreseen the path we find ourselves on today. The transgender movement has shifted away from adult-focused concerns — nearly all of its efforts and those of its allied special-interest groups concentrate on minors. They push schools to adopt radical gender ideologies; they advocate for biological men in women’s sports regardless of consequences; perhaps most troubling, they support gender-affirming treatments for minors, often without parental knowledge or consent, fully aware that such treatments are largely irreversible.

And Hemminger notes how support for gay marriage is waning in part due to transgender ideology.

Gay men and women are losing broad support across the country, and backing for gay marriage and other once widely accepted rights is eroding. Why? Because many voters today did not witness the legal battles that propelled gay marriage through the courts and into public opinion. Their view of the gay community is shaped by today’s radical transgender activists with their unsettling, unnecessary focus on America’s youth.

That’s why, after substantial discussion with our membership, our Board of Directors chose to narrow Log Cabin Republicans’ national advocacy to emphasize issues of sexual orientation and conservative values — in other words, we are an LGB advocacy organization, as our founders envisioned and as our moral center directs us to be.

The New York Times quotes Danny Stevens, who previously led the Houston Chapter of the Log Cabin Republicans:

Danny Stevens, former president of the Log Cabin Republicans chapter in Houston, believed the national group had made a prudent move by stepping away from trans-rights issues, which it had embraced in 2015.

The issue proved unworkable for many Texas Republicans.

“At a certain point, I kept asking myself, why are we investing so much effort to convince Republicans that we’re sane while associating ourselves with a movement pushing proposals most of them will never accept?” Stevens wrote in a text message on Tuesday.

He wishes the national Log Cabin group had dropped transgender issues sooner, he said. “I actually think it was necessary,” he stated, if the group “wants to keep making progress within the Republican Party.”

I spoke at Danny’s Houston chapter last year about Obergefell. I explained that regardless of one’s view on same-sex marriage, Justice Kennedy’s decision rested on shaky legal ground and offered a precarious basis for the institution. The audience was respectful, even when they disagreed. During the Q&A, there were several questions about transgender rights, and it was evident which direction the membership was leaning.

Danny eventually stepped down from leadership, largely due to LCR’s stance on the transgender issue. I asked Danny whether I could publish his letter, and he generously shared it. I believe Danny makes several important points that deserve consideration:

First, I want to say that I love LCR and want the best for our chapter and the entire organization. I’m writing this as Danny Stevens. My views may not precisely represent the sole voice of our Houston board.

I am growing more concerned and frustrated that the transgender issue is not only harming us, but it is unraveling much of the work we’ve accomplished as a chapter and as an organization.

I intend to draft a more formal letter, but I needed to get my initial thoughts out now.

My belief is that we must take a leadership stance on this issue, one we have yet to take. Yes, we have echoed the mainstream Republican positions on men in women’s sports and on gender transitions for minors. But that scope is not wide enough.

Gender dysphoria has long been recognized as a clinically diagnosed mental health condition. The roots and the appropriate treatment for this condition are beyond my remit. However, I am no longer willing to treat this condition as equivalent to sexual orientation.

What someone decides to do with their own body is up to the individual. But our society’s willingness to affirm that decision as healthy or normal should not be dictated by the trans movement.

We have many allies within the local Republican Party who have shared with me, both personally and publicly, concerns about how the trans movement affects the broader LGB population. I do not dispute their concerns.

Moreover, all the effort, time and resources our chapter has invested to gain recognition from the Republican Party of Texas are undermined by a stream of headlines about transgender individuals and crimes that appear disproportionately frequent relative to their share of the population. I acknowledge that there are good and decent transgender people. But this does not prohibit us from identifying the larger challenges facing our organization or society.

Whenever I utter the acronym LGBT, I cringe, knowing it can alienate many who might otherwise support us. The very label immediately conjures a stereotype that is not accurate or fair to the gay men among us who read this.

To me, the argument is largely economic. How many gay and lesbian potential or current members are we losing because we refuse to voice what many of us are thinking? Are we truly willing to sacrifice 20 gay men to gain 1 transgender member? What ratio would be acceptable to LCR National?

Consider the chapter’s contributions in time, labor and money. For our chapter, almost all of this comes from gay men, not our two transgender members. In fact, one of our transgender members has grown disillusioned with the Republican Party due to President Trump’s policies toward transgender people, especially those serving in the military. I suspect they will no longer be a member if they have not already stopped paying dues.

Charlie Kirk’s assassination represented a real turning point for me. It underscored how much healing the nation still requires, and how much internal soul-searching our organization must undertake. This begins with brutal honesty with ourselves and with one another.

I am not prepared to continue pouring my heart into a cause that is continually undermined. Frankly, what is the point?

I am starting to wonder whether my time, energy and passion would be better spent outside of the LCR. I suspect others are asking themselves the same question.

This issue stands as a defining moment for LCR’s future. I fear it could be our downfall unless we confront it openly and head-on.

Sincerely,
Danny Stevens

As I noted in City Journal in April, the sentiment has shifted. Sooner or later, even the more progressive factions within gay rights movements may reconsider the merger of LGB and T.