The murder of Laura Ann Carleton ten days ago can be attributed to many causes: the proliferation of guns in the US, a mental health epidemic, disinformation, and online radicalization. Ultimately, it raises the question of what turned back the Rainbow flag, almost half a century after its creation, into a controversial symbol for many Americans. A few days ago, a friend wrote to me: “We had a “Gayest Place in Town” doormat; it looked cheerful, now I think it is dangerous with our children at home. We removed it today.” How did we get here? And where do we go from here?
For a while, as the acceptance of same-sex marriage gradually increased in the U.S., the flag represented equality, inclusiveness, and hope for most. I wrote this June that its message is indeed universal: LGBTQ+ people are not the only ones who must be reminded that they can define who they are, take control of their destiny, and flourish in the face of adversity.
And yet, in 2023, the shift in the flag’s meaning accelerated. A handful of cities had already banned it by decree, and some politicians tried to prevent it from flying on Government buildings. Maybe the previous decade had just been a lull for LGBTQ+ people. Or perhaps we fell asleep at the wheel.
For the Pride flag to be perceived as oppression is concerning for the US and the movement globally. If there is one lesson learned from the past few years, it is that accusations of “wokeism” or “spreading gender ideology” were immediately exported abroad. In France, the media did not even bother translating them, and now “la“guerre contre le wokisme” is a staple of the European nationalist movement.
Of course, I, too, blame the instrumentalization of LGBTQ+ lives by
Republicans for political gain. DeSantis’ Parents Rights in Education bill was a radically regressive move. I was shocked that we could not get more corporate support in Florida before its passing. Shortly before she left us, Urvashi Vaid and others co-signed a letter I sent to Disney. In it, I reiterated the particular significance of this bill: relegating us to being a danger to children, families, and society, the root of our persecution is not a place we could afford to return to.
As a Frenchman, it is hard not to see some parallels with antisemitism after the Dreyfus affair. While French Jewish people were convinced in 1906 that they had gained acceptance as full-fledged citizens, anti-Jewish hatred persisted. In 1936, Leon Blum, leader of the Popular Front, became France's first Jewish Prime Minister. And yet, four years later, he was imprisoned and deported to the Dachau concentration camp, only to return as head of the transitional Government in 1946. Today, more than 120 years after the Dreyfus affair, antisemitism persists, sometimes dormant and at others flaring.
LGBTQ+ people, too, face profoundly entrenched prejudice, but that does not mean we are doomed to fail in controlling it.
While the news cycle may have moved on, the senseless murder of Laura Ann Carleton should be a moment of reckoning for the US LGBTQ+ movement. Independently of the instrumentalization by Republicans of LGBTQ+ lives, I am convinced we cannot afford not to take stock of our failures. I do not have the arrogance to believe I know what to do, but here are three paths of worthwhile investigation:
- First, we must continue to seek to build bridges with Republicans and somewhat differentiate the LGBTQ+ movement from the Democratic political party. Of course, we should, in parallel, seek votes for our political allies, make sure LGBTQ+ run, and sue local Governments in court. But, the U.S. is the only place in the West where conservatives are almost universally anti-trans. The fact that the GOP has only one out-elected LGBTQ+ congressman – who also happens to be a crook – is an aberration. The fact that Susan Collins will not talk to HRC is a failure. Not being able to identify conservatives to staff our organizations is a problem. For Democrats and the LGBTQ+ liberation movement, to form a single institution, as it currently does, is unnatural, as human rights should never be a political question.
- Secondly, we must refine our messaging on trans acceptance. The battle for trans inclusion in Sports has been so mismanaged (watch this recent exchange between HRC and Senator Kennedy; it is mandatory viewing – the comments section is optional) that it should be left alone to focus on battles we can win. Most Americans can rally around equality and respect for individual freedoms, yet we constantly talk to them about sports, toilets, and medical care. The GenderCool Project showcases that there are alternative messages to the boycott of the New York Times, the flagship publication for liberals. If I learned one thing from my stint at the United Nations Free and Equal campaign, you cannot wing it; messaging requires a scientific approach. Throwing whatever message feels good or right at the wall and seeing if it sticks never worked. LGBTQ+ people are some of the best marketers. I am sure we can do better.
- Third, we must either regain control of our organizations or create new ones. The focus on fundraising and personal enrichment, the unbridled reign of egos, and the takeover by corporate representatives of Governance mechanisms have turned our greatest weapons into inefficient bureaucracies. Some are veering out of their lanes or taking them over entirely, seeking self-aggrandizement. Limited resources are wasted on vanity projects. Their leaders oscillate between self-congratulation and outrage, speaking primarily to an audience of staffers. As a result, they cannot make courageous decisions. And if we cannot do that, let’s create an alternative $150 million campaign to sway public opinion on trans acceptance, the value of LGBTQ+ diversity, the importance of our inclusion in curriculums, or the Pride flag's meaning.
For LGBTQ+ people, there was never any other way than changing hearts and minds and dialogue. The idea that we can survive by isolating ourselves from those who hate us or voting ourselves into acceptance is madness and risky. We cannot be passive when our joint fight for the right to live, create families, and pursue happiness symbolized by the Rainbow flag is now interpreted as oppression of others. We must regain control of the narrative and restore the Pride flag to the meaning Gilbert Baker intended. Only then will the courage and sacrifice of Laura Ann Carleton not have been in vain.
This is a great masterpiece. You are a wizard with words and your thought-processes need to be stored for humanity. I agree that we have no time for stocktaking our failures (or just "the failures that affect us"), and we need to hop into action. I also believe there are some other things that need ti be done and probably more radical. You mention the Rainbow Flag and you and us all speak of the flag with some sort of great relevance. The greatness of flags comes from the perceptions, narratives, and symbolism, the history, the challenges, the omnipresence and immortality of it. That may be the case of flags that have waved for centuries over nations waging world wars, kingdoms and empires collapsing and heroic stories of flags then giving people strength in adversity, giving them hope, communities assembling under them, regaining their pride and uniting them, making them all feel somehow safe, protected looking at the flag, knowing military forces will defend those flags and its people. Our rainbow flag has not had such a history. It can not unite us as we are not even represented as the different colours, because there is no historical context to the colours nor need. No one died for the flag, or at least went into war with it leading the battle cry, nor did we go to war and have to defend it (yet). Country flags not only have the history, but they then have political weight and they are enshrined in constitutions, given credence by elected governments, pledges and oaths reference country flags, military swear to honour the flag, the flag becomes political, even international laws exist to protect country's national flags, such as by punishable sentencing to anyone that burns a sovereign country's flag in public. The Rainbow Flag does not have that same gravitas and acknowledgement. It doesn't represent a nation of people, a country, nor a city. Its not a flag representing a geographical area. It doesn't have a "home"a "nation" that its people are unified under at home, where they feel safe. We want others to acknowledge the importance of our flag, but one can't say that it carries the same worth or value in the eyes of others. I am not belittling Harvey Milk here by the way! But we have no custodian of the rainbow flag unlike national flags. Thats because we do not have a systemic socio-political structure with the LGBT community. We are ultimately legally and emotionally obliged to identify with our national flag. Governments are obliged to fly their flags in public areas and buildings, but they are nor subjugated to fly the rainbow flag. The flag is not a part of any nation's treasures or representational symbols. And to further damage the flags reputation, we ourselves are to blame. With out expanding acronym reflecting the multitude of sexual orientations emerging and developments in gender identity nomenclature, rather than uniting under the rainbow flag, new flags were designed because people felt unrepresented. We are to blame for dismissing our original flag and then creating new ones devaluing previous efforts whilst the general population watches on amused, as even the likes of those Republican queens Santos, Grenell and Milo rip into the queer culture ultimately flaunting their self-hatred and conflicted internal turmoil and purging any LGBT symbols and elements of a queer history or culture and as if the Republicans really care if they destroy their own communities. Again, the flag does not unite the LGBT community, it is in fact highlighting our differences, this is my flag, that is yours, I am G, you are I. You are different to me, you are not me. There is no "we". When (if) I saw we, then I probably mean other gay CIS men. Perhaps even white. Truth is that I do not identify with any of the other letters. I have no relationship to the narratives and unique historical context of the supposed communities behind the letter. How can we though even develop one? Its seems forced and unnatural. "Fake news". And internally, there is movement in the LGBT spectrum. How many times have I heard that you and I are basically mainstream now, our "street cred" is shattered. We basically white CIS men. Punkt. The archenemy of all the letters, though not united in being against us. You and I have to work a lot harder to earn our place under the rainbow umbrella.
We need a new approach, maybe its a global marketing campaign and we ditch rainbows, unicorns, pink triangles, red ribbons, the Scrabble letters, dubious uber correct acronyms and come out with a new brand. LGBT rainbow flag/community et al version 2.0. ?? And we use real whole words, so that we can finally make neat and grammatically conforming verbs, adjectives and not have to do linguistic work arounds to buttress our acronym so as to defend it from the morphologists. And while we at it, we can think about a new flag in the context of it representing a nation. A nation of individuals from differing sexual orientations and conflicting gender identities. I like to entertain this idea. You mentioned the Jewish persecution during WW2 and I am in awe at the history of the Jewish people..Their resilience after such atrocities. I think about those LGBT people that were also murdered. We can not speak of a genocide though but still, the Jewish people made a new home, a new nation. Maybe we need to follow. Let us assume/pretend that we could all go on an exodus to country X (which would be more difficult, some territory been given to us by a nation or the LGBT community agreeing to which territory we should go to?) Either way, lets say we avoid any sort of resistance or problems in the territory and also our neighbours. There is peace all around us and in our territory. Now its time to form some sort of political decison-making and civil administration. How would that look? Would we have political parties as per the letters? Who would be Head of State? A king, a queen? We have enough of those but we have no royal houses. Do we fake it and create some pink dynasty? Or do we go for a queer president? How would that look? Wouldn't we need some sort of Dayton Agreement in place? Like rotating presidencies every year, with each letter getting a turn? What would we do with our population numbers? How do we make sure those born LGBT are brought to their new motherland? What happens if we have children that are not LGBT? Hmmm.... probably not the best solution either, but, either way, we need to do something, think radical, be courageous to try something, because standing still will ensure that like the Roman Empire, we will crumble.