National Park Service cracks down on Pride leaving LGBTQ+ rangers feeling betrayed

This blog is originally appeared at Advocate.

On May 17, the National Park Service (NPS) made an official ruling that park rangers and other employees are no longer allowed to attend Pride events and parades in uniform. This marks a reversal of a long-standing tradition of NPS participation in Pride parades across the U.S., including the presence of official delegations. Anonymous LGBTQ+ NPS employees have expressed feelings of betrayal, noting that participation in major city Pride events is now in question, as several parade applications remain unprocessed and approvals are unclear. The decision comes at a time of heightened scrutiny on LGBTQ+ issues nationwide, with increasing crackdowns on Pride flags and LGBTQ+ rights—largely driven by Republican lawmakers and appointees. This time, however, the policy change is being driven by the NPS itself, under the leadership of a director appointed by President Biden.

The new directive was first shared in an internal memo to NPS staff, which did not specifically mention Pride but highlighted that “requests from employees asking to participate in uniform in a variety of events and activities, including events not organized by the NPS,” are in conflict with agency policy. The memo cited a policy stating that NPS employees cannot wear their uniforms to events that might be interpreted as supporting “a particular issue, position, or political party.” LGBTQ+ employees, however, have criticized this application of the policy, arguing that Pride is about identity and diversity, not a political stance or issue. They pointed out that under the previous guidelines, NPS employees were able to participate in Pride events with approval, and that internal Employee Resource Group (ERG) documents, such as the “OUTsiders Guide to Pride,” had endorsed such participation for years.

In a follow-up statement, the NPS argued that the ERG guide conflicts with official policy and that discussions are underway to review it and other related documents. The agency also emphasized that its participation in Pride celebrations could be perceived as an endorsement of a particular “issue of public concern,” which they described as a justification for limiting official participation. In their view, what has long been seen as a celebration of diversity and inclusion is now categorized as a political statement, with the NPS deeming official participation in such events “extremely limited.”

The decision sparked immediate concern among National Park Service employees and LGBTQ+ advocates. Many pointed out that the NPS has a long history of participating in Pride parades across the country, even under the Trump administration, which was known for its efforts to restrict LGBTQ+ representation in federal agencies, including at embassies. Employees also highlighted the significant role the NPS plays in managing Stonewall National Monument, a site dedicated to LGBTQ+ history and civil rights. Notably, the founding documents of Stonewall National Monument explicitly state that its purpose is “to preserve and protect Christopher Park and the historic resources associated with it” and “to interpret the Stonewall National Historic Landmark’s resources and values related to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender civil rights movement.” This has raised questions about how the NPS can reconcile this mission with its new stance on Pride participation.

One NPS employee, speaking anonymously, revealed that several requests for Pride parade participation are currently “collecting dust” on desks, waiting for approval for representation in major city Pride events. When asked about the decision to categorize Pride festivals as an “issue of public concern,” the employee responded, “Pride is not political, it’s not a cause, you just are LGBTQ+. It’s a celebration of who we are.” They added, “Morale is just so low right now. There’s not a lot of fight left in us.”

I reached out to an NPS spokesperson for clarification on whether the agency would continue participating in major city Pride events this year, as it has in previous years. The spokesperson responded that the policy “had not changed,” noting that “previous interpretations of the uniform policy were inconsistent” and that approving participation in some events while denying others could be perceived as “discrimination based on viewpoint.” While the spokesperson confirmed that in-park Pride events have not been canceled, they did not clarify whether NPS employees would continue to participate in major U.S. city Pride parades or celebrations. Attempts to follow up on this question went unanswered.

The characterization of Pride as a potentially “political” event raises concerns, particularly given the founding documents of Stonewall National Monument, which directly reference the “resources and values” of the LGBTQ+ community. NPS resources currently available on the site encourage people to “Celebrate Pride” and emphasize that “The LGBTQ experience is a vital facet of America’s rich and diverse past.” The resource underscores the importance of not making LGBTQ+ people invisible, stating, “By recovering the voices that have been erased and marginalized, the NPS embarks on an important project to capture and celebrate our multi-vocal past.” By barring employees from wearing Pride symbols or participating in Pride events, the NPS may unintentionally appear to be erasing and marginalizing its LGBTQ+ employees—contradicting its own stated mission.

National Park Service employees have marched in uniform in Pride parades for years. In 2014, for example, Christine Lenhertz, a member of the NPS, requested permission for a group of LGBTQ+ park employees to wear their uniforms while participating in a Pride parade. Initially denied, the group filed a complaint, prompting a ruling from the Office of the Solicitor for the Department of the Interior, which determined there was no reason to prevent them from marching in uniform. Since then, NPS contingents have regularly participated in Pride events across the country.

The future of Pride parade participation for NPS employees in uniform remains uncertain. While it seems that some Pride events within National Parks, like those at Stonewall, may still take place, external participation in major city Pride events appears to be on hold in at least some locations across the U.S. The possibility of individual or smaller LGBTQ+-affiliated Park Ranger contingents joining city Pride celebrations looks even less likely, with little hope of approval for participation.

You can read the full response from an NPS spokesperson to the request for comment here:

LGBTQ+ rights have long been at the mercy of public opinion. This November will be no different.

This blog is originally appeared at LGBTQ Nation.

LGBTQ+ ballot initiatives have long served as a wedge issue, mobilizing conservative voters and influencing the rights and freedoms typically protected by law. The 2024 election follows this tradition, with LGBTQ+ civil rights once again being subjected to public debate.

In New York, voters will decide whether to include sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression in the state’s anti-discrimination amendment. Meanwhile, reproductive rights will also be up for a vote in 10 other states.

California, Colorado, and Hawaii voters will decide this November whether to repeal their states’ constitutional bans on same-sex marriage.

Since 1998, same-sex unions have consistently been the top issue on state referendums. In that time, 34 states have put the question to voters, with many passing constitutional amendments that prohibited same-sex marriage. These amendments were often used as a political tool to mobilize conservative voters, particularly in the 2004 election when 11 states approved such bans, helping to boost George W. Bush’s campaign.

Marriage equality consistently lost at the ballot box until 2012, when voters in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington approved same-sex marriage, signaling a shift in public opinion that had been building since around 2009, when support for same-sex marriage crossed the 50% threshold in national polls.

In 2015, the Supreme Court’s landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision struck down all state constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage, declaring such bans unconstitutional. However, these amendments remain in place in several state constitutions. Activists are now pushing to repeal them, especially in light of concerns that the conservative-leaning Supreme Court could overturn Obergefell, as Justice Clarence Thomas hinted after the court struck down Roe v. Wade.

The Origins of Ballot Initiatives on LGBTQ+ Rights

California’s 1978 election introduced the first state ballot initiative related to LGBTQ+ rights—Proposition 6, also known as the Briggs Initiative. Sponsored by Orange County legislator John Briggs, the initiative sought to ban anyone who engaged in “public homosexual activity” from working in California public schools. The proposal was part of a broader wave of anti-gay activism spurred by Anita Bryant’s 1977 “Save Our Children” campaign in Florida, which successfully repealed Dade County’s anti-discrimination ordinance based on sexual orientation. Harvey Milk played a pivotal role in organizing the opposition to Prop 6, which was defeated by a 16-point margin.

Since then, other states have introduced ballot initiatives aimed at legalizing or banning discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Over time, voters have increasingly supported anti-discrimination measures. In 1988, Oregon voters overturned the governor’s authority to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation. In 2018, Massachusetts voters upheld a law prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity.

Maine and Oregon: Key States in the Fight for LGBTQ+ Rights

Maine and Oregon have consistently put LGBTQ+ rights to a vote. In Maine, voters initially blocked same-sex marriage in 2009, but then approved it by the same 53% margin in 2012. Maine also rejected anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination protections in 1998 and 2000, only to approve them in 2005. In Oregon, voters defeated a “don’t say gay” measure in 2000 by a narrow 5.7% margin.

Many states also used ballot measures to resist the inclusion of sexual orientation as a protected identity in anti-discrimination laws. In the 1990s, voters in Oregon, Idaho, and Maine approved such measures, protecting sexual orientation as a legally recognized identity.

The Impact of Other Ballot Measures on LGBTQ+ Rights

It’s not just LGBTQ+-specific ballot measures that impact the community. Other laws, such as voter ID requirements in Arkansas and North Carolina, disproportionately affect trans individuals and other marginalized LGBTQ+ people, limiting their ability to vote.

In addition to these referendums, the candidates voters elect at the state level will play a critical role in shaping LGBTQ+ rights. Republican-led legislatures have introduced or passed hundreds of bills targeting LGBTQ+ individuals, particularly in areas such as gender-affirming health care, bathroom access, inclusive education, and sports participation. Supporting state-level and local candidates who champion LGBTQ+ rights will have long-term implications, even if certain issues are not directly decided by referendum.

Civil Rights and Public Opinion

The fight for civil rights has a long history of being put to public referendum. Since 1868, issues related to race, sex, and disability have often been decided by voters, with initial support for discrimination gradually giving way to support for equality. While women’s rights gained public approval in the 1970s, LGBTQ+ rights did not see widespread support until the 2000s.

The question of whether civil rights should be determined by public opinion, rather than by courts or legislatures, has allowed forms of discrimination—such as racism, sexism, and homophobia—to become entrenched in law. Although public opinion on LGBTQ+ rights is often divided and fluid, most polls now show a majority in favor of anti-discrimination laws for LGBTQ+ individuals.

The Importance of Voting

With LGBTQ+ rights on the ballot this November, it’s more crucial than ever to vote. In addition to ballot measures, the elected officials who hold office at the state and local levels will have the power to pass or block pro-equality legislation, impacting LGBTQ+ rights for years to come. Whether through referendums or legislative action, LGBTQ+ rights remain at stake, and your vote matters.

Make your voice heard—not just on ballot measures, but by choosing candidates who will protect and advance equality for all.

Ron DeSantis is forcing Florida colleges to remove their LGBTQ+-inclusive courses

This blog is originally appeared at LGBTQ Nation.

Florida’s 12 public universities are eliminating courses that may “distort significant historical events” or “teach identity politics” to comply with S.B. 266, a law passed by the state legislature in 2023. This law restricts schools from using state or federal funds for initiatives advocating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), or promoting political and social activism. In addition, it has led to the closure of LGBTQ+ student centers and the dismantling of cultural support programs on campuses.

As a result, universities are scrapping classes such as Anthropology of Race & Ethnicity, Introduction to LGBTQ+ Studies, Sociology of Gender, Women in Literature, Chinese Calligraphy, The History of Food and Eating, Humanities Perspectives on Gender and Sexuality, Social Geography, and a course on Magic, Witchcraft, and Religion. A class examining racial and gender inequality and crime, titled Social Problems, is also being impacted, according to a Politico report.

Some of these courses have been removed entirely, while others have lost their “general education” designation, meaning they will only be available as electives for upper-level students in certain disciplines, rather than as part of the broader general education curriculum. Additionally, some course descriptions and student outcomes have been revised to ensure compliance with the law.

The Board of Governors will review each institution’s proposed course offerings for the 2025-26 academic year and may suggest changes. Schools that refuse to comply could risk losing vital state funding or face other penalties from Governor Ron DeSantis and the Board.

Critics argue that this law undermines academic freedom, enforces government-approved viewpoints, and could drive talented students and educators away from Florida’s universities. Some also warn that the law could jeopardize the accreditation of certain schools that are required by national accreditation bodies to have DEI programs as a core component of their education. Others have expressed concern about the vague language of the law, which leaves many unsure about what is permitted and what is not.

Historically, decisions about course content have been left to individual universities. However, this law is part of Governor DeSantis’ broader effort to challenge DEI policies and shift the state’s educational institutions toward a more conservative ideology.

While signing the law in May 2023, DeSantis said, “DEI has basically been used as a veneer to impose an ideological agenda, and that is wrong. If you want to do things like gender ideology, go to Berkeley, go to some of these other places… You don’t just get to take taxpayer dollars and do whatever the heck you want to do and think that’s somehow OK.”

This law follows DeSantis’ 2022 signing of the so-called Stop WOKE Act, which bans educational programs on racism and gender-based discrimination in schools and businesses. That law is currently on hold as courts review its constitutionality.

Federal Judge Mark E. Walker, who blocked the Stop WOKE Act in 2022, described the law as “positively dystopian,” saying it “officially bans professors from expressing disfavored viewpoints in university classrooms while permitting unfettered expression of the opposite viewpoints.” He emphasized that academic freedom should allow professors to express their perspectives, as long as they do not only align with state-approved views.

GOP mailer bashed Ted Cruz’s opponent for letting a trans girl play girls sports. It was all lies.

This blog is originally appeared at LGBTQ Nation.

A recent mailer from the Texas GOP is facing backlash for misrepresenting the story of a trans man and former high school wrestler, Mack Beggs.

The mailer targets Rep. Colin Allred (D-TX), who is challenging Ted Cruz (R-TX) for his Senate seat. It features a blurred image of Beggs when he was an out trans boy competing in girls’ sports, with the text: “Colin Allred failed to protect women’s sports, supporting boys competing with girls.”

At the time, the Texas University Interscholastic League (UIL), which governs public school sports, had prohibited Beggs from joining boys’ teams due to the gender marker on his birth certificate. While transitioning and taking testosterone, Beggs wrestled on the girls’ teams, becoming the center of controversy, particularly after winning state championships in 2017 and 2018.

Rep. Allred has consistently supported trans inclusion in sports, voting against bills that would have barred trans women from participating in women’s sports.

Beggs, now speaking out, expressed concern for his and his family’s safety due to the mailer’s misleading use of his image. “How they’re using my photo, it’s just very misleading. It’s not OK,” he told the Houston Chronicle. He is now seeking legal advice from the American Civil Liberties Union.

On Instagram, Beggs condemned the Texas GOP’s use of his story. “The Republican State of Texas Government has decided to USE my image for yet again one of their political campaigns,” he wrote. “I have already had a few people let me know about this campaign ad paid for and by the Republican Party in TX. NOT COOL. 🚫”

He added: “The fact they are STILL using my story and FACE for their political agendas. It’s sickening at this point.”

Italy’s digital nomad visa: Advice and tips from one of the first ever recipients

This blog originally appeared at Euro News.

After years of anticipation, Italy officially introduced its digital nomad visa in April this year, allowing remote workers to live and work in the country for up to a year.

Though the visa has only been available for a few months, adventurous travelers are already seizing the opportunity.

Chelsea Waite, a US native, started her own business in 2020 and has been working remotely ever since. After visiting Italy for the first time in 2017, she knew it was where she wanted to settle.

“When I found out in April that Italy launched the digital nomad visa, I was so excited and knew I had to pursue it with everything I had,” she told Euronews Travel.

I tried to do as much research as possible… But since this is such a new visa, there’s barely any information available beyond the fact that it exists,” she explains.

Fortunately, Chelsea navigated the process and is now one of the first to be granted the visa, currently living in Milan.

Here, she shares her experience and top tips for securing Italy’s digital nomad visa.

Is it difficult to get Italy’s digital nomad visa?
Navigating the process of this new visa came with several challenges. Chelsea attributes her success to perseverance and thorough preparation.

One major hurdle she encountered was securing a rental contract, a critical document for the digital nomad visa application.
“In Italy, it’s notoriously difficult to get a rental contract,” Chelsea says. Many assume you need a ‘codice fiscale’—an Italian tax code—to sign a lease. This code, issued to Italians at birth, is essential for services like opening a bank account or getting a phone number. However, obtaining a codice fiscale can be tough if you’re not already living in Italy or don’t yet have a visa.

Chelsea found that working with a real estate agent was key.
“My real estate agent informed me that there’s a way to register the contract for individuals moving to Italy who don’t yet have a codice fiscale,” she explains. “So if you get pushback from a property owner or management company, let them know this option exists and see how they can help.”

Italy’s digital nomad visa also differs from others in Europe. It targets highly skilled workers performing “highly qualified work activities” and earning at least €28,000 a year.

Part of Chelsea’s application involved having her degree certified. Initially, she thought having it notarized by the US Secretary of State’s office would suffice. However, Italy requires foreign degrees to be verified through CIMEA (the Information Centre on Academic Mobility and Equivalence), which manages recognition of degrees.
“You need to upload your degree, transcripts, and then it goes through an internal review that can take days or months,” she says. Nuanced requirements like these can slow down the process.

What are Chelsea’s top tips for getting Italy’s digital nomad visa?

Chelsea shares three key tips for anyone pursuing Italy’s digital nomad visa:

  1. Come overprepared:
    “Make sure you have all the necessary documents upfront,” she advises. “It’s better to be overprepared than underprepared so you don’t risk having to restart the whole process.”
  2. Seek help in Italy:
    She recommends getting local support for crucial steps, especially when it comes to finding accommodation.

“I would also recommend, if possible, visiting Italy between the time you schedule your appointment with the Italian consulate and the actual appointment date,” Chelsea suggests.

She explains that building relationships with locals is much easier in person than online.

“And my third piece of advice would be to stay flexible and come financially prepared,” she adds.

Chelsea emphasizes that digital nomads should factor in costs like deposits for housing, health insurance, document verification fees, and the visa fee itself.
“The whole process ended up costing a bit more than I expected.”

The non-refundable visa application fee alone is €116 per person.

With limited information available on how to apply for Italy’s digital nomad visa, Chelsea is now writing a guide to help others navigate the process.

Watch the video above to learn how Chelsea became one of the first recipients of Italy’s digital nomad visa.

“I would also recommend, if possible, visiting Italy between the time you schedule your appointment with the Italian consulate and the actual appointment date,” Chelsea suggests.

She explains that building relationships with locals is much easier in person than online.

“And my third piece of advice would be to stay flexible and come financially prepared,” she adds.

Chelsea emphasizes that digital nomads should factor in costs like deposits for housing, health insurance, document verification fees, and the visa fee itself.
“The whole process ended up costing a bit more than I expected.”

The non-refundable visa application fee alone is €116 per person.

With limited information available on how to apply for Italy’s digital nomad visa, Chelsea is now writing a guide to help others navigate the process.

Watch the video above to learn how Chelsea became one of the first recipients of Italy’s digital nomad visa.

“I would also recommend, if possible, visiting Italy between the time you schedule your appointment with the Italian consulate and the actual appointment date,” Chelsea suggests.

She explains that building relationships with locals is much easier in person than online.

“And my third piece of advice would be to stay flexible and come financially prepared,” she adds.

Chelsea emphasizes that digital nomads should factor in costs like deposits for housing, health insurance, document verification fees, and the visa fee itself.
“The whole process ended up costing a bit more than I expected.”

The non-refundable visa application fee alone is €116 per person.

With limited information available on how to apply for Italy’s digital nomad visa, Chelsea is now writing a guide to help others navigate the process.

Watch the video above to learn how Chelsea became one of the first recipients of Italy’s digital nomad visa.

Ron DeSantis bans Florida’s sex ed classes from mentioning anatomy & contraceptives

This blog originally appeared at LGBTQ Nation.

The Florida Department of Education (FLDOE) has mandated that local school districts submit their sex education plans for state approval. According to the FLDOE, these classes must focus on promoting abstinence and are prohibited from discussing contraception or displaying images of reproductive health organs.

This shift in policy strips local districts of their autonomy over sex education classes and materials.

Florida law has long required that sex education lessons for grades 6 through 12 highlight the “benefits of sexual abstinence as the expected standard” and address the consequences of teenage pregnancy. However, the new regulations eliminate any local authority regarding supplementary information that districts may wish to provide their students.

A memo from Broward County administrators, obtained by The Orlando Sentinel, summarized discussions with state officials about the state’s control over sex education. Notably, no written guidelines were given to the districts.

State officials conveyed that “pictures of external sexual/reproductive anatomy should not be included in any grade level.” While they noted that contraception could be referenced as a “health resource,” they specified that “pictures, activities, or demonstrations illustrating their use should not be included in instruction at any grade level.” Furthermore, discussions on “different types of sex (i.e., anal, oral, and vaginal) cannot be part of instruction in any grade level,” according to the Broward memo.

Previously, Orange County schools introduced sex education in 5th grade, focusing on the physical changes of puberty, while high school students engaged in discussions about contraception and sexually transmitted diseases. Now, any additional curriculum must receive state approval, which may lead to the cancellation of sex education classes until the state addresses the districts’ plans.

Elissa Barr, a public health professor at the University of North Florida and a member of the advocacy group Florida Healthy Youth Alliance, has been in contact with local school officials to compile a list of terms they’ve been instructed to omit from their reproductive health plans. This list includes words like abuse, consent, domestic violence, fluids, gender identity, and LGBTQ-related content.

Barr pointed out that excluding the term “fluids” complicates discussions about HIV transmission, as it can spread through blood, breast milk, semen, and vaginal fluids. “That’s science,” she remarked.

Officials from the Orange school district received clear instructions: discard their current plans and adhere strictly to the state-adopted textbook. The district stated, “The FDOE strongly recommended the district utilize the state-adopted text.”

This state textbook emphasizes abstinence as the only effective means to prevent STDs and pregnancy, omitting any mention of contraception. It also advises students to participate in group activities instead of spending time alone with a date.

She asked students for their pronouns, and locals labeled her a “groomer.” Now, she’s filing a lawsuit

This blog originally appeared at LGBTQNATIONS.

She was placed on leave for her safety after local conservatives escalated their violent rhetoric against her.

A South Carolina middle school teacher has filed a defamation and libel lawsuit against five individuals — including a state representative — after being publicly accused of “grooming” children. The accusations followed her decision to distribute a questionnaire asking students for their personal pronouns. The defendants claimed her so-called “secret sex survey” violated state laws and school policies, asserting that her teaching license should be revoked.

Mardy A. Burleson, a computer science teacher at Hilton Head Island Middle School (HHIMS), is at the center of this controversy. HHIMS is located in a predominantly white, Christian coastal community of 38,069 people, most of whom are over 45. Burleson, who has a transgender son, was personally affected by the death of her son’s friend, who died by suicide after struggling to come out to their family. Motivated by this experience, Burleson introduced a beginning-of-term survey for her students titled, “Who is behind those eyes?” aiming to create a supportive environment for her students.

She had conducted the survey for several years without receiving any complaints. The survey included questions about students’ families, preferred learning styles, favorite media, hobbies, and accomplishments. It also asked for their “preferred pronouns” and included the question, “Do you want me to use your pronouns in class and in messages home, or is it private between you and me?”

“I promise to keep these just between you and me,” Burleson wrote at the top of the survey. Parents could access blank copies of the survey through their children’s Google Classroom accounts.

Around January 9, 2023, an HHIMS student showed the survey to her father, David Cook, a local “Dad-vocate” who had supported recent efforts to ban “pornographic” books from school libraries.

The following day, Cook lodged a complaint with the HHIMS principal. In response, Burleson removed the pronoun-related questions to avoid further conflict, according to court documents. Cook also requested a meeting with Burleson and school officials, but he claimed the school had “hidden” them from him.

Cook allegedly shared the survey with Corey Allen Whittington, the author of the right-wing blog The Overton Report. In a post, Whittington accused Burleson of “grooming pre-teen students into an overtly sexualized lifestyle” and criticized her for having “transed her own kid,” referring to her transgender son.

“[Burleson] spent years transitioning her own daughter into a ‘son’ and has made no secret of expressing her full support for the controversial ideas behind gender ideology,” Whittington wrote.

For Burleson, Whittington’s post crossed a personal line by mentioning her transgender son, who she said had been bullied more at school as a result.

On his podcast and social media, Whittington continued to accuse Burleson of being a “predatory” teacher, claiming she was “indoctrinating 8th graders” with “secret surveys about sex” and telling students to “keep [it a] secret from administrators and parents.”

“Is there any other way to define somebody who encourages that type of thing in children?” Whittington asked on his podcast. “Is there any other way to define them than a groomer? What are you doing if not grooming them to accept kink and fetish at a young age?”

Whittington posted a link to his blog post on Facebook around January 25, 2023. Cook responded by sharing a screenshot of an article from the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN) titled, “Grooming: Know the Warning Signs,” with the caption, “I’ll just leave this right here for you, Corey Allen.” The article defined grooming as “manipulative behaviors that the abuser uses to gain access to a potential victim, coerce them to agree to the abuse, and reduce the risk of being caught.”

In later public comments, Cook accused Burleson of violating school district policies and her employment contract by administering a secret survey to students without parental consent.

Another local conservative activist, Elizabeth Szalai—who had previously submitted a list of books to the district superintendent for removal due to “adult” content—called Burleson a “groomer.” On her Facebook page, she vowed to make school personnel “pay” if they ever kept a secret from her about her child, promising to “exhaust every effort to have their license revoked and ensure that they never have access to children again.”

Michael Covert, a former Beaufort County Council member who supported Szalai’s book-banning efforts, reportedly called Burleson a “grooming” “pervert” who was “unfit” to teach during an appearance on his broadcast, Beaufort House of Cards. State Representative Thomas Beach (R), a current member of the South Carolina House of Representatives, also joined in the attacks, labeling Burleson a “groomer” on Facebook.

Of Burleson’s five primary harassers, only Cook has a student in the local schools, while two of the others don’t even live in Beaufort County.

Burleson explained the intent behind her survey and its pronoun question in an interview with The Packet. She said that teachers are trained to be trusted adults that students can confide in, noting, “A trusted adult is not always the family.” She also added that if a parent asked her about a student’s pronouns and it appeared to be an unsafe situation, she would consult district administrators and professionals first.

Due to the escalating harassment, Burleson was placed on leave in February for her own safety. She and another teacher, Kathleen Harper—HHIMS’s literary coach and a teacher with 25 years of experience—said the mounting negative online attention made them and their families feel unsafe both at home and in public.

Cook escalated his harassment campaign in April 2023. In a Facebook post on April 9, he wrote that schools “teach kids that the only safe people are teachers and admin. Everyone else in their lives are a danger to them, [including] parents and extended family.”

He accused Kathleen Harper, a fellow teacher, of being “sexually abusive” because one of her district-sourced texts on modern-day slavery mentioned teenage female genital mutilation.

Cook began showing up on campus, according to The Island Packet. Near the end of the school term, he handed Harper a handwritten note accusing her of indoctrinating students.

During the final week of school, Cook posted on Facebook, “If you’re in support of giving sexually explicit material to children, it’s important to remember… Dead Pedophiles Don’t Re-Offend.”

Other teachers warned Harper about Cook’s presence on campus, and escorts were assigned to accompany her to her car. School officials compiled Cook’s harassing social media posts and filed a harassment report with the Beaufort County Sheriff’s Office.

“[School officials] told me to watch my back in public,” Harper told The Packet. “They told me he is dangerous and they’re concerned for me. They encouraged me to file a police report, which I did that day.”

At a school board meeting, Cook claimed his daughter and other students were “victims” who had been subjected to “lewd and vulgar materials” by Burleson. He also accused the school and Burleson of “hiding” from a meeting with him.

At a June 2023 school board meeting, Cook made a spectacle of himself by throwing four bags of chicken feed at board members, protesting the re-shelving of books that had previously been removed for their alleged “pornographic” content.

“There’s your chicken feed,” Cook said. “I give you this gift as a way to demonstrate mine and many others’ opinion of your lack of action. Chicken. Too afraid. Matter of fact, your behavior gives chicken a bad name.”

After the meeting, the sheriff’s office issued a no-trespass order against Cook for all district campuses, though he was still permitted to attend board meetings and pick up his daughter from school.

Burleson is now suing the five individuals mentioned earlier for maliciously making false, defamatory, and harmful statements accusing her of a crime. These false accusations damaged her professional reputation and caused significant emotional distress.

Burleson is represented by Meg Phelan of the Equality Legal Action Fund, a pro-bono group that focuses on protecting members of the LGBTQ+ community, educators, and allied officials from defamation and harassment. Burleson is seeking actual and special damages, as well as punitive damages, according to The Island Packet. However, Phelan said Burleson and the organization are not focused on financial compensation.

“We’re dedicated to fighting this and trying to not only educate the public, but showing the public that no American deserves to be the target of disinformation, defamation, harassment, and intimidation,” Phelan told LGBTQ Nation.

Phelan added that the goal is to demonstrate to conservatives and extremists that their words have consequences and that not all speech is protected under the First Amendment. She noted that the defendants used the term “groomer” in a way that specifically accused Burleson of coercing children into sexual abuse, rather than simply using it as an anti-LGBTQ+ slur.

While not all states have legal definitions for grooming, South Carolina law allows lawsuits for defamation and libel if a false and malicious accusation of a crime is made.

The Equality Legal Action Fund is a nationwide network of pro-bono lawyers aiming to protect LGBTQ+ individuals, allies, teachers, and community leaders from anti-LGBTQ+ harassment. If this lawsuit succeeds, it could be one of the first court cases where anti-LGBTQ+ activists face legal consequences for using the “groomer” slur. It could also provide some peace of mind to Burleson and other teachers facing similar harassment across the country.

“We want these inspiring teachers to continue to create these safe, inclusive spaces for all of their students, particularly in these very conservative and sometimes closed-minded communities,” Phelan added. “So we don’t want them to spend all of their time and money defending both their personal and professional reputations.”

GOP Congressman claims U.S. isn’t worth defending due to presence of trans music teacher in 9/11 address

This blog originally appeared at LGBTQ Nation.

What exactly are we defending? What remains of the United States worth protecting?

Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) gave an extended speech on the anniversary of the September 11 attacks, during which he stated that the U.S. is no longer worth defending, citing a friend’s child’s transgender music teacher as a reason. He began his remarks by recognizing the significance of September 11 before transitioning to criticisms of immigrants.

“It serves as a reminder of the consequences of leaving your country vulnerable to attacks,” he stated before providing examples of immigrants involved in criminal activities. Roy expressed his support for mass deportations in response to these crimes, despite data indicating that immigrants are less likely to commit offenses than those born in the U.S.

In the midst of his speech, Roy launched into a tirade about what he considered wasteful government spending, labeling defense expenditures as unnecessary because, in his view, the U.S. isn’t worth defending anymore.

“In this town, we can’t effectively advocate for you, the American people, to ensure a secure border, safe communities, and an economy that isn’t devastated by reckless government spending,” Roy exclaimed. “And you want to know why? In the name of defense, they tell me every year that if I don’t support these inflated spending bills, we won’t get a new submarine or carrier.”

“What exactly are we trying to defend? What is left of the United States to protect? A school where I can’t send my child to pray without paying $20,000 a year on top of my taxes?” he questioned, referring to the private school he chooses for his child, despite the fact that students are permitted to pray in public schools, according to the Department of Education.

“A school where my friend’s sixth grader has a transgender music teacher asking students to participate in a dance class? Yes, that’s a true story,” he emphasized, as if it were shocking that sixth graders would be dancing in music class. “Is that what we’re defending with carriers, missiles, and endless wars?”

This isn’t the first instance in which Roy has claimed that the U.S. shouldn’t be defended due to LGBTQ+ individuals. Last year, he pointed to a Pride event at a U.S. Air Force Base in Georgia as a rationale for opposing military funding.

“What’s next, rainbow uniforms during Pride Month?” Roy questioned at the time. “The Air Force and Defense Department endorse this absurd use of taxpayer dollars and then expect members of Congress—who represent Americans outraged by this—to approve an $800 billion-plus budget for the Department of Defense (DOD). If the DOD doesn’t put an end to these divisive and frankly embarrassing events, Republicans should withdraw their support for this year’s National Defense Authorization Act.”

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2024/09/gop-congressman-says-us-isnt-worth-defending-because-of-a-trans-music-teacher-in-9-11-speech/?utm_id=top_story&utm_term=headline&utm_content=politics&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2024912%20LGBTQ%20Nation%20Daily%20Brief&utm_content=2024912%20LGBTQ%20Nation%20Daily%20Brief+CID_8effed1877914822206ec0f2f8d37748&utm_source=LGBTQ%20Nation%20Subscribers&utm_term=GOP%20congressman%20says%20US%20isnt%20worth%20defending%20because%20of%20a%20trans%20music%20teacher%20in%20911%20speech

Pizzeria Employee Hospitalized After Homophobic Mob Attacks Restaurant Over Pride Flag Display

This blog originally appeared at LGBTQ NATION

Police in Roseville, California, are searching for three suspects in connection with a hate crime at a Blaze Pizza restaurant, where workers were assaulted after one suspect tore down a Pride flag on display. The assault was captured on a smartphone video.

The incident took place at 10:50 p.m. on a Thursday when a food delivery driver entered the restaurant, noticed the Pride flag near the register, and threw it to the ground. When the store manager and employees confronted him, the man allegedly used a homophobic slur before leaving. He later returned with two other men, who then attacked the restaurant staff.

Related:

Republicans terrorized a gay couple’s home. What happened next surprised the couple.

Haters yelled obscenties, sent a threatening letter, and vandalized their Pride flag and political signs. But the reaction has emboldened the targeted men.

A witness named Chance Chacon told KCRA that the manager and employee had defended the flag’s display, but then, when the three assailants returned, “It was like a mob. They were just kind of swinging at him.”

A video captured inside the restaurant shows one worker repeatedly shouting at the assailants, “Get the f**k out of here!” while another employee urges a co-worker to “Call the cops.”

The three men fled the scene before police arrived, but an ambulance later transported one employee on a stretcher. This worker was taken to the hospital, where he was briefly treated for a concussion and head trauma but has since been released.

A still image from the footage shows a shoeless, light-skinned suspect wearing a torn dark-colored t-shirt and hand wraps commonly used in mixed martial arts.

Police have asked for the public’s help in identifying the assailants involved in the September 20 incident. Anyone with information can submit an anonymous tip online or contact their non-emergency line at 916-774-5000.

Ruby Shields, a lesbian who owns a restaurant in the nearby town of Granite Bay, told The Sacramento Bee that she doesn’t consider the area LGBTQ+ friendly. She has been too scared to display a rainbow flag at her own restaurant, and is often mistaken as the wife of her male business partner, even though she has a wife.

“We’ve been looked at with respect, but it’s always on the back of your mind, you know, ‘Should I be saying this?’” Shields said of not knowing whether to come out to restaurant patrons. “It’s not even something that I really even want to put out there because you never know. I mean, it’s horrible that it’s so close to home. Roseville is right down the street from where we’re at.”

This wouldn’t be the first time that an anti-LGBTQ+ person has committed violence in California after tearing down a Pride flag. Last August, Travis Ikeguchi — a 27-year-old man who posted anti-LGBTQ+, antisemitic, anti-vaccination Christian Nationalist content online — murdered Laura Ann Carleton, a 66-year-old LGBTQ+ ally and mother of nine, complained about the Pride flag hanging in front of her Cedar Glen, California business.

Police killed Ikeguchi shortly afterward.

Paul Feig — the director of BridesmaidsGhostbusters (2016), and other films — wrote, “We are all devastated for her husband Bort and her family and the LGBTQ+ community, for whom Lauri was such a true ally…. This intolerance has to end. Anyone using hateful language against the LGBTQ+ community has to realize their words matter, that their words can inspire violence against innocent loving people. Let’s all keep moving forward with tolerance and love. Let’s not let Lauri’s tragic death be in vain.”

Carleton’s friend, director Paul Feig, wrote of the incident, “Lauri Carleton was my friend. She was a wonderful person who did so much for the LGBTQ+ community as well as the community at large. What happened to her is an absolute tragedy. If people don’t think anti-gay & trans rhetoric isn’t dangerous, think again.”

Subscribe to the LGBTQ Nation newsletter and be the first to know about the latest headlines shaping LGBTQ+ communities worldwide.

Russia enlisted anti-LGBTQ+ right-wing groups to spread propaganda targeting U.S. audiences

This blog originally appeared at LGBT Nation.

The Department of Justice disclosed that Tenet Media was primarily funded by Russian state media and frequently gives a platform to anti-LGBTQ+ broadcasters. N

According to a Department of Justice (DOJ) indictment, several anti-LGBTQ+ right-wing broadcasters, including Tim Pool and Dave Rubin (who is gay), have unknowingly worked for a Russian government-funded media company designed to spread propaganda and disinformation to U.S. audiences. While there is no evidence suggesting the broadcasters were aware of the company’s Russian ties, unsealed court documents revealed that Russia supports former President Donald Trump in the 2024 election, as reported by The Hill.

The FBI is now investigating the case, drawing parallels to Russian “troll farms” that spread anti-Democratic content during the 2016 and 2020 elections. In response, the Biden administration confirmed ongoing Russian efforts to influence the 2024 election, and the DOJ seized 32 web domains used by Russia to propagate its messaging in the U.S.

The DOJ indictment claims that two employees of RT (formerly Russia Today), a Russian state-controlled media outlet, secretly funneled nearly $10 million over the past year to fund and manage Tenet Media, a Tennessee-based online content creation company. This company, which platforms the aforementioned broadcasters, has produced over 2,000 videos in the past 10 months on TikTok, Instagram, X, and YouTube. These videos have garnered more than 20 million views collectively, according to the DOJ.

Although the indictment doesn’t explicitly name Tenet Media, referring to it only as “U.S. Company 1,” it does describe the company as a “network of heterodox commentators that focus on Western political and cultural issues.” This description aligns with the one Tenet Media uses on its YouTube channel, as noted by New York Times reporter Aric Toler.

The RT employees, Kostiantyn Kalashnikov and Elena Afanasyeva, operated under the aliases Helena Shudra and Victoria Pesti, managing the funding, hiring, and content editing for the company.

Tenet Media’s YouTube channel features several anti-LGBTQ+ videos, including titles like “Fellas, Is It Gay To Date A Trans Woman?”, “The TRUTH About Gender Ideology,” videos claiming Pride parades expose children to nudity, and another falsely accusing the drag queen segment of the Olympic Opening Ceremonies of “mocking Christianity.” The segment’s artistic director clarified it depicted a Dionysian feast.

In alignment with this rhetoric, Russian President Vladimir Putin has accused the U.S. of imposing gender “perversions” on Russian schoolchildren, using this as a pretext for anti-LGBTQ+ policies and his continued invasion of Ukraine. Tenet Media has also published videos criticizing Ukraine, claiming it spreads violence and unrest in Russia.

The DOJ stated, “While the views expressed in the videos are not uniform, most are aligned with the publicly stated goals of the Government of Russia and RT — to deepen domestic divisions within the United States.”

Tenet Media’s website lists prominent figures like Tim Pool, Dave Rubin, Tayler Hansen, and Turning Point USA’s chief creative officer Benny Johnson — all of whom have expressed anti-LGBTQ+ sentiments on social media. The platform has also hosted discussions between former Fox News host Tucker Carlson and conservative gay commentator Glenn Greenwald.

On Wednesday, the Biden administration revealed that Russian government agents had been operating websites, social media platforms, and creating fake social media personas to push propaganda that supports Russian interests. According to The Verge, the DOJ announced it had already seized 32 web domains connected to this Russian scheme and indicated that more seizures are likely as the investigation continues.

Numerous media studies have demonstrated that Russian government-funded “troll farms” spread state propaganda aimed at deepening political divisions in the U.S. during the 2016 and 2020 elections. The exposure of Tenet Media represents the latest version of this tactic, with Russian agents seemingly using anti-LGBTQ+ media figures as part of their broader anti-American disinformation campaign.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑