Op-ed: How LGBT Causes Are Being Undermined by Their Own Activists
- La Petite Sirène
- Jul 22
- 5 min read
By Céline Masson – Le Point – June 30, 2025
OP‑ED. How ideological excesses of some LGBT+ activists threaten to turn an emancipatory struggle into a crusade against any form of dissent.
In an op‑ed published by The New York Times on June 26, Andrew Sullivan—one of the earliest American advocates for gay marriage, self‑defined as a gay man of the political left—explains, as indicated by his article’s title (“How the Gay Rights Movement Radicalized, and Lost Its Way”), the drift and radicalization of the homosexual rights movement.
It seemed important to me to bring this author’s reflection to France, as it appeared in one of the United States’ most widely read newspapers, which is gradually opening its pages to critical voices toward radical movements emerging from certain political minorities.
In 2023, the Human Rights Campaign—the largest US civil‑rights organization for gay, lesbian, and transgender people—declared a “state of emergency” for these populations, a first in its history.
However, Sullivan recalls that no such measure was taken during the AIDS epidemic, which claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of homosexuals. That declaration was based almost entirely on laws restricting trans youth’s access to medical treatments, debates over the use of toilets and changing rooms, and issues of trans identity in school curricula and sports competitions.
Abolish sexual binarity for all of society?
Sullivan writes that in 2012, donations to gay, lesbian, and transgender organizations totaled $387 million, according to the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy at Indiana University. By 2021, this figure had more than doubled, reaching $823 million.
Membership in LGBTQ+ organizations rose by 76%. Since civil‑rights victories for gays and lesbians had already been secured, these budget increases were now funding another revolution: that of gender, whose project claims to erase all perceived limits of oppression.
Sexual binarity linked to “white supremacy” is being replaced by a wide spectrum of genders, which effectively eliminates the difference between men and women. Sullivan wonders: “My sexual orientation rests on a biological distinction between men and women: I’m attracted to the former, not the latter. And now I was supposed to believe that this difference didn’t exist?”
Moreover, this political project also targets replacing biological sex with “gender identity” in medicine, education, and law. “Queerness”—a subversive, ideological stance—is being embraced as a form of identity liberation, claimed in certain activist and cultural spaces.
“I fully accept that some people … don’t fit into this binary pattern … and I fully support them. … But abolishing sexual binarity for all of society? That’s a whole different story. And madness, I believe,” he laments.
Gone are the words “gay” and “lesbian”
Sullivan highlights that the words “gay” and “lesbian” have virtually disappeared. LGBT became LGBTQ, then LGBTQ+, and more letters and symbols were added: LGBTQIA+ or 2S. LGBTQIA+ (to include intersex, asexual, and Indigenous Two‑Spirit individuals).
The “+” sign referred to an infinity of new identities—and according to some figures, more than 70 new “genders.” The idea was of a revolutionary, intersectional community of diverse genders, closely tied to other left‑wing causes, from Black Lives Matter to Queers for Palestine.
They needed a new banner. The rainbow flag, created in 1978 at Harvey Milk’s request as a symbol of unity and inclusion, was gradually replaced by the so‑called “Progress” flag, redesigned to embody intersectional‑oppression ideology.
Black and brown stripes were added to represent Black and mixed‑race people (and those who died during the AIDS crisis), and light blue, pink, and white stripes for trans people. This flag no longer simply signaled a space of welcome—it now designates an ideologically marked place, where anyone who does not subscribe to the intersectional left‑wing vision is implicitly kept at a distance.
The term “queer” has established itself as the emblem of this new regime, signaling a clear break with the original gay, lesbian, and trans civil‑rights struggles. For many gay men over 40, the word “queer” still evokes an insult heard before an attack. Yet one hallmark of the young queer generation seems to be an assumed contempt for those who came before it.
Any contradiction draws anathema
Sullivan asks: “What if I redefined heterosexuality and imposed it on heterosexuals? Or changed what it means to be a man or a woman? Then it wouldn’t be adapting to a minority, but a societal revolution—an exaggeration that would soon cause a violent and sensible reaction, not only against trans people, but also against homosexuals.”
He observes that these groups have betrayed their original mission and imposed a radical change on society through slogans like that sex is assigned at birth, not observed. Another mantra: “Trans women are women, trans men are men.” It is not a proposal, he says, but “a theological commandment.”
Any contradiction is met with anathema; any criticism of gender ideology is publicly disqualified. Intolerance becomes law; self‑censorship becomes the norm. Sullivan speaks of an authoritarian drift that has crossed a red line: indoctrination of children.
From a young age, children are taught that being a boy or a girl is a choice and can be changed. Social transition (change of name and pronouns) is possible without parental permission in the United States.
And, even more worryingly, gender-affirming care [puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones] for minors has irreversible consequences. Sullivan had initially believed in trusting doctors, thinking these treatments saved lives as the standard saying goes.
“There would soon be no homosexuals left.”
“How can they be sure that gender dysphoria isn’t actually a manifestation of homosexuality and desire to change? How can they be sure there isn’t another personal or psychological factor at play? I was told not to worry. A child needed to demonstrate a ‘persistent, consistent, insistent’ trans identity for years before any medical intervention was considered.”
He continues: “As soon as a child declared they were of the opposite sex, further therapy and psychological exploration were considered problematic, because it was equated to ‘transphobic conversion therapy,’ we were told. When I said that seemed absurd and that we probably needed more safeguards, I was sternly told: ‘Children know who they are.’”
Sullivan echoes what many parents of adolescents have told us: the same questions, the same trust given to doctors and their activist allies. He also shares the observation of several gay and lesbian collectives: many youths suffering from gender dysphoria would have grown up gay or lesbian. At the Tavistock Clinic gender identity development service (now closed), the joke circulating described the situation well: at the current rate, “there would soon be no homosexuals.”
Identity orthodoxy
It seemed important to us to amplify this New York Times op‑ed in France because it highlights the shift from a fight for equality to an ideological endeavor with vague contours but radical ambitions.
The LGBTQ+ movement, as it unfolds today in certain activist spheres, seems to have moved away from its founding struggles by essentializing new identities and discarding the question of sex in favor of purely subjective self‑determination. In doing so, this movement with multiple identities tends to marginalize the social struggles of gays and lesbians, now relegated to historical figures or even relics of the past.
Even more concerning: the disappearance of any opportunity for debate, in the name of an identity orthodoxy that has become totalitarian. Behind the flamboyant flags and ever‑longer acronyms looms a new form of intolerance, one that strikes those who do not think “correctly,” or who insist on distinguishing between the aspiration to recognition and ideological imposition. Returning to the spirit of founding struggles without being swept away by activist drift thus becomes a crucial challenge: not to renounce the progress made, but to preserve its meaning.
Céline Masson is co-director of the Observatory of Ideological Discourses on the Child and Adolescent (OPS) and co‑author, with Caroline Eliacheff, of the book “Le Sermon d’Hippocrate” (Éditions de l’Observatoire, 2025).
Comments