News Analysis
New platform rules don’t apply to hate & misinfo on Rogan’s podcast
Spotify has apparently determined that the following hateful and bigoted comments made on Rogan’s podcast do not violate its rules
By Alex Paterson | WASHINGTON – Spotify has determined that its newly published platform rules, which it says have been internally in place “for years,” do not prohibit numerous dangerous and unfounded claims spread on The Joe Rogan Experience. Spotify publicly disclosed these rules on January 30 following widespread backlash at the platform for profiting off of Joe Rogan’s misinformation about the pandemic.
Over the weekend, Rogan issued an apology in response to widely circulated videos in which he made racist comments and repeatedly used a racial slur during his podcast. Rogan also instructed Spotify to take down over 100 of his past podcast episodes from Spotify.
Rogan’s Spotify podcast is rife with COVID 19 misinformation, hateful smears against trans people, and dangerous conspiracy theories. Yet the platform has fallen woefully short in its efforts to moderate Rogan’s harmful rhetoric.
Spotify CEO Daniel Ek has repeatedly defended Spotify’s failure to moderate Rogan’s harmful rhetoric. During a February 2 earnings call, Ek defended his decision to stand by Rogan, saying, “I think the important part here is that we don’t change our policies based on one creator nor do we change it based on any media cycle, or calls from anyone else.” And in a note to staff, Ek responded to Rogan’s racist language but noted, “I do not believe that silencing Joe is the answer.”
What’s more, Rogan has in the past repeatedly bragged that Spotify has not taken any action against his podcast, including asserting that “Spotify has never said a goddamn thing to me” and telling anti-trans advocate Meghan Murphy, “You can say whatever you want. We’re on Spotify.” It appears that this trend changed given recent controversy over racism and misinformation.
It is apparent that Spotify’s extremely narrow, apparently “long-standing” platform rules have done little to stem the flood of dangerous rhetoric that is spread across the platform. For example, the platform claims to prohibit “dehumanizing statements” about protected groups but hosts podcasts episodes in which Rogan says an anti-trans slur.
To illustrate this point, Media Matters has compiled a list of some of Rogan’s most bigoted and dangerous rhetoric since July 2020, which we present here alongside Spotify’s newly released policies.
Rogan has repeatedly spread bigoted rhetoric despite Spotify’s policy prohibiting content that incites violence or hatred toward marginalized communities
Spotify’s platform rules explicitly prohibit “dehumanizing statements” about protected groups, and the platform recently took action against episodes featuring racist slurs. Yet episodes remain on the platform in which Rogan has repeatedly used an anti-trans slur and suggested that accepting trans people is a sign of “civilizations collapsing.” The platform rules also prohibit “praising, supporting, or calling for violence against a person or group of people” while an episode remains in which Rogan has joked about killing homeless people.
Spotify has apparently determined that the following hateful and bigoted comments made on Rogan’s podcast do not violate its rules:
- On January 25, Rogan suggested that social acceptance of trans people is a sign of “civilizations collapsing,” while his guest, right-wing provocateur Jordan Peterson, equated being trans to having a “psychological contagion” comparable to “satanic ritual abuse.”
- On January 14, Rogan and his guests mocked Jewish people, asserting that they are “scheming” and “plotting the next big win.”
- On November 3, Rogan used an anti-trans slur, lamenting that “you can’t say t—-y,” before his guest repeatedly used the slur. He also mocked the idea of a comedian using they/them pronouns, saying, “Imagine if there is a comic who gave into that.”
- On October 20, 2020, Rogan and his guest said an anti-trans slur then lamented that they can’t say it anymore.
- On October 6, Rogan called people who had criticized his guest on TikTok “retarded.” After his guest replied “you can’t say that,” Rogan said, “But I’m on Spotify. You can get away with it.” He also said the word on November 26 edition of his show and claimed that the word means “you’ve been held back in learning because you’ve applied the wrong kind of thinking to things. It does not mean someone with Down syndrome, and this idea that those two are … the same thing and it’s a slur or it’s a terrible thing to say, that’s not true. It’s not right.”
- On August 20, Rogan derided an unnamed trans woman, saying she had a “terrorist beard” and that “there’s no way you’re a woman.” Rogan continued: “There are definitely people with legitimate gender dysphoria that want to be a woman, and they’re biologically male. And then there’s grifters. There’s crazy people. There’s people that have locked on to this movement.”
- On August 12, Rogan agreed with his guest Andrew Schulz’s comments when Schulz used an anti-trans slur and compared trans people to QAnon conspiracy theorists, asserting, “QAnon is just like conservative t——s. That’s really all they are.” Rogan also claimed that being nonbinary is “very, very self-indulgent,” and said that trans people are “not experiencing real adversity or, you know, real discrimination, so you create discrimination against yourself.”
- On August 8, Rogan used an anti-Chinese slur, complaining, “You can’t say Chinaman.”
- On July 3, Rogan mocked and misgendered a young person who came out as trans to his friends. He also said that it’s “fashionable” to be nonbinary, later claiming, “It’s going to get worse.”
- On October 1, 2020, Rogan and comedian Tim Dillon joked about shooting, killing, and vaporizing homeless people.
Spotify’s COVID-19 medical misinformation policies are extremely narrow
In its so-called effort to “ensure that everyone has a safe and enjoyable experience,” Spotify says it prohibits content that spreads “dangerous deceptive medical information.” However, Spotify has allowed Rogan to repeatedly lie about the COVID-19 pandemic, including encouraging people not to get vaccinated against COVID-19, lying that mRNA vaccines are really “gene therapy,” and claiming the vaccine could have caused President Joe Biden to die.
Spotify’s platform rules claim to prohibit:
“Content that promotes dangerous false or dangerous deceptive medical information that may cause offline harm or poses a direct threat to public health includes, but may not be limited to:
- asserting that AIDS, COVID-19, cancer or other serious life threatening diseases are a hoax or not real
- encouraging the consumption of bleach products to cure various illnesses and diseases
- promoting or suggesting that vaccines approved by local health authorities are designed to cause death
- encouraging people to purposely get infected with COVID-19 in order to build immunity to it (e.g. promoting or hosting ‘coronavirus parties’)”
Spotify’s list of examples is both too limited and too specific, potentially permitting many other dangerous types of misinformation, including about vaccines and masks. For instance, as The Verge’s Ashley Carman reported, “These guidelines seemingly allow podcasters to say the vaccines cause death — just not that they are designed to cause death.”
This is reflected in the kinds of lies and misleading claims that Rogan and his guests have made with impunity on Spotify:
- On January 20, author James Lindsay questioned whether wearing masks is worth “the side effects,” including “breathing back in your gross mouth stuff and getting pneumonia if you’re, say, 6 years old.”
- On December 31, serial misinformer Robert Malone downplayed the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines and claimed people have been “hypnotized” into trusting COVID-19 prevention measures. Malone then compared this hypnosis to methods used in Nazi Germany.
- During that same episode, Rogan claimed that the omicron variant is “essentially just a cold” and asked Malone, “Why is the vaccine uniquely dangerous to children?”
- On December 13, vaccine fearmongerer Peter McCullough spread numerous false and misleading claims about the pandemic. McCullough asserted that “it’s pretty clear that this [pandemic] was planned” and lied that “the virus is not spread asymptomatically.”
- On November 22, Rogan falsely asserted that children do not need to get a COVID-19 vaccine, saying, “They’re trying to say that children need it when they don’t. They don’t need it.”
- On October 12, “COVID contrarian” Alex Berenson falsely asserted that “people who are vaccinated with two doses are more likely to be infected with SARS-CoV-2 than people who are not vaccinated.”
- On September 30, Rogan baselessly suggested that President Joe Biden did not actually receive a COVID-19 vaccine booster shot on TV, falsely claiming that it would be unsafe and potentially deadly to do so on live TV.
- On August 20, Rogan falsely asserted that mRNA coronavirus vaccines are “really gene therapy” and lied that it is “not logical, it’s not rational, and it’s not supported by science” to advise people with natural immunity to get a coronavirus vaccine. Notably, Rogan made the same false claim that mRNA vaccines are a form of “gene therapy” throughout 2021, including on August 18, September 21, November 8, and November 10.
- On August 6, Rogan fearmongered that vaccine passports would move the U.S. “one step closer to dictatorship” and lied that getting the coronavirus vaccine is not effective in preventing the disease, saying, “All you hear is take this vaccine that doesn’t even prevent you from getting the disease, or you can’t go to the sauna or wherever the fuck you want to go. … If it was a vaccine that — it’s more of a treatment than it is a vaccine, really, if you look at it.”
- On June 22, Rogan dedicated an entire episode of his podcast with Dr. Pierre Kory and Bret Weinstein to promoting ivermectin as a prophylactic and therapeutic for COVID-19, even though it is an unproven and potentially dangerous treatment for the disease. During the podcast, Weinstein claimed that a study showed “ivermectin alone, if properly utilized, is capable of driving this pathogen to extinction,” and Rogan explained its use for prevention of COVID-19, saying, “All it means is to take the drug to anticipate that you may get it, so if you’re in a high-risk area you take it and it’ll protect you from infection.” Kory claimed that “ivermectin is the COVID killer and should be the mainstay of any early outpatient treatment regimen.”
- On April 28, Rogan falsely claimed that any lockdown to prevent the spread of COVID-19 “makes things worse,” saying, “It’s worse. It makes things worse, you know why — because people go inside. They are trapped inside and that’s where it spreads.”
- On April 23, Rogan encouraged “healthy” young people not to get a COVID-19 vaccine, saying, “If you’re like 21 years old, and you say to me, should I get vaccinated? I’ll go, no.”
********************
Alex Paterson is a researcher for the LGBTQ program at Media Matters, where he has worked since 2019. Alex holds a bachelor’s degree in economics from Montana State University and has a background in LGBTQ advocacy, including previous work at the National LGBTQ Task Force and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
********************
The preceding article was previously published by Media Matters for America and is republished by permission.
News Analysis
Time to double down in the fight for democracy
Our lives and liberties hang in the balance:
This Fourth of July, the LGBTQ community faces an unprecedented crisis as recent legal and political developments threaten to unravel all of our hard-won rights and protections. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM.
The Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling granting former presidents broad immunity from civil lawsuits for official acts has sent shockwaves through the community. This decision could empower future presidents, including a potential second Trump term, to take extreme actions against marginalized groups without fear of personal legal consequences.
“This ruling has catastrophic implications for LGBTQ rights,” warns Sarah Warbeck, director of the HRC’s LGBTQ Rights Project. “A president with such immunity could devastate our community’s protections, from workplace rights to healthcare access for transgender individuals.”
The immunity ruling, coupled with the Supreme Court’s conservative majority and the looming threat of an anti-LGBTQ administration, creates what activists describe as a “perfect storm” of vulnerability.
Critics highlight the mainstream media’s failure to adequately address Trump’s legal issues and his ties to conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation. The Foundation’s “Project 2025” is viewed by many as a blueprint for policies that could eviscerate LGBTQ rights.
While debates about President Biden’s capabilities persist, LGBTQ advocates emphasize the more pressing concern of Trump’s documented machine gun of lies, his misuse of power and ongoing felonious legal troubles.
“We must mobilize immediately to elect officials at all levels who will defend LGBTQ rights,” urges Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.). “There’s no room for complacency. Our community is under attack.”
LGBTQ leaders stress that this fight now encompasses fundamental issues of democratic governance and the balance of powers. They call for unprecedented solidarity, grassroots organizing, and civic engagement.
The Los Angeles Blade issues an urgent call to action: “Every LGBTQ individual, ally, and supporter must double down and engage in renewed activism and constant vigilance. Our lives and liberties hang in the balance,” says publisher Troy Masters. He adds, “Without a strong LGBTQ press, our community will indeed perish. We need your support.”
This Independence Day marks a critical juncture for the LGBTQ community. The time for action is now.
Get out of the weeds of the debate and save yourself.
Research/Study
LGBTQ people in LA County struggle with cost of living & safety
Approximately 665,000 LGBTQ adults live in Los Angeles County, according to new research from the Williams Institute
LOS ANGELES – Approximately 665,000 LGBTQ adults live in Los Angeles County, according to new research from the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law that looks at the lived experiences and needs of LGBTQ people.
The majority (82%) believe that LA County is a good place for LGBTQ people to live and that elected officials are responsive to their needs. However, affording to live in LA County is their most common worry.
Over one-third (35%) of LGBTQ Angelenos live below 200% of the federal poverty level (FPL), including almost half (47%) of transgender and nonbinary people, and they experience high rates of food insecurity and housing instability.
Nearly one in three (32%) LGBTQ households in Los Angeles County and more than one in five (23%) non-LGBTQ households experienced food insecurity in the prior year. In addition, more than 60% of LGBTQ people live in households that are cost-burdened by housing expenses, spending 30% or more of their household income on housing. A quarter (26%) of LGBTQ people live in households where over 50% of the household’s monthly income is spent on rent or mortgage payments.
“LA County represents a promise of equality and freedom to LGBTQ people who live here and throughout the country,” said lead author Brad Sears, the Founding Executive Director at the Williams Institute. “But that promise is being undermined by the County’s rapidly escalating cost of living.”
This report used representative data collected from 1,006 LGBTQ adults in Los Angeles County who completed the 2023 Los Angeles County Health Survey (LACHS) conducted by the Los Angeles County Public Health Department. The data also included responses from 504 LGBTQ individuals who participated in the Lived Experiences in Los Angeles County (LELAC) Survey, a LACHS call-back survey developed by the Williams Institute.
More than half (51%) of LGBTQ adults said they have been verbally harassed, with 39% experiencing this in the past five years. As a result, one in five LGBTQ people have avoided public places such as businesses, parks, and public transportation in the last year. About 40% of LGBTQ people do not believe that law enforcement agencies in Los Angeles County treat LGBTQ people fairly.
A companion study published today surveyed 322 trans and nonbinary individuals in Los Angeles County. Results showed that the cost of living in LA County was the most significant concern for trans and nonbinary respondents, with 59% indicating that it is a serious problem. More than one-quarter (28%) of the participants were unemployed, compared to 5% of LA County overall.
The survey also revealed significant disparities in health and health care access, especially for trans and nonbinary adults who were women or transfeminine, immigrants, and those living at or near the FPL.
“Understanding the life experiences of trans and nonbinary people is important so that we can begin to improve the quality of our lives in LA County,” said study co-author Bamby Salcedo, President and CEO of the TransLatin@ Coalition. “Trans and nonbinary people are best suited to envision ways to support and uplift the community, along with trans-led organizations that have already been doing this work. LA County must commit to greater support of the organizations serving our community.”
Survey respondents were twice as likely as the general population of LA County to report having fair or poor health (27%), being uninsured (14%), and going without health care (46%).
“Despite a supportive policy environment in Los Angeles County, experiences of stigma and discrimination still exist and can hinder access to necessary resources for trans and nonbinary residents,” said lead author Jody Herman, Senior Scholar of Public Policy at the Williams Institute. “It is crucial for local officials and service providers to enact policies, provide education and training, and establish accountability to ensure respectful and positive interaction with the trans and nonbinary community.”
A third report focuses on LGBTQ people’s assessment of LA County programs and services and recommendations for local elected officials.
“These findings from the Williams Institute provide invaluable data that will guide our Board, County departments, and the inaugural LGBTQ+ Commission in shaping policies and programs to truly deliver for our diverse LGBTQ+ communities,” said LA County Board Chair Lindsey P. Horvath, who initiated the motion to present the findings to the Board.
“It’s especially critical that we support our trans, gender-nonconforming, and nonbinary communities, ensuring they feel safe and supported, and that they are able to afford to live in Los Angeles County. These insights will guide our essential and transformative work.”
“Many LGBTQ people provided recommendations for elected officials to improve quality of life in Los Angeles County,” said principal investigator Kerith J. Conron, Research Director at the Williams Institute. “LGBTQ people are asking for visible allyship, increased representation of LGBTQ individuals in elected positions and civil service, and housing and financial support.”
“These recent findings serve as a sobering reminder of the persistent barriers faced by the LGBT community in Los Angeles County,” said Dr. Barbara Ferrer, PhD, MPH, MEd, Director of Public Health. “These reports underscore the profound impact of the disparities on the health and wellbeing of a community that include our family members, colleagues, and friends. It is imperative that we not only acknowledge these inequities but actively engage in eliminating them. Through collaborative efforts with community leaders, policymakers, and the public, Public Health is committed to upholding principles of justice and equity by ensuring that every member of our community has the resources they need to thrive.”
Research/Study
New Polling: 65% of Black Americans support Black LGBTQ rights
73% of Gen Z respondents (between the ages of 12 and 27) “agree that the Black community should do more to support Black LGBTQ+ people”
WASHINGTON – The National Black Justice Coalition, a D.C.-based LGBTQ advocacy organization, announced on June 19 that it commissioned what it believes to be a first-of-its-kind national survey of Black people in the United States in which 65 percent said they consider themselves “supporters of Black LGBTQ+ people and rights,” with 57 percent of the supporters saying they were “churchgoers.”
In a press release describing the findings of the survey, NBJC said it commissioned the research firm HIT Strategies to conduct the survey with support from five other national LGBTQ organizations – the Human Rights Campaign, the National LGBTQ Task Force, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Family Equality, and GLSEN.
“One of the first surveys of its kind, explicitly sampling Black people (1,300 participants) on Black LGBTQ+ people and issues – including an oversampling of Black LGBTQ+ participants to provide a more representative view of this subgroup – it investigates the sentiments, stories, perceptions, and priorities around Black values and progressive policies, to better understand how they impact Black views on Black LGBTQ+ people,” the press release says.
It says the survey found, among other things, that 73 percent of Gen Z respondents, who in 2024 are between the ages of 12 and 27, “agree that the Black community should do more to support Black LGBTQ+ people.”
According to the press release, it also found that 40 percent of Black people in the survey reported having a family member who identifies as LGBTQ+ and 80 percent reported having “some proximity to gay, lesbian, bisexual, or queer people, but only 42 percent have some proximity to transgender or gender-expansive people.”
The survey includes these additional findings:
• 86% of Black people nationally report having a feeling of shared fate and connectivity with other Black people in the U.S., but this view doesn’t fully extend to the Black LGBTQ+ community. Around half — 51% — of Black people surveyed feel a shared fate with Black LGBTQ+ people.
• 34% reported the belief that Black LGBTQ+ people “lead with their sexual orientation or gender identity.” Those participants were “significantly less likely to support the Black LGBTQ+ community and most likely to report not feeling a shared fate with Black LGBTQ+ people.”
• 92% of Black people in the survey reported “concern about youth suicide after being shown statistics about the heightened rate among Black LGBTQ+ youth.” Those expressing this concern included 83% of self-reported opponents of LGBTQ+ rights.
• “Black people’s support for LGBTQ+ rights can be sorted into three major groups: 29% Active Accomplices, 25% Passive Allies (high potential to be moved), 35% Opponents. Among Opponents, ‘competing priorities’ and ‘religious beliefs’ are the two most significant barriers to supporting Black LGBTQ+ people and issues.”
• 10% of the survey participants identified as LGBTQ. Among those who identified as LGBTQ, 38% identified as bisexual, 33% identified as lesbian or gay, 28% identified as non-binary or gender non-conforming, and 6% identified as transgender.
• Also, among those who identified as LGBTQ, 89% think the Black community should do more to support Black LGBTQ+ people, 69% think Black LGBTQ+ people have fewer rights and freedoms than other Black people, 35% think non-Black LGBTQ+ people have fewer rights and freedom than other Black people, 54% “feel their vote has a lot of power,” 51% live in urban areas, and 75% rarely or never attend church.
Additional information about the survey from NBJC can be accessed here.
Research/Study
63% of LGBTQ+ people have faced employment discrimination
The report’s findings also show 70% of LGBTQ+ people feel lonely, misunderstood, marginalized, or excluded at work
WASHINGTON -A newly released report on the findings of a survey of 2,000 people in the U.S. who identify as LGBTQ says 63 percent of respondents have faced workplace discrimination in their career, 45 percent reported being “passed over” for a promotion due to their LGBTQ status, and 30 percent avoid “coming out” at work due to fear of discrimination.
The report, called “Unequal Opportunities: LGBTQ+ Discrimination In The Workplace,” was conducted by EduBirdie, a company that provides s professional essay writing service for students.
“The research shows basic acceptance remains elusive,” a statement released by the company says. “Thirty percent of LGBTQ+ people are concerned they will face discrimination if they come out at work, while 1 in 4 fear for their safety,” the statement says. “Alarmingly, 2 in 5 have had their orientation or identity disclosed without consent.”
Avery Morgan, an EduBirdie official, says in the statement, “Despite progress in LGBTQ+ human rights, society stigma persists. Our findings show 70% of LGBTQ+ people feel lonely, misunderstood, marginalized, or excluded at work, and 59% believe their sexual orientation or gender identity has hindered their careers.”
According to Morgan, “One of the biggest challenges businesses should be aware of is avoiding tokenism and appearing inauthentic in their actions. Employers must be genuine with their decisions to bring a more diverse workforce into the organization.”
The report includes these additional findings:
• 44% of LGBTQ people responding to the survey said they have quit a job due to lack of acceptance.
• 15% reported facing discrimination “going unaddressed” by their employer.
• 21% “choose not to report incidents that occur at work.”
• 44% of LGBTQ+ workers feel their company is bad at raising awareness about their struggles.
• Half of LGBTQ+ people change their appearance, voice, or mannerisms to fit in at work.
• 56% of LGBTQ+ people would be more comfortable coming out at work if they had a more senior role.
At least 32 states and the District of Columbia have passed laws banning employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, according to the Human Rights Campaign. The EduBirdie report does not show which states participants of the survey are from. EduBirdie spokesperson Anna Maglysh told the Washington Blade the survey was conducted anonymously to protect the privacy of participants.
The full report can be accessed here.
Research/Study
2024 GLAAD Social Media Safety Index: Social media platforms fail
Despite moderate score improvements since 2023 on LGBTQ safety, privacy, and expression, all platforms insufficiently protect LGBTQ users
NEW YORK – GLAAD released its fourth annual Social Media Safety Index (SMSI) on Tuesday giving virtually every major social media company a failing grade as it surveyed LGBTQ safety, privacy, and expression online.
According to GLAAD, the world’s largest LGBTQ+ media advocacy organization, YouTube, X/Twitter, and Meta’s Facebook, Instagram, and Threads – received failing F grades on the SMSI Platform Scorecard for the third consecutive year.
The only exception was Chinese company ByteDance owned TikTok, which earned a D+.
Some platforms have shown improvements in their scores since last year. Others have fallen, and overall, the scores remain abysmal, with all platforms other than TikTok receiving F grades.
● TikTok: D+ — 67% (+10 points from 2023)
● Facebook: F — 58% (-3 points from 2023)
● Instagram: F — 58% (-5 points from 2023)
● YouTube: F — 58% (+4 points from 2023)
● Threads: F — 51% (new 2024 rating)
● Twitter: F — 41% (+8 points from 2023)
This year’s report also illuminates the epidemic of anti-LGBTQ hate, harassment, and disinformation across major social media platforms, and especially makes note of high-follower hate accounts and right-wing figures who continue to manufacture and circulate most of this activity.
“In addition to these egregious levels of inadequately moderated anti-LGBTQ hate and disinformation, we also see a corollary problem of over-moderation of legitimate LGBTQ expression — including wrongful takedowns of LGBTQ accounts and creators, shadowbanning, and similar suppression of LGBTQ content. Meta’s recent policy change limiting algorithmic eligibility of so-called ‘political content,’ which the company partly defines as: ‘social topics that affect a group of people and/or society large’ is especially concerning,” GLAAD’s Senior Director of Social Media Safety Jenni Olson said in the press release annoucing the report’s findings.
Specific LGBTQ safety, privacy, and expression issues identified include:
● Inadequate content moderation and problems with policy development and enforcement (including issues with both failure to mitigate anti-LGBTQ content and over-moderation/suppression of LGBTQ users);
● Harmful algorithms and lack of algorithmic transparency; inadequate transparency and user controls around data privacy;
● An overall lack of transparency and accountability across the industry, among many other issues — all of which disproportionately impact LGBTQ users and other marginalized communities who are uniquely vulnerable to hate, harassment, and discrimination.
Key Conclusions:
● Anti-LGBTQ rhetoric and disinformation on social media translates to real-world offline harms.
● Platforms are largely failing to successfully mitigate dangerous anti-LGBTQ hate and disinformation and frequently do not adequately enforce their own policies regarding such content.
● Platforms also disproportionately suppress LGBTQ content, including via removal, demonetization, and forms of shadowbanning.
● There is a lack of effective, meaningful transparency reporting from social media companies with regard to content moderation, algorithms, data protection, and data privacy practices.
Core Recommendations:
● Strengthen and enforce existing policies that protect LGBTQ people and others from hate, harassment, and misinformation/disinformation, and also from suppression of legitimate LGBTQ expression.
● Improve moderation including training moderators on the needs of LGBTQ users, and moderate across all languages, cultural contexts, and regions. This also means not being overly reliant on AI.
● Be transparent with regard to content moderation, community guidelines, terms of service policy implementation, algorithm designs, and enforcement reports. Such transparency should be facilitated via working with independent researchers.
● Stop violating privacy/respect data privacy. To protect LGBTQ users from surveillance and discrimination, platforms should reduce the amount of data they collect, infer, and retain. They should cease the practice of targeted surveillance advertising, including the use of algorithmic content recommendation. In addition, they should implement end-to-end encryption by default on all private messaging to protect LGBTQ people from persecution, stalking, and violence.
● Promote civil discourse and proactively message expectations for user behavior, including respecting platform hate and harassment policies.
Read the report here: (Link)
Research/Study
The Daily Wire: New vitamins will boost sperm & fight “wokeness”
Marketing for The Daily Wire’s venture tries to cash in on fear of trans people & drag queens promoting an alternative to “woke” companies
By Mia Gingerich | WASHINGTON – The Daily Wire announced the launch of a new “men’s lifestyle” company named Responsible Man on May 1, promoting its only current product — a men’s dietary supplement that it says is “designed to help … sharpen brain cognition” and that it suggests will help address what the outlet calls the “increasing health risk” of declining “sperm concentration.”
On April 30, The Daily Wire’s parent company Bentkey Ventures registered the assumed name “Daily Wire Ventures.” The next day, on May 1, it debuted Responsible Man, a new company for men’s health products.
The Daily Wire is promoting Responsible Man as an alternative to “woke” companies and by fearmongering about some of the outlet’s frequent targets, namely gender-affirming care and drag queens, asking its readers, “Do you want to buy your men’s health products from a company that partners with drag queens and supports radical organizations that push gender procedures on children?” Responsible Man’s website uses similar language, promising its customers that “together, we can reclaim masculinity” and claiming that “Emerson’s Vitamins are a simple step towards improving yourself, creating order, and building the future.”
Ad from Responsible Man’s website:
The Daily Wire’s promotion suggests Responsible Man’s products can help address various health issues, including the purported “increasing health risk” of declining “sperm concentration” worldwide, promising to help men stay healthy “for the survival of the human race.”
The company’s only product, a men’s multivitamin, is marketed as being “professionally engineered by medical doctors” to “support your immune system, maintain energy production, sharpen brain cognition, and support the health of your heart and muscles.”
Claims made by The Daily Wire’s new company are not FDA-approved
According to disclaimers on Responsible Man’s website, the claims made to promote the company’s vitamins “have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration.” Multivitamins do not need to go through an evaluation process prior to entering the marketplace, and have generally proved ineffective in reducing the risk of heart disease and mental decline.
In the past, The Daily Wire has targeted certain medications used in gender-affirming care for trans youth for their use off-label without FDA approval, even though this is a common practice in prescribing pediatric medications. The Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh has been particularly fervent in wielding this point to target gender-affirming care.
The Daily Wire is promoting the new company by targeting Men’s Health magazine
The Daily Wire’s previous ventures into consumer goods have been framed in opposition to specific companies it deemed too “woke,” such as Harry’s Razors and Hershey’s Chocolate, for refusing to advertise with The Daily Wire and featuring a trans woman in an advertisement, respectively. (Jeremy’s Razors and Jeremy’s Chocolate, The Daily Wire’s answers to Harry’s and Hershey’s going “woke,” have received poor feedback from customers.)
The Daily Wire’s promotion of Responsible Man singles out for criticism Men’s Health, the largest men’s lifestyle magazine in the United States. Claiming that Men’s Health was “afraid of manhood itself,” The Daily Wire has declared itself “here to give you a better option.” The lone source of outrage cited by the outlet is a Men’s Health article from November 2021 on “LGBTQ+ Language and Media Literacy.”
******************************************************************************************
Mia Gingerich is a researcher at Media Matters. She has a bachelor’s degree in politics and government from Northern Arizona University and has previously worked in rural organizing and local media.
The preceding article was previously published by Media Matters for America and is republished by permission.
Research/Study
Half of LGBTQ+ college faculty considered moving to another state
Half of LGBTQ+ college faculty surveyed have considered moving to another state because of anti-DEI laws the Williams Institute found
LOS ANGELES – Anti-diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) laws have negatively impacted the teaching, research, and health of LGBTQ+ college faculty, according to a new study by the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law.
As a result of anti-DEI laws, about half of the LGBTQ+ faculty surveyed (48%) have explored moving to another state, and 20% have actively taken steps to do so. One-third (36%) have considered leaving academia altogether.
Nine states have passed anti-DEI legislation related to higher education, and many others are considering similar legislation.
Using data gathered from 84 LGBTQ+ faculty, most of whom work at public universities, this study examined how the anti-DEI and anti-LGBTQ+ climate has affected their teaching, lives outside the classroom, emotional and physical health, coping strategies, and desire to move.
Many faculty reported that anti-DEI laws have negatively impacted what they teach, how they interact with students, their research on LGBTQ+-related issues, and how out they are on campus and in their communities. More than one in ten faculty surveyed have faced requests for their DEI-related activities from campus administrators (14%), course enrollment declines (12%), and student threats to report them for violating anti-DEI laws (10%).
Nearly three-quarters (74%) of the LGBTQ+ faculty said the current environment has taken a toll on their mental health, and over one-quarter (27%) said it has affected their physical health.
Some LGBTQ+ faculty, particularly those who were tenured, part of a union, or well-respected on campus, have responded to anti-DEI policies by becoming more involved in advocacy and activism on (33%) and off campus (26%). Some made positive changes to their teaching, such as adding readings that provide context for LGBTQ+ content and expanding the amount of discussion during class.
“These findings suggest that anti-DEI laws could lead to significantly fewer out LGBTQ+ faculty, less course coverage of LGBTQ+ topics, and a lack of academic research on LGBTQ+ issues,” said study author Abbie E. Goldberg, Affiliated Scholar at the Williams Institute and Professor of Psychology at Clark University. “This could create a generation of students with less exposure to LGBTQ+ issues and faculty mentorship and support.”
ADDITIONAL FINDINGS:
- About 30% of participants said that their college/university communities were conservative or very conservative on LGBTQ+ issues.6% said that they had experienced harassment or been bothered by supervisors or colleagues due to their LGBTQ+ status, political affiliation, or perceived “wokeness” in the last six months.20% said that they were scared of this type of harassment.
- Nearly 30% of participants said that their home communities were conservative or very conservative on LGBTQ+ issues.5% said that they had experienced harassment or been bothered by neighbors due to their LGBTQ+ status, political affiliation, or perceived “wokeness” in the last six months.37% said that they were scared of this type of harassment.
- Over 60% of survey participants who were parents reported at least one adverse event or change had impacted their children in the past six months, including bullying and harassment (26%), removal of books from classrooms (18%), and curriculum changes (35%).
Read the report here (Link)
Research/Study
Landmark systematic review of trans surgery
Landmark systematic review concluded regret rate for trans surgeries is “remarkably low,” compared to other surgeries & major life decisions
By Erin Reed | WASHINGTON – In recent years, anti-transgender activists have used fear of “regret” as justification to ban gender-affirming care for transgender youth and restrict it for many adults. Now, a new systematic review published in The American Journal of Surgery has concluded that the rate of regret for transgender surgeries is “remarkably low.”
The review encompasses more than 55 individual studies on regret to support its conclusions and will likely be a powerful tool in challenging transgender bans in the coming weeks.
The study, conducted by experts from the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, examines reported regret rates for dozens of surgeries as well as major life decisions and compares them to the regret rates for transgender surgeries.
It finds that “there is lower regret after [gender-affirming surgery], which is less than 1%, than after many other decisions, both surgical and otherwise.” It notes that surgeries such as tubal sterilization, assisted prostatectomy, body contouring, facial rejuvenation, and more all have regret rates more than 10 times as high as gender-affirming surgery.
You can see regret rates for many of the surgeries they examined in the review here:
The review also finds that regret rates for gender-affirming surgeries are lower than those for many life decisions. For instance, the survey found that marriage has a regret rate of 31%, having children has a regret rate of 13%, and at least 72% of sexually active students report regret after engaging in sexual activity at least once. All of these are notably magnitudes higher than gender affirming surgery.
Regret is commonly weaponized against transgender care. The recently released Cass Review, currently being used in an attempt to ban transgender care in England, mentions “regret” 20 times in the document. Pamela Paul’s story in The New York Times features stories of regret heavily and objects to reports of low regret rates. Legislators use the myth of high levels of regret to justify harsh crackdowns on transgender care.
Recently, though, anti-trans activists who have pushed the idea that regret may be high appear to be retreating from their claims. In the WPATH Files, a highly editorialized and error-filled document targeting the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, the authors state that the low levels of regret for transgender people obtaining surgery are actually cause for alarm, and that transgender people are “suspiciously” happy.
The idea that transgender people cannot be trusted to report their own happiness and regret has also been echoed by anti-transgender activists and influencers like Matt Walsh and Jesse Singal.
The review has sharp critiques for those who use claims of “regret” to justify bans on gender affirming care: “Unfortunately, some people seek to limit access to gender-affirming services, most vehemently gender-affirming surgery, and use postoperative regret as reason that care should be denied to all patients. This over-reaching approach erases patient autonomy and does not honor the careful consideration and multidisciplinary approach that goes into making the decision to pursue gender-affirming surgery… [other] operations, while associated with higher rates of post-operative regret, are not as restricted and policed like gender-affirming surgery.”
The review is in line with recent data supporting very low regret rates for transgender people. The 2022 U.S. Transgender Survey, the world’s largest survey of transgender individuals, which surveyed over 90,000 transgender people, found that for those receiving hormone therapy, regret rates are incredibly low: less than 1% report being a little or a lot less satisfied after beginning hormone therapy.
You can view a chart from the 2022 US Transgender Survey showing low rates of regret for hormone therapy here:
There is no evidence that transgender people experience high rates of regret for any transgender care, including transgender surgery. On the contrary, gender-affirming care saves lives.
A Cornell review of more than 51 studies found that gender-affirming care significantly improves the well-being of transgender individuals and also concluded that regret is rare. Low rates of regret for transgender people are not “suspicious.” Rather, they are evidence that the care transgender people seek is important, carefully provided, and helps them live more fulfilled lives.
****************************************************************************
Erin Reed is a transgender woman (she/her pronouns) and researcher who tracks anti-LGBTQ+ legislation around the world and helps people become better advocates for their queer family, friends, colleagues, and community. Reed also is a social media consultant and public speaker.
******************************************************************************************
The preceding article was first published at Erin In The Morning and is republished with permission.
Research/Study
90 percent of trans youth live in states restricting their rights
Slightly more than 75% of trans youth live in 40 states passed laws or had pending bills that restrict access to gender-affirming care
LOS ANGELES – According to a new report by the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law, 93% of transgender youth aged 13 to 17 in the U.S.—approximately 280,300 youth—live in states that have proposed or passed laws restricting their access to health care, sports, school bathrooms and facilities, or the use of gender-affirming pronouns.
In some regions, a large percentage of transgender youth live in a state that has already enacted one of these laws. About 85% of transgender youth in the South and 40% of transgender youth in the Midwest live in one of these states.
An estimated 300,100 youth ages 13 to 17 in the U.S. identify as transgender. Nearly half of transgender youth live in 14 states and Washington D.C. that have laws that protect access to gender-affirming care and prohibit conversion therapy.
All transgender youth living in the Northeast reside in a state with either a gender-affirming care “shield” law or a conversion therapy ban, while almost all transgender youth in the West (97%) live in a state with one or both protective laws.
“For the second straight year, hundreds of bills impacting transgender youth were introduced in state legislatures,” said lead author Elana Redfield, Federal Policy Director at the Williams Institute. “The diverging legal landscape has created a deep divide in the rights and protections for transgender youth and their families across the country.”
KEY FINDINGS:
Restrictive Legislation
Bans on gender-affirming care
237,500 transgender youth—slightly more than three-quarters of transgender youth in the U.S.—live in 40 states that have passed laws or had pending bills that restrict access to gender-affirming care.113,900 transgender youth live in 24 states that have enacted gender-affirming care bans.123,600 youth live in 16 additional states that had a gender-affirming care ban pending in the 2024 legislative session. |
Bans on sports participation
222,500 transgender youth—nearly three-quarters of transgender youth in the U.S.—live in 41 states that have passed laws or had pending bills that restrict participation in school sports.120,200 transgender youth live in 27 states where access to sports participation is restricted or state policy encourages restriction.102,300 transgender youth live in 14 additional states that had a sports ban pending in the 2024 legislative session. |
School bathroom bans
117,000 transgender youth live in 30 states that have passed laws or had pending bills that ban transgender students from using school bathrooms and other facilities that align with their gender identity.38,600 transgender youth live in 13 states that explicitly or implicitly ban bathroom access.78,400 transgender youth live in 17 additional states that had a bathroom ban pending in the 2024 legislative session. |
Bans on pronoun use
121,100 transgender youth live in 31 states that have passed laws or had pending bills that restrict or prohibit the use of gender-affirming pronouns.49,100 transgender youth live in 14 states that have restricted or banned pronoun use, particularly in schools or state-run facilities.72,000 transgender youth live in 17 additional states that had a restriction or prohibition pending in the 2024 legislative session. |
Gender-affirming care “shield” laws
163,800 transgender youth—over half of transgender youth in the U.S.—live in 18 states and D.C. that have passed gender-affirming care “shield” laws or had pending bills that protect access to care.146,700 transgender youth live in 14 states and D.C. that have passed these protections.17,100 transgender youth live in four additional states that had a “shield” law pending in the 2024 legislative session. |
Conversion therapy bans
204,800 transgender youth live in 31 states and D.C. that ban conversion therapy or had pending bills that prohibit the practice for minors.198,000 transgender youth—about two-thirds of transgender youth in the U.S.—live in 27 states and D.C. that ban conversion therapy for minors.6,800 transgender youth live in four additional states that had a ban pending in the 2024 legislative session. |
“A growing body of research shows that efforts to support transgender youth are associated with better mental health,” said co-author Kerith Conron, Research Director at the Williams Institute. “Restrictions on medically appropriate care and full participation at school exacerbate the stress experienced by these youth and their families.” |
Read the report: (Here)
Research/Study
Same-sex couples vulnerable to negative effects of climate change
Same-sex couple households disproportionately live in coastal areas, cities & areas with poorer infrastructure and less access to resources
LOS ANGELES – A new report by the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law finds that same-sex couples are at greater risk of experiencing the adverse effects of climate change compared to different-sex couples.
LGBTQ people in same-sex couple households disproportionately live in coastal areas and cities and areas with poorer infrastructure and less access to resources, making them more vulnerable to climate hazards.
Using U.S. Census data and climate risk assessment data from NASA and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), researchers conducted a geographic analysis to assess the climate risk impacting same-sex couples. NASA’s risk assessment focuses on changes to meteorological patterns, infrastructure and built environment, and the presence of at-risk populations. FEMA’s assessment focuses on changes in the occurrence of severe weather events, accounting for at-risk populations, the availability of services, and access to resources.
Results show counties with a higher proportion of same-sex couples are, on average, at increased risk from environmental, infrastructure, and social vulnerabilities due to climate change.
“Given the disparate impact of climate change on LGBTQ populations, climate change policies, including disaster preparedness, response, and recovery plans, must address the specific needs and vulnerabilities facing LGBTQ people,” said study co-author Ari Shaw, Senior Fellow and Director of International Programs at the Williams Institute. “Policies should focus on mitigating discriminatory housing and urban development practices, making shelters safe spaces for LGBT people, and ensuring that relief aid reaches displaced LGBTQ individuals and families.”
“Factors underlying the geographic vulnerability are crucial to understanding why same-sex couples are threatened by climate change and whether the findings in our study apply to the broader LGBTQ population,” said study co-author Lindsay Mahowald, Research Data Analyst at the Williams Institute. “More research is needed to examine how disparities in housing, employment, and health care among LGBT people compound the geographic vulnerabilities to climate change.”
Read the report
-
News5 days ago
What does Prop 3 mean for same-sex marriage in California?
-
National3 days ago
Lesbian software developer seeks to preserve lost LGBTQ history
-
Photos3 days ago
PHOTOS: LA Impact Gala
-
Commentary3 days ago
The impact of women’s bills of rights on trans employees
-
a&e features5 days ago
Author of new book empowers Black ‘fat’ femme voices
-
Israel3 days ago
Blade returns to Israel to cover Oct. 7 anniversary
-
District of Columbia4 days ago
Trans employee awarded $930,000 in lawsuit against D.C. McDonald’s
-
Community Services - PSA4 days ago
LGBTQ+ voter education town hall held tonight in Los Angeles
-
California3 days ago
Forfeitures against San Jose State over trans athlete on roster spark controversy, backlash
-
Mexico4 days ago
Claudia Sheinbaum sworn in as Mexico’s first female president