The Gay Week 5: Algorithmic Silencing & Backlash

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/10

Charles Karel Bouley, professionally known as Karel Bouley, is a trailblazing LGBTQ broadcaster, entertainer, and activist. As half of the first openly gay duo in U.S. drive-time radio, he made history while shaping California law on LGBTQ wrongful death cases. Karel rose to prominence as the #1 talk show host on KFI AM 640 in Los Angeles and KGO AM 810 in San Francisco, later expanding to Free Speech TV and the Karel Cast podcast. His work spans journalism (HuffPost, The Advocate, Billboard), television (CNN, MSNBC), and the music industry. A voting member of NARAS, GALECA, and SAG-AFTRA, Karel now lives and creates in Las Vegas.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Bouley discuss platform “algorithmic silencing” of LGBTQ content, citing Meta and YouTube policies, Musk’s anti-Netflix campaign, and the chilling effect on creators. They link the firing of an FBI employee over a Pride flag to broader anti-DEI politics, warn of renewed closet pressures in the U.S. military, and note divergent global trends: Slovakia’s anti-trans measures versus Japan’s court wins removing surgical requirements for legal gender change. U.S. census analysis shows strong same-sex couple presence despite backlash. They argue durable progress hinges on courts and economic leverage, urging organized advocacy, alternative platforms, and cross-border solidarity. 

Interview conducted October 3, 2025, in the morning Pacific Time.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: All right, once again, we’re here with This Gay Week with Karel Bouley. Thank you very much for joining me.

Karel Bouley: No worries.

Jacobsen: The first item today is the Bay Area Reporter editorial. It argues that Instagram is routinely flagging or down-ranking LGBTQ content under vague rules about “sexual solicitation.” There have been recent takedowns—what the editorial board calls “algorithmic silencing.” 

Bouley: That’s especially jarring given Instagram’s tendency to boost posts that show more skin, yet it’s labelling LGBTQ posts as solicitation. The B.A.R. also reported multiple queer creators saying their accounts were restricted or even deleted under “sexually suggestive” or solicitation rules.

This is an alarming trend, and it’s not just Instagram—it spans Meta’s platforms (Instagram, Facebook, Threads, and WhatsApp). Critics describe it as algorithmic discrimination against LGBTQ expression.

To be precise about politics and money: Meta (the company) donated $1 million to Donald Trump’s 2025 inauguration committee; that’s different from Mark Zuckerberg personally donating. The broader perception of cozying up to power is fueling concern, but the donation on record is corporate.

It’s not only Meta. YouTube has also drawn criticism from GLAAD’s Social Media Safety Index for rolling back or failing to protect gender identity in its policies clearly. LGBTQ creators have long documented visibility problems (for example, the “Restricted Mode” controversy goes back years).

We’re entering an era where openly gay or trans-affirming content—articles like This Gay Week included—can face distribution headwinds driven by platform rules and automated systems.

On X, this dynamic is even more overt. In the last few days, Elon Musk has urged people to “cancel Netflix,” amplifying posts that frame LGBTQ and especially trans-inclusive shows as harmful to children. He shared a meme using a Trojan-horse metaphor to claim LGBTQ themes are being smuggled into kids’ content. Musk’s public dispute also sits alongside a widely reported estrangement from his transgender daughter.

Now he is calling for a ban on Netflix because it includes LGBTQ programming. Yes, Netflix’s stock has dipped recently, though attributing that directly to Musk’s comments is debatable—many factors influence stock movement. Still, his campaign against Netflix is part of a broader push to limit pro-LBGTQ and especially trans content on X.

Meta and YouTube are doing the same in their own ways. Unfortunately, groups like GLAAD and the Human Rights Campaign aren’t feared enough by these companies to deter them. The only real check would be political intervention. Still, currently, there are no politicians with the clout or willpower to compel these corporations to change.

So this suppression will likely increase. LGBTQ groups can sue, but the legal path is unclear. These platforms are privately owned. People often forget: there is no constitutional right to free speech on social media. Free speech protects you from government censorship, not private companies.

The platforms circumvent regulation by claiming they’re not broadcast companies. In reality, they are media companies—but because they’re private, they can silence speech at will. Think about it this way: you don’t have the right to say whatever you want at your job without consequences. If you insult your boss, you can expect to be fired. Social media platforms operate on a similar principle.

I’ve seen this in broadcasting. I’ve personally been in trouble with the FCC for comments I made on air. The station lawyers had to argue that I didn’t violate FCC rules. Many people think there are seven forbidden words—thanks to George Carlin’s comedy bit—but the FCC never actually listed seven words. The fundamental rule is: if the content is offensive to community standards, it can be restricted.

For example, what might be considered offensive in one region may be tolerated in another, depending on the community. Social media companies mimic this reasoning. They claim that the content violates “community standards.” Right now, it feels like Donald Trump is being treated as the arbiter of those standards, and companies are bowing to him.

Obviously, the Bay Area Reporter is upset by this. GLAAD, the HRC, and many LGBTQ content creators—including myself—are bothered by it. But I don’t see much that can be done unless we launch alternatives like “GayTube” or another independent platform. It could be done if a wealthy LGBTQ backer or organizations like GLAAD or HRC took the initiative; however, for now, the outlook is not optimistic.

That leads us into another story: Kash Patel has reportedly authorized the firing of an FBI employee who had a rainbow flag on his desk. The stated reason was “inappropriate political messaging at work.”

This is someone who actually won an award in 2022 for his work at the FBI. By all accounts, he was a strong, qualified employee. However, he was fired during the government shutdown due to a Pride flag he had kept on his desk.

Can he sue, claiming his freedom of speech was infringed? I’m not sure. The FBI is a government agency, not a private platform, but that doesn’t mean employees have unlimited free-speech protections at work. Government workers have been disciplined or fired in the past for posts made outside of their work hours. In this case, it was a flag in the office—and they’re saying he was still in an interim or probationary period, so they chose not to renew his appointment.

But really, this ties into the broader war on diversity, equity, and inclusion—DEI. This was politically motivated, and according to reporting, it had the president’s backing. The irony is striking: they said he was fired for displaying an “inappropriate political message,” when in fact the firing itself is a political message—zero tolerance for LGBTQ visibility.

It has become so extreme that, for the first time in decades, I’ve heard whispers in parts of the LGBTQ community about dropping the “T.” Now, that isn’t going to happen—we are not abandoning trans people. But it shows how the backlash against trans people is dragging the entire LGBTQ community into the crosshairs. Some are saying, “Maybe we shouldn’t be aligned with the trans fight because that’s Trump’s target.” However, we should be aligned, because the attack won’t stop there.

The man fired from the FBI wasn’t trans. He appeared to be gay, or at the very least an ally. He had a Pride flag. And now others inside these agencies are reportedly “policing” their desks to make sure, and I quote from the reporting, there is “nothing offensive to Donald Trump.” That is chilling—that is fascism. It’s another step toward authoritarian rule in the United States.

With three more years ahead, unless Democrats win back power in the midterms, I don’t see this ending. I see it getting worse. Just look at Pete Hegseth—sometimes jokingly called “Pete Hegeberger”—who said in a recent speech that the military “will no longer stand for men in dresses.” 

He was referring to trans women serving openly. That statement made it clear: the military is now officially hostile to trans service members, and there are signs gays are being pushed back into the closet, almost back to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Only now it’s worse—they’re asking, and if you tell, you can be expelled. So yes, this is a dangerous time to be openly LGBTQ in a government agency like the FBI.

It appears that if you advocate for your community, you’re punished. Has anyone been fired from the FBI for displaying MAGA paraphernalia on their desk? Has anyone been fired for a “Make America Great Again” hat? No. And would they be? I guarantee they would not. If you had a MAGA hat on your desk at the FBI—a political message—you would not be fired. 

However, if you have a Pride flag on your desk, you’re likely to be fired for “inappropriate political messaging.” That’s where we are. It’s a downhill slide, and I don’t see anyone standing in front of this train.

Jacobsen: The Guardian reports that in Slovakia, a constitutional amendment was passed on October 1 recognizing only “male” and “female.” It effectively makes same-sex adoption nearly impossible and explicitly bans legal gender recognition. Many rights groups have called this a “dark day,” saying it directly clashes with European human rights norms. Any thoughts?

Bouley: Donald Trump is exporting his anti-LBGTQ politics. Countries that had been slowly liberalizing under global pressure—loosening their anti-gay policies because the world was becoming more accepting—now feel free to reverse course. They can say, “We’re going back to being anti-gay, and no one can condemn us,” because they see cover from the U.S. government.

Yes, the EU is condemning it, but the U.S. isn’t, Russia supports it, and many African nations support it. There’s a large bloc of countries applauding Slovakia. And it’s not just Slovakia—Hungary has tried to clamp down on Pride, though activists have still marched anyway.

The point is, there’s a growing global anti-LBGTQ movement, and governments are riding that wave. Unless other nations respond economically—by cutting trade, boycotting tourism, and refusing to buy products—these countries won’t change. And no nation is willing to use economic leverage at this time. That’s why change is unlikely.

Under Biden and Obama, the U.S. was a pro-LBGTQ nation. We allowed open service in the military, pushed acceptance, and pressured others by example. That embarrassed countries into changing policies. But now that the U.S. is itself on an anti-trans and anti-gay trajectory, countries no longer look bad when they take repressive measures. They’re doing it openly and with impunity.

Jacobsen: The Denver Post covered a 10th Circuit ruling upholding Colorado’s nondiscrimination requirement in universal pre-K. This means religious preschools that accept public funds cannot exclude LGBTQ children or the children of LGBTQ parents. Any thoughts?

Bouley: Yes—it’s the one positive story we’ve got this week. It’s the one win for the LGBTQ+ community. 

Jacobsen: This Gay Week, that’s it—the one win. We’ll take it.

Bouley: We’ll take it. Because just today, the University of Texas system announced that they’re going the other way. They want to remove gender studies and related programs. While it’s encouraging that a court upheld nondiscrimination—albeit at a lower court level, and we know where this could lead—it’s still a win.

Now, as a gay person, let me say: I never thought much about LGBTQ issues in kindergarten through sixth grade. I was gay from the womb, and when I came out, I was practically singing a show tune. The doctor slapped me, and I said, “Again.” I was a preemie—three pounds, pronounced dead at birth, but of course I had to make an entrance. I made them redesign my nursery. I’m sure I was like, “No, no, no. Too little colour here!”

So, honestly, I don’t often connect LGBTQ issues with pre-K through sixth grade. However, there are certainly children who, even in second or third grade, may not want to wear traditional outfits. And, truthfully, even straight kids experiment with dress-up—drag is not limited to queer kids. We’ve seen Republican figures like J.D. Vance and Madison Cawthorn photographed in drag. Ricky Gervais, too. And let’s be honest—every time I see Madison Cawthorn, my gaydar goes off like a gong.

Anyway, this case is a win. The court affirmed that we will not discriminate against parents or children. I don’t know how many real cases of LGBTQ discrimination exist in K–6. Still, the ruling upheld Colorado’s existing law: you cannot discriminate, period. The courts just had to remind people to follow the law.

Jacobsen: However, there’s a tendency in American commentary—and in the commentariat more broadly—that those with the time and platform often praise themselves simply for meeting the minimum benchmark of equality. 

Bouley: It’s like, “We didn’t actively persecute today—aren’t we great?” But, of course, the reality is that the U.S. has a long record of discrimination. Every week, we come here and have no shortage of stories—stories of gay groups, or LGBTQ individuals defending themselves against government agencies, being fired, losing protections, or facing policy rollbacks. 

America has always been hostile to difference. White, cisgender Christians? They’ve always been safe. But anyone outside that narrow category—Black, Chinese, immigrant, gay, trans, bisexual, non-binary, Asian, Indigenous—has been treated poorly.

From the very start, Native Americans didn’t invite us here. We forced them out, subjugated them, and placed them on reservations, which were essentially concentration camps. The Statue of Liberty’s inscription—”Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses”—has always been a lie. We don’t welcome the marginalized. We round them up, we detain them, we deport them. That’s the American tradition.

Jacobsen: And maybe it’s more like, “We don’t want them. We want them to be…”

Bouley:  Well, we don’t want to huddle. I wonder if the French wrote that. I don’t know who wrote the inscription. Did it come with the statue? Honestly, the French should request the return of the statue. If I were them, I’d say, “Look, you’re not living up to this.”

The New Colossus, the inscription on the Statue of Liberty, was written by Emma Lazarus. She lived from 1849 to 1887. 

Jacobsen: She wrote the poem in 1883 to help raise money for the construction of the pedestal. The statue itself was a gift from France, but the U.S. had to provide the base.

Bouley: They just sent the statue, not the pedestal. The U.S. had to build the base. One of the most significant early concerns about the statue was that her arm might collapse. I once read a piece about how there was even an explosion—an act of sabotage—on Black Tom Island near New York Harbour during World War I, which damaged the statue and bent her arm. They had to repair it.

So, the notion that we genuinely want immigrants and diversity? That’s over. Honestly, it never really existed. We never treated immigrants well. Italians came here escaping tyranny, often arriving with nothing. At Ellis Island, they had little documentation. That’s where the slur “WOP” came from—without papers. It was a derogatory term, especially in New York.

We’ve never been kind to immigrants. The Irish were treated as severely as Black Americans when they first arrived. Some signs said, “No Blacks, No Irish.” I’ve seen the historical evidence of those signs. We’ve never been a more open and welcoming society. I’m not sure where that myth originates. We’ve always had an enemy: Native Americans, whom we fought, displaced, and confined to reservations. Later, communists, “Reds,” and Japanese Americans were thrown into internment camps. And of course, this country was built on enslaved labour, and Black Americans have been treated poorly ever since.

We’ve never truly been this beacon of acceptance. And as a 62-year-old gay man, I can tell you: there has never been a single day in my life when I’ve felt entirely accepted and embraced by this country. When someone like Trump rises to power, it amplifies that hatred and legitimizes it. Then, other leaders try to push it back down. Generationally, younger people are often more accepting, and as older generations age out, prejudice tends to decrease over time. But the danger now is that younger people are being reindoctrinated into this cycle of hate.

Jacobsen: We do see data that backs this. You’ve probably seen it too. There’s a gender split: girls continue a multigenerational trend toward more acceptance, but young boys and young men have actually trended backward, more aligned with reactionary attitudes than even a generation ago. 

Bouley: The divergence is striking. I’m terrified of young white men. When I see a group of 20- or 25-year-old white men—unless it’s at a gay bar—I avoid them. They feel dangerous. Their testosterone is raging. Their politics often lean extreme. So yes, I steer clear.

Jacobsen: The prime age for mass shooters is 17. Well over 90% are young cisgender white men.

Bouley: When I was 17, I was more concerned with getting my hair permed.

Jacobsen: Also in the news, The Advocate has ranked states with the most same-sex couples per capita, using a Williams Institute analysis based on 2020 census data. Delaware leads with 12.61 per 1,000 households, followed by Oregon and Vermont. California ranks highest in absolute numbers but 7th per capita.

Bouley: You have to remember how big California is—39 to 40 million people. So that’s why it would rank number one if it had fewer people. But as one of the most populous states in the U.S., it ranks differently. My state, Nevada, surprisingly had 12.32 same-sex couples per 1,000 households, which makes me feel very unloved. Same as Hawaii.

And from that list, I can tell you that Massachusetts, ranked number six, is consistently at the top in surveys by GLAAD, HRC, and others regarding legal protections, acceptance, and overall quality of life for LGBTQ people. While it ranks number six for same-sex couples, it tops the list in terms of being the most LGBTQ-friendly state overall.

Now, this should not be confused with the states with the highest overall number of LGBTQ people. This list is about same-sex couples. Delaware tops it because of its 12.61 couples per 1,000 households, but remember, Delaware also has a relatively small population.

Most of the states on this list are blue states: Delaware, Oregon, Vermont, Hawaii, Massachusetts, California, Washington, and New Mexico. Nevada is purple at best. Florida is the outlier—it’s not blue, but it has strong LGBTQ hubs like Miami and Wilton Manors.

So it’s good to see. And I’d also note: one of the arguments against marriage equality was that if you allowed gays and lesbians to marry, it would destroy the institution of marriage. I’m pleased to announce that in Delaware, Oregon, Vermont, Nevada, Hawaii, Massachusetts, California, Washington, New Mexico, and Florida, there are still many stable, happy opposite-sex marriages. Marriage has not been destroyed.

This is encouraging news. It’s also interesting to examine the geography of where LGBTQ couples reside. Again, nine out of ten of these states are blue or purple. For example, Nevada went red statewide in the last election. Still, Clark County, which includes Las Vegas, went blue for Biden. Clark County alone accounts for 3 million of Nevada’s 4.5 million residents. The rural areas went red, offsetting that.

I think there’s a correlation between the number of same-sex couples and how states vote, as well as the protections and equal rights afforded to LGBTQ residents. It’s also striking to see that in many of these places, 12 to nearly 13 out of every 1,000 households are same-sex couples.

That makes you wonder, when we read all these stories of pushback, how politicians can continue to ignore those numbers. It’s obvious there’s a significant LGBTQ population in the U.S.—both individuals and couples. And yet, in the next Supreme Court term, starting Monday, one of the issues they’ll likely take up is same-sex marriage.

Yet, as you see, it is very well accepted, and there are large numbers of LGBTQ couples. So we’ll see. It appears that the people and the nation want same-sex marriage and don’t have a problem with it. And yet, it’s going to end up back in front of the Supreme Court.

Jacobsen: Reuters in the UK published an explainer on the UK Supreme Court’s April ruling, which states that “sex” in equality law refers to biological sex. Trans people and advocates have described a series of rapid policy shifts—in areas such as sports and policing, for example—and a heightened sense of risk in everyday life, as the government weighs formal guidance. Any thoughts?

Bouley: So this is yet another case of people trying to find in the court something that is really not going to be up to the courts to decide. A societal shift in gender norms is necessary for these cases to cease. And all this case proves, again, is that we have not come to a consensus on gender.

What is a male? What is a female? What is intersex?

When these rulings happen, like the one that just happened in London, it makes trans people, it makes gay people wonder: Am I safe in my community? Because what happens in the courts trickles out into the community. Am I safe?

The court affirmed that under equality laws, the term “sex” refers to biological sex, meaning a transgender woman is legally considered male and a transgender man is lawfully regarded as female. That’s a problem, because they’re not.

And so you have the law saying, “No, you’re a man,” or “No, you’re a woman.” Meanwhile, people have undergone surgeries and are not biologically that way anymore. There’s an incongruity between the law and reality. And people get caught in the middle—that’s what this does.

As the article noted, it has almost made it legal to harass trans people. One man interviewed at Gay’s the Word, Britain’s oldest LGBTQ bookshop, said he was now hyper-aware of people noticing him and the fact that he is trans.

So when you get these rulings that say, “No, a man is a man, a woman is a woman, and surgery does not matter,” it ignores reality. That’s where these cases miss the point. You can scream at the top of your lungs that someone is “really” a man or “really” a woman, but if they are not living that way, if they don’t have those organs anymore, then they’re not.

You can say they are until you’re blue in the face, you can legislate it, but all you’re doing is harming people.

And it’s incredible how rulings like this keep coming. They’re not making anyone safer. We have to step back for a moment and examine: what is the purpose of law?

The law is in place to ensure a harmonious existence for everyone in the community. That’s really what the law is for—to ensure that people act responsibly and behave appropriately. The law is not there to make it harder for people who are simply trying to live their lives.

Yet, all of these rulings about what is a man and what is a woman are not making anything better. They’re only making things worse. You have to wonder why these rulings have become the norm. And of course, it’s homophobia and transphobia, which, as we’ve talked about earlier, are now being openly accepted. These laws are draconian. These lawsuits are draconian. They serve no purpose in the community, when the purpose of law is supposed to be to help its community. And instead, people get caught in the middle.

There will therefore have to be a significant societal shift across the globe. And that shift will come with younger people, not older people, accepting that there are more than two genders, that gender can be fluid, and that every human being has the right to determine their own gender—and that society should accept that. If a trans woman says she is a woman, we should assume that. There should be no legal basis to challenge that. We’re not there yet. And until we get there, these cases will continue to arise.

Jacobsen: Over to the East—Human Rights Watch reports that the Sapporo Family Court has struck down Japan’s requirement that trans people alter their genital appearance to change their legal gender. This follows from a 2023 Supreme Court ruling against sterilization mandates. It’s pushing Japan toward recognition without medical preconditions. This directly connects to your point.

Bouley: What Japan had previously said was that transgender people had to alter their appearance and their genitals to be legally recognized as male or female. However, another court has now ruled that this is unconstitutional. They ruled that it takes away trans people’s fundamental right to legal recognition.

Since 2004, transgender people in Japan who wanted to legally change their gender needed to apply to a family court under the Gender Identity Disorder Special Cases Act. Applicants had to undergo a psychiatric evaluation, be surgically sterilized, and have genitalia that closely resembled the physical form of the alternative gender. They also had to be single and without children.

In 2023, a case went before the Supreme Court where a transgender woman argued that the sterilization requirement violated her constitutional rights. The 15 justices ruled unanimously that being forced to undergo sterilization surgery constituted a significant violation of freedom from invasive procedures, and thus violated Japan’s constitution. It was only the 12th time in modern Japanese history that the Supreme Court had found a law unconstitutional.

The Court also asked lower courts to review the requirement mandating surgical alteration of genitalia. In 2024, the Hiroshima High Court ruled that mandating surgery for gender recognition cases was unconstitutional. Now, Japan is essentially saying: We will recognize you legally without requiring bottom surgery.

If a trans man has not had phalloplasty, or if a trans woman has not had vaginoplasty, they can still be legally recognized as their chosen gender. Frankly, I’m amazed that for so many years, someone in Japan was effectively tasked with checking this kind of thing.

“Okay, pull down your pants.” In 2025, that’s where we’re at—we’re still asking people to drop their trousers, like Hitler did, to see who was Jewish and who was not. That’s what we’re talking about here. The way the Germans often distinguished Jewish boys from non-Jewish boys was to have them drop their pants. Jews were circumcised; many Germans were not. And if they were circumcised, they were discriminated against or killed. It’s the same sort of thing.

So I’m glad—this is another positive story this week. I’m happy that, for the 12th time in its history, the Japanese Supreme Court declared a law unconstitutional. This ruling makes life a little easier for trans people in Japan, instead of harder.

Jacobsen: The last item for today—AP, you touched on this a bit. There was a speech or two given by Secretary of War—formally Defence Secretary, but informally now styled Secretary of War—Pete Hegseth, followed by President Donald Trump. Approximately 800 high-ranking generals and officers in the American Armed Forces were seated, mostly quietly. The gist was that Mr. Hegseth de-emphasized DEI, de-emphasized trans-inclusive initiatives, and framed this, apart from the rhetorical flourishes, as a broader cultural shift within the American military—one that will distinctly affect LGBTQ service members following internal guidance. What are your thoughts?

Bouley: He also marginalized women by saying, “We’re going to have a physical fitness test, and if you can’t pass it, you can’t serve.” By the way, neither he nor Trump could pass the military’s physical fitness test. Let me share this with you.

I fed the speech into ChatGPT—both Trump’s and Hegseth’s—and asked it for a historical perspective on the speech given to these military officers. Here’s what ChatGPT had to say:

Donald Trump and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth recently told top U.S. military leaders to prepare for a so-called “enemy from within,” referring broadly to Democrats, critics, and political opponents. They also opposed LGBTQ and trans people openly serving in the military. They wanted to establish a new fitness regime for the generals as well as for everyone serving.

This framing echoes authoritarian rhetoric, where opposition voices are painted as equivalent to foreign adversaries, and where many are deemed unfit to serve in the military based on arbitrary guidelines.

The U.S. Constitution mandates civilian control of the military and protects free speech and dissent under the First Amendment. Using the military to target political opposition or groups deemed “unfit” violates constitutional principles and blurs the line between defence and domestic policy.

Throughout history, authoritarian leaders have used “enemies within” rhetoric aimed at marginalized groups to justify repression and militarization of politics. Adolf Hitler used the notion of internal enemies—Jews, communists, dissenters, and others he deemed unworthy—to justify emergency laws and violent crackdowns in 1930s Germany. Benito Mussolini framed socialists and political opponents as enemies undermining Italy, leading to fascist squads suppressing dissent. Joseph Stalin branded political rivals as internal enemies, resulting in purges, show trials, and the weaponization of the state against civilians. He also purged the military of anyone he did not deem loyal or “fit.”

Augusto Pinochet in Chile portrayed leftists and activists as internal threats to justify military rule and brutal crackdowns. After the 1973 coup, he ensured that everyone in the military was loyal to him and expelled anyone deemed unfit in any way. Francisco Franco in Spain declared opponents enemies of the nation and used the military to impose authoritarian rule for decades.

Painting political opponents or active members of the military as “unfit” or as enemies from within undermines democratic norms, delegitimizes dissent, and invites authoritarian-style governance. Historically, such moves precede restrictions on civil liberties, consolidations of power, and, in extreme cases, violent repression. 

That was the analysis from ChatGPT on the speech.

Jacobsen: Was this ChatGPT 5.0?

Bouley: 5.0. I did not bias the prompt. I did not say, “Is this unconstitutional?” or “Is this authoritarian?” or anything like that. I asked it for a historical analysis of what the Secretary of War and Donald Trump said, and that is what it said.

Even after Donald Trump made them sign a pledge that the algorithm would not produce “fake news” or be politically biased, it still displayed this content. So it’s dangerous. That entire speech was dangerous. Spending over $500,000 to bring everyone to Washington—at a time when we’re in a budgetary crisis and the government is shutting down—was a ridiculous waste of money. This could have been a Zoom call.

It was more of an indoctrination and a loyalty test of the people who were there than anything else. He did not openly say gay people could not serve, but he indeed alluded to the fact that trans people are verboten. He called them “men in dresses,” which is possibly one of the most degrading things you can say about a trans woman, and then alluded to other LGBTQ people.

I have always maintained that if the military does not want us, then we should not serve. They need us more than we need them. The military needs people more than gay people need to be in the military. That is just my personal view. I have always thought: Why would you serve in an army that doesn’t want you? Find another way to serve your country.

The entire speech was dangerous. The rhetoric was alarming. He told the military to practice on American cities. That is fascism, and it is against the Constitution. You cannot deploy American troops in American cities. He does not care, and neither does Pete Hegseth.

Yes, as I said, gays, lesbians, and trans people are being pushed back into the closet in the military. That is unfortunate, but for the next three years, that will be the way it is. If I were gay and thinking of joining the military, I would think twice, and I would indeed find another way to serve my country.

Jacobsen: There are always rights groups needing members.

Bouley: Join the Rainbow Railroad and help people flee to Canada.

Jacobsen: That’s right. We’ll call it the Maple Railroad.

Bouley: By the way, does Canada have any restrictions on its military, correct? LGBT individuals can serve openly in the Canadian army .Gays and trans people can serve openly. I know they can in the UK for sure, and in the EU for sure. I’m not familiar with Canada.

Jacobsen: Before 1992, the Canadian military had policies exclusively excluding gay and lesbian individuals. Based on Canadian Forces Administrative Order 19-20, so there’s a formal order. Michelle Douglas, a CAF member officer dismissed for being lesbian, was a turning point. Her case went to trial. The military revoked its ban in October 1992. The policy was officially cancelled. I’m assuming the policy is in accordance with CF Administrative Order 19-20. The Department of National Defence has initiatives for inclusion, known as the Positive Space Initiative, within its ranks. I am not aware of the start date in 2021. The government apologized for the purge of LGBTQ individuals.

Bouley: Your government apologized for the LGBTQ purge, and we just had the Department of National Defence saying he’s going to initiate an LGBTQ purge. There’s quite a stark contrast between what you’re doing there and what he has in store for us here.

Jacobsen: It’’s one border away. It’s the longest border in the world. You cross it, you’re accepted. You go to the other one, you’re not accepted into the military.

Bouley: It might be one small border, but trust me, it’s like crossing into an entirely different world.

Jacobsen: I travelled three weeks in a big W, reverse W, across the United States. Amtrak wasn’t a surprise. It was just Amtrak, whatever. It’s a train. The surprise part is not high-speed rail—that’s one surprise. However, the second, and more critical surprise, is the diverse range of personas you meet across the United States. And that’s really the big part.

Bouley: I won’t go to the South anymore. I just won’t. It’s dangerous for me, and I won’t go. Texas, Louisiana. I mean, New Orleans, okay. But, you know, Alabama.

Jacobsen: New Orleans is great.

Bouley: I like New Orleans.

Jacobsen: Yeah.

Bouley: New Orleans is a great city—Narlins, as you’re supposed to pronounce it.

Jacobsen: Narlins.

Bouley: Narlins. But Texas, fuck Texas. No need to go.

Bouley: Louisiana, outside of New Orleans, no need to go. Alabama, Georgia, Florida, the Carolinas, no need to go if you’re an openly gay person. And I know there are many of them there, but I see no need to go. It’s dangerous. It has actually gotten hazardous again. And I’ll close with that.

Everything that we talk about every week, all it’s doing is making it more dangerous in America to be gay again. It’s going right back to the pre-Reagan era, where it is just unsafe to be an openly gay, trans, bi, or non-binary person in this country. Look at entertainment. Hulu has just cancelled three shows featuring gay characters, including Mid-Century Modern withNathan Lane and Matt Bomer. The Chi, that got cancelled. So the networks are cancelling LGBTQ shows in record numbers. This last year, the GLAAD Media Report said that there are fewer gay people on television now than there were three years ago.

There’s talk of RuPaul’s Drag Race, because World of Wonder produces it, but it is then sold to Paramount. MTV is Paramount, and David just bought Paramount—what is his name—Ellison, the son of Larry Ellison. They’re both billionaires who are in Trump’s pocket—Skydance, which is a UK company. And so now there’s talk: is RuPaul’s Drag Race going to go away? 

And it wouldn’t go away; it would have to find a new home like Netflix. So all of this does, every week that we talk about this, is hurt people and makes it harder to be gay in the world. That’s all that’s happening right now, the wave of pro-gay has now receded, almost like a tsunami, where it’s pulling all the water away from the beach. 

So they’re trying to pull all the progress that we’ve made back and have a tsunami of bigotry hit us. And as far as I can see, it’s happening. And all you can do is if you’re gay, head for higher ground, because the tsunami of hatred has started. And there’s nothing—yes, we have a few good stories, like the one in Japan, or the other good story we discussed in Colorado. 

But two good stories and ten negative ones. There is a tsunami of hatred. And they’re pulling back, like a tsunami pulls back all the ocean. They’re pulling back all the positive goals and all the progress that we’ve made. And then the massive tsunami of hate is coming. You can either get caught up in it or head to higher ground.

Jacobsen: I talked to the activists in Ghana, for instance. That onerous bill that was proposed a while ago might still be, in part, outside of Uganda, the most repressive bill in the world, for LGBT. A lot of it was backed, almost primarily, by the American Protestant whites in the United States who have a lot of money. So that’s the danger.

Bouley: We’re exporting our hate. The religious organizations and evangelical organizations, which are hugely funded because they’re tax-exempt, are aligning themselves with MAGA and spreading this hate internationally. That’s why you see the situation in Slovakia. That’s why you see the stuff in Africa. These people aren’t sitting around funding this themselves. They’re getting a massive influx of money from America and American haters because they want to spread their hate.

Jacobsen: There will be corrupt people who—if it doesn’t even matter what the topic is, if it doesn’t affect them personally, and it gives them money—they’ll happily take Western money. That’s another thing that was put out. So, the concern they would have is similar to that of naive Westerners, who do not understand that it doesn’t matter what the topic is if there’s money attached to it.

Bouley: This is what I told you earlier—that LGBTQ people will not start seeing rights go our way again until there’s money involved. Until countries say, “Well, we’re not going to deal with you. We’re not going to give you this contract because you have this anti-gay policy. So until you strike that down, you’re not going to get this contract.” 

Until that starts happening again, which it was, and it had been happening. The Biden administration wouldn’t do business with you if you were anti-gay. They just wouldn’t. Or they put limits on the company they would do with you if you were anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-trans, you know. 

So until the United States and other places—England, Canada, wherever—refuse to do business with countries that are suppressing gays, we won’t make any change. There’s no money in it. We only do things for money. No government ever does anything because it’s the right thing. They’re either compelled to do it by their court or forced to do it financially. That’s where we’re at now.

Jacobsen: Yes, a lot of these activist efforts, a lot of human rights efforts, are downstream of, as you’re saying, courts and finance.

Bouley: Those are the two things. Either the court tells them to do it, or it’s a financial benefit. And by the way, what you just said works both ways. They may not be pro-gay. They may not like gays. But if it’s profitable for them to become suddenly pro-gay, they’ll do it.

Jacobsen: We briefly discussed the corporate endorsement. I have conducted a few other interviews that will be released soon, also covering a similar topic.

Bouley: Yeah. So when it becomes profitable for them to be pro-gay, they will. We just saw—one of our first conversations, you and I—was how it’s no longer profitable for American companies to be pro-gay. And so they’re changing their policies to be negative, to be not gay. Because they do not want to lose money. So, it is all about the cash. Alright, much love! We will see you next week.

Jacobsen: Thank you!

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices.  In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.