This Gay Week 12: Social-Media Screening, a New ‘Lavender Scare,’ and LGBTQ Safety

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/12/31

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.

In This Gay Week, Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Karel Bouley mix humour with unease as Bouley ties Pride flashpoints to a broader authoritarian drift. They discuss U.S. entry proposals that could review years of social media, warning this may chill travel and treat “pro-trans,” “pro-immigrant,” or anti-ICE speech as suspicious. They weigh Seattle World Cup Pride events around an Egypt–Iran match, balancing boundary-pushing with safety. Bouley critiques the “special protections” rhetoric, insisting that equality means one law for all, and warns that a renewed “lavender scare” is spreading through institutions. He urges vigilance from journalists, voters, and allies across borders.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Hello, and welcome to This Gay Week with Karel and Scott Jacobsen. Are you ready?

Bouley: Apparently! We are doing this. Apparently, we are the gay news. What are we talking about today? Today, let us get every social media trend in here, shall we? I love it. 

Jacobsen: By the way, has there been another rendition of this kind of show—an American–Canadian mix-up on gay news—that you know of?

Jacobsen: No. This is the first. We will call it a first.

Bouley: I have been the first in many things.

Jacobsen: Well, congratulations once more. Seattle World Cup organizers say Pride events will go ahead outside the Egypt–Iran match. World Cup organizers in Seattle said this on Wednesday. 

Bouley: I know we have to talk about these stories, but I have to tell you, as an American gay person, the only thing on my mind this week—the only thing—is this. And I know you have an American person who talks about American gay news, but this has worldwide repercussions.

First is the policy discussion around expanded social media screening for people entering the United States, including looking back several years. In some cases, applicants are asked to disclose social media identifiers, and private accounts may limit what can be reviewed. What they are looking for is similar to the language that has appeared in guidance and memos discussed publicly regarding federal law enforcement agencies. This is real in the sense that it has been widely reported and debated, including on the cover of the Los Angeles Times.

There has been language in official and semi-official documents about “domestic terrorism,” and the way some of these discussions frame “radical gender ideology” has raised serious concern. In practice, critics argue this language can be interpreted as targeting people who support trans rights, people described as anti-Christian, people opposed to ICE, or people critical of so-called traditional family values. These terms function, in effect, as dog whistles for gay, lesbian, bi, and trans people.

It is frightening to me, as an American podcaster, that there is increasing encouragement for reporting perceived threats, including hotlines and tip programs. Historically, those systems have been abused. The people critics fear could be swept into these categories are often simply people who do not agree with an administration or its policies. That is a significant problem. And with multi-year social media reviews, they are looking for the same signals.

Are you pro-trans? Are you pro-gay? Are you against ICE raids? Are you pro-immigrant? Are you pro-Palestine? Those positions have all become politically charged. This is very, very scary. It is likely to affect tourism in the United States. People from your country and other countries may be reluctant to travel. There have also been proposals and ideas to expand biometric or identity screening, though many have not been adopted as formal policy.

That would affect Canada, the UK, and the EU. This is not very comforting. It is probably one of the most important stories that Americans—and people around the world—should be paying attention to, because it reflects a continued drift toward authoritarian practices. Even more troubling is that law-enforcement agencies like the FBI and the DOJ are being placed at the center of these debates to go after people they deem to be terrorists. And the way they are deeming them is if they are pro-trans, pro-gay, or not Christian. It even says non-Christian. It is not very comforting. It is a very scary memo that is going out. 

The federal government would incentivize agencies through funding. They would incentivize agencies and prioritize those that comply with the federal financing memo first. So that gives local law enforcement another reason to comply. It is terrifying, Scott. It is as scary as it gets, especially for someone like me. I check many of the boxes. It is terrifying. 

Jacobsen: Also, the most persistent forms of domestic terrorism in the United States, as you know, have been carried out by right-wing extremists—often with Christian nationalist framing—as well as ethnic and white nationalist groups. 

Bouley: This memo, as the Los Angeles Times story points out, does nothing about them. It does not label them as domestic terrorists, even though they are responsible for much of the gun violence and other forms of violence. Now to your stories. I am sorry, but that story really chills me. It is deeply authoritarian in tone, and while those comparisons are often overused, this one feels historically appropriate. It has worldwide repercussions because a gay person with an active social media presence is not going to want customs officials reviewing five years of their posts. That has significant consequences. You could come into the country and be labelled a domestic terrorist simply for being pro-trans, pro-immigrant, pro-LBGTQ, not Christian, or because you do not subscribe to a rigid “traditional family” model. 

Jacobsen: Now to the World Cup story. As noted, the match involving Egypt and Iran will go ahead, and World Cup organizers in Seattle said on Wednesday that Pride events would proceed as planned outside the June match. Egypt and Iran have raised objections through sports officials, as homosexuality is criminalized in both countries. As you noted, this reflects a broader regional pattern of hostility toward LGBTQ+ people.

Bouley: It is brave to continue with the Pride events. How do I say this without sounding like a conservative old guy? I may be partially old, but I am certainly not conservative. Sometimes, LGBTQ communities do need to push boundaries. There is an excellent line in the film After the Hunt—Julia Roberts says, “Not everything in the world is supposed to make you comfortable.” That line applies here. Making people uncomfortable is often part of progress, and that alone is not a reason to cancel a match or rearrange lives.

That said, there is a point where safety matters. You have to ask whether it becomes hazardous for the people involved. I have never wanted to travel to Egypt or to many Middle Eastern or African countries because it is unsafe to be gay there. Several of the countries involved criminalize homosexuality. So while pushing norms and pushing society toward acceptance are essential, there are moments when we have to consider players’ and fans’ safety. Even though the match is outside Egypt, I do wonder how safe everyone involved will actually be.

I do not know if this is prudent. We will see. And again, I commend them. But it is essential for gay people who live there. I know this is a big deal for them. I have always said, if you are gay, why do you live there? Well, some people have no choice. I know that. I get it. I really do. I am gay, and I live in America, and believe me, I would leave if I could. So I understand. I think it is a step forward for sports and for gay rights. But at the same time, I think we always need to be prudent. Tensions and conflict are at an all-time high right now. I do not know if poking the bear—where being gay is illegal—is the right thing to do at this moment. I am glad someone is doing it. I do not know that I would attend. But I am so happy someone will.

Jacobsen: During your time in the United States, did you generally feel safe or accepted?

Bouley: No, right up until today. It is dangerous to be gay in America, more so now than at many other points, and it has never been entirely safe to be gay. In many parts of the country, regardless of who was president—Obama, Clinton, or anyone else—it has still been dangerous. The South is a clear example. There are states I would advise gay tourists from abroad to avoid. Go to New Orleans, but do not go elsewhere in Louisiana. Do not go to Baton Rouge. Go to Atlanta, but do not go to smaller towns like Valdosta.

Even in Florida, but Miami, Orlando, and Fort Lauderdale are generally fine, but stay out of the panhandle. There are places in America where it is not safe to be gay, where Pride festivals have been cancelled in the past year because of credible threats. I was just watching coverage of Taylor Swift cancelling shows after a credible terror threat overseas from an Islamic terrorist group. The world is not a safe place, and the United States is certainly not the safest place for LGBTQ people. Ireland is safer. Parts of the EU are safer. But even in Europe, there are countries you should avoid if you are gay. Some people say that defeats the purpose, but you have to decide what risks you are willing to take.

Making the point that gay people should be allowed everywhere is not worth dying for, at least not for me. That may be because I am older and I have lived through a lot. In my twenties or thirties, I might have pushed much harder. I learned that people actually die that way. Now, more than ever, as there is more anti-gay legislation in the United States and globally than pro-gay legislation, every gay person has to step back and ask: Do I really want to go there? Do I really want to go to the United States? To Croatia? To Egypt at this point in history?

This goes beyond being gay. In America, there are places Black people probably should not go. There are places immigrants are worried about going right now. And this is true in many countries. I have never truly felt safe in America. Just recently, I told you about a man at the park with a sword, and someone else pulled out a gun. That was not specifically a gay incident, but imagine if that person had a sword and also hated queer people. No, they weren’t filming the next Indiana Jones, though that did cross my mind.

Bouley: The man was swinging a sword, and my friend said he had a gun. I joked about Indiana Jones, but the fact that this is even possible is a shame. It is a shame that we have such access to weapons, and that tempers are so high that someone would go to their car to get a sword because of a minor conflict. 

Jacobsen: In Los Angeles, people talk about road rage escalating to shootings. 

Bouley: We just had a case here in Las Vegas—a tragedy. Two lives ruined. In Henderson, a driver was angry about another car on the freeway, pulled up alongside it, and shot into the vehicle.

He killed a fourteen-year-old who was in the back seat. When they arrested him, he did not even know he had killed anyone. Then they told him, “You killed a fourteen-year-old.” He said he did not mean to. He is only twenty-two. His life is over. He is going to prison for most, if not all, of his life. And that fourteen-year-old is dead. Why? Because he did not like the way someone passed him on the freeway. Gay people face this kind of danger every day.

Right now, I was about to respond to a request for a journalist to go on GB News—Great Britain’s equivalent of Fox News—as someone who is described as “pro-trans.” This came up because Gavin Newsom posted about Elon Musk’s transgender daughter, and they want to discuss it on GB News. They are looking for someone who is pro-trans. And I thought: who is not pro-trans? Why would anyone be anti-trans?

I come from the school of thought that it is none of your business. There should not be a pro or anti position on trans people. I do not have an opinion on trans people because I am not trans. They have the right to live and exist just like everyone else. The idea that they are looking for someone “pro-trans” implies that there are people who are against trans people. Why?

Why would you be against someone who has a recognized medical condition—whether or not some people want to accept that—where their body does not match who they are? Biology makes mistakes. It is like being born with seven fingers and having two removed because biology made a mistake. Who would be against that?

Let us be honest. The same people who are anti-trans are often pro-Viagra. If God and your body said you were supposed to be limp, who are we to intervene? 

Jacobsen: Baldness creams, pills, surgery—name any of these interventions. They are considered routine and socially acceptable.

Bouley: Look at half the people Donald Trump surrounds himself with at Mar-a-Lago. Many of these women have radically altered their bodies. They barely look human anymore. But it is their choice. If they want to look that way, that is their right. Yet they oppose trans people having gender-affirming medical care. They have transitioned themselves, but they object to others doing so. Never the two shall meet. 

Jacobsen: Matt Gaetz—yes, he has had work done. 

Bouley: And what about Madison Cawthorn? I always got a strong vibe from him. My gaydar went off loudly every time he appeared. There are photos of him in drag. Republicans love to attack trans people while wearing dresses. It is like the Pope judging trans people while wearing a designer robe. All right, back to the world. We could do an entire series just on jokes and commentary.

Jacobsen: Arlington has upheld special protections for LGBTQ people. The city council voted five to four, a very narrow margin. The city agreed to continue the temporary removal of specific language from its ordinance, which began in September, to avoid losing federal funding. The subtext, again, is fear of the federal government—this time out of Texas.

As you and I have noted, and as many reports show, Texas leads the country in the number of bills targeting LGBTQ-friendly policies. It is not even close. Texas alone accounts for a substantial share.

Bouley: I lived in Texas, and trust me, those cowboys are not as straight as they like to think. It gets lonely out on the trail. The stables can be lonely places, too.

But seriously, the language of “special protections” has always bothered me. For a long time, I was actually against hate crime legislation. I support it now, but for years I opposed it. My thinking was: I do not need special protections. 

If someone is beating me over the head while calling me a slur, stop them from beating me over the head. Punish them for the assault, not for the insult. To me, a crime was a crime. There was no such thing as a “hate crime,” just a crime. That concept felt strange to me at the time.

Bouley: When we come back, I will tell you what offended me most about what you just read. In what you just read to me, they used the phrase “special protections.” That bothers me. That really bothers me. I do not need special protections, and no gay person needs special protections. We need the same equality under the law that non-gay people have. 

The problem is that laws have been deliberately written to target gay people. That is why we end up needing so-called special protections. If there were no special laws targeting us, we would not require special protections. So, how about we have one law for everybody?

How about we make it illegal to fire anyone from their job because of race, gender, religious affiliation—any of it? How about we make freedom and liberty universal? That seems like such a difficult thing for countries around the world. They act as if they have to make special concessions to gay people. They do not. Just stop making special laws against us. Then we will not need special protections, because we will already be covered.

I am an American. The Constitution covers me. There is not a gay Constitution—although there probably should be. I could come up with a few amendments. So yes, I am glad they voted to keep the protections in place. It is sad that they have to, and that they call it ‘special protections’. That is sad. But it is good that five of the nine council members at least said, “Let us not single out this group of people again.”

Again, I do not need special protection. I do not need anything special. No gay person alive, in any country anywhere, needs anything special. They want what everyone else already has. That is what is so bizarre to me. It is such a strange framing.

Jacobsen: It goes back to basic human-rights discourse. People look at human-rights law and think it is a grab bag of special rules. It is not. There is a fundamental principle underneath all of it: universalism. That is precisely the point—one law for all. 

Bouley: All for one, one for all. I am a Musketeer. Let us go. 

Jacobsen: We need one more guest. 

Bouley: I am blanking on the names now. I remember D’Artagnan. I forgot the other two, but there were four Musketeers, not three.

Jacobsen: Also in the news, national-security experts have confirmed what you were describing earlier: a modern “lavender scare.” They argue this mirrors the Cold War era, not just rhetorically, but in practice. 

Bouley: This goes back to the story at the beginning. If an FBI memo can be used to justify labelling people who are pro-trans, pro-gay, anti-ICE, or critical of Christian nationalism as potential domestic threats, then it can certainly be used to justify firing them from government jobs.

So yes, within the U.S. government right now, there is a renewed lavender scare. And this does not apply only to the United States. I am talking to people across the globe. Out and proud individuals working in government are pulling back on displaying rainbow flags or being openly expressive about their LGBTQ identity. They are doing this because U.S. political trends—especially under Trump and Trumpism—are influencing other governments.

People are realizing that if they want to keep their government jobs, now may not be the time to be visibly out. So across government agencies worldwide, many people are becoming quieter and less visible. This is not just happening here. There is a global lavender scare unfolding, driven by authoritarian politics—from Trumpism to Putinism—and it is chilling.

We have gays in concentration camps. We have African nations passing laws against their own citizens. If you are in government, this is not a good time to be openly gay, and that is incredibly sad. Some people will say, “No, now is the time more than ever.” Sure—if you do not want to keep your job.

Jacobsen: Have you seen advocates and allies who are fair-weather supporters disappearing in this season as well?

Bouley: Yes, absolutely. There was recently a call with four of the most prominent gay leaders in the United States, and what they said was sobering. They were aligned with me about how bad things really are. They were not pulling punches. They said plainly: it is worse than most people think.

One of the key points they raised is that gay and lesbian rights globally are no longer just “gay and lesbian rights.” Gay rights now include housing—can I be evicted because I am gay or trans? Healthcare—can I access care if I am gay or trans? Employment—can I work without discrimination? Where you live, where you work, whether you can travel freely—these are now all gay rights issues.

Every significant aspect of life is being affected by anti-gay policies. Workplace rights, housing, healthcare, freedom of movement—these are now inseparable from gay rights because Trump and similar movements around the world have attacked LGBTQ people across every sector: government, travel, civil society, and religion. So being a gay activist is no longer just about marriage equality. It is about work, housing, healthcare, food security, travel—almost everything a human being does.

Jacobsen: A judge in Georgia—this came up earlier—ordered the prison system to continue providing gender-affirming care for transgender prisoners. U.S. District Judge Victoria Marie Calvert issued that ruling. 

Bouley: But I will tell you right now that the decision is going to be challenged. I have a friend working in the prison system who was recently sent a memo saying they are no longer permitted to provide certain protections or care.

There were laws, in the U.S. and elsewhere, recognizing that prisoners who are at higher risk of rape or abuse—such as gay and trans prisoners—should be housed separately or protected. The Trump administration reversed that guidance. Trans people are now being housed according to the sex assigned at birth. If you have breasts and identify as a woman but have not had surgery, you may be placed in the male general population. That policy had changed years ago, and now it has been changed back.

Previously, if you were a visibly gay or feminine man and at high risk of sexual assault, you could be protected. That is no longer guaranteed. While it is admirable that this judge in Georgia upheld protections, a broader federal policy is likely to override them. That policy says no more so-called “special privileges” for gay, lesbian, bi, or trans prisoners—including gender-affirming care.

This has already happened in many states. In California, I was told by a correctional officer that inmates can no longer receive hormone treatment because the state will not pay for it. There is a growing anti-gay movement within the prison system, and it is rooted purely in cruelty. There is no legitimate justification for removing these protections. The only message is: we do not care if you are raped, assaulted, or beaten.

Jacobsen: Is this comparable to other forms of bigotry we see in American political discourse? Don’t we want fat generals?

Bouley: Yes. It reflects the same hatred and dehumanization. It is like rhetoric about “not wanting fat generals.” That came from people who could not pass basic physical standards themselves. It is the same cruelty, the same contempt.

When leaders talk about “no men in dresses,” that mindset carries directly into prison policy. If you put a trans woman with breasts into the male general population, you are knowingly placing her in extreme danger. It is not policy; it is brutality. It is throwing someone to a lion and calling it an order. That is what makes this horrifying.

History will not look kindly on these people. In America and elsewhere, incarceration has become especially dangerous. Look, gay people, do not commit any crimes right now. I know that sounds absurd when being gay is effectively being criminalized in some contexts, but still. Do not shoplift the Prada. Buy a knockoff. That is essentially the government’s stance right now.

I know we are going to run over time, but I just saw the remake of Kiss of the Spider Woman. I do not understand why it received such a bad reaction. It is a great film, and Jennifer Lopez is excellent in it. I do not know why people were criticizing her or the movie. It is powerful. And let us remember what that story is about: a gay man and a straight man in the same prison in Argentina in the early 1980s. The gay man is imprisoned simply for being gay. The other is there because he is a journalist and a dissident who spoke against the government.

That story could be set in 2025 in Georgia. It is happening now. In the film, they were not released until 1983, when the government changed, and journalists, artists, and other creative people were freed. That same pattern is repeating in many countries. That is why the movie remains so relevant.

When I watched it, I thought: this is Trump’s America. This is what he wants—to imprison journalists, gay people, and dissidents, meaning anyone who disagrees with him. When he excused the killing of Jamal Khashoggi by saying the journalist was “not very well liked,” that told you everything. You cannot kill reporters because you dislike them, and you cannot jail people because they dissent.

Some people think gay people would somehow have a good time in prison. That is a fantasy. Prison is not safe or easy for gay people. So I applaud the judge in Georgia, but I fully expect that ruling to be challenged and pushed up to the Supreme Court—and I do not mean Diana Ross.

Jacobsen: Coming back from the National Press Club awards, one thing stood out to me. There was a table set aside to honour murdered journalists. The National Press Club is essentially a sacred space for journalism, and that symbolism matters. Journalists are being killed, harassed, doxed, and threatened globally. Murder disproportionately affects male journalists; sexual harassment disproportionately affects women journalists. But broadly speaking, this is a season of harassment for journalists, period.

Bouley: I will admit, I have flirted with journalists. I have technically flirted with you. Some of the things I have said could have made someone uncomfortable in a different context. I call people hot. I say someone is gorgeous. Viewers saw our video and said, “You should ask him out.” I said I would, but he is not gay. One viewer replied, “That has never stopped you before.” Fair enough—I have dated my share of sexually ambiguous people.

But when an administration effectively condones harsher incarceration policies, as this one has through directives and policy reversals, it does not stop at the border. It spreads. Countries like Finland, Norway, and Sweden take care of their prisoners, especially LGBTQ prisoners. They protect them from sexual violence. Trans women are housed with women. The Netherlands does this well, too. These systems focus on dignity and rehabilitation.

Then there are countries like the United States and some African nations, where incarceration is about punishment, neglect, and profit. You are thrown into a pit and left to survive. That reflects a deeper divide in how societies view prisoners: either as human beings with rights or as people to be stripped of dignity.

The United States has moved firmly into the latter category. Prisons are for profit. There is little concern about whether gay or trans people are raped or beaten. There is little concern about whether people die in custody. The attitude is: why were they there in the first place?

I hope that one day Donald Trump understands what prison is like. That is my hope. And simply for saying that, I could probably be labelled a domestic terrorist under the logic we have been discussing. 

Jacobsen: All good for the day. 

Bouley: All good for the day. 

Jacobsen: Thank you for another episode of This Gay Week.

Bouley: Thank you. And yes, before the new year, we have one more before 2026.

Jacobsen: Karel, thank you very much for your time today.

Bouley: Thank you, Scott—and your beautiful tree. You must have a little gay in you, because that tree is fabulous. 

Jacobsen: All those tassels.

Bouley: You can buy all of mine.

Jacobsen: There should be a little pop, and then all those tassels should sparkle.

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.