Worlds Behind Words 8: Patagonia v. Pattie Gonia, Pride-Era Violence, and NHL Symbolic Allyship
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2026/02/08
William Dempsey, LICSW, is a Boston-based clinical social worker and LGBTQ+ mental-health advocate. He founded Heads Held High Counselling, a virtual, gender-affirming group practice serving Massachusetts and Illinois, where he and his team support clients navigating anxiety, depression, trauma, ADHD, and gender dysphoria. Clinically, Dempsey integrates EMDR, CBT, IFS, and expressive modalities, with a focus on accessible, equity-minded care. Beyond the clinic, he serves on the board of Drag Story Hour, helping expand inclusive literacy programming and resisting censorship pressures. His public scholarship and media appearances foreground compassionate, evidence-based practice and the lived realities of queer communities across North America.
In this interview, Scott Douglas Jacobsen speaks with Will Dempsey—a Boston-based LICSW and LGBTQ+ mental-health advocate—about three flashpoints in contemporary public life. First, Dempsey situates Patagonia’s lawsuit against drag performer Pattie Gonia (Wyn Wiley) in drag’s long tradition of pun-based naming, asking whether “consumer confusion” is the real issue or a proxy for politics and corporate self-interest. Second, he addresses Norway’s Pride attack rulings, emphasizing accountability amid the treatment limits of antisocial personality disorder. Finally, he weighs Alexander Ovechkin’s refusal of rainbow-tape symbolism, stressing youth impact alongside ongoing cultural progress.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So Patagonia has sued the drag queen and environmental activist Pattie Gonia for trademark infringement. It’s the outdoor apparel company; it filed the lawsuit on Wednesday in California federal court. The performer’s given name is Wyn Wiley, and Pattie Gonia is the stage name.
Patagonia’s claim is that Pattie Gonia’s branding and related activity could create consumer confusion. Patagonia said Pattie Gonia provides motivational speaking services in support of environmental sustainability and organizes, arranges, and connects trail and hiking events. Patagonia stated that it wants Pattie Gonia to have a long and successful career and to make progress on issues that matter—but in a way that respects Patagonia’s intellectual property and its ability to use its brand to sell products and advocate for the environment.
I’m not sure what to think of this case. What’s your take on this trademark infringement claim, and on the caveat in Patagonia’s statement that they want her to succeed but also want to protect their intellectual property?
Will Dempsey: Puns have been at the forefront of drag culture since the 1930s. This is nothing new. What we’re seeing—and we saw this with Jan Sport—is familiar. She went on Drag Race and they made her go by Jan. Brita Filter is another example. There are a lot of performers who have become notable with brandable names, or who use brand names as their stage names.
Thanks to Drag Race, now that drag is in the limelight, there’s a lot of pushback involving corporations and their association with the queer community. We talk about this ad nauseam with financial support for Pride and corporations pulling out of marches and Pride parades depending on the political pulse at any given time. Patagonia specifically has also built part of its public identity around environmental advocacy and has faced political backlash for it.
So it begs the question: how much of this is genuinely about likely consumer confusion and brand protection versus broader politics and corporate self-interest?
Jacobsen: Sure. In Norway, in 2022, a gay venue during Pride celebrations was attacked by Zaniar Matapour. Two people were killed and eight were injured. Matapour was later convicted and sentenced to 30 years.
Recently, a Norwegian court sentenced Arfan Bhatti, age 48, to 30 years for orchestrating the attack, even though he was in Pakistan at the time. The court convicted him of complicity in aggravated terrorism.
On Friday, Bhatti said he would appeal. An independent investigation concluded police could have prevented the attack if they had acted on information from a foreign intelligence service. Court-appointed forensic psychiatric experts found Bhatti had a severe dissocial or antisocial personality disorder with psychopathic traits, but that he was legally responsible.
What are your thoughts on this ruling, and on the consequences of this kind of hate-driven violence?
Dempsey: This is always a complex question, especially when we’re talking about antisocial personality disorder. As you stated, you can go to therapy for it, but there is no FDA-approved medication. There is really not much you can do.
Oftentimes there is a genetic component, as is true for most mental-health diagnoses, and a lot of it is also tied to significant childhood trauma. Not that people who experience significant childhood trauma are necessarily diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder, but to be diagnosed with it, there is usually an indication of significant childhood trauma.
It’s difficult having someone in society who, by definition of the diagnosis, lacks remorse for harming other people and shows complete apathy toward that harm. And the question becomes: what do you do? We are no longer—at least in the United States—using asylums, and for good reason. So how do you manage someone in society when there is no cure?
At the end of the day, there are people with this diagnosis who do not act on a lack of remorse and do not cause harm. Just like with anyone—diagnosis or not—there needs to be accountability. In this case, I think the outcome is justified.
On the point about police potentially preventing the attack, if I remember correctly, this occurred around a Pride event. That brings us back to a recurring question, at least in the United States: do we have police presence at Pride to offer protection from these kinds of attacks, or do we stick to historical roots and avoid police involvement altogether? I do not think there is a clear answer.
Jacobsen: My story for today is this. People in Western countries tend to be more free, particularly when it comes to symbolic activism. If someone chooses not to attend an event and explicitly states the reason, the chain of reasoning and action is usually clear, and I take that seriously.
The Washington Capitals hockey club’s Alexander Ovechkin declined to take part in an action supporting LGBT people during an NHL regular-season game against Florida on January 18. The Panthers won the game 5–2. As part of the initiative, Washington players used rainbow-colored tape on their sticks while otherwise using standard equipment. Ovechkin chose not to participate.
He is 40 years old and has played for Washington since 2005. He is effectively a lifer with the team and has longstanding social ties within it. Based on the known facts and circumstances, it is reasonable to infer that this was a conscious decision made with full awareness well in advance.
Given that this was a known event and a deliberate choice not to participate—small gestures sometimes matter—how should we frame this in the case of a 20-year veteran of a major hockey team? He cannot be untalented and last that long, and it is entirely his right not to participate. I am not criticizing him for exercising that freedom. But in terms of interpretation and impact, what are your thoughts?
Dempsey: I agree that it is his right. In terms of impact, I always think about queer youth who may look up to him—particularly in hockey, which has historically not been very welcoming to queer people. Seeing a veteran take that stance can be discouraging.
On the other hand, as you know, in the United States there has been significant attention and discussion around these issues, and at least one hockey player has come out publicly as a result of that visibility. So in contrast to veterans like him, there are other leaders showing that it is okay to be open.
The impact is real, but there is also enough countervailing change happening that it brings me back to the initial point you made as well: let him hold his opinion. There is enough substantive progress occurring that any negativity arising from his action is outweighed by broader change.
Jacobsen: Thank you very much for the opportunity and your time, Will.
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.
In-Sight Publishing 