This Gay Week 17: LGBTQ Rights, Global Repression, and Media Retreat

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2026/03/27

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 interview, Scott Douglas Jacobsen speaks with Karel Bouley about global LGBTQ persecution, legal progress, and cultural backlash. Bouley contrasts harsh anti-gay laws in parts of Africa with fragile gains in Kenya, while arguing that durable equality depends on institutional reform, not isolated victories. The discussion connects Ukraine’s European aspirations, Russia’s anti-LGBTQ politics, and the uneven reality of rights across Europe and North America. Bouley also critiques corporate caution in Hollywood, Pixar, and awards-season storytelling, warning that studios are retreating from representation under political pressure. Together, they frame LGBTQ rights as a test of open society itself.

Karel Bouley: It is funny as we start this week. I received a text from my friend Heath this morning. He is heterosexual. One of the first things I saw on social media today was news about Uganda’s crackdown on LGBTQ people and political speeches against homosexuality. Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Act does not simply make homosexuality punishable by prison; it includes life imprisonment for same-sex conduct, the death penalty for certain cases described as “aggravated homosexuality,” and prison sentences for what the law calls the “promotion” of homosexuality. That was the first thing I saw on Instagram this morning. I thought, well, good fucking morning.

Then I received a text—he had not seen the Ugandan story—saying, “Why do humans constantly persecute minorities throughout history? It is hard to have faith in humanity knowing that this is a recurring theme in our history.”

I thought that, as we started today, we should acknowledge that what you and I talk about every week involves these issues. In this case it concerns gay people because I am gay, but throughout history there has always been some group marginalized because that is what humans tend to do. At this point in history, trans people especially—and LGBTQ people more broadly—are in those crosshairs. Women are still in those crosshairs, as well as minorities and immigrants.

Jacobsen: Here is a family history question—a rhetorical one. Why am I not speaking Dutch? Set featured image

Bouley: Exactly. Very few children are speaking Dutch these days. I also thought about you this morning because you are in Ukraine. There has been escalating conflict involving Israel and Iran, and tensions in the region have contributed to rising oil prices. Gas prices are increasing, and some governments have discussed loosening certain restrictions on Russian oil shipments.

And I thought, “Wait a minute.” We are spending billions to help Ukraine fight Russia. We are trying to cut Russia off from the revenue that funds its war against Ukraine. Now, because oil prices are rising, the idea is to buy Russian oil again and give them money that could be used in that same war.

That makes no sense to me—loosening restrictions on Russian oil while supporting Ukraine. It feels like what Stranger Things calls the “upside down,” where nothing makes much sense.

To that end, I sent you some stories this morning. Several things are happening in what I call the “gay world.” Some of them are horrifying, and others are somewhat less severe.

There was a case in Kenya. We have spoken about Kenya before and the oppression of LGBTQ people there. Two gay men were attacked by two other men, and the attackers received prison sentences. The queer community in Kenya is celebrating this as a victory.

It is striking that punishing someone for attacking another person is considered a major win because of who the victims were. I am glad the Kenyan community feels some sense of justice. At the same time, it shows how difficult the situation is when the punishment of attackers becomes a milestone. It demonstrates how fragile equality still is.

And it is odd because when you hear the word equality, I think DEI. By the way, in reference to that story, I will tell you their sentence. The sentencing of two people who attacked and robbed two gay men in Kenya has been held by gay rights activists as a breakthrough and a sign of hope.

Abel Mele and another man were sentenced to fifteen years in prison for robbery with violence on March 3 at the Milimani Law Courts in Nairobi. It is a rare example of justice being served for the queer community in Kenya. This does not happen all the time, so that is why they are celebrating it. Kenya is one of several countries in Africa that still criminalize homosexuality. In Kenya, consensual same-sex relations between men can be punished by up to fourteen years in prison.

So they are happy about that, and I suppose they should be, but it is sad. The gentlemen—the assholes—did get fifteen years, and of course the decision will be appealed, but they think it will stand. So that is a good thing.

Jacobsen: My argument is about the principle. It is better to have law and policy because many cases that never make the news will be equality wins. These feel-good news items are positive, but small. If you have institutional wins—legal and policy changes—you have more durable victories.

Bouley: Look, as the gay man who has lived through all of this, I will tell you that even in our country we are often surprised when the police take us seriously and credibly pursue the people who commit crimes against us. That is relatively new. In the 1980s in particular, police in the United States often did not take crimes against gay people seriously. They sometimes overlooked them or excused them with questions such as, “What were you doing?” or “You deserved it.” In some cases they perpetrated harassment themselves.

I have firsthand knowledge of this in Garden Grove, California. Police sat outside a bar and photographed people leaving the bar. When we challenged them in court, their defense was that the cameras were not even loaded with film. The judge responded, “So you are just doing this to harass people? That is not a very good defense.” The Garden Grove Police Department was censured and fined by the courts. The case was won.

So you do not have to look to Africa for cases where crimes against gay people are not taken seriously. In the United States right now, crimes against trans people are often not taken as seriously as they could be.

That is connected to the political climate. Donald Trump has promoted legislation that includes restrictions affecting transgender people, particularly in athletics. Some proposals tied to election legislation have also included requirements for documentary proof of citizenship to vote, such as passports or birth certificates. Critics argue that such requirements could make voting more difficult for some Americans who do not have those documents readily available.

When you have an ally like Gavin Newsom—who is a personal friend of mine—come out and say, “I support trans rights in everything except sports,” I know he thinks that is helpful. He has one of the strongest records of any governor for signing pro-LGBTQ legislation, and that is true. But it still does not help when even allies say, “I support trans people, but….” Either you support trans people or you do not.

The sports issue is complex, as you and I have talked about. Athletic organizations around the world are wrestling with it, not just in the United States. My own view is somewhat particular. If someone is trans and transitioned before puberty, there should be no problem at all. Compete and participate freely. If someone transitioned from male to female after puberty, then I believe it should be considered on a case-by-case basis, because puberty is when many physical differences such as muscle development and body size emerge.

If you transitioned male to female after puberty, you are going to have longer limbs and you are likely to be taller. So I think that should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Not everyone will be. If you are a five-foot-three person and you transition into a woman, you are still going to be five-foot-three and relatively small. You are not suddenly going to be six-foot-four. So I think there is nuance there.

But I also think that if you support trans people, you should support them across the board. For Trump to try to put this into legislation, and then for someone like Gavin Newsom to come out and say, “I support trans people except in sports,” it shows that, among marginalized groups, trans people are being hit particularly hard right now.

We have many issues, but we have to reach a point where there are not countries where homosexuality is punishable by death. In several African countries, same-sex relations can carry extremely severe penalties. In others, such as Kenya, it can carry prison terms. In many places, we are still dealing with legal systems that reflect older attitudes.

It is also ironic because precolonial African societies had varied attitudes toward same-sex relationships. Some communities historically recognized forms of gender diversity or same-sex relationships. Many modern anti-LGBT laws in Africa trace back to colonial-era legal codes introduced by European powers.

I do not know whether you saw the DEI debate this week—the so-called “DEI bros,” the DOGE bros. Did you see them?

Jacobsen: There was one interview in which someone said it was important to defund DEI programs. When asked why, he said it was necessary to eliminate fraud and waste. Then someone asked whether that had actually reduced spending to zero, and he said no.

Bouley: He also said he used ChatGPT to determine which DEI programs should be cut. So here we have someone using a large language model—which can sometimes produce inaccurate information—to make decisions about cutting DEI programs.

That suggests the process may not have been particularly rigorous. As he himself acknowledged, the cuts were not about reducing spending to zero. Critics argue that the debate around DEI has often been driven more by political opposition to diversity initiatives than by fiscal concerns. 

Another interesting thing in the news this week concerns movies. We often talk about international themes, and movies are certainly international. Pixar released a film called Elio. It has been reported as one of Pixar’s weaker box office openings. Some members of the film’s creative team have said earlier versions of the story included elements that were later removed during development.

For example, the character reportedly had a pink bicycle in earlier versions of the film. Some observers interpreted the removal of certain elements as part of a broader effort to avoid themes that might be interpreted as LGBTQ-coded. When asked about similar questions in the past, Pixar executives have said their films are intended for broad family audiences rather than as vehicles for social messaging.

One of the writers involved in the project reportedly felt disappointed with some of those decisions.

There was also discussion about another Pixar project that originally included a character interpreted by some viewers as transgender, although that characterization was never explicitly stated in the final version.

You also have to remember that Pixar has an interesting history. It began as the Graphics Group inside Lucasfilm. Steve Jobs later purchased the division in 1986 and helped build it into Pixar. Many people forget that connection. Jobs supported Pixar for years before it became successful with Toy Story. Pixar later merged with Disney in 2006.

Jobs had a reputation as a rebel figure in Silicon Valley. He had been forced out of Apple in the 1980s, founded NeXT, and later returned to Apple after NeXT was acquired. Some people speculate that he might not have appreciated what they see as cautious corporate decisions around storytelling today.

Pixar is now part of Disney, and the company operates within the broader corporate structure of Disney.

Disney has often tried to be more inclusive and progressive in its animations, so it is sad when you have a CEO coming out and saying that certain elements were purposely cut because they are not interested in “giving therapy,” and that if parents want to talk about those issues with their kids, they can do so outside of the movies.

What he fails to connect is that these movies can actually spark those conversations in a healthy way. He says they are not therapy, but a movie can help a parent have a discussion with their child.

For instance, over the years many people have come up to me and said their parents used to listen to me and Andrew on the radio. When they eventually came out to their parents, they said something like, “Mom, I am like the guy you listen to on the radio.” They literally used me being openly gay, and the fact that their parents listened to me, as a way to explain themselves.

So it made their coming out easier. They could say, “I am like the person you hear on the radio.” What the head of Pixar does not realize is that he would not be providing therapy; he would be providing a tool that parents could use if they wanted to have those conversations. In that sense, I think he missed the mark with that statement.

I also suspect it may be because Pixar, or Disney more broadly, wants to stay on the good side of the current political climate. Corporations often try to curry favor with whoever is in power.

Jacobsen: With regard to direct monetary benefits to corporations, that dynamic has been visible since the inauguration. It has been very clear with some of the big technology companies, and there is no reason to think similar pressures would not apply to large media companies as well.

It is also somewhat disingenuous because, even if therapy is not the explicit goal of most films, many important films end up functioning as a kind of therapeutic vessel for cultures and subcultures.

Bouley: Will & Grace, as much as I disliked aspects of that show—and I did—still played a role. Will was a gay man living in New York, handsome, successful, and for a long time the show avoided giving him a serious romantic storyline. It was not always realistic. Grace had romantic relationships, Jack had storylines, but Will rarely even kissed anyone on screen in the early seasons.

Even so, those shows mattered. When creators accept awards from organizations like GLAAD, they often say they stand on the shoulders of earlier shows that paved the way.

Queer as Folk was not perfect. The L Word had its own issues. Will & Grace had its problems as well. Some straight actors played gay characters. My friend Hal Sparks was in Queer as Folk, and he is actually a great ally.

Even though those shows were imperfect, they opened conversations. They normalized the idea of seeing LGBTQ relationships on television. In many ways they helped move the LGBTQ community forward socially.

That is why Pixar’s position feels odd. Pixar—founded and financially backed for years by Steve Jobs after he bought the graphics division from Lucasfilm—built a culture around creativity. Many people in animation and creative industries identify as LGBTQ.

So it feels contradictory. If you hire a writer or director who is openly gay, it seems inevitable that some aspects of their experience might appear in the work. Why commission that story and then remove those elements?

I have even visited Pixar’s studio. It is full of creative people. So decisions like that feel out of step with the spirit the company once had. Pixar is now part of The Walt Disney Company, and corporate decision-making can look different within a larger organization.

It is unfortunate, though. It suggests the company may be trying to avoid controversy rather than lead culturally.

We mentioned Africa earlier. To correct myself, the story I saw this morning was about Senegal, not Uganda. Senegal already criminalizes same-sex relations, and lawmakers there have discussed strengthening penalties. In Senegal, same-sex relations can already carry prison sentences and significant fines.

Reports indicate fines can reach the equivalent of many thousands of dollars, which is extremely severe in a country where the average income is far lower.

Kidding, I am kidding. They are calling it “acts against nature,” because somehow they believe they are the arbiters of what is natural. That has always been an odd argument to me. For a long time people have argued that homosexuality is an act against nature. But if that were true, then why do we see same-sex behavior across the natural world?

There are same-sex penguin pairs. There are examples across many species. There were probably same-sex behaviors among dinosaurs as well. You can find same-sex behavior in species across the animal kingdom.

Jacobsen: We discussed this in one of our earlier conversations. The scientific literature shows that same-sex behavior has been observed in hundreds of animal species. Researchers studying animal behavior have documented this across many types of animals. And those animals are part of nature. If you think about nature, they are part of it. So how can something be called an act against nature if it occurs naturally in the animal world?

Some people try to counter that argument, especially if they are coming from a conservative or religious position. They sometimes argue that religion itself is uniquely human and therefore natural for humans while still claiming homosexuality is unnatural. But religion happens in one species, so religion is unnatural by that metric while homosexuality is more natural. 

Bouley: The other issue with the Senegal legislation is that it reportedly takes discretion away from judges. Previously, judges sometimes issued suspended sentences in cases involving same-sex relations. They might find someone guilty under the law but suspend the sentence, meaning no prison time or fines were imposed.

Now lawmakers in Senegal have proposed measures that would prevent judges from granting suspended sentences or reducing penalties below the minimum. Senegal is a Muslim-majority country where same-sex relations are already criminalized. So the proposed changes would not only increase penalties but also limit judicial discretion by making certain sentences mandatory.

Jacobsen: I conducted an interview with a lesbian woman from Saudi Arabia who was facing a forced marriage. She eventually moved to Ukraine before the full-scale war began and chose to stay there afterward. She told me that, in her experience, life in Ukraine was significantly better for LGBTQ people than in Saudi Arabia.

I also interviewed a project manager associated with Kyiv Pride. Recently I learned about reporting in Novaya Gazeta Europe discussing a legal case in Ukraine involving recognition of a same-sex relationship involving LGBTQ activist Zoryan Kis and his partner. Their lawyer, Oksana Guz, has been active in LGBTQ legal advocacy in Ukraine.

Bouley: When you look at developments like that, I think what is happening in Ukraine with LGBTQ rights may partly relate to the country’s long-term goal of joining the European Union. The EU has strong legal frameworks around human rights, including protections related to sexual orientation and gender identity.

So Ukraine wants to demonstrate progress across a wide range of democratic and human-rights standards as it seeks closer integration with Europe.

Jacobsen: Exactly. Many of those expectations are not literally checkboxes, but they do involve aligning legal standards with EU norms. Anti-discrimination protections and broader human-rights commitments are part of that process.

Bouley: That is actually one similarity between parts of Eastern Europe and the United States. When we talk about the European Union recognizing protections for LGBTQ people and recognizing same-sex marriage in many member states, we should not equate that with the EU being a big, happy gay playground where no one experiences discrimination or violence. That is simply not true.

What the EU framework does is provide a legal structure people can use if they experience discrimination or violence. It does not mean Europe is a wonderland for gay people. It is not. I have been to European countries and experienced discrimination as a gay person, even though the EU or countries like France or Ireland recognize LGBTQ rights.

For instance, Ireland overwhelmingly approved same-sex marriage in a national referendum in 2015. Ireland also has a visible drag culture and LGBTQ public figures such as Panti Bliss. Yet incidents still occur. There have been cases where performers or LGBTQ people were harassed or attacked while filming or appearing in public.

Even in a country that is broadly supportive of LGBTQ equality, violence can still occur. Ireland hosts LGBTQ events and festivals such as The Outing Festival organized by Eddie McGuinness.

So as supportive as Ireland may be, there is still violence against LGBTQ people there. Just because a country legally recognizes equality does not mean it is easy to be gay in that country or that discrimination disappears. It simply means there is a legal framework that allows people to seek justice when harm occurs.

And that framework matters. It matters a great deal. As we applaud the legal victory in Kenya involving attackers receiving prison sentences, it is still much easier in the EU to obtain justice for an anti-LGBTQ attack than it is in countries where homosexuality itself remains criminalized.

So I am glad to see progress in Ukraine. I believe Ukraine may emerge from this war as a more liberal nation, assuming it is allowed to remain sovereign through all of this.

Jacobsen: There is also a strong cultural factor. In western and central Ukraine there is a very strong desire to distance the country from Russia. Russia has adopted policies that frame LGBTQ rights as so-called “LGBT propaganda,” and many Ukrainians want to differentiate themselves from that political and cultural model.

Bouley: It is almost like the phrase “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Russia treats LGBTQ people as enemies. Russia is an enemy of Ukraine. So Ukraine may become more sympathetic toward LGBTQ people partly because it wants to differentiate itself from Russia.

And frankly, I am fine with that.

Ukraine is similar to the United States in another way. Different regions have very different cultural attitudes. In the U.S., coastal states such as California, New York, and Massachusetts tend to be very supportive of LGBTQ rights. Other regions, including parts of the South or Midwest, tend to be more conservative.

That does not mean LGBTQ people are absent from those places. They are there, and there are federal and state protections in many cases, but discrimination can still occur in those regions.

Most countries have that kind of regional variation. In Ireland, for example, it can be easier to be openly gay in Dublin than in more rural areas.

Although I should correct myself about one example—Portmagee is actually a very welcoming place. When we visited, the community treated us warmly. The town is seasonal and not always busy year-round, but the people there were wonderful.

Bouley: We arrived there on March 3. The town was still closed for the season. They opened everything for us—every pub. People came and performed for us. The whole town showed up and did a show for me and my group—just me and three queer friends sitting there. They performed, broom-danced, and sang songs. It was a wonderful town—Portmagee.

I would never have expected that level of hospitality in the far west of Ireland as an openly gay person. They even opened the post office so I could mail a letter.

Jacobsen: You also told me you participated in some of the local festivities there, and you met someone in a very upscale town. You mentioned that a few months ago.

Bouley: Yes, absolutely. I think every country is like this, and I think Ukraine will be the same way. I think Ukraine will adopt certain policies partly to move closer to the European Union and partly because it wants to distinguish itself from Russia. If Russia is moving backward on LGBTQ rights, Ukraine may move forward on them.

It may not always be because people suddenly love gay people. Sometimes it is simply political differentiation. But that is often how progress happens.

Look at Greece. Greece is historically associated with same-sex relationships in the ancient world. The term “lesbian” comes from the island of Lesbos, the home of the poet Sappho. Many people also associate modern LGBTQ tourism with Mykonos.

So someone might assume those places would be the largest LGBTQ paradise imaginable. That is not always the case. Greece has had periods of conservative government, and public attitudes can shift depending on political and economic conditions.

No matter what country you look at—even countries historically connected with LGBTQ culture—you will still find discrimination and violations of rights. The difference in many European countries is that there is at least a legal framework available if discrimination occurs.

Italy is another example. Recent policy debates there have raised concerns among LGBTQ advocates. The human-rights organization Human Rights Campaign has warned travelers that Italy’s current political climate is less supportive of LGBTQ rights than many people assume.

Italy’s government is led by Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, whose coalition has taken positions opposing what it calls “gender ideology.” Her government has supported measures limiting parental recognition for same-sex couples and has challenged the registration of non-biological parents in some same-sex families.

Authorities in several cities have also reviewed birth certificates of children born to lesbian couples through assisted reproduction. In addition, Italy passed legislation expanding penalties related to surrogacy abroad, making it illegal for Italian citizens to pursue surrogacy in other countries. Violations can carry potential criminal penalties.

So even though Italy is a member of the European Union, it sometimes opposes EU-wide initiatives supporting broader recognition of LGBTQ family rights.

Jacobsen: Institutional issues have appeared elsewhere as well. For example, reports around the Kyiv Pride parade several years ago described individuals preparing to disrupt the event by throwing objects at participants. Ukrainian authorities intervened and prevented the attack.

There have also been reports that LGBTQ members of the Ukrainian armed forces occasionally request transfers if harassment becomes severe in particular units.

Bouley: The government has blocked proposals for EU-wide recognition of same-sex parents and has not legalized same-sex marriage or adoption. Italy currently allows only civil unions, which grant some but not all of the rights associated with marriage. Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has openly opposed what she calls the LGBTQ lobby and promotes what she describes as the “traditional natural family.”

Jacobsen: The Council of Europe and advocacy groups such as ILGA-Europe have criticized some of these policy directions. They argue that certain measures could weaken protections for LGBTQ families and contribute to an environment where discrimination and hate speech increase.

Bouley: When people think of Italy, they often imagine an art-filled, culturally vibrant place. But politically the country has periodically shifted toward conservative governments. That pattern has happened several times in modern Italian politics.

It often seems that when politicians want to demonstrate how conservative they are, the first thing they do is target LGBTQ people, particularly gay and trans communities. They do not begin with issues like child abuse, forced marriage, or other forms of exploitation. Instead, they focus on LGBTQ people.

What makes that strange is that LGBTQ people are part of every family. They are people’s children, brothers, sisters, and relatives. And of course, LGBTQ people are born to heterosexual parents. Yet governments often find it politically easier to target them.

In many places, gay people become what you might call low-hanging fruit politically. It is easier to focus political attention on them than to address more complex or entrenched social problems.

In my country, debates sometimes become more focused on which bathroom a trans person might use than on serious crimes involving exploitation of minors. For example, there have been public allegations in the past against figures such as Donald Trump involving misconduct claims, though those allegations have been denied and were not pursued in court. Yet political debates often concentrate instead on transgender issues.

So it can feel disingenuous. It sometimes becomes a kind of ideological litmus test. If you want to demonstrate that you are part of a certain faction of the political right, one of the first boxes you check is opposition to LGBTQ rights. It is rarely framed as opposition to child exploitation, divorce, or other issues that can also affect families.

Jacobsen: In broader terms, this reflects a divide between open societies and more closed societies. Some political movements attempt to restrict openness for particular populations within society.

Bouley: I have spent sixty-three years being part of one of those populations.

Jacobsen: There is also a cultural misconception people sometimes have. They see gay men represented in entertainment industries—Hollywood, music, theater—and they assume most gay men are flamboyant or highly expressive in their appearance and behavior.

In reality, most people are quite ordinary in how they present themselves. They dress plainly and live fairly typical lives. But when a group faces strong social pressure or repression, it can sometimes respond with creative expression.

Bouley: In my community, I am actually something of an extreme example. I do dress flamboyantly. I enjoy clothing from many cultures—Indian clothing, Pakistani clothing, and other flowing styles. That clothing brand Kufandi is a playground for me.

Four pairs of my favorite pants right now are wide-leg linen pants designed by Vera Wang. They were made for women, but I bought them and wear them anyway. Whenever I wear them, people compliment them.

I do not believe clothing has a gender. People should be able to wear what they like. But in the gay community I am actually not typical. Most gay men dress quite conventionally—jeans, shirts, casual clothing. I am more on the expressive edge.

That is not necessarily tied to my being gay as much as it is tied to personal history. Growing up overweight, I had low self-esteem. I often wore dramatic clothing with lots of fabric because it helped me feel hidden, almost like armor—sequins, capes, and layers.

Bouley: The other thing is that the clothing is simply fabulous, and I enjoy being fabulous. But most gay men dress normally. They drive pickup trucks. They are not riding around in pink Cadillac convertibles. A few of us are, but not many.

So you are right. There is a Hollywood image of what it means to be gay. For me, that image was shaped by performers such as Rip Taylor and other flamboyant figures who were very visible on television. For a long time, Hollywood mostly allowed gay men into entertainment only if they fit a stereotype.

Something similar happened with Black representation in film. For many years, Black actors were limited to stereotypical roles. Characters were rarely portrayed as educated, financially stable, or part of strong families. Male characters were often written as irresponsible fathers or struggling men whom the mother had to support.

Representation has improved significantly over time. Black filmmakers and creators built their own production power. Directors and producers such as Tyler Perry created major studios and distribution systems.

Look at films like Sinners. People describe it as a “Black film,” but it is really just a strong film featuring a predominantly Black cast. It addresses race and racism, but at its core it is simply a genre film.

Gay filmmakers have had to follow a similar path. Representation in major studios rises and falls over time. When opportunities shrink in Hollywood, LGBTQ creators often return to independent production and self-financing.

I have always joked that it would be nice to see a gay movie where the lead character does not have to take off his shirt six times. But the same thing happens in straight movies. Many actresses have complained for years that they are asked to appear partially undressed far more often than male actors.

Jacobsen: Another issue is framing films as “gay movies” or “straight movies” rather than simply films that include LGBTQ characters. Sexual orientation becomes one element of the story rather than the entire focus.

Bouley: A love story can simply be a love story.

And look at this weekend. It is awards season. One actor who made a film about ping-pong recently criticized ballet and opera as niche art forms. That struck some people as ironic.

Take Timothée Chalamet. Whatever his personal life may be, he has a very distinctive look. He reminds me of the kind of figure you might see in a Renaissance painting. Someone joked he looks like a character from a painting by Sandro Botticelli.

For many years during awards season there was growing queer representation—writers, actors, and films with LGBTQ themes. Recently, however, that representation seems to be shrinking again.

If you look at some recent nominee lists, there are fewer openly LGBTQ storylines than there were several years ago. That suggests representation in major studio productions may be declining again.

I think that reflects broader cultural politics. It connects back to the Pixar story we discussed earlier. Major studios may still say they support LGBTQ people, but they may avoid emphasizing those themes strongly during periods of political tension.

There are also large corporate changes happening in the entertainment industry. Media mergers and acquisitions often shift the editorial tone of networks. For example, companies such as Paramount Global, Warner Bros. Discovery, and Netflix compete intensely for control of content distribution.

In some political hearings about media consolidation, lawmakers have criticized streaming platforms for what they describe as “woke” content, including LGBTQ representation. That criticism has influenced debates over which companies should control major media assets.

So the broader pattern may be that studios still describe themselves as LGBTQ-friendly, but they are cautious about pushing representation too aggressively in the current political environment.

Unfortunately, it feels like we are taking a step back right now. It is not just one step forward and one step back. It feels more like we made several steps forward and are now moving a mile and a half backward. It almost feels like a return to a time when gay people had to stay hidden or quiet about who they were. That is why what is happening in Hollywood right now is sad.

At this year’s Oscars, there does not seem to be much LGBTQ representation among the major films. For example, I do not recall openly gay characters in One Battle After Another. I do not believe there are openly gay characters in Sinners. I do not recall any in Marty Supreme, the table-tennis film. I cannot think of a major nominated film this year with significant LGBTQ representation.

That is unusual because in many recent years there has been at least some visible LGBTQ presence in major films. This year there seems to be less.

Jacobsen: Thank you very much for the opportunity and your time, Karel.

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.