Worlds Behind Words 4: LGBTQ Rights, ICE Conditions, and USVI Gender Marker

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/09

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.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen interviews Dempsey on LGBTQ rights amid U.S. detention and policy crosscurrents. They discuss Russian spouses Andrei Ushakov and Aleksandr Skitsan, detained by ICE after requesting asylum, reported conditions, and rights under ICE standards and the U.N. Mandela Rules. Dempsey describes compounded anxiety, isolation, and aggression from overcrowded confinement and spousal separation. The conversation surveys sport-activism tensions around a reported MLB bracelet controversy and examines how corporate commitments align with shareholder interests. They close on pragmatic hope: the U.S. Virgin Islands’ order recognizing transgender and intersex gender markers, signalling sanctuary-style relief while cautioning against complacency. Hope remains, but vigilance endures.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: This report is from Washington Blade (by Michael K. Lavers, October 26, 2025) and republished by Watermark Out News on October 27, 2025. A gay married couple from Russia who sought asylum in the United States—Andrei Ushakov and Aleksandr (Alexander) Skitsan—has been held in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody for nearly a year. América Diversa, an LGBTQ immigrant-rights organization, told the Blade the couple fled Russia on March 14, 2024, after authorities began labelling LGBTQIA+ organizations as “extremist,” and that Skitsan faced direct workplace threats. The U.S. State Department’s 2023 Human Rights Report notes Russian authorities used laws against promoting “non-traditional sexual relations” to justify arbitrary arrests of LGBTQI+ people.

The same rhetoric—“natural relations,” often grounded in particular religious interpretations—appears in some countries; here, it is emerging from Russia’s legal regime. The United States has been viewed as a relatively safer destination for LGBTQ asylum seekers, yet this couple was detained after arrival. They scheduled a U.S. port-of-entry appointment via the CBP One app and requested asylum on November 27, 2024; the app was subsequently discontinued on January 20, 2025, under the incoming administration.

Let’s take a multicultural perspective and an American lens. Imagine being married, persecuted at home for a “non-traditional sexual relation,” fleeing to a country you believe will be safer, and then being detained for more than a year after asking for asylum. What emotions arise when home is unsafe, refuge seems possible, and you end up in detention, where it feels as if the bullies have taken over the school?

Dempsey: It is intensely anxiety-provoking, frightening, depressing, and hopeless. One can draw a parallel with the current state of immigration detention: you flee for safety and do not feel safe where you arrive. The additional fact that being gay is not illegal in the United States raises questions about the justification for prolonged civil detention in this case. The word that keeps returning is hopelessness. When fleeing persecution or seeking asylum, the guiding word is supposed to be hope—a value the United States has long claimed to represent for immigrants. Yet the only word that fits this couple’s situation feels like hopelessness.

Jacobsen: América Diversa describes their detention conditions as follows. The men were initially held at the Imperial Regional Detention Facility (Calexico, California). “Andrei was placed in an overcrowded unit with more than 60 detainees, where poor sanitation, excessive air conditioning, and the lack of adequate medical care have put his health at risk.” They have since been transferred to the San Luis Regional Detention Center (San Luis, Arizona) and are being denied all communication with each other despite being legally married and sharing the same asylum case.

U.S. immigration detainees are civil detainees with rights under ICE’s national detention standards (including medical care and conditions of confinement), and international norms like the U.N. “Nelson Mandela Rules,” which set widely recognized minimum standards for people in custody.

América Diversa further reports that Ushakov has a chronic medical condition requiring continuous medication and quarterly monitoring, but faces delays and limited access to care. Skitsan has a chronic ear infection with ringing and temporary hearing loss, as well as untreated stomach issues; his transfer to Arizona jeopardized a planned medical visit. The organization also says the ban on spousal communication violates basic humanitarian principles and their rights as a legally married couple under U.S. and international law. ICE did not respond to the Blade’s request for comment at publication.

Given their separation, prolonged confinement, and reported conditions, the psychological toll is obvious. Even ICE’s own oversight documents and outside analyses emphasize that detention standards exist precisely to prevent harms from poor sanitation, inadequate climate control, and delayed medical care—yet inspections have documented recurring compliance problems at facilities including San Luis. How do people in confinement—when it’s overcrowded—cope psychologically when they’re separated from a loved one in that same situation? It’s unsanitary, unpleasant, and they have chronic health issues.

Dempsey: I don’t know that they do. I don’t have statistics on this, but I think it speaks to a debate that often happens in the United States around the ethics of solitary confinement. There’s a well-documented psychological impact from that, including but not limited to psychosis. While this separation isn’t solitary—it’s quite the opposite, it’s overcrowded—I’d still imagine that isolation from loved ones, and to draw a parallel with other aspects of incarceration aside from solitary confinement, leads people to depression and even aggression. That lack of connection to loved ones or anyone familiar, aside from these new people you’re essentially building relationships with because you share an enclosed space, makes you stir-crazy, to use layperson’s terms. That has a psychological impact. Even for people who may not typically reach out to loved ones for support, just knowing they could if needed provides stability. Once that’s taken away, people may act in ways they otherwise wouldn’t.

Jacobsen: The second and only other major news item this week—fortunately—is less dire. Fewer bad news items are good, though it may just mean fewer journalists covering these stories. There are always editorial teams and institutional guidelines. Some institutions—like The Washington Post—were bought by billionaires. Jeff Bezos, for instance. After Trump was elected, Bezos reportedly wanted the paper to be more libertarian and capital-oriented. That can change editorial directions. People can get fired, quietly pushed out, or simply “quiet quit.” A lot happens to journalists that the public doesn’t see. Anyway—Freeman, the Dodgers star. He refused to wear an LGBT bracelet—a minor controversy, as far as I’m aware, contained within Major League Baseball. 

Freeman explained his decision in direct terms. The article by Nacho Labarga and Olivia Parker quotes him saying, “Baseball is about the game, the effort, and the fans, not politics. Stop imposing this on us.” His words provoked a wave of reactions. Some teammates and fans support his right to stay out of social causes, which is his right. Others believe it represents a step backward in the effort to make the sport more inclusive.

Freeman’s gesture is part of a broader trend in which the line between sport and activism is increasingly questioned. In recent years, the league has launched several diversity initiatives, and its stance has reopened debate around individual freedom versus collective commitment—in this case, commitment to diversity. Although that framing is a little misleading, because when they talk about “collective commitment,” they’re really referring to the league, meaning corporate policy. And as we’ve seen repeatedly, corporations answer to shareholders. If supporting LGBTQ+ causes aligns with shareholder interests, they’ll be all in—110%. When it stops being profitable enough, that support fades. So when we talk about collective commitment, it’s really about what benefits the bottom line. What are your thoughts on his refusal to wear the bracelet, on the corporate commitment to diversity, and on the baseball context in general? Have you heard of similar cases before?

Dempsey: I did hear about this. What I found—and still think is important—is that there hasn’t been any factual evidence confirming that he actually said that publicly. However, there have been several public cases involving other players over the years, so the discussion remains relevant. I’ve had varied opinions on the Kim Davis case and, more broadly, on what it means to own your own business and what rights you should or shouldn’t have in that context. That said, if you’re an employee—like a Major League Baseball player—you’re bound by your employer’s policies. I assume they’re classified as W-2 employees, not independent contractors. As an employer myself, I can say that if you don’t like what your employer requires, you quit. That’s just how it works. 

And yes, there’s always going to be corporate pandering, especially toward the queer community. I’ve written articles about that—particularly about pride parades and how corporate support waxes and wanes depending on which party is in power. When the government shifts to the right, funding is rescinded. When Democrats return, the corporations start pandering again. That’s just the nature of the system here. So yes, if your boss tells you to do it, you do it. That’s my personal opinion. In terms of corporatization, I think it’s disgusting. There’s much pandering among major Fortune 500 companies; they blow with the winds of change. Within the queer community, there’s been a growing discussion about distinguishing between seasonal support and consistent, principled support. 

The question is: who stands their ground and who shifts with public sentiment? We should be supporting those who remain steadfast. While that isn’t yet the dominant approach, it’s becoming more common. We’ve also seen examples of collective action and bargaining among marginalized groups, like the Black Lives Matter movement, where communities have deliberately withheld financial support from companies that don’t back them—and it has had a real impact. Companies respond when their bottom line is threatened.

Jacobsen: What else?

Dempsey: This might interest you, Scott. The U.S. Virgin Islands this week became the first American territory to officially and legally recognize transgender and intersex residents on their gender markers. It’s interesting, considering what’s happening at the federal level.

Jacobsen: So, when they talk about dismantling rights post-Dobbs—that abortion case—it’s all about state-level control. And technically, that same state-based framework could apply here. I mean, I’m not an American lawyer, but my understanding is that the U.S. attitude toward governance stems from that “don’t tread on me” mentality. I believe your country invented that bumper sticker. So, that tracks in this article from Gayety. Alright, and credit to you for this one; I didn’t know about it. The U.S. Virgin Islands has become the first American territory to officially recognize transgender and intersex residents through a new executive order. So this was signed by the governor of that territory?

Dempsey: Yes.

Jacobsen: Gender markers on identification documents—Governor Albert Bryan Jr. signed Executive Order 543-2025 on October 15, stating, “This executive order brought a fair and compassionate process where none existed before. It ensures that our government recognizes and respects the lived realities of all our residents.” What does this mean for people in their personal lives? For most people, it’s not a hurdle they have to think about. But for those affected, it’s significant. It reminds me of Dave Chappelle’s bit about Saddam Hussein’s face being removed from currency—a subtle psychological nuance of oppression in that change. I think identification markers operate similarly. They carry symbolic weight. So, for your clients, what do they generally express about changes like this?

Dempsey: As we discussed last week or the week before, with all the legislative rollbacks in the mainland states and federally, many people in the trans community are experiencing depression and anxiety. Some even talk about leaving the country because of how targeted they feel. So, moments like this—these positive policy changes—offer hope. They remind people that there are still politicians and advocates fighting for their right to exist without persecution. It instills hope, even if some remain cautious. 

Based on our history, they know victories like this are worth celebrating but not reasons to become complacent. We still have to keep pushing forward. Pride works the same way—it’s both a celebration and a reminder that there’s more to fight for. The U.S. Virgin Islands’ decision, like cities declaring themselves trans sanctuary spaces, may not immediately transform conditions, but it gives people a sense of safety and dignity. It tells them there are places where they’ll be respected and cared for, where they can travel or live knowing they’ll be treated as human beings. That’s deeply meaningful—especially right now, when many don’t feel that safety on the mainland.

Jacobsen: Thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate it. I’ll see you next week.

Dempsey: Appreciate you. Take care.

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.