On January 24, 2023, the Biden Administration released the first ever Federal Evidence Agenda on LGBTQI+ Equity, a report by the Subcommittee on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, and Variations in Sex Characteristics (SOGI) of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) [1]. The NSTC is the principal means by which the Executive Branch conducts science and technology policy to effectuate the president’s stated goals. In this latest report, the Subcommittee on Equitable Data (SED) offers a roadmap that federal agencies will use to ensure the collection of “SOGI data” to advance equity for LGBT Americans.

The Evidence Agenda includes the securing of $10 million in government funding “to research adding questions about LGBT Americans to the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey” as well as releasing a comprehensive study from the Dept. of Health and Human Services on measuring sexual orientation and gender identity data. The Evidence Agenda also highlights incoming changes for documenting gender identity on federal forms, such as offering passports with “X” gender markers for the first time [2].

From bathroom bills in 2017 to recent controversies over transgender students in sports to gender-affirming care, the LGBT agenda has received some of its most intense backlash in relation to the schooling system. Lawmakers, politicians, think-tanks, educators, and parents have been particularly vocal about this issue as LGBT advocacy and education has increased across the US public schooling system. 

Federally funded research in several institutions now endorses the idea that comprehensive sex education should begin as early as Kindergarten, and that “children as young as preschool age not only comprehend, but can openly discuss subjects as varied as gender diversity, gender nonconformity, and gender-based oppression” [11]. Seven states require that school curriculums include LGBT topics, and the push is to start young. California’s Dept. of Education, for example, urges Kindergarten teachers to dispel gender stereotypes because “some children in Kindergarten or even younger have identified as transgender” [12].

Several state governors have also pushed back against teaching LGBT topics in schools, including Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who passed a law prohibiting public schools from presenting any instruction on gender identity or sexual orientation in classroom curriculum in an effort to push back against “woke gender ideology” [13,15].  Since then, about a dozen other states have passed similar legislation, referred to by opponents as “Don’t Say Gay” laws [15]. Florida Gov. DeSantis responded to the backlash against the legislation by saying, “We will make sure that parents can send their kids to school to get an education, not an indoctrination” [15].

A survey sponsored by the American Federation of Teachers found that 58 percent of likely voters in battleground states disapprove of the way students are taught about sexual preference and gender identity. Around 31 percent explained that “students are too young for the material,” while 27 percent believed parents are responsible for teaching it [12]. A large survey conducted at the University of South Carolina found that half of Republicans believe parents should have the most influence over what goes into school curriculums, while only 20 percent of Democrats held the same view, instead favoring teachers over parents in determining curricula [16].

These studies point to the large partisan divides when it comes to teaching about gay and transgender issues at school. About 85 percent of Democrats believe high school students should learn about sexual orientation and gender identity, while 37 percent of Republicans want students to learn about sexual orientation and 32 percent want them to learn about gender identity. These numbers drop much lower for assigning books on these topics [16].

One of the many questions raised by critics of the LGBT agenda concerns the rapid growth of this movement within government bodies and public institutions. Examples include the Biden Administration granting “blanket authorization” to fly Pride flags at embassies on official flag poles or the billions of dollars of funding dedicated to this issue in the schooling system and beyond.  

Ironically, Joe Biden voted for the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, which blocked federal recognition of same-sex marriages, and two years earlier, he voted to cut off federal funds to schools that teach the acceptance of homosexuality [27]. In fact, Biden declared in 1973 that homosexuals are security risks. Today, however, “the most pro-equality president we have ever seen” has so completely identified with the LGBT cause that his dissenting history has been virtually forgotten.

These trends have also rapidly increased in public education, especially in universities with students from a vast array of political viewpoints. The “silence is violence” mantra that became popularized on college campuses years ago has now been replaced with university-backed shut down of opposing views on subjects ranging from abortion to LGBT. This is while the “free speech” argument is extensively used by LGBT advocates, and yet the same constitutional right for opposing viewpoints is shunned.

The redefinition of opposing views as “violence” has been on the rise since 2013, when Generation Z began entering college. Disinviting speakers, canceling students and professors, and equating opposing viewpoints as “hate speech” have now become norms on many campuses and are supported by college administration. For example, just last week, the Pride office website at the University of Colorado declared that misgendering people can be considered “an act of violence” [29].

In 2015, the UN Security Council met to discuss the persecution of LGBT Syrians and Iraqis in ISIS held territories. The meeting received significant attention, but was also met with anger and scrutiny as it resembled similar historical examples of justifying military intervention in non-Western nations and carrying out “civilizing missions” framed within the logic of security [3]. John Kirby, the meeting spokesperson from Washington DC, made this agenda abundantly clear in his statement: “The United States will continue to raise the plight of targeted LGBT individuals around the world and work to protect their basic human rights” [4].

This is while each day, on average, more than 45 men and 53 women in the armed forces are sexually assaulted according to Pentagon reports [5]. These numbers are also vastly underreported, especially for men [6]. Even further, female service members are more likely to be sexually assaulted by a military member than shot by an enemy combatant at war [7]. Military academics have reported record rates of sexual assault at US military service academies, with the highest rate on record in the 2021-2022 academic year [8].

As the LGBT movement in the US gained significant traction in recent years and rights for LGBT individuals expanded in liberal democracies across the West, longstanding rights of religious freedom as well as constitutional freedoms of speech and expression have suffered a corresponding decline [17]. Adherents to many religions including Islam, Christianity, and Judaism have frequently criticized the LGBT movement’s influence over virtually every aspect of society, especially in areas that concern religious practice and ideological upbringing in families. 

Religious intellectuals have raised the argument that contrary to popular belief, modern democratic notions of freedom and dignity are outgrowths of religious ontologies on the free human person, not the other way around [17]. The conception of human freedom in the Abrahamic faiths, for example, involves adherence to a principled lifestyle that sanctifies the family institution. The sexual morality inherent to these religions opposes same-sex marriage, and consequently, followers of these religions are often vocal against the LGBT movement by extension of their faith and religious freedom [17].

It follows logically then that opposition to the LGBT movement and its expanding influence in the social sphere should also be equally protected under the same constitution. Americans have frequently raised concerns over eroding freedoms of speech and expression due to the cancel culture associated with opposing mainstream views on the LGBT movement. This is especially apparent given that in the battle of ideas between the two sides, “one is universally hammered for being intolerant bigots and the other side is enlightened and tolerant” [20].

Despite the slogans of tolerance and enlightenment that are championed in the US, many in America believe they are losing fundamental rights like the freedom to speak their minds and voice their opinions without fear of being threatened and publicly shamed [23]. These social silencing trends have been on the rise for years, and are often characterized by labeling, targeting, shaming, and even threatening individuals who dare to dissent with mainstream public opinion, particularly those held by the political left. There are often efforts to have people fired from their jobs if they speak their conscience on issues directly threatening their ability to raise children with any sense of sexual morality.

The poll also found that 46 percent of Americans said they felt less free talking about politics compared to a decade ago. Roughly 55 percent of respondents said they had intentionally remained silent over the past year because they were concerned about retaliation or harsh criticism. Women were more likely to report doing so: 61 percent of women compared to 49 percent of men [23].

These statistics are easily traceable to real-life situations that have been unfolding in the past several years. In the most recent incident, Muslim comedian and TikToker Shumirun Nessa was attacked and targeted by followers of Jeffrey Marsh, an LGBT activist and TikToker who displayed inappropriate behavior toward minors on social media. In one video, Marsh explains, “your parents screwed up” before going on to say “that’s why I made a Patreon so that we could talk about it, so that we could connect in a way that has more privacy, so that we can talk to each other in a way that’s more open” [21].

Following the attacks, Nessa deleted her content about Marsh out of fear for her family’s safety and showed the threatening emails she received to the police, who said they will investigate [22].

While many consider the LGBT movement as a mere partisan issue, there is much more to it than political strategy. The main concern with the expanding influence of this movement is less about individual freedom than it is about the government adopting a religion of its own making. What was once a personal decision has become a national effort to vilify, and ultimately criminalize, any moral belief system that upholds some semblance of sexual morality.

First, the statement establishes that Islam’s morality is rooted in divine guidance as opposed to changing social movements and trends of the time. This means that Muslims submit to a Creator who possesses absolute knowledge and wisdom to inform their basis for morality. 

Second, sexual relations in Islam are permitted only within the bounds of marriage between a man and a woman. Homosexual relations – both premarital and extramarital – are explicitly forbidden in the Islamic belief system. In this way, aspects of sexual ethics central to Islam and its established moral and familial structure are not subject to revision. 

Third, Islam established before any modern social justice movement that men and women are spiritually equal before God, despite having characteristics that distinguish them as two separate genders that complete and complement one another through the institution of family.

Fourth, Islam prohibits medical procedures that change the sex of healthy individuals, but allows medical care for those born with biological ambiguities for corrective reasons.