Target Corp. won’t sell LGBTQ-themed merchandise in some stores during Pride Month in June, after a backlash dented revenue last year. Target faced threats from some customers last year over its Pride merchandise.
The Minneapolis-based retailer plans to offer the full assortment online but is considering store-level data to decide which physical locations will carry the products, people familiar with the matter said, declining to be identified discussing private information.
Target is likely to stock the products in about half of its nearly 2,000 stores in the US, the people said. The company has typically sold the Pride assortment in all of its stores in recent years.
While the ad is comical, online dating apps continue to provide an uneven experience for trans, nonbinary, and genderfluid users. Most dating websites and smartphone apps didn’t initially offer gender descriptions for these users to authentically present themselves to others. Even with expanded gender presentation options, non-cisgender users say that ignorance and transphobia continue to make online dating feel unsafe.
A brief (incomplete) history of LGBTQ+ online dating
The earliest days of LGBTQ+ online dating harken back to the late 80s and early 90s, when gay men used dial-up modems to connect through bulletin board systems (BBSs) like Backroom and Gay.net. Back then, some lesbians also used an e-mail listserv called Sappho and, later, the website lesbian.org, which contained personals, discussion forums, web links for lesbian-oriented non-profits, and even a lesbian literary journal called Sapphic Ink.
In the early to late 90s, web services like Compuserve and America Online (AOL) provided real-time M4M, W4W, and “transexual” chatrooms where queer love-seekers could connect, talk dirty, and spend hours uploading and downloading pixelated photographs of themselves via very-slow internet connections.
“I think LGBTQ+ people were always really early adopters to online dating,” Michael Kaye, the one-time director of brand marketing and communications for OkCupid told QSaltLake. “Speaking from experience, we are limited to the safe spaces that we have available.”
In the 2000s, some popular heterosexual dating sites like eHarmony didn’t allow gay and lesbian profiles, leaving queer users to look elsewhere like OkCupid, a personal ad site for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and cis-het people that appeared in 2004. OkCupid helped facilitate LGB dating by including a unique feature: It let users choose only to be visible to other queer folks, reducing the likelihood that gay men or lesbian women would receive messages from a bunch of eager and unwitting heterosexuals.
However, the biggest revolution in online dating occurred in 2009 with the advent of Grindr, one of the first third-party apps for Apple’s iPhone. While the app — and similar ones — facilitated countless quick hook-ups and longer-term relationships, the apps weren’t initially inclusive of trans, nonbinary, and gender-fluid users because they offered a limited range of self-identifying gender options and transphobic responses from other cisgender users.
Over time, trans-inclusive apps like Tser appeared. Tser specifically marketed itself as a place where trans people could find community and support, but trans users found that the app still contained transphobia: It categorized cis individuals as “men” and “women,” invalidating trans women and trans men as not “real” women and men. It also used the outdated term “transsexual.”
Expanding gender options is a good start, but not enough
In 2016, Tindr offered users the option of entering any term that best describes their gender identity for display on their profiles. Grindr and Hinge took similar paths by offering more gender description options — like “trans man,” “trans woman,” “non-binary,” “non-conforming” and “queer” — in 2017.
In 2023, eHarmony also began offering an expanded list of genders — including options like “agender,” “bigender,” “genderqueer,” “pangender,” “questioning,” “trans masculine/feminine nonbinary,” and “Two-Spirit.”
The app Bumble also expanded its options to be more inclusive of nonbinary users in 2022, but the app’s “women make the first move” feature — which was created to reduce creepy unwanted advances from men — didn’t allow nonbinary people to message others who identified as women.
“I applaud them for trying to be inclusive, but they’re just completely missing the point,” one user named Kay told NBC News. “I get that their whole shtick is women message first. But if that’s the case, don’t add the gender-inclusive options if you’re going to make nonbinary people feel like they are being squished into a woman or man category.”
Non-cisgender users of Tinder and Hinge also had another issue: after self-identifying as their preferred gender description, the sites would then reductively ask if they’d like to be paired with people who were looking for “men” or women,” the independent cultural site The Skinny reported.
Other users expressed frustration that dating sites often group people by gender rather than by sexuality, making it impossible for searchers to filter out heterosexual users. Others found that, even when apps and sites had inclusive gender options, they had very few non-cisgender users, making the dating “community” feel isolating.
Taking a stand against transphobia
In 2015, when the women’s dating app HER launched, founder Robyn Exton said, “All of the online platforms for women [before 2015] were just reskins of sites built for gay men but turned pink, asking you how much body hair you had, or straight sites that were filled with guys asking you [to have a three-way]. It felt crazy to me, at the time, that no one had truly made a dating product for women.”
HER eventually branded itself as a community and dating app for the FLINTA [female, lesbian, intersex, trans, and agender] community. In 2023, it used Lesbian Visibility Day to send out an announcement to all users reiterating its “no TERFs” policy against transphobes, something it felt was particularly important considering the rise of right-wing anti-trans laws and rhetoric.
“[Trans-exclusionary radical feminists’] harmful and transphobic mentality negates the experiences and identities of our trans and gender non-conforming community, fosters their marginalization, and contributes to discrimination and [harm],” the announcement declared. “Besides being sad, hateful clowns who spew out a lot of misinformation, TERFs are also a genuine threat to the LGBTQIA+ community. And that’s just not going to fly here.”
Despite the announcement, HER still found that its trans, nonbinary, and genderfluid users still faced challenges when using the app, including people expressing trans-exclusionary preferences, misgendering, invasive questions, different forms of fetishization, ignorance about the trans experience, and even other users maliciously reporting their profiles as somehow violating the app’s user policies.
Apps like Grindr, Scruff, and OkCupid have since expanded by allowing users to express the range of genders they’re attracted to, making their profiles easier for non-cis users to find.
Two other platforms, Taimi and Lex, take different approaches by centering non-cis users and not focusing solely on gender as a way of matching users. Taimi lets users say whether they’re looking for trans, intersex, or nonbinary users. Lex is a text-based app that’s primarily for “womxn, trans, genderqueer, intersex, two-spirit and non-binary ppl” where users can describe what kind of people and social interactions they’re craving.
As HER and other dating website and apps figure out how to be more welcoming for non-cis users, HER’s non-cis users said the app would feel safer if it provided more education about trans experiences, better profile filtering, more ways to self-identify one’s gender, better account verification methods, and better safety protocols to prevent and penalize transphobia.
“Even in spaces built for all queer folks, there is much work to be done,” Exton wrote.
Gay dating app Grindr is facing a mass data protection lawsuit in London from hundreds of users who allegedly had their private information, including HIV status, shared with third parties without consent, a law firm said on Monday.
Austen Hayes, which said the lawsuit is being filed at London’s High Court, said thousands of Grindr users in the United Kingdom may have been affected.
The firm alleges users’ highly sensitive information, including HIV status and the date of their latest HIV test, were provided to third parties for commercial purposes.
Grindr said in a statement provided to the Guardian that it planned to “respond vigorously to this claim, which appears to be based on a mischaracterisation of practices from more than four years ago”.
Austen Hayes said around 670 people had signed up to the lawsuit over breaches said to have taken place between 2018 and 2020, with potentially thousands more joining the case.
Austen Hays’ Managing Director Chaya Hanoomanjee said in a statement: “Grindr owes it to the LGBTQ+ community it serves to compensate those whose data has been compromised and have suffered distress as a result, and to ensure all its users are safe while using the app, wherever they are, without fear that their data might be shared with third parties.”
Grindr did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Guardian reported a Grindr spokesperson as stating: “We are committed to protecting our users data and complying with all applicable data privacy regulations, including in the UK.
“We are proud of our global privacy program and take privacy extremely seriously.”
Over a dozen Planet Fitness locations have been hit with bomb threats after the fitness chain reaffirmed its commitment to trans inclusion last month.
The gym franchise, which is primarily based in North America, has been the victim of at least 17 bomb hoaxes after it became the subject of right-wing backlash last month.
Planet Fitness found itself in the headlines in early March after the notorious anti-LGBTQ+ social media account, Libs of TikTok, shared a video of a customer complaining that a trans woman was using the women’s bathroom.
The customer then shared an email exchange with Planet Fitness regarding the complaint, which took place at a Wisconsin location, in which the company reaffirmed its commitment to inclusion.
The policy, which was shared with the customer, reads: “All members, including transgender members, may use Planet Fitness locker room facilities and programs based on their self-reported gender identity.
“These facilities include bathrooms, showers, and all other facilities separated by sex,” the policy continues. “Wherever possible, Planet Fitness clubs should maintain private changing areas in each locker room for the comfort of all members.”
The controversy has done little to stifle Planet Fitness’ value. (Getty)
Right-wing pundits called for a boycott against the chain after the Libs of TikTok post went viral, causing the company’s stock value to dip.
Various locations across North America have since received hoax bomb threats: At least four locations in Rhode Island, four in Mississippi, six in Michigan and several in Connecticut have been targeted.
The most recent set of threats occurred in Alabama after a string of chains were evacuated on Saturday (6 April) according to the FBI.
Fairhope Police shared in a statement that a threat was emailed to a news outlettargeting multiple locations, including two locations in Daphne and Mobile, Alabama.
Planet Fitness is still financially stable despite backlash, experts say
In a statement, Planet Fitness reiterated its commitment to an inclusive policy, telling staff to “address discomfort” and “foster a climate of understanding.”
It also clarified that the membership of the customer who shared the video was terminated for “taking photos of individuals in the locker room.”
Financial experts have estimated that the fallout from the controversy has not been enough to significantly affect the company as it continues to grow in value.
Stifel analyst, Chris O’Cull, told Athletech News that the dip was unlikely to disrupt Planet Fitness’ growing value, saying that “social media comments have a short shelf life.”
“Having positive earned media highlighting the brand’s ‘judgement free’ positioning can prevent search results with a shorter shelf life from continuing to impact the brand’s reputation.”
Popular outdoor clothing brand The North Face is the latest brand to face boycott calls – in this case, over its long-established sponsorship LGBTQ+ summer camps.
Brave Trials is a leadership summer camp, located in California and Maryland, for LGBTQ+ youth and allies between the ages of 12-18. Its focus is on helping “LGBTQ+ youth find what they need most to thrive: their people, their place, and their passion,” according to its website.
The California and New York-based Camp Brave Trials – which have caused outrage among conservatives – are designed for for LGBTQ+ teenagers aged 12-17, and aim help teens improve their leadership.
On its website, the organisation shares that the goal of the camps is to “foster a supportive space where LGBTQ youth can connect with like-minded individuals, explore their identities, and pursue their passions.”
Responding to a 2021 tweet by The North Face, which announced the brand had donated more than $70,000 to the non-profit, controversial anti-trans organisation Gays Against Groomers stirred outrage, causing conservatives, once again, to unite in calls for a boycott.
In the tweet, the organisation described the camp as a place where “kids as young as 12” go to “perform in drag”.
The group then called for the brand to be boycotted – much like conservatives did with beer brand Bud Light, after it worked with trans influencer Dylan Mulvaney last year in a sponsored Instagram post.
Brave Trials posted an announcement in 2022 that explained that its partnerships with brands such as The North Face, Brooks Sports, TOMS, and others, raised more than $100,000 (£79,063) to aid its summer camps.
A Christian father reposted news of the partnership and wrote: “No more @thenorthface for our family.
“This is wrong. All North Face going to give away today. We need to stand up to this nonsense, not condone it, and not become numb to it’s constant attack on the future of our country.”
Others simply posted calls to “boycott The North Face”.
Backlash to LGBTQ+ inclusivity saw countless brands face boycott calls in 2023, with Target, Bud Light and Build-A-Bear, being just a few that faced the wrath of the far-right.
PinkNews has contacted The North Face and Brave Trials for comment.
Meta — the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and Threads — has failed to enforce its own policies against anti-transgender hate posts, including posts made by high-profile political influencers and media outlets, according to a newly released report from the LGBTQ+ media advocacy group GLAAD.
GLAAD cataloged numerous posts referring to trans individuals as the slur “tr***y” as well as “mentally ill,” “satanic,” “sexual predators,” pedophiles,” “terrorists,” and “perverts,” The Washington Post reported. One illustrated image showed a group of people stoning a trans-identified person to death; another showed a masked person holding a gun standing on top of a demon painted in the colors of the transgender flag.
Other cataloged posts said that trans people seek to “sexualize, sterilize, and butcher children.” Others misgendered trans celebrities, mocked trans suicide victims, suggested violence against medical professionals offering gender-affirming care, promoted conversion therapy, and called for the “eradication” of trans people.
The posts were made by accounts associated with the right-wing publication The Daily Wire, Gays Against Groomers, Chaya Raichik’s Libs of TikTok, The Babylon Bee, and One Million Moms.
The posts violate Meta’s stated policies against anti-LGBTQ+ hate speech and “dehumanizing speech” that conveys a protected group’s “inferiority,” “subhumanity,” an intent to bully or harass such groups, and statements that a protected group shouldn’t exist.
In a June 2023 open letter facilitated by GLAAD and the Human Rights Campaign, over 250 LGBTQ+ celebrities, public figures and allies asked Meta and other social media companies to do more to fight the massive wave of anti-transgender hate on their platforms. The letter was signed by such queer and allied celebrities as Elliot Page, Laverne Cox, Jamie Lee Curtis, Janelle Monáe, Gabrielle Union, Judd Apatow, Ariana Grande, and Jonathan Van Ness.
However, the recent report states that Meta hasn’t done nearly enough to fight the tide. In September 2023, Facebook’s own Oversight Board wrote, “The fundamental issue in this case is not with the policies, but their enforcement. Meta’s repeated failure to take the correct enforcement action, despite multiple signals about … harmful content, leads the Board to conclude the company is not living up to the ideals it has articulated on LGBTQIA+ safety.”
In its statement about its recent report, GLAAD wrote, “Meta itself acknowledges in its public statements and in its own policies that hate speech ‘creates an environment of intimidation and exclusion, and in some cases may promote offline violence.’ Such acknowledgements of its own culpability make Meta’s negligence and refusal to protect people from such hate… all the more shocking.”
Additionally, some LGBTQ+ content creators on Meta have accused the company of limiting their post’s reach because of Meta’s new restrictions on political content, including content involving politicians and queer social issues.
“As the trillion-dollar company’s revenues soar, Meta continues to lay off critical trust and safety teams and increasingly relies on ineffectiveAI systems for content moderation,” GLAAD wrote in its report. “Meta’s enforcement failures have prompted repeatedrebukes and concern from the Oversight Board (the independent body that makes non-binding but precedent-setting content moderation rulings on Meta’s platforms). As Axios and The Verge have documented, some users find that their reports on harmful content are not reviewed at all.”
Best Buy offered to screen donations from its employee resource groups going to LGBTQ causes following pressure from a conservative think tank that holds shares in the company, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing made public this week.
The SEC filing contains a monthslong email exchange between the National Center for Public Policy Research, which describes itself as a “nonpartisan, free-market conservative think tank,” and Best Buy. The dialogue, which hasn’t been previously reported, shows how the center said it would make “a splash” unless the consumer electronics giant moved in favor of its demands.
In some of the last correspondence in the filing, Best Buy noted that it allows its employee resource groups “some discretion to directly support organizations of their choosing” but added that “any such contributions would be screened to ensure they do not advocate or support the causes or agendas you have identified as concerning.” One of the causes the NCPPR cited was transgender care for minors, which the group falsely described as an attempt to “mutilate the reproductive organs of children.”
When asked for a request for comment regarding the filing, Carly Charlson, a spokesperson for Best Buy, stated in an email: “At Best Buy, we strongly believe in an inclusive work environment with a culture of belonging where everyone feels valued and has the opportunity to thrive. This commitment is evident through our longstanding and continuing support of organizations like HRC, which has recognized us as one of the best places to work for the LGBTQIA+ community for the past 18 years.”
She then sent a followup email adding, “Nothing has changed in the ways we give to LGBTQIA+ organizations.”
In HRC, Charlson was referring to the Human Rights Campaign, the country’s largest LGBTQ-rights group.
“The news of this SEC filing is very concerning, and we are working in partnership with Best Buy to understand more,” Eric Bloem, HRC’s vice president of programs and corporate advocacy, said in a statement Friday afternoon. “Any company that uses their Corporate Equality Index distinction as cover while working with fringe groups and bad actors does not reflect true LGBTQ+ allyship in the corporate space.”
The communication in the SEC filing began on Dec. 11, when the NCPPR sent Best Buy a shareholder proposal asking the retailer to produce by June — and distribute at Best Buy’s annual shareholder meeting that month — a report for investors analyzing how its partnerships with LGBTQ nonprofits are benefitting the company’s business.
“Best Buy has partnerships with and contributes to organizations and activists that promote the practice of gender transition surgeries on minors and evangelize gender theory to minors. Why are Best Buy shareholders funding the proliferation of an ideology seeking to mutilate the reproductive organs of children before they finish puberty?” the proposal, signed by Ethan Peck, an associate at the NCPPR’s Free Enterprise Institute, states. “This contentious and vast disagreement between radical gender theory activists and the general public has nothing to do with Best Buy selling electronics.”
In an email dated Jan. 17, Peck told Best Buy’s attorneys that his organization “will withdraw its proposal if Best Buy were to end its partnerships with and contributions to” eight different LGBTQ nonprofits and initiatives, which he refers to as “predatory butchers” in his email. These groups include The Trevor Project, an LGBTQ youth suicide prevention and crisis intervention organization; SAGE, which advocates on behalf of LGBTQ elders; and GLAAD, an LGBTQ media advocacy group.
Peck did, however, leave the Human Rights Campaign off this list, stating in his email that “we understand that it’s unrealistic for Best Buy to leave HRC in the near future because of their political clout.”
“We hope you take this off-ramp for the sake of shareholders,” Peck wrote in the Jan. 17 email. “Were Best Buy to agree to such a compromise with us, we will not make a splash about it.”
In a Feb. 5 email, Marina Rizzo, a Best Buy attorney, told Peck that the company had reviewed his organization’s concerns and informed him that the company hadn’t donated in several years to two of the LGBTQ causes mentioned in the Jan. 17 email — the Trevor Project and Our Gay History in 50 States — and has never donated to the other six. She then says the company would screen certain donations the NCPPR may find concerning.
“As discussed during our call, we do allow our individual employee organizations, including our Military ERG, Conservative employee interest group, and our PRIDE group, among many other groups, some discretion to directly support organizations of their choosing,” Rizzo wrote. “That said, any such contributions would be screened to ensure they do not advocate or support the causes or agendas you have identified as concerning. We hope this addresses the concerns.”(In a letter included in the SEC filing, Best Buy notes that its employee resource groups “are provided with their own funding and have the capability to identify sponsorships to receive that funding, subject to internal guidelines and Company oversight.”)
Later that day, Peck thanked Rizzo in an email “for looking into this” and added, “we’re definitely delighted to hear all that.” He then raised several follow-up questions, including why a page on the Best Buy website still indicates the company supports the Trevor Project and a book titled “Our Gay History in 50 States.”
“We’re going to need some kind of proof that that funding has ended,” Peck wrote.
In an email on Feb. 9, Rizzo informed Peck that Best Buy would submit a letter to the SEC that afternoon asking that the regulator not take any action against the company for omitting NCPPR’s proposal from shareholder materials. She also told him that the letter is a “standard part of the proposal process, and we intend to continue our dialogue.” She ended the email by writing, “We remain ready to reach an understanding in conjunction with the withdrawal agreement you initially outlined.”
No additional email correspondence is included in the SEC filing after Feb. 9, and it’s unclear whether an agreement between Best Buy and NCPPR was ever reached. On March 22, NCPPR withdrew its Dec. 11 shareholder proposal. Then, on Tuesday of this week, Best Buy pulled its Feb. 9 “no action” requestfrom the SEC, and the agency sent a letter on Wednesday confirming the matter was moot. This, in turn, ensures NCPPR’s shareholder proposal regarding LGBTQ donations will not be presented at Best Buy’s annual shareholder meeting in June.
In response to NBC News’ request for comment, Peck declined to share any specifics regarding his communication with Best Buy, stating, “We don’t discuss confidential discussions.” He did, however, confirm that his organization has sent similar proposals to other public companies, though he did not name them.
When asked why he chose the eight LGBTQ causes mentioned in the Best Buy SEC filing, he wrote, “We used those groups as examples of groups that have adopted radical and divisive positions on LGBTQ issues, but we recognize that many more such groups exist.”
The exchange between Best Buy and the NCPPR comes as many large companies face renewed pressure from conservatives to curb their public support for the LGBTQ community.
Major consumer brands, includingBud Light and Target, have faced heated criticism from conservative activists, prompting a rollback of LGBTQ-focused marketing campaigns and products as well as calls for boycotts. In Bud Light’s case, sales declined and shares of its parent company, Anheuser-Busch Inbev, tumbled in the months following the beer brand’s partnership with transgender influencerDylan Mulvaney on April 1 of last year, though the stock has since rebounded.
In an email on Friday, GLAAD, one of the LGBTQ nonprofits mentioned in the SEC filing, expressed its displeasure with Best Buy.
“Executives at Best Buy ought to be ashamed of how they turned their backs on their LGBTQ and ally employees and consumers,” GLAAD President and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis said. “They know what they did was wrong, or they would not have tried to hide this cowardly, toxic corporate takeover inside an ordinary SEC filing.”
Chaya Raichik, who goes by Libs of TikTok online, believes Planet Fitness is currently facing the “most successful boycott since Bud Light” because the gym chain allows trans women to use women’s locker rooms.
But while Raichik and right-wing media outlets have claimed that the boycott caused the gym to lose “$400 million in value” — something Raichik called “a bloodbath” — there’s no proof, either of the boycott or its alleged financial harm to the gym. In fact, Planet Fitness has stood by its trans-inclusive policies and LGBTQ+ support for years despite right-wing backlash.
Raichik alleges that the boycott started because a Planet Fitness in Alaska banned Patricia Silva, an anti-LGBTQ+ woman who photographed and confronted a transgender woman who was using the women’s locker room without harassing anyone. The gym revoked Silva’s membership and filed a police report against her for photographing people in the locker room, something that is specifically forbidden by the gym’s policies.
Raichik noted that the hashtag #BoycottPlanetFitness has been trending on X. However, there’s no proof that any people using the hashtag are current or former Planet Fitness members. Raichik then claimed that Planet Fitness has “a history of making women unsafe in the women’s locker rooms” because in September 2023, an adult assigned male at birth exposed themself to a 15-year-old girl at a Planet Fitness gym in Georgia.
It’s unclear whether the adult claimed to be transgender. Police arrested the adult and Planet Fitness found they had violated the gym’s anti-harassment and locker room modesty policies. The gym’s policies state that if a member “is acting in bad faith and improperly asserts a gender identity, they may be asked to leave and their membership may be terminated.”
Raichik also pointed to a 2015 incident in which the gym revoked a cis woman’s membership after she repeatedly complained to other gym members and staff about a trans woman in the locker room. The trans woman wasn’t harassing anyone, and she was a guest of another gym member.
“In expressing her concerns about the policy, the member in question exhibited behavior that club management deemed inappropriate and disruptive to other members, which is a violation of the membership agreement and as a result her membership was canceled,” Planet Fitness said in a statement about the 2015 incident.
The Planet Fitness chain is widely known for being a self-professed “judgement free zone,” a welcoming environment where people of all types can exercise without fear of intimidation and ridicule from other members. Its gender identity nondiscrimination policy states that members and guests may use all gym facilities based on their sincere self-reported gender identity. The gym has consistently stood up to transphobic members who harass and threaten trans patrons, even as red state legislators ban trans people from sports teams and school facilities.
Additionally, the chain has observed Pride Month, writing, “We strive to create a community where everyone is included and feels like they belong. Not just this month, but every day.” It has also partnered with the It Gets Better Project to help support LGBTQ+ youth.
However, Raichik claimed that the gym chain is now being punished for its progressive policies. She pointed out that, after news spread about the gym banning Silva, the gym’s stock price dropped from $5.3 billion on March 14 to $4.9 billion on March 19, constituting a $400 million loss in value. However, the business’s stock price was already declining before March 11, when reports of Silva’s revoked membership began spreading online.
In fact, a five-year overview of Planet Fitness’ stock price shows that it usually peaks in January — a time of year when many people usually begin new gym memberships to fulfill their New Year’s resolution to get in shape and lose weight — and then declines in the following pre-summer months. Because the business’s overall profitability is determined by monthly memberships (and this alleged boycott started barely two weeks ago), there’s no concrete proof that the loss of the gym’s stock value is connected to member outrage over its trans-inclusive policies.
Fox Business A chart showing Planet Fitness’ stock price over the last month
Raichik claims that Planet Fitness is “covering up membership cancellations” by members upset over its trans-inclusive policies. As proof, she pointed to a single video of a man who said that gym employees refused to note his disagreement with its trans policies on his official cancellation form. Raichik also posted a recording of a Planet Fitness customer service representative allegedly claiming that Silva’s photo of the trans gym member wasn’t taken at a Planet Fitness gym.
Raichik also claimed that Planet Fitness is trying “to groom kids by giving them ‘queer books’ to confuse them about their identity and introduce them to the extremely harmful radical gender ideology.” In actuality, the gym previously partnered with the It Gets Better Project to provide LGBTQ+-themed books to gay-straight alliances in schools. Raichik and other right-wingers constantly claim that any mention of LGBTQ+ issues to kids is an attempt to “groom” them.
She also blamed Planet Fitness for allowing a registered sex offender, Adam Yindana, to join one of their gyms. However, she didn’t mention that Yindana joined the gym using an alias, that he isn’t trans and never said he was, and that he wasn’t harassing anyone in the women’s locker room. The gym canceled his membership and assisted police with their investigation when a gym member accused Yindana of following her around the facility and recording her with his smartphone.
LGBTQ Nation reached out to Planet Fitness for a comment regarding Raichik’s claims.
In the bustling streets of New York City, the heartbeat of Stuzo Clothingresonates with the vibrant spirit of inclusivity and self-expression. Founded by the visionary Stoney Michelli Love, Stuzo emerges as more than just a fashion brand; it’s a sanctuary where all individuals find solace from judgment and labels. And with Women’s History Month coming to a close, it turns out that celebrating the women that came before and creating gender-free apparel go hand in hand.
Stuzo Clothing’s “Live Your Truth” T-Shirt is available to shop on ThePrideStore.com
With a mission to challenge societal norms, Stuzo Clothing embraces the concept of gender-free clothing, or as Stoney affectionately puts it, “clothes without organs.” In a recent interview, Stoney shared insights into the genesis of Stuzo: “In 2008, during my final year of graphic design studies in the Bronx, I faced homophobia, racism, and sexism, which became a wellspring of inspiration.”
Stoney’s personal experiences with prejudice fueled the creation of Stuzo, culminating in a brand that champions diversity and authenticity. “My shopping experiences were divided by gendered sections, creating a sense of exclusion,” she recalls. “Shopping in spaces lacking a middle ground was frustrating.”
At the core of Stuzo’s philosophy lies an organic creative process, reflecting Stoney’s commitment to authenticity and fluidity. “My creative process is organic. It comes to me,” she explains. “I allow myself to be inspired by anything and everything.”
Drawing inspiration from sources as diverse as royalty and reality TV, Stoney crafts designs that resonate with the bold and non-conforming. “I let things speak to me and things inspire me, and I live my life,” she adds.
Yet, Stuzo’s journey hasn’t been without its challenges. Stoney reflects on the pivotal moment when she redefined the brand as gender-free after a period of self-reflection. “I had to take a step back and check in with myself,” she shares. “After this realization, Stuzo became a gender-free company again.”
Stuzo Clothing’s “FemBoi” Tank is available to shop on ThePrideStore.com
Navigating through personal and professional growth, Stoney acknowledges the transformative power of embracing one’s truth. “There’s a lot of unpacking, learning, relearning, and regaining power,” she affirms. “But I ended up being a better business person because I was able to come back to my truth and values, so I’m grateful for that.”
As Women’s History Month unfolds, Stoney reflects on its significance for Stuzo and herself: “It’s celebrating the female humans that came before us, and fought for our equal rights. It’s celebrating those with us in the now that continue the fight and fighting by simply being themselves. And it’s about celebrating the youth, who are the future ones leading the charge for the balance in humanity.”
Through Stuzo Clothing, Stoney Michelli Love epitomizes the resilience and creativity of women entrepreneurs, inspiring individuals to embrace their authenticity and rewrite the narrative of fashion.
Receive free shipping with promo code “LUCKY” (valid thru 3/31) when you shopThePrideStore.com.
Google has partly disabled its artificial intelligence (AI) image generator Gemini after the software produced racially diverse and historically inaccurate images of Black Vikings, female popes, and people of color as the United States “founding fathers.”
Gemini produced these images without being prompted by users, leading right-wing critics to blast the software as “woke.” However, the incident revealed not only a technical problem but a “philosophical” one about how AI and other tech should address biases against marginalized groups.
Related:
“It’s clear that this feature missed the mark. Some of the images generated are inaccurate or even offensive,” Google Senior Vice President Prabhakar Raghavan wrote in a company blog post addressing the matter.
He explained that Google tried to ensure that Gemini didn’t “fall into some of the traps we’ve seen in the past with image generation technology,” such as creating violent or sexually explicit images, depictions of real people, or images that only show people of just one type of ethnicity, gender, or other characteristics.
“Our tuning to ensure that Gemini showed a range of people failed to account for cases that should clearly not show a range,” Raghavan wrote. “[This] led the model to overcompensate in some cases … leading to images that were embarrassing and wrong.”
He then said that Gemini will be improved “significantly” and receive “extensive testing” before generating more images of people. But he warned that AI is imperfect and may always “generate embarrassing, inaccurate, or offensive results.”
While some right-wing web commenters, like transphobic billionaire Elon Musk, accused Gemini of being “woke,” this sort of problem isn’t unique to Google. Sam Altman, the gay CEO of OpenAI, acknowledged in 2023 that his company’s technology “has shortcomings around bias” after its AI-driven ChatGPT software generated racist and sexist responses. Numerous kinds of AI-driven software have also exhibited bias against Black people and women, resulting in these groups being falsely labeled as criminals, denied medical care, or rejected from jobs.
Such bias in AI tech occurs because the technology makes its decisions based on massive pre-existing data sets. Since such data often skews in favor of or against a certain demographic, the technology will often reflect this bias as a result. For example, some AI-driven image generators, like Stable Diffusion, create racist and sexist images based on Western stereotypes that depict leaders as male, attractive people as thin and white, criminals and social service recipients as Black, and families and spouses as different-sex couples.
“You ask the AI to generate an image of a CEO. Lo and behold, it’s a man,” Voxtech writer Sigal Samuel wrote, explaining the dilemma of AI bias. “On the one hand, you live in a world where the vast majority of CEOs are male, so maybe your tool should accurately reflect that, creating images of man after man after man. On the other hand, that may reinforce gender stereotypes that keep women out of the C-suite. And there’s nothing in the definition of ‘CEO’ that specifies a gender. So should you instead make a tool that shows a balanced mix, even if it’s not a mix that reflects today’s reality?”
Resolving such biases isn’t easy and often requires a multi-pronged approach, Samuel explains. Foremost, AI developers must premeditate which biases might occur and then calibrate software to minimize them in a way that still produces desirable results. Some users of AI image generators, for example, may actually want pictures of a female pope or Black founding fathers — after all, art often creates new visions that challenge social standards.
But AI software also needs to give users a chance to offer feedback when the generated outcomes don’t match their expectations. This gives developers insights into what users want and helps them create interfaces that allow users to request specific characteristics, such as having certain ages, races, genders, sexualities, body types, and other traits reflected in images of people.
Sen. RonWyden (D-OR) has tried to legislate this issue by co-sponsoring the Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2022, a bill that would require companies to conduct impact assessments for bias based on the code they use to generate results. The bill wouldn’t require companies to produce unbiased results, but it would at least provide insights into the ways that technology tends to prefer certain demographics over others.
Meanwhile, though critics blasted Gemini as “woke,” the software at least tried to create racially inclusive images, something many other image generators haven’t bothered to do. Google will now spend the next few weeks retooling Gemini to create more historically accurate images, but similar AI-powered image generators would do well to retool their own software to create more inclusive images. Until then, both will continue to churn out images that reflect our own biases rather than the world’s true diversity.
