Skip to main content

Unmasking Paradoxes in the LGBTQ+ Community

By Matthew Hayward

 
Imagine a bright sunny day, the decent of blooming flowers in the air, the temperature soaring into the 90°s. Hikers ascend mountain trails, their faces glistening with sweat, and in the midst of this natural splendor, you spot an individual with a mask firmly in place. Similarly, in a bustling park, a lone cyclist pedals by among joggers and picnickers, mask on, despite the sweltering heat. Such sights prompt an immediate question: Why? In a post-pandemic world, an intriguing trend surfaces as mask mandates lift and faces emerge from behind their coverings. A significant portion of those still choosing to wear masks hail from the LGBTQ+ community. But what drives this continued embrace of masks?

Historically, masks have played a role in the LGBTQ+ community's fight for rights and acceptance. The story of Dr. Henry Anonymous stands out as a poignant example. In an era when homosexuality was deemed a mental disorder, this psychiatrist, a gay man himself, donned a mask to speak out against such classifications during the American Psychiatric Association's annual conference. His brave stance, even in anonymity, played a pivotal role in the eventual removal of homosexuality from the list of mental disorders in 1973. But is history the sole reason for the modern mask phenomenon?

One cannot overlook the profound psychological impact that must come with feeling like a different person on the inside than the outside. The LGBTQ+ community, having faced its share of challenges, might possess a heightened sensitivity towards others who are psychologically affected. In the context of the pandemic, the relentless fear-mongering propaganda has left a significant portion of the population traumatized, constantly on edge, and in a state of heightened anxiety.

"The media's role in propagating the mask narrative has been undeniable. From the onset of the pandemic, a clear campaign, seemingly orchestrated by government agencies and amplified by pharmaceutical interests, championed masks and other COVID restrictions. A notable instance was the widespread media coverage of celebrities donning designer masks at public events, subtly promoting mask-wearing as both a safety measure and a fashion statement. But when does genuine information end and propaganda begin? An article from The Sydney Morning Herald raises the question: Is media coverage of COVID-19 too negative?"

This shared psychological disturbance might be a driving factor behind the LGBTQ+ community's continued use of masks. It's not just about physical protection but a deeper, empathetic connection with others who've been mentally affected by the pandemic's narrative. By wearing masks, they might be silently communicating a shared understanding of the psychological scars left by the pandemic and the societal pressures that preceded it.

Today, the mask has taken on a new dimension for the LGBTQ+ community. While its initial purpose during the pandemic was protection, the aftermath reveals a deeper narrative. As the majority shed their masks, the LGBTQ+ community's continued use becomes a distinctive marker. But is it merely about protection, or is there a deeper symbolism at play?

The irony is palpable. Initially adopted for safety and anonymity, masks now serve as inadvertent beacons. Instead of hiding, the LGBTQ+ community is taking a visual action to stand out while also virtue signaling, especially to those typically right of center who opposed the mask mandate from the beginning. 

The relationship between the LGBTQ+ community and their continued use of masks in a post-mandate world offers profound insight into the complexities of identity, protection, and societal dynamics. As we move forward, it's essential to approach this observation with empathy, understanding the layers of history, psychology, and personal choice that influence such decisions.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Could Today Be the Cheapest Price for Bitcoin Ever Again? Here’s Why

By: Matthew Hayward Current price  Nov 10, 2024 76.72K 80.43K Is Now the Time to Buy Bitcoin? Bitcoin has come a long way since its early days as a niche digital asset. Today, as we enter another phase in its established four-year cycle , Bitcoin may be at a historic high, but it could soon become the new baseline price. This cycle, which has repeatedly shown Bitcoin’s resilience and long-term growth potential, suggests that the current price might be the lowest we’ll see again. While recent political shifts, including Donald Trump’s landslide election victory, have added new momentum and support for Bitcoin, the timing within the cycle itself makes this an ideal moment to consider buying. A Political Shift: From Anti-Crypto to Pro-Crypto For years, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies have faced an uphill battle against a U.S. government determined to restrict and control their growth. This opposition was largely led by Gary Gensler, who waged an outright war against crypto from hi...

When Government Demands Papers We Refuse

 By Matthew Hayward  9/19/2025  The Supreme Court just paused a lower court order that had limited federal immigration stops in Los Angeles. That stay lets federal agents resume roving patrols and interior operations that critics say rely on appearance, language, job, or neighborhood to pick people for questioning.  This matters because it normalizes a posture of suspicion. Checkpoints miles inland and roving patrols turn movement inside the country into a condition to be earned rather than a freedom to be enjoyed. The government already claims expanded authority inside the 100-mile border zone. That claim, plus an open green light for stops based on appearance, is a recipe for arbitrary enforcement.  Philosophy of resistance John Locke told us that the consent of the governed is the foundation of legitimate power. When rulers invade life, liberty, or property, or when they become arbitrary disposers of people’s lives and fortunes, the social compact is dissolve...

The National Guard Was Never Meant to Be a Federal Tool

By Matthew Hayward 7/13/2025 Let me say this clearly: the National Guard was created to defend the states, not to enforce the will of the federal government. It was meant to serve as a local militia—an armed extension of the people under the control of the state. The highest authority a Guard member was ever supposed to answer to is their elected governor, not a bureaucrat in Washington, not a federal agency, and certainly not a sitting president weaponizing military force on domestic soil. Yes, I know the laws have changed. I know the Montgomery Amendment, the National Defense Act, and the Supreme Court's decision in Perpich v. DoD rewrote the rules. But legal doesn’t mean constitutional. Gradualism doesn’t legitimize usurpation. You don’t get to trample foundational principles and call it progress. What’s happening now—federalizing state forces to deploy them in cities without gubernatorial consent—is blasphemous. It's an insult to the very spirit of the Constitution. The ...