As the human costs of selling “gender-affirming care” en masse continue to rack up, the zeitgeist has decidedly shifted against activist organizations like the Human Rights Campaign (HRC). Only a few short years ago, the tenets of the HRC were considered an indispensable part of the conversation for any politician or corporation looking to claim the mantle of ‘inclusivity.’
“History will be brutal to those responsible [for gender ideology]. But almost certainly not brutal enough,” wrote Andrew Sullivan last year, in a withering assessment of how sharply the cultural tides turned on the extremes of the transgender movement. He’s right. Sullivan’s assessment of the HRC now seems far more descriptive of many Americans’ perspective: a “morally bankrupt institution … using the scarred bodies of gender-dysphoric children to fundraise.”
But what’s to be our tactical response to organizations like the Human Rights Campaign, who focus much of their efforts on pressuring private companies to adopt radical activist agendas to avoid being deemed bigoted? The significance of the gender ideology debate is only growing — and the tides have mercifully turned away from narratives like the HRC’s, and back toward sanity and normalcy, President Trump’s recent executive order being one such example. It’s a huge win for the public sector — but how bad is it in the private sector, where activists have been hard at work implementing gender ideology for years?
It’s bad. The incursion of gender ideology into the workplace is perhaps most obvious in the healthcare sector. When it comes to the Human Rights Campaign, and their requirement that companies cover puberty blockers as part of their healthcare plans for a perfect score on their Corporate Equality Index, many of the biggest names in healthcare have bent the knee. Walgreens, UnitedHealth Group, Novo Nordisk, McKesson, and many more have perfect scores on the Index — in the absence of any information to the contrary, they’ve complied with activist demands and allowed gender ideology into their corporate policies.
And that’s not even addressing companies like AbbVie (a company my firm’s currently engaging with), that dodge scrutiny regarding the off-label use of their products as puberty blockers. Dodging scrutiny is a common pattern when it comes to the extent of corporate participation in the radical demands of gender ideology — but it’s a pattern we have the ability to break. […]
— Read More: www.dailywire.com
