There is a comforting story many of us tell about progress. We imagine rights arrive because the world improves, knowledge spreads, time passes, and people naturally become kinder. We picture history as a staircase that society slowly climbs together. Anyone paying attention now understands that is not how this works. Rights survive only when someone decides to hold them in place. In tonight’s State of the Union address , the president introduced a Virginia teenager and her family, framed their experience as evidence that states are “ripping children from their parents’ arms,” and concluded with a call to ban gender-affirming care for minors immediately. A complex and deeply personal situation was compressed into a simple morality tale designed to generate applause. Within moments, a single family’s experience became the basis for sweeping national prohibition. Political speeches often elevate individual stories to humanize public policy, but this was something different. Here the young person’s life was enlisted as proof of a broader cultural crisis. Family dynamics, medical realities, and ongoing legal proceedings were flattened into a narrative of urgency and threat. The audience was invited to feel alarm rather than curiosity and certainty rather than compassion. Anecdote became mandate in a matter of seconds, and a child’s vulnerability was transformed into justification for federal intervention. When a president uses a child’s experience to argue that the nation must ban care outright, the signal sent to transgender youth watching at home is unmistakable. Your existence is controversial enough to serve as national theater. Your life can be distilled into a line designed to win a room. That move may be politically efficient, but it is morally thin. It converts vulnerability into spectacle and substitutes emotional reaction for responsible governance. I have seen what a different response looks like . During my time leading communications at Girl Scouts of the USA , our organization faced national scrutiny over a transgender girl’s participation. We did not elevate her as a symbol or reduce her to a talking point. We protected her privacy, consulted experts in child development and medicine, engaged directly with families and local councils, and centered her well-being rather than the noise surrounding her. We understood that once a child becomes a proxy for cultural anxiety, the adults have already failed. The temperature never reached a boil because the people with authority refused to let it. Nothing about that response required theatrical bravery. It required adulthood. That distinction matters now because the institutions that once absorbed pressure are increasingly stepping back from it. Courts narrow protections, politicians hedge, and leaders who once spoke fluently about inclusion retreat into careful half-sentences or silence. When institutions release pressure, it does not disappear. Responsibility moves downward. Which means this moment no longer belongs primarily to institutions. It belongs to communities, and especially to those inside the LGBTQ+ community who have reached a measure of safety. Every civil rights movement contains the same uncomfortable truth. The people who benefit first are rarely the people most at risk. Stability arrives unevenly. Some become legible to society earlier than others and are granted familiarity and distance from controversy. Once that distance exists, the temptation is to treat it as permanence. But social acceptance is not an individual achievement. It is a collective loan. For decades, lesbians, trans people, gender-nonconforming people, and queer youth absorbed the cultural impact that allowed a broader public to become accustomed to our existence at all. Visibility did not begin with the most comfortable among us. It began with the most vulnerable. I remember being openly gay in the early 1990s during the AIDS crisis and the era of "Don’t ask, don’t tell," when public life felt saturated with arguments about whether people like me should have rights, equality, or even the space to exist openly. I watched television as adults debated my legitimacy in rooms I would never enter, and the defining feature of that experience was not only hostility but isolation. The conversation was everywhere, and the people being discussed were rarely in the room. The atmosphere surrounding transgender people now feels painfully familiar. Their lives are discussed constantly while their presence is minimized, and policies governing their existence are argued by people who do not have to live inside the consequences. When no one interrupts that pattern, the silence around them becomes part of the message. Now the pressure has narrowed again, specifically and deliberately, onto transgender people and especially transgender kids. History repeats a familiar bargain. When a minority becomes broadly tolerated, society redraws the boundary around a smaller group and asks the newly accepted majority to demonstrate reasonableness by distancing itself. Respectability is offered in exchange for restraint, and many people accept it while convincing themselves they are simply being pragmatic. You can hear it in the disclaimers, the softened language, and the sudden confidence about which members of a community are now considered to be complicating things. This is the moment a movement discovers what it actually believes about itself, because the question is no longer whether the public understands transgender people but whether those who were once defended understand their obligation to defend. The Girl Scouts example matters not because institutions are inherently benevolent, but because adults refused to push responsibility onto someone smaller than themselves. They did not wait for public opinion to stabilize. They stabilized it. Right now, many LGBTQ+ adults are waiting for political cover that is unlikely to arrive soon. They are waiting for courts to settle the issue or for controversy to exhaust itself, and some hope that distance will preserve the acceptance they have already gained. History suggests the opposite. Rights that are not defended together are eventually renegotiated individually. Children do not live in historical timelines. They live in the present tense, which means every generation inherits a moment when the assumption that someone else will handle this disappears. For this generation of LGBTQ+ adults, that moment is here: in school boards, family conversations, workplaces, and everyday speech. Solidarity matters most when association feels inconvenient or socially risky. The measure of a community is not whether it celebrates itself at its safest point but whether it recognizes itself in the member currently being singled out and refuses to look away. We already know what responsible behavior looks like because we have seen it done calmly, successfully, and without social collapse. The question now is not whether the template exists but whether we are willing to use it without being instructed. Progress does not move forward on its own. It is carried by people deciding they are the adults in the room even when no one appointed them. This is one of those moments. Josh Ackley is a political strategist and the frontman of the queerpunk band The Dead Betties. @momdarkness @thedeadbetties Voices is dedicated to featuring a wide range of inspiring personal stories and impactful opinions from the LGBTQ + community and its allies. Visit out.com/submit to learn more about submission guidelines. We welcome your thoughts and feedback on any of our stories. Email us at voices@equalpride.com. Views expressed in Voices stories are those of the guest writers, columnists, and editors, and do not directly represent the views of Out or our parent company, equalpride.