THBT media companies exploit LGBTQ+ struggles for profit

Motion: THBT media companies exploit LGBTQ+ struggles for profit.

Proposition:

• Even though LGBTQ+ media companies pretend to address the root cause of the problem, which is social perception in today’s society, selling rainbow merch is bound to be exploitative towards these people. Admittedly, selling rainbow tote bags, watching related Netflix movies for the 6^th time, may seem an easy solution to raise awareness of the subject, but this might offer a superficial understanding of the issue. This doesn’t necessarily promote high-quality discourse between people. In fact, these companies reach higher visibility while they misrepresent that community, entrenching prejudices. In addition to this, they knowingly distort the reality surrounding these vulnerable people. This is tantamount to exploitation and rainbow capitalism!

• By and large, social media algorithms reward engaging content, which is why popular content can easily get caught up. Content creators seek to reach higher visibility online; therefore, they are very likely to make content that will engage more viewers, higher viewer retention, more reactions, etc. On top of this, content creators and media outlets are primarily driven by financial incentives, which encourages them to create emotionally intense, absurd, repetitive, and cheesy plots, culminating in blatant clichés. That said, such content still garners massive media attention as it evokes affective responses from its viewers. We need to realize that social media users, including LGBTQ+ people, are reduced to clicks and entertainment.

• As emotional storytelling moves beyond rational evaluation, some viewers don’t engage with LGBTQ+ issues critically and only remember the stereotype, instead of the deeper message of the movement, contracting harmful narratives. This is no different with media companies, as they knowingly commodify LGBTQ-related issues by prioritizing shock value over substance. This leads to the overrepresentation of stereotypical non-heterosexual tropes, lacking focus on their real struggles. In the end, this diverts attention from more accurate representations of these people in the media.

• A lot of companies only become fervent supporters in the pride month period. During this period, they want to construct an idealised image of themselves in their target audience’s eyes to garner sympathy. They are only interested in supporting non-heterosexual people insofar as it is trendy and in the mainstream. As has been the case, these LGBTQ+ campaigns from such media companies are just a form of virtue signalling to position themselves as socially inclusive in the market. Yet, there is very little personal involvement from these media companies’ side, if any, which leads to a hypocritical mindset while they deliberately disguise their real identity. Even if some workers of a company genuinely support the movement, their CEOs might not support the cause of the LGBTQ+ movement in reality. In this case, their subordinates’ opinions don’t really matter.

• As performative media depictions of these people reach higher visibility, this normalises that only stereotypical LGBTQ+ content gets media attention. Some non-heterosexual stakeholders might think that only by wearing soft clothing and rainbow sunglasses can one fit into the narrative that media companies construct. In fact, these companies are not interested in adapting their narrative to represent less flamboyant identities. This actually fosters less diversity and marginalises other expressions of LGBTQ+ people.

Opposition:

• A key objective of those companies that sell rainbow merch is to highlight typical problems that LGBTQ+ individuals are faced with on a daily basis. Proposition is not saying that all LGBTQ+ individuals would feel that their specific struggles are explicitly represented by media companies. We just simply say that, for example, some Netflix movies (Young Royals, Heated Rivalry), or books (The Song of Achilles, Red White & Royal Blue, Heartstopper), social media posts, usually from leftist media outlets or non-profit organizations (Telex, Háttér Társaság, BBC News, The Guardian), and rainbow-colored tote bags are an auspicious sign of social reform.

• Even if companies profit from LGBTQ+ struggles, this is not harmful exploitation but mutually beneficial amplification, acting as a symbiosis between the two parties. On the one hand, consumers can reach higher visibility online, which normalises LGBTQ+ as a social movement, leading to higher exposure to new narratives in society. On the other hand, media companies can gain profit. This is not exploitation but a win-win exchange between them. Exploitation is the unfair extraction of value from a group in a way that causes them harm or denies them agency. That said, LGBTQ+ individuals voluntarily engage with such content. Here is why!

• Following the media coverage of this issue, for example, social media makes it a lot easier to understand it, even for those people who are less into gender studies. Gender studies are a fiendishly hard concept to understand from academic literature that is filled with dry technical terminology. Nonetheless, media coverage by these companies democratizes knowledge about the LGBTQ+ movement and makes it accessible to people in a constructive way. Of course, opposition might argue that media coverage offers a superficial understanding of the subject, but they need to understand that this requires less cognitive effort than reading academic literature, which certainly appeals to a lot of people. LGBTQ+ companies selling media like this could serve as a first step for people to engage with the topic, based on which they can optionally delve further into those subareas of the topic they are interested in. Therefore, this is only the first step towards advocating for the LGBTQ+ movement. Because media companies create real educational value. Instead of exploiting, this empowers these individuals as they can become active agents in ameliorating the status quo.

• Part of the problem of LGBTQ+ people stems from the fact that those affected, as well as heterosexual people, often consider LGBTQ+ struggles a taboo, and therefore, they are less likely to talk openly about this in a constructive manner. That said, seeing other people wear rainbow tote bags, watch such Netflix movies, or share relevant content on Instagram or on TikTok encourages non-heterosexual people to become more open to discussing their problems with their environment. This will likely reduce stigma, which is why people eschew these topics. It is very likely to be the case, as the following historical event also underlines the very same thing.

• The first Pride March was held in the US in 1970, when a small number of dissenting voices began to emerge, displaying huge rainbow banners and flags. Similarly to their case, in the 21^st century, companies don’t sell these products to people because they want to exploit them financially, but because they know exactly that LGBTQ media serve as the instrument with the help of which this minority stands up for their rights. This was certainly the case as the movement has grown into a global movement and attracted massive media attention ever since, which further leads to more media engagement, whether online or not.
  

• What these media all share is that they aim to address the root cause of the issue, which can be boiled down to the public’s perception of the LGBTQ+ movement and learned hostile attitudes against them. To tackle these, such content is usually distributed on social media, where a large number of young adult users are present, encouraging them to challenge their elders’ beliefs as a short-term solution. However, as the young generation constitutes the backbone of those willing to change these perceptions, they are the ones who can potentially usher in a new period of inclusion for LGBTQ+ people in the long run. However, such educational content is made by media companies, or influencers are the byproduct of the movement. The overall insight that people gain through engaging with LGBTQ-related (online social) media content and the impact accessories have on their wearers simply outweighs the amount of money invested into buying them or consuming online media made by these companies. In today’s laissez-faire economies, as more and more people adopt more progressive views, this pushes companies to support real LGBTQ+ visibility.

• Advocates don’t ask everybody to become active supporters of this whole thing. They just want opposition to realise that the cause of the LGBTQ+ movement is important for some companies and people, and companies don’t seek to exploit the stakeholders who buy their products. Similarly, when dozens of people were selling LGBTQ+ stickers, T-shirts, and flags at the Pride March of Hungary in 2025, the ultimate objective of the whole event was to speak out against all forms of discrimination that non-heterosexual people are exposed to. Even if some companies got rich in selling merch to their customers, the ultimate goal remains unchanged, as hundreds of thousands of people marched on the streets bringing rainbow stuff in recognition of LGBTQ+ struggles.