Not All Queer Parents Are Treated Equally
These Instagram pictures show two happy new parents and their newborn children, enjoying their first plane ride as a family.
Does the Internet see it that way?
No, the Internet and the social media trolls who, unfortunately, make up a significant portion of the online discourse, have decided that these pictures and this family are an abomination.
Why? Simply because they are different.
These photos show Joseph and Nathan Hughes, a gay couple who have been together for about 13 years. They are influencers who own a salon business together (1). Joseph has 124,000 followers on Instagram (https://www.instagram.com/josephryanwayne/), and their salon, Ryan Wayne Salon, has almost 40,000 followers (https://www.instagram.com/ryanwaynesalon/).
Followers are not everything, but they do demonstrate a level of success and professionalism that these two have accomplished, and it supports the claim that they are celebrities in their own fields of beauty and nail salons.
However, Joseph and Nathan tried to commemorate their growing rainbow family when traveling back from Mexico, and the response has been overwhelmingly critical of them, how they look, their children, and their entire family, which is so incredibly sad.
This type of reaction is, fortunately, not common when it comes to new queer celebrity parents or straight celebrity parents who have utilized assisted reproductive technology (ART) such as surrogacy.
For example, lesbian celebrity couple Brittney and Cherelle Griner, who are most well known for their fight against President Vladimir Putin to free basketball star, Brittney, from wrongful incarceration in a Russian prison camp, recently announced the birth of their first son via US Magazine (2)
Single mom and celebrity supermodel, Naomi Campbell, has also been featured praising surrogacy, which has allowed her to become a mother later in life. A process she has described simply as, ‘It’s worth it.’ (3)
Another gay celebrity couple, Couton Underwood and Jordan C. Brown, were recently featured in People Magazine showcasing their son’s nursery as they anxiously await his birth via their gestational carrier (4).
Don’t get me wrong, I love all these examples of queer couples and celebrity singles using ART to have their own amazing families.
However, while they are celebrated on the pages of US Weekly and People Magazine, Joseph and Nathan Hughes are being attacked on their own social media posts.
While I am sure that celebrity queer couples like the Griners, Underwood-Browns, and even Elton John and David Furnish have their own haters to contend with, there is something critically different about their presentation of family compared to the Hughes.
Simple put, the Hughes parents are more queer forward. They cannot (and should not) have to hide how they present or what they showcase to the world. Their long hair, makeup, and uniqueness should be celebrated and not shamed. However, the world finds their less gender conforming presence to be an affront that they have to call out, especially when it comes to them having children.
When it comes to children being presented with gender fluidity, drag queens have been fighting this battle for almost a decade. In 2015, Drag Queen Story Hour was started in San Francisco, and it has become an international movement to try and make reading fun for children (5). Something that was done out of goodness to help children learn was mutated into hate by the conservative community, stating that drag queens should not be ‘infecting’ children with their creative outfits and personas.
This is ludicrous considering children could care less about gender roles and norms and just want to be entertained. Kids love Disney characters, so what’s not to love about a larger-than-life and colorful drag queen? Absolutely nothing, but still, it is seen as too ‘queer’ for the children, and so Drag Queen Story Hour (and the children it aims to help) has continued to struggle and fight conservatism.
This same conservative criticism is what is now swarming Joseph and Nathan Hughes. They are the target because they are more other, more obvious, more different than some other celebrity parents, so they are easier to attack and vilify.
What these critics usually get wrong is they are criticizing the wrong thing. No parent should be criticized for what they look like, who they love, or how they identify. They should be criticized for being a bad parent.
But the Hughes offer their children an upbringing that values uniqueness. They will help their children to love the things about them that are different. They will teach their children resilience and to stand up for what they believe in, even if it is not popular or what everyone else is doing.
Shouldn’t we value these aspects of parents, and not just if someone ‘looks’ like a good parent?
Again, this is not to take away from all the other amazing queer parents, celebrity or not. All queer parents are pushing the envelope on what being a parent means, and that’s a great thing. However, being a queer parent is harder for some than for others. This could be because of how the parents present themselves to the world; how they identify; or even if they are single, coupled, or throupled.
Being a trailblazer is hard, and it comes with a lot of (un)wanted attention. But the solution is to push forward. More queer parents, more rainbow families, more sharing of these stories, truths, and uniqueness until we remove the damaging label of ‘normal’ and just allow everyone to ‘be.’
Sometimes, these pushes are harder than others. Joseph and Nathan Hughes, you are pushing boundaries, and I am so happy for you and proud to be part of this rainbow family community with you. Keep fighting for what you want and showcasing the love you have for your new children. It’s beautiful, no matter what they say…words can’t bring you down.
They won’t bring any of us down, and hopefully the next generation, the one that we help to grow and teach, will make it even easier for everyone to be themselves, love themselves, and judge themselves and others a little less harshly.
References: