With another year’s Pride Month behind us, it takes its reign of identity affirming terror along with it. As always, countless companies and brands engaged in celebrating the month.
MLB updated its logo with the Pride flag, Sesame Street posted in solidarity with Pride Month, and numerous local schools and libraries worked to incorporate the faux-holiday into a month-long celebration. Even as brands like Target and Anheuser-Busch scale back their Pride-themed marketing in response to backlash, the broader cultural influence of LGBT ideology remains firmly embedded in institutions, media, and fashion. At its core, Pride Month is no longer a call for tolerance, but a cultural engine that normalizes gender ambiguity, undermines traditional male-female relationships, and reshapes youth identity through the subtle promotion of androgyny, the blending of masculine and feminine characteristics.
For several years, June was a clear source of ire, often associated with explicit Pride parades and unavoidable rainbow attire. To many, it signaled a rejection of traditional family norms and the promotion of more deviant sexual lifestyles seen as incompatible with those values. Its clearly stated purpose was to celebrate the “alternative lifestyles” that were responsible for breaking apart traditional family structures. Despite conservatives now recognizing the danger Pride Month poses, its sinister long-term effects may still be lurking beneath the surface.
For many young people, Pride Month is far from the only month during which they celebrate their LGBT lifestyles. Currently, over 22% of Gen Z adults identify as something other than heterosexual. The increase in LGBT adults is not merely a coincidence, but comes as the result of intentionally blurring the differences between men and women. As the lines demarcating the two sexes are blurred, heterosexual lifestyles have become less common. The number of households headed by same-sex couples has increased by 131% since 2014. Pride Month is part of a much larger movement that pretends LGBT individuals are still being violently discriminated against, while in reality, they have become mainstream.
One key way that the pride movement undermined male and female relationships is through promoting androgyny. Nearly 7% of Gen Z individuals identify as non-binary. This indicates a growing generation of young people who reject their sex and are uncomfortable with traditional gender roles.
Androgyny is an easy way to indoctrinate youths into the LGBT movement. While openly coming out as gay, lesbian, or transgender may be a difficult line to cross, the noncommittal choice of androgyny is far more comfortable. Androgyny offers a way to express nonconformity without fully embracing a transgender or non-heterosexual identity, making it an appealing entry point into a culture increasingly centered around perceived marginalization. In the past, awkward teenagers were resigned to a few uncomfortable years of patchy facial hair, gangly limbs, and acne.
Nowadays, those awkward years are often masked by wearing oversized, boxy clothing like men’s crewnecks, Carhartt boots, and cargo pants. This trend has taken over TikTok and middle schools, with young girls opting for menswear above feminine clothing options. While it’s difficult to prove a direct causal relationship, the rise in androgynous fashion may be a symptom of deeper cultural shifts in how gender and sexuality are understood.
Although Target may have scaled back its direct Pride Month celebrations, it still promotes the LGBT agenda through the promotion of androgyny. Many clothing brands do so unconsciously, highlighting how deeply ingrained it’s become in today’s culture. In the spring of 2025, one of the top trends among runway fashion shows was “corporatecore,” a style that heavily relies on women donning men’s clothing. This pivot reflects a broader trend away from styles that highlight feminine distinctions, toward a uniform aesthetic that favors neutrality and anonymity over grace or gendered expression. Brands like Saint Laurent and Stella McCartney ditched their classical designs that inspired femininity in favor of grey suits, briefcase-style handbags, and square silhouettes.
These companies likely aren’t intentionally promoting an LGBT agenda, but are instead capitalizing on prevailing trends. Corporations always follow the money, and there is an increasing interest in androgynous fashion and lifestyles. This can even be found in the most traditional parochial schools. Many schools requiring uniforms have increasingly relaxed their policies mandating girls to wear skirts or dresses to school. In recent years, a charter school in North Carolina used Title IX to remove requirements of girls wearing skirts or dresses to class. A rising number of parents and young people have called for inclusive uniform codes that allow girls to wear trousers. Although these rules may seem outdated, their opposition indicates a shift in expectations for how men and women are identified.
It is now striking to recall that manners classes were once an essential part of a young girl’s upbringing. Companies like Sears offered “Charm School” classes for $15 to girls aged 9 to 19. Women learned to cross their legs, apply makeup, and dress in clothing that flattered their body type. These kitschy experiences were valuable because they reinforced the differences between men and women. As those differences are swept aside in favor of inclusivity, young people lose the chance to understand their God-given, natural identity.
The pride movement has not disappeared or been shamed out of existence, but it has evolved. Younger generations have found a way to make their sexual identity their entire personality through embracing androgyny. They seek to bypass the discomfort of puberty by hiding themselves in a culture that downplays the distinguishing characteristics of boys and girls. Unless we return to celebrating the distinct strengths of masculinity and femininity, we risk raising a generation for whom confusion is a virtue and rooted identity a threat.
