It’s Not Resistance, It’s Fear: Why Institutions Hesitate on LGBTQ+ Advocacy
Here’s what we can do to overcome our fear.
Over the last five years, we have often received questions from reporters and journalists about resistance to the work of Toward Pride. There is an assumption that institutions are inherently, or even inevitably, resistant to LGBTQ+ thriving and flourishing. That assumption shapes expectations and makes slow progress feel unavoidable. But in our experience, what we encounter is not resistance as much as it is fear.
Most of the institutions we work with are not firmly opposed to LGBTQ+ inclusion, advocacy, or thriving. They are not closed off or unwilling to engage. Many are already asking questions. They are trying to understand what it means to respond well. Some have taken initial steps. They are not starting from rejection. They are starting from proximity. And yet, they often remain there. They stay close to affirmation without fully stepping into it. Openness shows up in statements, but not always in systems. It does not always translate into consistent practice, policy, or decision-making.
As a result, people encounter different levels of care depending on where they are, who they speak with, or what moment they enter. What keeps institutions in that space is the fear of getting it wrong. That fear shows up in hesitation. It shows up in extended timelines, in repeated conversations without decisions, and in a desire for more clarity before taking action. It reflects a real concern about making mistakes, about being criticized, and about having to publicly reckon with harm. That instinct is understandable. No institution wants to cause harm.
At the same time, waiting for certainty can become a form of inaction. People are still showing up. They are still seeking care. They are still navigating systems as they exist today. When institutions delay action, the impact is not abstract. It is experienced in intake processes, in conversations with staff, in whether someone feels seen or has to explain themselves again. The fear is about getting it wrong, but the consequence of not moving is often overlooked. Inaction does not remove risk. What we have learned is that many institutions are closer than they think. The gap is not always knowledge. It is often the distance between intention and implementation.
Closing that gap does not require perfection. It requires movement. For institutions trying to move forward, a few shifts can make a difference:
Center lived experience: Create consistent ways to hear directly from the people you serve. This can include feedback forms, structured listening sessions, storytelling opportunities, and shared leadership models.
Test and adjust: Small, intentional changes create momentum and provide real feedback. Waiting for a perfect plan often delays progress. Build accountability into the process. Do not wait for harm to surface before creating structures that allow for feedback and correction.
Focus on consistency, not perfection: The goal is not isolated moments of excellence. It is ensuring that care does not depend on who someone encounters.
The institutions that make the most progress are not the ones without fear. They are the ones that do not allow fear to be the final decision-maker. They move with intention. They remain open to learning. They adjust in real time. This work does not require certainty. It requires a willingness to act, to listen, and to respond. The invitation is to confront the fear directly. To name it. To be clear about what it is protecting. And to decide whether it will continue to determine what happens next. Because for the people navigating these systems, the experience of care is shaped not by what institutions intend, but by what they choose to do.
