Anti-LGBT Activists and Their Dark Secrets: Why "Moral Defenders" Are So Often the Main Violators of Their Own Principles

✦ This article is published as written by the author. The opinions, assessments, and conclusions expressed in the text are those of the author and may not reflect the position of the Doberman.media editorial board. The editorial board is not responsible for the author’s interpretations, statements, or conclusions.

We've all heard about case Robert John "RJ" May, a former lawmaker from South Carolina who has been beating the drum of anti-LGBT rhetoric "for the protection of children" for years, and he himself distributed materials of sexual abuse of children and received 17.5 years in prison as a result.  This is not an accident, but a pattern. Why is the world so arranged that those who are guilty of terrible things themselves often become the most vocal "defenders of morality"? Let's figure it out — with psychology, politics, and examples. And yes, let's touch on the CIS: is it worth checking the activities of people like Milonov, Mizulina or those who promote "anti-propaganda"?

Psychology: Reactionary Formation and Projection

In psychology, this is called reaction formation (according to Freud) – when a person denies his dark impulses, turning them into the opposite. That is, if forbidden desires or guilt are boiling inside, they are disguised as an aggressive "fight" against the same. Anti-LGBT screamers often project their problems onto us: "It's not me a pedophile - it's gays/trans/drag people who threaten children!"

This gives them a sense of control and moral superiority. Studies show that such people may have internalized homophobia or trauma, but instead of therapy, they choose scapegoating — blaming others to distract from themselves.  And when the truth comes out, there is a boom, a scandal. This is not about all conservatives, but the pattern is noticeable: those who have a snout in the cannon shout the loudest.

Politics: Distraction and Power 

In politics, this is a tool. Anti-LGBT rhetoric is a cheap way to mobilize the base: "Look, the enemy is in the rainbow, not in corruption or poverty!"

In the U.S., people like May were part of ultraconservative groups like Freedom Caucus, where "child protection" is code for attacks on trans sports, affirming care, and drag. But what's behind the scenes? Scandals:

Stacie-Marie Laughton, the first trans MP in New Hampshire (Democrat), convicted of participating in the creation of CSAM with kindergarten children. 

Kendall Stephens, an LGBT activist from Philadelphia, accused of raping two children. 

Jared Woodfill, an anti-gay activist from Texas, was aware of allegations of child sexual abuse by a colleague but remained silent. 

And the list is long, from Republicans like Ed Schrock (accused of gay sex despite his anti-gay stance) to others. 

This is not about the party - hypocrisy is everywhere. But in countries with a strong anti-LGBT agenda (USA, Russia, Hungary), this masks the real problems: real pedophiles often hide in "moral" circles, and LGBTQ+ people are demonized as "groomers". 

Support independent journalism. This is not a pop-up. You can scroll further or dismiss this notification

Doberman Media works without investors and grants – only thanks to you. Your help, even a small one, allows us to continue our work. Help us survive: subscribe or support one-time. No way to donate? Just forward this text to a friend.

And what about the CIS? Is it worth checking the ministers, deputies and propagandists who put our community in danger?

In the CIS countries (Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan), anti-LGBT laws are often presented as "protecting children from propaganda", but in fact they create an atmosphere of fear, persecution and violence. This puts queer people in real danger, from fines and arrests to forced emigration, job loss, and even physical harm. The hypocrisy pattern here is similar to the global one: the rhetoric "for children" distracts from corruption, authoritarian practices, and real problems with the protection of minors (for example, domestic violence or exploitation). But is it worth checking these figures? Absolutely, but only legally and ethically to avoid repression and speculation.

Let's take examples:

Vitaly Milonov (Deputy of the State Duma of the Russian Federation, United Russia): Author of the St. Petersburg law on "propaganda of homosexuality" in 2012, which became the basis for the federal one. He compared LGBTQ+ to bestiality and pedophilia, demanded bans on gay marriage and rainbow flags, accusing us of "insulting families." Scandals? Anti-Semitic statements (2014), support for extremist slogans ("Orthodoxy or death"), which were recognized as extremism, but he evaded the fine due to immunity. However, his rhetoric reinforces the stigma that hits queer youth.

Elena Mizulina (ex-senator of the Russian Federation, author of many anti-LGBT initiatives): Promoted "anti-propaganda" and decriminalization of domestic violence (2017), which is ironic, given the focus on "child protection". Its laws have led to harassment, including fines for teenagers for social media posts (like Maxim Neverov, a 16-year-old activist fined for a photo). Hypocrisy? She positions herself as a "defender of traditions," but her policies weaken real protections against domestic violence. In addition, there are rumors about her son Nikolai Mizulin: allegedly he is gay and even "married a man" in the United States (rumors have been circulating since 2013-2015, repeated in the media and blogs). Nikolay lives in Belgium, works as a partner at the law firm Mayer Brown, which actively supports the LGBT community and is considered "the best place for LGBT lawyers".    Nikolai himself refuses to comment on his mother's policy. If the rumors are true, this is a classic hypocrisy: an anti-LGBT activist whose son is (allegedly) part of the community, living in a country with same-sex marriage. But rumors are rumors, they have not been proven, and may be part of a smear campaign; However, they highlight the contrast between public rhetoric and private life.

Propagandists like Olga Skabeeva or Vladimir Solovyov (TV presenters on Russian state TV): They regularly demonize LGBTQ+ as a "Western threat to children", sowing hatred. Skabeeva accused the queer community of "debauchery of youth," and Solovyov of "undermining demography." Their rhetoric fuels violence: after such shows, attacks on queer people increase.

About Solovyov's son Daniel: rumors that he is gay have been circulating since 2023 - allegedly he visited gay clubs in London, worked as a model and avoided mobilization.    Solovyov himself denies that his son models in London, and says that he is in Moscow, studying at a "good university." If the rumors of gay orientation are true, this is hypocrisy: a homophobic propagandist whose son is (allegedly) LGBT and lives in the "rotten West."