The EU Commission’s Fake Consultation To Justify LGBT Policy

The European Commission has embarked on a phoney “consultation” for its LGBT strategy for 2026-2030. Under the guise of collecting evidence, the process more likely serves to rubber stamp predetermined outcomes.

In a less ideologically-orientated society, a consultation process would have indeed meant getting feedback from the populace on a controversial topic before a policy is drawn up, so that the politicians responsible would be able to carefully weigh the evidence and develop a strategy that addresses actual needs. 

But this is not the case in the EU anno 2025. For its LGBT policy, the European Commission has opted for an ideology-based approach. The consultation starts from the premise that alternative sexual orientations are unfairly discriminated against, and asks for evidence to this effect. This used to be called circular reasoning, not conducive to a functioning democratic society or good government. It is, in fact, very similar in approach to the late Pope Francis’s synodal process that allegedly involved the view of the people, but only invited certain people to speak in support of a document prepared in advance, which was then only finetuned by the participants. 

The result is predictable. In practice, the Commission calls on homosexuals and transgender people to confirm that they experience inequality. As all submissions that are approved are public, not many would dare offer evidence that is not called for, as it could unleash the wrath of pressure groups and could expose those who submitted it to harassment, as was the case with lesbian professor Kathleen Stock.  

The way in which the European Commission frames the discourse on sexual orientation is as questionable as the consultation process itself. LGBTIQ is a social construct. It is neither an organisation nor a coherent category, but a neo-Marxist linguistic descprition of reality that wants us to believe that there exists such a clearly defined segment of society that presents itself as one. Also, it suggests that there is a physical basis for this ‘community’ and its orientation, even adding intersex to the mix, an extremely rare physical condition, which is totally unrelated to the other five, which are psychological and social perceptions of personal identity or sexual orientation. 

That the EU Commission has opted for this sham consultation process to justify its policy is a sign of that latter’s vulnerability. If the normalisation of LGBT were desirable, wholesome, and based on facts, the European Commission should not be afraid to open up its consultation process for all evidence. The Commission also went well beyond its policy’s initial focus on hate-motivated harassment and violence, transforming it into an attempt to normalise LBGT and ban conversion practices. The question arises: why is there no intent to ban the most controversial conversion practice, transgender surgery, altogether within its borders? An expensive lifelong medical treatment with associated complications and the removal of healthy body parts, seems to be the most radical conversion therapy of all. 

One could also ask: is such a strategy even necessary, considering that there are already existing laws in the member states that protect LGBT people: the need to have legal means to prevent the hate-motivated harassment and violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, non-binary, intersex and queer (LGBTIQ) people is something that all EU countries subscribe to.  Why more bureaucracy and yet another expensive strategy? 

The EU Commission would do well to have another look at the desirability of its premise that aims to normalise LGBT in countries of the European Union and abroad. The European Parliament has poured vast amounts of money into promoting the mainstreaming of LGBT through the political agenda of Sustainable Development Goals in many countries that are averse to this normalisation for cultural and religious reason. 

It should certainly not be the intent of the Commission to make EU citizens surrender their cultural traditions on the normativity of traditional marriage, or to dictate which of our religious values on sexuality are acceptable and which no longer are. The Commission should rather base its LGBT strategy (if it must have one) on the psychological, physical and social components inherent to a minority sexual orientation, rooted in biological reality.