In recent years, the term “pinkwashing” has gained traction across various social and political discourses. Similarly to “greenwashing,” where environmental concerns are used superficially to project an eco-friendly image, pinkwashing involves the superficial promotion of LGBTQ+ friendliness to distract from negative behaviours, policies, or practices. This article aims to unpack the meaning of this concept, contextualise it within human rights and political discourse, and provide concrete examples of pinkwashing in action.
Pinkwashing, the portmanteau of “pink” and “whitewashing,” is the strategic use of LGBTQ+ rights or imagery to project a progressive and inclusive image, often to deflect criticism or enhance reputations without committing to genuine support for the LGBTQ+ community.
What Does “Pinkwashing” Mean?
The term “pinkwashing,” was coined in activist circles and popularised particularly by the academic and writer Sarah Schulman, in reference to Israel’s strategy of using gay rights to distract from and justify its violent treatment of Palestinians. At its core, pinkwashing is a form of propaganda. It uses the genuine struggle and progress of LGBTQ+ rights to present a facade of inclusivity and progressivism. This facade is often used by entities that otherwise engage in harmful or unethical behaviours, to shift public focus and criticism away from these negative actions by highlighting their supposed commitment to LGBTQ+ equality.
Pinkwashing echoes colonial tactics where imperial powers justified their invasions and occupations by portraying themselves as civilizing forces against the “barbarity” and “backwardness” of colonized regions. Just as colonial powers used narratives of racial and cultural superiority to legitimize their actions, pinkwashing uses narratives of sexual and gender progressivism to distract from other forms of oppression and violence.
Examples of Pinkwashing
While originally associated with Israel, the concept of pinkwashing has been expanded to critique similar strategies in various contexts. For example, in the corporate world, pinkwashing critiques highlight how companies may use LGBTQ+ rights to distract from unethical business practices or labour exploitation.
#1 Brand Israel Campaign
The term “pinkwashing” was coined in the context of Israel and this case represents one of the most known examples of state pinkwashing campaigns. Following the Second Intifada, Israel faced growing international scrutiny for its settlement expansions and treatment of Palestinians. In response to that concern, the “Brand Israel” campaign was launched in 2006, to improve the nation’s public image. The campaign sought to rebrand Israel from a militaristic state associated with violence and human rights abuses to a “relevant and modern” one, attractive for tourism, economic investment and political support. Under the guise of promoting security, self-defence, and Israel’s reputation as the only democracy in the Middle East, the Brand Israel campaign strategically utilized the LGBTQ+ rights movement to enhance its international perception, with the use of expensive public relations firms. This included initiatives like state-sponsored gay tourism, promoting Tel Aviv as a “gay mecca” and funding trips for influential gay celebrities and bloggers in exchange for positive publicity, but also efforts to reform the Israeli Army to be more open to the LGBTQ+ community.
This campaign has been faced with critique for several important reasons. On one hand, critics have called out the hypocrisy of branding Israel as a progressive gay haven, noting the homophobic far-right politicians widely present in the government, actively working to block equal rights initiatives. On top of that, while gay people enjoy certain civil rights such as recognition of same-sex marriage performed abroad, the practice is still impossible in Israel itself where marriages are legally administered solely by religious courts. Importantly, while Tel Aviv may be inclusive for certain members of the LGBTQ+ community, these freedoms are not extended to Palestinians and other marginalized groups within Israel. As pointed out by Queers Against Israeli Apartheid, “There is no pink door in the apartheid wall.” This means that queer Palestinians face intersecting challenges, experiencing oppression under Israeli apartheid policies alongside discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, as well as specific targeting by Israeli security services.
#2 Corporate Pinkwashing or “Rainbow Capitalism”
During Pride Month in June, many companies adorn their products and logos with rainbow colours as part of their marketing strategy. While some genuinely support the LGBTQ+ community, much of this corporate involvement can be categorized as pinkwashing—superficial support used primarily for profit.
Pride campaigns become problematic when they lack financial contributions to LGBTQ+ communities and activist organizations, when profits from Pride-themed merchandise do not benefit these causes, or when companies discriminate against LGBTQ+ individuals in their hiring practices. Especially concerning is when companies support homophobic, transphobic, or queerphobic politicians through funding or endorsements.
Companies that are vocal in their support during June but silent the rest of the year exemplify performative activism. For instance, Marks and Spencer received criticism for its “LGBT Sandwich” (standing for lettuce, guacamole, bacon and tomato) in 2019, which many viewed as trivializing LGBTQ+ issues and devoid of meaning. Another example of pinkwashing has been associated with Bud Light, which tried to cater to the “pink dollar” economy for a while through ads such as “Let’s Grab Beers Tonight, Queens.” However, Bud Light faced backlash when they collaborated with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney, who subsequently received transphobic attacks and hateful comments along with calls for a boycott of the brand from the right-wing media and consumers. Bud Light’s lack of response to these incidents or standing up to defend Mulvaney raised questions about their commitment to supporting LGBTQ+ individuals beyond superficial marketing – an issue already visible through their donations to homophobic politicians.
#3 Pinkwashing by Politicians
Pinkwashing also occurs in politics, notably during election campaigns, when politicians may adopt a pro-LGBTQ+ stance to attract voters, or when parties selectively use their LGBTQ+ members as tokens of representation to deflect criticism of their repressive agendas. For instance, during the 2020 campaign, Donald Trump waved a rainbow flag despite rolling back significant LGBTQ+ rights during his previous term. Similarly, French far-right politician Marine Le Pen distanced herself from her party’s traditional homophobic stance by appointing gay advisors Florian Philippot and Sébastien Chenu. She also linked her anti-immigration policies with concerns for LGBTQ+ people; for example, after the Orlando nightclub shooting, which was committed by an ISIS sympathiser, Le Pen expressed concern for LGBTQ+ safety.
An example of the second type of political pinkwashing can be seen in Alice Weidel, a prominent figure in Germany’s far-right party Alternative for Germany (AfD). Weidel identifies as a lesbian and is married to a woman, with whom she has two adopted children. The paradox of being in an interracial gay marriage while involved in a party notorious for promoting homophobic, racist, and Islamophobic beliefs has been sarcastically addressed with Weidel, implying that her being in the party must mean that AfD cannot possibly be homophobic. This form of political pinkwashing is concerning, as it exploits LGBTQ+ identity for political gain while diverting attention from policies and actions that perpetuate discrimination.
Implications of Pinkwashing
Pinkwashing has significant implications for both the queer community and broader society, some of which are:
#1 Superficial Allyship
Pinkwashing often leads to a superficial form of allyship that prioritises image over substance. While Pride initially commemorated protests against systemic violence, in many Western liberal countries, it has become a time for performative displays of allyship or “virtue signalling.” This trend can diminish the genuine struggles of the LGBTQ+ community, reducing their rights to mere marketing tools rather than pressing social justice issues requiring substantive support and advocacy.
#2 Commodification of LGBTQ+ Identities
Pinkwashing commodifies LGBTQ+ identities, turning them into a profitable market segment rather than recognising the community’s rights and needs. By reducing LGBTQ+ rights to marketable commodities, pinkwashing perpetuates a consumerist approach to activism, where the purchasing power of LGBTQ+ consumers is exploited without addressing systemic inequalities and discrimination.
#3 Obfuscation of Oppression
By using LGBTQ+ rights to mask other forms of oppression, pinkwashing can divert attention from serious issues. For instance, Israel’s promotion of its LGBTQ+ friendliness diverts attention from its violence against Palestinians, complicating a comprehensive assessment of its human rights record. Similarly, companies with poor records in employee treatment may use superficial support for LGBTQ+ causes to deflect from broader issues like workplace discrimination against queer people, women or migrant workers.
#4 Diversion of Resources
The focus on pinkwashing during Pride Month and other LGBTQ+ visibility events can divert resources and attention away from grassroots organisations and initiatives that are actively working to address systemic issues affecting LGBTQ+ individuals. As large corporations and governments dominate the narrative with superficial gestures, smaller organisations may struggle to secure funding and support for their vital advocacy work.
#5 Impact on Global LGBTQ+ Movements
Pinkwashing practices in Western countries can influence global perceptions and policies regarding LGBTQ+ rights. When powerful nations or multinational corporations promote a sanitised image of LGBTQ+ acceptance, it may overshadow the ongoing struggles for LGBTQ+ rights in less privileged regions. This can perpetuate a hierarchy of visibility and support, where certain LGBTQ+ communities receive more attention and resources than others based on geopolitical or economic considerations.
Pinkwashing – What Can You Do About It?
The struggle against pinkwashing is not a straightforward one, as the problem is rooted in structural forces such as imperialism, racism and capitalism. However, there are actions you can take to be more mindful, such as educating yourself and broadening your understanding of the issue, demanding transparency and accountability from companies and importantly, listening to marginalised queer voices. Here are some suggestions of actions you can take to not fall for pinkwashing tactics and champion solidarity instead of mere sympathy.
#1 Research and Scrutinise
Firstly, be vigilant about pinkwashing tactics. Companies often adopt a supportive stance towards LGBTQ+ communities for popularity without substantive commitments. Research beyond surface gestures to assess their actual LGBTQ+ advocacy, employee policies, and community engagement. Evaluate whether their Pride-themed initiatives translate into real benefits for LGBTQ+ communities. Support initiatives that prioritise meaningful actions over symbolic gestures.
#2 Call It Out and Spread Awareness
Educate your circle—friends, family, and peers—about pinkwashing and its implications. Encourage critical thinking and informed consumer choices when supporting brands and participating in Pride events. Advocate for inclusive policies in workplaces, schools, and community spaces that genuinely support LGBTQ+ individuals.
#3 Demand Transparency and Accountability
Engage directly with companies and organisations. Inquire about their LGBTQ+ policies, diversity initiatives, and ongoing actions beyond Pride Month. Direct your support towards businesses that consistently demonstrate meaningful support for LGBTQ+ communities throughout the year. Choose to support businesses and brands that have transparent and ethical practices towards LGBTQ+ employees and communities. Consider boycotting companies that engage in pinkwashing or fail to uphold LGBTQ+ rights.
#4 Amplify Authentic Voices
Elevate the voices of LGBTQ+ individuals from marginalised communities, including people of colour, transgender and non-binary people, and those facing intersecting forms of discrimination. Prioritise supporting grassroots LGBTQ+ organisations and initiatives that actively address systemic issues and advocate for meaningful social change.
#5 Embrace Intersectionality
As Audre Lorde aptly put it, “There is no hierarchy of oppression. I cannot afford the luxury of fighting one form of oppression only.” Recognise and address the interconnected nature of social justice issues, advocating for inclusive approaches that uplift all marginalised communities.
Further Learning
To explore the concept of pinkwashing in greater depth, we recommend the following books:
Sarah Schulman, Israel/Palestine and the Queer International (2012)
Jasbir Puar, Terrorist Assemblages: Homonationalism in Queer Times (2007)
Laurie Marhoefer, Racism and the Making of Gay Rights: A Sexologist, His Student, and the Empire of Queer Love(2022)
Elias Jahshan, This Arab is Queer: An Anthology by LGBTQ+ Arab Writers (2022)
