The Closure of ‘Into’ Matters. We Need More LGBT Media, Not Less

There was an LGBT dream team behind Grindr’s short-lived online magazine Into.

In its 17 short months, they delivered an ambitious mix of nationaland international LGBT reporting, cultural critique, and internet-breaking videos. Several members of the Into team, like ex-politics reporter Nico Lang, were—and still are—good friends whose talents I have long admired. The site they created together was fresh, new, and unabashed in its commitment to serving everyone in our community, be they gaylesbianbisexualtransgenderqueer, or non-binary.

It was the sort of publication that the 21st century LGBT community not only deserves, but so sorely needs. At a time when LGBT rights are under such obvious attack and the mainstream press responds with cowardly “both sides” journalism, there are too few outlets that treat our humanity as a settled question rather than a subject for debate.

The need for high-quality LGBT journalism has arguably never been more urgent.

With as many as 7 percent of millennials identifying as LGBT—and Gen Z paving the way for a future full of gender non-conformity—there are millions of Americans who have to turn to specialized outlets to feel adequately represented.

Although mainstream outlets can and do produce excellent LGBT coverage, it’s too often left to outlets like Into to present important viewpoints one might not encounter elsewhere.

For instance, when the transgender-themed Netflix film Girl was earning rave reviews in the Hollywood trades, Into’s Mathew Rodriguez highlighted the film’s uncomfortable fixation on the main character’s genitalia—and on transgender trauma more generally.

Rodriguez’s critique broke through the praise for the film—and as the Into staff noted in their farewell letter “helped start a national conversation” about its content. Mainstream outlets preferred to label Girl “controversial”; Rodriguez called it “trans trauma porn.” Read more via DailyBeast