Explaining Why That Pink-Haired Lesbian Is Marching in Support of Hamas
She's not crazy
If you believe in the importance of free speech, subscribe to support uncensored, fearless writing—the more people who pay, the more time I can devote to this. Free speech matters. I am a university professor suspended because of a free speech issue, so I am not speaking from the bleachers. The button below takes you to that story if you like.
Please subscribe and get at least three pieces /essays per week with open comments. It’s $5 per month and less than $USD 4. I know everyone says hey, it’s just a cup of coffee (with me, not per day but just one per month), but if you’re like me, you go, “Hey, I only want so many cups of coffee!” I get it. I don’t subscribe to many here because I can’t afford it.
But I only ask that when you choose your coffee, please choose mine. Cheers.
_______________________________________________
They aren’t crazy.
We have seen the signs, usually captured and thrown up on X (Twitter) and accompanied by indignant comments. Examples include “Trans for Hamas” or “LGBTQ+ for Hamas.”
(Note: CHAT GPT doesn’t allow the use of the word “Hamas”)
Many struggle to understand why they can support Hamas, a group that clearly states that transsexual or gay individuals should be put to death.
Parallels are made to fictional groups such as “Turkeys for Thanksgiving,” but such irrational believers are not mad or stupid.
Yet these true believers persist and seem immune to rational arguments.
The question is, why?
But before becoming utterly flummoxed, it’s important to note that pink-haired Hamas-loving lesbians are not the only example of irrational pursuits; persons with behavioural addictions, gaming, sexual obsessions, and other unsafe behaviours are also resistant to arguments that clearly show their behaviour runs contrary to their self-interest.
We should not assume that humans, as rational creatures, will always act in their interests.
Of course, it is a matter of scale, but do not most of us consistently act against our interests regarding diet, exercise, finances and relationship management?
But for extreme cases like our exemplar of a pink-haired lesbian who loves Hamas, psychologists have identified eleven key reasons why such a person would be supportive of a group that, if she were ever dropped in their vicinity, would soon be unalived.
Note: These reasons do not operate in isolation but mutually reinforce each other.
Cognitive dissonance.
Dissonance means musical sounds are not in harmony, not working together. Listening to dissonance hurts our ears.
Cognitive dissonance is the same; it is unpleasant, except it does not deal with sounds but deals with thoughts and belief systems.
Humans must move toward equilibrium or homeostasis, and it is difficult, if not impossible, to hold contradictory views simultaneously. One must push one concept out to make room for the chosen dominant position or thought.
Social psychologist Leon Festinger, the term's originator, showed how people, rather than resolving this discomfort by changing their beliefs, are more likely to “rationalise” or reinterpret information to align with pre-existing views.
Foucauldian interpretation of morality.
This comes from the postmodern scholar Michel Foucault, who said truth and morality are constructs shaped by power dynamics rather than absolute, objective standards.
This can influence individuals to adopt beliefs, or support causes contrary to their interests or survival. Michel Foucault argued that what societies consider “truth” or “moral” is not inherently true, not a static object, but fluid, the product of power relations shaped by those powerful persons who influence our world.
According to Foucault, power and knowledge are interdependent, with “truths” arising from the agendas and structures of those who dominate the cultural or political landscape.
When individuals internalise this view, they may see any “truth” as a manifestation of power rather than as something grounded in objective or universal principles.
They may see the common truth that identifies Hamas as barbaric murderers as simply a construct created from the uneven power balance between Western countries and Hamas. Thus, they could dismiss such “truth.”
This moral relativism leaves some people supporting causes based not on their self-interest or universal moral standards but on their perception of how their (aberrant) beliefs validate their desire to resist or oppose dominant power structures.
In this Foucauldian framework, opposing power—particularly Western or colonial power—can become a moral priority, sometimes overshadowing personal safety or identity considerations.
Therefore, supporting Hamas, despite its anti-LGBTQ+ stance, may be seen as aligning with an “oppressed” group against what is perceived as a more dominant power. This perspective can distort moral priorities, creating sympathies that, on the surface, appear self-destructive or paradoxical.
Psychologist Festinger famously wrote. “Tell him you disagree, and he turns away. Show him facts or figures, and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic, but he fails to see your point.”
When it comes to addiction or an addiction to an aberrant belief system, this is why individuals may rationalise their continued use of a harmful substance or believe in harmful ideas, even if they know it’s damaging.
The cognitive dissonance caused by the knowledge of harm and the desire for the substance leads them to reinterpret or minimise the risks.
Neurological Mechanisms: We’re drug addicts, and our brains are the dealer.
A deep belief in an idea that is irrational or even opposed to a person’s survival can indeed be tied to the brain’s dopamine reward system, and this connection helps explain why such beliefs can be so resilient.
The dopamine reward system is a neural pathway that reinforces behaviours by releasing dopamine, a neurotransmitter associated with pleasure, motivation, and reward, whenever we engage in activities or thoughts that bring social validation, pleasure, or purpose.
Research by neuroscientist Molly Crockett has shown that moral emotions—such as anger, outrage, and moral righteousness—activate the brain’s reward circuits. By reinforcing beliefs tied to these emotions, the dopamine system creates a cycle in which individuals feel a sense of satisfaction and even euphoria from standing by their moral convictions.
This effect can make individuals more likely to support causes that may be detrimental to them personally as long as they perceive them as morally superior or just.
The brain’s reward system is also closely linked to confirmation bias, where individuals seek information or interactions that validate their beliefs and ignore contradictory evidence. When people find information that confirms their worldview or ideological commitments, they experience a dopamine boost, reinforcing the belief and making them feel validated.
Over time, this creates a feedback loop where the individual becomes more deeply entrenched in the belief, regardless of whether it aligns with their self-interest.
This reward-driven confirmation bias can make it difficult for someone to assess harmful beliefs objectively. People may experience pleasure and satisfaction simply by finding or engaging with content that confirms their ideological stance, strengthening their commitment and making it resistant to change. Even in the face of evidence that a belief is contrary to their survival, the brain’s dopamine reinforcement can create a strong attachment to that belief.
When a person commits to an idea or cause—especially one that is socially significant or highly valued within their community—the dopamine system can reinforce this commitment by generating positive feelings associated with that belief.
Even if the idea is irrational or detrimental to the individual’s survival, the brain may prioritise the immediate rewards (such as feeling connected, purposeful, or righteous) over longer-term consequences.
The dopamine reward system works with other motivation systems, such as:
Social Validation and Group Belonging.
Humans are social creatures, and a large part of our identity and satisfaction comes from belonging to a group.
Validation, or acknowledging and accepting one’s feelings, thoughts, and actions, is critical in mental well-being and emotional stability. When others validate us, we feel understood and valued, reinforcing our self-worth. This need for validation starts early in life—infants and children depend on caregivers for physical needs and emotional affirmation. If someone finds validation in a group with aberrant beliefs, they may subconsciously value that validation more than their internal voice of reason.
Losing validation, social connections, and positive reinforcement is too great a pain to change their thinking about Hamas.
For example, an LGBTQ+ individual who supports a movement like Hamas might receive validation from peers who also sympathise with anti-imperialist or anti-Western causes. This social reward can reinforce their commitment to the cause, even if it contradicts their self-interest.
Psychologist Matthew Lieberman found that social rewards like acceptance or praise activate the same neural pathways as other rewards, making social belonging a powerful motivator that can override logical reasoning. The dopamine released when someone feels accepted or validated by a group is enough to reinforce their allegiance to the group’s beliefs, even if those beliefs are ultimately self-destructive.
Moral Absolutism and the “High” of Righteousness
Taking a morally absolute stance on the purity of one’s cause, where one has identified a clear “good” vs “evil,” can create an extremely rewarding sense of purpose and clarity, a euphoria juiced up by the chemicals created by one's brain.
When individuals feel they are fighting for a just cause, especially one with high stakes, the dopamine reward system reinforces this sense of righteousness and purpose, creating a “moral high.” Being on the “right side” can be intoxicating and lead people to overlook the personal costs associated with their beliefs.
Though it likely doesn’t apply to our mythical pink-haired pro-Hamas lesbian from Scarborough, the radical Palestinian movement in the West is fed and nurtured by its Eastern enablers. The Palestinian movement utilises a range of social, educational, and cultural practices to instil moral absolutism in its followers from an early age.
This approach to indoctrination involves a highly structured environment that frames the conflict with Israel as a simple battle of good versus evil, leaving little room for nuanced perspectives or critical thought.
Through educational curricula, religious messaging, cultural reinforcement, and social validation, young Palestinians are often socialised into a worldview that frames their struggle as absolute and existential.
This black-and-white moral perspective becomes deeply embedded and forms the basis of their identity and sense of purpose. It is incredibly difficult to go against such a deeply embedded belief system. Their upbringing is a tremendous sunk cost, and throwing that away is very painful.
Studies by the Institute for Monitoring Peace and Cultural Tolerance in School Education (IMPACT-se) have found that some Palestinian textbooks in territories governed by Hamas promote violent resistance, dehumanise Israelis, and often omit any references to peaceful coexistence.
This type of education makes it difficult for children to grow up seeing Israelis as anything but enemies, as they are systematically taught that the conflict is a fight for survival against an evil oppressor.
This educational foundation lays the groundwork for moral absolutism by embedding the idea that there is a clear, unequivocal “right” (the Palestinian struggle) and an undeniable “wrong” (Israel) from a young age.
Psychologically, moral absolutism also allows individuals to view themselves as part of a larger, heroic narrative. This provides an emotionally satisfying sense of pride and belonging, even if it leads them to adopt a rigid, one-sided view of the conflict. For those whose lives are marked by daily conflict, moral absolutism can become a comforting certainty in a world filled with fear and uncertainty.
Positive moral mathematics
Festinger said that when faced with conflicting beliefs, people often resolve them by “adding new consonant beliefs or changing the importance of the dissonant elements.” LGBTQ+ supporters of these regimes might downplay the regime’s anti-gay stance by emphasising its anti-imperialist or anti-Western positions.
This selective focus provides a cognitive “escape hatch,” allowing them to support the regime without confronting the full implications of its policies.
LGBTQ+ individuals who view opposition to Western influence as a defining moral stance might feel a sense of solidarity with any regime that claims to resist Western influence, even if that regime is antithetical to LGBTQ+ rights. They may come to see their support as a form of resistance against a larger perceived injustice, effectively suppressing the dissonance about the regime’s homophobia.
The Role of Willful Blindness and Motivated Reasoning
Law professor Margaret Heffernan popularised this term as ignoring uncomfortable truths to maintain a preferred narrative or avoid conflict. People may choose not to see certain aspects of a regime’s policies because acknowledging them would create internal conflict and perhaps even social alienation.
For LGBTQ+ supporters of a regime with anti-gay policies, acknowledging the regime’s hostility would create an internal conflict that disrupts their worldview or their standing within a supportive community. In other words, ignoring or downplaying the regime’s stance allows them to maintain their allegiance without facing the full consequences of that support.
Additionally, motivated reasoning—the tendency to process information in a way that supports one’s existing beliefs—further reinforces this willful blindness.
People naturally seek information that confirms their worldview and avoids information that contradicts it. This bias is especially strong when an issue is tied to personal identity or deeply held values.
Thus, LGBTQ+ individuals may unconsciously prioritise information that paints the regime in a positive light while rationalising or downplaying evidence of its oppressive policies.
Sunk Cost Fallacy and Commitment Bias.
The sunk cost fallacy is the psychological tendency to continue supporting something already invested significantly, even when it no longer aligns with one’s best interests.
For individuals who have committed significant time, emotional energy, or social capital to support an ideology or regime, acknowledging its contradictions can feel like a betrayal or a “waste” of their previous investment. This is known as commitment bias—the tendency to stay committed to a cause even when evidence suggests it is harmful or wrong.
In addiction studies, this is often compared to why some individuals continue substance use despite the mounting negative consequences. G. Alan Marlatt explains that addicts frequently rationalise their behaviour, reasoning that they’ve already “gone this far” and that stopping would mean accepting the pain and consequences of their past decisions.
In much the same way, LGBTQ+ individuals who have already aligned themselves with a particular regime may find it psychologically easier to continue their support rather than admit they were wrong or change their stance.
9. Intersectionality and Perceived Hierarchies of Oppression
In many activist circles, issues are often framed through the lens of intersectionality—the idea that various forms of oppression (such as racism, sexism, and homophobia) intersect in complex ways.
This framing can lead some individuals to prioritise struggles they perceive as “more pressing” or “foundational” over others.
In this hierarchy of oppression, an LGBTQ+ individual might place anti-imperialism or anti-colonialism above LGBTQ+ rights, justifying their support for a regime with anti-gay policies as part of a broader fight against what they see as systemic Western oppression.
In cases where an LGBTQ+ person’s activist group emphasises certain types of injustice over others, they may come to view these causes as more urgent, rationalising their support for a regime that doesn’t align with all of their values.