Three attacks, one pattern

Sexual freedom as a touchstone for democracies 

Authoritarian and totalitarian systems differ in history, ideology, and style. But they are strikingly similar in one respect: they hate freedom. And they fight against diversity.

Where democracies erode, where rights are curtailed, this rarely happens by chance or in isolated cases. The transformation follows a pattern: With remarkable regularity, three areas come under pressure: the independence of the judiciary, freedom of the media – and sexual self-determination.1,2

This holds true both historically and in the present day. In Poland, the authoritarian transformation began with attacks on courts and critical media; soon followed massive restrictions on reproductive rights and state-sponsored queerphobia.3,4 In Hungary, sexual diversity was officially labeled a “threat to the nation.”5 In the USA, since the Republican Party regained power, books containing terms such as diversity, gender, or sexuality have been removed from libraries, curricula have been purged, and academic institutions have been ordered to delete such content from websites and databases—a digital book burning in the name of ideological purity.6,7,8

In Germany, too, the signs are increasing: attacks on public broadcasting, campaigns against female judges in appointment, debates about gender-inclusive language, cuts and suspensions of funding for queer projects, and open hate speech against trans, intersex, and non-binary people. The same intrusion into bodies and self-determination is evident in the debate surrounding sex work: the Prostitutes Protection Act (ProstSchG) has been controversial since its introduction in 2017; at the same time, there are repeated calls for stricter measures, even outright bans.9,10

The destruction of freedom (Image: AI Ophelia)

This is no coincidence. 

Repressive systems require homogeneity. They rely on self-similarity: clear roles, unambiguous bodies, unambiguous family models, unambiguous desires. Anything that calls this clarity into question creates uncertainty—and thus a loss of control. For authoritarian thinking, diversity is not an enrichment, but a threat.11

That diversity is harder to manage can be empirically demonstrated. Biologically, diverse gene pools increase the resilience of populations. Numerous studies show that heterogeneously composed groups solve complex problems better. Economically, mixed teams often perform more innovatively and robustly than homogeneous ones. Diversity forces us to tolerate contradictions. It slows down knee-jerk decisions. It undermines simplistic enemy images.12,13

But that is not the crucial point.

Sexual freedom, gender self-determination, and queer lifestyles do not need to be defended because they are “useful”—that is, productive, innovative, or beneficial to health. They need to be defended because human dignity is a value beyond utility. Because the right to decide about one’s own body, one’s own desires, and one’s own way of life is not a negotiable privilege, but a fundamental human right.14,15

Anyone who attacks sexual freedom is always attacking more than just sexuality. They are attacking autonomy. Plurality. The possibility of living, loving, and being different.

Therefore, attacks on queer people, reproductive rights, or sex work are not fringe phenomena. They are core conflicts of liberal democracies. They mark tipping points – as do attacks on the independence of the judiciary or the freedom of the media. At these points, it is decided whether societies welcome or at least tolerate diversity – or whether they enforce homogenization.

Those who defend sexual self-determination are not defending a special interest. They are defending the core of an open society.

Bibliography 

1. Federal Agency for Civic Education. Authoritarianism and the Erosion of Democracy. Bonn: Federal Agency for Civic Education; n.d. 

2. Levitsky S, Ziblatt D. How Democracies Die.  New York: Crown; 2018. 

3. Human Rights Watch. Poland: Abortion Ruling Harms Women. New York: Human Rights Watch; 2020. 

4. European Court of Human Rights. AR v. Poland. Judgment of the Court; 2023. 

5. Human Rights Watch. Hungary: Anti-LGBT Law Undermines Rights. New York: Human Rights Watch; 2021. 

6. PEN America. Banned in the USA: Beyond the Shelves.  New York: PEN America; 2024. 

7. PEN America. Index of School Book Bans: 2023-2024.  New York: PEN America; 2025. 

8. American Library Association. State of America's Libraries 2024.  Chicago: American Library Association; 2024. 

9. Solwodi. Evaluation of the Prostitutes Protection Act. Freiburg im Breisgau: SOLWODI; n.d. 

10. Criminological Research Institute of Lower Saxony. Evaluation of the Prostitute Protection Act (ProstSchG). Hanover: KFN; 2025. 

11. Arendt H. The Origins of Totalitarianism. Munich: Piper; 1955. 

12. Page SE. The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies.  Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2007. 

13. Phillips KW, Thomas-Hunt M. The dynamics of diversity in organizations: some theoretical and behavioral implications. In: Hanna N, editor. Diversity in Organizations. New York: Wiley; 1999. 

14. medico international. Authoritarian Temptations – Body, Control and Politics. Frankfurt am Main: medico international; 2022. 

15. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Sexual and reproductive health and rights are human rights. Geneva: OHCHR; n.d. 

16. Die Zeit. Julia Klöckner and prostitution in Germany. Berlin: Zeit Online; 2025. 

17. Die Zeit. CDU/CSU demand for a ban on buying sex. Berlin: Zeit Online; 2026.