By Ali Mushtaq

Los Angeles, CA (The Hollywood Times) 3/21/25 – This weekend is LA Leather Pride, an annual event that celebrates its leather community. However, the event is overshadowed by its history condoning anti-semetism. In January, screenshots depicted Derk Dehner, former President of LA-based nonprofit Tom of Finland Foundation, wearing apparel reminiscent of Third Reich military uniforms [https://www.yahoo.com/news/durk-dehner-resigns-tom-finland-154540095.html] and positing neo-Nazi-based rhetoric on BDSM/fetish websites, were released. Since these images have been shown throughout social media, Dehner was removed from judging International Mister Leather (IML) and resigned from his Tom of Finland Foundation Board position. Interestingly, Dehner, while stepped down, continues to remain close with the foundation by announcing updates with the foundation, and received multiple messages of support from the community despite his neo-Nazi aesthetic even after the information was released.

Common refrains from within the leather community were variations of this statement, “I didn’t know, but people knew;” this implies that there was some prior knowledge about Dehner’s relationship to Nazi regalia; however, community members failed to vet the head of the Tom of Finland Foundation and failed to hold themselves accountable. For example, the Los Angeles Coalition (LALC) noted that it “stands steadfast in its commitment to fostering a community rooted in respect, inclusivity, and mutual support. We unequivocally oppose all forms of bullying, hate speech and discrimination ensuring that our shared spaces remain safe and welcoming for everyone. We are aware of how negative actions and comments can affect the community. Therefore, for the time being, the Los Angeles Leather Coalition is severing all association and support of the Tom of Finland Foundation.” William Schildler, co-founder of the LALC, shared that “the organization was designed to be a forum for discussing topics of mutual interest to a diverse community, a place to work together to achieve goals of mutual benefit. One misconception some have is to take it for a governing body, which it was never meant to be.” While the LALC issued a statement that it severed ties (which it had the power to do), they did not describe how it would hold individuals, who knew about Dehner’s problematic behavior accountable, nor did it describe a transparent investigation process.

When leather community members publicized Dehner’s controversial photographs, only a few community members publicly recounted their experiences with the Tom of Finland Foundation in Los Angeles that may have emphasized other negative experiences with the foundation. Following the fallout from Dehner’s resignation, according to IT Director Edward Salm, he explained that “This afternoon, the Tom of Finland Foundation received numerous violent threats to personnel and the property. We need to upgrade the outside gates to the property immediately . . . “.

This is particularly important as the Tom of Finland Foundation Inc is a powerful 501c3 in the Los Angeles community that, according to ProPublica, accrued 730k in profits in 2023. Some explained that this lack of accountability was possibly due to a culture of retaliation against whistleblowers in the leather community because leather community members fear retaliatory tactics, such as (but not limited to): removing privileges from individuals within institutions, threatening lawsuits for speech, public shaming, blackballing, falsifying allegations of sexual assault, verbal abuse, and possible bodily harm.  While these retaliatory measures have maintained secrecy of wrongdoing over the last thirty years within the community, these measures enable a culture of wrongdoing to permeate the community. Though several concerned parties have argued that the community lacks diversity training and cultural awareness, which can provide overall knowledge of inequity in the leather community. However, leather community members tend to protect their friends when they know they did something wrong. This leads to a culture of ignoring accountability and contributes to not addressing issues within the community.

The Culture That Allowed Durk Dehner To Exist

In social and anthropological sciences, culture is a complex construct that refers to patterns of behavior, norms, and beliefs that give rise to specific institutions and outcomes. It is an inherent construct of culture that trends toward the protection of individuals with power. Sometimes, individuals within a culture consciously know that they are engaged in wrongdoing, but others might be unaware. To an extent, the leather community lacks racial awareness, and this contributes to why racist and antisemitic individuals are allowed to thrive within the community.

While many have admonished Derk’s actions, there were others in the leather community who supported Dehner.  An example from a Pete of Finland on January 14 in a now deleted post, “[Dehner] helped [sic] changed the history of gay culture and in Finland. He made a mistake, and now the community is on a witch hunt without even knowing what really happened. As a community, I think we have bigger fish to fry. There is a real enemy (Trump) to be concerned about. Durk is not a racist. There is no hate in that man. I know. I’m very disappointed in the Los Angeles leather community. Some people just need drama. Need an enemy. They feed on hate. Pitiful.”

Yes, Donald Trump has been a threat to society at large as well as the LGBTQ communities. However, there is still an inability to self-examine and to self-correct our communities. Some community members, such as Tom Urbanski, said that they need to separate the fetish from belief. For example, another user said, “There needs to be an acknowledgement of the difference between what is fetish thought and what is actual beliefs and actions based on hate. The ‘thought fascists’ in our community today cannot reconcile the difference between these 2 things apparently we also need to fall in line . . . it’s disturbing and intolerant.”

While many have argued that sexual fetishes have nothing to do with racism and oppression, research on sexual racism shows that fetishes, especially within leather/BDSM spaces, are based on stereotypes of minority groups. In these cases, diversity training would be both necessary and appropriate. In fact, the LALC involved a diversity educator, but it refuses to fundamentally acknowledge the institutional biases and disavowing communities of color by leaving them without institutional support; for example, David Mosqueda, Mr. LA Leather, placed second at International Mr. Leather, wrote, “Crazy that the LALC didn’t even bother to reach out when I was looking for sponsors and assistance for the BIPOC and Leather and Kink Caucus . . .the LALC never showed up to any of my parties helping me be sent off to IML, or even when I returned. I told them multiple times.”

Finally, individuals are forced to accept half-hearted apologies. In response to the widespread condemnation for his clothing that resembled the third Reich, Dehner apologized. Community member Fred Henson, noted that since Dehner apologized, “it is a step in the right direction that you’ve acknowledged and apologized for the harm you’ve caused, though, that won’t be enough” and advocated transformative justice, but some seem to think that apologies are enough, including Cyril Leather, “who are you to lay down and make a moral to a person who sincerely apologizes . . . Just thank you for your apology would have been enough!! To a good listener.” Another person, Paul Peter Rhu-mhor Fraser, “He apologized, what else do you want?! Have you EVER FCK UP AND APOLOGIZED PUBLICALY? FYI READ THE FUCKING ROOM.” Though Henson rightly frames his request for proactive transformative justice, he got shut down by multiple community members.

Bad Behavior is Bad Behavior

While there are some individuals in the leather community who require further education on racism, antisemitism, and discrimination, the broader problem within the leather community is that it creates a culture of where individuals cover for one another when they commit acts of wrongdoing.  When wrongdoing is called out by whistleblowers, they are often retaliated against.

Since its inception, the leather community has a known history of allowing racist and anti-semitic speech. For example, before IML 2017, rather than address racist and anti-semitic behavior, leather community members blamed “both sides” of individuals for creating “problems” within the community when a whistleblower documented leather title holder’s racist and anti-semitic speech. One International Mister Leather contestant, Mr. Wisconsin Leather Chomper Schuld, stated the following:

The need for validation appears to be growing among younger members of the community. We are letting them believe the only way to get out attention is to play the ‘victim cards’ of race, sexual orientation, and claims of gender performance . . . individuals playing this victim card are not only poisoning the system but turning it into a system of inclusion.  ‘Faggotry Politics’ of this nature ruins the risk of turning our once powerful community into a weakened joke defined by its passion for drama over just helping one another achieve orgasmic results…. The victim card thing is becoming routine and forcing otherwise stellar leaders to rethink their commitment to the role [of mentoring the next generation]; thus, shrinking our gene pool.”

While linking this quote to conservative tropes of how inclusion creates problems, the article says explicitly, “Yes, we are now getting into the language of “gene pools,” a similar language to the language espoused by Nazi leaders, such as Adolf Hitler and the American eugenicists before him in the 1920s and 1930s. These people advocated pure “races” of people; and to get there, we would have to ethnically cleanse a population by sterilization and extermination.”

In the context of the Charlottesville riots in 2016, this article notes that this title holder’s producers distanced themselves from this statement. The article also mentions other statements made by Southern California leather community leaders who blamed “both sides” of the argument, including the anti-racism side. These community leaders were never held accountable. The title holder that made these statements in general was actually rewarded by International Mister Leather (IML) that year by being included as a top 20 contestant. Interestingly, one of the judges on the panel was then IML 39 David “Tigger” Rosenberg and now current Executive Producer of the contest, who rescinded Dehner’s ability to serve as a judge on the panel for this year. Likewise, even if the title holder did not make explicit calls to support neo-Nazism (but evoking ‘gene pool’ is a common dog whistle among neo-Nazis), this statement was inappropriate then as it is inappropriate now for a title holder, especially in the context of neo-Nazi riots in Charlottesville and now with Elon Musk’s Nazi salute. This behavior should never have been rewarded. Also note that I am unaware of how Tigger  (or the other judges) might have scored this title holder, might not have been aware of the article,  and possibly did not have decision making power about who competed, but the fact that the title holder was allowed to compete after these statements were publicly made and subsequently rewarded after this statement was appalling, especially to me. In protest, I walked off the stage when I was not called as a top 20 contestant to protest the contest, and how it enabled racism at the time.  Given that IML has produced a new set of standards to vet its judges as of January 31, 2025, contestants and venders, in response to Dehner (which it took until 2025 to do), it remains to be seen how the organization will enforce these standards in a systematic way.

This standard should also apply to individuals applied to the Leather Hall of Flame. Daniel Ruster, selection committee member from the Leather Hall of Flame member noted that while Durk was inducted into the Leather Hall of Flame, an organization to honor veteran members of the Leather community because, like others, Ruster “did not know” about Dehner’s ties to  wearing apparel reminiscent of Third Reich military uniforms, he attempted to stop the nomination of an artist that came out of Tom of Finland Foundation because he knew of antisemitic imagery coming out of the Foundation, others overload his decision, “It is different with the induction of the artist Rex into the Leather Hall of Fame. Here I knew that there is at least one work by him that was excessively dotted with swastikas which is why I decided to oppose the induction of Rex into the LHoF and fought against it – unfortunately without success.” It is no secret that the Tom of Finland erotic aesthetic fetishized Nazis, but someone at least knew that in 2025, this was unacceptable, and this person had to “fight against” individuals who wanted someone who drew erotic art with swastikas to be honored. That means there are other people that do not see swastikas and Nazism as problematic.

Leather community members discuss problems as they occur but rarely are proactive about addressing problems before they happen. For example, Graylin Thorton worked with the Tom of Finland Foundation in Los Angeles and described how Dehner was a “friend and mentor,” but was unsettled by his behavior, “I’ve remembered a conversation I had with Durk, years ago. Where an ONYX brother related that Durk had used offensive racial slurs, not the n-word but still deeply hurtful. Durk and I had a heart-to-heart conversation about it, and the past few years, I’ve had mixed feelings about the results of that conversation.” He then repudiated Dehner by saying “the collection of photos of Dehner wearing swastikas and Nazi paraphernalia, along with more accounts of racial slurs is disgusting and disappointing. These are heinous acts from someone I respected.”

Thorton admits to prior knowledge of problematic behavior exhibited by Dehner by relaying that Dehner said things that were racially insensitive, though this was softened by relating that he “respected him” as a “friend and mentor.”  In this account, there is a clear internal conflict between knowing the behavior is wrong and having to “respect” this person, especially as a “mentor.” This demonstrates even individuals who witnessed and acknowledged racism and discrimination in the community continued to enable Denher’s behavior because of the sway he continues to hold within.

Thorton continued to say that he will “remain on the TOFF board for another year” implying he was already on the Tom of Finland board when Dehner was active with Tom of Finland Foundation and this suggests that at least one board member knew about Dehner’s problematic behavior that was related to racism but failed to act. The motives remain unclear from the statement. However, though Thorton publicly admitted they were on the board of Tom of Finland Foundation and knew that Durk Dehner was problematic, he received praise from a leather titleholder in LA, Aric Wilson, Mr. SoCal Leather 2019, “I love you big brother and support your decision. A wise IML once told me that a way to ensure change progresses is to be there on the inside to watch and help push the change.” So Thorton admitted to knowing Dehner was problematic while Thorton was a board member, but he gets praised being “there on the inside” when Thorton didn’t actually discuss what he did to push Dehner away from his problematic behavior. There was no inside game because it took someone posting Dehner’s screenshots to have him resign as President of the Foundation. Based on the Thorton’s post alone, this had nothing to do with Thorton’s efforts.

Interestingly, Thornton also recently posted that he “unfriended a local title holder [title redacted, name redacted] of the women’s community for proudly and publicly supporting the ENEMY [sic possibly Donald Trump] and anti-trans rhetoric.” Interestingly, here Thorton is not being “there on the inside” because he’s engaging in call-out culture. However, since Thorton is a community leader, it is seen as acceptable, especially when the target is not a major community leader. Here, Thorton knows discrimination is morally wrong and chose to discontinue a relationship with some random title holder over being transphobic and a Trump supporter, but was content to continue his relationship with Dehner, and, based on the above post, failed to hold him accountable for his behavior until it was publicly revealed that Dehner had worn apparel reminiscent of Third Reich military uniforms.

Keep in mind, while it doesn’t excuse the unnamed title holder for conveying anti-trans rhetoric or supporting Donald Trump (two things I also personally condemn), the leather community publicly scapegoats individuals without political power, but they allow their friends and mentors to engage in bad behavior because of their relationship. In other words, if the problematic person in question is friendly with a community leader, then their behavior is often excused regardless of the scope of the behavior. Only a few will challenge problematic behavior and do so in a vague fashion, so they do not receive retribution.

How Leather Friendship Leads to Hiding Nazis

In response to the release of Dehner’s photos, I knew that there was ostensible evidence that suggested that the Foundation in LA (not just the artwork itself) had ties to Nazi imagery. After raising this with the foundation to allow them to respond to these allegations, they wanted to have a phone conversation, but, since this was a sensitive topic and in accordance with journalistic best practices, I asked them to provide written comments. While denouncing anti-semitisim, as they had done publicly with Dehner’s screenshots, the Tom of Finland Foundation wrote back, “some artifacts in the archive may not be suitable for public exhibition without proper historical context and are stored away from public view.” This could mean that there is more information and more artifacts that connect the Foundation itself to anti-semitic iconography, and it is hidden from public view.

I wrote an article talking about the numerous concerns I have had with the LA leather community and leather-adjacent communities at the end of 2023. After raising this, I noted that this information detailed the pitfalls of the local foundation and was overlooked by the LA leather community, and I responded in kind to the poster of Dehner’s original screenshots. Even the person that posted Dehner’s screenshots admitted to reading my work about the Tom of Finland Foundation, and the other person involved in posting the information said the poster did their own research separate from my article. Even if the screenshots were different from my article, this involved similar information (I wrote about Tom of Finland Foundation in LA and the person posted about Durk Dehner, President of Tom of Finland in LA) being released which would mean my article is part of the research even if it’s not the exact carbon copy of the screenshots. As an academic, I understand plagiarism to be the act of taking someone else’s ideas, words, or work and presenting them as your own without citing the source material and that all sources should be cited when new material is disseminated. This is an academic convention. While I know now that the original poster did not intend to take my ideas and that the pictures were distinct from my written work, as an academic, this is how I perceived the situation.

As I noted in the post where I describe how my work has been taken, I have had individuals convert one of my Medium articles into a PDF. Medium allows writers the ability to monetize their work but only if accessed through the Medium site.  As a PDF, I do not see monetary gains from that article unless the article was accessed through the medium link. While I am not a lawyer, I saw that as copyright infringement (I am not a lawyer, and I am not expected to be one). Based on my understanding, I saw both instances as theft but decided ultimately that the original poster did not do anything untoward and that we had different definitions of the idea of “theft” based on how I interpreted the situation.

I also knew that my work was the first instance of someone publicly noting that the Tom of Finland Foundation had condoned Nazi imagery, especially since no one, to my knowledge, had publicly admitted with explicit detail and evidence (not just generalizations) that the Tom of Finland Foundation in LA condoned neo-Nazi imagery or that Dehner himself wore apparel reminiscent of Third Reich military uniforms before my article. In response to my frustration, there were multiple replies (limiting the discussion here for brevity). I was told by multiple commenters a variation of “people knew about the Foundation and Dehner before you posted,” again, very general responses without specific examples. I responded, roughly, “If there were people that knew about the foundation prior to me, should they be held responsible?” I was met with “It’s been 23 years since I’ve lived in LA. You are being aggressive” (a racist trope). Furthermore, leather community members were trying to say that plagiarism only involves taking “exact language” when plagiarism, as I mentioned earlier, also involves “ideas.” I called another person a white supremacist (when they weren’t white), because they were suggesting that the problem was my approach to the conversation which is an example of tone policing based on white supremacy (a system based on collective institution, behaviors, and patterns that continue to thrive). By this definition, people of color can indeed engage in White supremacist behaviors.

I was especially frustrated when I was told that people knew about Dehner and the Foundation’s relationship to anti-semitic speech before my article, when, to my knowledge, there was no public evidence at the time of this information before the screenshots of Dehner was released. It was only after the fact that leather community members said “people knew” before the article or screenshots were released with little to no public examples of anyone admitting this was the case or shared personal accounts of Dehner’s problematic behavior. I understandably reacted in frustration, even using “curse words” to express my dissatisfaction.

The following is abridged for brevity of the situation. Some individuals, including David Sanford, Mr. Sister Leather 2017, a leather title supported by the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence (drag nuns) in LA, and “Caregiver at [workplace redacted]” wrote, “Throwing a proverbial fit and stomping around trying to make a point is never a good look. It wasn’t the look on stage back then. It’s certainly not one now.” Among at least 10 people in the leather community members (posts limited for brevity), like Eric de Leon, Mr. L.A. Leather Bear 2019, started sending the Facebook link of me defending my work to other people as well as other links that I am unaware of because he told people to “check their DMs” to other individuals in the community. Others have also sent videos to each other of me leaving the stage. Interestingly, Aric Wilson, Mr. Socal Leather 2019 also said “I see what you did there…. Just an example of someone trying to be relevant when they have been remembered almost solely for the wrong reasons. .. what’s funny is I didn’t even see the thread yet. I only saw what was written on this person’s page easily. I saw it now and wow, dropping f-bombs at people. Wtf” (see below section for relevance). Even after she bullied me in 2018 (which I have documentation of in Facebook messenger conversations) a day after I literally endured a bartender forcing a towel on my head and calling me a Muslim woman, Scarlett Sin, a former Ms. LA Leather and apparent mental health advocate writes, ‘Sad to see this person never got the professional help that they so desperately needed. Their level of narcissism and paranoia was concerning back then, and it seems little has changed. The damage they caused to so many in so many spaces still bears scars and the ones he hurt the most were those who genuinely tried to be there for him and help. He is the proverbial scorpion in the fable with the frog. I know first-hand. Trust me. All I can advise is, avoid him and if avoiding him is impossible, make sure no conversation is ever had with him without witnesses and/or documentation. He will twist anything and everything into making you seem the most malicious and abusive, and yes, racist.”  There are few more chaotic and harmful people I have met in my years in these here communities.” This is how the leather community responds to self-defense. When I called out Sanford for cyberbullying, he said,

I’m sorry that you see this pot stirring and cheeky post as bullying. That was certainly not my intention. But also, you literally have been trying to take credit for what happened yesterday. When you absolutely had nothing to do with it. Something you wrote years ago may have been some sort of seed planted but the actions that were taken by Diego and J were taken on their own. And the actions that IML took with that information was because of them and others, not you . . .My whole point of this post is that if you want people to take you seriously, don’t overreact when something doesn’t go your way. Stomping off the stage at IML and having this fit about not getting proper credit is not a good look.  There are many other ways you could’ve handled both situations. But you do you. It’s clearly working so far . . . my post is really about your reaction and interaction about the whole thing.  . . .I was just stating factors as I saw them at the time. But I stand by them. You overreacted. End of story.

It is also important to note that Sanford does not see his own behavior as bullying but calls it “stirring the pot” when he creates a public forum by “vague booking” about my behavior, and then he and his friends go on a shared forum to publicly shame me for my behavior by sending links to one another and making jokes at my expense. For leather community members, this behavior is not considered “bullying” because they claim that they are “sharing publicly available information” because Sanford simply said, “That was certainly not my intention.”

Because he suggested that I should control how I should express myself, Sanford is tone policing. Additionally, he misrepresented my premise and my behavior without foundation. Sanford did not intervene when witnessing others defame my character, even though I defended my work on the initial thread. It is important to note my article mentioning Tom of Finland Foundation came out at the end of 2023, so my article was relatively recent and not “years ago.” They brought up my IML protest in 2016 nine years later which had nothing to do with me calling out the fact that I wrote an important piece denouncing racism and defending its novelty. Also note that I was not the one caught wearing apparel reminiscent of Third Reich military uniforms or anything remotely associated with Nazi symbols. They simply wanted a reason to attack me because I stood up for myself and my work.

This is not the first time LA community members have publicly used my act of protest on the IML stage against me. In 2019, Gabriel Green, now chair of the LA Leather Coalition, berated me for saying that older generations need to retire to let younger members come up because they “had their time in the sun.” Gabriel Green, wrote, verbatim, “your post is dismissive of the generations of folks of sacrificed endured hardships and paved the way to have it easier for you and generations to come. The ‘you had your time in the sun’ attitude is rude and disrespectful to people who are older and continue to provide literally and figurative spaces for younger generations to come . . .”. After a back-and-forth exchange, he eventually responded with, exact language, “as someone who poor sport and threw their medal down at IML when they lost, I guess shouldn’t expect much in the respect department.” Again, using IML information almost two years post IML 2017 to try to discredit my argument which was the same tactic that was used against me in 2025.

How Leather Folk Befriend Individuals Who Wear Apparel Reminiscent of Third Reich Military Uniforms

The following exchange is abridged for brevity for this article. On Green’s wall, a community member pointed out that another LA title holder wore a symbol associated with Nazism and asked the question why I was being publicly shamed for walking off stage, but then somehow another person wearing Nazi gear is not reprimanded. He posted a picture of the leather titleholder wearing a Nazi symbol, Wilson posted “might as well dig it all up if we are getting our hands dirty that way, we only gotta wash them once. This is highly disappointing.” So, Wilson decided to jump on the bandwagon to point out bad behavior. However, Sanford responded, in the context of people ridiculing my defense of my work, “nobody was bullying Ali for anything. He decided to make an issue out of something that wasn’t true. Secondly, he didn’t march off the stage in protest of racism. He marched off because he spent so much time promoting himself before the contests and then didn’t even make it to the top 20 so he threw a fit. Just like he threw a fit trying to say that Diego [the person who created the initial [post] stole his article in order to have this whole thing get started in the first place. . . that picture is damning [referring to the swastika] and I’m not defending it.” Again, Sanford reasserts that posting on a public forum about my behavior and watching leather community members make fun of me while sharing links about behaviors they consider “funny” is not seen as bullying.  Similarly, he equivocates my reason for walking off the stage because I only know my motive for that, but Sanford also denied that “no one was bullying Ali” when Sanford admitted earlier “I’m sorry you feel harmed” as if publicly providing a forum for others to make fun of me for defending my work and not stopping is justified behavior, and “not bullying.” Additionally, Sanford is implying I “threw a fit” to say that someone stole my article to intentionally “have this whole thing get started in the first place” when I was simply defending my work. Sanford also focused on my behavior when someone was just outed as for wearing a swastika as if walking off stage at a leather contest and defending one’s work is more morally reprehensible than calling out antisemitic imagery. Sanford said that wearing a swastika was “damning,” but it wasn’t damning enough to disavow the person wearing a swastika completely because, within the next few days, Sanford posts a picture of the person wearing a swastika and himself at a bar.

Interestingly, the person wearing a swastika verbally harassed the commenter, who posted the individual wearing a swastika that they are a “fucking asshole with nothing better to do with your life. Nice try cunt and to fuck off trying to start shit that doesn’t need to be started.” Wilson, who commented about my use of the “f bomb,” does not show concern for the person wearing a swastika is using the words “fucking asshole . . . fuck off.”

Similar behavior occurred in March, Wilson interestingly changes his tune about “working on the inside,” where in March, in a response to David Mosqueda, who placed second in IML, because of Mosqueda’s “high rank,” Wilson reinforces Mosqueda’s argument because a person of higher status is critiquing the LALC. Wilson writes, “this is a system that has failed the community over and over yet wonders why the only contestants they have left are ones from contests run by people on the board itself . . .without a clean sweep out and rebuild I am not sure this is repairable, new blood has tried, especially the last couple of years.” There is a clear double standard that only applied to me because I vigorously defended my work and have historically done so, and the LA leather community attacks and scapegoats marginalized members.

Thus, leather community members are generally aware that individuals do things like engage in racist or discriminatory conduct and allow certain people to discriminate against others. They don’t care when individuals are racist because they know they are their friends and mentors, so when they are not friends or mentors, they have no problem attacking and marginalizing them.

Going Forward

The intent of the piece is not just to out neo-Nazis within the leather community, but it is to shed light about how individuals protect people that associate themselves with Nazi imagery.

Among its emphasis on diversity and community awareness, IML released a new set of guidelines to help ensure diversity and equity within the community. They note that “we value skilled communicators, capable of distinguishing dialogue, debate, and conflict.” However, the current culture does not enable dialogue, especially since its members clearly protect powerful individuals within the community and that business and political interests are tied to the maintenance of the leather community. Again, the problem is not just about diversity, but it is about protecting people in power that are engaging in wrongdoing. Before IML moves forward, it must address these issues within the LA leather community, and I have provided recommendations below. Thus, it remains to be seen if the organization weaponizes its standards against whistleblowers; the organization must also proactively recognize the historical harm done to marginalized individuals and to contextualize their behaviors so that they may reintegrate into the community. Thus, these guidelines do not safeguard whistle blowing activities as well as taking into account trauma dealt to community members.

Here are my recommendations: IML should conduct a needs assessment of the LA Leather Coalition, every individual member within its multiple groups, and the Tom of Finland Foundation. They should submit to an investigation for their role in knowing about Durk Dehner and asking about the reasons that they themselves did not come forward in addressing this before it was revealed to IML. In this investigation, they should examine community retaliation within LA leather. I ask that IML suspend every title holder coming from the LA region until this investigation is complete since “people knew” about Dehner. I also invite others to share their experiences with retaliation within the leather community publicly so that a conversation can begin about restoring trust among community members.

Gabriel Green, head of the LA Leather coalition, said that they are “actively working on getting diversity training scheduled in the month of Feb…”. He also noted, “As someone who just took the Chair position, actually does care about this community and trying to create change, it disgusts me to see that there are some who, no matter what we do, how actively we try to make changes for the better, support those in the community who have been affected negatively and learn from the mistakes of the past, it’s still not good enough and would rather see it destroyed than see it improve.”

I really do wish the leather community would improve, and I never understood why my articles and actions have been seen as “destructive” when I have time and time again pointed out where and how the community can do better. Regardless of providing suggestions where appropriate, I have been bullied and marginalized repeatedly for speaking out against an unfair system like all whistleblowers who have come before me. I believe in accountability across the board, including its most powerful members, even if they are my friends.

Unless leather community members take it upon themselves and apply the same standards of accountability for all its members, it is not a community. To an extent, diversity training is part of what the community needs to salvage its terrible brand. However, unless the LA leather community can cease its retaliatory measures against whistleblowers, this community cannot recover because it will always be corrupt. There are double standards in behavior (as demonstrated with Wilson on how he points out how I use the word “fuck” as opposed to when his friend uses the word “fuck”), but it is done to protect people with power. The person that is seen walking off stage at IML, especially for his stated reason of protesting racism, is seen as potentially worse than an individual wearing a swastika because of how he raises problems within the community. A person can be friends with someone who wears a swastika as long as they are friends with them or is “their mentor” (demonstrated by Sanford and Thorton). Another person wearing a swastika can verbally insult someone questioning why another individual is being treated poorly. Another individual can have knowledge about racism on a board that just sunk its President for wearing apparel reminiscent of Third Reich military uniforms, but they are seen as mentors because they “play the long game” when they haven’t done anything to directly address wrongdoing. Most importantly, I was publicly shamed for vociferously defending my work.

Finally, I don’t know what’s going to happen to me as a result of this article, but all I know is that the leather culture largely defends its community members, regardless of how immoral their behaviors are. I will not be intimidated, nor would I allow others to police my voice. However, if you do join this community, please be aware that this community heavily retaliates against whistleblowers that point the issues out. However, if you are in the leather community, and you are struggling, please tell and share your story. Do not suffer in silence.