Annapolis, Maryland, is facing a wave of online backlash after its Office of Emergency Management (OEM) released a Pride Month preparedness guide specifically tailored to LGBT residents, a document that has quickly become a flashpoint in the broader national debate over identity-based public policy.
The guide argues that LGBT individuals may face distinct vulnerabilities during emergencies and encourages targeted planning measures.
It gained wider attention after being circulated on social media by Libs of TikTok, amplifying criticism across X and other platforms.
The document frames disaster preparedness through the lens of what it describes as unequal impacts during crises.
Instead of focusing solely on general emergency readiness, it emphasizes that certain populations may experience additional challenges during evacuations, sheltering, and recovery.
The city presents the guidance as an effort to improve resilience by encouraging residents to anticipate disruptions to healthcare access, housing stability, and communication during disasters.
Among its recommendations, the guide encourages residents to build trusted personal support networks and identify reliable contacts who can assist during emergencies.
It also stresses continuity of medical care, advising individuals to plan ahead for prescription access and maintain backup supplies for ongoing treatments.
Additional recommendations include preparing key personal documents and considering individualized needs that may arise during evacuation or displacement scenarios for LGBT individuals.
The preparedness checklist itself is notably detailed and includes both standard emergency items and more personalized considerations, including “gender-affirming clothing,” “chest binders,” “packers,” and “wigs.”
It advises residents to prepare medication supplies and medical equipment where necessary, along with essential legal and identification documents.
City officials defended the effort in a social media post, arguing that disaster impacts are not experienced uniformly across all communities.
The post cites data suggesting LGBT individuals are more likely to experience displacement, food insecurity, and social isolation following emergencies and says the guidance is intended to help residents plan for those risks in advance.
That framing quickly drew criticism online after screenshots of the guide circulated on X.
Critics questioned whether emergency preparedness should be tailored to specific identity groups rather than applied uniformly across the population.
Some users mocked the concept outright, framing it as unnecessary segmentation of disaster planning.
“Ow gays get their own earthquakes,” one X user joked. “California has the criteria to determine if they are gay enough to qualify. WTF world are we living in where gays have some complete separate set of rules and structure.”
Another X user commented, “If I was part of that community, I would be insulted. Suggesting that they live their lives void of awareness of natural disasters and how to be prepared. It is the old equal but different posturing.”
“Almost too ridiculous to be real,” another commented. “So LGB-whatever people are so delicate that they cannot withstand what everyone else just deals with? This man is actually saying that alphabet people are inferior.”
Additional reactions focused on the practical contents of the guide, with commenters disputing whether identity-specific considerations belong in emergency planning documents.
“This is possibly the worst prepping guide of all time,” one user wrote. “Get your wig and an ice pack and 30 days of ‘medicines’… and you’ll be fine!”
Another user added, “Yes, because earthquakes and storms are homphobic too. Just like everything, according to them.”
OEM is led by Director Kevin Simmons, who has served in the role for approximately 15 years following a long career in fire service and emergency response.
According to his LinkedIn account, he has emphasized risk reduction and coordinated disaster response throughout his tenure in public safety leadership.
As of now, city officials have not issued a detailed public response addressing the criticism surrounding the guide’s circulation online.
The document remains part of Annapolis’s broader emergency preparedness outreach efforts, which the city describes as aimed at improving readiness across all segments of the population.
