A while back, anti-LGBTQ hate group the Family Research Council saw no problem with openly smearing transgender children as predators:
The group seems to have gotten the message sent by many folks -.myself included - just how ugly and vulgar this was. Not to the point that it would stop targeting transgender children, mind you because smearing the LGBTQ community is a cash cow for FRC. Instead, the group made a pivot:
So the inference from FRC is "We aren't against anyone. We are simply attempting to protect women and girls." It reminds me of the pivot made by white supremacists, i.e. "We aren't anti-black. We're simply pro-white. We just want to protect our race."And like white supremacists attempting to flim-flam, the heart of FRC's message remains to be all about bigoted scapegoating.
When FRC says "intimate spaces," the group is talking about places such as bathrooms and locker rooms with the idea being women and girls are being in danger of being molested by transgender women in those places.
The idea that women and girls are in danger from transgender women in bathrooms and locker rooms has been shown to be a lie. The main problem there seems to be is when fearful adults and parents - egged on by anti-LGBTQ groups - file lawsuits, thereby causing a huge controversy where very little, if any, existed in the first place. Also, when transgender students have to fight for their rights because of nonsensical fears that they are predators.
The subtlety of FRC's second message extends to other members of the LGBTQ community. In December of last year, FRC spokesman Peter Sprigg published a piece making the argument that anti-LGBTQ discrimination laws (or as he called them - "Sexual Orientation" and "Gender Identity" laws or SOGI laws) are a bad idea. One of the reasons he listed is as follows:
Notice how Sprigg doesn't come out and say "gays will harm children," but rather implies it heavily cloaked under a "religious liberty" argument. But like the dog whistle about the transgender community, the implication is still the same.
And that's what it comes down to - dog whistles and smears hidden behind false concern and fake religious doctrine.
The group seems to have gotten the message sent by many folks -.myself included - just how ugly and vulgar this was. Not to the point that it would stop targeting transgender children, mind you because smearing the LGBTQ community is a cash cow for FRC. Instead, the group made a pivot:
So the inference from FRC is "We aren't against anyone. We are simply attempting to protect women and girls." It reminds me of the pivot made by white supremacists, i.e. "We aren't anti-black. We're simply pro-white. We just want to protect our race."And like white supremacists attempting to flim-flam, the heart of FRC's message remains to be all about bigoted scapegoating.
When FRC says "intimate spaces," the group is talking about places such as bathrooms and locker rooms with the idea being women and girls are being in danger of being molested by transgender women in those places.
The idea that women and girls are in danger from transgender women in bathrooms and locker rooms has been shown to be a lie. The main problem there seems to be is when fearful adults and parents - egged on by anti-LGBTQ groups - file lawsuits, thereby causing a huge controversy where very little, if any, existed in the first place. Also, when transgender students have to fight for their rights because of nonsensical fears that they are predators.
The subtlety of FRC's second message extends to other members of the LGBTQ community. In December of last year, FRC spokesman Peter Sprigg published a piece making the argument that anti-LGBTQ discrimination laws (or as he called them - "Sexual Orientation" and "Gender Identity" laws or SOGI laws) are a bad idea. One of the reasons he listed is as follows:
SOGI laws could mandate the employment of persons who identify as homosexual or transgender in inappropriate occupations. Sexual conduct and gender can be relevant to employment. Under such legislation, for example, employers in education and childcare would be required to hire teachers who openly identify as LGBT, even if they consider them inappropriate role models for children and youth.
Notice how Sprigg doesn't come out and say "gays will harm children," but rather implies it heavily cloaked under a "religious liberty" argument. But like the dog whistle about the transgender community, the implication is still the same.
And that's what it comes down to - dog whistles and smears hidden behind false concern and fake religious doctrine.
No comments:
Post a Comment