Mean People Suck, Part Deux- This is what transgender eradication looks like
Say, didn't the Nazis try something like this once upon a time??
Johannes had once said that violence and cruelty were just a stupid person's way of making himself felt, because it was easer to use your hands to strike a blow than to use your brain to find a logical and just solution to the problem.
Anne Holm, I Am David
For the good of society…transgenderism must be eradicated from public life entirely.
I may have mentioned a time or two previously that I despise mean people. Really, though, “despise” doesn’t go nearly far enough- I believe there’s a special place in the Hell I don’t believe in for mean people- but it will have to do for our purposes. Why do some folks believe they have the right to force their beliefs and their moral/religious/ideological/behavioral code on others? Why do they feel their ideas and way of life are superior to those who happen not to be White/Conservative/Christian/heterosexual/cisgender?
These days, my disdain for mean people has grown and taken on new and different iterations. Still, it’s primarily focused on those bullies in positions of power who’ve decided to take on the transgender community. That transgender people constitute less than 1% of the American population would seem to mean they don’t represent much of a threat.
But to the bullies, it means they represent the perfect target- a small community with no strong voice and few influential defenders- and one that’s easy to demonize. Cisgender Americans are almost uniformly uneducated about transgender people…and what Americans don’t understand, they tend to fear. If they don’t fear something they don’t understand, they can easily be convinced to fear it. The American Sheeple are very suggestible and easily propagandized. Worse, they can be quickly convinced of the cleansing power of a good Two-Minute Hate.
Here’s the problem with the hate and efforts at transgender eradication that Michael Knowles and others are aggressively pushing- transgender people barely pose a threat to themselves, much less uptight cisgender Americans. If you’re terrified of the transgender community, that’s a “YOU” problem, not something for you to lay at the feet of people who only want to be left alone.
Michael Knowles’ words were “a straight-up call for genocide.” Of that, there can be no doubt. And he can claim libel all he wants, but his words are on video, and they’re pretty damned clear. When you state that “[t]ransgenderism must be eradicated from public life entirely,” you’re not leaving much room for misinterpretation. The intent behind his words was, I think, pretty straightforward. So, for him to claim that the Rolling Stone headline is “libelous” is rather comical.
Far-right Daily Wire host Michael Knowles called for eradicating “Transgenderism” during this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) but insisted he did not call for killing transgender people.
In his speech, Knowles’s claimed that “For the good of society, and especially for the good of the poor people who have fallen prey to this confusion, transgenderism must be eradicated from public life entirely — the whole preposterous ideology, at every level.”
Few are buying if he thought he was using a dog whistle instead of speaking in obvious terms. “Eradication” is a definitive word used to mean eliminating something utterly. When it comes to people, you don’t eradicate them without killing them.
As Queer Insider explained on Twitter, “‘Transgenderism’ is widely recognized as an offensive term used by anti-LGBT activists, to try and dehumanize trans people and reduce their humanity to a ‘condition’.
In response to Knowles’s speech, multiple publications published stories saying he called for eliminating trans people. Many influential figures accused him of advocating genocide.
And it wasn’t much of a stretch to do so accurately.
Unfortunately, too often, the media will cave to pressure from the Far-Right and soften the language of their message. When Michael Knowles says “transgenderism” must be eradicated, it’s merely a thinly-veiled code for “the transgender community” must be destroyed.
Words matter. Language matters. Most of all, intent matters. And there should be no confusion as to what Knowles’ intent is.
For those of you who remember your history, Nazi Germany tried to eliminate their LGBTQ community, and it began with denunciations not too different from the sort of hatred and bigotry Michael Knowles was peddling at CPAC. The fact that his statement about eradicating “transgenderism” was a huge applause line should be a matter of no small concern.
Trans activist Erin Reed told the publication that “transgenderism” and transgender people are “one and the same, and there’s no separation between them.”
“If you try to separate us from all the things that allow people to experience the world… that does amount to banning transgender people’s existence. You can’t go your whole life without using the bathroom, without telling a joke on stage in front of friends, without your medicine. All of that amounts to a ban on transgender people.”
“At the end of the day, it doesn’t really matter if by using the inflammatory term ‘eradicate’ Mr. Knowles specifically meant trans people should be killed,” added senior Lambda Legal attorney Carl Charles, “What does matter is the reality of what he is saying and the impact it is having and will have at this particular moment in history.”
“He is advocating that trans people should not be free to live their lives with dignity and autonomy like Mr. Knowles presumably does — instead, they should be relegated to non-existence: carrying on in secret and shame and living a lie for the rest of their days, which, he must realize, will mean some trans people opt not to do.”
According to Rolling Stone, Knowles has previously spoken about the need to eliminate “transgenderism” and has claimed he is not calling for genocide.
On a recent episode of his show before the conference, he said he wasn’t calling for genocide because “genocide refers to genes” and “transgender people is not a real ontological category.
There are, of course, numerous problems with Knowles’ attitudes towards the transgender experience:
Michael Knowles is hardly an expert on the subject. Why he’s positioned himself as such is anyone’s guess.
There’s no such thing as “transgenderism.” That’s a slur long used by the Far-Right cisgender community to tarnish transgender people with the stink of an evil philosophy/ideology. It’s neither.
No one should be relegated to “non-existence”- living in shame and denial, turning their existence into a lie. That’s no way to live. I wonder how Knowles would react if the same were required of Conservatives like himself.
No one should fear for their life because of who they are and how they live. All the transgender community wants is the right to live genuine and authentic lives as their true selves. You know, like Michael Knowles being a transphobic asshole.
Knowles should be the last person to decide whether or not transgender people represent a “real” ontological category.
Michael Knowles, however, is merely the harbinger of what appears to be a growing movement advocating for transgender eradication. And as much as I might scream that MEAN PEOPLE SUCK, that’s hardly going to stop those intent on imposing their will on the transgender community. The fact that the transgender community threatens no one and wants only to be left alone to live their lives as genuinely and authentically as possible means nothing to the haters.
I’ve got it easy. As a White, northern European, cisgender male, I sit astride the top of the food chain. And the view from here is pretty good…but I wonder why so many I share this perch with are so determined to keep the many from making room for others. It’s not as if there isn’t room up here; we could easily fit in whomever we choose. And yet, too many focus on EXclusion instead of INclusion.
As a friend of mine once asked, “Do we not all bleed the same blood?”
On Monday morning, we learned of a tragic incident: a woman was fatally attacked outside her store by an individual who had torn down the pride flag displayed there. The following day, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals delivered another blow, determining that transgender youth and adults aren't entitled to their medication, arguing such treatment is not "deeply rooted in this nation’s history and traditions," a rationale echoing the Dobbs anti-abortion decision. Concurrently, new laws are coming into effect, mandating the forced detransition of any incarcerated transgender individual. The once muted alarm signaling potential dangers for the transgender community has escalated into a raging firestorm. Reactionary figures from the right are fueling this blaze, advocating for eradication.
How did we reach this juncture, and what's our path forward? How can we shield ourselves amid one of the most intense reactionary movements ever aimed at the LGBTQ+ community? These questions have weighed heavily on my mind lately. They frequently surface as the final questions posed to me when I discuss these issues with organizations and fellow journalists striving to understand the times we're in. Just four years ago, our discourse was focused on the role of transgender athletes in top-tier competitive sports. Now, that debate feels like an ember compared to the blazing wildfire we currently face.
As a society, we focus so much of our energies on exclusion, as in, “Who do we NOT want to be part of our wonderful little club?” Call me naïve, but it seems it would be much less taxing and stressful if we were to focus on who to INclude.
White Conservative heterosexual cisgender males like Michael Knowles assume that their club is one that everyone would ipso facto want to belong to, which means they get to make the rules for everyone. But what about the rest of us who want no part of their club and rules? What about those of us who want to have the opportunity to live by our own rules?
Being part of the White Conservative heterosexual cisgender male club is not the big deal it’s made out to be, which is why I want no part of it. I’m everything but Conservative, but I refuse to be governed by an ideology primarily focused on EXclusion. I want to be part of something that welcomes people based on the strength of their character, not on the color of their skin, their genitalia, or whatever faith tradition they call home (or not).
To comprehend our path forward and strategize for safety, we must first recognize where we stand. Presently, care for transgender youth is prohibited in nearly 20 states, and for adults in Florida. Several more states restrict healthcare coverage, making it very hard for trans people to obtain care. In some of these states, penalties loom for those who "aid and abet" these youths in accessing their essential medical care. Concurrently, a surge of laws target us in restrooms, classrooms, and public spaces. In Florida, violations of bathroom bans lead to arrest, with the incarcerated trans person spending up to a year in prison. In states like Missouri and West Virginia, any arrest can subject an individual to state-mandated detransition.
It's not just our care that's under attack, but our expression too. Contrary to the arguments made by far-right opponents of transgender rights, the freedom of speech and expression for LGBTQ+ individuals is facing unprecedented threats. This year witnessed the introduction of drag bans in multiple states, so broad in scope that they affected anyone wearing clothing not traditionally associated with their assigned gender. While most of these bans were halted on constitutional grounds, Texas is soon to enforce its drag prohibition. Similarly, book bans are on the rise, leading to theatrical hearings in front of Republican-led school boards that label any LGBTQ-themed book as "unsuitable for children." Case in point: in Georgia, a committee deemed the Scholastic Kids book "My Shadow Is Purple" so inappropriate that a teacher faced termination merely for reading it aloud.
Instead of progressing, red states have reversed social progress at almost unimaginable speeds. Education- particularly discussions of sex, race, gender, and history- has become a nearly unnavigable minefield for public school teachers. To teach in public schools now is almost to be reduced to teaching students that Jesus rode into Jerusalem astride a dinosaur.
Or was it a Tesla? I suppose it depends on the state.
For transgender people, there’s an effort to set the clock back 40-50 years to a time when being transgender might have meant having virtually no chance of finding gender-affirming care and contemplating suicide on a near-daily basis. But why the gratuitous cruelty? How can a community that constitutes less than 1% of the total population of the US pose a threat to anyone?
Or is it just the opportunity to focus the hatred of Conservative voters on a community they don’t understand and thus can be easily convinced to fear? After all, with the transgender community being so small, how many Americans know someone who’s transgender? How easy is it to turn them into abstract (and evil) concepts, out to recruit our precious snowflakes, and (GASP!!) invade our restrooms?
It's patently evident that we're witnessing a determined effort to eradicate a marginalized group from the public sphere. Although these laws and policies have largely been limited to Republican-dominated red states, 2024 looms large. The upcoming major election year bears the threat of nationwide prohibitions. We're already observing laws that target the transgender community being tactically inserted into must-pass legislation, such as the NDAA military spending bill, the national budget, and funding bills for children's hospitals. Predictions of government shutdowns are increasingly frequent, possibly due to these very issues, as Republicans designate transgender matters as their non-negotiable "red line."
So for Republicans, the ability to be gratuitously cruel to a community that poses a threat to no one is their “non-negotiable ‘red line.’” Stay classy, eh? Then again, this is perhaps what might be expected from a party devoid of ideas and vision and couldn’t be bothered to come up with a platform at their 2020 convention.
Sure, why not? Gratuitous cruelty it is.
Meanwhile, an organized push is being made to “compromise” on transgender people. I reported last month that some Democrats were considering compromising over anti-trans provisions in must-pass legislation. At the same time, the New York Times is filled with “both sides” arguments attempting to make this palatable to the American left. There is no sign that the left has fallen for the bait yet - polls still show extremely high support for transgender people among Democrats and independents. Every day, though, it seems like a new “radical centrist” pushes this tactic - just yesterday, Matt Yglesias became the latest to offer such a “compromise.”
But how can you “compromise” when one side wants to be treated as human beings, and the other offers only gratuitous cruelty? What possible compromise could come out of those negotiating positions? Primarily since parts of the GOP, such as the Freedom Caucus, are known for their “scorched earth” negotiating style.
When decent people, in this case Democrats and independents, strongly support the transgender community, what incentive is there to negotiate with those who openly advocate for transgender eradication? Did FDR negotiate with Hitler over the fate of the Jews?
There comes a point where one has to make it clear that we don’t negotiate with terrorists, and we’re certainly not about to conciliate with those who’d eradicate close to 1% of the American population. While that might seem hyperbolic to some, it’s nowhere near.
When Republicans tell you who they are, believe them…and when they tell you that “[t]ransgenderism must be eradicated from public life entirely,” we should be taking them at their word. They’re telling us who they are; we would be fools not to believe them.
First, they came for the transgender people, and I did nothing because I’m not transgender….
(In the future, all of my posts will be public. Any reader financial support will be considered pledges- support that’s greatly appreciated but not required. I’ll leave it to my readers to determine if my work is worthy of their monetary support and at what level. To those who do offer their support, thank you. It means more than you know.)