It's About Control
- Hunter Blain
- Jun 16, 2023
- 5 min read
One of the most common justifications for the erasure and persecution of LGBTQ+ people is that it is "to preserve the innocence of children". Indeed, when I initially came out to my family, this was exactly one of the points raised (and then I was not allowed to talk to my young nephew for quite some time). Thankfully, my family situation has *somewhat* improved; I can at least talk to my nephew again.
Back to the topic at hand though. This rhetoric is often cited by lawmakers and others looking to enshrine and codify discriminatory practices. Here are some examples:
So first of all, Florida stands for the protection of children. We believe jamming gender ideology in elementary school is wrong. Disney obviously supported injecting gender ideology in elementary school. They did oppose our parents’ rights legislation. And the fact is when they opposed it, that was a big deal because for 50 years, anytime Disney wanted something in Florida politics, they pretty much got it. But not this time. I signed the bill. We did, as you say, win on the issue. But what happened was Disney’s posturing, some of the other statements that their executives were making, kind of the corporate culture had really been outed as trying to inject matters of sex into the programming for the youth. And I think a lot of parents, including me, look at that and say, “That’s not appropriate.” I mean, we want our kids to be able to just be kids and that’s kind of our mantra.
- Ron DeSantis, Governor of Florida in his May 24, 2024 speech announcing his intention to run for President of the United States (transcript)
I will sign a new executive order instructing every federal agency to cease all programs that promote the concept of sex and gender transition at any age. . . . My Department of Education will inform States and school districts that if any teacher or school official suggests to a child that they could be trapped in the wrong body, they will be faced with severe consequences including potential civil rights violations for sex discrimination.
- Donald Trump, former President of the United States and current criminal defendant in a January 31, 2023 Truth Social video (link)
"Won't someone think of the children" is a talking point that allows people to stomach the systematic dehumanization and demonization of LGBTQ+ people that is sweeping the nation. But it is, put simply, bullshit. (See footnote 1, infra)
Pictured: A spoonful of bullshit helps the hatefulness go down, in the most horrific way.
I've written before on how LGBTQ+ issues can easily be described in a child-appropriate manner and that even a selfish argument exists as to LGBTQ+ education. But that isn't the point that we are looking into today. Today's point is that these sentiments are not actually coming from a place of concern for children; it's about controlling others. (See footnote 2, infra)
If the only concern about LGBTQ+ issues was its "effect on children", then it shouldn't matter what adults do, right? Well, let's look at some proposed bills (each heading is linked to the full bill if you would like to see for yourself).
This bill seeks to disqualify transgender people from serving in the military. You can be requalified if you have "been stable for 36 consecutive months in [your] biological sex." In addition, if you are a member of the military and you have gender dysphoria, you will receive "medically necessary" treatment. But that cannot include gender reassignment surgery or hormone therapy, so not clear what treatment will be offered...
Kids can't apply to be in the military for obvious reasons. Why can't transgender adults be allowed to murder people for their country like anyone else?
This bill seeks to force transgender people to be in the wrong prisons.
This bill is extremely dangerous. LGBTQ+ individuals already face a heightened risk for violence while incarcerated. Those in male prison populations that are more effeminate already are targets for violence, including sexual assault and murder. What happens when you put a trans woman in this environment? Nothing good; I can tell you that.
Also illuminating is the alleged purpose of the bill: "To secure the dignity and safety of incarcerated women." First, it certainly does not improve the safety or dignity of trans women as noted above. But it also ignores the fact that trans men exist (at roughly the same percentage as trans women). I guess we don't care about their dignity.
This bill is dubbed the "Productivity Over Pronouns Act." In short, what it is trying to do is allow people to maliciously misgender people in the workplace. There is a prohibition on giving funds for any (federal) program/project/activity that "provide[s] principles, resources, or specific suggestions for gender neutral or inclusive language or inclusive communication principles . . . ." This is then defined to include:
Any form of communication that avoids using words, expressions or assumptions that would stereotype, demean or exclude people
Language that avoids bias towards a particular sex or gender
Language that emphasizes the importance of addressing all people inclusively and respectively
Any form of communication that classifies people by pronouns (See footnote 3, infra)
Remember, according to this bill, the above are bad things. Avoiding bias? Not on my watch!
***
Now, these are all proposed bills that will hopefully never pass. But they are illuminating to the actual purpose of anti-LGBTQ+ laws (I didn't even dip into the even crazier pool of proposed state laws). It's not about keeping kids safe. It never was. It's about control and condemnation. (See footnote 4, infra).
I have a right to exist; just as much as anyone else. I will not be controlled.
***
1. As an aside, one of the most common variations on this is the implication that young children are being subjected to surgery. This is demonstrably false. Pre-puberty transitions are typically social only (people aren't performing gender reassignment surgery on a 5 year old). According to the World Professional Association for Transgender Health ("WPATH", the source virtually all doctors providing gender affirming care look to), hormone treatment can be started at 14 and some surgeries can be done at ages 15-17. Full gender reassignment is not recommended until age 17. (source)
Further, just because someone meets the age requirement for surgery doesn't mean that they will get surgery. Even as an adult, I have to get approval from a medical, social, and mental health viewpoint (as well as a minimum amount of time to living socially in my true gender, typically 1 year). There are real efforts to ensure that a patient looking to receive gender-affirming care has the emotional/cognitive maturity to make an informed decision.
2. This post is very United States centric, though flavors of this can be seen around the world. Some countries are not as subtle about the scope of their control, outright banning any kind of gender, sexual or romantic non-conformity. As horrible as it is, at least they're being intellectually honest.
3. I'd love to see people try to apply this law as written. No pronouns allowed to refer to people! At all! Donald Trump is not a "he." You must refer to him by name... wait.
4. A truth about those seeking to control others is that there is always another group left to demonize. This is by design; it allows those in power to give people something to focus on instead of on their administration's shortcomings. And you never know, you might be part of the next group on the chopping block.