Right-wing transphobes aren’t letting a little mass shooting get in the way of their continuing vilification of trans people as “groomers” and “mutilators” of children.
Without bothering to express even nominal regrets for the deaths of five people at the hands of a 22-year-old grandson of a Republican politician, the Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh came out swinging at those who have linked the shooting to the hyperbolic rhetoric of anti-trans crusaders like, well, Matt Walsh. On Twitter, he played the victim, declaring that he wouldn’t let leftists
blackmail us into accepting the castration and sexualization of children. These people are just beyond evil. I have never felt more motivated to oppose everything they stand for, with every fiber of my being. Despicable scumbags.
In a followup tweet, he more or less equated drag shows with the “castration and sexualization of children” and called his enemies “soulless demons.”
On the Daily Wire, he blamed the violence on those holding drag shows (as Club Q has done), adding that parents taking their children to Drag Queen story hours were “disgusting freaks.”
Meanwhile, the Daily Wire’s Candace Owens suggested in a Tweet that puberty blockers were a form of “experimenting on children’s genitals.” On air, she added that “giving puberty blockers to children” was evil “because we understand that ruining a child’s body is satanic. … You guys are monsters.”
Right-wing podcaster Tim Pool also blamed Club Q for holding what he called “a grooming event,” by which he apparently was referring to a family-friendly drag queen brunch scheduled for the morning after the shooting. (but not, obviously, held).
On Twitter, talk of “groomers” abounded, with the catchphrase “ok boomer” trending after the shooting.
Others echoed Walsh’s rhetoric about “castration.”
Ok, “Anti White Watch.”
I suspect within a few days we will find out that it was rhetoric like that seen above that led directly to the shooting in Colorado Springs. (We already know that the shooter was fond of anti-gay slurs, at least according to a neighbor.) And it is abundantly clear that rhetoric like this will lead to more anti-LGBTQ violence in the future.
Follow me on Mastodon.
Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.
We Hunted the Mammoth relies on support from you, its readers, to survive. So please donate here if you can, or at David-Futrelle-1 on Venmo.
Oddly enough, I have never felt that two sharp bricks were necessary on *children*.
Note that drag shows have nothing to do with debate about whether children should be allowed to surgically transition. In fact, drag shows have nothing to do with whether adults should surgically transition, either, and most drag performers aren’t trans. These guys just realized that Americans are more bigoted against trans people than against LGB people, and so they are continuing their attacks on all queer people by painting them as trans men, who they think America allows them to discriminate against. And this is working! They really have pretty much erased all the good will Americans have for queer folks through their divide and conquer strategy.
What the literal fuck does a creepy Balenciaga ad have to do with trans people supposedly being “groomers”? There’s no connection. Not even a basic attempt at logic. It’s just like “this is sexualizing kids, therefore trans people must be doing that too!” What’s “outlandish and ludicrous” again???
On a lighter note, my parents’ puppy went to some actual groomers last week and is now less shaggy!
At what point does it go from “it was not an us, it was a mentally ill no one who was maybe a secret lib” to “yes it was an us, and we will keep doing?” because it seems like they’re approaching the border of that. I mean, it might seem like we’re there already, but “we will keep fighting groomers” is not quite the same as “we support mass murder”. Like, for example, I see the gendercrits going “Why are you blaming this on our anti-trans rhetoric? It’s men doing the killing.”
@Nequan: Lots of sharp bricks for these assholes, I think. All of ’em.
Of course, with the RW, every accusation is a confession. Just look at the numbers of kids molested by RW vs. liberals, and straight men vs. any LGBTQ. The people whining here are the same ones who vociferously support pedophiliac politicians. The ones who support Pedo Gaetz, and boo-hoo’d over JoPa.
That last one made me laugh. Since when do they think Kim K is a great moral arbiter? Probably 99% of people of any political inclination think it’s a creepy ad, but most of us are smart enough to know Kim DGAF for anything but herself and her money (and, I hope, her kids). Usually they’re condemning her for shaking her expansive booty.
David, if you can I’d love to see you track down that “court document relating to pedophilia” claim and what it’s about.
They know what they’re doing. Their glee is palpable. They know they have the power to make people kill and they love it.
Can we please have a massive advertiser boycott of the Daily Liar now?
Meanwhile, I’m not seeing a nexus to the Kardashians here. Did one of them come out as trans or something?
Yes, they’ve doubled down because that’s all they ever do. That, and copy each other’s language: “satanic,” “demons,” “rape your kids,” and so on.
Right-wingers, you bore me. You need to vary your descriptors. Some suggestions: iniquitous, nefarious, malevolent, flagitious, pernicious, malefic, Mephistophelean, odious, peccant, and turpitudinous. Too much trouble to spell these properly? Then I suggest the classic fairy-tale word: wicked.
I watched a programme once where the foster parents and doctors of a 9 -year-old girl who had been abused and (presumably as a result?) experienced very early menstruation decided to put her on puberty blockers so she could recapture her childhood. Would be interested to see what Candace thought about that.
Also fascinating to see the sort of people who would be happy to describe a 15-year-old girl as “old for her age” if she happened to be targeted by one of their own accuse others of grooming.
I have gotten into discussions with people who believe chemical castration is permanent and, since it uses the same drug, blocking puberty in children permanently affects their genitals and makes them unable to experience sexual pleasure. I wonder who is pushing this idea.
Ugh. The shooter is claiming to be nonbinary now to troll people, and media (including progressive media) are just taking it as fact.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/11/23/2137984/-The-Q-Club-mass-shooter-is-trolling-he-s-a-homophobic-man-according-to-those-who-know-him
https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2022/11/club-q-shooter-used-anti-gay-slurs-frequently-attack-lgbtq-bar/
My wife pointed out that they could be both non-binary and homophobic, but it seems that the neighbors distinctly remember the guy going by he.
The lawyers filed that Aldritch is non-binary in official documents. Since all evidence of witnesses is that Aldritch goes by he, those documents could land the lawyers in hot water.
@Dave
It is trolling. Please, please, please trust me on this. Context matters, history matters. I am begging you and people like you not to extend that good faith to fascists who are trying to sow chaos and carry out a propaganda war.
Awful trans people exist (I know, I’ve met a bunch). The shooter is not one. He and his lawyers are just fucking with us.
@LollyPop: But she was still a girl before and after, so the RW would presumably be OK with that.
Very good idea of the doctors, though.
Funny how they never complained about the repeated molestation, child abuse, and rape in that family with like 25 kids. Oh, right, they’re white and “Christian” so it’s forgiven.
@LollyPop
Was that somehow less horrible than it sounds, in the programme? I’m trying to give it the benefit of the doubt but it basically sounds like “well, if we roll back puberty we can roll back the abuse lol” with a side of “this looks really bad”. She’s not going to “recapture her childhood” under any circumstances, trust me on that, I would know. It’s insulting to even phrase it that way really (I know it’s the programme and not you, I’m not meaning it personal).
@ Cyborgette
Well, pornstar daddy is glad his son isn’t gay… oh, and you know, says it’s kind of sad some people died and stuff: https://www.yahoo.com/news/pornstar-dad-lgbt-club-massacre-190625556.html
Suspect made first appearance in court today. Just routine procedural matters. Judge addressed as ‘him’ I note.
As an aside, apparently Aldrich was a suspect in a bomb threat case last year. That was against his mother.
Reading and listening to how republicans and their supporters write and speak about trans people reminds me of how Nazis spoke (continue to speak about) Jews and how the Hutu spoke about Tutsi in Rwanda. It’s terrifying.
@ Dave
If that’s their client’s instructions then the lawyers have to go along with that.
Pronouns are obviously a sensitive subject; and in the US, quite contentious.
Over here the rule is that courts, and people attending court, must use a defendant’s preferred pronouns; although some leeway can be permitted for victims of sex offences.
It’s less clear in the US. There’s a fifth circuit appeal court decision that says witnesses cannot be compelled to use preferred pronouns as that is an interference with their 1st Amendment and freedom of religion rights.
https://harvardlawreview.org/2021/04/united-states-v-varner/
Colorado though isn’t fifth circuit.
There’s a 1994 SCOTUS case where the court said just to use the Defendant’s full name so as to avoid the issue cropping up.
More recently though the court has reprimanded lawyers for refusing to use preferred pronouns.
https://www.scribd.com/document/340234389/16-273-Letter-to-Amicus-Atty-Staver
As noted above though, in the preliminary hearing, the judge said ‘him’ without objection.
@ jellybean
Goebbels of course avoided prosecution at Nuremberg; so the idea of incitement as an offence wasn’t tested.
However the owners of the main Hutu radio station were prosecuted and convicted.
https://unictr.irmct.org/en/cases/ictr-99-52
There was some controversy over that as they themselves hadn’t actually made any broadcasts; but the prosecution was on the basis they gave a platform.
Providing a platform was also the justification for the NATO bombing of Radio Serbia.
That was ruled to be justified by the UN International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
https://www.icty.org/sid/10052#IVB4
There was some controversy over that too; but the radio station ultimately accepted responsibility and apologised.
@Alan Robertshaw:
That’s ridiculous. The same reasoning could be used to declare that enforcing perjury law would be “interference with their 1st Amendment rights”.
Further to which, using the wrong pronouns for someone while on the stand would seem itself to constitute perjury, if intentional.
It’s not a right if you take it away from people you don’t like.
Sure, he’s trolling, but I am WAY THE FUCK more comfortable with the media just use gender neutral pronouns ’cause that’s what the filings say is preferred than have the media appoint themselves arbiters of what everyone’s TRUE pronouns are.
I’ve seen that world. Don’t like it. It’s not going to end up with ignoring trolls and respecting trans people. It’s going to end up with permission for members of the media to be asshats.
Call the troll whatever the troll wants to be called, then convict the fuck of the hate crime he so obviously committed.
========
@Alan:
Thanks for that summary. I do think it’s different when discussing what the government is obliged to do vs. what a random witness is required to do, so although I would bet most witnesses who don’t use preferred pronouns are going to be fuckfaces rather than people whose trauma affects them, I personally don’t believe that misgendering someone from the witness stand should be any more or less illegal than misgendering that same person on the street — which is to say that it might be illegal if it’s part of a campaign of threat or harassment in which the totality of the behaviour breaches a law, but separate from any larger abusive context misgendering alone wouldn’t be illegal on the street or in the courtroom.
Just my opinion.
@ crip dyke
You might find this interesting.
Master McCloud is brillant. I once had a defamation case in front of her. It was a row between two carpet cleaning companies. She just pointed to the, rather scruffy, carpet in her room and said “How about we just give your clients half each?”