Media Literacy in the Face of Fear Campaigns
Are you "just asking questions" or are you falling for propaganda?
As I’ve watched the new wave of fear manifest against LGBTQ+ people over the past year, one of the things that has terrified me the most is seeing people I trust become swayed by our opponents’ latest schemes. I’ve seen friends, allies, and even veterans of the queer rights movement entertain doubts. When they do, I suddenly feel like I’m talking to a body snatcher who I no longer feel safe around. From trans kids to drag queens to nondiscrimination protections… How are they responding so differently to what’s happening?
In conversations I’ve had with them, I’ve noticed one distinct difference between how they receive information and how I receive information. Now, while I don’t expect to instantly solve all of our problems in a single column, I want to explain that distinction in case it offers the least bit of inoculation against further disinformation and fear. Even more virulent bills are already being filed in state legislatures across the country, including some that are now trying to detransition trans adults — not just kids. We need to figure out how to push back in 2023.
So here are some of the reactions that I frequently hear from others that instantly tell me we aren’t on the same page:
“Well, maybe they have a point.”
“They’re onto something though.”
“I think they’re right to have doubts.”
“I still have questions myself.”
I totally understand if somebody doesn’t totally know the ins and outs of an issue. It’s a perfectly natural human instinct to take in new information and immediately try to reckon with it compared to the understanding you already have. It’s not surprising that many folks don’t know what to do with the kinds of messaging they hear.
I’ve similarly seen many fall into the trap of, “Many people disagree, so it’s not a settled issue.” But in this age of extremism and disinformation, we have to respond more critically than that to new information and points of view; frankly a lot of people who disagree on a lot of issues are just plain wrong. Personally, when there’s even a hint of political relevance, I don’t consider much of anything at face value these days. There’s a question we must train ourselves to ask first: “What are the people saying this trying to accomplish?”
It sounds cynical, I know. But context is key to processing all of the doubts being sown, whether it’s around how to properly care for trans kids, the manufactured conflict between free speech and nondiscrimination protections, or the false belief that children need to somehow be protected from the “grooming” of LGBTQ+ identities and culture. The people encouraging skepticism on these matters have a clear motive for doing so, and we need to recognize that motive when considering what they say. Doing so ensures that your first instinct isn’t to consider what they’re saying at face value but to instead ask: Is there another explanation for what they’re saying?
Everything old is new again
To explore how this works, let’s first dig not into one of the current issues, but one that is fairly settled: same-sex parenting. There is certainly still present-day opposition, such as the homophobia Pete and Chasten Buttigieg have faced since adopting twins, but the arguments against same-sex parenting no longer carry any weight in mainstream media. Ten years ago, however, the debate was quite alive as part of the ongoing legal fights over same-sex marriage. Let’s look at how conservatives were sowing doubt then — and how analyzing their motives helped reveal those arguments to be the bullshit we know them to be today.
One of the most popular claims against same-sex parenting relied on studies of children raised by single mothers. These children unsurprisingly had less favorable outcomes than those raised by both a mother and a father, so conservatives claimed that the problem was “fatherlessness.” If a child raised by only one mother would fare worse in the world, the missing father was clearly the key factor and a second mother would do little to help. These studies, they argued, proved that the gender-normative parenting of both a mother and father was essential to a child’s well-being.
But what were they trying to accomplish by making this point? They wanted to discriminate against same-sex families. There was a fairly obvious alternative explanation for these studies: Children simply benefit from having secure family units with two parents instead of one. Their arguments were just an attempt to capitalize on instinctive sexism. The “fatherless” studies had little to say about same-sex parenting, and researchers even had to speak out about conservatives misusing their studies to draw discriminatory conclusions.
Conservatives also simultaneously — and ironically — argued that there wasn’t enough research on same-sex parenting, so just to be safe, we shouldn’t allow it in case it results in harmful outcomes for children. Here again, the motive was discrimination and another explanation was readily available. There were actually plenty of same-sex couples already raising happy, healthy, successful children. Conservatives were clearly trying to prevent future research about same-sex parenting, which, by the way, has consistently confirmed same-sex couples make excellent parents — sometimes even better parents than traditional heterosexual couples.
“Protecting gender norms is safer for kids.”
“There’s not enough research to justify it.”
“Block it just in case it’s harmful.”
Do these arguments sound familiar? They’re exactly what we’re hearing from conservatives now, just slightly repurposed and repackaged for the issues of the day. Let’s look at how considering their motivations impacts the way we perceive their claims.
Claim: “A gay baker shouldn’t have to make an anti-gay cake.”
What are they trying to accomplish? The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which believes homosexuality should be criminalized, has pursued countless legal cases trying to justify and allow discrimination against LGBTQ+ people. These cases, like the current U.S. Supreme Court case 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, are often couched in “religious freedom” or freedom of speech claims, but the motivation is quite obviously to chip away at marriage equality just like they spent decades chipping away at abortion. Harmful segregation is the transparent goal.
Knowing that, do they maybe have a point? No. Gay bakers already don’t have to sell anti-gay cakes to anybody, so this is a red herring. The wedding vendors ADF represents want to refuse to sell the identical product to same-sex couples that they sell to different-sex couples. It’s textbook discrimination, and we don’t have to tolerate it to protect free speech or shield ourselves from bigotry.
Claim: “We don’t know if puberty blockers are safe enough for trans kids to be using.”
What are they trying to accomplish? We’ve seen a concerted effort across the countries by conservatives who want to use the law to ban trans kids (and increasingly adults) from receiving any and all affirming care and to even investigate the parents or doctors who are trying to provide it. They are trying to legislate trans people out of existence — that’s not hyperbole — and families are literally fleeing across state lines to ensure their kids can safely receive the care recommended by all major medical organizations.
Knowing that, do they maybe have a point? No. Puberty blockers have been used for decades to safely treat precocious puberty, and many trans kids have already benefited from them as well without consequences. We’re constantly finding ways to perfect trans medicine, but there might never be a perfect consequence-free way to care for each and every person. Anecdotes of negative experiences cannot justify banning the researched-informed approaches that are helping so many others, let alone the persecution of families following medical advice. The same can be said of arguments about the existence of detransitioners, who deserve support and care but who are still an exception to the overwhelming number of kids benefiting from transitioning. We can’t learn to provide improved care by banning the current care available.
Claim: “Kids should not be exposed to drag.”
What are they trying to accomplish? The whole point of drag queen story hours is to help kids learn how to be inclusive of LGBTQ+ people as they grow up. They cover both that it’s ok if they have a queer identity and how to be accepting if someone else does. That’s the very opposite of the bigotry conservatives would like to inculcate. They are knowingly encouraging violence in response to these events while simultaneously banning the inclusive books being read at them. This is a campaign of bullying in hopes of allowing more bullying.
Knowing that, do they maybe have a point? No. Parents are happily taking kids to events that include drag performances because the kids are safely learning and having a good time. The people targeting drag don’t have the same concerns about taking kids to Hooters, so this is just an appeal to sexist gender norms. Our opponents aren’t even bothering to try to engage with the parents taking their kids to see drag performers; instead, they’re targeting the queer artists and venues directly. They incorrectly believe they can somehow prevent kids from being queer and they’re simultaneously — and violently — trying to limit our participation in society.
The campaigns against us are very real and very harmful. We have to recognize what’s at stake before we engage. Humoring the debate or holding out support to “just ask questions” is exactly what our opponents want, because it helps them spread more disinformation while distracting from the harm caused by their efforts. They hope to hook you on some seemingly benign matter like drag or trans athletes and suddenly you’re parroting their harmful messaging.
So think twice: Are you taking the bait? Does the concern proportionally match what the person raising it is trying to accomplish? Do your doubts do more to help our opponents than they do members of the LGBTQ+ community?
Maybe each and every debate isn’t settled! But if you want to be part of the debate, start by being on the right side of it.
Otherwise, don’t be surprised when the rest of us see you as being on the wrong side.
I’m going to try to produce more independent content like this in 2023! In addition to hopefully publishing some more columns, I’ve also started making content on TikTok. I have no idea what I’m doing, but I’ve made some political explainers and also some goofy TikTok content, and I hope you’ll follow me there. I’m also sticking with Twitter for now, so keep up with me there.
If you find yourself wrestling with these kinds of political questions, don’t hesitate to let me know. I’m always looking for ideas for how I can be more helpful to folks. And if this is your first time here, subscribe to keep up with my future writing:
Until next time, stay platinum.