Yep, it's this sh*t all over again ...
Introduction
Whenever right wing authoritarian movements seek to increase their power, they inevitably look for a weak minority they can target as an enemy to rally their supporters around defeating. This has its greatest, most visceral effect when the enemy is portrayed as a threat to their children. This was, (and still is), behind the centuries old blood libels against Jews, claiming that they killed Christian children to use their blood to make matzos for Passover. Never mind the logical gaps involved here, the intent was all that mattered, anger the Christian majority into believing that Jews were evil monsters who were a direct threat to their children. The modern QAnon movement echoes many of these attacks in the name of “protecting the children.”
Fast forward to the late 1970’s when former Miss America, Anita Bryant made a splash with her public condemnations of gays. With no actual evidence, she claimed that gays were enrolling young children “into the gay lifestyle.” Her argument justifying this claim was that, since gay people cannot reproduce via gay sex, they had no supply of NEW gay people without recruiting innocent, presumably straight young people to CHOOSE to be gay. This began a long stretch of claims from the religious right regarding “choosing the gay lifestyle,” as they refused to accept the idea that sexual preference was an inborn character trait much like green eyes or auburn hair. (I’ll go into certain implications of this theory in my concluding remarks.)
Back then we were trying to recover from Nixon and his criminal strongman approach to government. Now we are in a similar predicament with Orange Grifto. And they are playing the same games, seeking to other LGBTQ+ people so that their base have a tangible target for their hatred. The performative outrage last week over Bud Light was quite indicative of their vicious mindset in unleashing the wrath of right wingers pent up hatred at trans people. And in true MAGA fashion, they were pointing at the recent shootings by trans people as PROOF that they are dangerous. This despite the fact that the data and evidence show that they are perpetrators of a tiny fraction of shootings, and are victims of far more. This approach also echoes how Tucker Carlson’s favorite dictator, Victor Orban, took over Hungary.
As I mentioned recently in a comment, for the past month I have been donning my asbestos dry suit and diving head-first into the cesspool known as Twitter. I had an account for years, but had only made a handful of Tweets prior to mid-March. I decided that with all of the progressive voices leaving the platform, there still needed to be pushback against their bullshit. In the process I have put together a collection of links for studies and other resources which help rebut their claims that trans and gay people are more likely to be pedophiles and groomers from whom children need SPECIAL protection.
Data Sources
This first is a compilation of studies and discussions which include a nuanced discussion of gender and sexual preference definitions, things which the Christian right has used for years to muddy the waters. They also debunk some of the anti-gay mythology from the Family Research Council and their fellow travelers.
Facts about Homosexuality and Child Molestation
Reflecting the results of these and other studies, as well as clinical experience, the mainstream view among researchers and professionals who work in the area of child sexual abuse is that homosexual and bisexual men do not pose any special threat to children.For example, in one review of the scientific literature, noted authority Dr. A. Nicholas Groth wrote:
Are homosexual adults in general sexually attracted to children and are preadolescent children at greater risk of molestation from homosexual adults than from heterosexual adults?There is no reason to believe so.The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation.There appears to be practically no reportage of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual(Groth & Gary, 1982, p. 147).
[Regarding that last point, earlier in the report they noted that many pedophiles have no adult sexuality, and are instead fixated on children regardless of gender. As such, referring to an adult fixated male having relations with a boy as being homosexual is inaccurate, as he does not have homosexual relations with other adult males. And while right wingers will inevitably claim that it is still a man having sex with a same sex child, where their complaint fails is that the offender is not someone they would otherwise identify as a gay male to be feared. (kbman)]
Conclusion
The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children.This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.
This paper summarizes results from a study of a regional children’s hospital and their child sexual abuse clinic.
Are Children at Risk for Sexual Abuse by Homosexuals?
Using the data from our study, the 95% confidence limits, of the risk children would identify recognizably homosexual adults as the potential abuser, are from 0% to 3.1%. These limits are within current estimates of the prevalence of homosexuality in the general community.
Conclusions:
The children in the group studied were unlikely to have been molested by identifiably gay or lesbian people.
This next study looks at the propensity for sexual violence versus the likelihood of being a victim of sexual violence — SV.
Youth Characteristics Associated With Sexual Violence Perpetration Among Transgender Boys and Girls, Cisgender Boys and Girls, and Nonbinary Youth
Results
Among 4193 youths in the sample (mean [SD] age, 14.8 [0.7] years), 3282 participants (78.3%) were cisgender, 329 participants (7.9%) were transgender, and 582 participants (13.9%) were nonbinary. The odds of SV perpetration were not statistically significantly different for transgender boys and girls (odds ratio [OR], 0.90; 95% CI, 0.57-1.41; P = .64) or nonbinary youths (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.54-1.12; P = .18) compared with cisgender boys and girls. By contrast, transgender boys and girls (OR, 2.31; 95% CI, 1.83-2.91; P < .001) and nonbinary youths (OR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.98-2.83; P < .001) were more than 2-fold as likely as cisgender boys and girls to report experiencing SV. Aggressive behavior was associated with higher odds of SV perpetration for transgender boys and girls (adjusted OR [aOR], 1.87; 95% CI, 0.75-4.65; P = .18) and nonbinary youths (aOR, 1.61; 95% CI, 0.78-3.32; P = .20). Indications of hostile masculinity were associated with higher odds of SV perpetration among cisgender youths (ie, positive attitudes for boys to engage in rape behaviors: aOR per unit increase in score, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.07-1.25; P < .001; sexual dominance: aOR per unit increase in score, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.04; P < .001) but not among transgender or nonbinary youths.
This cross-sectional study found that gender minority youths were more likely to experience SV but equally likely to perpetrate SV compared with cisgender youths. Antitransgender sentiment and gender-based stigma may be associated with increased risk of SV among gender minority youths,46,47 but despite higher rates of experiencing SV, rates of sexual aggression were similar across genders. Our findings, therefore, run counter to historical stereotypes of sexual deviancy of gender minorities.48
High rates of trauma experiences for youths who perpetrated SV were notable, particularly so for transgender boys and girls, as well as nonbinary youths. For both groups, all but 1 youth reported adversity. This serves as an important reminder that youths who use aggression are often trying to navigate trauma of their own and may likely benefit from empathetic rather than punitive intervention.
Cisgender girls were significantly less likely than cisgender boys to report SV perpetration; we found similar patterns for transgender girls vs transgender boys. Moreover, findings for cisgender youths suggested that norms that perpetuate toxic masculinity were associated with SV perpetration: rape attitudes condoning boys’ perpetration and sexual dominance. These differences were not noted for transgender boys or girls or nonbinary youths. These findings suggest that prevention programs may need to address culturally asserted gender roles, particularly with cisgender boys and girls, but perhaps less so with transgender boys and girls and nonbinary youths, who may be actively contending with these gender norms or have already considered and rejected these stereotypes. Being gender inclusive is not equivalent to being gender neutral. Prevention programs that are challenging gender and sexuality norms should be evaluated for their relevance to gender minority youths.
Official guidance from the FBI and DOJ's Center for Missing and Exploited Children [PDF] regarding child sexual abuse has exactly one mention of the word gay, and no mentions of transsexuals. It is an older study, but if these were inherent traits of gay and trans people then they should transcend time. The mention is in regards to defense strategies which have been used, not propensity to abuse.
Similarly, The National Strategy for Child Exploitation Prevention and Interdiction has ZERO mentions of gay or trans people. If they were the significant source of risk that MAGA claim them to be, then they would have a prominent role in this report.
Meanwhile, the profile of the prototypical pedophile tends towards the opposite end of the spectrum of public image. Far from being semi social outcasts like gay and trans people, they are respected members of the community:
Mental Health Center of America: Common Characteristics of a Pedophile
- Are primarily (but not always) male, masculine, better-educated, more religious than average, in their thirties, and choose jobs allowing them greater access to children.
- Are usually family men, have no criminal record, and deny that they abuse children, even after caught, convicted, incarcerated, and court-ordered into a sex offender program. The marriage is often troubled by sexual dysfunction, and serves as a smokescreen for the pedophile’s true preferences and practices.
- Are often, but not always, themselves victims of some form of childhood sexual abuse.
Conclusions and discussion
The authoritarian ideas I mentioned in the Introduction help explain why the conservative powers that be are pushing this hateful, divisive rhetoric at this time. But it still doesn’t explain the intensity of emotion being expressed by people on the right regarding LGBTQ+ rights and the false accusations being made against them.
For those who were unaware, Anheauer-Busch made A special can — AS IN ONE, that had a rainbow design — for trans TIkTok influencer Dylan Mulvaney. This is someone who most the universe had never heard of before the crazy right wingers made her famous. Dylan then made a video with the can that went viral … before reaction to it went toxic. The right wing outrage machine was in full Cancel Culture high dudgeon with calls for boycotts. Kid Rock, (at least the first name is relatively accurate), made a video of himself assassinating a coupe of cases of Bud Light with his oh-so-manly assault rifle. and the whole chortling crew was having a grand old time until someone reminded them that Anheuser-Busch donates huge amounts of campaign cash to Republicans. Suddenly, “Won’t you PLEASE think of the CHILDREN?” turned on a dime into, “Damn-it, there’s hard, cold, cash on the line here. Cease and desist Immediately!”
This episode provided the impetus to research these links and shut down right wing Twitter clowns spouting their hateful BS. A study I love to provide for the most vociferous of them comes from Scientific American — Single, Angry, Straight Male … Seeks Same?
There is no short synopsis in the article, so the TL;DR version is this: They sorted a group of self-identifying young straight males into two groups - those who held strongly homophobic attitudes and those who did not. This sorting was based on their answers to a questionnaire. They were put in private rooms, had measuring devices attached to their penises designed to detect and measure engorgement, and were then shown lesbian, straight, and gay porn. All of them showed similar responses to the straight and lesbian porn. But for the gay porn, the non-homophobes had minimal measurable arousal. In contrast, the strongly homophobic group were statistically significant in their collective and individual levels of arousal. And then in post-test questions they denied having been aroused.
In another test, young men were in a competitive test in which they played a video game against an “opponent in the next room” who was fictitious. Part of the game involved being able to deliver an electrical shock to their opponent if they won. Every “contestant” lost their first round. They were then delivered a light shock that supposedly had been delivered by their victorious opponent. They were also appraised ahead of time regarding the sexual orientation of their opponent.
In this study the way they were categorized into homophobic or not was based on showing them video of men having sex with each other, oral and anal, and then afterwards questioning them on their feelings and mood resulting from the videos.
The findings? Although there was no significant difference between the homophobic and non-homophobic groups in the intensity and duration of shock administered to the straight competitor on winning trials, the homophobic group delivered more intense shocks and for longer durations when they thought the person in the other room was gay.
Now all of this does not necessarily PROVE that Kid Rock secretly has a thing for penises, but he sure did seem to want to make it absolutely, positively clear to anybody and everybody that he is totally, 100% NOT GAY! And he did so in a most violent manner.
Whew! Chill, Dude! Have a brewski, oh yeah, you killed them … perhaps a Shirley Temple? Speaking of which … Maybe this is an appropriate time — if there ever is such a time, or if appropriate is the appropriate word to use -to mention that these grand conservative heroes who are attacking LGBTQ people in the name of defending children from pedophiles LOOK UP to Kid Rock and Ted Nugent. Nugent with a documented history of admitting to creeping on underage girls, and Kid Rock with his song,
Cool, Daddy Cool —
Young ladies, young ladies
I like 'em underage see
Some say that's statutory
But I say it's MANDATORY!
Anyway, I digress, I have a theory about how this dynamic comes about, though I am sure it is not original, that is to say, it is not necessarily “a theory that is mine,” [A. Elk], but merely one that I subscribe to.
Those intense homophobic feelings didn't materialize out of the ether, they were instilled into them by their parents. (GROOMERS!) Manly men, strong daddy figures imploring their little boys to be tough, not "be a pussy" or a "sissy." Then as their bodies develop, SOME of these men end up having homoerotic fantasies and start to self-loath that aspect of themselves. Some go into the closet, some go into denial, and tragically, some kill themselves.Those in denial are the ones who resent anything that reminds them of their unresolved sexual ambiguity. Those are the kinds of men who get a chubby watching two guys have sex and then deny that it happened. They cannot admit to themselves that they have inherent gayness, and instead lash out against gays as a cover so as to project their own manliness. The more angry and violent, the more heavily repressed I suspect they were as a child.
And getting back to Anita Bryant and the religious right’s claim that people “choose the homosexual lifestyle” … There are a few salient point to be made here. The first is to ask them a question. If homosexuality is a choice, then why would anyone ever end up being homosexual considering the risks to reputation, health, and life itself that expressing as gay entails?
The second is to point out a logical extrapolation of their claim. If you claim that people CHOOSE to “live the gay lifestyle,” that means that YOU are CHOOSING to express as heterosexual. But if you are CHOOSING to do so instead of being compelled by your biology, doesn’t that mean that you are NOMINALLY BI? If you can choose to be straight, then what was your other VIABLE option?
Not a member of the LGBTQ+ community myself, but an ally. Not being a self-centered Republican, I can have empathy for those who live a different life experience from myself. I can also have heartfelt compassion for a group who have collectively been abused and victimized by the authoritarian right for over a century. I can personally attribute my eyes being opened to the hatefulness of society’s anti-gay attitudes to my having fallen in love with the spirit and music of a local artist in Baltimore decades ago. She has since gone on to a career of spreading her message of loving out loud with joy in her heart. Her name is Sonia Rutstein, spelled SONiA, and her band is disappear fear.
In closing, this quote seems appropriate from Martin Niemöller:
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
They are coming for the LGBTQ+ community. It is incumbent on ALL people of good will to stand up for them. Now is not a time for complacency or blind acceptance of the bullying that is ongoing and escalating. It is time for action, if not out of a sense of empathy or compassion, then at least in an effort to save yourself from the encroaching fascism.
