A teenage girl reportedly brought video evidence to local police after she caught Republican Mayor of the Village of Butler in Ohio, Wesley Dingus, in her room sniffing underwear
I’ll take a stab at this rhetorical question, even though I’m not a right winger nor an American – just been reading up on their ‘theories’ and wackiness a bit.
From their ideological perspective, I imagine that the more nuanced response (ie. not the base’s “GAY BAD!”), would be that the issue of crime/outliers exist in any group, but that the existence of a trans-interest specific movement is dangerous to the broader community/stability. Do republican pedophile incestuous mayors exist? Yes. Are they lobbying to change how government treats them / trying to get more privileges and special treatment to support their pedophile incestuous mayor collective? No. So the ‘risk’ to society of a one off criminal, is far less than the risk of a collective movement intent on dismantling social norms in favour of norms specifically beneficial to their niche members, and generally detrimental to the interests of non-niche members.
It’s similar to Dave Chappelle’s comments, about how he knows/likes trans people he meets on an individual/personal level, but he hates the “trans community”. It’s the collective community that they take issue with, as it aims to dismantle what they consider the norms of social life / public interactions.
To try and frame their issue a bit differently using a recent example: most educated folks know about people with Tourette’s, even if they don’t fully understand the condition. But there’s a significant difference between understanding it / tolerating it within a limited context, and inviting someone with Tourette’s to sit within mic shot at the BAFTA’s and pretending everyone should be comfortable with it just because it’s a disability. Being at a black-tie type event, and hearing someone scream the N-word at a couple of black presenters is uncivilized, but it’s “tolerated” under the guise of these niche special interest groups. Just like everyone’s been forced to “tolerate” fent users collapsed all over the place in many metropolitan cities, under the guise of “drug user rights advocacy groups” – do people understand folks are addicted? Yes. Does that understanding make seeing them flopped out, shitting in public etc, a “civilized” experience? Nah.
I’m just gonna say from my perspective, this take is wrong.
I understand where you were trying to go with this, but I completely disagree that that is what republicans are thinking when they hate on trans people. Most republicans who are transphobic hate the individual trans people too, not just the community. It’s pretty apparent with how they treat individual trans people in public. Even cis people, if they look just slightly “too androgynous” (read not exactly what the bigot expects a cis person to look like), are targets for these people.
And that also doesn’t touch on why republicans paint trans people as pedophiles, when the biggest pedophile operations are within the religious and political elite. AFAIK, there is no correlation between transgenderism and pedophilia. There is a high correlation between religiosity and pedophilia though.
You may think the take is wrong, but it’s basically what Posobiec and them attempt to argue in “Unhumans”, a political ideology book that’s been lauded by Vance, Trump Jr, Carlson and so on. It is rather overtly what their more “intellectual” (debatable!) contingent paint as the ideological justification for their actions. What they describe there also explains what they’re “trying” to do with some of their other shenanigans, like the supreme courts overturning of women’s rights – or more specifically, why they wanted to push that down to the state level as part of their broader objectives.
That it gets implemented in a fear mongering way that attempts to rile up the uneducated common US idiot is a secondary ‘thing’ – as is the common US idiots take on it in the “They gonna fuck our kids/jobs!”. The ideology not matching the implementation isn’t a ‘new’ phenomenon, nor is it restricted to fascists – communism is an easy example on that front, where the ‘ideology’ rarely matches the implementation, even if you can ‘see’ elements of the ideology underpinning the movements justification for their actions.
I’ll take a stab at this rhetorical question, even though I’m not a right winger nor an American – just been reading up on their ‘theories’ and wackiness a bit.
From their ideological perspective, I imagine that the more nuanced response (ie. not the base’s “GAY BAD!”), would be that the issue of crime/outliers exist in any group, but that the existence of a trans-interest specific movement is dangerous to the broader community/stability. Do republican pedophile incestuous mayors exist? Yes. Are they lobbying to change how government treats them / trying to get more privileges and special treatment to support their pedophile incestuous mayor collective? No. So the ‘risk’ to society of a one off criminal, is far less than the risk of a collective movement intent on dismantling social norms in favour of norms specifically beneficial to their niche members, and generally detrimental to the interests of non-niche members.
It’s similar to Dave Chappelle’s comments, about how he knows/likes trans people he meets on an individual/personal level, but he hates the “trans community”. It’s the collective community that they take issue with, as it aims to dismantle what they consider the norms of social life / public interactions.
To try and frame their issue a bit differently using a recent example: most educated folks know about people with Tourette’s, even if they don’t fully understand the condition. But there’s a significant difference between understanding it / tolerating it within a limited context, and inviting someone with Tourette’s to sit within mic shot at the BAFTA’s and pretending everyone should be comfortable with it just because it’s a disability. Being at a black-tie type event, and hearing someone scream the N-word at a couple of black presenters is uncivilized, but it’s “tolerated” under the guise of these niche special interest groups. Just like everyone’s been forced to “tolerate” fent users collapsed all over the place in many metropolitan cities, under the guise of “drug user rights advocacy groups” – do people understand folks are addicted? Yes. Does that understanding make seeing them flopped out, shitting in public etc, a “civilized” experience? Nah.
I’m just gonna say from my perspective, this take is wrong.
I understand where you were trying to go with this, but I completely disagree that that is what republicans are thinking when they hate on trans people. Most republicans who are transphobic hate the individual trans people too, not just the community. It’s pretty apparent with how they treat individual trans people in public. Even cis people, if they look just slightly “too androgynous” (read not exactly what the bigot expects a cis person to look like), are targets for these people.
And that also doesn’t touch on why republicans paint trans people as pedophiles, when the biggest pedophile operations are within the religious and political elite. AFAIK, there is no correlation between transgenderism and pedophilia. There is a high correlation between religiosity and pedophilia though.
You may think the take is wrong, but it’s basically what Posobiec and them attempt to argue in “Unhumans”, a political ideology book that’s been lauded by Vance, Trump Jr, Carlson and so on. It is rather overtly what their more “intellectual” (debatable!) contingent paint as the ideological justification for their actions. What they describe there also explains what they’re “trying” to do with some of their other shenanigans, like the supreme courts overturning of women’s rights – or more specifically, why they wanted to push that down to the state level as part of their broader objectives.
That it gets implemented in a fear mongering way that attempts to rile up the uneducated common US idiot is a secondary ‘thing’ – as is the common US idiots take on it in the “They gonna fuck our kids/jobs!”. The ideology not matching the implementation isn’t a ‘new’ phenomenon, nor is it restricted to fascists – communism is an easy example on that front, where the ‘ideology’ rarely matches the implementation, even if you can ‘see’ elements of the ideology underpinning the movements justification for their actions.