The Family Research Council and the Politics of Exclusion

The Family Research Council and the Politics of Exclusion May 23, 2016

Guess what I noticed on the Family Research Council Facebook page?

Screen Shot 2016-05-20 at 10.29.11 AM

Image description: A Family Research Council Facebook post featuring a picture of three girls in swimsuits in a locker room with the text “Protect Their Rights” emblazoned on it, the words “because they should not be silenced for feeling uncomfortable with a male student in their locker room” above it, and the words “urge Congress to take action to protect our children and stop the Obama administration’s radical overreach” under it. 

This image, of course, refers to President Obama’s new directive advising public elementary and secondary schools on how to accommodate transgender students. There are several things to note here. First, the image calls the viewer to “protect their rights” and to “take action to protect our children” but clearly excludes transgender students from both “their” and “our.” Next, the text above the image reads: “Because they should not be silenced for feeling uncomfortable with a male student in their locker room.” This is interesting, because the Family Research Council isn’t generally big on children’s rights, or on asking children what they want.

And you know what? In most cases where accommodations for a transgender student have become an issue, it is the parents, and not the fellow students, who have made it an issue—and it isn’t always even an issue! There are transgender students at my daughter’s elementary school, but I haven’t heard an issue at all. The students’ aren’t bothered, the children aren’t bothered, there is absolutely no problem.

And yet we get this from the Family Research Council:

Screen Shot 2016-05-20 at 10.30.59 AM

Image description: Family Research Council Facebook post of an image of diverse elementary school children accompanying an article titled “3 Reasons North Carolina Is Right to Protect the Privacy and Safety of its Citizens.” 

Okay, so, I have a question. Where do transgender students fit in this framing? Aren’t they, too, citizens of North Carolina, if that is where they live? Note that they’re entirely excluded from this plead or protecting “the privacy and safety” of North Carolina’s citizens. Since they’re the other, presumably. Somehow they don’t count, and their privacy and safety does not matter. What’s galling, though, is their complete and deliberate exclusion from every mention of “our children” and “their rights” in each piece promotional literature for Family Research Council or other related groups that I’ve seen. In a world where 40% of trans people will commit suicide, this exclusion is so inexcusable as to be horrifying.

Two more things. First, is it accurate to describe someone as a “citizen” of a state, rather than simply as a resident? I’m curious whether this is done deliberately, by the way, given that the opposition to North Carolina’s HB2 is coming from the federal Department of Justice, in the name of guaranteeing all citizens’ rights. Emphasizing that these are citizens of North Carolina may subconsciously suggest that this should be a state-level decision only. Finally, I suspect that the kids in that picture wouldn’t even notice if a transgender student used the bathroom next to them in school, but then I don’t think the Family Research Council actually cares about their feelings.

Speaking of which, when did Family Research Council become concerned about whether students are made to feel uncomfortable in their own school? Consider that Media Matters states that the Family Research Council “leads” the fight against anti-gay bulling prevention efforts. Every step along the way, they’ve done everything they can to stonewall efforts to cut down on anti-gay bullying in public schools. They appear to only care about whether students are made to feel uncomfortable in ways that make those who work at Family Research Council uncomfortable.

Here’s another one from their Facebook page:

Screen Shot 2016-05-20 at 10.31.29 AM

Image description: Petition labeled “I strongly urge Congress to take action to protect our children and stop the Obama administration’s radical overreach” with the intro “This has gone too far. The United States Congress is still the voice of the American people. It’s past time that they stand up to the unlawful actions of the president. If you agree, SIGN your name here.” 

Here again with the call to “protect our children.” Well guess what? The transgender children the directive is intended to help are “our children” too. After all, they are children, and the “our” being used is clearly a collective term. Therefore, transgender children, too, are “our children.” What about protecting them?

And then there’s this one, too:

Screen Shot 2016-05-23 at 6.38.13 AM

Image description: A young girl covers her face while sitting in an empty classroom. The image accompanies an article titled “Transgender Activists Put Ideology Above Safety” with the intro line “If the transgender movement is truly about acceptance and tolerance for ALL, then the voices of women and young girls who are uncomfortable with a male in their restroom need to be heard.

In claiming that transgender activists put ideology above safety, the Family Research Council comes across as either profoundly unaware or profoundly dense. The Family Research Council itself is putting ideology above safety—namely, they are putting their ideas about gender (as evidenced by their insistence on calling transgender women men) above the safety of trans people. Should we talk about the safety of women and girls? Absolutely! But (a) this conversation has got to include trans women and trans girls and (b) I and other progressives have talked about the safety of all women and all girls, and frequently, pointing out that trans people are not predators and that, say, girls are more likely to be molested in their churches than in a public bathroom.

Should we hear form women and young girls concerned about trans friendly bathroom bills? Yes. And then we should give them accurate information to help quell their fears. But this isn’t just about unreasonable fears versus accurate information. It’s also about various groups’ contrasting fears—and that is something the Family Research Council doesn’t seem to be able to grasp, just like they can post an image of teen girls in swimsuits with the words “Protect Their Rights” without apparently even realizing that one of those girls could be trans, or that trans girls have rights that need protecting too. Can you say selective?

 

What I want to leave you with, though, is that underlying exclusion. The very framework the Family Research Council uses when speaking of “our children” and “their rights” ignores the reality that trans children are children too, and they also have rights. It creates a framework where they can claim to be protecting innocent children from the other, from the predator, without acknowledging that that in many cases that supposed predator is another innocent child, and that in many cases the conflict itself is created by the parents, and not by the children.

If the Family Research Council cared about rights, and about privacy, and about safety, they wouldn’t oppose anti-bullying efforts, they wouldn’t have opposed gay marriage, and they wouldn’t continue to portray LGBTQ people as child predators. If they cared about child sexual abuse, they would be leading an effort to inform their followers of where such abuse usually occurs—in the home—and who typically perpetrates it—a family member or close friend. They would be working to weed out such abuse in their churches, their Christian schools, and their colleges and universities. But they don’t appear to be doing any of that.

This isn’t about protecting children, and it isn’t about privacy or safety, and it isn’t about protecting people’s rights. It’s about valuing ideology over people.


Browse Our Archives