The Coming Pivotal Decade

The United States went through a great number of significant cultural changes over the past decade, almost all of them negative. None were as significant as the shift over transgenderism. A similar shift can be observed regarding the Confederate battle flag and the other symbols of Dixie. In 2010, the Confederate battle flag was still proudly flying throughout all of Dixie; whereas in 2020, even “Dixie Beer” was no longer acceptable. As much as I hate it, there were still mainstream controversies over the symbols of Dixie.

But that is not what happened with transgenderism in the 2010s. In 2010, it was almost universally considered abhorrent by the vast majority of society, even to the Left. At the start of the decade, the leftwing position would have been something akin to, “they’re messed up, but be nice to them.” However, over the course of the last decade, the movement became a juggernaut, enjoying the near universal support of academia, corporations, and the government. Even the military, once a bedrock of traditional masculinity, and an institution historically dominated by Southerners, went along with it. And, it really did appear as if nothing could stop it. When North Carolina tried to pass a law protecting women in the bathroom, the result ended in failure. When Trump tried to ban transgenders from serving in the military, the response from the top brass was immediate stonewalling. Contrast this to the early 1990s, when Bill Clinton tried to rescind the ban on homosexuals serving in the military, and the top brass, including Colin Powell, balked, eventually forcing Clinton to settle for the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” compromise; even then, the military had to be drug kicking and screaming to accept it. By 2020, it looked as if the transgender movement would completely swallow American society with little fight.

Now, more and more states are taking steps to restrict and combat the movement. These states tend to be clustered in Dixie, setting themselves for yet another showdown with the federal government. More broadly, the victories of the transgender movement have significantly slowed down and, in some cases, even been halted or forced into retreat. These are all positive developments, for sure. And while I don’t want to be a downer, I do not think the Right can be overly confident in a coming total victory. To understand why, we must look at the history of the homosexual “rights” movement that preceded the transgender one.

Studying the history of the 1970s, it really is remarkable how quickly the homosexual rights movement progressed. In 1969, every state in the Union, with the exception of the Land of Lincoln (curiously enough), had a law banning sodomy on the books and they were still being enforced. Throughout the 1970s, each of these laws were repealed. By the end of the decade, almost every state outside Dixie, and certain parts of the Mountain West and Midwest, had legalized sodomy. Even in the states where the anti-sodomy laws remained, these laws were rarely, if ever, enforced. The traditionalists were rapidly (and badly) losing. In 1978, California Assemblyman John Briggs introduced Proposition 6, known to history as the Briggs Initiative, that sought to ban homosexuals from teaching in the California public school system. Although the Briggs Initiative was able to get on the ballot, it ended up failing miserably. Ronald Reagan even came out opposed to it, and when the election was finally held, it was defeated by nearly 20 points. It even managed to fail in Orange County, at the time a stronghold of the John Birch Society and Brigg’s home county. Even when the traditionalists won, it would appear to be for naught. In 1977, Anita Bryant, a former beauty contestant, singer, and then spokeswoman for the Florida Citrus Commission, began a public campaign to repeal a Miami-Dade County ordnance that prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation. Her efforts were successful, at least on the ballot, receiving almost 70% of the vote. But it was a pyrrhic victory, as Bryant was fired from her job as a spokeswoman after a boycott. She very quickly went into severe financial decline and found herself to be the frequent butt of jokes in popular culture. The message was loud and clear: “We’re taking over, and there is nothing you can do about it.”

Then, something happened. Around 1980, doctors began to notice men coming in with cases of incredibly rare illnesses. The fact that these rare illnesses were popping up this frequently meant something big was happening. Soon, the medical community settled on an answer. The men in question had nothing in common except two points: 1) they were homosexuals and 2) they used intravenous drugs. It was soon decided that these men had severely weakened immune systems thanks to these activities. It was the beginning of the AIDS crisis, and the connection between the disease and homosexual activity was considered so strong that AIDS was originally called GRID (Gay Related Immune Deficiency) – until terroristic threats forced a name change. The response from the gay community was not to change their behavior one iota, but rather to expect science to wave a magic wand and come up with an immediate solution. Even the early condom campaigns were met with jeers of “sexual Nazis.” When New York City Mayor Ed Koch took a common-sense public health measure, shutting down the bathhouses, he was also met with resistance.

The response to all of this from normal society was an immediate backlash. In the 1980s, AIDS was practically a death sentence. And, initially, there was still some uncertainty as to how it was spread. Even after it became clear how AIDS was transmitted, there was still fear over how far it would spread. AIDS had the potential to be a black death style disaster, and the population it was hitting the hardest refused to make any changes to its behavior. So, of course, normal people were aghast, and that fueled a great deal of backlash. Even Neil Young was disgusted by how homosexuals were acting. By the end of the 1980s, it was clear that the movement, that once looked unstoppable in 1979, had taken a serious hit. A change in strategy was needed. In 1989, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen wrote a book called After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the ‘90s. The book suggested a new approach, essentially arguing that homosexuals must moderate their rhetoric, act like they were taking AIDS seriously enough to alter their behavior, and portray themselves as victims. It would become the blueprint for what would transpire over the next few decades. As much as the Left would like to mock the idea of a “gay agenda,” here it was/is laid out in book form.     

We can observe a parallel between this and the current transgender movement in key areas, just as the turning point in the 1980s was the rise of AIDS, the critical issues in the transgender movement appear to be: 1) biological men playing female sports and 2) the mutilation of children. In all three cases (AIDS, sports, and children), the backlash seems to be based on how the West’s moral framework has largely functioned since 1945, a heavy emphasis placed on the “care” principle – considering actions and opinions as immoral only if they harm others. This means Americans were largely willing to look the other way at homosexual activity in the 1970s – “if that’s what you want to do, go ahead.” But that calculation changed drastically when a deadly disease came into the picture. This is also why so many Americans were originally willing to overlook the transgender issue. But then they pushed the inclusion of biological men in female (including high school and college) sports, and that is when everything changed. Involvement in school sports is hard work, parents spend a lot of time and money on them. It means a lot of missed vacations. I know this from personal experience. Then, normal Americans, who were previously willing to look the other way, were met with a stark reality. All that hard work was going down the drain because their daughter was forced to compete with a biological male. We can see this, too, when children were brought into this madness. Millions of people, including those removed from the Dissident Right, had a feeling that children were being forced into transgenderism by misguided, overly eager mothers. Within a few years, there would be an epidemic of angry people who thought children had been pushed into something they were much too young to understand.

This is why I am skeptical of the recent conservative pushback, even as I do understand it is better than the alternative. It really does feel like a rehash of the 1980s. I predict that soon the transgender movement will begin to make superficial attempts at “moderation” and attempt to memory hole that they pushed for males in female sports or thought hormone blockers should be given to children, similar to the erasure of homosexuals refusing to alter their behavior in the face of AIDS. That is the moment the Right must prepare for; we cannot make the same mistakes that were made previously.