When I looked on Twitter this morning, I saw that #BoycottHallmarkChannel was trending. It seems that the Hallmark Channel, a cable network which specializes in romance movies, white, heterosexual romance movies, nixed a commercial from the wedding planning website, Zola, which features a lesbian couple celebrating their nuptials, including them kissing on camera.
Earlier this week, One Million Moms, a division of the American Family Association that claims its mission is to “stop the exploitation of our children, especially by the entertainment media,” launched a petition urging Hallmark to stop airing the commercial and other LGBTQ content.
“The Hallmark Channel has always been known for its family friendly movies. Even its commercials are usually safe for family viewing. But unfortunately, that is not the case anymore,” One Million Moms said on its website.
The organization said other viewers expressed concerns over the Zola commercial on the channel’s online complaint board.
“Why would you show a lesbian wedding commercial on the Hallmark Channel? Hallmark movies are family friendly, and you ruined it with the commercial,” one viewer said, according to the conservative group.
“Now, parents can no longer trust Hallmark because Hallmark is no longer allowing parents to be the primary educators when it comes to sex and sexual morality,” added One Million Moms, which described homosexuality as “a sinful lifestyle that Scripture clearly deems as wrong.”
Now, I’m not certain just how effective a boycott of the Hallmark Channel could be. Given that their audience is almost exclusively heterosexual white women, women interested in romances with heterosexual white men, it would seem rather obvious that the people who would do the boycotting weren’t spending much time watching the network in the first place. Can you really boycott something you never watch in the first place?
But, for the left, the important thing is to propagandize normal people into accepting the notion that homosexual relationships and ‘marriage’ are just as good and valid as those of heterosexuals.
And then there was this, from The Washington Post:
They might hurt people more than you realize.
By Kat Jercich | December 11, 2019 | 11:29 a.m. EST
Earlier this fall, during an LGBTQ town hall on CNN, Sen. Kamala D. Harris said her pronouns were “she” and “her.”
“Mine too,” said host Chris Cuomo.
The backlash was instantaneous. By the end of the night, Cuomo had apologized on Twitter, noting his sorrow as “an ally of the LGBTQ community” — but still not managing to state his pronouns. And I wondered, not for the first time: Why can’t cisgender people be semi-normal about this?
Uhhhh, perhaps when 99.7% of people are ‘cisgender’, it shouldn’t be unexpected that a lot of people do not see ‘transgender’ as a normal thing. As big a doofus as Mr Cuomo is, even he probably didn’t think that it was necessary to “state his pronouns,” because his sex, his ‘pronouns,’ are obvious to anyone who can see his image and hear his voice.
This ham-handed approach appears to transcend political affiliation. Ricky Gervais, who has made no secret of his disdain for so-called politically correct culture, has claimed that his pronouns are “it” and “he he” — because he’s a comedian, get it? At a recent conference I attended, one panelist identified her pronoun as “boss,” to the delight of most of the packed room. Enough people, whether they’re well-meaning or trolly, have indulged in this behavior that it has become a meme: Bisexual actor Joshua Rush tweeted in October that saying “my pronouns are attack helicopter” is one of “like three jokes” homophobes and transphobes rely on.
The problem for the writer, Kat Jercich,¹ is that many people do see ‘transgenderism’ as a joke. That’s probably a plus for the ‘transgendered,’ given that the alternative is to see them as mentally ill, delusional and deranged.
Further down, Miss Jercich decides to get get just deathly serious, telling the readers that those who make jokes about such things are actively harming other people:
You may get a laugh, but is the cost — the alienation, discomfort or frustration of vulnerable people — worth it? A cisgender person who claims that their pronouns are “dance mom” and “brat” is suggesting that they are not interested in how fraught this matter can be for trans and non-binary people.
Those of us who make a point of identifying our pronouns often want to make sure that others see us as we are. Having my gender interpreted incorrectly makes me feel panicky, like trying on a sweater that’s too tight around the neck in a crowded store. Others have said it makes them feel stigmatized, lonely, dysphoric, depressed or threatened. It’s not appropriate for people who aren’t in danger of being fired, evicted or even murdered for their gender identity to decide that pronouns are a joking matter.
In this, Miss Jercich fails to understand: many people are less interested in “how fraught² this matter can be for trans and non-binary people” than they are in demonstrating that they think this whole thing is silly. For this writer, however, I find it less a subject for jokes than an attempt to force people to agree with the underlying notion of ‘transgenderism,’ that a person’s biological sex can somehow be altered through the use of drugs, hormones and surgery. I can understand how someone like Bradley Manning³ could really, really, really wish that he was female, but that doesn’t make him female, regardless of how he “identifies” himself. To go along with his claims is to go along with a lie, to accept a falsehood as the truth, and to, inter alia, accept the cockamamie notion that a person can really change his sex.
As it happens, I grew up with a name, Dana, which is far more frequently used for females than males these days, and I was even asked out once by a girl named Dana. Thus, there have been many instances in which I received mail addressed to “Miss Dana Pico” or “Ms Dana Pico,” but I somehow managed to get over the tremendous trauma of such ‘misgendering.’ I needn’t specify my pronouns, because anyone seeing my image or hearing my voice would instantly identify me as a man. Perhaps my lack of concern about that offends Miss Jercich, but it really doesn’t matter. Perhaps my experiences inform my opinion, that such ‘misgendering’ of the ‘transgendered’ or ‘non-binary’ is hardly serious, that they should just get over themselves. But just because people want to lie to others, and lie to themselves, about what they really are, does not in any way obligate me to go along with their lies, nor does it, or should it, make me feel bad about telling the truth.
¹ – I would note here that The Washington Post identified Miss Jercich solely as “an editor and writer.” It took a visit to her Twitter biography to ascertain what I suspected anyway; her Twitter bio states she is “Queer and excitable. [she/they]”. The Post didn’t specify her ‘pronouns,’ nor mention that she is homosexual, in an opinion piece about the subjects.
² – “Fraught” is an adjective, not a noun, something “an editor and writer” should have known. “Fraught with anxiety” or something similar would have been correct.
³ – Mr Manning legally changed his name to Chelsea Elizabeth Manning, while he was still in prison, because the Obama Administration declined to oppose his petition for the name change in court. The name change was part of Mr Manning’s attempts to get the government to provide and pay for his ‘sexual reassignment’ procedures. President Obama commuted Mr Manning’s 35-year prison sentence in his last days in office. It should be noted that both sources cited in this footnote, The Washington Post and National Public Radio, used the feminine pronouns to refer to Mr Manning. This raises the obvious question: why should anyone trust the credentialed media when they lie about a ‘transgender’ person’s sex?
Please visit my Red State story archive for more of my articles.
My personal website, The First Street Journal, includes articles not necessarily in Red State’s paradigm.
You can follow me on Twitter.