How Conservatives Co-opt Important Aspects of the LGBTQ+ Movement to Silence Members of The Community

The rights of the LGBTQ+ community have historically been a contentious topic within society. There are many ways in which opponents of this movement have constructed discourses to prevent these individuals from legally acquiring rights and protections. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, LGBTQ+ activists in Vermont pushed to legalize same sex marriage. However, in the process, Conservatives appropriated queer arguments and used them to formulate policies that silenced these individuals. Similarly, in more recent years, Republicans have taken the premise of sexual education and manipulated it so that people view allies and members of the movement as ‘groomers.’ In both of these examples, conservatives appropriated crucial aspects of these communities and manipulated their meanings to perpetuate harmful narratives that ultimately prevented LGBTQ+ activists from contributing their voices.

In order to better understand how same-sex marriage was legalized in Vermont, authors Mary Burke and Mary Bernstein examined two prominent newspapers. The Burlington Free Press discussed important political issues in the state while Out in the Mountains promoted different perspectives and opinions present within the LGBTQ+ movement. However, before unpacking the arguments presented by both sides, I first want to acknowledge the various opinions that existed within the LGBTQ+ community at this time. During the earliest stages of this discussion, queer activists hesitated to fight for the legalization of same sex marriage for several reasons. They critiqued marriage as an institution for being “exclusionary, patriarchal, or heteros exist.”

These individuals also expressed concerns that “same sex marriage would damage existing domestic partnership policies, would promote marriage over other alternative family forms, or would be unfair to single and polyamorous people.” While proponents of same sex marriage acknowledged these different opinions, they didn’t engage with queer activists or address their concerns head on.

As the state didn’t explicitly mandate same sex marriage, this decision amplified queer voices, making them more prominent within the news papers mentioned above. However, opponents of the LGBTQ+ community began “appropriating the content of queer discourse while subverting its intent.” Conservatives used the wording of this law to advocate for “reserving marriage for heterosexual cou ples and expanding [the legislation] to include any couple who could not legally marry such as blood relatives.” Thus, these individuals co-opted arguments originally utilized by the queer community to recenter the discourse on different debates. Even in the newspapers that traditionally published all types of opinions and perspectives from the LGBTQ+ community, such as Out in the Mountains, there was a complete lack of “reflective discussion of [queer] relations hip schemes…”

In fact, from 1996-1999, queer voices occupied 17 percent of the content in these two newspapers. However, these statistics fell to 0 percent 2001 and then increased to 5 percent in 2002. Consequently, the appropriation of queer perspectives by opponents of these communities effectively silenced their voices, preventing meaningful conversations from taking place.

These internal divisions become important with respect to the language used in Baker vs. The State, the case that finally legalized same sex marriage. After listening to the arguments presented by both parties, Vermont

“opened up the possibility that alternatives to marriage could be the

A similar dynamic is reflected in the way Conservatives have altered the meaning of the word ‘grooming’ to manipulate debates regarding the LGBTQ+ community in more recent years.

The Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN) defines grooming as the following: “manipulative behaviors used by sexual abusers to gain access to a potential victim, coerce them to agree to the abuse, and reduce the risk of being caught.” In the past few years, opponents of the LGBTQ+ movemen t have suggested that individuals pertaining to these communities “are pedophiles who are preying on children by discussing issues related to sexual orientation and gender identity.”

More simply put, conservatives argue that members of the LGBTQ+ community force children and teenagers to question their sexual orientation or their gender identity when talking to them about these themes. As a result of this discourse, more Republicans have passed harmful legislation, like the “Don’t Say Gay Bill,” in order to prohibit these discussions from taking place in general.

One can observe this intentional prevention of sexual orientation and identity conversations in the way Conservatives talk about this phenomenon on platforms like Twitter.

In one tweet, commentator Jesse Kel ly wrote the following: “Demand your opponent respond to questions about [these bills]. Call them groomers and pedophiles if they oppose it. Put THEM on the defensive. Make THEM afraid. Make THEM avoid talking about it. You have the high ground. Use it to destroy your enemy!”

The language Kelly uses is incredibly powerful. He manipulates a conversation about sexual education into a contentious fight. He compels other Republicans to construct an environment that makes members of this community feel alarmed and unsafe. In fact, he goes as far as to champion the forceful expulsion and utter destruction of queer voices in general. Historically, sex education has allowed LGBTQ+ people to learn more about their sexualities, gender identities, and the diverse perspectives that exist within the movement. However, conservatives like Kelly have appropriated important terms such as ‘grooming’ to develop legislation that demands the reversal of essential protections. Additionally, the portrayal of LGBTQ+ individuals as an enemy has prevented their voices from being heard or even considered.

Despite the different ways in which the dynamics above developed, they share many important characteristics. In both cases, it becomes clear that problematic trends have emerged in the ongoing battle for LGBTQ+ rights. Conservatives have co-opted critical aspects of these conversations in calculated ways. From the appropriation of queer discourse in the fight for same sex marriage to the malicious reframing of sexual education discussions as ‘grooming’ Conservatives strategically hijacked these narratives to further suppress and silence LGBTQ+ voices. Not only has this deliberate manipulation of language and ideas halted progress, but it’s also actively undermined the hard-won rights of this community.

Additionally, the way Republicans have altered the meaning of words such as ‘grooming’ demonstrates a more recent and dangerous weaponization of language. By falsely equating discussions about sexual orientation and gender identity with predatory behavior, Conservatives have successfully enacted harmful legislation like the “Don’t Say Gay Bill,” effectively silencing essential conversations about identity and diversity. The deliberate fear-mongering and branding of LGBTQ+ individuals as enemies in these debates not only stifles dialogue, but also endangers the fundamental rights of this community. As the landscape of LGBTQ+ rights continues to face assaults, acknowledging and dissecting these methods of cooptation becomes a crucial step in fortifying the movement. By recognizing these tactics, we can devise strategies that empower LGBTQ+ voices, challenge problematic misconstructions, and pave the way for a more inclusive and equitable society-one where the rights and identities of all are respected and protected. ***