It might seem a bit extreme to think that debates over pronouns could lead to severe violence, but after recent school shootings in Minneapolis, things have taken a troubling turn.
Following the tragic events at Announcement Catholic School, conservative commentators quickly targeted the trans community when it was disclosed that the shooter, Robin Westman, identified as transgender. Homeland Security Secretary Christie Noem commented on this, and the New York Post highlighted disturbing journal entries from Westman, including one that expressed regret about their identity.
Meanwhile, mainstream media outlets like the New York Times struggled with how to address pronouns. Their initial coverage referred to Westman ambiguously, saying “a person who police say fired” before later using “she.”
The BBC labeled the shooting an “anti-Catholic hate crime” but refrained from focusing heavily on pronouns. NBC even issued a public apology for misidentifying Westman’s gender.
Noah Rothman from National Review voiced the opinion that the suspected shooter shouldn’t be allowed to choose their preferred pronouns. Personally, I find this perspective troubling, but it does highlight the moral complexities surrounding the issue of transgender recognition. It’s crucial to balance the ongoing debate about trans rights not just as privileges but as fundamental rights.
The liberal argument for trans rights often hinges on principles of fairness, equality, and safety. One can support an individual’s right to identify as they choose without necessarily enforcing that everyone must use the designated pronouns. I’ve come to appreciate that the dialogue has become combative, but I stand firmly against undermining trans rights, especially women’s rights.
This issue grows complicated, as preferred pronouns usually stem from courtesy but can clash with other heinous acts that force a reconsideration of those rights.
It’s striking to see such unwavering positions on either side. To assert that Westman must be addressed with certain pronouns assumes that trans identity isn’t legitimate. Conversely, claiming that refusing to use female pronouns for someone who committed a violent act is inherently transphobic ignores the profound moral dilemmas at play. Both viewpoints overlook a pivotal truth: our rights are genuinely tested during crises.
Even essential rights may encounter tragic limits, particularly when one right encroaches upon another—like when a sex offender loses anonymity. Using Westman’s chosen pronouns doesn’t impede others’ rights; rather, it could shed light on the broader context of this tragic event, fitting into a larger pattern.
News organizations are grappling with immense pressure, trying to navigate the tricky balance of appearing politically correct yet not overly so.
Perhaps institutions like the New York Times and BBC, in their efforts, hint at a discomfort with the complexities of gender identity. They might not admit it outright, but their hesitancy with pronouns suggests that even progressive editors fear being labeled transphobic if they fail to use female pronouns. Yet, they similarly dread the implications of using them.
It’s not overly complicated: you either support trans identity or you don’t. Should mass murderers still be acknowledged in terms of their gender identity? If we accept that gender identity is valid, then yes. It doesn’t mean we should blindly follow misinterpretations or the lead of networks like NBC. What it does mean is that principles should be applied consistently, even amid discomfort.
Conservatives tend to dismiss this right openly, which is consistent, and I have no problem with that. However, liberal media should hold steadfast to their beliefs if they champion a transgender-affirming stance. They need to express what they truly believe and avoid sidestepping the debate.
