The Traditional Values Coalition’s beauty standards


Warning: Transphobia and social conservatism ahead.

The “Traditional Values Coalition” once again has their hackles up over the proposed Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and this is the unapologetically hateful email they sent out yesterday:

Terrifying, isn’t it? If we can’t discriminate against trans people, then they might be able to hold a job, possibly even one that involves working with children! It’s almost like they think they’re human or something.

While there’s no information about the person depicted in their email or how they identify (and I doubt the TVC bothered to ask before using their picture), the attempt to police the appearance of trans people is obvious. It’s also a distraction. “Look, trans women are scary!” isn’t their true objection at all. Would they be equally upset about cis women being allowed to teach children if these women don’t meet a mainstream standard of feminine attractiveness? No. And would they suddenly be okay with trans women teaching children if they were  all beauty pageant contestants? Not a chance. They don’t have a problem with trans people because of how they look. They have a problem with trans people because we exist.

(via Jeremy Hooper/Good As You)

Comments

  1. Ma Nonny says

    Wow. Just wow. They’re not even trying to hide the transphobia.

    Also, it’s blatantly obvious to me that they never even give an argument for why trans people shouldn’t have jobs … apparently repeatedly telling you that trans people exist is supposed to be its own answer.

    “trans! … therefore, apocalypse! hurry up to take away their rights before we get confused and start thinking of them as people!”

    I think my brain is melting.

    • Besomyka says

      …repeatedly telling you that trans people exist is supposed to be its own answer.

      It really is just that shallow isn’t it.

      The argument that they make about it’s an issue of their religious freedom as to which jobs other people hold is also frustratingly common.

  2. Sivi says

    @Ma Nonny,

    They hardly hide it in public, they sure aren’t about to hide it internally. I think that’s why they don’t spell out their objections to trans* people in classrooms, too. They assume people already oppose it (for religious reasons, I imagine, given the “religious liberties” bit).

  3. Emily Aoife Somers says

    It’s a tactic that works. In the run up to LGBT legislation in Alaska, the entire project was sunk mainly on a cartoon campaign of ‘hairy guy in dress wants access to your blond, blue-eyed children’. There was far more focus on the presumed infestation of trans people in public life than concerns over gay marriage, etc. Trans people are a soft target: still easy to caricature (LG is too mainstream now for people to fall for the outdated ugliness of the 70s sissy/butch tropes, for the most part.) It taps into the paranoia in particular to trans people. It follows the typical right wing strategy of magnifying a hypothetical horror and expanding the coverage of it to indict as many people as possible. And it’s working, even in the queerness itself, as more and more LGB see T as an unworkable addition that hinders the cause, splinters resources, and is far too much a ‘special issue’ to be brought into the fold.

    • Aratina Cage says

      In the run up to LGBT legislation in Alaska

      LGBT anti-discrimination legislation in the municipality of Anchorage, specifically (Prop 5). And yes it was a nasty, dehumanizing campaign they (Jerry Prevo and the Roman Catholic Church) waged against us, pretty much the same crap we see being pumped out by the Traditional Values Coalition above.

    • says

      :( I don’t know what to say to express how awful that is. Thank you for explaining.

      Isn’t it horribly ironic? Anti-LG campaigns are *also* based on gender variance, and when they don’t work it’s because people know too many “straight-acting” queers, it something like that.

  4. Buffy says

    I’d trust Mary over any clergy person. I have yet to hear of a transperson molesting children. I’ve lost count of how many clergy abuse cases I’ve encountered.

  5. Hazelwood says

    It actually looks to me as if a ‘5 o’clock shadow’ has been photoshopped onto Mary’s face to make it appear more masculine.

    This ad is wretched.

  6. Anna says

    Mary is beautiful and I would be proud to have her teach my children.

    Diversity and being yourself is beautiful.

    The coalitions hatred is the only ugly thing I see.

  7. says

    I would totally let scare quotes Mary teach my kid, same as any other qualified teacher. It really takes 10 seconds to explain “some women look different than other women” to my 5-year-old and then we’re off to something else. It’s the TVC who are confused.

  8. Musical Atheist says

    transformation from an ugly caterpillar into a beautiful… something or other

    That is utterly disgusting. Also, is Mary a real person who knew the TVC were using her picture for this nefarious purpose? I hope she sues. Or is that in fact a composite image designed especially for the purpose of appealing to a particular set of reductive stereotypes? She’s got a nose stud too. How perverse and dangerous she must be. Also, all the children in the banner are drawn as wholesome white kids, some of whom have 1950s hair. Idealised children vs real homo perverts. Jolly well done all round.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>