Project 2025 — The Woke Virus of Transgenderism
Elon Musk is frequently in the news. Sometimes for good reasons. Just as often, for something wretched. In late July (2024), he spoke about his children in a lengthy interview with Jordan Peterson. In that interview, he dead-named his daughter. More, he said that his “son” had been killed by the woke virus of transgenderism. It is one of the new formulations on the right to take about transgenderism. It’s a product of “woke.” It’s a “virus.” It’s a “woke virus” (not sure if the virus is “woke” or if “woke” infects people like a virus, and is transgenderism the same as woke?).
Indeed, Musk says that it was his daughter’s transition (during COVID) that pushed him to the right politically. That transition was the reason for his current anti-trans stance and rhetoric. Musk’s daughter, Vivian Wilson, has largely shunned the spotlight and any connections with her father. She changed her last name to break that connection with him. This last interview, though, was just too much. Wilson’s version is that Musk was a largely absent father who belittled and shamed Wilson whenever he was around.
The right has made political hay out of the issue of transgender. They understand that it is a cultural wedge issue that divides the population. They know that many people do not understand or have experience with transgender individuals. For that reason, they can be easily frightened and swayed. The average person can believe that transgender folx are a threat because they do not really understand the issue.
Project 2025 certainly capitalizes on that formula, as well.
[A quick moment of levity. I performed a word search on the Project 2025 document to find the places when the text addresses transgender issues. I searched for “trans” wanting to cast a wide net. The search returned 1027 instances of “trans.” One might be allowed a moment of hope to think that the document addresses “trans” folx so frequently. Alas, only 14 of those actually address “transgender.”]
On page ONE, in the Foreword, Kevin D. Roberts writes:
“Look at America under the ruling and cultural elite today: Inflation is ravaging family budgets, drug overdose deaths continue to escalate, and children suffer the toxic normalization of transgenderism with drag queens and pornography invading their school libraries” (1).
According to Roberts, the top three threats to US families are: inflation, drug overdoses, and transgenderism.
Yes, inflation has been an issue, and it does negatively affect nearly all families in the USA. For one, that ignores the ways in which conservative policies have exacerbated inflation and the ways in which the billionaire class has capitalized. Record profits and shareholder profits are as much to blame for inflation as anything else. Even so, inflation needs to be addressed.
Drug overdoses. My own son was a victim of this crisis. I know it all too well. Every person who dies and every family that is affected by the opioid crisis is one too many. Again, the crisis has been fueled, in part, by conservative policies and rulings by conservative judges and justices. Even so, it does not affect nearly as many families as does inflation. We are all appalled by it, and it can be used as a cultural wedge issue.
Transgenderism. Statistically speaking, even less frequent of an issue than the first two items. Given my line of work, I know tons of trans individuals. The average citizen is much less likely to know any trans individuals. So, how did transgenderism become such a wedge issue?
For one, a steady stream of lies. Those on the right have painted pictures of transgenderism gone amok. They talk of kids using litter boxes in the classroom (utter fiction); they warn of transgender predators in public bathrooms (utter fiction; the predators in bathrooms are almost always straight men); they call anyone who supports transkids a “groomer.” Another fiction, but it has been an effective one. The best remedy for that deception is awareness. The term “groomer” is a deliberate strategy, as well. Historically, “groomer” referred to someone who was preparing a young girl or boy to be sexually abused. Here, the use of “groomer” really means that the adult is preparing the child to be queer or to be trans. The two meanings, though, collide. They employ the term specifically to evoke the sense of sexual abuse. Again, if people have no experience with trans kids, then they are more likely to accept the fiction.
We fear the unfamiliar; once it becomes familiar, we no longer fear it. The more people know and are familiar with trans individuals, the less likely they will fear them, and the less likely they will accept the inflammatory rhetoric of Project 2025.
In his Foreword, Roberts writes:
“Allowing parents or physicians to ‘reassign’ the sex of a minor is child abuse and must end.” (5)
Despite Roberts warning us of the practice of the Left of using “vague” language, Roberts does so himself here. The scare quotes around “reassign” are meant to delegitimize the very idea. What does “reassign” mean here? Does that mean allowing your child to dress in whatever clothing the child desires? Does that mean accepting and using the child’s chosen name? Does that include using the child’s preferred pronouns? Or does that mean surgical reassignment? If so, then they are — once again — arguing from the exception. Surgical interventions in children (not counting intersex children — they would doubtless be in favor of that) are very rare.
Roberts also calls it “child abuse.” Well, for one, child abuse has very clear definitions. We all — rightfully so — despise and condemn child abuse. So, here, Roberts has employed to rhetorical sleight of hand to link the two practices. Does Roberts really think that allowing your child to dress in pants or a dress is child abuse? Who knows, but by linking that to child abuse, he can sway those who do not understand the situation.
Furthermore, doctors, pediatricians, psychologists, psychiatrists overwhelmingly recognize that affirming a child’s choices regarding identity is a healthy practice, not abuse. The Conservative Promise, overall, takes a dim view of “experts” — except that they laud many of their own contributors and authors as “experts” in their own areas. Perhaps we should leave mental health and physical health issues to the trained experts and not allow ideologues to override their wisdom.
And, in addition, the authors of Project 2025 are very keen to have smaller government. Having the government tell me what I can and cannot do with my child regarding dress, and pronouns, and gender seems the exact opposition of small government. It is the very model of larger government dictating individual’s lives. It is the very model of the government taking over the parental role. The very people calling for government intervention in the case of a trans child are the same people who say that the government can’t tell me whether I can smoke around my kids or not; the government cannot tell me what to feed my child; the government cannot tell me what my child’s education should be.
A few pages later, Roberts writes:
“Bureaucrats at the Department of Justice force school districts to undermine girls’ sports and parents’ rights to satisfy transgender extremists.” (8)
Once again, they argue from the exception. Given the sheer number of schools in this country, given the enormous number of sports programs (in schools and outside of schools), given the overwhelming number of athletes, the number of trans individuals wanting to compete in sports is a drop in the bucket. They would have you believe that it is an epidemic. It is not. They would have you believe that trans athletes are opportunists who want to dominate girls’ and women’s sports. They are not. They suggest that trans athletes are really just voyeurs who want to be in the girls’/women’s locker rooms (no, that was Donald Trump who has bragged about being in the Miss USA dressing rooms).
In our department, we had a fabulous graduate student, Val Moyer, who wrote her dissertation on the question of trans athletes. It is brilliant. I suggest you seek out her work. She has more details and more examples than I could possibly include here.
Finally, from the chapter on Department of Labor and Related Agencies, written by Jonathan Berry:
“The Biden Administration, LGBT advocates, and some federal courts have attempted to expand the scope and definition of sex discrimination, based in part on the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County. Bostock held that ‘an employer who fires someone simply for being homosexual or transgender’ violates Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination. The Court explicitly limited its holding to the hiring/firing context in Title VII and did not purport to address other Title VII issues, such as bathrooms, locker rooms, and dress codes, or other laws prohibiting sex discrimination. Notably, the Court focused on the status of the employees and used the term ‘transgender status’ rather than the broader and amorphous term ‘gender identity.’” (584)
Here Berry focuses in on a technicality. We use three terms: sex, gender, sexuality. We use them as if they are discrete and separate. In fact, they are deeply intertwined with one another. The courts and petty functionaries like the clear distinction. Or, they like to use the lack of clear distinction in order to exclude. Berry uses this complexity to attack the principle of protections.
Project 2025 rejects the notion of “progress.” Instead, they want to remain locked into an older model of the Constitution, society, and the family. However, a progressive model of society would see progress toward an ideal. It suggests that we move closer and closer to realizing the ideal of “all men are created equal.” The progressive model suggests that the granting and enshrining of rights is a good thing. Progressivism wants every person to be guaranteed the rights of full participation in society.
And, yet, the authors of Project 2025 want to limit rights. They do not want a person’s right to full participation to be enshrined in law. We are largely in agreement that an employer cannot fire an employee simply because that person is a woman. If she is qualified, if she does her job, then the employer cannot fire her for the fact of being a woman. We are largely in agreement that an employer cannot fire a person solely for being Black. If he is qualified and if he does his job, then he cannot be fired because the boss does not like Black people. Both of those would be an infringement upon a person’s rights as a full member of society. (And note that BOTH of those are innovations not included in the Constitution.)
So, why would we not have the same policy if the employee is gay or lesbian or if the employee is trans? Is the person qualified? Is the person performing their job? Can that person be fired for being queer or trans? According to Project 2025, yes. Absolutely. Their justifications are that “gender identity” or “sexuality” are not expressly considered in the Constitution (see above), and that the honor a trans person’s rights might violate the employer’s religious convictions. For them, to insist that this would amount to an unjust infringement of a person’s rights as a citizen is mere “wokeness.”
They very clearly do not want trans folx in any walk of life. They want them removed from homes. They want them removed from schools and sports. They want them removed from the military (104). They want them removed — with impunity — from the work force.
It is regressivism at its worst.
Ritch Calvin is an Associate Professor of Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at SUNY Stony Brook. He is the author of Queering SF: Readings, Feminist Epistemology and Feminist Science Fiction (Palgrave McMillan) and edited a collection of essays on Gilmore Girls (McFarland). His most recent book is Queering SF Comics: Readings, (Aqueduct Press).
