A Few Editorial Concerns

When I was on the frontlines of the “transgender issue,” CNN contacted our campaign to invite us to participate in a debate about “transgender” locker room access. My boss, one of the finest men I know, quickly responded, informing them that I would gladly represent our campaign in this debate.

I was a solid choice for a spokesperson. The issue affected me personally in every way imaginable. I was a female survivor of sexual assault who had been fired for defending women against this takeover. My voice was relevant.

Unfortunately, CNN refused to allow me to represent our side of the debate. They wanted my boss to do it. He was a white Christian well-known policy wonk.

It became immediately clear that CNN was not terribly interested in communicating truth. They were interested in crafting public opinion in a certain direction. They wanted a discussion between a white, privileged Christian bigot and a poor, marginalized victim group. They ultimately concluded that it would be “unfair” to pit the trans representative against me, and the debate never did happen.

This would mark the beginning of my swan dive off the cliff into thorough awareness of the severity of media bias. I had worked in communications for quite some time, and, up until this point in my career, it had been relatively easy to get media outlets to run press releases and pick up story leads. But not on this issue. On this issue there was a complete and total media block out. It was as though all the powers that be were reading from some sort of script that said, “Don’t give a transphobe a second of objective coverage.” I remember having poured my heart and soul into an hour long interview with a writer for The Guardian. I ended the interview confident I had gained her sympathy. When the article came out the following week with my name next to the words “Jim Crow,” I was truly stunned.

It did not matter how compelling our talking points were or how effectively we argued them if we couldn’t convince anyone with influence in the media to advance them for us. Our voices only carried as far as the edges of our personal spheres of influence. No one else could hear what we had to say. We were drowned out by angry fetishistic men with megaphones at every turn.

At a related rally in Vancouver, the opposition was so aggressive that it required five men holding hands in a circle around me to keep the mob at bay long enough for me to speak. Here’s some video footage of that nonsense.

Can you see me? Can you hear me? No?

That’s a pretty clear depiction of just how difficult it has been to get the truth out on this issue since day one. And we had pages and pages of thorough documentation of the harm transactivism was causing.

So. Much. Proof.

Mutilated, castrated children. Women raped by these men in women’s shelters and prisons. Assault after assault after assault. Death threats. Rape threats. So many unwanted dick pics.

But no one wanted to see. What they mostly cared about was protecting their belief that they were on the side of love. They wanted to protect their self-concept: “We’re the good guys, the allies, the brave crusaders against bigotry. Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead.”

And the convinced themselves that we were just bad, bigoted hateful people, so nothing we put in front of them was worth considering. A few of the more intellectually honest individuals who could see the merit in our position were largely too afraid to even try to give it a platform. It was just too costly for them— a commitment to career suicide really.

So the narrative never got appropriately challenged until the monster of the gender cult had snowballed out of control to the degree that it’s now going to take a Herculean effort to thwart.

It didn’t have to be this way. There were plenty of people working overtime to prevent it. But no one wanted to listen.

Last week I submitted an article to a Christian publication in hopes of warning people about the rapidly growing influence of Doug Wilson. When I first started warning about Wilson, it was pretty easy for people to write him off as some fringe nut job that wasn’t worth the collective concern. That is no longer the case. His star is rising. Fast. He’s the self-appointed answer to the boldness deficit that plagues conservative Christianity, and it’s easy to see his appeal. But I have to warn you: Something wicked this way comes. He’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing. People will be led badly astray if we don’t wise up soon, so I submitted an article about that.

Well today I learned that the article was rejected due to “editorial concerns.”

And listen, I’m not mad at the editors. They’re not like CNN. They’re not committed to defending a terrible narrative. In fact, they’re the opposite. They’re fair. They’re measured. They’re wise. And I’m sure there are valid reasons for their rejection.

But the way I feel about it is pretty similar to the way I felt taking on the transborg; it’s an uphill climb. The evidence is overwhelming.

So. Much. Proof.

But once again, no one with influence really seems to want to contend with it. And while the Christian media stays silent, the monster is growing and growing, and I feel like I’m once again watching it snowball into a much bigger problem than it would ever have become if the right people would have just had the courage to confront it in its infancy.

Why don’t any Christian publications care enough to tackle this beast? Why is it so easy so whitewash his silver-tongued excuses instead of contending honestly with the mountains and mountains of evidence against him?

I want to know why there’s seemingly zero “editorial concern” when scores of influencers platform Doug Wilson and his crew.

Where’s the editorial concern for the fact that this guy calls women cunts?

Where’s the editorial concern for the fact that he defends American slavery?

Where’s the editorial concern that he boasts he would repeat his choice to perform the marriage ceremony between a serial pedophile and a vulnerable woman, even knowing, in hindsight, that the pedophile would go on to molest his own child?

Where’s the editorial concern for the numerous predators that keep emerging under his leadership?

Where’s the editorial concern for the heretical views he holds about justification?

Where’s the editorial concern for the 108 pages of ecclesiastical charges brought against Wilson, including pastoral tyranny and using church funds to pay off gambling debt?

Where’s the editorial concern for the dishonesty that led to the revoking of his press’ 501©3 status?

Where’s the editorial concern for the never ending list of misogynistic things this man has to say about the status and function of women?

Where’s the editorial concern for the horrific ways he consistently responds to survivors of sexual trauma?

It’s interesting to me that every single time a Christian man is accused of sexual misconduct in any way, inevitably a bunch of well-intended Christians will respond by saying, “I’m going to wait for the evidence to come out before forming an opinion.” And this sounds like a solid plan. Fair. Based. Measured. The problem is that evidence is something that needs to be pursued. It’s not going to magically fall in your lap. And 9 times out of 10, no one pursues inconvenient truth beyond this. They’re not out there turning over every rock, asking hard questions, holding anyone’s feet to the fire, scrutinizing excuses, or actively seeking truth. They’re mostly content to shove it to the back of their minds and go on with business as usual. Meanwhile, justice goes unserved, and, too often, an abuser is enabled to continue his errant behavior.

So if my own personal approach to exposing the Wilson cult isn’t strong enough to make the cut, I totally get it. I’m a bit mouthy, a bit punchy, a bit aggressive. That’s fine. I’m begrudingly resigned to the possibility that maybe the tool God uses to expose this mess is someone a lot more finessed than I am, someone academic and calm and less emotional or something.

But saying the wrong thing isn’t the only mistake you can make in this industry. NOT saying the right thing or the true thing or the necessary thing is another problem entirely. Commission vs omission.

When you hold the power to affect change and illuminate truth and invite necessary accountability, then I’m sorry, but there’s an obligation to follow obvious leads. And ignoring the dysfunction in Moscow at this point is like watching a bomb detonate in the building next to you, shrugging your shoulders, and concluding that there’s no story to pursue.

My invitation to those with influence over Christian media is this: Have enough editorial concern for the flock to pursue this story. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire. This house is burning. Doug lit it up with a blowtorch for No Quarter November.

I apologize for the redundancy in my topic selection lately. I’m like a dog with a bone when I observe injustice that leads to danger. I’ve always been this way. I get it from my dad. I hope to not feel so burdened by what I clearly see as impending harm ushered in by the Moscow cult. I hope to say this final word and leave it in God’s hands and move on. But the record will show that I tried.

This is the record of my dissent.