Brian S. Brown
Brian Brown has his grubby hands in the pockets of supporters

Brian S. Brown is trying to scare people by producing transphobia so that they might send him some dough.

Brian S. Brown is trying to drum up some donations for National Organization for Marriage. To that end he has sent out an email titled “chestfeeding” with some rather bizarre images.

Mr. Brown is confused by medical terminology or he is cynic. Perhaps he is exploiting confused supporters. Brown is verbose:

One of the tools that the political left uses to push the culture further down the rabbit hole is the bastardization of language. This is most especially the case when discussing matters related to biological sex, because the left is insistent that biological sex be subsumed by “gender identity.” Thus, we have the term “transgender woman,” which is a biological man, and “transgender man,” which is a biological woman. Acceptance of this language then leads to further complexities.

No. No. No! “Subsumed?” That usually means included as a subordinated element.

Furthermore, I have no clue why the words gender identity are within scare quotes. The construct of gender identity is clearly understood by medical science and has been for a very long time.

This is not all that complicated. Moreover, there is no ambiguity in medical literature. A small minority of people have incongruent gender and natal sex which creates a condition known as gender dysphoria.

Gender dysphoria produces very unpleasant effects. These adverse reactions are mitigated when people simply present as their gender. We have known this for well over a century. In other words when gender and natal sex are incongruent, gender prevails.

Taking it a step further, within medical science a MTF transgender person is known to be a transgender woman. Similarly a FTM transgender person is known to be a transgender man. These descriptors are neither political, nor left wing rhetoric. Brown is objecting to the nomenclature used by science.

“Brown’s approval (or the Vatican’s approval) is not solicited. It sure as hell is not required.”

Furthermore, the use of that language is not part of a vast conspiracy designed to torment religious conservatives. Scientists do not use Christian language like “a biological male who identifies as a female.”

The religious descriptions are intended to marginalize the transgender persons that some Christians disapprove of. These descriptions are used to suggest that transgender persons have made some very bad choices. The religious language is not medically accurate.

It is Brian S. Brown who has made some very bad choices. He is a dogmatist who accepts Catholic doctrine as incontrovertible truth regardless of evidence to the contrary.

If, according to the dogma, Earth rotated around its moon, then Brown would dishonestly promote the misconception. Mr. Brown could avoid looking like a dishonest fool if he would simply say: “As Catholics we believe” thus and so. He will never do that because he wants people to believe that his beliefs have a universal quality.

The next rhetorical tool is to suggest that a rarity is common:

For example, when a transgender couple decides to have a baby – which seems to be happening with increasing frequency – the person who delivers the child is said to be the “father” while the “mother” is on the sidelines watching. Similarly, when it comes time to feed the infant, the child consumes the milk of the “father.” Sometimes the “mother” – remember, a biological male – tries to get into the act. I recently wrote about such a case where the “mother” was greatly disappointed that “she” did not produce milk when the baby tried to feed.

Really? How many “transgender couples” are there? How many have children? More importantly what’s it to Mr. Brown? Brown’s approval (or the Vatican’s approval) is not solicited. It sure as hell is not required.

“There are more productive pursuits than sending out mindless crap begging for money that will be pissed away.”

How does the existence of a transgender couple having a child affect anyone other than themselves? Brian S. Brown is starting to sound like Peter LaBarbera (“Porno Pete”) who knows more about gay sex than I do. Are there not far more important things to be interested in than the lives of some — in this case very few — transgender persons?

Brian S. Brown needs a new hobby. Perhaps he can use his energies to feed and shelter poor people. Perhaps he can start a literacy project. Maybe he can provide economic opportunities to underrepresented populations. There are more productive pursuits than sending out mindless crap begging for money that will be pissed away.

Of course we come to the artificial reason that people should send some money Mr. Brown’s way.

Before I get further into the craziness we are being demanded to endure, it’s important to understand that we’re not merely talking about annoyances. We are talking about being subjected to ruinous federal discrimination claims that could wipe people out. That’s because the so-called Equality Act makes imposes vast elements of the LGBT agenda, especially regarding transgenderism. NOM is a top opponent of this legislation …

Brown is dishonestly suggesting that the very existence of LGBTQ people causes his constituency to “endure” hardships. Why would the fact that there are LGBTQ people cause an “annoyance” for anyone? In Brown-World, “craziness” means realities that differ from Catholic teachings.

As for the Equality Act Brown’s influence is limited to people who already disapprove of LGBTQ people as a protected class. Similar state and city laws exist throughout the country.

“This is what you have to do when begging for money with no prior accomplishments.”

One way to avoid the adverse consequences of nondiscrimination laws is simply not to discriminate. No one — no one — has a religious duty to discriminate.

Brown was heavily invested in the Stutzman matter (the floral bigot). A very conservative Supreme Court chose not to hear the matter. Even Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not want to hear the matter. Presumably, the reason for that is that Barronelle Stutzman’s constitutional rights were not violet.

At the end of the day, Brown advocates for Christian Privilege. One set of laws for conservative Christians. Another set of laws for everyone else. Imagine the poor Muslim who decided (in error) that serving infidels (Christians) was an affront to his religion.

I can guarantee that Brian S. Brown would be outraged. Indeed, in the Stutzman matter he accused the Washington State courts of “religious discrimination.”

Just one more quote from this missive.

Brian S. Brown is so focused on marginalizing transgender people that he refers to the obscure Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine. According to Brown:

The term “breastfeeding” should be avoided. The proper term is “chestfeeding.” Or, better yet, “human milk feeding.” This according to the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine which is committed to “gender equality and health equity.”

The Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine has annual revenues of about $300 thousand. By professional group standards it is minuscule. How would Brian Brown know that it even exists? What does any of that have to do with his transphobic diatribe?

Based on Brown’s rhetoric you would think that there are tens of millions of transgender people (there are about 1.5 million in the USA). Furthermore, the entire trans population is determined to prioritize making Christians miserable.

This is what you have to do when begging for money with no prior accomplishments. In private industry Brown would have been terminated for poor performance. NOM has burned through about $80 million with nothing to show for it.

By David Cary Hart

Retired CEO. Formerly a W.E. Deming-trained quality-management consultant. Now just a cranky Jewish queer. Gay cis. He/Him/His.