Wednesday, November 23, 2022

When The Alleged Shooter Is Mx.

As the chorus of voices condemning the Club Q shooting leveled blame for hatred against transgender people in general, and drag shows in particular, at a broad swathe of people who richly deserve the blame, the accused Shooter’s lawyers threw a wrench into the works.

In a clip that’s since gone viral, CNN anchor Alisyn Camerota is caught without any idea of what to make of this new piece of information.

The defendant, 22-year-old Anderson Lee Aldrich, is said to be non-binary, uses “they/them” pronouns and is given the honorific “Mx.” in the papers. The reaction to this unexpected news was curious.

Louis replied: “It sounds like they are trying to prepare a defense against a hate crimes charge.

“That is the least of his problems, legally speaking, but that looks like they are trying to build some kind of sympathy or at least confusion on the question of whether or not this was purely motivated by hate.”

Camerota agreed and said:” Yes, that is what it sounds like. We will wait to see.”

Should the defendant be convicted of murdering five people, and wounding many others, is there any serious concern about a hate crimes enhancement to avoid kicking the defendant’s corpse in the nuts a few times after his lifeless body is left on the floor of his prison cell? It”s unlikely.

While there remains no clear evidence of what motivated this horrific shooting, the assumption is unavoidable that Aldrich was the end-product of a anti-trans demonization about how it’s grooming, ruinous to children and a nation. While the alphabet of LGBTQ+ is used in the media characterizations, there is nothing to suggest L, G or B, had anything to do with it. This was a matter of T and Q, with the possibility of the plus having some influence according to what the plus means. But then, what does it mean that they is a them?

Perhaps the public defenders representing Aldrich are apologists for QAnon conspiracy theorists, or tools of the right wing anti-trans crowd, seeking to muddle the narrative of blame for this tragedy, but to taint Aldrich’s lawyers with improper motive is not only baseless at this time, but against the odds. Few public defenders are staunch right wing extremists.

Is this new assertion, that Aldrich is non-binary and that his lawyers will use “they/them” pronouns in filings going forward, a vindication of Tucker Carlson? The problem is that, regardless of what Carlson did before or has earned with his inflammatory and outrageous diatribes, the connection to what Aldrich did exists only in the minds of those who seek to use this mass murder to blame others. It’s as if Aldrich has nothing to do with the problem, except for the minor detail that he was the alleged shooter.

But now that Aldrich’s lawyers have made the assertion that they is non-binary, that they uses “they/them” pronouns, that they is a Mx. and not a Mr., can anyone question it? Is it something that should be questions? Does it matter? Should it?

There is nothing about calling oneself “non-binary” that suggests that Aldrich’s sexual orientation is homosexual, or any of the 97 permutations thereof. The gender identity of “non-binary” is one of those brilliantly self-indulgent claims that serve to tell the world that you want to be special without any meaningful consequences. Being non-binary doesn’t require a person to prefer sex with men, women or goats. It’s a worthless word signifying nothing beyond the claimer feeling a childish need to pretend to be special.

Claiming to prefer “they/them” pronouns will no doubt contribute to confusion in the papers, as it adds a gloss of incoherence to arguments that would be best served by clarity. Will the judge feel constrained to use these pronouns as well? The prosecution? If not, would that suggest they don’t believe the representations of Aldrich’s public defenders, that they is sincere about their gender identity, or would it be a rejection of the silly affectation of insipid children as they refuse to contribute to the universe of woke gibberish?

If Aldrich’s claim of being a Mx. rather than any other “M” honorific isn’t respected, are other’s claim to their own special gender identity similarly suspect, or subject to question?

There is nothing about gender identity that bears any relevant connection to the issue of whether Aldrich killed five human beings. Intent is an element. Motive is not. Whether this shooting was because Tucker Carlson told him to or because he suffered from some other issue doesn’t change the evidence of guilt against him.

But what this does demonstrate is how these ridiculous affectations are neither provable nor deniable, meaningful or nonsensical, and introduce a level of pointless incoherence into an otherwise horrible event. To what end? To the extent this claim of being non-binary is irrelevant and nonsensical here, it’s no better otherwise.

If Anderson Lee Aldrich is convicted of these murders, does anyone really care what pronouns he uses? And if Anderson Lee Aldrich is convicted of these murders, with the people he killed be any less dead because he’s non-binary? And should the jury, upon returning a one-word verdict, not use his referred pronouns, will he be any less guilty?

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)