By now, everyone is probably aware via global news coverage of an interview last week of Rep. Lauren Boebert with Steve Bannon lowering the discourse one again over HR5, the Equality Act bringing federal law into line with discrimination protections for LGBTQ people that are already settled law in Colorado–the UK Independent reports because we see no reason to post the clip itself:
Controversial freshman lawmaker Lauren Boebert has been criticised online following her recent remarks about a bill banning discrimination of LGBT+ groups, calling the act “supremacy of gays”.
On Wednesday, the Colorado representative appeared on Real America’s Voice, a right-leaning media network, where she lashed out at the Equality Act.
Ms Boebert claimed that “there is nothing about equality” in the act, adding: “If anything, it’s supremacy—of gays, lesbians” before pausing and mispronouncing the word “transvestite,” in an apparent reference to transgender people.
Wonkette did a good job explaining the source of Boebert’s fumbled slur, since we’re pretty sure she doesn’t know:
“[T]ransvestite” — which is what we assume Boebert was trying to say there — is an outdated term referring to a person cross-dressing as a gender they are not, not to transgender people, who dress as the gender they actually are. Totally different things! Of course, the fact that this was the term used in old criminal statutes to refer to what some psychologists in olden days claimed were mental disorders, and that it is heavily associated with transvestic fetishism, is hardly accidental. It is in fact specifically why this term is popular among transphobic bigots…
The 19th Amendment did not establish female supremacy, the Civil Rights Act did not establish Black supremacy, the Equality Act will not establish LGBTQ+ supremacy, and the Declaration of Independence is not the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Over the past few months as Lauren Boebert has come to dominate the political news cycle in Colorado, with near-daily offenses aspiring to downright Trumpian in their vile intensity and ability to draw continuous national attention, a number of readers have cautioned that Boebert gets too much attention. Since Boebert has never made an attempt to distinguish between positive and negative press coverage, a cycle of escalating outrages rewarded with “no such thing as bad” coverage has taken on a life of its own as Boebert’s profile has grown, much as it did with Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential elections.
We hear this criticism, and we want readers to know that we are always working to evaluate the daily flood of Boebert content qualitatively so as not to get sucked into a cycle of rewarding deplorable behavior from Colorado elected officials we are obliged to discuss. In this case, Boebert bumbled yet another attempt to distinguish herself through outrage, which perversely managed to earn her even more coverage, all of which does nothing but gratify Boebert and encourage the next outrage.
Eventually you realize: this is why some people just need to be, for lack of a better word, “cancelled.”