(Daily Signal)—Democrats and LGBTQ+ activist groups say they want to empower parents on their children’s programming, but they also vehemently oppose putting labels on TV and streaming shows that would alert parents to transgender content.
Concerned Women for America analyzed the streaming shows on Netflix geared toward young audiences, and found that more than 40% of most children’s programming includes some sort of LGBTQ+ theme.
The Federal Communications Commission sought comment from the general public, asking for suggestions on how the Television Oversight Monitoring Board can update TV ratings to alert parents to content such as the introduction of a male character “becoming” female or same-sex romance themes.
Democrats
“We strongly believe that parents should decide what their children watch on television,” a group of 68 Democrats wrote in a letter first signed by Rep. Mark Takano, D-Calif. Yet the Democrats also wrote that they “strongly oppose efforts to censor the inclusion of transgender children or topics, including by rating programming differently just because it includes transgender people.”
“Studies show that LGBTQI+ representation in media both improve young LGBTQI+ people’s self-acceptance and shape the broader public’s acceptance of LGBTQI+ people,” the Democrats wrote.
If smuggling LGBTQ+ themes into children’s content represents an attempt to change public opinion, shouldn’t parents be alerted to it?
This contradiction appears throughout the public comments opposing the labels. Opponents insist that parents should decide what their children watch, yet they oppose providing parents vital tools to make parental choice more meaningful.
GLAAD
The LGBTQ+ advocacy group GLAAD, which brags about identifying more than 145 LGBTQ-inclusive children and family titles since 2005, also opposed the labels.
Sarah Kate Ellis, GLAAD’s president and CEO, suggested that adding labels would involve “disempowering parents to make the best decisions for their children and families.”
How did Ellis conclude this? By suggesting that “government interference” will “limit the entertainment industry’s ability to operate freely.” Yet the proposal does not involve preventing kids’ TV shows from featuring LGBTQ+ content—it would merely require a label so parents would know what they’re getting their kids into.
LGBTQ+ Activist Groups
GLAAD also joined a coalition letter with 43 other LGBTQ+ activist organizations, including Color of Change, the Human Rights Campaign, Lambda Legal, Planned Parenthood Action Fund, and the Trevor Project, in opposing the labels.
“Content warnings that specifically single out LGBTQI+ people, including transgender and non-binary people, or mentions of gender identity on screen are unnecessary, unhelpful, and discriminatory,” the groups wrote. Yet they also claimed that such warnings “do not serve to inform parents or guardians; they serve to further a strategic political agenda that has targeted a minority for exclusion from public view.”
The activist groups rightly note that “Congress … has repeatedly chosen to affirm that parents and guardians are ultimately the parties responsible for deciding what content their children can watch,” yet they also claim that a label allowing parents to know whether a TV show includes LGBTQ+ themes would constitute “the government … deciding what content is and is not suitable for these individuals’ children.”
LGBT Tech
Another LGBTQ+ activist letter, this one led by LGBT Tech, stated support for “parents’ ability to make informed decisions about the programming their children watch.”
Yet the letter warned that the Federal Communications Commission may not “encourage a ratings framework that disadvantages an entire class of people by treating their ordinary on-screen presence as a basis for heightened warning or different ratings.”
LGBT Tech tacitly admitted that a label would inform parents.
“The label would not merely inform parents,” the letter states. “It would inaccurately and operationally mark a class of people as risky or harmful to children across the distribution chain.”
On the Contrary
The FCC did not raise the issue in a vacuum.
Michael Farris, general counsel at the National Religious Broadcasters, for instance, noted that “no one is seeking to ban content regarding gender identity and related matters. Parents simply want to know what is being communicated to their children so that the parents can make intelligent decisions regarding exposure of their children to such material.”
“No rules are being promulgated,” Farris noted. “No mandates are on the table.”
Trey Donathan at America First Legal, wrote, “Parents cannot exercise their rights if industry-controlled ratings obscure the nature of programming marketed to their children.”
He added that when a program rated for kids includes lessons about transgender identity “or other LGBTQ+ inclusive themes, parents should receive clear notice.”
“AFL is not seeking to ban programming; it is asking … to ensure that parents receive clear notice and workable parental controls before children are exposed to controversial content,” he added.
Labels would not stop studios from producing LGBTQ-themed programs or prevent parents from allowing their children to watch them. They would simply provide parents with more information before making that decision.
If parents should decide what their children watch, why shouldn’t they receive clearer information about the kind of content in these TV shows?
If LGBTQ+ activists are so proud about influencing the culture through streaming media, why do they oppose tools to truly empower parents? I think we already know the answer.
