Media Call Barrett A Villain And Biden A Hero For Using Same Term

For LGBT activists and media, what’s “offensive” can fluctuate based on the political season. Never shy to provide relevant examples, LGBT media demonstrated their dedication to hypocrisy and hierarchy just this week.

In a glowing interview with President Joe Biden, the Washington Blade, a legacy LGBT news source, gasped, “Writing about President Joe Biden’s legacy is difficult without the distance and time required to assess a leader of his stature, but what becomes clear from talking with him is the extent to which his views on LGBTQ rights come from the heart.”

From there it would seem Biden was the single greatest gift to LGBT-identifying Americans, honoring his administration as the most pro-LGBT in American history. Speaking of LGBT Americans, Biden said, “[M]ost of the openly gay people that have worked with me, that I’ve worked with, the one advantage they have is they tend to have more courage than most people have.”

Biden has the greatest “respect and admiration” for LGBT people. He argued, “[A]ll the LGBTQ+ people that have worked for me or with me have reinforced my view that it’s not what your sexual preference is, it’s what your intellectual capacity is and what your courage is.”

But wait a minute. Did Biden just refer to LGBT people as having a “sexual preference?” In 2020, when then-Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett innocently uttered the same phrase, it became a national controversy. LGBTQ Nation, using that quote as its subheading for an article praising the president, demanded in 2020, “Barrett used the offensive phrase ‘sexual preference,’ a right-wing dog-whistle that suggests that LGBTQ people can be cured.”

The use of this phrase, the site argued in its headline, “revealed how biased she is against LGBTQ people.” Barrett used the phrase when saying, “I have no agenda and I do want to be clear that I have never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference and would not ever discriminate on the basis of sexual preference.” Yet this was sufficient to generate outrage headlines in not only LGBT media but across all major news organizations.

Here was CNN’s headline: “Why Amy Coney Barrett’s use of the term ‘sexual preference’ at her hearing alarmed so many.”

Here’s The Washington Post: “Sen. Hirono grills Amy Coney Barrett for describing sexual orientation as a ‘preference.’”

And this was from USA Today: “Judge Barrett, don’t use ‘sexual preference’ for LGBTQ people. It’s incorrect and alarming.”

The left’s need to vilify Barrett for using the phrase was so great that Merriam-Webster changed its definition of “sexual preference” to include that it was offensive to LGBT people.

USA Today described the event as Barrett stepping into a “queer hornet’s nest.” The author demanded, “That’s because Barrett used two words — sexual preference — that LGBTQ people find offensive, and which takes a blind eye to all the credible scientific research showing that sexual orientation is not a preference or a choice.”

At Barrett’s confirmation hearing, Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, argued, “It is used by anti-LGBTQ activists to suggest that sexual orientation is a choice.” Barrett was accused of using a homophobic “dog whistle” to signal her true feelings about LGBT-identifying people to her conservative and Republican supporters.

“Even though you didn’t give a direct answer I think your response did speak volumes,” Hirono continued. “Not once, but twice, you used the term sexual preference to describe those in the LGBTQ community. And let me make clear, sexual preference is an offensive and outdated term.”

The LGBT advocacy organization GLAAD stated, “The term ‘sexual preference’ is typically used to suggest that being lesbian, gay or bisexual is a choice and therefore can and should be ‘cured.’” The mere utterance of the phrase was argued to imply support for conversion therapy and other efforts to “harm young people” who identify as LGBT. LGBTQ Nation even pointed out that the Associated Press and The New York Times won’t allow the term to be used in their reporting due to this extremely negative connotation.

After Hirono scolded Barrett, Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, gave the nominee the chance to “clarify” her statement. Barrett apologized for using the term, saying, “I certainly didn’t mean and would never mean to use a term that would cause any offense in the LGBTQ community” — an apology LGBT activists dismissed as “condescending.”

Barrett even clarified that she was not indicating any disagreement with the controversial Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which essentially legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, the same position held by Biden. The only difference is, of course, that Barrett was portrayed as an anti-LGBT villain while Biden is portrayed as a pro-LGBT hero.

“Sexual preference” was not offensive then, and it isn’t offensive today. But according to LGBT activists, that all depends on who says it. What became a defining moment in Supreme Court Justice Barrett’s confirmation hearing is a passing, innocent phrase in an interview with President Biden. It isn’t as if the Washington Blade didn’t notice; they included it in their promotion of the interview. They know he said it, but they just don’t care this time. That should discredit their selective outrage toward political opponents in all future cases.

What we see is a politically motivated movement that uses its power to pressure, intimidate, and bully when convenient and gives grace and fawning admiration when it benefits them. Leftists care less about deeply offending LGBT people and more about achieving a particular outcome. Right now, they want to memorialize the Biden administration as a glowing example of LGBT “progress” to support Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign.

In 2020, they were solely interested in sabotaging President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee and were willing to say whatever was needed to accomplish that goal. As the Washington Blade included in its interview with Biden:

Meanwhile, conservative elected officials at the local, state, and national levels have led an all-out assault against LGBTQ Americans — especially those who are transgender, and especially transgender youth, who face an uncertain future with Donald Trump promising to strip them of their rights and reverse the gains of the past four years if he is elected in November.

It’s all politics, and it always was.

Chad Felix Greene is a senior contributor to The Federalist. He is the author of “Surviving Gender: My Journey Through Gender Dysphoria,” and is a social writer focusing on truth in media, conservative ideas and goals, and true equality under the law. You can follow him on Twitter @chadfelixg.