A Discussion on Hate – Attacks on the LGBTQ+ Community in Davis

By Isabella Navarrette

DAVIS, CA – The Human Relations Commission gathered on May 25 to provide a public forum for discussing hate incidents occurring in the Davis community.

 

Commission Member Connor Gorman began the dialogue by refreshing the commission on the context of the hateful incidents, which were related to an upsurge of transphobic activity in the city. Gorman claimed that the issue has “been escalating, and is continuing to escalate,” and that this is “very similar to what is being pushed around the country.”

 

On the topic of transphobia in Davis, Jordan Varney, who is the Vice Chair of the Commission, added that a hate group in Davis that is “spearheading the transphobia movement” had previously held a book-banning meeting in the library—demonstrating that the group’s agenda does not end at just transphobia.

 

Broadening this discussion, the Council Liaison Gloria Partida touched again on the idea of this growing hateful movement, and how this is part of a larger organized group designed to “disrupt political platforms” and “swing platforms more to the right.”

 

Partida continued by mentioning an upcoming rainbow crosswalk painting project that has been met with much opposition from certain members of the Davis community.

 

“This group keeps asserting that they are not a hate group,” stated Partida, but continued that the actions and attitudes held by the group are hateful to the affected members of the Davis community.

 

This sentiment was met with agreement from Commissioner Robin Muhammad, stating that this agenda in Davis is “not a new thing,” and is meant to “provoke violence” with the use of hateful rhetoric.

 

In relation to this rhetoric, Commission Chair NJ Mvondo added that “there is a difference between standing up for your rights and attacking someone else’s rights,” and that this type of hateful movement is an attack on the LGBTQ members of the community.

 

Drawing large emphasis on the importance of building community, Mvondo encouraged that “as a community, we continue to find ways to show solidarity.”

 

Especially in a town like Davis, hate groups of this nature have to work to essentially “make hate palatable,” as noted by Varney. So although the majority of the community does not hold their agenda, hate groups operate regardless.

 

On the topic of hateful resistance, Partida mentioned the distribution of pride posters to stores in the community, and an incident where a business was met with harassment from a community member in response to the poster. Muhammad chalked this confrontation to “a form of intimidation” used by certain people who are in opposition to Pride.

 

To this, Gorman claimed that although these individual acts may just be a form of intimidation in Davis, there is a “history of how fascism takes hold” and how these hateful movements will not just stop at intimidation.

 

After addressing the large-scale implications of hate groups in the nation, the conversation returned to instances in Davis. Kate Snow, a DJUSD ex officio, claims that the rainbow crosswalk painting project is a way of “showing our LBGT population, and our whole population, that everyone is welcome.”

 

Mvondo added that there is a “political layer” to these discussions as well and that recent transgender attacks are ultimately “denying peoples’ humanity.”

 

The discussion ended with Mvondo drawing attention to the community’s resources, specifically referencing the “Davis Phoenix Coalition,” and “Queer Youth Group” within the coalition mentioned by Varney. Mvondo urged the Davis community to “keep sharing resources” and “help people feel that they belong to a community.”

Author

Categories:

Breaking News

74 comments

  1. This group keeps asserting that they are not a hate group,

    This sentiment was met with agreement from Commissioner Robin Muhammad, stating that this agenda in Davis is “not a new thing,” and is meant to “provoke violence” with the use of hateful rhetoric.

    I feel this is a huge stretch saying that parents who are concerned about their children being groomed or indoctrinated and feel that parents should not be left out of any decisions about their child’s sexuality are trying to provoke violence. I think it’s time to tamp down the rhetoric.

     

    1. While I think it is a legitimate concern – parental notification – it’s not a local issue. moreover, that particular issue is only one of a broad constellation of issues and finally, I am not sure there is an easy resolution to it as I explained in some detail last time you made this comment.

    2. I’m sorry but you can’t tell people to tamper down the rhetoric while you perpetuate it yourself. Unfortunately that kind of language specifically demonizes LGBT+ people, calling us “groomers” and “indoctrinators” gives us horrible connotations. Gay people are not “grooming” people to become gay, especially gay children. We are open because we want people that might be in the closet, to feel welcome if they decide to come out. You cannot just tell us to stop tampering down rhetoric about violence while you perpetuate terms that specifically have caused violence against us. Why do you think Moms for Liberty show up? Because they believe we are grooming children. They believe that we are forcing children to become gay and question themselves. They believe that we are changing children into something they are not because of some “higher agenda” and this is very dangerous rhetoric. You cannot just tell us to stop as you do it yourself.

      1.  Unfortunately that kind of language specifically demonizes LGBT+ people, calling us “groomers” and “indoctrinators” gives us horrible connotations.

        Read my comment again, I never called anyone “groomers” and “indoctrinators”.  

        You cannot just tell us to stop tampering down rhetoric about violence while you perpetuate terms that specifically have caused violence against us. 

        I only spoke the truth,  “I feel this is a huge stretch saying that parents who are concerned about their children being groomed or indoctrinated and feel that parents should not be left out of any decisions about their child’s sexuality are trying to provoke violence.”

        I stand by that statement.  And by “groomed” I didn’t mean in the pedophilia sense as I explained  in a comment below.

        I don’t believe for the most part that parents who are concerned about their kids lessons or counseling in school or lessons in life who speak up are trying to provoke violence any more than people in the LGBTQ+ community are who speak out.

        When I wrote “I think it’s time to tamp down the rhetoric” I meant on both sides of this issue because the article only represented one side.

         

        1. David, you may want to read about how the term “groom” has many connotations.

          This is how I meant to use the term “groom”.

          Grooming is “ideological manipulation” that includes “isolating children from their parents and replacing them with hyper-activist teachers and counselors” 

          He gave examples, including “collective shaming” and mandatory “counseling workshops” in which “students sit through lectures on the virtue of the latest progressive talking points.”

          “Grooming may not be sexual or pedophillic in nature — and regardless of the connotation narrowed around the term through the rise of the internet in the early Aughts, the current progressive approach to ideological manipulation in children fits the operational and passive definitions,” Kinnett wrote.

          https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/grooming-perfectly-describes-the-ideological-manipulation-in-schools-former-teacher/

           

          1. As noted in the article, the problem is the term has become co-opted, there is now a clear implication of the term, and you had to be aware of it when you used it.

        2. and you had to be aware of it when you used it

          What are you a mind reader.  I stated how I meant for the term to be used.  I already stated that I had no idea it had anything to do with pedophilia.

           there is now a clear implication of the term

          No there isn’t as it showed in the article I posted.

        3. Plausible deniability is a favorite tool of conservative media and its parrots. Keith is smart enough to know that the term he was using had negative connotations, yet he used it anyway. His denials now are disingenuous, regardless of how many times he claims otherwise. Grow up.

        4. I don’t believe that Keith (or “everyone”) for that matter knew the potential implications of the word “grooming”. Also, he literally stated that, above.

          I do believe that those who “came up with it” likely knew.

          But it also seems as though it’s primarily applied regarding “systems” (e.g., school systems, health care). And those “systems” are not pedophiles.

        5. But it also seems as though it’s primarily applied regarding “systems” (e.g., school systems, health care). And those “systems” are not pedophiles.

          Personally, I think the use of the word derails the actual/legitimate concern (systems which may facilitate “gender affirming” medical interventions for minors.  And in the case of health care systems, there’s a potential financial incentive, as well.)

          I cringe whenever I hear someone use the word in this manner, despite sharing the underlying concern.

          And honestly, I suspect that pretty much EVERYONE has those same concerns, if they care about their fellow human beings (as well as societal impacts). Unfortunately, the actual concerns get lost in political nonsense, as usual.

          However, if others want to chop off body parts (or add new ones), inject themselves with puberty blockers, hormones or other substances, the amount of energy/interest I have only extends so far. Even if it’s funded by ObamaCare.

        6. I already stated that I had no idea it had anything to do with pedophilia

          That is BS Keith.  You cited the article, provided a link to it, and quoted it … and now you try and say your reading of the article gave you “no idea”.  That is BS pure and simple.

          1. None of us need to be mindreaders, as Matt Williams pointed out, we can read… You quoted an article from a right wing site in support of your position. They quoted a guy, no one has ever heard of, who wrote something in an op-ed in the DAILY CALLER. But at the end of the day, the connotation of grooming proceeds this debate and it was used intentionally because of its connotation. This isn’t rocket science. You are a smart guy, you know this, stop insulting our intelligence.

        7. That is BS Keith.  You cited the article, provided a link to it, and quoted it … and now you try and say your reading of the article gave you “no idea”.  That is BS pure and simple.

          Matt, I cited the article to show that the word has several different connotations.  I used the word in this sense which the article articulated about:

          Grooming is “ideological manipulation” that includes “isolating children from their parents and replacing them with hyper-activist teachers and counselors”
          He gave examples, including “collective shaming” and mandatory “counseling workshops” in which “students sit through lectures on the virtue of the latest progressive talking points.”
          Grooming may not be sexual or pedophillic in nature — and regardless of the connotation narrowed around the term through the rise of the internet in the early Aughts, the current progressive approach to ideological manipulation in children fits the operational and passive definitions,” Kinnett wrote.

        8. Keith, don’t insult your own intelligence.  What you just said in your reply to me is that you cherry picked the portions of the article that served your arguments, and disregarded the portions of the article that didn’t.  To then say you had no knowledge of the parts you discarded is disingenuous at best.  I don’t expect you to behave so poorly, but in this case you have.  You can do better.

        9. What you just said in your reply to me is that you cherry picked the portions of the article that served your arguments, and disregarded the portions of the article that didn’t.

          Matt, read this again slowly, it shows how the term grooming is often used.  Read the full article I posted too, it fully explains it.  If you choose not to acknowledge that the term has many connotations then I can’t do anything about that.  You’re a smart guy so I don’t know if you honestly don’t understand what it means or if you are purposely acting obtuse.  Either way I’m done with you here because at this point it becomes futile.

          Grooming is “ideological manipulation” that includes “isolating children from their parents and replacing them with hyper-activist teachers and counselors”
          He gave examples, including “collective shaming” and mandatory “counseling workshops” in which “students sit through lectures on the virtue of the latest progressive talking points.”
          “Grooming may not be sexual or pedophillic in nature — and regardless of the connotation narrowed around the term through the rise of the internet in the early Aughts, the current progressive approach to ideological manipulation in children fits the operational and passive definitions,” Kinnett wrote.
          https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/grooming-perfectly-describes-the-ideological-manipulation-in-schools-former-teacher/

          1. You continue to miss something really important here – the term was appropriate from another context… intentionally to be used in this context.

      2. Plausible deniability is a favorite tool of conservative media and its parrots. Keith is smart enough to know that the term he was using had negative connotations, yet he used it anyway. His denials now are disingenuous, regardless of how many times he claims otherwise. Grow up.

        Great comment Mark.

  2. I think it’s time to tamp down the rhetoric.

    Then stop talking about “children being groomed.” That’s despicable hate speech.

    1. That is not despicable hate speech because many parents feel that’s a legitimate concern.  I feel your comment is way out of line.

      1. Casually adopting and normalizing a phrase that suggests that people who are gay or trans are all incipient pedophiles is hate speech. It doesn’t belong on here, it doesn’t belong in reasonable discourse, and people who believe it is occurring are irrational and deluded. You are trying to normalize a phrase that is inherently hateful. Using hateful rhetoric, as you have done, leads to violence. It normalizes hostile behavior towards those who are being ostracized. You need to understand that it is not acceptable and stop trying to rationalize or defend it.

        1. Casually adopting and normalizing a phrase that suggests that people who are gay or trans are all incipient pedophiles is hate speech.

          Woah, where was that said or even inferred.  Quit twisting people’s words.

        2. What do you think the term “groom” refers to?

          I thought it meant leading or coercing into a direction.  For instance if a child was confused about their sexuality that someone might lead them into thinking they were gay when they might not have been.  Now that I look up the definition I see that I’m wrong.

        1. You mean you think that ideology is a filter for people’s views? That’s stunning.

          Exactly, so why do you downplay people’s concerns that you might see coming from the right?

          1. I don’t downplay concerns because they come from the right. I downplay concerns that I think lack validity or are not based on data or solid evidence. For example, I think the parental notification issue is a legitimate concern. I think the “grooming” issue is not a legitimate concern.

        2. You mean you think that ideology is a filter for people’s views? That’s stunning.

          Yes – absolutely.

          Though I think the “filter” is amplified on blogs.

          In private, I believe (most) people are more honest with themselves. For example, I suspect that even those who support what they call “trans rights” have at least some concerns regarding a system which enables (or encourages and pays for) medical transitions for minors – whether or not they’re even a parent of a particular child.

          Depending upon how “large” of an issue this is, it ultimately becomes a societal concern (rather than just concern for individuals). (In regard to concern for individuals, I’m sure you’ve heard of folks like Chloe Cole. Though now that I think about it, the related lawsuit is also a “societal” concern.)

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloe_Cole

    1. Do you mean like this one?

      Casually adopting and normalizing a phrase that suggests that people who are gay or trans are all incipient pedophiles is hate speech. It doesn’t belong on here, it doesn’t belong in reasonable discourse, and people who believe it is occurring are irrational and deluded. You are trying to normalize a phrase that is inherently hateful. Using hateful rhetoric, as you have done, leads to violence. It normalizes hostile behavior towards those who are being ostracized. You need to understand that it is not acceptable and stop trying to rationalize or defend it.

      I don’t like the term either, but (truth be told), don’t view it as an “attack”.  Hatred?  Maybe.

      Of course, it could be argued that they’re not inferring pedophilia, but I think that’s a stretch. But “grooming” does have other meanings, as well – which one could argue “do” apply regarding the issue.

      For that matter, “who” in the community routinely uses this term in the first place? And if they do, so what?

       

      1. Regardless of how “groom” is intended, it’s probably important to note that it’s not directed at trans people themselves.

        In this scenario, the implication is that minors are essentially “systemic victims”. (And now that I see that term, aren’t “systemic victims” something that those with particular points of view are normally concerned about?

        Which also coincides with those who frequently refer to “science” and “evidence” – except perhaps the most glaring science and evidence of all?

        Also the same folks who believe that doctors (or anyone with eyes) “assign” sex at birth?

        1. There is not only physical/biological science, but also mental and emotional science. The human race is a very complex species.

          I came upon this appropriate quote today.

          Christianity should sound like, “I am committed to deepening my love for others and seeking their best,”

          NOT

          “I am obsessed with how others are not conforming to my own personal beliefs and must make them do so by any means necessary.”

  3. The most excellent letter on this topic was published in the Davis Enterprise yesterday.  It correctly identifies these “concerned parents” as people who have some kind of agenda that is more than concern for their own children.  It’s part of an astroturf movement, funded by deep pockets and part of the Republican culture wars.  I’ll say no more than to provide the link to the letter since it is so well written and well stated.

     

     

     

  4. A just released report from the Southern Poverty Law Center,  “2022: The Year in Hate & Extremism” – https://www.splcenter.org/year-hate-extremism-2022 – has listed Moms for Liberty as an anti-government extremist group and part of a group of extremist organizations working against pluralism and equity.  Moms for Liberty have adopted the same tactics used to oppose school desegregation.

    “But Moms for Liberty activities make it clear that the group’s primary goals are to fuel right-wing hysteria and to make the world a less comfortable or safe place for certain students – primarily those who are Black, LGBTQ or who come from LGBTQ families.”

    More information can be found in the section addressing Moms for Liberty attacks on inclusive education:

    https://www.splcenter.org/year-hate-extremism-2022/assault-inclusive-education#anti-students

    1. Hopefully with this designation, more people in this community will wake up to what this “Moms for Liberty” organization is really about.

      And we have already experienced at least one violent attack against an LGBTQ+ person recently, which could be due to the rhetoric that the Moms for Liberty and other hateful elements are spouting in the community.

      Despite how some clearly right wing elements on this blog will disingenuously howl to the contrary. We see you. We see your own words, and they are the words and sentiments of right wing extremists, no matter what you choose to call yourself. We see you.

      I wonder to what extent the perpetrator of beating a 73 year old gay man was influenced by rhetoric such as that which Beth Bourne and Ally Snyder are perpetuating throughout the community.

      https://www.davisenterprise.com/news/local/south-davis-man-accused-of-hate-crime-attack/

      Also, I have heard on NextDoor that the Moms for Liberty will be targeting the Yolo County Library Pride film series and take offense at the Winters branch showing “The Rocky Horror Picture Show” tomorrow evening.

      We need to continue to beat this element back from our community. This is creeping neofascism, and it has no place here, or anywhere.

      There should be no compromising with them, either. No compromising with neofascists. There is no middle or common ground between common human decency and their views. None.

      1. I will endeavor to attend one of the Yolo County Library Pride films to show my unwavering support to the LGBTQ community. Thank you Kendra for alerting us to what the Republican fascist non-grassroots society called the Moms for Liberty is up to.

    2. A just released report from the Southern Poverty Law Center,  “2022: The Year in Hate & Extremism” – https://www.splcenter.org/year-hate-extremism-2022– has listed Moms for Liberty as an anti-government extremist group 

      Some information about the Southern Poverty Law Center think tank.  The Allsides media rating company has rated SPLC with its most liberal rating on the political spectrum.

      An independent review conducted by an AllSides team member found that the SPLC deserves a Left rating. The review found that SPLC focuses almost exclusively on issues associated with the political left, and will sometimes publish stories supporting Democratic Party policies or agenda items. SPLC rarely, if ever, does this for Republican causes.

      https://www.allsides.com/news-source/southern-poverty-law-center-media-bias#:~:text=An%20independent%20review%20conducted%20by%20an%20AllSides%20team,rarely%2C%20if%20ever%2C%20does%20this%20for%20Republican%20causes..

       

      1. Not really following the importance of this point. Given what they do, it’s hard to imagine that they could be right-leaning.

        1. Not really following the importance of this point.

          I don’t think it’s surprising that a hard left leaning organization would come out with a report calling a right leaning organization an ” anti-government extremist group “?  

          Given SPLC’s political bias does their report have any credibility?

           

          1. I’m still at the question: given what they do, how would the organization not show up as being biased?

        2. Keith, you have misread the use of the pronoun “they” in David’s comment.  What he was saying was, “given what Moms for Liberty does, how would the organization not show up as being biased?”

        3. Keith, you have misread the use of the pronoun “they” in David’s comment.  What he was saying was, “given what Moms for Liberty does, how would the organization not show up as being biased?”

          Matt, I think it’s obvious that David is referring to SPLC.

        4. Matt, follow the conversation from my 5:20 am on, it’s obvious.

          For instance, David is 100% talking about APLC here:

          David Greenwald June 8, 2023 at 7:37 am
          Not really following the importance of this point. Given what they do, it’s hard to imagine that they could be right-leaning.
          And then he follows up with:

          David Greenwald June 8, 2023 at 7:52 am
          I’m still at the question: given what they do, how would the organization not show up as being biased?
           

           

      2. Keith, Read the report. It fully describes, without emotion, the activities of the organization to support that they are anti-government and extremist. (One chapter President of Moms for Liberty proposed establishing separate schools for LGBTQI students.) Don’t be so entrenched in your views that you don’t see the harm that this organization is doing to their communities.

  5. The Moms for Liberty – Yolo next event for its members is an anti-vaxx movie, produced by Robert F Kennedy, Jr, espousing conspiracy theories about vaccinations and Dr. Fauci, at the Greehaven-Pocket Library.

  6. The Moms for Liberty, the supposed far right extremist group showing a movie produced by Robert F Kennedy Jr, a democrat running for President.  You can’t make this stuff up if you tried…

    1. Robert F. Kennedy is no “Democrat” despite what he calls himself. His views are not liberal and he pals around with Roger Stone.

      Kind of similar to how you claim you are an Independent, but the words you have expressed here out of your own mouth for years are firmly right wing in nature.

      1. Kendra, I’m a registered Independent.  Other than showing you my voter registration I don’t know what to tell you.  And yes, I’m conservative on most issues, but not all.  I do vote for Republicans most of the time because guess what, they tend to be conservative.  But I actually like some Democrats like Tulsi Gabbard.  But thinking about it she may have changed parties and is now an Independent like ME.

        1. Really, Putin himself.  And programmed by him too.  Who knew?

          I see Tulsi Gabbard as a level headed middle of the road type of politician.  Conservative on some issues, liberal on others.

           

        2. Kendra, you are confusing political party with political beliefs.  George Wallace and Eugene McCarthy were both Democrats, but their political beliefs were far right conservative (Wallace) and far left liberal (McCarthy).  Similar examples exist in the Republican Party.

    2. You also can’t make this stuff up about the Moms for Liberty. Amen.

      Jennifer Jenkins, a Brevard County School Board member who unseated Moms for Liberty co-founder Tina Descovich, traced harassment in her district back to the beginning of Moms for Liberty protests during school board meetings. Writing in The Washington Post, Jenkins noted that the group first targeted the county’s LGBTQ guidelines that protected students by allowing for “the right to dress and use bathrooms according to the gender they identify with.” According to Jenkins, parents reportedly began calling school board members “pedophiles” and threatening them, saying, “We’re coming at you like a freight train! We are going to make you beg for mercy. If you thought January 6 was bad, wait until you see what we have for you!”
      She was later targeted by Florida state Rep. Randy Fine, a Moms for Liberty supporter and donor, who posted Jenkins’ cell phone number on Facebook and instructed his followers to “stand up for your rights, call Jenkins RIGHT NOW and let her know exactly how you feel.” Someone even falsely reported Jenkins for child abuse, she said, prompting an investigation from the Florida Department of Children and Families.
      An administrator of the Facebook group for the Livingston County, Michigan, chapter posted a threatening message directed to anyone backing Biden’s review of school board threats and violence: “Not a single person on the right side of the aisle better be backing this, if they are they better be prepared to be REMOVED 1776 style.” (The “1776” reference is about the American Revolution; in far-right circles, “1776” often implies the threat of political violence.)
      This sort of conduct is no surprise given the previous behavior of one of the group’s co-founders. According to Vero News, a local news outlet for Indian River County, Florida, co-founder Justice visited her fifth-grade son’s school to oppose the district’s COVID-19 mask mandate and was “being so disruptive and disrespectful in her interactions with Beachland teachers and administrators” that the school’s superintendent “warned she could be barred from the campus.”

  7. The Moms for Liberty, an organization of 100,000 mothers, fight back.

    After the Southern Poverty Law Center announced it was designating the right-wing school activist group Moms For Liberty as an extremist group, one of the group’s three co-founders questioned the research organization’s credibility and called the label “reckless.”
    “Outside of it being a leftist attack, political hit job, there’s no credibility behind it. It’s truly laughable,” said Bridget Ziegler, one of the Florida-based group’s co-founders, who is the chair of the Sarasota School Board.
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2023/06/07/moms-for-liberty-co-founder-rejects-splc-extremist-label/70298360007/

    1. “Outside of it being a leftist attack, political hit job, there’s no credibility behind it. It’s truly laughable,” said Bridget Ziegler

      “leftist attack” – the lady doth protest too much.

        1. Of course. That’s my point. That tells us exactly what we need to know about M4L. Leftist was a term used during the cold war to describe communist insurgents and has been appropriate by the far right to refer to liberals and progressives. Language is so important to understanding where people are coming from.

Leave a Comment