Nancy Churchill discusses when protecting a cause becomes protecting a lie
Nancy Churchill
Dangerous Rhetoric
When a massacre happens, the first casualty is often the truth. The second is the victim’s story. In Minneapolis, Robert “Robin” Westman’s confession — “I am tired of being trans. I wish I never brain-washed myself” — should have been front-page news. Instead his sex, his words, and the wreckage of his regret were quietly erased. That erasure wasn’t accidental. It was strategic.
What they won’t tell you
When a story threatens a favored narrative, the media’s reflex is to soften, delay, or bury it. “The blame for the killings is on guns, but his mental state, in which his delusions about his sex were affirmed by everyone in authority around him, is not mentioned,” one commentator observed about reporting on BBC News. That erasure is the first step in normalizing a narrative that always protects the movement, never the victims.
The shooter’s own words — “I am tired of being trans. I wish I never brain-washed myself.” — should force a reckoning about causes and culpability. But facts that clash with activist slogans like “death before detransition” are often minimized or ignored. That chilling slogan functions like a loyalty oath: it silences dissent and protects an ideology at the expense of victims.
Narrative inversion
The media’s reflex is now a role reversal: sympathy for ideology, suspicion for victims. Before families bury their dead, headlines warn of a “backlash” against the trans community — as if asking hard questions were the real crime. That inversion criminalizes curiosity and shields institutions.
Requests for help are treated as threats. Calls for an “off-ramp” for those who regret medical transition are shouted down as hateful. Refusing to offer pathways for recovery is not accidental; it’s enforced by gatekeepers protecting doctrinal purity.
Manufactured consent
This is coordination, not chaos. Teachers unions, activist groups, and ready-made lesson kits shape what children learn. Critics warn that teachers’ unions — more than any other institution — have leveraged political power, contract control, and district influence to dictate classroom content and training, and too often the press treats that as routine.
That coordinated channel produces repeatable narratives. Institutions craft “wrap-up smear” messages, activists amplify them, and media outlets echo the script. The press becomes the amplifier, lending prepackaged claims the veneer of legitimacy. That repetition normalizes half-truths and silences critics.
Even federal officials have pushed back. The Department of Justice reminded schools that “Parents have a fundamental right to direct the moral and religious education of their children.” That reminder exists because schools, unions, and agencies have routinely pushed the bounds of parental awareness. Reporters, however, often frame these fights as dry policy disputes rather than battles over children.
Washington: A local example of the same pattern
This dynamic plays out in Washington state. The Olympian reported the facts in bureaucratic tones: “Washington state’s OSPI is being investigated by the U.S. departments of Education and Justice for alleged violations of anti-discrimination …” That neutral framing flattens an ideological fight into administrative procedure.
OSPI cast the probe as persecution: “This investigation … is the latest target in the Administration’s dangerous war against individuals who are transgender or gender-expansive.” Local media often printed the standoff without interrogating either claim, letting the agency’s narrative stand unchallenged.
Local dissent exists but is marginalized. A La Center superintendent publicly fought OSPI over pronoun rules, and regional reporting documented parents’ and administrators’ concerns and conflicts around how pronoun policies are handled in schools. Those reality checks rarely reach the front pages of larger media outlets.
OSPI policy documents underscore the tradeoffs. The state tells schools they “are prohibited from discriminating based on gender identity” and must investigate “even if a parent or student does not file a formal…complaint.” Reporters often print that as neutral policy wording — but hiding information from parents is a moral choice with consequences.
Truth as resistance
This is not mere negligence. The press protects an ideology. By softening facts, amplifying prepackaged smears, and treating moral fights as technical disputes, mainstream media shields institutions that profit from everyone following the same script. That protection enables further harm to children and silences the people who might stop it.
If truth matters, passivity is no longer an option. Silence and polite outrage are part of the machine. We need sustained, organized pressure. Here’s how to act — not as performative outrage, but as a campaign for accountability.
What you can do now:
Demand honest news coverage. Email or call local editors. Ask for victim-focused follow-ups and plain facts — names, relevant medical or institutional links, and accountability reporting.
Show up. Attend school-board meetings. Ask what lessons and teacher training kits your district uses; record or share meetings when allowed. Question in-school health care policies.
Amplify real voices. Share first-person accounts from detransitioners, grieving families, and whistleblowers instead of abstract policy takes.
Hold unions and officials to account. Ask candidates how union contracts shape curricula and teacher training. Vote for transparency and parental oversight.
Support watchdog reporting. Subscribe, donate, and promote investigative journalists who dig into institutional behavior rather than repeating press statements.
Demand records. File public-records requests for policies, training materials, and complaint logs. Publicize destroyed or withheld records and push for legislative fixes.
Silent Majority Foundation attorney Karen Osborne encourages parents not to wait for any federal ruling or further directives from OSPI if their child is enrolled in a Washington public school.
“At the beginning of every school year, they should request their students’ records. And in that letter of request. They should say that this is a standing request for the whole school year, so that every time my students’ records are changed, I want that update,” she said. “The district is required to give you the records. The districts have no right to withhold this information from parents. No right at all.”
The cover-up and narrative control has real victims. If you care about protecting children, honoring those who suffer, and restoring an honest public square, act now. Insist on the truth — and if newsrooms refuse, hold them to account: vote, demand records, and make their silence politically costly.
Nancy Churchill is a writer and educator in rural eastern Washington State, and the chair of the Ferry County Republican Party. She may be reached at DangerousRhetoric@pm.me. The opinions expressed in Dangerous Rhetoric are her own. Dangerous Rhetoric is available on Substack, X, and Rumble
Also read:
- Opinion: Transit agencies need accountability not increased state subsidy
Charles Prestrud argues that Washington transit agencies face rising costs and declining ridership due to governance structures that lack public accountability. - Letter: ‘For years, American foreign policy too often felt like a blank check’
Vancouver resident Peter Bracchi argues that the 2025 National Security Strategy marks a long-overdue shift toward clearer priorities, shared responsibility, and interest-based American leadership. - POLL: Are you better off than you were a year ago?
This week’s poll asks readers to reflect on their personal financial situation and whether they feel better off than they were a year ago as economic conditions continue to shift. - Opinion: Does tailgating cause speeding?
Target Zero Manager Doug Dahl examines whether tailgating contributes to speeding and explains why following too closely increases crash risk with little benefit. - Opinion: ‘The Democrats’ part of the bargain’
Clark County Today Editor Ken Vance reflects on a New Year’s Eve encounter and a Bill Maher commentary to assess what he sees as cultural and political changes from the past year.
