Two mass shootings shook the United States this past week. In both cases, the alleged perpetrators were not members of the marginalized groups often scapegoated in public discourse. Instead, they were cisgender white Marine veterans, men who had served their country, earned honors, and returned home with medals on their chests.
Yet when the headlines broke, conservative lawmakers and commentators did not call for a nationwide crackdown on veterans. There were no demands to strip former Marines of their Second Amendment rights. No prime-time panels on cable news questioned whether military service might produce dangerous men unfit for civilian life.
Contrast this silence with the avalanche of reaction earlier this month when one assailant who targeted Charlie Kirk was reported to have lived with a transgender partner. Overnight, Republicans pushed narratives about “Trantifa” and “transgender violence” and even floated proposals to institutionalize transgender people or deny them their right to bear arms.
The difference in reactions reveals a hypocrisy that is both predictable and dangerous. When violence is committed by those who fit conservative ideals; cisgender, white, veteran, male, it is explained away as an isolated tragedy. But when a transgender person is even tangentially connected, the entire community is dragged into the spotlight and treated as a national threat.
The Recent Attacks
On September 28, a gunman opened fire at a Mormon church in Grand Blanc, Michigan, killing and wounding multiple people before setting the building ablaze. The suspect was a Marine veteran who had previously been decorated for his service.
Just one day earlier, authorities identified Nigel Edge, a Purple Heart recipient and Marine veteran, as the alleged shooter in a mass attack in Southport, Massachusetts. Both men fit the archetype often celebrated by conservative America: white veterans who had “served with honor.” Their alleged crimes barely shifted the national conversation about guns, veterans, or violence.
Compare that to the response when Tyler Robinson was accused in the assassination of Charlie Kirk earlier this month. Robinson was reported to have lived with a transgender partner. Suddenly, the story was no longer about one man but about an entire community. Commentators described it as evidence of a “far-left transgender movement.” Social media was flooded with talk of “Trantifa.” Lawmakers and pundits began openly discussing whether transgender people should be disarmed or confined in institutions.
The double standard could not be more striking. When cisgender white veterans commit acts of violence, they remain individuals. When transgender people are even remotely linked, they become a collective scapegoat.
How Conservative Rhetoric Shifts
Republican leaders and right-wing influencers are quick to generalize when it comes to marginalized groups. They insist that one transgender suspect represents all transgender people. They argue that LGBTQ+ communities pose a national security risk simply by existing.
But when veterans commit acts of violence, conservatives move quickly to individual explanations. They cite PTSD, unemployment, or a mental health crisis. These are real issues, but they are not extended as compassionate context when transgender people are involved.
In practice, this means one group is shielded by empathy while the other is vilified. Cisgender men who commit violence are portrayed as tragic exceptions. Transgender people, even when only indirectly connected, are portrayed as existential threats.
The Manufactured Threat of “Trantifa”
Conservative media has worked hard to revive the myth of “Trantifa,” a supposed organized movement of transgender militants. Articles and broadcasts frame isolated acts of violence as part of a coordinated campaign.
This is not evidence-based reporting. It is scapegoating packaged as security analysis. By linking individual crimes to the idea of “transgender extremism,” conservatives create a moral panic designed to justify restrictions. Proposals to bar transgender people from owning firearms or to force them into institutions have already been floated in political and media circles.
There is no organized transgender terrorist movement. What does exist is a political incentive to pretend there is, because it gives conservatives a convenient villain to rally their base against.
The Second Amendment Double Standard
Republicans have long styled themselves as defenders of the Second Amendment. They argue that gun rights must remain absolute, even when those guns are used in mass shootings. They resist universal background checks, red-flag laws, or waiting periods, framing any attempt at regulation as an assault on freedom.
That absolutism seems to stop when the subject turns to transgender people. After the Charlie Kirk shooting, online voices within conservative circles argued that transgender people should not be trusted with firearms. Some suggested bans based on the assumption that transgender Americans are inherently unstable.
The hypocrisy is glaring. A cisgender veteran can shoot up a church, and conservatives will still defend his right to own a gun. A transgender person does not even need to be the shooter to spark calls for collective punishment.
RELATED: The Double Standard in Media Coverage of Trans Violence
Veterans, Violence, and Silence
There is an uncomfortable truth about violence that conservatives rarely address. Veterans, particularly men struggling with untreated trauma, do commit acts of violence at disproportionate rates. Studies have found connections between PTSD, access to firearms, and both domestic and mass violence.
Acknowledging this would require nuance. It would mean recognizing the need for better mental health care, stronger gun safety laws, and a rethinking of how America treats those it sends to war. But that kind of honesty is politically inconvenient.
Instead, conservatives offer silence. Or they offer sympathy to the accused, framing them as victims of circumstance rather than as dangerous actors. That compassion disappears entirely when a transgender person is involved.
The Cost of Scapegoating
When conservatives weaponize transgender identity as a scapegoat for violence, the harm ripples outward. Transgender people are left fearing that any crime, even one committed by a stranger, could be turned against them. Guilt by association becomes a daily risk.
Policy discussions are distorted. Calls to restrict transgender gun rights are not just idle talk. In a political climate where legislatures are already restricting transgender health care, bathroom access, and school participation, extending those attacks to constitutional rights is the next logical step for some lawmakers.
And every scapegoating headline erodes public understanding. It trains the broader population to associate “transgender” with “dangerous,” regardless of facts. That erosion makes life less safe for transgender people, who already face discrimination and violence.
Why Hypocrisy Persists
This hypocrisy persists because it serves political goals. Conservatives accuse progressives of playing “identity politics,” but their own double standards reveal the same tactic. By protecting the identities they revere, cisgender, white, male, and veteran, they reinforce their cultural hierarchy.
Conservative media ecosystems amplify stories of “transgender violence” while quickly moving on from stories of cisgender perpetrators. The repetition shapes public opinion.
And scapegoating transgender people provides leverage. It energizes voters by offering a visible enemy in a time of social and political uncertainty.
Building a Different Narrative
Exposing this double standard is essential. Transgender communities and allies must highlight the disparity between how cisgender perpetrators and transgender people are treated. Making the hypocrisy visible is the first step.
Reframing the conversation is equally important. The focus must shift from scapegoating identities to confronting systemic issues. Gun access, mental health care, veteran support, and social inequality drive violence far more than any identity category.
The Bottom Line
The alleged shooters in Grand Blanc and Southport remind us that violence is not the property of one group. It is not a “transgender problem.” It is not uniquely a veteran problem either, though veterans deserve more support than they currently receive. It is, at its core, a problem of guns, trauma, and social failures.
Yet conservatives continue to weaponize transgender identity as a scapegoat while excusing or ignoring violence from those they see as their own. When a transgender person is even adjacent to violence, the entire community becomes the target. When a cisgender veteran commits mass murder, the conversation is softened or redirected.
This double standard is not only hypocritical. It is dangerous. It fosters stigma, distorts policy, and places transgender people at even greater risk. If America is to confront violence honestly, it cannot do so selectively. True justice requires consistency. Anything less is complicity.
