ConWebWatch home
ConWebBlog: the weblog of ConWebWatch
Search and browse through the ConWebWatch archive
About ConWebWatch
Who's behind the news sites that ConWebWatch watches?
Letters to and from ConWebWatch
ConWebWatch Links
Buy books and more through ConWebWatch

Michael Brown's Deceptive Anti-LGBTQ Attacks: The Early Years

The WorldNetDaily columnist loves to pretend he has compassion for LGBTQ people -- even as he continuously displays his hate and contempt for them.

By Terry Krepel
Posted 8/7/2023

Michael Brown

WorldNetDaily columnist Michael Brown is trying to straddle two worlds -- insisting he has compassion for LGBTQ people even as his rhetoric shows hate and contempt for them. He is not as extreme as some on the anti-gay Christian right; for instance, he has publicly criticized Christian extremists like Theodore Shoebat who do explicitly advocate killing gays for being gay. But he has also written a book-length anti-gay rant called "A Queer Thing Happened to America," and his purported moderation hasn't kept him from spreading hate (even as he insists he isn't) and misleading people and misrepresenting facts to bolster that latter world.

He has been doing this for years at WND -- indeed, as far back as 2012 he has promoted the idea that homosexuality is no different than pedophilia. Brown wrote in a December 2014 column:

Two weeks ago, I wrote a column entitled, “Is Michelle Duggar guilty of ‘LGBTQ fear-mongering’?” In response, Camille Beredjick, posted an article on the Friendly Atheist website entitled, “To Michelle Duggar, Michael Brown, and the rest: Stop attacking trans women.”

What is noteworthy about her article is not the presence of complete falsehoods (sadly, another common tactic among gay activists), such as the accusation that conservative Christians like Michelle Duggar and I “equate transgender identity with being a sexual predator” and that we suggest “that gay rights activists want immunity for people who do commit acts of sexual harassment” – to repeat, these are totally false allegations – but rather her defense of the indefensible.

In my article, I referenced “Colleen” Francis, a biological male who is now legally female and who surprised female high school students who went into a sauna at a jointly used college swimming pool, not expecting to see Francis sitting there naked with “her male genitalia” exposed.

In defense of Francis, who is attracted to women, not men, Beredjick argued that the case had been misreported, acknowledging that “the nugget of truth to the story: two teens did claim to see Colleen Francis nude while in the Evergreen College sauna.”

The problem, according to a report cited by Beredjick, is that the sauna was “generally off limits to swim team members,” so, according to Beredjick, this is really the fault of the girls.

Talk about defending the indefensible.

Actually, in his column a couple weeks earlier, Brown did, in fact, equate being transgender to being a sexual predator by stating that "male heterosexual predators could easily take advantage of this law. Why wouldn’t they?" He added:

If they know that the law allows for men who identify as transgender to use the ladies room, why wouldn’t they take advantage of it? Why wouldn’t they dress up as women to be around women and girls in this private setting?

Don’t sexual perverts do perverted things? Don’t sexual predators do whatever they can to prey on the innocent? And are the gay activists guaranteeing us that there are no men who now identify as transgender women who are sexual predators?

Perhaps Brown might want to explain why he thinks discussing transgender people in the same breath as "sexual perverts" is not equating the two.

Beredjick's statement that Brown suggests that "gay rights activists want immunity for people who do commit acts of sexual harassment" appears to be true, given Brown's obsession with attacking anyone who defends transgender people by playing the sexual predator card. Again, Brown might want to try proving the falsehoods he alleges instead of merely insisting they are false.

Brown was also accurately accused of misrepresenting the Francis case. Here's what he wrote in a November 2014 column:

Third, there’s already a case in Olympia, Washington, where a man who is legally a woman but still has male genitalia shocked teenaged girls who found him sitting naked with his legs open in the girls sauna. (The police report stated that “she” was exposing “her male genitalia.”)

The girls, who are in high school, share a pool with a local college where the individual in question, whose name is now “Colleen” and who is about 45 years old, is taking classes. But since the school has a policy of no discrimination based on gender identity, there was absolutely nothing that could be done to stop “Colleen” from doing this again.

As Transadvocate pointed out, which Brown failed to note in his biased account of the case:

The sauna area was off limits to the two teens.

Unless one specifically tries to see inside the sauna, you can’t view the people inside the sauna.

Colleen Francis AND her cisgender female friend were using the sauna together. They were sitting there talking.

At no point did Francis act to expose herself to children.

At no point was Francis walking around nude in the area where children were.

Brown doesn't contest Beredjick's charge that he misrepresented the Francis case -- perhaps because he knows she's right. But neither does he attempt to correct the record, which tells us that his misrepresentation was deliberate and designed to boost his anti-gay activism.

Brown's insistence of maliciously misrepresenting transgender issues for maximum outrage, while declaring that he's right simply because he says he is, shows that he doesn't care about the facts.

Brown had a transphobic meltdown against a discount store chain in an April 2016 column:

Just think: Target has declared war on gender.

Last year, Target announced that it was doing away with boys’ toys and girls’ toys.


Now Target has gone even further, imposing the struggles of less than 1 percent of the population on the rights of the other 99 percent.

To add insult to injury, a Target rep on Facebook suggested that those who had a problem with this could use the handicapped bathroom!

So, rather than telling the less than 1 percent who struggle with their gender identity to use the handicapped bathroom, Target is telling them to use the larger, mens’ and ladies’ bathrooms, while telling the 99 percent to use the single handicapped facility.

This is just plain insanity.

Brown tried serving up more of that faux compassion in a February 2017 column:

I’m aware, of course, that there are people who struggle deeply with gender identity issues, people who find themselves between a rock and a hard place when it comes to which bathroom or locker room to use, people who are doing their best to fit in and ignore the people looking at them as if they were some kind of freak.

As I’ve said many times before, I do not minimize their struggles, and I long to see them find true and lasting wholeness.

Yet Brown is all too willing to trade in transgender stereotypes -- that transgender people are nothing but cross-dressing boys wanting to perv on girls in the bathroom -- to pander to his right-wing audience. This what he wrote immediately before those faux-sympathetic words:

Let’s say that 16-year-old John identifies as a girl but is heterosexual, and he wants to play on the girls’ sports team and share their bathrooms, locker rooms and shower stalls (a “right” for which the Obama administration fought vigorously). That means that John, who perhaps wants to be called Jane, will still be attracted to girls – the very ones he’ll be playing with and undressing with and showering with.

This doesn’t mean he’s a sexual predator. It just means that he’s a male teenager, naturally attracted to females, which is one reason why he’s supposed to use the boys’ bathroom, locker room and shower stalls.

Yet to say this is to be transphobic and insensitive.

Similarly, let’s say that 30-year-old Charlie, who identifies as Charlene but remains a biological, heterosexual male, wants to change in the ladies’ locker room at the YMCA. This means that Charlie will be checking out the ladies there, since he’s heterosexual, and if the women complain to management that they feel uncomfortable, they will be branded troublemakers.

And most of his column is focused on a transgender person convicted of murder in the United Kingdom; he was irked that the media referred to the criminal by her gender identity rather than her male biology and made a big deal out of how the prisoner had to be "moved from a female prison for allegedly having sex with the female inmates."

"Welcome to the world of transanity," he huffed at the beginning of his column; he concluded, "This societal madness must stop. There must surely be a better way."

Does this sound like someone who's not minimizing transgender struggles? Doesn't it sound instead like someone who has no problem exploiting those struggles for the salacious and hateful purview of his right-wing WND audience?

He mixed faux compassion with contempt again in a column a couple weeks later:

This being said, I do not minimize for a moment the very real struggle of precious little children who grapple deeply with their gender identity, nor do I deny that many children (and adults) report that their lives are more stable and fulfilled when they identify as the opposite of their biological sex.

I do not minimize the traumas through which Bruce Jenner (or others like him) has lived, nor do I claim to be able to relate to those traumas personally.

And I do not make a spiritual judgment about someone who struggles with his or her gender identity, as if this somehow made them into the vilest of sinners. Why should that be the case?

Again, my goal is not to belittle or disparage, and as loudly and clearly as I can, I proclaim God’s love for all of you who identify as transgender, reminding each one that Jesus died for you just as He died for me and that God has a good and godly purpose for each of your lives.

You are not defective any more than I am defective, and every human being on the planet is broken in some way and in need of a Great Physician.

The headline of this column? "Caitlyn Jenner is just a man in a dress." And the very first line of this column (italics his): "I do not write these words lightly, and there is not an ounce of mockery or, God forbid, hatred in my heart when I say that Caitlyn Jenner is a man wearing a dress [italics his]."

Brown is in serious denial that there's a profound disconnect between the compassion he claims to feel for transgender people and his snide dismissal of them by insisting they're nothing more than a man in a dress. (Which is in line with his previous unsolicited comments about Jenner's transition.)

Brown's column also embedded his "new video commentary, including some telling clips with Jenner." He again dismisses Jenner as "a man in a dress taking hormones," then cheers that President Trump "rescinded a ridiculous order, guidelines from the federal government" that Title IX also covers gender identity, which he claims meant would allow "a 17-year-old boy who identifies as a girl to play on the girls' sports team and to share the girls' locker rooms and shower stall and bathrooms." That language is a scare tactic WND and other anti-LGBT activists have used for years.

Brown then asserted that children with gender identity issues -- which he calls "some kind of handicap -- mental, emotional" -- "need to be told boys are boys and girls are girls." He also likened being transgender to thinking you're Chinese or 7 feet tall.

The graphic shown along with Brown during his video lecture read, "Caution: Transanity."

Is that the language of a guy who claims he's not trying to belittle or disparage transgender people, or not making a spiritual judgment about them, or not mocking them, or not minimizing their struggles? Yeah, we don't think so either.

Post-massacre conversion attempt

Following the the 2016 massacre at an LGBT nightclub in Orlando, Brown wrote a column pretentiously titled "A Christian message to LGBT Americans," acknowledging his anti-gay rhetoric but also insisting it doesn't drive followers to violence:

In your eyes, people like me are hateful bigots, not recognizing the validity of your marriages, not recognizing the depth of your relationships, not recognizing the beauty of your families.

And when we say that homosexual practice is sinful in God’s sight, you feel that we are branding you as inferior human beings, virtually damning you to hell for who you are and for who you perceive yourselves to be from the womb.

Some of you have called us CINOs (Christians In Name Only), reminding us that Paul taught that love does no harm to its neighbor (see Romans 13:10) and claiming that we are doing you to irreparable harm and damage when we tell you that God has a better way, that it’s wrong for you to engage in same-sex relationships, and that, with God’s help, it can be possible to change from gay to straight.

Many of you hear those words as anything but loving, to put it mildly.


In reality, if people truly listened to my message (or that of my colleagues), it would never dawn on them for a split second to attack you or try to harm you, and as I’ve said many times publicly, if someone tried to do you harm and I was present, they would have to get by me.

Brown's response then became completely schizophrenic, telling gays to ignore people like him who use Jesus' name to spread hatred of gays and just somehow come to Jesus anyway:

You might say in response, “Brown, you just don’t get it. Your words hurt us deeply, and your political stances do violence to us. You’re no better than a mass murderer.”

I say to you in response, “Then forget about me or other Christian leaders, and in your moment of intense pain and anger, look to Jesus.”


You ask, “But are you telling me that I’m supposed to be stop being gay? Is that your message?”

My message is that we are all sinners in need of God’s mercy and transformation, and you can pray what all of us prayed: “God, I confess to you that I’m a sinner in need of forgiveness, and I cry out to you to forgive me and give me a brand new life.”

Then put your entire life into his hands – your past, present and future; your hopes, dreams and pains; your sexuality and your desires – and say, “Jesus, I want you to be the Lord of my life, I believe you died for my sins and rose from the dead, and wherever you lead, I will follow you.”

Call out to him today from the depths of your heart, and he will hear your cry.

Brown doesn't actually answer the question he asked, but it's all too clear: Yes, Brown wants gay people to stop being gay.

A June 2017 column by Brown used isolated incidents in Canada to fearmonger about the federal government wanting to "snatch" children away from parents who taught them to hate gays. He writes:

First, are the people of Canada unimportant? Does something matter only if it affects America? Surely you won’t say, “Who cares if Christian families in Canada have their children seized by the government? I’m OK here in America.”

Second, we’ve seen how LGBT activism has become the principle threat to our freedoms of speech, conscience and religion here in the States. Canada is just one step ahead.

Third, already in America, “A federal district court judge a mother’s lawsuit, essentially upholding Minnesota’s very harmful and unconstitutional ’emancipation statute’ that allows minor children — with the aid of outside groups — to leave their families whenever there is conflict, as long as the child is living independently and can support himself or herself.”

In the case at hand, the mother’s minor son had “decided to be treated with hormones in an effort to ‘change’ his biological sex and to change his name.” The mother opposed this, which was one of the reasons the child sought “emancipation.” Now, the government (here in America!) is helping to underwrite his “transition,” and there’s nothing his mother can do to prevent it.

But Brown hid the full story of this case. As an actual news organization reported, the mother had essentially abandoned her child and made no effort to bring her home or report her as a runaway, and she showed no interest in her child's current situation until she started taking hormones. The mother lost her lawsuit against her child. Brown offered no evidence to support his claim that Minnesota's emancipation statute is either "harmful" or "unconstitutional."

Brown concluded his column by declaring, "This madness must be stopped." His lying and deception should too.

Brown spent a May 2018 column portraying self-proclaimed ex-gays as "the smallest, most rejected minority in our country":

Their numbers are very small, since they came out of a small community to start with. And it is only a small percentage of that small group who make a break with the rest of the LGBT community.

Most of them make that break because of their religious faith, often newly found. Others make the break simply because they no longer want to identify as gay or bi or trans. But for making that break, they pay a steep price.

They are mocked and maligned and bullied by the community they once called home.

They are told they do not exist. They are assured they will fail. Their motives are questioned. They are called liars and mercenaries. They are even mocked for being so small in number (even if they number in the thousands or tens of thousands, that represents the tiniest slice of the population).

All this simply because they want to lead a new life, because they do not embrace their same-sex attractions (or their gender confusion.)

Shouldn’t they be applauded for their courage? Shouldn’t they be lauded for doing what they feel is right?

Really now, what can possibly be wrong with a man wanting to be married to a woman, having natural children of his own? Why on earth should he be penalized for that?

What can possibly be wrong with a woman wanting to be at home in her own body? Why on earth should she be criticized for that?

And why is it that we put ex-gays and ex-trans individuals under such intense pressure? If they have one slip-up, they’re called phonies. If they still struggle with attractions or gender confusion, they are told they haven’t changed. But why?

Brown then demonstrated how little he understands about sexuality by likening being gay to alcoholism and addiction to pornography: "There are plenty of former alcoholics who fell off the wagon for a season, only to get back on track. Do we ridicule them, or empathize with them and show them compassion? Many of them identify as recovering alcoholics. Why can’t someone identify as a recovering homosexual?"

Brown went on to reveal his real reason for embracing ex-gays -- because they purportedly show that sexual preferences aren't immutable: "That’s why those who say, 'I used to be gay, but I’m free today' must be maligned. Their existence must be denied. Their ultimate failure must be assured. If change is possible – again, through divine intervention or through counseling or both – then the whole push for 'LGBT rights' can be questioned."

Which, of course, is the fallacy in Brown's activism -- he seems to not understand that people have the right to be who they are sexually. His implication is that if you can stop being gay, then you must stop being gay. He offered no evidence to support his claim that people who are gay are somehow not "free."

Brown lamented that "the great majority of those who came out of homosexual practice and transgender identification simply want to live their lives," but he failed to understand that the LGBT community want to do the same thing. He cares only that his version of Christianity gets imposed on everyone, whether or not it violates their rights to live as they desire.

He concluded by doing more false likening of "homosexual behavior" -- a term that denies the existence of sexual orientation -- this time to lying, adultery and theft. That tells you how little regard he really has for people who live differently from him.

Brown served up more homophobic ranting in a May 2019 column:

As followers of Jesus, we are called to submit to the laws of the land and to honor those in authority. The New Testament is very clear on this (see especially Romans 13:1-7). It is also very clear that there are exceptions to this rule, namely, when the authorities require us to disobey the Lord (see Acts 5:40-42). In that case, with respect, we say, “We must obey God rather than man” (see Acts 4:18-20; 5:29; to be perfectly clear, I’m speaking of non-violent resistance to the law.)

That time has come for parents in California.

In good conscience, they must say NO to the school authorities and YES to the Lord. It’s time to declare to the schools of California, “Quit using our children as pawns in the culture wars! Quit sexualizing our kids!”

I’m speaking about the radical new sex-ed curriculum being imposed on all students in the public schools, K-12, without exception, and without the option of parents removing their children from objectionable classes.

We’re talking about kindergarteners – little children just 5-6 years-old – being indoctrinated with transgender talking points. Indeed, “a book for kindergarten through third grade teaches kids that they can be a boy, girl, neither, gender queer or gender fluid and that adults might not understand their gender identity.”

Parents, say NO to your impressionable little ones being exposed to trash like this. How dare the school bring such confusion to your precious children.

We’re talking about introducing boys as young as 9 to slang words for sexual organs. Yes, “A book for fourth, fifth and sixth-grade boys discusses slang words for genitals and explains masturbation and sexual fantasies.”

Parents, say NO to turning your little, pre-pubescent boys into sex-savvy, worldy-wise street-talkers.

We’re talking about promoting outright perversion to your high-school kids. To be specific, “A book for high school students introduces sex acts for all sexual orientations and introduces the concepts of bondage, body fluid, blood play, fisting and other sexual behaviors once considered to be acts of debauchery.”

Parents, you must say that ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

Brown clearly thinks that the education about the LGBT community -- when they're permitted to be referred to at all in school -- must only be about demonization and immorality. Brown then hammered that point home:

Really now, who appointed the school system to be the moral conscience of your family? Who appointed teachers to enter your homes on behalf LGBT activists and sexual anarchists? How can you tolerate an invasion like this?


But, one way or another, I urge every Christian parent in California to refuse to allow your children to be polluted by an immoral educational system, whatever it takes. (Again, I am speaking here only of peaceful means, not violent means, God forbid.)

Apparently, we're supposed to be comforted that Brown's extreme rhetoric doesn't involve explicitly calling for violence against LGBT people.

Then, in his column a few days later, Brown complained that this hateful rhetoric was called out:

Last week, I encouraged Christian parents in California who had children in public schools to defy the law and pull their kids from the state’s extreme sex-ed curriculum. How did the Friendly Atheist’s resident Episcopalian blogger respond?

According to Sarahbeth Caplin, I want these parents to teach “their kids that transgender people don’t exist.” (Yes, she actually wrote this.)

In sum, “This is just faith-based, hate-fueled fear-mongering. It’s the only subject in which Michael Brown is an expert.”

What a sad commentary on the nature of liberal illogic. And what a misrepresentation of the facts.


My article says absolutely nothing about the existence or non-existence of people who identify as transgender.

Instead, it protests the idea that kindergarten children should be told that perhaps they’re actually boys in girls’ bodies (or the reverse, or some other option).

Brown didn't admit what is clear from his rhetoric -- that he has always hated transgender people -- and that he mocks any non-denigrating discussion about them as "transanity."

The headline of Brown's column complained that liberals "misrepresent & demonize" him -- but he has always misrepresented and demonized LGBT people. One might argue that turnabout is fair play.

Brown started off a July 2019 column by noting that Netflix sent a cease-and-desist order to the organizers of a so-called straight-pride parade that used its logo to falsely portray it as a sponsor. That quickly led to Brown ranting about how there are too many non-heterosexuals on Netflix:

Personally, I have no interest in the Straight Pride parade, and none of my pro-family colleagues are involved with it.

That being said, it is clear that Netflix is the bully here. And it is even clearer that Netflix is proudly queer.


But it’s not just the Netflix legal team which is openly queer. The company as a whole has been blazing an openly queer path for years.

There is not only a plethora of gay-themed movies on Netflix, but a 2018 article pointed to “30 Netflix original shows with LGBT characters.”

Yes, “ Netflix has quite the history with LGBT representation, with two of their earliest shows (‘House of Cards’ and ‘Orange Is the New Black’) featuring queer leads. The company hasn’t shied away from these characters since, with LGBT characters appearing in the main casts of shows like ‘Sense8’ and ‘One Day at a Time,’ to name a few. Dramas, comedies, thrillers – whatever the genre, Netflix has featured an LGBT character in it.”

In keeping with this emphasis, now that “The Designated Survivor” is a Netflix production, it not only introduced the F- word to the show. But by the third episode, it focused on “transgender rights.”

And last year, Netflix released “Super Drags,” an “adult animated series” in which “three gay co-workers lead double lives as drag queen superheroes, saving the LGBTQ community from evil nemeses.” How delightful.

So Netflix, yes, we hear you loud and clear. You are here and you are queer. Quite so.

(Christian families looking for a very wholesome alternative might want to consider Pure Flix.)

That kind of gay-bashing is about par for the course from someone who does not, in fact, have any compassion toward LGBTQ people.

Send this page to:

Bookmark and Share
The latest from

In Association with
Support This Site

home | letters | archive | about | primer | links | shop
This site © Copyright 2000-2023 Terry Krepel