Charlie Kirk’s War on Women, LGBTQ, and Free Speech
MAGA weeps crocodile tears while cashing checks, $6M raised for Kirk’s family, millions more for Turning Point
Ben Cable (Originally Posted on Substack Sep 22, 2025)
Charlie Kirk wasn’t just another right-wing commentator; he was the boy-wonder-turned-political-pyromaniac whose brand was built on inflaming culture wars and painting himself as the victim while demanding punishment for his enemies. Behind the forced grin and Christian Bible verses, his views on LGBTQ rights, women’s roles, and censorship weren’t just controversial; they were downright toxic. Hate speech is a protected free speech, but wrapping hate speech with the Bible does not make one a Christian.
When Charlie Kirk was assassinated on September 10, 2025, it wasn’t just a political shock; it became a financial and rhetorical opportunity. Within days, his death was transformed from tragedy into a fundraising engine, a rallying cry, and a justification for broad censorship of critics.
He often framed his opponents, progressives, “woke” activists, and LGBTQ activists as aggressors who are suppressing speech, identity, or traditional values. He portrays himself and his movement as under siege and therefore in moral high ground when pushing back.
LGBTQ Under Siege: “Error,” “Anarchy,” and Nuremberg-Style Trials
First, they came for trans people, and the rest of the LGBTQ communities are next.
Kirk’s legacy is soaked in his obsession with LGBTQ Americans, especially trans people. He routinely branded same-sex marriage and trans identities as destructive, mocking Pride celebrations as “sexual anarchy” while claiming that LGBTQ activists were destroying “God’s order” in society.
But Kirk didn’t stop at insults. He openly demanded criminal prosecution of doctors who provide gender-affirming care, invoking “Nuremberg-style trials” for physicians, a chilling call to equate medical treatment with war crimes.
When the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges, Kirk framed it as a leftist “takeover,” warning conservatives were fools to think the ruling would end the fight. Instead, he doubled down, insisting Obergefell was the crack in America’s moral foundation.
Women’s Rights: Back to the Kitchen, Ladies
Charlie Kirk’s misogyny wasn’t subtle; it was his talking point. He repeatedly claimed that women should focus on being mothers and wives, not pursuing careers, painting feminism as the root of society’s decline.
- On birth control: Kirk blasted contraceptives as turning women into “angry and bitter” people weaponized by Democrats.
- On women over 30: He smeared them as “less attractive in the dating pool,” reducing women’s worth to their looks.
This wasn’t just 1950s nostalgia; it was a demand for women to abandon equality and march backward into subservience.
Censorship: Free Speech for Me, Not for Thee
Kirk wrapped himself in the First Amendment whenever his words were criticized. He railed against “woke censorship,” insisting conservatives were the real victims of “speech suppression”.
But here’s the hypocrisy: while crying censorship, Kirk called for banning books, restricting LGBTQ expression, and jailing doctors for using medical speech he didn’t like. In his world, “free speech” meant protecting his megaphone while smashing everyone else’s.
The same contradictions marked his final months, warning of a leftist “speech dictatorship” while cheerleading actual legal repression.
How the MAGA Crowd & Trump Are Turning Murder into Momentum
This is where the rhetoric turns sharply dangerous: it’s not just mourning; it’s harnessing shock as a political tool. Here’s what’s happening:
- Martyrdom framing
Donald Trump has called Charlie Kirk a “martyr for America’s freedom.” At Kirk’s large memorial, he used religious and patriotic imagery to elevate Kirk’s death into a symbol, not just of loss, but of the battle conservatives are in. - Outrage used to mobilize
MAGA-aligned media and fundraisers are aggressively pushing the idea that Kirk’s assassination is part of a broader cultural war: attacks on free speech, conservative values under siege, and left-wing “hate speech” supposedly responsible. This rhetoric feeds donations, chapter growth, and mobilization among young conservatives. - Censorship justified as defense
- The Trump administration, including Attorney General Pam Bondi, has made statements about targeting “hate speech” about Kirk. Critics warn these moves risk eroding civil liberties.
- Authorities have threatened or begun disciplinary actions against people (government employees, military, etc.) who allegedly mock or celebrate Kirk’s death.
- Shows have been pulled: for instance, Jimmy Kimmel Live! was “indefinitely” pre-empted by its network/owners, reportedly under pressure after political comments surrounding Kirk’s death.
- “We have to act fast” / urgency narrative
The sense of crisis is being used to argue that swift action is needed—both to defend Kirk’s memory and to clamp down on those seen as enemies: critics, leftists, media voices. Fundraising appeals lean heavily on this urgency: that the moment should not be wasted, that the next round in this war is now. The administration’s rhetoric (“crush dissent,” “target the left,” etc.) is very much in that mold.
Why This Sets Off Alarms for Free Speech, Democracy & Women / LGBTQ Rights
The alignment of money, martyrdom, and censorship creates a recipe with real risks:
- When criticism, mockery, or dissent can lead to disciplinary action or worse—even if “hate speech” is not precisely defined—it chills speech. People will self-censor, especially in academia, government service, or media.
- The narrative that conservatives are uniquely victimized feeds a backlash mood: it can justify limiting speech of opponents, or making exceptions to First Amendment norms.
- Given Kirk’s prior positions on LGBTQ rights, women’s rights, censorship, etc., the takeover of his death into cause-celebration solidifies those positions as ongoing battle lines. The rhetoric being used now is likely to shape laws, enforcement, and social norms, possibly in harmful ways for minority groups or dissenters.
What We Know & What We Don’t
We do know a lot:
- The sums being raised are substantial, millions for the family, for TPUSA expansion.
- Trump and his network are leaning hard into the idea of Kirk as martyr, using that to raise money and moral authority.
- Government agencies and political figures are using Kirk’s killing to press for restrictions on speech, or at least to argue they’ll defend “free speech” of conservatives by limiting the speech of others.
What is murkier:
- Exactly how much of the new money will go to enforcing conservative policy or political campaigns vs. memorials, vs. running chapters, vs. leadership salaries?
- How many legal thresholds will actually be crossed (e.g., what counts as punishable “hate speech,” what kind of investigations or firings will stick, where First Amendment courts will draw lines).
- What backlash will there be, both legally and from civil society, against efforts to censor or punish speech in reaction to Kirk’s death?
Why It Matters
Charlie Kirk’s toxic cocktail of misogyny, anti-LBGTQ hysteria, and censorship hypocrisy didn’t just live on Turning Point USA stages. They trickled into legislatures, school boards, and laws. His rhetoric fueled:
- State bans on gender-affirming care for minors.
- Waves of book bans and “Don’t Say Gay” bills.
- A chilling normalization of punishing people, women, LGBTQ, dissenters, for daring to exist outside his “God’s design.”
Citizen Ben
Charlie Kirk positioned himself as a prophet of freedom. In reality, he was a salesman of repression: dictating who can love, who can marry, what women can do with their bodies, and what speech deserves protection.
His death doesn’t erase the damage. The question is whether his culture-war blueprint will keep echoing, or whether America finally rejects the grinning hypocrisy of a man who screamed “censorship” while demanding others be silenced. By the way, does this sound familiar? Trump and his Administration use similar tactics.
Call To Action: We Must Act Fast
Kirk’s death has opened a window where MAGA opponents are at a disadvantage; momentum, emotional capital, money, and urgency are all on one side. If nothing pushes back:
- The aftershock may normalize censorship of dissenting voices, especially when conservative leaders deem them “offensive” or “disrespectful.”
- Laws could be written or enforcement policies made under these emergency frameworks that erode protections under vague terms like “hate speech,” “mockery,” or “celebration of violence.”
- The public perception war is being lost, at least in terms of framing: conservatives are shaping the narrative right now, and unless counter-voices act quickly, the story of the culture war becomes even more one-sided.
Therefore, we do need to act fast. That means vigilant journalism, legal challenge, public awareness, pushing for clarity in law (so that free speech protections are not eroded), and ensuring that criticisms of Kirk or disagreements, even strong ones, are not silenced just because they’re unpopular or painful to his movement.
Whatever you do, do not remain silent.
Please Share and Repost
I need you. Citizen Ben is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts, pods, and support this work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber today.
About the Author
