[Editor's Note: This letter was written in response to a previous letter sent to Stamford Patch by Chris O'Brien.]

Throughout the course of the ongoing “culture wars," the narrative as expounded by the religious Right has been fairly consistent; that liberals, in general, and the LGBT community, in particular, are standing astride America’s secular path to decline, decadence and depravity; that liberals and the LGBT community specifically are the cause of all of society’s ills; and that anyone who does not oppose the so-called “Gay Agenda” is directly targeting people of faith.

That these presuppositions cannot be definitively proven did not seem to be an issue for those who opposed HB 6599, “An Act Concerning Discrimination." Opponents of this legislation, specifically the Family Institute of Connecticut, had dubbed this significant piece of civil rights legislation a “Bathroom Bill." That there have been no documented instances of a man dressing as a woman for the purpose of entering a woman's bathroom to commit a sexual assault against a woman, as the Family Institute of Connecticut had posed, was completely irrelevant to their position. That similar legislation exists in 14 other jurisdictions was not germane to their inept rhetoric.

Unable to produce an intelligent, fact-based argument in opposition to this legislation, the FIC could only resort to a distortion of the truth. To summarize, the efforts of the FIC failed not because of a "push by Governor Malloy." but because their politics of fear and victimization could not withstand a cursory examination of facts.

There are four elements to a successful fear appeal:

1) A threat,
2) A specific recommendation about how the audience should behave,
3) Audience perception that the recommendation will be effective in addressing the threat, and
4) Audience perception that they are capable of performing the recommended behavior.

When fear appeals do not include all four of these elements, they are likely to fail. When confronted with persuasive messages that capitalize on our fear, rational people asked the following questions:

Is the entity or source exaggerating the fear or threat in order to obtain my support?

How legitimate is the fear that the speaker is provoking?

Will performing the recommended action actually reduce the supposed threat?

When viewed dispassionately, what are the merits of the speaker's proposal?

Arguments in opposition to this legislation were greatly exaggerated. Fears raised were illegitimate. Denying a transgendered person basic civil rights would in no way diminish what was illustrated to be the perceived threat. The validity of denying the transgender community individual basic civil rights held no quarter and conflating a transgender individual with sexual predation was nothing less than absolute bigotry.

Epic fail FIC — by all intelligent criteria.