Was Charlie Kirk a hateful man who deserved to die? Opinionated Yes, but Hateful - Probably Not

 Was Charlie Kirk a hateful man who deserved to die? 

Opinionated Yes, IMO, but Hateful - Probably Not

by Donald Harvey Marks

Physician Scientist and 3rd Generation Veteran

Following the tragic assassination of Charlie Kirk on September 10, 2025, at Utah Valley University, some have claimed that his death was unsurprising, predictable or even deserved due to his allegedly hateful rhetoric toward the LGBTQ+ community, particularly transgender individuals. Critics argue his statements dehumanized and demonized these groups, fostering harm. As a physician-scientist and veteran, I believe Kirk was undeniably opinionated, but I must question whether his rhetoric crossed into hatefulness. This article examines these criticisms, incorporates new developments—especially regarding the suspect’s transgender partner—and evaluates whether such claims are justified, while maintaining a consistent lens across comparable rhetoric from other figures, such as Muslim clerics.

Just What People Are Referring To

Critics highlight several of Kirk’s statements and positions as hostile toward LGBTQ+ individuals, particularly transgender people. These include:

1. Trans Issues / Gender Identity Restrictions:

Kirk repeatedly stated there are only two genders, calling transgenderism and gender fluidity “lies that hurt people and abuse kids.”

He advocated for a national ban on gender-affirming care, saying, “We must ban trans-affirming care—the entire country. Donald Trump needs to run on this issue” (2024, Hindustan Times).

On his podcast, he claimed gender ideology conflicts with “reality” and compared allowing transitions to undermining objective truth. See my article on relative ethics.

2. Religious / Moral Framing:

Kirk used religious language, describing transgender identities as “an abomination” or “a throbbing middle finger to God” (September 2023).

He framed LGBTQ+ identities as “against natural law,” based on fundamental doctrine rooted in his Christian beliefs.

3. Fear or Slippery-Slope Arguments:

Kirk suggested the LGBTQ+ community forceably seeks cultural dominance, influencing children and pushing “sexual anarchy” (Mint, 2024).

He argued that progressive stances on gender/sexuality forcibly aim to erase cultural identity.

4. Harsh or Demeaning Language:

Kirk allegedly used terms shaming or demonizing LGBTQ+ individuals, such as calling trans people “sick” or accusing them of “grooming” youth.

Moments before his death in 2025, when asked about transgender mass shooters, he responded, “Too many” (The Wall Street Journal, People.com, KOMO).

New Development: The “Trans Lover” Revelation

On September 13, 2025, the FBI confirmed that the suspect in Kirk’s assassination, 22-year-old Tyler James Robinson, was in a romantic relationship with a transgender individual, Lance Twiggs, a male transitioning to female (Fox News, New York Post, Daily Mail). The couple shared an apartment in St. George, Utah, and Twiggs is cooperating with authorities, providing insights into Robinson’s mindset. This revelation is significant given that Kirk was shot seconds after addressing a question about transgender mass shooters, a topic central to his anti-trans rhetoric.

Investigators are exploring whether Robinson’s relationship with Twiggs fueled his motives, particularly in light of Kirk’s public stances, such as calling transgender identity “an abomination” or advocating bans on gender-affirming care. While no direct evidence confirms Twiggs’ involvement in the plot,Twiggs’ cooperation with investigators has revealed Robinson’s growing resentment toward Kirk’s rhetoric, which he reportedly discussed at a family dinner before the attack (Hindustan Times). This development complicates the narrative, suggesting a personal dimension to Robinson’s radicalization, potentially intersecting with Kirk’s controversial statements. Critics argue this irony underscores the real-world impact of Kirk’s words, while supporters claim it validates his warnings about transgender-related violence.

What Evidence Supports / Contests These Claims?

Some criticisms of Kirk’s rhetoric are grounded in facts, while others are exaggerated:

Supported:

Kirk’s statements, like calling transgenderism “lies that hurt people” or an “abomination,” are well-documented (Wikipedia, Hindustan Times). These terms can be seen as dehumanizing, contributing to stigma.

His advocacy, as of those of other religions, for banning gender-affirming care (Wikipedia, 2024) aligns with policies that critics argue harm trans individuals’ access to healthcare.

Kirk' s final remark about transgender mass shooters, though brief, perpetuated a narrative lacking statistical backing, as transgender individuals are not disproportionately involved in such acts.

Contested:

A Sacramento Bee claim that Kirk called for “lynching trans people” was retracted after it misrepresented his 2023 statement: “Trans people should be dealt with like men did in the 1950s and 60s” (Erin). While suggestive of violence, it was not a literal call for lynching, and defenders argue it was hyperbolic.

Kirk’s “slippery slope” arguments (e.g., equating gender identity to subjective reality) are IMO rhetorical, not direct incitement, though still potentially harmful.

Are These Criticisms Justified?

Criticisms of Kirk’s rhetoric have merit, but their extent depends on definitions of “hateful”:

Terms like “abomination” or “lies” can stigmatize and marginalize, impacting mental health and safety for LGBTQ+ individuals. As a physician, I recognize that stigma correlates with higher rates of depression and suicide (American Journal of Public Health).

Advocating policy restrictions, like banning gender-affirming care in minors, has tangible consequences, limiting access to medical treatments supported by some major medical bodies (American Medical Association).

Kirk’s misinformation, such as implying transgender individuals are disproportionately violent, fuels harmful stereotypes, perhaps with recent evidence.

Nuance Needed:

Kirk’s defenders argue his rhetoric reflects sincerely held religious beliefs or policy disagreements, not personal hatred. Context matters: hyperbolic language (e.g., “1950s/60s” comment) may not equate to incitement.

While his words had impact, equating them to justifying violence (e.g., “he deserved it”) may have crossed ethical and legal lines. Free speech, even if offensive, does not warrant murder in a civil society, even though we are all aware of violent suppression occurring in many Middle Eastern countries such as Iran and Afghanistan. 

Comparison to Muslim Clerics’ Rhetoric

To ensure consistency, I compare Kirk’s statements to similar rhetoric from prominent Muslim clerics, as both often invoke religious or moral frameworks against LGBTQ+ identities. Some will accuse me of “whatabout-ism”, but my intent is simply to supply relative context. Notable examples of inflammatory rhetoric from Muslim clerics include:

• Yusuf al-Qaradawi: Called homosexuality a “sexual perversion” punishable by lashing (Al Jazeera).

• Haitham al-Haddad: Described homosexuality as a “scourge” and “criminal act” (Standing up against Homosexuality).

• Muqtada al-Sadr: Blamed COVID-19 on same-sex marriage and called for combating LGBTQ+ communities, though “not with violence” (The New Arab, Spectrum News 13).

• Mohammed Hijab: Labeled homosexual sex a “major sin” and “moral aberration” (acdemocracy.org).

• U.S. Muslim Leaders (2023): Over 100 signed a statement rejecting LGBTQ+ affirmation, opposing gender-affirming care (memri.org).

Similarities:

Both Kirk and these muslim clerics use moral/religious language (“abomination,” “sin”) to condemn LGBTQ+ identities.

Both advocate policy restrictions, like banning same-sex marriage or gender-affirming care.

Both frame LGBTQ+ acceptance as a societal threat, using “agenda” or “cultural decay” narratives.

Differences:

Muslim clerics often operate within religious-legal contexts (e.g., Sharia), where punishments may be theoretical, while Kirk’s rhetoric targets secular U.S. policy with broader influence.

Some clerics explicitly reject violence (e.g., al-Sadr), while Kirk’s “1950s/60s” remark was interpreted as threat-adjacent, though ambiguous.

Justified Criticisms:

Both sets of rhetoric contribute to stigma, discrimination, and mental health challenges, warranting criticism.

Misleading claims (e.g., equating LGBTQ+ rights to societal collapse) lack evidence, justifying pushback.

However, cultural relativism often softens criticism of Muslim clerics in Western discourse, unlike the scrutiny Kirk faced, revealing a double standard.

My Take: Was Kirk Hateful?

Charlie Kirk was opinionated, driven by religious and ideological convictions. His rhetoric—calling transgender identities “lies” or “abominations,” advocating bans, and perpetuating stereotypes—had real-world impacts, fostering stigma and influencing restrictive policies. These effects justify criticism, as they harmed marginalized groups, a concern I view through my medical lens as contributing to health disparities.

However, labeling Kirk “hateful” requires nuance. His statements, while harsh, often stayed within protected speech, reflecting beliefs shared by many conservative Christians and Muslims alike. The inconsistency in not criticizing similar rhetoric from Muslim clerics highlights selective outrage, often tied to cultural or political sensitivities. Kirk’s influence in U.S. politics amplified his words’ impact, but this does not inherently make him “hateful” as a person—rather, his rhetoric could have had harmful consequences.

The new revelation about Robinson’s transgender partner adds complexity. It suggests Kirk’s anti-trans comments may have struck a personal chord, potentially fueling the suspect’s radicalization. This does not justify the murder but underscores how inflammatory rhetoric can escalate tensions. Violence, for example trans rage, remains an unethical response to speech, no matter how offensive.

In conclusion, Kirk’s statements were divisive and impactful, meriting critique for their real-world effects. But claiming that Charlie Kirk  “deserved” death is indefensible. The same standards of accountability should apply to all who use dehumanizing language, whether Christian, Muslim, or otherwise, to foster a consistent ethical framework.

References

Wikipedia, Hindustan Times, Mint, The Wall Street Journal, People.com, KOMO (Kirk’s statements and assassination details).

Fox News, New York Post, Daily Mail (suspect’s transgender partner, FBI updates).

The New Arab, Spectrum News 13, acdemocracy.org, memri.org (Muslim clerics’ statements).

American Journal of Public Health, American Medical Association (health impacts of stigma).

Marks, D.H. (2025). Einstein, Relativity and Relative Ethics. on my personal blog page and on my Substack.

Marks, D.H. (2025). Putting a Leftist Anti-Capitalist Lens on the Pro-Palestinian–Antisemitic Alliance. on my personal blog page and on my Substack

Marks, D.H. (2025). Why Some of My Friends Don’t See Me as the Centrist That I Am?. on my personal blog page and on my Substack

How Woke can we be? The meaning of Woke, by the definitely NOT woke Donald H Marks  on my personal blog page and on my Substack