I don’t know how this guy escaped my notice before this, and now that I know I’ll try to forget as soon as possible. This is Joshua Slocum, resident of Winooski and presenter of a far-right YouTube series called “Disaffected.” On a recent episode, Slocum spewed some thoroughly toxic slime about transgender folk and gender affirming medical care. He also betrayed his utter ignorance of Vermont’s legislative process but, you know, baby steps.

Slocum is, I guess you could say, an aspirational Christopher-Aaron Felker. (Which might be the saddest sentence I’ve ever written.) He was one of those involved in last year’s Felker-led protests against Outright Vermont. Like Felker, he is a very conservative gay man. Like Felker, he wants to pull up the gender-inclusive drawbridge after “LGB” and deny the legitimacy of “TQIA+.”

Unlike Felker, who is STILL the chair of the Burlington Republican Committee, Slocum’s extremism cost him his job. He was, for 20 years, the head of a teeny-tiny organization called the Funeral Consumers Alliance. How tiny? A staff of two. Last fall, Slocum resigned his post, presumably under heavy pressure, due to his public expression of racist, misogynist, and transphobic views.

Which gives him plenty of free time to post more hateful content! A recent episode focused on H.89, the so-called Shield Bill that would protect medical personnel from prosecution for providing abortions or gender affirming care. He posted after the House voted 130-13 in favor of H.89.

Let’s cover the stupidity before we get to the toxicity. Slocum aimed his remarks at the House Republicans who voted for H.89. (Only 12 Republicans voted “Nay.” The 13th “Nay” was cast by Democrat Dennis LaBounty. Feel free to ask him why.) Slocum pleads with those Republican “Yea” voters to reconsider.

Uh… problem is, the House has voted and the bill is on to the Senate. There is no mechanism for a lawmaker to change their vote at this point. This is, like, kindergarten-level knowledge of the legislative process.

Slocum also offers House Republicans an excuse: “I know that many lawmakers are very busy and rely on aides to relay information to them.”

Uh… Vermont lawmakers don’t have aides. They have no staff whatsoever. They do depend on caucus leadership for guidance and, of course, leadership was in support of the bill.

And now we get to the putrescent red meat of Slocum’s argument.

Essentially, Slocum denies that transgender people exist. He calls the idea that a child might be trans “a lunatic fantasy premise.” And…

There’s no such thing as a transgender child, only an abused child, only a misguided child, only a child in the hands of feckless and abusive adults.

… Any child that believes that he or she is born in the wrong body is suffering psychiatric distress. They are not suffering from a condition called “trans.” They are suffering from something else. It is usually child abuse. Sometimes it is autism. It is always wicked adults.

“Wicked adults” who want to railroad their poor innocent children into medical therapy or — gasp, shudder — gender affirming surgery. Or, in his words, “chemical and physical castration and mutilation of children.”

In Slocum’s view, H.89 is “an abuser’s charter” that would legalize “child kidnapping and torture.” If H.89 becomes law, it would enable people to abduct children and bring them to Vermont to be “sliced open.”

I didn’t try to keep track of how often he uses the word “child,” but it seems to have an elastic definition. Does he mean pre-pubescent youth? Does he include teenagers? Where does he draw the line? It’s unclear. But saying “child” boosts the outrage factor nicely.

Problem is, medication therapy is used sparingly and surgery is never performed before adolescence. Slocum would have you believe that a misguided parent could drag their kid into a doctor’s office and come out with the kid gopped up on “cross-sex hormones” or “sliced open.” In truth, the process is highly deliberative. No doctor wants to do any of this unless it’s clearly in the best interest of the patient. There’s that darn Hippocratic Oath, for one thing, and there’s the threat of legal action from disaffected parents as well. This Munchausen’s Gender Dysphoria By Proxy thing is a figment of Slocum’s hyperactive imagination.

Sadly, there’s an audience for this sort of hate speech. Slocum’s series has nearly 8,000 subscribers, and the H.89 installment has been viewed 2,700 times. Which likely means that most of those subscribers are inactive. But that’s a considerable number of people for a grade-Z Ben Shapiro wannabe ranting about Vermont politics.

Happily, the potential audience among Vermont lawmakers is no more than a handful. I mean, the Republican “Yea” votes included some pretty damn conservative people. Like Patrick Brennan, Tom Burditt, Bill Canfield, Allen “Penny” Demar, Gina Galfetti, Keith Ken Goslant, Jim Harrison, Michael Morgan, Mary Morrissey, and Jarrod Sammis.

I’d say there’s broad and unstoppable support for H.89, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the Senate vote was something like 27-3. Slocum can go on ranting all he wants. Fortunately, in Vermont, he’s a fringe character and nothing more.