Proponents of ESG (environmental, social, and governance factors used in corporate decision-making) argue they are merely improving long-term decision-making.
Meanwhile, critics argue that ESG is in practice a Trojan horse for leftist agendas.
However, rather than debating critics, ESG proponents frequently resort to false narratives and ad hominem attacks.
The newly elected Trump administration should not be misled by these lies.
For example, this past July, an article titled Anti-ESG Proposals Surged in 2024 But Earned Less Support attacked shareholder proposals critical of ESG, including many from my employer.
What follows are responses to five misrepresentations about the anti-ESG movement contained in that piece, which was authored by Heidi Welsh.
False Claim #1: The “Anti-ESG” Movement is Motivated by Animus Toward LGBTQ People
Welsh claims that “LGBTQ antipathy” and “a strong animus against LGBTQ people cropped up” in our proposals. These are lies that may constitute actionable defamation because our concerns are not only legitimate, but pro-child.
For example, the Trevor Project still states the following on its website despite the underlying supporting research having been effectively debunked: “Medical affirming care can include [1] treatments that postpone physical changes [i.e. puberty blockers] as well as [2] treatments that lead to changes that would affirm one’s gender identity [i.e. surgery]” (citing WPATH, 2012).
Approaching this from another perspective, consider the following:
· Is it loving to sow the seeds of gender dysphoria in young children by pushing on them the idea that they might have been born in the wrong body?
· Is it loving to push on young children, at a time when they are highly vulnerable to suggestion, the idea that if they are anxious about their gender identity, then they should take puberty blockers or undergo life-altering sex-change surgery?
· Is it loving to push these ideas on children behind the backs of their parents?
· Is it loving to do these things when the alleged consensus around this “gender affirming care” is quite predictably crumbling before our very eyes?
One can quite reasonably — and without any “animus” — answer “no” to all these questions.
Hellbound and Down 