2023 has already been a year of boycotts, with conservatives latching onto brands like M&Ms in a culture-war against “wokeness” — that is, the idea that these brands are serving to make everyone in the nation queer, trans, or a racial minority; that they are no longer the homegrown, American businesses dedicated to the ‘normal’ (that is, the white male, as ‘normal’ is more often than not a dog whistle for misogynistic, racist ideas), but are now spreading a new liberal agenda of making everyone different. This has most recently become the problem of Bud Light, the highest selling beer in the United States, following a partnership with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney.
In the past, we’ve discussed the importance of allyship amongst elites — including corporations like Anheuser-Busch InBev — and the importance of transgender safety in the workplace, our most recent article. The Bud Light Boycott is relevant: with a higher rate of bomb threats, employees being harassed over social media and threatened with violence, and the company having to cancel events due to harassment, it is evidently clear that this transphobia goes beyond just words.
In reality, the “boycott” has done very little to affect the actual sales of Bud Light. As was the case with M&Ms, Coca-Cola, and other companies who have faced similar conservative “boycotts” in the past, the reality is that these companies are incredibly secure in what they are. Anheuser-Busch InBev has had their stocks go up rather than down over the past month, with only a few minimum drops from new highs in the past few days (although it has begun to climb again as of April 12th), and the company itself is worth billions of dollars. Even with all of the videos of people dumping Bud Light cans, shooting them, or buying Coors instead (even though Coors has also supported Pride), the company itself is smooth sailing. Why would they care what happens to their cans after they’ve already been bought? Besides, Anheuser-Busch InBev, which has a concentration hold on beer production, produces a large number of Bud Light’s “replacement” beers anyhow.
The issue, of course, is not the company itself. The issue is the existence — and recognition — of transgender people: that is what these boycotters are so angry about.
Mulvaney has borne the brunt of the attack against Bud Light. John Cardillo, a conservative commentator, openly misgendered Mulvaney in a tweet against the brand. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene tweeted that the brand had changed its gender to the “Queen of Beers,” a direct dig against Mulvaney’s transition. Several other conservative spokespeople and commentators have done the same. Mulvaney herself has faced harassment and threats of violence for years, but this has intensified since the brand deal. Still, both Mulvaney and the company have rightfully stood by their decision.
Misinformation about the campaign has also gone rampant. Rumors about Anheuser-Busch InBev firing their entire marketing department over the decision to partner with Mulvaney, for example, was proven false by the Associated Press.
These boycotts hurt people more than companies. Harassment, violence, and abuse all become normalized when bomb threats against the company have gone nationwide, influencers comments become filled with death threats, and politicians begin to attack rather than support. In our last article, we ended with the following:
The time to act is now. According to the Human Rights Campaign, in 2020 and 2021, transgender people faced a record amount of violence.
Citation per the Human Rights Campaign