If you haven’t heard, there’s a movie out about a demonic force in clown make-up that targets children. No, it’s not drag queen storytime, but It Chapter Two, based on the Stephen King book. And unfortunately, during the 27-year gaps between his mass murders of children, Pennywise the Dancing Clown never logged onto Vox to brush up on the social justice grievances du jour. The film is under heavy attack by the LGBTQQAAI2S++ community with accusations of homophobia.

True to the original 1986 book, the film opens with a gay couple being attacked by a gang of men when Pennywise shows up to literally eat one of the gays alive. Minus the clown, the scene was inspired by a real anti-gay murder in Bangor, Maine in 1984. Despite it most likely being a commentary on homophobia in the 1980s, the very same people who believed Jussie Smollett’s story and desperately pray for roving gangs of Trump supporters to be out homo-hunting, also whine that adult audiences should be spared from fictionalized depictions of these crimes. Next on the chopping block, Boys Don’t Cry and The Laramie Project.

Slate called the scene exploitative. Pronoun jockeys on social media were advising people to ‘try getting to the movie a bit late, or skip it all together.’ Other trigger warnings accompanying the film included ‘fatphobia,’ ‘suicide,’ and ‘jumpscares.’

‘The real monster in It Chapter Two was homophobia,’ one user wrote and all of Twitter clapped.

If that weren’t bad enough, reach for your pearls, ladies, the word ‘fag’ is also uttered in the film, by a child bully who grows up to be a sociopath.

Apparently the gays prefer their homicidal clowns with more John Wayne Gacy, less Pennywise. The demon is a thousand-year-old shapeshifter who takes on the form of whatever its victim fears most. Wouldn’t it be more anti-gay if homophobia wasn’t on the table? Don’t tell that to the thought leaders at Out magazine, where perhaps the idea of a freakish entity that dines on fear and traffics in human flesh hits a little close to home for the gay lobby. Better yet, the secret to defeating Pennywise is through mockery and laughter, just like the left itself. Time to hurl some accusations before anyone makes the connection.

‘After seeing It Chapter Two, I’m sad to announce that Pennywise is not gay, or even an ally. In fact, Pennywise is surprisingly anti-queer,’ proclaimed one writer at Out, revealing that for some strange reason the character became a ‘gay icon’ after the first film. ‘Trump’s America strikes again!’ she lamented.

It appears the gays are learning the hidden dark side of equality: now they, too, can be slaughtered in horror movies just like the straights.

The most perplexing gripe about the film is a scene in which Pennywise taunts Bill Hader’s character, who is a closeted homosexual, with a song about his ‘dirty little secret.’ Wait, isn’t that kind of self-loathing and hidden shame exactly what the gay lobby wishes we were really like, constantly repeating mantras to everyone about ‘being proud’? Pennywise would have a field day with Pete Buttigieg, the only gay man of my generation who sincerely struggled with it into his thirties.

No surprise that Stephen King is spared from all criticism, despite writing a graphic, several-page child orgy scene into the original book. It must have killed the sex pests of Hollywood to leave that out of the screen adaptations. They probably could have gotten away with it, too, since the left and the gays have decided pedophilia isn’t the worst thing in the world. Most importantly, King has shielded himself from leftist critiques through the untold hours spent shoring up his woke credentials. The only horror on his social media is a grim look inside the Trump-Deranged mind. One site even published a list of King’s ‘37 most brutal Trump burns.’

But as they grasp at straws for signs of homophobia in every aspect of American life, the left totally missed the most glaringly problematic element of a character called ‘It.’ As social justice satirist Titania McGrath pointed out, ‘Yet again, Hollywood is demonizing those who prefer to use gender-neutral pronouns.’