A federal appeals court is allowing Kentucky to enforce a recently enacted ban on gender-affirming care for young transgender people while the issue is being litigated.
The thing is, they don’t believe in gender dysphoria or a healthy way of being trans. In their (wrong) world view, a minor transitioning is being sexually abused by their parents for a fetish or a political belief. They believe they are protecting these kids from being mutilated and mentally groomed into being sex deviants by abusive parents who want to ban their kids being straight or cis for political brownie points. They think that being trans is a cross-dressing and humiliation fetish forced upon children due to the parents’ ideology.
Of course that point of view is utterly wrong, but it’s hard to argue privacy with them if, in their world view, it’s kids being mutilated and scarred for life.
This is simply to say that if the base assumptions are different, these arguments can lead nowhere. If their world view was correct (it isn’t), it would be entirely reasonable to ban such a cruel grooming and sexual abuse practice, and it would probably also justify all the hate and vitriol - we would probably do the same if the base assumption was correct, and it would be infuriating if the other side would excuse it with “none of your business I am abusing these children”.
The only difference is that their world view is ostensibly not correct, and being trans is not what they have been convinced it is.
That’s a very good point, and one that my own echo chamber makes it difficult to wrap my head around. There are so many little rebuttals that come to mind, like “you trust your doctor when they say your kid needs glasses, but not when they say puberty blockers might save their life?” But you’re totally right, if the base assumptions are so out of whack, then the argument itself won’t go anywhere. So what do we do?? I find that maaany (most?) folks who know a trans person quickly realize that it doesn’t cost them anything to be kind and tolerant. All this hatred must be so exhausting…
I think the best thing to do would simply be to bring the debate constantly back to challenging their base assumptions, not to moral arguments that assume your own world view. Anything that builds on both people having the same world view on the subject matter will fail automatically because that’s just not the case.
In the abortion debate for example, no person who is convinced that an abortion literally kills a living, conscious baby is ever going to accept the “my body my choice” argument or the “you just want to control women” one, because obviously bodily autonomy ends at murder, and they believe that these women willfully commit murder. That’s why that argument won’t go anywhere - no reasonable person would believe that anyone has the right to murder someone else on a whim due to their own “bad decisions”, let alone a baby.
That’s why, to truly convince people, you need to show or demonstrate how their base world view is wrong. This is very hard and nigh-impossible, but there is no other way. Someone who is convinced that trans people groom children to participate in their crossdressing fetish will never accept any arguments that are built on the view that trans people are ordinary people who just want to live their lives - because sexual abuse are crimes with victims.
They’re simply not talking with each other on similar grounds.
This is all not to say that you should tolerate or feel pity for these opinions - you shouldn’t - but if someone is actually set on convincing their political enemies of their side, they need to begin at the very base assumptions because they differ wildly.
The thing is, they don’t believe in gender dysphoria or a healthy way of being trans. In their (wrong) world view, a minor transitioning is being sexually abused by their parents for a fetish or a political belief. They believe they are protecting these kids from being mutilated and mentally groomed into being sex deviants by abusive parents who want to ban their kids being straight or cis for political brownie points. They think that being trans is a cross-dressing and humiliation fetish forced upon children due to the parents’ ideology.
Of course that point of view is utterly wrong, but it’s hard to argue privacy with them if, in their world view, it’s kids being mutilated and scarred for life.
This is simply to say that if the base assumptions are different, these arguments can lead nowhere. If their world view was correct (it isn’t), it would be entirely reasonable to ban such a cruel grooming and sexual abuse practice, and it would probably also justify all the hate and vitriol - we would probably do the same if the base assumption was correct, and it would be infuriating if the other side would excuse it with “none of your business I am abusing these children”.
The only difference is that their world view is ostensibly not correct, and being trans is not what they have been convinced it is.
That’s a very good point, and one that my own echo chamber makes it difficult to wrap my head around. There are so many little rebuttals that come to mind, like “you trust your doctor when they say your kid needs glasses, but not when they say puberty blockers might save their life?” But you’re totally right, if the base assumptions are so out of whack, then the argument itself won’t go anywhere. So what do we do?? I find that maaany (most?) folks who know a trans person quickly realize that it doesn’t cost them anything to be kind and tolerant. All this hatred must be so exhausting…
I think the best thing to do would simply be to bring the debate constantly back to challenging their base assumptions, not to moral arguments that assume your own world view. Anything that builds on both people having the same world view on the subject matter will fail automatically because that’s just not the case.
In the abortion debate for example, no person who is convinced that an abortion literally kills a living, conscious baby is ever going to accept the “my body my choice” argument or the “you just want to control women” one, because obviously bodily autonomy ends at murder, and they believe that these women willfully commit murder. That’s why that argument won’t go anywhere - no reasonable person would believe that anyone has the right to murder someone else on a whim due to their own “bad decisions”, let alone a baby.
That’s why, to truly convince people, you need to show or demonstrate how their base world view is wrong. This is very hard and nigh-impossible, but there is no other way. Someone who is convinced that trans people groom children to participate in their crossdressing fetish will never accept any arguments that are built on the view that trans people are ordinary people who just want to live their lives - because sexual abuse are crimes with victims.
They’re simply not talking with each other on similar grounds.
This is all not to say that you should tolerate or feel pity for these opinions - you shouldn’t - but if someone is actually set on convincing their political enemies of their side, they need to begin at the very base assumptions because they differ wildly.