I saw a Ben Shapiro video where some college student was accusing “the Right” of “taking transgender rights” away. I’ve been trying to understand what the phrase “transgender rights” means and how I, as a member of the Right, am involved in taking those rights away.
I’ve yet to find a true right that has been taken away.
They tell me I don’t believe transgender people exist, which is patently untrue. There have always been effeminate men and masculine women.
I do know people who believe they are the opposite sex — or no biological sex that exists on this planet — exist; I just find the claim that they can shape-shift and change their DNA at will fraudulent. Scientists and psychologists have bent the word “gender” to try to validate the state of dysphoria that exists, but that definition speaks to roles in society and a desired, chosen lifestyle, not the true biological nature of humans.
I just watched a 10-minute video created by a transgender individual who argued that denying a man can become a woman simply because he wishes it is fascism, since fascism teaches people to believe falsehoods.
Forgive my crassness for recognizing the irony and contradictions of this coming from someone whose DNA says they are a biological female.
My first thought was: Which one of us really believes in falsehoods?
Our society has devoted considerable energy to building a permission structure around transgenderism — in government schools, religious organizations, and civic societies — to normalize the belief that there are more than two sexes and always have been.
To order one’s life around this idea is to believe science was wrong.
Here’s the thing. Science wasn’t wrong. Humans have only two sex classifications of humans — male and female — and we are biologically different: our DNA differs, our brains are wired differently, and, as a result, our roles differ. If you know a doctor who claims that isn’t true, you should really consider not using that doctor because you have zero obligation to associate with someone who denies reality to such a degree.
I actually don’t care if you believe you are the opposite sex and want to live that way — that is my libertarian “leave me alone and I’ll do the same for you” side. But here’s what I won’t do: I will never be forced to say that reality isn’t real to support anyone’s delusions.
The first video I mentioned featured Shapiro taking questions from students at the event (it was sort of background noise while I was waiting for some sheetrock mud to dry). A kid who said he/she/they was a mathematician and physicist, had just received a national award, and could go to any university he/she/that wanted, stepped to the mic and right away, my “Appeal to Authority Fallacy” alarm bells went off.
He/she/they stated several “rights” transgender people were being denied, with no concrete examples — they were just 1984’s O’Brien/Winston Smith kind of “rights” that weren’t being aggressively affirmed by some authority forcing society to believe them.
Then he/she/they listed “the right to feel comfortable,” and I thought, There it is! That’s what this is all about.
There is no “right” to being comfortable (which I take to mean living in a society that 100% agrees that sexes can be changed as often as costumes at a Lady Gaga concert without opposition).
I’ve noticed something about arguing with leftists, especially when the subject matter is close to home for them.
There is a well-established psychological basis for the observation that people sometimes become louder, more emotional, and more aggressive when defending a position they suspect, or even know, is wrong. Psychologists have identified several mechanisms behind this behavior, including cognitive dissonance, motivated reasoning, and identity-protective cognition.
When confronted with evidence that contradicts a deeply held belief, people experience psychological discomfort, particularly when that belief is tied to their identity, reputation, or moral worldview.
Rather than reconsidering their position, they may attack the evidence, question the motives of their opponent, or escalate the confrontation. “Attacking the evidence” may also include making it up, redefining normal interactions as something unusual or unprecedented, or simply making assertions that things are happening that are not.
The argument ceases to be about determining what is true and becomes an exercise in protecting the individual’s perception of himself. The greater the personal investment in a belief, the more psychologically expensive admitting error can become.
Somewhat unsurprisingly, I get similar reactions from some of the more committed atheists who seem to be bothered when I mention Christianity (I’m not trying to convert them). I guess defending nothing is a lot harder than you would think.
They want to shut you up if you notice the contradictions inherent in their positions, because silencing you is, to them, as good as actual agreement — or at least surrender.
That’s what I think the “right to be comfortable” is all about.
Maybe they aren’t as sure about their positions as they claim.
