Would You Like To Debate Your Humanity?
Back in 2021, Richard Dawkins posed what I thought was a fairly common sense question:
In 2015, Rachel Dolezal, a white chapter president of NAACP, was vilified for identifying as Black. Some men choose to identify as women, and some women choose to identify as men. You will be vilified if you deny that they literally are what they identify as.
Discuss.
If you’ve been paying even a little bit of attention to the state of trans discourse, you know what happened next.
Dawkins was subjected to torrents of abuse, the media characterised his tweet as transphobic without attempting to explain why, and in a dazzling display of absurdity, the American Humanist Association reached 25 years into the past and withdrew the Humanist of the Year award they’d given him in 1996.
In my article, Trans Activism’s Self-Inflicted Backlash, I argued that nonsense like this contributes to a growing backlash against the trans community. And that the response to benign questions like these has become so toxic that even Matt Walsh can appear reasonable.
The days when gender ideologues could shout “no debate” are over. So in this uncharacteristically fiery exchange (regular readers will know I very rarely swear in my writing, but I’m sooo tired of this particular trope), Sacha suggested a new (or rather, old) topic.
Sacha:
Not that long ago, the question was what is a human... and the accepted definition only included white people... would you like to debate your humanity?
Walsh asked "experts"... did he actually ask Trans people? Walsh didn't need to "cherry pick" the experts he asked, all he needed to do was edit the answers to not include anything coherent. But then, you don't care, which is why you make claims without actually backing up your reasoning or providing any evidence. Your "opinion" on what is driving this transphobic surge (that we are unwilling to debate our existence (humanity)) isn't a fact, it's an articulation of your bias.
Steve QJ:
“would you like to debate your humanity?”
Yes. Yes I would. Let's hear your arguments. Do you think I'm a white person trapped in the wrong body? Or do you have something less overtly racist than the 17,206,374 other people who have tried some version of this bullshit, white supremacist argument thinking that they were clever?
Nobody is debating your existence. Sorry, I'm absolutely impervious to this stupid, manipulative, melodramatic language. You won't puff out of existence, regardless of what anybody says in an argument.
The “debate” is simply about how best to accommodate trans women in spaces that previously, and for good reason, excluded all males. And whether gender dysphoria should be the only self-diagnosed, largely self-resolving condition that is nonetheless treated with surgery and hormones in minors without parental consent. Where any questioning whether there's a better way to handle that child's distress is branded as bigotry.
Also, yes, Walsh did speak to a trans person. But you’ll no doubt think he was the wrong kind of trans person. And I’m not even arguing with you. Nobody should be held up as a representative of their group. But yes, there are, in fact, plenty of trans people who are intellectually consistent in their observation that there’s a difference between sex and gender.
Sacha:
That you think I was being racist is one of the most hypocritical things I've heard in a while... but please tell me what you, a cis person, thinks the "debate" is about... that you think there is a surgical option for minors is pretty much all I need to know about how informed you are on this subject. Thanks.
Steve QJ:
“but please tell me what you, a cis person, thinks the "debate" is about...”
No, no, don't squirm. Please, let's debate whether black people are human. I can't wait to hear what you, a white person, have to say about that. I'll be happy to talk about the “debate” after that (although I already answered your question in my previous reply).
As for minors having a surgical option, first, there's the example that's literally linked in the article. A double mastectomy is, in fact, a surgical option. But also:
https://thevelvetchronicle.com/double-mastectomy-at-15-detrans-16-year-old-now-seeks-reversal/
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2674039
https://4w.pub/tiktok-gender-doctor-per-breast-removal-on-13-year-old-girl/
The fact that you're seemingly unaware begs the question; how informed are you on the subject?
In the age of “DESTROYING people with facts and logic” and making your enemies INSTANTLY REGRET misquoting you, too many people have forgotten that the purpose of debate is to learn. To share ideas. To understand each other’s point of view.
“No debate” isn’t just a bully tactic, it’s a recipe for ignorance. It trains people to believe that disagreement is “unsafe.” It convinces them that their “lived experience” tells them everything they need to know about complex issues. It leaves them confidently wrong about almost every aspect of youth transition, gender ideology, and basic biology.
Shockingly enough, this was the last I heard from Sacha. So we’ll never know for sure if I’m human. But as my “existence” can’t be endangered by basic common sense, I’m always up for the debate.
I am going to need to get off my lazy ass and write up the formal list of discredited institutions I have been cataloguing in the back of my mind. It will include The Association for Library Service to Children for stripping Laura Ingalls Wilder's name from a book award that was created and named for her because she depicted racist characters as racist, Yale University for multiple acts of intellectual cowardice, everyone who removed 6 Dr Seuss books from publication and from libraries, and now the American Humanist Association.
Remember back in 2010, when Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens were at the height of their fame, and it felt like the world was on the precipice of stamping out irrationality for good? I loved Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris especially. Feels like a lifetime ago.
What’s insane is that the extremist trans activists don’t represent the views or lifestyle of ANY of my trans friends, which only makes them feel more alone. But often, those activists get famous/attention for saying that inflammatory stuff. Just like Andrea Dworkin’s brand of radical feminism isn’t representative of women or even the average feminist.
Now we’ve habituated saying the inflammatory stuff as a culture. I think it’s pretty clear social platforms shoulder much of the blame for this hellscape we find ourselves in.
I was upset about the Dawkins fiasco too when it happened and felt it was unfair to him. But now that I revisit it, the tweet truly is a little off.
The problem is comparing these two groups in particular with this framing ignores the obvious and scientific differences between them.
Race isn’t even a scientific category, hasn’t been for generations, while trans is an empirical biological reality caused by a plethora of genetic and hormonal conditions. Sure, you could argue some cis people claiming to be trans are only doing so due to peer pressure, but that’s a tough case to make because there isn’t much quality data on it and estimates are quite hard.
Comparing race to diabetes sounds equally as wrong.
“Rachel Dolezal believes she’s trans-racial, a different race than she was born with. Some people believe they have a pancreas that doesn’t produce enough glucose. If you believe the former, you’ll be vilified, but if you believe the latter, you’ll be cheered. Why? Discuss...”
This sounds like a talk show question, a set-up you’d hear on Jerry Springer.
When you put it like that, it’s obvious what’s wrong with it. Race is a fictional construct designed to enslave and abuse people; diabetes is a biological condition millions of people have. Of course you shouldn’t believe or endorse the former and of course you should believe and endorse the latter. Comparing them is just silly.
As a scientist, especially a biologist, Dawkins should certainly know better, but maybe it was Twitter and he wasn’t viewing it as exactly a dissertation or anything.
Still, I can’t help but wonder if Dawkins hasn’t kept up with advancements in biology, genetics, and endocrinology over the years. We’ve come a long way since his upswing in the 1970s with the Selfish Gene.
I also think debates have come to be weaponized to the point that they can’t be productive anymore, because a debate requires two people—and an audience—all acting and thinking in good faith. And there’s a lot of bad faith floating around.