You Can’t Change Someone’s Beliefs With Force
As I mentioned in this month’s subscriber thread, my comments have been an embarrassment of riches for the past few weeks. So much so, that I’ve struggled to decide which ones to share first. But things kicked into overdrive when I decided to weigh in on the “Dave Chappelle vs trans people” controversy.
For anybody living under a particularly dense rock, Dave Chappelle released a new comedy special called The Closer a couple of weeks ago. And since then, he’s faced criticism ranging from the show being unfunny (which I kind of agree with) to it representing an existential threat to trans people (which I don’t).
In my article, The Selective Nature of Outrage Culture, I point out that the criticism Dave has received, while valid in some cases, also reveals an interesting double standard in the things that offend us. In a show brimming with jokes about slavery and child abuse and #metoo, only his trans jokes have triggered any widespread outrage (the points where he defends and humanises trans people were, of course, almost completely ignored).
The article provoked so much debate that I’ve decided to make this topic a two-parter. Today’s conversation is with Catherine, who, like me, was broadly in favour of the special (though we still found plenty to disagree about). And next week I’ll share a conversation with somebody who was against it. Both views are super interesting and offer valuable insights into how people feel about these issues. Let’s get to it!
Catherine:
Another great article. Chapeau bas! It wouldn’t surprise me if today’s artificial diet had a lot to do with the mental illness and gender / sexuality problems. From what I observe anxiety is diet induced (vege diet induced to be precise). High anxiety = low ability to function in reality (everything is an attack on you). Is it to far fetched to call the reactions to Dave’s show and overall this outrage behavior a type of paranoia?
Steve QJ:
It wouldn’t surprise me if today’s artificial diet had a lot to do with the mental illness and gender / sexuality problems
The artificial diet part is way above my pay grade 😅 but I'm reluctant to describe gender/sexuality issues as "problems".
The precipitous rise of gender dysphoria in teenage girls specifically (something like 4,000% in the past ten years if I remember correctly) is definitely something we should get to the botom of, but fundamentally I don't care at all how people want to live their lives. And I believe firmly that they should be able to do so with dignity and in safety.
The issue, as Dave put it in a previous special, is to what extent I have to participate in your self image. Telling a joke about trans people is not the same as murdering them. I think the people arguing the opposite understand this perfectly well. Which makes me wonder why they're doing it. As much as they claim that Chappelle's jokes undermine them, I think this blatant dishonesty and hyperbole undermines them much more.
Catherine:
I think we should call a brand new phenomenon with ~50% depression rates and way higher than average suicide and attempted suicide rates — a problem. This topic reminds me very much of the one with drugs. Laisser-faire in this area seems to have the effect of people dying in the streets en masse. Pardon my French. I mean San Francisco & similar areas, where people are allowed to drug themselves in public and are even provided for to do it (you could say encouraged).
Isn’t it our responsibility (I know I talk about responsibility for others a lot 😅) once again, to help these people rather than cater to their problems?
Is catering to transfolks’ false and fake image of reality healthy for them? What about all those often mutlated ex-transgenders? You won’t see their stories in the popular magazines.
Living someone’s life as they wish to is one thing, demanding that others accept, agree with, love and support it is another thing. You cannot force this on people. I mean you can, but you will inevitably end up with a totalitarian system.
And that’s the reality so many don’t want to accept. Living a lie is one thing, forcing others to call your lie truth is another. If we’re not supposed to force our image of reality on the trans folks, why are they given the permission to force their on us?
“Is catering to transfolks’ false and fake image of reality healthy for them?”
This is an insensitive way of asking a question that I think a lot of people, if they’re honest, are asking themselves:
“Is gender dysphoria a mental illness?”
The answer depends on who you ask. In 2009, the French government declared that transsexualism would no longer be classified as a mental illness. The Danish government followed suit in 2017. But while the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) dropped the term “gender identity disorder” in 2013 (to remove the stigma of the term “disorder”), gender dysphoria is still diagnosed as any other mental illness might be.
After all, how else should we describe a condition that pits a person’s subjective sense of themselves against the objective realities of their body? How else should we describe a condition that, if left untreated, leads to higher levels of depression and suicide in sufferers? (Yes, I know there are many causes for the elevated suicide rates in the trans community, but it’s disingenuous to pretend that gender dysphoria isn’t one of them.)
Mental illness is still so heavily stigmatised that it’s taboo to say this. But if we put aside that needless stigma, and think of dysphoria like any other condition, the question simply becomes; how do we treat it? And the answer, in the overwhelming majority of cases, is gender-affirming treatment and surgery.
The alternative to “catering to trans people’s false and fake image of reality” is leaving them in a great deal of non-false, non-fake distress, that will lead some of them to kill themselves and many more to live lives of absolute misery.
There are important conversations to be had about the points where trans rights and women’s rights intersect. There are important conversations to be had about how to advise patients and guide them through their treatment (specifically non-reversible treatments). But should we cater to the needs of trans people? Of course we should!
Steve QJ:
I think we should call a brand new phenomenon with ~50% depression rates and way higher than average suicide and attempted suicide rates — a problem
Well here you're talking specifically about trans issues rather than more general questions of sexuality. I think it's important not to pack these all under the same umbrella. They're very different.
And yes, of course I agree. Mental health issues, whatever their cause (mental health issues are on the rise in all categories) should be taken seriously and addressed.
There are important conversations to be had about trans healthcare. Especially in young people. As you say, detransitioning is on the rise (though it's still, as far as I know, a small minority of cases), and this is largely due to an "affirmation at all costs" attitude amongst healthcare providers. There have been numerous cases of doctors overlooking or ignoring other mental health conditions in trans teens. This, I think we agree, is a bad thing.
But if you really want to have that conversation, you also need to have a conversation about breast implants and Brazilian butt lifts and tattoos and pretty much all cosmetic surgery. Modifying your body to fit your internal desires is not new.
So while I agree with your basic point that nobody should be forced to accept a view of reality that they don't agree with, in a society where discrimintation exists, some degree of "forcing" is sadly sometimes necessary to ensure people's safety.
I don't say that lightly. I'm absolutely aware of the dangers of totalitarianism. But, for example, in the sixties, restaurants and schools in America were "forced" to accept black people. You may have heard of the Little Rock Nine, where the national guard was brought in to enforce the ruling of Board vs Brown which meant black children could attend previously all-white schools. These nine black kids literally needed a military escort to protect them from the protesters.
No doubt, many of those people would have made the same argument you're making about "forcing" white people to interact with black people. But race relations wouldn't have made the progress they have if not for that "forcing". At least not as quickly. So yes, I'd argue that it's right to force society not to discriminate or oppress another group. It would be lovely if this happened organically, but sadly that's not always the reality.
When Catherine talks about having a view of reality forced on her, I think she’s talking about the, “are trans women, women?” debate. And frankly, that’s even more of a minefield than the, “is gender dysphoria a mental illness” debate.
Suffice it to say that I think there are situations where women’s rights and trans rights intersect and I think there’s a great deal of social pressure to pretend those situations don’t exist. I think there’s a great deal of pressure to pretend that there is absolutely no difference between somebody who was born a woman and somebody who transitioned. And worst of all, I think there’s a great deal of pressure to ignore the fact that some men (not trans women mind you, men) will take advantage of the erosion of the category of “woman”, if given the opportunity.
The refusal to talk honestly and openly about these points, and the demonisation of anybody who dares to try, will inevitably make people like Catherine take harder-line stances against trans inclusion than they otherwise would.
Catherine:
I agree, if we’re searching for the underlying cause of sex change operations and hormones (puberty blockers etc) then we can’t overlook plastic surgery. Both have turned into a huge and profitable business by the way…
What I meant about forcing the views is natural law — you can’t do it physically. You can’t change someone’s beliefs with force. You can only achieve that by persuasion.
You also mention forced integration, this is an interesting topic and your claim doesn’t seem to bear scientific scrutiny. How do you know integration wouldn’t happen faster on its own? How do you know the force brought good effects and not bad?
If forcing someone to interact with someone they already don’t accept going to cause them to accept them? Or maybe hate them? How is force working out for the vaccines and those who push them right now? And the most important question — how come people have been accepted in communities all over the world despite their, sometimes vast, differences?
My observations tell me it’s the natural law’s forces at work. You’ve probably seen the movie “The Green Book”? I think it illustrates best what I mean. A racist turned the one who’d invite the pianist to his Christmas dinner. Now you could say he was, in a sense, “forced” to work with that pianist genius. But there’s this one component that changes everything — it was his choice.
He may have been forced to interact with a black person by his financial situation, but he felt like it was his choice.
And that changes everything.
Now this would imply that actually less coercion and more freedom to choose would produce better outcomes and the history is brutally backing that up. It’s not too hard to understand either —let’s say you own a restaurant, but you refuse to serve those who aren’t vegan. You just hate them and you don’t want their filthy low-vibration faces around. I know, I know, very realistic example. What happens is you close your restaurant within a few months, because the one next door that serves everybody, the meat eaters, vegans, keto, whatnot — is outsmarting you and getting many of the clients you would, if you weren’t such a damn “veganist”.
Nature.
I have to admit that I was so peeved by the, “your claim doesn’t seem to bear scientific scrutiny” line at the beginning, that I wasn’t reading carefully by the time I made it to the last paragraph.
But I mean, any restaurant that doesn’t serve vegans will be out of business in a few months??! As with a few of Catherine’s arguments, this is so easily falsifiable that I can’t understand how she can’t see through it herself.
The only explanation I can think of is that she’s never, not once, set foot outside of Los Angeles.
Steve QJ:
your claim doesn’t seem to bear scientific scrutiny
Oh, come on! 😅 Seriously?!! America, at that point in time, was one of the most racist countries in the world. The national guard was called in to protect little children so that they could go to school. You need a scientific study to figure out that these people wouldn't have figured that stuff out, all by themselves, in the 2-3 generations between then and now?!
Do you also think people would steal or murder each other less often if we hadn't made laws "forcing" them not to do it? Do you think rates of sexual assault in marriage, for example, would have dropped more quickly if laws hadn't been put in place to prevent it? Do you need a scientific study to answer these questions too??
"Forcing" people to interact with those who are different helps them to realise more quickly that they're just human beings like everybody else. This is not only blindingly obvious, it's been demonstrated (in real life, not in movies) time and time again. (Yes, as you say, the glaring flaw in your "Green Book" argument is that the driver found himself "forced" to interact with this black man. It was this prolonged interaction that eventually changed his mind. This wouldn't have happened, and certainly not more quickly, if they hadn't spent that time together.)
Daryl Davis has become famous by demonstrating that it's possible to do this even in the most extreme circumstances. How many of the 200 or so people he's de-radicalised from racist groups would have left the KKK if he hadn't gone there and "forced" them to interact with a black man? Or do you perhaps think that more would have left if he'd stayed away and left them to their white power rallies to choose whether to speak to black people?
Of course it doesn't work with every individual. But over time, in general, integration happens far more quickly when we interact than if everybody is allowed to stay in their own bubble. Gay marriage rights, desegregation, women in the workplace, there isn't a single counter example to this in human history.
So fundamentally, maybe we’re arguing whether an individual’s right to choose to marginalise an entire group from society (any group, I’m not just talking about black people) should trump that group’s right to live free of marginalisation. It seems like you’re defending a very ugly side of that argument.
Catherine:
Yes, as you say, the glaring flaw in your "Green Book" argument is that the driver found himself "forced" to interact with this black man. It was this prolonged interaction that eventually changed his mind. This wouldn't have happened, and certainly not more quickly, if they hadn't spent that time together.
My argument was: would the same have happened if the driver was forced by law to take that job? That's my argument. And you seem to have completely missed it. I underlined the necessity of individual choice in the equation (or the illusion of it, doesn't matter).
Yes, the discussion is indeed about individual freedom, free choice, and responsibility. But you completely misrepresent the situation.
Free choice equals discrimination. You can't have one without the other. What you talk about is excluding the whole group from society, which is totalitarianism. What I talk about are choices on the individual level.
You confuse public with private. You have the right to walk in a public park. You don't have the right to walk around someone's private house or attend a women's knitting club.
I agree there should be a rule of law, in all aspects of the public sphere. Sadly there is less and less of it. This is what the whole fight was (is) about, isn't it? This is what MLK dreamt about. Equality under the law. Not equality under personal choice.
If you're able to give me one example where coercion on the private choice level has worked well - I'll agree with you. From what I observed it always backfired.
Take the coercion to hire black people and "minorities" in your company - has it helped or has it been a disaster? People will not fill the position, they will rather lose money than hire a black person for the fear of being later sued for racism. It completely backfired on the black people.
Take the laws forcing you to hire the handicapped at a set minimum wage. The business owners would again not fill the position at all, which in effect destroys job opportunities for these people, not create them.
Tak minimum wage in general, and you can see what coercion does in general - the destruction of opportunities for people.
It's the Natural Law - when you force somebody to do something - you will be met with rejection. When you let people choose freely - you will achieve cooperation, because integration and diversity breed success.
What you seem to be talking about (correct me if I'm wrong here) is not the rule of law = equality in the public space, but rather the "rule of mob" where a group of people can force individuals to make choices s/he doesn't want to make.
I like to look at the outcomes, at the results of systems, not just the intentions. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
It seems we agree on most issues when it comes to the underlying values, but on some, we disagree as for the ways to get to the results we're looking for.
“If you're able to give me one example where coercion on the private choice level has worked well - I'll agree with you. From what I observed it always backfired.”
Uh, desegregation?? Sometimes I get so overwhelmed by the number of things I need to quibble with, that I overlook the most obvious.
Yes, race relations aren’t magically fixed because of desegregation, but it’s obvious (at least to reasonable people) how much better things are today than they were sixty years ago. And all because white people were “forced” to live alongside black people.
Who’da thunk.
Steve QJ:
My argument was: would the same have happened if the driver was forced by law to take that job?
Ah I see. Well this is a worse argument than the one I thought you were making!😅
Civil rights laws didn't force anybody to take a job working for a black person. They required that black people be treated like everybody else when it came to the jobs they could get. Because they are like everybody else.
Some business owners decided to close down rather than be "forced" to accomodate black people. That's their choice too, and totally in keeping with the Civil Rights Act. Because while free choice does equal discrimination (in the non-negative sense of the word), the question is:
"Is it okay to negatively discriminate against an entire group of people, for a characteristic they can do nothing about and that has no impact on their abilities or character, in such a way that they can't fully participate in the opportunities life offers everybody else?"
If you choose not to date a black person or to buy black-owned goods and services or to work for a black boss or invite a black person into your home, you're totally free to do that. You'd also be a racist obviously, but you'd be free to choose that too. I'd actually agree that nobody should (or could) force you to behave differently.
But if you choose not to let a black person eat at your restaurant or work in your company or live in the area that s/he chooses because it's too close to your home, now you're violating his/her right to choose. That's the difference.
If you extend that mentality to a societal level like...oh, I don't know...forcing everybody with black skin to accept a lower standard of goods and services and education and housing and everything else by segregating them, you create a grotesquely unfair society. It might feel just fine for you as a white person though. So you're unlikely to be motivated to change it. That's why you need to be "forced".
So much of the rest of what you say here makes no sense. People would rather lose money than risk being sued for racism? What are you talking about?! This is almost laughably ridiculous. Do you think this is even close to a representative view of how people feel about black employees? Even in today’s insane racial climate, never mind, say, five years ago when things were a little more sane? Affirmative action certainly isn’t perfect. We might agree there. But this feels like propaganda that went straight from Fox News to your fingers without passing through your brain. [Editor’s note: All credit for this zinger goes to Teed Rockwell. Thank you Teed, I’m forever in your debt for this beauty.]
Of course handicapped people should be hired at the same wage as anybody else. What alternative do you suggest? Handicapped people are always going to be hired at lower rates than able-bodied people in certain professions, but when they are hired, why shouldn’t they receive equal pay and treatment? And if you think minimum wage is coercive, consider what happens to wages and standards of living for millions of low-skilled employees when employers can pay them as little as they want.
And where the heck do you get the idea that I'm advocating for mob rule? Seriously, find a word I’ve ever written that suggests this. I'm talking about making society as fair as possible for everybody. I'm talking about equality of opportunity. Simple as that. I'm not sure what you're arguing for.
I don't think you're looking at outcomes at all. Because if you were, you'd look at the outcomes of various people within our society and wonder why they're so unequal. You'd come to more nuanced conclusions than that everybody who struggles just suffers from a "victim mentality". Because while we'd agree that some people do suffer from that, it's far from the only explanation for the disparities in society.
So yes, if you try to force somebody to do something, you'll inevitably meet with resistance (not necessarily rejection). But some people resist any change whatsoever. Even changes that are obviously good. People resisted abolishing slavery, and giving women the right to vote and work, and giving gay people the right to get married. The fact that some people don't like a change isn't a reason to oppose it. You have to look deeper than that.
But you seem stuck on this idea that it's more important that people should be able to choose to be bigots than it is for other people to live free from bigotry. I'm sad that I'm having to expend all this effort to point out that this is just obviously morally and logically wrong.
If you’re wondering why I started talking about victim mentalities all of a sudden, it’s because Catherine and I have had a couple of conversations before this one. It’s fascinating to come across somebody who I seem to agree with on a superficial level, but as soon as we dig a little deeper, we discover that we see the world vastly differently.
In part, I think this is why the debate around Dave’s special (and pretty much everything else), is so polarised. The debate isn’t as simple as; you either loved Dave’s special, want it to stay on Netflix, and are against trans rights or you hated Dave’s special, wanted it removed from Netflix immediately and support trans rights. But people keep trying to frame it in those terms.
I thought the special was pretty mediocre, but strongly oppose it being removed from Netflix. As I said earlier, I absolutely support trans people and their right to life with dignity and in safety, but I also recognise that an “affirmation at all costs” mentality has the potential to harm (and indeed, already has harmed) both women and trans people.
Life is more nuanced than the extremists in any debate want it to be. Terra Field, a trans software engineer at Netflix exemplified this mindset when she wrote:
This is not an argument with two sides. It is an argument with trans people who want to be alive and people who don’t want us to be.
But we simply can’t afford to think this way. Not only because it’s not true, but because it keeps us apart. Disagreement isn’t an existential threat. But the growing inability to talk about our differences just might be.
It's a complicated issue. Several personal events come to mind. Events that I've mentioned but not explored.
When a private fraternal organization denied service to my wife because they were "white only" my thought was that "it was mighty white of you MFs to not tell me that before getting my membership dues." But it was a private club. I don't want to take my wife where she is not wanted because of bigotry. The best thing was to never go back.
When a bar tender at a VFW post denied service to a black member (reciprocal membership) it was a different matter that came close to a fist fight. It wasn't a public place, but the man was a member
I talked my mom into letting me go to an integrated vocational (non-district) high school before integrating schools was mandated. I was actually a minority and a large portion of the student body was from the projects. It wasn't the nicest school, stabbings and such. In my senior year coach Baily said, in the eight years of the school's existence we've taken 1st place, at least once, in every sport. But we've never won the sportsmanship award. So yes, people could integrate voluntarily even in the early 60s, even when there was reason to think it came with negatives. It was not the norm and as you said, it would have happened more slowly.
Affirmative action was and a double edged sword. It was early 80s when the newspaper announced that there would be x number of promotions to management and journeyman positions by government decree at a base I worked at as a civilian. A friend and coworker who was a black man had just been promoted to a supervisory position. He said to me, "I'll just be g-d damned. It's hard enough for a black man to get respect around here and they do this now. People will think I'm a token n****r!" It did need to be done, but timing is everything and it sucked for him. Not long after that I took another job to work as an expat and lost touch with him.
Did affirmative action make people wonder about qualifications of black doctors and other professionals? Does it still to some degree? Sucks but qualified people should never be held back because of race, gender, sexual status, etc. If it takes law for that to happen, so be it.
So yes, force has it's problems, but where would we be if the civil rights movement had never happened? Proximity does bring understanding. My mom, age 95, told me some months back that she had never had a black friend. I don't think it bigotry on her part. She retired early in a segregated society and didn't have much opportunity. She now has mixed race grandchildren (my part Asian children) and mixed race great grandchildren (black father). She has a tendency to blurt out what she thinks ("Don't say it mom!") but never busted out anything racist. While she was living with me our next door neighbors were a black family. Their daughter came to my house several times a week for music lessons. My mom was always excited to see her and asked about her is she missed a few days. Hugs. Proximity matters. But without "forced" integration, how much proximity would we have?
Sorry I got long winded but it is a subject dear to me, and it's complicated. The things I just mentions were not all the same and didn't have the same solutions.
I was not able to finish this. How do you decide when to engage?