Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson (photo credit: World Wrestling Entertainment) |
Smack down?
By Hendrik van
der Breggen
I. Introduction
Merriam-Webster defines smack
down as follows: the act of knocking down or bringing down an opponent; a
decisive defeat; a contest in entertainment wrestling.
Apparently, two well-credentialed academics have teamed up
against one of my articles to write what they consider to be (and describe as) a
“smack down.”
The smack-down duo consists of Drs. Katelyn Dykstra and Matt
Sheedy. Here are their bio lines:
Dr. Katelyn
Dykstra holds a PhD
in English, Theatre, Film, & Media from The University of Manitoba. She
teaches in their Women’s and Gender Studies program. She publishes on intersex
representation in Contemporary literature and film.
Dr. Matt Sheedy holds a PhD in Religious Studies from The
University of Manitoba. He teaches at the University of Bonn in Germany. He has
published widely on the representation of various religions in the public
sphere.
(Dr.
Dykstra is also interim deputy chair of Steinbach Pride. Steinbach is the city
in which I live.)
The
Dykstra-Sheedy smack down appeared in Medium,
October 24, 2018, and is titled “Bad Faith Smack Down: The Case for Arguing in
Good Faith.” (To argue in good faith means to be fair, open, and honest.) I
provide a link to Drs. Dykstra and Sheedy's article below. The article (my article) that received
the brunt of the Dykstra-Sheedy criticisms is “Perfect Storm.” This article
appeared in mySteinbach.ca on August 14, 2018 (it was also published in Political Animal Magazine and The Carillon). I provide a link to my
article below, too.
Drs.
Dykstra and Sheedy argue that I have acted in bad faith and thus they, in good
faith, have decided to display publicly the errors of my ways—errors that
purport to show that I am not fair, open, or honest.
These
are serious charges against my character, which, if true, would reflect
negatively on me personally as well as professionally. Thus, for the sake of my
personal and professional integrity, it behooves me to pay serious and close
attention to the Dykstra-Sheedy argument. Moreover, and more importantly, it
behooves me to pay close attention to their argument for the sake of the well
being of those persons my article concerns: persons who elevate subjectivity—feelings—as
a sufficient guide to reality.
My
thesis is that the Dykstra-Sheedy “smack down” is, from the perspective of
careful reasoning and truth-seeking, a failure. It’s not merely a failure, it’s
a dismal failure.
To
defend my thesis, I provide a link to Drs. Dykstra and Sheedy's article and I
encourage readers to read it carefully. Then I present their article in piece
meal fashion and critique their article in much detail. I show that (a) they seriously
misrepresent my and others' work (I count at least nine misrepresentations),
(b) they mischaracterize my view as “extraordinarily silly”; (c) they make a bizarre
if not logically incoherent claim, (d) they ignore an important argument of
mine, (e) they make several false claims, and (f) they make other errors—including
spelling errors. (I usually don't make a fuss about spelling errors, but these
smack-downers have PhD degrees. And one of the degrees is a PhD in English, Theatre, Film, and Media;
italics mine.) I conclude that Drs. Dykstra and Sheedy's “smack down” fails—dismally.
In
view of this failure, the argument of my (original) article remains standing,
as do my concerns about persons whose feelings disconnect them from reality. My
(original) article's conclusion remains standing, too: to navigate safely back
to sanity we need to set our compasses on objective truth and the careful use
of reason.
II. The (alleged) smack
down
Here is a link
to “Bad Faith Smack Down: The Case for Arguing in Good Faith,”
written by Drs. Katelyn Dykstra and Matt Sheedy, and which appeared in Medium on October 24, 2018:
https://medium.com/@katelynjane/bad-faith-smack-down-the-case-for-arguing-in-good-faith-fc5e2c8e8bb5
I encourage readers
to read the Dykstra-Sheedy article in its entirety and to do so carefully.
III. Critique of the “smack down”
In this section
I set out portions of the article by Drs. Dykstra and Sheedy (in black font)
and I provide commentary and critique immediately after each portion (in red font). As mentioned in my introduction above, I
argue that the Dykstra-Sheedy “smack down” is, from the perspective of careful
reasoning and truth-seeking, a failure—a dismal failure. But don't take my word
on this, read on.
Team Dykstra-Sheedy:
Recently the government of the United States has issued
a memo that will no doubt ramp up medical intervention into intersex bodies, and deny rights to trans people. Even more recently, Dr. Hendrik van der Breggen has
posted another opinion piece that attempts to show the immorality of LGBT2S
people openly expressing their desires through a philosophical and theological
argument with Lady Gaga’s famous axiom that queer people are “born that way,”
and therefore perfect creations of God. In response to both of these events,
Dr. Matt Sheedy and I have decided to publish a blog post we wrote this summer
that we have been sitting on (we had grand plans of starting up our own blog,
but being #earlycareeracademics got in the way). We could hold on to it no
longer:
Van der Breggen’s response:
I won't speak to what the U.S. government is
doing except to say that there are different political (and scientific) opinions
on the matter. Clearly, Drs. Katelyn Dykstra and Matt Sheedy hold views that
differ with those of the current U.S. government and its memo. So be it.
I will speak, however, to Drs. Dykstra and
Sheedy's claim about my opinion piece on Lady Gaga which, they claim, spurred
them on to publish their critique of my (other) article, “Perfect Storm” (which
is not about Lady Gaga). It turns out that they misrepresent my piece on Lady
Gaga.
The piece to which Dykstra-Sheedy refer is my
article “Lady Gaga and Moral Reasoning.”
Unfortunately, Dykstra and Sheedy don't provide readers a link to my
Gaga article. At this juncture, then, I encourage readers to pause and read my article on Gaga.
Here are my reasons for thinking that Drs. Dykstra
and Sheedy misrepresent my Gaga article.
According to Dykstra and Sheedy, my article
about Lady Gaga's moral reasoning “attempts
to show the immorality of LGBT2S people openly expressing their desires through
a philosophical and theological argument with Lady Gaga’s famous axiom that
queer people are 'born that way,' and therefore perfect creations of God.”
Nope. My article
does not attempt to do what Drs. Dykstra and Sheedy say it does.
Rather, what my
article does is this: it shows that Gaga's claim “born this way” does not
automatically mean we ought to affirm, celebrate, or act this way. My article merely—and
modestly—shows that more argument is required for “born this way” to be a moral
justification. Why? Because, as I argue, “born this way” justifies too much, including
propensities to act in obviously immoral ways. In other words, in my article I argue
that Lady Gaga's so-called axiom is not an axiom (i.e., it isn't a
self-evident truth that justifies her inferences). Again, this isn't an attempt,
as Dykstra and Sheedy assert, “to show the immorality of LGBT2S people openly
expressing their desires”; rather, it's an attempt merely to show that “born
this way” isn't enough logically as a moral justification. This is an important
distinction.
Note: To put it
mildly, this is a distinction through which one could drive a gravel truck
carrying Hulk Hogan and Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson. But this distinction is lost
on Dykstra and Sheedy. As a result, they misrepresent my article on Lady Gaga.
And thereby they mislead readers—at the get-go.
This
misrepresentation should put readers on CRITICAL THINKING ALERT. It turns out
that this misrepresentation is but one of many. In the Dykstra-Sheedy article there
are, in fact, at least nine misrepresentations. And these misrepresentations
are seriously misleading.
Dykstra and Sheedy
claim to show that my work isn’t done in good faith. As I mentioned, this is a
serious charge. At the very least they should be accurate in their
representation of my work (and the work of others). But they are not.
Significantly, the
Dykstra-Sheedy article also has other serious problems, besides its
(many) misrepresentations. Let’s continue our examination.
Dykstra
& Sheedy:
Our world is complicated, and as we move further into
the muck of what can feel like chaos, we need clear and clever thinking, and
open and honest discussions about the events, identities, and debates that make
us feel confused, icky, or (perhaps especially) angry. This summer, a piece
called “A Perfect Storm,” was published on mysteinbach.ca (which has been
published in other locations before) by Dr. Hendrik van der Breggen, and by
goly it got our shackles up, but we are determined to engage in the kind of
discussion we think is so necessary. Deep breath, here goes:
Van der Breggen:
Minor point: My article’s title is “Perfect
Storm,” not “A Perfect Storm.” There is no indefinite article in the title.
Yes, this is a wee bit of nitpicking on my part, but if my undergraduate
students were to critique an article but not set out the article's title accurately,
I would gently point out that error to my students. Here, however, I'm dealing
with two individuals with PhDs and who refer to themselves with the hash tag
“earlycareeracademics.”
Oh, and did Drs. Dykstra and Sheedy misspell
“golly” as “goly”? Yes, they did. #triggered
[Also, “shackles” should be hackles. Thanks to Chris H. for pointing this out in the comment section.]
[Also, “shackles” should be hackles. Thanks to Chris H. for pointing this out in the comment section.]
Dykstra & Sheedy:
Van der Breggen presents us with three theses that he
claims present a “perfect storm” of philosophical thinking that “threatens to
undo us.” The centre of the storm, according to Dr. van der Breggen, is that we
now live in a world (at least in the US and Canada), where people can declare
their identity in any way they feel, be it a different gender, race, or age.
Van der Breggen:
Yes, I present a perfect storm of
philosophical thinking that threatens to undo us. But, no, the centre of the
storm is not simply that we now live in a world in which “people can declare
their identity in any way they feel.” The centre of the storm, according to my
article, is this: “I am whatever I feel—and you're a bigot for challenging
that.”
Notice that the centre of the storm is a philosophical-metaphysical
storm of subjectivity that elevates feelings as a sufficient indicator of what
is real, a storm that dismisses challenges; it's not merely a storm of gender
identity declaration. Yes, a declaration is made, but my concern is that it's
the declaration of the metaphysical claim
that “I am whatever I feel.” (Note: a metaphysical claim has to do with being, with reality, with what is.) In
other words, what is declared, in view of the three theses I present in my
article, is the implicit metaphysical argument that
I-feel-I-am-X-therefore-I-am-X—that
is my concern. That is the centre of the storm.
Drs. Dykstra and Sheedy seem not to understand
that the case of Ja Du—the man Adam Wheeler who feels he is a Filipino woman and therefore is a Filipino woman—merely illustrates
the metaphysical storm of subjectivity that arises if feelings are trump. That
Mr. Wheeler illustrates (i.e., exemplifies, concretizes) the metaphysical storm
is what I mean when I write, “Let's put some flesh on this storm.” Again, the
storm's centre is the abstract, philosophical thesis—implicit metaphysical
argument—logically entailed by the three theses I set out; Adam Wheeler (a.k.a.
Ja Du) merely illustrates (i.e., exemplifies, concretizes) this.
Dykstra and Sheedy, then, misrepresent my work
(again). It is a subtle misrepresentation, but a misrepresentation nonetheless.
(Misrepresentation 2.)
Reminder: The three theses I set out at the
beginning of “Perfect Storm” are these: (1) there is no objective truth, (2)
truth is subjective (i.e., it's what you feel), and (3) disagreement equals
hate. These theses converge onto (logically imply) “I am whatever I feel—and
you're a bigot for challenging that.” In other words, I-feel-I-am-X-therefore-I-am-X
and you are a bigot if you challenge this metaphysical argument. The alleged metaphysical truth given to us via subjectivity is my concern.
Dykstra & Sheedy:
Dr. van der Breggen cites an interview on Fox News
between host Tucker Carlson and Cathy Areu of Catalina Magazine,
whose response to every question that she’s asked about these identity issues
is to claim that it’s perfectly American to choose who you want to be. It is
“okay.” Period. For Dr. van der Breggen, this is not only a violation of
objective truth, but is insanity, plain and simple.
Van der Breggen:
I have two points to make here.
First, Cathy Areu responds that it's perfectly
American only to some of the
questions, not “to every question
that she's asked about identity issues” (my italics). Drs. Dykstra and Sheedy
(again) misrepresent the goings-on. (This is misrepresentation number 3.)
Second, surely it is a violation of objective truth and it is insanity plain and simple when Areu answers Carlson's questions
the way she does (even if she sometimes says it's “very American,” it's “okay,”
etc.). Permit me to quote the relevant portions from Areu which I presented in my
article “Perfect Storm”:
“It's totally
OK. It's very American to be who you want to be. This person has the freedom to
be who she wants to be. And she wants to be a Filipino woman. So that's OK.”
“It's what's on the inside that counts, not
what's on the outside. There's a growing movement. There's many people that are
now identifying as the other gender and as another culture or race or
ethnicity.”
“If this
person's not hurting anyone, then what's wrong?”
“If you're
identifying as a woman and you're not hurting anyone, there's nothing wrong
with that. If you [a man] want to be a woman, that's fine, that's perfectly
fine.”
What about
becoming a different sex, race, or species? “If you're not hurting anyone, then
what's the problem? It's very American to be who you want to be. So I think
it's wonderful. I think it's beautiful. I think it's great.”
Didn't we used
to call this delusional? “It's 2017. It's OK now to be transracial and
transgender. We're accepting. We're an open society. We're a modern society.”
What if you
have a friend who thinks he is Napoleon: “That's OK!”
So it's not a
sign of mental illness, but a sign of personal actualization? “Absolutely! As
Ja Du says, it's what's inside that counts… it's that person's choice.”
Folks, this is
a perfect storm—of insanity.
Again: Areu responds that it's perfectly
American only to some of the
questions, not “to every question,” contrary
to what Dykstra and Sheedy claim. So Dykstra and Sheedy misrepresent the
goings-on. And surely it is a
violation of objective truth and it is
insanity when Areu answers Carlson's questions as she does (above). To suggest
otherwise, as Dykstra and Sheedy do, is to suggest a false claim.
Dykstra & Sheedy:
We suggest that Dr. van der Breggen’s argument is not
only unnecessarily alarmist but also riddled with philosophical fallacies and
erroneous statements. What follows are three theses that clearly outline these
problems.
Van der Breggen:
Is it true that my argument is “riddled with philosophical fallacies and
erroneous” (my italics)? That’s a
very strong charge. So let's see if Drs. Dykstra and Sheedy make their case.
And let's keep in mind that Drs. Dykstra and Sheedy have already made three
misrepresentations and suggested a false claim. This should provide reasonable grounds
for suspicion. Yes, they make more mistakes—several more mistakes. Serious
mistakes.
Again, is it true that my argument is “riddled
with [i.e., full of] philosophical fallacies and erroneous”? Read on. (Spoiler
alert: It's not true.)
Dykstra & Sheedy:
Identity politics is not the issue that will or must
define our current cultural moment.
Van der Breggen:
Okay, but keep in
mind that I didn't say identity politics will or must define our current
cultural moment. Yes, I pointed to the perfect storm that is the result of the
convergence of three theses: (1) there is
no objective truth, (2) truth is subjective (i.e., it's what you feel), and (3)
disagreement equals hate. But I did not say that there aren't other storms. Perhaps
there are other or additional perfect storms that will or must define our
current cultural moment. Or perhaps they will all converge into a larger
perfect storm and thereby define our cultural moment. My article doesn't
preclude this. To suggest it does, as Drs. Dykstra and Sheedy seem to suggest,
is to suggest a misrepresentation of my view.
(I won’t count this in my tally of
Dykstra-Sheedy misrepresentations, because it’s merely a suggestion on their
part. But, still, it’s a mistaken suggestion.)
Dykstra & Sheedy:
Recently, popular thinkers like Dr. Jordan Peterson, professor
of psychology at the University of Toronto, have been publically hand-wringing
about transgender people and their claims to rights (including to have their
preferred pronouns adhered to, to change their gender on their passports, and
to have access to gender-neutral bathrooms). In response, Dr. Peterson argues
that such identity-based discussions are the most pressing issue of our day.
Van der Breggen:
This does not accurately reflect Dr. Jordan Peterson’s
concern. Peterson's concern is with transgender activists (who don't speak for
all trans persons) who wish to use the force of law to compel citizens to use
language they do not believe reflects what is true. Peterson is concerned with
freedom of speech.
More specifically, Peterson is concerned that bills
such as Canada's Bill C 16 will compel Canadians to speak language that
promotes and reflects an ideology, which in this case happens to be a
controversial ideology that has to do with the issue of transgender. Peterson is challenging our government's overreach
in its attempt to compel speech.
To put Peterson's concerns into proper
perspective, it may be helpful to notice that, as a relatively recent article
about Peterson points out, “When it gets brought up, he’s quick to note that he
does not oppose calling trans individuals by their pronouns but that he opposes
having his language dictated by a central political committee.” (Zak Slayback,
“Many Intellectuals Can't Stand
Jordan Peterson. Why?” Foundation for
Economic Education, January 26, 2018).
In other words, Drs. Dykstra and Sheedy don’t
have a good grip on Peterson’s views. Dykstra and Sheedy’s generality and
concomitant lack of specific clarity concerning Peterson’s work serves to
misrepresent it. (That’s misrepresentation number four.)
Aside: I have
written about Canada’s Bill C 16 and have thought about Peterson’s views. Perhaps
my work will be helpful. I invite interested readers to look at these articles:
- On Forcing Your Religion via Canada’s Transgender Rights Bill. (I don't mean to brag, but this article won a prize in an op-ed contest on freedom of speech over at Political Animal Magazine, which is, as far as I can tell, not a conservative publication.)
- Canada's Transgender Rights Bill Is Incoherent—And That's a Concern.
- Transgender Preferred Pronouns?
Dykstra & Sheedy:
Dr. van der Breggen echoes such claims [from Dr. Jordan
Peterson], suggesting that transgender people’s apparent misunderstanding about
their identity is the issue that will “undo us.” Really? As a recent study shows that climate change is literally about to alter
our world in irreversible ways, we are stressed about other people’s gender
identities? We are not suggesting, of course, that we should not seriously
attend to the questions that gender identity raises, nor do we think that in
order to take seriously climate change we have to ignore these important
conversations, but we are absolutely suggesting that in the face of all of the
chaos in this world, choosing trans people (or even identity politics writ
large) as the crux of our undoing seems pretty silly. Actually, it is
extraordinarily silly.
Van der Breggen:
Drs. Dykstra and Sheedy are mistaken in characterizing
my view as “pretty silly” and “extraordinarily silly.” I have three reasons,
which provide a cumulative case against the Dykstra-Sheedy characterization.
First, the fact that one perfect storm
threatens to undo us doesn't preclude the possibility of other perfect storms
threatening to undo us. Just because I point to one perfect storm doesn't mean
I don't think, nor does it logically preclude, that there might be other
perfect storms. Perfect storms are rare, but that doesn't mean there can't be
more than one.
Second, it's important to notice that to reach
their position thus far, Drs. Dykstra and Sheedy have misrepresented my (and
Jordan Peterson's) views, and the misrepresentation continues here. Permit me
to explain.
I am not merely “choosing trans people (or
even identity politics writ large) as the crux of our undoing.” Rather, as I've pointed out above (and will
point out again here), the transgender issue merely illustrates the metaphysical storm of subjectivity that arises if
feelings are trump. The metaphysical storm of subjectivity is the crux. As I
pointed out above (and will point out again here), the centre of the storm,
according to my article, is this: “I am whatever I feel—and you're a bigot for
challenging that.” Notice that this is a philosophical-metaphysical storm of
subjectivity (a storm that dismisses challenges); it's not merely a storm of
transgender identity declaration (or identity politics). Yes, a declaration is
made, but it's the declaration of the metaphysical
claim (i.e., a claim having to do with being,
with what is) that “I am whatever I
feel”—that is the focus of my concern. In other words, what is declared, in
view of the three theses I present, is the implicit metaphysical argument that
I-feel-I-am-X-therefore-I-am-X. This
is the problem.
And it’s a problem because it stems from the
three theses I set out in “Perfect Storm”: (1) there is no objective truth, (2)
truth is subjective (i.e., it's what you feel), and (3) disagreement equals
hate. These theses converge onto (logically imply) “I am whatever I feel—and
you're a bigot for challenging that”: I-feel-I-am-X-therefore-I-am-X and you are
a bigot if you challenge this metaphysical argument. Again, the transgender
issue merely illustrates the
metaphysical storm of subjectivity that arises if feelings are trump. That
feelings are trump as a guide to reality and you're a bigot if you challenge
this—this is the crux.
This leads to my third point.
Third, if my first two theses are true—i.e.,
(1) there is no objective truth and (2) truth is subjective (i.e., it's what
you feel)—then the claim that climate change is a true problem is weakened. Think about it. If these two theses hold,
then claims concerning climate change are no longer objectively true: they
become relative to individual subjectivity. In view of my first two theses, then,
it would very much seem that the perfect storm I am pointing to is a more
fundamental and an even bigger problem than the problem of climate change. And
if we add the third thesis—(3) disagreement equals hate—then we end up with an even bigger problem! Pointing to this
philosophical problem is not at all silly, surely.
In view of the cumulative effect of the above
three reasons, Drs. Dykstra and Sheedy are mistaken in characterizing my view
as “pretty silly” and “extraordinarily silly.” Their misunderstanding of my
argument (and its logical implications) leads them to this characterization.
Aside: Since Drs. Dykstra and Sheedy brought
Dr. Jordan Peterson into the conversation plus introduced the topic of climate
change (though their link seems not to work), maybe we should hear some recent
comments by Peterson about climate change: Professor
Jordan Peterson on climate change and climate policy at the Cambridge Union
(YouTube video, 6.5 minutes). Also,
some insights from Rex Murphy may add some helpful perspective: What's in a name? With 'Climate Change,' a lot of
reckless misuse (article).
Also, this article by Cal Thomas may be helpful, too: “'A
Political Report Masquerading as Science': The Truth About the New Climate
Report.” (Confession: I'm no expert on climate change and I don't dismiss
concerns about our environment, but, having lived through the era of concerns
about global cooling, I think it's important to listen to dissenters.)
Dykstra & Sheedy:
We have ceased to argue in good faith.
Van der Breggen:
To argue in good faith means at least that one
tries not to misrepresent those with whom one is arguing. Thus far, Drs.
Dykstra and Sheedy have misrepresented the views of others at least four times:
my view x 3 (at least), Dr. Peterson’s view x 1. More to come.
Dykstra & Sheedy:
In our current political moment, we too often see people
debating in bad faith on all sides of any disagreement. Dr. van der Breggen
presents in his argument a straw person. As a philosophy PhD, we
are certain that Dr. van der Breggen is well aware of what we mean, but for
those who don’t: to construct a straw person argument is to represent
an opponent’s position in a disingenuous way so that one can more easily tear
it down.
Van der Breggen:
Yes, I have a PhD in philosophy (I also have a
BA in philosophy and an MA in philosophy, plus I've taught critical thinking
courses for the last dozen or so years). So, yes, I am well aware of what a
straw person argument is. But I wish to add that, in my professional opinion, I
think Drs. Dykstra and Sheedy's definition of straw person argument is not
correct.
Dykstra and Sheedy define a straw person
argument as this: “to represent an opponent’s position in a disingenuous way so
that one can more easily tear it down.” The word “disingenuous” is the culprit.
Disingenuous means insincere or dishonest. It has to do with character
qualities or motives, in this case those character qualities or motives of the
interlocutor doing the representing or misrepresenting.
It seems to me that the essence of what
defines a straw person argument does not include motive. Rather, it's about
misrepresenting an opponent's argument, whether
one is disingenuous or not (and then attacking that misrepresentation as if
it were the real item). The fact is straw person arguments allow for the possibility
that one can honestly and sincerely
misrepresent an opponent's argument. One can honestly and sincerely make a
mistake. Whether one misrepresents an opponent's argument wittingly or
unwittingly, sincerely or insincerely, honestly or dishonestly, disingenuously
or not disingenuously—these are all beside the point. They are interesting, but
beside the point. In argument assessment the interest is the argument, not the arguer's motives. The point is that the
argument under investigation is actually misrepresented and then this (weaker) misrepresentation
is critiqued as if it were the original. The crucial mistake of straw person
has to do with the misrepresentation and subsequent critique centered on the
misrepresentation; it does not have to do with the misrepresenter's character
or motives.
The understanding of the straw person fallacy (a.k.a.
straw man fallacy) that I have set out above is not peculiar to me. Here are
some definitions from other sources (sources that are respected in the academic
discipline of logic and critical thinking):
“Straw man fallacy. A fallacy committed when a
person misrepresents an argument, theory, or claim, and then, on the basis of
that misrepresentation, claims to have refuted the position the person has
misrepresented.” – Trudy Govier, A
Practical Study of Argument, enhanced 7th edition/ instructor's edition (Wadsworth/Cengage,
2014), page 176.
“Straw man fallacy. The informal fallacy of
representing one's interlocutor as having endorsed a position that the
interlocutor did not endorse, attacking this position one had identified, and
concluding that the interlocutor's view is false on this basis.” – T. Ryan Byerly, Introducing Logic and Critical Thinking (Baker Academic, 2017),
page 242.
“In the straw man fallacy, one person rewords
or reframes an argument in such a way that (1) the new version does not
accurately reflect the original argument, and (2) the new version is easy to
criticize or defeat.” – Galen A.
Foresman, Peter S. Fosl & Jamie Carlin Watson, The Critical Thinking Toolkit (Wiley Blackwell, 2017), page 159.
“Straw arguments. We often find ourselves
summarizing an opponent's position in order to clarify it or attribute certain
consequences to it before arguing against it. When we do this, we must be sure
that the opposing position has been fairly and accurately represented. If our
version is wrong, whether it is deliberate or through an oversight—if we take
our opponent's position to be A when she intended B, and then proceed to attack
B—we are guilty of the type of contextual irrelevance known as 'straw
argument.' A straw argument is always a misrepresentation of a position,
usually a weakened account of it used to make the response easier and
apparently more effective.” – Leo A. Groarke & Christopher W. Tindale, Good Reasoning Matters! A Constructive
Approach to Critical Thinking, 3rd edition (Oxford University Press, 2004),
page 269.
All this to say (again): Contrary to what Drs.
Dykstra and Sheedy assert, whether one is ingenuous or disingenuous is not a
defining condition of what a straw person argument is.
(Note: I won't count this against Drs. Dykstra
and Sheedy as a misrepresentation, because I notice that in some textbooks some
authors carelessly include personal characteristics of the
arguer/misrepresenter as part of the definition of straw person argument. I
simply think this is a mistake, a mistake that's been passed—unfortunately, in
my view—to a new generation of academics.)
Dykstra & Sheedy:
In picking on trans people, Dr. van der Breggen chose an
example that is an outlier to most discussions of trans.
Van der Breggen:
Reminder: The three theses I set out in
“Perfect Storm” are these: (1) there is no objective truth, (2) truth is
subjective (i.e., it's what you feel), and (3) disagreement equals hate. These
theses converge onto (logically imply) “I am whatever I feel—and you're a bigot
for challenging that.” I then illustrate the absurd consequences via the
example of the fellow who feels he is a Filipino woman.
This is not
“picking on trans people”; rather, it is to pick on the logical implications of the three theses: i.e., the resultant
metaphysical storm of subjectivity being trump. To claim that I am “picking on
trans people” is to misrepresent my article. As I point out in my article, the
man Adam Wheeler (a.k.a. Ja Du) who feels he is a Filipino woman (i.e.,
transracial and transgender) puts flesh onto the implication—that is, the case
of Adam Wheeler provides a concrete illustration arising from the abstract
reasoning that constitutes the storm. The case of Adam Wheeler is thus not an
“outlier” to the discussion at hand. He is only an “outlier” if one
misrepresents the goings-on in my article, as Drs. Dykstra and Sheedy do.
(Misrepresentation number 5.)
Dykstra & Sheedy:
He chose an example of a person who is both transgender
and trans-racial. This means that the person feels themself to be part of a
gender that is not the one they were designated at birth, and not of a racial
group that they were not designated at birth or is not the one that they have
lived with up until their moment of transition.
Van der Breggen:
I think some careful reading and questioning are
appropriate here.
According to Drs. Dykstra and Sheedy, that a
person is transracial means that the person feels themself to be “not of a
racial group that they were not designated at birth.” My question is this: Huh?
The Dykstra-Sheedy claim logically implies the
possibility that being transracial is to be of a racial group designated at
birth. This is bizarre, if not incoherent.
Also, I question Drs. Dykstra and Sheedy's use
of the language of “designated at birth” (or, as is popular, “assigned at birth”).
Such language is open to serious misunderstanding, especially by radical postmodern
academics in the humanities or social sciences inclined to think language creates,
blocks, or distorts our knowledge of reality rather than can accurately reflect
and communicate truth. “Designated” (or “assigned”) suggests, mistakenly, that
a nurse or doctor is the source of a newborn’s anatomical details or race (as,
say, a mathematician assigns a value to a variable). The truth (more clearly
stated) is that biological facts concerning sex and skin colour at birth are discerned
(as real).
The comment below from Dr. Robert P. George
may be helpful (George is professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University
and co-author of the 2011 book Embryo):
You should
rebel and resist every time you hear someone refer to the “sex assigned at
birth” [or “sex designated at birth”]. That is because (1) sex is not something
“assigned,” and (2) one comes into being as a distinct individual long before
birth—and one comes into being as a male or female member of the human species.
Let's take
these points in reverse order.
First, in the
human, sex—one's being male or female—is established, not at birth, but at
fertilization when a distinct organism—a new individual of the human species
with his or her own genetic constitution and epigenetic program—comes into
being. Even in the earliest embryonic stage, the developing human can be
identified as male or female.
Second, it is
simply a mistake to suppose that there is or could exist at any stage of development
a sex-less human that is then “assigned” (by God, or nature, or a surgeon or
endocrinologist) a sex. As I observed, the new human *comes into being as male
or female*—organized biologically to play the male or female role in
reproduction.
Of course, in
a tiny percentage of cases, genetic or other biological malfunctions can result
in anomalies (e.g. an XY female) or a certain measure of ambiguity in sex
organs. But this does not mean that there are actually three or more sexes (or
“genders”) or that sex is or can be “assigned” (or “changed” by surgery,
hormonal manipulation, or anything else). For a fuller explanation of these and
related points, see Ryan T. Anderson 's excellent book *When Harry Became Sally*.
There may have
been a time when speaking of sex as “assigned at birth,” though strictly
speaking inaccurate, was innocent. Today, however, it is used to suggest that
one's sex is what philosophers call an accidental rather than an essential
property—something distinct from, or independent of, the core reality of a
person, something that was “assigned” and can therefore be re-assigned or changed
to be brought into line with the thing that allegedly *really* makes one male
or female (or a man or woman), namely, one's “gender.” But what actually makes
one male or female is one's biological constitution; it is not something merely
psychological (such as one's feelings, or a putative “inner sense” of having a
male or female “identity”).
(Robert P.
George, Facebook comment, November 25, 2018)
In other words, in their clarification of what
it means to be “both transgender and trans-racial,” Drs. Dykstra set out what is
a bizarre if not incoherent claim about what trans-racial means and they use
questionable, misleading language about sex “designation.” Drs. Dykstra and
Sheedy's language use is muddled and sophistical.
Dykstra & Sheedy:
We are not here to pass judgement about whether not not
these claims are legitimate (whatever that would mean),…
Van der Breggen:
Minor point: I think Drs. Dykstra and Sheedy intend
to write “whether or not,” not “whether not not.” Yes, proof-reading is needed.
Major point: Answering the question of whether
or not the claims are legitimate (i.e., true) is the point of my article! As I
argue, they are not legitimate. As I
argue (via a look at Cathy Areu's assertions), the claims—i.e., the subjective
I-feel-I-am-X-therefore-I-am-X claims—about being both transgender and
transracial fall prey to absurd logical consequences. These absurd logical
consequences show that the subjective I-feel-I-am-X-therefore-I-am-X claims are
therefore false. Technically speaking, in my article I basically set out a reductio ad absurdum argument (i.e., I
show a view is false by examining the absurd logical implications of that
view). By taking a “pass” on making a judgment, Drs. Dykstra and Sheedy ignore
my argument and thereby ignore its probative force (i.e., its power to
substantiate/ provide evidence for/ prove a conclusion).
In other words, Drs. Dykstra and Sheedy
present no “smack down.” Their ignoring my argument constitutes a failure to
engage my argument. My argument is untouched. My argument and its probative force
still stand.
Dykstra & Sheedy:
…but to assert in the strongest possible terms that the
conflation of transgender and trans-racial as though they are somehow the same
constructs a straw person about both of these positions.
Van der Breggen:
No, I am not conflating transgender and
transracial as “somehow the same.” Rather, I am arguing that these different
claims about reality are a logical consequence of “I feel X therefore I am X.” Again: the point of my article is that the
claims—i.e., the subjective I-feel-I-am-X-therefore-I-am-X claims—about being
both transgender and transracial fall prey to the absurd logical consequences
that I set out in my article (via Areu). These absurd logical consequences show
that the subjective I-feel-I-am-X-therefore-I-am-X claims are therefore false:
feelings are not a sufficient guide
to what’s real. In other words, as I previously pointed out, in my article I basically
set out a reductio ad absurdum
argument (i.e., I show a view is false by examining the absurd logical
implications of that view). This is not a straw person argument. To claim that
it is a straw person argument is to misrepresent the goings-on in my article.
Yes, that's yet another misrepresentation by the Dykstra-Sheedy team. (Misrepresentation
number 6.)
Dykstra & Sheedy:
It is arguing in bad faith. It is trying to make very
complex issues (gender and race and ethnicity) simplistic in order to make a
mockery of them.
Van der Breggen:
Nope. See above. The Dykstra-Sheedy charge only works if we
allow their misrepresentations, false claims, and failure to engage to go
unchecked. But I refuse to allow these to go unchecked. Such maneuvers might be
appropriate in the world of entertainment wrestling, but not here. The stakes
are too serious. I am digging in my heels against sophistry and falsehoods
masquerading as reason and truth.
Dykstra & Sheedy:
Here are a few further examples of what we mean: In the
video clip from Fox News that Dr. van der Breggen provides as evidence for the
ridiculousness of transgender identity, Carlson (the interviewer) argues that
changing gender is something one might do to gain access to certain privileges.
In fact, transgender people are murdered at a disproportionate rate to the rest
of society and, as van der Breggen points out elsewhere, are more likely to commit suicide. Choosing to
transition puts one at significant risk for personal injury, never mind social
exclusion. To suggest that a person would choose to transition as a way of
accessing a more privileged life has obviously never talked with a trans
person.
Van der Breggen:
Minor point: “To suggest that a person would
choose to transition as a way of accessing a more privileged life has obviously
never talked with a trans person.” Huh? Clearly, this sentence needs
proof-reading. (See further below for a few of my thoughts about “accessing a
more privileged life.”)
Major point: Yes, in my article I do provide a
link to the Carlson-Areu interview. But the issue is why. I do so to
acknowledge my source (this is to use a link as a footnote). Significantly, in
my article I do not set out Carlson's point about changing gender to gain
access to privileges. Rather, I set out several other specific responses from
Areu to Carlson's other specific questions. And those other specific responses are
the responses that provide fodder for my reductio
ad absurdum argument. For Dykstra and Sheedy to suggest otherwise is to
misrepresent my article. Again. (Misrepresentation number 7.)
Dykstra & Sheedy:
It also seems at odds with Dr. van der Breggen’s other
arguments that trans people are confused or fundamentally mistaken about their
own identity, for if someone was intentionally misusing the system, they would
most certainly be aware of it. Moreover, we challenge Dr. van der Breggen to
find a statistically significant number of trans people (already a small
section of our population) who exploit or make up trans identities in order to
access any privileges. We are certain such a group is not large enough to count
as statistically significant, never mind represent any threat to society.
Needless to say, the number of people who claim a trans-racial identity is
much, much smaller, and they are typically called out with condemnation as with
the high profile case of Rachel Dolezal.
Van der Breggen:
This is all beside the point. Here again is
the (major) point that I set out above:
Yes, in my article I do provide a link to the
Carlson-Areu interview. Why? To acknowledge my source (this is to use a link as
a footnote). But, and significantly, in my article I do not set out Carlson's
point about changing gender to gain access to privileges. Rather, I set out
several other specific responses from Areu to Carlson's other specific questions.
And those other specific responses are the responses that provide fodder for my
reductio ad absurdum argument. For
Dykstra and Sheedy to suggest otherwise is to misrepresent my article. Again.
An aside (while keeping in mind the fact that
the above Dykstra-Sheedy criticism is beside the point): It seems that there may
very well be something like “privileges” arising from exploiting or making up
trans identities. Consider these examples which have loomed large in recent
news:
- a man claiming to be a woman pummels an actual woman to win a women's mixed martial arts event
- a man claiming to be a woman wins first place in a women's cycling competition
- a man claiming to be a woman wins a women's weight-lifting competition
- a boy claiming to be a girl dominates a girls' track-and-field event
- various men claiming to be women prefer to use women's change spaces, showers, toilets
- a man claiming to be a six-year-old girl likes the reduced responsibilities associated with being a little girl instead of an adult man
- a man claiming to be a woman gets moved to a women's detention centre
- a man claiming to be a woman goes into a women's shelter
- a man claiming to be a woman wins a beauty pageant
- more and more teens seem to see what some researchers have called “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” as a means to gain social status in an identity-politics peer culture (some researchers have described this as a “social contagion”)
The incidence of cases in which trans
identities have some sort of “privileges” seems to be growing, and I suspect
they will continue to grow if our society continues to embrace the faulty philosophical-metaphysical
view that subjectivity is trump as a guide to what is real.
That is philosophically
significant. Why? Because ideas have consequences—and the consequences of bad
ideas are sometimes disastrous.
To answer the question about whether these
cases are statistically significant,
I would recommend further research.
Keeping the above aside as an aside, let's get
back to the Dykstra-Sheedy “smack down.”
Dykstra & Sheedy:
Whether such condemnation is fair or helpful for
understanding these issues is a different question, though one thing is clear:
the vast majority of people who support and want to think in a meaningful way
about transgender issues do not think that any way of identifying oneself is
simply “ok,” no questions asked.
Van der Breggen:
Really? The vast majority? I don't think it's
so clear.
Consider this recent news story about a pro-trans
psychotherapist: “In 20 years we'll look back on the rush to change our
children's sex as one of the darkest chapters in medicine, says psychotherapist
BOB WITHERS.”
In this report, an experienced psychotherapist
(a psychotherapist who celebrates “gender variance”) is troubled about the fact
that there are 17 children transitioning in one secondary school (in Britain)
and claims this is not an isolated case. The pro-trans psychotherapist goes on
to state this: “in today’s NHS [National Health Service, England],
professionals are enabling hundreds—possibly thousands—of teenagers to have
major surgery to change their gender. It is being done, almost unchallenged, in
the name of transgender rights.” Again: “It is being done, almost unchallenged, in the name of transgender rights” (my italics).
This seems to be evidence of it's-simply-okay-no-questions-asked—to a large
extent.
Also, and closer to home, consider these
claims from the Manitoba provincial government's 2017 document Supporting Transgender and Gender Diverse Students in
Manitoba Schools:
“Students have the right to self-identify.
Self-identification is the sole measure of a student's gender identity.”
Professionals and parents “cannot change a young person's internal sense of self.”
These claims very much seem to imply logically that a young person's sense of
self—subjective feeling—as being the
biological sex that they are not is solely up to the student. And this very
much seems to imply logically that professionals and parents have no right to
challenge or question this.
Aside: For a few more of my thoughts about
Manitoba's aforementioned document, see my article Transtruth?
Dykstra & Sheedy:
Also in the clip, and in Dr. van der Breggen’s piece,
gender and sex are persistently conflated, which makes overly simplistic the
way that human beings embody both sex and gender. Gender and sex are not the
same, though they are co-implicated in ways we still do not quite understand.
Sex is biology. Gender is the way we present ourselves in the world as
masculine, feminine, or somewhere inbetween. Sexual biology, like gender,
exists on a spectrum of possibilities in humans not just for people designated
intersex, but for all of us: tell us, how do you confirm your sex? Genitals?
Chromosomes? Gonads? Hormones? Did you know that all of these designations are
unstable? See Anne Fausto-Sterling or Myra Hird’s work, for example. Gender is also a series of
possibilities, including how we chose to dress, what toys we play with as
children, how we move our bodies.
Van der Breggen:
In the clip and the article, the focus of the
logical implications of my three theses is on the fellow Adam Wheeler (now
called Ja Du) who is a biological man but feels
he is a Filipino woman. And Cathy
Areu defends Adam Wheeler being a Filipino
woman. Gender and sex are not being conflated.
Questions of race/ethnicity aside, think of it
this way: A biological man claims to be a
biological woman because he feels he
is, but he has none of these: two X chromosomes, a vagina, breasts, ovaries, a
uterus, and a menstrual cycle. The justification is I-feel-I-am-X-therefore-I-am-X.
Spectrum or no spectrum, there is a problem here. This is the problem my
article addresses. This is the storm: a metaphysical storm of subjectivity
being trump as a guide to reality.
About Drs. Dykstra and Sheedy’s claim that
there exists “a spectrum of possibilities” in sexual biology, it is important
to realize that this alleged spectrum is not due to settled science. There is
evidence for thinking it has more to do with an ideology masquerading as
science. On this topic, see Ryan T. Anderson's book When Harry Became Sally:
Responding to the Transgender Moment (Encounter 2018). See too Anderson's article The Philosophical Contradictions of the Transgender
Worldview.
About Anne Fausto-Sterling's work (to which
Drs. Dykstra and Sheedy provide a link), it is important to realize that her
work does not go unchallenged. For example, Debra W. Soh, who holds a PhD in
sexual neuroscience, disagrees with Anne Fausto-Sterling. See Debra Soh's
recent article, Science Shows Sex Is Binary, Not a Spectrum.
Drs. Dykstra and Sheedy make it look as if the
science (i.e., sexual biology being a spectrum) behind transgender claims is
settled. It is not settled. (Misrepresentation number 8.)
Dykstra & Sheedy:
To suggest that gender comes exclusively from our biology is to misunderstand that gender has always been changing. Think about it: does masculinity look the same now as in 1750? Of course not. It used to be that to be a woman meant always wearing skirts. Whether we believe now that women should wear skirts or not, we agree that not wearing skirts does not make a person a man. A quick glance at cultural patterns over time in different parts of the world reveals a wide variation of what is considered to be ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine,’ even in our own culture where styles of hair style, dress, and recreational activities have undergone radical changes over time. It was not too long ago that women were discouraged from so-called masculine activities — be it sport, exercise, military service, and many jobs such as medicine and engineering. Most people today consider these views antiquated as we’ve proven them to be false (of course women can do these things), though it’s worth keeping in mind that it was only a few decades ago that many argued that women being able to vote, drive a car, or have a personal bank account was ‘insane.’ We don’t mean to suggest that these differences in gender norms are the same issue as transgender identities (there are many important differences), but we do want to say, in no uncertain terms, that to dismiss something because it’s not what we’re used to or comfortable with is not an argument. It is fear-mongering in place of an argument and functions to draw a line in the sand, through caricature and demonization, rather than through a careful consideration of a very difficult topic.
Van der Breggen:
See my previous comment. Also, please note
that I do not “dismiss something because it’s not what we’re used to or
comfortable with.” To suggest that I am, as Dykstra and Sheedy suggest (in bold), is to misrepresent my
article. Again. (Misrepresentation 9.)
Dykstra & Sheedy:
As for the comment by Robert Gagnon that Dr. van der Breggen cites — that people might identify “as a 5-year old so as to excel in kindergarten,” (or as Napoleon), which suggests that “biology has no bearing on reality” engages in a straw person, a slippery slope argument (that one outcome will necessarily lead to increasingly absurd outcomes, without basing such a slide in evidence), and outright hyperbole (of course this example is absurd, and an extreme outlier even if it does exist).
Van der Breggen:
No, it is not a straw person of
I-feel-I-am-X-therefore-I-am-X reasoning to think that if we accept
I-feel-I-am-X-therefore-I-am-X reasoning, then this will suggest that biology has no
bearing on reality. The fact is that the acceptance of such reasoning logically
implies that biology has no bearing on reality. Think of anorexia nervosa: here
a person feels she is overweight but is, in biological fact, not. But if we
hold to I-feel-I-am-X-therefore-I-am-X, then we would have to concede (if we are
logically consistent) that her biology has no bearing on reality. The fact that
biology does in fact have a bearing on reality shows that the I-feel-I-am-X-therefore-I-am-X
reasoning is faulty.
Is this a slippery slope fallacy? No, because if one accepts I-feel-I-am-X-therefore-I-am-X
reasoning, then the acceptance of this reasoning logically justifies a host of
absurd consequences. Significantly, if my feelings about myself are
sufficient justification for my identity, why stop at transgender (e.g., a man
identifying as a woman)? Why not trans-age: a 52-year-old man identifying as a 6-year-old girl? Why not trans-species: a human identifying as a dog or cat or dragon? I-feel-I-am-X-therefore-I-am-X reasoning justifies all
of these absurd outcomes. The links (above,
in my questions) provide evidence and confirm the logical outcomes—absurdities—of
I-feel-I-am-X-therefore-I-am-X reasoning.
And none of this is hyperbole (exaggeration).
It's a logical outworking of I-feel-I-am-X-therefore-I-am-X.
In other words, Drs. Dykstra and Sheedy set out
three falsehoods in one sentence. Wow.
Dykstra & Sheedy:
We’ve heard similar arguments for many years that ‘gay
marriage’ will lead to beastiality. Has this proven to be true? Of course not.
It was a method of providing a harmful example in order to incite fear of a
population people did not understand. The ridiculous examples provided by van
der Breggen undermine his argument because they are similarity fallacious. These
examples are provided in bad faith.
Van der Breggen:
No, my examples are neither fallacious nor
provided in bad faith. See my relevant comments above.
Now, because Drs. Dykstra and Sheedy bring up the topic of same-sex marriage, permit
me to direct readers to my article/talk: Is Same-Sex Marriage Like a Subway Sandwich? It turns out that there are consequences arising from same-sex marriage—and some of these
consequences are deeply problematic and should concern all of us. This is not
to incite fear. Rather, it is to carefully use evidence and reasoning to
discern what is true, even though what is true may be uncomfortable and even
troubling. And this is not fallacious reasoning presented in bad faith,
contrary to what Drs. Dykstra and Sheedy assert.
Dykstra & Sheedy:
When we argue in bad faith, that is when we choose the
most inflammatory example of any one phenomena and present it as indicative of
the whole, which is what Dr. van der Breggen does here, we do an injustice to
each other. This injustice does not, as thesis three of Dr. van der Breggen
document would have it, indicate hate, but a lack of respect for the other. We
need to care for each other, even if the other confuses us or makes our
lifestyle feel threatened. Dr. van der Breggen argues elsewhere that trans people need to be treated with respect even
if some folks disagree that they are, indeed, the gender they are. By arguing
in bad faith, the respect Dr. van der Breggen tells us we all need to have for
trans people is undermined.
Van der Breggen:
Let's see. Drs. Dykstra and Sheedy claim that
I have argued in bad faith in my article “Perfect Storm.” To argue in good
faith means at least that we do not misrepresent those with whom we are
arguing. Drs. Dykstra and Sheedy's claim holds only if their arguments have
merit. Significantly, however, Drs. Dykstra and Sheedy have thus far
misrepresented my and others’ views not just once, not just twice, but nine times! They have also set out
various other instances of shoddy reasoning plus some false claims.
Surely, Drs. Dykstra and Sheedy's “smack down”—which
employs numerous misrepresentations, various other instances of shoddy
reasoning, plus falsehoods—does not serve to help those persons whose cause Drs.
Dykstra and Sheedy purport to champion. It seems to me that, at minimum, caring
for and respecting others includes
caring for and respecting reason and truth. Otherwise, “care” for others
becomes mere sentiment and disconnected from reality—disconnected from the
reality of what is in fact needed for human beings to flourish. As I have argued, feelings are not a
sufficient guide to reality.
Dykstra & Sheedy:
We need to listen to each other.
There is no doubt that our world is changing rapidly.
This change has been expedited by access to the Internet. In response, people
are negotiating all kinds of new possibilities. People who, in the past, have
not had access to a forum to share their experiences are starting to have one
(think about how many narratives of Indigenous people, or racial or sexual
minorities were published by mainstream publishers prior to the 1970s, for
example. The Internet has exploded these possibilities to have minority
experiences read by a large public). Like Bambi on new and uncertain legs, we
are all negotiating this interconnected new world full of new ways of
explaining our experiences, desires, and identities. We may not agree with how
someone expresses their identity, or even how they explain it. But, we need to
approach each other as equals, as worthy of being listened to in good faith. If
we don’t understand something, it behooves us even more to listen to the people
around us that might be able to help us get to a more informed place. We need
to stop looking for inflammatory YouTube videos that will confirm our biases,
but instead go out into our communities and meet real people that embody the
identities we think are putting us at risk. Ask questions with an honest ear to
listening.
Van der Breggen:
Yes, I agree. I would also encourage Drs.
Dykstra and Sheedy to read more carefully. Why? So they would not misrepresent
others, not set out instances of shoddy reasoning, and not set out other faulty
claims as they—Dykstra and Sheedy—publicize their
confirmation bias.
IV. Conclusion
It
seems to me that Drs. Dykstra and Sheedy's alleged smack down is, from the
perspective of careful reasoning and truth-seeking,
a failure—a dismal failure. To defend this conclusion, I provided a link to
Drs. Dykstra and Sheedy's article, and I then critiqued their article in
detail.
I ask the
reader to think carefully about what Drs. Dykstra and Sheedy and I have
written. Drs. Dykstra and Sheedy attempt to argue that I argued in bad faith in
my article “Perfect Storm.” As I point out, to argue in good faith means at
least that we do not misrepresent those with whom we are arguing. As I also point
out, Drs. Dykstra and Sheedy engage in nine
misrepresentations: they misrepresent my views (at least) seven times, they misrepresent Jordan Peterson’s view,
and they misrepresent transgender-related science (as settled, when it's not
settled). These are not minor slips—these are all serious misrepresentations.
As I argue too, Drs. Dykstra and Sheedy also mischaracterize my view as
“extraordinarily silly,” they present a bizarre if not logically incoherent
claim, they ignore an important argument of mine, plus they set out several
falsehoods about what I wrote. And there are various other errors (apparently
due to a lack of proof reading).
Drs. Dykstra
and Sheedy titled their article, “Bad Faith Smack Down: The Case for Arguing in
Good Faith.” In my personal and professional opinion, Drs. Dykstra and Sheedy’s
article does not succeed as a smack down. In fact, it fails miserably.
Therefore, the
argument of my article(s) still stands. And the concerns raised by my article(s)
continue to stand, too.
V. Personal postscript
I am a firm
believer in the importance of careful reasoning and truth-seeking. These
protect us from what Dr. Jordan Peterson calls “ideological possession,” which
is a failure to think carefully to seek truth and thus be in the grips of a set
of faulty ideas that do the “thinking” for us. It seems to me that we do those
precious people who have gender dysphoria and/or other problems no favours if
we abandon careful reasoning and truth-seeking. We need to
care for such precious people, for sure. Careful reasoning and truth-seeking
is, I believe, part of that care (see below for additional resources for those
who have gender dysphoria).
I hope that my
above interaction with Drs. Dykstra and Sheedy's work will be helpful to all of
us, especially those who are tempted to succumb to the philosophical view that,
as a guide to reality, subjectivity—whatever I feel—is trump.
I appreciate
Drs. Dykstra and Sheedy for their desire to champion the well-being of others,
and I hope they appreciate me for my desire to do the same. In spite of our
disagreements (and perhaps even frustrations with each other), I would like to
believe that Drs. Dykstra and Sheedy and I heartily agree that it's good that
we live in a society that permits open discussion—such as the discussion in our
articles.
If I have made
mistakes in my above response to Drs. Dykstra and Sheedy (or in any of my
articles), I hope that careful readers will discern them and offer corrections.
VI. Recommended resources
Here are some resources
(books, videos, articles) related to the transgender topic:
- For help for those who struggle with sexuality issues, see the websites for Journey Canada or Living Out or Restored Hope Network.
- For a look at some science-based arguments that question the wisdom of promoting sex (heterosexual sex as well as non-heterosexual sex) at an early age, see Miriam Grossman's book, You're Teaching My Child WHAT? A Physician Exposes the Lies of Sex-Ed and How They Harm Your Child.
- For a careful philosophical as well as scientific look at the transgender issue, see Ryan T. Anderson's book, When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment. Plus see this 59 minute video which, refreshingly, shows pros AND cons concerning the transgender issue: Transgender Kids: Who Knows Best? Also see Gender Dysphoria in Children: Understanding the Science and Medicine, which is a video discussion (1 hour, 8 minutes) with Michelle Cretella, MD (President, American College of Pediatricians), Paul Hruz, MD, PhD (Associate Professor of Pediatrics, Endocrinology, Cell Biology and Physiology, Washington University School of Medicine), and Allan Josephson, MD (Professor and Division Chief, Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, University of Louisville), hosted by Ryan T. Anderson, PhD (Senior Research Fellow in American Principles and Public Policy, Heritage Foundation). See also the American College of Pediatricians' document Gender Ideology Harms Children. For a gay man's argument against banning conversion therapy for transgender children, see Marcus Gregory's article, “How Conversion Therapy Bans Will Trap Transgender Children.”
- For testimonies of former transgender people, see the DVD Tranzformed: Finding Peace with Your God-given Gender.
- On
the Bible and the transgender issue, see Andrew T. Walker's book, God and the
Transgender Debate: What Does the Bible Actually Say about Gender
Identity?
Note to
critics: Please read my work carefully before commenting. Please also take a
look at least a few of the above-suggested readings/videos before commenting.
And please keep in mind that the following are not mutually exclusive: (a)
truth-seeking via the careful use of reason and evidence and (b) showing
respect and love to those with whom one disagrees. Thanks.
Hendrik
van der Breggen, PhD, is Associate Professor of Philosophy at Providence
University College, Manitoba, Canada. The views expressed in his writings do
not always reflect the views of Providence.
2 comments:
I was irritated at their comment that this article got their "shackles" up. I believe they meant "hackles" - as in the "erectile hairs along the back of a dog or other animal that rise when it is angry or alarmed," and not "shackles" as in, "a U-shaped piece of metal secured with a clevis pin or bolt across the opening, or a hinged metal loop secured with a quick-release locking pin mechanism."
I was pleased to note that I caught most of the errors you described, even if all I could do was say, "That seems... off, somehow," and didn't have the eloquence of years of experience to give words to my concern.
Thanks Chris. I have added your point about "hackles" (parenthetically) in the main body above. Thanks again.
Post a Comment