Thursday, May 10, 2018

The Pot Calling The Kettle Black*

The right pushes junk science in their argument against us and our rights, organizations like the American College of Pediatricians that push the works of Dr. Paul Hugh and Dr. Zucker.

I came across this article on a conservative news site…
In the Transgender Debate, Conservatives Can’t Compromise the Truth
National Review
By David French
May 9, 2018

Over on the home page, J.J. McCullough has penned a piece urging a “compromise on transgenderism,” but as I read it, this proposed compromise looks a lot like capitulation. While J.J. rightly notes that the Left has overreached in its “effort to strong-arm sweeping social change as a flex of their power,” he asks conservatives to essentially abandon their central argument and accept the radical left’s premise that a man can be a woman or a woman can be a man. This paragraph stands out:
Though transgenderism is a far rarer phenomenon than homosexuality, I think most adults could admit it does seem like a rather persistent aspect of humanity. Most can probably recall a transgender person making at least some minor appearance in their life. If we concede that transgenderism is not going away, and is not something anyone intends to exert effort toward ending, then Americans, especially conservative ones, should reflect on our culture’s honest and fair attitude toward homosexuality and acknowledge that the most sensible path out of the present acrimony will probably require similar compromise. Some degree of cultural ceasefire and consensus seems the only path for both sides to maintain a degree of pride while avoiding a more radical, disruptive societal transformation. (Emphasis added.)
I can acknowledge that gender dysphoria is a “persistent aspect of humanity,” but I will not concede that gender dysphoria trumps biology, and I don’t think our culture should cease efforts towards “ending” the dangerous notion that men or women should amputate healthy organs in the quest to sculpt their bodies to become something they’re not. Gender dysphoria may not “go away,” but transgenderism is something else entirely. Our culture is in the midst of a live and important dispute over the very nature of biological reality — and over the psychological and spiritual health of hundreds of thousands of precious souls — and now is not the time to abandon the field.
I find this totally ironic when the title says “Can’t Compromise the Truth” and then they write “I will not concede that gender dysphoria trumps biology” and they totally ignore current research and base their thinking on 1950 science. There is so much new research that shows that there are differences in the our brains and there are so many factors that determine "sex" than just chromosomes.
But once you grant the premise that a man is, in fact, a woman, don’t all these consequences flow directly from that concession? After all, existing nondiscrimination statutes are quite clear in their scope. And judicial precedents are increasingly aligning with this new fiction. To “compromise” on identity (including on pronouns) is to end the dispute.
Once again they have their heads in the sand.

Maybe it is because the law is keeping up on science and the precedent of the Supreme Court Price Waterhouse ruling that “sex” discrimination also includes sex “stereotyping” and not ignoring or twisting the facts.

The article ends with,
I understand the desire for social peace. Truly I do. The culture wars are exhausting and divisive. But treating every single human being with dignity and respect means not just defending their constitutional liberties and showing them basic human kindness, it also means telling the truth — even when the truth is hard. Any compromise that requires conservatives to grant the other side’s false and harmful premise is no compromise at all.
Have you looked in a mirror lately?

I would tell you yes “it also means telling the truth — even when the truth is hard” maybe there is a reason that the AMA, APA, NASW, AAP, the Endocrine Society, and a host of other professional associations all disagree with you.



* If you are not familiar with this saying, according to Slate it means… “This saying, which personifies kitchenware in order to make a point about hypocrisy, means “to criticize someone for a fault you also possess.” Per WiseGeek, the phrase dates back to the early 1600s, when most pots and kettles were fashioned from cast iron, a material that acquires streaks of black smoke when heated over a flame.”

No comments: