Arguing content, arguing process
Commenter “F” asked a question yesterday on the thread about the exchange between Bridges and Hawley concerning who can get pregnant:
I think the question of violence is where Bridges wins the point. It is a dishonest point — Hawley was not visiting violence on anyone — but it is one that rocks Hawley back on his heels for a second. So if we are to debate with woke people, we need to have a way to respond to the question of violence. Perhaps with a legal definition, perhaps with a syllogism that refutes the point, but the important issue is to be able to prevent people like Bridges from winning a point by saying “violence.”
Anybody have a good suggestion on this?
Years ago I wrote several posts on the content/process distinction in argument or discussion. I’m going to link to them again, because I think they’re relevant and I think the points made there are important. The first is this one, and the second is this. To recap a bit:
When I was studying interpersonal communication and how to track an argument, one thing that was very much emphasized was the difference between content and process. Content is just what it sounds like: the subject matter about which two people (let’s say, a married couple) are arguing. “Did you do the dishes last night?” Process is everything else—for example, the emotion with which something is said, the type of vocabulary used, tone, repetition, body language, and the unspoken subtext.
Some of the most confusing disputes are the ones where one person begins an argument on the content level and the other person introduces a process rebuttal at some point. It can be especially tricky when someone switches back and forth between one level and the other in rapid succession. In the heat of the moment, the other person can fail to notice it, so that the person doing the switching gets at least one step ahead of the other.
In the Bridge/Hawley exchange, both things are operating at the same time, as they usually are. But the question “F” asks concerns Bridges’ use of the term “violence” to describe Hawley’s words, which are not the least bit violent, as well as being words rather than acts. So Hawley, or someone in his position, can choose between a content argument or a process argument, or can combine the two.
An example of a content argument would involve challenging Bridges implication that Hawley’s words – his questions, and later his claim that men cannot get pregnant – will function to put already-vulnerable-to-suicide trans people at even greater risk. Hawley attempts a version of that challenge. Another example would be to challenge the claim that words can equal violence; Hawley also attempts a version of that.
He then resorts to some snark, which Bridges has already displayed as well; that’s a process approach. But my suggestion would be to eliminate the snark and go to a different kind of process move – you might call it a meta-process move – and to challenge the entire premise of what the left is actually doing here, which is to redefine reality through words and to reify personal belief systems as truth. That’s actually the heart of the matter, and I think it needs to be called out.
Not that it would convince anyone on the left; of course it won’t. But it’s an attempt to pull back the curtain and expose the inner workings of the tactic, and make it clear what’s going on and how revolutionary it really is.
Here’s an example, off the top of my head (there are probably better ones):
What you’re doing here is the sort of thing the left continually does, which is to attempt to redefine words as they see fit, in order to drive a political agenda. In doing that, the left throws out the obvious traditional meanings of a word such as “woman” or “violence,” and substitutes something that not only contradicts the word’s traditional meaning but contradicts reality, and substitutes a politically-driven completely subjective meaning for words, a meaning that denies reality. [Then I would suggest shifting to a more content-focused argument.] We all know – although you refuse to say – that only biological females who are past puberty – that is, young women or women – get pregnant, as opposed to biological males – that is, young men or men. To deny that is to deny reality. And we all know that words are words and are not violence, and that violence refers to acts rather than words. The left doesn’t get to determine these things, and the left sounds absurd when it tries to do so.
When I was quite young, 8th grade or so, I found that one way to deal with argument is to ask questions. Keep asking questions, which requires quick thinking, but asking someone to define terms is an example. When she said “not all cis-females can get pregnant,” he might have said, “are you referring to post menopausal females ?” When she said trans men can get pregnant, he might have said “are you referring to men with XY chromosomes?”
Frankly, I was not much impressed with her. I also noticed her nose rings, two of them.
This approach would have been much more effective than what Hawley actually said. Bridges could have either ingnored the reply and continued to use her own definitions for “woman” and “violence” or tried to rebut the reply and defend her definitions of “woman” and “violence.”
I think Bridges would have responded by citing trans suicide statistics – i.e., X% of trans identifying people commit suicide. She would have skipped over causation because she can’t prove it.
That’s a pure appeal to emotion. But it works. I suppose you could hit her on causation then, but a technical rebuttal of causation is going to lose a lot of people when up against a strong emotional appeal. We simply don’t educate people anymore to (try to) keep emotions out of their decision making.
I learned a new word today (or was refreshed about – my memory is not what it once was):
reify
transitive verb
To regard or treat (an abstraction) as if it had concrete or material existence.
And what a perfect term for the time we are living in.
Thank you Neo, your writing is always a pleasure to read since you do it so well.
Interesting. Yesterday I sent an email to my contact list (aimed at 20-30 something grandchildren primarily) with the subject line: “the most dangerous trend of the 21st century?”. (I confess I sometimes overstate the subject line in a desperate attempt to attract the attention of the targets; although I am not certain this was an over statement.)
Then I expounded on the ubiquitous redefinition–or de-definiton–of words with the intent to obfuscate, confuse, and create chaos.
I quoted the conversation between Humpty Dumpty and Alice to illustrate the arrogance of the culprits. I speculated whether either Carroll or Orwell ever imagined the state we find ourselves in at present.
I also cited the use of slogans, and titles intended to confuse and divide. Again the two that came to mind were: “Black Lives Matter” and “Antifa”. There are a multitude of those, of course. Many of the more current ones relate to “reproductive rights”.
This favored tactic of the Left is effective because we allow it to be. It first came to my attention with the ridiculous corruption of the word “gay” to describe a state of being that has nothing to do with gayness. But, it has now become the only acceptable term.
Oldflyer,
Expand your list to include “Pride.”
Bauxite:
A person could cite suicide rates before and after trans surgery, or could ask her if she’s aware of anyone ever committing suicide because another person said men can’t get pregnant.
When I was quite young, 8th grade or so, I found that one way to deal with argument is to ask questions. Keep asking questions, which requires quick thinking, but asking someone to define terms is an example.
— Mike K
Somewhere along the line I noticed that too and found it manipulative. Though I wasn’t sure why. I was pleased that in my 20s I encountered Fritz Perls, a founder of Gestalt Therapy, who better nailed my concern:
____________________________
You may have wondered about the fact that I almost never answer questions during therapy. Instead I usually ask the patient to change the question into a statement. The question mark has a hook the patient may use for many purposes, such as to embarrass the other person or, more often, to prevent himself from discovering what is really going on.
–Fritz Perls
____________________________
When I get questions, especially multiple, especially “you”-type, questions, I suspect I’m being manipulated. And usually I am, though it’s not that big a deal.
It’s an excellent strategy. By asking questions you put your opponent on the defensive — he may make a mistake, expose a weakness or get emotional — while you keep cool, save your energy and wait to take advantage.
Of course, in the Hawley-Bridges exchange it is Senator Hawley’s job to ask questions and Bridges to answer. Note how effective it is when Bridges switches to asking the questions, especially making it personal: “Are you? Are you?”
Perls was an interesting guy. He was a Jewish psychiatrist who escaped Nazi Germany and eventually landed on his feet, big time, at the Esalen Center in California. Which probably wouldn’t endear him to most conservatives, but at the core of his therapy was responsibility. He was quite tough on people who wanted to portray themselves as victims.
>redefinition–or de-definiton–of words with the intent to obfuscate, confuse, and create chaos
A “cisgender” man is a normal man, but it sounds like “sissy”. Also, the dictionary defines “cis-” as “near to”, so they are promoting the idea of blurry genders.
>gay” to describe a state of being that has nothing to do with
gaynessgaietyOne approach that is sometimes useful in debates/arguments is to restate your opponent’s position as accurately as you can, and ask him to confirm that the restatement is accurate. Only then launch your critique of it.
Of course, in the Hawley-Bridges exchange it is Senator Hawley’s job to ask questions and Bridges to answer. Note how effective it is when Bridges switches to asking the questions, especially making it personal: “Are you? Are you?” — huxley
I think most people are a little less likely to think logically than they are to think emotionally or on a personal level. Plus I think people are very much more likely to engage with a topic on an emotional or personal level. I wrote the part below, was going to delete it, and then saved it for later.
_______
I think the question of violence is where Bridges wins the point. It is a dishonest point — Hawley was not visiting violence on anyone — but it is one that rocks Hawley back on his heels for a second. — F
This whole thread is interesting and F makes a good point and query. Neo is spot on, though her example while technically perfect is a little dry and academic IMO. I don’t think Hawley was really rocked back. The prof. trots out her little well rehearsed transphobia paragraph, and Hawley feigns shock.
I guess most people or F don’t think Hawley’s approach worked well. I’d say it was mediocre or slightly better than mediocre. Why feign shock? Because she is insulting him, in a very clever and dishonest fashion. His transphobia and denial open trans people up to violence, she claims.
So 1) he is too ignorant to understand the impact of what he is saying, and 2) his misunderstandings can inadvertently lead to violence. The great thing about 2) is that she isn’t really saying that his comments are an incitement to violence, but she knows that many people will take it that way. That is, Hawley is a bad person. In analyzing leftist spin one always has to consider how it is likely to be construed or misconstrued, because much of that is intentional.
This is insulting, and I think that Hawley maybe could have begun by literally calling her comment “insulting nonsense.” He then could go on to say that he understands the impact of his words and that it is nonsensical to suggest that it is any way connected to violence.
______
To flog my point even further (too much?), I think pols and operatives in the GOP should pull out and read Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals at least once a week, or until it really sinks in.
#7: A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
Neo’s example is only slightly too long, but it is dry.
#13: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
The Prof. needs to be called out on her oblique slander.
I don’t see this as a complicated issue. Those who make the violence argument are doing what the left has become expert at, namely, getting the opposition to shut up. Making your opponent engage in self-censorship is their most powerful tool. The way to deal with this is simple; plainly state that there are violent people the world over whose behavior cannot be predicted, and to refrain from speech to avoid the risk of antagonizing them is not realistic. You might also add that we are well aware that their potential violence argument is not made out of concern for anyone’s safety, but a knowing attempt to limit the scope of the dispute.
I cannot believe time is being wasted on this issue. If there are no universal truths, words are not violence for example, than there is really nothing left. This has nothing to do with who won what. It’s about suppression of speech. What is currently going on at the vast majority of colleges. F’s take, I think is defective in the extreme because, while focusing on ” points won” Hawley missed the chance to call her out as the dictatorial tyrant she is. I despise people like her with the intensity of a thousand suns.
Richard Cook:
If the left wishes to make a big deal out of this issue – and they do – it needs attention by the right as well. In Canada, this is the issue that originally made Jordan Peterson famous, or at least a related issue. For Peterson, it was the issue of compelled speech in Canada, an issue of liberty. What we call things has large ramifications at times – for example, the housing of biological men in women’s prisons.
quiet conservative,
I agree with your basic point, but note that Prof. B isn’t directly suggesting that other people might attack trans people. Rather that trans people might be depressed into committing suicide. The specific violence she refers to is suicide.
The other thing that occurs to me is that there are two elements of intersectional victimhood at play in this event. One is that trans people are victims of society. (How high does a trans person rate on the intersecional roster? I really don’t know, but it is probably high.) So Hawley is attacking victims and the Prof. is defending the victims.
Secondly, Hawley’s response of surprise seems to me to suggest that the Prof. is being silly. This is a type of passive response, whereas my suggestion in the previous comment would be for him to counterattack her slanderous assertion. But Hawley is an elite white male, whereas the Prof. is a black female (intersectional victim). To argue against my previous comment, a Hawley counterattack could be portrayed as the powerful preying upon the weak.
I do think it is a complicated situation.
Neo –
No, it is not the particular issue. It is that conservatives did not respond in the beginning to suppression and manipulation of the language. So here we are for the umpteenth time playing catch up and never really catching up. Peterson is really (at least to me) better known for his commentary on feminism and the battle between the sexes.
There is no empirical or intellectual weight to Prof. Bridges’s discourse. She makes a series of accusations and assertions notable for their detachment from experience, biology, and observation. Listening to Bridges is like getting the run-around from a five-year-old who doesn’t want to go to bed. She has an answer for everything on her own terms, but her terms do not reflect either reason or experience.
Amadeus. True And followed by “Why are you yelling at me?” “yelling” is defined as telling the kid to do something he’s supposed to do. But, because the adult is “yelling”, the adult is wrong and should shut up.
Or the argument devolves to “I’m not yelling,”
Seen this forever and Bridges–and a bazillion others–use the same techniques.
I suppose suggesting the suicides among trans folk–those who’ve had the work done, not those simply “identifying–could be the realization they’ve well and truly screwed themselve and there’s no way back.
I keep referring to Slenderman stabbings. Some people are suggestible and need……any number of things promised by some radical action. And when trendy authority figures, including parents, are in the mix, and you do or have done to you some serious stuff and….you’re lying in bed trying not to scream….
neo – The only research I’m aware of regarding pre and post op suicide rates for gender dysphoric people is Paul McHugh’s work at Johns Hopkins. (Do you know of any others?) McHugh, if I recall, found no difference in suicide rates pre and post op and famously closed Johns Hopkins’ gender clinic for that reason.
The problem is that McHugh has been cancelled because, to the left, only a bigot could have produced the results he did. (And I believe he was also one of those icky Catholics.) I have no doubt that Bridges knows the current woke research better than Hawley. So if Hawley were to ask the questions you suggest, Bridges would probably cite the best woke research she could muster and pretend she doesn’t know about McHugh. If confronted with McHugh’s research, she would discount it with whatever fig leaf technical justification she has and/or with a straight ad hominem assertion that McHugh was a bigot who can’t be trusted.
At that point unless Hawley is able to do a deep technical dive into the current research, he loses the encounter in the eyes of most casual observers. Even if Hawley is able to discuss the literature, his best outcome at that point is a draw with partisan observers sticking to their priors and uncommitteds glazing over. A draw is better than a loss, but I still can’t game a way to come out ahead.
In a way, that relates to your process versus content point. The left has a hammerlock on the academy and, therefore, insists that all disputes be resolved by academics. Coming up with a rebuttal to that process argument is hard and against the nature of a conservative because it requires denigrating what have previously been very valuable institutions.
Bauxite
If most casual observers think Hawley lost this debate. And, I think most are casual observers of the political scene, then that tells me there is really nothing left of a viable political culture that is firmly rooted in undeniable truths. It’s now merely an amorphous, shape shifting, rootless blob. That can be maneuvered to accept anything.
Richard Cook – I don’t think Hawley actually did lose the exchange that occurred, but I’d score it as a draw. The folks inclined to agree with Hawley likely said, “look at the insane academic!” The folks inclined to agree with Bridges likely said, “look at the bigot!”
The question is about how those without priors resonded. (I suppose most of those without priors don’t follow political Twitter or blogs like this so they never knew anything about it.)
I think Trump’s contribution is that he understands at a gut level what I think we are all getting at here. The process is rigged. You can’t prevail intellectually against an indeology that has corrupted our institutions. Sometimes you have to knock over the table. Of course, just standing there knocking over the table again and again won’t fix the problem either.
Bauxite –
Depends what you mean by knocking over the table. When you have two groups with two wildly differing visions for this country, if you look at history, it usually gets resolved in one way. With alot of violence.
I’m kinda with Richard Cook on this one. An easy response by Hawley would have been:
“Wait. You’re telling me that my saying words that you don’t want to hear is violence? If I go up and smack you, it’s violence. Making a statement is not violence, and no one who thinks that should be teaching young people anything.”
It needs to be dismissed right out of hand as the lunacy it is.
Neo:
Thank you for addressing my query. I do indeed remember your content/process disquisition, but I went back to refresh my understanding of what you had said. The Rubio/Christy exchange was particularly on point.
And thank you to the many commenters who have weighed in on my original post. There’s a lot of good analysis out there, which we have all come to expect from this blog.
I personally like the following, posted by Neo:
“. . . to challenge the entire premise of what the left is actually doing here, which is to redefine reality through words and to reify personal belief systems as truth. That’s actually the heart of the matter, and I think it needs to be called out.”
My concern is that a Congressional hearing is a poor place to do this. I would far rather see Hawley publish an op-ed in the NYTimes with that challenge in it. True, it would be missed by a few people who saw the original exchange, or heard about it later. And true, too, that he wouldn’t change the mind of true believers on the left. For them, Hawley is wrong and a violent sexist no matter what he says. But having his thoughts published in a national newspaper would put him on record with a sensible refutation of what Professor Bridges was proposing. Yes, as others have pointed out, the true believers will believe what they already do, so this will not change any minds. But it will help Hawley clarify his own thoughts on the issue and give him something to refer back to in future debates: “as I wrote in the NYTimes on July 18th. . .” And that becomes valuable as we try to keep the left from redefining words to their advantage.
I have no doubt that Bridges knows the current woke research better than Hawley.
There is no evidence from her published work that she could critically evaluate such a study.
Thanks to Richard Cook for stating the obvious.
To take Bridges seriously for a nanosecond is ridiculous waste of time and blog space.
}}} One is that trans people are victims of society. (How high does a trans person rate on the intersecional roster?
#2, offhand. Below Islam, but otherwise at the top.
It clearly ranks below Islam, because Christian “homophobia” is Utterly Unacceptable, but the blatantly, indisputably, far greater Islamic “homophobia” is “Whut Dat?”
Also because events like the gay nightclub in Orlando a few years back bring no comments about Islam and its clear and far more violent anti-homosexual positions, whereas if a Christian had done it, that would have made almost as much noise as the anti-gun arguments that the event produced.
}}} against the nature of a conservative because it requires denigrating what have previously been very valuable institutions.
I think, at this point, if you’re still thinking of these institutions as having any value, you’re a bigger fool than a PostModern Marxist Liberal Transsexual Feminist
Art Deco – Does that really matter with a corrupt academy? All she has to do is cite studies and conclusions. Maybe Hawley or some other opponent can point out why those studies are bunk, maybe not. It’s tough to refute published research, and especially tough when your opponents just keep citing the same research irregardless of how you argue against it.
It’s very much like all of the “research” that came out a decade or so ago purporting to show that gay couples were better parents than married, biological parents. Of course that was silly. From the dawn of social science, practically every study had shown better results for children raised by married biological parents versus any other conceivable parenting arrangement until these studies showed that same sex couples were better. It turns out they were allowing the same sex couples to self select for the studies and comparing them against a general population. Whoops! But even when that was pointed out, the leftists just deflected and continued insisting that the research was peer reviewed, which is the gold standard for truth!
And now ten years later, who cares because the left already got what they wanted.
Unfortunately, I don’t think it really matters whether the defenders of bad research are able to critically evaluate the studies. The talking points work just as well regardless. That’s the benefit of having captured the academy.
}}} But, because the adult is “yelling”, the adult is wrong and should shut up.
Or the argument devolves to “I’m not yelling,”
TBH, on this exact issue — there is a tone and manner which I assert people automatically take as “yelling”. It is mechanistically associated with it in our brains, I believe. The volume level is irrelevant (though I suspect a whisper is unlikely to apply)
I once had an argument with a cashier (lo, these many decades ago), in which she said to me, “Stop yelling at me”. I, started, stopped, looked at her, and said, “I’m not yelling. I’m speaking in a perfectly normal tone of voice.” She did a really obvious double-take, and it was clear to me she realized that what I said was entirely true.
After the end of the discussion, I self-examined and it was clear to me that I almost certainly was using an aggressive tone and body language, even though I was — unquestionably — speaking in a normal tone of voice (TBH, I really really wasn’t that upset! Just annoyed enough to adopt the tone and body language).
I can see this identical thing happening with an adult and a recalcitrant child/teen — so it may not be the child attempting to manipulate things — it could be that mechanistic response kicking in, and the adult honestly not aware of what they are doing, or the way it is perceived…
A point of view, not a statement of fact. I’ve done nothing to prove it in any regard, but I’ve always been more conscious of such ever since, and I do assert it as a possible fact and explanation for the interactions being discussed.
TommyJay
Can’t disagree with you more. This is quite simple. The attempt by the left to stifle speech that hurts them politically is too good an option for them to avoid, so their statements reflect an upside down logic that is designed to intimidate and confuse. It is therefore important, TommyJay, to not allow oneself to become confused. The totality of their positions is to promote self censorship, plain and simple, nothing complicated here as there arguments do not sway those of us who are not confused. Other quick points: (1) It sure sounds like “Prof. B” is suggesting attacks by others (2) I am not aware that your statement “trans people are victims of society” is supported by good evidence, so your position that “Hawley is attacking victims” is not sustainable.
Neo-
I have to tell you this is becoming my go to blog for civil discourse. I really appreciate the overall tone and reasoned posts (mostly) of the participants. My ears (figuratively) were tired of all the screaming elsewhere.
“Arguing content, arguing process….”
Arguing utter insanity…
“Georgetown law professor accuses Supreme Court justices of being ‘lawless ‘actors’ following abortion decision’
“St. John’s University professor also tweeted that lawyers who fail to resist the court are ‘Hitler’s butlers’”—
https://www.thecollegefix.com/georgetown-professor-accuses-supreme-court-justices-of-being-lawless-actors-following-abortion-decision/
H/T Instapunidit.
Not terribly encouraging….
No matter how well or poorly Hawley presented his side, if you were to poll all of humanity “can males get pregnant?” It would be obvious who wins.
Richard Cook:
Glad you’re enjoying it.
LeClerc:
Ignore her at your peril, because her type of thinking is rampant and has already affected both policy and liberty.
It is reassuring to find that the nose ring professor is not licensed to practice law in any state. I have pretty much given up on law schools. They seem to have gone off the edge to the left.
I am more concerned about medical schools. That sort of nonsense seems to be creeping into medical education. One would think with the prevalence of DNA and genetics in medicine, such nonsense would be hard to maintain but to the willing mind nothing is impossible.
I think the most important thing is to focus on what is framing the entire Bridges/Hawley exchange, namely the feminization of discourse in America. I mean, the actual appropriate response to Bridges’ “trans people will kill themselves” nonsense is a Scroogian “Well, have them hurry up and decrease the surplus population.”
Have you ever seen one of those videos from Asia or eastern Europe where actual fist fights break out in parliament? That’s closer to how things were in the days of the Founding Fathers than what we see in Washington DC today.
Mike
Mike K:
Critical Legal Studies, the father of Critical Race Theory, was birthed in law schools.
I thought silence is violence. I guess everything is violence.
I’m with Richard Cook and LeClerc. I think Hawley could, ideally, have said either of the following:
– The idea that my asking that question “threatens” trans people is too stupid for words.
– Here’s what the great physicist Wolfgang Pauli would have said about your accusation that my question “threatens” trans individuals: It’s so lame that it’s not even wrong.
People at large might find such sensible bluntness refreshing. And for those who’d respond to it with another round of Bridges-like hysteria, rinse and repeat.
Personally, I’d also be tempted to say “trans freaks” instead of “trans people,” to really set them off.
obloody
I get your point. However, the situation where the kid accuses the adult of “yelling” is not the first iteration of the instruction, but maybe the fourth, when actual yelling might be justified.
It’s not an issue of volume, but a deliberate deflection of the subject, making the kid–or the law professor–the injured party, and the adult the Bad Guy who should quit “yelling” and, by extension, whatever the adult is trying to communicate to the kid is no longer relevant.
You could be “yelling” in a whisper in this case.
Thus, you could be doing “violence” in some discussion and….all of a sudden, you’re the bad guy, the other party is on high moral ground and your argument is defeated. It matters not that no actual physical violence is involved in the discussion; either speech is violence if so accused, or it might incite violence on the part of some vague group of “bigots”.
Same process as “yelling”.
Have you ever seen one of those videos from Asia or eastern Europe where actual fist fights break out in parliament? That’s closer to how things were in the days of the Founding Fathers than what we see in Washington DC today.
1. Our legislature is chock full ‘o broads.
2. See Nancy Botox: old broads.
(Though it wouldn’t surprise me to discover that MTG and Lauren Boebert could hold their own in a brawl).
That exchange muddles medical symptoms, stress, and word play. “Gender Dysphoria” is a complex mess.
https://www.genderhq.org/trans-youth-suicide-statistics-kill-themselves-manipulate-parents
A physician has to know about a patient’s physicality. Security and disaster professionals also work on physicality. What the individual “identifies as” is mostly irrelevant.
Any individual under stress will probably do better in a supportive environment. That seems to be true with “Sexual Dysphoria”.
After some decades in medical center research laboratories (no patient care responsibilities), I tend to go with the physical. “Sexual Dysphoria” reads to me as an “epiphenomenon” (superficial phenomenon) on a deeper mental disorder. That is reenforced by the inability of these individuals to accept the concept of an unusual combination of physicality and identity. Most men and women do not obsess about dressing feminine or masculine. The typical “transgender” individual seems obsessed with appearance to the point that it appears to be a fetish. Some gay or lesbian individuals may signal “dominant” or “submissive” in certain social environments, but, for the most part, follow current style trends. The obsession with “passing” seen in transgender individuals, screams out to me as a symptom of an underlying problem. It is as if they can not accept their own identity.
In general, I am in agreement with Senator Hawley. A male with unusual “software” is still a biological male. Supportive family and friends may refer to such a person as “her”, but I see no reason to generally accept such a person as a woman. Professor Bridges is demanding that society accept the disordered self image of the unusual individual. In the “wild”, “he” isn’t a woman. In my world, the biological and physical determine the reality. In my social world, I am willing to compliment the cook (carefully) even if the dish is over cooked.
At a public hearing, Senator Hawley’s reality holds.
“Gender Dysphoria” is a complex mess.
I’m going to offer a hypothesis that it’s not that complex. Posit the problem is iatrogenic and the medical profession’s policy should to tell the subject to learn to live with it and, by the way, you look silly.
Art Deco. Strikes me that some practical advice on how to live with it might be both useful and cause the individual to think he’s being taken seriously. The latter might be more important.
And it would be useful how much of the issue is the result of trendy parents.