You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Rhetorical Dodges’ tag.
Activists realize that they cannot argue on the basis of fact, therefore they must always derail the conversation with hyperbole and emotive rhetoric. Let’s see what you can do to nullify their framing and keep the conversation going.
The phrase “You just don’t want trans people to exist” is often used as a rhetorical jab in debates about transgender issues, implying that opposition to specific policies or ideas equates to denying trans individuals’ right to exist. Here are three counterarguments that challenge this framing without negating the humanity or rights of trans people:
1. **Disagreement Isn’t Denial**: Opposing certain transgender-related policies—like sports participation rules, bathroom access, or medical interventions for minors—doesn’t mean someone wants trans people erased. It’s possible to support trans individuals’ right to exist while questioning specific implementations based on fairness, safety, or biological considerations. For example, some argue that in sports, physical differences tied to biological sex can impact competition, citing cases like Lia Thomas in NCAA swimming, where debates centered on fairness, not existence.
2. **Framing Oversimplifies Complex Issues**: The phrase flattens nuanced discussions into a moral absolute, shutting down debate. Issues like gender dysphoria treatment, especially for kids, involve competing views—some push for affirmation-only approaches, while others advocate caution, pointing to studies like the Cass Review in the UK, which found weak evidence for puberty blockers’ long-term benefits. Disagreeing on medical protocols doesn’t mean rejecting trans people’s existence; it’s about differing on what’s best for well-being.
3. **Intent Matters**: Accusing someone of wanting trans people gone assumes malicious intent that might not be there. Many people, even conservatives or traditionalists, don’t wish harm but hold views rooted in their understanding of biology, culture, or religion. A 2023 Gallup poll showed 69% of Americans believe trans athletes should compete based on birth sex, yet most don’t advocate for banning trans people from society. Conflating policy disagreement with existential denial misrepresents motives.
These counterarguments aim to refocus on substantive issues rather than emotional gotchas, though they don’t dismiss the real fears or experiences of trans individuals in heated debates.
One of the argumentative dodges that ideologues like to employ is something I’ve termed the ‘complexity dodge’. Now to clear many arguments and many issue are complex and nuanced and do require careful examination and sometimes expert knowledge to fully grasp in their entirety. Legitimate expert guidance and knowledge must not be dismissed when it comes to understanding and discussing issues that affect society.
However, certain contentious topics in society have intentionally had their definitional clarity muddied and obscured to prevent people from clearly understanding what the terms mean and how they are being used in social contexts. For instance the intentional blurring of boundaries around the word “woman” has created situations like this:
When a Supreme Court Justice hedges on correctly defining a woman as an adult human female we can know for certain that something weird is going on ‘under the hood’, so to speak.
The meaning of the word “woman” has been intentionally made fuzzy and unclear. The rival notion rather than ‘adult human female’ is ‘anyone who identifies as a woman’ which is clearly a circular definition because the definition when provided does not tell us what a woman actually is. If we cannot clearly define the terms in an argument it becomes very difficult to understand arguments and to parse the logic of people using the terms in question.
Witness:
This is the kind of bullshite that goes on in Gotham when people have intentionally muddied the waters in the ideological pursuit of their goals. This exchange is from a thread about a Canadian Nurse being put on trial for adhering to basic human biological facts. It’s crazy making.
So, appreciate complexity and nuance but be aware that both of these attributes can be weaponized to make arguing much more difficult and onerous than it needs to be.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…