You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Trans “Existence”’ 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.
Know it when you see it.
“A very common (and newly-named) informal rhetorical trick I’ve been observing, both online and in real life, is this one right here. The motte-and-bailey fallacy (also known as the ‘motte-and-bailey doctrine’). Although it is often found in arguments made by supporters of social justice, a lot of extremist ideologies also use it.
Effectively, it is bait-and-switch. Example:
Monique: All white people are racist.
Joshua: Why do you believe that, when you don’t know every white person nor their beliefs?
Monique: Well, when we say “all whites are racist”, what we really mean is, all whites are racially biased as a result of being brought up with certain beliefs in the context of a racialised society.
Ignore the lack of specificity in Monique’s argument for a moment. Notice what she does. She asserts a controversial position (the bailey), which is desired, but hard to defend. When Joshua challenges her, she retreats to a less controversial position (the motte), which is easier to defend, but undesired. She then attempts to equate the two positions to obscure the fact that her claim was effectively stepped down.
The power of this fallacy lies in the ability to defend a less controversial, or “weaker” position, while giving the impression that a “stronger”, or more controversial one, was defended instead.
Another example of bait-and-switch:
Tim: Feminism is the radical notion that women are people. If you believe that, then surely, you must be a feminist.
This is motte-and-bailey as well, but without the bailey at first – call it the ‘Hidden Bailey’ fallacy. Tim gives an uncontroversial position, and equates it with his ideology – feminism – which is actually more than is implied in that statement. Virtually everyone will agree that women are people, yet, other concepts in feminism – like patriarchy theory, rape culture, etc. are far more contested and may not be agreed upon by people who accept the first statement. Tim is baiting people into thinking they agree with him, only to switch to his real beliefs afterwards.”
Did you want to learn about the Motte and Bailey with further context of how it is being used to leverage specious ‘social justice’ claims in our society? Take a listen to the New Discourses podcast on the topic.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…