Yours is an exceptionally insightful argument that uses clear, tight reasoning to bring clarity to a subject that is notoriously difficult to untangle. Thanks.
I agree that the principle/fact distinction is important and useful. I think with respect to this particular debate though that the shift in public opinion is at least as much to do with factual arguments as it is to principled ones. I saw a study a few years ago which suggested that a significant number of people (I think around 20%) understood the term 'transgender woman' to mean a female person who identifies as a man. So if people have shifted from 'agree' to 'disagree' on questions like 'should transgender women compete in women's sport' I suspect this is more likely to do with exposure to factual arguments about what 'transgender woman' actually means, rather than abstract arguments about fairness or freedom of association or whatnot. In other words, people haven't updated their principles as a result of listening to liberal arguments, they have applied new information to their existing liberal principles.
This is not to say that we shouldn't be making liberal arguments (we absolutely should) But abstract principles will only get us so far, if we're talking about policy then facts matter just as much.
Thanks Helen. I’ve been more on the ‘truth’ side (“impossible to change sex!”) so your arguments were particularly resonant with me. There are many mini-issues (preferred pronouns, bathrooms, etc.) that fall outside of clear harm but the broad strokes (such as opportunities for women in sports & fairness therein, medical harm to children) seem clear. Appreciate your efforts.
The other distinction you draw here should also be seen as crucial for public discourse and persuasion. This is the one between committed (illiberal) ideologues and people who may be relatively uncommitted on particular issues but (we hope!) can agree to a liberal approach to matters of public concern. Having spent years listening to those on the illiberal edges, I'm going to go ahead and talk with the liberals!
K, that did it. Paid up.
Thank you!
Brava!
You identify a very important distinction here. Thank you. I think it's one of your best pieces.
Yours is an exceptionally insightful argument that uses clear, tight reasoning to bring clarity to a subject that is notoriously difficult to untangle. Thanks.
I agree that the principle/fact distinction is important and useful. I think with respect to this particular debate though that the shift in public opinion is at least as much to do with factual arguments as it is to principled ones. I saw a study a few years ago which suggested that a significant number of people (I think around 20%) understood the term 'transgender woman' to mean a female person who identifies as a man. So if people have shifted from 'agree' to 'disagree' on questions like 'should transgender women compete in women's sport' I suspect this is more likely to do with exposure to factual arguments about what 'transgender woman' actually means, rather than abstract arguments about fairness or freedom of association or whatnot. In other words, people haven't updated their principles as a result of listening to liberal arguments, they have applied new information to their existing liberal principles.
This is not to say that we shouldn't be making liberal arguments (we absolutely should) But abstract principles will only get us so far, if we're talking about policy then facts matter just as much.
This is an important point. Principles mean more (and perhaps only mean anything) when we understand what the facts actually are.
Thanks Helen. I’ve been more on the ‘truth’ side (“impossible to change sex!”) so your arguments were particularly resonant with me. There are many mini-issues (preferred pronouns, bathrooms, etc.) that fall outside of clear harm but the broad strokes (such as opportunities for women in sports & fairness therein, medical harm to children) seem clear. Appreciate your efforts.
Lovely writing Helen. Inherently sensible as always! But this is exactly what I couldn’t articulate but felt in my bones- thank you 🙏
The other distinction you draw here should also be seen as crucial for public discourse and persuasion. This is the one between committed (illiberal) ideologues and people who may be relatively uncommitted on particular issues but (we hope!) can agree to a liberal approach to matters of public concern. Having spent years listening to those on the illiberal edges, I'm going to go ahead and talk with the liberals!