Tuesday, June 16, 2020

Dr. Michael Brown's Scripture Dysphoria Impairment

Dr. Michael Brown
It is unfortunate for Michael Brown that he is so profoundly confused by the gender spectrum. Brown asks a few rhetorical questions:
But all the compassion in the world doesn’t change reality, and it would be worth asking some of these trans-allied stars some simple questions, including: “How, exactly do you define the terms men and women? What, after all, is a man or a woman? What constitutes being male or female? If it is not biological, then is it a state of mind? What, then, of a biological male who loves female things but still identifies as male? Is he a man? And if biology is not determinative, why does biology-altering surgery now change someone’s sex?”
That is an appeal to ignorance. Mr. Brown apparently doesn't understand the concept of scale. For about 99.5% of the population, gender and sex align. That is to say that their genitalia matches their sense of gender. Therefore, for 99.5% of the population, the terms men and women are defined by one's chromosomes.

Then we have about 0.5% of the population that is gender incongruent. For those people, the terms men and women are defined by their gender; their sense of being male or female irrespective of chromosomes.

Brown's question is intellectually dishonest because we do not require one definition of men and women. Brown's religious conservatism requires simplistic choices. It is not overly complex or hard to understand that there is one set of definitions for the vast majority and another set of definitions for a small minority.

These are not competing definitions. There are two perfectly valid answers to Brown's questions. By the way, since Brown asks, in medical science a male who loves female things is called gender nonconforming and that state is generally independent of gender identity.

Brown's final question — “why does biology-altering surgery now change someone’s sex?” — is a prime example of rhetorical dishonesty. Presumably he is referring to gender confirmation surgery. We are all quite familiar with chromosomal realities.

The correct answer to Brown's example of the logical fallacy of begging the question is: “It does not.”

The surgery Brown refers to is not intended to change someone's sex. Rather it is designed to better align someone's presentation to their gender; again for that tiny minority of people for whom gender and natal sex are incongruent.

The surgeons who perform the procedure understand that. The people receiving the procedure understand that. The claim that confusion exists where it does not is called bullshit.

In the end, Michael Brown is trying to over-complicate the issue to make it vague or intangible. Following Brown's confused rhetorical misadventure he has the nerve to claim that transgender people and their allies are illogical:
These are logical questions, but when it comes to trans-activism, logic is not necessarily the biggest factor. That’s because many trans-activists and allies are thinking more with their hearts, which I don’t mean in an insulting way. They have a friend or relative who identifies as trans. This person speaks of the terrible struggles they had until they transitioned, and now they are finally at peace. Why shouldn’t we support them?
No, Mr. Brown. By definition, rhetorical questions are illogical. Furthermore, this is not an emotional issue. As with any other condition, people should be treated according to the best available medical science. The overwhelming consensus of medical science is that people in distress due to gender dysphoria find substantial relief through transitioning.

What is the alternative?

If the existence of transgender people creates a scriptural conflict for Mr. Brown, the logical approach would be to dismiss literalism and accept scripture as representative of the times in which it was written.

Most scholars believe that Genesis was authored in the fifth or sixth century BCE. The best that medical science could do in those times was an average life expectancy of less than 30 years of age.

Going back to Brown's text; “why shouldn't we support them?” “Them” being transgender people, Brown proceeds to answer his own rhetorical question:
That is an emotional line of reasoning, and for many it is compelling.
No, Mr. Brown. The truthful answer for Brown is that, as a conservative Christian literalist, he cannot support the existence of transgender people because of the aforementioned conflict with scripture. Brown has referred to things he feels are illogical. Just how logical is it to dismiss science which is more current than texts dating back 2,500 years?

Brown goes on to ridicule Monday's ruling from the Supreme Court. Eventually he concludes with his final rhetorical question:
It is little consolation that the ruling may not affect religious institutions. … That’s because: 1) there could be plenty more Harris Funeral Homes in the future. And 2) SCOTUS has just redefined reality, without a stitch of biological or genetic evidence to back their claim.

It’s one thing when Harry Potter stars make such determinations. It’s another thing entirely when the Supreme Court does.

What’s next?
I wrote earlier today about Ryan T. Anderson's implied assertion that people have a religious duty to discriminate. No, they do not. There is no good reason that discrimination is required by any faith.

We got past that when we told the Klan — good Christians all — that discrimination was impermissible. So there should not be “plenty more Harris Funeral Homes.”

Regarding Brown's second point, Brown is claiming that only specific physical evidence is dispositive. He has just obliterated the entire scholarly field of psychiatry. The scientific understanding of gender dysphoria does not require abductive reasoning because a substantial amount of evidence exists.

That evidence does not have to be limited to genetics and biology. Brown has a legitimate PhD. He should know better.

Even when we have an enormous amount of physical evidence — evolution for example — people like Brown are unsatisfied with any conclusion that might be at odds with those ancient texts. It is called scripture dysphoria.

This time Brown doesn't like the form of evidence. He has determined what evidence is acceptable to falsely portray that no evidence exists.

As for “what's next,” eventually the Equality Act will become the law of the land. A sliver of society is going to have to cope with the fact that discrimination based on sexuality in housing and public accommodations is prohibited. They will survive. Oh, they will bitch but it won't do them any good.

Related content:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.