Example #1: If you encounter a person who has cancer, do you suggest to him that his cancer is normal? Do you fight for his right to “normalize” his condition? Of course not.
Furthermore, if the cancer patient were to claim that he’s perfectly healthy, that he has no disease, would you agree with him, and with his conclusion that he requires no treatment for cancer? Of course you wouldn’t.
If you were to do all that, it would be perfectly reasonable to say that you were abusing the cancer patient. That you were even threatening the cancer patient’s very life!
Example #2: If you were to encounter an amputee who’s lost his legs, do you pretend that it’s perfectly normal to have no legs? Do you suggest that, say, baseball teams should be forced to play a certain percentage of people who have no legs? Of course you wouldn’t.
More to the point, would you credit any claim by that person that he actually has legs? Of course not.
However, would you, perhaps, due to empathy for amputees, launch a concerted effort to develop high-tech prosthetics that might allow the amputee to lead a much more normal life?
The second option — development of high-tech prosthetics — is the obviously correct response to an encounter with an amputee.
Example #3: If you meet a blind person, would you pretend that he’s not blind? Would you allow him to cross the street as if he were able to see all potential threats against his safety? Would you give him a driver’s license? Of course you wouldn’t do either of those ridiculous things. If you were to do them, you could reasonably be accused of exhibiting callous disregard for the blind person’s safety.
Why, in those three examples, do we immediately scoff at the claims? Simple. All sorts of really-difficult-to-refute scientific evidence contradicts the idea that a cancer patient is healthy, or an amputee is not really an amputee, or that a blind person should have a driver’s license.
Furthermore, we recognize a simple truth: each person (1) has a significant disability, and (2) if the person doesn’t recognize it, then he’s suffering from a potentially serious delusion.
Now to the case of the so-called “transgender” person. Well, well, well… To summarize: All the scientific evidence points to the “transgender” person’s being simply … wrong. The science says, without one single, solitary contradicting piece of evidence, that the “transgender woman” is really … a man. That the “transgender man” is really … a woman.
There is a piece of evidence suggesting otherwise: the person’s assertion that he’s really a she, or vice-versa. The simple problem: it’s not scientific evidence. All that stuff says the guy’s simply wrong.
I thought that, in this country, the Democrats were supposed to be “the Party of Science.” What happened to all that? Yet they’re the ones pushing the fiction that a man can be a woman, or vice-versa… merely on his say-so.
Let’s try Example #4: A man murders another man. All the evidence — surveillance cameras, witnesses, DNA, circumstantial stuff — points to him as the murderer. However, during the trial, the man gets up and says, “I’m no murderer at all! I identify as a non-murderer. And you all have been taking the mere word of men who say they’re women, and women who say they’re men as scientific fact, so you have to take my word too, and let me go.”
How would you react to that? Simple: you, and of course, the judge, would laugh that “rationale” out of the courtroom. If pressed, you’d say something like, “Look, we have just a bucket-load of evidence pointing to the conclusion that the guy is a murderer.” Then you’d point to the surveillance cameras, the witnesses, the DNA, the circumstantial stuff. It’s all scientific stuff, collected scientifically with chain of custody procedures, and measurements and intricate measurements, and all.
We have bucket-loads of objective evidence contradicting the assertions of the “transgender” people as well. But, upon hearing them say that they’re not who the mountains of objective, scientific evidence say they are, we … toss the evidence.
In light of how society has reacted to all the trans-nonsense, I honestly can’t see how you would prove that the murderer is incorrect in his “rationale.”
This is what you do to your country, when in the interest of not hurting the feelings of people with mental disabilities, you accept irrational rationales.
Worse, a man who claims he’s a woman, or vice-versa, has an actual disability. He or she needs to encounter real compassion, not some weird idea that his delusion is not a delusion. The correct societal response, the actually compassionate one, to a man who absurdly claims to be a woman, or vice-versa, is to look him in the eye and say, “N0, you’re not.” Then, the right thing to do is to help him to overcome his delusion.
As with the first three examples, the other response, the one that plays into the delusion, is the abusive, the bigoted, the cold, cruel one.
Wouldn’t it have been a really good thing,for example, to have intercepted Charlie Manson, or Jeffrey Dahmer, or Adolf Hitler, or Josef Stalin before their delusions got out-of-hand? We’d have done the world a great favor in so doing. And, in not intercepting these people’s delusions, we did them and the world a vast disservice.
Likewise, with those who claim to be “transgender,” to foster their delusion is not to do the person any favors.