Corrected for Propaganda

In this semi-satirical rebuttal, we'll be taking a closer look at the article "Corrected for Accuracy" from pittparents.com1. By identifying the fallacies, biases, and problematic claims throughout the piece, we aim to demonstrate the importance of critical thinking and evidence-based reasoning in discussions surrounding transgender issues. Rarely do we get to see the inner mind of the “gender critical” ideologues, and see how they filter reality into their narrative. Through this lens of their propaganda, we can provide a more balanced and unbiased take. Let's dive in!

Cowboy, a 2020 movie

Summary: A troubled but well-intentioned father who has recently separated from his wife runs off with his trans son into the Montana wilderness after his ex-wife's refusal to let their son live as his authentic self.

Corrected for Accuracy “gender critical” bias: Mother refuses to sterilize her gay child and loses custody. Mother's refusal to accept her child's gender identity leads to familial strife, separation, and ultimately drives the child to run away with their father.

Fallacy: False Equivalence
Where/Why: The author falsely equates supporting a child's transgender identity with "sterilizing" them and incorrectly conflates gender identity with sexual orientation.

Commentary: The original "correction" falsely equates supporting a child's transgender identity with "sterilizing" them, and incorrectly conflates gender identity with sexual orientation. Not all trans kids get surgical procedures that lead to sterilization. Trans folks can also be gay and trans just as one can be gay and not trans. The revised version removes this inaccurate comparison and instead focuses on the mother's respect for her child's autonomy.

Judge Strikes Down Florida’s Ban on Transgender Care for Minors, New York Times, 6/11/24

A federal judge ruled that Florida could not “prohibit transgender minors from receiving specific kinds of widely accepted gender-affirming medical care.”

Corrected for Accuracy “gender critical” bias: Prioritizing ideology over science, a federal judge prohibits Florida from banning an unproven, experimental treatment for children which has irreversible negative consequences and has already been banned in many European countries. proven, well documented and studied, and long standing treatments for transgender minors. This aligns with the broad scientific and clinical evidence and consensus across most the world.

Fallacy: Misrepresentation
Definition: Misrepresentation occurs when someone's argument or position is restated in a way that is inaccurate, misleading, or oversimplified.
Where/Why: The "correction" misrepresents the judge's ruling by characterizing gender-affirming care as "unproven" and "experimental," despite the widespread acceptance of these treatments among medical professionals and major health organizations across the world. It also misrepresents the reasons behind the judge's decision, which was based on a combination of factors, including the recognition of gender identity, the widely accepted standard of care, and the infringement on parents' rights, which rendered the ban unconstitutional.

Close to You, a 2023 movie starring Elliott Page

Summary: A trans man revisits his hometown, facing family tensions. He reconnects with an old flame, rediscovering himself. His journey leads to self-acceptance and newfound strength.

Corrected for Accuracy “gender critical” bias: Mentally unwell young woman claims to be able to change her sex, makes drastic bodily modifications, A trans man returns to her his hometown for a family reunion, and insists that her friends and family also believe that she now a man When they express concern, she demonizes them for their anxiety and discomfort. confronting his relationship with his family and reuniting with a first love. Through this journey, he discovers a newfound confidence in himself and his identity, despite the struggles his family faces in accepting his transition.

Fallacy: Loaded Language and Ad Hominem
Definition: Loaded language is the use of words or phrases that have strong emotional connotations to influence the audience's perception of an argument. Ad hominem is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument.
Where/Why: The "correction" uses loaded language such as "mentally unwell" and "claims to be able to change her sex" to discredit and dismiss the protagonist's gender identity. It also attacks the character of the protagonist by suggesting that they are delusional and demanding, rather than addressing the actual content of the movie.

Commentary: The original "correction" relies heavily on loaded language and ad hominem attacks to misrepresent the protagonist's gender identity and the content of the movie. By using phrases like "mentally unwell" and "claims to be able to change her sex," the "correction" dismisses the validity of the protagonist's identity and experiences as a trans man, essentially dehumanizing him. Furthermore, the "correction" portrays the protagonist as demanding and unreasonable, rather than acknowledging the complexity of family dynamics and the challenges that can arise when a family member transitions. The revised version removes this biased and offensive language, instead focusing on the protagonist's personal journey of self-discovery and the struggles he faces in gaining acceptance from his family, sticking to the facts of the plot as written.

Trans woman wins case against social app that excluded her for not being cisgender, LGBTQ Nation, 8/25/2024

A trans woman from Australia won a lawsuit against a trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF)-run social app known as Giggle For Girls after she was banned from the app for being a trans woman.

Corrected for Accuracy “gender critical” bias: Trans woman wins Male wins case against social app that excluded her for not being cisgender him for not being female.

Fallacy: Misgendering and Erasure
Where/Why: The "correction" misgenders the trans woman by referring to her as "male" and erases her gender identity by implying that she is not a woman.

Commentary: The original "correction" engages in blatant misgendering and erasure of the trans woman's identity, referring to her as "male" and implying that she is not a woman. This language perpetuates harmful and discriminatory attitudes towards transgender individuals and dismisses the validity of their identities.

The court's ruling in this case affirms that the trans woman was indeed discriminated against based on her gender identity and presentation. By misgendering the plaintiff and erasing her identity, the "correction" not only misrepresents the facts of the case but also contributes to the marginalization and oppression of transgender people. Which was likely the point of the original article in the first place, hate disguised as “factual accuracy” through so thin a veil as to be made of air.

The Strange Report Fueling the War on Trans Kids, New York Times, 8/13/24

In a free society we agree that these are private matters, decided by individuals and their families, with the support of doctors using mainstream medical science as a guide, even when they involve children. We invite politicians and judges into them at great peril to our freedom.

Corrected for Accuracy “gender critical” bias: The Evidence Based Report Fueling Medical Guidance for Treatment of Children suffering from Gender Dysphoria. The Cass report, while raising important questions about the evidence base for gender-affirming care, has been criticized for its methodology and conclusions.

In a free society we agree that these are private matters, decided by individuals and their families, with the support of doctors using mainstream medical science as a guide, even when they involve children. Sadly, when it comes to treating children suffering from gender dysphoria, medical and mental health professionals in the U.S. are ignoring the science and are being led by ideology. When the lawsuits start, politicians and judges will be called to account but the damage done to the children may be irreversible.Major medical organizations continue to support gender-affirming care as the standard of care for transgender youth, based on the best available scientific evidence and clinical experience. Decisions about medical care should be made by patients, their families, and their healthcare providers, not politicians or judges.

Fallacy: Misrepresentation and False Dichotomy
Definition: Misrepresentation occurs when someone's argument or position is restated in a way that is inaccurate, misleading, or oversimplified. A false dichotomy presents a situation as having only two possible alternatives, when in fact other alternatives exist or the situation is more complex.
Where/Why: The "correction" misrepresents the original text by suggesting that the Cass report is "evidence-based" and provides clear "medical guidance," when in fact the report has been criticized for its methodology and conclusions. It also presents a false dichotomy between "ignoring the science" and being "led by ideology," when in reality, the medical consensus supports gender-affirming care as an evidence-based approach.

Commentary: The original "correction" misrepresents the Cass report as providing definitive "evidence-based" guidance, when in fact the report has been widely criticized for its methodological flaws and selective interpretation of the available evidence. It also presents a false dichotomy between "ignoring the science" and being "led by ideology," suggesting that gender-affirming care is not supported by scientific evidence, when in reality, major medical organizations recognize it as the standard of care based on the best available research and clinical experience. Also, my eyes almost rolled out of their head on this one.

Transgender swimmer Lia Thomas loses challenge of rules barring her from elite women’s races, CNN, 6/12/24

Transgender swimmer Lia Thomas, who made national headlines in 2022 after winning an NCAA individual title, will not be allowed to compete in elite women’s races, including the 2024 Olympics, after the Court of Arbitration for Sport ruled this week that she lacks standing for her challenge to the rules of swimming’s world governing body.

Corrected for Accuracy “gender critical” bias: Man not allowed to compete in women’s sporting event. The Court of Arbitration for Sport upholds controversial rules limiting transgender women's participation in elite swimming competitions, despite ongoing debates about fairness, inclusion, and the complex factors influencing athletic performance.

Fallacy: Misgendering and Oversimplification
Where/Why: The "correction" misgenders Lia Thomas by referring to her as a "man" and oversimplifies the complex issue of transgender participation in sports by reducing it to a matter of biological sex.

Commentary: The original "correction" engages in blatant misgendering by referring to Lia Thomas as a "man," dismissing her gender identity and the fact that she has undergone medical transition. This language is not only disrespectful but also oversimplifies the complex issue of transgender participation in sports.

The debate surrounding the inclusion of transgender athletes in competitive sports is ongoing and involves considerations of fairness, biological factors, the effects of medical transition, and the importance of inclusion and non-discrimination. Reducing this complex issue to a matter of biological sex, as the "correction" does, fails to acknowledge the nuances of the debate and the lived experiences of transgender athletes. It also ignores recent studies that show transgender woman are almost always at a disadvantage compared to cis women. That said, we need more research and data to get this right and fair for all.

The revised correction focuses on the Court of Arbitration for Sport's decision and the controversial nature of the rules limiting transgender women's participation in elite swimming competitions. It acknowledges the ongoing debates and the complex factors involved in this issue, without resorting to misgendering or oversimplification.

Boxer Imane Khelif shares new look after winning Olympic gold, Independent, 8/19/24

Corrected for Accuracy “gender critical” bias: With wind-blown hair, heavy make-up and garish jewelry do not “prove” that someone is a woman. But a simple cheek swab test would. Imane Khelif's embrace of a more feminine appearance challenges rigid gender norms and highlights the diversity of women's self-expression.

Fallacy: Genetic Fallacy and False Equivalence
Definition: The genetic fallacy is a type of logical fallacy that occurs when an argument is accepted or rejected based on the source of the evidence, rather than the quality or relevance of the evidence itself. False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning.
Where/Why: The "correction" implies that physical appearance and gender expression are not valid indicators of a person's gender identity, and that genetic testing is the only reliable way to determine someone's sex or gender. This argument relies on a false equivalence between gender identity and biological sex, and dismisses the importance of personal identity and self-expression. It is rare that I get to cite the genetic fallacy over actual arguments about genetics :)

Reducing womanhood to a matter of genetic testing dismisses the complexity sex and gender identity and reinforces harmful stereotypes. It forgets why we stopped chromosomal testing at the elite sports level. It has been done before, and was stopped because cis people kept learning that they had chromosomes that didn’t match their sex.

ACLU defends free speech in furor over university presidents' handling of antisemitic rhetoric on campus, ABC News, 12/8/23

The First Amendment "protects speech no matter how offensive," the ACLU said.

Corrected for Accuracy: ACLU protects speech with which it agrees and calls for bans on speech its officials find objectionable. From Chase Strangio, the American Civil Liberties Union’s deputy director for transgender justice: “Abigail Shrier’s book is a dangerous polemic with a goal of making people not trans. Stopping the circulation of this book and these ideas is 100% a hill I will die on.”

Corrected for Relevance: The provided "correction" is a non-sequitur that does not address the content of the article or the ACLU's stance on free speech in the context of the university presidents' handling of antisemitic rhetoric on campus. The quote from an ACLU official is about a specific book and is not directly relevant to the situation discussed in the article. It is important to stay on topic and engage with the actual content of the article when discussing these complex issues.

Commentary: The original "correction" attempts to derail the conversation by introducing a quote that is not directly relevant to the article's content. By focusing on a single ACLU official's opinion about a specific book, the "correction" fails to engage with the broader issues of free speech and the handling of controversial rhetoric on college campuses, which are the main topics of the article.

It is crucial to maintain a clear focus on the relevant issues and to avoid non-sequiturs that can distract from the main points of discussion. The ACLU's defense of free speech in the context of the university presidents' handling of antisemitic rhetoric should be evaluated based on the organization's actions and statements related to that specific situation, rather than on an individual official's opinion about an unrelated book.

If we are to address the overarching “free speech and ACLU” issue they are trying to manufacture, than I would also guess that the author would have no problems with working with me to stop all book bans, and to advocate for the inclusion of LGBT book in our libraries and school libraries, because that would be protecting free speech. Because book bans are bad, right? But let’s be clear, this has nothing to do with the article or “correcting” it, and everything to do with manufacturing outrage, angst, hate, and discontent towards trans people and trans-affirming organizations, groups, allies, and supporters.