Some quick notes before the piece: Firstly, I am not an expert in these fields (nor is Shapiro), so I try to stay tight to the general scientific and medical consensus. Secondly, you will find an expletive in this piece. I usually remove all of those before posting, but it belongs. Finally, this is not pastoral. It is rather informational about the factual errors that Shapiro regularly makes. I believe it is essential for those in religious leadership positions to educate ourselves about science and combat misinformation because we have primarily cultivated and sown the field in which this discrimination is planted.
___
Ben Shapiro is coming to UNCG next week as a part of his “facts don’t care about your feelings” college tour to share his brand of polished hate speech and religious fundamentalism. That considered, I thought it might be worth visiting some examples of his past work and statements to draw out why his somewhat novel approach to political and religious punditry is both deeply problematic and designed to hide lies and misinformation. It is more than just his tendency to speak aggressively fast while asking listeners to make huge assumptions, his deliberately inflammatory language, or his accusing the liberals of doing the very thing he is doing at that exact same moment. It is his indignancy and perceived victimhood that someone would find his views objectionable and unreasonable and respond emotionally or by using their own free speech or freedom to buy, boycott, or protest in response to what can certainly be seen as hate speech. I, however, am getting ahead of myself and into blogs that will be posted in the coming days. For now, I want to focus on Ben Shapiro’s episode of “Debunked: Transgender Ideology.”
I, in fairness, have not consumed a major portion of Shapiro’s writings, shows, or interviews. Doing so would be nearly impossible because of the sheer amount that he does. While that might at first glance seem impressive, it also hints toward something that will be a significant recurring theme in Shapiro’s argument; he lacks expertise. I have, however, selected some examples that I think are helpful in framing Shapiro’s arguments about LGBTQ+ individuals.
In the video, with its polished graphics and dramatic, scary music, Shapiro hopes to confront the “insane” because some individuals feel they do not fit the sex assigned to them at birth. Shapiro starts with something true; humans are sexually dimorphic. But his next rhetorical flourish starts to drift when he says, “we come in two brands,” and sex is binary. That has already slipped from the definition of dimorphism, which is simply that sexes of the same species exhibit different characteristics, particularly not directly involved in reproduction. Particular levels of dimorphism vary significantly from species to species, and dimorphism does not exclude a spectrum of trait expression or a member of a dimorphic species who blend traits. Indeed, it seems that given the prevalence of individuals of various mammal species that are members of dimorphic species yet blend traits, it should be considered “normal” and assumed to have some evolutionary advantage. It would also seem strange to utilize some traits developed that had developed long before parts of our brains responsible for more advanced cognition.
Shapiro’s use of the occurrence of DSD as in 1 in 5,000 is also problematic. Recent studies have suggested that the number is 1% to 3%. A reasonable middle ground number of individuals who exhibit some nonbinary traits is about 1.7%. That is about the same rate of red hair in the world population. Shapiro quickly shows less understanding of the biological spectrum in sex when he tries to make a comparison with a single phenotypic trait – a very strange number of toes in this case. I will also note here that if you are watching the video (and God help you if you are at 3:15), the comment about sloth is too dumb to merit a mention. However, it does underline how flippantly Shapiro treats the real concerns of individuals in the LGBTQ+ community; he sees sex and gender as comparable to the formation of toes, not something that is extremely and deeply rooted in a person’s identity and wellbeing.
All of the lead-up to this point can be tossed out the window as we approach Shapiro’s real point. The difference between “man” and “woman” in both gender and biological sex should be definitionally binary (black and white), whether that reflects reality or not. For Shapiro, there is a natural value in categories that are absolutely distinct, whether that reflects reality or not. This is a setup for the critical point in his argument (4:22) that what scientists and medical researchers argue is that gender is entirely socially constructed and in no way relates to biological sex. The problem is, that is not at all true. They rather point out that gender and biological sex are related but are not the same thing. They are useful terms for clinicians to differentiate what they are discussing, treating, or researching. And, though Shapiro takes exception to the language used by actual experts in the field, he seems to be making the argument that gender and sex are completely the same, which is an unsustainable argument.
His use of the DSM 5 (which was published in 2013) regarding the number of individuals seeking a particular type of treatment is also deeply misleading. Firstly, that only indicates the number of people seeking treatment despite overwhelming social stigma, lack of available care, and issues regarding cost. Secondly, a pile of peer-reviewed research has been published since 2013. Not only does research give better indications of the actual numbers of individuals, but clear explanations for why better understanding and treatment options are developing. What we do have evidence for is there is a very low rate of regret among individuals who have gender-affirming surgeries.
You may at this point be wondering why Shapiro seems to go out of his way to cherry-pick some “facts” that are outdated or that misrepresent scientific and medical consensus. Why does he claim that studies don’t exist when they do? Why does he quote from the DSM when he ignores why progressive changes were made between DSM 4 and DSM 5, and that the APA (the authoring agency of the DSM 5) has very easily found statements about transgender and nonbinary youth that directly contradict what Shapiro is claiming? It seems likely that is because Shapiro starts with a biased viewpoint and then tries to select “facts” to rationalize that view.
In 2017, Shapiro addressed an episode of Bill Nye Saves the World on his podcast. Shapiro takes fairly dramatic umbrage with Nye’s episode The Sexual Spectrum. Now I will say, there are some quirky and at times cringy parts of the episode, but Nye lays out complex issues and explains why and how science and medical research about sex and gender have changed over the past decades. He also deals with how religiously driven cultural bias has caused discrimination and misinformation to continue to flourish despite scientific and medical progress.
I think the key moment is when Shapiro claims, “it is evil to let a 3 or 4-year-old choose their gender.” His evidence for this is an extreme claim that letting a child explore their gender expression if they so choose is that he “has young children,” so he knows. During this diatribe, Shapiro furthers his argument by saying that it is the parents’ job to “simplify” things for children. You might at this point be thinking that seems like views based on “feelings” and not ones that a considerable swath of parents and developmental psychologists would agree with.
Most notably is not what the American Academy of Pediatrics and research tell us. According to the lead author of their statement, “What is most important is for a parent to listen, respect, and support their child’s self-expressed identity. This encourages open conversations that may be difficult but the key to the child’s mental health and the family’s resilience and wellbeing.” In that statement, we find that “The AAP recommends taking a ‘gender-affirming,’ nonjudgmental approach that helps children feel safe in a society that too often marginalizes or stigmatizes those seen as different. The gender-affirming model strengthens family resiliency and takes the emphasis off heightened concerns over gender while allowing children the freedom to focus on academics, relationship-building, and other typical developmental tasks.”
While there is disagreement about some parts of affirming care with a small consortium of clinicians, it is still the fact that every major U.S. medical group support gender-affirming care. This includes the American Medical Association, Pediatric Endocrine Society, and Society of Pediatric Psychology, which all have spoken out against recent anti-trans laws and for the recognition and affirming care for trans and gender nonconforming youth. It should be noted that divergent opinions inside the scientific and medical fields should be welcome and that those ideas should be tested by peers in the field. It does not provide reasonable evidence for an individual to dismiss the medical consensus and the mountain of research and medicine that has advanced us to a better understanding of biological sex and gender.
We know that there is a relationship between gender-affirming hormone therapy and parent support for their child’s gender identity and lower rates of depression and suicidality among transgender and nonbinary youth.
For a person willing to routinely share bigoted ideas, which he claims should be shared because they are “facts” and not feelings, Shapiro seems woefully ungrounded in reality about his views about LGBTQ+ individuals. Yet he throws out huge assertions without any factual basis and dramatically oversimplifies issues. But set all this aside. Set aside that the views he holds on the “facts don’t care about your feelings tour” aren’t grounded in many facts, but the way we assemble, understand, and draw relationships between facts is just as important. It is important that we include all of the facts about an issue and then explore the complex ways that those facts relate to each other. Research into sex and gender and the medical treatment around it is changing because science is advancing our understanding of the issues. That is the case both for quantitative research but also qualitative research, which has always been a critical part of advancements in medicine and psychology. Much of the time, Shapiro is not only making huge leaps or assuming causation in his justifications of his religiously based beliefs, but he is also outright lying or omitting facts.
The other thing I consider important to understand as I close this first blog is that YAF and Shapiro have the right to hold and express their beliefs – even if they are not connected to fact or reality or if they barely dress up religious bigotry. It still doesn’t make it appropriate to share them, and it doesn’t mean they aren’t harmful. Placing flyers on cars that declare “men are not women” isn’t an invitation to a respectful, private conversation. Do trans and gender-nonconforming students, staff, and guests deserve to walk out to find an openly bigoted declaration about them on their car? Ben Shapiro and folks who are part of YAF nationwide have the right to hold and express their opinions about gender and sex, but they have made the additional choice to be assholes in the way they do it. But, let’s be honest. Shapiro is making fistfuls of money off his brand on “destroying the leftists,” drinking “liberal tears,” and other cruelty. His interviews with left thinkers like Ezra Klein make clear that he knows very well how to control his tone and how to upset and hurt people when it makes him money.
suicide? [GU1]