The other day, David French wrote an article for National Review, in response to twitter outrage over an earlier article he’d written on Chelsea Manning – the trans soldier pardoned by Obama. French’s refusal to use the pronoun “her” when describing Chelsea Manning – previously Bradley Manning – sparked the outrage. And prompted a twitter response by another journalist, Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept:
“Does @DavidAFrench also bravely walk up to adoptive parents & tell them their kids aren’t *really* their “children”?”
Greenwald’s tweet led to my own, including:
“At the core – two fundamentally opposing views. @DavidAFrench is advocating for free speech. @ggreenwald wants to stifle free speech.”
It also led to my article, An Illustrative Twitter Chat with David & Glenn. The reaction was equally illustrative.
In one notable and “public” forum, responses seemed to fall on either of two sides:
How could I be making this discussion about free speech? (I most definitely was – guilty as charged)
or
How could I take the side of anti-transgenderism? (I wasn’t – and explicitly stated so in my position)
I had anticipated getting both types of responses but I was a bit surprised by the dichotomy of the reactions. One side, the other – or nothing.
It was the nothing part that caught my attention.
For those who feel this was not about free speech, I ask them to read French’s article, Chelsea Manning and the Problem with Pronouns, for it was to this article that Greenwald was responding at the outset. French’s entire premise lay in the belief that freedom of speech should not be squelched by Political Correctness. As he stated:
“This is, to put it bluntly, compelled speech. It’s a violation of the rights of conscience of the speaker… When it makes its way into law, then intolerance moves from irritation into censorship. It’s identity politics as oppression, and it’s infecting American debate. May it not corrupt American law.”
I therefore found it telling when Greenwald chose to attack by employing public shaming:
“Does @DavidAFrench also bravely walk up to adoptive parents & tell them their kids aren’t *really* their “children”?”
French is an adoptive parent. I hope Greenwald was unaware of this fact when he made his comment.
Ironically, Greenwald engaged in a not-so-subtle version of the method described by French’s article – to attack French’s article:
“When your definition of manners requires that I verbally consent to a fundamentally false and important premise, then I dissent. You cannot use my manners to win your culture war. I will speak respectfully, I will never use a pronoun with the intent of causing harm, and if I encounter a person in obvious emotional distress I will choose my words very carefully. But I will not say what I do not believe.”
I don’t know if Greenwald’s attempted shaming of French was an intentional tactic or simply an emotional response to an issue close to his belief system. I hope it was simply a matter of emotion. I do know he never responded after I pointed out why I thought he was trying to squelch the free speech of others.
Greenwald to me: The world’s worst idiots are those who can’t distinguish between “criticizing a view” and “trying to censor a view.”
Me: Do u consider criticizing as interchangeable with shaming? Because it looked to me as if u were trying to use shame to stifle opinions.
I didn’t hear from Greenwald again. But I continued to hear from his many twitter followers – all of whom sided with Greenwald. As is their right.
Okay. Let’s step back for a moment.
A man decides he identifies as a woman. Perhaps he undergoes a surgical sex change. Either way, he now wishes to be referred to as a woman. There are three general types of responses:
- Yes, you are a woman.
- No, you are a man.
- I’ll call you a woman if that’s what you want to be called.
All three responses are correct for the person who is making them. Each person has the right to think and believe what they choose. As does the man who decides to classify himself as female.
David French has the right to believe that trans-people retain the gender of their birth – that they are unchanged chromosomally. Glenn Greenwald has the right to believe that trans-people should be referred to by their chosen pronoun status. Both are right in their respective beliefs – as it applies to them.
But neither has the right to impose their belief on the other.
Greenwald wasn’t trying to change French’s opinion, nor was he trying – certainly not initially – to engage in open-minded debate over the topic. He was trying to silence and invalidate French by shaming him – and his stated position. Greenwald was weaponizing compassion.
As I noted before, people often confuse guilt with shame. The distinction is an important one. Guilt lets you know you did something wrong. Shame is different. Shame means you are wrong.
Which is why it’s so often employed by the Left.
Greenwald has every right to believe what he believes – to say what he said – and do so in the manner in which he said it. But that doesn’t change the underlying intent. Shame. Invalidation. Then silence. And with silence comes acquiescence.
Here the true intent is revealed. Acquiescence is the ultimate goal of shaming.
Which is why we must be so careful in surrendering to standards outside of our beliefs – of surrendering to the beliefs of others. For standards and beliefs have a way of becoming codified – of ultimately becoming law.
As French noted, Obama attempted exactly this with his “trans-guidance” issued to all federally-funded schools:
“Under Title IX, a school must treat students consistent with their gender identity even if their education records or identification documents indicate a different sex. The Departments have resolved Title IX investigations with agreements committing that school staff and contractors will use pronouns and names consistent with a transgender student’s gender identity.”
Mr. French’s assessment of Obama’s “guidance”:
“This is compelled speech. It’s a violation of the rights of conscience of the speaker. It’s an effort by the government to coerce verbal agreement with a contested and contentious personal, religious, cultural, and scientific debate.”
Mr. French is correct. And it’s a violation of our Constitution.
When compassion becomes weaponized it’s effective, dangerous – and subtle. It promotes silence and acquiescence. And it’s being used to change our nation’s laws.
Silence isn’t always golden.
newer post John Brennan Heads for the Exits
older post An Illustrative Twitter Chat with David & Glenn