I wrote not too long ago about the "false dilemma" fallacy (from a slightly different angle). Then the other day I read an article from a self-identified "trans woman" (a guy who believes he's a girl, just to be clear) who was urging the LGBTQ+ community not to shut down communications with those who disagree. He ... sorry, she ... believed that open communication was the way to achieve acceptance. Now, that is an unusual position, given the standard practice of labeling all opponents as "haters" and "phobes" of some sort, but the interesting thing was that he/she didn't notice that at every turn he/she was labeling all opponents as "haters" and "phobes" of some sort. It was just in the vocabulary. So we have a false dilemma here. Either you accept the LGBTQ+ position and work to gain acceptance from others and give them their right and just standing, or you're a "homophobe" or a "transphobe" -- some sort of hater. And that is a false dilemma.
Consider. Meet Bob. Bob believes that he is Napoleon and he longs for your acceptance. (Please note: I am not here suggesting that the two -- transgender and the belief you are Napoleon -- are equivalent. I'm just using an obvious example of something that we can all agree is not true.) So, you can accept Bob's belief -- which would entail embracing his view and likely working to establish his rightful position as emperor of France -- or you are a Napoleon-phobe, a hater. Either you agree with his belief or you are a "phobe" of some sort, either hating (how "phobe" equates with "hate" I don't know) or fearing it. There is another option, isn't there? Could it be that there is something wrong with your friend, Bob? Could it be that Bob is confused and needs help? Could it be that a caring friend might seek to assist Bob toward the truth ... that he is not Napoleon? Without hate or fear? Indeed, with genuine love and concern?
That's not the narrative we have before us. You can embrace trans-"theology" (because it is, unavoidably, a theological position that says that God did not create humans as male and female) and the homosexual perspective and lots of other things that Scripture speaks otherwise to or you can hate. What you cannot do is love. That's not an option. "Now, can we talk?" No, apparently not. Since the position that my concern for your best interest is not allowed, I'm kind of stuck, aren't I? The classic false dilemma.
4 comments:
I wonder why Napoleon is the go to. I've thought the same thing, it would not be loving to accept a delusion, and my go to example is believing one is Napoleon.
We have a lot of go-to's. "Hitler" for "bad guy." "Child molesting" for evil deed. I think we go to this Napoleon one because it has happened and is so obviously delusional ... which is the point of a go-to -- so obviously wrong.
It's funny that you referenced “Bob,” who thinks he is Napoleon. We would say he clearly suffers from a general “dissociative identity disorder.” But there is also a “Napoleon complex” (or “short people syndrome”), which is a different syndrome altogether (and not the one you probably mean to reference)! And it’s interesting to note--as it relates to the theme of today’s post--that both these psychological conditions currently can be diagnosed and treated without the label of “hater” arising but not so for the disorder of a man believing he is a woman (and vice versa)--which is much more troublesome in our society than the other two conditions!
Being both truthful and loving towards those with gender dysmorphia does indeed seem to be the “modern false dilemma.” I am reminded that believers have long been called to live this way--telling the truth in love--and to endure the expected backlash from society. While Christians are despised for their stand against the culture’s sinful influences and falsely viewed as “haters” instead of as those with true loving concern for our fellow man, Satan claims more and more victims.
Post a Comment