The Transgender Equivocation Two-Step
Equivocation and the heart of the Transgender divide
Background
I remember learning about logical fallacies, and having particular trouble with 'equivocation'. Equivocation is one of those fallacies that is best explained through examples rather than a definition.
An Aphorism
Imagine you live in a town in Colorado, and the only two means of transportation are cars, and boats. Everyone lives happily in this town until one day, due to concern about insufficient inclusivity, the townsfolk decide that no longer shall we differentiate between cars and boats. Instead, they’ll both be collectively referred to as cars.
Now, while this may generate some confusion, there is nothing wrong at all with updating word definitions. It may, however, result in some confusion, as we’ll see.
So life in this town continues until one day, you go to visit your friend Bob. He’s got his boat - er, car - out on a trailer in his driveway. You ask him what he’s doing, and he informs you that he’s about to drive to Texas.
You begin to explain to Bob that you cannot take a boat on the highway. You explain that boats are best suited for use in the water, while cars are best suited to the highway and other roads. You can see Bob’s face redden as your explanation continues, until suddenly he thunders:
”IT IS NOT A BOAT, IT IS A *CAR*. CARS DRIVE DOWN THE ROAD, THAT’S WHAT ROADS ARE FOR - FOR CARS!”
You unfortunately have been a victim of equivocation.
Google defines equivocation as:
“The use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself; prevarication.”
Equivocation consists of using language in a way that is deceptive (though that deception need not be intentional). It often relies on using words that have multiple meanings, and subtly switching between these different definitions.
Consider our car/boat example - I’ll refer to the original definition of cars as cars(1), while referring to the updated, more inclusive definition of cars as cars(2). Now, let's revisit Bob's argument:
”It is not a boat, it is a car(2). Cars(1) drive down the road, that’s what roads are for - for cars(1)”
Bob is shifting between two different definitions of the word, “cars”. Bob is of course (partly) correct - roads *were* made for cars. However, they were made for cars before the definition of the word “cars” was updated. Now, it is no longer the case that all cars can drive down the highway - those cars previously known as boats are obviously the exception.
Bob is trying to let the ambiguous definition of the word 'cars’ do the heavy lifting for his argument. In fact, he’s not really making an argument at all, he is simply appealing to a combination of both definitions to achieve his aims. In other words, it is sophistry.
My example is hopefully pretty clear, and the confusion obvious. However, equivocation can be a wrecking ball if you don’t spot it, and it isn’t always so easily spotted.
When it comes to the transgender divide between conservatives and progressives, I think 95% of the differences between the two groups are due to using different definitions of words1.
People on the right are convinced that men and women are easily distinguished from one another based on their names, and physical bodies.
Progressives on the other hand tell us that whether you’re a woman or a man is a matter of self-perception.
Who is right? Well, that depends on your definition of ‘woman’ and ‘man’!
There is no obviously ‘correct’ definition that we should prefer. There are trade-offs in using either definition.
Crucially, there is no general disagreement on the facts of the matter2. Some men prefer presenting as if they were female. Or, to put it another way, Some men(1) prefer to be women(2).
Unfortunately progressives made no general announcement that they were going to update their definitions of women and men3. They just started going around and saying things like, “Transwomen ARE women”, which is undoubtedly true if you accept their updated definition, while it is definitely false if you’re reliant on the original definition.
I doubt if even 10% of progressives who say things like “Transwomen are women” even understand *why* they say it. For most tribe members of any political persuasion, it is enough to parrot the party line. Understanding what it means is not necessary. Similarly most conservatives don’t seem to understand that progressives have switched the way they use words.4
This misalignment on word definitions has had unfortunate side effects in the culture wars. I’ll have more to say about that in an upcoming post.
As with the discussion around any substantive differences of opinion on transgenderism, there are still disagreements that transcend simple word definitions, but I don’t want to complicate this post any further.
This is probably not exactly true, and I’ll write more about this in another post.
This is also not 100% correct - trans activists DID talk about this, but mostly in fringe discussions and publications.
Frankly this is a recurring issue in progressive thought, and I may write more about this another time.
Thanks for the very clear example of equivocation! Of course, I have to ask the activists “what have you gained by changing the meaning of the word?”