Let’s have the facts first
Then we can form opinions
A Twitter search for “Munk Debate” brings up a steady stream of hits. People are still discussing last year’s debate with Douglas Murray and Matt Taibbi arguing for the motion: "Be it resolved, don't trust the mainstream media." Arguing against were Malcolm Gladwell and Michelle Goldberg.
If you haven’t listened to it, the short version is that Douglas Murray and Matt Taibbi were compelling, whilst Malcolm Gladwell and Michelle Goldberg failed to make their straw men stand up, and resorted to personal jibes – including in Gladwell’s case getting his opponents’ names wrong.
At the beginning of the debate, 48% voted in favour of the resolution, while 52% voted against the resolution. At the end of the debate, 67% voted in favour of the resolution, while 33% voted against it, representing a 39% switch to the PRO side, the biggest switch in Munk history.
I mention it because in today’s Sunday Times we have an example of exactly why mainstream media publications are losing the trust of their readers.
I’m talking about the piece written by Louise O'Neill: Push out creeping transphobia to protect vulnerable kids.
I have no problem with Louise O’Neill writing a column with which I wholeheartedly disagree. That’s one of the reasons I read The Times – I like to see a range of opinions.
Louise O’Neill’s column is an opinion piece – fair enough – she’s entitled to say what she thinks. But when statistics are presented as facts, when nonsense is presented as “science” that’s a problem. Nobody is entitled to their own facts.
O’Neill claims that:
Science supports the existence of trans people. Science is what is telling us that sex and gender are two separate things, and that sex is not binary. How else do you explain the existence of intersex people, a term used for when a person is born with reproductive or sexual anatomy that doesn’t fit the boxes of female or male, of whom there are approximately 75,000 in Ireland?
Precisely none of which is true.
Science does not “support the existence of trans people”. There is no objective test for transgenderism. If there was, there would be no detransitioners. Of course, we know that there are people who claim a “transgender identity” – but we don’t need “science” to prove that.
It’s not science that is “telling us that sex and gender are two separate things”. Gender is an idea, a social construct which has no objective test and, as of March 2023, it doesn’t even have a fixed definition.
Science is not telling us “that sex is not binary” either. There is literally zero evidence that sex is anything other than binary. But we have billions of years of evidence telling us that it is.
The term “intersex” is not generally used these days – Differences of Sexual Development is much preferred. O’Neill’s use of these conditions to supposedly demonstrate that sex is not binary is crass and offensive to sufferers, every one of whom is either male or female. And because the sex binary is so fundamental, most of these conditions affect only males or only females. Only baby boys are born with Klinefelter Syndrome, for instance.
O’Neill’s definition of “intersex” is simply wrong. Having a developmental issue with your reproductive anatomy does not mean that you cannot be classed as male or female. Any more than polydactylism makes us unsure if an extremity is a hand or a foot.
The final claim that “there are approximately 75,000 [people with difference of sexual development] in Ireland” is demonstrably false. 75,000 people is 1.5% of the Irish population. An incidence of around 0.02% is generally held to be more accurate https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32949114/
The Sunday Times is a paper of record, and one often used to authenticate claims. So when claims are presented as fact – as in this case – they must be accurate. Even in opinion pieces.
Statements that are not supported by the facts should be caveated with “in my opinion” or “some people believe”. And statistics must be supportable or withdrawn.
By all means give me different interpretations of the facts. But give me the facts first. It’s why I pay my subscription.
A brilliant analysis of a flawed opinion piece. I suggest you submit it to the Times.