The discourse regarding respecting opinions has ballooned out of proportion in recent years. People who disagree with the policy or beliefs of another group are labeled as unreasonable. This labeling prompts distancing from the people engaging in the discourse and a lack of dialogue. Ironically, the same people who call others unreasonable then question why no one wants to engage in discourse.

Politics and free speech are not supposed to be comfortable; that is true. True discourse demands the absolute deconstruction of one’s own beliefs and rebuilding them through dialogue. True debate only happens when neither party absolutely believes in what they argue. Only then can an objective truth be found, or a subjective moral structure constructed.

Let’s pose an example. Discourse regarding the death penalty, in the abstract and not in a specific country, is usually contextualized by the valuation of human life as well as the purpose of the justice system. In this debate, parties argue whether it is ever reasonable to enact the death penalty, owing to the severity of the crime, or whether the purpose of justice is to rehabilitate. The issue is that if both parties stubbornly believe that their outlook is right and seek to convince their opposition rather than supplement their own thoughts, derailment is bound to occur.

When engaging in discourse or when prompting someone to engage in a discussion, one must themselves first consider what they are arguing for. They must then evaluate whether it is a reasonable topic for the other person to discuss, and whether your own purpose for discourse is to rebuild your belief system or to impose it on another.

Here lies the issue with Carey’s article. When the arguments posed by certain groups threaten to upend the way of life of another, as well as their mere survival, it is completely reasonable for these people to refuse to engage in dialogue. As said in the movie “The Darkest Hour” through the character of Winston Churchill, “You can not reason with a tiger when your head is in its mouth!”

One will hardly argue that the Ukrainian defense against Russia is a difference of opinion. The Russian opinion is to annex or cripple Ukraine, and Ukraine would rather die free than live in servitude. In this regard, there is no logical middle ground to be achieved. One of the sides must abandon its opinion, and ideally, it should be the one that seeks to eradicate the other.

The same situation applies here. One of the main implications, given the beliefs of Turning Point USA, in Carey’s article, purposeful or not, is that transgender people require a cure. This argument hardly enables someone to reason thoroughly while protecting themselves. It seeks to label the real identities of thousands of Iowans with real struggles and real challenges as a mental illness. Factors such as higher suicide rates show that these statistics do not tell of the nature of gender dysphoria itself and are instead contextualised with the lack of acceptance in society. In such a society, attempting to convince someone to seek help while not addressing the villainy they face is a dishonest portrayal of compassion. A more genuine inspection of the medical definition of gender dysphoria, through the same paper cited, proves that one, it is not a conclusive topic and that further research is required, and two, the issue of gender dysphoria is entirely separate from gender identity, albeit overlapping in terms of who it impacts. Given this context, one would be hesitant to engage in discussion with someone who views their identity as a disease.

There is an important historical context to consider here. This exact belief system is why homosexuality was classified as a mental illness in the United States up until less than 50 years ago. In retrospect, we can see why homosexuals would refuse to engage in discourse with those who would seek to rid them of their identity. This same pattern repeats today. Attempting to make a good faith argument must also then account for this parallel and understand the hesitance seen today.

The number of issues to which this applies is countless. Migrants refuse to discuss possible reform because many of those who propose such reforms, or even call for it, inherently oppose the mere existence of migrants. Religious minorities similarly refuse to engage in discourse when the discourse would entail their conversion. Trans people similarly refuse to engage in discourse when the discourse would result in the end of their identity. 

The vocal proponents of discussion and debate should not complain when no one seeks to debate with them when the topics of their debate threaten the existence of those they debate. They should first evaluate what they stand for and perhaps revisit the definition of discourse, then engage to learn, not to impose.