Search Weight Loss Topics:

Jan 3

The Places Where Truth Goes To Die – The Dispatch

Late last week I had an experience thats both completely normal and fundamentally absurd. It was thisI spent a ridiculous amount of time agonizing over the wording of a simple Twitter thread. I struggled to use exactly the right words to express what should be a completely normal and reasonable point.

As some readers may know, after competing for three years as a male swimmer at the University of Pennsylvania (and earning all-Ivy honors) as a male, a transgender swimmer named Lia Thomas is now competing as a female, and dominating the competition. Thomass physical advantage is blatantly obvious. Yes, there are NCAA guidelines mandating testosterone suppressant, but testosterone suppressants dont repeal puberty.

Writing in Swimming World, editor-in-chief Don Lohn describes the problem well:

Despite the hormone suppressants she has taken, in accordance with NCAA guidelines, Thomas male-puberty advantage has not been rolled back an adequate amount. The fact is, for nearly 20 years, she built muscle and benefited from the testosterone naturally produced by her body. That strength does not disappear overnight, nor with a years worth of suppressants. Consequently, Thomas dives into the water with an inherent advantage over those on the surrounding blocks.

So, what was my point and what was my struggle? My point was that it is not invidious discrimination to prohibit a biological male from competing in female sports. Indeed, drawing rational distinctions between biological males and biological females might be necessary to protect equal opportunities for women to enjoy access to athletic opportunities.

As Ive written before, the phrase invidious discrimination is a legal term of art that refers to a classification which is arbitrary, irrational and not reasonably related to a legitimate purpose. Bans on invidious discrimination are legally proper and often necessary. Racial classifications, for example, are virtually always invidious. Sex-based classifications can be invidious as well, but sometimes theyre benign. Sometimes theyre even necessary.

To take an obvious example, segregating bathrooms or showers by race is invidious. By contrast, segregating bathrooms and showers by sex isnt just rational, its prudent.

Theres absolutely such a thing as invidious discrimination against transgender Americansimagine if teachers marked down trans students simply because they were trans, or if employers fired productive employees simply because they were trans. But drawing biological sex-based distinctions in sports not only isnt invidious, it protects women from unfairness.

What was my struggle? I wasnt afraid of cancellation. The Twitter world is full of broadsides against Thomas and the NCAA, and there are legions of right-wing voices who relish taking on this issue, and doing so as contemptuously and snarkily as possible and bask in thunderous applause of their tribe. Besides, thanks to my readers, Im pretty tough to cancel anyway.

No my struggle was simply this: How do I make my point in a way that skeptical and hostile readers will hear it and consider it, rather than simply dismissing it out of hand as the bigoted rantings of a hateful Evangelical? After all, I dont just want to be heard. I want to persuade. I believe what Im saying is true, and I want readers to at least consider my words.

Take transgender rightsor virtually any contentious issueand youll find that there are million different ways that people will not just reject your reasoning but refuse to engage with you at all.

Youre the wrong speaker (who wants to hear from a cishet Evangelical?) You chose the wrong words (did he use the acceptable pronouns? Was his language offensive in any other way?) You have the wrong priorities (American democracy is in peril, and were talking about a single trans swimmer at a single school?)

At any rate, this was my short thread. You can determine whether I made my points in a way that skeptics at least might listen:

Despite that long introduction, this isnt a newsletter about transgender athletes. Its about something much deeper and more consequential. Its about one of the most common and pernicious ways in which we lose the ability to hear the truth. In many ways, its about how we defend ourselves from the truth. Let me introduce you to the process foul.

A process foul is any perceived breach of trust or decorum in the delivery of the message that distracts from the substance of the message. To be crystal clear, Im not remotely arguing that process doesnt matter. Indeed, if youre about to have a tough conversation (say, for example, an intervention) with a person you love, you often obsess about the process, almost to the exclusion of substance.

Do you talk on the phone or gather in person? If in person, where? Who should be in the room? Who should speak first? Who shouldnt speak at all? Indeed, taking exquisite care in the process of communicating difficult truths is an act of love. Were talking to human beings, after all, not factbots who can simply hear a hard word (Dude, you drink too much) and respond accordingly.

Process is so important to persuasion that the persuasion industry is consumed by concepts like manner and method. When I litigated, I didnt just try to master the facts and law of the case, but I practiced my delivery to the judge and the jury. I worried about my ties. I talked to my client about his demeanor on the stand and even while simply sitting at the counsels table.

Why do southern trial lawyers have the most impressive accents in the South? Process, not substance. Its an almost unconscious affectation that says to the jury, Im real. Im you.

The problem, however, should be obvious. Our concerns about process can overwhelm our concerns about truth, and our sense of entitlement about process can completely wall us off from hearingmuch less believingdifficult truths. And once you see the process objections in American politics, you cant unsee them. They dominate our discourse.

In my experience, here are the four most common wrongs that prevent us from hearing and understanding whats right.

Wrong messenger. This is perhaps the easiest and most popular method of discounting uncomfortable information. Once you categorize someone as Never Trump or a warmonger or fake news or then youve put on the bulletproof vest. Nothing that comes out of his or her mouth will penetrate your armor.

Wrong motives. Arguments over, for example, the so-called Evangelical elite often center around motive. We place a condition on truth that says, I will listen to true things only when spoken for the right reasons. After all, why should anyone listen to a grifter? And I definitely shouldnt listen to anyone whos simply trying to curry favor with the left or wants to be accepted by the elite.

And who makes the judgment about motive? How do we have confidence that we can peer into a man or womans heart and know their motivations. I appreciated these words from Thomas Sowell:

Wrong manner. In our populist age, there are few more deadly accusations than condescension or elitism. There are cases where even the assertion of any kind of expertise is virtually self-discrediting.

In far-left spaces, ever-shifting and intolerant language norms can mean that ordinary people can find themselves struggling to even find the right words to discuss contentious topics. Even words like racism are subject to different, evolving meanings, and certain terms of art, like land acknowledgment or BIPOC separate individuals into separate classes of understanding.

Wrong target. This is perhaps the most subtle and versatile of the process fouls. Its how you can still be wrong even when youre right. It encompasses concepts like punching down (people with larger platforms shouldnt take on those with less influence), misplaced priorities (youre squeezing out the gnat and swallowing the camel), and whataboutism (Donald Trump has abused women? What about Bill Clinton? Donald Trump hasnt accepted the results of his election? What about Stacey Abrams?)

The process of communication is laden with reciprocal responsibilities. As a communicator, my job is to do my best to know my audience, to understand them, and to speak in words that I believe theyll hear. In other words, my job isnt to fly over the target, dump my truth bombs like Im a B-52 over Hanoi, and then log off congratulating myself for a job well done.

I especially shouldnt congratulate myself for my bravery when the response is exactly the flak I was told to expector even perhaps hoped to receive.

As a listener, however, I have my own responsibilities. I should do my best to shun the calling of process fouls and listen hard to substance. This is not easy. Some of the most important lessons Ive learned have come from the most unlikely teachers. Some of the harshest words spoken to me have turned out to be the most true.

One way that truth dies is that when we place such exacting preconditions on its delivery into our lives that there is virtually no messenger or message that can penetrate our hearts.

Lets make this lesson a bit personal. Just before Christmas a pastor in my denomination named Kevin DeYoung wrote a piece in a Christian magazine called World called The Temptation of the Jeremiad that gained some traction in my little corner of the world. It was aimed mainly at me and the way in which Ive mounted various critiques of white Evangelical politics and cultural engagement in the age of Trump.

I dont know Kevin, but I have many friends who do. I respect his work a great deal, and so I listen to his critiques carefully. While he agrees with some things I say, these two paragraphs contain his core complaint:

And this is my biggest complaint with the white evangelical jeremiad. It has the same head-shaking you people vibe that prompted the deplorables to embrace Trump in the first place. Its one thing to object to an idea or to a set of propositions. Its another to object to a class of people. Even if French is right, and evangelicals should not have supported (voted for?) Trump and evangelicals should not be skeptical about many of the Covid protocols, there is little sympathy for trying to understand why evangelicals might have behaved in these ways. There is no persuasion, only pique and annoyance.


At the risk of seeming biased toward my own profession, I cant help but notice that the leading voices decrying the moral bankruptcy of white evangelicalism are not pastors but professional writers, academics, and full-time commentators. Given the nature of these vocationsvaluable, honorable vocationsit is easier to produce frequent jeremiads against the church than to produce a positive vision for the church. If your natural rhythm is not the whole counsel of God Sunday after Sunday, but another critique of the church in your inbox on Sunday morning, that should tell you something. The Lord knows there is much to criticize in the church, but I doubt that relentless, unsympathetic, exasperated censure against one specific people is the best way to convince them of your criticisms, let alone build them up in Christ.

These are textbook process fouls. Im the wrong messengernot a pastordelivering the message in the wrong way (with a head-shaking you people vibe). He says that even if Im right there is little sympathy for trying to understand why evangelicals might have behaved in these ways. I write only with pique and annoyance.

But this doesnt mean I should disregard what DeYoung says. If Im trying to communicate things that I believe to be both true and gravely important, and a thoughtful man says Im communicating through pique and annoyance then I need to think very hard about how I write.

In fact, I need to repent of my initial response to this essay. Since I believe he mischaracterized much of my work, my initial response was purely reactionary. I defended myself. But I should have reflected more. I should still reflect. As a communicator, am I failing in my responsibilities? Am I communicating a message that I do not intend?

At the same time, this sentence from DeYoung troubled me greatly: It [my work] has the same head-shaking you people vibe that prompted the deplorables to embrace Trump in the first place.

This is the dark place that an emphasis on process over substance can take you. A distaste for a persons tone should never prompt anyone to embrace a man like Trump. After all, even granting that my tone can be better, is that a reason to embrace a person whose tone is inarguably much worse and whose grasp on the truth is inarguably far more tenuous? Are people placing so many preconditions on critique that theyve effectively walled themselves off from hard truths?

When were communicating, we should care about people, and that means caring about process and truth. We should do our best as fallen and imperfect people to say true things in a careful, compassionate, and persuasive way. But we cannot ever allow often-shifting and sometimes-escalating demands about process to silence the truth.

When were listening, by contrast, we should resist the urge to filter truth through process. Strange messenger? Fine. Heck, even one of Jesuss disciples once tried to reject him by asking, Can anything good come out of Nazareth?

Obscure or tough delivery? That can work. Jesus often spoke in parables that few understood, and his own speech could be incredibly blunt and direct. And what about the prophets? Could they rake a man over the coals? Google the etymology of the word jeremiad, and youll find that answer fast.

Wrong motives? Who cares? And besides, how can I presume to know a persons true motivations?

In a recent Atlantic essay I wrote about our incredibly difficult task. In an age of cruelty, how do we open ourselves to legitimate critique? Heres my answer: The best folks I know have achieved the near impossible. Theyve constructed a thick skin while preserving an open heart. Their defense mechanisms are porous enough to allow fair critiques to penetrate while keeping the bad-faith actors at arms length.

Any other approach and our own heart and mind risk becoming the places where truth goes to die.

One more thing

In the lastest Good Faith podcast, Curtis and I talk about how January 6 helped both of us understand that it was time to grow up. We have to be adults now.

What does that mean? Please listen to the pod to find out.

A personal update

I apologize for the lack of a Tuesday newsletter last week. COVID came to our house, and I caught a breakthrough infection, along with three other members of the family. As the old guy of the bunch, I fared the worst, but it was still never worse than a moderate flu (though with quirky and shifting symptoms!), and we all were on the mend by the end of the week.

Im grateful for the vaccine, and Im grateful to have recovered so quickly. Millions have faced much greater challenges.

One last thing

This is a marvelous hymn and feels right for the first days of a new year that already can feel full of more uncertainty than promise:

Originally posted here:
The Places Where Truth Goes To Die - The Dispatch

Related Post

    Your Full Name
    Your Email
    Your Phone Number
    Select your age (30+ only)
    Select Your US State
    Program Choice
    Confirm over 30 years old Yes
    Confirm that you resident in USA Yes
    This is a Serious Inquiry Yes