One of the most recent events I have seen in the media that has sparked controversy has been the Trump administration's decision to withdraw "Obama-era protections for transgender students in public schools that let them use bathrooms and facilities corresponding with their gender identity" (CNN). There are two main competing narratives regarding this issue. One narrative involves individuals who support the Trump administration's decision, and claim that the Federal Government should have never gotten involved in the first place. The second competing narrative is that of individuals who believe that this decision goes against basic human rights and is unconstitutional in its very nature. Ariane de Vogue, a writer for CNN, states that Civil Rights groups "denounced the withdrawal as a politically motivated attack that will endanger transgender children and sow confusion over the federal government's role in enforcing civil rights" (CNN). Proponents of the decision also support the notion that, unlike Obama's interpretation, Title IX does not protect gender identity.
With many political issues, the competing narratives can often be categorized into being right or left. With this specific event, I noticed a strong appeal to emotions among opponents of the Trump admin's decision (the left). Quotes from these individuals use strong, emotional language that only seem to appeal to other left-leaning opponents of Trump’s decision. For example, in a quote from Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, she calls the decision a “mean-spirited attack” (CNN).
Right-leaning supporters of Trump’s decision (including other government officials) firmly believe that this so-called “bathroom debate” should have never been and should not ever be a federal matter. Jeremy W. Peters, Jo Becker and Julie Hirschfeld Davis, writers for the NY Times, state that many Republicans “argue that it is time to move away from social issues and focus more on bread-and-butter pocketbook concerns” (NY Times). Many social conservatives and supporters of the withdraw have celebrated Trump’s decision based on beliefs that allowing transgender students to use any bathroom would “allow potential sexual predators access to bathrooms and create an unsafe environment for children” (NY Times). This beliefs plays off of instilling fear into others which, while effective, can be potentially misleading.
Both sides of this debate have their own narratives, whether it is a belief that the withdraw is unconstitutional and endangers basic human liberties, or that federal government has no business being involved with gender identity and laws surrounding it. Either way, both sides only seem to attempt to connect with individuals of the same mindset or political affiliation. Both sides also make use of several rhetorical and persuasive strategies including appeal to pathos and the “slippery slope” (i.e. ‘If we let transgender students use any bathroom, it will allow opportunities for sexual predators endanger non-transgender students).
NY Times article: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/us/politics/devos-sessions-transgender-students-rights.html
CNN article: http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/22/politics/doj-withdraws-federal-protections-on-transgender-bathrooms-in-schools/
Good start here - and you do a nice job of describing a couple of articles that focus on this particular controversy.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting area for our class, because the competing narratives have emerged in a number of different areas: protecting students, proper role of government, how to allocate education funding, etc. Personally, when "prevention" is introduced without any evidence of a problem, I find that to be concerning (voter fraud? What voter fraud?... sexual harassment in bathrooms? What sexual harassment in bathrooms?) You mention the slippery slope fallacy - which seems to be the go-to method of inducing fear in the population, especially when the general population isn't well-informed about the reality of the issue.
Good choice here - and a good start to your examination! Please let me know how I can help!
Thanks for the response! I thought I would look at an article from the right-leaning website Breitbart to see what kind of persuasive techniques are used to sway readers. The language used in this article definitely powerful and generates a sense of fear among readers, further playing into the slippery slope fallacy. And this article also seeks to “bring to light” some evidence that shows that there is a problem with transgender bathroom laws. Even the article’s headline “Top Twenty-Five Stories Proving Target’s Pro-Transgender Bathroom Policy Is Dangerous to Women and Children” appeals to readers emotional sides. The author could have very easily just said that the policy is dangerous, period. But, by including “To Women and Children”, the headline strikes a powerful chord. Another example of the language this author chose is
DeleteAlso, these examples of stories of individuals being harassed in public restrooms seeks to give the anti transgender bathroom stance some credibility; they try to provide evidence of why transgender inclusive bathrooms are a danger.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/04/23/twenty-stories-proving-targets-pro-transgender-bathroom-policy-danger-women-children/
Remember that propaganda (even the "good" kind) is always fallacious in the sense that it plays on the emotions (whether fear or sympathy) of the audience, rather than the reasoning.
ReplyDeleteThis debate is quite frustrating in the sense that those who want to be respectful of transgender people don't seem to acknowledge the logistical difficulties involved in high school students suddenly being allowed to choose which locker room they will change in; while those who oppose it don't seem to acknowledge that they want to implement highly invasive, disrespectful, and downright strange monitoring of public-access space by government agents. This issue seems to be a prime example of how the most extreme and startling arguments continue to be made at the expense of discussing the concerns most people might actually have.
Consider how quickly this issue has blossomed into a national debate on the heels of the same-sex marriage issue being decided in the courts. It seems as if a ready-made replacement issue filled the wedge left by the basically-resolved same-sex marriage issue. The playbook seems the same, but the specifics regarding the "vulnerable population that deserves rights" has been changed.
Good stuff here! Let me know how I can help.