Protecting the debate

If you have read a few of my previous posts you are probably already aware of how much I am in favor of constantly re-evaluating and re-assessing our own viewpoints. We never know when new evidence is going to appear that could change our minds, or an eureka moment can hit us and show how wrong we were in a previously very solid belief. Still, there are certain milestones that are particularly suited to take a moment of pause and make a conscious effort to think. International Women's Day is one of such milestones in the year, with a dedicated focus on the trajectory and the situation of women.

From a feminist point of view, probably one of the darkest moments in recent history has been the coining of the term TERF (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist). And the saddest part of it actually does not have much to do with feminism at all, but with how the creation of such tags reflects a zeitgeist that not only insists on policing the public arena, but also expects institutions and corporations to do the same. And censorship and cancel culture has become so rabid that it not only prosecutes the opinions (bad enough), but it even fights to deny or suppress the mention of any fact that might be inconvenient to the cause.

Photo: Jill

The problem is that facts are not ideological: if rain falls on the day of the Love Parade, it will indubitably bother the many gay participants in the party, but it is certainly not homophobic, just a fact. Similarly, the physical advantage of transwomen in many sports is another fact, not a matter of opinion and certainly not transphobic. It is an inconvenient fact, because it invalidates the simple idea of letting transwomen compete with ciswomen, but let it be said that the situation does not only bother transwomen and their supporters: many ciswomen also would like to see a simple solution that allowed transwomen to compete without sweeping away all the medals reserved for women.

However, this is just a prominent example of the recent increase in dogmatism and the suppression of debate. And this is a real tragedy for any society, but particularly so for one which is allegedly rooted in democracy and science. Political (or social) debate relies very strongly on two different pillars: on the one side, it is essential to anchor the debate as much as possible on facts; on the other hand, there is no real debate without the free flow of opinions. Let us look a bit deeper into these two elements.

For a debate to be of any practical use the link to reality is built through the facts that underpin that debate. It is true that some facts might be unclear at the time of the debate or require additional investigation, but that only makes the validity of the debate contingent on the confirmation of the premise: if the starting point turns out to be wrong in the long run (or if it was wrong to start with) the debate might still be interesting from a philosophical point of view, but the conclusions would not be applicable. It is not that different from the exercise that my sons propose when they ask me which superpower I would prefer: it is interesting to consider the pros and cons of each of the options, but at the end of the day nothing of practical use will come from the debate, because I will never have any of the superpowers (let alone the option to choose).

The second essential component of any debate is a diversity of opinions, which in mathematical terms means at least two. Having only one opinion can lead to much rejoice in the agreement, patting one another on the back and, possibly, even cementing the social connection, but it is certainly not a debate. And it is a well known fact that only by contemplating alternative theories can we advance in our knowledge and grow: it is not so long ago that "everybody knew" that stomach ulcers where induced by stress until Australian physician Barry Marshall prepared himself a bacteria cocktail and caused himself ulcers. For many years all his colleagues had insisted that the established knowledge was sound and would not even consider his hypothesis until he managed to produce such a compelling evidence that nobody was able to disprove it anymore.

Hard as his trajectory was, one might argue that he was better off than many people these days; derided as he was, he was at least tolerated and allowed to continue working on his hypothesis. In recent times, on the other hand, many prominent figures have been fired from their workplaces for expressing opinions that go against the "established science", even if their main complaint was that the conclusion was not well established at all. Regardless of whether it is about transgender people, the m-ARN vaccines, climate change, or the wars in Ukraine or Gaza, it is becoming more and more dangerous to express an opinion contrary to or even doubtful of the mainstream sentiment.

The International Women's Day is a good occasion to remember all those women who were prosecuted for contesting the establishment and practicing the kind of herbal-based medicine that helped where many physicians were useless, particularly in feminine matters. For three hundred years they realized time and time again that they could not stand on the sidelines doing nothing while many people suffered the incompetence of the "established medical science". But it we think we are better than in the middle ages, we might want to think again: witch hunts are still rampant in the ideological arena.

For any democratic society protecting the debate should be much more important that protecting any single idea: otherwise we are destined to dogmatism, stagnation and societal fracture. It is OK if a company or institution clarifies that the opinion of one of its prominent figures is not the opinion of the institution. It is not OK, however, that this person gets fired because of their opinion, even if it is an impopular one. And even if the public explodes in outrage and demands their head, the decisionmakers should stand firmly by the protection of the debate and defend the right of this person to have and express a different opinion that might have some value to the social or scientific progress. Anything else is falling pray to the mass fear and renouncing democracy. 

Let us all contribute to democracy by respecting everybody's opinion and their right to speak. I would even admit your right to be condescending with the most outlandish ideas, as long as you let the witches continue to be witches for those who find them helpful. Have a nice weekend.