A Theological Conflict

[Kamaji]

A Theological Conflict

An exclusive interview with Michael Knowles on transgenderism.

John Hirschauer
Apr 27, 2023

Michael Knowles made headlines at this year's Conservative Political Action Conference when he argued that transgender ideology should be "eradicated from public life." Knowles's critics, of course, accused him of advocating genocide, and when he debated libertarian pundit Brad Polumbo at the University of Pittsburgh on transgenderism earlier this month, protestors burned his effigy in the street. Knowles draws the ire of transgender activists precisely because he frames their argument correctly: Either men can become women, or they can't. If they can't, that's just as true for adults as it is for children.

I spoke to Knowles, a friend and fellow Catholic, about the roots of transgender ideology, the state's role in combatting it, and the religious dimensions of the sex and gender debate. Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

John Hirschauer:  When you spoke at the University of Pittsburgh, protesters burned your effigy on the streets outside, pulled the fire alarms, and otherwise tried to disrupt the event. Why do you think that pushing back on transgenderism specifically makes some progressives so angry?

Michael Knowles:  The transgender ideology is intrinsically irrational. It's not merely wrong, or a little bit off, but it exalts irrationality itself. It seems to me no surprise that people who hold that position would behave in an irrational way. You would expect this especially at a debate, because the debate takes away the shouting and the screaming and the yelling and the intimidation—and the explosives that they threw at the building, which didn't make it inside, thankfully—and it lays the arguments out for everyone to consider in a calm manner. And when that occurs, transgenderism flops. There is no defense of it.

That's why my first debate partner, Professor Donald McCloskey, who identifies as transgender himself, has three degrees from Harvard, has half a dozen honorary doctorates, has two dozen academic publications, even he would not debate the issue with me, a humble podcaster with no particularly advanced degrees. He would not sit down despite his being probably the most erudite, best-educated defender of transgenderism in the country. He pulled out of the debate specifically after he discovered that I am not merely a provocateur or a rhetorical bomb thrower. He pulled out of the debate after hearing my arguments against transgenderism after we had spoken in our pre-debate phone call. It was a generally polite phone call, and then, all of a sudden, at the last minute, he pulled out, and I think he pulled out specifically because I assured him that I was going to conduct the debate in a calm, measured, and reasonable manner. I think he realized that in that case, he had no way of winning the debate. Had he shown up to the University of Pittsburgh and I yelled and screamed and called him mean names, then he could have won by looking like the adult in the room. But if the debate was going to be calm and reasonable, there was no way he could win, because his position is indefensible.

J.H.:  I think there is a mistaken idea of what politeness actually constitutes in this context. You don't use Professor McCloskey's "preferred pronouns," for example, and some people would say that is impolite. What do you say to people who argue you should "respect" his chosen pronouns? What does real politeness look like in a conversation with a transgender-identifying person?

M.K.:  I do respect Professor McCloskey's pronouns. I respect his correct pronouns, and I respect him enough to tell him the truth. It is disrespectful to lie to people. This does not mean that we have to use the bluntest language available to us. I'm not opposed to euphemism, which is an important aspect of politeness. But there's a difference between euphemism and lying. If I refer to a 90-year-old woman as "a woman of a certain age" rather than as an "old hag," I'm being polite, but I'm not lying—she really is a woman of a certain age. If I stand up at dinner, and say, "I'm going to go use the water closet," instead of saying, "I'm gonna go use the toilet," I am using softer language that's less revolting at the dinner table, but I'm not lying.

*  *  *

Source:  https://www.theamericanconservative.com/a-theological-conflict/