OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)

Facts vs Feelings

Entry 2234, on 2022-08-31 at 11:29:28 (Rating 4, Politics)

There is a famous statement, attributed to conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, which says that "facts don't care about your feelings". He first used it in 2015 to answer criticism from members of a panel discussing Caitlyn Jenner's then recent transition to identifying as female. Shapiro didn't want to use Jenner's new pronouns and the criticism was for that attitude.

First, I should say that the statement is clearly true, in a rhetorical way. I mean, facts are abstract concepts and they can't think, so the statment is nonsensical when taken literally, but the clear meaning is that how a person feels should not be confused with the facts concerning the situation under discussion.

There has been a lot of discussion regarding the case of Jenner, who was born a man called William Bruce Jenner, who was a successful athlete as a man, and who identified as a woman in April 2015. And, of course, trans rights are a very prominent topic today, thanks to the fetish the left has with the subject.

So my first point is that feelings and facts aren't the same thing. Some people might deny this, saying that facts only exist relative to culture and personal perception, but I don't think anyone would really take this view seriously if they really thought about it. Apart from the usual philosophical objections which inevitably lead to solipsism, we have to accept that certain things should be regarded as factual. And yes, I know that any facts gained through the process of induction can never be completely proved, but realistically we can act like they are.

For example I live with the assumption that the Sun will rise tomorrow, and even though I can't absolutely prove that, it is a good concept to treat as a fact. If someone said they were depressed and felt like the Sun would never rise again, I wouldn't treat that feeling as a fact in the same way, even though it is technically possible.

So, I think that the only sensible conclusion is that facts and feelings both exist, and that they are different. Actually, it's hard to believe I really need to debate these points, because they seem so self-evident. However this is where we are now, where this nonsense is treated seriously by some parts of society.

So is Caitlin Jenner a woman? Well, according to the facts, no. But according to feelings, yes. Whether feelings or facts should be treated as more important really depends on the situation and the personal philosophy of the person involved.

For example, I am happy to call this person a name usually associated with women. And I am even happy to use the pronoun "her", because it is only a small concession to make, and does very little real harm. But I still think the fact is that she is a male, according to any reasonable definition.

Because she is factually (or biologically) a man (see how pronouns can cause problems) she shouldn't be involved in any activity which is normally exclusive to people who are factual women (as opposed to people who feel like women) such as sport. But in situations where feelings might be more important - such as in everyday social interactions - it is OK to act is if she is a woman.

Here's an extreme example of where failure to accept facts can be dangerous. A trans man (who was born a woman) went to a hospital to be treated for abdominal pain. It took a while for the medical staff to figure that the person was actually a pregnant woman, and in that time complications lead to the baby dying. Surely medical treatment is another place where facts should have a higher priority than feelings.

There are also cases where trans men (who were born women) have not been contacted by the health system for cervical smears. Why would they? Men don't have a cervix, do they? I would assume that there might be cases where a trans woman (previously a man) didn't get called for prostate exams either.

Trans activists might see failing to recognise a person's new gender as dangerous, because the person might suffer psychological harm, but obviously knowing a person's factual sex is often more important, to avoid real medical harm.

So both facts and feelings have their place and can coexist if we let them; we just have to accept that in some cases one should take precedence over the other. I would hope that, in most cases, that facts are seen as the more important of the two.

While I have been concentrating on the trans issue so far, I do need to point out that this is a far wider problem. Recently the same Ben Shapiro I mentioned at the top of this post attended a podcasting meeting where he acted in a friendly way to several other participants. But one person (who coincidentally was trans) felt "endangered" by his mere presence (without even meeting him) and the organisers of the meeting decided to issue a formal apology for inviting him. I'm guessing he won't be allowed to participate in similar future events.

But that whole incident was based on someone's feelings, and they seemed to have no real justification in fact at all. This is another case where feelings are treated more seriously than facts, and that seems to be clearly unjustified.

And this leads me to my final point. The people who favour feelings over facts tend to be very aggressive regarding their beliefs. They like to attack anyone who disagrees, and in particular are often enthusiastic about having them cancelled (which has most likely happened to Shapiro for future podcasting meetings).

I generally find that people who are confident that their beliefs have merit are also enthusiastic about discussing and debating those ideas (I know I certainly am). After all, if they are confident they are correct a debate is a good opportunity to spread those ideas to others. But a person who deep down knows they're talking BS is less likely to want to debate, because they know they will probably lose.

The big question is this: given that only a small fraction of people really care deeply about this and want to insist on draconian measures which we all must follow, why have the activists got so much power to push their agenda forward? Well, in my opinion it is related to the extreme political correctness of most mainstream media. The media tend to take a quite uncritical view of issues where "disadvantaged" groups are involved, and to keep on the right side of the media, many politicians, company directors, and other public figures tend to go along with it. For them facts are subservient to feelings, purely for reasons of expediency.

In the recent history of the developed world we have become more fact based, especially as religion has declined and science has gained ascendency. But this now seems to be reversing. Despite the great advantages a fact-based worldview has, we now seem to be reverting back to dismissing facts in favour of ideology, fantasy, and feelings.

But I think we will eventually regret this because, as Shapiro says, facts don't care about your feelings!

There are no comments for this entry.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.