The role of intuitions in conspiracy theorizing

In developing a conspiracy theory, a common method is to find apparent inconsistencies between the “official story” and how the world works. Take the Kennedy Assassination. A wide range of evidence (e.g. autopsy photos, forensic recreations, expert testimony) indicates that a single bullet, passing through the bodies of both JFK and Governor Connally, caused seven wounds (Bugliosi, 2007; McAdams 2011). During the process of reviewing the evidence, conspiracy theorists conclude that the events involving this “magic bullet” couldn’t have happened. While there are typically arguments and “evidence” offered (e.g. the long-debunked misrepresentations of the bullet’s trajectory), the origins of their skepticism likely come from their initial beliefs or intuitions about ballistics and human anatomy. Intuitively, it may seem unlikely that one bullet could cause so much damage. Likewise, the head movement of Kennedy after the third shot (back and to the left) seems to be inconsistent with a shot from behind, where Lee Harvey Oswald was stationed. But JFK conspiracy theorists take their intuitions a few steps further by concluding that the facts about the gun wounds undermine the single shooter theory and strongly support the multiple gunmen theory. In the face of contradictory physical evidence and expert testimony, conspiracy theorists tend to stick to their intuitions and infer that all of the evidence supporting the “official story” must be fabricated or mistaken. The conclusions of expert panels, forensic recreations, sophisticated computer simulations, and peer-reviewed scientific articles are often discounted out of hand. Intuitions about how they think the world works are often given more weight than the science. 

Experiments by Anatomical Surrogates Technology provide support for the single bullet theory. (Watch video to hear analysis from the ballistics experts consulted (1)

To use a recent example, consider the recent Vegas mass shooting. Is it possible that the mass murderer, Stephen Paddock, broke through the windows using a small sledgehammer, as reported by the police? Conspiracy theorists say “No”. Once again, the reasoning goes something like this: It seems unlikely or impossible that a hammer could break out the windows of the hotel room, therefore, Paddock couldn’t have done so.

In the case of the Vegas mass shooting, there is much more speculation than science. What kind of windows does the Mandalay Bay have? Can a small sledgehammer, by itself, smash through the windows that were installed? Online, there are lots of assertions made in answering these questions, with little to no evidence offered. But by looking at the photographic evidence and considering the eyewitness testimony of glass shattering, it is reasonable to infer, as the LVPD did, that the glass was shattered by Paddock using the hammer found in the room and/or rifle fire. Additionally, the photographic evidence and eyewitness testimony appear to undermine the internet rumors that hurricane resistant or shatterproof windows were installed (2).

Image source: Gregory Bull/Associated Press

What the JFK conspiracy theorist and the Vegas shooting conspiracy theorist have in common is that they rely upon an argument from intuition. Their beliefs about how bullets or hammers work determine the conclusions they draw and the hypotheses they take seriously. The argument is not just unique to JFK or the Vegas shooting; it is used as a basis for most conspiracy theories. The argument can be stated much more generally.

The general argument from intuition	It seems as if E is unlikely or impossible Therefore E probably didn’t happen
Application 1: JFK multiple gunmen theories	It seems unlikely that one bullet can cause seven wounds Therefore, the single bullet theory is probably false
Application 2: Vegas shooting conspiracy theories	It seems unlikely that Paddock broke out the windows with a hammer Therefore, Paddock probably didn’t carry out the shootings (alone)
Application 3: 9/11 controlled demolition theories	It seems unlikely that a building can collapse from fire Therefore, WTC 7 probably didn’t collapse from fire
Application 4: Moon landing hoax conspiracy theories	It seems unlikely that we had the technological capabilities to go to the moon Therefore, we didn’t go to the moon

Given how often the argument is used to support belief in conspiracy theories, a lot hangs on whether this form of argument is any good. Unfortunately for the conspiracy theorists, the argument is demonstrably unsound. As it turns out, the argument is a variation of a textbook logical fallacy, the argument from personal incredulity. Just because you cannot imagine how something happened, doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen.  

Why is the argument unsound? First, one can be mistaken about the likelihood or possibility of a given event, especially when it comes to the domain of physics. The intuitions of experts carry much more weight, as they possess the relevant background knowledge to judge whether an event is likely or possible. Laypeople often do not have the relevant background knowledge, relying mostly upon internet rumors and their own relatively uninformed speculation. When it comes to assessing the likelihood of an event, the right questions to would be:

-What do most of the relevant experts think?
-Is there any experimental data or quantitative analyses that inform us about the event’s likelihood?
-Have similar events happened in the past?

Second, the unlikeliness of an event is not, in itself, a good reason to doubt that the event occurred. After all, unlikely events happen all of the time. To form reliable judgments about the likelihood of an event, one would also have to consider the totality of the evidence and the plausibility of the alternative hypotheses. One ought to prefer the explanation that accounts for all of the facts, rather just some of the them. If the totality of evidence suggests an unlikely event occurred, then an unlikely event probably occurred. In forming likelihood judgments, conspiracy theorists often fail to realize that their alternative explanations for what happened rely on a number of highly questionable (if not demonstrably false) assumptions, and that their hypotheses (which typically require hundreds of people to be lie and fabricate evidence) are much less likely than the widely accepted view. 

The main problem with relying upon the argument from intuition is that you might begin theorizing with false assumptions. Instead of revising their hypotheses in light of new evidence, conspiracy theorists will likely cling to their original intuitions and the factoids (3) that they have found to support them. For example, in response to up-close photos of the broken windows in Paddock’s hotel room, some conspiracy theorists now claim that the photos of the window have been altered or fabricated (part of the coverup). Likewise, in response to the newly released footage of Paddock transporting his luggage to his hotel room, some conspiracy theorists--who previously claimed that it was impossible to transport so many guns into the hotel room--assert that the Mandalay Bay security footage provided to the New York Times and other media outlets is all fake. 

Conspiracy theorists have an easy way to dismiss criticism and evidence that contradicts their strongly held beliefs. Assert, without evidence or argument, that it’s all rubbish. The psychological appeal to this tactic is easy to understand. To engage in conspiracy theorizing, you don’t need to have any qualifications, or do much research (outside of watching youtube videos). In responding to critics, conspiracy theorists can always say that the evidence for their theory has been successfully covered up (an unfalsifiable claim), that all the evidence that conflicts with their theory is fake, or that everyone is lying. You can be “in the know” by simply relying upon your own intuitive judgments, following others who are likeminded, without the need to reflect upon whether those judgments are correct. 

Like with hardcore religious believers, there have a set of core beliefs that they treat as immune to refutation. Their core beliefs consist of intuitions about what is and isn't physically possible and those who do not share their intuitions are labeled morons or shills. Of course, not all conspiracy theorists engage in this kind of rhetoric, but I've encountered quite a lot of it in my conversations over the years. More objective researchers will present expert testimony (though usually irrelevant and/or biased) and evidence that they believe supports their theory, but much of what is presented is just to support their initial judgments. So, even the more sophisticated theorists still treat certain claims as gospel. 

Understanding how the world works requires much more than relying upon intuitions. The truth revealed by the scientific method can be, and often is, counterintuitive. Proper skepticism and good scientific reasoning requires that we carefully reflect not only upon the assumptions made by others, but on the assumptions that we ourselves make, especially if our assumptions are supported by little more than our gut. Sometimes, crazy shit just happens. And if you look hard enough, you’ll be able to find something surprising or hard to believe about virtually any event. Instead of falling down an endless rabbit hole, one should be open to considering alternative hypotheses, read and engage with criticisms of your favored hypotheses, look at the totality of the evidence, and evaluate the strength of one's arguments.

(1) Their experiment recreated six of the seven wounds and demonstrated that the trajectory of the bullet is consistent with that of a bullet fired from the sixth floor of the book depository (where Oswald's rifle was found). While some conspiracy theorists interpret the result as undermining the single bullet theory, Alexander R. Krstic, a ballistics expert who was involved with the experiment, strongly believes that they would have replicated the event if the bullet hadn't struck a second rib bone, which slowed down the bullet considerably, and caused deformation (the "magic bullet" only struck one bone and was relatively undamaged).

(2) Close-up pictures reveal that the breakage does not appear to be consistent with that of a tempered glass breakage pattern or hurricane-resistant windows. The glass appears to have shattered, like in other instances of high-rise hotel windows that have been broken. Several eyewitnesses have provided testimony regarding the sound of glass shattering, and glass raining down from the window during the shooting. Given that Paddock's room contained the means to shatter the windows (and Paddock), the best explanation is that Paddock broke the windows from the inside before firing into the crowds. 

(3) By factoid, I mean an erroneous claim that is presented as a fact. While the vast majority of claims and assertions made by conspiracy theorists have been thoroughly debunked, the myths continue to spread, and are presented as factual information on conspiracy websites and youtube. To a naive observer, a long list of factoids can appear to be compelling evidence. To a more skeptical observer, a long list of claims, especially if the conclusions aren't widely accepted or controversial, calls for fact checking and careful analysis. 

Works cited

Bugliosi, V. (2007). Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy. WW Norton & Company.

McAdams, J. (2011). JFK Assassination Logic: How to Think about Claims of Conspiracy. Potomac Books, Inc..

Alternative Archaeology: Gobekli Tepe and the Sphinx

On a recent JRE podcast, skeptic Michael Shermer went head-to-head with Graham Hancock and Randall Carlson, two proponents of alternative archaeological theories. The debate could be summarized as follows: Hancock and Carlson argued that the simplest explanation for the presence of ancient archaeological sites, like Gobekli tepe (below image) and the Sphinx, is that there was a transfer of knowledge from an unknown advanced civilization to the builders of those structures. Shermer argued against their thesis by citing the fact that most archaeologists dispute their claims, and that there is little to no positive evidence in favor of their hypotheses. According to Shermer, the default position should be to side with the majority of experts. 

The “mainstream” view among archaeologists is that the Gobekli Tepe site, found in southeast Turkey, was built by hunter gatherers around 9000 BC. Hancock and Carlson argue that the mainstream account is wrong because of the presence of several, otherwise inexplicable, anomalies. In response, Shermer accuses Hancock and Carlson of focusing on negative evidence rather than producing positive evidence for their view. Finding some problems with a well-established theory is easy to do. Finding good evidence for alternative theories is evidently very hard. How should a layperson adjudicate the debate between “mainstream” and “alternative” archaeologists? In this post, I will argue that Hancock and Carlson’s arguments for the existence of an unknown ancient civilization are not persuasive. In the process, I will critically assess some of the specific anomalies cited by Hancock and Carlson.

Before addressing their reasoning, it is useful to know the backgrounds of both Hancock and Carlson. Graham Hancock is an author and journalist who has written extensively about the mysteries of ancient civilizations. Randall Carlson describes himself on his website as a “master builder and architectural designer, teacher, geometrician, geomythologist, geological explorer and renegade scholar.” Neither are experts in archaeology, a discipline that seems most relevant to assessing their claims. However, their lack of credentials does not affect the quality of their arguments. They either have good reasons for accepting their views or they don’t.

Hancock argues that the presence of Gobekli Tepe cries out for an alternative explanation. Before 9000 BC, there is no archaeological record of the gradual development of skills and technology you would may expect to find. For example, archaeologists have not found less sophisticated stone structures found dated around twelve or thirteen thousand years ago. Gobekli Tepe is the oldest stone structure we have found and it appears as if its construction came out of nowhere. Without any evidence of older structures or ancient civilizations, what is the best explanation for its presence? Hancock argues that the best explanation is that an advanced civilization taught hunter gatherers how to build the stone structures. 

There are several problems with Hancock’s reasoning. First, he expects there to be archaeological evidence for the gradual development of skills, but apparently does not expect to find the same kinds of evidence for his proposed advanced civilization. Hancock’s only evidence for an advanced civilization is indirect: the mere existence of Gobekli Tepe. A second problem with Hancock’s argument is that he makes an assumption that he provides little warrant for: that hunter gatherers could not have learned how to build the structures on their own in a relatively short period of time (i.e. hundreds or thousands of years). Let’s compare Hancock’s hypothesis with some others.

Burst hypothesis: The skills required to build Gobekli Tepe were acquired and honed in a relatively short period of time (hundreds of years), solely by the hunter gatherers.

Gradualist hypothesis: There was a gradual development of skills but the evidence was not preserved well or it is all still underground.

As it stands, most would agree that there is probably much more evidence to uncover. But in order to favor Hancock’s Transfer of Knowledge (ToK) hypothesis, one would need to show that both the burst and gradualist hypotheses were less likely to be true. I take the ToK hypothesis to be the most extravagant because it posits the existence of a civilization we have no evidence for. The other hypotheses just make, in my view, reasonable assumptions about humans we know existed. How does Hancock try to establish that ToK is the best explanation? 

It seems like Hancock, Carlson, and Rogan are all incredulous about the burst hypothesis. But given that they all lack expertise in cognitive science and anthropology, they are not in a position to say what the limits of human cognition or social learning were at the time. Thus, they are committing the fallacious argument from personal incredulity. Hancock gives a second reason to reject the burst hypothesis. He points out that the mainstream archaeological community had long thought that hunter gatherers were not capable of building something like Gobekli Tepe. Experts no longer believe that in light of recent archaeological finds, such as Gobekli Tepe, that were undoubtedly built by hunter gatherers using stone age technology. Skeptical of the recent change of expert opinion, Hancock appeals to what the experts used to think to justify his belief that hunter gatherers couldn’t have pulled it off. 

Hancock is not in a position to rule out the gradualist hypothesis either. In order for his own hypothesis to be taken seriously, he needs to assume that there is a lot of hidden or destroyed archaeological evidence. But one would make the same assumption in order to support the gradualist hypothesis. Without any independent reason for favoring ToK over the gradualist hypothesis, it would seem that the simpler explanation would be the latter.

But of course, Hancock and Carlson do think there are independent reasons for positing the existence of a lost ancient civilization. They go even further when they suggest that this same lost ancient civilization was responsible for teaching many of the early civilizations (e.g. Egyptians) how to construct megaliths. Their evidence consists mostly of anomalies found in other archaeological sites that do not fit well with the standard accounts. One of the main pieces of evidence they refer to is the apparent water erosion on the enclosure walls of the Great Sphinx. The Great Sphinx is widely thought to have been built around 2500 BC. But in order for the weathering markings on the enclosure walls to form, you would need much more rain than was present at the time of its construction (1). So, if there was not enough rain around 2500 BC, then it must have been built much earlier than we previously thought (~6000 BC). That, or the idea that there is evidence of water erosion is simply mistaken.

The vast majority of archaeologists, geologists, and Egyptologists reject the water erosion hypothesis for two main reasons. First, the weathering marks can also be accounted for by other factors such as wind erosion, quarrying activities, or rainfall runoff (Reader 2001; 2006, Lacovara 2004, Vandercruys 2006). Second, there is no archaeological evidence of an advanced civilization around that area that predates the Egyptians. [It is often pointed out that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but that is only true when the evidence should not be expected. In the case of an advanced civilization, you would expect there to be some kind of evidence, not only for the civilization at its peak, but for the gradual development of the civilization. In this case, we have reasonable grounds for thinking that absence of evidence is in fact evidence of absence.]

The simplest explanation is that there was no water erosion from intense rainfall to begin with. Hancock and Carlson do not seem to take this possibility seriously, suggesting that either they know something the archaeological community does not (e.g. the weathering marks could only be caused by intense rainfall at an earlier time), or that they have missed something the archaeological community is aware of. The same possibility remains for the remainder of their "evidence". In interpreting the empirical record, expertise is sometimes required. Those who are lacking certain kinds of knowledge about, say, the methodology of geologists or archaeologists can easily go astray. Given that Hancock and Carlson do not have formal backgrounds in the relevant fields, it is possible that they have unwittingly misinterpreted the evidence. 

There is usually a good reason why alternative theories are given little weight. It's not that most scientists are closed-minded, it's that they are very skeptical. Alternative theories tend to be lacking in the evidence department, and so when they get criticized, the proponents often feel like they're getting an unfair shot. But given the nature of scientific inquiry, and the extravagance of many of the alternative theories, one should not expect anything different. If there was an advanced civilization that aided the hunter gatherers at Gobekli Tepe, it will take some high quality evidence to convince the scientific community. Hancock and Carlson should continue their research, but it's reasonable to conclude that they're probably wrong. 

Endnotes
(1)  Geologist Colin Reader (2001, 2006) has proposed that the Sphinx was built several hundred years before the mainstream timeline, a time in which there would have been enough rain to directly cause the weathering marks. 

Works cited

Peter Lacovara. (2004). The Pyramids, the sphinx: tombs and temples of Giza. Bunker Hill Publishing, Inc.

Reader, C. D. (2001). A Geomorphological Study of the Giza Necropolis, with Implications for the Development of the Site. Archaeometry, 43(1), 149-165.

Reader, C. (2006). Further considerations on development at Giza before the 4th Dynasty. PalArch’s Journal of Archaeology of Egypt/Egyptology, 3(2), 12-25.

Vandecruys, G. (2006). The Sphinx: dramatising data… and dating. PalArch’s Journal of Archaeology of Egypt, 1, 1-13. 

Transgenderism and Science

Liberals tend to think of themselves as belonging to the “party of science”. To justify use of this title, liberals will point out how conservatives tend to reject mainstream climatology (e.g. humans are warming the planet) and well-established biology (e.g. evolution). But conservative critics allege that liberals reject mainstream science too. Specifically, the science behind the safety of GMOs, vaccines, nuclear power, and most recently, transgenderism—the idea that gender and biological sex can come apart. I agree that anti-scientific views are held by both parties (perhaps even equally so), but I think it is a mistake to lump transgenderism into the anti-science bin. While I think transgenderism raises some scientific questions, I don’t think liberals, or transgender individuals, tend to believe things that are contradicted by well-established science.

At a recent event at Ferris State University, conservative pundit Ben Shapiro responded to a student who asked a question about transgender rights. A video of this exchange* was uploaded to youtube shortly after. Here are some of the central claims Shapiro makes in his response to the student:

(1) Transgender individuals are making claims that are in conflict with well-established science and deny basic biological facts (1:15).

(2) Sex and gender are coextensive. They cannot come apart (0:15).

(3) The high transgender suicide rate is to be explained by the condition itself, rather than by discrimination, rejection, and stigmatization (starts around 3:20).

In this post, I will argue that the first claim is false, that the second is not well-established by the science, and that justification for the third claims rests upon a misrepresentation of the evidence and faulty reasoning.

(1)

Early on in the exchange, Shapiro expresses his knee-jerk reaction to transgender individuals: “You are not the sex to which you claim to be” (0:59).

If taken literally, he is attacking a straw man, as that is not the claim transgender people are making. Transgender people are claiming that their gender does not align with their sex—not that their sex isn’t what the doctors determined at their birth. If you were to ask them about their chromosomes or sex organs, they would not say something false.

Transgender individuals insist there is an important distinction between ‘sex’ and ‘gender’. Sex is to be understood as the possession of all or almost all of a number of biological properties (e.g. genetics, sexual organs, hormone production) associated with being either male or female, whereas gender is the possession of all or almost all of a number of psychological properties and behavioral dispositions (e.g. identity, expression, masculinity vs. femininity) that are typically associated with one’s sex. Put more simply, sex is what’s between the legs, gender is what’s between the ears. The distinction is made not only by transgender people, but can be found in any psychology or sociology textbook.

Transgender individuals are alleging that there can be a mismatch between one’s sex and gender profiles. That is to say, it’s possible that a man** can be born in a female body and vice versa. The American Psychological Association takes a similar stance, defining transgender as “an umbrella term for persons whose gender identity, gender expression or behavior does not conform to that typically associated with the sex to which they were assigned at birth.”

(2)

I take it that Shapiro will either reject that there is a distinction between ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ or that the distinction doesn’t validate the beliefs of transgender individuals. I say this because, later in the video, Shapiro claims that, “Gender is not disconnected from sex.” (0:15) What exactly does he mean by this?

One interpretation is that he is claiming that ‘gender’ and ‘sex’ are coextensive. That is to say, anything that is a biological male or female must have the corresponding gender profile by necessity. If the two classes of properties always go together, the distinction between sex and gender effectively falls apart. But if Shapiro is saying that sex and gender are coextensive, then he is making a scientific claim, one that is by no means well-established science or a basic biological fact. His claim would then be asserting that a scientific hypothesis about the relation between sex and gender is true, without any evidence.

It is true that the coextension hypothesis is in direct conflict with what transgender people are saying. Transgender people believe that sex/gender mismatching is possible and that their life experiences attest to that fact. (In the scientific literature, the possibility of mismatching is treated as a hypothesis, known as “the brainsex theory of transsexualism”). At best, liberals and transgender individuals would be denying that the coextension hypothesis is true. But that does not amount to denying basic biological facts, as it would in the cases of identifying as a different age or species (Shapiro’s analogies to age and species start around 2:15).

If Shapiro is making a more semantic claim, that ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ are synonymous, then he’s just wrong. This would be true even if we assume that sex and gender are co-extensive. ‘Sex’ and ‘gender’ would still apply to different aspects of the same referent. The property of having a heart is coextensive with the property of having a kidney. But having a heart does not mean the same thing as having a kidney.

One might still argue that the coextension thesis is more plausible because it is supported by “common sense” intuitions about sex and explains why many use ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ interchangeably. I think that most people’s life experiences are consistent with the coextension thesis, only because most people identify with the gender associated with their sex. If mismatching can happen, but very infrequently (0.3% of people), one would not expect many people to have encountered evidence contrary to it. Hence, the life experiences of most people cannot count as strong evidence in favor of the coextension thesis, as it is consistent with the possibility that mismatching occurs in rare circumstances.

I see no reason to think, from the armchair, that the coextension thesis is plausible. (Perhaps those who make certain theological assumptions might disagree.) To the contrary, I think there is evidence that provides some support for the mismatching hypothesis. Namely, the testimony of transgender people.

Imagine a world where the vast majority of people have observed time and time again that ravens are black. The common sense view would be that ravens are just black by nature and that they can’t come in any other color. But say that there was a very small group of people claiming to have seen a white raven. How should the vast majority of people respond to such claims? One response would be skepticism. Most people have only seen black ravens. Therefore, it is unlikely that white ravens exist and very likely that the individuals claiming otherwise are mistaken. Another response would be to accept that white ravens might exist, but not to take a stand on whether or not they do. I think the latter attitude is more justified than the former.

Similarly, I think accepting the possibility that mismatching is possible is reasonable given the testimony of transgender people. We have no good reason to think that they are lying about their subjective experiences. Additionally, the average person does not know enough about genetics or biology to determine whether or not mismatching is possible. The specific biological bases of gender (if there in fact are any) are still hotly contested, even among scientists who specialize in the fields relevant to these questions (e.g. endocrinology, developmental psychology, neurobiology).

Shapiro also draws attention to the fact that transgender individuals are at much higher risk for depression and anxiety disorders than the general population. Perhaps one way to improve their well-being would be to give them the benefit of a scientific doubt and accept them for how they express themselves and for how they identify. However, Shapiro takes issue with this suggestion, not only because he thinks trans people are fundamentally mistaken about the science, but because he thinks referring to them by their professed gender identity won’t do them any good (Starts around 4:04).

(3)

Shapiro argues that it makes very little difference to the well-being of trans individuals whether or not we recognize or respect their gender identities. To support this contention, he notes that transgender individuals commit attempt suicide at much higher rates than cisgender individuals (40% vs. 4%), and that a recent study found that “it makes no difference, virtually no difference statistically speaking, as to whether people recognize you as a transgender person or not, which suggests there’s a very high comorbidity between transgenderism, whatever that mental state may be, and suicidality, that has nothing to do with how society treats you” (3:44). If it makes no difference whether or not we recognize someone as transgender, then Shapiro reasons that their suicide rate must be due to the psychological condition itself.

The UCLA study does not say what he says it does. The study found that there were two closely related kinds of risk factors that lead to suicidality among transgender people: “rejection, discrimination, victimization, and violence related to anti-transgender bias and serious mental health conditions” (Haas et al., 2014). Furthermore, the authors conclude that, “Based on prior research and the findings of this report, we find that mental health factors and experiences of harassment, discrimination, violence and rejection may interact to produce a marked vulnerability to suicidal behavior in transgender and gender non-conforming individuals.” I think there is an obvious connection between the negative societal effects and mental health issues: the former causes the latter. But claims of causation require lots of evidence. So, I will leave that up to the relevant experts to determine.

Shapiro follows up on this point by bringing up the low suicide rates among blacks (starts around 4:25). While Shapiro talks exclusively about bullying, I take it that he would maintain that even if you were to factor in any of the other negative societal effects (e.g. discrimination), you would still fail to account for the high transgender suicide attempt rate. He reasons that if things like bullying and discrimination increase the risk of suicide, blacks should be more suicidal than whites since they are bullied and discriminated against more often. But they’re not more likely to commit suicide. Therefore, the way society treats you has nothing to do with suicidality. This isn’t a very good argument.

First, blacks are not a very good comparison group to transgender individuals. Blacks do not face rejection from their families for coming out as black, they are not regularly accused of having a mental illness (or being delusional), and they are not denied health care or work because of their identity. A much better comparison group would be homosexuals, whom have been subjected to similar negative societal effects, albeit to a lesser degree now. Here, we see that the data undermines Shapiro’s argument.

The suicide attempt rates among homosexuals are now between ten and twenty percent, lower than the rates among trans people (Haas et al., 2014; King et al., 2008). However, the rates used to be much higher. For instance, in the 1970’s, a time when homosexuality was significantly frowned upon, a large-scale survey of over five thousand homosexuals found that 40% had attempted suicide (Jay, 1979).*** Since the 1970’s, homosexuals have become much more accepted into society and they are also now less likely to attempt suicide. Two questions arise. Why did the suicide rate of homosexuals decline over the past forty years? And why is the suicide rate still much higher than heterosexuals today?

Societal effects (esp. rejection and disapproval by close family and friends) probably play a significant role in explaining the suicide trends among these groups. A recent study in Canada found that transgender people who had supportive parents were 57% less likely to attempt suicide (Bauer et al., 2015). Those who experienced low levels of hatred and abuse were 66% less likely. Similar suicide risk factors have been also been found among homosexuals (Haas et al., 2010; Van Bergen et al., 2013). Furthermore, a recent study published in JAMA looked at suicide attempts among homosexual teenagers from 2004-2015 (Raifman et al. 2017). The study found that their rate of suicide attempts dropped by 14% in the states where gay marriage was legalized. In states where gay marriage was illegal, the suicide rates remained constant throughout this 11 year period. Again, these findings intuitively support a causal hypothesis regarding suicidal tendencies and social acceptance. Finally, to speak to Shapiro’s specific claims about bullying, a recent meta-analysis concluded that bullying, in general, is a significant risk factor for suicidal ideation and attempts (Van Geel et al., 2014).

Issues surrounding gender and sexual orientation will always arouse conflict between those on the right and left. We hold many opposing beliefs about morality, the existence of God, and how society should be structured, and those beliefs affect how we will respond to scientific claims. We will tend to either ignore findings that contradict our beliefs, or we will deny that they are true. In order to resolve our disagreements about science, we have to be honest about our own beliefs and motives, and be just as honest when we try to represent the views of those we disagree with. Building up straw men, misrepresenting scientific studies, and engaging in tasteless ridicule is not going to narrow the political divide.

References

Bauer, G. R., Scheim, A. I., Pyne, J., Travers, R., & Hammond, R. (2015). Intervenable factors associated with suicide risk in transgender persons: a respondent driven sampling study in Ontario, Canada. BMC Public Health, 15(1), 525.

Haas, A. P., Eliason, M., Mays, V. M., Mathy, R. M., Cochran, S. D., D'Augelli, A. R., ... & Russell, S. T. (2010). Suicide and suicide risk in lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender populations: review and recommendations. Journal of homosexuality, 58(1), 10-51.

Haas, A. P., Rodgers, P. L., & Herman, J. L. (2014). Suicide attempts among transgender and gender non-conforming adults. work, 50, 59.

Jay K, Young A (1979). The Gay Report: Lesbians and Gay Men Speak Out About Sexual Experiences and Lifestyles. New York, NY: Summit Books.

King et al. 2008 King, M., Semlyen, J., Tai, S. S., Killaspy, H., Osborn, D., Popelyuk, D., & Nazareth, I. (2008). A systematic review of mental disorder, suicide, and deliberate self harm in lesbian, gay and bisexual people. BMC psychiatry, 8(1), 70.

Raifman, J., Moscoe, E., Austin, S. B., & McConnell, M. (2017). Difference-in-differences analysis of the association between state same-sex marriage policies and adolescent suicide attempts. JAMA pediatrics, 171(4), 350-356.

Van Bergen, D. D., Bos, H. M., van Lisdonk, J., Keuzenkamp, S., & Sandfort, T. G. (2013). Victimization and suicidality among Dutch lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths. American journal of public health, 103(1), 70-72.

Van Geel, M., Vedder, P., & Tanilon, J. (2014). Relationship between peer victimization, cyberbullying, and suicide in children and adolescents: a meta-analysis. JAMA pediatrics, 168(5), 435-442.

* Timestamps are for the video featured on the article linked to near the beginning of the article: http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/10/ben-shapiro-uses-age-to-counter-transgenderism-argument-why-arent-you-60-video/

** By ‘man’, I mean an individual with all or almost all of the psychological properties and behavioral dispositions typically associated with being a male. While this may be contrary to ordinary linguistic practice, this is an accurate way of describing what transgender people are claiming.  

***Same suicide attempt rate as transgender persons today