Yesterday, in Part 1 of this post, I tried to make the case for talking to political adversaries about policy and politics. If you found that persuasive and are ready to Make Thanksgiving Interesting Again, this post will explore what that engagement — what conversations with ideological adversaries — might look like.
This is a topic I take up at length in Chapter 6 of my book; there, I preface that discussion with two caveats. The first is that polling suggests that in today’s bitterly partisan U.S., about a third of voters are potential swing voters. But it is worth understanding the other two thirds nevertheless. The second caveat is that persuasion requires trust, suggesting that it is virtually impossible to be persuasive about any important issue with a stranger, or in one short conversation. It is much easier to be persuasive with those with whom you already have a relationship — family, friends, neighbors, co-workers.
With those caveats, let’s imagine how you might have persuasive face-to-face conversations about the two sets of political issues we used as examples in Part 1 of this post: gender/gender identity issues and climate policy.
Better Conversations Are Iterative and Cautious
Even within a trust relationship, political discussions are fraught. If you want to persuade a friend who thinks otherwise that a specific policy position is good for them or for the country, the best way to go about that is to cautiously explore the other person’s views, face to face. That’s not what happens online. Semi-anonymous online conversation tends to feature (i) declarations that other’s views to be immoral or wrong, or (ii) providing the other person with the information on which you base your views on the mistaken assumption that that will change their mind.
Rather, people are persuaded when they are given the space to come to a conclusion on their own. That tends to be more likely over time, in repeated, respectful conversations that use questions to explore the bases of the other person’s views. Auditing one’s own views is how deep learning happens, and many people just don’t have the habit of thinking about why they believe what they believe.
Gender/Gender Identity Issues
So, how might a productive, learning-focused conversation about gender and gender identity go? It avoids any explicit attempt to change the other person’s views; rather, it focuses on discrete parts of the issue, one part at a time.[1]
It might begin with questions about, or discussion of, the scientific fact that intersex people and people with gender dysphoria exist. You might wonder together what life is like for those people. It is not difficult to accept that their existence might entail social and emotional challenges that the rest of us — so-called “cisgendered” males and females — don’t face. Most people are willing to try to put themselves in another’s shoes, and to empathize, despite the judge, nasty tone of ideological media. Giving your conversation partner a chance to do that might be a good start.
And the discussion must also entertain and respond to (rather than dismiss or ridicule) questions about new language norms from people to whom these ideas are unfamiliar or uncomfortable — questions that often dismissed online as provocative or disingenuous, but are often entirely sincere. Such as:
Q: If I use the pronoun “they” for a single, identified individual, won’t that cause confusion by people who think I am referring to more than one person? Do I say “they are” or “they is”?
Q: If less than one half of one percent of babies are intersex, why should we say that the sex of the other 99+% are “assigned” at birth? Isn’t the biological sex of those babies something hospital “acknowledges” rather than assigns?
Q: When a person with gender dysphoria feels like a member of the opposite sex, what exactly does that mean? Is it about one’s body? One’s dress or appearance? Social norms attached to gender? When a biological woman identifies as a man and transitions, what aspects of “being a man” is the trans man seeking? Is getting pregnant part of that male identity? Or is that instead an aspect of “being a [biological] woman” that can happen to some trans men?
Q: How should we think about social or policy situations in which the specifics of a person’s transition — the biology and body of a trans person — might matter? For example, most of the organizations that govern competitive sports have decided to allow trans women to compete against other women only if they did not pass through puberty as a male. This is an example of a policy decision to which that sort of otherwise private information is relevant.[2]
If understanding one another is the goal (and it should be), questions like these ought to be conversation starters. But in some online bubbles these sorts of questions are instead dismissed as reactionary or ignorant, or as a marker of the asker’s immorality. They become opportunities for the catharsis that comes with publicly shaming a supposed moral inferior. But that’s the semi-anonymous online world. When the question is asked face-to-face by a loved one or friend, it is easy to respond more kindly and substantively.
Climate and Energy
The same principles apply to conversations about climate science and climate policy, and I offer a variety of much more thorough prescriptions and sample conversations on this topic in chapter 6 of my book.
At Thanksgiving, you might try a side-door entrance to the conversation. If the other person faces some consequence of climate change — e.g., rising home insurance rates because they live on the coast or in an area newly designated a flood or fire risk due to climate change — you can ask about that. If an important life activity is being affected by rising heat levels, you might begin by asking about that. But once on the topic, stick to questions.
If your family member disbelieves climate science, then you have to start there. E.g.:
Q: I understand that you’re skeptical about climate science. Why is that?
A: The climate has always changed. Humans don’t have much effect on it.
Q: Which part of climate science do you think they are getting wrong? Is it the part about carbon dioxide trapping more solar heat than other gases in the atmosphere? Or is it the part about fossil fuel combustion increasing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?
A: I don’t know. But I hear that it’s all a hoax.
If that conversation looks like a failure to you, think again. You got across the idea that the basic science is simple, and did so without impugning the other person’s intelligence or sincerity. Injecting that middle school science into the conversation via questions is good.
- More trapped heat in the atmosphere means warmer temperatures, all else equal.
- Liquid expands when it warms up, so a warmer ocean means higher sea levels.
- Hurricanes draw strength from warm water. So warmer oceans mean stronger hurricanes, all else equal.
- Warmer air holds more moisture, all else equal, producing more severe rain events.
If you want to discuss renewable energy, don’t let mistaken MAGA talking points make you angry. Instead, ask penetrating questions of your friend. For example:
Q: So you don’t like wind and solar, huh? Is it that you don’t believe the data about the cost of renewable energy? Because my understanding is that electricity prices are lower in places with more wind and solar energy. Should we google that?
OR
Q: Yes, I worry about having power when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing too. But if wind and solar are the cheapest forms of power, can we really afford to leave them out of the power mix? Prices are high enough already.
Etc. etc.
Conclusion
So if you neighbor or uncle or grandmother or childhood friend is resisting a change that you have come to see as a moral imperative, be patient with them. Entertain their questions with kindness. All you can do is ask questions that may lead them to audit their own views later. Don’t let the shaming mob prevent you from having a civil exchange of views. Don’t give up on your neighbor/uncle/grandmother/childhood friend the first time they repeat some falsehood they heard online. Ask them where they heard it. Find out if the truth might persuade them, with questions more than declarations.
Be curious, not judgmental. — David Spence
————
[1]It probably also avoids the use of terms with which the other person is unfamilar, which if polling is to be believed often includes words like “cisgender,” “white privilege,” “patriarchy,” or “heteronormative.” When exploring each other’s beliefs in conversation, ideas matter more than labels.
[2] And there are other situations in which the trans woman’s physical characteristics might matter to the person with whom you are discussing these things. Consider the facts underlying drawn-out litigation about visible male genitalia in female section of a Los Angeles health club. Or the case of where to imprison Isla Bryson, which roiled the Scottish and UK governments for years. Or the Karen White case, which presented similar questions a few years before.
