Five Ways to Fight Madeline Kearns in Everyday Conversation

An anti-trans writer for the National Review has some tips she thinks are helpful for “fighting trans activists in everyday conversation.”

by Evan Urquhart

Fighting the fiendishly clever anti-trans writers at the nation’s preeminent source of conservative thought is not for the fainthearted. The anti-trans dastards are always one step ahead, relying on their love of science and impeccable journalistic ethics to confound trans people and their allies. That’s why it’s such a relief that Madeline Kearns of the National Review has published her master list of clever rhetoric to beat the transes, allowing us to finally gain insight into the inner machinations of the well-funded conservative behemouth, whose laser-focus on trans issues does not in any way suggest a sense of desperation or a lack of something substantive to talk about.

It may be difficult, but we at Assigned are going to take on each of Kearns’ conversational gambits, one by one. and see if it might be possible find any potential responses to them.

screenshot from the National Review

Kearns continues (below an advertisement) “Be wary of terms that are used to assert a metaphysical truth claim, i.e., ‘gender identity.’ In political debates, do not use pronouns that contradict biological reality.”

Oof, this is a tough one. Conservatives can be hard to debate on trans issues due to their single-minded focus on arguing over the minutae of language. This can make it near impossible to engage them on the more substantive questions like “Do trans people deserve the same rights as anyone?” And “Why are you persecuting this harmless minority?”

Possible responses to Kearnsian wordgames include “That’s weird, why do you keep sputtering over which words we’re using or what the definition of a woman is?” and “If pronouns only have to do with biological sex only what do you use to refer to Minnie Mouse, Barbie, every boat that ever sailed, and every fictional character?”

screenshot from the National Review

Kearns advises readers to learn the real name of the “Don’t Say Gay” bill and explain what it does. While it might at first seem like an oversight that Kearns has chosen not to say anything about what the Parental Rights in Education Act does here, this is actually very savvy. Kearns is trying to signal that the Parental Rights in Education Act does is extremely unpopular and has resulted in children losing access to books in their classrooms, including such innocuous fare as “And Tango Makes Three” a heartwarming, age-appropriate true story about two male penguins who raised a hatchling at an aquarium. The Parental Rights in Education Act is so broad it could prevent a kindergartener with lesbian parents from drawing a picture of her family, because her picture might clue in the other children to the existence of such families. It has driven LGBTQ+ teachers to resign, as even inadvertently disclosing their gay marriages or trans identities might run afoul of the intentionally vague wording.

Kearns is very clever to advise that, in their everyday conversations with trans activists, conservatives should stick to generalities and avoid talking about the real impacts the policies they favor have on ordinary people.

As a follow-up, Kearns suggests that her readers readers rely on the notion of “sex based rights” to destroy their conversational partner’s belief in the competing concept of equality. “Sex-based rights” refers to a made-up concept which doesn’t exist in American law. By law, Americans have equal rights, which are sometimes also called human rights. Kearns is smart to suggest that conservatives conceal this in everyday conversation!Her

screenshot from the National Review

Kearns returns to the tried-and-true strategy from good old point #1 here, encouraging her anti-trans readers to do even more arguing about language. After all, nothing says “I have a well founded, reality-based opinion” than arguing endlessly about language.

Kearns also suggests her readers lie about the effects of cross-sex hormones, which don’t cause sterility for most patients. She also sees to suggest greatly exaggerating the frequency of top surgery, and lying about the availability of genital surgery for minors. Kearns knows, as all good rhetoricians do, that the most effective arguments are blatantly dishonest arguments. This goes double for grossing people out with lengthy descriptions of rare surgeries.

screenshot from the National Review

For the third time in just four points, Kearns is suggesting that her readers should engage in tedious nit-picking about language. This continues to be the strongest tool in their rhetorical toolbox, so good for Kearns for repeating it so often.

screenshot from the National Review

Kearns starts strong in the first paragraph of her fifth point, once again suggesting that her audience engage in tedious word games to distract and exhause their conversational partners.

Then, finding herself near the end of the listicle, Kearns seems to falter slightly. She suggests that, to respond t the real harms experienced by trans people from her prefered policies, conservatives should scrape for examples of political detransitioners, people suffering from gender dysphoria who underwent Christian conversions and became politically opposed to trans rights afterwards. She also suggests mentioning women like Riley Gaines, who tied for fifth place with Lia Thomas in a swimming contest and claimsto have been harmed by that in some way.

Discussing the nuances of law, philosophy, and human rights with Republicans is notoriously difficult. But Kearns has done a service by cluing us in on how the magic happens. By endlessly contesting language and lying, conservatives are hard to take on in conversation, but perhaps some day trans people will come up with the sorts of clevr word games and outright lies Kearns has assembled, instead of relying on mundane parlor tricks like “being likable human beings” and “earnestly discussing actual reality.”