(RNS) — In graduate school, I was surrounded by students who were significantly smarter than I was. The majority of my fellow University of California Berkeley kids were undergraduate students in Ivy League schools. They were also read, expressive, and comfortable.
When they asked where I went to school, I responded, “St. Louis,” and they presumed I meant Washington University, and I had to explain St. Louis University. “Isn’t that a Catholic school?” I was asked. My answer was, “Worse, it is Jesuit.”
As a result, I often felt like a tortoise among the foxes. I just gained from the fact that I was older and aware of my shortcomings.
Being intelligent and youthful can lead to one of the risks of believing you have all the answers. Aaron Wildavsky, one of the smartest faculty I ever had, when asked at school, “What are the hardest three words to speak in the English speech?” His solution, “I don’t understand.”
In political, academic, and ecclesial life, saying “I don’t know” is the equivalent of committing professional suicide. You must acknowledge that you do not possess all the solutions. If you don’t have the answers, why should anyone talk to you? We’ll move on to the person who claims to have the solutions.
For a doctor, politician, scholar, columnist, or priest to say “I don’t know” is so humiliating that they will often give a “nonresponse response” that hides ignorance in a fog of words.
Better to accept ignorance than to believe to be honesty. And not say it if you eventually realize you were wrong. Make a wish that your new location is in line with everything you’ve already said.
In light of the debate over how to treat gender dysphoria, where the identity you identify with is unique from the gender you were born to be, I just had this thought. The majority of the participants in the discussion talk with unwavering conviction and certitude. Would that we had more voices that said, “I don’t know,” or at least said, “It’s complicated.”
Gender-affirming attention, which may include medical and surgical procedures for gender dysphoria and female incongruence, is supported by the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, as determined by the client and the doctor’s decision-making process.
On the other hand, Western countries, who were the first to perform gender-affirming maintenance, are now backing away from it, specifically for children. Recent study has challenged earlier studies that supported gender-affirming treatment.
After a review revealed that there is no conclusive evidence linking the use of medication to gender dysphoria, England’s National Health Service (NHS) has outlawed puberty blockers for youth. It will only help treatments from existing clients or through clinical trials for adults.
The European approach is a fair attempt to adhere to the first rule of medicine: “Do no harm.” It also makes a good effort to expand the scope of scientific studies.
Such restrictions will be seen as an assault on personal freedom for those who place personal freedom and option before all other principles. Yet clinical trials will be seen as an assault on human dignity for those who believe gender dysphoria is not real.
Both factors have their “experts” and spokespersons. Both parties provide empirical proof and evidence that backs up their opinions. What ought to be a discussion about health care has turned into a source of conflict in culture.
I am a member of the “I don’t know” and “It is complicated” club.
The NHS method seems fair to me. I worry about people making choices that will have a significant impact on the rest of their lives, especially their parents, particularly their children. Clinical trials will help determine what works and what doesn’t, and who should be treated and who shouldn’t. Who uses these medications without conducting thorough follow-up research is one I doubt.
On the other hand, telling citizens in pain to “stand by until further notice” seems callous.
Those who oppose gender-affirming treatment must follow Pope Francis’ example and embrace and love trans people in their communities. The situation only gets worse when you experience bias and isolation.
Additionally, they should be assisted by addressing the conditions that frequently accompany sex anxiety, such as depression. Gender-affirming attention is not negated without providing something new in its place.
Being a member of the “I don’t hear club” means you will be attacked by both sides. You don’t have to say anything, though. That implies that you should question the inquiries that require answers. There is no such item as a terrible problem; there are only terrible solutions.
