It's a good question.

Funny thing is, while I don't make a point to listen to Ben Shapiro, and while I've tried unsuccessfully to communicate with him myself to try to better inform him on the ideological conflict he has with trans people, I would have said that his conflicts are based more in ignorance than in malice.

Understand, when I say "ignorance," I'm not simply referring to lack of information; I'm also referring to certain underlying assumptions about reality and the nature of man. For example, you can argue with a fundamentalist, and they may say things that strike you as hurtful, when actually no hurt was intended and the real problem is the disparity between their assumptions and yours.

People like Matt Walsh and Chris Plante, on the other hand, exhibit a definite lack of charity in their comments on trans people. I've actually heard Shapiro moderate his tone on this subject, which is why I think his error is ignorance, and self-satisfaction. It's easy to fall pray to self-satisfaction when you tend to be one of the smartest people in the room, and, ignorance notwithstanding, I do think Shapiro is very bright.

In the last analysis, however, I'm not sure it matters. I'm not interested in passing judgment on Shapiro, or even these others. Their minds won't open unless and until they are motivated to open them; and trying to force people to open their minds is self-defeating. They have to want to.

There seem to be few people on our side who are capable of dealing with people like Shapiro competently and dispassionately. Maybe they just don't get enough press; or, maybe people capable enough to do that simple realize how futile it is to try, until their minds open.

It's ironic -- and here I think I'm going to lose a few people -- that both sides in this conflict appeal to science to back them up, when the real conflict isn't based in science at all. It's based in belief. That's why it's an argument that no one can win, until someone opens their mind.