RGR Research Outline 1.1.6 (Backup)

Research Outline v. 1.1.6 (compiled by Riley Grace Roshong; last updated 10.2.
20)
Future note: update research on whether gender is a social construct (see
https://nb419.github.io/source-library/ for potential sources)
See also
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Le70f0hs5ZDSGlP13YQaa5k_YjD27VaxOHB9g1J0
X6g/edit for another comprehensive research doc on trans issues.
See also
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ido70LgXsEhxcnyXE7RVS0wYJZc6aeVTpujCUPQg
TrE/edit for Vaush’s research doc.
See also https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Cx2skhMH-WhVi0VmoW-TQfZ-
hbOBupAnsREmZfSAAoI/edit?usp=sharing for Jangles ScienceLad’s TERF rebuttal doc.
See also https://medium.com/@KatyMontgomerie/what-rights-dont-trans-people-have-
228c728f564a for a cumulative list of what rights trans people do not have in different
countries.
See also
https://socdoneleft.github.io/stinky_rightwinger_factsheet.html#733_cross_sex_hormone_t
herapy_hormone_blockers_desistance for Socialism Done Left’s factsheet.
Thanks to my Discord for assistance in compiling sources.
Transgender Issues
Is being transgender a mental disorder?
What is “gender” (and is it determined by biology)?
What does it mean to be transgender (and does that include non-binary people)?
Is the singular “they/them” grammatically correct?
Is gender dysphoria required to be transgender?
Are trans women “biologically male” (and vice versa for trans men)?
Should trans women be allowed to compete in women’s sports (and vice-versa for trans
men)?
What are the cause(s) of high trans suicide rates?
Does gender affirmation demonstrably help transgender people?
Does gender affirmation demonstrably help transgender youth?
Can children & adolescents know that they are transgender?
Do puberty blockers run a risk of harming trans youth which outweighs any
benefit?
Does conversion therapy harm trans people in the same way it harms cis gay,
lesbian and bi people?
What is the likelihood/risk of detransition?
Is “transphobia” limited to just physical violence?
What kinds of discrimination do trans people face?
Are concerns of “trans predators” (in bathrooms, changing rooms, etc.) empirically valid?
[Citations to be incorporated in the future]
Rhetoric Devices
Is someone “just expressing an opinion” reason enough in itself to respect someone’s
opinion?
Are content creators responsible for their fanbase harming specific people if the content
creators only generally talk about the targeted demographic?
Can [X] person be [X]-phobic? (Ex: Can trans people be transphobic?)
Just because a work does not specifically or overtly target a group of people, does that
mean the work cannot negatively affect that group?
Gun Issues
Do open carry laws prevent harm and/or other violent crime?
Do concealed-carry laws prevent harm and/or other violent crime?
Trump
Did Trump handle the COVID-19 crisis properly?
Specific Debunks
On the Nature of the Outbreak
Blaming the Obama Administration
On Coronavirus Testing
On Travel Bans and Travelers
On Taking the Pandemic Seriously
On COVID-19 Treatments and Vaccines
On the Defense Production Act
On States’ Resources
On China
On Democrats
On Protests
How did Trump perform in the first debate with Biden?
Is Trump’s language around the election dangerous?
[Other Sources]
Transgender Issues
Issue: Is being transgender a mental disorder?
Rule(s):
According to the American Psychological Association, “a psychological state is
considered a mental disorder only if it causes significant distress or disability. Many
transgender people do not experience their gender as distressing or disabling, which
implies that identifying as transgender does not constitute a mental disorder. For
these individuals, the significant problem is finding affordable resources, such as
counseling, hormone therapy, medical procedures and the social support necessary
to freely express their gender identity and minimize discrimination. Many other
obstacles may lead to distress, including a lack of acceptance within society, direct
or indirect experiences with discrimination, or assault. These experiences may lead
many transgender people to suffer with anxiety, depression or related disorders at
higher rates than nontransgender persons.”
https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/transgender
Additionally, according to the Endocrine Society, “there is evolving consensus that
being transgender is not a mental health disorder. Such evidence stems from scientific
studies suggesting that: 1) attempts to change gender identity in intersex patients to match
external genitalia or chromosomes are typically unsuccessful; 2) identical twins (who
share the exact same genetic background) are more likely to both experience transgender
identity as compared to fraternal (non-identical) twins; 3) among individuals with female
chromosomes (XX), rates of male gender identity are higher for those exposed to higher
levels of androgens in utero relative to those without such exposure, and male (XY)-
chromosome individuals with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome typically have
female gender identity; and 4) there are associations of certain brain scan or staining
patterns with gender identity rather than external genitalia or chromosomes.”
https://www.endocrine.org/advocacy/position-statements/transgender-health#1
Additionally, in 2019, the World Health Organization stopped classifying
transgender people as having a mental disorder. https://time.com/5596845/world-
health-organization-transgender-identity/
Analysis: Being transgender does not inherently mean that one may experience significant
distress or disability and causes for experiencing that is often related to societal issues.
Furthermore, it is not classified as a mental disorder by the WHO.
Conclusion: Being transgender is not a mental disorder.
---
Issue: What is gender (and is it determined by biology)?
Rule(s):
According to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, “[g]ender refers to the
socially constructed roles, behaviors, expressions and identities of girls, women,
boys, men, and gender diverse people. It influences how people perceive themselves
and each other, how they act and interact, and the distribution of power and
resources in society. Gender identity is not confined to a binary (girl/woman,
boy/man) nor is it static; it exists along a continuum and can change over time.
There is considerable diversity in how individuals and groups understand,
experience and express gender through the roles they take on, the expectations
placed on them, relations with others and the complex ways that gender is
institutionalized in society.” https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/48642.html
Additionally, according to the American Psychological Association, “[g]ender identity
refers to a person’s internal sense of being male, female or something else; gender
expression refers to the way a person communicates gender identity to others
through behavior, clothing, hairstyles, voice or body characteristics.”
https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/transgender.
Additionally, according to the United Kingdom’s National Health Service, gender
identity is defined to “refer[] to our sense of self of who we are and how we describe
ourselves.” https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/.
The NHS explains that “[m]ost people identify as ‘male’ or ‘female’ . . .
[which] are sometimes called ‘binary identities’ . . . [b]ut some people feel
their gender identity is different from their biological sex.”
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/.
Additionally, according to a publication in Massive Science, “[s]ex and gender . . . are
not the same. Sex is our biology — what chromosomes, hormones, genes, sex organs,
and secondary sex characteristics we have — while gender is how we think of our
identity in the context of how norms function in our culture.”
https://massivesci.com/articles/sex-gender-intersex-transgender-identity-discrimination-
title-ix/
But, the Endocrine Society has also said that there is “[c]onsiderable scientific evidence
[that] has emerged demonstrating a durable biological element underlying gender
identity.” https://www.endocrine.org/advocacy/position-statements/transgender-health#1
They explain that “[i]ndividuals may make choices due to other factors in
their lives, but there do not seem to be external forces that genuinely cause
individuals to change gender identity.”
https://www.endocrine.org/advocacy/position-statements/transgender-health#1
They also explain that other evidence which demonstrates a biological origin of
gender (which also demonstrates that being trans is not a mental disorder)
includes: “1) attempts to change gender identity in intersex patients to match
external genitalia or chromosomes are typically unsuccessful; 2) identical
twins (who share the exact same genetic background) are more likely to both
experience transgender identity as compared to fraternal (non-identical)
twin; 3) among individuals with female chromosomes (XX), rates of male
gender identity are higher for those exposed to higher levels of androgens in
utero relative to those without such exposure, and male (XY)-chromosome
individuals with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome typically have
female gender identity; and 4) there are associations of certain brain scan or
staining patterns with gender identity rather than external genitalia or
chromosomes.” https://www.endocrine.org/advocacy/position-
statements/transgender-health#1
Additionally, in a literature review published in the Journal of Endocrine Practice in
February 2015 looking at the current literature that supports a biological basis of gender
identity, researchers found that “[a]lthough the mechanisms remain to be determined,
there is strong support in the literature for a biologic basis of gender identity.”
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/699122460699656312/758685893417631754/Ev
idence_Supporting_the_Biologic_Nature_of_Gender_Identity_2015.pdf
“Evidence that there is a biologic basis for gender identity primarily involves
(1) data on gender identity in patients with disorders of sex development
(DSDs, also known as differences of sex development) along with (2)
neuroanatomical differences associated with gender identity.”
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/699122460699656312/758685893417631
754/Evidence_Supporting_the_Biologic_Nature_of_Gender_Identity_2015.pdf
Additionally, in an interview with neuroscientist Jonathan Vanhoecke in 2019 on the
possible biological basis for gender identity, he said that “[s]o far, results from the few
existing studies are inconclusive” and that “[s]ome evidence suggests differences in
gender identity could be linked to ways the brain develops in childhood and
adolescence, and that the observed patterns correspond to gender identity. Other
studies have indicated that neural patterns generally match the sex a person is
assigned at birth. Yet other studies found evidence that doesn’t seem to support
either of these, but rather that there are unique neural patterns in transgender
people.” https://news.usc.edu/158899/transgender-research-usc-brain-gender-identity/
Lastly, in a publication in Science Daily from a study conducted by the Medical College
of George at Augusta University in February 2020, “[s]ome of the first biological
evidence of the incongruence transgender individuals experience, because their
brain indicates they are one sex and their body another, may have been found in
estrogen receptor pathways in the brain of 30 transgender individuals.”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200205084203.htm
Analysis: The prevailing academic literature is that there are three main ways gender is
conceived of in the scientific community: (1) as the internal sense of gender identity that an
individual has (which may have biological origin); (2) the way that someone expresses that sense
of gender identity to society; and (3) how society receives and interprets that gender expression.
All of these can be true if we look at gender in terms of subjectivity and objectivity. A subjective
analysis of gender would mean looking at what someone internally believes about their gender
identity, regardless of how society sees their gender. Conversely, an objective analysis of gender
would mean looking at (a) how someone expresses their gender identity to society and (b) how
society—on average—receives and interprets that expression, regardless of someone’s internal
self-identification.
This means there are times where someone may be subjectively a gender and objectively not, and
vice versa. For example, many closeted trans people internally believe themselves to be a
particular gender identity that they may not objectively represent to society and therefore which
society does not recognize in treating them. (Note that this depends on the context/society
someone inhabits; for example, this is arguably the reason that identifying yourself by specific
preferred pronouns in online spaces is important for otherwise closeted trans people, since in
those online communities self-identification is often a sufficient form of gender expression for
people in those spaces to objectively recognize someone as a particular gender.) Conversely,
many femboys and/or butch lesbians may objectively represent themselves to society in ways
society may on-average receive as meaning a particular gender identity contrary to how they
identify themselves.
Conclusion: So, if we combine both of these prevailing schools of thought, an approximate
standard of what it means to be both subjectively and objectively a gender identity would be the
following:
If you
(1) Subjectively identify as and believe you have a particular gender identity,
(2) Objectively represent yourself as your gender identity to a group or larger
society, and
(3) That group or larger society recognizes your objective representation and
reciprocates that you belong to that gender identity,
Then you are both subjectively and objectively that gender identity.
---
Issue: What does it mean to be transgender, and does that include non-binary people?
Rule(s):
According to the American Psychological Association, “transgender is 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.” https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/transgender.
Additionally, the APA and the National Association of School Psychologists “affirm
that diverse gender expressions, regardless of gender identity, and diverse gender
identities, beyond a binary classification, are normal and positive variations of the
human experience.” https://www.apa.org/about/policy/orientation-diversity
Furthermore, the NHS affirms that “[s]ome people do not define themselves as having
a ‘binary’ identity.’ . . . They may use different terms, such as agender, gender
diverse, gender non-conforming, to describe their identity. However, as a group,
they are often called ‘non-binary.’” https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/.
Analysis: Being “transgender” is an umbrella term, it is not limited to just binary trans people.
Conclusion: Being trans just means to identify as something contrary to how someone was
assigned at birth. Therefore, this includes non-binary people.
--
Issue: Is the singular “they/them” grammatically correct?
Rule(s):
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, “they” is grammatically similar to “you,”
which “was a plural pronoun that had become singular as well.” They also trace uses of
the singular “they” back to 1375, showing that it is a common historical usage.
https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/
Analysis: Historical precedent demonstrates that “they/them” have been used as singular
pronouns for centuries.
Conclusion: Yes, the singular “they/them” is grammatically correct.
---
Issue: Are trans women “biologically-male” (and vice versa for trans men)?
Rule(s):
Here is a graphic from Scientific American describing the many characteristics which
factor into one’s “sexual identity.” This shows the ambiguous and bimodal nature of
sex, and that sex is not as simple as XX/XY. Biological sex is on a bimodal
distribution, not a direct
binary. https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/543333556856815617/58919501795269
0177/Beyond_XX_and_XY_scientific_american.png
Another publication in Scientific American elaborates on this subject: “Sex is supposed

to be simple—at least at the molecular level. The biological explanations that appear
in textbooks amount to X + X = ♀ and X + Y = ♂. Venus or Mars, pink or blue. As
science looks more closely, however, it becomes increasingly clear that a pair of
chromosomes do not always suffice to distinguish girl/boy—either from the
standpoint of sex (biological traits) or of gender (social identity).”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-new-science-of-sex-and-gender/
“To varying extents, many of us are biological hybrids on a male-female
continuum. Researchers have found XY cells in a 94-year-old woman, and
surgeons discovered a womb in a 70-year-old man, a father of four. New
evidence suggests that the brain consists of a “mosaic” of cell types, some
more yin, others further along the yang scale.”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-new-science-of-sex-and-gender/
Additionally, here is a quote from a publication in Sage Journals of the modern scientific
attitudes on human sex: “The view that the world’s population can be separated into
a clearly defined dyadic unit of male and female is defunct; not only clinical
observations, but molecular biology has established that sexual identity is on a
continuum, with an enormous potential for variance.”
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2470289718803639
Additionally, according to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, “[s]ex refers to a
set of biological attributes in humans and animals. It is primarily associated with
physical and physiological features including chromosomes, gene expression,
hormone levels and function, and reproductive/sexual anatomy. Sex is usually
categorized as female or male but there is variation in the biological attributes that
comprise sex and how those attributes are expressed.” https://cihr-
irsc.gc.ca/e/48642.html
Additionally, according to a publication in Discover Magazine, “[a]n increasing
recognition of [biological] complexity by researchers and the public has affirmed
that gender sits on a spectrum: People are more and more willing to acknowledge
the reality of nonbinary and transgender identities, and to support those who
courageously fight for their rights in everything from all-gender bathrooms to anti-
gender-discrimination laws. But underlying all of this is the perception that no
matter the gender a person identifies as, they have an underlying sex they were born
with. This represents a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of
biological sex. Science keeps showing us that sex also doesn’t fit in a binary, whether
it be determined by genitals, chromosomes, hormones, or bones (which are the
subject of my research). The perception of a hard-and-fast separation between the
sexes started to disintegrate during the second wave of feminism in the 1970s and
1980s. In the decades that followed, we learned that about 1.7 percent of babies are
born with intersex traits; that behavior, body shape, and size overlap significantly
between the sexes, and both men and women have the same circulating hormones;
and that there is nothing inherently female about the X chromosome. Biological
realities are complicated. People living their lives as women can be found, even late
in life, to be XXY or XY.” https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/skeletal-studies-
show-sex-like-gender-exists-along-a-spectrum
Additionally, according to a publication in Massive Science, “just like gender isn’t
binary, our biology isn’t binary either: it, too, exists on a spectrum. In fact, many
people’s bodies possess a combination of physical characteristics typically thought
of as “male” or “female.” As one example, some people with androgen insensitivity
have XY chromosomes, internal testes, and external female genitalia. Traits,
including hormone levels, can also vary widely both within and across sexes. But
people who fall outside of what’s considered normal face discrimination.”
https://massivesci.com/articles/sex-gender-intersex-transgender-identity-discrimination-
title-ix/
Additionally, according to a publication in the Nature International Weekly Journal of
Science, “[b]iologists may have been building a more nuanced view of sex, but
society has yet to catch up. True, more than half a century of activism from
members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community has softened
social attitudes to sexual orientation and gender. Many societies are now
comfortable with men and women crossing conventional societal boundaries in their
choice of appearance, career and sexual partner. But when it comes to sex, there is
still intense social pressure to conform to the binary model.”
https://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943
“Yet if biologists continue to show that sex is a spectrum, then society and
state will have to grapple with the consequences, and work out where and
how to draw the line. Many transgender and intersex activists dream of a
world where a person's sex or gender is irrelevant. Although some
governments are moving in this direction, Greenberg is pessimistic about the
prospects of realizing this dream — in the United States, at least. “’I think to
get rid of gender markers altogether or to allow a third, indeterminate
marker, is going to be difficult.’” https://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-
1.16943
Analysis: There is modern scientific consensus is that binary terms like “biological male” and
“biological female” are outdated and non-descriptive terms which do not adequately capture the
current state of humanity. This is because since biological sex is on a spectrum, when we choose
to label someone as “biologically-male” or “biologically-female” is determined by society. So,
when you attempt to present societally-constructed terms as empiric authority, it is scientific
fiction.
This also represents a vast departure from the theory defining human sex according to the
gametes that a body produces. Throughout early historical study into the nature of “biological
sex,” the prevailing theory of human sex determination has been that “sex is determined in the
developing gonad, and gonadal sex hormones in turn trigger sex determination and
differentiation in nongonadal tissues.” https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?
id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001899#s6 (see also for a discussion on the large variety of ways sex
is determined throughout nature). This can be broken down into three premises:
(1) Every human has gonads [which produce one of two gametes].
(2) The gonads a human is born with determines what hormones are prevalent in a human
being.
(3) The presence of a predominant sex hormone triggers sex determination and
differentiation in nongonadal tissues.
The problem with this definition—specifically with Premise 2—is that the aforementioned
research demonstrates that though this may be true for most people, it is increasingly apparent
this does not describe all people. Not only are there cis people who may have some intersex
condition which will affect the proportion of sex hormones in their body contrary to what gonads
they are born with, and not only are there trans people who may undergo hormone replacement
therapy which will directly alter the sex hormones in a body regardless of what gonads are they
born with, and not only do some trans people undergo surgery to alter or change the gonads they
were born with, but there are also cis people who do not have intersex conditions who simply
have atypical levels of the sex hormone commonly associated with their gender.
This issue becomes amplified in this model’s consideration of people who have features atypical
to a binary categorization of producing only one of two types of gametes. This is because this
model simply classifies anyone who does not fit into either of the two categories as a
“hermaphrodite.” The danger of this classification, as recognized by the sources above, is that it
disregards those who do not fit into the binary classification of human sex as a rounding error on
the basis that they do not fit into a common function of reproduction. While there may have been
a time in human history where that classification may have been more accurate or necessary for
the survival of humans as a species, this is not the case today. Trans women can have children
with cis women, cis men with trans men, non-binary people with non-binary people, people with
intersex conditions with others, and any variation thereof. And whereas there may have been a
time long in our past that human beings looked at each other with the primary intent of
reproducing, this is not the case today. Most normal people do not look at each other and think
first about whether the other person is a possible mate for reproducing, and that factors little into
our consideration of who they are. How we view biological sex today is based on a holistic
analysis of the totality of primary and secondary sexual characteristics as referenced by the
sources above, which is also more descriptively correct since this takes people who had been
previously reduced down to a single category of “hermaphrodite” and finds where they exist
along the existing bimodal distribution of sexual identity.
Conclusion: No, trans women are not “biologically-male” (and vice-versa for trans men).
---
Issue: Should trans women be allowed to compete in women’s sports (and vice-versa for trans
men)?
Rule(s):
According to a systematic literature review relating to sport participation and competitive
sport policies concerning trans people published in October 2016 in Sports Medicine,
researchers found that “there is no direct or consistent research suggesting
transgender female individuals (or male individuals) have an athletic advantage at
any stage of their transition (e.g. cross-sex hormones, gender-confirming surgery)
and, therefore competitive sport policies that place restrictions on transgender
people need to be considered and potentially revised.” https://sci-
hub.tw/10.1007/s40279-016-0621-y
They also found that “transgender people had a mostly negative experience in
competitive sports because of the restrictions the sport’s policy placed on
them” and that “[t]he majority of transgender competitive sport policies that
were reviewed were not evidence based.” https://sci-hub.tw/10.1007/s40279-
016-0621-y
But, according to a study looking at the effects of testosterone in athletic performance
published in Endocrine Reviews in October 2018, “[t]he available, albeit incomplete,
evidence makes it highly likely that the sex difference in circulating testosterone of
adults explains most, if not all, the sex differences in sporting performance.”
https://sci-hub.tw/10.1210/er.2018-00020
This makes sense, since according to a study published in Sports Medicine in 2017
looking at 2127 observations of competition best performances and mass spectrometry-
measured serum androgen concentrations, obtained during the 2011 and 2013
International Association of Athletics Federations World Championships and testing the
influence of serum androgen levels on performance for men and women, researchers
found that “[f]emale athletes with high fT levels have a significant competitive
advantage over those with low fT in 400 m, 400 m hurdles, 800 m, hammer throw,
and pole vault.” https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/51/17/1309
Additionally, in a study published in the European Journal of Endocrinology in 2015
assessing the evolution of body composition and bone metabolism in trans men during
the first year of HRT treatment, researchers found that “[s]hort-term testosterone
treatment in trans men increased muscle mass and bone turnover.”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25550352/
Additionally, in a case study analyzing the race times for eight transgender female
runners who have competed in distance races as both male and female using a
mathematical model called age grading published in the Journal of Sporting Cultures and
Identities in 2015, “[a]s a group, the eight study participants had remarkably similar
age grade scores in both male and female gender, making it possible to state that
transgender women run distance races at approximately the same level, for their
respective gender, both before and after gender transition.”
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1e6a/bd2c1e03ba88e9ac8da94ea1d69ff3f4878a.pdf?
_ga=2.129106892.1905418669.1594936545-244509642.1594936545
Additionally, in a study published by the National Collegiate Athletic Association,
researchers found that “[a]ny athletic advantages a transgender girl or woman
arguably may have as a result of her prior testosterone levels dissipate after about
one year of estrogen therapy.”
https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/NCLR_TransStudentAthlete%2B(2).pdf
Lastly, in a publication in the Journal of Medical Ethics from 2018, the authors concluded
that “while inclusion is an important principle of sport, including elite sport,
inclusion does not outweigh the importance of fairness for cis-women athletes—the
performance advantage likely held by transwomen is not a ‘tolerable unfairness’.
This is not an attempt to exclude transwomen from elite sport. Instead, we conclude
that it is important to both extend and celebrate diversity, while maintaining
fairness for cis-women in sport. To be simultaneously inclusive and fair at the elite
level the male/female binary must be discarded in favour of a more nuanced
approach. We conclude that the gender binary in sport has perhaps had its day.”
https://jme.bmj.com/content/45/6/395?casa_token=T_xsjFEpz5QAAAAA
%3AN5Q9Xn1_wITuKvryr2SW3rE_oSPXJVBqDX9k2cjLeNiZxH2wV4ZerTVcpIB1T
BLV0wMVVswgHACU
This makes sense, since according to a publication in the Nature International Weekly
Journal of Science, “[b]iologists may have been building a more nuanced view of sex,
but society has yet to catch up. True, more than half a century of activism from
members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community has softened
social attitudes to sexual orientation and gender. Many societies are now
comfortable with men and women crossing conventional societal boundaries in their
choice of appearance, career and sexual partner. But when it comes to sex, there is
still intense social pressure to conform to the binary model.”
https://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943
“Yet if biologists continue to show that sex is a spectrum, then society and
state will have to grapple with the consequences, and work out where and
how to draw the line. Many transgender and intersex activists dream of a
world where a person's sex or gender is irrelevant. Although some
governments are moving in this direction, Greenberg is pessimistic about the
prospects of realizing this dream — in the United States, at least. “’I think to
get rid of gender markers altogether or to allow a third, indeterminate
marker, is going to be difficult.’” https://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-
1.16943
Analysis: The current policies that exist concerning trans peoples’ ability to compete in the
sports are not based on evidence of unfair advantage, what evidence that does exist on the matter
is limited, and most transgender people who have competed in sports have consequently had
negative experiences. The limited available evidence suggests that most—if not all—of the sex
differences in sports competition can be attributed to the effects of testosterone on the body.
(Side note: this means that it is only all the more important to allow transgender youth access to
puberty blockers and HRT as medically-appropriate for their age) What this means is not that
trans women should be excluded from competition in sports—since right now the only
alternative is to compete in mens sports—but rather to call for a complete revision of how to
decide who competes against who in sports. This is not a call to abolish sporting institutions, but
rather to adapt it to new discoveries about the nature of the human body relating to biological sex
in order to achieve a more authentic and purer meritocracy. Even without the presence of trans
people, this can be observed in the mistreatment of cis people with levels of testosterone in their
blood which varies from what is normal for most people of that gender. For example, Caster
Semenya is a professional cis woman athlete who—because of an intersex condition—has
naturally high testosterone levels. https://theestablishment.co/no-female-trans-athletes-do-not-
have-unfair-advantages-14b8e249f93c/index.html. Does the fact that she has higher testosterone
than the average cis woman—by virtue of nothing within her control—and that therefore she
may have some athletic advantage mean that she should be prohibited from competing within her
assigned-at-birth gender category? Should she compete with men? Competing with men seems
disproportionately unfair since “[i]t went unreported that Semenya’s 2016 gold medal winning
800m time was actually 13% slower versus the men’s 800m gold medal time.”
https://theestablishment.co/no-female-trans-athletes-do-not-have-unfair-advantages-
14b8e249f93c/index.html. These instances—in addition to the relatively-new presence of trans
people in sports—makes it clear that having strictly binary categories of “men’s” and “women’s”
sports is unfair and disadvantages people who are not cis-normative.
Conclusion: Therefore, the question is not so much whether trans women should be allowed to
compete in women’s sports (and vice-versa for trans men), but rather how we should revise
sports competition categories to allow for people of all bodies and gender expressions to be able
to participate in a more authentic meritocracy. This is a subject with limited research at the
moment, but it should be left to academics to study and discern objective means—separate from
someone’s gender—to determine who compete against who. Developing these kinds of
categories are not new—for example, we already have various divisions for inter-school
competition to attempt to have people compete against “more fair” opponents already—so this
should not present any major issues for researchers.
---
Issue: Is gender dysphoria required to be transgender?
Rule(s):
According to the American Psychiatric Association, “[g]ender dysphoria involves a
conflict between a person's physical or assigned gender and the gender with which
he/she/they identify. People with gender dysphoria may be very uncomfortable with the
gender they were assigned, sometimes described as being uncomfortable with their body
(particularly developments during puberty) or being uncomfortable with the expected
roles of their assigned gender.” https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/gender-
dysphoria/what-is-gender-dysphoria
“The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) provides
for one overarching diagnosis of gender dysphoria with separate specific criteria
for children and for adolescents and adults.
In adolescents and adults gender dysphoria diagnosis involves a difference
between one’s experienced/expressed gender and assigned gender, and significant
distress or problems functioning. It lasts at least six months and is shown by at
least two of the following:
A marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and
primary and/or secondary sex characteristics
A strong desire to be rid of one’s primary and/or secondary sex
characteristics
A strong desire for the primary and/or secondary sex characteristics of the
other gender
A strong desire to be of the other gender
A strong desire to be treated as the other gender
A strong conviction that one has the typical feelings and reactions of the
other gender”
https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/gender-dysphoria/what-is-gender-dysphoria
Additionally, according to the United Kingdom’s National Health Service, “[m]any
people with gender dysphoria have a strong, lasting desire to live a life that
“matches” or expresses their gender identity . . . [and] do this by changing the way
they look and behave.” https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/.
But, the NHS also says that “[s]ome people with gender dysphoria, but not all,
may want to use hormones and sometimes surgery to express their gender
identity.” https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/.
Furthermore, in a systematic literature review published in the Journal of Transgender
Health in 2018 looking at what gender dysphoria according to modern academic
consensus, researchers have found that among 387 articles discussing gender dysphoria,
“many articles omitted the fact that not all trans and intersex people experience
GD.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6225591/#__ffn_sectitle
The researchers found this odd, since “[t]he claimed destigmatizing and
depathologizing effects in the literature were derived from the assertion in
the DSM-5 that it is the distress and not the gender diversity that is
diagnosable.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6225591/#__ffn_sectitle
Additionally, in another systematic literature review published in the Journal of Clinical
Psychology Review in 2020 of all available papers on the lived experience of gender
dysphoria, researchers found that “significant distress is experienced by those with
gender dysphoria as a result of social factors, which vary over time and age
cohorts.”
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/699122460699656312/758769485250297926/M
eta-Ethnography_of_GD.pdf
“Future quantitative research could compare the experience of gender dysphoria
in individuals within more accepting cultural contexts versus less accepting
contexts. This would help unpack the effects of the social environment on distress
in gender dysphoria. Further research should investigate the relationships between
distress due to dissonance of assigned and experienced gender, as well as
processes such as: internal processing of rejection and transphobia including
internalized transphobia; the interface of assigned gender, gender identity, and
society, including misgendering or non-affirmation of gender; and negative social
consequences of gender or discrimination, rejection, and victimization.
Longitudinal studies investigating these processes over the course of coming out
as transgender or transitioning would be well placed to elucidate the relationships
between these concepts.”
926/Meta-Ethnography_of_GD.pdf
Additionally, according to a study published by the American Psychological Association
in 2020 looking at whether gender dysphoria can be applied to the minority stress model
(which “describes the unique stressors that impact sexual and gender minorities above
and beyond general stressors”), researchers concluded that gender dysphoria should be
understood as a proximal stressor and that “clinical interventions that target how
individuals internalize experiences in a cisnormative society could have a positive
impact on the severity of gender dysphoria.”
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/699122460699656312/758769484378013706/G
D_and_Minority_Stress_Model.pdf
Lastly, in a paper published in the Journal of Humanistic Psychology in 2018, Sarah L.
Schultz discussed how “there is evidence to suggest that transgender identity is not
necessarily itself a cause of distress, but instead is a valued life experience among
transgender individuals who see being transgender as a way to live a satisfying and
meaningful life (Burdge, 2014; Riggle, Rostosky, McCants, & Pascale-Hague, 2011;
Waszkiewicz, 2006).”
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/699122460699656312/758684042769334313/Th
e_Informed_Consent_Model_of_Transgender_Care-
_An_Alternative_to_the_Diagnosis_of_Gender_Dysphoria_.pdf
“In one study, more than 70% of the sample reported feeling extremely or
very positive about being transgender (Riggle et al., 2011). Some transgender
individuals, even after changing their bodies through medical interventions
such as hormones and surgeries, may embrace and celebrate their
transgender identity, which reflects the capacity for ongoing identity
development outside of and beyond the medical and psychiatric realms. For
others, the desired outcome of undergoing transition is not necessarily to
become a ‘different’ gender, but is a more intentional process of building a
self that can be visibly queer and acknowledged as such by others in the
transgender and queer communities.”
313/The_Informed_Consent_Model_of_Transgender_Care-
_An_Alternative_to_the_Diagnosis_of_Gender_Dysphoria_.pdf
Analysis: There is robust academic consensus that trans people often do experience gender
dysphoria, but not that gender dysphoria is inherent to having a transgender identity. The
prevailing academic consensus is that gender dysphoria can manifest as a severe discomfort with
some combination of one’s body, the gendered expectations society has for an individual, or how
an individual can feel forced into gendered societal expectations. While this is something that the
overwhelming majority of trans people may experience in today’s society, that is arguably as a
consequence of living in a cisnormative society, rather than a consequence of some intrinsic
quality of being trans.
For example, let’s say that we have a child who is born into a family which does not gender the
child at any point in their childhood. And let’s say that the child eventually starts—on their own
—adopting more female-gendered mannerisms and habits. Recognizing this, the child’s
knowledgeable parents talk to the child at such an age which is medically-recommended about
whether the child would like to go on puberty blockers, since the child is AMAB and would
otherwise experience a testosterone-based puberty. The child—now very comfortable with a
female gender identity—agrees that is what they want and decide to go on puberty blockers until
such a point where they start on hormone replacement therapy.
In this example, at no point does the child experience gender dysphoria. This is because while
the child’s gender identity is very real—she comes to the conclusion on her own that she is a girl
—because she was born into a family & society which was acclimated to trans issues and which
both (a) provides her with the appropriate gender-affirming care and (b) does not force her to
adopt a gender identity/mannerisms/etc which is incongruent with her identity. In this situation,
she is authentically trans, but does not necessarily experience dysphoria because society does not
cause her to do so.
Conclusion: No. Although many trans people today experience gender dysphoria, it is not
required to be transgender.
---
Issue: What are the cause(s) of high trans suicide rates and other mental health issues? Is it
purely by virtue that they are trans?
Rule(s):
According to the American Psychological Association, “discrimination and prejudice
against people based on their actual or perceived gender identity or expression
detrimentally affects psychological, physical, social, and economic well-being
(Bockting et al., 2005; Coan et al., 2005; Clements-Nolle, 2006; Kenagy, 2005; Kenagy
& Bostwick, 2005; Nemoto et al., 2005; Resolution on Prejudice Stereotypes and
Discrimination, Paige, 2007; Riser et al., 2005; RodriquezMadera & Toro-Alfonso, 2005;
Sperber et al., 2005; Xavier et al., 2005).” https://www.apa.org/about/policy/resolution-
gender-identity.pdf.
Additionally, the American Psychoanalytic Association claims that “bias against
individuals based on actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity or
gender expression negatively affects mental health, contributing to an enduring
sense of stigma and pervasive self-criticism through the internalization of such
prejudice.” https://apsa.org/content/2012-position-statement-attempts-change-sexual-
orientation-gender-identity-or-gender.
The APA says “gender and sexual orientation diverse children and
adolescents who are victimized in school are at increased risk for mental
health problems, suicidal ideation and attempts, substance use, high-risk
sexual activity, and poor academic outcomes, such as high level of
absenteeism, low grade point averages, and low interest in pursuing post-
secondary education (Birkett, Espelage, & Koenig, 2009; Bontempo &
D'Augelli, 2002; D'Augelli, Pilkington, & Hershberger, 2002; Kosciw et al.,
2010; O'Shaughnessy, Russell, Heck, Calhoun, & Laub, 2004; Russell et al.,
2011).” https://www.apa.org/about/policy/orientation-diversity.
The APA also says “minority stress is recognized as a primary mechanism
through which the notable burden of stigma and discrimination affects
minority persons' health and well-being and generates health disparities
(Hatzenbuehler, Nolen-Hoeksema, & Erickson, 2008; Meyer, 2003; Meyer,
Schwartz, & Frost, 2008; Mirowsky & Ross, 1989).”
https://www.apa.org/about/policy/resolution-gender-identity.pdf.
Additionally, in a systematic literature review of all peer-reviewed articles published in
English between 1991 and June 2017 that assess the effect of gender transition on
transgender well-being, Cornell University found that “[t]ransgender individuals,
particularly those who cannot access treatment for gender dysphoria or who
encounter unsupportive social environments, are more likely than the general
population to experience health challenges such as depression, anxiety, suicidality
and minority stress. While gender transition can mitigate these challenges, the
health and well-being of transgender people can be harmed by stigmatizing and
discriminatory treatment.” https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-
equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-
people/
Additionally, in a broad international study of trans suicide rate published in the US
Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health, researchers found that “gender-based
victimization, discrimination, bullying, violence, being rejected by the family,
friends, and community; harassment by intimate partner, family members, police
and public; discrimination and ill treatment at health-care system are the major
risk factors that influence the suicidal behavior among transgender persons.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5178031/
Another study published in the US Library of Medicine National Institutes of
Health found that “[a] series of simultaneous multiple regressions found that
harassment/rejection discrimination was a unique positive predictor of
mental health symptoms and suicidal ideation, with depression positively
predicting suicidal ideation.” The study concluded that “[h]elping trans
individuals cope with harassment and rejection, particularly by drawing on
social support, may promote better mental health, which could help reduce
suicidality in this population.”
Additionally, in another study by UCLA, researchers found that transgender respondents
“who experienced discrimination or were a victim of violence were more likely to
report suicide thoughts and attempts.” They also found that “respondents who
experienced family rejection were also more likely to report attempting suicide” and
that “Access to gender-affirming medical care is associated with a lower prevalence
of suicide thoughts and attempts.”
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/suicidality-transgender-adults/
Additionally, according to a study published in the US National Library of Medicine
National Institutes of Health, of surveyed trans people “Offensive treatment during the
past three months and lifetime exposure to trans-related violence were significantly
associated with suicidality. Less satisfaction with contacts with friends and
acquaintances and with one's own psychological wellbeing were associated with
suicide ideation in the past 12 months. Lack of practical support was associated with
lifetime suicide attempts.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5905855/
Additionally, according to a study published in the Journal for LGBT Health, “42.3% of
the sample reported a suicide attempt and 26.3% reported misusing drugs or
alcohol to cope with transgender-related discrimination. After controlling for age,
race/ethnicity, sex assigned at birth, binary gender identity, income, education, and
employment status, family rejection was associated with increased odds of both
behaviors. Odds increased significantly with increasing levels of family rejection.”
https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/lgbt.2015.0111?journalCode=lgbt
Analysis: Trans suicide rates are exclusively caused by social factors and circumstances
according to the prevailing academic literature.
Conclusion: Trans people do not commit suicide purely by virtue that they are trans.
---
Issue: Does gender affirmation demonstrably help transgender people?
Rule(s):
According to the American Psychological Association, “gender variant and gender
nonconforming people [are being] denied appropriate gender transition related
medical and mental health care despite evidence that appropriately evaluated
individuals benefit from gender transition treatments (De Cuypere et al., 2005;
Kuiper & CohenKettenis, 1988; Lundstrom, et al., 1984; Newfield, et al., 2006; Pfafflin
& Junge, 1998; Rehman et al., 1999; Ross & Need, 1989; Smith et al., 2005).”
https://www.apa.org/about/policy/resolution-gender-identity.pdf.
Therefore, “[the] APA recognizes the efficacy, benefit and medical necessity of
gender transition treatments for appropriately evaluated individuals and
calls upon public and private insurers to cover these medically necessary
treatments.” https://www.apa.org/about/policy/resolution-gender-identity.pdf
Additionally, Cornell University “conducted a systematic literature review of all peer-
reviewed articles published in English between 1991 and June 2017 that assess the
effect of gender transition on transgender well-being.” They “identified 55 studies
that consist of primary research on this topic, of which 51 (93%) found that gender
transition improves the overall well-being of transgender people, while 4 (7%)
report mixed or null findings.” They also “found no studies concluding that gender
transition causes overall harm.”
https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-
research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people/
What they found was that “a robust international consensus in the peer-
reviewed literature that gender transition, including medical treatments such
as hormone therapy and surgeries, improves the overall well-being of
transgender individuals. The literature also indicates that greater availability
of medical and social support for gender transition contributes to better
quality of life for those who identify as transgender.”
https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-
scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people/
They also found that the “[f]actors that are predictive of success in the
treatment of gender dysphoria include adequate preparation and mental
health support prior to treatment, proper follow-up care from
knowledgeable providers, consistent family and social support, and high-
quality surgical outcomes (when surgery is involved).”
https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-
scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people/
Additionally, in another meta-analysis of studies concerning individuals who underwent
sex reassignment surgery, researchers found that “after sex reassignment, 80% of
individuals with GID reported significant improvement in gender dysphoria . . . ;
78% reported significant improvement in psychological symptoms . . . ; 80%
reported significant improvement in quality of life . . . ; and 72% reported
significant improvement in sexual function.”
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2265.2009.03625.x
Additionally, in another longitudinal study, researchers found that “transgender people
report poorer mental health [quality of life] compared to the general population. . . .
However, meta-analysis in a subgroup of studies looking at [quality of life] in
participants who were exclusively post-[‘Gender Affirming Treatment”] found no
difference in mental health [quality of life] between groups.”
Additionally, in a study published in Psychosomatic Medicine in September 2017 looking
at data collected on medical interventions, transition status, gender dysphoria, and body
image on 201 trans people, researchers found that “[o]verall, the levels of gender
dysphoria and body dissatisfaction were significantly lower at follow-up compared
with clinical entry” and that “[s]atisfaction with therapy responsive and
unresponsive body characteristics both improved.”
They concluded that “[h]ormone-based interventions and surgery were
followed by improvements in body satisfaction” and that “[t]he level of
psychological symptoms and the degree of body satisfaction at baseline were
significantly associated with body satisfaction at follow-up.”
Additionally, in a study published in 2015, researchers looked at 71 trans people (35 trans
women and 36 trans men) 10-24 years after beginning gender-affirming care (with a
mean of 13.8 years) and found that “[p]articipants reported high degrees of well-being
and a good social integration.” https://sci-hub.scihubtw.tw/10.1007/s10508-014-0453-5
“Very few participants were unemployed, most of them had a steady
relationship, and they were also satisfied with their relationships with family
and friends. Their overall evaluation of the treatment process for sex
reassignment and its effectiveness in reducing gender dysphoria was
positive.” https://sci-hub.scihubtw.tw/10.1007/s10508-014-0453-5
Analysis: All current prevailing academic literature affirms that gender transition and affirming
treatment of trans people has demonstrable benefits on their lives.
Conclusion: Yes, gender affirmation demonstrably helps trans people.
--
Issue: Does gender affirmation help transgender youth?
Rule(s):
In a longitudinal study on the effectiveness of puberty suppression & sex reassignment
surgery on trans individuals in improving mental outcomes, researchers found that the
treatments had Unambiguously positive results: “After gender reassignment, in
young adulthood, [gender dysphoria] was alleviated and psychological functioning
had steadily improved. Well-being was similar to or better than same-age young
adults from the general population. Improvements in psychological functioning
were positively correlated with postsurgical subjective well-being.”
https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/134/4/696
In another study, researchers found that children who socially transition report levels of
depression and anxiety which closely match levels reported by cisgender children, which
“are in striking contrast to previous work with gender-nonconforming children who
had not socially transitioned, which found very high rates of depression and
anxiety.” https://www.jaacap.org/article/S0890-8567%2816%2931941-4/fulltext
The APA recommends that “it may be medically and therapeutically indicated for
some transgender and other gender diverse children and adolescents to transition
from one gender to another using any of the following: change of name, pronoun,
hairstyle, clothing, pubertal suppression, cross-sex hormone treatment, and surgical
treatment (Coleman et al., 2011; Forcier & Johnson, 2012; Olson, Forbes, & Belzer,
2011).” ttps://www.apa.org/about/policy/orientation-diversity.
Therefore, the APA and the National Association of School Psychologists
“encourage school staff to support the decisions of children, adolescents, and
families regarding a student's gender identity or expression, including
whether to seek treatments and interventions, and discourage school
personnel from requiring proof of medical treatments as a prerequisite for
such support” and recommend “that administrators create safer environments
for gender diverse, transgender, and intersex/DSD students, allowing all
students, staff, and teachers to have access to the sex-segregated facilities,
activities, and programs that are consistent with their gender identity,
including, but not limited to, bathrooms, locker rooms, sports teams, and
classroom activities, and avoiding the use of gender segregation in school
uniforms, school dances, and extracurricular activities, and providing gender
neutral bathroom options for individuals who would prefer to use them[.]”
https://www.apa.org/about/policy/orientation-diversity
In another study, researchers found that “trans youth who indicated their parents were
strongly supportive of their gender identity and expression were significantly more
likely (72%) to report being satisfied with their lives than those with parents who
were not strongly supportive (33%). Also statistically significant, 70% of those with
parents strongly supportive of their gender identity and expression reported positive
mental health compared to 15% of those whose parents were not strongly
supportive.” http://transpulseproject.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Impacts-of-Strong-
Parental-Support-for-Trans-Youth-vFINAL.pdf
The study also found that strong parental support decreases the likelihood of a
suicide attempt within the past year from 57% to just 4%. Additionally, “while
4% is still far too high, the impact of strong parental support can be clearly seen
in the 93% reduction in reported suicide attempts for youth who indicated their
parents were strongly supportive of their gender identity and expression.”
http://transpulseproject.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Impacts-of-Strong-
Parental-Support-for-Trans-Youth-vFINAL.pdf
Additionally, according to the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry,
“[r]esearch suggests that accepting a child's affirmed gender identity and expression
can decrease the risk of future psychiatric problems such as depression, anxiety, and
suicidal behavior.”
https://www.aacap.org/aacap/families_and_youth/facts_for_families/fff-
guide/transgender-and-gender-diverse-youth-122.aspx
Additionally, according to a study published by the Endocrine Society, “transgender
youth often have mental health problems and that their depression and anxiety
improve greatly with recognition and treatment of gender dysphoria.”
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-03/tes-sdc030615.php
"Youth with gender incongruence or dysphoria need a comprehensive,
multidisciplinary approach to care," said principal investigator Maja
Marinkovic, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist and Medical Director of the Gender
Management Clinic at Rady Children's Hospital-San Diego, an affiliate of the
University of California, San Diego. "They are in great need of experienced
endocrinologists, therapists, psychiatrists, primary care providers and
surgeons." https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-03/tes-sdc030615.php
Additionally, in a study published in Science Direct on the academic consensus on how
gender affirming care affects transgender youth, “[g]ender-affirming medical therapy
and supported social transition in childhood have been shown to correlate with
improved psychological functioning for gender-variant children and adolescents.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1054139X1630146X
Additionally, according to a study published in the Journal of Adolescent Health, “[f]or
transgender youth who choose a name different from the one given at birth, use of
their chosen name in multiple contexts affirms their gender identity and reduces
mental health risks known to be high in this group.”
https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(18)30085-5/fulltext#intraref0010a
Analysis: There is overwhelming longitudinal academic consensus that gender affirmation has
demonstrably positive effects on transgender youth.
Conclusion: Yes, gender-affirming care helps trans youth.
---
Issue: Can children & adolescents know that they are transgender?
Rule(s):
According to the American Psychological Association, whereas “some children and
adolescents may experience a long period of questioning their sexual orientations or
gender identities, experiencing stress, confusion, fluidity or complexity in their
feelings and social identities (Hollander, 2000; Remafedi, Resnick, Blum, & Harris,
1992), . . . a person's gender identity develops in early childhood and some young
children may not identify with the gender assigned to them at birth (Brill & Pepper,
2008; Zucker, 2004).” https://www.apa.org/about/policy/orientation-diversity
They also say this is true concerning sexuality: “some children and adolescents
are aware of their attraction to members of the same gender or of their status
as lesbian, gay, or bisexual persons by early adolescence (Remafedi, 1987;
Savin-Williams, 1990; Slater, 1988; Troiden, 1988), although this awareness
may vary by culture and acculturation (Morales, 1990; Rosario, Schrimshaw &
Hunter, 2004).” https://www.apa.org/about/policy/orientation-diversity.
Additionally, according to a study investigating “whether 5- to 12-year-old prepubescent
transgender children (N = 32), who were presenting themselves according to their gender
identity in everyday life, showed patterns of gender cognition more consistent with their
expressed gender or their natal sex, or instead appeared to be confused about their gender
identity” published in Psychological science in 2015, researchers found that
“transgender children showed a clear pattern: They viewed themselves in terms of
their expressed gender and showed preferences for their expressed gender, with
response patterns mirroring those of two cisgender (nontransgender) control
groups. These results provide evidence that, early in development, transgender
youth are statistically indistinguishable from cisgender children of the same gender
identity.” https://sci-
hub.st/https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797614568156
Analysis: There is academic consensus that a person’s gender identity develops in early
childhood and children can become aware in early childhood as well.
Conclusion: Yes, children & adolescents can know that they are transgender.
--
Issue: Do puberty blockers run a risk of harming trans youth which outweighs any benefit?
Rule(s):
According to the Endocrine Society, with members in more than 100 countries, the
interventional use of puberty suppressors to avoid the irreversible effects of puberty
on transgender youth are safe and effective for even youth as young as 12 years old.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/puberty-blockers-may-improve-mental-health-
transgender-adolescents
Additionally, in 2011 the World Professional Association for Transgender Health
(WPATH) issued the Standards of Care for the treatment of patients with gender
dysphoria, which include puberty suppression.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/puberty-blockers-may-improve-mental-
health-transgender-adolescents
Also, despite concerns that blocking sex hormones might harm bone development, a
study from the Netherlands found no evidence of long-term effects on bone mineral
density, and that if the suppressors are halted, puberty resumes as if there had been
no treatment. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25427144/
Additionally, according to a Dutch study on puberty blockers, puberty blockers are a
fully reversible form of medical intervention which provides adolescents and their
families with time to explore their gender dysphoric feelings and [to] make a more
definite decision regarding the first steps of actual gender reassignment treatment at
a later age. https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2014/09/02/peds.2013-
2958?sso=1&sso_redirect_count=1&nfstatus=401&nftoken=00000000-0000-0000-0000-
000000000000&nfstatusdescription=ERROR%3a+No+local+token
Additionally, according a report by the Human Rights Campaign which was endorsed by
the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Osteopathic
Pediatricians, hormone blockers are the only treatment used on adolescents and are
completely reversible.
https://assets2.hrc.org/files/documents/SupportingCaringforTransChildren.pdf
Additionally, according to a study published in the International Journal of Transgender Health,
puberty delaying medications to adolescents with gender dysphoria is not experimental.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/26895269.2020.1747768
“Since the mid 1990s, puberty delaying medications have been prescribed to some
adolescents (not prepubertal children) with severe and persistent gender dysphoria,
in cases in which such distress was aggravated by pubertal development.”
“The Royal College of Psychiatrists, in 1998, recommended delaying puberty
in young adolescents who experienced strong and persistent ‘cross-sex
identification’ and distress around the physical body that intensifies with the
onset of puberty.”
“Puberty blockers are not ‘novel’ treatment. They were recommended by
prominent bodies of medical opinion in the UK and internationally over two
decades ago, and have thus been part of standard medical treatment for
many years.”
“GnRHa has been used in the treatment of gender dysphoria since the mid
1990s, and their efficacy in delaying puberty in adolescents is documented by
numerous studies and scientific publications” (21 scientific studies are then
listed) https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/26895269.2020.1747768
Additionally, according to a study published in Science Direct on potential cognitive
side-effects of puberty blockers. What it found was that “[c]urrent evidence does not
support an adverse impact of gender-affirming hormone therapy on cognitive
performance in birth-assigned either male or female transgender individuals.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306453020301402?via%3Dihub
“An enhanced effect on visuospatial ability following post-pubertal hormone
therapy was shown in assigned females.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306453020301402?via
%3Dihub
“Pooling data from cross-sectional studies showed a higher performance in
verbal working memory in treated assigned males.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306453020301402?via%3Dihub
Additionally, according the clinical practice guidelines published by the Endocrine

Society in Oxford Academic, puberty suppression both “typically relives distress for
trans adolescents by halting progression of physical changes such as breast growth
in trans males and voice deepening in trans females and is reversible in its effects”
and “is reversible.” https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/102/11/3869/4157558
Analysis: The medical consensus is that not only do puberty blockers demonstrably help
transgender youth avoid the permanent effects of puberty, but they also have minimal-to-no
negative effects.
Conclusion: The risks are minimal and are substantially outweighed by the positive effects they
have on the lives of trans youth.
---
Issue: Does conversion therapy harm trans people in the same way it harms cis gay, lesbian and
bi people?
Rule(s):
According to the American Psychoanalytic Association, “[p]sychoanalytic technique
does not encompass purposeful attempts to ‘convert,’ ‘repair,’ change or shift an
individual’s sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression. Such directed
efforts are against fundamental principles of psychoanalytic treatment and often
result in substantial psychological pain by reinforcing damaging internalized
attitudes.” https://apsa.org/content/2012-position-statement-attempts-change-sexual-
orientation-gender-identity-or-gender.
Additionally, in 2018 the British Association for Behavioural & Cognitive
Psychotherapies signed a letter to the Memorandum of Understanding against
conversion therapy, which was launched “with the backing of all major
psychological, psychotherapeutic and counselling organisations in the UK, including
the British Psychological Society, British Association for Counselling and
Psychotherapy, and the UK Council for Psychotherapy.”
https://www.babcp.com/About/Press/Memorandum-of-Understanding-against-
conversion-therapy.aspx.
The letter was supported by Stonewall, NHS Englad and NHS Scotland.
conversion-therapy.aspx. The letter “makes clear that conversion therapy in
relation to gender identity and sexual orientation (including asexuality) is
unethical, potentially harmful and is not supported by evidence.”
conversion-therapy.aspx.
The BABCP goes on to say that “[s]exual orientations and gender identities are
not mental health disorders, although exclusion, stigma and prejudice may
precipitate mental health issues for any person subjected to these abuses.
Anyone accessing therapeutic help should be able to do so without fear of
judgement or the threat of being pressured to change a fundamental aspect
of who they are.” https://www.babcp.com/About/Press/Memorandum-of-
Understanding-against-conversion-therapy.aspx.
Analysis: The vast academic consensus is that trying to “convert” a child’s gender and keep
children from exploring their children identity is demonstrably harmful.
Conclusion: Yes, conversion therapy harms trans youth in the same way it harms lesbian, gay,
and bi youth.
--
Issue: What is the likelihood/risk of detransition?
Rule(s):
In a systematic literature review of all peer-reviewed articles published in English
between 1991 and June 2017 that assess the effect of gender transition on transgender
well-being, Cornell University found that “[r]egrets following gender transition are
extremely rare and have become even rarer as both surgical techniques and social
support have improved. Pooling data from numerous studies demonstrates a regret
rate ranging from .3 percent to 3.8 percent. Regrets are most likely to result from a
lack of social support after transition or poor surgical outcomes using older
techniques.” https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-
the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people/
Additionally, a survey conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality found
that detransition is largely due to social pressure, and for over 60% of trans people
who detransitioned, it was only temporary. http://transpulseproject.ca/wp-
content/uploads/2012/10/Impacts-of-Strong-Parental-Support-for-Trans-Youth-
vFINAL.pdf
Analysis: The current academic consensus is that detransition is very rare and is largely caused
by social issues.
Conclusions: The likelihood/risk of detransition is very low and is mitigated by addressing social
issues which affect trans people.
--
Issue: What is the definition(s) of transphobia, and is transphobia limited to just physical
violence?
Rule(s):
According to Merriam-Webster, transphobia is defined as an “irrational fear of,
aversion to, or discrimination against transgender people.” https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/transphobia
According to Dictionary.com, transphobia is defined as “unreasoning hostility,
aversion, etc., toward transgender people.”
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/transphobia
According to Lexico.com, transphobia is defined as “[d]islike of or prejudice against
transsexual or transgender people.” https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/transphobia
According to Wikipedia, “[t]ransphobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes,
feelings or actions toward transgender people or transness in general. Transphobia
can include fear, aversion, hatred, violence, anger, or discomfort felt or expressed
towards people who do not conform to social gender expectations. It is often
expressed alongside homophobic views and hence is often considered an aspect of
homophobia. Transphobia is a type of prejudice and discrimination, similar to
racism and sexism, and transgender people of color are often subjected to all three
forms of discrimination at once.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transphobia
According to Planned Parenthood, transphobia is defined as “the fear, hatred, disbelief,
or mistrust of people who are transgender, thought to be transgender, or whose
gender expression doesn’t conform to traditional gender roles.”
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/gender-identity/transgender/whats-transphobia
They go on to discuss how “[t]ransphobia can take many forms, including:
negative attitudes and beliefs; aversion to and prejudice against transgender
people; irrational fear and misunderstanding; disbelief or discounting
preferred pronouns or gender identity; derogatory language and name-
calling; bullying, abuse, and even violence.”
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/gender-identity/transgender/whats-
transphobia
Additionally, according to CollinsDictionary.com, transphobia is defined as “fear or
hatred of transgender people.”
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/transphobia
According to MacMillian Dictionary, transphobia is defined as “prejudice toward
or unfair treatment of transgender people.”
https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/transphobia
Lastly, according to Cambridge Dictionary, transphobia is defined as
“a fear or dislike of transgender people.”
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/transphobia
Analysis: Not one reputable definition of transphobia is reduced down to inflicting physical
harm, and various definitions often encompass a variety of actions and beliefs which have a
materially negative effect on the lives of trans people by virtue that they are trans.
Conclusion: No, transphobia is not just limited to physical violence.
--
Issue: What kinds of discrimination do trans people face, and is it limited to just physical
violence?
Rule(s):
According to the American Psychological Association, “[a]nti-discrimination laws in
most U.S. cities and states do not protect transgender people from discrimination
based on gender identity or gender expression. Consequently, transgender people in
most cities and states face discrimination in nearly every aspect of their lives. The
National Center for Transgender Equality and the National Gay and Lesbian Task
Force released a report in 2011 entitled Injustice at Every Turn, which confirmed
the pervasive and severe discrimination faced by transgender people. Out of a
sample of nearly 6,500 transgender people, the report found that transgender people
experience high levels of discrimination in employment, housing, health care,
education, legal systems, and even in their families.”
Additionally, they say that “[t]ransgender people may also have additional
identities that may affect the types of discrimination they experience. Groups
with such additional identities include transgender people of racial, ethnic, or
religious minority backgrounds; transgender people of lower socioeconomic
statuses; transgender people with disabilities; transgender youth;
transgender elderly; and others. Experiencing discrimination may cause
significant amounts of psychological stress, often leaving transgender
individuals to wonder whether they were discriminated against because of
their gender identity or gender expression, another sociocultural identity, or
some combination of all of these.” https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/transgender
“According to the study, while discrimination is pervasive for the
majority of transgender people, the intersection of anti-transgender
bias and persistent, structural racism is especially severe. People of
color in general fare worse than White transgender people, with
African American transgender individuals faring far worse than all
other transgender populations examined.”
They also say that “[m]any transgender people are the targets of hate crimes.
They are also the victims of subtle discrimination—which includes
everything from glances or glares of disapproval or discomfort to invasive
questions about their body parts.” https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/transgender
In a 2008 resolution, the APA also said that “transgender people [are] denied
basic non-gender transition related health care (Bockting et al., 2005; Coan et
al., 2005; Clements-Nolle, 2006; GLBT Health Access Project, 2000; Kenagy,
2005; Kenagy & Bostwick, 2005; Nemoto et al., 2005; Riser et al., 2005;
Rodriquez-Madera & Toro-Alfonso, 2005; Sperber et al., 2005; Xavier et al.,
2005).” https://www.apa.org/about/policy/resolution-gender-identity.pdf
They also said that “transgender, gender variant and gender
nonconforming people may be denied appropriate gender transition
related medical and mental health care despite evidence that
appropriately evaluated individuals benefit from gender transition
treatments (De Cuypere et al., 2005; Kuiper & CohenKettenis, 1988;
Lundstrom, et al., 1984; Newfield, et al., 2006; Pfafflin & Junge, 1998;
Rehman et al., 1999; Ross & Need, 1989; Smith et al., 2005).”
https://www.apa.org/about/policy/resolution-gender-identity.pdf
nonconforming people may be denied basic civil rights and
protections (Minter, 2003; Spade, 2003) including: the right to civil
marriage which confers a social status and important legal benefits,
rights, and privileges (Paige, 2005); the right to obtain appropriate
identity documents that are consistent with a posttransition identity;
and the right to fair and safe and harassmentfree institutional
environments such as care facilities, treatment centers, shelters,
housing, schools, prisons and juvenile justice programs.”
nonconforming people experience a disproportionate rate of
homelessness (Kammerer et al., 2001), unemployment (APA, 2007) and
job discrimination (Herbst et al., 2007), disproportionately report
income below the poverty line (APA, 2007) and experience other
financial disadvantages (Lev, 2004).”
nonconforming people may be at increased risk in institutional
environments and facilities for harassment, physical and sexual
assault (Edney, 2004; Minter, 2003; Peterson et al., 1996; Witten & Eyler,
2007) and inadequate medical care including denial of gender
transition treatments such as hormone therapy (Edney, 2004; Peterson
et al., 1996; Bockting et al., 2005; Coan et al., 2005; Clements-Nolle,
2006; Kenagy, 2005; Kenagy & Bostwick, 2005; Nemoto et al., 2005;
Newfield et al., 2006; Riser et al., 2005; Rodriquez-Madera &Toro-
Alfonso, 2005; Sperber et al., 2005; Xavier et al., 2005).”
They also said that “many transgender, gender variant and gender
nonconforming children and youth face harassment and violence in
school environments, foster care, residential treatment centers,
homeless centers and juvenile justice programs (D’Augelli, Grossman,
& Starks, 2006; Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network, 2003;
Grossman, D’Augelli, & Slater, 2006).”
Additionally, according to the United Nations, “[m]any countries force transgender
people to undergo medical treatment, sterilization or meet other onerous
preconditions before they can obtain legal recognition of their gender identity.
Intersex children are often subjected to unnecessary surgery, causing physical and
psychological pain and suffering. In many cases, a lack of adequate legal protections
combined with hostile public attitudes leads to widespread discrimination against
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people – including workers being
fired from jobs, students bullied and expelled from schools, and patients denied
essential healthcare.” https://www.unfe.org/about-2/
Additionally, according to the 2018 LGBTQ Youth Report: (1) 67% of LGBTQ youth
hear their parents make negative statements about LGBTQ people - rises to 78% if
child is in closet; and (2) 48% of LGBTQ youth say their family makes them feel bad
for their identity. https://assets2.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/2018-YouthReport-
NoVid.pdf?_ga=2.134619825.1102244158.1526302453-846000759.1523970534
Additionally, a survey conducted by TGEU shows that 16 countries in Europe & Central
Asia still require sterilization before transgender peoples’ gender identity can be legally
recognized. https://tgeu.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/MapB_TGEU2019.pdf
Analysis: Trans people face large varieties of discrimination, both at a societal and institutional
level.
Conclusion: The discrimination trans people face is not just limited to physical violence.
--
Issue: Are concerns of “trans predators” (in bathrooms/changing rooms/etc.) empirically valid?
Rule(s):
In 2018, a study was published in the Journal of Sexuality Research and Social policy
which discussed how “[l]egislation, regulations, litigation, and ballot propositions
affecting public restroom access for transgender people increased drastically in the last
three years” and how “[o]pponents of gender identity inclusive public accommodations
nondiscrimination laws often cite fear of safety and privacy violations in public restrooms
if such laws are passed, while proponents argue that such laws are needed to protect
transgender people and concerns regarding safety and privacy violations are unfounded.”
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13178-018-0335-z
What they found was that “[n]o empirical evidence has been gathered to test
such laws’ effects.” https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13178-018-0335-z
Furthermore, “[t]his study provides evidence that fears of increased safety and
privacy violations as a result of nondiscrimination laws are not empirically
grounded.” https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13178-018-0335-z
Additionally, according to RAINN, most rapes and sexual assaults (8/10) are
committed by someone the victim knew, not random men and women claiming to be
transgender going into bathrooms. https://www.rainn.org/statistics/perpetrators-sexual-
violence
Additionally, according to their analysis of rape and sexual assault in the US,
48% of survivors were at home sleeping or performing another activity at
home; 29% were travelling, running errands, etc; 12% were working; 7%
were at school; and 5% doing an unknown or other activity (does not
specify). Therefore, it can be inferred that rapes in bathrooms are very rare
overall and even then that is not because of trans people.
https://www.rainn.org/statistics/scope-problem
https://www.rainn.org/statistics/victims-sexual-violence
Additionally, according to a study conducted by the British National Centre for Social
Research, a vast majority of cis women are not, in fact, concerned about which
facilities transgender people use. They found that “72% of women said that they
were “very” or “quite comfortable” with a transgender woman using a “female
toilet.” https://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media/39363/bsa_36.pdf
Analysis: There is no empirical evidence to show that concerns about “trans predators” are
rooted in anything else except for discriminatory prejudices against trans people. And not only
that, but the vast majority of women don’t care about trans women in women’s bathrooms.
Conclusion: No, these concerns are not empirically valid, and whatever concerns there exist are
likely motivated by personal biases.
--
Citations to be Incorporated in the Future
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Le70f0hs5ZDSGlP13YQaa5k_YjD27VaxOHB9g1J0X6g/edit]
Rhetorical Devices
Issue: Is someone “just expressing an opinion” reason enough in itself to respect someone’s
opinion?
Rule(s):
According to the Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444:
(1) The First Amendment does not give anyone complete, unabridged
freedom to say whatever they want, there are limits.
(2) One of those limits is when people make specific and actionable
statements intended to incite harm against a specific group of people (micro,
not macro).
(3) If hate speech is not prohibited (for example, if it is very general), then
the current opinion of the Court is to have the remedy be other speech
criticizing the original hate speech. (re: John Stuart Mill concept of the “Free
Marketplace of Ideas”; weird, since conservatives love using that as a
justification for having platforms in the first place but can’t take any
criticisms themselves.)
Analysis: With this in mind, we can look at several hypotheticals . . .
Ex: If a misogynist believes a woman’s place is in the kitchen and I do not, does the
fact we disagree mean that misogyny is okay?
Ex: If a racist believes in slavery and I do not, does the fact that we disagree mean
that racism is okay?
Ex: If a Nazi believes that we should kill all Jews and I do not, does the fact we
disagree mean that belief is okay?
The reason all these people are wrong is not because we disagree, but because
they are openly advocating for materially adverse treatment of these people.
And pursuant to the logic of John Stuart Mill and the Supreme Court, the
correct response to people voicing these opinions is for other people to openly
criticize those opinions in the “free marketplace of ideas.”
Conclusion: No, “just expressing an opinion” is not reason enough in itself to respect someone’s
opinion.
--
Issue: Are content creators responsible for their fanbase harming specific people if they only
generally talk about the targeted demographic?
Rule(s):
A study conducted by the Data & Research Institute focused on the effects of the
“Alternative Influence Network (AIN): an assortment of scholars, media pundits,
and internet celebrities who use YouTube to promote a range of political positions,
from mainstream versions of libertarianism and conservatism, all the way to overt
white nationalism. Content creators in the AIN claim to provide an alternative
media source for news and political commentary. They function as political
influencers who adopt the techniques of brand influencers to build audiences and
‘sell’ them on far-right ideology.”
They say that the main objective defining characteristics of content creators in the
AIN are:
(a) “Establishing an alternative sense of credibility based on relatability,
authenticity, and accountability.
(b) Cultivating an alternative social identity using the image of a social
underdog, and countercultural appeal.” https://datasociety.net/wp-
content/uploads/2018/09/DS_Alternative_Influence.pdf
They also say that “[w]hen viewers engage with this content, it is framed as
lighthearted, entertaining, rebellious, and fun. This fundamentally obscures
the impact that issues have on vulnerable and underrepresented populations
—the LGBTQ community, women, immigrants, and people of color.”
https://datasociety.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/DS_Alternative_Influence.pdf
This is important because according to Dictionary.com, Stochastic Terrorism is “the
public demonization of a person or group resulting in the incitement of a violent act,
which is statistically probable but whose specifics cannot be predicted.”
https://www.dictionary.com/e/what-is-stochastic-terrorism/
They go on to say that “[t]he word stochastic, in everyday language, means
‘random.’ Terrorism, here, refers to ‘violence motivated by ideology.’”
https://www.dictionary.com/e/what-is-stochastic-terrorism/
They go on to describe the idea behind stochastic terrorism:
(1) “A leader or organization uses rhetoric in the mass media against a group
of people.
(2) This rhetoric, while hostile or hateful, doesn’t explicitly tell someone to
carry out an act of violence against that group, but a person, feeling
threatened, is motivated to do so as a result.
(3) That individual act of political violence can’t be predicted as such, but
that violence will happen is much more probable thanks to the rhetoric.
(4) This rhetoric is thus called stochastic terrorism because of the way it
incites random violence.” https://www.dictionary.com/e/what-is-stochastic-
terrorism/
Analysis: By posturing themselves as “just expressing concerns” or “just voicing their opinions,”
AIN youtubers have been shown to influence the beliefs and behaviors of their fanbase.
Although they may not specifically call for harm to be committed against groups that they
discuss, by normalizing negative views about the targeted groups, they increase the likelihood
that their fans will adopt those views and will subsequently commit specific acts of harm against
members of those groups.
Conclusion: Yes, content creators are responsible for their fanbase harming specific people, even
if they only talk about the targeted demographic in a general sense.
--
Issue: Can [X] person be [X]-phobic? (Ex: Can trans people be transphobic?)
Rule(s):
During World War II, researchers from the Center for Naval Analyses had conducted a
study of the damage done to aircraft that had returned from missions, and had
recommended that armor be added to the areas that showed the most damage (shown by
the red dots). BUT, Abraham Wald noted that the study only considered the aircraft
that had survived their missions—the bombers that had been shot down were not
present for the damage assessment. The holes in the returning aircraft, then,
represented areas where a bomber could take damage and still return home safely. This is
called “survivorship bias.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
Survivorship bias or survival bias is the logical error of concentrating on the people or
things that made it past some selection process and overlooking those that did not,
typically because of their lack of visibility. This can lead to false conclusions in several
different ways. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
Analysis: The reason this is relevant is because it can apply to people from marginalized
backgrounds. If you come from a background that afforded you more advantages than the
average person from your categorical group, that entails a danger of leading you to develop false
beliefs about the nature of your group and how it functions in society.
Conclusion: Yes, [X] person can be [X]-phobic. (So of course trans people can be transphobic, a
black man can be racist, a woman can be misogynistic, and a gay man can be homophobic.)
--
Issue: Just because a work does not specifically or overtly target a group of people, does that
mean the work cannot negatively affect that group?
Rule(s):
“The cultivation theory . . . says that media cultivate[s] or create[s] for media
audiences a picture of the world that looks much like the one they see on TV.
According to the central premise of cultivation theory, those watching more TV are
more likely to believe that the real world is like that presented in the media (Potter,
1991a,b).” https://academic.csuohio.edu/kneuendorf/vitae/JeffresAtkin&Neuendorf01.pdf
Additionally, even if people think they may be immune to the effects that media has on
our perceptions, evidence has shown this to not be the case. Researchers define this as the
“third-party effect” where “individuals who are members of an audience that is exposed
to a persuasive communication (whether or not this communication is intended to be
persuasive) will expect the communication to have a greater effect on others than on
themselves.” http://cscc.scu.edu/trends/v24/v24_2.pdf
Analysis:
An application of the cultivation theory to a continued misuse of—for example—gender
nonconformity as the basis for the dangerous natures of individuals in books and films
can lead audiences to believing that there is something inherently dangerous about being
gender nonconforming or trans, if the audience cannot tell the difference.
Conclusion:
Yes, even if a group is not specifically mentioned in a given work, if a work uses a
representation which the average consumer of that work perceives to belong to that group
or demographic, they will likely enforce those perceptions onto that group or
demographic.
Gun Issues
Issue: Do open carry laws prevent harm and/or other violent crime?
Rule(s):
In a longitudinal study published in November of 2019 in the American Journal of Public
Health looking at the impact of right-to-carry firearm laws on firearm workplace
homicides in the United States from 1992 to 2017, researchers found that “the average
effect of having [right-to-carry] laws on [workplace homicides] was significantly
associated with 29% higher rates of firearm [workplace homicides] (95% confidence
interval [CI] = 1.14, 1.45).” They also found that “[n]o other state-level policies were
associated with firearm [workplace homicides]” and that “[s]tate-specific estimates
suggest that passing [a right-to-carry] law during [their] study period was
significantly associated with 24% increase in firearm [workplace homicide] rates
(95% CI = 1.09, 1.40).”
https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2019.305307
What their findings indicate is that “RTC laws likely pose a threat to worker
safety and contribute to the recent body of literature that finds RTC laws are
associated with increased incidence of violence.”
https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2019.305307
Additionally, in a study published in September 2018 in the BMJ Military Health Journal
looking at state-level data on case numbers of firearm fatalities, non-fatal firearm
hospitalizations, non-fatal ED visits, and state-level population estimates from California
and nine other US state inpatient and emergency department discharge databases and the
Center for Disease Control Web-Based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System,
“[bans on open carrying firearms] resulted in a significantly lower incident rate of
both firearm-related fatalities and [non-fatal firearm] hospitalizations (p<0.001)”
and that “[t]he effect of the law remained significant when controlling for baseline
state gun laws (p<0.001).” https://tsaco.bmj.com/content/3/1/e000196
Specifically, they found that “[f]irearm incident rate drops in California were
significant for male homicide (p=0.023), hospitalization for NF assault (p=0.021
male; p=0.025 female), and ED NF assault visits (p=0.04). No significant
decreases were observed by sex for suicides or unintentional injury.”
https://tsaco.bmj.com/content/3/1/e000196
Furthermore, they found that “[c]hanging the law saved an estimated 337 lives
(3.6% fewer deaths) and 1285 [non-fatal firearm] visits in California during
the postban period.” https://tsaco.bmj.com/content/3/1/e000196
Additionally, in a meta-analysis published in September 2017 in the Sage Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology Review reviewing the findings of weapons effect
studies conducted since a “landmark 1967 study show[ing] that simply seeing a gun can
increase aggression” (also called the “weapons effect”), although they found that
“[w]eapons did not significantly increase angry feeling[,] . . . [that] not all naïve mean
estimates were robust to the presence of publication bias, . . . [and that] these results
suggest that the published literature tends to overestimate the weapons effect for some
outcomes and moderators[,]” they concluded that “the mere presence of weapons
increased aggressive thoughts, hostile appraisals, and aggression, suggesting a
cognitive route from weapons to aggression.”
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1088868317725419
Analysis: The cited academic literature supports that right-to-carry laws are associated with
higher rates of firearm homicides and firearm-related injuries, that they are associated increased
incidents of violence, that banning them has resulted in significantly lower incident rates of both
firearm-related fatalities and injuries, and that the mere presence of weapons likely contributes to
this through affecting the mental of emotional state the firearms are in the presence of.
Conclusion: Therefore, open carry laws do not prevent harm and/or other violent crime.
---
Issue: Do concealed-carry laws prevent harm and/or other violent crime?
Rule(s):
In a meta-analysis published by RAND, researchers reviewed studies exploring the
effects of shall-issue concealed-carry laws on violent crime between 1997 and 2004 and
found that “[e]vidence that shall-issue concealed-carry laws may increase violent
crime is limited” and that “[e]vidence for the effect of shall-issue laws on total
homicides, firearm homicides, robberies, assaults, and rapes is [also] inconclusive.”
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/concealed-carry/violent-crime.html
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/concealed-carry/violent-
crime.html
But, in a study published in May 2019 in the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies using
state panel data through 2014 to estimate the impact on violent crime when states adopt
right-to-carry concealed handgun laws, researchers found “statistically significant
estimates showing [right-to-carry] laws increase overall violent crime” and that
“[right-to-carry] laws are associated with 13–15 percent higher aggregate violent
crime rates 10 years after adoption.”
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jels.12219
But, a study published in June 2015 in the Hindawi Journal of Criminology looking at
whether increases in concealed handgun licensing affect crime rates found “no significant
effect of [concealed handgun licensing laws] increases on changes in crime rates” and
that “the rate at which [concealed handgun licensing laws] are issued and crime
rates are independent of one another—crime does not drive CHLs; CHLs do not
drive crime.” https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jcrim/2015/803742/
But, a study published in August 2017 in the American Journal of Public Health
“compar[ing] homicide rates in shall-issue and may-issue states and total, firearm,
nonfirearm, handgun, and long-gun homicide rates in all 50 states during the 25-year
period of 1991 to 2015” found that “[s]hall-issue laws were significantly associated
with 6.5% higher total homicide rates, 8.6% higher firearm homicide rates, and
10.6% higher handgun homicide rates, but were not significantly associated with
long-gun or nonfirearm homicide” and that “[s]hall-issue laws are associated with
significantly higher rates of total, firearm-related, and handgun-related homicide.”
https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2017.304057
Analysis: The current academic literature on how concealed carrying affects violent crime or
other forms of harm is inconsistent and overall inconclusive.
Conclusion: There is currently not enough available evidence to say whether concealed-carry
laws prevent harm and/or other violent crime.
Trump
Issue: Generally, did Trump handle the COVID-19 crisis properly?
Rule(s):
As early as March 25th, the Trump Administration ignored following the National
Security Council’s official guidelines on dealing with pandemics, such as making
sure there is sufficient personal protective equipment for healthcare workers (such
as facemasks or ventilators) when facing even potential pandemics.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/25/trump-coronavirus-national-security-council-
149285
Additionally, by April 13th economists measured that “[i]n the final two weeks of
March and the first week in April, jobless claims jumped about 17 million” and
predicted that unemployment would increase by 35 million for a jobless rate of
nearly 27% within the following month should the pandemic continue (which it did).
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2020/04/13/heres-how-much-trumps-mishandling-of-
covid-will-cost-the-economy/
Additionally, in July the Trump Administration eliminated the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) as the leader of data collection for COVID-19 data
from hospitals. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cdc-covid-19-data/
Additionally, on September 9th, Trump admitted to lying about the COVID-19 threat
in recorded interviews. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwCuWczyuDQ
Trump said the reason he repeatedly lied was that he was averting panic by
downplaying the threat of the coronavirus. But that is at odds with the way he's
talked about other threats, those where fear might work to his political
advantage,” such as
Immigration
Low-Income Housing
Losing the Election to the Democrats, and
Hurricanes.
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/911828384/trump-says-he-downplayed-
coronavirus-threat-in-u-s-to-avert-panic
Additionally, a study conducted by Cornell University analyzing 38 million English-
language articles about the pandemic found that “mentions of Mr. Trump made up
nearly 38 percent of the overall ‘misinformation conversation,’ making the
president the largest driver of . . . falsehoods involving the pandemic.”
https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Evanega-et-al-
Coronavirus-misinformationFINAL.pdf
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/30/us/politics/trump-coronavirus-
misinformation.html#click=https://t.co/2oUFux5bV5
Additionally, according to the Coronavirus Resource Center at Johns Hopkins, we are
now 10th in the world for observed case-fatality ratio, and 6th in the world for deaths
per 100,000 population. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality
Finally, COVID-19 is so prevalent in our country that now even our president has it.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1311892190680014849?s=20
Analysis:
Trump knew about the potential severity of the pandemic from the beginning—he
admitted so on national television. Yet despite having this knowledge, he:
(a) ignored the NSC guidelines from the start,
(b) eliminated the CDC as the leader for data collection and analysis surrounding the
pandemic, and
(c) lied about the nature of the pandemic so much that studies showed he was the “largest
driver” of misinformation surrounding it in the world.
As a consequence, we now have the highest unemployment in our country’s history, one
of the worst observed case-fatality ratios out of any country in the world, and one of the
highest rates of deaths per 100,000 citizens out of any country in the world. Things have
gotten so bad here that even Trump—for as much as he has downplayed and mishandled
the pandemic—has contracted the disease himself.
Conclusion:
No, Trump did not handle the COVID-19 pandemic properly, and frankly any opinion to
the contrary is laughable.
---
SPECIFIC COVID DEBUNKS
On the Nature of the Outbreak
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/10/trumps-lies-about-coronavirus/608647/
When: Friday, February 7, and Wednesday, February 19

The claim: The coronavirus would weaken “when we get into April, in the warmer
weather—that has a very negative effect on that, and that type of a virus.”
The truth: When Trump made this claim, it was too early to tell whether the virus’s
spread would be dampened by warmer conditions, though public-
health experts and epidemiologists were immediately skeptical of Trump’s comment. But
the spring and summer have passed, and the pandemic is still raging.
When: Thursday, February 27
The claim: The outbreak would be temporary: “It’s going to disappear. One day, it’s like
a miracle—it will disappear.”
The truth: Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Diseases, warned days later that he was concerned that “as the next week or two or three
go by, we’re going to see a lot more community-related cases.” He was right—the virus
has not disappeared.
When: Multiple times
The claim: If the economic shutdown continues, deaths by suicide “definitely would be
in far greater numbers than the numbers that we’re talking about” for COVID-19 deaths.
The truth: More than 200,000 Americans have died from COVID-19. According to the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, suicide is one of the leading causes of
death in the United States. But the number of people who died by suicide in 2017, for
example, was roughly 47,000, nowhere near the COVID-19 numbers. Estimates of the
mental-health toll of the Great Recession are mixed. A 2014 study tied more than 10,000
suicides in Europe and North America to the financial crisis. But a larger analysis in
2017 found that although the rate of suicide was increasing in the United States, the
increase could not be directly tied to the recession and was attributable to broader
socioeconomic conditions predating the downturn.
The claim: “Coronavirus numbers are looking MUCH better, going down almost
everywhere,” and cases are “coming way down.”
The truth: When Trump made these claims in May, coronavirus cases were either
increasing or plateauing in the majority of American states. Over the summer, the country
saw a second surge even greater than its first in the spring.
When: Wednesday, June 17
The claim: The pandemic is “fading away. It’s going to fade away.”
The truth: Trump made this claim ahead of his rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma, when the
country was still seeing at least 20,000 new daily cases and a second spike in infections
was beginning.
When: Thursday, July 2
The claim: The pandemic is “getting under control.”
The truth: Trump’s claim came as the country’s daily cases doubled to about 50,000, a
higher count than was seen at the beginning of the pandemic, and as the number
continued to rise, fueled by infections in the South and the West.
When: Saturday, July 4
The claim: “99%” of COVID-19 cases are “totally harmless.”
The truth: The virus can still cause tremendous suffering if it doesn’t kill a patient, and
the WHO has said that about 15 percent of COVID-19 cases can be severe, with 5
percent being critical. Fauci has rejected Trump’s claim, saying the evidence shows that
the virus “can make you seriously ill” even if it doesn’t kill you.
When: Monday, July 6
The claim: “We now have the lowest Fatality (Mortality) Rate in the World.”
The truth: The U.S. had neither the lowest mortality rate nor the lowest case-fatality rate
when Trump made this claim. As of July 13, the case-fatality rate—the ratio of deaths to
confirmed COVID-19 cases—was 4.1 percent, which placed the U.S. solidly in the
middle of global rankings. At the time, it had the world’s ninth-worst mortality rate, with
41.33 deaths per 100,000 people, according to Johns Hopkins University.
The claim: Mexico is partly to blame for COVID-19 surges in the Southwest.
The truth: Even before Latin America’s COVID-19 cases began to rise, the U.S. and
Mexico had jointly agreed in March to restrict nonessential land travel between the two
countries, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection says illegal border crossings are down
compared with last year. Health experts say blaming Mexican immigrants for surges
is misguided, especially when most of the individuals crossing the border are U.S.
citizens who live nearby.
The claim: Children are “virtually immune” to COVID-19.
The truth: The science is not definitive, but that doesn’t mean children are immune.
Studies in the U.S. and China have suggested that kids are less likely than adults to be
infected, and more likely to have mild symptoms, but can still spread the virus to their
family members and others. The CDC has said that about 7 percent of COVID-19 cases
and less than 0.1 percent of COVID-19-related deaths have occurred in children.
When: Thursday, August 27
The claim: The U.S. has “among the lowest case-fatality rates of any major country
anywhere in the world.”
The truth: When Trump said this, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, and India all had
lower case-fatality rates than the U.S., which sat in the middle of performance
rankings among all nations and among the 20 countries hardest hit by the virus.
The claim: Trump “launched the largest national mobilization since World War II”
against COVID-19, and America “developed, from scratch, the largest and most
advanced testing system in the world.”
The truth: These claims are incorrect and misleading. The federal government’s
coronavirus response has been roundly criticized as a failure because of flawed and
delayed testing, entrenched inequality that has amplified the virus’s effects, and chaotic
federal leadership that’s left much of the country’s response up to the states to handle.
Trump vacillated on fully invoking the Defense Production Act in March, set off
international panic when he mistakenly said he was banning all travel from European
nations, and was slow to support social-distancing measures nationwide. Widespread use
of the DPA was still rare in July, despite continued shortages of medical supplies.
Another claim: Trump celebrated a gain of 9 million jobs as “a record in the history of

our country” and said that the United States had experienced “the smallest economic
contraction of any major Western nation.”
The truth: The country did gain 9 million jobs from May to July—after losing more
than 20 million from February to April, during the pandemic’s first surge. And more than
a dozen developed countries have recorded smaller economic contractions than
America’s recession.
When: Thursday, September 10, and Wednesday, September 23

The claim: America is “rounding the corner” and “rounding the final turn” of the
pandemic.
The truth: Trump made these claims before and after the country registered 200,000
coronavirus deaths. As the winter approaches, coronavirus cases are increasing in a slew
of states in the Midwest and the South, and data suggest that a third national surge might
happen in the coming weeks. Fauci and CDC Director Robert Redfield have also warned
Americans about the winter, with Fauci highlighting the “need to hunker down and get
through this fall and winter, because it’s not going to be easy.”
Blaming the Obama Administration

When: Wednesday, March 4
The claim: The Trump White House rolled back Food and Drug Administration
regulations that limited the kind of laboratory tests states could run and how they could
conduct them. “The Obama administration made a decision on testing that turned out to
be very detrimental to what we’re doing,” Trump said.
The truth: The Obama administration drafted, but never implemented, changes to rules
that regulate laboratory tests run by states. Trump’s policy change relaxed an FDA
requirement that would have forced private labs to wait for FDA authorization to conduct
their own, non-CDC-approved coronavirus tests.
When: Friday, March 13
The claim: The Obama White House’s response to the H1N1 pandemic was “a full scale
disaster, with thousands dying, and nothing meaningful done to fix the testing problem,
until now.”
The truth: Barack Obama declared a public-health emergency two weeks after the first
U.S. cases of H1N1 were reported, in California. (Trump declared a national emergency
more than seven weeks after the first domestic COVID-19 case was reported, in
Washington State.) While testing is a problem now, it wasn’t back in 2009. The challenge
then was vaccine development: Production was delayed and the vaccine wasn’t
distributed until the outbreak was already waning.
The claim: The Trump White House “inherited” a “broken,” “bad,” and “obsolete” test
for the coronavirus.
The truth: The novel coronavirus did not exist in humans during the Obama
administration. Public-health experts agree that, because of that fact, the CDC
could not have produced a test, and thus a new test had to be developed this year.
The claim: The Obama administration left Trump “bare” and “empty” shelves of medical
supplies in the national strategic stockpile.
The truth: The 2009 H1N1 outbreak did deplete the N95 mask supply and was never
replenished, but the Obama administration did not leave the stockpile empty of other
materials. While the stockpile has never been funded at the levels some experts have
requested, its former director said in 2019, before the coronavirus pandemic, that it was
well-equipped. (The outbreak has since eaten away at its reserves.)
When: Sunday, May 10
The claim: Referring to criticism of his administration’s response, Trump tweeted:
“Compare that to the Obama/Sleepy Joe disaster known as H1N1 Swine Flu. Poor
marks ... didn’t have a clue!”
The truth: It is misleading to compare COVID-19 to H1N1 and to call the Obama
administration’s response a disaster, as my colleague Peter Nicholas has reported. In
2009, the CDC quickly flagged the new flu strain in California and began releasing
antiflu drugs from the national stockpile two weeks later. A vaccine was available in six
months.
Another claim: Trump later attacked “Joe Biden’s handling of the H1N1 Swine Flu.”
The truth: Biden was not responsible for the federal government’s response to the H1N1
outbreak, as Nicholas has also explained.
“A total of 12,500 Americans died from the disease in 2009 and 2010, fewer
people than the number who perished from the seasonal flu in the same period.
After-action reports show that the Obama administration’s handling of the swine
flu was largely effective. Testing devised by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention proved accurate—unlike the early tests produced to detect the
coronavirus. A vaccine was available just six months after the first infections
were reported.” https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/05/trump-
biden-coronavirus-2020/611500/
Biden didn’t play a lead role in the administration’s response, though he used his
congressional ties to win $8 billion in funding from lawmakers for vaccines and
medical supplies, a recent Politico review found. His main misstep was going off
script at one point by saying he wouldn’t want his family flying on planes for fear
of contagion. An Obama spokesman later apologized for any unnecessary alarm
Biden’s remarks had caused.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/05/trump-biden-coronavirus-
2020/611500/
On Coronavirus Testing
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/10/trumps-lies-about-
coronavirus/608647/
When: Friday, March 6, and Monday, May 11
The claim: “Anybody that needs a test, gets a test. We—they’re there. They have the
tests. And the tests are beautiful” and “If somebody wants to be tested right now, they’ll
be able to be tested.”
The truth: Trump made these two claims two months apart, but the truth was the same
both times: The U.S. did not have enough testing.
“More than 10 weeks into the coronavirus crisis, too few Americans are being
tested for the coronavirus, and the country’s testing capacity is not growing fast
enough, according to data collected by the COVID Tracking Project, a volunteer
initiative housed within The Atlantic. This week, the U.S. tested about 264,000
people a day, the highest level in the pandemic so far. But experts say that if the
country hopes to get its outbreak under control, it must double or triple the
number of daily tests. Some propose expanding testing more than 75-fold.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/05/theres-only-one-way-out-of-
this-mess/611431/
The claim: In an Oval Office address, Trump said that private-health-insurance
companies had “agreed to waive all co-payments for coronavirus treatments, extend
insurance coverage to these treatments, and to prevent surprise medical billing.”
The truth: Insurers agreed only to absorb the cost of coronavirus testing—waiving co-
pays and deductibles for getting the test. The Families First Coronavirus Response Act,
the second coronavirus-relief bill passed by Congress, later mandated that COVID-19
testing be made free. The federal government has not required insurance companies to
cover follow-up treatments, though some providers announced in late March that they
will pay for treatments. The costs of other non-coronavirus testing or treatment incurred
by patients who have COVID-19 or are trying to get a diagnosis aren’t waived either.
And as for surprise medical billing? Mitigating it would require the cooperation of
insurers, doctors, and hospitals.
The claim: Google engineers are building a website to help Americans determine
whether they need testing for the coronavirus and to direct them to their nearest testing
site.
The truth: The announcement was news to Google itself—the website Trump (and other
administration officials) described was actually being built by Verily, a division of
Alphabet, the parent company of Google. The Verge first reported on Trump’s error,
citing a Google representative who confirmed that Verily was working on a “triage
website” with limited coverage for the San Francisco Bay Area. But since then, Google
has pivoted to fulfill Trump’s public proclamation, saying it would speed up the
development of a new, separate website while Verily worked on finishing its project, The
Washington Post reported.
When: Tuesday, March 24, and Wednesday, March 25

The claim: The United States has outpaced South Korea’s COVID-19 testing: “We’re
going up proportionally very rapidly,” Trump said during a Fox News town hall.
The truth: When the president made this claim, testing in the U.S. was severely lagging
behind that in South Korea. As of March 25, South Korea had conducted about five times
as many tests as a proportion of its population relative to the United States. For updated
data from each country, see the COVID-19 Tracking Project and the database maintained
by the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
When: Monday, May 11
The claim: America has “developed a testing capacity unmatched and unrivaled
anywhere in the world, and it’s not even close.”
The truth: At the time, the United States was still not testing enough people and was
lagging behind the testing and tracing capabilities that other countries had developed. The
president’s testing czar, Brett Giroir, and Fauci confirmed the need for more testing at a
May 12 Senate hearing.
“More than 10 weeks into the coronavirus crisis, too few Americans are being
tested for the coronavirus, and the country’s testing capacity is not growing fast
enough, according to data collected by the COVID Tracking Project, a volunteer
initiative housed within The Atlantic. This week, the U.S. tested about 264,000
people a day, the highest level in the pandemic so far. But experts say that if the
country hopes to get its outbreak under control, it must double or triple the
number of daily tests. Some propose expanding testing more than 75-fold.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/05/theres-only-one-way-out-of-
this-mess/611431/
Another claim: The United States has conducted more testing “than all other countries
together!”
The truth: By May 18, when Trump last made this claim, the U.S. had conducted more
tests than any other country. But it had not conducted more tests than the rest of the world
combined. (As of May 27, more than 14 million tests have been administered in
America.)
The claim: “Cases are going up in the U.S. because we are testing far more than any
other country.”
The truth: COVID-19 cases were not rising because of “our big-number testing.”
Outside the Northeast, the share of tests conducted that came back positive
was increasing in the summer, with the sharpest spike happening in southern states. In
some states, such as Arizona and Florida, the number of new cases being reported
was outpacing any increase in the states’ testing ability. And as states set new daily case
records and reported increasing hospitalizations, all signs pointed to a worsening crisis.
On Travel Bans and Travelers
The claim: The United States would suspend “all travel from Europe, except the United
Kingdom, for the next 30 days,” Trump announced in an Oval Office address.
The truth: The travel restriction would not apply to U.S. citizens, legal permanent
residents, or their families returning from Europe. At first, it applied specifically to the 26
European countries that make up the Schengen Area, not all of Europe. Trump later
announced the inclusion of the United Kingdom and Ireland in the ban.
Another claim: In the same address, Trump said the travel restrictions would “not only
apply to the tremendous amount of trade and cargo but various other things as we get
approval.”
The truth: Trump followed up in a tweet, explaining that trade and cargo would not be
subject to the restrictions.
When: Thursday, March 12
The claim: All U.S. citizens arriving from Europe would be subject to medical screening,
COVID-19 testing, and quarantine if necessary. “If an American is coming back, or
anybody is coming back, we’re testing,” Trump said. “We have a tremendous testing
setup where people coming in have to be tested … We’re not putting them on planes if it
shows positive, but if they do come here, we’re quarantining.”
The truth: Testing was already severely limited in the United States when Trump
claimed this in the spring. It was not true that all Americans returning to the country were
being tested, nor that anyone was being forced to quarantine, CNN reported.
When: Tuesday, March 31
The claim: “We stopped all of Europe” with a travel ban. “We started with certain parts
of Italy, and then all of Italy. Then we saw Spain. Then I said, ‘Stop Europe; let’s stop
Europe. We have to stop them from coming here.’”
The truth: The travel ban applied to the Schengen Area, as well as the United Kingdom
and Ireland, and not all of Europe as he claimed. Additionally, Trump is wrong about the
United States rolling out a piecemeal ban. The State Department did issue advisories in
late February cautioning Americans against travel to the Lombardy region of Italy before
issuing a general “Do Not Travel” warning on March 19. But the U.S. never placed
individual bans on Italy and Spain.
The claim: “Everybody thought I was wrong” about implementing restrictions on
travelers from China, and “most people felt they should not close it down—that we
shouldn’t close down to China.”
The truth: While the WHO did say it opposed travel bans on China generally, Trump’s
own top health officials have made clear that the travel ban was the “uniform”
recommendation of the Department of Health and Human Services. Fauci and Deborah
Birx, the coordinator of the coronavirus task force, both praised the decision too.
The claim: The Trump administration’s travel restrictions on China were a “ban” that
closed up the “entire” United States and “kept China out.”
The truth: Nearly 40,000 people traveled from China to the United States from February
2, when Trump’s travel restrictions went into effect, to April 4, The New York
Times reported. Those rules also do not apply to all people: American citizens, green-card
holders and their relatives, and people on flights coming from Macau and Hong Kong are
not included in the “ban.”
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-ban-travel-china-pandemic/
There was no ban on travel from China’s administrative zones, as
thousands of travelers managed to enter the U.S. from Hong Kong and
Macau, regions also struck by COVID-19. Many travelers did not receive
the same enhanced screenings for the virus as those required by
Americans returning from mainland China.
On Taking the Pandemic Seriously
The claim: “I’ve always known this is a real—this is a pandemic. I felt it was a pandemic
long before it was called a pandemic … I’ve always viewed it as very serious.”
The truth: Trump has repeatedly downplayed the significance of COVID-19 as
outbreaks began stateside. From calling criticism of his handling of the virus a “hoax,”
to comparing the coronavirus to a common flu, to worrying about letting sick Americans
off cruise ships because they would increase the number of confirmed cases, Trump has
used his public statements to send mixed messages and sow doubt about the outbreak’s
seriousness.
The claim: This kind of pandemic “was something nobody thought could happen …
Nobody would have ever thought a thing like this could have happened.”
The truth: Experts both inside and outside the federal government sounded the alarm
many times in the past decade about the potential for a devastating global pandemic,
as my colleague Uri Friedman has reported. Two years ago, my colleague Ed Yong
explored the legacy of Ebola outbreaks—including the devastating 2014 epidemic—to
evaluate how ready the U.S. was for a pandemic. Ebola hardly impacted America—but it
revealed how unprepared the country was.
On COVID-19 Treatments and Vaccines

When: Monday, March 2
The claim: Pharmaceutical companies are going “to have vaccines, I think, relatively
soon.”
The truth: The president’s own experts told him during a White House meeting with
pharmaceutical leaders earlier the same day that a vaccine could take a year to 18 months
to develop. In response, he said he would prefer that it take only a few months. He later
claimed, at a campaign rally in Charlotte, North Carolina, that a vaccine would be ready
“soon.” Many months later, this is still not true.
The claim: At a press briefing with his coronavirus task force, Trump said the FDA had
approved the antimalarial drug chloroquine to treat COVID-19. “Normally the FDA
would take a long time to approve something like that, and it’s—it was approved very,
very quickly and it’s now approved by prescription,” he said.
The truth: FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, who was at the briefing, quickly clarified
that the drug still had to be tested in a clinical setting. An FDA representative later
told Bloomberg that the drug has not been approved for COVID-19 use, though a doctor
could still prescribe it for that purpose. Later that same day, Fauci told CNN that there is
no “magic drug” to cure COVID-19: “Today, there are no proven safe and effective
therapies for the coronavirus.”
When: Friday, April 24
The claim: Trump was being “sarcastic” when he suggested in a briefing on April 23 that
his medical experts should research the use of powerful light and injected disinfectants to
treat COVID-19.
The truth: Trump’s tone did not seem sarcastic when he made the apparent suggestion to
inject disinfectants. Turning to Birx and a Department of Homeland Security science-
and-technology official, he mused: “I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a
minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection
inside or almost a cleaning? … It would be interesting to check that.” When he walked
this statement back the next day, he added that he was only asking his experts “to look
into whether or not sun and disinfectant on the hands [work].”
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/24/us/politics/trump-inject-disinfectant-
bleach-coronavirus.html
Trump’s Suggestion That Disinfectants Could Be Used to Treat
Coronavirus Prompts Aggressive Pushback
Responding to the criticism from public health officials around the
country, the president said he was playing a trick on reporters.
April 24, 2020
When: Friday, May 8
The claim: The coronavirus is “going to go away without a vaccine … and we’re not
going to see it again, hopefully, after a period of time.”
The truth: Fauci has repeatedly said that the coronavirus’s sudden disappearance “is just
not going to happen.” Until the country has “a scientifically sound, safe, and effective
vaccine,” Fauci said in May, the pandemic will not be over.
The claim: Taking hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 is safe and effective. “I
happen to be a believer in hydroxy. I used it. I had no problem. I happen to be a
believer,” Trump said on one occasion. “It doesn’t hurt people,” he commented on
another.
The truth: Trump’s own FDA has warned against taking the antimalarial drug with or
without the antibiotic azithromycin, which Trump has also promoted. Several large
observational studies in New York, France, and China have concluded that the drug has
no benefit for COVID-19 patients, and Fauci and Trump’s testing czar, Brett Giroir, have
also cautioned against it as the president has repeated this claim in recent months.
Another claim: “One bad” study from the Department of Veterans Affairs that found no
benefit among veterans who took hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 was run by
“people that aren’t big Trump fans.” The study “was a Trump-enemy statement.”
The truth: There’s no evidence that the study was a political plot orchestrated by Trump
opponents, and it reached similar conclusions as other observational reports. The VA
study was led by independent researchers from the University of Virginia and the
University of South Carolina with a grant from the National Institutes of Health.
Another claim: Many frontline doctors and workers are taking hydroxychloroquine to

prevent COVID-19.
The truth: Multiple trials are under way to determine if health-care workers should take
the drug as a preventative. But there are no conclusive numbers for how many workers
are taking the drug outside of those studies.
The claim: A coronavirus vaccine could be ready by Election Day.
The truth: The timeline Trump proposes contradicts health experts’ consensus that early
2021 is likely the soonest a vaccine could be widely available.
When: Tuesday, September 29
The claim: “We’re weeks away from a vaccine,” Trump said at the first debate.
The truth: Redfield has said a COVID-19 vaccine may not be widely available to the
American public until the summer of next year. Two of the three drug companies
working on a vaccine have said they hope to have only initial clinical-trial results by the
end of this year.
On the Defense Production Act
The claim: Trump twice said during a task-force briefing that he had invoked the
Defense Production Act, a Korean War–era law that enables the federal government to
order private industry to produce certain items and materials for national use. He also
said the federal government was already using its authority under the law: “We have a lot
of people working very hard to do ventilators and various other things.”
The truth: Federal Emergency Management Agency Administrator Peter Gaynor told
CNN on March 22 that the president has not actually used the DPA to order private
companies to produce anything. Shortly after that, Trump backtracked, saying that he had
not compelled private companies to take action. Then, on March 24, Gaynor told
CNN that FEMA plans to use the DPA to allocate 60,000 test kits.
Trump tweeted afterward that the DPA would not be used.
When: Saturday, March 21
The claim: Automobile companies that have volunteered to manufacture medical
equipment, such as ventilators, are “making them right now.”
The truth: Ford and General Motors, which Trump mentioned at a task-force briefing
the same day, announced earlier in March that they had halted all factory production in
North America and were likely months away from beginning production of
ventilators, representatives told the Associated Press. Since then, Ford CEO James
Hackett told CNN that the auto company will begin to work with 3M to produce
respirators and with General Electric to assemble ventilators. GM said it will explore the
possibility of producing ventilators in an Indiana factory. Tesla CEO Elon Musk, whose
company Trump highlighted in a tweet, has said that the company is “working on
ventilators” but that they cannot be produced “instantly.”
On States’ Resources
The claim: Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York passed on an opportunity to purchase
16,000 ventilators at a low cost in 2015, Trump said during the Fox News town hall.
The truth: Trump seems to have gleaned this claim from a Gateway Pundit article. That
piece, in turn, cites a syndicated column from Betsy McCaughey, a former lieutenant
governor of New York, which includes a figure close to 16,000. The number comes from
a 2015 report from the state’s health department that provided guidance for how New
York could handle a possible flu pandemic. The report notes that the state would need
15,783 more ventilators than it had at the time to aid patients during “an influenza
pandemic on the scale of the 1918 pandemic.” The report does not include a
recommendation to Cuomo for additional purchases or stockpiling. Trump “obviously
didn’t read the document he’s citing,” a Cuomo representative said in a statement.
Another claim: Trump also repeated a claim from the Gateway Pundit article that

Cuomo’s office established “death panels” and “lotteries” as part of the state’s pandemic
response.
The truth: The 2015 report and the accompanying press release announced updated
guidelines for hospitals to follow to allocate ventilators. The guidelines “call for a triage
officer or triage committee to determine who receives or continues to receive ventilator
therapy” and describes how a random lottery allocation might work. (Neither should be
the first options for deciding care, the report notes.) Cuomo never established a lottery.
When: Sunday, March 29
The claim: Trump “didn’t say” that governors do not need all the medical equipment
they are requesting from the federal government. And he “didn’t say” that governors
should be more appreciative of the help.
The truth: The president told Fox News’ Sean Hannity on Thursday, March 26, that “a
lot of equipment’s being asked for that I don’t think they’ll need,” referring to requests
from the governors of Michigan, New York, and Washington. He also said, during a
Friday, March 27, task-force briefing, that he wanted state leaders “to be appreciative …
We’ve done a great job.” He added that he wasn’t talking about himself, but about others
within the federal government working to combat the pandemic.
When: Sunday, March 29, and Monday, March 30

The claim: Hospitals are reporting an artificially inflated need for masks and equipment,
items that might be “going out the back door,” Trump said on two separate days. He also
said he was not talking about hoarding: “I think maybe it’s worse than hoarding.”
The truth: There is no evidence to show that hospitals are maliciously hoarding or
inflating their need for masks and personal protective equipment
when reporting shortages in supplies. Although Cuomo reported anecdotal stories of
thefts from hospitals early in March, he was referring to opportunists trying to price-
gouge early in the pandemic. Reuters has reported a handful of stories of nurses hiding
masks to conserve supplies amid shortages, but not wide-scale thefts as Trump claimed.
Also:
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/03/donald-trump-coronavirus-ventilators
The government was set to announce an order of 80,000 pieces of lifesaving
equipment in March, but Trump decided it was too expensive and maybe
unnecessary.
MARCH 27, 2020
On China
When: Tuesday, April 14
The claim: Asked about his past praise of China and its transparency, Trump said that he
hadn’t “talk[ed] about China’s transparency.”
The truth: Trump lauded the country in tweets he sent in late January and
early February. In one, he highlighted the Chinese government’s “transparency” about
the coronavirus outbreak.
When: Friday, May 29
The claim: The WHO ignored “credible reports” of the coronavirus’s spread in Wuhan,
the Chinese city that first reported the new virus, including those published
in The Lancet medical journal in December.
The truth: The Lancet said it did not publish such reports in December. Its first reports
on the virus’s spread in Wuhan were published on January 24.
Another claim: Taiwanese officials had warned the WHO about human-to-human

transmission of a new virus by December 31.
The truth: Taiwan did not cite “human to human” transmission in the communications
Trump referenced, but it did ask for more information and compared the virus to SARS.
Another claim: In mid-January, the WHO said the coronavirus could not be transmitted
between humans.
The truth: The WHO did say on January 12 that early investigations by China could find
“no clear evidence” of human-to-human transmission in Wuhan, but it did not rule such
transmission out. Two days later, a WHO official said during a press conference that “it
is possible that there is limited human-to-human transmission” among families, and
warned hospitals around the world to prepare for a greater outbreak.
On Democrats
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/05/theres-only-one-way-out-of-this-
mess/611431/
The claim: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi urged people to attend “parties” and a parade in
San Francisco’s Chinatown to “show that this thing doesn’t exist.”
The truth: Pelosi did visit San Francisco’s Chinatown in late February to encourage
residents not to fear the coronavirus in the city. “Precautions have been taken” and the
city was “on top of the situation,” she said. But Pelosi did not urge people to attend a
parade or parties. San Francisco reported its first case of COVID-19 on March 5, a week
later, and the Bay Area ordered residents to shelter in place three weeks after the
speaker’s visit.
Another claim: Pelosi was “dancing in the streets of Chinatown, trying to say, ‘It’s okay
to come to the United States. It’s fine. It’s wonderful. Come on in. Bring your infection
with you,’” Trump said in May.
The truth: Trump is embellishing his original lie: Pelosi was not dancing in Chinatown
or urging sick people to bring the coronavirus to the United States.
When: Thursday, August 27, and Tuesday, September 29

The claim: Joe Biden wants an economic shutdown: “He wants to shut down this
country, and I want to keep it open,” Trump claimed at the first presidential debate.
The truth: Biden never said this. He has said repeatedly that he plans to “listen to the
scientists” when deciding on policies to control the virus. When asked by ABC’s David
Muir in August if he would support an economic shutdown, Biden said he “would be
prepared to do whatever it takes to save lives.” But in September, he was more
specific, saying, “There is going to be no need, in my view, to be able to shut down the
whole economy.”
Another claim: Biden wants to “delay the vaccine.”

The truth: Though Biden has claimed that Trump has put political pressure on scientists
to accelerate the approval and rollout of a COVID-19 vaccine, the former vice president
has never expressed a desire to delay it. He has asked for “total transparency” from drug
companies and scientists at the FDA and the CDC about any vaccine, and has called for
independent verification of the vaccine’s efficacy.
When: Multiple times.
The claim: Biden called Trump “xenophobic” after the president announced travel
restrictions on China in January.
The truth: Biden did refer to the president’s “record of hysteria and xenophobia—
hysterical xenophobia—and fearmongering” during a campaign stop on the same day
Trump announced his restrictions, but he did not refer to Trump’s announcement
specifically. Biden’s campaign told The Washington Post that he was not criticizing
Trump’s travel policies, but rather reiterating an argument against Trump’s record
that he’d made before.
On Protests
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/05/theres-only-one-way-out-of-this-
mess/611431/
When: Sunday, April 19 and Tuesday, April 21

The claim: Protesters who gathered in a handful of states over the weekend to oppose
social distancing were “doing social distancing” themselves and “were all six feet apart.”
The truth: Protesters have clogged streets in at least seven states after an April
15 demonstration at the Michigan state capitol grabbed national attention.
In California, Colorado, Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Virginia,
demonstrators did not seem to be following the CDC’s safety guidelines, local news
outlets reported, and photos and videos from the ground show tightly packed protests.
Another claim: Racial-justice protests and demonstrations fueled a surge in coronavirus

cases.
The truth: There is no evidence to support Trump’s claim, though epidemiologists did
fear at first that protests would trigger more infections. A recent study by Northeastern,
Harvard, and Northwestern suggests that widespread mask wearing and the outdoor
nature of the protests mitigated the spread. Some economists have argued that the protests
in more than 300 U.S. cities might have actually encouraged more Americans to stay
home during the civil unrest.
---
Issue: How did Trump perform in the first debate with Biden?
Rule(s):
To start, Trump interrupted Biden and the moderator collectively 128 times.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/trump-interruptions-first-presidential-debate-
biden.html
Additionally, at the debate, Trump outright refused to denounce a white supremacist
group when he said.: "Proud Boys, stand back and stand by."
https://www.nbcnews.com/msnbc/rachel-maddow-show/debate-trump-sends-dangerous-
signal-right-wing-extremists-ncna1241552; https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=JZk6VzSLe4Y
Within minutes, members of the group were posting in private social media
channels, calling the president’s comments “historic.” In one channel dedicated to
the Proud Boys on Telegram, a private messaging app, group members called the
president’s comment a tacit endorsement of their violent tactics.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/29/us/trump-proud-boys-biden.html
In another message, a member commented that the group was already seeing a
spike in “new recruits.” https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/29/us/trump-proud-boys-
biden.html
[Article discussing who the Proud Boys are]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/09/30/proudboys1001/
Even Republicans have been distancing themselves from Trump in the aftermath.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/30/us/politics/trump-debate-white-supremacy.html
President Donald Trump on Wednesday tried to walk back his refusal to outright
condemn a far right fascist group, . . . but the inflammatory moment was far from the
first time the president has failed to denounce white supremacists or has advanced
racist ideas. https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-virus-outbreak-race-and-ethnicity-
joe-biden-donald-trump-3f4d31aed98ca5080fb428d7cdc0c223
And even after saying the Proud Boys should “stand down,” Trump went on to
call out forces on the other end of the political spectrum and tried to attack Biden.
It was an echo of the way he had blamed “both sides” for the 2017 violence
between white supremacists and anti-racist protesters in Charlottesville,
Virginia. https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-virus-outbreak-race-and-
ethnicity-joe-biden-donald-trump-3f4d31aed98ca5080fb428d7cdc0c223
Analysis:
Not only did Trump fail to adhere to the basic rules of debate by interrupting Biden and
the moderator 128 times, but he also expressly failed to condemn the white supremacist
group “The Proud Boys.” As a result, not only are Republicans distancing themselves
from him and struggling to explain this, but the Proud Boys are now seeing more activity
than ever.
Conclusion:
If you are a white supremacist, you probably loved Trump’s performance. Otherwise it
was laughably terrible.
---
Issue: Is Trump’s language around the election dangerous?
On August 14th, Trump first discussed how Democrats were asking for funds which were
necessary for the post office to be able to process mail-in ballots and how if the
Democrats were not willing to adhere to his demands, then he would not fund mail-in
voting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPQNWZ_K8b0
Additionally, he claimed without evidence that mail ballots may purposely be
manipulated [by foreign countries[ to be sent to Democratic areas and not
Republican areas. [He also] decried a system of ballot return that the federal
government calls "secure and convenient" in official documents.
https://www.npr.org/2020/08/28/906676695/ignoring-fbi-and-fellow-republicans-trump-
continues-assault-on-mail-in-voting
But, the FBI, which is formally part of the Justice Department, said that it
has "no information about any nation state" engaging in any effort to
undermine any aspect of mail voting and also noted how difficult any
coordinated fraud scheme involving mail ballots would be to pull off because
of the decentralized nature of U.S. elections and the numerous safeguards
that are in place. https://www.npr.org/2020/08/28/906676695/ignoring-fbi-and-
fellow-republicans-trump-continues-assault-on-mail-in-voting
[Specific Debunks:]
TRUMP: “The big Unsolicited Ballot States should give it up NOW,
before it is too late, and ask people to go to the Polling Booths and, like
always before, VOTE. Otherwise, MAYHEM!!! Solicited Ballots
(absentee) are OK.” — tweet Thursday. https://apnews.com/article/virus-
outbreak-election-2020-ap-fact-check-elections-voting-fraud-and-
irregularities-8c5db90960815f91f39fe115579570b4
THE FACTS: Trump is vastly overstating the potential for
“mayhem” and fraud in “big unsolicited ballot states.”
There is no such thing as an “unsolicited” ballot. Five states
routinely send ballots to all registered voters so they can choose to
vote through the mail or in person. Four other states and the
District of Columbia will be adopting that system in November, as
will almost every county in Montana. Election officials note that,
by registering to vote, people are effectively requesting a ballot, so
it makes no sense to call the materials sent to them “unsolicited.”
More broadly speaking, voter fraud has proved exceedingly rare.
The Brennan Center for Justice in 2017 ranked the risk of ballot
fraud at 0.00004% to 0.0009%, based on studies of past elections.
In the five states that regularly send ballots to all voters, there
have been no major cases of fraud or difficulty counting the votes.
TRUMP: “Because of the new and unprecedented massive amount of
unsolicited ballots which will be sent to ‘voters’, or wherever, this year,
the Nov 3rd Election result may NEVER BE ACCURATELY
DETERMINED, which is what some want.” — tweet Thursday.
https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-election-2020-ap-fact-check-
elections-voting-fraud-and-irregularities-
8c5db90960815f91f39fe115579570b4
THE FACTS: It’s highly unlikely that any chaos in states with
universal mail-in voting will cause the election result to “never
be accurately determined.”
The five states that already have such balloting have had time to
ramp up their systems, while four new states adopting it —
California, New Jersey, Nevada and Vermont — have not. Of
those nine states, only Nevada is a battleground, worth only six
electoral votes and only likely to be pivotal in an absolute national
presidential deadlock. The others, including the District of
Columbia, are overwhelmingly Democratic and likely to be won by
that party’s nominee, former Vice President Joe Biden.
The main states that are being contested — Arizona, Florida,
Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — only
send mail ballots to voters who request them. Trump said
Thursday that such “solicited” ballots are absolutely “OK.”
Trump frequently blasts mail-in voting as flawed and fraudulent
while insisting that mail ballots in certain states such as Florida, a
must-win state for him are fine and safe. But mail-in ballots are
cast in the same way as what Trump refers to as “absentee” mail
ballots, with the same level of scrutiny such as signature
verification in many states. In court filings, the Trump campaign
has acknowledged that mail-in and absentee ballots are legally
interchangeable terms.
States nationwide expect a surge in mail-in voting due to the
ongoing coronavirus threat.
TRUMP: “Unsolicited Ballots are uncontrollable, totally open to
ELECTION INTERFERENCE by foreign countries, and will lead to
massive chaos and confusion!” — tweet Thursday.
https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-election-2020-ap-fact-check-
elections-voting-fraud-and-irregularities-
8c5db90960815f91f39fe115579570b4
THE FACTS: Mail-in ballots aren’t the biggest risk for foreign
interference.
Trying to influence a federal election through mail-in ballots
would probably mean paying thousands of U.S. citizens, carefully
selected in pivotal states, who are willing to conspire with a
foreign government and risk detection and prosecution.
Far easier and cheaper would be a social media campaign seeking
to discourage certain groups of people from voting, which is
something the FBI has warned about. Or a cyberattack on voter
registration data that would eliminate certain voters from the
rolls. That could cause havoc at polling places or election offices
as officials attempt to count ballots from people who are
“missing” from their voter databases.
Attorney General Bill Barr has raised the possibility that a
“foreign country could print up tens of thousands of counterfeit
ballots.” He argued they would be hard to detect, but that’s been
disputed by election experts.
Mail-in ballots are printed on special paper and must be formatted
correctly in order to be processed and counted. Ballots are
specific to each precinct, often with a long list of local races, and
would be identified as fraudulent if everything didn’t match
precisely.
TRUMP: “The Governor of Nevada worked very hard to cancel all of
our venues. Despite the fact that he controls the state, he failed, but
would have rather done rally outside. Can you imagine this man is in
charge ... of the Ballots in Nevada!? Not fair, Rigged Election!” —
tweets Monday. https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-election-2020-
ap-fact-check-elections-voting-fraud-and-irregularities-
8c5db90960815f91f39fe115579570b4
THE FACTS: He’s making a baseless charge.
Trump singled out Nevada’s Democratic Gov. Steve Sisolak for his
ire after Sisolak criticized Trump’s recent indoor rally in a Las
Vegas suburb for violating the state’s large-scale ban on indoor
gatherings. But there’s one problem — Sisolak is not in charge of
the ballots in Nevada. The secretary of state runs that state’s new
all-mail election. Her name is Barbara Cegavske, and she is a
Republican.
Trump’s campaign is suing to overturn new all-mail-ballot rules in
Nevada and Montana, where Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock said
counties could send mail ballots to all voters and 46 of the state’s
56 have.
Additionally, Trump said “Mail ballots, they cheat. Mail ballots are very dangerous
for this country because of cheaters. They go collect them. They are fraudulent in
many cases. They have to vote. They should have voter ID, by the way.”
https://www.nytimes.com/article/mail-in-voting-explained.html
Studies have shown that all forms of voting fraud are extremely rare in the
United States. A national study in 2016 found few credible allegations of
fraudulent voting. A panel that Mr. Trump charged with investigating
election corruption found no real evidence of fraud before he disbanded it in
2018. https://www.nytimes.com/article/mail-in-voting-explained.html
Five states, including the Republican bastion of Utah, now conduct all elections
almost entirely by mail. They report very little fraud. The state is among the six
states with the highest percentage of mail-in votes in the last election in 2018, all
of which had Republican state election supervisors at the time, according to David
J. Becker, the director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research.
https://www.nytimes.com/article/mail-in-voting-explained.html
Additionally, Trump urged his supporters to “Go into the polls and watch very
carefully.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdECDoioHU0
Trump also encouraged his supporters to try and commit voter fraud by voting for
him twice: once by mail and once in person. https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=QKebUwI5prQ
Lastly, Trump refused to commit to peaceful transfer of power if he loses the
election. He said “We’ll have to see what happens.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=oR8oIitE6mI
Analysis:
Trump has repeatedly lied about the nature of mail-in voting—specifically that it is
somehow uncredible or will be manipulated by foreign countries—without any evidence
and despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. He urged his voters to go to the polls
and watch carefully, which will likely result in voter intimidation. He told his voters to
literally commit voter fraud by voting twice. And he refused to commit to a peaceful
transfer of power if he loses the election.
Conclusion:
His statements surrounding the election are extremely dangerous and show a blatant
disregard for our democracy.
[Other Sources]
https://trumphumanrightstracker.law.columbia.edu/
https://bfi.uchicago.edu/working-paper/2020-44/
https://www.inquirer.com/politics/biden-trump-bleach-coronavirus-20200711.html
https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/11/politics/fact-check-trump-administration-coronavirus-
28-dishonest/index.html
Fact check: A list of 28 ways Trump and his team have been dishonest about the
coronavirus
Wed March 11, 2020
Additionally, by June 15th COVID-19 cases began growing rapidly in rural and exurban
areas with strong Trump support, such as Arizona, Florida, South Carolina, Arkansas and
Texas. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/15/republican-coronavirus-
skepticism-may-shift-cases-rise-states-trump-won
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/07/22/republicans-remain-far-less-likely-
than-democrats-to-view-covid-19-as-a-major-threat-to-public-health/
Republicans remain far less likely than Democrats to view COVID-19 as a major
threat to public health
JULY 22, 2020
https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/read-the-scrapped-usps-announcement-to-send-
5-masks-to-every-american-household/39cd11c9-3e38-4d8a-9d70-7c3215ab9cf8/?
itid=lk_interstitial_manual_10
Read the scrapped USPS announcement to send 5 masks to every American
household
The United States Postal Service had planned to send 650 million masks to
Americans during the early part of the pandemic. The document comes from
watchdog group American Oversight, that obtained thousands of internal USPS
documents through the Freedom of Information Act.
This announcement, which includes quotation from top USPS officials and other
specifics, never was sent. It illustrates the government’s initial interest in tapping
the Postal Service as part of its broader pandemic response may have been far
more advanced than initially reported this spring.
Sep 17, 2020
316/scrapped_mask_delivery.pdf
https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2020/09/17/usps-trump-coronavirus-amazon-
foia/?wpmk=1&wpisrc=al_news__alert-politics--alert-
national&utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=wp_news_alert_rever
e&location=alert&pwapi_token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJjb29ra
WVuYW1lIjoid3BfY3J0aWQiLCJpc3MiOiJDYXJ0YSIsImNvb2tpZXZhbHVlIjoiNTk2
OTcyZjE5YmJjMGY0Yjc3NTU4YmU1IiwidGFnIjoid3BfbmV3c19hbGVydF9yZXZlc
mUiLCJ1cmwiOiJodHRwczovL3d3dy53YXNoaW5ndG9ucG9zdC5jb20vdXMtcG9saW
N5LzIwMjAvMDkvMTcvdXNwcy10cnVtcC1jb3JvbmF2aXJ1cy1hbWF6b24tZm9pYS8
_d3Btaz0xJndwaXNyYz1hbF9uZXdzX19hbGVydC1wb2xpdGljcy0tYWxlcnQtbmF0aW
9uYWwmdXRtX3NvdXJjZT1hbGVydCZ1dG1fbWVkaXVtPWVtYWlsJnV0bV9jYW1
wYWlnbj13cF9uZXdzX2FsZXJ0X3JldmVyZSZsb2NhdGlvbj1hbGVydCJ9.7jIkmwC_
MupL1Xdlw9xqY7W0iJ-qIKS1JRRw7mcyoF4
Newly revealed USPS documents show an agency struggling to manage Trump,
Amazon and the pandemic
Nearly 10,000 pages of emails, memos and other private documents offered new
details about the agency’s struggles and the pro-Trump figures to whom it turned
for advice
September 18, 2020
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590061720300569
Using a self-administered online survey during the COVID-19 pandemic, the
study obtained 483 useable responses and after test, finds that all-inclusive, the
propagation of misinformation on social media undermines the COVID-19
individual responses. Particularly, credibility evaluation of misinformation
strongly predicts the COVID-19 individual responses with positive influences and
religious misinformation beliefs as well as conspiracy beliefs and general
misinformation beliefs come next and influence negatively.
September 29, 2020
Additionally, despite Trump calling for the country to open early in the summer, studies
of the "Great Influenza" of 1918 concluded that cities that adopted "non-pharmaceutical
intervention" measures [such as quarantining] earlier and kept them in place for longer
did better, both health-wise and economically. Specifically, they had fewer deaths and
their economies recovered faster. https://www.businessinsider.com/lessons-1918-flu-
reopening-coronavirus-pandemic-too-soon-2020-4
Note: this also likely explains why every other country has dealt with this better.
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/g1vv5v/comment/fni3sx3
https://doggett.house.gov/media-center/blog-posts/timeline-trump-s-coronavirus-
responses
Timeline of Trump’s Coronavirus Responses
Sept. 30, 2020
https://www.nickiswift.com/254821/what-trumps-body-language-revealed-at-the-first-
debate-according-to-an-expert/
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-usps-mailbox-mail-in-ballot-louis-
dejoy_n_5f36f7adc5b6959911e471de
Additionally, according to state officials, the “Trump administration’s new rapid
coronavirus tests [are] plagued by confusion and a lack of planning,” and that while
“[t]he new antigen tests are cheap and easy to use, . . . the White House’s hands-off
approach in distributing them has sown confusion and alarming problems.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/09/29/coronavirus-antigen-tests/

RGR Research Outline 1.1.6 (Backup)

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

RGR Research Outline 1.1.6 (Backup)

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Research Outline v. 1.1.6 (compiled by Riley Grace Roshong; last updated 10.2.

Another publication in Scientific American elaborates on this subject: “Sex is supposed

Additionally, according the clinical practice guidelines published by the Endocrine

When: Friday, February 7, and Wednesday, February 19

Another claim: Trump celebrated a gain of 9 million jobs as “a record in the history of

When: Thursday, September 10, and Wednesday, September 23

Blaming the Obama Administration

When: Tuesday, March 24, and Wednesday, March 25

On Travel Bans and Travelers

On COVID-19 Treatments and Vaccines

Another claim: Many frontline doctors and workers are taking hydroxychloroquine to

On the Defense Production Act

Another claim: Trump also repeated a claim from the Gateway Pundit article that

When: Sunday, March 29, and Monday, March 30

Another claim: Taiwanese officials had warned the WHO about human-to-human

When: Thursday, August 27, and Tuesday, September 29

Another claim: Biden wants to “delay the vaccine.”

When: Sunday, April 19 and Tuesday, April 21

Another claim: Racial-justice protests and demonstrations fueled a surge in coronavirus

Potrebbero piacerti anche