> There are real questions about what makes people want to change sex There is no widely-accepted empirical answer to this question, and even if there was, it

> There are real questions about what makes people want to change sex There is no widely-accepted empirical answer to this question, and even if there was, it wouldn't tell us how we should treat such people. Arguments on trans issues hinge almost entirely on one's level of sympathy for trans people and willingness to accept what they tell us about how the feel. It's not a coïncidence that those who personally know a trans person are much more supportive of trans rights. > about the effects of immigration; and about the effects of social spending Let's suppose that the data came in and we learned that immigration is slightly good for the economy as a whole, really good for immigrants, but bad for native blue-collar workers. Based on that hypothetical information, people would reach different conclusions about immigration policy based on their relative sympathy to immigrants and native workers. The framing device is also extremely important: "should America put our own people first?" vs "should the state condemn people to poverty because of where they were born?" > we end up in the cynical, post-truth world of Peter Pomerantsev - or Trump - where all there is is competing narratives. Trump managed to beat Clinton without uttering a single fact during his entire campaign. If you want to beat the Trumps of the world, you need to know how to deconstruct a narrative. Also, do you have any data suggesting that narrative-centric arguments employed by writers and humanities PhDs resulted in the rise of Trump -- or did you conclude that based on your value system?