“If You Don’t Agree You are Conservative/a Bigot/etc.”

Argument Submitted by: D.B., PhD

“If you aren’t woke, then you’re conservative!”

Or “If you won’t let transwomen use the bathroom, you’re a bigot!” or “If you don’t like prostitution you’re anti-sex!”

This is a classic case of False Dichotomy. By allowing everything that exists to fit into one of only two categories, an opponent can eliminate nuance and castigate an enemy as an extremist. The idea is to pretend alternatives to either category do not exist.

The best response to false dichotomy is usually to just point out that a false dichotomy has been used. You can attempt to introduce nuance by emphasizing how your viewpoint conflicts with aspects of both sides to demand the creation of a third category. One can insist that denying gender identity theory does not mean that one hates trans-identified individuals and believes they should be abused. One could remark that she is not opposed to non-abusive sex, such as what takes place when two people are in love, while condemning abusive sex, such as what takes place in prostitution. This doesn’t make someone against sex anymore than someone who is against being fed feces is against eating.

“You’re the same as bigoted right-wingers because you both don’t want transwomen to play sports!”

This is a classic case of the Association Fallacy (specifically, guilt by association, as opposed to honor by association). See also 9. False Dichotomy.

In the guilt by association fallacy, one entity becomes embroiled in the negative qualities and judgments assigned to another simply by bearing one similarity to it or even just being in proximity to it. For example, if a person has a negative view of Donald Trump and Donald Trump states that trans-identified males should not compete against females in women’s sports, then that person commits the association fallacy when (s)he assigns anyone who shares Trump’s opinion the same negative qualities and judgments she would assign to Trump (e.g. that the person is a right wing bigot, that she is uncivil, etc.) A person also commits this fallacy if (s)he assumes that radical feminists want to kill trans people because they believe sex is binary and another political group (which does want to kill trans people) also believes sex is binary. Another instance would be the claim that radical feminists hate sex because a puritanical Baptist group opposes prostitution and radical feminists also oppose prostitution.

The Association Fallacy can be enhanced by the rhetorical strategy of frequently mentioning two entities together in order to condition the reader into equating them. For example, a writer could repeatedly place the term 'radical feminists' near the term 'radical right wing' in an article about resistance to self-ID laws. This creates the habit of associating radical feminists with the alt-right. The association fallacy occurred in the Atlantic article “The Secret Internet of TERFs” by Kaitlyn Tiffany. It was also dissected in a rebuttal to this article on Ovarit.