By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Yesterday, Beth Bourne proposed the idea of the Vanguard hosting a forum between Beth Bourne and someone else on transgender issues. She even offered $5000 for doing this.
While, as many are aware, the Vanguard is need of funds, I would have to decline.
There are a variety of reasons for doing this including not wanting to platform Moms for Liberty and not wanting to enflame the situation and induce various right wing social media groups to focus their wrath once again on Davis, I was thinking of the Scopes Monkey Trial.
John Scopes was a young teacher who dared to teach the required curriculum for science in Dayton, Tennessee. But the state of Tennessee outlawed the teaching of evolution.
They put Scopes on trial, and this generated interest on both sides of the issue. The ACLU ultimately brought in legendary attorney Clarence Darrow—considered one of the 
greatest in 20th Century history. And the trial also attracted former free silver advocate and three time Democratic Presidential nominee, William Jennings Bryan.
The climax of the case was when Darrow put Bryan on the stand as an expert witness on the Bible—and he proceeded to pulverize Bryan.
Now there are two really interesting aspects of this analogy.
First, a lot of readers would assume that Beth would play the role of Bryan. But I would bet she sees herself as Clarence Darrow, defending science from the masses suffering from what she would term “mass psychosis.”
There is a danger of believing that you have the exclusive access to truth.
To which I present another metaphor from history—Galileo.
The lesson of Galileo that I take away is how do you know if you are Galileo or the church?
That said, I think the bigger lesson from Scopes is the reason not to do this kind of forum.
Darrow may have had the science and the facts on his side, he may have made mincemeat out of Bryan. But ultimately it didn’t matter.
The system was stacked against Scopes. He was convicted anyway.
But Bryan didn’t come out victorious either. Five days after the court verdict, he died of “sudden apoplexy.”
Moreover, while the idea of criminalizing the teaching of evolution soon lost favor (we can see the parallels here as well), the debate over evolution continues to this day.
Current polling from the Pew Research Center for example found that about 62 percent of Americans believe that human evolution was the origin of the species, while 34 percent of adults believe that “humans have always existed in their present form.”
Other polls have showed a majority believe in evolution but a minority in the 40 percent range don’t.
In other words, 100 years after Scopes, a sizable percentage of the population does not believe in evolution.
Final point is that I’m no Clarence Darrow and Beth is no William Jennings Bryan. I see no point to platforming this debate.
I think there are ample policy issues that need to be addressed, but not in that type of venue.
The sole reason that Beth has offered to debate David or anyone that stands up for trans and gay rights is to further broadcast her 100% conservative anti-trans propaganda and lies. Don’t fall for this obvious trap.
I suspect she wouldn’t engage/debate in anything approaching “good faith.” I suspect she will engage in “debate” like we have seen most other right wing influencers “debate,” which is to say she’ll merely fall back on right-wing talking points, disregard evidence that pushes back against her views, and engage in a series of logical fallacies in an attempt to “own” the libz.
People have tried to engage her in debate about this issue before, and she refuses to answer simple questions, such as “Where are *other parents’* rights in all of this?” (and I believe a national-level journalist recently asked one of the Moms for Liberty leaders the same question, which was never answered, and the journalist noted that, too).
This would be like engaging in a chess game with a pigeon: the pigeon will just crap on the board but then strut around and crow proudly like it won.
Plus, I agree with Walter that you would be platforming an inherently indecent view. A civil, pluralistic democracy cannot tolerate the level of hatred that the M4L espouse.
People shouldn’t have to debate extremists in order to defend their right to exist peacefully.