Common sense is not so common. - Voltaire
“This administration is bringing back common sense and restoring biological truth to the federal government.”
"A male is defined ... as 'a person of the sex characterized by a reproductive system with the biological function of producing sperm.'" "A female is a person of the sex characterized by a reproductive system with the biological function of producing eggs (ova).'" - Recent statements by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
It was once "common sense" that "races" should remain separate. “Common sense" dictated that women were naturally suited for the home, not politics, business, or leadership. Not very long ago, it was "common sense" that marriage was between a man and a woman, and "common sense" supported the belief that the climate had always fluctuated and humans couldn’t affect it.
The word "common" suggests that something is widely shared, collectively understood, and self-evident within a given group. When people, perhaps especially public figures, invoke "common sense," they often implicitly define an in-group ("us")—those who naturally grasp this "truth"—and an out-group ("them"), who either lack the intelligence, morality, or social belonging to recognize it.
Those who disagree with the common sense view are subtly or not-so-subtly cast as outsiders (not part of the mainstream collective), heretics (challenging an assumed moral or natural order), irrational (ignoring what is self-evident to "regular people"), elites or ideologues (pushing against what "real" people know), or threats to the status quo, custom, or tradition.
This "us vs. them" framework is especially effective for rejecting evidence-based perspectives without engaging with the substance of those arguments. It short-circuits critical thinking, making disagreement appear as defiance of "obvious truth" rather than as reasoned debate.
By positioning certain beliefs as self-evident, the phrase shields those beliefs from scrutiny. Instead of using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, or scientific inquiry to evaluate a claim, “common sense” allows people to dismiss counterarguments as unworthy of consideration simply because they deviate from the assumed norm.
In this way, "common sense" functions as a conversation stopper, foreclosing discussion rather than fostering it.
When Kennedy states that his policy is “bringing back common sense and restoring biological truth,” he is:
Creating an "us vs. them" dynamic, implying that those who disagree are ideologues, radicals, or irrational outsiders.
Foreclosing debate, presenting the policy as something that requires no further discussion.
Erasing lived experiences by positioning trans and nonbinary identities as inherently invalid rather than engaging with scientific evidence on gender diversity.
Coupling common sense and “biological truth,” when the fact is that common sense and empirical truth, as noted earlier, often diverge or conflict. He is also invoking biological truth while at the time defying it. There is simply nothing in biology that support the idea only two genders.
Avoiding defining or quantifying “common sense.” Who gets to decide what the prevailing common sense is on any given topic? Is it a matter of majority over minority? What’s to stop anyone from standing behind the assertion, “Among my people/within my group/community, it’s just held as common sense that….”?
There are concepts, constructions, and convictions that are widely held among members of any group, community, or society at large, but that something seems to be commonly believed must not be the basis for making policies by which people must live - or die.
Comments