Slippery Slopes and Transgender Propoganda: A Response to a Question

‏@TwainIAint, who on this blog is known as Casey the Communist Usurper, tweets the following in response to my most recent post:

@BorlandTully And how, exactly, does this affect you? Slippery slope much, Herr Philosopher?

There are two questions here which Casey is asking.  I shall begin by responding to the second question regarding the slippery slope and in a separate post will address the first question.

What is a slippery slope and have I slipped down one?  In general, a slippery slope argument is an argument that purports to show that because of some continuum between steps x and y and between steps y and z, that step x will lead to step z--where z is thought to be bad news.  Hence, the argument implies, one shouldn't begin with x in the first place.  x might seem innocent enough, but if you go down that path you'll slip all the way to z and it'll be the end of the world.

Not all slippery slope arguments are fallacies, but some are.  The slippery slope fallacy occurs when one doesn't have good reason for thinking that one or more steps in the process will lead to the next.

So, did I commit the slippery slope fallacy?  Not at all.  For in order for an argument to be fallacious there must be an argument.  But there is not a single argument presented in the previous post.  There is only mocking condescension (since mocking condescension is one of the few appropriate responses to that slanted piece of propaganda which elicits nothing intelligent to argue about--the other appropriate response being risible derision).

Well, that's not quite true.  I also make a prediction about the media which is not itself an instance of mockery.  Perhaps what Casey had in mind with the slippery slope question is that there is a slippery slope fallacy from any argument leading to that prediction.

What was the prediction?  That the mainstream media in the not too distant future will push for government funding for transgender surgeries.  Question: Is that an unreasonable prediction?  Must anyone who makes that prediction be committing a logical fallacy?

I don't see that it is at all unreasonable.  How much money would you put down against this other prediction being true: that NPR will have more (favorable, affirming, awareness raising) "conversations" this year about transgendered people than any previous year in its history.  I, for one, sure wouldn't bet against it.  Not from the media coverage I've already witnessed.  Now that the LG of the 'LGBTQ....?' are on the "right side of history" (as lefties love to say) with the American people, which one of the remaining letters will 'LGBTQ...?' advocates begin plugging next: the B or the T or the Q or the__?  I leave it to the reader to surmise why the push for normalizing the B and Q will take a backseat to the T. 

So I have ample reason from the news coverage that I follow for thinking the probabilities favorable that there will be more transgender news than in the previous history of the world.  Could I be wrong about that?  Of course!  But because one is wrong does not mean one has committed a logical fallacy.

What about raising the question--putting it compellingly into the mind of the compassionate audience member--about whether the government should provide health insurance coverage for reassignment surgeries?  Is it unreasonable to think the mainstream press won't raise that question in a compelling and slanted way?

Of course not.  Not if you have followed the headlines regarding the recent Hobby Lobby decision.  Not if you know that the same type of people think that women have a right to free contraceptives and abortifacients  and also describe such things as a women's health issue (as if getting pregnant and having morning sickness is not what happens to a healthy woman when sperm meets ovum; rather the pregnancy is thought of as a disease and a fetus as an enemy.).  Not if you know that the same people think that everyone has a right to "free" health care.  Not if you know that these same people think that there is a constitutional right of gay "marriage."  Not if you know that these same people think that it is unconstitutional for states to have an amendment defining marriage as it's been defined for centuries. 

Is it really that unreasonable to think this is coming from the liberal press (which is most of the mainstream press)?  Is it hard to imagine that transgender surgeries will be described as a health issue, that the unfairness of the high cost will be bemoaned, and that we'll be told that the logical and fair thing to do is to count surgeries as something that health insurance should cover?

Why would progressives not make this argument and why would the press not give sympathetic 'news' coverage?