‘Dog whistles’ are not real

Anyone who assumes that their opponents are speaking in code is just squabbling with phantoms.

The accusation of ‘dog whistling’ is one of the most common of activist tactics. The metaphor suggests that someone is disguising their objectionable views by sending signals that only the likeminded will register, much as human beings remain oblivious to the higher sound frequencies that dogs are able to hear. As an argumentative strategy, it must rank among the most infantile. It is the equivalent of saying: ‘I know you haven’t said the nasty thing, but I’m going to pretend that you secretly meant the nasty thing’. It is akin to when social justice activist Titania McGrath argued that J. K. Rowling’s chief tactic was ‘to not attack trans people in order to make it look as though she is not attacking trans people’.

Last September, Telegraph writer Oliver Brown referred to Blair Hamilton, a trans-identified goalkeeper for Sutton United Women, as a ‘biological male’. This happened to be a matter of fact, but that didn’t prevent Hamilton from making a complaint to the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) and claiming that the phrase ‘biological male’ was a ‘transphobic dog whistle’. Hamilton preferred the phrase ‘assigned male at birth’, even though his sex had been recorded at birth, not assigned. This was an attempt not only to compel speech, but to weaponise the regulations so that journalists would have to tell lies in deference to a belief-system they do not share. This week, IPSO thankfully ruled that news outlets are allowed to refer to men as men.

In any given month, one will find multiple opinion columns claiming that this or that politician is blowing whistles for their bigoted dogs. Consider an article from last Thursday’s New Republic entitled: ‘How to decode RFK Jr.’s dog whistle messages on the measles vaccine’. The writer could have simply provided evidence of Kennedy’s inconsistencies, or criticised the arguments that he had made and offer better ones. Instead, she insisted that RFK Jr. was not ‘changing his stance on vaccines so much as cloaking it in code words’.

This kind of amateur telepathy amounts to little more than calling someone a liar. While no-one is surprised when politicians twist the truth, it is always best to avoid any assumptions. Poor arguments will collapse under scrutiny irrespective of whether or not their proponents are sincere. In other words, you have nothing to lose in assuming that they are telling the truth, because if their ideas are weak they will soon be exposed, in spite of any bad intentions that might lie beneath the surface.

It is impossible not to notice that activists only ever seem to insist that their opponents are guilty of dog whistling. For instance, back when Boris Johnson was Mayor of London he had been accused of dog whistling to racists by mentioning Barack Obama’s part-Kenyan heritage. When the Guardian referred to Obama’s dual heritage in relation to an identical topic, there were no complaints whatsoever. Such selective outrage would suggest that – as the adage has it – if you can hear the whistle, you’re probably the dog.

Much of this can be ascribed to a desire to avoid debate at all costs, and it seems to be particularly common among those of a tribalistic nature. For example, while there are excellent liberal arguments against the DEI industry, many commentators are happy to dismiss them on the grounds that – as Slate magazine put it in January – opposition to DEI is ‘a dog whistle for unchecked racism and bias’. Similarly, while the defence of free speech is a cornerstone principle of liberalism, some left-wing commentators are determined to interpret it as the very opposite: a ‘dog whistle for the far right’.

Naturally, those called upon to defend indefensible positions will always resort to smears in lieu of actual arguments. When women make the case that their rights depend upon the recognition of the reality of biological sex, it’s no easy feat to explain why this is wrong and that men should be permitted access to their spaces. Similarly, most free speech sceptics are reluctant to accept the challenge of explaining why censorship is necessary. In both cases, it’s far easier simply to dismiss the opposition’s arguments as mere smoke signals to their allies.

Like its close cousin ‘lived experience’, the phrase ‘dog whistle’ is a trick by which opposing views can be discredited without any need to present evidence or formulate a more persuasive case. Genuine bigots tend to be vocal about their views, and so the notion that they are all speaking in code makes little sense. Dog whistles don’t really exist, and we should stop taking seriously those hallucinating critics who are prone to hearing these voices in their heads.

---