Over the past few days we have seen a lot of protesting going on about the recent Trump Administration denouncing Obama's Administrations law about allowing kids in school to use the bathroom of the gender they identify as. Many articles have been written and many people from each side have either supported or denounced Trump's actions behind the law.
Ria Tabacco Mar wrote an OP ED for the New York Times in which she voices her distaste for the passing for such a law. Or rather, the removal of one. The different tactics that she uses are often times Logos and Ethos. she transitions from making sure that you feel the emotions that a Transgender student may feel when trying to just fit in in their school. She also provides plenty of facts that talk about suicide rates and other negative consequences of bathroom inequality. At times it seems as if she is trying to reach the middle audience with sympathy. At others times she seems as though she is trying to reason with the opposite side. However, this argument seems to appeal mostly to people who already agree with her. She often uses "we" when she talks of "we are already in court" and other phrases. Overall she does use facts and seems to cover the entire issue quite well.
On the other hand the opposition is covering the topic as well, although, not as heavily or as often as the left is. In this article, simply written by an unnamed examiner, they use simple logic to bring light to the situation. The retraction of the law doesn't necessarily go against Transgender rights, but simply gives the right to decide to the states. After all, the article says, the states are the ones who pay the taxes for public schools so they should be the ones to decide. This article claims that Trump is simply taking away power from the federal government that it should have never had and give it to the right government. This is a huge example of Logos and this article seems to deal solely in Logos. This is also aimed towards those in the middle ground and those on the left. It simply seeks to explain what is really going on and try to minimize the panic and situation to what they believe is the reality.
In my firm opinion both sides accomplish their goals. Ria manages to fire up her supporters with how she argues, and the other article accomplishes its goal of simply trying to explain what the law actually does and why it does it. It is a defense while Ria's article is an offense. Both cross over to try to reach the middle grounded people and convince them of their side, and both make fair arguments.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/23/opinion/trump-will-lose-the-fight-over-bathrooms-for-transgender-students.html?mabReward=A7&recp=2
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-leaves-the-school-bathroom/article/2615637
