Are trans gender rights human rights?
Trans gender rights are human rights. An often heard tautological statement, but is every request that the trans community makes a human right? I'm going to examine a summary of the rights that transgendered organizations are asking for and see if these fit within the definition of human rights vs exceptions and/or desires of the community. I will be taking an American view on this, as my knowledge of non-American countries is lacking. Feel free to educate me on different views on human rights for different countries to see if I have missed anything.
First, a reference for sex and gender according to modern day gender theory.
Sex the objective biological expression of the reproductive role of a species. Males and females. Example: Males are statistically taller on average than females.
Gender a subjective social expectation of non-biological expressed behavior based on ones sex. Example: Males should wear pants, females should wear dresses.
Gender identity A persons explicit decision to act in accordance with a gender of a particular sex. If a person acts in alignment with the gender of their own sex at the exclusion of the other, this is called cis gender identity. If they act in alignment with the opposite sex to the exclusion of their own, this is called trans gender identity. This is cultural behavior.
Sex identity An objective classification based on bodily reality, not subjective cultural behavior. This cannot be chosen. A cis sexual is someone who accepts their sex identity. A trans sexual is someone who does not accept their sexual identity and works to change their physical body to be as close as possible to the opposite sex.
To be clear, sex identity and gender identity are distinct. A trans sexual identity may not be trans gendered, and a trans gendered identity may not be trans sexual.
Onto rights.
Human Rights - Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status.
We can specify this further with personal and group rights.
Personal rights - The idea that a human being should be free from law for certain behaviors and actions as a human being. These include freedom of speech, the right to privacy, and the right to defend oneself if attacked. Personal rights are considered the most fundamental, as they are what we consider innate to being human. Any attempt to control that is an attempt to control the fundamental nature of a humans thoughts, feelings, or bodily life.
Group Rights Also known as collective rights, are rights held by a group rather than an individual. Trans rights is short for trans gender rights. Human rights include everyone without exclusion.
The types of rights that trans gender people are asking for are gender identity rights. Cis gender rights concern rights that a member of a particular sex identity has to act as the gender identity associated with that sex identity Trans gender rights concern rights that a sex identity has to act as the gender identity associated with the opposite sex.
It is important that we contrast this with trans sexual rights, and note that trans gender rights are not the same this to avoid confusion. Cis sexual rights concern the right of the sexual identity of ones sex. Trans sexual rights concern the right to the sexual identity of the opposite of ones own sex.
For the claim Trans rights are human rights to be true, the request of these rights must be equal in abstract to what any other human should be able to claim as a right. Further, such right claims must not conflict with other resolved conflicts within human rights. For example, The right to protest vs the rights or private property. People have the right to protest, but not protest by destroying private property such as setting houses on fire or robbing people. Trans rights do not demand this, but if they claimed, We want the right to protest and set buildings on fire, this would not be a human right.
For a reference of claims to trans gender rights, I went here https://www.humanrightscareers.com/issues/trans-rights-101-definition-examples-significance/#:~:text=The%20transgender%20rights%20movement%20calls,right%20to%20life%20and%20safety. as a reference. Let me know in the comments if you have a better reference. Ill summarize them as follows:
1. The right to change identity documents that are used to mark sex identity, to gender identity. For example, changing a drivers license from male to female based on gender, not sex.
2. The right to enter bathrooms and sex divided spaces based on gender identity instead of sex identity
3. The right to being able to dress cross gender and have pronouns be used to reference gender identity instead of sex identity in public areas like schools, and private businesses like work.
4. Healthcare that services a persons desire to align their body with their gender identity instead of sex identity without barriers. To further not be refused normal medical treatment because a person is transgendered, and to be referred to by their gender identity and not sex identity.
5. The right to life and safety.
Ill start with the claim which is obviously a human right. The right to life and safety. Is this a right that transgender individuals do not have? In some parts of the world, this may not be the case. In America? Yes. As far as I know of there is no law which permits violence against transgender individuals. Definitely a human right and I dont think anyone can reasonably deny this.
Going up the list we have #4, which Ill call Equitable health care. I do not see how asking for the same healthcare rights and options as everyone else isnt a right. Is it a right to demand that doctors provide medicine and surgery to alter your body to match your chosen gender identity?
First, I am aware that health care is often not considered a personal or group right, and could be open to debate. To avoid losing focus, we will assume that the transgender community is not asking for anything more than the equal opportunities in access and ability to pay for healthcare that other people have in the country they reside in. The right to equal opportunity of service in what is offered in ones country is a human right, so this also fits.
However, The right to healthcare that aligns their body with their gender identity without barriers needs closer examination. First, this is a trans sexual right request, not a trans gender right. A trans gender person does not necessarily want to alter their body or need to have their sex identity changed. Despite this clearly being a trans sexual rights request, its on the list so it will be examined. Looking at similar cases for equal opportunity, do people have access to medicine to alter their bodies because they desire to look different? We see in the West that cosmetic procedures are done all the time, though on the persons dime. As such, I believe it is a right for people to be able to, of their own free will and money, alter their body as a trans sexual. Bodily autonomy is a human right.
Should this be funded by insurance or the medical system? If other cosmetic surgeries are included, then yes. If not, then no.
I will note this is not addressing the treatment of gender dysphoria. The trans argument that I am aware of today is that the desire to transition is a perfectly normal and acceptable desire of a person and does not require one to have gender dysphoria. However, if it is considered by some parties that gender dysphoria is a mental health issue that needs treatment, then I would argue people with gender dysphoria have a right to treatment of this mental health issue like any other mental health issue. Does that mean transition is always the solution? No. That solution should be determined through careful analysis of a health care professional that causes the patient the least harm backed by objective science, not the desires or demands of the individual. Scientifically backed treatment which places barriers is responsible medical care, and the right to not unnecessarily harm another individual would trump a rights request of no medical barries. Every medical treatment has barriers, so this is simply equal opportunity of service.
If the request to get trans sexual treatment is cosmetic, that seems like the right of the individual to pay for if they choose to. If a trans sexual assignment is considered the correct medical procedure to treat gender dysphoria, then it should be the right of the patient to have this. But there is no right of the patient to push a doctor to diagnose gender dysphoria, or lower any barriers to get this treatment easier. That should only be determined by doctors and valid science.
Should a person be refused other general medical treatment because they are trans gendered? Absolutely not. This is just a basic equal opportunity of services right.
Points 1, 2, and 3 are where I believe issues start to arise. I can sum it up as follows: Transgender people want the right to not only have legally enforced gender recognition, but that this gender recognition gives them the same right and privileges of the sex identity of the gender they enact Here is where I have a difficult time seeing how these requests are human rights.
First, sex is not gender. Thus, without careful explanation as to why gender enactment should equate to sex differentiated right and privileges, this seems an unreasonable claim that should only be considered in trans sexual cases. Perhaps in the case of a trans sexual individual, this is a right. But in the case of a trans gender individual, there is no logical reason to have gender identity overrule sex identity and deny the rights accorded to sex identity.
Second, enforcing people to refer to you by the gender you take on instead of your sex is forced speech. If a person decides to use pronouns as gender descriptors, that is their choice. But if someone decides to use pronouns as sex descriptors, this is also their choice. Mandating pronoun usage by a persons individual subjective gender would be in contradiction of the recognized human right to free speech.
Third, gender is a subjective category that can vary from individual and groups. As such it can rarely be objectively captured in law. If a person does not subjectively recognize another persons personal and subjective gender identity, how could such a law force a person to recognize it? Making a law that enforces a subjective viewpoint that may change from person to person is not only irresponsible, it opens enforcement based on subjective viewpoints which is a violation of the human right to equal treatment by the law. Enforcing a subjective opinion on another person would further be a violation of a persons right to think for themselves. Thus, forced pronoun usage is a violation of the human rights.
Fourth, gender does not shape sex, sex shapes gender. Without sex, gender would not exist. Without gender, sex would still exist. Any law which would prioritize the legitimacy of a consequent over the base which leads to its consequent is illogical. If A -> B B cannot lead to ~A. If gender is a consequence of sex, taking on the gender of the other sex does not mean your own sex has changed, and by consequent, should not give one access to laws and spaces based on objective sex identities.
WIth this, we can examine the specific points that are claimed as human rights and evaluate them.
1. There is no right to prioritize the legal enforcement of gender identity over sex for identification purposes. The subjective can and never should be forced over the objective. Forcing someone to have a subjective viewpoint is an attempt to control another individual because of a difference of opinion, not matters of fact. Further, gender rights are not sex rights, therefore they hold no sway over sex based rights.
2. There is no right to prioritize the legal enforcement of gender identity in regards to sex separated spaces if those sex separated spaces are sex rights. If a space is separated due to biological differences, and not merely non-biological cultural expectations, there is no valid reason why a subjective cultural expectation should hold any sway in decisions of objective biological reality. So places like bathrooms, sports where sex differences matter, and places that serve different biological needs do not need to allow people who do not fit these biological requirements into their places based on a persons subjective gender.
3. This one is the most interesting and might have some sway to it. The pronoun enforcement of gender identity over sex identity is of course not a right because of the points mentioned above. But enforcement of dress policy IS a rare case of an attempt to legally enforce gender. The idea that only a female can wear a dress is a purely cultural expectation, and not based on biology.
Generally dress code is used to convey professionalism and avoid casual or revealing clothing that would distract at work. If a male comes in with a professional dress that is not revealing or provacative, it seems the male has not done anything objectively wrong, merely something culturally discouraged.
In legal matters where gender is explicitly written as enforced, I could see an argument that this is a violation of peoples rights to modest presentation, at least in public places. In matters of business law, there is a question as to whether they get to shape the business gender. As gender is subjective, would a groups subjective view of gender have a legal right over an individuals subjective group of gender? Should gender even be recognized as something legal at that point, or is this something culture should handle without government interference? This one I think deserves debate, but beyond the scope of this original post.
As such, arguing that the right to wear clothing at a business subjectively associated with the opposite sex, might indeed be a right worth fighting for. As for private life, an individual absolutely has the right to act in any gendered manner they wish.
So, are trans gender rights human rights? Some of them are. Some of them are not. Feel free to disagree in the comments.
First, a reference for sex and gender according to modern day gender theory.
Sex the objective biological expression of the reproductive role of a species. Males and females. Example: Males are statistically taller on average than females.
Gender a subjective social expectation of non-biological expressed behavior based on ones sex. Example: Males should wear pants, females should wear dresses.
Gender identity A persons explicit decision to act in accordance with a gender of a particular sex. If a person acts in alignment with the gender of their own sex at the exclusion of the other, this is called cis gender identity. If they act in alignment with the opposite sex to the exclusion of their own, this is called trans gender identity. This is cultural behavior.
Sex identity An objective classification based on bodily reality, not subjective cultural behavior. This cannot be chosen. A cis sexual is someone who accepts their sex identity. A trans sexual is someone who does not accept their sexual identity and works to change their physical body to be as close as possible to the opposite sex.
To be clear, sex identity and gender identity are distinct. A trans sexual identity may not be trans gendered, and a trans gendered identity may not be trans sexual.
Onto rights.
Human Rights - Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status.
We can specify this further with personal and group rights.
Personal rights - The idea that a human being should be free from law for certain behaviors and actions as a human being. These include freedom of speech, the right to privacy, and the right to defend oneself if attacked. Personal rights are considered the most fundamental, as they are what we consider innate to being human. Any attempt to control that is an attempt to control the fundamental nature of a humans thoughts, feelings, or bodily life.
Group Rights Also known as collective rights, are rights held by a group rather than an individual. Trans rights is short for trans gender rights. Human rights include everyone without exclusion.
The types of rights that trans gender people are asking for are gender identity rights. Cis gender rights concern rights that a member of a particular sex identity has to act as the gender identity associated with that sex identity Trans gender rights concern rights that a sex identity has to act as the gender identity associated with the opposite sex.
It is important that we contrast this with trans sexual rights, and note that trans gender rights are not the same this to avoid confusion. Cis sexual rights concern the right of the sexual identity of ones sex. Trans sexual rights concern the right to the sexual identity of the opposite of ones own sex.
For the claim Trans rights are human rights to be true, the request of these rights must be equal in abstract to what any other human should be able to claim as a right. Further, such right claims must not conflict with other resolved conflicts within human rights. For example, The right to protest vs the rights or private property. People have the right to protest, but not protest by destroying private property such as setting houses on fire or robbing people. Trans rights do not demand this, but if they claimed, We want the right to protest and set buildings on fire, this would not be a human right.
For a reference of claims to trans gender rights, I went here https://www.humanrightscareers.com/issues/trans-rights-101-definition-examples-significance/#:~:text=The%20transgender%20rights%20movement%20calls,right%20to%20life%20and%20safety. as a reference. Let me know in the comments if you have a better reference. Ill summarize them as follows:
1. The right to change identity documents that are used to mark sex identity, to gender identity. For example, changing a drivers license from male to female based on gender, not sex.
2. The right to enter bathrooms and sex divided spaces based on gender identity instead of sex identity
3. The right to being able to dress cross gender and have pronouns be used to reference gender identity instead of sex identity in public areas like schools, and private businesses like work.
4. Healthcare that services a persons desire to align their body with their gender identity instead of sex identity without barriers. To further not be refused normal medical treatment because a person is transgendered, and to be referred to by their gender identity and not sex identity.
5. The right to life and safety.
Ill start with the claim which is obviously a human right. The right to life and safety. Is this a right that transgender individuals do not have? In some parts of the world, this may not be the case. In America? Yes. As far as I know of there is no law which permits violence against transgender individuals. Definitely a human right and I dont think anyone can reasonably deny this.
Going up the list we have #4, which Ill call Equitable health care. I do not see how asking for the same healthcare rights and options as everyone else isnt a right. Is it a right to demand that doctors provide medicine and surgery to alter your body to match your chosen gender identity?
First, I am aware that health care is often not considered a personal or group right, and could be open to debate. To avoid losing focus, we will assume that the transgender community is not asking for anything more than the equal opportunities in access and ability to pay for healthcare that other people have in the country they reside in. The right to equal opportunity of service in what is offered in ones country is a human right, so this also fits.
However, The right to healthcare that aligns their body with their gender identity without barriers needs closer examination. First, this is a trans sexual right request, not a trans gender right. A trans gender person does not necessarily want to alter their body or need to have their sex identity changed. Despite this clearly being a trans sexual rights request, its on the list so it will be examined. Looking at similar cases for equal opportunity, do people have access to medicine to alter their bodies because they desire to look different? We see in the West that cosmetic procedures are done all the time, though on the persons dime. As such, I believe it is a right for people to be able to, of their own free will and money, alter their body as a trans sexual. Bodily autonomy is a human right.
Should this be funded by insurance or the medical system? If other cosmetic surgeries are included, then yes. If not, then no.
I will note this is not addressing the treatment of gender dysphoria. The trans argument that I am aware of today is that the desire to transition is a perfectly normal and acceptable desire of a person and does not require one to have gender dysphoria. However, if it is considered by some parties that gender dysphoria is a mental health issue that needs treatment, then I would argue people with gender dysphoria have a right to treatment of this mental health issue like any other mental health issue. Does that mean transition is always the solution? No. That solution should be determined through careful analysis of a health care professional that causes the patient the least harm backed by objective science, not the desires or demands of the individual. Scientifically backed treatment which places barriers is responsible medical care, and the right to not unnecessarily harm another individual would trump a rights request of no medical barries. Every medical treatment has barriers, so this is simply equal opportunity of service.
If the request to get trans sexual treatment is cosmetic, that seems like the right of the individual to pay for if they choose to. If a trans sexual assignment is considered the correct medical procedure to treat gender dysphoria, then it should be the right of the patient to have this. But there is no right of the patient to push a doctor to diagnose gender dysphoria, or lower any barriers to get this treatment easier. That should only be determined by doctors and valid science.
Should a person be refused other general medical treatment because they are trans gendered? Absolutely not. This is just a basic equal opportunity of services right.
Points 1, 2, and 3 are where I believe issues start to arise. I can sum it up as follows: Transgender people want the right to not only have legally enforced gender recognition, but that this gender recognition gives them the same right and privileges of the sex identity of the gender they enact Here is where I have a difficult time seeing how these requests are human rights.
First, sex is not gender. Thus, without careful explanation as to why gender enactment should equate to sex differentiated right and privileges, this seems an unreasonable claim that should only be considered in trans sexual cases. Perhaps in the case of a trans sexual individual, this is a right. But in the case of a trans gender individual, there is no logical reason to have gender identity overrule sex identity and deny the rights accorded to sex identity.
Second, enforcing people to refer to you by the gender you take on instead of your sex is forced speech. If a person decides to use pronouns as gender descriptors, that is their choice. But if someone decides to use pronouns as sex descriptors, this is also their choice. Mandating pronoun usage by a persons individual subjective gender would be in contradiction of the recognized human right to free speech.
Third, gender is a subjective category that can vary from individual and groups. As such it can rarely be objectively captured in law. If a person does not subjectively recognize another persons personal and subjective gender identity, how could such a law force a person to recognize it? Making a law that enforces a subjective viewpoint that may change from person to person is not only irresponsible, it opens enforcement based on subjective viewpoints which is a violation of the human right to equal treatment by the law. Enforcing a subjective opinion on another person would further be a violation of a persons right to think for themselves. Thus, forced pronoun usage is a violation of the human rights.
Fourth, gender does not shape sex, sex shapes gender. Without sex, gender would not exist. Without gender, sex would still exist. Any law which would prioritize the legitimacy of a consequent over the base which leads to its consequent is illogical. If A -> B B cannot lead to ~A. If gender is a consequence of sex, taking on the gender of the other sex does not mean your own sex has changed, and by consequent, should not give one access to laws and spaces based on objective sex identities.
WIth this, we can examine the specific points that are claimed as human rights and evaluate them.
1. There is no right to prioritize the legal enforcement of gender identity over sex for identification purposes. The subjective can and never should be forced over the objective. Forcing someone to have a subjective viewpoint is an attempt to control another individual because of a difference of opinion, not matters of fact. Further, gender rights are not sex rights, therefore they hold no sway over sex based rights.
2. There is no right to prioritize the legal enforcement of gender identity in regards to sex separated spaces if those sex separated spaces are sex rights. If a space is separated due to biological differences, and not merely non-biological cultural expectations, there is no valid reason why a subjective cultural expectation should hold any sway in decisions of objective biological reality. So places like bathrooms, sports where sex differences matter, and places that serve different biological needs do not need to allow people who do not fit these biological requirements into their places based on a persons subjective gender.
3. This one is the most interesting and might have some sway to it. The pronoun enforcement of gender identity over sex identity is of course not a right because of the points mentioned above. But enforcement of dress policy IS a rare case of an attempt to legally enforce gender. The idea that only a female can wear a dress is a purely cultural expectation, and not based on biology.
Generally dress code is used to convey professionalism and avoid casual or revealing clothing that would distract at work. If a male comes in with a professional dress that is not revealing or provacative, it seems the male has not done anything objectively wrong, merely something culturally discouraged.
In legal matters where gender is explicitly written as enforced, I could see an argument that this is a violation of peoples rights to modest presentation, at least in public places. In matters of business law, there is a question as to whether they get to shape the business gender. As gender is subjective, would a groups subjective view of gender have a legal right over an individuals subjective group of gender? Should gender even be recognized as something legal at that point, or is this something culture should handle without government interference? This one I think deserves debate, but beyond the scope of this original post.
As such, arguing that the right to wear clothing at a business subjectively associated with the opposite sex, might indeed be a right worth fighting for. As for private life, an individual absolutely has the right to act in any gendered manner they wish.
So, are trans gender rights human rights? Some of them are. Some of them are not. Feel free to disagree in the comments.
Comments (158)
Heres the link
https://www.aclu.org/issues/lgbtq-rights/transgender-rights
You can't even begin to understand anything in regards to this topic or its tangents until you really process what that means and what we're dealing with. What's really going on. Once you do, it all makes sense. Including as to what the solution is.
It's a result of ostracism. In the animal kingdom, animals that do not fit in are ostracized, and often have a 90%+ mortality rate. You will notice the average guy of average height and appearance makes up about 0.1% of people who believe they are transgender enough to perform permanent and irreversible surgery. While ALL the rest are usually small, skinny, frail, awkward, maybe stutter, perhaps might be a minority in that specific community, don't fit in, were bullied, or were otherwise traumatized, often sexually.
It's literally a form of legal and state-sanctioned eugenics they're flashing in our face all while pretending they're doing the opposite and protecting the vulnerable.
It takes a deeper understanding before you can really see what's going on. Literally every great invention, every great movie, story, every great piece of art was created by intelligent people, who tend to be on the smaller/frailer side physically. All those who tend to be larger, generally aren't able to do anything a machine can't. They are easily replaceable, for they serve no unique function. The more humanity progresses the more one side sees themselves as pack mules and animals whose only purpose and possible contribution to society is to lift things for those who actually improve the quality of life for us all i.e. the intelligent. They've become mired in jealousy and hatred, but they do have one thing on their side. Primal lust, or simply put, fear and violence. And that's just powerful enough to find a hapless mate, prolonging their existence just ever so slightly and long enough to do the damage they're doing.
In short, yes, vulnerable people have every right you have, and much more. But that's a distraction. These people causing this must be found and given the highest form of justice available. All they had to do was go quietly. To live their last days in the utmost comfort and dignity (as provided by the intelligent people who they're so vindictively targeting), a quality of mercy they themselves never could offer and so ultimately don't even deserve. But a fool and a demi-human will always be exactly that. It was predictable, really. What a shame it's come to this.
Civilization has been around for over 10,000 years since the domestication of cattle and crop. The first sex reassignment surgery was (barely) able to be performed barely 100 years ago. You couldn't come up with a better example of a solution in search of a (non-existent) problem.
All war is based on deception. Remember that.
You asked for the truth. I only hope you can handle it.
I didn't think the site I referenced was claptrap. That being said, I asked for and welcome alternatives. We can discuss nicely.
Beyond transgender parents I don't think this includes anything I didn't address in the OP. Did you read it in full TClark? Which specific points that I've made do you disagree with?
Outlander I'm not seeing this as relevant to the OP. I appreciate your contribution, but unless it ties into the OP in some way, this is off topic.
Quoting Outlander
Of course! But are the trans gender rights that trans gender people are asking for concurrent with human rights?
However, I'm confused how anyone can have "a right", because wouldn't that entail an ability to do something without anyone else's capability to take away that ability? People are always talking about "the right to free speech", but people only have this right on the surface: the supreme court of the united states has decided repeatedly that speech is not an inviolable right, but only grants you a right if it feels appropriate and relevant to some legal case either you or another party brought to court.
If the rights they are asking for fit in and do not contradict human rights, then yes, they are. But in the OP its clear that some of the things being asked as rights conflict with human rights. Therefore these are not human rights.
Quoting ProtagoranSocratist
That is the general underpinning of rights. Rights are fundamental to being alive. At the most basic level, the right to life. The government should not have the power to simply say, "We're going to bomb your house for fun." People don't have the right to just kill you in the street whenever they like.
Quoting ProtagoranSocratist
I think a more clear example is that rights often come into conflict based on context. Rights are generally contextual, not absolute. Yes, you have the right to life unless you are trying to murder another human being. Yes you have the right to free speech unless that speech is attempting to violate someone's right to privacy like breaking into your house to give them a piece of your mind.
The above rights I've examined are within the context of trans gendered individuals claim that the requests they are making are human rights, which are generally based on the context of one individual not trying to violate the rights of another, or the agreed upon standard outcome when certain human rights do conflict.
I'm really sick of this over-use of "they" i am seeing in talks about transgendered people here. It's very similar to how people in the U.S. talking about "the liberal agenda". Conflating a bunch of different things so they seem unified doesn't help clarify a philosophical discussion. Maybe you could use sources: tell me where "the transgendered people" are united in their demands. Give us a more concrete "they" rather than a nebulous one.
Quoting Philosophim
what if "rights" themselves are not valid? If you're not willing to be more critical of rights, then i don't think you will get very far in this discussion, as the government wants rights to be inviolable, but all the evidence points to this not being the case. Let me give you a very clear example.
These are seen as "rights", that the legal system shall not do any of these things in reference to rulings in a criminal trial. However, a lot of people are in disagreement about what constitutes a cruel and unusual punishment. Some say the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment, yet i think life in prison fits that description more so than an execution (depending on factors). A lot of people have been discussing the cruelty of solitary confinement over the years, and they have plenty of evidence to support their claims.
So if rights only apply in specific circumstances, and state authorities have the liberty to disagree about who has rights to what, how can rights be viewed as valid or meaningful in a philosophical sense? It seems to me they are only a legal mechanism, and nobody whatsoever is guaranteed rights.
I don't think it's a good idea to do mastectomies on 14 year olds. Do you?
https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/ucla-student-sues-california-doctors-says-was-fast-tracked-transgender-rcna183815
Fair question. I posted a link in the OP, and TClark posted a link to generally what the transgender community is asking for in terms of rights. I am not talking about an individual, but the spokespeople who are asking for trans rights as laws that are documented and well known. That is why I put this under the political category and not ethics. Can an individual trans gendered person have a different view on what they want? Absolutely. But this is addressing the people pushing for lawful change who are claiming this is what all trans gender people deserve.
Quoting ProtagoranSocratist
Of course, rights are open for discussion.
Quoting ProtagoranSocratist
Correct. But a question for you. Does everyone agree that if that bar is agreed upon, a person should not be administered cruel and unusual punishment? I would say yes. So at that point we're not arguing that cruel and unusual punishment should not be permitted to people, just the level that entails. Generally we can agree on that level using different measures such as science, and where absent, a democratic vote that can be changed over time as new information comes in.
Quoting ProtagoranSocratist
Legal rights are not gauranteed. Nothing is. Human rights are reasoned ideals that we should all aspire to uphold. You can have a country that denies human rights, or have a country that has human rights. Which is preferable and more prosperous to its people? Are governments formed to enhance people's lives, or control them for the ends of a few individuals?
In a rights based society, the government ultimately should answer to and serve the people it governs. Thus it is up to the citizens to uphold rights through laws and culture. Does a country and its citizens have to do this? No. People don't have to do anything. But is it a rational approach to ensuring a prosperous society with opportunity? Yes.
RogueAI, can we say on topic please? What do you think about the OP's claims on the trans gender rights listed?
Right but be fair. A person is a human and they have human rights. They don't suddenly vanish because they think or adopt a lifestyle or even a religion that fundamentally demands or in their own mind redefines what they are.
We all have the same laws. People invented false religions (cults) in an attempt to quash the ruling laws of a given society (in some instances they succeeded, temporarily) but in the end these so-called victories were only short-lived, doing nothing in the end but causing great and unneeded suffering unto those (and thankfully, usually, only those who perpetrated them) and everything pretty much returned back to normal, granted, sure, the same rights you always had to believe anything you want anyway, provided you work and conform and above all follow the law basically never went anyway.
In extreme relation to the topic, I could believe, and be convinced wholly I am a dog. But that doesn't give me a right to shit on your lawn, to assault and batter you by licking your face because I'm "happy to see you", to avoid a noise complaint or charge of disturbing the peace/public nuisance because I'm making loud noise or barking, or basically sexually assault you (or your leg), without facing the same legal consequence as LITERALLY ANYONE ELSE.
You can be whatever you want to be in your own head. But it needs to literally not affect any law-abiding citizen in any way whatsoever unless they desire it to. That is to say, you don't get a special set of legal rules because you want them. Only handicapped or differently-abled people get that right. Anything else is a travesty of justice.That's just not how anything works.
Trans humans are humans.
Therefore, trans humans have a right to live and pursue happiness.
There's no "extra right" just because a person is black. It's not that black people are asking for a new, special right in being treated with equality.
So it goes with trans health issues.
It's only because people see trans people as freaks that this sad line of questioning seems plausible to anyone.
It's especially odd given that most of the time this line of questioning is from a cis perspective: as in, the answer will have no effect on the life of the asker. But it will effect trans people.
Agreed, no argument against that here.
Quoting Moliere
Perhaps others see trans individuals as freaks, from my point its looking at what they are asking for as rights and verifying that everything they are asking for is a human right. The OP goes through and agrees that some of these things are rights, while others of these are not human rights. Were there any you agreed or disagreed with?
Quoting Moliere
Given that the examination is about human rights, and human rights affect all people including trans people, I'm not sure what's being missed in the OP. If you would like to point out the missed perspective, it would be helpful to the discussion.
Isn't it a human right for a child to not have her breasts cut off? Isn't that a uniquely trans gender issue?
I mostly agreed with the basics -- but where I disagree is in analyzing such-and-such as a right.
No one claims a right to being gendered correctly. That's the sort of thing decided at the social level rather than the legal level.
It's that part that I'm uncomfortable with. It looks like you're saying trans people want the power of the law to punish others for misgendering them -- that's not a real thing, in my experience.
I think the story you linked is a tragedy.
I don't think this is unique to trans individuals, though. Healthcare decisions are not easy in any other situation that might call for mastectomy. If she wins that's fine by me: I understand wanting recompense for being mistreated.
I don't think her case the usual, though.
But we can make it unique to trans individuals in that: should trans children have their breasts removed? A 17 year old? Maybe I can see that. A 14 year old? No.
Should children have any -ectomy's ? Is that something we can decide by law?
I'd prefer to let the people in the situation to decide with their doctor, and if a bad decision is made then the person can pursue legal recourse. Like in your story.
I'm generally uncomfortable with making a rule to fit an exception. Usually, the rule is very right for a particular circumstance, but rides over the particulars of other cases.
Okay, thanks for telling me about the link. However, it is still just one .com website, it's not some transgendered lobbying group that's asking for specific changes in the current laws. You can go on communicating how you'd like to, yet i would said "this website phrases transgender and transexual rights as such", and then discussing the rights exactly on the websites terms. Being clear and direct makes things easier to read.
Quoting Philosophim
In this context, one would argue that with cruel and unusual punishments, that the cruelty itself sets a poor example and is morally wrong. If people accept that premise, wouldn't it then be easy to argue that any prison sentence whatsoever is cruel punishment? There's no "everyone agrees", yet "cruel punishment" is redundant because punishment is supposed to be cruel instead of rewarding.
Quoting Philosophim
So wouldn't you then agree with me when i say that rights are totally meaningless outside of their usage within a legal framework?
I would generally agree, but a lawsuit won't get your breasts reattached. Some harms can't be undone through legal recourse. So then, what do we as a society decide to do about trans children desiring mastectomies? Should doctors be allowed to do it at all or should it be off limits until the person is an adult? This seems like a human rights issue that's unique to trans individuals, no?
It does. Especially given the scenario.
There I have pause. But mostly because I'm not trans.
I'd like it if it were possible that trans individuals had more say on it than myself. Not sure how to do that in a practical way, but it is the sort of thing I think towards.
Even then, though -- given that we're human I imagine bad decisions will be made. Sometimes a person was sexually abused in a way that made them express what looks like trans-desires, but were really desires to not be sexually abused.
I'm not sure that we can decide such cases in law.
Ultimately she ought not to have been abused to the point of being confused, right? But that's such a unique circumstance that I don't think something like "rights" or "law" would address it...
Then my mistake, I'll try to be more clear next time.
..
Quoting ProtagoranSocratist
Generally punishment as an ideal's purpose is to protect innocent people and reform those who do wrong. That is why punishment is supposed to fit the crime. Some punishments are fines. Others have light sentencing. If I stole a penny from a person, going to jail for 50 years wouldn't really protect innocent people from harm, nor would it give a chance for the person to reform. Thus we would call that 'cruel and unusual punishment'. Essentially cruelty is punishment designed merely to hurt another person without any desire to reform or protect others.
Quoting ProtagoranSocratist
Not at all. Rights are the framework upon which we should want laws written. Even in a society without some authority figure over your head, rationally we would want to treat each other with the respect that we believe each person should be given for merely being a person. Laws are simply an authorized way to enforce behavior. Rights are a rational conclusion of what behavior we believe is appropriate towards others in the world.
but earlier you said that people don't have to do anything, so fallowing from that logic, how would rights make any sense on a practical day-to-day basis? Are you saying that rights are only higher ideals that we can imperfectly conform to?
Correct. I addressed the idea of medical care as a right in the OP. For this we can detail further. There are two situations in which a person can decide to modify their body. Cosmetic purposes, and medical purposes. A cosmetic purpose is because one desires to change their body to be a certain way. A medical purpose is to correct or cure an issue.
An example is breast implants surgery vs breast reconstruction surgery. The first is a cosmetic desire, the second is a medical correction due to damage. In general, cosmetic procedures are funded by the individual and are entirely the free choice of the individual. Medical procedures sometimes have funding by the state and can be freely chosen or rejected by the individual in question. However, an individual cannot request a medical procedure freely. They must ask a professional to diagnose if the treatment is one that would solve the issue.
In the case of cosmetic choices, in general we don't allow an individual to choose large alterations to their body without a term called 'consent'. Consent is only able to be given by people who society has established have the mental capability, knowledge, and awareness of the consequences to make a choice. A 14 year old asking to remove their breasts does not have the ability to give consent.
However, in the case of medical care, some procedures or treatments may be offered to minorities if there is ample medical evidence that it would likely treat a problem. If, note I say if, the medical community had clear science to demonstrate that removing the breasts of a 14 year old child would cause a greater benefit to the person than the harm of leaving them, there is justification in offering such a treatment. Even then, generally the child would not have the ability to consent, but the parents.
I can go into why the current medical evidence is strongly against transition surgeries and hormone treatment, but that may not be needed if the above points adequately answers the question. The point is, if it is the case that breast removal is a scientifically recommended treatment that cures the patient of an even more harmful ill, then it is a viable treatment to offer for parents to consent to. Any cosmetic treatment is beyond both the parent's and child's ability to consent.
Lets pull it out of the abstract and look at your own life. Lets say you stumble upon a person in a lone allyway. They mean you no harm but you notice they have a gold chain around their neck. Looking around, you realize you could get away with stealing it, the other person does not suspect you have a knife, and you could quickly end it. Do you need a law to tell you that murdering them for their gold chain is wrong? Or have you thought through it any particular time and concluded "That would be wrong".?
Rights are the algebra of ethics. X + 1 = 2 "Stealing from another innocent person is wrong" is the circumstance, the number, while the abstract is something like "X is the right way to treat a person". X is where we put the rights like "Letting them speak their mind, respecting property, not murdering them". We can of course go about our lives without thinking at all about what or why we do things, but if you've thought about them at all, you've essentially been considering rights.
Rights are therefore a form of morality. There is an idea that we should or should not treat people in fundamental ways. This does not require a law, it only requires a mind.
Wow! What a HORRIBLY irrelevant and convoluted mess! Where do you get the idea I have seen anything like that in my life? "Oh! Gold chain, me stupid, i'll kill person with gold chain in alleyway because we alone and nobody catch me! Me shmeagal, i want ring!"
Also, I'm pretty sure you are making up this "rights as part of morality algebra" stuff as well. It's not even coherent from a logical or historical perspective. You made this comment in your other thread:
Quoting Philosophim
I now know that i should not expect to have a clear and coherent conversation with you.
Quoting Philosophim
The constitution (which is where all rights are derived under american law...) says absolutely nothing about innocent persons, because the people who wrote the document knew that guilt an innocence were matters of local states/tribunals etc., the rights granted were only supposed to be a guarantee against a tyrannical government, and it really doesn't take a whole lot of thinking to understand that they haven't been very effective.
I mean, to be fair, there's a reason horror movies are classified as horror and not fantasy. Meaning, these things do happen. All day, everyday. I can tell from your disposition as well as the dismissal of his meta-point, you clearly know where you're going to get your next meal from. Not everyone has that luxury. I strongly recommend you re-read up on the Socratic method so as to better understand (even flawed) arguments other people might make.
This is an example of a thought experiment to give a more explicit example out an abstract notion. If you're not going to take the conversation seriously, I'm not going to take your points seriously either.
Quoting ProtagoranSocratist
Yes, I created the example as a means of viewing rights as a general abstract vs specific situation. If the analogy didn't make sense, just point it out. Not everything I try works. :)
Quoting ProtagoranSocratist
What you're talking about is a political right in "The bill of Rights" The constitution did not create human rights. Philosophers and thinkers have discussed human rights for centuries. The bill of rights was an attempt to enshrine political protections against an overbearing federal government.
I don't mind further discussing the issue but more focus on issues and less focus on mockery please.
A "right" which isn't a legal right (i.e. enforceable and subject to protection under the law, the violation of which is compensable) is nothing more than something which it's maintained should be a legal right, or should be considered as a legal right although it isn't one (which I think makes no sense).
So, I think the appropriate question to ask, if one wants to do so, is: Should what's being considered be legal rights?
A human right is not a legal right. But our legal rights should support human rights. The purpose of the OP is to ascertain whether the rights that the trans community wants are human rights, or not human rights. Based on the OP's breakdown, what do you think?
Quoting Ciceronianus
:up: :up:
This has nothing to do with anything Ive written in this thread. Perhaps youre asking the wrong person.
You quoted the ACLU, specifically,
So then, what are your thoughts on the kind of health care trans children can/should get?
I must not have made myself clear. It makes no sense to me to speak of human rights or any rights outside of legal rights.
When I think about "rights", human or legal, I find it helpful to think in terms of "actual" rather than abstract. Tonight when I went to the neighborhood grocery store, the homeless trans panhandler was at her usual place. She's been there many late afternoons and evenings, since last spring. I've talked with her several times, as have others. He's had M--->F surgery (male genital removal) and when he has insurance (medicaid) takes female hormones. He sleeps outside if he can't find acceptable indoor shelter (too much risk of rape in the adult shelters). He's polite, friendly, and somewhat (reasonably) guarded.
So, are there human rights specific to her, as a trans person, that wouldn't apply to me, a gay male?
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UN 1945, lists the human rights. The WHO declaration, Alma Ata 1978, addresses the specific rights to health, which is defined as "a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being".
The listed rights in the declarations are 'universal'. Everyone is entitled to these rights, but the rights are by no means guaranteed. For instance, a person has the right to practice the religion of their choice and to vote the politics they believe are good. That doesn't mean they can actually do either one in any number of places.
This trans person has the same right to express her sexual desires as I have. My homosexuality isn't universally approved of, so there are limits--legal and extra or non-legal. Transsexuality / transgenderism isn't universally approved of, or even recognized, so there are again, limits. If I develop a disease related to gay sexual activity, I expect to receive the same expert, nonjudgmental care that someone would receive for a non-sexual disease. On the other hand, if I want medical care to achieve a physical body that is closer to the current-social-media ideal, should I expect social programs or insurance to pay for that? No. It is also reasonable for a transgender person to find some limits on what kinds of plastic surgery will be performed, or what and when some medications will be prescribed.
Why would my health, shelter, food, clothing, medical, or educational requirements receive less social provision for me than her? I support myself; she doesn't. But dependence of social programs cuts across racial, gender, age, and other categories, and a distinction is not made. People don't lose human rights because they have exceptional needs. (They may not receive needed assistance, but that's a different issue.)
I have some doubts about the legitimacy of some transsexual / transgender claims and demands, as do others. But whether they are entirely legitimate or not, they are still entitled to pursue personal fulfillment and social acceptance. I have never been enthusiastic about gay marriage; that doesn't mean that gay people are not entitled to pursue socially recognized marriage.
"Rights", after all, are not the same as approval.
Quoting BC
The OP goes through several of them and states whether they can be classified as human rights. Would you like to agree or disagree with any of them?
But this is just to prescribe an idiosyncratic language around rights that isn't generally how we speak.
If a society legally permits men to subjugate women, we say women's rights are being violated, which says two things (1) we think something inherent in women being human is violated by this law and (2) we think there ought be a remedy for this violation.
We say we believe the law of that land is morally wrong, that morally wrong laws should not stand, and that women are owed the morally right law.
From this we say women's rights are being violated in that society. We refer to the law that ought to be as natural law and the law passed by society as positive law. The two might be in conflict as they are in that society.
But then where could we disagree except over terminology? Is it just that you don't think natural law deserves the descriptor "law" but instead it should be referred to as "moral dictates," where "dictate" is carefully used so as not to say "law"? And so when you say you deny there is natural law, you just mean you deny that what we both call X (which is defined as "that which no person morally ought be deprived") can be called "law." If that is the distinction, is that not pedantic?
If not pedantic, then I suppose it's based in the fear that should we call what ought be the law "natural law" then that might suggest the legal authority could enforce what ought be as opposed to what is and then we'd be faced with the uncertainty with regard to enforcement.
This concern is valid, but just pragmatic, designed to protect our peculiar form of government where we divide the moral from the required (i.e. the church from the state), but it says nothing of what the "law" ontologically is. It just says how we must politically treat it to make our non-theocratic system work.
But at the crux of this, and where I think the positivist position incorrect, is the idea that legal enforcement doesn't allow general notions of morality to creep in. While your positivist might argue the law is just what it says it is, morality is smuggled in constantly. And I'm not sure that's a bad thing.
The thread is about civil rights, not specific policies or practices. It is reasonable to consider adequate medical care a civil right. What adequate care for transgender people includes is not the subject of this thread and Im not interested in expressing an opinion.
Technically its about human rights, but you are 100% correct that this is off topic. The OP addresses health care as
Quoting Philosophim
So RougeAI, lets stick to the OP please and not specifically call out other members on something off topic. TClark, if you would like to continue the discussion about the OP feel free, but you do not have defend yourself from off topic points in this thread.
The saying is "Transgender rights are human rights." I'm willing to be extremely pedantic in explaining that the correct wording is "civil rights." I think the difference is important, but I won't clutter up your thread unless you beg me.
Quoting Philosophim
My response was harsh because I think your OP is misleading in a way I interpreted as for rhetorical effect. For me, the most fundamental provisions of the ACLU's description are "fighting discrimination in employment, housing, and public places." These form the basis for many of the other rights identified but your listing did not include them at all. In the US, such discrimination is prohibited by various civil rights acts and court cases for the following protected groups:
Quoting Wikipedia - Protected group
So, the rights identified are already in place for transgender people, although, since that is based on a court case, our current courts might change it.
And yes, I did read your OP in full.
What is being said when it's claimed women have the right not to be subjugated? If we say that means they have the right to vote, we refer to a legal right. We don't refer to an "inherent right to vote "
One of the problems when we speak of "human rights" is one of lack of context or definition. When we try to define them, the definition which results is either so nebulous as to be useless or is dependent on legal rights. The example I give above applies context. If we say they have the right not to be treated as property we're not saying they have the right not to be property; we're saying that they're not property. In other words, as to women men do not have or should not have the legal rights they may exercise or have to property.
No, the title, intro, and common saying is 'Trans rights are human rights". Its a a common refrain from trans allies and activists. Here, I even wrote it in the OP.
Quoting Philosophim
See, that's what we call an introduction that sets the stage for the main topic of the discussion. I'm showing you this because you were trying to be pedantic, but failed. So let me demonstrate what being pedantic is so you can do better next time. Being pedantic is me pointing to the explicit wording, telling you to read the explicit wording, then pointing out the main idea in the first sentence. And I suppose too that I should point out I never once mention or address "Civil Right" in the entire OP, so that's a pretty good indicator that the correct wording for the topic was "human rights".
Quoting T Clark
No, your response was harsh because you were pissed at the topic and didn't handle it intelligently or maturely. I did not see your intention as harsh, it just came across like you hadn't read the OP and went on a side straw man by quoting another source which was seemingly mostly addressed in the OP. I mean, that happens often in posts, and I gave you a chance to join the conversation properly after you cooled off. Are you cooled off yet to actually comment on the OP itself, or are you now going to be pissed that I gave you an example of what being pedantic actually is? If you can fix your attitude, water under the bridge. If you can't, I get to be amused at how you angrily mess up the next response. Either way a win for me, but it would be a win for us both if you chose the former.
Quoting T Clark
I addressed one of the contentious points of employment specifically, and point 3 where I noted "Equality of service" should easily apply to housing and public places. This was already a long post which apparently most people didn't bother reading (not just you), so I tried to condense it to important ideas that could be applied to specifics if needed. A 'top 5' list condenses better, gives points to specifically address, and let me cover demands that both fit human rights, and do not fit human rights. In reading the OP, you see that I noted that out of the 5 points, about half I would consider human rights. But please, and in all seriousness, if you think I've missed something about a trans rights request being a human right that you want to address, bring it up specifically. Add reasoning as to why its a human right, and why my reasoning has missed this, doesn't cover it, or seems to go against it. This was always intended to be a discussion, not a status measuring contest.
Quoting T Clark
This is a fine claim, but please detail what the trans community is insisting are human rights that I missed specifically. Is it the idea that trans people should be allowed to purchase homes, be in public, and be employed? As I noted before, equality of service is a human right which they should be entitled to. Am I missing something more that would change what I concluded about the rights I mentioned in the OP?
Quoting T Clark
Again, and not to be pedantic this time, the topic is about human rights, not civil rights. Civil rights are rights written into government law. Human rights are natural rights that exist despite law. So I'm not critiquing what has already been passed into law, but am looking at trans rights demands that are claimed to also be human rights which are natural rights outside of law.
I read your OP twice and I stand by behind my main criticism. The source you use to generate your list of human rights left out the most important parts of the ACLU list in a way that undermined possible contrary arguments. It was that dishonesty I reacted to. I have no objection to this subject for discussion, I just think your OP was a set up job.
Let's also bring into the discussion the idea of anxiety or panic attacks, which affect a great larger majority, about 40% of people will experience such or similar with related symptoms once in their life. This is enough to dial emergency services or visit the ER under the true and genuine belief there is a true medical emergency or condition. Difference is, untreated, general anxiety or benign malaise may be confused as something more severe, including mental illness if not diagnosed by a qualified professional, or worse, self-diagnosed (or pseudo-diagnosed by non-medically trained non-professionals who may be family or friends). Which is basically the driving force (90%+ of the so called transgender movement, which in reality is a political, economical act of warfare that only seeks to confuse and disorient, so as to give enemy troops an advantage) of this so called human rights campaign. People in general may be stupid. But the people who decide what bombs drop where, are not. So don't make yourself a target. You might regret it. Or those, what's left of those around you, that is, when it's all said and done, might curse your very being. So be careful.
It's like you're purposely trying to ignore reality by not understanding these facts thereof, OP.
Again, we haven't truly framed the topic here. We have your ignorant and silly understanding of what transgender is, which while may be shared by the world, remains silly and ignorant. Until you can admit that, OP. This topic, rather your contribution toward it, will remain little more than a circus. And a dull one at that.
I don't see how this addresses the OP or gets the topic back on track.
Quoting Outlander
I fail to see how these statements you've made have anything to do with what I've written.
Quoting Outlander
I believe I have clearly framed the topic "Are trans gender rights human rights?" Some are, some aren't. Do you agree or disagree with these assessments?
Quoting Outlander
If you disagree with the definition of what trans gender is, feel free to frame it. Then feel free to examine what people who are trans gender claim are rights, then tell me whether you think they are human rights. I can't admit to anything when you have provided nothing for me to admit to.
Fair enough, I'll believe that you have. But I'm not seeing you provide anything that is countering my criticism either.
Quoting T Clark
And I have invited you to go into more detail on these specific parts of the list. I've asked you to introduce them to the discussion, pointing out why these are necessary to our discussion of trans rights as human rights, and showing how their introduction could contradict my statements. I have undermined nothing in asking you to do this.
Quoting T Clark
And I have no objection to you thinking it was, but I see no evidence from you that would support that suspicion. Another time TClark, enjoy the rest of your weekend.
Alleged?
See, what I'm trying to say is, and forgive my brashness, perhaps you've gone gung-ho into a battle wielding what one believes to be a sword but is really a tuning fork. You're missing the forest for the trees, my good sir.
One is a term that hasn't existed in the zeitgeist of any human civilization (at least modern Western society) until recently. Whereas, "human" is a biological and absolute constant. In simple terms, one changes, basically came into existence recently, and otherwise has no consensus agreeing solid and strict definition. The other does. So the rights for something that is absolute and non-disputable, versus something that is not only a new concept to all things social and legal, something constantly changing and still not widely-agreed upon between those who deem said concept important, are like comparing apples and oranges.
Let me simplify that: One is a derivative of the other. The derivative is a social construct (relative). The derived from is a biological reality (absolute).
Quoting RogueAI
Assuming there is either a biological or medical reality behind the idea that a human being can be born into one of the binary sexes yet would fundamentally either:
A.) be more productive and natural in the opposite sex
[OR]
B. would live life in discomfort, potential mental illness, and overall failure to thrive.
If even one of the two prerequisites above are true, that would mean such an opinion should only be given by a well-educated and preferably-licensed medical or psychiatric professional, similar to legal advice online, which by penalty of law is forbidden by a layperson. If none of the above prerequisites are true, then it's literally a non-issue akin to a hobby or weird phase that only the individual themself can choose to cause detriment and negative effect.
To simplify: To err is human. People make mistakes. It's not an established science with immediate physical and visual confirmation like an X-ray or MRI. If one believes surgical and biological modification of one's self is a choice, that's a choice they made. If one believes there is a fundamental or otherwise "human-like" right that is being deprived from not being allowed to surgically and biologically modify one's body so as to please one's self, that's a science and medical reality that only those highly trained and certified should be legally allowed to determine or give opinions on.
Ah, I see what you're saying now. If you'll notice in the OP I take the time to set up all the definitions so that way the reader knows what everything means starting out. Please feel free to disagree with any of the definitions and propose your own as a starting point.
From my viewpoint, though gender may be new to the average person, it is a term that is used in the trans gender activist community, and we must understand how they use it when they are asking rights by gender. If you disagree with the word use entirely, then that is your right and our conversation is at an end. This is an attempt to clearly define what representatives of the trans gender community are asking for in terms of trans rights, and whether everything they are asking for is also a human right.
I am getting the feeling that most people on this board have very little understanding or familiarity with trans gender viewpoints, culture, and activism. I've been studying them for the last two years, so I admit my awareness of the subject is painted by that. It appears I am unlikely to have a good conversation on these boards as people appear very in the dark or have a very limited take on the issue. That's ok, philosophy has not been in sync with the culture for some time now, and its not surprising that a modern day philosophical issue like this is not being properly tackled here. I'll likely go to another forum and post there for people who are interested in thinking about this.
My view of this issue is untheorized and based on my experience knowing and working with numerous trans people, both men and women. I support most trans rights on the grounds of solidarity and the need to minimize harm and stigma. Im not aligned with or aware of every activist claim, and I also recognize that trans people vary in their thinking. Ive known some who reject gender theory entirely. Most of the trans people Ive known come to their identity through personal experience rather than gender politics. Some are later influenced or radicalized by that politics, but it would be a mistake to assume activism shapes all trans identities. And I know you havent said that.
I broadly support all five rights you mentioned, except where specific circumstances make their application genuinely problematic. My main reservation concerns medical treatment for minors; I believe age, maturity, and clinical judgment must guide decisions, so point four would need qualifications around safeguarding and informed consent.
My position comes from both personal experience and ethical reasoning. Having worked with and known trans people, Ive seen the distress caused by denying recognition or access to care. That distress may be subjective, but it is real and morally relevant, I woudl hold that reducing it is part of our responsibility to respect human dignity and autonomy.
I view being transgender not as a mental illness (as some do) but as a mode of human identity. Comparing it to schizophrenia or other delusional conditions misunderstands the nature of gender identity: it is not a pathology to be suppressed but a lived reality to be supported. I also find it interesting how some who do not support treatment of mental illness do support it for trans, probably because transphobia informs their view.
If we accept that gender identity is how people experince their selfhood, as something fundamental to a persons being, then society shoudl facilitate and provide the means for trans people to live authentically and safely. That includes access to accurate identity documents, social recognition, protection from harm, and healthcare aligned with their needs.
Gender theory isn't relevant to my take on trans. My view is pragmatic. People have always identified and alwasy will identity as a gender different to mainstream expectation (I'm avoiding gender discourse here). We dont need a metaphysical theory of gender to defend trans rights. What matters is whether our practices reduce suffering and allow people to live freely and without humiliation. Trans rights stand on the basic moral ground that they lessen cruelty and create space for self-determination. Moral progress depends on empathy and persuasion, not on appeals to absolute truth. I'd take the view that a decent society lets people define themselves without fear and measures dignity by the freedom to live honestly, not by an obedience to inherited categories.
Now, before anyone says, But what if someone wants to identify as an air-conditioning manifold? I would simply respond that such an identity lacks the historical depth and pragmatic grounding that give meaning to categories like gender. Theres no shared social context, language, or lived experience to make that identification useful.
Human Rights are a social construct. We are not born with legal documents that are backed up by some higher power. This is something that is so blatantly obvious that people miss it and construe our creation of Human Rights as something we have always possessed.
I believe this may help focus how people approach legal rights.
And I'm glad to to hear that. I agree that trans gender people should have the right to not be harmed for the way they live their lives, and that we should eliminate unwarranted stigma where possible.
Quoting Tom Storm
And that is also fine. I'm sure there are plenty of trans gendered individuals who would not agree with some of the list I've posted above. The reason for the list is these are generally things that are being pushed by those who try to get media and political attention. In other words, the one's trying to convince other people that these are true human rights. As such, I feel it is a warranted philosophical enterprise to ask whether their claims of them being human rights, actually match human rights. If you read the OP, I agree with about half of them. The point was not to minimize that trans individuals should have human rights like everyone else, but it was to temper the idea that just because a group may be correct in some of their requests, it does not mean we shouldn't carefully examine their other requests and possibly find fault.
Quoting Tom Storm
I appreciate that. No, my first belief is that trans gender identity can be a choice, but it can also be something innate to the person. I also believe that people have a right to make that choice. My studies hint more that it is really trans sexual identities that are inborn, which often get lumped in with trans gender identities. But I don't want to make that the focus of this topic as that seems more scientific than philosophical. To your point, just because there is a sect of trans gender people trying to push for these as rights, doesn't mean private trans gender individuals do not agree with them. If there was a competing segment of the trans community that was actively in opposition to the pushes I am citing, I could address them as well. But to my knowledge there is no powerful counter movement within the community that is debating these rights claims as currently presented.
Quoting Tom Storm
My main contention is really with points 3 and 4 essentially are that gender identity should be recognized over sex identity by legal enforcement. To be clear, I am talking about trans gender individuals, not trans sexual individuals. The trans gender argument is that if a member of one sex expresses they are a gender of the other sex, they should be allowed in cross sex spaces, and they should legally have pronouns refer to their gender instead of sex. This means a perfectly healthy and unaltered biological male should be able to enter into a female space like a changing room. England actually did this for several years until the Supreme Court ruled that a recognition of gender was not the same as a recognition of sex. Many in the trans gender community are fighting to get this overruled as they believe it is a right that gender identity supercede sex identity.
I will not repost the reasons behind while I think this is wrong as that's in the OP, but I do not believe this particular trans gender right is not actually a human right.
To be clear, it is not a human right that others agree to our own subjective viewpoints about ourselves. That is not to say that a person cannot view themselves as they wish, or express themselves as they wish equitably under the spirit of public health and decency. If a person wishes to transition, I see no reason why that wouldn't be within their full rights as a human being. Its the fact that activists believe it is a human right that others refer to their gender over their sex that seems to be a violation of the right to free speech and thought.
Quoting Tom Storm
I responded earlier to RogueAI I believe with a better breakdown on minor health care. Its about what you would expect. Consent must be acquired which largely rests on the parents, and there must be unquestionable medical backing behind it. I can get into details if you would like, but current medical research does not support puberty blockers or any form of medical transition for minors. Activists often believe this is a right despite the medical evidence, which is again why there is a need to critically examine such claims.
Quoting Tom Storm
Correct. The encompassing medical phrase for this is 'gender dysphoria'. However, gender dysphoria could equally be called 'sex dysphoria'. It depends on the context of the distress. If a person is unhappy with the gender they express, and not their sex, its gender dysphoria. If a person is unhappy with their sex, and not the gender they express, that's sex dyphoria. The first case is a trans gendered individual. The second is a trans sexual individual. The community has either ignorantly or intentionally decided to stop using the term 'sex' where possible, which causes a lot of confusion about what a person's actual issue is.
And yes, both dysphorias are real. Treatment should be given if possible to help with the issue. From my understanding, there is no cure. It is therefore what is considered a mental health issue (like depression, not a mental illness like schizophrenia), and needs both therapy and sometime medication to treat. And to be clear, its not the fact that someone desires to be the other sex or gender that is the mental health issue, its the distress of not being able to do so that causes unnecessary stress and behavioral problems in life. Many people have fantasies and dalliences in gender or cross sex play and do not have a chronic distress issue over the fact it is part of them, and not a centralized identity to the exclusion of other healthy parts of themselves.
Quoting Tom Storm
The problem is, is that we need clarification in terms if we're not going to use gender theory. Do you mean gender as a sex synonym, a cultural expectation, a sex expectation, or a blend of both? Because unclear terminology gets us into a mess of not understanding what the issue is. People distrust and often hate what they don't understand. Its imperative that we have clear, unambiguous communication if we want culture and law to properly address the issue, much less a discussion here.
Quoting Tom Storm
If you can't clearly identify what is causing the suffering, you can't clearly treat it. If you can't clearly convey what is wrong with you when you're behaving in a manner most people would find strange, you will never live freely without humiliation with a culture. Compassion and empathy are paramount, but it must be combined with clear identification, rational thought, and respect of all individuals involved, not just the aggrieved.
Quoting Tom Storm
In my experience, this is an ideal that is violated by the real. If everyone had good intentions and full rational faculties, you would be correct. Unfortunately, while I do believe it is a minority, there are enough individuals who do not have good intention or full rational faculties. This is not targeting trans gendered specifically, but the entire human race. While an overreliance on rigid and out dated categories is bad, doing away with categories and truth requirements ends just as badly for everyone involved. Both situations give bad actors the freedom to cause havoc.
Quoting Tom Storm
Please, I would never insult you with such a Reddit argument. :) Its trivial to note that such a comparison misses the point entirely. Perhaps some who bring up discussion about trans gender issues are motivated purely by their feelings on the matter. I hope that I am someone you can trust will give the topic an actual intelligent look and discussion over it instead of shallow diatribes. I appreciate your post.
They are a social construct solved through reason and practice, not bias or feelings. Whether you value human rights or not, there are clearly defined human rights like 'the right to defend oneself'. The OP is simply checking to see if the claim to all trans gender rights actually fit in with human rights.
Things like religious rights are not so important to the devote. They will do as they do regardless of any reasonable arguments against them. Reason has limits.
Do we really want to end up sounding like people who say things like not believing in God means you have no morals.
Human Rights are not upheld in many countries because they have different laws. We can amend laws, to some degree, but they are not the be all and end all of individual human actions. I would argue they are small things compared to the power of individual human will. To question what we will is basically how laws come into being.
Anyway, maybe this is not the thread for this. No intention of derailing, so I guess it can be taken up elsewhere.
Right, no harm in your words.
Quoting I like sushi
Yes, I think the matter of whether we should consider human rights at all is a bit off topic. The thread is more focused on rights claim matching. Appreciate your posts regardless.
That's an interesting point, yet a somewhat irrelevant one to the discussion. Most (if not all) impoverished people still can see the distinction between a gold chain and a meal. People do at times kill each over trivial possessions, but clearly morality and rights do not often come into the mix when that happens.
However, i don't think there's a whole lot i can do if some folks question whether "transgendered rights" are human rights: seems pretty trivial and basic. Not worth my time, the socratic method isn't a solution, and yes im familiar with his method. Not that it should be recommended: history has it that he was killed by the state as a result.
You would be surprised. Just because someone claims a particular trans right is a human right, doesn't mean that trans right is even a right, much less a human one.
I like my grandmother's rules, because they give me a baseline for decisions that handle every situation requiring my judgment.
1. We respect everyone because we are respectful people.
2. We protect the dignity of others.
3. We do everything with integrity.
What you do is none of my business. I have all I can do to make myself behave well. That might not be good philosophy, but it seems to work for me. I have read that Socrates' group assumed moral means knowing the laws of nature and having good manners. They also saw nothing wrong with an older man and a younger man enjoying each other's company. Sparta assumed the men would like each other more than a man would like a woman. That was an important factor in their military success.
Hello Athena, I want to be clear that trans gender does not mean gay. Gays are not the topic of this OP.
Quoting Athena
Correct. Do you believe then that trans gender people have, as a human right, the right to make you call them their preferred pronouns? Is it a human right for a straight man who has not had any surgery to go into a woman's changing room because they claim they are a trans woman? Should someone's gender take priority of someone's sex?
I regret that I brought in the subject of civil versus human rights. That really confused things. Beyond that, I suspect neither of us thinks the other is arguing in good faith. So we should probably leave it at that.
And I will try to keep my responses less antagonistic in the future.
I don't agree that there are variations. There are two sexes: male (xy) and female (xx). Period. Evolution invented these two sexes about a billion years ago, and has stuck with early success. Genetic or developmental defects may occur which produce hermaphroditism, for example, but these defects are not a different sex.
This is a persistent and annoying untruth. Children are not "assigned" a sex; their sex is recognized on the basis of physical characteristics. A trans person may not like it, but in 99.9% of births, sex is not ambiguous at first (or second) Dglance.
Quoting Philosophim
Was there such a thing as "cis sexual rights" prior to the trans movement claiming "trans sexual rights"? For instance, did men and women have a "right" to a male only / female only toilet? Or was it a cultural given, backed up by laws against indecent exposure and the like, that men and women used separate toilets? I think it was a given.
A person who was born as a male or female may not claim rights that are unique to the opposite sex, in my opinion. Any person may claim rights based on their personhood, which specify numerous specific rights. The numerous subdivisions of humanity (intelligence, height, left handedness, etc.) generally do not have specific rights attached to them, do they? Inequality if endemic and it is up to the individual to deal with it. Individuals are burdened by all sorts of disadvantages (just as they benefit from all sorts advantages. Life does not distribute good and bad outcomes in life evenly. There is no "right" to have a great outcome.
A person may believe they will be happier if they can live like a person of the opposite sex. They can make the attempt, and may succeed. But they must do so within quite reasonable limitations. The limitation is that they are still the sex they were born as.
Im surprised you have this attitude, which isnt the same as saying I disagree with you.
Not a worry, and I don't think you're not arguing in good faith at this point.
Quoting T Clark
Also not a worry, I often enjoy your posts here and view you as one of the better people to discuss with. This is an emotional subject for many, and as such its going to bring that out in people sometimes. You are quite welcome in this or any other thread.
True. I think slang gets mixed up with the scientific definition of sex. Many in the community think that 'sex isn't binary'. They don't understand that sex is only about reproduction. It requires a male and a female to reproduce, that's why its binary. A third sex would require a male, a female, and a lemale to reproduce. That would be trinary.
To their point a bit though, some of the variations in chromosomes and bodily changes seem variant enough to be 'a variant of female' or a 'variant of male'. Does this make sex any less biological, objective, or unchangeable? No.
Quoting BC
To be fair, they didn't use the word 'sex' here. Sex is yes, observed at birth. Its an objective category that you either identify correctly or incorrectly. A 'gender identity' if going by the proper definition, is a cultural expectation that people place upon the sexes. So for example, if you are born male, society might expect you to go hunting. You as a male might be interested in writing, which that society sees as a cultural expectation for females. As such, you were born with 'a gender identity' of a female (only in wanting to write), and thus aren't able to live as you wish.
The problem with this is obvious. Gender identity is simply culturally backed prejudice and/or sexism. It has no bearing on what your personality is in relation to your sex. If you hold a gender identity, you're just holding onto another form of prejudice and/or sexism. The goal is to realize that society is going to want you to do things you don't want to do regardless of sex, and navigating through life is figuring out which of those things you should or should not du despite societal pressure. There is nothing special about gender in the least.
Quoting BC
It wasn't called as such, but the battles for sex rights was done with women's suffrage. Since there is a battle for trans sexual rights, we can contrast this with the default of 'sex rights', by putting the term cis in front of it for clarity. Does society default to 'cis' for sex rights? Yes. So this is more of an academic use for clarity in more focused discussion.
Quoting BC
If one has not attempted to change one's sex, 100%. Gender is irrelevant subjective prejudice. "Women should make sandwiches in the kitchen" is gender. And we worked it out decades ago that its wrong. A working theory I have is that sexist people didn't go away, they just avoided the term sexist directly by latching onto gender. Still the same crappy people we had back then.
What I think is open for conversation is trans sexual rights. If a man has had the surgery and has lived with all intentions of being female, is that a case to say that is enough to enter some cross sex spaces? To be clear, trans gender is right out. But an actual trans sexual? I could see discussing it.
Quoting BC
Sexual differences do. These are based on biological realities and not cultural ones. The trans gender attempt has always been to cross into opposite sex rights without having to alter one's body to be the opposite sex. The trans sexual alters their body to do so.
Quoting BC
Correct. I have zero objection to someone paying their own money to cosmetically change themselves to resemble the other sex. Does that mean the rest of society has to believe that you deserve the rights of that opposite sex now? I think that's a little out of scope of the topic which is targeting trans gender rights specifically.
One reason for changing my mind has been reading a number of articles in places like Quillette which reject some of the claims of trans people as pseudo-science. I never thought there were more than 2 sexes, (I don't know of any species that are anything other than M and F. True, some fish can switch back and forth between the TWO sexes, and it works for their species. Fine. Unfortunately Jack, now Mary, is not a fish. Sorry Jack. You look great in those heels, hairdo, and all, but what you are doing is basically an elaborate drag act. Some drag queens seem a bit crazy, but they have enough sense not to get their balls and dick chopped off.
I am not sure what came first: the surge in numbers of trans individuals deciding to go beyond costuming to surgery and hormones, or the rhetoric of the trans movement. Like as not, there were men and women around before the trans movement picked up steam who wanted to BE the opposite sex. Christine Jorgensen, b 1926 in the Bronx, WWII vet, received gender surgery in 1952 in Denmark.
On the other hand, using drugs to suspend puberty in children who claim to be transgender seems like reckless medical practice, if not worse. Have clinics been too eager to aggressively gender dysphoria? I suspect they have.
Everyone has to work out their personal meshugganah. Lots of people manage to do so gracefully -- whatever their situation, and more power to them. And some people don't.
For me, it all comes down to choice. As I understand it, some people dont have that choice. Thats called gender dysphoria. Strikes me as a little dangerous to deny them their understanding of who and what they are. I, as a straight man, didnt choose what I am. You, as a gay man, didnt choose either. It doesnt seem unreasonable to me to at least consider using the same standard for these transgender people.
Which brings us to the subject of those who do choose to identify as trans. My sister has three kids, one of them identifies as non-binary, another as a transgender male. I would never say this to them, and I will call them whatever they want, but I will always suspect this is a lifestyle choice rather than a fundamental question of identity. For people like them, I agree with what youve written above.
But that requiring rather than requesting removes all semblance of politeness from one end of the agreement, resulting in a rescinding of politeness in the other. Usually in the form of simply not participating.
There seems nothing wrong with this.
Sorry, @Philosophim I just saw your other comment to me in the the other thread.
To expand a bit more, then, I do not htink "trans rights are human rights" makes any practical sense. Its makes semantic sense insofar as trans people are people (i.e humans). However, "trans right", if there were/are any, cannot be said to be synonymous. If a trans people has a right specific to them, it has nothing to do with other groups of humans by definition. In this way, the phrase itself is senseless. It tells us, gives us, explains or illustrates nothing whatsoever.
This might sound as if I think that's the end of it. It isn't. There are no 'trans rights'. No one can enumerate any, and no one can adequately decide to whom they would be owed. Human rights are cool, though. I am just of the camp that 'rights' are non-existent without the authority which grants them (in a backward way...restrict first, then permit). I believe 'man' and 'woman' should more than likely refer to unimportant clusters of sex-derived behaviours. Male and female should be the only categories in public policy (although, intersex would be needed for public health).
I think you are basically right, but I also think that, "Trans rights are human rights," is a rhetorical way of implying that trans people are being denied human rights, and that this needs to stop.
Yet this immediately raises the substantive issue of precisely what human right trans people are being denied. According to the ACLU from page 1, they are being denied the "right to be themselves." I suppose that's a start, but the putative human "right to be oneself" is going to require a great deal of elucidation. It certainly isn't something that we find in historical enumerations of human rights. What does it mean? What does it involve?
The civil rights act of 1964 in the US designated certain classes of people as having protection of certain rights against discrimination. Those classes included race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. Through legislation and court interpretations, additional classes have been added including age, sexual orientation, transgender status, and some others. The inclusion of transgender rights in the list is based on a court case in 2020, so it might be considered vulnerable.
@Philosophim and I got involved in a fooferall about whether these constitute human rights or only civil rights.
To be clear, gender dysphoria is a mental health issue. An easy comparison is depression. The goal is not for a person to transition, its to treat gender dysphoria. Treatment can be handled in multiple ways. Sometimes therapy can discover that gender dysphoria is one of many symptoms like depression, and treating depression also helps gender dysphoria. Since the 1970's until the last paper I've read in 2021, 50-80% of kids resolve their gender dysphoria without medical transition interventions by age 18, and do not transition as adults.
Gender dysphoria sometimes cannot be cured, like depression, and its needs to be managed. Some causes of gender dysphoria are social, innate, and sexual. Gender dysphoria is not the desire to be the other sex, it is the distress that one feels when not being like or treated like the other sex (they say gender, I say they are largely interchangeable) to the point that it interferes with one's ability to function normally in life. I have seen interviewed with many of these individuals, and they all say transition was an absolutely last resort that was difficult to go through, but ultimately helped them.
This is not to be confused with 'gender euphoria'. This is the joy that one gets at presenting as or being treated as the other sex. This can be as simple as leaving behind the restrictions of one's gender, being able to do things the person did not believe they could do as their sex. This can also be sexual, leading to erotic experiences that drive a person to want to do this permanently. Excessive euphoria if not managed properly can lead to dysphoria as well. Basically the high is so great that not participating in it leaves on relatively down, almost like a withdraw.
Transition is a treatment, and a treatment that one has a choice in doing. Properly diagnosed and given, it can improve a person's life substantially. Most trans sexuals who have undergone it to treat severe gender dysphoria will tell others its something not to be encouraged, and a very difficult thing to do. This contrasts with those who want to transition through gender euphoria. These are the one's who encourage transition. They desperately, often times manically, are driven by the high of doing this and are obsessed with getting to transition at any cost.
For example, I have seen an older man who recently got their legs shaved, pull their pants up to their knees and rub their smooth legs while breathing heavily while closing their eyes as if they were looking at a porno. I confess to bias here, as I found instances like these to be viscerally disgusting. The community will vehemently deny that there is any sexual undertones for some transitioners, but if you get into the community a bit and you find a lot of these individuals.
Now, despite my emotional bias against the euphorics, I still believe they have the right to transition. The problem is the criteria for gender dysphoria has been loosened so much, that a euphoric can easily get past the hurdles by saying the right thing and get what they long for. If of course this was on their own dime, I wouldn't have a rights issue against it. But they get diagnosed as gender dysphoric and get insurance to pay for it.
What I cannot agree to, is the idea that everyone around a person with the mental health condition of gender dysphoria has to change how they interact or refer to them. It is not diagnosed as a mental disorder or handicap. It would be much like a person with depression asking for legal protection from anyone mentioning a sad story at work because it triggers their depression. Its fine to request that of people, but not fine to demand it as a right.
My research suggests that the one's pushing for the pronouns usage and forced acknowledgement in public are the euphorics. Prior to the trans push therapy was very much around working with a trans sexual to come to terms with the fact that the surgery does not change their sex, and that they have to learn to deal with this. Our mental health disorders are on us to personally resolve and deal with. We may ask for help and assistence, but this is not a right we can demand of others.
Quoting T Clark
Not a worry, a civil rights contrast is fine and it answers questions that have come up. I just want to make sure that my points are not focused on civil rights, but human rights.
Not long ago homosexuality was considered a mental health issue. It no longer is.
Quoting Philosophim
Certainly, I dont see this as a matter of law, but one of culture. If transgender people can be accepted enough, then it might be perfectly reasonable that you would be expected to change how you interact or refer to them. I doubt you call gay people fags anymore, even though theres no law that says you cant.
It was considered a mental disorder, not a mental health issue. Once being gay was removed from the list of mental disorders, it was no longer considered a mental issue at all. Trans gender people have a mental health issue called gender dysphoria, and this will never not be a mental issue of some kind as it is a disorder between what they are and what they want to be. It is not the same as being gay, though the trans community has used the success of the gay movement to try to get what it wants.
Quoting T Clark
There is a large difference between calling someone an intentional slur and 'gay'. There is also a large difference between acknowledging that someone is gay, vs asking others to pretend, "I'm not actually gay'. Once again, the trans community pretends to mirror the gay community to get support when its issue is actually very different from the gay communities.
1. Gays wanted their sexuality acknowledged as normal.
2. Gays wanted to fit into society sexually equally.
3. Gays didn't pretend they weren't gay, nor ask people to pretend they weren't gay.
Trans gender community
1. Wants their mental health issue acknowledged as normal
2. Want exceptions in sex based treatment based on their mental health issue
3. Want to pretend that they aren't members of one sex trying to present as the other, and demand as a right that others do so as well.
The trans community rode on the gay sympathy and tried to present them as equally oppressed and the same moral cause as gays. That's how they got all of us. I have always been a massive supporter of gay rights, and despite your bias against me that I know you're trying to keep under control, I have never once called a gay person a fag nor mistreated them in any way growing up, and I grew up prior to gay marriage equality. Something else you may want to know about me, I was a teacher for five years in inner city schools where I exclusively taught minorities. I have lived in all minority apartments. I care very much for the poor and disadvantaged and view them as my neighbors.
I thought trans was really about 'trans sexuals'. I was initially very behind the trans rights movement, but once I read the fine print and got into the community, I realized there were a lot of things that were very messed up, and this was not equivalent to gay rights AT ALL. The more I examined gay rights, the more I supported them. The more I've examined the trans gender community, they less I've supported them. Its telling when more knowledge about something drives you further from supporting them, and probably more telling coming form a person who has actively lived their life in support of minority and disadvantaged causes, not merely arm chairing from the philosophy boards. I have walked among the community, I have a personal friend who is becoming a trans sexual, and it is absolutely a mental health issue that requires care, love, but not acceptance of all of its demands and protests about what is unfair.
Not a worry, I'm sure you have more going on in your life than the philosophy boards. :)
Quoting AmadeusD
I think I see what you're saying. If its a human right, its a right that's open to everyone, not explicitly a group of people. You're using a strict category separation, so I see where you're coming from I think. From my part I think the claims of the trans gender community can, or cannot overlap with human rights. Some of them do, and some of them don't.
Quoting AmadeusD
I believe that would be civil or political rights. Human rights are seen as natural rights, or rights that if reasoned through by anyone, could be agreed upon as things that should be supported for any human being despite the law. There is a good argument that human rights' foundation is shaky because there is also the assumption of certain moral outcomes, and anytime one is positing morality there is going to be some debate and disagreement. So if you do not believe in human rights, the OP is probably moot for you.
Quoting Leontiskos
Well said by Leontiskos. My experience in the community is lots of slogans and assertions that are meant to be moral barriers to you asking deeper questions. Very much a "God is good because God told us so" situation. The point of the OP is to pull people out of the moral acceptance of this claim, actually examine what is explicitly being asked, and after analysis find whether its true these requests are actually all human rights we should accept.
Quoting Leontiskos
This is something that they don't want you to ask. That's 'transphobic', 'bigoted', etc. Lots of words thrown your way to stop you from asking or thinking about it. And it works for a lot of people. As a philosopher, things like that trigger a red flag in me that demands further exploration. I have not been in agreement with what I've found. It very much is a secular religion in many ways.
I dont think youre qualified to say that. Maybe Im wrong.
Quoting Philosophim
I think one big thing gay people and transgender people have in common is that, to a large extent, their problems are associated with rejection by society at large and not with their sexual characteristics themselves.
Quoting Philosophim
Perhaps someday, if society moves in that direction, it might be considered a slur to use a pronoun the person does not accept.
Quoting Philosophim
Ahem
Quoting Philosophim
This is rhetoric, not philosophy.
This is disingenuous. The ACLU listing includes many concrete and specific rights that many people would consider fundamental. Yet youve picked out this one vague feel good statement to focus on and criticize.
I would go further - that claim is bare nonsense. There is an extremely small, unhinged group that exist on Earth and probably number below 10m who want Trans people to stop being trans (or, alternately, existing). Even "anti-trans" activists tend not to take either of these bents. It has to do with other people and not the trans people themselves. Same thing as keeping males from female spaces. Doesn't have a lot to do with Males or their rights or anything, but protecting females.
Quoting T Clark
It is in the DSM. And, I think any reasonable adult can recognize a break with reality when they see one. You do not strike me as someone who would defend 'trans rights' on any ground such as ones coming up here. I am somewhat taken aback. Nice!
You took one of the many ones I providedthe vaguest and hardest to define. Here are the others:
I believe they exist, but in the context I gave. There is no basis otherwise. The fact that some large group agrees (and, patently, we often dont) doesn't give me a 'right'. It comes from no where and is enforced by nothing until an authority does those things.
Quoting T Clark
We can hope - but that's not because I don't want trans people protected from whatever boogey man is in the headlines currently - but because has been (and will continue) to be abused to decry and harm those with differing views of hte subject. Which is legitimate, as opposed to "blacks need to go" or whatever.
This strikes me as complete baloney. Where did you get your numbers from? I speculate the true number is in the hundreds of millions or billions worldwide.
Pew surveys indicate about 35% of the people in the US consider homosexuality a sin with a similar number for transgender people.
Quoting AmadeusD
As I noted in the previous post, DSM in the not too distant past classified homosexuality as a mental illness.
Quoting AmadeusD
As I noted, protection of rights identified in the ACLU summary strike me as reasonable for people in general, including transgender people.
Insurance pays for physical and mental health issues. Gender dysphoria is the mental health disorder of distress in not being the other gender. Transition is a treatment paid for by insurance. If it were not a mental health issue, medical insurance would not pay for it. Once you transition, you're a life long patient on hormones for the rest of your life.
Quoting T Clark
There are tons of groups that are rejected by society at large. That doesn't mean all of them should have all of what they want from society accepted. And it doesn't mean that its innately good or moral in everything the trans community is seeking from society. That requires carefully understanding who they are, what they want, and whether its actually an imposition and abuse of societies good graces or an actual oppressed people who are fairly demanding equal treatment.
Quoting T Clark
By fact, no. A slur is an intentional insult and demeaning term for someone. A slur for a trans sexual would be 'trannie' for example. I have never, nor will ever call a person a 'trannie' because it has nothing but an intent to demean behind it.
You cannot simply pick a word out that describes reality, not like it, then claim its a slur. Most of the population, myself included, uses pronouns as a non-naming placeholder that references a person's sex, not their gender. That is not a slur. That is a neutral descriptor. If someone has a problem noting what they are with neutral intent, that's their problem. That would be like a 6 foot 11 person saying, "When you describe me as tall to other people, I feel that's a term to keep me down" That's ridiculous. By statistical breakdown, a person of that height is tall. If they are uncomfortable with that fact, that is on them, and other people describing a neutral fact is not an intent to demean in any way.
Quoting T Clark
It was quite clear from the passive aggressive implication that I have called gays 'faggots' in the past, which I have not, that you still have a bias against me in this conversation. I'm trying to get you past that part of yourself and understand that I'm a good person who's open to talking with you about this topic. No, I am not trash, transphobic, a bigot, backwards, or any other terms that dehumanize other people so we don't have to have a good conversation with them. Dehumanizing the other person is bias. If you notice, I only call out malintent towards me, then its right back to discussing. Its completely normal to have bias, but I have a belief in your ability to not be bound by it, and simply discuss an issue without attempts to disparage each other.
And that is part of philosophy too. If it were only logic and numbers it would be so easy. But its also confronting our humanity which is often messy too.
Speaking of philosophy:
I addressed that in the OP. What do you think about it?
I've brought this up in the OP. What do you think about it?
If you think I'm wrong, please point out why. I would love to discuss that instead of rhetoric.
Im all done.
If the gods are kind, this thread will be as well.
(Sorry. Couldn't resist.)
You are forgiven.
Many thanks.
This is just utterly ridiculous. There are not this many people who care to have an opinion on the matter.
I contend that this ridiculous type of assumption is exactly hte cruel, unfortunate nonsense that gets pushed on impressionable young people struggling wth identity to create groups of affinity that are life-and-death. Its bollocks and its directly psychologically harming children, teens and indeed adults. When you are convinced the world is out to get you (its not - you're not that important) you will suffer. When you convince people the world is out to get them, you're cruel.
Quoting T Clark
The best surveys I can find (which are not religious, given the stark contrast between social and religion views of plenty of believers) show that roughly the same number of people think that "Trans acceptance" (not trans people) has 'gone too far', the same say 'hasn't gone far enough' and a smaller group say its all good. PLenty of others simply run counter to your claim.
Williams Institute 2019 - 73% believe Trans people need more protection.
PRRI 2019 - 62% said they had increased support for trans rights over the past five years.
PLenty of surveys will run in weird directions when you break down an issue. Plenty of otherwise supportive allies of the trans community will get off the train at sports or prison or what have you. That is the key point to take from recent survey aggregates: general support continues to rise - but support over specific, controversial policies is finally getting authentic responses so we're seeing divides. That's to be expected, and non-controversial and has extremely little to do with trans people, but considerations after understanding the wants and needs of trans people. Given that trans identification is nose-diving this is also probably predictable and not problematic, in any case.
Quoting T Clark
And doctors said smoking was good for the lungs. Fuck doctors right?
Quoting T Clark
Do you mean this:
" The ACLU champions transgender peoples right to be themselves. Were fighting discrimination in employment, housing, and public places, including restrooms. Were working to make sure trans people get the health care they need and we're challenging obstacles to changing the gender marker on identification documents and obtaining legal name changes. Were fighting to protect the rights and safety of transgender people in prison, jail, and detention facilities as well as the right of trans and gender nonconforming students to be treated with respect at school. Finally, were working to secure the rights of transgender parents."??
If so, there is nothing here that has anything specific to do with trans people. There has been nothing raised in this thread that makes anything here 'trans rights'. There is also nothing raised in this thread which can make sense of defending 'trans' as a civil rights category (but this, i understand, will never be accepted by those who wish to frame transness as somehow some natural, unaberrated and entirely healthy form of human existence). That said, all of these rights are protected in law already
The whittering hoarse-voiced lies told by TRAs (read as clear as you possible can: not trans people; only hte thing just described) to get others to pretend trans people are missing out in rights is the cruel, harmful narrative that those of us who can see the forest for the trees want to prevent reaching our vulnerable children.
I understand there is essentially no civil conversation to be had about that last part. Just wanted my cards on the table.
Quoting T Clark
And you say:
Quoting AmadeusD
So at least we agree on something. And Ill stand behind the statistics I provided. I think they tell the story.
Quoting AmadeusD
Except, of course, when the world is out to get them. You and I have come up against our differences in understanding how the social and political world works before. Ive wondered how much of that has to do with the fact youre from New Zealand and I am from the USA.
Quoting AmadeusD
Which is my entire point. These should not be controversial, because they should apply to everyone.
Quoting AmadeusD
Be that as it may, as I noted, in the US, gender status is considered a protected class. I wouldnt be surprised if the courts change that. As to whether or not it should be protected, I think thats an appropriate subject for discussion, although I have no particular interest in doing that here.
Keep in mind my entire participation in this thread has been a response to my judgment that the OP misrepresented what transgender rights are or might be.
Quoting AmadeusD
You might be surprised at what my substantive opinions about gender rights are, but as I noted, that is not what Ive addressed in my posts on this thread.
Youre playing of the protect the children card is unconvincing.
Quoting AmadeusD
Although some of my posts have been somewhat harsh, and there were some misunderstandings, I think my participation in this threat has been civil.
Well said. One can support many part of an individuals cause without supporting everything they ask for. That does not make you an evil person. Its normal discernment of an honest individual.
They don't tell anything even remotely close to the story you're telling. Reality sits squarely with the fact that there are not billions of people who even care about this matter. Far less that care to do anything about it, and even less who care to harm trans people. The ridiculousness is patent on that side of things.
Quoting T Clark
Besides females, this is never the case. There have been small pockets of historical time and place where groups were targeted. Currently, in the West, there are none other than females who have been targeted forever. Males do not suffer opinions. And almost no one in existence has an issue with trans men (bearing in mind, barely anyone has an issue tout court - its the expectation other's have to participate).
Quoting T Clark
Fair, but almost nothing hinges on this. I am capable of understanding geography and how to transcend it (i am also highly interested (in the proper sense, not just 'its interesting) in UK politics as I am a citizen and hope to return at some stage with my wife who is also British).
Quoting T Clark
Based on this, I probably would. But based on what you've said in these comments, it doesn't seem any 'view' could fix being alarmist about the facts of what trans people 'face'.
Quoting T Clark
You wouldn't be convinced by overwhelming evidence that being trans is an aberration likely to lead to criminal behaviour. So, it's hard to know why you'd say this? Protecting females is more important than children, but protecting children from being convinced they're in 'the wrong body' on some cultist crap is pretty important too. They kill themselves because of this cruel joke of a metaphysical lie. They are encouraged to cut off family and other support groups and rpelace them with ideological circles of seniors who can cut them off at any time. And Sorry to say, I really do not care what you position on this specific part of hte issue is: I have seen this first had in eight separate cases in my life. Luckily, only two have ended themslves. But that's far more than enough.
Quoting Philosophim
Yes, absolutely. I am coming to hte conclusion that people who think "with us or against us" just refuse to grow up. I can at least respect people like Banno who do their drive bys, don't bother to doing anything substantive, but stay out of it.
Here's what I was responding to:
Quoting AmadeusD
There are 8 billion people in the world. If 10% of them hold the kind of antipathy to transgender people I claim, that makes almost a billion right there. And that does not take into account the fact that North American and European attitudes are likely to be more tolerant than elsewhere. There are many more conservative and traditional cultures where non-standard sexuality is punished harshly. Ugandan law, for example, along with that in some other countries, calls for the death penalty.
Quoting AmadeusD
This is an example of the vast difference between your understanding of world and national social conditions and mine. No sense in arguing that again here. I'll let others decide if they agree with me that your understanding is fundamentally wrong.
Quoting AmadeusD
I wasn't trying to say this difference undermines your argument. It's just something I've been wondering about.
Quoting AmadeusD
Please provide this "overwhelming evidence." As I understand it, transgender people make up about 0.3% of the population. Explain how this many people can have the catastrophic results you seem to predict. It is undeniable that the primary threat of crime and violence to women comes from straight, cisgender men.
Quoting AmadeusD
Then why bring it up?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VNRj69YTZM
Is this intended as overwhelming evidence that being trans is an aberration likely to lead to criminal behaviour?
No. I really wish you would stop implying that I have this excessively negative view of trans people. You've apologized and corrected yourself to me at least twice in this thread, I really shouldn't have to say this any longer if I'm to keep viewing you in good faith. Read what I'm saying and not what you think I'm saying.
I'm simply noting that despite the fact this person would be viewed as a man by anyone, because he is trans gender, he and the transgender community are saying he has a human right to go into the female locker room where women strip naked. As you can tell, the woman is clearly distraught, and if you watched the whole thing, you hear that she is a lesbian who supports people's sexuality and transgender people in general. But this particular situation felt like a violation to her.
Do you think her feeling violated isn't a human right over his claimed human right to enter the female locker room? If this was your mother, wife, daughter, or sister, would you tell them that being upset about it is wrong, and that their feelings of being violated are transphobic and discriminatory?
If i may butt in...
This is what i tried to explain earlier in the thread: rights themselves are vague and delusional, it's a means of saying "i am entitled to such-and-such", but they only have practical application in legalism. Otherwise, i could say "i have a right to your ass", and get away with violating you...
Rights aren't just some pie-in-the-sky idea we can use to justify any behavior...but without a strict institutional framework backing them up, they might as well be that.
What did you actually mean then? If it wasnt that, I dont understand how what you wrote has anything to do with what I wrote in my response to AmadeusD.
Quoting Philosophim
I agree. Lets give up on that. You can think Im arguing in bad faith and Ill think youre paranoid and full of shit.
Make that paranoid, full of shit, and creepily obsessed with transgender people.
Since you were continuing in the thread, I wanted to get away from internal bickering and back to the point of the OP, which is about whether trans rights are human rights.
Quoting T Clark
Except I'm not paranoid or full of crap (Language please!). You responded to me with:
Quoting T Clark
Of which I never once implied in any way in this or any other thread that I've posted dealing with the subject of trans individuals. We do call out straw men here on the philosophy forums, and I clearly am in the right here to do so.
Quoting T Clark
A double post where you call me sh**? You know sh** posts aren't meant to be literal. Lets define a term here:
bigot - a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot
I have asked you politely to focus on the OP which is human rights. You have not when I've requested you to. I've politely asked you to address the topic of the discussion and you've three times, perhaps one unintentionally, attempted to make this about me instead of the subject material. I have called you out on it each time, and you have attempted to correct than backpeddle back to insults of which I have not initiated your way.
You're behaving like a bigot TClark. Ignorant, unintelligent, off topic remarks with a bent towards slander towards me instead of open discussion. Look in the mirror before accusing others of what you're full of yourself.
Feel free to always discuss. :)
I'll try to reiterate here what I'm referring to. Civil rights are generally rights established through law that give citizens certain protections in legal society. In terms of civil rights, you are correct that they only have practical application in legalism.
Human rights are considered 'natural rights'. These are rights that if we got a bunch of smart people together, would bring rational arguments to say, "We believe that all people at a minimum, should be able to act without the threat of retaliation or punishment.
These are not rights by law, they are rights by rationality. You can of course argue that X human right isn't really a right, but the point is that human rights are generally a well argued set of principles that we would want to be civil or legal rights for individuals in any government.
Here's an example. You have a country that restricts the ability of people to speak their mind's freely. People in such a government must only say what the state deems correct, both in terms of language and content. "The country of CheckSlovickiston is the greatest country in the world!" If you do not say that, you can be put in prison for 30 days for slandering your country.
Now there's no debate that this is the law of the country. But can we not think, "But should it be?" Perhaps in this instance we say, "No, that's silly, but the government can restrict this type of speech instead. They can say 'The country of CheckSlovickiston is in the top ten greatest counties of the world!'. If they say less than that they can be thrown into prison."
As people discuss, we keep finding debates. Top 20? Top 50? What if its a Tuesday? Arguing for every little individual restriction becomes extremely difficult and keeps running into the same problem. Who decides what people should say? Is that good for the people of the state? And so a person make come up with a principle, a 'right' of 'free speech'. The idea that government in practicality, or for the flourishing of its people, undertake methods of controlling people's speech. This becomes 'a human right' that exists as a principle apart from any legal implementation.
Do you have to agree that free speech is a human right? No. But the point is its a rational principle that we can discuss apart from what the actual law is, and instead about what the actual law should be.
Oh, my.
Indeed. The difference between you and I is I have the evidence in this thread to back that claim, while you have nothing but your own prejudice.
Sexuality is not identity. We're just going to disagree. You have no actual basis to make your claim, and realistically neither do I - but it stands to reason that most people in the world have no concept of transness and don't have an opinion on it. Most people are simply trying to get food and shelter (or avoid terroristic threats of their general environment). Your point is taken on sexuality, and that's obviously true.
If we reduce this to the West, though (which seems reasonable in this context) my statement seems pretty much assured. That doesn't make it good, it just means pretending there's some coterie of armed militias around the US and UK looking for trans people to harass is abusive to trans people (though, again, thoughts on that type of claim anyway... Another time). It causes children to fear the world they live in for no good reason (or, no reason beyond the fears we all share).
Quoting T Clark
LOL. Okay. It cannot be 'fundamentally' wrong. We're discussing facts, not concepts.
Quoting T Clark
As I say, fair. But I also then responded? Odd reply.
Quoting T Clark
1. I didn't claim I had any?? Perhaps read a little closer my man;
2. I didn't make that claim, or predict anything at all;
3. Not quite. It's males. But let's run your argument anyway: because they are roughly 50% of the population, and as you note (i agree) trans women are something on the order of .3%. That isn't not an argument.
In the UK Trans identified males are fully four times more likely to incarcerated for a sex crime. Let's, for no good reason, calibrate this for 'sex work' crimes and remove 50% of the cases we're looking at. Well, that's still a 100% higher chance that a trans-identified male commits a sex crime than a non-trans male. This stands to reason due to mental aberration involved.
So it's males. Not 'cis men'. It's males. The sex predisposed to enforce their sexual desires on the opposite sex, and always, for its entire existence, has been. Wearing dresses, having long hair and pretending you're less aggressive than you really are doesn't change that. Ignoring that the fundamental determinant of these sex abuse statistics is sex is absurd, anti-reason and manipulative.
Quoting T Clark
Because whether or not your opinion matters to me, the facts matter to the discussion. I am telling you my view and responding to a (semi-reasonable) objection based on a misunderstanding of what I've said. Ultimately, though, on that issue (emotionally abusing children) the opinion of someone convinced that men can be women is of no moment. That doens't reduce the importance of the point.
I have justification for my claim, admittedly, weak, but something. You have nothing.
Quoting AmadeusD
Thats fine, we can back off from the in the world standard. I still think your number is wrong, but we can leave it there. Were not going to get any closer to agreement.
Quoting AmadeusD
I didnt say that and you know thats not what Im talking about. Weve had the same kind of discussion in the past with you claiming that there is no longer significant discrimination against Black people here. This is just more of the same. Again, were not going to do any better than this, so lets leave it.
Quoting AmadeusD
Not odd. I thought you might think I was using this to undermine your argument. Apparently not.
Quoting AmadeusD
Thats disingenuous. Youre being cute, my man. You said:
Quoting AmadeusD
Assuming Im doing my math correctly, which is by no means certain, this comes to fewer than 800 incarcerations a year in the US out of a total of about 60,000.
This link indicates that the federal incarceration rate for all crimes for transgender people is about the same as their prevalence in society.
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Trans-Incarceration-Violence-Oct-2016.pdf
Quoting AmadeusD
For the purposes of my calculations above, I assumed this was correct, although Im skeptical. That information is not available for the US. Can you provide the documentation for the UK?
Quoting AmadeusD
I wrote:
Quoting T Clark
This is literally, obviously, and unarguably true.
My view of "rights" is that the word means something important and just reducing them to regular law loses an important distinction. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a law, but even if it weren't, we still understand the right to be treated equally predates 1964. We don't say the same thing regarding the Trump tax changes, as if the right to certain write offs existed before they were passed.
We (the US and it's ilk) have a hybrid church/state system, which is an Enlightenment contrivance, designed to end theocracratic rule but to otherwise compromise by allowing continued appeals to heaven. You either look at this compromise as protecting the sacred or just a pragmatic annoyance to appease those still clinging to their Bibles.
My point: The rights you shun are those remnants of theocratic rule, where the distinction between law and morality didn't exist. All came from God. Your position is the final cleansing of the divine from the system, leaving us with nothing but laws, written declarations of men and women.
My position is the full collapse into the secular isn't in order, but there is something morally commanded, and should the lawmakers legislate its opposite, the positive law will violate the natural law and should not stand.
Intertwining the moral with the law is not just a bothersome vestige from our past, but exists because it retains independent value worth preserving.
I think "human rights" as referred to in this thread are largely a creation of the Enlightenment. I don't view them as being significant in law or morality before the late Renaissance.
Regardless, if natural law as conceived of by the ancients is considered the basis for morality I don't believe it provides for a morality based on entitlements. Instead, it provides that we have obligations towards one another. For example, the Roman jurist Ulpian considered a slave to have a status contrary to nature. That's not to say that an enslaved person has a right to be free; it means it's unnatural for a person to be a save. According to natural law, we're obliged to act in certain ways, not others.
Whether you view them as significant or not, you know what they are, you know what trans people are asking, so you can analyze these rights requests and agree or disagree whether they are human rights as defined. You dismissing human rights as real pretty much dismisses their entire argument. "Trans rights aren't human rights because they don't exist" is the same as "No". I don't think you want to do that, so what would you tell a trans person about their requests for rights as listed in the OP?
Quoting Ciceronianus
I believe natural law is universal and a close enough replacement for 'human rights' under the thread.
Quoting Ciceronianus
A trans person would agree that their requested rights are an obligation people have towards them, and they would also agree that a large point in saying they are human rights, is that their rights request is a universal obligation. Would it be sufficient to replace 'Human rights" with "Natural law"? If that is the case, do you believe all of their requests fit natural law, or would you tell them to drop the idea of rights completely?
This is... a difficult comparison to make. "Gender Dysphoria" and "being trans" are not one and same. It's perfectly possible to enjoy being homosexual; to enjoy gender dysphoria is... difficult at best. Transitioning, for example, is supposed to reduce the symptoms of dysphoria, and if it doesn't it turns out to have been a bad idea. Conversly, if you think you're trans, but you're not, and you transition, you might induce dysphorie (which could be a surprising feeling you didn't ever understand you could have.)
There are two things at issue here: a trans person's relationship to their own body, and a trans person's relationship to their social environment. There are various "reference groups" that matter to a trans person, and they might have incompatible demands. That includes local activists. You're navigating a difficult area: you "know" you're in the wrong body, but there are things that don't bother you. However, if you send incongruent images to your social environment, you're going to increase social discomfort. What's worse is that, even if your social environment is mostly supportive and you're fine with sending incongruent signals (i.e. a transwoman with a beard), you might experience pressure from activists to conform to the gender-expectations of your target gender. I've heard about trans people being pressured into voice lessons. The activist justification was, at least on one occasion, that a transwoman who talks like a man "makes their job harder".
Basically, trans people might have the problem that decreasing their bodily discomfort comes at the cost of increasing their social discomfort. Some trans people might prefer to suffer their bodily discomfort over suffering the social discomfort - this sometimes leads to stopping hormone therapy, or reverse surgery. Studies who look at detranstioning often throw these cases in with "mistakes".
Finally, "social discomfort" doesn't always come from "hate": it can be as simple as fatigue from having to explain themselves over and over and over again. It may be easier for them to "lie": to pretend to be cis. If you're miserable either way, you might walk the path of least resistance.
So what amount of suffering a particular person considers acceptable, bearable, inevitable, etc. varies among personalties. It's hardly a surprise that activists have a compartively low acceptance threshold, and when you don't learn to accept stuff, it becomes harder to bear stuff, too.
Take the bathroom/locker room issue: activists want the (civil) right for trans people to go into their respective bathrooms. Alongsides the civil rights issue, they also desire social acceptance. But social acceptance doesn't come easy. For many trans people the current solution is simple: avoid public bathrooms, drink less before or while going out, etc. For other trans people? Just choose the bathroom where you draw the least attention. Without gaining social acceptance, I personally think the civil right isn't going to get used much. And the people who do use the civil rights are going often not going to be representable for larger population.
Now, back to "gender dysphoria". I wish I knew fully how the term is currently used. Is social discomfort part of "dysphoria" as currently diagnosed? Is there, internationally, some sort of coherence in how we diagnose dysphoria? I'd say the lessening of social discomfort would let you focus on bodily discomfort and how to deal with that, also with less misgivings about unintended social side-effects. Would it even be possible to differentiate between bodily and social discomfort (given the possibility of psychosomatic issues, for example)?
Take this:
Quoting Philosophim
Imagine a burn victim with badly damaged skin on their hand getting a transplant and stroking that part of their hand again and again again, because they can't believe it's really them. Something that bothered them is suddenly gone. I have no problem believing people when they say it's not sexual.
That said the "breathing heavily" part is suspicious. I'm not sure whether I'd have described the scene the same way had I been there, but I have no problem believing stuff like this happens. I also have no problem believing that stuff normally restricted to private settings happening in public. If you're basically "on the tray" all the time anyway, many people will either go into hiding or lose their sense of shame. I'd expect this sort of behaviour to become rarer with more acceptence (I may be right/I may be wrong).
*****
I'll probably regret making this post eventually. Even ten years ago, it would have been easier to talk about these issues, where "easier" doesn't imply "easy". To boot, I'm currently not in the best mental state (nothing to do with the topic of this thread: simply changes both at home and at my job, and I'm the nervous type who relies on habit a lot...). I'll try to reply to any reply to my post, but if I don't... it's likely not personal.
Youre right. Just keep in mind what my post was in response to. Other posters were using the fact that gender dysphoria is considered a mental illness to undermine claims to their rights. Just claiming some characteristic is a mental illness does not justify discrimination.
Dawnstorm
In the past, enjoying being a homosexual was probably also difficult at best. How much of the difficulty associated with being transgender comes from how these people are treated in our society? I dont know enough about this to have a strong opinion, although I dont really think its relevant to the question at hand.
Quoting Dawnstorm
What does any of this have to do with whether
transgender people deserve human and civil rights?
Quoting Dawnstorm
Correct. Transition is a coping strategy to deal with gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria is not mere discomfort, it is life destroying discomfort. This in the past was diagnosed for people who could not hold jobs or had severe mental problems and social issues due to it. It has been loosened for some to 'mild discomfort', much like autism has become 'an autism spectrum'. On one hand some will say this serves people with minor difficulties for better quality of life. Others may say this expands the number of patients a doctor and psychologist can make money off of. I leave you to judge which.
A 'trans' individual is someone who delights in taking on aspects of the opposite sex and is driven to it by excitement, lust, or the thrill of it. They desire to embody this so much that they are driven to take hormones and surgery to fulfil this desire. However, the only way you can get insurance to fund your transition is if you are diagnosed with gender dysphoria. Trans activists want to loosen these medical rules and allow those who desire to transition to have it paid for by the medical services of that country.
Quoting Dawnstorm
What you'll have to take here is whether I am a trustworthy and honest person. I can tell you that I am, and I would never dare accuse someone of being sexually explicit without due cause. I'm also not averse to healthy sexual displays in public by either sex. I am not a prude. If someone merely got a minor thrill out of wearing a dress, I wouldn't even mention it.
This was explicit, a moment that should be kept in the bedroom that no one ever should have seen. You should check out the 'transbien' movement. These are men who sexually cannot see themselves with another woman unless they view themselves as a woman first. I know one who had a lesbian porn addiction for years until they confessed they could no longer envision themselves as a man with another woman, but had to be a woman themselves.
Read Phil Illy's book online "Autoheterosexual". Most straight men who transition have a 'gender euphoric' drive which is sexual at its core for wanting to transition. I actually have nothing against this, but I do have everything against lying about it. It doesn't excuse inappropriate public behavior like wanting to be in women's locker rooms as they dress naked in front of you. We need to be aware most straight trans individuals are driven to it by eroticism, which may very well be an innate form of sexuality like being gay. But this needs to be recognized and understood that it does not make you an actual woman, or a right to access women's personal spaces.
Quoting Dawnstorm
Please don't. Its important that we talk about things like this. Talking about experiences and ideas isn't evil. Its how we think, learn, and grow. The restriction of ideas and the limiting of our ability think and grow is what we should regret.
That's the question, yes. But notice that bodily issues might go away with transition while the social problems won't go away. That is a trans person with dysphoria I would generally expect to want to become a trans person without dysphoria. (Some might be proud of their endurance or something? People come in all types.) For some people transitioning might come with too high a cost, and they might prefer not to transition. That's a topic about means and goals. But dysphoria is always a cost. That's the "dys-" in "dysphoria".
Quoting T Clark
Little probably. I went off on a pet-topic I suppose. On the topic of rights, I generally follow the position that says rights that nobody grants don't exist, but if you see a right you want you can advocate for it. The Declaration of Human Rights is something I support in principle, not because I think humans have them simply by human, but because I suspect acting as-if makes the world a better place. I'm a social relativist and social constructivist.
As for the topic at hand: my reading isn't whether trans people deserve human rights. They do because they're human. It's, I think, whether the status of being trans is meaningful when it comes to human rights. If we go by the Maslow pyramid, I'm thinking few people would deny them physical needs and safety (and even fewer would admit to it). Things get dicier when it comes to the love and belonging tier, but it's still fairly uncontrovial, I think. Note that problems do show up on these levels, but I don't think those are the problematic topics.
I think it's esteem and self-actualisation that are at the centre of the discussion here. And my position here is that trans-people deserve esteem and self-actualisation as trans people. But I also think you can be wrong about being trans, and that - for example - inducing dysphoria by transitioning would be a fairly good indicator of that.
Non-gender-conforming cis people are a thing, too. Being non-gender-conforming does not make you trans.
Quoting Philosophim
I'm with you this far.
Quoting Philosophim
I judge this not mutually exclusive. Probably both - but to what extent and where? "I leave you to judge with," sounds like rhetoric interested to set up two teams for I game I don't want to play.
Quoting Philosophim
If my intuition is fine: I have no reason to judge you as dishonest. I believe that's what you've seen. And I believe you have good reason to interpret what you've seen as you do (see the part of my post above about "heavy breathing"). I also believe you could still be wrong, and this is not personal, I as constantly second-guess even myself like that. One reason why I tend to drop out of debates is because I loose my footing: if the other has a clear and steadfast opinion I've already lost a game I never wanted to play, if that makes sense. See my above comment about about "I leave you to judge which." This is the type of rhetoric that makes me... cautious. (Also if I catch myself doing it, and I'm sure I don't always catch myself. You're lucky not to see what I don't post...)
Do you understand where I come from?
In any case, "transbien" is something I've never heard of; I'm curious.
This, however, has me suspicious:
Quoting Philosophim
Not that it exists. That's hardly a surprise. But most? It doesn't fit the image I got from people I talk to online at all. It feels like an overgeneralisation, and this is where I wouldn't take your word (or Illy's, if that's what they're saying). But I also don't feel confident in my ability to research this from a chair in front of a screen. I certainly don't have the facts.
But:
Quoting Philosophim
This is where my position is difficult to explain. First, I don't take it as a given that "most straight trans individuals are driven by eroticism". However, I won't rule out that it's a factor that disproportionally shows up in people who would take advantage of "the right to your bathroom", while you're avarage less activistic/performative trans person would still avoid public bathrooms.
This is a case of policy not having the intended effect, but the ensuing social visibility helping to spread a "most trans people are driven by eroticism" stereotype. I've been reading biological papers a couple of years ago, and it was hard going. I think the topic is too contentious currently, and while we might have actually good data, it's very hard for me to figure out who to trust when I don't have the expertise. I'm not interested in playing hobby biologist.
I do have a degree in sociology, but it's about 25 years old now, and I've been a sociologist in the mean time. (As it happens, by now I'm more knowledgable in linguistics than sociology.) Here I have the problem of knowing too much and not being willing to expend the effort I know I would take. Unlike biology, the effort would likely be fruitful, though.
So should I speak of the topic at all?
I'll declare my bias as this: I overwhelmingly think trans people should have the abstract right to excrete in public places without much trouble, just like cis people have by default. I do not know how to accomplish this pragmatically. I worry that a civic right to bathroom choice would end up having an adverse effect, at least in the current climate. But I also worry that saying this out loud will encourage backlash that I don't want to encourage. And I think that most bathroom-yes-no discourse is ideological posturing, which I'm not interested in.
Finally, I also think that cis-women being uncomfortable with trans-women in what they consider their space is something that should be taken seriously, but on the realisation that they have a "safe bathroom" in the first place, which trans people almost always lack.
What to do? The person who figures this out deserves a Noble Prize for Peace, IMO:
Fair enough. I don't know enough to go either way on this one. Not mutually exclusive, but which one weighs more heavily? I don't know.
Quoting Dawnstorm
More than fair. I think the more important part is to consider what I've said in a polite conversation. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, nor should they. If I know I've not always been correct in life, how arrogant would I have to be to think someone else would think I should be. :)
Quoting Dawnstorm
Certainly. Two independent studies that I've read have around 70-80% of straight men who desire to transition hold an erotic view of embodying womanhood. And I again I want to emphasize: I have nothing against this. Many people do, which is why I have to state this explicitly more than once. /askAGP reddit is a good source, Debbie Haton, and Phil Illy cites his sources. All easy things to look up online if you're interested. To be clear, gay men who want to transition do not have an erotic focus on womanhood. They tend to transition for different reasons, usually an extreme uncomfortableness with being gay. They also want to transition early as they exhibit 'girlish behavior' as a child. Further research shows that around 80% of kids with gender dysphoria who do not transition by age 18, end up being gay. Generally straight men who transition do not exhibit girlish behavior prior to puberty, only gain interest in it after puberty, and are the primary orientation of transitioners later in life like 40+.
I encourage you to do your own research of course. I could troll the internet for this, but its a bit of time and I feel not in the spirit of this thread anyway.
Quoting Dawnstorm
To be clear, I am not saying this as a stereotype. This is what I concluded after researching the issue in depth over the past few years. I have no skin in the game. If I'm wrong and it could be demonstrated, I would recant this without issue. It is simply a fact to me, nothing more.
Quoting Dawnstorm
Yes. I think we enrich each other by hearing each other viewpoints on the subject, even if they're 'wrong'. Genuine conversation, even if it doesn't come to a conclusion, allows a place to process and hear things that one would not consider in their own head. So thank you for your viewpoint!
Quoting Dawnstorm
I mean, I agree. To me the issue is clear. Gender is a social construct. Bathrooms are divided by sex, not social constructs. Use the bathroom of your sex. I see no rational argument to show any other conclusion. If it bothers a trans gendered person, get over it. This isn't to be cruel, I would say this in any similar abstract situation. If a white person really wanted to be black, and asked to have black scholarships and be let into black clubs and be recognized as black, get over it. There are certain realities and limitations in life that we have no right to, and getting upset because you don't have the right to is not a reason to suddenly give you that right.
Trust me, I've tried multiple times in my head to justify it, and I just can't. Part of posting here was hoping to get a conversation going and perhaps see another viewpoint that I missed. Unfortunately the limitation of speech on trans gender issues years ago has dulled the brains of many, and they are unable to open their mind to actually think about the issue. Thus the overly emotional drama on both sides. My hope is by talking about it normally and everyone realizing, "Oh, its ok to just talk about it," we can get people to calm down a little and have some normal conversations. This conversation with you was a normal conversation. :) Much appreciated.
You seem to want me to declare whether I believe rights I don't think exist ("human rights") include certain rights which, if they are "human rights," I would likewise believe don't exist. That's an odd request. I'm not sure how to respond.
To the extent I can understand the OP in its enumeration of various so-called "rights," those said to be claimed by transgenders involve drivers licenses and other documents, use of bathrooms, use of certain clothing, and medical treatment aligned with gender identity.
Unless some legal right applies, I don't think that I have a right to use a bathroom I prefer. I don't think I have a right to be identfied in a particular way in any license or other document. I don't think I have a right to dress as I please, for any reason. I don't think I have a right to medical treatment of any kind.
Unless a legal right right applies, I don't think anyone has such rights. I don't care whether they're called "human rights" or anything else.
Well, here's where differ: I do not think bathrooms are "divided by sex." I believe this is surface rhetoric. Bathrooms themselves are social constructs. And bathrooms being "divided by sex," means that bathrooms are gendered: there are bathrooms for girls and bathrooms for boys and unisex bathrooms. Gendering bathrooms is, first and foremost, something we're doing. Something we're used to doing. Something ingrained in our daily praxis. Gendering bathrooms is social behaviour.
So what detail level of sexual facts do you require for gendering bathrooms? Stalls and toilets, for example, are usable by both male and female anatomies. A urinal is quite a bit harder to use with a female anatomy. So here we run up against physical limitations. But that's not quite all. Where I live toilet stalls for girls often have garbage bins that toilets for boys don't. Why? Used tampons need to go somewhere, and they tend to clog toilets. Biology has these effects. However, urinals don't prevent girls from using toilet stalls, and garbage bins would be useful in toilets for boys, too. So while some biology invites different equipment, separate spaces are not biologically necessary.
If inquire into why spaces are separated we get various arguments based on human behaviour: safety and hygiene are the most common arguments I hear. Stuff like modesty/embarrassment/nakedness etc. are not usually talked about as much, but - I feel - often implied. I find the comparison to saunas interesting; they seem to be often mixed without problems: but there are two important differences: while nearly everyone uses public toilets, using saunas is far more optional. And the taboo nature of excreting heightens feeling of shame, which is absent with saunas.
I see no inherent biological reason to gender places of excretion in a penis/vagina way and even less reason to differentiate for genotype (which seems to be the current last bastion for "bathrooms are sexed, not gendered".)
To make my position clear: sexual facts applied in social contexts is always gendered. That includes biology: the way we organise the facts to make sense of them could be different. But biological facts do set boundries of what is likely to be successful. So empirical research is going to be far more strict than socially structured excretion.
A lot of things tag onto the facts we order into "male"/"female" categories: a lot of them are at least partly learned. What you expect, what you fear, what you feel comfortable with and what you don't. And a lot depends on everyday routine conduct. Every day routine conduct is not something people like to question, because everyday life becomes much more difficult to navigate if you do. As such, ways to avoid questioning the obvious include surface rhetoric like "bathrooms are divided by sex." Smart people are good at building elaborate justifications that work out logically. But these elaborate legitimisations, too, are constructs, and not ones likely to be shared with trans people - or me, for that matter.
Now I'm a cis male and use bathrooms for boys without a second thought. I neither know or care if I ever shared a bathroom with a trans man. As a result, this is not an issue that intimately impacts me. Which also means that I'm talking from an easy place. I can question the status quo with little problem, because a change won't impact me personally at all. Meanwhile, having to enter places I'm not welcome in is far more relatable and that serves as a personal bias guiding my sympathies.
So, yeah, gender is not just expected behaviour; gender runs deep. It's common interpretation patterns. It's often unacknowleded expectations on when sexual facts are supposed to be relevant, what facts are of prime importance (during my lifetime I've seen a shift from genitals to genes in frequency - call that anecdote), and how generally you integrate sexual facts into your life.
Finally a thought experiment:
Does Ms Pacman have a female biology? My personal take (in worldbuilding terms; I know Ms Pacman is just pixels... or scan lines... depending on the technology) is that Pacmen reproduce by mitosis (when you've eaten enough you get an extra life, no?). This is only partly a joke. I think this topic reveals how important gender is in daily life - even in the absence of biological facts (even in in-world expectations). Introducing gender into Pacman games is unmotivated in biology. It's more motivated in the bathroom discussions (urinal, for example), and it's most motivated in empirical biological research. But it's a gradiant, and gender is always relevant.
There's always going to be problem when technical terms escape into the wild; they change, become less stable, a their usefulness becomes much more a matter of personal bias. And personal bias is inevitable. So it goes.
They might or they might not go away. Again, I think the situation could be considered analogous to that for gay people. Although the problems are not gone, social acceptance has improved.
Sure, just a logic check on the claims I made in the OP. Fully ok to say, "I don't believe in X, but I see that this meets or does not meet the terms of X."
Quoting Ciceronianus
Fair enough. Seems you don't believe in any particular rational moral structure independent of law, so this is a logically consistent answer.
This got me thinking about changing rooms in various gyms I've been in. None of them have been mixed, and women have complained about the presence of biological men, as in this story:
https://www.newsweek.com/gym-chain-center-tish-hyman-dispute-flooded-negative-reviews-10989692
This is also an issue in school locker rooms. Girls, understandably, are not always comfortable with biological boys being around them while they're changing.
That's interesting. It may be due to a difference of gender definition. For most of the life of the term gender it was a synonym for 'sex'. Probably about 60 years ago there was an introduction to create a new meaning from gender. This meaning of gender is 'Non biological social expectation from a particular sex."
So what does this mean? We know from biology that on average, men are taller than women. Can an individual man be shorter than a woman? Sure. This is biological expectation, not gender expectation. Gender is when society places cultural actions on a biological sex that have nothing to do with their biological sex. So for example, "Women wear dresses". Is there anything innately biological in a woman wearing a dress? No. Its purely a cultural construct of subjective expectation.
A trans gendered individual is not a trans sexual individual. It is an individual of one sex that does not like the cultural expectation of their sex. So they might be a man who likes to wear dresses, or a woman who likes to wear top hats. Or perhaps a man believes that only women stay at home and take care of the house while men have to work. So he lets his wife work and stays at home.
Bathrooms are not gendered. They are divided by sex. Urinals are designed for the biology of males, not females. The privacy is afforded each sex because there is also more than urination and excrement, but menstruation from women. Not to mention that there is nudity and clothing removal to take care of biological needs. One does not go into the bathroom to affirm that one is male or female, they use the bathroom because they are male or female.
The trans gendered community wants to argue that enacting the cultural expectation of the other sex gives them the right to be in spaces divided by sex. So if a man wears a dress, feels like a woman, and acts in a cultural way that he believes women aught to act, that he should be allowed in the women's bathroom, lockers, sexual abuse centers, and jails. This male can be fully intact and not on hormones.
Quoting Dawnstorm
So this is an incorrect view of gender within gender theory. Gender and sex are completely different meanings. Meaning you can have division based on sex differences, and based on gender differences. Anything based on biological differences is a sex differentiated situation that is not cultural. For example, getting a prostate exam. Since only men have prostates, the exclusion from females getting the exam is not a cultural difference, but a reasonable one based purely on biological ones.
The issue with many trans gendered individuals is they are likely unintentionally applying sexual differences as cultural expectations. Either that, are they are really trans sexuals and desire to have the cross sex access without the need to take hormones or have surgery. And of course there are always bad actors who want to cross these spaces for duplicitous, malicious, or perverted reasons. I want to be clear I do not think this is the majority, but it must be recognized they exist.
Quoting Dawnstorm
True and well said. I hope my point is based on rational argumentation and not merely bias or lazy thinking. The key is when we start saying things about rights and laws, we have to be very specific and accurate with definitions.
Quoting Dawnstorm
Same, I really appreciate your humbleness and self-awareness in this.
Quoting Dawnstorm
Its light hearted, but your point is well stated. Its interesting to think about what people feel. Some people might view Ms. Pacman as 'biologicaly female' as in 'female pac-creature'. Some people may feel that there is no separated sex intent between the two creatures, and that the only difference is that one wears a bow while the other doesn't. In the same way, it may be possible that humans view 'man and woman' in similar fashion sometimes. I personally cannot view a person in any other way than biology. If you pointed at the blue sky and told me it wasn't blue, I could no more unsee the blue sky than view a man or woman as a biologically distinct person. But, it may be that there are people who do not see biology, and generally only see cultural actions as their primary view of 'man or woman' and legitimately could swap them out in their mind without any compunction.
I think though that my viewpoint is the norm. When Mulan was found to be female, no one said, "Oh, well you were a man, but now you're only a woman because we made you wear a dress." Its an odd way of thinking that doesn't seem quite right.
Hello RogueAI! To bring it to the OP, do you believe that it is a human right that a person's gender allow someone to enter cross sex spaces? That if a woman is uncomfortable with this, she is against a human right?
No, I think women have a well deserved fear of biological men. I think they have a human right to some traditional women-only spaces and sports. This is easy to do in sports, but incredibly difficult to legislate wrt bathrooms and changing rooms. Suppose you have a biological woman who has transitioned to a man and looks like a man. Do we want him to have to use the ladies bathroom/changing room? And vice-versa? On the other hand, if a biological man is walking around the PlanetFitness women's locker room with his junk hanging out, the ladies have a right to complain.
What is this human right?
Quoting RogueAI
I personally don't mind. I had an encounter with a trans gender woman years ago in the male bathroom and it was fine. I think the case here is whether a person can identify the trans person as their natal sex. A person could disguise themselves as an employee and go 'behind the counter', behave like an employee, then leave without anyone knowing. But is that right? If someone can disguise themselves (trans gender, not trans sexual) as the opposite sex, does it make it ok for them to use opposite sex spaces?
Ah, but I do believe in a rational moral structure apart from the law. I don't make the all too common mistake of equating one with the other, though.
Structure? What kind of structure?
Yes, a few had implied this equation, but you never did. Human and natural rights are rational moral structures apart from the law. Is yours something similar or is it a unique system? If similar we could address it, but if its unique that might be too much to tackle in this thread.
I'm not sure how to reply. After thinking this through, I'm not sure I understood you right. Are you talking about the results of a social justice movement? I was talking about the effects of a single personal transition and the results on that individuals life in the portion you quoted. But even then I was simplifying far too much (there's "being able to pass" vs "a perceived pressure to pass" - there's a tension field here or not, depending on the trans person's personality. I've lost track and I'm confused. I apologise.
Quoting RogueAI
Yes, that is one of the situations where empathy tears me apart inside and I dispair. In my darker hours I just think people deserve each other. Not all the time, I'm getting there more often than not lately.
I can't side with anyone here. Not with the trans woman, not with the lady, not with the gym. At the same time I realise it's a difficult situation. Given my personality: If I'd been the woman, I'd likely have been uncomfortable, too, but I'd have kept my head down. If I'd been the trans-person, I'd not have been there in the first place, and if for some reason circumstance would have driven me there, I'd have tried to be as inconspicable as possible, which wouldn't have been very inconspicable. If I were an employee present at the time, I'd be physically sick while being faced with firm policy, and two people fighting it out without giving a quarter.
This is stand-your-ground territory, and I tend to choose flight over fight whenever possible. It's people who choose fight over flight that tend to make headlines like these. And then people line up on either side of the fence, and that's what dominates the discourse. We're doomed, I tell you. Dooooooomed.
(Sorry, I'm better now.)
Quoting Philosophim
This seems too crude a term to be analytically useful if the goal is to understand what's going on within the wide area on gender-non-conformism. For example, intersex is a biological condition, but it doesn't easily fit the expectations we have about bodies. Our society doesn't really provide easy categories and thus they're "deviant bodies". That implies a social role.
So on to "transgender":
Quoting Philosophim
I know you make that distinction, but it's a difficult one to make, because the terms aren't clear. There are people who are trans who use the terms like you do here, for sure. There are people who are trans who have no use for the term gender to being with. There are people who are trans who reject that they can ever be tanssexual, no matter how much they'd like to be; the latest reasoning (read by doing research while reading this thread, but I didn't keep a link) was that "they can only tinker with their phenotype; their genotype they have no control over").
I dispense with the distinction because I don't find it useful. Also simply cross-dressing does not make you trans. You lose a distinction here that is socially meaningful:
A cis woman who wears a dress, is the default expectation. It's unexceptional. Women these days don't stand out (at least not where I live) for wearing jeans and t-shirt instead. That's very common, too, so these days it's a "can-norm".
Every other constellation is aware that what they're doing shirks gender expectations. The model above would suggest you lump them all in the same category: people who are not biologically female yet still like to wear a dress are all trans. They're not. They're all aware that they shirk some sort of gender expectation, but their motivation and behaviour potential vastly differs:
A cis man can wear a dress for many reason. It could be a sign of rebellion. He could just like wearing dresses. It could be the outgrowth of an interest in haute couture... He'll generally not try to pass as a woman, though, unless he's into trolling.
A trans woman who wears a dress, wears the clothes of the gender she feels like. It could be what she wants to do, or maybe she'd prefer to wear her usual attire, but thinks that would make it harder for people to accept her chosen gender. Maybe it's peer pressure; other trans people want her to wear dresses.
More importantly, a cis man who likes to wear dresses may be at odds with a trans woman who uses wearing dresses as a signal of her felt gender. One wishes to loosen the dress code, while the other - as a side-effect, mind you - re-inforces the dress code. In places, where women are still expected to wear dresses and face censure for wearing trousers, cis women who like to wear trousers find themselves more aligned with cis men who wear dresses than with trans men who wear dresses: it's "I'm a man, and I can wear a dress if I want to," vs. "look at me, I'm wearing a dress, I'm a woman."
With the trans woman, wearing a dress also might help her "pass". That may relief the stress of having to explain yourself over and over again, but it carries the risk of being "found out". This might carry the stigma of dishonesty, even though that's not the intent. The mismatch is two-fold here: you're subjectively misgendered on account of your body, AND you're accused of a personality flaw you do not have.
A trans man who is wearing a dress is actually conforming to the expectations people have of him according to his body, and thus it's perhaps the least obvious form of shirking gender norms. I've recently learned of the term "girl moding". As long you're not close to passing you pretend to be what others think you are, but not you yourself. Once you're close to passing you may switch (or not, who knows).
It's far, far easier for me to navigate this messy situation if it's not only behaviour but also bodies that are gendered.
So:Quoting Philosophim
Yes, that's an odd way of thinking. And it's not how I think.
Quoting Philosophim
That, too. But what I'm drawn to here is that I think most people only perceive the gender and never topicalise sex to begin with. I think this might be more common in real life than we realise. I wish I could explain what I think this means in detail, but I'm unsure. It's certainly not that I think biological sex is irrelevant.
Where I do agree, I think, with @T Clark is that I do think treating the "mental condition" of being trans in the sense of "making them realise what they really are" is akin to conversion therapy for gays. But at the same time I think being trans is a real, bodily thing, and you can be wrong about being trans. And finally I don't trust that anyone currently alive knows enough about the subject to tell the difference. And that's a rather difficult postion from which to approach the subject.
[Argh, what a long post.]
If we mean 'gender is purely a social construct' then its not crude. If we intend to tie 'gender is sex', then it is crude because then gender as a definition is ambiguous and crude itself. The way to 'uncrude it' as it were is to use sex for sex based realities and expectations vs gender for gender based realities and expectations. Conflating the two in any way muddies thinking and is the wrong way to approach it.
Quoting Dawnstorm
What's important in a philosophical analysis is to pull the terms that people may use indiscriminately and carefully define them in a way that makes rational discussion possible. "Slang" is not anything we can think rationally about. To have rational thought we must first use clear and unambiguous definitions. We can clearly note that if someone uses the term in a different way, that's a different concept. So we use the term in one clear context and concept, which is gender as a social construct. In this way using gender to mean anything related to biological sex expectation is poor vocabulary, unclear thinking, and emotional subjectivity. Nothing can be reasoned with poor and unclear vocabulary. Anyone who desires something at the expense of a person's rational thinking understands this and pushes it. In philosophy we have a responsibility to clarify and pull out the emotional and ill thought out uses of terms into something clear, rational, and unambiguous. What I've noted as the definition for gender is the basis of gender theory.
Quoting Dawnstorm
If 'trans sexual' means 'fully the other sex', then no one can be trans sexual. But 'trans gender' doesn't mean, 'fully the opposite gender' either. If we are to keep the terms in similar use, trans gender is crossing gender boundaries, trans sexual is crossing sex boundaries. Anyone who alters their biology in an attempt to cross a sex boundary is a trans sexual under this definition.
This is important, because there are many trans gendered individuals who do not attempt to alter their body. They are satisfied crossing the gender divide, but not the biological sexual divide. As such the two terms create a clear distinction that covers two separate modes of thought and process without leaving anyone behind.
Quoting Dawnstorm
Correct. This is because gender can change from person to person, group to group, and culture to culture over time. It is a purely subjective notion of behavior for a person's sex. As such it holds no objective weight.
Quoting Dawnstorm
To be more accurate, they are exhibiting 'trans gender behavior'. "Trans" is a slang term. If we intend this slang term to mean, "A person who holds a trans gender identity", this would be a person who consciously chooses where possible to embody the culturally expected behaviors of the other sex while shunning the culturally expected behaviors of their own sex.
Quoting Dawnstorm
This is 'trans gendered behavior" in the eyes of the social group, while in the subjective mind of the individual, it is a rejection of the social group's idea of gender. Lets say I was raised in a family that discouraged men from being dancers because "Real men don't dance." I grow up and really like to dance. Further, I think its completely stupid that they think men can't dance. I reject the idea of gender entirely and dance. To them, its trans gender behavior. For me, its not because in my definition of 'male gender', 'not dancing' isn't part of that definition.
This is the problem with making gender into a means of law or enforcement. What one believes gender should be for each sex can be different for every single person, group, or country. It is culturally enforced prejudice or sexism. Nothing more.
Quoting Dawnstorm
No, its far, FAR messier. Keeping a clear distinction allows clear thought. Once you realize the difference between trans gender and trans sexual, you can correctly identify people's motivations. Some people truly only want trans gender situation. Other only want trans sexual situations. There are men who want to grow boobs, but behave like gendered men. There can also be blends. There are people who want to be both trans gendered, and trans sexual. Identifying which aspects are trans gender and trans sexual allow clear distinctions and greater accuracy in identifying people's situations.
Quoting Dawnstorm
I disagree with this. I think you're still blending in expected sex behavior with cultural behavior. Imagine that you see a six foot tall man who walks with a physically straight gait, has a large nose, and is wearing a dress and a bow in their hair. The dress and the bow are gender, the gait and large nose are sex features. Perhaps I am wrong, but most people will look at the sex features over the gender features every time. To be clear, a female can have a large nose and a straight gait instead of a hip sway, but biologically it is more common for men to have large noses and a straight gait. Do you see the difference between gender expectations and sex expectations?
Quoting Dawnstorm
Conversion therapy refers to sexual orientation. We know conversation therapy doesn't work because you can't change your sexual orientation. The attempt to claim "conversion therapy" is to claim the negative connotation from the word so that trans gender and trans sexual people can justify what they desire without having to do the work that went into demonstrating why changing a person's sexual orientation is doomed to fail.
Now, as I've noted above, many straight men have a sexual impetus to transition. Phil Illy's "Autosexual" book makes a great argument that this is a sexual orientation as it is lifelong and does not break. Just like a gay person has the wrong triggers for sexual attraction, a trans sexual person (all people who transition are tran sexuals by definition) are able to take the normal outside attraction they have for a woman and place it upon themselves. This is not farfetched, as there is another orientation called 'Autosexual". This is a person who is sexually and/or romantically aroused by themself. A person with this condition looks at themselves in the mirror and is physically turned on by themselves, and can fall romantically in love with themselves. A trans sexual with this orientation is essentially an auto sexual who gets the attraction trigger that they see in other women when they present themselves as a woman.
After examining all kinds of different motivations to transition, this is the only motivation I can actually see as being viable. It is something that cannot be removed from the individual as it seems to exhibit all the hallmarks of a sexual orientation. (I cannot say for sure, I am not a sexologist) If this is the case, then 'conversion therapy' would actually apply here. In the other cases in which it is non-sexually motivated, it seems to all boil down to confusion, trauma, or fear which cause transition. These all seem to me to be treatable as it wouldn't be treating a person's desire to transition, but treating the underlying issues that lead people to view transition as a coping mechanism.
I appreciate your long post! Its been a nice conversation.
I'm uncertain whether any thread so entirely devoted to claimed non-legal rights is an appropriate place to respond to your posts. That's because it should come as no surprise that such supposed rights have no place in what I think is moral conduct.
I favor a kind of virtue ethics, together with consideration of what conduct is appropriate to achieve eudamonia. It's based on ancient views concerning what is right conduct on our part rather than demands we be treated in certain ways by others. Hope that suffices for now.
Without going back and checking our previous posts, as I remember it, this whole discussion arose from me pointing out that homosexuality was once considered a mental disorder as gender dysphoria is currently. It no longer is.
I much appreciate your polite contribution to the thread! Thank you for your viewpoints.
No. We are on equal footing. Which I pointed out (I appreciate you at least meeting 1/3 of the way there). We, neither, could access good enough information to defend our positions strongly, but we both have good reason to think the way we think. There is no need to interrogate that further, given no basis for comparison could be made out in a way that would be helpful. No?
Quoting T Clark
Yeah, for sure. If you'd like, we can try to re-structure how we're talking to restrict it to Western countries/social structures/expectations.
I think my description is accurate. It may simply be that the number is still alarming for you. That's also fine. But there is clearly no large group feeling the way you say. Although, and this is definitely a bit weak, I would posit that plenty of religious people will make claims of this kind, but not actually believe it. Again, weak. Just a thought.. Most people aren't predisposed to be bigoted (in the West).
Quoting T Clark
Huh. It strikes me that (for both of those issues) that would be a good reason to sit down and talk? It can't be that both of us are right. I am interested in that, personally. Either way ,i appreciate a fully civil resolution to those exchanges. I just like to talk..
Quoting T Clark
To discuss both issues: No, i'm not being cute, and I would appreciate you resiling from the propensity to assume motivation. I said exactly what I meant to say, and it looks, based on your reply, that I was probably right. Looking at numbers in the USA as raw numbers is disingenuous. The correct metric would not be "how many". It would be two other things:
How many vs how many not (i.e how many of the group 'trans' tend to be arrested or convicted of a crime. The other, would be a control group: Non-trans males (I want to be explicitly clear: all of hte issues I could argue about when it comes to trans being in any way 'dangerous' or whatever, have to do with being male. Not trans. It is the same discussion we have to have about non-trans males. Being 'a man' doesn't give us anything to discuss in these terms).
The numbers i've looked at, for reasons that should probably be obvious, are in the UK. So, with that, i'll continue responding, but note that I may have to come back with different numbers as I'm not fully across the US situation with this exact issue.
Quoting T Clark
I appreciate that. I crunched the numbers directly from a Government prison population survey from, I think, 2022. This is all on a sticky note on my computer at home - apologies I can't simply be direct with that information. I've just done a shallow dive and re-found another doc - this (which was not my initial source, ftr), from which I can glean some pretty relevant passages:
"MOJ stats show 76 of the 129 male-born prisoners identifying as transgender (not counting
any with GRCs) have at least 1 conviction of sexual offence. This includes 36 convictions for
rape and 10 for attempted rape. These are clearly male type crimes (rape is defined as
penetration with a penis)."
"76 sex offenders out of 129 transwomen = 58.9%
125 sex offenders out of 3812 women in prison = 3.3%
13234 sex offenders out of 78781 men in prison = 16.8%"
The piece (by quote)also points out that the statistics do not count those with a GRC as trans. Which is.. legally, and socially bizarre (that's not a moral complaint. Administrative) given that several will also be part of those numbers, and given how low they are each single case is significant.
There is also addressed the problem of deceit (although, this isn't a main limb for me):
"The converse is the ever-increasing tide of referrals of patients in prison serving long
or indeterminate sentences for serious sexual offences. These vastly outnumber the
number of prisoners incarcerated for more ordinary, non-sexual, offences. It has been
rather naïvely suggested that nobody would seek to pretend transsexual status in
prison if this were not actually the case. " - British Association of Gender Identity Specialists to the Transgender Equality Inquiry (2015)
Putting aside some of the more nuanced stuff there, we can see quite clearly that I am either close to the mark, or bang on with my analysis in general(although, I clearly and unsure whether this is hte data set I used at the time so .. pinch of salt..). I really wish I had just emailed my work-self the other stuff months ago when I presented it to someone else in another thread. I apologise for that.
I acknowledge, understand and do not argue with the fact that we're talking about an extremely small population. We're talking about negligible numbers of offenders. But if those offenders, as a class, are more likely to commit these crimes we want to know and take that into account. We would for any other group which presented this way. And in fact, it's getting, socially, to the point where people are swinging back around to bigotry because of the suppression of discussion on the topic (i here think immediately of the current 'black fatigue' trend - although, I most often see that from black people, not whites). I am not saying you're doing this, I'm just taking the opportunity in conversation with someone pretty much fully civil, to say thse things.
Quoting T Clark
While I acknowledge what you're saying, and I definitely could have been clearer about where I believe you're massaging things, it is pretty damn clear that being male is the problem. Not being cisgender. Given that trans women are more likely (it seems) to commit a crime against a female, we're looking at (in some views) male + mental aberration (and potential one tied to sexuality, i guess). That all stands to reason, and there's no point mentioning 'cis gender' as it does nothing to change the categories we need.
I appreciate you.
Agreed. That says everything that needs to be said. I think weve taken this far enough now.
There also vanishingly small numbers of people kidnapping Nepalese babies for racial reasons, for torture and murder. But we wouldn't say this about that issue.
But it is all I'm interested in saying right now.
As always, you have created a thorough and thought-provoking OP. If I may, I would like to give my two cents and hear your thoughts. Out of respect for the OP, I am going to use the terminology in the ways you define them to avoid muddying the waters.
We have many points of agreement from what you said in the OP, but the central issue I have comes out to play here:
In your definition of human rights, you seem to, and correct me if I am misunderstanding, be acknowledging that rights are innate, inalienable, and grounded in the human as a human being; and this implies that rights are inherent to the nature of a human. There is something it is to be a human, of which both male and female humans have and participate in, and in virtue of this we have rights. If this is true, then what rights we have are tied and anchored in our nature as a human; and so we look at that nature to expose which rights we have and which rights we think we have but dont.
Now I would like to turn your attention to your definition of gender: a subjective social expectation of non-biological expressed behavior based on ones sex.. A right is, by your human rights definition, grounded in the nature of being a human; and the nature of a human is never subjective; so it follows from this, I think plainly by my lights, that transgender rights and cisgender rights are internally incoherent phraseology in your schema. For gender is subjective (by way of social expectations, expressions, etc.) and rights are grounded objectively (in the nature of the being); so a, e.g., transgender right would be a
This is critical to the conversation, I would say, because if this is true then we cant speak of cisgender nor transgender rights; instead, it is just human rights and every human has such rights indiscriminately of gender. This means that the idea that, e.g., I have the right to use a certain pronoun to identify myself because I am of such-and-such gender is incoherent with your view on human rights. Instead, I would, e.g., have to argue that something innate to my nature grants me the right to use a certain pronoun (although I understand you were arguing against anyone having such a right).
However, if we are acknowledging that rights are grounded in the nature of a being and this is central to what rights a transgender has; then the question arises: do all humans have the same rights as humans but not necessarily as male and female?. That is, are we merely discussing what rights both sexes of our human species share in common; or does the other aspects of their nature not get weighed in for other rights that may not be grounded in their mere human nature but rather their specific nature as a male or female? For example, do women have the right, as women, to refuse conscription but men must fight? Do they have the right to enter a female bathroom space when men dont? These are considerations that are incoherent with a view that thinks that all the rights humans have are human rights as you defined it; because it considers rights that one sex may have that the other doesnt which, by definition, will not be considered in a generic evaluation of our nature as a human instead of femaleness or maleness. I dont have the right to go in a females bathroom; but women do. The right for me to use a male bathroom is not the same right as the right for females to use female bathrooms: those are two different rights.
I appreciate the fact that you addressed the view that sees transgenderism as a mental illness; and I largely agree with your conclusions from your hypothetical entertainment of it. Heres something that is important though on that note:
You touched on this a bit in the OP; but it is important to note that bodily autonomy does not cover the right to do anything you want with your body. For example, does a suicidal person have the right to kill themselves? Does a masochist have the right to continually cut themselves to the point of risking bleeding out everyday? Does a person have the right to, in modern terms, rationally and freely decide to become a drug addict?
The point being, the critical thing that the OP skipped passed is: what are rights for?. I humbly submit, they are for allowing ourselves to have the proper ability to realize our naturesto flourishunimpeded by others. If this is true, then actions we could rationally and freely will against ourselves that are sufficiently bad for ourselves would not be covered under rights for our own protection. We would not, then, have the right dangerous immoralities that we could commit against ourselves in a rational and freely willed waye.g., drugs, gambling, pornography, masochism, suicide, etc.
The question then becomes: is it sufficiently bad for a persons well-being to try to transition to another sex when it is currently medically impossible to do?. I would say emphatically yes; as it is, I honestly think it is mutilation granted that it doesnt actually change the body from one sex into the otherwe simply dont have the technology to do that. On these grounds, I would see it like giving someone the option to do meth: thats not a right one has because it is too dangerous for themnot even in terms of the right to bodily autonomy.
Of course, I know you probably disagree with a lot of this and perhaps you evaluate well-being more in terms of modern happiness (so maybe transitioning is, under your view, not dangerous at all if happiness is central to the good-life); but my main point is that I think the OP needs to weigh in how dangerous something is for a person when calculating if the right to bodily autonomy covers it; and it needs to clarify what it thinks rights are for, as a right is a concept we developed to get at something about our nature for ethics. If it isnt for helping us flourish relative to our nature, then I would need to know what your view is viewing it as.
Cheers
I confess, I should have defined this better. It only took until page 5 for someone to read the OP in seriousness and point that out. :) What I really defined was natural rights, and assumed human rights were an off shoot of them. Turns out human rights are specific to international law, which I'm not sure is the intent of the slogan, "Trans rights are human rights". So lets do a little combo if that's fair. Human rights are rationally agreed upon rights that should be conferred to all people. The key provisions of human rights are:
Universal, non-discriminatory, equal, and ideas that we would like to respect, protect, and fill. And yes, they are human rights, not monkey rights. :)
Quoting Bob Ross
No objection. We may have to define human nature, but I think we both have a general sense of what that is for now.
Quoting Bob Ross
Are you saying that the definition of human nature can never be subjective, or that a human being's nature can never be subjective? I agree with the first part, but not the second part. Our subjective nature of thinking, feeling, and being is a living part of human experience. The subjective viewpoint of a cockroach is very different form the subjective experience of a human being.
Quoting Bob Ross
Lets replace your argument with other examples and see if it still works. Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment is often a right. But if we disregard a person's subjective experience, then we would be able to inflict immense pain on a person without a care or doubt.
But, on looking at it again, I think what you're saying is, "Can there be a human right about cultural subjective expectations?" So you're not saying anything about the personal experience of an individual, but a subjective expectation about an individual based on their sex.
To be more thorough, its also best to differentiate between biological expectation and social expectation. For example, we know by fact that men on average are taller than women. This isn't a subjective expectation, this is a statistical expectation based on biology.
So back to what I think you're saying. Lets plug it into another example. Is there a right that society should have certain subjective expectations of someone with a red hair color? It doesn't seem so. For one, everyone could technically have a different expectation of someone with red hair color. But then a right is a reasoned conclusion, and we must ask, is there a way to reason that someone should ever be showed a subjective expected viewpoint in society?
If we look at what is common to many rights, "The right for women to vote and the right to equal treatment under the law", what we see is a consistent pattern of people being free from the subjective expectations of others. Despite there being people who think women can't vote or that we should treat certain people differently under the law, rights expect us to treat each other equally in opportunity, not in expected actions or outcomes.
So then if we say, "trans gender rights" the only way for this to make sense is if there are certain human rights being denied to trans gender people simply because they are trans gendered. I think that's the only way this makes sense.
Quoting Bob Ross
Yes, with what's been brought up so far, I mostly agree. With the caveat that I think we can talk about valid trans gender rights that are attempting to remedy rights that are owed them as human beings that they are not currently receiving because they are trans gender. Asking for things separate from human rights would not be a human right, nor a valid 'trans gender right'.
Quoting Bob Ross
In common, but in common based on biology and function. Do we consider that a person who cannot walk has a particular right that a human who walks does not? Of course we would say its "All humans who cannot walk". In such a way we can say, "All humans who are men". The key here is this cannot be due to a social expectation, it must be based on the objective realities and consequences of biology. I say this as a proposal, not an assertion. I'm curious what you think here.
Quoting Bob Ross
In my view I say yes to all three. Does a person have the right to kill themselves by throwing themselves into traffic and causing a mess? No. These are all things you have the right to do in your own home. The moment your actions start to unduly impact other people's freedoms, then its no longer a right. So if I use drugs at home and bother no one, its fine. If I use drugs, get in my car and drive into another vehicle, that's not a right. But to your point, I have a subjective expectation that a person should not do that. My subjective expectation that someone shouldn't do something is not a right that should be enforced.
Quoting Bob Ross
I would argue rights are not for personal flourishing. We would have a very different society if that were the case. I feel that rights are about the freedom from other people's subjective expectation of what we should do with our own life. It is to live and die as we wish and will, be that for good, or be that for ill.
Quoting Bob Ross
You and I may differ here. If an adult wants to use meth, I say they have the right to do so. Now I want to be clear, I would not encourage or condone anyone I know to start taking meth. But they have the right to make that choice. My expectation of how they should behave does not trump their ability to decide themselves how they want to live in their own body. What I think of transitioning personally is irrelevant to whether someone should have the right to do so.
Nice to see an actual breakdown of the OP Bob!
Apologies for the belated response: I meant to respond yesterday but ran out of time ):
I think we will need to dive into what a nature and human nature is; because, to me, the idea that human rights would be necessarily, in principle, universal amongst humans is incoherent with the idea that, in principle, rights are grounded in human nature. This is because human nature is not a real nature: (human) femaleness and (human) maleness are human natures that exist within our species. The species itself is an abstraction; and, likewise, human nature is an abstraction of the subset of essential properties that (human) males and (human) females share; but the fullness of the real nature that a male or female have is broader than that. In principle, there is nothing restricting rights to only what can be grounded in what each share. Again, why should be believe that two beings of different natures should have the same exact rightsand not just a subset of shared rightsin virtue of their personhood? Perhaps you are open to the possibility of different rights that persons of different natures could have such that they dont share all the same rights with other persons of different natures; but that, perhaps, there simply arent any meaningful differences between them that, in actuality, would warrant different rights. If so, then I would ask you to elaborate more on that.
So you know where I am coming from, I am an essentialist: I think there is a whatnessviz., what it is to be this particular thing contrary to another thingthat real objects (e.g., cars, roads, humans, cockroaches, trees, iron, etc.) have intrinsically. In my case, I account for it with form realism: I think there is a unification, actualization principle of things in matter which provide its innate intelligibility (of what kind of thing it is). Someone else may account for it, for example, by suggesting that each type of thing is that type in virtue of exhibiting some essential set of properties (as opposed to having a unification principle that provides it) and, so, anything that has that set of properties is that type of thing. Admittedly, if one takes the latter route, then it could follow that human nature is real; because things could embody multiple natures as a mere collection or aggregate of parts that exihibit different but compatible sets of essential properties (e.g., Bob having brown hair and being a human exhibits both the nature of brownness and humanness). In my case, since the form provides the whatness, I would say that the real essence is embodied in its form, in the fullness of its essence, and this entails that, for humans, their form is what provides their intelligibility as the kind of thing that is a human; and this form is male or femaleso human nature is an abstraction of what the two forms have in common. In simple words, I dont think it is possible for their to be a human being that embodies a real nature of humanness that is neither male nor female (and I say this knowing about intersex people); but the counter would be obviously that nothing embodies natures in a real way like I am describing if forms are not real or they are a set of essential properties something embodies.
My main point would be: why should we believe that the part of female and male nature that is shared between them is all that we look at to determine their rights if rights are natural?
So, for me, a nature is an essence; which is what provides what it is to be this kind of thing as opposed to a different kind of thing; and it can be real (viz., innate and intrinsic as embodied in the being itself: essence realism) or not real (viz., conceptually used by our minds to help categorize similar things: nominalism). To me, valid essences are real and embodied in virtue of the form of a being. So the form, which is the self-actualizing principle of the body that provides it with its whatness (viz., the simple I that guides the material processes of the body, which is called a soul) is what counts as the real nature of the given human; and this nature is never generically human. Moreover, that nature is embodied in the being independently of what they feel or think about it; so it is stance-independently existenthence objective.
You bring up a good point: what about the subjective experience we have? Isnt that a part of our nature? Yes, but our subjective experience we have is not itself identical to our nature that provides us with being a type of thing that has subjective experience. To be fair, this is where the differences between essence being a set of properties vs. form get impactful. In my view, your form provides you with being the kind of being that will, under the right circumstances, develop into a being that has experience; but for set theoriests, for lack of a better term, the being doesnt have that nature until it exhibits the set of essential properties; so if one thinks that having consciousness is essential to being human, then anyone who isnt currently conscious is not human.
The main point would be that the nature one has is not dependent on the subjective stance you take on it; and thats all I mean here by objectivity. I understand, if I remember correctly, you use the terms to distinguish between the qualitative experience we have (viz., subjectivity) and what we are experiencing (viz., objectivity); and I think that schema holds much merit in the context of many discussions, and I agree with you that our nature includes being a subject.
So, I would say that the nature itself is not identical to the experience we have; our nature entails that we will have such an experience (all else being equal). We do need to consider, to your point, the sensible aspect of our nature, as well as the nutritive and rational aspects, but this is irregardless of if someone is realized sufficiently at their nature. For example, to counter your example, imagine I could drug someone so they wont feel the pain in your scenario: does that mean I have sidestepped the moral consideration that they are sensibility that are being violated? I wouldnt say so. I would be purposefully depriving them of feeling which is a privation of their nature; so it is immoral (and I say this knowing that this may sound strange, but by purposeful I mean directly intentional: I may intend to deprive them of feeling as a side effect of the means towards some good end [such as numbing them for surgery to save their life]).
This is one of my main points: if gender is solely a social expectation, then it has no objective grounding (i.e., it isnt a social expectation about the real nature of a beinglike your biological expectation examples); and this means that all social expectations are irrational and immoral. If I expect you to behave some way out of pure subjective feelings or thoughts I have, with no underlying basis in reality, then I am being irrational and immoral because I am viewing you as having an obligation towards submitting to my own feelings are baseless thoughts. This is the consequence of modern gender theory as you outlined in in the OP: gender becomes something which we cant even talk about gender rights, because those would be just be rights we grant based off of social expectations that have no basis in reality (in objectivity). I understand thats not what you are really conveying, but thats the consequence of defining the terms in the way it is defined in the OP (by my lights).
Agreed.
Are you saying here that the only aspects of male and female biology that matter for consideration of rights is their rational will or intellect? I am not following how the biological and functional differences of women and men wouldnt be, in principle, taken into account when discussing rights.
Another major difference, I suspect between us, is that I would say that social expectations and obligations can be, if done right, grounded in the real natures of humans; so the biology and function of a male or female does legitimately lead to different social roles between them that are grounded in biology and function. Whereas, in the OP, if I am understanding correctly, the social roles would just always be purely inter-subjective.
I see now you are very libertarian (:
I would briefly note that goodness is the equality of a things essence and existence; so ethics, for me, is going to be centralized around helping realize natures and not the freedom to make choices. I think the main difference here in what you said and my view is that you seem to believe that freedom to make choices (not withstanding you perhaps trying to talk people out of doing bad things or it harming other people) is what freedom truly is about; and I deny this. This is the difference between whats called freedom of indifference and freedom for excellence. I dont think freedom fundamentally consists in being about to choose between options; but, rather, consists in a state of being that is most conducive to flourishing.
To really contrast these, lets rope God into this (;
If freedom is about being able to choose from options (especially contraries), then God is the kind of being that is the most unfree being that could possibly exist because He cannot do evil (and in some views, like mine, He cannot do anything contrary to what is the best option); whereas, if freedom is about being in the best state of being to realize and act in accord with your nature, then God is the kind of being that is the most free being that could possibly exist because He is unimpeded by anything else as a pure intellect, has perfect knowledge of what is good, and has no conative aspect of His being (like the possibility of vices, appetites, etc. overcoming the rational wille.g., I really think I should workout, but I really dont feel like it).
You can see here how utterly incompatible the modern metaphysic of freedom is to the traditionalist metaphysic.
Freedom for excellence suggests that humans are more free the more virtues they cultivate, the less vices they have, the more knowledge of what is good they have, and the more their environment is setup for their good (viz., their realization and maintenance of their nature as a human); whereas, freedom of indifference would suggest that humans are more free the more options they can choose from without being coerced either way, so this will look like humans being the most free in a society that leaves them do their own devices.
In my view, because I take a different view of freedom, it makes someone less free to give them even the mere option to take hard drugs; and this is bad for them because it makes them less capable of realizing their nature.
Perhaps you would say that even if freedom is in either way expounded above, that we should be able to choose to do evil; and I agree, but not to the detriment of our long-term good. When we parent children, we give them some leeway to make their own mistakes so that they grow to love what is good for them (as someone shoving ideas down their throat doesn't make them love those ideas); but we also safeguard them against themselves so that things that are too dangerous can't ruin their lives.
Quoting Bob Ross
This is what I proposed earlier considering someone who is crippled or has a different hair color. It is nothing I'm settled on for or against, though I admit to being careful before accepting it.
Quoting Bob Ross
I agree in a certain context. There is a whatness to you being Bob Ross. There is you, and only you as you. When we talk about rights between people, we have to talk about shared 'whatness'.
Quoting Bob Ross
I think we're in agreement!
Quoting Bob Ross
I viable question.
Quoting Bob Ross
I think we're adding extra steps that aren't needed. You don't actualize into a form. You are. Your existence is what you are, and that may or may not fit into an abstract that we apply. For example, I might have a form that "Humans walk on two legs". Then a human is born with one leg. They don't actualize into a human being. They are a human being, just with one leg. The essence of what one is is independent of our labels of that essence.
Quoting Bob Ross
Agreed.
Quoting Bob Ross
To be very clear, I was talking about cruel and unusual punishment that inflicted no long term damage, but simply mental anguish. If you gave them a drug that also had no long term damage or side effects I would view that as unusual punishment.
Thought experiments can quickly get out of hand however. The point is that a person's subjective state can also be a consideration in their being and nature.
Quoting Bob Ross
I believe this is the crux to why many of the rights requested by trans gender individuals such as mandated pronouns and opposite sex entitlements, are not rights but personal desires.
Quoting Bob Ross
That's what I was proposing. I do think physical differences to a point can be rights based. Where the line is drawn is something I do not know. Does a person with a missing index finger have different rights than someone with five? What If I'm missing my pinky toe?
Quoting Bob Ross
To be clearer: Expectations about biological sex are not sociological. They a fact based. Expecting most men to be taller than women on average is a fact based expectation. Expecting women to wear earrings and men not to is cultural. It is not that one or the other exist, they both do. Gender is simply always a cultural expectation and never a biological expectation.
Quoting Bob Ross
Ha! I'm really not. Libertarians often take for granted the things they have. A society based completely on absolute freedom, or the freedom to cross other people's freedoms, is no society at all. I believe in a balance of many things, but one thing I am fully on board with is the personal freedom to do what you want as long as it does not unduly affect other people's freedoms.
Quoting Bob Ross
I would call that, "Responsible living". But you are free to live irresponsibly as long as it does not affect other people's freedoms. Freedom has no other purpose than the ability of an individual to live as they truly wish. It doesn't mean this can't be irresponsible or cut one's life short. And it doesn't mean we can't talk to each other and try to persuade each other that our innate desires do not always lead to the best outcomes. But I should be able to go into my own home and eat a pint of ice cream without the law coming and throwing me in jail for living irresponsibly.
Quoting Bob Ross
I have no objection about conversing about a God, but we should be careful of assumptions in the argument. It may be better to abstract what you mean instead of ascribing that abstraction as a necessary identity of a God. Maybe another thread on logically what must a God be like? :)
Quoting Bob Ross
Why can't a God? What if its that God could choose to, but chooses not to? To compare with human beings, I am free to beat a puppy to death, but I choose not to.
Quoting Bob Ross
If we define freedom as, "The ability to act based on what you are", that fits. A cripple cannot walk, but their reality denies them the ability to choose to do so. I could easily strangle a puppy to death, but I choose not to. There are of course consequences to one's choices, and some choices will likely give you a better outcome to you and those around you than others. But freedom in itself does not deal with morality. Freedom is simply "the capability to do, or do not do X".
Quoting Bob Ross
It may deny them other opportunities, but if they choose to lose those opportunities that is active freedom, not being less free. In other words someone is free to choose to be less free. Again, I wouldn't encourage this and would consider this an improper way to live. But morality has nothing to do with 'freedom' in itself.
The issue is can a male (sex) become a woman (gender) and the have the same rights as a female (sex)
I say they cannot make that change and go from being a male (sex) to a transwoman (gender) but are still male and have the same rights as any man.
This is what the majorly active part of the trans community is asking as a right. They believe that gendered actions allow one into cross sex spaces or confer the right to be treated as that cross sex. The rest of the rights I mentioned fit human rights and I believe are already serviced in Western countries.
Agreed; and, moreover, they are trying to get rights that the other sex hasnot the rights they have relative to their own sex: thats what is so controversial about it.
A form is not a concept in the sense I am using it: a concept is an idea in a mind, whereas a form is an actualizing principle in a being. A principle here is being used to denoted something objective: something which is not stand-dependent nor an aspect of a minds subjective experience. The actualizing principle of a being is its act(uality); and the matter which receives it is its potency (potential).
Which leads me to:
A real essence is a whatness which is inscribed in the being itself objectively: it is not an abstraction of a mind. In the case of a mere concept of what it is to be something, that is, by itself, insufficient to provide intelligibility innate to a being; for it is an idea conjured up by a mind for its own understanding and, consequently, is not something real in the being that it is contemplating. When I conjure up an idea of a circle, that by-itself is just something I use to understand circular beings in reality; but that in-itself provides no innate intelligibility to the circular beings such that they really are circles.
If the essence is real, no matter if one justifies it with form realism or not, then it is embedded in the object itselfnot a mere abstraction from a mind.
If an real nature (essence) is intrinsic to the being, then whatever one believes makes it that kind of being as opposed to another must be (1) in that real nature and (2) universal to any kind of that type.
So:
Essence is never identical to a particular. An essence captures a type of being; which, in principle, could be instantiated in multiple of that type: its a genus. Its gets tricky with God, but lets put a pin in that one (;
Likewise, I think you are conflating the psychological identity of a being (person) with their ontology. Who I am is unique: there cannot be someone that is me in the sense of me as a specific subject; but what I am is common to all male humans. If you remove enough of my personality, maybe who I am changes; but only by changing my biology do you change what I am. Likewise, you can change certain things about me without changing fundamentally what I am; such as swapping out my hair color.
A cripple cannot have any rights that are grounded in their crippleness, because that is a deprivation of their naturenot a part of their nature. Their nature is such that they should have legs; and, again, I would say they have that nature fully in virtue of their form (soul).
They may have certain rights grounded in their nature that grant them special needs; because their right to things pertaining to walking are still a right they have because their nature dictates itit just wouldnt be in virtue, intrinsically, of them being crippled that would warrant such rights. Same with losing a pinky.
A social aspect of human life is any that pertains to inter-subjectivity. When people expect the penis, to take a sex-specific example, to behave, to be purposefully vague, in such-and-such ways is a social expectation grounded in biological sex. There is no such thing as an expectation held by multiple people that is not social; because a group holding an expectation is them inter-subjectively agreeing upon the belief that such-and-such should work this-and-that kind of way.
Any biological expectations that are inter-subjective, which would be the vast majority of them, are social expectations; and the only way for there to be an expectation that isnt social is if it is purely subjective instead of inter-subjectivelike if I were the only one that thinks that things should work a specific way.
If this is true, then all I am noting is that social expectations can be grounded in objectivityincluding biological sex; and this is go much farther than you might think, such as women wearing makeup as an upshot of their female nature and men not wearing it as a part of their nature.
(emphasis and notes added)
This presupposes the idea, again, that freedom fundamentally is about being able to choose from options; and this is not compatible with freedom being fundamentally about a state of being most conducive to flourishing.
If I cultivate, for example, the virtues; then I am biased towards what is good; so I am less apt to choose freely in the sense of purely choosing from contraries; so it follows, under your view, that I am less free the more virtues (or vices) I cultivate. On the contrary, in my view, I dont need the ability to choose otherwise or to choose from options to be truly free: if I am most able to will in accord with what is good, whatever that state of being might be (which is going to be a state where I, as a human, are most prejudiced towards doing what is right), then I am the most free in my view.
This is why I gave the example of God, but admittedly I think it missed its mark. The point was not to get into a debate about the nature of God: I was just trying to demonstrate where these two theories of freedom go when we apply them most radically.
Another famous example, to try again, is the holocaust (or any extremely authoritarian regime that snuffs out freedom, in your sense, in a dystopian and horrific kind of way). If freedom is about having the ability to choose from contraries (options), then a government that restricts options is restricting freedom; and so it is impossible for one to become more free in an environment that is actively restricting or has restricted peoples ability to choose from options (assuming they dont rebel or something like that); but if freedom is about being able to will in accord with what is good, which is to be in a state of being more conducive than less to your flourishing, then one can, in fact, become more free even in such an environment.
In the holocaust, as horrific as it was, in a freedom of indifference view it is impossible to say that anyone in a concentration camp became more free as they lived there compared to when they were in normal cities because the Nazis had rounded them up and severely limited their ability to make their own choices; however, in a freedom for excellence view, although this is not a condoning of what they did, some people, in fact, became more free because the horrific conditions forced them to cultivate the virtues and have a much deeper appreciation of what is good compared to when they were living comfortable lives in the citiesof which makes their state of being more conducive to their flourishing (notwithstanding the malnourishment, torture, etc. that they were inflicted with of course). The love they acquired for the good, in a much deeper sense, and the virtues which came with it, built saints in those very torturous chambers.
Again, I am not using this example to condone Nazism (and I just say that just in case Jamal decides to read this, lol): its just another radical example to juxtapose the two theories of freedom.
Which leads me to:
In freedom of indifference, this makes perfect sense and I am inclined to agree; for you are thinking of freedom as fundamentally having the ability to choose from options; and so this naturally has no bias towards what is good or bad (and, as a side note, thats where it gets its name of indifference).
However, in freedom for excellence, as the name excellence suggests, freedom and goodness are interrelated. There is no separation between them such that one can be more free while, for example, acquiring less good. I become more free the more I acquire what is good; whether that be knowledge of what is good, virtues (viz., good habits), or an environment more apt to allow me to realize my nature (e.g., lots of healthy food available, no hard drugs at my disposal to use, time to workout, no gambling, etc.).
I know you disagree, but I hope I have demonstrated sufficiently the differences between our ideas of freedom; as they are central to the discussion so far.
I look forward to hearing from you,
Bob
Forgive me for the double post, but I just thought of another example that provides clarity into our differences on the nature of freedom.
To build self-discipline is inherently to limit one's options to get their body to obey their mind (e.g., I am not going yo indulge myself with this delicious cake because I know I shouldn't and I want to cultivate my brain to obey what I believe I should or shouldn't be doing irregardless of how I feel about it). This would, under your view, limit freedom; but I would argue that it actually makes me more free by limiting my options to cultivate and maintain self-discipline because it makes me more capable of willing in accord with my beliefs of what I think I should be doing and prevents my feelings, desires, passions, etc. from impeding on or overcoming that. I would say I am more free by limiting my options in this way exactly because it sets up my subconscious to be more biased towards what is good for me; which is to will in accord with my reasonit makes me be in a state more conducive to my flourishing.
I'm curious what your thoughts are on that.
Give some examples of gendered actions that would allow one into cross sex spaces? Specifically, female gendered actions that allow males into female exclusive spaces.
Great question. First, a major misunderstanding that I know I had in the beginning of the movement was I thought trans means 'trans sexual' with all the bits cut off. No, it doesn't mean that. It literally means, "I feel like the other sex and might dress or act like them in some way." The issue is of course mostly with trans women, but you have men who have everything intact and might, or might not be on hormones saying, "Because I think I'm a woman, I can go into a woman's locker room". "I can enter an all female race". "I can go into a woman's bathroom." "I deserve to be put in female prisons." Go read up on that if you want an example of "Every reason you can think that's a bad idea played out".
The trans gender movement is partially the trans sexual movement. But it mostly is the, "I feel or act in ways that I feel the other sex should feel and act like, so I should get to be in cross sex spaces" movement. This is the issue that I do not feel is a proper demand for rights, much less an argument rooted in logic or fairness. This just seems to be discrimination and sexism wrapped up in a male desire to get things they want. But feel free to point out if you disagree.
Yes, I have mulled it over repeatedly over the years and I just don't see any logical reason why a trans gendered individual deserves cross sex rights and privileges. If people want to volunteer them personally, I have nothing against this. But a right or obligation seems out of the question.
Quoting Bob Ross
Ok, so a form in your definition is essentially the maximum potential a person can be. This is a moral principle I'm not against, but do we also have a term for "what a person is"? Few people fully actualize into the potential they could be, so what do we say about a person's present or 'actually actualized' state?
Quoting Bob Ross
To follow up with the above, this seems to be 'real essence'. But the 'whatness' of a person in relation to a form seems to contrast with the full potential of the form itself. Is this a correct assessment of what you're saying?
Quoting Bob Ross
This is where I lose you and think we need another term, or I need to understand your concepts better. I see this as
form- full potential
actualization - the whatness of a being's form (Can be less than full potential)
I have a hard time seeing a male as a form, as there can be many types of males. You did mention there is a sort of 'genus' earlier, but that seemed to apply to actualization. For example, and not intending to be crude but there are men who have their testicles inside of them and appear to be female at birth. Technically they're still male, but that's not common to all males.
I think this is a problem any form type capturing of words has to contend with. There are almost always exceptions and sub categories. I'm not saying it can't be handled, but how does your particular approach handle this problem?
Quoting Bob Ross
Where is the line for this? This is essentially what I'm asking.
Quoting Bob Ross
It seems here to you that rights should be based on the form of an individual, not the actualization of an individual. At a birds eye view, I agree. When we get into the specifics of what an actual form is, I feel that's where we run into the problem of 'exceptions'.
Quoting Bob Ross
So if I understand correctly, a handicapped parking spot is provided to a cripple who cannot walk, because the nature of their form as a human is that they should be able to walk. So your exceptions to forms are in essence to acknowledge them, not not give them any credence in themselves. This is why a handicapped person would not have a right to a handicapped spot, and this would best be considered a privilege?
Quoting Bob Ross
That is not what gender means by social expectation however. It means "Social expectation divorced from the biological reality". Taken in your context, biological sex and its expectations are a form. Gender is an expectation that society places upon the form that have nothing to do with the biological form itself. We have evidence of this because different cultures often have different expectations of dress and behavior from males and females that often contrast. At one time in France, pink was associated with men, while blue was associated with women. So if you were a man and you liked the color blue, society would view you as "girly".
Another way to see gender is if we took the same biological form of a man in both cultures, but one culture believed that all men should be warriors while another culture believed all men should be scholars. Its not a biological expectation, but a cultural one. This is what I mean by 'subjective'. There is no underlying objective grounding for this expectation, it really is just a societal opinion or pressure. Why society puts out these pressures can vary from control, sexual dynamics of power, or just good ol' bias and tradition.
Quoting Bob Ross
Nothing wrong with this, the point that is being made is this is not a gendered expectation, but a sex expectation. Whereas your make up example is not a sex expectation, but a gendered one. In ancient Egypt men used to wear make up just as frequently as women. There is no biological aspect that necessitates men or women wear makeup, its a cultural strategy and/or outlook about biological differences that has nothing to do with the 'form' of the biological being itself.
Quoting Bob Ross
True, but I'm going to stick with that for the following reason. We have better vocabulary that accurately describes situations.
Freedom - The ability to choose your own outcome in life based on your own limitations.
Responsible decisions - Free choices that maximize your potential
Irresponsible decisions - Free choices that inhibit your potential
Tying 'freedom' as being equal to 'responsible decisions' muddies the vocabulary for me and makes it harder to think clearer about these particular distinctions within the English language.
Quoting Bob Ross
No, you're not less free. You are choosing to cultivate virtues. A person who chooses to lie often is cultivating a personality that leads them to ruin their potential, but it is a free choice. A person who chooses to tell the truth despite the personal risk chooses to cultivate good character. There is also nothing from stopping a virtuous individual from ceasing to cultivate truth and start lying. Yes, the decision to cultivate habits to make good or bad choices makes it easier to continue making those choices, but a person freely chose to cultivate those habits.
Quoting Bob Ross
I think this contrasts too much with the common understanding of freedom, and can just as easily be described by "Making responsible decisions means you will have better and healthier outcomes that lead you to be able to make more free choices". If you take care of your health, then you have more options to choose from in life than if you don't. I get that. But the choice between options is freedom, not "Choosing good".
Quoting Bob Ross
If freedom is just about the ability to choose your outcome in a particular situation, then we can argue that some choices are better than others. Again what I feel you are arguing for is "Responsible use of freedom" which is a fine thing. But if you eliminate freedom as a concept independent of morality, the concept doesn't go away and we still need a word to describe that situation. It just seems more reasonable to keep freedom in its base simple form and add adjectives to it then tie freedom necessarily into the question of what should be done with it.
Quoting Bob Ross
Again, I have no issue with adding an adjective to freedom to describe responsibilities or moral precepts to what people should do with freedom. I just don't think its reasonable to lose freedom as the simple description of "The ability to make choices within your limitations".
Quoting Bob Ross
Its not a limit of freedom, its a free choice to build self-discipline. And I would argue self-discipline is about the mind controlling the body, not the other way around. If I work out every day as a choice to build muscle and make physical work easier, that's a free choice of mine. Yes, it makes being able to handle physical work easier, and my habits make it more likely that I will work out in the future, but its still always a mental choice to continue to stick with those habits. Freedom has nothing to do with "the likelihood of what I will choose". Its just a descriptor that indicates, "I can choose".
Act is what provides the being to something; and potency is the capacity to change (viz., to have a potential actualized). Act is not the same thing as being: a material being is comprised, in being, of form (act) and potential (matter). Matter is what receives the form: it is what is actualized. For example, I can mold a pot out of clay: the potness is the form (act) and the clay is the matter which receives it (potency).
Form and act are identical; and potency is just a something that has potential that could, in principle, be actualized.
True, but this is one of the many reasons that I think form realism is the only way to coherently account for essence realism. If one says, like I previously noted, that the essence of a thing is embodied in there mere fact that it exhibits some set of essential properties that make it that type of thing, then you are absolutely right that there will always be exceptions where one will want to count a thing as that type even though it doesnt exhibit all the essential properties (e.g., this cat only has two legs but is still a cat).
Form realism gives the only coherent account because it avoids this issue. If there is a real distinction, not a merely conceptual distinction, between a material beings form and matterviz., the actuality that actualizes the potential to be that kind of thing and the stuff that has the potential to be actualized in that manner to be that kind of thing (e.g., the potness and the clay)then even if the matter doesnt properly get actualized by the form the form still has the fullness of the essence in act. My act of molding the clay into a pot has the fullness of the essence of a pot within it, but perhaps the clay breaks or something. Now, a soul is just a type of form that is self-actualizing: it is an act of a being in virtue of which it is alive. In this view, a unified principle of the body, not a mere aggregate of cooperating parts, is what actualizes, dynamically through time, the organism: this is what is called a soulit is the form of a living being. All living beings have a soul, including plants. The plant can grow into a tree, e.g., of its own self-development given the right environment: the unified act of its own self-development is its soul. With non-soul forms, with static forms that dont develop the matter through time of its own accord, there is no possibility of the matter which doesnt receive the act (form) properly still being that kind of thing because the act doesnt stay with it. For example, if the pot breaks after it dries, although the act of molding it contained the fullness of the essence of a pot, that pot is no longer a pot if it cannot fulfill the purpose of a pot (perhaps it has a whole in the bottom now and cant hold any liquids).
Crucially, with souls (i.e., dynamic forms or self-actualizing principles), they contain and stay with, in being, the living being as the full essence which is being actualized, through the self, in time. My unified actualizing principle, which is not the mere aggregate of parts of my body working together, has within it the whole essence of male humanness, which it has to have in order to attempt to actualize the matterthe bodyinto a fully developed male human; and so even if the matterthe bodydoes not get actualized properly, due to external factors, the soul has the fullness of the essence of human maleness or femaleness. This means that a man that has, to use your example, testicles inside of them still has the fullness of maleness, which would have the testicles on the outside, in virtue of their soul.
Again, if you take the view that we account for essentialism with the idea that we are just an aggregate of parts working together to cause this emergence of a living being and that we are some type of thing if we have the set of essential properties for that type, then I completely agree that it fails to account for essentialism because there always will be things of that type which truly, in matter, lack some of the essential properties of that type of thing. This is just one of many reasons to abandon this kind of essentialism for either nominalism or form realism.
I am not sure. All I was noting is that they wouldnt have right because they are handicapped: it would have to be grounded in their nature and being handicapped is a privation of that human nature. I was thinking maybe one could argue cogently that since a human does have the right to walk, it may be coherent to ground proxied rights of helping them move around if they are handicapped. It gets sticky though, because we technically dont have a right to walk anywhere we want; such as private land. So maybe it is a right to have a handicap parking spot on a public buildings but just a privilege on private ones. I would have to think about that one more.
This is a really good and important point to bring up, because this highlights the differences between modern gender theory and an older kind like mine. Modern gender theory, by associated gender with sociology, has collapsed gender into something that is not real: it is inter-subjective, which is not real. Modern gender theory is a form of gender anti-realism; and this falls prey to the same issues, analogously, with moral anti-realism.
In my view, as a realist about gender, your examples highlight the real disputes between cultures about what the gender facts are where one can be truly wrong or right, more correct or less, about gender; whereas, under modern gender theory as you expound it, there is not true disagreement because there are no facts about gender (since they are just inter-subjective stances that people have of what they expect in peoples behaviors) and so these examples you gave are highlights of equally right stances on gender (because there is no objectively right stance to take) which is just an exposition of the tastes of the given culture.
In my view, there is real, rational disagreement we can have about what gender is and how gender roles work; and so I can admit that cultures have gotten it wrong, some have gotten it sort of right, and some have gotten it sort of wrong.
I would say it is a gender fact that women are the ones that have the role of wearing makeup, although it is morally permissible for them and not obligatory, and as such any culture that said otherwise got the facts wrong, and this is because women a procreative role that makes them the object of sex. This is not to be confused, to be clear, with saying women should be objectified in the modern, colloquial sense of that term; but, rather, that the way sexual attraction works when there are two sexes in a species is that one gets aroused by being the object of the sex (viz., of someone putting themselves in them) and the other from taking something as the object of the sex (viz., of themselves putting themselves in someone else). This is not to say that we should be lustful, but loving relationships always involve this dynamic, which should also include a deeper communion between them and the willing of pleasure for both in the sexual act, because without it there can be no such thing as a two-participate sex where both get aroused. Even in non-traditional sex, there is an imperfect resemblance to femininity and masculinity in this sense: its necessary for sexual attraction to happen. Makeup is something that attempts to exemplify its objectusually the faceas beautiful, attractive, etc.; and this is to objectify it (which is usually the face). This is an upshot of the way sexual attraction works: a beautiful women is an attractive women, and this is to say that the women taken as an object (which is not to say to objectify them lustfully or abuse them) is exemplar of being the kind of sex that receives sex and does not give it. This is why women naturally feel empowered by putting on makeup, dressing up, and being very interested in their outward appearance whereas men do not in the same ways (even in the case that a man cares about his appearance); and this is also why feminine men, like gay men, will also feel empowered and tend to gravitate towards makeup, wearing outfits that show off their figure, etc. These are all naturally grounded in femininity: they are grounded in the natural sexual role that women have.
With all due respect, I think you missed my point. I agree that you are freely choosing, in these examples, to cultivate the virtues: my point is that you are freely choosing to make yourself less free. Virtues make you more biased towards what is good which makes you less capable of choosing between options; and most of them actively limit your options (like self-discipline).
The reason I dont find this compelling is because the vast majority of human history has used freedom for excellencenot your nor our societys modern understanding of it. Freedom of indifference is a new theory that was brought about during classical liberalism. Just to clarify, and this doesnt mean my theory is true, your theory is the one here that is much younger; so if you are trying to adhere to the common historical understanding, then it would be uncontroversially true that you should go with liberty for excellence: that one is centuries upon centuries old in the premodern world. Only with the Enlightenment and classical liberalism did people start thinking freedom is about making choices between contrary options.
Lets define real. Normally 'real' means 'what is'. I don't think you're claiming that the concept doesn't exist, but you are claiming the bases for the gender expectations have nothing substantial to point to beyond subjective opinion as to why they exist. I might start another thread analyzing the 'whys' of gender, but for now we can agree in this thread that gender as a social construct is a purely subjective opinion based purely on emotions, nothing rationally substantive.
Quoting Bob Ross
You and I might hold identical views, the key here is you are using gender in my mind as a synonym for sex. And if that is the case, I think we agree. But as language evolves words sometimes take on different meanings in different contexts. In the context of 'trans gender' and gender theory, gender is not a synonym for sex or sex expectations, but the subjective cultural expectations tied to a sex. "Warriors vs Scholars".
And to your point, as of our current analysis there is nothing substantial behind gender beyond opinion, prejudice, and sexism. As such it most definitely has nothing behind it to compel the idea that cross gender should mean a person can cross sex spaces. The fact that gender has been enshrined in law at all is rationally circumspect and morally questionable.
Quoting Bob Ross
Again, if we replace your term gender with 'sex', then we have an objective place to reason from. If we use 'gender' as subjective cultural expectations, then I agree: there is nothing objective to base any reason on. It is one of the many reasons I see gender ideology as a secular religion. It wants to create precepts and ways of living based entirely on a subjective notion of reality.
Quoting Bob Ross
Is that backed by fact or opinion Bob? Ever see a woman fall in love with a kpop star? They're men who wear make up, and are intended to appeal to female sexual fantasies. Women can be enamored with men just as much as men with women, and properly applied make up can make a man more attractive in many women's eyes. Perhaps what you mean is the intend of make up application. Obviously men who wore make up in Egypt wore it to enhance the beauty of male features, not feminine ones. We know that 'blush' and lipstick for example are used because women's lips and cheeks take on higher blood volume when they are aroused. So a man in Egypt would use make up for their physical features that women would be interested, or to convey health in their position. The specific intent of using make up in this case is a sex expectation based on biological reality, not cultural expectation. Whereas the idea of "Men cannot use make up even if its applied to accentuate male features" is a gendered expectation.
Quoting Bob Ross
No, I get that. My point is that is a choice we are free to make. A choice that is responsible or recommended by others to make? No. But a free choice nonetheless.
Quoting Bob Ross
I don't think this claim is necessarily true. I agree with you that freedom can be used with the contextual bent of 'responsible freedom', but if we are going to accurately discuss the terms, its our job to break words apart where we can into as simple and agreed upon terms as possible. I see a very simple and unambiguous use of freedom as "The ability to make a choice within one's capabilities", and then adjectives can come in to modify it so that we both clearly know what each is referring to.
So again, I don't object to your notion of 'Freely choosing virtues", I just object that this is the base term of freedom that is least ambiguous and accurate to all the concepts invovled.
In colloquial speech, to be real and to exist are interchangeable; but there is a substantial difference between the two. Not everything that has being is a member of reality. For example, the color red that I see exists as a construction of my consciousness but has no membership in reality: if you were to omit my consciousness of the, e.g., red block there would be no redness in the block.
I think we need to use a more sophisticated definition of reality here, because otherwise we erode the meaningful distinction I made by simplifying terms. Money is not real: it is inter-subjectivenot objective. Money exists, of course! However, it is not a member of reality. E.g., the $100 price of the diamond does not have being like the diamond does. Likewise, the existence of gender, if it is just sociological, does not have membership of realityit exists as inter-subjective agreement and that is it.
Agreed, relative to your theory.
Effectively, yes: I hold they are the same. Technically, no: I am leaning more towards sex and gender being virtually but not really distinct.
Firstly, I should clarify that men wearing makeup is not always immoral: it is the act of objectifying the face as a man that is immoral, and most of the time that is what makeup is for so it is usually immoral for a man to do. Some men need to wear makeup for TV podcasts not to objectify the face but to avoid camera issues or makeup is done for dead people in coffins so they look more lively, and that doesnt seem to be threatened by my critique here (unless I am missing something). Kpop stars that are male are engaging in something immoral, under my view, which goes back to my claim about gender realism: in your view, there simply is no right or wrong answer hereit is just peoples tasteswhereas in mine there are facts about this.
Likewise, I agree that women and men can be sociologically or even psychologically conditioned to be attracted to social cues that they should not be; so I have no problem simultaneously admitting that women fall, in modern times, for men that mimick femininitysuch as men that wear makeup and do their nails. This is in no way a refutation of the biologically underpinning of such things (like makeup) that I noted before.
With all due respect, this is an unintentional red herring. My point was that if we hold your view that freedom is about making choices and virtues limit choices, then virtues make you less freeirregardless if you freely cultivated them or not. Most people would have the opposite intuition: they would say that virtues make you more free despite them making you have less options. If this is true, then we need to re-evaluate what freedom fundamentally is, because it cant be focused on having options to choose from in accord with your own will. Your response here has been to note that we can freely choose to cultivate virtues; but I am noting that the virtue itself, once established through free or unfree means, is a restriction on freedom in your sense of the term.
I was just providing a rejoinder to your argument that we should hold freedom of indifference because it is more common; by just noting that historically freedom for excellence is much more common.
The classical way of thinking about freedom is that it is the capacity to act with virtue and achieve the human good going all the way back to Plato; and during the Age of Enlightenment, which was the precursor for classical liberalism, they started taking liberty of indifference more seriously. Now, we live in a post-classical-liberal world; and we take for granted that freedom has to do with making choices, like your definition, when it classically did not mean that. This is doesnt mean your view is wrong, but thats why I also gave my counter-examples to show hopefully how your view can be counter-intuitive, such as in the case of having to admit that virtues cause a person to be less free (which is a consequence of your view).
See your consciousness is part of reality however. Everything you personally experience is objectively real. It is when we claim things about that experience beyond the experience itself that we can assert things that aren't real. For example, if I said, "This color I see is the exact same experience everyone else has when they look at it," that's a claim to what is real without any evidence. In the exact same way a man can have their own subjective experience and they may feel that 'This is what its like to be a man, if they only refernece themselves in 'man'." The moment they say, "Every man experiences what I do, and if they don't they aren't a man" they make claims about reality without evidence.
Quoting Bob Ross
Ha ha! You and I have had different views of subjective and objective in the past, so it might be irreconcilable here. I'll still propose that money is objectively real. But that is because thoughts are objectively real. "The mental" is real. Objective is a claim that taking all the evidence into account, leads to one or more outcomes every time. Subjective is a claim about reality apart from your personal experience, using only your personal experience. So it is objective that my favorite color is blue. It would be subjective for me to claim, "Its the best color in the world." based on this information alone.
To your example, the price of the diamond is whatever is decided between two parties when an exchange of money occurs. If I sell a diamond to one individual for 20$ and claim that all diamonds are worth 20$, that's subjective. If I sell a diamond to one individual for 20$ and claim, "I sold that particular diamond to him for 20$, that's objective".
Quoting Bob Ross
In my opinion it is this very muddying of unclear terms that promotes confusion and unclear thinking on the subject. People are mostly confused when it comes to gender terminology, and I believe at this point it is encouraged to stay that way by design. The best way to think is to have clear and unambiguous terms. Perhaps you are describing sex expectation. Or perhaps you are describing a blend of sex expectation and gender as gender theory defines it. Perhaps its better to create a new word to describe the concept at this point while keeping with the definitions that have been established and are used within the trans gender community and policies.
Quoting Bob Ross
This is a subjective view of yours Bob. I cannot see how you can objectively demonstrate that a Kpop singer wearing make up is immoral. But that might be a better subject for another thread.
Quoting Bob Ross
I think you're joining the consequences of a free choice to 'free choice'. Freedom does not involve the analysis of the consequences of what a person does. I'm just using freedom like "walking". Walking is a mobility of the feet at a casual pace. Its not a descriptor of why, how, where, when, or should one walk. Same with freedom. Freedom is just a basic descriptor of actionability. It is not a judgement of when, how, what, or should we use that freedom for. I'm not saying we can't apply those to freedom, but before we apply them to freedom we should be able to define what it is as a fundamental and basic definition.
Quoting Bob Ross
Yes, that is both outdated and you have to remember that it was written in an era in which 'free speech' was not a thing. Write about freedom as, "The ability to do what you want independent of the state," and you might find yourself in jail and your works banned. Remember that Aristotle was paid by and worked for a king. Its extremely important that we do not simply accept the words and concepts of an era without carefully considering them over the accepted words of this era.
Good philosophical practices rely on clear, unambiguous, and fundamental definitions. If you can take a word, find two distinct concepts within that word, and break them apart, that allows clearer communication and thought about the concepts involved. As I've presented 'freedom' above, it is clear, unambiguous, and fundamental. Aristotle's is not, and his thinking was possibly compromised by the politics of his day. So I see no rational argument for taking 'the classic' view of freedom in virtue of mine being concurrent with good philosophical practice and which easily fits into the modern day use and understanding of the term.
Quoting Bob Ross
No. My statement of freedom has nothing to do with consequences. If you wish to argue that choosing virtues makes you less free, that is your claim, not mine. I would simply say the consequences of choosing a virtue may or may not lead to more or less choices in the future. If I freely choose to maintain my health, I have greater choice in activities in life over the restrictions that poor health brings. Of course, if I choose to not steal 1 million dollars, I have far less options in regards to monetary decisions than I do if I steal it. A free choice is about now, not the future consequences. Discussing the future consequences of a free choice is again, separate from the fundamental concept of freedom itself.
What you experience is a construction of your brain of what it thinks the world is; which means it necessarily is not identical to reality itself. Knowledge of reality is not a part of reality: it is the comprehension of that reality.
To be fair, I think you are just using real to refer to existence; so I understand where you are coming from. However, this over-simplifies the conceptual landscape here; as we cannot say things like money exist but is not real but instead money is real and a chair is real. It reduces everything to having the same status of existence in virtue of existing.
I think you use objectivity to refer to that which the subject experiences; and subjectivity is anything pertaining to the subjective experience. If this is true, then even in your own terms money is not objectively real since it only exists insofar as two or more subjects value something at a particular amount.
Would you at least agree, semantics aside, that money does not have the same kind of existence status as a chair?
It might be better to collapse gender and sex for the sake of the masses; but technically I would say that using the Thomistic concepts of virtuality and reality can really help sublate the two mainstream positions (one being that sex and gender are divorced and the other that they are the exact same).
With all due respect, this is just an assertion that begs the question. I outlined why objectifying the face is ontologically grounded in female nature (as the object of sex); and this does entail, if this is true, that men wearing makeup like women do is feminine and immoral. Theres nothing about this argument I am making that purports subjectivity (e.g., I think it is immoral for men to wear makeup because I feel like they shouldnt be).
In your view, of course, gender isnt real in the sense that it is something that exists like a chair: it exists insofar as it is merely the agreement between subjects of what they feel or think should be the case with no objective basis. So, naturally, in your view, I understand why you would push back here and reject it.
True, but freedom is not the kind of capacity for action where one just chooses from options; it is the kind of capacity to will in accord with reason, and this entails that we are more free the more virtuous and biased we are towards what is good.
Think of it this way, to use your example, walking itself is a capacity to move the legs to move around. When properly understood, to be maintain this capacity you have to do things to keep the legs in shape and healthy. There are oughts which arise out of the maintenance of that capacity. You are a saying this capacity is not itself normative, but to me it does entails norms because there is a way it is designed to operate. Even just hypothetically, if you reject that the mere way legs are entail how one should use them, if you want to maintain your capacity to walk then you have to exercise your legs (e.g., you cant sit 100% of the time: they will be neglected and fail to work properly).
Analogously, freedom is a capacity to will in accord with reason; and this does entail, to maintain and have it, cultivating virtues, an environment conducive to it, and the knowledge of what is good to will in accord with. My main point was that your view entails necessarily that we are less free when we do these things; and this is counter-intuitive. Moreover, my second point is that you lose your freedom by expanding your options in this liberty of indifference kind of way.
It wasnt an argument for liberty for excellence in a substantive sense: I was rejoining your claim that implied that we should accept liberty of indifference because it is common now. If that is your view, then you should actually accept liberty for excellence. We arent really in disagreement here I dont think.
Correct, but we have to go beyond clear definitions to determine the truth. We both have clear definitions of freedom here: we must venture beyond mere definitions to determine which gets it more right about what freedom is.
To be clear, freedom for excellence defines freedom as the capacity to will in accord ones nature which is the same as to be in a state most conducive so ones flourishing.
I thought you were saying that freedom is about the capacity to choose: do you believe that, in principle, someone can become more free while simultaneously having less options to choose from?
I agree with that. I think it's a social reaction to the current political and social climate. There is no rigour in the thought processes of most of it. IMHO.
I feel we're getting off topic. I'm not saying that everything we claim to be real is real. I'm just noting that thoughts and subjective experiences are real in themselves. Money and chair are both the same type of general mental concept. 10$ on a table and a mahogany chair model #235 from Ikea are specific real things. I'm not saying that imagining 10$ on a table mean that the 10$ and table are real independent of the thought of it, but that the thought of it is real.
Lets bring this back to trans gender issues. A person who has gender dysphoria has the real feeling of discomfort with their own gender. Does it mean that they're really 'the other gender'? No. Someone can really think they're the opposite sex, but it doesn't mean they really are the opposite sex.
Quoting Bob Ross
This is close. I'm noting that what a person experiences is objective in itself. "I feel sad" is an objective reality a person has. If through that feeling alone they say, "I feel sad because I was born in the wrong body." that's not objective. One can feel sad for many different reasons. It could very well be that the reason the person feels sad is because they have a poor diet and are depressed. Fix their diet and depression and suddenly they aren't sad anymore. Subjectively they feel sad because they were born in the wrong body, objectively they feel sad because they had a poor diet and were depressed. "The wrong body" had nothing to do with it.
Quoting Bob Ross
No, they're actually the same type of word. Money and chair alone are real concepts. Specific denotations of money and chairs are real things.
Quoting Bob Ross
One can argue that we only use one context for gender, but the reality is that if a person wants to use a particular context, there's nothing to stop them from doing so. What we can do in such an instance is ask if the definitions within the context are reasonable, and if the conclusions that follow from that context are also reasonable. If we are to talk about trans gender, it must be understood that the term 'gender' in this context refers only to social expectations and not biological expectations.
Quoting Bob Ross
You gave an assertion that has no truth bearing Bob. Both men and women objectify the other sex's face. They may not necessarily find the same features attractive, but a woman can swoon over a handsome face as much as a man can swoon over a beautiful female face. If make up enhances the ability of a person to appear attractive in the eyes of the opposite sex, it cannot be said that its only moral if a woman does it but not if a man does it.
Quoting Bob Ross
People choose to freely smoke cigarettes all the time. It is completely irrational to smoke cigarettes. Yet people we would generally call rational, do so all the time. Freedom is not only about the capacity to make reasonable decisions, but emotional one's as well. Sometimes the two are not aligned with each other. Again, you can say, "That's an irresponsible choice," but the other person was free to make it. No one is arresting a person for smoking a cigarette in their own home.
Quoting Bob Ross
No disagreement here! But you have the freedom to maintain, or not maintain your legs. Should we maintain them? Yes. Are you free not to? Yes. If we were not free to, then someone could legally come over and force us to maintain our legs against our will.
Quoting Bob Ross
Its only counter-intuitive because you are adding consequences to the idea of freedom. Freedom, as a word alone, does not consider the consequences. Freedom is simply the capacity to choose either A or B. The next step is to consider the consequences of a choice, or how to use our freedom for our own benefit opposed to our own destruction. You're blending two separate concepts together, and I'm noting that if we separate freedom into its most fundamental definition, this allows us clearer thinking and reasonable use of the term.
Quoting Bob Ross
I have no disagreement with the phrase 'freedom for excellence'. I'm simply noting what 'freedom' is as a concept apart from 'for excellence'.
Quoting Bob Ross
Again, this is about the consequences of a person's free choice. I am not using freedom to describe consequences, only that one has a choice. We can absolutely talk about whether someone uses their freedom in a way that helps or harms them, but I'm not going to use the term 'freedom' alone as if it address the consequences of its use.
I agree that we seem to have gotten off topic. I was hoping to make some headway on the other points and then reel it back to the topic of transgender rights; but I think we are now doing circles unfortunately without any headway. With that being said, if there's anything about your topic of transgender rights that you would like to discuss further, then I am all ears.
Not a worry Bob! Still good points to think about. I think I've made my points, but feel free to say anything you still need to.