If thinking so makes a man a woman…

RJS You stated that you "cannot see how this does any harm to others". I gave you the answer to this. Now you switched the topic and ask:

So, you are agreeing that Christians have done, and continue to do great harm to other people?

You're establishing "the avoidance of harm" as the supreme value. Peace at all costs is not a virtuous position to adopt. Truth always does harm to falsehood. A virtuous lifestyle will destroy a life of bad habits and vices. Good thoughts and behaviors destroy evil. So, of course the religion of Christ, which has a supreme value, will destroy error and falsehood, as it should. In order to stop the spread of evil, it is necessary to do some harm to those who promote it. Silver Asiatic

SA

Those who destroy culture and religious values cause great harm to people.

So, you are agreeing that Christians have done, and continue to do great harm to other people? I suspect that this is not the feeling of most here. R J Sawyer

A person's religious convictions, societal order, family and communal bonds and shared culture are of very high, sacred value. These things can be seriously harmed by the actions of others. Society and culture can be damaged by beliefs and private actions. Separation, conflict, opposition to shared beliefs, dishonoring that which is held to be sacred - this causes severe harm to people. If someone pisses on your mother's gravesite - what harm is it doing to anyone? Obviously its an irreverence and insult to that which you value. Those who destroy culture and religious values cause great harm to people. Silver Asiatic

jad

In other words, human rights are not something that were invented or made up by human beings.

I would disagree. They are derived from numerous factors, one of which is whether this right causes harm to others or causes some serious and negative imposition on others. By examining this and other factors, humans decided to abolish slavery, give the vote to women, etc. If a man wants to live as a woman, I cannot see how this does any harm to others or causes any serious negative imposition on others. I prefer to look at rights from a different view point. Not whether I have the right to do something, but whether I have the right to prevent someone from doing something. R J Sawyer

The study of human beings and our societies is an empirical study, based on observation of what people, individually and in groups, actually do. We see that here are common features of human nature that lead to some commonalities in human societies, but that doesn't mean they come from some universal, transcendental source. jdk

john_a_designer @ 7

The point is I am not obligated to accept a morality that is based on someone else’s subjective opinion. On the other hand, I do have a right to reject such nonsense.

Absolutely right. And by the same token I'm not obliged to accept your morality. I'm also free to reject such nonsense, even if it's supposed to come from God or Allah or Buddha or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's all subjective opinion! You try and prove otherwise. Morality's are also neither true nor false if you accept the correspondence theory of truth. By that theory, claims about the world are true to the extent that they are observed to correspond with what they purport to describe. Moral claims are about how we should behave, mostly towards one another, not about what is. Science is about what the shape of the hydrogen atom is, not about what shape it should be to conform to some person's personal notion of what they think their God would like it to be. So if some people want to swap the gender roles expected of them by their culture or create a new role, why shouldn't they? Who does it harm? Nobody's suggesting you should change. You can be whatever you want to be. Why shouldn't those who want to be different, be different? Seversky

@jdk why can't there be a universal law of justice just as there is a universal law of gravity? There at least seem to be consistent patterns that lead to prosperous societies versus societies that destroy themselves. There also seem to be consistent patterns that lead to human happiness versus patterns that lead to misery. The notion does not appear too far fetched to be dismissed out of hand. Per the OP, if self identification is now specially protected, why can't I self identify as Bill Gates and walk into his bank demanding his money? EricMH

I have problem getting involved in discussions or debates with interlocutors who defend moral subjectivism because I don’t believe they are being intellectually or ethically honest.

Then we won't bother discussing, will we. I certainly don't want to discuss with someone who thinks I am being intellectually or ethically dishonest because I don't agree with them about this: that would be a waste of both of our time. jdk

I have problem getting involved in discussions or debates with interlocutors who defend moral subjectivism because I don’t believe they are being intellectually or ethically honest. The logic here is really very basic and straightforward: If there are no true interpersonal moral standards or obligations how can we trust anything anyone says or asserts? I don’t think that we can. To have an honest discussion or debate you need some kind of interpersonal, or “transcendent,” standard of truth and honesty– even if it’s a traditional or some kind of “conventional” standard. Why would I trust somebody else’s subjective standard for honesty and truth when he is in fact arguing there is no standard of truth or honesty? It would be rather foolish to get involved in that kind of dialogue. john_a_designer

JAD writes,

The point is I am not obligated to accept a morality that is based on someone else’s subjective opinion.

I strongly agree. Therefore, I am not obligated to accept anyone's morality, as all anyone has is their subjective opinion. However, obviously I disagree that there is some "universal law of justice." That is just another subjective opinion (in this case, Cicero's.) jdk

Transgender “rights” are “rights” that were invented or made up by so-called secular progressives over the last few decades. This is the dangerous nonsense that is a result of a relativist or subjectivist view on morality and ethics. As I have written recently written on another thread when it comes to morality and human rights there is a long natural law tradition in the west that moral obligation and human rights are based on something objective and transcendent. Cicero understood this when he wrote, “Neither the senate nor the people can give us any dispensation for not obeying this universal law of justice. It needs no other expositor and interpreter than our own conscience. It is not one thing at Rome and another at Athens; one thing today and another tomorrow; but in all times and nations this universal law must for ever reign, eternal and imperishable.” In other words, human rights are not something that were invented or made up by human beings. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/how-the-warren-debacle-demonstrates-the-insanity-of-the-progressive-war-on-reality/#comment-666474 The point is I am not obligated to accept a morality that is based on someone else’s subjective opinion. On the other hand, I do have a right to reject such nonsense. john_a_designer

EricMH writes, "I think the SJWs need to start protesting against DNA fascism. After that, they should seek to overturn the law of gravity and mathematics." Historically, they have been able to subsist on purges of those who take such laws seriously when duty to ideology demands a different perspective. Forbidden thought: If it's mostly just sociology anyway, why not aim for equal representation of women in the National Hockey League? With severe enough surgery and massives doses of hormones, a women's hockey star has a RIGHT to be this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCrUcovi820 Maybe she could get a court judgment and then people whose careers might otherwise be endangered could be pressured to buy tickets. People, given a free hand, progressivism WORKS! News

@jdk, yes those would be the exception. Since they are pretty rare, we could call most people XX or XY with minimal risk of error. Otherwise, we are stuck in gender pronoun of the day hell, which is an unbounded set. We'll have to eventually dedicate a whole dictionary to the gender pronouns if we want to be consistent. @EDTA, one thing the men pretending to be women cannot ever do is create their own eggs, and their borrowed eggs will not have their DNA. So, they'll never be able to replace women. I think the SJWs need to start protesting against DNA fascism. After that, they should seek to overturn the law of gravity and mathematics. EricMH

I for one would find it deliciously ironic if men did in fact declare as women and then shut all true females out of every possible sport. What would true women then do? Go back to being 1960's style feminists, and continue complaining about "patriarchy" or something? EDTA

For instance,

Androgen insensitivity syndrome Androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS) is when a person who is genetically male (who has one X and one Y chromosome) is resistant to male hormones (called androgens). As a result, the person has some or all of the physical traits of a woman, but the genetic makeup of a man.

jdk

Although not everyone is one of those two. From Wikipedia:

Humans, as well as some other organisms, can have a chromosomal arrangement that is contrary to their phenotypic sex; for example, XX males or XY females (see androgen insensitivity syndrome). Additionally, an abnormal number of sex chromosomes (aneuploidy) may be present, such as Turner's syndrome, in which a single X chromosome is present, and Klinefelter's syndrome, in which two X chromosomes and a Y chromosome are present, XYY syndrome and XXYY syndrome.[4] Other less common chromosomal arrangements include: triple X syndrome, 48, XXXX, and 49, XXXXX.

jdk

We can call people XX or XY according to their DNA, if gender labels are too confusing. EricMH