Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Why There Is (And Should Be) No Legal Right To Transgender Protections

Categories
Constitution
Culture
governance
Laws
Philosophy
Psychology
Society
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Transgenderism is when a person considers themselves to internally be the opposite sex of their physical body. They mentally “self-identify” in contradiction to the physical fact of their body sex. Transgender law advocates insist that self-identified “transgenders” be given legal right to have unfettered access to all public facilities currently reserved for one sex or the other (male and female restrooms, lockers, showers, women’s shelters, etc.) Obama has recently decreed that all schools that do not fully adopt transgender protections and policies will face the revocation of federal funding.

Usually, when a person believes they are something in contradiction to the physical facts (such as believing one is Napoleon, or believing one is a horse), we call that view delusional, because it is a persistent belief held in contradiction to physical facts. Believing that one is a “female” trapped in a male’s body is to consider female-ness something other than what it is, which is a designation based on physical facts. A man can have personality traits that are more in line with what are generally considered the personality traits of females, but having such personality traits doesn’t in fact make them a female “trapped” in a man’s body; it just makes them a man with some personality/psychological traits that are more generally considered to be that of females.

Should men (or women) be free to exhibit personality traits that are more in line with the opposite sex? Should they be allowed to dress like the opposite sex? Certainly. No one is arguing against that. However, should such people have the right to be legally accepted as actually being the opposite sex, for all legal intents and purposes? Should public institutions be forced to view them as the sex they personally identify with by allowing them full legal access to public facilities of the opposite sex?

This boils down to a simple question: should self-identifying personality traits that contradict physical facts be enforceable in the public sector as if those personality traits were physical facts? If a man self-identifies as a woman, should they be given access to all female-specific services and facilities? Should they be able to fill out employment forms and government forms, such as the census, as the opposite sex? Should public-funded school sports teams be required to allow men into women’s sports because they self-identify as women?

Logically, where does the right to self-identify in contradiction to physical facts end? Can I self-identify as a different race? A different age? Can I self-identify as having skills I physically do not have, as having talent I do not possess? Should the law force everyone to accept whatever anyone self-identifies as, regardless of what the physical facts are?

The reason transgenderism is not, and should not be, a legally protected right is because it is a set of personality/psychological traits where a person subjectively, mentally sees him- or herself as something they physically are not, or perhaps because they wish to display a personality that is somewhat in contradiction to social norms concerning gender. Society cannot legally enforce individual personality traits as if those traits represented physical reality or else chaos will ensue. Actual law must be grounded in physical reality, not in individual conceptions of self or individual personality traits. Society cannot, and should not, force everyone to treat such personality traits as if those personality traits represent physical reality. If a 40 year old man “sees himself” as a 4 year old child, am I legally bound to treat him as such? If a stranger insists they are my child or my parent, should such a personality trait have legal force?

These are not “slippery slope arguments”, these are the logical entailments of giving personality/psychological traits (that are in contradiction to physical facts) the full support and force of law. It is outright insanity. It is not a “civil rights” issue at all; it is attempting to break down any valid meaning to any law or right whatsoever if people can simply “self-identify” in contradiction to physical facts.

Comments
Vivid, I suspect you and I (and Hrun and StephenB and WJM) have far more in common than we would like to admit. Where we differ is in where we think we obtain those fundamental morals we all have.inquisitor
May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PDT
StephenB, I am sorry that I falsely attributed to you that 'a right of comfort' actually exists, since it is "obviously the very opposite of [your] position". I don't profess to understand all the explanations given by you, but I believe you that in many cases is might have been a matter of expedient writing and leaving out qualifiers. I think we now agree on the fact that 'a right of comfort doesn't exist'. Therefore, the 'a right of comfort' can not be the basis for a law since it does not exist. From this clearly follows that the bathroom laws 'do not give transgendered any right of comfort' nor do they 'take away the right of comfort from the non-transgendered'. The last thing that then really puzzles me is the exchange that started it all: hrun in #722:
tell us what special rights were gained by these tiny minorities that are not equally open to everybody else?
StephenB in #730:
You don’t understand the nature of a right. It is impossible to grant a right to one person or group without taking away a right from another person or group.
hrun in $744:
I ask you AGAIN: what special rights were gained by these tiny minorities that are not equally open to everybody else?
Stephen in #745:
You have already been told @737. The transgender insists on the right not to be uncomfortable. Those on whom they intrude are not afforded the same right.
Which rights were granted to one group and which were taken away from another?hrun0815
May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT
Inquisitor We all need to show a sense of humor kudos :) And yes I do. Vividvividbleau
May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT
Vivid: "That was not directed at you sorry I did not make that clear." I apologize for jumping to the conclusion. I should probably also apologize for my subsequent comment. But I think you have enough of a sense of humour to appreciate it.inquisitor
May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT
Vivid: "Ideas have consequences..." "And I find it not only unconvincing but incoherent and self refuting..." If you start talking paranoid nonsense like "heading over a cliff towards a broken back", I am going to look for a priest to exorcise that evil spirit from you. A little off topic, but has anybody wondered about the similarity between KF's obsession with breaking your back falling off a cliff and the movie Broke Back Mountain? Where is Freud when we need him?inquisitor
May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PDT
Inquisitor RE 105 That was not directed at you sorry I did not make that clear. Vividvividbleau
May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT
Vivid: "And I find it not only unconvincing but incoherent and self refuting when someone affirms absolutes all the while denying them." Please don't resort to the stupid "self-referentially incoherent" talking points made by those far less intelligent than you. You are far more intelligent than that.inquisitor
May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT
Inquisitor RE 103 Go for it. Ideas have consequences they go where they go I can't help that the destination is a place you don't like. Vividvividbleau
May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT
Vivid: "Or he was on the extreme nihilistic fringe because he DID understand moral subjectivism." By that logic, the Westborro Babtist church, the KKK, the Salem witch hunters, the conquistadors and KF best understand Christianity. Do you really want to go down that road?inquisitor
May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT
Re #99: Don't sweat it, Eugen. I have the suspicion that the majority of moral objectivists do not believe a moral subjectivist can truly believe a christian (nor actually exist).hrun0815
May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT
Aleta "I find it very unconvincing (as well as other less-than-favorable qualities) when someone (in this case vivid) thinks he “really understands” someone else’s position (in this case, Inquisitor’s) better and more truly than the person himself does.” I find it very unconvincing (as well as less than favorable qualities) when someone (in this case Aleta) ) thinks she "really understands" someone else's position ( in this case WJM) better and more truly than the person himself does. Vividvividbleau
May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT
StephenB: "In case you didn’t know, naked pronouns like “these” are kind of hard to follow standing out there all by themselves." Fine. I will spell it out. You originally said that immoral means "OBJECTIVELY WRONG". Not open for discussion. Not subjective. I responded that the actual definition of immoral was : "Morally wrong, or outside society’s standards of acceptable, honest, and moral behaviour". Clearly dictated by society, not objectively dictated. Then you did a comple 180 and stated that immoral was defined as: "violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics" Essentially the same as what I said. And completely opposite to your original claim of OBJECTIVELY WRONG. Do you want me to use smaller words so that you can keep up?inquisitor
May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT
Hrun, Yes I kind of remember. There were so many comments. Maybe it would be better to say "between moral subjectivists and moral objectivists". It's up to forum owner to allow suggestion in #96. It would be interesting.Eugen
May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT
Re #96: Eugen, the last two big threads generally had discussions between moral subjectivists and moral objectivists. Not between atheists and another group. You may remember that at least two of the moral subjectivists believe in god (and I believe are christian). But yes, atheists are getting away with so much and non-atheists are not. ;)hrun0815
May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
05:56 PM
5
05
56
PM
PDT
Re #94:
Yes, its just a matter of not using the word “alleged” or “supposed” or “invented” each time out. In effect, the government is trying to “give” transgenders an (alleged) right, i.e., a right (to comfort) that doesn’t really exist.
StephenB, but here you are switching from a legal definition for a right (a right is what the law establishes you have) to some metaphysical definition of a right (people do or do not have a right, irrespective of whether it is legal or not). If that is the context in which you use the word, then your whole argument doesn't make much sense. The whole thread you have consistently argued about rights being given and taken away. How does this even make sense when not using 'right' in the legal sense?hrun0815
May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
05:54 PM
5
05
54
PM
PDT
Atheists are getting away with so much in this and related threads. They want to eat their cake and have it. In a formal debate this wouldn't be allowed. It's the nature of this forum (and not a fault by any means) that moderator is also discussant so he has no time to remove himself from participating and fully moderate the discussion. It would be interesting if one or more atheists get the chance to write a post and form their argument or position. Hopefully the post would be concise and the best possible argument they can provide. Maybe they can pick one writer who is most eloquent. This way everybody, including themselves will get to know where they stand.Eugen
May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
05:54 PM
5
05
54
PM
PDT
Re #91: StephenB, I am getting more confused. The exchange in this thread started with #60:
Would you please tell me where I said there is a right of feeling comfortable since it is obviously the very opposite of my position?
I cite where I think you said this in #65. You reply in #76:
However, that has nothing to do with your claim that I said such a right exists. I didn’t.
Ok. So be it. Then, in #91 you explain to me that access to a bathroom according to your self-identified gender is indeed a 'right not to be uncomfortable' that is not afforded to non-transgendered. So which one is it? Is bathroom access according to your selfidentified gender a 'right not to be uncomfortable or is it not'?
The rules and regulations are based on the principle that transgenders have a basic right not to feel uncomfortable, just as the rules and regulations concerning a four-way stop sign are based on the principle that life should be protected. The reasons for the rules and regulations are not identical to the rules and regulations themselves. It is the reason for the regulation that justifies the regulation.
Where can you show that this is what the law is actually based on? All legal and popular analysis of the laws I have seen argue that it is 'based on the principle of equality' and not 'based on the principle of comfort'. But either way, since the laws are enacted, and you argue that they are based on a right for comfort, doesn't this mean that indeed you believe that comfort is a right that legally exists?hrun0815
May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT
Hrun: StephenB, you claim that transgendered are "GIVEN THE RIGHT to not be uncomfortable and the non-trangendered are NOT GIVEN THIS RIGHT." StephenB: "And I am right." Yes, its just a matter of not using the word "alleged" or "supposed" or "invented" each time out. In effect, the government is trying to "give" transgenders an (alleged) right, i.e., a right (to comfort) that doesn't really exist.StephenB
May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
05:43 PM
5
05
43
PM
PDT
Aleta I find it very unconvincing (as well as other less-than-favorable qualities) when someone (in this case vivid) thinks he “really understands” someone else’s position (in this case, Inquisitor’s) better and more truly than the person himself does." And I find it not only unconvincing but incoherent and self refuting when someone affirms absolutes all the while denying them. Vividvividbleau
May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT
I find it very unconvincing (as well as other less-than-favorable qualities) when someone (in this case vivid) thinks he "really understands" someone else's position (in this case, Inquisitor's) better and more truly than the person himself does. The belief that moral subjectivism is equivalent to nihilism is the black-and-white, slippery precipice, over-the-cliff perspective which totally ignores any human nuance. It is an ivory tower strawman that might have its home with some philosophers, but is not relevant to the vast majority of human beings who believe as we who are representing this view do.Aleta
May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT
hrun
What I do not understand is that in numerous exchanges you said that transgendered are ‘demanding a right for comfort’.
Right.
So why do you not write that transgendered are ‘demanding a right for bathroom access according to gender identity’ and instead replace it with ‘comfort’?
Let's work our way back: "I am a man, but I want access to use the women's restroom. Why? Because men's restrooms make me feel uncomfortable. So having access to them is not enough. Why do they make you feel uncomfortable? Because I identify as a female. That is why I need access to the women's restroom. Why is that our problem? Because I have a right not to be uncomfortable. Where does this right come from? It is a basic human right. Do the women in the restrooms that you visit have that same right? No, It belongs to transgenders alone. It doesn't matter if nontransgender women are made to feel uncomfortable when I visit their restroom. They have no similar rights to comfort. Well, if it belongs to transgenders alone, then it is not a basic right because basic rights apply to everyone. Indeed, it is not a right at all. Silence
The rules and regulations however do not actually deal with comfort– they deal with access to the bathroom according to gender identity.
The rules and regulations are based on the principle that transgenders have a basic right not to feel uncomfortable, just as the rules and regulations concerning a four-way stop sign are based on the principle that life should be protected. The difference is that the former principle is not real while the latter principle is. The reasons for the rules and regulations are not identical to the rules and regulations themselves. It is the reason for the regulation that justifies the regulation.StephenB
May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT
Re #88:
Or he was on the extreme nihilistic fringe because he DID understand moral subjectivism.
That's why maybe it might be in order to clarify what we actually mean when we talk about moral subjectivism and objectivism.hrun0815
May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
05:22 PM
5
05
22
PM
PDT
Re #76: Another question to clarify your position: I think that this whole discussion about the 'right for comfort' started off when we asked you to explain what 'rights' are taken away by the new regulations that allow transgender to use the bathroom according to your self-identified gender? I believe you explained that the 'right for comfort' is given to the transgendered and taken away from the rest in this scenarios. How does this not establish that you believe there is indeed such a right for comfort. For example in this exchange: Hrun: StephenB, you claim that transgendered are GIVEN THE RIGHT to not be uncomfortable and the non-trangendered are NOT GIVEN THIS RIGHT. StephenB: And I am right.hrun0815
May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT
Inquisitor "I would argue that you were on the extreme nihilistic fringe of moral subjectivism. Which explains why you don’t understand it." Or he was on the extreme nihilistic fringe because he DID understand moral subjectivism. Vividvividbleau
May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PDT
Re #80:
It’s where you are willing to impose those views on others (via law or personal intervention) and make arguments that others should adopt your moral views which renders you a lip-service moral subjectivist.
Speaking for myself, as a moral subjectivist, I retain the option to impose these views on others where I believe it is warranted. How would you, as an objectivist, deal with this situation?
If you were a logically-consistent moral subjectivist, it wouldn’t matter to you how transgenders were treated by law or by others [...]
Argh. Seriously? How often did a moral subjectivist in the two mongo threads explain that for many (all?) of us moral understanding is driven by empathy?
You and others here are pretend moral subjectivists, deluding yourselves because you dislike what the idea of objective morality necessarily indicates.
You know, seeing this post makes me wonder if we shouldn't go back to square one and make clear what we all mean when we talk about moral subjectivists and moral objectivists.hrun0815
May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT
Yes to 83.Aleta
May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT
Re #76:
If the law “gives” to transgenders a non-existent right to comfort, [...]
I think I understand better. So you do not believe that current regulation (except in a few states such as NC) give 'a right to comfort' for transgendered people. What I do not understand is that in numerous exchanges you said that transgendered are 'demanding a right for comfort'. The rules and regulations however do not actually deal with comfort-- they deal with access to the bathroom according to gender identity. So why do you not write that transgendered are 'demanding a right for bathroom access according to gender identity' and instead replace it with 'comfort'? PS: I want to make sure that we use the term 'right' here in the same way. From all your writing in this context I assume 'right' to mean in a legal sense-- how else would we be talking about people demanding a right, giving a right, or taking a right away.hrun0815
May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT
Inquisitor:
Forgive me if I suggest that these are not the same. Not in the same ballpark. Not in the same county. Not in the same country. Not on the same continent. Did I make my point clear? Or was I too subtle? :)
In case you didn't know, naked pronouns like "these" are kind of hard to follow standing out there all by themselves. Is that what you mean by "subtle?" Perhaps a better phrase would be "hopelessly vague." Please try again.StephenB
May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT
WJM: "Well, other than the fact that I spent years as a practicing moral subjectivist (not just a lip-service one) and actually had books promoting true moral subjectivism published (Anarchic Harmony, Unconditional Freedom),.. The fact that you think that subjectivists believe in anarchy speaks volumes (as KF soul say). I would argue that you were on the extreme nihilistic fringe of moral subjectivism. Which explains why you don't understand it.inquisitor
May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT
Inquisitor:
Everybody, objectivist or subjectivist, acts on moral beliefs that are equally ingrained and deeply held. The fact that I think they are subjective will not make it any easier for me to steal or kill lie than it will for you, being an objectivist.
On the contrary. It is easy, for the sake of convenience, to revise a changing moral code that you created for yourself, but it is impossible to revise an unchanging moral code that was established by someone else.StephenB
May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
04:35 PM
4
04
35
PM
PDT
1 8 9 10 11 12 13

Leave a Reply