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

_{William Murray

May 16, 2016

Constitution, Culture, governance, Laws, Legal, Philosophy, Psychology, Society}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; 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

StephenB: "My definition is more complete: Immoral: violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics." But your original definition was: "immoral, which means OBJECTIVELY WRONG, " 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? :)inquisitor_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT}

inquisitor said:
Since you have repeatedly demonstrated that you have no concept what a moral subjectivist is, this assertion has little value.
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), and wrote some that were too extreme for even anarchist publishers, like "The Right to Kill" .... okay. I dn't know anything about it, I guess.
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.
The part where the rubber hits the hypocrite is not where people act on their own individual, supposedly subjective moral views when nobody else is involved, inquisitor. 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. If you were a logically-consistent moral subjectivist, it wouldn't matter to you how transgenders were treated by law or by others because it's all a matter of subjective preference or biological/nurture orientation anyway acting however it happens to act out in the world. So what? If you're a subjectivist, what do you care? It's like being outraged over people eating chocolate ice cream when you don't like it. So what? Do you want to pass laws over all your personal preferences? Do you want to convince others to like the same things you like? You and others here are pretend moral subjectivists, deluding yourselves because you dislike what the idea of objective morality necessarily indicates.William J Murray_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT}

Re #71: WJM, I don't know what to tell you other than what I told StephenB. I understand what you think about moral subjectivism. You made it pretty clear. And you also made it pretty clear that none of the arguments or explanation thus far have any in any way changed your mind. How would they. I believe you posted realitively early in the last thread that you know subjectivism is irrational.
Do you not understand the difference between saying a thing is wrong, and saying you prefer not to do a thing?
I'll try one last (maybe) time: Yes, I and others do understand that and we agree. There is a difference. When we I say something is morally wrong then I mean 'I believe it is wrong for everybody'. I acknowledge the fact that nobody might share this belief and that at different times and places this belief would be looked at in horror. And I accept the fact that when there are moral disagreements they can sometimes be resolved by convincing the counterparty of your belief, but often they can not.hrun0815_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT}

Inquisitor:
Immoral: “Morally wrong, or outside society’s standards of acceptable, honest, and moral behaviour”
My definition is more complete: Immoral: violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics. Thus, I did not, as you had hoped, changed the definition.StephenB_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT}

I think William's point is that we must act as if we think morals are objective even if we know they are subjective. I can partially buy this from a certain philosophical, existential point of view. The idea is sort of Kantian: that whenever we make a moral judgment we necessarily universalize it. We offer it as an objective standard that we might desire others to also adopt. Any time we say "x is wrong" we are making a statement about a position that we would like, or at least be willing for, every human being to adopt But that doesn't mean that the moral standard is actually objective in the sense of existing independent from human beings. What it means is that we, through our collective actions, create a set of standards that have some "objective" reality by being embedded in the culture. It is part of human nature to make judgments: it is a necessary part of being communicative social animals. We can't talk to each other about our expectations for each other's behavior without using the language of right and wrong, good and bad. In that sense, we have to talk as if we are moral objectivists even if, through understanding mankind from a comparative perspective, we know we are not. I know wjm won't agree with most (all?) of what I've said here, but these are thoughts prompted by his position that we have to act as if we believe in objective morals even if we don't actually know whether they exist or not.Aleta_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT}

SB: "If a transgender man is given the right to cause a woman to be uncomfortable in her own bathroom, then obviously she no longer has a right not to be comfortable, since it has been take away from her." hrun
I interpret this exchange to mean that even for you there is no distinction between a right “not to be uncomfortable” and a right “to be comfortable”.
There is no distinction. However, that has nothing to do with your claim that I said such a right exists. I didn't. It doesn't. The meaning of my statement is this: If the law "gives" to transgenders a non-existent right to comfort, then equality demands that the same "right" should given to nontransgenders, yet the same people that presume to give it to transgenders also take it away from nontransgenders by refusing to consider their comfort as well. I hope that clears up the matter.StephenB_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT}

Aleta said:
I find it a bit ironic that so many people here strongly advocate for the reality of free will, and yet protest those who say that ultimately we have to choose what we think is morally right, based on our own best judgment, and try to act accordingly.
Nobody is protesting any such thing. More mish-mashed pairings of words and concepts on your part. We have the free will to will whatever wish, even if nonsensical; that will and the capacity to act upon that will is confined to actual, objective limitations (which are innately required for free will to have any definitional meaning). Just because there are (arguendo) objectively true moral rules does not mean you are not free to choose otherwise; but as with any free will choice, you cannot escape the consequences of those choices. Just because you can will yourself to fly off a cliff side doesn't mean that the choice to physically attempt it will result in anything other than a crash to the bottom of that cliff. Physical laws have consequences regardless of your application of free will; so too, in theory, do moral laws.
There are no objective morals.
And yet you argue as if there are.
There are aspects of our humanity so deeply a part of our human nature that they surface in almost all cultures and all people, but ultimately we, collectively, have to make a moral world: we have to exercise the freedom provided us by our ability to make the best choices we can for ourselves. We cannot avoid this responsibility, as every action is a choice.
Under subjectivism, "we" are certainly not "obligated" to make the "best" choices we can; we are necessitated by fact, however, to make choices. We can avoid the responsibility, however, by insisting or believing that we have no real choice in the matter.
I realize, of course, that what I am doing here is presenting, and making the case for, the particular choices I have made. I am not (as vivid erroneously accused me of in 51) saying that my way of looking at this is the right way, but it is my right way, and I’d like others to at least know how I feel with the hopes that I might possibly have an influence on some.
Why would you want to have an influence on others? Why not just leave them to their own individual assessment of right and wrong, instead of attempting to sway them into agreement with you? It seems to me that under your supposed paradigm of helping others to find and pursue their best, true selves, the last thing you'd want to do is influence them into your way of thinking. Are you blind to the pattern of self-contradiction you're presenting in your posts?
I also know that others can make the same statement about themselves: everyone here is making the case for the views they hold, and trying to be persuasive about them.
Yes, but from the objective perspective, we are not merely trying to influence others to be more like us (a rather petty ambition, if I may say so), but rather are trying to understand and help others understand a concept of morality that is rationally sound and justifies how people must act and argue in the real world, without which all we can have is the anarchy of subjective sentiment which more often than not ends up providing the self-contradictory, conceptual mish-mash of responses you've presented so far.William J Murray_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT}

WJM: " You use terms like “we should” and “us” as if your personal moral outlook applies to others when, under subjectivism, it doesn’t." Of course it doesn't. But that doesn't mean that a subjectivist doesn't think it should. It's an easy concept. I believe that cats should run free. I believe that everyone else should agree with me. Big surprise, not everyone believes the same thing.inquisitor_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT}

Amen . its up to god. Then its up to the people to decide. No animals ever had a transgender problem. our souls are put into the bodies we have. The bodies are male or female. There might be interference in the body system leading to malfunction. YET never to genes or essence of the opposite sex. I also suspect its mostly males who imagine they are females because the male is more juiced up to be a male and more likely to have malfunction.Robert Byers_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT}

Wjm: A biological condition that makes you identify with or act more like the opposite sex doesn’t make you the opposite sex; it makes someone of one sex who acts like or identifies with a member of the opposite sex. The condition does not make you identify with a particular sex, it makes you more physically like the a particular sex, that makes it more likely to identify with that particular sex. As Zach pointed out in an earlier thread about 1 in a thousand births has an ambiguous sex, Gender is not binary in nature, Hermaphroditism Schizophrenia is also a condition caused by biology, Varying conditions is the present understanding and is treatable. To a point Just because a biological conditions makes a person think they are Napoleon, or a horse, Yes delusions are one symptom ,of course we know they are not Napoleon because Napoleon is long dead and we know they are Homo sapiens not horses or a woman trapped in a man’s body That we do not know if gender is not binary. And since no amount of homones will make you appear to be Napoleon or a horse, whereas we know hormone treatments can cause male aspects in women and the reverse you seem to be making a category error by equating the two. doesn’t mean that the law should accommodate a biologically-caused perception that is contrary to the physical facts. it actually is a perception of a biological condition, thought to be the same as you experience.velikovskys_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT}

hrun said:
And I know that know some smartie-pants will jump up (probably Eugen) and complain that I use the word ‘wrong’ and then ask me to explain the contradiction because only objectivists can use the words right and wrong. And round and round it goes. Unproductive.
It's unproductive because you refuse to qualify your commentary and phrase it in a way that makes the subjectivist value of your statements clear. You use terms like "we should" and "us" as if your personal moral outlook applies to others when, under subjectivism, it doesn't. Do you not understand the difference between saying a thing is wrong, and saying you prefer not to do a thing? It's the difference between saying that eating chocolate ice cream is wrong, and saying that you prefer not to eat chocolate ice cream. They do not mean the same thing. One has obvious objectivist implications; the other is couched in subjectivist terminology. That you and others refuse to word your posts and characterize your argument with subjectivist terminology and qualifiers indicates to the rest of us that you realize how hollow and weak and nonsensical your argument sound without the implied weight of objectivism. Go ahead, make a few posts where your arguments and statements are clearly subjectivist in nature and see how they read. I double-dog dare you. Be sure and allow for the right of other to subjectively determine their own morality as well and see how far your argument gets.William J Murray_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT}

WJM: "Except for the fact that nobody acts like a moral subjectivist..." Since you have repeatedly demonstrated that you have no concept what a moral subjectivist is, this assertion has little value. 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.inquisitor_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT}

Full quote of 58, by Inquisitor:
WJM: “Understandings of moral rules are often betrayed by the flawed, erroneous and often corrupted perception of humans, just as everything else under the sun is.” No, Understandings of moral rules are established by the flawed, erroneous and often corrupted perception of humans, just as everything else under the sun is. The idea that morality is man made and not objectively dictated is scary. It can result in some very destructive things that are not sustainable in a society. But all of history supports it. You can bury your head in the sand and yell “it’s objective. It’s objective. Might and manipulation make right. We are heading over the cliff to a broken back”. Or we can discuss and debate with an open mind to create a society that is long lasting and provides the greatest amount of protection to everyone, even those on the fringe.
This is excellent. I find it a bit ironic that so many people here strongly advocate for the reality of free will, and yet protest those who say that ultimately we have to choose what we think is morally right, based on our own best judgment, and try to act accordingly. There are no objective morals. There are aspects of our humanity so deeply a part of our human nature that they surface in almost all cultures and all people, but ultimately we, collectively, have to make a moral world: we have to exercise the freedom provided us by our ability to make the best choices we can for ourselves. We cannot avoid this responsibility, as every action is a choice. I realize, of course, that what I am doing here is presenting, and making the case for, the particular choices I have made. I am not (as vivid erroneously accused me of in 51) saying that my way of looking at this is the right way, but it is my right way, and I'd like others to at least know how I feel with the hopes that I might possibly have an influence on some. I also know that others can make the same statement about themselves: everyone here is making the case for the views they hold, and trying to be persuasive about them. I am not persuaded by those who believe in objective or absolute moral standards, although I think my perspective has been broadened by engaging in discussions about this, and I am definitely not persuaded by the arguments against same-sex marriage and gender identity issues presented here, but I understand both my positions and other positions better for having been a part of these discussions. But we're all in the same boat, in my opinion, each making moral choices as best we see fit: the difference is that some of us more fully embrace the part of Inquisitor's post bolded above.Aleta_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT}

StephenB: As I understand your position, when you say something is immoral, you mean that you don’t like it. So my question is very simple: Why do you say it is immoral, which means objectively wrong, when you really mean that you don’t like it?" You object to the redefinition of "marriage", but you are perfectly willing to redefine "immoral" when it suits your purpose. Let me refresh your memory: Immoral: "Morally wrong, or outside society's standards of acceptable, honest, and moral behaviour"inquisitor_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT}

inquisitor said:
And since people are completely free to not “accept human equality”‘ under an objectivist perspective, and frequently demonstrate this freedom, where is the benefit to an objectivist perspective?
Well, for one thing it allows you to make moral arguments without being hypocritical.
I always find it amazing that a world with self evident objective morality operates exactly like one with subjective morality.
Except for the fact that nobody acts like a moral subjectivist or argues as if moral subjectivism is actually true. A fully delusional (subjective) world cannot be discerned from a objectively-existent world, either. That doesn't mean the world is actually a delusion, nor does it mean anyone actually acts like a solipsist even when they insist they are one.
Didn’t you recently argue against the use of derogatory terms? Tsk tsk.
Nope.William J Murray_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT}

Re #63:
It has never been explained in a rational manner. I am asking you to do that.
And how do you expect me to do that? It has been made clear by man that my understanding of morals is completely irrational. And now you are asking me to explain in a rational way how I use the word 'should' in when I discuss morality?
As I understand your position, when you say something is immoral, you mean that you don’t like it. [...]
Yes. I know that StephenB. That's why I don't really see the point in trying to explain it again because the difference between 'I don't like it' and 'I think it is morally wrong' has been explained before just as well. And I know that know some smartie-pants will jump up (probably Eugen) and complain that I use the word 'wrong' and then ask me to explain the contradiction because only objectivists can use the words right and wrong. And round and round it goes. Unproductive.hrun0815_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT}

Re #60: First you suggest that the laws are about a 'special right not be be uncomfortable:
Transgenders are asking for a special right not to be uncomfortable.
Then you say if such a law is indeed in effect then the right to feel comfortable is taken away from a woman in her own bathroom.
If a transgender man is given the right to cause a woman to be uncomfortable in her own bathroom, then obviously she no longer has a right not to be comfortable, since it has been take away from her.
I interpret this exchange to mean that even for you there is no distinction between a right "not to be uncomfortable" and a right "to be comfortable". But if you like I can follow your distinction:
Well, StephenB already claimed there is a right of ‘not feeling uncomfortable’ and didn’t object about my suggestion of a ‘comfort police’. So I would say, yes. That’s on the horizon.
hrun0815_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT}

WJM: "A long lasting society built up on the firm bedrock of subjective, irrational sentiment!" Didn't you recently argue against the use of derogatory terms? Tsk tsk.inquisitor_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT}

hrun
If by now you don’t understand how subjectivists use the term ‘should’ in the context of morality then I don’t think I can help you any further. This has been explained too many times to count.
It has never been explained in a rational manner. I am asking you to do that.
I don’t expect you to subscribe to my position. Not in the least. But it would be nice if you at least would make an effort to understand it so the same questions don’t have to be answered over and over again.
As I understand your position, when you say something is immoral, you mean that you don't like it. So my question is very simple: Why do you say some act is immoral, which means objectively wrong, when you really mean that you just don't like it? So, for you, morality changes with preferences, Immoral: violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.StephenB_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT}

WJM: "There is no reason for “we” to “accept human equality” under a subjectivist perspective." And since people are completely free to not "accept human equality"' under an objectivist perspective, and frequently demonstrate this freedom, where is the benefit to an objectivist perspective? "Also, under moral subjectivism, there’s no reason “we” should consider empathy important at all;" And under moral objectivism we are free to ignore the importance of empathy, as history has also clearly demonstrated. I always find it amazing that a world with self evident objective morality operates exactly like one with subjective morality.inquisitor_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT}

inquisitor said:
Or we can discuss and debate with an open mind to create a society that is long lasting and provides the greatest amount of protection to everyone, even those on the fringe.
A long lasting society built up on the firm bedrock of subjective, irrational sentiment! A society that embraces moral subjectivism offers protection to no one.William J Murray_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT}

hrun
Well, StephenB already claimed there is a right of ‘feeling comfortable’ and didn’t object about my suggestion of a ‘comfort police’. So I would say, yes. That’s on the horizon.
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 have referred to alleged or supposed right to comfort, but I have never said that any such right exists. I am sure that any context in which I used that word made the point evident. So, please tell me where I said it, with full context.StephenB_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT}

hrun said:
The idea of human equality is deeply rooted in our ability to recognize other human beings as such and feeling empathy.
Or: The idea of human non-equality is deeply rooted our ability to recognize other human beings dissimilar to us as "the other" and feeling fear, distrust and hatred towards them. Or, we just recognize they are weaker than us (physically or mentally) which gives us moral license (subjectively speaking) to treat them as though they are not our equals. You're not thinking like a moral subjectivist, hrun. You're arguing as if there are human traits that are proper foundations for morality, and others which are not.
Whether we should or should not consider empathy is important is irrelevant, fortunately. Human beings do FEEL empathy as a part of their biological make-up.
Humans feel a lot of things they use in their moral judgements. Like fear, hatred, disgust, etc. As a principled subjectivist, you are bound to support any such human traits and feelings that anyone in particular might use as the basis of their moral bearings.
It happens at different times as children develop, but I can assure you that human beings start feeling empathy with or without any understanding of why the SHOULD feel empathy.
They start feeling all sorts of things at early ages, none of which means that is what any individual should use to base their morality on. Not if you're actually arguing for moral subjectivism, anyway.William J Murray_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT}

WJM: "Understandings of moral rules are often betrayed by the flawed, erroneous and often corrupted perception of humans, just as everything else under the sun is." No, Understandings of moral rules are established by the flawed, erroneous and often corrupted perception of humans, just as everything else under the sun is. The idea that morality is man made and not objectively dictated is scary. It can result in some very destructive things that are not sustainable in a society. But all of history supports it. You can bury your head in the sand and yell "it's objective. It's objective. Might and manipulation make right. We are heading over the cliff to a broken back". Or we can discuss and debate with an open mind to create a society that is long lasting and provides the greatest amount of protection to everyone, even those on the fringe.inquisitor_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT}

There is no reason for “we” to “accept human equality” under a subjectivist perspective. The idea of “human equality” is a metaphysical perspective rooted in natural law (or some religious views).
The idea of human equality is deeply rooted in our ability to recognize other human beings as such and feeling empathy.
Also, under moral subjectivism, there’s no reason “we” should consider empathy important at all; it’s up to the individual to determine what is important to them when considering what determines for them what is morally good and evil.
Whether we should or should not consider empathy is important is irrelevant, fortunately. Human beings do FEEL empathy as a part of their biological make-up. It happens at different times as children develop, but I can assure you that human beings start feeling empathy with or without any understanding of why the SHOULD feel empathy.
If you want to argue as if you are actually a moral subjectivist, you must learn how to properly phrase and characterize your comments. It’s not our job to figure out the “moral subjectivist” interpretation you should have employed; it’s your job to clearly indicate the subjectiveness of your argument and points. To do that means to avoid using phrasings and terminology that make it sound as if you are making claims about what all people should do – you know, stop using “we” and “us” as if your subjectivist views apply to others.
Even that turns out not to be true, WJM. I had the some point when I replied to StephenB. It is actually only when talking with people like you where this becomes important. I have countless conversations about morals and it never is a hinderance that I use the terminology that I use. And if you, rather than trying to score points or catch people in a contradiction, where to understand what a moral subjectivists means when he talks about what people should do, then all of these discussions would be a lot more productive.hrun0815_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT}

hrun said:
Actually, no. The best we can do is accept human equality and recognize the importance of empathy to shape our morality.
There is no reason for "we" to "accept human equality" under a subjectivist perspective. The idea of "human equality" is a metaphysical perspective rooted in natural law (or some religious views). Why on earth would a subjectivist consider all humans "equal" in the first place, and who are you to say what any particular subjectivist should consider important? (an aside to inquisitor: remember, there's a difference between establishing a sound basis for a legal system, and what are necessary criteria for adding or subtracting laws to/from that system) Also, under moral subjectivism, there's no reason "we" should consider empathy important at all; it's up to the individual to determine what is important to them when considering what determines for them what is morally good and evil. If you want to argue as if you are actually a moral subjectivist, you must learn how to properly phrase and characterize your comments. It's not our job to figure out the "moral subjectivist" interpretation you should have employed; it's your job to clearly indicate the subjectiveness of your argument and points. To do that means to avoid using phrasings and terminology that make it sound as if you are making claims about what all people should do - you know, stop using "we" and "us" as if your subjectivist views apply to others. Go ahead and try it for a few posts to see how it reads.William J Murray_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT}

Re #52:
Nobody is going to be checking birth certificates at public restrooms and facilities. You do understand this, right?
Yes, WJM, I do understand that. If you read the rest of my exchange with vividbleau then you'd be aware that I know that. The insistence on 'gender assigned at birth' is simply a non-starter since there is no practical way to control for this. I already laid out in #43 what I think actually will happen:
But joking aside, I think that this, just like all the other culture-war stuff will simply blow over by the next election cycle when republicans realize it’s not an election winner anymore. Especially since it turns out that evangelicals actually don’t even care about this stuff all that much (considering how much they supported Trump over Cruz). So, just like SSM is now by-and-large accepted law of the land and barely registers in the media and elections anymore, so will this topic fade away into cultural acceptance (at least that’s what I would predict).
hrun0815_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT}

Aleta: "FWIW, going over the edge is one of kf’s favorite metaphors." I certainly hope that he is not lying at the bottom, broken backed.inquisitor_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT}

Aleta "because nothing is absolute): " OMG!!!! Vividvividbleau_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT}

hrun0815:
How so? In that such a provision is impossible to exist or that if it existed it would not work? Considering that the NC regulation now essentially demands a birth-certificate I would think that just requiring a standard government ID for bathroom use would be a bit more workable.
Nobody is going to be checking birth certificates at public restrooms and facilities. You do understand this, right?William J Murray_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply