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

Aeta RE 41 After reading 41 I could not help but think of Friedrich Nietzsche who concerning "moral fluids ( relativists) wrote,“You have your way, I have my way. As for the right way, it does not exist.” This sums up perfectly your position. Although I would rephrase it to read "You have your way, I have my way. As for the right way it does not exist unless we're talking about my way" Vividvividbleau_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT}

Aleta said:
I believe, strongly, that some people have inborn attractions to the same sex, and that some have an inborn sense of being born the wrong gender. These are biologically-based parts of their nature, and interact with their nurture (including various levels of their cultural surroundings) in just as complex a way as heterosexuality functions in the majority of people.
I agree with all of the above.
We (the generic “normal” person) did not choose to feel attracted to the opposite sex, and did not choose to feel a gender identity consistent with the biological sex we were born with. These are just part of our biological nature that are presented to us as we grow up.
I'll accept the above arguendo.
So my moral belief is that all people, irrespective of their sexual or gender orientation, deserve the same consideration. We are all people trying to be the best, truest self we can, and all of us have a moral responsibility to help others with this task, just as we would hope they would support us.
This is a form of moral objectivism - believing that we all have the same moral task in principle. As I said before, whether or not moral objectivism is true, we all act as if it is true, even if we call ourselves moral subjectivists. However, I will accept that these are your religious or metaphysical beliefs, and you are entitled to have them. I don't share them, however.
Therefore, as a moral choice, I support same-sex marriage and transgender accommodations.
So, here is the problem with your scenario: it in principle establishes that society and law must support by force of law whatever any individual considers their "best pursuit of their true self". Was Dahmer pursuing his idea of his best self? Can anyone who murders or steals or masturbates in public or hurls feces at children or beats women or destroys public and private property call it their pursuit of their true self? Who defines what a valid "true" self is, or what "best pursuit" of that end should entail? So, logically, your position endorses elimination of law altogether and embracing true anarchy as people define for themselves what their "true self" is, how to "best" pursue it, and that is the only way law can accommodate such a vast assortment of individual freedoms based on individual perspectives and identity definitions.
Of course, this general belief does not extend universally to all traits of all people (because nothing is absolute): I don’t have a moral obligation to help a psychopath realize his true self, and such people do exist.
Why not? Why does your moral obligation to the biological-and-nurture complex nature of individuals end at those you label "psychopaths"? Isn't that just another term of exclusion, like "pervert", meant to isolate and individual and exclude them because of something they "did not chooose"? Do you see how your framework is entirely self-defeating and fails with just a few moments of logical analyisis? Here you are not extending your moral obligation to some small subset of people who did not choose to be the way they are, even though you have just said that is exactly what people are morally obligated to do.
That is why I agree with wjm when he says, “You do the best you can with what you have available.” That is all we can do: act, and speak, so at to best represent our values, morals, emotions, rational understanding and arguments, etc. as best we can.
Yes, and when one's position has been shown to be fatally flawed and self-contradictory, they should abandon it and develop a new one.William J Murray_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT}

Re #48:
You forgot the Q in LGBTQ.
I'm not well-versed in these abbreviations. I first wrote LGTB.
The first thing that comes to mind is “no” because it is unworkable.
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. Anyway, this is really not that important. I entirely agree that requiring any form of ID is not a reasonable solution for public bathroom usage and I am relatively satisfied if things play out the way I expect them to play out.hrun0815_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT}

Hrun "I don’t know? But either way, I don’t think you were asking me for what the LBGT community would support, but what I would. There it is." You forgot the Q in LGBTQ. "Would it work for you? And why do you think would it not work for them? The first thing that comes to mind is "no" because it is unworkable. Vividvividbleau_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT}

inquisitor said:
Thank you for your response. But that wasn’t the question. The question is, how do you know that in 500 years people won’t look back on some of the morals of today and conclude that they were absurd and nihilistic.
What kind of argument is this? Did you and Aleta go to the same post-modernist "modes of debate" seminar? Are we going to base what we do now according to what we imagine people might think 500 years from now?
I realize that my child sacrifice example was an extreme that, for some bizarre reason pushed KF over the edge, but it was made to make a point. There were cultures who firmly believed that child sacrifice was not only morally acceptable, but morally imperative. By today’s standard, I don’t think that anyone would consider it a moral practice.
If people throughout time disagree on whether or not A=A, or that the earth orbits the sun, or what the value of Pi is, are those things therefore subjective in nature and simply the province of custom, sentiment and social variances?
But let’s take something that is equally emotional, but not as clear-cut. There were many cultures that participated in ritual cannibalism. Eating the flesh of a deceased love one. From our current standards, we are repulsed by the idea, but can we really categorize it as immoral? I would argue, no. Your thoughts?
Because there may be things that are not clear-cut doesn't change the fact that some things are. No, not every moral rule is clear-cut, just as not all scientific research offers clear-cut answers or ironclad, absolute effects. 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. It seems like those who object to moral objectivism object on the grounds that it - like anything else in the universe - cannot be perfectly and absolutely known by any and every human being that ever walked the earth, and seem to think that because some moral rules are general, or are conditional, or are just hard to figure out and people disagree, this factually must mean that morality is entirely subjective. By that standard, everything is entirely subjective and we're all solipsists.William J Murray_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT}

Re #38: If by now you don't understand how come 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. 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.hrun0815_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT}

Re #36:
Just because something is hard [...] doesn’t mean you throw your hands up and say “it’s all subjective, whatever.”
And that's why exactly zero people (other than maybe some psychopaths) actually do this.
The best we can do is begin with self-evidently true moral statements, then from there move forward, whether or not morality is actually an objective commodity.
Actually, no. The best we can do is accept human equality and recognize the importance of empathy to shape our morality.hrun0815_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT}

Inquisitor "By today’s standard, I don’t think that anyone would consider it a moral practice." What does "today's standard" have to do with whether it was moral then? To your question just because one finds an action repulsive does not make it immoral. Vividvividbleau_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT}

Re #33:
But getting back to your point…not would it only not work for everybody but you and I know that this will never happen. The LBGTQ community would go crazy if they had to show some form of identification. It goes against the very idea of gender fluidity which is being advocated. Besides what is the next step bathroom police? Are we going to have to show our IDs to go to the bathroom?
I don't know? But either way, I don't think you were asking me for what the LBGT community would support, but what I would. There it is.
HR: And it should alleviate the fears of StephenB, WJM, KF, and others about men sneaking into women’s locker rooms under flimsy pretext to molest or rape them. VB: I will let WJM, KF and SB speak for themselves but I don’t think so…just a guess.
Would it work for you? And why do you think would it not work for them? It seems the at least WJM think that the folks who have finished female-male transition should not go to the women's room. So if this was the criteria then the outcome is exactly what WJM supports. That being said, I also secretly think that StephenB and KF wouldn't. But it is very hard for me to get clear answers from them so I will likely never know. :)
Besides what is the next step bathroom police?
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. 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
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT}

Inquisitor writes,
I realize that my child sacrifice example was an extreme that, for some bizarre reason pushed KF over the edge.
FWIW, going over the edge is one of kf's favorite metaphors. More seriously, your cannibalism example is a good one: there is a scene in Heart of Darkness where some natives working quite cooperatively with the white traders are appalled that they are not allowed to eat some natives who attack them and are killed.Aleta_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT}

re wjm at 36: I understand, from a conversation quite a long time ago, wjm's view that we need to act as if we believe in objective moral laws even if we don't know for sure whether they actually exist or not. (I don't know whether he would agree that this is an accurate description of his views or not.) And I agree with him when he says,
You do the best you can with what you have available.
So when he says,
What do you have to offer us, Aleta?
I will offer this: I believe, strongly, that some people have inborn attractions to the same sex, and that some have an inborn sense of being born the wrong gender. These are biologically-based parts of their nature, and interact with their nurture (including various levels of their cultural surroundings) in just as complex a way as heterosexuality functions in the majority of people. We (the generic "normal" person) did not choose to feel attracted to the opposite sex, and did not choose to feel a gender identity consistent with the biological sex we were born with. These are just part of our biological nature that are presented to us as we grow up. So my moral belief is that all people, irrespective of their sexual or gender orientation, deserve the same consideration. We are all people trying to be the best, truest self we can, and all of us have a moral responsibility to help others with this task, just as we would hope they would support us. Therefore, as a moral choice, I support same-sex marriage and transgender accommodations. Of course, this general belief does not extend universally to all traits of all people (because nothing is absolute): I don't have a moral obligation to help a psychopath realize his true self, and such people do exist. That is why I agree with wjm when he says, "You do the best you can with what you have available." That is all we can do: act, and speak, so at to best represent our values, morals, emotions, rational understanding and arguments, etc. as best we can.Aleta_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT}

Vivid: "However I will answer Inquisitor and you…..unlike the moral fluids (they were moral then an immoral now) it is immoral now and it was immoral then!" Thank you for your response. But that wasn't the question. The question is, how do you know that in 500 years people won't look back on some of the morals of today and conclude that they were absurd and nihilistic. I realize that my child sacrifice example was an extreme that, for some bizarre reason pushed KF over the edge, but it was made to make a point. There were cultures who firmly believed that child sacrifice was not only morally acceptable, but morally imperative. By today's standard, I don't think that anyone would consider it a moral practice. But let's take something that is equally emotional, but not as clear-cut. There were many cultures that participated in ritual cannibalism. Eating the flesh of a deceased love one. From our current standards, we are repulsed by the idea, but can we really categorize it as immoral? I would argue, no. Your thoughts?inquisitor_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT}

inquisitor said:
But, since you claim that “Bringing emotion into an argument about what laws should and should not be is the first step to abandoning reason and logic.” (which I agree with), can we assume that you agree with us that KF has abandoned all reason and logic when he rants on about these changes leading us over the cliff to a broken back?
No, that would not be a valid assumption.William J Murray_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

hrun
For example, I believe that torture is morally wrong and SHOULD NOT be made legale even if if could be shown that not torturing has negative consequences.
How do you reconcile your two contradictory positions: [a] There is no such thing as objective morality or an objective standard for should/should not. [b} We should not torture. It is not moral.StephenB_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT}

Interesting http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/05/16/princeton-prof-transgenderism-not-scientific-superstitious-belief/ This will go over well I'm sure. Vividvividbleau_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT}

Aleta said:
Yes, but others have thought that about their beliefs at other times, and we now say they were wrong.
Yes, humans err in all things, and are flawed in their observations and interpretations. Thanks, Captain.
So the question is how do you know that you are the person that knows what is absolutely moral correct this time, even though all those other people were wrong, even though they believed they were right just as much as you believe you are right?
You do the best you can with what you have available. What do you have to offer us, Aleta? Subjective morality, where there is no actual right or wrong and laws and morals are based on empathy and sentiment? Just because something is hard and cannot be absolutely understood and is subject to error and flawed interpretation (you know, like science and everything else under the sun) doesn't mean you throw your hands up and say "it's all subjective, whatever." Subjective morality is a non-starter both for morality and as a basis for law. Empathy and sentiment are not the basis for a sound legal system but are rather a recipe for totalitarian manipulation.
I claim you can’t really know that.
Doesn't matter if you can or cannot; it's the only sound basis for morality and law. Period. We all act as if we can, whether we call ourselves moral subjectivists or objectivists.
It seems obviously, unequivocally clear to you now that certain things are immoral, but many other human beings have thought the same things about things you now would say are not immoral. How are you, in this time or place, privileged with, finally, the correct beliefs?
Morality based upon the concept of natural law is hardly unique to this time and place. Again, moral objectivism is all we have to work with, because no one can even act as if moral subjectivism is true (unless one is a sociopath). Whether there is actually an objective basis for morality or not, we must act as if there is, and laws must be ordered as if there is, otherwise all you have is anarchy and chaos moving through an ocean of sentiment and might-makes-right manipulations. The best we can do is begin with self-evidently true moral statements, then from there move forward, whether or not morality is actually an objective commodity.William J Murray_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

WJM: "Physical facts are neither cruel nor vindictive. Bringing emotion into an argument about what laws should and should not be is the first step to abandoning reason and logic." I think that we can all generally agree about this. Although, a person born with a physical disability might disagree that physical facts are not cruel. But, since you claim that "Bringing emotion into an argument about what laws should and should not be is the first step to abandoning reason and logic." (which I agree with), can we assume that you agree with us that KF has abandoned all reason and logic when he rants on about these changes leading us over the cliff to a broken back?inquisitor_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT}

Hrun: "inquisitor, I would think that protecting the right of having such a belief is different from protecting rights based on such beliefs." Very true. But when we protect the freedom of religion, it goes beyond just the right to believe it. It has impacts on society (tax base) and other accommodations.inquisitor_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT}

Hrun I want to follow up with our conversation from the other thread that KF closed. I think its consistent with the topic of this thread as well hopefully WJM will agree. One of your criteria regarding how a persons sex is determined was consistency and verification on their drivers license . My objection to that was Vivid "But we are told that “gender identity” is fluid, it can change day by day, hour by hour, moment by moment, this standard would deprive those whose gender fluidity is not consistent their rights....one could have a gender identity change driving from the DMV parking lot" Your response was "Yup. It still woudln’t work for everybody. But I would reckon that it would work for more people than it does now. And it should alleviate the fears of StephenB, WJM, KF, and others about men sneaking into women’s locker rooms under flimsy pretext to molest or rape them." I will let WJM, KF and SB speak for themselves but I don't think so...just a guess. But getting back to your point...not would it only not work for everybody but you and I know that this will never happen. The LBGTQ community would go crazy if they had to show some form of identification. It goes against the very idea of gender fluidity which is being advocated. Besides what is the next step bathroom police? Are we going to have to show our IDs to go to the bathroom? This is how crazy and insane this whole thing is. FUBAR Vividvividbleau_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT}

wjm writes,
We must do the best we can with what we have to work with now.
I agree. That is why we are discussing these issues. When enough people come to accept same-sec marriage and gender identity issues, then our laws will change to reflect that, and what will be considered moral will, in general, have changed.Aleta_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT}

Inquisitor asks:
I agree, but laws have been passed that protect your freedom of belief, even if your belief is not supported by fact. Don’t get me wrong, I fully support those laws. But if a transgendered truly believes that they are different than their biological sex, how is that belief any different than a religion that has no factual basis?
As I said, they are free to believe whatever they want. That doesn't mean the state is compelled to acquiesce to their beliefs as if those beliefs are true. Let's look at it this way: if a religious person believes they should not have to pay for food or water, or if a religious person believes that all weapons should be turned into plowshares, should the government pass such laws because 0.3% of the population share those beliefs? Of course not. They are free to believe as they wish; what they do not have is a right to legally force everyone else to act as if their beliefs are true. You are under no legal obligation to act as if some other person's individual, idiosyncratic religious beliefs are true.William J Murray_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT}

Yes, but others have thought that about their beliefs at other times, and we now say they were wrong. So the question is how do you know that you are the person that knows what is absolutely moral correct this time, even though all those other people were wrong, even though they believed they were right just as much as you believe you are right? I claim you can't really know that. It seems obviously, unequivocally clear to you now that certain things are immoral, but many other human beings have thought the same things about things you now would say are not immoral. How are you, in this time or place, privileged with, finally, the correct beliefs?Aleta_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT}

Aleta said:
And Inquisitor makes a good related point: if you have a religious belief that same-sex marriage is immoral, according to the quote above you are free to believe that but society doesn’t need to treat you as if that belief were true.
I agree. However, the framework of laws must be based on something, and they must be rationally applied. Laws are necessarily moral in nature - in fact, they are formalizations of oughts and ought-nots. Our society in the USA is founded upon the concept of natural moral law, and as far as I can tell, that is the most sound basis for a system of laws.
And, from the thread that kf recently closed, the bigger question is how do we know that moral beliefs that we firmly believe are just obviously, naturally true, such as same-sex marriage is wrong, or that a person’s sexual identity can never be anything other than the genitally-based sex at birth, won’t in fact be seen in the future (by our culture or others) as not only wrong, but in fact unjust, discriminatory, and/or prejudiced?
You can make that argument about anything, winding up with nothing but anarchy of thought. Even your comment above is a mish-mash of competing terminologies and phrases. We must do the best we can with what we have to work with now. We certainly cannot make laws now based upon what some of us think future generations might think in the future. Or, I guess that may be what leftist idealists do. We realists just try to do the best we can with what we actually have.William J Murray_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT}

Aleta and Inquisitor Evidently the other thread is closed so I am posting my reply here. "I support Inquisitor in his questioning" The question Inquisitor asks only makes sense to the moral relativists, or should we now use newspeak and say "moral fluid". It is brought up all the time as if it is somehow an objection that because we may not be able to agree on what these objective morals are that means they do not exist. That is flat out bad logic. However I will answer Inquisitor and you.....unlike the moral fluids (they were moral then an immoral now) it is immoral now and it was immoral then! Vividvividbleau_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT}

hrun continues:
I see absolutely no reason why they shouldn’t be legally allowed in the bathroom of their current sex. To me the ‘sex at birth’ stipulation just seems vindictive and cruel with no apparent redeeming attributes.
Physical facts are neither cruel nor vindictive. Bringing emotion into an argument about what laws should and should not be is the first step to abandoning reason and logic. If we base the public facility laws on "appearance", then we are (1) endorsing a static view of what it means to "appear" to be woman or a man in society, which is unacceptable to leftists, and (2) we are entering the realm of subjective assessments, which we don't want to be the criteria for law enforcement. Then, there is the case of those who have used surgery and hormonal/testosterone therapy to appear to be the opposite sex; however, even this doesn't factually make them members of the opposite sex because of several physical reasons, not the least of which is the DNA. Is it cruel and vindictive to pass a law that makes its discernment based on the only true, identifying indicator (in by far most actual cases) of the actual sex of the individual in question (the sex at birth)? Of course not; the law is neutral, based on the best documentation of physical fact and provides for the reasonable expectation of privacy and modesty for by far most individuals out in public. It's like saying that a policy where one must be a certain age or pass a certain physical in order to proceed is unnecessarily cruel or vindictive against those who are not that age, or are not physically capable, but imagine themselves to be or cosmetically alter themselves to appear to be. There is no cruelty or vindictiveness necessarily involved. But, because we have been conditioned to consider our empathy and sentiment as more important than physical facts and logic, we pity these poor individuals that do not conform to the norm and find themselves in these kind of awkward and uncomfortable situations and wish to grant them consideration or relief from their sense of "exclusion". That is when we, as a society, agree to politely look the other way when a transgender discreetly uses the rest room of the opposite sex, or when we as individuals smile and extend them our friendship based on the merit of their character and not their non-conformist habits/cosmetics. But we simply cannot be expected to make laws in defiance of physical facts and despite problematic consequences of putting millions of others at risk because we empathize with their hurt feelings or due to the sentiment of wanting them to "feel" included in the mainstream. This is why sentiment and empathy are not good considerations when it comes to the law, and it is exactly why totalitarians employ such tactics.William J Murray_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT}

wjm writes,
Freedom of belief does not translate into some imagined right that law and society treat you as if your beliefs are true.
And Inquisitor makes a good related point: if you have a religious belief that same-sex marriage is immoral, according to the quote above you are free to believe that but society doesn't need to treat you as if that belief were true. And, from the thread that kf recently closed, the bigger question is how do we know that moral beliefs that we firmly believe are just obviously, naturally true, such as same-sex marriage is wrong, or that a person's sexual identity can never be anything other than the genitally-based sex at birth, won't in fact be seen in the future (by our culture or others) as not only wrong, but in fact unjust, discriminatory, and/or prejudiced?Aleta_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT}

These new laws are great...I feel 65 years old. I demand a right to collect government pension, or else I'm calling everyone age-phobe! :DEugen_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT}

inquisitor: how is that belief any different than a religion that has no factual basis? You can believe and anything you want. You do not necessarily have the right to act on those beliefs contrary to law. For example, if you live in the USA, you do not have the right to practice exorcisms leading to injury or death, practice polygamy, own slaves, sell yourself into slavery, sacrifice live chickens or cats, etc.mike1962_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT}

Re #22: inquisitor, I would think that protecting the right of having such a belief is different from protecting rights based on such beliefs.hrun0815_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT}

WJM: "Transgenders have the same freedom of belief as anyone else. Freedom of belief does not translate into some imagined right that law and society treat you as if your beliefs are true – especially not if they contradict known physical facts." I agree, but laws have been passed that protect your freedom of belief, even if your belief is not supported by fact. Don't get me wrong, I fully support those laws. But if a transgendered truly believes that they are different than their biological sex, how is that belief any different than a religion that has no factual basis?inquisitor_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 10 11 12 13 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply