Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

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

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
Re #19: It's very hard to not answer with sarcasm. Are you trying to argue that there could be a 'just system of law' that ensures any given law is ‘morally sound’, ‘according to natural law’, or ‘does not negatively impact society’ yet it does not establish that laws 'correspond to physical facts first'?hrun0815
May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT
Mind over matter. If your mind says boy and your privates say girl - you're a boy.ppolish
May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT
hrun said:
I would have thought that your ‘first and foremost’ criteria (based on your previous post) would be something like ‘morally sound’, ‘according to natural law’, or ‘does not negatively impact society’?
Explaining the basis for a just system of law is not the same thing as establishing criteria for passing laws within such a system.William J Murray
May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT
Re #15: I agree on the problem of gender-fluid. However, I would say that if a transgendered is undergoing transition to the point that they are outwardly the opposite sex and are able to get their sex changed in their documentation, 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.hrun0815
May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT
inquisitor said:
To play the devil’s advocate, could this not mean that laws protecting freedom of religion violate your criteria? There are very many religions that are protected by law. Surely you are not suggesting that they are all based on physical facts.
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.William J Murray
May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT
velikovskys, 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. Schizophrenia is also a condition caused by biology, and is treatable. Just because a biological conditions makes a person think they are Napoleon, or a horse, or a woman trapped in a man's body doesn't mean that the law should accommodate a biologically-caused perception that is contrary to the physical facts.William J Murray
May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT
hrun asks:
Now, if this is what you believe, then why is it not ok to actually afford the people in the link to actually do what they are doing without having to break the law? Would you support the laws if they would strike the provision ‘according to the sex they are assigned at birth’ in lieu of something like ‘according to the sex the are outwardly presenting as’?
No, I would not. The law cannot accommodate every instance of personal self-identification nor should it try to; it must be based on physical facts and upon as little subjective evaluation as possible. The system as it existed before worked as well any law can be expected to work for as many as can rationally be expected. Perhaps there can be a law where full post-op transsexuals can be medically determined to be, for all intents and purposes, a member of the opposite sex. The problem is that this sort of appraisal runs counter to the idea of "gender fluidity" and that there are no "real" gender norms. So, what you are left with as the only substantiating biological fact is the gender at birth.William J Murray
May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT
Wjm: 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. "Gender Identity Disorder in Twins: A Review of the Case Report Literature Gunter Heylens, MDcorrespondenceemail, Griet De Cuypere, MD, PhD, Kenneth J. Zucker, PhD, Cleo Schelfaut, MD, Els Elaut, MSc, Heidi Vanden Bossche, MSc, Elfride De Baere, MD, PhD, Guy T'Sjoen, MD, PhD Article has an altmetric score of 44 Introduction The etiology of gender identity disorder (GID) remains largely unknown. In recent literature, increased attention has been attributed to possible biological factors in addition to psychological variables." Biological factors are physical factsvelikovskys
May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT
WJM
If you’re asking me what is the criteria that should be examined before passing a law or establishing policy, I say that the first and foremost criteria is that the law correspond to physical facts first and should never elevate any personal, subjective sense of self-identity to the status of being protected and enforced by law as if that self-identity was reality – regardless of whether or not anyone is made to feel uncomfortable or put in harm’s way.
To play the devil's advocate, could this not mean that laws protecting freedom of religion violate your criteria? There are very many religions that are protected by law. Surely you are not suggesting that they are all based on physical facts.inquisitor
May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT
Re #7:
If it is your opinion that a president and unelected bureaucrats at the DoE have the final say on what rights US citizens have and do not have, you do not understand our system of government. Obama and the bureaucrats at the DoE can set policy that can fund or defund based upon that policy, but they cannot change or establish what our legal rights are. Until that policy change withstands what are sure to be court challenges that go to the supreme court, nothing has been decided. Currently, there are contradictory rulings on the matter in various district and state courts.
Fair enough. However, if I understand things correctly than due to the policies and no direct laws contradicting them (as in NC), currently in at least some states transgender do have the right to use the bathroom of the gender they self-identify with.
I’m not sure what you are asking me. Actual laws are passed regardless of whether or not they make any rational sense or whether or not they put people in danger or serve the greater good or not.
Yes, that is exactly my question. Because for me and my (irrational) moral understanding some things should be made into law even if they do have negative consequences and do not serve the greater good. 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.
If you’re asking me what is the criteria that should be examined before passing a law or establishing policy, I say that the first and foremost criteria is that the law correspond to physical facts first and should never elevate any personal, subjective sense of self-identity to the status of being protected and enforced by law as if that self-identity was reality – regardless of whether or not anyone is made to feel uncomfortable or put in harm’s way.
That is a very oddly specific and in many cases insignificant aspect that you feel is the 'first and foremost criteria' which should be evaluated when passing new laws or policy. I would have thought that your 'first and foremost' criteria (based on your previous post) would be something like 'morally sound', 'according to natural law', or 'does not negatively impact society'?hrun0815
May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT
Re #10: Thanks for your honest answer. I guess we could continue explorer boundary cases, but I am getting the gist of what you believe is right. Now, if this is what you believe, then why is it not ok to actually afford the people in the link to actually do what they are doing without having to break the law? Would you support the laws if they would strike the provision 'according to the sex they are assigned at birth' in lieu of something like 'according to the sex the are outwardly presenting as'?hrun0815
May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT
hrun continues:
And if you think that laws should be judge on whether or not “women and girls are put in greater physical jeopardy and immediate, greater fear” then what do you think of laws that force folks like this (http://www.oddee.com/item_98038.aspx) into women’s bathrooms and locker rooms?
I think that no law is perfect, nor can any law be sufficiently written to account for every possible situation. I think that what transexuals and transgenders who entirely look like the opposite sex should do is what they have been doing and what has been working just fine: use the bathroom of the opposite sex discreetly, and yes, in violation of policy and law, or simply avoid using public facilities. Also, such people should bear the burden for their own personal decisions and not expect society to uproot itself to legally endorse their decision to transform themselves, or to establish onerous policies that endanger millions of people for the sake of their personal, self-identifying decisions. If an individual wants to transform themselves into something that falls between the cracks of current law due to some personal, self-identification mentality, that doesn't mean we must change current law to accommodate them.William J Murray
May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT
Well, I've always considered myself a lesbian trapped in a man's body. So according to the SJWs I have the right to use women's restrooms. :D Okie dokie!mike1962
May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT
hrun0815 said:
I’m not certain I understand? Aren’t that bathroom laws so many are up in arms against a “Legal Right To Transgender Protections”?
If it is your opinion that a president and unelected bureaucrats at the DoE have the final say on what rights US citizens have and do not have, you do not understand our system of government. Obama and the bureaucrats at the DoE can set policy that can fund or defund based upon that policy, but they cannot change or establish what our legal rights are. Until that policy change withstands what are sure to be court challenges that go to the supreme court, nothing has been decided. Currently, there are contradictory rulings on the matter in various district and state courts.
Are laws decided on the basis of whether or not there are negative consequences? Is the bar a law must pass that it does not put women and girls into greater physical jeopardy)?
I'm not sure what you are asking me. Actual laws are passed regardless of whether or not they make any rational sense or whether or not they put people in danger or serve the greater good or not. If you're asking me what is the criteria that should be examined before passing a law or establishing policy, I say that the first and foremost criteria is that the law correspond to physical facts first and should never elevate any personal, subjective sense of self-identity to the status of being protected and enforced by law as if that self-identity was reality - regardless of whether or not anyone is made to feel uncomfortable or put in harm's way.William J Murray
May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT
Re OP: I'm not certain I understand? Aren't that bathroom laws so many are up in arms against a "Legal Right To Transgender Protections"?hrun0815
May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT
Re #3:
The madness of this kind of policy is clearly evident using simple logic.
I ask this again here: Are laws decided on the basis of whether or not there are negative consequences? Is the bar a law must pass that it does not put women and girls into greater physical jeopardy)? EDIT: And if you think that laws should be judge on whether or not "women and girls are put in greater physical jeopardy and immediate, greater fear" then what do you think of laws that force folks like this (http://www.oddee.com/item_98038.aspx) into women's bathrooms and locker rooms? Delusional, right?hrun0815
May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT
Dean_from_Ohio: I assume that Obama and many of the others in public office who are behind this are capable of understanding the simple logic and the easily-recognized consequences. The logical conclusion is that they are deliberately pursuing these consequences. The question on the table is: why? You hit the nail on the head, and KF has been patiently explaining the "why"; the problem is that it's too big for many to even want to try and grasp. It's also too hard to accept that most of how you feel about things has been carefully manipulated by decades of deliberate social programming. Today, it is not only considered acceptable, but a right to not be confronted with "trigger" terms and concepts that invade your "safe space" to protect and nurse your bubbled concept of self and world. It is considered "hate-speech" and "bigotry" to use terminology that triggers any negative reaction in the minds of any individual or to use terminology that accurately describes the reality, such as "illegal alien". There is a big lie going on. That big lie is being sold because it promises some sort of path to global "justice" or "equality" or "saving the planet". It promotes feelings and sentiment over reason, and seeks to protect such sentiment with force of law, and turn the idea of "rights" into whatever the government says and allows. Already many here have swallowed this lie hook, line and sinker and to open their eyes would be far too devastating to their sense of self.William J Murray
May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT
Here's another logical ramification of this issue: if I commit a crime, can I later self-identify as someone else? A different age, race and sex? How can anyone convict me of a crime if I later self-identify as someone other than who committed the crime? Does that sound silly and extreme? I posit that it is absolutely the logical entailment of transgender protections based on the legitimizing of "self-identifications", which is giving the force of law to self-identifications in contradiction to physical facts. The madness of this kind of policy is clearly evident using simple logic. The actual negative consequences are easily discernible (as I pointed out in the other thread where women and girls are put in greater physical jeopardy and immediate, greater fear). The supposed "benefit" is supposedly nothing more than alleviating the supposed discomfort of 0.3% of the population. Note: not alleviating real crime or violence, but mental discomfort vs the real, physical endangerment of millions of women and girls due to policies that can put predators in very close proximity and reduce warning time to practically nil. So, why would any sound, reasonable person not be able to think out this simple logic and understand these simple, foreseeable consequences? The answer is twofold: some do understand the consequences, and those consequences are exactly what they are pursuing; some do not because they are blinded by the the emotional rhetoric that attempts to paint this out as a "civil rights" issue.William J Murray
May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT
Yep. If Bruce Jenner is a female then Karen Carpenter was fat, and you would have been a bigoted hater to tell her otherwise.homerj1
May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT
1 11 12 13

Leave a Reply