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
CF, you first need to address the pivotal issue of foundational, worldview level touchstone decisive truth, as was discussed in 308. The reframe and taint rhetorical game becomes a smokescreening and deflection tactic. KFkairosfocus
May 20, 2016
May
05
May
20
20
2016
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT
DS, we have been down the line over and over, chained warrant to K faces onward endless warrant compounded by our finitude and fallibility. KFkairosfocus
May 20, 2016
May
05
May
20
20
2016
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT
Aleta, that is a statement of faith, in fact a promissory note. The immediate problem with such fideistic IOUs is that they are question-begging [trust US to deliver in future . . . ], i.e. an instance of the second fork. In short the actual alternatives that are feasible are 2 and 3. 3 is what happens when you use comparative difficulties to avoid question-begging. KFkairosfocus
May 20, 2016
May
05
May
20
20
2016
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT
KF,
DS, this is an exercise carried out by finite and fallible humans. An infinite regress of warrant is inherently and patently impossible for such a creature.
Ok, I thought you were referring the general case of infinite regresses of propositions ... P3 -> P2 -> P1.
Not least at any arbitrarily large finite k of the regress k, k+1 etc would act in the face of the remaining endlessness just as if it were0, 1, 2 etc. KF
I'm not quite clear what this means, but I would be interested in pursuing this line of discussion in the other thread if you so desire.daveS
May 20, 2016
May
05
May
20
20
2016
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT
In a nutshell, if one accepts A then we may ask why so. B. But then, why B. C. Thence D etc. So, we face [1] an infinite regress (impossible), or [2] circularity at some level that is in effect question-begging, or [3] a finitely remote set of first plausibles, held at world foundational level, and which are held as a live option in the face of comparative difficulties across factual adequacy, coherence and balanced explanatory power and elegant simplicity.
[4] At some point in the chain we understand that right now we don't know the next cause, and that we will get, at some point, to the point where we can't know the next cause, because of the limitations of our nature and ability to experience the world.Aleta
May 20, 2016
May
05
May
20
20
2016
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT
Vividbleu: "I think Christ is the Messiah they do not, I do not think they are immoral because they don’t, I think they are wrong. They think I’m wrong." I am not talking about whether any religion is immoral. But for any issue, it is possible for there to be more than one moral position. Surely every individual must think that one of these moral positions is superior to the others. And different individuals might disagree on which one it is. I will provide an example which will, hopefully, bring this discussion more in-line with the OP. In the Judeo-Christian faiths, homosexuality is considered to be a sin. A moral position. Hinduism does not consider homosexuality to be a sin. Another moral position. In this respect, do you not think that the Judeo-Christian position is morally superior to the Hindu position? And wouldn't a Hindu think that his position is morally superior to that of the Judeo-Christian faiths? I am not trying to insinuate that christianity (or any religion) is bigoted and arrogant. I am just arguing that for anyone to believe in any faith, they must consider the faith of their choice to be morally superior, for whatever reason(s), to the others available to them. Keep in mind, I am not talking about anyone acting in a superior fashion, although there are examples of that in all religions. I am talking about the motivation, possibly subconscious, for someone to select one religion over another. "Think about this Clown ..." I really should have though twice before picking Clown Fish as my posting name. :)clown fish
May 20, 2016
May
05
May
20
20
2016
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT
Aleta: ???????? KFkairosfocus
May 20, 2016
May
05
May
20
20
2016
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT
Seversky, you and I both know how seconds count there. KF PS: It is fashionable to dismiss snowballing or avalanche or epidemic spreading or social spiral of silencing or march of folly or legal/administrative precedent cascade and metastasis or unintended consequence type effects nowadays as fallacious. But in fact they are commonplace: physically and in socio-cultural, legal/administrative and economic contexts . . . initiation events and circumstances with cumulative positive feedback effects that can with certainty or sufficient likelihood x impact pass the precautionary threshold are a well known reality. And, so is lawfare -- an intentional act of usurpation of the sword of justice to impose a damaging policy agenda on targets.kairosfocus
May 20, 2016
May
05
May
20
20
2016
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT
DS, this is an exercise carried out by finite and fallible humans. An infinite regress of warrant is inherently and patently impossible for such a creature. Not least at any arbitrarily large finite k of the regress k, k+1 etc would act in the face of the remaining endlessness just as if it were0, 1, 2 etc. KFkairosfocus
May 20, 2016
May
05
May
20
20
2016
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT
kairosfocus @ 263
Seversky: Kindly reflect on the discussions that have been had on this across a few threads. Particularly, ponder the significance of removing the protective right to call out immediately as a man presents himself in a bathroom, locker room or shower for girls in a situation where seconds may well count.
I don't see that allowing transgenders to use the bathroom of their choice in any way prevents someone calling for help if they feel threatened or need assistance. And, as I wrote before, is a man who self-identifies as a woman likely to have any interest in women or girls? The slippery slope argument is a form of fear-mongering. You are implying that allowing transgenders to use the bathroom of their choice is a sign of the decadence of Western civilization which will inevitably lead to its eventual collapse unless remedial action is taken. I suspect what we now think of as Western civilization will eventually disappear. Just how is a different matter, but I don't think it will have much to do with allowing transgenders to use the bathroom of their choice. What I do believe is that, regardless of what we think or believe, the world of 3016 will be as different from now as today's world is different from the world of 1016. How many great states and empires have come and gone in just one millennium?Seversky
May 20, 2016
May
05
May
20
20
2016
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT
Andre @ 262
So by that rationale of yours, when someone feels that Christians/atheists/homosexuals/Jews/Transgenders are an abomination and should be subjected to concentration camps torture and certain death what is the harm in allowing them to do so legally?
The constraint on any individual freedom when living in a society is the possibility of causing harm to others. For someone living alone on a desert island, injunctions against theft or murder are simply irrelevant since there is nothing to steal and no one to kill. But if you live with others, since the vast majority of people would prefer not to be killed or have their property stolen, you come to a mutually beneficial agreement that such behavior is prohibited and that any transgressors will face approved sanctions. That's mostly all you need as the basis for morality and law.Seversky
May 20, 2016
May
05
May
20
20
2016
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT
[4] We don't, and can't, know.Aleta
May 20, 2016
May
05
May
20
20
2016
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT
KF,
[1] an infinite regress (impossible)
Er, impossible?daveS
May 20, 2016
May
05
May
20
20
2016
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PDT
CF (Attn Vivid): One of the key principles of rhetoric is framing, and when there is a persistent attempt to reframe a focus of discussion into here a debate about the insinuated arrogance and bigotry of the Judaeo-Christian faith tradition, some response is appropriate. First, Vivid is right, the issue of the Judaeo Christian tradition within the worldview of ethical theism is not superiority nor is it faith understood as an emotional commitment of belief in a world in which the Kantian ugly gulch between the inner phenomenal world and the outer world of things in themselves is presumed to rule the roost. First, as F H Bradley pointed out in the 1890's in Appearance and Reality, there is an inherent self referential incoherence in this view; the claim or implication that we cannot know about the external world is in fact implicitly a knowledge claim about that world. If it were true it itself could not be known, so it is error to imagine it true. A safer view is Josiah Royce's premise that error undeniably exists, and thus we have a point of certain knowledge and truth, which then instantly undermines any general scheme of thought that would reduce truth and knowledge to opinions and views and might or manipulation make 'right.' Truth, of course, from Aristotle in Metaphysics 1011b, speaks to that which says of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not. Faith in the relevant sense also is inescapably a part of any serious worldview, as I discussed in the already linked. In a nutshell, if one accepts A then we may ask why so. B. But then, why B. C. Thence D etc. So, we face [1] an infinite regress (impossible), or [2] circularity at some level that is in effect question-begging, or [3] a finitely remote set of first plausibles, held at world foundational level, and which are held as a live option in the face of comparative difficulties across factual adequacy, coherence and balanced explanatory power and elegant simplicity. In short, all men live by faith, the issue is, is it a reasonable and responsible faith, so it is self referentially foolish to sneer at faith, properly understood. Going on, the issue is not that the Judaeo-Christian tradition arrogantly imagines itself to be superior (notice the subtle totalising metanarrative you have swallowed in dismissing the Faith without a serious discussion of the worldview foundations issues regarding truth and ethics?) but as Vivid pointed out, that it is credibly true. Truth, soundly understood, gets short shrift in a day when William G Perry's agenda of educational progress dominates the academic scene, but that dismissal of truth and tendentious redefinition is itself a futility. Reframing the Christian faith as arrogant and bigoted towards other views may make for persuasive rhetoric, but it is in fact a fundamentally dishonest manipulative device. The proper question is not motives and attitudes -- a classic example of subjectivist or radical relativist well poisoning projection (and often, doubling down) -- but instead, truth. First, is the gospel true? If so, that is already decisive. And credibly, it is true. That is decisive. Going further, the Judaeo-Christian ethical tradition is not merely a matter of oh God wills it that settles it. The Euthryphro dilemma fails. The decisive point is, first, that there are such things as manifestly evident, credibly TRUE core principles of the natural moral law, as has been repeatedly outlined and discussed but studiously ignored in the rush to reframe. Moral truths that are credibly so, on pain of patent absurdity on the attempt to deny. Thence we face the IS-OUGHT gap and see that there is but one level where it can be resolved, world roots. For which, the only serious candidate is the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, worthy of our respect, trust, loyalty and the reasonable service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature. If you doubt this, your job is to provide a cogent alternative: __________ .The persistent absence of which (for a long time) is a strong sign that there is not one. Passive aggressive evasion and reframing with well-poisoning does not answer to truth. But it may be all too revealing as to attitude and motive on the part of those who (despite repeated correction and request to do better) insist on trying to reframe the issue. Coming back to the core matter for the thread set in the OP, the relevant consideration is that to claim a right under justice, one is implying that one is manifestly in the right and is owed duties of care to support being in the right. Where, manifestly might and manipulation do not and cannot make wrong transmute into right -- though they can impose a nihilistic oppression of the right that lacks power to defend itself; injustice, in one word . . . Dressing itself in the robes of justice, no less.There is therefore no such thing as a right that is rooted in being in the wrong. For, that is a demand that others enable one in wrong, and so taint themselves. Which is utterly monstrous, not merely absurd. In this case, it is highly dubious that transgenders as they are called have a right to impose themselves on women and girls in public or public school restrooms, locker rooms and showers etc. On many very reasonable and even obvious grounds that have been pointed out again and again. It is time to wake up and see what is going on with our civilisation. And no it is not empty neurotic apocalypticism. Which insinuation echoes tellingly to me of when I was once denounced on national radio [having pointed out the risks that were being run in a townhall meeting, where the tape was a pivotal bit of evidence in the subsequent deaths by Government negligence forensic inquiry] as obsessed with visions of destruction. Only problem -- as just implied -- what I warned of happened and more than happened. Those who would wish away the perils of our time need to realise that for 2400 years it has been well known that democracy is inherently unstable and prone to manipulated, mob mentality marches of ruinous folly. That is why I took time to point out the fate of Athens (the first great democracy in our civilisation) and to post a series of video lectures on that hard bought lesson of history, providing rich details. Democracy to be sustainable has to be stabilised, and it is entirely in order to point out that when the stabilising factors are being willfully undermined we are headed for the cliffs. KFkairosfocus
May 20, 2016
May
05
May
20
20
2016
01:43 AM
1
01
43
AM
PDT
Aleta, First, it seems to me that you need to attend to the documentation I provided at 244 above. Second, it is quite evident that there is a rhetorical game afoot, of distractions and toxic tangents pivoting on reframing to poison the well. It is entirely in order for me to point this out. KFkairosfocus
May 20, 2016
May
05
May
20
20
2016
12:54 AM
12
12
54
AM
PDT
Vividbleu: "FTR you have been very respectful towards me and I very much appreciate that." My feelings as well. I like that we can fundamentally disagree but still discuss our differences in a civil fashion. Others should take notice and act like mature humans.clown fish
May 19, 2016
May
05
May
19
19
2016
08:44 PM
8
08
44
PM
PDT
Vividbleu, I did not want to give the impression that you are Christian because it is convenient for you. My point is simply that everyone of faith thinks that their faith is the "right" one. I am sure that you have very good reasons for your Christian beliefs. As do those with Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto and wickan beliefs. All I am saying is that everybody, regardless of their faith, thinks that their choice is morally superior to those who chose otherwise. If they thought otherwise, wouldn't their views be incoherent?clown fish
May 19, 2016
May
05
May
19
19
2016
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT
Clown FTR you have been very respectful towards me and I very much appreciate that. Vividvividbleau
May 19, 2016
May
05
May
19
19
2016
08:36 PM
8
08
36
PM
PDT
KairosFocus: "So, there is utterly no need to be off on tangents with lurking suggestions that erect and knock over strawman caricatures." Well, since nobody is doing this, your little diatribe is a waste of my scroll-wheel. Vividbleu and I had a little sidebar discussion. It was of interest to the two of us. If you want to join in the discussion, you are welcome. But if all you are going to do is cast aspersions on me and my intentions, your sermons are a waste of your time and mine, because they are of no interest to me.clown fish
May 19, 2016
May
05
May
19
19
2016
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PDT
This is William Murray's post, not kf's. I don't think you need to worry about whether he is happy or not.Aleta
May 19, 2016
May
05
May
19
19
2016
08:26 PM
8
08
26
PM
PDT
Clown "But it seems to me that nobody would accept a faith unless it worked for them, and unless they thought it was the best explanation for their moral views. Whether or not that faith is “true” is secondary" I don't accept Christianity because it " works for me" and I don't accept Christianity because I think it is the best explanation for my" moral views" It is not secondary that it is true, it is PRIMARY ( numero uno )that I think it to be so. I would encourage you to reread 298, focus on the 2nd paragraph. You will find I did not say " it was because it " worked for me" or that it was he best explanation for my "moral views" I get the distinct impression that KF is not happy with this conversation and he does have a point since it is off topic. Since it is and he is a moderator I will respect his wishes. It is unfortunate since I think we were covering important ground. Vividvividbleau
May 19, 2016
May
05
May
19
19
2016
08:16 PM
8
08
16
PM
PDT
Vividbleu, thank you for being honest. I am not trying to be critical of faith. But it seems to me that nobody would accept a faith unless it worked for them, and unless they thought it was the best explanation for their moral views. Whether or not that faith is "true" is secondaryclown fish
May 19, 2016
May
05
May
19
19
2016
07:57 PM
7
07
57
PM
PDT
F/N: Morality is an issue of our being responsibly and rationally significantly free; thus we are governed by principles and moral insight [starting with conscience] not blind chance and/or mechanical necessity. And inasmuch as we live in community, justice enters, first as a moral issue then as a civil one: the civil peace of justice. It is in this context that the objectivity of morality is a material question, as opposed to the various views that boil down to some species or other of might and manipulation make 'right' 'truth' 'worth' 'justice' 'meaning' etc. Nihilism, in short. The very antithesis of justice and the civil peace of justice. Where, the point of objectivity of morality is that we can have actual stable moral knowledge and stable principles as a part of that knowledge. We are not locked up to might and manipulation or blind following of rules. And, in this it is to be noted that ethical theism, in general has long embraced these principles, which are in fact embedded in religious traditions that reflect this. No, it is not a matter of arbitrary rules enforced by blind following of religious authorities -- a suggestion that is all too commonly made by atheistical objectors and fellow travellers. It is this which is pivotal in the focal transgenderism debates addressed in the OP, turning on whether or no there are manifestly evident, consciously sensed and rationally apprehensible core principles of the natural moral law. Such principles do exist (as I have just linked on) and not least they entail that a right can only be properly asserted when one is manifestly in the right. For, otherwise one taints others by demanding and asserting that they have a duty to uphold one in and support the wrong. That is in addition to the unjustified demand for a practice enforced under colour of law that unduly exposes women and girls to risks and also effects grooming by undermining modesty. So, there is utterly no need to be off on tangents with lurking suggestions that erect and knock over strawman caricatures. Instead, there are principles that are open for discussion, which are connected to justice. Those, we should focus and address. KFkairosfocus
May 19, 2016
May
05
May
19
19
2016
07:18 PM
7
07
18
PM
PDT
Clown "Maybe “superior” is the sticking point. But I think that you would agree that you think that your faith is the most rationally consistent one." I believe Chritianity is true and where other world views conflict with Christianity they are are not true. Remember all world views have difficulties including Christianity. Which world view best conforms to what I know about myself and the world that exists. Most importantly can I live consistent with the implications of my world view. Yes I do think it is the most rationally consistent one but that is not to say it is without difficulties. I also readily admit that I may be wrong but I like Dennis Pragers saying that clarity is more important that agreement. In this case calrity is this, someone is wrong, either the theist, the atheist, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Christianity or any other type of worldview one can think of. Vividvividbleau
May 19, 2016
May
05
May
19
19
2016
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PDT
Vividbleu, of course I want a serious discussion. I am not suggesting that a Christian thinks that the morality of other religions is wrong, or evil, but I am saying that they think that theirs is superior to others. And I am not meaning this as a criticism of Christianity or any other faith. Just that it is the nature of the beast. We even see this within a faith. I don't know what form of Christianity you follow, but some prohibit birth control, others prohibit dancing. Catholics think that they are morally superior to Babtists. Babtists think that they are morally superior to Mormons. Maybe "superior" is the sticking point. But I think that you would agree that you think that your faith is the most rationally consistent one.clown fish
May 19, 2016
May
05
May
19
19
2016
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT
Clown RE 293 "If you thought that the Christian world view was not morally superior, how can you distinguish between your faith and others? Surely it is not because Christians have better holidays, or that the cross makes better jewelry than the Star of David." Do you want to have a serious discussion or not? Your choice. Vividvividbleau
May 19, 2016
May
05
May
19
19
2016
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT
KairosFocus: "Clown, IslamISM (Mahdist 12th Imam or Muslim Brotherhood forms) is a significant global geostrategic threat and has a successor." With respect, Vividbleu and I are not talking about Islamic fundamentalism. We are just debating whether you can have a faith and not think that it is morally superior to other faiths. You are certainly welcome to participate in the discussion, but if you are going to drag it down to a stupid absolutist level that we are not talking about, we would simply prefer that you opt out.clown fish
May 19, 2016
May
05
May
19
19
2016
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT
Clown "I was being sarcastic. And I apologize, you didn’t deserve it. " Thank you for that. "But am I correct in saying that you do not believe that Christianity is morally superior to Judaism?" I think Christ is the Messiah they do not, I do not think they are immoral because they don't, I think they are wrong. They think I'm wrong. "The reason I ask is that it is the new covenant that adds the “judge not lest you be judged” concept.Do you not consider that morally superior to the Old Testament punishments?" Well I disagree that "judge not lest you be judged" is a prohibition against judgement, after all is that not a judgement? What Christ is saying is that every time you judge another you are judging yourself. That is why I stated that I think it is incompatible with Christianity for a Christian to think they are morally superior to anyone. Think about this Clown the only people that Chrit ripped into we're the self righteous religious people. He never condemned sinners and in fact scandalized the religious community because that's who He hung around with. Christ when He said I came for the sick not the healthy I believe He meant that if you think your morally ok I can't help you but if you don't think you are I came for you. Vividvividbleau
May 19, 2016
May
05
May
19
19
2016
06:34 PM
6
06
34
PM
PDT
Vividbleu: "I must add that I think it’s incompatible with Christianiy for a Christian to think they are morally superior to anyone." I would agree that it is incompatible with Christianity for a Christian to act as if they are morally superior to anyone. But I would also argue that it is not possible to not think that. If you thought that the Christian world view was not morally superior, how can you distinguish between your faith and others? Surely it is not because Christians have better holidays, or that the cross makes better jewelry than the Star of David.clown fish
May 19, 2016
May
05
May
19
19
2016
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT
WJM, a point of note. Degree of intentional, knowing involvement on the agit prop scale is a significant issue. KFkairosfocus
May 19, 2016
May
05
May
19
19
2016
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 13

Leave a Reply