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
hrun
StephenB, do you understand my confusion?
Yes, I think so. Among other things, [a] You don't understand the difference between a principle and its application. [b] You don't understand that the same truth can be expressed in different ways. [c] You don't understand the difference between the "why" and the "what."
You make two contradictory claims:
No, I do not. Your confusion will be resolved when you try to produce either a legitimate or illegitimate law (take your choice) that doesn't compromise or take away a right from the party that it is aimed against. Recall that you have not even tried to produce a counter example. I will interpret that omission to mean that you are tacitly conceding the point.StephenB
May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT
Re #198: WJM:
Please explain how moral subjectivism justifies moral interventions in the behavior of others or the making of personal moral views into law based on empathy.
Hrun:
Moral subjectivism does not justify an action. [...] How would either moral subjectivism or objectivism justify something? [...] If you like you can pick out any situation and we can examine how you and I justify intervention in that case using our morals.
WJM:
I already know how you justify your interventions: you feel like intervening. Nothing needs to be added to that clear and concise explanation.
How can you stuff your fingers into both of your ears and type at the same time?hrun0815
May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT
Re #196: I see, Eugen. So Goodwin's Law violation should be amended to:
Godwin’s Law violation: The first party to imply that his discussion partners are comparable to Hitler, a current celebrity mass murderer, the KKK, or any similar entity is deemed to have both lost the argument and terminated his role in the discussion. -- Unless of course they are honorable OP authors like KF or WJM.
Also, of course, there are mohammadnursyamsu, Andre, ... But anyway, nobody ever expected consistency here.hrun0815
May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT
hrun said:
If you like you can pick out any situation and we can examine how you and I justify intervention in that case using our morals.
I already know how you justify your interventions: you feel like intervening. Nothing needs to be added to that clear and concise explanation.William J Murray
May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT
I see. kf gets his own rules. Thanks for the explanation, Eugen.Aleta
May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT
You are guests here hrun etc Quod licet Iovi, non licet boviEugen
May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT
And you don't ban kairosfocus for the steady stream of extreme accusations that he hurls at people he doesn't agree with. Why not?Aleta
May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT
Re #193: Thanks for pointing this out, News. So you mean like implying that your discussion partner's actions are responsible for a holocaust worse than the one committed by Nazi Germany? Or that atheists, subjectivists, materialists are comparable to Nazis? I have a fun idea: Why don't you go ahead and type 'nazi' or 'holocaust' or 'fascist' into the search box in KF's thread and see who is the first (and second, and third, and fourth) party who compares somebody to Nazis?hrun0815
May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT
inquisitor at 103, you write
By that logic, the Westborro Babtist church, the KKK, the Salem witch hunters, the conquistadors and KF best understand Christianity. Do you really want to go down that road?
No, and not only that, you are in violation of our local interpretation of Godwin’s law:
Godwin's Law violation: The first party to imply that his discussion partners are comparable to Hitler, a current celebrity mass murderer, the KKK, or any similar entity is deemed to have both lost the argument and terminated his role in the discussion.
We generally try to avoid offering discussion services to such folk, as they have the effect of discouraging others. Goodbye, and happily, there are blogs only a few doors down from us where that sort of thing is welcome. Feel free to tell your story to a crowd of sympathizers. General note: We are similarly unreceptive to the practice of unlicensed psychiatry on unconsenting members of the public. Aside from being discourteous and a violation of privacy, it is an imposition on everyone’s time and patience.News
May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT
to kf, re your new post. Do you seriously think anyone is going to read that rehash of things you've copy-and-pasted innumerable times before, miscellaneous quotes, and hyperbolic, overblown rhetoric. Seriously?Aleta
May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT
WJM: "inquisitor apparently establishes facts the same way he establishes a moral ought: if he feels like it, it is so." So, are you claiming that I have intentionally lied at any time during this thread, or previously? Because that is what KF is accusing me of. There is no doubt that I have misinterpreted what others have said (as we all do). And when I have done so, I have apologized. This started when KF accused me of equating the opposition to SSM with child sacrifices. Even when I pointed out that this was not the case, he continued to make the same claim. In my books, that is called a blatant, outright lie in an attempt to discredit a person. I consider you to be an honest person. You have read my comments about child sacrifices in Mesoamerica and the context around which I made it Did you ever think that I was trying to equate that to the opposition of SSM?inquisitor
May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT
Re#186: Brent, we specifically looked up the definition of harm. I would like to point out two aspects of the definition: 1) It includes 'losing in value' which is why I pointed out the x-50 =! x. It is in fact less than x which means that it lost in value. 2) It does not include any threshold which I pointed out by the fact that you can certainly agree that at some point the repeated taking away for $50 from BG results in the poor guy being bankrupt. I really, really, really do not understand why it is so important to you that taking away a small amount of money causes no harm? You example about the $50 fails just as well. People take the risk of losing $50 for many reasons, but that does not mean that it does not harm them.hrun0815
May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT
inquisitor said:
The fact that nobody agrees with your mischaracterization of me speaks sad volumes. Sad volumes indeed. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
inquisitor apparently establishes facts the same way he establishes a moral ought: if he feels like it, it is so.William J Murray
May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT
KF: "Inquisitor, it is demonstrable that you are the one who has repeatedly spoken in disregard to the truth, in hope of profiting by what you have said or suggested being taken as true. Good day. KF" The fact that nobody agrees with your mischaracterization of me speaks sad volumes. Sad volumes indeed. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.inquisitor
May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT
Inquisitor, it is demonstrable that you are the one who has repeatedly spoken in disregard to the truth, in hope of profiting by what you have said or suggested being taken as true. Good day. KFkairosfocus
May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT
hrun @876 in old thread (not necessarily trying to continue here, but thought I should say something. Do with this what you wish), I'm not trolling you. And I'm not arguing that 0=50. If you want it in a nutshell, I am saying that losing $50 does not always equal harm. Of course, that must be true, for the fact is there are many scenarios where someone loses $50 and we would not say they are harmed; i.e., one knows they will likely be fined $50 for violating some ordinance but they choose to take the chance, not caring when they indeed are fined. I'm not saying the two scenarios are equal, just that it is obviously true that losing $50 isn't always equal to being harmed. The question is if the scenario I outlined actually caused harm. Let me try to paint the picture more clearly. How is it that someone can be harmed when they never ever experience any ill effects from losing something? In the scenario this is the case. So lets make the case more vivid and sudden. Someone takes $50 from some dude who has no descendants, no living relatives, and who is a 100% complete loner. This loner can be either rich or poor. Perhaps it is his last $50 even. He doesn't know yet he was robbed. Three seconds after he is robbed, he suddenly has a heart attack and dies. How is it that he was harmed if he never had even a fleeting moment of ill effect from losing $50?Brent
May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT
Thanks, William - we now have that cleared up.Aleta
May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT
at 149, wjm said,
The problem is that moral anarchism is the necessary logical entailment of logically consistent moral subjectivism.
I have changed my claim about his beliefs to say "moral anarchism" rather than "nihilism". Other than that, the quote above clearly states what he believes, it seems. I don't know why he is unwilling to acknowledge this.Aleta
May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT
Aleta asks:
Are you going to answer my question?
I've actually already answered that question several times over. Yes, a logical entailment of moral subjectivism is moral anarchism, whether the self-described "moral subjectivist" realizes it or not. The principle of "because I feel like it, because I can" = moral anarchism. Now, are you going to answer questions I've posed to you throughout this thread that you've left unanswered? Are you going to respond to challenges I've made concerning several of your posts and the logic (or lack of) therein? Here's the problem, Aleta. If you're going to say that your "moral subjectivism" doesn't have to be logically reconcilable with your behavior, terminology or phrasings in an argument, we literally have nothing to argue about, nor do we have a medium through which to argue. You are perfectly free to have and hold irrational beliefs and cling to them even if the are logically unsound. You can describe your view, as you have done. I can point out the self-contradictions and logical inconsistencies, which I have done. You can then say it is not required that your views be logical, and you are right. Argument over.William J Murray
May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT
Re #178:
Please explain how moral subjectivism justifies moral interventions in the behavior of others or the making of personal moral views into law based on empathy.
Moral subjectivism does not justify an action. Moral subjectivism refers to the belief that there is no universally true morality. How would either moral subjectivism or objectivism justify something? Just because you believe an action is objectively morally true does not justify moral intervention. You can use your morals that you believe to be objectively true to justify intervention. If you like you can pick out any situation and we can examine how you and I justify intervention in that case using our morals.hrun0815
May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT
WJM:
Aleta said: "wjm claims that the logical consequence of moral subjectivity is nihilism." WJM responds: "Where did I claim that, Aleta?"
WJM is correct. I don't remember WJM saying this. You might be confusing this with KF. He is often making that link.inquisitor
May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT
Are you going to answer my question?Aleta
May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT
Aleta said:
wjm, I am trying to accurately understand your position, and I have changed “nihilism” to “moral anarchism.”
I know. I'm pointing out the irony.William J Murray
May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT
Me: "Please show how your beliefs, actions and arguments are logically derivable (justifiable, warranted) from your premise." Aleta: "Nyahh! Don't have to because humans aren't logical!" Me: "Please explain how moral subjectivism justifies moral interventions in the behavior of others or the making of personal moral views into law based on empathy." Hrun: "It justifies it because I feel like it does. There, I've explained my views." Me: "Please explain what you mean by "moral subjectivism" and how that premise endorses/justifies your interventionist behaviors and use of objectivist terminology in argument." Inquisitor: "Man, that KF, what a head case, eh? AmIRite?"William J Murray
May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT
wjm, I am trying to accurately understand your position, and I have changed "nihilism" to "moral anarchism." So is this statement true? “wjm claims that the logical consequence of moral subjectivity is moral anarchism.”Aleta
May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT
Aleta said:
Good research at 163, Inquisitor.
If his intent was to attempt to justify his blatant error through quote mining, I agree.
My guess is wjm is going to say that, no, we don’t believe in anarchism, but if we were logical consistent, we would.
No, that's not a guess, Aleta. That's you understanding the nature of my argument and trying to give cover to your compatriot's use of quote-mines as he attempts to cover up his inability to comprehend an abstract argument about logical entailments vs actual belief.William J Murray
May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT
Aleta said:
This is a true statement about your position, is it not?
What difference does it make since, under your worldview, we're not required to be logically consistent?William J Murray
May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT
I amended the statement to say "moral anarchism" rather than "nihilism". Did you see that? “wjm claims that the logical consequence of moral subjectivity is moral anarchism.” This is a true statement about your position, is it not?Aleta
May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT
Aleta said:
There, is that better?
You have yet to show where I equated moral subjectivism with nihilism. You've made the claim twice now. Where did this occur?William J Murray
May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT
Altea said:
My reply, given above in 162, is that human beings are not just logical consequence machines: our morality arises from emotions and other aspects of our human, biological nature. We apply our rationality to exercising our entire human nature, but logic itself is not, nor should not be, our only foundation.
Logic is not a foundation for anything, except perhaps proper reasoning. It is either accepted as the valid arbiter of justifiable inferences and conclusions which extend from a foundation (a premise), or one admits their view is logically inconsistent and not justifiable. I guess when your position cannot be logically justified, abandoning logic is the only recourse if you want to hang on to your view. And so post-modernism eats the advances of the Enlightenment.William J Murray
May 17, 2016
May
05
May
17
17
2016
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT
1 5 6 7 8 9 13

Leave a Reply