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

_{William J Murray
May 16, 2016

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

4}_{Categories
Constitution
Culture
governance
Laws
Legal
Philosophy
Psychology
Society}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; 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

F/N2: Likewise, let us note Locke's alternative, in a document and context that set the foundation for modern liberty and constitutional democracy by citing the judicious [Anglican Canon Richard] Hooker":
[2nd Treatise on Civil Gov't, Ch 2 sec. 5:] . . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [This directly echoes St. Paul in Rom 2: "14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them . . . " and 13: "9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law . . . " Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [Eccl. Polity ,preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80, cf. here. Emphasis added.] [Augmented citation, Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government, Ch 2 Sect. 5. ]
Yes, Hooker uses the Golden rule and connects it directly to the manifestly evident first core principles of the natural moral law that we find inescapable governing us as creatures under the rule not of blind force or programmed instinct but responsible, rational freedom, the force of OUGHT. KFkairosfocus_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
10:14 PM
10
10
14
PM
PST}

Re #138 and #141: KF, if you actually do want to continue the conversation, how come you shut the other thread down? Will you do the same to this one?hrun0815_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
10:13 PM
10
10
13
PM
PST}

Re #134:
Hrun, there was nothing personal ...
No worries, Eugen: I grew up with 'sticks and stones ...' and words on the internet have even less power than IRL.
We have to insist on learning what’s right and wrong and then do what’s right.
We do? Well, good luck with that. Maybe by looking at your own behavior you will learn something and ultimately do what's right. We'll see if you succeed, I guess.hrun0815_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
10:11 PM
10
10
11
PM
PST}

F/N: It seems necessary to lay out again, Plato's warning, written in c 360 BC in a broken-backed Athens a generation after the collapse of Athenian democracy through hubris:
Ath. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ --> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . . [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-
[ --> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by "winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . " cf a video on Plato's parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]
These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,
[ --> Evolutionary materialism -- having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT -- leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for "OUGHT" is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in "spin") . . . ]
and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ --> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ --> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush -- as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them.
We can hardly say that we have not been warned in good time of the matches we are playing with. KFkairosfocus_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
10:10 PM
10
10
10
PM
PST}

Re #135: So I guess KF is not into joining our hug-fest. :)hrun0815_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
10:00 PM
10
10
00
PM
PST}

Re #133: Thanks again for further attempting to clarify. You say:
It is a non-existent right that is unjustly claimed as a legitimate right. If it is taken seriously and enforced, it will take away someone else’s right.
If an unjustly claimed right is taken seriously and enforced, does that not mean it now exists as a right? If not, how would you, in practice enforce a non-existent right? So I guess you see where this is going: You say that the non-existent right is 'the right for comfort' which we now agree simply does not exist. However, you also say that only once it exists as a serious and enforceable right does it take away someone else right. However, since we both agree that the right of comfort does not exist, this situation (where this right is taken away from somebody else) also can not exist. So I fear we are still in a situation where either the right of comfort does not exist OR where the right of comfort can be taken away from some and given to others. From your explanation it does not appear possible for both of those statements to be true.
Again, I cannot emphasize the point too strongly. You cannot just start passing all kinds of rights around and think that freedom is being advanced. On the contrary, freedom is maximized when only the basic human rights are acknowledged and protected (life, Free express, free assembly, due process etc.) Arbitrarily granted rights, or rights made up, will compromise or take away more essential rights.
Yes, I understand that this is your philosophy. But I would submit that it would carry significantly more weight if you could show that your understanding of rights (for every granted right to one group a different right is taken away from another) pertains to existing rights and not to imaginary, non-existent rights. You know that from my point of view there is really no downside in granting and taking away a dozen non-existent imaginary rights from random people before breakfast every day. Unless, of course doing so turns them into existing rights, but that would mean that the right of comfort exists-- which it doesn't. -- As an aside: I have the strong suspicion that much of the confusion comes from how you use the term 'right'. Maybe if you were to preface things by 'legal right' when you are talking about a right that is granted by law or government and 'natural right' when you talk about rights that you think people inherently are endowed with.hrun0815_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
09:58 PM
9
09
58
PM
PST}

Inquisitor, On observing your behaviour above, I find it necessary to point out that you are now proceeding to demonisation and using the notorious agit prop techniques of the cultural marxist nihilists to cruelly mock, personalise and polarise rather than actually address the substantial matters with civlity, on the merits:
I, 103: >>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?>>
You know what you just did, and you know that there was cause to say stop, take a walk-back and on refusal of such, after almost 900 comments in which comparisons to the KKK, accusations of bigotry (thus hate) and the like were routinely made and not corrected, I concluded it is time for a serious time-out. Here, FTR, is my remark to Aleta when s/he tried to back up your attempt to insinuate that principled objection to homosexualisation of marriage under false colour of law is comparable to the backward morality of Meso-America c 500 years ago. As in, an obvious allusion to the Aztecs and their praxis of aggressive war to obtain captives for human sacrifices. (And no, sliding over to conquistadores will not get you off the hook. Indeed, it was the very first man ordained a priest in the New World -- and a former conquistadore, De Las Casas, who publicly exposed the conquistadores for their crimes in contradiction to principles of the Christian faith and morality. Yes, he went on to make a suggestion that history shows was then twisted into a trade based on kidnapping and hereditary enslavement under cruel conditions of chattel slavery, something he likely could not have anticipated and on track record would have opposed with vigour. FYI, in foundation documents of the Christian faith you pretend to understand, this is what is written -- yes, I now plead, "it stands written . . . " -- about such in 1 Tim 1: "8 Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers [--> others render, in effect kidnappers into slavery],[b --> "That is, those who take someone captive in order to sell him into slavery"] liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound[c] doctrine, 11 in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted." [ESV] That is a real list of the comparably bad, from a much weightier pen than you will ever wield. I suggest that you ponder this text before ill-advisedly projecting further that I do not understand the core moral teachings of the Christian faith.) I also observed that Aleta [forgive, I am forced to do this reference because of the context . . . ], a far more genteel commenter, also tried to suggest that objection to the abuse of law and manipulation of the public to impose extreme radical relativist/subjectivist nominalism upon marriage -- we determine by might and manipulation under colour of law what we want words like 'marriage' and 'sex,' 'gender,' 'equality' and 'rights' etc to mean, in short . . . which is nihilism -- is so backwards that it is now to be compared to how slavery was allegedly deemed acceptable 100 years ago:
Inquisitor used an unusual comparison [--> to the backward morality manifest in Meso-America 500 years ago] that carries precisely the connotation implied; we all know about Orwellian doublespeak so don’t bother to pretend otherwise. Further to this, you will see that after nearly 900 comments NONE of those associated with the side that has consistently accused us of bigotry etc has pulled back even after being cautioned. Also, look at the outrageous comparison you just made — in a context where 100 years past after centuries of struggle once a democracy was possible, slavery had already been abolished — do you not see that it is beyond reasonable thinking and civil conduct to compare principled objection to a questionable and highly controversial move under law with a reformation that was fought for on manifest principles of the very same natural moral law that make what is being done now under colour of law highly questionable? It seems that the exact dangers pointed out by George in the [video embedded in the] OP are being carried through. In that context, we have to take implications very seriously. Where on your talking points more than enough has been said on the nihilistic import of playing legalistic and policy power games with what are now abracadabra words controlled by elites driven by inherently self-falsifying and amoral evolutionary materialism and its fellow travellers. 59, 509 or 5009 years are not going to change the complementarity of the human sexes or the substantial commitment required to sustain sound and stable child nurture and communities that support sound families. Nor will it ever be the case that one can claim from others the duty to uphold you in wrong — not on pain of jobs, not on pain of robbing us of our children, not on pain of robbing us of a clear conscience. To have a right, you must first be in the right, and to try to manipulate moral government into power and manipulation games is nihilism, pure and simple, as Plato warned against 2350 years ago. The juggernaut that thinks it can tinker, use power and manipulation to get its way will crash our civilisation, at the price of much blood and tears; but the obvious intent is to push an increasingly bizarre agenda without limit. Until it crashes, hard and ruinously.
In your intemperate rage, you have now gone to a thread that I have not been significantly involved in to make all sorts of outrageous accusations as I just excerpted on having woken up for a moment and deciding to pass back here, having first dealt with local developments. It is fair comment to observe that you have improperly put yourself in the position of definitive judgement on my character, my understanding of the Christian faith, and apparently much more. Do you not see that this is the worst kind of scapegoating, stereotyping, smearing through guilt by invidious and utterly unwarranted association, denigration and demonising? For the thought-crime of holding to the same foundational first principles of the natural moral law that instantly show why murder of innocents under any excuse, robbing people of their freedom through a kidnapping based slave trade and imposing on them a racism backed hereditary enslavement is indefensible? Do you not see that, contrary to what you imagine, such tactics by you and others -- sustained for hundreds of comments across several threads, despite many correctives and pleas to be civil and reasonable -- are the very strongest proof that the position being supported by smearing those who question it obviously cannot stand on its own merits? if a position can only thrive by demonising its questioners and challengers, it is patently unprincipled, uncivil and nihilistic. Further to this, we are considering something that is being imposed under colour of law on a foundational institution of civil society. One that is equally plainly antagonistic to the informed principled, conscience based views of many thoughtful persons. Persons, whose arguments have been insistently dismissed as bigotry empty of evidence, principle and reasoning. Driven by hate in short. This is utterly improper. Something has gone wrong here, Inquisitor, and you need to very carefully consider your ways. For, you have let some very dangerous cats out of the bag. And it should be evident to the reasonable and responsible mind that the injection of nihilism into law, policy, media and education etc, the warping of foundational stabilising institutions such as marriage and family, and the rolling out of a heedless juggernaut of an agenda that rolls on and on heedless of concerns, are not good signs for our civilisation. In such a context, it is entirely in order to warn about the need to heed the signs of our times, about the potential of marches of folly, the dynamics of divide, polarise and ruin, and the telling example and a case study on democratic governance manipulated into ruinous march of folly in Ac 27 that has been so consistently responded to with studious silence. KFkairosfocus_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
09:55 PM
9
09
55
PM
PST}

Hrun, there was nothing personal, just practical. We have to insist on learning what's right and wrong and then do what's right. We don't have much time allocated in this reality so pick wisely. "What shadows we are, and what shadows we pursue!" --Edmund BurkeEugen_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
09:33 PM
9
09
33
PM
PST}

hrun
It seems pretty clear to me that here you are not talking about ‘claimed, but non-existent rights’ that are granted or taken away.
Either an existent or a non-existent right can be claimed. But only an existent right can be legitimately claimed. Example: The right to life exists and can be legitimately claimed. The right to a free car doesn't exist, and although it can be claimed, it cannot be legitimately claimed.
You are clearly talking about actual rights that are granted and taken away, right? So, in this case (bathroom access according to self-identified gender), is there any real, actually-existent right that is granted to a minority?
Even a non-legitimate, non-existent, claimed right by one party, if taken seriously and enforced, will take away a right from someone else. If, for example, I claim the right to be fanned and fed grapes while I sit on my beach chair, and if my claim is taken seriously, it is going to cost another person the right to spend his time somewhere else.
So, in this case (bathroom access according to self-identified gender), is there any real, actually-existent right that is granted to a minority?
No. It is a non-existent right that is unjustly claimed as a legitimate right. If it is taken seriously and enforced, it will take away someone else’s right. In this case, women lose their traditional (and legitimate) right to kick men out of their designated rest room. Any time a person or group claims a right, legitimate or illegitimate, just or unjust, reasonable or unreasonable, real or unreal, it will, if enforced, take away someone else’s right. Again, I cannot emphasize the point too strongly. You cannot just start passing all kinds of rights around and think that freedom is being advanced. On the contrary, freedom is maximized when only the basic human rights are acknowledged and protected (life, Free express, free assembly, due process etc.) Arbitrarily granted rights, or rights made up, will compromise or take away more essential rights.StephenB_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
09:13 PM
9
09
13
PM
PST}

Re #128: Eugen, I would like to assume that you are joking, but in light of your previous use of transgender, feminist, beta-male, and now homosexual as the punch-line to your insults/jokes, I would say that this is simply a pattern and not light-hearted banter. To each their own, I guess.hrun0815_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
08:04 PM
8
08
04
PM
PST}

Re #125: Ok, we made some progress I think. I now understand that sometimes you used "right" in different contexts (legal vs. acutal), that rights can be the basis for a law or they can be given by a law or they can be non-existent but claimed, and that sometimes you left out qualifiers for rights like (assumed rights, claimed rights, non-existent rights). So far so good. Let's get back to the question. I asked:
tell us what special rights were gained by these tiny minorities that are not equally open to everybody else?
To this you clarified answer is:
The claimed right of transgenders (for comfort) is withheld from nontrasngenders. Thus, the former are assumed to have a special right, one that is unavailable to everyone else.
So you are saying that transgenders were given the claimed, but non-existent right of comfort while it is withheld from everybody else. If we go back to your original explanation:
You don’t understand the nature of a right. It is impossible to grant a right to one person or group without taking away a right from another person or group.
It seems pretty clear to me that here you are not talking about 'claimed, but non-existent rights' that are granted or taken away. You are clearly talking about actual rights that are granted and taken away, right? So, in this case (bathroom access according to self-identified gender), is there any real, actually-existent right that is granted to a minority? And correspondingly, is there a real, actually-existent right that is taken away from another?hrun0815_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PST}

Eugen RE 128 Uncool IMO Vividvividbleau_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PST}

Eugen: "No Inqusitor just practical. If I drop my cell phone on that bandwagon I wouldn’t dare to bend over and pick it up." You flatter yourself. What makes you think that anyone would be interested in your backside? But if I were KF, I would be keeping my back to a wall. They have been stalking his backside for years. :)inquisitor_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
07:52 PM
7
07
52
PM
PST}

No Inqusitor just practical. If I drop my cell phone on that bandwagon I wouldn't dare to bend over and pick it up. There goes $600Eugen_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PST}

Eugen: "It’s a rainbow bandwagon. Sorry, I’m not jumping on that one." You are just a bandwagonophobic.inquisitor_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PST}

It's a rainbow bandwagon. Sorry, I'm not jumping on that oneEugen_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
07:29 PM
7
07
29
PM
PST}

Hrun
StephenB, I am sorry that I falsely attributed to you that ‘a right of comfort’ actually exists, since it is “obviously the very opposite of [your] position”. I don’t profess to understand all the explanations given by you, but I believe you that in many cases is might have been a matter of expedient writing and leaving out qualifiers.
Thank you. I appreciate it
I think we now agree on the fact that ‘a right of comfort doesn’t exist’. Therefore, the ‘a right of comfort’ can not be the basis for a law since it does not exist.
To be sure, the right to comfort cannot be the basis of a just law, because a just law must be grounded in rights that really do exist. However, that doesn’t prevent someone from claiming that such a right does exist and then basing an unjust law on that claimed right. Indeed, an unjust law can be passed with no rational justification at all. A tyrannical government, for example, can simply decree that all transgenders will be shot at sunrise. If the transgenders protest, the tyrant can simply say, "the law is the law. Get over it." That, by the way, is what happens when objective morality is abandoned.
From this clearly follows that the bathroom laws ‘do not give transgendered any right of comfort’ nor do they ‘take away the right of comfort from the non-transgendered’
. It follows that the bathroom laws give transgendered the claimed right of comfort (though it doesn’t exist) and withholds that same claimed right from nontransgenders. Thus, there is no equality. The law protects only one side in the conflict. Hrun
tell us what special rights were gained by these tiny minorities that are not equally open to everybody else?
The claimed right of transgenders (for comfort) is withheld from nontrasngenders. Thus, the former are assumed to have a special right, one that is unavailable to everyone else.StephenB_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
07:28 PM
7
07
28
PM
PST}

No, It is the morals of the people on the objective bandwagon that are subjective. Relatively speaking.inquisitor_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PST}

Aleta RE 119 Are you referring to an objective bandwagon or a subjective one ? Hrun quite a feat getting out a response to a post faster than you :) I see Aleta beat me to the punchline. Ok now we're getting silly. Vividvividbleau_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PST}

I am a subjective bandwagonist: it's a bandwagon only if you think it is.Aleta_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PST}

Re #117: I presciently answered to your post #117 in #110.hrun0815_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
07:12 PM
7
07
12
PM
PST}

Aleta: "Hey, I wrote my post before I saw all the others: I wasn’t just getting on the bandwagon! :-)" Do you have a problem with bandwagons?inquisitor_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
07:12 PM
7
07
12
PM
PST}

Hey, I wrote my post before I saw all the others: I wasn't just getting on the bandwagon! :-)Aleta_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PST}

Hrun: "Damn it. I just wanted to write the same thing about vivid. What’s interesting to me is that even this common ground, rather then acting as a potential bridge leading to increased understanding, is used as a way to increase the divide." But Vivid did put a happy face at the end of his/her comment. That should be worth a hug. All we need is KF to opologize to someone and we can bring civilization back from the brink. I really am not looking forward to a broken back. I already have a metal rod bolted to it.inquisitor_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
07:09 PM
7
07
09
PM
PST}

hrun
So which one is it? Is bathroom access according to your selfidentified gender a ‘right not to be uncomfortable or is it not’?
You are confusing the “why” (claims about comfort rights), which is not really a right, with the “what” (access,) which is a conditional right. When a man claims the right of access to a woman's rest room, he has to give a reason. His reason is that he believes, falsely, that he has a right to be comfortable. The why always justifies the what. SB” The rules and regulations are based on the principle that transgenders have a basic right not to feel uncomfortable, just as the rules and regulations concerning a four-way stop sign are based on the principle that life should be protected. The reasons for the rules and regulations are not identical to the rules and regulations themselves. It is the reason for the regulation that justifies the regulation.
Where can you show that this is what the law is actually based on?
Reread my mythical conversation with a transgender @91 and it will become clear to you. Notice where the justification shows up in the process.
All legal and popular analysis of the laws I have seen argue that it is ‘based on the principle of equality’ and not ‘based on the principle of comfort’
It has nothing to do with equality. As I indicated, transgenders don't think nontransgenders are entitled to the same rights. Thus, it has nothing to do with equal rights. It's all about special rights. .
But either way, since the laws are enacted, and you argue that they are based on a right for comfort, doesn’t this mean that indeed you believe that comfort is a right that legally exists?
No. They are based on a so-called “right” that doesn’t exist, which means that the law has no rational basis.StephenB_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PST}

Aleta: "I’m sorry if I implied that I “really understand” wjm’s position better than he himself." Apparently Aleta wants to be part of the group hug. Well, the more the merrier. WJM?inquisitor_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
07:03 PM
7
07
03
PM
PST}

Re #113: Damn it. I just wanted to write the same thing about vivid. What's interesting to me is that even this common ground, rather then acting as a potential bridge leading to increased understanding, is used as a way to increase the divide. Re #114: I wish this forum had a 'like' button.hrun0815_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
07:02 PM
7
07
02
PM
PST}

Hrun: "StephenB, I am sorry that I falsely attributed to you that ‘a right of comfort’ actually exists, since it is “obviously the very opposite of [your] position”." Vivid: "Inquisitor RE 105. That was not directed at you sorry I did not make that clear." Inquisitor: "I apologize for jumping to the conclusion. I should probably also apologize for my subsequent comment." KF: "I apologize to Inquisitor for making false accusations about his intentions" OK, that last one was just a fantasy. But with the group hug going on here, I thought that the impossible might happen. :) :) :)inquisitor_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
07:00 PM
7
07
00
PM
PST}

Inquisitor RE 111 Agreed but don't know about Hrun :) Vividvividbleau_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PST}

vivid writes,
I find it very unconvincing (as well as less than favorable qualities) when someone (in this case Aleta) ) thinks she “really understands” someone else’s position ( in this case WJM) better and more truly than the person himself does.
I'm sorry if I implied that I "really understand" wjm's position better than he himself. I think he has a genuine, well-thought out position that is, among other things, an important part of his intellectual history, and I've found it interesting and educational to consider his views. For him, moral subjectivism was, I think, at the bottom of the precipice, perhaps. My point was that his experience, and his conclusion from it, while valid for him, is not universally valid for others of us. There is a difference between William's personal perspective and a blanket claim that all subjective moralists are effectively nihilists if they were just honest with themselvesAleta_{May 16, 2016
May
05
May
16
16
2016
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PST}

Prev 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 13 Next