ANOTHER TRANNY BASHING THREAD

[henry quirk]

Everyone should have the freedom to do whatever they want as long as it does not impact upon anyone else

Sure. Joe can flounce around in a skirt all he likes. Makes me no nevermind.

Demanding I recognize his womanhood is another thing all together.

[Immanuel Can]

Demanding I recognize his womanhood is another thing all together.

Well, if a guy has an supposed unalienable right to pretend, in his imaginary world, he's female...why don't you have an unalienable right to have the opposite opinion -- that in your world, that's simply not what a male is?

Why is his opinion sacred, and yours not?

You at least have chromosomes and other physiological reality markers on your side; he's got zippo on his.

And if you don't have the right to have your opinion, what special principle gives the guy the right to his opinion?

[Bakhita]

By refusing to use somebody's preferred self-definition you are denying them their self-definition.

Yes- is this problematic? A person has a self definition, and they’re free to have it whether it’s the state of affairs or not. However, you cannot expect every individual to reject the state of affairs to satisfy this self definition. Calling them names, or trying to equate labels (such as names) to gender, do not make the self definition any more legitimate.

The current state of affairs is that Billie, a biological man, self identifies as a woman. It’s also the state of affairs that certain people find Billie’s self identification not to be grounded in reason, and thus reject Billie’s self identification (at least by refusing to use their preferred pronouns).

Firstly, is the judgement of the non-conformists here irrational? They’re operating under the concept(s) that gender is fixed, and that it’s grounded in biology. De Beauvoir would say that “One is not born a woman, one becomes a woman”, for she seems to believe (from what I gather from Judith Butler’s comments on her- I have not yet read the Second Sex) that gender is not essential to a person, or doesn’t already exist in them, but is existential, something to be learned and developed, transformed, even. Biology is irrelevant, or at least only secondary. This position would seem to be shared by the “trans” advocates.

You’re accusing the Others of rejecting a person’s self-identification, and you’re right to say so. However, this is merely descriptive of what’s happening. You can’t prescribe that the Others ought to accept this self-definition based only on the fact that they’re rejecting it.

You offer that denying this self-identification violates the principle of non-maleficence, and that because it does so, the Other ought to change their opinion (unless you would say, “You can think have your opinion privately, but don’t dare utter it”). I would ask, how does refusal of preferred pronouns hurt a person? I would say that it feels wrong to refer to Henry as Harry, as you did, because both the existentialists (Trans advocates) and the essentialists (Other) follow the same rules regarding names- even on an online message board, where a person may opt to use their legal name, or a moniker. In either case, we refer to the person as they can be identified. We’re playing the same game by the same rules. We’re not playing the same game by the same rules in regard to gender. We would probably say that we don’t play by the same game or rules in regards to what does (or doesn’t do) harm.

For example, the Essentialists would say that the most harm lies in allowing a person to adopt a gender other than their own, as in doing so they are rejecting a part of their essence, or who they are as a person. They might also call to mind certain mental health issues which can cause this decision, or which may develop as a result of their choice. Such Existentialists as yourself (I presume) are more concerned that a person may be offended at the refusal to call them as they wish.

Do you believe that this new gender which the person chooses to adopt is a part of who they are, and that it’s dangerous to refuse an individual the recognition from others that they need? Because this is also what the Essentialists are concerned with: failing (proper) recognition.

I would caution against being too “libertarian” about things. The conversation we should be having is one of essence, not of preference. This is where the two sides are likely to have more rich discussion and move beyond talking past one another.

[Bakhita]

Tl;dr

Just look at the last line and you’ll get what I’m after here.

[Immanuel Can]

I would caution against being too “libertarian” about things. The conversation we should be having is one of essence, not of preference. This is where the two sides are likely to have more rich discussion and move beyond talking past one another.

I don't disagree with you. Essence is, so to speak, the "essence" of the issue.

However, there are those who, self-contradictorily, insist that there is no such thing as an "essence" of being male or female, and yet, at the same time, insist that people have a right to be male or female. In other words, they argue that there is no basic or given essence of gender, but there is a target essence of gender. The gender the dysphoric person is said, by such arguers, to be unreal, unstable, and not binding; but the gender the dysphoric person craves is said by them to not only to be real, stable, definite and absolutely necessary for him/her to obtain.

They're saying gender is absolutely not an essence, and that it absolutely is, both within a single sentence.

When a person is so unable to reason that they cannot hold a single thought for a whole sentence, what progress is possible with such a person? So I wish that changing the topic to focus on essence would resolve some issues...but some folks can't even track that thought.

[Bakhita]

In other words, they argue that there is no basic or given essence of gender, but there is a target essence of gender.

This is precisely where I believe the debate needs to begin. Is gender mutable, or constant? Until we reach some conclusion here, we can't say whether it's possible to change gender at all, let alone determine if it's wrong or merely rational to reject "preference pronouns".

[Skepdick]

Telepathy would be no more effective as you would still need to use language when you required clarification

It would be more effective for the simple reason that the communication channel between you and me would have more bandwidth - it would allow for more information to be moved from your mind to my mind.

Human speech transmits about 39 bits per second.

Your argument is tantamount to saying that using the internet on a dial-up modem and on a modern 1Gbps fiber link is no different.

[Skepdick]

Because surely one has as a matter principle the moral option to reject any definitions that they fundamentally disagree with

What is the moral principle based on which you reject definitions?

[Skepdick]

Yes you can but if that meaning is exclusive to you then it makes communication problematic
So this is why generally there is common consensus with regard to what words actually mean

Generally that may be true, but generally there's no principle which dictates how the general applies to the particular.

And particularly, words have no actual meaning divorced from context.

Outside of mathematics or logic there is no such thing as perfect language

Mathematics is ambiguous as hell! That's why you have things like the BODMAS rule.

[Skepdick]

Yes but this is not a black and white binary position but one that exists on a spectrum with lots of shades of grey
For example some of society may accept them while some may not so where would that go in your binary system

When dealing with any aspect of human nature it is always on a spectrum because we are too complicated and messy to just be binary

I didn't say they are black and white. I just presented two (out of many possible) scenarios on the harm/no-harm spectrum.

I am sure you can guess which of the two scenarios comes closer to the "no harm" principle.

[FlashDangerpants]

In other words, they argue that there is no basic or given essence of gender, but there is a target essence of gender.

This is precisely where I believe the debate needs to begin. Is gender mutable, or constant? Until we reach some conclusion here, we can't say whether it's possible to change gender at all, let alone determine if it's wrong or merely rational to reject "preference pronouns".

Yeah, you want to be cautious in accepting any reports on such matters from that guy, he is a somewhat unreliable source. He made a clumsy effort to railroad me into the position he describes there around page 5 of this thread --> viewtopic.php?f=9&t=27742&start=60

There is quite obviously nobody at all who argues that "there is no basic or given essence of gender, but there is a target essence of gender". And there is also no honest man who would pretend there was.

And if you are curious to see his essentialism argument in it's glory, that's on page 3 of the same thread.

[Skepdick]

Yes- is this problematic?

It's disrespectful and demeaning. If a sufficient number of people behave in that manner towards fellow humans - it becomes problematic.

However, you cannot expect every individual to reject the state of affairs to satisfy this self definition.

Given the fact that the world can be re-described in infinitely many ways, and each description being equally valid as the next - which description (out of infinite) exactly is "the state of affairs"?

Calling them names, or trying to equate labels (such as names) to gender, do not make the self definition any more legitimate.

It does not make their self-definition any less legitimate either. It's as legitimate a definition as any of the infinitely many other definitions.

The current state of affairs is that Billie, a biological man, self identifies as a woman.

What they identify as is immaterial. The point is that "gender" is a social construct, and so how do you decide which social sub-culture gets legitimacy in prescribing the meaning of our words?

Why are you giving legitimacy to the biologists?
Why aren't you giving legitimacy to the neurophysicists; or the physicists; or the psychologists; or the activisits?

It’s also the state of affairs that certain people find Billie’s self identification not to be grounded in reason, and thus reject Billie’s self identification (at least by refusing to use their preferred pronouns).

In so long as you are going to pre-suppose (without mutual, prior agreement) that there is such a thing as a "state of affairs", I guess I am just going to defend an anti-realist position...

Firstly, is the judgement of the non-conformists here irrational? They’re operating under the concept(s) that gender is fixed, and that it’s grounded in biology.

There is absolutely no basis for that decision - it's as arbitrary as any Philosopher getting to self-define themselves as Monists, Dualists, Eternalists, Perspectivists, Rationalits, Realists, Constructivists, Anti-realists, Methodists, Functionalist, and a million other "ists" etc. etc. etc.

You’re accusing the Others of rejecting a person’s self-identification, and you’re right to say so. However, this is merely descriptive of what’s happening. You can’t prescribe that the Others ought to accept this self-definition based only on the fact that they’re rejecting it.

I am not prescribing it. I am describing the sequence of events that take place and I am describing how and why that is harmful. And I am presenting a choice.

You can choose to change (and reduce the harm being caused) or you can choose not to change (and continue causing harm).

That is what morality is, no? DOING the right thing.

If you think such notions as "truth" and "state of affairs" are more important than people and well-being then there's nothing I can say to convince you otherwise. It's a difference of values.

You offer that denying this self-identification violates the principle of non-maleficence
...
I would say that it feels wrong to refer to Henry as Harry

No! What I am offering is that when all of society calls you a Harry, it's really difficult to be a Henry.

how does refusal of preferred pronouns hurt a person?

It's not JUST the pronouns. It's the systematic/structural issues that manifest because society is not built for people who don't fit in the pre-defined boxes.

It's the little things you can't notice because society is built for you - you don't bump into those obstacles in your daily life.

We would probably say that we don’t play by the same game or rules in regards to what does (or doesn’t do) harm.

There is no room in the world for such black-and-white thinking.

Society has choices. MANY choices. Infinitely many choices.

Some choices lead to a society which address the needs of people.
Other choices lead to a society which address the needs of people, but not the needs of trannies.

If you can't intuit that one is better and less harmful outcome than the other, I have no idea how to sway you towards valuing all of humanity.

For example, the Essentialists would say that the most harm lies in allowing a person to adopt a gender other than their own, as in doing so they are rejecting a part of their essence, or who they are as a person. They might also call to mind certain mental health issues which can cause this decision, or which may develop as a result of their choice. Such Existentialists as yourself (I presume) are more concerned that a person may be offended at the refusal to call them as they wish.

Your view is extremely reductionist. Zoom out - look at society as a whole.

Do you believe that this new gender which the person chooses to adopt is a part of who they are, and that it’s dangerous to refuse an individual the recognition from others that they need? Because this is also what the Essentialists are concerned with: failing (proper) recognition.

It's not about recognition. It's about structures that are incompatible with the needs of people who have to live with them, it's about how structure influences human behaviour and hinders day-to-day living.

It's about being disabled in a country without wheelchair access to grocery stores.
It's about being different enough to be bullied in the men's AND women's bathroom, so you go pee behind a tree and then you get arrested for indecent exposure. And you are bullied by the police some more because "this uncivilised freak can't use a bathroom like the rest of us".

I would caution against being too “libertarian” about things. The conversation we should be having is one of essence, not of preference. This is where the two sides are likely to have more rich discussion and move beyond talking past one another.

The conversation we should be having is about harm! Fuck essence.

Philosophy hasn't stumbled upon the answer in 2000 years, and it's unlikely to stumble upon an answer in 2 million more.

[Skepdick]

Joe can self-define as Josephine all he likes, that don't obligate me to agree with him.

It's not an obligation, it's a polite request.

Joe is asking you to call him Josephine. Joe is asking you to accept and tolerate his lifestyle choices.

Will you, or won't you?

We already know the answer... Your aren't going to do it because "muh principles!"

You value people less than you value principles, Harry. That's why your principles are bullshit.

[henry quirk]

Related threads...

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=28244

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=27809

...there are others, but these two illustrate the merry go round.

This one...

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=28396

...is germane.

[henry quirk]

Your are choosing your principles over Josephine.

You value people less than you value principles, Harry. That's why your principles are bullshit.

I'm declinin' to participate in Joe's delusion.

If you knew what my principles were you'd know they're all about people, but you don't, so...