Bakhita wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 10:00 pm
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.
Bakhita wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 10:00 pm
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"?
Bakhita wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 10:00 pm
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.
Bakhita wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 10:00 pm
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?
Bakhita wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 10:00 pm
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...
Bakhita wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 10:00 pm
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.
Bakhita wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 10:00 pm
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.
Bakhita wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 10:00 pm
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.
Bakhita wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 10:00 pm
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.
Bakhita wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 10:00 pm
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.
Bakhita wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 10:00 pm
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.
Bakhita wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 10:00 pm
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".
Bakhita wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 10:00 pm
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.