A highly selective lens on rights
From a thread on W-PATH and research failings –
11-12 are CRUCIAL:
That. Trans ideologues never stop yammering about “rights” but they also never bother to define what “rights” they’re talking about. In reality they’re generally talking about rights that aren’t rights, like a “right” to be “affirmed in one’s chosen identity” or to be “validated as who you really are.” This is more of the same. Even if there is a right to “gender-affirming health care,” (which is a very novel right if so), what about competing rights that even the person seeking “gender-affirming health care” has? The ones Gosling lists and other similar ones? Why is the purported right to “affirmation” presented as the only one that matters? Why don’t people look behind and around it?
When Genderists talk of rights, it’s as though the content of the term is unimportant, like it’s just a noncognitivist expression of approval. Then, because both “yay rights” and “yay nice”, it follows that “yay affirmation” and “boo skepticism”.