More precision please
Stupidity or malice or both?
But we’re not “debating the legitimacy of trans rights.” We don’t for a second disagree that people who call themselves trans should have human rights. What we’re doing is seeking clarity on what “trans rights” are. Are they human rights that trans people, like all people, should have? Or are they special, custom, bespoke rights that only trans people should have? If the former, there’s no disagreement; if the latter, we definitely want to know what those rights are and how they conflict with other people’s rights. So would Fern Riddell if she had the sense of a pile of wet pasta.
Of course people who call themselves trans exist. Why does their “right to exist” need protection more than anyone else’s?
Not that I’m expecting a reply.
She would surely say: “See? Right there you denied my existence. You said ‘people who call themselves trans’. But I am actually trans. You don’t admit that actual trans people exist.”
To which we would say: “Yes. Grow up.”
The entire Rights debate isn’t actually a moral and political debate about rights; it boils down to a scientific and philosophical debate about sex. Is “gender identity” a biological classification which is more fundamental, more reliable, and more indicative of actual sex than “reproductive system?” Are transwomen a kind of female, or a kind of male? Are the non-binary neither male nor female when viewed from a deeper perspective in which sex is smeared out into small gradations the way Nature often is? And shouldn’t Personal SelfAutonomy outweigh any principle which seeks to bind and constrict options?
Our definition of “trans person” is “someone who doesn’t identify as or with their sex.”
Their definition of “trans person” is “someone whose gender identity is different than the gender they were thought to be at birth” or some other variation that sneaks in disputed fact claims and/or adds unclear concepts. It’s as if the religious wanted atheists to define “God” as “the Alpha and Omega of Creation.”
” is “someone who
It’s probably unnecessary to state this but: civil rights are debated all the time. See Dobbs as an example of that debate taking place. #NoDebate couldn’t have saved Roe.
@BKISA;
Yes, but they want the rights debate to be framed as “Should ALL women be considered to be women, or should only SOME women count?”
GW @ 1 – Actually that’s not what I would say. I would say for the 80 millionth time that it’s not about existence, it’s about definition. Things don’t pop into and out of existence because we argue over how to define them.
So what you are saying is that despite the International Astronomical Union’s 2006 decision to deny the existence of the “planet Pluto”, the icy celestial object at the outskirts of our solar system is still there? :-O