So, are trans gender rights human rights? Some of them are. Some of them are not. — Philosophim

... a form of wishful thinking.

A "right" which isn't a legal right (i.e. enforceable and subject to protection under the law, the violation of which is compensable) is nothing more than ... — Ciceronianus

:up: :up:

I don't think it's a good idea to do mastectomies on 14 year olds. Do you? — RogueAI

This has nothing to do with anything I’ve written in this thread. Perhaps you’re asking the wrong person.

This has nothing to do with anything I’ve written in this thread. Perhaps you’re asking the wrong person. — T Clark

You quoted the ACLU, specifically,

We’re working to make sure trans people get the health care

So then, what are your thoughts on the kind of health care trans children can/should get?

I must not have made myself clear. It makes no sense to me to speak of human rights or any rights outside of legal rights.

So, are trans gender rights human rights? — Philosophim

When I think about "rights", human or legal, I find it helpful to think in terms of "actual" rather than abstract. Tonight when I went to the neighborhood grocery store, the homeless trans panhandler was at her usual place. She's been there many late afternoons and evenings, since last spring. I've talked with her several times, as have others. He's had M--->F surgery (male genital removal) and when he has insurance (medicaid) takes female hormones. He sleeps outside if he can't find acceptable indoor shelter (too much risk of rape in the adult shelters). He's polite, friendly, and somewhat (reasonably) guarded.

So, are there human rights specific to her, as a trans person, that wouldn't apply to me, a gay male?

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UN 1945, lists the human rights. The WHO declaration, Alma Ata 1978, addresses the specific rights to health, which is defined as "a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being".

The listed rights in the declarations are 'universal'. Everyone is entitled to these rights, but the rights are by no means guaranteed. For instance, a person has the right to practice the religion of their choice and to vote the politics they believe are good. That doesn't mean they can actually do either one in any number of places.

This trans person has the same right to express her sexual desires as I have. My homosexuality isn't universally approved of, so there are limits--legal and extra or non-legal. Transsexuality / transgenderism isn't universally approved of, or even recognized, so there are again, limits. If I develop a disease related to gay sexual activity, I expect to receive the same expert, nonjudgmental care that someone would receive for a non-sexual disease. On the other hand, if I want medical care to achieve a physical body that is closer to the current-social-media ideal, should I expect social programs or insurance to pay for that? No. It is also reasonable for a transgender person to find some limits on what kinds of plastic surgery will be performed, or what and when some medications will be prescribed.

Why would my health, shelter, food, clothing, medical, or educational requirements receive less social provision for me than her? I support myself; she doesn't. But dependence of social programs cuts across racial, gender, age, and other categories, and a distinction is not made. People don't lose human rights because they have exceptional needs. (They may not receive needed assistance, but that's a different issue.)

I have some doubts about the legitimacy of some transsexual / transgender claims and demands, as do others. But whether they are entirely legitimate or not, they are still entitled to pursue personal fulfillment and social acceptance. I have never been enthusiastic about gay marriage; that doesn't mean that gay people are not entitled to pursue socially recognized marriage.

"Rights", after all, are not the same as approval.

I appreciate you sharing the story.

I have some doubts about the legitimacy of some transsexual / transgender claims and demands, as do others. — BC

The OP goes through several of them and states whether they can be classified as human rights. Would you like to agree or disagree with any of them?

So, I think the appropriate question to ask, if one wants to do so, is: Should what's being considered be legal rights? — Ciceronianus

But this is just to prescribe an idiosyncratic language around rights that isn't generally how we speak.

If a society legally permits men to subjugate women, we say women's rights are being violated, which says two things (1) we think something inherent in women being human is violated by this law and (2) we think there ought be a remedy for this violation.

We say we believe the law of that land is morally wrong, that morally wrong laws should not stand, and that women are owed the morally right law.

From this we say women's rights are being violated in that society. We refer to the law that ought to be as natural law and the law passed by society as positive law. The two might be in conflict as they are in that society.

But then where could we disagree except over terminology? Is it just that you don't think natural law deserves the descriptor "law" but instead it should be referred to as "moral dictates," where "dictate" is carefully used so as not to say "law"? And so when you say you deny there is natural law, you just mean you deny that what we both call X (which is defined as "that which no person morally ought be deprived") can be called "law." If that is the distinction, is that not pedantic?

If not pedantic, then I suppose it's based in the fear that should we call what ought be the law "natural law" then that might suggest the legal authority could enforce what ought be as opposed to what is and then we'd be faced with the uncertainty with regard to enforcement.

This concern is valid, but just pragmatic, designed to protect our peculiar form of government where we divide the moral from the required (i.e. the church from the state), but it says nothing of what the "law" ontologically is. It just says how we must politically treat it to make our non-theocratic system work.

But at the crux of this, and where I think the positivist position incorrect, is the idea that legal enforcement doesn't allow general notions of morality to creep in. While your positivist might argue the law is just what it says it is, morality is smuggled in constantly. And I'm not sure that's a bad thing.