According to AI, it is common for animals to engage in sexual behaviors with the same sex member of the group. I don't think we call them homosexual, and that could mean we do not have the language we need to discuss human rights and our sexuality. Our language and minds are shaped by a Christian perspective, even if we are not Christians. It is just part of our culture, and we mostly take it for granted. Animals do what they do without questioning if they have the right to do it. If it were not for the religious perspective, perhaps our sexuality would not become an issue of rights.

I like my grandmother's rules, because they give me a baseline for decisions that handle every situation requiring my judgment.

1. We respect everyone because we are respectful people.
2. We protect the dignity of others.
3. We do everything with integrity.

What you do is none of my business. I have all I can do to make myself behave well. That might not be good philosophy, but it seems to work for me. I have read that Socrates' group assumed moral means knowing the laws of nature and having good manners. They also saw nothing wrong with an older man and a younger man enjoying each other's company. Sparta assumed the men would like each other more than a man would like a woman. That was an important factor in their military success.

According to AI, it is common for animals to engage in sexual behaviors with the same sex member of the group. — Athena

Hello Athena, I want to be clear that trans gender does not mean gay. Gays are not the topic of this OP.

What you do is none of my business. I have all I can do to make myself behave well. — Athena

Correct. Do you believe then that trans gender people have, as a human right, the right to make you call them their preferred pronouns? Is it a human right for a straight man who has not had any surgery to go into a woman's changing room because they claim they are a trans woman? Should someone's gender take priority of someone's sex?

I regret that I brought in the subject of civil versus human rights. That really confused things. Beyond that, I suspect neither of us thinks the other is arguing in good faith. So we should probably leave it at that.

And I will try to keep my responses less antagonistic in the future.

from HR RIGHTS CAREERS website: Sex refers to a person’s physical and biological characteristics. The most common are male and female, but there are variations.

I don't agree that there are variations. There are two sexes: male (xy) and female (xx). Period. Evolution invented these two sexes about a billion years ago, and has stuck with early success. Genetic or developmental defects may occur which produce hermaphroditism, for example, but these defects are not a different sex.

from HR RIGHTS CAREERS website: Transgender people identify with a gender identity that’s different from what they were assigned at birth.

This is a persistent and annoying untruth. Children are not "assigned" a sex; their sex is recognized on the basis of physical characteristics. A trans person may not like it, but in 99.9% of births, sex is not ambiguous at first (or second) Dglance.

Cis sexual rights concern the right of the sexual identity of one’s sex. Trans sexual rights concern the right to the sexual identity of the opposite of one’s own sex. — Philosophim

Was there such a thing as "cis sexual rights" prior to the trans movement claiming "trans sexual rights"? For instance, did men and women have a "right" to a male only / female only toilet? Or was it a cultural given, backed up by laws against indecent exposure and the like, that men and women used separate toilets? I think it was a given.

A person who was born as a male or female may not claim rights that are unique to the opposite sex, in my opinion. Any person may claim rights based on their personhood, which specify numerous specific rights. The numerous subdivisions of humanity (intelligence, height, left handedness, etc.) generally do not have specific rights attached to them, do they? Inequality if endemic and it is up to the individual to deal with it. Individuals are burdened by all sorts of disadvantages (just as they benefit from all sorts advantages. Life does not distribute good and bad outcomes in life evenly. There is no "right" to have a great outcome.

A person may believe they will be happier if they can live like a person of the opposite sex. They can make the attempt, and may succeed. But they must do so within quite reasonable limitations. The limitation is that they are still the sex they were born as.

A person may believe they will be happier if they can live like a person of the opposite sex. They can make the attempt, and may succeed. But they must do so within quite reasonable limitations. The limitation is that they are still the sex they were born as. — BC

I’m surprised you have this attitude, which isn’t the same as saying I disagree with you.

I regret that I brought in the subject of civil versus human rights. That really confused things. Beyond that, I suspect neither of us thinks the other is arguing in good faith. — T Clark

Not a worry, and I don't think you're not arguing in good faith at this point.

And I will try to keep my responses less antagonistic in the future. — T Clark

Also not a worry, I often enjoy your posts here and view you as one of the better people to discuss with. This is an emotional subject for many, and as such its going to bring that out in people sometimes. You are quite welcome in this or any other thread.

I don't agree that there are variations. There are two sexes: male (xy) and female (xx). Period. Evolution invented these two sexes about a billion years ago, and has stuck with early success. Genetic or developmental defects may occur which produce hermaphroditism, for example, but these defects are not a different sex. — BC

True. I think slang gets mixed up with the scientific definition of sex. Many in the community think that 'sex isn't binary'. They don't understand that sex is only about reproduction. It requires a male and a female to reproduce, that's why its binary. A third sex would require a male, a female, and a lemale to reproduce. That would be trinary.

To their point a bit though, some of the variations in chromosomes and bodily changes seem variant enough to be 'a variant of female' or a 'variant of male'. Does this make sex any less biological, objective, or unchangeable? No.

from HR RIGHTS CAREERS website: Transgender people identify with a gender identity that’s different from what they were assigned at birth.

This is a persistent and annoying untruth. Children are not "assigned" a sex; their sex is recognized on the basis of physical characteristics. — BC

To be fair, they didn't use the word 'sex' here. Sex is yes, observed at birth. Its an objective category that you either identify correctly or incorrectly. A 'gender identity' if going by the proper definition, is a cultural expectation that people place upon the sexes. So for example, if you are born male, society might expect you to go hunting. You as a male might be interested in writing, which that society sees as a cultural expectation for females. As such, you were born with 'a gender identity' of a female (only in wanting to write), and thus aren't able to live as you wish.

The problem with this is obvious. Gender identity is simply culturally backed prejudice and/or sexism. It has no bearing on what your personality is in relation to your sex. If you hold a gender identity, you're just holding onto another form of prejudice and/or sexism. The goal is to realize that society is going to want you to do things you don't want to do regardless of sex, and navigating through life is figuring out which of those things you should or should not du despite societal pressure. There is nothing special about gender in the least.

Was there such a thing as "cis sexual rights" prior to the trans movement claiming "trans sexual rights"? — BC

It wasn't called as such, but the battles for sex rights was done with women's suffrage. Since there is a battle for trans sexual rights, we can contrast this with the default of 'sex rights', by putting the term cis in front of it for clarity. Does society default to 'cis' for sex rights? Yes. So this is more of an academic use for clarity in more focused discussion.

A person who was born as a male or female may not claim rights that are unique to the opposite sex, in my opinion. — BC

If one has not attempted to change one's sex, 100%. Gender is irrelevant subjective prejudice. "Women should make sandwiches in the kitchen" is gender. And we worked it out decades ago that its wrong. A working theory I have is that sexist people didn't go away, they just avoided the term sexist directly by latching onto gender. Still the same crappy people we had back then.

What I think is open for conversation is trans sexual rights. If a man has had the surgery and has lived with all intentions of being female, is that a case to say that is enough to enter some cross sex spaces? To be clear, trans gender is right out. But an actual trans sexual? I could see discussing it.

The numerous subdivisions of humanity (intelligence, height, left handedness, etc.) generally do not have specific rights attached to them, do they? — BC

Sexual differences do. These are based on biological realities and not cultural ones. The trans gender attempt has always been to cross into opposite sex rights without having to alter one's body to be the opposite sex. The trans sexual alters their body to do so.

A person may believe they will be happier if they can live like a person of the opposite sex. They can make the attempt, and may succeed. — BC

Correct. I have zero objection to someone paying their own money to cosmetically change themselves to resemble the other sex. Does that mean the rest of society has to believe that you deserve the rights of that opposite sex now? I think that's a little out of scope of the topic which is targeting trans gender rights specifically.

It's a "new" attitude for me. I used to accept many aspects of transgender / transsexual rhetoric, but over the last decade and a half, I've gradually changed my mind.

One reason for changing my mind has been reading a number of articles in places like Quillette which reject some of the claims of trans people as pseudo-science. I never thought there were more than 2 sexes, (I don't know of any species that are anything other than M and F. True, some fish can switch back and forth between the TWO sexes, and it works for their species. Fine. Unfortunately Jack, now Mary, is not a fish. Sorry Jack. You look great in those heels, hairdo, and all, but what you are doing is basically an elaborate drag act. Some drag queens seem a bit crazy, but they have enough sense not to get their balls and dick chopped off.

I am not sure what came first: the surge in numbers of trans individuals deciding to go beyond costuming to surgery and hormones, or the rhetoric of the trans movement. Like as not, there were men and women around before the trans movement picked up steam who wanted to BE the opposite sex. Christine Jorgensen, b 1926 in the Bronx, WWII vet, received gender surgery in 1952 in Denmark.

On the other hand, using drugs to suspend puberty in children who claim to be transgender seems like reckless medical practice, if not worse. Have clinics been too eager to aggressively gender dysphoria? I suspect they have.

Everyone has to work out their personal meshugganah. Lots of people manage to do so gracefully -- whatever their situation, and more power to them. And some people don't.