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.

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

The thread is about civil rights, not specific policies or practices. It is reasonable to consider adequate medical care a civil right. What adequate care for transgender people includes is not the subject of this thread and I’m not interested in expressing an opinion.

The thread is about civil rights, not specific policies or practices. It is reasonable to consider adequate medical care a civil right. What adequate care for transgender people includes is not the subject of this thread and I’m not interested in expressing an opinion. — T Clark

Technically its about human rights, but you are 100% correct that this is off topic. The OP addresses health care as

First, I am aware that health care is often not considered a personal or group right, and could be open to debate. To avoid losing focus, we will assume that the transgender community is not asking for anything more than the equal opportunities in access and ability to pay for healthcare that other people have in the country they reside in. The right to equal opportunity of service in what is offered in one’s country is a human right, so this also fits. — Philosophim

So RougeAI, lets stick to the OP please and not specifically call out other members on something off topic. TClark, if you would like to continue the discussion about the OP feel free, but you do not have defend yourself from off topic points in this thread.

Technically its about human rights.. — Philosophim

The saying is "Transgender rights are human rights." I'm willing to be extremely pedantic in explaining that the correct wording is "civil rights." I think the difference is important, but I won't clutter up your thread unless you beg me.

I don't think this includes anything I didn't address in the OP. Did you read it in full TClark? Which specific points that I've made do you disagree with? — Philosophim

My response was harsh because I think your OP is misleading in a way I interpreted as for rhetorical effect. For me, the most fundamental provisions of the ACLU's description are "fighting discrimination in employment, housing, and public places." These form the basis for many of the other rights identified but your listing did not include them at all. In the US, such discrimination is prohibited by various civil rights acts and court cases for the following protected groups:

Race – Civil Rights Act of 1964
Religion – Civil Rights Act of 1964
National origin – Civil Rights Act of 1964
Age (40 and over) – Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
Sex – Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Civil Rights Act of 1964
Sexual orientation and gender identity as of Bostock v. Clayton County – Civil Rights Act of 1964
Pregnancy – Pregnancy Discrimination Act
Familial status – Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII: Prohibits discrimination for having children, with an exception for senior housing. Also prohibits making a preference for those with children.
Disability status – Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Veteran status – Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
Genetic information – Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act — Wikipedia - Protected group

So, the rights identified are already in place for transgender people, although, since that is based on a court case, our current courts might change it.

And yes, I did read your OP in full.

What is being said when it's claimed women have the right not to be subjugated? If we say that means they have the right to vote, we refer to a legal right. We don't refer to an "inherent right to vote "

One of the problems when we speak of "human rights" is one of lack of context or definition. When we try to define them, the definition which results is either so nebulous as to be useless or is dependent on legal rights. The example I give above applies context. If we say they have the right not to be treated as property we're not saying they have the right not to be property; we're saying that they're not property. In other words, as to women men do not have or should not have the legal rights they may exercise or have to property.

The saying is "Transgender rights are human rights." I'm willing to be extremely pedantic in explaining that the correct wording is "civil rights." I think the difference is important, but I won't clutter up your thread unless you beg me. — T Clark

No, the title, intro, and common saying is 'Trans rights are human rights". Its a a common refrain from trans allies and activists. Here, I even wrote it in the OP.

“Trans gender rights are human rights”. An often heard tautological statement, but is every request that the trans community makes a ‘human right’? — Philosophim

See, that's what we call an introduction that sets the stage for the main topic of the discussion. I'm showing you this because you were trying to be pedantic, but failed. So let me demonstrate what being pedantic is so you can do better next time. Being pedantic is me pointing to the explicit wording, telling you to read the explicit wording, then pointing out the main idea in the first sentence. And I suppose too that I should point out I never once mention or address "Civil Right" in the entire OP, so that's a pretty good indicator that the correct wording for the topic was "human rights".

My response was harsh because I think your OP is misleading in a way I interpreted as for rhetorical effect. — T Clark

No, your response was harsh because you were pissed at the topic and didn't handle it intelligently or maturely. I did not see your intention as harsh, it just came across like you hadn't read the OP and went on a side straw man by quoting another source which was seemingly mostly addressed in the OP. I mean, that happens often in posts, and I gave you a chance to join the conversation properly after you cooled off. Are you cooled off yet to actually comment on the OP itself, or are you now going to be pissed that I gave you an example of what being pedantic actually is? If you can fix your attitude, water under the bridge. If you can't, I get to be amused at how you angrily mess up the next response. Either way a win for me, but it would be a win for us both if you chose the former.

For me, the most fundamental provisions of the ACLU's description are "fighting discrimination in employment, housing, and public places." — T Clark

I addressed one of the contentious points of employment specifically, and point 3 where I noted "Equality of service" should easily apply to housing and public places. This was already a long post which apparently most people didn't bother reading (not just you), so I tried to condense it to important ideas that could be applied to specifics if needed. A 'top 5' list condenses better, gives points to specifically address, and let me cover demands that both fit human rights, and do not fit human rights. In reading the OP, you see that I noted that out of the 5 points, about half I would consider human rights. But please, and in all seriousness, if you think I've missed something about a trans rights request being a human right that you want to address, bring it up specifically. Add reasoning as to why its a human right, and why my reasoning has missed this, doesn't cover it, or seems to go against it. This was always intended to be a discussion, not a status measuring contest.

These form the basis for many of the other rights identified but your listing did not include them at all. — T Clark

This is a fine claim, but please detail what the trans community is insisting are human rights that I missed specifically. Is it the idea that trans people should be allowed to purchase homes, be in public, and be employed? As I noted before, equality of service is a human right which they should be entitled to. Am I missing something more that would change what I concluded about the rights I mentioned in the OP?

such discrimination is prohibited by various civil rights acts and court cases — T Clark

Again, and not to be pedantic this time, the topic is about human rights, not civil rights. Civil rights are rights written into government law. Human rights are natural rights that exist despite law. So I'm not critiquing what has already been passed into law, but am looking at trans rights demands that are claimed to also be human rights which are natural rights outside of law.

just came across like you hadn't read the OP and went on a side straw man by quoting another source which was seemingly mostly addressed in the OP. — Philosophim

I read your OP twice and I stand by behind my main criticism. The source you use to generate your list of human rights left out the most important parts of the ACLU list in a way that undermined possible contrary arguments. It was that dishonesty I reacted to. I have no objection to this subject for discussion, I just think your OP was a set up job.

So, let's try to get back on track here. And the best way to do so is with cold hard facts. Hypochondria, affects 5% of all persons. So, that's double the percent of alleged transgender persons so far.

Let's also bring into the discussion the idea of anxiety or panic attacks, which affect a great larger majority, about 40% of people will experience such or similar with related symptoms once in their life. This is enough to dial emergency services or visit the ER under the true and genuine belief there is a true medical emergency or condition. Difference is, untreated, general anxiety or benign malaise may be confused as something more severe, including mental illness if not diagnosed by a qualified professional, or worse, self-diagnosed (or pseudo-diagnosed by non-medically trained non-professionals who may be family or friends). Which is basically the driving force (90%+ of the so called transgender movement, which in reality is a political, economical act of warfare that only seeks to confuse and disorient, so as to give enemy troops an advantage) of this so called human rights campaign. People in general may be stupid. But the people who decide what bombs drop where, are not. So don't make yourself a target. You might regret it. Or those, what's left of those around you, that is, when it's all said and done, might curse your very being. So be careful.

It's like you're purposely trying to ignore reality by not understanding these facts thereof, OP.

Again, we haven't truly framed the topic here. We have your ignorant and silly understanding of what transgender is, which while may be shared by the world, remains silly and ignorant. Until you can admit that, OP. This topic, rather your contribution toward it, will remain little more than a circus. And a dull one at that.

So, let's try to get back on track here. And the best way to do so is with cold hard facts. Hypochondria, affects 5% of all persons. — Outlander

I don't see how this addresses the OP or gets the topic back on track.

It's like you're purposely trying to ignore reality by not understanding these facts thereof, OP. — Outlander

I fail to see how these statements you've made have anything to do with what I've written.

Again, we haven't truly framed the topic here. — Outlander

I believe I have clearly framed the topic "Are trans gender rights human rights?" Some are, some aren't. Do you agree or disagree with these assessments?

We have your ignorant and silly understanding of what transgender is, which while may be shared by the world, remains silly and ignorant. Until you can admit that, OP. This topic, rather your contribution toward it, will remain little more than a circus. — Outlander

If you disagree with the definition of what trans gender is, feel free to frame it. Then feel free to examine what people who are trans gender claim are rights, then tell me whether you think they are human rights. I can't admit to anything when you have provided nothing for me to admit to.

I read your OP twice and I stand by behind my main criticism. — T Clark

Fair enough, I'll believe that you have. But I'm not seeing you provide anything that is countering my criticism either.

The source you use to generate your list of human rights left out the most important parts of the ACLU list in a way that undermined possible contrary arguments. — T Clark

And I have invited you to go into more detail on these specific parts of the list. I've asked you to introduce them to the discussion, pointing out why these are necessary to our discussion of trans rights as human rights, and showing how their introduction could contradict my statements. I have undermined nothing in asking you to do this.

I have no objection to this subject for discussion, I just think your OP was a set up job. — T Clark

And I have no objection to you thinking it was, but I see no evidence from you that would support that suspicion. Another time TClark, enjoy the rest of your weekend.

So, that's double the percent of alleged transgender persons so far. — Outlander

Alleged?

I believe I have clearly framed the topic "Are trans gender rights human rights?" Some are, some aren't. Do you agree or disagree with these assessments? — Philosophim

See, what I'm trying to say is, and forgive my brashness, perhaps you've gone gung-ho into a battle wielding what one believes to be a sword but is really a tuning fork. You're missing the forest for the trees, my good sir.

One is a term that hasn't existed in the zeitgeist of any human civilization (at least modern Western society) until recently. Whereas, "human" is a biological and absolute constant. In simple terms, one changes, basically came into existence recently, and otherwise has no consensus agreeing solid and strict definition. The other does. So the rights for something that is absolute and non-disputable, versus something that is not only a new concept to all things social and legal, something constantly changing and still not widely-agreed upon between those who deem said concept important, are like comparing apples and oranges.

Let me simplify that: One is a derivative of the other. The derivative is a social construct (relative). The derived from is a biological reality (absolute).

So, that's double the percent of alleged transgender persons so far. — Outlander


Alleged? — RogueAI

Assuming there is either a biological or medical reality behind the idea that a human being can be born into one of the binary sexes yet would fundamentally either:

A.) be more productive and natural in the opposite sex
[OR]
B. would live life in discomfort, potential mental illness, and overall failure to thrive.

If even one of the two prerequisites above are true, that would mean such an opinion should only be given by a well-educated and preferably-licensed medical or psychiatric professional, similar to legal advice online, which by penalty of law is forbidden by a layperson. If none of the above prerequisites are true, then it's literally a non-issue akin to a hobby or weird phase that only the individual themself can choose to cause detriment and negative effect.

To simplify: To err is human. People make mistakes. It's not an established science with immediate physical and visual confirmation like an X-ray or MRI. If one believes surgical and biological modification of one's self is a choice, that's a choice they made. If one believes there is a fundamental or otherwise "human-like" right that is being deprived from not being allowed to surgically and biologically modify one's body so as to please one's self, that's a science and medical reality that only those highly trained and certified should be legally allowed to determine or give opinions on.

One is a term that hasn't existed in the zeitgeist of any human civilization (at least modern Western society) until recently. Whereas, "human" is a biological and absolute constant. In simple terms, one changes, basically came into existence recently, and otherwise has no consensus agreeing solid and strict definition. — Outlander

Ah, I see what you're saying now. If you'll notice in the OP I take the time to set up all the definitions so that way the reader knows what everything means starting out. Please feel free to disagree with any of the definitions and propose your own as a starting point.

From my viewpoint, though gender may be new to the average person, it is a term that is used in the trans gender activist community, and we must understand how they use it when they are asking rights by gender. If you disagree with the word use entirely, then that is your right and our conversation is at an end. This is an attempt to clearly define what representatives of the trans gender community are asking for in terms of trans rights, and whether everything they are asking for is also a human right.

I am getting the feeling that most people on this board have very little understanding or familiarity with trans gender viewpoints, culture, and activism. I've been studying them for the last two years, so I admit my awareness of the subject is painted by that. It appears I am unlikely to have a good conversation on these boards as people appear very in the dark or have a very limited take on the issue. That's ok, philosophy has not been in sync with the culture for some time now, and its not surprising that a modern day philosophical issue like this is not being properly tackled here. I'll likely go to another forum and post there for people who are interested in thinking about this.

I am getting the feeling that most people on this board have very little understanding or familiarity with trans gender viewpoints, culture, and activism. I've been studying them for the last two years, so I admit my awareness of the subject is painted by that. It appears I am unlikely to have a good conversation on these boards as people appear very in the dark or have a very limited take on the issue. That's ok, philosophy has not been in sync with the culture for some time now, and its not surprising that a modern day philosophical issue like this is not being properly tackled here. — Philosophim

My view of this issue is untheorized and based on my experience knowing and working with numerous trans people, both men and women. I support most trans rights on the grounds of solidarity and the need to minimize harm and stigma. I’m not aligned with or aware of every activist claim, and I also recognize that trans people vary in their thinking. I’ve known some who reject gender theory entirely. Most of the trans people I’ve known come to their identity through personal experience rather than gender politics. Some are later influenced or radicalized by that politics, but it would be a mistake to assume activism shapes all trans identities. And I know you haven’t said that.

I broadly support all five rights you mentioned, except where specific circumstances make their application genuinely problematic. My main reservation concerns medical treatment for minors; I believe age, maturity, and clinical judgment must guide decisions, so point four would need qualifications around safeguarding and informed consent.

My position comes from both personal experience and ethical reasoning. Having worked with and known trans people, I’ve seen the distress caused by denying recognition or access to care. That distress may be “subjective,” but it is real and morally relevant, I woudl hold that reducing it is part of our responsibility to respect human dignity and autonomy.

I view being transgender not as a mental illness (as some do) but as a mode of human identity. Comparing it to schizophrenia or other delusional conditions misunderstands the nature of gender identity: it is not a pathology to be suppressed but a lived reality to be supported. I also find it interesting how some who do not support treatment of mental illness do support it for trans, probably because transphobia informs their view.

If we accept that gender identity is how people experince their selfhood, as something fundamental to a person’s being, then society shoudl facilitate and provide the means for trans people to live authentically and safely. That includes access to accurate identity documents, social recognition, protection from harm, and healthcare aligned with their needs.

Gender theory isn't relevant to my take on trans. My view is pragmatic. People have always identified and alwasy will identity as a gender different to mainstream expectation (I'm avoiding gender discourse here). We don’t need a metaphysical theory of gender to defend trans rights. What matters is whether our practices reduce suffering and allow people to live freely and without humiliation. Trans rights stand on the basic moral ground that they lessen cruelty and create space for self-determination. Moral progress depends on empathy and persuasion, not on appeals to absolute truth. I'd take the view that a decent society lets people define themselves without fear and measures dignity by the freedom to live honestly, not by an obedience to inherited categories.

Now, before anyone says, “But what if someone wants to identify as an air-conditioning manifold?” I would simply respond that such an identity lacks the historical depth and pragmatic grounding that give meaning to categories like gender. There’s no shared social context, language, or lived experience to make that identification useful.

Human Rights - Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status.

We can specify this further with personal and group rights. — Philosophim

Human Rights are a social construct. We are not born with legal documents that are backed up by some higher power. This is something that is so blatantly obvious that people miss it and construe our creation of Human Rights as something we have always possessed.

I believe this may help focus how people approach legal rights.

My view of this issue is untheorized and based on my experience knowing and working with numerous trans people, both men and women. I support most trans rights on the grounds of solidarity and the need to minimize harm and stigma. — Tom Storm

And I'm glad to to hear that. I agree that trans gender people should have the right to not be harmed for the way they live their lives, and that we should eliminate unwarranted stigma where possible.

I’m not aligned with or aware of every activist claim, and I also recognize that trans people vary in their thinking. — Tom Storm

And that is also fine. I'm sure there are plenty of trans gendered individuals who would not agree with some of the list I've posted above. The reason for the list is these are generally things that are being pushed by those who try to get media and political attention. In other words, the one's trying to convince other people that these are true human rights. As such, I feel it is a warranted philosophical enterprise to ask whether their claims of them being human rights, actually match human rights. If you read the OP, I agree with about half of them. The point was not to minimize that trans individuals should have human rights like everyone else, but it was to temper the idea that just because a group may be correct in some of their requests, it does not mean we shouldn't carefully examine their other requests and possibly find fault.

but it would be a mistake to assume activism shapes all trans identities. And I know you haven’t said that. — Tom Storm

I appreciate that. No, my first belief is that trans gender identity can be a choice, but it can also be something innate to the person. I also believe that people have a right to make that choice. My studies hint more that it is really trans sexual identities that are inborn, which often get lumped in with trans gender identities. But I don't want to make that the focus of this topic as that seems more scientific than philosophical. To your point, just because there is a sect of trans gender people trying to push for these as rights, doesn't mean private trans gender individuals do not agree with them. If there was a competing segment of the trans community that was actively in opposition to the pushes I am citing, I could address them as well. But to my knowledge there is no powerful counter movement within the community that is debating these rights claims as currently presented.

I broadly support all five rights you mentioned, except where specific circumstances make their application genuinely problematic. — Tom Storm

My main contention is really with points 3 and 4 essentially are that gender identity should be recognized over sex identity by legal enforcement. To be clear, I am talking about trans gender individuals, not trans sexual individuals. The trans gender argument is that if a member of one sex expresses they are a gender of the other sex, they should be allowed in cross sex spaces, and they should legally have pronouns refer to their gender instead of sex. This means a perfectly healthy and unaltered biological male should be able to enter into a female space like a changing room. England actually did this for several years until the Supreme Court ruled that a recognition of gender was not the same as a recognition of sex. Many in the trans gender community are fighting to get this overruled as they believe it is a right that gender identity supercede sex identity.

I will not repost the reasons behind while I think this is wrong as that's in the OP, but I do not believe this particular trans gender right is not actually a human right.

To be clear, it is not a human right that others agree to our own subjective viewpoints about ourselves. That is not to say that a person cannot view themselves as they wish, or express themselves as they wish equitably under the spirit of public health and decency. If a person wishes to transition, I see no reason why that wouldn't be within their full rights as a human being. Its the fact that activists believe it is a human right that others refer to their gender over their sex that seems to be a violation of the right to free speech and thought.

My main reservation concerns medical treatment for minors — Tom Storm

I responded earlier to RogueAI I believe with a better breakdown on minor health care. Its about what you would expect. Consent must be acquired which largely rests on the parents, and there must be unquestionable medical backing behind it. I can get into details if you would like, but current medical research does not support puberty blockers or any form of medical transition for minors. Activists often believe this is a right despite the medical evidence, which is again why there is a need to critically examine such claims.

Having worked with and known trans people, I’ve seen the distress caused by denying recognition or access to care. That distress may be “subjective,” but it is real and morally relevant, I woudl hold that reducing it is part of our responsibility to respect human dignity and autonomy. — Tom Storm

Correct. The encompassing medical phrase for this is 'gender dysphoria'. However, gender dysphoria could equally be called 'sex dysphoria'. It depends on the context of the distress. If a person is unhappy with the gender they express, and not their sex, its gender dysphoria. If a person is unhappy with their sex, and not the gender they express, that's sex dyphoria. The first case is a trans gendered individual. The second is a trans sexual individual. The community has either ignorantly or intentionally decided to stop using the term 'sex' where possible, which causes a lot of confusion about what a person's actual issue is.

And yes, both dysphorias are real. Treatment should be given if possible to help with the issue. From my understanding, there is no cure. It is therefore what is considered a mental health issue (like depression, not a mental illness like schizophrenia), and needs both therapy and sometime medication to treat. And to be clear, its not the fact that someone desires to be the other sex or gender that is the mental health issue, its the distress of not being able to do so that causes unnecessary stress and behavioral problems in life. Many people have fantasies and dalliences in gender or cross sex play and do not have a chronic distress issue over the fact it is part of them, and not a centralized identity to the exclusion of other healthy parts of themselves.

Gender theory isn't relevant to my take on trans. My view is pragmatic. People have always identified and alwasy will identity as a gender different to mainstream expectation — Tom Storm

The problem is, is that we need clarification in terms if we're not going to use gender theory. Do you mean gender as a sex synonym, a cultural expectation, a sex expectation, or a blend of both? Because unclear terminology gets us into a mess of not understanding what the issue is. People distrust and often hate what they don't understand. Its imperative that we have clear, unambiguous communication if we want culture and law to properly address the issue, much less a discussion here.

We don’t need a metaphysical theory of gender to defend trans rights. What matters is whether our practices reduce suffering and allow people to live freely and without humiliation. — Tom Storm

If you can't clearly identify what is causing the suffering, you can't clearly treat it. If you can't clearly convey what is wrong with you when you're behaving in a manner most people would find strange, you will never live freely without humiliation with a culture. Compassion and empathy are paramount, but it must be combined with clear identification, rational thought, and respect of all individuals involved, not just the aggrieved.

Moral progress depends on empathy and persuasion, not on appeals to absolute truth. I'd take the view that a decent society lets people define themselves without fear and measures dignity by the freedom to live honestly, not by an obedience to inherited categories. — Tom Storm

In my experience, this is an ideal that is violated by the real. If everyone had good intentions and full rational faculties, you would be correct. Unfortunately, while I do believe it is a minority, there are enough individuals who do not have good intention or full rational faculties. This is not targeting trans gendered specifically, but the entire human race. While an overreliance on rigid and out dated categories is bad, doing away with categories and truth requirements ends just as badly for everyone involved. Both situations give bad actors the freedom to cause havoc.

Now, before anyone says, “But what if someone wants to identify as an air-conditioning manifold?” — Tom Storm

Please, I would never insult you with such a Reddit argument. :) Its trivial to note that such a comparison misses the point entirely. Perhaps some who bring up discussion about trans gender issues are motivated purely by their feelings on the matter. I hope that I am someone you can trust will give the topic an actual intelligent look and discussion over it instead of shallow diatribes. I appreciate your post.

Human Rights are a social construct. We are not born with legal documents that are backed up by some higher power. This is something that is so blatantly obvious that people miss it and construe our creation of Human Rights as something we have always possessed. — I like sushi

They are a social construct solved through reason and practice, not bias or feelings. Whether you value human rights or not, there are clearly defined human rights like 'the right to defend oneself'. The OP is simply checking to see if the claim to all trans gender rights actually fit in with human rights.

:up: Food for thought.

You are checking to see if a social construct fits into another social construct. That is why I pointed out that human rights are social constructs.

Things like religious rights are not so important to the devote. They will do as they do regardless of any reasonable arguments against them. Reason has limits.

Isn't all human discourse a contingent product of cultural and linguistic practices? Everything exists within layers of constructs and frameworks. Human rights remain a meaningful and useful frame until some other construct supersedes them.

It is precisely the insistance of some 'God'/'Law' given Right that leads to their abuse. For those they matter too they do not even need to be mentioned.

Do we really want to end up sounding like people who say things like not believing in God means you have no morals.

Human Rights are not upheld in many countries because they have different laws. We can amend laws, to some degree, but they are not the be all and end all of individual human actions. I would argue they are small things compared to the power of individual human will. To question what we will is basically how laws come into being.

Anyway, maybe this is not the thread for this. No intention of derailing, so I guess it can be taken up elsewhere.

↪Philosophim You are checking to see if a social construct fits into another social construct. That is why I pointed out that human rights are social constructs. — I like sushi

Right, no harm in your words.

Anyway, maybe this is not the thread for this. No intention of derailing, so I guess it can be taken up elsewhere. — I like sushi

Yes, I think the matter of whether we should consider human rights at all is a bit off topic. The thread is more focused on rights claim matching. Appreciate your posts regardless.

I can tell from your disposition as well as the dismissal of his meta-point, you clearly know where you're going to get your next meal from. Not everyone has that luxury. — Outlander

That's an interesting point, yet a somewhat irrelevant one to the discussion. Most (if not all) impoverished people still can see the distinction between a gold chain and a meal. People do at times kill each over trivial possessions, but clearly morality and rights do not often come into the mix when that happens.

However, i don't think there's a whole lot i can do if some folks question whether "transgendered rights" are human rights: seems pretty trivial and basic. Not worth my time, the socratic method isn't a solution, and yes im familiar with his method. Not that it should be recommended: history has it that he was killed by the state as a result.

However, i don't think there's a whole lot i can do if some folks question whether "transgendered rights" are human rights: seems pretty trivial and basic. — ProtagoranSocratist

You would be surprised. Just because someone claims a particular trans right is a human right, doesn't mean that trans right is even a right, much less a human one.