This strikes me as complete baloney. Where did you get your numbers from? I speculate the true number is in the hundreds of millions or billions worldwide. — T Clark

This is just utterly ridiculous. There are not this many people who care to have an opinion on the matter.

I contend that this ridiculous type of assumption is exactly hte cruel, unfortunate nonsense that gets pushed on impressionable young people struggling wth identity to create groups of affinity that are life-and-death. Its bollocks and its directly psychologically harming children, teens and indeed adults. When you are convinced the world is out to get you (its not - you're not that important) you will suffer. When you convince people the world is out to get them, you're cruel.

Pew surveys indicate about 35% of the people in the US consider homosexuality a sin with a similar number for transgender people. — T Clark

The best surveys I can find (which are not religious, given the stark contrast between social and religion views of plenty of believers) show that roughly the same number of people think that "Trans acceptance" (not trans people) has 'gone too far', the same say 'hasn't gone far enough' and a smaller group say its all good. PLenty of others simply run counter to your claim.

Williams Institute 2019 - 73% believe Trans people need more protection.
PRRI 2019 - 62% said they had increased support for trans rights over the past five years.

PLenty of surveys will run in weird directions when you break down an issue. Plenty of otherwise supportive allies of the trans community will get off the train at sports or prison or what have you. That is the key point to take from recent survey aggregates: general support continues to rise - but support over specific, controversial policies is finally getting authentic responses so we're seeing divides. That's to be expected, and non-controversial and has extremely little to do with trans people, but considerations after understanding the wants and needs of trans people. Given that trans identification is nose-diving this is also probably predictable and not problematic, in any case.

As I noted in the previous post, DSM in the not too distant past classified homosexuality as a mental illness — T Clark

And doctors said smoking was good for the lungs. Fuck doctors right?

As I noted, protection of rights identified in the ACLU summary strike me as reasonable for people in general, including transgender people. — T Clark

Do you mean this:

" The ACLU champions transgender people’s right to be themselves. We’re fighting discrimination in employment, housing, and public places, including restrooms. We’re working to make sure trans people get the health care they need and we're challenging obstacles to changing the gender marker on identification documents and obtaining legal name changes. We’re fighting to protect the rights and safety of transgender people in prison, jail, and detention facilities as well as the right of trans and gender nonconforming students to be treated with respect at school. Finally, we’re working to secure the rights of transgender parents."??

If so, there is nothing here that has anything specific to do with trans people. There has been nothing raised in this thread that makes anything here 'trans rights'. There is also nothing raised in this thread which can make sense of defending 'trans' as a civil rights category (but this, i understand, will never be accepted by those who wish to frame transness as somehow some natural, unaberrated and entirely healthy form of human existence). That said, all of these rights are protected in law already

The whittering hoarse-voiced lies told by TRAs (read as clear as you possible can: not trans people; only hte thing just described) to get others to pretend trans people are missing out in rights is the cruel, harmful narrative that those of us who can see the forest for the trees want to prevent reaching our vulnerable children.

I understand there is essentially no civil conversation to be had about that last part. Just wanted my cards on the table.

I say:

This strikes me as complete baloney. — T Clark

And you say:

This is just utterly ridiculous. — AmadeusD

So at least we agree on something. And I’ll stand behind the statistics I provided. I think they tell the story.

When you convince people the world is out to get them, you're cruel. — AmadeusD

Except, of course, when the world is out to get them. You and I have come up against our differences in understanding how the social and political world works before. I’ve wondered how much of that has to do with the fact you’re from New Zealand and I am from the USA.

If so, there is nothing here that has anything specific to do with trans people. There has been nothing raised in this thread that makes anything here 'trans rights'. — AmadeusD

Which is my entire point. These should not be controversial, because they should apply to everyone.

There is also nothing raised in this thread which can make sense of defending 'trans' as a civil rights category ( — AmadeusD

Be that as it may, as I noted, in the US, gender status is considered a protected class. I wouldn’t be surprised if the courts change that. As to whether or not it should be protected, I think that’s an appropriate subject for discussion, although I have no particular interest in doing that here.

Keep in mind my entire participation in this thread has been a response to my judgment that the OP misrepresented what transgender rights are or might be.

cruel, harmful narrative that those of us who can see the forest for the trees want to prevent reaching our vulnerable children. — AmadeusD

You might be surprised at what my substantive opinions about gender rights are, but as I noted, that is not what I’ve addressed in my posts on this thread.

You’re playing of the “protect the children” card is unconvincing.

I understand there is essentially no civil conversation to be had about that last part. — AmadeusD

Although some of my posts have been somewhat harsh, and there were some misunderstandings, I think my participation in this threat has been civil.

That is the key point to take from recent survey aggregates: general support continues to rise - but support over specific, controversial policies is finally getting authentic responses so we're seeing divides. That's to be expected, and non-controversial and has extremely little to do with trans people, but considerations after understanding the wants and needs of trans people. — AmadeusD

Well said. One can support many part of an individuals cause without supporting everything they ask for. That does not make you an evil person. Its normal discernment of an honest individual.

o at least we agree on something. And I’ll stand behind the statistics I provided. I think they tell the story. — T Clark

They don't tell anything even remotely close to the story you're telling. Reality sits squarely with the fact that there are not billions of people who even care about this matter. Far less that care to do anything about it, and even less who care to harm trans people. The ridiculousness is patent on that side of things.

Except, of course, when the world is out to get them. — T Clark

Besides females, this is never the case. There have been small pockets of historical time and place where groups were targeted. Currently, in the West, there are none other than females who have been targeted forever. Males do not suffer opinions. And almost no one in existence has an issue with trans men (bearing in mind, barely anyone has an issue tout court - its the expectation other's have to participate).

I’ve wondered how much of that has to do with the fact you’re from New Zealand and I am from the USA — T Clark

Fair, but almost nothing hinges on this. I am capable of understanding geography and how to transcend it (i am also highly interested (in the proper sense, not just 'its interesting) in UK politics as I am a citizen and hope to return at some stage with my wife who is also British).

You might be surprised at what my substantive opinions about gender rights are, but as I noted, that is not what I’ve addressed in my posts on this thread. — T Clark

Based on this, I probably would. But based on what you've said in these comments, it doesn't seem any 'view' could fix being alarmist about the facts of what trans people 'face'.

You’re playing of the “protect the children” card is unconvincing. — T Clark

You wouldn't be convinced by overwhelming evidence that being trans is an aberration likely to lead to criminal behaviour. So, it's hard to know why you'd say this? Protecting females is more important than children, but protecting children from being convinced they're in 'the wrong body' on some cultist crap is pretty important too. They kill themselves because of this cruel joke of a metaphysical lie. They are encouraged to cut off family and other support groups and rpelace them with ideological circles of seniors who can cut them off at any time. And Sorry to say, I really do not care what you position on this specific part of hte issue is: I have seen this first had in eight separate cases in my life. Luckily, only two have ended themslves. But that's far more than enough.

Its normal discernment of an honest individual. — Philosophim

Yes, absolutely. I am coming to hte conclusion that people who think "with us or against us" just refuse to grow up. I can at least respect people like Banno who do their drive bys, don't bother to doing anything substantive, but stay out of it.

Reality sits squarely with the fact that there are not billions of people who even care about this matter. Far less that care to do anything about it, and even less who care to harm trans people. The ridiculousness is patent on that side of things. — AmadeusD

Here's what I was responding to:

There is an extremely small, unhinged group that exist on Earth and probably number below 10m who want Trans people to stop being trans (or, alternately, existing). — AmadeusD

There are 8 billion people in the world. If 10% of them hold the kind of antipathy to transgender people I claim, that makes almost a billion right there. And that does not take into account the fact that North American and European attitudes are likely to be more tolerant than elsewhere. There are many more conservative and traditional cultures where non-standard sexuality is punished harshly. Ugandan law, for example, along with that in some other countries, calls for the death penalty.

Besides females, this is never the case. There have been small pockets of historical time and place where groups were targeted. Currently, in the West, there are none other than females who have been targeted forever. Males do not suffer opinions. And almost no one in existence has an issue with trans men (bearing in mind, barely anyone has an issue tout court - its the expectation other's have to participate). — AmadeusD

This is an example of the vast difference between your understanding of world and national social conditions and mine. No sense in arguing that again here. I'll let others decide if they agree with me that your understanding is fundamentally wrong.

I’ve wondered how much of that has to do with the fact you’re from New Zealand and I am from the USA
— T Clark

Fair, but almost nothing hinges on this. I am capable of understanding geography and how to transcend it (i am also highly interested (in the proper sense, not just 'its interesting) in UK politics as I am a citizen and hope to return at some stage with my wife who is also British). — AmadeusD

I wasn't trying to say this difference undermines your argument. It's just something I've been wondering about.

You wouldn't be convinced by overwhelming evidence that being trans is an aberration likely to lead to criminal behaviour. So, it's hard to know why you'd say this? Protecting females is more important than children... — AmadeusD

Please provide this "overwhelming evidence." As I understand it, transgender people make up about 0.3% of the population. Explain how this many people can have the catastrophic results you seem to predict. It is undeniable that the primary threat of crime and violence to women comes from straight, cisgender men.

I really do not care what you position on this specific part of hte issue is — AmadeusD

Then why bring it up?

Here you go TClark. These are a couple of video splices taken from a lesbian woman who encountered a trans gendered woman in the bathroom. Do you think he has a human right to be in the woman's locker room after seeing this? Because according to trans gender rights, they claim he does.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VNRj69YTZM

Here you go TClark. — Philosophim

Is this intended as “overwhelming evidence that being trans is an aberration likely to lead to criminal behaviour?”

Is this intended as “overwhelming evidence that being trans is an aberration likely to lead to criminal behaviour?” — T Clark

No. I really wish you would stop implying that I have this excessively negative view of trans people. You've apologized and corrected yourself to me at least twice in this thread, I really shouldn't have to say this any longer if I'm to keep viewing you in good faith. Read what I'm saying and not what you think I'm saying.

I'm simply noting that despite the fact this person would be viewed as a man by anyone, because he is trans gender, he and the transgender community are saying he has a human right to go into the female locker room where women strip naked. As you can tell, the woman is clearly distraught, and if you watched the whole thing, you hear that she is a lesbian who supports people's sexuality and transgender people in general. But this particular situation felt like a violation to her.

Do you think her feeling violated isn't a human right over his claimed human right to enter the female locker room? If this was your mother, wife, daughter, or sister, would you tell them that being upset about it is wrong, and that their feelings of being violated are transphobic and discriminatory?

Do you think her feeling violated isn't a human right over his claimed human right to enter the female locker room? If this was your mother, wife, daughter, or sister, would you tell them that being upset about it is wrong, and that their feelings of being violated are transphobic and discriminatory? — Philosophim

If i may butt in...

This is what i tried to explain earlier in the thread: rights themselves are vague and delusional, it's a means of saying "i am entitled to such-and-such", but they only have practical application in legalism. Otherwise, i could say "i have a right to your ass", and get away with violating you...

Rights aren't just some pie-in-the-sky idea we can use to justify any behavior...but without a strict institutional framework backing them up, they might as well be that.

No. I really wish you would stop implying that I have this excessively negative view of trans people. — Philosophim

What did you actually mean then? If it wasn’t that, I don’t understand how what you wrote has anything to do with what I wrote in my response to AmadeusD.

if I'm to keep viewing you in good faith. — Philosophim

I agree. Let’s give up on that. You can think I’m arguing in bad faith and I’ll think you’re paranoid and full of shit.

if I'm to keep viewing you in good faith. — Philosophim

Make that paranoid, full of shit, and creepily obsessed with transgender people.

What did you actually mean then? If it wasn’t that, I don’t understand how what you wrote has anything to do with what I wrote in my response to AmadeusD. — T Clark

Since you were continuing in the thread, I wanted to get away from internal bickering and back to the point of the OP, which is about whether trans rights are human rights.

I agree. Let’s give up on that. You can think I’m arguing in bad faith and I’ll think you’re paranoid and full of shit. — T Clark

Except I'm not paranoid or full of crap (Language please!). You responded to me with:

Is this intended as “overwhelming evidence that being trans is an aberration likely to lead to criminal behaviour?” — T Clark

Of which I never once implied in any way in this or any other thread that I've posted dealing with the subject of trans individuals. We do call out straw men here on the philosophy forums, and I clearly am in the right here to do so.

Make that paranoid, full of shit, and creepily obsessed with transgender people. — T Clark

A double post where you call me sh**? You know sh** posts aren't meant to be literal. Lets define a term here:

bigot - a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

I have asked you politely to focus on the OP which is human rights. You have not when I've requested you to. I've politely asked you to address the topic of the discussion and you've three times, perhaps one unintentionally, attempted to make this about me instead of the subject material. I have called you out on it each time, and you have attempted to correct than backpeddle back to insults of which I have not initiated your way.

You're behaving like a bigot TClark. Ignorant, unintelligent, off topic remarks with a bent towards slander towards me instead of open discussion. Look in the mirror before accusing others of what you're full of yourself.

If i may butt in...

This is what i tried to explain earlier in the thread: rights themselves are vague and delusional, it's a means of saying "i am entitled to such-and-such", but they only have practical application in legalism. — ProtagoranSocratist

Feel free to always discuss. :)

I'll try to reiterate here what I'm referring to. Civil rights are generally rights established through law that give citizens certain protections in legal society. In terms of civil rights, you are correct that they only have practical application in legalism.

Human rights are considered 'natural rights'. These are rights that if we got a bunch of smart people together, would bring rational arguments to say, "We believe that all people at a minimum, should be able to act without the threat of retaliation or punishment.

These are not rights by law, they are rights by rationality. You can of course argue that X human right isn't really a right, but the point is that human rights are generally a well argued set of principles that we would want to be civil or legal rights for individuals in any government.

Here's an example. You have a country that restricts the ability of people to speak their mind's freely. People in such a government must only say what the state deems correct, both in terms of language and content. "The country of CheckSlovickiston is the greatest country in the world!" If you do not say that, you can be put in prison for 30 days for slandering your country.

Now there's no debate that this is the law of the country. But can we not think, "But should it be?" Perhaps in this instance we say, "No, that's silly, but the government can restrict this type of speech instead. They can say 'The country of CheckSlovickiston is in the top ten greatest counties of the world!'. If they say less than that they can be thrown into prison."

As people discuss, we keep finding debates. Top 20? Top 50? What if its a Tuesday? Arguing for every little individual restriction becomes extremely difficult and keeps running into the same problem. Who decides what people should say? Is that good for the people of the state? And so a person make come up with a principle, a 'right' of 'free speech'. The idea that government in practicality, or for the flourishing of its people, undertake methods of controlling people's speech. This becomes 'a human right' that exists as a principle apart from any legal implementation.

Do you have to agree that free speech is a human right? No. But the point is its a rational principle that we can discuss apart from what the actual law is, and instead about what the actual law should be.

You're behaving like a bigot TClark. Ignorant, unintelligent, off topic remarks with a bent towards slander towards me instead of open discussion. Look in the mirror before accusing others of what you're full of yourself. — Philosophim

Oh, my.

Oh, my. — T Clark

Indeed. The difference between you and I is I have the evidence in this thread to back that claim, while you have nothing but your own prejudice.

There are 8 billion people in the world. If 10% of them hold the kind of antipathy to transgender people I claim, that makes almost a billion right there. And that does not take into account the fact that North American and European attitudes are likely to be more tolerant than elsewhere. There are many more conservative and traditional cultures where non-standard sexuality is punished harshly. Ugandan law, for example, along with that in some other countries, calls for the death penalty. — T Clark

Sexuality is not identity. We're just going to disagree. You have no actual basis to make your claim, and realistically neither do I - but it stands to reason that most people in the world have no concept of transness and don't have an opinion on it. Most people are simply trying to get food and shelter (or avoid terroristic threats of their general environment). Your point is taken on sexuality, and that's obviously true.

If we reduce this to the West, though (which seems reasonable in this context) my statement seems pretty much assured. That doesn't make it good, it just means pretending there's some coterie of armed militias around the US and UK looking for trans people to harass is abusive to trans people (though, again, thoughts on that type of claim anyway... Another time). It causes children to fear the world they live in for no good reason (or, no reason beyond the fears we all share).

I'll let others decide if they agree with me that your understanding is fundamentally wrong. — T Clark

LOL. Okay. It cannot be 'fundamentally' wrong. We're discussing facts, not concepts.

I wasn't trying to say this difference undermines your argument. It's just something I've been wondering about. — T Clark

As I say, fair. But I also then responded? Odd reply.

Please provide this "overwhelming evidence." As I understand it, transgender people make up about 0.3% of the population. Explain how this many people can have the catastrophic results you seem to predict. It is undeniable that the primary threat of crime and violence to women comes from straight, cisgender men. — T Clark

1. I didn't claim I had any?? Perhaps read a little closer my man;
2. I didn't make that claim, or predict anything at all;
3. Not quite. It's males. But let's run your argument anyway: because they are roughly 50% of the population, and as you note (i agree) trans women are something on the order of .3%. That isn't not an argument.

In the UK Trans identified males are fully four times more likely to incarcerated for a sex crime. Let's, for no good reason, calibrate this for 'sex work' crimes and remove 50% of the cases we're looking at. Well, that's still a 100% higher chance that a trans-identified male commits a sex crime than a non-trans male. This stands to reason due to mental aberration involved.

So it's males. Not 'cis men'. It's males. The sex predisposed to enforce their sexual desires on the opposite sex, and always, for its entire existence, has been. Wearing dresses, having long hair and pretending you're less aggressive than you really are doesn't change that. Ignoring that the fundamental determinant of these sex abuse statistics is sex is absurd, anti-reason and manipulative.

Then why bring it up? — T Clark

Because whether or not your opinion matters to me, the facts matter to the discussion. I am telling you my view and responding to a (semi-reasonable) objection based on a misunderstanding of what I've said. Ultimately, though, on that issue (emotionally abusing children) the opinion of someone convinced that men can be women is of no moment. That doens't reduce the importance of the point.