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.

You have no actual basis to make your claim — AmadeusD

I have justification for my claim, admittedly, weak, but something. You have nothing.

but it stands to reason that most people in the world have no concept of transness and don't have an opinion on it. — AmadeusD

That’s fine, we can back off from the “in the world” standard. I still think your number is wrong, but we can leave it there. We’re not going to get any closer to agreement.

pretending there's some coterie of armed militias around the US and UK looking for trans people to harass — AmadeusD

I didn’t say that and you know that’s not what I’m talking about. We’ve had the same kind of discussion in the past with you claiming that there is no longer significant discrimination against Black people here. This is just more of the same. Again, we’re not going to do any better than this, so let’s leave it.

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

Not odd. I thought you might think I was using this to undermine your argument. Apparently not.

I didn't claim I had any?? Perhaps read a little closer my man; — AmadeusD

That’s disingenuous. You’re being cute, my man. You said:

You wouldn't be convinced by overwhelming evidence that being trans is an aberration likely to lead to criminal behaviour. — AmadeusD

Assuming I’m doing my math correctly, which is by no means certain, this comes to fewer than 800 incarcerations a year in the US out of a total of about 60,000.

This link indicates that the federal incarceration rate for all crimes for transgender people is about the same as their prevalence in society.

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Trans-Incarceration-Violence-Oct-2016.pdf

In the UK Trans identified males are fully four times more likely to incarcerated for a sex crime. — AmadeusD

For the purposes of my calculations above, I assumed this was correct, although I’m skeptical. That information is not available for the US. Can you provide the documentation for the UK?

Ignoring that the fundamental determinant of these sex abuse statistics is sex is absurd, anti-reason and manipulative. — AmadeusD

I wrote:

It is undeniable that the primary threat of crime and violence to women comes from straight, cisgender men. — T Clark

This is literally, obviously, and unarguably true.

Sorry for the late response. I overlooked this. I saw it and then read on where everyone is now trying to decide who's the better bigot.

My view of "rights" is that the word means something important and just reducing them to regular law loses an important distinction. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a law, but even if it weren't, we still understand the right to be treated equally predates 1964. We don't say the same thing regarding the Trump tax changes, as if the right to certain write offs existed before they were passed.

We (the US and it's ilk) have a hybrid church/state system, which is an Enlightenment contrivance, designed to end theocracratic rule but to otherwise compromise by allowing continued appeals to heaven. You either look at this compromise as protecting the sacred or just a pragmatic annoyance to appease those still clinging to their Bibles.

My point: The rights you shun are those remnants of theocratic rule, where the distinction between law and morality didn't exist. All came from God. Your position is the final cleansing of the divine from the system, leaving us with nothing but laws, written declarations of men and women.

My position is the full collapse into the secular isn't in order, but there is something morally commanded, and should the lawmakers legislate its opposite, the positive law will violate the natural law and should not stand.

Intertwining the moral with the law is not just a bothersome vestige from our past, but exists because it retains independent value worth preserving.

I think "human rights" as referred to in this thread are largely a creation of the Enlightenment. I don't view them as being significant in law or morality before the late Renaissance.

Regardless, if natural law as conceived of by the ancients is considered the basis for morality I don't believe it provides for a morality based on entitlements. Instead, it provides that we have obligations towards one another. For example, the Roman jurist Ulpian considered a slave to have a status contrary to nature. That's not to say that an enslaved person has a right to be free; it means it's unnatural for a person to be a save. According to natural law, we're obliged to act in certain ways, not others.

I think "human rights" as referred to in this thread are largely a creation of the Enlightenment. I don't view them as being significant in law or morality before the late Renaissance. — Ciceronianus

Whether you view them as significant or not, you know what they are, you know what trans people are asking, so you can analyze these rights requests and agree or disagree whether they are human rights as defined. You dismissing human rights as real pretty much dismisses their entire argument. "Trans rights aren't human rights because they don't exist" is the same as "No". I don't think you want to do that, so what would you tell a trans person about their requests for rights as listed in the OP?

That's not to say that an enslaved person has a right to be free; it means it's unnatural for a person to be a save. According to natural law, we're obliged to act in certain ways, not others. — Ciceronianus

I believe natural law is universal and a close enough replacement for 'human rights' under the thread.

it provides that we have obligations towards one another. — Ciceronianus

A trans person would agree that their requested rights are an obligation people have towards them, and they would also agree that a large point in saying they are human rights, is that their rights request is a universal obligation. Would it be sufficient to replace 'Human rights" with "Natural law"? If that is the case, do you believe all of their requests fit natural law, or would you tell them to drop the idea of rights completely?

Not long ago homosexuality was considered a mental health issue. It no longer is. — T Clark

This is... a difficult comparison to make. "Gender Dysphoria" and "being trans" are not one and same. It's perfectly possible to enjoy being homosexual; to enjoy gender dysphoria is... difficult at best. Transitioning, for example, is supposed to reduce the symptoms of dysphoria, and if it doesn't it turns out to have been a bad idea. Conversly, if you think you're trans, but you're not, and you transition, you might induce dysphorie (which could be a surprising feeling you didn't ever understand you could have.)

There are two things at issue here: a trans person's relationship to their own body, and a trans person's relationship to their social environment. There are various "reference groups" that matter to a trans person, and they might have incompatible demands. That includes local activists. You're navigating a difficult area: you "know" you're in the wrong body, but there are things that don't bother you. However, if you send incongruent images to your social environment, you're going to increase social discomfort. What's worse is that, even if your social environment is mostly supportive and you're fine with sending incongruent signals (i.e. a transwoman with a beard), you might experience pressure from activists to conform to the gender-expectations of your target gender. I've heard about trans people being pressured into voice lessons. The activist justification was, at least on one occasion, that a transwoman who talks like a man "makes their job harder".

Basically, trans people might have the problem that decreasing their bodily discomfort comes at the cost of increasing their social discomfort. Some trans people might prefer to suffer their bodily discomfort over suffering the social discomfort - this sometimes leads to stopping hormone therapy, or reverse surgery. Studies who look at detranstioning often throw these cases in with "mistakes".

Finally, "social discomfort" doesn't always come from "hate": it can be as simple as fatigue from having to explain themselves over and over and over again. It may be easier for them to "lie": to pretend to be cis. If you're miserable either way, you might walk the path of least resistance.

So what amount of suffering a particular person considers acceptable, bearable, inevitable, etc. varies among personalties. It's hardly a surprise that activists have a compartively low acceptance threshold, and when you don't learn to accept stuff, it becomes harder to bear stuff, too.

Take the bathroom/locker room issue: activists want the (civil) right for trans people to go into their respective bathrooms. Alongsides the civil rights issue, they also desire social acceptance. But social acceptance doesn't come easy. For many trans people the current solution is simple: avoid public bathrooms, drink less before or while going out, etc. For other trans people? Just choose the bathroom where you draw the least attention. Without gaining social acceptance, I personally think the civil right isn't going to get used much. And the people who do use the civil rights are going often not going to be representable for larger population.

Now, back to "gender dysphoria". I wish I knew fully how the term is currently used. Is social discomfort part of "dysphoria" as currently diagnosed? Is there, internationally, some sort of coherence in how we diagnose dysphoria? I'd say the lessening of social discomfort would let you focus on bodily discomfort and how to deal with that, also with less misgivings about unintended social side-effects. Would it even be possible to differentiate between bodily and social discomfort (given the possibility of psychosomatic issues, for example)?

Take this:

For example, I have seen an older man who recently got their legs shaved, pull their pants up to their knees and rub their smooth legs while breathing heavily while closing their eyes as if they were looking at a porno. I confess to bias here, as I found instances like these to be viscerally disgusting. The community will vehemently deny that there is any sexual undertones for some transitioners, but if you get into the community a bit and you find a lot of these individuals. — Philosophim

Imagine a burn victim with badly damaged skin on their hand getting a transplant and stroking that part of their hand again and again again, because they can't believe it's really them. Something that bothered them is suddenly gone. I have no problem believing people when they say it's not sexual.

That said the "breathing heavily" part is suspicious. I'm not sure whether I'd have described the scene the same way had I been there, but I have no problem believing stuff like this happens. I also have no problem believing that stuff normally restricted to private settings happening in public. If you're basically "on the tray" all the time anyway, many people will either go into hiding or lose their sense of shame. I'd expect this sort of behaviour to become rarer with more acceptence (I may be right/I may be wrong).

*****

I'll probably regret making this post eventually. Even ten years ago, it would have been easier to talk about these issues, where "easier" doesn't imply "easy". To boot, I'm currently not in the best mental state (nothing to do with the topic of this thread: simply changes both at home and at my job, and I'm the nervous type who relies on habit a lot...). I'll try to reply to any reply to my post, but if I don't... it's likely not personal.

Not long ago homosexuality was considered a mental health issue. It no longer is.
— T Clark

This is... a difficult comparison to make. "Gender Dysphoria" and "being trans" are not one and same. — Dawnstorm

You’re right. Just keep in mind what my post was in response to. Other posters were using the fact that gender dysphoria is considered a mental illness to undermine claims to their rights. Just claiming some characteristic is a mental illness does not justify discrimination.

It's perfectly possible to enjoy being homosexual; to enjoy gender dysphoria is... difficult at best.

— Dawnstorm

In the past, enjoying being a homosexual was probably also “ difficult at best.” How much of the difficulty associated with being transgender comes from how these people are treated in our society? I don’t know enough about this to have a strong opinion, although I don’t really think it’s relevant to the question at hand.

There are two things at issue here: a trans person's relationship to their own body, and a trans person's relationship to their social environment. There are various "reference groups" that matter to a trans person, and they might have incompatible demands. That includes local activists. You're navigating a difficult area: you "know" you're in the wrong body, but there are things that don't bother you. However, if you send incongruent images to your social environment, you're going to increase social discomfort. What's worse is that, even if your social environment is mostly supportive and you're fine with sending incongruent signals (i.e. a transwoman with a beard), you might experience pressure from activists to conform to the gender-expectations of your target gender. I've heard about trans people being pressured into voice lessons. The activist justification was, at least on one occasion, that a transwoman who talks like a man "makes their job harder". — Dawnstorm

What does any of this have to do with whether
transgender people deserve human and civil rights?

This is... a difficult comparison to make. "Gender Dysphoria" and "being trans" are not one and same. — Dawnstorm

Correct. Transition is a coping strategy to deal with gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria is not mere discomfort, it is life destroying discomfort. This in the past was diagnosed for people who could not hold jobs or had severe mental problems and social issues due to it. It has been loosened for some to 'mild discomfort', much like autism has become 'an autism spectrum'. On one hand some will say this serves people with minor difficulties for better quality of life. Others may say this expands the number of patients a doctor and psychologist can make money off of. I leave you to judge which.

A 'trans' individual is someone who delights in taking on aspects of the opposite sex and is driven to it by excitement, lust, or the thrill of it. They desire to embody this so much that they are driven to take hormones and surgery to fulfil this desire. However, the only way you can get insurance to fund your transition is if you are diagnosed with gender dysphoria. Trans activists want to loosen these medical rules and allow those who desire to transition to have it paid for by the medical services of that country.

Imagine a burn victim with badly damaged skin on their hand getting a transplant and stroking that part of their hand again and again again, because they can't believe it's really them. Something that bothered them is suddenly gone. I have no problem believing people when they say it's not sexual. — Dawnstorm

What you'll have to take here is whether I am a trustworthy and honest person. I can tell you that I am, and I would never dare accuse someone of being sexually explicit without due cause. I'm also not averse to healthy sexual displays in public by either sex. I am not a prude. If someone merely got a minor thrill out of wearing a dress, I wouldn't even mention it.

This was explicit, a moment that should be kept in the bedroom that no one ever should have seen. You should check out the 'transbien' movement. These are men who sexually cannot see themselves with another woman unless they view themselves as a woman first. I know one who had a lesbian porn addiction for years until they confessed they could no longer envision themselves as a man with another woman, but had to be a woman themselves.

Read Phil Illy's book online "Autoheterosexual". Most straight men who transition have a 'gender euphoric' drive which is sexual at its core for wanting to transition. I actually have nothing against this, but I do have everything against lying about it. It doesn't excuse inappropriate public behavior like wanting to be in women's locker rooms as they dress naked in front of you. We need to be aware most straight trans individuals are driven to it by eroticism, which may very well be an innate form of sexuality like being gay. But this needs to be recognized and understood that it does not make you an actual woman, or a right to access women's personal spaces.

I'll probably regret making this post eventually. — Dawnstorm

Please don't. Its important that we talk about things like this. Talking about experiences and ideas isn't evil. Its how we think, learn, and grow. The restriction of ideas and the limiting of our ability think and grow is what we should regret.

In the past, enjoying being a homosexual was probably also “ difficult at best.” How much of the difficulty associated with being transgender comes from how these people are treated in our society? — T Clark

That's the question, yes. But notice that bodily issues might go away with transition while the social problems won't go away. That is a trans person with dysphoria I would generally expect to want to become a trans person without dysphoria. (Some might be proud of their endurance or something? People come in all types.) For some people transitioning might come with too high a cost, and they might prefer not to transition. That's a topic about means and goals. But dysphoria is always a cost. That's the "dys-" in "dysphoria".

What does any of this have to do with whether
transgender people deserve human and civil rights? — T Clark

Little probably. I went off on a pet-topic I suppose. On the topic of rights, I generally follow the position that says rights that nobody grants don't exist, but if you see a right you want you can advocate for it. The Declaration of Human Rights is something I support in principle, not because I think humans have them simply by human, but because I suspect acting as-if makes the world a better place. I'm a social relativist and social constructivist.

As for the topic at hand: my reading isn't whether trans people deserve human rights. They do because they're human. It's, I think, whether the status of being trans is meaningful when it comes to human rights. If we go by the Maslow pyramid, I'm thinking few people would deny them physical needs and safety (and even fewer would admit to it). Things get dicier when it comes to the love and belonging tier, but it's still fairly uncontrovial, I think. Note that problems do show up on these levels, but I don't think those are the problematic topics.

I think it's esteem and self-actualisation that are at the centre of the discussion here. And my position here is that trans-people deserve esteem and self-actualisation as trans people. But I also think you can be wrong about being trans, and that - for example - inducing dysphoria by transitioning would be a fairly good indicator of that.

Non-gender-conforming cis people are a thing, too. Being non-gender-conforming does not make you trans.

Correct. Transition is a coping strategy to deal with gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria is not mere discomfort, it is life destroying discomfort. This in the past was diagnosed for people who could not hold jobs or had severe mental problems and social issues due to it. It has been loosened for some to 'mild discomfort', much like autism has become 'an autism spectrum'. — Philosophim

I'm with you this far.

On one hand some will say this serves people with minor difficulties for better quality of life. Others may say this expands the number of patients a doctor and psychologist can make money off of. I leave you to judge which. — Philosophim

I judge this not mutually exclusive. Probably both - but to what extent and where? "I leave you to judge with," sounds like rhetoric interested to set up two teams for I game I don't want to play.

What you'll have to take here is whether I am a trustworthy and honest person. — Philosophim

If my intuition is fine: I have no reason to judge you as dishonest. I believe that's what you've seen. And I believe you have good reason to interpret what you've seen as you do (see the part of my post above about "heavy breathing"). I also believe you could still be wrong, and this is not personal, I as constantly second-guess even myself like that. One reason why I tend to drop out of debates is because I loose my footing: if the other has a clear and steadfast opinion I've already lost a game I never wanted to play, if that makes sense. See my above comment about about "I leave you to judge which." This is the type of rhetoric that makes me... cautious. (Also if I catch myself doing it, and I'm sure I don't always catch myself. You're lucky not to see what I don't post...)

Do you understand where I come from?

In any case, "transbien" is something I've never heard of; I'm curious.

This, however, has me suspicious:

Read Phil Illy's book online "Autoheterosexual". Most straight men who transition have a 'gender euphoric' drive which is sexual at its core for wanting to transition. — Philosophim

Not that it exists. That's hardly a surprise. But most? It doesn't fit the image I got from people I talk to online at all. It feels like an overgeneralisation, and this is where I wouldn't take your word (or Illy's, if that's what they're saying). But I also don't feel confident in my ability to research this from a chair in front of a screen. I certainly don't have the facts.

But:

It doesn't excuse inappropriate public behavior like wanting to be in women's locker rooms as they dress naked in front of you. We need to be aware most straight trans individuals are driven to it by eroticism, which may very well be an innate form of sexuality like being gay. — Philosophim

This is where my position is difficult to explain. First, I don't take it as a given that "most straight trans individuals are driven by eroticism". However, I won't rule out that it's a factor that disproportionally shows up in people who would take advantage of "the right to your bathroom", while you're avarage less activistic/performative trans person would still avoid public bathrooms.

This is a case of policy not having the intended effect, but the ensuing social visibility helping to spread a "most trans people are driven by eroticism" stereotype. I've been reading biological papers a couple of years ago, and it was hard going. I think the topic is too contentious currently, and while we might have actually good data, it's very hard for me to figure out who to trust when I don't have the expertise. I'm not interested in playing hobby biologist.

I do have a degree in sociology, but it's about 25 years old now, and I've been a sociologist in the mean time. (As it happens, by now I'm more knowledgable in linguistics than sociology.) Here I have the problem of knowing too much and not being willing to expend the effort I know I would take. Unlike biology, the effort would likely be fruitful, though.

So should I speak of the topic at all?

I'll declare my bias as this: I overwhelmingly think trans people should have the abstract right to excrete in public places without much trouble, just like cis people have by default. I do not know how to accomplish this pragmatically. I worry that a civic right to bathroom choice would end up having an adverse effect, at least in the current climate. But I also worry that saying this out loud will encourage backlash that I don't want to encourage. And I think that most bathroom-yes-no discourse is ideological posturing, which I'm not interested in.

Finally, I also think that cis-women being uncomfortable with trans-women in what they consider their space is something that should be taken seriously, but on the realisation that they have a "safe bathroom" in the first place, which trans people almost always lack.

What to do? The person who figures this out deserves a Noble Prize for Peace, IMO:

:up:

I judge this not mutually exclusive. Probably both - but to what extent and where? "I leave you to judge with," sounds like rhetoric interested to set up two teams for I game I don't want to play. — Dawnstorm

Fair enough. I don't know enough to go either way on this one. Not mutually exclusive, but which one weighs more heavily? I don't know.

I also believe you could still be wrong, and this is not personal, I as constantly second-guess even myself like that. — Dawnstorm

More than fair. I think the more important part is to consider what I've said in a polite conversation. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, nor should they. If I know I've not always been correct in life, how arrogant would I have to be to think someone else would think I should be. :)

Not that it exists. That's hardly a surprise. But most? It doesn't fit the image I got from people I talk to online at all. It feels like an overgeneralisation, and this is where I wouldn't take your word (or Illy's, if that's what they're saying). But I also don't feel confident in my ability to research this from a chair in front of a screen. I certainly don't have the facts. — Dawnstorm

Certainly. Two independent studies that I've read have around 70-80% of straight men who desire to transition hold an erotic view of embodying womanhood. And I again I want to emphasize: I have nothing against this. Many people do, which is why I have to state this explicitly more than once. /askAGP reddit is a good source, Debbie Haton, and Phil Illy cites his sources. All easy things to look up online if you're interested. To be clear, gay men who want to transition do not have an erotic focus on womanhood. They tend to transition for different reasons, usually an extreme uncomfortableness with being gay. They also want to transition early as they exhibit 'girlish behavior' as a child. Further research shows that around 80% of kids with gender dysphoria who do not transition by age 18, end up being gay. Generally straight men who transition do not exhibit girlish behavior prior to puberty, only gain interest in it after puberty, and are the primary orientation of transitioners later in life like 40+.

I encourage you to do your own research of course. I could troll the internet for this, but its a bit of time and I feel not in the spirit of this thread anyway.

This is a case of policy not having the intended effect, but the ensuing social visibility helping to spread a "most trans people are driven by eroticism" stereotype. — Dawnstorm

To be clear, I am not saying this as a stereotype. This is what I concluded after researching the issue in depth over the past few years. I have no skin in the game. If I'm wrong and it could be demonstrated, I would recant this without issue. It is simply a fact to me, nothing more.

So should I speak of the topic at all? — Dawnstorm

Yes. I think we enrich each other by hearing each other viewpoints on the subject, even if they're 'wrong'. Genuine conversation, even if it doesn't come to a conclusion, allows a place to process and hear things that one would not consider in their own head. So thank you for your viewpoint!

I'll declare my bias as this: I overwhelmingly think trans people should have the abstract right to excrete in public places without much trouble, just like cis people have by default. I do not know how to accomplish this pragmatically. — Dawnstorm

I mean, I agree. To me the issue is clear. Gender is a social construct. Bathrooms are divided by sex, not social constructs. Use the bathroom of your sex. I see no rational argument to show any other conclusion. If it bothers a trans gendered person, get over it. This isn't to be cruel, I would say this in any similar abstract situation. If a white person really wanted to be black, and asked to have black scholarships and be let into black clubs and be recognized as black, get over it. There are certain realities and limitations in life that we have no right to, and getting upset because you don't have the right to is not a reason to suddenly give you that right.

Trust me, I've tried multiple times in my head to justify it, and I just can't. Part of posting here was hoping to get a conversation going and perhaps see another viewpoint that I missed. Unfortunately the limitation of speech on trans gender issues years ago has dulled the brains of many, and they are unable to open their mind to actually think about the issue. Thus the overly emotional drama on both sides. My hope is by talking about it normally and everyone realizing, "Oh, its ok to just talk about it," we can get people to calm down a little and have some normal conversations. This conversation with you was a normal conversation. :) Much appreciated.

You seem to want me to declare whether I believe rights I don't think exist ("human rights") include certain rights which, if they are "human rights," I would likewise believe don't exist. That's an odd request. I'm not sure how to respond.

To the extent I can understand the OP in its enumeration of various so-called "rights," those said to be claimed by transgenders involve drivers licenses and other documents, use of bathrooms, use of certain clothing, and medical treatment aligned with gender identity.

Unless some legal right applies, I don't think that I have a right to use a bathroom I prefer. I don't think I have a right to be identfied in a particular way in any license or other document. I don't think I have a right to dress as I please, for any reason. I don't think I have a right to medical treatment of any kind.

Unless a legal right right applies, I don't think anyone has such rights. I don't care whether they're called "human rights" or anything else.

Gender is a social construct. Bathrooms are divided by sex, not social constructs. Use the bathroom of your sex. — Philosophim

Well, here's where differ: I do not think bathrooms are "divided by sex." I believe this is surface rhetoric. Bathrooms themselves are social constructs. And bathrooms being "divided by sex," means that bathrooms are gendered: there are bathrooms for girls and bathrooms for boys and unisex bathrooms. Gendering bathrooms is, first and foremost, something we're doing. Something we're used to doing. Something ingrained in our daily praxis. Gendering bathrooms is social behaviour.

So what detail level of sexual facts do you require for gendering bathrooms? Stalls and toilets, for example, are usable by both male and female anatomies. A urinal is quite a bit harder to use with a female anatomy. So here we run up against physical limitations. But that's not quite all. Where I live toilet stalls for girls often have garbage bins that toilets for boys don't. Why? Used tampons need to go somewhere, and they tend to clog toilets. Biology has these effects. However, urinals don't prevent girls from using toilet stalls, and garbage bins would be useful in toilets for boys, too. So while some biology invites different equipment, separate spaces are not biologically necessary.

If inquire into why spaces are separated we get various arguments based on human behaviour: safety and hygiene are the most common arguments I hear. Stuff like modesty/embarrassment/nakedness etc. are not usually talked about as much, but - I feel - often implied. I find the comparison to saunas interesting; they seem to be often mixed without problems: but there are two important differences: while nearly everyone uses public toilets, using saunas is far more optional. And the taboo nature of excreting heightens feeling of shame, which is absent with saunas.

I see no inherent biological reason to gender places of excretion in a penis/vagina way and even less reason to differentiate for genotype (which seems to be the current last bastion for "bathrooms are sexed, not gendered".)

To make my position clear: sexual facts applied in social contexts is always gendered. That includes biology: the way we organise the facts to make sense of them could be different. But biological facts do set boundries of what is likely to be successful. So empirical research is going to be far more strict than socially structured excretion.

A lot of things tag onto the facts we order into "male"/"female" categories: a lot of them are at least partly learned. What you expect, what you fear, what you feel comfortable with and what you don't. And a lot depends on everyday routine conduct. Every day routine conduct is not something people like to question, because everyday life becomes much more difficult to navigate if you do. As such, ways to avoid questioning the obvious include surface rhetoric like "bathrooms are divided by sex." Smart people are good at building elaborate justifications that work out logically. But these elaborate legitimisations, too, are constructs, and not ones likely to be shared with trans people - or me, for that matter.

Now I'm a cis male and use bathrooms for boys without a second thought. I neither know or care if I ever shared a bathroom with a trans man. As a result, this is not an issue that intimately impacts me. Which also means that I'm talking from an easy place. I can question the status quo with little problem, because a change won't impact me personally at all. Meanwhile, having to enter places I'm not welcome in is far more relatable and that serves as a personal bias guiding my sympathies.

So, yeah, gender is not just expected behaviour; gender runs deep. It's common interpretation patterns. It's often unacknowleded expectations on when sexual facts are supposed to be relevant, what facts are of prime importance (during my lifetime I've seen a shift from genitals to genes in frequency - call that anecdote), and how generally you integrate sexual facts into your life.

Finally a thought experiment:

Does Ms Pacman have a female biology? My personal take (in worldbuilding terms; I know Ms Pacman is just pixels... or scan lines... depending on the technology) is that Pacmen reproduce by mitosis (when you've eaten enough you get an extra life, no?). This is only partly a joke. I think this topic reveals how important gender is in daily life - even in the absence of biological facts (even in in-world expectations). Introducing gender into Pacman games is unmotivated in biology. It's more motivated in the bathroom discussions (urinal, for example), and it's most motivated in empirical biological research. But it's a gradiant, and gender is always relevant.

There's always going to be problem when technical terms escape into the wild; they change, become less stable, a their usefulness becomes much more a matter of personal bias. And personal bias is inevitable. So it goes.

But notice that bodily issues might go away with transition while the social problems won't go away. — Dawnstorm

They might or they might not go away. Again, I think the situation could be considered analogous to that for gay people. Although the problems are not gone, social acceptance has improved.

You seem to want me to declare whether I believe rights I don't think exist ("human rights") include certain rights which, if they are "human rights," I would likewise believe don't exist. That's an odd request. I'm not sure how to respond. — Ciceronianus

Sure, just a logic check on the claims I made in the OP. Fully ok to say, "I don't believe in X, but I see that this meets or does not meet the terms of X."

Unless a legal right right applies, I don't think anyone has such rights. I don't care whether they're called "human rights" or anything else. — Ciceronianus

Fair enough. Seems you don't believe in any particular rational moral structure independent of law, so this is a logically consistent answer.