https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context/p1

If you're interested in epistemology, you should read my paper above. Let me summarize to your basic point.

First, we assume you know something. But knowing something now doesn't necessarily mean it will be known again in the future. Lets use a deck of cards as an example.

We know that there are 4 jacks in a deck of 52 cards. From here we can conclude one type of inductive conclusion, probability. There's a 1/13 chance that when I draw a card, it will be a jack. If I decide to believe that any other card besides a jack will be drawn, I've done that through reason that its a 12/13 chance that it will be any card besides a jack.

Lets go one step down. I draw lots of cards and realize I can pull a jack from this deck of 52 cards. This is my knowledge. Since I know its been done one time, I believe it is possible to pull a jack again. So I pull from a deck of cards, and believe I'm going to pull a jack. Not because of probability, but because of possibility. What is known once could possibly happen again.

Next I have a randomizer on this deck of cards. I pull one card, put it back, then it randomizes again. Because I can envision the scenario in my mind with what I know, its plausible that the deck randomizer could randomize it so that a jack will never be the first card again. Its not irrational yet, but getting there.

Finally, we have an irrational belief. I pull a jack from a deck of cards, then put it back in the deck. I now believe that the jack I just put in the deck, is no longer in the deck. There's no reason behind such a belief, and this belief contradicts all reason that would point to the jack being in the deck. This is an irrational belief.

Well, at lease since Parmenides, "nothing" certainly is a "philosophical issue", we agree on that. — 180 Proof

Ha! Clever reply 180 Proof.

Sometimes, the only appropriate place for a particular person to ask about the things that concern them is the privacy of their diary. — baker

But you are asking them. That's the point.

It's naive to think that one could talk about just anything with just anyone in just any situation. — baker

Certainly. But you don't let other stop you from asking those questions on your own. And sometimes you get answers that need to be spread to other people bravely and without cowardice.

For me intellectual loneliness is about wanting deep philosophical talks. The idea that "I'm so smart and everyone else isn't," is immature and an ego trap. I talk to people all the time about ideas that they may not be comfortable hearing. I give everyone a chance. I am surprised more than not that most people actually want that, they're just afraid to do it first because they're thinking like the ego trap above.

Imo, "trans issues" are psychosociological or anthropological much more so than "philosophical". — 180 Proof

And issues of mind are more neuroscience, but that doesn't mean philosophy doesn't have anything to contribute.

Trans has philosophy of mind, ontology, ethics, and rights to say the least. If trans gender is not a philosophical issue, nothing is.

Which leads me to ask - what questions of an urgent / topical nature today can be best addressed, or perhaps just effectively addressed, with philosophy? — Jeremy Murray

My apologies on my late reply.

Philosophy will always be needed to dive into linguistic assumptions. Good, evil, God, knowledge, etc. As for the modern day, I see a few. Granted, I could be completely wrong as assessing the important things of today is notoriously difficult, while hindsight is usually 20/20.

Trans gender issues. This was literally made for philosophers to tackle. What are male and female is science, but cultural associations with sex, aka gender, is a goldmine of philosophical discussion.

AI 'life' and mind. AI is going to challenge us to start thinking what a life and a mind are. As it continues to evolve, we're going to find AI that will be remarkably intelligent. Of course, it won't have feelings. Does that mean we treat it as a life, or do are things that cannot feel exempt from fair treatment?

Interpersonal connections in an internet world. We still have much to discuss and think about in regards to internet behavior and human evolution.

That aside, I think you're right. You're making MacIntyre's strong point that our frameworks are incommensurable. — Jamal

This right here. To quote an old meme, "You win all the internets." In general the way we talk to each other over issues has become atrocious (not you Jamal). We use terrible vocabulary, emotional appeals, and worst of all, discount each other because a position on a topic is considered 'the enemy'. The idea that, "Even talking about this will hurt someone" is one of the greatest evils to be put in the minds of people.

We have to talk to people we are disgusted by. We have to stop elevating a discussion to a moral or status stance. We need to be listening to each other as much as we talk with each other instead of at each other. We need philosophy.

Clear language, contextual analysis, and the wisdom to explore anything and everything. I remember a person one time came to this forum and advocated that murder wasn't actually immoral. Most responses were dismissive and an attempt to shut down the idea. But a person like that needs their idea explored. To say, "Lets take your premises and accept them as true, what contradictions arise?"

Philosophy challenges God, social issues, government, society, norms, and assumptions. It does not give hemlock to those who say our planet revolves around the sun, or that the sun revolves around us. It is the willingness to talk with and explore all avenues for rational truth, which often conflicts with the emotions of others and even ourselves want.

Though we will always encounter people with frameworks different from our own, I hope we keep talking with each other. Bit by bit we may learn to understand each other, and even if some things are irreconcilable, there is always some common ground to be reached. Thank you Jamal for conversing with Bob on a matter that is in my opinion, one of the most important philosophical issues of our time.

This thread is interesting because some folk here have such ratshit ideas; explaining why they are ratshit provides some amusement. Were this my forum, it would be much less entertaining. — Banno

That's what free speech is really about. "The freedom to espouse ideas that I personally think are horrid, stupid, crazy, etc." Why? Because not speaking about it doesn't make it go away. People won't stop trying to push for something, they'll just push for it quietly, underhandedly, or with deception.

Further, you don't have a chance of persuading others that you think that idea is crazy if its simply asserted as crazy through forced silence. A person may believe in a 'crazy' idea because they haven't been exposed to any of the information you know.

Finally, and I am sure there are more reasons, but forced silence breeds resentment. A person forced to silence often doesn't feel like their idea is wrong, but that people are evil and controlling because your idea is right, but they're afraid of you winning. This breeds evil. The world does so much better when people are not afraid to speak their mind and talk with one another. Understanding another's idea doesn't mean agreement.

I don’t think you’re qualified to say that. Maybe I’m wrong. — T Clark

Insurance pays for physical and mental health issues. Gender dysphoria is the mental health disorder of distress in not being the other gender. Transition is a treatment paid for by insurance. If it were not a mental health issue, medical insurance would not pay for it. Once you transition, you're a life long patient on hormones for the rest of your life.

I think one big thing gay people and transgender people have in common is that, to a large extent, their problems are associated with rejection by society at large and not with their sexual characteristics themselves. — T Clark

There are tons of groups that are rejected by society at large. That doesn't mean all of them should have all of what they want from society accepted. And it doesn't mean that its innately good or moral in everything the trans community is seeking from society. That requires carefully understanding who they are, what they want, and whether its actually an imposition and abuse of societies good graces or an actual oppressed people who are fairly demanding equal treatment.

Perhaps someday, if society moves in that direction, it might be considered a slur to use a pronoun the person does not accept. — T Clark

By fact, no. A slur is an intentional insult and demeaning term for someone. A slur for a trans sexual would be 'trannie' for example. I have never, nor will ever call a person a 'trannie' because it has nothing but an intent to demean behind it.

You cannot simply pick a word out that describes reality, not like it, then claim its a slur. Most of the population, myself included, uses pronouns as a non-naming placeholder that references a person's sex, not their gender. That is not a slur. That is a neutral descriptor. If someone has a problem noting what they are with neutral intent, that's their problem. That would be like a 6 foot 11 person saying, "When you describe me as tall to other people, I feel that's a term to keep me down" That's ridiculous. By statistical breakdown, a person of that height is tall. If they are uncomfortable with that fact, that is on them, and other people describing a neutral fact is not an intent to demean in any way.

This is rhetoric, not philosophy. — T Clark

It was quite clear from the passive aggressive implication that I have called gays 'faggots' in the past, which I have not, that you still have a bias against me in this conversation. I'm trying to get you past that part of yourself and understand that I'm a good person who's open to talking with you about this topic. No, I am not trash, transphobic, a bigot, backwards, or any other terms that dehumanize other people so we don't have to have a good conversation with them. Dehumanizing the other person is bias. If you notice, I only call out malintent towards me, then its right back to discussing. Its completely normal to have bias, but I have a belief in your ability to not be bound by it, and simply discuss an issue without attempts to disparage each other.

And that is part of philosophy too. If it were only logic and numbers it would be so easy. But its also confronting our humanity which is often messy too.

Speaking of philosophy:

We’re fighting discrimination in employment, housing, and public places, including restrooms.

I addressed that in the OP. What do you think about it?

challenging obstacles to changing the gender marker on identification documents

I've brought this up in the OP. What do you think about it?

If you think I'm wrong, please point out why. I would love to discuss that instead of rhetoric.

Sorry, Philosophim I just saw your other comment to me in the the other thread. — AmadeusD

Not a worry, I'm sure you have more going on in your life than the philosophy boards. :)

"trans right", if there were/are any, cannot be said to be synonymous. If a trans people has a right specific to them, it has nothing to do with other groups of humans by definition. — AmadeusD

I think I see what you're saying. If its a human right, its a right that's open to everyone, not explicitly a group of people. You're using a strict category separation, so I see where you're coming from I think. From my part I think the claims of the trans gender community can, or cannot overlap with human rights. Some of them do, and some of them don't.

I am just of the camp that 'rights' are non-existent without the authority which grants them (in a backward way...restrict first, then permit). — AmadeusD

I believe that would be civil or political rights. Human rights are seen as natural rights, or rights that if reasoned through by anyone, could be agreed upon as things that should be supported for any human being despite the law. There is a good argument that human rights' foundation is shaky because there is also the assumption of certain moral outcomes, and anytime one is positing morality there is going to be some debate and disagreement. So if you do not believe in human rights, the OP is probably moot for you.

I think you are basically right, but I also think that, "Trans rights are human rights," is a rhetorical way of implying that trans people are being denied human rights, and that this needs to stop. — Leontiskos

Well said by Leontiskos. My experience in the community is lots of slogans and assertions that are meant to be moral barriers to you asking deeper questions. Very much a "God is good because God told us so" situation. The point of the OP is to pull people out of the moral acceptance of this claim, actually examine what is explicitly being asked, and after analysis find whether its true these requests are actually all human rights we should accept.

Yet this immediately raises the substantive issue of precisely what human right trans people are being denied. According to the ACLU from page 1, they are being denied the "right to be themselves." I suppose that's a start, but the putative human "right to be oneself" is going to require a great deal of elucidation. It certainly isn't something that we find in historical enumerations of human rights. What does it mean? What does it involve? — Leontiskos

This is something that they don't want you to ask. That's 'transphobic', 'bigoted', etc. Lots of words thrown your way to stop you from asking or thinking about it. And it works for a lot of people. As a philosopher, things like that trigger a red flag in me that demands further exploration. I have not been in agreement with what I've found. It very much is a secular religion in many ways.

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

It was considered a mental disorder, not a mental health issue. Once being gay was removed from the list of mental disorders, it was no longer considered a mental issue at all. Trans gender people have a mental health issue called gender dysphoria, and this will never not be a mental issue of some kind as it is a disorder between what they are and what they want to be. It is not the same as being gay, though the trans community has used the success of the gay movement to try to get what it wants.

Certainly, I don’t see this as a matter of law, but one of culture. If transgender people can be accepted enough, then it might be perfectly reasonable that you would be expected to change how you interact or refer to them. I doubt you call gay people “fags” anymore, even though there’s no law that says you can’t. — T Clark

There is a large difference between calling someone an intentional slur and 'gay'. There is also a large difference between acknowledging that someone is gay, vs asking others to pretend, "I'm not actually gay'. Once again, the trans community pretends to mirror the gay community to get support when its issue is actually very different from the gay communities.

1. Gays wanted their sexuality acknowledged as normal.
2. Gays wanted to fit into society sexually equally.
3. Gays didn't pretend they weren't gay, nor ask people to pretend they weren't gay.

Trans gender community

1. Wants their mental health issue acknowledged as normal
2. Want exceptions in sex based treatment based on their mental health issue
3. Want to pretend that they aren't members of one sex trying to present as the other, and demand as a right that others do so as well.

The trans community rode on the gay sympathy and tried to present them as equally oppressed and the same moral cause as gays. That's how they got all of us. I have always been a massive supporter of gay rights, and despite your bias against me that I know you're trying to keep under control, I have never once called a gay person a fag nor mistreated them in any way growing up, and I grew up prior to gay marriage equality. Something else you may want to know about me, I was a teacher for five years in inner city schools where I exclusively taught minorities. I have lived in all minority apartments. I care very much for the poor and disadvantaged and view them as my neighbors.

I thought trans was really about 'trans sexuals'. I was initially very behind the trans rights movement, but once I read the fine print and got into the community, I realized there were a lot of things that were very messed up, and this was not equivalent to gay rights AT ALL. The more I examined gay rights, the more I supported them. The more I've examined the trans gender community, they less I've supported them. Its telling when more knowledge about something drives you further from supporting them, and probably more telling coming form a person who has actively lived their life in support of minority and disadvantaged causes, not merely arm chairing from the philosophy boards. I have walked among the community, I have a personal friend who is becoming a trans sexual, and it is absolutely a mental health issue that requires care, love, but not acceptance of all of its demands and protests about what is unfair.

For me, it all comes down to choice. As I understand it, some people don’t have that choice. That’s called gender dysphoria. — T Clark

To be clear, gender dysphoria is a mental health issue. An easy comparison is depression. The goal is not for a person to transition, its to treat gender dysphoria. Treatment can be handled in multiple ways. Sometimes therapy can discover that gender dysphoria is one of many symptoms like depression, and treating depression also helps gender dysphoria. Since the 1970's until the last paper I've read in 2021, 50-80% of kids resolve their gender dysphoria without medical transition interventions by age 18, and do not transition as adults.

Gender dysphoria sometimes cannot be cured, like depression, and its needs to be managed. Some causes of gender dysphoria are social, innate, and sexual. Gender dysphoria is not the desire to be the other sex, it is the distress that one feels when not being like or treated like the other sex (they say gender, I say they are largely interchangeable) to the point that it interferes with one's ability to function normally in life. I have seen interviewed with many of these individuals, and they all say transition was an absolutely last resort that was difficult to go through, but ultimately helped them.

This is not to be confused with 'gender euphoria'. This is the joy that one gets at presenting as or being treated as the other sex. This can be as simple as leaving behind the restrictions of one's gender, being able to do things the person did not believe they could do as their sex. This can also be sexual, leading to erotic experiences that drive a person to want to do this permanently. Excessive euphoria if not managed properly can lead to dysphoria as well. Basically the high is so great that not participating in it leaves on relatively down, almost like a withdraw.

Transition is a treatment, and a treatment that one has a choice in doing. Properly diagnosed and given, it can improve a person's life substantially. Most trans sexuals who have undergone it to treat severe gender dysphoria will tell others its something not to be encouraged, and a very difficult thing to do. This contrasts with those who want to transition through gender euphoria. These are the one's who encourage transition. They desperately, often times manically, are driven by the high of doing this and are obsessed with getting to transition at any cost.

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.

Now, despite my emotional bias against the euphorics, I still believe they have the right to transition. The problem is the criteria for gender dysphoria has been loosened so much, that a euphoric can easily get past the hurdles by saying the right thing and get what they long for. If of course this was on their own dime, I wouldn't have a rights issue against it. But they get diagnosed as gender dysphoric and get insurance to pay for it.

What I cannot agree to, is the idea that everyone around a person with the mental health condition of gender dysphoria has to change how they interact or refer to them. It is not diagnosed as a mental disorder or handicap. It would be much like a person with depression asking for legal protection from anyone mentioning a sad story at work because it triggers their depression. Its fine to request that of people, but not fine to demand it as a right.

My research suggests that the one's pushing for the pronouns usage and forced acknowledgement in public are the euphorics. Prior to the trans push therapy was very much around working with a trans sexual to come to terms with the fact that the surgery does not change their sex, and that they have to learn to deal with this. Our mental health disorders are on us to personally resolve and deal with. We may ask for help and assistence, but this is not a right we can demand of others.

Philosophim and I got involved in a fooferall about whether these constitute human rights or only civil rights. — T Clark

Not a worry, a civil rights contrast is fine and it answers questions that have come up. I just want to make sure that my points are not focused on civil rights, but human rights.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is this form of religion really groupthink? I am a staunch atheist, so I have no skin in this game, but it feels an act of faith differs from groupthink. — Jeremy Murray

A follower of a religion is not the same as a follower of faith. Very few read about religions on their own and decide to follow it independently. Most followers of a religion are brought into it by other people, and its a social place where one can belong. Many people who leave religions usually feel they don't belong. A person with intellectual doubts about a religion will likely still stay if the group benefits and sense of belonging are strong enough.

Compare this to the trans gender community. If you check out Reddit and youtube where people go to ask questions, they always try to present it in an extremely positive way that's fun and where you can belong. They even have fun mascots like a stuffed shark, colorful flags, and everyone is going to tell you how proud they are of you, how your mental health issue is perfectly normal, and that you should erase all doubts as bigotry and control. They welcome you with open arms and will be your new family.

I grew up in Christian churches, and I observed much of this first hand. I eventually left the church because I found it to be irrational, but I also had absolutely zero community ties to the church. My parents are extremely invovled in the church like choir, volunteering, and many of their friends are from there as well. For them, leaving would be extremely painful, and they have no interest in even seeing if Christianity doesn't work.

I read "Infidel" by Ayan Hirsi Ali in the summer, and she articulates this process powerfully. — Jeremy Murray

Ah, always fun to hear someone else has a similar take. :)

With the trans issue, I think we might have a better example of cognitive dissonance in action than we do in the context of religion — Jeremy Murray

I can give you a religious example if you would like. "Seek and ye shall fine" is a statement in Christianity which pushes you to question the world. But on the other hand you have pressures from the church that some answers simply require faith. This allows a priest to say, "See, the church supports open thought", but then also when it is convenient to them they say, "You just have to have faith on this one."

There is an argument made that 'wokeness' is similar, functionally, to religion. But whatever one makes of this argument, 'woke' certainly doesn't have the centuries of tradition and ritual and shared cultural experiences which may be so much more valuable to the believer than any 'rationality' of belief. — Jeremy Murray

I could see exploring that argument further.

I describe myself as a 'conscientious objector' to the culture war, echoing Richard Reeves, and increasingly think a path through the culture war is issue by issue, focusing on the most principled, informed beliefs of both sides of the debate. — Jeremy Murray

Sounds like a good approach.

Certainly, there are trans people who lost, greatly, personally, from the backlash against certain more extreme ideological stances. I see common ground between the left and right here, (despite being much happier having personally renounced both). Conceptual precision can only help this project. — Jeremy Murray

I appreciate your thoughts! You make great points.

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.

↪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.

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.

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.

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 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, 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.

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.

Beautifully stated.

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.

I am not talking Gender theory, though. I am discussing solutions to the obvious problems it presents. I am not particularly interested in simply bagging on a prima facie absurd ideology. The problem you raise, I have acknowledge. I am trying to get around them so as not to have to kow to obviously incoherent policy thinking. — AmadeusD

My apologies for getting back late to you on this. I am curious about your view points on another thread I started analyzing which trans gender rights claims are human rights. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/16233/are-trans-gender-rights-human-rights/p1 then

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?

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 something which it's maintained should be a legal right, or should be considered as a legal right although it isn't one (which I think makes no sense). — Ciceronianus

A human right is not a legal right. But our legal rights should support human rights. The purpose of the OP is to ascertain whether the rights that the trans community wants are human rights, or not human rights. Based on the OP's breakdown, what do you think?

Wow! What a HORRIBLY irrelevant and convoluted mess! Where do you get the idea I have seen anything like that in my life? "Oh! Gold chain, me stupid, i'll kill person with gold chain in alleyway because we alone and nobody catch me! Me shmeagal, i want ring!" — ProtagoranSocratist

This is an example of a thought experiment to give a more explicit example out an abstract notion. If you're not going to take the conversation seriously, I'm not going to take your points seriously either.

Also, I'm pretty sure you are making up this "rights as part of morality algebra" stuff as well. — ProtagoranSocratist

Yes, I created the example as a means of viewing rights as a general abstract vs specific situation. If the analogy didn't make sense, just point it out. Not everything I try works. :)

The constitution (which is where all rights are derived under american law...) — ProtagoranSocratist

What you're talking about is a political right in "The bill of Rights" The constitution did not create human rights. Philosophers and thinkers have discussed human rights for centuries. The bill of rights was an attempt to enshrine political protections against an overbearing federal government.

I don't mind further discussing the issue but more focus on issues and less focus on mockery please.

but earlier you said that people don't have to do anything, so fallowing from that logic, how would rights make any sense on a practical day-to-day basis? Are you saying that rights are only higher ideals that we can imperfectly conform to? — ProtagoranSocratist

Lets pull it out of the abstract and look at your own life. Lets say you stumble upon a person in a lone allyway. They mean you no harm but you notice they have a gold chain around their neck. Looking around, you realize you could get away with stealing it, the other person does not suspect you have a knife, and you could quickly end it. Do you need a law to tell you that murdering them for their gold chain is wrong? Or have you thought through it any particular time and concluded "That would be wrong".?

Rights are the algebra of ethics. X + 1 = 2 "Stealing from another innocent person is wrong" is the circumstance, the number, while the abstract is something like "X is the right way to treat a person". X is where we put the rights like "Letting them speak their mind, respecting property, not murdering them". We can of course go about our lives without thinking at all about what or why we do things, but if you've thought about them at all, you've essentially been considering rights.

Rights are therefore a form of morality. There is an idea that we should or should not treat people in fundamental ways. This does not require a law, it only requires a mind.

So then, what do we as a society decide to do about trans children desiring mastectomies? Should doctors be allowed to do it at all or should it be off limits until the person is an adult? This seems like a human rights issue that's unique to trans individuals, no? — RogueAI

Correct. I addressed the idea of medical care as a right in the OP. For this we can detail further. There are two situations in which a person can decide to modify their body. Cosmetic purposes, and medical purposes. A cosmetic purpose is because one desires to change their body to be a certain way. A medical purpose is to correct or cure an issue.

An example is breast implants surgery vs breast reconstruction surgery. The first is a cosmetic desire, the second is a medical correction due to damage. In general, cosmetic procedures are funded by the individual and are entirely the free choice of the individual. Medical procedures sometimes have funding by the state and can be freely chosen or rejected by the individual in question. However, an individual cannot request a medical procedure freely. They must ask a professional to diagnose if the treatment is one that would solve the issue.

In the case of cosmetic choices, in general we don't allow an individual to choose large alterations to their body without a term called 'consent'. Consent is only able to be given by people who society has established have the mental capability, knowledge, and awareness of the consequences to make a choice. A 14 year old asking to remove their breasts does not have the ability to give consent.

However, in the case of medical care, some procedures or treatments may be offered to minorities if there is ample medical evidence that it would likely treat a problem. If, note I say if, the medical community had clear science to demonstrate that removing the breasts of a 14 year old child would cause a greater benefit to the person than the harm of leaving them, there is justification in offering such a treatment. Even then, generally the child would not have the ability to consent, but the parents.

I can go into why the current medical evidence is strongly against transition surgeries and hormone treatment, but that may not be needed if the above points adequately answers the question. The point is, if it is the case that breast removal is a scientifically recommended treatment that cures the patient of an even more harmful ill, then it is a viable treatment to offer for parents to consent to. Any cosmetic treatment is beyond both the parent's and child's ability to consent.

You can go on communicating how you'd like to, yet i would said "this website phrases transgender and transexual rights as such", and then discussing the rights exactly on the websites terms. Being clear and direct makes things easier to read. — ProtagoranSocratist

Then my mistake, I'll try to be more clear next time.
..

In this context, one would argue that with cruel and unusual punishments, that the cruelty itself sets a poor example and is morally wrong. If people accept that premise, wouldn't it then be easy to argue that any prison sentence whatsoever is cruel punishment? There's no "everyone agrees", yet "cruel punishment" is redundant because punishment is supposed to be cruel instead of rewarding. — ProtagoranSocratist

Generally punishment as an ideal's purpose is to protect innocent people and reform those who do wrong. That is why punishment is supposed to fit the crime. Some punishments are fines. Others have light sentencing. If I stole a penny from a person, going to jail for 50 years wouldn't really protect innocent people from harm, nor would it give a chance for the person to reform. Thus we would call that 'cruel and unusual punishment'. Essentially cruelty is punishment designed merely to hurt another person without any desire to reform or protect others.

So wouldn't you then agree with me when i say that rights are totally meaningless outside of their usage within a legal framework? — ProtagoranSocratist

Not at all. Rights are the framework upon which we should want laws written. Even in a society without some authority figure over your head, rationally we would want to treat each other with the respect that we believe each person should be given for merely being a person. Laws are simply an authorized way to enforce behavior. Rights are a rational conclusion of what behavior we believe is appropriate towards others in the world.

All humans have a right to live and pursue happiness.
Trans humans are humans.
Therefore, trans humans have a right to live and pursue happiness. — Moliere

Agreed, no argument against that here.

It's only because people see trans people as freaks that this sad line of questioning seems plausible to anyone. — Moliere

Perhaps others see trans individuals as freaks, from my point its looking at what they are asking for as rights and verifying that everything they are asking for is a human right. The OP goes through and agrees that some of these things are rights, while others of these are not human rights. Were there any you agreed or disagreed with?

It's especially odd given that most of the time this line of questioning is from a cis perspective: as in, the answer will have no effect on the life of the asker. But it will effect trans people. — Moliere

Given that the examination is about human rights, and human rights affect all people including trans people, I'm not sure what's being missed in the OP. If you would like to point out the missed perspective, it would be helpful to the discussion.

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

RogueAI, can we say on topic please? What do you think about the OP's claims on the trans gender rights listed?

I'm really sick of this over-use of "they" i am seeing in talks about transgendered people here. It's very similar to how people in the U.S. talking about "the liberal agenda". Conflating a bunch of different things so they seem unified doesn't help clarify a philosophical discussion. Maybe you could use sources: tell me where "the transgendered people" are united in their demands. Give us a more concrete "they" rather than a nebulous one. — ProtagoranSocratist

Fair question. I posted a link in the OP, and TClark posted a link to generally what the transgender community is asking for in terms of rights. I am not talking about an individual, but the spokespeople who are asking for trans rights as laws that are documented and well known. That is why I put this under the political category and not ethics. Can an individual trans gendered person have a different view on what they want? Absolutely. But this is addressing the people pushing for lawful change who are claiming this is what all trans gender people deserve.

what if "rights" themselves are not valid? If you're not willing to be more critical of rights, then i don't think you will get very far in this discussion, as the government wants rights to be inviolable, but all the evidence points to this not being the case — ProtagoranSocratist

Of course, rights are open for discussion.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

These are seen as "rights", that the legal system shall not do any of these things in reference to rulings in a criminal trial. However, a lot of people are in disagreement about what constitutes a cruel and unusual punishment. — ProtagoranSocratist

Correct. But a question for you. Does everyone agree that if that bar is agreed upon, a person should not be administered cruel and unusual punishment? I would say yes. So at that point we're not arguing that cruel and unusual punishment should not be permitted to people, just the level that entails. Generally we can agree on that level using different measures such as science, and where absent, a democratic vote that can be changed over time as new information comes in.

So if rights only apply in specific circumstances, and state authorities have the liberty to disagree about who has rights to what, how can rights be viewed as valid or meaningful in a philosophical sense? It seems to me they are only a legal mechanism, and nobody whatsoever is guaranteed rights. — ProtagoranSocratist

Legal rights are not gauranteed. Nothing is. Human rights are reasoned ideals that we should all aspire to uphold. You can have a country that denies human rights, or have a country that has human rights. Which is preferable and more prosperous to its people? Are governments formed to enhance people's lives, or control them for the ends of a few individuals?

In a rights based society, the government ultimately should answer to and serve the people it governs. Thus it is up to the citizens to uphold rights through laws and culture. Does a country and its citizens have to do this? No. People don't have to do anything. But is it a rational approach to ensuring a prosperous society with opportunity? Yes.

i think you are making this one way too complicated: transgendered people are people, so if we are to talk about "human rights", than transgendered rights must also be human rights. — ProtagoranSocratist

If the rights they are asking for fit in and do not contradict human rights, then yes, they are. But in the OP its clear that some of the things being asked as rights conflict with human rights. Therefore these are not human rights.

However, I'm confused how anyone can have "a right", because wouldn't that entail an ability to do something without anyone else's capability to take away that ability? — ProtagoranSocratist

That is the general underpinning of rights. Rights are fundamental to being alive. At the most basic level, the right to life. The government should not have the power to simply say, "We're going to bomb your house for fun." People don't have the right to just kill you in the street whenever they like.

People are always talking about "the right to free speech", but people only have this right on the surface: the supreme court of the united states has decided repeatedly that speech is not an inviolable right, but only grants you a right if it feels appropriate and relevant to some legal case either you or another party brought to court. — ProtagoranSocratist

I think a more clear example is that rights often come into conflict based on context. Rights are generally contextual, not absolute. Yes, you have the right to life unless you are trying to murder another human being. Yes you have the right to free speech unless that speech is attempting to violate someone's right to privacy like breaking into your house to give them a piece of your mind.

The above rights I've examined are within the context of trans gendered individuals claim that the requests they are making are human rights, which are generally based on the context of one individual not trying to violate the rights of another, or the agreed upon standard outcome when certain human rights do conflict.

None of these resemble the questions referred to in the OP. They are, instead, questions which may be asked by most anyone most anywhere, e.g. at a Thanksgiving dinner. — Ciceronianus

You may very well come from an enlightened family where such questions are common. In many families such questions are off limits, yelled at, and discouraged. It sounds like you have not had a situation in which you've wanted to ask a question that the people around you don't want you to ask. So of course you may not be able to understand that situation.

If you disagree with my examples, do you agree or disagree with my message? If so, why?

90%+ of people alive today would not be alive, nor have ever reproduced, were it not for violence — Outlander

Outlander I'm not seeing this as relevant to the OP. I appreciate your contribution, but unless it ties into the OP in some way, this is off topic.

In short, yes, vulnerable people have every right you have, and much more. — Outlander

Of course! But are the trans gender rights that trans gender people are asking for concurrent with human rights?

I think it’s a better summary than the claptrap baloney you’ve put together. — T Clark

I didn't think the site I referenced was claptrap. That being said, I asked for and welcome alternatives. We can discuss nicely.

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.

Beyond transgender parents 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?

I think that the questions mentioned in the OP are so abstract that the claim there is "enormous pressure" not to ask them isn't credible. They lack context--like so much else in philosophy. Imagine enormous pressure being applied to prevent consideration of what it means to know something, or what it means to exist. — Ciceronianus

A little bit of a dive into history can show this. In many totalitarian societies on is not allowed to question the effectiveness of their government. In many religions certain questions can be considered blasphemous or sacrilegious. Cultural questions of 'Should women have the right to vote" have been seen as inconvenient, pointless, and should be silenced. Even in local cultures like family or friends, "Why do we play video games all day?" can be greeted with a "Because they're fun, shut up and press start."

People in general fall into patterns of thought and process, and generally it is inconvenient to question or deviate from these common things. Philosophy is often the discomfort of questioning the things 'we've always done that way', and might be ignored or ridiculed by others for taking the time to do so. And yet this need to question assumptions and processes is how we grow as people. How we find the nicks in our assumed logic and build better foundations of thought going forward.