4 ms·

Is there fundamental disagreement in people arguing in good faith about everyone's right to be who they say they are? Doesn't the problem usually start when the

Is there fundamental disagreement in people arguing in good faith about everyone's right to be who they say they are? Doesn't the problem usually start when they ask to be treated in a special way, that is, compel others to do things (which tends to collide with the fundamental idea of not-being-forced)? I'm not sure that cancel culture-people actually had to fight a lot. It seems to me that people who are similar to them in some regard had to fight, but they themselves did not. And those who came before them and had to fight for their rights are usually not among those who seek to cancel others, and will sometimes find themselves on the receiving end of a struggle session, administered by the sons and daughters of their revolution.

mcphage 6y ago
> Doesn't the problem usually start when they ask to be treated in a special way, that is, compel others to do things (which tends to collide with the fundamental idea of not-being-forced)? I don’t think so—black people have been asking to be treated like their lives have value, gay people have been asking to get married, trans people have been asking to be allowed to exist. Those seem to be pretty fundamental rights—I don’t see any of that as asking for special treatments.
- 4bpp 6y ago
  Two out of three of these points seem to be primarily polemic. I am not aware of anyone (okay, maybe outside an insane fringe) who, in any meaningful way, is seeking to "forbid trans people to exist" - how do you not allow someone to exist, except by, you know, stopping them from existing, i.e. killing them? Instead, the fights, and cancellations of those deviating from the approved positions, tend to focus on issues such as whether people should be compelled to refer to trans people by their preferred pronouns, or whether trans people should be allowed access to their preferred gendered facilities (be it bathrooms or battered-women shelters). Do trans people die or pop out of existence when you refer to them by the wrong pronoun? If so, that would be a whole new level of fragility (a word I gather social justice advocates really like to bandy around in situations where it is far less appropriate than here), and it seems like a more appropriate response to someone whose existence is so precarious would be more akin to how we sustain those who are born without an adaptive immune system (https://www.rarediseasereview.org/publications/2017/8/7/living-without-an-immune-system https://www.rarediseasereview.org/publications/2017/8/7/livi...). (Gay marriage, on the other hand, has been (rightly) legalised and enjoys majority support, but even there I think that the problem was that the state presumed to have a say in the definition of marriage to begin with. If any reference to marriage were struck from the books - perhaps by making a neutral construct of civil partnership or something else that can inherit its functions for property-sharing and mutual spokesmanship take it place - then the claim to marriage as a negative right that Scruton would have no cause to interfere with would become apparent.)
  - mcphage 6y ago
    > how do you not allow someone to exist, except by, you know, stopping them from existing, i.e. killing them? You tell them “you are not who you think you are, you’re wrong about your own life” > whether people should be compelled to refer to trans people by their preferred pronouns, or whether trans people should be allowed access to their preferred gendered facilities Those are perfect examples—have you ever had a problem getting someone to refer to you by your preferred pronoun? Have you ever been denied access to your bathroom? For me, such things are unthinkable. > trans people die or pop out of existence when you refer to them by the wrong pronoun? Well, their existence as a trans person does, when you reject their own identity and replace it with one you have chosen instead. So: yes, you’re telling the person that you’re talking to that they don’t exist, that someone else, with a different name and gender exists instead. > even there I think that the problem was that the state presumed to have a say in the definition of marriage to begin with That’s an odd solution—gay people want to get married also? Well then: nobody can. Making everybody miserable instead of happy is one way to put everybody on the same footing, but not one I don’t think many people would have been happy with. Definitely I’m glad they didn’t go with that.
    - baggy_trough 6y ago
      The problem with this point of view is that you're elevating your philosophy of gender and sexuality over other peoples' and claiming it as a sort of "safety right." This is pernicious.
      - mcphage 6y ago
        Actually, what I was doing was describing a number of rights that I—as a cis-het white man—already possess, and that others have not been granted, and are asking to share, following in the article's quote of “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”. But you've done a good job describing why dialog on these topics is difficult, since people such as yourselves consider that "elevating [my] philosophy of gender and sexuality over other peoples'". We can talk all day about property rights, but I can't explain to you why you need to care about other people, and without you caring about others, there's no possibility for useful dialog.

mcphage 6y ago

> Doesn't the problem usually start when they ask to be treated in a special way, that is, compel others to do things (which tends to collide with the fundamental idea of not-being-forced)? I don’t think so—black people have been asking to be treated like their lives have value, gay people have been asking to get married, trans people have been asking to be allowed to exist. Those seem to be pretty fundamental rights—I don’t see any of that as asking for special treatments.

4bpp 6y ago
Two out of three of these points seem to be primarily polemic. I am not aware of anyone (okay, maybe outside an insane fringe) who, in any meaningful way, is seeking to "forbid trans people to exist" - how do you not allow someone to exist, except by, you know, stopping them from existing, i.e. killing them? Instead, the fights, and cancellations of those deviating from the approved positions, tend to focus on issues such as whether people should be compelled to refer to trans people by their preferred pronouns, or whether trans people should be allowed access to their preferred gendered facilities (be it bathrooms or battered-women shelters). Do trans people die or pop out of existence when you refer to them by the wrong pronoun? If so, that would be a whole new level of fragility (a word I gather social justice advocates really like to bandy around in situations where it is far less appropriate than here), and it seems like a more appropriate response to someone whose existence is so precarious would be more akin to how we sustain those who are born without an adaptive immune system (https://www.rarediseasereview.org/publications/2017/8/7/living-without-an-immune-system https://www.rarediseasereview.org/publications/2017/8/7/livi...). (Gay marriage, on the other hand, has been (rightly) legalised and enjoys majority support, but even there I think that the problem was that the state presumed to have a say in the definition of marriage to begin with. If any reference to marriage were struck from the books - perhaps by making a neutral construct of civil partnership or something else that can inherit its functions for property-sharing and mutual spokesmanship take it place - then the claim to marriage as a negative right that Scruton would have no cause to interfere with would become apparent.)
- mcphage 6y ago
  > how do you not allow someone to exist, except by, you know, stopping them from existing, i.e. killing them? You tell them “you are not who you think you are, you’re wrong about your own life” > whether people should be compelled to refer to trans people by their preferred pronouns, or whether trans people should be allowed access to their preferred gendered facilities Those are perfect examples—have you ever had a problem getting someone to refer to you by your preferred pronoun? Have you ever been denied access to your bathroom? For me, such things are unthinkable. > trans people die or pop out of existence when you refer to them by the wrong pronoun? Well, their existence as a trans person does, when you reject their own identity and replace it with one you have chosen instead. So: yes, you’re telling the person that you’re talking to that they don’t exist, that someone else, with a different name and gender exists instead. > even there I think that the problem was that the state presumed to have a say in the definition of marriage to begin with That’s an odd solution—gay people want to get married also? Well then: nobody can. Making everybody miserable instead of happy is one way to put everybody on the same footing, but not one I don’t think many people would have been happy with. Definitely I’m glad they didn’t go with that.
  - baggy_trough 6y ago
    The problem with this point of view is that you're elevating your philosophy of gender and sexuality over other peoples' and claiming it as a sort of "safety right." This is pernicious.
    - mcphage 6y ago
      Actually, what I was doing was describing a number of rights that I—as a cis-het white man—already possess, and that others have not been granted, and are asking to share, following in the article's quote of “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”. But you've done a good job describing why dialog on these topics is difficult, since people such as yourselves consider that "elevating [my] philosophy of gender and sexuality over other peoples'". We can talk all day about property rights, but I can't explain to you why you need to care about other people, and without you caring about others, there's no possibility for useful dialog.