4 ms·

I guarantee you that people who support the rights of trans people to be trans people are not doing so contingent on there being some kind of purely biological

by plorg 3y ago

I guarantee you that people who support the rights of trans people to be trans people are not doing so contingent on there being some kind of purely biological basis. Most people probably don't even know there is a proposed biological mechanism. In any case, for those I know who have considered it, most reject the notion that one's acceptance be based on simply having no choice in the matter of their gender identity, sexuality, or other identifiers like skin color or disability, because it suggests that their value is arrived at only reluctantly and it is on them to prove they should be treated like anyone else. Contrary to your quixotic theory, most nominally liberal or queer-accepting people I've met root their ethics in something like humanism (including for example Christian humanism). A person is valuable because they are, because they exist. Self-expression is an outgrowth of such a belief. It is part of flourishing and living into the world. It is rarely if ever a worldview of itself. Similarly, drag is not just art for the sake of art or transgression for the sake of transgression. It has not always been considered transgressive. It has a long tradition in gay spaces as an activity that brings people together and in many ways is used to show that queer people are not alone. It is a way of exploring the boundaries of what it means to be human. All of it is of a piece because people are not collections of independent atomic functions, they are bodies and minds and live in spaces.

rayiner 3y ago
You’re incorrect. Only a quarter of the country even identifies as “liberal.” Support for same sex marriage is over 70%. That is because science in the 1990s established the biological basis of sexual orientation. There was a concerted educational campaign about that in the 2000s, including Lady Gaga’s song “Born that Way” in 2011. The following statement from the American Psychological Association is quoted prominently in Obergefell: “Only in more recent years have psychiatrists and others recognized that sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable. See Brief for American Psychological Association et al. as Amici Curiae 7–17. The Human Rights Campaign defines sexual orientation as: “Sexual Orientation: An inherent or immutable enduring emotional, romantic or sexual attraction to other people. > In any case, for those I know who have considered it, most reject the notion that one's acceptance be based on simply having no choice in the matter of their gender identity, sexuality, or other identifiers like skin color or disability, because it suggests that their value is arrived at only reluctantly and it is on them to prove they should be treated like anyone else. Your conclusion only follows if you begin with an individualistic humanist perspective. Most people in the world, and probably a plurality in America, believe in natural order, not individual choice. Virtue is doing what you’re supposed to do; vice is acting contrary to nature’s or God’s plan. Conformity is pro-social; non-conformity is anti-social. Consequently, it’s extremely significant whether that sexual orientation and gender identity are innate. It means God made you that way. And it means that you’re doing what you’re programmed to do, and not deliberately thumbing your nose at society’s conventions.
- dctoedt 3y ago
  > And it means that you’re doing what you’re programmed to do, and not deliberately thumbing your nose at society’s conventions. Perhaps what you call nose-thumbing is in fact "doing what you're programmed to do" by genetics and upbringing.

by plorg 3y ago

rayiner 3y ago

You’re incorrect. Only a quarter of the country even identifies as “liberal.” Support for same sex marriage is over 70%. That is because science in the 1990s established the biological basis of sexual orientation. There was a concerted educational campaign about that in the 2000s, including Lady Gaga’s song “Born that Way” in 2011. The following statement from the American Psychological Association is quoted prominently in Obergefell: “Only in more recent years have psychiatrists and others recognized that sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable. See Brief for American Psychological Association et al. as Amici Curiae 7–17. The Human Rights Campaign defines sexual orientation as: “Sexual Orientation: An inherent or immutable enduring emotional, romantic or sexual attraction to other people. > In any case, for those I know who have considered it, most reject the notion that one's acceptance be based on simply having no choice in the matter of their gender identity, sexuality, or other identifiers like skin color or disability, because it suggests that their value is arrived at only reluctantly and it is on them to prove they should be treated like anyone else. Your conclusion only follows if you begin with an individualistic humanist perspective. Most people in the world, and probably a plurality in America, believe in natural order, not individual choice. Virtue is doing what you’re supposed to do; vice is acting contrary to nature’s or God’s plan. Conformity is pro-social; non-conformity is anti-social. Consequently, it’s extremely significant whether that sexual orientation and gender identity are innate. It means God made you that way. And it means that you’re doing what you’re programmed to do, and not deliberately thumbing your nose at society’s conventions.

dctoedt 3y ago
> And it means that you’re doing what you’re programmed to do, and not deliberately thumbing your nose at society’s conventions. Perhaps what you call nose-thumbing is in fact "doing what you're programmed to do" by genetics and upbringing.