Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2020 3:45 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2020 3:33 pm
So you did read my account of the situation...
You didn't answer my question.
Please do now.
As long as you understand it is explicitly a waste of time because I can do a terrible job of this without it having any effect on the logic of my argument. Sure, I don't care.
From my perspective this is really just a matter of how much stuff we make a person go through before we accept that they have done enough to sensibly interact with society as (or as-if, see if I care) that sort of person.
Let's say that for the sake of being a woman to the extent that it is fair to compete in the olympics as a woman, the standard there would be enormously high. It's probably not fair to have a woman who has the skeleton of a man or something. The exact details are whatever a sports scientist or whatnot would say, but there has to be no advantage of the sort that being drenched in testosterone in the womb might confer. I can't think of any way that a former male would be able to compete as a current female in the olympic boxing ring.
For the purposes of being classified as a lady when going to prison, that would be a lesser degree, but probably fairly stringent. Pretty sure we shouldn't be putting chicks with dicks in a lady jail, but I guess there's also reasons not to put a chick with dick and boobs into burly gentlemen's prison. Perhaps the correct institution is the one where they are less likely to initiate naughty sexual encounters with the other inmates. It's certainly an area where we can be less rigid in our approach than sports and stuff. Here we should at least take preference into account as one of the factors.
For the purposes of work - skipping absurd bullshit about banning trannies from the classroom, I am happy with my flight attendant just being a steward or as stewardess entirely according to their decision. For a lot of professions gendered language has gone out of fashion a long time ago anyway (when Iwas a child I'm sure there was such a thing as an authoress). I'm willing to accept that broader society will impose more onerous conditions than I would. I guess there's the whole thing with getting a new birth certificate or something. I doubt anyone wants to see someone change their mind about this stuff on a weekly basis, so there should be some bureaucracy.
That's all there really is to it. There's a set of formal situations in which the judgment should apply in a way that a majority considers fair, and in my view we should try to accomodate the wishes of the transgender person unless there is a reason not to (your prurient interest not being considered sufficient justifiaction to appress them, sorry). And then everything else is private life and private space, and people just have to work that shit out for themselves.
So you are now going to answer my questions aren't you....
So you did read my account of the situation, but you determined that it was irrelevant because of "obvious" and that's why you referenced something completely different to say "not contingent". But you aren't trying to railroad me at all.
But that 'obvious' is based on an assumption is it not? Specifically that there must be a global Truth regarding the proper contents of any given category, and thus categories are not defined as I have written through use or usefulness, but by .... well apparently it's not essence because you don't need that for this argument. It's just something essential to the category. But not an essence.
Or is gender a special category which has such a truth, unlike other categories such as planets which are more fluid? You've had many invitations to explain your position on this, it's probably time to stop pretending that they are immaterial.
