impasse wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2023 4:32 amThis argument is extremely unphilosophical,Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 7:54 pmIt seems that there is a level of either dishonesty or delusion at work if a person wishes to present themselves as the opposite sex by wearing what is traditionally worn by the opposite sex. It's tolerable to a point, in a comedy show for example, but I for one don't want to wander through society trying to figure out who is male or female and who isn't. It's traditional for men and women to distinguish their sex when they're out and about. Like wedding rings are traditional to show someone that the person they're hitting on is already spoken for. Truth in advertising.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 7:32 pm
Makeup was invented for men. The government dictating what it means to "act like a man" or "act like a woman" seems as absurd as the government deciding that some clothes are men's clothes and some clothes are women's clothes. I don't see any angle of it that isn't inherently absurd.
What behaviours should the government classify as "female" behaviours that men cannot legally do?
I mean, incest is illegal. Raping an underage child is illegal. Should the government stand clear of those affairs too? So far your argument seems to be that government shouldn't tell us what to do. That in itself is not a reason alone. Just because it's a written law doesn't mean it is a bad law. Just because "big government" is telling you not to do something doesn't necessarily mean it's perfectly fine to do it. Yelling fire in a movie theater is against the law. If a man is trying very hard to present himself as a woman, then if someone asks him if he's male or female and he demands that we address him as female also, then that's dishonest and probably a bit counter-productive in some social settings. A salesman rolling the mileage back on a car you're about to purchase and telling you it has fewer miles than it does is counter-productive to you acting in your own best interest. There's no law against people lying to each other in casual situations, however, it's not exaclty encouraged. A teacher teaching children should try to tell the truth as much as possible for the benefit of the kids.
Calling my argument "unphilosophical" is largely an irrelevant jab at an opinion that you don't happen to share because you are of a different opinion and a large part of the "gender/sex" debate is little more than one about social norms and non-objective matters.
As I've stated elsewhere I'm not for incriminating cross-dressing any more than I'm for incriminating any other form of social deviance that doesn't inflict substantial harm on another. So you're also "boxing your shadow" (aka engaging in a "straw man"). If you think that's more "philosophical" than what I've presented, then whatever.
If a male wants to dress like a female, for whatever reason, then they can do whatever they want so long as it doesn't cause too many problems. However, I don't see where dressing like the opposite sex is too much different in some ways than some random person putting on a police uniform and impersonating a law enforcement officer. Or some random person walking onto a construction site dressed as an architect wearing the contracting company's logo. It's fine if it's harmless and just whimsical or something but entirely unnecessary and probably will just cause confusion if it became a normalized practice. But if that's something someone wants to do, then sure. However, if the practice becomes a lead-in for others to practice the same sort of behavior for malevolent reasons, then it becomes problematic. Do we want to normalize anyone and everyone dressing in a police uniform--basically misrepresenting themselves to others? Is that something we want our children to deem acceptable because the guy who read them a story in class today was a person who likes to pretend they are a police officer?