Sy Borg wrote: ↑May 23rd, 2022, 8:20 pm
GE Morton, you are a lost cause as regards the issue of transpeople. You maintain an ideology based on instinctive dislike and no knowledge of the issues. It would be nice if those who knew nothing about a topic paid even the slightest attention to those who have worked in the area, but that is too much to ask in today's post-modern milieu.
Ah, back to
ad hominems, I see. I have no "dislike" of "transpeople." I don't even know any. I've known many gays, however, some of whom I liked a lot, others not so much. And I suspect my knowledge of the issues is at least as extensive as yours. You're likely confusing knowledge of the issues with acceptance of politically correct dogmas concerning the issues. But what knowledge do you suspect I'm missing?
Just as flat-Earthers deny Earth sciences, anti-trans advocates deny medical sciences, pretending that regular men and women simply decide to have a sex change on a whim, as if that's a fun thing to do, a guilty pleasure rather than an emotional/mental nightmare that becomes too intense to deny. Many have tried desperately to lead "normal" lives, from childhood on, but the internal friction reaches a point where they either change/come out or kill themselves.
If by "medical sciences" you mean the opinions of psychiatrists, you're being misleading. There is very little science involved in that discipline, not because the practitioners are incompetent, but because the subject matter is intractable. But no one I know of suggests that persons consider sex change surgery "on a whim." Nor is the question of why people consider such surgery, or whether or not they ought to do so, relevant to this thread.
It is whether the government has any role to play in such decisions, or in dictating how individuals relate to or address "transpeople."
Nor do I deny that sexual dysphoria --- like many other psychological conditions --- can produce great stress and depression in those suffering from them. The question is, What obligations do those disorders impose on other people? My claim is that they impose none. "Straight" Alfie's obligation to "trans" Bruno are the same as his obligations to anyone else --- he is constrained from inflicting losses or injuries upon him, including bulling, tormenting, and harassing him. But he is not obliged to indulge Bruno's delusions or alter his speech patterns or enter into any sort of relationship with him --- and certainly not to subsidize his therapy or sex change surgery. He has no such obligations to anyone, beyond any he may have taken on voluntarily, or perhaps incurred due to some tort he committed. I.e., Alfie is not responsible for Bruno's welfare, "trans" or otherwise.
To target these people is obviously a deliberate attempt to push them over the edge, much like undermining a disabled person for their disability every day.
Anyone who "targets" another person "in attempt to push them over the edge," if that attempt involves acts of bullying or harassment as commonly defined in law --- acts which would justify issuance of a restraining order --- would be crimes.
1. You previously justified outlawing and policing murder, rape and theft on the basis that these activities cause disruption through cycles of revenge. I note that you have shifted.
Oh, stop with the misquotes and fabricated quotes. Earlier you accused me of advocating conversion therapy, about which I'd never said a word. Nor have I ever said anything about "cycles of revenge," or even considered it. I'm quite sure I've never used that phrase. Are you confusing me with someone else, or are you just inventing this stuff from whole cloth?
3. Your rationale is simply materialistic. If the harm is material, ban it. If the harm is immaterial, no problem. It's an arbitrary line, based on your personal prejudices. You explanation is little better than "God said so". Just one more arbitrary line.
The distinction is not between material and immaterial, but between objective and measurable and subjective and indeterminate. The difference between hurt feelings and a broken leg is arbitrary? The difference between an insult and an assault is arbitrary? How would a jury go about determining how much compensation was due to the "harm" inflicted by Alfie's referring to trans-Bruno as "she"? And if what counts as "harm" is subjective and idiosyncratic, and therefore impossible to predict in advance, how would anyone know what is and is not harmful to someone?
4. You claim that "white-anting" is a trendy new term. It has been in common use for the best part of a century. It describes the erosion of another's credibility, via false rumours and setting traps. As with the trans issue, you too often opine with great confidence about issues you know nothing about.
Well, you got me there. I had to look that up. It is apparently an Australian colloquialism. It appears in only one online dictionary:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/white-anting
5. If you use measurability to determine whether issues warrant the intervention of the state, how would you measure the trauma of a young adult after being molested in childhood? Historical abuse, be it children or adults, would be legal in your model.
You don't need to measure that. Child molestation is illegal
prima facie. Moreover, how traumatic that is depends on the details, and even more on the individual. You don't need to measure how traumatic a rape or armed robbery is, either, and that is not a factor in determining whether an accused is guilty of them. All those things can can have lasting consequences for some; others put them behind them quickly and get on with their lives.
6. The point is that your version of libertarianism is incoherent in a range of areas, this being just one. You likewise have no answer to the issue of a non-taxing government gaining revenue to fund the military, police, courts and lawyers, prison complexes, not to mention project management, administration and financial management.
And another false attribution. I've never proposed a "non-taxing government," and given the extent of our previous discussions of taxes, you very well know that.