Oh really? I find that other people's gender and sexual orientation are usually none of my business, but I'd defend someone's freedoms. That includes their freedom to live the way they want to live. I find there is really no debate concerning those things and ppl who try are usually trolling.
I'm all for people living any way they choose, up to the usual common-sense limit, which is when it impacts negatively on others. At that point it becomes a balancing act between conflicting rights and freedoms.
How does someone else living the way they want to live, undetermined by your personal definition of common sense, effect the rights or freedoms of someone else? If you don't like it, you could just ignore it.
I think it's a fairly universally accepted limit to personal freedoms. Live how you choose unless it harms others. Right?
If there is not a safety concern, it doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights.
But if there is an infringement of someone else's safety, rights, or wellbeing, then you'd accept that there should be a limit to the personal freedom in question? Society doesn't function if everyone just pleases themselves at everyone else's expense, right?
Trans women have not shown themselves to be a danger to women the way men are. Men ascribe their own motives to trans women.
Again, not relevant to what I asked you.
Persecuting someone based on their personal choices or changes they make in their lives is an infringement on their rights. Medical journals and peer reviews have come out stating the brain chemistry of a trans man more closely aligns with that of those born as men and the same for women.
That's a mixture of issues, none of which answers my question. I'm happy to discuss them individually, but only if you can at least agree that there are rational societal limits to personal freedoms. I'm hardly asking for the moon, just a basic ethical benchmark.
If someone's right to safety or life is violated by someone else, then I'd agree that is a basis for dispute.
Tell me a way someone's gender or sexual orientation would harm someone who has nothing to do with that person.
Firstly do you agree with my framing of an appropriate limit to personal freedoms?
No, there needs to be a direct violation that occurs and each case can be treated individually. Saying that someone who is trans violates another persons rights in general is just stupid.
But I haven't said that. I said only that personal freedoms should be granted up to the point that they harm others. And you refuse to agree even with that simple concept.
I just know for a fact that people are in everyone else's business regarding gender and that trans people are being physically attacked because of very personal changes they have made in their lives that don't effect anyone else's safety. Their rights are being violated, not the other way around.
Often their rights are violated, I agree, and I oppose that. But sometimes the demands of trans activism infringe on the rights of others. For example the rights of women to have sex-segregated sport. In my opinion, women deserve certain hard-fought rights. I dont agree that transactivist demands >
> to infringe on those rights are fair or reasonable.
Not winning a sports game doesn't violate someone's rights.
The main violaters of women's rights and safety are men, but we don't demand they stop being men. We occasionally stop men from violating the rights and freedoms of others by locking them up, which is done individually.
I've stated the same, so no I don't.
So we agree there are some necessary and reasonable limits to personal freedoms? Much as those freedoms should be protected otherwise?
It's not a trick question. I'm not trying to trap you.
Sure, you don't have the freedom to beat someone up, SA someone, or murder someone.