It is, both in the literal sense of political as “relating to government or public affairs”, and also quite often in the frequently used sense of “controversial between political parties or factions”.
The fact that your political view is that it should not be political (in presumably the latter sense) does not change the fact that it often factually is.
I don't think anyone disagrees with that, I think the disagreement comes from the way that activists insist that the best solution for treating [gender dysphoria, etc] is to "socially and heavy handedly force everyone to complete the illusion by treating transgender individuals as indistinguishable from their biological counterparts in every way". That's not the only solution for treating [gender dysphoria, etc], just the current (and perhaps uniquely) American one, and it comes with a variety of problems the obvious of which stem from significant biological factors that make the illusion impossible to complete (sports, etc).
The sports claim still deserves a lot of research. People seem to continue to parrot this "impossible" view point but it really doesn't seem to be the reality. Instead organizations get pressured into making choices based on political views rather than data.
For an example of results see https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/58/11/586. A lot of the papers I see trying to support the opposing views try to use data of cis men which have not undergone hormone therapy to stand-in for trans women as if there was no difference but again it's quite apparent that this is not the case.
For many other areas, often people will use one incident to collectively label an entire group as deviant. This happened the same way with gay rights over the years and I've got many friends who got labelled all sorts of things because of it. As far as that's concerned, people love to arm-chair what is and isn't an effective course. None of these things are new, just American, or ignoring biological factors but it seems like those who would like to restrict acceptance of transgender people like to paint it as such.
Many of my friends have taught me a lot just by being bold enough to be seen as themselves. I don't think it's actually unreasonable to extend the benefit of the doubt to how trans people choose to affirm themselves.
>I think the disagreement comes from the way that activists insist that the best solution for treating [gender dysphoria, etc] is to "socially and heavy handedly force everyone to complete the illusion by treating transgender individuals as indistinguishable from their biological counterparts in every way".
Here we see that the term 'illusion' is doing a lot of heavy lifting in the background, and implies some kind of bias or preconceived notion of "real" vs "fake" or "imaginary". If this is what you get from advocates and activists, then I think you either receive this through a filter of some kind, or carry said filter within.
>That's not the only solution for treating [gender dysphoria, etc], just the current (and perhaps uniquely) American one, and it comes with a variety of problems the obvious of which stem from significant biological factors that make the illusion impossible to complete (sports, etc).
This is the treatment method that has consistently demonstrated the best outcomes for the people concerned over time. It is not uniquely American, as it was pioneered in Europe before taken to the next level in the US, among other countries/regions. Again, furtherance of the idea there is an 'illusion that must be completed'. This is not the case. Trans people are very aware just how much they do or do not fit in compared to the average population at large. No one needs to point this out to them, nor does anyone need to coddle them. By far, just being treated as how one wishes to be treated goes a long, long way.
In regards to sports, if the person in question has medically transitioned and has done so with HRT for some year(s) (I think 2 is the baseline minimum from studies?), then their overall performance in sports will be measurably less then their peers of the same gender in most instances. The few that excel are not statistically more significant than the few natural athletes who excel due to some developmental advantage (larger heart/lung capacity, etc) due to early or sustained training, genetic factors, etc. At least this is what the preliminary data is showing us so far. On average, the distribution remains about the same and on par with other athletes. This is almost always a talking point/dog whistle that is, once you peel the onion, much ado about nothing. Just like most all other contentious talking points about transgender folks, which do not vary significantly from the same points about gay rights, marriage equality, racial segregation/integration debates, or equality in voting and women's rights, etc, etc.
Just going to keep pointing out that human beings have very little sexual dimorphism compared to the other great apes, and that any difference is any sport that does not actually employ the genitals is probably more down to food access and/or training disparities than actual “significant” biological factors.
> probably more down to food access and/or training disparities than actual “significant” biological factors.
I'm not really going to defend the other side here because sports are (by definition) fundamentally arbitrary, but is this really borne out by reality? To use an easy comparison, elite adult womens' track and field athletes might be competitive against high school boys, but not at any higher level. Compare, for example, the international womens' records [0] to the records from this random high school nationals track meet [1]. What food access and/or training advantage are high school kids going to have over the most capable athletes in their sport?
You’re asking the wrong question… what we’d need to do is take a girl with the same height and muscle mass as a boy and give them both the diet and training (and societal and economic incentives and rewards) of a Usain Bolt from birth, then look for sexual dimorphism’s effect on their sports performance. Looking for support for your confirmation bias in stats that already are influenced by thousands of years of your confirmation bias doesn’t exactly make decent scientific inquiry. Again, when compared with the other great apes (never mind less closely related primates) we humans have relatively minimal sexual dimorphism, and no obvious biological reason to simply assume that two adult peers that had the same dietary and exercise and skills training regimes would have vastly different athletic performance characteristics, especially across a wide range of sports.
> You’re asking the wrong question… what we’d need to do is take a girl with the same height and muscle mass as a boy and give them both the diet and training (and societal and economic incentives and rewards) of a Usain Bolt from birth, then look for sexual dimorphism’s effect on their sports performance.
The unequal distribution of height and muscle mass is part of sexual dimorphism.
> no obvious biological reason to simply assume that two adult peers that had the same dietary and exercise and skills training regimes would have vastly different athletic performance characteristics
Imagine you convinced someone this was true. They could say trans women should be banned from women's sports because boys receive superior training.
The effects of hormones are not assumptions.
What is your explanation for trans men gaining athletic advantages and trans women losing athletic advantages during transition?
> The unequal distribution of height and muscle mass is part of sexual dimorphism.
No, it’s potential evidence for sexual dimorphism. It’s also potential evidence for systemic dietary sexism. You’d need to establish that the latter doesn’t exist to establish that the former does.
> Imagine you convinced someone this was true. They could say trans women should be banned from women's sports because boys receive superior training.
At that point we’d have shown that sexual dimorphism was not at play and that gendered sports were inherently discriminatory, so that hypothetical person would now be an idiot arguing against reality. The obvious solution would be to redirect better training at the now know equally capable athletes.
> The effects of hormones are not assumptions.
Actually they largely are… we really don’t have more than minimal and crude knowledge of precisely how hormones work or what their actual effects are.
Of course we would have and expect exactly that same (extremely cherry-picked, confirmation bias serving) result if it were true that female athletes had similar innate physical capacities — and they do, sexual dimorphism in humans is quite minimal compared to the other great apes, especially the gorilla and the orangutan — but were neither as well fed nor as well trained as male athletes.
In other words the (very circular reasoning) chart your source provides doesn’t obviously show sexual dimorphism when confounding variables of food and training (and the funding and social incentives that provide both) exist.
Human rights are intimately woven into International Law and state sovereignty. The work of the TWAIL scholars is relevant, especially as regards how human rights are deployed to undermine the sovereignty of the global south following the rapid “decolonisation” of the mid 20th century.
I’m afraid it’s almost impossible to divorce politics and human rights.
Politics are intertwined in every facet of the human experience, because they're effectively the net result of a social group
Some people however strive to "live above" politics, or to breathlessly demand things be "apolitical" based on their own biases. That bias in of itself being as "political" as anything else
First time I heard about TWAIL.
Ok, now human rights are controversial?
The one ideal, that whoever you are, wherever you are, you hold universal rights because you are a human.
This are Western ideas and are not true for the global south? This belief is weaponized?
I cannot believe this. Simply outrageous. I never understood the religious people before - to me this is a sacrilege.
Universal human rights are the hill I will literally die on.
human rights in spirit are not. but in practice (see the the argument below) they are used more as a rhetorical shield. they are toothless paper tigers, they are extremely easy to co-opt and corrupt the spirit. (eg. see how Putin loves harping on about self-determination of people in the annexed regions; how proudly democratic North Korea is.)
I hope my extreme summarization is not completely useless.
Second: the biggest straw man I have ever seen. Rage bait Philosophy.Just because human rights are violated does not mean, that they are useless or non existence.
It's a good word of caution specially the normalizing states of emergency and dehumanizing people.
Civil libertys and democracy are fragile achievements, that need to be protected by the citizens. Human rights are rights against an overbearing state.
All the examples given are valid points, that violate human rights. And for every issue there is a human right group, that fights against the violations.
I dont buy his conclusion about potential either... Another magical force.
Regarding organisations and corporations he should really read up on Luhmann.
So maybe I am a fanatic - none of his arguments strike true for me.
Yeah, I had the exact same sentiment. (As in "sure we don't live in a perfect world, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to set goals as a bare minimum baseline".)
Canada ratified it years ago (if we're not counting optional protocols), but according to https://indicators.ohchr.org/, the US hasn't. Do you have a source?
Politics follow ethics in democratic societies. However, our understanding of ethics is always developing. We now understand that homosexuality is ethical. We understand that transgenderism is ethical. There will be more things in the future where politics has to bow to our improved understanding of ethics. Ethics is always a foundation for democratic politics, because politics needs to govern how we as a society live together in peace.
While I agree that everything is inescapably political, I think the subtext of quoted comment was not just exist as in "be alive", but exist as in "be alive with dignity + autonomy". Which (going by the wiki on Lynn) was clearly a strong point of contention / friction between them and greater society.
It's a lot more complicated than that. What constitutes a human right is deeply tied up in questions of ethics that are not settled and have no universal acceptance even within a single culture. Any given person will have deep feelings about the human rights that their ethical framework demands, but those deep feelings will often contradict the deeply held feelings of other people.
This means that which ethical framework we as a society use to decide what counts as a human right is an inherently political question: it's a decision that we try to make as a society in as nonviolent a manner as possible.
And before we get too far off the deep end, I want to note that both sides of the aisle firmly believe that the other side ignores fundamental human rights that their side respects. This is what happens when good people operate with completely opposite ethical frameworks, and we won't get anywhere by just shouting that our framework is the only valid one.
Thirty years almost everyone believed that a person's sex is determined at conception and is immutable, and most people on earth probably still believe that today.
You're using the word sex. There is a known, massively complex, relationship between sex and gender but it's not 1:1. For anyone. Or, if you think that's not true, then please describe to me how they're identical. In a group of men, in any place in the world, you'll find wildly varying accounts of what the male gender "is" all the way down to how their bodies should look.
And, gender aside, the most important thing to consider is the existence of intersex people, the diaspora of their bodies, and to consider how you think we should talk about them. Sex is, even outside gender, in fact not immutable. It's biology. These people are also historically denigrated.
Please imagine how ~150 years ago we collectively thought (and some people still think) that a person's race determined their intelligence. Historically "fundamental truths" usually end up with people being thought of as subhuman. The "fundamental truth" of sex, as it's presented by those who consider trans folks not people, is the same sort of truth. Biological sex is a spectrum, demonstrably. Gender is also demonstrably a spectrum. I don't care what people believe sex is or isn't. I care that we treat everyone, no matter how "weird" with respect.
> There is a known, massively complex, relationship between sex and gender but it's not 1:1
You could argue though that it's only complex because we (collectively) decided to complicate it in order to accommodate the preferences of small subsets of society. In some other country, society might collectively decide not to accommodate said wishes and instead treat sex and gender as immutable and indistinguishable. Such a course would result in a simpler classification system: XX = female, XY = male, anything else = unclassified (genetic defect handled on a case-by-case basis).
I think it's possible to have a simpler social classification system without treating trans people poorly. There are many other rare mental issues that we can't treat well and that we don't bend all of society to try to alleviate for the victims. That doesn't mean we have to hate on the victims or treat them poorly.
There are a a few pretty big upsides I can think of to using a simpler social gender classification system: less social friction/discord/controversy (too much of this and your country falls apart and everyone is worse off), less social confusion/cognitive burden (pronouns, as one example, have basically become a third name that you have to memorize in addition to first and and secondary names whereas they used to just be a derived property that you didn't have to memorize).
Simpler than "treat people how they look and act, update your assumptions if corrected"?
This system can break down for some trans people (although I bet most make excessive effort to present as their preferred gender), but it also breaks down for effeminate males and masculine women (and I bet this is the larger category). Despite these difficulties, it's worked for literally all of history until people started pretending they don't know how pronouns work. Test it yourself by taking a look at Lynn's picture and asking which pronouns you'd use.
I'm not sure how invoking genetics simplifies anything. Have you had your sex chromosomes checked? I haven't, and triple-X and KS are often undiagnosed! I'd hate to have to update my drivers license to "unclassified" in my 30s.
Yes, it's simpler because it's immutable. It's the mutability of identity that causes so much confusion and complexity. In Lynn's case she was a man the first 30+ years of life and even married and had kids. Then later switched genders, names, and pronouns. That's anything but simple since now every person and computer database that ever knew her now has to track and reconcile 2 identities. It's incredibly confusing when people change their identities later in life, especially if you are out of the loop. Even more confusing if people change identities multiple times.
I actually don't really care too much which classification system is used (chromosomes vs. observable genitalia at birth vs. something else), I just think the pros of collectively treating certain aspects of identity as immutable such as gender, race, and possibly even name, outweigh the cons of making a tiny fraction of the populace slightly more uncomfortable.
You're arguing that somebody who wears dresses and has breasts should be referred to as male? That pronouns shouldn't be based on appearance or preference like we've done throughout history, we should instead invent new classifications based upon unobservable characteristics like genetics or genitalia at birth? And that this is all being done to reduce confusion?
I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I personally think it's simpler to continue to refer to "Chelsea Manning" as "Bradley Manning" with he/him, even if they decided later to completely change their identity. Close friends can call them "Chelsea" out of respect, but society should not rewrite history to erase all traces of "Bradley" in order to accommodate one individual's mental health struggles. I find (the history rewriting) to be extremely confusing and, frankly, Orwellian. That said, if I'm interacting with a trans person that prefers some name/pronouns, I will use them out of respect, even if I fundamentally disagree with a lot of trans activism.
Do you hold the same views about marriage? That changing one's last name is is confusing and Orwellian? That close friends might humor the individual out of respect, but society at large should refuse to allow history to be rewritten?
I personally am against changing of last names at marriage and encouraged my wife not to change hers.
But to directly address your point... the main difference here is that "dead names" and "dead pronouns" are considered harmful and/or offensive and are therefore actively hunted and scrubbed from history by activists, unlike maiden names which are considered benign.
The classification you've described is not valid for use with Homo sapiens, neither today nor in the future. It's based on the assumption that our genes control our organs, when they're merely a weighted suggestion at best. And, the Y chromosome is gradually withering away in humankind and is expected to disappear someday. Human beings can develop fertile male reproductive organs without it (see below), and evolution abhors exceptions that have no benefit and many drawbacks (such as colorblindness).
> a simpler classification system: XX = female, XY = male
This would, as with all other such systems that refer to X/Y chromosomes, be invalidated immediately upon contact with reality. I estimate that a couple million people worldwide have one set of fertile reproductive organs that do not match the binary view described – that is: men without, and women with, a Y chromosome.
> it's only complex because we (collectively) decided to complicate it in order to accommodate the preferences of small subsets of society
None of these people selected a "preference" at birth, and may go their entire lives and have children without ever realizing that their chromosomes and their reproductive organs do not match the XX/XY binary you've presented.
> anything else = unclassified (genetic defect handled on a case-by-case basis)
This would mislabel XXX, XXY, XYY people as "defects" for genetic circumstances that do not necessarily have any visible presentation, that people may not be aware of at all.
It also mislabel some, but not all, intersex people as "defects". Intersex people span the entire spectrum of known chromosome combinations in human beings: Human bodies produce one or more sets of (often) fertile reproductive equipment regardless of what chromosomes are or are not present.
Ironically, then, focusing on XX/XY classifications while disregarding the realities of human biology always results in an invalid classification system that is more likely to harm cis people than intersex people.
I think an important distinction people are looking for is:
It's not the mere existence of a person that's an issue, but rather the coercive, punishing activism that takes place around a false idea that human rights are at risk, while these personal choices are simultaneously being celebrated by nearly every government institution and major corporation in existence.
The same activism requires full acceptance by parents, families, and children who do not want these choices influencing their personal lives.
To say these rights are at risk is an outright lie.
It's one thing to have a significant voter base opposed to those choices and still be fully able to live and express those choices freely and publicly — while it's a whole different issue to have governments actively enforcing a different private life against their will (specifically LGBTQ folks).
While I agree that institutions and corporations are more actively participating in human rights issues in the recent past, something I think is a really good thing, I don't see the aspects of that coverage that are coercive or punishing. Your argument disingenuous on two points:
1) Nowhere, in history, does "government actively enforcing a different private life against one's will" mean "you are forced to live or participate in a transgender life". For the entirety of history government and corporations have actively forced "different" people like Lynn to conform to your expectations of them. See Lynn being fired from IBM.
2) "To say they are at risk is an outright lie". The rhetoric and social norms around the existence of transgender people enables violent people to murder them. They are absolutely actively at risk. What other phrase, besides "at risk", would you use to explain that transgender people are 4 times more likely to be murdered. They are literally killed for being different and because we dehumanize them.
I look forward to the day that what you say is true. That there are people who oppose those choices but that transgender people can live a free and public life without being murdered for being themselves. I think what you're putting forward sounds great.
> The trans activists don't want that. Equal treatment and tolerance isn't enough for them, they demand dominance above all else.
Equal treatment and tolerance.. Ever since I started transitioning, people have treated me much worse, and I live in a so called liberal city. My pharmacist looks at me like I'm a freak. I've had slurs thrown at me several times while I'm just out minding my business. Half my family wont even... I don't know what parallel universe you live in where people are treated like this equally..
Where do you find all this time to hate on a group you don't even remotely understand? I'm happier than I've ever been and it seems like all of yall are making it your business to make that as miserable as possible.
Outside of calling it hate, why do you think people even in the most "allied" places respond to you in that way? Do you think perhaps they're afraid they may be helping an activist who may deem their services unacceptable? The track record has it that in these situations, service providers are at a major disadvantage, if anything remotely goes wrong during their interactions.
If activists belonging to protected classes are creating such enormous fear, do you feel misrepresented by them? What are you willing to do to help remove that fear? Do you think it creates an unfair imbalance?
This writing has a lot of parallels with the writings of men who are scared of women after the metoo movement.
Anyway, you're conflating fear with disgust. I haven't seen much fear, if at all; what I have seen a lot of is, hate that looks the exact same as before trans activists had any platform.
This has little to do with human society. Western society, maybe. Plenty of other societies don't assert a distinct binary for gender (which doesn't even exist in sex; intersex people exist at the same rates as people that are red-headed, and you wouldnt call red heads unnatural).
Even if it was "natural" you're making the choice to treat someone like shit. You can backpedal onto what all your peers are doing all you want, but that doesn't change how you as an individual are making another human being, who has done nothing to you, feel
Why do service providers who provide inadequate service need protection? They choose to be shitty service providers and they suffer the consequences. Basic free-market right there bud - either the market wants the same thing as the activists and money, prestige, etc flow to those who agree with the activists, or the market doesn't want it and those service providers who the activists are happy with fails.
> Like when we said we want to get married, we made the point that this doesn't affect in any way the marriage that heterosexual people have, because the rights are actually the same.
> The trans activists don't want that. Equal treatment and tolerance isn't enough for them, they demand dominance above all else.
Gay rights opponents said the same about you. A gay man and a straight man had the same right to marry a woman. You denied it was equal. And a separate but mostly equal status wasn't enough for you. You demanded they call it marriage.
Agreed. This is evidenced by the existence of boards enforcing ESG standards, and management enforcing DEI programs throughout most corporations and businesses, in order to protect against even the slightest perceived threat against discriminatory hiring decisions made entirely around immutable traits, rather than skill and merit.
Disney's leaked hiring standards document earlier this year is a smoking gun, and it's a safe assumption most other corporations towing the same line have the same or similar reprehensible hiring standards.
DEI is patently anti-white and anti-straight, and its rhetoric and materials (everything from training to editorials) are not shy about expressing it in plain terms that it is a revenge campaign masked by good intentions and a smile. All in a way that mirrors the beginnings of 20th century atrocities around the world, that were also rooted in hatred towards specific groups perceived as threats to society on the basis of immutable traits.
> these personal choices are simultaneously being celebrated by nearly every government institution and major corporation in existence
This is very incorrect, and an indicator that you should broaden the sources you get information from. Your other comments corroborate this, you have skewed view of the world that is based on looking at a small slice. It's not that they're fabricating things, it's that they do not give you an accurate view of the magnitudes of the forces and movements in the world.
There are however a bunch of things which is political like: Laws governing universal health care, laws governing minors rights to make decisions as minors, laws that makes distinctions between genders, cultural norms around bathrooms (which is mostly a stupid cost-cutting measure), and norms around cultural sports (which are fairly arbitrary).
Out of those, the first two should likely remain being political, while the two last ones should be resolved, and the middle one should just not exist.
A persons right to exist is not political
(This isn't a dig at OP but it's worth restating)