Should the public be forced to participate in a delusion?
Certainly, compassion for people suffering from gender dysforia is appropriate, but must others be forced to pretend their delusions are real?
Transgender Rights?
Published
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum
A place for civil discussion of the events of the day for Tidewater residents without the limitations imposed by media forums.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
“Pretend their delusions are real” ??
That’s a cryptic comment; are you implying that their gender identity issues are all in their head? Gay people choose to be gay type thinking?
LikeLiked by 1 person
People with gender dysforia may sincerely believe themselves to be different from their physical and genetic form, but other people cannot be expected to accept that belief.
Other people must deal with the physical reality.
No matter how sincerely Bruce Jenner wants, and believes himself to be, Caitlyn, if he follows my 14 yo granddaughter into bathroom at the mall, I’m going to object,
However sincere a transgendered person’s sexual identity might be to him or her, others are not required to accept that belief.
LikeLike
“follows my 14 yo granddaughter into bathroom”
The irony of that situation is best addressed by switching the genders involved.
True story: a female who identified at a very young age as male and who has now (20 years later) been living as a man told me; “the weird thing about the bathroom debate is that I would feel like I’m doing something inappropriate, even wrong, by using a women’s restroom in public”.
I’m not pretending it’s an easy issue to address, and I hope we evolve to a better way of thinking about it.
My faith in in future generations that have more (word of the day) tolerance.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You refer to gender dysphoria as a delusion. That seems awfully odd coming from someone who claims to be about individual rights. From Merriam-webster.com , the second definition of delusion:
“psychology : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary”
From behavenet.com, the definition of gender dysphoria: “Persistant discomfort with assigned gender and conviction that one belongs in a body of the opposite gender.”
It appears that the DSM definition of what you refer to as a “delusion” is a mental health issue.
You call it “compassion”. I call it a basic human right. You want to be treated in an appropriate manner based on your beliefs and who you are. Yet you seem to want to question that same treatment to others.
LikeLiked by 2 people
This is another example of the known inability of the “conservative” mind to deal with ambiguity and conflicting evidence with this display of intolerance. Everything is NOT black and white. Most things are shades of gray. Gender is not a simple either-or proposition but you insist on treating it as such?
Could not help but notice how the bigotry addressed to this young man was wrapped in religion. It seems these “Christians” never stop to ask . . . WWJD?
LikeLiked by 2 people
I have also noticed a tendency to “binary thinking” on the part of the less tolerant. I wonder which developed first. Does the intolerance lead to simple good/bad delineations for the sake of justifying an intolerant position? Or it more a case of lazy simple-mindedness?
IDK, perhaps it’s a combination of both based on an individual’s knowledge and reasoning ability.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This sort of binary thinking can be identified in very young children and is highly predictive of conservative leanings in adulthood. In other words a “conservative” mind is a mild disability that explains the oversimplification of complex issues and the prominence of stereotypes in “conservative” views of public issues. Reality with all of its ambiguities, complexities and conflicting information is simply too much to deal with for those born with this condition.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Keep in mind that this is a civil forum.
Insults directed at an entire class of people must be supported by fact.
At this point, I would say you owe the entire conservative movement an apology for an unsubstantiated characterization. Such characterizations are no different than racism.
LikeLike
RE: “must others be forced to pretend their delusions are real?”
I say No.
In my view gender dysphoria is a serious mental health condition, but because it is exceedingly rare, those who suffer from it do not deserve full constitutional protection. Instead, the legal test should be “reasonableness.” Because gender dysphoria is rare, reasonable accommodations on behalf of the patient should be sufficient to preserve his constitutional rights.
Put another way, because of the rarity of the disease, it would be unreasonable to expect society to make special or universal accommodations for those who suffer from it.
Put yet another way, the appropriate resolution is social (or cultural), not legal.
LikeLiked by 1 person
…” those who suffer from it do not deserve full constitutional protection. ”
Who else, in your opinion, doesn’t deserve full Constitutional protections? By your reasoning, anyone can be excluded from Constitutional protection. My understanding is the Constitution protects ALL Americans. Why do you feel a need to exclude anyone?
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Who else, in your opinion, doesn’t deserve full Constitutional protections?”
One-legged lesbian dwarfs, among others.
LikeLike
Not sure if you’re being serious or not. Based on the history of your commentary, I’d say you mean it. So there are individuals in this country, who, in your opinion, are not deserving of legal and Constitutional protection?
Who’s next on your list; 50+ year old Jewish males with progressive tendencies?
LikeLike
RE: “So there are individuals in this country, who, in your opinion, are not deserving of legal and Constitutional protection?”
Do you think the quantity of one-legged lesbian dwarfs is greater than the quantity of gender dysphoria sufferers? If the number of one-legged lesbian dwarfs is huge — approaching half or two-thirds of the general population — then the need for constitutional protections might make sense. If the number is miniscule, then the reasonable accomodation rule should be sufficient to protect their rights.
Forcing every facility in the country to install special one-legged-lesbian-dwarf bathrooms would be less preferable than simply encouraging the general population to be respectful toward one-legged lesbian dwarfs.
LikeLike
Perhaps that wasn’t worded correctly. Everyone’s RIGHTS are protected but I question whether that gives you POWERS over others.
Bruce Jenner has the RIGHT to believe he is Caitlyn, but does he have the RIGHT to compel me to believe it?
I would say no. He has the right to believe what he wants but not to compel me to believe, any more than Rep Omar has a right to compel me to be a Muslim.
LikeLike
I can’t see where anyone is suggesting that you should be compelled to “believe” what you do not.
The issue is THEIR right to be treated as what they ARE.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“what they ARE.”
I am a 70 yo somewhat out of shape man, If I ‘identify’ as a 30 yo, irresistibly attractive Scotsman, does that require women to find me attractive?
What they are is a person of one of two genetic and anatomical genders who sees themselves as a person of the other gender. From outside their head, nothing has changed.
LikeLike
Well, you have made it clear you believe it is a simple “choice” to be what they fundamentally are (look at the science). I believe you spectacularly miss the point by deflecting to the “requirement’ to agree.
I’m surprised at 70 yo (regardless of shape) that you think it’s simply inside their “head” and therefore not real.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I would suggest changing “what” to “who”.
LikeLike
“you believe it is a simple “choice””
No, I don’t. That’s not the point.
However real their perception is to them, they simply don’t have the right to demand others sacrifice their rights to support that perception.
They are free to believe they are whatever gender seems right to them, but their rights end where the rights of others are transgressed.
LikeLike
“I am a 70 yo somewhat out of shape man, If I ‘identify’ as a 30 yo, irresistibly attractive Scotsman, does that require women to find me attractive?”
In the movie “Secretariat”, the winning jockey was at a victory party with a tall, extremely attractive woman. Someone asked him how he managed to find such a woman since he was about 5 foot tall or so.
His answer was a classic: “I’m much taller when I stand on my wallet.”
Physical attributes are very much a subjective quality when it come to human relations and interactions.
If a person spends a lot of time, money and effort to change sex to in the face of scorn and even threats of violence, I tend to give that person the benefit of at least accepting whom he or she thinks he or she is.
Human sexuality is complicated. Complicated both by chemical and genetic effects we don’t fully understand as well as cultural norms that vary both from era to era and place to place.
Some forms such as pedophilia cannot be tolerated since it involves both children and involuntary submission. And there are other taboos, of course.
But gender identity, cross dressing, gay and lesbian lifestyles are not going to make a whit’s worth of difference to me or my life.
IMHO
LikeLiked by 3 people
‘The heart wants what the Heart wants.’
I get that. And I don’t deny that their perceptions are very real to them, and to the extent that it does not impose burdens on others, people should be able to live as they choose.
But that’s were it ends. If a person does not feel comfortable using the restroom that matches their genetics and/or anatomy, it is reasonable to provide a restroom that does not require them to, but it does not empower them to invade the privacy of others. In this case, the school provided a gender neutral bathroom, but that was not enough, the student demanded to use the bathroom with other that did not share her/his anatomy.
That was an abuse of their rights to privacy.
LikeLike
RE: “My understanding is the Constitution protects ALL Americans.”
My original comment addressed this: “Because gender dysphoria is rare, reasonable accommodations on behalf of the patient should be sufficient to preserve his constitutional rights.”
LikeLike
“rarity of the disease” ??
If it is not addressed as a “legal” issue people that hold beliefs similar to your own will continue to treat them as “lepers” who must be segregated from society. Your comments make that abundantly clear. Perhaps read my post on interance.
LikeLiked by 2 people
How does substituting a “reasonableness” test for a constitutional one make “lepers” out of anyone?
LikeLike
The “test” itself presupposes that there is a legitimate basis for “others” to determine “reasonableness” based on their own biases.
LikeLiked by 2 people
By that logic, even a constitutional test at legal argument makes transgenders into lepers.
My position is that transgenders deserve to be treated as human beings. There is more than one way to accomplish that, some with fewer costs or consequences than others.
LikeLike
Here we have a novel principle. People with profound but rare conditions should not have the equal protection of the law. How rare does the condition have to be before their rights are to be suspended? So
A transgender man should be required to use the rest room and shower facilities for women because people like you don’t think society should accommodate them? So, what should society do when women protest that a man is being forced to share their facilities?
LikeLiked by 1 person
intolerance
LikeLiked by 1 person
Shouldn’t a person trying to live their life in their own particular way that makes sense to them, outside the rigid male/female dichotomy imposed on them by society be exactly the kind of thing a Libertarian could get behind?
LikeLiked by 1 person