Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

First, my apologies, as this post seem a little off-topic. But this one word seems central to Good_Egg's position here:

Liberty is a principle in it's own right, not some sort of arbitrary midpoint compromise between competing interests. A point of the triangle, not the midpoint of a line.

Looking around on the interweb, it seems as though Liberty is a political ideology, not a principle, and perhaps not philosophy either. So, when you talk of liberty being a principle,

principle
noun

1. a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning

Example: the basic principles of justice

In what sense do you refer to liberty as a "principle", in the context of this discussion about gender and trans people?

[Fried Egg]

As I see it, on could phrases it as a principle like this: Liberty is an inherently good thing. Then you might reason from this towards positions that you think maximise it.

When it comes to the gender debate what position follows from an attempt to maximise liberty? To some extent, liberty is always in tension with itself. Or rather the liberties of different groups might conflict with each other if their ends cannot both be met. We see this in the tension between trans people wanting to be treated in society in all ways possible as women, where some women want the ability to freely associate and to be able to exclude men. How to resolve this conflict is the question and there's no easy answer, even if you guiding principle is maximising liberty (which some people see as an inherently good thing).

I honestly believe that much of this tension arises from the conflation of gender and sex.

[Sy Borg]

Ultimately, I see an an issue with the imposition of mental binaries on nature, which is never perfectly binary. Think of any binary in nature, anything represented by yin and yang, and there will be an intermediate zone. It might be a very tiny intermediate zone, and/or very transient, but there is always an intermediate zone between binaries in nature.

Perhaps you think I am arguing for strict social / legal rules that demark people according to the biological categories of sex? If that is the case, please let me disavow you of that notion. I have only argued that there are some instances for which that distinction (based on sex) is important.

For the most part, such binary distinctions aren't important and people should be free to live their lives how they want to.

I think we already agreed on these - sport and women's refuges. As for prison, I think it needs to be genital based due to the sexual dynamics - penises in male prisons and vaginas (including surgical ones) in female prisons.

[Good_Egg]

In what sense do you refer to liberty as a "principle", in the context of this discussion about gender and trans people?

Fair question. The word "principle" means something like "fundamental rule". Combining two concepts:
- the idea that something is basic, close to the root of the matter, a founding idea from which other ideas follow
- the idea of a rule, something that is applied in all cases, to everyone whether you like them or not

Principled people are those who have principles and act on them. Whose policy is not determined by the level of sympathy or repulsion that they may feel (e.g. towards sexual deviants).

In one sense it was a poor choice of word, for which I apologise. Because, on reflection, in my head liberty is not truly fundamental, but is an outworking of a more basic idea. I tend to think that those in positions of power should do the thing that offers greater liberty because that's what they would want others to do if they were in someone else's power. (Rather than choosing greater liberty only when it's convenient for them or accords with their idiosyncratic judgment as to the best balance of other goods).

But maybe that's going too far into political philosophy.

I'm conscious that I left an earlier question unanswered...

[Pattern-chaser]

In what sense do you refer to liberty as a "principle", in the context of this discussion about gender and trans people?

Fair question. The word "principle" means something like "fundamental rule". Combining two concepts:
- the idea that something is basic, close to the root of the matter, a founding idea from which other ideas follow
- the idea of a rule, something that is applied in all cases, to everyone whether you like them or not

Principled people are those who have principles and act on them. Whose policy is not determined by the level of sympathy or repulsion that they may feel (e.g. towards sexual deviants).

Describing someone as "principled" is generally intended as a compliment. So here, you seem to be implying — but not saying aloud, in the long tradition of implication — that those who hold the same views as you, toward "sexual deviants", are principled, and therefore to be admired. I'm having a hard time seeing what this has to do with gender...

All I can really see in your words is someone who prefers to make life decisions using only logic and reason. No feelings; no emotion; no humanity. Please explain how I have misunderstood. Thanks.

[Fried Egg]

For the sake of illustration, we can perhaps imagine:
- a society where male/female difference is rigidly enforced with penalties for pretending to be the opposite sex
- a society where the male/female distinction has been abolished and replaced with a distinction between masculine/feminine - psychological "gender identities" - enforced with penalties for "misgendering"
- a society with no penalties, where borderline and non-borderline individuals are free to self-present as the opposite sex and others are free to accept or reject that presentation.

I'm not quite clear why visions of the future, or an imagined present, should involve "penalties". Especially as the option nearly everyone would select from your list — the option we already have, I should observe — has no penalties.

What am I misunderstanding?

I don't think it's accurate to say that we already have the third vision of society (i.e. no penalties) when many people have lost their jobs for refusing to accept someone else's presentation of their gender/sex. Although we do indeed seem to be moving towards that position now which hopefully we all here can agree is a good thing?

[Fried Egg]

The more I think about this though, many people might not be guided by the principle of maximising freedom. Instead, they might be guided by the principle of minimising harm. And clearly, this might lead one to support the adoption of a different policy on this issue.

In either case, there is a conflict of interests for which a balance must be struck. In the case of minimising harm, I think that it may well depend on exactly which harms (and to whom) you recognise, and how you quantify them.

[Pattern-chaser]

I don't think it's accurate to say that we already have the third vision of society (i.e. no penalties) when many people have lost their jobs for refusing to accept someone else's presentation of their gender/sex.

We are in the process of forming our codes, rules, and laws about a new (to us) thing. Our current position seems to be that mere discourtesy can lead to violent harm, and so some people have their much-vaunted freedom of speech constrained. To prevent potential, but serious, harm.

If being discourteous and hurtful is more important to you than respecting your fellows, then IMO you *should* lose your job, or be dismissed from it.

The more I think about this though, many people might not be guided by the principle of maximising freedom. Instead, they might be guided by the principle of minimising harm.

Oh, yes. Very, very much yes! Harm needs opposing immediately. Freedom is less urgent.

[Fried Egg]

I don't think it's accurate to say that we already have the third vision of society (i.e. no penalties) when many people have lost their jobs for refusing to accept someone else's presentation of their gender/sex.

We are in the process of forming our codes, rules, and laws about a new (to us) thing. Our current position seems to be that mere discourtesy can lead to violent harm, and so some people have their much-vaunted freedom of speech constrained. To prevent potential, but serious, harm.

If being discourteous and hurtful is more important to you than respecting your fellows, then IMO you *should* lose your job, or be dismissed from it.

Well, obviously I don't agree with this but whether you are correct or not, many people agree with your position and activists have ensured that we don't live in the third scenario that Good Egg described above. People are not free (in many cases) to reject other people's presentation of their gender.

Note, I think people should be free to live their lives according to whatever gender identity they like, but people should also be free not to participate. i.e. Live and dress like a woman all you like but if a woman wants to form a social group that only includes women, they should be free to disallow men (in accordance with their sex, without regard for their gender identity).

The more I think about this though, many people might not be guided by the principle of maximising freedom. Instead, they might be guided by the principle of minimising harm.

Oh, yes. Very, very much yes! Harm needs opposing immediately. Freedom is less urgent.

With respect to children, I tend to agree. That's why I oppose the prescription of puberty blockers/cross sex hormones and transitioning surgery to children; to protect them from harm.

When it comes to adults though, I think maximising freedom should be our guiding principle and not minimising harm. Hence people should have the freedom to do all of those things if they want. Although, if one clings to the principle of the harm minimisation, should we be allowing people to damage their otherwise healthy bodies with surgery for cosmetic reasons? No doubt activists will say that the psychological harm of not allowing people such surgery makes it worth it. Such a point is debateable, but the key point here is whether you are talking about minimising harm or maximising freedom, there is always a trade-off.

[Sy Borg]

The more I think about this though, many people might not be guided by the principle of maximising freedom. Instead, they might be guided by the principle of minimising harm. And clearly, this might lead one to support the adoption of a different policy on this issue.

In either case, there is a conflict of interests for which a balance must be struck. In the case of minimising harm, I think that it may well depend on exactly which harms (and to whom) you recognise, and how you quantify them.

I am guided by reality.

It's simply a logical an rational error to reduce any aspect of reality to binary poles and then claim nothing exists in between. Something always exists in between. Always. That's reality.