Philosophy Discussion Forums

Fried Egg wrote: ↑Yesterday, 2:12 pm When it comes to adults though, I think maximising freedom should be our guiding principle and not minimising harm.

Why? Serious question. What makes it so clear to you that one should over-ride the other? Harm needs urgent opposition, more urgent than "freedom" does.

Fried Egg wrote: ↑Today, 4:08 am ...do you think that the conflation of gender and sex has lead to some people feeling hurt?

Not really. I think that denial of someone's gender has lead to hurt, in some cases. Just like, as an autist, one's very humanity is denied by the NeuroTypical majority, who insist we suppress ourselves, and pretend to be like everyone else, or we are rejected. "Be someone else, or get lost; *YOU* are unacceptable to us!". Attitudes like that cause great hurt and harm.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑Today, 8:57 am

Fried Egg wrote: ↑Yesterday, 2:12 pm When it comes to adults though, I think maximising freedom should be our guiding principle and not minimising harm.

Why? Serious question. What makes it so clear to you that one should over-ride the other? Harm needs urgent opposition, more urgent than "freedom" does.

When I talk about a policy of "minimisation of harm", I am talking about protecting people from themselves. i.e. with children, it makes sense to have rules to protect children from themselves because we judge that children aren't fully cognizant of the implications of their own decisions. We don't hold them fully responsible for their mistakes but we restrict their freedom accordingly.

Adults are judged to be cognizant of the implications of their decisions and as we hold them responsible. Consequently, they have (or should have) the freedom to make decisions that might be bad for them (like smoking cigarettes).

No need to point out that some adults really don't know what they're doing and some children do. The law draw must draw the line somewhere and is inherently arbitrary. But unless you are going to abolish age restrictions and the legal age of responsibility and judge each individual on a case by case basis (something which just isn't practical), this is inevitable.

So we allow adults to do things that might be damaging to themselves (such as engaging gender re-assignment surgery) because freedom has trumped harm minimisation. Although we do seem to be moving away from freedom maximisation towards harm minimisation even among adults and I'm very opposed to that. I don't want to live in a "nanny" state and why should another set of adult individuals get to decide what's best for others?

Fried Egg wrote:...do you think that the conflation of gender and sex has lead to some people feeling hurt?

Not really. I think that denial of someone's gender has lead to hurt, in some cases.

But you don't get it. We're not denying anybody's gender. We are talking about their sex. So no need to feel hurt about it.

Just like, as an autist, one's very humanity is denied by the NeuroTypical majority, who insist we suppress ourselves, and pretend to be like everyone else, or we are rejected. "Be someone else, or get lost; *YOU* are unacceptable to us!". Attitudes like that cause great hurt and harm.

Not at all. We are not telling people to align their gender identity with their biological sex. We are just asking to be allowed to make the distinction between gender and sex.

And if they do feel oppressed by the mere statement of biological reality, then that's on them.

This quote was added after I'd posted this note. But it fits well:

Fried Egg wrote: ↑Today, 9:22 am But you don't get it. We're not denying anybody's gender. We are talking about their sex.

...

We are just asking to be allowed to make the distinction between gender and sex.

An imagined example, intended to illuminate some of the arguments in this topic.

Let's say that I have a penis, but that my brain is configured in the way that is typical for a 'normal' female. And let's also say that we have definitive and conclusive evidence of both (external organs and internal brain biology).
N.B. my brain is part of my physical and biological being, just as my penis is.

So never mind "gender", for now, what is my "biological sex"?

One aspect of my biology says male, but another, equally physical and biological, aspect of me says female.

It seems strange to me the idea that one would develop anatomically in a highly typical way for one's sex and yet their brain be developed according to the opposite sex. After all, the brain is part of the body and is "sexed" according to the same chronozones and hormones. It makes more sense in the case of intersex individuals who's developed abnormally but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about individuals who are perfectly typical and normally developed according to a particular sex in all ways except for the brain, which as developed normally according to the opposite sex? It would seem to be a highly unlikely possibility to me.

However, you are asking me to consider this as an "imagined example", a hypothetical case as it were, so I will put such reservations aside for a moment.

Even in such a case as you describe, it is one's anatomical sex that would be the pertinent concern in most cases (where it should be a concern at all). For instance, in woman's sports, what is of concern is not the masculine/feminine structure of the brain, but whether the body as a whole has gained the benefits of male development which incurs some innate advantages over women physically. Or the separation of women in prisons. The danger of putting male prisoners with female comes from the physical bodies of men, not from their brains.

So ultimately, it is the anatomy of an individual that is important when it comes to one's sex. Although I would think it is highly unlikely the brain itself would be at variance with the rest of the body (in the vast majority of cases).