Then what, pray tell, do you suppose he is trying to say? He argues that until you can contrive a way to forcibly apply a single specific ethical system to the transsexual group, to the exclusion of all other ethical systems (including the “selfish bastard” ethical system), then you may not enforce any ethical system on them. It is, of course, impossible to objectively force one specific ethical system on people if all ethical systems, including contrived and stupid ones, are assessed as having equal merit, which means that no ethical systems apply to anybody.
Why would he make this argument if not than to say the the transgnedered needn’t be bothered by trifling things like ethical considerations for people they might be inclined to lead unawares into sex with a transsexual?
(I will accept “I don’t think he had any rational reason for stringing those words together” as a valid response.)
Edit: his post prior to this one makes it further clear what his position on this matter is.
What’s there to know? The predjudice has nothing to do with the flesh bits they happening to be wearing at the moment; it’s whether they fall into the class of people who ever had some assessed-as-relevent abnormality to their sexuality or sexual history. I don’t see how the current condition of their naughty bits somehow trumps the fact that their prior condition is also relevent to the question.
And the sexual preference of all gays could be quite easily argued as irrational. And the sexual preference of most straights could be quite easily argued as uninformed.
So what is YOUR definition of bigotry? Does it include these two groups? Can we overtly disrespect and seek to subvert their sexual preferences?
Personally, I don’t see that large a moral difference between tricking somebody into having sex with somebody they don’t want to have sex with, and forcing somebody to have sex with somebody they don’t want to have sex with. So it seems to me that any rationale that supports knowingly deceiving a person into sex would very likely also support raping that person. And if gays are bigots…does that mean that I can morally rape any lesbian? You know, justifiying it by dehumanizing-I-mean-disrespecting their bigotry against me and my gender in the matter of sex?
Despite the arguments of those who wish to absolve the transsexual of their obligation to be a moral and decent human being, the issue at hand is not the obligations of the other guy. The question is what are the ethical responsibilities of the transsexual.
And the “they should have to ask, and hope the transsexual is not an overt liar in addition to a deceiver by omission” position is overtly one that claims that the transsexual has no ethical responsibilities whatsoever. Screw em, rob em, and stab them in the back when you’re done, if they’re fool enough to sleep with you!
Everyone has the right to make irrational and uninformed decisions - not just you.
And frankly, as a man who ignorantly prefers women, I am willing to be called a bigot (though I will assess the people who do so as fools themselves), as long as nobody knowingly decieves me as to the nature of my romantic partners. I’m willing to put up with the harm that is unethically done by fools who wish to slander my name, but not the harm done by sneaky bastards who want to sabotage my romantic and/or sexual relationships.
Ah, so you subscribe to the “Let the buyer beware - because if somebody deliberately does horrible things to them, it’s entirely the victim’s fault for not detecting and avoiding the attack themselves” ethical philosophy.
That’s a very handy set of ‘ethics’ to have, if you want to have carte blanche to go around hurting people and doing evil for your own selfish benefit. It’s also one that allows transsexuals to snooker people without ethical qualm, which would make it handy to have while arguing the side you’re arguing.
