I wonder if Jenner has to give back her Olympic Gold Medal for winning the men’s decathlon, she’s a woman, right?
Well, and that she doesn’t abuse her position to hand out plum consulting gigs to her SO, then try to hide the evidence.
At the time, she was physically a man.
Aren’t you doing the same thing? Most of your ‘traditional morality’ has a history that only goes back a few decades to maybe a few centuries, the majority of it was considered extremely radical at the time, so there’s no real longevity to it. But you take the parts that are easy for you (like dressing in traditional masculine clothing), pretend that some parts of the tradition that are too widely acknowledged as horrible today don’t exist (like ‘niggers should always defer to white men’), and keep parts that put you on top (like forcing women into ‘traditional’ roles).
“This system requires treating a lot of people absolutely horribly, but it fits what I want and puts me on top of the heap, so you’re terrible if you don’t agree with it” doesn’t sound very admirable to me.
Oh, another example of traditional values: traditionally it was legal for a husband to force his wife to have sex with him - ‘we were married at the time’ was a defense to all rape charges. It wasn’t until the 1970s that the law began changing in the US, and not until 1993 that spousal rape became illegal in all 50 states (and it followed a similar track in Europe, this wasn’t a weird US artifact). Do you really support the traditional value system, in which married women lose the right to decide who they have sex with, or the newfangled system of treating women as actual people that isn’t even 100% implemented in all states yet?
It seems you are missing a very fundamental part of my argument: It does NOT fit what I want. I put forth effort to change my behavior and correct my weaknesses for the sake of achieving the expectations society places on me. If I only defined proper conduct in terms of what gave me personal gratification, or things I could achieve without effort, the resulting moral system would be very different indeed.
So if my value system is wrong, how do you know that your value system is superior to mine? What if tomorrow someone comes up with a new value system that normalizes behavior you find immoral? Then you get to be the bigot and someone else gets to claim superiority?
I could either repeat my first post in this thread, or urge you to go back and reread it. In short, it ain’t about having standards; it’s about defending specific standards as good. Some are horrible bullshit, and others aren’t.
Horsefeathers, she was only running her lobbying business out of the governor’s office … the fact remains she was over 18 at the time, and that’s a BIG step up from a certain other Oregon Governor.
But I digress … gender identity has no effect on work ability … so it should never be a standard for employment.
These are all perfectly valid and important questions. Life as a human being is complicated, largely because of this very issue of diverse value systems.
One thing that often helps reconcile these differences is considering more abstract virtues or principles as well as specific norms or standards. Concepts like justice, fairness, liberty, kindness, courage, self-discipline, compassion, etc.
If people dress or behave unconventionally for their birth-assigned gender, for example, what harm does it actually do? I agree that restrictions in the military rule out people just wearing and doing whatever the hell they want at all times, but conformity is part of what they signed up for so that’s reasonable.
But even in the military, what on earth does it matter in 99.99% of all situations whether a particular servicemember was assigned the same gender at birth that they’re identifying with now? I presume you aren’t going to be seeing your subordinates’ genitals no matter how they’re configured (unless you happen to be medical personnel, and I think I remember you claiming a different specialization). So what can it possibly matter to you whether the enlisted man you call “Mr. Smith” happens to have a penis or a vagina in his regulation skivvies?
Sounds like a reasonable standard to me … she certainly deserves the Gold Medal, that sport isn’t as easy as it looks.
No argument from me. I’d take Kitz back anyway, 'cos I’m a sucker for the guy…but he’s definitely lightyears away from the schmidthead rapist.
Or, as in Kate’s case, sexual orientation. 
The fundamental difference you don’t seem to grasp is simply this: You chose to change your behaviour in order to comply with what you feel society expects of you (as a man); trans-gendered and gay people live their lives despite what society expects of them.
So you’re arguing in favor of a value system that you don’t actually even want? I don’t believe it. You like the value system and have sunk effort into it, and don’t want to have to change what you’re used to to take into account basic human rights and medical reality. You’ve said yourself that you like having ‘standards’, and that for you to be happy those ‘standards’ have to be what you grew up with, so by the way I use the words it means that it very much fits what you want.
What do the traditional values that you think people should follow as ‘standards’ say about black people bowing and scraping to white people or married women being allowed to decide if someone sticks a penis in them? Either your value system has changed radically from what ‘society’ told you when you were growing up, or you’re bigoted against a lot of groups other than just trans people.
Hopefully I will be able to keep improving and becoming a better person. My opinion on GLBT people, while never highly bigoted, were certainly less egalitarian in the past than they are now. I’ve never placed value on social conformity for it’s own sake, and have always felt that people, including brown people, vagina bearers, and GLBTs should all have equal rights under the law, so I’m not likely to suddenly move into the ‘bigot’ category.
I think in our current society, having standards of behaviour is seen as being counter to the needs and wants of the individual. And there’s plenty in the Bill of Rights to support this notion. The founding fathers were very concerned with the protection of minority opinions and individual desires. And some attitudes in the military and the socially conservative 50’s run a bit counter to this ideal. So, in some ways I think we’re actually getting back to the original intent of the founder’s of our nation. But, in other ways, it’s been taken too far. I believe Bruce Jenner has every right to do alter his sexual identity, but, he’s no hero for doing so.
Well, in regards to this particular subject, my value system (let people be the gender they want to be) isn’t hurting anyone, and is helping certain people quite a lot. On this particular subject, your value system isn’t helping anyone, and is doing considerable harm to certain people.
My value system, in this particular subject, also happens to be backed up by the majority of medical studies done on the subject, and the personal testimonies of the people directly effected by it. So, on this particular subject, I’m pretty certain that I’ve made the right call. Lots of other subjects where I’m less certain, and I know I’ve made a few in the past that were just balls-out wrong. There aren’t a whole lot of certainties in life, in my experience.
As for living under a moral system that normalizes something I find immoral, I’ve been doing that for my entire adult life, thanks.
Techne- art, skill, know how. Knowing how to bring change in the world.
Phronesis- prudence, practical wisdom. Knowing whether and why to do something.
Nous- intellect, understanding, insight, intuition. Ability to grasp principals.
Episteme- logical reasoning. Scientific method. Opposite of opinions or common beliefs.
Bigots are almost defined as failing.
There’s nothing wrong with having personal standards, but organizations should try and accommodate everyone otherwise there is sure to be discrimination.
Strictly speaking I don’t know, in an objective sense, if my ethical system is better or worse than yours.
However, as someone who lives in a rules-driven system surely you can understand that I strive to live by my ethics. The thing is, mine might differ in some ways from yours.
For example, I strongly believe that if an action doesn’t harm someone then I can’t forbid it, even if I do not myself care for it. This would even apply if I was in the military where, in order to minimize risk to life and limb, members have to be more restricted in behavior than they would be as civilians. So something harmless in civilian life might indeed be hazardous in military life.
I also believe that saving lives is important and can require certain actions that, outside of that context, are not OK.
For example, I can’t condone chopping someone’s foot off. That’s just abhorrent. It’s criminal - UNLESS it’s for a medical reason. If someone has gangrene in their foot amputation is preferable to letting them die. We even have specialists in our society (we call them “doctors” and “surgeons”) who are authorized to make determinations as to whether or not such extreme actions are necessary and perform them in a manner that minimizes additional negative things and maximize the chances of recovery and return to as normal a life as possible.
So, one of the things that changed my position on transgender issues was finding out that transgender people have absolutely horrific rates of suicide, as well as other problems. That is a problem, a sort of spiritual gangrene if you will, that can justify extreme actions if that leads to a better outcome. The truth is, post-transition transgender people are still at a higher risk of suicide than pre-transition transgender people, but it’s not as bad as before transition.
If you value human life (and I do) and you think that we should act to preserve life (and I do) then even if you find the treatment icky or disturbing or frightening certain treatments have to be allowed or even condoned if that’s what it takes to save a life.
If allowing transgender people to transition reduces the death rate and improves medical and psychiatric outcomes then I argue we have to allow it. That doesn’t mean I’m arguing that such people will be “normal” afterwards, many of them continue to have high levels of dysfunction afterwards, but if it’s better for them then I think we have to accommodate them just as we accommodate people in wheelchairs or post-stroke, or diabetics, or anyone else with a medical condition that requires treatment.
How I, personally, feel about the treatment (in this case, gender transition) doesn’t matter - what matters is whether it improves the condition of the people receiving the treatment.
OK, so if I’m understanding your original post correctly, you, personally, found the expectations that our culture places on men to be unpleasant, not a natural part of your personality, maybe even outright oppressive. So, having suffered yourself as a result of those expectations, why on earth would you not want to see them change? (This is a mindset that I totally don’t get – although it seems to be a surprisingly common one, e.g., people who have joined an organization that requires painful and unpleasant hazing often argue strenuously against the abolition of hazing for future members. The only thing I can figure is that they feel like if they had to suffer, they want that suffering to be worth something, and abolishing it is an admission that it was needless and meaningless in the first place.)
But that’s just it; this isn’t a weakness to be corrected. There are things worth putting effort into; this isn’t one of them.
If someone comes to me and asks, what should I do for society – well, I’d talk about what it means to be a productive member of society: a law-abiding citizen who works hard and pays their taxes and does their duty; I’d recommend looking into serving in the military, but I’d add that saving lives as a civilian is a fine thing as well, whether as a firefighter or a paramedic or whatever – and that military officers and medical professionals and et cetera don’t just happen, that people need teachers in much the same way that they need cops – and that I’ve known fine men who donate their labor to soup kitchens or their blood to the injured and so on.
And if the reply is, I’m on board with that, but is it okay if my spouse is a dude, or maybe sure, but I’d like to dress like a woman, or whatever, then I’m going to reply, why would that matter? Don’t bother me with irrelevancies; just get to work.