... when you say "they are a woman" what you are really doing is using figurative language.
What you are actually doing is replacing simile with a metaphor,...
It's a failure to preserve figurative language, and failing likewise to understand that you are inserting imagination where only mechanism belongs.
... I didn't say "they are a woman"; ...
My point here is that generally, there is and has always been a variety of interests as regards hormonal change.
... We should allow this.
... We should allow this.
... we should do this following some period of delay.
... We should allow this too, under the same conditions.
... I don't think hormones should necessarily be about that.
I think they should be about...
... I think adults thinking of changing hormones should have to...
... nor having any ethical obligation to...
That's an awful lot of "should"s to try to justify all the "you"s in your previous post with. I was making "is" statements. "Ought" to "is" arguments are rarely any better than "is" to "ought" arguments. So when your point here is some point that isn't actually about me and my posts, how about leaving me out of it?
You make no argument with "is". None. Argument on the subject of justification of any state, current or modified, comes from an ought, so if you don't have one, you have no business debating in the thread about what
ought be done for and about trans kids, irrespective of what is being done, which is clearly fucking evil.
Prevaricating on other bullshit about whether people should be expected to be "trans" to access is not necessary, especially when making allusions to further unnecessary decisions that the thing we are calling "trans" here, because it's the vogue term, are really just all members of the class "wants to change hormones from default anatomical process".
Unless you can produce "ought not", the position to stand on is either "let them do whatever, assuming they consult with mental health professionals first."
That's it. That's all there is. So what are you here to argue about? Are you just here to jerk around and shit on the subject of the thread, which is supposedly about efforts in various states to prevent only some people from physiological situations that they allow for others of the same age and maturity range, and other peer classifiers.
It is about the state taking measures to stand between, to declare an OUGHT:
people OUGHT always accept the shape of their body, and the chemicals it produces.
I strike it through, because it is a lie. When someone's body produces excessive alcohol as a byproduct of eating grains, for example, or when their anatomy produces a chemical which causes a tumor to grow that will consume excessive bodily resources, or which itself produces a toxic byproduct are trivially obvious examples where we widely acknowledge a person's right to seek redress even over the function of their own body, through chemical or structural alteration.
You can either provide real positions on ought here, based on a goal. When you can establish a goal, "is" can be intersected with the goal to produce oughts, in the form of ought (apply strategic model) for (%chance of) goal. For instance I think in the puzzles thread you had some insight or another for what prisoners ought do in a particular life/death scenario, derived from a goal (life > death), and an IS, a scenario description.
Goals can either be justified a lot of ways but in the absence of "harms none" by some strong and satisfying definition of harm, "I can, so I will, and you can't stop me" is generally recognized as a fucked up non-justification and wrong, and may actually be the basis of the human idea of evil.
Also, it is hypocritical to ask I leave you out of "it" when you decide "it" is the subject of thread you seem to want to be
into.
My thought here is that we should find rules we can agree on rather than talking about what are apparently rules we can't.
It is unacceptable to the goals of "trans" individuals, here the entire class of those who intercede on their hormones actively, a class which includes myself, to force long term consequences of exposure to hormones they have vociferously objected to exposure to and to which they continue to object. It is violation of informed consent to decide between equally livable lives and morphologies which they will live with for them.
It is further unacceptable to the goals of such people to maintain their privacy in exposing the shape of a genitalia, especially when hostility is a common immediate reaction despite innocuity. It is a violation of their actual safety in a place where they will unavoidably be challenged physically for their anatomical choices.
It is unacceptable to the goals of people who don't want to be made pregnant to have to expose their genitals for ablutions while people who can make them pregnant are immediately about. People have a desert to consent or not to their exposure to sperms.
It is unacceptable to the goals of people who wish to compete fairly with those of similar competitive advantages to be asked to compete with those who are recently exposed to banned steroids to the league in banned quantities. It is a violation of the foundational principles of gaming and good sportsmanship to expect people who don't use steroids to compete with those who do.
It is unacceptable to the goals of having the widest possible range of choices when one reaches the age of majority where they are allowed to make particular choices, to allow decisions that close choices permanently before the age at which they can even make them. Because reality dictates, is of the form, that we cannot go back and unmake the mistakes of the past without great and painful efforts.
That's the ought I operate on, because there is a set of goal conflicts there which must all be satisfied in the solution.
We can throw away such goals as "fails to feel safe" because anything can make someone feel unsafe. It can mean anything to anyone, and is too vague in this way to be considered as being reliably done in good faith. Such otherwise exclusion of all goals, and trivializes goal based thinking to nonsense. People have a direct and natural right to all feelings of anxiety concerning that which
actually makes them unsafe. When we can demonstrate that is not the case (thanks
@Loren Pechtel !), There is an obligation to read the evidence and accept it, or refute it through academic debate, not political debate.
We can throw away "fails to exclude that which has visible (nonfunctional) irrelevant anatomy" because the anatomy is irrelevant to the mechanisms of the behavior of the individual and nonfunctional. Treating that which is irrelevant as relevant is contradictory on the surface of it. This is a good example of a goal directly designed as unacceptable to the above!
We can throw away "fails to constrain system to man/woman" because as sta directly touch on something that is necessary and sufficient to either "man" or "woman". Men don't
deserve ownership of all feats accomplished of strength and skill in the presence of testosterone. Nor do women
deserve ownership of all feats of strength and skill in the absence of it or presence of estrogen.
There is no justification of either desert, of some manner of exclusivity because
no exclusivity exists between the classes. Again we are confronted with something that is hopelessly vague and can prove any claim, a trivialization of the whole goal oriented prove any position.
Likewise any such goal exclusion which can be used to arbitrarily declare any goal unacceptable can be hucked out.
So at the intersection of what we have left, the remaining goal exclusions, get us through to everything we need to restrict, and the way we need to disallow things, and the remainder of the class, quite large a remainder, gets to be applied so long as it doesn't get excluded by the above.
That closes the loop all the way to where I say kids should, ought, be allowed to pick their puberty. This is assuming they care to pick at all, but if they want to make a choice with consequences, such as to start on a hormone that will give them breasts, it should be at the age where most people are trusted to start making and observing others making decisions about, for example, who they show their breasts to.
We do not let 9 and 10 year olds flash breasts about, or make advertisements of sexuality using their breasts.
Generally we scold 12 and even 14 year olds when they are so irresponsible with their anatomy.
But lo, someone turns 15, and we start looking the other eye when they get in a room and let their boyfriend get a hand full, and when they turn 16 and 17, it's irresponsible to not make them take a fresh condom on every date, even if nothing should happen.
We have no business at that point from preventing accesa to hormones that give them power to make those decisions any longer.
All of that is based on an observation of reasonably unacceptable actions within the system.
