Should bakers be forced to make gender transition celebration cakes?

[Ruth Harris]

Where is the victim?

Actually, this one I can answer. In the moral view of the baker, the transgender individual is harming them self and is the victim. This view is not held only by those who are believers; this is a fairly common viewpoint among conservative people. In their view, self harm should not be celebrated.

The transgender individual may consider that their actions are completely moral and without fault but that is not the view held by a large part of society, any more than assisted suicide is considered a moral act on the part of the individual. In both cases, there are numerous people who believe it is the responsibility of society to protect those individuals from their self harming actions. That point of view also precludes any celebration of the action.

I still have not decided my stance on transgender individuals so this is strictly an intellectual exercise for me, but there are a lot of people who hold the view I describe. This is far from a settled issue.

My primary argument against forcing a baker to create something for this celebration is still the fact that the baker is not just a cook, he is an artist – and artists should not be forced to create their art to suit a particular political viewpoint. If we start forcing that, it will be to our detriment in my opinion.

Ruth

 

[untermensche]

The transsexual is saying this is something they want to celebrate. They are saying they are in no way a victim and are not being harmed.

How does some outsider prove the transsexual is really a victim?

To overcome the claim from the transsexual that they are not a victim you would need absolute proof they are.

Not just a claim from an uninvolved party.

My primary argument against forcing a baker to create something for this celebration is still the fact that the baker is not just a cook, he is an artist – and artists should not be forced to create their art to suit a particular political viewpoint. If we start forcing that, it will be to our detriment in my opinion.

A cake can have a viewpoint if specific words are written on it.

A cake with no words has no viewpoint.

If the customer wants to pretend something is said by the cake that does not mean the baker put it there.

Pretending does not require that.

I can pretend the Washington monument is a large pencil.

Does that mean the builders put that message there?

 

[Jarhyn]

The transsexual is saying this is something they want to celebrate. They are saying they are in no way a victim and are not being harmed.

How does some outsider prove the transsexual is really a victim?

To overcome the claim from the transsexual that they are not a victim you would need absolute proof they are.

Not just a claim from an uninvolved party.

My primary argument against forcing a baker to create something for this celebration is still the fact that the baker is not just a cook, he is an artist – and artists should not be forced to create their art to suit a particular political viewpoint. If we start forcing that, it will be to our detriment in my opinion.

A cake can have a viewpoint if specific words are written on it.

A cake with no words has no viewpoint.

If the customer wants to pretend something is said by the cake that does not mean the baker put it there.

Pretending does not require that.

I can pretend the Washington monument is a large pencil.

Does that mean the builders put that message there?

I believe this is because you can't prove it. It's not even a reasonable claim to allow people to make at all in the vast majority of situations. Outside of guaranteeing that someone has the proper oversight that has been shown to be effective in filtering impulse, -- raw invasive biological shoves towards action -- out of life/death decisions, there's no such thing is "harm to self" that may reasonably be asserted and stood in the way of.

The only reasonable response to what is identifiable as "impulsivity" and even then only as a temporary measure, is to ensure due diligence of thoughtfulness and reflection, to the capabilities of the seeker. Any other interference is an unacceptable imposition against their identity.

 

[ZiprHead]

Make the cake, then pray to gawd for forgiveness. All will be good then.

That's how it works, right?

 

[untermensche]

The transsexual is saying this is something they want to celebrate. They are saying they are in no way a victim and are not being harmed.

How does some outsider prove the transsexual is really a victim?

To overcome the claim from the transsexual that they are not a victim you would need absolute proof they are.

Not just a claim from an uninvolved party.

My primary argument against forcing a baker to create something for this celebration is still the fact that the baker is not just a cook, he is an artist – and artists should not be forced to create their art to suit a particular political viewpoint. If we start forcing that, it will be to our detriment in my opinion.

A cake can have a viewpoint if specific words are written on it.

A cake with no words has no viewpoint.

If the customer wants to pretend something is said by the cake that does not mean the baker put it there.

Pretending does not require that.

I can pretend the Washington monument is a large pencil.

Does that mean the builders put that message there?

I believe this is because you can't prove it. It's not even a reasonable claim to allow people to make at all in the vast majority of situations. Outside of guaranteeing that someone has the proper oversight that has been shown to be effective in filtering impulse, -- raw invasive biological shoves towards action -- out of life/death decisions, there's no such thing is "harm to self" that may reasonably be asserted and stood in the way of.

The only reasonable response to what is identifiable as "impulsivity" and even then only as a temporary measure, is to ensure due diligence of thoughtfulness and reflection, to the capabilities of the seeker. Any other interference is an unacceptable imposition against their identity.

You can put somebody into the hospital under watch, not able to leave, if they say they intend to hurt themselves.

They of course understand that what they want is to harm themselves.

They do not say they are not harming themselves.

 

[Jarhyn]

I believe this is because you can't prove it. It's not even a reasonable claim to allow people to make at all in the vast majority of situations. Outside of guaranteeing that someone has the proper oversight that has been shown to be effective in filtering impulse, -- raw invasive biological shoves towards action -- out of life/death decisions, there's no such thing is "harm to self" that may reasonably be asserted and stood in the way of.

The only reasonable response to what is identifiable as "impulsivity" and even then only as a temporary measure, is to ensure due diligence of thoughtfulness and reflection, to the capabilities of the seeker. Any other interference is an unacceptable imposition against their identity.

You can put somebody into the hospital under watch, not able to leave, if they say they intend to hurt themselves.

They of course understand that what they want is to harm themselves.

They do not say they are not harming themselves.

I don't accept that anything someone wishes to do to themselves is necessarily "harm" even if that thing is "kill themselves".

What is necessary to determine if it is harm or merely goal fulfillment is some time and perhaps external perspective to filter out mere impulse from being the arbiter of such decisions.

That is the extent to which I find myself supporting such putting people "under watch".

 

[untermensche]

I believe this is because you can't prove it. It's not even a reasonable claim to allow people to make at all in the vast majority of situations. Outside of guaranteeing that someone has the proper oversight that has been shown to be effective in filtering impulse, -- raw invasive biological shoves towards action -- out of life/death decisions, there's no such thing is "harm to self" that may reasonably be asserted and stood in the way of.

The only reasonable response to what is identifiable as "impulsivity" and even then only as a temporary measure, is to ensure due diligence of thoughtfulness and reflection, to the capabilities of the seeker. Any other interference is an unacceptable imposition against their identity.

You can put somebody into the hospital under watch, not able to leave, if they say they intend to hurt themselves.

They of course understand that what they want is to harm themselves.

They do not say they are not harming themselves.

I don't accept that anything someone wishes to do to themselves is necessarily "harm" even if that thing is "kill themselves".

What happens if the person says they will harm themselves and then do?

You may not consider it harm but the family will.

And if a medical doctor knows about the desire to harm themselves and does nothing that doctor can be sued by the family.

 

[Jarhyn]

I don't accept that anything someone wishes to do to themselves is necessarily "harm" even if that thing is "kill themselves".

What happens if the person says they will harm themselves and then do?

You may not consider it harm but the family will.

And if a medical doctor knows about the desire to harm themselves and does nothing that doctor can be sued by the family.

It is not my place to decide what is harm vs goal satisfaction for another person. Nor is it yours. Nor anyone else's place. It is not "the family's place" either.

I don't care about games of tort or who some asshole says can sue some other asshole over self-actualization of intent.

Your baked in assumptions that you have a right to determine what constitutes harm causes problems for you.

I read this, without your begged question "what if someone wants to do something, and then does that thing?" To which the answer is "they get what they want".

It goes back to the same things being discussed in another thread: if a fetus has no right to the life and organs of another person to continue living, a family member has no right to the continued life (etc) of another person, either.

I'm going to take the hard line here: no natural right exists to the existence of another, not for happiness, nor for life, nor for any other reason. So to that end, no natural right exists to determine what is, for another, "harm".

 

[untermensche]

Many of these people are grateful they were prevented from harming themselves.

It is a temporary feeling that passes in time.

 

[Jarhyn]

Many of these people are grateful they were prevented from harming themselves.

It is a temporary feeling that passes in time.

You seem to not be taking in the full communication at once on the subject. There is, in this discussion that I have offered, a concept of impulse, or 'temporary feeling that passes in time' which must be filtered to ascertain "real" desires. I am discussing what happens "after the moment has passed".

Which is to say, it's OK in my mind to tell someone who says "I wish to kill myself!" to consider all the various things that most people who express this desire to do so normally then cease their desires after considering, and to take a moment to step out of the immediate context which suggested the course and finally re-engage with the decision; however it is not acceptable to say "this is harm" and say they may not even following that deliberation. To do so is to harm them with their own existence, for they have clearly offered that existence to them is harm more than non.

 

[untermensche]

I'm trying to say there is a thing called mental illness.

And it can be helped.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't accept that anything someone wishes to do to themselves is necessarily "harm" even if that thing is "kill themselves".

What happens if the person says they will harm themselves and then do?

You may not consider it harm but the family will.

And if a medical doctor knows about the desire to harm themselves and does nothing that doctor can be sued by the family.

Once again you think there is an objective definition of what is right.

Not everyone thinks that killing oneself is always doing harm. For many people there comes a point where all that's left in life is suffering. Some places recognize this and allow doctors to provide reliably lethal drugs when the patient requests them, or even administer them at the patient's request.

When what is driving someone to wish for death is temporary the proper solution is to get help. However, when there is nothing that can be done why should they be made to suffer against their will?

I knew someone who chose to take their own life for medical reasons and I have no problem with her decision. She didn't have much time left anyway and then broke her hip--with that fall she knew the rest of her life was to basically lie there helpless. I know another person who considered it and I would have had no problem with it had they decided to.

 

[untermensche]

I don't accept that anything someone wishes to do to themselves is necessarily "harm" even if that thing is "kill themselves".

What happens if the person says they will harm themselves and then do?

You may not consider it harm but the family will.

And if a medical doctor knows about the desire to harm themselves and does nothing that doctor can be sued by the family.

Once again you think there is an objective definition of what is right.

Not everyone thinks that killing oneself is always doing harm. For many people there comes a point where all that's left in life is suffering. Some places recognize this and allow doctors to provide reliably lethal drugs when the patient requests them, or even administer them at the patient's request.

When what is driving someone to wish for death is temporary the proper solution is to get help. However, when there is nothing that can be done why should they be made to suffer against their will?

I knew someone who chose to take their own life for medical reasons and I have no problem with her decision. She didn't have much time left anyway and then broke her hip--with that fall she knew the rest of her life was to basically lie there helpless. I know another person who considered it and I would have had no problem with it had they decided to.

Euthanasia is a separate topic from a healthy patient saying they want to hurt themselves.

 

[Gospel]

Once again you think there is an objective definition of what is right.

Not everyone thinks that killing oneself is always doing harm. For many people there comes a point where all that's left in life is suffering. Some places recognize this and allow doctors to provide reliably lethal drugs when the patient requests them, or even administer them at the patient's request.

When what is driving someone to wish for death is temporary the proper solution is to get help. However, when there is nothing that can be done why should they be made to suffer against their will?

I knew someone who chose to take their own life for medical reasons and I have no problem with her decision. She didn't have much time left anyway and then broke her hip--with that fall she knew the rest of her life was to basically lie there helpless. I know another person who considered it and I would have had no problem with it had they decided to.

Euthanasia is a separate topic from a healthy patient saying they want to hurt themselves.

That sort of ducking, weaving, and goal post moving is normal around these parts.

 

[Jarhyn]

Once again you think there is an objective definition of what is right.

Not everyone thinks that killing oneself is always doing harm. For many people there comes a point where all that's left in life is suffering. Some places recognize this and allow doctors to provide reliably lethal drugs when the patient requests them, or even administer them at the patient's request.

When what is driving someone to wish for death is temporary the proper solution is to get help. However, when there is nothing that can be done why should they be made to suffer against their will?

I knew someone who chose to take their own life for medical reasons and I have no problem with her decision. She didn't have much time left anyway and then broke her hip--with that fall she knew the rest of her life was to basically lie there helpless. I know another person who considered it and I would have had no problem with it had they decided to.

Euthanasia is a separate topic from a healthy patient saying they want to hurt themselves.

That sort of ducking, weaving, and goal post moving is normal around these parts.

To be fair, the position I take is twofold, and perhaps selfish, as well: I wish to do things to my body many would perceive as "harm". But I won't overshare right this moment. I would, I think, be biased towards a philosophy where I am the final arbiter of what I do with my body, assuming any assistance rendered in walking the actual path of it is done with mutual consent, or barring that, contract.

In the same way as tolerance must not false-tolerate intolerance, though, the only right someone does not have is to become, unilaterally and universally, a weapon.

At any rate, I'm going to fight for the right to modify, penetrate, destroy, and whatever the hell else to my own body, and anyone else's right to do the same, and to not be forced out of any store in the marketplace for doing it, and ultimately have my will for myself be respected, again assuming I'm respectful of the respectful goals of others.

 

[untermensche]

Your right can't be taken away.

Don't talk to anybody.

Then go harm yourself. Nobody can stop you.

But when you start talking about it to doctors or other healthcare professionals you will be treated as if you are asking for help.

 

[Gospel]

Yeah, it's not like doctors and healthcare professionals don't make it clear what they are there to do. Even Jack Kevorkian made it clear what has was there to do.

 

[Jarhyn]

Your right can't be taken away.

Don't talk to anybody.

Then go harm yourself. Nobody can stop you.

But when you start talking about it to doctors or other healthcare professionals you will be treated as if you are asking for help.

Again, calling it "harm". That's not your decision to make, because you don't have their experience by which to make that determination.

The point here is that I can't successfully accomplish my goals (same as for trans people) without help from some doctor somewhere. It is asking for help. Offering help that is not what was requested is the issue. There ought be no red tape there, only yellow caution tape.

Now, my goals involve continued existence. But I'm not about to be a hypocrite and say other people's goals must also involve continued existence.

 

[untermensche]

Your right can't be taken away.

Don't talk to anybody.

Then go harm yourself. Nobody can stop you.

But when you start talking about it to doctors or other healthcare professionals you will be treated as if you are asking for help.

Again, calling it "harm". That's not your decision to make, because you don't have their experience by which to make that determination.

The point here is that I can't successfully accomplish my goals (same as for trans people) without help from some doctor somewhere. It is asking for help. Offering help that is not what was requested is the issue. There ought be no red tape there, only yellow caution tape.

Now, my goals involve continued existence. But I'm not about to be a hypocrite and say other people's goals must also involve continued existence.

I don't make these kinds of decisions.

But this is reality.

Shake the cage all you want.

You talk about harming yourself to doctors and you may well be Baker Acted.

Even if somehow you want to claim that harming yourself accomplishes a greater good for you it is still harming yourself.

With euthanasia it is still harming yourself even if to prevent imminent and possibly drawn out pain, physical or psychological.

The issue is not whether harming yourself is harming yourself.

The issue is whether or not you should be free to do it and when you should be free to do it.

 

[Jarhyn]

Your right can't be taken away.

Don't talk to anybody.

Then go harm yourself. Nobody can stop you.

But when you start talking about it to doctors or other healthcare professionals you will be treated as if you are asking for help.

Again, calling it "harm". That's not your decision to make, because you don't have their experience by which to make that determination.

The point here is that I can't successfully accomplish my goals (same as for trans people) without help from some doctor somewhere. It is asking for help. Offering help that is not what was requested is the issue. There ought be no red tape there, only yellow caution tape.

Now, my goals involve continued existence. But I'm not about to be a hypocrite and say other people's goals must also involve continued existence.

I don't make these kinds of decisions.

But this is reality.

Shake the cage all you want.

You talk about harming yourself to doctors and you may well be Baker Acted.

Even if somehow you want to claim that harming yourself accomplishes a greater good for you it is still harming yourself.

With euthanasia it is still harming yourself even if to prevent imminent and possibly drawn out pain, physical or psychological.

The issue is not whether harming yourself is harming yourself.

The issue is whether or not you should be free to do it.

It is what others will declare, unethically, harm. The whole point of this discussion is the shape of that cage, and the identification of it as one, that some people unilaterally declare "HARM!"

I will always fight to dismantle such a cage, first with my words.

At issue here is what may be declared "harm".

I say this because I have been coming at this for some time and the only world wherein someone can kick someone out of a store for asking for a birthday cake for Hitler's birthday, and not kick someone out for asking for a cake "for harming themselves" is when the dividing line is on who gets to declare the harm. If only the harmed may declare harm, then there are a lot of people who are harmed and would feel reasonably threatened with harm to know that person was in the store, espousing support of a violent ideology (anything connected with the actions of Hitler).

As the actions of the trans person are directed at someone who DOESN'T declare harm, this creates the expected situation. This is also consistent with everything I've learned about consent and harm since elementary school, I'm inclined to think it's what creates the dynamic which various parties to the thread otherwise tramp and stamp and otherwise despise, where their buddies can't celebrate Hitler day or whatever but Scardinia gets to celebrate cutting on her junk.