GC & QT: Where should we draw the line between human rights and entitlement?

submitted by Penultimate_Penance from self.GCdebatesQT

One of the biggest problems of government is figuring out what the ground rules should be that allow multiple religions, ideologies and cultures to coexist peacefully.

That's why the government should never be in the business of forcing one group's ideology/religion or what have you on the rest of society. Government should be there to prevent people from going at each other throats, so they can more or less peacefully coexist and agree to disagree.

Rights enshrined into law should be based on actual essential needs not wants.

Rights:

Freedom of speech

Freedom of association (The right to choose who you date, who you marry, who you are friends with, who you live with, who you allow in your private events, meetings & organizations)

Right from irrational (sex, race, age, disability) discrimination in public life (housing, employment, education, public services/businesses, healthcare, public sports organizations, government)

Bodily Autonomy (Especially reproductive autonomy)

Freedom of belief

Sex based protections that take into account the objective easily verifiable difference between male bodies & female bodies to provide as much as possible privacy, dignity and safety for both sexes in public life. (We have very good essential need reasons for these sex based protections. Your subjective belief in a gender identity does not override these reasons.)

Entitlement:

Demanding the rest of society validate your personal subjective identity (Violates other people's freedom of belief)

Demanding to be included in private events and social gatherings that you are not invited to (Violates Freedom of Association)

Demanding people consider you as part of their dating pool whether they want to or not, bullying coercing and stigmatizing people who do not want to date you (Violates bodily autonomy & freedom of association)

Demanding to be treated as the opposite sex in private and public life (In public life you are destroying people's sex based rights, in private life you are violating people's freedom of association, also denying freedom of belief)

The right to swing your fist ends where my face begins. The trans movement would have more support if they stopped stepping on everyone else. The biggest problem is that they are demanding to be treated as something they are objectively not, namely the opposite sex. If the trans movement is not denying the reality of sex, why are they demanded to be included in opposite sex sports, prisons, shelters etc.?

Freedom of religion must include freedom from religion. Freedom of ideology/beliefs must include freedom from being forced to abide by other people's ideologies/beliefs. (With the exception of the secular essential rights ideology that we use to make it possible for people with diverse beliefs to live in the same society) Gender atheists have just as much a right to live in this world free from harassment with their essential rights intact as any one else. We already have charted a middle ground for everyone to live together peaceably. Trans activists are actively destroying essential human rights at everyone else's expense. This cannot stand.

Thoughts?

Edit: Formatting

all 41 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 17 insightful - 2 fun17 insightful - 1 fun18 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

“The trans movement would have more support if they stopped stepping on everyone else.“

This. So much this.

I remember the slogan used to be “trans rights = human rights”

They don’t realize that that doesn’t mean they get everything they want no matter how many other people lose their rights to accommodate them. They also don’t realize that “human rights doesn’t equal female rights” unless you’re actually a (biological) female. It also doesn’t mean “trans rights over everybody else’s rights”. It has always baffled me that they don’t seem to understand that they are trampling on so many people’s rights. I can’t think of any other marginalized community that has fought for the ability to be invasive and force their beliefs on everyone else. Everyone else seems to just advocate for equality, trans rights activists advocate to be the exception to equality. It seems like any community that trans people attempt to associate with ends up worse off. Be it women, lgb, even the blm thing (I know blm was started by LGBT black people, but they were able to focus on black lives as a whole, until TQ didn’t feel like the focus and they destroyed the narrative and intent by turning on black lives that weren’t TQ lives). It’s like they step on everyone’s rights and everyone’s necks to get what they want, then act surprised and offended when people protest.

[–]Penultimate_Penance[S] 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

That's a really good summation of the problem. Authoritarianism often wears the mantle of victimhood.

The trans movement reminds me of young earth creationists and other fundie religious movements who claimed that their religious freedom was being violated when they weren't being allowed to force their beliefs on the rest of society anymore. I think that is a big recurring problem with many religious and ideological movements where they forget that freedom of belief cuts both ways. The moment movements impose their personal subjective beliefs on the rest of society they become authoritarian tyrants. No ideology/belief system is immune to authoritarianism, so we always need to keep our guard up, especially if people who purport to be on our side start advocating for it.

Also the trans movement saying "trans rights = human rights" really pisses me off. They stole that directly from the women's liberation movement. Trans people's humanity has never been denied, but women's full humanity has been denied as long as we have written history and likely before that up to this very day. There are countries where women are still not allowed to own property or go out in public without being accompanied by a man then these people with their luxury belief in a gender identity barge in and claim that being called he instead of she is a denial of their humanity. It drives me absolutely batty. Trans activism at it's core is a parasitic movement.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Also the trans movement saying "trans rights = human rights" really pisses me off. They stole that directly from the women's liberation movement.

That’s their MO, as far as I can tell. They rewrite history, compare themselves to other marginalized groups who fought for rights, even when the circumstances aren’t comparable, and they parrot the arguments and slogans of actual equal rights movements. I think it’s because they know if we associate them with people who actually did have to fight for equality, most people will be more inclined to support them, because we associate them with a cause that was actually worth supporting. They have to tie themselves to lgb, and feminism, and even racial equality because their situation is so utterly unique that it can’t stand alone. Also, if they present themselves as allies to lgb, women and poc, then a lot of members of those groups/communities will feel obligated to be trans allies. It has to be a parasitic movement in order to “move” at all.

[–]MarkTwainiac 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

They also don't have a clue what the term "human rights" actually means legally. Nor do they understand how and why "human rights" developed in international law.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That’s a really great point

[–]SilverSlippers 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Rights are based on things that are needed for survival and function in society. Entitlements or Privileges are things that might be nice or make life easier but are not necessity.

The right to free speech and the right to vote aren't exactly needed for individual survival, but its needed for societal function. These rights to come with some harms. People will say things that are upsetting. People will elect idiots. But the alternative is worse.

Participating in the sports league of your choice and having sex with/dating specific people are privileges.

Bodily Autonomy is a right for consenting adults, not children. Children and teens do not understand the long-term effects of their choices and have poor risk management skills. Bodily autonomy also only works when adults understand the choice they are really making. Plastic surgeons lying to patients and exaggerating the benefits of their procedures violates this right.

[–]MarkTwainiac 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Bodily Autonomy is a right for consenting adults, not children.

Just to clarify: the right to bodily autonomy never has meant, nor should it mean, that people have the right to get whatever prescription, medical procedure or surgery they want from doctors just by demanding them. Medical practitioners have their rights too - and used to be, most were still bound by codes of ethics and evidence-based medicine.

Also, even societies that put great stock in individual civil liberties and privacy still put checks on the bodily autonomy of adults. In many jurisdictions, abortion is limited to a certain time in pregnancy, and to certain dire situations beyond that. Surrogacy is restricted by law in most countries/states, and banned outright in a growing number of them. Most jurisdictions make it illegal for adults to buy or hold drugs like opium, heroin and meth even if they are just for your own personal use. Most jurisdictions also have put in place laws limiting prostitution.

There's always a balancing act between the personal bodily autonomy of individuals and what's best for others and the larger society. Used to be, people in countries like the US had an automatic right to smoke cigarettes any place they wanted to. People smoked pretty much everywhere - at home, in offices and other work places, in restaurants, clubs, bars, theaters, airplanes, concert halls, sports stadiums, trains, elevators, waiting rooms, doctor's offices, hospital cafeterias, lobbies and waiting rooms - even in hospital patient rooms. It was very difficult to find smoke-free environments.

But after more and more research came out documenting the negative effects of smoking on smokers as well as of "second hand smoke" on people who didn't smoke, municipalities gradually put in place new laws restricting smoking in public and shared spaces. First, cig smoking was confined to certain sections of restaurants, bars and movie theaters - and gradually it was banned outright. Similarly, in offices, office buildings and other work places, smoking was initially restricted to certain areas - but then employers and entire buildings banned it completely. The dramatic changes in law and policy were the result of a sea-change in the public perception of how far individuals' right to bodily autonomy should go.

Also, many people think it's reasonable and best for adults to restrict their own bodily autonomy in certain situations, such as when TTC, pregnant, breastfeeding, raising children, caring for the sick and elderly, serving in positions of responsibility, operating a motor vehicle, driving a plane or trains. We have laws that say every adult has the right to try to obtain a driver's license, but even amongst licensed drivers no one has a right to drive while drunk, stoned or tripping.

In other circumstances, it's customary for adults to voluntarily restrict their bodily autonomy rights. For example, in most jurisdictions, women are not required by law to abstain from alcohol, recreational drugs, caffeine and a host of other substances when TTC, pregnant and breastfeeding - but the majority of women abstain from these anyway. Similarly, lots of people restrict their own right to bodily autonomy coz they think that doing so will be of benefit to loved ones and others they care about.

[–]Penultimate_Penance[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Those considerations for bodily autonomy totally make sense. I like that distinction between needs and societal function as well. What we consider human rights and how those rights are enforced is a very delicate balancing act.

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That's a really good question. Human rights seem focused on autonomy without infringing on the autonomy of others, which makes sense, but the entitlements mentioned seem like they might be predicated on aspirations of equality, or rather, using aspirations of equality and combatting exclusion as justification for trying to control people. Exclusion and inequality are very real problems in many aspects of life, and I would think most people want to try to fix those problems, but obviously those are being used as excuses to try to control people's thoughts and opinions via legislation or policy. Entitlement that criminalizes or punishes thought just seems wrong, and unenforceable. Wanting to have access to the same things that everyone else is understandable, but trying to change perception by law ("the law says you have to think of me this way and address me this way") is where entitlement seems to be just bratty and childish and bring out the worst connotations of that word. At first thought, that's where I would think lines should be drawn.

If the trans movement is not denying the reality of sex, why are they demanded to be included in opposite sex sports, prisons, shelters etc.?

I think the argument made is that identity takes precedence over biology; who we are as people in our hearts and minds should be more important than who we are in our bodies. That's a lovely ideal, it would seem to give people more potential dignity and freedom from the constraints of biological realities that might give way to adversity, but as soon as someone decides they want to use their body to their advantage or to oppress someone else, then the illusion gives way because those ideals aren't total dictators of this reality we all share. And being creatures of convenience, that's why there is a push to have identity take precedence maybe.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

identity takes precedence over biology; who we are as people in our hearts and minds should be more important than who we are in our bodies. That's a lovely ideal, it would seem to give people more potential dignity and freedom from the constraints of biological realities that might give way to adversity, but as soon as someone decides they want to use their body to their advantage or to oppress someone else, then the illusion gives way because those ideals aren't total dictators of this reality we all share.

This is an excellent take and really sums up the appeals to niceness and “just let me be” arguments we often see from tra and libfems.

[–]censorshipment 3 insightful - 7 fun3 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 7 fun -  (7 children)

I disagree with freedom of association, right from irrational discrimination and bodily autonomy.

  • Domestic abuse should be a political issue, but it's almost impossible to police people in their own homes. So maybe people shouldn't be able to date whoever they want since people aren't good judges of character and ignore glaring red flags. I would prefer for the government to prevent abusers from preying on gullible people. Yes, that's a wild idea... but domestic abuse is a major problem everywhere because, let's be real, people just want be "carefree" (idiotic) and fuck. So no to freedom of association. Also, sex trafficking is a major problem because of this freedom. Dozens of men are meeting to rape trafficked women/girls in one location. People should call the police to say "I've seen 35 men going in and leaving a house today... they may be raping victims of sex trafficking in there."

  • Irrational discrimination (I'm thinking about paranoia) can be beneficial for potential victims, but people turn it around as "victim-blaming". For example, when a black young woman Renisha McBride (19) was shot and killed while seeking help in a white neighborhood after 4am, that could've been avoided had she not been in a white neighborhood to begin with. Racists have an irrational fear of us (black people), so the onus is on us to stay the fuck away from them.

  • Bodily autonomy. I don't really support the "my body, my choice" bullshit because millions of insecure, self-hating people are being exploited by the cosmetic industry (sadistic surgeons)... those people are volunteering to be test subjects in unethical experiments.

[–][deleted]  (6 children)

[removed]

    [–]loveSloaneDebate King 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    “Intra-racial crime” is really proximity crime. It’s much less likely that a black person would have killed a black woman (who was obviously injured and needed help) for knocking on their door trying to get assistance.

    [–]censorshipment 2 insightful - 7 fun2 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 7 fun -  (0 children)

    Yes. I think she would've been more likely to be raped by a black man (if she knocked on the door of a man living alone) than to be shot in the face in a black neighborhood.

    [–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears[M] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

    This sub isn't meant to debate questions about race nor do we care for Alt right talking points here.

    [–]HeimdeklediROAR 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (15 children)

    That's why the government should never be in the business of forcing one group's ideology

    There is an argument that all values and morals are subjective, so all laws are inherently about enforcing one groups ideology over all society. For instance I think humans eating animals and generally treating them as expendable is, the single most horrific thing that humans have ever done and that all such things should be banned with harsh consequences for people who eat/harm animals in cases where their immediate survival isn’t on the line. Many people would probably disagree with me and Would defend humanity’s “right” to eat and do with animals as we please regardless of the unnecessary suffering it inflicts on beings whom are literally kin to us (if you believe in evolution). Some people vehemently feel though that they have the right to do this and that to legislate otherwise is the very definition of tyranny. How would you go about settling this difference in views?

    [–]loveSloaneDebate King 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

    I think the distinction is that while kin, animals aren’t humans, so human rights don’t apply to them. Which is why people have the freedom to eat animal products or not.

    [–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 4 fun1 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 4 fun -  (13 children)

    Okay, but unless there is further logic there that explains why non-human animals don’t deserve the same rights as humans (say the same rights as human babies to avoid silly questions like “should dogs be able to vote?”) the statement that humans deserve human rights because there humans seems like a tautology.

    I guess the question is then why should we specifically favor humans with rights that prevent them from being eaten or skinned or whatever, when animals can suffer just as much? Intelligence doesn’t work because not all humans are more intelligent then all other animals. What other than power justifies humans inflicting needless suffering on other beings?

    Also this is ignoring the fact that species is a social construct, but let’s not open up that can of worms here as it’s not truly relevant to the issues.

    [–]loveSloaneDebate King 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

    I mean... animals can and have eaten humans lol

    Humans can advocate for themselves and communicate across languages and different cultures. So even if we factor in the amount of humans who aren’t smarter than animals, humans in general still have more sophisticated methods of communication and more sophisticated society than animals. Animals can’t really do what humans can do as far as creating rights for themselves. That’s why it’s always been up to humans to fight to protect them. Humans have a right to advocate for animals if they wish, because there’s no way for animals to do it for themselves. But if it’s “human rights” there’s not really any reason that animals should be covered under those rights, simply because they aren’t human.

    I agree the way animals are treated by some humans is atrocious, but it doesn’t violate human rights to treat animals that way.

    Im not saying I don’t agree that animals should be treated better, I’m just explaining why it doesn’t violate the concept of human rights in any way.

    [–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (11 children)

    I mean sure on a tautological level human rights are for humans because they’re humans, but I’m asking for a logical reason for animals to be treated the way they are under the law. Societal or communication sophistication doesn’t really make sense logically, as we have used the same reasoning as justification for oppressing/wiping out other cultures that were deemed “less sophisticated” but we now rightfully view such behavior as egregious and horrific. And I doubt even the people who held/hold such a view would still hold it if the situation were reversed. So other than the fact that human rights by definition are concerning humans, what logically justifies such behavior when applied to non-human animals?

    [–]loveSloaneDebate King 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

    My point is they don’t have to justify it, horrific as it may be, because animals aren’t human and thus aren’t covered by human rights. That’s all I’m saying- we are discussing human rights specifically. So animals don’t apply. Even if humans are upset by how animals are treated, it doesn’t disrupt their own rights for animals to be abused.

    I agree that animals are treated badly by humans, and I agree they should be treated better. I’m only explaining why humans can “get away” with mistreating them. It’s literally simply because they aren’t humans, and aren’t covered by human rights.

    [–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (9 children)

    No I understand your point, but my question wasn’t exactly concerning why animals don’t have human rights, just about how rights are constructed in general. If you’d like me to rephrase it from a human centric viewpoint, “What about the right of humans to live in a society that doesn’t cause needless suffering to their non-human kin?”. Is that not a right?

    [–]loveSloaneDebate King 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

    It’s not a right because the non human kin don’t have any rights. You have the right to create your own personal environment that doesn’t cause suffering to non human kin, but not to demand it of all of humanity

    [–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (7 children)

    Why though? We demand sociopaths to obey laws that have a moral basis even though the may not personally experience the existence of morals. Is it just majority rules?

    [–]loveSloaneDebate King 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

    It’s because sociopaths have to obey the law to protect other humans. It’s not “majority rules” it’s “humans in general rule” over your (the sociopath, not you lol) desire to harm them. A sociopath would be able to get away with torturing and killing an animal, as long as it’s not someone’s pet (to be fair there’s a few other exceptions, but generally speaking humans can do all manner of fucked up things to animals and it’s legal, though frowned upon. I agree that’s fucked up, but Im pointing out that they can get away with it, because it’s an animal, not a human).

    [–]grixitperson 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Well put, PP.

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

    Trans women can’t effectively live without specific protections. We get fired or denied housing. We are denied services. We don’t have access to essential spaces we can use. Just treating us like men is a total failure of actually giving us the basics of humanity.

    Your citation of rights is pretty funny in light of the fact that you want to limit our bodily autonomy and welcome discrimination against us as well. Not to mention that pairing us with men represents a total destruction of our dignity, privacy, and safety. But who cares about that right?

    The religion comparison is inappropriate, particularly since if being trans were treated as a religion we would be far more protected than we actually are since religion is given such high priority in American jurisprudence.

    [–]loveSloaneDebate King 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    Nobody said TW can’t have specific protections. What we’re saying is that TW’s specific protections shouldn’t interfere with women’s specific protections.

    We aren’t treating you as men, we’re treating you as males.

    As far as dignity, privacy, and safety- we shouldn’t have to compromise the dignity, privacy, and safety of women for TW. But who cares, right?

    [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

    You are pushing for us to be treated in rxactjy the same way as men. You pay lip service to the Idea that we could have specialized protections but argue against any of them that are actually proposed all while saying it isn’t your problem that we are hurt.

    It’s the language she used. She doe if ally called for dignity privacy and safety while advocating for trans women to be denied those things.

    [–]loveSloaneDebate King 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Women, our spaces, our dignity, privacy, safety, and our rights should not ever have to be compromised for transwomen. That’s the point. You don’t want to address that because you know that TW’s wants and “needs” conflict with the rights of women.

    Women don’t have to advocate for you to have anything for us to say that our rights shouldn’t be undone for your sake.

    Eta- we aren’t saying TW don’t deserve housing or employment, we are saying TW shouldn’t be allowed to disrupt female rights. Stop lumping it all together and acknowledge the difference.

    [–]MarkTwainiac 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    You pay lip service to the Idea that we could have specialized protections but argue against any of them that are actually proposed

    Can you provide some examples of the "specialized protections" for males who ID as trans that you're fighting for that GC people argue against and are trying to thwart?

    All the GC people I know totally support third spaces and special provisions such as domestic violence shelters, rape refuges, prison wings, mental health care, social supports for people who identify as trans. We also are 100% for laws that make it illegal to discriminate in employment, housing, banking and so on against people who don't conform to rigid sex stereotypes &/or reject sex stereotypes entirely - as well as those who choose to embrace a persona & way of "presenting" in the world meant to copy & perform the most extreme sex stereotypes associated with the opposite sex.

    But with very few exceptions, males who identify as trans today aren't lobbying for specialized protections & provisions specific for their/your group. Most males who identify as trans are demanding an all-access pass into female spaces, sports and services - which means canceling & removing all the hard-won protections & provisions for the 51% of the population who are female that generations of women fought for.

    all while saying it isn’t your problem that we are hurt.

    I am sorry for the hurt that you & other males have experienced due to the attitudes & behaviors of others of your sex. But I don't get why your hurt should be a problem that's heaped on women & that women are supposed to solve. You seem to think that because you & other males have experienced hurt & unhappiness coz of your sex, girls & women are duty-bound to budge up & give over in order to try to make you feel better & safer. You come across as someone who sees female people as sub-human service animals, & who regards our not centering you & your issues in our lives and politics as cruelty.

    [–]catoborosnonbinary 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Note that freedom from discrimination in public services includes access to gender segregated facilities such as toilets. New Zealand shelters are now gender-integrated and working well. Sports and prisons require more complex rules. Biological sex is binary and immutable.

    I support the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. All human beings have all human rights all of the time. No one can claim superior human rights nor use their rights to remove rights from others.