Andrew Stephenson

2018-05-12 11:50:55 -0400

Allan Peterson commented 21 hours ago

We’ve been through this B MR-Babies-Are-Parasites. But still you continue to prattle on with your wishful thinking.



As we established previously, any gender other than male or female is a birth defect on the order of having 6 toes. It is not a separate gender however tragic it may be. Anymore than a child with Down’s syndrome is a separate species of animal."



I’m not a Mr.



You acknowledge the existence of “any gender other than male or female” as a birth defect. Which is to say, it does occur. How do you decide what to put on the birth certificate if the baby is ambiguous, especially now when it’s typical to not attempt “revision” until the child is old enough to decide whether they want it at all, and/or old enough that the child demonstrates gender identity and can be assigned appropriately? There have been several prominent examples of doctors revising the “wrong way” – revising towards the technically simpler female state, when the child later identifies as male. What do you do in the meantime? Some sort of “undefined” placeholder, is by far the simplest solution.



And, what if that child never decides to be “assigned” at all? Maintaining that undefined placeholder is appropriate. Once you get that far, then opting into it later, isn’t a terribly large leap of logic.



Your Downs comparison isn’t really that great – for about the fifth time, we specifically acknowledge the unique status of Downs people, but also, biologically, Downs is not related to gender. Intersex/non-binary lies in between two “normal” states and results from incomplete differentiation. Downs does not lie in between two states like that. There is a spectrum of affectedness, but the range is only “normal” on one end.



“Mental identities are feelings and legislation should not be made on the basis of someone’s feelings. The old saying still holds true. The truth doesn’t care about your feelings. "



You could use this argument either way. The objections towards including “X” seem primarily based in emotion, given your self-contradictory



Allan Peterson commented 20 hours ago



“Calling a lie the truth always has repercussions. I will not be forced not conceding to a lie. It hurts my credibility and integrity. Ain’t going to do it.



“If wishes were horses then beggars would ride”.



Again, I disagree with the idea of it being a “lie” – you even acknowledge, in crude terms, that such “deformities” exist. When you say “repercussions”, what does that mean? As in, actual repercussions, that impact you personally, not some hypothetical someday may happen things. And, I mean, as in actual direct impacts to your personal autonomy, beyond emotional discomfort, which is not a valid reason to take away someone else’s rights?



This comes back to the equal consequence argument I made the other day. Putting “X” on the birth certificate does two things. (a). Allows individuals who may not be strictly male or female to not be forced to choose – it gives them an option that may better represent them – predicated, perhaps, on the existence of that ambiguous “deformity” that you acknowledge exists to some extent, even if uncommon (and once it exists, utilization is a matter of degree rather than presence or absence) (b), In no way diminishes your own ability to continue to identify as a conventional male or female. This latter comment is the crux of most of the “slippery slope” arguments saying that eventually you might lose this ability – but as is often the case in “slippery slopes”, that’s not what we’re talking about today, on this very issue. I would agree, that taking away those options is wrong. But that’s not what this is about.



Conversely, we can continue to exclude “X”, making it a strictly binary option (yes, it is an option, and changing your birth certificate gender has been possible with reassignment for many years, and without reassignment in Ontario since 2012). This really doesn’t impact you, since your own identity remains unchanged (you are not entitled to have the goverment protect you from things that make you uncomfortable – having already addressed that your “lie” argument is nullified by your acknowledgement of gender “deformities”, it is thus purely an emotional opposition on your part), but it does delegitimize someone else’s autonomy. The consequence lies entirely on their end, not yours.



Another example of the discrepancy between “moral” and “legal”, perhaps. We are talking about something that has substantial consequence on non-binary individuals, and trivial consequence on you. The legal response is to thus expand recognition of non-binary genders, an expanded freedom that again, proves somewhere between trivial and negligible detriment to conventional identities. The government’s job is not to endorse or disendorse personal autonomy, including identity, and thus leaves the ability to self-determine open to the individual.

commented