So, again, it makes no sense to have respect for things you don't even know. So, your universal principle of 'respect other people's wishes' fails to make sense.
I've been through this same point with you at least half a dozen times. You know damn well what the trans community's wishes are, so it's bad enough that you're really sitting here pretending after all these weeks to not understand that, but to pretend you don't understand basic human nature is humiliating. Just stop.
You've still dropped my point. I'll explain it simpler so that this time around you might understand.
You gave us the universal principle of 'respect other people's wishes'. That applies to *everyone*, not just transgender people. You need to defend this principle in regards to *everyone*, not just transgender people, elsewise it is not a universal principle.
Also, we don't know the wishes of every transgender person before we ask them (as transgender people are individuals, and do not necessarily agree with the overarching 'trans community' -- whatever that is), so, even in specific regards to transgender people, your principle fails.
Therefore, your insistence on "respect" being solely about "wishes" got blown out by the word "or" from my definition of respect: "due regard for the feelings, wishes, or rights of others".
And you even you seem to agree with this because you're now starting to refer to other aspects of respect.
This is what happens when you skim through looking for gotchas as opposed to reading what others actually wrote. Let's look at part of that first example again:
"yet not only is treating others how they wish to be treated literally the most basic form of respect that there is..."
The bold and especially the underlined already tell you that this isn't the only form. If it were, I wouldn't be calling it the most basic form because "most" means by definition that there are others.
This is not what you meant and we can see that later from the same quote: "...Just ignore their wishes, that's literally all you got. That's by definition, the opposite of respect."
Here, you say that the opposite of respect is ignoring someone's wishes. Thus, you don't believe that respect is the is an optional, "most basic form" of respect. Rather, you believe that it is the "most basic form" of respect that is mandatory for respect.
We can also see what you believe in your other quote (that you failed to address at all): "Again, the most basic element of respect is to have regard for their wishes."
Again, you've argued that "respect" for "their wishes" is an integral, underlying aspect of respect that must be present in order for there to be respect.
Therefore, (1) respect isn't solely about wishes (despite you previously arguing it), and thus (2) it's possible to respect someone without adhering to their wishes (as shown by the "or" for my definition of respect).
I've rebuilt the context you deleted to show that you originally claimed that I don't respect their (transgender people's) rights.
I then gave an example of me respecting their rights.
I've already explained to you that that's not how respect works. Respecting someone 50% of the time and disrespecting them the other 50% does not qualify as "treating them with respect". So listing off ways that you are respecting someone does not negate the ways in which you are disrespecting them.
This is like arguing that you're not cheating on your spouse because sometimes you don't.
This is not analogous because cheating is dualistic, but respect is not. Respect, as you've learned thanks to me, is multifaceted and as not contingent on any of its components (regard for wishes, feelings or rights).
With cheating, you either cheat or you don't -- any amount of cheating counts as cheating.
With respect, it's possible to respect someone by having regard for their wishes, feelings or rights, whilst not having regard for all of those (hence "or"). For example, we can respect the feelings of children to hug them and tend to them when they're hurt, but not give into their wishes to have ice-cream every waking moment of their life, and still remain respectful overall. You don't get called 'disrespectful' for saying 'no' to a child asking for ice-cream.
Also, you arguing that it's "respectful" to give into every "wish" someone has leads to wild, insane conclusions. If a terrorist wished to blow up a shopping center, would it be disrespectful to call the police or bomb squad to thwart that wish of his/hers?
You're not being reasonable when you claim a researched, scientific point I've made is absurd
I'm not calling the "researched scientific point" absurd, I'm talking about trying to connect a researched scientific point to something that has nothing to do with science.
Science tells us what is, not what should.
Again, I'm using the science as a premise to reach my conclusions.
Gender reassignment surgery doesn't lower the suicide rates to any meaningful degree. Therefore, it's probably not a good idea to perform irreversible, costly surgeries on people that don't help them.
Do we need to respect people who claim they can fly because they did so in a dream?
I don't understand what is so difficult about this to you.
"Fly" has an actual definition. It is an empirical action that we can judge other actions against to see whether they have this capability. Something or someone either can fly or they can't. That's objective.
When a man tells you they are born in the wrong body, that is not a disputable claim. Wrong is subjective, and is determined by the individual. You cannot tell someone else whether they were born in the right or wrong body, only they can decide how they feel about that for themselves.
These two things are not remotely the same. Do you understand that?
It is completely disputable and it's disputable with science.
Transgender people don't have uniquely transgender brains (they're basically homosexual brains with mental disorders). Transgender people don't have their very high suicide rates lower *AFTER* transgender surgery. Most transgender teens simply grow out of their 'transgenderism' by the time they are adults
Transgenderism: It's time to state the obvious - Washington Times Clearly, their body isn't the cause of their malaise.
It's objective that transgender people's feelings about being in the wrong body aren't based on reality, much like someone claiming to fly, because he/she did so in a dream, isn't based on reality either (even if he/she feels it was real, which he/she would have). Therefore, we should reject the wishes that extend from transgender people's feelings that are based on non-reality, and thereby label them as objectively wrong.
It's the false conception of reality that needs to be fixed; appeasing feelings, that are the product of a false reality, doesn't fix transgender people.
Don't start with this virtue-signaling nonsense.
You're quite a toxic person for enabling mentally ill people to harm themselves with irreversible gender reassignment surgery and self-described gender identities that don't fit reality at all.
You're the type of person to hand a suicidal person a gun as you say, 'I respect your wish for you to kill yourself', without even considering if they're mentally ill, if they've thought it through, if they're having a panic attack etc.
This stance you have on enabling mental illness doesn't make you a good person at all.
How amusing it is to watch someone repackage their bigotry as selfless virtue, while pretending everyone else is terrible.
Explain to us how preventing a suicidal person from getting hold a gun to blow themselves away is "bigotry".
You can't.
Nor would I try to because I've never said anything remotely resembling this. But it was a nice strawman.
Merely stating 'strawman' isn't an effective argument. You need to explain how it was a strawman (which you can't because it wasn't).
You claimed that my argument was "bigotry". That was in response to me arguing that enabling mentally unstable people to do harmful things (i.e. giving a suicidal person a gun) was bad. Thus, it follows that you thought me arguing that we should prevent a suicidal person from getting of a gun was "bigotry".
This reassignment surgery is what you've argued for several times, so don't make your argument to be 'acknowledge them for who they identify as' when you're doing A LOT more (harm) than that.
These are completely different things.
I believe everyone should have the right to do what they wish with their own body. Cause you know, freedom. Something the political right used to pretend to care about.
That has nothing to with you or anything I'm advocating for with regards to how we should treat trans people.
This is not "completely different" and has everything to do with how we treat transgender people, and I'll briefly illustrate why:
Should transgender teenagers, who often simply grow out of transgenderism, have the "freedom" to perform basically irreversible transgender reassignment surgery, drastically altering their puberty and making it super hard to ever somewhat resemble their biological sex ever again?
Your answer to this is currently yes. It's going to be a pretty miserable day for those 70-80% of transgender teens who simply grow out of puberty, but have inflicted permanent, unwanted damage on themselves because irresponsible, reckless virtue-signalers like you said 'hurr durr have ur freedom xD'.
That's a real, easily recognizable harmful impact of your 'freedom' stance, of which extends from your 'respect for wishes' principle.
This isn't even to get into the fact that transgenderism is a mental illness, and you're allowing people to harm themselves based on their feelings produced by their mental illness.
The fact is that haven't provided the studies to make your points
Because my point is that you haven't met your burden of proof.
Whether you think I've failed to meet my BoP is totally irrelevant to your failure to provide studies for your arguments.
You're making arguments as well. You're saying things like 'the research on transgender reassignment surgery is mixed'. You NEED to provide studies to make the points you're making. If you can't/won't, then your arguments don't have the necessary premises to make any of the arguments you're making.
You're reframing your laziness and ineptitude as a virtue
You can call an unwillingness to sit here and go study by study, line by line with you for hours and hours on end laziness of that makes you feel better. Fact still remains that you haven't even connected the most basic dots your entire argument is sitting upon. This reminds me of arguing with theists trying to use the bible to prove that god exists and then calling me lazy because I'm unwilling to go passage by passage with them.
You need to provide studies for the points you make.
It's that simple.
