Where's the wrong in cross-dressing?

[The_Fisher_King]

It's not your place to decide for everyone else what freedom looks like. These things are supposed to be mutually agreed upon. Not decided by you and then pushed in everyone else's face because you're gender conflicted/confused.

I can argue/fight for what I believe to be a free society and others can argue/fight back. I see this as no different from other fights for freedom that have happened in the past.

 

[PureX]

If the confusion stems from people not being very accepting of others' rights to express themselves as they see fit (in a way that I really don't think impacts others' liberty), then I do believe those people need to be challenged. That is what I see as my responsibility.

But your beliefs about this are not the determining factor. Nor should they ever be. This is what you don't seem to be comprehending.

I might believe that running around naked is my right as a free citizen. And since it does not effect the rights or freedom of other people NOT to do so, I should be able to. But that's not how a free and equal society works. Because everyone gets an equal say in what that individual freedom entails. And in our society it does not entail my running around naked. I may not agree with this, but I am not the decider, here. Nor is any ONE else. Instead, EVERYONE is the decider, collectively. And this is what you don't seem to be understanding, or appreciating.

 

[PureX]

I can argue/fight for what I believe to be a free society and others can argue/fight back. I see this as no different from other fights for freedom that have happened in the past.

There is no need to fight. There is, however, a need to respect the right of the collective to limit the freedoms of the individual, so long as it is done equitably. I don't get to run around naked, and you don't get to run around in women's bra and panties (or whatever it is that you feel expresses your gender conflict/confusion).

 

[The_Fisher_King]

But your beliefs about this are not the determining factor. Nor should they ever be. This is what you don't seem to be comprehending.

I might believe that running around naked is my right as a free citizen. And since it does not effect the rights or freedom of other people NOT to do so, I should be able to. But that's not how a free and equal society works. Because everyone gets an equal say in what that individual freedom entails. And in our society it does not entail my running around naked. I may not agree with this, but I am not the decider, here. Nor is any ONE else. Instead, EVERYONE is the decider, collectively. And this is what you don't seem to be understanding, or appreciating.

I think what is at stake here is different visions of what would be an ideal society. My ideal society is one in which everyone has an equal right to non-interference with their liberty, life, or property (and in such a society, I don't see how my right to cross-dress if I so choose impacts the liberty, life, or property of others). You seem to be arguing for a different sort of society, in which the collective gets to decide what freedom looks like.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

There is no need to fight. There is, however, a need to respect the right of the collective to limit the freedoms of the individual, so long as it is done equitably. I don't get to run around naked, and you don't get to run around in women's bra and panties (or whatever it is that you feel expresses your gender conflict/confusion).

As per my last post, I think we have different visions of what an ideal society should look like in terms of the freedom of the individual.

 

[PureX]

I think what is at stake here is different visions of what would be an ideal society. My ideal society is one in which everyone has an equal right to non-interference with their liberty, life, or property (and in such a society, I don't see how my right to cross-dress if I so choose impacts the liberty, life, or property of others). You seem to be arguing for a different sort of society, in which the collective gets to decide what freedom looks like.

The collective has to have the right to decide what the individual's rights are, and aren't, or the society cannot function, and the freedom is not equal.

 

[PureX]

As per my last post, I think we have different visions of what an ideal society should look like in terms of the freedom of the individual.

Societies are not ideal. And they never will be. That's the whole point. They are functioning collectives of humans with conflicting ideals.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

The collective has to have the right to decide what the individual's rights are, and aren't, or the society cannot function, and the freedom is not equal.

Collectives don't always respect freedoms of individuals.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Societies are not ideal. And they never will be. That's the whole point. They are functioning collectives of humans with conflicting ideals.

But we can always work towards that kind of society that we would wish to see.

 

[PureX]

Collectives don't always respect freedoms of individuals.

They can't always respect the freedoms of individuals. They are 'collectives', not individuals. And we humans live in inter-dependent, cooperative groups, so we don't get to be fully individualized. We have to mind our place in the collective.

The reason this country is falling apart is because commercial advertising has been telling us all for many decades that selfishness is good and right and should be encouraged and rewarded in every way possible. So now we all think freedom is basically just selfishness. And we vote for any criminal that we think will give or get us what we want.

 

[PureX]

But we can always work towards that kind of society that we would wish to see.

Who's "we"? And what happens when that "we" is really just "I"?

 

[The_Fisher_King]

And we humans live in inter-dependent, cooperative groups, so we don't get to be fully individualized. We have to mind our place in the collective.

I don't think I'm arguing for full individualisation. But I am wary of collectives given how some at least have in the past not guaranteed the sorts of freedoms for all we have perhaps come to take for granted.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Who's "we"? And what happens when that "we" is really just "I"?

I can work for the kind of society I would like to see, you for the kind of society you would like to see, and the next woman for the kind of society she would like to see, and so on.

 

[PureX]

I don't think I'm arguing for full individualisation. But I am wary of collectives given how some at least have in the past not guaranteed the sorts of freedoms for all we have perhaps come to take for granted.

Apparently, we humans don't really want to be as free as we think we do, or proclaim ourselves to want. Because we routinely allow the would-be tyrants among us to take control, and wield that power to the detriment of any semblance of freedom. And we have been doing this since the dawn of time. The real issue that I see humanity facing is not one of freedom, but one of responsibility. We keep allowing the people who are least willing and equipped to govern well, to become our "leaders". While the people who are best equipped to govern well, and are the least willing to pursue or accept that responsibility, to avoid that responsibility. And as a result, we have been allowing ourselves to be governed by idiots and tyrants almost exclusively.

WHY?

Why do we keep allowing ourselves to fall into this same horrific trap decade after decade, century after century? We are never really as equal, and never really as free as we claim we want to be because we continue to allow our attempts at achieving this to be sabotaged by incompetent, corrupt, and usually brutally selfish "leaders".

 

[PureX]

I can work for the kind of society I would like to see, you for the kind of society you would like to see, and the next woman for the kind of society she would like to see, and so on.

Such selfishness will not likely result in a free or equitable society.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Apparently, we humans don't really want to be as free as we think we do, or proclaim ourselves to want. Because we routinely allow the would-be tyrants among us to take control, and wield that power to the detriment of any semblance of freedom. And we have been doing this since the dawn of time. The real issue that I see humanity facing is not one of freedom, but one of responsibility. We keep allowing the people who are least willing and equipped to govern well, to become our "leaders". While the people who are best equipped to govern well, and are the least willing to pursue or accept that responsibility, to avoid that responsibility. And as a result, we have been allowing ourselves to be governed by idiots and tyrants almost exclusively.

WHY?

Why do we keep allowing ourselves to fall into this same horrific trap decade after decade, century after century? We are never really as equal, and never really as free as we claim we want to be because we continue to allow our attempts at achieving this to be sabotaged by incompetent, corrupt, and usually brutally selfish "leaders".

Why indeed?!

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Such selfishness will not likely result in a free or equitable society.

Isn't that part of what we do when we vote for this or that party or in this or that referendum?

 

[Tambourine]

The confusion has already been expressed by someone deliberately defying the social norms indicating gender, mating status, character, and so on based on their own internal gender conflict/confusion. Which then confuses and conflicts everyone else.

The problem we are discussing is your confusion, though, not anybody else's.
We have neither established how many people share your particular confusion about other people's gender identities, nor have we established whether they are afflicted with this state of confusion for the same reasons.

Some people will quickly be able to embrace this new variant in social status, but many will take longer, and some will find it very difficult to ever accept or adapt. This is not society's fault. Nor is it necessarily society's obligation to accept this new variant in it's social norms, at all.

That's the point I'm trying to make.

I believe that it is society's obligation to allow everyone the greatermost freedoms to life their lives while preventing people from coming to harm. Respecting people's gender identity directly follows from both of these principles.

You may disagree with either of these principles, but at that point we're discussing first principles of society, not gender identity.

"Liberals" (of which I am notoriously one) have an annoying tendency to just assume, blindly, that the changes they want to see happen in society are for the better, and that it is therefor society's obligation to adopt and implement those changes. LIBERALS ARE OFTEN GUILTY of the blind arrogance that conservatives so often accuse them of. And I think this is just one example of this, among many.

I don't consider myself a "liberal", so I don't really care what you think about them.

Our internalized gender identification is not at issue, here. It's how we choose to 'signal' ourselves in that regard, to others, that is at issue. And also the fact that our society does not currently have a comfortable set of categories, labels, and signals to designate one as being within one of these anomalous categories of relatively rare gender conflicted/confused folks. The necessary mechanisms of social specificity just don't exist, yet, and until they do people will get confused and probably resentful toward those causing that confusion, when they find themselves being confronted by it.

And just so, your argument has removed people's freedom to express themselves (without suffering from harm in return) as a first principle in your position.

The cost is the disruption of social cohesion, peace, order, and comfort.

I had to change my concept of gender identity, and my perception of 'reality' as I knew it. And this is no small thing to ask of anyone.

But you didn't change your concept of gender identity, did you? If you did, then we wouldn't be having this debate.

My gender identity is immediately recognizable, so no one is having to pay any particular cost for it.

On what grounds can you make such a claim? Where is your supporting evidence for that statement?

Maybe people are just humoring you because they are willing to pay the price of playing along with your ideas on gender identity. Have you considered that?

And you do get to choose how you will present yourself to your fellow citizens, regardless of your internal gender conflict or confusion. The world is what it is. And you are what you are. But you do get to choose how you relate the latter to the former.

Except we've already established that you very emphatically don't want other people to choose ways to relate to gender that upset your personal beliefs on gender identity, because you think it is "disruptive" or equires too much effort on your part.

Why should people approve of your gender identity when we've already established that humoring other people's gender identities is onerous, costly, and disruptive to the social order? Do you deserve special treatment?

I am not denying anyone anything. I am simply pointing out that you are ONE among MANY. And to forget that, or to presume too much of it, would not be wise.

You are explicitly denying people a safe environment to express their gender identity.

And how wise would it be to tell the entire world to conform to your personal beliefs because you found it too onerous to adapt to new situations?

No, not my place either. We are both just ONE among MANY.

Yet you deny that expressing one's gender identity is part and parcel of one's personal freedom.

The whole point of these social cues and signals is so we don't have to ask. We don't want to have to ask. We want to feel that we know what we need to know about you at a glance, without asking. And then if we want to know more, we will ask more, specifically.

I would find it absolutely fascinating if you lived your entire life without even once being confronted with a social situation where the relevant cues were ambiguous, or where you were unable to read them properly. Suffice to say, I haven't lived a life like that, so I had to learn how to deal with situations that were outside my immediate comfort zone.

And it may be this bias talking, but frankly, I do not think anybody is entitled to live a life free from any such situation.

To be shown respect from other people you have show them respect, too. Which you don't seem to want to do, here, at all.

So, what have you personally done for me to respect you as a human being that is worthy of being treated as such?
Or am I just unwittingly offering my respect for free, and you are simply taking advantage of my naive generosity?

 

[PureX]

Isn't that part of what we do when we vote for this or that party or in this or that referendum?

Yes, and all that gets us is a democracy where the majority abuses the minority. So we try to employ overriding ideological documents to protect the minority from the majority and the people from the would-be tyrants that are always among us, looking to take control. But in the end they always fail because all we as individuals really want is our own way, and we don't much care what happens to anyone else. And so we're willing to cheat our own systems, and elect those who will do the same, to get what we want. And in so doing we become the tyrants and oppressors that we claimed to be trying to avoid.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Yes, and all that gets us is a democracy where the majority abuses the minority. So we try to employ overriding ideological documents to protect the minority from the majority and the people from the would-be tyrants that are always among us, looking to take control. But in the end they always fail because all we as individuals really want is our own way, and we don't much care what happens to anyone else. And so we're willing to cheat our own systems, and elect those who will do the same, to get what we want. And in so doing we become the tyrants and oppressors that we claimed to be trying to avoid.

So your solution to this conundrum would be what exactly?