I think that’s an odd question. It depends on the philosophical arguments and positions being put forward.
Of course. But your philosophy will have effects. I am not saying you should suggest a different interpersonal ethics or change your ontology. I am pointing out that there is a split and now I am being explicit in saying that this can cause them problems.
No, but the whole project becomes that we should treat these deluded people with respect for reasons X, Y and Z. And Y will be one that implies that they are deluded. That has real world consequences.
or there particular situation actually does give them insight into it. They may even be correct about their insight. Given that we do not have access…or better put a person who does not have access to that insight given his or her situation need not be convinced by the trans-dualist, but this in turn does not mean that the transperson is wrong about their insight.
And feel and be able to do. I don’t read those transpersons I quoted as saying it was socially, I read it directly not recognizing the body they had.
Penis and breasts on the other hand, size and bone density of a body. and more, on the other hand.
I think this aspect is also present and part of the transpersons, like many conservative persons and others, belief that sex is essentialist not merely social. IOW the social roles are rooted in bodies and also in souls that are gendered not neutral.
Well, it was a quick online survey but it was not them saying they were not allow to engage in some traditionally female activity. Of course they have this also, because transpersons, in the vast majority, think that men and women have different minds, emotions, attitudes, roles and interpersonal dynamics. And you can certainly tell them that really all this is intersubjective and arbritrary, just as their feelings that their bodies do not fit who they are ‘inside’ is based on a confused ontology. Or tell them indirectly while defending their interpersonal rights with cis people. But I think it is passing on implicit judgments. And these are the ones your philosophy has and, no, that does not mean you should just jump over to their ontology of bodies and selves and men and women. However I think it is an advocacy that in the long run is a mixed bag for them.
If someone says they are Napoleon reborn, then one can of course decide that it is respectful not to keep telling them it is a delusion based on schizophrenia or naivte in relation to New Age beliefs. One can argue that we as a society should allow people to identify with people we think are not longer alive and who had different bodies and that we should respect that, while at the same time believing that person is deluded. No contradiction.
But that position ends up being condescending and this will have consequences. I am not sure it helps that person in the long run, regardless of whether they are right or wrong.
And then children get a very odd set of messages to try to unravel about how to interpret their own feelings and experiences. A kind of collateral damage.