Carleas wrote:Karpel Tunnel wrote:But in general, iow if a position like this is held in general, interpersonal respect combined with an underlying judgment that the other is mistaken about something so important, I think there is a level of toxicity that most people underestimate.
This seems to be an absolute requirement for life in a pluralistic and free society. It's a generalization of the idea behind the freedoms of religion and speech, i.e. that my disagreeing with you should not detract from my ability to respect you.
It depends what you are expecting as respect. I doubt you respect that a priest is actually the official intermediaty with God for his congregation or that he is serving them body of christ and in conversation you might very bring this up. You would likely politely call him father, if that fit the social context, but you are not fully respecting his sense of who he is and his abilities. We gender each other fast and simply, so the issue comes up fast, often, but I would need to know what 'respect' constitutes here. And if someone said they were a Christian of a feminist, say, and I saw behavior that seemed to contradict this or heck, even vibe, say in a workplace, I might very place disagree openly with their self-assessment. As I've said, I will tend to label people as they wish around sex, though if I make a mistake, and they give me a lot of shit or classify me, I think that's immoral. And I think all the PC around the labeling is creating problems down the line and now to deal with. It is driving underground the problems, and, yes, forcing people to be consdescending.
Far from being toxic, it's the only way society doesn't devolve into tribal violence; the most likely alternative is not to stop thinking people mistaken, but to stop respecting them when we do.
But we don't respect people's self-assessments where we notice things that do not fit them. Jeez, I would love if employers were not allowed to comment on and critique my professed personal traits.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:Sure, but it's qualititatively different from sex.
This is the core of our disagreement in this thread. Hair color and consistency, gross morphology, facial coloring, these all tell us real things about biology, and we don't consider it a lie to modify them through dyes, conditioners, padded clothing, or makeup, we don't think someone is delusional when they choose to present themselves that way, and we do treat people as though their modified appearance accurately reflected their underlying biology.
Actuatlly I am critical of this. It's another kind of political correctness to not comment on this, but I have and will. I absolutely think that a lot of what you mention here is problematic and confused - and not to mention cosmetic surgery, which I would comment on, but it is generally too late. I have the slightest feeling of respect for someone who gets botox done, however, I will tell them it is fucked up, since they can avoid doing it again and the effects wear off. If I respect people and I see them doing a number of these things I will comment on it. I don't care much about hair color because nowadays I don't think it presents a new self, it presents variation. But back in the day brunettes who played into judgments around blondes being better by bleaching, sure that's something I would have brought up if I respected them. And obviously this is not just women. The whole expensive suit thing, the ridiculous looking gym body...sure I would comment on that. There are degrees of importance, and the messages and attempts to pass or fit into hallucinated ego-ideals have degrees. It's not binary. But sure, any attempt to create a self in this way, if I respect you and it goes to a degree where I am starting to think you are living out self-hate and with pride, yup, it will come up.
In fact I am enraged at society for not creating enough negative gossip about these fake lips, for example. It should be getting back to other women that these women look less like humans - and of course their faces are less mobile which means they are less able to feel their own emotions. But it's not happening and more and more people live out their self-hate because it is normalized and we are polite. Transchanges are very big and go over that degree line. Now, I actually believe some souls - not quite how I think, but as a shorthand I'll use that word - have come in in the wrong bodies. So some transpeople I think are really addressing a real ontological problem. But now it is moving into fashion and people who are just not like what men or boys or women or girls are supposed to be like are also getting into this trend. And that's a problem.
I see the question here being, Should we defer to trans people in our judgments about philosophy of mind? In general, we should defer to someone's judgments when they are are better informed about the topic. Your argument, if I understand it, is that if a trans dualist is correct in their judgments about philosophy of mind, then one consequence of that would be that they are better informed about the topic. My argument is that, if I am correct in my judgments about philosophy of mind, then the trans dualist is not better informed, and in fact is mistaken.
Right. I get that. I understand why you have your position.
It's not that this is not an argument for me; rather, as a matter of the structure of argument, nothing follows from it. "If X is right Y, then we should defer to their judgments about Y" is essentially tautological.
That's not quite my argument. My argument is more an attempt to head you, just a tiny bit, in the agnostic position. Their dysphoria may be, for all you know, based on correct interpretation of empirical data you, who are in the correct body for your real gender, cannot possibly be aware of. This of course does not mean you should give up your ontology. But I think there should be an asterisk. Just as we should have in any situation where someone has different empirical data or experiences than us.
People who spent a lot of time with elephants got the sense that they could communicate over long distances. Scientists and zooologists said no, even those in the field. There was no evidence for this. Well....they had no evidence, but the people in longer direct contact had difference empirical data, even if this was very hard to experimentally demonstrate, given the nature of test subjects and the subtle cues and the nature of the ultrasound not being known.
This is a general philosophical position of mine. If you do not share a lot of the experiences with someone who has a different belief than you, I think it is often a good general rule to put an asterisk next to your conclusions about what is 'really' happening with them - they are delusional, they have an incorrect ontology, etc.. Just an asterisk.
If we are talking about respect, an asterisk, it seems to me is respectful. And epistemological cautious.
If the idea is to have respect and not be consdescending, well, I cannot see how one can think smiling (I know that is polemical) and calling someone by the label they want, but thinking they are confused or delusional or irrational or have an incorrect ontology....
then that asterisk is critical. And I think in the long run they always feel the lack of it and the lack of respect in it.
And that chicken will come home to roost.
And it should be added that when something ontological is of great importance to those one disagrees with, it is probably also extremely important to you that they are wrong. IOW everyone has emotions around the issue. An asterisk is probably not a bad heuristic in such situations.