It is difficult to take the moralization of -isms seriously from someone who doesn't place any importance on being human to begin with.

Yeah what a weird "gotcha" which is just mask off.

Can you explain to me how exactly a legal entity can gain personhood?

A corporation doesn't actually exist in any tangible way, it represents people working within a structure towards common goals...

Does having a logo make you a person?

I don't follow.

> Being a smart elephant doesn't make an elephant human, it's still a smart elephant?

It's something with sentience that feels pain and joy, and to inflict something on it is the entire point here.

>Yes, those things would be permissible, and that is okay.

What are you talking about? You're literally condoning racism, sexism, and nationalism?

>Your party still proposed it, though.

Not my party, bud. And the fact that I have to say that again pretty much sums up the issue.

and I would privilege Chinese people if I were Chinese, or females if I were female, and Armenia if I were born in Armenian. Yes, those things would be permissible, and that is okay. If I am what I am, why would I not support that?

What is so special about homo sapiens then? We're just one kind of animal among many. So in order to say we're special, you'd better have some solid reasoning other than "but we're hUmAN!"

It appears that, after massive outcry, the portion I was talking about was dropped.

https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/politics/2022/12/06/ohio-republican-senate-removes-genital-check-requirement-from-transgender-athlete-bill/69703296007/

Your party still proposed it, though.

Without another objective set of reasons, that's not much better than privileging white people because you are white, or males because you are male, or Americans because you are American.

The varied definitions circulating, demonstrates its just philosobabble. And per law, entities can, and do, receive protections without personhood status. And entities such as corporations, can indeed be persons

Personhood is a material cop-out. It is a religious sensibility lacking in curiosity. All descriptions and assumptions work naturally in a particulate non-local universe.

Well have you never felt moralised pride, for an achievement purely personal, that made you feel morally self righteous? Because I'm sure we all have

A lot of moral action is, as they say, like oissing oneself in a dark suit. It feels warm, but no one notices. We might ask why people continue to be moral, if it really is about others, and not oneself.

Can you think of some that aren't interpersonal?

>Why is it relevant

You sure you are in the right sub mate? 😂

Because those cognitive abilities are what determine ethical duties owed to that elephant. Being human is meaningless. If you go back down your family tree, parent to child to parent to child, back 5 million years, you'll have an unbroken chain, where each person on that chain is the same as the thousands on either side of it in that chain. But the end would not count as a human. It would be an australopithecine or similar animal.

The point is that species are artificial labels that have no moral weight. It must be emotional and intellectual capacity that creates moral weight. (Or divine command theory, but fortunately we have no reason to believe in that hellish possibility). To base morality off of arbitrary species labels is simply not intellectually supportable.

And because these traits are not fixed, but rather on a sliding scale, it stands to reason that personhood is on a scale as well. Just like how it's a crime to torture a dog but not to torture a flea. That distinction isn't due to some Platonic nonsense about how Dogs are imbued by the universe with rights. It's based on the individual traits of dogs, generally, compared to fleas, generally. If you found a flea that appeared somehow to have the mind of a dog, it's obvious to me that it would be due the same moral treatment that a dog is due.

No. I don't give a damn if a trans kid plays in school sports because school sports are an extremely trivial matter to worry about. I just think that with all of the other horrible things you can peg Republicans for that's actually true, falsely accusing them of hiring anti-trans doctors to molest children is unnecessary.

>would never let some random school doctor -

It doesn’t say a school doctor. It would be your child's pediatrition. It would be your choice which doctor.

>Exactly what sort of individual do you think would want the job of “examining” a bunch of 11 or 12 year old athletes’ genitals?

Oh.... I don't know... a pediatrition? You know... the people who went to medical school and specialized in child development. Which includes sexual development.

Dude. It's very clear because of some other very reasonable concerns that you've become accustomed to assuming the worst and never questioning things when it comes to Republicans. But I am literally giving you the bill. The bill that was passed from the place that you referenced. And does not mention forced digital examinations, coach picked doctors, or locker room examinations. All it requires is a physicians statement, which you can readily get from your kids' pediatrition.

The only people telling me this isn’t a worry are the same people actively forming militias and joining up behind a despotic potential leader.

They’re making endless rules trying to criminalize LGBT people, attempting to force certain demographics to wear or possess special identification… oh yeah, and a few years ago were actively forcing immigrant families into concentration camps, forcibly sterilizing several of them, and stealing their children just to be cruel.

They already execute thousands of citizens a year in the streets - charged with no crime most of the time, and there’s usually a racial element too. The people who do the killing are directly descended from the people who enforced slavery.

You’re not gonna be able to convince anyone “don’t believe your lying eyes”, we know what we’re seeing, we know what we are hearing. Yes, there’s a fucking danger brewing here. It needs stopped.

Oh so you're worried about the US becoming like Nazi Germany? And we should preempt that by gathering all the wrong thinkers, and then what do we do with them? Should we forcefully re-educate them? Or should we consider a more final solution?

If you honestly think that internet trolls and a few thousand neo-nazos (If that) is all it takes for a prosperous, first world nation to dissolve to a fascist nation that mass executes its own citizens than you need professional help.

Why don't we just make some specific laws concerning "non-human persons"?

Then you weren’t following the hearings…

Either way, the fact that you’re defending this trash AT ALL means you mostly believe in it.

I would never let some random school doctor - who would be selected for this “exam” - to give my kid a physical - especially after what we know about the sorts of people who rush to take those positions.

Exactly what sort of individual do you think would want the job of “examining” a bunch of 11 or 12 year old athletes’ genitals? Ah yea I’m sure they’re just in it for the medical legitimacy of it all, especially seeing as the right wingers who made this policy can’t seem to keep their fingers or dicks out of kids at church or scouts.

I agree. Our good care of animals, the environment, etc, should be predicated upon us being good stewards of our lands, not because animals are cognitively capable. A good deal of philosophy tries to decenter the Human in its attempts at systemization. There is no death of the author though, we remain. I will continue privilege being human in my value-system because I am human.

No...

1. physical sex is already in these kids medical records. No further examination needed.

2. pelvic examinations are already a normal part of physical examinations for children because doctors make sure kids are developing regularly.

Nowhere does it mention a "digital examination" at all.

…so they’d have to be molested by a “doctor.”

It’s okay if this person finger rapes your 11 year old as long as they’re an MD?

Yeah that’s always the argument they make at us right before, and then right after they commit violence at us.

The last time we had a bunch of right wing extremists numbering in the millions and pledging violence against entire demographics of people, it quickly became a problem for the rest of the world.

Not only is it ok, it is sometimes NECESSARY to violently resist if one wants to keep their lives and protect themselves.