Sunday, August 17, 2014

A Reader's Question about Transgender "News"

In response to the previous post Janet Mackiewrites:

I think the reason that Patriarchies world wide oppose gender equality (or what ever they would term "it") is because they need to preserve a  bifurcated world world of distinct opposites in which they define  themselves as the most valuable and therefor the most entitled to power, prestige and preservation.
A world of winners and losers, correct and incorrect, in which they "define" themselves as perfect and the "losers" are defined as throw aways to be taken advantage of by the winners.
If the world is seen as made up multiple continuum, if all humans all DNA are of value equally, then it can't be saint v sinner, male v female, winner v loser, correct v reject etc. can it? 

I can't speak on behalf of Patriarchies and the psychology behind the patriarchs, since I live in a country that is egalitarian and regards patriarchies as an outdated relic of the past (with our without good reason, with or without "herd mentality" or "herd morality" to borrow a phrase from Nietzsche).  But I will speculate that many patriarchs are patriarchs because they and those in their community believe patriarchies to be good systems of governance.  There are a lot of texts of the so-called Great Religions that seem to support such a view.  What evidence is there to think that the opposition to gender equality comes from a "need to preserve...power [and] prestige" rather than from an inference from a justified, true belief? And by parity of reasoning, why not think that the wide support of gender equality (gay, bisexual, transgender, etc.) comes from an irrational impulse for power by elitist egalitarians or those with less power that want more?  That's more or less one of Niezsche's critiques of egalitarianism--it's just a shifting of power to make everyone as mediocre as everyone else.  It's the morality of the slaves foisted on their masters.  Is he wrong? Why think he's wrong and you're right?

I agree with you that "if all human [and] all DNA are of value equally" then there can't be any correct value judgment discerning any value distinction between anything in that group.  That proposition is surely analytic.   But why should we think that all humans are as valuable as all DNA???  Why should we think that all DNA is as valuable as all other DNA?  And what does this have to do with the previous post?  Perhaps value has nothing to do with anything in the previous post.  Perhaps God arbitrarily chose a certain way of doing things because (for all anyone knows) it's better to have one way rather than a free-for-all where anything goes.

To beat a dead horse that Christians have beaten to death forever, one can think that in virtue of one's humanity one is as valuable as another and thus that one has the same natural rights.  By being a human you have a right to life, a right to a reasonable degree of liberty, happiness, and the like.  But that doesn't mean that all distinctions are thrown out the window!  You might be more valuable to your country as a runner but not as a grammarian.  One might have more aesthetic value than another (yes, there are ugly people; live long enough and you'll be one--ask any kid who is not yet in the grip of a theory), a better memory, better eyesight, and so on and so forth.

One might also be morally better than someone else insofar as one lives much more virtuously.  Not all actions are of equal worth.  Not all lifestyles are to equally esteemed.  This should be obvious.  If you disagree with this and think that what I've written is a load of crap, well, then you should agree with these last few sentences if you stop and think about it.

Besides, who want to live in a world like this??

No comments:

Post a Comment