@Nat The was a guy, in Europe I think, suing the state or something to legally lower his age. He says, basically, if gender is mutable and about how one feels, then so must be age.

As far as it seemed, it was a legitimate request, not a publicity stunt. He wanted to be able to say he was 40 on dating sites, instead of 60, or whatever.

Oddly, I'm reading a scifi book where a character gave his age in three numbers, the count since his birth, the years he's actually lived (I guess cryogenics involved here), then biologically.

They were like 268, 143, and 30.

It was a fun idea.

@PaulSiegel The ID card is interesting and represents a very real pragmatic problem if the words "man" and "woman" no longer hold their meaning. If I'm told to look for a certain woman, but by saying "woman" they're simply respecting one's trans identity, I'll be surprised to find they mean the guy in the dress. So they might say "trans woman", which really means "look for a man trying to look like a woman". Talk about a doublespeak.

And if this carries on, I suspect we'll drop "trans" altogether and say look for the "male woman" or the "female man". That's quite a doublespeak there.

Toss in whatever "non-binary" genders they decide are real and now we've fully lost all meaning of what were once perfectly useful words.

And it's then the cycle starts over. It might take the form of further insisting that "male woman" doesn't respect one's identity, thus "female woman" is more appropriate. And then it would truly be Orwell's conception of doublespeak, where words said are literally opposite of what's meant.

@Nat I've always preferred the octagon. Either that or the thunderdome ;)

Some simple minds might use beliefs to justify violence, but that's hardly unique to these beliefs. Instead "different" is usually justification enough, and I'd bet that's more likely what happens here.

Abuse directed at those who are different is ... almost primal. It obviously stems from in-group out-group psychology.

"They're not really people" is a common justification, but again, not actually related to beliefs like what we're discussing here.

"Tolerance" is guaranteeing your personhood (legal protection, encouraging attitudes of acceptance to participate publically, etc.), not agreeing your beliefs are right.

If tolerance was agreeing someone is right, then we'd have only one thought and the same ideas. Only one people and no diversity. The whole point of diversity is undone if tolerance means we agree.

Diversity preserves people as they are, letting them contribute in their own way, accepting that they are different and that their beliefs may clash with others'.

Hmmm, a philosophical thought: must the characteristics of an immutable quality also be immutable?

In this context, if personhood is immutable, and gender is a characteristic of personhood, must gender be immutable?

In Christianity context, if God is immutable (his substance does not change), and love is a characteristic of God, must love be immutable?

I think these are different categories. But is "personhood" one's "substance"?

Perhaps if I said "God's personhood is immutable" above.

Is personhood immutable? Why? If yes, how?

This has been late night rabbit thoughts with fredsbend. Signing off.

I don't really like either option. I hope there's a third I don't see.