Treating people with Respect, or Not

On his blog, John C Wright talks about Political Correctness and courtesy in regards to transsexuals.

Demanding Discourtesy in Courtesy’s Name

I am not going to fisk the entire thing, because I might be accused of the evil horror of quoting his post. But I am going to respond to the spirit of this post. The spirit of John’s post, as I read it is that transsexual persons have no right to be treated as they wish to be treated, because in the end they aren’t “really” the gender they identify with, as opposed to the gender they were born with. John sees a duty that speaking the truth about a person’s nature trumps the desire of a transsexual person to be identified as the gender they identify with.

So, I suppose treating people with respect and in the way they wish to be treated is less of a social good than speaking the truth of their biological nature. I am sorry, John, I don’t buy it. There are people who, by accident of birth and biology, who have gender signals which are at best confused. Don’t they deserve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness–and if that happiness means that they identify with the opposite gender, shouldn’t they be allowed to do so, and be treated as such? Do unto others, as they would have done unto you?

Call it political correctness if you wish. I just think treating people as they want to be treated is a good thing. I have a friend who is asexual, and it pains me to get the pronouns wrong in addressing said friend. Why? Because I want to treat them with respect. Because I want to be treated with respect, myself, in turn.

Oh, and as far as “They” as a singular pronoun, the idea goes back over a century, John.

13 thoughts on “Treating people with Respect, or Not”

        1. Look, Shawn. I’m aware of your fondness for rhetorical traps. If you are going to say something negative about me, just go ahead and say it. We don’t need to play a little dance where your questions ‘prove’ I am a reprobate person of low morals and character who is going to wind up in the circle of hell of your designation. Nothing I am going to say is going to dissuade you of that already formed opinion, and I don’t care to play your game.

          Thank you for taking the time to come and visit my blog. 🙂

          1. Please stop ascribing to me things I’ve never said nor said anything like. That is dishonest. Why must you be so dishonest?

            As for my questions, I’m sad that you so entirely lack confidence in your beliefs that you’re unwilling to defend them. I’m perfectly willing to engage with anyone to explain why I think and believe as I do. You, apparently, are not.

          2. So, out of respect for me, you obviously would refer to certain historical persons as the Lord Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, Saints Peter and Paul, etc. etc.? And if any childish, pseudo-intellectual atheists here used terms like “magical sky fairy” to disparage what I believe, you would quickly rebuke them, right? Because you believe in respecting people?

  1. Boy, if Mr Wright ever passes, you’re well and truly screwed, aren’t you?

    Great minds elucidate. Gnats whine about the ideas of others.

    And asexual doesn’t mean what you seem to think it does. But it’s funny to read how you can’t get the gender right for a person with absolutely no libido. A testament to your intelligence, Sheepdip.

    1. Great minds aren’t always about elucidating. The greater part of Socrates’ thought lays in dismantling other’s ideas and showing them to be absurd.
      Which brings us back to John C. Wright. I presume by ‘ever passes’ you mean as a decent human being.

      1. And how, exactly, has Mr. Weimer demonstrated anything Mr. Wright said to be absurd? As far as I can tell, all he has claimed is that it is not nice. “Not nice” and “logically incoherent” are not the same thing.

      2. Oh my, the irony is just too much. You claim Paul is taking apart others’ ideas and showing their flaws like Socrates when we see him grumpily declining to answer a simple question for fear of where this question may lead.

        Yup, that sounds exactly like Socrates. I can’t think of a better exemplar of his method of discourse.

Comments are closed.