When two worldviews collide.

[Paidiske]

What other types of relationships, besides dating, do people have this right? Are there some types of relationships in which they don't have this right and why?

It's an interesting question.

My first blush answer would be that we have this right in our personal relationships, like dating, or friendship. But we don't have this right in our more public relationships; we don't have the right to decide not to serve categories of customers in our business, or work professionally with categories of colleagues, or behave appropriately towards fellow students, that kind of thing.

No primarily human Rights are based on Ttuth principles that are inalienable and universal meaning they are not subject to social constructions.

You claimed that these were truth principles "we formulated," which would mean they're a social construction. The process of acknowledging that something is a right is a social process. In fact, there are no "human rights" without a social construct of the very concept of human rights.

We might believe them to be inalienable, but that is part of our social construct about what it means to have rights!

This is why I am critiquing your rigid binary; it falls apart under even cursory inspection.

If they delete transwomen from their usual dating group of women because they don't believe they are women then thats descrimination.

Yes, and for the umpteenth time, people are allowed to discriminate in who we date! (I mean, personally, I've never really been open to dating stupid people, which is blatantly discriminatory, but I have that right). Because nobody owes anybody else a date.

Sex becomes a commodity and like all commodities you just can't decide to deny services to some and not others unless there is some health and safety issue or the client is being abusive ect.

I'm not actually sure that's true. I don't think sex workers are obliged to accept every request for their services.

It would be like someone at the checkout being denied service while everyone else is allowed.

The nature of the work does make it a little different.

Your not seeing the forest through the trees. Its the principle of rejecting an entire idenity thats the problem.

For the umpteenth time, steve, I understand the point you are making. I am simply flatly rejecting its validity when it comes to intimate relationships.

But isn't that not affirming an identity which is descrimination.

Yes. And you are allowed to discriminate when choosing your romantic partner.

You have to serve someone in your shop, you have to work with them as a colleague, you have to treat them fairly as your client, equally with everyone else; you don't have to date them.

 

[Bradskii]

We don't have the Right to delete an entire identity group from society.

Then I guess that you would agree that we should be treating them with respect as to how they identify themselves. That's good news.

 

[stevevw]

Then I guess that you would agree that we should be treating them with respect as to how they identify themselves. That's good news.

if you were to truely follow what I have been saying instead of responding to bits of my posts out of context then you wouldn't be making these misrepresentations of my argument. I clarified several times that this is the thinking behind Trans ideology not my position.

Trans ieology claims the trans women is a real women even trumping the objective reality of biological sex. So if thats the case according to Trans ideological thinking when a Lesbian rejects a transwomen because they believe they are really a male and not a female for dating and sex they are rejecting and not affirming the transwomen as a real women.

When biological heterosexual males reject the transwomen for dating and sex they are saying the transwomen is not a real women. When the biological heterosexual female rejects the transmale they are saying the transmale is not a real male. They are not affirming the transperson as a real and valid identity in society.

As far as I understand the new descrimination laws that add gender identity as a protected entity this now makes not affirming gender identity descrimination or as transpeople say its transphobia like homophobia or fatphobia. I am merely pointing out the incoherence of Transideology because it conflicts with the objective reality of biological sex.

 

[stevevw]

You claimed that these were truth principles "we formulated," which would mean they're a social construction. The process of acknowledging that something is a right is a social process. In fact, there are no "human rights" without a social construct of the very concept of human rights.

OK you could say they were discovered, that solves the problem. The incoherence of Human Rights being a social construction would mean that any one set of Rights would not hold any justification as being universially applied because each culture will come up with their own socially constructed Rights and each would be no more true than the other. But Human Rights stand regardless of whether a particular culture constructs different sets of Rights that may even conflict.

In fact the Truth principles behind Human Rights were already known and have been known since Christ and even before. They often conflicted with socially constructed Rights. If they conflicted with established Rights then they stood regardless of human or social constructions.

We might believe them to be inalienable, but that is part of our social construct about what it means to have rights!
This is why I am critiquing your rigid binary; it falls apart under even cursory inspection.

They are inalienable and self evident. They don't need human opinion to give them status as they stand transcendent of human ideas. Its is a contradiction and irrational to say that Human Rights are inalienable and socially constructed. They cancel each other out. What stops someone changing them again by arguing the idea of 'inalienable Rights' itself is a social construction. Its an impossible circular arguement.

A socially constructed truth can be changed by reconstructing the truth itself because its a social construction and never had or holds any real truth status. We discovered these truths by the fact of having to live together and that we can be horrible to each other as well as kind. These Truths fall naturally out of humans living together. Moses saw this and thus Gods law codified.

Yes, and for the umpteenth time, people are allowed to discriminate in who we date! (I mean, personally, I've never really been open to dating stupid people, which is blatantly discriminatory, but I have that right). Because nobody owes anybody else a date.

Is there an identity that is made up of stupid people. I knew gender ideology added new identities every day but I didn't know it was expanding into intelligence. Still I would imagine you think stupid people are real people and affirm them and as far as I know there are no laws that state we must affirm stupid people. But there are for gender identities.

I'm not actually sure that's true. I don't think sex workers are obliged to accept every request for their services.

If its a service provided I would imagine it would work like any service provided. The very nature of prostitution is that workers will often be having sex when they don't feel like it and with people they don't like or want to have sex with. Thats what happens when sex becomes a commodity.

I guess as far as the brothel is concerned someones gotta do it. They could reject the work as an agency but then another agency will step in. The support worker like with any service for their client will continue to try until they find someone willing to help. If all agencies deny services then questions are asked why, what has the client done wrong, are they descriminating against them for some reason.

The nature of the work does make it a little different.

It doesn't matter as sex is now classed as a commodity. The selling of sex as a transaction for money. No love, no committment, no strings attached. I agree itws different but that doesn't seem to be what modern progressive society thinks.

For the umpteenth time, steve, I understand the point you are making. I am simply flatly rejecting its validity when it comes to intimate relationships.

Fair enough. May I put it another way. Do you think saying transwomen are not real women is descriminatory and transphobic.

Yes. And you are allowed to discriminate when choosing your romantic partner.

Once again let me put it a different way. Are you allowed to descriminate by saying that a transwomen is not a real women.

You have to serve someone in your shop, you have to work with them as a colleague, you have to treat them fairly as your client, equally with everyone else; you don't have to date them.

Let me put it another way which I think helps. Take for example a dating TV show where Lesbians went on to find their perfect match or someone to date. So obviously the applications are open to all lesbian women. But the show or the Lesbian who was up for dating said I want to reject all transwomen as applicants because they are not real lesbian women. It would be like some women saying I would all black males barred from applying because they are not real males. How would that go down with the Woke. lol.

Here I am trying to make a Wokes case for descrimination and I have progressives arguing against it.

 

[Paidiske]

OK you could say they were discovered, that solves the problem.

No, it doesn't. They're an abstract concept, not an object to be discovered.

The incoherence of Human Rights being a social construction would mean that any one set of Rights would not hold any justification as being universially applied because each culture will come up with their own socially constructed Rights and each would be no more true than the other.

Correct. We only have the rights that we all agree that we have. They are our agreement for the baseline of our relating as human beings. That is why human rights have developed over time and many are, in fact, contested. Not all countries have even adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

They don't need human opinion to give them status as they stand transcendent of human ideas.

No. They are human ideas.

Its is a contradiction and irrational to say that Human Rights are inalienable and socially constructed.

They're only inalienable if we all agree that they're inalienable. Their inalienability is a social construction and agreement.

What stops someone changing them again by arguing the idea of 'inalienable Rights' itself is a social construction.

What stops someone changing their mind on any agreement?

Its an impossible circular arguement.

I agree, which is why I'm challenging your reification of human rights, since it is beyond completely obvious to me that they are, in fact, a social construction.

there are no laws that state we must affirm stupid people. But there are for gender identities.

Not to the point of dating someone.

If its a service provided I would imagine it would work like any service provided. The very nature of prostitution is that workers will often be having sex when they don't feel like it and with people they don't like or want to have sex with. Thats what happens when sex becomes a commodity.

This sounds to me dangerously close to denying the importance of consent, even for sex workers.

It doesn't matter as sex is now classed as a commodity. The selling of sex as a transaction for money. No love, no committment, no strings attached. I agree itws different but that doesn't seem to be what modern progressive society thinks.

Oh, come on, steve. They don't call prostitution "the oldest profession" for nothing. This is not a new phenomenon.

Do you think saying transwomen are not real women is descriminatory and transphobic.

I think it depends on context. In most contexts that I've encountered it, it's been unnecessary and derogatory and therefore, yes, transphobic.

Are you allowed to descriminate by saying that a transwomen is not a real women.

Again, context is everything. Are you allowed to say this in turning down a date? Well, it may not be very kind, but there's no penalty for being unkind in that situation, other than the way it might impact your social relationships. Are you allowed to say it in the workplace, in order to undermine your trans colleague? Probably not, because your workplace probably has (or should have) policies about how we are to treat one another where that would be crossing a line.

Here I am trying to make a Wokes case for descrimination and I have progressives arguing against it.

Because, as I keep telling you, these are not simple dichotomies. If your argument diminishes the importance of consent to sex, that's going to be a hard no from me.

 

[stevevw]

No, it doesn't. They're an abstract concept, not an object to be discovered.

Morals are abstract and most people believe they are objective. Just because something is abstract doesn't mean it has objective truth about it. We are born with the basic morals which are not taught or culturally constructed. Culture and society only refine these already existing moral truths. Our conscience bears witness that we know the moral law like we know physical laws. The physical laws were already there, we just articulated them. Maths is an abstract yet contains objective truths.

Correct. We only have the rights that we all agree that we have. They are our agreement for the baseline of our relating as human beings. That is why human rights have developed over time and many are, in fact, contested. Not all countries have even adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Its a fallacy that just because a nation doesn't subscribe to Human Rights means their a social construction. Just because we agree on something doesn't make them morally right or a Truth. There is a reason why we have HR which is derived from our lived experience. They are tried and tested and not some arbitrary set of ideas that individuals or cultures come up with.

No. They are human ideas.

How is Truth itself a human idea. You can't make that stuff up. It stands like a natural law. Did Christ make up truth or was it something we just know when we are faced with it through our conscience. Did Christ make up the Golden Rule or was it inherent in human nature by the fact that we are naturally (made in Gods image) and are sensitive to others and moral beings.

They're only inalienable if we all agree that they're inalienable. Their inalienability is a social construction and agreement.

So if everyone agreed they are not inalienable they are no longer inalienable.

What stops someone changing their mind on any agreement?

The fact that it would make their agreement incoherent in the first place so why even make the agreement. Its a contradiction in logic thus incoherent. That is beyond human rationality and therefore no basis for making the agreement in the first place. This is evdienced by the fact that if an agreement is changed or broken we argue for the change and don't just flip a coin or base it on our preferences or feelings.

I agree, which is why I'm challenging your reification of human rights, since it is beyond completely obvious to me that they are, in fact, a social construction.

So if morals and HR are social constructions which are based on an impossible and circular reasoning and have no coherent basis apart from just agreeing then why on earth would we even have Universal HR. There is no justification. Its Rights by might.

Not to the point of dating someone.

Yes but to the point where people reject minority groups as real there is.

This sounds to me dangerously close to denying the importance of consent, even for sex workers.

No because the sex worker has voluntarily put herself in that situation. The fact that they cannot possibly like or love doing it with 100% of their clients and probably more likely they dislike doing it with most of their clients that is the nature of the work.

The same situation occurs in say beauty work where workers will not always want to work with certain clients but still do. Just like Feminist want to force private spaces for males to include females even if they don't want to. Just like the law wants to force women to accept men entering their spaces. Its like it or else. Thats the new Woke ideology that informs our morals today.

Oh, come on, steve. They don't call prostitution "the oldest profession" for nothing. This is not a new phenomenon.

yes there has always been prostitution but thats not the point. Its now being supplied by the State as a Right.

I think it depends on context. In most contexts that I've encountered it, it's been unnecessary and derogatory and therefore, yes, transphobic.

Again, context is everything. Are you allowed to say this in turning down a date? Well, it may not be very kind, but there's no penalty for being unkind in that situation, other than the way it might impact your social relationships. Are you allowed to say it in the workplace, in order to undermine your trans colleague? Probably not, because your workplace probably has (or should have) policies about how we are to treat one another where that would be crossing a line.

Thats interesting that we can descriminate against an entire identity group when it comes to dating, sex and marriage. I will have to do some more research on this as I find it a bit contradictory.

I mean the truth is lesbians or anyone rejection transpeople as dates is about rejecting their realness, their womenhood or manhood and in the very same way that people are rejecting transpeople in sports, education and health as not being real (the real opposite sex) and yet in these situations this is regarded as descrimination and rejecting trans peoples realness is ok in dating.

It still has all the negative denegration of an identity in society on the same level as rejecting them in work or sports ect as not being a real person within the category of male and female yet its all OK. That is why I say that Trans ideology is incoherent and contradictory. Somehow this elevates the individual above the identity and yet the identity is suppose to be the highest importance.

It also lends support for other legal descriminations like religious choice. I am sure denying transwomen as real has the same or even more justification than personal preferences for dating. And they say that descrimination laws are clear and theres no conflict between identity groups Rights. Its a mess.

Because, as I keep telling you, these are not simple dichotomies. If your argument diminishes the importance of consent to sex, that's going to be a hard no from me.

Yes just like when trans pronouns deminish the importantance of the right to Free speech. Just like when Trans Affirmative treatment breaches the consent Rights of children and adolescents. it seems Rights are conflicting all the time when it comes to Trans ideology and identity politics.

I noticed you avoided addressing my little thought experiment with the TV dating game.

Heres another thought experiment.
If say a lesbian meets a women and they are compatible. The lesbians prefers and freely chooses the other lesbian women and they fall for each other. Would it be transphobic if the lesbian rejected her partner when she found out that they were a transwomen.

The point there are dichotomies in the real world just like biological sex is a dichotomy.

 

[Bradskii]

if you were to truely follow what I have been saying instead of responding to bits of my posts out of context...

I didn't quote you out context. You literally said:

'We don't have the Right to delete an entire identity group from society.'

You were talking about lesbian relationships with transwomen. If you wanted to say that they don't have the right to delete an entire identity group from society, then you would have said that. That they don't have that right. But you didn't. You said that we don't have that right.

And good grief, I just spent part of a post upstream explaining that I'm not a fan of these little chats because you will say one thing - you will literally say one thing, and then complain that it's not what you meant, or it was taken out of context. What you said cannot be taken any other way. 'We' means you and me and everyone else. 'We' doesn't mean 'some lesbians' or 'all lesbians' or 'any lesbian who doesn't fancy transwomen'.

So you have some explaining to do. As in explain why you say something quite specific but then deny it's what you meant.

And remember the questions that you always ignore? I asked where you got the idea from that the majority of people in Australia have a problem with pronouns. I say pronouns because you specifically linked to an ABC poll that only talked about pronouns. So could you tell me so I can examine if your info is correct? It's an important point.

 

[Bradskii]

yes there has always been prostitution but thats not the point. Its now being supplied by the State as a Right.

That's nonsense. You must mean that it has now been legalised. But that has no correlation with anything that was said before that.

 

[Paidiske]

Morals are abstract and most people believe they are objective.

Oh dear. Morality is also a social construct.

We are born with the basic morals which are not taught or culturally constructed.

You claimed this early in the thread and I disputed it then, too.

There is a reason why we have HR which is derived from our lived experience.

"Derived from our lived experience" means they're a social construct. We have reflected on our experience and decided that it seems good to us to establish a baseline for how humans interact, and we call that construct "human rights."

Did Christ make up truth or was it something we just know when we are faced with it through our conscience.

Christ is God. Christ was participant in the creation of everything that exists, so in that sense, you could say "Christ made up truth."

But again, I'm going to remind you that our conscience is not perfect, can be poorly formed or mistaken, and that we don't "just know" anything.

The fact that it would make their agreement incoherent in the first place so why even make the agreement. Its a contradiction in logic thus incoherent.

People aren't always logical.

So if morals and HR are social constructions ...then why on earth would we even have Universal HR.

Because we have recognised that without some agreed constraints, we are all too capable of visiting horror on one another to a degree which we have agreed we don't want to happen any more.

Yes but

There's no yes, but. There's no but. Nobody owes anybody else their romantic or sexual interest.

No because the sex worker has voluntarily put herself in that situation.

And has the right to remove herself from it at any time.

yes there has always been prostitution but thats not the point. Its now being supplied by the State as a Right.

If I have understood what I've read, the state has said that people with a disability have the same right to access the services of sex workers as anyone else, and should be given assistance to do so where their disability prevents them from doing so. It's not "state supplied" as a right. @Bradskii it seems that under some circumstances the NDIS does fund sex therapy, although there is some dispute about the extent of services eligible for funding.

But the commodification and exploitation of (mostly) women as sex workers is absolutely nothing new.

It also lends support for other legal descriminations like religious choice. I am sure denying transwomen as real has the same or even more justification than personal preferences for dating.

I don't see why someone being trans should mean we treat them any differently in church.

Yes just like when trans pronouns deminish the importantance of the right to Free speech.

Yeah, no, really not like that.

 

[Bradskii]

@Bradskii it seems that under some circumstances the NDIS does fund sex therapy, although there is some dispute about the extent of services eligible for funding.

I'm somewhat astonished.

'Yes, the NDIS can fund a sex worker, provided you have a letter of approval directly from the NDIA or your LAC (other eligibility requirements may also apply).' https://planpartners.com.au/knowledge/articles/ndis-sex-therapy-family-planning

So apologies, @stevevw, it can and seemingly is supplied by the state in certain circumstances.

 

[Paidiske]

Ever since the legal ruling that it should be included, the government has been intent on closing that loophole (basically the legislation didn't specifically say it wasn't included, so someone who'd been told no, challenged and won in court), so I don't know how long it will last.

 

[Runningman]

Sounds like a plot line from a B grade sci fi film rather than a discussion on morality.

Mostly just commentary on the OP.

 

[Bradskii]

Ever since the legal ruling that it should be included, the government has been intent on closing that loophole (basically the legislation didn't specifically say it wasn't included, so someone who'd been told no, challenged and won in court), so I don't know how long it will last.

I'm truly in two minds about this. I think I could argue both for and against it at the moment.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

...if I share, I may be also following an instinctive reaction as a social animal. As a social animal, being supported by the group contributes to my survival therefore sharing may be in my long -term self-interest...

Yep - thats true
Every act of service or sacrifice could just be evolution ensuring survival of the group, it might not be, but, yes, it's true that it might be.
You would have to know for sure that someone is choosing to do a thing for moral reasons and not just following programming.

Either way - I can't prove what I suspect - not convincingly at least

All acts are done for reasons of self. Acting against your own (apparent) self-interest is a selfless act in normal parlance however we do it because it somehow makes us feel better - therefore it is ultimately selfish.
OB

Maybe I've been thinking about this wrong???

If we are all connected, then every act of service is both self serving and serving others at the same time.

Perhaps a better description is good rather than selfish or unselfish.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

This is quite the active topic, but it seems like almost exclusively headbutting. I'd be interested in hearing from partakers in this discussion...
What have you learned in this discussion that you can apply to better yourself as a person?

Headbutting makes you hard-headed ;-) haha

I don't always read all the posts tbh. Some of them are very long.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

... we don't have the right to decide not to serve categories of customers in our business,...

What do you think about the UK bakery case??
Short summary - a bakery advertised a service. They would produce a cake with your own personal message on it. A regular customer ordered a cake with the message "Support gay marriage". The bakery took the order. They then subsequently rejected it and offered refund.
The customer took the bakery to court for discimination.
The bakery argued that they disagreed with the message on the cake and weren't discriminating against the customer.

What do you think:
The bakery should be legally compelled to have made the cake?
The bakery can say no and reject the order based on their religious beliefs?
No comment - don't know enough to speak?

 

[Paidiske]

What do you think about the UK bakery case??
Short summary - a bakery advertised a service. They would produce a cake with your own personal message on it. A regular customer ordered a cake with the message "Support gay marriage". The bakery took the order. They then subsequently rejected it and offered refund.
The customer took the bakery to court for discimination.
The bakery argued that they disagreed with the message on the cake and weren't discriminating against the customer.

What do you think:
The bakery should be legally compelled to have made the cake?
The bakery can say no and reject the order based on their religious beliefs?
No comment - don't know enough to speak?

There have been a variety of these cake type cases in different places now.

My argument would be, nobody should have to make a product that contravenes their beliefs (like with a message they disagree with written on it). However, if they're happy to make a product for one person, they should have to make that exact same product for any other person. That is, it's fine to say, "I don't do this thing I don't agree with," but not fine to say, "I do this thing, but only for people I agree with."

 

[stevevw]

Oh dear. Morality is also a social construct.

What do you mean morals are 'also' a social construct. I understand that there are core morals we are born with and are not taught. Cultural and social constructions are built on these. But the core morals themselves do not change between cultures.

You claimed this early in the thread and I disputed it then, too.

And I provided evidence and you didn't.

"Derived from our lived experience" means they're a social construct. We have reflected on our experience and decided that it seems good to us to establish a baseline for how humans interact, and we call that construct "human rights."

No we already knew them. We just stopped upholding them for various reasons. We knew them from the time of Cain and Abel. We have lived them and defied them over and over again. It is in our nature to defy these moral truths. You can't make something up that is already a part of you. We reflected on our experiences and 'found' some truths like we find some laws of nature but not constructed truths. A constructed truth is a paradox. We should expect these truths and laws to be part of Gods creation.

Christ is God. Christ was participant in the creation of everything that exists, so in that sense, you could say "Christ made up truth."

But again, I'm going to remind you that our conscience is not perfect, can be poorly formed or mistaken, and that we don't "just know" anything.

But doesn't Christ tell us He is the Truth. He often speaks of Truth when challenging the Pharisees motives, their inner corrupted hearts like they deny the truth. Like there is a truth to be found within your heart, your conscience and there is also denying that truth and nothing inbetween.

Christ says the truth will set us free like that truth is there to be found and declared so that it exposes the lies and corruption. This Truth seems to transcend human ideas and constructions of what truth is by the fact that Christs Truth is infallible and human ideas of truth are fallible and corruptable.

People aren't always logical.

Saying people are not always logical doesn't negate that logic can give rationality and coherence to something. Without logic we would be getting ourselves into all sorts of dilemmas. This is a Postmodernist position where theres no logic, objective reality, truth, facts we just live in this multi interpreational world where nothing is real unless you make it real.

The point is the logic is there to point out the incoherence creating a corruptable truth as being incorruptable. Inalienable and universal socially constructed HR and truths is self refuting and a contradiction in terms and any right minded person would not advocate for something so obviously wrong..

Universal human rights theory holds that human rights apply to everyone simply by virtue of their being human. The most obvious challenge to the universality factor comes from ‘cultural relativism’, which maintains that universal human rights are neo-imperialistic and culturally hegemonic. While this perspective may be tempting, the relativist argument encompasses a debilitating self-contradiction; by postulating that the only sources of moral validity are individual cultures themselves, one is precluded from making any consistent moral judgements.

Further, the cultural relativist in fact makes a universalist judgement in arguing that ‘tolerance’ is the ultimate good to be respected above all. Hence, it is a naturally self-refuting theory that engages universalism in its own rejection of the concept. In a practical sense, the cultural relativist position is foundationally incompatible with human rights, as human rights themselves could not exist if they were stripped of common moral judgement.

Are Human Rights Really ‘Universal, Inalienable, and Indivisible’? - LSE Human Rights

By Leila Nasr* Following centuries of ongoing revision, repetition and reconceptualisation, international human rights theory and practice continues to grapple with three integral concepts: universality, inalienability, and indivisibility. These concepts are perceived as being essential to its...

blogs.lse.ac.uk

Because we have recognised that without some agreed constraints, we are all too capable of visiting horror on one another to a degree which we have agreed we don't want to happen any more.

Yes you just named the objective moral of why we agree, not because its something preferred or felt but because it transcends these things. We recognised as self evident truth that humans need to treat each other as we would want to be treated. In other words we reconfirmed Christs Golden Rule which has been confirmed over and over again and has nevber changed.

There's no yes, but.

Look I agree with you people should have the right to choose their partners based on their own and the other persons unique traits and personality and sexual attraction of course. I am just pointing out what the Trans point of view is. According to Trans care refusing to affirm and date transpeople because they are considered not real identities (fake identities) contributes to their poor mental health.

If Trans Rights are consistent and valid then they sort of have a point. Even though its not the same as in other situations in life like at work it still has all the aspects of descrimination and being transphobic.

There's no but. Nobody owes anybody else their romantic or sexual interest.And has the right to remove herself from it at any time.

Yes like we have the right to remove ourselves from any job if we don't want to do it. But if its your job then you can refuse a few times but then your job becomes at risk. So you either fullfill your obligation or find another job I guess. This would be especially relevant when it comes to the agency supplying sex workers for the disabled as they would lose their contract.

If I have understood what I've read, the state has said that people with a disability have the same right to access the services of sex workers as anyone else, and should be given assistance to do so where their disability prevents them from doing so. It's not "state supplied" as a right. @Bradskii it seems that under some circumstances the NDIS does fund sex therapy, although there is some dispute about the extent of services eligible for funding.

Don't worry it will come. As the article says sex therapy is the first step towards providing sex and congratulate the NDIS for taking these measures as disabled people have the Right to an adult sex life. In fact it mentions the previous state-based disability support system had long supported people with disability to have funded access to sex work services. So its already been available.

But the commodification and exploitation of (mostly) women as sex workers is absolutely nothing new.

No its not but if you think its wrong then certainly these measures just further commodify and objectify women.

I don't see why someone being trans should mean we treat them any differently in church.

I notice you pick and choose what to answer which you feel more comfortable with. I have asked you twice now about the thought experiments and you have ignored them. I think the scenarios I gave hit the nail on the head as far as my point is about Transpeople being erased.

Yeah, no, really not like that.

How do you mean not the same.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

There have been a variety of these cake type cases in different places now.

Yes. I guess society has to figure out where it stands on a load of matters in light of changing social attitudes.

 

[Kale100]

It's an interesting question.

My first blush answer would be that we have this right in our personal relationships, like dating, or friendship. But we don't have this right in our more public relationships; we don't have the right to decide not to serve categories of customers in our business, or work professionally with categories of colleagues, or behave appropriately towards fellow students, that kind of thing.

Yes interesting questions like the primary reason I engage these types of discussions. I very much like to figure out 'diagnostic principles', by that I mean armed only with this principle, one could be presented with a number of 'what ifs' and correctly determine what your position would be in the large majority of cases. My first thought in regards to your response - dating and friendships are (I'll throw in the caveat of in all but exceptional cases) 1 on 1, at most no third party is involved, and at least it's culturally regarded as none of a third party's business. I could see at work how refusing to work with someone could impact third party's (other employees and the operation as a whole), but I think it would be quite a stretch to say refusing a customer at a business you own substantially or directly impacts a third party. That's the only idea that really springs to mind though, is there a diagnostic principle you have in mind that could help me better understand your thinking?