Part 1

Our Society, like every Western Society. Is a society where many different ideas exist.

In order for society to work, there are certain things that we must all agree on. For example driving on the same side of the road. To disagree… and simply implement you dissenting view without considering the consequence in the above example would be fatal.

In order to decided what is right, in a society where everyone should have equal rights, everyone must have equal rights.

For example if an Animal rights activists murders a farmer in one town, and a farmer murders an animal rights activist in another. These must be viewed as equally wrong.

To put it another way, the ideology or beliefs of the person is not actually relevant in determining what is right and wrong.

This is something that religious people struggle with in particular. Most religious people refer to a text which tells them what right and wrong is.

So I would like to talk about the Euthyphro Dilemma, which is named after a chap who discussed this issue with Socrates, and was discussed by Plato.

The question the Euthyphro Dilemma asks is…

“Is what is good good because Gods commands it or does he command it because because it is good?”

If you argue that good and right are good because God commands it you have a big problem and an even bigger problem.

The big problem is what if, believing that murder is wrong, you receive a revelation telling you that you god wants you to murder your first born son and daughter.

The bigger problem is that it makes right and wrong arbitrary and hypocritical. For example a person might say… its OK for me to kill because my god commands it, but if sometime tries to kill me they are evil for trying to kill.

However if you argue that God would never command such a thing and choose the second option that God would command you because it is good, then you are accepting the argument that what is good is independent of Gods commands.

It’s a pickle of a problem.

To demonstrate the important of this, a researcher Tamarin (a long time ago) ran an experiment which included a control group. The experiment was conducted on Israeli school children aged 8 to 14.

The text they were given said…

“Joshua said to the people, “Shout; for the LORD has given you the city. And the city and all that is within it shall be devoted to the LORD for destruction… But all silver and gold, and vessels of bronze and iron, are sacred to the LORD; they shall go into the treasury of the LORD.”… Then they utterly destroyed all in the city, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and asses, with the edge of the sword… And they burned the city with fire, and all within it; only the silver and gold, and the vessels of bronze and of iron, they put into the treasury of the house of the LORD.”

The school children were then asked a simple question regarding morality.

“Do you think Joshua and the Israelites acted rightly or not?”

Answer A was total approval… 66%

Answer B was partial approval… 8%

Answer C was total disapproval… 26%

Where the experiment got interesting, was the control group.

The control group were asked the same question except Joshua was replaced with “General Lin” and Israel was replaced with “A Chinese Kingdom 3000 years ago.

The results were astonishing…

Answer A was total approval… 7%

Answer B was partial approval… 18%

Answer C was total disapproval… 75%

A rational person would say that Joshua’s actions were in-fact genocide. They are, however this is where we need to be careful, people with a religious or ideological bias will defend the actions of their side… for actions that they otherwise would have found wrong when committed by literally anyone else.

So to be clear, the same study could have been done anywhere (Saudi Arabia or Gaza for example) and the same result would be achieved in favour of their God and culture.

Part 2

Now let me ask you a question, purely theoretical…

“A religious sect exists in the foothills or the Ozark Mountains, called the Ulm Autumn sect.

This conservative religious group has the following beliefs…

They believe in encouraging followers to believe they are trapped in a wrong and sinful body, and that happiness lies in castration to free them from sin.

They believe in prescribing hormone medication to prevent puberty, to keep children free from sin as long as possible.

They call questioning their beliefs bigotry, and performing these medical interventions is called affirming gods will.

Dissenters are prevented from speaking, even a simple question dissenting from their view is called “harm” and yet violence against those who dissent is justified as symbolic.

These beliefs are taught to children, and anyone who affirms the teaching is rewarded, but the rules strictly oppose even “encouraging” that the ideas are wrong. Serious dissenters are forced out of the community.

So my question to Trans people is simple… Is this sect doing anything wrong?

Much like those students in Israel you have a problem. A huge problem.

If you are a trans person, who believes that when you advocate for all of these things that it is acceptable, and if you believe that rights are consistent and universal, and therefore what they are doing is OK. Then you are condoning things that are, well, pure evil.

However if you say that this sect is abusive and wrong, then you are a hypocrite. You are saying its OK for you to condone and encourage someone to have their genitals removed, but not others.

So your choices boil down to being either a monster or a hypocrite.

Part 3

Now this is where it gets interesting, you are essentially stuck in a heads I win tails you loose situation. You are wrong either way.

However allow me to give you an out, see religious people presented with this dilemma might simply say… I am just following God, god obviously influences me and I don’t have free will and therefore these concerns are irrelevant.

Now they can get away with this essentially by surrendering their free will to a deity and admitting that they are not rational. They are just vessels for gods will. This of course perfectly explains why some religious people believe in and sometimes argue for things that are irrational.

However if a trans person, stuck between the hypocrite and monster dilemma was to take the easy out that religious people use. You might just find yourself jumping out of the frying pan… and into the fire.

Because if you use the religion argument, that trans people have surrendered their free will and are no longer rational. Then the only solution is for gender ideology to be completed removed from the School system, and it a larger sense there needs to be a separation of gender and state. The same way we have a separation of church and state.

Part 4

Now it behoves me to point out, that as far as I am aware, no researcher has ever asked trans people this question.

I heard of a College student recently who wanted to find out if biological women were at a disadvantage to trans women in sports. Her school wouldn’t allow it because it would make a distinction between biological and trans.

So the chances that there is someone not woke enough to do it in academia is slim.

However, this study does need to happen. Someone in academia does need to do a repeat of Tamarins experiment asking trans children questions about the fictional cult mentioned above.