I know human beings need to express themselves — NOS4A2

Hmm. Do you? How? What's the premise for this which is...

Universal, fundamental and inalienable — AmadeusD

You will need something a little better than "i know..XXX" for this to be applicable.

And alternately, how does the 'right to free Speech' relate to a 'natural' right derived from a human 'need' to 'express' themselves? These are all contingent and not in any way fundamental, universal or inalienable. You'd have to claim that any society who doesn't enforce the same rights you do, is wrong. I cant really see that happening... (by this I mean, you don't come across as either a Moral absolutists or someone willing to claim their culture is the 'right one' per se)

Luckily, I've just covered the reality: Society dictates rights based on the socially-bound behaviour of it's members. Nothing about 'human nature' exists in this.

Human nature dictates that sex is the paramount goal of being a human being. This comes closer to the three criteria than does 'free expression'... Yet, this is not a right. And only what we considered 'backward' cultures would deem it so.

The video title is apt. Perhaps an understatement.

Cool, so we're getting somewhere.
Natural rights theory states that these rights are derived, directly, with impugnity, from human nature - Universal, fundamental and inalienable. However, there is literally no such right.

Can you please make that make sense for me?

Yes, rights come from men, believe it or not. Yes, men can enforce rights. Are you not of the species? The idea that rights can only come from men of authority or officialdom is both ridiculous and obsequious. — NOS4A2

I'm not sure you're grasping the immense problem for your account i've laid out:

If, as you note, rights only come from men (i.e the species Man) then they are artificial products of minds. A strong man is an enforcing authority - think of the family unit, circa 1950 or whatever time suits your conception.
SO, where are these 'natural' rights coming from? Well, the answer is the exact same place all rights come from: They are made up in the minds humans.

Bostrom assumes otherwise, but whatever realm is running his simulation doesn't need to be a universe like our own. — noAxioms

That it is another universe, is one of hte ridiculous premises required for its probability to be an effective argument. This is what I'm getting - on it's face, its mathematically almost certain we are in a simulation set up by future generations. But the invocations required to actually, practically, in real life take that seriously are unnerving to say the least, and perhaps the sign one is not being honest with themself.. if the theory convinces one.

You consider human nature and the natural world — NOS4A2

Ok, so we're just thinking about subjective stuff, okay... with you so far...

and derive a set of rights therefrom, — NOS4A2

This is, entirely, a non sequitur. Making up things people should and shouldn't do is a non sequitur here.

rights that would allow one to survive and live a life of dignity and happiness — NOS4A2

So, again, subjective stuff. Where's the 'right' coming from? Your mind? And enforced by?

A right is something enforceable. As Ciceronianus has made clear, the idea of a right in lieu of an enforcing authority is either redundant or incoherent. I take the latter. Like - it literally doesn't exist. It isn't there to be 'derived'. You're just looking at stuff, and thinking about what you'd like.

This should be a fun exchange fun.

I once again remind the rational and humane participants — or at least those with some decency — Mikie

You're precious, Mikie.

Overall I think he's an effective and articulate advocate for idealism. — Wayfarer

Agree with this - potentially the only one currently.

I've been meaning to find somewhere to mention - that five-hour Kastrup thing you laid out for me months ago was great. I've done more reading, and while I think Kastrup is on to something, I am slowly getting the message when another philosopher I speak with regularly noted "Kastrup is a cult leader" hehe. Seems very unopen to not-his-theories.

the American vision is about freedom of identity. Voting is a ritual that broadcasts that ideal: that you're responsible for your government. — frank

This was always my understanding - and, as with the Shapiro reference, I think its true. People f'ing it up doesn't change the basis.

Bostrom's speculation has always smelled grossly unparsimonious, to me. — wonderer1

I agree, generally. The paper, on it's face, is fairly convincing but it requires such a ridiculous set of premises (similar to the Fermi Paradox) that it doesn't seem all that apt to the Universe we actually inhabit.

I think temperamentally some people are more inclined to maroon themselves in narcissistic, directionless soul searching than others. It’s probably also prudent to determine what is self reflection and what is self dramatisation. — Tom Storm

Extreme clarity here, Tom. Nice :up:

This speaks to some of what I have been getting at in other threads where we've fallen short of coming to terms. Some temperaments are destined to wallow in their self-identity, and its a detriment at that point.

In your opinion. — Beverley

Sort of. It's an opinion to which i give my assent.

Rational thinking, and compassion are necessarily different things. Point taken, nevertheless. My previous experiences with you have been to the effect that what you think is right, even if its wrong, so forgive a little shortness.

I have directly answered it three times now and quoted. So, yeah. Far be it from me...

Does this help:

What you say seems to imply that you think that seeing a particular colour and that particular colour are the same thing. — Janus

Seeing a particular colour is a sensation, right? Let's call "visual sensation of Blue".

My response:

colours are obviously visual sensations.(of Blue, let's say) 'seeing a colour' is that sensation — AmadeusD

If a colour is a visual sensation (i maintain it is) and that, as noted clearly above "seeing a colour" consists in that sensation, I can't see the difficulty in understanding that then 'a' colour = seeing 'a' colour. . This is necessary, given what I've said. The visual sensation of Blue is what Blue, the colour, consists in.

This was in the quoted passages. That it was missed is... odd. The answer is obviously 'Yes, but your grammar is wanting..


Therefore, if "seeing a colour" is, to Janus, an experience of that colour - that is what the given colour consists in. It is a three-pronged (possible)fact.
1. Seeing a colour is a sensation.
2.That sensation is the particular colour being 'seen' (i dislike that term, in this context but there we go).
3. If 'seeing a colour' is Janus' preferred term for 'the visual sensation of XXX', that's great. The fact I didn't use his terminology and his grammar doesn't make my response any less direct.

So i've now had to be far less direct than my answer initially was, to elucidate what seems a necessary inference. I can't grasp what was lost...

I can only recommend looking up what question begging actually is — Count Timothy von Icarus

but even there the problem you seem to think you've identified is circular reasoning — Count Timothy von Icarus

This may be true... You've given no reason to take 'natural rights' seriously, so teh rest of the syllogism isn't apt (in my view.. just outlining clearly what my objection is).

What's the only possible source for natural rights? — Count Timothy von Icarus

God or similar.

I have to say, the use of a theory isn't particularly interesting if it's trying to justify something which on its face, is absurd (on my view). 'natural rights' isn't a coherent concept, so I'm unsure how I'm supposed to get on with theories that begin with something I can't understand how a rational person would involve.

Ah, i see Ok. Fair enough, thank you.

To me, that is just another way of rephrasing compassion and caring. — Beverley

Then you are not in touch with the concepts at hand. Ironic.

I'd be surprised if anyone actually did that. People can feel sympathy for others and feel sad, but crying themselves into a black hole seems like a bit of an over exaggeration. — Beverley

I responded to a specific occasion of OP claiming this is their stance... It's also very much in-line with two decades of experience trying to do the compassion-as-worldview thing, and it leading me to ... lets say reject it, to be less verbose. My feelings are much deeper than that.

You are taking a very negative viewpoint of this for some reason. — Beverley

Not in any way. I am pointing out the fallacious point of pretending that emotional states solve problems.

I get extreme pleasure out of helping others when I can, and it gives me a surge of hope (as it probably also does for the person I am helping) not despair. For me, looking at things from your point of view on this really would make me feel like despairing! But everyone is different I guess. — Beverley

Extreme certainly strikes me as odd, but otherwise, I more or less agree, but this has nothing to do with what I've said or put forward. This is true enough for me too - which is why I volunteered running a mental health charity for several years among other things. You seem to be still talking about something I have already addressed, though, so perhaps this is going to devolve into me having to point out that you're ignoring me, as our other two threads have done:

There are precisely zero examples of any problem which isn't an interpersonal (i.e an emotional disagreement or similar) problem, being solved by crying and thinking yourself into a black hole. — AmadeusD

You can ignore the part you view as exaggeration (because you didn't make the statement it replied to..),. But, clarifying this otherwise, I am speaking here about hte fact that in dealing with other individuals we need to employ compassion and empathy. Though, the fact is this needs to be guarded very well. It is the weak carrying compassion who are manipulated, rode over, pushed and pulled etc... Into the people the scenarios OP is whining about.
So, in this context I'm actually in agreement, But i still think the sanguine, irrational mode of OP's suggestions are... exactly that, and do not solve problems.
When it comes to 'world issues' or 'national issues' let's say, compassion is pretty much the worst of all possible avenues to attack from.

A case in point is that currently our (NZ) social housing organisation, Kainga Ora, is under serious fire. What's the reason: Too much compassion.

They have, under successively shit governments been mandated to basically do absolutely nothing about their tenants abusing neighbours, destroying property and generally being violent wankers. Compassion is the reason. These tenants are struggling - some with addictions, some with mental health issues, some with bad socialisation, some with cultural disconnection etc.. etc.. etc.. .All shitty things.
But their behaviour is violating the rights of others to a point that we cannot employ compassion to solve this problem. The victims need seeing to, and the perpetrators do not require further compassion. They need consequences to prevent further harm to others. Compassion will solve no part of this problem. A rational apportionment of force as between two conflicting parties, from without, is required. This is actually true of any group conflict, or even badly-communicated personal ones.

What's actually happened?
What's actually wrong?
How do we solve it?

Compassion isn't involved here.

They actually prevent many problems and solve many problems. — Truth Seeker

In some scenarios, this is definitely true. But it touches not what you've intimated, and what I have in turn speculatively responded to. This is prevarication, for lack of a better term.

For example, in the event of a plague compassion and caring helps enormously, but many will still die. — jgill

This is a great example of what I'm trying to put forward - Compassion literally doesn't solve problems. If the problem is 'I need a hug' that's not what I'm talking about. That's just a mindstate someone is in - and I would only ever employ compassion in that situation.

I take it you have never needed a mother and a father and doctors and nurses and midwives to come into existence and stay alive. I wonder which species you belong to. Perhaps you are visiting from another planet and trying to understand sentient life on Earth. — Truth Seeker

Oh brother. When your response is to assume I have some disparate, alien experience to you, I can be absolutely sure you're not coming to the table with a full basket.
In short: No, Don't be ridiculous. I have a different take on this than you do. As above though, this tells me a huge amount about your intentions here.

I will be happy to give you extensive education on the importance of empathy, compassion and caring for living things on Earth. — Truth Seeker

You're wrong, and not engaging the problem, so I'll pass.

I've wondered about that. :cool: — jgill

You're not alone, obviously. And I'd have it no other way. I don't want to be particularly well-connected with those for whom compassion is the be-all-end-all. I've been through it and its self-destructive at every turn. As we're watching...

New Zealand lawyer — jgill

Not quite a lawyer, yet. But i very much appreciate the kind word :) It is very much returned, though I don't recall your occupation haha.

you haven't given a straight answer. — Janus

I have to assume you're not reading? That is exactly what the quote shows I have said - and that I directly addressed, in that quote. I requote - again, for the slow among us:

Colours are a sensation — AmadeusD

Your own grammatical reading into that is for you, not me, to clarify. If it reads as something odd, clarify it for yourself. It is a direct answer to your question, whether you accept it as adequate or not. I can't work with a charge such as 'murk' in the face of a direct answer.

So for this reason I think it's wrong to call transwomen "men." They are not. They occupy a unique third space. — BitconnectCarlos

Interesting. I disagree but find this really interesting.
What is your response to a trans man who is telling you 'well, this is my identity. I am a man, that's how I see myself and what I am emulating. Poo poo to you" ?

Any group larger than about five.

Isn't it compassion and caring that results in people taking action to help others? — Beverley

No. It is an understanding and rational apprehension of the problem, and in turn, a viable solution. There are precisely zero examples of any problem which isn't an interpersonal (i.e an emotional disagreement or similar) problem, being solved by crying and thinking yourself into a black hole.

What project? — Truth Seeker

It is perfectly clear in my post what I am talking about. Pretending that compassion and caring solve problems, when they are literally internal emotions, is incoherent and has lead to countless deaths and the absolute incapability of society-at-large to develop faster than a snail.

natural rights — Count Timothy von Icarus

Question: Begged.

There are no natural rights.

How so? — Count Timothy von Icarus

That's the only possible source for 'natural rights'. Hence, it's incoherent to pretend we have some kind of alienable right... from... nowhere.

That sure sounds like trivializing folk psychology to me. — wonderer1

It's neither. I am speaking from my perspective - someone elses is functionally, and obviously trivial in that respect - But i was at pains to point out that I am constrasting experiences, and not putting one above the other.

On the characterization, I'd just point you to any special interest group. Eating its tail. Always. Psychology is a folk practice, so ...idc. LOL

Let’s say you want to excel at something and soar beyond all your competitors. How do you do this? Well, first you have to have to find people to compete against that are the closer to your level of performance as possible. — Joshs

This seems very much not what we're talking about. But, i'm with you thus far..

You cant up the level of your tennis game against a backboard; you need a community of players to push you further. — Joshs

Agreed (I read this in Eugene Levy's voice lol).

They encouraged my individuality, not my conformity. Their ‘gayness’ was more of an open tent, a welcoming attitude toward all kinds of alternative ways of being, than a ghettoized clique. — Joshs

I am glad to hear this was your experience. Hmm - (as above response to wonderer1, this next part is giving contrast - not an argument)I've been in several, disparate 'gay' and 'queer' communities. I fucking hate them. I detest everything I went through trying to be friends with those people. Any opinion that didn't align with the group was grounds for not just ostracization but attempts to belittle me in my work life, family life and other social endeavours. It was harrowing, and disgusting (in two specific examples, anyhow). One of my children was put through essentially a Struggle Session in an attempt to have them tell their school that i was an unfit parent. And this is a common experience. (i note, entirely for thoroughness, that some of my points above might logically lead to my saying that your enjoyment was in fact a result of your conformity(in the sense of alignment - not like they forced you or anything) to the in-group's value system - which is great - find your tribe.. But it unfortunately supports my point, if that were the case - I don't assume either way).

It is this pitfall I guess that I am talking about. It is common, and seems to exist in all avenues of special interest (political factions, sexuality, table top games, BDSM... anything). Your experience also - I'm just talking about the other side of that coin that I have experienced as a contrast, to support the potential problematic nature of retreating into special interest groups. It has only ever brought me pain and suffering.

Just because people gather in a group based on shared interests doesn’t mean that they are there to form a hive mind. The opposite may be the case. — Joshs

Agreed - it's very rarely the intent - Though i think this is a bit naive. Special interest groups ipso facto are trying to create groups of closely-aligned members. Very hard to do so if, for instance, your conception of being Gay/Bi/Whatever doesn't include a civil rights aspect (mine doesn't, really) - or, a great eg here would be Gay communities that do not accept trans men (or the converse, in contrast to it's opposite).
Underline: Totally, and that's the strength or success of diversity, on my view. But if you're part of that hivemind, you wouldn't see it as a problem. Which is, as above, fine. that's your tribe! Dive right in. My point is, had you differed sufficiently from the values of the group, the fact that you wanted a welcoming Gay community would fall by the wayside and your opinions become grounds for rejection. That's the difficult part... Imagine yourself in that predicament, being rejected from a community with your exact interests in their purported aims.

Perhaps someday? — wonderer1

Perhaps. But psychology is largely bollocks to me, so who knows.

It's sanguine platitudes, out of touch with reality. There seems to be some underlying belief in a 'perfect world' which has absolutely no basis for its conception, let alone actually trying for it.
This project has lead to the deaths of 100s of millions across the human epoch. No one more than I recognizes the internal need to carry with you empathy, compassion and psychological adaptiveness with respect to them - But hte idea that this will solve problems (particuarlly ones you note) is absurd, for many reasons, not least of which is the historical abject failure (an in fact, patent harm) of that project.

On the contrary, it is the lack of compassion and caring that creates the problems in life. If everyone cared about everyone then the world would be a much happier place. Murder, torture, rape, robbery, theft, fraud, slavery, exploitation, etc. would vanish. The world has enough to meet everyone's needs. It does not have enough to meet anyone's greed. If only everyone would commit to saving and improving all lives. I am not paralysed. I have saved and improved some lives already and plan to save and improve even more lives. — Truth Seeker

More of the same, really.

I cry about the fact that there is so much suffering, inequality, injustice, and death in the world. If I could, I would make all living things forever happy - including the dead ones and the never-born ones. I wish I could make all living things all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful then there would be no suffering, inequality, injustice and death. — Truth Seeker

This seems to be around about the mentality of the perpetually paralyzed.
I was in this mentality for some time - I eventually realised that compassion and caring doesn't solve any problems. I evolved from it.

I read the other day that Sartre wrote 17 pages of text for everyday he was alive. — Rob J Kennedy

This explains so much. Anyone who writes that much is going to come across pompous, lacking imagination and any semblance of contact with the real world.

'tis a joke ;)

Saturday, 23 March.

I have it set for 10am NZD which is
5pm Friday EST
2pm Friday WST
9pm GMT


I hope this allows for others to join. If not, I am more than open to other times. Just wanted something solid in place that we can work with.

Won't they mean something in that we can point to the evil being done in their violation? — Count Timothy von Icarus

This seems to beg it's question. The 'evil' seems to consist in the violation of a right. If so, without hte right, there is no evil.

We can just look at different rights afforded in different jurisdictions to note that there is, at the very least, different conceptions of what a right "outside of law" might consist in. Ultimately I think it is a fact that rights are a legal tool for enforcing moral norms, and naught else. It would be great to know about some inalienable rights, not conferred from on high - but that seems incoherent to me too.

It was pretty typical, and I know everyone in their own way feels like a freak in some respect when they’re growing up. It doesnt take much;. a weird name, a big nose, geeky clothes will do it. — Joshs

Hmm. That's the thing - I don't think everyone does. I didn't, despite, objectively, being rather different and bullied for it. I didn't feel at all less, or more, than anyone else. Maybe I'm the unique one here, though. It may be apples/oranges and I have a 'curse of knowledge' type thing going on.

Plugging into groups on the basis of shared perspectives was a valuable part of the foundation for — Joshs

"...for that" or some similar reference, I assume?
Fair enough. As i say, not trivialising - but to reverse the mode of the above response, I think this may be uniquely you. Most aren't strong enough in their personality to allow for this actualisation while under the influence of an in-group (particularly one that feels somehow victimized).

It’s a crucial way to learn about yourself, to define who you are and who you want to be, not by conforming to the group but by comparing experiences so that you can define yourself uniquely. — Joshs

This hits me, intuitively, and having watched the world turn, as incorrect - or at the very least, intensely sanguine and not really how it happens. Groups of affinity aren't designed to foster difference (nor do they incidentally do so). This context is actually an apt one - trans individuals who do not tout the same concepts and ideas we're, perhaps wrongly, discussing, are ostracized as not the 'right kind of trans' (as it is with blacks, Jews, feminists etc....). Affinity groups seem to reinforce irrational self-image.

Think about non neuro-typical communities. Imagine how connecting with such a group can help a non neuro-typical individual discover their strengths and build their confidence. — Joshs

Being non-neuro-typical, I think about this alot. I just can't get over to the part of the thought that says its important to do so. As somewhere above, maybe that part is just me - but I just don't understand it.

It would be like a male having a vagina or a female having a penis. — Philosophim

:smirk: Nice

No straight answers or arguments or anything interesting, so nothing to respond to... — Janus

Underlined: Patently false:

colours are obviously visual sensations. 'seeing a colour' is that sensation — AmadeusD

Colours are a sensation (well, a class of sensations, anyway). Read into that what you will, using your own grammar — AmadeusD

Bolded: that explains a fair bit. If you aren't interested in the clarity needed for this issue, that you appear to not really want - I cannot help there :) And this is not derogatory. If that is not what you're looking for, I've been barking up the wrong tree.

Italicised: haha, ok buddy.

how I feel about someone may be in sharp contrast to how I feel I should be by philosophical introspection. Even if I never mention that to their face. — substantivalism

Very interesting. Appreciate both parts of the wider response here.

While this interchange is inconsequential between friends, if the person has the power to actually fire the director and ensure they never make a movie again, we need to ask if the action taken from the initial emotion is rational. — Philosophim

Yes. I think swapping out a few terms, this is generalizable (it looks like perhaps that was covered further down the thread...).

I had in mind memories of growing up feeling different and alienated from most of my male classmates, as well as my father, brothers and cousins, on the basis of behaviors and comportments that I believe I was born with, that I didn’t fully understand or know how to articulate. And not overcoming this outsider status until I found a gay community within which I could see myself as normal. — Joshs

With the utmost respect, thsi seems a peculiarity of certain personalities. It is not at all obvious to me that your scenario is even a rational response to 'being different'. I was, and still am, a very, very odd person, from most people's perspective sexually, hobbies, mentation, habits etc.. and this from being very, very young and open about myself because I chose not to care what others did. My 'outsider status' never arose, because it didn't occur to me as helpful. I do not think your inability to overcome yours says much more than that you perhaps were naturally predisposed to reject things you didn't relate to.

I want to be clear: i am not trying to trivialise your experience. It's yours. I have nothing to say about it. I'm offering mine, and I am pointing out that people do things differently and react differently. There is no reason to think someone who doesn't feel victimized as you hasn't been through the same things. I think that's a serious mistake, and one which runs rampant through this type of discourse (one of hte main reasons Twitter is such a fucking cess pit... No matter what you say, someone can read your mind!).

You missed this then. I noted that yes, behavior differences can be driven by sex, but the only way they are provably so is if they are only found in that sex. If behaviors are found cross sex, then they are obviously not restricted to sex alone. — Philosophim

This might be a premature conclusion. IN a world where there are female and male brains, easily identifiable and uncontroversial - aberrations in development could feasibly lead to an otherwise fully male person attaining some behaviour due to their brain structure, only found in 'female brains'.
Would we be happy, then, to note that this is a medical malfunction? Or are we going to still pretend there's a spectrum? Note the premise.

I think we live in an attempted dictatorship of values. And one to which I'm not entirely averse. I am somewhat, though, as it's just the standard "tyranny of public opinion" we were warned against, at the very least, 250 years ago.
Evolving values make sense, and are probably requisite of a decent society, in general - but I think when conversation is a no-no you have to start questioning your premises.

Still, there must be a point at which that inhumane corporate practice can/will end up hurting big business’s own monetary interests. One can imagine that many living and healthy consumers are needed. — FrankGSterleJr

I think its naive to think the balance wasn't struck 100 years ago, or so, to allow this to continue. I make no moral comment.

I really don't know what you are talking about. You still haven't answered my question as to whether colour and seeing colour are the same thing. You seemed to be implying that they are. If you don't believe they are then fine, we agree on that much. — Janus

I have, in fact, directly (hehe) responded twice. And the quote you used here was a clarifying statement. It is lost on me what you're not understanding at this point. I am sorry for that.

There would not seem to be any imaginable more direct ways of accessing perceptible objects — Janus

Several have been presented in this thread alone. They just aren't available to humans. Which is why to an IRist, this seems like a dumb conversation, overall. There really isn't a debate. It's as if you're saying a mirror gives direct images of things.

It's so peculiar to permit forms of perceived abnormality to such an irrational degree. Where does this naïve compassion/entertainment end and a repression of a natural shaming mentality begin? — substantivalism

While I take it you're probably joking for effect, I actually take this to be a real, evolutionary and highly effective tool in the human tool box. Artificial shame (or, arbitrary consequence) is the issue. It's pretty much unavoidable if you allow the former it's full extent in a modern society. Such is life. I enjoy a bit of motivational shame (and no, that's not an innuendo lol).

And, of course, being assigned the wrong gender or sex at birth became a corner stone of a peevish identity -- like OBGYN doctors could tell which gender a baby would be 15 years into the future? Those misleading genitals, though! The doctor saw a penis or vagina and labeled the baby accordingly. Outrageous!!! — BC

As with the previous quote from substantivalism, It's hard to tell how much of this is satire.

The physical act triggered by the Organic drives might be immutable. But to simplify it (at the risk of wandering away) all of the "associations" humans have with the word "sexuality," everything beyond organic stimulus/organic response, aren't these, to use Metaphysician Undercover term, "artificial"? — ENOAH

That may be true. It's not exactly clear what the lines in this distinction are, though. It seems probably to me that gay men, are, on average, more naturally feminine. Intuitively, this makes a lot of sense, and genetically, even more so. But, i am absolutely on board with this being something hard to prize apart from socially enforced (even to a benefit) behaviours supposedly associated with sexualities. Definitely.

As for "fight for rights" I don't follow. If you mean taking the position that non-normative sexuality must be "naturalized" to be accepted; that's the very thing I'm liberating. "Accepted," for an artificial existence, has proven many times over to be artificial. Why in this unique category do we insist on natural? — ENOAH

What i mean is that I would not have the zest I do for the right to express one's sexuality (though, apparently I'm on the outs with many others here who have the same zest... oddly enough...) responsibly (this might be the kicker :P ) If I thought sexualities were mutable, in the sense that one can adjust their sexuality somehow. I do not have any legal respect for people's personal choices of that kind. It is the immutability that, to my mind, requires the protection of fairly strong law. General protections from abuse and what not are sufficient for other types of lifestyle choices. It's not hate speech to call someone a POS for driving a Taurus :)

it is reasonable to assume that a whole range of intermediate differences in functional brain organization are regularly produced? — Joshs

This is a really interesting question. Don't think there's any good answers currently.
From what I know of the neuroscience, you can fairly compare the brain differences between cis men and gay men, with trans women and non-trans, straight men. Clearly this is only going to cover one, even if albeit, a large one, slice of the population of trans women but it would be helpful, I think to understand some multiple causes of the different types of identity.